May 17, 2022 Planning Commission

[00:00:02]

AND I WILL CALL TO ORDER THE TUESDAY, MAY 17TH, 2022 MEETING OF THE EDMUND PLANNING

[1. Call to Order:]

UH, FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MAY 3RD, COMMON 2022.

[2. Approval of Minutes: May 3, 2022]

UH, THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONTINUANCE DOCKET, UH, ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA,

[3. Continuance Docket: (Items on the continuance docket will be voted on as a group, unless members of the commission or the public request individual action on an item).]

[h. Public Hearing and Consideration of amendments to the City of Edmond’s Comprehensive Plan, The Edmond Plan, 2018]

PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION SITE PLAN FOR PUPPY PAWS.

UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JAMES SEVENTH, UH, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CASE NUMBER PR 22 DASH 0 0 0 0 3.

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR FINAL PLAT, A PUPPY PAWS.

AGAIN, CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 7TH, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, UH, CASE NUMBER PR 22 DASH 0 0 0 9 AND PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT PER SILVERLEAF BUSINESS PARK AGAIN, UH, JUNE 7TH, 2022, CASE NUMBER PR 22 DASH 0 0 0 1 OH PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR SILVER LEAF BUSINESS PARK.

AGAIN, CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 7TH, 2022 MEETING CASE NUMBER PR 21 DASH 0 0 0 4 8.

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 33 FIELDS LOCATED SOUTH OF 33RD STREET IN WEST OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD.

AGAIN, THE APPLICANT REQUESTING THAT, THAT BE CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 7TH, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND THEN A COMPANY THAT, UH, WE WOULD ALSO LOOK AT ITEM FIVE AND H FROM THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

UH, AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 7TH, 2020 TO, UH, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

IS THERE ANYONE THAT HAS ANY OBJECTION TO THOSE ITEMS BEING HEARD ALTOGETHER? IF NOT, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CONTINUE ALL OF THOSE ITEMS TO JUNE 7TH, 2022, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND, UH, BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO ITEMS, THREE A THROUGH E AND ITEM FIVE H ARE ALL CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 7TH, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, EXCUSE ME.

UH, THAT BRINGS US TO THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT

[4. Public Hearing - Consent Docket: (Items on the consent docket are recommended for approval by the Staff and will be voted on as a group, unless members of the commission or the public request individual action on an item).]

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR AN EASEMENT CLOSING FOR 7 0 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY LOCATED ON SEVENTH AND UNIVERSITY CIRCLE.

KEN DOPKINS IS THE APPLICANT CASE NUMBER E S 22 DASH 0 0 0 0 FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN EASEMENT CLOSING FOR A UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED AT 7 1 6 PINE OF DR.

WALTER.

HER SICK HORN IS THE APPLICANT CASE NUMBER THE D 22 DASH 0 0 0 0 6, PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR A LOT SPLIT FOR 29 0 1 NORTH POST ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POST.

AND COBELL LIFETIME HOMES IS THE APPLICANT AND CASE NUMBER PR 19 DASH 0 0 0 24.

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE OKLAHOMA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATED EAST OF I 35 SOUTH SECOND STREET, OKLAHOMA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AS THE APPLICANT.

UH, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT OBJECT TO ANY OF THOSE ITEMS BEING HEARD ON THE CONSENT DOCKET ALL AT ONCE, SAY NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT WANT ANYTHING TO BE HEARD ON THOSE INDIVIDUALLY? IF NOT, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT DOCKET FOR ITEMS FOR A B, C, AND D SECOND? UH, THOSE ITEMS ARE APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO, UH, ITEMS FOR A CASE NUMBER 22 DASH 0 0 0 0 3.

[00:05:01]

WE'LL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE JULY 13TH, 2022 DOCKET, UH, ITEMS FOUR C AND FOUR D ARE DONE HERE.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM FIVE A ON THE PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION

[a. Case #SP22-00011 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Site Plan application for Edmond Storage, located at 4620 North Boulevard. (4260 N Boulevard Industrial, LLC)]

INDUSTRIAL LLC IS THE APPLICANT, MR. M'S.

UH, THE AFRICAN IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN WITH TWO BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COFFEE CREEK ROAD, JUST EAST OF BOULEVARD, AREA OUTLINED IN YELLOW.

UH, THE SITE IS ZONED F1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND THE BUILDINGS WILL BE FOR INDUSTRIAL OFFICE AND STORAGE USES.

THE NORTH BUILDING IS 15,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE SOUTH IS ABOUT 18,500 SQUARE FEET.

UH, BOTH BUILDINGS HAVE METAL SIDING WITH BRICK VENEER ON THE WEST SIDE FACING BOULEVARD.

AS THE SITE PLAN ALSO INCLUDES A PARKING LOT WITH 41 SPACES IN ONE ACCESS ON THE BOULEVARD, UH, THAT CAN, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LANDSCAPING.

UH, WHILE THERE ARE THE CORRECT NUMBER OF PLANNING UNITS BEING PROVIDED THE LAYOUT AND USE OF THE OVERHEAD DOORS ON THE BUILDING MADE THE PROVISION OF TERMINAL PARKING ISLANDS, UH, DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE LANDSCAPING.

THANK YOU, MR. S UH, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THEY MET THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PLANT UNITS THEY NEED, BUT THEY COULDN'T DO THE TERMINAL ISLANDS BECAUSE OF THE OVERHEAD DOORS ON THE BUILDINGS SO THAT THE TERMINAL ISLANDS WOULD ACTUALLY BE IN THE WAY OF THAT DOOR.

GOTCHA.

THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING? UH, PATRICK GOLDEN DOOR FOUR 10 NORTH WALNUT, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, WITH A BALL'S DESIGN COLLECTIVE ON THE CIVIL CONSULTANT HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER.

SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

OKAY.

UH, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, SEEING NO QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND SAYS NO MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PROJECT.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM FIVE, A MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND AND ITEM FIVE A IS CONTINUED BY ABOUT A FOUR TO ZERO.

AND THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE AT THE CITY COUNCIL, NOT ON JULY 13TH, BUT ON JUNE THE 13TH, UH, 2022.

AND THAT BRINGS US BACK FOR JUST A MOMENT.

TWO ITEMS, FOUR A AND FOUR B I MISTAKENLY STATED THEY WOULD BE HEARD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON JULY THE 13TH.

THAT'S ACTUALLY JUNE THE 13TH, BUT ANYBODY SLIPPED DOWN THEY'RE INCONVENIENCED.

I APOLOGIZE, UH, BRINGS US TO ITEM FIVE B CASE NUMBER SP 22 DASH

[b. Case #SP22-00012 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Site Plan for Service Blake Soccer Complex, located southwest of Danforth and Kelly. (City of Edmond)]

THE CITY OF EDMOND IS THE APPLICANT.

MR. ANTS, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE PRESENT THIS.

OKAY.

UH, THE CITY IS IN THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING AND WE'LL BE RENOVATING THE SOCCER FIELD COMPLEX, UH, SPECIFICALLY UPGRADING THE EXISTING, WHICH INCLUDES THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN CONCESSIONS AND THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING.

UH, THE BULK OF THE SITE WILL REMAIN THE SAME WITH NO NEW FIELDS ADDED.

AND THE AMOUNT OF PAVING FOR PARKING WILL BE THE SAME, BUT SOME MAY BE RESTRIPED TO ADD FOR HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE SPACES, UH, EXISTING LIGHTING, AND THE ACCESS BOTH STAY THE SAME.

UH, THE BUILDINGS WILL BE UPGRADED AND WE'LL HAVE A BRICK AND STONE, UH, WITH AN EARTH TONE VENEER ON ALL SIDES WITH A METAL ROOF.

UH, THE CONCESSION BUILDINGS WILL BE BETWEEN 14 AND 17 FEET TALL, AND THE MAINTENANCE STRUCTURE WILL BE CLOSER TO 20 FEET IN HEIGHT.

UH, THE CONCESSION BUILDINGS WILL HAVE A ROOF SIGN, UH, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE ORDINANCE.

UH, VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED TO ALLOW THIS.

I THINK WE HAVEN'T YET.

THAT'S THE IMAGE OF IT THERE.

SO ANY SIGN ABOVE THE ROOF LINE REQUIRES A VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIGN.

DO YOU HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME? DO WE HAVE ANY TIMING ON THIS PROJECT? I KNOW IT'S BEEN WORKED FOR A WHILE.

IF THERE WAS ANY WRAPPING UP PLANS

[00:10:01]

IT WILL BE AT THE JUNE 13TH MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT BRINGS US TO CASE NUMBER PR 22 DASH 0 0 0 1 7

[c. Case #PR22-00017 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Final Plat of Oklahoma Christian School, located east of I-35, south of 2nd street. (Oklahoma Christian School)]

OKAY.

UH, REAL QUICKLY TO AFRICANS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE OCS CAMPUS EAST OF SOUTH, THE SECOND STREET, UH, THE PLANT DOES CONFORM TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WAS JUST EXTENDED, UH, ON THE CONSENT DOCKET, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

WHAT THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING? THE APPLICANT PRESENT, MR. ANOMALY, IF THERE'S NOT ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN MOVE.

OKAY.

UM, SEEN AS WE HAVE NO OBJECTIONS, I GUESS, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR, AGAINST THIS, OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME IN REGARD TO THIS PROJECT, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

IF NOT, DO WE HEAR A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

SECOND ANONYMOUS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO THAT WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE THE 13TH, THAT BRINGS THIS TO CASE NUMBER SP 22 DASH 0 0 0 1 5

[d. Case #SP22-00015 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Site Plan application for a storage building at Peace Lutheran Church, located at 2600 East Danforth Road. (Peace Lutheran Church)]

THE APPLICANT IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD IDEA IF I'D ASKED THAT THE LAST HITTING MR. LYONS, PLEASE.

OKAY.

AND APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN.

THIS HAS A 1500 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE SHED.

THE SHED WILL GO IN THIS LOCATION RIGHT HERE.

UM, THIS REQUIRES A SITE PLAN APPROVAL SINCE IT IS A NEW BUILDING AND NOT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING CHURCH.

THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS BEING DEMOLISHED AND THE NEW BUILDING WILL TAKE ITS PLACE.

UH, THE BUILDING WILL BE 14 FEET TALL ON THE INNER LIGHT SETS TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE SITE, ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY.

UH, THE SITE PLAN STATES THAT THE BUILDING WILL BE METAL, WHICH IS A VARIANCE, UH, TO THE BUILDING MATERIALS.

UH, THERE'S ALSO A LANDSCAPING VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED TO THE ORDINANCE, UH, TO THE ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THE ENTIRE SITE.

WE BROUGHT UP TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS.

UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE PARENTS IS, AND TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IF NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING FURTHER.

DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR, OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, SO THE VARIANTS TO DO LANDSCAPING, IF WE WERE NOT JUST DOING IT, HAS THEY HAVE TO DO A THING TO UPDATE ALL OF THAT, RIGHT.

IT'S ACTUALLY A SAD IF THEY, IF WE DON'T MAKE IT RIGHT, RIGHT.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO UPDATE THE WHOLE SITE, WHICH, I MEAN, THIS HAS BEEN AN EXISTING SITE.

THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR SEVERAL, SEVERAL YEARS.

RIGHT.

AND THAT KINDS OF THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE THOUGH, YEAH.

BACK AND FORTH ON THAT.

SOMETIMES THE VARIANCES ARE APPROVED SOMETIMES NOT.

I MEAN, THIS IS A PRETTY MINOR BUILDING THAT THEY'RE PUTTING ON THERE.

IF IT WERE A LARGER ADDITION TO THE CHURCH, I WOULD PROBABLY BE LESS RECEPTIVE OF THAT.

THEY'RE TOTALLY UP TO YOU.

AND WHAT I MEAN? SO IT'S A PRETTY SIMILAR STRUCTURE, I, THAT BULLDOZERS, BUT IN THE NEW ONE UP FOR MAINTENANCE SHED, I ASSUME, CAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE OCCUPIED.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

IT'S A STORAGE SHED.

IT IS LARGER THAN THE CURRENT BUILDING.

THAT'S OUT THERE TODAY.

SHIRT.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION WE CAN'T, I MEAN, WE CAN JUST RECOMMEND THAT LANDSCAPING BE PUT UP.

I MEAN, I WOULD PREFER THAT, UH, THAT SOME, SOME TYPE OF LANDSCAPING BE, UH, BE INSTALLED THERE.

[00:15:01]

AND I WAS HOPING THAT MAYBE THERE, THE APPLICANT COULD, UH, ADD SOME LANDSCAPING AT LEAST.

WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE? I DON'T KNOW.

I HAVE NO AMOUNT.

I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER IF THERE WAS SOME LANDSCAPING.

IS THERE ANY PLANS TO HAVE ANY LANDSCAPING? HOW OLD IS NINA? DO YOU, DO YOU, I MEAN, WHEN, WHEN THIS SITE PLAN ORIGINALLY APPROVED, I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING THE EIGHTIES, THE SEVENTIES, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY GUESS.

I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE.

YEAH.

OKAY.

THE, THE FACILITY HAS BEEN OUT THERE FOR A, AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER BEING HERE IN EDMOND.

AND AGAIN, UH, WHAT MR. HENSON INDICATED IS, UH, TYPICALLY I BELIEVE IF THEY WERE COMING IN AND DOING A MAJOR RENOVATION, MAJOR CHANGE, MAJOR ADDITION, THEN THE CITY WOULD, IN MOST CASES REQUIRE THEM TO BRING ALL THE LANDSCAPING COMPLIANT HERE.

IT'S A, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PHYSICALLY LOOK, BUT WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO IS REMOVE A COUPLE OF BUILDINGS THAT I DON'T WANT TO SAY DILAPIDATED, BUT, UH, BASICALLY SOME BUILDINGS THAT ARE SORELY NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH WHAT WILL PERCEIVABLY IN MY MIND BE A BETTER STRUCTURE.

UH, SO I THINK IT WILL BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE AREA, BUT MY, YOU KNOW, MY COMMON WOULD BE, I, WHILE I DON'T LIKE THE VARIANCES, MY GUESS IS PROBABLY LESS THAN 5% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ENTIRE BUILD.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN OCCUPIED.

I MEAN, AND IT'S AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY TO AN EXTENT.

SO I THINK THOSE ARE FACTORS THAT THE STAFF LOOKED AT AS WELL.

AND ALSO, I THINK THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT, WELL, SHOULD THEY EVEN HAVE TO HAVE THE SITE PLAN JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO WITH TWICE A BUILDING AND SLEPT.

SO THOSE ARE FACTORS WE DISCUSSED AS A STAFF, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME OR COMMENTS, IF NOT, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM FIVE D SECOND, THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO.

IT WILL APPEAR BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE THE 13TH.

THANK YOU.

BRINGS THIS TO CASE NUMBER PR 22 DASH 0 0 0 1 6,

[e. Case #PR22-00016 Public Hearing and Consideration of the Final Plat for Promontory Ridge, located on the east side of Sooner Road, south of Sorghum Mill Road. (Sooner Creek, LLC) ]

THE PLANT HAS 20 LOTS ON 50 ACRES.

UH, THE PLAT ALSO SHOWS A 35 FOOT BUFFER ON THE NORTH AND A 30 FOOT BUFFER ON THE SOUTH, WHICH WAS AGREED TO AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, UH, AND ALL THE OTHER WAYS.

THE PLAQUE CONFORMS TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

UH, DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAPPENED TO QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME? AND I BELIEVE ONE THING WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE MEETING LAST TIME WAS THAT THE DECLARATIONS WOULD HAVE, OR THAT WOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF TEETH INTO IT.

IF THAT BUFFER WAS VIOLATED, HAVE WE AS STAFF, SORRY, GO FOR A BARGAIN.

NO, THANK YOU.

MARCUS.

IT'S AL JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES.

WHEN HE SHARED AN AVENUE, UH, AS, AS OF TODAY, THEY'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH CRAFTING THOSE, BUT THEY ARE PUTTING THAT IN AND WHEN THOSE ARE DONE, I WILL HAPPILY PROVIDE THOSE TO STAFF AND COME BACK WITH AN UPDATE.

THANK YOU.

AND DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT SEEING NONE? DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO ITEM FIVE, A THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC ON THAT? CAUSE WE HAD SEVERAL COMPLAINTS LAST TIME, SO I APPRECIATE THAT AND SEEN NOTHING FURTHER.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM FIVE, A I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THAT AUTUMN IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO.

IT WILL GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE THE 13TH BRINGS US YOU'RE VERY WELCOME.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM FIVE F

[f. Case #PR22-00014 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Final Plat of Wimbledon Parke, located south of W Edmond & Wimbledon. (Ponderosa Construction LLC)]

AND WIMBLETON, UH, PONDEROSA CONSTRUCTION

[00:20:01]

MR. MASSEY IS HERE.

UH, IF YOU WILL PLEASE BRING THAT OUT INTO OUR ATTENTION, MR. ANTS.

OKAY.

APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT OF WIMBLEDON PARK, WHICH IS LOCATED SOUTH OF EDMUND ROAD AND WEST OF FRETS.

UH, THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PLAT AND CONTAINS, UH, 35 LOTS ON FIVE ACRES.

UH, THERE WAS ONE VARIOUS LISTED IN THE MEMO, BUT THE AFRICANS ENGINEER HAS SINCE CORRECTED THAT AND THAT VARIANCE IS NO LONGER REQUIRED.

UH, OTHER THAN THAT, THE PLAQUE CONFORMS TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

DO ANY MEMBERS OF COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION TO MR. ANS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? SO I KNOW WE RECEIVED THE EMAIL, BUT THAT IS NOW NO LONGER A PROBLEM WITH WATERLINE THAT'S PERFECT.

THANK YOU.

AND WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, I GREATLY APPRECIATE YOU ALL WORKING OUT THAT ISSUE ON THE WATERLINE BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE HATED TO HAVE TO VOTE NO FOR YOUR PROJECT TONIGHT.

UH, ANY MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT HAVE ANYTHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO SAY EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BY PLANNING COMMISSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM FIVE F SECOND ITEM FIVE F IS APPROVED WITH A RESOUNDING FOUR TO ZERO.

IT WILL BE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE THE 13TH, EXCUSE ME, BRINGS US

[g. Case #SP21-00032 Public Hearing and Consideration for an amendment to the Site Plan application for Smile Arts Dental Clinic, located on the northeast corner of Memorial Road and Jordan Avenue. (DBG Construction)]

DBG CONSTRUCTION IS THE APPLICANT AS THE APPLICANT PRESENT, MR. N'S, AS YOU SAID, THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MEMORIAL AND JORDAN AVENUE, A SITE PLAN FOR SMILE ARTS, AND THEN OVER THE RECENTLY APPROVED ON MARCH 28TH.

UH, SINCE THAT APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT CAME FORWARD WITH NEW ELEVATIONS FOR BUILDINGS, WHICH IS TECHNICALLY AN AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN, WHICH IS WHY IT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.

UH, THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE PLAN ON THE PARKING, THE LAYOUT DRAINAGE, ET CETERA, ALL REMAINS AS IT WAS.

UH, THE BUILDINGS WERE ORIGINALLY SHOWN WITH PITCH STYLE RUSE WITH LIGHT COLORED MATERIALS.

UH, THE NEW ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN AS A FLAT ROOF WITH PARAPET WALLS, UH, WITH A LITTLE BIT DARKER MATERIAL.

AND THE TWO SETS OF ELEVATIONS WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

AND CHRIS HAS ALSO SHOWN THEM THE FIFTH STEP.

JUST WANTED TO BRING HIM IN FRONT OF YOU.

SO YOU COULD AMEND THE SITE PLAN DESIGN.

YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THE CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME, HAVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ONE LOOKING MUCH MORE RESIDENTIAL THAN THE OTHER IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

UH, THERE'S NO REQUIRED FOR THAT.

NO REQUIREMENT FOR THAT.

UH, THEY TECHNICALLY MEET THE ORDINANCE.

OKAY.

I JUST, AS IT WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS BEFORE I KNOW THAT THE ELEVATIONS WERE COMMENTED ON SEVERAL TIMES AT BOTH PLANNING, COMMISSIONS, THEY CANCELED.

I REMEMBER.

THANK YOU.

READY.

UH, WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING FURTHER AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT LAST CHANCE TO EDIT IT? OKAY.

SEEING NO COMMENT.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTION BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION OR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION SEEING NONE? DO I HEAR A MOTION ON ITEM 5G? SECOND, THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO, AND THAT IS FINISHED HERE TONIGHT.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SIX NEW BUSINESS.

DO WE HAVE ANY NEW BUSINESS SEEING NONE? DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

WE HAVE A SECOND ONE FAVOR.

WE ARE ADJOURNED AT FIVE MINUTES TILL SIX.