>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. WE'RE GOING TO CALL TO ORDER
[00:00:04]
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SACHSE WILL HOLD A REGULAR MEETING ON MONDAY,[1. Call to Order: The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Sachse will hold a regular meeting on Monday, January 27, 2025, at 6:00 PM to consider the following items of business:]
JANUARY 27, 2025 AT 6:00 P.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS OF BUSINESS.FIRST IS INVOCATION AND PLEDGE.
I'VE ASKED COMMISSIONER KEMPER FOR THE INVOCATION AND COMMISSIONER BENNETT LEAD THE PLEDGE, IF YOU WILL, PLEASE RISE.
LORD GOD, WE GIVE YOU THANKS FOR THE BEAUTIFUL DAY OF LIFE THAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO US TODAY.
WE THANK YOU FOR BEING ABLE TO BE HERE AND DISCUSS THE BUSINESS OF YOUR CITY.
WE ASK THAT YOU WOULD GIVE EVERYONE HERE WISDOM, THAT WE MIGHT HEAR EACH OTHER IN THE THINGS THAT ARE SAID AND TO HAVE UNDERSTANDING AND LORD, WE MIGHT MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE.
WE PRAISE YOU AND EXALT YOU IN YOUR SON'S NAME. AMEN.
>> PLEASE SHOW ME THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S DISTRIBUTED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UP NEXT IS PUBLIC COMMENT.
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING ANY TOPIC NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMENTS REGARDING ANY DISCUSSION, ONLY ITEMS ON THE AGENDA MAY BE ADDRESSED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.
THE TIME LIMIT IS THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
COURT OF THE TEXAS OPEN METING ACT.
THE COMMISSION IS PROHIBITED FROM DISCUSSING ANY ITEM NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA, BUT WILL TAKE COMMENTS UNDER ADVISEMENT.
WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
[1. Consider approving the January 13, 2025, meeting minutes.]
CONSIDER APPROVING THE JANUARY 13 MINUTES.WOULD ANYONE FROM THE COMMISSION LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS SIDE? SEEING NONE, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION.
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
>> I THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE THERE.
|>> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MONTO.
I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS? IF NOT, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.
[2. Conduct a public hearing to consider approval of an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and map, to grant a change of zoning from Residential-5 District (R-5) to Neighborhood Shopping District (C-1) on an approximately 1.81-acre tract of land located at 5206 Ben Davis Road, within Sachse city limits.]
WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM JANUARY 13.CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP TO GRANT A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R5 TO NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING DISTRICT, C ONE ON APPROXIMATELY 1.81 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED AT 5206 BEN DAVIS ROAD, WITHIN THE SEXY CITY LIMITS. PHILLIP.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION, PHILLIP FINHALL CITY PLANNER.
THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS FOR A REZONING OF A APPROXIMATELY 1.8 ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5206 BEN DAVIS ROAD.
THIS IS A REZONE REQUEST FROM R5 TO C1.
CURRENTLY, THE PROPERTY IS BEING USED AS A TEMPLE FOR THE AMERICAN MOMS ACADEMY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE TO ACCOMMODATE FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE USE OF A 2-3 STORY EXPANSION THAT WOULD ADD CLASSROOMS AND MEETING ROOMS. IN FRONT OF YOU HERE IS A AERIAL MAP.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SITE IS IN BLUE THERE TO THE NORTH, YOU'LL SEE 78 AND TO THE WEST. YOU'LL SEE BEN DAVIS.
[00:05:02]
ALONG 78, THERE IS AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, AS WELL AS NTV AND WALGREENS THERE.IN BETWEEN THIS SITE AND 78 IS MORE COMMERCIAL LAND THAN IS VACANT CURRENTLY.
THERE ARE CHURCHES TO THE WEST ACROSS BEN DAVIS AND RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE EAST.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, HERE'S THE ZONING MAP FOR THIS AREA.
TO THE NORTH, THERE IS THAT C2 ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE C2 SURROUNDING ON THE WEST AND NORTH SIDES OF THIS.
TO THE SOUTH IS THE R-5 ZONING DISTRICT, A CONTINUATION OF WHAT THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED.
AND TO THE EAST IS THE R-4 AND R-5 ZONING DISTRICTS.
C2 CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR 90 FOOT MAX HEIGHT, 7.2 AND R-4 BOTH ALLOW FOR 25 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT, AS WELL AS TWO STORIES, AND R FIVE ALLOWS FOR 25 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH 1.5 STORIES.
AS I SAID, MAIN DIFFERENCE HERE BETWEEN C1 R-5, THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS REQUEST IS A CHANGE TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWANCE WITHIN THAT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THIS USE.
SOME EXAMPLES OF C1 ZONING DISTRICTS ARE LIKE THE SHOPPING CENTER THAT YOU SEE ALONG MILES ROAD WITH THE LITTLE CAESARS.
RIGHT NEXT TO THAT J STONE PARK OVER THERE.
IT'S MEANT TO BE MORE OF A TRANSITIONAL AREA BETWEEN YOUR MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S MEANT TO BE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS PUBLIC USES.
STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT ZONING DECISIONS MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN SUPPORTS THIS REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT WE APPROVE THIS REQUEST.
THE PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AS WELL AS THE COMP PLAN.
YOUR RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE HEARD AT THEIR MARCH 3, 2025 MEETING.
ZONING IS THE FIRST STEP OF MULTIPLE STEPS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE FOR AN EXPANSION ON THIS PROPERTY.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH CIVIL PLANS TO BASICALLY MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE MEETING ALL DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS, PARKING, EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, AS WELL AS BUILDING PLANS FOR THAT EXPANSION AS WELL.
THIS IS THE FIRST OF MANY STEPS THEY'LL HAVE TO TAKE BEFORE THEY CAN ACTUALLY PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION.
AT THIS TIME, I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN, SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM PUBLIC, AND THEN YOU CAN BRING ME BACK UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.[OVERLAPPING]
CAN WE GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT WAS THE OVERVIEW OF WHERE? YES. THEY'RE ASKING FOR C1?
>> WHAT'S AROUND THEM IS C2, CORRECT?
>> WAS IN THE PRESENTATION, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OR THE REQUIREMENTS OF C2?
>> FOR WHICH COMPONENT? HEIGHT?
>> MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR C2 ZONING DISTRICTS IS 90 FEET.
>> AT THIS TIME, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK? APPROACH THE MIC, WE HAVE SEVERAL COMMENT CARDS FILLED IN.
IF YOU HAVE FILLED ONE OUT, IF YOU'LL FILL IN, GET THE CITY SECRETARY.
>> MARK. WELCOME. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS.
JUST ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
IT'S ACTUALLY ON THE SLIDE, THE AERIAL SHOT THAT YOU HAVE.
WE BACK RIGHT UP TO THE EXISTING PARKING LOT.
OF THE PROPERTY. FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM UNDERSTANDS A C1.
I'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH IN THE CITY ORDINANCE FOR ZONING, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 4 AND 13, DEFINING A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING DISTRICT, C1, AND IT IS DESCRIBED AS A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
IT'S TO CONDUCT RETAIL TRADE AND PERSONAL SERVICE AND ENTERPRISES TO MEET THE NEEDS AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PEOPLE OF ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
[00:10:03]
BECAUSE OF THESE SHOPS AND STORES THAT MAY BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESIDENTS, RELIGIOUS AND RECREATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL USES, MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIGHT, AIR, OPEN SPACE, OFF STREET PARKING ARE MADE THAN THEY'RE PROVIDED IN THE C2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.THERE'S ALSO USER PERMITTED SECTION 4.2 THAT ALSO SPEAKS OF THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CANNOT EXCEED 14,000 SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA.
ALSO, IN THAT SAME SECTION, SLEEPING FACILITIES FOR CARETAKERS AND NIGHT WATCHMEN EMPLOYED ON THE PREMISES ARE PERMITTED.
NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL USE IS PERMITTED.
WITH THE INFORMATION THAT'S PROVIDED TO US, SOME OF THIS INFORMATION WAS GATHERED FROM A YOUTUBE VIDEO THAT AMERICAN AMENDS ACADEMY HAS CURRENTLY ON YOUTUBE THAT STATES THAT THE FACILITY OFFERS A FOUR YEAR BACHELOR PROGRAM WITH FUTURE FACILITY WHERE STUDENTS WILL RESIDE AND OPEN FOR PUBLIC PRAYER.
CONCERNS, PRIVACY, THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, THERE'S NO PARTITION OR BARRIER WALLS SEPARATING THE PROPERTY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTS.
CURRENT PARKING AREAS AND FACILITY ENTRANCE FACE RESIDENCIES WITH DIRECT VIEWING OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
POSSIBLE MULTI STORY COMPLEX MAY ALLOW FOR ELEVATED VIEWING INTO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
NUMBER 2, WOULD BE TRAFFIC, LIMITED ENTRANCE TO SAID PROPERTY, WHICH UTILIZES THE RESIDENTIAL MAIN ALLEY ENTRANCE FOR GAINING ACCESS TO EXISTING PARKING LOTS.
PARKING IN THE STREET, BEN DAVIS OR SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE IS USED AS OVERFLOW PARKING, TYPICALLY DURING SPECIAL EVENTS, THUS BLOCKING THE VIEW FOR SAFE ENTRANCE AND EXITS.
OVERALL LIMITED PARKING TO HANDLE THE VOLUME OF ATTENDEES TO SUCH EVENTS IS NOT ADEQUATE FOR ADDITIONAL GROWTH OF THIS FACILITY.
>> I'LL HAVE TO STOP YOU RIGHT THERE YOU'RE AT YOUR THREE MINUTES.
BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
WE HAVE IT. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE?
>> MICHAEL JONES, 2305 SOUTH RIDGE.
MY CONCERNS ARE THE SAME TWO OR THREE STORY BUILDING.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK DOWN INTO HOMES, NO KIND OF BLOCK WALL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
DON'T EVEN REALLY KNOW EXCEPT FOR YOUTUBE VIDEO, WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE.
BUT IT'S LIKE YOU SAID, THE PARKING IS LIKE CRAZY.
IT HAPPENS AT THE SAME TIME AS THE SCHOOL.
IF THEY HAD ANOTHER EXIT, ANOTHER WAY TO GET OUT AND NOT ONTO WHERE BEN DAVIS, WHEREVER THAT ROAD IS AND COMING OUT OF SOUTH RIDGE.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT BUILDING, IT'S GOING TO BE.
I CAN IMAGINE GOING DOWN CAMPBELL, WHAT IT WOULD BE, SO IT'S JUST NOT VERY BIG.
THE PARKING IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO MATCH.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE SELLING THE LAND THAT WOULD BE USED FOR PARKING.
THE LAND BEHIND THERE IS UP FOR SALE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU COULD GET THAT MANY CARS IN A AREA.
IF IT'S GOING TO BE USED FOR WORSHIP, TOO, THEN HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THAT MANY CARS FITTED LEGALLY INTO THE PARKING SPACE? WE'VE HAD CITIZENS THAT HAVE DRIVEN BY AND THEY PARKED RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE CURB AT STOP SIGN.
[00:15:04]
I ASKED THE POLICE OFFICER, CAN THEY PLEASE MOVE THESE VEHICLES AWAY FROM THE STOP SIGN BECAUSE 'CAUSE IT'S DOUBLE PARKED? HE JUST LOOK RAISED HIS HANDS UP.WHAT CAN I DO? I'M ALL FOR LIBERTY AND ALL THAT THING.
BUT THE PLAN JUST, LIKE YOU SAID, THIS IS OUR EARLY STEP.
IF THEY WAS TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY NEEDED ANOTHER ENTRANCE AND EXIT BECAUSE IT'S JUST WAY TOO MUCH FOR SOUTH RIDGE, AND ESPECIALLY FOR HIS PROPERTY.
I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMING NEXT?
>> ROB GUEST, 2219 SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE.
I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A CONCERNED RESIDENT OF SOUTH RIDGE ESTATES, TO RESPECTFULLY EXPRESS MY RESERVATIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE 5206 BEN DAVIS ROAD.
WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OUR CITY, I BELIEVE IT'S ESSENTIAL TO CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.
MY PRIMARY CONCERNS WITH THIS REZONING ARE TWO-FOLD: INCREASED TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE TRAFFIC FLOW ON SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET.
SOUTH RIDGE ALREADY EXPERIENCES CONGESTION DURING PEAK HOURS.
THIS INFLUX OF VEHICLES WOULD LIKELY LEAD TO SAFETY ISSUES FOR PEDESTRIANS, INCREASED NOISE POLLUTION, LONGER COMMUTE TIMES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, FOLKS LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A POTENTIAL STRAIN ON EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BORDERS MANY RESIDENCES.
THE CURRENT ZONING PROVIDES A NATURAL BUFFER AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS THAT ENSURES CURRENT PRIVACY.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE COULD RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES THAT WOULD DIRECTLY OVERLOOK OUR PROPERTIES, SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.
I URGE THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS IF YOU ELECT TO APPROVE IT, ALTHOUGH I DISAGREE.
TRAFFIC MITIGATION, A COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC STUDY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO ASSESS THE TRUE IMPACT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF APPROVED, THE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE TO TRAFFIC AND PARKING SOLUTIONS, SUCH AS ADDITIONAL PAVED PARKING AND IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS.
MANDATING A LANDSCAPED BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WOULD HELP MITIGATE PRIVACY CONCERNS.
ADDITIONALLY, RESTRICTIONS ON THE HEIGHT AND PLACEMENT OF ANY NEW STRUCTURES COULD FURTHER ALLEVIATE THESE ISSUES.
AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THE PROGRESS IN DEVELOPMENT ARE NECESSARY FOR OUR CITY'S GROWTH.
HOWEVER, I IMPLORE THE COUNCIL TO PRIORITIZE THE WELL BEING OF EXISTING RESIDENTS AND ENSURE THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT INTEGRATES HARMONIOUSLY WITH OUR COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE SPEAK?
>> [LAUGHTER] BETTER LATE THAN EVER.
>> STOLE MY THUNDER THERE. JIM COX 20809 GRANITE AVENUE.
>> I RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED REZONING OF 5206 BEN DAVIS. I HAVE TWO MAIN REASONS.
INCREASED TRAFFIC AND IMPACT ON OUR PROPERTY VALUES.
INCREASED TRAFFIC IS HORRIBLE THERE.
IF YOU TRY TO DRIVE DOWN SOUTH RIDGE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.
THE REZONING TO A 2-3 STORY EXPANSION OF THE TEMPLE OF THE AMERICAN IMAM'S ACADEMY, IT'LL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE OUR TRAFFIC IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING AREA, LIKE I JUST SAID.
THE NEARBY STREETS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HIGHWAY 78, BEN DAVIS, BUNKER HILL, HIGH RIDGE DRIVE, SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE, AND MANY MORE STREETS.
THEY'RE ALREADY EXPERIENCING INCREASED CONGESTION AND DANGEROUS DRIVING CONDITIONS.
I SENT AN EMAIL OR THE FORM TO THE SECRETARY WITH SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY.
ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, WE HAVE CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF SOUTH RIDGE.
THEY'RE PARKED AT THE STOP SIGN OF SOUTH RIDGE AND BEN DAVIS, WHICH IS ILLEGAL.
[00:20:03]
THEY'RE PARKING IN FRONT OF FIRE HYDRANTS.THEY'RE TRYING TO DO U-TURNS IN THE MIDDLE OF BEN DAVIS.
IT'S VERY DANGEROUS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND DRIVERS ALIKE.
THE PATRONS OF ST. GEORGE ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX TEWAHEDO CHURCH, THEY'RE ALREADY PARKING ON THE GRASS IN MUD AND COMPLETELY BLOCKING THE STREETS.
I'M CONCERNED THAT A FIRE TRUCK CAN'T GET DOWN SOUTH RIDGE DURING THEIR EVENTS.
I HAVE A PETITION THAT WE CIRCULATED.
MY FAMILY AND A COUPLE OTHER PEOPLE CIRCULATED A PETITION, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT ALL THE HOUSES THAT WE KNOCKED ON, THAT THERE WERE ACTUALLY HOME AND ANSWERED THE DOOR, EVERY ONE OF THEM, EXCEPT FOR ONE SIGNED THE PETITION, AND THAT'S ALSO ATTACHED.
ONE OUT OF 47 DID NOT SIGN IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH THIS PETITION.
THAT CALCULATES TO ABOUT 98% OF YOUR CITIZENS DO NOT WANT THIS.
THEY DON'T WANT IT FOR THE AREA.
THEY DON'T WANT THIS INCREASED TRAFFIC.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PARKING IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, BUT THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA IS ALREADY HORRIBLE.
WE DO THIS, IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT MUCH WORSE.
THE OTHER REASON IS THE IMPACT ON OUR PROPERTY VALUES.
I FEEL LIKE IT'LL DECREASE OUR PROPERTY VALUES WITH THE POTENTIAL OVERUSE OF THE COMMUNITY RESOURCES.
ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE THAT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IS IMPORTANT.
IT MUST BE DONE THOUGHTFULLY AND IN A WAY THAT PRESERVES THE CHARACTER, SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS OF SACHSE.
WE DON'T LIKE A LOT OF TRAFFIC.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. [NOISE] I'LL HAVE TO CUT YOU OFF THERE, THE THREE MINUTES IS UP.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK? IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION ON THIS SIDE? OH, WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE COMING UP.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS JANE REED, 2204 CORNWALL LANE.
I'M ALSO OPPOSED TO THIS REQUEST.
I SAY THAT WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING FROM HEARING FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE WANTING TO BUILD THIS SCHOOL.
SAYING THAT, I WAS QUERIED THE OWNER OF THAT BUILDING IS 180 DEGREE ARCHITECTS, LLC FOR THE 5206 BEN DAVIS DRIVE.
RECENTLY, WELL, WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, A LARGE CHURCH WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE ISLAMIC CENTER OF SACHSE AND THAT OWNER IS ALSO 180 DEGREE ARCHITECTS, LLC.
WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE CHURCH ON THIRD STREET, THEY SAID IT HAD EVERYTHING YOU CAN IMAGINE.
WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT'S GOING ON, I'M CURIOUS IF THEY'RE OWNED BY THE SAME COMPANY, CAN THE TEMPLE FOR THE AMERICAN IMAM'S ACADEMY UTILIZE THE CURRENT SPACE OVER AT THE ISLAMIC CENTER OF SACHSE.
IF THAT IS NOT THEY'RE NOT UTILIZING ANY OF THAT SPACE DURING THE DAY.
IN THE SCHOOL ROOMS, MEETING ROOMS, THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING.
I RECENTLY SAW ON THE INTERNET THAT THERE IS A SACHSE QURAN ACADEMY, AND I'VE RESEARCHED AND I AM UNABLE TO LOCATE WHERE THIS ACADEMY IS, SO I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS PART OF THE SCHOOL THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO
[00:25:01]
BUILD ON BEN DAVIS AS THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A TEACHER.LIKE I SAID, I LIVE ON 78 ACROSS ON CORNWALL OFF BEN DAVIS, BUT ACTUALLY I CAN STAND ON MY PROPERTY, AND THAT IS THE VIEW IS ACROSS OF THE LOCATION WHERE IT IS IN QUESTION THAT THEY WILL BE WANTING TO BUILD THE SCHOOL. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME TO SPEAK?
>> CAN YOU SPEAK ABOUT THE JOB.
>> CAN YOU SPEAK AGAIN [INAUDIBLE]
>> GET THE INFORMATION TO MISS GRANGER.
AS I MENTIONED, ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT CANNOT SUPPORT THE TERRIBLE TRAFFIC THAT THEY HAVE.
HAVE ALREADY HAD ISSUES WITH HAVING TO CALL THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE THEM MOVE BECAUSE WE CANNOT GET IN AND OUT OF OUR ALLEY.
MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF, WE HAVE TRAILERS THAT WHEN WE GET IN A CERTAIN SPOT, WE CAN'T BACK UP, AND SO THEY'RE IN OUR WAY.
ALSO MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU CANNOT GET A FIRE TRUCK OR AMBULANCE DOWN THE STREET AT ALL, BECAUSE WHEN YOU TRY TO GET OUT OF OUR ALLEY,YOU CAN BARELY FIT A REGULAR F 150 PICKUP TRUCK DOWN THE STREET.
I DON'T THINK THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS GOING TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF REZONING THIS AREA OF WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING. THANK YOU.
>> MY NAME IS KEITH PITT SINGER.
MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE WAY THEY PARK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
THEY DON'T HAVE NO PARKING THERE.
YOU COULDN'T GET A FIRE TRUCK DOWN THAT STREET, SOMEBODY'S HOUSE CALL THEM FIRE.
I GUESS THAT'D TAKE A LONG WAY AROUND TO GET TO IT.
BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS I DON'T WANT THEM TO BUILD ANYTHING THERE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE PARKING FOR THE PEOPLE THEY GOT GOING THERE NOW.
LIKE I SAID, THEY PARK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
ONE TIME WHEN WE TRYING TO PULL INTO OUR ALLEY, THEY WERE TRYING TO PULL IT OUT DOWN THE ALLEY, JUST CAUSED A PROBLEM.
THAT'S WHY I'M MAINLY AGAINST IT THERE.
THEY JUST DON'T HAVE NO GOOD PARKING.
I DON'T SEE HOW IF THEY BUILD A BUILDING THERE, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PARK AT? ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANKS A LOT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME SPEAK? DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK? AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR HIM.
FIRST, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSIONERS.
>> WE'RE JUST GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MOTION FOR THAT? JUST CLOSE IT.
PUBLIC CLEARING HEARING IS CLOSED AT 6:32.
A FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION.
>> CAN WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FIRST?
>> HELLO. THIS IS ADEL FROM THE AMY DESIGNERS.
I'M THE APPLICANT, AND WE ARE THE FUTURE PLANNERS OF THIS LOT.
THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE CONCERNS.
ACTUALLY, THAT'S JUST THE WHOLE POINT OF DEVELOPING THIS THIS LOT, FIX ALL THE ISSUES.
THEY'VE BEEN ACTUALLY SET FOR THE PARKING, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE TWO BUILDINGS ON THE LOT.
WE TRIED TO KNOCK DOWN ONE, AND WE RAISED ONE TWO STOREYS UP SO WE CAN HAVE MORE PARKING SPACE INSIDE THE LOT.
REGARDING THE PRIVACY AND ACTUALLY IS A C1.
SONIC WILL REQUIRED A SITBACK, WHICH IS GOING TO PUT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE OVERLOOKED.
TO THE ADJACENT BUILDING OR HOUSES.
ALSO, AFTER WE WE PROCEED WITH THE C1,
[00:30:03]
WE GO AND REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE THAT WE NEED TO BUILD EIGHT-FEET SCREENING OR PUFFER WALL ADJACENT TO THE R5 AREA.THAT'S ALL THE CONCERNS OF THE PRIVACY, THAT WILL NOT BE ANYMORE.
REGARDING ACTUALLY, THE HOURS IS THE MAIN PEAK HOUR OF THIS FACILITY.
IT'S A FRIDAY FROM NOON TO 1:30.
THAT'S THE ONLY THE HIGHEST PEAK OF THE TRAFFIC WILL BE.
EVEN THAT ONLY THIS ONE HOUR AND A HALF IN A WEEK, WE TRYING TO SOLVE IT WITH PROVIDING MORE PARKING INSIDE THE LOT.
BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO BUILDINGS, WE GO AND KNOCK ONE DOWN, AND WE RAISE ONE UP FOR TWO STORIES, SO WE HAVE MORE SPACE FOR THE CARS TO BE PARKED.
THESE ARE MY, ACTUALLY ANSWERS, THE OTHER THE CONCERNS.
>> THANK YOU. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I'VE GOT A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS.
BUT I WANTED TO GO THROUGH JUST A LITTLE BIT WITH THE APPLICANT FIRST, IF POSSIBLE.
THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE SITE, THAT ONE YOU'RE INTENDING TO REMOVE ALTOGETHER, IS THAT CORRECT? OR AT LEAST MODIFICATIONS TO WHAT'S THERE?
ACTUALLY, WE HAVE PLANS OF THE FUTURE.
THE NORTH SIDE BUILDING, WE GO AND TRY TO DEMOLISH IT AND WE HAVE MORE PARKING.
>> IS THERE AN AREA THAT WE CAN SEE?
>> IF YOU CAN JUST DESCRIBE IT IN RELATION TO THE STAR
>> OKAY. YOU SEE THERE'S A BUILDING ON THE STAR ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STAR.
THERE'S ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE.
THAT'S WHY WE TRY TO ACTUALLY DEMOLISH.
WE EXTEND THE BIG BUILDING, WE GO HIGHER.
EVEN YOU SEE THE LANDSCAPE, WE HAVEN'T REALLY USE IT UNTIL NOW, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE FUTURE FOR THAT MORE PARKING, AND FOR ACTUALLY SPACE FOR THE COMMUNITY ALSO TO USE.
>> ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS RAISED WAS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING WAS A LEVEL OF CONCERN BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY TRYING TO PUSH IT FARTHER BACK TOWARDS THE ALLEY, YOU'RE BASICALLY JUST TAKING THE BUILDING YOU HAVE AND RAISING IT UP.
YOU'RE COMPLYING WITH THE SETBACKS THAT WOULD MATCH THAT.
>> BUT AS FAR AS THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY, THOSE WINDOWS WOULD HAVE A VIEWING OF THEIR BACKYARD TO SOME DEGREE.
>> WELL, THAT'S IF YOU'RE LOOKING UP AT THE ANGLE, ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TO THE BACKYARD.
>> THEY HAVE THE FENCING AND STUFF.
IT SCREENS THEIR STUFF AS WELL, I GET THAT.
THEY'RE ASKING THE QUESTION OF PRIVACY, AND I JUST WANTED TO FIND OUT YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THE PRIVACY.
>> BY THE CODE, WE GO AND HAVE THE EIGHT-FEET WALL, IT'S HIGH ENOUGH.
IT'S ALSO WE GO IN ONLY TWO STORIES UP.
>> ALSO, WE HAVE ABOUT 60 FEET ACTUALLY AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WALL.
>> BECAUSE OF THE PARKING LOT.
>> ALSO IN THE FUTURE PLANS, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE TO PUT THE WINDOWS IN THAT SIDE.
WE HAVE THEM ON THE OTHER SIDE, LIKE ON THE SOUTH AND THE WEST AND THE NORTH, AND HAVE IT ON THE WEST.
>> YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF PUTTING WINDOWS ON THE BACK SIDE ADJACENT TO THAT?
>> YES. ACTUALLY, THAT BUILDING, IT'S NOT THE SAME BUILDING IS GOING TO GO UP, BUT WE GOING WE GO ABOUT LIKE 40 FEET TO THE WEST, AND THEN WE GO UP.
THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY AWAY FROM ALL THE HOUSES AROUND.
>> SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, BOTH BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO GET DEMOLISHED WITH A SINGLE BUILDING GOING TWO STORIES?
>> THE NORTH ONE IS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED.
THE ONE ON THE EAST IS GOING TO STAY.
BUT IT IS GOING TO BE EXPANDED.
THE EXTENSION IS GOING TO GO TO TWO STORIES ONLY.
>> THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT IS GETTING LARGER,
[00:35:02]
EXPANDING TO THE WEST.WE'RE ALSO GOING VERTICALLY HIGHER TO THE TWO-STOREY BUILDING.
>> YES. THE EXISTING WILL STAY SAME HEIGHT.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE OVERLOOKED.
>> AND THAT'S A RENOVATION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING.
IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DEMOLISHED TO DO THAT?
>> THE SECOND QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK ON THIS, AS YOU EXPAND YOUR BUILDING, YOU CURRENTLY HAVE AN EASEMENT THAT'S RUNNING THROUGH YOUR SITE.
IS THAT EASEMENT GOING TO REMAIN?
>> YES. THE EASEMENT IS ONLY WE HAVE THE ELECTRICAL CABLE THROUGH THE ALLEY, WHICH IS THE ALLEY IT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE.
>> THEN SOMEWHERE YOU'RE GOING TO SET THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF YOUR BUILDING.
I'M ASSUMING THEN WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, PER OUR CODES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE CODE IN TODAY'S STANDARD, TODAY'S CODES, WHICH IS PROBABLY LARGER THAN WHAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE ON SITE.
SO YOUR INTENTION IS TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT SET BY THE CODE FOR THE C ONE ZONING REQUIREMENT?
>> YES. THAT'S THE WHOLE OUR GOALS GOAL TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING.
THAT'S WHY WE TRIED TO KNOCK THE BUILDING OUT AND JUST EXTEND IT A LITTLE BIT, AND WE USE THE WHOLE LOT.
>> DO WE THINK THAT AREA IS GOING TO EXPAND DO YOU ANTICIPATE EXPANDING PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF YOUR PARCEL WHERE THERE'S CURRENTLY GRASS ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING PARKING SPOTS THAT ARE THERE?
>> YEAH. AS SOON AS SO WE MOVE TO C ONE, AND NOW WE GO TO LOOK AT THE CODE AND LOOK THE REQUIREMENTS, AND WE'RE GOING TO MEET ALL THAT.
>> ONE MORE QUESTION, JUST TO CONFIRM.
THERE IS AN EXISTING ALLEY THAT RUNS ACROSS TO YOUR SITE.
YOU'VE BOUNDED IT BY PARKING ON BOTH SIDES.
IT LOOKS LIKE THAT ALLEY WILL REMAIN IN ITS CURRENT PLACE.
ARE YOU GOING TO MODIFY THE PARKING AROUND IT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? I KNOW THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT TURNING A MOVE ALLEY IN ACCESS.
WHEN WE GO BACK TO THIS, WE WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE CURRENT STANDARD OF ANY RADIUSES OR SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES AND ANY TURNING MANEUVERS IN THAT AREA, IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS THIS GRANDFATHERED IN?
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE SCOPE OF THE OVERALL PROJECT, WHAT ALL THEY'RE DOING.
IF IT'S AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY, BUT IF THEY'RE TRYING TO RELOCATE IT OR DO DIFFERENT THINGS, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT FOR FIRE LANE AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING WORKS CORRECTLY.
>> AS FAR AS THE CITY WE'RE ADDRESSING, THE EMERGENCY SERVICES THAT'S BEING ASKED FOR, AS WELL AS FIRE CODES AND ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> THE SITE ITSELF WILL HAVE TO MEET ALL SITE CIVIL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY.
MEET THE ZONING STANDARDS, THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS, AND FIRE LAND STANDARDS.
NOW, THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES WITH THIS SITE.
IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ON THE APPLICANT, I'LL LET YOU ASK THOSE, BUT PHILIP WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS AS WELL.
>> THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY FUTURE ANTICIPATION OF ACQUIRING MORE LAND ON THE NORTH SIDE ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY OR IS THIS THE LAND THAT YOU EXPECT TO HAVE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?
>> DO YOU PLAN TO EXPAND HOW MUCH LAND YOU OWN HERE IN PURCHASING THE LOT TO THE NORTH OR PORTIONS OF IT?
>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT AS OF NOW.
>> NO, NOT FOR HIM, BUT FOR STAFF.
>> MATT, YOU MENTIONED SOME CHALLENGES.
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND START OUT AND ADDRESS AS MUCH AS I CAN.
WROTE DOWN SOME OF THE QUESTIONS HERE.
REGARDING TRAFFIC AND THE ENTRANCE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ALLEY THERE, THIS IS AN EXISTING SITE, THAT CHURCH HAS BEEN IN PLACE AS FAR AS I COULD TELL FROM AERIAL PICTURES SINCE A VERY LONG TIME AGO, CLOSER TO THE 1960S FROM THE RECORDS THAT WE FOUND.
THAT ALLEY IS ACTUALLY IN PLACE AND MEETS OUR ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MAX LENGTH OF ALLEYWAY.
CURRENTLY, OUR STANDARD IS A MAXIMUM OF 600 FEET.
IF WE WERE TO TAKE THAT ALLEY AWAY, IT BASICALLY EXCEEDS THAT STANDARD.
I THINK IT ALREADY EXCEEDS THAT STANDARD WITH THE WAY THAT IT'S POSITIONED RIGHT NOW.
[00:40:02]
TAKING AWAY THAT ALLEY WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION FOR THIS PORTION HERE.THE PARKING ON STREET FOR BEN DAVIS AND SOUTH RIDGE DRIVE, THAT THE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR THAT.
THAT IS A TRAFFIC CONCERN THAT THE POLICE WOULD NEED TO HANDLE.
AS FAR AS THE INADEQUATE PARKING FOR THE SUPPORTIVE ACTIVITIES THERE, LIKE WE SAID, WITH ANY CIVIL REVIEW, WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND CONFIRM AND MAKE SURE THAT THE PARKING IS ADEQUATE BASED ON OUR CURRENT STANDARDS.
PRIVACY. AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, CHURCHES ARE ALLOWED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.
EVEN IF THIS ZONING DISTRICT DOES NOT GO THROUGH, THE PARKING AND EVERYTHING WILL STILL EXIST AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW.
THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THAT THAT WE'RE ASKING TONIGHT.
THE BARRIER SEPARATING THE PROPERTY AND THE RESIDENTS.
CURRENTLY, IT'S QUITE A CHALLENGE THERE BECAUSE THE SITE IS EXISTING ON THE EAST SIDE THERE ALONG THE ALLEYWAY BEHIND, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT STREET NAME THAT QUITE IS, NOT THE SOUTHBRIDGE, BUT THE ONE TO THE NORTH OF THAT.
THERE ARE CURRENT UTILITY LINES THAT RUN THROUGH THAT PROPERTY THERE.
IT IS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE TO PUT ANY SCREEN THERE.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE GOING TO WORK TO MAXIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF SCREENING AND AT LEAST TRY TO PUT SOMETHING THERE FOR RESIDENTS.
REGARDING THE VIEWING INTO RESIDENTIAL YARDS, MULTI-STORY IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CURRENTLY.
LIKE I SAID, R7.4 AND R4 BOTH ALLOW FOR TWO STORIES AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW.
THE NEAREST PROPERTY THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SMALLER STORIES WOULD BE ACROSS SOUTHBRIDGE DRIVE THERE.
LET'S SEE. I HAD A COMMENT REGARDING LIGHT POLLUTION AS WELL WITH THE CIVIL STANDARDS.
WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING THAT, WE WILL ALSO REVIEW FOR PHOTO METRICS WITH BUILDING PLANS, MAKING SURE THAT THEY MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR LIGHT TRESPASS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
THERE WAS QUESTIONS REGARDING AESTHETICS OF THE BUILDING.
CURRENTLY, STATE LAW PROHIBITS US FROM BEING ABLE TO DICTATE A LOT OF ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS REGARDING MATERIALS.
BASICALLY, WE'RE LIMITED ON HOW MUCH WE CAN REGULATE ASTHETICS AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW DUE TO STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS.
IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF CONCERNS WERE REGARDING THE PARKING ON SOUTHBRIDGE, AS WELL AS BEN DAVIS.
LIKE I MENTIONED THAT AS A TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT, SO POLICE WILL NEED TO BE ON TOP OF THAT AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE PARKING CORRECTLY TO THAT SITE.
AS FAR AS THE FIRE ACCESS AND IT BEING TOO CONGESTED THERE, THERE ARE SEPARATE ACCESS POINTS.
FIRE CANNOT ACCESS THROUGH SOUTHBRIDGE DRIVE.
NOW GIVEN THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR ORDINANCE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE POLICE CAN LOOK AT AND JUSTIFY THAT IF THEY NEED TO.
AT THIS TIME, I THINK I ANSWERED MOST OF MANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU ALL AT THIS POINT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS BROUGHT UP WAS OVERNIGHT STAYS AND STUFF LIKE THIS.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING FOR THAT TYPE OF SCENARIO.
BECAUSE THIS IS ALREADY A GRANDFATHERED-IN CHURCH FACILITY, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT CURRENT USAGE, WOULD THEY HAVE TO APPLY OR DO SOMETHING TO OBTAIN THAT TYPE OF USAGE RIGHT ON THIS PROPERTY?
>> IF IT'S ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO APPLY FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> BUT THE CURRENT USAGE IS R5, AS FAR AS THE ZONING.
IT'S NOT OVERNIGHT FACILITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
ONE OF THE COMS BROUGHT UP WAS,
[00:45:02]
THEY SAID THAT BY THE COMMERCIAL RIGHT, YOU COULD DO OVERNIGHT, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR THAT RIGHT.>> THE WAY THAT IT CURRENTLY IS WRITTEN, IT'S MORE ALONG THE LINES FOR IF YOU HAVE A STORAGE UNIT, AND THERE'S AN ONSITE MANAGER OVERNIGHT FOR SECURITY REASONS.
AS FAR AS STUDENTS STAYING OVERNIGHT, IT WOULD NOT PERMIT THAT.
>> NO HOTEL TYPE OF THING, NOTHING LIKE THAT.
>> I DON'T SEE HOW TO ASK A QUESTION.
IS THE ONLY REASON THAT WE NEED THE NEW ZONING REQUIREMENT IS THE APPLICANT'S REQUIREMENT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH THIS PROPERTY THAT MAKES HIM NEED C-1 OTHER THAN BUILD A BUILDING THAT EXCEEDS THE R-5 ALLOWANCE?
>> TO MY UNDERSTANDING, NO, SIR.
I SAID, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, NO, SIR.
IT SEEMS LIKE THAT IS THE MAIN CONCERN THAT WAS BEING BROUGHT UP HERE IS JUST THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ALLOW TO DO SO.
IF THEY WERE TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD A 1.5 STORY EXPANSION, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.
>> WITH THE CURRENT ZONING, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO AN EXPANSION.
>> ONE AND A HALF STORIES, WHAT'S A HALF A STORY?
>> IT'S A LITTLE STRANGER THAN OUR ORDINANCE, BUT IT RELATES TO, LIKE, CRAWL SPACE AND ATTIC SPACE.
>> WITH THE HALF STORY, YOU DON'T GET A FULL SECOND-FLOOR STORY.
TYPICALLY, YOU END UP HAVING, LIKE ONE ROOM OR SOMETHING UP THERE THAT ACCESS THE HALF-STOREY, BUT IT'S OVERALL MAX HEIGHT OF 25 FEET.
>> IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT THAT THEY'RE WANTING WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE C-ONE ZONING? CAN WE GIVE A, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT WORD IS HERE, MATT.
>> ESSENTIALLY A REZONING TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT REQUEST?
>> A VARIANCE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME HARDSHIP.
THEN TO DO IT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE AS A HARDSHIP BECAUSE THEY CAN USE THEIR PROPERTY AS IT EXISTS CURRENTLY.
>> DO THEY HAVE ENOUGH PARKING ON THE SITE RIGHT NOW TO MEET THEIR USAGE?
>> I DID NOT STUDY THAT PORTION.
I DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT AT THIS POINT.
>> I GUESS THE ANSWER TO THAT PROBABLY IS NO, THEY DON'T BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S PARKING ON THE STREET NOW.
>> NOW, WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO PUT IN MORE PARKING WITHOUT THEM COMING IN FOR VIEW CONSTRUCTION.
>> IF THEY GO TO THE C2 PARKING OR C2 ZONING.
DOES THAT REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE MORE ONSITE PARKING?
>> THEM GOING FROM R-5 TO C1 DOES NOT, THEM COMING IN WITH A BUILDING EXPANSION WOULD.
AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD RE-EVALUATE.
>> DO WE HAVE AN OPTION HERE THAT SAYS, YES, YOU CAN HAVE C1, BUT YOU MUST HAVE X NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS ON THE PROPERTY ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT C1 REQUIRES?
>> NOT WITHOUT WRITING AN ORDINANCE FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
>> NOT WITHOUT WRITING AN ORDINANCE FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT REQUEST.
ESSENTIALLY, PLAN DEVELOPMENTS ARE MEANT TO ADJUST STANDARDS.
YOU WOULD HAVE A BASE ZONING DISTRICT AND THEN REQUIRE EXTRA ON TOP OF THAT AND LIMIT FURTHER WITH THAT.
BUT CURRENTLY, THEIR REQUEST IS JUST A STRAIGHT REZONING FROM R-5 TO C1.
THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO BE BIGGER.
I CAN'T SEE IT IMPROVING THE PARKING SITUATION ANY AT ALL.
EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE THEY MAY HAVE SOME MORE ONSITE PARKING.
DURING THEIR PEAK HOURS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE FILLING UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
CAN WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT?
>> LIKE I SAID, AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING.
[00:50:01]
IF THEY WERE TO COME IN WITH AN EXPANSION, WE WOULD HAVE TO ESSENTIALLY CHECK IT TO OUR CURRENT STANDARD OF PARKING AND CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE MEETING THAT EITHER BY WHAT'S EXISTING THERE OR IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S EXISTING THERE.>> THERE'S NO WAY NOW IF WE DO A PD, CAN WE REQUIRE MORE PARKING ON SITE TO ELIMINATE THE PARKING PROBLEM THAT'S ON THE STREETS.
>> IT'S NOT THE WAY THE PDS ARE REALLY WRIT.
AS PHILLIP SAID A PD IS FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
IT'S IN [INAUDIBLE] PURPOSES, THEY NEGOTIATED ZONING.
THEY'RE GOING TO DO INCREASED STANDARDS IN ORDER FOR CERTAIN ELEMENTS.
IF THEY WERE TO REQUEST A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT COULD BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY IS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING ON THE SITE OR OTHER PROVISIONS THAT THE P&Z OR COUNCIL DESIRE.
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THIS AND IT'S NOT CERTAIN IF ALL THE PARKING ISSUES ARE SPECIFICALLY JUST THIS, OR IT'S ALSO, IN ADDITION TO THE CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET AND THE COMBINATION OF THE SCHOOL.
I DON'T WANT TO SAY ADDING ADDITIONAL PARKING ON THE SITE WOULD COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE ISSUES THAT THE RESIDENTS ARE FACING RIGHT NOW.
IT MAY OR MAY NOT IMPROVE CERTAIN CONDITIONS OUT THERE BECAUSE YOU'RE PROVIDING MORE PARKING SPACES OUT THERE.
BUT IF THE CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET, FOR EXAMPLE, IS LINING BEN DAVIS WITH CARS, THIS WOULD NOT IMPACT THAT AT ALL.
THERE'S MULTIPLE CHURCHES AND ENTITIES AROUND HERE, SO IT'S NOT I WOULD HESITATE TO SAY THAT THIS WOULD FIX EVERY ISSUE THAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE RAISED.
IS THERE A REASON WHY THE APPLICANT IS GOING FOR A C1 ZONING CHANGE AS OPPOSED TO DOING A PD? I'LL TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION SINCE HE'S BEEN DOING WITH THE APPLICANT.
>> THE C1 IS DESIGNED TO BE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE C1 IS, BUT IS THERE A REASON WHY WE ARE ALLOWING STEERING HIM TO A C1 AS OPPOSED TO DOING A PD, WHERE WE CAN HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS?
>> NOT PARTICULARLY, NO. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF C1 FITS WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING TO DO.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION IN THAT LINE IS ONE OBJECTION I'VE HEARD IS, IF WE GIVE THE C1 ZONING, AND THEN THEY DON'T DO WHAT THEY SAY, THEY'RE WANTING TO DO, THEY ABANDON AND SELL.
SOMEBODY NOW HAS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S GOT C1 ON IT, AND WE CAN'T MAKE THAT CONTINGENT.
DOES A PD OFFER US ANY MORE CONTROL IN THAT THAT SAYS, YOU MAY DO ALL OF THIS? IF YOU DO THIS THING, BUT IF YOU CHANGE OWNERS, THE PD GOES AWAY, AND IT REVERTS BACK TO THE R-5.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD REVERT IT BACK TO THE R-5.
YOU CAN LIMIT A USE WITHIN THE WITHIN THE PD.
HOWEVER, CHURCHES ARE ALLOWED IN EVERY USE AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW.
REALLY, YOU'D BE LOOKING AT THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
LIKE I SAID, THE MAIN REASON FOR THE CHANGE WOULD BE FOR THAT.
>> IN THE EVENT THAT THEY DO NOT DO ANYTHING THERE, WHOEVER COMES IN AFTER THEM STILL HAS TO FULFILL WHATEVER THE C1 REQUIREMENTS ARE.
>>WELL, I KNOW, BUT THE C1 IS WHAT SOME OF THE C1 REQUIREMENTS ARE AN ISSUE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY IDEA IS, CAN WE DO THIS WITH A PD THAT SAYS, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO ON THIS PD.
YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE, AND THAT TAKES AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT MIGHT IF THEY DON'T DO THEIR DEVELOPMENT, WHAT THE UNCERTAINTY MIGHT LEAVE THE PROPERTY IN.
>> I THINK I WANT TO CLARIFY, AS FAR AS THE WHY WE WENT AND LED THEM TOWARDS C1 IS THE FACT THAT WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE, IT STATES THAT PD SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR PROPERTIES FIVE ACRES OR GREATER.
[00:55:02]
NOW, IT ALSO GIVES US PROVISIONS TO WAIVE THAT IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THAT MIGHT BE A CIRCUMSTANCE HERE, BUT THAT WAS OUR GENERAL UNDERSTANDING WAS WE SHOULD AVOID PDS IF IT'S UNDER FIVE ACRES.>> ISN'T IT STRAIGHT ZONING USUALLY EASIER TO PROVE ANYWAYS?
STRAIGHT ZONING, WHEN YOU'RE DOING A PD SOMETIMES MORE RESTRICTIVE IN OTHER AREAS?
>> CORRECT. YOU'RE ADDING EXTRA STANDARDS WITH THE PD.
>> WHAT'S THE MAX BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS R 7.2, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE? WHAT IS THE MAX?
>> CORRECT. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 25 FEET THERE, AND THEN THEY ALLOW FOR TWO STORIES.
>> R-5, R-4 AND R-7.2, ALL OF A MAX HEIGHT OF 25 FEET?
>> CORRECT. R-5 HAS A STANDARD FOR 1.5 STORIES, THOUGH.
>> THESE C2, THESE ARE LOTS THAT ARE FOR SALE, AND SO THEY'LL EVENTUALLY BE DEVELOPED INTO THE 90 FOOT POSSIBLE MINIMUM, CORRECT? THIS UNDEVELOPED LAND?
>> YES. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE FOR SALE.
>> YOU DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE FOR SALE.
>> I DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THEY'RE FOR SALE.
I KNOW THAT THE ONE BEHIND WALGREENS WAS AT ONE POINT.
BUT YES, THEORETICALLY, THEY COULD BE DEVELOPED AT 90 FEET.
>> ADDITIONAL PARKING ISSUES, PERHAPS.
>> I BELIEVE THE ONE ON THE WEST SIDE IS BY THE ETHIOPIAN CHURCH.
THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT EXPANSIONS.
>> THEN THERE ARE SOME CURRENT AVENUE FOR THAT RESIDENTS CAN TAKE REGARDING THE PARKING.
THERE'S NO PARKING DURING SURFAL HOURS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR WHERE DOES THAT PROCESS HAPPEN? IS THAT PD? CITY COUNCIL? I DON'T REMEMBER.
>> IN GENERAL, IT STARTS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THEY CAN DO AN EVALUATION OF AN AREA.
THEN ULTIMATELY, IT'S CITY COUNCIL THAT MAKES THE FINAL DETERMINATION ON WHETHER PARKING RESTRICTIONS ARE PLACED ON A SPECIFIC STREET OR STREETS.
IN GENERAL, THAT'S USUALLY RESERVED FOR SPECIFIC AREAS.
>> I SAY, WE HAVE OUTLINED SPECIFIC STREETS WITHIN WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE, WHICH ALLOW PARKING OR DO NOT ALLOW PARKING.
BEN DAVIS ACTUALLY DOES NOT ALLOW PARKING ON CERTAIN SECTIONS OF IT AND DOES ALLOW IT ON OTHERS.
>> YOU MENTIONED THAT WE DON'T KNOW IF THE PROBLEM OF PARKING ON MEN DAVIS IS TO THESE FOLKS OR MAYBE THERE'S SPILLOVER FROM THE OTHER THING.
CAN YOU GET WITH THE APPLICANT AND DO SOME STUDY THAT SAYS, RIGHT THIS IS HOW MANY PEOPLE WE'RE HAVING ON THE PLACE NOW, AND THIS IS HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS WE HAVE ON THE PLACE NOW, AND FIGURE OUT IF THEY'RE OVERFLOWING ONTO THE STREET.
>> A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WOULD BE EVALUATED BY PUBLIC WORKS.
>> WELL, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC.
I'M TALKING ABOUT LOOKING AT THE PARKING SPACES THAT THEY HAVE ON THE LOT RIGHT NOW, AND AT THEIR LARGE ATTENDANCE SIZE, HOW MANY PEOPLE DO THEY HAVE COME INTO THOSE ATTENDANCE SIZES, AND THEN USING SOME STANDARDIZED PARKING FORMULA FOR SAYING, FOREVER, ONE AND THE THIRD PEOPLE YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE A CAR AND FIND OUT AT LEAST CALCULATE TO SEE IF WE HAVE ENOUGH PARKING ON THIS LOT TO MEET THEIR NEEDS.
RIGHT NOW, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH IMPACT DO THEY HAVE ON BEN DAVIS IN THOSE STREETS ON STREET PARKING?
>> AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, WE CANNOT REQUIRE THAT.
>> NO. I'M NOT ASKING REQUIRE.
>> AS THE CITY, COULD WE DO A STUDY?
>> YES, AND ASK THE APPLICANT FOR SOME HELP. ASK.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A COUNCIL ACTION IN ORDER TO DO THAT.
>> BECAUSE YOU'RE ALLOCATING FUNDS.
>> YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
CITY WOULD USE CITY PUBLIC FUNDS FOR A DEVELOPER DRIVEN IMPROVEMENT LIKE THAT.
>> THAT COULD BE A REQUEST, I'M SURE,
[01:00:03]
AS PART OF THE APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THIS ZONING CASE FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT THE CITY MOST LIKELY WILL NOT BE THE DRIVER OF THAT.>> BUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IS IF THE APPLICANT COMES BACK IN IF THEY GET APPROVAL, THEY MOVE FORWARD, AND THEY EXPAND THEIR STUFF, THEY'VE GOT TO ADHERE TO CURRENT STANDARDS ANYWAY.
>> WELL, I KNOW, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT THAT SAYS, THE POINT THAT WAS MADE OR BECAUSE THERE'S SOME OTHER CHURCHES AND ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THERE, WE DON'T KNOW WHICH ORGANIZATION OR COMBINATION OF ORGANIZATIONS IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM OF PARKING ON BEN DAVIS IN THOSE STREETS.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS, IF WE DO A STUDY THAT SAYS HOW MANY PARKING SPACES THEY CURRENTLY HAVE, THAT WILL SUPPORT SO MANY PEOPLE COMING.
IF WE LOOK AND SAY, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, YOU'VE GOT TWICE THAT NUMBER COMING.
THEN THERE'S A WHOLE CHANCE OF MAYBE THEY ARE IMPACTING THE STUFF ON THE STREET.
>> BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM OPERATING THEIR FACILITY AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.
>> THE COMMISSIONER MONDOK'S POINT, PARKING IS PERMITTED ON BEN DAVIS ROAD RIGHT NOW AND IN ADDITION TO SOUTH RIDGE.
BY RIGHT RIGHT NOW, ANYBODY CAN GO PARK ON THOSE TWO STREETS.
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTRUCTION, WHATEVER THE PLANS ARE, THAT'S MESSY.
YOU NEED ROOM TO DO THAT, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PARKING WILL EVEN GET WORSE OR MORE DISASTROUS OR PERHAPS UNSAFE.
YOU'VE GOT A SCHOOL RIGHT THERE.
THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION FOR THE PLANS THAT THEY'RE SHARING HERE TODAY.
THEY COULD PUT IT ALL ON HOLD FOR YEARS AND CONTINUE TO GROW, CONTINUE TO HAVE PARKING ISSUES.
I'M SURPRISED THAT WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S NO ENFORCEMENT THAT CAN BE DONE WITH SOME OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY PUBLIC COMMENT.
THERE ARE TRUCKS LITERALLY RIGHT HERE AT THE STOP SIGN.
IT SOUNDS LIKE POLICE CAN'T REALLY EVEN MANAGE WHAT'S GOING ON APPARENTLY.
>> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR POLICE AND THEIR TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.
THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN BY THEM AND ENFORCED BY THEM, SO I CAN'T SPECIFICALLY SPEAK ON THAT.
WHAT I WILL SAY IS TRAFFIC LAW DOES REQUIRE THAT YOU CAN'T PARK RIGHT NEXT TO A STOP SIGN.
>> POLICE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PARKING SITUATION RIGHT NOW WOULD LEAVE A BAD TASTE IN EVERYBODY'S MOUTH.
BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE TOWING CARS, TICKETING CARS, AND I'M TRYING TO SEE IF THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN GET OUT OF THIS AND GET MORE PARKING ON THE PREMISE TO HOLD THE APPLICANTS ATTENDANCE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THIS BUILDING MEETS OUR METRICS OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR SAYING FOR EVERY FIVE PEOPLE, YOU GOT TO HAVE TWO PARKING SPOTS, WHATEVER THE NUMBERS ARE.
I DON'T THINK OUR METRICS PROPERLY ACCOUNT FOR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY'RE BRINGING IN THE SQUARE FEET OF THE BUILDING.
I DON'T THINK IT PROPERLY DOES THAT.
I THINK THIS IS A SPECIAL CASE.
I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO TRY TO HELP THE APPLICANT AND HELP US AND REDUCE THE INCONVENIENCE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT, MATT.
>> THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS THE COMMISSION CAN DO.
WHETHER YOU VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR VOTE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL.
WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION, YOU CAN SEND FORWARD TO COUNCIL A RECOMMENDATION THAT TAKE A LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA OR THE SPECIFIC STREETS OR WHATEVER AS A COMPONENT TO THAT.
NOW, COUNSEL DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO LISTEN TO THAT.
>> BUT AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION, WHICHEVER WAY THE COMMISSION VOTES,
[01:05:03]
THAT CAN BE ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HEY, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN THIS AREA OR THE PARKING OR WHATEVER THE COMMISSION DEEMS NECESSARY.>> I GUESS I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE OF THE CITIZEN SPEAKERS, WHAT THE NUMBER 1 ISSUE THEY HAVE IS PARKING THE NUMBER 1 ISSUE?
>> SEEMS LIKE IT WAS. IT WAS A SERIES OF ISSUES RAISED, PRIVACY, ET CETERA.
BUT WHAT'S THE NUMBER 1 ISSUE? IS IT PARKING?
>> PARKING AND TRAFFIC WERE MENTIONED BY EVERYONE.
>> PROCEDURALLY, THAT'S UP TO THE CHAIRMAN TO OPEN IT UP.
TYPICALLY WE DO NOT OPEN UP BACK UP TO THE PUBLIC.
>> YEAH. WE TYPICALLY DO NOT. I THINK WE GOT A LOT OF THOSE FROM THEM ANYWAY.
I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH NOTES FROM THEM ANYWAY.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM MENTIONED PARKING AND TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONCERN.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME AT THIS TIME?
>> ANYTHING ELSE? I WANT TO ASK JUST ONE MORE QUESTION JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
IF THE APPLICANT ENLARGED THE BUILDING WITH ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO ACCOMMODATE HIS GOALS FOR HIS CHURCH, WE WOULD GO BACK TO A CIVIL SITE REVIEW WHERE THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE C1 ZONING IN RELATION TO A CHURCH FACILITY, WHICH IS PART OF OUR CODE THAT SAYS, PER SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SPACE WITHIN THE BUILDING HAS TO ACCOMMODATE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF LOTS.
>> CORRECT. I DON'T THINK IT'S SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR OUR ORDINANCE AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW.
I THINK IT'S THE AMOUNT OF SEATS WITHIN THE MAIN AUDITORIUM, BUT THAT IS CORRECT.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET TO OUR CURRENT STANDARD OF PARKING.
>> JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, IF THE BUILDING ENLARGED, THEREFORE, THEN THE PARKING WOULD ENLARGE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT AMOUNT.
>> THEORETICALLY, YES. THAT IS A STAND.
>> I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT, ESPECIALLY FROM THE RESIDENT'S COMMENTS THAT PARKING IS A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ISSUE ON BOTH BEN DAVIS AND THIS OTHER ROAD TO THE SOUTH, CORRECT? EVERYONE MENTIONED THAT YOU JUST SAID THAT?
>> THE ONLY WAY THAT PARKING INCREASES ON THIS PROPERTY IS THROUGH THE ZONING OF C1, BECAUSE TODAY THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE PUT IN PLACE.
BASED ON WHAT HE JUST SAID IN THE CITY REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO ADHERE TO ZONING REQUIREMENTS IN TODAY'S STANDARD, THE ONLY WAY THAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL ONSITE PARKING FOR THIS PROPERTY IS IF THE ZONING GETS APPROVED.
>> THEY CAN STILL EXPAND WITH THEIR CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT? THEY WOULD BE AT 1.5 STORIES THE MAXIMUM, BUT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET THE PARKING STANDARD FOR ANY ADDITION THAT THEY DO.
IF THEY LIKE, ADDED A BUILDING, UNDER 25 FEET ON THIS PROPERTY?
>> THE CITY APPROVED THIS ZONING REQUEST WITH A CAVEAT THAT SAYS, THE C1 ZONING DOESN'T PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PARKING.
YOU NEED TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING.
CHANGE THE FORMULA THAT'S USED TO CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS THAT'S AVAILABLE ON A C1?
>> I DON'T THINK SO UNDERNEATH THE STREET ZONING, YOU WOULD HAVE TO NOT MODIFY THAT TO A PLAN.
>> THERE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO BE A CHANGE TO C1.
>> WHAT YOU CAN DO IS IF YOU'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONING REQUEST ITSELF, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CHURCH STANDARD OR WHATEVER PARKING REQUIREMENT STANDARD THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO HAVE ADJUSTED, THAT THAT BE DONE.
>> CAN IT BE ADJUSTED FOR THAT PARCEL?
>> NOT WITH THE STREET REZONING.
>> I'M SORRY. I KEEPING [INAUDIBLE].
>> WELL, BASED ON WHAT I HEARD, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT BASED ON THE ZONING.
IT'S BASED ON THE NUMBER OF SEATS IN THE MAIN AUDITORIUM.
>> IF IT WENT TO C1 OR IF IT WENT TO C2, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PARKING.
THAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
THAT'S THE MAIN POINT OF THE REQUEST.
>> OH, I KNOW. BUT IF FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY WERE REQUESTING C2 ZONING TODAY, THAT'S FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, NOT FOR THE PARKING ON THE PROPERTY THEY OWN.
IT'S BASED ON THE EXPANSION OF THEIR BUILDING PROPOSAL AND NOT THE ZONING REQUEST.
AGAIN, THE ONLY WAY THE ONSITE PARKING GETS BETTER IS IF THE ZONING REQUEST GOES
[01:10:01]
THROUGH BECAUSE TODAY THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.>> BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT THE PARKING WILL GET BETTER.
THEY'VE ALL MADE THAT CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN SURE THAT THE PARKING ISSUE IS ONLY WITH THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
>> WE CAN'T ACTUALLY SAY BY CHANGING THE ZONING THAT THE PARKING ISSUE WILL GET BETTER.
>> WELL, THAT'S TRUE, BUT FROM A RESIDENT STANDPOINT, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT ADDITIONAL ONSITE PARKING IS BETTER THAN THE PARKING TODAY.
>> BUT IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THAT OR, AGAIN, IF THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A SECOND STORY ON AND THEY GET ADDITIONAL ENROLLMENT, MAYBE YOU'RE STILL IN THE SAME BOAT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'VE OVERGROWN PERHAPS IN THE AREA THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO USE.
>> BUT YOU WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY'VE OVERGROWN, THEY'RE GOING TO ENLARGE THE SPACE.
THEREFORE, THE BUILDING IS GOING TO GET BIGGER.
>> YEAH. FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT WAS A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING TODAY AND THEY WANT TO EXPAND IT TO 30,000, JUST MAKING UP NUMBERS.
THEY WANT TO GROW THE BUILDING FOOT THREE TIMES THE SIZE.
THE NEW BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO BE ADHERED TO THE CITY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE SEATS IN THE BUILDING, CORRECT? THERE IS A THRESHOLD AT SOME POINT THAT THEY CANNOT EXCEED PAST THAT BECAUSE OF THE SPACE ON SITE.
THE CITY CAN ONLY WORK WITHIN THE AMOUNT OF REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE, WHICH IS A FORMULA FOR PARKING BASED ON THE NUMBER OF SEATS IN THE AUDITORIUM.
THERE'S A MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE HERE BASED ON WHAT THE NEW PARKING REQUIREMENT WOULD BE.
AGAIN, THERE'S PARKING ALL OVER THESE STREETS TODAY EXISTING.
AGAIN, I HAVE TO THINK THAT THE PARKING SITUATION ON THOSE EXISTING ROADS WOULD BE ALLEVIATED IN SOME FORM IF THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL PARKING ON SITE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYTHING? [BACKGROUND] NO, SIR, THIS MEETING.
THANK YOU, THOUGH. [BACKGROUND]
>> YEAH. AT THIS POINT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
RECOMMENDATIONS IF YOU WANT TO ADD.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE FORWARD THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE DENIED THE REZONING REQUEST BECAUSE THERE IS INSUFFICIENT PARKING REQUIRED BY THE ZONING AND PARKING IS THE LARGE ISSUE THAT IMPACTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> I'M GOING TO STATE THAT A MOTION TO DENY, HOW DO YOU REPHRASE THAT? DENY DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PARKING IN THAT AREA.
INSUFFICIENT PARKING REQUIRED BY THE ZONING OR INSUFFICIENT PARKING ON THE SITE CURRENTLY?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
>> ONE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE CODE, AND THE OTHER ONE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE THING.
I'M ASSUMING WE NEED TO BE SPECIFIC, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO GET THE SPECIFICS IF IT'S SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO OUR PARKING STANDARD REQUIREMENTS.
>> I THINK IT'S A PARKING STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DO NOT PROPERLY ADDRESS THIS SITUATION.
>> BUT THIS IS A CURRENT ISSUE.
>> WELL, IT'S A CURRENT ISSUE, THAT'S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE IF YOU BUILD THE BUILDING BIGGER AND YOU ADD A FEW MORE PARKING SPOTS, YOU STILL HAVEN'T SOLVED THE ORIGINAL ISSUE.
>> BUT THE ISSUES ARE ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE.
IF YOU DENY THE THING WHICH IS FINE, IT'S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE BECAUSE GENERAL POPULATIONS GROW AND IT'S GOING TO GET MORE CONGESTED IN THAT AREA.
WE'RE NOT CREATING A SOLUTION.
>> YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. WE'RE NOT CREATING A SOLUTION, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PROBLEM CAN GET ANY WORSE WITH THE PARKING.
BASED UPON THE PICTURES WE'VE SEEN AND COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PARK FARTHER AWAY ON THE STREETS AND WALK TO THE CHURCH.
THE AREA AROUND THE FACILITY THE PARKING IS FILLED UP IN THE STREETS.
I DON'T THINK IT CAN GET ANY WORSE.
>> YEAH, BUT WE HAVE ZERO DATA,
[01:15:03]
WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TODAY ON HOW MANY ATTENDANTS ARE GOING TO A SERVICE.HOW MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE PARKED ON THESE STREETS ARE ATTENDING THIS FACILITY, SEPARATE FROM [INAUDIBLE] OR THE OTHER CHURCH DOWN THE STREET AND PEOPLE WALKING TO VISITING THEIR FRIENDS IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE ZERO DATA ON WHERE THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING AND WHERE THEY'RE PARKING.
IF THE ATTENDANTS IN A CHURCH SERVICE HERE, THEY GREW AND AND THE SERVICES WERE INCREASING 10%, THAN THEY ARE TODAY.
IN THE CURRENT ZONING, THE PARKING SITUATION IS ONLY GETTING WORSE.
IT'S NOT GETTING ANY BETTER IF THIS CHURCH IS GROWING, WHICH I IMAGINE THEY ARE BECAUSE THEY'RE FILING FOR A ZONING REQUEST.
LIKE YOU SAID, THERE'S NO SOLUTION TO THE EXISTING PROBLEM GETTING BETTER.
IN MY MIND, THE SOLUTION IS ADDITIONAL ONSITE PARKING, AND THEY HAVE HALF OF THEIR LAND ON THE SOUTH SIDE THAT'S GRASS TODAY, THAT IS NOT PARKING.
>> YEAH. BUT MATT TOLD US CAN'T SAY WE APPROVE IT IF YOU PUT THIS ADDITIONAL PARKING ON THE PARKING IS BASED ON THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE ORDINANCE.
I'M SAYING THOSE SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT.
>> DO YOU KNOW THE FORMULA OF PARKING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW.
>> I'M JUST SAYING WE JUST PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE HERE, I PERSONALLY CANNOT SAY THE PARKING OF A C1 ZONING IF IT GOT APPROVED WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT FORMULA AT THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> I TRIED TO GET IT AT THE POINT OF GETTING THE STUDY DONE, BUT THAT'S USING PUBLIC MONEY FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK YOU MIGHT SAY THAT'S USING PUBLIC MONEY FOR A STUDY OF PARKING ON PUBLIC STREETS.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY A POINT HERE, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED AS A CHURCH SINCE, I THINK THE 1960S.
>> THE PARKING STANDARD THAT ORIGINALLY APPLIED TO THIS CHURCH MAY NOT BE THE PARKING STANDARD THAT IS REQUIRED NOW.
AS FAR AS WHETHER IT'S ADEQUATE OR NOT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AS A CHURCH FOR 60 YEARS NOW.
THE STANDARD MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT CLARIFICATION IS MADE THAT THIS THE PARKING THAT IS ON SITE NOW WASN'T NECESSARILY THE PARKING THAT WAS REQUIRED.
>> WELL, I'M LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION TO GET ADDITIONAL PARKING.
>> CAN I OFFER A MOTION THEN? IF WE MOTION THAT ALL PARKING FOR THE FACILITY THAT'S NEEDED IS NEEDED TO BE PLACED ON SITE.
THEREFORE, ANY OFFSITE PARKING IS BEING ADDRESSED BY ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE ARE NOT THERE THIS SITUATION.
YOU SAY ALL THE PARKING THAT'S NEEDED FOR THIS FACILITY MUST BE HOUSED ON SITE.
>> COULD DO THAT AS A RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL.
>> YOU CAN'T ADD THAT AS A PROVISION OF THE SPECIFIC STRAIGHT REZONING.
YOU CAN HAVE A RECOMMENDATION THAT GO ALONG WITH THIS, BUT IT WON'T BE ADOPTED AS PART OF THE STRAIGHT REZONING ORDINANCE.
>> WHAT I'LL ALSO OUTLINE IS THAT THERE IS NO PARALLEL PARKING ON STREET, LIKE PROVIDED PARKING, SO WE WOULD NOT COUNT ANYTHING OFF STREET AS PART OF THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
>> IT'S ALREADY A REQUIREMENT.
>> IN PAST, WE'VE HAD MOTIONS WHERE WE WOULD APPROVE THIS WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER LOOKING AT C1 ZONING ORDINANCE AND CHANGING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THERE, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO A RESTRICTION FOR THIS SPECIFIC SITE TO REQUIRE ALL ONSITE PARKING.
IT'D BE WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR C1, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WELL, I BELIEVE HE JUST SAID IT WOULD BE A CITY REQUIREMENT THAT ALL OF THE PARKING REQUIRE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON SITE.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT HE WAS RECOMMENDING.
>> OFFSITE PARKING DOESN'T COUNT.
EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE SITE.
THEREFORE, ALL OF THE CONGREGATION NEEDED FOR THIS FACILITY WOULD BE PARKED ON THEIR PROPERTY.
IT DOESN'T ADD CONGESTION TO THE ROAD.
>> THAT IS ALREADY A REQUIREMENT WITH THE STANDARD.
I SAY THAT'S WHAT THE PARKING RATIO IS [OVERLAPPING] ALL OF THAT IS REQUIRED PARKING THAT'S ON SITE.
WE DO NOT COUNT ON STREET PARKING AT ALL IN THIS AREA.
THE ONLY AREAS THAT WE COUNT THAT IS IN THE OLD TOWN DISTRICT OR THE PGBT ZONING DISTRICT WHERE ON STREET PARKING DOES COUNT TOWARDS THE OVERALL REQUIREMENT.
[01:20:01]
THE STANDARD RIGHT NOW AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRES ALL PARKING BE ON SITE.NOW, IF THERE'S OVERFLOW PARKING, THAT'S A SEPARATE DEAL.
AS MENTIONED, PARKING IS ALLOWED ON BEN DAVIS AND SOUTH BRIDGE AS IT STANDS NOW.
>> MY OBJECTIVE IS TO STEER THE APPLICANT TO DO A PD.
DID YOU TELL ME EARLIER THAT THE PD REQUIREMENTS CAN BE WRITTEN SUCH THAT IF WE DETERMINE THAT THEY NEED SO MUCH ONSITE PARKING TO MEET THE CONGREGATION THAT THEY'RE HAVING DURING THAT TIME, THAT CAN BE PART OF THE PD?
>> AS PART OF THE PD PROVISIONS, YOU CAN ADD ADDITIONAL STANDARDS OR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR CHANGE THE SPECIFIC STANDARD FOR THAT REQUIREMENT.
IN THE CASE OF PARKING, YOU COULD SAY, INSTEAD OF A 1-250 RATIO, NOW IT'S A 1-100 RATIO OR WHATEVER THAT IS.
BUT IN GENERAL, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO THAT CONDITION TO BRING IN ORDER TO BRING THAT FORWARD, AND PLACING MORE RESTRICTIONS ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY, IT TIES THE APPLICANT'S HANDS AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO EITHER DEVELOP THE PROPERTY OR SELL THE PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE.
>> I BELIEVE PHILLIP MENTIONED THAT TYPICALLY PDS ARE FIVE ACRES OR GREATER.
>> TYPICALLY, YES. PDS ARE TYPICALLY FIVE ACRES OR GREATER.
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS LAND, THERE'S TALK ABOUT ADDING PARKING SPOTS.
IT DOESN'T LOOK YOU'RE GOING TO ADD THAT MANY.
WHAT, 10, 15 PARKING SPOTS, MAYBE.
THAT ALONE LOOKS LIKE IT'S TAKING UP THERE'S FAR MORE, AGAIN, I KNOW IT'S NOT ALL THE CARS ARE WITH THAT SCHOOL OR CHURCH INSTITUTION, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE RESOLVING THE ISSUE AT HAND.
>> CAN YOU PUT THE AERIAL IMAGE BACK ON THE SCREEN?
>> TO THAT POINT, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THEY'RE GOING TO EXPAND THIS BUILDING UP HERE, THE NEW ZONING, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS COULD NECESSITATE THAT THEY BUILD PARKING ON THIS SOUTHERN AREA.
>> IF YOU WANT TO USE THE HAND AND SHOW WHERE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T THINK IT SHOWS UP ON.
>> DOES THAT SHOW UP ON THERE? IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY NOW, WHERE THE EXISTING PARKING LOT IS, YOU COULD BASICALLY EXTEND THAT TO THE SOUTH AND THEN OBVIOUSLY [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS IS TRUE NORTH. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TRUE NORTH.
>> PHILLIP, IF YOU WANT TO SHOWCASE WHERE THE PARKING WOULD GO AND WHERE THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
>> THEY WOULD BE PUTTING THEIR PARKING HERE, AND THEIR BUILDING WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE AN EXPANSION HERE.
LIKE HE SAID THEY WOULD BE DEMOING THIS BUILDING HERE AND DOING THAT EXPANSION HERE AS WELL AS THAT PARKING, AS I SAID.
>> BASED ON THE ON THE GRASS AREA ON THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THIS PARTEL, I CAN'T COUNT BASED ON THIS AREA, BUT THERE'S DOZENS OF PARKING SPOTS IN THAT PARKING LOT TODAY, WHERE JUST EAST JUST ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT RED DOT.
WITH THE SPACE PROVIDED, THERE LOOKS LIKE THAT PARKING LOT COULD GROW 3, 04, 5X IN SIZE, WHAT THE AMOUNT OF GRASS THERE.
THAT FEELS LIKE A DECENT NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL PARKING BECAUSE THAT OPEN SPACE RIGHT NOW IS HALF OF THE AREA THAT THEY OWN.
>> CAN WE ASK THE APPLICANT IF HE'S WILLING TO ADD MORE PARKING ON HIS ON SITE STUFF, GET HIS FEELING WHAT HIS APPROACH?
>> I'M SORRY. IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, YOU ALL CAN INVITE HIM BACK UP HERE.
>> I THINK I ALREADY HAVE HEARD THE QUESTION.
THAT'S THE WHOLE GOAL IS TO ADDING MORE PARKING.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING TO C1, SO WE CAN ADD MORE PARKING SPOT INSIDE THE LOT.
ACTUALLY, WE CAN HAVE EVEN WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH THIS EXISTING, AND WE GO HIGHER BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET FIRED FOR EXEMPTION.
EVERY TWO FEET, WE CAN GO ONE FEET UP.
AT THE MOMENT, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ZONING, WE CAN GO HIGHER.
BUT IN THIS CASE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO ADD MORE PARKING BECAUSE IT'S STILL R5.
WELL, IF WE MOVE IT, WE PROCEED WITH THE C1, THEN WE WILL BY THE C AND BY THE CODE, WE HAVE TO ADD MORE PARKING. I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
[01:25:04]
>> BUT WE'VE ALREADY DETERMINED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ON SITE, THE PARKING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE STILL MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL YOUR CONGREGATION.
>> IF WE DO THE MATH RIGHT NOW, IF WE DO SEE HOW MANY CARS I'VE BEEN PARKING IN THE BIN DAVIDS AND THE SOUTHERN STREET, AND WE SEE HOW MUCH OF A LAND WE HAVE NOT USED, WHICH CAN BE A PARKING.
DO YOU THINK ALL THESE CARS IN THE STREET WILL FIT THERE? YES, THEY WILL FIT THERE.
>> WHAT'S THE CURRENT HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING?
>> WHAT IS THE CURRENT HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING TODAY?
>> I'M SORRY. I DON'T HAVE THAT TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THE PLAN.
>> BECAUSE IT'S ONLY ONE STORY.
>> BUT YOU'RE ALSO PLANNING AND HOPING WITH THIS EXPANSION TO GROW ENROLLMENT AND TO OBVIOUSLY GET MORE FOLKS ATTENDING YOUR CHURCH AS WELL, SO YOU'LL NEED MORE PARKING SPOTS.
>> THE ONLY EXPANSION THAT WE ARE DOING IS JUST ADDING THE MEETING ROOMS AND THE CLASSES.
>> SO THE CONGREGATION IS ALREADY THERE.
>> YEAH. IF WE GET EXPENDED ACTUALLY, WE CAN STAY AS WE ARE, AND WE EXPEND ANYWAY.
PEOPLE, THEY WILL COME, THEY WILL COME.
THEN THERE'S THREE FACILITIES ACTUALLY IN THIS AREA, SIMILAR.
THEY PROVIDE THE SAME SERVICES.
I THINK THAT WILL HELP WITH THE PARKING BECAUSE THEY WILL GO IN DIFFERENT LIKE TEMPLES.
THE ISSUE OF PARKING IS ONLY ONE HOUR IN A WHOLE WEEK.
EVEN THAT ONE HOUR TRIED TO SOLVE IT, AND WE'LL BRING THEM INSIDE THE LOCK.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY ONE THING THAT APPLICANT SAID, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S R5 OR C1, SAY IT'S THE CITY'S PARKING REQUIREMENT.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH ZONING DISTRICT IS IN PLACE.
IT'S THE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT SPECIFIC USE.
IF YOU GUYS WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, WHAT WE THINKING OF THE FUTURE PLAN WILL BE?
>> DID I HEAR THAT, JUST TO SAY AGAIN, THE FORMULA FOR PARKING IS THE LARGEST THE ROOM WITH THE NUMBER OF SEATS THE LARGEST AUDITORIUM, I BELIEVE IS WHAT YOU SAID, IS THAT CORRECT? IS BASED ON THAT SEAT COUNT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS A STANDARD.
I DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT OFF TOP MATT, IF MATT WANTS TO LOOK.
>> WELL, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THEY ARE EXPANDING VERTICALLY INTO THE WEST BY ADDING CLASSROOMS AND OFFICES OR WHATEVER, AND THE LARGEST AUDITORIUM REMAINS UNCHANGED BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN THE BUILDING TODAY.
WOULD THIS ZONING CHANGE NECESSITATE REVISITING THAT PARKING IF THAT LARGEST ROOM IN THE BUILDING TODAY DID NOT CHANGE.
I KNOW IT'S A TOUGH QUESTION, BUT I'M CURIOUS NOW BASED ON THE THINGS THAT WERE JUST SAID.
>> PARKING WITHIN OUR STANDARDS IT'S BROKEN OUT BY USE.
IF THEY'RE USING A CHURCH AT ONE POINT, AND THEN THEY'RE TRANSITIONING TO CLASSROOMS AT ONE POINT, AS LONG AS THEIR MAIN AUDITORIUM IS GOING TO HAVE THEIR MAIN SERVICE.
THAT'S WHY THE PARKING RATIO IS BASED OFF OF THAT.
IF THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE CLASSES FOR THE ACADEMY AT THE SAME TIME AS THEY ARE, THEIR CHURCH, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO BREAK THAT OUT IN TWO SEPARATE USES.
>> I THINK YOU WERE GETTING IN ADDITION, THE BUILDING MAY NOT REQUIRE MORE PARKING BECAUSE THE AUDITORIUM DOESN'T.
>> IF THEIR AUDITORIUM IS 100 SEATS TODAY AND THEY EXPAND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING BY 50%, BUT THEIR LARGEST ROOM IS STILL 100 SEATS, WOULD THAT EVEN REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING?
>> IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE CHANGE IN USE, IT WOULD REQUIRE NEW CALCULATION, CORRECT?
>> IT'S ENTIRELY BASED ON THE USE ITSELF.
IF IT'S JUST A CHURCH, THEN IT'S BASED OFF OF THE MAIN AUDITORIUM.
IF THEY ARE ADDING, AS PHILLIP POINTED OUT, CLASSROOMS FOR SCHOOL OR OTHER KIND OF COMPONENTS LIKE THAT, THEN THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE COMPONENT THAT WE HAVE A DIFFERENT PARKING CALCULATION FOR THAT COMPONENT.
IT'D BE BROKEN UP INTO MAIN AUDITORIUM AND THEN SCHOOL.
[01:30:02]
>> DID I UNDERSTAND IT, THOUGH CORRECTLY, THE WAY THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY ZONED? THE GENTLEMAN JUST SAID THAT THEY STILL CAN ADD THEIR SECOND FLOOR.
THEN I THINK YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THEY'RE ALREADY PERMITTED TO ADD ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS BASED HOW THEY'RE CURRENTLY ZONED. DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY?
>> AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 1.5 STORIES.
IF THEY WERE TO ESSENTIALLY BUILD A LARGE BUILDING THAT EXCEEDED 25 FEET AS IT CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR IT, BUT IT WAS STILL ONE STORY, THEY COULD CERTAINLY GO HIGHER UP THAN 25 FEET.
WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE, THERE'S A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES, WHERE THEY MEET THEIR SETBACK STANDARDS FROM OTHER PROPERTIES, IT'S A 2-1 RATIO, SO THEY CAN GO HIGHER.
THEY CAN GO TWO FEET HIGHER FOR EVERY ONE FT FARTHER BACK, THEY GO ON THEIR SETBACK.
>> THEN THE COMMENT ABOUT, I THINK DID YOU MENTION THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED RIGHT NOW TO BUILD ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS BASED ON THAT CURRENT ZONING?
>> CORRECT. IF THEY DO ANY SORT OF EXPANSION WITH A BUILDING, EVEN IN THE R5 ZONING DISTRICT, WE WOULD REVISIT THE SITE PLAN AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE TWO CURRENT CODE OF PARKING.
>> THAT REMAINS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT?
>> REALLY COMES DOWN TO, DO WE WANT TO AUTHORIZE OR DO WE WANT TO ALLOW FOR THE C2 FOR THE HEIGHT? BECAUSE THE PARKING WILL BE ADJUSTED BY THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE.
>> CORRECT. PARKING IS BASED OFF THE USE, NOT THE ZONING.
>> WHAT THE CASE THAT'S BEING BROUGHT BEFORE US TODAY IS, ARE WE WILLING TO ALLOW THE HEIGHT OR NOT?
>> ESSENTIALLY, YES. THAT'S THE CASE.
>> THEN THE QUESTION THAT I WOULD GO BACK TO IS, IF WE DO THAT, WE HAVE SCREENING WALLS THAT WOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE, AND THEN ALSO ON THE SOUTHWEST ADJACENT TO BOTH THE R7.2 AND THEN THE R4.
>> CORRECT. WITH AN EXPANSION OF THE COMMERCIAL USE, WE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO COME TO CURRENT STANDARDS.
AS I SAID, THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES WITH THAT.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY UTILITY POLES IN BETWEEN IN BETWEEN THIS ALLEYWAY AND THEIR PARKING HERE.
IT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE IN ORDER TO ADD THAT.
THERE ARE SPECIFIC STANDARDS WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE THAT ALLOW FOR LANDSCAPE SCREENING AND THINGS LIKE THAT AS WELL. THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BROUGHT BY MR. KEMPER.
[OVERLAPPING] I'M TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
WE HAD A MOTION TO DENY MADE BY COMMISSIONER KEMPER WITH A NOTE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PARKING STANDARD REQUIREMENTS IN THE C1 ZONE. I STATED THAT CORRECTLY?
>> A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER KEMPER TO DENY THE REQUEST.
WHAT WE CALL IT A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL, OR THE REASON TO COUNSEL, THE INSUFFICIENT PARKING STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR C1 ZONING AND PD.
IS THAT STATED AS? DID YOU GET THAT?
>> THEN WE WOULD NEED A SECOND.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION?
>> A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
>> CAN YOU GO OVER WHAT MEANS TO DENY IN THIS CASE? IF WE SAY WE APPROVE, THEN WE AGREE WITH THE DENIAL.
>> IF YOU'RE VOTING YES, YOU VOTE TO DENY.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
SEEING NONE THEN WE'LL CAST YOUR VOTE. MOTION TO DENY.
[01:35:06]
MOTION CARRIES 3-2.WE RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL DENY WITH INSUFFICIENT PARKING STANDARD REQUIREMENTS.
THAT'S IT. I DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED, 7:39 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.