Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you, Mr. And councilman. Thank you chair. I wonder if staff might help us understand here and based on some of the public comments that we've received here the difference between a plan amendment and a rezoning itself. Will this rezone any parcels or change any of the uses permitted by any of them?

Thank you. Thank you. So if there's anything proposed to rezone this, that's something that the community and the district council member would still have control over if and when that's proposed.

Just I want to make sure I'm understanding something right. Regarding the other question about the zoning. So we, I understand the underlying zoning doesn't change. This is a policy area change, but the underlying zoning for whatever comes in front of us within that area, we will be holding up our decisions against a different and new policy. So it really could impact what is on the property, even if the underlying zoning doesn't change.

So, um, and, and I understand this is not, there's no plan in front of us for building any houses. This is a, this is just a policy change, but I did want to, um, I share the public comment in general that when we build more impervious, um, housing, it can change water flow. Um, but I just wanted to clarify just on the record that that's not before us and that Metro water would be any plan that ends up being addressed under whatever policies in place at the time, Metro water would have to do their own examination of those types of questions. Is that right?

Great. Thank you. And, um, so I, I think I'm in favor of staff's recommendation. I appreciate that the study area was, is, um, bounded on that corridor area on White's Creek Pike. And the staff report notes that it's mostly flat and that the conservation policy remains in that area. So, or the conservation overlay. So I'm in favor of adopting staff's recommendation.

Thank you, chair. Um, I appreciate all the staff's work on this and the analysis. And I think the substitute is a significant improvement over the bill as filed. I did have a couple lingering concerns, even with the substituted version. And I think the first one is, I think while the staff analysis knows that the two uses, which would be bifurcated as a result of the substitute are treated consistently under title 17, my read of the substitute, and please tell me if this is wrong, is that it retains for a child, the permit prioritization that the council recently passed in, in earlier this sum

Got it. I mean, it's okay. I just thinking this through because we're, I guess we're issuing a recommendation, which affects the bill as a whole, even though only a part of it is with our review here. I guess my concerns are on the good things that this bill does. Is it. directs the reader towards state or childcare ones, which are consistent. The downsides are, I view as at duplicates the amount of texts and complexity that we're adding on these, even if they're treated consistently. And then even if it's outside the scope of our review removes the permit prioritization that the council only

Thank you. I note the point that councilman reporting is making. And I think I'm curious as to, you know, our approval here on its basis, is there still opportunity at the council level, especially with the expressed concern that was just presented here for there to be some type of context in which we can share our recommendation. I mean, I too am inclined to approve the staff recommendation, but even if it's just, you know, matter of fact, so that they understand that the intention of our approval is not to create some disadvantageous approach to the, to the permitting expedited permit that w

Thank you for that, Lisa. I just feel like having that expressed clearly is important. There's no reason for that to be misconstrued. And I think, obviously, the work that the staff has done to this point has expressed the rationale. Thank you, Commissioner. Any other discussion?

I guess I can speak to that. Earlier this summer, Council Member Capp sponsored legislation that the council approved unanimously, which requires, and staff, I guess it's not Title 17, but correct me if I'm wrong, requires permit applications for daycare uses, which currently includes both childcare and adult daycare, to be prioritized for approval consistent with affordable housing. This bill would undo that for adult daycare services.

So I just want to make sure I understand. When you say the bill, maybe this is a question for you. When you say this bill would undo the prioritization, you mean Title II would undo it.

Yeah, this would amend that title and remove the prioritization for adult...

This being the changes to Title II, which are not before us.

Yeah, this legislation, I guess we're only considering a portion of the legislation here.

So I think then... My understanding is we are just looking at title 17, which itself, this text is not making that is not undoing that. And so I'm, I'm inclined to vote in favor of this. And I agree with commissioner Henley. If, if there's a way to send a message saying just to make the intention clear in case, in case it would be interpreted as a message about what to do about tape title two, which is not in our, Go ahead. Sorry.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Councilman? I appreciate that clarification from council. And I think in that one, viewing the implications that the title scene, title 17 aspect has on title two and vice versa, the implications of removing the permit prioritization have on the effect of actual ability to bring daycare services online, which is squarely in title 17. I think adult daycares are very important service. And we've just made some very painful progress to, to increase access to those. And, I don't want to see this body walk back any of the progress we recently made. So I'll, I think

I just noticed there are actually four, three conditions related to trees.

And condition six says that the existing tree canopy in areas located outside of areas identified for stormwater detention shall be preserved to the greatest extent practicable said I Think this may address that there is a condition in here to preserve the tree canopy Am I reading that correctly?

Yeah. And I mean, I share the desire to keep mature trees in particular. They can't be replaced quickly with a, with a new young tree. It takes time for them to grow, but trees do grow. And, and definitely I'm, I'm supportive of this condition that requires, requires, you know, as much as, as much as can be done, keeping the mature trees that we really, that will really benefit the homes that are built and provide shade for residents and improve quality of life. So I'm inclined to adopt a staff recommendation.

Thank you, Chair. I'm glad we allowed Commissioner Dundon to go first because that was one of the points I was going to make, so saved a little bit of time there. I mean, I think it's an interesting site, I mean, largely because of its shape and placement. I do want to ask... one or two questions because I'm trying to interpret the, um, the site plan. And so I'm curious, I would say maybe on the cul-de-sac to plan north, is that actually connected to the interior street or is it meaningfully separated? And that's just like a sidewalk that is, that is there where there's like a roundabout, I gu

Correct. Yes, it is. Okay. I was curious with the shading there. Yes. With that being said, I think, you know, we obviously heard some of the comments about the trees and the tree canopy, and I think that was already addressed. The other comment that I heard was kind of meaningful to the traffic flow. I think, you know, with the increased density, I see some pretty... along internal streets, which usually helps with that. It kind of mitigates an immediate dump onto some other corridors. But is there anything inside of this that calls for kind of internal traffic calming inside of the site? Or

Yeah. I mean, I just, I tried to double check reading through the end diet comments and they have some conditions in here. I think, you know, just with anything, it may be better to allow for there to be some responsiveness to new travel patterns, but I know, and I talked to community members a lot, they, they actually don't like that. They prefer that there's some concrete language in some of these agreements. I think if, if, you know, if there was some opportunities to, to do that, um, I would encourage it. I think it makes a lot of sense when you're creating, again, some new traffic pattern

And Lee, you're recognized. Absolutely. I make a motion to approve the staff recommendation to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. And without knowing an appropriate recommendation to make, I would like to make a request that there is a traffic calming focus on perhaps an additional condition in that manner.

And Commissioner Hanley-Parks. Thank you chair. One update that I'm, I'm extremely proud of, um, where many hats and one of those hats allows me to sit on the parks board, but also on the greenways and open space commission. And recently we had a fantastic presentation that was delivered by Anna Grider, um, that gave an overview of the greenways and open space, network vision for the East Bank, which was great to see so much work that was done here at this body being carried forward at some of our other adjoining bodies of the city. And so just wanted to give an update there. If you want to ch