Regular Commission Meeting 7:00 PM

Transcription

1 Regular Commission Meeting City of Woodstock, GA The Chambers at City Center Main Street (Main) (City Clerk) (Fax) EXPERIENCE WOODSTOCK HER HERITAGE, HER VISIÓN -MINUTES- Thursday, September J, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting 7:00 PM ITEM I. Call to Order 7:18 PM Meeting called to order on September 1, 2016 at The Chambers at City Center, 8534 Main Street, Woodstock, GA. ITEM II. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived James Drinkard Chairman Present David Hacker Board Member Ward 1 Present Collin Ake Board Member Ward 2 Present Darin Hunter Board Member Ward 3 Absent Debra McPherson Board Member Ward 4 Present 7:24pm Richard Terry Board Member Ward 5 I Present Renee Gable Board Member Ward 6 Absent Brantley Day Community Development Director Present Katie O'Connor Senior City Planner Present Tania Celis Leyva Current Planner Present Sandy Henry Deputy City Clerk Present Approval of Minute I l. Approval of Minutes from August 4, 2016 Meeting Motion to approve minutes PC Collin - Ap pro.ve with the update-of titles on the attendee page Motion to approve with changes to attendee page PC Hacker I PC Terry. All in favor. Motion carried 4-0. ITEM ill. Petitions and Communications l. Ordinance (ID# 4106) A# Neese Road Townhomes The City of Woodstock, Georgia has received an Annexation and Rezoning application from Mr. Lee Lusk of Neese Road Investments, LLC of Ball Ground, GA. The property is located at 772 Neese Road in Woodstock, Georgia consisting of ±3.56 acres. The property is identified as tax map and parcel number 15N and is zoned Cherokee County R-40. The request is to rezone the parcel to City Adopted zoning RTH to construct a 28 lot townhome community. Woodstock Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 9/1/2016

2 Regular Commission Meeting Minutes September 1, 2016 Joel Larkin - Sams Larkin, Huff, & Balli LLP. Appreciates staff and the work they have done with working with Mr. Lusk and his company. Dedication for right away which staff is asking so that the City will have access and since the builder has two access to his property with this road going beside the lot and another 50 ft. buffer so we are willing to work with staff still on this. My understanding that the property owner that has a large piece of property was going to work with us for the Storm water and to date he has not given us access. We were hoping to get him to join us in developing this lot together. When we speak to him we will have a better understanding of what a buffer can be. Ifhe redevelops his property then a different buffer will be needed. We are certainly willing to work on these. Chairman Drinkard-The future of Neese road and in not so near future there has been said alterations to Neese road. Are you familiar with any of these alterations? Tania - I have reached out to our City Engineer. She made us aware that the City and County have begun discussions about some projects but nothing has been set on anything with Neese Road. Neese was being considered for improvements but no specific plans have been made for Neese road. Chairman Drinkard - So we have no way of anticipating what right away will be needed? Katie - The reason for condition #2 was for the sidewalk to be installed further to the back normally the sidewalk is a foot back but since we know that there is something may be happening to Neese Road but we don't have specifics. Chairman Drinkard - The road twist and turns. Is there any concern of sight lines along that road, turn lanes, acceleration lanes to service this neighborhood based on number of units that they are talking about? Tania - The development process committee did address the County's recommendation for a potential deceleration lane and a left turn lane to the entrance of this property to help mitigate traffic control. Ultimately in conjunction with all the departments the development committee voted to not to include them since the development of Neese Road has been restarted. PC Ake - Katie brought up# 2, 5 foot sidewalks, and the green prints on the west side Neese Road sidewalk looks like there is a trail there. In the past we have tried to get trails in where we can when development is being made, is there a reason we didn't recommend the trail here is it because of the widening project? Tania - Because of the widening. PC Hacker-To PC Ake's point and the 50 ft. right away on #3 what is the thought process behind this and did you take into consideration other access points? Tania - When we voted on this condition we did not DPC didn't access those two access points it was to maintain the right away and to make sure the land wasn't land locked. Chairman Drinkard- I would like to ask the applicant to come back. As an attorney ifwe have a community that is trying to follow criteria and we waiver from that criteria without a clear reason would you consider that to be a tantalizing situation for you in a court case. Woodstock Planning Commtsston Page2 Printed 9/112016

3 Mr. Larkin - I reject the hypothetical is not applying here the main criteria would be the way that the county and city land use plans of this property and the proposal is consistent with development in both plans. Public hearing Larry Sandidge-111 Brentwood Lane - My concerns is not so much the development but the density. You stick 28 townhomes on 3 Yi acres. Did mention 16% greenspace and then they will have runoff and it will be an issue. I have a pond behind the house and this will run off of me and my pond will be the retention pond for that property. There is a wall that has pipes to the creek. When we did the subdivision all the pipe is to the creek. If we get the run off the head wall will not handle this which is a concern. The fact that we use the county zoning but they are picking and choosing. I am all about developing but 28 houses on 3 Yi acres isn't going to work. I would like to see a lower density. They did contact me about sewer. I am not looking to develop my land now or anytime soon. I decided to stay out of this. Lot 16 (lowest lot) has a fall and a man hole cover. So you will have several hundred feet and the man hole would have to be 12 foot deep and I am sure it probably is but to tie into the road they will probably be 20 ft. deep. Because there is 6 ft. of elevation between the man holes cover and top of street. And we have maple trees lining the roads and you won't be able to put a 20 ft. deep sewer line and not destroy the trees. These are things I am concerned with. I appreciate the input I have had and the city has contacted me but I feel like this is not the best fit. Joseph Juneghani Brentwood Lane - My biggest concern is common area and retention pond. I saw where the buffer can be increased to 35 ft. that is great. Still not happy about the pond being 10 yards in the back ofmy property. This past April I thought the water was coming into my home. Run off is a problem and worried about the run off since he gets run off from his neighbor. If this goes through I hope you create a good buffer and maybe a fence along our property line. Make sure the vegetation going back in is mature vegetation and not a bunch of saplings. I understand it is not my property but it is my back yard. Robert Garrison Brentwood Lane - Pretty much what Larry has told you so I don't want to keep saying this. We do have drainage issues from run off. Our back yard gets marshy if you will so we have a problem and my back yard is 5 ft. lower than the property. Even with the buffer, with if being 5 to 6 feet up and then you have 25 to 30 feet above me so I would be looking up to homes. I do like the idea of the fencing on the property. Initially we were told $200,000 for sale price. Some of the townhomes around are less than that and several in foreclosure. I have seen several townhomes on Zillow that are on foreclosure and less than the $200. Kyle Kinnamar Brentwood Court - HOA president. I live in the back of neighborhood. Sewer issue, currently the church has a pump that passes through my yard to county property then back to Brentwood SD. We also have run off from Wynchase possibly Oakhurst subdivision. And then we have had multiple attempts at 92 and Neese road for elderly care, gas station, etc. which means that waste has to flow somewhere and it would get tied into us. I don't think we have capacity for that. I can tell you when I had my home up for sale and when potential buyers came, they smelt human waste so they turned around and walked away. So the water that flows downhill the notorious gas flows up hill. We have had this problem for 1 O years. So adding 28 to 30 homes to this will not help. Storm runoff and drainage but that storm water does run down towards us. Brentwood lane is in the flood plain. So we are changing the topography the value of the home and ability for resale. The road does have multiple culvert so the creek can flow. But I have seen the creek exceed the Woodstock Planning Commission Page3 Printed 9/1/2016

4 Regular Commission Meeting Minutes September 1, 2016 creek and cover the road to where I was deterred from my home due to the water and some homes on Brentwood Court are not accessible when this happens. Acceleration lane that was propose and then tabled. I wonder if we are going to have students and where they pick up the bus and so where would the bus go if no acceleration lane? Will students be stepping off the sidewalk to a grassy area? I have 3 children and I want to be able to put them on the bus and make sure they are safe just like anyone would want for their child. We appreciate the time and energy that has gone into this. We are not opposed to development just a large number of homes for a small acreage. Chairman Drinkard - Close public hearing. Mr. Larkin - We have to be required to design a detention facility that will address the storm water for our property which will typically will help others. Sewer capacity is another design and issue that your professional staff will address. If we don't have sewer capacity then we won't be building houses that is how it works. We are somewhat in transition in the developing. Buffer issue we think there is plenty of room on the property we have pushed the townhomes to the side closer to the office development. We will work with staff on this and we can be good neighbors with these folks and still get a reasonable return. Chairman Drinkard - So is there possibility to provide fencing on the property and property to the south? Mr. Larkin - We have not discussed but we will. I do not have the authority on this issue but I would think that they would want to do this. We are trying to create a self-contained community I am sure there will be something whether it is landscaping or fencing to wrap around the development. Chairman Drinkard - Tania with respect to the flood plan have you spoke to Mr. Flood about the sewerage at location Tania - I have not spoken with Mr. Flood but I did with Rob Hogan and I did bring up the concerns with storm water and sewage and lift stations which the public address. Ifthere were issues they would be addressed. He said that public works believes these are issues that can be addressed through site plans. Chairman Drinkard - So he is not suggesting there are issues presently but simply the issues can be handled through the developmental process. Tania - If there are any issues those would be addressed through the site review process. Chairman Drinkard- With retrospect to the applicant's site plan there was things concerning the detention area which is listed as name detention/common area. Tania- With the 16% common area figure is the number I received from the applicant's engineer directly and it does not include the space of detention area. PC Ake - In the agenda packet# 3 says that page 58. 2nd paragraph, it states that 'the City's Public Works Department believes a deceleration lane at the entrance on Neese Road could address some traffic flow concerns.' Tania - That development process committee chose to not make the recommendation but our City engineer said that it was something that could be considered. This was the first conversation about Neese Road being widened. Woodstock Planning Commission Page4 Printed 9/1/2016

5 Chairman Drinkard - This is not that the DPC disagreed with the City Engineer as much as it was to initiate more realistic approach of Neese Road. PC Hacker- Was there any discussion of HOA for the development? Tania- If the applicant can correct me ifl am wrong but they do plan to have an HOA. Chairman Drinkard - Mr. Larking we have a question for you. PC Hacker-ljust want to make sure there will be an HOA? Mr. Larkin - It would be unusual for there not to be an HOA Chairman Drinkard - Have you and your engineer had any discussions about the design of the development? Mr. Larkin - We try to make it so we don't have to build a concrete wall, we are trying to make it work so we can get grassy areas. This is not site plan specific. PC Ake - Y ou said that it is very unusual to not have an HOA so the applicant does intend to have an HOA? Mr. Larkin- Yes, we would agree to a condition if that makes you more comfortable. PC Hacker motion to approve for staff recommend striking #3 and add a condition for an HOA and I would like to see fencing along the south side/ buffer. Second PC Debra. Chairman Drinkard - This is an interesting case. The west side has the comer property that has had several commercial offers for it. With commercial to residential on the street it isn't a smooth transition. I have concerns not providing a deceleration lane or something. I offer for #9 to require a deceleration lane. David and Debra agreed. #IO all methods of storm water be considered fully, dry retention pond be considered to be last resort. David and Debra agree. All in favor of motions with #9 and #10. All in favor 4-l(Chairman Drinkard.) 2. Ordinance (ID# 4104) V#141-16, Linton & Main Variances The City of Woodstock, Georgia has received a Variance application from Windsong Properties, LLC of Woodstock, GA (Case V#141-16). The property is located at 402 and 8258 Main Street, to the north and south of Linton Street, in Woodstock, Georgia consisting of ±1.27 acres. The property, identified as tax map and parcel numbers 92N and 010, is zoned DT-RO (Downtown Residential Office) in the City limits of Woodstock, GA. The request is to allow single family attached homes fronting on Main Street, which is prohibited by the DT-RO zoning. David Hacker recused from this. Parks Huff - Sams, Larkin, Huff & Balli LLP, We have been working on this for over a year to come up with something that worked. The only thing we are asking for is a variance for the 3 units that face Main Street so that they are all residential. We are tried to get a unit for live/work unit but it just did not work. We will be doing a 10 foot wide green prints trail along the frontage. I think this is a win/win. Woodstock Planning Commission Page5 Printed 9/112016

6 PC Ake - You mentioned options on for a mixed use building on the North side of Linton and let us know why that didn't work and why that didn't come through the sight plan? Parks Huff - Property to the north is residential. lt didn't work market wise to try to put in the combination of commercial and residential. lt made an appropriate location to do that. Chairman Drinkard - Is that commercial building flat or offsets? Huff - There is going to be some relief on the architectural detail on the front. Y ou have relief on the top with the comice work. Store front treatments which requires variation in depth. Chairman Drinkard - And the townhome structure as well? Parks Huff - Y es, it will have variation in it too. Question for staff PC Ake - Condition one speaks of sight lay out being similar to the drawing. If we absolutely want to see trail here do we need to add this to the amendment as well? Katie - Whether its green print trail or not it is going to get 1 O ft. sidewalk. Chairman Drinkard - With respect to the on street parking, is there any concern for overnight parking. Katie - lt will be public parking so the City doesn't have an opinion of who uses it. In Downtown the City wants on street parking everywhere so that everyone can use it. Generally all on street parking should not be dedicated for a specific use. Chairman Drinkard - What about overnight parking on the Main Street? Katie - We are not 100% sure if the on street parking design is going to work because the 1 O Ft. sidewalk the stop bar is going to have to be pretty far back on Linton Street. So we are not sure about site distance. So the spaces 4 and 5 may not be possible so we are not sure how this will work out until it gets into engineering. Chairman Drinkard - Should be consider to manage those parking spaces with respect to no overnight parking? Is there a safety issue there that we need to address? Katie - We do not manage on street parking for overnight parking downtown. So if there is a safety issue or not I cannot answer on that. Parks Huff - I just want to add that these will be public spaces and the city will have full control over those. The City can put no overnight parking on them. Katie - I would like to add that each unit will have 2 car garage. PC Ake - Does the staff seem to think that there will be onset of on street parking north, south, west? Katie - someone contacted me to see if they can do this when they saw the site plan. So I told them that I wasn't sure if this will be approved. lt is being proposed in other areas. PC Ake - If some of this parking isn't feasible what the other plans for commercial parking are? Woodstock Planning Commission Page 6 Printed 9/112016

7 Katie - They would have to come up with a shared parking agreement. Hold public hearing. Terry Thorp Linton - Am I correct in what I just heard that a 3 story building is going on main street. Is that what you plan of doing to do all down Main Street and on street parking? We put a no parking sign on Linton due to Sprouts parking on Linton. The street isn't wide enough to put on street parking. To be able to back out on Main it is going to tie up Main Street even more. From my property to look at a 3 story building on main. I am very opposed. You're fixing to wipe out all the houses down there. Jason Scheidt -371 Arnold Mill (For) - The mix use building is really going to be the focal point. Heading south into downtown they are straight but road is at an angle so it will be a nice gate way into the City. Y ou can see a patio on the front first floor which is kind of a welcoming to the building. The building is appropriate that this building is mix use building makes it more appropriate. And the goal is to have rooftop access as well. Thomas Simmons - own 8203 Main Street - Directly north of applicant property. I have mixed feelings, wonderful plans. When I contacted the City about a proposed a bed and breakfast on my property, I was told that Main Street parking was not allowed. Now you're doing something to better the City your now allowing that. How is the applicant going to meet the ITE standards for alley way. My property line is on the property line that alley way is going to be. The equipment is 5 to 6 feet from my office. That is my only objection is to make sure the ITE standards are being used. I am concerned with traffic flow and traffic counts for street parking and people turning into their units. Close public hearing. Parks Huff - The property is zoned for the use we are proposing. I understand the concerns and the property is in fact in compliance with the zoning. This is what the City has approved. Linton Street is not up to standards. There is 2 ways for it to come up to standards is 1. For the City to pay for it or 2. Get a developer to pay for it. I understand his concerned for the development in the area. Will make sure for the alleys allow for the turning movements. PC Ake - Make sure the alley way and clearances are addressed. Parks Huff - There is an entrance from Linton Street driving north. Y ou can enter there and tum left to go into garages. Rear entry product. Tum right to go behind and enter other units. lt meets the alley way requirements. PC Ake motion to approve with staff recommendations PC Terry to second. Chairman Drinkard- Evolution of this has been good. lt is clear that they look at what we want to do as a City. They responding with what we are looking for. I appreciate the effort. Motion to approve PC Ake/ Terry with staff recommendations. All in favor. Motion carried 4-0. PC Hacker recused Woodstock Planning Commission Page 7 Printed 9/1/2016

8 3. Ordinance (ID# 4103) CUP#031-16, 103 E. Main Street The City of Woodstock, Georgia has received a Conditional Use Permit application from Thomas F. Devaney of Canton, GA (Case CUP#031-16). The property is located at 103 East Main Street, in Woodstock, Georgia consisting of ±0.82 acres. The property, identified as tax map and parcel numbers 92N03 OlOA, is zoned DT-CBD (Downtown Central Business District) with DT-HO (Historic Overlay) in the City limits of Woodstock, GA. The request is to allow an office use on the first floor of a building facing East Main Street, which is allowed by Conditional Use Permit only. Motion to Approve PC Ake I Terry. All in favor. Motion carried Ordinance (ID# 4108) Z# Piedmont Real Estate, Main Street Rezoning and CUP for Apartments The City of Woodstock, Georgia has received a Conditional Use Permit and Rezoning application from Piedmont Real Estate Group, Inc. of Woodstock, GA (Case Z#085-16). The property is located on the Western side of Main Street, North of Dupree Road, in Woodstock, Georgia consisting of ±1.610 acres. The property, identified as tax map and parcel numbers 92N06 009A and 010, is zoned DT-CBD (Downtown Central Business District) and DT-CBD (Downtown Central Business District) with Historic Overlay in the City limits of Woodstock, GA. The request is to rezone both parcels to DT-CMU (Downtown Commercial Mixed U se) to construct a mixed use residential-commercial development and a parking deck. A Conditional Use Permit is requested for 64 Apartments. Will remain on table and will not be heard. 5. Ordinance (ID# 4107) Z# Field Equity, LLC The property is located on the west side of Woodstock Parkway and north of Towne Lake Parkway in Woodstock, Georgia consisting of± acres. The property is identified as tax map and parcel numbers 15Nl 1 019A and is zoned DT-GC (Downtown General Commercial) in the City limits of Woodstock, GA. The request is to rezone the parcel to GC (General commercial). Variances and a Conditional Use Permit to facilitate the construction of an approximately 90,000 square foot climate controlled self-storage facility are also requested. The DPC voted to recommend the denial of all requests. Huff- This is not downtown this is on Woodstock Parkway. We are talking that this will be a nice building in this area. This use is very misunderstood. These are popular because there is a market for it because of the small homes and condos that we have downtown so this market is extremely good for this type of use. We have created an attractive building to improve this corridor. This is not a pedestrian corridor. The variance we are asking for is a variance that you have considered at another self-storage facility. We actually have more parking than we show here. We did listen to staff and I have the architect here. This will not create any traffic in the area. Chairman Drinkard - What is the foot print of this building? Parks Huff sq. ft. it's a basement with 3stories above it. Woodstock Planning Commission Page8 Printed 9/1/2016

9 Chairman Drinkard- Mr. Huff you frequently travel 575, what do you see when you're traveling down 575? Parks Huff- If your exiting you will see this if you not you won't see this until you get part way down the exit. The tree stand is very significant along 575 there. Chairman Drinkard - We will agree to disagree. Let's talk architectural. It is not an unattractive building. I think it could be closer to something we would like to see. I think there is ways to get there by doing some sort of window treatments. The window treatments make a huge difference. Talk to me about why you can't do something like that on this structure. Or make some tweet to make it look like this. Parks Huff- Glass is a poor insulation and creates some design challenges and how the building functions. Also creates some cost with redeveloping the site. Frankly, is has to do with cost and it is a big leap in costs. PC McPherson - Go back to picture there is a comment about adding back the windows. Chairman Drinkard - When adding back the windows 40 % brick window and closer for 29% to 30% for use. Katie - Can we better explain that is that your question? Tania - The points made here is from Mr. Evans so he can better explain those. Chad-Tania was asking about% of materials and that is what this project is showing: 35 % brick, 22% light efface and this is the % without the windows so if you add back the windows then you're looking at 40%. I was not saying to add more windows. Chairman Drinkard - This to the Charlotte image. How can we meet in the middle? Parks Huff - We are not prepared to answer that. On this picture here you will see the peaking of the building above the Subway. PC Hacker - So we want to make this building look good. PC Hacker - Do you know where this elevation will be? Tim - We think it is going to be about approximate of where the roof is now. 1 O foot rise on the property. The other project that was shown is nice but I am pretty sure that is a rehab from an old warehouse refurbished. PC Ake - you indicated that this should not be in the downtown district and can you tell me where you feel that ends and why? Parks Huff- When you look at this property it is more interstate than downtown. North of us is general commercial. When you look at this your basically at an interstate interchange. PC Ake - Somewhere there has to be a line and ifwe exclude this property from the downtown district and rezone it. It feels like we want to be flexible to what we want to propose. Parks Huff - Staff uses in their analyses is the use is compatible and they focus on the architectural and we want what we want. We have our architect here and we want to respect the Woodstock Planning Commission Page9 Printed 9/112016

10 use We will make something that will be attractive. I think it is a quirk that this is not allowed downtown. I think it is a perfect location. PC McPherson - How are you configuring the inside storage units? Chad- Some of them will be lining the exterior walls. We haven't designed it yet. PC McPherson -Just was wondering if you would see the people moving into them. PC Terry-The building just north were built to downtown standards? Parks Huff - They were built before the Downtown standards were adopted. PC Ake - One of the things mention is if this is approved that no billboards on sight. Chad - There is one on sight but we have no use for it and would remove that. Staff questions PC Hacker- What are your thoughts of how this connects downtown (connectivity, walkability )? Tania - I agree with the committee that this is a bit awkward. This frontage doesn't belong to the applicant it belongs to ford dealership. They will have to have an easement to be able to maintain the look in term of landscaping. Would like a firm architectural and rezoning standards could oppose a risk for the City. Katie - To answer your question on the Stein property there was 50 % brick but a lot more windows. Also on current approved trails plans there are not proposed trails. Open Public Hearing: No one signed up to speak Close public hearing. Parks Huff- We can roll up our sleeves and come up with something. Low traffic is good in this area. Good use there. PC Terry- Great for the area just to come up with a concept that we can all agree on. PC Hacker - I liked it too. More brick. Look at the Holiday Inn anything we do will be an improvement. We are proposing we need self-storage. PC McPherson -The outside of the structure to have more natural stone. PC Ake - I would like to not move forward without feeling comfortable with the architectural design/standards. Look at council and downtown. Gate way to our community. I agree with staff for what we see with the entrance to our city off the main exit. We should be guiding ourselves by the LCI study/ comprehension plan. Chairman Drinkard-The use yes, there is a need in the city. We can get there with the architectural and we have to nail it down. I don't feel we would be doing our job by passing on to council and saying hey you figure this out. So we can give the applicant some time. Motion to table Chairman Drinkard/ McPherson. PC Hacker opposed. Motion carried 4-1. Woodstock Planning Commission Page JO Printed 9/ 1/2016

11 6. Ordinance (ID# 4105) Z# FrontDoor Communities, Condition Amendment to Case Z# The City of Woodstock has received a request from FrontDoor Communities of Atlanta, Georgia, to amend rezoning condition #12 from Case Z#070-14, the donation of civic space in the Rope Mill Station Subdivision aka "Inwood Subdivision." The property is on Rope Mill Road, acres, map and parcel number 15Nl (Case Z#88-16). See attachment. Parks Huff - The city didn't want to help with impact fees. We didn't want the alley due to people using it as a cut through. We have yet another proposal that staff hasn't seen yet. Double load alley behind 5, 6, 7 and face them towards Rope Mill Road. The cost of the trail would be 140 thousand and we don't have enough money to do that in this project. Chairman Drinkard - So it's the 3 extra units to the 5 unit's staff gave you. Parks Huff- No, we are giving up the 5 units and want the 3 units. Chairman Drinkard - And you said staff hasn't seen this. Katie, do you want to take a few minutes to look at this. Before Q and A would you like some time to look at this? Katie - I haven't seen this. Is it one you ed me? So I haven't seen this at all. If they are proposing to put 3 units where these 5 are? I have a lot of questions. Applicant stated that they have not been drawn up yet. 10:00 pm Adjourned to meet with staff. 10:24pm Staff returned. Back into session. Katie - Timing issue and would recommend to go to council Parks Huff - I am confident to come up with a win /win for the city Public hearing open/closed no one present. No recommendation PC Ake - I object due to not be able to see the plan and there is process here. Chairman Drinkard - I don't like forwarding to council without seeing the project. I understand the time stance. lt has been made clear we do not like surprises. So that staff can review it. Staff is comfortable so that is only reason I am comfortable. Motion to approve PC Hacker/ Terry. Motion carried 4-1. PC Ake opposed. ITEM IV. Announcements and Informational Items Brantley - training dates if you're interested we will fund this. Woodstock Planning Commission Page 11 Printed 9/112016

12 ITEM V. Adjournment Motion to adjourn Drinkard/ Terry at 10:31 pm Woodstock Planning Commission Page 12 Printed 9/1/2016