Everybody ready? >> That's it. >> All right, we'll call this uh Chaza Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, April 8th, 2026 to order. Um start with a roll
call. Ashley, can you help us with that? Well, we could try and work with you >> here. here. >> Here >> uh moving on to the adopting the agenda. Are there any additions or deletions from the agenda?
Seeing none, we'll uh make a motion to adopt the agenda. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Visitor presentation, but I got a feeling um we've got one visitor and he's here for the agenda item.
Perfect. Uh anybody on uh online? No. All right. I'll look for a motion to approve the previous meeting minutes from March 11th. >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded to approve. All
in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. There are no consent items tonight, which brings us to our one action item tonight. Um, a public hearing looking uh for recommended approval of the preliminary
site and building uh plan and zoning ordinance amendment for the in community asset foundation PC number 2026-07. And Nate is going to help us with that. Actually, he's going to pass it back to me.
>> Now you're just confusing me. On your toes this evening. >> Thank you for that. >> Hollywood. >> Yeah. You know, it gets a little crazy around here in the spring, so we like to keep you on your toes. >> All right. There's a lot of feedback coming out of here. >> Hopefully, maybe if I push the computer
in front of it, it won't uh Oh, there we go. Give me one second here. All right. The first item, well, the only item on tonight's agenda is a request by the Community Asset Foundation for the Inn on Yellow Brick
Road. Uh the site is um the southernmost residential two sites that is that's turned off though. >> Maybe our control room can turn off this speaker in front of us and that might help. Are you guys hearing the feedback
on your end as well? It's off. >> Call it whatever. It's off. >> I don't know that I fixed it. Maybe. >> Nope. >> Maybe you're just going to get to hear me in surround sound this evening.
>> Great. >> Sounds good. Perfect. >> Let's keep rolling with it and see what happens. If I stumble on my words, it's because I'm hearing myself in my own head. Um, so the the site is the southernmost uh two residential properties uh within the Brickyards
Villas development. So it's located on uh the south side of Yellow Brick Road. Uh as you know, Chesca's threestep review process uh with plans becoming more detailed uh as it moves through.
And so staff's review of those plans uh becomes more detailed and more thorough as we're moving through that process. Uh the planning commission and the city council reviewed the concept plan uh back in February. And during your review of that project,
uh the applicant was also available to answer questions and he did answer questions related to parking uh utility connections as well as pedestrian connections kind of within uh the overall neighborhood. And then ultimately after discussing that project, you as the commission uh
unanimously recommended to the council to approve that project. So at their meeting in February, uh the council also reviewed the concept plan. Uh they echoed a lot of your comments and sentiments about uh the proposal and the use. They asked some additional
questions uh just related to parking. um some more detailed questions about those utilities, proximities to city parks, uh as well as the neighborhood notification process, but ultimately uh the plan or the city council also did uh unanimously
recommend to approve the concept plan. So following that um the project is now moving into that second phase and before you this evening for preliminary and reszoning. And as you as the commission know, um, but for those that are watching at home, um, the project, if
the developer, if the planning commission and city council approved the project and the developer were to move forward, uh, the plans would come before you one last time in that final review form before moving into the permitting stage.
So, just a quick recap of the site itself. um is comprised today of two properties, but uh in totality it's just under a third acre. Uh the grading and the tree clearing for the site occurred in 2014. Uh so there's
actually just one remaining tree in the southeast corner of the site. Uh there's sidewalks that are located in the right of way of Yellow Brick Road to the north of the site. Uh and then also a back of curb sidewalk uh that's along yellow brick circle as well as three remaining
boulevard trees to the west. Before you this evening um is three requests for this proposal. Uh the first is preliminary site and building plan. That's to allow the construction of that new four-unit building uh and the supporting site amenity amenities, the
landscaping, parking lot, etc. Uh the second is a zoning ordinance amendment uh to allow the use and to establish the specific standards for that use within the PRD57 zoning district. And then third is a
request to vacate an existing drainage and utility easement. And I'll walk through each of those requests uh in my presentation this evening. Uh before I go into uh the details of the proposal and staff's review, I'd
like to just highlight and remind you of some of the building features. Um largely they remain unchanged from what you saw uh in concept plan. Uh the building is still two stories in size containing four residential units. uh the gross floor area. Uh so both the
lower and the upper floors um comes to roughly 3,800 square ft uh with a building footprint of just over 1,900 square ft. Each of those four units uh would contain two bedrooms, a bathroom, a
kitchen, and a living room. Um this floor plan uh on the lower part of the screen kind of divvies up how those units uh would be stacked. The lower units would be accessed uh from front entry from yellow brick
facing the front elevation on yellow brick road. Uh and those upper units uh would be accessed from side access points and an internal staircase going up to those second story units. Um, all four units uh would have some
sort of outdoor amenity. The lower units having balconies and storage and then the upper I think I had that backwards. Lower units having patios and then uh the upper stories having balconies. Uh so now the remainder of my
presentation is really getting into the details and our review. Uh the concept plan, if you recall, uh the building elevations uh did show some varying building height and so one of the conditions of approval responded to that um by restricting or limiting that
building height to 20 ft. Um and it's important to note that by our code building height does not necessarily mean uh that you're just measuring from the ground to the tippy top of the building. Uh that would be the case if it were a flat roof. Um but the way that
code applies building height to allow it to be uniformly applied uh when there's a gable um or you know a peak in that roof is you're taking from the midpoint of that highest peak and you're taking that number to grade. So your overall
building height uh may be larger than what our code defined building height is. But this evening um in my presentation we're talking about that code defined uh building height. So the PRD57 zoning district um
restricts the building height on these six single family residential lots and the remaining lots on Brookyard Drive uh to 20 ft. It does allow for up to three stories on what was intended to be those multifamily
uh residential lots which is now uh creek run town homes. So, as a condition of approval and responding to that uh concept plan, uh the height was limited to 20 feet. And that was really to allow for it to be consistent with what was previously
approved and to allow it to continue to serve uh as a transition from those more intense uh commercialized apartments uh to the south uh to those lesser intense single family dwellings. uh both on the
northern side of these you know the four remaining lots as part of the six lot series and then also uh further north. Uh so to kind of also help paint the picture for what um that 22 1/2 foot uh
request by the applicant is for building height in relation to what's happening around um Creek Run uh which I alluded to is allowed to have a a higher uh building height uh just because it's that higher intensity and it was
approved for um multifamily dwelling units as part of the the zone. zoning the original zoning district um but the building heights and there's a lot of things happening on the screen so I'm going to walk you through it um the
uh Creek Run town homes they vary in height and so generally uh those red buildings that you see those are the tallest buildings uh they're generally the four units and they're right at that 22 feet uh stepping down uh to the green
uh which are the shortest and and those are 20 ft. And so really the creekr run town homes uh are ranging in height uh from 20 to 22 feet. However, uh to kind of offset that increased height, uh there's some additional landscaping. Uh
so you can see there from their original landscaping plan the closest town homes the ones that are facing yellow brick road have a very significant amount of of screening that's provided uh by way of uh vegetation and birming. So you can
see that uh in this street view image. I would like to say that I took it but I took it right from uh Google Street View. But you can see there that um you know there's there's varying height in that screening. Um, and it's it's providing for some year round screening
just based on the vegetation. And that wasn't that was done uh intentionally again to to kind of offset that height but also, you know, allow for that transition to continue uh downwards in intensity. Uh so staff uh is continuing to advocate
uh to maintain that 20 foot building height unless uh there's that substantial screening that's uh extended from creek run town homes uh through these two lots. And so we'll uh when I walk through the zoning ordinance
amendment, you see some of that language uh starting to reflect that. Uh looking at some of the other uh building components, um the building meets or exceeds the required setbacks outlined in the PRD 57 district. Uh it's
complying with the maximum floor area ratio and lot coverage requirements uh set forth uh by the PRD 57 district. Um and it's the building itself is comprised of of really high quality building materials. Uh so all three
materials uh the Hardy board, brick and glass are all considered class one materials under our code. So um it's it's meeting that requirement as well. And when the plan came before you uh for concept plan, there was uh a condition
of approval reflecting that uh the plan needed to enhance some of the architectural components in order to comply with the anti monotony uh requirements. Uh the applicant has done that. and they have really added some building interest and articulations
particularly on the side elevation uh to help achieve that goal. Um but there is uh one remaining requirement uh to increase the depth uh and width of that front porch uh to meet that requirement.
uh staff and I or staff and the applicant did speak since the distribution of the report um and uh they're willing to make that change. So you'll see that uh come forward in the next phase
uh looking at uh land use and um and density. You may recall from uh the concept plan that staff had some initial concerns related to density uh with the increased uh number of units. So kind of
moving from that two to four units uh on the property. Uh but since the concept plan uh staff has taken a closer look at uh the history and and how Brickyard's Villa's uh development, which is outlined in that
thick black line on that lower image, how it actually developed compared to how it was originally thought to develop. Uh and it actually developed at a much lesser intensity than what was originally contemplated. So, for
example, um the Creek Run Town Homes was originally thought to develop with 180 apartment units, uh so in three separate units, um but it actually uh developed uh with 76 attached town homes. So,
there is that reduction there. And so when you're you're considering that uh the existing units per acre of the low density area, so that area shown in yellow uh today is at 3.09 units per
acre and it's only increasing slightly uh to 3.27 which as you know is within uh the allowed density range uh for low density residential. Uh, as I mentioned, uh, the request tonight also includes a vac an easement
vacation. Um, this will respond to the applicant's need to combine the property into one contiguous lot uh, from the two that it is today. Uh, while city staff has is asked to weigh in on that review, uh, for the lot combination, uh, it's
generally handled through the county. So, they generally just check in to make sure that we don't have any issues with that. uh which we do not anticipate any at this time. Um and so really the easement vacation is responding to that. Uh and ultimately that easement doesn't
have any infrastructure in it today nor is it planned to. Um and it's really going to become obsolete uh once the property is combined. Uh so in uh the easement resolution vac or the easement vacation resolution, you'll just see
that the only condition is really tied to that is only essentially valid or active uh once that combination is filed at the county. >> And that's just a standard utility easement there, correct? >> Correct. Yep. It's just a standard perimeter util drainage and utility easement. Uh which is why um it would
become obsolete when that property line is no longer there. But great question. Uh as noted also in your uh in as in your staff report uh and if you recall from concept plan um the city has long
advocated for minimizing impacts uh to Yellow Brick Road. Uh particular uh or specific to this development rather uh it was getting to shared driveways. Uh so one driveway per two lots. uh check. We're we're checking that box. Even
though the driveway location uh is shifting further east kind of from that original Brickyard 13th approved plan, uh we're still comfortable uh with that uh given it being a shared uh driveway access.
um the original concept or the utility plan uh that accompanied the concept plan. Uh those utility connections generally aligned with what was previously contemplated for the site. Um but you'll see for preliminary uh they've shifted further to the east on
the property. And that's responding to the city's requirement uh that those utility connections would have to provide access and a future connection uh for those remaining uh lots to the east. And so this utility plan is is
really responding to that. There are just some details um related to those proposed utilities and future connections that have to be worked out. And so we'll continue to coordinate uh with the developer as we move forward just to make sure that that we're
meeting all of those requirements. Uh there's also a few items related to parking and the parking lot uh that will uh work to get resolved as we continue through the process. Um the first is
there's some grading impacts that are happening onto that adjacent property to the east uh in order to construct the lot. Um the applicant has indicated that the owner of that property is supportive of their request and is is uh suggesting
that um the or the property owner thinks that it'll help kind of with their development. Um and so you'll see in your resolution for this evening that uh staff is continuing to advocate for those grading impacts to be reduced or
minimized or you know eliminated would be optimal. Um but if that's not possible uh then for final we would want to see more information about the grading pad on that adjacent property as well as that written authorization uh
from the property owner just to ensure that um that they're receptive to that. Additionally, um the PRD 57 district would say that the required parking lot setback is 25 feet from Yellow Brick
Road. Uh the proposal is 10 ft uh from that front property line. Um you'll see in your report that staff has concerns with that setback, particularly as it as it is coupled with with screening.
Uh so staff is also advocating that there's some enhanced screening that's needed both to screen the parking lot from Yellow Brick Road in exchange for that reduced setback effectively but then also uh enhanced screening uh for
that residential property to the east. And so for a little bit of context, um the landscaping plan suggests that the arborite cultivar that's selected uh to provide that screening kind of on the north and the east side um is an emerald
squeeze arborite. Generally those are slower growing. They're pretty columnar. Um the landscaping plan suggests that two gallon pots size uh which does meet our code. That's the minimum size allowed by code. However, that's that's a pretty small shrub when you compare it
to what's shown on the screen, which is a 25gallon shrub. And so the spacing in the image just to the right of that shows about approximately that's a 25gallon species um planted roughly the same distance uh that the applicant is
proposing. And so when the code is requiring 75% opacity year round, um it'll take a number of years before this proposed screening uh would achieve that. And so staff is continuing to
advocate for some enhanced screening or additional thought uh for how that for that how that happens. And finally, probably a a slightly more minor um item to be resolved is uh the parking lot stalls shown on the plan are
9 by 18 feet. Uh staff in the city has uh accepted that reduced parking lot stall when the drive aisles are increased uh in size to 24 ft. And so uh we'll just look to see that that is addressed and those details are provided
uh as we move into final um as it relates to common open space uh because it is a um residential structure that has three or more units, common open space is required. So there is a
minimum amount of area per unit uh that must be provided on site. Uh for the proposal four units, they need 4,000 square feet. Uh and to achieve that size uh it's effectively util utilizing every
square inch of grass on the property. Um and so while we're getting to that amount uh the code also says that that common open space is supposed to be u providing an amenity or some sort of recreational purpose uh to those that
reside uh on the property. And so staff would continue to advocate uh and encourage the prop or the developer to think about ways to incorporate some additional recreational uses into that open space uh to really elevate uh that
that shared space for the residents. Um but uh the the plan does meet our landscaping requirements in terms of um amounts uh and sizing. And then um it's also adding in that uh strip of
evergreen trees along the rear property line that was uh a requirement from a previous land use approval. And they're also showing uh the replacement of two boulevard trees uh that have passed that have passed away that are that are now
deceased. Uh so the plan does uh incorporate the replacement of those as well. Uh so kind of the final slide this evening um and the reason this is at the end of my presentation instead of where you typically see it towards the
beginning um is it's really uh summarizing uh the applicant's request and some of the changes that have to happen uh to that PRD uh 57 zoning district uh to allow the use. And so the chart on the right hand screen and as
within your report summarizes those changes. Uh those are in orange. Um and so there's a column for what the applicant has recommended uh or proposed and then also what staff is re
recommending. Uh and there's just a few changes and so um staff agrees that you know allowing the residential structure of four units or less is reasonable. So uh we concur with that. Um the accessory uses there's no
changes. Uh when it comes to max building height um currently it's 20 ft. The applicant is requesting 25 ft. uh and uh staff is recommending that it be held to that 20 ft unless again uh that
adequate screening is provided in which case uh then it can increase to 23 feet. Uh the other changes uh relate to the rear yard setback. Uh the applicant has uh proposed 30 feet instead of the
current 20 ft. Uh that 30 feet is reflective of what was in the original approval, but there was some amendments uh to reduce that to 20 ft. Staff is advocating to keep that at 20 ft just to be consistent uh with those remaining
four lots. Uh and then their applicant is also proposing that again that reduction in the parking lot setback um staff would be comfortable with that 10 ft if there is adequate screening. So that language uh is included as well.
So with that uh there's some things that we'll continue to work on uh as it relates to the building for building height uh and that porch design to meet the anti- monotony requirements. Uh and then there are just some details for the
plans related to the site uh that we'll continue to work through as it relates to the illumination and the lighting plan. uh those utility connections to those eastern properties uh the grading impacts onto that adjacent property and
then uh those parking lot items uh as well as the common open space detail. So with that uh I'll conclude. I'll turn it back to you chair uh for any questions or discussion. Uh but we are looking for three motions this evening.
>> Awesome. Thank you. Um, any questions from our commission here before we open the public hearing? >> Where does the height requirement come from the 25 versus 20?
>> Sure. Uh, so the the 20 ft is coming from the PRD57. So that's what the property is owned. Uh, so it does provide that maximum building height in there. Uh the 25 ft uh was what the applicant was requesting that zoning
ordinance be amended to allow. >> Uh I guess why why versus the the five foot difference in the gable height? I mean especially when their neighbors behind them are already at that 25 foot mark. >> That's a great qu question, Commissioner. Um perhaps it's a good
question for the applicant. Uh I do anticipate that there was um some uh confusion about just how building height was measured and so that 25 ft uh it's my understanding is coming from how they were interpreting building height to be measured which was from the tippy top of
that gable roof to grade. >> Okay. Come back to that one. Don't want to forget about it. Other questions? Hearing none. Um, we'll open it up for a public hearing then. All right, we'll
call a public hearing uh in effect at 7:29 p.m. >> Thank you. I'm Dave Partardi. with the community asset foundation and we are the um so
uh well want to begin by saying generally we're in agreement with all the city's comments except I and accept some of the landscaping issues. Let me give you a little background on this. We've been
working I I went back and looked at exit and I was amazed when I found this out. We actually started this over a year ago. Um because the first discussions we had with city staff uh we had to have because we were seeking some funding
through the federal home loan bank. And so we shared with the staff at that time at least our vision of what would happen on the site. uh and the building looked very yeah very similar to what you're seeing on the screen. We have talked for
over a year about a twostory 4unit building on the site. When um back in I guess in December we applied for the concept plan that came to the planning
commission in January and the concept plan was approved. Um and this was the look of the building. Now we all knew that that the concept plan required
uh amendment to the PRD57 and PR-57 um was actually amended three times. It's actually a project I worked on. It was the Brickyard Bull development and
we amended it the third time in order to uh add the six villas that are on um for these six lots and um the 20 foot height
came from that amendment. I make one other comment. any place else in town I could build a two-story house that's well over 25 ft. So this isn't this is very unique to these six lots.
Um so if you could go to the next slide. Uh this is from the staff report. Uh and they do reference the brickyard which is the culdeac up to the to the west of the site. Uh, and the plan was
the six lots would look just like these six. But I'll point out just some language in this. And it says the intent was for the homes to be singlestory
and similar in scale and character to the homes of the brick area. So, as we started putting the plan together, well, first we knew it wasn't going to be a single story, but we wanted to have something that was con the same scale and kind of feel. It was one of the
reasons very early on we said we're going to same materials. You'll note we're this isn't like and I don't want to uh well, it's not like Creek Run uh for materials. Uh they are not 100%
class one materials. There's some vinyl. Uh I don't know that they have any brick. Um so one of the things we did was it is all the same materials that what you would have if you were building a house in the brickyard.
Go to the next I think the next. So this is our elevation. Uh the total height of the building is 25 ft. And I think for the discussion that's really what we should be looking at just as we compare mass of buildings
around it. Now actually what we applied for we were wrong. We should have been applying for an amendment to make it 23 and 1/2 ft. Is that 22 1/2 ft? So 22 1/2 ft is uh really
what the change would be to go from 20 to 22 1/2. If it's 22 and a half, this building meets your requirements. And it's all about how you measure the gables. Um, but it is 20 25 ft high. I took this
the our image and put it on the site. Uh, that's what it would look like. Um, it's not three-dimensional, but it is to scale. So, if you go to the next line, if we had to do uh one that met the 20 foot, that's the
look of the building. We won't build that. Um it's just ugly. And it's not so much that it's there are places that that would look really good. It's more of a if that was downtown Chesa in the urban
environment, that would probably be a good design. Um if you go to the next one. So if you look in where it sits in the site uh I put a star where our site is uh
on yellow brick road behind us. Next time this is nice having somebody run my poweroint. Uh this is the building that's behind. Um it's part of the creek run. Uh it's two stories with I think a sim similar
gable pitch is what we're proposing. Um so it's either the same height or it might be slightly height. I'm not talking about the city code. The total height to the peak um but it's we will be at that or
slightly less. So, go to the next one. And then across the street from that, uh, I put in at orange is, uh, there's another building that's across the street. You know, that one that's a twotory with a little different gables.
Um, but again, I think pretty consistent. This is the um, these are the ones that have garages attached to the front. Um, go ahead. Next one. And then to the north of our site um are the town
houses. This one these are owner occupied town houses. >> What were the height of those? I'm just curious. >> What's that? >> The height of the garage in the front. >> The height.
>> So you showed examples >> the top to the top of the gable. So those are twostory living units. >> Yeah. >> And so they're probably 24 ft high for the top of the gable. >> The top.
>> Yeah. No, I'm not saying they're probably on your code. They're less than >> 24. >> Yeah. That's why I'm trying to just go to the top because I think that's what you're going to see. Um Okay. Go to the next.
And this is these are actually off of Yellow Brick Road. They're threetory. They're twotory on interior, but obviously they're higher. But these are much closer to our site than any of the Brickyard Culac houses. Oh, the next
one. There are two houses. Oh, wait. We were down. So, the next one is down to the south. There's a group of Sunlake townhouse uh rentals. Uh one is a fourstory. I kind of ignored that. But
uh these uh twotory buildings um in their rentals um they're all over well they're all over 24 ft. Um the
and then there are two villas along Yellow Brook Road. Um actually I live in one of them. Uh the top of those are 25 ft. And that is the
design that would have been on the six lots uh next to us. But I think it's important to point out by code my house which is the one on the right is 17 or
18 ft um because there's 11 ft of wall and then there's 14 ft uh up to the gable but you only count half that. Um
I I'll point out too those those houses in total elevation are another 4 ft above what our in will be because of the grades you get. They're quite up on a hill.
So again that this one's uh 25 ft in total height. I'll go to the next one. And then lastly, across the street from uh what we're proposing for the inn is
vacant land that's owned by the city. And so that's permanent open space. Um and so that from a scale standpoint, I'd argue that our scale that we've built to in this project is very similar to the
scale that's all along Yellow Brook Road. Um, if there's an exception to it, um, it would be if we built a two-story building, it would be by far the lowest total height building along the whole
corridor. And it would look so different because it wasn't that kind of gabled uh, look of a building. Yeah. And this is that this is across the street. Okay. And now you can go to the next
one. One of the comments from the staff is that we could solve this problem of height, but we could go above 20 ft if we landscaped like was landscaped in front of the town houses that are to the
south. And so this is a view of the landscaping of those town houses. And um well that just seemed like a really bad front yard landscaping. I mean we're going to do is hide the building. Actually I don't agree that that's I
don't think that was landscaped like that. Um to to hide the building because it was higher. If you go to the next slide, I think it was there because there's a long street parking lot that it's trying
to hide. And the buildings are quite a ways back. Um, but you'll also notice they have parking on the one corner that's um well, it's closer than 10 ft to the edge of the
rightway. So, go to the next one. So again, our biggest issue is the amendment uh doesn't allow for the 22 1/2 ft. I was very surprised when I got the
staff report cuz I thought that's what was approved, a two-story building um with the image that we showed with the understanding that we had to come back and do a an amendment to the zoning district. I think everybody knew that
we're amending it to have a 10-ft setback for parking, which is uh would be permitted in the rest of the um um district. That's what the setback is for Yoli Brook Road. That's what it is for
Creeks Run. It's not for the villas. Um the setback is we're complying with the the amended setback for the buildings. Um and we expected that one of the changes
would be the the 20 Dakota 22 1/2 uh ft. Second thing I want to point out and again we will implement the landscape plan that we've shown. If it needs to be upgraded with more
uh separation from the parking we'll do that but I want to point out two things. First one of the requirements is to have 13 evergreen trees in the rear. Our
landscape consultant saw that and said, "I I'm not sure I'll draw this." I said, "Well, you have to. That's a requirement." Why did he say that? The reason is he's thinking about not what are those trees going to be like today,
but 10, 15 years from now. 15 years. The Creeks Run Apartments that you saw in my picture, those evergreens are 15 years old. So, we would have 13 of those in the backyard of this twin home, assuming
we do that. Why were they there? Why was that part of the original requirement? Well, it was because it was a different land use. Those were going to be six villas probably selling in the 70 700 to
$800,000 range and marketed to people 60 and over. We've changed that. Now it's a it's four families with young kids that need a backyard. Backyards in the brickyards are 10 to 15
ft. People in the villas don't need a backyard. This needs a backyard. So we've we've used up a lot of the backyard space. But maybe more importantly is we've separated this group of families from
the families that are in Creek Run and that to me just seems wrong. Again, we will do that if that's part of the requirement. Uh we did add the additional trees that somebody took out one time. And then I want to point out about the
landscaping. This is uh what your ordinance says. Uh if you're adjacent to a uh public street or residential land, uh you have to screen a parking lot of six or more
stalls. And it has to begin by being 4 ft high, not more than 6 ft. Um and it has to be solid enough that all year round.
Um, it's it's it's only got 25% that you can see through year round. So, um, I think most people would solve this by putting a fence up. Um, so that might be
what we have to do. Let me tell you why I think that's a mistake. Now, we can go to the next slide. Someday there will be a villa next to um next to this unit. Um so we overlaid
a villa um onto the site uh put it at the 25 ft setback. Um and villas have one driveway serving two units and then have side loaded garages. Um
I can go next and this is the ele side elevation of a typical villa. Um the first 35 ft is the garages. They're three stall garages. Um, and
then there is a um there's a the first window and I I I think what I'm going to say is true, but I'm at least 75% of the v the villas have
this exact design. I'm not positive everyone did. Um but that first window is the uh coming out of the garage into the laundry room and then the next window which is at 50 ft is the garage
or the garage it's the window looking out it from the kitchen. So if you could you go back from the slide now so if you think about how that lays out onto this site the yellow line that I put up there is at 50 ft.
So, there is one window that will look and see into this parking lot. If it is a villa that's built on there, the rest of that landscaping will do nothing for screening the parking because you just built a
11t high wall on the other side. This also gets to how why the issue of grading um by the yeah why the grading becomes a an issue on the site. I want to point out these aren't you couldn't put this
building on even though I drew it. They can't have the um sun porch on the back. They don't meet the rear yard setbacks. Um but the um well again I I I don't see the need for
that kind of landscaping on there. Uh I guess the one argument would be but Dave what if it's something other than villas and that's a fair point. Um maybe it won't be villas that ultimately get built on that lot. Um,
I also would point out on this parking lot, our parking stalls are all facing to the south. So any if the parking was flipped on the other way and lights were going
into the neighbor or going into the side of the villas, that's a little different issue. Um, but lights really won't be shining to the north when people back out of these these villas or drive in. And they actually the lights won't shine
across the street to affect anybody because nobody lives over there. Uh, and they never will. It is a city-owned property. So then we tried to look at it seemed like we were really struggling with coming up with a landscape plan that met
the city requirements. Um, and in particular, let me go a couple more of the slides on. We looked at not that this is the landscaping that occurred down in on on
Sun Lake. Um, now I appreciate this has probably been here 25 years. We that probably wasn't an ordinance or landscaping at the time. You can just go through these, but all of these are kind of set up the same way. where there
really is no landscaping edge to that parking. Um, even for Sun Lake Apartments, there was a minimal amount. Um, I actually picked the best spot of screening. Uh, if you
go to Little Norris, it's even less screening like that one. So then we went and looked to try to get a sense of what going to work along there and go to the next one.
Okay. First of all, I took this photo. It's why it's so bad. I didn't have my wife there to tell me don't point at the sun. But I thought, where is where have we recently in the community built uh parking um that would have this
requirement? And so two summers ago, I think this is the site across from the bakery. The cities uh put in this public parking lot and they did landscaping along the edge there to buffer against that house.
And actually, I think someday this will be a really good solution because those bushes probably will fill out. They'll probably get four or five feet tall. They'll be a hedge, but much like ours, they don't
meet the requirement today because they're not high enough and they're not enough. Um um you can see right through them. Go to the next one. Same thing here. Again, I if we could do
that, we would again I think that's a good solution. This is the new apartment uh that just went in. uh this language of the ordinance is crossed all the zoning districts. So it
requires everybody. Now, as I understand now, it was amended. You know, we could you could amend it as part of the plan multiple district, which I assume that was. Um, but if they've met the standard, um, this would have been the
landscaping required. And you can see it again, I I like the the one the city did better than this one. Could go back one. The other thing is across the street uh
from these our homes. So those are town homes. Those those neighbors are going to call uh and complain about lights in their front yard. Um so you can go to the next.
So, all I'm saying is, and we're not asking for an amendment on the on the landscaping, except I want you we come back with our final plans. We're going to try to come up with
something that's close. If doesn't meet the requirement, it'll be really close. We'd like to concentrate where we put landscaping on the north side of the inn because we think someday there's going to be a villa. Um, and maybe it's in the front.
Um, but if we just can't meet those ordinances, I don't think we have any option except put a fence. And I think that's a bad solution. But that's what we would have to do along the brick road because it's
probably the only way that you can meet the current ordinance requirement for 75% capacity. So, I went on a lot on those. Uh, again, our biggest concern is, uh, we'd like
the reszoning because remember it is a resoning, the 25 the 20 foot, uh, maximum height is in the old zoning that we're amending. And we'd like to see
that be 22 1/2. And if it's 22 and a half, the image that we've shown you is what we will build. >> Then I'm open for questions. >> Any questions for Dave? Thank you, Dave. >> Dave, I got a question for you. Um, the
property owner to the north. >> Yeah. >> I you had a community meeting earlier when you first started, probably before concept plan on this. Well, we had two meetings. One Yep. Right. >> Was that property owner at one of the >> uh No. >> Okay.
>> Now, that's uh that's DDK Construction. >> Okay. >> And so, actually, we've just I think we've hired them to build this building for us. >> Okay. >> Um but they they they're the ones donating the land to us. Um and we've
been in constant contact with them about grading. >> Okay. the reason we're actually grading onto their property is more because they'd like us to rather than we have to. Um so we will get a permission from them to grade. Uh that won't be an issue.
>> I know a lot of times when we we um the zoning codes are written to protect the surrounding properties, right? >> And for especially when you have a empty virgin lot there um what's going to happen on it someday. But if that if that owner is comfortable with what
you're doing, which it sounds like. >> Oh yeah, absolutely. We and and we would I can't speak for him, but if it was one of the requirements as it related to landscaping on that side, uh we could get them to approve the landscaping if
it doesn't meet the ordinance. Um I I just haven't asked them that. The rest of it, we've been in constant contact with them. We know the grading. Um we've worked with them on the one of the other issues is uh the current plan
you'd have to dig into the street three times to for sewer and water. One of the comments from the staff was is there a way we could dig in once for the end and eliminate at least one
of the cuts and maybe both of the futures. So, what we're doing is we're going to put in a not a service, but a regular sewer main about 10 ft into the street, put it in our front yard and set it up
so it could expand north. And we've been working with them on what those grades are in an easement. And um so that we will do. And um again, I think
they're going to be our contractors, but >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> Um >> I don't have a question, just a little sentiment to share. I will say I I had some trouble with the operational definition of the height ordinance. I
got a little lost in the sauce there, but the concerns that I have aren't really around the height so much as the landscaping interpretation of the ordinance. I I would probably push on that if it came as is during final
approval. So, I just wanted to state that. I think we have a a little ways to go to harmonize that area. >> Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, I mean uh so if I understand right the other pictures in other places where
the landscaping is it is achieved by a different kind of I mean trees are like which meets the requirements like a cal basically that is how we calculate the landscaping requirement based on the caliper inches right it's not about like
what we place it there so probably uh there is an opportunity to work on that not to have all the evergreens and put something else. I mean it's it's we can't simply say like yeah there there might be hundred of them and versus like
there is a one big tree which is there because there there is a big tree which is like a maybe maple it's not going to be screening in the winter we can't compare that with other one that's what I would see here maybe there is an opportunity to work with staff on that
kind of thing like a big >> yeah and we will work with staff on our landscaping Um and again what I said what we're asking for you to do is approve we'll live with the landscape plan. We need the 22 and 1/2 ft. Actually I
will make one other thing. I would hope that you would give direction to staff that we may not have to put 13 evergreens. We're significantly over. This is not about number of trees. We're way over the number of trees that we
need because of those 13, but there was the previous approval that required 13. And I guess we'd like to at least consider half of that as an edge um as opposed to
13 trees in the backyard. And actually, if there's 13 trees, then it'll be more likely that we can put a piece of playground apparatus back there, which I don't disagree with the staff. There's probably a need for that
type of a thing. Um, you know, I it's it's not really a I don't know that it's a city kind of requirement to put up a a playground apparatus in the back for a forlex, but um it would be easier to do
that if we had more green space back there. >> And you're designing this for children also. So, >> yeah. >> Can I ask a question of the city? What is the uh I'm not familiar with that land across the street from this that the city owns. What is the nature of
that land or are there any plans for that land or what it is is what it is. >> Correct. Yeah. What's there today uh is what will be there. It's it's open space. >> Okay. Is it considered wetlands or anything? >> It's moist. We used to own that when we
did the development and we dedicated it to the city very specifically that it would be permanent open space. Um and it is cuz actually part of that could be developable but it's got a condition it can't ever be anything except open
space. >> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> U so my my question was more for the city. there. What's the rationale for our 22 foot or 20 foot? 25 foot in this area. I mean, we're we're a long ways
from airports. I guess I don't know what else would be the rationale. >> Uh, Commissioner, it's really coming from the I think maybe is your microphone still on? Maybe that helps. Yeah, I think it's picking up when there's multiple uh ones
on. Uh, Commissioner, that's coming from the zoning district. And again, kind of that thought process and the rationale to step down that intensity. Um, these lots were envisioned to be developed with those singlestory town home villas.
Um, and so we as staff because this application is considering two of those six lots. And so based on that information, we have to assume and we have to operate under the notion that those remaining four lots will develop
with the with that 20 foot height requirement and a singlestory villa type town home unless they go through a similar process. But our role as as planners is to look at that broader context and and see how that one
particular site and uh you know the building that they're proposing on it is fitting into that that broader landscape and context. >> So the building that existing whatever we are talking about is it really more
than 22 or presented right just yeah neighboring properties are there really >> more than 20 ft I mean I mean we have any information that >> uh let me pull up my presentation again
and I'll share that um so there's again I would say a discrepancy in in the interpretation of how um building height is being measured so again we as staff are measuring building
height based on how our code says that we are measuring building height and the rationale of of the thought of how that is applied to gabled roof is to ensure that it's uniformly applied um and not understanding that roofs have different
pitches. How do you get to what that measurement looks like? And so yes um you know some cities and codes do measure from the tippy top to the grade. um that's not how our code uh looks at building height. And so let me pull this
up uh because I think it will be helpful to show that. So, in um the Creek Run Town Homes, uh again, those building heights as our code measures it are ranging in height
from 20 ft to 22 feet. And so, our keep looking at the screen like my mouse is going to move over there. Um the project site right here, um this town home right to the rear is 22 feet. Uh this
uh town home across the street uh that Mr. Picornney was showing an image of is 21 ft. >> So there are some more than 20. >> Correct. But again those the creek run
town homes those are regulated differently. So that 20 foot height requirement does not apply um because the PRD 57 district has different um kind of land uses within it. So it has
regulations for the open space that Commissioner Sailor was was talking about and the preservation of that. Um it sets forth standards for the detached single family homes which applies to these six lots including the site and
then it also provides standards uh for the multi-family uh dwelling units which effectively is what Creek Run developed under. >> Okay. Yeah. And so those those those um town homes are actually much shorter
than what they're built to be much shorter than what was originally approved um because they were allowed to build up to three stories uh on that lot. >> Yeah. Let me make clear. I'm not the
I understand the definition of how the city measures height, but in response to your question, if a villa goes in, well, if the villa design that we've built in basically the rest
of the brickyard goes in next to the end, the top of the roof of the villa and the top of the roof of the end will be the same. And the reason that that happens and if you look at the villas there's
very steep gables. So what we did is we reduce the gable grade. I don't know what that's called. Um so that we didn't go up as high. Um we do the villas are that way because you're trying to create mass. You're
trying to make them look like they're bigger than they are. uh we're trying to make them look smaller than they are than it is. You'll also know one of the changes we made um is we've gone to uh hip roofs on the sides. So we don't have on the north and
side cables. They're they tip down which tends to make the building feel smaller. But the height of overall height of the villas and what we're proposing would be identical. What are the interior walls?
>> I'm sorry. >> The interior, >> right? Because you're talking two stack stories. >> They nine foot. >> It's on that PL. Uh, yes. I I Yes, they're 9 foot and then they have
there's a foot of choices. Um and then another foot of joist on top that cuz the top of our bill well where the gables start. >> Mhm. >> That's 20 ft. >> Okay. >> That's why if you go to a flat roof, you
can you can meet the 20 foot with the flat roof. >> Thanks. I'm going to close the public hearing. There's not a whole lot of public hearing. So close that. Hey Ashley, question for you. So, the way we
measure roofs, if we because that currently it's calling for an 812 pitch on the gable. If we did a 1212 pitch based off of the way we measure, they could do that, but the actual building height would actually still be
tall, I think. Correct. Because we'd measure halfway down on the 1212. >> I'm doing some math here on the fly. So, >> we're going to be right real close to it, right? >> Yeah. So, the
unfortunately our elevations actually, give me just a second. >> You know what I'm saying though, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Nope. I'm I'm following you. >> So, you know, and I I've said this before on other projects, >> sometimes.
>> So, one one second. So, if we were measuring from grade to the bottom of the roof line, uh, we're right at 18t 9 in. So, if on a 1212, you're taking midpoint of that, you're at six. So, you're adding six to that effectively
19. >> You'll be right around 25. >> 25. >> Yep. So, >> yeah. So, we're still kind of getting up over that. >> Um, this is one of those things where it's just like, yeah, I understand we have to
have rules and guidepost and that type of stuff, but we're talking, you know, two two and a half ft here of difference on in a community area that many of the roofs are exceeding that or
appear to be exceeding that. Um, and I don't think anybody from street level would be able to tell without a getting a tape measure out and really looking at it type thing. We're not impeding anybody's view further that way or or being a detriment to to the to the look
of the area. I don't think we're just trying to follow the rules. But sometimes I've never been a good rule follower. Um, color outside the lines a little bit. And so on something like this,
you know, being as not really a it's it's more of a it's not really affecting the look of the pro the project. It's not affecting the neighbors. It's not affecting values in the neighborhood. It's not going to affect anybody's future use. It's just
purely a rule that we have that just doesn't seem to make sense on me. So that's just my two cents on that. And then two with the landscaping and 13 pine trees that will look great when they're first planted, but we had this on a commercial deal that we did
probably a couple of years ago now. And to meet the landscaping code, you're you're going to end up cutting trees down or trees are going to start dying out within about 5 to 10 years. And so at that time we had talked possibly about
I don't know where it went but um if there's 13 trees required to take and plant let's call it seven trees and then have six of those trees planted somewhere else that the city needs trees. um so that we still get the the full benefit
of the the landscaping, but it's not putting it's not overcrowding the back play area then and you're not cutting trees out five or 10 years down the road, which gets expensive. Also, >> if the planning commission
uh chair Bansky is is kind of in alignment with you on that direction as far as the landscaping >> um I think the the situation that you're referencing was Cloud HQ um and that project >> in that situation that the volume was is
so large right um that >> they were able to accommodate I don't remember the details anymore but you know a proportion of the required landscaping on that site in a reasonable way um just because of the scale of that project. We're talking about massive amounts of landscaping that we needed to
find a solution for. Um and that was a a direction given at that preliminary. They haven't come through with final. I don't know when if they're going to come through final, but that was direction to figure that out when if that happens, right? um on this one just given that
the scale is so much so much lower um I would suggest it may be more prudent um and straightforward to simply work with the applicant um as they move towards final to come up with you know what is that right balance to achieve on
the site whether it's 13 I heard you know that's what we're recommending today I heard applicants say cut it in half maybe there's something in the middle that we need to achieve that kind of gets something that feels reasonable. I I would suggest that maybe we leave it. >> Yeah. And we're perfectly fine with
that. >> Yep. >> I I bring it up just so when it comes back somebody Well, that's what we prove. >> For example, Ashley and I were talking about it. Maybe we uh we have two trees in the front that
are have they crack up. Yeah. So, we were saying, well, maybe part of the solution is we should do a different tree there, put a little more height on it, and maybe some more. I'm not I'm not don't want to be the
landscape architect, but maybe we should take one or two of the evergreens in front in front of the parking. That may help even though we don't, you know, has the right on the edge of it. We may block the parking lot better that way.
So, I mean, we'll be back for the landscape plan that the staff supports. >> Yeah. >> Is everybody on the same page with the landscape and the height? >> Okay. Are there any other thoughts or
comments regarding outside of those two? >> Yeah. Okay. I have a question on landscaping because I've seen it in other well commercial developments and other places that the city requires all this landscaping be done
15 20 years down the road a few of the trees die. Does the city force those developers to replant those trees or does that just go away? Commissioner um staff doesn't have the capacity always
to be out and about monitoring to make sure that we're in conformance with landscaping plans, but if it's brought to our attention, uh there is a period of time where the developer is responsible for the replacement of those uh trees or landscaping that's no longer
in compliance. Um but after that time which I believe is 2 years uh from certificate two years maybe it's a year but there's a short period of time and then beyond that the property owner then assumes that responsibility to ensure that they're meeting that landscaping
plan. >> Okay. So uh coming back to the height of it right I defin I completely agree with you on that height two and a half feet is not going to make any difference especially in that particular
development area where like other others are like around 22 and 1/2 ft and how we are measuring it's not going to make it ugly or like reiterate anything around that community but only thing we need to also consider like for the discussion
purpose like what if the remaining four more lots someone comes in and say hey I wanted it like 28 ft I wanted it 30 30 ft so because I mean I mean there is there is some district which is having some standards I mean I'm not say so we
have to be disc like okay yeah we are seeing how exactly the project is maybe we need to take that decision based on like particular project rather than that partic because there are four more lots adjacent to
that. We are not sure. There might be town homes. We don't have any problem. Maybe similar kind of thing where they wanted to have a big like a single building in all the four lots. They wanted it 30 ft. Right. We have to also think about that just before giving
the exception or like amendment whatever we are planning to suggest. Yeah. But again as to that definitely this project looks good and uh yeah we should consider giving like whatever possible way to make it like 25 ft or like work
with in the middle like maybe one two feet less but just we need to think about the future aspect. >> Perfect. Thank you staff. You kind of get where we're coming from on this I suspect. >> Sure. and chair. You know, I will add um if you recall from the presentation, you
know, staff did allow for an opportunity to essentially allow the proposed height of 22 1/2 ft, but in exchange for that, staff was advocating for some enhanced landscaping or screening on the front of that uh to essentially be an exchange
for it. >> Perfect. >> All right. Thank you. >> They drive with the tradeoff. >> Yeah. Uh I'll look for motion. >> And also last comment. Yeah, definitely we need to still think about uh this
like a a community landscaping land um bank or something like where like we are seeing some space just opposite to that proposed development space which is city. As we know there will not be any development
over there. There might be some partial space where it can be developed. At least we can put some trees over there which can help the community right just right opposite to that not only for this project maybe for any project if it is
too congested u as commissioner as said rather than just pushing it there and just after 5 years let them die we can just take that opportunity to put those trees somewhere else that will definitely help with the community I guess >> uh commissioner thank you for that
comment um we can certainly I've been taking some notes and we'll certainly reflect on that. Um I will just add that the you know the those trees along the rear property line is really coming from a previous request um and approval for a
zoning ordinance amendment that was an exchange for you know those lesser rear yard setbacks. And so that was to help provide uh for that exchange. um the varieties this the type of evergreens
that are proposed in the rear uh the spacing distance requirements are um more than what the minimum spacing requirement is for those particular species. And so, um, I I would hesitate
to say that, um, they're being proposed as something that's too dense, uh, that will yield that that dieback that you're talking about, um, and that you're concerned with. Um, certainly I can never guarantee that something is going to survive. Um, but if there is dieback,
it's probably not going to be related to them being squished together. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'll I'll make the motion to approve to to the city council for the in subject to the 12
conditions. Motion made. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Hearing nothing. Motion carries. Uh we've got two more motions to approve
here. Um is there any discussion on the zoning ordinance amendment? Hearing none, I'll look for a motion to accept it. >> I'll make a motion to accept it. >> Is there a second? >> So, do we have to live with 20 ft?
>> Uh, zoning. >> We're going to let you guys wrestle that out. >> No. Well, because So, we'll if if you approve the zoning at 20 ft. It's one of the conditions of the of the preliminary plat that we're giving you
is you'll be able to negotiate. >> When will we have to come back for another reasoning >> if it ends up 22 and 1/2 ft? >> Yeah. So, chair and commission um I think it would be helpful um to
provide direction as to how you would like the zoning treated um for this project. So what I'm hearing, the consensus that I'm hearing emerging is the height that's being proposed, you're feeling comfortable with. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> And so I think, you know, just for
clarity sake um maybe you might want to consider entertaining a motion to adopt the zoning um with with the change proposed as it's brought to council that would accommodate um you know, the building that's been proposed.
and we can and we can go from there. >> All right. So, we make a motion to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment ZOA to the planned residential district PR PRD 57 based on the draft ordinance with
a 22 1/2 foot exception to overall height. Then, >> uh, chair, I think the so the zoning ordinance draft is already includes that language. So it would be whether or not you feel that that uh provision
requiring the additional or the enhanced landscaping to achieve that higher if that's what you would like to keep in there. So the draft ordinance does allow for up to 22 and 1/2 ft. Actually it's drafted to 23 feet. So it allows for a
little bit extra if there's some grading um finessing that happens. Uh so it's up to 23 feet provided of that landscaping. So, um I think the clarity or that motion would be if that you're
comfortable with it as it's drafted uh with that enhanced screening or if you would like that provision removed and it would just allow for up to 23 ft >> commissioned. Okay. >> Uh I agree with that. Yeah. Enhanced
landscaping to it's kind of a trade-off. So that way like in future projects also we can have something like yeah I mean just say it like okay if you are meeting this we definitely wanted to meet some other criterias that way like we can have some kind of exception or whatever
right we have that direction so >> good so if we leave it in there we don't have to change anything then correct >> yep >> what what what it will change though >> it means we have to come back with a
heavy landscaping plan in front of our building and that's we don't want to do that. I mean this so we're willing to to comply with a landscape plan that will landscape around our
parking lot of whatever is necessary but to put and I don't know what the number is but if I look at if I read the condition it says like the town houses to the south if you look at the town houses to the
south I cannot see close the building and so you're hiding the building. If we comply with that condition, we're perfectly fine working with the staff on a landscape plan that meets that requirement. But we would we want to
have approval that we can build a two-story building which to do that we have to have a maximum height of 2 and 1/2 ft. Otherwise, we have to start redesigning the building to be a flat
roof and we don't want to do that. >> Chair, if I may, uh the public hearing has closed and so you're making a recommendation uh to the city council. Uh so I would encourage you to provide some direction on that. Make your
motion. Uh you're making that recommendation. The applicant can there then decide if they want to move forward to city council uh with the recommendation as is uh or if they would like to make changes ahead of that council meeting um as an alternative. Uh
you can table the request uh and give us some direction uh as to what you would like to see. uh whether that be additional conversations with uh the developer regarding that building height to see if we can come to some sort of consensus. At that point, it would come
back to you. But otherwise, you're making a recommendation based on uh what you feel is appropriate and then it is going uh to the council for further consideration. >> If I may, I'd like to just further for clarity's sake the provision in the
ordinance that we're talking about with the height. I just I'd like to read it so you understand what it actually says. Um because it seems like there's been a lot of things discussed this evening. Um I think it might be helpful to have the clarity of what the ordinance proposed
actually says. The maximum height shall be 20 ft for principal structures and accessory dwelling units unless appropriately screened in which case the height can be increased to 23 feet. So, I think we've had a lot of discussion
this evening around what appropriately screened means. Um, I think maybe the interpretation from the applicant, at least as it was currently discussed, seems a little slightly different than what I've heard from planning commission this evening. Um, I'm feeling pretty
clear about the direction that's been given. Um it seems like there's plenty of uh discretion in the ordinance language as it's drafted to accommodate both the height and an appropriately screened site. Um
so that that is what the language says. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So it kind of covered that. >> I agree. >> Everybody agree >> provides a lot of flexibility. >> Yeah. Or Yeah. >> Flexible interpretation. >> Yeah. Definitely. And uh when we are we
are just trying to compare uh the heights with the other uh adjacent uh buildings obviously we we would also expect some kind of screening like the other adjacent buildings that's
what my take on this so definitely we need to just stay with what is there in the ex existing pure >> and so if I may um there is a motion on the for uh by Commissioner Pertie. Um
okay, and it was seconded by Rusted, so I missed that. Um for um to approve or to recommend the zoning as it's been proposed to council. So that needs to be acted on. Um however, commission sees fit as it was, you know, as as the
motion was made. If you feel that you need to bring that motion back, it does need to be voted on. Um and and so then but then you can you know come with a second motion to bring the clarity that you feel you need to bring if the current motion is not doing that for you.
>> We've got a motion made and seconded. >> Is there any further discussion on this? Yes, I'm clear. >> So, the the screening that you're talking about though in the parking lot, that's a secondary piece, right? Like this screening specifically is to
shield what the height of this building, >> correct? So, there's there's a screening requirement for the parking lot that comes from our code, >> but that's that's secondary from this height piece. So in theory like this the screening the enhanced landscaping that
I think it sound like we wanted was a second piece uh that could be like decoupled from the height requirement. Correct. >> Uh are you asking if the the parking lot screening could be separate from the
screening of the bu like the screening for the building? Sure it could. Yep. So to I just if we're talking about enhanced landscaping, I don't know that the height of the building is something that we're going to cover up with shrubs and right is this is already sitting relatively close to the front.
The building height and and the trust pieces I mean very much look in routine for this area. I don't know that the height of the building is something that I would want to couple to landscaping. Um the landscaping outside of that, right, parking lot, everything else makes sense. I just to me this seems
like extra steps without a lot of payoff for 2 and 1/2 ft of truss height. But >> good but I I think the current ordinance as Nate said that that states that because otherwise it only ends up in 20
ft. I mean if we wanted to go another 2 and 1/2 ft that's where the additional landscaping needed as per the ordinance current ordinance. So we are trying to I mean I think if we are in the same agreement like we are okay with that height with as you are working with the
applicant on the additional landscaping do we need to have this second motion or we need to I mean >> already covered in the first motion already >> right yeah so we might not need the second motion >> we just need zoning amendment change
>> good all right we have a motion made and seconded for the uh Um uh recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment ZOA to planned residential district PRD57 based on the draft ordinance. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> Opposed. Motion carries. We need one more motion for approval of the vacation of the drainage and utility easement. >> So move. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Any any further discussion on this one? Uh hearing on um all in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. Thank you, Dave.
Um any other business from the committee hearing? Nothing. Uh I'll look for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded. All in favor say I. >> I.