June 12, 2018 *Draft* Meeting Minutes Decatur City Hall City Commission Room 509 North McDonough Street 7:00 PM Members Present: Burnette (Chair), Doyon, Leland-Kirk, Ohlandt, Travis Members Absent: Buckley, Jr., One Vacancy Staff Present: Howard, Threadgill I. Call to Order Mr. Burnette confirmed a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. He provided introductions and an overview of the procedural process for the meeting. II. Old Business: The approval of Minutes from May 8, 2018 regularly scheduled meeting was held over until the end of the meeting. Mr. Burnette announced the next item under old business regarding adoption of the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study. Ms. Threadgill, City Planning Director, gave an update on the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study since the item was deferred from May 8. She explained the study and how it builds on the 2011 citywide LCI Study to enhance transit opportunities and future development. She reviewed the last meeting and s request for city staff to meet with neighborhoods in the LCI study area. She explained that city staff met with Oakhurst Neighborhood Association at their May 14 th meeting and Parkwood Garden Club at their May 22 nd annual meeting. She explained that city staff reached out to the Lenox Place Neighborhood Association but received no response, but nonetheless invited them to the other neighborhood meetings if Lenox Place did not have a meeting already scheduled. City staff met with residents of unincorporated DeKalb County s Druid Hills Neighborhood Association as well on June 7 th. Ms. Threadgill explained that city staff has continued to collect feedback on the draft LCI Study and has been taken into consideration for revisions. Ms. Threadgill requested the defer their recommendation until their August 14 th regularly scheduled meeting. Ms. Threadgill also requested that the accept public comment as part of the public input process for the LCI Study. Mr. Burnette opened public comment. Mr. Donald Rigger of 254 E. Parkwood Road spoke in opposition to East Lake Marta Station LCI Study. He explained that he is against five story buildings in the East Lake MARTA station parking lot
and wants to see a scaled down building. He stated the development is not about affordable housing but rather MARTA trying to make a profit. Ms. Mary Gould of 422 2nd Avenue spoke in support of the East Lake MARTA LCI Study as it offers a future opportunity to increase equity and diversity among the area s housing market. Mr. Mark Reeve of 319 Mead Road spoke in support of the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study. He stated opportunities to develop affordable housing in Decatur are limited in the City of Decatur given land prices. He stated he participated in the kick-off meeting, the walking audit, the surveys, and the final presentation meeting. He stated that affordability is not possible without a certain amount of density and building scale. Ms. Lisa Perras Gordon of 198 E. Parkwood Road spoke in opposition to the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study, citing her concern of the amount of profit that MARTA wants. She requested that the City talk about the math that goes into determine the amount of housing. She requested a realistic portrayal of the height of the proposed buildings next to the single-family homes with the grade changes and setbacks. She presented a handout. She also requested that a rezoning only be mixed-use village subarea instead of commercial land use. She stated MARTA should concede any profit. Mr. John Leake of 255 W. Parkwood Road spoke in opposition to the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study. He requested that the reconsider the priorities. He requested that the zoning decision be delayed until 2022 and consider traffic calming first. Ms. Katy Stauff of Drexel Avenue spoke in opposition to the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study. She stated the City consider a traffic impact study. Ms. Christine Cuomo of 231 West Parkwood Road spoke in opposition of the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study, citing her opposition to mixed-use development, being railroaded by MARTA, and the impact to Decatur s values. She said the proposed LCI study threatens the character, vision, and value of the All American City nomination with the shocking scale of the buildings equivalent to what is being built in downtown Decatur. She cited a meeting with City officials on June 4 th where she stated officials were only interested in building apartments. She stated there has been no study that shows that East Lake MARTA Station is appropriate for redevelopment. She stated the proposed soccer fields on top of the buildings would be in a high carbon dioxide area and not healthy. She stated her desire for buildings in urban areas and that a downtown should not be built at East Lake MARTA station. Ms. Anna Stenport of 146 E. Parkwood Road spoke in opposition of the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study. She stated that East Lake MARTA Station should not be a destination; it should just be a transit station. She cited that Lindbergh Station was a failed attempt at transit-oriented development and did not want to see another failed attempt at East Lake. She requested that the city slow down the process until after Decatur holds their housing summit. She suggested that discussions be expanded on what affordable housing can look like in Decatur and cited that other communities allow accessory dwelling units in their zoning codes as a means to increase affordable housing types. She stated the group, Green East Lake MARTA Station, wants a greater outcome for future development, such as LEED Certification and other environmental factors.
Ms. Vonta High of 226 Greenhaven Drive spoke in support of the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study. She stated that job circumstances forced her from living in the City of Decatur because she could no longer find affordable housing. She stated her desire to see the LCI Study adopted as a way to encourage affordable housing to keep Decatur diverse and inclusive. Mr. Jay Palmer of 212 Johnston Pl. spoke in opposition to the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study due to his dislike of the survey questions and outcomes. He handed out a link to the City of Atlanta s website for the draft LCI Study. Ms. Panke Miller of 1433 Oakridge Circle spoke in support of the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study. She stated the LCI Study has been responsive to the feedback with transitional heights between residential districts, public space orientation along Park Place, and that the plan represents a reduction in permitted heights. She stated that the Atlanta region will grow by 2.4 million people by 2040. She stated that placing housing near transit is the recommended location for a growing population. She stated that MARTA is a region wide system and that it is important to invest in the success of our system. She stated that 80% of the jobs in the City of Decatur provide an annual salary of less than $50,000, which does not pay enough for the cost of living to afford a home in Decatur. She stated public partnerships are needed to help increase affordable housing otherwise Decatur is simply an elitist society. Ms. Paula Collins of 201 W. Ponce de Leon spoke in support of the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study. She stated recent research found those that live at transit oriented developments take l/2 the amount of car trips than those who do not live nearby. Ms. Mary Bower of 2176 East Lake Road spoke in opposition of the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study. She requested that residents have a chance to view the revisions before the vote in August. She also stated her concern with 20% of 430 units, about 90 units, being set aside as affordable housing units. Mr. Doug Faust, Executive Director of Decatur Housing Authority at 750 Commerce Drive, spoke in support of the East Lake MARTA Station LCI Study. He stated there have been extensive stakeholder meetings and public process, which he attended. He stated the process has been responsive to feedback including streetscape improvements, traffic calming, buffers from residential districts, and sight lines. He encouraged additional cross sections to help show sight lines. He stated he supports an LCI Study that recommends at least 30% of units be set aside as affordable housing. He stated affordable housing is just as expensive to build and it requires density to make it possible. There being no further public comment, Mr. Burnette closed public comment. Ms. Threadgill addressed the public s question about when to expect the revised LCI Study. She stated that meeting comments were appreciated and will be taken into consideration as the consultant team prepares revisions to the draft LCI Study. She stated the draft LCI Study was posted and available on the City of Decatur s master plans web page, as well as the DecaturNext.com website. The revised final draft of the LCI Study will be posted on both of these sites prior to the August meetings. She stated while there not a known date for posting, Ms. Threadgill anticipates it will be within three weeks.
Ms. Threadgill addressed the public s comments related to section drawings. She stated the revised final draft of the LCI Study will include additional section drawings of buffers and comparable building heights. She clarified that the concept plan on the north lot showed an approximate 50 foot building setback, including a 30 foot planted buffer adjacent to the property line, then a 20 foot vehicular access drive. The north lot concept plan proposed three story buildings nearest to residential and four story buildings closest to DeKalb Avenue. She stated five stories are not proposed on the North Lot. Ms. Threadgill addressed comments related to environmental concerns. She stated all new construction and substantial renovations in the City of Decatur must be constructed to meet high performance building standards, such as LEED or Earthcraft certifications, and would include any future development of the MARTA site. She stated the MARTA properties have no storm water retention, but any future development would be required to provide on-site storm water retention facilities for the north lot and south lot. Ms. Threadgill addressed comments related to apartment construction. She stated the comment about the City only wanting to build apartments is a misstatement. She stated the real estate market and the financial institutions that provide loans drive the type of housing presently under construction, but that the City would like to see a shift in the real estate market to support condominium construction. She stated that a future development on MARTA-owned property would most likely be apartments because MARTA would retain ownership of the land and a future developer would not be able to sell any rights to the units. Ms. Threadgill addressed comments related to traffic impacts. She stated a traffic study would not take place until there was a development proposal before the City. She stated Second Avenue/East Lake Drive/East Parkwood Road has been designated as a traffic calming corridor in the draft Community Transportation Plan and that a traffic study would be conducted by the City when traffic calming measures are considered. She stated a traffic study would be conducted as part of the engineering of the redesign of the Atlanta Avenue/Railroad crossing as well. Ms. Threadgill addressed comments related to timing and comparisons with other transit oriented developments. She stated that MARTA s Board of Directors is at least three to five years out from considering to begin an RFP process. She stated that Avondale MARTA Station is a regional station, and is not a comparable type of station to East Lake MARTA Station, which is a neighborhood station. She stated Edgewood-Candler Park MARTA Station is more comparable station to East Lake MARTA Station. She encouraged the public and commissioners to visit the redevelopment almost complete at Edgewood-Candler Park station to see a good representation of the scale of four- to six-story buildings abutting single family residences that are one story bungalows. Ms. Threadgill addressed comments related to the proposed height bonus of a fifth floor. She stated that in the second online survey conducted about the different concept plans that a question was posed about interest in adding a floor if a greater amount of affordable housing could be achieved. She stated that 64% of responses were in support of such a height bonus if the affordability could be achieved. She stated that buffers and publicly accessible open space were also priorities. The challenge is to strike a balance between achieving open space, buffers, and the density to achieve more affordable housing, and whether or not to go up in height versus going out that would decrease open space and buffers.
On a motion by Ms. Leland-Kirk, second by Mr. Ohlandt, and all voting aye, the Planning Commission deferred the recommendation until August 14, 2018 at the request of the City of Decatur. III. New Business: Mr. Burnette announced the next four items under new business and that because they are interrelated that they would be heard together: (1) For the properties at 1121 and 1123 Clairemont Road, the applicant has requested consideration of changing the land use designation from LDR Low Density Residential (DeKalb County) to C Commercial and High Density Residential (City of Decatur) and for the property at 1119 Clairemont Avenue from RL Low Density Residential (City of Decatur) to C Commercial and High Density Residential (City of Decatur); (2) consideration of changing the zoning for the property located at 1121 and 1123 Clairemont Road from O-I Office-Institutional and R-75 Single Family Residential (DeKalb County) to C-3 - Heavy Commercial (City of Decatur) and 1119 Clairemont Avenue from R-60 Single Family Residential (City of Decatur) to C-3 Heavy Commercial (City of Decatur); (3) consideration of a conditional use permit to allow a self-storage facility; and (4) a special exception to reduce the required parking for the proposed project. Ms. Julie Sellers, attorney representing the applicant, and Jason Linscott, applicant and an owner of Stein Investment Group, presented on the consideration of an annexation, rezoning, land use change, and special exception. Ms. Sellers presented a letter of support to the from an adjacent property owner. Mr. Linscott started with a presentation on Stein Investment Group, their types of development, and self-storage designs. He stated they chose the property due to the high demand in the area and rates of the nearby storage facilities, and an imbalance of supply and demand. He stated that a self-storage facility is a low traffic business, generating on average 12-15 daily trips. It also provides a good buffer between residential and more intense commercial uses, and generates no new residents or school system enrollment. Mr. Linscott stated that the design of self-storage facilities have come a long way and that most zoning codes still classify them as a heavy commercial or light industrial use, similar to the zoning code of the City of Decatur. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Linscott stated that there will be a total of four floors, one of which will be an underground basement level. Ms. Sellers stated her client is seeking annexation of two of the parcels into the City of Decatur related to the proposed development. She stated that the property to the north is zoned O-I and R-75 in DeKalb County, and that O-I allows for potentially unwanted uses adjacent to residential. She stated that both properties are shown within the Town Center future land use character area of DeKalb County. She stated that the self-storage facility would have no negative impact on the enrollment of the City Schools of Decatur. She stated that access to the property would remain the same and not generate traffic. She noted that the property currently has no storm water retention and that the proposed development would retain storm water on site. She stated the project would also comply with Decatur streetscape standards. She stated the canopy coverage would exceed that required by the UDO. She stated the current parking codes would require 167 spaces and that amount is simply not needed when 15 average trips per day are generated. Therefore, they request a reduction in parking to 13 vehicle spaces, of 2 ADA spaces and 11 general spaces. In addition, there are two truck loading spaces, all located at the rear of the building.
In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Linscott stated the front of the building is setback approximately 20 feet from the edge of curb along Clairemont Avenue and a 10 foot side yard setback adjacent to 1105 Clairemont Avenue property line. Ms. Threadgill stated the proposed building would be 80 feet from the rear property line measured at the closest point and that there is a 15 foot planted buffer between the rear property line and the parking. In response to a question from Ms. Leland-Kirk, Mr. Linscott stated the building would be placed 14 feet from edge of right of way and clarified the edge of curb is another six feet into the right of way. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette about the privacy fence, the applicant stated that they do various types of screening and prefer to do an aluminum picket fence with evergreen plantings. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Ms. Sellers stated 36 trees would be removed, but they had not done the tree canopy calculations. Mr. Burnette noted that many of the existing trees were not being preserved. Ms. Sellers continued her presentation and stated she was aware that residents were concerned with the C-3 zoning category. She stated that C-3 zoning was the only district in the City of Decatur that allowed self-storage facilities. She stated that the C-3 zoning only allowed self-storage facilities with a conditional use permit. She referenced the draft ordinances and stated that the limitations of the conditional use permit and the site plan specific conditional zoning would prohibit other types of the development, other uses, or major changes to the proposed development from occurring without approval from the City Commission to amend the original approvals. She stated the conditional use permit and the site plan specific conditional zoning would establish a high level of assurances for the future development of the site. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Ms. Sellers stated that she and her client have made efforts to hold meetings with adjacent neighbors and the Clairemont Avenue neighborhood group. She stated that she received no response from Emory Commons or the Clairemont Avenue neighborhood group. She stated a meeting was held with the condo association board of 1105 Clairemont Avenue. She stated her clients have remained open to engaging the neighbors, but were met with disinterest or ignored. Ms. Sellers stated she was surprised to see a letter in opposition from the president representing the Clairemont Avenue association despite their being no response to set up a meeting with them. She stated they are willing to meet with interested parties if they would like to meet and stated there was a scheduled meeting to be held on June 14, 2018 at 6 PM at North Decatur United Methodist Church. Ms. Sellers continued her presentation and stated that she had reviewed the draft ordinances and requested that condition #5 be clarified to limit commercial truck loading and unloading. She also requested that the general operational hours be specified as 9 am to 7 pm Monday through Friday and that the building is fully closed between midnight and 6 am. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Ms. Sellers stated they added that condition to address the concern of noise generated by commercial trucks, such as the audible back up warning. Mr. Burnette stated the applicant needs to define what is meant by commercial trucks. In response to a question from Mr. Doyon, Mr. Linscott stated that the only entrance into the building is at the rear and the front façade is a faux storefront design with spandrel glass. He stated they looked at designing the facility with retail storefront access from Clairemont Avenue. However,
topography and floor elevations limited the usability of retail space. He stated that the Clairemont Avenue elevation is mid-way between two floor elevations. In response to a question from Mr. Doyon, Ms. Threadgill confirmed that City Staff asked the applicant to consider authentic retail storefronts on Clairemont Avenue and entrances into the self-storage facility from the front elevation. She stated also that the C-3 zoning district is more flexible in the storefront requirements due to the heavy commercial uses allowed by the district. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Ms. Threadgill confirmed that the building portion facing Clairemont Ave. is 30 feet in height. Mr. Burnette opened public comment to those in support. Mr. Bob Stubbs, owner of 923 Clairemont Avenue, spoke in support of the applicant s requests, citing no impact on the school system and low generation of traffic, removal of derelict buildings, and the potential increase in the City s commercial tax base. He mentioned that it would be nice to see what is there gone and noted an increase in the tax base. He stated the proposed development was win-win for everyone. Mr. Burnette opened public comment to those in opposition. Ms. Liz De Goursac of 1111 Clairemont Avenue, Unit C4, spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning district of C-3. She stated that the C-3 zoning would be a drastic and negative change to the neighborhood. She stated that the proposal is a violation of the purpose of zoning. She stated that C-3 allows noxious odors, noise, and uses and would cause property values to decline. She stated that C-3 would set a precedent in their neighborhood. She requested rejection or deferral of the applicant s requests so that the UDO could be amended to allow self-storage facilities in the PO (professional office) zoning district, which she would support. She also asked for deferral so that residents could work with the applicant to improve upon the proposed site plan in regards to trees and storm water run off. Jan Rooney of 1105 Clairemont Avenue, Unit H spoke in opposition stating it would decrease sight lines with a much closer setback than adjacent development, destroy the existing transition between residential and commercial, decrease greenspace, and negatively affect the value of her home. She cited a preference for a larger setback and referenced other developments with parking in the front yard. Mr. Robert Spivey of 1111 Clairemont Avenue, spoke in opposition to the applicant s requests based on the lack of greenspace in the front of the building. He asked that the City respect the neighborhood character. He stated that DeKalb County is already trying to protect the area of the historic Shallowford Trail as a greenway. He stated his preference of a larger setback, such as the 39 feet and 6 ½ inches from pavement of Clairemont Road to the parking lot that belongs to the realtors immediately north of the proposed project. He requested that the natural spring 9 yards from the proposed development site on the property of the condominiums be protected by the City. Ms. Georgia Spivey of 1111 Clairemont Avenue, Unit G1 spoke in opposition to the applicant s requests. She stated that increasing the tax base is not a good reason to annex the property into the City. She stated her concerns with tree loss, stormwater runoff and that the unauthentic storefront design approaches the idea of Ripley s Believe It Or Not. Mr. Phillip McGinnis of 413 Westchester Drive spoke in opposition to the applicant s requests. He stated that C-3 is not appropriate for the area. He asked that the City refer to its zoning map and the
future land use map adopted as part of the Decatur 360 Plan. He stated general support of the annexation but questioned the need for another self-storage facility, and referenced his written letter and research submitted to the. Ms. Laura Manzer of 1105 Clairemont Avenue, Unit R spoke in opposition to the applicant s requests. She stated that she is the newly elected president of the 18-unit Clairemont Condominium Homeowners Association and stated the board had reservations about the proposed development. She stated the requested C-3 zoning would only harm the community, citing impact on their properties. She preferred a different building under a different zoning category. Mr. Wayne Lowery of 1111 Clairemont Avenue, Unit J1 spoke in opposition of the applicant s requests. He also stated that commercial trucks are defined as vehicles with back-up alarms, such as box trucks. Ms. Pam Tipton of 1105 Clairemont Avenue, Unit F spoke in opposition to the applicant s requests. She stated a rezoning to C-3 would set a precedent. She requested a full rendering of what the building looks like next to other buildings. Mr. Matthew Rooney of 1105 Clairemont Avenue, Unit H spoke in opposition to the applicant s requests. He stated the building would stick out and the precedent of C-3 zoning would be set. Mr. Justin Kale of 1111 Clairemont Avenue, Unit P4 spoke in opposition to the applicant s requests. He stated the design of the facility is not in keeping with Decatur s character and referenced development in Snellville. Ms. Anne Holbrook of 1105 Clairemont Avenue, Unit P spoke in opposition to the applicant s requests. She stated her concerns with bird habitat, limited sight lines, loss of greenspace, personal view and tree canopy. Ms. Annemarie Wasley of 420 Landover Drive spoke in opposition to the applicant s requests, citing how C-3 can destabilize a transitional neighborhood by setting precedent. She requested more discussion on the topic. There being no further public commentary, Mr. Burnette closed public comment. The applicant was given time to address the public comments. Ms. Sellers responded to the comments. She clarified that the annexation of the property by the City of Decatur requires the City to consider zoning and land use designations. She stated that the C-3 zoning was the only zoning district of the City of Decatur to allow self-storage facilities. She referenced the draft ordinances and stated that the limitations of the conditional use permit and the site plan specific conditional zoning would prohibit other types of the development, other uses, or major changes to the proposed development. She encourage the public to also look at the permitted uses of the O-I district of unincorporated DeKalb County, some of which may not be desirable adjacent to residential. She stated that storefront retail is difficult to incorporate due to the topography and that increased traffic would be a possible concern. She stated that the height of the rear facade is only 45 feet not 60 feet. She stated there are no streams, natural springs, or creeks on the property and it is not within a stream buffer or flood plain area.
Mr. Linscott responded to the national average self- storage per person. He stated that the demand depends on area house size, traffic patterns and vehicle counts, in addition to existing self-storage facilities. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Linscott stated that the need is greater than 7 square feet per person in the area and that his business is typically conservative with these numbers. Mr. Burnette stated that he would support postponing the vote until after a neighborhood meeting. Ms. Sellers stated that she would hold a community meeting on June 14 th and expressed concerns that the lack of engagement to meet thus far would continue. She stated that she would not have come before the without putting effort into public outreach, which she believes she and her client did to create opportunities to meet outside a public hearing process. She stated that there are some concerns such as the choice of zoning district that could not be addressed during the time of deferral because it would require a series of considerations and amendments to the zoning code by the City. Ms. Leland-Kirk stated her concerns about impacts to the adjacent Clairemont Avenue historic district, loss of specimen trees, and setbacks from abutting residential uses. She stated that while the plans might meet minimum requirements the site is highly developed. Ms. Sellers stated the residential units to the south are buffered from the development site by a 45-foot wide lot that contains the 20-foot wide access driveway to 1111 Clairemont Avenue. Ms. Sellers stated four trees in the front yard would be removed and landscaping and greenspace would be added. Mr. Linscott stated that the site would require 20,000 square feet of canopy coverage and the plans would provide 30,000 square feet. In response to a question from Mr. Ohlandt, Mr. Linscott stated that they have a purchase agreement deadline and that he could not say for sure if he could agree to a deferral without speaking to the sellers. Mr. Travis stated that he had heard nine major issues of concern, including loading noise, storm water runoff, and C-3 zoning. He stated the C-3 conditional zoning would limit the development and it would not behave like a typical C-3 zoning district. Mr. Burnette stated his concern that this rezoning would set a precedent. Mr. Travis stated that this proposal does not align with the future land use map adopted in the Decatur 360 plan. Ms. Leland-Kirk stated her concerns with the C-3 zoning and that the zoning district does not require greater setbacks from residential uses. Mr. Doyon stated that opportunities for annexation and gateway zoning is a perfect way to advance city goals, however, this application s only benefit is financial.
Mr. Burnette stated that the facility does not fit the character of this area of Decatur and that it does not have a rational relationship to other developments or the surrounding zoning. Mr. Ohlandt stated this concerns that this type of zoning is precedent-setting and outweighs any financial benefit. Mr. Travis stated that changing from an R-60 zoning district to the C-3 zoning district is the most intensive zoning change. Mr. Burnette stated, to his knowledge, this has not happened before and would be out of character with past decisions with which he was familiar. In response to a question from Mr. Travis, Ms. Sellers requested that the move forward with a vote and recommendation. She stated that a different zoning district other than C-3 could not be resolved in that time period of deferral and would affect the timeline of the purchase agreement. Mr. Burnette stated that amending other zoning districts to allow self-storage facilities might be worth considering. On a motion by Ms. Leland-Kirk, second by Mr. Doyon, and all voting aye, the Planning Commission recommended denial of changing the land use designation for the property located at 1121 and 1123 Clairemont Road from LDR Low Density Residential (DeKalb County) to C Commercial and High Density Residential (City of Decatur) and 1119 Clairemont Avenue from RL Low Density Residential (City of Decatur) to C Commercial and High Density Residential (City of Decatur). On a motion by Ms. Leland-Kirk, second by Mr. Doyon, and all voting aye, the Planning Commission recommended denial of changing the zoning for the property located at 1121 and 1123 Clairemont Road from O-I Office-Institutional and R-75 Single Family Residential (DeKalb County) to C-3 - Heavy Commercial (City of Decatur) and 1119 Clairemont Avenue from R-60 Single Family Residential (City of Decatur) to C-3 Heavy Commercial (City of Decatur). On a motion by Ms. Leland-Kirk, second by Mr. Doyon, and all voting aye, the Planning Commission recommended denial of a conditional use permit to allow a self-storage facility at 1119 Clairemont Avenue, 1121 and 1123 Clairemont Road. On a motion by Ms. Leland-Kirk, second by Mr. Doyon, and all voting aye, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request for a special exception to reduce the required parking for the proposed project at 1119 Clairemont Avenue, 1121 and 1123 Clairemont Road. Mr. Burnette returned to the minutes under old business. On a motion by Ms. Leland-Kirk, second by Mr. Ohlandt, and all voting aye, the approved the minutes from the May 8 th meeting Mr. Burnette asked if there was any other business. Ms. Threadgill informed the that City Commission members held interviews for the vacant seat.
The meeting adjourned at 10:23 PM.