Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's a bit strange.

We declare open the September meeting of the planning commission of Homewood. Mr. Goodwin, could we start with the appeal, please? All right. Mr. De Niro, Signorina Wilco.

Signor Harwell. Presente. Signor Ruspento. Signor Underwood. Signor Stamps. Signor Sims. Signorina Charles.

Presente.

And Mr. Roberts? Thank you. The next point on the agenda is the approval of the verbals. We will resend it and we will approve the verbals of August at the meeting of next month. Communications. Vice President, do you have any communications?

Not today.

The only thing I have this evening is that the public notice for the meetings of this evening provided for four cases. The fourth case was listed as a case of reclassification, but relative to 802 of Green Springs Highway. That case was postponed to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, which will be held on October 7, 2026 at 6 p.m. So if you are here to talk about the case of Green Springs Highway 832, it will be discussed next month.

And if I can, just to clarify, this is not a re-classification case. It is a request to the municipal council to modify a previous zoning order. So, it is not a re-classification of the object. No, thanks for the clarification.

It is listed. Yes, it is an RZ case, but it is not a re-classification case. Here it is. Well, let's move on. The first case of tonight, actually the first two cases of tonight have the same requirement. But the first case is RS2601. Relative to 173 of Oxmoor Road. The client is Wind Surveyor. The owner is Ander Wukan, L.C. Are you Mr. Kussgaard? If he only says his name for the verb and writes it, he knows the procedure.

I'm sure of that. And then, while he's doing this, I know he has the first two cases, so we'll listen to his first case and, you know, don't go too far.

Well, if we could start with the 173 of Oxmoor.

My name is Brian Crossguard. The 173 of Oxmoor Road is our office. This first case concerns the 173 of Oxmoor Road, where we are trying to reinstall a lot in two lots. The first lot would maintain the existing structure and is in accordance with the WKD.

It would require a new road in the future for access after approval.

The second lot would remain free and would use existing road access. This is a public meeting.

If you are here from the public and you want to talk about this case tonight, this is your chance. It's still there.

This is a different case. It's a different case. They do it, but this case concerns the 173 of Oxmoor Road. There is another case that concerns the 184 of Oxmoor Road and the 506 of Scott. I guess it's the same one.

Mr. Fred, I know you want to keep this clean. I guess you're talking about the next case. So, we'll wait for the next case.

Okay.

Again, if anyone here wants to talk about this case, this is your chance. Since no one intervenes, I close the public part of the case and open the questions. And again, from the point of view of the dimensions of the lotto and cha cha, everything satisfies the requirements. This satisfies everyone.

This satisfies all my requirements. For you it would only be an approval. I said everything according to the code, so you have a lot of margin in the maneuver.

If there are no questions, I would accept a motion to approve this house to vote.

Approval of the RSD. Mr. Harwell Mr. Underwood Mr. Inger Mr. Sims Mrs. Childs Mr. Stamps and Mr. Roberts So, that subdivision is approved.

Ok, let's move on to RS-2602. regarding the 184 of Oxmoor Road.

and at 516 Scott Street.

Again, explain to us which one is yours.

So, the same client, Brian Carsgard, 173 Oxmoor. These are two properties. One is located at the corner between Oxmoor and Scott Street, the other on Scott Street at number 516. Currently there are two lots, both with legal descriptions based on limits and measures. So, in case of a future re-qualification, a subdivision of reimbursement would be necessary. We are trying to unite the western half of that North 8 behind the 516 of Scott Street to the land of the 184 of Oxmoor to support further future parking lots for the re-qualification that we will propose later. Here you can see where that cut would join the South 8. The remaining lot of 516 Scott Street would have a smaller surface, but it is a property under 30,000 feet without technical parking requirements for those dimensions in WCAD, although there is the possibility of creating shared or individual parking for the 516 using existing access. The objective is to maintain both structures, but to allow the 184 of Oxmoor to meet the minimum parking requirements for a future re-qualification.

Thank you. Again, let's open the public part of this meeting. If anyone wants to intervene in this case or has any questions, please come up to the podium. I'm sorry could declare name and address for the verbal register them also on the sheet. We need to ensure that the verbals of the meeting are precise and complete. Robert Gibson.

Did he also say the address?

Yes sir. 2016 Drexel Parkway. What are they building right there? At that point, what will be built?

What?

Well, we can ask him.

When he comes back here, I don't think it's necessary. We're not talking about him. He was just curious.

Oh, sure. Sure. We are only asked to subdivide the property, move the border to create two lots, adding one and removing the other. What will be built there is not part of tonight's case. If something will be built, I think, it will be great.

Annalen, I have a question. How will you access the 8th floor? Is a new access or a toilet planned?

He could ask the question once the public part is closed, so he can answer.

I leave the question to you and you ask it to him.

Certainly. He can answer when it's his turn to come back here. Yes, we are just collecting comments. Miss Allen, if you could say his name, please. Say his address. He signed that list. If he hasn't signed that block there, the list, make sure to enter name and address.

And this was his only question.

I would just like to know how you will access the property. In fact, I am the one who is selling the commercial property on the other side of that border. My client is interested and I am here to represent him and try to understand the details and how this will influence our property.

Thank you.

So, please, only questions and details. So, he could say something and I could have a question about what he says.

So, I guess it's here that I'm asking if I have to go back up. This could be a good opportunity.

I don't know how much all this is worth.

What we're doing. Don't you think so?

You mean right now? Yes, the question is later. Okay.

But I was confused about which property she said she was sure of.

The one right next to it.

Next to where?

Going north, where there will be the forest.

Right, I'm here just for the sake of my client, to make sure that what is proposed does not hinder or damage the sale of my property.

So it's more or less. I'm here just to inform myself.

If that is the only question you have, I assume that he can answer when we close the public part. Would anyone else like to talk about this case? All right, without seeing anyone, let's close the public part and if you can answer the question or the question of Mrs. Allen, at best, of her abilities.

Probably I would only admit that there is no certainty as to what will happen exactly, because there will be a development plan required to be able to do any form of re-qualification that would be triggered by a change of occupation. However, if the goal was to re-qualify the 184 of Oxmoor, the current Oxmoor Automotive, this would be triggered by a change of destination and use of the building. It is not yet something for which I presented a question, however, I intend to do it. And to satisfy the WD zoning there are some parking requirements. There will be a certain number of places every 1,000 feet usable. So using the rear half of this lot would allow us to receive them in the future. As far as the impact on other lots is concerned, there is no plan to influence other lots. Possible further passageways or things like that. Access would be based on existing lots and on access to existing passageways. This should be so.

So, this does not include anything of all this, any type of modification to that lot should be reviewed as we saw last month with The Woods and all the rest. I want to say that everything we are doing is to establish a ... ... the premature rest ...

I remind you that at a certain point there was a consideration on a possible cross-parking agreement for ... That was a request addressed to me as a request from The Woods in the previous meeting, but we have not reached any kind of agreement on it and there is no type of shared parking existing and so on. At this moment, yes, I mean, I am happy to share further details. I think this...

In this...

I have a question, Mr. President. I have a question for the staff. It's basically about taking two rectangular lots and the result would be a rectangular lot with a slightly unusual shape. So we have something in our ordinances that concerns the creation of lots of unusual dimensions or would be consistent with our ordinances.

I mean, legally you just have to respect the minimum dimensions of the lot, the minimum width of the lot.

and your minimum passage rights and if you respect those minimums, you respect them and, as I said, we do not have much freedom to change, deny or reverse. All we are doing is essentially approving the lot as a legal document. It's a drawing. Basically you are drawing a legal document that shows where these lines are. And instead of having a legal description, you have this map and, you know, the city subdivision and zoning regulations say that all our lots must have these dimensions. That one is bigger than the other or that, you know, one is two thirds of the size and the other one is a third. You know, we don't really have any standard beyond the minimum size of 8. And so, if you satisfy the minimum, you know, that's really our concern. In fact, our only legal concern, as I said, is that they respect us.

Yes, I think so.

Once you start talking, you know, about going vertical with projects or things like that,

I think your subdivision regulations discourage the so-called flag lots where you can't have extreme situations.

But that would not be in accordance with the code. And so, you know, in general, from the point of view of the staff, philosophically, if a subdivision problem does not respect the code, it does not respect the code. We do not accept it because you cannot approve it. So we will not accept a question that does not respect the code because we cannot act on it. No one can act on it. And so it would be a non-valid question. And so, you know, when the question comes to you and Fred passes, you know, it is legally valid with respect to the code. And then the dimensions and configuration of the lots depend on the owner and what he wants. You know, I don't know if it's necessarily our job to legally dictate what a owner can or cannot do with the configuration of his lot if it is with respect to the code. This leads us to a really dangerous situation in which we go beyond what the code offers and asks us to do. And as I said, all we do is ensure that the new lots meet the minimum requirements of the code.

From an operational perspective, I am happy to add a little context because there have been times, like when I did another re-qualification on the road, in which the survey question and the development plan were presented in two simultaneous cases. There are some reasons on my part for which it is appropriate to have clarity on the reliefs and make sure that everything is very clear. Before asking questions about the process of the development plan or going through the development plan. So overcoming this obstacle allows me to have more information to plan the next phase, which would be verified in the last case if I ever had to develop the free lot, or in this case if I had to change the use destination of one of these structures, I would activate it.

Just as the state law is generally written that if a subdivision plan meets the minimum standards, the cities are obliged to approve it. We don't really have any jurisdiction because otherwise we will become arbitrary and capricious not following our own standards. So if they satisfy the requirements, they satisfy them, we have to try. If they don't satisfy them, we don't even let them come to you because it's a request, it's not valid. You can't.

Maybe to clarify to the audience, one of the reasons why I do it in a non-simultaneous way is that I have other things to plan, but it is useful for me to do it now rather than all together, maybe in December or January. Or when you will examine it, depending on the situation.

Brian, not the watchman, Brian back there, could you show the A lotto and the B lotto of the subdivision? I want to refer again to this, because you have the map and then the evidence. So the line is traced, it is the one that will now be part of 8b, is that right? Yes, it is correct.

I could explain it so that everyone understands what 8b contains, because honestly I think it's a bit confusing. Yes, they have the relief. Here it is, here it is, I just want to make sure that you ... So those continuous lines are the boundaries of the proposed lot and the line drawn is the existing one and therefore you are taking the back half of the property that has the small commercial building and you are melting it with the lot that has the largest commercial building and this is only necessary so that when it is time to request this change of destination of use there is more space to do things. As people who know

It is built to push the building towards the city. It is built to have parking. So it is built to have parking.

It will be actually adjacent to the parking lot of the golf club.

Their parking. So, parking on parking is not necessarily a negative thing, but who knows what you have in mind, but I think it is well structured to make it...

Propongo di approvare. Chi sta regolando la tena? Va bene. Stamps. Sig.rachar. Sig. Sims. Anninger. Underwood.

Harwell. Robert Dunque, la sua richiesta di rassegnazione è stata approvata 7 a 0. Il nostro prossimo caso stasera è un altro caso di rassegnazione, RS 260903. L'indirizzo è 215 West Valley Avenue. Il richiedente è May Allen. And if you are here tonight to talk about this case, this is your chance to explain what you are asking us to do. I don't see him among the audience.

Is there a trademark engineering representative among the audience tonight?

So what should we do? Should we simply send him back?

Yes, in the absence of someone who represents the case, we will send him back at the meeting next month. Hello?

Well... Do you have a ministerial action?

Well, there could be some reason why they couldn't be here tonight, maybe they're stuck in traffic. I don't know. Well, the planning commission is waiting, but we have already done it in the past when someone has not been presented, we give them the opportunity to come to the meeting of the next month, but we have to make the announcement that it will be formally sent back to the meeting of the next month on October 7th.

I want to say, Fred, there is something in our ordinance, I can't remember, but there is something in our ordinance that establishes that the plans for valid subdivisions must be approved or judged within 30 days by the... Oh yes. Because this means that we have to listen to it tonight, otherwise it would be approved automatically. He's right.

If the planning commission does not take action within a certain time, then it is automatically approved.

I say that if you do not take action now, it is automatically approved. Well, but the city has played its role in a public hearing, or at least it has advertised it. and we can open a public hearing and manage it without...

But I mean, I think we need someone who presents the case to be able to examine it. I mean, it was... procedural, especially considering the ongoing executive action on this property. I think we need to establish a contact. We certainly sent cases with the pig and other things.

Well, that was... That was on request of request.

Here, we don't have a request.

What can I request? So we can update it and if it is approved during the break, well, otherwise... Nothing happens. The only thing is that even if it is approved during the break and signed, we could put it back in order of the day just to have a break. I don't know, I don't know, I don't believe that a letter of conformity to the code of a year and a half ago is enough reason to deny a legal procedure of subdivision I don't know if there is a clause that can

So our options are to update it next month and in the meantime it could be approved and we can go back to check.

I have to read our regulations to see what they say.

I know that many... ...regulations... Or the other option is to open the public hearing, listen to the public and if no one goes ahead, we can close the hearing...

and vote, or present a motion, vote.

I would really like to hear.

I think we should do this.

As I said, if it is approved during the break, I will let you know, and if it is not, it was not a standard practice.

And as I said, it is not a standard thing. It doesn't happen very often. I'll take a look.

Well, in the absence of a request this evening, we will resume the question. For now, it will be set for October 7 at 6 p.m., except for further actions by the city that make the hearing unnecessary. Well, this concludes our new activities for tonight. The next point concerns the recommendations of the nominating committee for the positions of President and Vice President Mrs. Harwell, I think you are the president of the nominating committee. Do you have anything to say?

The nominating committee would like to nominate Stuart Roberts as president and Eric Manager.

Are there any other applications from the Commission? Okay. Well, I would accept, I guess, a motion to approve the recommendations of the nominating committee.

So there is a motion to accept the recommendations of the nominating committee.

Motion to approve and accept the nomination. Is there a second to this motion? I have to make a vote for nominating appeal only.

No. For acclamation.

Is there anyone against? Not being anyone, approved for acclamation. And then the last thing is the communications of the staff. Something else from the staff. For tonight.

I will do some research on planimetry. I will send you an email tomorrow morning. We will have some clarifications. With this we close the meeting.