Mar 20, 2023 Planning Commission

TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

AT THIS TIME WE'LL MOVE ON

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 13TH MEETING? MOVE BY COMMISSIONER ELLEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STERLING, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPROVING THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, THOSE ITEMS HAVE NOW BEEN APPROVED.

WE'LL NOW MOVE ON

[COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE]

TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FROM MR. UH, LUENBERGER, UH, COMMISSION.

UM, I'M JEFFREY BERGER, LONG-RANGE PLANNING MANAGER FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

UM, AND I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON HOW WE'RE GOING WITH OUR FUTURE, UM, B R FIVE YEAR UPDATE THAT WE'VE STARTED THIS YEAR FOR, FOR THE MOST PART, WE ARE STILL WORKING IN-HOUSE ON EVERYTHING.

THE PLANNING STAFF HAS PRETTY MUCH COMPLETELY HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE PRELIMINARY VIEWS OF EACH ELEMENTS CHAPTER.

WE HAVE NINE CHAPTERS OR NINE ELEMENTS IN THE CHAPTERS.

UM, SO WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND LOOKED AT THE DEMOGRAPHICS STATISTICS IN ANY PROGRESS MADE SINCE 2018 SINCE THE LAST UPDATE.

SO WE'VE GONE THROUGH THOSE.

WE'VE ALSO HAVE MET WITH, UM, WE ARE MEETING AND HAVE MET WITH MOST OF THE 33 LEAD AGENCIES TO GO THROUGH THEIR ACTION ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE TO UPDATE AND AMEND THOSE AS NEEDED.

UM, IN ADDITION, THE PLANNING STAFF HAS BEEN GOING OVER THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAKING ANY CHANGES THAT WE'VE NOTED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS THAT HAVE HAPPENED, UM, IN ADDITION TO THINGS THAT WE FEEL, UM, NEED TO MAKE PROGRESS AND FOR THIS FIVE YEAR UPDATE.

AND LASTLY, WE'RE WORKING ON GETTING THE MAJOR STREET PLAN MORE ALIGNED TO, UM, THE W MORE ALIGNED TO WHAT THE UPDATES FROM THE 2018 SINCE, SINCE THE 2018.

AND WE ALSO WANTED TO ALIGN IT WITH THE MASTER, UM, WITH THE MOVE VR PROJECTS BECAUSE, UM, SOME OF THE MAJOR STREET PLAN AND THERE IN THE MOVE VR PROJECTS, WE JUST WANTED MAKE SURE THAT THAT THEY'RE ALIGNING CORRECTLY AND THAT WE'RE GIVING THAT INFORMATION TO YOU GUYS TO MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS WHEN WE'RE MA WE'RE DOING THOSE CASES.

SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE ON, ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN-HOUSE AND TRYING TO GET THIS PROCESS MOVING SO WE CAN HAVE AN ADOPTION OF THE, THE FIVE YEAR UPDATE BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

SO ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

AT THIS TIME, WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK VICE CHAIRMAN GROUT TO READ IN THE RULES FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC HEARINGS, RULES FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC HEARINGS.

ANY INTERESTED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO COMMENT ON ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA MAY COMMENT IN PERSON AT CITY HALL 2 22 ST.

LOUIS STREET, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA, 7 0 8 0 2 THIRD FLOOR ROOM 3 48.

DURING THE MEETING, ALL COMMENTS WILL BE BROADCAST ON WWW.BR.GOV ON METRO 21 COX, CHANNEL 21 AT T CHANNEL 99.

AND ON THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, UH, CITY OF BATON ROUGE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE FACEBOOK PAGE BY A FACEBOOK LIVE.

COMMENTS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:00 PM OF THE MEETING.

DATE WILL BE COMPILED BY POSITION FOR OR AGAINST, AND THE TOTAL NUMBER WILL BE ANNOUNCED BEFORE THE ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY INTERESTED PERSON WHO DOES NOT WISH TO COMMENT IN PERSON MAY USE THE FORM FOUND@HTTPSWWW.BR.GOV FORWARD SLASH PCBC.

APPLICANTS AND APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PROPOSAL WILL SPEAK FIRST FOR A PERIOD OF NOT TO EXCEED 15 MINUTES.

THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK ON A PARTICULAR ITEM SHOULD REFER TO A MEETING AGENDA AND FILL OUT A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM.

ONCE THE ITEM IS ANNOUNCED, EACH PERSON'S NAME WHO IS FILLED OUT A FORM WILL BE CALLED ON TO SPEAK.

PROPONENTS WILL SPEAK, AND THEN THE OPPONENTS, EACH SPEAKER WILL NOT BE ALLOWED MORE THAN THREE MINUTES.

SPEAKERS ARE REQUESTED TO LIMIT THEIR REMARKS TO AVOID DUPLICATION IN THEIR PRESENTATIONS.

APPLICANTS WILL BE ALLOWED A A TOTAL OF FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU MR. GRUTE.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

I'LL ASK MR. MOORE TO READ THOSE ITEMS FOR US.

CONSENT AGENDA, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON CONSENT FOR WITHDRAWAL.

ITEM NUMBER TWO, PA THREE DASH 23 1 64 81 OLD SCENIC HIGHWAY TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FROM AGRICULTURAL, RURAL TO COMMERCIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE

[00:05:01]

OF OLD SCENIC HIGHWAY NORTH OF MIAL AVENUE.

IN ITEM NUMBER THREE K SEVEN DASH 23.

AGAIN, 16 4 81 OLD SCENIC HIGHWAY TO REZONE FROM RURAL TO LIGHT.

COMMERCIAL TWO L C TWO ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD SCENIC HIGHWAY NORTH OF MIRIAL AVENUE.

THESE WERE WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT ON MARCH THE 16TH.

THERE ARE NO ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL.

ITEMS FOR APPROVAL.

ITEM NUMBER NINE, CASE EIGHT DASH 23 1 0 1 43.

PATRIOT DRIVE TO REZONE FROM COMMERCIAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE BAR OR LOUNGE, C A B TWO TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL ONE EIGHT C ONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE END OF PATRIOT DRIVE WEST OF EMMETT BOURGEOIS LANE.

ITEM NUMBER 11, CASE 12 23 31 51 COLLEGE DRIVE TO REZONE FROM COMMERCIAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE RESTAURANT, C A B ONE TO COMMERCIAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE BAR OR LOUNGE, C A TWO ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLEGE DRIVE SOUTH OF CONCORD AVENUE.

ITEM NUMBER 12, CASE 13 23 29 0 3.

IN 29 19 PERKINS ROAD TO REZONE FROM LIGHT COMMERCIAL C1 AND COMMERCIAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE RESTAURANT, C A B ONE TO COMMERCIAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE RESTAURANT, C A B ONE AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL ONE LC ONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PERKINS ROAD, EAST OF CHRISTIAN STREET.

ITEM NUMBER 14, PUT TWO DASH ZERO ZERO C STORE BURBANK UNIVERSITY FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PROPOSED CONVENIENCE STORE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NICHOLSON DRIVE EAST OF BEN HERR ROAD.

ITEM NUMBER 15, PUT THREE DASH 22 PHASE ONE NORTHRIDGE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD SCENIC HIGHWAY SOUTH OF MIAL AVENUE.

ITEM NUMBER 16 CS SIX DASH 23 GEORGE HUGHES TRACK.

PROPOSED FLAG LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF JACKSON ROAD, EAST OF REAMS ROAD.

AND ITEM NUMBER 17 CS SEVEN DASH 23.

CARRIE SANFORD TRACT PROPOSED FLAG LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PORT HUDSON PRIDE ROAD, EAST OF COOK ROAD PLANNING COMMISSION.

STAFF CERTIFIES THAT ALL OF THESE ITEMS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE UDC.

THANK YOU MR. MORAN COMMISSION MEMBERS, YOU HAVE NOW HEARD ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT WILL BE TAKEN WITH ONE VOTE.

ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION WHO HAVE AN ITEM ON CONSENT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE PULLED TO BE HEARD AS PART OF THE REGULAR AGENDA? DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE.

IS THERE A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION FROM VICE CHAIRMAN GROUT SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LATINA.

UH, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIVES TO ACCEPTING THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE OF THOSE ITEMS HAVE NOW BEEN APPROVED AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THE

[Items 4 & 5]

NEXT TWO ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN TOGETHER.

IT'S ITEMS FOUR AND ITEMS FIVE.

PA DASH FOUR DASH 23 48 50 JEWEL ROAD, 91 50 AND 91 80 NORTH RIDGEWOOD DRIVE RELATED TO CASE NINE DASH 23.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OUT OF JEWEL ROAD, SOUTH OF NORTH RIDGEWOOD DRIVE COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE HIRST.

THE APPLICANT IS MARRE PACK.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSED CHANGING A COMPREHENSIVE USES PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD RELATED CASE NINE DASH 23.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO REZONE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, A ONE TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL TWO LC TWO PROPOSED USE COMMERCIAL.

THE FUTURE BUREAU LENIENT DESIGNATION IS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PA DASH FOUR DASH 23 4 8 50, JEWEL ROAD 91 50 AND 91 80 NORTH RIDGEWOOD DRIVE RELATED TO CASE NINE DASH 23.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT BASED UPON EXAMINATION OF THE AREA AT A FURTHER LEVEL OF DETAIL AND COMPATIBILITY

[00:10:01]

WITH SURROUNDING USES.

STAFF ALSO CERTIFIES THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR OUR CHANGE OF ZONING.

IF THE COMPANION CONFERENCE OF PLAN AMENDMENT IS APPROVED, BEING COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND CONFORMING TO UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICE HAS RECEIVED ONE MESSAGE OF SUPPORT FROM COUNCILMAN HURST AND WE'VE ALSO RECEIVED ONE MESSAGE OF OPPOSITION TO THESE TWO ITEMS. THANK YOU.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 15 MINUTES.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IS THE APPLICANT FOR THESE, THESE TWO ITEMS PRESENT? ARE YOU, ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.

UH, YOU LIKE TO PRESENT THOSE TWO ITEMS? YOU HAVE 15 MINUTES.

HOW Y'ALL DOING? SEE YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

YOU CAN START.

UH, I THINK WE ARE LOOKING AT, UM, LET'S SEE, WHICH YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.

UH, MONTREAL PACK.

UH, 91 80 NORTH RIDGEWOOD DRIVE.

AND ANY INFORMATION YOU'D LIKE TO, YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THESE TWO ITEMS? UH, WE JUST, UH, WE JUST TRYING TO CHANGE, UH, THE AREA.

UH, WE ARE A MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR.

WE HAVE A LOT OF STUDENTS AT I T I, UH, THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MENTOR TO, TO TRY TO CHANGE AND TRY TO BRING, UH, THE YOUTH, UH, INTO A DIFFERENT, UH, ASPECT.

UH, JUST TRY TO BRING THESE PEOPLE IN TO TRY TO TEACH 'EM A BETTER, UH, JUST A BETTER ENVIRONMENT.

UH, WE ARE A LICENSED STATE.

WE'RE BACKED BY TRAIN.

UH, WE ARE BACKED BY A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY B BBB.

UH, WE ARE BACKED BY, UH, THE HEAT PUMP ASSOCIATION, UH, TO TRY TO UPLIFT THE YOUTH, TO TRY TO CHANGE THEM, TO TEACH THEM THE RIGHT WAYS, UH, TO GROW AND BE, UH, PRETTY MUCH, UH, INSPIRATION INTO THE ENVIRONMENT IN THEIR AREA.

UH, AND WHAT THAT, UH, SAID, UH, I THINK, UH, MAKING THIS COMMERCIAL, UH, WILL TRY TO, UH, TEACH THESE GUYS AND, UH, THE, THE YOUNG LADIES TO BE A ASPECT AND BE AN ANCHOR TO THE COMMUNITY.

UH, AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO TRY TO TEACH THESE KIDS TO TRY TO BE, UH, YOU CAN BE MORE, UH, THAN THE JUST THE AVERAGE STUDENT, UH, OR JUST THE AVERAGE PERSON THAT JUST HANGING AROUND BATON ROUGE.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, TRYING TO MAKE THEM TO BE SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE, UH, LIKE TECHNICIANS.

THAT'S WHAT WE NEED IN THE COMMUNITY AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

SO, UH, THAT'S WHY WE ARE TRYING TO, UH, MAKE THIS, UH, UH, ANCHOR TO THE COMMUNITY ON THIS SIDE.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, RYAN, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKER CARDS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

NO ADDITIONAL SPEAKER CARDS OKAY.

FOR THESE ITEMS. OKAY, THANK YOU.

SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER ELER, OR DO, DID YOU I, I I JUST HAD A QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER LANDER? YES, SIR.

TO THE APPLICANT, IF THE A IF THE APPLICANT CAN COME BACK TO THE PODIUM.

WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A QUESTION OR TWO FOR YOU.

UH, SO I GUESS THE QUESTIONS, SO YOU WERE, IS IT GONNA BE LIKE A TRAINING CENTER OR IS THIS A, OR IS THIS WHERE YOU'RE GONNA BE OPERATING A BUSINESS OUT OF? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A BETTER IDEA.

UM, WE DO, WE DO A LOT OF ONSITE TRAINING.

UM, BUT WE HAVE TO BRING 'EM TO THE SHOP TO TEACH 'EM ABOUT THE FIELD.

SO THIS WILL, THIS WILL BE THE SHOP SPACES WHERE THIS WILL BE RIGHT? UHHUH .

UH, HOLD ON ONE SECOND, SIR.

UH, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY.

ANY COMMENTS OR MOTIONS? VICE CHAIRMAN GROUT MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

MOTION TO APPROVE FROM VICE CHAIRMAN GROUT.

SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ER.

ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPROVING THESE TWO ITEMS? SEEING NONE, THOSE ITEMS HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

THE NEXT TWO ITEMS MAY BE ALSO TAKEN TOGETHER.

MR. CHAIRMAN,

[Items 6 & 7]

ITEM SIX AND SEVEN.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSED CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE USES PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO COMMERCIAL RELATED CASE 10 DASH 23.

AT THIS TIME, WE'LL HEAR ITEM NUMBER SIX.

PLAN AMENDMENT 5 23.

AND ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, CASE 10 23 94 55 GREENWELL SPRINGS ROAD, PA DASH FIVE DASH 23 94 55 GREENVILLE SPRINGS RELATED TO CASE 10 DASH 23.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH SIDE OF GREENWELL SPRINGS ROAD, EAST OF JEWEL ROAD COUNCIL.

DISTRICT FIVE HURST.

THE APPLICANT IS CHAD STEVENS.

[00:15:01]

THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO REZONE FROM SINGLE FAMILY A ONE TRANSITION B ONE IN LIGHT COMMERCIAL C ONE TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL THREE LC THREE, PROPOSED USE COMMERCIAL.

THE FUTURE B LINEAGES DESIGNATION IS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PA DASH FIVE DASH 23 94 55 GREENVILLE SPRINGS ROAD RELATED TO CASE 10 DASH 23.

STANFORD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT BASED UPON EXAMINATION OF THE AREA AT A FURTHER LEVEL OF DETAIL AND COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING USES.

STAFF ALSO CERTIFIES THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING IF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IS APPROVED, BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND CONFORMING TO UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.

WE'VE RECEIVED ONE MESSAGE OF OPPOSITION TO THESE ITEMS. THANK YOU.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE THE PPLICANT TO SPEAK FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 15 MINUTES.

GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS CHAD STEVENS IN OUR ENGINEERING 93 45 INTERLINE AVENUE, UM, 70,809, UH, HERE TONIGHT, REPRESENTING THE OWNER IN THIS REZONING CASE.

THIS IS AT THE CORNER OF J IN GRIM SPRINGS ROAD.

THIS IS, UM, AN APPROXIMATELY 75 ACRE, UH, PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HE IS REQUESTING TO REZONE 40 OF THOSE 75 ACRES.

UH, TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL THREE.

UH, AS STATED, UH, THIS IS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMP PLAN.

UH, WE ARE ASKING FOR COMMERCIAL.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR COMP PLAN, UH, MAP EVERYTHING, UH, ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, UH, SOUTH OF HURRICANE CREEK IS, UH, COMMERCIAL.

AND THEN, UH, ON THE REZONING TO LC THREE, UH, ALL THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS EITHER C2, UH, C1, OR LC TWO.

UM, SO WE'VE, WE'VE CUT OUT A MIDDLE PIECE THERE THAT'S 30, ABOUT 35 ACRES THAT HE'S LEAVING HIS RESIDENTIAL, UH, HE HAS BEEN DOING SOME, UH, FLOODPLAIN MITIGATION WORK IN THERE.

UH, SO WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR HOLCOMB.

ANY ADDITIONAL CARDS FOR THESE TWO ITEMS? NO ADDITIONAL SPEAKER CARDS.

MEMBERS AT THIS TIME, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, CASE 5 23 29 43 PERKINS ROAD CASE 5 23 29 43 PERKINS ROAD.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, ANY MOTIONS.

THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM COMMISSIONER UH, BANKS TO, UH, APPROVE THESE ITEMS. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SCROGGS.

ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPROVING THESE TWO ITEMS? SEEING NONE.

THOSE ITEMS HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME COMMISSION

[8. Case 5-23 2943 Perkins Road]

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH SIDE OF PERKINS ROAD, WEST OF HOLLY, DALE AVENUE, COUNCIL DISTRICT 12 ROCKA.

THE APPLICANT IS CHRIS G.

YOUNG.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO REZONE FROM LIGHT COMMERCIAL C ONE TO COMMERCIAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE BAR OR LOUNGE, C A B TWO PROPOSED TO USE RESTAURANT WITH ALCOHOL BAR.

THE FUTURE BR LEUS DESIGNATION IS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CASE.

5 23 29 43 PERKINS ROAD.

STAFF CERTIFIES THAT THE PROPOSED REQUEST TO C A B ONE MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE OF PLAN, COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND CONFORMING TO UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF IN THE PARISH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ATTENDED A COMMUNITY MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT IN SOUTHSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RAA ON MARCH 15TH.

ALSO NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE APPLICANT FORMALLY REQUESTED TO AMEND THEIR APPLICATION TO, TO REVISE THEIR REQUEST, UH, FROM C A B TWO DOWN TO C A B ONE ON MARCH 17TH.

YOU HAVE A REVISED STAFF REPORT AT YOUR SEAT REFLECTING THAT CHANGE.

AND THE APPLICATION, AS I'VE MENTIONED, HAS BEEN FORMALLY AMENDED TO REQUEST C A B ONE NOW.

AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 15 MINUTES.

IS THE APPLICANT FOR THIS ITEM PRESENT? IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKER COURTS FOR THIS ITEM? NO ADDITIONAL SPEAKER CORDS FOR THIS ITEM.

[00:20:04]

DIRECT THE HOLCOMB.

IS THERE A CHANCE THAT THE APPLICANT IS IN THE LOBBY? I KNOW WE, THAT SEEMED TO BE THE CASE FOR A COUPLE ITEMS BACK.

WE'LL HAVE STAFF CHECK.

IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM EIGHT? CASE 5 23? IS THAT YOU, MA'AM? OH, OKAY.

HARD, BUT WE'RE SO HAPPY THAT THEY ARE DOING C A B ONE AND WE WANT TO SUPPORT THE, UM, THE RESTAURANT AND IT'LL BE GREAT.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, BUT THE INTERSTATE IS A PARKING LOT.

IT'S A, IT'S HORRIBLE .

MA'AM, IF YOU COULD, UH, FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD FOR US, THAT THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

IF YOU GUYS GET OUR SPEAKER CARD, THAT'D BE WE GET A NICE ADDRESS.

UH, ALSO, UH, COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD IF YOU KNOW I'M ON YOUR WAY OUT? OH, CAROL, COULD YOU COME BACK TO THE MIC PLEASE? WE JUST WANT YOU TO GET YOUR STEPS IN.

THAT'S ALL.

, .

CAROL ANNE BROWN, 3,912.

HI AVENUE, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.

7 0 8.

OH EIGHT.

WHAT ELSE? I THINK THAT'LL DO IT.

YOU HAVE A FANTASTIC MEETING.

YOU ARE REALLY GOOD .

AT THIS TIME WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10.

I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER ADDISON TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.

IS THERE SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SCROGGS.

ANY OBJECTIONS? SEEING NONE OF THAT ITEM HAS BEEN APPROVED

[10. Case 11-23 535 Saint Rose Avenue]

CASE 11 23 5 35 ST.

ROSE AVENUE CASE 11 DASH 23 5 35 ST.

ROSE AVENUE.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST SIDE OF ST.

ROSE AVENUE, SOUTH OF GOVERNMENT STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN COLE.

THE APPLICANT IS GARRISON NE.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO RESUME FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, A TWO TO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE N O PROPOSED TO USE ADDITIONAL PARKING.

THE FUTURE BUREAU LANE'S DESIGNATION IS COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD CASE 11 DASH 23 5 35 ST.

ROSE AVENUE.

STAFF CERTIFIES THAT THE PROPOSED REQUEST MEETS THE MINIMUM, THE CRITERIA FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND CONFORMING TO UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.

AT THIS TIME, ILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK FOR A PERIOD THAT EXCEED 15 MINUTES.

GOOD EVENING, GOOD AFTERNOON.

UH, MY NAME IS CHRIS GRAND, 43 27 SOUTH JEFFREY DRIVE.

I'M HERE FOR THE APPLICANT.

HE IS OUT OF TOWN.

UM, SO I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THE REZONE APPLICATION.

BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS TO REZONE A CURRENT, UM, RESIDENTIAL LOT, UH, TO A ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT WE CAN USE FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING.

IT'S ADJACENT TO A COMMERCIAL LOT ON GOVERNMENT STREET.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD THAT IS IN OPPOSITION THAT IS FOR JUSTIN KOZAK.

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR THREE MINUTES, SIR.

IT UNDERMINES CITY INVESTMENT.

MY NAME'S JUSTIN KOZAK, 1837 OLIVE STREET IN THE GARDEN DISTRICT, UH, 7 0 8 0 2.

I AM THE CURRENT PRESIDENT AT THE GARDEN DISTRICT CIVIC ASSOCIATION.

UH, WE HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER FOR, UH, SINCE BEFORE I WAS PRESIDENT OF THE YEAR AND A HALF ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

WE HAVE OPPOSED THE PARKING LOT, THE REZONE FOR A PARKING LOT IN THE PAST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CONFORM WITH FUTURE VR.

WE THINK, UH, A RESIDENCE IS BETTER.

UM, IT SETS A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT.

IT OPENS A PATH TO FURTHER ENCROACHMENT INTO HISTORICAL RESIDENTIAL, WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT EXACERBATES EXISTING FLOODING ISSUES.

IT WOULD FURTHER COMPOUND A DANGEROUS SITUATION.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT'S UNNECESSARY REZONING A RESIDENTIAL LOT SO THAT A PARKING, UH, LOT CAN BE BUILT SETS A BAD PRECEDENT THAT CAN OPEN A PATH FOR ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT.

UH, REZONING.

THIS UNDERMINES THE CITY INVESTMENT AND THE ROAD DIET.

UH, THE LONG TERM SUCCESS OF THE ROAD DIET IS DEPENDENT ON ENSURING WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE WALKABILITY OF THE AREA.

A PARKING LOT DOES NOT DO THIS.

THERE ARE EXISTING FLOODING ISSUES IN THIS AREA, UH, IN BOTH MCGRATH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE GARDEN DISTRICT CIVIC ASSOCIATION, UH, AND THE GARDEN DISTRICT.

WE ARE IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY ABOUT THIS.

I KNOW IT'S MARGINAL.

IT'S JUST A SMALL, A SMALL PARKING LOT, BUT IT WOULD STILL CONTRIBUTE AT THE MARGINS TO, UH, AN ALREADY OVERBURDENED DRAINED SYSTEM THAT'S CAUSING PROPERTY DAMAGE IN THESE TWO NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT'S A BAD INVESTMENT.

THE PARKING LOT I'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE DEVELOPER HIMSELF DOES NOT GIVE, BRING ANY RETURN

[00:25:01]

FOR HIM.

IT DOESN'T REALLY BRING ANY RETURN FOR THE CITY OR RESIDENTS WOULD DO MORE FOR THAT.

UM, IT'S JUST NOT A PRODUCTIVE USE OF LAND.

A RESIDENTIAL, UH, UNIT WOULD BE MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT'S UNNECESSARY.

THERE'S NO SHORTAGE OF PARKING IN THE, IN THE AREA.

THE DEVELOPER'S GONE OUT OF HIS WAY TO ACQUIRE PERMISSION TO USE UNDERUTILIZED PARKING LOTS IN ADJACENT BUSINESSES, WHICH OFFERED PLENTY OF PARKING AT AN EASILY WALKABLE DISTANCE AWAY.

UH, SO THE AVAILABILITY THAT PARKING'S NOT ADDI, UH, NOT THE ISSUE.

IN ADDITION TO THOSE LOTS, THE DEVELOP, UH, THERE ARE DOZENS OF ON STREET PARKING SPOTS NEARBY, INCLUDING IN THE GARDEN DISTRICT.

YOU CAN PARK ON MOST STREETS IN THE GARDEN DISTRICT ON BOTH SIDES OF IT.

LEGALLY STILL DRIVE A FIRE TRUCK DOWN THE MIDDLE OF IT.

UH, THE, IN SHORT, WHAT WE SEE IS THAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND ARE NOT WRITTEN FOR A WALKABLE COMMUNITY.

THE ROAD DIET IS SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT WAIVING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UH, IS A BETTER PATH FORWARD.

WE NEED MORE HOUSING, NOT MORE PARKING LOTS.

AND FINALLY, THE DANGEROUS SITUATION, THE BARRACUDA TACO, THEIR MECHANICAL UNIT WAS ALLOWED TO BE BUILT IN WHAT IS NORMALLY THE SIDEWALK RIGHT OF WAY THE EASEMENT THERE.

UH, SO BUILDING A PARKING LOT ON ST.

ROSE.

FOR PEOPLE TO PARK IN THAT PARKING LOT AND GET TO THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF BARRACUDA TACO, THEY WOULD'VE TO STEP OUT INTO ST.

ROSE ABOUT 15 TO 20 FEET FROM GOVERNMENT STREET, WHICH IS A 40 MILE AN HOUR STREET.

AND CARS TURNING OFF OF THAT SITUATION, THAT SITUATION ALREADY EXISTED.

IT WOULD JUST BE COMPOUNDED BY, UH, REZONING AND ALLOWING A PARKING LOT.

I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE DEVELOPER.

HE'S BEEN GREAT.

HE'S BEEN VERY COMMUNICATIVE WITH US FOR THE ENTIRE TIME HE'S BEEN DOING THIS.

UM, BUT HE'S BEING PUSHED TO DO THIS.

HE WAS TOLD THAT, UH, THE PARKING LOT REZONE OR THE REZONING WAS THE EASIEST PATH FORWARD FOR HIM TO FINISH DEVELOPING OUT THIS SITE.

I CAN'T SEE THAT, THAT THAT CAN'T BE THE EASIEST WAY FORWARD.

THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING AVAILABLE.

AND IF THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKER CARS, I'LL INVITE THE APPLICANT BACK FOR A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL.

UM, I'M NOT GONNA RESPOND TO FLOODING ISSUES.

I'M NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER.

UM, I AM GOING TO RESPOND TO THE NOTION THAT PARKING IS FREELY AVAILABLE ON GOVERNMENT STREET.

UM, THIS HAS BEEN A VERY POPULAR DEVELOPMENT.

UM, PARKING IS AN ISSUE, AND WE ARE GETTING COMPLAINT AFTER COMPLAINT AFTER COMPLAINT FROM RESIDENTS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GARDEN DISTRICT ON FROM ST.

ROSE OVER A PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET.

SO WE WOULD ASK, WHAT IS IT THAT WE WOULD RATHER HAVE PEOPLE PARKING IN A PARKING LOT OR PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET.

AND THE RESIDENTS ARE TELLING US, DESPITE THE, A, THE RESPONDENT HERE THAT THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE PARKING ON THEIR STREET.

AND I CAN GET IT.

WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR HERE IS A 60 BY 60, UH, VACANT LOT.

IT USED TO HAVE A HOUSE ON IT.

THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE CONDEMNED THE HOUSE AND HAD US TEAR IT DOWN.

AND SO WE DID.

AND IT IS A, A PATCH OF DIRT 60 BY 60 THAT WE CAN GET 10 CARS ON.

THAT WOULD BE 10 LESS CARS PARKING ON ST.

ROSE.

I REALI I I I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE, UM, THE OVERALL NEED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE ON THE GOVERNMENT STREET CORRIDOR TO ACCOMMODATE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND PARKING.

DENYING THIS, UH, SIMPLE REZONE FOR 10 CARS TO GET HIM OFF THE STREET ISN'T GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.

IT, THE, THE PIECE OF PROPERTY IS CONTIGUOUS WITH THE COMMERCIAL LOT.

UH, IT DOES NOT.

UM, IT, THE, THE OWNER HAS NO PLANS TO PUT, I CAN TELL YOU HE HAS NO PLANS TO PUT A HOUSE ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

SO IT'S, IT'S GOING TO SIT THERE VACANT AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ILLEGALLY PARK ON IT.

WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO IS IMPROVE IT AND MAKE IT LOOK NICE AND MAKE IT LOOK, UH, AS EVERY BIT AS NICE AS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT BARRACUDA TACO HAS BRING IT INTO THAT DEVELOPMENT.

RIGHT NOW IT'S AN EYESORE.

AND THIS, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS, FOR THE DEVELOPER TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT RIGHT NOW.

I HOPE YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IT'S AN EYESORE.

SO WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT LOOK NICE.

WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CARS ON IT AND NOT PARKED ON ST.

ROSE AVENUE CAUSING, UH, FURTHER DISTRESS TO THE RESIDENCE.

OPERATION ON THE PROPERTY.

AT THIS TIME I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONER ADDISON, LOOKS LIKE HE HAS WILL'S TURNING.

I'M WONDERING IF HE, UH, HAS SOMETHING HE'D LIKE TO SAY.

COMMISSIONER ADDISON, YOU'RE GETTING GOOD .

UH, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ASK THE, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE, OF THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK UP.

IF YOU COULD COME BACK UP, SIR, PLEASE COME BACK UP, PLEASE.

YOU ANSWERED PART OF MY QUESTION ABOUT HOW MANY ACTUAL PARKING SPOTS ARE YOU GONNA GET ON THE PROPERTY? SAID 10 IN YOUR YEAH.

YES, SIR.

ON YOUR FOLLOW-UP REMARKS, WHICH IS A QUESTION I WAS GONNA HAVE, UM, I HEARD THE, UH, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSOCIATION SAY THAT YOU, YOU, YOU REALLY DON'T NEED ADDITIONAL PARKING BECAUSE OF THAT.

IS THIS PARKING DIRECTLY FOR THE APPLICANT? WHO OWNS THE FACILITY THAT HE SAYS THIS IS ADJACENT TO? IT, IT'S FOR THE TENANT WHO RUNS THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE, UH,

[00:30:01]

SO, SO THE APPLICANT IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

CORRECT.

AND HE'S GONNA LEASE OUT THE 10 PARKING SPACES TO IS CORRECT TO THE TENANT? THAT IS CORRECT.

THAT'S WHAT HE IS DOING? THAT IS CORRECT.

SO IT WOULD BE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF BARRACUDA TACO AND THIS LOT IS, I THOUGHT I SAW 60 BY 50 BY 60 BY 60 APPROXIMATELY? YES, SIR.

60 BY 60.

YES, SIR.

THANK YOU MUCH, I APPRECIATE THAT.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

AND I WOULD LIKE THE GUYS REPRESENTS THE ASSOCIATION COME BACK UP.

IF YOU COULD COME BACK TO THE PODIUM AS WELL, SIR, YOU CAN TALK ABOUT, BECAUSE USUALLY ONE OF OUR BIGGEST CONCERNS IS ENCROACHMENT UPON THE COMMUNITIES.

AND, AND PARKING IS A CONCERN FOR MOST PEOPLE, WHETHER IT'S IN GOVERNMENT STREET COURT OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

USUALLY I DON'T GET THAT ISSUE WITH PEOPLE SAYING WE DON'T WANT MORE PARKING SPACES.

AND PARTICULARLY IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU'LL BE AMAZED HOW MUCH WE'VE HEARD PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS AS WE TRY TO DEAL WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE GOING ON ON GOVERNMENT STREET THAT SAID THEY DON'T WANT ANYMORE PARKING ON OFF STREET PARKING SURFACES.

AND SO TO SAY THAT THE ASSOCIATION DON'T WANT PARKING AND THERE'LL BE A NEED NO NEED BASED ON THE ONSITE PARK STREET PARKING HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CONCERN TO YOU GUYS.

I I, I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I WILL OFFER A, A, A, A COUPLE OF POINTS.

THE GARDEN DISTRICT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM, LET'S TAKE, UH, THE BEER GARDEN EXAMPLE IN CAPITOL HEIGHTS, THAT STREET, YOU COULD DRIVE TWO CARS CAREFULLY PAST EACH OTHER ON IT.

THERE'S NO CURB CUTS, THERE'S NO PARKING ON NO STREETS, UH, THAT, THAT'S READILY AVAILABLE WITHOUT GETTING INTO, UH, UTILITY EASEMENT, WHICH LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY'S FRONT LAWN.

THE GARDEN DISTRICT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THAT REGARD.

TWO, I HAVE HEARD COMPLAINTS ABOUT PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT FOLKS PARKING IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE.

AND I HAVE HEARD PEOPLE SAYING, I WOULD RATHER HAVE, I DON'T WANT PEOPLE PARKING IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT'S TRYING TO HAVE MY CAKE AND EAT AT TWO.

I WOULD MUCH RATHER NOT HAVE A PARKING LOT AS A NEIGHBOR, UH, AND HAVE TO DEAL WITH SOME PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF US.

AND, AND I, I THINK MY FINAL POINT IS MY OBJECTIVE OR MY, WHAT, WHAT I'M TRYING, WHAT I DO AND WHAT THE GARDEN DISTRICT CIVIC ASSOCIATION IS SUPPOSED TO DO IS KEEP THE GARDEN DISTRICT A NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHERE PEOPLE WANNA BE.

AND I CAN'T RATIONALLY ARGUE AGAINST PEOPLE PARKING ON A STREET WHO, UH, ARGUE AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE WHO WANNA BE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.

UH, I GUESS I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR GUYS' POINT, BUT I JUST RAISED THE, THE QUESTION OF, USUALLY IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

THEY DON'T WANT PARKING FROM THEIR HOMES.

THEY DON'T WANT BUSINESSES USING THAT AS A PART OF THEIR COMMERCE.

I MEAN, BECAUSE THEN WHEN YOU START HAVING EVENTS AND ACTIVITY, THEY WANT TO COME AND GO IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THEREFORE THEY SAY, SO AGAIN, I HEAR A DIFFERENT CONFLICTING ARGUMENT TODAY THAT I'VE ALWAYS HEARD UP HERE AT THIS COUNCIL AND WHAT I HEARD ON THE COUNCIL.

SO THAT'S A LITTLE ODD THAT WE ARE ASKING A 60 BY WHATEVER LOT TO NOT HAVE 10 ADDITIONAL PARKING SERVICES FOR AN ONGOING BUSINESS IN THE CORRIDOR.

SO, WELL, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, THOUGH.

A, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPER JUST STATED, HE GOES, THOSE 10 SPOTS AREN'T GONNA MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.

WELL, WILL HE PROBABLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE TENANT ? I I'M SURE HE'S NOT ASKING FOR IT FOR NO REASON.

I MEAN, HE'S PROBABLY A PATRON WHO CAN'T GET TO HIS FACILITY, SO IT MAY NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE QUOTE TO YOUR SIDE, BUT SOMEBODY'S GONNA MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES REQUESTING IT.

I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND THE FOLKS WHO DON'T WANT THE PARKING ON THE STREET, THEY GONNA ALWAYS SAY, DON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

IF THEY DON'T WANT THE PARKING ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE AFTER THOSE 10 SPOTS ARE MADE, ARE STILL GONNA HAVE PARKING IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE AND THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A PARKING LOT NEXT DOOR.

MR. CHAIR, MY MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM COMMISSIONER ADDISON, UH, TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BANKS.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION.

VICE CHAIRMAN GROUT, UH, HAD SOMETHING HE WANTED TO ADD.

UM, VICE CHAIRMAN GROUT, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

UH, I JUST WANNA READ IN.

WE DID HAVE A SPEAKER CARD COME IN.

UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, BUT WE DID HAVE ANOTHER CARD COME IN.

I, I'LL READ THE NAME.

UH, BRETT JONES.

UH, THAT WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM M MR. DIRECTOR.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS A, UM, A NORMAL PARKING, A NORMAL PARKING SPACE IS 18 FEET DEEP.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

UM, IF YOU DO A 60 BY 60 LOT, AND I WENT TO LSU, SO MY MATH MAY BE A LITTLE ROUGH, BUT, UM, THAT'S 36 FEET.

AND THEN TYPICALLY YOU WOULD WANT 24 FOOT DRY VILE IF YOU'RE DOING TWO WAY.

CORRECT.

THAT WOULD BE A ONE WAY THAT'S 20 FEET.

SO WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT BA BASICALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT, 56 FEET AND WIDTH.

IT'S, IT'S A 60 BY SIX THIRD.

SORRY.

IF YOU COULD COME UP.

IT'S A 60 BY 60 SQUARE.

RIGHT.

SO 20, 40, 60.

DON'T WANT TO GIVE, UH, I KNOW I, IF EVERYBODY PARKS CORRECTLY, PROBABLY YES, I KNOW.

AND YOU'RE GONNA GET 10 CARS ON THERE.

UH, IF THEY DIAGONAL.

I MEAN, IT'S, LOOK, I, I

[00:35:01]

AND THAT'S ALWAYS THE PROBLEM.

YEAH.

UM, I, I'M, I'M VERY TORN BY THIS BECAUSE I HATE TO SEE THIS COME BACK BEHIND THE, UH, BEHIND THE LINE, THE, THE FIRST LINE AWAY FROM, UM, GOVERNMENT STREET.

I'M NOT A FAN OF THE ROAD DIET.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT, UM, I UNDERSTAND YOU NEED PARKING.

I'M JUST VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS COMING FURTHER BEHIND FOR JUST 10 SPACES.

UH, SO A AS OF RIGHT NOW, UH, I'M GONNA BE, I THINK IF YOU HAD MORE LAND OR IF YOU WERE TYING THIS INTO SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT LARGER, I WOULD BE YEAH, I, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

YES.

UM, THE, THIS DEVELOPER, NOW, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR.

BUT THIS DEVELOPER ALSO OWNS THE NEXT LOT.

UH, IT IS ALSO ZONED A TWO, THE, THE ONE AT, AT THE CORNER OF WISTERIA.

YES, SIR.

I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE UNINHABITABLE.

NOW, IT ALSO HAS A, UH, A HOME IN VERY POOR REPAIR.

BOTH OF THESE HOUSES WERE IN DEPLORABLE CONDITION WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD.

UM, LOOK, WE DO NOT WANT TO GET CROSSWAYS WITH THE GARDEN DISTRICT.

OKAY? THEY ARE OUR CUSTOMER.

BUT WE NEED SOME, WE GOT TO HAVE SOME PARKING.

WE WANT TO GET THESE PEOPLE OFF THE STREET AND ON THE PROPERTY.

UM, IF THE ONLY WAY TO DO THIS IS TO TEAR THE OTHER HOUSE DOWN, IF YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN'T DO IT UNLESS WE HAVE A BIGGER PARKING LOT, THAT SEEMS TO RUN COUNTER TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

TO NO, I, I, I UNDERSTAND.

I'M, I'M JUST, I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE IS A LINE BA BASICALLY THE FIRST PROPERTIES OFF OF GOVERNMENT STREET WHEN YOU GET BACK IN THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE FACING TOWARD, UH, WISTERIA AND, AND THOSE STREETS.

WELL, THIS ONE'S KIND OF AN ODD LOT BECAUSE IT, I UNDERSTAND IT DOESN'T REALLY FACE GOVERNMENT OR WISTERIA IT FACES.

ST.

ROSE.

YOU KNOW, I, I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, I I, I OFTEN GET TOLD THAT I'M, I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M NEVER IN SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORHOODS, EVEN THOUGH I CAME OUT OF THE FEDERATION.

I REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS HERE WILL NOT.

BUT, UM, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT, I'M NOT A FAN OF THE ROAD DIET.

I KNOW THERE'S CONSTANT PARKING THERE.

I HAVE THAT PROBLEM TOO WHEN I'M THERE.

BUT I'M GONNA HAVE, I'M GONNA HAVE TO, UM, I'M GONNA HAVE TO VOTE NO WHEN THIS ON, ON THE, UH, ON THE, UM, I HAVE QUESTION ON, ON THE MOTION BEFORE THE FLOOR, JUST SO I, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR CONCERN, BUT I JUST WANTED YOU TO, TO BE AWARE OF IT.

I WANTED TO KIND OF GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM YOU TO MAKE SURE.

SURE, SURE, SURE.

I COULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WHERE I WAS GOING.

SO WE HAVE AN OBJECTION ON THE FLOOR FROM, UH, I'M SORRY.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM COMMISSIONER ADDISON TO APPROVE, AND A SECOND, I THINK IT WAS FROM COMMISSIONER BANKS.

BUT I, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE, UH, ONE, ONE OBJECTION SO FAR FROM, UH, VICE CHAIRMAN GRT.

BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER BANKS WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT, UH, OH.

THE, THE, UM, UH, RESIDENT SPEAKER, THE SPEAKER THAT'S IN OP OPPOSITION, IF YOU COULD RETURN TO THE PODIUM, SIR, DID YOU SAY THAT, UM, SO YOU ALL DID NOT HA HAVE NOT HAD ANY COMMUNITY MEETINGS WITH THE COUNCILMAN, UH, HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH COUNCILWOMAN COLEMAN.

HE, THIS COLE, RIGHT? UH, SHE, NO, HE, YEAH, HE DID NOT COME TO OUR ANNUAL MEETING.

COUNCILWOMAN COLEMAN CAME TO OUR ANNUAL MEETING, UH, ABOUT A MONTH AGO.

THAT WAS A WOMAN, COLEMAN PARK, 7 0 8 0 2, THE, OH, THE EAST SIDE.

I'M SORRY.

THE WEST SIDE OF PARK BOULEVARD IS STILL PART OF THE GARDEN DISTRICT.

IT'S ACTUALLY WHERE I LIVE.

SHE'S MY COUNCILWOMAN.

FOR THE AREA, YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

AND SO WE'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH HER.

SO, BUT NO.

UM, HAVE YOU ALL HAD A MEETING SPECIFIC TO THIS ISSUE? WITH WHOM? WITH THE COUNCILMAN COLE? NO, WE HAVE NOT.

HAS ANY OF THAT BEEN PART OF THE PLAN? WE'VE TRIED TO TALK TO AS MANY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AS WE CAN.

WELL, THE REASON IS BECAUSE, UM, USUALLY AS YOU HEARD THE PREVIOUS, THEY HAD A MEETING WITH COUNCILWOMAN ROCKA MM-HMM.

, WHEN THERE'S, UM, AN ISSUE WHERE RESIDENTS ARE, UH, HAVE A CONFLICT REGARDING AN A MEASURE SUCH AS THIS MM-HMM.

, THEN THEY WILL GO TO THAT REPRESENTING COUNCIL MEMBER.

UM, AND, AND THE COUNCILMAN WOULD GET EVERYBODY TOGETHER OR THEY'RE INVITED TO HELP DETERMINE WHAT IS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION.

AND FOR INSTANCE, I, I REPRESENT THE COUNCIL ON PLANNING.

MM-HMM.

SO NOT ONLY ME, BUT EVERYONE HERE WOULD MAY HAVE HAD SOME UNDER SOME, UM, IN FIND OUT HOW THE COUNCILMAN

[00:40:01]

AND I HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION PHONE CALLS AND EMAILS WITH, OKAY.

WE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE COUNCIL MEMBER.

RIGHT.

SO WHAT HAS BEEN THERE? I I HAVE TALKED TO MY COUNCILWOMAN.

I HAVE NOT TALKED TO LAMONT COLE, WHO IS THE COUNCILPERSON OR WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS.

SO YOU, YOU'VE ALSO SEE, YOU SEE WHERE THAT'S A CONFLICT.

WHERE THAT'S A CONFLICT.

SO DO YOU HAVE ANYONE IN DISTRICT SEVEN THAT HAS SPOKEN OUT IN ANY WAY, UH, AND BEEN AT ANY MEETINGS OR SPOKE TO THE COUNCILMAN? OTHER EMAILS OTHER THAN GARDEN DISTRICT CIVIC ASSOCIATION MEETINGS? IN OUR ANNUAL MEETING, WHICH WE HOLD PUBLICLY, UH, THERE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS.

I'M HERE BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTS AT THAT ANNUAL MEETING WHO WERE OPPOSED TO OKAY.

WHO LIVE NOT IN, UH, MY DISTRICT, BUT IN LAMONT, COLES.

I WAS TRYING TO, I WAS TRYING TO FIND A REASON TO, UM, DEFER THE ITEM.

MM-HMM.

BUT I, NOW IT, I I I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

ALL RIGHT.

SO TO BE CLEAR, COMMISSIONER BANKS, YOUR YOUR SECOND STANCE, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM COMMISSIONER ADDISON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BANKS.

WE HAVE ONE OBJECTION FROM VICE CHAIRMAN GROUT.

ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS OR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, THAT ITEM IS APPROVED

[13. PUD-13-06 Penske, Pecue Place, Final Development Plan]

AT THIS TIME.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 13.

PUT 13 0 6 PENSKE PQ PLACE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

PUT DASH 13 DASH SIX PENSKE PQ PLACE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF PQ LANE, NORTH OF INTERSTATE 10 COUNCIL, DISTRICT NINE HUDSON.

THE APPLICANT IS JONATHAN PUFFER.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 25,180 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL TRUCK SALES AND RENTAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE FUTURE BUREAU LE DESIGNATION IS COMMERCIAL PUT DASH 13 DASH ZERO SIX PENSKE PQ PLACE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

STAFF CERTIFIES THAT THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN AND MEETS THE MINIMUM CRITERIA OF THE PLAN, PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND CONFORMING TO UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.

PLAN AND COMMISSION OFFICE HAS RECEIVED ONE MESSAGE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 15 MINUTES.

COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME'S ERIC PIAZZA REPRESENT THE APPLICANT TRUSSES 400 CONVENTION STREET, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA, 7 0 8 0 2 48.

TONIGHT IS AN APPLICATION FOR A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE STAFF TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

DISCHARGES ARE GOING AT A 90 DEGREE ANGLE TO THE, TO THE DITCH.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER CARD, ALONG WITH THE APPLICANT IS BRIAN CAMPBELL SAYS, IF NEEDED, DO YOU NEED TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME, MR. CAMPBELL? OUR NEXT CARD IS FOR CRAIG COREY, WHO DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM.

AND THEN WE HAVE TWO, UH, CARDS THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION.

UH, THE FIRST BEING FOR AL TIDO.

MR. TIDO, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR THREE MINUTES, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN.

UM, MY NAME IS AL TIDO, UH, 1 2 13 2 3 WOODRIDGE AVENUE, BATON ROUGE.

I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE WOODRIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

OUR MEMBERS HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SENT TO MR. HOLCOMB, AND I'LL SUMMARIZE THOSE BRIEFLY IN THAT MOST OF ALL THESE ARE CONCERNED WITH, WITH DRAINAGE.

UH, AND PREDOMINANTLY THE DRAINAGE OUTFALLS PROPOSED IN THE, UH, THE PU PLAN GO DIRECTLY INTO A DITCH BETWEEN THE PUD AND OUR QUAIL GROVE AVENUE.

UM, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER, THE AMOUNT WATER ENTERING THE, THE, UH, THE DITCH, HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE HOMES UPSTREAM OF THE OUTFALL, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE PARISH HAS DONE VERY LITTLE AS FAR AS WHERE IS MAINTAINING THE, UH, THE CURRENT DITCH CONCEPT PLAN SAYS THE CAPA THAT WARDS CREEK HAS THE CAPACITY TO, UH, TO HANDLE ALL THE, UH, THE DRAINAGE FROM THE PROPOSED PUD.

HOWEVER, ALL THIS DRAINAGE IS PROPOSED GOING INTO THIS DITCH.

AND THE MAJORITY OF THE, OF THE, THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER BORDERS DIRECTLY ONTO WARDS CREEK.

OUR QUESTION IS, WHY EXACERBATE THE SITUATION BY HAVING IT GO INTO THE DITCH BEHIND THE PU I MEAN, UH, BEHIND BETWEEN OUR PROPERTIES AND RATHER THAN GOING INTO THE, INTO THE, UM, INTO WARD CREEK.

SECONDLY, WE'RE CONCERNED ALSO WITH EROSION THAT THE PROPOSED CONNECTIONS ARE, ARE MAKING RIGHT NOW.

THE

[00:45:01]

AND WHILE WE UNDERSTAND NOW THAT THEY MAY BE SOME, UH, EROSION ABATEMENT THAT CAN DE DURING THE, THE FINAL, UH, CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EROSION THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.

WE'VE HAD PEOPLE THAT HAVE LOST FENCES AND PART OF THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE, THE EXISTING EROSION THAT'S TAKEN PLACE ON THE PROPERTY SO FAR.

THE FINAL POINT I'D LIKE TO BRING UP IS THAT THE, UM, WITH REGARDS TO THE PERMEABLE SPACE, THAT'S THE CALCULATION THAT'S THERE.

EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS THAT IT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL, I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME CONFUSION THAT, UH, AS FAR AS THE UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 8.4 0.9 POINT C 0.2 A TWO SAYS THAT COMMON SPACE SHALL NOT INCLUDE.

AND THE SUB PARAGRAPHS E SAYS PAVED LAKES, PONDS BAS STREAMS AND CREEKS.

BUT YET THE DRAWINGS INDICATE THAT THE PERMEABLE SPACE USES THE ENTIRE AREA OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH AND HALF OF THE AREA OF WARDS CREEK IN THE CALCULATIONS.

AS FAR AS THE PERMEABLE AREA, WE JUST FEEL THIS IS GONNA HAVE AN IMPACT TO THE, UH, OVERALL DRAINAGE.

AND WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THE B UH, COMMISSION DEFER THIS ITEM TO ALLOW US AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE DEVELOPERS, THE PARISH, AND ANYBODY ELSE CONCERNED TO TRY TO GET, MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THESE, THESE ISSUES TO A SUITABLE, UH, RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OUR OTHER SPEAKING CORD IS FOR KAREN FORNET.

IT SAYS, IF NEEDED, DO YOU NEED TO SPEAK, MA'AM? OKAY.

SO I'LL INVITE THE APPLICANT BACK FOR A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL COMMISSIONERS.

UM, LAST MONDAY WE RECEIVED A LETTER THAT SUMMARIZES WHAT THE OPPOSITION MENTIONED.

IT WAS IN A LE IN A LETTER FORMAT.

WE RECEIVED IT ON MONDAY.

BY TUESDAY MORNING, LESS THAN 24 HOURS LATER, I HAD THE DEVELOPER'S ENGINEER RESPOND IN WRITING TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

AND I ALSO TOLD THEM IF THEY HAD ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, THEY HAD MY CONTACT INFORMATION, WE COULD HAVE OUR ENGINEER ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE.

SO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO OUR NEIGHBORS AND WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, BUT ASKING US TO DEFER THIS ITEM WHEN IT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONCEPT PLAN AND ALL REQUIREMENTS TO THE UDC AFTER WE BROUGHT, BROUGHT OUR ENGINEER AND OFFERED TO ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS, SEEMS UNREASONABLE.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, INTEREST RATES ARE HIGH, THINGS ARE EXPENSIVE.

DEALS FALL APART.

WE NEED TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT'S IMPORTANT, PARTICULARLY FOR THE NEW COMMISSIONERS ON HERE, IS THAT AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, CONCEPT PLANS ARE INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE.

WHEN WE TURN IN A PUT, THEY'RE INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TURN IN SO MANY STUDIES UPFRONT, INCLUDING A DRAINAGE IMPACT STUDY.

SO THE DRAINAGE IMPACT STUDY WAS APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION AND BY THE CITY PARISH AS PART OF THE CONCEPT PLAN.

AND THEN WHEN WE BRING YOU A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WE HAVE TO THEN GO BACK AND CERTIFY THAT THERE WILL BE NO ADVERSE IMPACT FROM THE WATER FROM THIS FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

SO IT'S NOT POSSIBLE UNLESS OUR ENGINEER DID SOMETHING WRONG.

AND THE CITY PARISH WHO'S ALSO REVIEWING THAT PLAN HAS DONE SOMETHING WRONG AS WELL.

WE CANNOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT.

IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR MAP THAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THIS IS NOT A SMALL DITCH.

THIS IS A 60 FOOT WIDE DITCH.

SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT US PUTTING WATER INTO A SMALL DITCH.

IT IS A 60 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC DRAINAGE DITCH.

IT'S WHAT THE CONCEPT PLAN CALLS FOR.

WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN IN ORDER TO GET APPROVED.

ALSO, WHEN WE GO BACK AND WE TURN IN, IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL TURN IN CONSTRUCTION PLANS.

AND AT THAT POINT, THE CITY PARISH WILL THEN TELL US WHAT SIZE PIPES, HOW TO DESIGNATE THEM, HOW TO TURN, WHAT TYPE OF RIPRAP, AND WE WILL ABSOLUTELY COMPLY.

YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT.

THE DEVELOPER WILL CONTINUE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

WE WANT TO DO THAT.

I HOPE YOU'LL APPROVE IT.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

WOULD LIKE TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM TO FURTHER CLARIFY THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHY THE, THE CODE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE, THE PERMEABILITY OF THE AREA WAS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S, IT'S INCLUDED IN, IN THE CALCULATIONS, THE AREA THAT'S SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS WHICH WERE APPROVED, IT APPEARS TO US THAT THEY VIOLATE THE UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE.

COMMISSION MEMBERS.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, UH, FOR THIS ITEM.

COMMISSIONER ADDISON? YES, I'M ON ROLL TONIGHT.

MR. CHAIRMAN .

UM, MR. FROM THE ASSOCIATION, PLEASE? YES, SIR.

UM, I DO WANT TO GO BACK IN, IN THE BEGINNING.

I DIDN'T WANT TO ASK THIS AT FIRST, BUT DID HE NOT RESPOND TO YOU GUYS IN REGARDS TO THE, TO CONCERNS? CAUSE HE CAME BACK AT THE REBUTTAL SAYING THAT HE RESPONDED TO YOUR CONCERNS.

WE, WE, WE DID GET THE RESPONSES.

HOWEVER, WE, WE FELT, ALTHOUGH WE

[00:50:01]

AND SO WE WANTED TO GET WITH THE PARISH DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPERS, AND UNDERSTAND WHY, WHY, WHY IS THAT? AND ALSO, IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY PUT A FURTHER IMPACT ON THE DITCH BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES WHEN YOU'VE GOT A MUCH LARGER AREA ALONG WARDS CREEK THAT CAN MORE READILY HANDLE IT WITHOUT, AND WE, WE HAVE A HISTORY OF PROBLEMS ALREADY ALONG THAT, ALONG THAT DRAINAGE, THAT 60 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE DITCH WHERE THE PARISH HAS, HAS, UH, HAS NOT MAINTAINED.

NOW THEY HAVE COMMITTED THAT THEY'RE GONNA COME IN AND MAINTAIN IT, BUT WE KNOW THE PARISH HAS A LOT OF PRIORITIES.

WE'VE BEEN WAITING.

WE'VE HAD A, ANOTHER ISSUE BEHIND ANOTHER AREA ON, UH, BETWEEN OUR, OUR, OUR, UH, SUBDIVISION AND THE PROPERTY THAT BELONGS TO THE KLEIN PETERS THAT CREATED SOME DRINKING PUB, WHICH CAUSED, CAUSED FLOODING IN OUR HOMES BACK IN 29, 20 20, 20 21, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, DUE TO WATER COMING FROM THERE, WHICH IS NOT IMPACTED BY THAT.

BUT WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THE PARISH TO COME IN AND DO REMIT REMEDIATION ON THAT EFFORT.

AND IT STILL HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

SO ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS DONE UP UPFRONT, MAKE SURE EVERYBODY CAN, BUT HELP US, HELP US UNDERSTAND WHY, YOU KNOW, THE PARISH COMMISSION OR THE, THE, THE DEVELOP THE PARISH DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT APPROVED GOING INTO AS MUCH SMALLER DITCH, THEN YOU CAN GO DIRECTLY IN TO WARDS CREEK, WHICH THEY HAVE SAID IS IT CAN ADEQUATELY HANDLE IT.

UM, I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION THOUGH.

THIS IS THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BETWEEN 3 22.

AND NOW YOU GUYS HAVE NOT MET TO REVIEW THIS AS A COMMUNITY, NOR AS A COMMUNITY DETERMINED THIS IS THE FINAL PLAN.

THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT THE INITIAL PLAN TO WHICH THEY'VE HAD, YOU'VE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO OVERVIEW WHAT THOSE IMPACTS ARE.

YOU SAY WE NEED MORE ADDITIONAL TIME TO DO THAT WHEN THIS IS THE FINAL PLAN.

THAT THE INITIAL PLAN THAT WAS PROPOSED.

AND THEN OF COURSE, THEY WENT THROUGH THE DUE DILIGENCE, WENT THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS AND EVERYBODY ELSE.

AND YOU'RE SAYING WE ARE NOW QUITE SATISFIED WITH ACCEPTING THIS FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

I KNOW, KAREN, MAYBE YOU CAN, IF I UNDERSTAND ANOTHER MEMBER.

SHE'S A MEMBER, MEMBER OF THE BOARD.

IF YOU, SHE'S KAREN FORNET.

MAYBE SHE'LL LOOK A LITTLE MORE INSIGHT AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

MY NAME IS KAREN FORNET AND I'M AT 13 6 28 QUAIL GROVE AVENUE IN THE WOODRIDGE SUBDIVISION.

AND I'M ON THE BOARD AS WELL.

UM, WE DID, I MEAN, THE PUD WAS ORIGINALLY DONE, I THINK WAY BACK IN 2017.

AND NOW THE DEVELOPERS HAD TO, UM, OBTAIN, I GUESS, BUYERS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS.

THIS PENSKE DEVELOPMENT WAS, I THINK, FIRST BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN FEBRUARY.

AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, I'M NOT SURE WHO DEFERRED IT UNTIL THEN.

SO WE MET WITH OUR BOARD AND WITH BRIAN CAMPBELL, THE DEVELOPER, TO ASK HIM TO GET THE NEW PLANS AS SOON AS THEY WERE AVAILABLE.

AND WE DID HAVE TO WORK WITH OUR OWN, YOU KNOW, ENGINEERS WITHIN OUR SUBDIVISION TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

SO IT TOOK US A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO ACTUALLY GET THAT DONE.

AND THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT OUR QUESTIONS, BOTH TO THE, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO THE DEVELOPER, WAS EARLIER THIS WEEK.

AND WE RECEIVED THOSE RESPONSES.

AND AS MR. TITO SAID, WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE PERMEABLE AND THE, THE IMPERVIOUS AND THE PERVIOUS CALCULATIONS.

WE'D LIKE SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THAT.

THE DITCH IS WITHIN 10 FEET OF MY PROPERTY, AND THE FOCAL POINT OF ONE OF THOSE DRAINAGE, ONE OF THOSE 90 DEGREE ANGLES, IS DIRECTLY COMING ACROSS THE DITCH INTO AN AREA THAT'S WITHIN 10 FEET OF MY BACKYARD.

SO THE QUESTION IS, WHY PUT THE LOAD THERE RATHER THAN WARDS CREEK? AND ORIGINALLY, I UNDERSTAND BACK IN 2016 WHEN THIS WAS, THE FIRST PUT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE 2016 FLOOD.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL OF THE HOMES IN OUR SUBDIVISION THAT FLOODED.

SO THE DRAINAGE IN THAT AREA HAS CHANGED, AND WE'RE PUTTING IN A PAVED PARKING LOT FOR THE PENSKE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WILL GREATLY INCREASE THE FLOW INTO THAT DITCH FROM A TIME PERSPECTIVE.

IT'LL GET THERE QUICKER.

SO WHY PUT THAT AREA WITHIN 10 FEET OF A RESIDENT WHEN YOU CAN PUT IT INTO WARDS CREEK, WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO HOLD THE FLOW? THAT'S OUR QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS GONNA COME UP AND SPEAK, BUT SEE SHE'S SITTING THERE, UM, CAN MAYBE TALK TO THE ISSUES OF DRAINAGE BEFORE SHE DOES.

I'M, I'M SORRY, MR. ANDERSON.

I, I DIDN'T ANSWER BECAUSE I, I JUST JOINED THE BOARD, THE BOARD IN 2020.

SO I DIDN'T HAVE THE HISTORY BEHIND WHAT HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY BACK IN 2010 WHEN IT WAS ALL, WHEN IT WAS ALL, UH, IN THAT.

SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED MS. MS. WARREN, OH, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THE SHERIFF.

SOMEONE ANSWERS.

UM,

[00:55:02]

I CAN PROBABLY ASK, ANSWER MOST OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

MOST OF THE QUESTIONS, YEAH.

FIRST I'M GONNA ASK, UH, DIRECTOR HOLCOMB, UH, I KNOW THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT THEY SENT SOME INFORMATION OR SENT SOME QUESTIONS RATHER INTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THAT THEY RECEIVED SOME RESPONSES FROM YOU ALL.

CAN YOU KIND OF QUICKLY TOUCH ON THAT AND, UH, ALSO THE CONFLICT THAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE, UH, IN PLACE, UH, BASED ON THE UDC CERTAINLY, UH, THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A FORMAL REQUEST AND HAD QUESTIONS THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THIS FILE.

UH, STAFF REVIEWED THAT AND OFFICIALLY RESPONDED ON MARCH, TUESDAY, MARCH 14TH.

UH, THEY, THEY SHOULD HAVE GOT THAT EMAIL ALONG WITH THE, UH, THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE ALSO SUBMITTED THEIR OWN RESPONSE TO THE SAME ITEMS. THE, UH, CONFLICT, I BELIEVE WAS ITEM FIVE THAT THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SPOKE TO.

UM, THIS PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ACTIVE SINCE 2006.

IT WAS, THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN WAS APPROVED NOT ONLY BY THIS BODY BACK IN 2006, BUT BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL.

UH, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, THIS IS THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ESSENTIALLY A SITE PLAN THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

UM, I, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE RESPONSE RESPONSE FROM THIS OFFICE ON THAT POTENTIAL CONFLICT WAS A UDC AT THE TIME IN 2006, UH, THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED INCLUDED THAT 60 FOOT DRAINAGE SERVITUDE, THAT 60 FOOT DRAINAGE SERVITUDE.

THE INTENT WAS TO PROVIDE, UH, DRAINAGE, UH, NOT ONLY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT FOR THIS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, UH, AT, AT, AT THE TIME.

AND, AND IN THE NEAR FUTURE, WHEN IT WOULD BE DEVELOPED THAT 60 FOOT SERVITUDE WAS CREATED, UH, WITH THE CONSTRUCTION, I BELIEVE, OF THE FOURTH FILING OF WOODRIDGE.

UH, SINCE THE PUD REMAINED ACTIVE, THERE WAS NO WAY TO REMOVE THAT AREA FROM THE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL AT THE TIME.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE NOW, I, I CAN, UH, CERTIFY THAT THIS ITEM WAS, UH, REVIEWED IN DETAIL, NOT ONLY BY OUR OFFICE, THE PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS, UH, THAT WE HAVE IN OUR DEPARTMENT, BUT, UH, AS WELL AS EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY PARISH.

UH, RACHEL'S HERE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF UH, DEVELOPMENT, THE DRAINAGE ENGINEERS FROM THE CITY REVIEWED THE DRAINAGE IMPACT STUDY AND WATER QUALITY STUDY AND HAVE, UH, OFFICIALLY TAKEN THE STATEMENT THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE, WITH THE CERTIFICATIONS AND STIPULATIONS TIED TO THAT.

I THINK THE UDC SECTION THAT HE'S CITING IS TAKEN, I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS BECAUSE IT SAYS PAVED LAKES PONDS BY USED DREAMS OR CREEK.

AND THAT WOULD ALLUDE TO LIKE A CONCRETE LINED CHANNEL OR A CONCRETE LINED POND.

WHEREAS IN THE CHAP IN THE SECTION ABOVE IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT SURFACE DRAINAGE FEATURES THAT ARE NATURAL IN STATE, MEANING RETENTION AND DETENTION PONDS AS LONG AS THEY'RE ACCESSIBLE, ARE ALLOWED TO BE PART OF THE, UM, ARE ALLOWED TO BE COUNTED IN THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

AND, YOU KNOW, SINCE THAT LAND THAT THE DRAINAGE SERVITUDE EXISTS UPON ON BOTH SIDES, THE WARDS CREEK AND THE DRAINAGE, YOU KNOW, SERVITUDE THAT ABUTS THE REAR OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IS ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN, CONTAINED IN THE PUT AND NOT ON THEIR PROPERTY.

IT'S TECHNICALLY FAIR GAME TO COUNT TOWARDS, UM, OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

SO GOING BACK TO WHICH WAY THE WATER'S DRAINING AS OPPOSED TO BEHIND THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD OR DIRECTLY IN TOWARDS CREEK, THERE ARE NO DRAINAGE PLANS THAT I HAVE SEEN THAT SHOW EXACTLY WHERE THE DRAINAGE IS GONNA GO.

NOW, THERE, THAT DOESN'T PRECLUDE THEM FROM HAVING TO SUBMIT DETAILED DRAINAGE AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO MY OFFICE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AND MYSELF.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, MY STAFF WILL REVIEW THOSE PERSONALLY, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE PUT.

AND THAT MAY BE WHAT THEY'RE REFERENCING.

UM, BUT LIKE I SAID, THAT WAS APPROVED A WHILE BACK.

AND I DO KNOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MAINTENANCE HAS BEEN WORKING ON THE DRAINAGE PRO MAINTENANCE PROJECT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE WERE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE DRAINAGE SERVITUDE THAT TOOK SOME TIME.

I KNOW THEY BID A PROJECT OUT AND THEN I THINK THEY, THEY HAD TO, UH, CANCEL THE BIDS AND ARE GONNA REBID IT OUT.

THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T BID IT YET.

WELL, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

THEY DIDN'T, THEY DID NOT BID IT OUT YET CAUSE THERE WAS SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

OKAY, SIR, PLEASE LET HER FINISH.

AND THEN, UM, THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN SOME CHANGES WITH THE PQ INTERCHANGE IN THE INTERSTATE THAT HAVE ALSO ALTERED DRAINAGE PATTERNS SIGNIFICANTLY IN THIS AREA.

UM, BUT THOSE ALL, YOU KNOW, OCCURRED POST WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS, YOU KNOW, APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND, AND THE COUNCIL.

SO THERE ARE SEVERAL CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND RACHEL, IF YOU COULD HOLD ON

[01:00:01]

ONE SECOND.

I THINK, UH, VICE CHAIRMAN GRATA HAS A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU AS WELL.

TWO, TWO VERY QUICK QUESTIONS.

UM, THE, THE DITCH THAT EVERYONE'S TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS RATHER LARGE, THAT GOES INTO WARTS CREEK, DOES IT NOT? YES.

YES, IT DOES.

IT'S ONE, TWO, AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS YET, IS THAT DITCH OF CAPACITY TO ACCEPT IF THEY WISH TO PUSH THEIR WATER INTO THAT DITCH, IS THAT DITCH OF CAPACITY TO ACCEPT THAT? I DON'T, DON'T KNOW, BUT I WILL SAY THIS, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE RUNOFF FROM THEIR PROPERTY IN THAT DIRECTION, YOU KNOW, PRE TO POST.

SO THEY'RE STILL GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT RUNOFF MM-HMM.

, UM, AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR CURRENT, YOU KNOW, APPROVED DRAINAGE STUDY.

SO, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO ARMOR, YOU KNOW, AND PROVIDE REVETMENT AND RIP WRAP AND WHATNOT AT THEIR OUTFALL IN ORDER TO NOT INCREASE ANY SORT OF EROSION.

AND ANYTHING THAT IS NOT NATURALLY OCCURRING IN THAT DIRECTION HAS TO GO IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.

CORRECT? YES, SIR.

SO THEY CANNOT INCREASE WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING NOW? NO, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY, YOU KNOW, FOR THE DESIGN STORM, THEY, THEY CANNOT INCREASE THEIR RUNOFF FROM LEAVING THEIR SITE.

SO WHE WHETHER IT GOES INTO HERE OR DIRECTLY TOWARDS CREEK, IT'S STILL GONNA END UP INWARDS CREEK? YEAH.

OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? I DO NEED TO ADD, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ON, ON REQUIRED OPEN SPACE, UH, IN DISCUSSION TO, TO NOT ONLY THE SERVITUDE, BUT THE SITE ITSELF.

UH, BECAUSE IT IS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THE PUT ORDINANCE REQUIRES, UH, A MINIMUM ACREAGE OR PERCENTAGE OF A OPEN SPACE THAT REQUIRED OPEN SPACE IS 5.37 ACRES.

THE APPLICANT IS WELL EXCEEDING THAT.

THERE'S 7.83 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 18, INITIATION OF TEXT AMENDMENT.

DIRECTOR HOGAN, VICE CHAIRMAN MCGRAW, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? GOTTA MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT.

I'M, I'M GONNA, NO, SIR.

I'M GONNA MOVE TO APPROVE.

THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM VICE CHAIRMAN GROUT TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ADDISON.

ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? SEEING NONE.

THAT ITEM HAS BEEN APPROVED AT THIS TIME.

WE'LL

[18. INITIATION OF TEXT AMENDMENT Request to clarify language in the UDC regarding regulations for fences and walls]

ITEM 18.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICE IS ASKING, UH, TO INITIATE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO REQUEST CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR FENCES AND WALLS.

UH, THIS WOULD BE IN SECTION 9.5 0.2.

STAFF HAS BEEN, UH, IN DISCUSSION WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND ALSO COUNCILWOMAN ADAMS ON THIS ITEM.

UH, WITH YOUR BLESSING, WE WILL, UH, STUDY THIS ISSUE AND DRAFT A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WILL BE ON OUR FUTURE AGENDA.

UH, DIRECTOR HULK, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS FOR THIS ITEM.

IS THAT CORRECT? NO SPEAKER CARDS, BUT I DO NEED A MOTION.

COMMUNICATIONS, BEGINNING WITH DIRECTOR'S.

IS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR ANY MOTIONS, UH, FOR THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER ADDISON, I BELIEVE HAS A, A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THAT MOTION.

RECEIVES A SECOND FROM VICE CHAIRMAN GROUT.

ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPROVING THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.

THAT ITEM HAS BEEN APPROVED AND WE CAN NOW MOVE ON TO

[DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS]

COMMENTS, FEW THINGS UPDATE YOU ON AT YOUR SEAT.

YOU HAVE A DRAFT COPY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16 IN RELATION TO SIGNAGE.

IT'S SECTION 16.2 0.4, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.

THIS WAS INITIATED AT YOUR FEBRUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND WILL BE ON YOUR FUTURE APRIL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

WE WILL HAVE A STAFF REPORT, UH, THAT SUMMARIZES THE CHANGE, AND, UM, I'LL BE HAPPY TO GIVE YOU ANY BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NEEDED.

NEXT, THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION.

YOUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, APRIL 17TH.

AND OUTSIDE OF THAT, I DO NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND WISH A HAPPY BELATED BIRTHDAY TO CHAIRMAN WASHINGTON, WHO I BELIEVE CELEBRATED A BIRTHDAY EARLIER THIS MONTH.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE, FOR THE REPORT.