 the meeting. I'll start. All right. Welcome planning Commission members, staff and guests. Multiple staff members are here today to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly and all applicants and members of the public are able to participate in the meeting at the appropriate times. If you are here today and would like to speak about a case, please be sure to sign in either at the back of the room or at the podium for documentation purposes. If you are here today to speak about a case, you must speak up when the chairperson calls for public comment. We have a roll call. Mr. Causie. Mr. Cohn. Mr. Cook. Ms. Davis. Mr. Hart. Ms. Marshall. New board, new planning commission member. Mr. Arsario. Ms. Thomas. Mr. Thomas. Ms. Thomas. Ms. Thomas. Ms. Thomas. Ms. Thomas. Ms. Thomas. Mr. Thomas. Here. We have a quorum. I'll give a brief meeting overview. Applicants with requests before the planning commission are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant, such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. The time limit does not include any questions asked by the planning commission or staff regarding request. During the public comment period, members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of two minutes. After the public comment period, applicants have five minutes to respond. The administrator has a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. The planning commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-by-case basis. Are there any changes to the agenda? Item number three, N.A. N.A. Item number three, N.A. 24000815.98. Acres, Northeast side of Old Purseable Road, 840, 441 Old Purseable Road. And 1.5 acres is South side of Old Purseable Road is deferred. That's item number three. All right. The planning commission uses the consent agenda to approve noncontroversial or routine matters by a single motion the consent agenda is read. That item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the meeting. The planning commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please read the consent agenda. We have the approval of the March 14, 2024 minutes. Annex 2024-007. 4012 Farrell Road TMS number 11606-05 27. Which is a request for the consent agenda. We have the approval of the March 14, 2024 minutes. We have the approval of the March 14, 2027. Which is a request and recommendation of the assignment of land use classification of urban core neighborhood activity center, UCAC1, and the assignment of zoning neighborhood activity center corridor NAC for appending annexation. The property is currently zoned in mixed residential high density and zoned GC development. We have the approval of the project plan review. S-Plan 2024-003 500 block of Spears Creek Church Road TMS number 28800 01-03. Which is a request minor site plan approval for the construction of a car wash. Tommy's car wash. The property is zoned plan development within the Wood Road. We have the approval of the project plan review. Item number 5 site plan 2021-0018 17.78 acres. East side of Cliff kinder road south side of south of south corner wind lane TMS number 1900-06-09 and 08. Which is a request for site burnside farms apartments. The property is zoned plan development. Are there any planning commissioners here that would like to have any item removed from the consent agenda? Are there any members of the public that would like to have any items removed from the consent agenda for discussion? Seeing none. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, may I like to make a motion to approve the March 2024 minutes and the consent agenda. I have a motion. Can I get a second? Second. We have a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. That's going to take us to the regular agenda. Which is a text amendment text amendment 2024-0002 which is a request for site burnside farms apartments. C-17-3.7 overlay district G-O-V-I-D innovative design overlay district to remove the modification of height within the 300 feet of the OVHP historic preservation overlay district. I believe hope is going to state the case. Good afternoon. I will quickly go through the case summary of the OVHP district. The OVHP district is the packet as well the exact language that is proposed to be removed here. In the ordinance itself it's the strike through with the red where it says or the OVHP district. That's the text that we're referring to here. And also as of note there was some correspondence that passed here. Moving on to the case summary. The base zoning district predominant within the OVHP district is mixed commercial which does not have a maximum height requirement. And the purpose of the district states flexibility from conventional use and bulk requirements is provided to promote urban density and mixed uses within a pedestrian oriented streetscape. The OVHP district is to support the transition of the inner vista area to a walkable mixed use destination. The district standards and guidelines promote transition from vacant and low intensity industrial and commercial uses to pedestrian oriented mixed uses with unified form. The overlay includes a provision that modifies the applicable regulation of building height within 300 feet of a historic overlay or residential zoning district instead of what the base district would have a maximum height. This proposal would remove the limitation for buildings within 300 feet of a historic overlay district or OVHP district. The restriction for buildings within 300 feet of a residential district would remain as is. This amendment only affects only properties within the OVID district that are 300 feet away from a historic district. Note that properties within the west survey historic district which is adjacent to the OVHP district include an overlay which is the OVHSV H80 slash 30 overlay which restricts building height to 80 feet. Thank you and if there are any questions we'll take questions. I have a few questions. That's okay. The I think and forgive me for this. I had a chance to connect to discuss with y'all more but I don't know if you want to speak any more to that or I'm with Paris. I'm just unsure about this. I don't know if you want to speak any more to that or. I'm with Paris. I'm just unsure about this. I'm with Paris. I'm just unsure is there a reasoning for this. If there's an explanation as to what it is that would be helpful I think. While I would be hesitant to speak for the mayor I do believe that he has been approached by potential developments which this would impact and so that's the reasoning for this proposal. The 75 height limit would not be high enough. There would be a desire to go higher than that which most of the zoning outside of this area does permit. Is there a limit on the height at all if this is approved or is it unlimited as to how high a building could go? These districts a large part of this area currently do not have a height limit so it would revert to that which is no height limit. What happened is within that overlay there's a small part of parcels that is subject to this 75-foot height limit. Thank you. I have one other. Just to make sure I understand correctly the only change is striking that if it's next to another historic district as defined but not next to residential. That's correct because the grand B historic district is residentially zoned and that height limit would remain. If there is a desire to have additional information we're happy to bring that back to you. I don't believe that it is critical that it be heard tonight if there are additional questions. I'm sure the mayor would want you to have that information. Thank you. I think I would be open to that unless there are any more public input prior. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak either for or against this? I'm Jim Daniel. My question is why can we get more information and what neighborhoods are actually affected Arsenal Hill and Olympia are two adjacent neighborhoods and they've been notified. And then the other question I had I guess is this in response to the Trenegas case which was on a student housing project by the law school with the city laws on overlay district stuff. I'm with you. I'd like you to defer it and find out what's going on. Thank you. Thank you. And just so we can make sure those are questions or answers before the next meeting Arsenal Hill would not be impacted. And no, it's not in response to Trenegas. Thank you. Do any other members of the public have any comments either for or against? Do any commission members have any other questions? So just maybe this is a discussion for the commission but essentially if it doesn't affect it's already an effect for residential and it's only for historic and this is only for the historic district. Essentially this is just to allow the height requirement to exceed essentially in the Vista area, correct? And as long as it's not 300 feet from a housing from residential that's all this really is, right? That's what it sounds like. Is that staff agree with that? Yes, that's correct. Anyone else? I'm happy to entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve zoning tax amendment TA 2024-0002. We have a motion. Can I get a second? Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. Motion passes. Looks like we don't have any other business. Let's see you not. Okay. Another hard day. That's it. I'll take a motion to adjourn. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Thanks, everyone.