Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

purposes. If you're here to speak about a case, you must speak up when the chairperson calls for public comment. I'll go ahead and call the role. Mr. uh well, Mr. Cosley is on his way. So, Mr. Con here, Mr. Cook here, Miss Cubny here, Mr. Foster, Mr. HARP here, and Mr. Aorio here. And

we have a quorum. All right, I'll give a brief overview of the meeting format. Applicants with requests before the planning commission are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include, but is not limited to an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. The time also includes persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant, such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. The time limit does not include any questions asked by the planning commission or staff regarding request. During the public comment period, members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of 2 minutes. And after the public comment period, applicants may have 5 minutes to respond. The administrator has a timer and will make presenters aware when their time has expired and the planning commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-by case basis. Having gone through that, um, is the agenda as stands or are there any changes to it?

There's been one change since publication. Um, case number seven, which was a zoning text amendment TA-2025-000014, has been deferred. All right. Um, we'll start with the consent agenda and I'll give an overview. We use the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. Examples of such items include site plans, annexations, and street names. If a member of the planning commission or the general public would like to discuss an item on the consent agenda, you must speak up after the consent agenda is read. Then that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the meeting. The planning commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please read the consent agenda. The first item on the consent agenda is the uh September 11th 2020 2025 minutes. Um the second item is under the future land use amendment and zoning amendment for a pending annexation. This is annex-2025-000019 5603 5607 and 5615 Old Forest Drive. request recommendation on the assignment of the land use classification of urban edge regional activity center UAC2 and the assignment of zoning of general commercial district GC for pending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential high density and zone general commercial by Richardson County. And I think we'll just pause after each case to make sure that there's no if there is anyone in the um who's here today who wants to speak about any of these just to make sure we catch any of those.

Do you want me to ask after each one or if you don't mind? Sure. Um regarding this particular application, is there anyone in the public that would like to have this removed from the consent agenda and put on the regular agenda?

I'm sorry. Is that better? I don't want to be too loud. Can you hear me any better? Apologize. Usually it's too loud when I'm talking on this thing. Well, for for this particular case, is there anyone in the public that would like to have that put on the regular agenda and taken off consent?

All right. Can we read the next one? The next case is under major site plan review SP plan-2025-000013 1038 and 1102 Oakland Avenue 1111 11:15 1117 1121 and 1125 Dora Street 5704 5707 5708 5711 5712 and 5716 Randall Avenue. request major site plan approval for the construction of an 11 building 76 unit multif family development the summit at Belmont. The properties are zoned RM2 residential mixed.

Thank you again. Is there anyone from the public that would like to discuss this item on the regular agenda and have it removed from consent? All right. Okay. Case number four is SP plan-2025-000015301 Club Ridge Road request major site plan approval for the construction of a building addition amphitheater and cabana at Wood Creek Club. The properties are zoned plan development at Wood Creek Farms.

Thank you. All right. Is there anyone in attendance that would like this on the regular agenda removed from the consent? We can read the next applicant.

The next item is preliminary plat approval. Splat-20225-000053 approximately 61.71 acres at the 7300 block of Patterson Road. Request preliminary plat approval for the construction of a 243 lot single family residential subdivision, Casetta Pine subdivision. The properties are zoned RSF3 FP which is residential single family small lot district within the floodplane Overlay district. And that concludes the consent agenda.

Thank you. Are there any members of the public regarding this application? Yes, ma'am. Would you mind telling us your name and Corly Swink? Thank you.

Can I I don't want to cut you off just yet. Um we'll we'll we'll have opportunity. We'll take it we'll put it for a motion to come off. Would you like it to be removed and heard as a regular case? No, I don't want it removed. I just want to speak about it. Um, are you in are you in favor or have concerns and opposition? I'm opposition. Okay. Sit back home till they talk. This this is an opportunity just to request taking it off of the consent agenda and then we can present it as a regular case if that's what you would like to to hear.

I don't know which way we're going. I wanted to take off the consent agenda. Okay. Yeah. So, we'll we'll we'll let you come back up. McDaniel. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Sorry for being confusing. Have one. And is there anyone else from the public that has an interest in this case coming off the consent agenda? All right. Um, we have a request. I have a motion currently and a second. All those in favor to remove this from the consent agenda and place it on the regular. Signify by saying I. I. I.

Any opposed? All right. So, we will move uh case number five to the regular agenda. And then having done that, can I get a motion for the minutes and the other items on the consent agenda? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the September 2025 minutes uh as well as today's consent agenda less item number five. Thank you. We've got a motion. Can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed. All right. Motion passes. Do we want to do that case first? Okay.

I think that's a good idea. If we could just read through the Yeah. regular agenda. Um.

All right. So, we will start the regular agenda. will use the following outline for items on the regular agenda. Can you hear me? Okay. I'm I'm sorry. All right. I'll try I'll just speak up. Um All right.

All right. The administrator will introduce the case and applicants will have 10 minutes to make a presentation. The planning commission may ask questions. We'll have a public comment period that's open to those to present to those present. The public comment period will be closed and then the applicant will have 5 minutes to respond to public comments. The planning commission may ask additional questions of the applicant. Then we'll have a deliberation and take action. All right, that brings us to item number five, which is 61.71 acres um parcel located on the east side of Patterson Road near the intersection of Trinity Drive. The proposed subdivision will contain 243 detached single family residences with an average lot size of 5,500 ft². A portion of the site will be preserved as common area due to wetlands, open space, and tree canopy retention requirements. In addition, the subdivision will contain an amenity area for residents. The amenity area will include a pool, community building, and associated parking. In accordance with section 17-25J6 of the unified development ordinance, the planning commission shall approve a preliminary plat application upon finding that the proposed preliminary plat is in substantial conformity with the approved sketch plan and complies with standards in article six of the land development regulations. any other applicable standards in the ordinance and any other applicable city ordinances and regulations. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and determine that the that it is in substantial conformance with the approved sketch plan. Um should the planning commission be inclined to grant

approval of the preliminary plat, staff would ask that the commission grant approval subject to staff comments contained in the case summary. And I believe the applicant is present and can explain their case further. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Thank you.

Afternoon commissioners. Do you mind telling us your name, please?

Absolutely. My name is Kevin Singleary. I'm the land acquisition and entitlements manager for Great Southern Homes. Uh thank you for letting me talk about Cassetta Pines, that's the name of this community, with you. Um, I also have with me, if there questions that you have later that I'm unable to answer, Josh Rabin with CEC, they're the engineers on this project. Um, I'm not going to cover any of the details that are well covered in your reports, you know, about the codes and compliance and the details. Just want to give you a little bit of the history on the project as well as what we've done in terms of community outreach. Um, we've had this property under contract since September of last year. Uh we've been going through numerous property evaluations, you know, the wetlands, environmental conditions, geological, hydraological um conditions. Uh we've also conducted a traffic impact analysis uh for this project. And following those evaluations, we began the engineering process, which brings us to this point today. Um that traffic impact analysis I mentioned. Um, as part of that, uh, when we met with DOT, uh, we went over what the findings were of that, um, impact analysis and, uh, identified what mitigations would be appropriate. We got the concurrency letter for it this week. Um, that meeting was done in conjunction with the elementary school. Um, that seems to be the major traffic concern in this area. So the major mitigation that DOT identified for us is putting a left turn lane on Patterson onto Trinity and realigning the school's entrance with that intersection. That will obviously have to be something the school agrees to. Um so I'm going to be reaching out to the district um and figuring out if they uh would like to cooperate with us and have them have that project done for them. The other mitigation was where Patterson intersects with uh Leburg. Uh

DOT believes it would be best to change that intersection to be a right in right out only. Um so we will be making that change as well. Obviously the concurrency letter from DOT is not a final direction. They will give us final direction when we seek encroachment permits. So there may be differences that they require from us at at that time. We will obviously comply um with what DOT directs us to do. Um and this property has two neighbors. One obviously the elementary school, but the other is uh the Episcopal church. Um I have been in contact with their senior warden um about how we can cooperate and work together with them. Uh they expressed to me some excitement about the neighborhood coming and the hopes that that can grow their congregation. So, we look forward to looking uh working with them. Uh and lastly, uh when it came to my attention earlier this week, thanks to city staff, uh there were some members of the community that had questions and concerns, you know, just want to know what's going on next door to them, uh they gave us some contacts that we were able to reach out to. And I had several phone calls last night with several members of the community. And uh at 3:00 today, we met out with folks out front and we had a small group there and um we chatted and and I answered what questions I could for them, talked about what it is we intend to do. And um I I think they were relatively speaking pleased with you know what our plans are and you know what the site will result in. I don't know that any of them came up um to speak further on the project, but that's what we've done in terms of uh community outreach. Um, and I'm happy to answer anyone's questions that come up uh during public comment and give them my business card so that they can reach out afterwards. Um, and that that pretty much covers, you know, anything that I have unless you have any specific questions for me.

Thank you. Do any commission members have any questions of the applicant? Mr. Secretary, can you um just tell us a little bit more about the community outreach before this week that you've done?

No, it it was mostly this week. I had I tried to get in in touch with the church um previously, just had not been able to get an answer. Um we had not heard any, you know, concerns. It wasn't until we were made aware of it on Monday. So, we we did as much as we could in this week to to get in touch with folks and answer questions. And you know, we we organized that meeting out front, you know, last night. Um, but it was well attended. Uh, it was it was a good meeting. We are meeting with the church next week. We're trying to finalize a date and time um to meet with them and talk about the ways that we can work together um since we'll be sharing an access point, but you know, that that is yet to occur.

Okay. Have you attempted to contact any of the neighboring um neighborhood associations? Uh so the I think there were lots of folks from the area the Capitol View um community association was who I worked with to organize people coming out to speak with me today. Okay. And um just uh separately the solution with the school if they don't agree to that for whatever reason is there an alternative?

Um that would be a question that DOT would ultimately have to answer. Uh I would think not just because let's say for example a lane widening to get a right turn the school that would go into the school's property. So whatever mitigation we do with the school is ultimately going to be what they dictate to us. I understand. Thank you. Thank you. I have I have a question too. Are the you said you have a track you got a traffic study or just an approval from DOT? We we did a traffic impact analysis u that was submitted to SC DOT and they have provided a concurrency letter.

Okay. Was a copy of that submitted to the city too?

I I have one with me. I'd be happy to submit it. We only got So I'll give a little bit more history. When we submitted the traffic impact analysis to DOT initially, that's when we had the meeting with them in the elementary school and they basically told us that the thing they were primarily concerned with was the elementary school and talked to the uh school district and and us about what it is they wanted to do. And that's as far as that really went at that time. And then leading up to this meeting, I reached back out to our traffic engineer asking them to get in touch with DOT saying, "Hey, could they provide a concurrency letter or do they want to provide something different based on the meeting we had with the school?" What they told us is we'll just provide a concurrency letter. I have a copy with me. I'm happy to submit it for the record if you would like.

If you wouldn't mind. No, I don't mind at all. the other do you know what's the average size house your are they three bedrooms four bedrooms I

I cannot speak to what the bedrooms would be obviously we're you know years out from construction what I can say is that the uh typical lot sizes that you will see in here are 50 ft wide with a a variance in depth some will be 100 ft deep some 110 some 120 um the pad size uh so the buildable area will be 42x 70 ft on all lots. I would anticipate that your average square footage is going to be somewhere around 2,000 square ft just depending on what you know designs homeowners select.

Yeah. My my I'm asking more just to try to get a better understanding just how many vehicles are going to be coming in and out of here. The let's see report with me. This is the concurrency letter that DOT provided us. Um the uh I can certainly get a copy and maybe we already did. Jonathan, did we send y'all a copy of the TIA itself? If not, we'd be h I'd be happy to get I do not have that with me, but I'd happy to get it sent to y'all.

We do have a copy of the traffic impact study. I can provide it to you. Okay. Another question. staff. Um, I noticed we didn't have any comments on traffic. Would that be updated to have a contingency based on complying with the SC DOT?

Oh, all right. That's my first meeting. Thank you. I noticed that staff did not have any comments related to traffic. Would it be updated with the contingency that they apply with SC DOT mitigations that have been recommended? Traffic has has looked at the um traffic has reviewed the traffic impact study that was provided to us. Um the commission when they grant approval, if they grant approval, could condition approval subject to compliance with the s with the traffic implementation of the requirements of the traffic impact study. Thank you.

I have a question for the applicant. Um, since you got the email response September 17th, um, what has been your progress on the recommendations from staff regarding the few forms that need to be submitted such as your associated parking plan, your green building standards, your sewer plans.

If I may, I'll have our engineer Josh Rabin come and answer those specific details. Hi. Uh my name is Josh Raymond with CEC. Um so to to your question, um so the the procedural process with the city, I guess we're at kind of step two of three. Um the first step was the just the initial sketch plan that staff reviews. Um and then the checklist for preliminary plat approval that that y'all review and approve is essentially a 60% set of drawings. Um and so once this is approved um we are working on staff recommendations on water sewer and then once we get past this stage it will then go be submitted to the city for water sewer storm water approval for the permits to actually construct. So that that will be a another submission subsequent to this uh stage. Um and at that point we'll have to address any comments that that city staff for water sewer storm provides before we get permitted to actually begin the project. Thank you.

Anything else while I'm up here? All right.

Any commission members have any other questions for the applicant or staff at the moment? All right. Thanks. Are there uh any members of the public that would like to speak regarding this? Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Coral Swing. I am the president of the Capitol View Area Neighbors Association and we have never been um approached from Great Southern Homes to talk to our other our our other our organization, excuse me. Right now, we've got 120 town houses built on 13 1/2 acres across from Trinity. Um, Presbyterian Church is on the corner, but this this um housing is going to be right at Patterson and and Trinity Road. Then right next across the street, we've got 193 town homes on 25 acres at Carolina and Patterson. We do not have enough road space for all these houses. Not that we don't need them or want them, but surrounding Annie Burnside school in the afternoon, Pison Road is closed on one lane as parents are coming to pick up their children. You can't even go down Person Road. Uh going down Trinity goes to Green Long. Green lawn goes into Gardener's Fairy Road. We just don't have the road to handle all these cars and things that are coming up. So, um that's all I've got to say right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for me? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak for or against in support of or opposition of this application?

All right. Do you uh actually can I I have a question for the member of the public came up. Sorry, ma'am. I thought of it right after you left. Would you mind coming back up, please? Thank you. As the president of the the association, do you see there being a way where you guys would like the neighborhood to be there if there were if you guys worked with the Great Southern Homes or anything? Are you opposed to anything being built there at all?

No, ma'am. We would we wouldn't mind. We just wanted to know from Great Southern Homes. We didn't even know the construction. uh if they would come and talk to us and give us an idea of what they are planning, we'll be glad to to say anything. But we just don't have the road for these homes to come. We've already got the 400 homes already and and you put 422 more homes there. Where are these cars going to park? Of course, they're going to build three and a half uh bedroomedroom home, uh onecar garage, town houses, but but where are these cars going to go out? You know, we just can't handle all that unless they do something about the roads.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Oh, yes. Thank you. I just want to correct something for the record. We were in contact with Elaine Deose, the vice president um as she identified herself of the Capitol View um community association. Um that is who I was primarily in contact with um last night as well as who organized the meeting um out here today. Uh just as a statement of fact, we are we are happy to meet with members of the community. I'm happy to share my card um with the young lady who just spoke, but um my understanding is that we are compliant with the requirements and happy to answer any questions to the community, but at this time we're not seeking to alter our plans based on any community input. Um we're very proud of the 30% green space that we're maintaining. Um we have a very um integrated design in terms of what the aesthetic will be of the community and we're just very proud of Cassetta Pines and at this time we're not entertaining changes outside of what we're required to do in compliance with city code or any DOT requirements. Thank you.

Was the uh was the green space is that the minimum or is that above the minimum requirement? I believe we're meeting the minimum requirement. Um, and we're doing street trees as well, but Jonathan can obviously capture that. [Music]

Um, I'm being told that we're above it from my engineers. Okay. Um, I have the plans here. I might be able to see it. Yes. The open space required, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Jonathan, is 16.5 acres. We provide 22.5 acres. One of the other how many phases are you planning?

That will depend. Um, if we choose to self-develop or work with a third party developer. Um, right now I think we would like to do a site development of two phases. Um, and then the home building would follow in a successive group of phases. I'm I can't tell you the exact numbers. I would have to have one of my home building guys with me. And anything I tell you today is ultimately going to be speculative to, you know, what market conditions were encountering at the time of development. But I think we're looking at either two to three phases of land development. And you would probably see home building phases of approximately 20 to 40 homes over a a period of time. Sales pace is going to dictate a lot of that. All right. Any commission members have any other questions? Mr. Chair, I just want to add um I think there's a lot of questions that are still um pending um that we don't have answers to um right now um such as the um school um approving uh that turning lane um that I'd like to just have confirmation for before we uh move forward with this. In addition to that, I always find it concerning when we make any type of um decisions here where the community seems to not have been involved leading up to it. Um, so while I don't think that we should decline recommendation for this, I would like for the community associations to at least have an opportunity to um learn more about what exactly is being uh done or or what is going to be done. And as such, I'm leaning towards um uh wanting to defer this on to a later date. Thank you.

Thank you. I think um I would also maybe add we've we've had similar instances where the density that's been requested is a is like this and we've we've asked people to consider making some adjustments to lessen the impact and maybe make the green areas not to the minimum. Um, but I also know this area has does have real traffic concerns and um, you know, just want to be sensitive to that. did you speak with? We received uh I think four or five different letters that I think weren't necessarily in opposition of the project, but did have concerns all regarding the the traffic. And I just was curious if any of these people were were at that meeting last night, just given the the notice, it may have been hard for them to have a chance to coordinate with you.

Um I've received those same emails. um yesterday. I I did I'll be honest, I didn't take names when we met this afternoon. So, there may have been folks that were um that sent these emails that were present today, but I I don't know for certain. So, I can't answer that question with any certainty.

So, yeah. Um, one of the things that that we did and and we were u notified that a lot of the emails were coming in after the agenda was posted um and it was on the consent agenda and saw the several stories in the local media. Um, so certainly uh Kevin did a great job of immediately reaching out. We were trying to get a contact um and within 24 hours orchestrated a meeting down there on Laurel Street. Um there were about 10 folks there um from the community. Several of them I I did see again I don't know names but I did see several of the ones that were on some of the news local news stories were there last were there at 3:00 today. Um if you'll notice that I walked in and and Kevin was still talking with him and and they were all satisfied. None of them came up here. Um the other thing that that I have concerns with about this project but also about the where we are in the procedural aspect of this is because this is coming to the planning commission for preliminary plat like I mentioned the first time the checklist requires about 60% of the design to be complete with several items that are on that checklist. So therefore the developer is 60% of the way costwise into the engineering of this project. Um where it is as it is designed per the per as it is zoned. Um it is it is exceeding the green space uh uh minimums. Again 16 acres required 22 acres provided. Um all of the water and sewer um criteria have to be met and again that is that is the next phase or I guess the stage three um through city staff. All of the storm water metrics will be met uh reviewed and approved by city staff and all of the traffic conditions are are being implemented. I mean the DOT is is well aware of the of the conditions there. Um, so it's it's it's

concerning that at at 60% or or more of the way through a design, there's and again, I don't think the lack of reaching out to the public was in any way trying to scorn the public or disregard the public. It was we are designing a project to the public standard and we're meeting them. We're not asking for any variances. We're not asking for any exceptions or any reasons. So, we're doing it per the standard. Um, so therefore, it was just by right. There was certainly no intention to scorn or or or dismiss or any of that. Um, that may be something to consider just as far as how the process goes and at what level a preliminary plaque comes before you cuz I understand I mean it's it's it's not an easy uh position to be in, but also just consider kind of complying with the city's land development major subdivision process kind of where we are at this stage in the game. and I certainly appreciate it.

Thank you. Do uh any commission members have any other questions? Mr. Chair, I have a question for staff. Okay. Um so this is a preliminary plat approval if this project proceeded. Would it come back before the planning commission in any way or is this the last time that this project would come before us? If the planning commission approves it today, it would not come back. Understood. Thanks. And one point of clarification to the open space requirement um is 25%. Which way? I'm sorry. It's 25%. Is the open space requirement is 25%. Okay. And they they're over. Okay.

Have uh one more comment. So I'm still not really clear if uh the mitigations that are being recommended by SC DOT are they required to be completed for this project to move forward. Do it's DOT owned roads. So DOT will determine what has to be done on their road. So if the planning commission has concerns with that, the you could make the recommendation or make a condition that um the mitigation required in the traffic impact study and required by SE dot be implemented.

Okay. Cuz the public input I saw most of them were asking about traffic and this is the first time I've seen the traffic study so I haven't had a chance to take a look at it. Could you summarize the conclusions of it?

Yes. All right. The conclusions. So, the a separate traffic engineer actually completed the study. Um we're we're the site development engineer. Um but yes, just like we mentioned, there will be uh further submittals to the city for water and sewer uh permitting and land development storm water. Same thing, each one of those two access points onto Patterson Road, those access drives will have to have an encroachment permit from SC DOT and the SC DOT can tie the mitigation of their conc. So, we have the concurrence letter where the DOT identified the mitigation um from and that was just received uh yesterday, I believe it was. We'll get that to Mr. Chambers. Um but there's a concurrence letter outlining those recommendations that is that is on file and so they can basically in their approval and they have done this um in their encroachment permit approvals that is a condition of the encroachment approval that these mitigations have to be complete as well. Do any of those affect the locations of the entry and exit ways?

No, sir. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Absolutely. All right. Any uh any further questions? I have a question for staff. What is the process to is or you can can you just confirm there's a process where the city will uh follow up to make sure the applicant meets all the comments if we approve with staff comments. That is correct. Prior to permitting, we would make sure that all the comments have been addressed. Thank you,

Mr. Chair. Um, you know, my only concern here is that there's two interestes surrounding the school. Um, I don't know that we have if it's in our purview to, you know, to me, if I my kids were going to that school, I wouldn't want people whipping a left out of there at 7:30 in the morning on a rush to work, but I don't know that it's in our purview to demand traffic lights. I mean, is that something that DOT will address? Do we have confidence in that? Is that really in our purview of approving this? It's not really It's more of a comment than a question, I guess. But

no, I I have similar sentiments. I think that falls in the realm of DOT. Um, thank you. Any further comments or discussion? All right. Uh, we'll consider a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we defer approval for Splat 20250053 until a later date um so that the community has an opportunity to uh learn more about this project and gain their input. Have a motion. Can we get a second? Second.

Have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? Nay. Can we do a roll call, please? Certainly. Uh, Mr. Cosy, no. Mr. Cook, no. Mr. Cubney, yes. Mr. Foster, hi. Mr. Harp, no. Uh, Mr. Asorio, yes. And Mr. Con?

Yes. Uh, the motion passes to defer. [Applause] Uh, question for staff. With the deferral, the next time it comes along, any items that have been submitted by the applicant, will they be included again or will it be the same? If there's any additional information that's submitted to us, then we would of course transmit it to you. Thank you.

Ask one question. Yes. you with the with the motion being made to defer I assume next month. Um what do you want to see? For for me personally, I think it would be to see a little bit more clarity around the traffic impact. Okay. We then we we can sound like there's some approvals that just came.

Yeah. And we can provide that. But just from a public outreach point, is there something specific that you're looking for? For me, it's just concerning that you mentioned you were 60% of the way on this and the community seems to not have heard about this until this week, which I'm assuming is because either it was in the news or um whatever it may be. Um so it just felt like and that's that's what I was talking about being that that's kind of the city procedure that we're just following the procedure, but we certainly go do that. But I guess is is it just having a having another meeting? Is there a certain documentation? What is it that cuz we don't want to have another deferral. So, what is it that we can do to to get to get you the comfort level you're looking for?

Again, I just I want to make sure that they have an opportunity more than a day to talk it over with you all. And again, next time if they're still not in favor of it, you know, that'll be a different story, but it just seems like they just found out about this and this is a pretty large project that wouldn't be coming back to us. So, I'd like for them to have the opportunity before we make a decision on it. Yes, sir. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. Thanks.

All right. The next applicant. So the the next item on the agenda, it's uh text amendment uh 2025-0013. And this is a request for a recommendation to amend the unified development ordinance uh chapter 17 article 9 definitions and rules of measurement uh section 17-9.3A3A household living uses to clarify the definitions of town home multifamily and two family dwellings. And um you know in in short um you know one of the purposes of the provisions to our ordinance that that are encompassed within the adoption of the UDO you know was was to expand the land a excuse me expand the land available uh for residential development and and uh so all three of these use types that that I'm mentioning are certainly an important part of um offering more opportunities for residential development. However, the current definitions are based off of building type and not necessarily the development type and um so it's led to some unintended consequences and and so some projects that are fundamentally multifamily developments um for for various reasons are treated as other than multifamily. So, so for example, you know, a multif family development is required to provide 1.75 parking spaces uh per unit and a town home or a a duplex development uh for example is is required to provide two parking spaces per unit. And so in

working through these projects, sometimes people say, well, hey, I thought the requirement was this. And um and also in some districts uh you know a multif family development is is allowed but um town homes and duplexes are are not. Um and so for example in our CAC and RAC districts um and there's also in some districts there's an established residential density. So, our RM districts are residential mixed districts that'll have a maximum density for how many multif family units you can have. But for again going back to these town homes and duplexes, um when I look at the ordinance, it is clear to me that it's intended to be regulated through lot size, but u we've had developments that have come through that have um greatly exceeded the maximum density because they're exempted from the density requirements. And um then um also when it comes to landscaping requirements um you know again um there are some uh exclusions for for single family duplexes and town homes from from our requirements that uh are are not applying to some of these multif family developments because of of the building type not the development type. And so this is simply to clarify um you know a town home is on an individual lot, a a duplex is on an individual lot and um you know multif family is is a development that consists of three or more units on on a lot. And so you can still do a duplex for example um like a dup a duplex multif family development. You can still do a town home style multif family development. Um, but they would be regulated as multif family, not as these these basically single family and duplex type developments.

And I'm glad to answer any questions if you have any. I got a quick question. Um, this is somewhat similar to the situation we had on the Bluff Road project a few months ago or last month or whatever it was. That was part of one of the issues we had getting that clarified. Is that a semi to address situations like that? Precisely. Now, I I I think their development would still as currently proposed or at least what you saw before you would still be classified as town homes because they were looking at fe simple uh lots, but they would be able to do that development um if they chose to do as a multif family.

Got understood. Thank you. Are you referring to the one that was maybe on Rosewood? Yeah. Yeah. Did I say Bluff? Yeah. Sorry. Rosewood. No, I think we're thinking the same. Just making sure. This close to Bluff. So, is this is this only clarifying that section? Yes, it is simply clarifying the definitions of of those use types

in in 3A. Right. So it's um it would be the definitions and and specifically specifically within the definition section it is uh 3A and and so it's okay um dwelling multif family which under 3A is three and then dwelling town home or townhouse which is I just making sure we didn't when I saw B I was making sure I didn't fail to print something so

Oh yeah no no yeah yeah no all right All right. Anyone have any other questions? All right. Is there any members of the public who would like to speak regarding this application? Don't everybody jump at once? Um, okay. Well, seeing none, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I motion to approve uh zoning text amendment TA-2025- 0013. We got a motion. We need any clarification around that or is that sufficient?

Okay. So, I just All right. Good. That was really good. Efficient. All right. We've got a motion. Can we get a second? Second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thanks. That was really short. Yeah. Used to you having the novels. Right. Where's like the one?

Yeah.

All right. Um the next case, um this is another text amendment that is related to the um downtown strategic plan that was adopted this year. um which you guys um saw and make a made a recommendation for. Um it's it's a little bit long because there's a lot of sections, but basically this is to amend the unified development ordinance. Chapter 17, article 2, administration. Section 17-2.3 advisory and decision-making bodies and persons. Section E, the design development review commission. Section 17-2.5, application specific review procedures and decision standards. Article 3, zoning districts. Section 17-3.7 overlay districts and article 5 development standards. Section 175 um 17-5.10 signs. Article 9 definitions and rules of measurement. Section 17-9.4 definitions as related to the reconfiguration of the design development review commission. Um so just as a summary um again the the downtown strategic plan was adopted um this year in June. Um, and the recommendate, one of the recommendations from that plan was to split the DDRC into two separate boards. One to look at historic preservation. Um, uh, and there's just a lot of different topics that are looked at in historic districts and renovation of historic buildings versus design districts. And so this would allow the members of each commission to be um, interested and have expertise in the areas that are specific to the cases they're looking at. So it made a lot of sense. Um, everybody that saw the plan and um, reviewed it seemed to be, you know, supportive of the idea. Um, the the proposal is that the historic preservation design review commission would consist of seven members. Um there's a few more spots that are have specific expertise and

that the urban design review commission would have five members um with different different expertise and um and those are listed of course and this is several pages so I don't want to walk through every single change but of course if you all have questions I'm happy to answer those. And I mean looking back, you know, when when the DDRC was first formed from the Landmarks Commission, which had been around for a long time in 1998, the DDRC was formed when we had our first urban design overlay district. At that time, we had five historic districts, 140 plus or minus landmarks, and one the new city center design district at that time was the only urban design overlay. and now we have 15 historic districts, uh, four urban design districts and about 200 landmarks. So, the volume is certainly much greater in terms of the number of cases and this would would definitely make for a more efficient meeting for that both of those groups. So, that's kind of where we are. Um, do y'all have any questions?

This might be a silly question. So, say there's like a historic design overlay neighborhood like like in the like old Shanden or the Melrose Heights, but then there's going to be a new development. Who does that go to?

So, that is going to be looked at under the historic um guidelines. So, anything that's in a historic district, whether it's renovation of a historic building or new construction in that district, there are guidelines that are for the preservation district alone. That is a good question that's come up um a lot during the process. What if a project because for example in the Wester Bay um historic commercial district, you know, there might be that's also in the downtown overlay district. What happens if a project is in both of those overlays? It would be looked at by the historic preservation design review commission. Um generally those guidelines are, you know, much more um specific and more rigorous in terms of the architecture. Um the as you know the the design guidelines for the downtown uh overlay district that is is going to be effective in January are very much focused on the public realm and how you know where the building meets the street and and all that stuff. So certainly those guidelines would be applied and looked at as a project review, but it would be done with urban design staff and the historic preservation staff and would just go to the historic preservation review commission because we do want to make sure that projects don't have to go through an extra board. So that was certainly taken into consideration.

Thank you. That that was kind of started to answer my question. This is there's no case where a person would have to go through both of these boards. They would just be basically split. Correct. Go one of the other path. Correct. Yes, sir. That was my question, too. Good question. I think that's a good long overdue split. So, it's exciting to see. We're looking forward to it. Uh, any further questions, thanks for all your work, staff. Is there anyone that would like to speak regarding this particular application? All right, we can uh consider a motion.

Mr. Chairperson, I'd like to make a motion to approve uh zoning text or text amendment TA-2025-000015. We've got a motion. Can we get a second? Second. Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thanks. And uh do we have any other business? Does it look like

we have just a couple of things. Um I mean first I want to welcome Mr. Foster to his first uh planning commission meeting. Um Mr. Brabom is also going to be serving but he's was um not able to make this meeting. Um and then also I do want to regretfully tell you that our director Christa Hampton is retiring and so I just wanted to let y'all know so that you could say thank you to her and goodbye. So this is the next planning commission meeting. Thank you very much. They said that was at the end of 26. I heard it was 27 tomorrow. Seriously? Really? Oh my gosh. Well, thank you for all you've done.

Yeah, it's been great getting to work together. Well, you guys serve it up well. We just get to hit it. So, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. A motion to adjourn the meeting. I'll actually second that. Second. Yeah. All those in favor? I

I on a good note. [Music] [Music] [Music]