[0:29] I'll call to order the September 3rd, would stop planning commission meeting. And as a first

[0:35] or a business, if you would please make sure your phones are silent, we'd appreciate that. And

[0:41] then if you are able, we'd like you to stand for the pledge of allegiance.

[1:07] And for the record,

[1:09] we only have four commissioners here tonight. We do have a quorum, but Mr. Raleigh is absent,

[1:14] commissioner Laney, and then commissioner Roth is not here as well for the record. For those

[1:21] of you here tonight for the first time are unfamiliar with the planning commission process.

[1:26] We planning commissioners are appointed by your elected representatives, so it's Council

[1:31] member and the mayor get one appointment to the planning commission, so we are appointees.

[1:37] Whatever we decide here tonight is just a recommendation, so the votes we make here tonight

[1:41] is a recommendation to city council, and all the cases you here tonight here will go

[1:47] to City Council and they will be the final determining vote in these cases here.

[1:51] So I'll tell you that.

[1:52] So if you are interested and want to keep following, I encourage you to do that to follow

[1:56] the long reach out to your elected representatives, your council member and your mayor as

[2:00] well as you see fit as you follow along in this process.

[2:05] For tonight, how this will go, for each case that comes up, first the staff will get up,

[2:11] They will present their analysis of the case, and then the applicant will come forward, they'll be allowed to present their case, what they would like to do as the planning commissioners hear that.

[2:22] Then planning commissioners will have a chance to ask questions of staff and the applicant, and then finally the most important part, which is the public hearing, we will open that up, and that is your chance, your opportunity for you to public to comment on these cases.

[2:35] With each case, we will have an opposition in a support or in support, if I should say.

[2:41] So for each one, though, I want to make this very clear that for each case here tonight, we

[2:45] will have 15 minutes allotted for those in opposition and 15 minutes allotted for those in support

[2:51] of.

[2:51] And that is a maximum time.

[2:53] So I just want you to think about that if there's, if there's many of you here for a certain

[2:57] case, you may want to consider that.

[2:58] If you want to have a representative speak and then other people speak as time is allowed.

[3:02] But we do stick to that and that is in our city bylaws, but also so we can keep the meeting moving along.

[3:08] We do have a few cases here tonight, and that is to keep it moving along to orderly.

[3:11] So we do appreciate your time, your patience with that as we move along here.

[3:16] With that, there is a sign-up sheet over here, if you would like to speak.

[3:19] I encourage you to sign up over there.

[3:21] Again, there's an opposition and a support side of that for each case here tonight.

[3:26] And then the other thing I'd like to mention, because I do know that zoning land development land use cases,

[3:32] can be emotional. So we do ask that we want you to speak your opinion,

[3:36] want you to give us your comments. Please only address those to myself and the other commissioners up here.

[3:41] But also please keep it respectful. We understand a world of culture and many times we,

[3:46] like I said, it doesn't get emotional, but let's keep our comments respectful,

[3:50] factual, and what you'd like to say there. With that as well,

[3:54] we do ask that members of the audience please keep it down and know, you know,

[3:58] shallots, outbursts, nothing like that.

[4:00] Do you realize if it does get out of hand and I do have to stop it, that is taken away from

[4:04] your time to speak.

[4:05] So highly encouraged, you please follow that and I'm sure we will not have a problem with

[4:09] that and I appreciate your patience and following that understanding.

[4:13] So moving along, first order of a business is the approval of the August 6 planning commission

[4:18] meeting minutes.

[4:20] Commissioners, have you had a chance to review, do you have any requested changes or additions?

[4:24] Seeing none is our emotion on the August 6 minutes.

[4:28] I'll make the most of them through the minutes.

[4:31] Most of you approve?

[4:35] Second.

[4:35] Second by Commissioner Smith.

[4:36] Any comments discussion?

[4:38] Seeing none, all those in favor please raise your hand.

[4:41] That vote is unanimous as minutes will pass.

[4:44] Moving on to our public hearing cases.

[4:46] We have up first is going to be zoning case 1-7-4-26.

[4:50] Zoning condition amendment for whole work with stock.

[4:52] and that is misnatally.

[5:04] Good evening, commissioners. Tonight, and presenting you with a condition amendment request for

[5:10] holdbrook, would stock located at 1, 3, 6, 8, 2, highway 92.

[5:19] Holdbrook would stock

[5:20] is situated on a 20.4 acre lot located at the intersection of highway 92 in Mountainbrook Parkway.

[5:27] The site is zone general commercial and lies within the Parkway overly district. It is currently

[5:32] developed as a retirement community with a mix of residential unit types. The applicant is

[5:37] a condition amendment to increase the allowable number of units.

[5:43] This parcel was annexed into

[5:44] the city in 2002 as part of the Mountainbrook Master Plan community since then it's undergone

[5:50] two rounds of condition amendments. The 2015 zone in case focused specifically on this parcel

[5:57] rather than the broader Mountainbrook area. It established a senior living use set the original unit

[6:02] at 270 required a 50-foot buffer along the southern property line and granted variants related to

[6:09] building height materials and parking. Then in 2017, two of those conditions were revised. The

[6:16] maximum unit count was increased to 299 and a variance to the streetscape standards for the

[6:22] Parkway overlay was approved.

[6:26] This table shows how the 299 unit cap is distributed across the unit

[6:31] and compares the units allowed by zoning to the units actually built.

[6:37] As you can see, the current development is 17 units under its entitlement.

[6:41] Based on the approved conditions, there allowed an additional eight independent

[6:44] retirement living units and nine independent cottages by-right.

[6:49] However, the applicant is seeking to expand.

[6:53] This next slide breaks down the applicant's request relative to the number of units already constructed.

[6:59] Ashen on the table, the proposal adds 63 independent living units and two cottages to the existing development.

[7:09] This slide shows the change relative to the units allowed under the existing zoning.

[7:14] The applicant's request would raise the cap on independent living units by 46,

[7:19] while reducing the number of cottages by 7.

[7:24] This slide just summarizes the last two slides for reference.

[7:28] To

[7:32] accommodate the additional units, the project includes a new two-story parking garage.

[7:37] With this added capacity, the 2015 variants allowing an 8% reduction in required parking is no longer necessary.

[7:44] This table shows the LDO required minimum in maximum parking counts based on the minimums for each use.

[7:51] The medical office and health club are included because they are open to the public.

[7:56] While the code sets minimum parking by use and allows up to 10% over the minimum, this project

[8:01] qualifies for additional parking allowances through features like pervious pavement and

[8:05] electric vehicle charging, as shown in the total.

[8:12] There are two buffers along the southern

[8:14] property line, a 50-foot buffer established through zoning conditions, and a 45-foot buffer

[8:18] required by the LDL. The applicant has withdrawn their initial request to reduce the buffers

[8:23] in order to accommodate the two additional cottage units.

[8:29] The city's council policy sets

[8:30] guideline that senior living units should make up no more than 5% of the city's overall housing stock.

[8:36] Right now, senior housing represents 5.9% with the proposed units that number would

[8:44] raise to roughly 6.1.

[8:46] Staff evaluated this request in the context of the policy and determined that adding units within

[8:50] the existing campus rather than expanding outwards, ports and more efficient use of land,

[8:56] and avoids placing additional demand on other available areas.

[9:01] At the July 7th meeting, the DPC unanimously voted to recommend approval of the request with updated zoning conditions.

[9:09] Because these new conditions replace the earlier ones, the previous conditions are still included,

[9:15] and each changes from the earlier conditions are highlighted.

[9:17] These revisions clarify that the updated conditions replace the previous ones, memorializes the site plan,

[9:23] the DPC used for its recommendation, and clarifies that zoning requirements take precedence over substantial similarity to the plan.

[9:32] Condition 3 was updated to reflect the requested increase in the total unit cap.

[9:41] Condition 6 was initially revised to accommodate the applicants for post-buffer reduction.

[9:46] Since that request has now been withdrawn, staff recommends reverting the condition back

[9:50] to the original 50-foot buffer.

[9:54] In the previous conditions of approval, condition 10 allowed an 8% reduction in required parking.

[9:59] the deep.

[10:01] So that it memorializes the parking totals shown in the site plan that was reviewed and recommended by the DPC.

[10:12] Condition 14 was also originally added to accommodate the buffer variance request and has since been removed.

[10:18] Well, it is recommended to be removed.

[10:19] Excuse me. Condition 15 requires the applicant to install a left-turn lane from Mountainbrook Parkway onto highway 92 pending G.A. approval.

[10:27] And lastly, conditions 16 was included after discussions about a possible gated entry.

[10:33] This is a standard DPC condition for any development considering gates to ensure fire safety.

[10:41] And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have in the applicant is here tonight,

[10:44] as well.

[10:47] Okay, thank you, Natalie.

[10:48] Commissioner's any questions for staff at this time.

[10:53] Okay.

[10:53] Thank you.

[11:02] Good evening for the record.

[11:03] My name is Park Soff with SAMHSA.

[11:04] I'm working enough and I represent the applicant in regards to this

[11:07] amending previous zoning conditions and I'm going to make a short

[11:12] presentation and then reserve some time because I know we have some

[11:16] residency with some questions and concerns and I want to address those

[11:19] afterwards so I'm going to reserve some of my time afterwards. So this is

[11:24] an opportunity to add and as your staff said add to an existing and

[11:29] very successful senior housing project. One of the interesting

[11:34] information, that information that I think is worth remembering is right now, Cherokee County

[11:41] is 5% 75 and older. That's today. By 2050, which is tomorrow in planning and building

[11:51] terms, that will be 12% 75 and older. Let me repeat that because when I heard it, I'm like,

[11:58] This can't be true.

[12:00] 5% of your population is 75 and older by 20, 50, 12%.

[12:05] And that's just aging population.

[12:07] That's not people moving in.

[12:08] That's your population is aging.

[12:11] And so we have to be very serious and intentional about

[12:15] housing that increase in senior population

[12:19] that has been growing and will continue to grow and accelerate.

[12:22] So the opportunity to be able to do this

[12:24] on existing campus is helpful.

[12:26] I can say from a public safety standpoint that puts people that might need EMS services closer

[12:34] together in a consistent area.

[12:38] The whole group community has multiple services that they provide there, not only are they

[12:45] caught, they have cottages, they have independent living, they have memory care and assisted

[12:50] living.

[12:51] They have many elements of care that's also provided there, but they also within their campus provide other things such as a spa that is open to the general public.

[13:02] They also have a restaurant, it wasn't showing up there, they have a restaurant that is also open to non-residents to eat at.

[13:13] And so they have all these other services that they provide there.

[13:18] And this is a rendering showing the building that would be proposed to be added behind the existing building.

[13:25] So this is the existing campus.

[13:27] So you can see the cottages along the right hand side that line 92,

[13:33] the main building and the other building that are facing 92.

[13:36] And then behind that is a parking lot, a surface-level parking lot, and then a topography

[13:44] going up to Mountain Brook in the townhomes that overlook this area here, but there's a good,

[13:51] great differential and heavily, treat in that area that we are not want to be disturbing.

[13:58] One of the discusian, a better idea of how this building massing-wise would fit in with

[14:04] topography and going down and going showing how that lies in with it with its topography.

[14:13] One of the things I want to point out is that when they add this additional housing that

[14:18] was proposed to independent or independent units that will be in this multi-store building,

[14:27] they're also adding amenities that will be there.

[14:29] fitness center, game room and such, they're adding some additional amenities and then upper

[14:36] levels will be rooms and then there is garage parking beneath. And that is one of the questions

[14:48] that we had the most questions concerns from residents is making sure that we have adequate

[14:54] parking. And we've actually gone through and refined how we're handling the parking within

[14:58] the parking deck.

[15:00] And you actually have a quirk in your code about how you count spaces in a deck and outside a deck. So I don't want to, you know, that. So we are actually going to propose a higher number than what's in your staff analysis, because what we want to have is a minimum of 355, because I think what you're going to hear from the residences, our biggest concerns, making sure you got it up parking, because you do have multiple uses within this community. You have a lot of employment within the community, also that go along with those uses and serving the residents live there.

[15:29] And we would like to be able to, it possible, depending again, as we can configure the parking

[15:35] deck, we might be able to flex up to 419 spaces.

[15:40] So that, a lot of that will be within our parking deck, as we're placing surface parking

[15:44] with basically a multi-story building, adding some parking underneath, and then being able

[15:50] to make a parking count adjustment that I think is consistent with the uses and the needs

[15:57] that we'll be in there, do want to just talk about, I guess, briefly about how what a wonderful

[16:05] environment whole work has created, a lot of the services they provide and they would just

[16:10] like that expand it with some additional residents and that that need is huge and is very

[16:17] much something that communities, all communities will be facing in the next 10, 15, 20 years. So

[16:22] I'm going to reserve whatever some additional time to respond to, sorry, I can need a consent.

[16:27] Thank you.

[16:29] Thank you.

[16:29] Mister, there's any questions for the applicant at this time?

[16:35] Okay.

[16:36] Seeing none, we'll open up the public hearing.

[16:38] Has anyone signed up to speak on this case?

[16:40] Yes, I have.

[16:44] The first speaker is John Frank.

[16:48] And for those speaking tonight, if you can't please name and address for the record, please.

[16:53] Thank you.

[16:54] name is John Frank. I've resided over at Woodstock, 13682, highway 92, live in one of the

[17:04] top apartments facing the parking area which is going to be removed in order to leave

[17:10] time for the construction of the new building. One of the concerns that was brought to my

[17:16] attention is the size of the parking spaces that are going to be presented in an underground

[17:24] parking facility.

[17:27] You're dealing with an aged community average age over 84 percent, that's the average.

[17:36] There are limitations, that's why people chose this wonderful community at this point, and

[17:42] I mean community not only Hobrook, but also Woodstock.

[17:47] We have difficulty getting into cars.

[17:51] We're not as ambalas we were, we're way beyond the 62 limit for getting benefits from the government.

[17:59] We need help.

[18:01] One of the concerns is that I don't think the this organization has received any information and regards

[18:10] to how the tenants independent assisted and memory care are going to have room to bring in

[18:21] aids that are helping them remain independent and assisted living.

[18:26] The plan is to remove all of the available parking for independent living people.

[18:33] That leads some room for the employees that work in assisted learning and elder care.

[18:41] They're expecting the seniors to give up their cars, not have the ability to get to their car other than being shuddled to an existing location of which we have no idea.

[18:56] To get groceries, to go to a doctor's office, it's gonna create major problems.

[19:02] how many AIDS are going to say, this is too complicated. I'm sorry, but we can't help you any longer.

[19:09] That has not been considered. What is the size of the parking spaces are the same as they have now?

[19:17] Because I indicated there are additional units that they say are available.

[19:21] But this is going to be a pill box, you know, a cement barrier that aged people are going to have to enter and exit.

[19:29] what happens if somebody parks next to them? They're not going to know who that car belongs to. They can't go anywhere.

[19:35] That is once this is built.

[19:38] We are a community that works together with staff.

[19:44] We are at a maximum capacity to permit us to venture into woodstock and take part in all the different activities woodstock has

[19:53] and the command surrounding air is. We're not going to find a restaurant that's going to

[20:00] 24, which we do now. We're not going to be able to go on the trips, pontoon boat, fill these

[20:07] games. That's not going to be available anymore, because they are going to overstaff with

[20:13] residents, everything. This is not a facility that you can have the elderly leave. This is

[20:22] our last resting place. We have independent living. Then we go to a sister living.

[20:30] and then memory care.

[20:32] We stay on the same premises.

[20:34] That's what was promised.

[20:36] Even though it's not a full CCRC,

[20:38] which they make a big deal out of.

[20:39] It's still an area where we can stay on the same campus

[20:43] with a staff that works with us all the time.

[20:46] They participate in our Olympic Games.

[20:48] We know them, they know us.

[20:50] They're not going to be able to handle this.

[20:54] I would like to have somehow where input is made

[20:59] either to yourselves or the city council that we have an evaluation done by a health commission.

[21:06] As to what effect this long term construction will have on people that have asthma, people

[21:14] who are very emotional and don't like change, we need to find out this is the first time

[21:20] I think council has been involved with a really elder care community.

[21:25] we can't leave. If this was a landlord, tenant situation, with a regular house,

[21:32] our environment for students or something like that, they just move. These people,

[21:38] it is going to traumatize them if they have to move. But there's no, the applicant has not

[21:46] even suggested that they would look into that. This committee and council has to balance the ability

[21:54] of a landowner, what effect that will have is the health, safety, and welfare of each citizen

[22:03] in this county, in this township, in this city.

[22:09] We need to look into that.

[22:10] This is brand new territory.

[22:12] We're talking about elder care.

[22:15] I could not find a single attorney that when I talked about elder care said, oh, we do

[22:20] and states and probate. We don't help people to understand what the new guidelines are for

[22:29] elder care. The state has them, the federal government has them, and there's serious

[22:35] that we have to take care of the older population.

[22:41] They can give a lot back to the community

[22:42] which whole book was stuck in this present position does.

[22:49] We are part of your community, but we need your help

[22:52] to figure out what we can do to stop the unnecessary construction.

[22:58] Remember, this is only being done because they sold the property

[23:03] to Janice, a New York Stock Exchange Corporation

[23:07] that is involved in this.

[23:10] That's the only reason we're even here,

[23:12] And not that it's going to help woodstock at all, it's profit.

[23:19] And that's why you're involved, and that's why City Council's involved.

[23:23] They have to say, OK, we know we're going to get more revenue from everybody coming in to

[23:28] build this building.

[23:30] We know it's going to help our coffers.

[23:32] It's going to help our taxation.

[23:34] But also how many people now living in our community are not going to be able to go out and take

[23:43] part in all the festivities that Woodstock offers to us.

[23:47] We can't go there.

[23:48] They're going to shuttle us to some other location.

[23:51] We'll have to find a car.

[23:53] We have difficulty knowing where our damn car is,

[23:55] where it is now in the open space.

[23:58] You know, we're not really sharp as we would like to be.

[24:02] We came here because we need help.

[24:05] Not your help to come into Woodstock.

[24:06] That's why we're here.

[24:09] You should look at the prices that we're paying

[24:11] And we don't mind doing it because we get the care that we need and we get the involvement with the community that we need.

[24:18] If this is built, we don't get that.

[24:20] They get more money.

[24:23] We don't get the health safety and welfare.

[24:27] If you look at the topography, they brought up the fact that there is a hill, a steep hill behind where they're going to build this new building.

[24:36] On the other side is the existing 45-story whole broken dependent living.

[24:44] Next to that is the assisted next to that is the memory here.

[24:50] Where are all the three dust noise going to go?

[24:56] They're going to hit the well on the side where the hill is.

[25:00] This, they're going to hit our building and it's going to amplify everything. The dust is not going to have any chance to go.

[25:06] The safety of that whole community is in jeopardy because of the location where it is.

[25:14] No one's told us how far that's going to be from where we exist, where we live at this point.

[25:20] But I just leave you with the fact that if you were instrumental in having to love one, move to this facility,

[25:30] Go to that facility because there's plenty of parking and you can see your relatives any time you want.

[25:38] And then learn that for where's the money?

[25:44] We're going to talk about money.

[25:46] Comes first before their loved ones care in that community.

[25:50] You would feel really bad because you saw this beautiful environment working well,

[25:55] Being destroyed all because of the dollar sign and that's what we have to worry about it's a new environment

[26:02] I ask you to help us in any way you can

[26:06] In closing there are a lot of letters

[26:08] that have been written

[26:10] to the manager

[26:12] concerning what they think is right or wrong

[26:15] and what they would like to see

[26:17] That cannot be made available

[26:20] because it was written to them

[26:22] We cannot send that to you until request is made to have the names made available to us, so

[26:30] we can go back to those tenants and independent living and have them get those copies or

[26:36] give other ones and bring it to you.

[26:37] There's over 70 letters just sitting there.

[26:42] We need their cooperation and having this done.

[26:45] We need their cooperation and having a study done as to whether it's a detriment to the

[26:50] community, we need your assistance to make sure the information that we've presented to them

[26:55] is then presented to you.

[26:59] Just think of the fact that if you are involved in having a loved one,

[27:03] move to a facility that is fantastic the way it is. And because of a dollar sign, it's going

[27:10] to be erased. They're going to be overcrowded. It's going to be a difficult situation. They don't

[27:16] know where we're going to be leaving our cars, how we're going to do anything. Thank you.

[27:20] Thank you.

[27:27] Next. Miss Marcy. Brian. And just as a note, right now we have five minutes

[27:34] left for the opposition side for public hearing. I'll try to be quick. I think John did an

[27:40] excellent job. I will. Excuse me. I moved from the Northwoods of New Hampshire because

[27:49] my son lives down here in Akworth and he was very familiar with Holbrook and my husband and

[27:56] I moved down here just a little over two years ago.

[28:00] I can say I enjoyed very much where I live now and I hope not to move this I expected

[28:06] to be our final move with 63 more apartments and a hundred more plus or minus people.

[28:12] I think that the dining room is going to be very stressed.

[28:20] The activities director already has just about maximum, maximized what she can do with the

[28:29] number of people that we have, she brings out a calendar every month and if you don't sign

[28:35] up within the first three or four days to some of the special activities you lose out and

[28:41] If there are a hundred more people flying further spots within 20 minutes, the special ones

[28:47] will be taken.

[28:48] You can only have so many people go to so many places because there just isn't enough room.

[28:56] The current structure, the spaces are limited as far as how many people can go in rooms

[29:03] for, um, you to listen to a lecture or, um, other things like that.

[29:10] Uh, parking during construction, I will say, sounds like it's going to be horrible.

[29:17] Uh, right now, if I need to run to the store, I can jump in the car and I can be back

[29:21] from Walmart in 20 minutes, picking up whatever it is that I want to get if, um, we have

[29:27] to park off site.

[29:28] I'm looking at a half an hour in one direction, a half an hour in the other direction.

[29:32] So, for me to pick up a school of thread, it's an hour and a half for me to do that, which is a little bit awkward.

[29:40] Afterwards, I think John covered that as far as how the cars are parked in an underground garage and how much space there is.

[29:51] I'm very familiar with assisted living in memory care because my husband has been in both and is currently in memory care.

[29:58] and just having...

[30:00] And spoken with some of the staff that live there as well as some of the residents. They are not appraised of what's going on with this whole thing. They have no idea. If they have been appraised, they're not remembering it. It's not going to be easy for most people to easily access transportation.

[30:27] I think that we have quite a few people in the room here tonight.

[30:31] I think there would have been a lot more here tonight if the people in the community

[30:34] drive a lot of people don't drive or they don't drive after dark.

[30:40] So you're talking as John has said, an aging population.

[30:45] One thing he didn't mention is that a lot of us have family and friends live in the area

[30:51] and they might be running errands and decide to stop by for a quick visit.

[30:54] They're not going to be able to stop by for a quick visit because where do they park their car?

[30:59] There will be no place to park their car during construction.

[31:02] So you can forget about having that quick 20-minute visit how are you doing?

[31:07] I love you kind of thing. It's not going to happen.

[31:11] I would say in the last month just in talking with other residents that you come in contact with

[31:20] The topic of conversation has been very upfront in the conversations and I have not run into anybody that lives there that's in favor of what is being proposed from the noise of construction, to the dirt that's going to be, and dust that's going to be around, and then, just the crowdedness that we will all be having to,

[31:50] put up with. I can, I can say, I think without question, it's really not what we want, and if you were to ask with a raise of hands of the people that are here, how many are interested, I would say probably everyone would say they're not so.

[32:05] That's about all I have to say. I hate to see whole work changed because it's a really great facility that people that live there are wonderful.

[32:14] the people that work there are wonderful and we've really got a very special environment.

[32:22] Thank you, ma'am.

[32:25] That is our time for the opposition.

[32:30] So we'll move on to those in support.

[32:32] Has anyone signed up to speak in support of this project?

[32:35] We had one more that was signed up.

[32:38] I'm sorry about it.

[32:38] Just one more?

[32:40] Yeah.

[32:41] I can't.

[32:41] It's a commission's okay all three minutes if the commission's okay without for one more state

[32:52] I'm not sure who it is, but who ever signed up? Who signed up? Who's a third person that signed up anybody?

[33:02] Do you want to speak?

[33:10] Hello, I've been living at Hobelop for almost a year and when I moved in there my daughter and

[33:21] my son-in-law looked at the property and told me it's great but they didn't tell me anything

[33:27] about an additional building being built and that was known back then but it was not passed on.

[33:33] So, my concern is basically noise level.

[33:39] Anything above 65 decibels is temporarily harmful to people's two people.

[33:48] And any construction noise, jack hammers,

[33:55] tractors, back hose, pile drivers, all those,

[33:59] They're up around 9,500 and 10 or more.

[34:04] And that's going to probably hurt some people's hearing, and it's no secret as we get older

[34:13] if you have grandparents, et cetera, that they're hearing as impaired as they get older.

[34:19] And so that's my biggest concern, also the fact that that's going to put some of the people

[34:26] who are trying to hold things together as best as possible over the age, because it's all

[34:34] a lot of stress to yourself and where you live and if you're building going up right across the

[34:42] way and they're going to hue out the mountain to some degree and all that is going to be

[34:56] Thank you, sir.

[35:00] Has anyone signed up a speak in support of the case? Is there anyone here that would like to speak in support of the did not sign up?

[35:09] Okay. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. The applicant would like to come forward?

[35:16] Yeah, thank you. And I do have one point out. I've got a whole book staff here, operational and a lot of the questions that were raised. They have been working on.

[35:28] A couple things I wanted to point out, one is I think there's universally accepted that

[35:36] whole work is a wonderful facility. They've got wonderful employees, wonderful program there,

[35:43] and I know it's hard for me to say it and for them to hear it is, you know, what they did before

[35:50] they will execute again and they will continue to execute that diligence on caring for their

[35:57] residents during construction and they have plans in place, you know, just as a quick example

[36:05] and they can go into more detail, you know, the people who drive regularly, they'll keep

[36:09] them here. If people don't drive as regularly, they'll maybe have off-campus and shuttles.

[36:16] They'll obviously increase shuttle services and opportunity for alternative transportation

[36:20] would be another thing that they would bring up. But one of the things that is

[36:26] most difficult for us to think about is, and they also, we don't, you know, we don't want

[36:31] this change, we don't want this addition.

[36:34] There are 80 people that are waiting for independent living units here.

[36:40] That's their waiting list, we're independent living.

[36:42] They've got 35 people waiting for cottages.

[36:44] That just tells you of the demand and the need for this.

[36:49] So I know that the people who live there, they have their wonderful environment that they

[36:55] appreciate so much, Holbrook has a whole bunch of more people that need that housing.

[37:01] And I go back to 5% 75 and older now, 12% 75 and older into the people in the fire department.

[37:10] I'm thinking, you know, you're recognizing what that means in terms of being able to provide

[37:15] the services that is needed. But the opportunity here is to be able to on an existing campus

[37:23] with an existing good culture, with a good, existing great employees in great services, being

[37:29] able to add as my count 63 over what they have built now and what we're asking for independent

[37:36] living units.

[37:38] And there's a more than a waiting list of fill out today and that will be more seniors that

[37:47] be provided housing but also more employment because they'll add employees to be able to provide

[37:54] the more services to these new residents and there will be there's no way to not say there will

[38:01] be an inconvenient for a period of time but you have rules and regulations on noise of

[38:06] considering construction hours and limitations on that and then they're ultimately the staff that

[38:13] They all report does a great job, will be responsible for ensuring that they, during this

[38:18] temporary construction period that they're taking care of in a respectful and way.

[38:25] So your DPC staff looked at it, recognized the need of this, the opportunity to be able

[38:32] to add senior housing to existing campus and recommend it to approval of this.

[38:37] we asked that you follow that recommendation

[38:40] as I said, the biggest, the only change that we would ask

[38:44] is that the line that talks about parking spaces

[38:49] will be a minimum of 355 and up to 419.

[38:54] Again, that aligns.

[38:55] That was the feedback we got from the residences.

[38:57] We want to make sure they're playing a parking.

[38:59] And just to be clear, these parking spaces

[39:01] are the same size as per code, which is the same size

[39:05] that you have there now.

[39:06] So the spaces that are there now would be also code,

[39:10] wit, and length, before and after.

[39:14] So we asked that you follow your staff recommendation

[39:16] with the exception of increasing the allowance

[39:18] for parking so that we can ensure

[39:22] and utilize the parking deck underneath the building

[39:25] as best as we can and get as much parking as possible.

[39:31] So Parks, with that condition number, one of the conditions,

[39:34] But it says, I think it's no fewer than 338 total parking spaces you shall provide on site.

[39:39] So how are you wanting that to be modified?

[39:41] To say no fewer than 355 were the right to go up to 419, because you all have a minimum maximum.

[39:49] And we could sit here and debate until the cows came home because we got a restaurant.

[39:54] How do you count that?

[39:56] We've got a spa.

[39:57] How do you count that?

[39:59] And when the...

[40:00] And you have mixture of uses. So, this is professionally what our architects believe is a good

[40:08] parking count that we can realistically achieve. And usually you're worried about over-parking

[40:12] because of you don't want a big sea of parking spaces when you do structured parking that

[40:17] actually is big difference analysis. So, your mindset of we don't want too much parking

[40:22] is kind of the opposite here when you got the opportunity to do it in the deck. That's actually

[40:26] most environmentally and that's way to utilize the land without just a sea of parking spaces.

[40:37] Okay, commissioners questions for the applicant at this time.

[40:42] Park, can you talk about parking spaces to code or the parking spaces in the deck and any surface

[40:47] spots around the same size?

[40:50] Are they the same size?

[40:52] Correct.

[40:52] one's in the deck and the one's on the surface lots outside of the same width.

[40:56] That is good.

[40:58] Thank you.

[41:01] I got a question for me if you're out of word it here.

[41:05] I've been to this campus several times.

[41:07] It is a beautiful campus.

[41:09] Unfortunately, emergency services are often called here.

[41:14] So one of the concerns I could have and they potentially have is during construction.

[41:19] and I've been a worked in a lot of construction sites, vehicles,

[41:23] cement, all that's coming out.

[41:25] Is there a plan when timing matters, and emergency response is paramount?

[41:31] Is there a plan during construction to make sure that emergency services are able to see

[41:36] and have the same response time as they did before construction?

[41:40] Most definitely, and I've worked on a similar project where we had to designate

[41:44] our emergency routes, and so as we phased construction, we had to make sure that during construction

[41:50] that the emergency access was maintained throughout. So we will be doing that through permitting

[41:56] and throughout the process. All right. Thank you.

[42:01] Parts you mentioned earlier that it was in the staff packet too about, you know, like the

[42:07] spa restaurant, so these other things are open to the outside public. Do you have a,

[42:17] does that

[42:17] what's the percentage of people from the outside that use those services or I mean I obviously

[42:21] am assuming it's a high majority of residents, but I mean I think it's largely residents but

[42:27] do we have it like you have a estimate only guess of it?

[42:43] My name is Brad Bickford, I'm the general manager of Wholebrook Woodstock located at 136A2 Highway

[42:50] 92. The restaurant is not necessarily open to the public. It's open for the residents to bring

[42:56] their friends and family. So the majority of the residents, I mean the more

[43:00] majority of the guests are residents guests. If I invite somebody in, that's

[43:05] something, but you can't just come up off the street. Okay, that makes sense. Okay, thank

[43:09] you for clearing that up. No problem. Any other questions for the applicant at this time?

[43:19] I'm sorry, Public Hearing's closed right now sir. Sorry about that. I'll be glad to

[43:23] talk to you afterwards. Sorry, thank you.

[43:27] Okay, thanks. Parts per se. Commissioner's

[43:30] questions for staff at this time.

[43:35] I have one. So this is Zone G.C. Correct, as is. And with the

[43:42] parking that was is proposed of no fewer than 355 with a maximum of 19 per that point just now.

[43:51] Would the parking requirements change if this was Zone senior living versus G.C. or how does that fit

[43:57] and all those if that makes sense at all.

[43:59] So this is certainly a unique development share in terms of being developed prior to our current

[44:05] senior living standards.

[44:07] It has also evolved over time, so staff has done quite a bit of work with the applicant

[44:12] to try to determine what the appropriate parking minimum would be.

[44:16] I will advise the commission that if you wish to have a higher ratio, unless you specifically

[44:21] grant a variance, which we have not yet received an application for, unless a specific

[44:26] and variants is granted, the parking would be reviewed at the time of site plan to ensure compliance with those minimums maximums,

[44:33] and any parking bonuses that might be achieved with the permeable paving that Natalie mentioned or the electric charging spots.

[44:43] So the final parking count would have to meet the standards unless a recommendation and granting by council of a variance to increase the parking is granted.

[44:55] You're saying I don't have to meet a minimum and a maximum standard.

[44:58] So there is.

[45:00] There would be, or is, a minimum, a maximum standard that's calculated at the time of site plan based on the final mix of all of the uses.

[45:09] We have their approximation based on the conceptual plan that's been provided at this time.

[45:14] That would be verified and, you know, confirmed at the time of the final, the actual site plan submittal.

[45:21] If they achieve additional bonuses or don't achieve some of those bonuses or if their unit counts change.

[45:26] So that is why the staff recommendation for DPC had a minimum parking number, knowing that

[45:33] there is a great demand for parking if the facility staff wanted to ensure that regardless

[45:39] of the number of units that are added that the parking was no less than the number provided.

[45:46] So additional parking may be warranted, however, if you wish to ensure that they are allowed

[45:52] to have a maximum that perhaps exceeds the maximum allowable, that would be the variance that

[45:59] staff could not just grant administratively.

[46:03] I understand.

[46:04] So you could modify their parking plan, but you can't go over a stated port code unless

[46:10] there's a variance that's a reprue of precedent approved.

[46:13] That's correct, right?

[46:15] You have the, based on the request tonight of minimum 35, and I guess the maximum's

[46:19] the main thing before 19 has staff at a chance to look at that or assess that or see if

[46:24] that was something they would support or not support or.

[46:26] So, I believe that that number was recently provided to staff and was different than the

[46:31] original request that was included with this proposed amendment.

[46:37] So, while the numbers here stand based on the conceptual plan, so the numbers that

[46:43] Natalie presented to you would be the maximum allowable based on what the information given to us.

[46:49] So unless additional documentation received that changes the code maximum, or, you know, those numbers, we would not be able to, again, administratively grant that.

[47:00] Again, there's an understanding that there's a great need for parking out there, even now.

[47:05] So anecdotally, I don't believe there was any concern raised by the DPC regarding the addition of more parking.

[47:12] It's just not something that they could, we could grant as a group.

[47:16] Okay, thank you.

[47:19] Can I follow up on that direction?

[47:22] So the difference between the maximum and the minimum is difficult to hit and especially

[47:30] as was already said, it's difficult with this type of facility because it's more than

[47:37] just a restaurant, it's more than just a residential.

[47:41] It has there been any evidence that all presented to DPC of the current parking situation.

[47:52] The number that they have now for their existing facility is that you lies 24 hours a day.

[48:02] How much vacancy is there within the parking lot today?

[48:07] So staff is not received any documentation of that type, and certainly if a variance is requested

[48:13] to request more parking, that may be part of that justification that the current parking

[48:18] is already heavily utilized and that additional units are expected to have a similar increase

[48:23] in demand.

[48:24] So that would certainly what we would normally expect with a variance request is that justification

[48:29] statement where they answer all of the questions that they'd be providing that type of

[48:33] information.

[48:39] Commissioners, any further questions?

[48:44] Okay.

[48:44] Seeing none floors open for motion or discussion on this topic, this case.

[49:04] Yes.

[49:04] I'd like to make a motion to approve with the DPC recommendations.

[49:12] Okay.

[49:12] There's a motion to floor to approve an accordance with staff recommendations.

[49:17] There's second.

[49:20] I'll second.

[49:21] Is there anything in relation to the conditions that were scratched that we have to add to the

[49:27] or is it they've already been admitted based on what is that we don't have to do? What do you

[49:33] ask I'm sorry Dave?

[49:36] So I definitely second emotion. I was just making sure they're in relation

[49:39] to the changes that they made. And six I believe it was. And 14 do we have to add something to our

[49:47] emotion in order to? Yes, perhaps if you'd like to accept a friendly amendment to present the

[49:53] changes as presented this evening to the conditions?

[49:58] Are you?

[49:59] Okay.

[50:00] All right, are you seeing the changes at staff recommends or?

[50:03] That's correct. So during the staff presentation, there were several items, two items that because the variance to the committee.

[50:10] The buffer that was taken out, okay.

[50:13] So, if you'd like to modify that motion to say as presented, that can be accomplished.

[50:20] I'm sorry, that's not what the motion was as presented, basically. I'm sorry about that.

[50:23] You want to clear that up?

[50:25] So modified.

[50:26] I second. So the motion on the floor to approve and of course the staff's

[50:32] recommendation as presented here tonight is the motion on the floor.

[50:36] Okay. Can I make a, I'm going to offer a friendly amendment to both of you if you're okay with this and staff, you can help me out here. In the past with some of these, we've, we basically put a condition of basic instruction plan that needs to be approved by by staff.

[50:52] staff with that wording be okay, that the applicant has to present a construction plan that

[50:58] can be approved by staff before any construction begins, but it hasn't been more detail

[51:04] or what.

[51:05] So Chair Williams, certainly the applicant will need to go through the full site plan process

[51:09] that will include both the site layout and infrastructure, the elevations.

[51:16] Are you concerned with the building construction plans?

[51:20] I'm talking more of the actual logistics

[51:21] at the actual construction,

[51:22] based on concerns that were printed in here tonight.

[51:25] In terms of word vehicles will be located,

[51:27] things like that, pathways have to be clear.

[51:29] That's what I'm talking about.

[51:31] So perhaps a construction management plan

[51:35] for ongoing operations of the facility

[51:38] during the construction process.

[51:40] That's what I'm talking about.

[51:42] Is that, are you okay with that?

[51:44] Did you do it just a little bit?

[51:45] Absolutely.

[51:48] All right, there's a motion on the floor

[51:49] to approve the course of staff's recommendation has presented an item in addition to the

[51:53] additional condition we just mentioned about a construction management plan that has

[51:56] be approved by staff working construction can begin. Paul let you start your motion any discussion

[52:02] or debate on this?

[52:09] I'll say here's my thing on this is we don't have much black and white and

[52:19] But to me, the Council policy manual of 5% at senior housing is about as black and white as it gets because it does say shall be 5% or less I looked up the wording and I know we're already over that like 5.9 in this takes the 6.1 it's a minimal movement. I get that and I understand the case are the point that since this is already a development it's not really a new development does that really apply

[52:45] But I think it does because I think any time you're moving away from a goal, I'm kind of asking

[52:50] what's the point of the goal.

[52:53] So, if we're adding more senior living and we're already over our limit, combine that with

[52:58] the fact that City Council with recent cases has not really had an appetite for apartments based

[53:04] on this exact reasoning of we have a goal, state-of-goal, percentage of apartment multi-family

[53:09] were over that as well. I have a hard time approving more of something that we're already

[53:15] over by our state of, you know, a policy manual. So, that's my take on that. So, but anybody

[53:22] else?

[53:26] I tend to agree with that somewhat, but I think the numbers arbitrary five, nine, six,

[53:33] on to me as I understand that I'm more concerned with.

[53:40] I'm usually a huge density fan.

[53:45] But in this case, I just feel, I don't know,

[53:49] it feels wedged it feels we had some vacant land.

[53:53] Let's put something there.

[53:55] I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud.

[54:01] But yeah, I'm still on the side of this point,

[54:06] some. You call the motion. I will.

[54:15] Yeah, I've said my part. Anybody else? Okay,

[54:20] sing down on the floor. All those in favor of the motion as presented with the amendments.

[54:25] All those in favor please raise your hand. Any opposed? And that vote goes to two, two,

[54:32] which is a tie for now. So before moving forward, I will ask, mean you Greg,

[54:38] it's where an opposition, is there anything that potentially would change here that would make you

[54:48] happier with us or change your vote or anything like that? Do you think just to try to get to

[54:52] something here? Okay. I'll present it to my question myself as well. For me, I've kind of said my

[54:59] I was...

[55:00] So, mine is a kind of a hard number, so that's my reasoning. I will ask David and Paul, if you have any other thoughts on this, or if there's anything that would sway you in other one way or the other.

[55:14] Well, I will say you definitely have a good argument based on the amount of work that went into our comprehensive plan and air.

[55:20] and in relation to that argument, but also the DPC said it was in line with our comprehensive

[55:27] families. We've all put a lot of work into. I also understand the need and I love that community

[55:34] and I think based on your recommendation, if they show their plan, their development plan,

[55:42] how they're going to execute that. If it has low income, low to no impact on the current

[55:48] I just imagine one of my mother, father, to have the opportunity to live in the city that I chair, and so they process projects appropriately with respecting their current people that live there, but also give an opportunity for some residents that are already waiting, or, you know, my, my family, and to live in Wistout, which we all love, I'm all for it just based on, you know,

[56:17] not having a solid plan, make sure that there's little to no impact on the current residents

[56:21] for giving other people to add the opportunity as well.

[56:27] Okay, so it sounds like that motion dies, however I've never had this before, so I know

[56:34] Casey can go forward with no recommendation, but I'm not sure how we can do that or if we

[56:39] even can do that or how that works, I'll pitch that to staff if you have any inputs.

[56:44] So I would think at this time there's two ways to go forward.

[56:48] This could likely this split decision could be presented to Council as the results of the Planning Commission deliberation.

[56:58] If you feel that having a full complement of commissioners may change the decision-making process,

[57:06] you could certainly table the, you know, table discussion to allow that.

[57:12] However, if you think that even with all the members here that it's still likely to, it's still

[57:20] may end up similarly, I guess you'd hope to have an uneven number correct, right, to have a clear

[57:31] decision. So those would be a couple of options on the table. You know, I think that really depends

[57:39] on. If you see that there's going to be a likely change in outcome.

[57:45] Okay.

[57:48] I've just given my preference is that I'll open up the commission if you want

[57:51] emotional and something else, but I don't see any a whole lot of, I don't know what the

[57:57] word's value, I'm not sure if holding it up, but the table is, you know, with the chance

[58:02] we come back and we have the same result and then it's just a late month. So, but I'll open

[58:07] up if you don't know what to get a motion for that or any other motion you'd like to make other

[58:10] than that. I think we're trying to send it forward as a basically a no vote, a 22 dead

[58:17] lock essentially. Yeah, I tend to agree with that. I think that's the right decision. I think it

[58:23] has more to do with the count of commissioners here than it does. You think, so if you're

[58:29] pointing it up, it's not, I don't think it's the right thing. I think we passed along. It was a 22

[58:34] did lock. That's what we are.

[58:39] Okay, so do we have any other motions or is that that it for that case for here?

[58:43] I don't believe any further motions are needed. Staff will transmit the results of the vote.

[58:50] Okay, again, if you are that will go forward. Kind of an odd item here are a situation I've ever seen, but that will go forward.

[58:56] It's much of a no vote from planning commission based on the deliberations you heard.

[58:59] I do highly recommend if you are in a set case to keep falling on to city accounts.

[59:04] Next case up is going to be zoning case 1, same 3, dash 26, that is Dixie Speedway and

[59:09] Town View Commons and that is Ms. Ray,

[59:19] our city manager.

[59:22] Do you want to take a two minute break?

[59:24] That's fine.

[59:24] We can do that.

[59:25] Let the room clear.

[59:25] Let's take,

[59:28] we'll just call it 805, be back in here, but that works.

[59:34] We'll take about a five minute break, 805, where you can beat.

[59:37] I'm sorry if you didn't hear that.

[59:38] Thank you.

[1:00:35] All right, everybody. If you would please take your seats, we will get started back in the meeting. We

[1:00:39] loft off with, so any case, one, seven, three, yes, twenty, six, Dixie, speedway, and town of U. Commons.

[1:00:46] Mr. moving. Thank you, sir. I guess I'll start by this is, I told you before the meeting is, I think,

[1:00:53] the fourth time in 18 plus years of city manager, I've actually spoken to the Planning Commission.

[1:00:58] It's ended a lot of meetings, but this is the first time I've actually, one of the few times I actually

[1:01:02] But there's a compelling city interest because it was a city initiative project, so that's why I'm here to give you the background.

[1:01:08] This project is a little different. This case is a little different, typically when you have an annexation come before you.

[1:01:14] Sanxation and his own incoming together.

[1:01:17] In this case, the annexation was already completed by Legislative Act by the General Assembly and signed into place by the governor.

[1:01:26] So, the annexation has already occurred.

[1:01:29] When property is annexed by legislation into the city limits,

[1:01:34] it does not carry the county zoning forward with it.

[1:01:37] It comes in unzoned.

[1:01:40] So, no zoning in effect on the property.

[1:01:42] That's why mayor and council adopted a moratorium on development

[1:01:46] in the area because until it could go through the zoning process.

[1:01:52] This has been five to six years worth of effort to get to the point of annexation on this.

[1:02:00] Looking at multiple methods of annexations, all had problems including even, we couldn't even do a referendum because one property owned her own too much property.

[1:02:09] So that left us with the legislative option.

[1:02:12] We've had conversations with Dixie for five to six years about annexing into the city limits.

[1:02:18] they're a valued partner of visit would stock our conviction of visitor's bureau.

[1:02:23] They also we had a situation with town view which was between the city limits in Dixie.

[1:02:28] We're about 40% of the development from 2004 original file date.

[1:02:34] It was in the city limits, the balance of it was out of the city.

[1:02:38] That wouldn't happen in this day and age, but it happened then, which created some service delivery challenges and issues.

[1:02:44] And then also there was a light industrial parcel

[1:02:48] between Townview and Dixie that the city needed

[1:02:52] for it to be continuous the city purchased that lot.

[1:02:55] So we wind up with three categories of owners in this.

[1:02:58] The Townview Commons I'll refer to as the

[1:03:01] unincorporated Town Home portion of that development.

[1:03:04] The commercial or industrial lot at the city bought.

[1:03:07] And then multiple lots at the swim families

[1:03:09] or LLCs that they own or control own multiple parcels.

[1:03:18] We are only have records of two other times in the city's history that there was a legislative annexation.

[1:03:25] One was Highway 92 and the second was Interstate 575 annexing them into the city limits.

[1:03:31] So this is not something that happens frequently.

[1:03:33] So, when we approached the delegation about annexing the Town View and Dixie properties,

[1:03:43] I'll refer to them into the city limits, they set some conditions for us.

[1:03:49] In order to introduce legislation, we had to comply with those conditions.

[1:03:54] Number one, we had to receive a request from the Town View HOA, requesting legislative annexation

[1:04:00] for the balance of the town view town homes.

[1:04:05] We received that, submitted it.

[1:04:08] We had to receive permission from the light and industrial

[1:04:11] lot that was separate and the city bought that lot,

[1:04:16] the city gave permission.

[1:04:18] And that left the Dixie parcels.

[1:04:20] And we received written requests to the delegation

[1:04:25] from the controlling parties of all the Dixie parcels

[1:04:28] requesting legislative annexation.

[1:04:31] The last condition that was placed still

[1:04:32] in this by the general buyer delegation

[1:04:34] was, although it was in the growth boundary agreement

[1:04:37] with the county, they wanted a resolution

[1:04:40] from the Board of Commissioners saying

[1:04:43] that they did not object to this.

[1:04:47] In order to get that resolution from the county approved,

[1:04:51] which was approved and submitted, the CD had to make

[1:04:54] commitments to the county that we would not do anything

[1:04:57] in the zoning process that would restrict.

[1:05:00] The XE speedway from how he historically has operated. That would be from the race track, that would be from the transfer station that first opened in 2019, that would also include this special events that they have.

[1:05:15] So, the council made that commitment to the commission and also to the delegation,

[1:05:25] and that bill was introduced approved signed by the governor, and that's why we're here today.

[1:05:31] So, since then, after the Council adopted the moratorium staff sat down, we met with the HOA,

[1:05:39] we met with the Swim family and their representatives, looking at the zoning ordinance

[1:05:45] and what most closely matches what they have in the county with what they have in the city.

[1:05:53] The residential units line-up, light industrial line-up, general commercial line-up, how

[1:05:59] difference was on the industrial zone property. Some of the light industrial would remain

[1:06:04] light industrial that match. The big difference was the transfer station in the county is a

[1:06:09] conditional use under light industrial, the county's light industrial. In the city zoning ordinance,

[1:06:16] the transfer station would be under heavy industrial because that's where we have transfer stations.

[1:06:23] It's not as simple as just changing that because we already have a transfer station in a heavy

[1:06:29] industrial park on Main Street. And so you would be creating if you change that

[1:06:34] why can you just change it from H.I. to L.I. because you would create a legal

[1:06:37] non-conforming. And that would be a challenge legally by doing that to the

[1:06:44] existing transfer of station. So it kind of puts in a little laundry and that's

[1:06:50] a lot of the Alkrye you've heard over this is over the H.I. zoning, but the reason

[1:06:53] and it's that way is because that's what our zoning ordinance has and has for 20 years had transfer

[1:06:59] stations. One thing I will say about town view and there's a specific variance in there

[1:07:06] that the city initiated I want to make sure I cover that as well. The 40% roughly of the town homes

[1:07:12] that are already in the city limits prior to July 1st were sprinkled. The ones that were building

[1:07:17] the county were not sprinkled because the county did not have in their development ordinance.

[1:07:22] So, since those are now in the city, in order to not create a legal non-conformity for those

[1:07:32] town homes that were developed in the county, staff included in the request of variants

[1:07:37] for them so that they would be permanently covered by not having to have sprinklers.

[1:07:42] We thought that was fair to the residents.

[1:07:44] The concern was what happens if one of the units burned down, they have to rebuild.

[1:07:47] It could create some challenges so that each simplest solution and to have the least impact on those residents that are

[1:07:55] We're coming into the city as part of this in town view was to request the variance before playing commission in council for the sprinklers

[1:08:01] That's the reason for that specific variance

[1:08:04] The other thing that the city as part of this will be doing is accepting the streets within town view as public streets

[1:08:10] That was the big request from the HOA

[1:08:13] So I'm happy to answer any questions

[1:08:17] Again, we were, our hands were tied by the commitments to the county and the delegation and about not restricting anything that Dixie currently does, and that's why we're here tonight.

[1:08:30] And I'm happy to answer any questions.

[1:08:32] Thank you, Jeff. Any questions for the city manager at this time?

[1:08:38] Okay, thank you.

[1:08:40] Do you want to?

[1:08:55] Only if I want to read something.

[1:08:59] Thank you, Mr. Moon, for providing that information as we get started here on case Z173-26.

[1:09:14] So the item before you hear is the initial zoning of approximately 138 acres that were

[1:09:19] annexed into the city of Woodstock by legislative action in May.

[1:09:23] The subject properties are in Council Ward 2 and are outlined on this map in Yola.

[1:09:32] The properties are on the north side of Highway 92.

[1:09:34] We are west of 575 east of Bell's ferry road and south of Baskham, Carmel Road.

[1:09:40] The properties include Dixie Speedway, a waste transfer station, the western portion of

[1:09:44] town view common subdivision, three small parcels in the industrial park, a parcel between

[1:09:50] the industrial park and King Ridge King's Ridge subdivision, which is in the county, and three

[1:09:56] parcels that are along Baskham, Carmel Road.

[1:09:58] They're all

[1:10:00] Our 129 parcels in town view commons that are included in this project, and then 10 other parcels, and it's a, like I said, approximately

[1:10:10] 138 acres.

[1:10:14] I will skip over this slide, because Jeff did a great job walking us through this, but this, the image on the left

[1:10:20] show you the property owners so you can see how these swims family and the Dixie operations

[1:10:26] are a large percentage of the parcels and then the pink one there is the parcel that the city

[1:10:32] purchased for to help create continuity or continuity and then green indicates here the

[1:10:38] town view common subdivision. That's in the that was in the county.

[1:10:47] All right so through this process

[1:10:48] city staff and the property owners have aim to propose districts that are the closest to how the

[1:10:54] we're zoned in the county and how the parcels are actually used.

[1:10:58] That's the guidance that we would with that staff receive from the state legislature in the county to maintain that consistent zoning designation.

[1:11:04] So the map on the screen here is the Cherokee county zoning.

[1:11:07] How the parcels were zoned prior to annexation.

[1:11:11] It'll walk through them.

[1:11:14] Purple is light industrial and makes up the majority of the assemblage.

[1:11:20] Light green is our 40, which is large lot residential with a density of just over one unit per acre allowed.

[1:11:31] This orange color here is RTH, the residential town homes, that is on the portion of town view that was developed in the county and RTH has a max density of eight units per acre.

[1:11:44] Now looking at the map on the right, this is the proposed city designations.

[1:11:48] So the speedway and transfer station, those are proposed to become HIV.

[1:11:52] In city regulations, L.I. doesn't allow for the speedway or transfer station, so the proposed district for these two uses is H.I. to allow for the transfer station and speedway to ruin an operation, and that's appropriate for the intensity of the uses.

[1:12:11] The small portion down here that is outlined in red, or a shaded red, that's a small portion of parcel, the number gains in 275, it's proposed to become GC, which would allow for commercial development.

[1:12:27] In the city, GC zoning, no residential uses are allowed. So no apartments, no townhouses, no residential, it's just commercial.

[1:12:38] Here you've got the R40 along the Basque and Caramel Road that would become R1 in the city which is the city's least dense residential district with a maximum of two residential units per acre.

[1:12:53] The rest in light yellow is L.I. Light industrial and will allow for smaller less intense industrial uses.

[1:13:00] There is a portion of parcel 013A that you can kind of see over here to the right that's shaded a different color and has the red line.

[1:13:08] There's a portion of that parcel that is proposed to be L.I. that the property owner

[1:13:11] proposes will remain as an undisturbed buffer, which is documented in staff proposed conditions.

[1:13:19] And then finally, RTH would become proposed to become city R3C, which matches the rest

[1:13:26] of town view and is a residential district in city that allows townhomes.

[1:13:35] I'll walk through these different districts and uses in a little more detail, again, to reiterate

[1:13:39] the goal has been to maintain consistent zoning and use allowances between the county and the city.

[1:13:45] Dixie Speedway and the transfer station. So these parcels are proposed to be zoned heavy industrial due

[1:13:50] to the intensity of the uses. I'll touch on it on a later slide, but staff is proposing a condition

[1:13:56] that would prohibit certain we'll call them less desirable uses on the ACI parcels. A transfer station,

[1:14:03] I learned a lot about trash and transfer stations and dumps that I didn't know I was going to

[1:14:08] about. So just to tell you guys just for general knowledge, a transfer station is where solid waste is

[1:14:16] temporarily collected before being hauled off to a landfill or recycling site. And then construction

[1:14:21] and demolition materials, that's things common building materials, so concrete bricks, drywall,

[1:14:28] metal, so like that there's no household waste accepted at this facility. So the the transfer station

[1:14:36] has been an operations since 2019, capital waste services receive special use permit in 2024

[1:14:41] from Cherokee County. So to honor the rights that have the argument granted, the city would

[1:14:45] zone the property is H.I. and again you'll see some recommended condition language that would

[1:14:50] allow the continued operation of the waste transfer station.

[1:14:55] 77729, how in 92 is a vacant parcel

[1:14:57] zone, light industrial and church counting.

[1:15:00] Property owner proposes splitting up the parcel at a national creek that's in the property. The portion north of the creek and a small north-the-south sliver would serve as access to the proposed property to be zoned H.I. and then south of the creek where it's shaded in red on the map here. The remainder of the parcel is proposed to become general commercial in the city.

[1:15:21] No development is proposed at this time, but GC zoning does allow a wide variety of commercial or office uses.

[1:15:28] Again, no residential use is allowed in city GC zoning.

[1:15:34] 54542 and 550 or 545, sorry, industrial drive are vacant parcels located at the northern end of a cul-de-sac within the industrial park off highway 92 and industrial drive.

[1:15:44] These parcels were zoned L.I. in the county, and this application proposes L.I. zoning in the city, again, no development is proposed at these time on these parcels.

[1:15:54] I'll use the mouse here and show you. So this parcel here.

[1:15:58] There you go. That's the 013A.

[1:16:02] This is a parcel between the industrial park and King's Ridge West subdivision.

[1:16:06] And the parcel was zoned our 40 in the county and it is proposed to be zoned L.I. in the city.

[1:16:12] A portion of the southeast part of the property is proposed to remain as an undisturbed buffer.

[1:16:17] Generally as indicated as shown on the map and this area will be reserved through a proposed zoning condition.

[1:16:25] There are three properties that have frontage on basketball carmel road.

[1:16:28] The county zoning designation was our 40 which is large lot residential with a density of just over one unit per acre.

[1:16:34] The most comparable city designation is R1, which is single family residential, with a minimum

[1:16:39] lot size of half an acre and maximum density of two dwelling units per acre.

[1:16:44] This is Woodstock's least-dance residential district.

[1:16:47] From what I understand, the topography on these parcels may limit future development, however,

[1:16:53] just to, again, state, no development as proposed at this time on these parcels.

[1:16:57] The town view common subdivision was developed in both unincorporated Cherokee County and

[1:17:01] City of Woodstock.

[1:17:02] The city side was built out with traditional town homes and the city side developed the

[1:17:07] attached town homes in detached single family.

[1:17:10] The county side was originally owned H.I. but a 2019 effort by the county to resolve

[1:17:14] a number of non-conforming residential developments along Highway 92 saw the parcels

[1:17:18] re-zone to R.T.H., which is residential town home.

[1:17:22] The city portion of town view to Commons is zoned R.3, which allows residential development

[1:17:27] had a similar density.

[1:17:28] It's recommended that the annex portion of Town View Commons

[1:17:30] be zoned R3, which would mean that the entire subdivision

[1:17:34] would now have the same zoning designation.

[1:17:42] We've talked a little bit about uses on earlier slides,

[1:17:45] but it's just a moment here on this topic.

[1:17:49] The parcel with the transfer station is zoned LI

[1:17:52] on county maps, but city zoning doesn't support

[1:17:54] transfer station the transfer station use in LI.

[1:17:57] So HI is the most closely situated

[1:17:59] to the use of the property, in the city of Woodstock zoning.

[1:18:03] Again, the waste transfer station is only allowed in H.I.

[1:18:05] and as a conditional use, so you'll see a proposed condition

[1:18:08] that allows the continued operation of the transfer station.

[1:18:12] A race track may not specifically called out in the city's

[1:18:14] uses matrix, but given the intensity H.I. is most appropriate.

[1:18:18] In collaboration with the property owner, staff is proposing certain uses

[1:18:21] be prohibited by zoning condition.

[1:18:25] These uses are shown this slide, so we've got meat processing facility.

[1:18:28] mobile home sales, a saw mill, petroleum storage, and sexually oriented businesses.

[1:18:35] So, with this list, even if the use is allowed by the city in our uses matrix, with the proposed zoning condition,

[1:18:43] those uses would be prohibited that would be stated in the adopting ordinance in the entitlements and would be prohibited.

[1:18:51] In order to modify that list and allow one of those uses, a condition limit would be required and that would,

[1:18:57] you know, be a whole public hearing process and couldn't just happen overnight.

[1:19:03] GC zoning does not allow residential uses so we wouldn't see any apartments or any other

[1:19:09] residents on a GC parcel. And finally as Mr. Moon noted, I missed the bullet here on this

[1:19:16] slide, but as Mr. Moon noted, the city standard today would require the townhouse building

[1:19:21] South Sprinkwich System, so a variance is noted in the conditions as well to see code section

[1:19:26] I think it's in chapter 14 of the city code.

[1:19:34] Looking at the comprehensive plan character area for these parcels, the majority of the

[1:19:37] acreage is in the workplace center character area, which is appropriate for industrial uses,

[1:19:42] such as we see in the industrial park, and then town view commons is in neighborhood living,

[1:19:49] which fittingly describes the town view commons development.

[1:19:56] Staff held two public meetings for the Zoning Project, the list below.

[1:20:00] It was included in your agenda packet as a summary of items, but just a touch on a couple of them. There were a couple of folks that brought up environmental concerns with the transfer station and the former landfill that was on the site.

[1:20:13] We've talked about the, we talked about it here as well, but we talked about the variety of uses that are allowed under L.I. and H.I. and whether H.I. was appropriate given some of the, again, less desirable uses that could be developed under H.I.

[1:20:25] The question was brought up at the public input meeting, you know, could Dixie be its own special district or an overlay.

[1:20:33] The answer there is no because we're through this process, we are not creating any new zoning districts or overlays with the project.

[1:20:41] You know, the guidance we were given from the legislature in County Board of Commissioners was to maintain the consistent zoning and uses creating a new district or overlay would not accomplish that.

[1:20:52] The possibility of a data center use on any of the parcels.

[1:20:56] Just to reiterate, staff has not had any discussion with any developers.

[1:21:00] We're not aware of any plans for development on any of the parcels.

[1:21:05] As are uses matrixes right now, a data center is not a use that lives in our code.

[1:21:11] And there's not a comparable use.

[1:21:15] If it's not allowed and we don't have a comparable use, it's not permitted.

[1:21:20] Now, if that was a use that you all as planning commission or a city council wish to add to a prohibited list, that would be perhaps in your purview to consider.

[1:21:34] So, this isn't a full recap of all the topics and it's obviously not a verbatim record of the conversation at the public input meeting, but I did just want to touch on a couple of things because we did have quite a bit of conversation about this project.

[1:21:47] and we've gotten a handful of emails that were all included in your agenda package tonight.

[1:21:54] So I'll move into the recommendation.

[1:21:57] The staff committee met and discussed the proposed zoning and recommended the subject

[1:22:02] parcels to be resowned as discussed.

[1:22:05] I won't go through all of them here but they are as discussed and as we've noted in the agenda packet.

[1:22:13] And they would be subject to the following conditions of approval.

[1:22:16] as to the two HIs zone properties that's the Dixie Speedway property as well as the

[1:22:21] transfer station property, prohibiting the five uses that we discuss, so me

[1:22:27] processing sexually or businesses mobile home sales, petroleum products and

[1:22:31] sawmill. Number two here, this addresses the waste transfer station that would allow

[1:22:36] the continued operation of the land fill and waste transfer station.

[1:22:42] Number three, acknowledges that Dixie Speedway hosts a lot of events and the city would not require individual special event permits for each of the events.

[1:22:54] It does outlines additional stuff here as it relates to fireworks. You would still need to get proper permits for that.

[1:23:00] fire permits and inspections for just if there are any food trucks on the

[1:23:08] events they would need to be properly licensed through the county. The

[1:23:12] noise ordinance from Cherokee County would be adopted for the H.I.

[1:23:15] parcels six touches on access from being limited off of industrial

[1:23:22] drive unless Cherokee County allowed it because that is a county road we don't

[1:23:26] say over how someone can access that. Number seven, just acknowledging that any existing buildings,

[1:23:34] and, you know, parts two, Dixie Speedway, maybe legally not conforming to city ordinances.

[1:23:41] No hazardous waste or medical waste should be allowed to be stored on the site.

[1:23:47] And then for the LIsone property, I touched on this a little bit, but this is just

[1:23:53] commemorating that there would be an undeveloped buffer on the properties and within that buffer,

[1:23:59] the vertical construction would be allowed except utilities, access strides or easements to serve

[1:24:04] that tract or other adjacent properties should be allowed as permitted by the city.

[1:24:09] And then the last items here would pertain to the Town View Development.

[1:24:14] This is as Mr. Moon talked about.

[1:24:17] The Town Homes being constructed under Cherokee County Regulations, they were not constructed

[1:24:21] with sprinklers and so this is just granting a variance to that city code section and then

[1:24:28] also recognizing that the town homes are legally not conforming in city of Woodstock to our

[1:24:33] standards.

[1:24:36] So that completes my presentation on this. I'm happy to answer questions if

[1:24:42] there are any staff we are serving as the presenter in this case.

[1:24:49] So. Thank you.

[1:24:52] Commissioner's questions for staff this time.

[1:24:58] I got one. You want to sorry.

[1:25:00] I know Dixie Spadeways been there a long time, because I went there as a little kid. But the ways,

[1:25:05] transfer station, do you have any idea how long that's been there? Any estimate?

[1:25:12] Yeah.

[1:25:12] So it's 2019. Okay. Thank you.

[1:25:18] Any other questions?

[1:25:20] Okay. Seeing you and I guess we'll go straight to the public hearing then it opened up.

[1:25:27] I'd like to remind of where we do have 15 minutes again for opposition, so if you'd like to coordinate that,

[1:25:32] definitely feel free to. But we'll open it up the if anyone sounded to speak an

[1:25:36] opposition first. First time speaker is Rob Miller.

[1:25:43] Just a reminder, name and

[1:25:44] address for the record. Thank you. Rob Miller at 122 basketball drive. I'm in

[1:25:49] King's Church West subdivision. Good evening, Council and neighbors. My name is

[1:25:53] Rob Miller and I'm here tonight to speak an opposition to the pro's

[1:25:56] proposed rezoning of 13A from R-40 to light industrial. This parcel is particularly

[1:26:04] important because of where it sits, which is directly between the existing landfill

[1:26:08] and King Church West subdivision. Under the county, the property was owned R-40, and

[1:26:14] the proposal before you would change that to L-I light industrial. I'm not asking the

[1:26:20] city to ignore the realities of this surrounding development. I am asking you to

[1:26:25] carefully at what this particular zoning change means for the residential neighborhoods who

[1:26:30] lived directly next to it. The proposed zoning conditions established roughly two and a half

[1:26:36] acre undeveloped buffer along residential properties to the south and east, which I had the map with me,

[1:26:44] but you know, I got this. This sounds like a meaningful protection and it certainly could be,

[1:26:51] But the language of the condition raises an obvious question.

[1:26:56] The buffer specifically described joins existing residential properties and the supporting

[1:27:01] documentation appears to focus on the properties associated with independence walk, not

[1:27:07] King's Ridge West.

[1:27:09] What about King's Ridge West?

[1:27:12] We also join this track.

[1:27:15] Its residents will experience the same proximity to whatever industrial uses ultimately occur

[1:27:21] on these new parcels, and they should receive the same consideration and protection.

[1:27:28] Incidentally, we are on the city's development plan, we're eventually going to be annexed

[1:27:34] by all.

[1:27:36] So I'm here as a future resident of Woodstock.

[1:27:40] In 2020, there's another issue that I believe really deserves close and particular scrutiny.

[1:27:48] In 2023, the owners of this parcel on the adjacent landfill property sought to change the applicable

[1:27:55] EPD setback requirements while this property was still in Cherokee County.

[1:28:03] Now this parcel is being changed from our 40 to light industrial.

[1:28:07] So that change matters because removing that residential zoning designation could change

[1:28:13] those setback relationships between the landfill and my street and potentially reduce the protections

[1:28:22] that exist because that was a residential zone property.

[1:28:27] I believe the city council should understand exactly what consequences this rezoning will

[1:28:32] have before approving it. So tonight I respectfully demand that you deny L1 zoning to

[1:28:39] parcel 13A. And if the council believes that any kind of industrial zoning is appropriate, then

[1:28:46] at an absolute minimum, require equal and enforceable buffer protections for all a joining

[1:28:52] residential neighborhoods, including King's Ridge West. And make certain this zoning change

[1:28:57] does not inadvertently weaken the protections that residents have relied upon.

[1:29:03] Thank you for your time and consideration. I would love to answer questions, but I know I've got

[1:29:08] some friends and comrades here who want to share with you.

[1:29:12] So I'm happy to do that on y'all's time,

[1:29:14] but I don't want to take away from them.

[1:29:16] Thank you, appreciate it.

[1:29:17] All right.

[1:29:21] And the next speaker is Alex Singer, Heiken.

[1:29:35] Good evening, commissioners.

[1:29:36] My name is Alex and are Heiken.

[1:29:38] I'm a new resident of town of Heekomans.

[1:29:41] For some background, I'm a civil engineer

[1:29:43] and a service member in the Georgia Army National Guard.

[1:29:46] Fixing the Black Hawk helicopters,

[1:29:47] you've probably seen fly ever from time to time. I've been a civil engineer for about eight

[1:29:51] years and I've had the privilege to design and represent an extremely wide range of projects

[1:29:55] from commercial to residential to having industrial to now international.

[1:30:00] Um, airports and design at A.E. Com. As such, I am intimately more familiar with reading code, zoning procedures, and the development process than the average resident.

[1:30:08] Tonight, I would like to discuss what I believe isn't a appearance of impropriety in the subject of this zoning case.

[1:30:14] I ask for clarification on five items that continue to confuse me. Firstly, the staff recommend the staff reports states that a portion of affected charity county residents were not properly notified of the public input meeting

[1:30:27] and that a second meeting was scheduled in August 26th to correct that error.

[1:30:31] I was one of if not the only one to actually call a notifying them, I would notify them of

[1:30:36] this based on the initial response I got from a phone call later that day from new one.

[1:30:43] The day after the first meeting, the DPZ voted on August 12th unanimously,

[1:30:49] which is quite confusing because then two weeks later there was a second

[1:30:53] public hearing to amend the error of not milling out notice.

[1:31:00] If the city deemed unnecessary to hold a second meeting, shouldn't those residents' opinions

[1:31:04] and voices have the ability to sway the DRC vote?

[1:31:08] Secondly, I want to return to a question I have had from the beginning, and for which I still

[1:31:14] have yet to receive a satisfactory answer, why having industrial for both the speedway and the

[1:31:20] In my opinion, the collection and transfer of waste is not inherently a heavy industrial activity.

[1:31:25] Every resident who receives weekly trash service via red oak experiences same process of waste pickup.

[1:31:31] So let's specifically justify the heavy industrial designation.

[1:31:34] Is it the temporary storage of waste?

[1:31:36] Is it odor concerns? Is it the size of property?

[1:31:39] Or is it because the transportation is associated with a landfill that's currently set to close under Georgia EPD and EPA regulations?

[1:31:45] my point is that I believe the city of Woodstock should use this rezoning as an opportunity

[1:31:52] to reexamine the weather waste transfer statement, waste transfer station truly belongs exclusively

[1:31:59] in the heavy industrial category.

[1:32:01] Charity County recognized that as light industrial for a little short of a decade and permanent

[1:32:06] through the special use permit for even longer.

[1:32:10] Furthermore, the city has already demonstrated a willingness to apply a tailored zoning

[1:32:13] solutions with the annexed area as general commercial and light industrial.

[1:32:19] We could have a light industrial Dixie Speedway with the same sliver as seen in the parts

[1:32:25] below it as heavy industrial.

[1:32:28] At every turn we've been told that there's an inability to zone the light the Dixie

[1:32:33] Speedway is light industrial because of the waste transportation.

[1:32:36] In the use matrix, there is absolutely nothing allowing for a speedway as it stands.

[1:32:43] If we're going to annex a sin and zone it, why not zone it in a way that benefits everybody?

[1:32:50] There's nothing in city code that the explicit requires a speedway to be zone having

[1:32:53] industrial.

[1:32:54] In fact, because a speedway is not currently identified as a permit to use within the

[1:32:58] city zone matrix, the code will need to be a member of regardless of zone classification

[1:33:03] given that reality why not consider a solution that keeps 60-speed way under light industrial

[1:33:07] zoning while dressing a transportation through a targeted code amendment, conditional approval

[1:33:13] or other mechanisms.

[1:33:14] If that approach is not being considered that the option of utilizing industrial drive as the

[1:33:19] primary point of access to the waste transfer station still exists, that access was previously

[1:33:23] authorized by Cherokee County and is further supported by Cherokee County Code Section 7.713D,

[1:33:29] which says that in all ways transfer additions must have direct access

[1:33:33] to a county maintain roadway.

[1:33:36] Thirdly, I would like to highlight another issue of concern,

[1:33:38] which contributes to the appearance of impropriety.

[1:33:41] City staff have had over four weeks

[1:33:42] to create a portion of the Sony case for today's agenda.

[1:33:46] It was made publicly available Friday afternoon,

[1:33:48] late Friday afternoon.

[1:33:50] To my knowledge, it was not probably added

[1:33:52] to several commonly used sections of the city website,

[1:33:54] such as active projects, nor was it distributed residents,

[1:33:57] the email or by mail.

[1:34:00] We are expected to review hundreds of pages of documents, research the issues, research the

[1:34:04] code, and prepare informed comments while balancing work, family, military service, and

[1:34:09] a plethora of other issues.

[1:34:10] Staff has had more than four weeks to formulate this series of code, and yet we have less

[1:34:15] than four days.

[1:34:17] Fourthly, I would like to inquire why the waste transportation has not been required to obtain

[1:34:21] conditionally use permit as required by City of Woodstock Code under Article 5, Section 7.502

[1:34:28] of the City's land development ordinance.

[1:34:30] Given that the staff report states on page 33 of the agenda that a waste transfer stations

[1:34:36] are not permitted are only permitted within the heavy industrial district through a

[1:34:39] conditional use permit.

[1:34:41] The open records request and emails with City staff, I was informed there are no current

[1:34:44] permits being saw after, applied for or granted, and the City of Woodstock does not intend

[1:34:49] grandfather in the SCP-Granded by Cherokee County.

[1:34:53] In closing, based on the unanimous public sent at each public meeting so far in a wide array

[1:34:59] of topics.

[1:35:00] Of this proposed zoning case, the lack of concise planning regarding the CEP slash SUP, and a constrained timeline,

[1:35:07] I vehemently invite Council to take a moment at the end of all the public comment and read,

[1:35:12] my email is visible from E21 to E24. Thank you all for your time. I do genuinely love this community

[1:35:18] and the state of Woodstock, and I hope to continue to mold it towards a better future. Thank you for your time.

[1:35:23] Thank you.

[1:35:27] Can Davis

[1:35:31] name and address for the record, please thank you.

[1:35:36] Indeed, can Davis I'd reside at 103 KC Drive, which is part of town to you comments.

[1:35:41] I'm also part of our HOA and the Secretary of the HOA Board.

[1:35:46] So I just want to take a few minutes and by the way can I get a time check?

[1:35:52] Okay, all right, and I'll be brief.

[1:35:55] So a lot of the comments you've heard I'm not going to try and refocus those,

[1:36:00] I probably look at it for more of a 10,000 foot view.

[1:36:03] I do appreciate it very much.

[1:36:05] The city's annexation is, as was mentioned by Mr. Moon,

[1:36:08] that's something that's been in the works for a number of years.

[1:36:11] However, the redistricting, the rezoning of Dixie Speedway

[1:36:16] and some of the other areas, it's heavy industrial,

[1:36:19] is very concerning.

[1:36:20] Now I heard Mr. Moon come in, I heard the other young lady,

[1:36:25] forgive me, having your name.

[1:36:27] Talk about some of those zoning concerns.

[1:36:29] And I think this idea that the city has to shoehorn those things into the current zoning

[1:36:37] here is a little bit of the fiction, because what you have, you've got a situation where

[1:36:43] you literally do have a blank slate, as you mentioned, it's unzoned.

[1:36:47] So the city can kind of do what they want to with it, certainly within the things that

[1:36:52] are there.

[1:36:53] But, for example, that this recommendation to Dixie Speedway

[1:36:57] B-Zone is heavy industrial.

[1:36:59] I've not really heard any reason why that is.

[1:37:02] The county-headed is light industrial.

[1:37:05] The things that the communists have heard tonight,

[1:37:07] the things that are in some of the materials,

[1:37:10] are for the, the disinappropriate use.

[1:37:13] I feel what the language was in the other,

[1:37:15] but it was extenuating use that this there.

[1:37:20] None of those things lay out any details

[1:37:22] of why there's a distinction for those particular uses between light industrial and heavy

[1:37:28] industrial. There's nothing there that says it has to be heavy industrial, other than just that

[1:37:33] unsupported opinion, this in that, that those activities must be heavy industrial. And frankly,

[1:37:40] I also heard the conditions at the legislature put on this and that the county commission put on it.

[1:37:46] And there's nothing that says that that couldn't be zoned light industrial

[1:37:50] and meet those conditions.

[1:37:52] It could, it absolutely could.

[1:37:55] The residents there myself included the ones that I know.

[1:37:59] We're not opposed to what's already there,

[1:38:00] the concern is what happens in the future

[1:38:02] should it be resumed heavy industrial?

[1:38:05] Certainly, it's not going to remain

[1:38:06] in Dixie Street way forever.

[1:38:08] Or these other parcels going to remain

[1:38:09] what they are forever.

[1:38:11] Some of the uses that are permitted,

[1:38:13] that the concrete plants, those sort of things,

[1:38:16] the dust, the noise, the smell, they talked about,

[1:38:19] in reference to the transfer of station and I'm not opposed to the transfer of

[1:38:23] station. I have trash too. You know what I'll do. But at the same time, is there

[1:38:30] in need to transition what the county said was like industrial. And again, one of the

[1:38:35] stated purposes in the documentation is presented to you was to preserve as much as

[1:38:40] possible what the county's only was. How do you preserve that that then you're changing

[1:38:46] the basic characterization to heavy industrial, which would permit much far more difficult and

[1:38:52] heavier applications than what is now and what would in the future. So my recommendation

[1:39:00] and I ask of this council is to consider that. There's nothing in the existing code that says

[1:39:05] especially for Dixie Speedway that it couldn't be zoned light industrial and prevent some future

[1:39:12] uses that would impact the homeowners there. And there's quite a number of homeowners there.

[1:39:17] There's a number of folks here who are also in opposition to this. I appreciate your time.

[1:39:24] I just really hope you would consider that and think about again, the purposes that

[1:39:29] the city itself has laid out for what the rezoning should be in this idea that it has to be

[1:39:35] zoned in this particular way to meet its current use. And I don't think that's accurate. And I think

[1:39:40] if the council and this board looks at it,

[1:39:43] I think you'll find the same thing.

[1:39:45] So I appreciate your time.

[1:39:46] I know there's some more time.

[1:39:47] I don't know if there's anyone else that wants to speak,

[1:39:50] but I'd be happy to answer questions for another minute

[1:39:52] without taking out too much of anybody else's time.

[1:39:55] Thank you, sir.

[1:39:56] Appreciate your input.

[1:39:58] Thank you very much.

[1:40:19] Good

[1:40:29] evening, commissioners. Thank you for your service. Go pick over in the Raj 163 Riverside Lane with stock 30188.

[1:40:42] So I'm against this plan to reason heavy industry and I'm asking you to reject Z17326 as pleasant. This is not about shutting down an existing law for law operation.

[1:40:56] It is about whether Woodstock should give a property owner approximately 98 acres of heavy industrial zoning

[1:41:03] when that level of zoning has not been shown to be necessary.

[1:41:08] These properties were previously zoned light in the Stilbert Cherokee County

[1:41:12] now through annexation we have an opportunity to establish Woodstock zoning

[1:41:17] but we should not use annexation as a reason to dramatically expand development rights.

[1:41:25] The transportation may need heavy industrial zoning, but why does the 41 acre Dixie Speedway

[1:41:32] property need heavy industrial zoning?

[1:41:35] And if the answer to that heavy industrial is needed for a particular use, then why not

[1:41:40] approve the minimum zoning necessary for that use, rather than opening the door to numerous

[1:41:45] other intensive industrial users in the future?

[1:41:49] Heavy industrial zoning can allow users that are substantially more impactful to surrounding

[1:41:54] neighbourhoods, more truck traffic, noise, outdoor storage, industrial activity and other intensive

[1:42:00] operations. My request is simple, don't zone for what might happen, zone for what is actually

[1:42:07] needed. If the existing operation can be protected through a narrowly tailored zoning designation

[1:42:13] or conditional use permit, let's do that. And let's preserve appropriate buffering, screening,

[1:42:19] and traffic protections for the surrounding neighbourhoods.

[1:42:24] Commissioners, once you approve heavy industrial zoning,

[1:42:27] you cannot easily take those developments right back.

[1:42:32] Please reject Z17326 as presented and require a more narrowly tailored proposal.

[1:42:39] Thank you.

[1:42:42] Thank you.

[1:42:45] That was all the time we have tonight for the opposition.

[1:42:48] Zemerilts, may more than they have.

[1:42:49] Any concern up?

[1:42:51] Okay. I'll give three minutes to anybody else, one additional person if you'd like to.

[1:42:56] Darcy.

[1:43:02] It's actually Derease Whitaker.

[1:43:04] Good evening. I'm a property owner at Bascom Carmel Road, where I've currently building a home.

[1:43:08] So this proposal has a direct and long-term impact on me.

[1:43:12] I understand that tonight's action is intended to establish zoning for property recently annexed into the city.

[1:43:18] And I'm not here because I oppose Dixie's foot speedway or the businesses that operate there today.

[1:43:23] my concern is what heavy industrial zoning

[1:43:26] could allow in the future.

[1:43:28] The Speedway property was previously zoned

[1:43:31] like industrial interior key counting

[1:43:32] and now proposed is heavy industrial in Woodstock

[1:43:34] while I appreciate that the CD has proposed restrictions

[1:43:37] on certain heavy industrial uses.

[1:43:39] I remain concerned about what could happen

[1:43:41] if the Speedway closes, the property is sold

[1:43:44] or ownership changes.

[1:43:47] As someone investing in a home, sorry guys.

[1:43:50] As someone investing in a home on basketball, I respectfully ask as a commission to consider

[1:43:56] stronger permanent protections for surrounding residential properties, including protections

[1:44:00] related to future industrial uses, truck traffic buffers, noises, lighting and environmental

[1:44:06] impacts.

[1:44:07] My concern is not necessarily what exists there today.

[1:44:09] My concern is the long-term implications of assigning heavy industrial zoning for the large

[1:44:14] parcels.

[1:44:15] I respectfully ask the commission to consider whether a less intensive zoning designation

[1:44:19] or stronger conditions of approval, would better protect the residential community while still

[1:44:23] allowing the existing businesses to continue to operate.

[1:44:27] Thank you.

[1:44:28] Thank you, no.

[1:44:33] John?

[1:44:35] Do you have one minutes, sir?

[1:44:44] 1-38 quail run Woodstock, Georgia, and 5-3-4 industrial drive Woodstock, Georgia.

[1:44:49] I've been arrested in Woodstock for 40 years.

[1:44:50] The partial 13 or 2013 A discusses a road that could be possibly brought in or cut in

[1:44:59] for you.

[1:45:00] Who's on the area? And that would bring traffic. Our big concern and a lot of people that are concerned on industrial

[1:45:05] drive, where we've owned a business for 30 years, is the roads are already destroyed. There's

[1:45:11] pot holes that we serve and miss coming in. And if they're bringing heavy trucks up and down

[1:45:16] our street all day long, it's just going to make it worse. And that's Cherokee County not woodstock. So

[1:45:22] woodstock, I'm sure, would not be concerned with that road, as well as Dixie Drive and as rough

[1:45:28] as Dixie Drive is, I don't know how to repair shop.

[1:45:30] I drive down my street and Dixie Drive to listen for suspension noises

[1:45:34] because there's some of the roughest roads in Cherokee County.

[1:45:39] I do it every day.

[1:45:41] And it scares me that they're doing that.

[1:45:43] And you also said that 185 was purchased by Woodstock.

[1:45:47] Of course, 185.

[1:45:49] So, I just keep your comments to plan a commission.

[1:45:54] Okay.

[1:45:54] Thank you.

[1:45:57] Has anyone signed up in support of this case?

[1:46:00] No, they had not.

[1:46:01] Is there anyone here that would like to speak in support of this case?

[1:46:05] Okay, seeing them we will close the public hearing portion.

[1:46:10] Uh, commissioners, sorry.

[1:46:11] I will open it up for questions back to staff at this time.

[1:46:19] Go ahead.

[1:46:21] I guess my question is,

[1:46:24] the use matrix that you have on page,

[1:46:29] county compares county to city.

[1:46:31] It is that partial 13A going from R40 to L.I. everything else was fairly similar.

[1:46:39] I just curious as to what the reasoning is for that difference there.

[1:46:45] Sure, commission, one of the things that may not be visible on the map that have been provided is the blue line stream that runs

[1:46:51] essentially dividing that property from the adjacent residential. However, that stream does cut through

[1:46:58] the corner portion of a lot where the undisturbed buffer has been created. So that undisturbed buffer was created in only one area

[1:47:06] due to the the drunctionality of the stream. So essentially that line runs at a slight diagonal through the property and then down

[1:47:15] essentially through the northern portion of Tamview Commons over through industrial drive development.

[1:47:24] So, that is the national divider creates quite a bit of a boundary, both for development purposes, as well as natural separation.

[1:47:34] There are stream buffers in addition to landscape buffers that would be imposed should any development ever occur in the future.

[1:47:42] So, while it is a rare likelihood that development would be possible, if any development occurs,

[1:47:47] the buffers would actually be larger with the property being sound ally adjacent to

[1:47:51] residential than if it were a residential due to zone property.

[1:47:55] So, that does create both consistency for the property on the Dixie property, where the

[1:47:59] former landfill is, and their EPD operations while maintaining the buffer and separation

[1:48:06] from residential.

[1:48:09] Thank you.

[1:48:14] Along those lines, there are already, I mean, we already have buffers required in our zone for development within Li or HIsAC, correct?

[1:48:23] I don't want to put it on the spot, ask you what it is, but there are in the code, right, for any development.

[1:48:28] Yes, and actually Steve, if you don't mind, can I have you go to, I think it's the very last slide.

[1:48:39] Thank you.

[1:48:41] Thank you, IT for being here and running some tech force.

[1:48:45] So, this is the buffer's table from our code and when a property would, if a property comes

[1:48:54] to us for development, that's when we would ask for a buffer to be shown.

[1:49:00] We wouldn't go back and, you know, apply a buffer's retroactively, but as, as properties

[1:49:05] redeveloped, that's when we would consult this table and look to see what buffer would be

[1:49:13] So from an ally to R1, that would be a 50 foot buffer, that would be required.

[1:49:24] And I think the minimum one here is 35 from HIR ally to residential uses.

[1:49:33] And then, I mean, just for the record, there's no applications

[1:49:36] of development associated with this, there's no current applications for any of this as being

[1:49:41] reasoned right now, correct? Correct.

[1:49:43] Correct. Correct. This is just the project at hand is the initial zoning of these properties

[1:49:50] that were annexed as Mr. Moon walked through at the beginning, staff has not received any applications.

[1:49:57] we've met with anyone, we have not had any conversation.

[1:50:10] And I know in your presentation you mentioned, as in Mr. Moon, that the zoning that was put on these essentially matched what was there now, slash what the county had it's in that to make it as similar as it was already zone correct.

[1:50:27] Yes sir. So with that then, I know you explained this, but just since it was brought up,

[1:50:31] if you don't mind, could you just cover again, you know, the reason it was brought up for

[1:50:36] DC speedway beings and HI that piece right there, the reasoning for that and understand that

[1:50:42] obviously speedway is not any of our zoning, but again that how that matches the HI closely or what

[1:50:48] was the reasoning there? I think it has to deal with the intensity of the use when you think about

[1:50:54] the expected trips and how the property is used.

[1:50:59] It most closely aligns with heavy industrial.

[1:51:03] I have looked in the county ordinance,

[1:51:06] and I can't speak to how the county zones and determines

[1:51:09] uses, but things like racetracks, if something

[1:51:13] like that were to develop in the county now,

[1:51:15] same with different types of landfills.

[1:51:18] And again, I can't speak to the particular way

[1:51:20] they classify those uses.

[1:51:21] But they're likely, those likely would be classified as a heavy industrial zoning use in the county if they were to come through now.

[1:51:31] And then I understand that, you know, if a waste transfer station is going to be built now in an H.I. area, it requires a U.P.

[1:51:40] But I know understand, because this is being zone now, it's not required, correct?

[1:51:44] I mean, essentially it's grandfather has that work.

[1:51:46] And are it's being permitted as part of this zoning?

[1:51:48] Right.

[1:51:49] Because it's already there.

[1:51:50] Because there is a special use permit that was granted by the county, I believe it was in 2024.

[1:51:56] It has been an operation for years before that, but we found on record a special use permit for the waste transfer station.

[1:52:05] And so we would basically let them keep the bundle of rights that they've been granted through the county, which would grant them the conditional use as part of this process.

[1:52:17] And then just one more question says this is brought up in public and but there was a comment on some notifications that weren't done correctly or late or the public.

[1:52:28] Notification process is there any any history or records on that or issues without through this.

[1:52:35] Sure.

[1:52:36] So this is obviously a project with many parcel property owners.

[1:52:40] The staff mapping that was conducted to provide a telly of all of the addresses of the owners based on county tax records.

[1:52:50] There were, there were two lists produced.

[1:52:52] One list of parcels that were inclusive of the annexation and then one list that were the surrounding properties.

[1:52:59] So, unfortunately, in that it was over 270 mailings.

[1:53:04] A portion of those maillings were not included on the list that was sent out in the first round.

[1:53:11] When that error was notified or we were identified, at that point, that was when renoticing in a second public input meeting was held.

[1:53:21] So that was simply an error due to the volume and the list configuration for those addresses.

[1:53:28] So that's something that, you know, was simply an oversight, unfortunately, due to the scale and

[1:53:35] manner in which this project moved forward since there were properties.

[1:53:38] There were a large number of properties actually included in the request as opposed to just

[1:53:43] the surrounding property owners, which is typically the manner you're noticing the folks

[1:53:47] around it as opposed to those in it.

[1:53:51] But I mean, any notification or may prior to this meeting, correct?

[1:53:54] Oh, certainly.

[1:53:54] So all the notifications and actually, all of these notifications were in excess of the state requirements and in excess of the city's land development ordinance requirements.

[1:54:04] So city actions of zoning by state requirement. Do not require posting of signs on the property. They do not. They have very minimal notification requirements. The city's requirements for all zoning are higher than that. In addition, we took, like I said, those steps that will not required by state or code.

[1:54:23] We're done to notify the property owners through both the written notices, the newspaper advertisements, and the site postings that were on site.

[1:54:34] That was in addition to holding two public input meetings, also not required by the state.

[1:54:40] And furthermore, the state only requires one public hearing of these actions that are initiated by the city.

[1:54:47] We are having two public hearings, of course, with the one this evening, as well as the council meeting the current in the future.

[1:54:53] Okay, thank you for clearing that up. I have no further questions, Council. I'm sorry.

[1:54:58] Commissioner's any further questions for staff.

[1:55:00] I have won. There was in the public input meetings, there was some reference to odors, and was there any clarity to the, was that existing odors or is that potential odors of, of new development?

[1:55:24] That was from the first public input meeting. I think it was like the existing and maybe how it was previously used as the landfill.

[1:55:31] Thank

[1:55:34] you. Any further questions?

[1:55:40] Okay, see none will open it up for floors open for a motion and a discussion on this case.

[1:55:56] I like a motion to approve the staff's conditions.

[1:55:59] Okay, there's a motion by Greg to prove in the courts with staff's recommendation to conditions. Is there a second on that motion?

[1:56:07] I second. Second by Rob.

[1:56:11] Most on board approved in court staff recommendations, Greg, I got open up to you first.

[1:56:15] If you have any comments?

[1:56:18] No, I think this city's done a good job trying to fit.

[1:56:22] The zoning is where they tie.

[1:56:25] I think it was a good recommendation for lighting.

[1:56:28] Light industrial actually gives you a larger buffer than where any other zoning.

[1:56:34] When it comes up against the residential zoning's next to it, so it makes some sense.

[1:56:39] So, that's what I am.

[1:56:44] Yeah.

[1:56:45] I agree.

[1:56:45] I think that there's nothing new being developed.

[1:56:50] There's nothing changing.

[1:56:53] There's what we're putting zoning essentially that matches.

[1:56:56] What is there?

[1:56:57] And you mentioned the buffer requirements for other things.

[1:57:00] Even when I look, I mean, I look at the zoning district descriptions.

[1:57:04] 7.5 or 4 of our code, what's allowed in HI versus what's allowed in L.I.

[1:57:11] You know, a lot of the things that are allowed in L.I. are allowed in H.I.

[1:57:14] And there's a few items. Some of them already put in the conditions it's not allowed.

[1:57:18] And definitely the ones that are permitted in H.I. would, to me, in my opinion,

[1:57:22] would not bring any more, you know, noise or any other effects other than what's already a race track for sure.

[1:57:29] So, and then some other concerns about other things that could come there, again, a lot

[1:57:34] of those still require a CUP if they're going to be developed.

[1:57:37] So I think we already have protections in the code to address some of this stuff.

[1:57:42] So, I agree, any other comments, debate questions?

[1:57:48] Okay, so you know, in motion on forward approval for staff's recommendations, all those

[1:57:51] in favor, please raise your hand, and that vote is unanimous.

[1:57:55] That will go to City Council as a recommendation, again, and I recommend you keep following

[1:57:58] if you are so interested. Thank you. Moving on next case we have variants case 222-262-262-262

[1:58:07] Brighton Boulevard that is misnatally.

[1:58:23] Good evening.

[1:58:28] Tonight I'm presenting you with a

[1:58:30] variance for a residential property at 202 Brighton Boulevard. This residence is own DTMRA

[1:58:38] downtown medium density residential and is within the south on main subdivision. The home

[1:58:44] front, right in Boulevard, and it's rear-law line backs onto a private alley.

[1:58:49] The applicant, Paul Rushmeier, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting a variance

[1:58:55] to reduce the rear setback to allow an extension of the existing porch.

[1:59:03] The home includes a second story porch, built over the driveway.

[1:59:07] The porch terminates about 10 feet from the rear property line, meeting the required five-foot

[1:59:11] step back and approximately 15 feet from the curb with open space located across the alley

[1:59:17] as you can see in this picture down here.

[1:59:23] The applicant is requesting to reduce the rear step back from 5 feet to 2 feet since the

[1:59:27] porch extension would encroach three feet into the required step back.

[1:59:32] On this site plan the property lines are shown in red, or the step back lines in blue.

[1:59:37] This is the existing porch, the proposed addition, and the curb is shown in gray here just to kind of highlight that the curb is a little ways away from the property line.

[1:59:57] If approved, the expanded porch would sit about two feet.

[2:00:00] In the rear property line and eight feet from the curb, the project includes extending the roof over the full balcony as right now it only covers half, and they intend to use materials consistent with the existing structure.

[2:00:14] The proposed addition has been reviewed and approved by the south on main homeowners association.

[2:00:22] At their meeting on August 5, the DPC voted unanimously to approve the variance request with no conditions.

[2:00:29] I am happy to answer any questions you may have and the applicant is here as well.

[2:00:34] Thank you, Natalie. Any questions for staff?

[2:00:38] Okay. Thank you.

[2:00:39] The applicant would like to come forward.

[2:00:47] Good evening.

[2:00:48] Paul Rushmire with Tom and Todd Enterprises.

[2:00:52] If I clients of Brian and Carmen Aaron are seeking this variance in order to increase the usability of their existing ports and provide additional covered parking to protect their vehicles from house storms and other severe weather.

[2:01:08] One thing of note is that geometry of the lot since it is on the outside of a curve does push the setback closer to the home than if it was not on the curve.

[2:01:20] So that is part of the reason why we're seeking the variance.

[2:01:30] Oh, sorry about that.

[2:01:31] I thought you were trying to do a slide or something.

[2:01:33] Oh, no.

[2:01:35] Come on.

[2:01:35] There's you have a question.

[2:01:36] Pretty straightforward.

[2:01:37] I understood.

[2:01:38] Any questions for the applicant?

[2:01:42] Okay.

[2:01:43] Thank you, sir.

[2:01:43] Appreciate it.

[2:01:46] Has anyone, well, I've got the public hearing.

[2:01:48] Anyone signed up to speak on this case.

[2:01:50] Either in against or for.

[2:01:52] No, they have not.

[2:01:53] Okay.

[2:01:53] Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this case?

[2:01:57] Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

[2:02:00] Commissioners, four is open for further questions or discussion or a motion on this case.

[2:02:09] Motion to approve.

[2:02:11] There's a motion to approve by Commissioner Smith.

[2:02:14] Is there a second?

[2:02:17] Second.

[2:02:18] Second by David.

[2:02:20] Great.

[2:02:20] Any discussion?

[2:02:23] No.

[2:02:24] Okay.

[2:02:26] All right.

[2:02:26] Seeing that, motion on floor to approve all those in favor.

[2:02:29] Please raise your hand.

[2:02:31] And that vote is unanimous.

[2:02:32] that we'll go to City Council best of luck there as well.

[2:02:36] Moving on, we have KZoning,

[2:02:38] one sum five, that's 26 zoning condition amendment

[2:02:42] for 125 Lorraine Parkway.

[2:02:44] And that is not Mr. Dunn, so.

[2:02:49] Which is on the four mirrors, so.

[2:02:56] Thank you, Commission.

[2:02:57] As noted, the next member, our next item up for discussion

[2:03:00] is a condition amendment to modify a project

[2:03:03] for a rezoning conditionally use permit

[2:03:05] in variance case that was heard early this year for 125 Lorraine Parkway.

[2:03:11] The request before you this evening is for a condition amendment for an approximately 23.43 acre property located at the northeast corner of Old Rope Mill Park Road and Lorraine Parkway.

[2:03:22] The property was zoned L.I. in June of this year in a conditional use permit in variances were granted.

[2:03:28] The CUP would allow warehouse distribution uses and the variances would support the development of an approximately 92,000 square foot warehouse building.

[2:03:40] So for some context since it was a few months ago, the portion of the site where the new warehouse development is proposed is shown in red on the image.

[2:03:50] And the proposed development, including the 92th approximately 92,000 square foot building is shown here on the conceptual layout that was approved with the original zoning case.

[2:04:00] As you can see, on the east side of the site, adjacent to the next property over the residential development there is a greater than 200 foot separation and buffer.

[2:04:13] The buffer does consist of both required stream buffers as well as requirement of conditions of zoning.

[2:04:23] So here you can see the conceptual elevations that were included in the project and are part of the required conditions of approval.

[2:04:29] So, this, the project must have substantial similarity to these elevations and included in the conditions are that the exterior finish

[2:04:37] need is to be a textured concrete and not a textured painted finish.

[2:04:42] This is consistent with the adjacent, or excuse me, nearby existing buildings of both the Kia and the curve Rudy building.

[2:04:52] So, again, kind of that project history, back in June, these original approvals were granted.

[2:04:56] And we'll go into a little bit.

[2:05:00] Of the, or go into the numerous conditions that were placed on the previous request, primarily in order to mitigate any potential

[2:05:08] leg and the impacts on nearby residential properties. These include the provision of a full traffic impacts

[2:05:13] study at the time of a site-planned submittal, limiting trash pickup to a curb between 7am and 7pm, minimizing

[2:05:20] in the eastern property boundary, maintaining a 75 foot buffer along the eastern property

[2:05:26] boundary, and locating the building at least 200 feet from the eastern property boundary.

[2:05:31] Okay, so now we're going to get into the details, so that, like I said, there were numerous

[2:05:35] conditions here. So we're going to cover the first conditions that I mentioned, the first

[2:05:40] 10, just kind of discussed in brief, those overall kind of limits to mitigate some of the general

[2:05:48] concerns or impacts.

[2:05:51] Getting into more depth, the conditions also require street-tree plantings along old-road mill

[2:05:55] park road, signage to direct trucks leaving the site to turn left on to old-road mill

[2:06:00] park road, since the road den ends to the north of Kia into the park, signage to restrict trucks

[2:06:06] from exiting the site onto Lering Parkway towards the Glen Haven neighborhood, and restrictions

[2:06:10] on truck traffic through this southern site entrance.

[2:06:14] And then you see there were a long list of uses that were restricted from this property.

[2:06:20] As you can see, not only is it a lengthy list, but a wide variety of uses that have been eliminated.

[2:06:26] These range from automotive repair to a truck terminal.

[2:06:32] Furthermore, specific warehouse distribution uses were restricted from the property.

[2:06:38] So while a conditional use permit was received and was requested for the warehouse distribution uses,

[2:06:43] only a narrowly tailored portion of warehouse distribution uses are still acceptable.

[2:06:50] The uses restricted as you can see on the screen in relation to the NACIS codes are for

[2:06:55] courier expressed delivery services, local messengers and local delivery services that have

[2:07:00] been disallowed.

[2:07:02] Some examples of these uses include UPS, FedEx delivery services, local package delivery

[2:07:07] companies, and same-day local document delivery firms.

[2:07:14] And still, more conditions were in relation to some of the potential impacts of uses on the site,

[2:07:22] including limitations on outdoor storage, noise levels, site maintenance, or maintaining the site in good condition.

[2:07:30] The building configuration for sound attenuation, restrictions on overnight truck idling, restrictions on overnight deliveries,

[2:07:37] and substantial similarity clause for building elevations.

[2:07:41] The final elevations will also be subject to review and approval by the DPC.

[2:07:47] So I'm going to skip over condition 23 for the moment because this will be the heart of the matter this evening.

[2:07:52] And we'll close out with the rest of the conditions on the original approval.

[2:07:55] Those restricted outdoor speakers as well, outdoor maintenance of vehicles, limitations to maximum of 20 dock high doors on the building.

[2:08:03] and the application of the CUP only to the area designated for the new building construction

[2:08:08] that was outlined and read on that earlier slide, as well as a substantial similarity clause for the site plan.

[2:08:16] So now that we've kind of rehashed the history of the case, we'll dig into the item that has been requested this evening.

[2:08:24] So condition number 23 is the condition that the applicant has requested to modify.

[2:08:28] This condition, as originally approved, includes three parts, minimum number of tenants

[2:08:33] sweets required in the building if the warehouse distribution uses our present, maximum total

[2:08:38] floor area allowed for the warehouse distribution uses, and limitation on the size of the

[2:08:43] tenant space for the other all I uses.

[2:08:48] So there are two items that are, we're of concern,

[2:08:52] both to the applicant and as staff reviewed the request. The subdivision of the building into a minimum

[2:08:59] of four tenant suites and the fact that uses outside of the warehouse distribution CUP

[2:09:05] were being limited in terms of the tenant space. Many of these, the origin of this condition

[2:09:13] was prior to many of those other conditions being developed for the project, such as the

[2:09:18] use specific regulations, the limitations on the warehouse distribution uses, and so on.

[2:09:24] So this, while this condition was appropriate early in the project, for the concerns related

[2:09:30] to truck traffic and some of the other impacts potentially with warehouse distribution

[2:09:35] uses, at the end, they have been superseded by the numerous other conditions imposed on

[2:09:42] this project.

[2:09:44] The applicant, as they originally proposed with this application, requested to strike the

[2:09:50] portion regarding the four tenant suites.

[2:09:52] They had a condition that would limit to the warehouse distribution tenant to a maximum of 35% of the building for anyone.

[2:10:00] Where House Distribution Tenet and have not more than 50% of the building for all total warehouse distribution uses within the building as a whole.

[2:10:09] With very little changes, the DPC on August 5th recommended 502 to approve a very similar condition of approval with some minor wordsmithing or a tweaks.

[2:10:21] The condition as proposed by the DPC is that for warehouse distribution use, the following shall apply.

[2:10:27] Know where to have distribution tenant shall occupy more than 35% of the building without approval from mayor and council.

[2:10:33] This does allow for opportunities where if there is a potential use that is not of concern to the mayor and council in terms of impacts,

[2:10:40] presents no undue impacts or burdens that they would have that ability to approve without going through an entire public hearing process.

[2:10:49] In addition, the warehouse distribution would still be limited to the maximum total of 50% of the building floor area.

[2:10:55] And with this, all other conditions of approval from the original Z170-26 zoning case would still apply.

[2:11:06] With that, we have a recommended motion for you.

[2:11:08] And I'd be happy to take any questions that the commission may have.

[2:11:13] Thank you for that.

[2:11:15] To Mr. Zini questions for staff this time.

[2:11:21] I just got one.

[2:11:22] On the original, the original condition that was approved.

[2:11:25] And I think that was your recommendation originally as well.

[2:11:28] The no more than four tenets.

[2:11:30] Yeah, the building should be divided, so do I. What was the intent of that if I'm trying to ask that question?

[2:11:38] So as I mentioned, this condition was developed very early in the process.

[2:11:41] At that point in time, the applicant indicated that they intended to have a building that was divisible into at least four tenent sweets.

[2:11:48] So it seemed quite honestly a rather simple way to maneuver and require not having large tenent.

[2:11:56] At that point, the initial concern was that, you know, for example, a small warehouse distribution,

[2:12:04] a small Amazon warehouse, their smaller footprint building, could occur in that footprint as a whole,

[2:12:09] and that would be problematic.

[2:12:11] However, the useful mutations that occurred after that have been such that that use could not even occur at all.

[2:12:17] It couldn't even take up, you know, a quarter of that building now.

[2:12:21] So that was some of the initial, you know, impetus behind that wording was,

[2:12:25] they're saying they're going to divide the building up into four, let's say not more than one

[2:12:30] quarter of that, you know, that they're going to have tenants that are not taking up more than a

[2:12:34] quarter of that building. So it was a fairly rudimentary tool based on the initial understanding

[2:12:39] and without having all of those other conditions refined on the project.

[2:12:44] And then if you can go to your current recommended motion. So the, what is the 35%

[2:12:51] What does that come from or what what's the idea there for that, is that just a good number or 35% still allows for the concern that the warehouse distribution tenant as a whole while very well limited the applicant was agreeable to maintaining a limitation and stuff felt that that 35% was a more workable number.

[2:13:11] The previous discussion of having four tenant suites gets a little bit tricky when you have a mix of uses

[2:13:17] Some being warehouse distribution some not in terms of how that

[2:13:21] How that plays out in real time as the building is tenid so this still creates a limitation of a guideline and boundary

[2:13:30] It may still be

[2:13:32] You know

[2:13:34] As they say, I bought in a suspenders approach to providing assurances, but it is less restrictive and more workable from a development feasibility standpoint.

[2:13:47] Okay, thank you, appreciate it.

[2:13:51] Any other questions?

[2:13:52] I'm sorry.

[2:13:52] Okay, right?

[2:13:53] I've got one.

[2:13:54] So essentially, I'm trying to work the math out.

[2:13:59] So basically, you could subdivide it into three tenets basically at the 35% mark, warehouse tenets versus the required four.

[2:14:12] You need to get a maximum of three warehouse tenets in there roughly.

[2:14:15] So they cannot have more than 50% of the total building, be warehouse uses regardless.

[2:14:21] So they could have more or less tenets overall.

[2:14:24] However, it does still ensure that essentially one third of the little over one third of the building is for any single warehouse distribution tenant and then total, so it allows a little bit more flexibility in the maneuvering of the spaces.

[2:14:37] Got it. Thank you.

[2:14:40] I'm Mr. the 50% second one.

[2:14:43] Math is hard.

[2:14:46] Any other questions?

[2:14:47] I'll tell you what to do for a little bit.

[2:14:49] And we do have the applicant here for presentation and for your questions.

[2:14:54] Thank you most appreciate it.

[2:14:56] And I'm going to kick it off in my clients are here and they can ask.

[2:15:00] Answer the more detailed math questions.

[2:15:04] As we used to say, if we could do math, we would have gone

[2:15:08] to med schools. That's the lawyer joke. That's acceptable. It doesn't trash lawyers necessarily.

[2:15:17] But it stepped a great job of going through it. And really, the first problem is what is warehouse

[2:15:28] You can quite frankly add an abundance of caution because at any point something that's

[2:15:34] warehouse at some point being distributed.

[2:15:37] And there's not a real good, clear definition of what warehouse distribution, so that's

[2:15:41] the first question that we had.

[2:15:43] And then when the kind of ask me about this condition and the problem that I kept running into

[2:15:49] is like if you got a tenant taking three quarters of the building and their light manufacturing,

[2:15:56] they're a great tenant and then you have the fourth, then you have another smaller space

[2:16:02] and they want to do a small warehouse distribution. When now you have to retroactively create

[2:16:07] four spaces because it's mixing and matching when four spaces. It's needed only when you have

[2:16:12] a warehouse distribution. Is it any of it warehouse distribution or all of it warehouse distribution?

[2:16:17] I can see if it's all warehouse distribution then that is a way to kind of make it

[2:16:23] small, all smaller, but it just doesn't work from a logic standpoint and when we sat down

[2:16:29] with the DPC, rarely do you have a 5-0 DPC and they were like, how do we, when they

[2:16:34] let read this, they're like, we, you know, when we get plan reviews in and we're having

[2:16:38] to figure out what the 10 it is, what their actual use is, what the code is, and then, you

[2:16:45] know, chicken and egg problem who came first, so that's the reason why we're like, okay,

[2:16:49] Let's, we know what the issue is.

[2:16:51] They're largely addressed by all the other conditions

[2:16:54] that staff had, the section 15 that limited those uses.

[2:16:59] And so the cleanest way was to modify it as recommended

[2:17:05] by staff.

[2:17:07] And 35% of the building, if it's warehouse distribution,

[2:17:12] again, that's a really limited part of them.

[2:17:16] And probably uses aren't even really wear us distribution.

[2:17:20] They're really more light manufacturing kind of things.

[2:17:24] But they all have a distribution part of it.

[2:17:26] That's the reason why my pair of nois is zoning it turns out like, well, you got to build

[2:17:30] in that someone might say it's wear us distribution.

[2:17:34] And so this greatly limits it and aligns with the goal of making sure that we don't have

[2:17:41] of the situation where a whole lot of truck traffic

[2:17:46] and that turnover that you have

[2:17:48] by natural limiting the square footage.

[2:17:50] But then you don't have the chicken and egg problem

[2:17:52] of dividing it out before you have all the tenants

[2:17:55] and you have a tenant move out

[2:17:56] and someone else need to move in.

[2:17:57] You've got a perfect tenant,

[2:17:59] but then suddenly you're supposed to have to have divided

[2:18:01] into four because of, sorry, that didn't work.

[2:18:05] So I asked that you've all the DPC recommendation.

[2:18:07] Do you want to go through your presentation?

[2:18:11] Thank

[2:18:14] you, Parks, TJ Coston, 23 Ferry Landing Lane in Atlanta, Chase Westfall, 49,

[2:18:22] Kongamera, and Roswell.

[2:18:24] We're with the developer.

[2:18:26] Thank you for your time, staff.

[2:18:27] Thank you for your presentation and Parks as well, following up.

[2:18:31] We won't belabor the point.

[2:18:33] As you can see, there's a significant amount of conditions after multiple meetings with the neighborhood

[2:18:38] with staff. We went through two rounds with council and you know it was a long meeting, a couple

[2:18:46] hour long meeting and you know as they made the motion to approve six or seven conditions kind

[2:18:53] of got worded and word smithbower up there and you know we're up here you know today asking for the

[2:19:00] condition to just slightly modify that. It still maintains the intent limiting to 35 percent

[2:19:08] in that, you know, everyone was afraid of some large e-commerce type of tenant as Melissa pointed out,

[2:19:14] like those uses aren't even allowed very, very explicitly.

[2:19:19] But the intent was, you know, if there's something that somehow slips through the cracks,

[2:19:23] it's limited to a certain percentage of the building.

[2:19:26] And as amended gives us the flexibility to go execute on our business plan.

[2:19:33] And, you know, again, I've used the example, it's kind of corny at this point,

[2:19:36] But if there's a tenant that wants to print money and hand it out, you know, to the residents of Woodstock, like we, and they're a little bit larger, we have the ability to lease it to that tenants and forcing us to split to four tenants, just, you know, economically not feasible and could render large portions of our building, you know, essentially of no value, leave us with no no doors, no.

[2:20:00] A very odd space. So I won't belabor it too much, but if you guys have any questions, you know, we'd be happy to, you know, answer any of those or discuss any further.

[2:20:11] Thank you. Commissioners questions for the applicant.

[2:20:17] Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[2:20:20] Welcome to the public hearing. Is anyone signed up to speak on this case?

[2:20:23] I have one person, Robert.

[2:20:26] Yeah.

[2:20:27] Name an address for the record, please. Thank you.

[2:20:33] Thank you, commissioners. Bob Gettlin, I live at 710 Rising Moon Drive, Woodstock in the Glenn Haven

[2:20:40] community, the president of the HOA, so all my comments are on behalf of the community,

[2:20:48] 130 homes were a 55 plus active senior community, just adjacent to the property. You guys are familiar

[2:20:57] with us. We've been here before. We've had a lot of meetings with the applicant talking through

[2:21:04] things. I just want to reiterate some of the concerns we've had and a request for to look

[2:21:12] at maybe one or two other items, so I'll nominate those. You know, the three issues that are

[2:21:20] most important to us were the issues of traffic, noise and enforcement, enforcement of all

[2:21:29] the great conditions that the city has imposed and they are extensive. Many of those

[2:21:34] that we advocated for when the DPC first proposed for that came from the DPC. We were

[2:21:43] support of that. We've listened to the developer. Our main concern is that, again, whatever

[2:21:50] tenants go in there, do not become an intrusion, do not become the large tractor trailer

[2:21:59] type of distribution operation, which Melissa referred to and so forth.

[2:22:11] The issue of traffic,

[2:22:13] Again, I'll just repeat it as concerning to us because

[2:22:17] Old Road Mill Park Road, along which the track sits,

[2:22:22] is our only exit from our community.

[2:22:27] It's the only way for us to get out of our community

[2:22:30] on to Ridgewalk Parkway.

[2:22:33] And so we're naturally concerned about the impacts

[2:22:36] that large truck traffic, particularly tractor trailers,

[2:22:39] could have on us, not to mention the coming,

[2:22:42] divergent time and project on Ridge Walk and other proposed developments that are

[2:22:48] been discussed along that corridor.

[2:22:52] So the truck traffic is very important to us.

[2:22:55] The noise was another thing which you notice one of the conditions does speak to the

[2:22:59] bump out and we're pleased that that was adopted by the city.

[2:23:07] There is one additional concern that we have regarding, I'll bring it up now, condition 21,

[2:23:17] which I know that wasn't addressed up till now, but I think is important to us as a community.

[2:23:24] And that had to do with the possibility of emergency access to the site in overnight hours.

[2:23:33] Right now, I think correct me if I'm wrong. I don't have a condition 21 in front of me

[2:23:40] But it restricts truck traffic between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

[2:23:45] And I think the condition says that that can be overridden by the city if the applicant

[2:23:52] You know asks for that

[2:23:56] For for some purpose

[2:23:58] We would like to see and this was a discussion at City Council that such a request would be for a true emergency.

[2:24:07] Is it possible to pull up item 21?

[2:24:14] The mind.

[2:24:16] Thank you.

[2:24:18] Thank you.

[2:24:18] No trust shall be allowed to arrive or delivery shall occur from the hours of 10 PM to 6 PM.

[2:24:24] exceptions to this condition may be granted by the city manager or

[2:24:28] designate request for exceptions which I'll be submitted during business hours.

[2:24:33] We are requesting that the need for occasional emergency access be granted.

[2:24:40] The discussion at the city council was that if there is a

[2:24:46] situation arises where a truck needs to come in on an emergency basis

[2:24:51] that that would go through this city manners office.

[2:24:55] As it's written now, it's looser,

[2:24:57] and we feel that it doesn't...

[2:25:00] Either kind of protection that was intended with that 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. requirement.

[2:25:13] The other regarding item 15, you know, attorney Huff did mention that the definition of warehouse distribution is ambiguous.

[2:25:23] And we agree that it can well be the NAICS codes that were put in are helpful on that.

[2:25:32] We have come up with two other NAIC codes referenced in the letter, I think we made available

[2:25:38] to you and the Council from August 13th that two other NAICS codes, excuse me, be added,

[2:25:47] regarding freight transportation arrangements and general warehousing storage.

[2:25:52] I think that would provide further protections and still meet the spirit and the intent of what

[2:25:58] the developer and the applicant wants to achieve.

[2:26:04] In closing, again, we are not opposed to development of that parcel.

[2:26:12] We know that something will go in there.

[2:26:14] the city's done a good job in our view of establishing restrictions as needed, whether it's

[2:26:23] four tenants or not as we said in our letter to you and to the council. And I quote,

[2:26:32] based on let's see where are we, let me find this in my notes here.

[2:26:39] While we can't say that the requirement for four tenants is the only or best method

[2:26:46] of minimizing traffic in noise.

[2:26:48] Those do remain our greatest concerns, and we want to support only the conditions that would

[2:26:55] protect against the excessive traffic in noise.

[2:26:59] If it's 35% as the DPC has come up with as a numerator by the applicant, we can live

[2:27:11] And we also appreciate the DPC's addition of approval above that would be by the mayor and the council.

[2:27:21] You feel the elected officials should be involved given the type of project this is.

[2:27:27] So that's our position at this point.

[2:27:30] We would ask you to look at that proposed additional language on items 21 and 15.

[2:27:38] and I'll take any questions if you have them.

[2:27:42] Thank you, sir.

[2:27:42] Appreciate your time.

[2:27:44] Tonight.

[2:27:44] Thank you.

[2:27:47] See you on the sound of the speaker.

[2:27:48] No one else has signed up.

[2:27:50] Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this case that did not sign up?

[2:27:55] Okay.

[2:27:55] Seeing them we will close the public hearing.

[2:27:58] Does the applicant have any further words?

[2:28:03] No, I mean, I think, I mean, the DPC did a good job of, and I appreciate him bringing

[2:28:09] that actually added that Mayor and Council would be the responsible body to change that.

[2:28:15] So I think that's helpful too, but we think that the condition as we propose it and as DPC recommends

[2:28:22] addresses the concern about too much truck traffic. And I know it's easy for me to say,

[2:28:28] but quite frankly our tenants will look at that truck, the access and recognize if access is really

[2:28:37] for their use, they're not going to rent their, I mean, because it affects their business as much as anybody, so they're not going to want to want that either, so it's a natural.

[2:28:47] It will naturally bring tenants that won't be bothered by that traffic flow.

[2:28:56] Thank you. Appreciate that.

[2:29:00] Commissioners, any further questions for staff or the applicant at this time?

[2:29:06] I just have one. Melissa, on that condition 21 on the screen now, I mean, we can't come up

[2:29:13] with every exception, I guess. This is for the no trucks to be allowed between 10 PM and 6AM.

[2:29:19] And it said the one that was brought up by the public about, except for this condition may be

[2:29:30] But do we, I mean, do we have any idea of what would be an exception to that or anything like that?

[2:29:36] So I believe some of the discussions were, if there were a period of an emergency action, or if there were, say there were a storm event or something else that had been declared an emergency, I believe they also said during COVID, that was used when, you know, they were shipping needed at unusual hours due to some of the limitations that were trying to get materials in this quickly possible.

[2:29:59] I'm winner.

[2:30:00] So, certainly in that conversation at Council, City Manager Moon talked directly with the council about the similar situations that he has used, those type of limitations in the past.

[2:30:13] And so that discussion was, you know, to appear that Council felt comfortable with the conversation and how that would be applied at the City Manager level.

[2:30:22] And I'm assuming city manager level, because to your point, it's probably going to be like a critical time thing, so that's the person that they're going to be able to get in touch with.

[2:30:31] And that's why they said submitted during normal business hours.

[2:30:35] Because city manager Moon also mentioned that a 2A in phone call for a truck would not be acceptable.

[2:30:41] I understand.

[2:30:44] Any other questions at this time?

[2:30:47] Okay, I'm seeing you on fours open for a motion or a discussion on this case.

[2:30:53] I just like to add one thing in discussion, and that is, as it relates to item 21, I think

[2:31:02] it's well written now and very restrictive.

[2:31:07] So I don't think it needs to change.

[2:31:22] And I guess I'm just trying to wrap my round, I'm brain and round 21 too, because I want

[2:31:26] to make sure that everything's addressed, and I have the equally the same understanding.

[2:31:31] And so, when we are talking about Mercer So, let's say storm emergency, the Georgia power,

[2:31:37] baseball powers out, it's 2 o'clock in the morning, power line goes down on a vehicle and

[2:31:42] Georgia power has their big, what you call it, their trucks and they're bringing in, you know,

[2:31:52] every machinery in the middle of the night to one get make their area safe with whatever material.

[2:31:59] But also, you know, start getting the power on, because you know what happens when people

[2:32:05] lose power for any short period of time, is it my understanding that, say that happens

[2:32:11] at 2 o'clock in the morning this morning, we'd have to wait, or with that, with they be able

[2:32:18] to go in, without a city manager approval or whatever the case.

[2:32:22] So this was intended for occupants of the building.

[2:32:25] So any of the users, tenants, et cetera, with trucks or other deliveries coming in or out of the building.

[2:32:32] If there are utilities, obviously the utilities have allowances to operate in different manners in general to maintain their facilities.

[2:32:39] So that would not be excluded by this condition limitation.

[2:32:44] This would be only for, essentially, intended for the occupants of the building arriving there.

[2:32:52] All right. Thank you. Go ahead.

[2:32:57] There was also another quirky thing, and I did not think about this until we were going

[2:33:01] through the year last time, and that is like if you've got something being especially

[2:33:05] part being delivered across the country, and it's getting here at 11 p.m., if they can't

[2:33:12] get in there, they're going to park at the Costco parking lot and keep their truck idling

[2:33:17] until they can take it in the morning, so in a weird way, they needed to be at a little

[2:33:23] because otherwise, the truck is going to be sitting around waiting for it to open up and can actually be more disruptive, noise-wise if that happens.

[2:33:35] That was another scenario that was like, hey, we need to recognize sometimes something may show up and that needs to be there.

[2:33:43] But if we don't allow that exception, you may actually create more of a problem.

[2:33:47] Thank you. Yeah, I, you know, David did answer a question and I think that, you know, this is, is there for, you know, like the exception we're not thinking, if I don't see the city manager, you know, blank it up or even deliver these, you know, throughout the week and things like that.

[2:34:06] I think this is something that, you know, the example brought up or this one off that we're not thinking of that that's going to come up.

[2:34:14] It's better to have this done versus the truck sitting here

[2:34:17] on the road or whatever, I'm not sure.

[2:34:19] So I think that, and then, I think Melissa said it,

[2:34:23] emergency use or utilities, of course,

[2:34:25] they're going to have access, if needed, for public good

[2:34:28] and stuff like that, sir.

[2:34:31] You know, other questions?

[2:34:34] I have one of the common, and that's, I think,

[2:34:39] parts is right. I think the tenets are going to police themselves. If trucks aren't allowed

[2:34:46] between ten, six, the tenets not coming. I mean, it's just not going to be, yeah. And we've

[2:34:54] got a mechanism in place to enforce that if they do. So, I think it's...

[2:35:00] It's restrictive enough.

[2:35:06] Any motions?

[2:35:08] I'd like to move to approve according to the staff recommendations.

[2:35:13] Okay, there's a motion to approve according to the staff's wording and recommendation by Rob.

[2:35:17] Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Lankwist.

[2:35:22] Any other discussion debate talks on this?

[2:35:27] No, I'll reiterate everything you'll set. I agree.

[2:35:29] I think that we've between us and city council and staff.

[2:35:32] there's a host of restrictions, conditions that I think we've done about as much as we can

[2:35:40] in terms of making sure we're trying to allow what's legally allowable by the applicant,

[2:35:45] but also preserving the public's interest as much as possible.

[2:35:50] So, I agree.

[2:35:51] All those in favor, please raise your hand and that vote as unanimous so that we'll go to

[2:35:55] City Council.

[2:35:56] Best of luck there.

[2:35:57] Thank you for being here tonight.

[2:36:00] Final case, we have ZTA-23-26 livestock.

[2:36:08] Melissa.

[2:36:10] Thank you chair members of the commission.

[2:36:12] This next item, as you mentioned, is a proposed LDO amendment to update chapters two

[2:36:17] and chapter seven of the LDO in relation to provisions for livestock.

[2:36:23] So the background issue involved in this case is that state law changes have

[2:36:30] our regulatory authority in relation to livestock.

[2:36:33] The current regulations regarding livestock in the city

[2:36:36] of Woodstock are housed in our city code.

[2:36:38] The city attorney has prepared this amendment

[2:36:40] to ensure that the enforceability of,

[2:36:43] so sorry.

[2:36:44] Sorry, he was giving me the signal.

[2:36:46] Sorry, thank you.

[2:36:48] So just reiterate that the state law has changed

[2:36:50] so that we have limited regulation,

[2:36:53] it has limited our regulatory authority in relation

[2:36:55] to livestock, our regulations for livestock

[2:36:58] are currently in the city code, and the city attorney has prepared this amendment that we're discussing this evening to ensure the enforceability of livestock requirements going forward.

[2:37:10] So the proposed changes that we have are to remove the livestock regulations from the city code in general to add them into the LDO and to maintain the existing allowances for

[2:37:22] fall or chickens in the city code.

[2:37:27] So we're going to show you the proposed changes here.

[2:37:29] So this is the language that's coming out of the city code.

[2:37:31] It is all the wording we have regarding livestock and swine.

[2:37:37] The language regarding chickens or fall does remain in the city code.

[2:37:43] With that we're taking that, cutting and pasting it into the LDO.

[2:37:47] So this is directly modifying that language.

[2:37:49] It will be located in the, we'll have the definition in the chapter 2 definition section and the remainder of the language would be located in section 7.304, which covers development standards applying to all districts.

[2:38:05] As I mentioned, the language regarding fall or chickens in this case is remain in the city code, so this will maintain allowances for what's commonly referred to backyard chickens or chickens in otherwise residential properties.

[2:38:21] And as a result, staff recommends approval of ZTA 023-26 and I can take any questions of the commission.

[2:38:30] Thank you, Melissa.

[2:38:32] Commissioners any questions this time?

[2:38:37] Okay.

[2:38:39] Thank you.

[2:38:40] Is there any one here that would like to speak on this case?

[2:38:44] And I'm assuming no one has signed up.

[2:38:46] So we will close the public hearing on that as well.

[2:38:49] uh... commissioners or is open for motion on this case

[2:38:56] motion to approve

[2:38:58] motion to approve by uh... Greg is there second

[2:39:03] second by commissioner lank was

[2:39:06] any further discussion

[2:39:07] on this topic

[2:39:10] okay

[2:39:10] seeing none voters on the floor to prove in court of disaster recommendations

[2:39:13] all those in favor please raise your hand

[2:39:16] that vote

[2:39:16] great or you voting

[2:39:18] that vote is unanimous

[2:39:20] and uh... that will go to city council as well

[2:39:22] Okay, I think that's it for the public cases for tonight.

[2:39:26] Announcements and information battles.

[2:39:29] Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of quick items. First, we want to welcome Justin Wallace,

[2:39:33] our new player too, to the Planning Commission. We got him a good one this evening. So,

[2:39:38] you'll see Justin and some of our upcoming cases in the next few months.

[2:39:43] And just wanted to make sure you get an opportunity to get a first glance at your new staff member.

[2:39:50] Second, we do have several items that were acted upon by City Council.

[2:39:54] That list is in your staff report.

[2:39:56] So there were a number of items that have had access.

[2:40:00] On some that are coming back to the Planning Commission, so stay tuned with return for 200 to pre, that is scheduled for the November 16th Council meeting, but we'll be coming back to Planning Commission first at your November 5th meeting.

[2:40:15] So you can anticipate seeing that case come before you. And that's all I have.

[2:40:20] Okay, thank you. Welcome to the City Planning staff. Looking forward to working with you.

[2:40:26] There's a good meeting probably for you to not, I guess, to see host of different cases and then I guess it's a visual chase is not going to be here anymore

[2:40:34] He is done correct so he could not be here tonight and fortunately, but so he has already seen his last planning commission meeting so

[2:40:41] He is he's got a lot of just stuff going on and work and personal and family and just whole host of other things that's

[2:40:50] more time he said so he said it was time for him to step down so not sure if we have anyone

[2:40:55] that's been looked at yet but I guess at some point we'll get another appointment here so

[2:40:59] but I appreciate all he's not here to hear it but I appreciate all his help he's filled in for me

[2:41:04] definitely and he's been a great number to the team and and always add a lot so he'll be missed so

[2:41:09] but I just want to say that so other than that commissioners anything else you have for we adjourn

[2:41:15] all right see you then we'll adjourn the meeting thank you

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript