Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Welcome to the November 13th meeting of the planning board. At this time, would you please stand and join us in the pledge of

allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Today's meeting is being broadcast live by Winston Salem TV digital media and will be re rebroadcast at 10 o'clock a.m. Friday morning and again at 400 p.m. Sunday afternoon. Additionally, an on demand recording will be available on the city of Winston Salem's YouTube channel. Before we begin this afternoon, I'd like to recognize Winston Salem city council member Joiner, who I believe is with us. I thought there she is. Podium's in my way. Thank you very much for being here. Our first order of business today will be the consent agenda containing items for which the petitioner is requesting withdrawal or continuence or items for which the planning staff has recommended approval and no one has signed up to speak in opposition. For our public hearings today, each side will have a total of 12 minutes. There is no rebuttal period. Once the public hearing is closed and the board goes into work session, no one is permitted to speak unless the planning board asks them a question. The items under section B of our agenda will will require final action by the elected body, either the Winston Salem City Council or the Scythe County Board of Commissioners. As such, votes taken today are recommendations which are considered by the elected body during their review of these requests. For general use zoning requests, the planning board must consider the full range of uses allowed in the specific zoning district being requested. The petitioner may not refer to a specific intended use of the property. For special use district zoning requests, the petitioner must identify the intended use or uses of the site and give specific details on how the site will be developed. If you're addressing the board today, before you begin your remarks, please give us your name, address, and zip code for the record. First item on the consent agenda is the

approval of the minutes of the October 9th and October 23rd meetings. Is there a motion? Move approval. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Patinho. Any discussion? All those in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed. That's unanimous. Now I'm going to call on Mr. Mark Allred who will take us through the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, first up, we do have three cases have been continued to December 11th. Uh, first one is B5W3672 and then it's C2 subdivision number 2025116 and PBR 2025-20. They all asked for continuations for the same reason. They all needed some site plan revisions. So, first up on consent is item B2. This is W3669. This is Serenity's Property LLC. This is a resulting from RS7 to RSQ limited use. So, they're asking for the uses residential building single family residential building duplex from residential building twin homes. And this is on a 0.82 82 acre property northwest intersection east 14th street and dela brook road. You can see here to the you know kind of to north to the east north and to the west is RS7 to the south is win sale Winston prep sorry Winston Salem Preparatory and um you got some RS7 and some multif family here to the southwest. As you can see on the aerial, this is a developed site with a single family residential with as with access to Delawh Road. And as you can see here to the northwest, I'm pointing out some legally non-conforming duplexes. You got five of them here to the northwest of the site. And there is also a legally non-conforming multif family here to the southwest. All right. So the area plan does have this as single family residential 0 to8 dwelling units per acre. The reasoning that's being discussed will not alter or proposed will not alter the neighborhood's established character because there is other multif family in the area. The site is within a tier one neighborhood for the city's transforming urban residential neighborhood program which targets additional residential development and the request conforms to the general recommendations of for 2045 in the east northeast went to some area

plan by adding diverse housing near existing services and infrastructure for these reasons. Staff does recommend approval. Any questions for staff? Just a question. Was the house previously a duplex? It kind of looks like it. It's a good point. If you know, just one. I'm I'm not not sure. So, I'm not aware. No. Okay. I I don't know. You don't know? Oh, okay. Okay. It looks kind of the the design is kind of split where it's looks the same on both sides. Looks like has two porches. Just wondering. Any other questions for staff? Yep. The legally non-conforming two building apartment complex to the southwest. Mhm.

Is it How is that legally non-conforming? Surely it wasn't built so early as to There's a good chance it was probably built in the early 60s, late 50s, which was before zoning came in. Thank you. All right. No one has signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I declare the public hearing closed. What's the pleasure of the board? Mr. Chairman, I move the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Any discussion? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Mr. Chairman, I further move the planning board recommend approval of W3669.

Second. Motion by Mr. Land, second by Mr. Sino. Any further discussion? All in favor? Sign of I.

I. Any opposed? All right. Next is item B3. This is W3670, the applicant's BMS Investment Properties LLC. This is a resigning from General Industrial to RS7. It's 0.425 acres at the northeast intersection of North Glenn Avenue and Hannes Avenue. You can see here the General Industrial that's pretty much been here uh from the beginning. You do see a little bit of residential that's coming here in general business and we are across the street from an RS7 residential neighborhood. All right, the aerial shows this as a vacant lot. And again, you can see the industrial that's down to the south. To the north is a legally non-conforming single family house to the north here. And you can see the general business that's come in more recent. And there is an activity center up here. And as you can see here, um, the area plan does recommend single family residential 0 to8 dwelling units per acre, which makes this consistent with the 42045 and the east northeast area plan by promoting residential infield. And this supports the area's ongoing transition towards residential and general business uses that's been going on in the area. Did you have any questions? Staff does recommend approval.

All right. No one has signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. What's the pleasure of the board? Mr. Chairman, I move the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Tino. Any discussion? All in favor? Sign of I. I. Any opposed? All right. Mr. Chairman, I further move the planning board recommend approval of W3670. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Tino. Any discussion? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

Next is item B6. This is F1662. This is the Keystone Group Incorporated, also known as Wahlberg Landing. This is a highway business special use to RM18 special use. This is 0.73 acres at southeast intersection of Wahberg Landing Drive and Overline Drive. What the applicant is wanting to do is join this port portion of the parcel to this RM18S, which is Wahberg Landing Apartments. To the west, to the east is the shops at Wahberg Landing. To the east, there is to the north a restaurant with a drive-thru, also known as McDonald's. And to the south is a shopping center with the anchor being of a food line. It is in Davidson County. So, we're right on the boundary line, county boundary line. As you can see from the aerial, this is already a developed parking lot and a site. Um, this property was resoneed HBS in 2001. So, it's been sitting there for a while waiting for redevelopment. Um, so it's been a long time. It's been sitting as a highway business special use. And the South Suburban Area Plan does recommend this as commercial. Um, showing the existing zoning district that exists there. But again, it's been this way for more than 20 years. The plan that you see in front of you is actually a three lot mixeduse development. This lots two and three you hear already developed. This is the shops at Wahberg Landing. So what we're concentrating on is this one here which is lot one. This is a proposed three-story 12-unit apartment building with existing parking and access drives off of overline drive and the shopping center here to the east. And there is internal sidewalks already exist along Wahberg Landing Drive. This is the overall site plan. Lot one that we're talking about is is down here to the southeast. The overall site plan for Walbury Landing apartment homes is here. With this existing, they had to add some additional common wreck area to meet UDIO requirements. That's the reason why it's showing that to you. So, you see the existing, but they had to

add this blue section here to to meet the requirements. Here is the elevations as you see in front of you. Um, Saflex this is providing needed inville housing in an area already served by public infrastructure. Redevelops an underperforming commercial parcel that has shown no market demand and enhances walkability and mixeduse character by placing residence next to existing commercial services. And for this reason, staff recommends approval. Any questions for staff? No one has signed up to speak in opposition to this request. Does anyone here in opposition? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed with pleasure of the board.

Mr. Chairman, I move the planning board find the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Petino. All those in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? All right, Mr. Chairman, I further move the planning board recommend approval of F162. Second motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Pato. Any discussion? All those in favor sign of I. I.

Any opposed. Okay. Next is item number C1. This is subdivision 2025 1115. This is Salem v Road subdivision. It's a 10 lot major subdivision RS9 located in Foresight County. It's 5.88 acres at the east side of Salem View Road between Muria Court and Knight Al Court. Again, this is just a 10 lot major subdivision and everything here does meet UDA requirements. You can see it's quite large lot. So staff will take any questions but it does recommend approval. Questions for staff was pleasure. Move approval. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Patinho. Any discussion?

All in favor sign. I I opposed.

All right. Next is item D1. This is PBR 202519. The subdivision is Hidden Hill subdivision. This is a 77 lot PRD in RS20. 53.25 acres across from the intersection of Pretty Farm Road and Tuttle Road. As you can see on the sub on the map is we're really close to Stokes County here. So, we're also really close to the city of King. Um, as you can see here, the uh the PRD does meet the intent of the ordinance providing a required mix of open space. You can see these four spots kind of mixed throughout the subdivision. You got storm water device here at the front and internal circ circulation of two streets. It does meet UDA requirements. There is an offsite sewer pump station serving the development shall be approved by the city of King or Winston Salem Foresight County Utilities Commission brought online. This has to be done before the signing of final plats. So you that's the you saw that condition in there. So staff I mean sorry does board have any questions? um to the souththeast end of the plan. Uh what does that street just dub out?

As you can see here, this is a pretty large stream. Um and also the reason why it doesn't stub through and come through is because it doesn't seem like it's really serving anything over here into this area. Okay. Yeah. Staff recommend approval. Yes. Yes, sir. All right. What's the pleasure of the board? Move approval. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Patinho. Any discussion? All in favor? Sign of I. I. Any opposed?

Mr. Chairman, we will now go back to uh item B1 on your agenda, which is case number W 3666. If you would recall, this was continued from your October meeting. Um, I believe you had asked the petitioner if they would be willing to remove the use outdoor display retail. Uh, so with that, I'll turn it over to Mark and he can give you any updates. We can also hear from the petitioner. You can also ask us any questions. Should I bring the petitioner up or do I need to Can I speak for him? However you want to do it.

Okay. So, the petitioner did send an email to staff stating that he's willing to remove the use outdoor display retail. So, um if he wants to come up and speak for that. So, we do have that in our files, but probably just for the the record since it is a public hearing, it probably good to have the petitioner come back and just verbalize that as well. Okay. And we did not close the public hearing last time. So, Mr. Foster, if you'd like to come up and talk to us, please. Just a reminder to give us your name, address, and zip code for the record.

Uh, name David Foster. Address 4487 Cheyenne Court, Winston Salem, 27106. So, I'm back again today just to discuss um uh 2572 South Stratford Road, and we still want to continue moving forward with trying to get the approval for services. A um but we are going to drop the outdoor display retail after we got a drawing from the architect on where any kind of parking could go. It unfortunately with the setbacks just didn't make sense. We there was no space for it. So we understood that that wouldn't work any further. So we are going to drop that.

All right. Any questions for Mr. Taylor? All right. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Thank you. No one else has signed up to speak in opposition to this matter. Is there anyone here opposed to this matter? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. Any questions for staff or any discussion? If I say if probably the since the information that's in your book does include the use in the in if there is a recommendation for approval, it probably should just reflect that the recommendation is for services A only. That was my question. Okay.

Okay. Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? Mr. Chairman, I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second motion by Mr. Williams, second by Mr. Patinho. Any discussion? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? Mr. Chairman, I further move that the planning board recommend approval of W3666 to uh services a limited to limited to services A. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Patinho. Any discussion? Anybody understand what we're voting on? All right. All in favor sign of I.

I. Any opposed? All right. Oh, I just like to say thank you to Mr. Taylor for hanging in there one more month to get to a yes. Appreciate you, Mr. Chairman. A board. With that, that would bring us to um item B4, which is case number W3671. And we'll hear from Mark Orin on this case.

Yeah. So the again case number three, W3671, petitioner is Goldwater Holdings LLC doing business as Eagle Properties. The site is 0.23 acres. Look at the southwest intersection of Interstate 285, also known as US 52 and Arnold Avenue. This is a special use limited resing from RM8s to limited industrial limited use. The only use they are asking for is signs off premises. So that's the only use of consideration. Um here is the here is the location. You can see it's in GMA3 suburban neighborhoods. All right. So you see here that the site is currently located in RM8s. The petitioner who's petitioned this also petitioned for the reszoning to RM8s. It's the same same petitioner. Uh he previously res property from LB to RM8s in 2022. There was at the time a legally non-conforming billboard existing on the site at that time. The UDO's our UDO's non-conforming provisions allowed the billboard to remain. After the billboard was removed for a replacement with electronic sign, NC dot denied the new permit. So, that's kind of a history of of how we got to this point. the aerial as you can see it. Um I lost my laser pointer, but um so you can see the billboard was originally here. If you look close enough, it's wooded, but if you look, you can see it's um it's cleared out where a sign would actually show towards 52. From this from this zoomed out, it's really hard to see, but you just have to kind of trust me on that one. Um so the area plan is the south suburban area plan update recommends office low inensity commercial which use the uses for the subject property. So off- premise signs are permitted only in LI, HB and the GI district. HB requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square ft. The GI requires a minimum lot size of 3

acres, but LI requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. So it's a much smaller minimum requirement. This is the only district he could use that wouldn't have a negative impact on what was approved in 2022, that town home development that was RM8s. So, he was he's able to resone it to this and not have a negative impact on that development. Um, however, as you look at it from an area plan standpoint, the only industrial property on this side, you see down here on the far south, but it's it's actually a sla if you see the little aster and the sea. And one of the recommendations is no expansion. So when you come to when you hear about our recommendation is going to be highly based off of this the area plan. Um as you see here the photo if you can kind of see that July 2022 date you can see the billboard here. Again hard to see but um there is open area here as you're driving on 52 and we're looking at from Arnold Avenue. And this is today same point and you can kind you see it's down but the subject property is directly in front of us. This is looking south along South Main Street. The subject property is 280 ft to the left. This is looking east on Arnold Avenue. Subject property is to the right. And it's looking west on Arnold Avenue. Property is to the left. And this is looking across the street. So you can kind of see the residential components that exist on this neighborhood. So the petitioner has chosen the least intensive use from a size standpoint of 10,000 minimum square feet with LI. However, the proposed limited industrial limited use zoning is inconsistent with the area plan which recommends office low inensity commercial. Introducing industrial zoning on Arnold Avenue would conflict with the residential character of the street which you saw the houses there across the street. Proposed use could negatively impact the surrounding viewhed and undermine the area plan's recommendation for preserving the area's visual quality. And for those reasons is

the reason why we came to a denial. staff recommended denial. Any questions?

So, did NC do DOT specify why they denied his application? the action basically and again Kirk can probably he's actually looked at the statutes more recently than I have uh in in the NC DO's billboard manual but there's a provision in the NC DOT in the general statutes that basically says in order to have a billboard to get permitted for a billboard by NCDOT it has to be in a area zoned nonresidential.

Okay. Whenever they went through the process to reszone the property to RM8s, the billboard was already non-conforming. It wasn't legal to the existing LB zoning that was there. When they reszone to add the town home use, it didn't create a greater level of non-conformity. It was already non-conforming. Under our non-conforming provisions, you can um the billboard will be allowed to remain the billboard will be allowed to be replaced with a modern billboard under our non-conforming provisions. It's my understanding that the billboard was removed by the previous property owner or andor owner of the billboard. Um and then whenever the current property owner went to secure the permit for the billboard from NC DOT, they were denied based on the fact that it was zoned residential.

Yeah. So that they did seek to to get the permit, but it was denied by NC DOT. the property owner exhausted uh a lot of had numerous conversations with various various folks in NC DOT and there was no remedy to that. So basically if if these if this had been done in a different order the steps had been done in a different order he'd already have billboard back up.

Correct. If the property had if the property had been acquired and not reszoned for multif family, had just been left LB and they had gone through the process to replace the existing billboard with a more modern billboard, it would have been permitted under our ordinance under the non-conforming provision and it's theoretically I can't answer for NC DOT, but since it would have been zoned nonresidential, I'm assuming NC DOT would have issued that permit. They could have had the billboard in and then come in later to reszone for the town homes and Right. and we would not be here. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions for staff.

All right. We'll open the public hearing on this matter signed up to speak in support. We've got Jacob Taylor. Mr. Taylor, if you'd like to come up and give us your name, address, and zip code for the record and let us know what you'd like us to know. Hey, my name is uh Jacob Taylor. The address is 726 East Devonshshire Street. Um and the zip code is 27107.

Good evening, chair, members of the board. My name is Jacob Taylor and today I'm here on behalf of our company which operates in the media and advertisement industry. Few years ago, we reszoned our property that contained uh um a legally non-conforming sign. Uh the owner of the sign removed the sign and we lost our legally conforming status. And we're here today respectfully requesting uh a resoning of the property to allow the sign to be repermitted. Um over the last two years, our company has continued to grow in its con commitment to community impact. Um, as we are from and currently live here in Winston Salem, beyond our work in the media, we've been exploring how the same property can contribute to help fund afford to help fund affordable housing opportunities and local development efforts. We believe this site can play a dual role in Winston Salem, supporting our business operations while also serving the broader needs of Winston Salem residents. We recognize and appreciate the staff's time in reviewing our request and we want to assure the board that we intend to be remain in full compliance with the city's design and zoning standards. Um, in that spirit, we hope the board will view this request as not a step back from the forward 2045 plan, but rather as a practical step towards inclusive and forward thinking growth that the board envisions for Winston Salem. Thank you.

Any questions for Mr. Taylor? Thank you, Mr. Taylor. You mentioned contribute to affordable housing. How does that work for this? Um, so it's our hope that the revenue that comes from the billboard will help us fund uh a multif family project that we're working on to uh provide affordable housing for the community here in Winston Salem. All right, any other questions? All right. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. How much time's left? 10 minutes 30 seconds. All right. Anyone else?

Yep. Anyone else here to speak in support of this proposal? All right. Hearing or seeing no one, we'll shift to the oppositions. Anyone here to speak in opposition? All right. Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. Any discussion? It kills me these kinds of cases. I'll go ahead and get a motion on the floor unless there's any other discussion. That was well said. I don't know if she say anything else. I was waiting for I mean, you know, the the the craziness just the chronology being the impediment is ridiculous. But u

I'm going to make a motion then we can have a discussion about the motion. Is that all right? I move that the plan board find the request is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Second motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion on the uh inconsistency consistency. Thank you. Okay. Then um we got Oh, I'm sorry. Uh all in favor sign of I I. Any opposed? Okay. I further move the planning board recommend approval of W3671. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second. Second by Mr. Steelman. any further discussion on that?

So, um the the previous the non-conforming sign looked very lowlying um sort of nestled in the grass there. So, but maybe could you refresh us, Mr. Murphy, on um kind of what could be replaced is a more modern sign in terms of height, dimensions, lighting needs for something like that and how that might impact the surrounding uh residents. under the nonconforming provisions and again I have to give you two different answers. Under the non-conforming provisions the size and the height of the sign would not be allowed to increase. It could be modernized and go from a static billboard to an electronic billboard because we do not regulate the way the message is conveyed. We only regulate the size and the height. If and again so that's under the non-conforming provision. So that's if they had been able to replace the sign under NCDO, you know, if NCDOT would have issued the permit under the existing RM8s zoning under the non-conforming provision under the if this were approved today for the use sign off premise, they would just be held to the standards in the UDO, which I believe is 35 ft in height and 640 square feet, I think, which is probably consistent with the size of the sign was out there. this sign. I mean, I think they would be allowed to be a little bit taller, but the electronic message board, if they if that's what they decide to go with, would have been allowed either under the non-conforming provision or under a new permit issued today. So, your your difference is really going to be probably in height.

Now, I'm not a billboard person. It sits it already sits up on a hill. So, I I don't think you would probably want to then have the sign be, you know, 35 feet taller than, and again, I don't know what the existing height of the sign was, but I don't think you want to get drastically higher because then you're removing the eyes from the sign as you're driving up or down 52. You want it to be in your view area. All that's a convoluted way of saying that since we're not under the non-conforming provisions, they would be allowed what's allowed in the ordinance currently for sign off premise. And Mark's pulling up those standards right now. 672

35 ft is correct for the height. And um my question is about the fact that there's the two houses across the street. So when it comes to placement of a sign um is it like the sign cannot face a house or the sign um you know life corridor? I don't know. I might be making up terms cannot be directed towards resident. How does it work?

There aren't any regulations in the ordinance. I can't speak to NC DOT what if NC DOT itself has any standards. I don't know whether the I know that the petitioner did under their public outreach did go around I think and talk to folks. I'm not sure what what they heard from the folks that lived in those homes. But again, the the way the current sign sits, it kind of sits probably at a 40 degree angle to the road, and it was a one-sided billboard, so it only faced to if you were heading north, it faced to the south. My guess would be if they were going to try to replace this under now since they could do a new billboard, they'd probably do a billboard that does something like this where they would be able to message both from both directions,

north and south. But, you know, I would think that the sign that would be looking for southbound traffic facing north that it's going to be oriented to the road. I'm not saying that the house might not get some light, but it's certainly not going to be oriented directly to that house. It's going to be at an angle. Okay. If we were to uh if we were to support an approval or to recommend an approval, uh can we place conditions on that such as you you could, but they would they would have to be conditions that would be agreed upon. In other words, you can't you can't just say we'll approve this with this. you would need to get concurrence from the petitioner,

get him back to where he was. And so if we could get it conditioned such that the sign would just give his rights under u the non-conforming status, if we could get him back to there, that you know that would be potentially less intrusive uh than a brand new sign that might be taller and might be coming from two directions and things like that. So my question is, is it possible that we can word the motion such that we give him back his right that he had? I think what staff saying is that the petitioner would have to consent to that. Right. Right. Right. Prior to our voting on it. Okay. Kind of like the other case.

Yeah. Right. Okay. And I I don't just speaking for myself. I don't have an objection if if they need some time to work on that just as we did with that last case. I would be open to, you know, a continuence. Again, I will let the petitioner speak. I think they're under a deadline for the end of the year. Okay. Um is my understanding. Okay. But that was conversation that had been relayed when whenever we were trying to initially they had come in as HB and because the 20,000 foot we kind of pivoted and went to the LI because again it it was less intrusive to the multif family development. Um,

they couldn't continue because they had a December deadline. So, I must I'm not So, I'm sorry. Well, I'm just I was gonna have a different opinion. Sure. I just I'm not crazy about uh billboard in this location. I don't know if anybody has that similar thought. I do. It is unfortunate the timing, but it's um it's a nice corridor without having a billboard and there's plenty other parcels along this corridor that could partake in a resoning and refer to this site and refer to this as an example. Yep. Absolutely valid.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the the petitioner is up here. I'm not sure if he has if if if he's prepared to answer your question or so. Did you understand where I was headed with the potential restriction on an approval if we were to decide to recommend approval? Yeah, I have a pretty decent idea and uh based off what I heard, uh I think we're willing to move forward with that and agree to the terms that you laid out. So, what you'd end up with, and correct me if I'm wrong, you'd end up with the same rights you had to refurbish the existing sign. So, the height restrictions, the size, the one-sided sign, all those things would apply. You wouldn't have a two-sided sign, you wouldn't have a higher sign. You know what I'm saying? And how do we verbalize that? Well,

well, and again, I think as long as they agree to it in principle, we're going to have to come up with written consent to conditions before it moves on to council. Anyway, I think we can work with the petitioner and um Steve Cy who is representing them as well and and come up with some language that works. So, just to make sure I understand, basically we're looking at the sign being no larger, no taller, and it bees one-sided facing south orient orientation to the south essentially the same orientation. Okay. And it would be allowed to be either static or digital. Yeah, because he would have had the

He would have had that right anyway. Uh I'mma throw a wrench in there. The only question I have wasn't the sign torn down. Did I get that mixed? Well, no. I mean, it it was removed, but there's Do you know what it was? You understand what I'm saying? Yes, we have Oh, I see what you Yeah, we have an inventory. Okay. We have an inventory from from the from We have an inventory from the mid 80s that that has the height, the size, etc. I just want to make sure. Okay. Yeah. Very good point. Good question. But we do have that information. Do it like you did before, but we don't know what you did. Right. Right. Yeah. All right. Any any further um discussion? Does Does Mr. Lamb, I think, probably need to amend his motion?

So, I do amend my motion to continue this to our No, we're not We can take care of it right now. Okay, I understood. Okay. All right. Let me start over. Let's see. Um, my motion is to recommend approval but constrain the refurbishment rights to what they were under the non-conforming restrictions. Yes, I think that will be ample. And you can say such as height, orientation, orientation, square footage, single-sidedness, you know, that kind of size and size. Yeah. All right. Yes. Second

motion by Mr. Lamb or amended motion by Mr. Lamb and second by Mr. Patinho. Any further discussion on that? All right. All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? All right. So that's one two three one.

7 to one. That passes. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. Appreciate it. Um, before we move on, I would be remiss if I didn't recognize Council Member Cypio, who tried to sneak in on me, but I I I caught her. She wasn't. I could see her. Council member Joiner was behind the podium. I almost missed her. So, I'm I'm writing myself some notes, so I'll uh I'll jump in here just a second.

Sure. Okay, sorry. Making sure I have what I need to make sure we get that condition written correctly. Uh, Mr. Chairman of board, under staff report, uh, I will turn to Mark, who will quickly give you a zoning, uh, case preview for December. So, we have seven total items, three of them that you remember that were continued. We have two new resoning cases, one disposition of city park land, and one new planned residential development. All right. Uh, with that, I'll turn it over to Kirk, who I know some of y'all met our uh I won't call this person an intern, but we have someone who did a shadowing experience with us today, and I'll turn to Kirk, who will introduce him.

All right. Thank you, Chris. And again, good afternoon, board members, but I'd like Connor Tahara to go ahead and stand up. Uh Connor is with us from Foresight Tech, and he's uh currently enrolled in the public administration program there, but he has an interest to parlay that into future coursework and a career in urban planning. So careful. He reached out

he reached out to me a while ago and we've been trying to set something up. So we uh took him on the rounds with uh all the major work functional work areas within the department from zoning to uh permitting enforcement long range planning etc. So I think he's uh he definitely has a better understanding of what being a planner can entail. But again, just uh wanted to uh thank him for coming out with us today. Glad to have you,

Mr. Chairman and board. With that, I only have two more items. Uh remember that we will not have work session on Thanksgiving. Uh I would assume that y'all would would not want to be here on uh on Thanksgiving. So, that is actually work session. So, we won't have one in November. We won't have one in December either. But before then, we will have our holiday reception at 3:30 on the 11th of December. So, if you can try to get here a little early and we'll uh we'll we'll send you another reminder about that as we get closer. But just if you could kind of pencil that in and try to get here about an hour early so we can have a reception downstairs before we come up here for the meeting on the 12th uh December 11th, sorry. All right. And with that, I am finished with my staff report.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Before we adjourn, I I think I speak for the entire board and I hope the members of the staff that are here will pass this along. Um, as we enter Thanksgiving or head into it, um, know how thankful we as a board are for you and how hard you work um, and your efforts on behalf of the community. Um, you guys always, I feel like, approach things very even-handedly looking to try to find ways to to make things work, and that's not as common as it should be. So, thank you for all your hard work and we hope you have a great Thanksgiving. And I Brenda's not here. We may not be able to leave. Somebody else. I think someone can take care of it.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much.