Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

scheduled Tuesday, June the 17th, 2025 meeting of the Waysboro Plan Commission. Uh, Mr. Stewart, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Yes. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Do we have a motion regarding the agenda? I move that we adopt the agenda as presented. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries. All right. Next up, we have the review and approval of the May 20th, 2025 meeting minutes. Has everyone had an opportunity to review those? Yes. I'll make a motion that we approve those. Second. Second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion carries. Next we have public hearing for preliminary plat amendment and subdivision waiver request for section 74-71 I is that I or one I grades of the subdivision ordinance by Greenwood Homes Developer on behalf of Rosser Avenue Development LLC for the Creekwoods Village subdivision phase 2 0 Tiffany Drive Williamsburg Virginia tax map number 41-3-112. Thank you, staff. Yes, thank you. Good evening. Um, so this is a plinary plat amendment for Creekwood Village and specifically phase two. Um, just to give a little bit of uh reference for the area, this is the Creekwood Village subdivision development. Um, located behind the wall uh Walmart, Grand Martins, uh to the north, we've got a couple additional subdivisions, Silver Creek, Cira Heights, and then that Secure Store off to the west. Orient

ourselves. Um, and then just a brief background um, for this subdivision. Back in 2020, the property was reszoned um, from highway business and single family residential large lot to RG5 and RMF, which is our general residential and residential multif family respectively. Um, the reasonzoning was approved and subject to a concept plan and several profers. Then in 2021, a preliminary plat was approved for the RGz zoned or excuse me, RG5 zoned area only. Um, and it was approved for 220 lots with a mix of single family detached, attached, and then town houses. And they began construction in late 2021. In 2024, uh, they submitted two preliminary plat amendments, one for phase 2, which added two additional lots for 222 lots total. and then also that connection to the adjacent Bookerdale parcel which is now known as phase four of the development and they also platted phase three which was the RMF mult residential multifamily portion um right behind the Martins and then they also had the phase four preliminary plat which is the Booker Air Road parcel approved last year as well. Um so tonight they are requesting another preliminary plat amendment for phase two specifically and the amendment would add 42 town houses and then also reduces the number of single family detached. This slide actually contains an error that I didn't correct in time. So reduces the number of single family uh detached units but then increases slightly the single family attached units. Apologies for that error. Um and then they are also requesting a subdivision ordinance waiver request for the street grade of uh Winterford Winter Road. So this is a look at the development map that was approved as part of the preliminary plat amendments for phases two and three last year. This is the

phase two area that is the focus of tonight's amendment. This is the updated development map that shows the changes to phase two. Phases four and three are remaining the same. Um, and they are just changing phase two. So they are adding town houses along I believe this is Springdale Road. And they're also now uh have the single show the single family attached here. You have single family detached along the boundary with some additional single family attached here. That's the original and then that's the changes. I'm sorry. Can you do that? Can you do that original changes again? Sure. So, this is the original development map and that's Springdale Road right here. These are the proposed changes. So they're requesting to add an 42 town houses to the section and reduce the single family detached units to 29 from 51. The proposed amendment also increases the single family attached units from 22 to 18 or excuse me 222 from 18. And overall, this is an increase of 24 lots for a total of 246 lots within phase within the overall original Creekwood uh village subdivision, not including phases three and four, which were subsequently approved. This portion of the property is zoned RG5 and they are developing under the cluster development option and all the lots shown on the uh amendment do meet those specific lot requirements for the townhouse lots, the single family attached and then also the single family detached. The applicants did submit an updated hydraulic analysis which public

works will review and approve uh as part of that public improvement plan process. And storm water management uh for phase two is going to be served by a wet pond located sort of in the rear of the property right here. And then moving on to the subdivision ordinance waiver. Per section 74-10 of the subdivision ordinance, any portion of the subdivision ordinance may be waved by city council for section 74-71I grades. In particular, council has delegated this authority to the planning commission. Um and that particular section states that the maximum allowed street grade without special approval shall be 6%. And the planning commission may allow grades in excess of that where it determines that such a street grade permit for better lot arrangements and less adverse environmental impact. In this particular case, the applicants are requesting a grade waiver from 6% to 8 and a half% for a portion of the winter road. Winter the road runs from Springdale up here down to Piney Point, Piney Point Road right here into that culde-sac. It's a better view of it. Grade would start after that intersection with Springdale Road goes down, starts to level out as you hit the Piney Point Road intersection and into that culde-sac. This is a a profile of that of that slope. This shows the 8 and a half% grade downhill towards that culde-sac. I was able to find a graph to demonstrate the differences between the various road grades uh to help demonstrate how much of a difference

this would be from what was approved before. Unfortunately, this doesn't came exactly the road grades we're discussing tonight, but reasonably close. So, the closest one here is the six and a 6.25% grade. As you can see, the green line here is that particular slope. The closest to the eight and a half would be the 8.33%. So, you can see that slight uh rise uh in the in the level there following that second green line to help demonstrate the differences between the two. Public works and the fire department both reviewed this uh subdivision ordinance waiver request. Public works um did not have concerns regarding it. Uh specifically the large trucks or excuse me large vehicles such as the plows and the trash trucks and school buses shouldn't have too much trouble navigating this section of the road due to that culde-sac that allows for an easy turnaround to loop around and come back up. Uh the same with that intersection. It does. It's not a complete dead end. You can turn right or left on the Springdale. Um fire department also did not have any concerns. Uh the ladder truck is still fully operational, which is one of the primary things they they looked at in in this particular review. Um ladder truck is still fully operational at that 8 and a half% grade. So having said all that, the applicants amended plat does meet the standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinances and staff is recommending approval of that preliminary plat. Staff is also recommending approval of the subdivision ordinance waiver request for um section 71 or excuse me 74-71I for grades. Uh the applicants are here tonight and I'm also happy to answer any questions you might have. I have a question. Is it because of the subdivision of zoning ordinances gives them a byite um approval to change the layout and increase the density of the subdivision?

as long as they they they can always submit an amendment to a plinary plat. Um, and as long as you stay within the requirements of the subdivision zoning ordinances, then yes, you you can do that and it would be by right at that point. It would still be by right. as long as they stay within those and with them still conforming to that ordinance, there is nothing that we would be able to do about the increase in 24 additional town home units. So, so staff when we are evaluating it are making sure it's compliant with the zoning and subdivision ordinance. So, is it meeting lot size requirements and is it meeting density like number of units per acre requirements? And then also checking to make sure in any of the zoning documents if there was some kind of cap that was different from those. Um in this case the zoning entitlements are actually quite higher than than what is being proposed. So that's kind of staff's check to make sure it's complying with the zoning ordinance um and also any profered conditions or or stipulations of the resoning which is also the zoning at that point the zoning document. Um so because it's compliant with those things it is a byight development and there's no restrictions that can be placed on the density of that at that point. No so I mean typically the the the purpose of these um uh public hearings is to identify you know certainly staff does our best to review and make sure we think that it meets the compliance of our ordinance. Um, but if there was anyone who determined that they saw something that they didn't feel like met that, um, but there's really no ability to restrict number of units. Okay. Or types of units if they're in complian with the zoning. Yes. And correct me if I'm wrong. when we did the preliminary plat for Creekwood,

we talked there was discussion about schools then with respect to so so typically we um we typically we cover kind of school capacity when we're doing a resoning because we're adding new entitlements. Um, so I'm not sure that we did something like that, okay, for the 2024 amendment, but I will note that last year when we did have several reasonzonings or conditional use permit requests that the that city or that yes, school board and city staff communicate that um there is capacity within the school system. Right. So this that makes total sense. Um, and because this is not a I understand. Thank you. Yeah, my my only piggyback on that would be because we're doing it upfront and we have micro adjustments to um the the plat the preliminary plat as they are metriculating into actual development and we do increase density a little bit here and a little bit there. Is there a loop back to the schools to say, "Hey, I know this is the number we projected originally because we're sprinkling in additional density. Does this change the capacity of the schools at that point?" Um, so that's typically not something that we do, especially when the zoning entitlement, which I think is like a maximum of 600 units for this overall development because that was vetted and reviewed through that process. Um, but certainly at any point we keep a master list of kind of all entitled units within the city, those that are constructed, those that are not. And certainly there would be back and forth if the school system ever had any concerns or you know we getting ready to do the comprehensive planning process we'll communicate those things so there

is a dialogue there. So theoretically because this was zoned this way the potential growth and additional demand for resources should have been accounted for when it was zoned that way as a part of the comprehensive plan. Sure. Yes. Okay. Theoretically which was 20 years ago. Which was 20 years ago. Got it. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Thank you. Um, do I'm My brain is fried this evening. Yeah. Do I need to open the public hearing before we hear from the applicant? I think that's fine. Okay. Now going to open the public hearing for preliminary plat amendment and subdivision waiver request for section 74-71I. grades of a subdivision ordinance by Greenwood Homes developer on behalf of Rosser Avenue Development LLC owner for the Creekwood Village subdivision phase 2 zero Tiffany Drive ways Virginia taxpay number 41-3-112 public hearing is now open I think we'd like to hear from the perhaps here from the applicant if they would like to speak and then we'll see if we've got any folks that are signed up thank you councilman councilwoman I'm Chris Skoolie I'm vice president of land development Uh we're Greenwood Homes and we have been the developer of Creekwood from the start and we are the sole builder at Creekwood. Uh we will keep this fairly short. We are here for two main reasons. I'll start with the road slope. I don't know if you've noticed Alison, can I use your gra overall that shows other parcels. I think we all see the Roser Avenue development more than everything else when we drive past it. That's the Dr. Horton townhouse and it is adjacent to our phase three. There's been a large pile of rock back there for a long time and they're working through it. Of

course, we are adjacent to it for our phase three which is right here. Um the way land development works is that if you have 30% of your cut in rock, it's thought of as a quarry. Uh our um site contractor is partners. throughout of Harrisonenburg which is called Rocktown. They said they've never seen over 60%. Our site in phase three was 100%. We had 100% rock. Everything that we had to cut was in rock. So the answer for that was we spent uh a million and a half dollars blasting rock for two months to try to move this. So our response was we went to Caleb Bourd and Valley Engineering when we went to phase three and we said this is now this is an established neighborhood. we're going to be much closer to our neighbors that are here now. Uh it's important for us when we develop phase two to stay out of the rock. So if you think of how land development works, there's there's an existing grade that generally has a slope. Our goal is to cut like take dirt out equal to the amount that we fill. That way it's called balancing. So that amount of dirt that we cut is then moved over to the fill. Because we want to stay out of the rock, we have to stay out of the cut part. So we've sourced enough material to bring in to fill this entire phase 2. So it it is now higher than it was before, but that requires the road that connects down to Piny Point to be at a higher slope. So because of rock, that requires the road slope to go from 6 and a half to 8.2%. So that's the slope percentage. It's merely a goal of ours to stay out of rock because it's better for everyone. I think our neighbors would agree that they would rather us not be hammering rock for months or have to go through the protocols by the fire marshall to to blast rock. The second is the density. And this is a great graphic because it shows the before and the after. These

two what we have done in the after is everything that can be a basement is now on the outside. So the villas can be basements and the single families can be basements. Those are on the outside. The town houses, which have done very well in phase 1 C and 1D and we're about ready to have more in phase three for affordable housing purposes, they re reach a a lower price point. Uh those are not on basement. They have to be on slabs. So they fit best on the site in the areas in here. Um, I think our neighbors, which are probably mostly in this area and are concerned with the proximity of what we're doing for the next development, saw this previously. These are villas, which are just like the villas that are in 1A and 1B, and now they're going to be town houses in this area. One thing to note is the town houses are not nearly as deep of a unit, so they are further away from the existing houses. And secondly, you can see The building volume that you get with the villas that this close together is also quite tight. The villas are large houses. So you end up with a fairly strong built environment in this area as well and it is closer to the back of the lot versus the town houses which are further away from the back of the lot and kind of an equal building mass behind it. So, we are changing lot types because the slope has changed because we've flattened it out because we're filling. So, it's dropping down less. And the market response that we had, we started with all villas. Phase 1 C and 1D was townous and single family on the outside with more villas. The town houses have been uh very wellreceived. Uh, so we would like to build more town houses in the same area. And we found that the mix of villas and single families and town houses, as it has in many of our other neighborhoods,

it works fine. It's best not to segregate the single families in one area and the town houses in others and the villas. People don't mind buying the single families across from town houses or single families across villas. That's been the market response that we've seen so far. So, um, thank you very much for your time. This is in large part because of rock and our our goal to fill on as we develop the rest of this site and the uh product type has mixed mostly because of what we found from the market and how it fits in the site with the regrading. I have a question. Sure. In phase three, you mentioned the housing type being built that way to increase affordability. What is some of those mechanisms and the methodology behind which then creates it or makes it affordable? Townhouse is just affordability fundamentally is about square footage. Larger the house, the more it's going to cost basically by everybody who built it. So by building 1500 foot town houses, it meets affordability for a lot more people. What you found in in Wsboro, I'm from Augusta County. I've lived in this area my whole life. What you've seen is this influx of town houses in particular being built in the city of Wesboro in the last couple years. And Dr. Horton and Lenar and some of these other national builders. Uh they're very good at it. They can build those very quickly. We are a production builder, but we're smaller regional. What we found is a lot of people come and look at our town houses and then they'll go and look at at Dr. Horton's townouses and then they'll come back to ours. We're it's a smaller unit, but Greenwood Homes is a well-built home. That's kind of our niche in the market. And what we found is our town houses continue to it's it's thin slicing the market. And you said the other ones in phase two are also town homes. Correct. There are some town houses here. So what makes those town homes more affordable than the others? Uh there it's it's they're about the same price. So

townhouse is our lowest price point. There is a 20ft townhouse and a 22 foot townhouse. So there is a slight difference in size again which which helps us uh again thin slice the market. The only reason I asked is because you you made it seem as if the phase three was more of the affordable uh housing type versus the other town homes. Not necessarily. Okay. Um it's all three product types. The townhouse is of course the more I have a a question. You said in phase two, excuse me, that you're filling in to avoid the rock. How are you achieving the basement in those villows? That's where it falls off the side of the hill. So the street is going to be on the ridge, right? So you'll drive into the garage and then it falls off and then it chases grade. So the sewer line and the creek are down here. So the slope is all going this way. Okay. So everything on the outside would be walkout conditions which we can only do in the villas and the single families. Okay. So you're not having to blast rock to create the basement. We we Yeah. Basements help us work with steep slopes like you have in the valley. So there's that. If you go to flatter areas in Virginia, you'll hardly see a basement. Yeah. Because they don't have to chase grade like we do over here. Okay. you use the magic word affordability. What's the entry price entry point for the We're in the 200s on our town houses. Um what we find is is that gets people in the door. Most people will pick upgrades and push into the lower 300s. Uh it's we judge affordability by velocity in the market, how the market receives it. Sure. Those we built 22 town houses which are right here. I think we have two left and we started sales in January. So that's that's that's pretty rapid for us. That's why it felt like we needed more town houses closer in this area because this area is all town houses and this will be sorry this will be uh the Dr. Horton will be all town houses down here. So it's just mixing them up. We find it fits better when it's mixed into

the neighborhood, but in some places it's a little bit easier if you have that much rock to get the density. out of curiosity clarifying when you're saying 200s, are we talking 220 or we talking 280 when you're in 200? 280. Yeah, that's that's home building talk unfortunately. All right. Do we have any other questions for the app? Oh, I have one other. Sorry. Um, do you find that the 6 and a half% is consistent with other jurisdictions around here? Are we unusually restrictive? unusually restrictive. Okay. In Alar County, which is equally kind of as as hilly, uh some of our new developments are pushing 10%, which is uncomfortable. Um 10% is not much fun to build a road on. To give you an idea is uh the rule I always remind people of, 5% is when you're in a parking lot, when you open your door, it comes back and hit you in the leg. So 5% is kind of the standard that you want for driveways. And you only go above 5% to 10% in places where you have to. And this graphic shows we only did a small section. It's just this one section of road. So, and that's because we have to connect to the grade that's here that's already established. So, it's very unusual to have to do what we're doing here tonight and ask to go to 8%. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. All right. We have anyone who's signed up to speak? Um, we do have one individual signed up, Matt Johnson. Good evening. Uh, my name is Matt Johnson and I live at 240 Ridgeline Drive. Chair Flory and members of the commission, this evening I am here representing a group of current owner occupants and residents of Creekwood Village, most of whom live on the eastern side of Ridgeline Drive. We love our neighborhood, its character, its thoughtful design, and the balance it provides among various types of housing

options. We come to you this evening concerned with Greenwood Homes proposed changes to the subdivision plat for Creekwood Village, which will substantially increase housing density in our community. Their plan would convert 18 attached single family villas and 17 detached single family houses into 42 town homes and villas. In total, these changes would nearly double the number of housing units along these portions of Springdale Road, Summer Drive, and Winterthol Road from 35 homes to 62 units. The declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for Creekwood Village signed by Alan Taylor, president of Riverbend Development and a member of the Greenwood Homes leadership team states in part, "Declarant desires to provide for the protection and enhancement of the value and desiraability of Creekwood Village. We firmly believe the proposed changes Greenwood has before you this evening does nothing to further either of those goals. Instead, these changes push our community closer to becoming a predominantly town home development, something far removed from its intended character. Beyond concerns about neighborhood identity, we must also consider the practical implications of these changes. Traffic and parking, more residents mean more vehicles. The portion of Ridgeline Drive south of Springdale Road will bear the brunt of this additional traffic as our only current means of ingress and egress is through Tiffany Drive. In addition, based upon what we have already witnessed in portions of Creekwood Village where town homes are located, we anticipate an increase in the number of individuals using on street parking, essentially creating one-lane roadways that have the potential to limit not just the regular flow of traffic, but the ability for emergency vehicles to quickly access properties. erosion and drainage. The additional land disturbance, grading, and slope

work required to accommodate installation of the town homes along Springdale Road poses the risk of runoff and soil erosion that could directly impact properties downhill on the eastern side of Ridgeline Drive. Viewshed concerns. Unlike attached and detached single family homes that have breaks and gaps in them, town homes follow a rigid structural form that does not conform well to road curvature. While the town homes may be slightly smaller in depth, they will be pushed further into the lots and closer to the existing villas, dramatically altering the visual landscape. One of our members calculated that the vertical surface area visible from surrounding lots will increase by approximately 275%. Assuming these new town homes match the twotory model currently built within the development, it would be even more if Greenwood builds the three-story models proposed along Tiffany Drive. So, we come back to the initial statement and ask, does this proposal enhance the long-term value and desiraability of Creekwood Village? Based upon the items touched upon above, the answer is no. What it does is set a precedent for continuous modifications that chip away at the integrity of our neighborhood. If the city does not draw the line now, future amendments will only further increase density, creating a community completely unrecognizable from the one we bought into. We urge you to deny the proposed subdivision plat modification and associated increase in the total number of lots proposed by Greenwood Homes. However, if denial is not feasible, we respectfully ask that approval be conditioned upon two requirements. One, prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for buildings built as part of this amendment, Greenwood Homes must develop, have approved, and implement a landscaping plan for the open space

between the existing properties on the eastern side of Ridgeline Drive and new development along Springdale Road that includes enough hardwood trees to provide adequate screening for the existing homes. and two, completion of Ridgeline Drive to the inter intersection with Ludowit Boulevard, ensuring it is open to all traffic before construction in the area of the amended plan moves forward. Creekwood Village deserves responsible development that prioritizes long-term community and value and desiraability. We ask the planning commission stand with us in preserving this vision. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much. We don't have anyone else signed up, but I do have a letter we received that I will read. Um, so this is from Andrew McAuliff and his wife Bridget. They reside at 212 Ridgeline Drive in Creekwood Development where they've been homeowners since June of 2024. In March of 2024, they were shown a number of homes in the development and decided to purchase their current home because the hillside and treeine and their backyard provided a pleasant view and a level of privacy that they did not find in any of the other homes that they were shown. The authorized agent for Creekwood assured them that in the future, although there could be building well beyond their backyard, it would be limited to a small number of villas or single family homes in the hillside would remain. They were fine with that and went ahead and purchased the home. Recently, they were made aware of the building plan that would far exceed the amount and type of homes that they were originally told. The plan would include the removal of all of the trees and part of the hillside in order to accommodate up to 30 townhouses. The news came as a surprise given that they had been told by the Creekwood representative as recently as a month ago. They want to make clear that they are not suggesting that building of any kind should not take place, but they're very disappointed and almost feel misled about the scope of the new project and its possible removal of the privacy they purchased. In addition, um they note that as homeowners on Ridgeline Drive, they should be informed in a timely manner regarding comprehensive plan to

address parking, traffic, drainage, runoff, noise, etc. And they noted that they were unable to attend the meeting this evening, but were in opposition to the request. Thank you. All right. Do we have anyone who is who would wish to speak who is not signed up? All right. Excellent. that I am going to close the public hearing. Respond. Sure. Yeah. I'd like to you hear 275% increased payment. Curious if that meets your numbers of what you're seeing. That's it's a difficult thing to calculate. Uh I mean it's I think I think Mr. Johnson was referring to the building mass. Uh so I mean it's you know there's a roof of the villa that comes down that is sign there that's significant building mass that goes along with that. I mean 275% does seem significant. Uh I can just look at it from a site plan perspective between the two go back sorry between the two where was this there it is between the two options I mean there's there's you like if you did a calculation I did okay sure go ahead c can you just uh state your name and address Please. My name is Louie Carter. I live at 220 Ridgeline Drive. I'm a former planning and zoning commissioner such as yourselves in Saxi, Texas. I'm a retired licensed general contractor in Georgia and South Carolina. The calculations were made by taking the rear elevation of the typical villa unit that they had originally proposed.

Each villa unit is 35 ft wide from ground level to the roof line is approximately 11 feet. So you you can take 35 * 11* 18 and you get a certain square footage of exposure. If you take assuming twostory town houses with an average of 26 feet wide by 30 units in three 10 unit buildings, you get another number. And if you divide them into each other, you come up with 275% increase of building mass. And that's based on the elevation, the rear elevation that we on the lower side will have to visualize daily once they're built in comparison to substantially less based on the villas. And the villas have been marketed with this plan as recently as one month ago. I know because I've got a copy of it that was obtained by you got the letter from the males. Their sister went in the sales office and got a sales brochure and that's what they were presented. Certainly not town homes in that area. So, I feel like while this may be a by right thought on your part, I've set over there, I've heard these kinds of things from homeowners. I've had to make decisions just like y'all are having to make. But quality of lifestyle is what we bought, believed

in, and trusted from this man and his representatives. Now, we feel shafted. We do not feel that the true reason is anything other than monetary. It is it we saw the construction trucks. We saw all of the workers and we know and realize yes they sold those things like like hot cakes. He said it out of his own mouth. They sold like crazy. You only got two left. So he wanted to build more town houses. Came from this man's mouth right here. I'm from America free enterprise. I have been all my life. But having sat there and heard the cries from my from neighbors in subdivisions, you have to get down to not an emotional decision, but a factual decision. Is he really truly living by the code that he set in his covenants which Matt read from a quality, enjoyable, sustainable lifestyle? We bought it. Now he's going to try to take it away. And if he succeeds in doing so, it's only because you people vote for him. It's that much of an essential decision. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. The two points I wanted to make. Uh uh Mr. Johnson had two conditions that uh he recommended at the end. One was the connection of Ludowit uh to Ludwit Boulevard which is here. Uh we've run into as as you expect some rock issues and some utility issues, but we also have a regional gas line that's right here. So, we've been negotiating with uh Columbia Gas to make the road crossing

because it'll be a public street for the city of Wesboro. Uh we feel like that's at the end and we'll be making this connection to Ludawit uh probably by the end of the summer. It just depends on on the speed of phase three. So, certainly before a CO would be requested in phase two. The second was landscaping that would help screen in this area. We're immunable to that. uh that it this area was erroneously removed in the first um preliminary plat but it was pointed out we fixed it. We don't have a problem at all with uh providing a an approved uh buffer landscape plan in that area. So I just want to make the point that those two conditions are are acceptable and will be done anyway. I have a question if if I can ask. If you stay with the villa villas and have to get into the rock, how long is the blasting going to take to put the villas in versus the town h homes? And how close are you blasting to the existing homes? So the the rule is 500 feet. So within 500 ft we we can't blast which means that we have to go to a rockhammer. Yep. With a nutcracker which that's what's been happening across across the creek at at Silver Creek. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure you guys have heard about that rockhammer over there. So that's the option is that it takes rockhammer takes much longer than blasting close as we are. We don't want to blast. You know what we our goal over here is is to minimize any rock at all and stay above it. Okay. It's unknown but multiple months. Okay. I have a question for staff. Um, with our current buffers that we have, would there not have been something in place along that property line in the first place? So, I do not believe we have any kind of buffer requirement from, you know, it's all RG5 and and so that's

our most flexible um zoning district and so we don't have buffer requirements between those similar uses. Is there a way to make a friendly amendment to the proposed uh changes to include that um there would be a buffer between those two properties or the property line? So specifically what I heard the applicant address was in the open space area that does kind of remain there and Alisand I don't know if you can highlight it. Thank you. Thank you. So there is um kind of a designated open space area right along there. Um and so what I heard the applicant saying was that they could add some additional screening there rather than it just being you know plain open space um and and have some kind of landscaping plan for that area. So what would just out of curiosity what what would screening look like? We've done it in a number of other neighborhoods. It's just it would be a mix of native trees, hardwoods, and evergreens to help to create some depth of a buffer. Uh I'm a I'm a landscape architect by training, so you we would design it, but there was buffer standard that the city would like us to follow. We'd be happy with that as well. Is that something that you would be willing to profer as a part of this application? Profer maybe a step too far because we're not in a resing. So we're not in a position to specifically proper but we can add it to uh to the site plan. This preliminary plan governs the next plan. So whatever we can add then it's required to be well are you you want to ask us a

question or ask him a question? I think there should be different. Why don't why don't you step up and speak and if and then if he wants to address it. I mean I'm just trying to understand better what he explained. You said you needed to blast for basement. I'm I'm sorry. I'm Sher. I live at 216 Ridgeline. So that the villas underneath. Um when you said the blasting was needed for basements. Did I hear that correctly? No. So do you have to blast to put villas in? And you do not need to blast to put town homes. Is that correct? It's it's a little bit more complicated with that. We're minimizing the blasting which creates flatter building pads which allows us to do town. So you still might need to blast for town homes. Much less. Much less. Okay. I I had heard that basement need blasting and the villas don't have basements. There was a question whether we would basement. Okay. That that's all I would misunderstood. Thank you. Yeah. So curious how we could progress in terms of a in May we made a set a bit of a precedent on a grading on Tiffany from a 6% to a 8.85% at the May meeting. We have a group of residents that feel like they kind of got sold a bill of goods and something that hasn't been honored. Now, I hear some folks saying, "We we ran into some rock and we're trying to do what's best for the neighborhood and also be able to uh meet with some of the requirements and we're willing to make some of these conditions have been asked for." But I also hear them going, "Well, you made us promises before. How can we be assured that these conditions that you're asking for?" What we are in a by situation we have set a precedent with a grading. You are making recommendations based on it's falling within the zoning. Is there a way that we can get asurances on the conditions that have been asked for by

the neighborhood? And then I would just recommend the two heads sort of get back together again and discuss because it seems like these are two parties that can and will work this out and figure it out. And I feel good about the options that have been happening. But I don't know from our standpoint what I can do as a commissioner within the structure that we've got set up. Is there a way to approve, you know, vote for it with getting those conditions into the language? Want to make sure my mic is on regarding the the timing of the road improvement. I I don't really think there's any way that you can uh incorporate that into a condition here regarding the voluntary installation of um landscaping buffer between phase 1 A and 1B and phase two. Uh I think what I'm hearing from the developer is that they're willing to to do that and to submit it to staff for review. as submitted. The preliminary plat before you does not have that as a notation, but if the developer is willing to um you know amend and and resubmit to bring before council just a notation on the preliminary plat saying, you know, uh buffer to be uh detailed at site plan stage for staff approval. Uh I think we we're willing to accept part of an approval with condition of the approval. Yes. Then we would submit a Well, and this is why I asked the question about proper because it strikes me that there may be a trust issue between the current residents and the developer. And so if there was something that was a little bit more binding and I don't but I don't see a there's no way you can do that. The the most you can do is some sort of conditioned approval of the preliminary plat. Frankly, it really rests on on the

um developer being willing to do that because if he wasn't, there would there would be nothing that you could do about it. Yeah. Like a condition upon approval is is our commitment like that enforcement. But I have a a question, maybe a suggestion, talking point. I'm not sure what, but you've you've said you've agreed to put in a buffer to uh downplay some of the view that they would see. But I you're not going to be planting 50 foot tall oak trees that they going to walk out tomorrow and ain't going to see nothing. So there is a time period that there is going to be houses seen and Hell, I probably wouldn't live long enough to see see it grow up to where they wouldn't be well. Um, but again, I mean, we I mean, we can't make them put buffer in and even our buffer requirements between uses require you wouldn't even do that. fil. So, yeah, I think that you could condition your approval on that and then staff would be looking for some notation to be added before kind of final signing of the the plat. All right. I have not closed the public hearing and I see a gentleman with his hand up. So, I'm going to recognize him and let him come back up and speak. Um, I'm going to ask you to just keep your remarks brief and then we're going to close. No more than about five or 10 words. You have the opportunity to table this for another hearing so that this gentleman can create on his plat material the buffering that we're discussing and that we're requesting. You have the opportunity to table that is legally available to you.

That's my answer. would you be willing to table so that you can correct and accomplish that way when you come back we won't even have to be here it's all taken care of so if if if I may I we are going through some subdivision ordinance changes that are also going to be discussed tonight and it and it's a state code change where the planning commission will no longer review preliminary plats so this process won't happen, they'll rest with staff and that's a state code change. So, we're working in that place also that we would be looking, you know, certainly for if you were to approve the preliminary plat based on the condition of plantings that to be reviewed by staff within that area, then certainly it would be, you know, then in our hands as an administrative approval, we would be making sure that was done. But again, we wouldn't have it. It's an offer that they're making um and and something that we know the planning commission is is interested in seeing, but this this process is changing and your staff now will be final approval on plats and that is a state code change that we are obligated to to make and your assumption of a trust issue is quite accurate. Well, warranted or not, I'm just trying to address everybody's concerns. All right. Thank you. May I ask one question? Forgive my ignorance. This whole situation is this whole flat change brought about just solely under the opices of you guys are trying to save the residents the aggravation of blasting through rock. It's easier to do that to put the town homes in. Well, all right. Hang on. Can I ask who you if you can come forward? Yeah. Step up and state your name. Sorry. Uh Ryan Barnett. My wife owns the place at 200 Ridgeline Drive. Okay. and and we are happy to we are here and this is a public forum and

we are happy to facilitate discussion and be a part of discussion. Um but to the extent that you know maybe the developer has questions that you guys can answer you know I think we we we've worked through a lot of that. So if if you have comment for us and then he wants to respond I'd be happy for you to do that. So again, is is this plat change by the applicant under the opaces of solely essentially from what I keep hearing is we're trying to save the residents the aggravation of blasting through rock because it looks like it would be easier to put that row of town homes because you don't have to do that because of the grade etc. I'm certainly no engineer. I I'm just trying to listen to what's happening. That's my comment question. Whatever. Thank you. Do you have a response? And I'm not you. If the answer is no, the answer is no. That's totally fine. Our answer is the same. We have two main issues. One is rock, one is a response in market. Understand? Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing uh on this matter at this time. Do we have need to have any further discussion among the commissioners? No. I you know I have an observation and not to belver this point but we um those of us who have been on the commission for a minute struggle mightily consistently with both byright development um by development which we have no ability to deny. We have no discretion to deny and we invite suit against the city if we deny. Um and density that was set by zoning uh and by the demands on the market the last time the city's comprehensive plan was updated which was on the order of 15 or 20 years ago. That's a part of the reason that most that many of us on the planning commission are a part of the

steering committee for the comprehensive plan is because we are trying to help contextualize density and the density that's coming to the city in the reality of what all of its citizens um need to see. And I think what we have seen and what we have heard consistently from our citizens regarding density is that the rising tide is not lifting all boats. And it is a challenge for us to consider that in the context of byight developments where property owners have the ability to do what they would like with their property. That is their absolute right. just like you have the right to do what you want on your property. And we really outside of our existing regime have no ability to tell them what to do with their property. And recognizing that that they have a business to run. Um, and I just want to make that observation to all of you, some of you who I have seen at planning commission meetings before and some I have not, that we share many of the concerns that we hear on a regular basis about zoning. And I look forward to seeing each and every one of you at the planning comm open house tomorrow night so you can talk with us more uh about some of these issues and what you think we ought to be doing and how the comprehensive plan ought to change. So that's my I have a pulpit and I'm going to use it moment for this evening. Um do we have a motion? I move that we uh approve based off staff's recommendations and also add a condition to um for staff to visit the um voluntary buffer that would be placed along bordering properties as well as a connecting road to loit. Are you adding that

like that's already in the work? Well, hang on, hang on, hang on. What? So, the so that road connection is part of the plat. I think they're specifically talking about timing and I'm not sure we we have the ability. It's not something that we're reasonably able to control in this moment. All right. So, so we just move to the previous motion that was stated. All right. Do you have a second? And if I might suggest from I'm my concern is um the preciseness with which we're describing the area where the buffer is to be placed. Thank you. Yeah. And so, not to belver the point, but I think I would suggest language for the motion that it be a motion to approve based on the recommendation from staff uh with the condition that a a voluntary buffer be installed in the area between phase 2 and phase 1 A and B that is adjacent to the east of phase 1D. I couldn't type fast enough. Did somebody get that? So, Mr. Hang on. Mr. Stewart, would you like to amend your motion to include that language? Yes, I will amend my motion to improve. Trusting that staff captured that language. All right. Do we have a second? I'll second. All right. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion carries. Thank you all very much for coming out. We appreciate your feedback. And tomorrow night, that open house is at Wesboro High School and it is from 4:30 to 7:30. You can drop in anytime. Thank you. All right. Next, we have public hearing for amendment to city code chapter 74, subdivision ordinance.

Okay. So, this is um uh amendment to city code chapter 74, which is our subdivision ordinance chapter. Um so, the subdivision ordinance regulates and controls the division of land within the city. And this this version of the ordinance was adopted on November 27th in 2000 when the prior ordinance was repealed in its entirety and replaced. Uh there have been two major revisions since then. Once in 2017 and then again in 2022. So the proposed revisions I'm going to be going over tonight sort of fall into three uh broad categories. Uh the first set of changes um are bringing the ordinance into compliance with new and existing Virginia code requirements. The second group of changes address what's needed to allow for subdivisions to take place um in cottage court housing developments. That ordinance was approved by council earlier this year and some small changes need to be made to the subdivision ordinance to allow for that. Um and then finally uh to fix some administrative issues that have been identifying the ordinance since the last uh two major updates in 2017 and 2022. So the first grouping of changes um compliance with the code of Virginia and the first set of those is regarding the subdivision procedures. Um so these new changes are going to be effective July 1st and this most recent legislative session um they changed the uh requirements for the review and approval of subdivision plats within the code of Virginia. The new requirements remove the planning commission and governing body approval authority and instead assigns that responsibility to the designated agent and in Wesboro that agent is the subdivision agent. Uh the the changes that were approved also reduced the timeline for plat approvals. Uh these were from 60 days to 45 days

for preliminary plat, 40 days for final plats and 30 days for resubmitts. So in regards to uh the subdivision uh specifically preliminary plat review process, um currently the subdivision agent reviews and approves all minor and final plats administratively. But with this change, it means that all plat approval, including that of preliminary plats, which have originally come before you, uh will be administrative and no longer require this public hearing process um and then approval by the planning commission. And so multiple changes uh to address these have been made in article two of the subdivision ordinance. Uh and those changes were removal of certain requirements such as the public hearing for plinary plats, the change of planning commission to subdivision agents in many sections. Um and so all those changes were made to article 2. The next set of these compliance changes uh are specifically relating to bonding requirements and these are current Virginia code requirements. We just we just weren't quite in line with them. Um, so the subdivision ordinance requires that all public improvements, so that's things like utilities and streets that were approved in a development's public improvement plans, they need to either be constructed by the developer and then accepted by the city, or they need to the developer needs to provide a subdivision performance guarantee, which is also known as a bond, prior to uh the ability to issue a final subdivision plat. Um, so this whole process is called bonding. Uh, and it's overseen by our public works department. Subdivision ordinances existing language doesn't follow the provisions that were laid out by the code of Virginia in two specific areas. The first is regarding the calculations for the bond

amounts and then also the process for full or partial release of those bonds. Uh, and so changes have been made to article 5 that brings the city into compliance with Virginia code for both of these aspects of the bonding process. Second group of changes that have made to the subdivision ordinance has to do with the cottage court housing. Um this important ordinance was approved earlier this year and as I said does contain that option to subdivide a property as part of its development. Um and to allow this there are three sections of the subdivision ordinance that would require changes. The first is section 74-21A1 which outlines the criteria for minor subdivisions and includes the requirement that all new lots front on an existing public street. In a cottage court development, houses uh would front on a common area as opposed to that public street in most cases. Um and so exception language was added to that section that uh refers the user back to uh the applicable section of the zoning ordinance for the requirements for cottage housing, which is section 98-4.2.13. And this is a very similar thing that's done for the next two sections. Section 74-62 uh is are the requirements for lots within new subdivisions. And so part B provides requirements for the sidelines of lots be based on the street frontage. And then in that same section, part F requires that each lot front on a public street and that that street extends across the entire frontage of that lot. And so that same exception language has been added to both of these sections that points the users back to the zoning ordinance for uh specific requirements relating cottage housing.

The final group of changes um are are more administrative in nature. Uh some of these are uh more in-depth than others. Um so the first uh change is the addition of language that encourages the use of native plantings and landscaping that's installed by the developer and this is in section 74-64 uh which specifically deals with the preservation of natural features and amenities. Uh this particular addition though isn't enforceable but it it it encourages um and you know native plantings are naturally adapted to the local environment and they also usually require less water and maintenance and support local wildlife. So it's good thing to encourage even though we cannot enforce that. The second group of changes uh happen within section 74-71 and these are the design standards for new streets and alleys. So the first section with changes is that uh part I the grades um staff is finding that uh the topography of many sites uh and in some cases rock um the 6% limit is too strict um and public works has recognized this um and so this proposed change would still make the requirement or or keep the requirement irement for that 6% grade, but allow the city engineer uh working with public works to permit grades steeper than that based on um specific sites. Uh it was noted that um grades between six and 9% would be more feasible and have less adverse impact on the environment in certain cases. And so this change would allow public works and the city engineer to work with the developer to

determine those. The second um section is an addition for pedestrian crossings. Uh this was not something that was previously required in the subdivision ordinance. And so this basically adds that requirement for pedestrian crossings. Need to have crosswalks in a subdivision design. And then the final is a provision for secondary access. Uh in the past the fire department has expressed concerns regarding the number of homes on a single point of access. Um and they have recommended several times that some threshold be set after which a secondary means of access would be required. Uh the city has adopted the Virginia statewide fire prevention code uh which requires a secondary means of access for more than 30 dwelling units. And so this proposed change would require that secondary means of access for any development that contains 30 or more single family residential units. The final uh sort of major change to the ordinance is in section 74-84 which is the water supply. Here a new section has been added to clarify that the developer of a property is responsible for ensuring that adequate water supply and capability exists to provide for adequate fire protection for a proposed development. And this would include ensuring that uh fire flow uh can be met and that any needed improvements to ensure that the fire flow can be met um are uh and and the fire hydrants and the distribution systems that go along with those are installed and constructed uh by the contractor for according to city requirements. And then finally, there are uh several additional changes that are more minor in nature. And these changes uh clarify wording. They fit some formatting inconsistencies that have been discovered. Uh they apply rephrasing

that was missed in prior updates. And they also correct the references to city departments, job titles, and procedures to match what is currently uh in force. I forgot to delete that. Could you go back to two slides? Sure. Which which uh there. Okay. Uh the secondary access um along with other was there any concerns about like adding parking requirements or like off streetet parking like encouraging like viewable land. So, so not specifically with our subdivision ordinance. Uh, we do cover parking requirements on our zoning ordinance. Um, and those were recently amended for town homes. Um, and we do have requirements on kind of driveway widths and and things like that related to impervious surface, but the subdivision ordinance wouldn't be the place typically for parking information. But this was also talking like about cottage style subdivisions, right? So this was the changes in this subdivision ordinance were only to allow the cottage, you know, the cotton ordinance is already in effect, but it created some inconsistencies because the subdivision ordinance said in order to subdivide, you have to have frontage on a public road. Well, the cottage ordinance doesn't. So this the intent with these changes was just to point anywhere where it said new lots have to front on a public street and it has to go across the entire front edge of the lot. You were just able to point back and say unless it's a cottage development then this provision doesn't apply. So you're essentially in including subdivision language into the cott the cottage style language of how things have to work. I I

think well I think the intention is that the cottage style ordinance is approved and that ordinance that zoning ordinance allows you to have frontage on a public green not on a public road but our subdivision ordinance requires frontage on a public road. So it was to create consistency between the cottage ordinance that was already adopted and the subdivision ordinance. the the frontage part I get. I guess I'm just o overarching you're now applying the subdivision um rules to cottage style housing. So So that you're all every development should abide by your zoning and the subdivision. And so because cottage housing um we allowed subdivisions within that, it also needed to match the subdivision ordinance or at least be talked about in the subdivision ordinance and and not create inconsistencies. So all developments have to comply by to both the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance. So, cottage is in the zoning and now we have made sure that the subdivision ordinance or with approval would make sure that the subdivision ordinance is consistently allowing cottage and the division of cottage and not creating any kind of inconsistencies. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? comment. A group of us met with Senator Warner last week and one of the things that he was promoting was affordable housing. Talked about Wayne'sboro's drive into this cottage um language. He was, you know, praised us for doing that to get more affordable housing. And he also said reducing any type of red tape or bureaucratic. So, I think doing this and taking the process

and putting in staff hands versus having us to review it first and then go back before staff, I'm in favor of as well. Anything that can streamline the process is a good thing. And anything that allows more affordable housing in our area is a good thing as well. So, the changes that I read and reviewed, I like and appreciate the the edits and the language changes. And this is a a public hearing just so we should open and close. All right. I'm going to open the public hearing for an amendment city code chapter 74 subdivision ordinance. I take it we have nobody sign. No one signed up to speak. [Laughter] Um all right. No hearing. No persons wanting to speak. I'm going to close the public hearing for amendment city code chapter 74 subdivision ordinance. All right, I have questions. Um, so, uh, secondary access. So, are the ways currently read secondary means a fire apparatus access. So, are they going to are we going to run into a situation where they instead of putting a secondary entry and exit road, they're going to put some kind of fire lane. So, what we often struggle with is when we're in some kind of site development meeting with the developer, um, if there's only one way in and one way out, the fire department has concerns about that. But we are always, we also have other parts of our ordinance that requires connectivity to existing platted streets on adjacent property. So often um there might be an instance where they're looking at some kind of fire only access whether for a temporary amount of time or a permanent amount of time. It would never serve as the primary entrance to

the development because the subdivision requires that they have frontage on the public road. But there could be an instance where say they wanted to do 40 units um or or any number over 30 um that they might propose um a fire only access. But staff also has other kind of teeth within the ordinance to require if there's an adjacent property that has a platted road to it, they have to make that connection. There are just certain circumstances where it can be so I shouldn't be worried. So it strikes me that uh more than one way in and one way out for developments containing more than 30 house houses is good planning anyways. So what you're telling me is I should not be worried about some unforeseen end around to provide one regular person ingress egress with some little weird thing for fire only to avoid additional expense because of the other requirements that exist. Yeah. So they would always have a public road. I mean cottage housing aside, I don't want to muddy the water, but you they would all have to front on a public road. So that would be their primary ingress and egress. But there could be the potential where if they wanted to go over 30 units, there was a fire access road that went around, you know, looped around behind that that could serve as their secondary access. But but then again, we're always looking, you know, localities have different numbers and and when a permanent one is required or a temporary one. Currently we don't have any and we rely on kind of the fire chief and the comments around that to communicate that in often in cases when we're looking at it it could be something that we you know if it depends if it was 35 units and there was no other possible way to connect then maybe it would be a temporary fire a I mean a

a fire access that that wasn't temporary but so what if we said a secondary means of access shall be provided to facilitate fire apparatus. That way they have to provide instead of doing something for f. My concern is that you have either a cottage home or regular development where otherwise good planning and general safety concerns regarding fire apparatus suggest that the best outcome is more than one way, more than one method of ingress and egress to the neighborhood, for example. and the developer finds a way to create something that is not ingress and egress but is fire apparatus access because all they have to do is provide secondary fire apparatus access and not secondary ingress and egress because of the way that that that is phrased. Um, so I would say we currently don't have anything and staff uses other like that sentence is currently not in there at all in our subdivision ordinance and staff rely this is a way to help us put a number on it because we often have a developer say well you know in Augusta County they let me go up to 50 or they let me go up to 100 before they require the secondary access and so we are looking to be able to point to a number and say 30 is our limit. before you're then required to have a second way for um access. And does it say it says fire fire apparatus access? And that's my concern is it should say should it say ingress egress to facilitate fire apparatus not fire apparatus access. And maybe there's no difference. Maybe I'm

I'm no flies while the elephant is valid. Um, and I I'm I'm actually the the culprit of adding the word fire apparatus into it. So, I'll I'll answer for why I did, which is which is essentially that in order for that requirement to um for us to be confident in enforcing it, you know, if somebody comes up with a plat and saying, "No, we're going to reject your plat, you need to do this." uh to require the fire apparatus access. There's a clear public safety nexus and I feel like we are on firm ground saying, "Hey, we got this safety concern. We're not going to approve your plat." I could imagine a very likely scenario where we have a 30-unit development that there's um maybe it doesn't border another development. So there's no interpal connectivity and now we're requiring you know essentially two entrances onto the same road at significant expense uh where there's not really a good uh public safety justification for doing that. And so I guess the concern that I have is that if you remove the word fire apparatus and you just say look there will be two means of access for every development that has 30 lots. I'm concerned that that is a little unreasonable as far as the uh expense and condition that we're putting on the developer. And I would point out I think that the 30 number came from fire code. So it it yeah I have no based around that. I have no quarrel with defi with with that number and I understand what you're saying. I'm and again maybe I'm seeing something maybe I'm concerned about something that I shouldn't be concerned about because of other stuff in the code. So I'll leave it at having drawn your attention to it. I'll leave it at that. Well and I it I appreciate that you drew your our attention to it.

So cue that provision in your packet says secondary access a secondary means of fire apparatus access shall be provided for developments containing 30 or more and it says single family residential units. We really need to change that just to say 30 or more residential. Part two of my question was let me let me give you a real world example of this amendment right here. It's one building over off of Fist on D Street where I live at currently. Shields built it 30 years ago. It's currently one way in, one way out. The lots between Kirby and Sunset Park have been up for sale. I don't know if they've been bought and purchased, but they are being were advertised as developable with way more than 30 units going in there. Now, how would that amendment to the code affect that subdivision over there? Because the only way in and out is Fifth Street, and there's 50 plus houses back there already. You throw another 30 or 40 on there, you got a 100 units back there with one way in, one way out. Yes. I mean certainly existing development I mean or existing subdivisions that exist that exist prior to this but our hope is that we're trying to fix that issue in the future not creating additional problems like that to you know to Will's point and to Jordan's point you know maybe and I'm this is something that staff could consider looking at is there maybe a number for a secondary fire apparatus access and then is there a a larger number that maybe isn't tied to fire code. I know Augusta County has a higher number. I can't remember if it's 50 or 100. I want to say it's 100 on a single access. If it's more than 100, you have to have two or some kind of boulevard entrance. And we've talked about that in

other developments, too. So, I wonder if it's maybe a tiered like 30 is related to the fire code, but then maybe through our comprehensive planning process and additional discussions with um fire, we we talk about maybe a high highend max where it's a permanent access. So, that's something we could we could look at because I'm not sure why Kirby Avenue and or D Street or Fourth Street were never connected out of that subdivision. Yeah, it I mean like I said it was built 30 years ago by Shields and I understand there was some wheeling and dealing done to get the sidewalks removed out of that development. So, um but if the property between Kirby and Sunset Park is developed, that's a major increase in traffic in and out of Fifth Street. And the only other way is to come directly in off of Sunset Park. And I don't think you want public access crossing Sunset Park uh to get fire apparatus or any other apparatus in there even if you don't include regular traffic. And of course there's a big track of land that's the solar farm on the back side of it, but the front part of it is uh developable. So that would be another development at the end of Fifth Street with one way in, one way out. So I um yeah, I think it's something we need to visit probably add to our list of things that we probably should be talking about with comprehensive plan and I'm not saying it can't be done. I really the concern was imposing two

regular access this level. So the idea of a tiered approach I think is feasible. My next question is with pedestrian crossings. So, did we and I don't I didn't see the old language. That's an addition. It is a a brand new addition. I mean, we usually just definitely in the past several subdivisions in the past several years, we've tried to identify areas where we think they need to be had. I think this helps give us teeth to that when we ask them to, well, where does it say in your code that we need to show that? And then also there is certain transportation related requirements that should go along with like a midblock crossing or something like that that we would want them to prepare that documentation to make sure that a crossing at that location meets certain standards. So um I am thinking about this in the context of the Hopman Parkway the Dr. Horton new Hman Parkway because we we spent a lot of time on that application talking about the pedestrians pedestrians crossing Hoven Parkway there. Um would this require that developer to conduct to to construct a or line on the road a pedestrian crosswalk across Hopman Parkway there. So the way the new wording says that pedestrian crossings compliant with city requirements shall be constructed at all new street intersections and any existing intersections where sidewalks, bicycle trails or a greenway are required to be installed in connection with the subdivision. So I'm not sure at my regardless of the merit of such it strikes me that the way that you we have this written if there was sidewalk across the street from that new development this existing intersections

where they're required to be installed in connection with the subdivision. You're creating a pedestrian connection across Hopman Parkway there. So are we is that what we're well and I think in those instances we would definitely be looking at is there receiving infrastructure right and the city engineer would kind of be evaluating that again it's kind of a site review team everybody looks at it we we provide comments back to the applicant and then in some of those instances it would be you know to make sure this crossing is compliant with the traffic volume and everything in the area what improvements are needed to make that safe. So, we're hoping that this addition kind of gives us that teeth to to look at what's receiving on either side, what's around those intersections, not only within the development, but potentially at that those intersections or crossings where they um Yeah, we talking controlling the crosswalks with lights or so. I know on Hopman Parkway that you would probably put stop lights and a push button. So, that goes back to there's a very specific form that gets filled out and and it I'm not an expert on it, but traffic engineers do it and they identify, you know, what the speed is. They're looking at what the daily trips is, the number of lanes, and all of those things factor into what would be required at the crossing to make it safe. Okay. Yeah, I can't speak to that specifically, but yes, certain certain levels are different, whether it's lit or just signage and crossing. There's other things. Yeah. And my concern is, you know, like I said with respect to the Hopman Parkway one, we were really concerned about pedestrian access there. So if we do it there and then if the site review plan does it says for a development like that, like yeah, absolutely. We want you to we're worried about pedestrian crossing. We want you to facilitate the or construct uh you know, even if it's as simple as lining the street across Hov Parkway there. And

then 6 months or a year later, we have a similar development in a place where we're less concerned about pedestrian access because the character of the neighborhood is different and we don't require it there because the site review team is not as concerned about it. I think we're going to have people unhappy about the inconsistent application of the rule. Yeah. This being in the ordinance, it would be our hope that we're not having those inconsistencies, right? that we're checking the box as we go through. Whereas without it in there, it's something that gets brought up but maybe doesn't get well and you certainly have no ability to consider it if it's not in the ordinance. Um I mean I I would love it if we could make them put in crosswalks from new sidewalks to existing sidewalks. I'm not sure that we can, but I something certainly to consider um because that's people complaining about inconsistent treatment seems to be one of the most frequent pieces of feedback that we have. Um okay, sorry to beat those two horses to death. That was those were the questions that I had. And so I'm I'm just pointing out that with that provision Q, we would make some kind of change that it's say 30 or more residential units um rather than single family and we would probably think of some provision for multif family like because you're going to have more than 30 units often, but if it's one complex um so that might be something we we and I would need to check with um fire to see if they have any specific provisions. And I mean I think we would be I would certainly be comfortable uh recommending the amendments with the latitude for you guys to go back and modify. Okay, great. That uh I don't know if any commissioners have different feelings, but I think we have raised these issues

s sufficiently with you all that you can tinker with them or not if you think that I'm a crazy person. Um do we have a motion? I'll make a motion that we uh accept the the plat pro the platin changes the so we need an amendment to city code chapter 7 city code the amendments to city code chapter 74 of the subdivision ordinance y with uh with the suggestion that uh staff consider our feedback regarding tiered multi-point access for fire for certain size subdivisions, fire the feedback we provided regarding fire apparatus and crosswalks. All right, having that motion sufficiently set forth. Do we have a second? Any further discussion to make the motion and ask for I I clarified Mr. Gibson's. Yeah. Okay. I didn't make a motion. I clarified Mr. Gibson's motion. Okay. All right. Uh all in favor? I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries. Um, all right. Next, we have the review of minor subdivisions and final subdivision plats approved since the May 20th, 2025 meeting. I have just two of those for you this evening. The first one is off of King Avenue. um sort of you have uh was it William Perry? I'm blinking on the schooling. William Perry right here. Um right here and you have the um some town houses right here. It's the three parcels back behind those those town houses or apartments. Um so three parcels back behind here. They're looking to do a lot line adjustment.

There two houses that currently exist. And so what they're doing is they're uh combining uh well they're creating two smaller lots for those two residential houses and then one larger lot that wraps around them is what they were doing with this. So it was basically a lot line adjustment plat with an eye towards selling the big one. I you know I don't even know why I asked. Never mind. Uh the second one I have you have for you tonight the title did not get changed. I apologize. This is actually Creekwood phase threewood village phase three. Um so that's that area behind Martins's um that we discussed earlier. Uh this was the final plat uh for I believe it's 87 town houses. U so that was approved in this last month. That's all I have for you this evening. All right. Thank you. Uh public comment period for items not on the agenda. Mr. Wood. All right. Uh seeing no other members of the public uh present comments, we'll move on to matters from staff. So, one thing that I have that I just wanted to remind everyone is tomorrow night um at 4 at Wesbury High School from 4:30 to 7:30 is our kickoff openhouse meeting for the comprehensive plan. Um and just for anyone who might be watching um our meeting this evening, um it really is the very beginning of the process. So, we don't have portions of the plan that we're asking you to respond to, but there is going to be a lot of great activities and um ability for individuals to provide feedback around several different aspects. Um so, we ask you just to come and um share your

feedback and your input as we really just begin the process. See you there. Uh commissioners, correspondence and communication. Excellent. Oh, no. All right. Uh, then do we have a motion? I move that we adjourn. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion carries. Thank you all.