Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

guests and you know our own chef and this kind of stuff. It was Wow. Wow. It wasn't rough.

Wow. Welcome. Uh today we're going to start the planning and zoning commission meeting for May 8th, 2025. Welcome. Uh the first thing we're going to do is just read our disclosure of interest uh and make sure that is addressed from the top. So any member of the commission who may have a conflict of interest or a possible conflict of interest regarding any item of business to be discussed at a commission meeting should declare that conflict of interest to enable a commission to manage the conflict and resolve it in accordance with the stated statute. Looking at the Jennifer today, does anyone have any conflicts of interest they would need to raise or mention? Okay, seeing none, we're going to move on. Excellent. The first thing uh appearances. This agenda time is reserved to provide citizens an opportunity to peer before the planning commission about issues other than those that are appearing on the agenda this evening. Citizens may present their planning ideas, opinions, or concerns for the commission consideration and discussion. Uh anyone wishing to speak should come to the podium, state their name, and address for the record. No one for that. All right. In that case, let's begin with our old business. All right. Item one, review and approval of April 10, 2025 minutes. Uh they were fairly limited because we basically pushed this content to last week's last month's content to this month. So, I don't think there was much to approve um or no significant issues to address. Is that accurate? All right. Uh, everyone has a copy of those. Are there any corrections? We're all set. Okay. Seeing none, we will approve them as submitted. Excellent. Item two, review of city council actions since the last meeting.

And there were none because we had no items to present today. Okay, easy enough. All right. Uh, and then we're going to get to item three, the topic for this evening. uh consideration for an application submitted by Terramore Development LLC to reszone the property listed at 1807 South Sterling Street 0 Sloan Avenue and zero Sterling Forest Drive. The current the property is currently zoned medium intensity district corridor overlay and the application is to reszone to highintensity district quarter overlay and MID to and medium intensity district to high intensity district. turn it over to you Wendy to walk us through all that. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Um for those in the audience on the screen, I am Wendy Smith. I'm the director of development and design services for the city and um we be presenting the the application on behalf of staff tonight. So the application is for five parcels on let me bring up a map here. on Chad. I think I need to grab one more map if I can. Oh, it's here. Can you guys hear me? Do I need a microphone better? Okay, let me relocate. All right. How's that? Very good. Okay. Thank you guys. So, the proposal is to reszone five parcels and it is these five parcels. Apologies,

there is a discrepancy. If I can get to I can't get to the internet. Sorry. So, I can't get to the other map, but I was trying to show you the parcels outlined. It is the corner of It's actually not the corner, sorry, of uh but between Sloan Avenue and Gant Street on South Sterling Street. So, it is this parcel out the back, this parcel, this little parcel in between that I thought I highlighted before. It's not letting me highlight this parcel and this parcel up the front. So 1 2 3 4 5 along through the back. Everybody clear on which parcels they are? We will use the land use map. So those five parcels. So, not the corner of Sloan Avenue, not right at GL Gant Street over here, but in between. Mhm. Okay. And I thought there was a aerial photo underneath, but again, technology issues. We will blame it on the massive storm outside. The parcels in question are all currently undeveloped. Um, except a portion of this house may be on those parcels. is a little unclear with our zoning boundaries here or sorry with the um hurricane forcis boundaries there but that would be determined at the time of development. So these parcels that go out through the back here um as Aaron said the proposal is to reszone them from MID to HID with the corridor overlay. On this map, you can see that the corridor overlay

runs along all of South Sterling Street. We turn that on. It's the dark orange hatched area. Um, I'm going to turn that off because it makes it hard to see everything underneath. And there's no proposal to change the corridor overlay. The proposal is to keep that corridor overlay regardless of what the underlying zone is. So to be more consistent with everything, we're going to just assume that stays the same. The surrounding areas in the pale green are all MID areas, which is the medium intensity district. That use is intended for a variety of medium to high density residential and low to medium intensity civic institutional office service and retail uses designed to keep the impact on the adjacent residential areas at a minimum. So all of these adjacent residential areas um the idea of that zone is that they're developed or possibly looking at being developed with residential uses and other uses should keep the impact on those types of uses to a minimum. the highintensity district which is further down south sterling here where you have the hospital and the retail or not retail sorry more restaurant uses the higher education center. Um the momentum tire um use and its associated parking lot for motor vehicle services there. Um and it is established to accommodate highdensity residential wide variety of civic instructional retail service and office uses and to ensure those uses um don't have a harmful effect on adjacent neighborhoods or other commercial areas of the city. But there are a distinct difference in the or the intention of the two different districts instead of having one is to have different

intensity of uses and have different impacts on adjacent residential uses. the density standards and dimensional standards that you have listed in your report. The big difference is is that if those properties were reszoned to HID, the potential intensity of residential uses would go from 10 dwelling units per acre to 20 dwelling units per acre. So, a doubling of the overall density and that there would be the height difference could go from 35 to 65 ft. So, as I said, these properties are vacant. There is one house there. There are houses along Gant Street. There's an apartment complex along the back. There are houses across the street on um well, they face South Sterling, but they come off of Hudson and Moose Street, etc. And then further down South Sterling Street, you do have some commercial uses here across Sloan Avenue. in this little complex here is if you're familiar with um the exhausted rooster antique store is there and then there is a I think a beauty salon of some sort that is in that complex there the so the main differences in the different density and dimensional standards there is a set of uses that would be permitted in HID but not mid you have a list there there's a list on the ing of the different uses that could be in that zone. Some of these uses we may not have anywhere in the city. Some of like a specific crematory or would we expect a different hospital in the city? The idea is they could be there. Also, you can see whether or not these things are more are likely or not to be developed there. I'll just run through them for the record. green houses, colleges, universities, hospitals, research facilities, crematories, hotels and motel, motion picture production. Not sure why that's in there, but it is. Um,

but the motor vehicle and boat services with or without outdoor storage, including gas stations and car washes, auction houses, your motor vehicle or boat sales or rental, which is the different category to the services, retail uses over 3,000 square feet. So, currently MIDA does allow retail uses, but they have to be under 3,000 square ft. And I'll come back to that part. Um, wholesale uses inside and outside, nightclubs and bars, private clubs, which is sort of like a bar but has membership. We have a cigar bar in town for example of that. Um, private indoor recreation facilities, drive-in theater. Again, not all use is necessarily likely, but possible. Data center, manufacturing, processing, and assembly. Um, recycling center, taxi cab services, and warehouse. So, again, all those uses are what someone could apply to be there, whether or not it would fit or would be up to all the rest of the standards would be up to a zoning application at a later stage. the comprehensive plan map, land use map that we had up there. So, you guys will be familiar. We just spent two years going through a comprehensive plan process um working closely with yourselves and the city council working with um the 30 member advisory committee um to develop what this land use map might look like with I think it was over 2,000 points of community interest that was inputed into that plan. This map was proposed there. We did not get any community comment on this site um including from the land owners who were on the advisory committee um at that time. So, it was envisioned that Sloan Avenue would be, which actually continues back down here onto Sterling

Forest Drive, but it's a private street past that would be a dividing line of where we're going to have the heavy or heavier intensity uses and where it would go into that mixed density residential neighborhood type uses instead of the more heavily commercial uses. Um, you might remember that we discussed um at the time of the reszoning of the property across the street that the street boundary may be a more appropriate property line for a zoning boundary than in the middle of a site. I think that that is probably applicable here as well. Um, in my professional planning opinion, having this in the middle here is a spot reszoning. Um, because it is not connecting it to anything that has a similar zone on the other side. You would, this is what it would look like if it was reszoned. You would have HID in the middle of all of this MID, the closest HID sort of diagonally over here across the street and then further down adjacent to East Parker Road. So you would be putting all of those available uses that we saw on the that list there again um potentially in that neighborhood use. So the main differences in the HID and the MID categories again are the difference in that intensity of use for the surrounding neighborhood areas. Um I think I read all those. So the more than 3,000 square feet of retail, the things like the manufacturing or processing, your motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle and uses are probably a bit more common than some of those maybe hotels and motel than some of those things like motion picture production or a drive-in theater, right? Um we talked about 65 ft in height.

Um, so this, if you do choose to reszone this, it's not going to be consistent with the comprehensive plan that you just developed. Um, was adopted in September of last year. So is that seven, it was seven months ago in April, eight months ago. Now we've delayed it for that. Um, we believe it would be a spot reszoning and that there are some of these potential uses that would be harmful to the adjacent surrounding residential uses in that neighborhood. Um, that it's not aligned with comprehensive plan. If you did choose to do that, you would need to make a specific statement that you were making a propos you were making a decision that was not in line with the comprehensive plan. Um, all of the overlay zones, as we mentioned, would stay. Um, we did receive one um, public comment on the application. I'd like to read that and enter it into the record. And I do have a copy if anybody wants it. I'm just going to read it because it's just two lines. Um, actually three. It says, it is from Lynn Bio. It says, "Hello. Please do not put a Dollar General store on South Sterling Street. There are enough of them in Morgan. Please put in retail or service that would add to the quality of downtown Morington. Thank you for reading my note. So this is a point where I say in every meeting we're not considering any particular use on this property. We're forbidden from considering that particular use because any of those things in that category, any of those things that we showed on that list are something that could be developed there. Properties and owners and businesses and things change over time. So while we are reading that note and there may have been some things in the media, we are not considering any particular use for that property, same as we do in every meeting, but rather considering the range of uses that are potentially possible under the zoning and what could be developed there. Um

there any questions about anything that I've said there? We're going to move on. I have one of course go for it. You got five parcels. I didn't hear any statement as to the total acreage. And before we get to the answer on that, are those five, if they were purchased by a single owner, able to be combined into one large lot? They are certainly able to be combined into one large lot. And if a single development went at any point if a development crosses a boundary line, we either ask for the parcels to be recombined as part of the zoning permit and prior to them receiving a co for the use or alternatively they can place an easement over the portions of the property that are required to be connected again prior to getting a certificate of occupancy for the use. So, for example, if someone were to have a uh retail business on one site and want to put their parking on another site, they could leave them in two separate parcels, but they would have to encumber them so that they always went together so that you didn't accidentally sell one parcel and then not have the parking on those places. The um let me get that acreage for you. Yes. 2.3 2.38 acres all totally together. And under 2.38 we have what density from what 10 uh 10 dwelling units per acre. So 10 times that is 23 and um 20 would be double that. I gotcha. And then a followup to these individual parcels I'm assuming are not except for the one that uh looks to be connected to Sloan Avenue would be large enough to do much as far as a development individually. That is entirely up to the developer and what they are proposing. Um we had a

conversation today with someone that wanted to put a 700 foot building on a site and use that for their development. Um, we had another conversation today with someone that was putting a 65 foot tall building on a site and that was also smaller than 2.3 acres. What's driving my question is is the property under the current zoning economically feasible to be developed uh to present an economic uh I think there are uses that could be developed on that property use. Yeah. Yes. um 2.3 acres. Um and you know, a small retail store under 3,000 square feet is definitely going to be able to fit on several of those properties, as would a doctor's office or um a house or apartment, you know, the multif family apartment complex. There' be a range of uses that could be feasibly developed on there. Um as far as the economics of it and whether or not it's profitable, um that's not something that we can consider from a planning perspective. understand. Um because it all depends on how much money you have. As we said before, Elon Musk could come in here and develop. But I think that enters into an equation for usages to make a determination. So I'll shut up. Um that would probably be better directed towards an a real estate um assessment which can't really part of this consideration. Thank you. Mhm. I mean, so I know we can't talk about specifics, but have the owners suggested what their plan is? There there are representatives from them here, so I will let them speak about what they are proposing to do or not or how this meets the standards and and that might be a question that you can ask of them. Um, but I just wanted to know if there were any anything you need to clarify from what I presented here. Could you maybe

just speak to what the retail use is currently allowed as it is zoned? So currently retail uses up to 3,000 square feet are allowed. Yep. And then you could I think no outdoor use. Sorry. Okay. Fully enclosed. They need to be fully inside a fully enclosed building. Mhm. So, this would be similar to the um application that you guys talked about two months ago now where they did want to do they had a small building and wanted to do outdoor retail and that was the purpose in reszoning it. Mhm. Um again, really supposed to be part of the consideration, but that was specifically why they wanted to reszone the site. Um so, currently less than 3,000 square feet inside fully enclosed building. Um, if you reszone it, it can be 3,000 square feet or greater inside or outside. And that is um independent of how much acres there are. Correct. Okay. I mean, you could do on 2.3 acres. I'm not going to figure out all the parking, but you could do several 4,000 square foot retail spaces on there, for example, if they fit and went down the hill back there. 4,000 3,000 or if you reszoneed it. I see. Yeah. Sorry. At the moment, you could do a 3,000 foot well a 2,999 apparently square foot building. Got it. Mhm. And perhap No. No. Okay. Per parcel. So, the building would be that then they need their associated parking. Then they need their associated landscaping. Okay. And however that configuration worked out to what the total um site would be. I can um try to get you quickly a comparison building maybe further down the street here. Let's see if I can pick something to figure out what 3000 because that is the

wrong map. Yeah, I was just trying to get a little clarity on like possible as it currently stands versus what um additional. So, the Chad, you don't have to go to the screen. You can go to us. But the I just picked the um Captain D's building down the street and it is 2277 square feet. So, just under 3,000 square feet there. That gives you any idea of how big that is. What kind of acreage is sitting on? Um it sits on now that was developed pre standards. Um, so I don't know if it has enough parking and definitely doesn't have the landscaping that we have at the moment, but 68 acres. The we'll give you a better example. The Pizza Hut was developed according to the current standards. It is 39 acres and the building size is 1,900 square feet. So that may be a better 2.38 acres. You could have just one under 3,000 square foot building. No, no, you could. You could have as many as you could fit. Fit and in addition to the parking and the landscaping and Yes. So if we took So if we say 39 Yeah. and a 1900 foot building works for um the Pizza Hut. Under today's standards, you could I'm just going to make a guess as to the extrapolation, but say on a.5 acre parcel, you could probably get a 3,000 foot building and all the parking and landscaping that we need. So on this parcel, you could get if you just went on straight acreage, probably four of those. However, we do have to take into account how it faces the street and the contours along the back side of the property as well in there. But that that's just a rough example of one that does meet our standards. So, all good questions.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? Not yet. Okay. Uh in that case, I am going to open the public hearing portion. So, if anyone present who's representing the applicant would like to please come to the podium and state your name and address, we'd love to hear um from you. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Amanda Hodier. Uh my offices are at 804 Green Valley Road, Sweet 200 in Greensboro, and I'm here tonight. I'm a land use attorney on behalf of the current property owners of record and the applicant uh would be developer uh who has the property under contract for purchase. And I'm going to ask um yeah, thank you. So, I've got some slides here. Hopefully, you can see those in front of you just to uh lift up and emphasize um some points and and better articulate some of the aspects of our request. Thank you, Miss Smith, for that overview. Um a lot of a lot of the stuff I want to talk about um you've heard previewed to you, so this will be a nice uh fluid conversation. So, this is our subject property. This is just an aerial photograph u from Google Google Maps. Of course, I know you all are well familiar with this. Um, so not only is this orienting us um and anyone watching exactly where the subject property is, but it's also important to actually think about um sometimes when we drive by something day in and day out, we don't necessarily remember or uh think about how that looks from a zoomed out perspective um in in the context of your entire city and its patterns. So, if we start at the bottom uh let's see right hand corner of your screen, that of course is the interchange, exit 105 off of the interstate. Um, as I drove here from Greensboro, that's what my maps told me to take to get here tonight. So, I'm going to submit to you, I think you'll agree that is your main gateway corridor from the interstate into downtown Morgan. Um, and other things, the hospital system right there at the corner, the UNCC Blue Ridge Hospital System, Broton Hospital, um, as you come

further in. So, this is a major corridor. Um, we know it's a we know it's a major thoroughare and arterial corridor. Those are terms we see both in your zoning ordinance and in your um imagine Morgan 20 240 language. Um, we know that from the fact that it has a corridor overlay protection layer on it. So, these are not um opinions of mine. This this is common information that that we know and we see the city has um prioritized in its planning and its strategies. So, as we look at that corridor in its current state, I mentioned um if we just start at the interchange, get off the exit, and like we're driving into downtown, we pass the major UNCC healthc care system, we pass all kinds of interstate exit uses that you would imagine you would see, gas stations, hotels, Cracker Barrels, Starbucks, fast food restaurants, all the all the uh classic interstate. I'm traveling. I need to do things off the interstate or I need to stop. Um types of uses that you would expect. Um and that comports with that HID zoning that exists there. Um skip ahead a little as you get into down excuse will go back please. Thank you. Um if you skip ahead in your mind going down that corridor into downtown um you of course pass um the uses start to transition. the commercial uses that face that major corridor become um less destinationoriented or less purposeful in terms of it really needs to be at the interstate. It's also not the type of thing you would see downtown, but nonetheless, it's it's tried and true commercial goods and services that serve the community. Um restaurants that perhaps aren't as conducive to highway travel, but you know, we need them and we love them in all of our communities. um uh more more uses, hair salons, I think was mentioned, uh an an antique shop. So, commercial uses that want to be on that main drag. They want to capture that passer by traffic. They want to be where people already are, but

they don't need to be by the interstate and they don't need or want to be downtown. So, that that is exactly the type of commercial use that you see along these corridors. Um again, we know it's a major corridor. It has the protections to make sure that those types of uses confront on this major thoroughare without being offensive to your aesthetic, to this gateway that's important to your city and to all the other uh less intense and and largely residential uses that start to happen behind off the main first level of your commercial corridor. Um, so I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for humoring me to walk through what that corridor really looks like and what that land use pattern is. If we could now go to the next slide, please. This is the subject property um along with the feasibility sketch that um I thought would be informative as you've heard from uh Miss Smith, your director. And I will reiterate, you know, this is not a request specific to this sketch. This is just for feasibility analysis, which is what we do at this at this point in the process to ensure viability and the viability and the merit and the merit of of pursuing a resonating. So, uh, I want to lift up, um, a major point here. The 2.3 acres, 2.38 acres that you've heard discussed, it's actually a subdivision of all those five parcels that you saw. So, the the total acreage of all of those five parcels that is over over twice as much, perhaps three times as much as the 2.38 acres. So, this is a carveout of that entire parcelage um, and subject property assemblage um, that that you were shown and talked about earlier. Notably, uh the the carveout that we're petitioning for does not touch Sloan Street. It does not continue um to either side to to Gant or to Sloan. It comes up the middle there as you can see here. Doesn't continue to the back of that large back parcel. Um and it it arguably it it kind of gets

over to Gant Street, but it's mainly just along the frontage there. um we're not trying to introduce um a large frontage or an access point onto Gant Street from from what you see here. Um you'll also note and I and I looked at the contours on the Burke County GIS. The topography here is important. It's significant. There's actually a little null, if you will, um that sits right at the Gant Street um South Sterling Street intersection. You you start out at about 1180 elevation there. By the time you get to Sloan Street, you're down at closer to 1120. Um, and in fact, if you have have noticed uh driving by there recently, there's a huge retaining wall that sits at that parcel um on the corner that's not part of this request just just to facilitate the house structure that you see there. Now, so it's a significant drop off. Um the sort of the flattest most manageable part of the site is right here in the middle as you see here. um the topography again gets quite steep at the back of the site as it falls off to that stream draw that exists um to the rear. So that informed the placement and the uh the decision of my client and the developer about what part of those five parcels um was most suitable for for what they try to do and we'll talk about that a little bit in a moment. So that that's how we arrived at this this particular um arrangement of the acreage and uh and the 2.38 acres that you've heard about. So if we go to the next slide, please. This is your zoning pattern. Um we've touched on this a little bit. Again, same orientation coming from uh the interstate at the bottom right hand corner into downtown at the top leftand corner. The subject parcels in in whole are are outlined in purple here at the middle of your screen. So again remember the request is just a middle carve out of that but the subject properties are highlighted in purple. Can I just interrupt for a

second and ask a clarifying question myself? Yes. The application that I remember is is the entirety of all of the parcels. There was not a specific page that said it is only a carveout of those parcels. So is there a request to change the application to just a carveout of those parcels? So the application that I'm familiar with and I did not prepare it. I'll disclaim, but it says it says 2.38 acres and then it says subdivision of assemblage and then there's an attachment that is exactly what I just shared with you that was submitted with it. I and unfortunately I'm not able to connect to that system at the moment, but the application that we received was the entirety of all of those parcels. So, um it had all five of those parcels listed. So, we do need to be clear on what we are going to proposing to reszone or not. I'm going to introduce Mr. Daniel Almazar uh with Tamore Development who prepared the application. Thank you. Good evening. Sorry, I'm still a little little wet from from earlier. Uh so, so just to clarify, the the original application that was submitted had our 2.38 acres. We showed that subdivision and and I think that there was a question about the uh I think there was a parcel number that was missing and let me see and I'm trying to remember the the uh the other question that staff had provided where that they just wanted a correction on it and when we did the correction the only thing that I can think of is is that I don't remember that you listed all five parcels as asking to be reszoned. We we had to list we had to uh because your application asked which parcels are affected and and so we had no choice. We had to include those parcel numbers but but uh and perhaps what we didn't do was spec specify that of these uh meaning typed out of these we want to subdivide and do 2.38 acres. But we did submit uh

a site plan showing that carve out. And so so maybe uh it does say subdivision. It it shows subdivision but but obviously it wasn't clear and we do need to clarify that. Absolutely. We do need to clarify that. So the application that we have put before the board last month and this month is Chad, can you go to the map on my screen and what we received um you guys is is the entirety of all of these parcels being outlined here to be reszoned. Okay. That's that acreage adds up to and there was nothing while there was an example of what may go on there. There was no specific request that that was only what was asked to be reszoned as part of the application. So you're saying a smaller portion of this? Yes. Is actually what you want to reszone within these boundaries. That's correct. Um that if if I may that that was the reason for the submittal of that feasibility map was to show those boundaries because your application requires that if it's a partial you had to show a map of that that boundary. So that that it says grading plan in the title block but it has meets and it has calls on it so as to be able to discern the uh the requested area. What would typically happen in that case is you would say on your application a portion of each of these parcels was being asked to be reszoned and okay show a that specific map as far as what's being presented. So just so you know the staff report I understand um and what we have just presented um may need to be tweaked um in response to what you have just told us in the meeting today. So I just want to clarify that happy for if if you guys are happy to to continue with what they're saying. I think that's probably fine. But we do I do not have a map then to present to them of on this

type of map. Chad, if you can go to the screen to show I just have clear to overlay that to show the limits of what you want to reszone. So, so for clarity, these five parcels are going to be are greater than the 2.38 acres that entire acreage adds up to closer to I believe 13 acres as I recall when I did the math today. And and actually the I I suppose if if that's the case, uh well, okay, because of the the parcels that that you had referenced did not include the one that was adjacent to the other. Had we looked at all of it then then we wouldn't have had also the because you had mentioned that we we were sort of in a spot zoning possibility because we weren't adjacent but it would have included all of all of those and those would have been adjacent but well they're not adjacent to HID. So you're you're actually creating a Yeah, we'll we'll get to that. But yeah, thank you. Thank you for that clarification and for allowing us to proceed saying that. I wanted to make sure and we can talk as a board that can be but thank you. Thank you. So, if we could jump back into the slides, please. Thank you. So, again, um looking back at the zoning pattern, we're zoomed out here so that we can see uh the the quilt, if you will, the zoning pattern of of your uh current, um zoning districts in place. You've got the HID down by the interstate interchange as we would expect because again those are those um destination very purposeful um type of commercial uses uh that that you would expect um people to want to be able to access while traveling. And then of course you've got your institutional uh zoning there in the blue, the special the SID special intensity district that encompasses the Brotten Hospital campus. Um you've got some HID to the south of that. Coming down at the bottom left hand side of your screen, you've got LI

to the north um that encompass some of your known uh industrial uses. And then you've got um a swath, if you will, of of mid here in the middle um with with several incursions of of HID as we uh come up to the corridor, which reflects what I talked about earlier, that land use pattern of lots of commercial uses um predominant I I would submit to you predominant commercial uses right there along the corridor, which is a classic land use pattern, right? a classic pattern that where you would have your commercial uses, your visibility uses right up there on the corridor and then transition back to residential as you come off of the major thoroughare. Um um as as we see new development happen more and more um coming forward. We don't often see brand new uh residential certainly not single family on along a major thoroughare. We often see that, you know, perhaps you'll have an access way and then it'll open up into a single family neighborhood, but typically, just speaking um of new new development, if if you were going to see residential um development along a major thoroughare like this, it would it would probably be at a multif family context, which um is in keeping with um we'll get to this, what your land use plan says. Again, you also have your corridor uh overlay, which is um as Miss Smith noted is not in play here. there's no request to change that or or curtail it or anything. So that that remains consistent. So if we could go to the next slide, please. Uh the nature of the request now that we've oriented ourselves and looks at looked at the map, it is 2.38 acres as we've discussed and Miss Smith helped us clarify. Again, that is just a portion um of that uh five acre assem or five parcel assemblage that you saw. Currently zoned MID medium intensity district with the corridor overlay. We're proposing or requesting HID highintensity district with that corridor overlay to remain. Uh the subject property frontage is directly on South Sterling Road. Uh it's

accessed from South Sterling Road. And again um that was by design to make sure that uh we didn't have any um access or spillover frontage onto the the side streets. And the result I'm going to submit to you is a narrow delta of change between these two districts. Um, and I'm and I'm going to um elaborate as to how I uh why I why I will suggest that as Miss De uh Smith read to you, you have a medium intensity district and a high intensity district um whose intents I will submit to you are not entirely dissimilar, in fact quite similar. You see that both look for a variety of uses um ranging from residential, civic, institutional, office and retail. same exact use range described in HID. You see um a goal to uh not overly or unduly impact neighboring uh neighboring uses. Medium intensity, it's described as to designed to keep impact on adjacent residential areas at a minimum. In high in high intensity, you see that same goal described as do not have a harmful effect on adjacent neighborhoods or other areas. And the other big change that you see is that HID introduces this idea that it's appropriate along major arterials within the city. As we've identified, South Sterling uh is in fact one of those major arterials. So, I will suggest to you that um I think that's why it makes sense and why uh a developer when looking at your plans and and wanting to be in keeping with those and wanting to bring something forward uh that wasn't a total departure from y'all's goals and objectives, uh we felt like this this could be properly uh properly done in order to meet the intent um that you've laid out here in your zoning districts. Uh as Miss Smith uh read to you, there's there's a use difference, right? There's you've got your permitted use table and I counted

it up. There's 34 additional uses that that exist that are permitted in HID, not permitted in MID. Miss Smith read those to you. Of those 34, 10 are prohibited by the corridor overlay. So now we're down to 24. 10 can't happen here because of that corridor overlay. Of that remaining 24, two of them cannot meet your additional use standards under article 3.2. they can't meet those additional standards. So, those are now eliminated. Another three of those remaining 24 uses would be heavily cretailed or limited by those additional use standards. Notably, outdoor storage is one of them. And that is why my client was very careful in carving out a piece of property that was um both functional and feasible. That's why we do those feasibility layouts, but that doesn't create so much opportunity that uh as I think Mr. Dickens was getting at that some of these other uses on that list could become probable or or doable here. We wanted to keep it narrow. We wanted to keep this a narrow delta of change so that the actual functionality and feasibility of what could go here was very small and that's why that's another reason why we wanted to limit it in scope. Uh again this is uh maintaining consistency. This is another way we keep it small. Um, we're maintaining consistency with that corridor overlay district. That's a big key key tool in your development ordinance. It has already already said that it is important to the city of Morgan that this corridor has have certain higher standards for aesthetics. Um, and the way that's achieved is through development standards with landscaping, with building design, parking placement, sidewalk provision, uh the requirement for curb and gutters and paving. all of these things that uh you as a city expect to be presented along one of your major corridors so that you don't end up with um a development style or or

quality level um that you don't feel like is in keeping with what you want everyone to see as they travel your main corridors. So that's a key feature that um acts as a as a main curtailment to some of these uses that um that are on that list because remember zoning is just asking permission to try. So you set the zoning district and then you have to go try to meet all those standards. So those act together and the corridor overlay um does a great job of of empowering that aspect of your ordinance. So if we go back to the slide one more time please and again I've mentioned this the minimal scope of just 2.38 acres again was intentional um on our part to ensure that the scope and size of this request um isn't bigger than it needs to be. It doesn't create too much opportunity to get some things in here that aren't appropriate. So, um, by scope, by your own development ordinance that's already in place and it's in its strong provisions and by the the delta of uses, um, I would suggest to you that this is a narrow delta of change that we're asking you to consider tonight. So, um, you also know that you need to look at your, uh, comprehensive planning guidance. That's part of your analysis here tonight. Miss Smith has talked about that. And um of course we also noticed that you guys have a great new um comprehensive plan just just adopted uh less than a year ago in September. So we utilize that. That's always a first a first part of our analysis as well. Again, we want to be in keeping with the community. We're not trying to go against the grain. So when I look at comprehensive planning guidance and whether or not a request is consistent with that, I think we have to start zoomed out. We don't just go straight to the future land use plan and see if it matches the designation because I would um ask you to consider the fact that a future land use plan is merely one manifestation of your goals and objectives in a comprehensive plan. If you think about it, I'm sure a lot of you worked, if not all of you, worked hard on that plan. It talks about things like recreational goals, transportation goals, walkability and mobility goals,

uh housing stock goals. It it economic development. It addresses a multitude of aspects um of the city and not just future land use. And then it gets into detail as to how certain types of policies can help you achieve those goals and objectives. Future land use is certainly a big one and an important one, but it's just one. So, I always like to start broader than that. And I look at the plan as a whole, and I say when I look at this plan, especially a brand new one like this, and I know it's fresh, and I know it's it it's a good reflement of of what the community has said, I think, what what is jumping out at me here? What what do I get from this? That the community wants and that their objectives are. So, what jumped out at me here is is growth. That that the city of Morgan did embrace the idea that growth is coming. We and you guys want to be ready for it that you want to make sure that you grow in a thoughtful way, an intentional way. You have things here a planning principle. The first one is growth. Path to future land use math talks about uh growth corridors. How should we grow? Where should we grow? In what form? Your conceptual growth strategy looks at ways to um capitalize upon what you already have going for you and where people already are using your community in ways that make sense. So that tells me that Morgan um is very mindful and um aware of the fact that you guys are a thriving community. People want to be here. People who are here like being here and you're going to continue um uh to thrive and and have more folks coming. So if we look at the next slide, the second big thing that jumped out at me was the emphasis on housing in your plan. And and the reason I came to that conclusion was um a variety of ways, but I just want to harp on two here. Your current land use, that's the slide on your left as you look at your screen. Your current land use in residential uh designations, you see it

there, multif family is just over 6%, single family, uh just over 26, uh% of your entire uh land use area. Then you've got a little bit in manufactured housing. Contrast that with your future land use goals. In your future land use table, you're looking at between your mixed density residential, your smaller lot residential, and your larger lot residential, you're looking to get about 80% of your land use in housing. So that tells me that Morgan is very keen and interested in uh growing its housing base. You've got, as you all know, you you worked on this document. You've also got a lot of goals and objectives and strategies about creating a variety within that housing stock. Um, making sure that it is meeting everyone at their needs, providing attractive housing, safe housing, and and different levels of housing in different places and placing that housing where it makes sense. So, I uh I look at those objectives and I think, okay, how can our request feed into that? So, that that's um something I want to think about as we as we talk about the future land use plan. So, if we could go to the next slide, please. Of course, you know this one. This is your future land use plan map. We've got a red arrow drawn and a blue circle there showing where our subject property is within within your big map. So, what you'll notice here is that it is it is in that uh mixed density residential categorization as you've heard from Miss Smith and it is right between two red areas. That red area is your mixed use. It's right on that corridor as we've talked about and that that orange swath which is the mixed density residential. It's a wide area not only here in this location but in other parts of the city as well. Um and what I want to submit to you is that the goals and objectives that the uh land use plan is trying to achieve in each of those districts um I I think you could make an argument that either one could help this corridor. So that's what

I want to look at. I think I think that um we're really not that dissimilar to to what um this this plan and and strategy is looking to do. So we know we've got mixed use down at the interchange. We know we've got mixed use down Inola um there in front of the Brotten campus and then of course on into downtown. So my question is why not here? You know, I've looked at the corridor overlay. I've looked at the major arterials being a guiding principle of your highintensity district. So I'm thinking, okay, why why would we not do that along this corridor? So, I dig in to look at that. Let's go to the next slide, please. So, here's the mixed juice district. Your intent uh your your your guiding bullet points here are to focus on locations well positioned for growth and redevelopment with a focus on a mix of commercial, office, and retail with multif family. I would suggest to you that this site meets that we're along the major corridor. It's well positioned for growth because we know we've got folks traveling from the interstate into town. We've got folks traveling between major employment centers, the hospital, if they have to travel for work. We've got folks um coming to these variety of commercial uses already. We know this is a major corridor. We know people are already here. We know it's positioned for growth. So, I'm going to put a check by that one. Promote coordinated master plan development of large sites to encourage a mix of uses in a horizontal or vertical format. A mix of uses in horizontal format. What does that mean? It means that we need to support and underpin all that residential growth that you're trying to get with supportive goods and services that create a nice horizontal mixed juice for those folks so that if you're at home or you don't want to have a whole Saturday outing to a big destination shopping center, you just want to take care of some basics, get your cell phone pled, um pick up u some sunduries that you missed out on, um have your hair fixed, those types of goods and services that

are just part of all of our daily lives. This this this concept tells me that we're supposed to put those in these mixeduse districts. Enhance the look and functionality of commercial corridors and existing centers to support broader economic, entertainment, cultural activities for the region. Um this this to me is is your corridor overlay. That that's how you're doing that. You're you're enhancing all of your commercial corridors by ensuring that they all have to meet that high level of development standards. Again, that's in place here. We're not asking to change it. Create a design and scale to encourage active living with a connected network of walkable streets and paths. So again, how do we do that? We have to place goods and services where people can get to them. where if we're capturing a lot of folks living in an area, if we're capturing a lot of folks already traveling between major destinations within an area, let's put other things there that we know we all have to do, we all have to need because that limits congestion, it limits sprawl, and it prevents unnecessary trips out to other locations to do those things, capture people where they already are. Um, and then the walkable part, I mentioned that was a big part of your plan. Um, walkable and connectivity. I saw that Enola Drive or Enola Road corridor was um was designated as one of your walkable um connectivity corridors. So if that's if that happens, if that's if that's the goal and people walk up Anola to South Sterling, then what then? Where do they go? I think it makes sense to have places along South Sterling for them to go to. That's how walkability makes sense. You have to have somewhere to walk to. So we want to put places in those in those locations that you are already making a concerted effort for people to be able to move multimodally. Appropriate land uses here in the middle. We do see um commercial um at wide ranges multif family like I talked about um all of that are on the high scale here. So if we look now um and remember mixed use is just on either side of this site. So if we look now at the next slide please, this is mixed

density residential neighborhood that gold color and that is what the designation is here on the on our subject property. So your goals here were to support a variety of housing particularly multif family like we've talked about smaller lot single uh encourage increases in density within existing neighborhoods. That doesn't apply here. This is not an existing neighborhood. Consider land development code changes to reduce lot sizes and setbacks. That's that's again looking at how to increase the uh housing format and and density in these areas. And then this last one, allow neighborhood scale commercial uses that may serve the wider community. That's what I've been talking about. That's that's where you see the overlap here. And that's why I'm suggesting to you that it is not a far leap or asking you to deviate from your hard worked upon goals and objectives that you decided on last year to go ahead and slide the corridor here where we know people are moving where we know you've got the corridor overlay standards. We know you're moving people in a multimodal fashion. it makes sense to embrace that this concept of serving those folks serving that uh population with supportive uh goods and services um in a way that makes sense. You see retail and residential there office um institutional all those commercial uses are are on your appropriate use scale. They're just a little lower down. So that again now look think back to that delta of change I talked about. So if we decided that they're they they are appropriate, the question becomes about scope and scale. At what scope and scale do they make sense to fit into these goals and objectives, that's really a spectrum between mixed use and medium density residential? It's really a sliding scale spectrum that zoning changes and development requests. That's what comes in to actually um apply a comprehensive plan's goals and objectives. That's what's showing you its workability. And you may um remember the last part of your comprehensive plan. I didn't copy it here, but it

talks about how do we use this plan? How do decision makers use it? How does staff use it? How does the business community use it? How do residents use it? And one the what jumped out at me on the on those pages of your adopted plan was that this is a guidance tool. It's to aid us. It's to understand the bigger picture of how you want to grow and do other things. But it is not a a mandate. It's to allow us to um apply and be agile and nimble to use this to help us get to our micro goals. So, I submit to you that that is exactly what this request does. It takes into account um it it coagulates all of those uh planning principles, all of that guidance and and makes sense of it and applies it. Um if you remember the feasibility sketch we showed you, it if we want to go back to that please. Actually, I just want to show this um on a micro level. Um this is just a a very cookie cutter um generic footprint of what what we call a retail spec building. So, when we lay this out here, this is um it's about 12 to 13,000 square feet, I believe. It's got your required parking. It's got uh you you see the topography there in in order to make level parking lots to make a level floor elevation to be able to serve the necessary uh storm water components etc etc meet all of those development standards that I've talked about and Miss Smith talked about. So by the time you do all of that and by the time you try to infuse the area with those uplifting residential support uses like I'm talking about sundry purchases that we all need milk on the way home from work, lunch bags, laundry detergent, what have you. Um the type of stuff that you want in your community, you don't want to have to drive far. You know, a cell phone store, um hair salon, a nail salon. Um you all can think of these things. They they are prevalent and ubiquitous in our communities because they're not destination oriented. They're just support services. They're part of our daily lives that we all use.

So, we wanted to lay out a site that could capture that. My client Tamore Development, that's what they do. They build retail spaces to then lease to future users. So, there's no there's no enduser tied to this. We don't have any anybody waiting in the wings ready to go. We're trying to set the table, create the landscape that shows that this is a viable site for those types of users. And what I want you to notice about that is that at 3,000 square feet, it is difficult to get that to pencil out and make sense and be able to get those types of users in in a way that the site development um can make sense. So, in other words, we need enough of a critical mass to create something um that, you know, we can bring if you if you imagine a multi-bay retail space with a few types of users in it, that's that's going to be bigger than 3,000 square feet. If you think of a little um you know, sunduries type of store, again, not Costco, not Belk, you know, not not those types of things, just just basic stuff that's bigger than 3,000 square feet. Um so, that that's what we are trying to capture here. And that is why um my particular client applied for this resoning because we need a little we need more than 3,000 square feet. Um I know you have to consider the whole range of uses. That's why I wanted to talk about um how that exists. That's why um I wanted to emphasize that this is just 2.38 acres so that you can have um some comfort hopefully in um understanding that a lot of a lot of those uses won't fit here, can't viably um go here. So, um, this is a very narrow narrowly tailored, intentionally narrowly tailored request to try and capture that goal and objective of your comprehensive planning that says, "Hey, put goods and services where people live. Put them on the major corridors where people are already traveling and then protect them, make sure they look good by using our corridor overlay requirements." Um, I think I had one more slide. So, yep. In summary, um you

all know this when you're asked to consider a resoning your prong um from our 160D state requirements, you're supposed to ask, is it reasonable and in the public interest and is it consistent with the comprehensive plan guidance. So, that's what I've been up here talking about and I just want to put put things in those buckets. Um as I wrap up here as we look at reasonableness and in the public interest, I talked about the existing land use pattern. We talked about the fact that this is on a major corridor. You've got commercial uses fronting along that corridor all the way from the interchange into downtown. So, this very much is in keeping with your existing land use pattern and it's a not only for the city of Morgan, but everywhere. That is a triedand-trude planning practice to have your commercial uses on the corridor and then it transitions back uh to to residential off the corridor. Your existing zoning pattern we looked at. We saw that we've got HID, we've got SID, we've got LID um as we get from the interchange to downtown. So you you have a quilt a patchwork of zoning here that very much supports that land use pattern and it very much supports the idea of corridor arterials major travel thorough affairs being an important part of your pattern scope and scale that's how we how another great way to measure reasonableness we again we didn't want to overreach here we didn't want to ask for too much too big of an area that could invite all kinds of higher intensity broader scale uses that could start to overbear what's appropriate here, i.e. overbear just that corridor frontage. We didn't want to do that. So, we've narrowly scaled this back. Compatibility factors, that's looking at these development standards that your ordinance already has in place. You've got a very strong development ordinance. It requires high landscaping. It requires really high building design. Your corridor for commercial buildings, non-residential, requires certain roof types, vertical articulation, horizontal articulation, finestration. building materials. You're not getting

any plain jane, you know, corrugated cardboard um type of buildings on this corridor. And that's good. That's why that's why people want to be here. And that and that's why uh you've got this thriving corridor. So that that also helps keep things reasonable and in the public interest. Not only is it nice to look at, but it it mitigates impact. Next, we look at consistency with the comprehensive plan. I'm going to submit to you that it is consistent. And if we do need to slide it over into that uh mixeduse designation, again, I think that is a sliding fluid scale that has a lot of overlap and that if appropriately scoped and scaled, um this can meet that. Uh it furthers the goals for your growth implicated by your corridor and node type of strategies and about coming to the people. Your plan was all about providing um the people um with ways to get around, ways to live, and ways to get their needs met um in a in a way that makes sense. Supporting the strong objective to increase and improve housing. This this does that because again, if you're going to have housing, if people are going to want to live here, that comes with the the ability to live in a community that has stuff that you need to do and you need to access. Uh people like to like convenience and it meets the key attributes of your land use plan designations. We talked about that. Those were those key bullet points of each of the uh factors that I read to you and uh I think we are meeting those and we are furthering those goals and this type of request allows you to do exactly what the plan asks of you which is to be nimble and agile as you apply these objectives to certain development decisions. Um so with that I will happily answer any questions. We have our civil engineer here Mr. and Derek Goddard. Um, again, just for feasibility types of questions. Mr. Dickens asked some of these earlier, you know, in terms of when you actually apply all the development standards to these 2.38 acres, how does that really start to eat in on the site and limit options? He's looked at all of that, what it takes to to develop something like this. Oh, and

I do want to address because it was asserted by Miss Smith, um, this certainly does not meet the elements of spot zoning. That's a tested elemental test um under the North Carolina case law and uh it looks at much different factors than simply is this a disperate district from the districts around it. It looks at exactly what I've talked about compatibility, reasonleness, and consistency with goals and objectives for growth in the community. So, um I will respectfully uh put that uh put that information out there for your consideration as well since it's been introduced. We're here for any questions. Thank you. Can I just start by saying I' I've attempted while you're speaking to create a map that may be what you're asking for. Chad, can you put my screen up? Is that roughly that's impressive the area that you're looking at? So only the area within the red box. So not um not this far over to Lone Street, but still over to the Gant Street and surrounding those houses that are there. I should have put it on an aerial. I should have put it on an aerial instead of behind this so you could see what what was behind it. So almost to the boundary. I think it actually goes a bit further back towards that. So almost toward that boundary. So leaving um these other shapes in there, but this portion in the middle of that block. Um and I I suppose you should point out that the um Gant Street does not actually connect to South Sterling here because of the topography, the the road reserves, but the road itself. If we look back in there, so you're roughly going up to here and around um that house is not there. That's right. And and across. So we need just as an example if if that is um helpful for the consideration. So Wendy looks like 60% or more is already in HID. No, this was the map that we were showing to in that's in your report showing what it

would look like surrounded by overlay, right? None of it is an HID. None of it's in HID at the moment. This is the corridor overlay and the dark orange there was meant to represent what it look would look like if it was reszoned. That's in your your packet. Okay. Um Okay. Again, I just picked a map. Maybe I should put this on a different picture, but it was just Thank you for doing that. Can I interject? Yes. [Music] Um, can you introduce yourself? Attorney. So, I'm not interjecting an opinion here. I'm just offering some advice for your consideration, whether or not as the application exists right now, whether or not what's been requested here at the hearing constitutes a substantial change and what's been petitioned for or if it's something more modest or minor. And then considering whether it's substantial or modest, you would look at um is the area changed? Is it a different area than what was requested? Um, is more um area being requested for reasonzoning? Those sorts of things. So again, I'm not offering any opinion, just giving you something to think about. And the second thing is whether or not the petition as it exists is specific enough for you to decide whether or not you know what's being reszoned. Is it exact enough for you to make a determination about what are we reszoning? So those are just some things. Can I ask a legal point of question you as well there? Um what was advertised to the public when people phoned to ask what was advertised? The neighbors that got their letters they got the entire sites all

five sites. Right. So I have I don't know if there is what the legal um ramifications are of that not being what has been advertised to those individuals and whether or not they have an opportunity to comment on it. Yeah, same thing. If if you consider it to be a substantial change, then I would submit you need to uh renotice the hearing. If you consider it not to be a substantial change, then you would not. Well, if if I do the math right, if we're saying 2.3 acres versus 13, I I calc it's 6.08 acres. Is that is that six? If you're for all the parcels here, we can add this up. Five to six. Somebody got a calculator. Let's do this together. I know she disagrees. 3.46. So each way, can't you go to the board of adjustment 32 is as Eric said 6.08 just for the record, we've gone from 6.08 08 acres that was publicly advertised as being reszoned and only 2.38 acres is now being asked to be reszoned. And and what is the 2.38 acres? Is that the parking lot plus the store plus other things or is that just the store building? Those are things you'll need to think about and ask about probably. So So we're saying it's it's it's less than half of what was advertised. in a in a different configuration than what was advertised there. Yes, I think we did

regardless of whether it's the whole parcels or a smaller portion of um my personal feeling is and I would disagree with the attorney that this is spot zoning and regardless of whether you're spotzoning all those parcels in their entirety or only the portion that's carved out, it's spot zoning. and I could not move forward with that. Can I ask what are the implications of having a parcel that's zoned in two different designations? How does that usually work or not work? Um, it can work in there. You just need to know exactly where that boundary is for when you're making decisions on what can go in a parcel or not. Um, so for example, if somebody want wanted to develop a store more than 3,000 square feet, it couldn't go over that boundary into the mid portion. Nor could any of the associated uses like um Hank was asking about earlier, the parking for that use or the landscaping for that use or any of those pieces would need to be contained within that parcel. Was that very common? Do we have many parcels that are falling over the border? I won't say that there are none. Um but there it it's not common. You do try not uh to do so. Um they but it's not Yeah, it's possible. Um yes, sure. It's possible. You're welcome to continue. Yeah. Um yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to um provide a little more clarity. So the request right now would result in a partial zoning as Miss Smith described. it would be based on uh a specific meets and bounds uh shape file that gets uh created. However, um again, zoning is just the first step. So, should this be approved and go forward, um a subdivision plat would be recorded

to create a lot line to um fix that. Would it be the intent to recombine the other parcels because several of them would then not meet minimum lot size for the other size? That's right. I might just clarify because she mentioned a list of uses that the list of uses that we showed you did have those uses removed that were not allowed in the corridor and that didn't meet those other standards and I think it's actually article 3.4 of the zoning ordinance not 3.2 that was on the slides and you're looking for that in your materials as you go. So I I think I might have missed it when you were um highlighting the feasibility study. Could you say that the the thing that you guys had shown? What was the square footage of that spec building? 13,000 sorry for the record 10,640 square feet which again we just asked Derek to grab something from his CAD library. Gotcha. That's what could work. Yeah. And then that was uh the parking you have shown here is sort of corresponding with that level of just make sure I'm comprehending it correctly. Defer to the design expert. Sure. Yeah. I'll I'll be glad to address that. So basically how how we back. Yeah. My name is Derek Goddard with Breck in Wilsboro, North Carolina. So thank you. Uh what we basically do in these feasibility studies is we let the land drive the size of the building. So the topography here certainly is is challenging. In fact, I would submit to you that if this property is developed, this is probably the only spot that feasibly could be developed with topography without extensive retaining walls and and other very expensive aspects of this. But so we let the property drive that. And so we I hate to say it this way, we kind of back into a building size based on what the property can support. We grade we grade a side out conceptually and then we basically park this at a ratio that we think is

commercially acceptable here. So, uh, approximately 30 spaces. Yeah, 30 spaces. And that is aligned with the code for Morgan or that's just sort of a general that's a general general Yeah, general feasibility study. So, and while I'm up here, I happy to answer any other questions about feasibility site feasibility. I'm might just note that the feasibil what's shown there would not meet the city zoning ordinance in terms of landscaping where the sidewalk would need to go like everything would need to be moved back on the site in order to meet the additional landscaping requirements and things that um I'm sorry I forgot the lady that spoke about for the corridor requirements and things. So whether or not this is the exact building, but there are going to need to be additional things um on that site as well compared to what um was presented there. What's the buffer that's required of the corridor overlay? Um the they would be required to buffer the residential uses with um I'll just bring that up for everybody's reference. So, your non-residential uses adjacent to those residential uses would need a 20ft buffer between the residential property and um anything on the subject site. Um they would also the streetyard would need to have the 5ft sidewalk provision there, which there may be a sidewalk in that area, not entirely sure. And um would need to be 10 feet wide in that area. Okay, got it. Thank you. happy to answer other feasibility questions if you have those that I could help with. Yeah. Maybe what like why um it does seem like it is quite centered or it's a

kind of oriented right in that corner. Yeah. And it's left like a larger um extra sort of empty area towards the back. That is my guess my understanding is part of this application for reasonzoning. What's the reasoning behind that is that so it's topography for one but we also we need to leave room for the uh the storm water okay pond and the mechanism for the storm water pond and that's obviously the lowest lowest part of the property to funnel. Got it. So the back is sort of where storm water would be directed. Yes, ma'am. Gotcha. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. What was the proposed building size? Uh 10,640 ft. They're not proposing anything. That was just an example. Yeah, I understand. And to Miss Williams' point, yes, certainly we there's work to be done here to meet zoning requirements. This is just again feasibility conceptually, what may or may not work. That might be, as you said, Judy Lou, you asked that question earlier and I said directed to the applicant about what they were proposing to put on the site because we've had discussions about that. Retail building of almost 11,000 square feet, right? Doesn't matter what the name is. correct not even be that well it does have to has to be retail anything that's allowed allowed within the delta the if he wanted to ask that question about what they wereing as I shared my my client and the reason for this application he develops residential cold dark shells as we call them in the leasing world and then he takes that out to market and finds users for that so that or retail commercial so it could be offices there's a there's a medical prosthetic sales store um just down the road just one side over from this. So that's the that's what we're talking about. There's a landscaping and lawn service uh shop just on Gant um just again one parcel over. So again, these are goods and services that serve the the immediately surrounding community. Um you you don't have users that drive

zoning cases. You have developers that do and then that provides them, you know, something funible to take and find an end user. So the building could be 65 ft tall. Yes. How is that? I'm asking you because I don't know. How is that a negative resed? Yeah. Yeah. Right. But how is that a negative to the surrounding behind it? Let's say you have houses behind there. One of the things that you would need to consider is so Chad, can you go to the aerial photo? So this structure is not here. Mhm. This is an um so you can see this joged boundary line is that boundary line that we showed. This is an 800 foot house. Okay. Um this is a,200 foot house. This is a tiny house. Very tiny house from don't know if it would meet today's standards but is a uh 440 square foot house. Um obviously a bit of an anomaly there. So that's the surrounding. And then these houses across the street are probably similar to this 8 or 900 foot house in there. Um they're all singlestory, right? Um these I believe are twotory down at the bottom of the hill, but they are apartments quite they're apartments and as uh was mentioned, if we can turn on the contour lines, it does drop down. Yeah. Across the back there. Mhm. Um and then the houses across the street here are all singlestory houses. Um over there actually we can sort of drive down the street. There's a single that single family house there. There's the exhausted rooster and momentum car shop. Um this is kind of what it looks like today. That's that quite small house right there. And then you know going on down the street as it enters into the residential neighborhood. That's why at the decision-making time period when the

comprehensive plan was developed that the line was drawn there at Sloan Avenue was that you at least had some commercial businesses there and then you didn't really get into anything that was on that main corridor. It became more of a neighborhood um on both sides of the street. Mhm. Um there um as was pointed out the specific differences when setting up the mixed use and a mixed density neighborhood where these categories in here of whether you're going to have a lot of office and restaurant and retail or whether you're going to have a little bit of that. The neighborhood scale commercial uses I can tell you was 100% developed based on the current standard in the zoning ordinance in the difference between 3,000 square foot and under and 3,000 foot and over being that those smaller ones were considered your neighborhood scale uses and those larger ones are clearly serving a whole range of the community in there. So that were the discussions and I'm just touching this because Lou came in at the very end of the comprehensive plan process. Yeah. Um but that that is where that line was drawn and the intention is when you develop new zoning districts that are based on this comprehensive plan to keep those smaller neighborhood scale uses of under the 3,000 square ft to be developed um in there rather than these larger kind of more big box um type stores and and those different uses. And there was a lot of public input about that. Extensive. The consultants that helped do that plan did a great job of, you know, trying to get as much public awareness of what's going on. Um, including the current owner of this property. Um, who never brought up the fact that he wanted to change the zoning at the time. Um, which whatever. But um it

was the question is scale. Okay. What is a scalable compatible use? And I think that um what they've described is you know these commercial shell buildings have a lot of um use for for a place like Morgan and there are places zoned to accommodate that. So this isn't one of them. This this table here is is part of that just because I'm sorry and we're having to rescope our presentation on the fly here because we the proposal changed during the presentation. So these uses as was mentioned 80% would be in residential uses. That's not actually accurate. That's why it says residential neighborhood residential neighborhood is that it is the intent to have other things besides residential in those neighborhoods but of that smaller neighborhood scale. And when you go out of that neighborhood scale is when you ticked over into this mixeduse area and trying to create a balance of because we did at one point in the discussions in the comprehensive plan every piece of the corridors was in that red color and then we said that's too much. That's everything everywhere and you're not going to have space for those smaller residential uses and things if you've got a vape store on every corner. Sorry. And that's just because that's what we seem to be getting a lot of lately. Not saying that this is going to be a vape story in any way. Um, but that that was just too much. If you look at this map here, Chad, did you put my screen back up? Um, if you imagine every one of these thick black lines being ringed in red, that wasn't the So, West Fleming, East Fleming Drive, Sford Drive, Kiry Drive, Jamestown, um, South Sterling, Inola, Carbon City Road, North Green Street, up 181. Um there was a specific intent not to make them connected but to have these nodes in the plan and there

is actually this plan that talks about where those nodes should be and to not have that specifically to concentrate those mixed uses around those nodes. That's part of um I'm glad she pointed out the overall plan and the overall strategy in the plan was to develop around those nodes and not to gradually shift it just a little bit further and just a little bit further and just a little bit further because eventually then everything is covered by that. Um, I think the choice that you guys have to make is whether or not this is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map that you have just developed to create this on the nodes or to just create swaths of potential 10 13,000 square foot retail or manufacturing or anything of that sort there. so soon after you have adopted that plan and whether or not that is, as Judy was saying, a reflection of what that community said when they went through the process of of putting all of that input into the plan. Do we want this to continually creep into our neighborhoods? Or do we want to have specific nodes where we know that commercial growth will grow adjacent to each other? Or do we want and have healthy neighborhoods or do we just want to have spots of particular um zoning chat if you go back to the map if you want to just have spots if I can find the one I made the colors on. Oh, it's on this one. Um of those zones within the residential neighborhoods. Uh, all entrances and exits will be on to south via South Sterling Street. If they are only asking for that smaller part, yes, that'd be the only street that they touch. How far is that from the traffic light there across from Barry and Nola Road? How far is that from that traffic light? Um, about get you about 150 yards. No, no. From there to to that road to the traffic light at the intersection of Barry and Anola Road. Um, it is

1,200 ft roughly. So quarter mile quarter mile. It's about in fact it's about a quarter mile from there and then it's about a quarter mile to the other traffic lights at East Parker and West Parker Road. So roughly halfway between those spaces. I just want to go back to what Keith was saying. So are we proceeding? I think that needs to be I I question that answered before we to Judy's point though if it's comes down to the board agreeing that this is spot zoning or not if it's either way spot zoning then that's something that we can look at. However, if the public was seeing the overall six acres as what was being reszoned, I don't want to p push this to be honest, but I think from a legal perspective, we need to figure that out before we continue these conversations. I I I concur. I I think what we've what they seem to be requesting and what we have in front of us, if we have to vote with what's in front of us, that's not what they're requesting. And I hate to say this again, but we may be putting off for another month and and delineate specifically what we're looking at because there's a there's a big question. You know, I I drove around this area and if we're just talking a quarter frontage on South Sterling Street that fits the quarter overlay and doesn't include that whole property, I think that's two different questions. If if we're talking something specifically on the quarter overlay that is limited then then that's a different question to look at. Is that a determination whether or not that we've met that legal requirement something the board can decide or is that something we need to have our

attorney I think that you guys need to vote on whether or not you'd like to proceed or whether or not you would like to pause where we are continue the application revertise to the public with a different map getting those a specific shape file from them of what they want to reszone and proceed from there. Yeah, please. I appreciate the city attorney's comments on that. And um I just wanted to add a few other things out there for y'all to consider as you think about that question. So the substantial question, the substantial change question that he raised, which is what you need to answer, ask and answer. Um, generally speaking, following case law and statutory uh legislative discussion, that has been determined to mean is it is the request getting bigger, more intense, more impacts impacting more people. Um, and that is generally looked at as an increase of square footage, increase of area, increase of density, um, different access points, higher trip generation, that sort of thing. So I I would submit to you that this is in fact the opposite because it has gotten much smaller. So the intensity impact um scope and scale um is is to the negative um and therefore you know you you actually overadvertised and were overly um conservative in terms of letting the public know what something was on the table. Um, and then if you were to look into it as a member of the public, it's actually much smaller, narrower, um, and, uh, less, uh, less of a footprint, um, than was advertised. So, I'll just throw that out there for consideration. My question is specifically, what are we what are what would we be voting on? Are are we going to be voting on uh, 2.3 acres or 6.0 acres? That's the question. Mhm.

I don't think we've got the information that we can vote on the 2.38 acres, do we? And you definitely don't have the standard maps that you normally have in your application. Plus, that was on that public's never seen that. That's correct. Right. And and they have not seen this drawing. Would the board not be putting themselves out there by voting on something that's the public hasn't seen? I mean, I don't I don't like that idea. It's fair. And I guess following up on what I said earlier, you know, um what are we if you decide to grant this request and do a resoning, what are you reasonzoning? And what does that include? What does that include? Does the resoning uh request have to include enough area for the storm water control measures as well or are we just talking about the building and the parking lot or what are we talking about that I'm not saying I know the answer to that can can I speak up please do open forum zoning classifications and land usage kind of balance and go hand in hand. And if we go from one zone to another zone, that opens up a whole can of worms to a developer land owner to do what he would like to do. And I think maybe not in concert with what the neighbors or that neighborhood would like to see it as. So, what I'm suggesting is, and it seems to me that the real bone of contention in all this request deals with the amount of square footage that could be developed on the existing property. And personally looking at the table of

uses for the current land as it's currently zoned present to me enough development opportunities, economic opportunities to make it reasonable that I would not see a need to have to go to a different zoning classification which is which now creates the pro possibility of oh is it a spot zone or not? I could care less. What I care more about is the land usage that's being proposed. And you're saying that's irregardless of or regardless? I know debate over whether those are words. Um of the whether you're doing the 2.3 acres or the 6.05. Correct. Okay. Any questions? [Applause] No. Um you have a map. Well, you don't actually have that map. Never mind. We got this a few minutes before. It's on the slides thing, but you have it on the slide. So, I guess the question is whether or not that's Chad, can you bring up that slide of the usability map? Yeah. No, the um the one from the presentation that is a black and white plan. Go ahead. The from Yes. of whether or not that outline that you have which the kind of weird space out to the side on the very back is that part of the reasonzoning or not? The at the rear of the part there's a thick black line but then there appears to be another thick black line attached to the side rectangle. Rectangle. Thank you. Um yeah it's a label. Um sorry not at all. So that's not part of what you would like to raise on so it's a very specific plan for

no so what I think the board needs to determine yes is whether looking at that thick black outline minus the rectangle on the northwestern side is enough information for you to be able to understand what is being reszoned. A B whether or not that is s if that is sufficient if you then think you can make a decision and B whether or not it's sufficient um given the change in lot size being smaller than rather than larger as was presented is of would have potentially been of concern to the neighboring property owners that were and the public that was advertised the application noting the neighboring property owners are the ones that got the letters in April and May for this meeting. So, um Chad, can you just leave that map up? So, whether or not knowing that knowing that we will have an exact meets and bounds of it is sufficient or whether you would like additional for you to feel comfortable continuing the conversation, being able to vote on it, or whether you would like more information shown to us. And if you do want more information, if you could be specific so that beyond just the normal maps that we would typically provide in that you always have in your packet showing it on the aerial photos, the current zoning, the future zoning and the um comprehensive plan map, etc. whether there is any other piece you would like. Yeah. I guess one of my questions for the group to consider here is if they even come back with this like what is our is our overall feeling that we would like to consider a change of the current zoning or regardless of what they may or

may not present here are we comfortable changing that zoning that's part of I guess what we're all considering right um I don't also want to ask them to redo something if that's not going to dramatically change how any of us feel about this part of my I agree So, um, so should we I'm looking at Keith maybe it would be appropriate for you to take a vote on whether or not you want to continue to consider the proposal with sorry Chad the map that's on the screen um which the applicants can see as well um in being the and I must note that our screens up here are not super clear um but it I think everyone Can does everyone think they can see the outline of what needs to be res? Everyone's clear on what we're asking without having to um and then I suppose you probably need to vote on whether or not you want to continue and feel comfortable continuing the conversation based on all of the information that we've heard about the substantial changes etc. Okay. Um, on that we would take a formal vote. Um, I think that you should I'll make a motion to continue. I don't know if we need a motion, but I Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. I I'll make a motion to continue. To continue the discussion. Okay. Do you have a second? Second. Okay. All those in favor of continuing the discussion. I I Okay, great. Those opposed? Oh, continue. to continue the discussion with the revised no with the revised proposal right today. Right now continue having I think you need to it's okay give every opposed 2025 is anyone opposed to continuing this discussion in this meeting given the current information we now feel more

clarity upon. Is anyone opposed to continuing the feel? No one is opposed. So we are going to continue having this discussion. We're looking at it as just the smaller portion. Yes, that would be the only portion that would be reszoned. Yes. So, Chad, you can put my screen up. That might be more clear with the red outline. I don't know. Let me see if I can I can't see. I was going to see if I could transfer this outline. Doing anything else, God, to another picture. I think I mean understand where it's Are you clear on all of that? I guess I'm having a hard time putting my head around all these parcels that are going to be split have split zoning in them. I and I think if you start doing that, it gets to be very messy. If we do it here and then we do it out Jamestown Road and then we do it out 70, you're going to have a lot of these places like that that if you split that zoning, you're only allowing a small portion of what remains of that property to be used as the original. you that's that's the property owner's problem, right? Well, I understand that that's his problem, not yours. And they'll go through a recombination plat of all the other parcels and they just recombine the balance into one parcel and mitigate that with the price of what they're selling, right? I mean, um that is not necessarily an ownorous process. That would there would be some time involved. I don't know how close they are to being ready um to do so. Um but uh that's certainly I suppose a question that you can ask them. Um as to how long they would intend to leave it split if you wish. Well I mean I don't I don't think we have any jurisdiction over how long they plan to leave it that way. Likely not correct. So it doesn't really matter to ask that question.

I'm trying to create you another map. I'm listening. I really think that we have enough information based on even their concept plan to show you the broad outlines. When it gets put into an official meets and bounds survey, it's not going to vary much from their concept plan that they've submitted. So, I guess you just have to decide whether or not that change is appropriate. I don't honestly I'm not too worried about the public notice part because as their attorney explained it's going from, you know, a more intense um plan to a reduced in scope intensity. Um, and maybe less owners would have gotten a letter based on the zoning, but you know, the mistake is people were over informed. I think that's a sin we could live with personally. Yeah. Um, but you know, really I think the crux of the matter is whether or not you think a portion is appropriate to reszone or not. I mean, that's the upshot of this at this point. I did try to throw that onto an aerial photo. I don't know if that's helpful to anyone, but it does show you the neighboring I think that was your question, Lou, the neighboring property owners, right? Um, so you can see the two houses there, the development across the street also on Grant Street. Noting that's where Gant Street does not connect to South Sterling due to the

topography. And noting that Sloan Avenue at this point where that line is, you can see the little line there, it becomes a private street. So it's not a a city street. So I think there was a question about accessing South Sterling. I'm not sure if that's helpful, but I'm trying. Sure. Pretty good. Thank you. Okay. Um, at this point, does the commission have any additional questions for the public? You like to Okay. So, then I'm going to close the public portion of the for me or for Yeah. or for Wendy. Do you have any Yeah. Any other questions for anybody because then once it gets closed? Okay. I'm going to close that. Great. Okay. So, the next um does anyone want a motion in any direction on this proposal? Well, we have discussion first. Oh, yeah. I think you make the motions and if you make make the motions, then you have discussion and then you can vote. So, you're you making a motion to discuss. Okay. This is why we have plastic bottles because you can't get hurt. Yes. Throws at you. I I make a motion that we accept the proposal to change it from the uh MDI to an HDI. HID. Excuse me. Dyslexic. Okay. It's been a confusing. Is there a second or no? We're going to discuss. No. No. You have a second and then you discuss, right? Is there a second? Yeah, I second it. Okay, there's a second. Would you guys like to discuss before we vote? Great. Um, anyone I think Judy, you had a You did not agree with that. Did you have a Oh, well, I'll vote no. Yeah. Any other comment for it? That's fine. Do you have any question both say? Yeah, I mean I think I I'm generally agreeing I'm probably closer to what Judy's thought is that we have made this

decision pretty recently to put the zoning as it lies and I don't say a huge upshot of changing this particular parcel but I'm open to hear other people's opinions. Okay, I'll give you opinion. I think this is a main corridor that comes into the city and we the corridor overlay has got a lot of protections to it on the appearance and everything else. We worked very hard on that. Uh having said that, you come off the interstate and you're coming into town and you're basically looking at a commercial district and 3,000 square foot is 30 foot by 100. That's like a lot of shops we have downtown that are empty because we have nothing that fits in something that small. That's it's not economically feasible to run a business in something that small. So if we want to have a quarter overlay that comes off and people see a and I just did a budget traveling way. If I come off an exit and I just see a residential area, I turn around, I head back out and I look for someplace where I want to see some businesses and something that's going to draw drive me in there. If it doesn't and we have the initial and to say this spot planning the Sterling Street is spot spot all the way along. You see this little porei and now we're simply questioning what size shop is in this porei. So what we're literally saying is are we going to make okay I'll use it my way and this is where some people may get upset with me. Are we keep looking backwards and seeing here's what we've had, here's the the way we've done it, and we don't get any development. Or are we going to look forward and say we want development, we want to develop Sterling Street, we want to make it look

attractive, and we're going to allow business sizes large enough to survive because the economics of a 3,000 square foot thing is very, very limited. So if we're going to develop Sterling Street as a corridor into the city, then I think you have to go with this. If the building is pushed out of that corridor overlay, it can it doesn't have to comply with those restrictions, the facade. Correct. So they could push that building back out of the corridor overlay and then that could be a metal building. Yes, sir. Okay, that's correct. But their landscaping parking requirements or parking would have only the parking landscaping section of it. If they are out of the corridor overlay, they would they could do um gravel parking behind the rear of the building. They wouldn't have to have the um asphalt parking. How many feet is that overlay? Uh 250 ft. Okay. From center line or from the edge of the rightway is generally how it's measured. Okay. 250 ft. So if you it is not exact on this map. Um so it'd be a little bit further than this. So it that is an item that would be unclear as to on your the proposal as to what portion of the building may or may not. Again noting that it may or may not be a building that size. Well I think the topo also comes into play anyways with that. So, but I mean this is a long narrow building. It could be a long narrow building the other way with the parking in the front and out of the corridor overlay is if I understand your question being could they develop a building on this site without having to meet those upgraded standards. Yes is the answer to

that. Is there any further discussion or would we like to vote? Did we get a second on that? There was a second question. You guys ready to vote? So, the motion was to approve the change, just to be clear. The pro the motion was to approve the change and to uh accept changing it to a HID versus MID. Great. Just want to make sure that's clear for everyone as we vote. Okay. If if you make that motion, you do have to also add a specific statement that you are making a motion that is inconsistent with your comprehensive plan. That's state law. So, okay. This is inconsistent with the generalities of the of the comprehensive plan which I went to all those meetings you know but you are accepting it as they proposed or as it was submitted with the revised lot size. Yes. Correct. 380 acres. Correct. And the relevant overlays need to address overlay. Yes, it needs to address the all of the relevant overlays for the site. I don't have that verbiage in front of me. If you can you do Yeah, you do actually page 13. So, you would just need to change the one if if that's how we're going to make the motion. We're approving 2.38 acres, but we we just what I'm getting back going back to this. We don't know what those 2.38 acres Yeah, they could be the back of the lot. Well, you have as as submitted by this as submitted as submitted by this drawing proposal. Yes. Yes. You're going to have to say a lot of words, Pete. Starting here.

[Music] Um, I'm going to see if I can word smith this for you. I'll read the whole deal. No, I just need to to figure out th rocks at me when I pass by with the dog. Erin, are there clear dimensions on that drawing? I think they presented there were meets and uh call lines on there. I have the meets and bounds. I cannot read it as if you can't read it. We can't read it on the printed out version, but they submitted that they had call points survey survey call points on there. Yes, I know. I'm sitting here. My dinner's gone. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I think we should look at Perfect. Thank you. If you wanted to reference what's in the slideshow there, too. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. 460 ft. So, as long as this is submitted or as submitted, then yeah, then we're clear. Thank you. It would be stupid. All right. Yeah. Thanks.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Oh, you got an extra one. That'd be great. What? I do not have You can I get this one. Thank you. Yeah. Why you consider no need to say this? This is the topography here, right? Yeah. So they don't have a quarter sh. Yeah. If you guys could just if we could if if you're going to speak then that's that's fine. But just speaking of that for the record um just given that we're I don't want to have too many side conversations. I think just Oh, I'm sorry. No, it's okay. Talking about Yeah, absolutely. And I think it would be helpful though if you note something that we can all be privy to your We're not What we were discussing was the feasibility of building this building anywhere else because of the topography. If you look at it, it drops off pretty sign. But we're remembering they're not building this building. Okay. But any building any building size you you're sort of stuck with a placement similar to where this is shown. Yeah. The the lot is a lot right. Yeah. I mean is is grading not possible? I mean it's expensive. It is expensive. Absolutely. I very much recognize that. 300. Um just doing some word smithing here so we can read the appropriate motion. Did y'all have other I have just You have to say this first part. If you can read my handwriting, you have to read this part. Yep. And then if you would like to make reasons why you consider it appropriate. That's something you typically do so that you can make a comprehensive comparison decision later, but that's not required.

The top part is required so that we know what you're doing. Okay, here we go, guys. Proposed motion. The planning and zoning commission recommends the city council approve the proposal reszoning a portion of the following lots totaling 2.3 acres as shown as shown in exhibit A, which we are going to table this plan as exhibit A. [Applause] Uh my right there 18 of 1807 South Sterling Street. You want to read the pin numbers, too? I'll read the pin numbers. I think you have to read the pin numbers because there are two. Okay. Pin number of the same address. 27033805-55895 and 1807 South Sterling Street pin number 2703805984 and 0 Salone Avenue pin number 270381710 0 and 0 Sloan Avenue pin number 2703817001 and zero stering Forest Drive pin number 27038163 93 from being zone medium intensity district with quarter overlay watershed protection overlay and airport helicopter safety overlay to zone highintensity district with the corridor

overlay, watershed protection overlay and airport and helicopter safety overlay. This proposal is inconsistent with the city's adopted uh image imagined imagined 2040 comprehensive plan. This plan is considered appropriate proposal. This proposal is considered appropriate because of the spot the spot nature of the businesses along South Sterling Street which are in themselves inconsistent with the continuous of one particular zoning uh designation. Okay. Good job. Thank you. Um, all of those in favor of approving. We got a second. We had a second. We had a second. Yeah. Yeah. You're good. You got a second. Yep. Okay. In favor? Those opposed? No, we tried. Okay. That's alternative. It did not pass. Yes. Uh 35 35 35 one two three one two three four five 36 Thank you. Got it. Okay. So then what is their next potential? An alternative. You guys can make an alternative motion to Well, it's not been approved, but do you have to have a motion to deny it? No. Sorry. It's been very No, it didn't pass. Yeah, it didn't pass. So that's fine. Do they have recourse to appeal our decision? It can go to the It goes to city council. It goes to city council now. City council. You're making a recommendation. So, it will go to city council. You just make the recommendation as voted on by the commission. You can still speak to city council for your but you didn't make

Yeah. So, you have deni so by default you've denied it because you have not voted to appeal it. I I think you have to make an alternative motion to deny it. You don't have a ruling. You've just not voted to approve it. So, you need to make a motion to deny it if that is the will of the remainder. Yes, that's what I was saying. Yeah. Yeah. And then you you kind of invert what Pete said. Sorry. Oh my god. Sorry. I'll make a motion to deny the request as presented with the concept plan. I'll second. There's a second. Okay. Okay. Would you like to have any further discussion about that? Do I need to read this whole proposed motion? Um, yes you do. But before that, we need to see if anybody has any discussion on this motion and if you would like to give any further discussion on that, but just for procedure, you talk this one. Okay. So, okay. Planning and zoning commission recommend to the city council denial of the proposed reszoning of 1807 South Serling Street. Pin a portion of pin 2703 805895 807 South S Sterling Street. PIN 2703 805984 Sloan Avenue. portion of pin 270381710 0 Sloan Avenue pin 273817001 and zero Sterling Forest Drive pin 273816393 shown on the imagine 2040 comprehensive plan future land use map is mixed density residential neighborhood land from zone medium intensity district with quarter overlay, watershed protection overlay, and airport helport safety overlay to zone

high intensity district with quarter overlay, watershed protection overlay, and airport helport safety overlay. The proposal is considered inappropriate for the following reasons. The development of the site with highintensity uses is inconsistent with the expectations set forth in the imagined 2040 comprehensive land use plan for the site for the neighborhood for neighborhood scale primarily residential uses. The permitted uses and density and dimensional standards of zone HID include uses and standards that could have the potential off-site impacts that would not be favorable to and could have significant negative impacts on the existing residential dwellings in the locality and the proposal um would be spot reszoning. Okay. All those voting in favor of the denial of the proposal, you need a second. No second. All those in favor as it was read vote. Vote yes. Affirmative. Okay. All those opposed. Okay. Consistent with our previous vote. Uh we have still done it both ways. Okay. Very good. Um all right. So uh get an official understanding of certainly discrepancy. I'm sorry I can't hear you. See the 10 days. There's a can you can anyone perhaps understanding was that this was a recommendation? It's a recommendation to city council. No, not at this time period because we don't have a formal decision on it. It's just a recommendation to council. Yes. And and it will go to city council on June 2nd. Is that a two two one 2025 at

6 p.m. in these chambers? Great. Do we have any further items of discussion for this evening? We do not. The next mind, the next uh planning and zoning scheduled meeting is for June 12th at 5:15 also in these chambers. And with that, we will adjourn. Thank you all for