Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Approve. Approve. Second. All in favor? I approve the agenda. All right. Minutes of the previous meeting. Is everyone review the minutes from the previous meeting. Are there any changes? If not call for a motion to approve. Second. Favor. I I Okay. Minutes are approved from the previous meeting. Report from the code officer. Thanks. Stephen, you gonna do that? Um, that would be me. I have nothing to report tonight, Mr. Chairman.

All right. If none, no old agenda items. So, we will move on to the first item. That's amendment number one to the let's see, sorry. Conditional use 44511 1110 North Broad Street. That's the first item of business. So, who's here to speak in favor of that? Come to the microphone. Presentation first. Do the staff presentation first. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. All righty.

Excuse me. All right. No worries. Stealing my thunder here. All right. My name is Stephen Jquiz, senior planner here with the city of Monroe. Here to deliver the uh staff report um presentation recommendation here. So, this property is actually going to be the subject of three separate zoning actions tonight. Three cases. We have uh 4451, which is a conditional use specifically for the fuel pumps. We'll have 452, which is a hardship variance on pavement depth. And then finally, we'll take a look at the certificate of appropriateness, case 4452. So, I'm going to present all three of them, and then we're gonna uh hear from the applicant, discuss it, and then take three separate votes at the end. And we'll have a couple other cases that are also bundled like that uh throughout the rest of the agenda. And so, we'll handle it with presenting all of them, hearing from the applicant, discussing, and then voting individually on the on the motions. All right. So, starting here, uh, I gave the game away there with the Quick Trip. The applicant here is proposing to build a, um, Quick Trip gas station here at 1110 North Broad. The larger parcel out here is 15 acres. Um, but the subject area, this area right in here, is about 2 acres. Um, and that's where we would have this conditional use. uh property is already zone B3 as you can see in the corner up here. Uh so are the surrounding properties and as you can see on the aerial right here it is uh largely wooded and um undeveloped at this point. So are some of the neighboring properties to the south there you can see a Bojangles and a mini storage and that intersection there is Charlotte Raul and North Broad prominent intersection site plan is up

here as well. Um we although we might call it a gas station the code calls it a convenience store with uh fuel pumps. And the reason that matters is because our zoning ordinance allows convenience stores by right. Um they would not need any extra approvals here. If they were just building the convenience store, we wouldn't have uh we wouldn't even have this case. What's triggering this case is that fuel pumps are considered an accessory use. And uh so in this case, they're proposing a 14 pump fuel canopy and they need the conditional use specifically for that. Staff's analysis deems that this use is compatible with the area. This is a prominent intersection on a major roadway ne near the highway um and in an area that's slated to get more growth in future uh in future years and maybe decades to come based on our comp plan. So, this site makes a lot of sense for a convenience store gas station. However, there are some issues with the site plan. the and I'll get into these in in coming slides here, but we have uh the access drives create safety hazards and a conflict with the existing easement that's out there. There's some storm water issues that we're concerned about, and there are some site plan revisions that would need to be made to comply with the ordinance. So, first we'll talk about the uh the access drive. Colorcoded it here. So this this is the main drive here that comes out to an intersection uh with a with a signal at Charlotte Rale and and North Broad. That purple area on here is a legal access easement that was set up when the Bojangles was built uh to provide access to both the Bojangles and future development on that area. You can see that that

spot right here which is slated for the access drive does not align with the two proposed access drives on the site. So that would need to be remedied because that is a legal a legal issue that needs to be respected. It would also remedy one of the issues that we've identified which is that this drive would uh put too many cars trying to enter an exit and stack at that light and it would interfere with the uh function of that intersection. Also, the way they're aligned would create conflict points between the folks entering this site and entering the Bojangle site. So, the current alignment really doesn't work very well. Um, this is an alignment that would be uh in compliance with the easement, but would also solve some of the other issues, the code compliance issues. um putting the fuel pump to the side, uh bringing the building up towards the street. We would also need to address lot coverage, how much impervious surfaces out there, and how much parking they have, both of which exceed what's allowable right now. Alternatively, we could do something even more ideal in this case, which would bring that building into the corner and set it up for a direct pedestrian connection to the building itself, which would provide a safer um more multimodal access version of this project while still allowing the um the the movement of automobiles and safe viewing of the site, management of the site. So, we recommend uh as a staff approval of the conditional use subject to some conditions. I'm not going to read them all out here. They are in your staff report, but to summarize, the condition number one would say that this the driveway issue needs to be resolved. Condition number two and three have to do with revising the plan to comply with the zoning ordinance.

Okay, moving along to the hardship variance on the same property, same project. Uh, this is specifically to allow the fuel pump island to be in the front yard, which our code does not allow. Circled it here for reference. in order to support a a hardship variance, which is essentially saying that there's something unique about the property that prevents the applicant from complying with the ordinance. They can't comply. Um, you would have to find that there is some kind of extraordinary circumstance on the property uh due to topography or terrain or or how how the site is laid out. In this case, we don't find that there are any extraordinary circumstances. This is an undeveloped site. It is relatively flat. It is relatively easy to develop. And this is also a new use. Sometimes when you have a use that um was in effect before the code and you come in and you want to change it, then you end up running into conflicts with the code. So you have this quote grandfathered use and and and then you would have to navigate around that. In this case, we have a new use there. It's it's solely uh the applicant's design choice that's creating the issue here. We don't really find that there's a hardship that's compelling them not to follow our ordinance. In their report, they do u make a claim that this would interfere with um safely running the site that this uh that not allowing this um this variance would create a safety risk. Staff did not uh find evidence to support that. Um they they claim that being next to woods could interfere uh with safety. We didn't find that uh we didn't find supporting evidence for

that. We've also seen quick trips around the state that have complied with they've laid their sight out similar to the way that we've suggested and they seem to be up and operating no problem. Uh if anything, there is a traffic safety risk based on this current layout. As we already talked about with the stacking of cars at the intersection, the conflicts between the cars coming in and out, and the uh pedestrian, the lack of a good pedestrian connection between the street and the building. And then we would also say that granting this variance would confer special treatment on this particular project and that it is also inconsistent with the ordinance intent. So again, the easement for reference as well as the this would help uh solve the hardship by putting the fuel pump on the site. It would also solve some of the other code compliance issues that are mentioned in the previous report. So there's a it solves a lot of issues. Um with that said, we have to recommend denial on the hardship variance as a staff. Then we'll move on to the final case here. which is the corridor design overlay certificate of appropriateness. Again, same site. This would be just a um allow the convenience store with fuel pumps as long as it complies with the corridor design overlay. In this case, we have to evaluate the architecture to make sure that the design of the building meets ordinance. We assess that it does. Like I said previously, we support the use, although we note that there are some design alterations that need to happen. Uh again, the conditional use the the issues with the conditional use are also issues largely with the certificate of appropriateness. So I'm not going to

rehash all of those just to say that both those impact both of these cases, the access drive, the storm water plan. Um I'll go over that real quickly. So off to the left here we have uh a plan for a storm water pond that would manage some of the storm water off of this larger 15 acre site as it develops. But we noted that the outlet drains uh that water directly into somebody's backyard on Louise Drive. And that seems like that could be problematic. That could be flooding a residence. And so we would want to see some clarification and maybe some redesign to make sure that we're not flooding out our neighbors on the uh street next door. Then again for reference the COA technically has to be tabled. uh we will have to wait for mayor and council action on the hardship variance and the conditional use and then it will come back to you at the next planning commission meeting for your decision. The recommended condition uh can be taken up at that time. That concludes the staff report. So is this the time for someone to speak and on this project to come forward come forward please? Thank you again. I'm Eric Eberhart. I'm an attorney representing Quick Trip uh with with regard to to their plan and and this process. Present tonight um on behalf of Quick Trip is also Brian Moira who's seated behind me. He'd be the project manager. In addition to that um is a representative of the current

property owner and that's Nathan Pervvis who's seated in the front row. As as I stand here um I do so with with sort of mixed mixed emotions. Um, Quick Trip would be a great partner for the city of Monroe and this location is a great location for for Quick Trip to to partner with the city of Monroe. But just being direct and to the point, um, QuickRip's not going to be in a pos position to adjust their site plan uh to accommodate what the planning department believes needs to happen here. They just they just won't move forward on this project. And there's some pretty significant reasons. Um, first though, let me just say we recognize that uh what we're asking is not in direct compliance with the ordinances, particularly the note regarding the corridor design overlay and the location of the proposed pumps or canopies for the pumps. We know that's the case. Um, would note for your purposes that were we not in the corridor design overlay um it would not be an issue they are allowed for B3 properties that's not been mentioned but that is the case at least as I interpret your ordinances so so our primary concern there seems to be that we are um in that quarter design over that being said we are also on the very

edge of that quarter design overlay. And and that's why we believe and submit to the city and first to you guys is the planning commission that that this should be something that you should consider granting a variance on allowing the project to move forward where we have some concerns. And it's not just concerns. It's going to kill the project is with the suggestion of putting the pumps on on the side or the canopies on the side of the building. Um, you've got in your packet and and we hadn't seen exact we'd heard from from the city. We hadn't seen exactly what we were talking they were talking about, but there's an image that they have included to suggest that that there's an alternative that would work work for this project and that they've seen other locations where the canopies were on the side of the building. There is a very very significant distinction to be drawn and that's that in those sit situations there is more there's more road frontage there's more activity and access in this case um as you guys are fully aware it's highway 11 and that's it the easement is an access easement it's a drive it's not a road. It doesn't doesn't go anywhere but but enter into businesses. Um it's not the type of situation that Quick Trip has been comfortable or ever preceded in in moving the location of of their canopy. And it has to do

with safety. And I understand that that planning disagrees with us. Um but but we would ask you to consider what we're saying. Um to move these canopies to the side reduces the direct sight line of all the pumps. And what I mean by that, not every single one, but it reduces the visibility such that the employees would not have direct sight line from from their stations to what's occurring at at multiple pumps under the canopy. Quick Trip does not consider that to be be something that that is safe uh for their employees or their customers in the vein of not having more roadway visibility for what's going on. In other words, it's either going to be the employees seeing what's going on right now or Nova. and that's just not not something that that they see as a feasible alternative. Now, with regard to the other other items that have come up, candidly, we really just got access to some of that yesterday. Um, and it's I know I understand planning department has been overwhelmed with this particular agenda. Um but but we're still trying to to identify uh what would be workable and what's not. And we're certainly prepared to to do everything we can to work with Monroe and and your officials um concerning the other items. Uh but the primary thing comes back to if we're being if if it's going to be a requirement that we move

the canopies um then the project's probably not going to move forward. That's just that's just an honest statement. So you know um so we are asking that that you approve the hardship variance. We're asking that you approve um the conditional use and then of course we would be asking at the appropriate time for you to grant the certificate of appropriateness. I will answer any questions that I can. Um that is that is essentially our presentation is that we believe that we're we've got a very viable plan that would serve this community very well but we need some help on the items that we've asked for questions. Are y'all willing to move the entrances into QT since that the traffic is going to be an issue? That's a convers well we may have a different perspective on whether it's going to be an actual issue to traffic but that's a conversation that that we can have. We just haven't seen what's been suggested until until such a short time prior to this meeting that we haven't really been able to process what adjustments we would be able to make. Uh we're the the the major issue for the

moment is the layout of of the location. And

I just can't say an approval or a denial until I know if you're willing to do something to fix the traffic issue. I may I know I mean I have a question then since they've not seen this layout and what I've heard is that what I've heard I'm I'm since Eric Eric had pointed this out if I may try to get back to one of these slides that had the minute um what I'm hearing is that you guys obviously not had a chance to look at this so what I I take notes the direct site tight line of pumps. Well, this this particular plan that you have not had an opportunity to look at, which I do admit,

this shows the store cornered with the store facing the pumps. Just FYI, that's what we're showing here. So, that you haven't had an opportunity to analyze this plan, and I do admit that.

So, so the concern there is we would have sight line for the pumps that that are to the left side of the middle of the canopies. We're not going to have sightelines from where employees are stationed to anything that's on the on on what I would say just from looking at is would be a northeastern perspective. So we're going to lose three or three to four pump of visibility and you could have shifted the building up. I just that's just I just stuck that on the plan just in a in a halfhazard fashion. The building can still be moved up towards that other driveway there and still meet our code and centered up with the pumps almost a little bit more. This is just this is just one of our rendered plans. I mean, I'm not an artist, so you have to forgive me. Um, this was something I had put together, but the building in the in the pumps could still be lined up with the bottom of the building lined up with the bottom of the pumps and almost be centered up with the pumps. And you guys still have not had an opportunity to look at this plan, but I don't know how that uh just B3. So you're looking at your off top of my head, I don't know. I think it's 20 in the front.

Well, you have a quarter design overlay district 75 foot max. So that's that's going to push the building at least. This building could be pushed back further from where you're looking at right now. That corner right there, that's at the 2530 foot mark. Basically, this building could be pushed back further into the site and meet our code. Would you like a pointer? I would Well, I would prefer that, but you could push this building back even further up into the site and meet our code. Would you like the pointer?

And this is Brian Moa. from much more understanding of what movements

before I start pointing at all sorts of things on there. I I will go ahead and emphasize that we have in certain municipalities had our canopies on the side. We're not trying to say that that's not something it has to do with that visibility and the safety for the citizens of Monroe that would be stopping at this location since the only traffic that we have right here. safe confident staff would only have visibility to say there uh we wouldn't have as much visibility. Now, if we start moving the building back this way, then of course we're going to have conflicts with this access point over here if that's something that the the city is adamant about. So, it's not that we can't look at these things. We're more than happy to. And same thing when it comes to traffic in general. We're more than happy to do a full-fledged TIS on the site to see what would be the most advantageous way to go ahead and coordinate. Uh but to Eric's point from earlier, since this is so new to us in terms of this type of rearrangement, that's not something we've had a chance to consider yet.

Can I ask a question? The store that's in the staff report has the building facing the roadway that don't face any of the pumps. Oh, I know what you're saying. He's basically instead of the building being vertical like this, building is facing this way. Yeah. The cashiers are face the front roadway and they don't face the pumps. It's also not the only roadway. But you what was stated in the presentation was they need direct light sight line of the pumps direct sight line to the pumps because there's no development here. The fact that all of this is wooded

well this is going to be built and the the owner sitting behind you fully intends to develop this property behind it. So I mean you have a road proposed behind it. That's what I think is being proposed on the plan is there's future development beyond this. So when we say it's wooded, this isn't like Alaska. So this is I mean this is fully planned to be developed behind it. This is a temporary in nature situation. So the the wooded situation that we're dealing with here is completely temporary in nature. This is not a permanent situation. It's still one that exists.

So I mean you're asking for a permanent situation to your site when we're dealing with a temporary situation that's surrounding you. you have a proposed road around you when you literally are proposing to clear a lot next to you for future development. So this will not always be wooded next to you. Yeah. Concern is the safety of our customers regardless of when they're going to be I mean that so I mean is the safety that you will not have something beyond your customers will there be other things around your customers is what I'm trying is what I'm hearing you say. So I want to make sure I'm clear on that. Yes.

For clarification purposes that's that's what we're looking for. Now in a In a perfect world, we want both. But in terms of being able to make concessions, we'd need at least one of those things for the safety of our customer priority. You know, a lot of other competitors out there don't necessarily those things when they're looking and that is of course their own prerogative. There's no judgment there, but safety is one of those things thatides itself. The lighting of our site is very strategic. The security camera setup is very strategic. We we look for the safety of our customers. questions.

And there's nothing you can do as far as rearranging the interior of the store to increase visibility. I mean there there are always things that you can do but it's not consistent with what what has been successful for security purposes before. I mean we could glass the whole thing but that that's just not not a re realistic construction. It's really the the visibility for the employees from their station out that that would be important. Any further comments? I just don't feel like they've had enough opportunity to see or if they're willing to look at another option because it doesn't work with our city code. And I think what is saying is you haven't had an opportunity

to review this in a different light. So this be tabled everyone has viewed what's going on. My my main concern is the traffic on that road. That first entrance in I don't like that first entrance. So that would need to be eliminated. Yes.

Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but if I may be heard, we would not ask to have this table. We would ask for you to go ahead make a decision. But it can't be addressed until we have seen the plans and agree upon the plans. We've submitted the plans, but we're not agreeing upon those plans is what I'm saying. I think you deny it.

Do we have a motion? Ju just to be clear with you guys, what we presented to you in the in the staff, it was meant described to you in the staff report. So, we just illustrated what was described to you. We're not proposing a a new design or new plan. Those things were described in the staff report as all black and white text. We weren't trying to do a new design for them this evening. Just to be clear about that, we were specifically in our descriptions in the report about there were alternatives that could be done to meet the requirements. We just illustrated that to you this evening. I just wanted to be clear about that. We weren't trying to redesign their project for them. different options.

Yeah, we were trying to illustrate what we had demonst what we were describing in our reports when we gave you our staff reports. Now, they saw these illustrations this evening as well. Um, this was basically an illustration of what could be done based on what we described and recommended in our reports. It could be done to meet our code. This is what it looks like based on what we had written in our report. Yeah. I mean there's no dimensions on these things. They're just

right and they're unwilling to to look at another. So I think I move we deny. Please speak into the microphone. I'm having trouble hearing y'all. I move we deny. Wait. Hold on. Randy, you need to you need to Start with the conditional use and then do the variance and then you're going to not take action on the COA. You're starting with the conditional use first. Vote of the motion. Is that correct?

You need to start with the conditional use first. Take motions on the conditional use first and then the hardship variant. Question. Right. Yeah. You want you want to call in for a motion on the condition use first. We did. We have a motion. We have a second for the motion. Yes. You have a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Motion carried.

All right. That is that for the conditional use or for the variance, guys? Yes. And I have Rosalyn as the motion and Kim as the second. Now you got a vote on the Now you got a vote on the variance, guys. You got a motion and a variance. Motion and a action for the variance. Regarding the variance, I move we deny that. Second. Favor. All in favor? I I motion carries. Okay. And then you're not taking action on the COA this evening. You're going to vote to need to vote on that one to table it. Well, we're not we're not going to vote on the CO.

Yeah, you're not. You discussed only this evening, but you do have to vote to table it till next planning commission meeting. We need a motion to vote till May to table the vote. Motion to table away. Okay. Second. Second favor. I I All right. You can leave it up there other folks. Thank you.

I am recusing myself for the second agenda. All right. Next item is 4315 Mill Village Cottage Court. Is that correct? That's correct.

Okay. So this is a preliminary plat application for the property at 525 South Madison Avenue is approximately.37 acres. The applicant is proposing to subdivide it from one property and turn it into six lots. Those six lots would be broken down into five residential lots and then one live work lot on the corner here. So the live work lot would be here and then residential lots right there. There would also be a private alley with an access easement on the back here. So this property comes at the corner of South Madison and Knight. So the buildings will front onto Knight or South Madison and then you'll access them with your vehicle via this easement to the rear. And we would note that this enables some infill development that is encouraged by our character code. And so it's an exciting opportunity to get uh some more development that um is in the spirit of our of our new character code and to improve the neighborhood. So we are recommending approval of the preliminary plat.

Very well. Is someone here to speak in favor of this proposal? Mias came up with this. Just wanted to note that it is actually three lots 305. questions. We motion to approve.

Second. All in favor say I. I. Motion to approve. Second. Okay. I need y'all to speak in the microphone, please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next item number six, regulating regulating plan amendment number 4554308 West Highland Avenue. Anyone here to speak for that

staff report? We'll do the staff report first. Yeah. All right. Staff report here for 308 West Highland Avenue. I'll note again this is this has um two cases associated with it and we'll need to uh go through the regulating plan amendment first and then cover the special exception variance. All right. So, the regulating plan amendment, which in our character code area is equivalent to a reszone, is um being asked on this property here at 308 West Highland Avenue, not very far from this building. It is on approximately 0457 acres. The request is to reclassify the property from character district 4 neighborhood center to character district 3 neighborhood for the purpose of constructing one single family detached house as shown on the site plan here. So we've got West Highland Avenue right here. The lot would be accessed there. is currently vacant and it is zoned C or designated CD4 which you can see the properties to the side and across the street are all CD4 but the properties behind it are CD3. So we're right here on the border between CD4 and CD3. If you look at it on an aerial or you drive by, you'll note that it's vacant. There used to be, I think, a tennis court on here and there's some uh some paved drive area here, but there's no house and there's um there's no activity happening here now. It is in the middle of multiple other single family residences in the area. So the first thing to note is that a single family house can be built by

right in both of these zones um subject to certain qualifications. So the issue here is not whether you can build that house, it's the other finer points of the character district. So CD4 um is kind of the midway point between our CD3 district and our CD5. So CD5 is covering downtown. It's our most intense district. That's where we'll put more of the growth, more of the intensity, bigger buildings, more uses. And then CD3 is a residential zone. It is for one and two family houses. So single family houses, duplexes. Uh it's it's almost exclusively for residential. And then CD4 is kind of the halfway point between CD5 and CD3. It allows small-cale commercial, smallcale multif family, single family and the only real difference is the scale. So the the request the applicant is requesting to reclassify to CD3 because that uh helps them avoid a variance uh for minimum lot buildout frontage. I'll explain that. So, with CD4, uh, for example, if you had a 50-ft lot, let's say you had a 50-ft lot, there would be a percentage of the building that has to, um, be wide enough to fill that 50-ft lot. So, in CD4, it's what, 60%. I believe 60%, so it would be 30 feet of that frontage has to have a building face on it. In CD3, that number drops to 40%. So, in this case, you would have 20 feet of frontage. So, this lot is really wide and it makes it hard to build one house wide enough to comply with that frontage requirement, which is why they're asking to drop down to CD3. This is technically a deviation from the

comp plan because the comp plan and the zone and the character district call for some increased growth in this area. And so we would be dropping the intensity of allowable growth by switching to CD3. But it is compatible with the character. Like I said up here, you can see it's right on the border. So you can argue really CD3 or CD4 could be appropriate here. And the character regardless is single family. So what they're proposing to construct is really compatible either way. The proposal does require a variance on the maximum lot width, which we'll get to uh in just a minute. They also submitted drawings for what this house would look like. This is the front. They had to show that they would comply with the character code. As far as we can tell, this is largely compliant. That would be verified in plans review. These are You can see the side here. We have our garage off to the side uh accessed on the back. And then this is the back of the house right here. We're recommending approval as submitted. And then we will move on to the variance. So on the same property, we're getting a request for special exception variance. And the special exception variance is more of the there's certain there's certain regulations within the code that are eligible for a special exception variance which is more of we don't want to um versus we can't as far as compliance goes. That hardship is really a we can't the property is preventing us or the condition is preventing us. Special exception is more of a we would rather not. And then the assessment is more of a public weighing the public

good. Is the public good served by granting the variance or not. So in this case we have a a frontage in CD3. You can only have a maximum lot width of 100 ft and out here we have 132 feet. So that's what I've highlighted here for you. So ordinarily that would require you to split the property at least into two lots. They would like to keep it as one lot for one house. 3,900 foot house u just under half an acre. We find that granting this variance would not impair or injure or create any problems for adjacent properties. It would not be out of character. However, our main issue with it is that it would be a missed opportunity for a second lot, a second home, a second household that gets to live in one of our um desirable neighborhoods, close to downtown, close to all the kinds of things that you would want to be close to as far as um your daily destinations, schools, workplaces, entertainment, um you know, all that good stuff. So, really the issue here is that there would be this missed opportunity. The reason that the code has that maximum lot width is because we want to encourage more houses per foot of infrastructure because that's a better that saves us money as a city. When you've got 132 feet out there, that's a lot of pipe. That's a lot of asphalt that's only being supported by the tax base of one house. If you split that into two lots, for example, now you've got two households paying for that same amount of asphalt. and and pipe and infrastructure. And so it's more efficient for the city. It helps us stay sustainable from a financial perspective and it's ultimately a better deal for the taxpayers. It also allows another household the opportunity to live um live close to a lot of different

things. So that's the main issue here. But if you were to grant this, our conclusion on here is that this would not be a substantial detriment to the public good on a small scale. So, we would uh recommend approval as submitted. Somebody here to speak in this proposal.

My name is Ned Butler representing Reliant Homes. Um, as I stated, we just want to build on the lot the way it is. Uh, we think we can build a larger house that fits more in the character of the other homes that are already located on Highland Avenue. Um, the only hardship I would really say is if we went narrower to try to fit two houses on here, the slope at the front of this lot is probably six to eight feet, which would make it difficult to get a second driveway in. So then we'd be using the existing driveway and wrapping around with an easement, which would make us make that house those houses even smaller in the back, trying to make all that room easement in the back. So again, we just feel we can build something that that's more in line with houses that already questions.

Thank you. Anyone else to speak on this proposal? Motion. Motion to approve. Second. I I in favor I motion carries. Thank you.

We're voting on the variance. Variance, right? Correct. Motion to approve the variance. A second. In a second. All in favor? I. Second. Carries. Motion carries. Thank you. Right. Going on now to

Spring Street case. Spring Street.

All right. Next is Reszone 4547 1035 East Spring Street. All right. So, up here, we're going to consider six different requests as part of this project at 10:25 and 10:35 East Spring Street. So, again, I'm going to run through all of the requests. We'll hear from the applicant. We can discuss all of them uh and then you will have six different votes at the end. Okay. So the first item is considering the reszone of the property at 1035 East Spring Street. That is highlighted here for you. It is 3.34 acres. Is currently zoned R1 as you can see in the top corner which is our large lot residential district. And they want to reszone it to B2 which is our general commercial. And that would match it with the uh existing church property at 1025 Spring Street. See, this property uh was wooded. Uh it had two homes on it at one point. Those have since been demolished. Um and the proposal here is for a surface parking lot on the property as part of the church expansion project. So, we note that this is being sought because it would help enable the church to expand. They're looking to uh add a life center on the property here and they're also growing in their congregation. So, they're looking to expand their parking. Um matching this zoning B2 to B2 would enable the church expansion to proceed more smoothly. As you can see, it is a isolated residential parcel. It doesn't really fit with the existing zoning around there, which is all business zoning.

It's probably not going to be developed as R1 residential anytime soon or ever. So, it makes sense to align it with the business zoning to align it with the rest of the church property and that actually brings it into greater alignment with our comp plan and with our zoning map. So, it's a little bit of an oddball and this is an opportunity to bring it into greater alignment with city's plans and codes. That said, a 169 space surface parking lot is probably not the optimal use of property as a general rule. Um, too much parking can be bad for cities because it dilutes the tax base. Um, it it can be aesthetically uh repelling. It um increases the urban heat island effect and it increases storm water effect. So the idea is that you would want to have just enough parking and not necessarily too much. Um because we know we need parking, right? So in order to do that on this site, churches are in a unique space because they need all this parking and they need all this space largely on Sunday mornings and then for the six and a half days of the rest of the week, it's largely empty. So that's tricky to figure out how do we get the right amount of parking out there. So in this case, um it does make some sense to add some parking, but we would recommend that the church uh do its best to make the best use of that parking. So we recommend that families travel together on Sundays, that they would share their parking lot with uh adjacent businesses who may need parking when it's not Sunday morning uh to open their space to various civic groups and other folks who may want to meet in the property and and could use it. Um, so that would help offset some of the land that's being devoted to the to the parking lot. We also note that B2 zoning

technically does not allow a surface parking lot on its own. It has to be attached to a building or a principal use of the property. And so they would need to recombine this property with the 1025 parcel in order to technically meet the code. But I think this is something they plan on doing regardless. So, we're recommending approval of the reszone with some conditions here. Um, the first one is that that parcel be recombined. There's also another one that talks about no accessory buildings in the front yard. And then a we're going to get into this in a little bit with some of the other cases, but there's some plantings and some buffering that we would like to see that we would recommend. Um, this property here, as you can see in this area, was largely wooded and that has since been all cleared. We would argue a little bit excessively. There was some opportunity to leave some of those trees that mature hardwoods, um, a nice canopy that would have created some natural screening and buffering on the property and those are those are gone now. So in in their place, we're proposing some plantings and a condition that they beef up their landscape plan. That concludes the reason. Moving on to one of three special exception variances. Again, this is one of the um one of the ordinances that can be that can be granted a special exception variance, which is maximum lock coverage. This is going to cover both properties, 1025 and 1035 East Spring Street, which both which come out combined into 9.3 acres. This takes it that they would be both zoned B2 and that we would increase our maximum lot coverage from 60% to 61%. On a site this large, that actually

translates out to about 4,000 square feet. So, it's not a ton of space. It's less than a tenth of an acre in terms of impact. So on a 9.3 acre site, that's that's not a huge deal. When you actually run the numbers out there on the the actual square footage that they need, it's more like 400 square ft. Um, but this would give them a little bit of flexibility if they get to final engineering uh to to add or or to add some some impervious space out there. And imperous space is asphalt. It's concrete, it's roofs, it's buildings, it's anything that can absorb rainwater. So, we have a maximum lot coverage of 60% and that's in order to um reduce storm water impact, preserve some green space, make sure that we don't just pave over paradise. We find that in this case, this is a very very small impact relatively speaking. Uh ordinarily we wouldn't support a huge increase in lot coverage but in this case because it's small we find that there's no substantial detriment to the public good or injury to nearby property and it's also not of a scale that it would impair the ordinance. So, we're recommending approval as submitted. Special exception variance number two, again applying to both properties, it is to increase the maximum parking from 120% to 187% of the minimum required. There's going to be a little bit of math warning on this case. Um hopefully you can follow along here. Uh we've got parking spaces. So we have a requirement in our city that when you develop anything you have to except in

our downtown you have to provide a certain ratio of parking spaces to the square footage of the building typically or in some cases like a church the number of people that you would have in your assembly space. And that comes out to uh a particular number of spaces that you have to build by code. We are also a little bit unique in that we have a maximum allowed which is just 120% of whatever that minimum is. So we allow a small bump over that and that's again to prevent us from getting too much parking uh which I already reviewed as to why that's damaging for cities. So in this case we have um a a ratio of 1 to six spaces. So one space for every six people that works out to about 192 spaces based on the capacity of their auditorium. They have 240 spaces out there right now. Um with the construction they're adding this 14,000 square foot life or activity center and they're also proposing this new 169 space parking lot. But that would leave them with 190 spaces uh on their existing site. And so they would lose some spaces uh off their existing site, but more than make up for them on their when you combine. So we have a requirement for 192. We have an existing number of 240. They're proposing 359, which is fairly large, and they're only allowed 230. So that's why they're here asking for an exception there. That works out to about one space per six people is our requirement. They've submitted some documents that um from church planning and design documents that recommend you have one space per two or two and a half people. We think that might be a little bit too

much. Um they're requesting one to three. So we recognize that 1 to six is probably not the right number out here, but 1:2 might not be the right number either. It's somewhere in the middle there. So, uh, we note that this probably would dilute some of the property values. When you put big service parking lots out here, they do tend to lower, uh, the property values from a city standpoint. And that's why we're recommending those things about using the property throughout the week so that we can maximize the utility of that space and then also add some additional landscaping to offset some some of that parking and break it up a little bit visually when you go by there. We're recommending approval as submitted with this particular variance. Next variance is the red is to reduce the front yard landscape buffer from 20 feet to six feet. So you can see some of their landscaping plan here. Uh those are going to be some trees and some bushes and as well as some islands in the parking lot that are going to be planted. And the area in question is right here. You can see there's some plants that they've indicated are going to be there and I've highlighted it here. And that they would rather not lose 13 parking spaces that are out there. Our ordinance would require you to have a 20 foot buffer along this area. and they are compliant out here uh but not here. So they've only got six feet of space between the property line and the parking there. And so they're asking to reduce that landscape buffer just to keep it with the same distance that it is now and add some plants there. So right now it's grass and they they would put a landscaping plan with some trees and some bushes there. Uh in

exchange they would like to keep the parking. We find again this is not going to create a substantial detriment to the public. The buffer reduction is technically uh detrimental to some of the surrounding properties and the aesthetics. This is an important gateway and so we want to have uh good aesthetics as you come into the city here. This is why we've proposed beefing up this buffer with some additional plantings as a condition. But we do note that a new buffer here would replace grass and so buffer um a landscape buffer would be better than no buffer and the additional plantings would help offset it. So we are comfortable with recommending approval out here with the understanding that we would recommend some additional plantings. Moving on to the hardship variance, which in this case uh again the hardship is I can't do it. The special exception is I'd rather not. In this case, the hardship variance is for relief from our limit of 42 feet of pavement depth between our frontage landscape and our facade. So that means essentially that you get 42 feet from the front of the property where you've got your your landscaping and your and your rideway and then you've got 42 feet to work with. uh before you need to put a building there. In this case, we are we are way off of that. This was a former grocery store. It was built in the 90s. It was built long before our existing code was in place. And so it would be very difficult to comply with that 42 feet of frontage um depth. So the the uh the application asks that the the applicant basically prove that they have hardship out here that they've got some kind of unique condition that

justifies an exception and we would agree that they have inherited this unique condition. One of the issues is that you can't create the problem yourself and they have not. Uh they inherited this when they bought the property and furthermore this property was like this before our code. So unlike the quick trip where it was a new use and there was no pre-existing conditions out there to to deal with, this is an example of having a precondition a pre-existing condition that is an obstacle to complying with the ordinance. We also note that on the rear here, ordinarily where we would want the parking on the side or the rear, there's just not enough space here. We have the highway here which is not moving. There's no room there to add more parking. And this is somebody else's property here. And uh the highway just keeps going right here. So there's just not, you can see right here, you actually saw this case not too long ago um with the HVAC contractor. So there's just no no more room to put the parking where where the code would prefer. And so there's just not that many options. The other option would be to move the building and pick it up and move it towards the front of the property. This is obviously uh would require like the complete demolition and reconstruction from scratch. So this would be extraordinarily costly. This would be definitely imposing a hardship on the applicant. And it would probably be so expensive that they would leave this property vacant and have be forced to go find another property that would work for them. So ideally we wouldn't have this large surface parking lot and that's why our code prohibits it. But we would prefer to have a um active building and this service parking lot the way that it is instead of having a vacant property. So in terms of the public good, we think that granting this variance is justified and that's why we're recommending approval.

Last one. Quarter design overlay certificate of appropriateness. And this covers the entire property, both properties there. Um, zone B2. Uh, going to cover the entirety of the church expansion and the parking lot. So, we have a 44,000 square foot existing main uh main building there with the auditorium and and associated spaces. They want to add a 14,000 square foot life and activity center here. So about 58,000 square feet of building. Uh their existing parking out there is 240 spaces, but they would want to propose 3590 on their existing site and 169 on the site next door. Generally, we find this does meet the spirit of the corridor design overlay for an existing building. So, this bill the because it was the former grocery store and it was built before the existing code, it doesn't really meet any of the corridor design expectations that we would have on a new build, but it's good enough to meet what uh we would expect on an existing condition out there. There's only so much you can do to make it better, and they're doing enough of that. However, um we do have a recommendation, as we've said in some of these other cases, that we have additional trees in landscaping. We can see that there was a lot of trees on this on this property next door. Those have since been cleared. We'd argue we lost some trees that should have been preserved. We'd lost some buffering that should have been preserved. So, we have a condition here that's going to um recommend beefing that up. This is what the church expansion would look like. This is the life activity center. So this is the front and this is going to be the side. Uh as you're facing towards the highway, I believe

we are recommending approval. Although we note that like the other COA, this is going to have to be tabled until that reszone and the variances are approved or dealt with by council. So technically you're not taking action on this one tonight, but we do feel like it is in an approvable state. Although we have these conditions here uh to add some sidewalks and then the condition to prevent accessory buildings in the front yard, uh the landscaping, and then everything else is going to be trees and landscaping. So those are all laid out in your staff report if you want to see them in more detail. And that at last concludes the staff report. You're out of breath.

Oh,

there was a lot. That's a lot. Do we have any comment from the church?

I'm Tommy Fountain, pastor at 1025 Church. Been in Monroe since uh 2013. when we uh began our church, we had 113 folks and God has blessed us with about 2400 now. And so it's just been a great journey and we have been in this room oftentimes with city council, never in this setting. So we thank you so much, ladies and gentlemen, for allowing us to approach you. Nick Chambers is our executive pastor. He's also a construction guy. He's a electrician. uh with us too. We have Tim Stewart who's a construction guy. Also our campus pastor at our second campus in Stadium, Jojo Leech is with us and then my ministry assistant Don Parker who worked for PPI for a long time. But anyway, uh I do need to have some clarification and just like to share some things with you that may can help. And uh I'm going to let Nick share some of that and we may combine together. Uh, I've spoken to thousands and I'm more nervous tonight than I am when I'm in the pool pit. So, just know that because I have such a heart for Monroe. If you don't know anything about our church, we are in the community. We're in every public school in the Monroe cluster. Um, we are in the projects in the housing authorities. Nick just got out of jail. Uh we're in he he was doing ministry in the jail. And so our heart

our heart our heart is in Monroe. And so the reason for the purchase of this property was where we were located. We outgrew it. Uh we actually moved to the old DeFax building which now the county owns. And we were there for months until we finished this. This was an old Piggly Wiggly or a bo. Um just to give you a little history of that. I started work when I was 12 years old in a Piggly Wiggly. When my wife and I, Dian, and I got married, I managed a Piggly Wiggly. Lo and behold, my boys who are both preachers say, "Pop, she going to die in a Piggly Wiggly." And so, we are grateful that we were able to not only purchase that for only 600,000. The value is is a lot more than that now. And if you could see, remember where we were to where that property is now. And we were able to do that because we demoed that building ourselves. We demoed it ourselves and then we put it back together ourselves with folks who were project managers and construction people and that's how we did that facility. So we're honored to be there and the purpose of us purchasing the other property different than a business. We're a church. We have multiple services. We can't have just one six ratio. it would never work. We would have to relocate. We don't want to relocate. Our goal is to put campuses in other areas and we put young pastors like Jojo Leech there to pastor and to preach. We want to stay in Monroe. And so this is vital for us. When that property became o got open, they started talking about selling it. We prayed and said, "Lord, give us that property." And there were two reasons. Number one, church growth. Number two, so we could have visibility off of Highway 78. And number three, really, so we could make that area look better coming into

Monroe. Now, if you know this area, if you remember what it looked like prior to 2018, when I first told our folks that I thought God gave us a vision to buy that old Piggly Wiggly, it was awful in that area. It was bad. Since we've moved in, everything around us has cleaned up. Even Pope Pies has cleaned up. Everything around us. We now have the old National Bank. Go by there and look at it. It's nice. The city bought the area up there where the police station is now. And there's a lot. And I've got the plans for that of what's going to take place there from Mr. Draper. And so, we're excited about this area. And so we just need some clarification and just to be able to share with you some of our heart why that you know one for six doesn't work. Uh by the way that one for two or one for 2.5 was back in 2001 or three when we had an organization called Lifeway that had all of those statistics for us. This is now 2026. Nobody rides to church together. Uh we have too many multiple services where people are serving in other areas. So really what they're recommending now from the North American Mission Board is 1.5. Now I'm okay with what you've given us, but they really are recommending now 1.5. My wife and I never ride together. Nick and his wife never ride together because we get there early. They come later. And so with the extra parking, which I'm grateful that we're able to do that, but I just needed to kind of clarify why we want to do what we're doing. We really want to have impact and influence in the city of Monroe and help our schools and help our projects and help all the

things that we can to make a difference. Now, that's where my heart is. That's where our heart is and that's why God's blessed us. Now, that may may not make much sense when you put the pencil to it, but I can't put the pencil to it. I have to live by faith and trust God for what he's doing in changing lives in our area. So, we have a couple of concerns. One is about the reszone and just some clarification and then the last part about it as well. Thank y'all for approving the other and I'll let Nick address the other.

I'm Nick Chambers. Um I I when you were talking about us using our property for other things, I agree with you 100%. Um throughout the years that we've been there, we have allowed civic organizations to come in like the Chamber of Commerce and utilize our worship center for their meetings. Uh the city has used our facility for um mass casualty and active shooter training. The county as a whole did a massive training there. we try to open up. Um so we are trying to take that into account. Um the one a couple of things that I that I wanted to bring up and see how we could work through this. So um the six-foot sidewalk that's proposed along the Hammond Drive frontage for us. We've we've got some pictures. I don't know if you guys have been by there and seen on the top side of our top entrance is Hammond Drive. There is a guard rail there. And there's about this much room between that guard rail and the road. Um, without cutting down trees and building retaining walls and removing the everything, I would say that that sidewalk is just impossible to put in. Um, we actually constructed almost a a creek catchall because the runoff from the city's parking lot was eating away at our bank and we spent a bunch of money to to try and stop that. Um, so I would ask that you guys consider that. Um, let's see. Um, on our proposed plan, um, we're we are in a unique setting. Um, our building cannot change. The property is what it is. We've got a retaining uh retention pond in the back and as we try to expand where we've got the family life center

that you see on your let's see the green button point the laser. Is that it? Yes, it does.

All right. Um right here right now we have our buses parked under a canopy metal canopy because the sun does more damage to a bus or to those types of things. So, we have it back there. Where we had proposed was putting it down here. Now, I read in here where that's in the front. So, we can't do that. Could we propose moving that area right there back here and then constructing? We've got pictures of what I'm hoping to be the nice canopy that we can put over our buses. That's not a metal building style canopy. Something really nice. something that looks good from the road would bring more appeal. The other one's in the back. I mean, it's a metal core port like you see people put over motor homes at their home. Um, so that's the one thing um that we would ask for some help on that if possible to just shift all of that back because I think if we put it if we were to stick it right here, we can get probably stay off of that buffer but still be behind the front of the building. So it wouldn't be it wouldn't be considered I guess hopefully not be considered front of the building. It would be more of the side. But as you can see, our property limits us so much. Um, the last part I was just reading, uh, point number three, and this is on the last, this is on the, uh, COA. Um, and it's talking about us putting 31 trees. And I think where it's talking about the 31 trees would be right here. Um, we were hoping that could be green space. We're going to have a buffer there and we are planting a bunch of trees around the perimeter and

everything else. But I feel that 31 turns that into a forest and takes over where we could use it for green space for family picnics and different things like that. Um, and we're asking for that to be, you know, we're we're definitely going to pour out a bunch of money into this as trees that go around the property and everything else. We know that. But I just didn't know where that number came from when I was reading the code and all the variances where that number would come from. So we're asking that to be forgiven as well. Um not to take away all that number, but to work with us in that because we do we are like right here we have a retention pond right here right now. If you ride by there, it's the ugliest thing in Monroe. Okay. We're actually going to put it underground so that that can be one big green space. Now, um we're doing as much as we can to try and make this place beautiful. Um and we're just asking for consideration on these things. So,

can you summarize that, sir? Can you summarize? He said the condition on the Hammond sidewalk, the uh for the buses and the 31 trees. We're going to still plant a ton of trees, but like I said, we don't turn that into a forest right there. and we want to plant a bunch of trees.

And I I'll be I'll I'll be honest with you, the 30 the calculation I came up with 31 was based on math. So if you were to plant if you were to go plant a ton of trees, that was based on pure mathematics of them spread out with a with a mature mature healthy trees spread out. 31 was based on them being 120 feet square feet apart with 60 foot crown. So if you were to plant mature decidious trees that grow healthy in this area, that whole area could support 31 trees.

But we're what we're asking for is to allow us to construct our buffer and plant trees along the buffer and we plant all of those trees right there. Like I said, we're not trying to get away from we're going to still load this place up, but we're asking for some help in us trying to get our mission accomplished while making it pretty on that side. We don't want it to be we're just asking for a little bit of help. So,

I can speak to the uh the access part. I mean, because you do you I mean that we know that the front of the building has got you hampered in. So, uh yeah, I think just because we're looking at a conceptual plan, if you push the the bus parking in line with this front of the building as much as you can, I know that pushes your pavilion thing around and also messes with your pavilion thing there, you may be having to group some of that stuff together, kind of push it around a little bit. Um just because your front setback line has pushed you all the way into the back of the property. Um yeah, I mean that that way you can get your bus parking out there. I mean, you and I talked about this before, too, when you originally proposed this, but if that helps you with the bus thing, um, that way you're compliant with code. We don't have to do any. I don't want to make you guys have to come back. Um, uh,

yeah. To have that condition still there, but to comply. Absolutely. Uh, so let's say, so then we're talking about condition three with this 31 trees. I mean and part of that in the last sentence it says the landscape plan shall be submitted along with the site development plans for the parking lot expansion reflecting compliance for this be subject to the approval of myself. So uh what you're asking to do is reduce the number of 31 to that you didn't have a number in mind. Yes sir. I didn't I wouldn't even

and I really did. I sat down and plotted out you know what what would that take to fill that area with trees because you know how I feel about the trees that were removed. Uh uh so because I we felt like that those could have been retained, right? So that was really my thinking on that was hey I thought we were going to plant those trees back. I was just going by what I was reading and what was proposed was these were going to be there were going to be trees planted back. So I didn't have a landscape plan other than what I had proposed in front of me. That area was just shown as just nothing like no there was no there's no activities planned for that area. There's no nothing shown except for that little pavilion square there. So, I didn't know that there was going to be things like passive passive things planned there. So, so I was like, "Well, let's let's load her up with trees." So, um um I I'm okay with um I'm okay with striking everything except the last sentence. That way I can see a landscape plan.

Yes, sir. Oh, we would definitely That way that way we get rid of the 31. I I I still need to see a landscape plan.

Yeah, because we've asked them to beef up the buffer. Okay, we do need the buffer beefed up because I don't have any planting shown on this plan. That's a t typical condition we ask of a certificate of appropriateness of most um applicants for you. Um that do require approval and you so they're already we're already asking them to go through an administrative approval by us and we would review that at the administrative level. Um they've shown a basically a buffer plan on the front. We need that repeated. That's what we asked to do in the commissioner. Repeat that along 78 and on the the neighboring property. So, um, look, propose something in that area. So, when you say tons of trees, is it going to be decorative? You know, something something to complement your your activities out there, your passive activities. That way, we can see what's just Yeah. That way we can have a landscape plan that's conditioned. That way we know you're going that way. That way, I'm not like hanging 31 of city trees on top of your head there. um or as a forest as you said, Nick. I mean, it would be kind of shady over there.

Well, the negative thing about our property, we do not have place for kids to play even now. And when we do this, definitely. And so, that will give us some space there for Wednesday night activities. And we are more than a Sunday ministry. Our Wednesday nights, the place is is packed. I know that sounds crazy, but it's just packed. And there is one other thing I need to mention to you on this area and I'm not sure if it comes at the very end appropriation or not, but I'm gonna go ahead and do it. When when you counted the parking spaces initially, if I'm not mistaken, let me make sure I got my figures right here. When we first counted, you counted 240 uh based upon the the Alta survey, ALTA, which dated back to 2001 when we did this uh space. Now uh with losing spaces etc. there's actually more spaces than the 240 that referred to in the alta survey. Um so uh based on the current stripes parking spaces there's 268 existing parking spaces. Then when we take off the other for the family life center and I just want to make sure this is right. Then there's 169 268. So it really gives us just a just a clarification 393 spaces total even with taking off the others. So you can check back and look and see and the way that uh it's been striped. So we currently and I mentioned that is I don't want to come back if we have 393 and y'all somebody say oh y'all got 393 instead of 359 if that makes sense. So that 359 number was based on counting up the spaces in the site plan that you had submitted. So that's where that number comes from. So I I noted in the report that that you had a different number in your table

that was on that site plan, but I couldn't find all of those spaces based on just counting the ones that were shown striped on the site plan. Yeah. I just want to make sure that we're on the same page when it comes down to it. I don't want you coming. Oh, Tommy, y'all got more parking spaces than we said. Right. Brad, how would you want to handle if we've got a if we got a layout there and we've counted based on our layout, but then we've also got a calculation that differs from that layout.

So, you're saying there's 360? Yes, sir. I'm saying based upon our count and based upon space is the Yes, sir. Right now we have 268 spaces on our strike parking. Right now there are 268 spaces and you're showing only 240. But we when we redid that building in 2018 there are 268 parking spaces that exist there now. miss something. I mean, it's not that number. We just want to make sure that we're right adding spaces to plan that

the number that's already there is correct. So that so that number about the 200 that's not relevant to the regulation necessarily. Yeah, I if you weren't changing anything, you'd get to keep it, but it's the uh the 359 or versus the 393 number that would be that would be the issue. different than what we actually have. So the plan would change on what we're proposing. We just want to make sure the math Yeah. And I understand. Yeah. And we will still lose the parking when we put the family life center. Right.

Right. So what I what I counted on that plan was 190 spaces with your new construction. That would be what you would have on on the 1025 parcel. And then you add that with 169 on the new parking lot next door. That's where I got 359 and that was counted off of just counting the site plan here. But then when you got that table up there in the corner, there was a 393 number up there and I couldn't find I couldn't find 393 spaces on the We even had parking right there u between us and AutoZone. Yeah. Stephen was thorough in counting the spaces. He probably counted it more than once uh by hand.

Well, I'm not doubting that. I just want to make sure that we're I'm not reading the same. I just want to make sure see that we're on the same understood. Yeah. Nick, was there anything else? We thank y'all. Thank you guys. And thank you for uh being patient with us. Any questions that y'all have for Nick? Go ahead. Thank you. That's very ambitious.

Well, we love Monroe. We want to see God do a great work here. I mean, I'm not gonna have a hard 360. Typically, we do hold people to the fire on bases when you're asking for a variance. So, um, you're saying there's 360. Um, I'm saying you're saying that you're you're going to end with with 390. Yeah. We're saying that with the existing that we have plus what we're going to lose plus what we're adding, our numbers calculated at 393. Now, that's awful. It may be. I just I think we need to make sure see what those numbers are.

We want to we don't want we don't want to come back either. This is coming from your engineer. So, I mean this is coming straight from your engineer. That is a lot of spaces to be missing. That's why I was scared. I'm like, where are we? Where where on this site do you think that those spaces were missed if you were to hand count this versus I mean, forget the existing survey. I'm I'm kind of lost myself because you are losing how many spaces were you losing based on the family life center. How what was that number again? Three. That's right. I heard that's what I heard. Okay. Now, some of that may be on the side as we come around the building on the back side of the building and then on the side where the office space is as well. If you're looking at the building, our office spaces,

you're losing a lot. You're losing every space on that side of the building. It looks like a lot more than 40. You're losing every space on that side of the building. It looks like a lot more than 40. I'm looking I'm looking at aerial right now and there's a lot more than 40 right there. Yeah.

Property is so Can we check that and make sure? Is that something we can do? No, I mean we need to we need to make sure we're clarify that before we can check that before the council takes action. We just need to make sure our numbers are right. Thank you guys. They're not taking

We also looked at the sidewalk condition and because there's a guard rail out there and a steep curve, we're okay if you choose not to move that forward. So, it was it was a requirement of the ordinance, but given the topography out there, if you were to recommend and you just dropped that one that would be acceptable to staff. Yeah. And part of the reason too is that Hammond design overlay. The reason second reason too itself is done with the design overlay. All right. So, where are we starting the vote? Reszone. Reszone.

Motion on that. Motion to approve. Second. All approve. I. Okay. Real fast. Second. Approve. Or no. Motion to approve. Second. I second. Second. A second. All in favor? I. I. I. I can't hear you. It's a motion. Motion. Next is the special exemption 4548 and that's motion to approve. Second. Second. All in favor I I I. Next is 4549. Is that right? Yes. Motion to approve. Motion to approve.

Second. Second. I I I Texas 40 4550. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second. Second. Favor. I. And 4551. Motion to approve. Second. Motion to approve. Favor. I I That's a mouthful of motions. Okay. And then we have to do the table.

Yeah. Which one are we taking here? Uh 4552. No vote on that. But Motion to table table that 4552. Yes. All in favor of tableabling? I approve. I have uh Matias and Parks. That's the table. Just to clarify on the reszone, you did state with conditions

number eight on the agenda, the reszone. Approval on that. Sea did. Approval with the conditions. Yes. Yes. I I I motion to adjourn. We one more. Thank you. Is that something else? We have a motion to adjurnn. I move we adjourn. Second. All in

favor. I I I'm crosseyed.