Planning Board - Special Meeting

Okay, it's 6:30. Good evening everyone. Going to open the meeting tonight and um this is a special meeting that was called for April 29th. Um, like everybody's here. Everybody ready to proceed forward? Yes, sir. All right. All right. Thank you for coming tonight to the special meeting. And I hate we couldn't hear your item two weeks ago when it was on, but hopefully we can take care of business tonight. Uh, what I want to do is take a roll call first and make sure we have a quorum here. Mr. Bailey here. Mr. Huffine here. M. here. Chair Ward is here. Mr. Wooten here. Mr. Docker here. And Mr. Y here. Thank you. If everyone would please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Everyone here tonight, if you wish to be heard um during the matter uh that pertains to you, you will be able to speak before us and um I will just call you to the front. If you would just state your name and your address, please. All right. Has everybody had an opportunity to review the minutes for last month's meeting? The Yes, sir. Any changes? Notations need to be made. I will entertain a motion to approve. Make motion to approve the minutes of the last two meetings. Second. Got a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank

you. And Cameron, let's move on to item number 6A. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair Ward. Um, so in front of you all for 6A is a request to reszone 83 acres of land at 113 West Gilbert Street from R7 Highdensity Residential to CB conditional business for the purpose of allowing a hair salon to be utilized as home occupi occupation as an accessory use to the single family home. The use is proposed to incur inside the attached accessory structure while the primary use of the single family home will remain. Our development ordinance currently does not permit these types of uses to be utilized as home occupations and that is why the applicant is requesting this zoning classification in front of you all today. The property is listed on the future land use map as downtown residential. Downtown residential land use area describes principal uses in this zone are predominantly detached single family homes and that new neighborhoods may include a range of duplexes. It also states that supporting uses in the area are places of worship, daycarees, park facilities, schools, civic spaces, designated neighborhood centers um that may include uh neighborhood oriented commercial uh small professional office live work units and home occupations provided they do not generate excessive traffic and parking. Uh the applicant has requested a condition that uh the site plant requirement the site plan requirement be waved due to the nature of this request um and showing kind of in detail what they have provided with pictures of parking and where the proposed use is going to be located as well as signage. Um and that is all that I have currently. Thank you. Is the petitioner miss here? Up please state your name and your address please. Nadia Ulus Pickkins, 113 West Gilbert Street in Graham.

Okay. Tell us what you're trying to achieve here. Um, I'm wanting to open a homebased salon at my mom's residence. She has a guest house is situated to the side of her house and she'll be 80 coming June 15th. and she's had a lot of health problems between strokes and falls and replacements. And so I'm needing to be with her more often. And the salon that I was working at for 26 years, um, June Bird, she was diagnosed with dementia about three or four years ago, and it's gotten really bad. So, we had to close the salon down. Actually, my last day was last Thursday. And I want to open this, like I said, so I can be closer to mom and still have my part-time appointments. only work part-time and it'll be by appointments only. Okay. How many clients do you uh expect to see per day? Usually about five on Wednesdays and Thursdays and every other Saturdays. Okay. And what's your hours of operation? Well, with my son in school, I usually work based on clients and their needs too. It's usually between 2 and 5 on average. Some days I'll go in by 12, but usually it's just afternoon. Like I say, part time. Okay. And I I noticed from the photographs here, um, is the guest house. If I'm standing out in the road facing the house, that's to the left. It's on the far left. Yes, sir. It's her main house is to the right. She has an attached garage. Then there's a breezeway. And then it's the guest house, which was her mom's. She built um when her mom lived there. This has been vacant. Okay. And as far as parking for the salon, is it going to be right here in the circle or around? There's there's um at least two parking, which I only have one client at a time. I never overbook clients. That's my thing. I don't like people waiting. So, there's plenty for two parking up front and then in the rear, which also has a uh submitted path that goes around back. I mean, I could park eight, but

average I'd have one person at a time. Okay. And I noticed you put a size on your sign. Is that the actual size that you're going to Yes, it's approximately 18 in by 12. It's just a small uh small sign freestanding. I'm going to have up close to the front door. Uh when you walk around, there's a path in front of it. So, there's a grassy area and then the home. I don't know if y'all have photos. I have photos here if you need it. Um but there's a grassy area. I'm just going to have there. I don't want anything at the road or anything like that. Like I say, just no walk-ins, no anything like that. So just a small side. And as far as um handicap or anything like that, are you do you have are you limit do you have any type of limitations that would prevent a wheelchair? Um my grandmother, she was in a wheelchair and so the pathway, all the door jambs, everything, the the cabinets, the sinks, grab bars in the bathroom. So it's completely fully accessible. It also has two separate entrances, so you can go in the front or out through the side breezeway. Anyone else? And I've also spoke with the neighbors and uh received approval from Chad Oakley. He's at 114 West Gilbert Street, right across the street. Uh Tim and Renee, he's at uh 112 West Gilbert Street, which is to the left. Uh Kathy Harrington, which is at 121 West Gilbert Street, Dallas Meyers, he's a renter at 320 Maple Street. Nikki and Corey Smith at 402 Maple Street. And Chris Ulis, who spoke to his mom, Donna Ulis, um they're at 316 Maple Street. The only neighbor that's attached that I couldn't get a hold of was diagonal. She's just never home. I spoke with everyone. Thank you. U Mr. Bon, I have no question. just to

um my question is for Cameron. Yes, sir. So Cameron, in the in the absence of a plan, will we or or has the staff had a chance to go verify the handicap accessibility or will that get done before council hears this case? So, I think that one would also have to be hashed out whenever we um write a zoning permit for the area out there after this is approved. Um, and the building inspections department will be the ones to assess whether or not it is deemed to be handicap accessible to that area. Just so there's no Oh, yeah. surprises when if the zoning were to be approved that you're expecting something that come up later from building inspections that there's got to be handled. The second thing is again for Cameron in the absence of the plan is there language in the application that specifies just the hair and cosmetology use uh conditional businesses is is broad if it's not conditioned. So we want to make sure we address Miss Ulys's needs but also uh the surrounding neighborhoods. Yes, sir. I think I know where you're going at and I was going to mention this as well. Um, there is a specific use for a, if I can find it, a hair salon. Um, or I think it may be more classified as the yeah, barber shop, beauty shop, nail salon, um, is classified in that CB. So what I would suggest is if you were to recommend uh make a recommendation for approval that only permit that specific use and the single family use to be approvable in this area so that um there couldn't be something else in this uh attached area um of the CV nature if that makes sense. Should we should we also think about the accessory dwelling unit in in your mom's

case? That's what I was going to reflect to next about the session because they will have two dwellings there and a business. So the business will be operated in this space. Correct. Correct. That's the accessory dwelling area. There's going to be no aspect of accessory dwelling in there anymore. Right. No. There there is another house on that property right there. That is a guest house. Right. What's that there? That's a garage. Yes, sir. I think she took a picture of it on here as well. It is. It's in there. Right there. Right back. Yep. Sideways. Sorry. And it got There's no living above it. No, sir. Okay. Well, Mr. Bish, I don't actually have any questions. I'm I'm familiar with the property. The only question that I had was what he was referring to and the other was the possibility of what you're going to touch on as well, Chairman Ward, is uh in the future. We don't want to have something in there that doesn't need to be in there. If you That's one question I also had also. Um, when I retire, will it go can I get it to just go back to residential full use so I don't have to or just how do I go about that? You would likely have to come back and either amend uh this resoning or reszone it back to what its initial um classification was. Okay. Um it may and that may be a discussion that's outside of this meeting between you and I. Um because currently the city of Graham does not really support accessory dwelling units inside of their ordinance. Um and maybe by that time something will change. Um but if it was to be it's a non-conforming use right

now with that uh accessory dwelling in in its existence. It goes away um within 180 days. it essentially has to come back into a conforming use. So, if you were to want to live there in the future, um you'd have to reszone it and hope that there's some type of amendment for um the accessory dwelling to be there or uh change the conditional request to a residential which allows the accessory dwelling. So, it's a whole kind of procedural process that we That was my main question tonight. Thank you, Mr. Ulus. May I uh one of the concerns, God forbid anything ever happened to you, uh we have to look at it as in the event of type thing. So we want to make sure our language is right so that it doesn't become something it shouldn't in the future regardless if it doesn't get resumpted. Okay. Yes, sir. had two questions. Uh they've already been sort of touched on. First of all was the 88 compliance and the second was what we were talking about just then about the the zoning. If the property passed into other hands either by sales or by inheritance or something like that, how would that affect the zoning? Would that continue? Would it need to be changed? So if you all were to make the recommendation to approve based on the condition that it stays single family and the hair salon operates in that that is the only thing it could be utilized for regardless if it gets passed down from generation to generation. That is the only thing that it can be utilized for. Does it I have living rights to it through my mom through the estate. Does how does I don't know if that will affect anything negatively or not. Even if you were to she were to sell it to somebody else, um they would be able to live in the space on the right and would

only be able to operate in the commercial sense on that left side a hair salon. Okay. All right. Mr. Doctor and Mr. Young, any further questions for the applicant? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. If anyone else like to speak have a close public hearing and have a discussion amongst oursel here the whole meeting hope that public hear if not I entertain a motion Mr. would would we want to go ahead and include in the conditions for the benefit of the Ulus family the single family use the hair salon the cosmetology and the use as an accessory dwelling unit if she stops a hair hair business but needs a place for mom to live separate in the house we need to be able to accommodate that so she doesn't have to come back before counsel absolutely I think that accomplishes what everybody wants to accomplish see make I guess in that it's just a one in one. So it's not an accessory dwelling unit at the same time as a hair salon, right? So that's right. That's right. That's right. We want to include both in the entitlement, but they wouldn't occur simultaneously. Yes, sir. You'd either cut hair or somebody live there. Perfect. Drop it out for us. I'll help you. Okay. Thank you. I I I'd like to make a motion that we approve the uh uh resoning request for 113 West Gilbert Street. Is that correct address? Second. With the Oh, thank you, Jim. With the conditions that

uh number one, the uh uses be limited to and include single family residents. Uh the uses the uh accessory building as either hair and cosmetology or accessory dwelling unit and that the uh accessibility exterior accessibility be verified prior to u the hearing for city council. But can I add a couple things? and we were to read and that it is consistent with policy 2.1.1 diverse job market and also policy 2.1.6 a locally owned business and policy 2.3.2 innovated space. I second it. Have a motion and I have a second by Mr. Young. All in favor I. Any opposed? Thank you gentlemen. Thank you. All right, Cameron. Let's see if we can get Mr. Moffett and the Burning Law Firm out of here. I'll come back to that. All right. Hectic doing two things at once. Yeah. Respect Miss Debby's job in here along with multitasking. We got you. Yes, sir. No problem. Um All right. There we go. Okay. So, for 6B, um, city staff has received a request for a text amendment to define and create like create a use classification for multi-tenant industrial facilities. Currently, the development ordinance does not have a specified uh use for this proposed type of development. We have an approved use for single industrial buildings and unified business developments. Um, and the unified business developments are

particular to shopping centers and commercial developments. Uh, they do not permit any I1 uses in these developments, even after being allowed in the I1 zoning district. Um, as of right now, there is no way for staff to approve these types of developments as the closest related zoning use we can choose from is a unified business developments. Um, we have received multiple new requests for these types of developments and have suggested that text amendment was proposed to define them in our ordinance and that is what is in front of you all today. Thank you. And there is a memo I believe on behalf of Mr. Brown as well um along with the definition and how it would lie in the table of permitted uses. Um right, I'll hear from you. State your name and address, please. Taylor, do you want the you sent me a power? Yes. Make sure. Hello and good evening. My name is Taylor Squires. I'm an attorney with the Vernon Law Firm located at 522 South Lexington Avenue in Burlington. My colleague Lawson Brown and I represent Welcome I40 as it relates to the text amendment that is before you this evening. Pardon me, ma'am. Can you move the mic just a little bit closer? Thank you. Can you hear me now? Yes, ma'am. My colleague Lawson Brown and I represent Welcome I40 as it relates to the text amendment that is before you this evening. Welcome I40 is in the preliminary planning process and stages of a commercial development project that would be located along Cherry Lane and back backing into I40 I 85 on the site that's depicted above. From a site planning perspective, welcome I40 would like to erect five separate buildings. Each building may be used for a different purpose. Uh we intend

industrial distribution, warehousing as well as office space or alternatively a combination of both office space and distribution centers. We have been working with Cameron and the city of Graham to try to vet this text amendment. and Cameron, we appreciate I know we've had several meetings, so we appreciate your efforts um helping us get here this evening. Um as it stands, the UDO does not include a permitted use that aligns with the project that Welcome I40 would like to bring into Graham at this time. So, as Cameron mentioned, there's uniform business developments. We have individual warehouses, but we don't have a use type that has the combination of both the industrial distribution as well as the office spaces. So we are here today requesting a text amendment that would align with welcome I40's intended use. That uh text amendment would read as follows. The multi occupancy distribution and warehouse which would be established for industry assembly fabrication warehousing andor distribution with single or multi-lic occupants on site with adequate access to highways thorough affairs streets roads and with adequate utilities. the transportation adequacy being subject to the technical review committee's requirements and approval. Uh such use would be permitted by right and I1 and I2 zoning districts. Again, we're asking for a amendment to the current UDO to add a new use type to table 10.135 of the UDO. Ready to address any questions that you guys may have related to that text amendment. Um Cameron, if you would go back to that drawing that showed that layout there. Yes, sir. Yeah. Presuming that that was what was there or going there or that is

that going to be a leased property or are they going to be individually owned partials? It could be a combination of u of the two. So there could be some space that's owned and retained by Welcome I40 or they might after they erect the building they may sell it out for industry purposes to a warehouse or manufacturing developer. So Cameron with that being proposed there if it's actually sold and it's an individual partial then would the text amendment be necessary? Um so that's kind of currently where we're at. Um, like Taylor said, this project's been going on since about 2022, I believe. Um, so from what we gathered is initially the city of Graham planning staff was going to allow these to be on individual parcels and operate as individual units. Um, once you start to include multiple uses inside of one building on a single parcel is where the development ordinance doesn't necessarily have the classification for such. So even if you take and put lot lines on each one of these and subdivide or not subdivide but cut into thirds or fourths into each one of these buildings for different tenants, that's when it comes into play. But if it was going to be, you know, used and maintained by one person in a specific use and not to go beyond that, then we wouldn't have any issues with it because it would just be an industrial building on a single lot. Um, I mean, even as it's shown right now, if it was going to be, you know, kind of all this multiple buildings with different tenants inside of there, you'd still need it because it's all on one single lot. Um, but if they were loted out by themselves, then that's when it wasn't an issue. But I think that's where we were at initially. Um, and they had recently got approval on this building three back here. Um, because I think we have subdivided or combined these parcels into two. I mean, you can't really tell on this plan, but um essentially it's two parcels broken kind

of by this stream area through here. And they have an approved set of plans for building three back here with the understanding that it was going to be one tenant. Um and so once uh and to be subdivided as such, moving forward, build a road, subdivide somebody use building four, build the road, subdivide building five, all with single tenants. Um but they're wanting to take building three and cut it into thirds and let three different tenants inside of there. And I think that's where our ordinance lacks. Um, and like I said, the closest thing we have is the business development side of things, which um, has some type of language that permits it, but only um, with it being utilized for B2 uses. So essentially looking to create another business industrial development classification with this where it kind of identifies the same criteria um and puts it to scale for this type of development and other ones like I mentioned this is not the only one we've received. I think this one's on the larger scale, but we've also received some requests for smaller um different types of uses with multiple buildings spread out with different smaller warehouses of like the 2 3,000 square foot uh kind of foot area where this one of course would be relatively larger. So with the multiple tenants in an I1 or an I2, are the businesses going to be required to be light or heavy industrial or could it be any type of business operating in there? So I think when you classify them in the definition, it would be for just those that are permitted inside the I1 and I2 zoning district. It would be the only ones that's permitted would be what's permitted by permitted abuse. Yes, sir. I2. Okay. That's all I got for right now. Um, open it up to anybody else. I I would like to know approximately where on Cherry Lane that that is proposed to be. Um, so this is probably better. You got

I 4085 right here. There's parcel land and it's kind of all inside of this area. Um, so here is Old Fields. Um, here is Cherry Creek I believe. So further down. Okay. I I know exactly where that is now. Down by the lead. Okay. Gotcha. I got other side. Gotcha. Yeah. Just on the other side is the golf, right? Yes, sir. Bing size. The square footage that we have in it. We do have proposed square footage for each building, but the total square footage for the buildings would be approximately 745,000 square ft of building space. You said that's total all five. That's for all five. Yes. But that's not going to fall into Commerce Park either, is it? That track of land there is not part of the Commerce Park. That's a bigger discussion with the admin folks. Um I don't think so because um I I could be wrong. I I I do not know the answer to that. Um I think we are the only ones that have service for water and sewer in this area. Um and Welcome Group is extending those services from a non-commerce park line. Um that's the only thing that I can kind of really throw I but again again don't quote me on that because that's probably a more admin discussion question. telephone. I just got a couple of questions for Cameron. Yes, sir. While you're standing, Cameron, can you read the language for unified business development? Its definition. Yes, sir. So, of course,

um there's two classifications of unified business developments. We got unified business development uh light and heavy. Um the description of such unified business development consists of one or more principal structures or buildings together with accessory structures or buildings containing two or more stores, service establishment, offices or other permitted uses. Development of this type is planned, organized or managed to function as a unified whole and featuring all the following common driveways, common parking, common signage, common landscaping plan. Um, examples are shopping centers, retail centers, office parks, and business parks having the characteristics listed above. Such unified business developments may include out parcels for lease or for sale which may be intersected by public streets. Any such unified business development may be organized as a condominium or in a manner along an of the to that of a townhouse development um with ownership of parcels beneath the building units with parking and driveways being in common area owned and maintained by an owners association. Um probably fall into this next bit of pieces. There's a one about administrative approval. Um when the anticipated traffic load is less than 250 vehicles per day, the approval for this UVD may be treated as a unified business development light and be considered use by right by the city planner or refer referred to city council as they so choose. However, if the traffic increases beyond this amount or is anticipated to increase beyond this amount, the applicant must come before the city council to be approved. Um and then we can go into uses permitted in these. Um so like I said, there's classifications. They are permitted uh as a special use permit or use by right in the B2 and I1 district uh dependent upon the traffic count. All uses permitted in the B2 district are permitted except for the following uses which are not permitted. residential dwellings, animal hospitals, automobile sales, car wash, amusement, uh parks, bottle or bottling or dairy plant,

commercial campgrounds, camping vehicle parks, contractor storage yards, daycare centers, farm equipment sales, storage and repair, funeral homes, golf courses, hospitals, kennels, except self-service, lodges, manufactured home sales, nursing homes, plumbing shops, sign shops, stone cutting, monument manufacturing sales, tattoo business, tire recapping and retreading, truck sales, veterinarian, and wholesale distributors. Um, and there's mentions about drive-thru establishments. Before you continue, was that the list of prohibited uses? Yes, sir. So, all uses permitted in the B2 are permitted except for the following. Um, and then it kind of listed out everything that I mentioned before. So, but it doesn't cover I2 uses. It does not cover I1 or I2 uses. And that's where the issue we run into is because if you have it in the I1 use, just because it's in the I1 doesn't mean that it's going to be allowed to have I1 uses. In the B2 and I1 districts, you are only allowed to have B2 district B2 district uses except for what's listed through there. Um, there is mention in here about I2. All permitted uses in the underlying district are allowed within the heavy industrial district. However, something got changed after 2016 when this was implemented and the I2 special use classification was no longer inside of the development ordinance table permitted uses. So, it's not allowable by a special use permit or anything. And so, that's why, like I said, this is kind of before you all today. Um, okay. Let me let me go a couple of steps further. Yes, sir. Can you identify or define and this is in Taylor's language can you identify or define the word site as it is may or may not be different from building or parcels. We want to make sure that they

are adequately covered by the language. The site could be any site. The We want to make sure that the parcels, the buildings, and that language is is very clear because you can have multiple tenants in one building. Yeah. For sure. You have multiple tenants on one piece of property. This whole thing functions as a site, but it could be parcled off or rented in in separate segments. Is this in I guess what is this in relation to questionwise? Um, is it with the the the definition that they provided when it says with single or multi occupants on sites with adequate access to highways or is it just with um it might need to be a substitution of language including parcels, buildings and properties because sites is could be a dracle cleaner site. That's a halfacre. It's very 100 acre job site. Very vague. I get that as well and I think that's um you know one of the reasons why we bring it in front of you all as well is to have this you know kind of overall discussion forum what might work out in the best sense. Um so I think you know we're definitely ready to have a discussion about this and um get something that is uh kind of inherent to what you all see. In my mind I read it multi occupants on or in buildings, parcels or properties. I guess it could um I mean there could be for sale I mean per se I guess a single parcel that puts up one building that has three different people inside of it, right? Um so that one of course is probably different to what they are proposing up here. Um so it's also trying to make that mix between how both of those kind of work out um in this language, right? So I see you're giving me a but it kind of leads

to would it cause an influx of more development of small sections of these areas being developed under a acreage parcels or site depending on the size that site and then you move them closer to residential areas and that type stuff because of the It's not very defining. Yes, sir. I mean, you know, just to move conversation along, I mean, could you look at it in the same sense of how um it's discussed with the unified business development? I mean, talking about one or more building structures, however it's labeled in that um kind of more or less in in that regard. um to kind of tie it together a little bit more. I guess in in that language specifically for unified business development, what is the noun for the the property, the site, the building? I just don't remember hearing the word site in the unified business development language. Uh one or more principal structures or building uh together with accessory structures or buildings containing two or more stores, service establishments, offices or other permitted uses. Um, so it doesn't even mention anything about a site, right? So it's I guess it's adherent to a lot itself or um, you know, and of course that's what our zoning uh, ordinance clear. It's I mean, if you're looking at a single parcel, I don't think you could take and uh, you'd have to essentially combine two parcels of land to be able to span it across one or the other with the connected driveways, however it's looked at, um, where they need access to these thorough affairs as mentioned. Um, just because you got a landlock parcel in the back, you'd probably have to combine it to be one single lot itself.

Maybe then we remove the word site so that it's consistent with the language in the unified business development so that it includes all of those nouns for properties or buildings. I agree. So just talking about established for industry, assembly, fabrication, warehousing, uh or distribution with single or multi multi occupancies on sites and then just keep on going with adequate or remove. Yeah, just take out on sites and kind of from there. Gotcha. And then I guess my second part in the in the uses that are identified industry and assembly fabrication warehousing andor distribution would one want to consider is the the presentation of office space. Uh I know we run across that in unified business developments. So would we want to also indicate office space and um I don't know if it's ancillary but the item that in there there's an office almost at every one of the locations. We don't want to exclude that and then be tripped up later on because we didn't include it. Yeah, for sure. Let me see if what it mentions about office spaces in reference to I1 and I2 zoning districts and that may kind of settle a little bit of it. And then I guess a question for for Taylor while you're looking is do any of these industry assembly fabrication warehouse distribution and office do they have sales included in that? Not that I'm aware of but I wouldn't want to limit the potential if the client would like to distribute items. I guess with distribution, is that another word for sale? Is it? I think a way to look at it as well is, you know, if you're thinking

about prohibiting uses, you almost take a look at what's permitted and not permitted inside of the I1 and I2 zoning districts because if it's on I may go back to what you were mentioning earlier, Chair Ward, about you know, the permitted uses. Um, you know, the I2 uses wouldn't be permitted if it was developed on a I1 lot. um only the I1 uses would be permitted inside of there. And maybe that is like I'm trying to look through where the office space is. If there's particular uses that you wouldn't want to see in these types of areas of multi-tenant, industrial or uh distribution and warehouse, I guess is um you know, you could subject to without these specific ones, right? Kind of like how it laid out in the um uh the unified business development. Um all uses in the I1 and I2 are approved except X Y and Z if that's kind of where they're going for. I think what Mr. Vines is alluding to is someone having the ability to have drive up business, so to speak, a sales point of interest at that particular site. Another indication that it you're opening up an avenue of lots of traffic that probably wouldn't be in most of these uh developments. I don't think that that's the intention of welcome I40 because if it were, we would be looking at the unified business development that already exists in the table of permitted uses because that aligns with the shopping centers and the sale of goods. Yes, ma'am. I I totally understand that, but that's something that we as a board have to look at closely to make sure that we don't miss that little loophole that may develop. Yeah. Thank Okay. Um I mean you sit here and look through um and see potential uses that are permitted inside of the you know I1 and I2 zoning district. Um there is you know

some that could have that overlapping aspect. Um it's really you know if there is a specific set of um uses that you would see beneficial most in here. Um cuz after looking at the office space, office spaces with less than five employees is a permitted use by right in the I1, but office spaces with more than five employees is not a permitted use by right. Um so you're kind of having to base this. It's distribution and warehouse. We're really only you know honing it in for these types of industry assembly, fabrication, warehousing or distribution. Um no retail or something in there. um could also be discussed. Um but like you said, I mean, you're having to take a look at the bigger picture because this is not just going to impact their property out there. There's going to be other people, as I mentioned, that are trying to make use of this as well. Um and you want to definitely make sure you get it right so we're not having to come back and, you know, shoot ourselves in the foot or whatnot. So, I completely understand. Um does it give you an office in the I2 district? No. Let me see. Just had it up before. Is that needed? So, we got contractor's offices um in the I1 and I2, which is definitely different than the office space of a lawyer's office or whatever it may be. Um office space more than five employees. No. So, only less than five employees is permitted in the I1. I2 does not permit either or. Um, please. Good evening, commissioners. My name's Ryan Moffett. I'm colleagues with Miss Squires here at Vernon Law Firm. One thing I was going to just address about the office is this is a great discussion and and Mr. Trafine appreciate the the

questions and and leading us to this point. Um, I think we want to think about this generally as an industrial use. And it's easy. We've got a we've got a conceptual site plan to look at what this could look like at a particular site, but I think we want to we're looking for Graham's development ordinance to be able to accommodate a multi-tenant type industrial development where you've got one owner, whether that be one owner of a parcel with multiple buildings on it, which those multiple buildings could then have multiple tenants or you could have a single parcel with a single building with multiple tenants. But those buildings are probably going to have office space in them for more than five employees, just like Walmart's distribution center does, just like LLE, just like any of the industrial uses that we've seen come online in recent years. Those to me are not principal uses. And so I don't want to while I I think it's it it may be worth considering adding office uses to the industrial all the I1 and I2 uses that makes sense but at the same time I'm not sure that we need to do that because the office use is not the principal use it's attendant to the industrial use which we want to see I2 I1 and I2 uses permitted in this in this new um multi-tenant uh use if that does that make sense if I wasn't clear and it should be the primary whatever the primary use is going to be because you know that each and every one of these

warehouses whether they're in the Commerce Park or whether it's going to be here on Cherry Lane are going to have some type of office space in them and they'll also have you know some major furniture distributors have sale floors as well um that are kind of accessory to it and accessory uses are permitted in the I1 and I2 zoning district as well. So, I mean, you know, it's I just don't want to see a a call center come out there and go in that building and it's industrial space and yeah, they got it big enough and they bring a call center in and then they got 300 employees sitting there in a call center. And I think that the the the definition kind of hits on that because that wouldn't fall into that kind of um industry assembly, fabrication, warehousing or distribution um class. And I think that is something that we can kind of bank on and have the judgment of staff over here to determine, okay, what does this actually mean in our development ordinance? Um, the one thing that I think I do want to kind of hone in on because I don't know, it's a kind of difficult and it's not really mentioned in here, um, but definitely something to take into consideration because I think the idea of the I1 and I2 zoning districts, right? um and whether or not we want to have those combined and permit every single I1 and I2 zoning uses to go inside of the I1 zoning district like they kind of have shown out here. Um because this is a I1 zone lot. Um and kind of in my mind is if it's approvable in the I1 district over here, then only the approvable uses in the I1 associated with these industry assembly fabrication. it's an I2 lot, then you're including all of those in there as well. Um, so like I said, that's just kind of my thought process to it. I want to bounce that off of you all. I don't know if that makes any difference or not. Um, but like I said, I would rather be transparent during this meeting than um have it come up after the fact if we're talking about, oh, I thought I uses were going to be permitted in this I1 district. And that's just not kind of how I would see

this amendment moving forward. Now, I agree with you, Cameron. when we initially we filed a special use permit and that's what we ran into was the issue was the unified business development was only allowed in certain zoning districts. So that did not align with what we were looking at today. Yeah. So well I mean even like say you know I'm trying to think of a use that's permitted in the I2 that's not permitted in the I1 um uh rubber products. Yeah. So, I mean, having a rubber product would not essentially be something that would be permitted in one of these areas through here since it's a overall I1 zoned lot. Um, if that makes sense. But if it was a I2 zone lot, you could include both those I2 and I1 uses if they're permitted in both. If that kind of makes sense. Like I said, just want to be at the forefront with you all and you all as well. I think I think on Cameron that we're getting a little skewed there if we we prevent that because it's just like paperboard containers and boxes is permitted for I2 but not permitted in I1. All these warehouses that are shipping parts are going to have paper board and boxes. I think it's um more or less like your uh your creation of such um not necessarily the distribution of them because that would be classified at but if they were manufacturing these paper boxes it's like almost like a paper mill right if somebody was creating paper that's an I2 to the T. Um but if they're getting the paper from these paper mills and distri distributing them out then I think that's where the difference may lie in my eyes at least. But wouldn't you think that that would run coincide with I1 and I2 that use would be That's not what the development ordinance currently says. So, um, you know, we we could sit here and have a whole meeting and hash out what we think deserves to be in the I1 and I2 zoning district. I certainly don't want to I don't want to overlap them if it's it creates a obstacle. And if they're approved in both the I1 and the I2, um, then it's no issue to have them in the I1 at all. Um,

but if it's only allowed in the I2, like you said, the rubber, then you're not going to be able to have a rubber distributor or Well, the distributor side of it is fine. It's just the manufacturing of it itself. Um, so if somebody had tires that they were shipping out, it's one thing. If they were actually retreading tires, creating the tires, doing all the rubber stuff, that's a different story. Okay. And so that's up for them to be forefront whenever they're doing their zoning permit and for us to determine whether or not we can approve it in that area or not. So that is the one kind of beneficial factor that we have is all of these uses that come in here, they have to file zoning permits. Um, so we have the ability on front end to see whether or not something like this is going to be an approvable use in there or not. Um, like I said, the kind of what we're trying to do is be able to create that type of use to where they can come in here and have three different uses inside of one building. Let me just boil it down to a little bit of a layman's terms. Would multi occupancy distribution and warehouse be a use that is an X in the I1 table. You're saying what specific use? I'm sorry. Manufacturing, multi occupancy, distribution, and warehouse as defined with the rest of that statement or or sentence or paragraph. Would that become an X in the light industrial table? Yes, sir. So how it's listed out right now the M back to full screen and I think that's what our I think that's what we're here to to agree to or or disagree with. Yeah. So how they have it right now is this the defined multioccupy distribution warehouse would be a permitted use by right in both the I1 and I2 zone in districts. Yes sir. That is a use type just like a paper mill just like a cell phone manufacturer. Those four words define a use type that is subsequent to the definition that it states. It's almost like it has subsections of other uses inside of

there. That's correct. I think didn't you remove the word on sites and I think that's our get over the hurdle and take sites that were except the fact that office is an ailary to the main principal use and then go with the text and I think and sites out you know just as um uh I don't well no that's fine perfectly fine. No sir, I was going to mention something about, you know, this also we'll have to take a look by the technical review committee and the location of these are also, you know, being, you know, looked at by us as well to determine if this is even a space where it's, you know, um, adequate for, you know, for this access to all these areas and given us the potential to request these types of, um, TAS essentially, but most of them probably going to be on NCD roads anyway. So, um, they may have a trigger as well. just an extra layer of support, comfort maybe it may be for these types of things for y'all. Is is there a need to uh include in the text amendment no retail sales? I don't think so. No, sir. Okay. Um that's one of the reasons I was asking. It's it's a vague area, but I didn't think it needed to be added. I mean, I think if you're you have a concern of um the mixing of uses um you can kind of maybe throw something in there in regards to um seeing headshake. No, I don't see it. I was just asking that question. One of the things it mentions in the UVD is like not having the crossover of traffic from but with you have all industrial it shouldn't be a problem. Okay, good. Make the water muddy. Hey, makes it a lot cleaner. Yes. Yes, sir. Any further questions for Mr. I just had y'all kind of been dancing around a couple of my questions here. I just wanted to make sure that I would agree with the removal of the verbiage on sites from the text amendment. And I just want some verification as chair Ward mentioned just a moment

ago. I don't want to see a call center going in out there or a corporate headquarters or whatever. Yes, sir. Mixed in that same site. Suddenly, you've got a lot of traffic and all manner of other things. As long as it falls within the I1 or the I2, whichever way, whichever partials, I'm a whatever fan, whatever's allowed. It's it's limited by those two. That's that's fine. And I just wanted to make sure and make sure it was clear that we're not going to have a combination of corporate site, corporate sales, call center, whatever it might be in combination with whatever you develop out there in termsution. Yes, sir. I believe what welcome I40 envisions is a a distribution where you store goods and then out of that warehouse you would ship goods out. So, it's not intended for a district a call center or a basis that would be open to the public or with a lot of public um traffic in and out of that building. Further questions? Uh yes. Um are these going to be spec buildings, build to suit buildings or uh tenants uh in it before it's built or? So I I believe it's going to be based and there's going to be different phases of building. So some of them may be spec buildings and then you have others that uh after one phase is built you have that occupied and then you move to phase two to to erect that building. Did that address your question? But the only thing we're here for tonight is the actual text amendment. Stand up. Since she's here all I'd ask because it may not be that plan. Mr. Young, you got have a question. Mr. Bony. Yes, Mr. chairman and y'all this may have been confusing from the outset because of the five buildings but I believe as I understood

Mr. Moffett's uh more simple description the multi-use applies to the individual buildings. So theoretically you could have multiple uses in those five buildings each of the five buildings. Uh the other question I had which I think he also alluded to is he referred to it as conceptual site plan. So this is not a site plan that's yet been approved by the city or even submitted as a site plan. Um I I we have looked at this site before. Um I'd like I mentioned that building three back here um in the rear does have the technical review committee approval stamp on it to be constructed as is right now. Sorry, which one is that? Um this building three at the back, the largest one. Yes, sir. And as it currently stands, it's uh like I there's two lots. So um on this side of the stream, creek, whatever you want to call it, is somewhere in that vicinity is this lot. and then it separates over into this lot as well. Um, so technically right now they could build building three and building one uh pending building one TRC approval and of course building permit approval um because they both have access to um Cherry Lane through there. But I would just say Mr. B that for purposes of the question before us tonight this is just an illustration. All right. And Mr. Chairman, one more question which I hate to ask when y'all haven't asked. Uh, but is there any limit on how many multiples within each building here or anywhere else? Not per the text language. Is that something that staff has considered? Um, I think we've taken into consideration um not really a maximum number that's inside of there. I mean, of course, it's all going to be bound to whatever is fiscally um makes sense for the developer, applicant, whoever it may be. Um the only thing that we have really taken a look at is if you all were to do

a complete 180 um and separate these for uh use by right and special use and classifying such as uh square footage requirement for approval of one or the other. Um we haven't really thought about the number of units that's going to go inside of here. So 750,000 square feet is a pretty large building which could theoretically house numerous tenants. Correct. As it's written out. Yes sir. And staff is okay with that. Like I said limitation we have uh you know just provided what we've been presented um on behalf like I said we were prepared to kind of have discussions in regards to um you know the kind of difference between uh uh special use and not um and that is kind of where that square footage requirement came in. I mean, if you wanted to limit it, I mean, I think it makes sense. Um, if you were to, I don't know if it would be a square footage of each unit, a maximum or minimum amount that's required. Um, but then like you said, you're getting into the weeds, but it also is in the weeds when you could potentially have, you know, 15, however many, 20,000 square foot areas inside of there. But essentially, that's what you'd be permitting. That 750 is cumulative, correct? Yes sir. Total of all six five and I can't read but I presume that if I get it closer up each one of those is labeled as how many square feet each one has. So building three right now has got 290,000 I believe square feet highlight Cameron building three put the arrow there again for building three right here. Okay, got it. That's the big one. in building one uh over here on this uh Friday. Got it. Any further questions for Miss Squires? Thank you. Thank you, chairman. Anyone else here in the audience that would like to ask any questions about this

particular project? All right. Seeing there's none, close this public hearing and have a discussion amongst ourselves. I do think that um the word sites needs to be removed from the text language itself. Mhm. Cameron. So um I'm I don't have a problem with the multiple tenants in the building. Um or the limitation in numbers of individual tenants that can go in a building. I don't have a problem with that at all. If we're going to um allow it, it just needs to work for owners or the developers that it will work without causing chaos. I concur with you, sir. I don't have a problem with other than removing the onsite. I think the the uh text amendment pretty pretty much covers uh exactly what the intent is without actually moving into an area that's vague. I don't see where we can add much to it or subtract anything from it that would be advantageous. I think the wording as it is will be useful not only in this situation but for multiple mentioned. Yeah, for sure. Like I said, there's smaller scale people that are looking at some properties that want to kind of do the same thing on um a smaller scale and this would definitely benefit them as well. So that would be on site. Mr. Young, you have any objections? Well, hear and there's no more questions. Um, I'd like to make a motion

um that we approve the text amendment um with the removal of the word site on site. On site on site as written. Does anyone like me to change anything? Any other? No, sir. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Well done. Yes, sir. No problem. Nice. All right. Uh, do we have any non-aggenda items that anybody would like to talk about? I have none, sir. Just a question about the long range plan. hadn't heard anything out of Miss Dawn in a while and yeah, we had a meeting in a while. So, just curious about where that's going since we're on the topic of is this or is this not part of the industrial park? Let's go ahead and get on that and try determine for the neighbors out there. Miss Boleris has we actually had a meeting with them two weeks ago. Um, of course, there has been a plan draft provided um to you all, I believe. um a while back, I would say. Um she's been kind of reaching out, following up to see if there's been anything. Um she is no longer going to be there. I think it was last week, maybe it was her last week. So, we've been working with um Jesse Day individually and another gentleman, I cannot remember his name. Um but the idea is for us to take a look at it um and update it. It looks um it's like a typical word document. I think there's some sprucing up that they're going to do. Um visuals, things of the like. Um but everything that we've talked about during steering committee meetings have been taken into

consideration. Um but yeah, check your email. Um look at it, see if there's anything that you would like to provide me that we can provide them. Um we're still kind of chopping it up as right now. Um, as soon as we can get something drafted up and fully fixed up on the the aesthetic side of things as well, we provide it to city council or no you all. Um, and then city council in the draft format and kind of keep it going till we have an app through product. Did that email come from you or Dawn? Dawn. Yes, sir. Okay. And if you uh get up with me tomorrow, if you can't find it, I'll send it over to you. Any further? You might want to go ahead and resend that. I I don't call Heavy. Oh, well it was a part of the steering committee. Um I think Mr. Huffine and Chair Ward were a part of the steering committee, but you all will see it eventually because it does have to go in front of uh multiple reads for planning board and city council. So we'll probably have uh hopefully it's one month that we don't have anything else to deal with and we can just hash it out for a couple hours and take a look at it and make recommendations and go from there. Bring the pizza. We might can have a little bit of party. Take a little recess. Why not? See if they'll let me borrow the credit card. 9 staff got any further comments for us? No, sir. I think um you know, we're going to stay particularly busy. So, um keep your schedules open for the next planning board. Third Tuesday, 6:30. Um we got a couple items that are going to be coming through. Another text amendment and two more development projects. Um so, uh it's gearing back up, I guess. Warm weather comes out, people want to start wielding some stuff. So, um yeah, we're going to try and keep y'all as busy as possible, and it keeps us busy, too. Thank everyone for attending the special meeting in this under the short notice and uh if there's nothing more I will make a motion that we adjourn. I have a second. All in favor?