Link


Social

Embed


Download

Download
Download Transcript

I HAD TO GO AROUND THE ROCKY FORD TO GET.

[00:00:06]

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING.

[I. Call to Order.]

WE'LL GET THE MEETING STARTED.

SO THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DECATUR PLANNING COMMISSION FOR MARCH THE 12TH.

I AM RACHEL COGBURN.

I WILL BE CHAIRING THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.

AND THIS IS A SEVEN MEMBER COMMISSION OF DECATUR RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.

THE COMMISSION HEARS APPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND LAND SUBDIVISIONS.

IT ALSO REVIEWS AND RECOMMENDS CHANGES TO THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS AND FUTURE LAND USE PLANS.

GUESS I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ THIS WHOLE THING JUST TO GET USED TO IT.

I WOULD LIKE TO ACQUAINT YOU WITH THE PROCEDURES THIS COMMISSION FOLLOWS AND THE CONDUCT OF ITS MEETINGS.

WE WILL HEAR APPLICATIONS TONIGHT IN THE ORDER THEY ARE LISTED ON THE PRINTED AGENDA.

APPLICANTS ARE GIVEN TIME TO PRESENT THEIR CASE WHEN THE APPLICATION IS CALLED.

SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING PARTIES ARE ALSO GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR REMARKS TO THE COMMISSION.

PLEASE BE SURE TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE BEGINNING YOUR REMARKS.

SINCE THE BURDEN OF THE PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT TO CONVINCE THE COMMISSION TO VOTE IN THEIR FAVOR, APPLICANTS ARE ALSO ALLOWED TO PRESENT REBUTTAL TO ANY OPPOSITION AGAINST THEM. OPPOSING PARTIES ARE NOT GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

WHILE WE DO NOT FORMALLY LIMIT THE TIME FOR MULTIPLE PARTIES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO AN APPLICATION, WE DO ASK SPEAKERS TO REFRAIN FROM SPENDING TIME REPEATING ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED.

PLEASE BE CONCISE.

ONCE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE APPLICATION.

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ANY APPLAUSE OR DIALOG DURING OR AFTER PRESENTATIONS.

ALL REMARKS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION AND WE ASK YOU TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING ANYONE ELSE DIRECTLY.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WHICH HAS THE FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY.

WE ARE SUPPORTED THIS EVENING BY OUR PLANNING AND ZONING TEAM ANGELA THREADGILL, CASEY KURZAK AND NAHUM TATE.

AND AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MY FELLOW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES, STARTING WITH MY LEFT.

GOOD EVENING, I'M GREG CHILIK.

JASON FRIEDLANDER, JENNY STEIN, MARK BRAMBLETT.

JOHN MCFARLAND.

SO THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL FROM MINUTES FROM JANUARY 9TH MEETING.

[II.a. Approval of Minutes from January 9, 2024 regularly scheduled meeting.]

DID EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? ANY CHANGES? ANY COMMENTS? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS DRAFTED.

SECOND. A MOTION SECOND AND A SECOND.

MINUTES. APPROVED.

AS PRESENTED. SO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

WE NEED TO VOTE. OH, I'M SORRY.

WE DO NEED TO VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. NOW WE CAN GO TO NEXT MINUTES.

SO NEXT BUSINESS.

WE HAVE TWO ITEMS UNDER NEW BUSINESS.

[III.a. Andrew Rutledge with Office of Design has requested a conditional use permit to construct twelve (12) townhomes at 111 Church Street.]

ANDREW RUTLEDGE WITH THE OFFICE OF DESIGN HAS REQUESTED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 12 TOWNHOMES AT 111 CHURCH STREET.

AND CONCERNING THE SAME PROPERTY THERE'S ALSO A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM A HEIGHT VARIANCE FROM 40FT TO 50FT FOR THE SAME 12 TOWNHOMES.

AND WE ARE ALL FINE IF YOU GIVE THE SAME PRESENTATION FOR BOTH ITEMS A AND B, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE HEIGHT EXCEPTION.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS ANDREW RUTLEDGE, 924 SYCAMORE STREET, OFFICE OF DESIGN.

I'M COMING BEFORE YOU GUYS TO TO FIRST ASK FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE OF TOWNHOMES ON THIS PROPERTY.

IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS UM C1, I BELIEVE, SORRY, C 2.

SORRY. WHICH IN THE UDO ALLOWS FOR THE TOWNHOME? BUT IT'S KIND OF A CONDITIONAL SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOU TO ASK TO TO HAVE THE TOWNHOMES PLACED IN THIS PROPERTY.

WE ARE SEEKING TO WE HAVE DESIGNED 12 TOWNHOMES TO, TO GO ON THIS AS WELL AS, AS A PART OF THAT, WE HAVE DESIGNED TWO AFFORDABLE UNITS WHICH ARE SHOWN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE COLOR WHICH ARE SHOWN IN THE, IN THE YELLOW THE TWO YELLOW UNITS THERE.

NINE AND TEN.

UNITS NINE AND TEN.

YEAH. UNITS NINE AND TEN.

THANK YOU. THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE ALSO COMING, COMING BEFORE YOU GUYS FOR IS TO ASK FOR THE HEIGHT TO BE TAKEN FROM 40FT TO 50FT.

[00:05:03]

IN THIS ZONING, REGULAR COMMERCIAL IS ALLOWED TO BE UP TO 80FT.

OUR NEIGHBORS ARE 80FT.

THE ARLO NEXT TO US.

THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SIDE OF US IS IS AN OLDER HOME THAT IS BEING USED AS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

NOW IT'S A STORY AND A HALF BUILDING.

BUT SINCE WE HAVE THE CORNER AND WE HAVE THE THE RAILROAD.

WE FEEL LIKE, THE HEIGHT VARIATION IS NOT AS IMPACTFUL AS IT WOULD BE IF WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE, OF THE STREET OR A PROPERTY IN THE CENTER OF THE STREET VERSUS ON THE CORNER. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR FROM YOU GUYS TODAY, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. RUTLEDGE ON YOUR ON THE SURVEY.

THERE ARE SEVERAL MATURE TREES BARKED BY THE SURVEYOR.

ANY OF THOSE GOING TO BE PRESERVED? YES. SO.

SO WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR BEST TO PRESERVE THE TREES AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.

I BELIEVE THERE'S A GIANT MAGNOLIA OVER HERE.

AND A HARDWOOD. I THINK IT'S AN OAK.

WHITE OAK, I BELIEVE AS WELL AS THIS CLUSTER OF TREES HERE, THERE'S A TREE THAT'S ON OUR PROPERTY THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME OUT.

IT'S IT APPEARS TO BE DECEASED DISEASE AS WELL.

THERE'S NOT A WHOLE.

WHEN IN BACK IN THE SUMMER, THERE WEREN'T A WHOLE LOT OF LEAVES ON THAT TREE.

THERE'S ALSO VINES ON IT.

SO IT'S IT'S BEING CHOKED OUT AT THIS POINT, SO.

BUT BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REMOVE THAT IN ORDER TO, TO BUILD THE, THE PROJECT.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION.

COULD YOU GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON HOW.

OR WHY YOU WANT TO HAVE THE HEIGHTS OF THE TOWNHOMES AT 50FT VERSUS 40FT, AND HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT THE PROJECT.

YEAH. SO THE HEIGHT CONCERN REALLY ONLY OCCURS AT THE GABLES.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO THE STREET.

CHURCH STREET IN PARTICULAR IS MOSTLY COMPOSED OF ARTS AND CRAFTS HOMES.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF GO INTO THAT SAME VEIN AND DO AN ARTS AND CRAFTS TOWNHOME DESIGN.

THE WAY THAT THE HEIGHT IS MEASURED IN THE CITY, DECATUR IS AT THE TOP OF THE, TOP THE RIDGE.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ELEVATIONS, THE TOP OF THE RIDGE IS AT 50.

I BELIEVE WE'RE LOWER.

THE LOWER PORTION IS PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OVER 40, PROBABLY LIKE 44.

SO THE LOWER PORTION IS THAT BEFORE THE SETBACK, THE PORT.

SO THESE UNITS IN THE MIDDLE WOULD ACTUALLY ARE ACTUALLY LOWER.

THEY'RE AROUND 44.

SO IT'S REALLY ONLY THE TIP TOP OF THE GABLE WHERE WHERE THE 50 IS GOING TO COME INTO PLAY.

THE REST OF IT'S LOWER.

IT'S HIGHER THAN WHAT'S PRESCRIBED PER THE CODE.

BUT IT'S LOWER THAN 50 I'M NOT SURE.

AND MR. THAT'S ACCURATE.

IT LOOKS LIKE UNITS TWO, THREE AND FOUR AND FIVE.

THERE'S A, THERE'S A 1, 2..

THAT'S FARTHER BACK.

SO IT'S ON THAT 45 DEGREE.

BUT YOU SAID YOU SAID THEY WERE ONLY 40FT TALL BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY 50FT TALL.

IT'S JUST STEP BACK. EXCUSE ME.

SO THE PERCEPTION FROM THE STREET AND THE PERSPECTIVE IS LESS THAN 50.

BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THEY ARE 50FT TALL.

YEAH. TO THE TO THE RIDGE.

RIGHT. CORRECT. RIGHT.

OKAY. BUT THE PERCEPTION IS THAT ONLY THE GABLES WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE THAT HEIGHT.

BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE BACK.

FROM 45 DEGREES AS PRESCRIBED IN THE UDO IS ACTUALLY NOT.

IT WOULD NOT BE SEEN, PER THAT DESCRIPTION IN THE UDO.

WELL, YES AND NO.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST A STEP BACK.

I THINK IT STILL COULD BE SEEN AND IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ON CHURCH STREET.

CORRECT? YOU'RE GOING TO BE 50FT AT THE THREE FOOT BUFFER LINE.

ON UNIT A1.

THE TOP OF THAT BUILDING IS 50FT.

CORRECT. THAT'S THE THAT'S THE GABLE POINT.

CORRECT. THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

YES. THAT ONE.

THAT ONE IS. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, IS THE GABLES, THE TWO END UNITS WOULD BE PERCEIVED.

THOSE ARE FULL 50FT.

YEAH. THE CENTER UNITS WOULD NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY THEY'RE LOWER.

AND THEN YOU HAVE A WHOLE ROOF DECK AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT PENTHOUSE SITUATION.

SO WHEN YOU STAND AT THE STREET AT 45 DEGREES AS DIAGRAMED IN THE UDO, YOU WOULD NOT PERCEIVE THAT BACK AREA.

IT'S ALSO A PRESCRIPTION THAT'S THAT'S USED IN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICTS.

WHAT'S THAT? YOU SAID THE HEIGHT IS AT 40FT.

THE HEIGHT IS IS PROBABLY 42 AND SOME CHANGE TO THE TOP OF THIS, THIS ROOF AND THE CENTER UNITS.

SO THAT WOULD BE UNITS, THAT WOULD BE UNITS TWO THROUGH FIVE AND THEN UNITS EIGHT THROUGH 11.

HOW FAR BACK DOES THAT?

[00:10:01]

THAT IS THAT SETBACK.

THAT'S SETBACK IS IT'S APPROXIMATELY 15FT BACK TO WHERE THE PENTHOUSE RISES UP.

SO WHERE THAT 50FT TO WHERE YOU HAVE A 50 FOOT ROOF.

OH, TO 50 FOOT IS IN THE CENTER OF THE OF THE UNIT.

SO IT'S THE CENTER RIDGE.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE OR TO THE ROUTE TO THE..

IT'S GOING TO BE HALF OF 45.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE 20 ABOUT 22.5FT TO THAT 50 50 FOOT RIDGE.

FRONT OF THAT ROOF IS AT WHAT HEIGHT? 42. NO, NO, NO.

THE ROOF OF THE ONE, TWO, THREE FOURTH STORY.

THE. IT'S AT 50.

THEY'RE ALL THE RIDGE.

IS ALL THE. ALL THE RIDGES ARE 50.

HOW ABOUT THE LOWER PART OF THE ROOF? RIGHT WHERE THE AT THE OVERHANG.

RIGHT AT THE SOFFIT, BASICALLY.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE THIS OVERHANG THAT'S GOING TO BE BELOW 40.

NO NO NO. THE HIGH ROOF THAT STARTS AT THE PEAK IS AT 50.

IT SLOPES DOWN. CORRECT.

IT'S NOT A YES. NO, IT'S NOT 50.

IT'S IT'S PROBABLY 4045.

AND SOME CHANGE.

IF THAT'S 50, THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S AT LEAST ANOTHER FIVE FEET.

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING? YEAH, I THINK SO. AND THAT STARTS WHERE? HOW FAR BACK FROM THE THAT STARTS AT HALFWAY POINT ON THE UNIT, WHICH THE UNITS ARE 45FT WIDE, ARE 45FT DEEP.

THERE'S NONE OF YOUR RENDERINGS SHOWED THE PERCEPTION FROM CHURCH STREET.

I BELIEVE THEY DO.

I FEEL NOT REALLY. I MEAN, THERE HAD AN ANGLE.

YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL. WHAT IF YOU WERE A PEDESTRIAN STANDING AT THE SIDEWALK, YOU CAN'T SEE THOSE THOSE RENDERINGS.

THOSE RENDERINGS ARE ACTUALLY AS A PEDESTRIAN ON THE STREET.

I MEAN, WE DRAW IN REVIT.

SO THAT'S IT FIVE FOOT SIX AND IT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.

BUT WHAT IF YOU'RE ON THE SIDEWALK NEXT TO THE UNITS? BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE A PEDESTRIAN IS GOING TO BE.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO STAND IN THE MIDDLE OF CHURCH STREET.

RIGHT. STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK SO THEY'LL BE PERCEIVED EVEN LOWER.

THEY'LL SEEM HIGHER BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE CLOSER TO THE BUILDING.

YOUR ANGLE GOING UP IS GOING TO BE STEEPER.

OKAY. RIGHT NOW, YOU WOULD ONLY SEE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IF YOU WENT ALL THE WAY BACK AND YOU WERE STANDING ON THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

THE END UNITS, OF COURSE, WILL BE 50, SO THEY'LL BE PERCEIVED AT 50 NO MATTER WHAT.

BUT THE CENTER UNITS WILL BE PERCEIVED LOWER IF WE APPROVE THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

CORRECT.

IN ORDER TO BUILD THE 12 TOWNHOMES AS PART OF THE FIRST PART OF THIS.

DO YOU ARE YOU GOING TO SEEK ANY VARIANCES FROM THE UDO? I'M SEEKING THE JUST THE HEIGHT VARIANCE.

YEAH. SO WE ALSO KNOW NO OTHER NO STORMWATER? NO. NO TREE CANOPY, NO NOTHING ELSE.

NO. FOR ARE YOU DOING? YEAH, YEAH, I MIGHT NOT BE DONE, BUT UNITS NINE AND TEN.

ARE THERE ANY PARKING ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE UNITS? THERE'S NONE ON SITE.

THOSE UNITS PER THE UDO TO THE UNITS ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT, EVEN THE THE LARGER ONES.

SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY UNITS THAT WE HAVE THAT HAVE SINGLE SINGLE CAR PARKING.

ON. THE REST OF THE UNITS ARE ALL DOUBLE GARAGE.

OKAY, SO THERE'S NOT A CAR IN THE.

OH, SORRY. YEAH, A GARAGE, THAT'S KIND OF.

YEAH, YEAH.

OH, OKAY, I GOT YOU.

OKAY. AND SO VISITOR PARKING IS ON THE STREET.

VISITOR PARKING IS ON THE STREET.

THERE'S THERE'S A WHOLE ROW OF STREET PARKING HERE.

THERE'S ALL STREET PARKING ALONG CHURCH AS WELL.

WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE 12 PARKING SPACES AND WE HAVE 20.

TWO. YEAH, WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE 12 SPACES AND WE HAVE 22 SPACES.

YEAH. THE RENDERING I'M LOOKING AT JUST DIDN'T HAVE ANY AT ALL.

YEAH, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

WELL. I HAVE A COUPLE COPIES TOO, IF ANYBODY ELSE NEEDS.

AND YOU'RE NOT SEEKING TO HAVE HOWARD CHANGED FROM ONE WAY TO THE TWO WAY? YEAH. ALTHOUGH I DO REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS.

I'VE BEEN HERE THAT LONG.

SPEAKING OF THE ARTS AND CRAFTS ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, CAN YOU JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CHOICE OF MATERIALS?

[00:15:02]

SURE. THE STUCCO ELEMENTS ARE THERE, SO THE MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE STUCCO.

AND IT'S MY CLIENT IS JACK BUILD.

I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS YOU MAY NOT HAVE SEEN THAT IN THERE.

HE, HE ACTUALLY HAS A STUCCO.

SUB WHO IS MORE LIKE A PLASTERER.

IT'S MORE LIKE AN ITALIAN PLASTER.

BY THE TIME IT'S DONE, YOU CAN RUN YOUR HAND ON IT.

IT'S VERY SMOOTH.

IT'S NOT EVEN LIKE THE VERY FINE PEBBLE STUCCO, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A TRUE THREE COAT STUCCO.

IT'S NOT EPHAS, IT'S NOT BLOWN ON.

IT'S TROUT ON OLD FASHIONED WAY.

YEAH. WHY THAT MATERIAL JUST ARCHITECTURALLY.

I MEAN, IS THAT SOMETHING, IS THAT A BUDGET CONSTRAINT OR MORE OF AN ARCHITECTURAL SORT OF ESTHETIC THING? IT'S MORE OF AN ESTHETIC. YEAH.

IT'S IT'S SIMILAR TO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH CHARLES RENNIE MACKINTOSH IN SCOTLAND.

HE DID A LOT OF HOMES OUT OF STUCCO, AND HE WAS ONE OF THE FORERUNNERS OF THE ARTS AND CRAFTS MOVEMENT, ALONG WITH RUSKIN, WHO ALSO DID STUCCO HOMES AND BOISSIERE.

SO, YEAH.

OKAY. YEAH I WAS.

BUT YEAH, NOW, NOW IT'S ENDING.

YOU'RE COMING ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE STUCCO, WHICH MAYBE WE CAN PUT INTO THE MINUTES.

I MEAN, I JUST SORT OF KNEE JERK REACTION IS THAT STUCCO IS A LESS INFERIOR PRODUCT, AN INFERIOR PRODUCT, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, A CEMENTITIOUS SIDING OR SOMETHING ELSE, ACTUALLY.

ACTUALLY IT'S BETTER.

IT'S MUCH BETTER THAN CEMENTITIOUS.

I THINK IT IT RECEIVED A PRETTY POOR, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE PERCEIVE IT AS A POOR MATERIAL BECAUSE ETHAS IS OUT THERE.

ETHAS DOESN'T LAST, YOU CAN PUT A PENCIL THROUGH IT.

YEAH, I'VE SEEN BANKS MADE OUT OF ETHAS, WHICH IS KIND OF A JOKE BECAUSE YOU CAN LITERALLY JUST RUN UP TO IT AND KNOCK A HOLE IN THE WALL.

YEAH. STYROFOAM. YEAH. IT'S STYROFOAM.

BUT TRUE STUCCO THAT'S APPLIED CORRECTLY IS A VERY LASTING PRODUCT.

WHEREAS CEMENTITIOUS BOARD IS PRETTY GOOD, BUT IT HAS ITS, YOU KNOW, IT'LL FRAY AT THE ENDS.

IT CAN STILL HAVE SOME MILDEW ISSUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WATER INFILTRATION.

OKAY. THERE.

I DO SEE SOME BRICK IN HERE.

YOU'VE GOT BRICK.

ALMOST LIKE COLLEGE.

YEAH, WE HAVE SOME BRICK IN THE BACK.

ON UNITS ONE AND 12.

YEAH, THOSE CARPORTS OR.

EXCUSE ME, THIS ONE. YEAH, BUT AROUND THE WINDOWS, IT'S STUCCO.

YEAH, IT'S MOSTLY JUST THE EASTWARD ELEVATION ON UNIT C6.

THAT'S JUST SORT OF THIS BIG FLAT, YOU KNOW, STUCCO FACADE THAT I GUESS THAT'S THE ONE THAT KIND OF MY EYES JUMPS TO, BUT.

WELCOME EVERYBODY ELSE'S THOUGHTS.

STILL WRESTLING WITH THE 50FT, IT JUST SEEMS. THIS ESPECIALLY DEFEATED A THREE FOOT BUFFER STOP BACK FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY A ONE AND A HALF STORY BUILDING.

IT'S GOING TO, LIKE, COMPLETELY SHADE THEM.

I LOOKED AT THE SOLAR ANGLES ON THAT AND BASICALLY THEY'RE IN THE SHADE.

YEAH. BY THIS BUILDING, IF YOU WERE DOING A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING OR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, YOU COULD GO MUCH TALLER, RIGHT? SO, YOU CAN DO 80FT.

DID YOU DO ANY DRAWINGS OR DESIGNS THAT CAP THE HEIGHTS CLOSER TO THE 40FT OR AT THE 40FT? WE DID NOT.

HONESTLY, I DIDN'T NOTICE UNTIL I WAS ALMOST DONE HOW HIGH IT WAS, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, BECAUSE I KNEW I WAS TRYING TO SATISFY WITH THE PROGRAM. THAT'S ALL OF THE FLOORS.

I MEAN, THE FLOOR TO CEILING. I MEAN, YOU COULD PROBABLY JUST GET IT IN THERE.

I THINK THEY'RE 10.5FT FLOOR TO FLOOR.

AND THEN WE'VE GOT 18 INCH TRUSSES.

TRUSSES. SO. YEAH.

THE FOURTH STORY THAT GETS YOU.

YEAH. IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? THE CENTER UNITS JUST TO KIND OF DRIVE HOME FOR MR. FARLAND. THOSE ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE UNITS BEHIND FELLINI'S OFF OF HOWARD.

SO THEY ARE PERCEIVED AS THREE STORIES, AND THEN THEY HAVE THAT FOURTH LEVEL PENTHOUSE BACK BEHIND.

SO, GIVES YOU A BETTER VISUAL.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSION.

I AM ANGELA THREADGILL AND I COME BEFORE YOU IN MY ROLE AS PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY.

AS THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

THIS PROJECT WAS REQUIRED TO GO BEFORE THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AS THEY ARE PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS.

[00:20:03]

THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROVIDES REVIEW AS WELL AS A RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BODY AS WELL AS THE CITY COMMISSION, BEFORE THE FINAL ACTION IS TAKEN.

ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 12TH, THIS PROJECT DID COME BEFORE THE DDA, AND THEY ULTIMATELY PASSED A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE AS PROPOSED.

THEY ARE MOSTLY FOCUSED ON TRADE, COMMERCE, INDUSTRY, EMPLOYMENT IN OUR DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, BUT THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE LAND USE PATTERNS AND MAKING SURE THAT IT IS SUPPORTIVE OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT IN OUR CORE BUSINESS DISTRICT.

DURING THE DISCUSSION, HOWEVER, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOTE THAT THE TWO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS, WHICH ARE NOTED AS UNITS NINE AND TEN ON THE PLAN THEY ARE NARROWER.

THEY ARE 15FT WIDE.

AND IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH OUR C2 ZONING DISTRICT AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWNHOME WIDTH, THE MINIMUM WIDTH IS 16FT.

AND WHILE THEY DIDN'T GO MUCH MORE INTO THE THE DEPTH OF THAT CONVERSATION, I WILL SHARE WITH YOU AS THE PRIMARY AUTHOR OF THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. YOU KNOW, THAT ORDINANCE DID COME BEFORE THIS BODY AND WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED AND ADOPTED AND BECAME EFFECTIVE IN JULY OF 2020.

I DO CAUTION THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION THAT IS CONTRARY OR IN CONFLICT WITH THAT INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE.

AND SO THERE ARE FOUR CRITERIA FROM THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO READ THESE TO YOU THAT THE INCLUSIONARY DWELLING UNITS IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DESIGNED TO HAVE A NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE MARKET RATE DWELLING UNITS.

THE SECOND IS INTERSPERSED.

AND AMONG THE MARKET RATE DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT IS BUILT CONCURRENTLY WITH THE MARKET RATE DWELLING UNITS AND DESIGNED, THE FOURTH ONE IS DESIGNED TO BE FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT IN STYLE AND QUALITY WITH THE MARKET RATE DWELLING UNITS IN THE DEVELOPMENT, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST THREE ARE BEING MET, BUT THIS LAST ONE WHERE IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE STYLE AND THE QUALITY.

I DO I DO SHARE MY CONCERNS WITH YOU TONIGHT THAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.

I THINK THIS WOULD SET A VERY BAD PRECEDENT IN VARYING FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO I AM REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF YOU DO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS MEET THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF 16FT.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATIONS? IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE APPLICATIONS? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ONLINE? NO. NOT ONLINE. OKAY.

JUST US. OKAY.

AND NOW PLANNING COMMISSION CAN TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT.

WELL. WHAT MISS THREADGILL JUST TOLD ME OR TOLD US THAT THIS PROJECT HAS SHOWN HERE WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

BESIDES THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND I ASKED MR. RUTLEDGE SPECIFICALLY IF IT WOULD, AND HE SAID NO.

AT THIS POINT, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOT, THERE'S TOO MANY UNKNOWNS HERE.

I THINK PERHAPS GOING BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND COMING BACK WITH A DIFFERENT.

PROPOSAL. THE WAY I'M SITTING RIGHT NOW, I JUST.

I JUST CAN'T I CAN'T SEE MOVING THIS FORWARD AT THIS POINT, NOT RECOMMENDING THIS TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS APPROVAL FROM MY STANDPOINT.

SO WITH RENDERINGS ARE OKAY.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY HUMAN SCALE TO IT.

COULDN'T SEE THE FULL CITY CITYSCAPE.

I THINK THOSE COULD BE IMPROVED.

I KNOW IT'S ESPECIALLY ASKING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

ONE THING FOR WHAT YOU NEED TO DO FOR.

CONCEPT DESIGN PURPOSES.

BUT IF YOU'RE COMING TO ME.

IF YOU'RE COMING TO ME FOR SOMETHING.

BEYOND WHAT'S ALLOWED.

I WANT TO SEE MORE DETAILS.

I DON'T DISAGREE. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT AS TWO ONE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. RIGHT. AND THEN THE SECOND FOR THE HEIGHT EXCEPTION.

[00:25:02]

WELL, I MEAN, IF I WERE TO SUPPORT PART A, THAT'S JUST THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

I WOULD SAY NO VARIANCES.

PERIOD. WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS GETS APPROVED? BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR THE ADDITIONAL VARIANCE FOR DOES THAT COME BACK BEFORE US AGAIN? ZONING BOARD FOR GOES TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OKAY.

DIFFERENT BODY. SO NOTING THAT THEY'RE NARROWER, DO THEY HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN UNITS NINE AND TEN? THEY DO. BUT WHAT DO YOU HAVE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BETWEEN.

I DON'T HAVE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT I CAN GET THAT FOR YOU.

I WILL TELL YOU, THE DECISION TO MAKE THESE SMALLER WAS BECAUSE OF WE WERE TRYING.

WE'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE AFFORDABLE UNIT.

WE WERE TRYING TO HAVE TWO.

IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE'RE TAKING A LOSS ON THE AFFORDABLE UNITS.

THIS IS WHY YOU'VE PROBABLY NEVER SEEN A TOWNHOME COME THROUGH HERE.

SINCE THAT THIS HAS BEEN PASSED, IT'S REALLY HARD TO BUILD A THREE STORY BUILDING AND MAKE IT AFFORDABLE SO THAT SOMEONE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE ENOUGH MONEY OFF OF, OFF OF IT TO, TO WALK AWAY. THEY DON'T TECHNICALLY.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY ON THESE TWO UNITS AND THEN PRICE THE OTHER UNITS AT MARKET VALUE IN ORDER TO HELP OFFSET THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE UNITS.

I WILL SAY IF AND THEN THIS, I'M NOT TRYING TO PRESSURE ANYBODY OR ANYTHING.

IF IF THE ONLY THING I CAN DO TO CHANGE THIS FROM THE VARIANCES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING, AS FAR AS THE PLOT GOES, IS WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF THE OTHER UNIT, AND WE'LL JUST HAVE ONE AFFORDABLE UNIT AND WE'LL HAVE 11 UNITS TOTAL MOST LIKELY.

SO THAT'S JUST THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT WORKS.

THERE'S ONLY SO MANY THINGS YOU CAN FIT INSIDE A PARAMETER OF SOMETHING.

SO IF YOU HAD 11 UNITS YOU'D STILL NEED TWO.

IT'S TEN. IT'S, IT'S IT'S 10% OF THE UNITS BUILT.

SO IF YOU BUILT TEN UNITS YOU HAVE ONE.

YEAH, BUT IT'S.

I THOUGHT IT WAS 11.

YOU'RE RIGHT. 10%.

YOU HAVE ONE. YEAH.

SO IT'D BE 11.

THAT IS PERSUASIVE.

I MEAN, IF WE WERE WILLING TO ACCEPT A NARROWER TOWNHOUSE, WE COULD HAVE TWO INSTEAD OF ONE.

I CONCEDE THAT IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO LIKE THIS.

COMMISSION? YEAH.

WOULDN'T ACCEPT OR DISAPPROVE THE NARROW TOWNHOUSE.

IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO RIGHT FOR THE.

ALL THE OTHER UNITS HAVE.

SPACE FOR TWO CARS.

THESE TWO HAVE SPACE FOR ONE CAR.

YEAH. JUST DON'T LIKE THE PRECEDENCE THAT SETS TO START HORSE TRADING ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.

WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT.

IT'S MORE JUST A VARIANCE ON THE TOWNHOUSE WIDTH RIGHT.

I MEAN RIGHT I MEAN BUT IT'S THE YEAH I MEAN THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE UNITS THAT RIGHT.

YES. PROVIDED.

YES. DO YOU LIKE THE LOCATION FOR TOWNHOMES? IT'S A VERY WALKABLE LOCATION.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO PUT.

SOME TOWNHOUSE AND YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE SCHOOLS.

THE HEIGHT DOESN'T BOTHER ME EITHER, BECAUSE, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, THEY COULDN'T BY RIGHT BUILD UP TO 80FT THERE, SO THE HEIGHT DOESN'T BOTHER ME AT ALL.

YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHT DOESN'T BOTHER ME IN THIS.

AS IT'S PRESENTED.

I DO WISH THAT THE AFFORDABLE UNITS WERE MORE SIMILAR TO THE MARKET RATE UNITS.

I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S A WAY TO, LIKE, INTERSPERSE THEM AND HAVE ADD A FOOT AND THEN PUT THE OTHER ONE AT LIKE UNIT FOUR, KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OTHER CLUSTER, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING FOR D7 IS 19FT, FOUR INCHES.

YEAH, SOME OF THEM ARE 16.

THESE ARE ALL 18FT.

YEAH. WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE ONE 18FT OR 262 50 FOOT?

[00:30:30]

ANGEL, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, JUST HOW THAT WORKS.

SO IS THAT IN PERPETUITY THEIR THEIR THEIR SALES PRICE IS CAPPED AT FOR THE THE INCOME LEVEL? YES. SO EVERY YEAR IN THE SPRING TIME AROUND MAY HUD ISSUES THEIR AREA MEDIAN INCOME.

RIGHT. AND SO FOR SALE UNITS.

AND WE HAVE HEARD FROM MR. RUTLEDGE THAT ALL OF THESE UNITS WOULD BE FOR SALE BASED ON OUR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE, THE SALES PRICE WOULD BE CAPPED AT 120%. AMI SO THE PURCHASER, THE HOUSEHOLD PURCHASING THE UNIT SHOULD MAKE NO MORE THAN 120% AREA MEDIAN INCOME.

THERE IS ALSO THE DECATUR LAND TRUST THAT WILL BE ABLE TO HELP THE DEVELOPER FIND THE PURCHASERS THAT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE THE INCOME. AND WE ALSO HAVE A PREFERRED LENDER THAT ALSO UNDERSTANDS ANY SORT OF DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT COME ALONG WITH, YOU KNOW.

YEAH. INCOME REQUIREMENTS.

YES. FOR THE RESALE OF THESE ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE SAME REQUIREMENTS.

RIGHT. AND WE HAVE A FORMULA RESALE FORMULA AS WELL THROUGH THE THROUGH THE LAND TRUST.

IN WHICH CASE WOULD THERE BE TWO.

IF THERE'S 15 OR SOMETHING THEN IT'S 1.5.

THEN YOU DO TWO. CORRECT. YES.

SO ANYTHING UNDER 15 WOULD BE ONE.

RIGHT. AND SO THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN.

SO ANY FRACTION OF 0.5 AND ABOVE YOU ROUND UP AND OF COURSE LESS YOU WOULD ROUND DOWN.

YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO DO ONE.

AND JUST FOR CLARITY, WOULD YOU REPEAT CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR AGAIN? YES. THANK YOU.

FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.

OKAY. SO CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR IS THAT THE INCLUSIONARY DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO BE FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT IN STYLE AND QUALITY WITH THE MARKET RATE DWELLING UNITS IN THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO I GUESS YOU COULD ARGUE THAT BECAUSE IT'S ONE CAR GARAGE, THEY'RE NOT FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT, BECAUSE EVEN THE 16 FOOTERS HAVE TWO CARS.

BUT EVEN WITH THE THE PARKING, IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S STILL MEETING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, I THINK, FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR WHAT I BROUGHT UP IS JUST MEETING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 16FT OF WIDTH.

SO. YEAH.

YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET TWO CARS SIDE BY SIDE WITH 15FT.

YEAH. LOOKS LIKE THE 18 MAYBE.

YEAH. I MEAN, THE GARAGES AND THE DOORS WITH A DOUBLE DOOR.

SO SINGLE. THEY DO.

THERE'S I'VE SEEN TOWNHOUSES WHERE THEY HAVE.

TWO CARS.

TANDEM IN SUCCESSION, IN TANDEM.

YEAH. SO I MEAN, IT'S POSSIBLE TO MAKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT WORK, BUT.

DO WE WANT TO START WITH LOOKING AT JUST THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THEN MOVE.

FOR THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.

SO IF WE WERE TO TRY TO PUT IN A CONDITION THAT.

THE UNITS NOT INTENDED TO BE 16FT.

WHERE DOES THAT FALL FALL ON? I ASSUMED IT WOULD FALL IN THE CONDITIONAL USE ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THEN BE FORWARDED TO CITY COMMISSION.

AND THEN A POSSIBLE ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCE.

WE ALL CAN FEEL FREE TO CHANGE.

THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL.

WHEREAS ALL FOUR CONDITIONS OF THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE MUST BE MET.

OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

AND THAT'S WHERE I SEE MYSELF FALLING.

I UNDERSTAND THE ATTEMPT TO MAKE TWO UNITS.

BUT THEY'RE TWO INFERIOR UNITS, AND THEY DON'T MEET THE SPIRIT OF THE AFFORDABLE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING GOAL.

GO ALONG WITH THAT, BUT WE CAN STILL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE, I GUESS IS YOUR POINT.

AS OF TOWNHOUSES, IF IT.

I THINK WE COULD WITH THE ADDITIONAL WHEREAS.

[00:35:02]

BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO EITHER.

THERE'S ONE THING I AM HEARING IS IF THAT CONDITION WAS PUT IN, THERE MIGHT BE A REDESIGN.

AFTER THIS THOUGH, WE NEED TO BE SOME REDESIGN OF THIS TO MEET.

ALL FOUR REQUIREMENTS.

BUT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A TOWNHOUSE AND USE, I GUESS, IS MY POINT, RIGHT? AS LONG AS THAT WAS MET WITH THE EXTRA CONDITION, AND ASSUMING THE 50 FOOT HEIGHT WAS REQUIREMENT, IT COULD GO FORWARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

AND ANGELA, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IF THE CHANGES DID NOT INCORPORATE ALL FOUR CONDITIONS OF THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE, IT WOULD THEN GO BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, WHO I BELIEVE HAS FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY.

THEY DO. A COUPLE OTHER SETBACK VIOLATIONS ON THIS RENDERING RIGHT NOW.

SOUTHEAST CORNER AND.

SOME SORT OF PATIO OFFER UNIT A ONE.

WHO'S ASKING ABOUT THAT EARLIER TOO? BUT YOU SAID THAT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY.

RIGHT CORNER. YEAH, THAT'S GOOD CORNER.

THIS THING, IT'S HANGING OVER THE THREE.

ARE YOU SAYING THIS WAY? YEAH, YEAH.

IF YOU ZOOM IN AND SEE BETTER.

ADJACENT BUILDING IN THE PROPERTY JUST TO THE NORTH, ACTUALLY OVER THE PROPERTY.

THAT ULTIMATELY STOOPS ON THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY.

ACTUALLY I DO. ANGEL, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

SINCE THE ORDINANCE DOES REFERENCE EXHIBIT A AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD SHOW THE 12 TOWNHOMES. IF THIS WAS CHANGED AND THE NUMBER OF TOWNHOMES WAS CHANGED, WOULD IT NEED TO COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION? TYPICALLY, WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS DONE FOR THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS TO STATE THAT IT SHALL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR.

BUT IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR, THEN YES, IT WOULD NEED TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

IT'S THE FIRST MOTION.

KIND OF SHAKEN UP TO SOUND LIKE.

ALLOWING IF THEY MEET ALL FOUR ELEMENTS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I WOULD LOVE TO GET Y'ALL'S THOUGHTS ONE MORE TIME ON THIS SORT OF FACADE OF THE C UNIT.

I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS, RIGHT, WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO BE FACING AT EAST HOWARD.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE STUDIED THE ELEVATIONS, BUT I MEAN, IT'S LITERALLY JUST LIKE A 30 FOOT STUCCO WALL.

I MEAN, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE APPROVING CONDITIONS, I'D LIKE TO TRY TO IMPROVE THIS ESTHETICALLY A LITTLE BIT.

SUBJECT TO STAFF FEEDBACK, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SORT OF SOLVE IT HERE, BUT I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE JUST ASK THEM TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT.

ANYBODY ELSE. NO.

NO. YEAH.

NO. ESTHETICS ARE ESTHETICS ARE IMPORTANT.

ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT LARGE.

I SORT OF I WOULD SUGGEST WE DEFER TO STAFF'S JUDGMENT, BUT JUST ASK THAT THEY MAYBE JUST TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT.

I MEAN, WHAT THRESHOLD OR CHANGE WOULD COULD WE DESCRIBE THAT? WOULD I MEAN, THE AREAS AROUND THIS BRIDGE.

I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT NATURAL BUILDING MATERIALS IN OUR AREA, IT'S BRICK.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S AND THERE'S BRICK ELEMENTS ON OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS.

YEAH. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF MATERIALS WITH ANY THAT THEY COULD DRAW FROM IS A BRICK.

YEAH. THERE'S SOME THERE'S THERE'S WOOD ACCENTS.

I MEAN, I WOULD JUST TRY TO USE ELEMENTS FROM THIS.

I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU LOOK AT THIS FACADE YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOFTENED MATERIAL AND STUFF, SO I DON'T I DON'T NECESSARILY I DON'T KNOW HOW PRESCRIPTIVE WE NEED TO BE, BUT.

I DON'T KNOW. WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? YEAH, I MEAN, WE THE COOL THING ABOUT IS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS WE CAN PUT ALL KINDS OF CAVEATS ON, FOR BETTER OR WORSE.

IF I MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT THE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS OF THE FACADES THAT FACE THE PUBLIC STREET.

[00:40:06]

SO YOU WERE MENTIONING UNIT C THERE AT THE CORNER OF CHURCH AND HOWARD, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. SO IN ARTICLE TWO OF OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, THERE ARE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS ON BLANK WALL AREA.

AND SO WHEN THIS GOES THROUGH THE ZONING REVIEW, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT MAKING SURE THAT THOSE FACADES THAT FACE A PUBLIC STREET MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS.

ONE THING I WILL POINT OUT IS THAT DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IS THE RAILROAD.

AND SO, I DON'T KNOW, REQUIRING ADDITIONAL WINDOWS AND OPENINGS MAY NOT BE ALL THAT GREAT, BUT I'M LESS FOCUSED ON OPENINGS AND MORE JUST MATERIAL DIFFERENTIATION.

SO IT'S NOT JUST SUCH A LONG, BLANK FACADE, BUT YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN.

IN LIGHT OF THE NEW TREE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE WORKING UNDER AND THE DESIRE TO KEEP THE EXISTING CANOPY.

I UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPER HAS INDICATED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PRESERVE THE TREES.

THE PLAN IS TO PRESERVE ALL OF THE HEALTHY TREES.

AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

CAN WE ADD SOMETHING TO PRECLUDE THE USE OF THE THE TREE COMPENSATION FEE IN LIEU OF PRESERVATION OF TREES.

YEAH. JUST TO ENSURE THAT WHAT COULD WHAT COULD BE TOLD US TODAY IS A HEALTHY TREE COULD QUICKLY BECOME A DISEASE TREE.

IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH.

WOULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? THE BASICALLY THE TREE CANOPY COVERAGE MUST BE MET FULLY ON SITE WITH NO USE OF THE TREE BANK.

THAT'S AN ALLOWANCE.

THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY CONCISE.

IT'S PAID INTO THE FUND.

AND IT MIGHT BE USEFUL BEFORE WE PUT A MOTION FORWARD TO CLICK THROUGH THE REVIEW STANDARDS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

WHETHER THE PROPOSED USE IS SUITABLE IN VIEW OF THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTY.

I SUPPORT THAT, I THINK, YES, I MEAN, IT'S WHETHER THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE USE IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED.

YEAH. I MEAN, AS MR. WALLACE POINTED OUT, THEIR TOWNHOUSE, TOWNHOMES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF CHURCH STREET, FURTHER UP.

THEY'RE NOT 50FT TALL, THOUGH.

SO THEY DID IT.

THEY KEPT IT WITHIN 40FT.

I THINK HE'S REFERRING TO THE ONES NEAR CLOSER TOWARDS TRINITY.

OH. COPS OUTSIDE SET THE CORNER OF HOWARD.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO.

IF YOU GO UP CHURCH STREET TOWARDS TRINITY CHURCH.

SEARCH RIGHT THERE.

OH, OKAY. I KNOW THAT ONE. THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

THEY'RE BASICALLY THE THEY'RE THIS WITHOUT THE TOP PART.

WITHOUT THE EXTRA STORY.

WHETHER THE PROPOSED USE RESULTS IN A USE WHICH WILL OR COULD CAUSE AN EXCESSIVE OR BURDENSOME USE OF EXISTING STREETS, TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, UTILITIES, OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES.

I MEAN THAT, RIGHT? I DON'T THINK IT DOES.

I MEAN, YES AND NO.

I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO PUT A LOT.

IT'S GOING TO PUT TRAFFIC ON TRINITY, GOING TO HOWARD TO COME KICK YOUR WAY BACK TO GET TO YOUR HOME.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO DOWN TRINITY, TO THE CRAZY INTERSECTION AT THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND COME BACK ON HOWARD.

I WOULD GUESS A LOT OF THESE POTENTIAL FUTURE HOMEOWNERS WILL COME DOWN CHURCH AND MAKE THAT QUICK LEFT AND INTO THE DRIVEWAY.

I MEAN, AND JUST HOPE NO ONE'S COMING THE OTHER WAY, WHICH THEY'LL BE ABLE TO SEE.

SO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S REALITY IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN, BUT.

BUT THAT'S THE ONLY REALLY IMPACT.

AND NUMBER FIVE IS WHETHER THERE IS ADEQUATE INGRESS AND EGRESS.

KIND OF RELATED TO THAT DISCUSSION TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, INCLUDING EVALUATION OF THE TRAFFIC, IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED USE AND STREET CAPACITY. IT'S SIGNIFICANT, WHICH IS 12 CARS.

SO IT'S ACCESSIBLE AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS DOES NOT CREATE THAT MUCH.

[00:45:05]

YEAH. TRAFFIC.

AND FINALLY WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER EXISTING OR CHANGING CONDITIONS, WHICH BECAUSE OF THEIR IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALITY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY, GIVE SUPPORTING GROUNDS FOR EITHER APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.

CAST A WIDE NET.

IT DOES CAST A WIDE NET.

BUT I DON'T SEE ANY.

I DON'T SEE ANY.

SO WHAT I HAVE IS A POSSIBLE MOTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

WITH THE EXISTING ORDINANCE ADDING.

WHEREAS ALL FOUR CONDITIONS OF THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE MUST BE MET.

I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, SO CORRECT ME.

WHEREAS THE TREE CANOPY COVERAGE MUST BE MET.

AND THEN I WROTE WITHOUT USING THE TREE BANK.

YEAH. FULLY ON SITE, FULLY ON SITE.

FULLY ON SITE WITHOUT.

FULLY ON. OKAY.

SO WE DO WANT THAT. OKAY.

GONNA OFFER SOME INFORMATION ON THAT PERSPECTIVE.

SO. BY ME.

WE WE WERE ASKED BY THE CITY PLANNERS AND JENNINGS BELL TO ALIGN THIS SIDEWALK.

THERE'S A BUNCH OF EXISTING ELMS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO DO THAT, BECAUSE THEY SIT WHERE THE SIDEWALK WILL BE.

SO YOUR PLAN, THE TREES THAT ARE DEPICTED THERE ARE THOSE THE REPLACEMENTS? THOSE ARE NEW TREES, RIGHT? YEAH. THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THE SIDEWALK WORK, THE WAY THAT THE CITY STAFF WANTS IT TO WORK, IS TO REMOVE THOSE TREES.

YEAH. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

WE'RE JUST SAYING. YOU'RE SAYING YOU HAVE TO PLANT NEW TREES.

YOU GOT TO MAKE SURE I DON'T, I DON'T, I JUST I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE HELD AGAINST US.

YEAH, YEAH. NO CUTTING DOWN TREES.

THOSE ELMS THAT THEY'RE NOT FULLY MATURE.

YET EITHER.

I DON'T KNOW HOW RECENTLY THEY'VE BEEN PUT IN.

THERE WAS A VERY MATURE TREE DOWN AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER THAT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE.

THAT WAS REMOVED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING TO TRY TO KEEP.

BUT THESE EXISTING ELMS ARE.

THE FLEXIBLE.

SO WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, THEY COULD MOVE FORWARD AND DROP FROM THE 12 UNITS TO 11.

WITH ONE AFFORDABLE.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF THAT WOULD, UNLESS THEY MAKE THAT ALSO A TWO CAR GARAGE.

TO SAY THAT IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR.

I'M NOT SURE THAT JUST DROPPING AND LEAVING.

RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. YEAH.

NO, THEY WOULD HAVE THEY'D HAVE TO MAKE IT WIDER.

BUT WE WOULD, WE WOULD GO FROM 12 TO 11 IF THERE WERE OTHER UNITS IN HERE THAT HAD ONE CAR GARAGE AS WELL, THEN I WOULD THINK, I THINK THE CASE COULD BE MADE THAT THEY'RE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR.

BUT YEAH, THEY'D HAVE TO BASICALLY REPLICATE A UNIT B STYLE.

YEAH. OR, OR INTERSPERSE A COUPLE OF THE WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY HELP THEM.

IN FACT, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE, THEY COULD PULL IN FROM THE RIGHT AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THEIR BEING OVER ON THE SETBACK OVER THERE.

I GOT TO FIX THAT.

SO OUR OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO I AGREE THAT WE DEFER THIS.

OR ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO.

LOOK AT THOSE ISSUES AND COME BACK.

I WANT TO DEFER IT.

WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK IF THE DEFER OR DENY OR RECOMMEND NON-APPROVAL WITH THESE CAVEATS? OR IS THE APPLICANT WILLING TO EXCEPT? ACTUALLY. SO WITH THIS NO CONSENSUS ON THE STUCCO, THOUGH.

YOU GUYS DON'T FEEL STRONGLY.

YEAH, I KNOW I AGREE WITH YOU, MARK, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT ENHANCING THE FACADE ON THE SOUTH FACADE ON UNIT C6 TO BE MORE SIMILAR TO THE FRONT FACING FACADES OF ALL OF THE OTHER UNITS TO UTILIZE THE BECAUSE IT IS FRONT FACING AND HOWARD UTILIZE THE CURRENT, YOU KNOW, THE ARCHITECTURAL PALETTE.

[00:50:01]

YEAH. SO SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR TO REPLICATE SOMETHING ALSO ONE OF THE OTHER ELEVATIONS.

YOU. YEAH.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THESE ALL FACE THE FRONT, THESE ALL FACE THE FRONT, AND THESE ALL HAVE THESE INTERESTING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS WITH ALL THESE VARIED MATERIALS.

RIGHT. BLANK.

THIS WALL IS JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST VERY FLAT AND VERY, YOU KNOW UNARTICULATED WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT I PERCEIVE, I GUESS I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THE MARKET PERCEIVES AS AN INFERIOR MATERIAL.

SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THESE DESIGN ELEMENTS ON, ON THIS PARTICULAR UNIT C6 FACING EAST HOWARD.

TO ME, THAT SEEMS LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERSTEP OF OUR OBLIGATIONS.

FOR THIS BOARD AND IF THE MARKET DECIDES THAT IT'S NOT ADEQUATE, THEN.

I THINK, THOUGH I CONCUR WITH JASON.

I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS.

PUT SOME REQUIREMENTS ON THAT WILL ULTIMATELY IMPROVE IT FROM A COMMUNITY STANDPOINT.

BUT WHEN WE GET INTO.

MANAGING ASPECTS OF THAT GO BEYOND THE ORDINANCES.

I DON'T SEE THAT AS OUR ROLE.

I HOPE THE APPLICANT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT'S BEING SAID.

BUT. PUTTING IT IN THE.

AND THERE WERE NO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO COME TO THIS MEETING AND ADVOCATE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT EITHER.

OKAY.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'M GOING TO READ IT ONE MORE TIME.

SO THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN.

WITH TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, WHEREAS ALL FOUR CONDITIONS OF THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE MUST BE MET.

AND WHEREAS THE TREE CANOPY COVERAGE MUST BE MET FULLY ON SITE WITHOUT USING THE TREE BANK.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? A MOTION IS ON THE TABLE.

THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY HI.

YES. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED.

ANY ABSTAIN.

MOTION PASSES.

THEN MOVING ON TO THE SECOND IS THE.

[III.b. Andrew Rutledge with Office of Design has requested a special exception height variance from 40 feet (max.) to 50 feet for townhomes at 111 Church Street.]

40FT TO 50FT.

AND THERE ARE ALSO SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT EXCEPTION.

AND THERE'S SOME MORE. THE SUITABILITY OF THE PROPOSED EXCEPTION IN VIEW, AND USE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTIES.

THE IMPACT THAT THE PROPOSED EXCEPTION WILL HAVE ON THE EXISTING USE OR USABILITY OF ADJACENT OR NEARBY PROPERTIES.

AND THE IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY TRAFFIC ON THE PUBLIC STREETS, TRANSPORTATION, THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED EXCEPTION ON ESTABLISHED PROPERTY VALUES ON THE HEALTH, SAFETY, COMFORT AND GENERAL WELFARE, AND ANY ADDITIONAL CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE SECTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

SO CONSIDERATIONS AS LISTED ON THE STAFF REPORT USES AND HEIGHTS OF ADJACENT OR NEARBY BUILDINGS.

IMPACT THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL HAVE ON THE LIGHT, AIR AND SHADING OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY BUILDINGS.

IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY, TRAFFIC ON THE PUBLIC STREETS, TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, UTILITIES, AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES.

LISTED TWICE, IN FACT, THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL HAVE ON THE ESTABLISHED PROPERTY VALUES.

[00:55:09]

IT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY SHADE.

WITH THE PROPERTY JUST TO THE NORTH.

DRAMATICALLY SO BECAUSE YOU HAVE 50FT AT A THREE FOOT SETBACK.

IT WILL BE DRAMATIC.

I'LL LOOK AT SOME SUN ANGLES.

THEY WON'T EVEN SEE THE SUN ON THE WINTER SOLSTICE.

WILL COMPLETELY BLOCK THE SUN.

ON THE WINNER.

SO WORST CASE, IT'S THE WORST CASE.

NOT SURE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR ANGELA CASEY, BUT IF BY RIGHT, IF THEY WERE TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, IS THERE A SETBACK REQUIREMENT ABOVE THE 40FT? 50FT? LIKE, WHAT'S THE THRESHOLD AT WHICH A SETBACK REQUIREMENT MIGHT APPLY? THAT ONLY APPLIES WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE LIKE THE ARLO AND IT CAN CONTINUE UP 80FT.

OKAY. YEAH. WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT? YES.

IN YOUR OPINION, JOHN? WOULD. THESE TOWNHOMES, AT THE HEIGHT OF 40FT HAVE THE SAME EFFECT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY? ON.

DON'T BLOCK THE SUN ON THE WINTER SOLSTICE AT THE FAR END OF THAT PROPERTY.

IT'S 30 DEGREES TO 40FT.

36 DEGREES.

LOOKING UP AT 50FT.

AND THE SUN ANGLE ON THE WINTER SOLSTICE IS 33 DEGREES.

IT'S PRETTY COOL.

PEAK ABOVE THE..

YEAH. PEAK ABOVE.

BUT TO THE POINT IF TOWNHOMES WEREN'T BEING BUILT HERE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE, IT COULD BE 80FT. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS NOT A RESIDENCE.

VACATION PROPERTY COULD BECOME A DEFEAT.

THAT'S TRUE, MR. RUTLEDGE. IF YOU WOULD IF YOU'D LOOK AT ELEVATION TWO, THE ONE FACING HOWARD STREET, WHICH I THINK OR YOU CAN LOOK AT ELEVATION ONE.

THE ONE FACING CHURCH STREET.

THE VERTICAL ELEMENT THAT'S ON THE FRONT FACE OF THAT, OF THE BUILDING.

WHAT'S THE PEAK HEIGHT OF THAT? WHAT'S THE TOP HEIGHT OF THAT? 50FT? THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE ONE.

THE ONE FOR UNITS B, THE VERTICAL ELEMENT OF THE VERTICAL WALL.

I CAN I CAN POINT IT TO YOU IF YOU CAN SEE TALKING ABOUT THAT RIGHT THERE.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS 42.

THAT'S 42.

YEAH. BECAUSE IF THERE'S OCCUPATION ON THAT ROOF, WE HAVE TO HAVE A 42 INCH TALL GUARDRAIL.

I REALLY WISH YOU HAD DONE AN ELEVATION LIKE THAT, BY THE WAY.

THAT SHOWED A PEDESTRIAN STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK NEXT TO THE BUILDING.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL.

SO JUST FUTURE.

REFERENCE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR.

THE ISOMETRIC KIND OF ANGLE.

IT'S JUST NOT. THAT'S NOT HELPFUL, BY THE WAY.

WE'RE NOT A BIRD. JUST SAYING SORRY DIDN'T APPEASE YOU.

YEAH. JUST FUTURE REFERENCE.

YEAH. THANKS. APPRECIATE IT.

TWO FOOT HIGH. SIX FOOT TALL PERSON.

BACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIDEWALK.

I DON'T NEED TO WAIT FOR ME.

[01:00:03]

FOR SOME ANGLES.

IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE 40 TO 50FT? ANY AMENDMENTS TO THIS OR IS IT JUST.

HAS ANYBODY PROPOSED ANY? NO. NO AMENDMENTS.

UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY TO PROPOSE.

I DO.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS DRAFTED.

SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ONE OPPOSED, ANY ABSTAINED.

THE MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU.

AND OTHER OTHER BUSINESS.

[IV.a. Next meeting: April 9, 2024.]

WE HAVE OUR NEXT MEETING IN APRIL.

WHICH SMARTIES WILL BE BACK BEFORE US? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

AND THAT'S IT, THOUGH.

THAT'S IT. SMARTIES IS BACK.

IT'S BEEN A YEAR.

A YEAR. THIS HAS BEEN A YEAR.

OH. MEETING ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.