So good evening, everyone, and welcome to the February 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Chapel Hope Planning Commission.

And we'll start out with a roll call.

Jeff?

Present.

Liz.

Liz is there.

Let the record reflect.

She's muted.

Chuck?

Here.

Libby?

Here.

Mike?

Here.

And I'm John Mitchell, the chair.

Here.

Good.

Thank you.

That's official.

Fairly short agenda tonight, just approval of the agenda, the minutes, and uh a conditional rezoning.

Um 1165 Weaver Dairy, which we've seen before last March, if you recall as a concept plan, and now it's it's back as an official um formal application.

Does anybody have a suggested change to the agenda?

Or if not, maybe somebody could motion to approve.

I so move.

Okay.

Second.

Okay.

Um just thumbs up if you're okay with the agenda.

Anyone opposed?

Speak now.

Okay.

Um agendas approved.

We typically do uh an opportunity for announcements or petitions.

Are there any announcements or petitions either from uh announcements from uh planning commission members or petitions or announcement or sorry, petitions from the public?

I see Jeff has his hand raised.

Yeah, I'll just mention I'm sure many of you know this, but the council unanimously adopted with some small changes the uh omnibus text amendment.

So that was very exciting.

Um good job, council and new council members.

That's great.

Um the minutes from I think it was December 2nd uh were attached to the agenda.

Um they looked complete and accurate to me.

Does anybody have um any suggested edits or if not, um is there a motion to approve those minutes?

Young already, I motion to approve.

Okay, great.

Second um okay, thanks, Liz, for a second.

Uh just thumbs up if you're okay with the minutes.

Any abstains or no's looks like it's at unanimous Liz.

Um, I should have when you asked um for um petitions or issues.

I'm just curious if maybe we could um talk with Josh at some point about filling our vacant seats on the planning commission, just what the status is.

Yeah.

Uh I'm just a um I realized I did not get it uh to the right person in the clerk's office.

So um talking with the clerk's office.

Um we'll figure out the procedure for naming a new member.

It's not currently on any council agendas, but we'll get it on there as soon as possible.

Thanks.

Okay.

And with that, we're gonna move to the one more thing before we jump to new business.

I do just want to introduce uh Sneha Bora, who will be joining uh myself as a staff liaison to the planning commission.

Hi everyone.

Welcome.

Nice to meet you.

Nice meeting you.

Are you new to the town?

Yes, I uh joined recend as the planner one.

Um yeah.

Great.

Thank you for having me.

So our only uh item of new business tonight is uh conditional rezoning for 1165 Weaver Dairy Road.

This is the piece of property that's between um essentially Walgreens and that UNC medical facility at the corner of MLK and Weaver Dairy on the east and uh sorry, on the west and then on the east.

I think it's a like Bank of America or some bank that's right before uh Chamberline.

So I'll turn it over to uh the developer or staff for presentation.

Thank you.

Uh John.

So um my name's Catherine Shore.

I am the staff uh member who will be giving the presentation to you this evening, and here with the applicant team, Wendy Ramson is going to deliver the applicant's presentation, and then I will share the staff recommendation.

Um then we'll we'll both be here to address any questions you all have.

Um so Wendy, do you want to um start sharing your presentation first?

Yep.

Uh let me see.

All right.

Are you all seeing the screen?

Okay.

So um, yes, I'm Wendy Ramson.

I'm a landscape architect with Thomas and Hutton.

Uh I am joined tonight.

The owners of the property are here as well, Mike Slamiani and Pete Salamiani.

So if there's some questions specifically for them, um they are available.

Uh so just uh go in a little more detail about the location of it.

The site is here.

We are on the south side of Weaver Dairy Road, um, and we are east of MLK.

The property is a little bit more than two acres, and where you see these yellow lines down the east side, that is an electric easement, which kind of narrows the property by about 30 feet.

So to the west is a development called Weaver Crossing.

Yes, that is the Walgreen store and and some UNC medical offices here.

Uh that is these are two-story buildings.

When you go to the north side of Weaver Dairy Road, we've also got medical office buildings, and then to the east is the Timberline Shopping Center.

These uh right up against our project are a couple of little outlier buildings.

This is the a bank, and this one is um I think it's a vet and a pizza place, or there's just some retail in that space.

And then as you go south of our site, there's a little bit of undeveloped land that is part of Weaver Crossing, it's owned by by this developer.

Um, but across the street there is residential, and when you get off the map here to the bottom and the right, there are a lot of multi-family buildings there.

So there's a lot more residential in the area as you go south and and southeast.

So the next this is the district specific plan.

So it's sort of the general layout of how we expect to see this develop.

Uh, we are asking for MBV zoning, which allows us to do both residential and non-residential uses on the same site.

We intend to set the non-residential uses up at the north end up against Weaver Dairy Road.

Um, that building will be set at the back of the landscape buffer, and the parking will be set not at the street, but behind the building.

Um matter what use would go in that space, we would be looking to keep the parking away from the street base.

We've got two points of vehicular access on this project.

One is this right in, right out driveway on Weaver Dairy Road.

There is a concrete median.

This is the result of some road widening improvements that were done by DOT many years ago.

I think it must be now at least six years ago, something like that.

Um, so that is definitely right in right out.

There is also a place to uh have a vehicular connection here against the driveway of the adjacent um weaver crossing development.

That little driveway connection is already built.

They've brought their pavement right up to the edge of the um right up to the edge of the site, and there's an access easement there.

So that's that's a spot that we can't change.

That we're locked into that location.

Um the residential use, the town houses will be set at the south end of the property.

That's to act as a transition zone between this non-residential use up north into the east and west, and then a transition use between those non-residential uses and the residential, less dense uses as you go to the south and the southeast.

So the parking lot will be set between these uses.

There will be some sharing of parking spaces.

Um, there will also be a sharing of a couple other things.

We um are looking at just one trash dumpster area.

So there would be trash recycling and cardboard recycling, and that will be shared by both uses.

There will also be in this area, and you'll see it better on the next plan that I pull up, but we are intending to have underground stormwater detention that will treat for the whole site.

But the site is actually fairly flat, so um it's a good idea to pull it all into one spot instead of having two separate facilities.

These various colors around the perimeter are the landscape buffers, and uh there's a legend on the plan that is that was part of the bigger set, but um basically against Weaver Dairy Road that we are asking for a modification to reduce the buffer from 30 feet to 20 feet.

That is oh, and also to use only 50% of the required plantings.

This is actually consistent with the plantings that are in front of this development and also in front of the timber line area.

In fact, it would be more plantings, and we don't have parking up at the street.

So I've been working with Adam Nicholson to make sure that I'm doing what staff in the town would like to see.

On the west side, we are asking for a 50% reduction of buffer.

This is because the adjacent property, 10 years ago, they already put in a good buffer, which is really has grown in really nicely.

The material is pretty mature.

So we don't want to disturb the roots on that, and we're just going to add to it on our side.

On the east side, we're asking for a reduction.

Really, the buffer should be 20 feet against the property line, but that is all electric utility, and it's these cross-country lines, it's a it's a lot of lines, a lot of utilities.

So we're starting the buffer first off, not at the property line, but we're also asking for it to be narrowed up considerably.

Really, this is because we can't put canopy trees right next to the power lines, and we're really kind of running out of space to be able to do planting.

But you'll see on the next plan what we're intending to do.

And then this green area to around the residential use, that will meet code.

It's a 20 20 foot buffer, and we are planning to meet code on that one.

So this slide, it should look familiar first of all, but it's how we anticipate the project to be built out.

It really hasn't changed much since we came to you a year ago or so with the with the concept plan.

So we have the non-residential use at the street right now.

We are looking at putting a daycare into that space.

There are 34 parking spaces.

We've got the right in, right out driveway on Weaver Dairy Road.

Uh, let's see, we've got the trash located here, and we've got an underground detention under the parking area, and we've tried to work that around some islands, some landscape islands, so we can get some shade trees into the parking lot.

The future phase, the phase two, would be the development of the town homes at the south end of the site.

There were more here before, but there were there were just too many complications with asking for modifications to reduce everything.

Um we did feel like making sure that there were good buffers around the townhomes was a good idea because it's a residential use next to the this non-residential, the sort of service area behind Walgreens.

Um that got reduced from five to four town homes, and the um and as I say, we will meet the code on the landscape buffers here.

Those are expected to be two-story townhomes with like a carport in the back, but they will also have the opportunity to use the parking spaces when the um when the daycare center or whatever non-residential use ends up here when that's not operating at night, they'd be able to use the parking spaces as well.

So I think some of the the changes are probably not super obvious.

Um, but since the concept, what we've done is added better pedestrian connectivity from the townhomes through the site.

We've added sidewalks through the whole site with some shade trees and made that connect up to Weaver Dairy Road.

Uh, we've also provided a place for a couple of future pedestrian connections to the adjacent development.

Now we know that you know Timberline's fairly old and it probably will get redeveloped in the future.

I haven't heard specific plans, but I I'm sure that it will get redeveloped in the future.

Right now we're backing up to the service areas for some of these buildings and the parking lots and whatever, but as the neighborhood, as the adjacent property gets redeveloped, um, there would be opportunities for some pedestrian connection.

Right now, there's a lot of great change, so it would certainly mean steps, and and I think it would be better to wait until that property gets redeveloped and see where the appropriate places to make a connection are.

But we are accommodating the impervious and the disturbed area in our plans and in our and in our stormwater mitigation.

Oh, the other thing that we added was an outdoor gathering space for the residential units.

So we anticipate that they will have these car ports in the back.

But what we've done is we've carved out a space with some nice landscaping in the front so that there can be kind of a gathering spot for the residential owners, and you know, if they maybe want to put grills or some seating and such out there, there would be space to do that.

This last slide summarizes the modifications that we're asking for now that it is a formal um formal application.

So the MUV zoning requires two uses.

Um but it's the only it's the only zoning in the town right now that allows us to do non-residential and residential on the same site.

And the requirement is that the second use, whichever one it is, be at least 25% of the total square footage on the site.

Looking into the future, we don't really know how much of um how big the non-residential use might expand to.

And so what we've done is we've asked for a smaller ratio for the for the housing.

So instead of having ratio of 25 to 75, we've asked for it to be reduced to 1585.

So we are still intending to put the housing on the south side.

We just don't know that the square footage that we're going to be able to get into that space is going to be able to meet that 25% threshold.

Uh the reduction, the one of the other modifications we're asking for a reduction of the minimum parking requirement.

Uh, that is for obvious reasons in this spot.

We are on two bus routes, and we have a mixture of the non-residential and residential uses which can share some of the parking spaces.

So we really don't see the the need for putting in a huge amount of parking on this project.

Uh the disturbance of steep slopes, uh the existing steep slopes really are all man-made slopes.

They are located along the electric easement, and it was a way of kind of, I guess, grading and separating the electric easement out from the rest of the site, how it was developed earlier.

So we will be adding a short retaining wall along that section.

It really is only a couple of feet tall.

Um, but we are going to be disturbing most of the steep slopes on site.

There aren't a lot, but we are going to be serving the majority of them.

The landscape buffers, I did describe what we were doing, what we're asking for on those modifications.

Um this one is kind of an odd request.

We don't normally ask for this, but there are so many overhead power lines and other utility overhead lines on this site all along like half of the perimeter of the site, the west, sorry, the east side and the whole north side have power lines.

And we really can't put a lot of tall venturing trees into those spaces because there's um constraints because of the electric easements.

And so what we're asking is to allow half of the required tree canopy to be met with understory trees.

We are actually putting a lot of understory trees with its site to give that that sense of an overhead, you know, a canopy and some shade, but we just can't put 60 foot trees against a lot of the power lines.

And so we are asking for that uh for that allowance to be allowed to use understory trees, and we're only asking for half the credit for those.

So, you know, where we would put in four canopy trees, we were asking to put in eight understory trees to get the same credit.

And the last um, the last modification that's kind of a specific one here, uh, it is for the bike parking requirements.

For all residential and non-residential uses, we intend to meet the code minimums for the for the bicycle parking.

But one of the allowed uses in the MEV is a daycare center, and the way um there's nothing specific in the in the ordinance about daycare bike parking.

And so it's treated as an elementary school for this particular calculation.

Um the way it stands right now, we would be required to provide 19 bike parking spaces for the daycare center.

And we just don't see that that is going to ever get used.

Um, you know, where somebody who's in second or third grade would probably, if they live close enough, be able to ride their bike to school, maybe.

Um, you know, no one's gonna let a daycare age child ride a bicycle to daycare.

Um, and so the other thing about daycare is most people who are using daycare are dropping their kids off to or from their way to work.

And so um, you know, it's nice to think that more people would use bikes as a way to get kids to daycare.

But I suspect here we're going to either see if they don't drive, we're gonna see them walk from one of the nearby apartments, or we're gonna see them using public transit because we are on these lines.

Um, what we are asking for is for the specific daycare, the specific use of a daycare center, if we can ask the requirement be a minimum of four spaces, and that would allow us to provide some spaces for a daycare staff, or maybe the odd person who might ride a bike.

Um, but any other non-residential uses would meet the limo requirements.

And that is the end of my presentation.

Thanks, Wendy.

Catherine.

I will stop sharing, and but if I need to pull up a plan later, it's easy enough.

Okay.

Okay.

You might need extra balance bike parking.

I think that's what the toddlers are using.

Extra what, sorry?

Balance bike, you know, the non-pedal bikes.

Yeah, they might even have some of those in the fly ground.

Um, so typically we do questions from commission members and then uh any comments from the public and then comments from commission members.

There's nobody from the public uh in the meeting.

So we're gonna go to questions and comments from PC members.

After Catherine presents.

Oh, I'm sorry, I uh we had heard from Catherine before, but she got forgot that she didn't present yet.

Sorry, Catherine.

Go ahead.

Thanks, John.

Um so I'm going to present staff recommendation to you all.

Um of the information in my presentation uh is similar to Wendy's, so I'll try to uh keep it tight.

Um the site that they are requesting a rezoning for is in the North MLK focus area, sub-area D.

It has frontage odd Weaver Dairy Road.

Um, as Wendy pointed out, it's near uh Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard and uh Sparrow Street.

It's also close to Banks Drive, but there's no direct connection.

So we are recommending approval because we find that it's in alignment with a complete community goals and the comprehensive plan.

We also believe that the requested modifications serve the public purpose and recommend that council approve the project subject to the conditions in ordinance A.

This uh rezoning is um request to change from the OI3 CCD to the mixed use village CCD.

They're proposing between four and twelve dwelling units and the non-residential use, and that would be in two buildings.

Um the zoning district would allow up to 104,000 square feet, but their initial proposal is for 19,000 square feet.

And as Wendy mentioned, the the scope of this development would involve shared parking and refuse facilities.

Procedurally, just to frame up conditional zoning, the requested zoning district, it accommodates the land uses and development scale proposed.

It also allows for site-specific standards and the applicants requesting modifications to LUMO standards.

So the reasons why we think that this meets the complete community goals is that this is a vacant two-acre site.

It's considered infill redevelopment on a high frequency transit corridor.

Um there are several constraints that limit the development potential of this site, and I know that's something that the commission brought up in your concept plan review.

Uh, you're interested in seeing some more um uh development intensity on this site.

We think that given those constraints that the applicant brought up that we the proposed intensity is reasonable.

Um the future land use map also calls for an activated frontage on Weaver Dairy Road, and we find that that's achieved by a reduced buffer.

Uh, no parking between the building and the structure.

Um it's also a benefit to have that reduced buffer because it will still include some canopy and understory plantings that will provide straight shade to pedestrians.

Um this development uh is also less auto-dependent.

Um, there would be parking between share between uses.

Um, there's site lock connectivity that is um within the site that would allow someone living on this property to access the businesses on Weaver Dairy Road or to access the commercial uses on uh Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard west of the property without having to get in their car.

Uh we also reviewed the natural features model and found that there was minimal influence of natural features for this site.

So we didn't um request any additional uh anything additional from the applicant.

So our procedures for you this evening are to consider the consistency with the comprehensive plan to consider the ordinance approving the application, excuse me, consider the ordinance approving the conditional zoning and to provide a recommendation to council.

Okay, thanks, Catherine.

Uh Jeff, I think you had your hand up before.

Yeah, I did.

Thanks, John.

Um, just a quick question for the applicant.

Um, just looking um at the map that Catherine showed, it looked like the little piece of land just south of the development site.

Um before you get to that street, um, it looks like it's part of the UNC Health Walgreens area, is that right?

It is.

Um, do we know?

Maybe this is a question for staff.

Is there what's there now?

And is do they have an entitlement to build something there?

Uh if they choose.

I I can tell you what's there now.

It's a lawn and some nice plantings.

Actually, they've got some shrubs and trees in that space.

It is quite nice.

I do not know if they have any entitlement to put anything there in the future.

I suspect they they built out the site as much as they could 10 years ago.

Um, and if they wanted to build there, they might have to come back to the planet or council.

How big is that piece?

It's probably a hundred by a hundred.

It's not huge.

Yeah.

Maybe a little more than that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions from PC members.

Liz.

Um okay, thanks.

And generally it seems like a pretty good use of that infill.

So uh I'm sort of generally supportive, but I do have some specific questions.

One of them was I couldn't quite tell how that sidewalk, it looked like this sidewalk goes straight through the parking lot.

Is that right?

Like how would how does that work?

It it does cross drive aisles, but there is sidewalk in the islands.

So you're going, it's like crossing a driveway.

But yeah, I think before we just had landscape islands, and we didn't have any way of they were planted curved to curb.

But now we've actually put a five foot sidewalk along the edge of the back of the curb so that there is a space for you to get above water on the cars in those spaces.

And so you're asking to uh plant non-canopy trees.

Is that also in the middle of the parking lot or just where the buffers?

Like the out on the west side, the south side, and in the parking lot, and even in front of the daycare center, there are there are canopy trees.

Uh we really are finding it hard to find a spot to put canopy trees against the the east side um power lines, but there will be there will be, I think I've got eight canopy trees in front between the building and the street.

And the canopy trees are these the um trees that are there now?

No.

So are you gonna raise the whole thing and then replant?

Yes.

And how big are the trees that you're gonna replant?

Uh they are three to three and a half inch caliper.

So I think they're 16, I think they need to be at least six 16 feet tall.

And um I'm curious.

So are are they native trees?

Yes.

And the what the understory trees that you're planting instead of canopy, and that can be a lot.

So what are you thinking of for the understory trees?

Uh these are trees that grow to about like dogwoods or yes, yes, they would be dogwoods, red buds, that kind of thing.

Okay.

Um, and uh I walked the property when we saw it the first time.

I did not go back, but I still largely remember it.

And that is a steep uh steep, you know, grade when you go over towards timberline.

Yes.

It does seem to me like I agree that probably at some point Timberline or the whatever the that mall is will get redone, but this could be 10 years from now.

And if people move into those apartments, if you're doing a retaining mall, it really seems like putting in a set of stairs is pretty key for connectivity there, even if you know it doesn't have to be the most uh elegant stairs.

Doesn't have to be it could be something that get moved at some later date, but it does seem like if you don't do that, you can't, you know, except like on a sled, maybe.

Uh it's not particularly easy to go to that large commercial area if you don't do that.

So that is, I guess that was a comment and not a question.

Did you consider the question is did you consider putting in stairs?

Well, we know that to make that connection right now, it would take stairs.

Yeah.

Um I I think that uh in the latest iteration, we haven't looked at putting stairs in, but in the past we have.

Yeah, I mean, I don't mean like you know, big concrete stairs.

You could even put wooden wooden stairs, at least in my perspective.

Um so um on the storm water issue, um that it is pretty flat because they did grade it, and that's why you had that steep cutoff, but it is also at a spot sort of at the peak of Chapel Hill where uh everything goes down, and so the underwater retention uh makes them space trying to uh plant as much of the non-built area is is actually also important.

But did you consider pervious papers or for that um parking lot trying to really minimize the runoff from that spot?

Yeah, we we haven't.

Um the we would not be able to do enough pervus pavers to avoid the need for underground detention also, and so it would then just become like two storm facilities instead of one.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um and you are um building towards what what is the um oh you mean the event?

The storm the hundred year storm event.

Okay.

All right.

Those are my questions.

Oh, just one more question.

I do think that uh getting as much as many trees in that parking lot as possible.

Um, you know, with little kids walking uh every day, it just that would be a nice place to not have it, a big bear parking lot.

It sounds like you're trying to do that, but I think that's really important.

If we can find somewhere for another tree or two, yeah.

Thank you.

Thanks, Liz.

So I'm gonna share my screen here.

Um see if this works.

Can everybody see my cursor circling around this spreadsheet?

So this is uh matrix, complete community matrix that we did in March.

So this is uh old work that we already transmitted to staff and and in theoretically the council, although I don't think the council's seen it since then.

Um and today I redlined in just to expedite things, some um updates on our prior work, but I thought it might facilitate our getting to a vote here.

Um and also it's kind of our normal process to just review these 10 rows and see if we want to modify anything else or if anything's changed.

And I'm sure some things have.

Um so I'm looking at the PC members.

Is this um okay?

Are you okay with just going through this?

I don't think it'll take a huge amount of time.

Good idea.

Is a good idea.

Okay.

Yeah, sure.

But we could just organize the questions and comments by row, you know, just to keep things organized.

Gotcha.

Okay, Mike, did you want to say something?

Yeah, I did have the question.

Just a comment.

So when we go with the um, I do appreciate you know that there's bus, you know, routes there, and but when you go to the 30% reduction, where do we expect the other 30% is going to go from a parking perspective?

When there is the need, where would they go and park?

So um, you know, no matter what the town asks for as far as parking, there is also what the market is going to demand, right?

And and I understand that's where you're going right now.

So currently the user that we are looking at putting here is a daycare center.

Hardly anybody stays parked there the whole day.

It's really just the staff, right?

Most people come in for 10 minutes, they drop their kid off and they leave again.

So we never need, you know, a hundred parking spaces at one time.

We only need enough for people to come in and drop off and leave again.

Um as things develop in the future, um, if there is a different user here, again, I I think that no matter, and we're not saying that we're only going to put in up to a 30% reduction.

What we're saying is if there are users that that don't need as much and they know that market demand is saying they don't need as much, that we would have the freedom to not build out to the minimum number of parking spaces.

And where would they park instead?

I think that if it is a use that that needs a hundred percent of the parking spaces, they're gonna build 100% of the parking spaces.

Josh, is that omnibus amendment effective yet?

Has the town gotten rid of parking minimums?

Uh the omnibus amendment is effective.

I think it's fair to say the vast majority of this project's planning happened before the omnibus.

So things are in place that uh won't need the exemption when we're done.

Uh yeah.

So if there's no minimum, um, then we don't have to ask for yes, that'll yeah.

I think it's just been uh roughly about two weeks now, so we just haven't gotten around to cleaning.

Shame on you to reading that 140 pages of changes on but I think it's safe, Mike, that the the users will always want to provide what the market demands.

Um, but you know, hopefully as time moves on, the market will demand a less percentage of parking.

Thank you.

Okay, so let's go to the first row of this thing, which is land use efficiency.

Um we had a comment last time, a recommendation at the concept plan stage to consider adding more units.

And um, you know, thinking about that again today.

I see Wendy, you've you've taken out a unit in order to add more um buffer and green space around the townhomes, I think, from five to four.

Right.

Um you probably wouldn't be able to park you know 12 units.

I know you you reserve the right to do 12 units, but um, if you were to do something like much more dense, I don't know where how you'd park it.

Maybe that was part of your thought process.

Right.

Well, and and so right now we're looking at doing townhomes.

We don't actually have a building, like building plans for the townhomes yet.

That will be phase two.

But you know, if there was somebody that was willing to build something unusual, the owners would be open to having, for example, eight flats above parking spaces that were underneath.

Um, and and so there would be uh what what we're trying to do here with the rezoning is provide a framework for moving forward for the next 20 years, not just for what we want to do in the next two years.

And so we're trying to create an opportunity for something other than the traditional housing types to be put here.

If if that is available when the owner wants to build this.

Okay, wonder so.

Jeff.

Yeah, I just wanted to point out.

I mean, we have the the district's specific plan that you provided and also the renderings, but again, the the ordinance itself allows more flexibility, it seems um than what's listed there.

So, you know, I mean the the district specific plan says that that daycare could include residential.

So it's you know, by approving this, we're not foreclosing um additional housing on that site.

Right.

And Catherine, but that's a max of 12 on the site.

That's correct.

Okay.

But it would never be all residential because it's a mixed-use owning.

Mixed use, right?

And you have your 1585, right?

Okay.

So this row one, um, I mean, there's nothing binding about the recommendation there.

I think it it still applies, and you may sometime down the line choose to increase the amount of residential.

But does anybody think we ought to change something about row one from how it stands right now on the screen?

Okay.

Um we'll move on to row two, but if there are further thoughts on that, we can go back.

Uh so row two is the mix of housing unit sizes configuration.

So last time we discussed this, it was also you were contemplating Wendy a daycare.

Um as I noted, five to four in order townhome units, at least currently compliant contemplated uh to allow more green space around the townhomes.

Um and when we asked in March, Wendy or maybe one of your colleagues had said roughly 16, 1800 square feet per town house.

Yes.

Um is that still the case?

Yes, they're small, going to be two story.

Um, and there's I think they're only 20 feet wide.

No, I don't even think they're small units.

Yeah, so I think our analysis here still applies.

Okay, not hearing any other comments.

We'll go to the third row.

Um walkability and bikeability to daily needs.

So close access to extensive commercial.

I'm reading the facts row right now.

Uh and we had said in March, no current plan for adding walking or bike paths from townhouses.

That's not true anymore, I don't think.

Um you have to cross the parking lot, but you said Wendy that you're adding uh sidewalk along the okay.

Um also I saw condition 11 in ordinance a draft ordinance a require sidewalks within the site.

It doesn't say they have to be continuous between the townhomes to Weaver Dairy.

Sounds like that's your um your plan though, Wendy.

Is that fair?

Yeah.

Okay.

So maybe I just take this out.

Um easy access to retail.

This is what Liz is talking about in Tambor Line except via Weaver Dairy sidewalk due to steep slope.

And then um in the uh analysis column, we accorded from Brian Peterson who said suggest improving the pedestrian connection from the townhouses to Weaver Dairy Road by extending the sidewalk along the east side of daycare south road.

Yeah, I think you did that in fact.

Which we did, yes.

Um making note to myself.

And then on the right we had recommended develop a pathway that's now I think covered by condition 11.

And then I think the second bullet is what Liz was talking to, plan for future access of timber line through a staircase or other means adjacent to the current Bank America branch.

Um I'm saying current use, not future use.

Right.

I mean, I if if I can chime in on that, the issue is that um obviously there won't be ADA accessibility, but you also I mean you cross the um the uh electrical easement and then you're sort of in no man's land.

There's no sidewalk, uh you have no permission to be on the property.

That the there are two separate owners of those buildings, which are separate different from the owner of the timber line shopping center.

So there is a fence along much of that property line currently, yeah.

Chain link fence.

So I think it's appropriate to wait until there's some sort of redevelopment that that provides some sort of uh um ability to have safe uh access through that site.

I don't think there is that now.

So Jeff, you're concerned that if there were some sort of like I don't know if this is actually a coherent idea, but uh stub out staircase.

Um it would just be leading people to nowhere or to places that they're not permitted, actually.

Yeah.

I mean, essentially, and uh yeah.

And you're thinking, Jeff, that I don't know what to do.

Down the road when when when there's a need for the connection, they could, you know, presumably it wouldn't be uh if it's only like a very short retaining wall, you could find a way to if they wanted to.

It's included on yeah, and it's included on the district specific plan.

So it's it's being accommodated for any in a hypothetical future condition.

Well, if there's really no place that goes straight towards the uh mall rather than it requires going, all of it requires going through private property, then I need to retract my suggestion.

I thought that there were places where it was a direct it was um contiguous, but that's I think that bank property is in between the separate ownership, right?

It is separate ownership, yes.

But is that the the sorry go ahead?

Go ahead, it is sorry.

Well, I and do you want to just put the map up so we can see what we're discussing?

Yeah, that's a good idea.

I had a point to make too, but I want to wait for this a bit on the map, it makes the most sense.

You want me to share?

Sure.

Sorry, I'm uh sorry.

I think I might have beat you too, Wendy.

Oh, that's fine, yeah.

Do you have uh oh that's just the district specific plan?

So uh yeah, that was not showing the property lines, unfortunately, but the bank and is one lot, and then that building below it, which is a retail and I think pizza place, something that's a separate lot, and uh, and then you have banks drive.

So there's these two lots that are between that and timber line.

They're they're out at parcels, I guess you would call them.

And the bank, is that all a parking lot right there?

It's parking lot all around, yes.

So, and where is the chain link fence that you mentioned?

It's uh at the at the property line.

I don't know how far, honestly, I don't know how far back it goes, but I know that it's certainly up near the street and along the bank.

I'm not sure if it's behind the retail area or not.

And does the bank have I remember when we saw the bank be developed a while ago?

I think it was this.

We talked extensively about them providing a walkway in the other direction.

Is there are there any sidewalks or any pedestrian areas?

This is just a flat parking lot, it's just a parking lot.

There's nothing currently there.

Okay.

It does seem to me that if you were to oh, that's helpful.

Yeah, yeah, that's much more helpful.

So we're talking about something right around here, and this is the easement going down.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

Well, uh I still think it's worth consideration, but it may not be uh appropriate or practical.

So we'll look at it.

Okay.

Yeah, so uh um, can you put the map of the property again?

And Wendy, if you don't mind, if you could show me your cursor where this the sidewalk is for the um residents on the property.

Sure.

Uh hold on, let me share again.

This one.

All right.

Are you seeing this?

Yeah.

Okay.

So there is a sidewalk that comes along the the edge of the parking lot, and that is that connects to a crosswalk, an existing crosswalk and sidewalks in the at the Walgreens.

Easy way to review it.

And then there's a sidewalk in this landscape island, in this landscape island, and along the side of this landscape island.

All right.

That brings you all the way down here to Weaver Dairy.

Yeah, so right there, I'm just Elizabeth pointing out the obvious that anyone wants to go to the shopping center adjacent.

Can trace that all the way to Viva Ded Road, make the right, go ahead.

And you're in the other shopping center as a as an option B.

Yes.

Yes.

And this is an ADA compliant route.

Right.

Within our site.

All right.

Okay, so let's go to the fourth row, which is access to transit.

Nothing's changed here, quarter mile at most from uh John.

Do you want to share your screen again?

Oh sorry, I didn't realize I was kicked off.

Okay, you should see it now.

So I'm in row four here.

Access to transit.

So we're within a quarter mile of future BRT site.

I added in this is true last time, but didn't mention it that uh Chapel Transit bus routes serve Weaver Dare Road currently.

And so um check on access to transit.

I don't think there's anything change about that.

Um the next row parking aligned with planning commission recommendations.

So uh, you know, currently there's there's no uh parking minimums in Chapel Hill uh as of the last two weeks.

Um 34 spaces that we which is consistent with what we heard last time, 35 to 40.

So I think all this commentary probably still applies.

Um one covered space per townhouse, shared overflow parking in the middle.

Wendy said that's still true.

Um we thought that that seemed reasonable, the numbers of parking.

I think we probably still think that um this is something I put in today just uh as a note, a courtesy note to staff.

I'm sure uh Josh and Catherine, you're already looking at this, but um condition three in draft ordinance A um references minimum parking requirements, and we probably just need to like update that, right?

Yes.

Okay.

I'll take this out.

John, I'm curious to know why we're leaving the uh comment on spaces if it's uh not really relevant.

Um there's no parking maximum.

Um and sometimes we um urge developers to cut down the number of parking spaces because it seems overparked, and I think we we felt that this one was not overparked.

That that's the only reason to leave it in.

Okay.

Um row six relates to design placemaking.

Um we had a couple recommendations here, focus on shade trees and common area for townhouse residence and gathering space.

So I think uh the new plan is responsive to this.

Um actually in both counts.

Um there's some shade trees, I think in the middle of the site and toward Weaver Dairy, not so much along the power lines for obvious reasons, but uh a larger number of um undersory trees there, and also um the reason why it went from five to four town homes, I believe, is to add canopy and gathering space um around the town homes, the southern part of the site.

So it I actually I think our two um recommendations here were uh were heated.

Does that sound right?

Yes, and I would say the more shade trees the better.

Yeah.

Um I'm just gonna write formal appellate includes um I'll say robust.

Um tree plantings and uh new um buff and expanded buffer and gathering space um around the townhouses.

One of the issues that came up when we had um um Brook Massa come speak with us and um Sarah Childs and maybe Libby is gonna talk about this, but um right now this is a wooded area, and if it were possible to leave some of the trees instead of planting smaller ones, that's uh from a shade perspective for a ecological perspective, that's invariably a positive.

I know sometimes it makes building harder, but um particularly around some of the buffer areas, the the trees there already are in the zone where there are utilities, so one would assume that uh if there was a problem, Duke Energy would have already taken a uh a whack at them.

But maybe Libya wants to talk about this topic as well.

And I will just say that we didn't show trees in the easement because we wouldn't be allowed to get credit for them anyway.

You're not supposed to plant trees in an electric easement.

So sort of as part of the calculation, it wouldn't be in the plan.

But if it's in the easement, we're not gonna take it down.

Um and that isn't due.

Actually, that one happens to be a feedmall hour.

Yeah.

Um I would I was thinking of some of the buffer area on the other side where you're adding buffer between the townhouses and the you left a little more buffer, but it's looks like you're gonna cut those trees down and then replant.

Uh if if we don't have to for grading purposes, we we won't.

Well, in my mind that would be so yeah.

Libby.

Thanks.

Oops, just in my list for myself.

So yeah, I was just gonna verify that at first it sounded like all the current vegetation will be raised, but it sounds like you're open to keeping some of it, so that would be good if you can.

Except I noticed in at least in the Google view of the earth.

I didn't go there.

There are in some invasive species there now.

So um, yeah.

And that would be good.

Most of the polonia trees have been taken out, but yes, there are some invasive.

There were also, I noticed it looked like mimosa trees in there.

There are a lot.

Yeah.

So you sort of answered one of my questions.

You won't be planting next to the power lines immediately next to them.

No, we'll be 15 feet away.

Yeah, okay.

So I wondered if it might make sense to had you thought about shifting the driveway closer to that easement, and then you could have more trees and vegetation close to your buildings and such and your parking area.

Um the daycare is still sort of a placeholder, or is that pretty certain to you have a client for that?

I have a client.

We do have a client.

And do you know how many children it will serve or how large a building it's gonna be?

I think it's 11,000 square feet.

Um I think there's a hundred and I don't remember the number, Mike repeat.

I don't know if you do either 130 kids, something like that.

I don't I don't remember the exact numbers, but it's in that ballpark.

How many staff does that require?

Uh I think there were 15, 14 or 15.

Okay.

So now we're so now we're getting to closer to being able to answer the question of how many parking spaces you might actually need.

And um, I guess uh my final question when I saw the driveway going to the back of the property, I wasn't sure why, but I guess that's you're thinking those there will be car ports next to the town townhouses attached to the townhouse.

Uh huh.

So it would serve those.

But if the design ends up not including car ports, we wouldn't take the driveway back for any reason.

Yeah.

Okay.

The fire would be served from the from the parking lot drive aisle.

They would the fire truck doesn't need to come all the way behind the garages.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And you could conceivably reorient your buildings, I guess.

Yes.

That spaces freed up.

Um so finally, I don't I'm not sure who this is a question for.

I guess you, the project team, but also maybe the town.

I don't know if there's a policy on on this.

Could I see the map again um that includes the adjacent properties, one of those maps?

Um I'll go ahead and share here.

Oh, something else is okay.

So there's going to be egress from the Walgreens parking lot.

Um if you have the I I saw something a bit confusing in the uh town urban designer's comment.

I I thought he implied that the play area of this daycare center would go in the front, but it looks like that's not the case, right?

There will be a small playground in the front.

Um Josh, if you go back to that um there, oh no.

I would that that one's that one's any plan.

Yep, so that's the grading plan.

But in the top in the top left corner of the building, you can see an area with X like a line with X's on it.

That's a fence.

So there would be a small um playground there.

It would I'm sure that it will be an opaque fence, and there will be plantings between that and the street.

Yeah, okay.

But is there any way to bring the building?

Do you need that playground in addition to another playground?

Is that the situation?

Yes, so normally what they like to do is have a playground, so the way daycarers work is they like to have a playground that opens from their classroom so that they have direct access.

And they uh usually also try and separate small like infants from toddlers.

Um that would I think that's probably the infant room, it's a fairly small space, and they do have they do have plans in their playground equipment to include shaded structures.

Yeah.

Well, I I just think it would be healthier for children not to be playing next to a busy road.

And if there's any way to shift that to the other another side of the building.

Uh, and but related to all that was my kind of general question.

Under what circumstances could driveways be shared?

And has there been any exploration of that in this case?

Oh, you mean could we use the next door neighbor's driveway and not have driveway on our own site?

Um don't know.

I think that would involve getting permission from the neighbor to actually use their driver.

Yeah, I'm sure it would.

Anyway, just something for us to think about as a community, how much space to give over to the cars and when land is at such a premium.

Anyway, so I again I think it's a suitable type of development for the place, and you've clearly tried to address some of the things we brought up earlier.

Um again, if there's any way with site design and such to leave more existing trees, to reduce impervious surface, and uh, you know, I can encourage you to continue with that.

Okay, thank thanks, Libby.

I think that brings us to row seven respect for surrounding neighborhoods.

I think uh the stuff is still true.

I think actually Brian included these comments in um his more his updated version.

Uh and I added in here that um there are mobile homes indirectly to the south, not directly.

Um but all the proposed structures that we're looking at here are low.

So I don't think there's a issue of having looming buildings that are inconsistent with some surrounding neighborhood.

Um I just wanted to clarify that here, but otherwise I think this also applies.

Um row eight.

I think this is no longer true if I was reading the documents correctly.

Um there's there's no longer uh modification requested.

Um I know there is one to replace uh shade trees with understory trees, but I don't think there's a requested decrease in canopy.

It is there no, I think um I think when we went to asking for having coverage for no, we're looking to meet the 40% as long as approve the modification for us to be able to have some understory trees count instead of I see.

Okay, that's what I thought.

Um and I also added in here, I thought it was helpful that staff memo noted that uh natural features model was looked at, and this wasn't um I guess not surprisingly a high value um biologically speaking uh piece of land, although it is as Liz mentioned at the top of the watershed.

Um so we I guess we had talked last time about topography and um I don't know whether this recommendation applies anymore.

So we had tree cover would be especially important, blah blah blah.

But the the thing on the right, adding back some topography.

Um Liz, you want to speak to that?

Do you do you think that's still still uh germane here?

Um well, I don't remember exactly what we were thinking by that comment, but it is the property was clearly flattened, and then you have this steep um fall off to in order to dip down into the what is now the um utility um easement easement.

And so there would certainly be some possibility on that side to do something.

I think the idea they want they've just decided to go straight for a large uh underground retention.

I don't know what the models show.

I don't know how big that has to be.

There are lots of natural ways to deal with it.

It's a pretty small property.

Um so I don't know, but it certainly would be worth looking at, particularly because that area, the easement is gonna stay uh undeveloped.

And so it would be possible to think about trying to use that as a to be able to actually think about how to use that area to absorb stormwater, but you know, it would take um some engineers to to model that.

Actually, we're we're not allowed to use the utility easement for stormwater mitigation.

The electric utilities won't give us permission to do that.

Interesting.

So you you're not allowed to touch it.

No, and we are not really allowed to grade in it.

I mean, if you want to grade one foot, maybe they'll you you need to have them sign off if you want to grade underneath their lines.

And and they won't let you do that.

No.

No.

So it and if we Well, they don't want you to hit their their stuff.

Right.

And they need a certain amount of vertical clearance between the ground and their their lines, also.

I think that's the reasoning behind it.

Um, and they also don't want a lot of grading because they don't want the foundations of their uh towers to be undermined at all.

Uh we could look at, or you know, to look at sort of having less less differential in height between our site and what's next door.

We could look at lowering the town homes.

The problem with that is that we have to collect all the stormwater from the impervious from the new impervious and send it to the stormwater treatment facility.

And we can't do that if it's lower if if our new impervious is below the stormwater facility.

You need to get the water from a town home area to the uh to the facility.

To the detention, yes.

Yes.

Well, it's an interesting question.

It it is.

I understand what you're asking.

Um the rules don't necessarily allow us to do some of that stuff.

Um so the next row, Liz, about stormwater.

I'm gonna suggest we take out this comment about adding back in topography because I'm not sure that we what we're saying there.

Yeah, I I think the only thing that I would say is make sure there you consider all options uh as to stormwater retention.

And that would be as far as I think we can we can go in that.

Right, and that brings us to nine.

I mean, uh let me just go ahead.

I mean, they're proposing to collect a the hundred-year stormwater or the the hundred year storm and do it underground so there's no you know, it's making maximum use of the space.

I really I don't know what they could do to go above and beyond.

Um permeable space would be great, but this is a weirdly shaped site.

Um, and they're doing, I think, all they can to fit what they want to put on there.

So I just I don't I don't see a lot of options here.

Uh to extendable to um Jeff is saying I'm not sure what we're tell trying to tell them to do.

Okay, I mean it's just uh it seems to be a very open-ended comment.

Uh which one are you talking about, Mike?

The underground stormwater detention.

Um asking this one are you talking about this one that I highlighted?

Pardon me.

Are you are you looking at the draft?

I'm looking at rule number nine where you guys saw just now.

Or are you talking about this?

That's just the facts.

That's just a fact column.

They're they're planning underground stormwater detention.

Sorry, the I didn't carry over the car matters, which I should have.

So that's not commentary.

Well, I I mean the the the middle one talks about there's a good chance that increasingly frequent and severe storms will present significant costs.

Yes.

And it's addressed through the stormwater plan that I think they've provided.

I just don't uh I'm not sure what else they could do.

Right.

Unless I think that this I think what we already wrote still stands.

Stormwater management, both underwater and green infrastructure should be considered carefully, airing on the side of caution.

I think that's exactly what we're saying.

Jeff thinks that they've already done that and they've picked the only solution that may be correct.

And we're just saying make sure that's that is the case because this is a this is an area right on the top of where uh all the water is coming from.

So I'm fine leaving the comment in there because it's not it's not prescriptive.

And it's not saying there's a problem with the current plan.

It's just saying if there's any way to do more, this is um high up in the watershed, and that'd be great.

But I I think it's um it reflects my sentiment and it seems innocuous.

It's flagging that this is an issue of concern for the town.

Yeah.

Could add the 100 year storm in the facts column.

What they're planning.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh so this last row 10, we had some recommendations, and I I deleted them because I saw that um conditions 19 to 22 in ordinance A incorporated them.

I mean, at least a version of them.

There's specific percentages of EV charging infrastructure and um whatnot, various other sustainability things, but um I think staff has considered and put it in there.

Um I didn't have anything to add on that.

So just circling back, I've made some um real-time edits to this thing just to bring it up to date and to reflect what we're thinking today.

Um are there any other um aspects that PC members want to flag that we didn't get to or any other um comments before we move toward voting on something?

The the only other thing which we didn't um say anything about the request to go from 19 to 4 bike.

And I certainly I think make a good case for uh reducing them.

I just wonder thinking about people who would bike their children there, probably on bigger e-bikes.

So I'm just curious when you say four parking bike parking spaces.

What is what are you envisioning there?

I think we're envisioning that for the most part those would be used by staff.

But I mean are these racks or these faces?

They are uh racks outside the entry door, they're covered and they're at the at the main entry where people would have to come in and sign the kids in.

Yeah.

And they could also obviously be used by the parent who does show up, you know, from the nearby uh the um and one of the things I think these are largely with the older developments, these racks often don't really um have room for e-bikes, just because I'm just curious if uh if you've considered that.

Um no, and I will take it a look into how much more space, how much we need to space them out to make that happen.

Yeah, and it may just be the type of rack that you buy, just has wider tower tire wider spaces, but yeah, but there's also the town has sort of minimum spacing requirements, but I'll take a look at how much um how much space an e-bike parking needs and see if we maybe need to space things out a little bit.

Yeah, it is at the top of the hill.

I know if I bike there, I would be very happy to have my e-bike uh well, and you're right.

I see a lot more e-bikes now than even a year or two ago.

Yeah, yeah.

The upside down use in concrete normally work in my experience.

It's it's more like if there's a freestanding rack that has just the slots, um, those can be a little tricky, but we're doing upside down use, but they they are spaced.

Yeah, that should work.

Well, I want to and I and I will make sure that there's space between them to accommodate the e-bikes.

Yeah.

Okay, right.

Um cargo trailer as well for the kitties.

Yeah, I found that usually the length isn't isn't so much an issue.

They're usually not like right at the curb.

It's not.

Um so let me just open up the floor for any um motions.

John, are you gonna accept all these changes?

Um, John.

Yeah, Jeff.

Did we have I thought we were still at questions and then we're going to give comments.

Are we moving straight on to votes or what's the procedure here?

Yeah, I was um intending to um have an open discussion around the matrix where you could ask questions and give comments, but um let me open the floor now to any comments, anything anybody wants to say.

And Liz, I it were we to uh want to transmit this to the council, yeah, I would I would accept all the changes.

I'm just showing what we've done today.

Go ahead, Jeff.

Okay.

Um I just wanted to just generally to the applicant.

Um I think you've done a good job shoehorning something into a very awkward site.

Um I agree with the requested modifications.

Um just point out a couple.

Um I think the standard buffer requirements are not really great for this development.

Um it's surprising to me that you need an adjustment to the buffer regulations on the east side where there's an oh you know, a 30-foot electric easement.

You know, the purpose of the buffer is to provide you know separation um between two uses, and that's you know, some of that is vegetative, some of that is distance, and the uh some of these comments are towards staff too, um, because we're rewriting the Luma.

So but you know, if you have um uh an electric easement that can't be developed in, it seems sort of silly to to not modify the buffer requirement accordingly.

Um on the west side, um, again, it seems odd that the ordinance does not consider the fact that um if there is an existing buffer that's been installed, um, that that can you know serve the purpose of the buffer that's required.

Um one thought for the buffer on the south end where you have not requested a modification.

Um if there's no development south of there for a hundred feet until you get to the road, um, and you know it's potentially you know, the owner of that site does not currently have an entitlement to develop there.

Um that 20-foot buffer seems excessive.

Um, and so I would just um encourage you and town staff to consider whether uh allowing an adjustment to that buffer uh might provide the opportunity to squeeze in a fifth townhouse um in the on that same part of the property.

Um couple more small things.

Um I I think uh mixed use requirements or you know, a requirement for a mix of uses um is impractical in a lot of circumstances, so I think that change is appropriate.

Um and I do like the cross access with the Walley Green site.

Um I think that can be helpful since it is a write out onto Weaver Dairy, it's helpful for folks who are going north on Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard to be able to access uh the road without having to do a some sort of a U-turn.

So that's all I got.

Thanks.

Thanks, Jeff.

Liz so I think what Jeff is recommending with the five and sort of moving into that, isn't that what it was previously?

And now we've gone.

It so you're saying go back to the earlier version, or did I am I misunderstanding what you the plus?

Yeah, it was five at the concept plan stage, and then went down to four with I think more of a buffer, and I think Jeff's recommended.

Go back to the concept plan.

That's what you're saying, Jeff.

Go back to the concept plan.

Yeah, I don't remember exactly what the concept plan proposed or what the buffer was, but it it just seems to me that you could maybe fit in a fifth townhouse if you didn't have 20 feet of vegetative buffer buffering against an empty field.

So maybe we could hear from Wendy again.

I think she did explain the reasoning of why they did that just here once again before we make a decision whether to include that in the recommendation.

I was I was asked by the urban forcer to not reduce the buffer.

Got it.

Okay.

That I it was originally submitted with the five units and the reduced buffer, and I was I was asked to not ask for that modification.

I'll I'll toss in that uh this is adjacent to a drive-thru at the pharmacy.

Um a pretty high traffic use that has uh a decent rationale for a buffer.

Right.

So the buffer is sort of at the corner.

There's a there's a left uh west facing aspect to it, not just south, right?

Yes.

Yeah.

And we don't know what might happen on that little patch to the south, I don't think.

I didn't hear anybody with a clear answer about that.

Well, that that if that gets developed, that could be required to provide a buffer.

So that was the thought, but I know better than to counter the urban designer.

Okay.

So we're um we need to vote on consistency, that's resolution A, and also um make a recommendation related to ordinance a Liz.

Can we make one resolution for both?

Yes.

Okay.

I believe uh I'd like to um motion that we accept resolution A on consistency, and that we uh recommend the approval of uh the requests um with the um caveat that we have some recommendations that we think could strengthen this proposal as um seen in this attachment.

Okay, so Liz's motion is um two parts.

Uh we um we would deem the proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan.

That's resolution A, and then we would recommend approval of ordinance A of the development um subject to uh consideration of our recommendations in the matrix.

Do you think Jen, we should pull out the main ones or just hand them the matrix.

I'm not seeing any um like gating issues for us, you know, any sort of um deal breakers.

I think they're sort of non-binding advisory, you know.

If you could do a little more here, that'd be great, sort of thing.

So I I don't think we need to pull them out, but I think we could just sort of refer to subject to consideration of the recommendations, you know.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Nobody wants to second my I'll second it.

Okay.

Um I won't restate it again since I just did.

So uh is there any I guess we forgot.

Before before we go to the vote, let me make sure I've accurately captured it for our minutes.

Okay.

Recommend approval of ordinance a and resolution A subject to the consideration of the recommendations in the attached complete community matrix.

That looks good to me.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, not hearing any more discussion.

Let's let's vote.

Jeff.

Yes.

Liz?

Yes.

Chuck?

Yes.

Libby.

Yes.

Mike?

Yes.

And I'm a yes, so that's six in favor and and none against.

And I'll um, hey, Josh, could you put that language up one more time?

I just want to type it at the top of the um of our thing as well.

Make sure it aligns.

Um I'll say something about the um conference that the proposed so is consistent with the end and sorry, resolution A.

Oh, ordinance A.

Ordinance A subject to I'll say to in this.

Right?

Does that look right?

Or six zero to the pro-sex and it's recommended A something.

Yeah, good.

So I will accept all changes in this document.

Um then I'll after the meeting, I'll transmit it to uh to Josh.

Uh sorry, to uh Catherine.

Um for inclusion in the council's packet.

Okay.

And that is uh that is it for our business.

Josh, what do we have coming up?

Sure.

Um we do have a February 16th meeting.

Uh I believe.

Uh we had initially, or uh I believe there will be some LUMO materials presented to council uh prior to that February 16th meeting.

If so, we'll have uh those LUMO materials presented to y'all on February 16th.

Um I think we're gonna do a similar uh setup to previous LUMO sessions where uh Taz will go to council first and then come to y'all.

Um anything else major on the 16th for now.

Uh yeah.

Okay, what's the uh sort of medium term outlook for um conditional rezonings?

How does the pipeline looking?

Sure.

Um I think we have three actively under consideration, 1165, which I'll just made a recommendation on.

Um we also have active applications for two other uh conditional zoning sites on North Street and on Old Leistur Road.

Um those are likely not gonna come to y'all in February.

Uh I would suspect April.

We'll we'll see how that shakes out.

Okay, so it sounds like March may be slow or will be slow for us.

Uh yes, I think we'll have Taz presenting any Luma materials that go to council as the main uh thing for February and March.

Okay.

Might it make sense to consolidate some of these meetings?

Say we do a meeting in March to consider all the LUMO stuff, or there may be a reason to spread it out.

I don't know, but just a thought.

Yeah, I think there's definitely rationale there.

Um I will just double check with Taz on when he's going to council for those uh kind of presentations.

Uh we want to make sure that we don't try to condense two into one, but um, if there's anything to share, I'll follow up and suggest we may want to cancel one of those early March or late February meetings.

Okay.

And as of now, I guess due to the omnibus um tax amendments, the planning commission's uh is it correct to say the planning commission no longer has decision making authority on on anything?

Like we're not doing uh site plans and we're not doing um what was the other thing?

Uh subdivisions, subdivisions, right?

So basically we do sort of advising on LUMO stuff that the staff brings us, and we do conditional rezonings, and I I think that's and we're not doing uh concept plans now either.

So it's just conditional rezonings and uh lumo tax amendments, right?

Uh I think it's fair to say there are no more administrative decisions being made by planning commission.

Uh those have been removed to staff.

Um there is no concept plan.

Uh I think we'll have LUMO text amendments.

Uh we'll have conditional rezonings.

Uh special use permits are still in, and if we maybe uh just given the quasi judicial.

Yeah, given the quasi-side judicial process.

Um yeah, there's uh definitely a reduced uh expectation on those administrative ones.

Okay.

Libby.

Thanks.

Um, yeah, I was just gonna ask do you know what modules will be presented with the next lumino package?

Not off the top of my head.

Um I think the next ones are likely to, I guess, after the omnibus outline what the timeline looks like and uh some of the kind of expected uh uh items.

I don't know if there's any specific topics at all be brought up.

Can you send us an email if you figure that out or when you figure that out?

Sure.

Sure.

Well, yes, you're right on time.

Yeah, I was gonna say I haven't seen any either, Libby.

So today's what?

Tuesday, so we'll know later this week.

Happy to share whatever I get with y'all.

Wes, are you our new liaison?

I am woo!

Yeah.

So showing up doing the work.

And are you our only liaison or do we have multiple?

Um I am not sure.

I can I need to look that up.

I was just looking at what my duties were.

I'm gonna interrupt real quick to just say to Wendy and Michael, thank you for coming and for presenting.

You don't need to stay here for this but you're welcome to no that's fine.

Thank you for your support and comments.

Good luck.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Good press.

Thank you.

Good job.

I believe Wes is our only council liaison so wow he wanted to be he just misses us.

He wouldn't share it.

Absolutely so is to clarify is February seventeenth our next meeting.

That's our next scheduled meeting I think per John's request we'll connect to see what's on the February 17th agenda and if there's a chance to combine that with an early March meeting we'll send that to y'all over email and see if there's a a preference there.

Okay great.

Well with that I think we can probably adjourn.

Good to see everybody after a couple months and um we'll see you in two to four weeks.