are we're going to call the meeting order ladies and gentlemen thank you for being interested in what we do here in the city of Parker Terry can I ask you to do our invocation please absolutely thank you our heavenly father we thank you for this life you've given us we thank you for this town that we live in and for the residence of that town we pray that all decisions we make tonight would be for the best of the residents in Jesus name amen amen thank youge of alance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with libery and justice for all thank you thank you madam clerk will you conduct a roll call please miss hudo here Mr Striker here chairman R here thank you everybody get a chance to review the minutes yes good deal you are so inclined please go ahead I make a motion to approve the minutes I'll second that outstanding Madam clerk will you take the vote Miss hudo yes Mr Striker yes chairman rinka yes thank you very much and once again I really do like the new method that the uh these minutes this is Su syn to the point and it really makes easy reading so thank you for that I won't change very good ladies and gentlemen we have it's a great day for many different reasons but today we have two Volunteers in our audience that uh were appointed by our council members in order to uh become the next two Commissioners to fill those empty seats at this time I'm going to ask that Mr Sloan will swear in will we start with Kyle Merritt because I think he was he was uh appointed initially is that right yes sir very good all right Mr iy a czen of the State of Florida Cen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America and of the United States of America being employed by employ by or an officer of or an officer of or an Advisory Board member or an Advisory Board member for the city of Parker for the city of par you solemly swear youly swear or firm or firm that I will support that I will support protect and defend protect and defend the Constitution the Constitution and government of the United States and government of the United States and of the State of Florida the state of Florida and that I am dly qualified and that I am d qualifi hold office under the constition under the constition of the State of the State and that I will well and that I will well and Faithfully perform and Faithfully perform the duties of planning commissioner the duties of plan commissioner for the city of par florid [Applause] and then we have uh Captain Rich Hall right here we go I rich Hall I rich Hall a citizen of the state of florid and of the United States of America and the United States of America and being employed by being employed by for an officer of advisory member for the city of Parker City par swear orir that I will support support prot defend theit and government of the United States of United States and of the state of florid and that I am duly qualified I am dly qualified to hold office to hold office under the Constitution under the constitution of the state and that I am well will well I will well and Faithfully perform Faithfully perform the duties of planning commiss [Applause] thank you Kim thank you Mr SLO good congratulations gentlemen and thank you for volunteering we really appreciate you helping us build Parker in a bigger better and a terrific atmosphere for all of us to live and continue to thrive all right at this time do we have any deletions or additions to the agenda okay I I just have a couple uh if we remember that um in January we all voted to ask uh the council members to consider uh putting a six-month moratorium on billboards that six-month moratorium will end in July and I know that Mr Sloan has asked the council members in order to provide some Direction but I want to make sure that we're still in the process where we review that piece of the ldr where it identifies the way it is today and that we are able to go to them with some uh recommendations regarding how we might change it could be the complete elimination of them as we move forward uh it could be something short of that uh between where we're at today and that so I'll be asking for some of that input perhaps next month and then um there's a lot of good information out there surrounding cities like Panama City Beach even even far south like in Naples and Miami those areas here there have very specific rules around where the Billboards can go where they can't go and why and uh so like I say the recommendation our job is to go to the council members with a final recommendation I think right now in the city we have two of those large Billboards up right now I think the requirement is that they have to be at least, 1500 feet apart so look at those rules today and then also look at where we might be in the future okay Mr chairman if I may add we had we had two um sign applications this week for off premises large Billboards and as of right now those would have to be denied because there is a six month moratorium right it's not a we're you don't approve or deny and you don't it just a moratorium moratorium okay until the actual ldrs get Rewritten we said until the 6 months Runs Out whichever occurs first we sent the ordinance so that they could understand we had the moratorium in place so worst case scenario in that situation let's I I don't think we'll let this happen but if if that six months runs out the moratorium runs out they still have to abide by the rules that are there so they have to at least be 1500 feet apart and then there's a distance requirement between stop lights um and uh and other types of uh businesses and other Billboards and other Billboards right very good and the size okay well we won't let that happen what we're going to do is we're going to get back to them before they have to make their decisions I'd like to have something kind of in place by the end of June that'll give them time to mull it over and make some final decisions okay and then the last thing is is we have as our um Mo we are bound by our own rules in order to review the comprehensive plan on an annual basis bis we completed that last year in July um so and you guys have a lot in your plates only because you're going to be learning the ldrs and the comprehensive plan comprehensive plan is a little easier it's sort of a general concept of the way things ought to be um but uh what we'll do is we'll need to review that and sometime in the July August time frame get back to council with regard to any recommended changes annually we're bond to review it for any mistakes anything that we would require to change so I'll be bringing that up next month again as well all right very good okay at this time I'm going to ask if there are any items from the audience um anything that you'd like to bring before our planning Commissioners um that is not currently part of our current agenda all right if nobody wishes to come up then we're going to go right to our first regular agenda item uh we have at 4305 um East business Highway 98 a partial split request is anybody here representing that group they may not be because that's the group that's originally from Nashville Nashville okay I thought they were going to send people who were interested in she had purchasing that property are the neighbors that are purchasing here she had said they might come the 475 is that I think we can get through it this one this one seems to be rather straightforward which address is this it's 4305 it's item number one 4305 East business Highway 98 the applicant was uh the Thorton yes um okay so let me just kind of give you my skinny on it and then um I've read through the survey report um it meets any all of the land use requirements it meets the size requirements it doesn't exceed either the the the density or the minimum size requirement um no encroachments it is signed by certified uh survey U and land mapper uh as we know uh minimum lot sizes would have to be 7500 ft um it's in a low density residential area uh so it would have to be at least 04 areas to4 Acres in order to split off they've got far more than that and then when they split it off even without the repair and right lot across the street there's still over 10,000 square feet um it looks like they've even given kind of a an initial sketch of what a building might be it meets the requirements for low density residential 20 foot to the right 20 or 20 foot to the front 20 foot to the back and 7 foot on the sides even though that's not really what we're evaluating today it's really just a matter of is this does this thing meet the requirements without any kind of a variance um this is already a lot correct oh it's one big lot one lot yeah and they're going to segment it into lot seven and lot seven will be that uh 10, 10,14 square foot segment any discussions gentlemen or any any questions either the new guys feel free to ask questions about some of the things that that were Bound by that's that's FR yeah any any thought okay very good I don't see a problem outside of we just need to make sure that they respect where Alford is at and the alley is out in the back for 911 EMS PD uh access it looks like they have so that would be my only I mean it it looks like there's Stakes there um you know and of course if you're talking about like if they this is really just about the land split so when they build a building that would be the you know the key well when you drive through over there the road is sketchy would be you because no one uses that right now the property that's back behind there that's owned by the Thorntons as well no one has a house back there the houses that used to be on horn that use that alley are currently not there so there's not quite as much uh activity so it's a little harder to kind of read where I see the road is but that has to be open for okay fire trucks things of that nature so when we do get to the part where there might be structures going up we just need to make sure that they're they're all built in compliance and that uh we have fire okay with regard to to just the um the the lot split is there are there any any thoughts I don't see an issue with it I'm I'm in agreement pretty straightforward with that uh well if that's the case then I'll just ask for a motion public comment yes ma'am please P6 1344 Stratford I just have one question because I'm I'm looking at the lot on um Bay County Property Appraisers as you said Mr Rea clearly it's large enough and everything but did they provide to you uh a design or a diagram of how they plan to split it and what size each of the two lots are going to be yes ma'am okay is there any reason why that wasn't available on the website today uh I'm not sure I didn't look at the website ma' I just have a survey uh here okay and all we have is a one page application and I'm happy to provide you this one because it's it's pretty it's a it's a perfect rectangular lot nothing special about it with the exception that they've got like a repairing right across the way and again I don't mean to be problematic but I like to do my homework and it's hard to do when we don't have the information so just a request you know that there are people that are involved and like to do their homework and as part of uh the Planning Commission it is our requirement and also desire to have your input so thank you for that thank you thank you any other thoughts I make a motion to recommend this uh lot split to the council good I I got a second here all right very good first and a second in order to uh provide uh the affirmative that the lot split is okay Adam clerk can I ask you for a vote Please Mr Hall yes Miss hudo yes Mr Merritt yes Mr Striker yes chairman yes thank you very much appreciate everybody's thought about that okay item two this is 1013 pits Avenue do we have a Glenn or Gabriel Davis in the crowd come on up please if you don't mind would you mind just sort of giving the group kind of a summary of what it is that you're wanting to accomplish here okay yeah uh we uh own the house at one9 pits Avenue and we'd like and I just purchased that lot I'd like to combine it first of all for uh tax purposes be beneficial and then I'd like to put a raised bed you know some trees on it and maybe let on petition for something like a shed or something it's more going be more or less like a garden but the main thing is for Homestead exempts and under one umbrella you all yeah we plan on getting old there and so you know so and I I love gardening I got a lot of flowers and I love my pollinators like that and I hate to something happen where somebody fences it in it's going to be a dark space because it's all tidy there real tight you know these those were going to be my questions that all the about the fence no well just you know in order to be able to even because there is that easement that comes around to access the other Cottages um that has to be sure it's kind of kept open you can't really even get a fire truck in there I tried to get my little car down there through the day and it's you can i d it but it has to be for some of the residents it has to be I know that no we're not trying to combine it per se you know because we own the Waterfront lot too and there's a road in between that but I hate for somebody to come and just fence everything in like with the high 8ot fence and it's all going to be because it's so so tight there you know everything's so tight and it's been going through hands and hands and hands and I told him it's probably time we have the chance to purchase it and like I said we want to get old there and I love my pollinators and I put that rope up just because somebody bought the other house and a lot of people are parking all over yeah so I just want to sort of give them an idea maybe later we can discuss it whatever but I just want to sort of let them know where the edge is y and also I need to know where the front of the lot is where it says 20 foot everything else is po so if y'all could tell me exactly where the Mr Davis can can I can I ask a couple of questions there so do you currently have a house at one13 lot 1013 that no it's not it's too small it's only 3100 Square ft okay and so you're you're wanting to combine one13 and one9 is that right and um who who owns that common area there between the two segments of the land well the the surveyor told us that little common area where the pump is that was a community pump way back when well and so everybody has access you know he said well if you wanted to you could buy everybody's right to that but I mean we don't need it I mean so I don't know if you should do that but there's no shown ownership in the at the County Appraiser because for drive whatever so that that property one13 and one9 they're not in any way touching is that actually no there's a Service Road between okay and that's going to say we're not going to try disrupt that like you said forer has to be got back too and and the request for the this is to combine these properties is that right put the tax unfortunately the state precludes this planning board for doing that because it is a requirement that they have to be contiguous properties now interesting enough you can actually have properties across the road and as long as you own the land under the road and You' simply provided an easement to whoever the O the road is that's why it's key who owns that particular common area there if you own that common area and had title to that common area you could merge the properties you King no ma'am that's you you could have if you own title if you had title it's got to be continu to in FA in fact if you go to the Property Appraiser's website one of the things that they specifically say is that when you're combining or splitting properties they use the word contiguous right in the in the in the actual definition of it uh and that's because that came directly out of Ashley Moody's office our state's attorney that's a requirement for uh for land splitting or land combining so so how do we where do we go from here I mean you're saying we're denied until we do that or what well it's not that we're denying you it's just that the state precludes it the the property has got to be contiguous it's got to be touching you have to have at least some segment of the property touching before you could combine it and make it one parcel and I my understanding that that's what you're trying to do is that right sure yeah yeah and and unfortunately the unless you own some arm or some component of the property between one13 and one9 the state will not allow it wouldn't matter if we said yes it would the state has Supremacy rules that prevent it so um I'm just we had a similar case uh several months ago that came before us so we all boned up on it and um unfortunately that was and I I called Ashley Moody's office directly and got two separate opinions that were identical uh so they have to be contiguous in order to combine them yeah so um uh I mean I I hate to be the you know the is there any way to is there any way to do that I mean is there there is a way to do it but you would have to own a parcel you'd have to own title to some part part of that common area that goes between 1013 and 10009 but that can't because a Serv yes sir we do that cut that off because even if they own the road bed the fact that vehicles have to get through there in the loop system I don't know that the city would agree AC but this one the only it's a loop yeah it's a so that's why I'd be concerned from the city standpoint but who you don't know who owns that that road bed well own assuming it's a private ownership and they don't own it they can't everybody before that was yeah there's a sprinker system there everybody I don't before it was Cottages I think there were little like a little mobile home thing back in I mean way back in the day right right but somebody has somebody has to have title to it and it's not these vot so it doesn't show that anybody has title right well give it to somebody somebody has title I I tell you you can go back to the State of Florida that somebody has title that's exactly right it's owned by somebody um and I hate to be the bear of bad news but in order to join the the properties um that is a a state requirement and we're Bound by that rule um the only other thing I could might maybe help with is what what do you want to do on it is that are you wanting it uh just for ease of tax paying or um yeah we wanted to do that and we wanted to plant um some fruit trees and race garden and maybe a shed and a shed or maybe a garage if we can do it well there's there's absolutely no issues with you planting trees now the problem with putting a shed there would be that you'd have to ask for a variance for that because we we do require principal residents to exist on a parcel of land before shed could be put up or garage or something like that all right however uh there's no issues with gardening there's no issue we own property many places where we plant trees well I figured the gardening there wasn't an issue you know it's just that you know you know we want it for the tax purpose to combine you and it it sure would be a whole a lot easier but like I say we're precluded from from even from even offering any kind of an approval because it it it's at a state level all right you said that we can petition for like a garage or shed well if if you were if you were wanting to if if one of the reasons that you wanted to uh join the two properties was because you were thinking of putting a shed on there um the way to do that would be to ask for a variance because right now the land development rules require like I say a principal residence before shed can be built oh really yes ma'am um so how could we do that because I need some garden tools and we just have a little tiny you know it's like nothing mean that we have um you would you would see the city clerk and our our planning uh manager well setback for a shed uh would be 5 feet uh yeah from your side yards um but uh but that would be after you know you got an approval to um to for a variance but sir says 20t from the front and then 5T from all the rest side right generally if you had a if you had a road in the back and it's 20 feet to the front this is low density residential is that right residential area it'd be 20 to the front 20 to the back and then 5 ft in your sides for things like I don't know the front that's what I'd like to know I don't know which one's the front iidea well pit pits AV pits Avenue appears to be the front on one z9 main road is that the front nine buter and are you asking because of the orientation to the uh to a shed yeah because yeah would like to put one in the far because we want toward our house the garden and everything I would suggest you go through the you I would suggest you go through the the variance process first and uh get approval to do that and then those things are sheds now generally they're di Minimus if well generally if you've got a princial residence they di Minimus if they're less than 120 square feet something bigger than that um you know you you it would still be a variance request right and at that point you would just have to create a drawing and show them what you're planning on doing and where you're oriented on the property and that to know where the front is so no know all right okay so I guess we'll see and I'm I'm sorry I had to be the bear of bad news but you have you have to it has to be touching in order for it to be considered one parcel or to combine I thought it was kind of weird because you know the front is not touching either we got the P Avenue a house between us and road so it should be 5T from I mean I mean our house from the water well I see I mean why would you have a 20ft bar when there's nothing you can build a house there or nothing I 20 be a 20ft setback the good you the the thing that there's not a road there is actually a good thing because it would be further than that if you had a road there you'd have what they call a a right of way first and that's generally about 50 feet from the center of the Road 25 ft either way then you'd have your setback so it's kind of a good thing that there's no real Road there if that's a public access then you could go right up to you know 20 20 ft from the from the from the area there you're going to want an official uh vote I understand official vote I got you okay thank you and because it came before us um we still have to vote uh on it uh so uh I'll I'll ask for a motion um uh remember the motion needs to be in the affirmative and the way of something to the effect of uh we we wish to uphold the rules of the Land Development rules so that would be a you recommend uh approval of their request yes all right I'll make a recommendation for disapproval of their request per the ldr and state regulations very good very good can I get a second please I second it very good uh I think Terry had a minor emergency here go slow okay very good let's go ahead and take a vote then Mr Hall yes Miss yes Mr Mar yes Terry that we're taking a Mr SL had informed us that we still need to take a vote uh in order to um essentially you want to repeat your motion there of just uh essentially to uphold the rules of the ldr in the state and to deny the recommendation to the council right and we're on you so yes would be that we would uphold the rules of the ldrs yes chairman R yes thank you and again I'm sorry to be the bear of bad news but at least we got an education here today right we know a little more more today than we knew just a few minutes ago can I make a recommendation I'll just tell you just because I'm kind of a I'm tenacious when it comes to certain things if I was you I can't tell you that I wouldn't go down to the Property appr Appraiser's office and kind of push somebody a little bit to see if they could tell you a little bit more about who does own that if nothing else I mean that's in your backyard and it's the little road Lan or whatever that comes through I'd want to know who owns that you know who responsibility I mean things of that nature they should they should I mean they tax everything but even with a community depy we still got that road that's not but at some point someone had to have done something to make that where it was communal and I'd be kind of curious to know you know even if it's just for your own you know that you know um I can't tell you wouldn't go ask some questions thank you so much time thank you for your time thanks for I still think you ought to grow those trees and put a garden in there because that thanks for beautifying the city we really appreciate it we'll make thank you sir item three uh 4575 Cedar Street do we have anybody from that area there please yes would you please come forward to the podium now do we have um William and Campbell Williams Williams Campbell Williams and okay very good so are you Miss Williams Campbell well Miss Campbell Williams I'm Miss Williams Miss Williams okay very good my ma name Miss Williams uh would you mind giving us sort of a summary of what what we're doing here today uh well we've owned the land my parents owned it and now my husband and I own it since the 70s I have to stop you for one second here now that we've moved into public um this is actually a uh this is a public hearing do I have to announce public hearing at this point technically yes I'm going to do that and I apologize that was on me all right ladies and gentlemen we're having a public hearing now because the next three items on the agenda are actually a variance requests okay so when we have a public hearing generally we ask the uh the the people who have you know brought these before us in order to uh tell us what their project is and then we'll have some discussion and then that offers up public comment on their project as well so U sorry about that it was on me so Miss Williams please continue uh but we've had the property since the 70s uh and at one point we have had the property separated and two separate addresses there one on Horn Avenue and one on Cedar Street um and we got rid of the trailer that was back there and then I think the city come up with an ordinance that it's got to be x amount of feet for your property to divide it and basically what we'd like to do is build a home in the back for my daughter and her children okay and it would be you know one of them would that one back there would have the address of the Horn Avenue like it was in the past very good do we have any questions for Miss Williams so it says here you're short 20 feet are we talking 20 linear feet or 20 square feet it's about 150 square feet I think it's about yeah let me let me offer some exact numbers um so the way the ldrs read is you would need 04 acres in order to split a parcel of land for density real reasons so you know a uh an acre is 43,560 sare ft divide that by five and then times two you're going to end up with about a little over uh 1700 square feet 17474 they they're starting uh with about 15, 829 so they're about 1,500 almost 1,600 ft shy of having the right to split the land because of density reasons so there are two components here there's the density rule then there's a minimum lot size minimum lot size is the 7500 ft so if you had 04 Acres you could make one of them 7500 ft then the other one could be you know 11,000 square feet and and you'd be okay um so that's what we've got the interesting aspect of this is it appears on this case there was a residence back there at one time is that right yes sir there was so that was a component of my thinking that there already is a correct me if I'm wrong Water and Sewer connection to that separate property so even though we're off on the density and off on the if you split it we're off on the looks like you're going to take it down to 70 just under 7,400 square feet and you need another 100 square feet in order to make it a minimum lot size I've got to I've got to ask our legal expert here um so Mr Sloan uh we're off on density and minimum lot size by about uh uh 12% however there was a residence back there at one time and yeah but that was many years ago wasn't it right uh it was years ago years ago was the lasta when we mve the trail so technically if you were concerned about grandfathering or something like that then that would be long gone okay and then that alley um so that alley that was 20 feet did that added actually to the current amount of square footage that were looking at is that right I think it's not added onto that it's not added to so do you have more space than this it's 85 by 86 according to that the um from my understanding the alley they didn't add the alleyway in there yeah I think it shows it SE 7310 I guess do you do you own a piece of that do you own a piece of that we have had that fenced in since the 80s it was deed too that's it wased I think that was included in the size on the it's included in the size I'm I'm trying to determine how many square foot what you have because you're off by just a grunt and if you had more land than what I'm seeing then it'd be it'd be easy to it's 7343 this part of what the city abandoned yes uh during um that's what Mr Summerland this is the total lot this is what they segment on right but I'm talking about the part that is that was abandoned yes sir Mr Summerland explained that that was DED to the property owners it was an alley but was DED back to the property owners they're not thinking that they own that so the surve it's included in the surve survey so it is included in that survey I don't have that big survey so I don't know well it it looks like the survey doesn't include it though guys it looks like the solid lines eliminate the I have show it I think they were that's what I'm think read the comments down at the bottom so it would be sort of like a little L shape down there right uh so it would so you you're going to end up with a square lot that is Just sh it is included it is included it is included okay in the square footage it is okay very good okay so where we're at is we're about almost 1600 feet shy of the density requirement and we're 156t shy of the minimum l L size so that's where we're at they're about a bedroom shy of the lot size about a normal size bedroom shy and of course you all remember those of you who have been on for a while and and the new gentleman there is a variance test in the Land Development regulations contained in six stage 3.3 and essentially it requires the applicant to show by clear and convincing evidence that they are entitled to um the variance but they have the burden of proof and persuasion and the variance test consists of the following there is a specific hardship affecting the development of the property resulting from the strict application of the provisions of of the ldr number two the hardship is not a result of actions of the owner and is based solely on a desire to reduce development cost number three the proposed variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right where such property right is generally available to other property owners of adjacent or nearby Properties or other properties in the land use category number four the proposed variants will not materially increase congestion on surrounding streets increase the danger of Fire fire or other Hazard or otherwise be detrimental to the health safety and general welfare of the public number five the proposed variance will be compatible with adjacent and nearby development and will not alter the essential character of the land use District number six the the effect of the proposed variance is consistent with the purposes of the Land Development regulations and number seven the effect of the proposed variants is consistent with the comprehensive plan those are the requirements that the applicant has to show by clear and convincing evidence to carry the burden of proof and persuasion uh in a variance application interesting thing Miss Williams is that you you filled the variance test out and um even though in two four and six you identified no when I read your answers your answers actually identified the affirmative which is what we would have would need okay maybe on miss it yes ma'am it's it's not always real clear because it uses the word as Mr Sloan just said the hardship is not a result of actions of the owner and is not based solely on a desire to reduce development costs and you had identified no uh there but then your answer is clearly to the affirmative in terms of why you felt like that answer should be yes okay so um guys any any any further thoughts how long did your family on that house uh my parents bought the land in the mid4 well yeah 74 75 somewhere around in there we've been there since got a question what if they gave them a few more feet up the lock that you mean the deed P I think it's deed to both neighbors no I'm talking about the lot lot that your house is on yes from it to give to the other bring it over the 7500 it would leave the one with the house on it now under 7 yeah remember there's there's two components there's the density component which right now is there there's not that4 Acres there there's 36 and the second component is when one of the Lots get segmented off then ultimately um you're you're at that 7343 now one thing I will tell you is that we don't have the right to but city council has the right right to um understand a little bit more about any hardships that may be in place um we have to for the most part call balls and Strikes does it apply does it meet the requirements I'm I'm not making any commitments to you but what I'm telling you is that this group if they identify that it doesn't meet the requirements of the ldrs you could still go before and get them to listen to a hardship request I would encourage you you re-review the seven questions that Mr Sloan had put forth because those do have to be answered differently than how they're answered today right now okay so um we uh we have to go to them and say make the recommendation based on is it close is it not close um those kinds of things um we we really only have three options we can approve we can approve with conditions or we can deny um and uh sometimes there are some things that nobody has ever thought of and generally that involves approving with the conditions that we learn a little bit more something you know could occur that would make it compliant things that those that nature um or the council can say look you've been a landowner and Parker for how many years did you say Miss Williams since the 75 okay so you're you're you're looking about um you know 50 years of land ownership here and thank you for being here that long um and you want to do something nice for your daughter is what I'm understanding is that right okay and and they may listen to that we don't have that flexibility um but what I'm saying is that you can still go before them even despite what our voter here is today and ask for that that variance okay okay I'm going to ask for a motion I'll make a motion to put it front of the city council to improve the land split okay do I have a do I have a second if I don't get a second it dies in The Vine um do I have a another attempt at a motion i' make a motion that we forward it to them with condition s that they can successfully go through the variance test and just ask them to look at it okay I think we have to say no we can't I hate to tell somebody they can't build a house because they they're garden shed short yeah you know that hurts but that's what it is so the motion then would be that we um we recognize that it violates the ldr's density and minimum lot size rule but we're so we're saying no but we're requesting that Council review it because of special conditions that they review the the Land Development rules okay um a second okay is so is that I I can't make a motion so I'm going to ask the first motion to be one of those so that's his motion yeah just like what you said I got it very well I can't so from planning it would be denied but the request is go through the variance test in front of councel because of special conditions correct okay very good so uh and Bev we're we're seconding that okay very good then I'll ask you to take a vote there I'm getting it down okay um Mr Hall yes Miss huto yes Mr Merritt yes Mr Striker yes chairman Ringo yes thank you and thank you Miss William thank I hope they I hope they listen to what you have to say thank you they have the flexibility we're we're a little bit more rigid because of the rules thank you all right we're on item number four this is linam Enterprises is anybody here from linam Enterprises sir would you state your name Michael car m Michael spell your last name please k r i Michael do you mind telling us a little bit about what you're wanting to do here ISS the setback right the twoot setback I thought that was corrected I thought that had been corrected it's like 15 in it may or may not uh be relevant though um but you're putting this back in the same footprint it's the exact same spot and you're using the same Foundation that was there before everything okay so bu or El build down and's or there's be so for for everybody what we have is a series of town homes and you feel free to add along the way we have a series of town homes that virtually look the same and one of them several of them were destroyed by the storm and we're in a we're in a position right now where it is likely that when this project was built initially as a whole project uh when I look at the whole you have to look at the whole project you can't just look at what Michael is doing here when you look at the whole project they had enough land to build on it but now because one of these Town Homes which is a single family dwelling but attached one chaired wall is that right right and then one and then one wall okay yes so at one time they had enough land but because he's wanting to build it he's got about a little over 3,100 square feet is's in an mu1 area which requires 5,000 square ft in order to build a you know home however my Bel is I don't know that we could look at it as a single entity because it's it's attached to a bunch of other town homes and if you looked at the whole thing then ultimately they would have had enough land in order to build it back on the SLE foot frame um I when we look at the uh rules regarding um legal non-conforming structures it's going to still be a residence right single family residence so they're not changing the use that's the only thing that would be affected by ownership is the use not not the whether or not the structure could be rebuilt so I think if we follow the guidelines within uh the ldrs it does allow them to rebuild it as long as it's in the F same footprint and it is not increasing the level of non-conformity okay I think uh the issue with anchor was they said that it would have to be approved by the council members for approval um because ultimately they didn't have the space which is it's considered a single family dwelling right now they've got 3,100 they would need 5,000 but I'm not sure that it should be viewed as a single entity because it's attached to all these other residences and when you look at all the land there they have enough land and it's in an mu1 area it meets all the requirements for impervious requirements things of that nature um so at the end of the day that's what we're faced with he's wanted to put it back in the same footprint matter of fact that's one of the ones where the ceiling collapsed in right yeah so roof is in on it I think it's kind of unique a unique situation if you could set that standard to each property even the ones that are occupied they're exactly the same they they would fail and I and I think that my my hitch in the getalong was um why it was an anchor wouldn't have recog maybe okay but 15 Ines but he's but he's building it in the same footprint okay so so so the legal nonconforming structure uh rule applies then is that right but yeah so technically that's within the ldrs so if it meets the requirements of the legal non-conforming structures ownership doesn't affect you uh uh the structure only affects if they're changing use so for example if you had a a business in a in a const in a in a in a commercial area and that was uh grandfathered in and then somebody who wanted to buy it and keep it is that non-conforming use that can't be allowed but that doesn't apply to structures it only applies to use going to the structure down right and the and the rule about non interesting enough now Mr scho you correct me in the but but um legal non-conforming structures when damaged by a storm that 50% rule only applies based on what the storm actually did so if I choose then to take the whole structure down do you happen to know did you have an engineer identify with the what the market value of that property was at the time that it was destroyed okay let me just give you an example let's say it was worth 200,000 bucks if you had to if it cost you more than $100,000 then you would lose the non the legal non-conforming uh you know structure issue um so that's what we have but we have all these other town homes that look exactly the same all attached then if you don't let them do it you got other problems you got a big hole you got a rat Haven plus you got problems with the exterior walls and right so I sat down so there are extenuating circumstances well I sat down and did pros and cons and again 15 inches you know so do we require that you knock 15 inches off of that concrete foundation to oh is it oh I'm sorry yeah you're right sorry Math's off well either way is it even if it's a foot you're right so it's not it doesn't so then if we don't do anything and you don't do anything your other property because you own both of those that are attached right just just the one that's damaged okay not the other one okay so then you knock that one down or just let it go and then those people that have the other one now have to put an exterior wall on the side that how would I don't even know how you make that happen um and then you know uh is there well I don't know that you would know do you know if there's damage in the adjoining from having been in that one that is I think I don't I'm not sure don't think anybody's even in that in that one well we've had issues with a couple of the others that were damaged where they were getting water in one and it actually flooded the other that was actually inhabited so I could see that being I mean these structures are not really made to stand alone so you want something there or you're going to have to re the next year while guys if I if I read item seven under non-conforming structures under replacement nothing contained herein shall preclude an owner of a non-conforming structure from replacing the non-conforming structure with a structure of similar size in the same footprint and equal to or better quality so long as the extent of the overall nonconformity of the entire property is not materially increased I I think there's so many reasons why there we should why why why we should let this gentleman improve that structure um any public comment Pat please4 Stratford two questions Mr R first of all the um LD the um land use map that I'm looking at shows that this is zoned residential it's not mu1 is the map on the website not correct I I believe it's incorrect that is it's uh it's it's mu1 okay can we have that map updated that's on the website yeah can we where did you find the map uh as part of the ldrs the ldrs or sorry the comp plan that's on the website um I've download good catch good catch so so back Mr we are waiting update with the new maps the ordinance does have the new maps so when that is comes before 422 right so when that comes before Council for its final approval then those Maps will be updated well wait a minute the one I'm talking about was approved back in what January well I I mean the final rewrite of the ldr will have will include those Maps correct the no the ordinance included the maps Okay that ordinance so I can I can go ahead why don't we do this I think Pat's seeing something on the website that's conflicting why don't we just see look at what she's looking at and then fix it because it's wrong1 let's take a peek that's the green right yeah that shows from from Lance to Hickory it it shows on the map that's on the website as U residential catch thank you for catching that P that needs to be fixed if if it's that way it needs to be resolved thank you uh second question you um now I got a back you were talking about um if more than 50% where is that found where is that statute for item it's item number five under damaged or destroyed um it's a it's damag or destroyed uh that's uh that's in protection of land it's under Section 6.3 protection of landowner rights an existing non-conforming development okay and there's another place and forgive me because I'm searching for it and I cannot find it um I'm going to say it anyway um I understand that if a property has existed unused for 180 days or more it cannot be rebuilt does that make sense which doesn't make sense because it's a property there somewhere you're talking about losing the nonconforming status that it that it or as Mr Reger would say uh how do you term it it's legon a legal nonconforming status so right now if it's not been occupied it would it would be dropped the word legal and it's still a nonconforming status okay okay well the big one to me was the land use so thank you you're welcome thanks yeah only in the use only in use yeah that would be not the structure the use of the use of the property yeah and that and Jamie I I had to read that four or five times myself because and I know Mr Sloan pmed that into our heads years ago when we were rewriting these things because it took a while for me to get it but that's item six yeah so what we have here is a whole bunch of these other structures that are already there some of them are being lived in they all look exactly the same we essentially this man's wanting to rebuild one uh in exactly the same footprint as there before and um I I would think that there is language within the uh you know legal non-conforming uh structure which would allow him to rebuild it there's some things there that wouldn't allow him to rebuild it but I think there are there's extra consideration namely what happens if he doesn't rebuild it right what would you guys want whether somebody bought it or not whether totality of the circumstance we can't ask you to turn a Nutter butter into a cupcake all of them are Nutter Butters yeah and I and I think the counil will get it in terms of you know however we vote I I I think the council will probably understand why you're wanting to do it I mean there's how many total structures are there I mean you sent us a picture of it U yeah there's at least there's I think there's like 30 plus there used to be a pool in the middle and how many of those are are currently occupied a bunch of them right bunch of them are still occupied so at one time that was almost like a planned unit development and one little arm of it broke off during the storm and you're just wanting to build the arm back so that's that's kind of like where we're at so um I just feel like in the spirit of no Do no harm it does more harm not to approve it I think that's an appropriate statement I agree absolutely agree I'll make a motion to recommend this to the city council for them to review all second okay um do we have to State whether or not uh we well to uh to go through the variance test and that you believe that there's a hardship okay oh you can add all that Michael uh do me a condition yeah do uh yes the council will consider those is a part of the variance request but also the other Provisions that Mr rega has talked about I think the other thing that they'll look at too is that again all of those are Nutter Butters none of them are cupcakes we're not going to ask you to put a three- story Mansion okay um you know I mean but they if that's what you're going to do is rebuild it just like the next door y you know and again you know it's not like we can ask would you chip a foot of concrete off of the to bring you in this doesn't make any sense so and and Michael I will tell you that those variance uh questions please review those and redo it before you go to council uh because item two uh four have to be reviewed okay okay um because uh they do say things like the hardship is not and sometimes when people skip over the word not and then they answer the question that way so re you'll need to review those okay very good very good so I've got a motion uh that we pass it along to uh councel uh and put it through the variance test uh do I have a second yes we have we have yes okay Madam clerk can I ask for vote please M PA yes Miss H yes Mr Merritt yes Mr Striker yes chairman re yes go build us a new beautiful Town Hall make it Nic I mean you got to go through Council first for their approve do I need anything more from you guys here today as of right now I would just get with the clerk and uh make sure you redo that variance uh test U got to read through those and uh and then uh because you're going to want to submit something different uh you know on that uh as our attorney has identified the the burden is is on you to push it push it very I think those town homes have been there since the 70s or maybe the early 80s I mean to me if you can make those look nice okay item five West Street Properties Mr Johnson are you going to be presenting today yes sir outstanding very good a you need a break we'll take a break but I think we're okay I like the cupcake butter so um I'm here today I think yall know we have quite a few properties in Parker um it's uh like Lake drives going great a lot of those things this one's a little unique it's U the address is zero West Street if y'all I mean you can see on the plan where it is it's five individual lots and those lots uh back up to all sort of a lot of mixed use property so what we're what the be's request is today is to take those units and be able to build duplexes on those five blocks there's a lot of reasons for that as y'all know we're building what 13 single family homes now and you know our idea is to build you know nice uh you know really for the whole Community this particular uh these particular five Lots would be geared toward military housing they're 12200 foot 32 you know 32 housing very nice barnini Style um and the reason that we would want to do that on this is really access to it that was really what brought it up so why do we want to put duplexes in here we have five single family lots but we don't have any roads or streets getting in there we have an easement so for us we'd have to develop the whole easement the street we met with uh we talked a lot with fire and safety we got to put a turnaround for a fire and truck things like that in there so what we want to do is create a community called Squadron way do it you know ultimately for that housing you know be affordable housing affordable long-term leases um so five duplexes totaling 10 doors in there it actually backs up to I think4 Acres that the city owns as well yeah do we have any questions for Mr Johnson does this fall under major development can I say that I know the the agenda says it said major it's not it just says that on the agenda it's if if uh if they do build it it would be a major development because it's beyond a single family home we're dividing some properties absolutely ter yeah um okay couple of things first of all so uh part of what we're supposed to do here in planning is make sure that we do no harm to the existing people that are there so on the positive side you'd be bringing in brand new construction and it sounds like it would be pointed towards military um the issue with single family dwellings is obviously it's it's going to be a a duplex sure so we've got a density issue there and that we're putting two residences you know in the same area um that's that's what we're facing guys is we're do we are we okay with putting a duplex in a LD low density residential area well but there's duplexes up the street from there so on West Street on that side duplexes and apartments are not uncommon um across the street from there their neighbors you have one two I want to say three houses maybe four houses houses that are inhabited well one past hent and the others are up the rest of that is empty lots um and then in the back door back pocket of the back half of this when you get further in it's the trailer park it's Winkle's trailer park so the other back corner has the right well that's what I'm saying I mean you got you know there's like one house that sits between you and those little town homes I mean on the other side of that is the whole Cedar Street and those are third of an acre lots most of them yes so will you be able to make an area in there to turn around for a fire truck uh we I don't know if we turn this in but we set a conceptual this sidewalks Etc underground utilities Etc the way this looks your if these report to be your property lines it your property line actually is going to the middle of the street and that's not correct that street has a RightWay he owns the street he owns the street you've got okay all right so how are you going to get access to to these interior ones let can I'll give that I was going to say yeah let the attorney look at that maybe I don't right we didn't have this I think mine just went in color this this is what this is all we so how do how do how do you get access to the interior if if you're using if you're saying your you own the street and therefore your property line goes to the center line of the street how are you getting from West Street to these Lots right but but this picture shows the line in the middle of the street okay so you're not this is not an accurate drawing that is an accurate drawing okay so I would point out if if this is not accurate you need to be careful of your your setbacks and and uh because obviously you're using the center line of the street here instead of the property line yes sir I'm sorry on the engineering there should be another one that shows the corre on the road but it's uh it's still if we that way if it were a single family home we would be dealing with that as a public RightWay if it's a private development it's privately own Street with the set well if if you're telling me you own that street yes sir uh you are I mean it's already a private Street app to so but from the city's perspective it just needs to to make sure that whoever is is back in here has access to their property and the lot l so just to be clear this this drawing is incorrect Mr chair so he gave me this that is more accurate so he the lot lines would be non inclusive of the street itself I see okay but they will meet we've done the dimension sizes and also would depict the house size as well based on those set from the property line yes sir and so as you know this is a variance request so you're subject to the same requirements that I've mentioned before um I wasn't really clear what is the variance you're asking for well typically and this is just from a historical point of view in in an ldr you would have R1 R2 R3 mu M2 obviously we have R1 mu GC and so if you open it up to a resoning then you're opening up to an mu which could you know wouldn't be feasible to reone it so the variance is just from a single family home to a duplex a dle yes sir which typically would be R2 okay you look I'm sorry you understand we do not have zoning so all we have are the land use categories and this is in uh low density residential you're going to be subject to what everage allowed within low density residential 4- 5.1 of the LR says single family dwelling units so detached dwelling units so that's technically what should go but the variance request Mr Johnson is there any way these could end up being single family homes not unless the city builds a street to give me access to the ls yeah it's not even a conditional use correct so it's could would it be a better satisfaction as a conditional use permit I mean I'm doing that on 16th Street in City no I'm saying that that multif family duplexes are not even a conditional use in low density residential it is strictly limited to single family detached dwellings mixed use on the other hand uh I believe does allow conditional uses and and I'm looking so the homes um is this North is the top my picture North it look like we uh so is this North here it doesn't matter so so it looks like there's an existing home here I got you existing home here is this these arees thiser line these arees that white building you pointed to is a sh this here there's a single family cross oh here's a bigger bigger very good that's a shed in the back of residences on Cedar Street that's Mr wood he lives across the street this is the shed that sits at the back of it's not no it's a it's a metal is it a pole barn okay oh okay may okay yeah originally we went through with the county on what the eement was and we met out there and spoke about it that is for the access to all five properties including where the is right so that would never be cut off he would always have access to I didn't get your name would you mind coming up and just telling us your name and address because I this impacts your property is that what you're saying yes my name is Gerald bman I live at 4582 Cedar Street okay I own the back of that lot there's a pole barn back there 50 by 40 and that's my only access to get into the pole barn just off that RightWay and that RightWay is trying to sayway as he he owns it but how could he own it if it's the right way when the mayor told me I couldn't buy it because you all owned it the city he owned it yes do we do we know who owns it Mr yeah we it was a yeah so nobody owns it okay so well somebody's somebody's got it we're back to that Jamie if you want to speak to that we had a whole meeting with engineering and it is it was deed for Access like you said nobody could ever cut off to give access to all of the Lots including his I think you bought yours after the house correct no they were saying they showed those lots like that each one and so they said that that easement was always there but like the city doesn't own it because we met with everybody here the city doesn't own it and if this and if this project does go for that would be a road you would build that road well that's that's sort of our conundrum is if I'm if we do five single family homes which I would ultimately be fine with who's going to on that road who's going to put the infrastructure in who's going to put the water and the sewer because there are five single family lots it's not a major development if I did five single family lots it's not a maor develop and that road doesn't look like it's anywhere would be individual and the city's not going to take it unless it's 50 wide you so that's sort of the conundrum that we're in and the request for the VAR because then it would be you know privately maintained I should say I said oniv so if he if he but but right now I don't know I don't have in my mind does the city own that roadway now or he actually owns the dirt that's from we don't from our research that's all we can say all of us on the dirt if you look at the so the the city would not accept a roadway that narrow anyway so um so he owns the dirt and he has got to provide access to all those lots within that area that's our understanding as well and uh if he's going to if he's proposing to put in anything in there there he's going to have to run the utilities himself so and the requirement changes for multiple family dwellings as compared to single family dwellings for Access for Road access is that what we're talking about here well it's a private road how how wide is that is it 14 15t wide no it was short the mayor said it was sorry yeah you can't even get two cars side by side so what we were what we were wanting to do was give on the left hand side blocks because those have more room we were going to give the easement so we could have utilities and access to all like we would you know was it was more than I thought it was more than one we were going to even to provide access they've got to have a wider Road correct so it seems like it's more just a a variance to go from um single family low density single family to um you know violate the the density rules we got to work out the uh access rules um I'm I'm [Music] not any thoughts guys this one's a stinker it it seems to me that U that you solve the use if he were to go to mixed use one that's solved the use because that allows him to have multi family however that doesn't address the access U which would would require him to to either deed or dedicate to all those lot owners U the access and utilities and and then you'd have to widen it right would you have to widen it you'd have to you'd have to make it wider than 15 ft so these proper this property this property this property well the front properties have access to I think it's West Street is yeah so those don't actually these two okay so it just be these two be those two and and these okay but if he came in this way right he could add add so he would have to add if if he's talking about adding it on that side he'd have to bring it down here well wouldn't this have to be wider too uh wouldn't this have to be wide even though you've got access out to here wouldn't this have to be wide for that to be a legal Street well it's not going yeah it's not going to be a legal Street look but I wouldn't I would their side I would bring it in on my side to give that to that's what I was thinking so if you came in like this Mr Golden the back of your where your pole barn is at is that where your gate is at it's not on the like facing west iang the city came and they were build but do you access what Miss Goldman saying when they bu the sidewalk across that e they had left kind of right but do you access that pole barn from a gate on the back of your property that would face oh oh okay okay for whatever reason I thought your property was completely pened off okay got this is not valid that was just a conceptual was really to show the road not proper and and I noted that it was a conceptual so going to Mr Sloan's point I think it was a was a was kind of where the road we were going down when we all when we discussed it with planning or when we were all trying to figure this out I should say um with everybody with with access with the neighbors everybody to to improve the community that's the the ultimate goal and Mr Johnson can you make sure and stipulate that everybody was just City staff I'm sorry yeah no commission it's very important that we stipulate that it was City staff and that no X parte conversations occurred I'm sorry yeah just that is Jamie and I and who else Mr Summerland sum yeah so when we had our meeting I to have the wor so when we had our meeting to talk about that we were figuring out is it to change it to mu1 is it like you said Mr s it's not rezoning it does back up meets the hardship to where it backs up to mix use one let's take a but we're not spotl and resoning so the variance was the best option I should say W Street West Street so can you show us where on off of West Street we're talking about here it's right here it's this are so all this is mixed this is mixed use there's actually some spot mixed use in here even though it's R1 now but it's these two three four the city owns this this is the okay so you a but mixed use already so if you were to get a a land use change to go to mixed use it would be contiguous with existing mixed juice property that would solve that would solve your uh um your ability to build multif family if the setbacks and everything else applied however U the access is still an issue if we could get if we were approved on the use change then we would then beat over the easement to give us the access that's what we discussed with because that was a key of being able to get a fire truck in there that's why we showed the conceptual that you noted as a t because our other one was could we if we could improve the city's land that's ultimately landlocked at that point we could create a tea at the very back that would then get access to that land as well that would be at our expense so what's what's the easier route to go um I mean because if we change that District well then then we're changing comprehensive plan and U you're not changing the compreh plan uh other than the future land use map you're not changing any uses or anything you would have to change the future land use map to depict those as uh mixed use one and then that solves the issue if he wants to build multif family or town houses in there that I don't think you can overcome that even with a variance otherwise because it's there's not even a conditional use in in low density residential for for for for multiple family homes yeah yeah so I think that would be the first step to getting the land use right and then assuming that you want to build duplexes and then once you get the land use right then you have to work on the access okay so and have you talked to the fire uh Jamie have you talked to the fire chief about this and what is he how is he going to get a fire truck turn around would still give them access we extend the easement so that the city would have access to their land that's ultimately cut off but that land that's back there now ultimately I mean the city tried to get rid of that one point in time auction yeah it was a public auction but for whatever reason one of the guys went to prison and he couldn't buy it and there was a couple other people that problem say it didn't yeah own the alleyway that went through there yeah yeah but but there were a couple of folks that contract Ed to buy parts of that Alleyway that never closed and so um so that's where the city has ended up with some property back there I think the ultimate goal would be to for the city to get rid of that property because it's totally landlocked right um but thus far it has not happened so maybe I think you need to have a little bit more discussion on this Jamie yeah because of the new affordability act yeah but if we just go ahead and um so just so everybody knows the new laws regarding affordable homes it's mu1 mu2 commercial essentially the state can dictate that affordable homes can be built in there you go well beyond your density he's got a bunch of requirements to meet before he could ever qualify for the for the Lo but I but I understand the concern and the concern was that if if we if you have low density residential it's the one uh I won't call it a Zone but it's the one District essentially that the affordable homes act doesn't affect so um in other words you can maintain your town the way you know you can still dictate in that area however would this be something that I mean if it's one of those things where if we go ahead and carve that parcel of land out in order to go to an mu1 so that he could have this project and then he would carve this uh wide enough so that these other folks would maintain access to their properties and then I think you'd have to get access to the city's partial to turn around and then the city's partial yeah so there may be something out here is this what you're saying like something out this way no no no the City's piece is over here City piece right here so he'd have to bring this okay this way I see okay and then turn around here I got you in the city property the city would have to I'm glad you drew that for me because I wasn't getting it you just agreed to do something in there this is the first time I'm hearing this and so I I uh I'd like to a little bit of looking at it before we finally come to a conclusion and if if a land use change is uh is what needs to be done then then that would require this body to recommend it and the go to the council and there'd be an ordinance okay so but the point of the variance was to close that loophole so that it is just duplexes you're right legally if it's moved to mu1 then I can build affordable housing on it we don't want that they could have an agreement with you that and that is the point of the variance agreement is just duplex agreement agreement then would be that uh if we migrate that to me1 an agreement with the city would be that those areas would be our desire not to just open it up to anyone that's our desire but but I get the concern a good concern particularly since that let me I would ask I mean like I say this first time I'm hearing some of this discussion so I would ask for uh a little bit of time to take a look at that and see if how to skin the cat um best for the gentleman and best for the city yeah and then Jeremiah if you look at the picture that Mr Sloan just drew me I didn't realize that City's access was out here into this rough area here so would you be able to carve out that area there out of that land and still build your duplex you'd still be able to do that if you notice where the duplexes are laid out on the conceptual that whole area is open oh I do see that okay good and that's where we proposed a 15 see where it says the end of that you would just go straight through and the city would have access okay and unfortunately Sunshine rules uh sometimes we're hearing this stuff for the very first time and we're having kind of mold M through it so at the end of the day give us a little bit of time to um analyze what has been presented and uh and then our attorney along with take a look and see will determine maybe it could be that the right way to go is to maintain a variance it could be the right way to go is to move it to mu1 with an agreement with the city to build duplexes there um but in either way uh this particular body are our goal is to make sure that nobody who already owns property there is harmed in any way so we would have to make sure that an agreement would include nobody loses access to any parts of their property that already they already have access to but it looks like that's in the works anyway say there's just to address a few things one there wouldn't be an agreement the easement Remains the easement it would never no neighbor would ever lose access if we extend the easement on the property that I do own is beneficial to the city because it gains access to land that it currently doesn't have access you know so again our heart is not to to damage it is to stay within what's allowable that and we realized and I kind of want to point out that's what where Jamie came from our discussion is that we don't want to just open it up to anyone that was never our goal that's why we sort of landed on the variants I guess as the option the other would be a conditional use yeah you know I I get that I just want to say that that would it would all be beneficial that sense not harmful to anybody yep I understand just really allow us access to all five lots and where did the gentleman in the back where did he's this is his shed and this is his house that's his house that's his shed I said it first and so you'll hear it the rest of the night all I can see is this much all I can see is this much from the roads top of it but it would it would question it would always always it's there it is five different what we're talking about here is five you know lots already there so the E would well and look I I know that what you're building you're build they're nice projects and uh and I think any Improvement to Parker is an improvement to Parker uh what I'm going to recommend is that we have a motion and the motion may sound something like we need time to mold this over uh we'd like to re allow our attorney to to review it uh for which might be better options to take for the city uh and that uh we would simply uh pass it to the next meeting we just simply table it to the next meeting table it to do we need to vote or do can we just uh table it until the next meeting well you as a chair I would probably get a vote just to to outline what the the uh desire is that it's coming back at the next meeting right just and and a motion would be just that we have a chance to review it further and we'll bring it back to the next meeting make motion we table the next meeting to review it further very good can I get a second second good deal Madam clerk can I get a vote please if I can just clarify did we want to include you in that Mr Sloan in that motion I'm going to take a look at it talk with Jamie okay yes Mr Hall yes Miss HUD yes Mr Merritt yes Mr Striker yes chairman R yes thank you um anyway hey we have a we have an understanding now of what you want to do and uh you know we'll get an opportunity to really start to and I know time especially in a builder environment timing is important the Ence uh if Mr Sloan uh gets a chance to review this sometime in the next couple of weeks uh we we could have an extra meeting you know if we needed to especially what we're seeing is we don't generally come to this kind of an agenda this a bigger agenda and it's getting that way so we might have end up having another meeting sometime before that's what I would ask from the standpoint of like you said is U we've owned this property since December and we've gone through a lot of discussions of what's the best way to approach it so as we as we move forward now is there a way and I guess my question being by way of process is we have the additional meeting to to realize or know the areas and the options we have there's another permit which you know it's like you don't want to wait 30 days and then say okay here's what we found out and then it's like another 30 days you know I I'll be in contact with Jamie also you I completely understand the decision you came to especially because affable Housing Act and how it impacts us well I should reword that the thinking that you came to because it's appropriate and we have to be concerned about it so very good we want to do it the right way as well very good all right let me ask is there any public comment I I I sense that there was more than one homeowner who who went ahead and uh had a boundary to this product yes sir please if you don't mind coming to the podium here Carter 4558 CER Street Mr Carter okay and I own two lots back of my house8 C you see in the rear and my concern not that I don't mind them developing is going to be parking for these apartments and access I wasn't sure there was enough land uh to get a fire truck in and out the fire trucks have gotten bigger we don't have cabovers anymore so those are concerns I don't mind at all developing Parker that would be a good thing it's like the Highway 22 there that's a good thing yes sir but am concerned that we need to meet the criteria and not have people parking on on with other people's rways or properties that's my concern I think U the Land Development rules are pretty clear right uh is it Jamie help me out here is it two parking uh per residences so if you've got duplexes he's got to have h space for at least four cars per duplex okay uh and and Mr Johnson you You' be doing that right yeah and that would that would not be uh on the street it would have to be parking in in a garage on the property things of you know things of that nature that's my concern thank you no no thank you appreciate it very good anybody else okay well welcome once again CL the public hearing I'll close the public hearing thank you thank you um not the meeting just the public hearing but uh thank you to the both of you guys uh you can see there's going to be a fair amount of work involved in this role but we sure need some really uh you know good brains in order to review it all and uh some good reasoning skills you guys came in on a couple of doozies yeah Terry uh any anything for the group no not right now very good very good have anything uh here Rich did you I got a question for you did you have anything to do with that magnif meeting wasn't done they didn't understand he didn't know yeah they're they're just yeah they're not know did you have anything to do with that great air show that went on out there uh the boats out out the boats out in the center were the guys that work for me oh cool so you you did some Organization for that huh yeah outstanding very good KY are you going to be doing both planning now as well as uh um you know infrastructure can I no no I guess you have to be on you and I haven't had no I know you're Che no you can not Mr Sloan thanks for keeping us out of jail gentlemen thank you for adding to us I'm going to close the meeting down thank apprciate congratulations you guys it's a high paying job what you need H uh you mean just the three well this guy yeah we don't have any I have you had all of the applications um what else do you need oh okay excuse me yeah I think you should see everything uh let's see so what do you what do you have now um do you have like this stuff here the actual variance um okay let me see let's see what we got okay so so that's just the variance she's got all that she's asking I think for the maybe the Builder conceptual map because we really didn't have lot okay can you get that to very good okay so you're wanting um you're wanting she is like the maps and everything Pat cuz of this is just like the variance stuff and she has that and you you got is that out there like the seven questions well I have it says that there's one of seven pages and I have oh those other Pages that's just the informational piece like how to fill it out that's why I didn't put those in this is the Builder's conceptual I don't think it was this one but there was another U submission that had page six of six what pages one through are it it literally it looks like this these are the pages you didn't get it explains to them how to do it no no no that's fine it's not that's all it is and then you have all that and then it's just it's probably stuff like information doesn't apply right yeah so that's all it is there's no point in putting up well he he brought these in yeah we didn't he brought those in today no no no no you can have you can have one of those I'll tell you what take let me give you that one uh yeah because I've got this and what uh what we discussed was this is land owned by the city out here and uh we were talking about the roadway widening this area here so that they would have uh options to be able to get to here so that's really uh what we're talking about here and then this would be like and this is the gentleman that this is his house and that's his and there's that so okay you my pleasure it's my pleasure no no and then yes and then promise you and you should you shouldn't have been are we