Aug 12, 2021 Planning Commission

HAVE BEEN IN THIS PLACE, IN THE SEAT I SHOULD SAY.

[ROLL CALL]

[00:00:04]

>> BIRMINGHAM. >> HERE.

>> BRIDGET. >> HERE.

>> CHANSLER . JAGER?

LAZENBY? >> HERE.

>> MARSHALL. >> HERE.

>> MCCORD. >> HERE.

>> GREECE. >> HERE.

>> RITENBAUGH . >> HERE.

>> BEFORE WE START OF LIKE TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE AUBURN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION WILL BE PRESENTED WITH AN AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AREA THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AGENDA ITEM WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENTS AND OR ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING IS APPROPRIATE AS THIS WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ABOUT THE AGENDA ITEM AT HAND.

WANT EVERYONE TO BE HEARD FROM IN I ASK YOU KEEP YOUR TIME TO TALK TO FIVE MINUTES AND PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE AT HAND. AFTER EVERYONE HAS BECOME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE REPRESENTATIVE AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR RESPOND TO ISSUES BROUGHT UP DURING HEARING.

THEN I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSIONS, MOTIONS AND A VOTE IN THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE BASED ON STATE LAWS AND LOCAL LAWS.

THE CITIES, HAS A PLAN 2030 AND THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY.

HAVING SUMMARIZED THE BASICS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HEARING AND VOTING PROCESS I WOULD LIKE TO SUMMARIZE OUR ROLES IN RESPONSE ABILITY RELATED TO THE APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION PLATS. BY ALABAMA STATUTE MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION SUCH AS OURS IS THE FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR SUBDIVISION PLATS WITH REGARD TO SUBDIVISION PLATS, THE COMMISSION ACTS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND IS BANNED BY THE LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN STATE LAWS.

THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS NERVOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION.

ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED ON EACH PLANT WE WELCOME ANY AND ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS CONCERNING THESE ITEMS, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSIONS AUTHORITY IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO CONFIRMING THE PLOT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS IN LAWS AND REGULATIONS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT A POINT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PUBLIC AND ATTENDANCE RATE AS YOU KNOW TH PLANNING COMMISSION IS AN ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY COUNCIL EXCEPT IN CASES AND SUBDIVISION DECISIONS , WHICH WE ARE CHARGED WITH MAKING A FINAL DECISION BUT ALL OTHER DECISIONS WILL BE MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AFTERCONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS POSITION .

I ASK IF YOU INTEND TO SPEAK THEM IN ANY PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING, PLEASE SIGN IN VIRTUALLY, NOT VIRTUALLY.

TODAY YOU CAN SIGN IN PERSON BY STATING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMUNICATION FOR ANYTHING THAT IS EITHER ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND OR NOT CURRENTLY ON THIS AGENDA.

IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY.

SEEING NO ONE WE WILL MOVE ON TO OLD BUSINESS.

>> TONIGHT OLD BUSINESS, THE EARNEST ANNEXATION IN THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS RELATIVES TO THE BOTTLE PROJECT.

HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT TO BE POSTPONED TO NEXT MONTH'S MEETING, WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 9.

>> OKAY. WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUALLY AS A COMMISSION.

[1. Earnest Annexation PL-2021-00371]

THE REQUEST IS TO POSTPONE TO DATE CERTAIN SEPTEMBER 9.

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO SECOND. ALL IN FLAVOR? THANK YOU.THE SECOND IS THE REQUEST FROM WORLD TO

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

CERTAIN OF SEPTEMBER 9. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? THANK YOU.

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

SEPTEMBER 9. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU.

ALL IN FAVOR? THANK YOU.

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

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THANK YOU. AND FINAL HIS RECOMMENDATION

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

SEPTEMBER 9. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE. >> THANK YOU.

[00:05:01]

[CONSENT AGENDA]

WILL YOU GIVE US THOSE ITEMS? >> THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF PACKET MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY AS WELL AS THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY AND A FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FOR YARBROUGH FARMS OAKMONT PHASE .

IT IS A 26 SLOT PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 43 ACRES AND IT IS LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF ANDREWS, I BELIEVE. ANDREWS AVENUE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

CONSENT AGENDA. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> I HEARD A SECOND.

>> I'M SORRY. I MISSED THE SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS. OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[7. Lots 1-4, 43 & 44 Villageview Subdivision Rezoning PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00460]

MS. ROBINSON. >> THE FIRST ITEM ON NEW BUSINESS IS A REZONING COMPRISED OF SIX LOTS ON SUMMERHILL ROAD AND FLORENCE DRIVE, SPECIFICALLY LOTS ONE THROUGH FOUR, 43 AND 44 OF VILLAGE VIEW SUBDIVISION.

THE REQUEST IS FROM THE CITY TO RE-ZONE FROM -- H TO ND RD.

YOU PROBABLY RECALL BACK EARLIER THIS YEAR A REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH OF THESE PROPERTIES ON THE CORNER OF SUMMERHILL AND HARBOR AVENUE TO REZONE FROM DDH TO M DRG TO REDEVELOP HIS DUPLEXES.

WILL HARBOR AVENUE FOCUS AREA STUDY WAS APPROVED, MOST OF THE AREA WAS ZONED RDD AND THERE WERE TWO PORTIONS ZONED NC FIVE AND NC 12 AND MOST OF THE THE RTE CHANGE TO MDRD AND I BELIEVE A PORTION OF NORTH WAS CDD.

BUT THE REMAINING AREA, INCLUDING THE 12, WAS ALSO ZONED TO CRED BECAUSE IT WAS GETTING CLOSER TO THE COMMERCIAL NODE AT DEAN AND GLENN.

EXCEPT FOR THE OTHER NC FIVE WHICH WAS REZONE TO DDH.

THAT IS AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD COMPRISED OF MOSTLY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES AND A FEW DUPLEXES, BUT THE PURPOSE OF REZONING IT FROM A SPECIFIC SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE TO -- H WAS TO ALLOW A VARIETY IN DIFFERENT STYLES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, RESIDENTIAL HOUSING.

WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER CAME IN FOR THE MDRD FOR HIS TWO LOTS, IT WAS REALIZED THESE LOTS WERE TOO SMALL TO GET THE DENSITY TO ACHIEVE ANY OTHER HOUSING TYPE BUT SINGLE-FAMILY.

SO THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE EXISTING DUPLEXES IN THE AREA TO MDRD, WHICH IS A HIGHER DENSITY THAN DDH, BUT GIVEN THE SIZE CONSTRAINTS OF THESE LOTS, THE DENSITY OF 12 UNITS AN ACRE WILL NOT BE EVEN AFTER CONSOLIDATING PROPERTIES.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I WILL BE GLAD TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER.

WE DID GET A COUPLE CALLS ON THIS, BY THE WAY.

ONE IS FROM AN ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER AND THEY WERE IN

FAVOR. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR IT I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THAT NOW.

SEEING NO ONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION WITH A COMMISSIONERS OR A MOTION?

>> I WANT TO SAY I COMMEND THE STAFF THAT IF THERE IS A NEED TO CHANGE THE ZONE OF A SMALL PARTIAL OF A COUPLE OF LOTS IT MIGHT SUGGEST WE NEED TO STUDY THE WHOLE AREA AND MAKE SOME

[00:10:05]

>> CAN I MAKE THAT A MOTION? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE OR 2021

ON 60 VILLAGE MOVE REZONING. >> HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED?

MOTION CARRIES. >> NEXT VIEW REZONING.

[8. Southview Rezoning PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00455]

MS. KENNEDY? >> THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST FROM DAVID A PINNACLE DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF CURTIS AND POLING JOLLY THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REZONE 20 ACRES OF SOUTHVIEW DRIVE FROM RURAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE AERIAL OF THE AREA TO BE REZONED. THERE ARE SEVERAL EASEMENTS EXISTING ON THE LAW. AND THIS IS AN AERIAL WITHOUT THE EXHIBIT TO SHOW YOU WHAT IS ON THEIR CURRENTLY.WITH NOT RECEIVED ANY CALLS REZONING AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

>> THANK YOU. APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE IS

HERE. >> REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THAT NOW. SEEING NO ONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?

>> WE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PL 2021.

>> ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

[9. Southview Townhomes PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00469]

>> NEXT WE HAVE SAME LOCATION. >> THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST TO DEVELOPTHE SAME PROPERTY YOU SAW IN THE REZONING TO TOWNHOME . THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN SHOWING THE 112 TOWNHOME LOTS TO BE LOCATED ON SITE.

WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH A FEW OF THE ITEMS DISCUSSED REGARDING THE CONNECTION REGARDING SELF VIEW DRIVE TO THE EXISTING STEP OUT AS WELL AS WITHIN THE EASEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE RECONFIGURED. OTHER THAN THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND WE RECEIVED NO COMMUNICATION REGARDING THIS CASE. SEEING NO ONE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS I SAW AN ADDITIONAL EMAIL ABOUT A STAFF COMMENT.

>> AND YOU MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH ALL STAFF COMMENTS

INCLUDING. >> THIS MEMO DATED AUGUST 11 7:41 AM. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL TO RECOMMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE COMMENTS IN THE STAFF PACKET AS WELL AS A MEMORANDUM PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION DATED WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11.

SOUTHVIEW TOWNHOME CONDITIONAL USE.

>> SECOND. >> TO BE CLEAR, THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY NEED TO MOVE THOSE LOTS OUT AND PROVIDE

CONNECTIVITY. >> I CAN INCLUDE THAT.

>> SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ADDITIONS TO THE DEVELOPER PROPERTY OWNER THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTHVIEW DRIVE TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE FOR THE CITY ENGINEER PROVIDING ASKED ABOUT FOR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY TO VETERANS BOULEVARD.

THE CUL-DE-SAC WOULD BE REMOVED AND IF REQUIRED BY THE CITY TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC PROVIDED UNTIL THE FUTURE CONNECTION TO

[00:15:02]

AND LOTS ONE, TO AND THREE BEING RECONFIGURED.

I ASSUMED I WOULD HAVE TO BE. ONE, TWO, THREE BE CONFIGURED SUCH THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED REASONABLE USE OF THEIR LAND AND ARE NOT IMPEDED BY THE PRESENCE OF THE ALABAMA POWER OR GAS EASEMENTS CURRENTLY EXISTING ON SITE.

>> I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

[10. Plainsman Lake – The Haven PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00463]

>> THE NEXT THREE APPLICATIONS ON YOUR AGENDA ARE RELATED TO THE SAME DEVELOPMENT AND THREE DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS FOR THREE DIFFERENT SUBDIVISIONS WITH IT REZONE IS CALLED BEHAVING ÃEXCUSE ME, THE HAVEN FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST FOR 67 LOT CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION AND WILL INCLUDE 66 RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN ONE OPEN SPACE LOT.

IT IS APPROXIMATELY 18 THAT FIVE ACRES IN THE DEH ZONING DISTRICT JUST TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH TO THE CITIES INDUSTRIAL AREA. YOU OF WEBSTER ROAD TO THE SOUTH AND WEST AND I WILL AREA IN THE COUNTY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT HERE.

THIS IS AN OVERVIEW THAT SHOWS THREE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT DURING THE HAVEN AND SELF IS HIGHLIGHTED IN WHITE. THIS IS THE SUBDIVISION THAT SELF ORIENTED WITH NORTH FACING TO YOUR RIGHT.

IT PROVIDES CONNECTION TO THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION FROM TWO DIFFERENT STUB OUTS AS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION.THE GROSS DENSITY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A LITTLE OVER 3.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT.

AN AVERAGE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY POINT TO TWO ACRES.STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH ONE OF THE COMMENTS IN YOUR PACKET INCLUDES A STATEMENT THAT A SEPARATE PLAT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED BEFORE THIS COMES TO FINAL.

THAT IS GOING TO NEED TO COME TO YOU IN SEPTEMBER SO IT CAN BE DEDICATED BY THE CITY IN OCTOBER FOR IN THE PURPOSE OF THE FLAT IS TO SUPPORT THE CITIES RIGHT AWAY OBTAINMENT FOR THE CONNECTOR ROAD THAT MOVES FROM MLK TO RICHLAND.

IT WILL BE TOO THE WEST OF THE HAVEN AREA, BUT IT WILL BE PART OF THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. THE TIMING IF THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT WILL BE A CITY PROJECT.

AND ONCE THE CITY HAS IT WE WILL START CONSTRUCTION AND THAT WILL FACILITATE NOT ONLY THE TRAFFIC FLOW FOR RESIDENTS IN THE AREA, BUT ALSO FOR CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FOR MANY OF THE SUBDIVISIONS AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THE ACCESS FOR THE HAVEN SPECIFICALLY WILL NOT COME FROM THAT. AS A RESULT OF THE FACT IT DOES NOT CONNECT OVER TO THE CONNECTOR.

JUST TO THE WEST OF THE SUBDIVISION WE A PLAINSMAN LAKE IN THE WETLANDS DIRECTLY SOUTH OF IT BETWEEN THE LAKE AND MLK.

CONNECTING TO THE WEST WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THIS ONE.

SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO USE MLK AS ITS ACCESS POINT TO REVAMP TO COORDINATE THAT AND GET APPROVAL FROM ALBA, WHICH THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN WORKING WITH.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE FINAL DECISION FROM THEM YET.

WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LOCAL SUBDIVISION. LOTS OF CONCERN OVER THERE WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE I SPOKE OF.

AS WELL AS THE CONNECTION TO THE WEST, WHICH WAS JUST MENTIONED. AND ALSO THE CONCERN ITSELF BEING COMPLETED. JUST BECAUSE A SUBDIVISION DOES NOT HAVE ANY MORE AVAILABLE LOTS, THAT SUBDIVISION JUST LIKE THIS ONE HERE IS ABIDING BY THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

[00:20:01]

IT INVOLVED FIVE DIFFERENT STUB OUTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO FACILITATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND CONNECTIVITY THROUGH THEM.

AND SO THEY WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS AS WELL AS THE SUBDIVISION UNDER DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL NOW. QUESTIONS FROM STAFF?

WERE TO STAFF? >> ANY ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENT OTHER THAN THAT WHEN WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF?> NO.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY TIMELINE ON THE RICHLAND CONNECTOR? OR ARE WE WAITING? I GUESS THAT IS AN ALICE IN

QUESTION. >> WE ARE CURRENTLY IN PERMITTING. WE SAW SUBMITTED A PERMIT TO THE IMPROVEMENTS ON 14 WE ARE ALSO WORKING WITH THE STATE HISTORIC COMMISSION ON SOME CULTURAL RESOURCES.

WE ARE READY TO SUBMIT OUR CORPS OF ENGINEER PERMIT AND THE PLANS ARE AROUND 90 PERCENT COMPLETE.

WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH OR PERMITTING RIGHT NOW, BUT WE

STILL HOPE TO BE IN THE FALL. >> CONCEIVABLY AT SOME POINT THE RESIDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO COME OUT AND TAKE A RIGHT AND THEN THEY CUT BACKUP THAT RICHLAND ROAD CONNECTOR EVEN BEFORE THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE COMPLETED POTENTIALLY?

>> THE DEVELOPER OF PLAINSMAN LAKE WILL MAKE THE CONNECTING PIECES IF YOU WILL READ WE ARE JUST BUILDINGTHE CONNECTOR ROAD

FROM MLK . >> THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. AND THEN TAKE ANOTHER RIGHT AT THE RICHLAND CONNECTOR. EVEN IF IT WAS TO DEVELOPMENTS

ARE NOT THERE YET. >> THANK YOU.

>> ONE QUICK QUESTION. DO THE LOTS ON THE LAKESIDE GO ALL THE WAY TO TO THE LAKE OR IS THERE AN EASEMENT AROUND THE

LAKE. >> THE LAKE ITSELF WILL BE PART OF ONE OF THE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS OUT HERE.

IT WILL BE OPEN TO ALL RESIDENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION

FOR REAL. >> THERE'S GOING TO BE AN

EASEMENT THEN BEHIND HIS LOTS? >> THE LOT ITSELF IN THAT SUBDIVISION THERE. WILL INCLUDE FOUR DIFFERENT CONNECTIONS TO THE CONNECTOR ROAD WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION.

THE HAVEN CONNECTION, NOT THE RICHLAND CONNECTION.

LIST FOR DIFFERENT FRONTAGE WILL BE OPEN SPACE LOTS THAT ACTUALLY CONNECTED TO THE HAVENS ROAD.

AND SO ANYBODY WHO LIVES IN THE SUBDIVISION OR NEXT TO IT CAN

GO THROUGH THAT PROPERTY. >> YOU CAN WALK AROUND THE LAKE WITHOUT TRESPASSING ON PRIVATE LOTS.

>> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE ARE FROM THE VERY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE HAVEN.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MY NAME IS MALLORY HAYES AND I LIVE AT 174 SOLEM AIRPORT AND I SENT THEM OUT TO THE PLAN COMMISSION REGARDING THIS HAVEN PLAT.

WE ARE GOING TO SUMMARIZE IT IN THIS IF YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT. I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT'S FOR THE CONCERNS I HAD. MY PALE MAIN POINT HERE IS I WOULD LIKE FOR THE PLAN COMMISSION TO STRONGLY CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT REGARDING TRAFFIC SAFETY BETWEEN SOLEM AIRLINE AND HIGHWAY 14.

MY LARGEST CONCERN IS WITH THE SECTION THE HAVEN BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER OUTLET THE ROOM THE SUBDIVISION CURRENTLY HAS ONE ENTRANCE AND ONE EXIT COMING FROM THE SAME AREA GOING TO 14.

IT IS DANGEROUS. IN FACT, THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT THERE THIS MORNING WITH A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT.

ADDING THE LOTS THAT ARE THE HAVEN TO THE SUBDIVISION WHERE THE SINGLE EXIT INCREASES OR TRAFFIC, INCREASES MORE WAIT TIME AND PEOPLE TEND TO TAKE RISKS.BUT I HOPE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER IS THE TIMING AS YOU ALREADY POINTED OUT. THAT THE ROAD CONNECTOR IS A BIG PRIORITY. IF THE RICHLAND ROAD CONNECTOR CAN BE BUILT, WE COULD TURN RIGHT OUT OF THE SUBDIVISION.

BUT ALSO IMPORTANTLY, IF THE OTHER SECTION GOING UP FOR CONSIDERATION THE PROSPER IS ALSO BUILT BEFORE THE HAVEN,

[00:25:02]

>> I LIVE AT 142 DENALI LANE AND MY HUSBAND AND I DID SEND YOU A LETTER, BUT I AM ACTUALLY READING A LETTER FOR STATEMENT FOR LESLIE FARRINGTON WHO LIVES AT 139 DENALI LANE.

THIS IS REGARDING A LANDSCAPE BUFFER RELATED ALSO SEND YOU A SEPARATE EMAIL, BUT THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE THIS AND IT.

NUMBERS THE PLANNING COMMISSION DUE TO WORK CONFLICTS WE ARE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS EVENINGS MEETING.

WE APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPERS PLAN TO IMPLEMENT A LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT RUNS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPOSED PLAT OF THE HAVEN ADJACENT TO THE CURRENT HOMES LOCATED ON DENALI LANE PERU WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE DEVELOPER PRESERVE ANY DESIRABLE TRAITS THAT ARE FOUR INCH DIAMETER AND REST TIGHT OR LARGER. DESIRABLE TREES WOULD INCLUDE PINE, PECAN, HICKORY, WILL NOT COMMIT TO LOOK, POPLAR, ETC.

NOT TREE SUCH AS SWEETGUM, MIMOSA, CHINA BERRY CAN BE REMOVED ALONG WITH ANY TREES SHOWING OBVIOUS INSECT OR DISEASE DAMAGE THAT WOULD RENDER THEM UNSAFE.HANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS REQUEST AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER TO PRESERVE THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. STEPHEN AND LESLIE FARRINGTON.

>> AND WITH THAT LADY AT 142 DOLLY LANE.

I AM SPEAKING FOR US, FOR MYSELF OR YOU WE DID SEND A LETTER, I HOPE YOU GOT THAT GOT A CHANCE TO READ IT.

I REALLY WANT TO HIGHLIGHT SOME THINGS OF CONCERN.

THE NAME OF THE LADY WHO SPOKE EARLIER, BUT SHE SUMS UP A LOT OF THAT PRETTY WELL. THE TIMING WOULD BE A HUGE THING ABOUT PART A COMING IN. BECAUSE THERE'S NO OUTLET.

IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME TO SOLEMN YEAR REGARDLESS UNTIL THERE IS SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVE.

SO THAT IS A CONCERN. WHEN PART B COMES IN, THAT IS 124 MORE HOUSING UNITS REAL WE ALREADY HAVE 235 AND SOLEMN YEAR. SO IF YOU HAVE THE 66 AND NOW WE ARE AT 301 OR SOMETHING. IF YOU HAD 124 YOU WERE OVER 400. I WAS TOLD BY THREE PEOPLE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING THAT HAD TO DO WITH THIS THAT IT IS A TARGET FOR NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS FOR INTEREST AND EXIT WAS LIKE 100. WE ARE ALREADY RIGHT NOW AT 235/1. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT 300/1, DO A FIRST. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT FOR 35 TO 2, DO ALL OF IT. THE MOUTH IS STILL GOING TO COME OUT A LOT MORE THAN 100/1. I WOULD JUST SAY THIS.

IF THAT IS THE TARGET AND SOMEBODY SAID THAT'S JUST KIND OF AN IDEA, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD.

I USED A GUIDE LIKE THAT TO GO SOMEWHERE I WOULD BE LOST BEFORE I GOT OUT OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

EITHER CHANGE THE GUIDE, GET SOMETHING CLOSER.

THE 200+ PERCENT OF WHAT YOUR TARGET IS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE REASON YOU UNDERSTAND THE CITY WANTING TO ADD HOUSEHOLDS FOR GROWING. WE LIKE THAT.

I GET THAT. AND I KNOW IT IS MONEY FOR THE CITY, WHICH MEANS IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYBODY.AND IT IS MONEY IN THE POCKET OF SOME OTHER FOLKS THAT ARE BUILDING THOSE HOUSES BUT IT SHOULD BE AT THE SPECS OF EVERYONE LIVING HERE, OR TO HAVE AN HOUSEHOLD AND AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE ARE READY HAVE A STRAIN ON THAT ONE OUTLET, AS WAS POINTED OUT EARLIER. WE ALREADY HAVE AN ACCIDENT OVER THERE. WE ARE TO GOT 235 HOUSEHOLDS COMING TO THAT. AND I UNDERSTAND SOMEBODY SAID WELL, IT WAS BUILT. IT WAS THE IDEA IT WILL SUB OU . THAT'S FINE, BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME ACCOMMODATION FOR WHEN IT SUBBED OUT THAT THERE HAS TO BE AN OUTLET SOMEWHERE OR TRAFFIC IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

YOU CAN'T SEND HOUSEHOLDS PER ONE PLACE THAT IS ALREADY DANGEROUS. SO I KNOW MY GRANDDADDY

[00:30:05]

I HOPE THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE.

BUT IF IT IS, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE WE MIGHT WANT TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT. INSTEAD OF JUST RUBBERSTAMPING BECAUSE WE ARE GROWING. COULD WE HAVE TWO OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE CONNECTOR ROAD?ND MAYBE WE DON'T DO A. MAYBE IT JUST BECOMES A NICE PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO GATHER OUT THERE BY THE LAKE.

YOU KNOW? I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT.

AND SEEMS LIKE THAT REALLY WASN'T CONSIDERED ON THE FRONT END. I DON'T EXPECT IT TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PEOPLE THAT WILL MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT.

BUT YOU GUYS ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT US.

THAT IS JUST AN APPEAL TO COMMON SENSE.

AND IF YOU THINK THAT ADDING THE CONNECTOR ROAD AND WHEN BE GOES IN AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE FROM SEOUL AMERICA CAN GO OUT THAT WAY, BUT YOU ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT TWICE AS MUCH AS YOUR TARGET IS. AND ANOTHER THAT TARGET MAY BE THERE FOR DIFFERENT REASONS AND IT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAVE AN EFFECT ON A HOUSEHOLD. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT FACTORS, BUT THAT STILL SEEMS LIKE A WAY OFF FOR WHAT YOU WERE HOPING FOR. IF YOU REALLY ARE HOPING FOR 100/1. 100/20.

BUT THIS IS TO 35/1 AND YOU ARE LOOKING AT GOING TO 300.

SO IF YOU CAN'T DO IT, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CAN'T DO IT, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR AN EXPLANATION WHEN THE TIME COMES ABOUT WHY WE ARE WILLING TO GO PAST THAT AND MOVE UP.

WHEN IT'S A STRING ALREADY AND IT'S ABOUT SAFETY.

AND THE VICTIMS OF LATER, I STILL A 44 SECONDS, IF IT COMES UP LATER WE WILL PUT A TRAFFIC LIGHT.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS DON'T SOLVE EVERYTHING.

THERE ARE STILL THAT MANY CARS THAT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEIR.

IF YOU BEEN TO SOLEMN YEAR WHEN YOU COME INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ISN'T IMMEDIATELY A CROSSING STREET WHICH WOULD BE ONE OF THE ONES THAT CONNECTS TO A. WE WILL HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE UP THERE JUST SITTING THERE WAITING TO EVEN HAVE A CHANCE IF THERE WAS A TRAFFIC LIGHT.

UNLESS WE OPEN IT UP SOMEHOW. AND SO MAYBE SOMEWHERE IN THE PAST IT WOULD'VE BEEN A GOOD IDEA TO SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP ADDING TO SOLEMN YEAR, SOMEONE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A ROAD OUT SO WE CAN GET OUT. ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

>> MY NAME IS ADAM. I RESIDE ON 174 DOLLY LANE.

THE SECOND TO LAST HOUSE TO THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT ORIENT I KIND OF WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT MY NEIGHBOR SAID.

HE KIND OF HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD WITH THIS.

JUST THIS PROPOSAL. ADDING THESE LOTS IS JUST CREATING ANOTHER BOTTLENECK A TRAFFIC TO WHERE WE ARE ALREADY IN OUR SUBDIVISION AND OUR CUL-DE-SAC.

MINUS THAT CONCERN, ALSO ABOUT HAVING A TOPOGRAPHIC VIEW OF THIS , NORTH OF MY LOT WITH PROBABLY FALL UNDER IN ESSENCE ECOMMENT WHICH IS A STRAIN MANAGEMENT ZONE, WHICH RUNS EAST TO WEST. TO WITHOUT A TOPOGRAPHIC KNOWING WHERE THAT EXTENDS TO ITS KIND OF A MARSH AT THE END OF THE LOT. SUPERIMPOSING BUILDING ON THAT, DISTURBING A LOT ZONE AS WELL IS NOT REALLY A FEASIBLE AREA TO START WITHOUT AND BUILD A. THAT'S ONE OTHER CONCERN IS IMPEDING ON A WETLAND AREA. BUT JUST CREATING A BOTTLENECK THAT MUCH MORE TRAFFIC TO WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE JUST DOESN'T SEEM FEASIBLE AND JUST KIND OF A REQUEST OF EITHER BEING REMOVED OR IT BEING BUFFERED OFF FROM THE END OF OUR CUL-DE-SAC WITH AN EXIT BACK TO 14.

ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> MY NAME IS ANDREW. OF ABOUT 178 DENALI LANE, AT THE END OF, RIGHT AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.

I'M GOING TO SKIP THE PORTION I DID SEND YOU GUYS AN EMAIL TO THE COMMISSION AND I AM GOING TO SKIP THAT.THE PORTION WITH THE TRAFFIC. THAT IS BASICALLY REITERATING EVERYTHING ELSE HAS CONCERNS WITH AND I AM RIGHT THERE WITH THEM. I'M JUST GOING TO GET RIGHT TO THE SECTION WHERE THE CONCERNS I HAVE, WHERE I AM NOT CURRENTLY ON MY PROPERTY. THE PLAN CURRENTLY IN MOTIONS AT THE CLEVELAND START CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOMES IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE, IN THE CURRENT PLOT PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY UP FOR REVIEW THE BUILDERS PROPOSING BUILDING A LOT NEXT TO 178 DENALI LANE. CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY SITS AT THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC WHICH SHADOWS A WOODED AREA WHERE THE

[00:35:01]

THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN SUCH A WAY IT WAS OBVIOUS IT WAS NEVER INTENDED ON ADDITIONAL LOTS ARE TURNING A CUL-DE-SAC TOFUTURE STREETS IF THERE IS WATER DRAINAGE ISSUES AS WELL .

MY CONCERN IS THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE GRADING OF THE PROPERTY MAKES THE HOUSE OVERLOOK THE PRIVACY FENCE. IF YOU GOT OUT MY BACK YARD I HAVE A RAISED DECK THAT LOOKS OF THE PRIVACY FENCE WHICH CURRENTLY SHADOWS THE WOODS . THE PLAN IS FOLLOWED BY THE DEVELOPER, ADDING A LOT TO 178 DENALI LANE NEXT TO IT WILL NO LONGER ALLOW PRIVACY IN THE BACKYARD.

I AM ASKING THE DEVELOPER DELETE A BARRIER NEXT TO THE PROPERTY TO KEEP THE PROPERTY AS CLOSE TO THE WAY IT IS AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE. OBVIOUSLY IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN BACK THERE IT WAS BUILT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS DESIGNED TO HAVE THOSE WOODS THERE WITH THE GRADING OF THE PROPERTY. THE WAY IT IS.

THAT ADDS CHARACTER AND VALUE TO THE HOME.

IF THE PLAN FOLLOWS THROUGH THIS WILL AFFECT INTO THE VALLEY OF THE PROPERTY. THERE WILL BE NO PRIVACY WITH NEIGHBORS AND VICE VERSA. THEY WILL HAVE TO PRIVACY BECAUSE THEY WILL BE LOOKING AT ME AND I WILL BE LOOKING AT THEM BECAUSE IT WILL BE LOWERING THEM IMPORTANT TURNING THE CUL-DE-SAC INTO A TRAFFIC CIRCLE ADDS ANOTHER ISSUE TO READ THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE DRIVEWAY IS AT AN ANGLE IN RELATION TO THE COLD ATTACK TO RETURNING THE CUL-DE-SAC INTO A TRAFFIC CIRCLE WILL MAKE DRIVEWAY ENTRY AWKWARD. ALONG WITH DRIVEWAY ENTRY CONCERNS, THE CURRENT PLAN WOULD MAKE OFFSTREET PARKING AND POSSIBLE. HOA ALLOTS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OFFSTREET PARKING PER HOUSEHOLD.

AM ASKING FOR THE NEWLY JOINT SECTION OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION TO BE JOINED WITH A PLAN CONNECTOR ROAD FROM HIGHWAY 14 TO RICHLAND ROAD. LIVE THIS IS NOT TO BE ACCOMMODATED, UNMASKING THE DRIVE WOULD BE EXTENDED ALONG WITH MY NEIGHBORS AND JUST DISSOLVE THE CUL-DE-SAC AND THE REST OF THE STREET. TO BASICALLY MAKE IT A REGULAR STREET. SET UP A TURNAROUND.

ALSO, AS MY NEIGHBOR MENTIONED, 178 DENALI LANE IS SURROUNDED BY WETLANDS. THERE IS A NATURAL CREEK THAT RUNS ALONG THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WHICH DRAINS INTO LAKE PLAINSMAN FOR THE GREEK OVERFLOWS AROUND PROPERTY, BASICALLY WHERE YOU WOULD Ã WHERE THIS LOT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE BUILT GORGON BUILDING A LOT NEXT TO MY PROPERTY WOULD CREATE SERIOUS ISSUES FOR THE PROPOSED PROPERTY IS ALL DRAINAGE WATER ENDS UP IN THE LOT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT.

BUILDING A LOT NEXT TO 178 DENALI LANE WOULD OBSTRUCT NATURAL DRAINAGE OF WETLAND PARIS THERE ARE ALSO NUMEROUS WILDLIFE THAT LIVES IN AND AROUND THE CREEK AND WETLAND AREA. CONSIDERATION ON DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS AND WILDLIFE WOULD NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE BUILDING WOULD BE CONDUCTED.

I AM ASKING FOR SERIOUS CONSIDERATION THE CONCERNS MENTIONED. FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO REAGAN I AM OPEN IF ANYBODY WANTS TO STOP OVER AND LOOK IN PERSON.IF YOU EVER COME THERE, YOU WOULD KNOW EXACTLY RIGHT ABOUT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, WHERE THE HOUSE IS SITUATED. IN CONJUNCTION TO WHERE YOU GUYS ARE PLANNING, WITH THIS PLAN IS PROPOSED.

AND I AM RIGHT AT THE END. WE ARE ON THE NORTH SIDE, IS THAT SECTION 8? SECTION A. SO THAT IS ALL I

HAVE GOT EVERYTHING HE. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. I AM DOCTOR RANDY BRUNSON AND I RESIDE AT 1787 SILVER MIRROR COURT.

AND I WOULD REITERATE MANY OF THE POINTS THAT MY NEIGHBORS HAVE MENTIONED HERE TONIGHT, INCLUDING THE TROUBLES WITH THE ROAD AND THE SAFETY. ONE THING I DO WANT TO REITERATE AS MANY BRIDGES MENTIONED, A LOT OF THESE HOMES WERE BUILT WITH VERY POOR GRADING.

WE HAVE A LOT OF DRAINAGE ISSUES.

I LIVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOUL IN YOUR COURT, SECOND LAW AND. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT JUST ABOUT EVERYONE ON MY SIDE OF THE STREET HAS HAD TO PUT FRENCH DRAINS INTO A VOID THEIR YARDS BEING A MARSH.

AND SO I WOULD ASK IF THIS IS GOING TO CONTINUE THAT SERIOUS CONSIDERATION BE INTENTIONAL ABOUT THE GRADING ON THE RUNOFF OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE. ANOTHER THING, MY HOME WAS

[00:40:01]

WHEN I DID THERE WERE TWO LOTS ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT MY REALTOR SAID YOU KNOW, THESE LOTS ARE TOO SMALL THEY WILL NEVER BE BUILT ON SO YOU ARE GUARANTEED TO HAVE SOME PRIVACY IN A QUIET CUL-DE-SAC.

AND OF COURSE THAT WAS PROBABLY MY NAIVETY AT THE TIME TO BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE SUSTAINED.UT I DO WANT YOU TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE BOUGHT IN THAT AREA BECAUSE OF THAT VERY REASON.

HAVE CHILDREN, IT'S A QUIET CUL-DE-SAC, SAFETY ISSUES THERE ARE VERY MINIMAL, AND SAFE FOR OUR KIDS TO GO OUT IN THE STREET, PLAY BASKETBALL, RIDE THEIR SCOOTERS.

SUCH THINGS AS OPENING UP THAT CUL-DE-SAC TO ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD IS CERTAINLY GOING TO POSE A DANGER TO SMALL CHILDREN THAT ARE USED TO PLAYING IN THE STREET.

AND OUR NEIGHBORS, I PROBABLY WATCH OUT FOR THEM WHEN I'M OUTSIDE. I THINK EVERYONE DOES.

THE THIRD POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT SO LEMAIRE HAS, AS WE HAVE HEARD TONIGHT, ONE ENTRANCE, ONE EXIT.

I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD THAT IF YOU LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ONE ENTRANCE AND ONE EXIT IT IS A LOT EASIER TO MANAGE CRIME.

I WON'T BE THE ONLY ONE TO PROBABLY TELL YOU WE HAVE HAD QUITE A NUMBER OF BREAK-INS IN CARS THAT HAVE BEEN LEFT ON THE STREET. WE HAVE INSTALLED SECURITY CAMERAS. I THINK THE OCHO WAY FOR SPEARHEADING THAT. ONE OF MY FEARS IS IF WE START CONNECTING INTO THESE LARGE NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT CRIME IS GOING TO INCREASE. SO I WOULD ALSO ASK INCREASED SECURITY BE CONSIDERED AS THIS PROJECT MOVES FORWARD.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE TIME I HAVE.

TWO MINUTES. YOU KNOW, I LOVE SO LEMAIRE.

IT'S A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. JUST WANTED TO BE MAINTAINED IN THAT WAY. AS THIS NEW PROJECT GOES UP, PLEASE BE CONSIDERATE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED THERE FOR MANY YEARS. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR ATTENTION TONIGHT. MY NAME IS BRANDY BRUNSON, 178 . IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME OUT AND VISIT MY HOME, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTACT ME ABOUT ANYTHING I AM GLAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONERS? REPRESENTATIVE?

>> REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHAT ABOUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS YOU HEARD HERE?

>> YES. TO HELP YOU WITH THE AXIS, WE HAVE DISCUSSED A CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO ACCESS FROM 14 INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT. TO THE CONSTRUCTION AXIS CAN TAKE DIRECT DIRECT ACCESS AND WON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UNTIL THEY GET THE LAST HOMES BEING CONSTRUCTED. AND THEN IT IS PROBABLY IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT SECTION A AND B, THE DEVELOPER INTENDS TO START THEM AS CLOSE TO SIMULTANEOUS ASPOSSIBLE . IN THOSE TIMELINES CONVERGE WITH A LITTLE OVERLAP. WE ARE NOT EVEN AT PERMITTING YET, WITH THE CITIES CONNECTOR ROAD COMING THROUGH AND WITH THE DEVELOPER PUSHING TO GET SECTION BE PUT IN, THAT IS GOING TO HELP TO ALLEVIATE ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE GOT.

WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE

REPRESENTATIVE? >> MY QUESTION WAS LIKE ONE OF THE PEOPLE SAID ABOUT THE TIMING.

THEY DON'T START ALL THE HOMES AT ONE TIME EITHER.

BUT THEY NEED TO START DOING EARTHWORK AND AS I GET TO THE FINAL PLAT THEY CAN START PULLING BUILDING PERMITS.

AND YOU ARE TALKING PRETTY LATE INTO 2022.

WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH WHEN THEY ARE PLANNING ON OPENING UP

THE CONNECTOR ROAD. >> THAT WAS THE INTENT OF MY QUESTION. BECAUSE OF THAT SECTION, THAT SECOND SECTION WHERE TO START FIRST PER SE, THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME THROUGH RIGHT NOW UNTIL THAT RICHLAND ROAD CONNECTOR IS COMPLETED. YOU ANSWERED THAT QUESTION FOR

ME. >> THE DEVELOPERS WORK ON THE CITIES WORK WILL BE QUICKER PROGRESSING SIMULTANEOUSLY.

>> AND I KNOW THERE IS A LOT UNDER OF DIRT.

[00:45:02]

SUBSTANTIAL HAPPENS. >> I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION AND THIS MAY BE FOR ENGINEERING.

OF THE WETLAND IN THE MARSH THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IS AT

EITHER END OF THE LAKE. >> YES.

YOU SEE WATER, AS YOU LOOK AT THIS YOU ARE LOOKING AT SECTION A EVENT SHEET NORTH AND SHEET SOUTHWEST ARE WETLAND AND DRAINAGE FEATURES THAT ARE FEEDING THE LAKE.

SO MUCH LIKE THE RESIDENCE RIGHT BESIDES US, THEIR BACKYARDS INCONSISTENTLY. IS ACTUALLY GO A LITTLE FURTHER INTO THAT AREA THAN OURS ARE SHOWING.

>> HOW CLOSE IS THAT MARSH ON THE SOUTH SIDE WHERE THE NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MEETS WHERE HIGHWAY 14 IS?

>> WE ARE STAYING AWAY FROM IT. IF I TOLD YOU A NUMBER I WOULD

BE MAKING IT UP. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> DURING THE CITIES REVIEW THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THEY WILL

LOOK AT ALL THAT. >> I'M ASSUMING THAT IS SOMETHING ENGINEERING WILL HANDLE WITH POTENTIAL STORM

DRAINAGE. >> YES.

>> IS THAT ANOTHER EXIT CAN'T COME OFF THERE BECAUSE OF THE

WETLANDS IN THE WAY. >> ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOK AT AND ASK THE DEVELOPER TO LOOK AT AT SOME POINT DURING ALL THIS WAS TO LOOK AT ANOTHER CONNECTION AND IT WOULD BE A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IF WE WERE ACROSS ON THE SOUTH SIDE ACROSS THAT STREET.> YES.

AND IT WAS AN ISSUE AS WELL. >> WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION INTEREST IS GOING TO BE IS NOT SUITABLE FOR A PERMANENT ENTRANCE?I WOULD ASSUME BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO THE OTHER ENTRANCE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. >> WERE THAT CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS PROPOSED WOULD NOT BE SUITABLE FOR A PERMIT ENTRANCE BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY? WHAT CORRECT. THE DOT WOULD LIKELY NOT APPROVE ANOTHER PERMANENT ENTRANCE POINT THAT IS THE DOT, NOT THE CITY? WHAT CORRECT.

>> ALLISON, I HAVE NEVER HEARD THIS 100 HOUSES PER OUTLET GOAL

OR TARGET ORGAN. >> THAT IS ACTUALLY A GUIDE.

WE HAVE USED FOR MANY YEARS. JEFF RAMSEY, THE PRIOR CITY ENGINEER ACTUALLY USED IT. THERE IS ALSO A CLAUSE IN THE FIRE CODE THAT WE ACCEPT OUT OF.

I THINK IT IS AROUND 125 OR 150.

BUT IT IS A GENERAL GUIDE THAT YOU WIND UP MULTIPLE WAYS IN AND OUT WHEN YOU HAVE OVER 100 HOMES.

THE THING TO THINK ABOUT WITH THIS IS STUBBING OUT TO SOMETHING ELSE KIND OF COUNTS FOR US AS ANOTHER WAY OUT.IT IS JUST A GENERAL GUIDE WE HAVE USED FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

CAME ABOUT IN THE WHITE OAK AREA.

>> THAT SOMETHING IN THE ENGINEER MANUAL, IS JUST A RULE

OF THUMB KIND OF THING. >> CORRECT.

>> IF WE FOLLOWED THAT, WE WOULD HAVE CURB CUTS ALL OVER THEPLACE . AND I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS FEASIBLE. I CAN UNDERSTAND MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE, 100 HOUSES ON A STREET NEEDING AN OUTLET TO CONNECT TO ANOTHER STREET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT TO CONNECT TO SUBDIVISION TO A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, THAT JUST DOESN'T

. >> I CAN'T THINK OF ANY PLACE THAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN APPLIED COME TO MY MEMORY.

THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN APPLIED.

>> THE ONE THAT COMES TO MIND IS WHITE OAKS.

IF YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S A SINGLE ENTRANCE.

BUT THERE IS AN EMERGENCY ACCESS.

AND THAT WAS THE EXTRA OUTLET. BUT IT EXCEEDS 100 HOMES AS WELL. IT HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE. I GUESS ENFORCE WOULD BE THE WORD. SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO CONNECT TO ADJACENT LAND. HANDS ARE ON ACTIVITY AS WELL.

>> THE END RESULT OF ALL THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL RESULT IN FOUR

OR FIVE. >> WITH THE RICHLAND CONNECTOR, SO LAMERE WILL HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE CONNECTIONS THAT WERE TIED TO THE WEST. THERE STILL A SINGLE AXIS CONNECTING TO THE NORTH AND THERE IS A STUB OUT JUST OFF LIKENESS DRIVE THAT IS A STEP TO THE EAST THAT COULD CONNECT

THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. >> THE END GAME WILL HAVE THIS.

>> YES. >> A LOT IF THAT IS ABOUT

SAFETY TOO. >> IT'S ABOUT SAFETY, REDUNDANCY AND ACCESS. IT'S ABOUT EMERGENCY ACCESS.

IF WE HAD A TREE FALL THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER WAY IN AND

[00:50:01]

OUT. >> ACTUALLY, IF WE ADHERE TO THAT STRICTLY MASALA MIRROR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FEASIBLE.

WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT. >> IT WOULD STOP ABOUT PHASE

1.5. >> I'M ASSUMING PART IF THAT IS THE REASON YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND DO THE ROAD? YOU ARE DOING THIS ROAD AHEAD OF THE WAY IT NORMALLY.

>> IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ON THE RADAR OF THE YEARS, BUT SEVERAL YEARS THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS CONNECTION.

>> AND WE LOOK AT THIS ONE? 501 IS THE OPEN SPACE LOT, CORRECT?THAT RUNS ALONG THE BACKSIDE OF WHAT IS DENALI

CURRENTLY. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IS THAT RUN OFF WATER OR WOULD IT BE LEFT WITH A.

>> 501 IS ON A HIGH POINT OF THE SUBDIVISION.

IT'S WORTH NOTING ONE OF THE RESIDENTS POINTED OUT THAT LOT SERVES AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES.

IT'S WORTH NOTING THIS WILL MERIT SUBDIVISION IS A PERFORMANCE OF DIVISION AND WOULD REQUIRE BUFFERING ITSELF TO BUFFER ADJACENT PROPERTIES OF LESSER INTENSITY FROM THE IMPACTS OF IT. THIS BEING A CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A LESS INTENSE USE IN THEIR NO BUFFER IS REQUIRED FOR THEM TO GET DEVELOPERS

CHOOSING TO PROVIDE ONE ANYWAY. >> OKAY.

>> I MOVE THE HAVEN PLAINSMAN LIKE PRELIMINARY PLAT BE APPROVED. SUBJECT TO ALL STAFF COMMENT.

>> PLEASE ALSO REMEMBER WE NEED TO ADJUST THE STAFF COMMENT TO INCLUDE THE ÃDID I JUMP OVER THAT?

>> YOU MENTIONED THAT AT THE VERY BEGINNING.

>> THE SEPARATE PLAT NEEDED. >> THE SEPARATE PLAT OF THE PLAT DOES NOT NEED TO INDICATE EACH PHASE AS AN ADDITIONAL LO

. >> SAY THAT AGAIN.

>> AS IT CURRENTLY SIDES, THE SEPARATE PLAT NEEDS TO INDICATE EACH INDIVIDUAL PHASE IS A DIFFERENT SEPARATE LAW.

THAT CAN BE STRUCK. WE NEED A SEPARATE PLAT BY YOUR SEPTEMBER REGULAR MEETING TO CONNECT TO PROVIDE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE CONNECTOR ROUTE.

>> OKAY. I INCLUDE THAT.

[LAUGHING] >> I HAVE A MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND THE SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?I THINK I MIGHT NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE.

>> BRIDGES. >> NO.

>> JAGER. >> YES.

>> LAZENBY. >> YES.

>> MARSHALL. >> YES.

>> MCCORD. >> YES.

>> REESE. >> YES.

>> RITENBAUGH . >> NO.

>> BIRMINGHAM. >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT PLAINSMAN

[11. Plainsman Lake – The Prosper PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00464]

>> THIS IS SUBDIVISION IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF WHAT YOU JUST HEARD. THIS IS A PULMONARY PLAT REQUEST FOR 125 CONVENTIONAL LOT SUBDIVISIONS.

WILL INCLUDE 124 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE DETENTION LOT.

ON APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES IN THE DEH ZONING DISTRICT.

IT IS IMMEDIATELY WEST AND PROVIDES CONNECTION TO CAN I PASS IN THE FUTURE CONNECTOR TO THE WEST.

YOU SEE HOW THE SUBDIVISION INTEGRATES WITH THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT FOR. IT INCLUDES AXIS TO THE LAKE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AND DOES PROVIDE CONNECTION EAST, WEST AND PROVIDES OUT TO THE NORTH. HERE IS THE INDIVIDUAL PLOT ITSELF. IN AN AERIAL.

THE PROPOSED DENSITY IS TO NOT 88 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ON THE AVERAGE LOT IS POINT TO EIGHT ACRES.

[00:55:02]

SUBJECT TO YOUR QUESTIONS. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL OPEN THAT NOW.

FOR PLAINSMAN LIKE THE PROSPER. SEEING YOU KNOW WHEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OMMISSIONERS?

MOTIONS? >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

IS THE BUFFER REQUIRED BETWEEN THE EXISTING? I KNOW IT IS BASICALLY THE SAME TYPE ÁCUSTOMIIIÁ THERE IS NO BUFFER REQUIREMENT. THIS IS A CONVENTIONAL LOT

SUBDIVISION. >> THANK YOU.

>> COULD JUST BE A TYPO. ICIE EN KENAI PASS THE AMENITIES AREA ON THE ACTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAN DOES NOT SHOW

THE ADDITIONAL CUT RIGHT HERE. >> THAT WAS ONE OF THE TIS COMMENTS. THAT IS INCLUDED AND WILL BE

ADDRESSED BEFORE FINAL. >> I WILL MOVE IT TO APPROVE BILL 2020 1464 WITH ALL STAFF COMMENTS AND WITH THE INDIVIDUAL WERE SEPARATE LAW COMMON STRUCK ÃSTRICKEN.

>> I HAVE A MOTION. >> SECOND.> MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU.

[12. Plainsman Lake – The Vistas PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00465]

>> THIS IS THE THIRD OF THREE SUBDIVISIONS FORTHIS DEVELOPMENT . THIS IS A PERFORMANCE PLAT REQUEST FOR 133 LOTS, 130 TOWNHOUSES AND THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS. IT WILL BE ON APPROXIMATELY 73.5 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING TO THE WEST OF THE TWO SUBDIVISIONS YOU JUST HEARD.

ALSO IN THE -- H ZONING DISTRICT.

IT WILL INCLUDE AS PART OF THIS THE CONNECTOR ROAD IN QUESTION AS WELL AS THE LAKE PROPERTY ITSELF.

YOU CAN SEE THE CONNECTOR RIGHT THERE MOVED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH AND ALL TOWNHOMES TAKE AXA OFF OF THAT CONNECTOR.

OFF OF ROADS THAT ARE OFF OF THAT CONNECTOR.

THE GREEN SPACE PLAN FOR THE CITY DOES INCLUDE A GREENWAY, WHICH WILL BE PART OF THE ENGINEERED CONNECTOR ROAD AND CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME WITH IT.

PROPOSED GROWTH DENSITY FOR THIS IS A LITTLE OVER 1.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND THE AVERAGE TOWNHOUSE LOT IS .0 ACRES. 55 ACRES OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMES OUT TO 75 PERCENT WILL BE USED AS OPEN SPACE.ONCE AGAIN THE PLANNING, NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO REMOVE THE INDIVIDUAL LOT REQUIREMENT. SUBJECT TO YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THAT NOW. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE VISTAS. SEEING YOU KNOW WHEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OMMISSIONERS? ! I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 12 WITH ALL STAFF COMMENTS EXCEPT FOR SCRATCHING

THE SEPARATE PLAT REQUIREMENT. >> SECOND.

>> PLAT IS REQUIRED. >> SORRY, LOT.

SORRY. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO CLAYTON LANDS.

[13. Mitchell/Clayton Lands PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00477]

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS A REQUEST FROM FORESIGHT GROUP LLC ON BEHALF OF CLAYTON PROPERTIES GROUP INCORPORATING. AND JOHN MITCHELL, THE PROPERTY OWNERS. PLAT BEFORE YOU INCLUDES A

[01:00:06]

ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE PROPOSING TO EXTEND IT BY ADDING NEW RIGHT AWAY. ANY NEW RIGHT AWAY SHOWN ON PLAT EVEN IF IT INVOLVES LESS THAN FOUR LOTS IT REQUIRES APPROVAL BY THIS BOARD. THE PROPOSAL IS TO EXTEND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWN IN BLUEBERRY THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY IS IN RED. AND ON TOP OF THAT A BIT OF THE LAND SWAP BY INCORPORATING THIS LAND FROM THE REMNANT PARCEL OF MIMS TRAIL INTO THE FOUNTAIN VIEW PROPERTY.

YOU WERE LEFT WITH A PORTION OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH THIS WOULD NEED TO BE VACATED BEFORE ANY PLATS COULD BE SIGNED HERE IS THE PLAT. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND IT MEETS THESUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS .

I DID GET A CALL FROM THIS GENTLEMAN.

I BELIEVE HE IS HERE TONIGHT, I BELIEVE.

SO HE WILL PROBABLY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL. AND BRETT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY

OTHER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU FOR THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR RITA WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THAT NOW. PLEASE COME FORWARD.

DOLAN, THE OWNER OF CARRIAGE HOMES.

I LIVE AT THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTIES OF 2400 RUTLAND ROAD AND MIMS TRAIL. THEY ARE DRASTICALLY CHANGING THE LAYOUT OF MY LAND, INCLUDING PROXY FUNDS.

GOT SYMMETRICAL TO THE SIDEWAL .

THEY AT LIBERTY WHEN ADAM PULLED THE SIDEWALK UP INTHE STREET UP . MY FENCE FOLLOWS BECAUSE I FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF WHAT WAS THERE FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAT. NOW THEY WANT TO EXTEND, LOOK REAL CAREFUL AT THE SWOOSH AND DRAMA THAT LINE IS 62 FEET THEY WANT TO EXTEND MY BACKYARD. THERE'S A PRIVACY FENCE THERE.

I HAVE FIVE RESCUED DOGS. I MOVED OUT OF THE DAY YOU CLUB TO MOVE TO A HOUSE WHERE I COULD HAVE A PRIVACY FENCE AND I BUILT IT THE WAY I WANTED IT TO FIT THE LOT.

THAT SWOOSH AT THE END IS 62 FEET.

IT CROSSES THE ROAD THERE CURRENTLY NO.IT CROSSES MIMS TRAIL. IT DOESN'T GO STRAIGHT ACROSS, IT SHOOTS BACK AND THEY DON'T WANT TO MAKE ME WHOLE.

OF BEEN TALKING WITH BILL HARRIS TODAY.

THEY SAID SOMETHING TO HIM AND THEY SAID WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS. WE WILL TRY TO DO THIS AND THIS AND THIS AND THERE WERE SOME NUMBERS INVOLVED IN 3:00 THEY SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

AND HE MADE A COMMENT ON IT TODAY.

BUT THERE'S IRRIGATION. THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE ME ADOPT 1/10 OF AN ACRE. MY ARTIST FULLY CITED, IRRIGATION AND I HAVE FERTILIZER.

WHO WANTS TO COME CUT 10 PERCENT OF AN ACRE.

NOW, THEY WANT TO PUT IT IN TO A COMMON AREA HERE THAT IS NOT FAIR FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO THE COMMON AREA IS MY YARD. LOOK AT THE SWOOSH, LOOK AT THE CORNER.GOES DOWN TO NOTHING. NO DISRESPECT, BUT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN OUT CUTTING MIMS TRAIL WHO HAS A CONTRACT ARE HARD TO COMMUNICATE WITH. YOU TELL ME HOW THEY ARE GOING TO CUT MY YARD CORRECTLY WITHOUT GETTING ON MY PROPERTY.

HOW ARE THEY GOING TO LANDSCAPE IT? THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND MONEY FOR PLANTS THE MOST EXPENSIVE

[01:05:06]

AND I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THIS.WHAT I BUILT IS SYMMETRICAL WITH THE CURRENT SIDEWALK, WHICH THEIR LIBERTY TOOK UP. IT IS AN EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK.

IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK.

A LOT OF THINGS ARE GOING ON THAT THEY DO AS FAR AS THEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE APPROVAL. AND I HAVE PICTURES IF YOU CARE TO SEE THEM, I HAVE PICTURES OF THE WHOLE PROJECT.

TO ME, AND I'M GOING TO VOICE MY CONCERNS TO THE HOA.

IT'S NOT FAIR FOR THEM TO PAY $50 PER CUT 35 TIMES A YEAR, 700, $800 A YEAR TO MAINTAIN THAT SIDEWALK IS GOING TO BE IN THAT COMMON AREA. IS NOT GOING TO BE MINE THE WAY THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT. THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO ABANDON IT. AND I PICTURES IF ANYONE CARES TO SEE THEM OF WHAT IS OUT THERE AND WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY RIPPED UP. THEY ALREADY RIPPED UP THE STREET AND PUT DOWN $1000 WORTH OF SLACK IN BLADED IS IN AS A TEMPORARY. THERE IS SO MANY PEOPLE WHO GO UP AND DOWN THE ROAD THAT GO TO THAT MANSION.

I BET THERE ARE ABOUT 12 CARS ON AVERAGE A DAY THAT GO UP THERE. TODAY I'M STANDING OUT THERE AND THE GIRL RUNS DOWN THE ROAD AND SPLASHES WATER JUST LIKE THE MOVIE WHERE YOU ARE STANDING THERE BY THE CURB.

THE BUS PULLS UP. NEVER HAD THAT, IT HAPPENED.

I'M TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, BUT EVERYONE IS BENEFITING FROM THIS BUT ME. MY YARD IS GETTING BIGGER BUT IT'S GETTING CRAZY LOOKING FOR IT DOESN'T LOOK SYMMETRICAL.

I WANT TO MAKE IT RIGHT. THEY ARE TAKING AWAY FROM THE VALLEY OF MY HOUSE AND I'M GOING TO A LAWYER NEXT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO PLAY A GAME ÃIF THEY DON'T WANT TO TRY TO BE FAIR ABOUT IT. THANK YOU.

JUST THINK ABOUT THAT EVERYTHING ABOUT A LANDSCAPE COMPANY NOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME OUT THERE AND DO LANDSCAPING AND IT COULD CHANGE EVERY YEAR.

WHOEVER HAS THE CONTRACT AND HOW ARE THEY GOING TO COMMUNICATE WHERE MY PROPERTY IS IN WHERE THEIR PROPERTY IS.

IS IT GOING TO BE IRRIGATED? IS IT GOING TO BE FERTILIZED, IT'S GOING TO LOOK STUPIDER. AND IF THEY WANT TO BUY MY HOUSE I WILL MOVE OUT OF 450 THE MOVE OUT ANYWAY.

IF IT GIVES THEM MORE VALUE THEY CAN HAVE IT.

I OWN 28 PROPERTIES IN AUBURN, MONTGOMERY, LAKE MARTIN.

WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS FINE BUT THEY NEED TO BE RIGHT ABOUT IT AND FAIR. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN. ANYONE ELSE? LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU. >> FRED, REPRESENTING CLAYTON PROPERTIES.WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED TONIGHT IS THE SAME THING THAT WAS BE IN PROPOSED IN OCTOBER 2020 FOUR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION APPROVED IN JANUARY 2021 FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL.

WE HAVE APPROVED PLANS THROUGH THE CITY TO REROUTE THE ROAD AND RECONSTRUCT THE ROAD. WE ARE NOT OUT THERE WILLY-NILLY PULLING OF SIDEWALKS AND ROADS WERE REROUTING THE ROAD FOR THE APPROVED PLANS FOR THE CITY AND PART OF THE APPROVED PLAT THAT YOU GUYS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS WE SEPARATED THE PLAT OUT BECAUSE WHEN WE ARE REDIRECTING THISROAD , WHEN IT CREATES A PIECE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY THE CITY HAS REQUESTED US TO VACATE, WHICH THIS GENTLEMAN WAS REFERRING TO THERE AND YELLOW.

WE ARE ALSO TRANSFERRING PROPERTY AROUND IT.

THERE'S AN UNDISTURBED BUFFER THAT THEY ARE GETTING ON THEIR COMMON DRIVE WAS ON THE REMAINING PROPERTY.THE COMMON DRIVE WITH THE LARGE TREES THAT WERE PLANTED WAS VERY CRITICAL FOR DOCTOR MITCHELL AND HE WANTED TO MAINTAIN THAT.

[01:10:02]

WHEN WE VACATE THIS PROPERTY, IS CURRENTLY CITY OF AUBURN RIGHT-OF-WAY. WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO IS WE WERE WILLING TO GIVE THIS GENTLEMAN THE PROPERTY FOR HIS BENEFIT IF HE WANTS IT. WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THAT WITH THE CITY ON IF HE DOESN'T WANT IT.

I THINK WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH HIM AND UNDERSTAND HIS CONCERNS ABOUT RELOCATING HIS FENCE AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. BUT I DON'T THINK AND NEGOTIATION IN REGARDS TO TRANSFER OF MONEY AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE RIGHT VENUE FOR THAT. AND SO WE HAVE REACHED OUT AND TOLD THEM THAT WHEN WE VACATE THIS PROPERTY HE CAN HAVE IT AS PART OF HIS LAW OR WE CAN DEAL WITH IT AS OPEN SPACE FOR THE COMMUNITY. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO US, BUT WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH HIM ON MAKING THAT HAPPEN.

JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU BACKGROUND.

BUT THIS HAS BEEN THE SAME THING IT HAS BEEN.

WE ARE WORKING OFF IN APPROVED SET OF PLANS AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL BE DONE SOON. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS QUICK IF WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED THIS, WHY ARE

WE SEEING THIS?'M CONFUSED. >> WHEN WE DID IT BEFORE IT HAS 55 LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. ESSENTIALLY ALL WE ARE DOING IS WE PULLED OUT THIS FINGER IN ORDER TO START THE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PROCESS. WE HAVE TO CREATE THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PIECE TO VACATE ITS BOOKS WE HAVEN'T

APPROVED IT? >> PRELIMINARY PLATS YOU HAVE,

YEAH. >> AGAIN, IF WE HAVE APPROVED

IT WHY DO WE SEE IT? >> IT IS SEPARATED NOW.

WHEN WE CAME THROUGH BEFORE, THE PLAT SHOWS THIS +55 LOTS.

SO ALL WE DID WAS TAKE OFF THE 55 LOTS AND WE ARE DOING THIS PIECE ON THE FRONT BECAUSE WHEN WE DO A TRANSFER TO DOCTOR MITCHELL'S RIGHT-OF-WAY GETS TAKEN AWAY WHEN THIS PIECE GETS VACATED WOULD SEE WHAT I MEAN? WE ARE HAVING TO EXTEND THE BLUE DOWN TO GIVE THIS GREEN, WHICH IS DOCTOR MITCHELL'S FINGER ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SPEAKS WE HAVEN'T

APPROVED THIS? >> DOES THE YELLOW PART HAVE ANYTHING TO DO ÃI KNOW WE DIDN'T SEE THE GREEN, BUT THE

YELLOW PART. >> WE WERE ALWAYS REROUTING THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT IS ALWAYS BEEN WHY WE ARE

REDOING THE INTERSECTION. >> THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A LOT

LINE? >> ON THE PREVIOUS PRELIMINARY PLATS, YES. THE ROAD ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN

THERE. >> SO CURRENTLY THE CITY OF AUBURN HAS OWNERSHIP OF THE L A PIECE IN YOUR OFFERING IT TO THE CARRIAGE HOUSE HOMES? IT IS NOT NECESSARILY WANT TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT AS PART OF HIS OWN YARD FROM AGAINST THE OF ANY INTEREST? IS THAT ANY CONSIDERATION?

>> WE ARE WILLING ÃDOCTOR MITCHELL ONCE IT.

IT WILL CONNECT TO HIS GREEN WILL BE PART OF HIS ENTRYWAYS BECAUSE THE AND APPROVES PROPOSED?

>> I THINK WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THE CITY ON HOW THAT

WORKS. >> JANET, YOU ARE REFERRING TO

THE YELLOW PIECE? >> THE YELLOW PIECE, YEAH.

>> HE IS ADJACENT TO IT IS WIL .

>> THAT NEW MITCHELL PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

>> TYPICALLY WHEN WE VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHEN WE VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY, TYPICALLY YOU VACATE AND IT GETS SPLIT.

HALF OF IT GOES TO THE PEOPLES ON THE SITES.

>> YOU JUST DECIDE TO THE ULTIMATE OWNER IS GOING TO BE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I KNOW WE CAN'T TELL YOU WHO TO GIVE PROPERTY TO. HE CLEARLY DOES NOT WANT THEM TO MAINTAIN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY AND MOVE THE FUNDS TO DO THOSE

THINGS. >> DOCTOR MITCHELL ONCE IT.

>> FROM WHAT HE SAID, THAT WOULDN'T SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS MIGHT THINK. I HOPE YOU CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT. THINK THAT MAY BE OUT OF OUR PURVIEW IN GENERAL. WHAT HE TOLD ME, THAT WOULD FIX

ANYTHING. >> CAN WE GO TO THE SATELLITE REAL QUICK. CAN SOMEONE RUN THE MOUSE ALONG WITH THE NEW ROAD, WHAT IT'S REALLY GOING TO LOOK LIKE WHEN

[01:15:01]

TREES ARE. >> YOU WILL HAVE A DRIVEWAY OFF THE ROAD THAT EXTENDS TO CREATE HIS DRIVEWAY.

>> OKAY.>> OVER THE YEARS I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IS VACATED. I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD OF A PROPERTY OWNER NOT WANTING TO HAVE THAT LAND GIVEN TO HIM FOR FREE. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND SITUATIONS.

I THINK THE WAY THE ALABAMA LAW IS WRITTEN, IF YOU VACATE THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY IT GOES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

IT HAS TO GO TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

YOU KIND OF HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

DO YOU HAVE TO VACATED? >> THE CITY COULD KEEP IT.

>> WE DON'T VACATED, AND STAYS THE SAME AND THE CITY MAINTAINS

A IS EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> THE HOA WOULD MAINTAIN IT.

>> WITH THE CITY BE DISAGREEABLE TO THAT? THAT LITTLE BIT FOR THIS LITTLE BIT AND DIFFICULTY WITH THE

SUMMER? >> I THOUGHT HE SAID IT HAD TO

BE VACATED. >> IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT TO DO THE REALIGNMENT, TYPICALLY IF THEY DON'T NEED

THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THEY VACATED. >> THIS IS AN EXCEPTION FOR AND WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T WANT TO, I THINK THAT IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL. MY SECOND THING IS IF THE CITY DOES NOT WANT TO ACCEPT NOT VACATING IT, AND THE PERSON THAT OWNS THE GREEN, AND THE THREE PARTIES GET TOGETHER, I.E. THE YELLOW AND THE GREEN IN THIS ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AND WORK OUT SOME KIND OF A SALE.

THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER GETS THE PROPERTY BY RIGHT.

IT'S HIS. AND I'M SUGGESTING MAYBE WE SET UP SOME NEGOTIATION WITH THE OWNER OF THE GREEN IF THEY WANT IT TO SEE IF THEY CAN WORK OUT SOMETHING BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. NOW YOU'VE GOT THREE PARTIES THAT CAN BE VERY WELL SATISFIED.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS BEEN TRIED.

>> BUT THIS IS NOT OUR PURVIEW IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

WE CANNOT MAKE ANY SUGGESTION FOR THAT.

I DON'T HAVE A VOTE ON THAT. SO I GUESS RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO PRELIMINARY PLAT. MY REAL QUESTION WAS DID THE

LOT LINE CHANGE. >> IT'S THE SAME AS ALWAYS.> FROM WHAT WE APPROVED IN JANUARY TO KNOW TO BE VACATED?

>> WE ARE LOOKING AT THE PUBLIC GOOD AND IT'S IN THE PUBLIC BEST INTEREST WE RELINED THAT ROAD AND I THINK WE DECIDED IT WAS SOMETIME IN. THIS MERELY CONSUMMATES THAT.

COMMISSIONERS? >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE 2021 477 MITCHELL CLAYTON PRELIMINARY PLAT.

>> SECOND. >> THE MOTION TO SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED?

MOTION CARRIES. >> NEXT IS THE SAME THROUGH THE

[14. Mitchell/Clayton Lands PL-2021-00478]

FINAL PLAT. >> SAME PROPERTY AND DILEMMAS AS PREVIOUSLY. THE PLAT ITSELF BORING ALL THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND REALIGNMENT, THE PLAT ITSELF MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND STAFF

RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?

>> MOVE APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR? >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION OR INFORMATION, THE RIGHT OF WAY PORTION OF THIS WILL BE DEDICATED, HAS TO BE ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL.

THAT WILL BE AUGUST 17. >> CORRECT.

[01:20:01]

>> MOTION CARRIES AND I DO WISH YOU ALL THE BEST OF LUCK.

[15. Buc-ee’s PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00480]

STEPHANIE? >> GOOD EVENING.

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FROM BUC-EEB TO LLC. THEY ARE REQUESTING FOR LUMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION OF FOUR LOTS, WHICH WOULD NORMALLY NOT COME TO YOU ALL BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DEDICATE THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. LOCATED IN THE CDD DISTRICT, RECENTLY REZONED AND BROUGHT INTO THE CITY.

THE REASON FOR THE FOUR LOTS IS TO SEPARATE THE USES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THROUGH CONDITIONAL USE INTO THEIR OWN LOTS.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATION ON THIS. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

>> ARE THERE ANY PARTICULAR STAFF COMMENTS TO ADDRESS?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE WE WILL CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING.COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS 15

STAFF COMMENT. >> SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT.

[16. 403 Opelika Road PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00432]

OPELIKA ROAD . >> THIS IS A REQUEST FROM JEROME ANDERSON. THE PROPERTY OWNER OF POSITION CUTS LLC FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT URBAN , WHICH IS SURROUNDED BY ZONING OF SIMILAR TYPE. THE REQUEST IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD CONSIST OF A TOTAL OF 10 UNITS, 18 BEDROOMS, RESIDENTIAL USE WOULD ESSENTIALLY PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND SEE OR DO YOU, HOWEVER, THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION IS CONDITIONAL. AND SO THAT IS WHY IT IS BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIZES THE PROPERTY IS MIXED USE , WHICH IS ENCOURAGES VERTICAL MIXTURE OF USES, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

THEREFORE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE USE.

HERE IS A SITE PLAN HE HAS PROVIDED WERE HIS ARCHITECT HAS PROVIDED. YOU WILL SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT THERE ARE COMMENTS RELATED TO PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND GENERALLY THINGS THAT WILL BE COVERED AND REVIEWED DURING THE DART PROCESS. MR. ANDERSON IS AWARE OF THESE REQUIREMENTS AND WILL WORK WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEER TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES DURING THAT PROCESS.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE DID RECEIVE TWO CORRESPONDENCES ABOUT THE PROPERTY AND PROJECT.

ONE WAS GENERALLY IN SUPPORT, PROVIDED THAT TRAFFIC BE LOOKED AT. AND THE OTHER WAS JUST FOR INFORMATION. MR. ANDERSON IS HERE TONIGHT AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT BUFFERING. AND OF THIS IS CONDITIONAL USE,

BUT AND STAFF COMMENT. >> THEY ARE REQUIRED A FIVE FOOT BUFFER AROUND THE SITE. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO BUFFER YARD AVERAGING, WHICH CAN BE PERMITTED AFTER REVIEW.

ESSENTIALLY THEY OFFSET THE AREA OF ENCROACHMENT BY ADDING

ADDITIONALLANDSCAPING . >> GOT IT.

THANK YOU.CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING SO I WILL OPEN THAT. SEEING NO ONE WEWILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO READ COMMISSIONERS?> MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 16 CONDITIONAL USE .

>> SECOND. >> BUT WE ARE NOT INCLUDING, WE ARE INCLUDING ALL THE STAFF COMMENTS ABOUT SITE PLAN AS WE DISCUSSED IN THE PACKET MEETING.HERE ARE NUMEROUS DEFICIENCIES, BUT THEY ARE NOT PART OF THIS MOTION AND REVIEW

AT THIS POINT. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

[01:25:01]

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I APPRECIATE YOU SUBMITTING THIS.

IT WILL BE HELPFUL. COLLEGE STREET.

[17. 814 North College Street PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00467]

MS. CANNON? >> YES.

THIS IS THE CONDITION CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST WITH HYDRO ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE SERIAL JACKSON AT 814 NORTH COLLEGE AND THE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.HEY REQUESTINGCONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT . IT WOULD CONSIST OF 12 TO UNITS. I THINK A FEW OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED THE PACKET MEETING WITH THE APPLICANTS WILLINGNESS TO READJUST AND ACCOMMODATE ALL OF STEPS RECOMMENDATIONS. YOU CAN SEE SIDEWALKS GOING OUT TO COLLEGE STREET, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY SIDEWALK THERE. IT IS PROPOSED IN THE FUTURE AND THEY OFFERED THAT CONNECTION.

THEY ALSO ADDED INTERCONNECTING SIDEWALKS ON THE SITE TO PARKING AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. THE DUMPSTERS SCREENING AND OTHER THINGS ON THE SITE.HEY HAVE ADDED UPON REQUEST.

THIS SITE IS A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL IN THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATED AS MEDIUM DENSITYRESIDENTIAL , WHICH HAS AN AVERAGE DENSITY OF EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE PARIS HOWEVER, THE ZONE PERMITS UP TO 16 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

WITH THIS APPLICATION SHOWING 12, IT KIND OF FITS IN BETWEEN NOT BECAUSE OF THE, THE APPLICANTS WILLINGNESS TO ADDRESS ALL SUCH COMMENTS AND DELIVERING A PRODUCT THAT IS Ã OKAY. THEIR WILLINGNESS TO ADJUST ANY STAFF COMMENTS AS WELL AS THIS IS THEIR SUBMITTED ARCHITECTURAL PLAN FOR THE FRONT THAT WILL FACE NORTH COLLEGE. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE MULTIUNIT THEY ARE BEING DESIGNED TO SUCH THAT THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE SURROUNDING USES. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, THOUGH, THE OTHER SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES ARE OF VARIOUS DENSITIES INCLUDING COTTAGES TOWARD THE NORTH.

SOME DUPLEXES TO THE EAST AS WELL YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT BETTER. AS WELL AS SOME MULTI-UNITS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THEIR. SO BECAUSE OF THE MIXTURE THE RESIDENTIAL USES AND DENSITIES IN THIS AREA, AS WELL AS THE EFFORTS TO MAKE IT MORE ACCOMMODATING TO THE AREA, STUFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I RECEIVED A COUPLE OF CALLS FOR INFORMATION FOR THE SITE. IN THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO

ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.

THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORTH.

WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE. I HAVE A QUESTION.

THE SIDEWALKS TALKED ABOUT AND THAT YOU ADDED , OF THOSE

REALLY CONCRETE, >> IS IN PERVIOUS.

WE ARE RIGHT AT THE ISR. THEY COULD BE OTHER THINGS IF WE GET TO THAT POINT. BUT RIGHT NOW THEY ARE REGULAR.

>> THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. ANYONE ELSE? NO MORE QUESTIONS? OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 17. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?NY OPPOSED? THANK YOU.

[18. Warehouse Distribution PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00474]

>> YES, THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION LOCATED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK OFF CONCRETE AVENUE. IT'S A SITE PLAN.

IT IS ACTUALLY IN EXISTING STRUCTURE OVER THERE TO THE

[01:30:01]

EVERYTHING IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK OR ANY INDUSTRIAL ZONES AREA IS CONDITIONAL AND SO THAT IS WHY THIS IS HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. THERE WERE NO COMMUNICATION OTHER THAN A FEW LAST MINUTE THINGS FROM STAFF.

WE DID SPEAK WITH THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND THEY JUST HAD A FEW QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, WHICH THEY ALREADY ANSWERED. SO THEY ARE NOT IN OPPOSITION TO THE SPECIFIC REQUEST. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

>> WONDERFUL. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING THE REAL WE WILL OPEN THAT NOW.

>> JUST REAL QUICK, THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT WAS ON AGENDA GOT APPROVED IN 2019. NO DIFFERENT.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS COVID AND THEY WOULDN'T PULL A BUILDING PERMIT AND REALIZED IT HAD EXPIRED AFTER 18 MONTHS IN THEIR BACK BEFORE YOU KNOW. SO WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, ESSENTIALLY THIS IS ALL LEVEL CONVENIENCE STORES DELIVERED TO YOU WHEREVER YOU ARE AT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU THREE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 18. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?NY OPPOSED? WE WILL MOVE TO OTHER BUSINESS.

[19. The Preserve, Phase 4C and 6B PL-2020-00170]

MR. KIP, THE PRESERVE? >> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN 18 MONTH EXTENSION FOR THE PRESERVE PHASE.

TWO FACES BUT JUST ONE PLOT. THEY ARE JUST ASKING FOR THIS REQUEST. THERE IS A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, I BELIEVE. AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST. THEY ARE DOING WORK THERE AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO WORK. BUT STAFF SEES NO REASON TO DENY THE REQUEST AND HERE IS A MAP SHOWING WHERE IT IS.

THE FLAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> THIS IS JUST A TIME

EXTENSION. >> 18 MONTH.

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 19 PROVIDED THAT THE STAFF COMMENTS WHICH WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL PULMONARY PLAT REVIEW BE OBTAINED AND ADDRESSED PRIOR TO SUBMISSION FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED?

MOTION CARRIES. >> WHO WAS THE SECOND?

[20. ArchCo North Dean Road PL-2020-00262]

>> ME. >> SORRY.

>> NEITHER ONE OF US HEARD IT. >> THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE EXTENSION REQUEST UPON THE APPLICANT FOR AN APPLICATION THAT WAS APPROVED IN JUNE IT WAS APPROVED IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR. IT'S A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTH DEAN ROAD.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN YOU SAW AT THAT TIME.

IT INVOLVED A 250 UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON 27.5 ACRES. AFTER IT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL SINCE THAT TIME IT HAS CHANGED HANDS FROM ONE ENGINEERING FIRM TO ANOTHER IN THE ENGINEERING FIRM IS REQUESTING THE EXTENSION SINCE THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY GETTING STARTED ON THIS MUCH LATER THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE DONE SO. IT IS SET TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 16 OF THIS YEAR. THE EXTENSION IF APPROVED WOULD

PROVIDE A NEW EXPIRATION DATE OF JUNE 16 OF 2022.>> THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR IT COMMISSIONERS.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 20 TIME EXTENSION REQUEST.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES.

[STAFF COMMUNICATION]

THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO CHAT ABOUT. HOUSEKEEPING.

>> WE DO HAVE A COUPLE. ONE IS THE PACKET MEETING FOR THE SEPTEMBER AGENDA FALLS ON WEDNESDAY AND STAFF WILL NOT BE

[01:35:07]

AND WE ARE ASKING TO MOVE OR RESCHEDULE THAT MEETING TO

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9. >> AND PACKET WOULD BE.

>> THE DAY BEFORE ON MONDAY. >> IN THE SEPTEMBER DATE, COULD YOU ACCOMMODATE WEDNESDAY AS WELL AS TUESDAY AND JUST EXTEND THAT OVER ONE DAY BECAUSE IT'S A LONG HOLIDAY WEEKEND?

>> WHICH DATE? I'M SORRY!

SEPTEMBER. >> SO HAVE PACKET ON WEDNESDAY?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> IS EVERYBODY ELSE COULD WITH THAT? WE WILL ACCOMMODATE YOUR SCHEDULE. [LAUGHING]

>> I DIDN'T MEAN FOR IT TO BE QUITE SO OBVIOUS.

>> THIS AFFECTS DEADLINES FOR MOVING THE REGULAR MEETING SO WE WILL POST THOSE CHANGES ON THE WEBSITE THREE JUST TO CLARIFY, PACKET MEETING FOR THE SEPTEMBER MEETING WILL BE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8. ON THE NOVEMBER REGULAR MEETING

WILL BE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9. >> EVERYONE IS GOOD.

>> OKAY. THAT IS ALL THE HOUSEKEEPING

ITEMS I HAVE. >> PERFECT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.