Westminster Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm sorry. This is a test survived. Can you scare me? Find drugs.

We're gonna uh I'm Thomas Barrett. I'm a chairman of the Westminster Planning Zoning Commission. Tonight I'm going to call the meeting to order. Uh Thursday, September 18th. And uh the first item of business is approval of the meeting summary for November 21st, 2024. There a motion to approve. Motion's been made to approve the meeting summary of November 21st, 2024. Is there a second? I'll I'll second. No, I do have a question um for staff. Why are we Why is it

We're catching up there. There was So, we've kind of been doing it in a weird way. We we were first doing it most recent and going back and then there was a chunk that we didn't have because the holidays and things like that. So we want you're cleaning up everything up. So don't like when I was reviewing the minutes it's been a while. So okay. Yeah. I was like ancient history. It's like nostalgic. You don't. We have a a motion uh and second to approve the meeting of November 21st. Are there any further questions? All in favor say I.

I. No. Not as have. Okay. First item and only item of business with the exception of a county report via the public hearing on Wakefield Valley Development Plan amendment DP24-01 parcel W and X and I'm going to open the hearing and turn it over to uh Mark. But before I do that, has everybody that wanted to testify signed in so I can go through sign? Okay, perfect. Okay, Mr. Let me just get the service here for correct me.

Okay. As stated, this is a public hearing for Wford Valley Development Plan amendment D2401 for parcel W and parcel X. The parcel W is 38.2934 acres and parcel X is 16.069. 0695 acres. Parcels W and parcel X are owned by WB Westminster LLC in zone C conservation zone. WB Westminster LLC. The applicant initially submitted an application to amend the Wakefield Valley Development Plan again DP 2401. This is the proposed fit amendment to the Wakefield Valley Fendi Farm general development plan. Just real quickly, the reason we're preferring this to Wakefield Valley because it amended the Wakefield Valley of the general plan. On July 18th, 2024, DP2401 was introduced to the commission to add 25 new density rights from the parcel W to construct 25 single family detach drawing units and dedicate parcel X to Carol Village for open space on October 30th uh 2024 to request the applicant staff met with the applicant and provided an updated an update on the proposed revision 2401. to increase the 32 density rights on partial W while maintaining the open space for Carol within village and parcel X. Following that, on April 1st, 2025, the applicant provided staff another proposed revision DP401 to increase the 35 new density rights to parcel W to construct 35 single family detached dwelling units and again to dedicate parcel X for open space at Carol Open Village. So if we go back to the the one prior to this again, this this is just within

staff for review. They met with us with the idea of increasing density. There was a request to uh reduce the width of the drive of the uh driveways themselves. Uh staff and public works wouldn't accept the reduction just for maintenance reasons and also project. We just don't have that standard. So with that, the advocate then revised the plan and for the next 35 presented that to staff which um uh which the on on May 15th, 2025 DP241 as amended with 35 new density rights was reintroduced to the commission and then the commission subsequently requests that DP241 be scheduled for a public hearing. When June 9th, 2025, the applicant emailed staff and amended development plan rendering addressing the commissions. I'm sorry. This is just the development.

Mr. Debo, I think that was the one that we saw last one. The next one. Yeah, next one. Yeah, but this was the one that came up before.

Yeah, the one prior. If we go to the one prior to where we met with the applicants, staff had concerns with the location of the housing near the Wakefield Community Center. Uh so we have requests of you know potentially moving to the north. So thank you. Then this updated one 35 units. This is what was presented to the uh planning zone commission reintroduced for the 35 units. And this is just a rendering of that same plan. The next one. And so again, on on June 9th, 2025, the applicant emailed staff and amended the public monitoring addressing commission's May 15, 2025 work session comments. As you can see, three new lots appear. Um, in addition to the two lots that were previously depicted along Bell Road, they added three additional. Uh again, planning commission felt as well as staff by moving those additional lots to Bell Road. It would widen the lot widths and lot sizes of the remaining 30 lots fronting on the internal roadway. Before there were 33, now they're down to 30. So again, it's to address planning commission's recommendation they maintain the location to the northern side of the development. Uh with that, the zoning administrator schedule be scheduled DP2401 for public hearing for September 18, 2025. The commission's notice of public hearing for DP2401 was advertised on September 2nd, 2025 and September 9th, 2025 in the Carol County Times in the courts or section 1641 185A. The public hearing however advertisement stated the application number, date, time and place of the hearing and the summary of the amendments and the

location of the property, its area, name of owner and change of class and change of classification. However, the advertisement incorrectly refers to the properties partial W and X in zone PD4 plan development or zone where the property is zoned C conservation zone. The referencing of PD PD4 zone was simply an oversight is not sub substantive to the requested DP241 applications not impact the advertisement of DP2401 public hearing again allowing the September 8th 2025 public manager of her. We did uh discuss this with the city attorney and in the staff report which has been amended staff points out reasons as to why um yeah this is a very peculiar property the overall Wakefield Aendale area because when it was first planned and developed there was no zoning in the city. So there was a master development plan put in place and then zoning came a year later and it put zoning categories on the land but the code provided that the original development plan with control. So theoretically that land could be owned industrials and this would still be as legal as being its own conservation and over the years it's it's constantly changed and revised but that basic plan is always at legal.

The underlying zone is irrelevant and that's also in the zone as well. Uh the planning is there's no request to rec reclassify or reszone the property. it'll remain sea conservation but the development plan through the ordinance uh can allow greater density or uh change of use on that property because the general plan itself rules and additionally the PD4 provides substantially more dwelling units than what is being proposed. there is no um potential to argue that it we misrepresented the amount of density that was be could be allowed or is being requested. Following the public hearing, the commission self a report and recommendation the zoning administrator as to whether the commission favorably or unfavorably plan development plan application to the mayor and common council. And with that, Uh staff recommends that planning zoning commission review valley development plan amendment TP 2401 W and press X and provide a recommendation to forward forward PP 24 council subject to the following conditions. One provide the amount of open space for the Wakefield Valley portion of general development plan on BP 2401. Complying to the landscape manual of the city of Westminster. Additional landscaping may be required as DP 2041 proceeds through the development plan amendment and preliminary subdivision process if applicable were required by the commission. Compliance with the off streetet pricing requirements and zoning ordinance. compliance with 2016 development design preferences and architectural standards outlined in the DP 2401 public hearing staff report. Additional design

preferences and architectural standards may be required as DP 2401 proceeds through the development plan amendments and preliminary subdivision process applicable or required by the commission. Five, demonstrate that water remains available per the memorandum of understanding between the city and Richard Crest dated June two June 2nd, 2014 and amended May 1st, 2015 and August 15, 2017 for the development of DP 2401. Six, no additional water shall be provided by the city of Westminster for DP 2401. And seven, address all remaining city of Westminster comments. That completes my report. I'm available for questions. Any uh questions on this information of Mr. Deo?

I guess I have one. Mr. Debo having reviewed the um a lot of versions of the development plan that could be geared and with different density rights tied to that. Um, now we're just making as a planning and zoning commission, we're just making a recommendation to the mayor and council. Um, they're the ones that get chosen the decision, but those density numbers have changed over the various different um, development plans. So, is that flexible as far as every time that you go to update the plan that you could increase or decrease the density? Is that how that works? It

it certainly can. Again, the development plan, as we mentioned, the underlying zone is irrelevant. It's really up to the mayor and council as to how they want to allow density on the at this development. To go back to the original plan, there used to be a commercial section that was originally approved and that disappeared over time and became more residential. The density has consistently fluctuated um uh typically downward due amendments. We've had open space has fluctuated, increased and then decreased. At the end of the day, this amendment is still less dense than will be less dense than what was originally approved with the original uh general plan

in 1978. But in theory, I just want to make sure I understand this. I haven't run across this particular scenario before in all my planning and zoning experience. the the mayor and common council has the ability to amend what the number of density units every time it opens back up the plan. Yes, it's true. I would say yes. Yeah.

Okay. Just curious about that. Okay. Not that you don't consider all the factors that go along with that compatibility, all that. But I just wanted to double check that you're not technically tied to whatever you said in 1978 or whatever other amendments you've done. you have the flexibility to look at it at the top when you open it back up.

Yeah. Well, I caution both plan commission, mayor, and common council that the only review that we've had or uh discussed and has been introduced is these two parcels. I I'd be hesitant to say that going to a se separate section and trying to alter density um I don't think that would be allowed. That's not what's before you. I I would question whether it would be allowed. It's already developed in this portion that it was

exact and that's and that has been introduced. Staff has not done any research into the remaining sections impacts that may happen within those sections if density was to alter um if we decrease density from what's existing then provide some type of nonconformity issue. So I would think as introduced we're looking at parcel subunit X only and these are the two parcels where I do agree that you could provide whatever densities you feel acceptable for these two parcels but the the um really these two parcels really the one parcel that's going to be developed because the other one's open space. There's only one other parcel over by the main entrance road going down to the old golf clubhouse that's actually not been developed. All the other properties have approved plans been built upon.

Like for example, the golf course, you couldn't come in and decide you're going to build build on that because that's part of the open space requirements more backly plan. So there's some things kind of locked in. Okay. But um you kind of asked the question that I was going to ask is at the end of the day when you make this change, are we still under the original number of units that were approved? And I think the answer is yes. Yes, we're under the number of units in density. So whether it was 25 or 35 or 15 or 40, we would still be under 8%.

Exactly. Exactly. 20 25 originally proposed, the 45 proposed is still uh under the original approval. But not but so just one other question. So there was a there is a long drawn out history with this property

which I try to digest the best I can. Um though I I don't it probably take me days to thoroughly understand all the the background but the at one point I believe uh Marty Hill was proposing was he proposing the what he was proposing on this parcel W was that partial W orig

I think partial X my understand was always intended to be open space dedicated to Carolic Village to some understanding. That was that was only since that was the memorandum of that was 2005 the the child village at the time as I recall opposed that plan because that parcel X yes wasn't going to them

and it would have been abiding their property with this development. I think that's one of the issues that came up at the time. the 2005 proposal that was done um included both those parcels and then some further down even past partial part we're talking to terent one the one that was not approved that was that proposed parcel X to be dedicated and parcel W to have 53 to 55 I think 53 units those proposal that had 53 unit and it had three partial dedicated to Carol

and it encompassed the entire partial W for both northern and southern sections where this one we're looking at solely developing the southern that was the one that was denied in 2016 if I remember correctly from reading all the various correct history there is anou for that was in vision 70 on these parts So, so again, it's still quite a decrease from what was possibly originally envisioned to 2016 now to today.

So, I mean, if if this Wakefield plan screwed up, I have to blend a little bit because I been messing with it for so many years now. I was here and it constantly morphed and evolved to what it is today, but it's almost done finally. So it's the other piece that that leads to that we're not here about tonight. The one that leads to well that was part of the original weight plan as well. That's right. Parcel F1 I think 21 days. Yeah.

If you go back to the original plan, it'll there's a report that goes with it. It'll say parcel F1 this density. Sometimes it's a range and each parcel had a density assigned to it. And we were well below that because most in most cases for example Michael Oaks built I think it's called parcel age originally was some range of 167 to over 200 and some units. He came in and said I only want to build 55 scale houses. The rest of the units plants I don't care about and that's what you do. The staff report tries to highlight the changes but really stays with density and open space. Um and we and it is provided as an exhibit attachment five is the 1978 plan. All these revisions are the attachments. So you can see how gross and exactly the tables have changed. Actually have altered and shifted and moved actually.

But it is for someone like me who has not been involved in this all these many years. It's a little convoluted and complicated. It is different. It's I'm It's very complicated. Thank you, Miss Miller, for helping catch me up on this first solution.

I came to work for the city in 1978 and the very first one of the very first projects was a provision to this plant. I had to pull threeers out about this thick, try to understand what the heck was going on. So your feeling is is just about the way I felt almost 50 years ago. I'm not sad. All right. Any any further questions? Okay. I'm going to go to the list. Uh I don't know, Miss Miller, if you want to kind of Yes. orchestrate this.

That was our our plan. So we have our us introduce, but I intend on just giving you a quick opening. We're going to walk you through the elements of the code that we have to prove consistency with uh through all of our um members here and then I'll give you a quick little summation and then if you have any additional questions, we're all here and happy to answer those for you. Um so Mr. Hoff is has just identified this precisely which is this is convoluted. Um, but it is a unique situation in the city because this is the only development plan that it that was created prior to that November 5th, 1979 date that then it has some of these components to it. So that's why it's extra uh just a bit nuanced, if you will. Um, this first of all, I did make an exhibit packet, but I left all of my cop because I made you each a copy so you could look at it, but I'm going to ask that you guys pass that around throughout because I left them on my copier. So, that is the packet and exhibit three in there is what's already included in your packet, which is a copy of that 1978 plan has that chart um that Mr. Bar was just talking about. This area that we're here for tonight is subject to that 1978 plan. If you look at that plan, page two of that plan says in summary kind of what Mr. Debo just said, which is that it is assumed that within this framework, some minor shifting of density may occur to account for changes in the market or other conditions which could not be anticipated at the time the general development plan was prepared. That's a sentiment that then is reiterated on page three of that plan as well. So, it's always been contemplated that this plan is sort of an evolving document and we've seen that in real life, right? Because the golf course no longer exists and that plan specifically calls out the golf course use and the

growth at that point in time, the anticipated growth of the golf course. So then, so this that was a 1978 plan. In November of 1979 is when the city adopted zoning. So that's when then a zoning designation was was placed on all of these properties in section 1641 133 of the code which is what we're going to be going through tonight that then calls this plan out and said any plan adopted before this date we disregard the zoning and we just go with the plan that was previously adopted. So that's what Mr. was referencing when he said there's no regard for the zoning classification because the code calls out any plan approved prior to that date and says in those situations we're looking at the plan itself not at the zoning classification. So that that provision also provides for an amendment process to those plans. So that's how we're able to be here tonight requesting an amendment to the plan. the tonight here with us we have Richard Crest representative of the the ownership of the um the property, Marty Hackett who's going to be speaking to some of the land use land design elements, Joe Ruer who's here tonight as an expert in the area of planning and Mike Lenheart who's here tonight as an expert in the area of traffic engineering. And our intention is just to walk through the elements of the code, provide you a summary, and then have any sort of questions that you have answered by the relevant person that's here tonight. So with that in mind, what we're going to do right now is we're looking at section 164 188J. And the section that then calls out the um subsections that we have to show that we comply with in order to receive an approval of an amended development plan.

So subsection 1 of 1641 1888J reads that the zone applied for is in substantial compliance for the use and density indicated by the master plan or sector plan and that it does not conflict with the general plan, the city's capital improvements program or other applicable city plans and policies. Now relevant to Mr. packet is going to speak talk us through this uh for the most part but relevant to this is what's included in that packet floating around between you exhibits four and five what we have done and what Marty will summarize for you tonight what we've done is provided a breakdown of the density calculations from the 1978 plan compared to our proposal here tonight as well as the same breakdown in open space to show that we are not um negatively impacting either with the propos proposal here tonight from what was originally approved. So, Marty, I'm going to turn it over to you and I'm going to ask you if you can walk the commission through uh the density and open space and water components of this.

The um as it stated in the 1978 plan, there are 768 uh density units that were originally approved. Um right now there's uh we're going back there's 549 existing densities of homes um that are in that are built today and then between the remaining as Mr. I said earlier there is a remaining parallel um that was owned by it's still owned by the original family the whole area but that there's about 20 or 22 units I think that five add everything up we're looking at came up 643 total units Yes,

I don't know that that includes GR. That did not. I think that just includes us. Well, it's 549 plus the 30. That' be five. Well, you 549 constructed. Yes. Correct.

Okay. All right. So, but the total plan uh is coming out 643 units. And where that is also I think there's a little piece still of Peru village that has some assigned to it from years ago. That kind of thing. Um but the overall density of the of the area in the plan was 1.6 units per acre um as an average uh throughout the whole area. Um when when this plan get approved and as go forward to finalize and finish the plan up uh the overall density for the area would be 1.24 units to the acre. So significantly less than what was ever planned or visioned back in 1978. Um we'll get right into the open space soon as well. Um the open space um we're dedicating I think there's 16 acres of open space that we call the Carol Newton village area um that was

parcel act and then parcel w the remaining from from the subdivision side of it um that we're proposing there's another 17 acres 18 acres um thank you um that's being done and it's it's being designed that way and preserved as open space. But it's just a matter of Baltimore who's going to own and maintain it that we you know obviously we're proposing for the city to take that as well as they have the all tied into their whole park system and control it. Um Mr. Pal M can you clarify that? So this open space would be turned over to the city of Westminster. Is that what you're saying?

That's our proposal. the open space that's shown on parallel W for the pocket except for the pocket part where the little oval is that's going to be owned and maintained by the the HOA which pocket part it's the I'm sorry that'll be maintained by the the association from the roadway up to the subdivision you parcel that's that comes out it's about 18 acres. Have Have you gotten any feedback from the city as far as whether they want that or not? We would defer to on that conversation.

The city's very happy to would be very happy to take over space. The only difference with Mr. Pal not being here. Um they they want they're either going to own it village the parcel they they're either going to own it and either they're happy to possibly lease it with for the city or they they would let the city take it over as long as it remains open space and park land. Sorry if I could. I'm sorry to I apologize.

Letter attached October 10th 2022 from the village that makes that reference that they expressed their desire to permit the 17 acres that we're talking about to be deeded or at least to the city as part of the approval of the development plan. So they would that is a letter provided by Kan Village. So there is that option that potentially the city could be the final owner. So do makers clarity. Well, I guess right now what we're doing is relevant to this what we're here today because this is a recommend because this would still end up coming back to us as a planning commission.

Should the mayor and common council uh approve the the amendment to the development plan? This still comes back to us as a planning commission for the final site plan. It would be a preliminary subdivision plan and to then following that would be the final plans for it. At that time we would look at new ownership of parcel uh X. I I just want to make sure. Yeah. So I'm understanding so there right now we're making a recommendation to the mayor and common council to

approve sort of the density correct and then once they take action assuming that they would approve the additional density then it would still come back to the planning and zoning commission for all these various details to be ironed out as far as parcel X and how that's going to work. Is that correct? Yeah, you haven't seen The Last of Us. It's a little bit of an unusual scenario here. So, I just because I haven't been through this before, I just want to make sure

for that open space and parkland is to keep it maintained that open space and parkland. So, I'm sorry. It seems as if there's parcel X and then there's another 17 acres of open space. Is that what we're right? X is the Carol Lutheran village space. Let's say so this right that's 16 acres. This this is the parcel X for dedication to Carol Village or potentially the city. This is the additional acreage

that they Everything that's dark green theoretically end up with a city. Yes, but the village was for what they would want to do there 16. Exactly. Parcel X goes back to at least from reading through all the things. The concept of Carol Lutheran Village getting parcel X goes back in time to prior negotiations and and such. Yes.

They may very well just say long as it's going to be open space that the city can have. We don't know what they're going to say, but but they just want it as open space and parkland. So there's no develop and this for this is the parking lot for the clubhouse. seek to the proximity benefit that it would have if it was to the open space to the city. Correct me if I'm wrong. When it was at one point when there was 53 lots that was being proposed that was denied that up in density was denied that was basically taking up all of parcel W500.

Yes, that's correct. Yes, it was. Yes. Um the plan back in 1978 had uh 200.14 acres of open space on Wakefield Valley. It notes 31% of the total area of open space across the entirety of the plan. Um when we calculate based on proposal and all that, um we're coming up with about 40.8% 8% is worth the living in 1978. Um if you're just looking at the Wakefield acres, not Fendy, but um today um and Mark there it's 223.4 acres of open space as we proposed today. Um but I think it's just a an adjustment different because of the open space from the former staff report. That's all. But just so you know, we we checked it. So the resulting open space percentage is is actually 43.2% of the of the area of the Wakefield plan.

We're talking about the whole Wakefield plan. The whole Wakefield plan. Even with this is done, it's still 43%. Yes. Yes. 43.2%. Um so it's still greater percentage than what it was back in 1978. But currently, of course, it's more because you're taking part of that that because right now this is all a good space in theory. Um, so correct. So, but even with this proposal, it's still out of the combination of parcel W and X. I'm curious how much of parcel W and X in total is being developed. Is that percentage?

Yeah. Can you pull up the actual plan the parties because it's in all the notes like I don't have it. It's actually less than like this one. Okay. 50% of greater open space between those two between those two parcels. And you're telling me the overall open space of all the weight field is going to end up at 43%. That's correct. And what was it supposed to be originally in the 1978 plan? 41% 401. Okay.

If you look at um exhibit five in there, the open space chart. I know I really unfortunate because we don't, you know, it's kind of hard because you're referring to something that we don't. And I understand Jay

hopefully can pass it down, but I just wanted to note that at the bottom of that there's a little aster that lays out the acreage for each open space parcel and how that final number is included. Um that just poorly to everyone. Um, the uh the the water allocation for the property um is one that's been around since a memorandum of understanding uh occurred back in 201 16ish 15 that kind of thing. Um and uh that that was a proposal. Um Mr. press when he bought the property, the golf course itself, was to uh reappropriate a well that was originally permanent for 86,000 gallons. He bought that so he could secure his water for his Stone James property, which is on the other side of town and allow for up to 70 units to be proposed on on the Wakefield property.

So the water is already in theory to Mr. Standard court backs that up. The water in theory is already allocated. That's correct. For the additional density that you're proposing,

the units down at Stonegate have been fully constructed. So that so it was 295 reservations which equated to about 70,000 gallons and the other 16,000 gallons to go for the well um was was basically used for the city's purposes because it was donated to the city. Um and then now so he still has 60 allocations left because he did uh get rid of some of the allocations for some industrial water that was needed for some industrial projects over the So there's 60 allocations allocations

60 single family allocations because originally the memorandum of understanding talks about in theory 70 besides Stonegate am I correct on that and you're saying 10 of those 70 been used for other purposes. Is that is that matches your understanding, Mr. B? Generally, that's why it's a condition. I I think the development plan would be nice if we had that spelled out clearly. So, okay.

Basically, we're in the same ballpark of there's water. Well, water's already been allocated for these lots. Okay. that population chart I think Marty did it put on the plan you shows the uses that absorbed that is 10 units worth that's what those amended nous were about was allowing the transfer to occur to certain other development projects because there were two amendments saw

well now we're going to switch gears and Joe Ruer is going to speak to you about uh the conformity with the master plan and uh the location of this property within the priority funding area. Thank you, John. You guys have tremendous um knowledge of the the history of this property. So, I'm going to be very quick one. Sir, could you speak up a little bit? I know a little bit. I have hearing a little hearing and it's a little bit hard for me to Yeah,

I'm good with reading those as well. So, that's Joe Ruer uh when we were working on this project and really to address the general plan issues looked at the 1978 plan 2009 plan of course all the history of of this property as you were just discussing the 60 allocations of public water in the 2009 general plan it recognizes that there's a limited amount of water supply in the county to manage allocations being used. So this plan is in the priority funding area by definition of state smart growth uh legislation because it's in the incorporated city. It's also in tier one which is primary area for development because it has access over sewers. the uh 2009 master plan. I'll just jump into that. Uh it addresses mutual municipal growth. Um it notes that the current capacity of projected growth would result in fill out by 2024. This in 2009. They were looking at what was available to develop in the city and that's all that happened by 2024 kept pace growth targets that we built out about now. Uh even with the inexible fairy use adjoining the city uh the plan calls for looking inside of city boundaries uh for other opportunities for development. Chapter five in the land land use uh vision it says in order to accommodate

the projected population growth point for the next 20 years which would take 2029 Westminster will need to increase the housing unit capacity of the city by at least 648 dwelling units. This will require the city of Westminster to look inside its boundaries with opportunities to develop housing units, making vacant land precious resource as the amount of vacant land continues to decrease and the need for housing units increases promoting creative mixed use or redevelopment of unconventional parcels becomes a priority. I think the the other thing to real clear from your earlier discussions, you guys already have this the 1978 uh on page 81 of the 2009 plan. It calls out this specific property. It says for the record, the 1978 relative of Wakefield Valley restricted the development of housing within the parcel where Wakefield Valley Golf Course Conference Center exists today. However, current land use is low density residential even though the development plan will not allow any residential homes to be built in Siri. The uh Westminster Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the land use change from low density residential to conservation to reflect the development plan and the existing land. Recognize no development potential because of the golf course. Um the existing land use for this parcel is the Wakefield Valley Golf Course and conference center surrounded by forest land natural landscapes as well as stream that uh runs from the southwest corner to the eastern portion of parcel. This change reflects how the land is currently used 2009.

However, this change does not change the approved development plan for Wakefield Valley, which is where the density animal comes from. While the 2009 comprehensive land use plan has redesated the land use for 240 acres from low density to conservation. Then on uh page 8 page 92 in chapter six it addresses the protection of environmental resources and we go through all of the details of that you just discussed um great knowledge of the property how we concentrated higher up and avoided this in this the questions

I do have a question this one be better for Mr. packet. What is the average size of the lots of what that you're proposing? Well, they're between a third and a half acre and some of them are greater than third and a half acre. Correct. Mr. Hacket, how does that compare to some of the other single family lots that are in the week already in the Wakefield development? I'm sure there's a various different Yeah. But don't do you have some plans that that couple of the plans are heavier. Do you have you have some town homes down in

Well, not talking about the town, but just the single family for the single family lots. What are the various sizes that are within the Wakefield development plan? The uh they're probably uh they're anywhere between probably a quarter and a half. They're there maybe a lot smaller than that, but probably between a quarter and a half. So typically the ones that already are in the Wakefield plan that have been developed that are single family are between a quarter and a half. And you're telling me these lots on average that you're losing between a third and a half. Is that correct? Thank you. Hulk just um took my question for you. So we just moved.

No, it's okay. thinking about billions.

Um, so that what Marty just spoke to kind of speaks to subsection two of the code that we're going to get into now, which is that the proposed development will comply with the purposes, standards, and regulations of the zone as set forth in the code provide for the maximum safety, convenience, and amenity of the residents of the development, and would be compatible with adjacent development. So Marty just kind of talked about the sort of varying lot size in this area, but in terms of zoning, Marty, can you explain? I mean, we are uh the parcel that we're here for today zoned conservation, but the existing residential development that Mr. Hoff was just speaking to is zoned residential, is it not? That's correct.

And what is that zoning designation? Most of that, uh, it it does vary some. There's there's some R10 and there's some R20. And wait, you're the R10 and the R20 and other parts of Wait, yeah, because this zoning here is actually most of what you see for the existing lots out there, those are residentially zoned. They were a little bit confusing because of the correct me if I'm wrong, but the existing development plan controls as much or more than the underlying zoning.

Yes. though when you're making a decision, you've considered the underlying zoning from looking at the past history of the property. Okay. Well, and even though I guess some of that lower residential wasn't necessarily governed by it zoning classification, it has based on the area description that Marty just provided in terms of the square footage of those lots. They have kind of developed in that general scheme of the R10 to R20 what you would expect for that zoning class. So prior to 2009, this particular parcel was designated as low density residential. Correct. Yes.

I do know that the density prior to the change in land use density. I'm talking about the land the future land use low density residential. It was changed to conservation because it was actively used as a golf course. Right. And I the zoning of it though, the zoning was R20 in that whole area except for some area where the town homes are down there village back in 2009. Yeah. Even the golf course was R20 which is that equates to low density or medium density.

If you go to the zing map, you'll see more to the medium when it for Westminster. Yes, medium

medium. So it's it it was zoned art for um it and uh for instance and and obviously the surrounding area like I said where where there was townhouse and there's some development where that occurred probably back in early 80s where there's uh the housing or there's some split for your houses down there and all that but that was more of a a townhouse and and single family project and that was ODR 10000 I'm fairly certain of that and then like Uh Mr. Barrett said before there was a portion of the property uh that was along home of farm road was zoned commercial going out toward 31 I believe right on the corner of 31.

Yes. And it's still there. It's z it got that the commercial zone is that's not commercial anymore there. Right. There was a part there was a piece of that it was 10 acres. It was 10. Yeah. Correct. And that got changed

that got changed from commercial to residential. Yeah, that there's a if you go into the attendance for interventional development, there's a roadway that comes down to the culvert was constructed and eventually that roadway was to be extended down to farm one of them and then there was a that would be 10 acres of commercial. That was the plan for a long time. Got always got a lot of opposition. That was the plan. You're talking about the part that's space now. This is a different It's a very confusing thing.

I had I had a bigger map. I could show you original map. It's 10 acres. Yeah. Okay. Right. As you you actually could see it from Route 31 right on the corner. right on the corner of family 31. Tom is speaking in reference to the overall plan because it's a little confusing because we're really here just about parcel W and X. This is part of the overall plan. We just wandered into talking about the overall plan. That's a that's an bigger now, but

that's a uh that's the home road there. Yeah, this is actually this actually that still exists takes into account heaven there also which is not that area you just pointed to it still exist and the guy it's gone but I was of the cross.

Yes. So yeah, the average is very compatible with area that the houses adjacent that are still in the county, they're on projecting and they they basically have to be they have to be acred. Um even the house along wet road there's like I think four or five of them that are sort of adjacent to this area. Um we're trying to keep uh you know natural as we can we have a 30 or 50 foot swath of land. It's actually open space um that's preserved there. Um,

it looks like, correct me if I'm wrong, but the upper part of the development that's along the back of those lots, it looks like the grade kind of goes down, right? So, you actually sitting lower. Yes. By the time you do the mass grading for the development, these houses are already sitting lower than those houses. Am I correct? The difference in elevation is approximately 50 ft. Oh, wow. from PE people's back to back doors up near the house down to where the existing fairway used to be. Um there's there's about 50 ft of elevation change there. Um so those houses along the new road are going to be sitting lower than what's up on top. That's correct.

Okay. A lot. Um I'm already the the plan that's being proposed here. This amended development plan provides pedestrian as well. Can you explain that a bit?

Our proposal um takes the existing car pads alignment and and utilizes those um and connects our pocket park to the public area. It it connects the p the it puts uh proposing new pathways in the areas where we would come off the existing pathways. Um and u as we go in the parcel pets um we're proposing a you're going to be constructing those whether you grant them to the city eventually or whatever. But there's sidewalks along all the streets.

That's correct. And then I noticed that the plan calls for the plan that's on the table right now. I know it's going to come back to us in theory as a site plan at some point, but you have different connections to some of the existing trails that you're going to tie into crew and all that. That's correct. And so, for instance, if I average everyday citizen was visiting Wakefield Valley Park, no one's going to shoot me if I walk up and go onto the sidewalks into that neighborhood. Is that correct? That's correct. Yeah, it will it will provide additional connection and additional trail. It's not going to be like a little gate there or anything like that. It's all going to be integrated

considered which I we can't speak on behalf of Carol Lutheran village would be from the park to the private Carol Village such that people could not get into Carol Lutheran village from the public. You're talking about parcel X, correct? But where parcel X hits their existing site, not right from W to X. We're talking about from X to

the uh what's happening was we shifted we shifting the development over keeping it away from the existing parking area and the venue. Um which is really looking nice by the way. um the that's all going to be basically preserved. We're not grading any of that area bringing to a minimum. We got to obviously we got to meet road design criteria, grading criteria. Um and we can basically what's on the light green is going to be pretty much our area disturbance except for when we work out the stormwater management area. Right now there's an existing easement that's on the city park property that was planned for. But now that we shifted everything over that that facility may shift a little further toward this community when we get into the final design phase which is going to um and more flexible. We certainly build it where where it's proposed, but um if if we want we could amend that easement and put it, but if it's all going to the city, it doesn't matter because the sto end ends up going to the city anyway. Um but what you see there, so the dark green areas that I mean, and I I actually took some photographs,

they're going to be pretty much as they are. We can Mr. Hy, also can I ask you a question while you're So the light green areas, the the lots that are north of the the main road, those are going to be sitting higher than the ones that are south. Is that correct? The way the grading is going to work from the entrance road into the city or into the uh community is going to descend. It's going to go from below it could drop down drop down and the houses on the north are going to be a little bit higher than the ones on the south or or they'll be pretty consistent. They're going to be they're going to be pretty consistent.

But the yards will kind of

Yes. They'll follow each other. But the ones on the low side of the road, which is up against the existing trees that we're preserving, which is very dense and steep, um that area those will be your walk out that stuff. That's correct. And wherever else we can get them check my head uh this was actually on Fendy Farm Road, the entrance road to the uh golf course. And uh it's you'll see that there's mature trees. All that stays. Um, looking in between a couple of the trees along that roadway, you'll see there's a very I went out there this morning and had an opportunity to do this because I wanted to see how it was recently and I mean there are some large trees on that property and and it just again it's it that's just looking in between couple of those trees that are on that roadway and just over there by about probably I don't know 50 yards or whatever work.

So all of the that existing screen is all staying in place. It all stays in place. Yeah, there's a and again there's a a T box, an old T- box I remember when it used to play. Um the elevation is is up probably it almost creates a natural burn from the parking lot. If you go in the parking lot back closest to the old to the parking area here to the old golf course, you'll see the T- box elevated. It's it's probably it's over 10 ft high, maybe 15 ft tall cuz when you step you walk up the hill to get to the T box. But anyway, that that area is untouched.

The existing storm water management easement that's on the property, is that just is that going to actually become like a pond or something like that? It will that's what it was planned for. Okay. So, there will be some kind of facility there. Well, we're right there next to the park as you can see. Yeah. If we can pull it up some toward the community, we could do that. Gotcha. And we'll just go ahead because if everything's going to the city ultimately, there's no, you know, and the pond would go to the city then. So potentially you might you you put that higher up than where where the easement actually is. Correct.

Okay. Because with the design of the parcel right now you could put it on parcel W. That's correct. Understand since we pulled that up. So that and in some ways that would make things easier because then you're not run keep on running the pipe.

That's correct. Yeah. And we would just so it may you may find that it might be half on half off of where it see shown right there. But if everything's formed in the city openly then the uh I looked at and again uh or my my printer, but you can you can see I took a picture back from the parking lot so you can see more of it. And you you can see how the the parking lot sits down and it creates like I said sort of a natural burn and buffer and all that vegetation. I mean

everything that I see there vegetation wise it's all staying that's not yes um Marty in addition to the existing screening and such um as this plan this plan uh is granted approval by council and comes back to this commission for a subdivision process. It would also have to comply with the landscaping requirements as well. Oh yes, absolutely correct. Are you keep going? Go ahead.

Okay, one more question while you're on looking at this drawing here. So, basically off of Bell Road, it's going to kind of just gradually downhill all the way to this circle part. And from from this way, it's also pretty much everything's just going to fall all the way from top to bot from top to bottom because it's all from here to the houses. These houses about Oh, yeah. I understand that. But I mean, when you get here though, it's still going to keep sloping. It does. I mean, it's not going to be flat. This road is going to go. I was going to ask like about seven versus 24. It's going to change. Obviously a little longer.

Yeah. Then the grade we're going to obviously lose some grade with the walk out. Do you know the the grade of the road as far as steepness?

Um we're going to have obviously the landing grade coming off the bell road and then it's going to go down to about 8%. We think it's going to be right around there and it's around the curb and then it starts flattening out a little bit because we're running parallel contours in that case. And um I think actually what happens is is we we we actually were pulling the water back from the from where you see it. Um the left side the last houses adjacent to the the the parcel J. We're going to pull the water back a little bit toward the intersection of Loop Road and and sort it down to sort of convey everything, you know, uh for the storm water management for the storm drain system. Um, we also when we looked at we we we put the lots up along uh Bell Road and we actually um have a drive that's going to come in the rear of those lots. So, we keep the try to keep the street stay consistent. We thought that that worked well. One, the sight distance is better in the location where we have the public road and and two, we felt that as you're driving down the road, the streetscape maintains a lot with the houses facing obviously uh Bell Road instead of and as you're driving down there, you're not actually looking at the rear of the house.

So, what was the thought process in, you know, the two lots like lot 35 and 31 are still coming off the public road and not that additional road? is did you give thoughts about those two lots coming off of there or what was the problem? Just out of curiosity. Which one? 35 and 31 look like they're coming directly on the public road instead of coming off of that kind of joint usage and maintenance just lower the usage. Okay. Because that drive would would end up being a private drive.

That'll end up being a private drive. So it'll be shared by those three houses 32 334. And and the other thing was is the way we want to orient the houses on the corners. We made those lots so we can we can angle them to sort of uh you not just straight originally we talked about we talked about that the last week. Yeah. Just want to say one thing about the stone with all the effort made to preserve trees and have it aesthetically pleasing. It's really important that that storm water management pond not end up in eyes. You understand what I'm saying? But that would be a terrible tragedy.

Of course, the landscape requirements also we end up having to do some screening and all that stuff. But I understand where you're You have any idea what what it would be a pond or some kind of infiltration of what

it's not going to be a wet pond. You just can't get them approved. They're very difficult. Um it'll be it'll be dry. Um the uh you know I I prefer to have the old good old wet ponds myself. I think they're more attractive but you know you can't it's very diff um they're padd and and and back in the 80s you could do that a lot easier. Exactly.

But um we thought these are going to have bio bio retention facilities. Um they're gonna and and they're basically they're they're very shallow areas but they're gonna they'll be landscaped with more aquatic things and so they do they're basically wet for what's designed to be about 24 hours quantity all the quantity facilities going to go larger that the one we preserve the so um jump to traffic

that's fine let me I your comment about the trails putting a minute ahead of times was good because that is a problem in the old Wakefield neighborhoods. Now if the golf course isn't there, you kind of have to ask permission your neighbor. Exactly. To walk down. You got to find a friendly neighbor doesn't mind a lot of people walking through very difficult to have it in after. Yeah, we actually we got a couple in strip like strips that are hanging out. Yeah, I think that was good. I was say there's an existing Yeah,

I guess you just let there figure on using using sit there and try to tie the p the pathway in there put a turnound or something new to existing Another question again on lot 28 that you show the costly sweep up that kind of and if you go back and you settle on the concepts are all I just I noticed that just with a way you know like a lot of times you don't necessarily put everything right that it seems He's like, you know, that's just again

section three of the section of the separation systems. So I'm going to ask themselves to walk us through the company for this um eight intersections and study that we go from D north up to Union County with the down Union town east to human town road 931 and then we go down north up to 130 that intersection we go from access and then 31 and 852 That's that's a pretty expensive uh that studs. Uh this study probably generates with that 35 units. It generates a total of 29 trips in Dallas and 37 trips in Dallas that that D generates for traffic impact study that we did do traffic impact study that's consistent with that refers to yes question is from 2022

is 25. So is this updated at some point?

This this is dated Friday. Okay, the one that was in the package for 2022. that my view [Music] I don't have Yeah, that's okay. Uh, so we conducted traffic in the spring of 2012. We updated this study using uh we looked at noise in background. So um looking at some of your historic rates are actually around 1% per year. We use 3% per year to help establish background values. We also included the subdivision which is freedom for 35 units that generates one morning to the bed. That's about one vehicle every two minutes. uh 37 trips in the evening peak tow

intersections populated or better which is that's the threshold is acceptable most of them uh session a D and they just over the C so the level of service um versus study that is going to eventually be developed. Okay. Yeah. And so I mean that that basically last question was activity just so when we do a traffic impact studies and we project traffic from a subdivision we use the institute for transportation engineers has a trip generation name of it it's a nationally recognized band used by all jurisdictions uh and it has hundreds of land uses in it where they single family neighborhoods as an example they have hundreds of traffic studies just in single family neighborhoods. So based on actual existing data, it can play up with generation rates that you can how many tracks will be generated.

That's yes, most $3. And that's not the system. section. What are they? A B to C. in the evening unions have at uh and it's the stop and movement at that intersection everything else in the evening is this. So when they ask you this, the people that are coming out of this subdivision on dealt with. They should not hear much of getting but that really is not a severely adjusted for that. Okay. to the site access on bell. Yeah, the site access on bell that operates at a level of service a and a is uh 10 seconds of delay or less. So you pull up to the stop sign on average. Some might wait 15 seconds, some might it's 10. So when this is built and I'm coming out of that subdivision on the

road, I'm not going to have much of an issue turning right or left. But I imagine a lot of traps probably not going to be much of an issue now. Is there pretty good sight distance? Yes. That's correct. What is distance? So don't you don't have a screen for set that But she said when these people this Yeah.

Two intersections in level B operating 11 B today. So except that addicted to that not causing the level D. Is it existing as D today? No, it's not. Okay, it's not there. Uh 140 Royer is a C today. Uh Union Town at Royer. Well, um the numbers that I gave you, the level of service are based on highway capacity manual. There's two different methodologies. One is much more detailed. That's highway capacity manual. The other is critical lane volume. We did existing background and total or critical lane. That's more of a planning analysis. We only did highway capacity for the total. And so I don't have an apples to apples for the existing but under using critical lane union town of royal is a a royer is an a in the morning a I'm sorry a existing a total um I I don't think the stop controlled movements in the existing but uh I would guess maybe it ceased to existing. Thank you.

No, I know. So, like which methodology county prescribe to to provide in the traffic setting? The county's design the county's design manual says they it shall be based on critical lane volume, but the scoping agreements that they put out, they require HCM. So that's a nuanced question. Yeah. Critical lane volume everything passes easily. Okay. So my question is we're not this subdivision isn't reducing the level of service at any intersection. No. Based on what the level of service is today, right?

No, it's a minor impact really. you know, small amount track. the golf course when it was functioning with 27 holes throughout the summertime when they're doing obviously that had major impacts at 8:00 7:00 in the morning much more than what this but anyway

we are jumping to subsection four which is our second to last subsection of uh the code that we are talking about and that reads that by its design by minimizing grading and by other means the proposed development would tend to prevent erosion of the soil and to preserve natural vegetation and other natural features of the site. Now, Marty, I think that you spoke to a lot of this already in your testimony, so if you could just generally give a brief reminder of that.

We we're going to design, we have to design based on the criteria for road design, uh grading codes, and everything else. Um but we try to set that up to minimize any of the impacts. Um but we we have to have to meet all the ordinances and part of the lot layout that we're showing here is such that it is preserving as much as we can while providing reasonable size lots which will also limit the amount of disturbance necessary.

That's correct. Now, subsection five of the code says that any proposals, including restrictions, agreements or other documents would show the ownership and method of detering perpetual maintenance of those areas, if any, that are intended to be used for recreational or other common or quasi public purposes are adequate and sufficient. So for the proposed plan that's before us today, the proposal is that the pocket park in the middle of that the sort of uh roadway circleish shape uh will be controlled by the HOA. Correct. That's correct.

Okay. But then there will be a large buffer between the proposed development and the restored clubhouse. That's correct. Um, and the intent is for that to remain passive park and be dedicated to the city. That's correct. Okay. And same, we've already talked about the Carol Lutheran village piece, but the intent no matter who owns it, um, and the commitment upon the parts of everyone is that it will maintain a passive park and be used for or in conjunction with the existing trail network, the city's park. Correct. That's correct.

Okay. Now, the the road shown on the plan, but for as you've identified, the one private sort of shared driveway, the road will be a public city road. Correct. Correct. And that will be dedicated to the city through the normal subdivision process. That's correct. As it would occur in any other plan. Okay. That concludes our summation of this. Is that item six? There is item six. I'm going to address that because item six reads that the submitted development plan is in accord with all the statutory requirements.

So, I'm here to tell you that because we meet all of the other statuto requirements that we've just walked you through and because this plan would still go through any subdivision plan process, um all of those elements will have to be met if they are not met today. um the pursuant to and and just as a quick summary because we've talked about a lot of different details today but I think some of the big points to focus on are the density the open space right and so if we are looking at the density as it was in 19 in the 1978 plan and the density that's being proposed now in the 1978 plan it was identified that there were 1.6 6 units per acre density. Under th with this proposed plan, there would be 1.24 units per acre. The open space is also not decreasing from the original plan of 78. The original plan of 78 identified about 41% of open space. With this plan, we're providing 43.2% of open space. So if we are looking to the section of the code that sort of governs how we look at the Wakefield development plan, it specifically says that there could not be an increase in gross allowable density beyond what was originally approved. And so if you look at those numbers, we are not requesting an increase in density. In fact, the density is decreasing from what was originally approved over this plan. So both density and open space are I would I guess you could consider them both improving if you would uh the water is adequate and I'm kind of addressing some of the staff report recommendations or what I forget exactly what you called them but the ones you s summarize at the end of your staff report. So the water

the water uh needed for this is adequate because Mr. press already controls the necessary water. So there's no new water that would be necessary for this development. There's no water allocation that would be necessary for this development. The water exists today actually exists in excess of what would be needed to provide for 35 units. So that would not be taxing on the city's water system. Um, and as we've said several times tonight, if this plan is approved by the mayor and common council, it would still need to return for a full subdivision plan review as well as staff review of the subdivision plan. So, I think that will be the appropriate time. That is when you will do a and staff will will do a detailed review to determine compliance with the landscaping manual, the design preference manual, um the parking requirements, all of those subdivision specific elements will have to be in conformance with the requirements and will come back to this commission for review and hopeful approval at some point in the future. Um so we are here tonight asking that you forward on a favorable recommendation to the planning commission um showing that we have met or are consistent with the elements of 1641 188J that we've talked you through tonight. We are all here and still available if there are any additional questions related to the plan. But it was our goal tonight to sort of walk you through those elements and explain why we this plan complies with each of those code requirements. Thank you.

So Richard, you're on the list. Do you say anything? You pass the torch to me. That's okay. Don't want to. I sure know. This has been an arduous thing that we've we've done. But we we we were working with Tom uh

yeah 20 20 some years ago when we got the Stonegate property under under approval and then unfortunately as a lot of you know you the city was having real water problems and uh so we were trying to drill on our property to see if we could come up enough of water. And we couldn't. And uh our water hydraologist at the time says, "You know what you should do? You you should buy Wakefield Valley Golf Course." I looked at him like he was completely nuts. I said, "We're going to buy a whole golf course to get our our water, which was which was in the time was was within the water appropriation area for Westminster. Of course, Westminster ran out of such problems with water to do." So, he said, "We've got to do it." So, just so you have the background. So Wakefield Valley was being imposed upon

and the order I dropped it said, "You know, you should really buy that golf course." I said, "To buy the golf course and get the water that I was supposed to be getting anyway." He says, "No, unless the city comes up with some other ways of getting water, you're not going to be able to develop that property." that of course we had him under contract for basically almost 20 years till we could get it going. So

God bless. So, so when that go property was being foreclosed by the bank of course took a big gamble and and and and bought bought it, right? And then we had all the water that would would really help the city a lot, right? And then we looked at it and and at the time uh golf wasn't doing well enough. So we didn't want to, you know, run. We had we we went ahead and and had a lot of studies done see if we could continue the golf course and make it uh profitable. Uh and and all the different companies said no, if it really isn't going to do well enough to do it. So then we decided that we would donate the the land to to the city uh to to get this approved. And at the time we we we thought maybe we had talked about getting 70ome lots approved additional lots, you know, at some time in the future. So we we donated it and and and my family and and I are are very proud of the donation that we made to this city. It's a major thing uh uh that that that was done. Um we didn't look for any accolades or anything else, but we we did donate it. It's the largest donation ever given in the 300year history of Westminster. So, it's a it's it's

it's significant. It's one of the most significant things the city's done in years. Yeah. And and I'm so pleased that the city is has taken the clubhouse which would have been left to go

and and and it's it's really wonderful things for the city that they have this property. Uh we're we're we're just hoping to get these lots approved so that I can get some of my money back that it that it took to uh uh to get Stonegate going. And and of course I'm we're very proud of Stonegate. It's it's a wonderful community that we've uh developed and now there uh so that that's that's the background on it. Richard, just one one quick question. What do you could you kind of outline what these houses are going to be like?

I mean, what's expect housing distance? I think these houses will be a million dollars, maybe more. What are the size? What's the square footage of of whatever square footage party that you have shown on here, Mr. Hack? I'm sorry. What's the square footage of of what these houses that you were showing on here roughly? Well, they're they're ranging anywhere between like 2,800 to 3,800 square feet. Okay. Four bedroomedroom, three baths, twocar garage. Yes. That stuff. Yeah.

Which very nice, right? It'll be it'll be a real asset to to the city. We you know we we we've done numerous communities over the years and we're proud of what we the work we've done. We've operated I think in almost figured it out 17 different states over my career and this is the end of my career. your last flight because Richard's ready to retire after this one.

You know, I enjoy doing it. We're proud of it. I'm I'm certainly very proud of I've worked with Westminster since I was actually a kid. I worked at Webers. You know, there was a clothing company. I don't know if you know about that. Well, I remember I don't remember webs, but I was born in 1970. So, let me tell you something about retirement. You never never really retired. You're just going to get directed into something else. Trust me. [Music] What I do,

we just take it on the other. Yeah. Know that great to work with all the years. We Great thought. All right. So, any any further questions from the commissioner staff?

I Mr. Chair, I do I have a technical legal question. So, I want to make a motion um to go into close session to consult with council to obtain legal advice regarding the implications of a prior lawsuit regarding the property pursuing to Maryland and COD code uh general provision article section uh 3305B7. I could give a second on that. Second and motion has been made and seconded to go into close session consult with council to obtain legal advice regarding the implications of a prior lawsuit regarding the property to manage article section 3-305 B7. Any questions at this point?

And I'd like to then we would continue the public hearing after we go to the All in favor say I. I have it. And just take your breath.

You have to reopen the public. Yes, you are. We're back. Okay. So, um, Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion that we continue the public hearing to our October meeting for a variety of reasons. Number one, let's leave the public record open. We come back in October. Additionally, I would like to actually have the right traffic study to look at. Um, and also if you could get us a copy of whatever you submitted cuz we we obviously you submitted this. We haven't had a chance to look at it. Yes.

Yeah. So, if if you could make sure staff gets that to us so that we can take a look at that, that would be good for us to because we can't look at it while we're um the hearing itself of um so I would like to make a motion that we continue for the October meeting. However, staff, I do need to check with you because I want to make sure we're clear about when the October meeting is going to be. Um is because I'm not sure everybody could make the October 23rd meeting. Um, is it possible and could everybody make the if we did Tuesday, October 21st instead? Staff, can you make that work Tuesday, October 21st?

We need to tell them because otherwise we'd have to be advertised to decide the date right now. I think the 16th I think 16th was going to be the 16th I had an issue with problem is and 23rd we have some people that couldn't make it. So if we make it the uh I'm I'm flex that's a Monday though is the 21st possible. Yeah. And you would just be able to let whoever because we haven't finalized the first. Yeah. So those people also just let them know.

So 21st fine Tuesday. Tuesday at 6:00. Yeah. 21st. It is. So we my motion would be that we continue the public hearing to Tuesday, October the 21st at 6 pm. That's the motion. Is there a second that motion?

Motion been made and seconded to to uh continue the public hearing on this uh issue until October 25th where we'll take it up again. Any further questions? All in favor say I. Those n Okay. Hi. Sorry I didn't make Okay. So, um you guys make sure we have the current place like this so he can make sure make sure we get a copy.

We will send an electronic copy to Mark. Mostly that is things that you already had. But I will send an electronic copy to Mark. I just sometimes it's helpful to have I know that you get the electronic copy distributed with like all the attachments but I I'm a paper person so sometimes I like you guys to have like a a paper copy so you can look at it throughout. So I will get a copy to him that he can distribute. Yeah, but it's it's really and that might we might already have all this, but there's a ton of information here and because we don't have multiple copies, it's hard for us to even begin to try to digest what's ever in there. And and in all frankness, this is a complicated history for the project. Um, and additionally, for whatever reason, this traffic study that we received is different than the traffic study that's was being talked about tonight. And we Mark, you do have I mean that was clarif.

Yeah. Okay. Gotcha. So you already have the correct traffic studies. Okay. So um Kelly lays on report. There is no report and the county staffer left said she didn't have anything. I'm not having that. I'm just saying I'm standing behind uh planning commission comments a lot of comments this evening. I don't hear any more enough. Okay. We'll take a motion for a journment. Wait, can I say something? I just wanted to say the meeting on Tuesday I felt with the the joint meeting with the commission and um the county planning commission I thought went really well and just wanted to thank the members I brought up.

Oh, you know what? Thank you for bringing that up because I did receive a compliment or two after the fact that our presentation was re really good. Um, one of the members said it was among the better ones they got. Let me just leave it at that. So, um, and what I really liked about it, it was very collaborative uh, between everyone was there. So, you know, Kevin, I really appreciate you coming in. Well, you course were there as well. Yeah, the I think the important thing there's a lot of concern about the fact that we build a lot of housing in this county, but we don't build a lot of housing that people can afford. And if there is one thing that we have to get better at this county doing, it's having houses that the young people, his kids, anybody else's kids have a place to live because they're going to keep moving further and further away. And I think that's a tragedy. But

not that there's anything wrong with That's a good thing though. But you need a diversity of housing. You need a townhouse, apartments, condos. You need all those mix of housing and to get everybody in a county with it municipalities and county on the same sheet is going to take a act to Congress, I'm afraid. But it can be done and I think it's really important.

And uh Mr. Mr. Chair, I think the other thing that we made very clear is there is a still a perception out there that the city of Westminster does not have water. Um and I I think we tried to make that very clear to the facility uh uh planning commission that that we do have water at this point uh for u projects and that our f and we also talk about the focus being on on the continue infill parcels um and uh redevelopment parcels. So anyway, we got the biggest aquifer on this golf course previously valuable.

Yeah, the state will only let us take out so much water though. But anyway, the water reuse is coming. Did you have a joint meeting this week? It was actually interesting. All right, you can watch it. Yeah, take consider a motion for German. So move been made and seconded to adjourn.