[ROLL CALL]
[00:00:10]
>> GOOD EVENING. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME. AT THIS TIME I WILL CALL OUR MEETING TO ORDER. PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES.
BEFORE WE START I'D LIKE TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS OF THE PUBLIC MEETING.
THE COMMISSION WILL BE PRESENTED WITH AGENDA ITEMS BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE REPRESENTATIVE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENTS OR ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING AND THIS WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. WE WANT EVERYONE TO BE HEARD.
I ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR TIME TO TALK TO FIVE MINUTES AND KEEP YOUR COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE AT HAND. AFTER EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND A REPRESENTATIVE AND STAFF WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS AND RESPOND TO ISSUES BROUGHT UP DURING THE HEARING. I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION IN A BOAT IN THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE BASED ON STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, AND THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY.
HAVING SUMMARIZE THE BASICS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING I WOULD LIKE TO SUMMARIZE OUR ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY RELATED TO THE APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION PLANTS.
BY ALABAMA STATUTE COMMISSION SUCH AS OURS IS THE FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR SUBDIVISION PLATS WITH REGARD TO SUBDIVISION PLANTS THE COMMISSION ACCESSING ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND IS BOUND BY THE LIMITATIONS IN THE LAW.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND REGULATIONS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY THIS COMMISSION.
WHILE PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED AND WE WELCOME ANY AND ALL COMMENTS CONCERNING THESE ITEMS UNDERSTAND THAT THE AUTHORITY IS LIMITED TO CONFIRMING THAT THE PLAT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CODIFIED IN LAWS AND REGULATIONS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED. FINALLY I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT A POINT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IT'S ONLY AN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SUBDIVISION DECISIONS. WE ARE CHARGED WITH MAKING THE FINAL DECISION. ALL OTHERS WILL BE MADE BY CITY COUNCIL AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION POSITION. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ASK THAT IF YOU INTEND TO SPEAK PLEASE SIGN IN STATING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO OPEN CITIZENS COMMUNICATION.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON TONIGHT'S REGULAR AGENDA OR ITEMS THAT ARE ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE.
[1. Keel Annexation PL-2021-00367]
CLOSE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH OLD BUSINESS.STAFF, I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME UPDATES ON THAT?
>> MY APOLOGIES FOR THE CONFUSION. SO THE UPTAKE -- WE ARE LOOKING FOR AN UPDATE ON THE KILL PROPERTY AS OF TWO NIGHTS AGO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE 280 FOCUS AREA OF STUDY AND THAT IMPACTS A COUPLE OF ITEMS ON YOUR AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.
IT DOES IMPACT THE KEEL ANNOTATION AND THEY HAVE REQUESTED -- TO THE NEXT MEETING WHICH WILL BE IN OCTOBER. WE NORMALLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR POSTPONEMENT SO I THINK THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO DO FOR THIS ITEM IN THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
>> ITEMS ONE AND TWO THEY DECIDED THE SAME DECISION.
>> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. POSTPONING BOTH ITEMS.
>> THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING?
>> OKAY. IF I COULD GET A MOTION.
>> I WILL MOVE TO POSTPONE. CAN WE DO THEM BOTH AT ONE TIME .
>> POSTPONE 2021 3617. SECOND.
>> A MOTION AND SECOND ALL IN FAVOR.
[2. Keel Rezoning PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00365]
MOVED TO POSTPONE 2021-3652 A DATE CERTAIN.
[3. Earnest Annexation PL-2021-00371]
>> A MOTION AND CIRCUIT ON FAVOR.
AND ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE ON OLD BUSINESS. EARNEST ANNEXATION.
>> GOOD EVENING. THIS IS ONE OF FOUR APPLICATIONS THAT YOU WILL HAVE
[00:05:10]
BEFORE YOU TYPE RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY, THE EARNEST PROPERTY. THE FIRST REQUEST IS AN ANNEXATION REQUEST TO ANNEX A LITTLE OVER 64 ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS.IT IS CURRENTLY IN THE COUNTY, HAS NO ZONING. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED A LITTLE BIT UP THE INTERSECTION OF US HIGHWAY 280 NORTH COLLEGE ST. HERE IS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER THAT OWNS THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY, BUT AT THIS TIME IS NOT INTERESTED IN ANNEXING IN THE CITY LIMITS ALTHOUGH WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT TO MAKE IT A MORE COMPLETE ANNEXATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION AS IT IS WITHIN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY AND ADJACENT TO CURRENT CITY LIMITS.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REPRESENTED BY COLLIN HOMES LLC AND HE IS -- TJ JOHNSON IS HERE TO REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND HOLLAND HOMES. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? YOU ARE WELCOME TO SPEAK.
>> ON THE L ACCESSION NO -- IS JUST A PERSONAL RESIDENCE IT'S ABOUT FIVE ACRES.
WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE IT -- THAT PARTICULAR PORTION IS NOT FOR SALE.
WE WOULD LOVE TO ANNEX THE WHOLE THING. BUT NO FURTHER COMMENT ON THE
ANNEXATION PACKAGE. >> THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> ARE WE BOUND BY ANY STATE ORDINANCE OR ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE TO ANNEX THIS AS IT IS SHOWN? OR CAN WE MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENT TO INDOOR ASK QUESTIONS?
>> SUBDIVISIONS, THEY MEET THE REGULATIONS,
>> THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ANNEXATION. AT THIS STAGE YOU ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON WHAT IS PRESENTED TO YOU TONIGHT.
>> WHAT WAS THE EXPLANATION FOR NOT INCLUDING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY?
>> THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT WILLING OR WANTING TO ANNEX IN. IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED AS PART OF
THE ANNEXATION APPLICATION. >> NOT FOR SALE.
>> IS NOT FOR SALE. I THINK IT'S THEIR PERSONAL LAXATIVES.
>> CAN YOU COME TO THE MIC? >> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. SO I REPRESENT THE BUYING ENTITY.
WE WOULD LOVE TO ANNEX ALL OF THIS IN FURTHER DEVELOPMENT MR. ERNEST IS KEEPING THE FIVE ACRE PORTION. HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN ANNEXING HIS PORTION THAT WILL BE SEPARATED AT THE SALE. SO THAT IS THE REASONING. I AGREE WITH YOU.
AT LOVE TO BRING IT ALL AND WE JUST DON'T EXERCISE ANY CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY.
>> TO ME IT CREATES SOMEWHAT OF A -- IF YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION COLLEGE DRIVE, IT CREATES SOMEWHAT OF A -- OF AN ENCLAVE INTO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD.
AND FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, IT WOULD BE -- I THINK MUCH BETTER OVERALL IF IT COULD BE INCLUDED. AND I'M KIND OF INCLINED TO WAIT ON THE ANNEXATION UNTIL THE OWNER DECIDES TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO ANNEX
AT. >> WE DON'T HAVE TO ANNEX IT.
BUT THE ONLY WAY WE CAN IS EITHER BY LEGISLATIVE ACT OR BY VOLUNTARY REQUEST OF THE OWNER.
SO, IF WE LEAVE IT OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THEN WE HAVE NO SOME DECRYPTION CONTROL ON IT.
IF WE ANNEX IT EVEN WITH ALL THAT EXCEPT THAT ONE PARCEL, WE HAVE SOME CONTROL.
>> BUT WE WON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OF SUBSEQUENTLY, SOMETHING ELSE IS DONE WITH THAT PROPERTY THAT'S NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT HOMES THERE OR FOR THE CITY BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE NO CONTROL OVER IT. SO I THINK WHAT MAX IS ALLUDING TO AND WHAT I'M THINKING IS IT NEEDS TO BE ALL OR NOTHING. IN MY OPINION.
YOU CAN'T -- IT LEAVES THE FUTURE HOME OWNERS AND THE CITY WITHOUT CONTROL OF A VERY OBVIOUS LARGE CHUNK OF PROPERTY RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR HOMES. RIGHT AMID OUR HOMES.
[00:10:03]
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ENGINEERING MAY BE. WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE LENGTH OF ON COLLEGE, HOW FAR CURB CUTS WISE? DOES THIS FIVE ACRES -- IF ANNEXED OR CHANGED, DO THEY LOSE THEIR CURB CUT IF THIS IS PEND ON WHAT THEY REDEVELOP IT AS. WE ALLOW REUSE OF EXISTING CURB CUTS AS LONG AS THE INTENSITY OF WHAT'S PROPOSED IS NOT TOO MUCH OR THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ACCIDENTS.
IF THEY WERE TO PUT ANOTHER RESIDENCE ON THIS, IT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE THE CURB CUT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SAY. IF THEY PUT IN A DOLLAR GENERAL OR CHICK-FIL-A THAT WE WOULD EVALUATE IT DIFFERENTLY. BUT WE WOULD EVALUATE AT THAT TIME BASED ON WHAT IS AROUND IT.
>> AND IF IT HELPS, AS PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS WORKING WITH STAFF, WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE TWO ACCESS POINTS TO THE PROPERTY FROM THE INTERIOR OF OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
THAT WAY WE CAN ALLEVIATE ANY CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS YOU COULD IN THE FUTURE FORCE THEM TO USE THAT ACCESS. IF WE WERE ABLE TO DO WHAT WE HOPE TO DO, WE WILL COMING UP OR TURN LANES OFF OF NORTH COLLEGE. THAT WAY THEY COULD ACCESS THAT PROPERTY THROUGH HOURS INSTEAD OF NORTH COLLEGE. JUST FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> IF THEY CHOSE TO, IF THEY STAY IN THE COUNTY, THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO WITH
BUT THAT'S IN EL DORADO RIGHT AWAY SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO CHANGE THEIR PERMIT. IF IT'S A SINGLE.
>> IT IS TODAY, BUT MY CONCERN IS IF IT DOES NOT GET ANNEXED TODAY AND WE ANNEX EVERYTHING ELSE, WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE IF IT STAYS IN THE COUNTY.
IF IT STAYS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY IS THAT NOT CORRECT?
>> I WOULD DEFER TO STAFF ZONING LAWS, BUT WITHOUT BEING A RIGHT-OF-WAY THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO PUT IN ANY SORT OF NEW DRIVEWAY. I CAN TELL YOU FROM DEALING WITH THEM THAT THAT IS UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN WHEN WE ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE THEM ACCESS.
>> WHAT IF THEY WANT TO PUT UP A BILLBOARD SIGN THERE AND IT STAYS IN THE COUNTY? THE CITY WOULD HAVE NO RECOURSE AT ALL.
>> TRUE. >> USING THAT SAME LOGIC, YOU DON'T KNOW ON THE 60 ACRES, EITHER?
>> AT LEAST IN THIS SCENARIO YOU'VE GOT CONTROL OF 64 ACRES EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE THEM
ALL. >> IF I COULD, CHAIRMAN? WHEN WE MET YESTERDAY -- YESTERDAY -- THE STAFF'S HOPE IS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A WAY, A PLAN TO ACTUALLY ANNEX EVERYTHING. I MENTIONED THAT TO THOSE WHO WERE ABLE TO ATTEND THE AGENDA PACKET MEETING. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE.
SO THE QUESTION IS AT THIS POINT, DO YOU SUPPORT THE ANNEXATION OF 64 ACRES THAT YOU WOULD THEN GAIN CONTROL OVER AT THE -- EXPENSE OF NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THIS OTHER LITTLE PARCEL OF LAND? THE HOPE WOULD ALSO BE THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WHEN THAT PARCEL CHANGES HANDS OR SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO BE ANNEXED.
THEY WOULD WANT THE ABILITY TO HAVE WATER AND SEWER, THINGS OF THAT NATURE FROM THE CITY AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ANNEXED TO DO THAT. WE DID ADD INTO YOUR REPORT -- THERE ARE FIVE DIFFERENT ITEMS ON THIS PROPERTY AND WE HAVE ADDED IN THE HANDOUT THAT YOU RECEIVED TONIGHT, SOME OTHER COMMENTS THAT SPEAK TO THE ISSUE THAT THE APPLICANT MENTIONED ON THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS TO ADJACENT COUNTY PROPERTIES OUT THERE.
AND SO WE HOPE THAT BY DOING THAT, IF SOMEBODY CAME IN LATER ON THAT WAS NO LONGER HOUSE AND THEY WANTED TO PUT SOMETHING COMMERCIAL THERE, WE WE DO EVERYTHING WE COULD TO WORK WITH L.AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED ACCESS THROUGH OTHER MEANS THAT WE WOULD NOT ON ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT TO BE THERE.
WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS FUTURE ISSUES NOW. AND I THINK THAT'S THE KEY ANNEX AS MUCH AS YOU CAN NOW AND WAIT FOR THE REST LATER.
>> FOR THE RECORD, I'D LOVE TO BRING IN. WE WANT TO BE --
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I WOULD SAY I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF FORCING A PROPERTY OWNER TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY ESPECIALLY FOR THEIR PERSONAL RESIDENCE. AND IF THIS IS DEVELOPED IN ITS ENTIRETY AROUND US, THINK IN THE FUTURE WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT PEACE AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO USE WHAT'S AROUND IT AS A BENCHMARK.
I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE REST OF IT BE IN THE CITY LIMITS THEN HAVE A LARGE CHUNK OF PROPERTY ALONG 280 THAT'S UP FOR GRABS. BY THE COUNTY.
>> AND IF I CAN HAVE JUST ONE THING? THE ANNEXATION POLICY DOES SAY
[00:15:04]
THAT CONSIDERATION SHOULD ONLY BE GIVEN TO THE ANNEXATION OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL.SO THIS IS A PARCEL IN AND OF ITSELF. AND THAT RESIDENT IS ON ITS OWN PARCEL AS WELL. THERE'S BEEN NO SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY.
>> IT'S AN EXISTING, SEPARATE PARCEL. THEY'RE NOT CARVING IT OUT.
>> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE 20/20 371. STAFF COMMENTS.
>> I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL.
[4. The Bottle CDD PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00369]
>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT APPLICATION FOR THIS PROPERTY IS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 45 ACRES AND IS THIS AREA SHOWN IN YELLOW FROM RURAL PRINTING THE ANNEXATION OF CITY COUNCIL TO CDD COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, I WILL KIND OF -- SOME OF YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT THE 280 FOCUS AREA STUDY. THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. SO WE DID CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE PROPERTY.
THE PREVIOUS DESIGNATION ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS 280 CORRIDOR RESERVE WHICH WAS A PLACEHOLDER DISTRICT FOR WHEN WE WOULD GET TO THE 280 STUDY.
ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION WAS DESIGNATED AS RURAL. MOVING INTO THE NEW DESIGNATIONS ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, THE NORTHERN PORTION IS DESIGNATED AS GATEWAY COMMERCIAL IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION IS DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
WITH THE PLAN PROPOSED, I'VE KIND OF OVERLAID THAT WITH THOSE DESIGNATIONS.
YOU CAN SEE THE DEFINITIONS FOR THOSE DESIGNATIONS THERE ON THE RIGHT.
BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING WITH THE ZONING AND HOW THAT MATCHES WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING TO CDD.
BUT I DID WANT TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON WHAT THE BASIS ZONING WOULD ALLOW. WITH PDD'S THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE -- THERE ARE CERTAIN DISTRICTS THAT HAVE TO HAVE THAT UNDERLYING ZONING APPLIED BEFORE PDD CAN MOVE FORWARD.
AND SO, WITH CDD, THERE IS A MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED OF NINE AND A-HALF PER ACRE.
YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE FOUR RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
AND A FEW COMMERCIAL NONRESIDENTIAL USES NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT REZONING BASED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND I'D BE
HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> LET'S GO BACK TO THE FIBRO QUICK SO I CAN READ IT ONE MORE TIME. THANK YOU.
>> AND THAT IS THE CDD PORTION. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GATEWAY QUARTER OVERLAY.
IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO OF THOSE?
>> THE FUTURE LAND USE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ZONING. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS OUR ADVISORY DESIGNATION FROM COMP PLAN 2030. GATEWAY COMMERCIAL ENVISIONS LARGELY A MIXTURE OF USES THAT ARE LARGELY NONRESIDENTIAL. THIS WOULD BE USES THAT ARE CATERED TO THE TRAVELING PUBLIC AND NEIGHBORHOOD USES. WITH LOTS OF ATTENTION PAID --
IT IS ALONG A MAJOR CORRIDOR. >> THANK YOU.
>> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT NOW. SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? OR MOTIONS. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ADDITIONS
TO THIS. >> MOSTLY -- THE MEMO THAT YOU ALL RECEIVED IS GEARED TOWARDS ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT WILL BE PLACED ON THE PDD AND
CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTS. >> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> THERE ARE SOME STAFF COMMENTS THAT HAVE NOT -- THAT ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED.
[00:20:05]
SO THERE ARE STAFF COMMENTS, BUT NOTHING IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE PACKET.>> THANK YOU. >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE WITH
ALL STAFF COMMENTS. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND
[5. The Bottle DDH PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00372]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL MOVE ON TO NUMBER FIVE.
>> YES, MA'AM. THE NEXT REQUEST IS FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REZONE FROM RURAL DISTRICT APPROXIMATELY A LITTLE OVER 18 ACRES FROM RURAL TO DBH DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING, SIMILARLY, THAT LINES UP VERY WELL WITH THE NEW DESIGNATIONS ON THE PROPERTY WITH THE COMP PLAN. THEREFORE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
THE AVERAGE FOR THAT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION KIND OF ENVISIONS AN AVERAGE DENSITY OF 4 BILLIONS PER ACRE. NO COMMERCIAL TYPE USES. SOLELY RESIDENTIAL.
WHICH THEY HAVE MORE OR LESS PROVIDED. IT DOES ALLOW THE BASE ZONING DOES ALLOW FIVE AND HAVE BILLIONS PER ACRE IT ALLOWS SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED BY RIGHT. THERE ARE SOME OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE CONDITIONAL AND CHURCHES ARE ALSO -- OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ARE ALLOWED BY
RIGHT. >> I WOULD ALSO MENTION THAT SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, BUT THAT CARRIES WITH IT THE SINGLE-FAMILY DEFINITION.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. WHEREAS CDD DOES ALLOW UP TO 500 OCCUPANTS.
>> SO OKAY. >> SO WERE THEY ABOVE THE FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE THAT WAS SORT OF.
>> IN THEIR PROPOSAL FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THEY ARE SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE RECOMMENDED DENSITY OF 4 BILLIONS PER ACRE. JUST A MOMENT HERE. I'LL LET YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT
I'VE JUST GOT TO FIND IT. IT WAS IN THAT AREA, RIGHT? LIKE WHAT --
>> 4.4 BILLIONS PER ACRE. THAT'S WITH THE CAVEAT OF UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT IS THE TOTAL LAND AREA DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
>> OKAY. >> I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THAT.
>> IN THE LETTER THAT WE GOT TONIGHT, OUR CONDITIONS THAT GO WITH THIS ITEM FOR.
>> NO SIR. THEY GO WITH THE REZONING TO PLAN DEVELOPING DISTRICT.
>> ITEM 3. >> IN THE CONDITIONAL USE
REQUESTS. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER FOUR WITH ANY STAFF CONDITIONS.
>> IS NUMBER FIVE. >> I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
>> ANY OPPOSED? >> CAN WE TAKE A ROLL CALL,
[6. The Bottle PDD PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00368]
>> THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. I JUST COULDN'T HEAR.
>> OKAY. THE NEXT REZONING APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY IS TO APPLY THE PLAN DEVELOPING DISTRICT A LITTLE OVER 64 ACRES. THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AS OF THIS MORNING, WE HAVE MET WITH THE APPLICANT, DISCUSSED SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SO, THEY WILL BE PROVIDING SOME CHANGES TO IT. IF SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE DEEMED ACCEPTABLE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE APPLICANT. THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CONTEMPLATES PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL USES WITH A LITTLE OVER EIGHT ACRES OF COMMERCIAL. THE COMMERCIAL IS SHOWING HERE IN ORANGE.
BASICALLY THE -- THERE WILL BE TWO DRIVEWAYS COMING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT.
ESSENTIALLY BOULEVARD TYPE ENTRYWAYS WITHIN AN EMINENTLY LOT LOCATED HERE THE COMMERCIAL
[00:25:04]
WOULD HAVE A SEPARATE OUT PARCEL HERE THE RESIDENTIAL INCLUDES BOTH SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LOTS AS WELL AS BETWEEN HOME LOTS AND TOWNHOME LOTS.THE TOWNHOME LOTS ARE SHOWN IN RED. THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 70 UNITS.
THE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED ARE SHOWN IN YELLOW. APPROXIMATELY 108 UNITS AND THE TWIN HOME LOTS CONSISTING OF 94 UNITS SO A TOTAL OF 317 UNITS AND OVERALL DENSITY FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ABOUT 5 BILLIONS PER ACRE.
>> IT DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL OPEN THAT NOW.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE CONDITIONS.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. CAN I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR DO YOU WANT ME TO WAIT.
>> I THINK THE APPLICANT WILL PROBABLY HAVE SOME THINGS TO SAY, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU.
>> OKAY. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL MOVE FORWARD.
>> SO BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH THIS A LIST OF CONDITIONS JUST FOR THE RECORD. THE FIRST KIND OF CONDITION OR REQUEST WOULD BE TO RELOCATE OR REMOVE THE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS LOCATED HERE.
AS I MENTIONED THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS GATEWAY COMMERCIAL SO LARGELY IT SHOULD BE COMMERCIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL USES.
RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ACCEPTABLE, BUT THE PREDOMINANT USE IN THIS AREA SHOULD BE COMMERCIAL. IF THAT IS -- IF THE LOTS ARE TO BE REMOVED WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE AMENITY LOT BE MORE CENTRALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.
A REQUEST TO PROVIDE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS OR CONNECTIVITY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. ERNEST THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY BEING REQUESTED FOR ANNEXATION THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL AND TOWNHOME SECTIONS AS WELL AS CONNECTIVITY TO THESE PARCELS LOCATED HERE. AND TO THE PROPERTIES LOCATED HERE.
A CONDITION TO REQUIRE AT LEAST A 50 FOOT UNDISTURBED BUFFER TO REMAIN -- WE ESSENTIALLY KEEP THE TREE LINE THAT IS THERE NOW. ALONG THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. A 20 FOOT NATURAL UNDISTURBED BUFFER HERE AND THEN ON ALL THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS, A 20 FOOT LANDSCAPED BUFFER. A CONDITION TO REMOVE THE SINGLE-FAMILY LOT TO ALLOW BETTER ACCESS TO THE TOWNHOME PRIVATE DRIVE HERE.
A VEHICLE TURN SHALL BE PROVIDED THROUGH THE DART PROCESS FOR THESE PRIVATE DRIVES TO ACCOMMODATE THE HEAD KILLER TRAFFIC, PUBLIC SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.
AND A REQUEST TO PROVIDE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS ON ALL PUBLIC STREETS THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT THE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS LOCATED HERE SHALL PROVIDE REAR ACCESS OR REAR LOADED GARAGES. AND THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF CONDITIONS THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY IN YOUR PACKET. IN ADDITION TO THAT THE APPLICANT, AFTER MEETING WITH US HAS PROVIDED AN ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE EXCHANGE ESSENTIALLY TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACKS FOR THESE LOTS IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THAT REAR ACCESS.
SO THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING PENDING ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS WELCOME TO EITHER ACCEPT SOME OF THOSE TERMS WERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN DISCUSS THOSE TERMS AND KIND OF GO FROM
THERE. >> WE CAN REQUIRE THEM.
>> OR YOU CAN REQUIRE. >> OKAY.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR GOING OVER THOSE SO DILIGENTLY BECAUSE I WAS A
NEW ADDITION FOR US. >> APPLICANT TO HAVE ANY --
[00:30:16]
>> AGAIN THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE TIME. WE ARE EXCITED TO BE LOOKING AT SOMETHING IN AUBURN A PLACE WITH LOVE. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. THE FIRST TIME WE SAT DOWN WITH THE CITY WAS BACK IN JUNE.
WE GOT AROUND AND WE PONDERED THE 280 CORRIDOR STUDY AND WHAT WOULD LOOK GOOD FOR THAT SITE AND IN EARNEST, WE TRIED AS HARD AS WE COULD TO FIT THAT MOLD.
AGAIN, WITH STAFF THIS MORNING WE WENT THROUGH SOME OF THESE ITEMS. SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE BEEN WILLING TO DO IT ANY POINT IN NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME SINCE CITY COUNCIL PASSED ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION THE FUTURE LAND-USE CHANGES.
I APOLOGIZE IF THAT FEELS RUSHED AT ALL. THAT CERTAINLY WASN'T OUR
INTENTION. >> THIS PLAN HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE JUNE 28. IT WAS NEVER OUR INTENTION TO RUSH THIS.
THIS IS IMPORTANT. WE THINK THIS IS THE NORTH GATE OF AUBURN.
WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF DEVELOPING THAT AND WANT TO DO IT WITH PRIDE AND SOMETHING THAT THE CITY IS VERY EXCITED ABOUT. THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO GO THE PPD ROUTE. IT HONESTLY WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL FOR US JUST TO GET THE REZONING -- WE ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT TO DO A LOT OF THESE THINGS.
WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO FIND A FIT AND FEEL THAT EVERYBODY IS EXCITED ABOUT.
I APOLOGIZE IF THAT'S TOO MUCH BACK STORY. SO WE WORK TO THE ITEMS TODAY.
AND THE ONLY ONE THAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER REMOVING IS ITEM NUMBER ONE.
I DO NOT FEEL THAT THAT MUCH COMMERCIAL WORKS THERE YET. I FEEL LIKE IT COULD ONE DAY.
WE WORK WITH THE STAFF. WE ARE A HOMEBUILDER. WE WANT TO BUILD HOMES QUALITY HOMES IN THE CITY OF AUBURN. SO WE ADDED SOME COMMERCIAL BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE THERE TODAY. MY INTENTION WOULD BE THAT I COULD BUILD HOMES THEY ARE FOR FAMILIES. WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY WANTS COMMERCIAL. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT WE WANT TO SHOW THAT ALONG ALL OF THE AGE OF ROADWAYS THERE WE ARE SHOWING ONLY COMMERCIAL ALONG NORTH COLLEGE IN ZONE THAT SUPPOSED TO BE COMMERCIAL WAS SHOWING ONLY COMMERCIAL ALONG 280.
WE FEEL THAT ANY COMMERCIAL TOUCH BEHIND THAT WOULD STRUGGLE TO THRIVE.
IT WOULD BE INTERIOR LANDLOCKED COMMERCIAL WITH NO VISIBILITY, NO ACCESS.
AND HONESTLY, IT WOULD LAY MY CARDS DOWN WEEDKILLER FOR US. MAYBE THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO AUBURN, BUT IT WOULD KILL IT TO US FOR WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO WALK AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT PERSON MIGHT WANT TO DO. ANYBODY WANT TO KEEP IT IN THE COUNTY? AND PUT UP BILLBOARDS. WE WANT TO COME HERE AND THEY ARE CARDS DOWN AND SHOW YOU WHAT WE WANT TO DO BECAUSE WE WANT TO WORK TOGETHER TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY. WE TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE COMMERCIAL IS A GREAT POINT THERE. LET'S PUT IT ON NORTH COLLEGE. LET'S PUT IT ON 280 AND THE WHAT WE DO BEHIND THERE IS BUILD A GOOD QUALITY HOME IN THE CITY OF AUBURN SO KIDS CAN SEND THEIR KIDS TO AUBURN SCHOOLS. IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO BE.
WE WANT TO DO THE BOULEVARDS COMING OFF OF NORTH COLLEGE SO THAT IS DIVIDED HIGHWAY PLANTED IN THE MIDDLE. YOU WILL END UP WITH TWO TURN LANES, TRAFFIC -- NO DRIVEWAYS ON NORTH COLLEGE. WE WORKED HARD TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY. AND THAT'S WHY I FEEL CONFIDENT IN ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER TAKING OFF ITEM NUMBER ONE BECAUSE I TRULY WOULD -- IT WOULD JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY FOR US. NOW MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE WALKS IN AND DOES IT BUT I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE OPERATIVE -- I WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY STAY THAT.
I WORKED HARD WITH STAFF. UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT DOUBLING THE REQUIREMENTS INCREASING THE ON PLANTED -- UNDISTURBED BUFFERS. I'M FINE WITH THAT.
THAT'S A WIN-WIN FOR HOMEOWNERS IN THE CITY BUT I BELIEVE THAT COMMERCIAL PIECE, IT DOESN'T SERVE ANYONE TO HAVE THAT MUCH COMMERCIAL THERE. THERE ARE SEVERAL LOTS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE THEY COULD BE BUILT COMMERCIAL AND IS JUST NOT HAPPEN JET.
WE FEEL LIKE PUTTING THE ROOF TOPS THEY ARE WITH OUR STAFF WILL ALLOW ALL THOSE OTHER LOTS TO BE COMMERCIAL IN THE FUTURE. SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER REMOVING ITEM NUMBER ONE.
THE REST I'LL BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH STAFF TO COME UP WITH THE SOLUTIONS AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY FEEDBACK. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> YOU SAY NUMBER ONE, WHICH ONE ARE YOU REFERRING NUMBER ONE? THERE ARE SEVERAL NUMBER ONES.
>> OKAY. THAT'S A GREAT POINT. THE FIRST ONE THERE.
REMOVE THE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LOTS ON THE NORTH AREA IS THE STAFF REQUEST IS TO KILL ABOUT 60 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MAKE THAT ALL COMMERCIAL NORTH OF THE PROPERTY -- NORTH OF THE POWERLINE CUTTER YOU CAN SEE. AND I JUST -- I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE FEASIBILITY OF.-- FOR
[00:35:02]
US, AS A DEVELOPER ISN'T THERE. >> IN THE SHORT TERM, BUT WE NEED VERY CAREFULLY TO PROTECT TRUE COMMERCIAL SITES IN THE CITY.
>> I UNDERSTAND. >> YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WOULD BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.
>> YES. CERTAINLY. BUT MY STANCE ON THAT IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT THIS THING FOLDS. AND THAT IS -- THAT LAND DOESN'T END UP GETTING ANNEXED AT ALL. SO WHAT WE ARE OFFERING IS WHAT I THINK COULD BE A WIN-WIN FOR THE CITY. YOU CAN GUARANTEE EIGHT ACRES CITY OF AUBURN COMMERCIAL AND WE CAN DICTATE ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS TO US BECAUSE WERE BRINGING IT IN. BUT I CAN TELL YOU WITH CONFIDENCE THAT IF WE GO 15 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL LAYER, IT JUST GOES AWAY FOR NOW. NONE OF IT HAPPENS.
IF WE HAVE TO DEVELOP BECAUSE WE ARE HOMEBUILDER SET HARD AND I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY YOUR POINT I THINK MAY SET ABACK. I DON'T KNOW SOMEBODY ELSE MAY SCOOP IT UP AND PUT A WALMART THERE. I DON'T KNOW. BUT I CAN TELL YOU WITH CONFIDENCE THAT IT WOULD NOT BE US. AND AGAIN, THAT'S NOT GERALD'S -- SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS BUILD HOUSES AND IF IT TAKES PUTTING A LITTLE
COMMERCIAL END YOU'LL DO WITH. >> IS THAT THE PLAN.
>> ARE WE HAVING OUR DISCUSSION.
>> WE ARE ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
>> I MEAN I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS BUT COMMENTS.
>> NO. I -- I UNDERSTAND THE POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE AND I HAVE THAT SAME QUESTION MYSELF ABOUT THE ACREAGE THAT WAS CDD. I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE RESIDENTIAL IN THAT AREA. I DON'T LIKE THE LAYOUT OF DEATHS. I THINK THAT THE HIGHER INTENSITY HOUSING SHOULD BE CLOSER TO THAT EMOTIONAL NOTE LIKE BETWEEN HOMES MAY BE. AND I ALSO THINK THAT THOSE AMENITIES MAY NEED TO BE MOVED AWAY FROM THE COMMERCIAL PORTIONS.
YOU DID MENTION THAT SOME SUMMING.
>> AND FOR THE RECORD, THE HIGHEST INTENSITY IS -- IT'S 5.5 UNITS PER ACRE ON THE NORTH
SIDE. >> I JUST MEANT THOSE TWIN HOMES POSSIBLY MAY CONFIGURE BETTER BACK BEHIND THE COMMERCIAL IS SUPPOSED TO SINGLE-FAMILY. I MEAN I KNOW THEY'RE ALL SINGLE-FAMILY BETWEEN HOMES SEEM TO BE A MORE LOGICAL TRANSITION NEXT TO COMMERCIAL.
>> UNDERSTOOD. >> THERE WAS A REQUEST TO KEEP MULTIFAMILY AS AN OPTION IN THAT AREA.
>> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME RECONFIGURATION OF THAT.
>> I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THOSE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES BEING FRONTLOADED GARAGES. AND I DON'T KNOW -- I KNOW WE LOVE TOWNHOMES TO BE BACKLOADED BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF ALL THOSE TWIN HOMES STAY RIGHT THERE, HOW IS A BACKLOADED STREET GOING TO BACK UP TO THOSE TWIN HOMES AND WHAT DOES IT DO TO THOSE.
>> THEIR CLOSE TOGETHER. SO AGAIN, IF YOU LIKE THAT PORTION NEEDS MAY BE JUST A LITTLE TWEAKING. TO MAKE THAT FLOW A LITTLE BETTER.
I MEAN I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU GET A ROAD BACK THERE AND HOW YOU -- COMING, THERE'S A LOT THAT
WOULD NEED TO BE DONE. >> CAN YOU CLARIFY WHICH.
>> DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT THOSE RIGHT THERE.
>> DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT THERE WAS A CONDITION THAT THOSE BE REAR LOADED.
>> CORRECT. >> I MEAN I DON'T -- OTHER THAN YOU'D HAVE DRIVEWAYS ALONG THE FRONT, BUT.
>> THE THOUGHT THERE BEING THAT THIS WOULD BE MORE OF A THROUGHWAY THAN TO TRY TO LIMIT
THE NUMBER OF CURB CUTS. >> HUMMING, DOES THAT FIT APPROPRIATELY BACK BEHIND WITH ALL THOSE TWIN -- ARE THOSE TWIN HOMES.
>> THESE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY. >> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BLUE.
ARE THOSE REAR LOADED AS WELL OR ARE THEY DRIVEWAY? WHAT WAS THE THOUGHT ON THAT?
>> THESE ARE FRONT LOADED AND KIND OF BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION THAT IT MAY BE FEASIBLE TO PROVIDE A PRIVATE DRIVE.
>> I BELIEVE SO. THAT WAS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>> I MEAN I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THOSE TWIN HOMES IN THEIR BACKYARDS AND DO THEY WANT PEOPLE COMING ALONG BACK BEHIND THEM.
>> JANA. >> THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION IN REGARDS TO THESE LOTS TO BE ABLE TO -- ONE OF THE INCENTIVES AND EXCHANGES WOULD
BE TO. >> REDUCE THE SETBACKS FOR THOSE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES SO THE HOUSES COULD BE MOVED CLOSER TO THE FRONT.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE. ADDING THAT ROAD WOULD BE MORE.
>> WOULD THERE BE ADDITIONAL BUFFERING ALONG THE BACK SO THE TWIN HOME FOLKS DON'T HAVE TO
STARE AT THE CARS DRIVING. >> THERE COULD BE.
WOULD THERE BE ANY REQUIRED IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEES TO ADD.
>> HUMMING -- AS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION, YOU DEFINITELY COULD DO THAT.
[00:40:11]
>> I'M TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THE PERSON WHO'S GONNA BE LIVING THERE.
>> RIGHT. >> I CAN TELL YOU WITH CONFIDENCE WE WOULD WANT TO PLANT THAT ANYWAY. THAT'S RIGHT.
WE'VE GOT TO SELL THAT HOUSE WE PROPOSED ORIGINALLY FRONTLOADED.
IT WAS A STAFF COMMENT TODAY WHICH I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD ONE BECAUSE THE TOWNHOMES ARE FURLOUGHED THERE. WE ARE HAPPY.
>> AS LONG AS THERE'S SOME APPROPRIATE BUFFERING TO THE TWIN HOMES IT WOULD BE FINE.
>> AND OBVIOUSLY TO NOT HAVE A CUT FOR A DRIVEWAY WOULD BE IDEAL.
>> BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE AMENITIES MOVED.
>> COMMENTS CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE ARE THESE ARE NEW FROM STAFF I FELT LIKE THEY WERE GOOD THE ONLY ONE IN QUESTION IS THE REMOVAL OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LOTS.
>> IS NOT ENOUGH MATTER OF QUESTION HE SAYS IF HE WALKS IN HE DOESN'T GET IT.
>> AND I DON'T -- I'M NOT HERE TO PUT MY FOOT IN THE GROUND.
>> THAT'S WHAT WOULD YOU DID. >> THAT'S WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT.
>> I JUST WANT TO -- I'M GONNA LAY MY CARDS DOWN. IT WOULD KILL IT IT REALLY WOULD. THAT'S NOT JOEL'S PROBLEM THAT'S MY PROBLEM.
I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO NOT KNOW THAT.
>> I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT JANA SAYING FROM A COMMERCIAL TO A SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED HOME IS A HARSH TRANSITION. AND SO THE COMMENT IN QUESTION IS NOT SWITCH THOSE WITH TWINS, WHICH WE WOULD BE FINE WITH IT IS ELIMINATE DATA MAKE 10 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL.
>> YOU ARE AMENABLE TO MAY BE RECONFIGURING SOME OF THIS.
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> THAT'S IMPORTANT.
>> THE IMPORTANT NUMBER TO US IS THE TOTAL LOST COUNT. WERE WE PUT THOSE WE CAN PUT IT TOGETHER BUT IF WE HAVE TO GO 10 OR 15 ANCHORS OF COMMERCIAL I'M NOT A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER.
THAT'S MY PROBLEM NOT YOURS. >> CHAIRMAN MAN MAKE A THOUGHT ON PROJECTS THAT WE GET ARE THIS COMPLEX, WE OFTEN HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY AND NEGOTIATE. THAT'S WHAT THE PDD IS FOR. AND UP UNTIL TONIGHT WE'VE REALLY HAD NO LEGAL BASIS FOR UPON WHICH WE CAN EVALUATE THIS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE PLAN THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED TO CITY COUNCIL. I KNOW TIME IS MONEY ESPECIALLY IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS BUT PERHAPS SINCE WE HAVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDING SOMETHING THAT THEY FEEL IS IMPORTANT THE DEVELOPER FEELS THAT IMPLEMENTING IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO HIS PROJECT BEFORE WE ACT ON THIS, WE HAVE ANOTHER SESSION, POSTPONE AND HAVE A WORK SESSION REGARDING IT SO THAT WE CAN FULLY VET THE PROJECT AGAINST OUR PLANS BECAUSE HE SAID IT RIGHT.
THIS SETS THE TONE FOR THAT END OF TOWN OUT THERE. IT IS OUR GATEWAY AND IN THE SOUTH END OF THAT SAME CORRIDOR, THE CITY HAS PRETTY MUCH CONTROL OVER IT BECAUSE WE HAVE A COOPERATIVE DISTRICT ON ONE SIDE AND THE CITY OWNS THE OTHER SIDE.
BUT UP HERE THIS IS A PRIVATE SECTOR AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE WORKING AND IN SYNC
WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR. >> I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENT. HOWEVER I WILL ALSO SAY THAT WE HAVE JUST ANNEXED AND REZONED AND SENT THAT TO CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT A PDD. AND A PDD IN MY OPINION DOES OUR CITY SITUATION BETTER THAN LEAVING IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK.
>> THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE TO -- CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE TO APPROVE THE CDD HAD EITHER.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE
THAT DOWN THE ROAD. >> TALKING ABOUT THE PDD THAT
COULD GET REALLY BAD. >> MDM. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD MOVE TO POSTPONE UNTIL OUR REGULAR MEETING IN OCTOBER ITEM NUMBER SIX ON THE AGENDA.
>> I TOTALLY SEE WHY -- JUST FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, I HATE THAT YOU ARE NOW SEEING IT FOR
THE FIRST TIME WE SUBMITTED. >> WE HAVE ANY LEGAL BASIS UPON
WHICH WE COULD EVALUATE IT. >> THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I'M SORRY.
>> THERE IS NO SECOND. >> ALL SECOND.
>> OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION TO END A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR -- ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
>> ROLL CALL. >> THAT MEANS THAT THIS IS POSTPONE TODAY'S CERTAIN OF 1014 FOR THE PDD ONLY.
[00:45:01]
>> A PDD ONLY. THESE CONDITIONS.
>> MME. CHAIRMAN, IF WE NEED A WORK SESSION, IF YOU WANT TO MEET THE REST OF US ARE AMENABLE TO WE CAN SIT DOWN AND VENT IT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A PUBLIC
MEETING BUT WE CAN VENT IT. >> AT A WORK SESSION.
IF YOU WANT TO CALL THAT. THAT'S YOUR CALL, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU.
[7. The Bottle PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00370]
>> MR. >> THE NEXT COMPONENT OF THIS
IS SOMEWHAT MOOT. >> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I THINK IT IS YOUR DECISION IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CONDITION USES. I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT THAT IF YOU ARE INTERESTED.
>> AT THIS TIME, IT IS CURRENTLY BEING PUSHED DOWN THE ROAD TO CITY COUNCIL WITH CERTAIN ZONING IN PLACE. AND WITHOUT CONDITIONAL USES AND WHAT WE WERE PRESENTED TO KNIGHTS, I MEAN, HE WILL DECIDE. DO WE WANT TO POSTPONE OR MOVE
FORWARD. >> CRYER FOR A COMMENT?
>> YES. >> AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE PDD WOULD YOU POSTPONE TO OCTOBER, THIS CONDITIONAL USE FUNCTIONS AND IS PART AND PARTIAL TO THE PDD. IT SETS THE USES IN PLACE. SO SINCE YOU VOTED TO POSTPONE THE PDD I THINK IT WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM AS
WELL. >> MME. CHARLIE MOVED TO POSTPONE ITEM 7 UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING, OCTOBER 14.
>> WHATEVER THAT DATE IS. >> SECOND.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NOW, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. LET US KNOW WHAT IS ON THAT TODAY?
>> MR. FORGE? WILL YOU PRESENT OUR CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING?
>> I WASN'T PREPARED. >> I AM SORRY.
>> I WOULD BE PREPARED TO DO THAT IS THAT READ EVERY ITEM IS THAT WHICH YOU NEED ME TO DO.
>> YES, PLEASE. >> I HAVE TO WARN MY VOICE UP I
>> OF THAT WE HAVE TO READ THEM DO WE IF THEY NEED TO PULL ANY ITEMS.
>> OKAY. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IF YOU WANT TO PULL ITEMS OFF CONSENT AGENDA YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DO THAT. IF YOU DON'T AND I THINK YOU CAN GO FORWARD WITH A MOTION TO APPROVE EVERYTHING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> MME. CHAIRMAN I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS EIGHT THROUGH 16 ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WELL AS THE PACKET MEETING MINUTES AND THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 12.
>> I WILL SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND
[17. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00457]
>> WE WILL MOVE FORWARD TO NEW BUSINESS AT THIS TIME. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
GOOD EVENING. >> THE CASE IN FRONT OF YOU IS A SORTING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PRESENTED BY STAFF. IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND ARTICLES 2, 4, 5, NUMBER SEVEN, NUMBER EIGHT OF THE AUBURN ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE CHANGES INVOLVES A LOT OF COLLECTIONS TO THE PREVIOUS CROSS-REFERENCES THAT MIGHT BE UPDATED DURING PREVIOUS CHANGES AS WELL AS IT ELIMINATES SOME OBSOLETE A LANGUAGE REGARDING -- REGARDING SOME USES THAT ARE NO LONGER APPLICABLE. IT CORRECTS THE PUBLIC'S WORK DEPARTMENT TO THE SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND ALSO CHANGES THE PLANNING JURISDICTION DISTANCE FROM FIVE MILES TO 3 MILES IN LIGHT OF THE ALABAMA CHANGING ITS PLANNING JURISDICTION LEGISLATION THIS YEAR.
AND THEN THERE ARE TWO SECTIONS OF LANGUAGE THAT APPLY TO SETBACKS AND PARKING THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING BUT WE FEEL LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE RELOCATED INTO AREAS THAT ARE A LITTLE MORE INTUITIVE TO FIND RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND -- AND URBAN CORE AND URBAN
[00:50:04]
NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PARKING AREAS.>> THANK YOU. >> TEND TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S A LOCATION CHANGE. THERE WERE ACTUAL NO TEXT CHANGES.
>> THOSE THERE WAS A SESSION FOR SETBACKS THAT WAS SENT OFF ON ITS OWN.
WE HAVE ELIMINATED THAT SPECIFIC SECTION AND TAKEN IT AND PUT IT IN THE PERFORMANCE AND CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION LANGUAGE AND FOR PARKING, WE TOOK THE -- THOSE SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICT LANGUAGE VERBIAGE OUT OF THE PARKING SECTION AND MOVE THEM OVER INTO THE TABLES. SO THE TABLE 5-3 THROUGH SEVEN.
>> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THAT NOW.
SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> I MOVED TO APPROVE 2021 >> I MOVED TO APPROVE 2020 1457.
>> WE HAVE STAFF COMMENTS? >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.
[18. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00555]
SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENT.
>> GOOD EVENING. THIS IS A SIMILAR REQUEST BY STAFF TO THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE CLEANUP. THIS IS A SUBDIVISION REGULATION CLEANUP TO ALL ARTICLES OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ARTICLE 1 THROUGH SIX.
THE MOST OF THEM ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT JAY MENTIONED WHERE THE EXISTING REGULATIONS REFERENCE PUBLIC WORKS. AND INCORPORATING THE STATE PLANNING JURISDICTION REDUCTION FROM FIVE MILES TO 3 MILES AND WE ADDED A FEW DEFINITIONS IN ARTICLE 2, ARTICLE III THE APPLICATION PROCEDURES. WE MADE SOME REVISIONS AND HOW APPLICATIONS ARE RECEIVED AND HOW WE RECEIVE REPORTS AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT ARE -- ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM THAT WE ARE REQUIRING ON SUBDIVISION PLANTS THAT IS A PURPOSE STATEMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
[AFFIRMATIVE]. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW.
SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 555 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CLEANUP.
>> I WILL SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SAID.
>> I WANT DISCUSSION. >> A QUESTION.
ON THIS JURISDICTION, WE HAVE RAISED DUES STOOD FROM FIVE MILES TO THREE MILES.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THE STATE DID THAT BACK IN
[19. Miracle Road Subdivision, Redivision of Lot D-1 PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00534]
JULY I BELIEVE THAT WAS WHEN IT WAS EFFECTIVE JULY 26.>> ACCORDING TO A STATE REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE TO DRAW OUR REINS BACK
IN JUST A LITTLE. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> A MOTION AND SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT WE HAVE MIRACLE ROADS SUBDIVISION -- NO. WAIT. DID I MISS ONE.
>> MIRACLE ROADS SUBDIVISION NUMBER 19.
>>. >> THIS IS ENTITLED THE SAME
THANK YOU. >> MIRACLE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
PRELIMINARY PLAT. >> YES, MA'AM.
THERE WERE A FEW NAME CHANGES AS THE REVISIONS CAME IN. BUT THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOLLOWED BY A FINAL PLAT TO ESSENTIALLY TAKE WHAT IS AN EXISTING LOT OF RECORD, REMOVE THE LOT LINES AND DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF AUBURN AS A RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH ASSOCIATED EASEMENTS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND IT MEETS THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS. THE REASON THIS IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS BECAUSE ALL PLANTS SHOWING NEW RIGHTS-OF-WAY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN THEY ARE ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. THIS ALSO REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.
I'D LIKE TO OPEN THAT NOW. SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE 2021 534.
UNDER ALL ITS NAMES. >> COMMENTS WITH CONDITIONS.
[00:55:07]
>> I SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION IN SECONDARY
[20. Miracle Road Subdivision, Redivision of Lot D-1 PL-2021-00535]
>> THE NEXT APPLICATION IS THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE SAME SUBDIVISION.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH ALL
CONDITIONS. >> IT DOES NOT REQUIRE IT PUBLIC HEARING AS A TITLE PLAT. COMMISSIONERS.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH ALL STAFF CONDITIONS.
>> AYE. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
[21. Yarbrough Farms, Sections B1 & B2 PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00540]
>> AND MR. HOWELL, >> THIS CASE IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLANT OF 41 LOTS. IT'S WILL INCLUDE 21 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 18 TOWNHOUSE LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 14.8 ACRES. IT IS PART OF THE YARBOROUGH FARMS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND JUST ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE RICHLAND AREA. AS YOU SEE HERE. SURROUNDED MOSTLY BY THE REST OF THE PDD TO THE NORTH AND EAST AND SOME RURAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE WEST AND SOUTH WHICH ARE MOSTLY SCHOOLED USES. THIS IS A COPY OF THE MOST RECENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO THE HIGHLIGHTED AREA IN RED ARE BOTH SECTIONS B 1 AND B 2, THEY ARE SOME OF THE FINAL PORTIONS OF THE PDD TO COME BEFORE YOU FOR SUBDIVISION. TWO -- SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WITH GOD THE CHANCE TO SEE THE FULL LAYOUTS OF THOSE PROPOSALS.
THIS IS A -- THIS IS THE PROPOSED PLANT. IT INVOLVES TWO DIFFERENT CUL-DE-SACS. THE NORTHERN CUL-DE-SAC TO SAY AN EXTENSION OF TYLER'S WAY PAST YARBOROUGH FARMS BOULEVARD. ALL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WILL TAKE THIS ACCESS OFF THAT CUL-DE-SAC. ON THE SOUTH YOU HAVE ANOTHER CUL-DE-SAC COMING IN DIRECTLY OFF OF YARBOROUGH FARMS BOULEVARD THAT WILL PROVIDE ACCESS FOR THE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION.
BASED ON THE LAYOUTS -- THE LAYOUTS OF THE LOTS, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE WILL BE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES, EACH WITH THREE UNITS EACH FOR THOSE TOWNHOUSE PORTIONS.
THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THIS AREA IS.
>> THE APPROXIMATE DENSITY OF A TWO POINT SEE THE PROPOSED LAYOUT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
THE PERCEIVED COMMUNICATION FROM THE NEIGHBORS MOSTLY LOOKING FOR INFORMATION.
THEY DID NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR.
>> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS. IS THERE ANYTHING IMPACTFUL?
>> MOST OF THE CONDITIONS ARE RELATED TO THE FORM AND SURVEY WORK.
AND SO MAKING SURE THAT IT COMPORTS WITH THE SUBDIVISION REGULATION WITH THE INFORMATION ON THE PLAT THAT ANYTHING RIGHT AWAY WITH LABELING, THAT KIND OF THING.
AND THE REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I'D LIKE TO OPEN THAT NOW. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> I'M NOT A PUBLIC SPEAKER. >> YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MY NAME IS ALEX J A Y AND I LIVE AT 1966 YARBOROUGH FARMS BLVD.
SO I HAD SOME QUESTIONS. WHEN IS THE EARLIEST THEY WOULD ANTICIPATE ANY CLEARING OR SITE WORK TO BEGIN. I KNOW MICHAEL MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER IT OR I GUESS WE'LL HAVE REBUTTAL TIME. AND THEN THE SAME QUESTION IS IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY SECTION, WHAT IS THE PLANNED MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF HOW MANY ANTICIPATED PRESS!
[01:00:01]
MY THIRD QUESTION IN THE TOWNHOME SECTION, WHAT IS THE PLANNED MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EACH UNIT AND PRICE POINT. FOURTH QUESTION WOULD LEAD TOWNHOMES BE POSITIONED ON THE LOTS CLOSER TO THE STREET WITH MORE BUFFER OR THE BACKYARD CHILDLIKE ON THE MASTER PLAN? OR WATCH WILL BE THE TOWNHOME STRUCTURE LAYOUTS, WHAT WILL IT LOOK LIKE.AND LASTLY WILL THE TOWNHOMES HAVE FRONT DRIVEWAYS ONLY OUTSIDE? WILL THERE BE AN ALLEY WITH DRIVEWAYS ON THE BACK OF THE TOWNHOMES?
>> I HOPE WE HAVE SOME ANSWERS FOR YOU.
>> SIGN IN. >> AND DO NOT FORGET TO SIGN IN, PLEASE. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT IS.
>> PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. REPRESENTATIVE, DID YOU HAVE --
I'M DAVID SILK AND I'M THE SCHOOL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT.
UNFORTUNATELY A LOT OF THOSE QUESTIONS I CANNOT ANSWER. THEY ARE VERY DETAILED AND ORIENTED MORE TO THE BUILDER SIDE OF THINGS AND I'M ON THE OVERALL PLANNING SIDE OF THINGS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE IS.
SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF. I WOULD ENCOURAGE HER TO CONTACT 'S OFFICE AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO GIVE HER MAY BE THE SCHEDULING AND SOME OF THAT
INFORMATION. >> THERE WAS ONE.
>> THE DRIVEWAYS WILL BE FRONTLOADED. THAT'S ABOUT THE ONLY THING.
THEY ARE SINGLE-FAMILY. IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT. BUT THE PRICE AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF IS DETAILS I REALLY DON'T GET INTO. SO SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET
BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE IN WORKING WITH THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER, DO YOU HAVE SOME GENERAL SENSE OF THE URGENCY? WHETHER THIS MAY START YET THIS YEAR WERE MAY BE PUT OFF.
>> JUST GIVE US. >> MY GUT FEELING WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD BEGIN MAYBE IN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS.
>> THAT'S FINE. >> FAIRLY SHORT-TERM.
>> THAT GIVES US AN IDEA. AND I THINK THAT MAY BE WHAT SHE'S LOOKING FOR.
>> THANK YOU. >> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS" I'VE GOT A QUESTION IN THE PACKET WE TALKED ABOUT EASEMENTS AND -- HAS THAT PROBLEM BEEN ADDRESSED OR IS IT GOING TO BE ADDRESSED OR IS IT AN ISSUE? I THINK WE WERE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE LOCATION OF SOME OF THEM. AND SOME DISCUSSION.
IS THAT STILL KIND OF IN THE WORKS?
>> I THINK ON THIS PROJECT AND SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT BACK FROM STAFF THAT WAS IN THE MEETING HAD TO DO WITH THE EASEMENT DOWN IN THE LOWER BOTTOM CORNER TO THE RIGHT OF THE CUL-DE-SAC. AND INDICATED THAT THAT WAS WHERE THAT SORT OF NEEDED TO BE. IT'S A NARROW EASEMENT. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAVE AS BIG OF AN IMPACT ON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
>> IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE PRELIMINARY.
>> IS BEING ADDRESSED HERE. I DO NOT THINK IS BEING MOVED BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT, A GOOD DISCUSSION SO THAT MOVING FORWARD WE ARE AWARE OF THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES AND WE
WILL LOOK AT A. >> THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION IN THE PACKET MEANING, IT CAME UP AN IDEA WHICH I'M THINKING ABOUT IT.
>> IT'S I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. IF IT CAN BE DONE.
AND THAT IS IN THESE WETLAND AREAS WHERE PEOPLE CANNOT BUILD, IS TO MAKE A NOTE ON THE PLANT NON-BUILDABLE AREA. I MEAN WE PUT ALL OTHER KINDS OF NOTES ON THE PLAT.
THAT MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND ELIMINATE SOME CONCERN AND CONSTERNATION LATER ON, THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE. I WOULD OFFER IT AS A SUGGESTION TO STAFF THAT ON EACH OF THOSE WANTS NON-BUILDABLE AREAS BE
IDENTIFIED. >> I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST AND I'VE SEEN THAT DONE ON PLANTS. IT COULD BE A SIMPLE NOTE.
THERE'S A NOTES SECTION ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE. ANY OF THE LOTS THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAN THERE COULD BE NOTES THAT LOTS BLANK AND BLANK ARE IMPACTED BY THE FLOODPLAIN AND THEIR RESTRICTIONS REGARDING THE USE OF THOSE AREAS.
>> THAT COULD BE ADDED AS A CONDITION BECAUSE THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT I THINK.
>> I MAY NEED TO APOLOGIZE. THE SUGGESTION WAS TO MY FELLOW COLLEAGUES ON THE.
[01:05:06]
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANY OF THAT TODAY I THINK THAT IS A -- THAT'S A QUESTION.
>> I WAS GOING TO. >> TO STEVE! THAT'S SOMETHING WE LOOK AT DURING THE DART PROCESS. IN SOME CASES THEY MAY MITIGATE WETLANDS OR JURISDICTIONAL STRAINS AND THEY DO THAT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND THEN THEY TECHNICALLY GO AWAY. SO IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN CONSIDER. AS WE ARE LOOKING AT THE ENGINEERING PLANS, IF THERE ARE WHAT IS IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAT, IF THEY STAY WE WILL MAKE A NOTE ON FINAL PLAT.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ASK. SO PEOPLE KNOW AHEAD OF TIME.
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> IF THEY -- IF THEY TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AT THE PLANT BEFORE THEY BUY THE PROPERTY. WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> I UNDERSTAND.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS AND THE OTHER DISCUSSION OR MOTIONS.
>> I MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 21. >> THANK YOU.
WITH STAFF CONDITIONS. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
[22. Farmville Lakes, Phase 6 PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00541]
>> THE NEXT CASE IS ANOTHER PRELIMINARY PLAT. THIS TIME ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN. IT'S LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 280 AND E. FARMVILLE RD. THE DEPARTMENT OF LAKES PPD. IT IS A PROPOSAL FOR A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION THAT WILL INCLUDE THREE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITES AND ONE OPEN SPACE SITE.
IT'S ON THE FAR EAST SIDE OF THE PDD. THIS IS THE LAST PORTION OF THAT PDD ALSO FORWARD TO SEE SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY. TO THE -- TO THE EAST OF IT, YOU HAVE COUNTY PROPERTY OR PROPERTY THAT IS INSIDE THE COUNTY.
AND TO THE SOUTH YOU HAVE AN AREA IN THE TUSCANY SUBDIVISION, THE DD AGE DISTRICT -- TO MOLLY -- ONO. THAT'S ASHTON YET. I'LL GET AWAY ONE OF THESE TIMES. HERE'S A COPY OF THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS PORTION. YOU CAN SEE ITS LOCATION. THEY ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, EVERYTHING TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST OUR TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS AND FURTHER WEST YOU START GETTING INTO THE SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN THOSE PHASES RIGHT THERE.
THERE IS AN MVP HERE THIS WAS FIRST APPROVED IN 2018. THERE WAS -- IT WAS -- THERE WAS ALLOWANCES FOR TWO DIFFERENT KIND OF SCENARIOS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PHASE.
ONE BEING COMMERCIAL AND ONE BEING A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY.
AND SO, BASED ON THE -- BASED ON THE SUBMISSION THEY ARE PURSUING THE -- THE SCENARIO THAT INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS AS PART OF A SUBDIVISION FOR MULTIFAMILY, YOU DON'T ACTUALLY GET SPECIFIC HOMESITES. YOU JUST GET THE SINGLE SITE.
BASED ON THE MVP I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT WOULD BE NO MORE THAN 61 MULTIFAMILY UNITS ON A SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT LOTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CLOVERDALE EXTENSION THERE.
THE LOT TO THE NORTH OF THAT AT THE INTERSECTION OF FARMVILLE INTO A DAY WOULD BE THE COMMERCIAL SITE. IN THE OPEN SPACES TOWN ITSELF THIS SUBDIVISION WOULD ALSO WOULD EXTEND CLOVERDALE TO THE -- TO THE HIGHWAY AND WOULD END THE STAFF IS WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDED NOTE THAT NO DIRECT ACCESS TO THOSE SITES BE TAKEN FROM 280 AND EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DONE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PORTION ITSELF IMMEDIATELY OFF OF -- EITHER IMMEDIATELY OFF OF CLOVERDALE OR THAT ROAD RIGHT THERE. WHICH I CAN'T SEE.
>> THERE'S NO CURB CUT FOR THE CLOVERDALE EXTENSION?
>> THAT RIGHT THERE, THERE IS A STUB OUT. YOU WILL SEE THERE IS A STAFF NOTE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE ALIGNMENT OF AGE. ON THE PLAT ITSELF THEY DID NOT PROVIDE THE FULL 50 FEET THAT'S ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT IS IN THERE AS WELL.
THOSE WILL BE ADDRESSED BEFORE THEY CAN BRING THE FINAL TO US.
>> WITH THIS, WITH THIS MULTIUNIT SCENARIO, LOOKING AT APPROXIMATELY 6.3 DWELLING UNITS AS AN ACRE. IT'S IN LINE WITH THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL NOTED IN THE PACKET AND HARRISON OVER ARIEL.
[01:10:04]
I'VE NOT RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE.>> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I'D LIKE TO OPEN THAT NOW.
SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSIONS, MOTIONS, COMMENTS?
>> I WOULD MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK THE ENGINEERING COMMENT NUMBER TWO, IT'S VERY WELL TAKEN. AND I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 22 WITH THE CONDITION,
>> I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
[23. Auburn Farms Subdivision – Sarah Lane PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00543]
>> THE NEXT TWO APPLICATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR SARAH LANE.
THIS IS A -- CURRENTLY A PRIVATE ROAD. IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED.
IT SERVES THESE LOGS OUT HERE IN BETWEEN WOODWARD OAKS AND THE AUBURN FARMS PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. AGAIN, JUST LIKE IN THE EARLIER CASE, ANY PLANTS DEDICATING RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR EASEMENTS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IN THIS WILL GO FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT. THE PLAT MEETS ALL THESE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. AS A PRELIMINARY PLAT THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.
I WILL OPEN THAT NOW. >> I'M JESSE SHE'LL IN.
AND I'M THE RESIDENT OWNER OF 1962 MIRACLE RD. AND I WANTED TO STAND BEFORE ALL OF YOU TO SAY THESE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING ON BOTH OF OUR ROADS MIRACLE RHODIAN SARAH LANE HAVE BEEN DOING AN OUTSTANDING JOB. THIS IS REALLY NOTEWORTHY FOR THE CITY TO SHOW TEAMWORK EFFORT AND I JUST WANTED TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR BEING IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I HOPE THAT IT GOES THROUGH AND IT'S APPROVED TONIGHT.
AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE? PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
>> COMMISSIONERS? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE 543.
>> WITH STAFF CONDITIONS. >> SECOND.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.
[24. Auburn Farms Subdivision – Sarah Lane PL-2021-00544]
>> THE NEXT APPLICATIONS FOR THE SAME PROPERTY AND SAME REASONS.
HERE IS THE PLAT NO CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH
[25. Auburn Farms, Phase 1 PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00545]
THE FINAL PLAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A FINAL HEARING.
>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 24.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT REQUEST IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR AUBURN FARMS PHASE 1. THIS IS A 54 LOT PERFORMANCE SUBDIVISION.
IT'S 30 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LOTS ONE UTILITY LOT AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A BASE ZONING DD AGE AND IS WITHIN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
YOU WILL SEE SARAH LANE, WHICH TIES INTO IT WILL BE ITS MAIN ACCESS POINT AND WILL BE APPROVED TO A PUBLIC STREET ONCE IT IS ACCEPTED. THIS IS THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2017. AND THE PLANT ESSENTIALLY ENCOMPASSES THIS PORTION AND SOME OF THE TOWNHOME PORTION. HERE IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR THE SUBDIVISION. YOU SEE SARAH LANE EXTENDS AND ENDS IN AN ELBOW WHICH WOULD EXTEND UP EVENTUALLY INCLUDING A TOWNHOME LOT HERE. THESE LOTS WOULD BE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UP UNTIL YOU GET TO ABOUT HERE. THERE ARE SOME FLOODPLAINS ON THE PROPERTY AND THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORTS, MOSTLY COSMETIC THINGS
[01:15:01]
TO CLEAN UP THE PLANT. OTHERWISE THE PLAT DOES MEET THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE PLAN TO VELMA DISTRICT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH ALL CONDITIONS. AND I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM.>> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING I'D LIKE TO OPEN THAT
NOW. >> I'M A RESIDENT OF 1962 MIRACLE RD. I'M NOT REAL CERTAIN ON THIS MAP IF IT SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY BUGS UP AGAINST THE BACKSIDE OF MY PROPERTY. AND MY CONCERN IS THAT -- I'M HOPING THAT THEY WILL TEAR DOWN THE BARN THAT IS PARTIALLY LOCATED ON MY PROPERTY.
SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ADDRESS THAT OR THAT THEY TAKE THAT OFF OUR PROPERTY.
AND WITH THE PROPOSED BUILDING. OKAY? THAT'S ONLY HALF.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO PERSONALLY HANDLE BETWEEN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OR IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL NEED TO CONSIDER THAT THAT BARN IS ON MY PROPERTY AND IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> TWICE SIGNING AGAIN OR.
>> YOUR GRADE. >> PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN
. >> YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, RIGHT.
>> I CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST.
>> THANK YOU. YOU CAN COME FORWARD.
>> YOUR GRADE. >> GOOD EVENING.
MIKE MAR I REPRESENT PRECISION SURVEY IN REPRESENTING TIGER CREEK THE ONLY THING I SAY IS I'LL GET WITH MR. SHEALY AND WILL FIND OUT WHERE THE BARN IS LOCATED AND WE WILL WORK TO GET IT REMOVED IF IT IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I'M HERE TO
>> THANK YOU. >> MME. CHAIRWOMAN?
>> YES. >> SINCE THIS IS A FINAL PLAT.
TYPICALLY, YOU WILL SHOW IMPROVEMENTS, THURSDAY BARN AND IT'S NOT ON HER LOT BUT IT'S ON THIS PROPERTY, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS SHOWN ON THE PLAT AND HAVE A NOTE THAT SAYS IT'S GOING TO BE REMOVED OR DEMOLISHED. MAKE SURE THAT SAMPLE.
>> I'D LIKE TO HAVE IT GONNA NOT SHOW UP.
>> THAT WOULD BE FINE (ÁCUSTOMÁ THANK YOU.
[26. Plainsman Subdivision – Connector Road Dedication PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00552]
YOU ARE IN THE RIGHT HANDS NOW. SOMEBODY WHO CAN DO IT.>> I HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMISSIONERS.
>> 545 WITH STAFF CONDITIONS. >> SECOND.
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR THREE LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE DD AGE SOUNDING DISTRICT.
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO START THE PROCESS OF DEDICATING THE RIGHT WAY FOR THE -- THIS PORTION OF THE FUTURE CONNECTOR BETWEEN MLK AND TO RICHLAND.
AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S IN THE PLAINSMAN LAKE AREA THAT YOU HEARD LAST MONTH FOR THREE SEPARATE SUBDIVISIONS. THIS WAS A FOLLOW-UP THAT THE CITY HAD FOR THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THIS SO THAT THE CITY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH ITS CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE FINAL OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO OCCUR.
>> THIS IS THE SUBDIVISION. THE THREE DIFFERENT LOTS IN QUESTION, THERE'S A COMMERCIAL ZONED -- EXCUSE ME ZONED CDD LOT TOWARD THE SOUTH WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY BEING IN THE DD H ON EITHER SIDE THAT WOULD -- THOSE TWO LOTS WOULD ENCOMPASS THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS YOU HEARD LAST MONTH.
THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ITSELF EXTENDS NORTH AND SOUTH THROUGH THE PROPERTY ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE AND THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY ON MAKING SURE THE LAYOUT MEETS THE ENGINEER PLANS FOR THE ROAD ITSELF.
>> I'VE RECEIVED CORRESPOND FROM THE WEST WHO WAS IN FAVOR OF THE -- IN FAVOR OF THE SUBDIVISION AS LONG AS IT FOLLOWED ITS PATH.
>> THANK YOU. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THAT NOW. SEEING NO ONE.
[01:20:04]
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION MDM. CHAIR.
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> HOW FAR IS THE NORTHERN END OF THIS ROADWAY FROM RIDGE ROAD, ROUGHLY? I THINK WE'VE GOT ANOTHER -- WE, THE CITY HAS ANOTHER PROJECT UNDER DESIGN CAN YOU BRING US UP TO DATE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CONTINUITY OF THIS AND MAYBE SOME TIMELINE. ATHIS IS THE PIECE OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF WHAT WE ARE CALLING A RICHLAND CONNECTOR. IT WILL GO FROM MARTIN LUTHER KING DR. AND TIE ACROSS FROM THE WESTERNMOST CREEKSIDE ELEMENTARY DRIVE.
SO THIS IS A BOUT -- NOT HALF OF ALBANY. THERE'S A PORTION OF PROPERTY IN THE IN THE STUDIO -- CITY WERE 85 TO 95 COMPLETE DESIGN AND WE HOPE TO BE UP TO DATE.
>> THESE TWO PROJECTS, THERE'S ONLY ONE LITTLE LINK THE SCHOOL BOARD OWNS -- ABOUT THIS MUCH ON THE MAP. AND THEN WE OWN THE REMAINDER.
>> THAT'S REALLY WHAT I CALL PROGRESS. I THINK YOU ALL ARE DOING
>> HAVING SAID THAT I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 26 ON THE AGENDA WITH CONDITIONS.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
[27. 1426 Saugahatchee Road PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00528]
THIS IS SAY CONDITION REQUEST FROM DAVID LINTON ON BEHALF OF ROBERT PUCCI THE PROPERTY OWNER AT CONDITION REQUEST FROM DAVID LINTON ON BEHALF OF ROBERT PUCCI THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 1426 TALLAHATCHIE RD. IN THE CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHICH IS OFF OF ALLEGRA ROAD.
AND THIS IS JUST AN OUTLINE OF THE SITE. THIS IS A -- KIND OF A UNIQUE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST AND THAT IT'S COMING TO AFTER A VARIANCE REQUEST WAS DENIED.
THE LAUNCH IS CURRENTLY CLASSED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH YOU CAN SEE IS THE STRUCTURE UNDER THE NUMBER 42 THERE. WITH AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IT SHOWS THAT IT'S ACTUALLY CONNECTED NOW. THE VARIANCE REQUEST WAS TO ALLOW THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO HAVE IN ADDITION THAT WOULD PUT IT OVER THE 50 PERCENT ALLOWED FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THIS BUILDING IS CURRENTLY BEING USED AS STORAGE FOR MR. FUJI.
I BELIEVE HE HAS REAL ESTATE REALTY SO BUILDING MATERIALS MORE THAN LIKELY.
SO ONCE THAT REQUEST WAS DENIED WE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT AND FELT THAT BECAUSE OF THE SURROUNDING SIMILAR USES OF COMMERCIAL USES AND THE CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, IT MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO REQUEST CONDITIONAL USE OF A WAREHOUSE FOR THIS STRUCTURE MAKING THIS LOT A MIXED-USE LAUNCH. SO THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WOULD REMAIN BUT THE STRUCTURE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE CLASSED AS A WAREHOUSE USE AND THEREBY PERMITTING ITS CURRENT BASICALLY ITS CURRENT USE AS WELL AS THE ADDITION FOR THE PROPERTY. AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND I BE HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING AS A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THAT NOW.
>> ARGUE THE REPRESENTATIVE? >> I AM.
>> YOU CAN SPEAK OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> SEEING NO ONE ALL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT
REPRESENTATIVE OR STAFF. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
[28. Public Works / Environmental Services Complex PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00551]
>> THANK YOU. RIGHT. THE FINAL ITEM ON TONIGHT'S
[01:25:21]
AGENDA IS A REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF AUBURN FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE USE SPECIFICALLY A MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4277 WIRE RD. WHICH IS JUST NORTH OF BEEHIVE. IT IS CURRENTLY OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, BUT DURING A PREVIOUS ACTION ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, HE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF ITS ANNEXATION. AND IT'S COMPRISED OF THREE PARCELS THAT WILL BE CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE LOT THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION.>> THIS USE WILL FACILITATE RELOCATION OF THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WHICH ARE CURRENTLY HOUSED ON BY NORTH JOHN WHO DR. JUST NORTH OF MARTIN LUTHER KING DR. AND THIS NEW COMPLEX WILL PROVIDE OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE SPACES FOR THESE DEPARTMENTS AS WELL AS SPACE FOR THE FLEET SERVICES A FUELING STATION AND EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL STORAGE STAFF HAD MINOR CONIC COMMENTS ON THE SITE PLAN AND THE PLAN IS CURRENTLY UNDER THE REVIEW. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE USE REQUEST BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL AND IF SO THEY WILL BOTH BE SCHEDULED FOR THE SEPTEMBER 21
THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GOING TO OPEN THAT NOW.
>> SEEING NO ONE I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 511. ALL CONDITIONS.
>> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> ANY OPPOSED? >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
>>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.