Jul 08, 2021 Planning Commission

[ROLL CALL]

[00:00:22]

THE ROAD IF YOU WILL GOOD THE COMMISSIONS GOING TO BE PRESENTED WITH AN AGENDA ITEM SET BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THEN A REPRESENTATIVE FOR EACH OF THE ITEMS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENTS IF THEY WISH TO.

AS WE GO THROUGH IN WHICH SOME OF THESE REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.

EXCEPT MOST OF THEM DO. SOME DO NOT. AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME ALL UP IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WHEN I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IT'S TIME TO COME FORWARD TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THAT ITEM THAT IS AT HAND. WE WANT EVERYONE TO BE HEARD.

WE ASK YOU KEEP YOUR TIME TO TALK TO 5 MINUTES AND PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE AT HAND. AFTER EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

REPRESENTATIVE AND THE STAFF WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND RESPOND TO ISSUES BROUGHT UP DURING THE HEARING. THEN I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSIONS, MOTIONS AND A VOTE FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE BASED ON STATE AND LOCAL LAWS. THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2030 AND THE GENERAL GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY. HAVING SUMMARIZE THE BASIC PROCESS I WANT TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT SPECIFICALLY SUBDIVISION PLATS. BY ALABAMA STATUTE THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION SUCH AS OURS IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY FOR SUBDIVISION PLATS. WITH REGARD TO SUBDIVISION PLATS OF THE COMMISSION ACTS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND IS BOUND BY THE LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN STATE LAWS, THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AT THIS BODY HAS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED.

WHILE PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED FOR EACH SUBDIVISION PLAT WE WELCOME ANY AND ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS CONCERNING THESE ITEMS BUT, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO CONFIRMING THAT THE PLAT MEETS OR EXCEEDS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE CODIFIED IN THE LAWS AND IRREGULARITIES REGULATIONS IP RECEIPT MENTION.

APPARENTLY I LIKE TO MAKE THE POINT THAT AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION WE ARE ONLY AN ADVISORY BODY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SUBDIVISION PLATS WHICH WE ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY. ALL DECISIONS ARE MADE FINALLY BY THE CITY COUNCIL UPON OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS

[CITIZENS’ COMMUNICATION]

THERE ARE COUPLE OF ANNEXATIONS THERE. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE ANNEXATIONS, THE CONSENT AGENDA OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE ON YOUR MIND PLEASE COME FORWARD

AT THIS TIME. >> HOW ARE YOU MY NAME IS JEFFREY SUMMIT REPRESENTING MY COMPANY CIRCLE INCORPORATED AND MYSELF.HE CITY RECENTLY PASSED A ZONE COULD.

>> YOUR HOME ADDRESS? >> 1312 GLEN MILLS DRIVE OPELIKA ALABAMA 36801.

>> THANK YOU. >> I'M HERE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN OF NEW CHANGES IN ZONING OF THE REST GLEN AVENUE. THEY PHRASED THE REQUIREMENT THAT PROPERTY FACING THE STREET REQUIRES A 15 FOOT CEILING HEIGHT RELATED TO SOME COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT I

DON'T THINK IT'S ACTUALLY USABLE. >> ARE YOU ADDRESSING A

SPECIFIC ITEM WE HAVE HERE TONIGHT? >> I'M ADDRESSING A CONCERN FOR

MYSELF. >> I'M SORRY, CARRY ON. >> IT SOUNDS FAMILIAR I THOUGHT WE HAD ANOTHER ONE THAT'S ON THE AGENDA ABOUT EAST GLENN AND SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON.

>> THIS IS MY ADDRESS BECAUSE I OWN A LOT OF LAND DOWN THERE. DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE'S DEVELOPMENT. YOU GOT A 15 FOOT A REQUIREMENT OF COMMERCIAL STREET ALONG THE STREET. THIS IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

I WANT TO SEE THE NEXUS THEY CAME FROM THE DIRECTOR THAT TIES THIS TO SOME PROFITABLE VENTURE FOR THE DEVELOPERS. IT AFFECTS ALL OF MY LAND. WORRIED ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT

[00:05:13]

I KNOW THERE IS FOOT TRAFFIC DOWN THERE BUT IT'S NOT IN THE GENERAL AREA LIKE DOWNTOWN AUBURN. FOR THEY HAVE COMMITTED TO HAVE COMMERCIAL SPACE UNDER THESE BUILDINGS THEY HAVE BUILT. SOME OF THEM ARE COMPLETELY VACANT.

IT BOTHERS ME IT WOULD DEPRECIATE THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY.

I NEED ANSWERS. >> OKAY HAVE YOU APPROACHED THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON

THIS ISSUE? >> I WAS HOPING THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WILL BE HERE TODAY.

>> I WOULD SUGGEST THE FIRST THING THAT WOULD BE USEFUL TO COME INTO THE CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR AND START WITH THE DIALOGUE AT THAT POINT AND THEN THERE ARE PROCESSES WE CAN GO THROUGH TO ADDRESS IT MORE FORMALLY IF THERE IS A NEED TO CHANGE ANY OF THE ORDINANCES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS TO DO THAT.

>> I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING TIME TO HEAR ME. IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR ME AND OTHER DEVELOPERS DOWN IN THAT SAME AREA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> IF YOU LIKE TO COME BY THE OFFICE TOMORROW OR CALL THE OFFICE TOMORROW AND SET UP AN

APPOINTMENT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU SIR.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS WAYNE POLLARD. MY FAMILY OWNS PROPERTY AT 579 RAILROAD AVENUE WHICH IS A PLUS THE PROPERTY THAT MR. CYRUS TALK ABOUT.

WE HAVE A HOME THERE. WE CAME TO THE PLANNING MEETING WHEN YOU APPROVED THE 7 LOTS CONSOLIDATING THEM INTO ONE. IT COMPLETELY SURROUNDS OUR PROPERTY.

I'M CONCERNED FROM AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT BEING COMMERCIAL RIGHT BEHIND US IN AN AREA LIKE I DON'T SAY THAT WE GET A VERY GOOD DRAW FOR THEIR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.

I THINK, I'M NOT SURE HOW TO GO ABOUT CHANGING THE ZONING. ISN'T THERE SUPPOSED TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING WHEN THEY CHANGE ZONING. WE WERE NOTIFIED OF ANY PUBLIC HEARING. WE WERE NOTIFIED WHEN YOU WERE CONSOLIDATING THE 7 LOTS.

BUT WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REZONING OF THAT WHOLE AREA TO DOWNTOWN. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT LETTING THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVED THERE AND THERE ARE SEVERAL PRIVATE HOMES IN A BLOCK OF 2 OF THAT AREA.

>> ALL THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES ARE NOTIFIED. AS PART OF THE PROCESS.

>> WE WORK. >> WOULD HAPPEN IS WE HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT.

>> IT WAS A TEXT AMENDMENTS. >> MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER THING TO TALK TO ONE OF THE PLANNERS TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. THEN WE CAN TAKE STEPS BEYOND

THAT. >> THIS IS NUMBER 25 ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT.

THAT'S WHY WAS SPEAK INTO IT. IT DOES AFFECT US WHAT YOU DECIDE TO DO THERE.

THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY SEEING NONE LET'S MOVE ON.

THERE'S NO OLD BUSINESS. THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND TO POSTPONE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I? ALTHOUGH SUPPOSED SAY NO? THAT'S REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE. NEVER GOING TO GO ON AND TALK ABOUT NUMBER 3. OH, I'M SORRY. THE EARNEST ANNEXATION IS A SECOND ONE WE WANT TO REMOVE FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.THIS IS PL 2021 Ã00371 I HAVE ALSO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA POSTPONE UNTIL DATE CERTAIN OF

8 SEPTEMBER 2021. >> DID THEY REQUIRE AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER?

>> ALUMS ARE THUS THE BOTTLE. OKAY I WILL REVISE THAT MOTION AND SAY THAT WERE GOING TO REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND POSTPONE IT UNTIL A DATE 12, AUGUST 2021.

MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE FAVOR SAY I? ALL THOSE AGAINST SAY NO.

MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL ADDRESS THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[00:10:04]

THE CHANDLER ANNEXATION PL 2021 ZERO 0385. PIPER GLENN PHASE 2 PL 2021 Ã

00384. >> MR. CHAIRMAN I WOULD MOVE ON THE APPROVAL OF THE 3 ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLUS THE MINUTES AND THE PACKET MEETING ON JUNE 7 IN A REGULAR

MEETING FOR JUNE 10. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

[10. Keel Rezoning PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00365]

LET'S MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HEAR THE OTHER ITEMS I WANT TO BE POSTPONE. FIRST ONE WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER 10 WHICH IS THE KEEL REZONING PL Ã2021 Ã00365. MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL A DATE CERTAIN OF 8 SEPTEMBER

2021. >> SECOND. >> A MOTION IN THE SECOND ALL

[11. The Bottle CDD PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00369]

THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER 11 THE BOTTLE CDD. PL Ã2021 Ã00369.

THIS REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO POSTPONE UNTIL DATE OF 12 AUGUST 2021.

[12. The Bottle DDH PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00372]

THAT'S A MOTION. >> SECOND. >> A MOTION IN A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM NUMBER 12 THE BOTTLE DTH. PL Ã2021 Ã00372. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO POSTPONE UNTIL DATE CERTAIN UNTIL AUGUST 12, 2021. IT'S THE MOTION.

[13. The Bottle PDD PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00368]

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NUMBER 13 THE PUDDLE PDD.

THIS IS A MOTION THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE PL Ã2021 Ã00368

UNTIL A DATE CERTAIN 12 AUGUST 2021. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

[14. The Bottle PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00370]

QUICK SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. I THINK THAT IS IT.

>> ONE OTHER ITEM FAILED TO MENTION THAT ITEM 24 PROJECT LIGHT VIEW HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

>> OKAY. >> WOULD WE DO ABOUT 2 AND 3 NO?

>> I MADE THE MOTION TO MOVE THEM OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA POSTPONE.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> OKAY LET'S GET BACK TO WHERE WERE STARTING NOW.LET'S START FROM WHAT WE HAVE LEFT HERE. ITEM NUMBER 6 WHICH IS THE HIGHWAY 280 FOCUS AREA STUDY

[6. Highway 280 Focus Area Study Text Amendment PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00340]

YOU CAN FIND THAT LANGUAGE AND YOUR STAFF REPORT AND AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL.

I WILL RUN THROUGH MOSTLY THE MAP AMENDMENT SINCE THAT'S MORE VISUAL COMPONENT TO THIS.

THE FOCUS AREA STUDY IS FOR ANYONE THAT IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THEM ARE ESSENTIALLY A NEIGHBORHOOD OR CORRIDOR-BASED STUDIES THAT WE LOOK AT. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IN OUR COMP PLAN IS ON THE SAME THING AS THE ZONING DISTRICT. THE ZONING WHICH PEOPLE ARE MORE FAMILIAR WITH IS, WHAT COULD HE DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY NOW. WHAT ARE THE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR YOUR PROPERTY. THE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS LOOKING LONG TERM TO 2030.

[00:15:03]

AMONG US HARDY WEEK 281 OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY. WE WORKED WITH LOTS OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO DEVELOP THIS PROPOSAL.

THERE'S ABOUT 310 PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT STUDY AREA. WE BUILT ALL THE POSTCARDS TO ALL OF THEM AND INVITED THEM TO COME IN AND SPEAK WITH STAFF AND WE HOSTED A VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE. THIS WAS DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC.

THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE TO GET PEOPLE IN PERSON.

WE DID THE BEST WE COULD AND FOR PARTICIPATION WE GOT WE FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE.

WE MET WITH OR SPOKE WITH CITY COUNSELORS, EXCEPT PROPERTY OWNERS, THE UNIVERSITY OF THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT. CITY OF A LACK OF PLANNING AND ALL OF OUR INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS AND LOOKING AT INFRASTRUCTURE, NEW DEPONENT, CAPITAL PERTINENT TO THE AREA.

A VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE WAS HELD ON AUGUST 2020.E HAD 35 ATTENDEES.

WE HAVE THE FIRST WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR.

NOT TO LONG AGO. WE ARE NOW PRESENTING THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS TO YOU ALL FOR YOUR RECOGNITIONS TO THE COUNCIL.

LOOKING AT THE AREA THERE ARE SOME STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS.

ONE OF THE GREATEST THINGS ABOUT THE AREAS IT HAS GOOD ACCESSIBILITY AND PROXIMITY TO BOTH JURISDICTIONS. SOME OF THE WEAKNESSES WE FOUND IN THE AREA ARE THAT IT IS PREDOMINANTLY IN THE COUNTY AND ANOTHER CHUNK OF THE LAND IS WITHIN OR OWNED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THOSE 2 JURISDICTIONS WE DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT ZONING IN. WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DESIGNATE A FUTURE LAND USE FOR THEM. THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE STUDY AREA.

THE BOUNDARY OF THE STUDY AREA IS IN RED. IT GOES TOWARDS BIRMINGHAM THIS WAY. AND TOWARDS OPELIKA DOWN HERE. WE'VE GOT SOME LANDMARKS SUCH AS THE ALDOT FACILITY, PLAINSMAN HILLS, THE OLD REST AREA, AUBURN UNIVERSITY PROPERTY TUSCANY HILLS, ASHTON LAKES AND WHAT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED AS A FORM FILLED LAKES. THE AREA IN BLUE IS THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS.

THE WHITE AREA IS UNINCORPORATED THE COUNTY WHERE THERE IS NO ZONING IN PLACE.

THE GRAY AREA IT REPRESENTS THE CITY OF OPELIKA BOUNDARY. MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY ABOUT 30 PERCENT IS IN THE CITY LIMITS CURRENTLY. 62 PERCENT ARE ABOUT 1500 ACRES ARE IN THE COUNTY. HERE ARE SOME DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE AREA.

IT'S NOT A LOT OF ROOFTOP AND ITS MAJORITY VACANT. ABOUT 60 PERCENT OF THE LAND IS OWNED BY THE UNIVERSITY. YOU DO HAVE SOME AGRICULTURAL, COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USES AND OPEN-SPACE RECREATION. OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES IS PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE-FAMILY AND AS I STATED THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAND IS CURRENTLY VACANT OR UNDEVELOPED.

HERE IS A CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE. THIS IS WHAT'S IN THE COMP PLAN CURRENTLY. AS I SAID THIS IS A RECOMMENDING DOCUMENT SO IT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY. MOST OF THE LAND IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS 280 CORRIDOR RESERVE. WHICH IS A PLACEHOLDER THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE IN 2011. ESSENTIALLY DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AS TO BE DETERMINED OR WE WILL LOOK AT IT WHEN WE GET TO A FUTURE OR FOCUS AREA STUDY.

PARTS OF THE STUDY AREA THAT WERE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARY INCLUDE THIS AREA HERE. DOWN IN HERE. SOME OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS IN HERE. AND THIS AREA HERE. THE STUDY AREA WAS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THOSE MAINLY BECAUSE SOME OF THE USES ON THE GROUND TODAY DIDN'T MATCH WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE SAYS THEY SHOULD BE. WE CONDUCTED A ONLINE SURVEY FOR ABOUT 2 MONTHS. WHERE WE SOLICITED INPUT FROM RESIDENTS IN THE STUDY AREA AND ASKED THEM TO FILL OUT A QUICK SURVEY AND DROP A PIN WHERE THEY FELT DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT

[00:20:09]

SO THIS IS ON THE NORTH WEST KIND OF QUADRANT OF THE STUDY AREA.

WERE PROPOSING MOST OF IT TO REMAIN RULE. YOU DO HAVE SOME LOTS IN HERE THAT ARE LESS THAN 3 ACRES CURRENTLY. SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT TO BE DESIGNATED AS LIMITED RESIDENTIAL. WHICH ALLOWS ONE ACRE LOTS WHICH IS WHAT THEY ARE NOW. AFTER A LOT OF DISCUSSION WE ARE INCLUDING A 300 FOOT QUARTER PROTECTION ZONE ALONG ALL THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY.

AGAIN THE CITY HAS NO ABILITY TO REGULATE UNIVERSITY OWNED PROPERTY.

WE CAN PUT THIS PROTECTION ZONE ON THEIR PROVIDE POTENTIAL BUYERS OF LAND KNOW WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT IT MORE IN DEPTH IF IT'S OWNED PRIVATELY. GOING UP ALONG HEATH'S ROAD.

A LOT OF THIS PROPERTY IN HERE IS CURRENTLY NONCONFORMING. THERE ONE ACRE ZONE RULE BUT LESS THAN 3 ACRES. AS SUCH WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE TO BE LIMITED RESIDENTIAL WHICH WOULD MAKE THOSE PROPERTIES CONFORMING. DOWN IN HERE YOU HAVE, I BELIEVE THERE'S AN AUTO SALVAGE YARD, A CHURCH AND OTHER COMMERCIAL SUPPORT AND OFFICE TYPE USES. THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE LOW MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED USE.

MOVING SOUTH EAST WE DO RECOGNIZE THERE IS A DEMAND OR POTENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL NODE TO BE LOCATED HERE. SO WE DESIGNATED A LOT OF THESE PARCELS AS GATEWAY COMMERCIAL AND GATEWAY CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL WHICH ALLOWS COMMERCIAL USES. WHICH COULD ALLOW COMMERCIAL USES. THE REMAINING PLANS TO BE DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MOVING FURTHER SOUTHEAST. OUT OF THE LANDS JUST BEEN RECOMMENDED TO BE DESIGNATED AS RULE. THEY HAVE ANOTHER POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE INTERSECTION OF FARMVILLE AND TO MEETING.

RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM FARMVILLE LAKES. GETTING TOWARDS THE LIMITS OF THE STUDY. WE RECOGNIZE THERE IS A LAW OF LARGE UNDEVELOPED LAND HERE.

HAVE ANY OF THE NEED TO HAVE A STUDY DONE IN DESIGNATE THIS PROPERTY.

A LOT OF THIS PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP.

THESE ARE HUNDRED PLUS ACRE LAND PARCELS. THAT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONNECT TO SEWER IF THEY WERE ANNEXED IN. AND WATER AS WELL.

THOSE REPRESENT A LITTLE BIT OF A THREAT TO DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING TO SOON.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING MASTER PLAN MAKES USE ON THOSE PROPERTIES SO IF THEY DO REQUEST TO COME INTO THE CITY THEY WOULD BE ASKED TO COME IN AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

>> WOULD THAT BE AT ANNEXATION? >> AT ANNEXATION CORRECT. OR IF THEY REQUEST TO REZONE ANYTHING. IN APPLYING TO FILAMENT REQUIRES THEM TO COME BEFORE

THIS COMMISSION. >> BUT NOT NECESSARILY ANNEXATION BUT ANY REZONING.

>> YUP. THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR THE SLIDES HERE.

ANY QUESTIONS? FOR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT NEEDS A COPY OF THIS ONCE TO DISCUSS OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE ARE HAPPY TO MEET WITH ANYONE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT WE TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE WERE NOT ACTUALLY REZONING ANY OF THESE PROPERTIES. THIS WOULD BE 3RD QUEST OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND THAT'S IN THE COUNTY THE REQUESTING ANNEXATION WOULD COME IN AS A RULE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND WE HAVE TO REQUEST REZONING.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THIS IS NOT AS REZONING ANYBODY'S PROPERTY.

>> A PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. FOLKS RIGHT. >> OKAY.

[00:25:03]

I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT WE KIND OF COVERED 2 ITEMS. ONE WAS BOTH OF THEM APPLYING TO THE 280 CORRIDOR FOCUS AREA STUDY. ONE ITEM WAS A TEXT AMENDMENTS AND ONE IS A LAND USE. WE SPENT MOST OF THE TIME ON THE LAND USE.

SO, ORGAN HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM SEPARATELY. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO FIRST.

>> IS IT ROPRIATE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING THAT COVERS BOTH?

>> I WOULD DO 2. >> 2 SEPARATE ONES. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS FIRST. AT THIS TIME IN THE TEXT AMENDMENTS BASICALLY INCORPORATE WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THAT'S THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS. THEN THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS WILL BE GET TO THE NEXT ITEM WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE LAND USE THAT WE SPECIFIED AND SO WE WILL HAVE TO ADOPT THEM SEPARATELY AND VOTE FOR THEM SEPARATELY.

THE FIRST ONE I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL Ã2021 Ã 00340. WHICH IS THE US HIGHWAY 280 CORRIDOR FOCUS AREA STUDY COMP PLAN 2030 TEXT AMENDMENTS. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON AT? IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION YOU COULD COME ON WARD AND DO THAT.

>> OKAY MY NAME IS AND Ã BENNETT. I LIVED AT 7001 STONEWALL ROAD OPELIKA. I LIVED IN THE AREA AND THE LITTLE GREEN STRIPES WHICH WILL BE AFFECTED BY WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I CAME TONIGHT TO SPEAK ON ITEMS 2 6, 7 AND 10 WHICH YOU HAVE ALL ADJUSTED A LITTLE BIT. ALL OF IT IS RELEVANT THOUGH.

I DID WANT YOU TO BE AWARE I'M THE ONE WITH MY HUSBAND WHO SENT YOU BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE NONCONFORMING LOTS THAT ARE THERE ON HEATH ROAD. AS IT SAID WE'VE HAD 20 NONCONFORMING LOTS PUT INTO OUR RULE ZONE. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IT IS A RULE ZONE OUT THERE AS YOU SAID. FAIRLY UNPOPULATED.

LARGE AREAS, COUNTY, ETC. THE 11 ANNEXATION SUITED PROVIDED DEFECT ON TRANSITION ZONE.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT PUTTING INTO THIS AREA. WE WERE LOOKING AT DESIGNATED IN AS A DE FACTO LARGE RESIDENTIAL AREA. SO I AM HERE TO OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF THAT BEHINDS THE NONCONFORMING LOTS THAT Y'ALL HAVE ALREADY APPROVED.

WE HAVE A TRANSITION ZONE. WE DO NOT NEED TO HAVE THE DESIGNATION FOR THE FUTURE FOR THAT AREA. ALL YOU'RE DOING IS ADDING A LOT MORE LOTS TO THIS AREA FOR NO PURPOSE BASED ON YOUR STATED REASON TO HAVE A TRANSITION AREA.

WHICH IS TO PROVIDE A SPACE BETWEEN WHAT IS ALREADY RULE AND WHAT IS BEING DEVELOPED.

IT IS THERE. YOU DIDN'T ALREADY IN THE PREVIOUS PANIC STATIONS OVER THE YEARS ALONG THAT ROAD. I'M ASKING IN YOUR 280 PLAN THAT YOU DO NOT ADD THAT DESIGNATION TO THIS AREA. SOMETIME LIKE YOU TO WRITE OUT THERE BEHIND THE TRASH TRUCK AND AS IT STOPS ALONG EACH OF THESE LITTLE DRIVEWAYS AS THE HILL GOES UP THERE SO CHANCE FOR PASSING. THERE'S NO CHANCE FOR DOING ANYTHING ABOUT WRITING A LONG AND IT'S PRETTY DANGEROUS. YOU DON'T HAVE PARKS OUT THERE. YOU DON'T HAVE A GREEN SPACE.

YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SERVICES AS YOU INCREASE THE POPULATION.

BETTER REALLY NEEDED. I'D APPRECIATE YOU KEEPING OUR RULE AREA DESIGNATED RULE FOR THE TIME BEING. PERU ROUTE 2030. THANK OU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE?NEXT? >> G DULANY 1756 WARREN LANE. I REALLY WANTED TO COME AND SEE

[00:30:02]

THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DO THAT. MY SISTER-IN-LAW AND TOLD YOU SOME THINGS ABOUT THIS AREA AND I WON'T TRY TO REPEAT WHAT SHE SAID.

JUST A COUPLE OTHER THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT. I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONING. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA TO MAKE THAT TRANSITION FROM RULE 2 MORE DENSE RESIDENTIAL. THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES I SEE THAT THAT IS A GOOD THING.

I AGREE WITH AND IN THIS 41 ACRES THAT IS INCLUDED ADJACENT TO THE NONCONFORMING LOTS.

THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE A TRANSITION THERE THROUGH THOSE LOTS.

AND IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THAT 41 ACRES ZONE SO ANYTHING OTHER THAN RULE. IF YOU LOOK TO THE EAST OF OUT THERE ARE 3 SIDES TO HIS THAT ARE FRONTED BY LARGER TRACTS OF LAND. ABOUT 93 ACRE PIECE OF LAND.

A 33 ACRE PIECE OF LAND AND HUNDRED 95 ACRE PIECE OF LAND. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING THIS NEW LIMITED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RIGHT UP AGAINST GOD. TO ME THE MORE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO IS TO HAVE A RULE ZONING IN PLACE TO DO THE TRANSITION.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING FROM EAST TO WEST THAT'S A LOGICAL TRANSITION.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT WHEN YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. CAN YOU ZOOM OUT LOOK AT THIS MAP. THERE WE GO. LIKE THAT.

THANKS. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY, SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. FOR MOTION IN THE DISCUSSION. THANKS I MAKE A MOTION WE PROVE ITEM 6 ON THE AGENDA AND TALK ABOUT IT IN A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PEER DISCUSSION?

>> THE FOLKS THAT SPOKE WE ARE GLAD TO HEAR YOU. DON'T GIVE UP.

YOU MAY BE MORE EFFECTIVE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ITEM 8 ON THE AGENDA AND THE MAP AND ALSO AT A LATER DATE WHEN WE IF WE EVER TALK ABOUT CHANGING THE ZONING. WERE NOT PROPOSING THAT AT THIS MEETING OR THIS MOTION. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE FINAL APPROVAL. WE WILL JUST MAKE A RECOMMENDATION WE ARE GLAD TO HEAR FROM YOU BUT YOU MAY BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN SOME OF THESE OTHER VENUES.

>> OKAY AMBER LET'S DO A ROLL CALL. [VOTING]

>> MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL MOVE ON TO LEAD SEE THIS IS ITEM NUMBER B ITEM

[7. Highway 280 Focus Area Study Map Amendment PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00341]

ALL GO-AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.OULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK ON THE MAP AMENDMENTS? THIS IS BASICALLY THE CHANGE THAT WE CAN PUT INTO THE COMP

PLAN BASED ON THE TEXT WE JUST APPROVED. >> A GOOD EVENING.

I'M KEVIN MINUTE AND PART THAT SAME FAMILY. 7001 STONEWALL ROAD.

I'M INTERESTED IN THE VALVES. I HAVE HALF A STATEMENT OF QUESTION HERE.

MUCH OF OUR CONCERN HAS TO DO WITH ROADS. THE TENDENCY OUT IN OUR AREA, WE'VE GOT HIGHWAY 147 INSIDE THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF NOTE IS HEATH ROAD.

YOU HAVE STONEWALL ROAD OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE LIMITS IS THE ROAD 95.

NO GO. WE HAVE A FEW PIECES THAT HAVE THE SCIENCE THAT CONFUSES A LOT OF PEOPLE. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE MAPS I DON'T SEE ANY TALK ABOUT NEW ROADS AND THINGS YET. I KNOW THE LONG RANGE PLANS OF CITY INCLUDE PERHAPS AN OUTER LOOP THAT MIGHT HAVE A TERM LESS IN THIS AREA. I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE 280 AND IT'S RIGHT THERE WHERE WERE TALKING, OKAY? RIGHT WERE TALKING.

[00:35:01]

WHERE IS THAT WAS CONSIDERED IN YOUR DESIGNATION OF USE? I BELIEVE THE HEATH ROAD COULD BE CHANGED BY AN OUTER LOOP TERMINUS ERA. I'VE BEEN DISAPPOINTED IN THE PAST LITTLE BIT. AUBURN, THE FIRST ALDOT ON HIGHWAY 147 AND ALDOT DOESN'T NECESSARILY CARE ABOUT THE DETAILS UP THERE. THEY DEFER TO THE COUNTY ON STONEWALL ROAD AND LEE COUNTY DOESN'T CARE MUCH ABOUT THE DETAILS EITHER.

SPEED LIMITS ARE BEGINNING TO GET INAPPROPRIATE FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

THERE IS A LOT OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY GOING ON THAT IF YOU DON'T LEAVE THERE YOU DON'T SEE IT. WHEN YOU COME OVER THE HILL AND SEE 2 BABY CARRIAGES OF 3 PEOPLE COMING AND YOU KNOW THERE ARE LONG TRACKS AND OTHER THINGS MOVING AT HIGH SPEEDS.

I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT ROADS TOO. I THINK THE MAPPING IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO TALK ABOUT THAT. I DON'T SEE ANY OF THE FUTURE REFLECTED IN WHAT YOU'RE DOING IN THE 280 STUDY ABOUT FUTURE ROADS AND THE IMPACT ON THEM.

>> WE WILL ADDRESS THAT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THAT AN

ENGINEER CAN TALK ABOUT IT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE AUBURN TO LEAN ON ALDOT AND LEE COUNTY TO DO THINGS AND TO CONSIDER THAT AND NOT SIMPLY DEFER TO THEM.

>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I GUESS ONE OF THE FIRST THING I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IS THE CITY ENGINEER AND CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF, HOW DOES THE PLANNING FOR ROADS INTEGRATE WITH PLANNING FOR LIKE BASICALLY LOOKING AT FUTURE LAND USE OVER NOT CONSIDERED ROADS AS WE DO IT. AS WE GET CLOSER CLOSER SOMETHING MORE PERMANENT THEN

YOU GET INVOLVED. HOW DOES THAT BASICALLY WORK? >> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

AT THIS POINT UNDER STAKEHOLDER MEETING WE TALKED ABOUT THE OUTER LOOP.

EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT PHYSICALLY REPRESENTED ON THIS MAP PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS AWARE OF

ITS ALIGNMENT. >> IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE PUBLIC CAN COME IN AND HAVE A

CHAT WITH YOU AND SEE WHAT'S OUT THERE AND WHAT'S GOING ON? >> YES, THE OUTER LOOP, THE FEASIBILITY STUDY WAS DONE IN 2007. THOSE ALIGNMENTS HAVE NOT CHANGED. WERE CURRENTLY UNDER CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER CONSULTANT REEVALUATE THE ALIGNMENTS AND THIS IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE'VE ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT A LITTLE CLOSER BECAUSE OF THE STUDY AND BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT.

THEY ARE WORKING ON SOME ALIGNMENT REFINEMENTS IF YOU WILL FOR US RIGHT NOW.

ON THE WEST LEG OF THE OUTER LOOP. >> AS BIGOT CLOSER TO REITERATE AS WE GET CLOSER TO BUILDING INVESTMENT RULE ROADS START TO APPEAR.

IT STARTS PRETTY BROAD AND STRATEGIC I GUESS THEN IT GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILED AS TIME GOES ON. OKAY, I'D LIKE TO GET A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND SOME

DISCUSSION IF WE NEED TO. >> MOVED TO APPROVE PO 2021 Ã 00341.

>> SECOND. >> HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. WE HAVE DISCUSSION?

>> JUST FOR THE RECORD. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF DESIGNATING THIS AREA ESPECIALLY BELONGS TO THE UNIVERSITY. WHICH TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE'VE NEVER DONE FOR ANY OTHER PROPERTY THAT WE'VE GOT. IT'S A PRESENT DAY, IT'S MEANINGLESS AND WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION OF IT. UNIVERSITY DOES NOT HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE REGULATIONS OF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION. IT WOULD ONLY BE FOR FUTURE USE.

I THINK WE'VE GOT ENOUGH REGULATIONS EXISTING TO HANDLE ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHALL IT EVER BE SOLD. NOT AS YOUNG AS WE USED TO BE BUT I DON'T THINK I'LL EVER LIVED LONG ENOUGH TO SEE THE UNIVERSITY SELLING THE PROPERTY OUT THERE ON THE HIGHWAY.

BUT, THEY COULD. I WOULD JUST NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THE QUARTER PROTECTION ZONE BEING ON THIS MAP AS IT RAISES A NEW ISSUE TO DEAL WITH WITH THE UNIVERSITY AND THEIR

PERSONNEL. >> OKAY. >> I'D LIKE TO VOICE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT OPINION THAN MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE. AND THE FACT THAT WE AREN'T

[00:40:06]

NOT TALK ABOUT THE PRESENT WERE TALKED ABOUT THE FUTURE. NO WE CANNOT REGULATE UNIVERSITY PROPERTY AS LONG AS UNIVERSITY OWNS IT. WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS SOME WAY OF COMMUNICATING TO POTENTIAL BUYERS SHOULD THE UNIVERSITY, SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO DO LAND SWAPS OR SOUTH OUTLINE OR WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE TO DO.

BUT THE POTENTIAL BUYER KNOWS THAT THIS IS AN AREA OF INTEREST AND CONCERN TO THE CITY PLANNING. THEREFORE THERE MAY BE, I'M TRYING TO AVOID ANY FUTURE SHOCK FOR PEOPLE WHO WOULD PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT WE HAD

IN MIND IF WE DO HAVE IN MIND. >> AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING BECAUSE IT'S UNIVERSITY NOW AND SHOULD BE SOLD TO SOMEONE PRIVATE AND GO OUT OF STATE HAND.

IT WOULD BE DESIGNATED RULE, CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE.

YES. >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY FUTURE LAND-USE DESIGNATED OTHER THAN

THAT IN THE PLAN? >> IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED JUST LIKE THIS PROPERTY AS

UNIVERSITY WHICH JUST SAYS UNIVERSITY. >> OKAY.

>> YES, IF THE PROPERTY IS REMOVED FROM STATE OWNERSHIP I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE THEN

ASSUMED RULE BY DEFAULT. >> BECAUSE IT IS IN THE CITY LIMITS.

>> CORRECT. BY LEGISLATION. >> WERE NOT PUTTING ANY OTHER

TYPE OF DESIGNATION ON TOP OF IT ON THIS PLAN. >> CORRECT.

>> IF SOMEONE WANTED TO REZONE IT IT WOULD TECHNICALLY NOT BE IN ACCORDANCE FUTURE LAND-USE.

POTENTIALLY. >> POTENTIALLY. >> OKAY.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.

[8. 1027 East Glenn PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00362]

PL 2021 Ã00362. MR. HOWELL? >> AS YOU JUST STATED THIS APPLICATION IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 AND A HALF ACRES FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EAST. IT'S LOCATED AT 1027 E. GLENN AVENUE. IN THE NC 12 ZONING DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS JUST TO THE EAST OF CHERRY STREET. ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST GLENN AVENUE JUST WEST OR EXCUSE ME JUST EAST OF GLEN DEAN INTERSECTION. YOU CAN SEE IS PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL AREA. WITH TDH IN THE NORTH WITH OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST GLENN. THIS IS AN EXHIBIT OF THE ORIGINAL PLANT. AS YOU CAN SEE A LOT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.

THE RED DASHED LINES INDICATE CURRENT ROADS AS THEY EXIST AND HOW TRAVELED THROUGH LOTS OVER TIME. IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THERE.

THEY TELL US THIS WAS ORIGINALLY FOUNDED IN THE STOMACH SINCE 1949 THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CHANGE. THE FUTURE LAND-USE OF THIS PROPERTY AND MANY OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES IS DESIGNATED AS MIXED-USE OFFICE RESIDENTIAL.

THIS WAS IDENTIFIED WITH THE COMP PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2011. IT HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THEN.

IT WAS ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF 20 NINETEENTHS PLAN TEAM FOCUS AREA STUDY AND IT WAS WITHOUT FOCUS AREA STUDY OF THE TIME BECAUSE THE STAFF FELT LIKE A DID NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE UPDATED FROM THE ORIGINAL DESIGNATION IN 2011. IT DID NOT EXPAND TO INCORPORATE IT. AS SUCH THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO REDEVELOPMENT THIS PARTICULAR AREA WITH A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD INCLUDE OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL ON THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY. IT WOULD BE THE FIRST OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD START TO ALIGN WITH THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND-USE PLANS.

IN IT OF ITSELF IT DOES MAKE IT UNIQUE WITH AS FAR AS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THAT AREA.

[00:45:06]

WE DID RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE FROM OWNERS IN PURCHASE CIRCLE TO THE NORTH AND OTHER OWNERS FROM UNSTATED PROPERTY. THEY DIDN'T TELL US WHAT THEY WERE FROM AN OPPOSITION OF THE PROPOSAL. THIS IS AN AERIAL. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A SINGLE UNIT ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. AS YOU CAN TELL THE AERIAL IT'S VERY WELL FORCED AND THERE OR TREAT. PENDING ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF.

>> SARAH REPRESENTATIVE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS. >> I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY THANKS. THIS REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING. I'D LIKE TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM

THEPLEASE DO. >> MY NAME IS DON MULLINS I RESIDE AT 1050 PURCHASE CIRCLE WHICH IS PART OF THE COTTAGES SUBDIVISION WHICH IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PROPOSED REZONING AREA. THAT MR. WILLIS ON BEHALF OF MR. SPEAK IS ASKING TO REZONE.

FIRST OF ALL WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ATTENTION IS THAT VERY FEW MEMBERS ARE RESIDENTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WERE CONTACTED.

ME BEING ONE. I BELIEVE THEREFORE DIFFERENT HOMEOWNERS HERE IN A COUPLE RECEIVED LETTERS. SEVERAL DID NOT. I TOOK UPON MYSELF TO SEND OUT SOME LETTERS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT BEEN A VERY SHORT NOTICE I BELIEVE THE SIGN WENT UP ON CLAN THE FIRST PART OF LAST WEEK.HE COUNCIL MEETING IS TONIGHT. THERE WASN'T AMPLE TIME FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET TOGETHER AND PRESENT A UNIFIED PRESENTATION. TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THE FIRST THING I'M GOING TO ASK IS THAT WE CAN CONTINUE OR POSTPONE THIS UNTIL WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME FOR THE RESIDENTS TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS AND OPPOSITIONS. I CAN TELL YOU AT THE VERY BEGINNING WHAT MINE ARE WITH SEVERAL OF THE MEMBERS HERE ARE OPPOSING BUT I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE BEST IF WE HAD JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME SO WE CAN REQUEST ADDITIONAL STUDIES ON BEHALF OF MR. SPEAK, THE FORESIGHT GROUP AND MR. WILLIS. AM I MAKING SENSE HERE? I LIVED IN AUBURN ALL MY LIFE. I WAS BORN HERE IN 1961. I INHERITED THE HOME AT 1050 PURCHASE CIRCLE. IT'S A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE FEEL LIKE WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS GOING TO JUST FORSAKE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT BASICALLY PACKS UP, IF YOU LOOK TO HOUSES, HOMES THAT HAVE CHILDREN RIGHT THERE. LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED COMPLEX THAT WILL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 29 UNITS IN IT. OVER 100 DIFFERENT PEOPLE. IF YOU LOOK, AND I CAN STOP ANYTIME. LIKE A SITE WE POSTPONE THIS UNTIL WE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT BETTER PREPARED BUGS, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUSTIN IS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT WILL CHANGE THE INTEGRITY OF HER NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE WILL BE LIGHTING, NOISE.

T WILL BE THE TRAFFIC THAT IT ENTAILS. WHAT'S CAN HAPPEN IN CLINIC AVENUE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX? ARE WE GONNA PUT TRAFFIC LIGHTS THERE? CHERRY STREET IS ALREADY REALLY, REALLY BUSY WHICH RUNS AS YOU CAN SEE FROM ANNA LOU OVER TO GLENN. THEIR HOMES THERE.

WERE TALKING 4 ACRES. USED TO OWN A HOME THAT HAD 3 AND A HALF ACRES.

I CAN IMAGINE PUTTING 5 APARTMENT COMPLEXES RIGHT IN MY BACKYARD.

THE CITY, YOU KNOW I FEEL LIKE IS TRYING TO DO THE BEST THING AND CAN FOR ITS CITIZENS.

BUT, THIS COMPLEX THAT WE LOOKING AT IS FOR PROBABLY STUDENTS.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE HERE LONG TERM. WE ARE LONG-TERM RESIDENTS.

WE HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS COMMUNITY. SO FAR AS THE COMMERCIAL AND EVENT. IF YOU DROVE FROM THIS PROPERTY A MILE AND 1/2, THERE ARE NUMEROUS, NUMEROUS PROPERTIES THAT ARE UP FOR LEASE. ORBIT, COMMERCIAL, OFFICE.

WITHIN A MILE THERE IS PLENTY OF VACANCIES. LET ME THINK, WHAT ELSE.

[00:50:14]

HER TALKING ABOUT GOING FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO ANOTHER ZONE.

DOES THAT MEAN HORSE MILK WILL GET TREATED THE SAME WAY? WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES AND AN APARTMENT COMPLEX ON THE RIGHT NEXT TO IT DO SOMETHING ELSE? I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT WERE LOOKING FOR. AUBURN IS THE LOVELIEST VILLAGE ON THE PLANES. WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT INTEGRITY.FRANKLY AUBURN HAS 2 MUCH GROWTH AND I FEEL LIKE WERE MOVING A LITTLE FAST WITH THIS.

THERE WASN'T ENOUGH INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE COTTAGES.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HE SENT LETTERS TO. >> WE WILL DISCUSS THAT AT THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS CAN WE POSTPONE THIS UNTIL WE

GET MORE INFORMATION. >> OKAY. THANKS.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? >> HELLO.

I'M BRENT ÃI'LL APARTMENT 1002 PURCHASE CIRCLE. I AGREE WITH WHAT MS. MULLEN STATED. EVERYTHING SHE STATED. I LIKE TO SAY AGAIN JUST TO REITERATE WHAT SHE HAD MENTIONED. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN I BOUGHT IN PURCHASE THAT HOME AND OF COURSE UNTIL TODAY THESE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOTS.

WHICH IS, AGAIN NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. THAT'S WHAT WERE TALKING ABOUT.

EVEN WHEN I WOULD SAY I GUESS APPROXIMATELY 7 YEARS AGO, 8 YEARS AGO THEY DEVELOPED FURTHER CHERRY STREET ONTO UP UNTIL THAT TIME HAD BEEN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

THERE IS ONE HOME ON THE PROPERTY WITH THE CHERRY STREET EXTENSION WENT OVER TO.

THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT THIS MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WERE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

CONTINUE THE TREND. EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE MULTIPLE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE LOT. WHAT WAS BUILT ON THE CONTINUED THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. SO AGAIN, THIS IS PROPOSING IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT OBVIOUSLY, TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN, JUST CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF I THINK THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK WHAT MS. MEL LAWRENZ SPOKE TO AND WHAT I WOULD I THINK THAT'S A CHANGE, SO THIS PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO CHANGE AND THAT'S THEIR DREAM. I THOUGHT THE DREAM I HAD WHEN I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY.

AS A SINGLE HOME. I THINK THAT'S NOT THE CASE FOR OTHER HOMEOWNERS IN THE AREA.

THAT'S MY STATEMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SIR.

WHO WILL BE NEXT? >> HELLO MY NAME IS MALLORY HAYES I LIVED AT 1784 SOLO NEAR COURT WHICH IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN. NOT AT ALL CLOSE TO THIS.

I WAS VERY CONCERNED WHENEVER I SAW THE ZONING SIGN, BECAUSE I JUST MOVED TO SOLO NEAR FROM IB LANE. WHICH IS NOT ON THE MOUNT. IT'S JUST EAST OF THE HICKORY WOODS SUBDIVISION. BUT, IT HURT WHENEVER WE DID MOVE OUT OF IVY LANE.

THE HOUSE WAS 2 SMALL WE NEEDED A BIGGER PLACE. IT HURT TO LEAVE THAT AREA BECAUSE OF WHERE IT IS UNIQUELY SITUATED IN AUBURN. IT'S A VERY NICE AREA OF TOWN.

IT'S LOTS OF WALKING AREAS. YOU WILL SEE FAMILIES WALKING THEIR KIDS ON THE SIDEWALKS.

IT'S A VERY NEIGHBORHOOD AREA. WHILE THE FUTURE USE PLAN DOES DESIGNATE THIS AS POTENTIALLY BEING MIXED USE. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP THERE IS A INGREDIENT THAT COULD BE USED TO GET, IT WOULD INTERRUPT A GRADIENT THAT IS THERE.

THERE'S COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST, RESIDENTIAL THEN IN THE MIDDLE YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO THIS MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND IT WOULD DESTROY THE CHARACTER OF THAT AREA.

[00:55:01]

IT'S VERY UNIQUE WITHIN THE LOOP OF AUBURN. IT'S GOING TO BE PRECIOUS IN

THE FUTURE. >> THANKS. >> MY NAME IS TYLER JOHNSON LIPPITT 1030 BURKE CIRCLE. WHICH IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LOOP.

THIS WOULD PRETTY MUCH BE MY BACKYARD. I'D LIKE TO ALSO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE I SUPPOSE. I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE. I DON'T KNOW JUST HOW MANY, I'VE HEARD SOME CONFLICTING REPORTS ABOUT HOW MANY BUILDINGS AND HOW MANY RESIDENCES.ALSO, IS THIS LIKE THE FIRST DOMINO TO FALL OF ALL THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE SLATED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

I'D LIKE TO FIND OUT LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT BECAUSE AGAIN, I'M NOT EVEN ENTIRELY SURE IF I SUPPORT OR OPPOSE IT AT THIS POINT. JUST BASED ON THAT I THINK THE BEST MOVEMENT AT THIS POINT WOULD BE TO HAVE A CONTINUANCE AND GIVE THE RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN MORE ABOUT IT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. YOU HAVE THAT EXHIBIT THAT YOU CAN SHOW UP WHAT'S COULD BE

PROPOSED AT THIS POINT FOR THIS PROPERTY? >> WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO

GIVE QUICK BRIEF? >> THIS IS AN EXHIBIT FOR THE NEXT CASE WHICH IS THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT IT'S A

MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE DEPONENT. >> PAGE 8 WHAT WE CONTINUE ON

THE REZONING THEN WE WILL GET TO THIS MORNING. >> THAT'S A SEPARATE ITEM.

I WANT TO MUDDY THE WATER. >> PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL STILL OPEN.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COME . >> MY NAME IS RICHARD DASH. 1111 09 E. GLENN.

ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. MY BROTHER THE OTHER MR. SPEAK LIVES IN FLORIDA.

OKAY? WANTS TO TAKE HIS HALF AND TURNED INTO SOMETHING THAT NOBODY RECOGNIZES ANYMORE. IT'S HEAVILY WOODED. STILL ZONE FOR 2 MORE HOUSES ON THE 3.5 ACRES. AND THERE'S NO REASON TO DESTROY ALL OF THAT.

IN THE FRONT EXTERIOR TO IT. O IT. >> ANYONE ALL RIGHT TINA I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC BLIC HEARING. UNLESS PROMOTION SO WE CAN PUT THAT ON THE TABLE AND HAVE A

CUSSION. SECOND DISCUSSION. >> TO HAVE THE LAND USE PLAN

HANDY? >> HOW LONG HAS THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATED THIS WEEK.

>> ORIGINALLY 2011. >> THIS FUTURE LAND USE VERSION.

>> THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL DESIGNATION. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR

QUESTION. >> YES. >> THIS IS ONE OF THE TOP FUNDS IN THIS TRANSITION. WE RECOGNIZE WE SAY 2011? THAT THIS AREA IS GOING TO CHANGE. YOU'VE GOT THE GLINTING INTERSECTION WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST HIGHLY TRAFFICKED IN COMMERCIAL SECTIONS IN AUBURN. YOU'VE GOT A CHURCH IN THEIR AND WE'VE GOT THAT EAST PLAN ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE INTERCHANGE AS BEING HEAVILY DEVELOPED. WHAT HAPPENS IN THESE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

THIS IS SOME NICE NEIGHBORHOODS RIGHT HERE. BEHIND IT.

[01:00:02]

BUT, ANYWAY WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING. [LAUGHTER].

>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION ABOUT NOTIFICATIONS. WHAT IS A STANDARD PROCEDURE?

IS IT ADJOINING PROPERTIES? >> THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS RECEIVED A CERTIFIED LETTER. AND REZONING SIGNS WENT UP ON THE 23RD.

OF JUNE. THEN THE CONDITIONAL USE SIGN FOR THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA

WENT UP LAST FRIDAY. >> COULD YOU MAYBE SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT ADJOINING MEANS?

>> OBSOLETE. >> IT'S NOT THE SAME AS AFFECTED PROPERTIES?

>> ANY OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT TOUCH THIS PROPERTY RECEIVED A LETTER AND THAT INCLUDES ACROSS

GLENN APPLING AS WELL. >> INKING. >> YOU'RE VERY WELCOME.

>> WE DO HAVE A MOTION IN A COND. THIS OR ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY THAT'S GO-AHEAD I WANT TO DO A ROLL CALL ON THIS TO.

[VOTING] >> MOTION CARRIES. WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 9.

[9. 1027 East Glenn PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00375]

THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE OF WHAT WILL BE THE USE FOR THAT PROPERTY IS WHAT WERE GOING TO

BE ADDRESSING NOW. STIR HOW? >> THAT'S CORRECT THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL REQUEST. SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT WHICH IS CONDITIONAL IN A COURT OF REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

BEING JUST HEARD. IT IS SAME LOCATION. AS WE JUST HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT. HERE'S A SITE PLAN. TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.

IT INCLUDES OFFICE ON THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH. ON FRONT EAST GLENN AS WELL AS OF ITS PUBLIC FRONTAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE AS WELL. THAT WOULD INCLUDE 2 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE THAT. IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE FORM STRUCTURES OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS BEHIND THE OFFICE BUILDINGS. LOCATED WHERE POINTER IS SHOWING THERE. THE TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD BE 29 RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

ON A 3 AND A HALF ACRES. THAT PROPOSED DENSITY WOULD GIVE IT APPROXIMATELY ONE DWELLING UNIT IN A GROUP WHICH IS LESS THAN 10 DWELLING UNITS AND ACRE ALLOWED AND THAT PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. WITH PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE IN THE CRT ARE 15 PERCENT. AND THE APPLICANT WHICH WOULD EQUAL OUT TO ABOUT AND A HALF ACRE, A LITTLE BIT MORE AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE AS HE WOULD SEE IT IN BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND IN THE BACK. WHERE YOU WOULD SEE, THIS IS ORIENTED FACING WITH NORTH FACING TO YOUR RIGHT. THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF

[01:05:01]

OPEN SPACE. >> OR JUST TO THE RIGHT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

AS A 15 FOOT BUFFER YARD. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE BUFFER YARD.

THERE WOULD BE A 15 FOOT REQUIREMENT IN THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING THAT SPACING THERE.

THERE WOULD ALSO BE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS EXCEEDS THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUFFING YARNS THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET

AS WELL. >> WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THAT ALLEY, THE 20 FINALE? IS IT WOODED? OR IS THAT GOING TO BE WHAT'S A CONSIDERATION THERE?

>> I HAVE NOT WALKED BACK THERE. I AM PRESUMING IT IS WOODED.

IT IS NOT USED BEFORE FOR ANY VEHICLES. THAT BEING SAID THERE'S A AWFUL

LOT OF ALLIE'S ADDED FROM 1945 THAT ARE STILL THERE TODAY. >> WHO OWNS IT?

>> THE CITY DOES. >> THE CITY OWNS IT? >> YES IT'S PUBLIC

RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> THE CITY HAS CONTROL OF THE 20 FEET THAT ABUTS BETWEEN THIS

PROPERTY AND WORK CIRCLE. >> SO THE ADDITIONAL 15 FEET IS AFTER THE 20 FEET OF THE ALLEY.

>> SO THAT'S 35 FEET. WHAT ARE THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS YOU MENTIONED?

>> LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS WOULD INCLUDE FOR THE ENTIRE SITE.

THEY WOULD INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 50 CANOPY TREES. 68 UNDERSTORY TREES.

THAT WOULD BE MIXED BETWEEN THE FRONT, PRIMARILY ALONG THE FRONT OF THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT WOULD FACE EAST GLENN. IF THE COMMISSION SAW FIT TO ADD THAT AS A STIPULATION TO THE CONDITIONAL USE THEY COULD ADD ADDITIONAL INCHES TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IF YOU SO

DESIRED. >> WHERE IS IT DUMPSTERS? WHAT ARE THE DUMPSTERS?

>> THE DUMPSTERS ARE LOCATED IN THE BACK, STILL WELL OUTSIDE THE BUFFER YARD AREA.

BUT, TO THE REAR OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, UNITS. >> ARE THE DUMPSTERS REQUIRED

TO BE FENCED? >> YES. THIS IS IN THE CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IT'S ALSO IN THE CORRIDOR RELATING OVERLY REGULATIONS REQUIRED ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN MATERIALS, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AND A FEW OTHER APARTMENTS. AND, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD A GET, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THE CORRESPONDENCE WE'VE RECEIVED JUST LIKE FOR THE

PREVIOUS CASE. >> SAID IT'S 29 UNITS? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> DO YOU KNOW THE BEDS? >> SO THE BEDROOM, PARKING BASED ON THE BED COUNT IN A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS WHICH WOULD EQUAL OUT TO 1.1 BEDS, EXCEEDS THE 1.1 SPOT PARKING SPOT FOR BED. THE BEDROOM COUNT IS 87 BEDROOMS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT IT'S MOSTLY 3 BEDROOMS. THERE MAY BE A MIX OF DIFFERENT ONES.HE APPLICANT COULD THAT LITTLE BIT AND I CAN'T RIGHT NOW.

>> SOME OF THAT RESIDENTIAL IS ABOVE THE SMALLER OFFICE. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

LEAVE THOSE HERE SMALLER 2 BEDROOM AT MOST TYPE UNITS. >> FAMILY STORIES ARE THESE

BUILDINGS ON THE BACK? >> ON THE BACK B&. >> ARE TALKING RESIDENTIAL,

RIGHT? >> YES, EITHER WAY. THE ONES IN THE BACK.

THE HOUSE IS ON BIRCH CIRCLE ARE RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE BACK OF THEIR LOTS.

AND I WAS GONNA SEE WHAT SORT OF PRIVACY. >> AS I RECALL THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD WITH THE DEVELOPER IS 2-STORY. AND HE COULD CORRECTLY WHEN IT IS TIME TO SPEAK.

>> IT WOULDN'T BE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE 2-STORY HOUSES ADJACENT TO IT.

>> THAT'S GO-AHEAD AND OPEN THE HEARING. AND GO FROM THERE.

I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CONDITIONAL USE.

[01:10:05]

WENT RED BASKET FORESIGHT GROUP. HERE REPRESENTING THE VELOPER.

THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT NOTIFICATION. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL DEVELOPER DID NOTIFY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ABOVE AND BEYOND THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION THAT WE HAVE TO DO AS PART OF OF A REZONING SUBMITTAL. OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF THEY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED THAT AND THAT WAS SENT OUT BEFORE. I WANT TO NOTE THAT.

ALSO I WANT TO NOTE THAT I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT ALONG CHERRY STREET WHICH IS ADJACENT TO US IS LINED WITH DUPLEXES. IT'S CURRENTLY DUPLEXES ALONG CHERRY STREET. THINK OF I DON'T RECALL I THINK MOST OF THE DUPLEXES HAVE BEEN THERE FOR SINCE THE 40S, 50S AND 60S. THEY ARE OLD.

I WANTED TO NOTE THAT ALONG THE REAR BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BEHIND THERE. THERE IS A 20 FOOT ALLEY THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY THAT'S ADDITIONAL BUFFERING BETWEEN THE SINGLE-FAMILY AND THIS DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK PART OF WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT SIDING AND DOING THIS DEVELOPMENT WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP THIS AS CLOSE TO THE LAND USE AS WE COULD AND AWAY FROM THE SINGLE-FAMILY IN THE REAR. ALSO WANT TO KNOW WERE PROVIDED ON THE OPEN SPACE SIGNED 2 TIMES THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. REGARDS TO THE USE.

THIS IS A GOING TO BE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. THE THOUGHT IS THAT THIS WILL LOOK AND FEEL AND BE LIKE A TOWNHOME LOOK AND FEEL WHERE THESE ARE GOING TO BE INDIVIDUAL. THIS IS NOT BEING BUILT AS A PUBLIC STREETS WE CAN'T SUBDIVIDE THEM AND MAKE THE FEE SIMPLE TOWNHOMES. NEW:DRIVE UP AND LOOK AT THEM IT'S GOING TO BE LOOK AND FEEL AS A TOWNHOME TYPE LOOK AND FEEL AND OF COURSE THIS CAN HAVE A CONDO OWNERSHIP IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT AND NOT PERSPECTIVE.

THE PARKING WE HAVE SHOWN IS CURRENTLY SHOWN TO ACCOMMODATE NOT ONLY THE OFFICE BUT UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 3 BEDROOM UNITS. NOT QUITE SURE IF THESE UNITS WILL BE TWOS AND THREES AND A MIX THROUGH THERE. BUT, FOR ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES WE'VE PLANNED FOR A MAXIMUM OF 3 BEDROOM UNITS AND WE CAN ALWAYS SCALE THAT BACK AND SCALE BACK THE PARKING ACCORDINGLY. AGAIN, IT'S 2-STORY LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT.

MOST OF THE STUFF IN THE FRONT THAT WHILE FIRST FLOOR COMMERCIAL.

OR OFFICE. THAT WILL BE A FULL 2-STORY BECAUSE THERE'S A FULL USE ABOVE IT. MUST THESE TOWNHOMES ARE PROBABLY BMX OF A STORY AND 1/2. TYPE USE FROM THE TOWNHOME SIDE.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THE LARGER BUILDINGS COMMERCIAL IS ONLY SINGLE-STORY

RIGHT?>> NO, IT'S 2-STORY. >> IS IT RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED TO BE ON TOP OF THAT?

>> NO. SHE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN THE BIG BUILDING TO THE SOUTH IS 2-STORY OR OFFICE USE. THE SMALLER BUILDING THAT FRONTS TO THE NORTH FIRST FLOOR'S OFFICE AND THE SECOND STORY THERE IS TO UNITS PROPOSED ABOVE THAT.

>> THESE OTHER 4 BUILDINGS ARE 2 STORIES WE ARE GOING TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL ON TOP AND THE

BOTTOM'S OFFICES? >> NO, NO, THE STUFF OF THE BACK IS ALL RESIDENTIAL.

THE ONLY COMMERCIAL IS ALONG THE FRONT THERE. >> THESE WILL BE SOLD AS

CONDOS? >> YEAH. IT'S NOT MAINTAINING ONE OWNERSHIP? OR COULD BE SOLD AS INDIVIDUAL UNITS?

>> UNITS IN THE BACK. THE RESIDENTIAL ON THE BACK IS INTENDED YES TO BE SEPARATED.

THE STUFF IN THE FRONT I THINK IS GOING TO BE UNDER ONE COMMON OWNERSHIP.

>> WITH UNDERSTANDING CAN BE FEE SIMPLE BECAUSE THE ROAD FRONTAGE ISSUE.

WHICH IS WHY WE WERE HAVING TO CALL IT MULTI-. >> YOUNG, CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. >> CAN WE STILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OPENNESS OF ANYONE ELSE THAT LIKES TO SPEAK PLEASE COME FORWARD. COME ON.

>> JUST ONCE AGAIN I UNDERSTAND THEY MET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT TO.

>> FOR THE RECORD, >> DON MULLINS, 1050 BIRCH CIRCLE.

I LIVED IN THE BASE OF THE CUL-DE-SAC. IT'S NOT EVEN TOUCHING MY

[01:15:07]

YES. I GUESS THAT I FELT LIKE IT WAS A VERY SMALL NUMBER TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO EVEN COME HERE AND VOICED SOME CONCERNS. I AM A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BECAUSE ON THIS REZONING IT SAYS IT CAN ALLOW UP TO 5 UNRELATED TENANTS.

AND I WOULD LIKE HIM TO RESPOND TO THAT HER UNIT. I FROM NOT MISTAKEN WHEN I LOOK AT THAT NOW I BELIEVE THERE'S 5 DIFFERENT APARTMENTS UNIT BUILDINGS THERE.

AM I MISTAKEN? HOW MANY DIFFERENT BUILDINGS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

>> THERE IS FOR. >> I THINK THERE'S MORE THAN THAT.

THERE IS ONE, 2, 3, 4, >> STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL THERE'S FORM.

THEN THERE'S A MIX ON THE CORNER LOT. >> OKAY.

HE'S THINK NOW THERE COULD BE SOLD AS CONDOMINIUMS, TOWNHOMES?HEN I COULD BE RENTED THROUGH LIKE A CENTRAL OFFICE. IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING?

>> THAT'S NOT BEFORE US I'M AFRAID. WE CAN ADDRESS THAT.

>> ONCE AGAIN WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE CAN POSTPONE THIS UNTIL THE COULD GET SOME CLARITY UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE REZONING THAT WAS DONE IN 2011. UNFORTUNATELY I WAS UNAWARE OF THAT I DON'T THINK A LOT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE. WE WOULD LIKE SOME TIME TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE PLANS AND SEE WHAT WERE LOOKING UP. IF WE CAN REQUEST MAYBE JUST SOME CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO IT AND WORK WITH THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE THERE.

GIVE US JUST A MINUTE TO BREATHE AND TO TAKE IT IN. LIKE I SAID THIS HAPPENED VERY QUICKLY. FOR SS RESIDENTS. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE EVERYTHING FROM THE NOISE LEVEL, THE TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO POSE ON CHERRY STREET CUTTING THROUGH GLENN. THE WHOLE AREA WILL HAVE TO BE REZONED.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR LOT. THERE'S LIKE A MEDIAN, ARE YOU GONNA TEAR THAT UP AND PUT A TRAFFIC LIGHT TO GET IN AND OUT? EVER GET INTO ONE-WAY TRAFFIC? I THINK THERE'S MUCH MORE THAT NEEDS TO BE ENTAILED IN THE THEN JUST GOING, OKAY IT'S FINE. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

I'M NOT A PUBLIC SPEAKER. I JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT IT LAST WEEK.

WE JUST DID THE BEST WE COULD TO THROW THIS TOGETHER. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THERE WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY AT CITY COUNCIL. >> WILL BE, AWESOME.

I WOULD LOVE TO ADDRESS IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> NO PROBLEM.

NAME AND ADDRESS. >> RENT CATCHINGS, WITH THOUSAND 2 BIRCH CIRCLE.HICH IS NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THAT BUT RIGHT NEXT TO IT AND WHERE THE DUMPSTER.

THE DUMPSTER IS MY NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD. THAT'S WHERE IT IS.

AND 1.1 SPACES PER BEDROOM LOOKING AT THE SAME INFORMATION YOU HAVE THAT WHAT YOU DIDN'T SAY A THING SOMEONE ASKED ABOUT PARKING SPACES. I'M LOOKING AT THE SAME INFORMATION. IT'S 158 SPACES. RIGHT, SO YOU'RE PRIVY TO THAT.

>> SWITCHER QUESTION. >> IT'S A STATEMENT OF FACT ON THE QUESTION I GUESS.

I THINK SOMEONE ON THE PANEL ASKED HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE INVOLVED.

WHAT I'M STATING IS SIMPLY WERE GOING FROM ONE HOME ON THE LOT AND NOW WE HAVE HUNDRED 50

PARKING SPACES. >> THE PARKING SPACES WERE BEING DISCUSSED TO DETERMINE

HOW MANY BEDROOMS. >> I UNDERSTAND. I'M JUST POINTING OUT, MR. RECORD STATED EARLIER TAKES A LOT THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A CHANGE IN WHETHER OR NOT HE MADE A MISTAKE. IT DOES TAKE A LOT TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

IT'S CALLED COGNITIVE E DISSONANCE TO ADMIT HAT I DO YOU HAVE THE PASS WAS WRONG.

I'LL LEAVE YOU WITHOUT. >> THANK YOU. >> TYLER JONES I LIVED AT 1030 BIRCH CIRCLE. JUST A QUESTION. I WANTED TO KNOW IS THE NEW ZONING THAT THIS WOULD BE AN PERMIT THE OWNERS TO RENT TO COLLEGE STUDENTS UNRELATED COLLEGE STUDENTS OR IS IT STRICTLY LIMITED TO I'M NOT WELL VERSED IN ALL THE ZONING

[01:20:06]

REQUIREMENTS AROUND THE CITY. >> CRD ALLOWS UP TO 500 NATIVE PEOPLE.

IT'S CONCEIVABLE. >> OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY, ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO ONE I WILL PULL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING. GET A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND HAVE SOME DISCUSSION.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE PO 2021 Ã 00375. >> A SECOND.

>> DISCUSSION? >> I'VE A QUESTION. WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THIS CURB CUT AND CHERRY STREET? SINCE IT DOES HAVE A MEETING WILL IT JUST BE RIGHT IN AND WRITE OUT? I WILL HAVE TO CHECK THE DISTANCE BUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION YES BECAUSE OF THE MEETING IT WILL BE RIGHT

UP. >> SO THERE'S NO PLANS TO ROOT MOVE MEDIAN?

>> NO, THE ONLY ONE THAT MEDIANS CAN BE REMOVED IS BY ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

>> INTEGRATED IT RIGHT OUT. NO U-TURNS. >> MAY ASK BRENT.

>> IS IT FEASIBLE TO MOVE THE DUMPSTERS TO SOME OTHER LOCATION LIKE AT THE OTHER END OF THAT ROW OF BUILDINGS? WHICH WOULD MOVE IT FURTHER WE FROM THE BIRCH CIRCLE?

>> CLOSER BACK TOWARDS GLENN. >> YOUNG. DELMAC THOSE TRUCKS THAT COME IN AND PICK THEM UP MAKE A LOT OF NOISE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE BETTER.

>> THE TRASH TRUCK DRIVER MAY LIKE IT TOO. >> TRAVEL MY UESTION.

WITH THIS MIXED USE I SEE WERE DOING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL.

THERE WILL BE COMMERCIAL USE THERE.RE THERE A LIST OF APPROVED ALREADY USES?

>> AS OF RIGHT NOW IT'S ONLY BEING CONSIDERED FOR OFFICE. NO COMMERCIAL AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. IF THE APPLICANT CHOSE TO CONVERT SOME OF THAT SPACE TO COMMERCIAL IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

IF SOME OF THAT BASED ON THE TABLE PERMITTED USES IF THERE WAS A CONDITIONAL AND SOMETHING WAS ONLY ALLOWED IN THE CRD ON A CONDITIONAL BASIS OF WOULD COME BEFORE YOU GO THROUGH THE

SAME PROCESS AS BEING HEARD RIGHT NOW. >> GREAT.

>> THERE WILL BE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS FAR AS PERMITTING THE DESIGN BASED ON OFFICE REQUIREMENTS HOW DOES CHANGING THOSE TO A COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT.

ARE THEY SATISFIED STILL? ARE THEY NOT SATISFIED? A WHOLE ANOTHER CONVERSATION.

>> OKAY. ONE MORE IN?

>> UNDER THIS STEP DSL LINE IS REQUIRED. >> IT IS REQUIRED, YES.

>> HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED? >> IT'S SOMETHING IN OUR DESIGN MANUALS CURRENTLY.

WE WILL ADDRESS IT WITH THE DART SUBMITTAL. >> OH, OKAY.

MR. CHAIRMAN AND LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT, PROPOSAL COMMITMENT TO THE MOTION.

THAT IT BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE DUMPSTERS BE MOVED TO THE SOUTH

AND OF THE BUILDINGS TO WHERE IT'S LOCATED NOW. >> DO WE WANT TO GET A LITTLE

BIT MORE SPECIFIC? >> TESTING IS ARCTIC NORTH AND SOUTH.

MOVED TO THE OTHER END GLENN AVENUE AND OTHER BUILDINGS 6. >> A PRECISE LOCATION CAN BE

WORKED OUT. >> THE MAIN THING IS IT WOULD MAKE IT CONDITIONAL.

THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE. AT THE CONDITION THAT THEY MOVE THE DUMPSTER TO THE OTHER END

[01:25:08]

OF THE ROW OF BUILDINGS. >> I WOULD SECOND THE AMENDMENT.

>> -MOTIONAND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL IN FAVOR SAY I ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. THAT AMENDMENT CARRIES.

NOW WE ARE ON TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. MORE DISCUSSION? THE ORIGINAL MOTION? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THAT ONE PLEASE.

[VOTING] >> MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT, LET'S SEE WE HAVE POSTPONED A NUMBER OF THEM. LET'S SEE WHICH IS THE NEXT. I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE ITEM

[15. Heart of Auburn Lot Consolidation PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00376]

PL Ã2021 Ã00376. MS. ENGLISH. WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT

PLAYS. >> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO. THE NEXT 2 ITEMS ON YOUR AGENDA INVOLVE THE HEART OF AUBURN DEVELOPMENT SITE.N THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH. THE FIRST REQUEST IS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF 8 LOTS INTO 2. THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED BETWEEN SOUTH COLLEGE STREET IN SOUTH GAY STREET JUST NORTH OF EAST ÃAVENUE ENTER ALL SOUND URBAN CORE.

THERE IS AN ARRAY OF USES ON THESE PROPERTIES. INCLUDING RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL ALONG SOUTH COLLEGE AND RESTAURANTS ALONG GAY AS WELL AS 2 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS ALONG EAST SANFORD AND THERE IS A MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT THE CORNER OF SOUTH COLLEGE IN EAST SANFORD. THIS LOT CONSOLIDATION IS REQUESTED IN ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE EXPANDED SITE. PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED YET FOR THAT REDEVELOPMENT. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS URBAN CORE.

THIS DESIGNATION PERMITS A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES.

HOWEVER, PRIVATE DORMITORIES ARE NOT ALLOWED. THERE ARE MINOR COMMENTS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED BEFORE THE CITY SIGNS THE PLANT. THE APPLICANT AND WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REACHED AN AGREEMENT REGARDING REQUESTED 30 FOOT PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT., CAN BE TAKEN OFF AND ASIDE FROM NOT THE PLAT MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF THE

SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUIRES COMMITMENT'S CURRENT BASKET ANYTHING?> NO.

>> THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING SO I OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.

IF ANYONE LIKE TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE DO TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NO ONE ON THE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S FOR A MOTION.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE PL 2021 Ã 00376. >> SECOND.

>> EVOLUTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL PLEASE.

[VOTING] >> MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NUMBER 16 IS THE FINAL

[16. Heart of Auburn Lot Consolidation PL-2020-00377]

>> THAT ABOUT COVERS IT. IN THE SAME COMMENTS APPLY. LOOKS VERY GOOD.

THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. CAN I GET A MOTION?

>> MOVE ON APPROVAL. QUICK SECOND.> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> JUST OF COMMENTS. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAYTHOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

[17. Woodward Oaks, Phase 5 PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00381]

>>>> YES, THIS REQUEST IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST FOR AN 89 LOT PERFORMANCE SUBDIVISION. IT WILL INCLUDE 40 TOWNHOUSE LOTS, 29 COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT

[01:30:03]

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE IT IS JUST ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST Ã ROAD.

IN THAT PDD. YOU HAVE TO THE WEST OF IT YOU HAVE THE DONAHUE AND FARMVILLE ROAD INTERSECTION AS WELL AS THE DONAHUE RIDGE SUBDIVISIONS TO THE WEST.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED DBH WITH A PDD OVERLAY. YOU WILL RECALL FROM LAST MONTH THAT APPLICANT BROUGHT TO YOU A REQUEST TO AMEND THE PDD TO ALLOW THE INCLUSION OF COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. AS WELL AS AN INCREASE IN THE TOTAL UNITS FROM THE 517 THAT WAS ORIGINALLY OR HAD BEEN APPROVED UP TO 580. AND ALSO WITH THE ADDITION OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. AND THEY ALSO, ALONG WITH THOSE HAVE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR A COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT THE LOT ITSELF IS PART OF THIS PLAN. YOU RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THOSE ITEMS. WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL AT THE NEXT MEETING ON JULY 20 FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.

ALL RIGHT, THIS IS THE PROPOSED OR MOST CURRENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PRESENTED FROM PDD AMENDMENT YOU HEARD. AS PART OF THAT AND INCLUDED SOME CHANGES TO THE NORTH OF THE PDD WHICH IS ORIENTED TO THE RIGHT ON THE SCREEN. OR YOU SEE LITTLE BIT MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD COMPLEMENT THE AREA THAT'S UP THERE ALONG THE ARTERIAL FARMVILLE ROAD.HAT INCLUDED TOWNHOMES THAT FRONTED JAMES BERT AS WELL AS COTTAGE UNITS IN THE BACK BEHIND THEM. AND THIS IS POTENTIALLY THE PLAT THAT WOULD FOLLOW UP TO THAT. 2 DRIVERS. SO THIS IS THE PLAT AS PROPOSED. YOU CAN SEE IT HAS INCLUDES THE LOTS WE JUST WOKE ABOUT.

IT INCLUDES THE TOWNHOMES AND COTTAGES AS WELL AS SINGLE-FAMILY AS IT STARTS TO TRANSITIONAL INTO THE MORE SPACED OUT INTERNAL PDD TOWARDS THE SOUTH OF IT.

THE OVERALL DENSITY IS BEING PROPOSED IS A 3.74 DWELLING UNITS IN ACRE WHICH IS LESS THAN THE DD AGENT MAXIMUM OF 5 1/2. THE MINIMUM SPACE EXCUSING THE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE THAT'S REQUIRED IN ANY SINGLE PHASE WITHIN A PDD IN THE DD AGENT ZONING DISTRICT IS 15 PERCENT AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 19 PERCENT WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 3.8 ACRES. IN ADDITION TO THE PLAT THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A WAIVER TO THE CITIES SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A PUBLIC ALLEY TO CONSTITUTE THE MANDATORY STREET FRONTAGE FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL LOT.

THE NATURE OF THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE ON THE BACKSIDE BEHIND THE TOWNHOMES THE APPLICANT WANTS TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE FOR THE LOTS THEMSELVES AS WELL AS THE OPEN-SPACE ALLOWANCES HE'S TRYING TO PROVIDE FOR THEY ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE FOR IT AND IT INVOLVES 3 STREETS ORCS RECUSED ME FOR STREETS. I'M SORRY, 3. THAT PROVIDED FRONTAGE SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE COTTAGES. ALL THE TOWNHOUSE UNITS WILL TAKE THEIR FRONTAGE FROM CHANGE BERT OR THE EAST-WEST ROAD YOU SEE TO THE WEST OF THE SCREEN.

WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT WE CAN BUT WE FELT WE COULD SUPPORT THE REQUEST TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. ALLEYS ARE DESIGNED TO CARRY LESS TRAFFIC THAN A STANDARD ROAD WHICH WILL HAVE ABOUT 50 FEET WITH IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY VERSUS ALLEYS THAT ALLOW FOR 30 FEET. THAT SAID THERE IS A CONSIDERATION FOR THE ROAD THAT PROVIDES OUTLET INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR ALL THE COTTAGES THAT GO BACK THERE.

[01:35:05]

WHILE WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER FOR THE 2 STREETS THAT ARE NOT PROVIDING INGRESS AND EGRESS WE DO RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR THAT WAIVER FOR THAT SPECIFIC STREET.

THAT THAT SHOULD REMAIN A 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> OKAY JUST TO CLARIFY.

PUT THAT POINTER ON THE 2 THAT WERE GOING TO GO-AHEAD AND IT'S OKAY WITH THE WAIVERS.

>> THERE IS THE LONGEST STREET THAT TERMINATES INTO A CUL-DE-SAC TO THE RIGHT.

AND CONTINUES ON AND CONTINUES TO THE LEFT AND TAKES A 90 DEGREE TURN TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. THEN THE ROAD THAT PARALLELS IT AND CONNECTS IT WITH THE

STREET. >> THE ONE THAT GOES UP ACROSS THE BOTTOM IS THE ONE YOU'RE

SAYING. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THE FRONT AND BACK CONNECT.

>> OKAY. >> STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED COMMUNICATION FROM ANY PUBLIC.

>> OKAY. LET'S SEE. THIS MORNING REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. SO I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND

ASK ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> BRENT VASQUEZ FORESIGHT GROUP REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. SO THIS IS A COTTAGE HOUSING.

THIS IS ONE OF THE NEWER OF THE CITY'S PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT IS ALLOWED.

TO DATE THIS HAS BEEN USED MORE AS A FOR RENT TYPE PRODUCT AND IT HAS BEEN FOR SIMPLE SINGLE-FAMILY OWNERSHIP. ON THE SCREEN THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING SIMILAR OF COTTAGE HOUSING. WITH THAT DONE DONE WITH THE COTTAGE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS? I THINK THIS WAS ESSENTIALLY TON UNDER THE MULTI FAMILY REQUIREMENTS.

ESSENTIALLY THE SAME CONCEPT OF HOUSES SURROUNDING A COMMON GREEN SPACE.

>> IS OUT OF MIDTOWN? >> YEAH, THAT'S MIDTOWN. IT HAS A TRADITIONAL PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION. WHICH WITHIN THE COTTAGE HOUSING REGULATIONS THERE'S 2 WAYS YOU CAN DO IT. YOU COULD DO IT WHERE IT'S CONDO OWNERSHIP THAT WOULD LOOK JUST LIKE THIS WITH THE PARKING LOT. OR YOU CAN DO IT FEE SIMPLE WHICH WOULD LOOK MORE LIKE A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.IT'S JUST REMEMBER, THIS COTTAGE HOUSING IS SMALLER HOUSES. SMALLER FOOTPRINTS.

BIGGER GREEN SPACE. FRONTING ON GREEN SPACE. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE THE NEXT ONE IS ANOTHER ONE. THAT'S AT BRAGG AND DONAHUE OR MLK AND DONAHUE.

KIND OF DONE IN THAT SAME THING. SURROUNDING A COMMON GREEN SPACE. AND THAT THESE CONDITIONS THAT I'M SHOWING YOU MUCH BIGGER HOMES THAN WHAT WERE SHOWING AND DOING WITHIN THIS COTTAGE HOUSING STYLE.

IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT LINE. THE SHOWS YOU THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ESSENTIALLY SHOWS YOU FOR THIS CAN BE DONE AS A FEE, SOME OWNERSHIP OR A CONDO OWNERSHIP. WHEN WE, AS THE SIDE OF TALENT HAS DEVELOPED ORIGINALLY WE CAME UP WITH THIS PD IN 2017. OF COURSE THE NORTH AUBURN HAS SEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GROWTH AND CHANGE. OUR DEVELOPMENT WAS PROBABLY THE IMPETUS FOR A LOT OF THAT.

IT'S KIND OF HAPPENED. I WILL NOT AND WE HAD THE FIRE STATION COMING IN.

THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM US AND WE HAVE THE NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT'S JUST TO THE WEST OF US THAT IN OUR MIND HAS CHANGED THE DYNAMIC AND WHITE WE WANTED TO CHANGE THE PDD TO ACCOMMODATE A LITTLE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPE OF THAT AREA.

IN ADDITION TO THAT WE PROVIDED CONNECTION TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INTO OUR ROAD NETWORK.

BECAUSE REALLY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO BE A BIG FEEDER FOR THAT.

WE WANTED TO, THE DEVELOPER THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD CONNECTED WHERE IT'S GOING TO

[01:40:04]

IT KINDA CHANGE THE WAY WE DID IT. WE HAVE THE RIGHT FRONTING WITH LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL. HUNDRED 90, HUNDRED FOOT LOTS. EACH WOULD TAKE AXIS OF THIS MAIN PARKWAY COMING IN JAMES BOROUGH PARKWAY. WHEN WE CHANGED, WE RECONFIGURED THAT ARE FRONTING THIS NOW WITH TOWNHOMES WITH RELATED ACCESS TO TAKE ALL THESE DRIVEWAYS OFF OF JAMES BYRNE PARKWAY. AND WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS COTTAGE HOUSING TYPE. THERE ARE 2 THINGS YOU'RE GOING FOR THAT WE WERE GOING FOR.

ONE IS AFFORDABILITY AND TO HIS WALK ABILITY. HEAR THOSE AS BUZZWORDS ALL THE TIME. AT THE END OF THE DAY IS NOT THIS PRODUCT TYPE AVAILABLE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP AT THIS POINT. MOST OF THE STUFF THAT'S REMOTELY CLOSE TO LOOKING LIKE THIS AND FEELING LIKE THIS IS MORE OF A RENTAL PRODUCT YOU HAVE ON THE MARKET AND IT'S NOT FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP. WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS PLAN WE PROBABLY STARTED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PANDEMIC AND HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON THIS FOR PROBABLY CLOSE TO A YEAR ON DIFFERENT ITERATIONS OF WHAT THIS WILL LOOK LIKE. WE WERE ENCOURAGED TO POTENTIALLY COME IN AND TO THIS AND SUBDIVIDE OF AN ALLEY BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF FEEL AND THE USE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THIS LAYOUT. IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WERE DOING THIS.

SO NONE OF THE HOMES IN HERE HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO JAMES BYRNE PARKWAY.

IT'S ALL INTERNALLY DRIVEN. SO WHEN WE COMPARE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LOCAL STREET AND AN ALLEY THAT WERE REQUESTING, RIGHT? A 2 LANE HIGHWAY.

IN REGARDS TO RIGHT AWAY THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. IT'S 50 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY COMPARED TO 30 FEET A RIGHT AWAY. WE TALK ABOUT THE ROAD WITH RIGHT? THE AMOUNT OF ROAD YOU HAVE TO DRIVE ON A 2 WAY STREET IN A SUBDIVISION LIKE THIS ONLY HAS TO BE 22 FEET WIDE OF ASPHALT IF WE HAVE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. VENABLE WITH FRIEND ALLIE IS 20 FEET.

RIGHT? THIS ONLY TO FIT DIFFERENCE. SOME OF THE ROADS WHICH I THINK WARREN WERE THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS AROUND. WE DID NIMS TRAIL PDD BACK BEFORE THE CRASH IN 09. IT WAS 708. HIS SPECIAL ROAD SECTIONS APPROVED THAT WERE NARROWER THAN THAT. WITH SOME ROADS OUT THERE THAT WERE 18 FEET WIDE ALONG THE 50 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC STREET. AND THAT WAS SOME OF THE IMPETUS OF SOME OF THE CHANGES OF GIVING VARIOUS ROAD SECTIONS WE HAVE.

IT'S NOT UNIQUE IS MY POINT. IS NOT UNIQUE THAT WERE COMING IN WITH A LITTLE NARROW ROAD.

I THINK THE POINT OF THAT IS TO ONE TO CRATE THE CHARACTER OF THIS COTTAGE HOUSING AREA.

AND WE STILL PLAN ON DOING SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES. AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS BUT I DON'T, I THINK WHAT WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE IS A CHARACTER AND FEEL AND LOOK OF A TRUE COTTAGE STYLE HOUSING PRODUCT THAT IS CURRENTLY WHERE NEAR THIS IN THIS MARKET.

THAT'S BARBARA PROPOSING COMING FOR A WAIVER ON THIS. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BUT, I WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORY BACKGROUND OF ALL THE DIFFERENT MOVING PARTS.

I KNOW WHEN YOU'RE 50 FEET AND 30 FEET AND SOUNDS REALLY DRASTIC.

AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS ROAD IS GONNA BE TO FIGHT NARROWER. IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.

>> DID YOU SAY GO DO SIDEWALKS AND ALLEYS? >> OR SO THAT HAVE SIDEWALKS ON

THE ALLEYS.HE WHOLE GOAL IS TO HAVE IT WALKABLE. >> THE SIDEWALK IS NOT INCLUDED

IN THE 20 FEET? >> NO, IT'S OUTSIDE OF THEM. WITHIN THE ROAD, SIDEWALKS.

AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE DEPENDING ON SELECTION THEY WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE PARKING PAD, A CARPORT OR A GARAGE. IT WILL VARY DEPENDING ON ON THE FOLKS AS THEY PURCHASE

THOSE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

WE STILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO COME

SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. >> I HAD BACK SURGERY, APOLOGIES.

[01:45:05]

I THINK IF WE'VE LEARNED ANYTHING OVER THE PAST IT'S NOT GOOD DEVELOPMENT IDEAS, AUBURN IS A PLACE FOR GREAT DEVELOPMENT IDEAS COME TO DIE. I THINK WE HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN PROGRESSIVE IN SOME OF OUR STANDARDS THAT ALLOW FOR THINGS LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO DO OUT THERE. I'M REALLY TAKING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SAY I WISH THE CITY WOULD TAKE THIS TIME TO COME UP WITH SOME ALLIE STANDARDS THAT WOULD NOT BE COMING IN FOR SPECIAL REQUESTS LIKE, HEY CAN WE DO THIS. WE THINK THIS WOULD BE COOL WE'VE SEEN THIS X, Y, AND Z PLACES THAT PEOPLE ACROSS THE BOARD LOVE.

WHEN YOU COME TRYING TO DO IT IN AUBURN IT TAKES SOMEWHAT OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO GET IT DONE. I WISH THE CITY WOULD TAKE THE TIME TO ALLOW FOR HATE, HERE'S A FEW ALLIE STANDARDS THAT WE WILL GET BEHIND AND ALLOW FOR FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP.

THAT'S THE KEY HERE THAT HE'S BRINGING OUT. YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY ON THE OTHER PROJECT AS WELL THAT HE TALKED ON. THEY'RE DOING THE REZONING.

YOU GUYS TOUCHED ON THAT OKAY WORK AND HAVE TO CONDO THIS THING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE STREET. THIS IS BEEN AN ISSUE IN THIS TOWN.

I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS. I THINK IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE I NOTE NANCY DAVIS 'S CHAMPION THIS CAUSE. WE'VE GOT TO GET UP OR WE CAN HAVE FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP TO THE USE OF STREET PROPERTIES. SUCH AS TOWNHOMES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO, YOU KNOW. ON THE SUPPORT OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. NOT TRYING TO TALK NEGATIVE ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

I JUST WISH THAT THE CITY WOULD TAKE THE TIME TO PACK UP AND PUT SOME STANDARDS IN PLACE WITH THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU SEE IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT SOME SPECIAL PERMISSION TO DO SO.

THANK YOU. >> THANKS. ANYONE ELSE?

ALL RIGHT I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. >> ALL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE. >> BEFORE WE DO THAT LET ME ASK A QUESTION.

WE'VE GOT A WAIVER AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT. SHOULD WE DEAL WITH THEM IN

SEPARATE MOTIONS? >> IS IT ONE ITEM? >> IT IS ONE ITEM.

>> OKAY. RIGHT NOW WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS OF TALK ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO, THAT PARTICULAR WAIVER WERE CUTTING IT IN HALF.

>> IF YOU WANT TO SEPARATE IT YOU CAN. >> I THINK I'D LIKE TO DEAL

WITH THE WAIVER SEPARATELY. IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYBODY? >> DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION

FOR THAT? >> I CUT IT BEFORE SHE MADE HER MOTION.

>> I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO SEPARATE IT THEN YOU CAN.

>> GO AHEAD YOU STARTED THE MOTION. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION TO APPROVE PL 2021 Ã00 381 AS PRESENTED. >> TO INCLUDE THE WAIVERS?

>> TO INCLUDE THE WAIVERS. >> ALL THE WAIVERS IS ASKING FOR.

>> I'M JUST MAKING A MOTION AND IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO AMEND. >> AND WITH STAFF COMMENTS?

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE QUESTIONS. >> I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE MAKING THESE MOTIONS. I WOULD HAVE MADE A MOTION TO DENY.

BECAUSE IS A CLASSIC CASE OF PARCEL OVERLOAD AND ABUSE OF OUR REGULATIONS.

GOT STANDARDS THAT WERE SET FOR HOUSES NOT TO FRONT ON SECONDARY ROADWAYS.

FOR WHATEVER REASON WHETHER IT'S GOOD OR BAD IT EXISTS. I AGREE WITH THESE OTHER FOLKS AND IT OUGHT TO BE CHANGED. UNTIL IT IS I THINK WE SHOULD BE VERY CAUTIOUS TO STICK TO OUR STANDARDS. NOW, OR VERY LIMITED FOR WHAT WE COULD DO WITH THE STATE.

BECAUSE OF IT MEETS THE STANDARD WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD AND COULD BE DESIGNED WHERE IT DID AND THESE LOTS, THEIR DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS.

[01:50:04]

WHICH IS HARD. THIS IS ONE CASE WHERE I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD SET THE EXAMPLE IN A PRELIMINARY PLAT BASIC STANDARD AND THAT THEM, AT LEAST TO SAY GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT GOES BACK TO NOW.

SOME COMPUTER COUNT SYSTEM THAT YOU DO WITH THAT. ANOTHER POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE WITH REFERENCE TO THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT. IT'S NOT JUST THE DESIGN THE PLOT ITSELF. BUT IF YOU LOOK IN OUR PACKET AND I'M NOT GOING TO READ HIM AND I'M NOT GOING TO MENTION ANY NAMES. BUT THERE ARE AN ARRAY OF STATEMENTS UNDER PLANNING AND UNDER ENGINEERING AND UNDER GIS.

ARE THINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BASICALLY BEFORE THIS WAS EVER PRESENTED TO THE CITY.

FOR REVIEW. I THINK IT WAS PREMATURELY DONE AND OVERWORKED STOPPED IN REVIEWING ALL OF THESE THINGS. AND HAVING TO TELL THE ENGINEERING GROUP THAT'S ALREADY IN OUR STANDARDS. AND I APPRECIATE OUR STAFF AND TRYING TO BE ACCOMMODATING.

I THINK IT WOULD SERVE US WELL IF THEY SUPPORTED THE CITY'S POSITION TO PUT OUR STANDARDS ON AND LET THE DEVELOPERS ENGINEER TRY TO CONVINCE US WE HAD A CHANGE IN THAT STANDARD.

MAYBE THE MOTION WAS MADE TO APPROVE WITH THE IDEA THAT WE VOTE AGAINST IT AND IT WOULD BE DENYING. I DON'T THINK IT OUGHT TO BE APPROVED.HANK YOU.

>> MADE THE COMMENT I QUICKLY I WENT IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. I WOULD APPROVE THE PLAT AND ON TOP OF THAT I THINK A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT WAS MADE THAT REALLY ALL THROUGH THE WAIVER SHOULD BE APPROVED AND WERE TALKING ABOUT ONLY 2 FEET OF DISTANCE WHEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SIDEWALKS. A PERSON THAT'S BASICALLY CROSSING THAT ROAD DO NOT GOING TO KNOW THAT THIS IS AN ALLEY NOT AROUND. IT'S 2 FEET DIFFERENCE AND AT LEAST IN MY MIND I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD ARGUMENT TO WHERE THE WAIVER SHOULD APPLY TO ALL

3 OF THOSE SECTIONS.THAT'S MY OPINION. >> HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THE REQUEST TO DO THE CONNECTING ROAD. AS NOT AS AN ALLEY.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT OTHER 2 FEET OF DIFFERENCE IN THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD.

CAN YOU TELL ME SOME OF THE REASONS WHY THAT SHOULD BE NOT AN ALLEY?

>> DOESN'T HAVE TO DO A SAFETY OR FIRE EXIT? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE, IS IT

MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OR IVATE? >> JUST TO CLARIFY THE SPECIFIC REQUEST IS A WAIVER FOR ALL TREETS. THE STAFF IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THAT OF THOSE 3 STREETS IT WOULD APPLY TO. ONE OF THEM BE WITHHELD FROM

THAT THAT WE ARE BEING APPLICABLE TO. >> WHAT IS THE REASON BEHIND

THAT. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW. >> THE REASON BEHIND IT THE CARRYING CAPACITY THE DESIGN ON SPEAKING TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT'S THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ALLEY IS ROUGHLY ABOUT 300 TRIPS A DAY AND BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS THIS WOULD FALL JUST A HAIR UNDERNEATH THAT LIMIT. SO, WITH MORE PEOPLE COMING IN TO THOSE DEPENDING ON HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN THE UNITS THEMSELVES.

IT COULD EASILY GO ABOVE THAT CARING LOW. THAT WAS A REASON FOR THAT

SPECIFIC STREET TO BE HELD UP. >> THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE SUPPORTED HIS RECOMMENDATION.

IF YOU WILL GO BACK TO THE MASTER PLAN IT MAY MAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE, YES? THAT ROAD GUEST ON THE EAST SIDE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FOR THE REMAINING PART OF THE SUBDIVISION. I WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING MARCUS. BRENT MENTIONED A 2 FOOT DIFFERENCE.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ALLEY IN A LOCAL STREET IS THE ADDITION OF CURB AND GUTTER AND DRAINAGE IS HANDLED DIFFERENTLY. AN ALLEY IS SIMPLY GOING TO BE 20 FEET OF PAVEMENT WITHOUT ANY CURB AND GUTTER. AND DRAINAGE FEATURES. IT WILL LOOK A LITTLE BIT

DIFFERENT. >> WHEN I SAY WITH STAFF COMMENTS WERE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT III WILL BE A REAL ROAD. WHICH I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM

[01:55:03]

I LIKE THE IDEA OF THESE ALLEYS BEING USED TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THESE COLLEGES.

AND ALSO MEETS THAT REQUIREMENT THAT WE KEEP ASKING FORD TO HAVE THE PARKING RELOADED AND TOWNHOUSES. I THINK IT'S A VERY NICE DESIGN COMPROMISE.

TO PROVIDE MORE SMALLER MORE LOWER-PRICED HOUSING. BUT STILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPER THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE HIS PROFIT MARGIN OFF OF IT AS WELL.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT OF CHANGING THAT CONNECTING ROAD FROM AN ALLEY TO A ROAD IS.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DOING THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MEANS YOU LOSE A UNIT OR 2 ON THE BOTTOM. THAT ROAD COMING OFF OF JAMES ROAD WILL PICK UP MORE TRAFFIC

THAN IN FRONT OF THE OTHER COLLEGES. >> HANG ON MARK.

WAS TO HAVE THE STAFF MENT BE ADHERED TO. JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHY.

I APPRECIATE THAT. >> UNDER THE THINK WE HAVE TO TAKE, WHETHER 2 FEET PITCH POINTS OR NOT. YOU HAVE A ROAD THAT WOULD HAVE THE STRETCH THAT ROAD WOULD BE

2 FEET MORE NARROW THAN THE 2 ENDS OF IT. >> BASED ON THIS DESIGN.

>> E. MY MOTION IS TO BE A ROAD. >> H.

>> HOW DID WE GET TO THE REQUIREMENT IN OUR REGULATIONS THAT HOUSE THESE FRONTS ON PRIMARY ROOM AND NOT A SECONDARY ROAD? IT'S GOTTA BE SOME GOOD.

>> THAT'S BEEN IN THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR A LONG TIME.

>> A VERY LONG TIME. >> VERY VERY LONG TIME. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GOT THERE. THAT'S TYPICAL REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS TO BE A VERY NICE COMPROMISE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE FEE SIMPLE PRODUCT WHICH WE DESPERATELY NEED.

>> IF I HAD TO SPECULATE FROM PREVIOUS CASE WE HEARD OR RECEIVED MORE EXAMPLES OF MUCH OLDER ALLEYS AND MUCH OLDER PLOTTED AREAS OF TOWN. THE INTENT BEHIND THAT REQUIREMENT WAS TRYING TO PREVENT SOMEONE TAKING THOSE BACK ALLEYS AS THE ONLY FRONTAGE ON A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. NOW, THERE COULD BE ARGUMENTS MADE FOR AND AGAINST.

HOW THIS WOULD COMPARED TO THOSE TYPES OF ALLEYS FROM MID 40S.

>> IT CERTAINLY WORTH THINKING ABOUT. >> 'S NOT MUCH VISIBLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 20 FEET AND 22 FEET. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOT HAVING CURB AND GUTTER AND HAVING CURB AND GUTTER AND THE QUALITY OF THAT WHICH TAXPAYERS CAN PAY THE SAME TAX ON THAT STREET WHETHER HE'S GOT THE CURB AND GUTTER OR NOT.

THE OTHER THING THAT EXTRA 10 FEET OUT THERE ON EACH SIDE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH DRAINAGE AND OTHER ISSUES. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT AND I THINK FROM A PRELIMINARY STANDPOINT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SEE WHAT REAL CHANGES WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE IF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT MET THE CITY'S STANDARDS FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. AND ONCE YOU SAW THAT IT MAY NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE. YOU MAY NOT LOSE MANY LAWS. AND MEET THE STANDARD.

>> ARE ALLEYS PUBLIC OR DOES THE CITY MAINTAIN THEM? MY NEIGHBOR'S HOOD DOESN'T HAVE CURB AND GUTTER WE STILL MANAGED TO GET TO MARJA MILLS. I THINK ROADS WITHOUT THEM ARE DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE DRAINAGE HAPPENS OTHER WAYS. CHRISTINA GOT SWELL SECTIONS TO

HANDLE IT THE DRAINAGE. >> THE DESIGNER WILL HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE UTILITIES, DRAINAGE, SIDEWALK, ALL ABOUT WILL HAVE TO BE IN A REDWARE EASEMENT.

THAT WILL BE REFLECTED ON THE FINAL POT. >> THE LAST THING YOU WANT IS A

[02:00:05]

APPROVAL AND EXCEPTIONS FOR VARIANCES. >> THE MOTION AND THE SECOND ON THE TABLE AS AS THE CITY HAS PROVIDED. STAFF PROVIDED.

THAT'S WITH THIS MOTION IS CURRENTLY. >> SO HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.

ANYMORE DISCUSSION? OKAY. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE

PLEASE. [VOTING] >> MOTION CARRIES.

[18. Bridgewater, Phase 2 PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00420]

MS. ROBERTSON. >> I'LL BE PRESENTING FROM HIS ROBINSON THIS MORNING EVENING.

I'M NOT WELL VERSED IN THE WAYS OF PLANNING WILL DO MY EST. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR BRIDGEWATER CAREY CREEK EEK LLC.

AS YOU CAN IT'S WITHIN THE CDD ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN OVERLAY OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR CAREY CREEK. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 24 LOT CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION. THE REVISED COMES AT THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT EXPIRED JUST LAST MONTH. PREVIOUS, THIS IS THE PREVIOUS LUMINARY PLAT THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE FALL OF 2018. PHASES ONE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT OUT. WHERE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SO RIGHT NOW.

THE REVISED PRELIMINARY IS THE SECTION HERE. AS KNOWN AS PHASE 2. THERE WERE MINIMAL OUTLINE SHIFTS IN THIS PROPOSAL. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS CASE. RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. IS THERE REPRESENTATIVE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY. THIS REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING. WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. ANYBODY LIKE TO COME FORWARD? SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AS FOR MOTION AND SOME DISCUSSION.

>> MOVE TO PROVE ITEM 18. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A SECOND, AND A DISCUSSION? LET ME HAVE A ROLL CALL ON THIS PLEASE AMBER.

[VOTING] >> MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ONE IS ITEM NUMBER 19,

[19. Bridgewater, Phase 2 PL-2021-00390]

KENNEDY? >> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. LIKE I SAID THE PRELIMINARY WAS ORIGINALLY HEARD BEFORE. FOR A LOT OF THE COMMENTS WERE ADDRESSED.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ON FINAL POT APPROVAL AS WELL. >> HAVE ALL THE COMMENTS BEEN ADDRESSED AND IS THIS POT READY TO BE PLANTED?> THERE ARE SOME COMMENTS LEFT OVER FROM STAFF THAT ARE LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORTS. YOU WILL SEE THAT UPON RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT WE EXPECT ALL OF THOSE TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE SIGNATURES.

>> I'M THINKING THEY GOT TO BE ADDRESSED. THEY'VE GOT TO MEET OUR

CANDIDATE STANDARDS. >> YES. >> AND TRY TO ENCOURAGE OF THIS MARKETING DONE BEFORE COMES TO US FOR APPROVAL TO WHERE YOU CAN SAY HAVE ALL THE ITEMS IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE ANSWER SHOULD BE YES, IT'S READY TO BE

PLOTTED AND APPROVED. >> I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I.

[20. Plainsman Lake PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00389]

THIS IS PLAINSMAN LAKE. TOWNHOMES PL 2021 Ã00389. MR. HOWELL.

[02:05:03]

>> THIS CASE IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. FOR PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE TOWNHOMES. IN THE DTH ZONING DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE EAST OF WEBSTER BROWN.

IN THE DTH ZONING DISTRICT. IT IS BETWEEN WEBSTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND SOUL OF YOUR SUBDIVISION ON THE EAST OF THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE PLAINSMAN LAKE DEVELOPMENT WHICH YOU HEARD ABOUT A YEAR AGO THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED FROM RULE 2 THIS JOHNNY SISTER TDH IS A PORTION OF THE BOTTOM LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PER CDD ALONG THE FUTURE INTERSECTION. OF THE ROAD.

HERE'S A SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSAL. THE TOWNHOME USE INCLUDE HUNDRED AND 30 TOWNHOMES LOTS. APPROXIMATELY 73.7 ACRES. THAT REPRESENTS A DENSITY OF 1.76 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERNEATH THE 5 AND A HALF MAXIMUM FOR TDH. THE APPLICANT, PART OF THE REASON WHY THERE ARE SO MUCH UNDERNEATH THAT. IT'S THE DEGREE OF OPEN SPACE THEY ARE PROVIDING WHICH ARE REQUIREMENT OF ALL PERFORMANCE SUBDIVISIONS. THIS PARTICULAR CASE THEY ARE PROVIDING APPROXIMATELY 55 ACRES OF THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH EQUALS OUT TO 75 PERCENT OF THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION. THE TOWNHOMES THEMSELVES WILL BE DISTRIBUTED ALONG AND TAKING THEIR ONLY ACCESS OFF OF THE PLANNED FUTURE CONNECTOR ROAD BETWEEN MLK AND RICHLAND ROAD.

WHICH THE CITY, THE CITY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPING NOW IN THE PRELIMINARY PHASES OF THAT REVIEW. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS FOR LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THIS ALIGNS WITH THAT. STAFF IS RECOMMITTING APPROVAL.

WE HAVE RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISION INSULA MERE PRIMARILY FROM OBSERVATION RESERVATION AT THIS REQUEST AS WELL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

SUBMIT YOUR QUESTIONS. >> WITH A REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THIS REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT SEE NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AS FOR MOTION AND DISCUSSION. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE PL 2020 100389.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> SO THE ONLY ACCESS TO THESE TOWNHOMES IS OFF OF 14 AND ON THE ROAD THAT WILL CONNECT UP

TO RICHLAND. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? >> UNLESS YOU WIND YOUR WAY ALL

THE WAY THROUGH. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THE ONLY ACCESS THEY CAN HAVE WOULD BE OFF OF THIS CONNECTING. THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW ACCESS TO MLK. EXCUSE ME, FRONTAGE. THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO

TAKE THE AXIS FROM MLK. >> ANYBODY ELSE? >> 3K AT THE BOTTOM.

IT ENDS IN A CUL-DE-SAC. WHAT IS IN IT JUST CONNECT TO THE THROUGH STREET?

>> I BELIEVE THERE IS SOME TOPOGRAPHICAL ISSUES WITH THAT. SO THE NEXT STAGE OF THIS PROCESS ASSUMING THIS CONDITIONAL USE IS APPROVED BY COUNCIL WOULD BE THE PLANNING PROCESS. THE CITY WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO SEE MUCH FEWER CUL-DE-SACS AND SO WE WILL GO INTO MORE CONVERSATION WITH THE DEVELOPER AT THAT TIME.

>> OKAY, THANKS. >> AMBER, HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.

[VOTING] >>NG] >> MOTION CARRIES.TEM NUMBER

[21. Jackie Lewis Sign World PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00351]

MR..> CAN SERVE THIS IS A REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION AS A COMMERCIAL SPORT USED FOR SIGN FABRICATION. LOCATED AT 1715 OPELIKA ROAD. THE SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICT IS SEE RDS AS WELL. YOU'VE GOT THE MALL PROPERTY JUST BEHIND IT.OME OFFICE

[02:10:05]

ESSENTIALLY REMOVE THAT STRUCTURE AND REPLACE IT WITH THE 50 BY 50 PREFABRICATED AND ENGINEERED BUILDING. WHERE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO STORE AS WELL AS PUT THE SIGNS TOGETHER THAT THEY PRODUCE THERE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

IT DOES MEET OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND WE WILL BE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ON SIDING ON THE BUILDING MEETING ON THE SETBACKS AND ANY OF THOSE DEFICIENCIES.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL PROPERTY THAT IT IS AN OLDER PROPERTY.

SOME OF THE CRITERIA MAY NOT BE MET NOW. AS I SAID WORK WITH APPLICANT AND TRT TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS UP TO CODE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE. OH, HE IS. I'M ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CALLS OR COMMENTS ABOUT IT EITHER.

>> HERE COMES MR. LEWIS.WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? >> SURE.

AT YOUR PLEASURE. E. >> MY NAME IS JACKIE LEWIS.

1715 OPELIKA ROAD. LOGAN IS NOW WORKING WITH ME. THE BUILDING WE HAVE THE BACK IS OLD AND DILAPIDATED AND FALLING APART. A LOT OF THE EQUIPMENT WE BOUGHT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE PLACE TO PUT IT. SO WHAT WERE PROPOSING TO DO IS BUILD A NEW FABRICATED BUILDING. GET RID OF THE OLD STUFF.

NEW ELECTRICAL AND MAINLY JUST AN ASSEMBLY AREA. WERE NOT TEARING UP ANY NEW GROUND OR ANYTHING. PUTTING IT RIGHT ON TOP WE BUILT A LOT OF MONUMENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES. WE HAVE ABOUT A THOUSAND LOCATIONS IN THE US WE BUILD IN IN CANADA WE REALLY WORK WITH A LOT OF FRANCHISES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND WERE OUT OF ROOM. WE'VE OUTGROWN OURSELVES. OUR BUSINESS IS BIGGER THAN WE

ARE. >> GOOD PROBLEM TO HAVE.>> IT IS.

WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE AND I'M VERY BLESSED. EVERYTHING WE HAVE IS PAID FOR.

GOD HAS BEEN GOOD TO US AND I'M VERY THANKFUL. THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING.

IN FACT THE NEW SCIENCE WE HAVE HERE WE'VE BUILT THEM FOR THE CITY AND EVERYTHING.

WERE VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT TO YOU ALL. I JUST NEED MORE ROOM.

ONLY ADDING ABOUT 1200 TO 15 MORE SQUARE FEET. RETURN DOWN THE OLD STRUCTURE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. LOGAN'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL WORKING WITH US AND I REALLY

APPRECIATE THAT TO. >> GOOD. >> HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE

ENOUGH. >> THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD PROBLEM TO HEALTH.

OKAY. THIS REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL OPEN IT AT THIS TIME.

ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? ALL RIGHT SEE KNOW WHAT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AS FOR MOTION AND DISCUSSION. >> MOTION. >> A SECOND.

[22. Project A PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00378]

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I? THOSE OPPOSED THEY DON'T? MOTION CARRIES.

OKAY, ONTO ITEM NUMBER 22, PROJECT A. THIS IS PL 2020 100 3 78.

MS. KENNEDY. YES, THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A MANUFACTURING USE WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. IT'S LOCATED IN HE AUBURN TECHNOLOGY PARK WEST. AS YOU KNOW ANY USE WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT BECOMES CONDITIONAL. EVEN THOUGH IT IS AN INDUSTRIAL USE IT'S CONDITIONAL.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS ON THIS REQUEST. AND NO REAL ISSUES CAME UP IN

THE REVIEW PROCESS SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

MR. LEWIS? >> I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.> THIS REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM THESE COME FORWARD NOW.

SEEING NO ONE. ALL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING. LOOKING FOR MOTION AND

DISCUSSION? >> OCEAN TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 22.

[02:15:03]

>> BY SECOND. >> SECOND DISCUSSION. >> HAVE A QUESTION.

THE POWER EASEMENT HAVING THE PARKING UNDER AT THIS TIME RIGHT?

OKAY, GOT IT. NO STRUCTURE. >> YES, NO STRUCTURES.

>> JUST PARKING. THAT'S CORRELATED WITH THEM. >> OKAY.

>> OF GOT A QUESTION OF THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. NEEDING 60 ONLY 48 BE PROVIDED.

WE ADJUSTED THAT NUMBER OR DID THEY MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS?

>> SO 60 CAME FROM OUR CURRENT ESTIMATE ON WHAT LARGER SHIP SIZE.

THAT'S ALL PARKING FOR INDUSTRIAL USE IS DETERMINED. THEY ARE PROVIDING 48 MAY BE MORE INFORMATION SO WORKING TO WORK THAT OUT BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD.

>> ESTIMATE THE LARGER SHIP TO BE SMALLER SO TO SEE 48 NOTCHES.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO THE ACTUAL DEVELOPER TO TELL US. >> YOU NEED TO MEET THE PARKING

REQUIREMENTS. >> THERE'S BENNETT REVISED SITE PLAN AS WELL.

I THINK THE OVERALL AREA OF THE BUILDING MIGHT HAVE INCREASED SOME.

ASK OKAY. GREAT.>> IS A WORK IN PROGRESS.

WE WILL MEET ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS. >> I'M SURE YOU CAN WORK IT

OUT. >> AND WAVA MOTION? >> WE ARE READY HAVE A MOTION

IN THE SECOND. >> OH I'M SORRY. I WAS GETTING ENTERTAINED HERE FOR ABOUT A MINUTE. ALL THOSE IN 5 OR SAY I? THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

[23. ACDI Business Center PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00379]

>> YES. THIS IS ANOTHER CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTS WITHIN THE DISH STUDIED DISTRICT. BLUE COUSCOUS MOVE PUMPHREY AVENUE.

THE REQUESTED USE IS A CURRENT USE IN SEVERAL OTHER BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE THERE IS SOME LIGHT MANUFACTURING IN THE BUILDING TOWARDS THE NORTH AND THE OTHER 2 ARE CURRENTLY ALSO BEING USED AS OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH IS WHAT THIS REQUEST IS FOR. THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE NEWER BUILDING KIND OF IN THE CENTER.

WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS. THERE ARE NO OTHER ISSUES.

THERE'S ALSO COMMON ABOUT PARKING THAT WE WILL MAKE SURE TO GET RESOLVED BEFORE ANYTHING

BUT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >> AND YOU WILL MEET THE

PARKING REQUIREMENTS? >> WE WILL MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

>> THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEATING HEARING. ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW.TEVE NO ONE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED FOR MOTION AND A

DISCUSSION. >> MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 23 WITH CONDITIONAL PARKING

REQUIREMENTS BE MET. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY, ALL IN FAVOR SAY HI.

THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY SO WE SAID THAT 24 WAS

[25. The Tracks PL-2021-00374]

WITHDRAWN RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT. THAT BRINGS US TO THE LAST ITEM WHICH IS THE TRACKS.

THIS IS PL 2021 Ã00374. MS. REESE WILL RECUSE HERSELF FROM THIS DISCUSSION.

AND MS. KENNEDY. >> YES, THIS IS A WAIVER REQUEST FROM PHELPS GAMBLE.

THE WAIVER IS TO THE MINIMUM GROUND STORY HEIGHT IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD WEST WHICH IS AS YOU CAN SEE THIS PROPERTY IS IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT. THE REQUEST IS TO THE GROUND STORY HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF 15 FEET. TO ALLOW A GROUND STORY TO MEET 9 FEET 6 INCHES AND TO THE SECOND STORY HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF 10 FEET OR 10 AND A HALF FEET, EXCUSE ME. TO ALLOW THAT STORAGE TO BE 9 FEET AS WELL.

AND TO III STORY HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF 10 AND A HALF FEET TO ALLOW III STORY OF THE BUILDING TO BE EATEN HALF . THIS IS AN ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING OF THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE LDING. THESE REQUIREMENTS CARE ABOUT AND THOSE ADOPTED DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS REVISIONS THAT IT CAME THROUGH. YOU ALL AND CITY COUNCIL WAS PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL IN MAY. AFTER 18TH MEETING. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE ONLY FOR THE STRUCTURES THAT FACE GLENN. THE MAIN CORRESPONDENCE WE'VE HEARD YOU ALSO HEARD TONIGHT

[02:20:13]

VETTING OF THESE STANDARDS WENT THROUGH. >> THANK YOU.

OUT OF CURIOSITY WE DON'T HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. >> WAIVERS DO NOT REQUIRE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> ARE USUALLY PART OF ANOTHER ITEM.

>> WERE AWARE. INSTEAD THEY ARE INDIVIDUAL. >> OKAY.

IN THE CASE LET'S HAVE A MOTION WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION. >> DO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO

HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT?> SURE. >> IS THERE AN APPLICANT?

OKAY. >> WE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. >> HOW Y'ALL DOING? WHEN HE WAS PHELPS GAMBLE AND I'M THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROJECT.

JUST TO START THIS OFF I STARTED THIS PROJECT ABOUT 8 OR 9 MONTHS AGO.

FIRST SEND AN EMAIL TO LOGAN IN DECEMBER LAST YEAR. I WENT TO SCHOOL HERE.

I WAS A GREEK LIFE HERE. I PLAYED FOOTBALL HERE. THE PROJECT THAT I PUT TOGETHER WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED SIMILAR TO MR. COSTA BROWN'S PROPERTIES IN SIMILAR TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA THAT THE STUDENTS DON'T REALLY WANT THESE MASSIVE APARTMENT COMPLEXES. THEY WANT INDIVIDUALIZE HOUSES AND WE DID THIS ON THIS PROPERTY. FULLY DESIGNED IT. WE HAD A PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING ON MARCH 12 WITH 5 CITY STAFF AND EVERYBODY TALKED ABOUT IT AND LOVE THE PROJECT.

I HAVE MY ARCHITECTS SEND ME IMMEDIATE WE LIMIT EVERY DESIGNS SHORTLY AFTER THAT.

I SENT IT OUT FOR BID. HAVE INVESTOR LINED UP. I'M UNDER CONTRACT ON ALL THESE PROPERTIES WITH A LOT AT STAKE AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS REALLY CAME FROM.

THERE'S NO COMMERCIAL IN THAT AREA OF 15 FOR GROUND FOOT HEIGHT AS IT SEEMED REASONABLE APPEARED VERY WILLING TO WORK WITH THE 9 FEET EVEN GOING UP TO 10 FEET OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. IN THAT AREA THERE ISN'T ANY COMMERCIAL.

THERE'S NOTHING DOWN THERE BESIDES THE UNION THAT WAS JUST BUILT IT HAS A 15 FOOT GROUND-FLOOR AND I TRULY BELIEVE THIS PROJECT IS SOMETHING THE CITY NEEDS MORE OF WHEN YOU SEE THESE HOUSES THAT STUDENTS WANT TO LIVE. THEY HAVE NO VACANCIES.

NONE. IN THE UNIVERSITY JUST MADE A DEAL WITH AMERICAN CAMPUS COMMUNITY WHICH IS RIGHT THERE TO DO ON-CAMPUS HOUSING IS NOT ON-CAMPUS.

THESE APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE FLOODED WITH VACANCIES. AND IT'S NOT WITH THE UNIVERSITY NEEDS AND THEY NEED MORE STUFF LIKE THIS. SO, LEAVE IT TO PARKER AFTER

THAT. >> PARKER LEWIS, HYDRO ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS.

17 HE STANFORD. I TOLD PHELPS, I SAID THIS IS TOUGH.

WE JUST BEEN THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS AS A CITY A LOT OF TIME WENT INTO THIS.

I SAID, LET'S JUST GO AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DEAL. SO I GET WERE COMING FROM AS A CITY I GET THE POSITION YOU ARE IN. IT'S TOUGH TO GIVE A WAIVER OF SOMETHING WE JUST APPROVED. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AND WE'VE HEARD IT ALREADY TONIGHT.

ONE OF THE POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE WE'VE SEEN IT ALREADY ON OTHER PROJECTS.

THE ONE ON GLENN. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS NEW ORDINANCE OR THESE NEW DESIGN CHANGES A LOT OF PRODUCT TYPES ARE WAIVED. OUT OF THIS.

RIGHT? FEESIMPLE HOUSES. TOWNHOMES.

TWIN HOMES. DUPLEXES. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE WAIVED BUT TO BE IN THAT WAIVER CATEGORY YOU'VE GOT TO BE A FEESIMPLE PRODUCT.

THE ONLY REASON THIS IS NOT A FEESIMPLE PRODUCT IS BECAUSE IT'S ONE LOT OF RECORD.

IF YOU DRIVE DOWN THE STREET EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS LOOKS LIKE A TOWNHOME.

[02:25:05]

WE LOVE THIS ARCHITECTURE INTO SORT OF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX MINDSET.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT ON YOUR SCREEN. IF YOU LOOK AT THE FRONTAGE THAT YOU HAVE A LONG PLAN AND THEN YOU HAVE THE FRONTAGE ALONG RAILROAD.NE I WANT TO CLARIFY, IS IT ONLY THE FRONTAGE THAT REQUIRES 15 FEET OR IS THAT THE ENTIRE ZONE? THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD WEST ZONE REGARDLESS OF WHAT STREET YOU ARE ON OR WHETHER YOUR INTERNAL IN A PROPERTY?

I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THAT. >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER ABOUT.

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MY QUESTION WOULD BE WE'VE GOT 2 BUILDINGS OF 4 ON GLENN.

WE HAVE 2 BUILDINGS OF 5 OF THAT ARE OUT ON THE RUNWAY. THERE ABOVE RAILROAD.

THE QUESTION WOULD BE WILLING UP TO DO 15 FEET ON GLENN BUT NOT HAVE TO DO 15 FEET IN THE HEART OF THE PROPERTY? THAT'S ONE QUESTION. I SHOULD'VE COVER THAT FIRST.

I THINK THE LARGER PICTURE FOR US AS A CITY REGARDLESS OF WHAT GETS DECIDED TONIGHT.

I KNOW THIS DOESN'T HELP PHELPS. I REALLY DO THINK WE NEED TO, ALL OF HER ORDINANCES BUILT AROUND PRODUCT TYPE. IF YOU LOOK THERE ARE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR SETBACKS AND BUFFER YARDS AND ALL OF THE THINGS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE VERSUS A TWIN HOUSE VERSUS A DUPLEX VERSUS A COTTAGE, VERSUS AN ADD YOU.

WE DO EVERYTHING BASED ON PRODUCT TYPE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE GET, IF WE GET ON PIECE OF PROPERTY LIKE WE'VE GOT HERE LIKE WE'VE GOT ON GLENN WE'VE GOT THIS REALLY DEEP PRODUCT PROPERTY. BECAUSE WE DON'T ALLOW PRIVATE ROADS BECAUSE WE DON'T ALLOW ALLEYS TO COUNT AS RIGHT-OF-WAY. WE ARE FORCED TO HAVE IT AUTOMATICALLY JUMP INTO MULTIFAMILY. MULTIUNIT.

SO, I REALLY DO THINK THERE'S A JUSTIFICATION BECAUSE OF THIS BEING A TOWNHOME PRODUCT.

THERE IS A JUSTIFICATION I THINK THAT IT COULD BE LOOKED AT THAT SAME SORT OF WAIVER FROM THESE DESIGN STANDARDS AS IF IT WAS A TOWNHOME FEESIMPLE. BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AGAIN THIS IS A TOUGH SPOT. THIS IS RIGHT OUT OF THE SHOE WE ARE HERE FOR WAIVER. I COMPLETELY GET IT. IT'S JUST I WILL BE HONEST.

I REVIEWED THESE THINGS JUST LIKE YOU GUYS DID. I JUST MISSED THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THIS WEST OF DONAHUE WHICH IS IN THE EXISTENCE OF URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD WEST. WEST OF DONAHUE HAS BEEN DIFFERENT THAN EAST OF DONAHUE.

I QUITE FRANKLY MISSED THAT WE WERE SAYING EVERYTHING ALONG THE STREET AND DONAHUE, WEST OF DONAHUE HAD TO BE 18 FEET COMMERCIAL OR 15 FEET RESIDENTIAL.

>> THERE ARE LIKE 3 DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISTRICTS THAT THEY LAID OUT.

>> RIGHT. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

I KNOW THIS IS TOUGH AND I KNOW WE DON'T SET PRECEDENTS. I DO THINK YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT HERE WHEN I SAY WE I SAY WE CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS A TOWNHOUSE PRODUCT TYPE.

IT'S JUST THE OWNERSHIP IS GOING TO BE CONDO AS OPPOSED TO FEESIMPLE.

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> LET ME ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE 15 FEET FIRST FLOOR ONLY ON FRONTAGE OF GLENN AS OPPOSED TO THE NO INTERIOR TO THE PROPERTY.

>> I BELIEVE IT IS THE INTENT TO BE THE FRONTAGES. NOW, RAILROAD AVENUE IS ALSO A STREET FRONTAGE. THOSE BUILDINGS ARE NOT FRONTING.

SO, IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO THOSE 2. >> OKAY SO ARE BE UNDERSTOOD?

>> I WILL SAY WITH THE CHANGES OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS. PREVIOUSLY WE HAD REQUIRED SOME AREAS HAVE COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND WHEN THDENTIAL ON THE FIRST.

THIS WAS AN AREA THAT PREVIOUSLY DID NOT REQUIRE COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

>> SO WITH THE CHANGE INCLUDE THAT? AS I RECALL.

[02:30:08]

>> THAT WAS REMOVED. WERE NOT REQUIRING COMMERCIAL FIRST FLOOR.

WE ARE IN INCLUDING THE 8-FOOT AND RESIDENTIAL WOULD INCLUDE THE 15 FEET.

BUT NOT ALL RESIDENTIAL JUST CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF RESIDENTIAL?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. HAD THIS BEEN TOWNHOUSES KNOW TOWNHOUSES WOULD REQUIRE.

BUT TWIN HOUSES DO REQUIRE 15 FEET? >> CORRECT.

FEESIMPLE TOWNHOMES. >> YES. >> I THINK TOWNHOUSES ARE

ACCEPT. >> THEY ARE NOT. ALWAYS WE CHECKED IN SOME OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS THEY MAY BE EXEMPT. THE 15 FOOT CAME FROM A COMPROMISE BETWEEN WANTING AND PARKER'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. WE REVIEWED THIS.

WE REVIEWS THOSE PROPERTIES BEING A PRIVATE DORMITORY. WHETHER IT IS THEY BILLED EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF THE PROPERTY VERTICALLY OR WHETHER IT'S IN THIS FORMAT THAT LOOKS A LOT DIFFERENT. THE REGULATIONS THAT WERE PASSED THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY TARGETING FULL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT.

THAT WAS WHERE THE 15 FOOT 18 FOOT HAVING A LARGER GROUND STORY HEIGHT AND UPPER STORY HEIGHT MAKES IT MORE CONSISTENT WITH AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. LIKE YOU SEE DOWNTOWN WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE BUILDINGS ARE THE FULL VERTICAL BUILT OUTSIDES WITH LARGER TEETH HEIGHTS. IN THIS CASE A SAID PARKER'S RIGHT, IT'S HARD, OR ZONING ORDINANCE WILL CLASSIFY THIS AS DORMITORY AND I THINK WE STILL WANT TO SEE THAT CONSISTENCY OF 15 FEET AS THESE PROPERTIES DEVELOP. I THINK A LARGER THAN THE D DRC EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO HAVE LARGER GROUND STORY HEIGHT AS PROPERTIES WE DEVELOP ALONG.

THAT'S WHERE OUR POSITION STANDS. >> ARE YOU GONNA MAKE A

COMMENT? >> IS THERE A CLICKER? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S THE BEGINNING. THIS IS JOB TUCKER PROMPTED ON MILLER AND ARMSTRONG. SO ACTUALLY TALK TO TUCKER ABOUT THIS.

I'VE GOT HIS DIMENSIONS AND I'M PRETTY MUCH COPY WHAT TUCKER DID.

HE DID THAT ON ARMSTRONG AND MILLER RIGHT BEHIND A 5-STORY CONDO.

IT LOOKS GREAT. IF IT'S HIM WITH THE AREA SO I WANTED TO COPY THAT.

THAT'S HOW IT LOOKS CURRENTLY. AS A RED BRICK HOUSE TO THE LEFT OF THE PROJECT.

THEN THERE'S A HOUSE THAT'S BEEN BOARDED UP FOR SOME ODD YEARS TO THE RIGHT OF IT.

ON EITHER SIDE OF THOSE AND ON THE RIVER AND SIGN THERE IS SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSES.

INCLUDING THE ÃYOU HEARD AND. [INDISCERNABLE]. THEY CAME DOWN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE HERE LOOKING TO HEAR THE FIRST THING PEOPLE ASK WHEN WE WERE COMBINING THESE THOUGHTS WAS WHAT WAS I GOING TO PUT THERE.

THIS IS GOOD TO BE ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE BIG APARTMENT COMPLEXES?IS IT GONNA BE ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN THAT HAVE RETAIL SPOTS THAT ARE BEING LEASED.

IS IT NOT GOING TO FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT TOOK A LOT OF TIME AND A LOT OF EFFORT AND WENT INTO DESIGNING TO MAKE SURE THE PARKING FIT AND KEEPING IT AS LOOKING AS A HOUSE, A CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOUSE THAT FITS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS, PRETTY BACK PHOTOSHOP JOB. IT SHOWS HOW IT WILL LOOK.

A TEST FIT IN WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THE 15 FOOT JUST CAUGHT ME COMPLETELY OFF GUARD. BUT WORKING ON THIS FOR 7 TO 8 MONTHS NOW.

4 WEEKS AFTER WE GET PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CONTRACTORS HAVE BEEN BIDDING ON IT FOR MONTHS NOW AND THIS COMES OUT OF NOWHERE TO ME SO AND TO ALL THE PEOPLE I BEEN WORKING WITH ON IT. I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN FOR THAT AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN

GO SOMEWHERE WITH IT. THANK YOU. >> WILL QUICK TO APOLOGIZE.

I READ TOWNHOME WHEN IT SAID TWIN HOME. IT'S BASICALLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED ZERO LOT TWIN HOUSE DUPLEX, COTTAGE HOUSE IN ADD YOU ARE EXEMPT.

THE NEW STANDARDS. AGAINST TOWNHOUSE I MISSPOKE. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.

[02:35:01]

>> YOU LEARN SHE'S USUALLY RIGHT. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

>> I'M SORRY HAVE A QUESTION. >> WHAT WE DO AS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL OR WITH A FINAL?> WE HAVE THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THIS MORNING. THANK YOU.

>> DID YOU JUST SAY ADD YOU IS EXEMPT FROM THESE STANDARDS? DID SOMEONE NOT SAY THAT THESE

ARE ADD USE? >> PRIVATE DORMITORIES. IF THEY'RE ATTACHED.

SORRY. >> BECAUSE OF OUR DEFINITIONS. >> HAVE A REALLY BEEN SIMPLE

TOWNHOUSES THEY WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED PRIVATE. >> I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND SOME OF YOU ALL WON'T AGREE WITH ME BUT IF YOU WILL HOLD YOUR INTERJECTIONS SO WE COULD GET THROUGH MY THOUGHTS. MY INITIAL REACTION AT PACKET MEETING WAS DENIED THIS WAIVER REQUEST. BECAUSE WE DID JUST PUT THESE STANDARDS INTO PLACE AND THAT WAS A VERY LONG AND ARDUOUS ENTIRE READ AND DRAWN OUT PROJECT THAT INCLUDED LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS. I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. ONE BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALIZE HOW FAR CONKLIN WERE TALKING ABOUT ORIGINALLY WITH THIS APPLICATION.

HONESTLY THOUGHT IT WAS CLOSER INTO THE URBAN CORE. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THOSE DOWNTOWN DESIGN CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO 5 TO 6 STORY BUILDINGS.

200 TO 300 FEET IN LENGTH. TO ME THAT WAS OUR MAIN FOCUS. DOESN'T MEAN WE DIDN'T NEED TO CHANGE OTHER THINGS MAY BE UNINTENTIONALLY WITH WHAT SOME OF OUR DECISIONS WERE.

THE FACT WE HAVE TO LUMP A PRODUCT LIKE THIS IN WITH THOSE OTHER MULTI FAMILY PRODUCTS, WE CAN ADDRESS IT RIGHT NOW. I FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT AT SOME POINT ALONG THE WAY THAT WE ADDRESS THAT. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PRODUCT.

I THINK SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS. I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT A SMALLER DEVELOPER WILL SUFFER MORE THAN A LARGER DEVELOPER BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING TREATED ON EQUAL PLAYING FIELD. SO I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT IT.

I DON'T LIKE TO GO AGAINST THE RULES. I DO THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THIS WAIVER BECAUSE IT WORKED ON THIS PROJECT FOR MONTHS. AND WORKED WITH THE CITY FOR A LONG TIME TO TRY AND GET THIS IN PLAY. WE DID JUST PASS THESE NEW STANDARDS AND I THINK THAT AT SOME POINT WE MAY NEED TO LOOK AT THE AREA SCOPE OF THE STANDARDS AND SEE IF IT NEEDS TO BE PULLED BACK A LITTLE BIT MORE TOWARDS THE URBAN CORE ON SOME OF THESE. I DON'T KNOW ANY HOUSES IN AUBURN THAT HAVE 15 FOOT CEILINGS. THAT'S VERY HIGH. I TOTALLY GET IT IN AN URBAN COURT URBAN ENVIRONMENT. I DON'T KNOW, A 15 FOOT FIRST-FLOOR 10 OR 11 OR WHATEVER IT IS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD. THE STRUCTURES ARE REALLY GOING TO DWARF ANYTHING THAT SURROUNDED IT. A LOT OF THAT IS, SLOW DOWN TO ME OF REDEVELOPMENT OF STRESS STRUCTURES. IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE ANYTIME SOON BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALL CONDOS AND SOME MONTHS, HAVE TO PURCHASE EVERY SINGLE CONDO IN EVERY SINGLE UNIT BEFORE THOSE CAN BE REDEVELOPED.

WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT 5 YEARS. TALK ABOUT 10 TO 15 TO 20 YEARS BEFORE EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT EVEN IS GOING TO MATCH THIS. I THINK THEY DESERVE THIS WAIVER.

THEN I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE ANOTHER REALLY HARD LENS LOOK AT SOME OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS. I THINK WHAT WE DID IN THE COURT WHAT WE DID IN THE COLLEGES OVERLAY IS GREAT. THINK THAT'S WHAT THAT PRESENTATION LENT ITSELF TOWARDS. WHAT I THINK WERE SEEING HERE IS A POTENTIAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THAT. WHEN I-DRIVE BY A BUILDING I DON'T CARE REALLY HOW HIGH THE CEILING IS INSIDE OF IT.NE OF MORE CONCERNED WITH IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE OUTSIDE.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN IT AND I DON'T GO IN IT. I WANTED TO LOOK NICE AND I WANTED TO FIT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THAT WHAT THEY PRESENTED TO US AND PEOPLE MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME BUT I THINK I THINK THEY'RE GETTING CAUGHT IN

[02:40:03]

PLACE. >> CAN ASK A QUESTION. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW I WOULD THINK THE 2 BUILDINGS THAT FRONT GLENN THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE 15 FEET BUT THE REST OF THE

BUILDINGS DON'T NECESSARILY RIGHT? >> RIGHT.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY IT'S A VISIBLE STORY HEIGHT OF THE INTERIOR.

>> CORRECT. >> WELL, I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M SAYING SOME OF THIS TOO IN THE FACT THAT I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF TIMES PROPOSALS THAT ARE SUBMITTED THAT DON'T MEET OUR STANDARDS AND ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS AROUND WHAT WE HAVE WORKED HARD TO PUT IN PLACE.

HOWEVER, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IF I LOOKED AT THAT AREA OVER THE ENTIRE STREET OR YOU DRIVE DOWN IT THIS IS SORT OF THE FIRST AND ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE STREET.

I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT THE 15 FOOT CEILING WOULD HAVE HER LESS THAN 15 FOOT CEILING WOULD HAVE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE PROJECT. I'M ALSO SYMPATHETIC ALTHOUGH, LEGALLY SINCE HE HADN'T GOT HIS PAPERS AND ASKED TO FOLLOW THE RULES THAT ARE PAST.

THERE HAVE BEEN IN TIMES OF THE CITY WHERE PROJECTS HAD BEEN PLANNED BUT THEY DIDN'T GET THINGS ALL SQUARED AWAY BEFORE WE PUT IN PLACE OF NEW STANDARDS.

AND SO THE PROJECTS WERE FACED WITH EITHER BEING CAST ASIDE OR US ALLOWING SOME OVERLAP IN TIME. AND I THINK AT THIS CASE THIS IS A MATTER OF BAD TIMING.

AND, I DON'T LIKE MESSING WITH THE STANDARDS THAT WE WORK SO HARD TO PUT IN PLACE.HOWEVER NOT SURE THAT APPLYING THOSE TO A PROJECT OF THIS TYPE IS REASONABLE EITHER.

SO, I'M LEANING TOWARD GRANTING THE WAIVERS. >> I'VE BEEN TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT MAKES SENSE TO GRANT THE WAIVER AS I'M HAVING A HARD TIME.

SO, I GUESS YOU KNOW A LOT OF THE STUFF HAPPENED DURING THE PANDEMIC AND WHATNOT AND THIS IS A ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME TYPE THING THAT HAPPENED. SO MAYBE THAT COULD HAVE HELD UP THE PROCESS AND WHATNOT. HO'S TO SAY. I THINK I MISSED IT AND WE WORKED HARD ON IT AND IT'S NOT A GOOD REASON IN MY OPINION. IF WE WANT TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE HOW THE EXTRAORDINARY TIMES WERE WHEN THIS WAS GOING ON THEN MAYBE I COULD SIGN ON TO THAT. BUT YOU'RE SO FAR I'M JUST NOT ALL PERSUASIVE AS FAR AS WHAT I

HEARD ABOUT PROVING THE WAIVER. >> WE'VE GOT A SECTION HERE, GLENN BUT YOU GO BACK TO THE EAST AND YOU RUN INTO WHAT THE STANDARDS WERE SET FOR. IF YOU GO TO THE WEST TO THE END YOU'VE GOT THE SAME LARGE STUDENT RENTAL BUILDING. I FORGET THE NAME OF IT.

THE UNION OR SOMETHING DOWN ON THE END. SO FROM A LONG-RANGE PLANNING STANDPOINT ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO BE AN URBAN AREA. IT ALREADY GOES TO THE END WITH THE LARGE BILL IN THERE. JIM I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE THING YOU SAID.

I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY NICE TO GRANT THE WAIVER. WHEN YOU SIT ON A COMMISSION SOMETIMES IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE NICE THING THAT YOU DO BY THE THING YOU DO FOR YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND ALL THE PEOPLE WORKED ON THIS STANDARD. I COULD NOT BE CLEAR CONSCIENCE FROM WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST VOTE TO APPROVE THE WAIVER.

SORRY FOR THE WORK YOU'VE PUT IN. WERE DEALING IN THE REAL WORLD.

SO. >> WELL I GUESS WE GOTTA GET EMOTIONAL TABLE.

>> ARE A MOVE TO APPROVE PO 2021 Ã003 THIS 374. QUICK SECOND.> I HAVE A

MOTION IN THE SECOND. >> DID YOU MOVE TO APPROVE IT? >> MOVED TO APPROVE THE WAIVER.

>> WE DON'T MOVE TO DENY. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. >> MOVING TO APPROVE THE

[02:45:02]

WAIVER. >> WITH THE EXPECTATION PEOPLE WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT TO DENY?

>> THAT'S THE PROCESS WERE DEALING WITH. >> THAT'S UP TO YOU.

>> OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND THE INTENT.

YOU THOUGHT WHEN HE MADE THE MOTION.>> SO ARE WE DONE WITH THE DISCUSSION? ARE WE READY FOR VOTE? FOR CLARIFICATION ARE YOU SAYING THERE IS A STRUCTURE

FURTHER WEST NOBODY MEETS THE 15 FOOT? >> YES.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE 15 FOOT. IT'S ONE OF THOSE TALL BUILDINGS UP AGAINST THE RIGHT

AWAY. >> VIEWED IN DEVELOPMENT IS THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY.

IT IS A PRIMARILY SINGLE STRUCTURE PRIVATE DORM AND WHICH IS PART OF THE MOTIVATION FOR STAFF TO APPLY THESE KIND OF REQUIREMENTS TO THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS.

BASED ON THE REDEVELOPMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY GOING ON. SO THE 15 FOOT REQUIREMENT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THESE TYPES OF PRODUCTS IS NOT AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS DEBATED SEVERAL TIMES. >> MY ISSUE WITH THAT IS COMPARING THIS PROJECT TO A PROJECT LIKE THE UNION. TODAY THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

PRODUCT TYPE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED THE SAME. >> WE DON'T HAVE APPROVED.

>> THAT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR WANTING TO DO AWAY WITH THE WAIVER.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. WITHIN DELIBERATE AND VOTE.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. OKAY, FURTHER DISCUSSION. THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE WAIVER. SO THAT'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.

[VOTING] >> 4/4. THAT MEANS MOTION CARRIES

RIGHT? >> NO. >> THAT'S FOR SUBDIVISION.

THANK YOU. MOTION FAILS. SO THE WAIVER IS DENIED.

[STAFF COMMUNICATION]

IS THERE ANYTHING FROM STAFF THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH US? >> NO SIR.

I HAVE NO CORRESPONDENCE THIS EVENING. >> OKAY.

ASKED MR. CHAIRMAN. TO THINK WE MIGHT NEED A WORK SESSION ON A COUPLE OF THOSE

PROPOSALS THAT WE POSTPONED? >> I THINK THAT'S AN ORDER. IT'S GOING TO BE WORTHWHILE FOR

US TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION. >> TO WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE

COUNCIL VOTES ON THE 2? >> YES, I LIKE TO SEE THAT. >> WHEN WILL IT REACH THE

COUNCIL? >> AND WILL GO TO COUNSEL ON 12 AUGUST I BELIEVE.

>> THAT'S OUR DAY. >> OH, WHEN NOT TALK ABOUT THAT HIGHWAY 280?

>> WHAT DOES THAT 280 QUARTER GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.> I'M SORRY, THE 17TH.

>> THE 17TH OF? >> AUGUST. >> AUGUST, YET WE POSTPONED ONE

OF THOSE WAS POSTPONED UNTIL THE 12TH. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BE EXTENDED. >> WE HAD TALKED ABOUT AT THE

BEGINNING ANYWAY. TEXT THAT IS CORRECT. >> THAT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT. SO DO YOU WANT TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION?

>> IF IT'S APPROPRIATE CAN I ASK WHERE THE CITY MAY BE ABOUT EITHER HAVING OUR STANDARD DIRECTOR TO BE THE DIRECTOR OR WHERE THEY ARE? WE HEARD NOTHING.

I FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN LEFT IN THE DARK FOR 7 OR 8 MONTHS AND HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM

ANYBODY. >> WHAT'S THE STATUS OF HIRING? >> I WOULD LET THE DIRECTOR OF

SERVICES RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION. >> ALL I CAN SAY AT THIS POINT, THE DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT HAD POSITIONS ARE HIRED BY THE CITY MANAGER WITH THE CITY MANAGERS PREPARED TO MAKE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT SHE WILL DO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.