Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-2022 Planning Commission MinutesOctober 3, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes The Planning Commission met Monday, October 3, 2022, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Lee Turner, Chairman; Rebecca Bryant, Vice-Chair; Art Dyas; Harry Kohler; John Worsham; Hollie MacKellar; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager; Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager; Casey Potts, City Planner; Michelle Melton, City Planner; Allie Knutson, Secretary; and Chris Williams, City Attorney. Absent: Clarice Hall-Black; and Corey Martin, City Council Liaison. Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM. Approval of the Minutes September 8, 2022: John Worsham made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 8, 2022, meeting. Harry Kohler seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote. A YE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, and Hollie MacKellar. NAY:None. Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, asked if an Old/New Business Item could be added to the agenda to discuss Starbucks. Chairman Turner was agreeable to the request. SR 22.07 Request of the Applicant, SE Civil, acting on behalf of the Owner, FST Magnolia Ave LLC, for Site Plan Approval of Magnolia Properties Office Building. The property is approximately 0.50 acres and is located at 314 Magnolia Avenue. PPIN #: 14893, 14394 Summary: Michelle Melton, City Planner, presented the case summary, showing the street view and site plan. Nonresidential buildings within the CBD shall be built at the right-of-way line; thus, no front setback. There are also no side setbacks and parking spaces are not required for nonresidential uses within the CBD. This site plan provides for eight parking spaces and two handicapped parking spaces. All of the parking spaces are on the west side of the building and will be screened from Magnolia Ave. with vegetation. Moreover, there is on-street parking, and the subject property is adjacent to the Municipal Parking Garage. A traffic impact study was not warranted for this project. There is an existing sidewalk adjacent to Magnolia Ave, but the owner/lessee plans to expand/enhance it to be 8' width. This accommodates the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The public sidewalk is proposed entirely within the ROW as shown on the plan below. Being in the ROW, final construction details shall be approved by the Public Works Director prior to construction. There is a conflict between the site plan and the construction details, the site plan requires 7" thick concrete and construction details require 4" thick concrete. The proposed building is three stories with a total area of24,123ft2. Article V(B)(4)(c) of the Zoning Ordinance states Building heights for all structures shall not exceed 40 feet or 3 stories. Previously, October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes building height in the CBD was limited to 35' and any additional structures and/or roof mounted equipment were considered on a case-by-case basis. Thus, the maximum height was increased to 40'. There are currently no allowances for anything above 40', except for rooftop terraces, which does not apply in this case. The building plans received with the original application illustrated the building as +/-44' tall, including parapet walls with mechanical equipment approaching 50'. The revised plans have the elevation at+/-43.5.' Staff cannot approve any structures over 40' and cannot offer variance for building height. Planning Commission and City Council may consider the issue and offer solutions. Chairman Turner asked if the Commissioners have the ability to approve a project over 40-feet, it was confirmed that they cannot. There is a dumpster pad depicted behind the building. There is also an internal trash receptacle location on the east side of the building. Applicant believes three of the largest city roll out cans will be adequate for the entire building and that the designated space is sufficient. Owner/Lessee has the option to contract with the City for multiple day pick-ups. The drainage plans were reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director, Richard Johnson. All utilities will be provided through Fairhope Public Utilities. A Utility Plan has been submitted with this application. Ideally, the applicant would like power to be underground. The load requirements will be further developed and relayed to the City concurrent with building plan development. All federal, state, and local ADA requirements are met, according to the submitted plans. The landscape architect is coordinating with the City regarding landscaping and tree removal. Buildings on the site have already been demolished. The trees will remain until there is an approved Site Plan. Landscape plans reflect the existing sidewalk, plans shall be revised to include the proposed 8' sidewalk. Staff believes the proposed office will ultimately be an asset to the Central Business District and the proposed plans strive to accommodate the requirements and goals of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Case SR 22.07 (Magnolia Properties Office Building) located at 314 Magnolia Ave. with the following condition: 1. All structures shall be a maximum of 40' in height. Rebecca Bryant brought up how the dimension standards in the CBD read, which states that nonresidential buildings within the CBD shall be built at the right of way line, unless a courtyard plaza or other public space is proposed. In other projects, there's not typically large courtyard walls and her interpretation of that is that you are not allowed to have private open space. Mr. Simmons stated that outdoor seating is allowed for restaurants, they have to be private for ABC rules. He believes that they have allowed private open space. Rebecca Bryant replied that the wall is significant and could exclude the public. Art Dyas asked about the sidewalk thickness and stated that if an exception is allowed for the building height, the requests to build higher than 40-feet will never stop. Chairman Turner added that it was changed to a maximum of 40-feet because architects were wanting to change it so they could provide more dimensional options. So, it was changed to three-stories and 40-feet for architectural creativity. 2 October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Art Dyas also asked if the Zoning Ordinance requires parking to be in the rear of the building. Mr. Simmons stated that they either have to be in the rear or screened, they are utilizing screening. Rebecca Bryant stated that it was a good project, but she does not see "public courtyard" when looking at the rendering, but that could possibly be solved by the height of the fence. Larry Smith, S.E. Civil, stated that the note on the sidewalk thickness is just a note calling out where the driveway crosses the sidewalk and is 7-inches thick. They are working with the architect to meet the 40- foot height limit. The landscape plan is accurate, the rendering does not show all of the vegetation. The parking will be screened with taller shrubs. He believes the height of the wall is accurate on the rendering. Chairman Turner stated that he agrees with Rebecca that the front of the courtyard should not be screened and that during Mardi gras or other events, people would not want an 8-foot wall. Mr. Smith replied that they will need some form of wall because of the height of the grading. Chairman Turner replied that a four-foot wall would work, Rebecca Bryant suggested guardrail height. Chairman Turner stated that this case does not have a public hearing, but asked if anyone from the public had any comments. Gary Gover, 300 Lincoln Street, stated that 5-10 years ago, there was an idea to increase the access to the parking garage. An entry/exit was proposed from Magnolia Street, and he was wanting to know if that idea had been given any thought with this project. Chairman Turner replied that he did not think so as the City is waiting on grant approval for Art's Alley. Mr. Simmons added that the parking garage was discussed during review with the third floor lining up with the third floor of the parking deck. Larry Smith added that they extended the sidewalk to the property line for pedestrian connectivity to the parking garage in the future, but he did not want to interfere with grants. Motion: Rebecca Bryant made a motion to recommend approval of SR 22.07 to City Council, subject to staff recommendations plus an added condition: 1. All structures shall be a maximum of 40' in height. 2. The height of the courtyard enclosure on the north side of the property does not exceed the code requirement of 42-inches for a guardrail. John Worsham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, and Hollie MacKellar. NAY:None. ZC 22.12 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicants, Stephen Roberts and Jason D. Long, acting on behalf of the Owner, June Long, to establish an initial zoning of B-2, General Business District, concurrent with conditional annexation into the City of Fairhope. The property is approximately 1.7 acres and is located at 8051 County Road 34. PPIN #: 26270 Summary: Casey Potts, City Planner, presented the case summary. 3 October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes The subject property is currently outside the City of Fairhope's municipal boundary and zoned CP (Community Preservation District) by Baldwin County in District 8. The site currently has a single- family residence on site. This is a straight re-zoning request and does not include a site plan for intended uses. Future uses, if approved, shall meet the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance requirements. The subject property is located across the street from the Publix development, which has pending annexation into the City. Annexation of the subject property is contingent upon the annexation of the Publix property across the street. Recommendation: Staff recommends Case: ZC 22.12, 8051 County Road 34, be approved with an initial zoning of B-2 General Business District, with conditional annexation with the following condition: 1. The subject property shall be contiguous to the City of Fairhope Corporate Limits. The Owner and Applicant were present. Stephen Roberts, Applicant, stated that the proposed annexation would be in line with the Comprehensive Plan and would strengthen the Greeno Road Corridor. Chairman Turner opened the public hearing. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Art Dyas made a motion to recommend approval of Case ZC 22.12, 8051 CR 34, for conditional annexation to B-2, to City Council, subject to staffs condition. Art Dyas asked when the Publix property would be heard by City Council. Mr. Simmons stated that the parcels to the north needed to annex in first before the Publix property could be heard. The Publix property will be heard in November and ZC 22.12 will be heard after the Publix property annexes into the City. Hollie MacKellar seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, and Hollie MacKellar. NAY:None. ZC 22.14 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Dewberry, acting on behalf of Owner, Highlands at Fairhope Village LLC, to amend the existing PUD (Planned Unit Development) known as the Fly Creek PUD. The property is located on the north and south side of Corte Ridge Road, east of the Publix on US Highway 98. This amendment is for approximately 11.76 acres of the total 213.83 acres of the PUD. PPIN #: 316803, 274526, 316804, 304612, 369507, 366668,369508,319906,386029,369509,369506,386030,20833,369505,8619,8618 Summary: Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Manager, presented the case summary. The Applicant is requesting a second amendment to the Fly Creek PUD originally approved in 2006 by Ordinance 1317, as amended by Ordinance 1572 in 2016. Ordinance 1572 states that the use of the PUD 4 October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes is 240 apartment units and 90 flat/townhome and work/live units {Total: 330 units). 240 apartments are already constructed and occupied as well as a duplex and triplex. This amendment applies to the remaining flat/townhome and work/live units and the site in general. This PUD amendment focuses on the request and review of three (3) minor revisions: 1. Modify the work/live units to townhomes. 2. Reconfigure the road network and adding a new private interior road. 3. Modify the unit mix and elevations within Highlands at Fairhope Village Subdivision. The original 2006 approved PUD created a diverse mix of residential and commercial components. Work/live units were included, but not clearly defined. The intention was residential on top of commercial units. The 2019 MOP did not expressly include the work/live units. The Applicant states the following for the justification for this amendment: "The proposed changes are in response to the current residential market. Although the work/live concept is innovative, the number of vacant storefronts within the Shoppes at Fairhope Village make it impractical to maintain this original use." Changes in use from mixed-use to all residential should be considered carefully. The Fly Creek PUD is considered a Village Center. Commercial components are necessary for a Village Center and provide gathering places for residents and visitors as well as provide a tax base for the City. Nonetheless, the Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to be flexible to market conditions, which is the reasoning for this particular request. Staff believes converting the units on Lot 6D on the previous slide may be a missed opportunity. While work/live may be impractical, alternatives, such as commercial below and residential units above may be successful. Staff requests the Applicant consider alternatives on Lot 6D. Work/Live does not define, for example, percentage of commercial space. It is a flexible definition. Home Occupations are allowed, with restrictions, in residential property, which would fall under a general definition of Work/Live. This request does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan nor with previous approvals. Staff believes the deviations from the approved road layout are minor and further believes the proposed changes meet the intent(s) of the PUD. The addition of Cider Mill Lane alters the view of the townhomes along Corte Ridge Road. Rear elevations of these units is important as they impact the visual aesthetic of a City maintained road. Cider Mill Lane allows for access to Corte Ridge Road and Dry Falls Way. The intersection of Bascom Way and Corte Ridge Road is slightly altered, whereas the existing planting islands will be trimmed. Staff does not support any further alterations to the existing planting islands. Since 2019, five townhomes have been constructed. The 2019 Site Plan provided for 77 units made up of five different building types. The Applicant approached Staff about alternate building plans from those approved in 2019. Article III, Section D of the Fairhope Zoning Ordinance provides special conditions for townhomes, including layout, form, greenspace, etc. The proposed building plans submitted with this amendment are designed to accommodate the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Case ZC 22.14 Fly Creek PUD (2 nd ) Amendment with the following conditions: I. Buildings shall fall within established setbacks and allow room for required landscape/buffers. 2. A formal Site Plan/Multiple Occupancy Project shall be conducted. 3. Detailed floor plans shall be provided for each building type with front/rear elevations with particular focus on the front of buildings located along Corte Ridge Road. 5 October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Cathy Barnett with Dewberry Engineering presented and passed out handouts to the Commissioners. The site plan and elevations were shown. The Shoppes at Fairhope Village have been open for 15 years and have never been fully occupied. There is a significant outparcel still available as well as shop space vacancy on Fly Creek A venue. There is no change in the total unit count, but the number of bedrooms has decreased from 253 to 248. Regarding the Master Drainage Plan, site boundaries adjoin floodway. A no rise study provided with the previous PUD indicated the development would not cause a rise in the floodway and there would be a lower total peak runoff generated by the development. The Engineer of Record stated the total area ofrunoff will be less than the previous PUD. Calculations will be provided and completed within submission of MOP. Addition of Cider Mill Lane (2510 linear feet) along with decreased footprint of units has less peak discharge than in the 2019 amendment. There are no plans at present by Fred Corte for further development of the PUD. Regarding sewer, the capacity and design of the lift station accounted for all units within PUD and initial development costs accounted for this development. The pool and open-air pavilion will be for Highlands residents only and there is generous green space as well as walking connectivity in and around the development. Chairman Turner opened the public hearing. Cindy Powell, 7843 Parker Road, owns property adjacent to the proposed townhomes to the north of the property. She and her neighbor who could not attend, were concerned about the buffer between their properties and the townhomes and hoped that it would be taken into consideration. Chairman Turner stated that per staffs recommendation, the buffers would be looked at and in compliance. There will be a Multiple Occupancy Project (MOP) application submitted after this where those details will be looked at. Chairman Turner closed the public hearing. Motion: John Worsham made a motion to recommend approval of ZC 22.14, Fly Creek PUD Amendment, to City Council subject to staff recommendations. Art Dyas seconded the motion. Chairman Turner stated that he agrees with what Mr. Simmons said, that it meets the intent of the PUD, but an outdoor space for a restaurant could be taken advantage of. Rebecca Bryant added that there is a missed opportunity when something is described as a "village," and it becomes traditional retail and segregated residential. Putting something in that has life to it like a coffee shop or restaurant in the out- parcel adjacent to the existing two-story buildings on Fly Creek A venue, might help. Mixed-use makes a village. Stuart Speed stated that the PUD is a mixed-use development. The challenge is that the shop space on Fly Creek Avenue has never been fully leased and the out-parcel never sold. The live/work units were to be residential above and an office or shop space below that needed to be sold together, but the market is small. Residential is viable. Chairman Turner stated that it would be good if there was a way to bridge the two together and that Corte Ridge makes a division due to the topography being steep. With no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: 6 October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Hollie MacKellar, and Councilman Martin. NAY:None. SD 22.28 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Aaron Collins with SE Civil, LLC, on behalf of the Owner, 68V Overland 2021, LLC, for Final Plat approval of Overland Subdivision, Phase 1, a 34 lot Major Subdivision. The property is approximately 15.80 acres and is located on the south side of County Road 48, east of River Mill Drive. PPIN #: 43640 Summary: Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the case summary, showing an aerial and the final plat. All sidewalks and street trees have been installed. The watering and maintenance of the trees and maintenance of the sidewalks will be the responsibility of the subdivider. The engineer has provided his engineer's certificate for the design and construction of the improvements constructed for the subdivision and shall sign the plat. Current walking trails are mulch paths with metal edging. The POA will be responsible for the routine maintenance and repair and keeping them in good working order. The phase line for Phase 1 has changed slightly from the preliminary approval. Initially there was a 3- Lot minor subdivision to create the area for three developments: Overland Townhomes (Under Construction), Overland Phase 1, and Overland Phase 2. That plat was not recorded, and this final plat creates Lot 1 for Overland Townhomes, Lot 2 for Phase 2 and Lots 3-34 for Overland Phase 1. The entrance sign and entrance landscaping has not been installed but a permit has been issued for the work, a separate sign permit will have to be reviewed. A proposed walking path linking Phase 1 and Phase 2 together through the wetlands was not installed. The PUD shows the trail beginning in Phase 1 with a bridge and ending with a circular path in Phase 2. Phase 2 preliminary approval noted that the boardwalk and trail would be installed in Phase 2. Phase 1 and Phase 2 were separate applications, and both received preliminary approval May 3, 2021. Preliminary approval expires May 3, 2023, and there are no immediate plans of beginning Phase 2. Staffs concern is once Phase I receives approval; it would be challenging to require the walking trail later. Rebecca Bryant stated that there is currently 300-feet of a mulch path along a ditch. What was envisioned before was a path with a bridge that went through the woods. Mr. Jeffries showed a color rendering that showed where Phase 1 and proposed Phase 2 are. A pre-construction meeting has not been had for Phase 2; concerns are that Phase 2 will expire with half of the walking trail being shown in Phase 2. In the chance that there is a change in ownership or Phase 2 expires, an easement with a note stating that at the time that the adjacent property is developed, it shall connect through the subject area with a walking trail. Art Dyas clarified that the walking trail was an amenity that was intended for Phase I and Phase 2. Minor edits to the plat are required and include: Adding the Ordinance # 1713 in the Site Data Table "Current Zoning: P.U.D. Ordinance # I 713", adding a general note that a blanket drainage/utility easement exists over all common areas, adding a general note that the POA is responsible for the maintenance of the walking trails and keeping them in good working order, labeling the pond and wetland area as common area, adding the total number of wetland buffer signs (Can be beside the symbol 7 October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes in the legend), adding a signature block for Fairhope Gas, and removing the Planning Director signature block, it is usually only needed for Re-plats. Follow-up activities are also required and include: Providing a copy of the recorded plat and the recorded O&M Agreement and the Maintenance and Guaranty (M&G) Agreement executed by the developer (the mayor signs this agreement to fully execute it, including the instrument number from the recorded plat and including 30 days in paragraph 3). Recommendation: Staff recommends approval SD 22.28 Overland Phase 1 Subdivision final plat with the following conditions: 1. Install the trail in Phase 1 as shown in the PUD, as well as the Preliminary Plat for Phase 1. 2. Complete the minor edits to the plat. -Add the Ordinance # 1713 in the Site Data Table "Current Zoning: P. U.D. Ordinance # 1713" -Add general note that a blanket drainage/utility easement exists over all common areas -Add general note that the POA is responsible for the maintenance of the walking trails and keeping them in good working order. -Label the pond and wetland area as common area -Add the total number of wetland buffer signs. Can be beside the symbol in the legend. -Add signature block for Fairhope Gas. -The Planning Director signature block can be removed. It is usually only needed for Re-plats. Mr. Jeffries added that he would support that an easement be placed for the walking trail if the Commission so desired. Chairman Turner did not think that an easement would be helpful and that it should be built. Mr. Simmons does not believe that Phase 2 will be built before the expiration. Larry Smith, S.E. Civil, stated that Phase 2 has been designed and bid out, the intent is to start construction at the first of the year. The change on the parcels line was to ensure each phase met the green space requirements. When the preliminary plat was approved, it was stated which part of the trail would be in Phase 1 and that the boardwalk and the loop would be in Phase 2. They are agreeable to putting an easement in place and understands the concerns. Rebecca Bryant mentioned that the site felt different from what she had envisioned from the landscape plan and asked if the retention pond was built to the shape shown on the landscape plan because it looked very linear when it was showed as an irregular shape. Mr. Smith stated that the pond was built to the design specifications. Mr. Simmons stated that the proposed bridge is in a floodway and asked Mr. Smith if the no-rise process and reviews had started. Mr. Smith replied that Dewberry had done the no-rise and believes that they had submitted it to Erik, Building Official, and the bridge had been bid out. John Worsham stated that if the trail is planned to be built, there should not be a problem building it now. Art Dyas asked what the time line would be to have the trail and bridge installed if the Commissioners approved the final plat. Mr. Simmons replied that, that is the challenge on if they should hold up building homes until after the trail and bridge are installed or require that it be installed prior to requesting an 8 October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes extension for Phase 2. Art Dyas replied that the installation requirement should be tied to Phase I, but not to an extent that it holds up lots being sold. Hollie MacKellar mentioned the idea of amending the Subdivision Regulations to be amended to require amenities to be installed in the first phase. Mr. Simmons suggested doing a Performance Bond. Chairman Turner agreed with having an easement and a Performance Bond. Mr. Simmons replied that it would be different than a typical Performance Bond and should be based on the condition. Attorney Chris Williams added that if the Commissioners are wanting to require a Performance Bond and an easement, he recommends that they table the case to allow staff to come to a solution and hear the request again next month. Mr. Smith stated that he was concerned that there is now a proposed condition that does not match the original conditions of the preliminary plat where it was stated that the boardwalk and loop were to be built in Phase 2. Mr. Jeffries believes that was stated in the preliminary approval of Phase 2, but not Phase 1. Chairman Turner was concerned with Phase 2 being sold or not being built, Mr. Smith replied that it is a PUD, so if sold, the owner would be bound by the PUD or would have to come back to the Commissioners. Rebecca Bryant asked if a stipulation of the possible extension of Phase 2 could be the construction of the walking trail, Attorney Chris Williams replied that, that stipulation could be made. Mr. Jeffries added that an easement should still be placed with a note stating that at the time of future development on the adjacent property that the walking trail will be constructed in the case that there are different owners, Phase 1 can still use that trail. Mr. Simmons suggested allowing staff to work with the applicant prior to signing the plat to ensure that the goals are met. Chairman Turner opened the public hearing. Gary Gover, 300 Lincoln Street, asked if there are any ADA issues associated with the type of trail. Mr. Jeffries replied no, as it is private property. Chairman Turner closed the public hearing. Motion: Rebecca Bryant made a motion to approve SD 22.28, Overland Subdivision Phase I, Final Plat, subject to the amended staff conditions: 1. Create an easement that will allow the construction of the full walking trail in Phase 1 and Phase 2, subject to staffs approval. 2. The walking trail is required to be installed prior to any request for extension for Phase 2 in the future. 3. Complete the minor edits to the plat. -Add the Ordinance # 1713 in the Site Data Table "Current Zoning: P. U .D. Ordinance #1713" -Add general note that a blanket drainage/utility easement exists over all common areas -Add general note that the POA is responsible for the maintenance of the walking trails and keeping them in good working order. -Label the pond and wetland area as common area -Add the total number of wetland buffer signs. Can be beside the symbol in the legend. -Add signature block for Fairhope Gas. -The Planning Director signature block can be removed. It is usually only needed for Re-plats. 9 October 3, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Art Dyas seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: A YE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, Clarice Hall-Black, Hollie MacKellar, and Councilman Martin. NAY:None. Old/New Business • Starbucks Revised site plans for Starbucks were given to Commissioners. Mr. Simmons stated that they are no longer doing a two-lane drive-thru layout and that the infrastructure is not changing. He asked the Commissioners if they were comfortable with the revised plan going to City Council. Hollie MacKellar stated that she did not like the parking layout in the front. Mr. Simmons replied that the parking has not changed, it is shown as it was approved, they have added landscaping. Larry Smith, S.E. Civil, stated that they surveyed the parking lot and revised plans to add more parking islands. Starbucks wanted to not do the Y drive thru. To keep the same number of stacking, vehicles had to be kept out of drive aisles and off of Greeno Road. The revised floor plan shifts the drive-up window to ensure the same amount of stacking. The courtyard was shifted to the south side of the building and the parking is now angled. Art Dyas asked why parking was approved to be by the highway. Chairman Turner replied that the parking was allowed there if more landscape islands were added, which Mr. Smith agreed with. Mr. Simmons pulled up the site plan from March of2022 and stated that the previous plans had more concrete than the current plan and the parking had been approved by Greeno Road. Mr. Smith added that the courtyard has gotten larger and is facing the landscaping. Chairman Turner thought the revised plan was an improvement. Hollie MacKellar suggested flipping the building and mirroring it on the other side so those from the road see the store and not the cars. Mr. Smith replied that stacking would be lost, and the drive thru would be seen as well as the dumpster. Commissioners were agreeable to the revised plan. Adjournment John Worsham made a motion to adjourn. Chairman Turner seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYE: Lee Turner, Rebecca Bryant, Art Dyas, Harry Kohler, John Worsham, and Hollie MacKellar. NAY:None. Adjourned at 6:49 p.m.