[00:00:02]
AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US FOR TONIGHT'S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY APOLOGIZING TO EACH OF YOU.
WE'VE EXPERIENCED SEVERAL, UH, CONFLICTS AND ISSUES OF A TECHNICAL NATURE.
UH, A STAFF HAS WORKED VERY HARD AND AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES.
SO WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH THAT.
[Roll Call]
SO AT THIS TIME WE WILL START WITH THE ROLL CALL, MR. HOLCOMB FROM WASHINGTON HERE, VICE CHAIRMAN GROW.HELLO, MR. COLLINS LEWIS HERE.
MISS YOUR ELLENDER, MR. HAWTHORNE HERE.
MR. HILL, MR. STERLING COMMISSIONER, ADDISON AND COMMISSIONER STERLING.
I THINK HE'S TRYING TO CONNECT AT THIS TIME.
WE HAVE A QUORUM
[Approval of Minutes]
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 18TH MEETING? WELL, CHAIRMAN, THERE'S A MOTION FROM THE VICE CHAIR.
I'M TRYING TO DO, IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER ADDISON? ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPROVING THE MINUTES, SAY NONE OF THESE ITEMS HAVE NOW BEEN ACCEPTED AT THIS TIME? I'LL
[Rules for Conducting Public Hearings]
ASK THE VICE CHAIRMAN TO READ IN THE RULES FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC HEARINGS RULES FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC PUBLIC HEARINGS, CERTIFICATION OF INABILITY TO OPERATE DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXECUTIVE PROCLAMATIONS JV E 2020 DASH 30 AND 2020 DASH 33 ISSUED BY GOVERNOR JOHN BEL EDWARDS ON MARCH 16TH, 2020 AND MARCH 22ND, 2020 RESPECTIVELY.THIS NOTICE SHALL SERVE A CERTIFICATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INABILITY TO OTHERWISE OPERATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOUISIANA OPEN MEETING LAW DUE TO A LACK OF A QUORUM AS A RESULT OF THE COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH.
YEAH, PURSUANT TO SECTION FOUR OF JBE 2020 DASH 30, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE WILL PROVIDE FOR ATTENDANCE AT HIS NEXT MEETING, WHICH WILL ONLY CONTAIN BUSINESS DEAN TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.
ON MONDAY, JUNE 15TH, 2020 VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE, A GATHERING OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC AND THE NECESSARY STAFF WOULD VIOLATE PHASE TWO OF GOVERNOR EDWARDS ORDER LIMITING PUBLIC GATHERINGS TO 50% OF NORMAL CAPACITY WHILE PRACTICING SOCIAL DISTANCING.
THE ITEMS APPEARING ON THE AGENDA HAVE BEEN DEEMED ESSENTIAL FOR THE CONTINUED CONDUCT OF BUSINESS OR THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE.
CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCLAMATIONS NUMBER JV 2020 DASH 30 AND JB IN 2020 DASH 33, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MONDAY, JUNE 15TH, 2020 AT 5:00 PM WILL BE HELD VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE IN A MANNER THAT ALLOWS FOR OBSERVATION OF THE INPUT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS SET FORTH IN THE NOTICE POSTED THE NIGHT'S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IS BEING HELD BY A VIDEO CONFERENCE AND AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ON THE CITY PARISH WEBSITE, METRO 21 COX CHANNEL 21 AND THE CITY PARISH, THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE.
FACEBOOK PAGE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ANY OF THE ITEMS WERE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL TO PLANNING AT
GIVEN THE CURRENT COVID-19 EMERGENCY.
I HEAR ABOUT, I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RULES AS SET FORTH IN RED ABOVE.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND.
THAT'S THE SECOND FROM I'M SORRY.
IF YOU ALL COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF TO MAKE IT EASIER.
SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE.
UH, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS SAY
[Consent Agenda]
NO, WE CAN NOW MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, MR. MORGAN, THEY COULD SEND IT IN TO THEM.THE FOLLOWINGS ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR WITHDRAWAL ITEM NUMBER NINE.
YES, 1419 FOSTER CREEK WITHDRAWN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR DEFERRAL ITEM FIVE, KS 28 DASH 2096 79 AIRLINE HIGHWAY REFER TO JULY 20TH.
I COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON ITEM SIX, I SPOKE FOUR
[00:05:01]
DASH 20 MURPHY EXPRESS ALSO DEFER TO JULY 20TH.THE FOLLOWING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS ITEMS FOR APPROVAL ITEM NUMBER FOUR, CASE 27, 2060 31 JONES CREEK ROAD TO REZONE FROM RURAL THE GENERAL OFFICE.
LOW RISE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF JONES CREEK ROAD, SOUTH OF FORT CLARK COURT ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, BUT TWO DASH 20 COTTAGES AT O'NEILL TO REZONE FROM LIGHT COMMERCIAL C1.
IT'S A SMALL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF GEORGIA NEAL ROAD, EAST OF JONES CREEK ROAD IN WEST OF O'NEAL LANE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, FIVE DASH ZERO SEVEN, THE GROVE TOWNHOMES FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSED MEDIUM DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED EAST OF MALL OF LOUISIANA BOULEVARD IN SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, CERTIFIES THAT ALL OF THESE ITEMS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE UDC.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEMBERS.
YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT WILL BE TAKEN WITH ONE VOTE.
ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHO HAVE AN ITEM ON THE CONSENT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE HEARD OF AS PART OF THE REGULAR AGENDA, SEEING NONE? IS THERE A MOTION MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND DOWN THE LOWEST AS A MOTION FROM THE VICE CHAIR.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS LEWIS, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS, SIX UP THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE OF THOSE ITEMS HAVE NOW BEEN APPROVED.
WE CAN NOW MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THE NEXT TWO ITEMS MIGHT BE TAKEN TOGETHER.
THANK YOU, MR. HUMPING, MR. HORACE, AT THIS TIME, WE'LL
[Items 2 & 3]
HEAR ITEM NUMBER TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT 10 2013, FIVE 11 PERKINS' ROOM AND ITEM NUMBER THREE, CASE 26, 2013 FIVE 11 PERKINS ROAD.BE A 2013 FIVE 11 PARKING SCROLL RELATED TO CASE 26 20.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT NORTH SIDE OF PERKINS ROAD, WEST OF METAIRIE DRIVE COASTAL DISTRICT NINE HODSON.
THE APPLICANT IS STEVEN LOCKWOOD.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THE COMPREHENSIVE USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO MIX IT UP.
26 YEARS AGO, ZONING IS REQUESTED WITH MARSHALL C B A 10 2013 FIVE 11 PERKINS ROW RELATED TO CASE 26, 20 STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT BASED UPON EXAMINATION OF THE AREA AND A FURTHER LEVEL OF DETAIL STAFF ALSO CERTIFIES THAT THE PROPOSED REQUESTS JUST SPENT STAFF CERTIFIES THAT THE PROPOSED REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING.
IF THE COMPANION PLAN AMENDMENT IS APPROVED, BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND CONFORMING TO UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS JERRY WAS THE BIRD AT THE MAY 18TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE MOVIE OR PERKINS WIRE ROAD, WIDENING PROJECT AND INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT ON ADDITIONAL PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY PROJECT MANAGER FOR
I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THIS IS A REZONING AND YOU SHOULD CONSIDER ALL PERMITTED USES OF THE REQUESTED ZONING CATEGORY.
APPLICANT HAS AMENDED HIS APPLICATION TODAY TO REQUEST LIGHT COMMERCIAL ONE, LLC, ONE A MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING CATEGORY THAN THE ORIGINAL LC THREE ZONING REQUESTS ON THE APPLICATION.
WE PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED ONE COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
[00:10:01]
IN 19 COMMENTS AND OPPOSITION, WHICH WILL BE READ INTO RECORD.THANK YOU, MR. HOLCOMB, COMMISSIONER MEMBERS AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND READ IN THE COMMENTS.
FIRST IN FAVOR IS FROM, UH, STEVEN LIQOUR AND IT READS, THIS IS A REZONING AND PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION.
THE OWNER NEEDS TO HAVE THE PROPERTY APPRAISED WITH THE UPDATED ZONING.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS OUTDATED AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS NOT PART OF OUR REZONING APPLICATION.
THE ROAD WIDENING PROJECT IS DOING THAT IS DOING THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND NEEDS TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY BEFORE MOVING FORWARD.
THE REQUESTED REZONING AND PLAN AMENDMENT IS THE NEXT STEP TO GET THE PROPERTY PROPERLY APPRAISED BEFORE THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION OF THE ROAD WIDENING PROJECT.
THIS TIME I'LL MOVE ON TO THE COMMENTS FROM THE OPPOSITION.
I LIVE AND WORK OFF PERKINS ROAD, CLOSE TO WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
THE TRAFFIC IS HORRIBLE DURING REGULAR WORKING AND SCHOOL DAYS, I NOTICED THEY DECIDED TO DO A TRAFFIC COUNT JUST RECENTLY BY SEEKING HIM PERKINS DURING THE STAY AT HOME ORDER, YOU NEED TO DO A REAL TRAFFIC COUNT.
WHEN SCHOOLS ARE BACK IN SESSION AND PEOPLE GO BACK TO WORK.
SCHOOLS DON'T EVEN HAVE TO BE IN SESSION FOR THE TRAFFIC TO BE BAD DURING THE WEEK OR THE WEEKEND.
IT TAKES 10 OR MORE MINUTES TO TURN RIGHT IN LONGER TO TURN LEFT ON PURPOSE ROAD UNTIL THEY WIDENED PERKINS ROAD FROM SEEKING A HIGHLAND OR DO SOMETHING TO IMPROVE THIS PORTION APARTMENTS ROAD AGAINST ANY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE ROAD REPAIRED AS IT IS.
BUT THIS ROAD HAS A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON A NORMAL DAY.
IF A WRECK OCCURS ON, I ATTENDED IT'S EVEN WORSE UNTIL WE GET PERKINS ROAD AT SEGUN WIDENED AND IMPROVED I'M AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL.
OUR NEXT IS FROM RUSTY GOLDEN.
I AM AGAINST CONVERTING THE RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE, WHICH OPENS UP THE PROPERTY FOR MORE DENSER UNITS.
WE NEED TO KEEP A ONE RIGID RESIDENTIAL USE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
I LIVE ON PQ LANE, JUST EAST OF THE PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST FROM DESERET GUTIERREZ HERE, SIR, IS I AM AGAINST CHANGING THE ZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO MIX USE LIGHT COMMERCIAL WITH OUR APPROXIMATELY SEVEN ACRE FRONTAGE PROPERTY AND THE REMAINING ACRES BEHIND IT LOCATED ON PERKINS ROAD ACROSS FROM VILLAGE GROCERY.
I'M OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE ZONING AND WISHED IT TO REMAIN AS IT IS CURRENTLY CLASSIFIED DUE TO TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS.
I'M RICKY, MY, YOU, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS TWO AND THREE ASSOCIATED WITH THE REZONE OF 7.44 ACRES OF PERKINS ROAD FRONTAGE.
I'VE LIVED IN THE AREA FOR 24 YEARS AND I'M CURRENTLY OPPOSED TO THE REQUESTED REZONING, THE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC ADDITIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA.
SO CLOSE TO THE SEEKING AND PERKINS INTERSECTION WITH NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE ALREADY CONGESTED TRAFFIC FLOW AND ACCESS IS REZONING SHOULD BE CONNECTED WITH THE FUTURE PLANNED UPGRADES TO PERKINS ROAD.
AFTER THE FOUR LANES ARE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE, A POTENTIAL REZONING CAN BE CONSIDERED MERGING FROM CURRENT SUBDIVISIONS IS ALREADY VERY DIFFICULT AT TIMES.
THIS REZONING WOULD ADD TO THIS CONGESTION FROM KELLY, TREY HAN.
I THINK THAT ANY APPROVED ZONING CHANGE OR DEVELOPMENT OF A PARCEL OF LAND SHOULD HAVE A MASTER PLAN THAT WAY IN HIS OWN CHANGES CAN BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN.
AND THE DEVELOPER CAN NOT MAKE CHANGES TO AN LLC.
ONCE ZONING IS GRANTED, DEVELOPERS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THIS MASTER PLAN.
THAT WAY, WHAT THAT WAY, WHAT IS PROPOSED IS ACTUALLY WHAT IS DEVELOPED, HOW CAN LAND BE RESOLVED WITHOUT SUFFICIENT AWARENESS AS TO THE DEVELOPER'S OVERALL PLAN.
AS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER DONE A TRAFFIC STUDY TO DETERMINE THAT PERKINS BROKEN HANDLE THE ON THE GOING IN AND COMING OUT TRAFFIC AND PRESENTED THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS SECTION OF PERKINS ROAD ALREADY HAS A HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SURELY IT'S NOT PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY.
ALL TOO OFTEN, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE DEVELOPED AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE ADDED THOROUGHFARE, BUT LOUISIANA'S ALREADY NOTORIOUS FOR A LACK OF ROAD EXPANSION WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT.
IT SHOULD BE MANDATED THAT THIS SECTION OF PERKINS WILL BE UPGRADED TO ALLOW FOR NEW TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND FLOW.
ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETE FOR THIS INITIAL SEVEN ACRE RESORT, AS THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP TO THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO WARRANT A CHANGE.
IS THERE A MARKET NEED IN THIS AREA FOR LC THREE DEVELOPMENT? WELL, ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND THRIVE IS THE REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND OVERALL MASTER PLAN OF THE CITY.
WHAT ABOUT WATER DISPLACEMENT FROM A NEW DEVELOPMENT? MY NEXT COMMENT IS FOR, FROM RAJEEV
I AM WRITING TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE CHANGE IN ZONING OF THE TRACT OF LAND MENTIONED IN PA 10 20 IN CASE 26, 2013, FIVE 11 PURPOSE ROAD INCREASED TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ISSUES ARE CERTAINLY A CONCERN, BUT MY WIFE AND I FEEL THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE CANNOT SUPPORT THE TYPE OF VEHICLE OR TRAFFIC OR ESTABLISHMENT THAT MIGHT RESULT AS A CONSEQUENCE PERKINS ROAD BETWEEN SEGUN AND PQ IS NARROW WITH NO SHOULDER OR SIDEWALKS OR RELATIVELY DEEP ITCHES.
I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A PLAN TO WIDEN PERKINS.
I THINK REZONING RIGHT NOW IS NOT WARRANTED OR WISE AT BEST.
THE DECISION SHOULD BE DEFERRED UNTIL ENVIRONMENTAL DRAINAGE, ET CETERA, AND COMMERCIAL REASSESSMENT
[00:15:01]
CAN BE MADE AT THE ROAD.THE NEXT CARD IS FROM JOHN CHANDLER SIMPLY SAYS IT WOULD BE THE ONLY LC THREE PARCEL IN THE AREA.
FROM MICHELLE OSBORN TO RESOLVE FROM RURAL TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PERKINESS ROAD, WEST OF METTERY DRIVE ON A PORTION OF I'M SORRY, I'M READING THE WRONG THING.
THE COMMENT, PLEASE DO NOT CONSIDER ADDING ANYTHING TO THIS ALREADY HEAVILY CONGESTED AREA, EVEN DURING OFF HOURS FROM JOEL TERRITO.
SO MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I AM JOE TERRITO, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PQ PERKINS AND HOLLAND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS OUR ASSOCIATIONS OPPOSITION TO ITEMS TWO AND THREE OF THE JUNE 15TH PLANNING AGENDA REGARDING THE PROPERTY AT 13 FIVE 11 PERKINS ROAD.
WE, AS MANY OTHER RESIDENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY ARE TOTALLY AGAINST GIVING AN APPLICANT WHAT EQUATES TO A BLANK CHECKBOOK TO DO WHATEVER HE OR SHE WISHES WITH PROPERTY THAT COULD AFFECT OUR HEALTH, SAFETY, WELLBEING, AND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY.
AS A WHOLE, I'VE PERSONALLY SPOKEN WITH MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING STAFF, COUNCILMAN HUDSON, AND NUMEROUS RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.
NOT ONE PERSON HAS ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE SPECIFIC PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY NOR SPECIFIC USES AS CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF THE AREA.
WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PLANNED OR COULD BE PLANNED.
AND WHAT BUSINESS USES WILL BE ALLOWED AS WELL AS OTHER PERTINENT FACTS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE APPLICANT, NOR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HAS OFFERED TO BE WITH THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE, THE PROPERTY FRONTS ON ONLY ONE ROAD PERKINS ROAD, WHICH IS A TWO LANE ROAD WITH NO SHOULDERS.
IT HAS A HIGH CONCENTRATION OF SUBDIVISIONS WITH SMALL BUSINESSES MIXED IN THERE ARE NO COMMERCIAL PARKS LOCATED IN THE NEARBY AREA.
RESIDENTS ARE ALWAYS STATING HOW DANGEROUS IT IS WHEN THEY MUST LEAVE THEIR SUBDIVISIONS.
MOST OF WHICH DO NOT HAVE BOULEVARD INTEREST SINCE THEN, THEY MUST NAVIGATE, PULLING OUT OF THEIR STREET INTO THE HEAVY FLOW OF TRAFFIC THAT IS CONSTANTLY COMING AT THEM FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS WITHOUT HAVING SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON THE APPLICANT'S PLANS.
HOW CAN WE SEE AND DETERMINE AS RESULTS EFFECT RESULTING EFFECT ON THE COMMUNITY? WE FEEL THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CREATE SERIOUS TRAFFIC AND PERSONAL HEALTH ISSUES THAT WILL AFFECT THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF NOT ONLY THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO FOR THE MANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO TRAVEL THIS WORLD ON A DAILY BASIS.
ANOTHER CONCERN IS THAT THERE IS NO INFORMATION CONCERNING SEWER RAINWATER, RUNOFF, OR STREET ACCESS AND DESIGN WITHIN THE PROPERTY, NOR DO WE KNOW WHAT IS PLANNED FOR THE OTHER 40 OR SO ACRES THAT WAS PART OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
IT CAN ONLY BE ACCESSED BY TRAVELING THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
FINALLY, HOW WILL THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AFFECT ST.
GEORGE VOLUNTEER, FIRE DEPARTMENTS, RESPONSE TO EMERGENCIES? WILL IT CREATE SITUATIONS THAT INTERFERE WITH FIRING MEDICAL EMERGENCIES? WE WON'T KNOW THE ANSWER UNLESS A CLEAR, CONCISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS PROVIDED TO THE PARISH AND ITS RESIDENTS PRIOR TO ANY APPROVAL.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER OUR CONCERNS AND THAT YOU DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE CONFERENCE OF PLANETS, ADOPT, DENIED THEIR REQUEST TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY.
MY NEXT COURT IS FROM LOUIS CHANDLER, SIMPLY STATES.
THIS REQUEST IS FOR ZONING, WHICH IS NOT LIKE ANY OTHER ROUNDED AGAINST THE PROGRAM.
OUR NEXT QUARTER'S FROM DOTTIE TO RIO.
I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD AS OPPOSING ITEM TWO AND THREE ON THE AGENDA.
THIS APPLICANT HAS NOT REVEALED WHAT HE HAS PLANNED FOR THE PERKINS ROAD PROPERTY TO HAVE IT PROPERLY RESOLVED, OR HAVE AN AMENDMENT MADE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
A MAJOR CONCERN AT THE PRESENT TIME IS THAT PERKINS ROAD IS CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY.
AND THIS ROAD IS NOT SCHEDULED TO BE FOUR LANE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
I REQUEST THAT YOU DENY AGENDA TWO AND THREE.
OUR NEXT CARD IS FROM JANELL STRICKLAND, STRONGLY OPPOSED THE TRAFFIC IS BAD ENOUGH AS IT IS.
AND WE HAVE HAD, AND WE HAD FLOODING ON BROOKHOLLOW DRIVE FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER A FEW MONTHS AGO, SEVERAL HOUSES WERE FLOODED, NOT LESS DEVELOPMENT AND PAVING THE LAND WITH CONCRETE AND ASPHALT.
THOSE OF US WHO ARE IN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS DESERVE TO HAVE OUR NEEDS CONSIDERED BEFORE THE NEEDS OF THE EVER INSATIABLE DEVELOPERS.
OUR NEXT CARD IS FROM JULIET AND LAWRENCE SANCHEZ.
WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF PERKINS ROAD AND AROUND POT.
ONE FROM RURAL TO COMMERCIAL USE TRAFFIC CONGESTION CURRENTLY IS HORRIBLE IN THIS AREA.
IT WILL ONLY WORSEN IF THAT TRACT OF LAND WILL BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OR APARTMENT BUILDINGS, ALSO AS ANYONE EVEN ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE AND FLOODING ISSUE.
I KNOW THAT THOSE APARTMENT COMPLEXES ACROSS THE CIRCLE K STORE FLOODED VERY EASILY.
WE FEEL THAT OUR PROPERTY VALUES WE DECREASE WILL DECREASE AND CRIMES WILL INCREASE.
IF THAT AREA BECOMES COMMERCIAL, PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS.
THANK YOU FROM A NOM JOSHI WE'RE WRITING TO EXPRESS TO YOU OUR CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED REZONING.
WE STRONGLY FEEL THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING OF PERKINS ROAD FRONTAGE FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL USE WILL NOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS OF THIS AREA.
WITH THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMING INTO THE AREA, THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CRIME MAY SOON FOLLOW AS THE HOMEOWNERS IN KENSINGTON, THE STATES, WE FEEL THAT THIS REZONING WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE TRANQUILITY SAFETY AND PROPERTY VALUES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I OPPOSE THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 13 FIVE 11 PERKINS ROAD.
AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE SEEN NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION, AND IT'S
[00:20:01]
NOT POSSIBLE TO ASSESS THE IMPACT OF ITS CHANGE.SINCE THIS POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL FRONT ON A NARROW TWO LANE ROAD.
IT HAS A HIGH TRAFFIC LOAD ALREADY AND SOON WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PQ IT AND INTERCHANGE IT BEHOOVES US TO HAVE A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF THE PLANNING PROJECT AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC SAFETY, DRAINAGE AND HEALTH STATUS OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.
OUR REQUESTS THAT APPROVAL FOR THIS REZONING OR THIS PROPERTY BE DENIED FROM RENEE SELTZER.
THIS WOULD CREATE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA ON PERKINS ROAD.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR WHAT WILL BE BUILT IN THIS AREA.
SHOULD THE ALLOW USE CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL? AND I THINK MORE PLANS ARE NEEDED BEFORE MOVING FORWARD AND ALLOWING THIS SPACE TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIALS.
IT READS AS THE BUSINESS OWNER ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY.
THIS SECTION OF PERKINS ROAD CAN NOT HANDLE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC.
I NOTICED THAT A TRAFFIC COUNTER WAS JUST PLACED ON PERKINS, NEAR SEEKING LANE.
THE TRAFFIC COUNT WILL BE SKEWED BECAUSE OF THE SHELTER IN PLACE SHUT DOWN AND NO SCHOOL.
THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO BE DOING A TRAFFIC COUNTER.
IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO TURN ON TO PURPOSE ROAD FROM MY PLACE OF BUSINESS AT ONE THREE SIX, TWO, SIX BERGEN'S WORLD, ALL TIMES ARE BAD, BUT 11:00 AM TO 1:00 PM AND THREE TO 6:00 PM ARE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.
I'VE WAITED IN MY PARKING LOT FOR 10 MINUTES, THREE TO FOUR TIMES A WEEK TO ENTER ONTO PERKINS ROAD.
NO ZONING CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE UNTIL THIS SECTION OF PERKINS ROAD IS BLACK.
THIS NEXT PART IS MARKED AS NEUTRAL.
THOMAS WALSH READS THE APPLICATION, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND ALL SORTS OF REASONS.
ON 7.44 ACRES OF 13, FIVE 11 PERKINS ROAD, FRONTAGE RURAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND MIXED USE LIKE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AS A WHOLE CONSIST OF 47.2 ACRES, BUT ONLY THE FRONT SEVEN ACRES ARE INCLUDED IN THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
ACCORDING TO STAFF AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THERE HAVE BEEN NO SPECIFIC PLANS PRESENTED AS TO WHEN OR WHAT IS INTENDED ON, HAVE ANY OF THE PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY REQUESTED REZONING TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL, AS IT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A COMMERCIAL.
THE REQUEST WAS CHANGED AT LC THREE, WHICH ALLOWS FOR 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
THIS WOULD ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH THINGS AS A MULTISTORY APARTMENT COMPLEXES, MULTIPLE BUSINESSES, OR A SINGLE BUSINESS, THE SIZE OF SAM'S OR WALMART.
THESE SORTS OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD CREATE HUGE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ISSUES FOR THE AREA.
SIMILAR, FOR EXAMPLE, TO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE BURBANK LEE DRIVE AREA.
AND THERE IS NO OUTLET OTHER THAN PERKINS ROAD, NOT KNOWING WHAT IS PLAYING MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO DECIDE TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT.
I PARTICIPATED IN MEETINGS REGARDING THE CURRENT AND FUTURE TRAFFIC PATTERNS ON PERKINS ROAD.
WIDENING IS NOT EXPECTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA WOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE AT A MINIMUM.
THE APPLICANT FOR THE ZONING CHANGES NEEDS TO DISCUSS THE PLANS WITH AREA RESIDENTS.
BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS, I FIND A SPEAKER CORD ALSO MARK NEUTRAL IS FROM SH SHEREE'S SCOFIELD.
IT READS ITEMS TWO AND THREE ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR MONDAY, JUNE 15TH, THE REZONING SIGNS WERE REMOVED BECAUSE WE COULD SEE WHAT THEY WERE ALL ABOUT.
SOME OF THE PROCESS HAD BEEN POSTPONED AS THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVED.
THIS IS THE REZONING WOULD ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH THINGS AS MULTI-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEXES, MULTIPLE BUSINESSES ARE A SINGLE BUSINESS.
THE SIZE OF SAM'S A WALMART, THESE SORTS OF DEVELOPMENTS WOULD CREATE A HUGE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ISSUES FOR THE AREA.
AND THERE WAS NO OUTLET OTHER THAN PERKINS ROAD, NOT KNOWING WHAT IT'S PLAN MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO DECIDE AS OPPOSED TO SUPPORT.
ONCE IT IS APPROVED, THERE IS NO RECOURSE AREA RESIDENTS AND PARTICIPATED IN MEETINGS REGARDING THE CURRENT OR FUTURE TRAFFIC PREDATORS ON PERKINS ROAD.
WE NOW HEAR WHITENESS NOT EXPECTING THEIR FUTURE TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN AND NOT JUST AN AREA WE'RE NOT, WILL CERTAINLY NOT BE PRUDEN.
PERHAPS THE APPLICANT FROM THE ZONE CHANGES SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO DISCUSS THE PLANS WITH AREA RESIDENTS BEFORE MOVEABLE.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL OR IT'S FOR THIS ITEM? THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL CORNERS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSION MEMBERS AT THIS TIME, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THESE ITEMS. I SHARE MY GRAS.
THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS MADE ABOUT LC THREE, HAVING STORES.
THE SIZE OF SAM'S IS THAT CORRECT? 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE.
THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE AMENDED HIS APPLICATION TODAY TO AMANDA'S APPLICATION, TO
OKAY, WELL, WHAT WE WOULD BE VOTING ON WOULD BE A
HE HAS OFFICIALLY AMENDED HIS APPLICATION TO LC ONE.
AND THE OTHER QUESTION WAS, UH, DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT HAS, UH,
[00:25:01]
APPROVED THE TRAFFIC STUDY.SO THIS IS A STRAIGHT REZONING APPLICATION.
UH, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT REVIEW TRAFFIC NOR DRAINAGE AT THIS TIME.
UM, ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WOULD REQUIRE A COMMERCIAL PERMIT OR POTENTIALLY A SITE PLAN, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE, BUT THANK YOU.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, MR. HOLKUM, THAT, THAT, UH, REQUEST TO CHANGE FROM THE APPLICANT, UH, CHANGES THE MAXIMUM FROM 150,000 SQUARE FEET TO 15,000 SQUARE FEET SCORE LIKE MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.
UH, OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FROM THE COMMISSION.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
SO THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROVINCE AND BEYOND THING IS BEING CONSIDERED AND THAT'S A HUGE TRACK OF LAND.
DOES IT FRONT A WHERE ELSE? LOOKING AT MY MAP, I CAN'T REALLY TELL SOME OTHER POSSIBLE PROPERTY.
SO THE ONLY VEHICULAR ACCESS IS PARKIN'S ROOM.
THAT WAS GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE LITERATURE.
WHAT THE REZONING REQUEST IS ONLY ON THE FRONT END.
BUT IT STILL COULD LEAVE AN OPENING OF THE CHAIN.
SO REZONE THE REST OF THE PROPERTY TO PARTICULARLY BE SOMETHING ELSE IN IT LATER, IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL AND, AND FILE NEW APPLICATIONS FOR THAT PROPERTY.
I'M NOT SURE WHO WAS THE FIRST COMMISSIONER, UH, GO AHEAD AND COMMISSIONER ELLEN, THAT IF THAT IS OKAY WITH OUR COMMISSIONER AUTHOR.
WE'LL GET YOU TO NEXT PERMISSION ISLANDER AS THE APPLICANT.
UH, THEY DID WHAT THEY INTEND TO PUT THERE, CAUSE THAT, THAT SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS, UH, ASIDE FROM THE TRAFFIC.
WE HAVE A SPOT FOR PROPOSED USE AND THE APPLICANT HAS NO SPECIFIC PLANS.
WE REACHED OUT AND CONFIRMED WITH THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN, THEY STATED THAT THEY HAVE NO IMMEDIATE PLANS THAT THEY SIMPLY ARE REQUESTING THE SPECULATIVE REZONING REQUESTS, UH, WHICH HAS ALLOWED, UM, EVEN IF THEY HAD PLANS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR COUNCIL OR THE CITY PARISH COULD NOT HOLD THEM TO WHATEVER PLAN THEY STATED.
SO YOU REALLY NEED TO BE CONSIDERING ALL THE POTENTIAL USES WITHIN THE ZONING CATEGORY AND IN THE ZONING CATEGORY OR BEFORE YOU TODAY IS LC ONE LIGHT COMMERCIAL ONE THAT LIMITS 15,000 SQUARE FEET.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE.
UM, MY ONLY QUESTION, IT WAS SIMILAR TO JAMIE'S, UM, BECAUSE WHEN I LOOKED AT THE APPLICATION, IT SAID HC TO, UM, FROM RURAL TO HC TO, AND THEN THEY WENT TO LC THREE AND THEN THEY WENT TO
ALL THE DIFFERENT CHANGES IS SORTA.
UM, AND THEN I READ THE APPLICATION AND SEE THEY'RE TRYING TO ATTRACT POTENTIAL BUYERS, BUT DID THE, I MEAN, IT'S KINDA HARD TO DO THIS WHEN YOU CAN'T REALLY TALK TO THE APPLICANT AND I'M KIND OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING ALL OF THESE, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, CONCERNS FROM, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC, UM, ESPECIALLY DURING THESE MEETINGS AND WE CAN'T ACTUALLY TALK TO THE APPLICANT PER SE.
SO WHY, WHY ALL THE CHANGES AND THE WHY OF THE CHANGE OF THE LC ONE AT THE LAST MINUTE, IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT, THEY'RE JUST COMING OUT, YOU KNOW, SAYING, OH, UM, WE'LL WANT TO GET IT.
WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, GET ZONED FOR THIS, BUT NOT HAVING NO IDEA.
IT'S BEEN CHANGED TWICE ALREADY.
SO SIMPLY STATED THEY WERE WILLING TO GO DOWN TO L C ONE WAS ADVERTISED FOR A MORE INTENSE USE.
SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE, UH, ALLOWED LEGALLY TO GO DOWN.
THEY COULD NOT INTENSE INCREASE THE INTENSITY, BUT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO DOWN.
UM, I THINK THEY KNEW THERE WAS SOME OPPOSITION AND CONCERNS AND DID THIS IN AN EFFORT TO, UM, TO SHOW, UH, A GOOD FAITH EFFORT THAT THEY WEREN'T ASKING FOR AS MUCH POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL SPACE AS ORIGINALLY A PLATFORM.
AND SO IF WE DECIDED TO, UM, SO MY, MY, MY OPTION WOULD BE, IF WE DECIDED TO DEFER THIS AGAIN FOR ANOTHER 30 OR, YOU KNOW, 60 DAYS AND HAVE THE PUBLIC WEIGH IN ON THE LESSER DENSITY, SINCE WE CANNOT, YOU KNOW, HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT NOW, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE THERE, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE AWARE THAT IT'S NOW LLC ONE AND SINCE THEY DID IT TODAY, SO COULD WE DEFER THIS FOR, UM, 94,
[00:30:01]
60 DAYS OR, WELL, WHAT WOULD OUR OPTIONS BE IF WE DECIDED TO DENY IT AND CAUSE THIS WE'LL HAVE TO GO TO COUNTY COUNCIL, CORRECT.AN OPTION WOULD BE TO DEFER IT.
YOU, YOU, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO THE FURTHER THE ITEM IF YOU CHOSE TO DO SO.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, HEY, THIS COMMISSIONER ALLEN, UM, QUESTION, UH, A MORE GENERAL QUESTION, BUT SOMETIMES THESE CASES CAN BE HARD TO HEAR AND TO THINK ABOUT IN THE RIGHT WAY, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE APPLICANT AND THE OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM TO ASK QUESTIONS, TO UNDERSTAND, UM, THERE A FULL SCOPE OF THE ISSUE.
DO WE HAVE ANY INDICATION AS WE, AS COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE, MOLES, A DEFERRAL AS TO WHEN WE MAY RETURN TO A MORE NORMAL MEETING TYPE THAT WE COULD KIND OF ENGAGE IN THOSE QUESTIONS, THE WAY THAT WE HAVE IN THE PAST, OR, YOU KNOW, I I'D HATE TO DEFER IT 30 DAYS OR 60 DAYS, AND WE'RE GOING TO SEND YOU THE SAME THING WE DO TONIGHT.
AND IT'S HARD TO, TO UNDERSTAND IT ANY BETTER AT THAT POINT.
UM, BUT IF WE THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE BACK IN THE ROOM TOGETHER IN A LITTLE BIT, UM, AND IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO DO THAT.
I DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS FOR YOU ON, ON THAT.
UM, I KNOW WE HAVE BEGUN BEGUN DISCUSSIONS ON POTENTIALLY TAKING STEPS TO, TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC BACK IN, BUT I CAN'T SAY WITH A LEVEL OF CERTAINTY WHEN THAT WILL HAPPEN.
I CAN'T TELL YOU ALSO THAT YOU'RE, THE APPLICANT HAD CONTACTED THE COUNCIL OFFICE, THE COUNCIL OFFICE WHOSE DISTRICT BUSY AND IS AWARE OF THE AMENDMENT TO
I FIGURED WE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH CERTAINTY, BUT THERE MAY BE THINGS I DIDN'T KNOW.
OH, COMMISSIONAL HAWTHORNE FAIRMONT.
WELL, I'M GOING, GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER THIS FOR 60 DAYS.
THERE'S EMOTIONAL ON THE FLOOR TO DEFER THIS ITEM FOR 60 DAYS, WHICH WOULD BE AUGUST.
WE HAVE A DATE OR THAT, RIGHT? WELL, THERE IS EMOTIONAL ON THE FLOOR TO THE FIRST 60 DAYS.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND THAT ITEM.
THAT MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ELLENDER 17TH, AUGUST 17TH.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE, FROM THAT ITEM? OKAY.
UH, I BELIEVE I SHARE MY GROUT HAS A QUESTION.
WE POSTPONE, OR WE DEFER TO US.
DO WE, UM, DO WE GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN? THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING NOW DONE, TECHNICALLY HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SIGN YOUR QUESTION.
THE QUESTION COMES ARE WE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A THIRD PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT WE GET EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM? WELL, THE QUESTION IS HOW MANY BITES OF THE APPLE, THEY DID CHANGE THE ZONING AGAIN.
AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS GOING TO BE WANTING TO BE, THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION FOR THE PARISH ATTORNEY.
I KNOW THAT GENERALLY WHEN WE HEAR, UH, WHEN WE HAVE, WE HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE DEFER THE ITEM, REGARDLESS, GENERALLY WE ONLY HEAR NEW INFORMATION THAT IS, UH, THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED SINCE THAT ITEM WAS DEFERRED.
NOW I BELIEVE THE MAJORITY, IF NOT ALL OF THE COMMENT CARDS WERE IN REFERENCE TO THE PROPERTY BEING REZONED AS LC THREE.
AND I BELIEVE VERY, VERY RECENTLY, IT WAS A, THAT WAS AMENDED TO BE RESOLVED TO ELSIE ONE.
SO THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES WHAT ANY COMMENT ON IT BEING AMENDED TO LC ONE, AS OPPOSED TO L C3 CONSTITUTE NEW INFORMATION TO BE HEARD, AT LEAST AT THE VERY LEAST WE WOULDN'T BE READING REREADING THE SAME COMMENT CARDS, BUT I GUESS I THINK, AND I THINK IN THE SPIRIT OF A ORIGINALLY COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M, IF I'M WRONG, IT'S NOT, UH, JUST TO, UH, KIND OF KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, BUT TO GAUGE THE REACTIONS AS OPPOSED TO THIS, UH, 15,000 SQUARE FOOT POTENTIAL, AS OPPOSED TO THE 150,000, WHICH, UH, BASED ON READING THOSE SEVEN, THOSE LITTLE, SEVERAL CREDIT CARDS, UH, SEEM TO BE THE GENERAL FOCUS.
[00:35:01]
THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE.SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR RYAN.
SO RYAN, WHEN DID THEY CHANGE THE APPLICATION? THEY AMENDED THEIR APPLICATION TODAY.
SO THAT, THAT TO ME OPENS UP ANOTHER WHOLE ISSUE IN TERMS OF PUBLIC COMMENT, IF THE PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE TIME TO SUBMIT CARDS THAT I'M MOST LIKE AS A NEW ITEM ON THE AGENDA, I DON'T SEE, WE EVEN HEARD IT TODAY, UH, IN TERMS OF PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS THAT BECAUSE WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT KIND OF A SITUATION THAT I THINK THAT THIS BODY OR THE PARENTS' ATTORNEY COULD ADVISE US ON THE RIGHT OF THIS COMMISSION TO REOPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND AGAIN, ESPECIALLY BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS APPLICANT CHANGED THE, UH, ZONING, THE DAY OF THE MEETING, THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT'S EVEN FAIR TO THE PUBLIC, IN MY OPINION.
AND I THINK FROM A PARENT'S ATTORNEY ATTORNEY STANDPOINT, OR FROM A COMMISSION STANDPOINT, THAT WE CAN ALLOW A PUBLIC HERE HEARING BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT JUST CHANGED IT TODAY, WHICH GIVES THE PUBLIC NO CHANCE TO WEIGH IN ON IT, CIRCLE A WHOLE PILE OF WAYS IN, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, BECAUSE IT'S LESS INTENSE.
IT'S A MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING CATEGORY.
UM, THERE WERE ORIGINALLY ASKING FOR LC THREE, IT DROPPED DOWN ALL THE WAY TO LLC.
ONE LEGALLY IT'S ALLOWED, IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE.
IN OTHER APPLICANTS, THIS COMMISSION HAS MADE MOTIONS SIMILAR TO, UH, TO THIS REQUEST ON A, ON A MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING CATEGORY.
UM, THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, TOOK THE INITIATIVE THEMSELVES AND TALKING TO THE COUNCIL OFFICE AND WAS AWARE OF THE OPPOSITION.
SO WANTED TO, TO HAVE THAT TAKEN CARE OF, TO ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO THE MEETING STARTED THAT THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT THEY AGREED TO IT AND THAT THEY HAD OFFICIALLY AMENDED THEIR APPLICATION PRIOR TO THIS MEETING STORY.
OKAY, I'LL GO BACK TO MY, ONE OF MY ORIGINAL STATEMENTS.
WE ARE IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT TIME THAN WE WERE USUALLY.
IF THIS HAD HAPPENED THE DAY OF YOU HAVE THE BODY OF PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER, THEN OTHER THAN SOMEBODY, NO CARD.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE, PROBABLY AN OPPOSITION WHO COULD HAVE BEEN THERE TO HEAR THIS, AND THEN GIVE FURTHER COMMENT BEFORE THE MEETING ACTUALLY STARTED.
WHEN YOU READ THE FACT THAT IT WAS BEING AMENDED TO LC ONE VERSUS THE ORIGINAL, UH, ZONING REQUEST.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION.
PEOPLE MAY HAVE COMMENTED IN A DIFFERENT WAY IF THEY HAD BEEN IN THE CHAMBER, KNOWING TODAY THAT THIS WAS A DIFFERENT ITEM ON THE AGENDA AND WHAT THEY HAD SAID, COMMENT CARDS IN FOUR.
SO AGAIN, I THINK WE'VE ALLOWED IT IN THE PAST.
THIS IT'S LEGAL TO DO IT, BUT WE'RE AT A TOTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF A SITUATION WITH THE WHOLE COVERT INTO, UM, MEETINGS AND THE WAY THAT WE'RE MEETING BY ZOOM AND NOT IN PERSON WITH PEOPLE CAN NOT ATTEND.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER COLLINS, LOIS AND OUR CURRENT FORMAT IS CERTAINLY MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN, THAN WHAT WE'VE BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO IN THE PAST.
WE WERE ABLE TO GET IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK FROM A LARGE NUMBER OF, UH, PUBLIC, UH, THAT WERE INITIALLY IN OPPOSITION.
AND IT IT'LL, IT ALLOW FOR US TO CONSIDER THAT AND WERE UNABLE TO DO SO IN THIS PARTICULAR FORMAT, THEY WOULD BE THOSE PEOPLE WITH THOSE CARS PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE CHAMBER, HAD THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY COULD HAVE BEEN, UH, WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE DIFFERENT STATEMENTS BASED UPON THE 15,000 VERSUS THE 150, THEY MAY STILL HAVE BEEN IN OPPOSITION.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO IT, UH, AT THIS TIME.
BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, I LIKE, I LIKE TO SAY IF WE CAN GO AND GET A COMMENT FROM THE PARISH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO GENERALLY, UM, THE, ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD, IT'S ONLY REOPENED TO THE ISSUE THAT IT WAS DEFERRED FOR.
SO IF YOU DEFERRED IT FOR ONE REASON, THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD ONLY BE, UM, OPENED UP AGAIN TO THAT, UH, PARTICULAR ISSUE AGAIN.
UM, THIS IS ALSO, UH, SUBJECT TO HOW THE BOARD WISHES TO PROCEED THAT CAN ALLOW IT TO BE OPENED UP COMPLETELY.
IT'S GENERALLY, UM, DISCOURAGED BECAUSE THAT ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED AND MOVED ON.
UM, AND THEY REALLY ONLY WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE FOR THE DEFERRAL.
HOWEVER, IN THIS PARTICULAR, UH, KIND OF ARENA THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, WE ALWAYS WANT TO ERR, ON THE SIDE OF GIVING THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN, IN PERSON OR IN AN AVENUE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW A BACK AND FORTH SITUATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN A DEFERRAL IS NOT LEGALLY GOING TO AFFECT THIS PERSON'S OPPORTUNITY TO THEN CHANGE THE ZONING.
[00:40:01]
WAS A SUBDIVISION WHERE WE WERE UNDER SOME LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, UM, IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT THIS COMMISSION HAD TO, UH, ACT, UM, UNDER THAT LEGAL REQUIREMENT.THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO BE DONE.
THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE SOME FINANCING ON HOLD OR MAY HAVE AN OPTION FOR IT, BUT THAT IS NOT REALLY THE, UH, TO, AT ISSUE FOR THE COMMISSION TO, TO WEIGH IN.
I MEAN, THEY MAY WANT TO DO IT, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY, THEY'RE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO TAKE, TO TAKE ACTION.
SO IF THIS BOARD CHOOSES TO DEFER AND THEY WANT TO REHEAR THE WHOLE THING AGAIN, THEY MAY DO SO, UH, AT, UH, THAT OR IF THEY WANT TO LIMIT IT TO ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE.
UM, UH, RYAN, WHAT WAS THE POSITION OF THE COUNCIL OFFICE AND GARDEN? THIS MAT HAVE TO CHANGE AND CONTACTING HER OFFICE TODAY, UH, CONFIRM THE, UM, THE ISSUES AND THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT.
IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY SPOKE TO THE APPLICANT DIRECTLY IN WHICH THEY REQUESTED, CONTACTED OUR OFFICE, SPOKE WITH ME AND REQUESTED TO AMEND THEIR APPLICATION, WANTING TO KNOW IF THEY COULD LEGALLY DO THAT PRIOR TO THE STORE, THE MEETING, UH, IN WHICH I TOLD THEM THAT THEY COULD, UM, WE FAXED THEM, EMAILED THEM THE APPLICATION.
WE HAVE MADE THAT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD IN THE FILE.
UM, AND THEN I LED THE COMMISSION.
NOW, RESTORATIVE THIS UP, I'M SAYING THE COUNCIL OFFICE IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHANGE, OR THEY DIDN'T GET NO POSITION WHATSOEVER ON THE CHANGE.
THE COUNCIL PERSON THAT NO POSITION HAVE TO HAVE ON THE CHAIN, NOT OFFICIALLY TAKE A POSITION, BUT WAS AWARE OF IT.
IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE IN CONTACT WITH THE APPLICANT ON TO CONFIRM THAT THAT WAS, THAT HAPPENED.
UH, AND THAT WAS DONE PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION.
UM, UM, COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE IN REGARDS TO 60 DAYS, WHY ARE WE DOING 60 DAYS AS OPPOSED TO 30 DAYS? OH, YOU PUT YOUR STUFF IN IT.
WELL, I JUST SAID THE 60 DAYS ARE NORMAL.
OH, THOMAS WITH THE HAMBURGERS ON.
SO HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOU'D TAKE YOU DO THAT? WELL, WE PUT THE HAMBURGERS AT MY WIFE.
IF, FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH, I LIKE MEDICINE, TOMATO WITH MINE.
I'D LIKE SOME MAYO AND SOME LETTUCE.
SO COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE DAY, WE'RE ASKING ABOUT, UH, UM, WHILE WE WOULD GO IN WITH 60 AS OPPOSED TO 30, AND I BELIEVE YOU WENT WITH 60 BECAUSE THAT IS OUR STANDARD, UH, DEFERRAL TIMEFRAME.
AND SO, AND PROBABLY ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED IS, UH, THE LIMITS ON COMMUNICATION AND HOW TO GO ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THOSE AND IMPLEMENTING THEM EFFECTIVELY IN ORDER TO GARNER THAT FEEDBACK.
SO AGAIN, SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS FOR 60 DAYS.
SO THE STANDARD 60 DAY DEFERRAL, LET ME ADD THIS.
NORMALLY BROUGHT THEM AND SAID, HAVE A SET OF PLANS WHERE THE APP IN A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL OR ENGINEER WOULD HAVE TO REVISE THOSE DRAWINGS SINCE THIS IS A STRAIGHT REZONING TO YOUR DISCRETION, WHETHER THEY HAVE A 30 DAY TO PAROLE, 60 DAYS ROLLING AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT, UH, GENERALLY WE'D HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND ASK THEM, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT THEY THOUGHT WOULD BE MOST EFFECTIVE.
AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT OPTION HERE.
SO I GUESS WE WOULD HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT WE THINK IS MOST APPROPRIATE.
I'D BE MORE THAN WILLING TO HEAR THAT AND CONSIDER THAT.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF APRIL A COMMISSIONER? WHAT WERE YOU DOING THIS IN THE HOPES THAT WE REBECCA THE CHAMBER AND PULLED OUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND? IS THAT THE REASON FOR THE 60 DAYS? NO, I SAID EARLIER THE 60 DAYS WAS JUST STRICTLY BASED ON WHAT OUR STANDARD WAS IN THE PAST NOW.
I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION AND DO 30 DAYS AND I MEAN, UM, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME I'M SPEAKING WITH THE 60 DAYS, JUST BECAUSE THAT'S OKAY, THANK YOU.
WAS THERE ANOTHER QUESTION? WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE THE IDEA OF THE 60 VERSUS A 30 DAY BECAUSE WE DID THE FIRST BEFORE, AND OF COURSE HE MAKE THE AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE RESIDENT'S OPINION IS AS COUNCILMAN LEWIS STATED, I LIKE TO KNOW THEIR OPINION ON THE CHANGE, BUT IT ALSO WILL BE DEFERRED FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.
IT GIVES BOTH AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A, NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THE MADDIX, SEND IT TO THE COUNCIL, UH, WHICH IS THE ULTIMATE BODY HAD TO FINALLY MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
SO EVEN IF WE DECIDED TO DENY IT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD GIVE THE COUNCIL PERSON AND, AND, AND THE COMMUNITY A CHANCE TO WORK OUT WHATEVER AGREEMENTS THEY MIGHT
[00:45:01]
HAVE.UH, AND I'M NOT GOING TO POSE THE 60.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SINCE WE'VE ALREADY DEFERRED THE ITEM IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, UH, CERTAINLY THE, THE, THE, THE CHANGE IS SOMETHING THE COMMUNITY SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE YOUR OPINION ON IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
UH, SO IN NOT BEING IN THE CHAMBERS AND NOT BEING PRESENT TO ASK THEM WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE IS OF A CONCERN IS JUST THAT 60 DAYS BASED IN 30 DAYS, AND TO DEAL WITH IT NEXT MONTH, THEY WILL STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE AND THEY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TEASE AND SUBMIT THOSE CHANGES AS, AS A, WHETHER IT'S A FULL PUBLIC HEARING OR WEAPONS BACK IN WRITING THEIR OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT TO THE, TO THE AMENDMENT.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE DO STICK 30 DAYS AS OPPOSED TO THE 60 AND BRING IT BACK OUT NEXT COMMISSION MEETING I'LL SECOND, THE 30.
THERE IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM COMMISSIONER ADDISON TO THE FURTHEST ITEM, 30 DAYS TO OUR JULY MEETING.
AND THERE'S THE SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COLLINS, LEWIS IN SUPPORT OF THAT, UM, SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? SEE, NONE THAT MOTION CARRIES.
SO THAT ITEM WILL BE THE FIRST 30 DAYS THROUGH JULY 20TH, JULY 20TH, MEETING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
DON'T THIS TIME WE'LL GO ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10 ITEMS, RIGHT? ITEMS TWO AND THREE DIFFERENT.
PERMISSION TO CALL US LEWIS ITEMS TWO AND THREE, BOTH HAVE BEEN DEFERRED FOR 30 DAYS.
AND AT THIS TIME, WE'LL MOVE ON
[Item 10]
TO ITEM NUMBER 10, A SMALL SUBDIVISION, FOUR 20, UH, GOODWOOD PLAYS, FLAG, LOTS OF DIVISION.WELL, AND THE COMMISSION STAFF CERTIFIES THAT THE PROPOSED REQUEST MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE UTC FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION.
WATSON LOCATED SOUTH OF SEVEN WEST OF LASALLE AVENUE CONCEALED.
THESE THREE 11 WATSON C APPLICANT IS K O.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS ACCESS BY PUBLIC STREET.
THE FUTURE LAND USE NATION IS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD S S FOUR 20 GOOD FOOD PLACE, FLAT, LOTS OF DIVISION.
THE FAIR FROM MAY 18 BY CONSTANT MEMBER WATSON.
WE HAVE RECEIVED THREE COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM, 16 MESSAGES OF OPPOSITION, WHICH WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD.
OUR FIRST CARD AND SUPPORT IS FROM THE APPLICANT.
I'M THE CURRENT OWNER OF SIX THREE, FIVE SIX, SEVEN OAKS AVENUE, AND HAVE SUBMITTED THE PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT.
OUR NEXT IS FROM ELIZABETH TAMAJ.
PLENTY BIG ENOUGH TO PUT TWO HOUSES ON THEM.
AND FROM GREGORY TOMASZ, I SUPPORT THIS ITEM.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GETTING THE CHORUS FOR THE OPPOSITION.
THE FIRST IS FROM DON ELLIOTT.
I AM OPPOSED TO THE CREATION OF A FLAG, LOTS OF DIVISION IN OUR GOODWILL COMMUNITY FROM NORMAN RYAN, OPPOSE, DUE TO NOT INTENDED LAND USAGE OF A ONE RESIDENTIAL LOT.
I LIVED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.
NO EFFORT OF CONTACT HAS BEEN MADE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE PLANS ARE.
I'M OPPOSED TO ALLOWING THIS AS IT GOES AGAINST THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, JEAN RYAN, WE PURCHASED IN GOODWOOD FOR THE BEAUTIFUL, LARGE LOTS, NOT TO BE DIVIDED INTO SMALLER AND SMALLER PARSONS FROM WILLIAMS STEEL.
THE SECOND I LIVED DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO THIS LOT, AND I OPPOSE THIS ZONING CHANGE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE LOSS IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SO DIVIDED ONCE, AND IT WILL HAVE NO POSITIVE EFFECT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CHANGE THE ZONING.
IT WILL IN FACT, ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND MY PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
UM, DEBBIE COMBS, THE CHARACTER OF OLD GOODWOOD IS DEFINED
[00:50:01]
BY LARGER LOTS.WE WERE SEEING THAT SUBDIVIDED, LOTS OF REQUESTS AND ARE GRANTED NUMEROUS VIRUSES BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT THEN ALLOW FOR STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON TOP OF THE STREETS AND ADJACENT HOMES.
THERE HAS BEEN NO REACH OUT TO NEIGHBORS EVEN AFTER THE DEFERRAL FROM LAST MONTH ABOUT ANY PLANS.
AND THE ONLY THING KNOWN IS THE PROPOSED LOT SIZE ONE DIVIDED.
THERE ARE ALREADY LOTS OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE HOMES OR SMALLER LOTS THAT DO NEED A PERMIT, PROPERTY VALUES, OLD GOODWOOD'S STAY STEADY AND IMPROVE IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF THE LARGE LOTS AND TREE CANOPY.
THIS SUBDIVISION IMPACTS BOTH OF THOSE CHARACTERISTICS.
I AM THANKFUL THAT FLAT, FLAT LOTS NOW REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT AND HOPE YOU WILL DENY THIS PERMIT.
I AM OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED SUBDIVIDING OF THE LOT DOUGLAS CRAIG WITHOUT KNOWING THE BUILDING PLANS FOR THE NEWLY CREATED LOT.
I'M LOOKING AT THE PLANNING MAP.
IT WOULD GREET THE SMALLEST LOT IN THE AREA AS WELL AS THE ONLY TRUE FLAG LOT.
ALSO, THERE ARE MANY OLD OAK TREES ON THE FRONT HALF OF THAT LOT THAT WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED IF THIS SUBDIVISION WERE TO BE ALIVE.
I OPPOSE THE CHANGE IN THE ZONING OF THE LOT.
I AM FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE AORN RESIDENCES WITHIN THE DEFINED BOUNDARIES.
I AM A PROPERTY OWNER ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED FLAG.
THIS TYPE OF LOT SUBDIVISION IS IN DIRECT CONTRAST WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD, ANY SUBDIVISION AND SUBSEQUENT SUB AND SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION WILL REQUIRE A SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTION IN ALTERATIONS OF THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS.
THESE ACTIONS WOULD PERMANENTLY CHANGE.
THE VERY REASON RESIDENTS CAREFULLY CHOOSE THEIR PROPERTIES IN THE OLD GOOD WITH NEIGHBORHOOD.
I BELIEVE THIS WILL MAKE THE MEDIA PROPERTIES LESS DESIRABLE TO ANY FUTURE BUYERS FROM KAREN FRENCH WATSON I'M OPPOSED TO A FLAG LOT AT THIS LOCATION AND WAYNE WATSON AND KAREN FRITZ WATSON.
WE OPPOSED THE PRO THE APPROVAL OF A FLAG LOT ON SEVEN OAKS AVENUE AND APPROVAL.
CREATING A NEW LOT WILL DESTROY THE BEAUTY OF SEVERAL TREES.
ONCE A HOME IS CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE, EVALUE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY AND FOR THE ROAD, THE BEAUTY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS FROM LINDA DALTON, I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE ZONING CHANGE.
AS I BELIEVE IT WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROPERTIES NEAR IT.
MY HOME IS ADJACENT TO THE LEFT OF AND TOUCHING THIS PROPERTY.
IT WILL SERVE NO BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ONLY FOR THE NEGATIVELY AFFECT PROPERTY.
I'M KATHERINE KORESH, OPPOSED TO FLAG LOTS IN OUR, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM DAN BOUDREAUX, I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED ACTION UNDER ITEM, SMALL SUBDIVISION, FOUR 20.
IT ONLY ADDS TO THE DETRIMENT IMMUNITY, DIMINUTION OF THE, OF THE VALUE OF GOODWOOD PROPERTIES THAT ARE WELL KNOWN TO SUPPORT LARGE LOTS.
ALSO OPPOSE THE DEVELOPER, MAKING THIS APPLICATION RATHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE EXISTING LOT AT SIX 35, SIX SEVEN OAK STREET, WITHOUT DIRECT CON CONSOLIDATION OR CONTACT WITH GOODWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED FOR RECORD THAT THE REQUIRED SIGNAGE WAS POSTED INVISIBLE FOR AT LEAST THREE DAYS BEFORE THE SIX 1520 HEARING DATE.
ALSO THE STOLEN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN MSP, A DRAINAGE IMPACT STUDY, AND A WATER QUALITY IMPACT STUDY SHOULD BE COMPLETED, SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GENERAL PUBLIC FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE REQUEST OF
IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES THE REQUEST TO FLAG A LOT, PLEASE MAKE A CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL THAT THE DEVELOPER CONTRACTORS AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS COMPLY WITH SIGNAGE, FOR TRAFFIC DELIVERIES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DECONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND HOURS OF WORK CONSTRUCTION.
ONLY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 AM TO 4:00 PM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
IT'S THE WHOLE, HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM, MR. CHAIRMAN? THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL CARDS, COMMENTS ON THE SIDE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEMBERS AT THIS TIME, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
I COULD LEAVE ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE AND YOU'VE GOT A GENTLEMAN ACROSS THE STREET AND TYPICALLY FOR SUCH A CONDITIONAL USE, WE ALWAYS LOOK AT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED AND LOOKING AT THE OVERALL LAND AND LOOKING AT THE OVERALL, THE AERIAL SHOWING WHERE WE DO HAVE FLAG LOGS AND MOST OF THEM APPEAR TO BE ON A GOOD GOODWOOD.
UM, CAN YOU STILL HEAR ME? OKAY.
UH, THERE ARE FLAG LAWS, BUT THE FLAG LOTS TEND TO BE OF A LARGER SIZE THAN WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HERE.
SO WITH THAT LEVEL OF OPPOSITION ON THE FACT THAT I THINK IT IS QUITE A SMALL LOT FOR THIS AREA, THE URBAN FABRIC, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.
[00:55:01]
IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY THIS ITEM BEFORE WE CALL FOR A SECOND.ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YEAH, SO I HAVE A QUESTION I DID HAVE MY SHARE SAID THAT THEY ARE FLAGGED LOTS IN THE AREA THAT'S HOLCOMB.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FLAT GLASS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THAT AREA? BECAUSE I WAS ALSO ADVISED THAT WERE FLAT GLASS ALREADY IN THE AREA OF THE ZONE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT I'M GOING TO HAVE OPPOSITION TO IT, BUT WHAT OUR LEGAL STANDARD IN TERMS OF HAVING FLAG LIGHTS ALREADY IN THE AIR.
SO COMMISSIONER ADDISON, YOU'RE CORRECT.
THERE IS A FLAG LOT DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY.
MY FIVE, SEE THIS FLAG LOT WAS CREATED BEFORE THE CODE WAS CHANGED TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE FOR ALL BLACK LIGHTS MOVING FORWARD.
I WAS DONE YEARS AGO BEFORE THE CURRENT PROCESS THAT REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO UNDER THE CURRENT GUIDELINES STEP AND IS CERTIFIED THAT TECHNICALLY IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OR A FLAG LOT THAT IT MEETS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA UNDER THE CURRENT A ZONING.
IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE TYPICAL FRONTAGE AT THE STREET PUBLIC STREET.
SO THE ONLY WAY TO SUBDIVIDE THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY IS THROUGH A FLAG LOT.
THAT'S BEFORE YOU ON THIS APPLICATION, WHICH REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
YOU CAN CONSIDER WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT AND, UH, HEAR ANY TESTIMONY THAT WAS GIVEN AND READ INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT AND WHY IT SHOULD BE APPROVED OR NOT.
AND THE STAFF AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THE FLACK LIVES IN THE CURRENT, NOT THE PAST, UM, UH, APPLICATION PROCESS OF BLACK LIVES UNDER THE CURRENT ONE.
DOES IT MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA TODAY? COMMISSIONER HARRISON? IT DOES TICK.
IT MEETS ALL THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS.
OR A FLAG LOT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ADDISON? DO YOU HAVE ANY, I'M FINE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN GROAN? I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE COMMENT FOR THE RECORD.
UM, THE LADY, A LADY WHO, UH, HAD AN OPPOSITION LETTER, UH, LINDA DALTON, UH, SHE IS A RESIDENT ON LOT FIVE C, WHICH IS ITSELF A FLAG LOT.
HOWEVER, THAT LOT IN FIVE, A AND B, WHICH WERE CREATED WITH A FLAG LOT, OBVIOUSLY BEFORE THIS, UH, THIS CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT WAS PUT IN, THOSE LOTS ARE QUITE LARGE.
AND TWO TO THREE TIMES THE SIZE OF THE LOT THAT'S BEING REQUESTED HERE, JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT IN A COMMENT OF VICE CHAIRMAN, UH, COMMISSIONER COLLINS, LOUIS, UH, MR. GOT WHAT, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SIZE OF THOSE OTHER MONTHS VERSUS THE ONES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED AND WOULD THIS BE, WOULD THAT COME IN ON THE SIDE OF THIS LAB, IS THERE A FREE PLAN BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DIVIDING THEM ACROSS THE FRONT, PAINT ME ACROSS THE FRONT AND BACK OF THE LOT IS WHERE THE DIVIDING IS GOING TO BE.
IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS CORRECTLY, APPARENTLY THE DIVIDING ONE'S GOING SOUTHEAST TO NORTHWEST THAT ABOUT 131.3, FOUR FEET.
PART OF MY, MY CONCERN IS IF YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT, WE NEEDED TO DIVIDE THIS MORE EQUITABLY.
BUT, UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S AN EXISTING HOUSE ON THERE AND EXISTING CARPORT.
I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME OTHER AMENITIES ON SITE.
UM, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT.
I GUESS IT DOES MEET A ONE, BUT I AGREE.
THIS IS, THIS IS AN AREA THAT GENERALLY HAS LARGER LOTS AND HAS HISTORICALLY KEPT THOSE LARGER LOTS.
AND I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE A REASON TO CHANGE THAT IN THIS CASE.
SO THE HOUSE, THE, THE FRONT OF IT, I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THIS CORRECTLY.
SO THERE'S AN EXISTING HOUSE ALREADY ON THE LOT.
AND IT SITS BACK FORWARD TO WHERE THEY CAN PUT A HOUSE IN FRONT OF THAT HOUSE.
I MEAN, THEY, THEY, UH, THE PROPOSED LOT SIX DOES, DOES MEET ANY ONE ZONING, CORRECT? IT'S 10,500 SQUARE FEET.
AND, AND SO, I MEAN, IT'S, THIS IS NOT A, THIS IS A RE SUBDIVISION.
BUT THIS IS CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE IT IS A FLAG LOT.
BUT HOW ARE THEY, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET INTO THE BACK OF THIS OTHER HOUSE THAT'S IN THE BACK? THERE'S NO, THERE, THERE IS, THERE IS A TWIN, THERE'S A 20, THERE'S A 20 FOOT RIGHT.
OF WAY ON THE, ON THE, ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE, ALONG THE STEEL DALTON PROPERTY,
[01:00:01]
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING.AND THAT WOULD BE A MISTAKE, UH, UH, RYAN, THAT, THAT THAT'S A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT THAT WE MOVE TO EQUAL FLAGS.
SO THAT'S,
THE LAST BLACK ROCK WAS THE NOD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT CAME BEFORE YOU.
AND THAT WAS A ACTUALLY THAT WAS DEFERRED, UM, MAY 18TH COUNCILMAN COUNSEL.
WAS THERE A COMMENT FROM THE PERSON THAT WHOSE WHOSE HOUSE IS BEHIND US? YEAH.
IS THAT CORRECT? STEEL AND DALTON.
AND YOU HAD A GENTLEMAN ACROSS THE STREET AND JANE HAD TRIED IT, BUT NOTHING FROM THE PERSON WHO WENT FROM THE EXISTING PROFITING BEHIND THIS PERSON ASIDE, WHATEVER HE WAS IN 60 SCHOOL AND IT WAS FLAT, HE WAS NOT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I GUESS MY CONCERN WOULD BE, HOW ARE WE SURE THAT WE KNOW WHERE THE UTILITY AND SEWER SERVITUDE IS FOR A LOT 61? BRIAN WAS ANY INFORMATION GIVEN IF THIS LOT SIX B TWO, WHAT BLOCK, ANY OF THAT UTILITY SERVICEABILITY TO A LOT, SIX 51 STIPULATIONS THAT IF APPROVED, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT.
SO I GUESS THEY'RE ASSUMING THAT IT GOES INTO THAT 20 FOOT OF RIGHT AWAY, BUT THEY WEREN'T SURE.
BEFORE THE CITY WOULD SIGN OFF ON THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONFIRMED.
I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON BEHIND THEIR HEAD FILED ONE, WHATEVER THE OTHER APPROVING OR NOT APPROVING OF THIS REZONING OR RESET, DIVIDING UP THIS SLOP.
I BELIEVE VICE CHAIRMAN HAD A COMMENT.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PERSON WHO IS IN THE EXISTING HOUSE? YES.
I, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS FIRST MOTION HAD BEEN APPROVED, BUT YET IT IS NOT.
IT'S NOT A, WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T REQUEST A SECOND TO IT.
WELL, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO GO AHEAD AND CLEAR THAT ONE UP FIRST.
CAUSE I WANT TO EITHER MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OR EVEN MAKE A PLAIN MOTION RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE SEEM TO HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM AND WE EITHER NEED TO WE'VE NEEDED THE FIRST FOR 30 DAYS SO WE CAN GET SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, CONCERNS WE MIGHT HAVE ON THE FLOOR OPEN AND, OR GO AHEAD AND MOVE IT OR DENY IT OR WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT, BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMISSIONER ADDISON.
I'M GOING TO ALLOW VICE CHAIRMAN GROUT TO MAKE A ONE LAST COMMENT IN REGARDS TO, IN REGARDS TO COMMISSIONER COLLINS, LEWIS, UH, LAST INQUIRY, WE'LL REQUEST A SECOND FOR THE INITIAL MOTION.
AND THEN, UH, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU MADE YOUR MOTION NOW, BUT IF YOU HADN'T, YOU CAN MAKE IT, IF YOU HAVE, AND WE'LL REQUEST A SECOND ON THAT.
UH, COMMISSIONER CALLS, LOUIS THE HOUSE AFTER, OR THE HOUSE BEHIND THIS IS 63 56.
AND THE FIRST PERSON IN PROPORTION IS KYLE ROGER.
[01:05:01]
AND AT THAT ADDRESS AND HE SAYS, HE'S THE CARD OWNER.AND WE SUBMITTED THE PLANS TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT, THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER.
HE APPARENTLY IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE.
SO IT'S NOT JUST A DEVELOPER COMING IN IT, APPARENTLY HE OWNER INITIAL NOT SO.
AND SO WE HAD A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM VICE CHAIRMAN CROWD TO IGNITE THIS ITEM.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION COMING, BUT IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT ORIGINAL MOTION? SECOND, THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO DENY THAT ITEM.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO DENYING THE ITEM, THE MOTION OR THAT A QUESTION THAT WE FIRST ENTERTAINED IT EXACTLY FOR A SECOND FOR THE MOTION FIRST, ARE WE GOING TO DO IT BOTH IN THE SAME MOTION ONCE.
WHO SECONDED THE MOTION?
I DIDN'T HEAR A SECOND ON THE MOTION FOR COMMISSIONER COMMISSION HILL, COMMISSIONER HILL SECONDED.
DO YOU HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? OH YES.
THERE'S A SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO THE FURTHEST ITEM, 30 DAYS TO OUR JULY MEETING.
AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SECOND COUNCILOR BELOW A SECOND COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE, UH, UH, KIND OF THROW A HAND UP FIRST.
SO THERE'S A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO, TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION OF DEFERRING THIS ITEM? YES.
HEY, DAVE, THIS MATTER CANNOT BE DEFERRED.
IT IS TECHNICALLY A SUB DIVISION AND IT HAS BEEN DEFERRED ONE TIME BEFORE.
SO IT MUST BE ACTIVE PALM WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IT WILL BE APPROVED SO THAT IT, IT EASILY NEEDS TO BE VOTED UP OR VOTED DOWN TONIGHT.
NOW IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT UNDER A GOVERNOR EDWARDS EXECUTIVE ORDER, THAT ALL TIME DELAYS ARE SUSPENDED.
HOWEVER, I DO NOT WANT TO GET IN A ARGUMENT AND DEBATE.
I WOULD RATHER YOU JUST COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT LOSSES.
SO Y'ALL NEED TO EITHER VOTE THIS UP OR VOTED DOWN.
ALL OF THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
NOT NOT, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS A FLAG LOT SUBDIVISION.
IT IS, IT IS A SUBDIVISION, BUT IT'S NOT YOUR TYPICAL SUBURBIA, RIGHT? NOT ONLY MEETS THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS REQUIRES CONDITIONAL THESE PERMIT.
RIGHT? AND MY CONCERN IS THAT IS CHARACTERIZED AS A SUBDIVISION AND AN APPLICANT COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS A SUBDIVISION WHILE TECHNICALLY IS ALSO STILL A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED, BUT THE ARGUMENT COULD BE SO YOU COULD DEFER IT.
AND IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, THEY'LL HAVE TO, TO LITIGATE THE MATTER.
AND I'M TOTALLY FINE DOING THAT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE Y'ALL AWARE OF THAT.
GIVEN THAT, UH, NEW INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ADDISON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RECONSIDER YOURSELF? THE TWO MOTION WE'RE DRAWING MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO THE FURTHEST ITEM FOR 30 DAYS HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN THERE.
THE ORIGINAL MOTION FROM VICE CHAIRMAN ROUTE TO DENY THIS ITEM, UH, WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILL.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT MOTION TO DENY THE ITEM I BOUGHT TO REJECT ON DENYING AND I, OKAY.
THERE'S AN OBJECTION FROM COMMISSIONER ADDISON.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS? I'M GOOD.
THERE'S ANOTHER OBJECTION FROM COMMISSIONER COLLINS, LEWIS AND COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE.
YEAH, BUT I BELIEVE WE, WE WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
IF IT GETS DENIED TONIGHT, YOU'LL STILL GO TO COUNCIL.
NO, THIS SIMPLY GOES TO THE PLANETS OUT THERE AND WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL.
[01:10:01]
CHAIRMAN WASHINGTON.IS THIS TO DENY TO DENY EDISON? NO.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOU'RE VOTING TO DENY IT.
MR. COLLINS LEWIS, HAVE YOU AS ABSTAINING MR. COLLINS LEWIS.
YESTERDAY NIGHT, COMMISSIONER HAWTHORNE.
THE MOTION IS TO DENY, UM, FOR
THE COMMISSIONER TUFTS ROLLING.
THANK YOU, MR. HOLDEN COMMISSION MEMBERS.
[Item 11]
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11, INITIATE TEXT AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 16 SIGNS.THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THE CONSENT OFFICES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT HAS REQUESTED REVISIONS TO THE CHAPTER 16 ASSIGNED ORDINANCE.
IF THIS IS INITIATED, WE'LL CIRCULATE A DRAFT DOCUMENT TO YOU AT YOUR NEXT MEETING.
UM, AND THE FINAL APPROVAL WOULD BE ON A, A MEETING IN THE FUTURE.
SO IS THERE A MOTION NEEDED TO MOVE THIS FORWARD? YES.
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION AND I'LL SHARE WHAT I'M MAKING THE FLOOR, BUT I'M MAKING A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD.
THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.
IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND FROM THE VICE CHAIR.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPROVING THIS ITEM? SAME, NONE.
[Item 12]
COMMISSIONED MEMBERS AT THIS TIME, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12 CREATION OF A WORKING GROUP TO DISCUSS THE PROCESS FOR SELECTING A PERMANENT PLANNING DIRECTOR.THIS ITEM MAY BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I BELIEVE EACH OF YOU HAVE BEEN, UH, MADE AWARE AT THIS TIME THAT, UH, AND, AND OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO, UH, WITH THIS WORKING GROUP.
AND SO AT THIS TIME, UH, I'LL, WE'RE LOOKING TO COMPOSE A GROUP OF SEVEN PEOPLE.
THOSE SEVEN OF THOSE SEVEN PEOPLE, FOUR OF THEM WILL COME FROM THIS BODY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT WILL INCLUDE THE TWO OFFICES, UH, THE CHAIRMAN MYSELF, ROSSI, WASHINGTON, JR.
UH, THE VICE CHAIRMAN, CLIFFORD GROUT, UH, THE MAYOR'S REPRESENTATIVE, CALVIN HILL, THE METRO COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE COMMISSIONER, UH, COLLINS, UH, DONNA COLLINS, LOUIS WILL.
WE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ON THAT GROUP, A MEMBER OF THE GROWTH COALITION, ERIC PIAZZA, A MEMBER OF THE FEDERATION, EDWARD
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT AT THIS TIME? I'LL, I'LL APPOINT THOSE MEMBERS TO SERVE AS THE WORKING GROUP, UH, TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND THEY WILL REPORT TO THIS BODY PERIODICALLY TO KEEP US UP TO BREASTS.
IS THERE A MOTION NEEDED FOR THAT? NO, MA'AM, THERE'S NOT RIGHT THE COMMITTEE.
[Communications]
TIME, WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMUNICATIONS.WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE DIRECT STATEMENTS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, WE HAVE UPDATED PRINTED COPIES OF CHAPTER FOUR, CHAPTER 14 AND CHAPTER 19.
ALSO APPENDIX I OR YOUR UPDATED UTC WILL HAVE THESE COPIES AVAILABLE AT OUR OFFICE FOR YOU TO PICK UP, OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE WE CAN MAIL THEM TO YOU.
ALSO, YOU RECEIVED ELECTRONIC DRAFT COPIES OF CHAPTER EIGHT.
ZONING DISTRICTS CHAPTER USES THE CHAPTER 11 DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS.
THESE ITEMS WILL BE ON YOUR AGENDA NEXT MONTH.
THANK YOU, MR. HALL, MR. MEMBERS AT THIS TIME, WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS.
AND I'D LIKE TO START OFF WITH OUR LATEST EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH.
JASMINE THOMAS, WHO WAS A PLANNER TOO, IN THE LONG, IN THE LONG RANGE DIVISION, YASMIN WORKS ON OUR VARIOUS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND SERVES AS STAFF TO THE COMPLETE STREETS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
AND MOST RECENTLY TOOK ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROCESSING PLAN AMENDMENTS, NO MATTER WHAT TASK HAS COME HER WAY, SHE TAKES THE INITIATIVE TO ENSURE HER WORK IS ACCURATE AND COMPLETED EFFICIENTLY.
JASMINE CAN WORK BOTH INDEPENDENTLY AND AS PART OF A TEAM ON LARGER PROJECTS, SUCH AS THE ANNUAL REPORT WHERE HER SKILLS IN GIS AND DESIGN
[01:15:01]
RULES ARE QUITE VALUABLE OR BIG PICTURE VIEWS ON PLANNING, MAKE HER AN ASSET TO THE LONG RANGE DIVISION.CONGRATULATIONS, JASMINE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS I'D LIKE TO, ONCE AGAIN, THANK OUR IT TEAM WHO DID A PHENOMENAL JOB.
UH, WE, WE HAD SOME REAL ISSUES, UH, AND, AND IT SEEMED LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN FAR LONGER THAN 15 MINUTES, UH, TO, TO RESOLVE.
SO WE APOLOGIZE AGAIN FOR THAT LATE, LATE START TO THE MEETING, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLY LONGER IF NOT FOR YOU.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? THE MEETING, THE MOTION ON FORM COUNTY COMMISSIONER COLLINS LEWIS SECOND FROM THE VICE CHAIR.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS SAYING ON THE MEETING'S ADJOURNED? THANK YOU ALL.