►
From YouTube: (2022) 04-19 - Planning Commission Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
B
A
All
opposed
no
minutes
are
approved
code
officer
reports.
A
We
will,
at
this
time,
declare
the
public
hearings
open
for
item
number.
One:
a
request
for
a
variance
for
parking
were
requirements
at
7,
30,
highway,
138
code
officer
report.
C
Yes,
sir,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
like
I
said,
this
is
a
request
by
the
applicant
prh
730
monroe
llc
at
7
30,
highway,
138
they're,
requesting
parking
that
exceeds
the
maximum
required.
Well,
the
required
parking
plus
the
20
percent.
That's
allowed.
Administratively
staff
recommends
denial
of
the
variants
that's
submitted
without
conditions.
D
My
name
is
michael
toothager,
I'm
with
lacroix
engineering,
we've
developed
the
civil
documents
for
this
and
been
working
with
pat
and
brad
on
this,
for
I
don't
know
six
months
now
and
have
gone
back
and
forth
on
the
site
plan
multiple
iterations,
to
get
to
this
point
and
was
actually
brought
up.
The
last
meeting
I
came
to
that
we
needed
to
file
for
those
parking
variants,
so
it
was
a
little
bit
of
surprise,
then
filed
and
now
to
hear
the
the
recommendation
for
denial.
D
They
have
eight
employees
on
a
shift
and
then
with
52
seats.
If
a
third
of
those
are
occupied
with
different
parties,
you're
looking
at
15
patrons
plus
eight,
you
know
employees,
that's
23.
People
right
there,
so
tip
to
be
at
20
spaces,
isn't
going
to
work
for
starbucks,
whether
it's
on
this
site
or
anywhere
else
within
the
city
limits.
Honestly.
D
C
And
I
failed
to
mention
earlier
too
one
of
the
reasons
for
the
denial
besides
the
fact
that
it
exceeds
an
allowable
maximum
that
we
could
do
administratively.
Therefore,
we
basically
have
to
recommend
denial
is
that
they
may
be
bumping
up
against
the
impervious
surface
limits
which
aren't
calculated
on
the
plan.
So
if
he
can
speak
to
that,
that'd
be
great.
D
Yeah,
I
can
speak
to
that
we're
greatly
reducing
the
impervious
area
on
the
site,
see
if
I've
got
a
year
on
my
plan.
C
But
if
that,
if
that's
under
60,
that
that
won't
be
a
contention.
C
D
I
don't
know
if
we're
under
that
60
mark
or
not,
they
would
not
be
opposed
to
making
some
of
the
spaces
pervious
pavement
if
that
got
us
under
that,
if
as
long
as
they
were
allowed
to
have
the
number
of
spaces
requested
they're
willing
to
work
to
get
the
24
spaces,
but
I
can
tell
you
what's
out
there
today
is
an
almost
6
000
square
foot,
building
with
75,
plus
or
minus
parking
spaces.
B
Can
you
tell
me
the
dimensions
of
the
drive,
it
seems
to
be
a
one-way,
one-way
direction
of
travel
around
the
building.
What
is
the
dimension
of
the
driveways
on
going.
D
All
the
way
around
so
the
one
that
kind
of
not
the
drive
through,
but
the
laying
around
on
the
south
side,
it's
24
feet:
okay,
on
the
east
side
of
the
plan,
there
it's
20
feet
and
then,
on
the
on
the
north
side,
it's
a
combined
24
or
a
26.
Actually
with
a
14-foot
drive-through
lane
and
a
12-foot
bypass,
we
have
to
have
20-foot
minimum
as
a
fire
code
requirement.
B
E
C
E
A
It
I
will
have
to
ask
at
this
time
if
there
was
anyone
here
to
speak
in
opposition
of
this
request,
seeing
known
we
will
close
the
public
hearings
and
entertain
a
motion.
B
I
have
one
more
question,
oh
sure,
so
if
there's
I'm
just
trying
to
do
some
quick
math
in
my
head,
if
they
reduce
the
drive
down
to
a
minimum
20
foot
width,
that
would
be
getting
them
a
little
closer,
so
yeah,
I'm
just
trying
to
expedite
this
for
them.
But
how
should
we
should
it
be
tabled,
so
they
can
would
y'all
be
interested
in
revising
and
trying
to
get
this
thing
right.
C
Well,
the
drive
lane
wasn't
wasn't
a
concern
at
this
point.
It
may
come
up
in
the
in
the
design
review
for
development,
but
the
variance
request
was
simply
for
parking
space
increase.
A
Okay,
a
second.
B
A
motion
to
approve
with
conditions
of
getting
as
close
to
like
a
better
terms
of
of
what
the
city
is
asking
to
make
it
correct.
C
C
Correct,
yes,
absolutely
if
you
already
meet
that
requirement,
it
just
wasn't
shown
on
this
particular
site
plan.
So
if
y'all
could
just
clarify
the
motion
for
the
number
of
parking
spaces,
your
you're
okay,
going
to
motion
to
approve
the.
B
A
A
We
will
open
the
public
hearings
again
for
item
number,
two
request
for
a
rezone
at
zero:
double
springs:
church
road
from
r1a
to
r1a,
with
modifications
mr
code
officer.
C
Yes,
sir,
thank
you.
As
you
said,
this
is
a
request
for
that
modification
to
the
conditions
on
r1a,
zoned
property,
the
for
parkland
communities,
raoul
family
partnership
and
still
family
realty,
llc
they're,
requesting
to
just
change
a
singular
word
from
submittal
to
approval
in
condition.
Number
seven
staff
recommends
approval
of
this
change.
It's
somewhat
inconsequential.
A
F
The
applicant
parkland
communities
and
jim
jacoby,
who
could
not
be
here
tonight,
he's
had
some
family
matters
to
take
care
of.
He
just
wanted
to
apologize
for
that,
but
tonight
we're
just
requesting
that
changing
conditions
from
that
rezoning
that
was
approved
back
in
january,
which
was
from
r1
to
r1a,
which
allowed
a
development
with
141
units
on
83
acres,
which
is
at
the
corner
of
cedar
ridge
and
double
springs
church
roads.
F
Specifically,
we
would
request
to
alter
condition,
seven,
which
required
that
we
or
parkland
enter
into
a
development
agreement
prior
to
the
submit
of
a
preliminary
plan.
Instead,
they
are
requesting
to
change
the
condition
to
allow
for
the
development
agreement
to
be
executed
prior
to
the
approval
of
the
preliminary
lab.
F
F
With
preliminary
plan
approval,
the
request
itself
will
have
no
effect
on
the
moratorium,
which
again
the
effect
until
june
30th,
and
it
will
not
have
any
impact
on
the
layout
of
the
development.
F
A
At
this
time,
I'd
ask
if
it
was
anyone
present
to
speak
in
opposition
to
this
request,
seeing
none.
We
will
close
the
public
hearings
and
I'll
entertain
emotion,.
B
A
All
opposed
no,
the
motion
is
approved
any
old
business
to
come
before
this
commission
new
business,
a
request
for
a
preliminary
plat
review
at
zero
double
springs,
church
roads.
C
Yes,
sir,
thank
you,
mr
commissioner,
and
I
know
that's
the
same
address
as
the
other
one.
It's
simply
because
the
dresses
haven't
been
assigned
to
these
parcels,
but
this
one
is
wholly
separate
from
the
last
one.
We
just
discussed
it's
a
request
for
preliminary
plat
review,
which
is
for
commissions,
discussion
and
and
recommendation,
and
it's
in
order,
except
for
the
the
four
conditions
that
we've
described
in
staff
recommendation,
which
is
approval
of
the
preliminary
plat
subject
to
the
corrections
listed
on
the
cover
page
and
in
the
staff
report.
A
C
They're
they're
just
pretty
technical
in
nature,
but
the
first
one
is
to
show
the
existing
locations
street
locations
and
the
rights
away.
Abutting
the
site
on
sheet
105
increase
the
size
of
the
lot
labels
to
be
legible.
C
Portions
of
the
floodplain
appear
to
be
missing
on
the
east
side
of
mountain
creek
and
on
lots.
Five
and
six
revise
accordingly
and
please
increase
the
size
of
the
signature,
approval
blocks
and
signature
lines
for
the
owner's
authorization
provide
additional
signature
blocks
for
the
additional
owners
on
the
site.
Very
technical,
minor
things.
A
A
second
all
in
favor,
say
hi
all
opposed.
No,
it
is
approved.
This
time
will
entertain
a
motion
to
adjourn.