Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good afternoon. I'll call the Planning Commission meeting to order. Daisy, can you confirm that the Kansas Open Meeting Act required notice has been properly provided?

Yes, I can confirm that the packet was posted and the required notice was provided.

Thank you, Daisy. Roll call, please.

Commissioner McFadden?

Here.

Commissioner Rogers?

Here.

Commissioner Mikesell? Commissioner Feltz?

Did she say me? Oh, here.

Commissioner Van Coven.

Here.

Commissioner Pankritz.

Here.

Vice Chair Farber. Here. And Chair Waters. Here. So with seven out of eight members, we have a quorum and we can proceed with the business.

Thank you, Daisy. I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the July 7th meeting, not unless there are corrections. If so, please state those.

I'd move they be approved as printed. Second.

Move to second to approve the minutes of the July 7th meeting. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We'll move into new business, application ZMA 26-004.

Thank you, Chair Waters and members of the Planning Commission. This item on the agenda today is application number ZMA 26-004, a request for a zoning map amendment filed by Mike Harvey on behalf of Bobcat of Salina. The staff report and attachments were included in your packet for this one, so we're going to go through some slides here. This request is to rezone lot 7, less the highway right-of-way in the interstate district north of I-70, lots 4 through 7 addition, from C7 highway commercial to C5 service commercial. The site is a 1.8 acre tract, roughly 77,000 square feet, addressed at 645 West Diamond Drive. It sits on the south side of West Diamond Drive, just north of Interstate 70. The property is currently zoned C7. So for surrounding zoning to the north, we have across Diamond Drive, we have I2 Light Industrial. To the east is C7 Highway Commercial. To the south is A1, which is vacant agriculture land and the Interstate 70 right away. And to the west is C5 Service Commercial. For background, the property was plotted in February 1974 and has remained vacant since that time. In the mid 2000s, the city adopted an infrastructure master plan for the West Diamond Drive area to address street access, storm drainage, water, and sanitary sewer limitations that were holding back development in this corridor. A special benefit district was then formed in 2008 to finance the paving of West Diamond Drive. And a looped water system for fire protection and the extension of sanitary and storm sewer lines. So these improvements are in place today. The applicant stated purpose for the rezoning is to provide a consistent zoning across the properties along the south side of Diamond Drive. The Bobcat of Salina dealership to the west is already zoned C5. And the applicant has indicated there's no anticipated change in the use of the property at this time. so the site would likely remain vacant. If the rezoning is approved, development of the site would be subject to the C-5 district standards in Chapter 42 of the Salina Code. The C-5 district permits uses such as equipment sales and rental, automotive sales and service, and business and professional offices. The minimum lot area is 7,500 square feet, and this lot is just over 77,000. Maximum lot coverage is 50%. Maximum structure height is 50 feet and the front yard setback is 25 feet from the property line with side and rear access aisles as required by the fire department. The complete C5 development standards are attached in the staff report. Turning to the review factors, first the suitability of the site for development under the existing zoning. The property has been vacant since it was platted in 1974. The C7 district permits a limited scope of uses oriented to the traveling public, primarily interchange services such as gas stations, hotels, and restaurants. That prolonged vacancy provides evidence that the C7 regulations are not conducive to development at this specific location. The C5 district permits a wider range of uses, and because the property to the west is already zoned C5, this amendment extends the existing district eastward rather than creating an isolated zoning district. One additional note on this slide, as shown on the map, portions of the slot are in the AE flood zone. Any future structure would need its lowest floor elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation, if the structure were within that area that's covered by the flood plain there. That standard applies regardless of which zoning district is in place on this property. Second, the character of the neighborhood. West Diamond Drive is an established corridor with a mix of highway commercial, service commercial, and light industrial uses. The south side of the drive is developed with hotels, a restaurant, the Bobcat of Salina dealership, and the Morton Buildings facility. and the north side includes a truck stop, travel center, and a trailer washout facility. Immediately east of the site is the Motel 6, a highway commercial use with the Bobcat and Morton buildings operations to the west of this property. Extending the C5 zoning across this tract aligns with the established character of the corridor and is not expected to adversely affect neighboring properties. Third, public utilities, storm drainage, and services. So this site has adequate access to existing utilities. An 8-inch water line and 8-inch sanitary sewer line are both located in West Diamond Drive right away to serve the property. For storm drainage, any future development would be required to manage stormwater runoff in compliance with the city's engineering standards. So the addition of paved surfaces does not create a drainage problem for the surrounding area. The rezoning will not impact public schools and the site is within the existing service areas for fire and police protection. Fourth, street and traffic. This property takes direct access from West Diamond Drive. The existing C7 district is intended to serve the traveling public from the interstate, which presumes high traffic volumes. The uses permitted in C-5 are generally expected to generate traffic comparable to or less intensive than many C-7 uses. And since no change in use is proposed at this time, there is no immediate traffic impact. Staff does not anticipate congestion or safety hazards from this amendment. Fifth, conformance with the comprehensive plan. The future land use map designates this property as commercial. And both the existing C7 and proposed C5 districts are appropriate within that classification, so no amendment to the comp plan is required. The site meets the plan's locational criteria for commercial uses, since it is located adjacent to a major thoroughfare on a key corridor. And it conforms to the plan's development criteria for commercial sites. Pulling all that together in staff's analysis, the property has remained vacant since being platted in 1974, which provides evidence that the limited scope of uses provided in the C7 is not conducive to development here. C5 district permits a wider range of uses and the amendment resolves a zoning boundary separation by extending the existing C5 district eastward. The site is fully supported by existing infrastructure that was installed through the benefit district specifically to enable commercial development in this corridor. And the request is consistent with the comp plan. Approval supports the productive use of a long vacant tract and is not anticipated to harm the public welfare. So staff suggested findings on each of these review factors are listed in the staff report. And I would also note for the record that the staff has not received any public comments on this application. Because this is a zoning map amendment, the Planning Commission acts as a recommending body, and the City Commission takes final action by ordinance. So following your action today, state law provides a 14-day protest period before the item moves forward to the City Commission. Your alternatives this afternoon are, one, to recommend approval of the zoning map amendment to the City Commission. Two, to recommend denial of the zoning map amendment to the City Commission, provided that appropriate findings are made. Or three, to postpone consideration to a future meeting date to allow the applicant or staff to provide additional information. And staff recommends option one, that the planning commission recommend approval of the zoning map amendment from C7 to C5. If the commission concurs with the staff's recommendation and the suggested findings in the staff report, a recommended motion is shown on the screen and that would read as, moving to recommend approval of the requested zoning map amendment from C7 Highway Commercial to C5 Service Commercial for the 1.8 acre tract located on the south side of West Diamond Drive. That concludes staff's presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions and we have a representative for the applicant also present on Zoom, I believe, today.

Thank you, Justin. Commissioners, are there any questions of staff? All right, hearing none, commissioners, are there any questions of the applicant? Is there anyone in the room that cares to bring forth a comment? All right, Gage, is there anyone online that might have a question?

The only person online is the applicant. Okay.

All right, commissioners, I open it up for discussion or a motion.

I'd recommend we approve the zoning map amendment from C7 to C5 for 1.8 acres and application ZMA 26-004. Second.

Been moved and second to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. We'll move on to the next application, PP26-001.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the commission. Presenting application PP26001, a request for approval of a preliminary plat to be known as the Auburndale District Edition, along with a requested variation from the subdivision regulations. I'll walk through the background of the property and the nature of the request and staff's analysis here and explain the actions that need to be taken on this application today. First, action on the requested variation, and then second, action on the preliminary plat itself. So I'll explain that structure as we go and each action has its own recommended findings and its own recommended motion for that. So the applicant is Jeff Mays of Compro Realty on behalf of the property owner. The request is approval of a preliminary plat for the Auburndale District Addition including a variation from section 3672B of the subdivision regulations, which I'll cover in detail shortly. The property is located at 3135 South 9th Street on the east side of South 9th Street, north of Avenue A. It's a 9.19 acre tract. The proposed plaque creates six lots and the property is zoned PC3 planned shopping center district. So on this next slide, you can see the request area outlined here over an aerial view. So the property sits within the larger Auburndale commercial development east of South 9th Street at Riffle Drive. And for some background, the subject property is an undeveloped southern portion of Lot 1, Block 1 of the replatted Auburndale addition. The Auburndale addition was originally platted in 1998 and was replatted in 2001. creating seven lots on the larger 33.46 acre site. The wider development includes a Lowe's store, existing Holiday Inn Hotel, and several commercial outlot buildings to the northwest there. The subject property has remained vacant since the replat was approved. And the zoning was established by ordinance number 10-10550 in June of 2010, which zoned this property PC3, so planned commercial with a C3 underlying zoning. One key condition of the ordinance is that a final site development plan and landscape plan must be approved by the Planning Commission for each lot before building permits can be issued. So whatever happens with that plot today, each of these lots will come back to you at the site plan stage for approval of a site plan. So this application was previously before the Planning Commission at your June 2nd hearing. And so I'm gonna explain a couple things about why it's back today. There's two parts to this. First, since that hearing, the applicant has revised and simplified the plat. So the internal access drive is now contained in two discrete common area tracts, as lots one and two, rather than easements crossing the development lots. And the development lots have been consolidated down from five to three. So the plat has gone from eight lots total to a total of six lots overall. This revised configuration is consistent with what staff has recommended in the original staff report and staff use this as an improvement that would facilitate traffic and meeting other requirements throughout the development. Second, the motion adopted on June 2nd did not include explicit approval of the requested variation from the subdivision regulations and did not include the findings on the four criteria that were required to support that variation. So because the approval of the variation is a prerequisite to approving the plat, a new hearing on both of those actions is required. And that's what brings us here today. So to make sure the record is clear this time, staff has structured this as two separate actions and each with the zone motion and second and a vote. We have provided recommended findings for both of those and so it should all be able to walk through each action by itself in the slides further on. The proposed replats a 9.19 acre property into six lots. No construction is proposed as part of this application. Lot one is a common area tract containing the existing north-south internal drive, which is riffle drive. So that's what gets you in off of South 9th Street. So it connects South 9th Street into the rest of the Auburndale district addition. Lot two is a second common area tract containing a new internal drive extending east from lot one, and it provides direct access to the three development lots on the plat. Lots three, four, and five are the commercial development lots at 1.13, 2.4, and 2.71 acres respectively, all taking access to South Ninth Street through lots one and two. Lot five is the anticipated hotel site. And again, separating zoning and site plan applications will be required, or separate zoning and site plan applications will be required before any building permits are issued here. But we're just, since there is an anticipated development of one of the lots, we're just kind of including it here for some context. Lot six is the existing stormwater detention basin, which is a non-developable lot and was sized at the time of the 2001 replat of the Auburndale addition to handle full build out of that entire development. One additional feature to point out is that a proposed emergency access easement runs along the south edge of lot four connecting the lot to common area internal drive to the future eastern access point on lot five for the hotel that will be required for fire access. That provides a secondary emergency access that will be required or is going to be required by the fire marshal to access that site. Finally, I'll note that the planning commission is the final decision making authority on both the variation and the preliminary plat, so there's no recommendation going to city commission as part of your actions today. Now, the variation, which is action one, actually, sorry, I'm gonna, can you go to the next slide?

Yeah, no, go back, sorry.

We'll cover the variation, sorry, I reordered slides at the last moment here. I wanna explain the variation first, and then we're gonna go into a bunch of graphic slides just to walk through the layout of the plat. So the variation is action one today. Section 36-72B of the subdivision regulations requires that all lots have legal access from an approved public street The subject property has only about 64 linear feet of frontage on South 9th Street, and all of that is encumbered by existing access easements serving the broader Auburndale addition. That's the same drive that serves the Holiday Inn and other businesses within that development. The result is that the proposed lots three, four, and five have no direct public street frontage, and the plat cannot be approved as configured without a variation. So the proposed alternative is the internal drive system I just described. So that's lots one and two, which are discrete common area tracks connecting you to South 9th Street via Riffle Drive. The applicant's engineer, Kaw Valley Engineering, submitted a written variation request on May 8th as required by section 36-10, and that request remains applicable to the revised configuration. Under section 3610 also, the commission must make findings on four criteria in order to approve the variation. So I'll walk through those as we get further on. All right, so for existing context here, you can see that on the left is a cutout from the Auburndale plot with the subject lot highlighted. Sorry. It's okay. So then on the right is, yeah, there you go. And then on the right, I've just overlaid the layout of the Auburndale District Edition into an aerial photo there, just to give an idea of how that fits into the broader development. You can go to the next slide. So this is the proposed plat, and I know it's hard to read here, so that's why I kinda did the multicolor, graphics here. So this is the proposed preliminary plat as revised on June 22nd. So this is the drawing that's in your packet. And we can go onto the next slide here. So this is the lot layout. A little bit easier to see. You can see that there's two common area tracks in the drive corridor. So the orange is lot one that's existing. And then lot two is the yellow and that would be the extension of it to get you into the development lots. And then on the east side, lock six is the detention basin. And also, you can see that on lot four, on the south side, there's some hatching. The lines are fairly faint, but there are two easements, one being an emergency access easement and then another being a utility easement. Previously, there were one 40-foot wide easement. They've broken those out into two separate ones because you only need 20 feet width for a utility easement. So this adds some developable space on the lot. Okay, so you can move on to the next slide. So this gives you a little bit closer view of the internal drive system itself. So the existing drive is on lot one and that was riffle drive and the new east west drive on lot two. So you can see the also see that the emergency access easement extends off of that proposed internal drive. And it looks like an arbitrary point where it ends, but that's actually measured out to get you to that access for the hotel lot. It's where they're planning to have their secondary access onto that lot. And okay, next slide, or yeah, frontage and setbacks. So because the variation makes the common area tract boundary function as the effective front lot line for the developments, the plat includes a 25 foot building setback lines measured from the access drive. So that gives each development lot a clearly defined front property line for applying setbacks, landscaping, and sign regulations, which was one of the complications with the previous design and had to do with some staff recommendations at that time. So the green is showing you what would be the required front yard. There's kind of a yellow line highlighted over the red that shows you what the actual line is that would be considered the frontage of the lot. So even though those lots all kind of come to the same central point, they all have the adequate linear feet of frontage that's required for a lot. And so a much smaller internal drive right here can actually work and meet all the requirements for lots here. Okay, we can jump to the next slide. Okay, so this is just the existing easements on the property which predate this application. So in the blue you have a drainage easement and there's some of the other yellow ones are different utility easements around the perimeter of the lot there. Go to the next one. So these are the proposed easements. Along the north side, you'll notice there's more yellow up there. That's because there is a new easement that's a little bit wider that's being proposed for access and utility. So there is additional up there. Moving down to the south, along the boundary of the detention basin, a utility easement that would go from the north to the south side of the plat and connect the existing ones for a new water line and on the west side of that hotel lot there's another new utility easement that would provide water line because there's a water line loop that needs to be installed for this for that hotel development to provide adequate fire flows and stuff like that in the Center of the plat, you have two easements again. It's a 40-foot wide access easement and a 20-foot wide utility easement. And that utility easement is carrying a new water line and a new sewer line that would go in there as well. And we can go to them. So these are just the existing utilities. There is an existing water line along the north side. There is an existing sewer that's running down the middle of the existing access drive. And then the pink along the bottom is just utilities that are out near the right over not the right away They're in a utility easement there. I believe they're telephone lines And then these are the proposed new utilities that would go in so there's a water line that Provides a loop connecting into the existing Infrastructure and there's a new sewer line that would come in and kind of run the boundary right between lot four to the north and then lot five to the south. So it'd be running down that central utility easement. This is where the fire hydrants are located. These were put in place mainly for the future development of the hotel so they're all in the correct locations to provide the fire department the access they need to get into the hotel and fight a fire if needed. And there's also a recommended condition of approval related to those that we'll get to later. And these are consistent with the fire department, the fire marshal's memo as well. So just briefly show this site plan. This is the last version that we have. We don't have one that actually shows that the hotel lot is actually a little bit bigger to the east now. They've made that one big lot on the south side. So this is the most recent one we have. It's not necessarily what's going to be there, but as I said, this isn't actually part of the decision today. It's just giving you some context for what's driving the layout and some of the factors of the plat. Okay, so looking at that text, it's a little bit small, but there are four criteria for action one, action one being the variation. So under section 3610A, the commission may not approve a variation without making findings on all four of these. So criteria one is no detriment to public safety, health, or welfare. So the fire department and the engineering division have both reviewed the access configuration and confirmed that it supports adequate emergency response and public services. No adverse effects to the adjacent properties have been identified and staff finds this criterion satisfied. for criterion two, conditions unique to this property. The 64 feet of street frontage is fully committed to the existing access easement serving the developed Auburndale lots. Strict compliance would require either dedicating right-of-way and building a public street to city standards through the interior of the property, or yeah, That would basically be the only way to meet strict compliance here. That condition is specific to this property's location within the established Auburndale district. So staff finds this criterion satisfied because the construction to meet strict compliance would likely constitute an actual hardship. It's not just a matter of convenience. Criterion three is extraordinary hardship. Strict compliance would require that either that new dedicated public street into the property interior or retain the entire 9.19 acre tract as one undivided lot, which would prevent the phased lot by lot development of the site that it's intended for. So staff believes that this would, would likely rise to an extraordinary hardship rather than a mere inconvenience, and we find that this criterion is satisfied. For criterion four, the variation would not affect the zoning regulations, comprehensive plan, or any official map. So this variation is from the subdivision regulations only. So staff finds this criterion satisfied. Staff overall believes that the record supports findings on all four criteria, and recommended findings for each are provided in your staff report. Okay, moving into action two, the preliminary plat itself. So section 3640 establishes 12 criteria, all of which must be satisfied for approval. I'll move through these pretty briefly, spend a little bit more time on the first few, and the last six are a little bit shorter. And the full analysis is in your staff report. So for criterion one, the applicant application requirements, the plot was prepared by a licensed professional engineer and all required elements were present and the fee was paid, so that one's satisfied. Number two is code conformance. These lots are consistent with the PC3 zoning. The C3 district imposes no minimum lot size and each lot requires planning commission site plan approval before permits are issued under the 2010 planned commercial zoning ordinance. The lot access piece of this criterion depends on your approval of the variation. So this is the one that the variation approval relies on here. Because this criterion can't be met without that. So staff's finding here is that it's satisfied based on approval of the variation. Number three is location. The property is within the city limits and surrounded by developed commercial properties with public utilities and city services provided. So that one is also satisfied. Go to the next slide. So number four and five. So number four is public infrastructure. Engineering confirmed adequate street infrastructure in its memo. The utilities department also confirmed that water and sewer can be constructed with the looped water main and sewer extensions as conditions. The property is within the existing emergency siren coverage, and so this criterion is satisfied with a couple conditions regarding water and sewer. Number five is public services. The property is within the police department service area with no issues. The fire department confirmed adequate fire protection in its June 1 memo, subject to three hydrants being installed and the 75,000 pound load requirement for fire apparatus access roads. In addition, the completion of the emergency access road would need to be confirmed by the city engineer and fire marshal before vertical construction. And if the emergency access easement is gated, the gate would need to have a Knox box or other fire marshal approved device to ensure that they can get through the gate as needed. It's fairly routine. Parks and school criteria don't apply to this because it's a commercial subdivision. So staff finds that this one is satisfied with the fire protection conditions that are in the recommended conditions of approval. Numbers 6 through 12 briefly. South 9th Street meets the perimeter street standards with no improvements required. The future land use map designates the site commercial and the plats consistent with the comp plan and the major street plan. The internal drive extends the existing Auburndale Drive network, so the layout integrates with the surrounding street network. There are no public parks in the vicinity requiring connections. There are no new curb cuts on South 9th Street being proposed, and the existing access configuration is consistent with the city's access policies. On storm water, the existing detention basin on lot six was sized for full site build out of the Auburndale additions, so that one's good. And the city engineer has confirmed that there would be no adverse effects to the drainage system. And on number 12, common area maintenance, draft covenants for the common area tracks, slots one and two, covering access rights and maintenance responsibility will be a part of the final plat application. So a draft of those would come in with the application. And those would eventually be recorded concurrently with the final plat. So that's a recommended condition that you'll see later in the staff report. So staff finds this one satisfied with that condition. So with that, all 12 criteria are addressed and staff findings are set out in the report, being that all 12 criteria are satisfied here. So we need to go to recommended findings. On action one, staff has provided four recommended findings in the staff report, one for each of those criterion for the variation. And these are written so that the commission can adopt them as part of the motion on the variation if you agree with staff's analysis or you can modify them or make your own findings based on the evidence presented today. Recommended findings for action two. Staff believes that findings can be made supporting all 12 criteria of section 3640. And suggested findings for each criterion are in the staff report. I'll note again that the finding on criterion two is based on the commission's approval of the variation in action one, and that the water and sewer extensions, the fire protection requirements, and the common area covenants are carried into the findings and conditions. So moving on to planning commission alternatives for action one, your alternatives are to approve the variation based on the findings that all four criteria are satisfied, or postpone to a specific future meeting date if you need additional information, or to deny the variation citing specific findings as to which criteria are not satisfied. Again, the approval on action two relies on action one, so a postponement or denial of action one affects what the commission can do with action two here. On action two, the alternatives are approve the preliminary plat subject to conditions if all 12 criteria are satisfied. Postpone to a specified future date if you need more information from the applicant or staff. Or three would be to deny the plat citing specific findings as to which criteria are not satisfied. Staff's recommendation is for approval of both on both actions. On action one would be to approve the variation from section 36-72B pursuant to Section 36-10 based on findings on all four criteria. On action two would be to approve the preliminary plat of the Auburndale district addition based on findings on all 12 criteria subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Staff has not identified any unresolved issues with the preliminary plat provided that the commission approves the variation. As for the ten conditions of approval. I'm not going to go through each of those individually, but there are ten recommended conditions listed here and in the staff report. In summary, the developer is responsible for all public improvements shown on the plat and infrastructure drawings. All utilities should be placed underground. There will be three fire hydrants. The 75,000 pound fire access road specifications or standards. Confirmation of the completed emergency access road by the city engineer and fire marshal before vertical construction. The Knox box requirement if the emergency access easement is gated. The looped water main and sewer extensions. The draft covenants for the common area tracks submitted with the final plat application and recorded along with the final plat. And a minor correction on a typo that was found on the drawing. So it's just a note. It's irrelevant to the decision that you're making. It's just a typo that we've already noted and listed here. just referenced as an old lot numbering for before the layout was redesigned. So with that, the next slide is recommended motions, and we can zoom in on those if we need to, or possibly here if that text is a little too small. Because these are two separate actions, each needs its own motion, second and vote, and staff recommends taking them in order with the variation first. For action one, the recommended motion is to move to approve the requested variation from section 36-72B of the Salina Code pursuant to section 36-10. After finding that all four criteria of section 36-10 have been satisfied as set out in the staff report. Just to give a little bit of context to why that has those two sections, 36-72 is actually where the requirement for having the public street requirement. 3610 is the criteria that's for the variation. So chaining those together is, it's actually putting two pieces of the puzzle together there. Fraction two, following the variation, the recommended motion for the preliminary plat is to move to approve application PEP 26-001 the preliminary plat of the Auburndale district edition subject to the 10 conditions of approval in the staff report after finding that all 12 criteria under section 36-40 have been satisfied. So that concludes staff's presentation and we have the applicant here in the room this afternoon and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Dustin. Commissioners, are there any questions of staff?

I have one. If it's not relevant right now, just tell me. But lot one, it's a private drive now east of 9th on Riffle Drive and maintained by the property owner, not the city. And is there current covenants for restriction or access for Holiday Inn? I notice that the only access to Holiday Inn is off of that private drive. Is there something now?

Can you explain maybe a little bit more about what the... Is there a scenario you have in mind or are you wondering if they...

I know that they're going to put the verbiage in there for later on, but I was curious what it was like now because it's not owned by the Holiday Inn. It's owned by... True. It restricts them and almost landlocks them.

Well, okay, so lot one is part of... So what would be lot one on the new plat is actually part of the subject lot. It is already owned by the owner of this property right now. Because there are covenants in place, it's a common access, a common area tract. So that is established in the covenants for rights of access. And that applies to the north also. That goes northward all throughout the subdivision. There are established common areas and access easements. I believe it might be a mix of the two, but they are all established in those covenants that... for the benefit of all lot owners within development. And that's part of the underlying reason for not not making both common areas into one tract and we kind of touched on in the last meeting but leaving lot one what will be the new lot one uh separate helps just keep those covenants that are already in place and then write different covenants similar but you know unique to this subdivision for the new piece of it so instead of having to figure out how to whether whether you're amending those old covenants from 2010 or how that would all work, this kind of avoids that situation. And Jeff can expand on that if he wants to, if he knows more about it, but that's kind of my simple explanation there of why we're doing that. That's good enough for me.

I was just curious more than anything.

At the end of the day, Holiday Inn and all of the lots have access provided through that.

Are there any other questions of staff? Okay, are there any questions for the applicant? All right, hearing none, does anyone in the audience have any questions or care to share anything?

There's nobody from the public in the room, and the only person on Zoom is Commissioner Mike Sell.

Okay. Welcome, Pat. Okay. I'd open it up to the commissioners for discussion or a motion. We will start first with the variation.

I'll jump in. After finding that all the criteria have been satisfied in our staff report, I would move to approve the requested variation of section 36-72B of the Solana Code pursuant to section 36-10. Second.

It has been moved and second to approve this variation. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right, I open it up for discussion or a motion on the preliminary plat.

I'd move that we approve the preliminary plat for the Auburndale district addition based on findings that all 12 criteria of section 3640 have been satisfied subject to the conditions of approval.

Second.

Been moved and second to approve the preliminary plat. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Is there any new business?

Do not have any. New business or unfinished business? Old business. I think we took care of new business. Sorry, I meant. So unfinished business. Don't have any other unfinished.

Okay.

Our next meeting will be August 4th. We do have one item on the agenda for that.

All right. Gage, is there anyone besides Mr. Mikesell on?

Nope.

Okay.

I was the only one.

All right. I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

Then move and say it to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you.