[00:00:10]
READY, JEFF? READY WHEN YOU ARE.
[CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL]
GOOD EVENING.UH, WELCOME TO THE, UH, NOVEMBER.
WHAT IS THIS? THIRD, SECOND, SECOND, NOVEMBER 2ND, UH, MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PROPER PROVINCE TOWNSHIP.
AND, UH, I'M GONNA START THE MEETING BY, UH, ASKING JEFF TO TAKE A ROLL CALL.
JOE BRELANDS WITH THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE.
JEN SHAW WITH THE ENGINEERS OFFICE.
AND ANTHONY VANIA WITH THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S OFFICE.
AND I'M JEFF GRACE, YOUR PLANNER IN CHARGE.
UM, AND I WILL MENTION IF, IF YOU NOTICE WE HAVE, THIS IS THE FIRST MEETING AND WE HA WE NOW HAVE, I DON'T KNOW, ACOUSTIC BAFFLES, ACOUSTIC TILES, SOMETHING.
SO HOPEFULLY IT'S A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT WE STILL NEED YOU TO MAKE SURE YOUR MIC IS ON AND OFF WHEN, UM, YOU'RE TALKING, CUZ THE VIDEO STILL, IT'S NOT GONNA HELP THE VIDEO PICK IT UP AT ALL.
SO WE STILL NEED FOR MINUTES TO, TO PICK UP THE SOUND.
WITH THAT, UH, I'LL ASK, UH, WELL, NEXT THING ON AGENDA.
I'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY NON AGENDA ITEMS, ANY NON AGENDA ITEMS. DON'T EVERYBODY RUSH TO THE FRONT TO DO THAT.
[GENERAL DISCUSSION ITEMS]
WE HAVE NO NON AGENDA ITEMS. I'M GONNA ASK FOR THE, UH, MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 5TH AND OCTOBER 19TH.WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MINUTES FOR THE LAST MEETING.
SO WE HAVE TWO SETS OF ME MINUTES IN THIS PACKET, UM, FOR OCTOBER 5TH AND OCTOBER 19TH.
AND IF EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO, UM, PERUSE THOSE, I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION TO ACCEPT THOSE MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 5TH.
I'D LIKE A MOTION TO, ALL RIGHT, BOB'S MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE OCTOBER 5TH.
WILL I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.
SO, UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AROUND, UH, THE OCTOBER 5TH, IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR? RIGHT.
OKAY, THEN I'LL TAKE A MOTION FOR OCTOBER 19TH.
WE GOT A MOTION FOR OCTOBER 19TH.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, GILLS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS AROUND OCTOBER 19TH? IF NOT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION OR, UH, VOTE TO APPROVE.
SO WE APPROVE BOTH THE MINUTES, JEFF, UH, FOR, UH, THE MONTH OF OCTOBER.
[APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD ON NOVEMBER 2, 2022:]
MOVE TO OUR AGENDA, WHICH, UH, LOOKS LIKE TONIGHT.UH, WE HAVE, UH, FOLKS FROM AUTO ZONE, UM, UH, I ASSUME THEY'RE FROM LOTTO ZONE.
AND, UH, IF YOU ARE, PLEASE COME UP, UH, IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND, UM, TELL US WHY YOU'RE HERE.
GOOD EVENING, UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS ELIZABETH NTEN BECK, ATTORNEY ID NUMBER 6,272.
I'M AFFILIATED WITH A LAW FIRM OF PATRICK AND WILMAN DE NICO BROWN OF PETRO.
I HAVE, UM, DOUG HILL, WHO'S AFFILIATED WITH BOOSTER ASSOCIATES, WHO'S OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
AND CHRIS PETERS, WHO'S AFFILIATED WITH MDM SURVEYORS, WHO'S OUR CIVIL ENGINEER.
WITH YOUR PERMISSION, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO HAND UP, I HAVE AN ABBREVIATED PACKET OF WHAT THE, THE GIANT PACKET THAT MR. GRACE CIRCULATED.
UH, THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT IS OKAY.
UM, ME, I DON'T YOU, AND ALSO, CAUSE I'M A LITTLE VISUAL.
I HAD A, I I PRINTED OUT THE, THE SITE PLAN JUST CUZ IN CASE IT'S, IT'S EASIER TO SEE IN PERSON AS OPPOSED TO ON THE, THE SCREEN.
UH, BEFORE WE GET INTO THE MEAT OF IT, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A BASEBALL GAME ON TONIGHT AND THERE IS
UM, I THOUGHT I WOULD, UH, SORT OF THROUGH A SUMMARY OF WHERE WE'VE BEEN, WHERE WE ARE, AND THEN OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE TWO REVIEW LETTERS.
UH, AUTOZONE HAS BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE TOWNSHIP FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW.
TONIGHT IS THE FOURTH ITERATION OF OUR SITE PLAN.
UM, WE, UH, THE PROPOSAL IS TO, UM, WE'RE THE EQUITABLE OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1811 EAST RIDGE PIKE.
UM, IT HAS A LOT AREA OF 40,000 SQUARE FEET OR 0.981 OF AN ACRE.
UM, THERE'S A CURRENT VACANT STRUCTURE, COMMERCIAL IN NATURE.
UH, WE INTEND TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND TO BUILD A 7,382 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING TO OPERATE IN AUTO AUTOZONE.
[00:05:01]
AUTOZONE SELLS AUTOMOBILE PARTS AND ACCESSORIES.NO AUTOMOBILE SERVICE OR REPAIRS ARE PERFORMED.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, I HAVE INCLUDED AN AERIAL OF THE, UM, GOOGLE THAT MR. GRACE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO PROVIDE, UM, OF WHERE OUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED, WHICH IS THE SMALL PROP, SMALL HOME SURROUNDED BY THE FIELD IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE PROPERTY IS, OR THE, UH, SHOPS AT UPPER PROVIDENCE ACROSS RIDGE IS THE COURT AT UPPER PROVIDENCE.
UM, AND THEN THE, THE WAREHOUSE LOOKING BUILDINGS ON THE SOUTHERN PUSHIN ARE, UH, A PUBLIC STORAGE.
UM, ALL OF THE GRASS AREA, INCLUDING OUR PROPERTY IS, IS THE, UM, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE ZONING DISTRICT, AS WELL AS THE SHOPS OF UPPER PROVIDENCE.
UM, THE ONLY THING THAT'S SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT IS THE, THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH IS, UH, A CONDO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS, I'M CHARACTERIZING IT CORRECTLY.
UM, WE SUBMITTED OUR INITIAL PLAN BEFORE THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE REVIEW COMMENTS ARE IN YOUR PACKET, THEIR DATED 12 15 21.
UM, THOSE COMMENTS, UH, GENERALLY WERE FAVORABLE.
UH, THE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS, ONE HAD TO DO WITH PLANTING OF SHADE TREES AND THE OTHER REFERENCED, UM, AND ENTRANCE TO BE RELOCATED IN LINE WITH THE INTERSECTION OF KLEIN ROAD.
UH, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF YOUR TOWNSHIP CONSULTANTS.
UM, AND MY UNDERSTANDING, THE PREFERENCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, IT'S FOR AUTOZONE TO, UH, CONSTRUCT AND IT'S REFLECTED, UM, THE INTERSECTION OF KLINE ROAD AND RICH, UH, IN ORDER TO EXTEND KLINE ROAD, UH, FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
UH, SO THAT WE DID, WE THEN SUBMITTED, UM, OUR SITE PLAN.
WE, UH, MET WITH THE TOWNSHIP CONSULTANTS IN DECEMBER OF 2021.
UH, WENT THROUGH THE LAYOUT, INGRESS, EGRESS, THE INTERSECTION ISSUES.
AFTER THAT, WE WENT BACK, TWEAKED THE PLANS AGAIN.
WE MET WITH THE CONSULTANTS AGAIN IN FEBRUARY OF 2022.
UM, AGAIN, FURTHER DISCUSSIONS.
AND, UM, ULTIMATELY CAME UP WITH A, UH, SITE PLAN.
UM, THERE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS BY YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACTS IMPACT STUDY.
AND BECAUSE OF THE COST AND THE TIME ASSOCIATED WITH PERFORMING THAT STUDY, AND WE KNEW THAT WE NEEDED ZONING RELIEF, THE THOUGHT WAS LET'S PROCEED WITH OUR ZONING RELIEF.
IF WE'RE SUCCESSFUL, THEN WE'LL GO TO AND SEEK OUR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, RECOGNIZING THAT WE NEED USE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED USE.
I'M SORRY, YOU, YOU NEEDED ZONING, YOU NEEDED ZONING RELIEF.
YOU SAID YOU NEEDED ZONING RELIEF.
UM, TWO AREAS OF ZONING RELIEF WERE REQUIRED ON THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
ONE WAS PARKING, 74 SPACES WERE REQUIRED.
OUR PLAN AT THAT TIME IDENTIFIED 41 SPACES.
WE ALSO NEEDED FRONT YARD PARKING SETBACK BECAUSE WE HAD PARKING SPACES LOCATED ON RIDGE AND WE NEEDED THAT SETBACK RELIEF.
THAT'S WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ZONING HEARING BOARD.
WE, UH, WE WERE THERE OVER THE SUMMER.
UM, DURING THE HEARING, THERE WAS A SUGGESTION QUESTION FROM ONE OF THE ZONING HEARING BOARD MEMBERS WHO SAID, LISTEN, IF YOU REVIEW, IF YOU REMOVE THOSE PARKING SPACES ALONG RIDGE AND YOU DON'T NEED YOUR FRONT YARD SETBACK, CAN YOU MAKE THAT WORK? RECOGNIZING THEN OUR NEED FOR PARKING RELIEF WOULD CHANGE FROM 41 TO 31.
SO AT THE TIME I SAID, WELL, LET ME GO BACK AND TALK TO MY CLIENT.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD WOULD CONSIDER, THEN WE'LL RESPOND.
I HEARD FROM ZONING HEARING BOARD THAT YES, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE THEIR PREFERENCE.
SO WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE THAT WORK.
WE GOT BACK TO THE ZONING HEARING BOARD AND SAID, YES, WE CAN MAKE IT WORK.
ULTIMATELY, WE WERE GRANTED ZONING RELIEF FOR PARKING, FOR PARKING ZONING RELIEF TO 31 SPACES.
AND THEN THE REQUEST FOR THE SET FRONT SETBACK WAS, WAS DENIED, WHICH WE ACTUALLY NO LONGER NEEDED.
SO, BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, WHICH IS THE PLAN.
SO I WAS GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT
SO DURING THE ZONING HEARING, THE, UM, THERE WAS A, AN OPPONENT, THERE WAS AN ATTORNEY WHO WAS REPRESENTING THE ABANOS AND, UM, UPPER PROVIDENCE, I THINK IT'S UPPER PROVIDENCE ASSOCIATES LLC, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE, UM, IT'S ALL THE GREEN AREA ON THIS GOOGLE PLAN.
SO THE ZAS OWN ALL OF THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST AND NORTH OF OUR PROPERTY.
AND THE UPPER PROVIDENCE ASSOCIATES LLC, UH, OWNED THE PROPERTY, UM, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PINE ROAD, WHAT WILL BE PRIME.
UM, SO THEY, THEY OPPOSED IT SAYING THAT IT WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND THAT THEY HAVE FILED AN APPEAL.
[00:10:01]
SO, UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA IN, IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER COUNTIES, THERE'S THIS HUGE BAG BACKLOG BECAUSE OF COVID.SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THE ZONING APPEAL PROCESS CAN TAKE ANYWHERE FROM ONE TO THREE YEARS IN ORDER TO WORK ITS WAY THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM, KNOWING THAT WE NEED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL.
UM, OF COURSE BEING OPTIMISTIC AND OF THE BELIEF THAT WE THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THE PARCEL.
UH, THE THOUGHT WAS LET'S PROCEED WITH CONDITIONED USE APPROVAL.
IF WE'RE GREAT, IF WE'RE LUCKY, LUCKY IF, IF WE'RE SUCCESSFUL, THEN UM, I SUSPECT THAT THERE WILL BE AN APPEAL FROM THAT FROM THE SAME PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND IT IS THE BELIEF, UM, THE PREFERENCE, EXCUSE ME, OF AUTO ZONE TO HAVE TWO CONCURRENT APPEALS PENDING RATHER THAN TO WAIT THE THREE YEARS FOR THE FIRST TO RESOLVE AND THE WAIT IN ADDITIONAL THREE YEARS, NOT MORE THAN A YEAR FROM YOUR LIPS TO GOD'S EARS.
UM, SO THAT'S, ANYWAY, THAT WAS WHY WE DECIDED JUST TO, TO MOVE FORWARD.
WHAT WAS, WHAT'S THE, THE OBJECTION TO THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS TO YOUR NORTH AND WEST AND, AND THE USE OF YOUR, WHETHER THEY, YOU SAY, THEY SAY IT'S NOT A PROPER, WELL, THEY SAID IT WASN'T A PROPER USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THEY SAID THAT WE HAD NOT MET THE CRITERIA FOR A HARDSHIP FOR THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE.
AND THEN, UM, THAT THE INCREASE IN PARKING RELIEF NEEDED FROM 41 TO 31 SHOULD HAVE BEEN RE-ADVERTISED BEFORE THE BOARD MADE ITS DECISION.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE FOCUSING ON THE PROCEDURAL ASPECT OF HA OF WHAT UNFOLDED BETWEEN THE FIRST HEARING AND THE ULTIMATE RESOLUTION AND WELL, YOU KNOW, WHETHER EVERYTHING HAD TO BE PUT BACK ON THE RECORD, PROCEDURAL, STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT OBJECTING TO THE, TO THE BUSINESS ITSELF.
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY, AND THIS IS JUST MY UNDERSTANDING IS FROM MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIR ATTORNEY, IS THAT THEY WILL BE APPEALING A HEARING BEFORE THE HERE, UM, THE ATTORNEY, I WAS LOOKING FOR THE ATTORNEY, UM, THAT THEY'LL BE APPEARING FOR THE CONDITION OF USE HEARING BECAUSE KE DET TOLD ME THAT THEY DID NOT CONSIDER THIS TO BE AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THE PARCEL.
AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS.
THEY'RE SAYING THEY DON'T LIKE THE THOUGHT OF THE AUTO PARTS STORE THERE.
I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S THAT'S THE FAN YOU'RE TALKING.
BUT I MEAN, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THEY DON'T LIKE THAT, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
THEY DON'T LIKE THAT BUSINESS BEING THERE.
I'M NOT, IT WAS SPECIFIC TO THE BUSINESS THAT MUCH.
I ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IT WAS, WAS THIS WITH ED MULLEN OR BERNADETTE? THIS WAS ZACH.
UH, ZACH MORAN WAS THE ATTORNEY THAT I SPOKE TO.
I, FROM TALKING TO ED, I THINK IT WAS DIDN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE PARKING.
I THOUGHT, I, I I DON'T RECALL EXACT.
UH, WELL, PARKING WAS AN OBJECTION TO THE ZONING.
YEAH, WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU, YOU, YOU MADE THE POINT THAT THEY OBJECTED TO THE PROPER USE OF THE PROPERTY.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT THAT MEANS.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD ME BECAUSE I SAID TO HIM, THIS IS BEFORE THE ZONING.
AND I SAID, WELL, THE ZONING DOESN'T ADDRESS USE.
HE SAYS, I KNOW, BUT THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR BELIEF OR WHATEVER.
AND I SAID, OKAY, YOU DO DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.
SO THEY'RE USING THE PARKING AS A WAY TO STOP OR HOPEFULLY NOT TO DELAY THE, IF YOU WANNA SPEAK UP TO COME UP.
I DON'T WANNA BE OUTTA YOU HAVE TO COME UP DOWN BY YOURSELF.
THE OTHER, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND TALK WITH THE MIC? YEAH.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF PETER AND ALICE ABANOS AND UPPER PROVIDENCE ASSOCIATES.
I REALLY JUST CAME TO LISTEN AND GATHER INFORMATION.
UM, BUT I SEE SOME OF THE, THE QUESTIONS ARE RISING ABOUT THE LAST HEARING, THE PARKING WASN A CONCERN BECAUSE WHAT IF THERE IS AN ADEQUATE PARKING ON THE AUTO ZONE SITE? UM, THE THOUGHT IS THEY'RE GONNA OVERFLOW AND PARK IN WHATEVER'S DEVELOPED BEHIND IT.
UM, THE SECOND ISSUE, AND I'M NOT THE ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE FAMILY, UH, IN THE PRIOR HEARING.
SO, AND I'M NOT A LAND USE ATTORNEY, SO GIVE ME THAT, UM, UH, LEEWAY PLEASE.
UM, HOWEVER, THE, UM, THE HARDSHIPS WE DID NOT THINK WERE MET.
THEY DIDN'T PROVE THAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR THE, THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF RELIEF.
WE ALSO DON'T FEEL LIKE, AND I, AND I WAS GOING TO ASK, UM, WHY THEY THINK A CONDITIONAL USE IS APPROPRIATE, CUZ THIS IS, THIS SITE IS NOT AN ACRE, IT'S LESS THAN AN ACRE.
WELL, LET ME, LET ME CUT YOU OFF THERE.
NOT TO BE, TO BE RERO, SAVE A LITTLE TIME.
[00:15:01]
THE PHILLIES, YES.THE, THE, UH, THE CONDITIONAL USE IS NOT DISCRETIONARY.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU POSE THE QUESTION AS WHY THEY THOUGHT A CONDITIONAL USE WAS A GOOD IDEA, WHEN THIS COMES IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE, UH, THEY HAVE, THE APPLICANT JUST HAS TO PROVE THAT THEY MEET THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA IN THE ORDINANCE.
AND IF THEY DO, THEN THEY'RE ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF.
SO AT NO POINT WILL ANYBODY BE DEBATING WHETHER IT'S A GOOD OR A BAD IDEA AS THOUGH IT'S PURELY DISCRETIONARY N NO.
OUR POINT IS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT THE CRITERIA FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND WE DON'T THINK THEY MEET THEM.
UM, THE CON THE THE PERMITTED USES UNDER THE HALF ACRE PARCEL ARE PERSONAL SERVICE SHOPS SUCH AS BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, DRY CLEANERS, LAUNDRIES, UM, NUMBER TWO IS DR.
THREE IS A BUSINESS OFFICE LIMITED TO A SOLE PRACTITIONER, AND FOUR ARE COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS.
UH, AND FIVE IS AN ACCESSORY USE OF ANY OF THE FOREGO USES.
UM, IF CONDITIONAL USES ARE PERMITTED, UM, ANY USE OF THE SAME GENERAL CHARACTER, BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY NAMED AS THE ONES I JUST KNOW.
SO WE DON'T THINK AN AUTO ZONE STORE MEETS ANY OF THOSE CRITERIA.
AND THERE WILL BE THAT OPPORTUNITY AT THE CONDITIONAL USE HEARING.
SO, UM, I WAS JUST GONNA ASK QUESTIONS, BUT I WELL, I, YOU KNOW, SHE'S IN THE MIDDLE OF A PRESENTATION AND I THINK YOU DID CLARIFY ONE ISSUE, BUT YEAH.
WELL, I I, I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF YOU GUYS, BUT I JUST, UM, I STILL DON'T GET IT.
I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT YOUR ISSUE IS, I JUST DON'T GET IT.
I MEAN, CAUSE IF 10 PARKING SPACES, THE PROPERTY HAD A, A SMALL BUSINESS ON IT FOR YEARS, AND WE THINK IT, IT IS BETTER SUITED THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AS THE ZONING IS IF, IF THE SUPERVISORS WHO, WHEN THIS WAS ADOPTED YEARS AGO, IF THEY WANTED TO PERMIT AN AUTO ZONE STORE, THE FIRST STORE OR THE FIRST USE PERMITTED IN THE ACRE OR ABOVE CATEGORY IS RETAIL SALE OF GOODS IN AN INDIVIDUAL STORE, THEY COULD HAVE PUT THAT IN THE CONDITIONAL USE, BUT THEY DIDN'T.
WELL, LET'S, LET'S NOT DEBATE THAT NOW.
THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S EVENING AND THEY'RE STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR PRESENTATION.
AND WE CAN CERTAINLY COME BACK TO THAT BEFORE MAKING ANY RECOMMENDATIONS.
WELL, UM, SO THAT, THAT'S THE, UM, THAT'S THE STATUS OF THE APPEAL.
UM, SO WITH RESPECT TO THE WE ON, WE SUBMITTED THE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2022 SITE PANEL, WHICH REFLECTS THE DECISION ZONING HEARING BOARD.
THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE YOU, UM, TONIGHT.
AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, WE RECEIVED THE REVIEW COMMENTS FROM, UM, MCMAHON AND FROM GILMORE.
AND I HAVE, UM, OUR CIVIL ENGINEER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER HERE TO ADDRESS THOSE REVIEW COMMENTS.
UM, AND WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I THOUGHT I WOULD JUST JUMP INTO THOSE REVIEW COMMENTS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THAT'S HOW WE NORMALLY, ARE THERE ANY, UH, WITH THE, UM, GILMORE LETTER FROM NOVEMBER 29TH, ARE THERE ANYTHING, ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULDN'T COMPLY WITH? UM, SO YES, SO I, I HAD MR. PETERS, WHO'S OUR CIVIL ENGINEER.
UM, I WAS JUST GONNA HAVE HIM SAY THAT, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WITH WHICH WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO.
SO THIS WILL COMPLY FOR ALL THE ITEMS IN THE GILMORE LETTER.
WE THINK FOR THE MOST PART THERE ARE THE HOUSEKEEPING IN NATURE.
THERE ARE, THERE'S ONE OR TWO THINGS THAT OVERLAP WITH ISSUES IN THE MCMAHON LETTER.
OH, YEAH, WE'LL GET THAT OUT NEXT.
THAT, THAT, SO, SO WITH, WITH THAT EXCEPTION THAT THOSE, UM, LIKE I, I NEED, I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE CURBING AND THE SIDEWALK, BUT, UM, THE MCMAHON REPORT REALLY GOES INTO DETAIL WITH THAT.
UM, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THAT WITH THE GILMORE, IT'S REALLY JUST A HOUSEKEEPING ISSUE AND, AND SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM.
AND DO YOU HAVE ANY PENDING WAIVER REQUESTS AT THE MOMENT? NO.
SO, WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S HERE TOO, WITH THE TENTATIVE, SO THAT'S ON, THAT'S ON THE TABLE TOO.
OKAY, SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE? GOOD EVENING,
UH, MY NAME'S CHRIS PETERS WITH MDM.
I'M THE, I'LL BE THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE GILMORE LETTER.
UM, DID SPEAK OF LOADING CONTIGUOUS WITH THE FACADE, AND I'M CURIOUS AS TO THE INTENT THERE FOR THE TOWNSHIP.
NOT THAT WE CAN'T COMPLY, I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE TOWNSHIP WAS LOOKING FOR.
[00:20:01]
UH, WHEN YOU SAY LOADING, CONTIGUOUS WITH THE FACADE, DOES THE TRUCK NEED TO BE BACKED INTO A GARAGE SPACE OR JUST BEHIND THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING OR, I WOULD DEFER TO THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER SINCE IT'S HIS LETTER.OR, OR THE ENGINEER SINCE IT'S HER LETTER.
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE JUST DON'T WANT PALLETS SITTING OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT.
CONDITIONAL USE ITEMS TO SATISFY.
YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR IF EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR.
UM, WHAT IS THE TOWNSHIP LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF AMENITY AREAS? IS THAT A, IN SOME COMMUNITIES THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, YOU KNOW, A PARK BENCH OR SOME SOFT SEATING, SOMETHING OUTSIDE FOR SOMEONE TO GO AND CONGREGATE.
UM, IN THIS CASE, I WOULD EXPECT THAT MIGHT BE AN AREA BEST SERVED FOR EMPLOYEES, UM, TO, TO GO OUT AND, AND HAVE A, A BREAK OR LUNCH.
BUT WHAT DOES THE TOWNSHIP LOOK FOR HERE IN THIS CASE? SO IN THIS CASE, I'M QUOTING THE ORDINANCE, SO IT'S WHATEVER THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH OUT THERE.
I'M NOT LOOKING FOR ANYTHING SPECIFIC.
SO I GUESS WE COULD HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH RESPECT TO WHAT I KNOW, I'M NOT SURE.
OR YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL IT'S ENGINEERED OR, YEAH, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY AMENITIES.
DOWN THE ROAD WOULD PARTICULARLY A LOT OF THE MORE DETAILED ELEMENTS, AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH BRINGING THEM UP IN THE LETTER NOW, BUT JUST TO SAY AT PRELIMINARY PLAN, THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THIS ORDINANCE AND THIS ORDINANCE AND THIS ORDINANCE.
SO, AND IF THAT MEANS HAVING A MEETING OR HAVING QUESTIONS AFTER YOU GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THEN WE CERTAINLY ARE ABLE TO DO THAT BEFORE YOU GET INTO YOUR SUBMIT PLAN SUBMITTAL.
COULD I ASK SOMETHING? UM, JUST IN, IN REFERENCE TO THE, UH, RELIEF ON THE PARKING IN THE GILMORE LETTER AND THE COUNTY LETTER, THEY'RE RE REFERENCING 74 SPACES.
HOW DID WE GET TO 74 TO 42 TO 30? THE CODE REQUIRES FOR EVERY 100 SQUARE FOOT ONE PARKING SPOT.
AND WHEN YOU DO THAT MATH, THAT WOULD REQUIRE 74 SPOTS.
SO WHEN WE ORIGINALLY APPLIED FOR ZONING RELIEF, WE REQUESTED FOR A RELIEF DOWN TO 41 SPOTS BECAUSE THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED THEN, THEN WHEN, UM, THE ZONING HEARING BOARD INDICATED IT'S PREFERENCE FOR US TO RECONFIGURE OUR PARKING SPACES, UM, THAT'S WHEN WE, WE REMOVED SOME, REMOVED THE ONES THAT WERE ALONG THE EDGE, THAT FRONTAGE AREA, AND THEN IT GOT REDUCED TO 31.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THEY, THEY ENDED UP GRANTING US RELIEF UP TO 31 OR DOWN TO 31 BILLY.
AND THAT'S THE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE.
LITERALLY, IF YOU'RE A FOOT AWAY, IT WON'T PICK YOU UP.
UH, WITH RESPECT TO AUTO ZONE, UH, THE PARKING, AND WE MENTIONED THIS AT THE ZONING HEARING, UH, THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC.
IT'S ONE OF THE LOWEST TRAFFIC GENERATING RETAIL USES OUT THERE, AND THEY DON'T PARK A LOT OF PEOPLE.
UH, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR MID TWENTIES, MAYBE INTO MID THIRTIES, UM, FOR PARKING AT THEIR STORES.
THIS IS, THEY'RE KIND OF IN THE SWEET SPOT HERE AND FUNCTIONALLY OVER PARKED EVEN FOR A STORE THIS SIZE.
SO THAT WAS, I GUESS, UH, TO AUTO ZONE'S BENEFIT IN THIS CASE, IF 31 SPACES, THEY'RE ADEQUATELY PARKED FOR THEIR, FOR THEIR BUSINESS, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
I DON'T SEE WHERE YOU EVER HAVE MORE THAN 31 CARS IN YOUR PARKING LOT AT ONE TIME.
I THINK THAT'D BE GREAT BUSINESS TO BE IN.
THAT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOKING PEOPLE IN A STORE LIKE THAT.
SO THEN ON THE, UH, ON THE MCAH LETTER, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ALL GOOD ON THE, ON THE GILMORE ON THE GILMORE LETTER AND YOU WILL COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING.
UM, YOU'LL HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT AMENITIES AND THEN SWITCHING OVER TO THE MCAH LETTER, WHERE, WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THAT COMPLIANCE? IF I, IF I CAN ALSO JUST ADDRESS, JUST, JUST CUZ IT, WE GOT RIGHT UP, WE ALSO HAD VERY DETAILED UNCONTROVERTED TESTIMONY FROM DOUG HILL WHO'S ABOUT TO GET UP NOW, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER THAT TALKED ABOUT, UM, THE PARKING STUDIES AND THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR A STORE SUCH AS THIS AND THAT PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE, UM, I THINK IT'S 22 TO 25 THAT NEEDED.
I I WAS JUST ASKING BECAUSE I WANTED TO SEE THE EVOLUTION AND HOW IT GOT THERE.
AND, UM, I'M SURE THAT THEY GIVE US MORE INFORMATION ON THE MANY STORES AND THAT'S GOOD.
[00:25:01]
OBVIOUSLY I HAD TO THINK THAT THERE WAS MUCH LESS ACTIVITY AT YOUR STORES, WHICH YOU HAVE MANY OF THEM.SO THAT WOULD BE, I JUST WANNA CLARIFICATION ON, OKAY, SO ACTUALLY I'M SORRY.
SOMETHING OCCURRED TO ME, UM, A MINUTE AGO WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE, YOU WANT TO GET THE TWO APPEALS TIED TOGETHER TO RUN AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH I DO UNDERSTAND.
ARE YOU NOT GETTING THE SKETCH APPROVAL NOW BECAUSE OF THAT? AND WE'RE ONLY HERE ON THE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW BECAUSE IT'S LISTED AS BOTH ON THE AGENDA.
WE YOU ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PLAN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET FINAL UNTIL YET, UNTIL THE ZONE, THE BOTH APPEALS WOULD BE RESOLVED.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT MEANT YOU WERE HOLDING OFF ON, WELL, WE HAVEN'T DONE THE FULL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANS YET.
WE'RE JU WE JUST SUBMITTED THE SKETCH.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
SO MCMAHON, UH, THE AREAS THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC, I'M JUST, YOU JUST WANT ME TO CUT TO THE CHASE HERE, RIGHT? UH, WE ALWAYS LIKE THAT.
SO THE FIRST WOULD BE, UM, THERE IS, UH, PARAGRAPH 12, I BELIEVE, UM, THAT SAYS WE RECOMMEND THAT SOUTHBOUND SITE ACCESS APPROACH BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A SEPARATE LEFT TURN LANE AND RECOMMEND THE SOUTHBOUND SITE ACCESS APPROACH BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A SEPARATE LEFT TURN LANE AND A SHARED THROUGH RIGHT TO TURN LANE, WHICH WOULD MIRROR THE NORTHBOUND KLINE ROAD APPROACH ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF RIDGE PIKE.
UM, DURING OUR PRIOR DISCUSSIONS, IT WAS OUR RECOLLECTION THAT IT WAS AGREED THAT THIS THREE LANES SECTION WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED OF AUTOZONE DUE TO ASSOCIATED COSTS.
UM, IT'S ALSO, I BELIEVE MR. HILL'S OPINION THAT THAT'S ALSO SOMEWHAT PROBLEMATIC TO HAVE THAT THREE THAT, UH, LITTLE LOUDER.
IT'S, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING AND, AND I, I'LL I CAN CALL MR. HILL UP TO FURTHER EXPLAIN HIS, HIS THOUGHTS ON IT.
UM, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THIS IS COST-PROHIBITIVE.
DOUG HILL WITH WOR ASSOCIATES, UM, BASED ON THE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE TOWNSHIP, UH, IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WOULD BE A, A TWO LANE ROADWAY FOR AUTO ZONES PURPOSES, ONE LANE IN ONE LANE OUT.
AND WHENEVER FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS BEHIND THAT WOULD NECESSITATE THE NEED FOR THE, FOR THE CONNECTOR ROAD, THEN THE, THE ROAD WOULD BE WIDENED APPROPRIATELY FOR THE USE.
THAT'S, THAT'S COME IN FOR THAT.
UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING FOR AN UNSEIZED APPROACH, WE, WE TRY NOT TO DESIGN THEM WITH TWO LANES OF EGRESS BECAUSE IF YOU GET TWO PEOPLE PULLED UP TO THE, TO THE STOP SIGN AT THE SAME TIME THEY'RE COMPETING FOR SITE DISTANCE.
UM, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT ABSOLUTELY, YOU KNOW, IT CAN HAPPEN, BUT WE DON'T TYPICALLY DESIGN IT THAT WAY.
AND, AND PARTICULARLY IN THIS CASE, SINCE THIS IS A, A TEMPORARY ACCESS UNTIL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, WE WOULD, WE WOULD REQUEST IT JUST BE A TWO-LANE ROAD, ONE LANE IN.
HOW DO ANTHONY, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? SO IT, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS WE, SO WE DON'T DISAGREE, SO I AGREE WITH THE FUTURE, UM, UH, SET UP I GUESS FOR THE CONNECTOR AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE BACK FOR THE THREE, FOR THE THREE LANE SECTION, OUR CONCERN IS WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE PLAN ACCORDINGLY FOR THAT AND THAT NOTHING THAT GETS CONSTRUCTED IS PART OF THE SITE, THE CURRENT USE OBSTRUCTS ANY OF THAT IN THE FUTURE.
SO, UH, I WOULD SAY THAT AT THE VERY LEAST, AND, AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND IF IT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD, WE APOLOGIZE.
BUT THE IDEA IS IF WE CAN GET THAT IDENTIFIED SKETCHED AND SHOW HOW THAT WOULD TO OR SHOW THAT IT WON'T, UH, OBSTRUCT THAT IN THE FUTURE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SATISFACTORY TO US.
WE DON'T DISAGREE THAT IT'LL BE A TWO-LANE CROSS SECTION FOR THE AUTO ZONE.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT THREE LANE SECTION IN THE FUTURE WILL BE ACCOMMODATED APPROPRIATELY OR IDENTIFY WHAT OBSTRUCTIONS MIGHT BE IN THE WAY THAT WOULD POSSIBLY PREVENT THAT AT.
AND SO THAT'S OUR EXPECTATION.
SO TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR ESSENTIALLY A PLANNING SKETCH TO SHOW THAT A THREE-LANE SECTION WOULD WORK AND A LINE APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATELY WITH KLINE ROAD, BUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED WILL BE THE TWO-LANE SECTION, ONE LANE AND ONE LANE OUT.
SO, YOU KNOW, BY LAYING OUT THAT THREE-LANE SECTION, IT, IT WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE, ON THE EGRESS RADIUS POSSIBLY.
SO THAT'S WHAT IS HARD TO IDENTIFY WITHOUT SEEING IT.
OBVIOUSLY SKETCH PLAN, WE DON'T HAVE PAPER MARKINGS AND THINGS, SO WE WANTED TO IDENTIFY THAT IN THE, FOR FUTURE PLANNING PURPOSES.
SO YEAH, SO ULTIMATELY, UH, TWO LANE SECTION IS ALL WE EXPECT FOR THE AUTO ZONE.
WE JUST, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, SKETCH IT OUT SO THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY THAT ALIGNMENT AND JUST BE SATISFIED WITH THE CURB AND THINGS THAT GETS CONSTRUCTED NOW.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA CAUSE ANY HEARTBURN FOR AUTOZONE, BUT FOR SOME REASON IT DOES.
ANTHONY, IS THERE GONNA BE A SIGNAL HERE? IS THERE A SIGNAL HERE OR A PLAN SIGNAL? NOT, NOT AS PART OF THE AUTO ZONE.
NO, NOT AS PART OF THE AUTO ZONE.
WELL, THIS IS RIGHT WHERE THE AUTO ZONE IS.
[00:30:01]
ROAD NARROWS DOWN FROM TWO LANES TO ONE RIGHT.OR RIGHT BEFORE THERE OR, SO THIS IS, UH, THE TERMINATION EAST OR SOUTH? IS THAT YEAH, SO THE, SO THE, THE WIDENING PICKS UP WEST OF THE RIGHT PROPOSED ACCESS AND OPENS UP, UH, TO THE WATER CROSS SECTION APPROACHING THE, UH, SHOP.
SO, SO SOMEBODY COMING EAST OR SOUTH, WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE UP EAST ON EAST ON RIDGE, YEAH.
IF THEY WANNA MAKE A LEFT TURN INTO THE AUTO ZONE, THEY'RE GONNA BLOCK THE TRAFFIC AT UNTIL THEY CAN MAKE A SAFE LEFT TURN.
WELL THAT'S ANOTHER ITEM THAT'S IDENTIFIED, BUT CURRENTLY TODAY THEY HAVE, THERE'S DOUBLE YELLOW, IT'S ALMOST LIKE A DEFACTO TURN LANE I GUESS THAT'S SITTING OUT THERE.
YEAH, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE EVEN ON THE GOOGLE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT ENDS JUST RIGHT BEFORE THAT.
IT ENDS, UH, ESSENTIALLY AT KLINE OR JUST YEAH, THE INTERSECTION OF KLEIN ROAD JUST PRIOR TO THE, TO THE ACCESS BACK HERE.
YEAH, IT WOULD BE RETRIED AS A CENTER LEFT TURN LANE TO SERVE AUTOZONE.
SO THERE'S ROOM THERE TO MAKE A LEFT TURN LANE? CORRECT.
YEAH, JUST THE, THE WAY THE PAING MARKERS ARE CONFIGURED, IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT, BUT YEAH, THERE'S SUFFICIENT ROOM TO, TO ALLOW TO THAT LEFT TURN.
SO THERE WILL BE A LEFT TURN LANE.
I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S IN THE PLAY ON, ON RIDGE PIKE WITH WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER IS THE, IS THE NEW ROAD THAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED.
IT WOULD BE THE, WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE SOUTHBOUND APPROACH.
I, I DON'T KNOW IF THE COMMISSION CAN SEE THE BOARD, BUT IT'S, IT WOULD BE THIS APPROACH.
BUT THAT'S WHAT I SAID, BUT THERE'S NO, UH, PLANS RIGHT AWAY FOR THAT.
I MEAN THAT'S, WE HAVE NO SUBMITTED THAT'S, WE'RE JUST ANTICIPATING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL, THAT THERE WILL BE DEVELOPMENT BACK THERE BASED ON THAT SIZE.
WE'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE ASSUMING THAT THERE WOULD BE A LARGER CROSS SECTION.
WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING THAT AUTO ZONE WOULD INSTALL THAT, BUT THEY NEED TO PLAN FOR IT.
SO, SO ULTIMATELY THE CONFIGURATION FOR THE EXITING, UH, VEHICLES WOULD BE A ONE LANE AND ONE LANE OUT.
BUT SET UP TO ACCOMMODATE A THREE-LANE SECTION IN THE FUTURE.
AND THAT WOULD, ARE YOU SAYING ANTHONY, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY WOULD AGGRESS ONTO THE FUTURE CLIMB ROAD? NO, SO IT, IT, SO EXITING THE, SO AS ON THE, UH, ON THE DEPICTION, SO COMING OUT OF AUTO ZONE, LIKE AT THAT CONNECTOR ROADWAY AND APPROACHING, UM, THE STATE ROAD YOU WOULD HAVE, RIGHT NOW, YOU WOULD HAVE ONE INGRESS, ONE ONE LANE IN ONE LANE OUT.
AND WHAT WE WERE, WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ACCOMMODATE FORD IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE, UH, A LEFT OUT AND A SHARED THROUGH RIGHT, RIGHT.
IN THE FUTURE, WHICH WOULD MIRROR WHAT'S COMING OUT NORTHBOUND ON KLINE ROAD, THE WAY THAT ONE IS CURRENTLY CONFIGURED.
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT'S DOWN THE ROAD AT LINDAS LINS SHOPPING CENTER.
NO, IT'S A, IT'S A STRAIGHT A LEFT SHARED.
DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS IN THEIR LETTER? UM, SO THIS COVER 20 AT THE TIME OF THE BOOK, IT SAYS, AT THE TIME OF ANY FUTURE ANTICIPATED LAND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING PARCEL TO THE NORTH AND CONNECTION MADE TO THE EASEMENT, THE AUTOZONE DRIVEWAY WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE MODIFIED TO RESTRICT TURNING AND MOVEMENTS AT A MINIMUM WHERE VERY WELL MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED OR CLOSED OFF BASED ON PROXIMITY TO THE INTERSECTION WITH EAST RIDGE PIKE.
UM, AS I UNDERSTAND THE REVIEW COMMENTS, THEY WANT RECORDED ON THE PLANS, THE ACCEPTANCE THAT WE AUTOZONE WILL AGREE TO AT SOME POINT AT AN UNDETERMINED FUTURE, UM, HAVE A DESIGNATED, UM, ONLY, UH, I THINK IT'S ONLY RIGHT TURN EXIT, UM, OR POSSIBLY CLOSING OFF THAT FIRST ENTRANCE EGRESS, UM, ALTOGETHER.
AND THAT IS A, UH, THAT IS AN UNSUSTAINABLE SITUATION AND WE THINK WELL AND BEYOND THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, UM, WE ARE, WE'RE AGREEABLE TO RESTRICTING THE INGRESS EGRESS IN THE FUTURE AND PUTTING THAT ON THE RECORDED PLANS, BUT ASKING US TO RECORD THE PLANS, AGREEING TO CLOSING OFF ONE OF THE ENTRANCES.
IT'S SO AS DESIGNED, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED WITH SUFFICIENT WITH ANTICIPATING IN THE FUTURE THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME RESTRICTIONS.
UM, BUT CLOSING THAT OFF IS, UM, IT, IT IS.
ANTHONY, COULD YOU TRANSLATE THAT A LITTLE BIT? YEAH, SURE.
SO WE, WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN.
[00:35:02]
THE, THE ISSUE THAT WE HAD IS PROJECTING AGAIN INTO THE FUTURE AND TRYING TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE.SO THAT FIRST ACCESS THAT SOUTHERNMOST ACCESS TO ONE CLOSEST TO RICH.
SO, YOU KNOW, ANTICIPATING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, UH, ACCESSING THE ROAD AND, AND UH, ACCESSING BEHIND THE AUTO ZONE.
THERE WOULD BE OUR CONCERNS ARE SAFETY CONCERNS WITH THE INTERSECTION WITH THAT SOUTHERNMOST ACCESS, BEING SO CLOSE TO RICH AND HAVING FULL MOVEMENTS.
SO VEHICLES COMING OUT OF THAT SOUTHERN ACCESS TO AUTO ZONE, APPROACHING THAT CONNECT FUTURE CONNECTOR ROAD, UH, AND BEING ABLE TO, TO MAKE RIGHTS AND LEFTS AND ALSO VEHICLES COMING INTO RIDGE ONTO THAT CONNECTOR ROAD AND MAKING LESS INTO THAT FIRST ACCESS, THAT INTERACTION BEING SO CLOSE TO RIDGE IS A CONCERN OF OURS FOR, FOR THE FUTURE.
UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED, UM, WAS POTENTIALLY PROVIDING A MEDIAN IN THE FUTURE, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT A RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT AT THE TIME OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, OR POSSIBLY AS IT WAS MENTIONED, JUST MAKING IT A RIGHT OUT ONLY SO THAT WE COULD AVOID, UH, HAVING TO, TO HAVE THAT, UH, INTERACTION WITH LEFT TURNING VEHICLES COMING RIGHT OFF OF RIDGE AND TRYING TO GET INTO THAT FIRST ACCESS.
UM, SO I, I DON'T, I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE IF IT WERE TO REMAIN IN THE FUTURE, BUT IF IT WERE TO REMAIN, THEN PREFERABLY A RIGHT OUT ONLY, UM, WOULD BE THE PREFERENCE.
WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT REMAINING FOR WITH A RIGHT OUT ONLY, BUT THE LEFT SIN IN THE FUTURE IS DEFINITELY NOT, UM, WE'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT MOVEMENT.
UH, CAUSE CUZ OF THE SAFETY ISSUES OF THE DIFFERENCE.
WELL WE, YEAH, NO, WE, WE CAN AGREE TO THAT AND, AND PUTTING THAT ON THE PLANS WITH THAT POSSIBLE RESTRICTION IN THE FUTURE.
THAT'S, WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT, THAT THAT'S OKAY.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT COMES IN TO THAT, WHICH I THINK WE COULD TIE IN WITH THE SKETCH FOR THE EGRESS MOVEMENTS IS JUST ENSURING, CUZ THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS, YOU KNOW, WE WANNA PLAN FOR THAT NOW.
SO WE DON'T WANNA RUN INTO AN ISSUE WHERE THAT GETS CLOSED OFF AND NOW YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH DELIVERY VEHICLES.
THAT WAS THE OTHER PART OF THE COMMENT.
SO IF WE COULD LOOK AT THAT NOW AND JUST, YOU KNOW, RUN IT WITH A RIGHT OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE CURB AND ALL THAT STUFF IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT POTENTIAL CHANGE, THEN, THEN WE CAN SAY, OKAY, WE'VE, WE'VE THOUGHT THIS THROUGH, WE'VE PLANNED IT ALL OUT AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE'RE COMFORTABLE KNOWING THAT IN THE FUTURE IF THAT WERE TO OCCUR, EVERYTHING IS SET UP APPROPRIATE.
WELL, IN THE FUTURE, IF, IF, IF, IF KLINE ROAD GETS EXTENDED BACK, BACK THAT WAY, IS IT POSSIBLE JUST TO MAKE THE EGRESS AND INGRESS FROM KLINE ROAD AND JUST CLOSE OFF THE RICH PIPE PIECE MAKE COME OUT ON KLINE ROAD, THE FUTURE CLIENT? YEAH, SO BOTH, SO BOTH ACCESSES FOR AUTO ZONE, I GUESS IF YOU WANNA CALL IT LIKE THE KLINE ROAD EXTENSION, I GUESS FOR THE SAKE OF THE CONVERSATION WOULD BE, WOULD, WOULD TAKE ACCESS TO, TO THE EXTENSIONS TO THE CONNECTOR ROAD SO THERE'S NO ACCESS TO RICH.
UM, SO AS LONG AS THAT'S SOUTHERN, SOUTHERN AXIS FOR AUTO ZONE THAT CONNECTS TO THAT FUTURE ROADWAY IS SET UP SO THAT THERE'S NO LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS IN AND WITH A RIGHT OUT ONLY THEN, YOU KNOW, AND THEY COULD SHOW THAT DELIVERY VEHICLES AND EVERYTHING WOULD, WOULD MEET THEN.
I, I THINK WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SAY WE, WE'VE SET IT UP PROPERLY FOR THE FUTURE.
FUTURE AND, AND YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT? WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT? YEAH, THE, IT WAS, IT WAS THE NEXT STEP THAT THERE WAS ALSO SUGGESTION THAT WE CLOSE IT OFF COMPLETELY AND THAT WE CAN'T DO, SORRY.
AN ANTHONY, COULD I ASK A FOLLOWING QUESTION? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT THIS PLAN, BUT I THINK IT WOULD GO WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IF THE, UH, INTERSECTION THERE WAS TO BE DEVELOPED.
ARE THERE ANY LIMITS TO THE CURRENT KLINE ROAD ACCOMMODATING THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THAT INTERSECTION? OR IS THAT AMENABLE TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, I GUESS IS THE QUESTION? THE, THE EXISTING PORTION ON THE OTHER SIDE? IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? WOULD THAT WORK WITH ANY KIND WITH LIKELY DEVELOPMENT OF THAT INTERSECTION? YEAH, I THINK WE, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THE WAY THAT'S CURRENTLY SET UP.
YOU KNOW, IT'S CURRENTLY SET UP TO HAVE EGRESS EGRESS MOVEMENTS, UH, LEFT AND RIGHT NOW THE ONLY THING IN THE FUTURE IS POSSIBLY RES STRIPING THAT, CUZ RIGHT NOW IT'S SET UP FOR A LEFT AND A RIGHT OUT CUZ THERE'S NO ROAD ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, BUT IT HAS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TWO LANES, IT HAS SUFFICIENT WIDTH WE FEEL TO, TO THAT SHOULD BE RETRIED I GUESS, UH, IN THE FUTURE.
SO IT'D PROBABLY BE SET UP MUCH SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE SOUTHBOUND APPROACH.
IT WOULD BE A LEFT OUT AND A THROUGH THROUGH RIGHT ON BOTH APPROACHES IS, IS WHAT I WOULD ENVISION WOULD OCCUR APPRECIATE JUST FOR THE COMMISSION.
I WAS THINKING, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TRUCKS GO IN AND OUT OF THERE IN TERMS OF THE CURRENT SHOPS OVER THERE WITH GIANT EVERYTHING ELSE.
IF, IF THAT'S A MAJOR ROUTE FOR LARGER VEHICLES AND WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE IF THAT TURNED INTO AN INTERSECTION, THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON, RIGHT? NO, YEAH, THAT'S A, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I THINK THAT THE WAY WE'VE SEE, THE WAY WE LOOK AT THAT EXISTING PORTION, IT APPEARS TO BE FULLY BUILT OUT AND, AND SHOULDN'T, UH, WE WON'T ANTICIPATE THAT IT CAUSES ANY PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE.
[00:40:01]
WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT.NEXT ONE, UM, WHICH IS MORE OF A CONVERSATION, THERE'S A SUGGESTION THAT THE SIDEWALK SHOULD BE PROVIDED ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
WE NEEDED CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT IS MEANT BY SIDEWALK ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET WHERE, I MEAN, WE'RE AGREEABLE TO INSTALLING SIDEWALK AND CURBING FOR ALL OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE OWN.
UM, BUT IS IT JUST TOLAR, IS THIS A MCMAN COMMENT OR DON'T WORRY.
UH, MCMAN COMMENT, PARAGRAPH 24 AND 25 RELATED TO CURBING.
SO REGARDING, SO FOR 24, SO, SO BOTH SIDES, THE, OR THE ORDINANCE CALLS FOR BOTH SIDES.
SO WE, WE WERE POINTING OUT THAT, BUT I WASN'T SURE WHAT DOES, WHAT DOES BOTH SIDES MEAN? BOTH SIDES WOULD MEAN ON BOTH THE WEST AND THE EASTERN SIDE OF AN OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT OF THE, SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN OFF AN OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT.
SO OUR, NOT JUST OUR SITE, BUT ALSO THE PROPERTY THAT WE DON'T OWN ACROSS THE STREET OPPOSITE THE AUTO ZONE, RIGHT? YEAH, BOTH.
SO YEAH, SO BOTH, THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M, YEAH, WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE EASEMENT, NOT ON THE, NOT ON THE, JUST THE PROPERTY I GUESS TO THE EAST, SO THE, IT WOULD BE BOTH SIDES.
SO YOU KNOW, YOU'D HAVE YOUR AUTO ZONE FRONTAGE AND THEN THE OPPOSITE SIDE BEING WITHIN THAT EASEMENT AREA BEHIND THE CURB.
AND I THINK HE'S SPEAKING OF THIS PART RIGHT HERE.
SO WHERE, IS THAT WHERE THE COURTS AT UPPER PROVIDENCE ARE? NO, THIS IS, THIS IS YOUR PROPERTY HERE, RIGHT? COURT AT UPPER PROVIDENCE IS DOWN HERE ABOUT WHERE THE TABLE IS.
KLINE ROAD IS RIGHT OVER YOUR SHOULDER, WHICH I'M HITTING WITH A LASER AND UM, RIGHT IN HERE ALONG YOUR ENTRANCE DRIVE.
SO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE, OF THE, THE FUTURE ENTRANCE DRIVE FUTURE.
THAT'S OWNED BY THE UPPER PROVIDENCE ASSOCIATES LLC.
UH, THAT'S I THINK WITHIN OUR RIGHT OF WAY.
AND THEN SO IS, SO THAT'S, SO PARAGRAPH 24 IS REFERRING TO THAT STRETCH ALONG FUTURE ROAD.
SO THAT WAS, YEAH, SO SO WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT WAS 25, I BELIEVE, RIGHT? UH, I THOUGHT IT WAS 24 ACTUALLY.
AND THEN WE HAD, UH, SO WE EXPAND THAT I GUESS UPON THOSE IN THE, IN THE TWO BULLET POINTS TO, TO SET IT UP THE WAY WE FELT WOULD MAKE THE MOST SENSE FOR, FOR RIGHT NOW.
SO WE, SO A FOR THE FIRST BULLET POINTS, SORRY, OF 24 SIDEWALK ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF, OF, UH, RIDGE BIKE, UH, AND WE WOULD PROVIDE RAMPS AT BOTH OF THE EGRESS CORNERS, RIGHT TO THE CONNECT OF THE CONNECTOR ROAD WITH A CROSSWALK GOING ACROSS THE ENTRANCE WAY AND IN A LANDING TO THE EAST.
SO WE DON'T EXPECT ANY SIDEWALK TO CONTINUE FURTHER EAST, BUT WE WANNA BUILD THAT CONNECTION.
SO IF WE'RE PROVIDING ON THE FRONTAGE OF THE AUTO ZONE PROPERTY TO THE WEST ALONG RIDGE, UH, COME AROUND TWO RAMPS ON, ON THE ENTRANCE WAY WITH A CROSSING AND THEN SIDEWALK WRAPPING INTO THE SITE AROUND THE, THE RADIUS AND GOING TO THE, SO SO WHEN YOU SAY, SO WHEN THE, WHEN THE, WHEN YOUR COMMENT SAYS BOTH SIDES OF THE STREETS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ENTRANCE TO BOTH SIDES OF THE ENTRANCE INTO AUTOZONE, CORRECT? YEAH, WE, SO WE, WE POINTED THAT NOT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF RIDGE PIKE, NOT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF RIDGE PIKE.
FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THE SIDEWALK AND ADA RAMPS ON THIS SIDE WITHOUT KNOWING THE ULTIMATE CROSS SECTION OF THIS ROADWAY WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? IT, IT, IT PAINS DEVELOPERS.
I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE THAT IF THEY BUILD SOMETHING AND THEN THEY SEE IT TORN UP AND REDONE TWO YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, THEY, THEY GENERALLY DON'T LIKE THAT
SO I'M JUST WONDERING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, DOES IT, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO PUT THAT IN THERE NOW KNOWING THAT WE DON'T KNOW ULTIMATELY WHAT THIS IS GONNA LOOK LIKE WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, UH, FAIR QUESTION.
I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION I GUESS WOULD HAVE TO ULTIMATELY WOULD MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER WE WANNA DEFER THAT, I GUESS.
BUT IN TERMS OF SETTING IT UP, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH, IF IT WERE TO BE DEFERRED, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT SECTION.
UM, SO LONG AS WE WOULD SET UP THE OTHER AREAS THAT, THAT WE NOTED IN THE LETTER.
UM, I, I THINK THESE COMMENTS ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE GEARED TOWARDS THE PRELIMINARY PLAN WHEN YOU GET INTO THE MORE HARDER ENGINEERING SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE ACCOUNTED FOR.
IF IT, IF YOU CHOOSE AT THAT TIME TO ASK FOR A WAIVER, YOU CHOOSE TO ASK FOR A WAIVER, UM, HE WOULD, MCMAHON WOULD THEN WEIGH IN ON THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THAT WAIVER.
SO I THINK TAKE HIS COMMENT AT
[00:45:01]
FACE VALUE FOR, FOR RIGHT NOW.AND IF YOU FEEL WHEN YOU DO PRELIMINARY PLAN ENGINEERING THAT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO ASK FOR A WAIVER.
I THINK SOME OF THAT CROSS SECTION'S GONNA COME UP WHEN YOU SKETCH IN THE FUTURE WIDENING, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THE CROSS SECTION OF THE ROAD WOULD BE.
WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY KNOW THE STACKING DISTANCE IN THE TURN LANE THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED, BUT IT WOULD GIVE YOU A BETTER IDEA FOR PLANNING PURPOSES TO DISCUSS IN THE FUTURE SEEING THIS SKETCH.
SAME WITH RESPECT TO CURBING, SAME AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE CURBING REQUIREMENT IN PARAGRAPH 25 ALSO TALKS ABOUT BOTH SIDES.
YEAH, BOTH SIDES THE SAME, THE SAME REFERENCE.
AND THEN, UM, JUMPING BACK TO THE SIDEWALK, UM, YOUR NEXT BULL, YOUR SECOND BULLET, UH, SPEAKS OF A REQUEST FOR THE APP FOR AUTO ZONE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, DOES ABADA IS, UM, WITH RESPECT TO, I'M, I'M UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THE REQUEST IS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH ONE ARE YOU ON? I'M SORRY.
UM, PARAGRAPH 24, THE SECOND BULLET, UM, THE APPLICANT SHOULD WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, WERE EXPECTED TO INITIATE CONTACT TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF THE COMMUNICATION.
AND SO I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT WHAT, I MEAN WE'LL WILL CURB, I'M SORRY, SIDEWALK AND CURB THE LENGTH OF OUR PROPERTY, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT, THE EXPECTATION IS AS TO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THIS ABANA PROPERTY.
WELL, I GUESS THE, I GUESS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO, WE WERE TRYING TO, WE DON'T LIKE TO LEAVE THE GAPS IN THE SIDEWALK IF WE CAN AVOID THEM.
SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CONTROL YOUR FRONTAGE, UM, BUT IN THE, IN THE EFFORT OF, OF TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN POTENTIALLY MAKE THAT CONNECTION, UM, THAT WAS THE, THE IDEA BEHIND THE COMMENT.
SO CAN WE, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COORDINATE WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO POTENTIALLY EXTEND THE SIDEWALK TO AVOID HAVING ANY GAPS WITHIN THAT WITHIN A NETWORK ALONG THE FRONTAGE AND THEN THE EXISTING NETWORK TO THE WEST? IS THAT GONNA BE AN EXPECTATION FOR US TO SIDEWALK THE, THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE AUTO ZONE PROPERTY AND THE SHOPS AT UPPER PROVIDENCE, THEY'RE ONLY ASKING THAT YOU MAKE AN ATTE TAKE A SHOT AT IT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THEM OBJECTING IN TWO SEPARATE APPEALS.
IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN
SO YOU CAN'T MAKE THE IMPOSSIBLE I'M PREPARED.
I THINK ALL HE'S TRYING TO DO IS SAY, HEY, CAN WE, YOU KNOW, CONNECT IT SO THERE'S NOT THIS BIG GAP, BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT'S UNDERSTOOD AND WE'RE HAPPY TO INITIATE.
I JUST DIDN'T WANT THIS TO BE, UH, A REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND I BELIEVE, I THINK THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT WE, OKAY, SO ON THE, UM, SO, SO WHERE WE ARE, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS IN FRONT OF YOU.
THE TENANT SKETCH PLAN, WHICH WAS PRETTY THOROUGHLY VETTED, WHICH SEEMS TO BE NOT, YOU KNOW, TOO MANY OVERWHELMING ISSUES THERE, GIVEN THE CONVERSATION WITH ANTHONY, IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING'S BEEN SORT OF SORTED THROUGH WITH THOSE LETTERS.
UM, ON THE CONDITIONAL USE, UH, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE STATE LAW YOU DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE SUPERVISORS ON THEIR DECISION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE.
THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT IS THAT IF THERE ARE OBJECTORS, AND I MEAN HERE WE KNOW THERE IS ONE, BUT THIS ISN'T THE HEARING, SO YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THEIR OBJECTIONS ARE.
UH, YOU KNOW, IN A SUMMARY SKETCH WAY, YOU KIND OF DO, BUT THERE MIGHT EVEN BE OTHER PEOPLE WITH OBJECTIONS AND THEY MIGHT BE VALID, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD MIGHT FIND THOSE VALID.
BUT SURE, YOU, YOU, YOU'RE HAND TIED AS FAR AS THE DETAILS OF THOSE OBJECTIONS, YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT IT MORE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF, YOU KNOW, COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE AND, YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS, IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT THE SUPERVISORS LOOK AT IT AND SAY, YEAH, WE DON'T THINK THIS USE IS SIMILAR TO THE OTHER STATED USES IN THE ORDINANCE.
I MEAN, THEY MIGHT MAKE THAT FINDING, UM, BUT YOU DON'T, IT'S VERY HARD FOR YOU TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT WITHOUT REALLY HEARING THE, ALL OF THE NUANCES OF THE TESTIMONY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OTHER USES UNDER THAT ZONING, UH, ORDINANCE IN THE NEARBY.
UH, SO WHEN IS THAT, WHEN IS THAT PROCESS TAKE PLACE? SO THE, THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION HAS TO BE HEARD WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THEM MAKING A REQUEST FOR THE HEARING.
UM, THEN THERE'S A NUMBER OF A LOT OF CONTINUANCES, SO IT'LL BE ADVERTISED AS A REGULAR HEARING, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF, ARE THEY EVEN, WE'VE SCHEDULED IT FOR NOVEMBER 21ST.
SO THE ADSS WILL BE GOING OUT NOW.
SO IT'LL BE ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 21ST.
[00:50:01]
STRIKES YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION EVEN IF YOU THINK THAT THE SUMMARY WAS ENOUGH FOR YOU TO, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE ESPECIALLY TOM, YOU DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR CONCERN, THEIR OBJECTIONS REALLY ARE.I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE OBJECTIONS TO IT.
SO THEY MIGHT HAVE, YOU KNOW, AND I'M NOT, THEY MIGHT HAVE ANY NUMBER OF, UH, REASONS THAT THEY OBJECT TO THE PROPERTY BEING AND AT THAT HEARING, THEY'LL, THEY'LL EXPRESS THOSE.
YES, THEY HAVE TO, IF THEY HAVE ANY CHANCE TO SUCCEED, THAT'S THEIR ONLY OPPORTU.
WE SAY HOPE, HUH? LET'S SAY WE HOPE.
I MEAN, BECAUSE WHAT I HEARD TONIGHT, I DIDN'T, I'M I'M NOT GETTING IT AT THAT POINT, YOU'RE ONLY, YOU'RE NOT GONNA SEE THE ONE OPTION.
WHAT'S IS THE OTHER OPTION YOU'RE GONNA SEE? YOU'RE NOT GONNA SEE THE CONDITIONAL USE AGAIN CUZ IT'S NOT PART OF THE THREE STEP PROCESS.
SO THIS IS YOUR ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE CONDITIONAL USE ASPECT OF IT.
IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? WELL, HERE'S GENERAL COMMENT, BUT WE, WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY WE, UH, ONE WAY OR ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THAT WE, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HON ON A LOT OF, WELL, WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING FOR TONIGHT? WHAT ARE THEY THEY TO SEE? THEY'RE, THEY ARE LOOKING, WELL, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, UM, APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE SKETCH SO THAT IT CAN GET IN LINE FOR PRELIMINARY AND A POSITIVE, I ASSUME RECOMMEND, I WOULD FIND IT UNUSUAL FOR THEM TO ASK FOR A RECOMMENDATION AGAINST THEMSELVES THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE, UH, APPROVAL BE GRANTED.
BUT ARE THEY TWO SEPARATE THINGS? GET YOU DO THE ONE AND NOT THE OTHER BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THE EITHER WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS YET.
BUT WE COULD DO THE ONE WE SAY THE SKETCH PLAN'S GOOD.
YES, YOU CAN, YOU CAN SAY WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE, UH, WITHOUT GETTING TOO FAR INTO IT, IT'S ACTUALLY, IT'S ACTUALLY KIND OF ODD THAT THE MUNICIPALS PLANNING CODE CO ALLOWS YOU TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON A CONDITIONAL USE HEARING BECAUSE A, NOBODY HAS HEARD THE, YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THE SAME TESTIMONY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR B WHEN THEY'RE DOING CONDITIONAL USE, THEY'RE SITTING IN, IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY, LIKE THE ZONING HEARING BOARD.
AND SO IF YOU'RE, THEY'RE, YOU'RE, THEY'RE SITTING AS A COURT AND YOU DON'T USUALLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COURT ON HOW TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE.
SO IN THAT SENSE, A A LOT OF PLACES DON'T EVEN BOTHER HAVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON CONDITIONAL USE HEARINGS FOR THAT REASON, EVEN THOUGH BY LAW YOU CAN, SO YOU'RE SEEING IT AS AN EXAMPLE RIGHT HERE NOW WHY IT'S HARD FOR YOU TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION THAT YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THE EVIDENCE ON.
SO IT'S SO, SO WHAT I'M SAYING, YOU COULD SAY WE'RE GOOD WITH THE TENTATIVE SKETCH, MOVE A FORWARD DE THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
CAN WE, CAN WE SAY WE LIKE THECA AS FAR AS AN ANTHONY'S, YOU KNOW, PROPOSAL, THE ROADS AND ALL THAT, WE'RE FINE WITH THAT.
BUT WE CAN'T GIVE THE CONDITIONER USE, UH, APPROVAL TO THE COMMISSIONERS UNTIL WE HEAR ALL THE DETAILS, WHICH YOU WON'T.
SO HE IS REALLY, BECAUSE IT'S DETAIL SPECIFIC AND YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE OBJECTORS THEN I THINK YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE WOULD BE YOU'RE NOT MAKING, SO THEY COME BACK FOR THEIR FINAL THAT WILL BE SEVENTH.
WE WON'T, WE CAN'T HEAR THOSE DETAILS THEN.
NO, WE WILL, THEY WILL COME BACK FOR PRELIMINARY AND, AND FINAL, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT, THE CONDITIONAL USE IS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT'S GONNA BE DECIDED OUTSIDE OF ANY, POSSIBLY DECIDED OUTSIDE OF ANY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY OR MAY NOT GIVE.
THE CONDITIONAL USE IS, IS UM, IS A ZONING APPROVAL.
IT'S JUST LIKE WHEN YOU'RE WAITING FOR AN APPLICANT TO GET ZB APPROVAL ON SOMETHING, IT'S JUST ANOTHER ZONING APPROVAL FROM YOUR CHAIR.
SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT YOU'RE ON, YOU'RE ON, I GUESS THIS WHOLE PROBLEM WOULD GO AWAY IF, IF YOU WOULD DESIGN THE INTERSECTION FOR THE FUTURE, BUT BUILD THE CURRENT NEEDS, YOUR CURRENT NEEDS.
UM, AND, AND THAT, THAT MAY NOT BE AS EASY AS IT SOUNDS, BUT, WELL, IT DOESN'T, I DON'T, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH YOU BOB CUZ SOUNDS LIKE THE ISSUES AROUND THE PARKING, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT HAS TO BE SETTLED WITH THE ZONING BOARD IS THE, IS THE PARK MM-HMM.
SO, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY THE DESIGN OF THE ENTRANCE OR THE EXIT.
IT'S SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT AT THIS POINT AS IT'S PRESENTED, AS IT'S PRESENTED THAT THEY'RE GONNA SKETCH SOMETHING FOR YOU.
UH, SO YEAH, BUT IT'S REALLY AROUND THE PARKING, WHICH WE CAN'T MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GONNA END UP BEING.
THE PARKING ISSUE HAS SOMEWHAT BEEN DECIDED BECAUSE THE ZONING HEARING BOARD WEIGHED IN ON GRANTING THAT VARIANCE.
THE QUESTION ABOUT THE PARKING AND THE PROCEDURE OF IT IS UP TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEASE BECAUSE MR. DOWNS HAS ON, ON BEHALF OR ON HAS APPEALED THAT DECISION.
THAT'S OUT OF OUR HANDS COMPLETELY.
THAT PARKING NUMBER WILL BE DECIDED BY SOMEONE ELSE COMPLETELY.
NOT EVEN OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
[00:55:01]
THAT WILL BE DETERMINED COMPLETELY SEPARATELY.THE QUESTION HERE IS IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE LETTERS FOR THE TENTATIVE SKETCH AND COMFORTABLE WITH THE LETTERS FOR SOMEWHAT THE CONDITIONAL USE, IF YOU WANNA MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION MOVING FORWARD, THE PARKING ISSUE IS GENERALLY BEEN DECIDED.
BUT WELL, WELL, AND AND HIS ARGUMENT MR. DOWNS' ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PROCEDURE IS JUST HIS ARGUMENT.
WE DON'T GET THE WAY IN ON THAT AT ALL.
BUT DO WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FINAL OUTCOME IS TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION? WELL, THAT'S UP TO YOU, BUT, WELL, THAT'S A RHETORICAL QUESTION.
THAT'S, I'M THINKING WHAT YOU, WHEN YOU GO TO GET FINAL TO HAVE TO GET FINAL, ALL ZONING ISSUES HAVE TO BE RESOLVED.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER WILL BE.
THE COURT WILL DECIDE WHAT THE NUMBER WILL BE, WHATEVER.
BUT ONE WAY OR IF, IF THE, DEPENDING ON HOW THE COURT DECIDES, IF SOME NUMBER WILL BE BROUGHT BACK THAT EITHER IS OR ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO GET FINAL APPROVAL.
AND THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING THAT MIGHT CHANGE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS IF THEY HAVE TO PUT IN MORE OR LESS PARKING SPACES.
THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU WILL CHANGE BASED ON THAT DECISION.
I'M, I UNDERSTAND THAT MM-HMM.
NO, WE JUST NO, IN THE CONDITIONAL USE.
YOU, YOU CAN, YOUR CHOICES, YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION NOW, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
SO I'M SAYING I WOULDN'T SAY IT AS YOU'RE SAYING.
ONE OPTION IS TO SAY WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION BASED ON THE COMPLAIN, THE OBJECTIONS THAT WERE VOICED IN A SUMMARY WAY, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
OKAY, THEN THAT WOULD BE FINE.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT'S WHERE I, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.
NOW THE REST OF THE BOARD HAS TO TELL ME WHAT THEY THINK.
WHY DON'T WE DO THE ONE AT A TIME.
AND WE'LL START WITH THE FIRST, THEN I NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE SKETCH AND THE, UH, TRAFFIC LETTERS AND, AND, AND JEN'S LETTERS AND ALL THE LETTERS, UH, AS APPROVAL OR, OR, OR WHATEVER.
WE NEED A REC, WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PLAN WITH THE ADDITION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE TONIGHT BY THE BOARD, UM, AND THE VERBAL AMENDMENTS TO THE, TO THE REVIEW LETTERS AND THE LETTERS AND THE VERBAL, UH, COMMENTS TO THE REVIEW.
SO THAT MOTION IS THAT WE APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PLAY AND SKETCH WE'VE SEEN TONIGHT.
AND UM, AND THAT WOULD BE WHERE, WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
SO I NEED A SECOND TO THAT IF, AND IF EVERYBODY ELSE OR ANYBODY ELSE THINKS THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT, WE'RE NOT SURE YET.
SO NOW WE GOT A FIRST AND A SECOND TO APPROVE JUST THE TENTATIVE PLAN AND THE, UH, LETTERS AND THE TRAFFIC AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
UM, THE AMENITIES AND ALL THAT'S GONNA BE WORKED OUT.
UM, SO WE GOT THAT A FIRST AND A SECOND.
WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? THEN I'LL TAKE A VOTE.
OPPOSED? SOUNDS LIKE UNANIMOUS.
WE HAVE A DISCUSSION JUST TO SAY AMONGST OURSELVES.
I DO THINK WE NEED MORE INFORMATION.
AND I THINK IT WOULD RIDICULOUSLY RIDICULOUS FOR US TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
HOW DO YOU GUYS FEEL? WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT CONDITIONAL USES IS UNDER APPEAL ALSO.
IT WILL BE MAKE ANY SENSE FOR, SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MOVE ON IT AT ALL.
I'M NOT CERTAINLY NOT OPPOSED TO IT, BUT I'LL SAY NOT FOR IT.
SO AT THIS POINT, WE ALL AGREE THAT WE UH, NOT GOING TO TAKE A ACTION ON THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE SUPERVISORS.
IS THAT WHAT I'M HERE? EVERYBODY AGREE WITH THAT? YES.
HOW DOES THAT, THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DID? OKAY.
AND I, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOUR ATTORNEY SUGGESTED THAT YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S, I I QUESTION THE MPC AND WHY THEY, THEY MAKE THIS SUGGESTION THAT A PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWS SOMETHING WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO REVIEW.
I MEAN, I MEAN, YEAH, THAT'S FOR SURE.
SO, SO YOU GOT THE TENTATIVE APPROVAL FOR THE SKETCH AND THE, ALL THE LETTERS AND ALL THAT BASED ON, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO TALK WITH ANTHONY ON, YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE OTHER CURBING ON THE OTHER SIDE AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
[01:00:01]
BUT, UH, BUT WE'RE JUST GONNA HOLD OFF RECOMMENDING ANYTHING TO THE SUPERVISORS UNTIL, UH, FUTURE.YOU, YOU, YOU JUST TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT I, WHAT I THINK YOU'RE AGREEING TO, YOU'RE NOT HOLDING OFF ON A RECOMMENDATION TO THE FUTURE.
YOU'RE NOT, YOU ARE TELLING THEM THAT YOU'RE UNABLE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AGAIN, EXCUSE ME, FOR MY SEMANTICS.
I'M, WE'RE NOT MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE SUPERVISOR.
I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE DISAPPROVING IT OR APPROVING IT.
AND, AND I THINK YOU HAD EVERYBODY'S VERBAL AGREEMENT ON THAT, BUT IT WASN'T, NOBODY MADE A MOTION.
OH, YOU DO THE FORM OF A MOTION.
OKAY, THEN I'LL NEED A MOTION NOT TO, UH, UM, SEND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE SUPERVISOR SO I GET A FIRST.
THAT WAS PRETTY COMPLICATED FOR I DIDN'T, I THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA BE REALLY EASY.
I THOUGHT THIS WAS GONNA BE A, I REALLY DID.
I THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA BE LIKE OPEN DOOR SHUT THAT, YOU KNOW, PHIL'S, PHIL'S HAD ALREADY HIT FOUR HOME RUNS.
[DISCUSSION: FUTURE AGENDA]
PLANNING COMMISSIONS.FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSIONS, UH, NOVEMBER 16TH WE ARE DISCUSSING ONE 11 EAST LINFIELD TRAP ROAD, A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION.
UM, THEY'VE CLEANED UP THEIR PLANS A LITTLE BIT, ANSWERED SOME OF OUR QUESTIONS.
UM, SO HOPEFULLY, WELL, HOPEFULLY THEY'VE CLEAN UP THEIR PLANS AND ANSWERED THEIR QUESTIONS.
IF THEY HAVEN'T, WE MAY HAVE TO PULL THAT AGENDA, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL TALK INTERNALLY ABOUT THAT.
UM, AND THEN DECEMBER 7TH, WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING PARKHOUSE OR WE ARE.
SO THEY'VE MOVED, THEY, CUZ ORIGINALLY YOU SAID 16TH, RIGHT? AS OF THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND IT WASN'T REFLECTED IN THE AGENDA BECAUSE I CAN'T CHANGE THE AGENDA WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
THEY DID REQUEST TO BE MOVED TO THE SEVENTH.
LIKE WITH ANY OTHER APPLICANT.
I WILL, IF THEY REQUEST A DATE, I'LL MOVE THEM.
SHAPIRO, I DON'T CARE WHY THEY ASK IF THEY WANNA BE ON A CERTAIN DATE.
IF I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CONFLICT AND I DON'T HAVE A LOT ON THE AGENDA, SURE, I WILL MOVE THEM.
I JUST, I'M JUST SAYING THEY, THEY REQUESTED TO MOVE.
SHAPIRO, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
AND, AND I'VE BEEN TELLING APPLICANTS AS THEY'VE BEEN COMING UP THAT DECEMBER 21ST IS PROBABLY NOT.
SHOULD JUST WRITE, GONNA BE A MEETING.
UM, IF YOU WANNA MAKE MY LIFE A LITTLE BIT EASIER AND WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO CANCEL THAT MEETING NOW.
SOMEBODY WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO CANCEL THE DECEMBER 21ST? YOU CAN DO DO THAT.
SO WE HAD A MOTION TO, UH, BOB IS SECONDED IT.
SO I THINK WE'RE ALL THAT'S DONE, JEFF.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IF PARKHOUSE SAYS AGAIN THEY'LL MOVE IT TILL NEXT YEAR? WELL, YEAH, I MEAN I, IF PARKHOUSE HAS, IF IF THAT MEETING, WHICH WE SOMEWHAT EXPECT IF THAT MEETING IS SO EXTENSIVE, WE'LL EITHER, I THINK HONESTLY THAT WE SHOULD TALK INTERNALLY ABOUT SETTING A TIME LIMIT FOR THAT MEETING.
I KNOW LIKE THE ZONING HEARING BOARD SAYS THAT THEY WON'T GO PAST 10 O'CLOCK.
UM, I, I THINK WE SHOULD DETERMINE INTERNALLY IF WE WANT TO SET A TIME LIMIT FOR THAT MEETING AND SAY WE WON'T BE TAKING ANY COMMENTS OR ANY QUESTIONS AFTER 10 O'CLOCK OR WHATEVER TIME.
AND I CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT OFF.
WELL, THE ONLY THING, THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THAT IS THAT IF, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL ANTICIPATING THIS TO BE FULL, IF WE DON'T ALLOW EVERYBODY TO COMMENT THAT ONCE THE COMMENT, THEN WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA BE ACCUSED OF, YOU KNOW.
WELL, NO, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD, WE WOULD MOVE THEM TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE DATE, WHICH WOULD BE THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY.
WHICH IS YOU MEAN LIKE A CONTINUANCE? YEAH, WE WOULD, AND IT, IT'S NOT A FORMAL HEARING, SO IT'S NOT REALLY A CONTINUANCE.
WE WOULD JUST SAY WE'RE NOT TAKE, WE'VE DECIDED WE'RE NOT HAVING THE MEETING ON THE 21ST.
WE'RE MOVING, WE WILL, THEY WILL BE BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR JANUARY 4TH.
WE WILL HAVE A QUICK, QUICK REORGANIZATION MEETING INTERNALLY AND THEN WE WILL ALLOW THE NEXT PERSON.
AND I, I THINK YOU AND I SHOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION SOMETIME OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS ABOUT HOW WE CAN RUN A MEETING LIKE THAT SO THAT IT FORMALIZES THE, THE COMMENT PROCESS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST LETTING PEOPLE JUST COME UP AND COME UP AND COME UP.
I MEAN, THERE'S WAYS YOU CAN RUN THE MEETING.
BUT, AND JOE, YOU AND YOU CAN HELP ME OUT WITH THIS, WHERE WE CAN HAVE PEOPLE SIGN UP AND GO WITH A SPECIFIC LIST OF, OKAY, MR. JONES, YOU'RE NEXT.
AND, AND SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THE COMMENTS IN AN ORGANIZED FASHION SO WE'RE NOT GOING COMPLETELY.
AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, JEFF.
IF IT WORKED, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WILL WORK.
BUT IF YOU GUYS HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THAT, ONLY THING I DON'T WANNA SEE HAPPEN IS IF PEOPLE START ACCUSING US OF NOT ALLOWING THEM TO NO.
AND THAT IT WOULDN'T LIMIT PEOPLE COMMENTING.
IT WAS JUST, IT WOULD JUST ORGANIZE THE COMMENTS A LITTLE BIT MORE SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THE PROCESS MOVING IN A RELATIVELY SANE MANNER.
SO MAYBE YOU, JOE, AND I CAN SIT DOWN OVER THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS AND AND, AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT PROCESS IS.
FORMALIZE IT AND WE'LL PUT IT ON THE AGENDA SAYING WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A PROCESS BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE.
HERE'S THE PROCESS WE'RE GONNA STICK TO.
SO PEOPLE SEE THAT BEFOREHAND.
DID THEY HAVE A TENTATIVE DATE WITH NO, THEY
[01:05:01]
HAVE NOTHING AND I, I HAVEN'T EVEN AGREED TO A CERTAIN TIME CUZ WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THESE MEETINGS ARE GONNA TAKE OR WHAT THE RESULTS OF THESE MEETINGS ARE GONNA BE.AND DECEMBER 7TH, YOU THINK, I MEAN, AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION YOU CAN'T ANSWER, BUT DO YOU THINK THAT'S A GOOD DATE OR YOU THINK THEY'RE GONNA COME BACK AGAIN AND, AND SAY, I I THINK THEY'RE GONNA, UM, I THINK THEY'RE GONNA, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA MOVE FROM THAT DATE.
NO, I DO NOT THINK THEY'RE GONNA MOVE FROM THAT DATE, THE CAMERA.
SO, BUT IT'S PEARL HARBOR DAY.
JUST, I KNOW IT'S A DAY THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY, HOPEFULLY ONLY FOR THAT REASON, NOT FOR ANY OTHER.
AND THEN BEHIND, UM, MR. NOLA HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT WE HAVE A, AN ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SCHEDULED FOR THE 16TH.
THAT AGENDA WILL BE COMING OUT RELATIVELY SOON.
AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE CHAIR FOR BEING RUDE AND INAPPROPRIATE, BUT IT'S A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
WELL, EXCEPT FOR THE CHAIR DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN.