Nov 09, 2021 Planning Commission

IT TOOK ME ALMOST A HALF HOUR TO GET HERE.

[00:00:06]

[ROLL CALL]

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

[CITIZENS’ COMMUNICATION]

>> OKAY. BEFORE WE START WITH THE CROWD THAT WE HAVE HERE TONIGHT I'D LIKE TO GO OVER OUR -- THE WAY

[Additional Item]

THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED WITH SOME AGENDA ITEMS ABOUT THE PLANNING STAFF AND A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AGENDA ITEM WILL THEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENTS OR ASK -- ANSWER SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND THEN I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING, IF IT'S APPROPRIATE.

AND THAT'LL BE YOUR TIME TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THE AGENDA ITEM AT HAND. I ASK YOU TO KEEP YOUR TALK TO ABOUT 5 MINUTES, PLEASE AND AFTER EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN THE REPRESENTATIVE STAFF WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS AND RESPOND TO ISSUES THAT CAME UP DURING THAT HEARING.

THEN WE'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE AND SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION AMONG THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF NECESSARY AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VOTE BASED ON STATE AND LOCAL LAWS.

THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2030 AND FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY H-ALSO SINCE WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF SUBDIVISION PLATS THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT TONIGHT, I'D LIKE TO LET YOU KNOW BY ALABAMA STATE -- ALABAMA STATUTE, THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR THOSE PLATS.

AND WITH REGARDS TO THE SUBDIVISION PLATS THE COMMISSION ACTS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY. IT IS BOUND BY THE LIMITATIONS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE STATE LAWS, THE LOCAL CITY ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT THIS PLANNING BODY HAS ADOPTED. WHILE WE DO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON MOST OF THE PLATS AND WE DO WELCOME PUBLIC COMMENT ON THOSE, PLEASE ATTEND THIS COMMISSION AUTHORITY IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO CONFIRMING THAT THE PLAT MEETS OR SPECIFICS ON THE CODIFICATION OF THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. AGAIN, THE -- IF YOU DO -- WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING THAT TIME DURING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SUBDIVISION PLATS, I ASK YOU TO LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO 5 MINUTES. AND FINALLY I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE POINT THAT EXCEPT FOR SUBDIVISION PLATS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ONLY AN ADVISORY BODY.

SO ANY VOTE THAT WE TAKE HERE WILL BE HEARD AGAIN BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A LATER DATE. OKAY.

SO WHAT THEY WANT TONIGHT IS BEFORE WE GET STARTED, THE FIRST ACTION I'M GOING TO HAVE TO -- WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF AND THE FIRST ACTION I'D LIKE TO -- THE APPLICANT FOR -- IS IT NO. 5? THE APPLICANT FOR THE FINAL PLAT SILOS CONWAY WHICH IS PL2021000735 HAS ASKED TO POSTPONE THAT ITEM UNTIL A DATE CERTAIN SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE TO PULL IT OUT OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND I'LL TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO A

DATE CERTAIN OF 9 DECEMBER. >> SECOND.

>> THAT MOTION IS SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION?

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. OKAY.

THAT MOTION CARRIES. NOW, THIS IS THE TIME FOR CITIZENS COMMUNICATION AND THERE ARE TWO BASIC CATEGORIES IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SPEAKING AT THIS TIME.

ONE THAT IS ANYTHING THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND I'LL LIST THOSE HERE SHORTLY AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA AT ALL, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF THING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK ABOUT, THIS WILL WILL BE THE TIME. THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR THE PACKET MEETING OF OCTOBER 11TH, THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 14TH.

THERE IS AN ANNEXATIONS FOR THE OWENS' STATE WHICH IS PL202100723 AND THAT'S IT BECAUSE WE TOOK THE SECOND ONE OFF OF THERE THAT SO IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME ON ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON OR SOMETHING THAT'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ALL RIGHT.

[1. Rezoning from Rural to DDH – Old Samford PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00634]

ITEM NUMBER 1 IS A REZONING FROM RURAL TO DDH, OLD SANFORD.

THIS IS PL2021 -- LET'S SEE. 00634, MR. HOWE?

>> GOOD EVENING. THE FIRST TWO CASES TONIGHT ARE

[00:05:03]

THE SECOND CASE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS IS THE PDD DESIGNATION APPLICATION FOR THE -- SAME -- SAME AREA OF LAND AND SOME ADDITIONAL ONES ON TOP OF THAT.

FOR THE SAKE OF EXPLANATION I'M GOING TO SKIP TO THE SECOND -- THE PDD CASE AND TALK ABOUT THAT 'CAUSE THAT GIVES YOU THE LARGER COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO DO AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK FOR THE DDH SO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN TO THAT AND THEN GO TO THE VOTES. OKAY.

SO THE PURPOSE OF THAT FIRST CASE IS TO MAKE ALL OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS ABOUT 885 ACRES CONSISTENT WITH ITS ITSELF. THE EXISTING LAND IS SPLIT ZONE BETWEEN RURAL AND DDH OR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING.

THE OBJECT -- THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS TO THEN PUT -- IS THE APPLICATION TO THEN PUT UP A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGNATION OVER THE ENTIRETY OF IT.

OVER THAT 885 ACRES. YOU CAN SEE HERE IN THE MAP THE AREA THAT'S INVOLVED ON THE NORTHWEST IS IDENTIFIED OF TOWN --SIDE OF TOWN -- CAN CANNING SWIGS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SAG HACCI CREEK.

AREAS OUTSIDE ON THE -- ON THE -- TO THE EAST AND SOUTH OF IT ARE LARGELY RESIDENTIAL AREAS EITHER ZONED DDH ALSO OR IN SOME CASES CDD. AND THEN IF YOU MOVE TO THE WEST YOU'RE IN AREAS THAT ARE UNINCORPORATED LEE COUNTY THEY ARE INSIDE THE FUTURE -- THE GROWTH BOUNDARY, HOWEVER, CURRENTLY ARE NOT INSIDE THE CITY.

HERE'S A PICTURE AERIAL HERE YOU CAN SEE IT'S UNDEVELOPED AS OF RIGHT NOW. IT INCLUDES AREAS THAT RUN ALONG MRS. JAMES ROAD NORTH WITH THE EXISTING OF 3 EXISTING LOTS THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE -- THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE INCONSISTENT LENGTH OF THE MRS. JAMES ROAD.

AND THEN CONTINUES TO THE AREA -- TO LET LANDS THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF CAMDEN RIDGE AS WELL.

THIS IS THE ORIGINAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN RENDERING THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. THIS WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS. IT WAS ALSO PART OF THE -- THERE'S ALSO PART OF THE STAFF REVIEW FOR LAST MONTH'S PLANNING ADMISSION BEFORE THE APPLICANT REQUESTED FOR IT TO BE TABLED.

AS A RESULT OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET FROM LAST MONTH, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED JUST RECENTLY AN UPDATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH THIS THAT DID ADDRESS MANY OF THE STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THIS IS THE NEW SUBMISSION FOR THE -- FOR THE -- FOR THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. I'LL LEAVE THAT ON THE SCREEN JUST FOR -- SO YOU ALL CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

IT INVOLVES 885 ACRES JUST LIKE WE DISCUSSED.

IT INCLUDES 9 RESIDENTIAL PHASES WITH A COMBINED 1,552 UNITS -- DWELLING UNITS OF PREDOMINATELY SINGLE FAMILY WITH SOME TOWN HOMES. A 24-ACRE AMENITY SITE, A LIMITED COMMERCIAL AREA IN THE CENTER.

A FUTURE SCHOOL ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND TWO PARKS -- TWO SPECIFIC PARKS THAT ARE ARRANGED ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY NEXT TO THE SAG HACCI CREEK. GROSS DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 1.8 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THE REQUESTED BASE ZONING DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW. AND INDIVIDUAL PHASES WITHIN THE -- WITHIN HERE RANGE FROM A LITTLE OVER TWO SWELLING ACRES THAT'S FURTHER OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO A MAXIMUM UNIT 4.9 DWELLING UNITS THAT ARE CENTRALLY LOCATED.

THAT CENTRAL LOCATION IS THE INTERSECTION SHOWN BETWEEN TWO COLLECTOR ROADS THAT THEY HAVE PLANNED, ONE GOING EAST -- OR, EXCUSE ME, ONE GOING NORTH-SOUTH IN THE MIDDLE OF PHASES 1, 2 AND 3. TO A T INTERSECTION WITH A LARGELY EAST-WEST COLLECTOR MOVING -- MOVING ALONG THE MOUSE

[00:10:04]

LET'S SEE. CONSTRUCTION OVER TIME WOULD BEGIN IN JANUARY, 2023 AND END IN NOVEMBER 2036 AS SHOWN IN THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. OBVIOUSLY, THAT TIMELINE IS VERY MUCH SUBJECT -- IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, THAT TIMELINE WOULD BE VERY SUBJECT TO THE DEMANDS OF THE MARKET AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPERS'S TIMELINES AS WELL BUT THAT GIVES A GENERAL IDEA THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD TAKE ABOUT 14 YEARS TO BUILD OUT FROM THE INITIATION OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMITS.

AS PART OF THIS REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE APPLICANT DID INCLUDE A CAP TO THE NUMBER OF HOMES THAT THEY WOULD -- THAT THEY WOULD PLAN TO BUILD PER YEAR.

THE CAP THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING -- THAT THEY'VE -- THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED IN THE NEW MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD BE 170 HOMES A YEAR. BASED ON THE MDP SCHEDULE, WE CAN KIND OF EXTRAPOLATE THE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS PER YEAR WHAT WE COULD EXPECT IF THE UNLIKELY EVENT HAPPENED WHERE THE SCHEDULE OCCURRED AS IT ACTUALLY IS WRITTEN, AND BASED ON THE MDP SCHEDULE ANNUAL HOMES WOULD GENERALLY RANGE FROM BETWEEN 66 HOMES A YEAR AT ITS LOWEST UP TO 148 HOMES AT ITS HIGHEST.

SO THE 170 HOMES PER YEAR PROPOSED CAP DOES HAVE A BUILD -- THE APPLICANT HAS BUILD IN SOME CUSHION FOR THEMSELVES FOR THAT. IT IS WORTH NOTING IF THEY BUILD TO THEIR GAP FOR ALL 14 -- OR FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROBABLY BE BUILT OUT WITHIN -- WITHIN LESS THAN 9 YEARS INSTEAD OF 14 YEARS SO THAT WOULD GENERALLY BE A REDUCTION OF ALMOST A THIRD OF ITS DEVELOPMENT TIME. ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE INTERESTING NOTES ABOUT THIS -- BASED ON THE EXISTING -- BASED ON THE EXISTING LAND -- BASED ON THE EXISTING ZONING, WHICH THE -- THE MAJORITY OF WHICH WOULD BE RURAL ALLOWS LOTS NO LESS THAN 3 ACRES IN SIZE. THE DENSITY THAT WOULD THEN ALLOW TO BE BUILT OUT IS NOT TOO DIFFERENT THAN FROM WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING BASED ON THE FACT THEY'RE PROPOSING DENSITIES WELL UNDERNEATH THE 5.5 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE ALLOWED IN DDH.

THE DIFFERENCE THAT IT WOULD BE MOST QUICKLY FELT IS THE TIME THAT THIS WOULD CREATE WITHIN -- YOU COULD GENERALLY EXPECT WITH THE CURRENT ZONING BASED ON GROWTH TRENDS AND WHAT -- WHAT THE CITY'S PROJECTIONS ARE FOR CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT AND PRESSURE IN THE AREA, WITHOUT ANY REZONING, YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE A MAXIMUM BUILDOUT OF ALL LAND UP THERE.

GENERALLY ABOUT THE 20/80 MARK. THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, IF APPROVED, EVEN THOUGH IT DOES HAVE A VERY SIMILAR TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMES, IT WOULD RESULT IN A BUILDOUT OF 40 YEARS -- OR, EXCUSE ME, 44 YEARS SOONER, GENERALLY AROUND THE 2036 MARK SO THIS WILL DEFINITELY -- THIS WOULD DEFINITELY PICK UP THE PACE OF DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.

YES. ONE OF THE STAFF COMMENTS FROM ONE OF THE FIRST SUBMISSION WAS THAT THE OUTER LOOP NEEDED TO BE SHOWN ON THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THE CURRENT -- THE CURRENT MAJOR STREET PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES ALL FUTURE ROADS AND MAIN CONNECTERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY SHOWS THE -- SHOWS THE OUTER LOOP IN THIS AREA FOLLOWING THE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY THAT REPRESENTS THIS DEVELOPMENT -- THIS DEVELOPMENT'S WESTERN BOUNDARY. SO IT ACTUALLY -- EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE SHOWING IT IN THIS -- IN THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE MAJOR STREET PLANNING ACTUALLY HAS IT ALONG THE BOUNDARY WHERE THE GREENS AND YELLOWS AND THE PURPOSES GENERALLY END AND THAT ENDS THE PROPERTY LINE AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE IT REPRESENTED IN OUR MASTER STREET PLAN.

THIS IS SIGNIFICANT TO POINT OUT BECAUSE AS IT'S SHOWN HERE, IT IS ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF THIS MASTER -- OUT OF SITE OF THIS

[00:15:04]

IF THIS IS APPROVED THIS DEVELOPMENT AND IF THE -- AND IF THE OUTER LOOP FOLLOWS THE MAJOR STREET PLAN, IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SPEED THAT PROCESS UP.

IF THIS IS APPROVED AS IT'S SHOWN HERE, OUTSIDE OF THE PDD THAT TIMELINE WOULD STILL BE INDEFINITE.

LET ME BACK THIS UP HERE. AS PART OF THE -- AS PART OF THEIR PROPOSED MASTER DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT THEY ARE INCLUDING INDEN ACTIVIST AND EXCHANGES.

PDDS ARE ALLOWED UP TO 2 INCENTIVES IN A REQUEST AND THEY HAVE REQUESTED AN INCREASE IN ISR BY 20% FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

STAFF INCLUDED THE COMMENT THAT REGARDED THE PREFERABLE ISOLATION OF CERTAIN TOWN HOMES AND SMALLER LOTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE STAFF CONDITIONS.

TO GENERALLY FOCUS THAT INCENTIVE AT THE -- AT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THEY ALSO ARE REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL FRONT SET-BACKS TO 10 FEET.

THIS IS A SIMILAR REDUCTION THAT'S UTILIZED OVER WOODWARD OAKS. STAFF DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT REQUEST, HOWEVER, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THOSE BE LIMITED TO THOSE HOMES THAT WOULD USE REAR OR SIDE LOADED GARAGE THAT ARE RECESSED FROM THE FRONT SO THAT THE GARAGE WOULD NOT BE 10 FEET FROM THE HOME.

IN THEIR UPDATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN THEY DID SPEAK TO THAT. AND DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

FOR THEIR EXCHANGES EVERY INCENTIVE THEY PROVIDE THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE A EXCHANGE AND THEY INCLUDED A VEJ DATIVE BUFFER AROUND THE ENTIRETY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO IN BETWEEN THE PHASES THEMSELVES AS WELL, AS WELL AS OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS. ONE OF YOUR COMMENTS IN THE PREVIOUS MONTH -- YOU TALKED ABOUT OPEN SPACE AND THEY ORIGINALLY REQUESTED INCREASED -- PROVIDING MORE OPEN SPACE THAN WAS REQUIRED AND STAFF POINTED OUT THAT WAS NOT BEING PROVIDED. WITH THIS NEXT MACHINATION OF THAT PLAN TAKING THAT OUT AND ARRIVING THAT OPEN SPACE WHICH WOULD INCLUDES TRAILS, PAVED PATHS, BIKING TRAILS, LIGHTED PATHS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THE SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS IN QUESTION WOULD COME THROUGH DURING DRT AND WOULD BE -- BASED ON THE ORDINANCE WOULD HAVE TO BE INCLUDED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND SO THAT WOULD BE -- THAT WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE EXCHANGE FOR THE INCENTIVES THEY'RE REQUESTING.

THE SCHOOL THAT THEY'VE LOCATED IS ABOUT 25 ACRES IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER. THE STAFF FEELS THAT A SCHOOL IS A PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE USE IN THIS AREA.

WE DID HAVE A COMMENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SCHOOL TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CENTRALLY LOCATED TO INCENTIVIZE MORE WALKABILITY IN THE AREA THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

WE RECOMMENDED THE EASTERN IS IDENTIFIED PHASE 7 WHICH WOULD PLACE IT CLOSER TO THE CENTER. IT WOULD SURROUND IT MORE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PHASES; YET ALSO KEEP IT LOCATED ALONG THE COLLECTOR ROAD AND IN CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE MAJOR STREET -- OF THE OUTER LOOP, PROTECTED OUTER LOOP.

ALSO ONE OTHER COMMENT FROM STAFF WAS THAT THE COLLECTOR ROAD THAT'S PART OF THE FIRST INITIAL CONSTRUCTION PHASES THAT IT WOULD EXTEND DOWN SOUTH FROM MRS. JAMES ROAD AND DEAD-END IN THE PORTION OF THE EAST THAT ALSO WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WEST HOWEVER NOT STRETCH BEYOND THE EASTERN AND WESTERN BOUNDARIES OF PHASE S 2 OR 3. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT IT NEEDS TO EXTEND AT LEAST EAST DURING INITIAL PHASES TO CONNECT TO KEYSTONE DRIVE THAT'S PART OF CAMDEN SOUTH.

THAT WAY THIS -- THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE -- IT'S APPROXIMATELY 168 HOMES -- ACTUALLY I THINK IT'S 368 HOMES.

LET ME GO BACK. THEY ARE NOT LIMITED TO A SINGLE INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THE FIRST 10 YEARS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT'S LIFE IF IT WERE TO BE APPROVED. 360 HOMES WILL BE INCLUDED IN 1,

[00:20:03]

I POINT THE OUT POINT THAT OUT SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO APPROVE THIS -- OR TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH STAFF CONDITIONS, THEN YOU COULD STRIKE THOSE COMMENTS FROM THE CONDITIONS.

AGAIN THAT'S 3, 4, 5, 10 AND 11 AS WELL AS ENGINEERING NO. 5.

STAFF, HOWEVER, IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION FOR THE PURPOSE -- BECAUSE THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS RURAL.

RURAL DESIGNATIONS ENVISION, OBVIOUSLY, A RURAL -- RURAL LOTS, RURAL ZONING DISTRICT WHICH IT CURRENTLY IS WITH LOTS OF 3 ACRES MINIMUM OR MORE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS A RESULT OF THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. THIS AREA OF TOWN IS GOING TO BE EXPERIENCING THE LARGEST PRESSURE FOR GROWTH THAT WE ANTICIPATE FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL DECADES.

HOWEVER, UNTIL WE CAN GET THE INFRASTRUCTURES TO SUPPORT IT, WE DON'T FEEL THIS IS APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME. THIS IS A MAP OF THE GENERAL AREA. IT INCLUDES THIS PARTICULAR -- WHAT WE CALL THE TRANSPORTATION -- TRANSPORTATION -- OR, EXCUSE ME, TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE OR TAZ AS WELL AS SEVERAL OTHER SWIGS THAT ARE IN THE AREA TO INCLUDE THE PRESERVE, WOODWARD OAKS, AUBURN FARMS. ALL OF WHICH TAKE THEIR PRIMARY ACCESS TO THE CENTER OF TOWN THROUGH DONAHUE DRIVE. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ACCESS THAT THIS AREA HAS TO THE REST OF AUBURN.

NORTH COLLEGE IS STILL AVAILABLE AS LONG AS 280 AND SHELDON MILL, HOWEVER, THE PREPONDERANCE GOES DOWN THE ROAD ALL TOLD, ONCE ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE CONSTRUCTED, NOT INCLUDING OLD SAMFORD, THE -- WHERE'S THE NUMBER? THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EXISTING PLANNED UNITS ACTUALLY EQUALS OUT TO ABOUT 5,000 -- 5,000 UNITS THAT WOULD ALL BE USING THE SAME ROADS TO GET DOWN. OBVIOUSLY, ONCE WE'RE ABLE TO GET THE OUTER LOOP CLOSER TO FEASIBILITY AND OTHER CROSSINGS AT SAGAHACCI THIS WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE CONSIDERED POSSIBLE FOR REDESIGNATION, HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT THE CASE AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT.

SO BEFORE I GO BACK TO THE DDH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF WITH THE PDD. ANYTHING THAT I'VE COVERED ABOUT THIS OR THE UPDATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT THE

APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED? >> LET ME ASK A QUESTION THAT'S MORE RELEVANT TO THE REZONING THAN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT I ASKED THE WRONG QUESTION THE OTHER DAY WHICH I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE IT'S VERY USEFUL WHICH WAS: HOW MUCH -- WHAT UNUSED CAPACITY OF DDH DO WE HAVE CURRENTLY AND YOU GAVE US THAT WHICH WAS 93% USED OF THE PROPERTIES ALREADY ZONED DDH, IF I RECALL. BUT I SHOULD HAVE ASKED: WHERE AND HOW MUCH LAND DOES OUR LAND USE PLAN PROJECT OR DESIGNATE

FOR FUTURE DDH? >> CAN YOU ASK THAT QUESTION ONE

MORE TIME? >> THE QUESTION IS: IF WE'RE REZONING PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE ON THE LAND USE PLAN AS RURAL, ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF OTHER PROPERTIES ELSEWHERE THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED THAT IS ALREADY ZONED DDH BUT WE'RE -- WE'RE BEING ASKED TO GO AGAINST OUR LAND USE PLAN, WHERE

[00:25:06]

>> WELL, I COULD -- I COULD GET YOU A NUMBER OF HOW MUCH OF A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ANY DESIGNATION YOU'D LIKE, HOWEVER, WE DO NOT HAVE AN EARMARKED NUMBER OF -- THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE AN EARMARKED NUMBER OF RURAL -- CURRENTLY DESIGNATED LAND THAT WE WOULD NEED TO GO TO ONE DISTRICT OR

ANOTHER. >> HOWEVER WE DO HAVE A LAND USE

PLAN -- WE DO HAVE ACREAGE -- >> OH, I SEE -- FOR LIKE MEDIUM

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -- >> YEAH, UH-HUH.

THAT. >> I SHOULD HAVE ASKED YOU THAT YESTERDAY. I FORGOT.

>> BUT THAT WAS A GOOD QUESTION. WHICH I HAVE THE ANSWER TO BUT

JUST NOT HERE. >> I UNDERSTAND AND THAT WOULD SURE HELP ME. THANK YOU.

IT'S MY FAULT. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO ROBIN? >> NO, I'M GOOD.

>> IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS I'M GOING TO BACK UP NOW AND GO

BACK TO THE DDH. >> I HAVE ONE THAT HAS TO DO WITH ROADS. DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY PLAN FOR ANY WIDENING OF ANY FARM BUILT ROAD IS THAT FORECASTED OUT YET?

>> YES. [LAUGH]

>> SHE HAS THE ANSWER JUST NOT WITH HER.

>> YES. >> I WAS TRYING TO REMEMBER.

I THINK IT WAS IN THE 3 TO 5 -- >> OH, IS IT?

>> YEAH. >> AND IS THAT GOING TO BE ALL THE WAY -- WHEN I SAY WIDENED IS IT GOING TO BE THIS STRETCH THAT'S NEAR THIS DEVELOPMENT BUT ALL THE WAY OVER TO 280?

>> NO. >> IT GOES TO NORTH COLLEGE.

>> WHAT WE WILL HAVE ON OUR HORIZON WOULD BE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT FARVILLE AND DONAHUE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE DUAL LEFT TURNS OFF FARMVILLE AND DONAHUE AND MAYBE SOME WIDENING AND MAYBE SOME ADDITIONAL LANES BUT NO WIDENING FROM DONAHUE TO

COLLEGE. >> OKAY.

>> OKAY. SO BACKING UP NOW TO THE BASE ZONE -- OR BASE DISTRICT REZONING REQUEST, AGAIN, THIS IS TO MAKE ALL -- ALL LANDS THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE PDD APPLICATION BE CONSISTENT WHICH IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PDD SPECIFICALLY THIS RELATES TO -- A LITTLE OVER 679 ACRES.

SAME AREA WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.

THIS EXHIBIT RIGHT HERE -- THIS SHADED AREA IS THE LAND THAT'S CURRENTLY ZONED RURAL THAT'S BEING REQUESTED FOR THE DDH ZONING DISTRICT. IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE AND I POINTED OUT IN YOUR -- IN YOUR -- IN YOUR REPORTS THAT WITH A DDH ZONING DISTRICT, WITH AN ALLOWANCE OF 5.5 DWELLING ACRES PER ACRE THIS WOULD PERMIT ON THIS PROPERTY ALONE THE MAXIMUM OF 3,736 UNITS. OBVIOUSLY THE -- LIKE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING TO BUILD THAT MANY BUT IF IT WERE TO BE REZONED DDH WITHOUT A PDD, ALL AREAS THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED THAT WOULD THEN BE DDH COULD AMOUNT TO ALMOST 5,000 UNITS IN AND OF ITSELF SO THE ONLY -- EVEN THOUGH WE ARE RECOMMENDING FORDENIAL FOR THE EXACT REASONS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, STAFF HAVE MADE THE COMMENT SHOULD YOU FEEL INCLINED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THIS, YOU SHOULD ALSO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE PDD. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT. I KNOW WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND DO THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE PDD BUT HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING WHAT ALL IS RELATED. WE HAVE RECEIVED LOTS OF COMMUNICATION ABOUT THIS REQUEST MOSTLY WITH -- MOSTLY INFORMATIONAL WITH SOME IN SUPPORT AND SOME IN OPPOSITION.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF BASE REZONING REQUEST.

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

>> THANKS. >> OKAY.

WELL, THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT FIRST THE ITEM NO. 1 IN OLD BUSINESS IT'S GOING TO BE PO202100634 OLD SAMFORD REZONING FROM RURAL TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING AND I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW.

WOULD ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO ONE.

IT'S CLOSED TO PUBLIC HEARING. I MOVE FOR A MOTION AND

[00:30:10]

DISCUSSION. >> WELL, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 1. 2021364.

>> MOTION IS SECONDED. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION?

>> I THINK THE STAFF MADE A VERY PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION AND IT'S VERY HELPFUL AND THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF THOROUGH RESEARCH.

CALL ME OLD-FASHIONED IF YOU'D LIKE SOMETIMES I TAKE IT AS A COMPLIMENT BUT LAND USE PLAN IS NOT SUPPORT THIS AND TRULY OUR LAND USE PLAN PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE UPDATED AND -- BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC AND SO FORTH WOULDA, COULDA SHOULDA THING TURNED INTO YOU DIDN'T AND I UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMICS OF LAND USE PLANS ON THE DAY YOU ADOPT IT, THERE'S THINGS YOU WISH MAYBE YOU HAD DONE DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OF GROWTH AND HOUSING DEMAND BUT I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IF YOU GOT A PLAN AND THIS IS THE OFFICIAL PLAN AS IT STANDS TODAY IS TO STICK TO THE PLAN AND ADJUST YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. I CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE STAFF'S

RECOMMENDATION. >> I'VE EGG RECOGNIZED OVER THIS ONE PROBABLY AS MUCH AS ANY FOR A LONG TIME.

THE DILEMMA WE HAVE WE DID -- AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE IN OUR LAND USE PLAN AND WE PUT A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT AND A LOT OF EFFORT IN OUR LAND USE PLAN. AND I THINK VERY SERIOUSLY BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING THAT IS NOT TIED TO AND RELATED TO THAT.

HOWEVER, THAT WAS DONE 3.5, 4 YEARS AGO.

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE UPDATED DURING THE COVID EPIDEMIC AND WE DID NOT GET IT DONE. RAPID CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE IN OUR CITY. SO NOT THAT THE LAND USE PLAN IS OUTDATED NECESSARILY I DON'T KNOW.

WE HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT.

HOWEVER, HERE WE HAVE A VERY WELL DESIGNED AND A PROJECT LARGE ENOUGH THAT IT CAN BE DONE WELL AND IN THE PHASES AND THE AMENITIES THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING ARE VERY -- TO MAKE THIS A VERY LIKEABLE PROJECT IN MY MIND.

A VERY APPROPRIATE PROJECT BUT THE ONLY DILEMMA WE HAVE IS HOW MUCH CAPACITY AND HOW QUICKLY CAN WE PROVIDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE THE GROWTH BUT I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION IN SPITE OF THAT BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT HAS BEEN DESIGNED AND THE WAY IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED AND THOUGHT WAY WE DO HAVE A -- A DEMAND IN OUR CITY FOR QUALITY HOUSING OF

A VARIETY OF TYPES. >> AND I'D LIKE TO AGREE WITH BOTH OF THOSE POSITIONS REALLY. [LAUGH]

>> THE -- YOU KNOW, THE -- ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS HOW FAST THIS MAY GET BUILT AND THEN IT'S GOING TO CAUSE THE TROUBLE WITH THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING WE'RE GOING TO RUN INTO SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS DEPENDING ON HOW FAST THIS GETS BUILD OUT AND IT LOOKS LIKE, LIKE -- THE WAY THE APPLICANT HAS, YOU KNOW, PROPOSED IT, THEY'RE LOOKING TO KIND OF DO IT FASTER -- I GUESS I'D LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION FROM THE STAFF OF A COUPLE THINGS. ONE IS -- THEY WERE TALKING -- THE APPLICANT'S TALKING ABOUT BUILDING OUT AND CAPPING AT 170 ROOFTOPS A YEAR AND I HEARD A NUMBER OF 60 TO 148, WHAT DOES THAT NUMBER REPRESENT, FIRST OF ALL.

>> THE 170 IS THEIR PROPOSED CAP THAT THEY SHALL NOT GO OVER IN

ANY GIVEN TIME. >> RIGHT.

>> THE DIFFERENT NUMBERS, THE 66, THE 148 -- AS PART OF THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN THEY HAVE TO SUBMITTED A DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE THAT IS GENERALLY FLEXIBLE BECAUSE OF THE WAYS -- THE WAY REALITY IS, BUT BASED ON THAT WE CAN DETERMINE -- BASED ON THE MONTH THAT THEY ANTICIPATE EACH PHASE STARTING IN THE YEAR THAT THEY ANY EACH PHASE STARTING HOW MANY UNITS ARE IN EACH PHASE, WE CAN USE THAT TO THEN DETERMINE THE GENERAL IDEA -- THE NUMBER OF HOMES THAT WOULD BE CREATED EACH

[00:35:03]

AND BASED ON THOSE -- BASED ON THOSE EQUATIONS, THE RANGE -- THE ONES -- THE 66 UNITS -- I WILL POINT OUT THAT THESE NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, ARE BASED ON A CALENDAR THAT IS AT BEST WISHFUL THINKING SO -- BUT THE MINIMUM 66 WOULD OCCUR IN THE YEAR '14 WHICH WOULD BE THE FINAL YEAR OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE HIGHEST THEY WOULD BE BUILDING PER YEAR WOULD BE 148 WHICH WOULD OCCUR IN YEAR 3 OF THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE 3 DIFFERENT PHASES ARE GOING ON CONCURRENTLY.

THE OTHER YEARS THROUGHOUT THE 14-YEAR TIME SPAN BASED ON THAT SCHEDULE FLUCTUATES FROM -- FROM 82 -- OR 70 ALL THE WAY UP TO 138 SO UNDERNEATH THAT 138 SO IT FLUCTUATES EVERY YEAR.

>> SO YOU'RE SAYING -- THEY'RE PROPOSING A CAP OF 170 BUT THE ACTUAL BUILDOUT IS GOING TO RANGE FROM 66 TO 140 SOMETHING

WHATEVER -- >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. SO THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS -- WHAT TRIGGERS ROAD EXPANSION ROAD WIDENING ROAD -- I MEAN, BECAUSE IF WE GET BUILDING TOO FAST BEYOND OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE PROBLEMS. AND SO WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN IS -- IS THERE A WAY -- WE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT IT IN PACKET MEETING OF BEING SOME KIND OF A THROTTLE TO WHERE WE CAN SAY, OKAY, WAIT A MINUTE, WE'RE NOT -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE OUTPACING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> RIGHT. >> SO IS THAT -- IS THAT IN OUR PROCESS SOMEHOW OR IS IT -- HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS USUALLY WILL ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.

ALLISON SCOTT -- >> THAT'S CORRECT, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'LL DO IS IF YOU AND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THIS WE'LL TRY TO GO BACK AND RECONCILE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO THE TRAFFIC SCHEDULE THAT'S GIVEN IN THE MID TO MAKE SURE THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN LINE WITH THE PACE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. BUT THE DEVELOPMENT IS PREDICATED ON THE CITY DOING CERTAIN THINGS AT CERTAIN

INTERVALS ALREADY. >> OKAY.

SO WE HAVE -- SO THE CITY HAS A WAY OF SAYING, OKAY.

WAIT A MINUTE, NOT SO FAST. LET US TAKE CARE OF SOME INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEN LET'S RESTART OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. I MIGHT NOT BE USING THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY BUT I HOPE YOU GET MY INTENT.

>> I GET YOUR INTENT BUT I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO ANSWER, THOUGH, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

[LAUGH] >> THE CITY'S ABILITY TO DELIVER INFRASTRUCTURE IS BASED ON THE CITY COUNSEL'S PRIORITIES AND HOW THEY FUND THOSE. MY JOB IS TO SUBMIT THOSE ITEMS TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO SAY: WE NEED "X" IMPROVEMENT BY THIS YEAR BASED ON PROJECTIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL'S PURVIEW IS EITHER TO AGREE WHAT I'M SUGGESTING OR WHAT THE CITY

MANAGER RECOMMENDS OR -- >> OR WE GO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT THAT'S IN PLACE -- >> YES, BUT I'M SAYING THE DEVELOPMENT -- THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON SOMETHING THE CITY IS PLANNING TO DO.

SO IF THE CITY DOESN'T DO SOMETHING, THIS DEVELOPMENT COULD BE AFFECTED BY THAT. DOES THAT ANSWER HELP?

>> YES. THANK YOU.

OKAY. >> MY CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC.

I DON'T LIVE UP THERE BUT THE AMOUNT OF VOLUME I SEE MOVING UP NORTH DONAHUE AND COMING OUT OF NORTH DONAHUE EVERY DAY IS ENORMOUS AND ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT ALREADY OWN HOMES UP THERE THIS IS JUST GOING TO EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM UNTIL THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS THERE AND EVEN WIDENING NORTH DONAHUE ALONE IS NOT GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT NIGHTTIME MIND TO SOLVE -- YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS UP THERE WHETHER -- NO MATTER WHAT WE DO WITH THIS ONE WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE GROWTH IN A LOT OF OTHER AREAS, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SO -- I'M LEANING STRONGLY TOWARDS SUPPORTING THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT'S DENIAL RECOMMENDATION FOR ALL 3 BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE US -- I CAN'T SEE A REASONABLE SOLUTION IN ANY -- COMING IN ANY TIME SOON. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE'RE DOING A DISSERVICE TO EVERYBODY THAT'S ALREADY BOUGHT A HOME UP

[00:40:01]

THERE. >> WELL, MY CONCERN IS THE INCONSISTENCY IS WHAT IS OUR CURRENTLY IN USE PLAN SO I COULDN'T AGREE, YOU KNOW, OR APPROVE.

>> WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A VOTE. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL ON THIS ONE.

[2. Planned Development District – Old Samford PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00635]

>> THAT MEANS THE -- SINCE WE CAN'T HAVE A PDD ON A RURAL

AREA -- >> IT'S A MOOT POINT.

>> SHOULD WE JUST -- >> I THINK -- WELL, THAT WAS THE REZONING SO YOU VOTED 2-4 TO RECOMMEND NOT APPROVING IT TO

THE CITY COUNCIL. >> RIGHT.

>> I WOULD GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE SECOND ONE, PDD NOT THE SAME VOTE TALLY BY I WOULD TAKE A MOTION ON THAT.

>> AND HANDLE IT THE SAME WAY. SO THAT ALSO BRINGS UP ANOTHER KIND OF A PROCEDURAL ISSUE IS THAT IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC

HEARING. >> UH-HUH.

>> SO WE'LL HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH -- SINCE YOU HAVE MADE THE PRESENTATION FOR BOTH OF THESE, LET'S DEAL WITH THE CASE NUMBER -- ITEM NUMBER PL202100635, WHICH IS THE OLD SAMFORD PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND I'LL OPEN IT FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

>> PHIL, IF I CAN -- I WILL JUST FOR THE RECORD SINCE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT, STAFF WOULD HAVE DURING THE COVID TEST AND DURING THE PANDEMIC DURING ALL THE DELAYS THERE WAS A FUTURE LAND USE DEBATE THAT WAS PLANNED FOR THAT.

I'LL JUST POINT OUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT STAFF WOULD FEEL IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR DESIGNATED --

>> OKAY. SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN SO ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME TALK ABOUT THE PDD THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> ITEM 2?

>> SUBJECT TO ALL THE COMMENTS. >> YES, ALL THE COMMENTS MINUS

THE ONES WE STRUCK. >> OKAY.

I SECOND THE MOTION. >> A MOTION TO SECOND.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS AGAIN WE CAN'T PUT A PDD

ON A RURAL PROPERTY SO -- >> LET ME SPEAK TO -- UNDER A DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

A LOT OF WORK AND NEGOTIATION AND COMPROMISE HAS GONE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PLAN. AND IN MY OPINION IN GENERAL IT'S NOT A BAD PLAN. BUT AN ATTRACTIVE PLAN.

BUT I THINK IT'S JUST TOO MUCH TOO FAST IF THE ZONING HAD PASSED, I WOULD HAVE NOT SUPPORTED IT FOR THAT PARTICULAR

REASON. >> OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.

[3. Preliminary Plat - Sutherland Subdivision, 2nd Redivision of Lot 2 PL-2021-00643]

>> OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS STILL UNDER OLD BUSINESS. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE SUTHERLAND SUBDIVISION PL202100643 BUT I HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE -- IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE FOR

THIS ITEM? >> THEY PROVIDED WRITTEN --

WRITTEN REQUESTS TO POSTPONE. >> OKAY.

THEY DID. >> YES, SIR.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION FROM THE CHAIR TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL A DATE CERTAIN OUR NEXT MEETING I ASSUME IS WHAT THEY ASKED FOR?

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

AND THAT'S DECEMBER -- >> 9TH.

>> 1ST. >> IT CAN'T BE THE FIRST --

>> DECEMBER 9TH -- DECEMBER 9TH A DATE CERTAIN DECEMBER 9TH

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AS SECONDED THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. OKAY.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

NOW WE'RE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THE ITEMS HERE ARE THE

[00:45:07]

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED WITH THE MINUTES IN THE PACKET MEETING

AND THE REGULAR MEETING. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION IN SECOND ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

[6. Rezoning from Rural to DDH – Cox/Wire PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00630]

A REZONING ON THE ROYAL BDH ON THE COX RURAL ROAD AREA PL202100630. MISS ROBSON?

>> I FEEL LIKE I LOOK LIKE A FLOATING HEAD.

[LAUGH] >> OH, THAT'S BETTER.

>> OH, SHE'S GROWING. LOOK, LOOK.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> ALL RIGHT.

THERE WE GO. OKAY.

THESE NEXT 3 CASES ARE SIMILAR TO THE ONES THAT JAY JUST DESCRIBED. THIS IS 3 REQUESTS -- THE FIRST REQUEST IS A REZONING FROM RURAL TO DDH.

THE SECOND REQUEST IS A PDD DESIGNATION.

THE THIRD REQUEST ARE THE CONDITIONAL USES.

>> OKAY. >> AND I'LL JUST START WITH THE VERY BEGINNING. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE 49.14 ACRES CURRENTLY ZONED RURAL TO DDH.

THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF COX AND WIRE ROAD. A MAJORITY OF THE AREA WAS ANNEXED IN '95. THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, THE SILOS WAS ANNEXED IN 2016, A PORTION OF IT WAS, AND THE REMAINDER WAS ANNEXED OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.

THAT IS ZONED LDD WITH A PDD OVERLAY.

THE FUTURE LAND USE IS MASTER PLAN MIXED USE WHICH WAS RECENTLY CHANGED LAST YEAR WITH THE COX AND WIRE ROAD FOCUS AREA STUDY. IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN RURAL SO THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MASTER PLAN MIXED USE ALLOWS A BROAD MIX OF USES BUT IT'S CONTEXTUAL TO THE AREA THAT SURROUNDS IT. THE REQUEST -- HERE'S THE --

[COUGHING] >> SORRY, HERE'S THE FUTURE LAND USE. YOU'LL SEE THE AREA -- IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE. IT'S OUTLINED IN RED BUT IT'S ALSO RED AT THE CORNER SURROUNDED BY MASTER PLAN MIXED USE WHERE THE SILOS IS AS WELL AS ADJACENT ON THE EASTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SWAN FARM DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY IN THE COUNTY AND THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE LIMITED RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS BELOW THAT. ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, IT IS RURAL AND IN ADDITION TO THE TWO EXISTING MASTER PLAN MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS, A LARGER PORTION -- PROBABLY OUR LARGEST PDD IN THE CITY COLLEGE CROSSING IS OFF OF WIRE ROAD IN THE VICINITY.

A MAJORITY OF THE AREA IS COMPRISED OF ACAL LANDS, LARGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. A FEW COMMERCIAL USES NORTH OF THE PROPERTY AND PROBABLY THE MOST DENSE RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE THE COLLEGE CROSSING PDD AS WELL AS THE SILOS AT CONWAY.

DDH IF YOU MAXIMIZE THAT DENSITY FOR THE 49.1 ACRES THAT WOULD RESULT IN 270 DWELLING UNITS. SIMILAR TO JAY'S REQUEST, THIS IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THEY ARE NOT PROTESTING TO MAXIMIZE THAT 5.5 DWELLING UNITS. THEY ARE PROPOSING A 3.34 DENSITY WHICH IS ABOUT 60% OF WHAT THE 270 UNITS IS FOR THE PROPERTY. AS I MENTIONED THE SILOS AT CONWAY HAS A DENSITY OF 1.IN OUR 2 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE WHICH IS ON THE LOWER SIDE FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND COLLEGE CROSSING HAS A DENSITY OF 6. SO THIS IS GENERALLY IN LINE WITH THE AREA AT A 3.33 DENSITY WHICH THEY ARE PROPOSING.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL FORWARDING TO CITY COUNCIL WITH CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT PARTICULARLY SINCE

[00:50:04]

ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> MR. BASS QUINN, WOULD YOU

LIKE TO HAVE A WORD? >> I'LL CUE UP MY PRESENTATION.

I'M JUST GOING TO GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL AND GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

-- STATE OF DID A GOOD JOB -- KATIE DID A GOOD JOB AND I'LL JUST GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL AND EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE KIND OF HAVE 3 DIFFERENT ITEMS AND THERE'S 3 SEPARATE CONDITIONS SOME OF THOSE CONDITIONS OVERLAP I WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE SAME CONDITIONS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

LIKE SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT, THIS IS A 49 ACRES APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL, 40 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL WE'RE H-THE PROPOSED USE HERE IS REALLY MORE OF AN AGENT PLACE TYPE PRODUCT.

IT'S A -- IT'S A QUAD TYPE PRODUCT.

WE'RE PROPOSING TO AGE RESTRICT THIS TO 55 PLUS PER THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES AND 55-PLUS THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY SENIOR-RELATED PRODUCTS IS MUCH LESS -- IT'S LESS THAN HALF OF THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY A TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT, YOU KNOW, 55-PLUS PEOPLE ARE GOING OUT AND GOING OUT MORE SOCIAL-TYPE STUFF.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WORK EVERY DAY PRIMARILY COMING TO AND FROM. YOU DON'T HAVE SCHOOL-AGED KIDS SO YOU'RE NOT IMPACTING THE SCHOOLS AND YOU'RE ALSO NOT IMPACTING AND LEAVING FOR RECREATION -- PARKS AND REC FACILITIES FOR BALL GAMES AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF.

THERE'LL BE A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WILL ACTUALLY MAINTAIN THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOMES. THEY'LL MAINTAIN THE CLUBHOUSE POOL AMENITY AREAS, ALL THE LANDSCAPING WILL ALL BE DONE SO ESSENTIALLY YOU LIVE THERE AND ALL THE EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE ESTABLISH THAT CARE OF FOR YOU. WE'RE PROPOSING THIS TO BE PRIVATE STREETS BECAUSE IT'S PRIVATE STREETLIGHTS WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THIS GATED FOR SECURITY PURPOSES AND FOR -- AND PLUS THAT AGE TARGET TENDS TO LIKE THAT.

BECAUSE WE HAVE GATED STREETS IT MAKES IT PRIVATE STREETS SO THIS IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED A MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT.

EVEN THOUGH THESE WILL BE SOLD AS INDIVIDUAL UNITS, IT'S CONSIDERED INTO MULTIUNIT AND IT'LL BE UNDER THE CONDO UNIT -- EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT WILL BE A CONDOED UNIT.

IN THE DEVELOPMENT WE ARE PROPOSING AN ENHANCED ROAD SECTION THROUGH THERE. WE ARE PROPOSING 5 FOOTE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY ONLY HAVE TO HAVE ONE FOUR FOOTE SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET.FOOT SIDEWALK ON OF THE STREET.

WE'RE CURRENTLY SHOWING OPEN SPACE INCLUDING A CLUB AND POOL HOUSE YOU CAN KIND OF SEE AN CENTRALIZED AREA IN THE MIDDLE WHERE WE HAVE POOL AND CLUBHOUSE, WALKING TRAILS, FIRE PITS, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF STUFF, AND LIKE I SAID, THE TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH THIS -- WITH A 55-PLUS COMMUNITY IS LESS THAN 50% WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE FROM A TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. WE DO HAVE A NATURAL STREAM THAT KIND OF SEPARATES THE RESIDENTIAL FROM THE ADMINISTERING AREA. IN THE COMMERCIAL AREAS WE'RE PROPOSING AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY ALONG WITH COMMERCIAL USES -- COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT UP AT THE CORNER.

HERE'S SOME PICTURES SIMILAR TYPE PRODUCT THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST. IT'S THIS QUAD TYPE PRODUCT.

TYPICAL -- THIS IS A TYPICAL KIND OF QUAD FLOOR PLAN WHERE THE GARAGES ARE INTERIOR TO THEIR SHARED -- IT'S APPROXIMATELY A TWO-BEDROOM TWO-PATH BASEMENT MASTER ON THE MAIN. THERE'S AN OPTION TO HAVE A THIRD BASEMENT IN THE SECOND STORY.

YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THERE'S OUTDOOR PATIOS.

THEY'LL HAVE THE OPTION FOR THOSE TO BE COVERED AS WELL.

AND, OF COURSE, THEY'LL HAVE KIND OF A THEIR OWN YARD

[00:55:05]

STAFF HAS THE -- HAS THE 55-PLUS AGE RESTRICTION LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WE SENT THAT TO STAFF IF YOU'RE CURIOUS ON HOW THAT READS BUT WE'RE INTERESTED IN THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ON THAT. ON THE ASSISTED LIVING PIECE WOULD BE SOMETHING SIMILAR THAT WAS DONE ACROSS FROM THE HUE HIGH SCHOOL AT THE END OF SAMFORD VILLAGE COURT THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY THERE AND THAT'S JUST SOME PICTURES OF THE EXISTING ONE ON THE EXTERIOR AND THEN ON THE INTERIOR.

IN REGARDS TO THE REZONING TO DDH ON THE RESTRICTIONS IS THERE THERE -- IN REGARDS TO THE VEHICULAR OR PEDESTRIAN CROSS ACCESS RECOMMENDATION THERE, THE NATURE OF HAVING THE GATED STREETS AND HAVING THE THE GATED IN THE PRIVACY WE'RE TRYING TO GET THERE HAVING A VEHICULAR ACCESS KIND OF PROHIBITS THAT IN ADDITION WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE THE STREAM AND NOT HAVING TO MITIGATE THE STREAM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SO WE'RE PROPOSING THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE -- CURRENTLY IF THERE'S A 8 FOOT MULTIFOOTPATH ON COX ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STREET TYPICALLY IN THE PATH IF YOU HAVE A MULTIUSE PATH YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE A SIDEWALK ON THE OTHER.

IN THIS CASE WE'RE PROPOSE TOG CONNECT THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION UP TO THE ADMINISTERING WITH A FIGHT-FOOT COMMERCIAL IN THE WALKWAY. SO IN REGARDS TO THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY WE ARE LOOKING AT WAYS TO POTENTIALLY TRY TO CROSS THAT CREEK WITH A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OR SOMETHING, LIKE, THAT TO CONNECT THE RESIDENTIAL TO LET TO THE ASSISTED LIVING AND COMMERCIAL FACILITY. WE COULD PROBABLY DO THAT CLOSER TO THE STREET. WE COULD PROBABLY DO THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE PLAN ON PUTTING A 5-FOOT SIDEWALK ON COX ROAD TO CONNECT THIS SO YOU COULD WALK FROM THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT UP TO THE -- TO THE COMMERCIAL. SO THAT -- THAT ADDRESSES THE -- THE CONDITIONS THAT I WANTED TO JUST TO BE CLEAR ON, OUR POSITION ON THOSE -- ON THOSE CONDITIONS ON THE REZONING TO THE DDH. I'LL COME BACK UP AND DISCUSS THE OTHER ONES ONCE WE GET TO THOSE BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER

ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING SO IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A

MOTION. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

-- ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. THE MOTION CASTERS.

[7. Planned Development District – Cox/Wire PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00631]

IT'S THE RELATED PLAN -- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON THE SAME PROPERTY. MISS ROBSON.

>> THAT'S CORRECT AND UMBRELLA'S ALREADY TALKED ABOUT MOST OF IT SO I WILL JUST FOLLOW UP WITH SAME PROPERTY.

THE -- I WISH WE COULD ZOOM IN JUST A LITTLE BIT.

THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY NOW IT'S MOSTLY VACANT UNDEVELOPED WITH A VACATED DWELLING NEAR THE NEW ROUNDABOUT. THE STREAM DOES BISECT THE PROPERTY THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS PASTURE LANDS AND FORESTED PROPERTY. THE PROPOSAL DOES SHOW 164 UNITS. THEY ARE QUAD-TYPE STYLE HOUSES AS WELL AS A FEW DUPLEX-STYLE HOUSES.

IT IS AGE RESTRICTED 55 AND OLDER.

WE DO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT HE REFERRED TO THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENT TO MEET THAT STIPULATION. THEY ARE PROPOSING A VERY LARGE AMENITY TOWARDS THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT I MENTIONED YESTERDAY AT YOUR PACKET MEETING WAS TO WAS TO INCLUDE SOME SORT OF PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY ADJACENT TO COX ROAD THAT HE DOES LA UP TO THAT AMENITY AREA MAYBE DOWN THE CENTER OF THOSE UNITS, AND 20 -- AND TO INCORPORATE MORE OF THAT STREAM THAT DOES BISECT THAT

[01:00:01]

>> CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE PEDESTRIAN PATH 'CAUSE

I DID NOT SEE THAT. >> RIGHT, I DID NOT MENTION THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT. I FAILED TO INCLUDE THAT BUT WE HAD DISCUSSED THAT PREVIOUSLY WITH THE APPLICANT TO JUST ADD -- AND YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE I'M POINTING WITH THIS POINTER

BUT FROM THE COX ROAD AREA. >> UH-HUH.

>> TO THE AMENITY PORTION -- >> AS MR. BASS QUINN TALKED ABOUT HAVING THE SIDEWALK THAT'S GOING TO GO ON COX ROAD SO

YOU -- >> INTERNAL, INTERNAL --

>> INTERNAL, OKAY. >> UH-HUH.

>> OKAY. >> AND CAN YOU SOMEBODY ON THE CLICKER THERE CAN YOU PUT THE CURSOR WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE DETENTION POND OR -- I'M SEEING IT RIGHT NOW.

I JUST WANT TO KIND OF GET AN IDEA WHERE YOU'RE PROPOSING

THAT. >> I THINK IN GENERAL IF YOU IT SHOWED UP THERE IT'S PROBABLY LEFT OF THE WORD COX AT THE BOTTOM. COX ROAD.

>> AND THEN NORTH. >> AND GOING STRAIGHT UP IN THE OPEN SPACE. SOMEWHERE THROUGH THERE AND, OH, THAT WAY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT

GOING OVER TO THE FACILITY. >> INTERNAL FOR THE --

>> OKAY. >> FOR THE RESIDENTS TO GET

THERE. >> I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION

NOW, OKAY. >> YES.

>> EVERYONE AGREE TO THE -- >> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT. THEY DID PROVIDE MORE OPEN SPACE THAN IS NECESSARY. 30% IS REQUIRED WHICH EQUATES TO A LITTLE OVER 14 ACRES AND PEOPLE HAVE PROVIDED 17 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE. I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IF THEY INCORPORATED SOME OF THE

STREAM INTO THE AMENITY PACKAGE. >> SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE PART OF A MOTION WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING THAT IN.

>> THAT IS PART OF THE CONDITION FOR APPROVAL.

THAT IS MENTIONED IN THERE. >> WE'RE WORKING ON ITEM 700631.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT'S --

>> AND YOUR RECOMMENDATION HAS NO CONDITIONS.

>> IT DOES. THE COMMENTS ARE TOWARDS THE

BACK OF THE -- >> I'M LOOKING AT IT BUT I DON'T

SEE IT. >> ON THE COMMENTS ON THE FRONT

PAGE BUT THE COMMENTS ARE THE. >> SOMETHING WAS LOST IN TRANSLATION BECAUSE WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH

CONDITIONS. >> SOMETIMES I NEED A LITTLE

HELP ON THE FRONT PAGE. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. >> NO PROBLEM.

>> OKAY. >> AND THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE IS IN THE WRITTEN COMPONENT OF THE MDP.

THEY ARE SCHEDULED TO DO HALF OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN APPROXIMATELY 2 YEARS REMAINING. HALF OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL IN DECEMBER OF 26 AND THEN BEGIN ON THE INSTITUTIONAL USE WHICH IS THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND FINISHING UP WITH THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT IN 2026.

>> TWO QUESTIONS. >> YES.

>> UNRELATED, ARE THERE ANY OTHER 55 AND OLDER COMMUNITIES

IN AUBURN. >> I COULD THINK OF ONE THE

LEGACY AT CARRY CREEK. >> SECOND ONE I BOUGHT MORE BAGS OF PECANS I CARE TO ADMIT TO THAN A PECAN FARMER THAN.

IS THAT ON THIS PROPERTY. >> IT IS DUI NORTH OF THIS

PROPERTY. >> DUE NORTH.

FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS DUE NORTH OF THAT PROPERTY.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> NO, MA'AM. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, KATIE.

>> YEAH. >> SORRY.

>> NO YOU'RE GOOD. >> WHEN YOU SAY INCORPORATE THIS STREAM IN THE OPEN AREA TO BE ACCESSIBLE WHAT DOES THAT LOOK

LIKE POSSIBLY? >> POSSIBLY ELIMINATING OR RELOCATING ONE OF THE UNITS ON THE IS OUTSIDE OF THE STREAM JUST SO IT'S MORE ACCESSIBLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT, TO THE

RESIDENTS. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> UH-HUH.

[01:05:04]

>> OKAY. AND THEN MR. -- YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO COME UP AGAIN LATER SO COME ON UP.

>> I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF THOSE CONDITIONS.

>> OKAY. >>, YOU KNOW, REALLY THE ONLY ONES THAT WE HAVE A CONCERN WITH ARE THE -- ARE THE PLANNING ONES SO THE FIRST ONE IS LOCATE THE COMMERCIAL PARKING SO THAT SCREEN OF THE BUILDING IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE INTERSECTION.

I MEAN, I THINK -- IF WE DO THAT WE'RE REALLY PIGEONING HOLING OURSELVES ORALLY WHAT USES WE CAN DO HERE.

. YOU KNOW, WE TYPICALLY SEE A STREET FRONTED BUILDING IN A MORE CLOSER INTO TOWN ESPECIALLY THE WAY THIS PROPERTY IS SHAPED AND PINCHED NEARLY THE CORNER THERE SO IF I HAVE TO PUT A BUILDING BETWEEN THERE AND THE PARKING I REALLY CAN'T REALLY HAVE A BUILDING FOR ABOUT 200 TO 250 FEET AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION SO THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE WAY AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION WITH HOW I'M PINCHED AT THE CORNER UP NEAR THE ROUNDABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE FLEXIBILITY ON OUR POTENTIAL USERS. I THINK OUR PACKET MEETING THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A GAS STATION, YOU KNOW, THE LIKELIHOOD OF A GAS STATION AT THIS LOCATION IS PROBABLY SLIM TO NONE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE NEW BURKES UCKEE'S DOWN THERE AND THERE'S FOUR OTHER STATIONS DOWN THERE FROM A GAS STATION PERSPECTIVE THAT'S NOT THE USE WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

THIS IS KIND OF AN AGE AND PLACE PRODUCT WITH THE ALS FACILITY THERE AS WELL. THE THOUGHT IS THAT THE RETAIL ASSOCIATED WITH THIS IS GOING TO BE STUFF THAT'S GOING TO BE DRIVEN TOWARDS SUPPORTING THOSE USERS WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, DOCTORS OFFICES OR YOGA STUDIOS OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT'S GEARED TOWARDS THE NEIGHBORHOOD USES HERE, NOT NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, LIKE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT'S MORE INTENSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE JUST DON'T SEE THAT IN THERE.

THAT'S HOW WE FEEL LIKE IT'S BEING GEARED.

WE DID INITIALLY HAVE ANOTHER CURB CUT.

THE CITY ASKED US TO CONSOLIDATE OUR CURB CUT WITH AN ALS FACILITY AND SO WE HAVE DONE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SHOWING ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET SO THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT BEING ONE BUILDING IS PROBABLY SLIM. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS. BUT KNEW THE COMMERCIAL IN THIS AREA IS REALLY GREEN. IT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHILE TO GET THERE AND SO WE WOULD REQUEST TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THAT ESPECIALLY AT THIS INTERSECTION YOU'RE REALLY NOT SCREENING IT 'CAUSE OF THE ODD ANGLE OF THIS INTERSECTION IS PRETTY MUCH IS GOING TO BE WIDE OPEN OF ANY POSITION THAT YOU COME FROM. THE SECOND ONE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM INCORPORATING -- I MEAN, WE'RE INCLUDING THE STREAM AS PART OF OUR OPEN SPACE.

IT'S GOING TO BE USED. THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY WE'VE SET UP THE WHOLE THING TO WORK. THERE WILL PROBABLY BE WALKING TRAILS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF TO BE INCORPORATED IN THAT ON BOTH SIDES ON THE RESIDENTIAL AND ON THE ASSISTED LIVING SIDE AND THEN THIRDLY, THE -- THE PAGE LEFT HERE BECAUSE NORTH IS ACTUALLY TO LET RIGHT THERE'S A PRETTY GOOD GRADE CHANGE THERE AND IT'S HEAVILY WOODED TO THE LEFT THERE AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO PRESERVE THAT NATURAL BURVER BETWEEN US AND THAT, YOU KNOW, FUTURE -- YOU KNOW, THE FULLER FUTURE LAND USE IN ZONING TO THE LEFT OF US AND WE'VE TRIED OKEECHOBEE A PRETTY GOOD BUFFER AND TRIED TO LEAVE IT UNDISTURBED THERE, AND SO THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY THAT THEY WANT THROUGH THE MIDDLE KIND OF SPLITTING UP THE ROAD THERE -- THERE'S ONLY ABOUT A 1100 FEET FROM ROAD TO ROAD LEFT TO RIGHT, INTERNAL TO OUR DEVELOPMENT, 1100 FEET SO IF I'M IN THE MIDDLE THERE AND I WANT TO WALK AROUND ALL I'M HAVING TO DO WORST-CASE WALK 500 FEET ON ONE SIDE TO CATCH THE STREET AND GO, YOU KNOW, ON AN AGE RESTRICTED PRODUCT, PART OF THE CONCERN IS -- IS SAFETY, IS -- UNION, YOU KNOW, CONNECTIVITY, WALKABILITY AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. NOT TOO MANY PEOPLE LIKE THE PEDESTRIAN PASS CUTTING THROUGH PEOPLE'S YARDS, WALKING THROUGH PEOPLE'S YARDS IN A DEVELOPMENT TO ACHIEVE WHAT THE CITY IS WANTING US TO DO IN CONNECT AGO DRIVEWAY THROUGH THERE -- OR A PEDESTRIAN PATH THROUGH THERE, WE'D TO HAVE SHIFT EVERYTHING 30 FEET TO THE WEST AND REDUCE THAT UNDISTURBED BUFFER THAT WE HAVE TO THE LEFT THERE AGAINST THE -- THAT RURAL ZONING, AND SO WE FEEL LIKE PROVIDING THE 5 FOOT SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE

[01:10:03]

THAT'S OUR OPINION ON THAT. I DON'T SEE NEIGHBORHOODS -- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS OR NEIGHBORHOODS SIMILAR TO THIS THAT HAVE PEDESTRIAN PATHS THAT CARVE UP 1100 FOOT BLOCK LIENGTS I JUST DON'T SEE AND SO WE'D JUST REQUEST THAT CONDITION NOT BE PLACED ON THAT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.

OKAY. WELL, THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING SO WOULD ANYBODY, LIKE, TO COME TO SPEAK ON THIS PDD? PLEASE DO SO NOW. COME ON FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE THE PUBLIC HEARING ASK FOR A MOTION -- MR. CHAIRMAN I'D MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 7 ON THE AGENDA WITH STAFF COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS.

>> NOW, DO WE HAVE -- IF THAT -- THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE US TO

ADD THAT OTHER CONDITION; RIGHT? >> I WOULD THINK SO, YES.

>> SO -- >> IT'S INCLUDED IN THE MOTIONS.

>> AND THAT'S THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY?

>> DID YOU INTEND THAT ONE, MACK --

>> YES, I DID. >> THE ONE VERNBALLY ONE.

>> YES, I DID AND THE IS IN THESE 55 AND OLDER ESPECIALLY THE OLDER GOOD EXERCISE IS HAVING A PLACE TO WALK AND FOR IT NOT TO BE TOO LONG 'CAUSE I'M GETTING NOW THAT I CAN WORK -- WALK FURTHER THAN I CAN WALK BACK AND I GOT TO BE CAREFUL THAT I SELECT MY ROUTES AND THIS WOULD BE AN IDEAL DISSECTION OF THAT FLEXIBILITY. I THINK IT'S A GOOD STAFF

SUGGESTION. >> WHAT WAS THE MOTION AND

SECOND. >> I HAVEN'T HAD A SECOND YET --

>> I'LL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND SO

LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION. >> OKAY.

YOU KNOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE RECOMMENDATION I KNOW THAT WHAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKING MEANING THAT PEOPLE JUST DON'T LIKE PEOPLE WALKING A FEW FEET FROM THEIR KITCHEN WINDOW IN OTHER WORDS I DON'T SEE THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS REALLY ON THIS PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT. THE STREETS ARE 700 FEET LONG THE STREETS I'M NOT THAT WOULD INCREASE CIRCULATION ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD NOT CREATE MORE DIFFICULTY IN THE MINDS OF SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE. SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ONE. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PARKING TRYING TO PARKING COMMERCIAL ON THE END OF THE -- WHAT IS THAT EAST, NORTH?

>> WELL, NORTH ACTUALLY, NORTH --

>> BUT THAT ONE I CAN SEE -- >> WAITING FOR THAT.

>> BUT IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT AGREES WITH THAT I WOULD OFFER A

AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. >> I AGREE WITH YOU.

I ACTUALLY WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE STAFF I DON'T -- I WOULD CHOOSE NOT TO REQUIRE THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS PLUS THE VERBAL

ONES. >> SO WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION

FOR AMENDMENT HERE. >> I KNOW I'M JUST TELLING -- --

SO HE KNOWS -- >> THE FIRST ONE YOU'RE TALKING

ABOUT. >> THE COMMERCIAL PARKING.

>> AND THE CONNECTION -- SORRY, NUMBER 1 WITH THE COMMERCIAL PARKING AND NO. 3 ABOUT THE SPACE SPACE AREA AND THE VERBAL ONE YOU USED TO ADDRESS SO --

>> YES, WE HAVE -- >> IT'S A MESS.

>> WHEN WE SAY INCORPORATE THAT STREAM INTO THE OPEN SPACE YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT REQUIRES -- SOMETHING LIKE ANOTHER WALKWAY OR PATHWAY WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SOMEHOW SPREAD THINGS OUT A LITTLE BIT AND GET IN THERE.

>> POSSIBLY BUT I THINK BRETT DID POINT OUT THAT THEY WERE POSSIBLY GOING TO INCORPORATE TRAILS WALKING WITH THE STREAM,

SO... >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR

AMENDMENT AND WHAT IS THAT? >> THAT WE RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ALL COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS

[01:15:03]

PATHWAY -- >> EAST-WEST.

>> EAST AND WEST AND -- AND THAT'S AS FAR AS I WOULD GO BUT -- WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT ONE.

SO THAT'S THE AMENDMENT THAT WE RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS AND OF STAFF NOTES AND -- WITH THE EXCEPTION

OF THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY. >> I SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND AND AN AMENDMENT, OKAY?

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? >> YEAH.

I THINK I'VE EXPRESSED -- I FEEL LIKE WE OUGHT TO SUPPORT THE STAFF AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEIR STUDY.

>> OKAY. >> QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, LET'S -- SO WE'RE MAKING -- HAVING A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

>> NO. >> OKAY.

SO THE AMENDMENT CARRIES, SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED. AND WE HAVE HAD -- WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE

TAKE A VOTE ON THAT? >> OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. >> NO.

>> MOTION CARRIES AS WELL. >> EVERYBODY GOT THAT OVER THERE. [LAUGH]

[8. Conditional Use – Cox/Wire PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00632]

>> THANK YOU. OKAY.

WE'RE MOVING ALONG HERE, SO NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONDITIONAL USES ON THE SAME PROPERTY.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THE FINAL COMPONENT OF THIS PROJECT ARE CONDITIONAL USES AND THEY ARE REQUESTING NUMEROUS BLANKET CONDITIONAL USE. I CAN GO THROUGH THEM IF YOU'D

LIKE. >> THAT'S NOT NECESSARY.

>> OKAY. INSTITUTIONAL USES I'M JUST GOING TO DO THE CATEGORIES. INSTITUTIONAL USES, SEVERAL ROAD SERVICE USES WHICH I WILL POINT OUT THAT A GAS STATION IS BEING REQUESTED IF YOU GUYS THINK THAT THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE LAND USE AT THIS LOCATION, THAT'S NOT PART OF THE APPROVAL MOTION.

>> RIGHT. >> RECOMMENDATION SO IF YOU DO NOT THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE, PLEASE SAY SO.

LET'S SEE. COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT USES.

OFFICE AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL OF THEM.

>> OKAY. >> ALL OF THOSE USES WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

GASOLINE STATION IS PROPOSED TO NOT BE INCLUDED.

WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL -- >> IS THAT A STAFF COMMENT?

>> IT IS NOTED IN HERE. >> YEAH, I DON'T SEE IT HERE.

>> UNDER A. >> A CLARIFICATION.

>> UH-HUH. >> YEAH THE COMMENTS ARE ON

PAGE 4 AND 5. >> YES.

THANK YOU. >> 3 -- YOU FOUND IT?

>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER? TERMS OF GAS STATION IT'S AN OVERSIGHT ON OUR SIDE ANYWAY.

I'M FINE STRIKING ALL THE CONDITIONS THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH ALL IN LINE PRETTY MUCH WITH WHAT WAS ALREADY PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED SO NO BIG DEAL. >> OKAY.

THANKS. THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COME SPEAK ON THE CONDITIONAL USES FOR -- COX WIRE ROAD DEVELOPMENT PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE CLOSED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ASK FOR A MOTION TO

BEGIN DISCUSSION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 8 ON THE AGENDA WITH STAFF CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS.

>> SECOND. >> LET ME -- MY APOLOGIES.

>> I APPRECIATE YOUR SECOND BUT WE'RE ELIMINATING THE CONDITION OF A SERVICE CONDITION IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY?

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

[01:20:03]

>> YES. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IN THE PLANNING COMMENT RELATED TO INCLUDE A CONNECTER VEHICULAR PREFERRED BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL ASSISTED LIVING AND THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD CAUSE -- IS THAT STILL INCLUDED -- THAT IS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION BUT IS THAT -- IS THAT -- IS THE -- IS THAT PREFERRED OVER LEAVING THAT CREEK. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A VEHICULAR ACCESS TO IT.

>> I BELIEVE SINCE YOU STRUCK THAT CONDITION IN THE PREVIOUS ITEM THAT THAT WOULD CARRY OVER BUT I WOULD ALSO CARRY THAT --

>> IN THE MOTION. >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THAT TO INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR MOTION.

>> I SEEN IT'D BE NICE IF THEY GO TO VISIT AND NOT WALK THEY'D HAVE TO GET OUT ON COX ROAD AND COME IN AT THE OTHER -- AT THE OTHER EXIT BUT TRAFFIC JAM, WE WERE LOOKING VERY FAVOR APPLY ON THAT CREEK AND IT BEING AN AMENITY AND I'M NOT SURE IT WOULD BENEFIT HAVING A BRIDGE OR BIG CULVERT SO YOU COULD PUT A VEHICULAR PATHWAY OVER IT. SO --

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, SO IN ANY RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU MAKE ON THIS IF YOU CAN CLARIFY AGAIN. I THINK IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR VEHICULAR BRIDGE CONNECTION, THAT'S ONE THING. AND THEN IF YOU'RE STILL IN SUPPORTIVE A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING THEN JUST MAKE THAT CLEAR AS WELL SO THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY SO...

>> I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT THEN.

>> ALL RIGHT. THEN I MAKE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT THE CASE NUMBER 00632 BE RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE STAFF WITH THE EXCEPTION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL ASSISTED LIVING AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.

>> SECOND. >> A SECOND AND A MOTION --

>> THE AMENDMENTS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT?

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. THE MOVEMENT CARRIES OKAY.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL -- >> BUT DID WE -- WE INCLUDED A

PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION -- >> YEAH.

WE JUST LEFT -- WE JUST TOOK VEHICULAR OUT.

>> YES. >> THE DIRECTOR SAID WE OUGHT --

>> OKAY. NOW, THE -- BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION NOW WHAT ABOUT THE GAS STATION BECAUSE WE STRUCK THAT.

>> THE MOTION WAS VERY -- WE TRIED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE GAS STATION WAS EXCLUDED FROM THAT MOTION.

>> OKAY. THAT WAS IN THE MOTION.

THE ONLY THING WE AMENDED WAS ELIMINATING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ACROSS THE STREET. ONE OF MOMENT AND SECOND DO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION. DO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION.

[9. Planned Development District Amendment – Hamilton Place PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00716]

AYE. >> THE MOTION CARRIES.

OKAY. ONTO THE NEXT ONE.

THIS IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HAMILTON PLACE PL2100716.

MR. KIP? >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS A REQUEST BY PSM HOLDINGS LLC AND T DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED. THEY'RE REPRESENTED BY BRETT BASSMAN FOR SITE GROUP AGREE INCORPORATED.

IT IS A REQUEST TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING PDD IN ORDER TO ADD APPROXIMATELY 4.21 ACRES.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSIST OF 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAMILTON ROAD AND OGLETREE ROAD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED -- HAS A VARIETY OF ZONING GOING ON.

IT'S BASED ON LDD. THE HAMPTON PLACE SHOPPING CENTER IS PDD AND A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT. HERE'S AN AERIAL SHOWING THE CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS MORE OR LESS.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER WITH ADDITIONAL RETAIL AND GAS STATION ON THE CORNER.

THE PROPOSED LAND BE ANNEXED -- NOT ANNEXED BUT ADDED TO THE PDD IS BEING OUTLINED NOW THERE'S CURRENTLY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE NOW. I BELIEVE IT'S UNOCCUPIED.

THE -- A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ABOUT THIS REQUEST.

[01:25:03]

THERE WAS A FEW DIFFERENT CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO SITE PLANS THAT WERE PRESENTED. THERE WAS A REHEARING GRANTED AND THEY WERE ABLE TO COME BACK IN LAST YEAR WITH A REVISED SITE PLAN THAT SHOWED A NEW ROADWAY BEING PUT IN PLACE.

THEY ARE COMING BACK TO YOU BECAUSE 12 MONTHS HAS ELAPSED SINCE THE FIRST TIME YOU HEARD THE REQUEST.

AND HERE'S THE ORIGINAL PDD. IT WAS IN 2008 AND HERE IS THE REVISED PDD. THEY'RE REQUESTING THE AMENDMENT

TOO. >> THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE PROPERTY IS CONSERVATION CONFIGURATION CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION OR ONE HOME PER ACRE AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE PLAN.

THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS IF YOU ARE INCLINED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS, KIND OF BY WAY OF ADDING MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, IT WOULD RECLASSIFY THE SHOPPING CENTER FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER TO A COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER. THE INTENT THERE IS NOT TO ADD ANY NEW -- BEYOND WHAT'S BEING REPRESENTED HERE OF 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE. THE INTENT IS NOT TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL OR BUILD OUT THE SHOPPING CENTER ANY LARGER THAN WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED HERE.

THAT SAID, IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO APPROVE A RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, STAFF WOULD PROFFER THE CONDITION BE THAT NO MORE THAN 125,000 SQUARE FEET BE DEVELOPED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND WE DID RECEIVE 6 EMAILS IN OPPOSITION ESSENTIALLY LISTING THE SAME CONCERNS YOU HEARD LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR

BEFORE. >> MR. BASS QUINN? SO, YES, WE'RE BACK BEFORE YOU THIS TIME LIVE AND IN-PERSON.

LAST TIME IT WAS DURING ZOOM ALL THE DIFFERENT ONES WERE IN DIFFERENT ZOOM SO IT MADE IT CHALLENGING.

ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE AGAIN I'D JUST KIND OF GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW ON THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE PUBLIC WAS DEVELOPED, THE ACCESS FOR THIS PARCEL WAS REMOVED FROM MOORS MILL AND HAD TO BECOME INTERNAL TO THE PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT FOR DRIVEWAY SPACING AND SO THAT DRIVEWAY IS REMOVED AND THAT'S PART OF THE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THIS PIECE AND THE PUBLIC'S CENTER.

NOW, THE FUTURE LAND USE SHOWS THIS AS A CONSERVATION CLUSTER WITH THE 5-ACRE MINIMUMS WHICH ALL PARCELS ARE SMALLER THAN A 5-ACRE MINIMUM BUT TO THE NORTH OF US IS THE NEW CHURCH THAT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WHICH WAS APPROVED AND WE'RE KIND OF GOING IN AND KIND OF CREATING A NATURAL TRANSITION FROM THIS CREEK THAT'S ON THE EASTSIDE OF US BETWEEN US AND THE REST OF THE RURAL PROPERTY TO THE EAST THERE. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT STEP-DOWN USES FROM THE BACK OF A PUBLIC LOADING DOCK TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS NOT COMPATIBLE.

AND WE FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, TRADITIONALLY WE USE OFFICE OR TOWN HOMES AS A STEP-DOWN USE BETWEEN A HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND A RESIDENTIAL USE, YOU KNOW, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE WE'RE IN A -- IN THE OGLETREE WATERSHED WATER USES ARE NOT ALLOWED. SO THIS IS THE MECHANISM WE'RE PROPOSING TO STEP DOWN FROM THE BACK OF THE COMMERCIAL INTO THE, YOU KNOW, FUTURE RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST SO THERE IS -- THERE IS A NATURAL BUFFER THERE WITH A STREAM ON OUR EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST WE'VE

[01:30:01]

AT THAT TIME, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC STUDY WAS DONE AND PROVIDED BY US AS WELL AS THE CITY -- THE CITY ENGINEER PERFORMED A SEPARATE SPEED STUDY AND CRASH STUDY OF THIS CORNERED AND PROVIDED A MOST OF THEM TO COUNSEL THAT ESSENTIALLY GAVE THEM A MOTION THAT THEY WEREN'T ESSENTIALLY CONCERNS AS PART OF THAT. IT GOT TURNED DOWN IN COUNCIL AND SO WE IMMEDIATELY TURNED BACK AND BROUGHT BACK IN THE LAYOUT WITH THE DRIVEWAY ALIGNED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE WE WERE BEING ASKED TO DO AND EVERYBODY DIDN'T WANT IT ALIGNED WITH THE DRIVEWAY EITHER SO IT'S KIND OF DARNED IF YOU DO AND DARNED IF YOU DON'T. I THINK THE FEEDBACK WE HEARD DURING THE LATEST ITERATION WITH THE PLANNING IMPLICATION WAS THAT THEY PREPARED THIS LAYOUT IN INTERCONNECTION AND USING THE SHARED DRIVEWAY AND SO WE'RE BACK BEFORE YOU AGAIN TONIGHT TO TRY AND OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR THE OFFICE USE HERE.

YES, IT IS 40,000 SQUARE FEET. WE ARE STILL PROPOSING TO USE THE BUILDINGS UP FRONT MOORS MILL -- WE'RE STILL PROPOSALS, YOU KNOW, PART OF THIS ARCHITECTURE WAS DEVELOPED AND COORDINATED WITH PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE WHERE IT MADE A MORE RESIDENTIAL FEEL. THAT'S THE BACKSIDE OF THE OFFICES FACING MOORS MILLS SO THAT IT LOOKS LIKE A FRONT NOT A BACK AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL PROPOSING TO GO BY THAT ON THOSE -- ON THOSE -- ON THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON THE MOORS MILLIONS FOOTAGE. AGAIN, WE'RE ONLY COMING HERE TO GET OFFICE APPROVED. THERE CAN'T BE ANY EXPANSION TO THE COMMERCIAL USES. THERE CAN'T BE EXPANSION OF ANYTHING ELSE TO COME BACK BEFORE BACK TO YOU BEFORE BUILDING THE SITE SPECIFIC OFFICES THAT WE'VE -- THE OFFICE USES THAT'S ON THIS 4.2 PARCEL. I'M HAPPY TO USE ANY QUESTIONS

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU.

OKAY. THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK TO US AND ONCE YOU'RE DONE, CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN IN OUR LITTLE LIST RIGHT THERE.

>> ABSOLUTELY MY NAME IS ERNIE MERIT I LIVE AT 2492 GLEN BROOK DRIVE WHICH IS THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD STRAIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR CITY AND TO OUR RESIDENCE.

SO I THANK YOU FOR THAT. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A QUITE LONG PERIOD OF TIME AS EACH OF YOU ARE VERY AWARE. WE HAVE, OBVIOUSLY, AS A RESIDENT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD STRAIGHT ACROSS, I'VE WRITTEN EACH OF YOU AND, OBVIOUSLY, STAND BEFORE YOU AND ASK THAT WE SUPPORT THE STAFF AND ASK THAT THIS NOT BE CONTINUED.

WE ARE ALL FOUR RESIDENTIAL. WE HAVE NO ISSUES WITH ANY RESIDENTIAL USE OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

THE CONCERN I HAVE IS A RESIDENT THAT LIVING IN THAT AREA AS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ANYWHERE FROM 140 TO 180 AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER BECAUSE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE HAS NOW CHANGED FROM THE 32,000 THAT IT WAS LAST YEAR TO THE 40,000 I BELIEVE IT IS NOW. WHAT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW MANY TRUE PARKING SPOTS THAT WILL BE AND THEN THE IMPACT OF THAT TRAFFIC THAT'S IN THAT AREA.

IF YOU'VE BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD ANY TIME SOON FROM 8 ANYWHERE FROM THAT 730 TO THE 8:30 TIMEFRAME OR IF YOU TRAVEL IN THAT AREA IN THE 430 TO THE 530 TIMEFRAME, IT IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AREA AND NOW YOU'RE ADDING ANOTHER 140 POSSIBLE PARKING SPOTS, CARS COMING OUT AND ARE COMING OUT OFF-CENTERED TURNING DIRECTION CREATES SOME SERIOUS CONCERN AROUND SAFETY.

THERE IS SOME CONCERN AROUND THE WATERSHED.

I KNOW SOME OF THAT HAS BEEN STUD.

I'M NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH TO REALLY SPEND SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT DOWN BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING 40,000 MORE FEET OF ROOFTOP TO INCLUDE ASPHALT TO INCLUDE PARKING SPACES THAT COULD ULTIMATELY IMPACT A WATERSHED DOWN AS WE HAVE A LAKE OR RETENTION POND IN THE BACK OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NOW THAT IS ALREADY OVERFLOWING WITH THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE HAD NORTH OF US THAT HAVE HAD SOUTH OF US AS WE GO

[01:35:03]

I KNOW THERE WAS A LAWSUIT -- I THINK THAT LAWSUIT HAS NOW BEEN SUSPENDED TO GO BACK BEFORE AS IT HAS CLEARED THE YEAR PERIOD.

WHAT I'M ASKING AND WHAT I'M ASKING FOR ALL OF YOU IS JUST JUST TO CONSIDER THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.

THE LAND COMP FOR THAT AREA CLEARLY CALLS FOR THAT TO BE A RESIDENTIAL AREA ADDING IT TO PDD MOST OF IT TIME WHEN YOU LOOK AT A PDD IT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S NOTHING BEEN PLANNED ABOUT THIS.

THIS HAS BEEN ADDED ON THE BACK OF THE PUBLIC.

I HAD HEARD EARLIER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A GOOD ROADBLOCK OR A GOOD TRANSITION FROM THE BACK OF A LOADING DOCK THERE ARE MORE THAN IN A CITY THAT'S OCCURRING THAT'S RESIDENTIAL YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING OF WIN DIXIE THERE'S A COLLEGE THAT'S BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW RIGHT BEHIND IT SO THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH RIDICULOUSLY. QUITE CANDIDLY WE LIVE BEHIND IT WE LIVE BEHIND A CVS AND EVERY HOME LIVES BEHIND THAT CVS THERE'S A LOT MORE TRAFFIC THAT'S BEEN GOING ON IN THAT AREA. THE CITY HAS NOW APPROVED ANOTHER RESTAURANT THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING BEHIND RIGHT BEHIND THE CVS RIGHT BEHIND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD WHICH IS CREATING MORE TRAFFIC.

SO WE -- BASED ON ALL THESE THINGS AND THESE DISCUSSIONS AND BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF I'M HERE TO ASK THAT YOU ALL CONSIDER DENIAL ONCE AGAIN, FOR THIS PARTICULAR

REQUEST. >> YES, SIR.

>> I'LL BE NEXT. >> OKAY.

>> GOOD EVENING. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT

I AGREE WITH WHAT -- >> CAN YOU GIVE --

>> YES MY NAME IS ANDREW PRICE I LIVE AT 2575 LYNN BROOK DRIVE, AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 9 YEARS.

AND I HAVE A 16-YEAR-OLD DARE WHO'S JUST NOW DRIVING AND A 13-YEAR-OLD WHO WILL BE DRIVING SOON.

AND I WANT TO JUST REEMPHASIZE THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE LEAVING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. IT'S AN EXTREMELY BUSY STREET.

OUR SIGHT LINE TO THE EAST -- YOU THINK OF IT BEING SOUTH 'CAUSE YOU GO THAT WAY TO HEAD SOUTH OUT OF TOWN BUT IT'S GENUINELY MORE EAST THAN SOUTH BUT IT'S EXTREMELY SHORT, AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE DECISION FRAME THAT I HAD TO MAKE -- TO EXIT THE SUBDIVISION, IT'S EXTREMELY COMPLICATED.

YOU HAVE LIMITED SITE DISTANCE TO THE RIGHT.

YOU LOOK TO THE LEFT. YOU HAVE ONCOMING TRAFFIC FROM THE OGLETREE HAMILTON SUBDIVISION.

YOU ALSO HAVE TRAFFIC LEAVING THAT FROM BOTH THE PUBLIC INSTANCES AND THE CVS EGRESS ONTO THE STREET.

IF ANYONE SAT THERE TO WATCH HOW THE TRAFFIC WORKS PEOPLE ACTUALLY COME TO THE PUBLIC'S EXIT SOMETIMES THE -- THE FURTHER JESTING EAST EXIT BEHIND THE LOADING DOCK BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE EDITORS TO EGRESS OUT OF THERE THE MORE BUSY AND TOWARD THE ARE THE BUT IT'S JUST -- IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, LIMITED SITE DISTANCE TO THE RIGHT AND YOU LOOK TO THE LEFT.

YOU HAVE TO MAKE A SPLIT-SECOND DECISION.

NOW, IF WE, YOU KNOW, INCREASE THAT DECISION DIFFICULTY BY ADDING ANOTHER BUSY ENTRANCE FROM THE OFFICE -- PROPOSED OFFICE SPACE IT'S JUST ANOTHER CATEGORY OF RISK THAT YOU'RE ADDING TO THIS ALREADY DIFFICULT EGRESS ONTO MOORESVILLE.

I ALSO -- I'M ONE OF THE THREE HOA BOARD MEMBERS AND I KNOW THAT WE OVER $1,000 A YEAR TO PAY FOR TRASH PICKUP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALONG OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE FRONT OF MOORS MILL ROAD AND I PERSONALLY GO OUT -- ALONG WITH OTHER NEIGHBORS HELP PICK UP THE TRASH THAT FLOWS SPOKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM ACROSS THE STREET.

I'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY -- THE INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF GARBAGE THAT WE ARE RECEIVING IN OUR ENTRYWAY THAT THEN BLOWS FAILURE OUR SUBDIVISION AND I ACTUALLY RECENTLY PICKED UP GARBAGE FROM THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET WHERE -- AS THE CITY MAINTAINS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IT RELEASES THIS GARBAGE THAT IS COMING FROM OUTSIDE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD INTO

[01:40:06]

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING I'M BOB GREEN HALL, 2486 GLEN BROOK DRIVE. IN THE GLEN BROOK SUBDIVISION AND I'D LIKE TO REQUEST IF WE COULD TO GO BACK TO THE DIAGRAM -- WHO'S CONTROLLING THE DIAGRAM?

>> WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT TO LOOK --

>> I WANT TO BACK OUT SO THAT WE SEE THE BENT BROOK AREA ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT WHOLE DEVELOPMENT BEHIND THE THE CVS.

>> IF YOU'VE GOT AN AERIAL OF IT THAT'D BE GOOD.

>> NO. >> GO TO THE AERIAL -- I THINK

THE ONE BEFORE THAT. >> THIS IS FOR ILLUSTRATION.

ONE OF THE FIRST REACTIONS I HAD WITH THIS --

>> YOU SEE THIS UP THERE. >> I JUST WANT YOU TO GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE --

>> OH, MY QUESTION, OKAY. YOU CAN SEE THAT ONE OF MY FIRST REACTIONS WHEN THIS ALL OCCURRED INITIALLY WAS THAT I JUST ASSUMED WHEN I PURCHASED MY HOUSE IN 2010, THE YEAR WE WON

THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. >> WAR EAGLE.

>> WAR EAGLE. [LAUGH]

>> AND I LOOKED ACROSS BEHIND THE PUBLIX AND I SAW THIS PROPERTY AND I THOUGHT WELL, I WONDER WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THAT WHEN YOU BUY A HOME YOU SORT OF PUT YOURSELF DOWN ON THE SPOT OKAY. I CAN LIVE WITH THAT AND I CAN LIVE WITH THAT LOW FLYING APPROACHING AND DEPARTING AIRCRAFT COMING OVER MY HOUSE, WHICH THEY DO AND I LOOKED AT THAT AND I THOUGHT, OKAY, THERE COULD BE A CONTINUATION OF DEVELOPMENTS OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PDD WHATEVER EXTENDING OUT BEHIND THE THE PUBLIX. I WONDER HOW FAR THAT WOULD GO OR SHOULD GO LOGICALLY BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE ARE LOGICAL.

YOU SPEND MUCH TIME WAS STILL THIS AND I'M A NOVICE, OBVIOUSLY. WELL, I LOOKED BEHIND THE CVS WHERE WE ARE AND I THOUGHT, OKAY, SOMEBODY HERE WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSAL TO INITIALLY PUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THING IS A RESPECTFUL NICE PLACE TO LIVE. WE LOVE IT AND HOW FAR OUT -- YOU CERTAINLY WOULDN'T COME BACK IN LATER AND PUT MORE BUSINESS OR OFFICE SPACE OR WHATEVER ON THE OTHER IS IDENTIFIED US CONTINUING ON OUT THERE BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY NICE NEIGHBORHOODS RIGHT ALONG THERE AND I'M THINKING, OKAY, HOWEVER BEHIND THE PUBLIX SIDE OF THAT BEFORE YOU THOUGHT, WELL, THIS IS JUST REALLY WEIRD TO HAVE ALL OF THESE BUSINESS PROPERTIES EXTENDING OUT THAT ROAD ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ENTER AND TO TAIL IN WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT DOWN THAT STREET DOWN MOORSMEL TOWARD PUBLIX FROM OUTLINING AREAS. THE SPEED LIMIT -- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THIS. I THINK IT'S 45 AND IT DOES NOT -- THE SPEED LIMIT DOES NOT GO DOWN FOR A LONG TIME WHICH IS GREAT ON HOURS THERE'S NO TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING MY 45 AND I'M HAVING A GOOD TIME BUT A LOT OF THE DAY AND INTO THE NIGHT, FOLKS, THERE'S A HILL -- AND YOU CAN'T SEE THAT THERE -- IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN OUT IN THIS AREA AND YOU'RE SITTING THERE COMING OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FACING MOORS MILL ROAD -- IF YOU FEEL TO LET RIGHT, YOU BETTER LOOK TO THE RIGHT, WELL, IF THE BUSHES ARE NOT COVERING YOUR VIEW YOU HAVE TO INCH RIGHT UP BECAUSE THERE'S BUSHES -- NICE-LOOKING BUSHES THAT WE HAVE. YOU HAVE TO COME RIGHT UP TO THE ROAD AND THESE CARS, WHAM, 45 MILES PER HOUR AN HOUR IN BOTH DIRECTIONS AND I'M THINKING WHAT IF THERE'S A BUSINESS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS SPOT THAT I'M WAITING TO ENTER MOORS MILL AND I'M THINKING WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE?

[01:45:02]

BUT THE TRAFFIC FLOW ALREADY COMING IN THERE -- AND THIS WAS THE REASON IT WAS DENIED I THINK AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL WAS BECAUSE JUST ANOTHER CLIP IN THE CURB THERE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CURB NOW BUT WE'D JUST BE CRAZY AND IT'S A LITTLE OFFSET FROM OUR ROAD COMING OUT ANYWAY AND IT WOULD CAUSE JUST HAVOC AND I CAN SEE PEOPLE TRYING TO GET OUT ON EITHER SIDE WITH THE 45 MILES PER HOUR PEOPLE COMING THROUGH THERE AND I WOULD SAY AS AN ANCILLARY NOTE THAT THE 45 LIMIT -- BECAUSE OF THAT HILL THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING UP THE HILL AND THEN DOWN THE HILL 0ING IN ON THE NEXT INTERSECTION, THEY CAN'T REALLY TELL IF THEY'RE NOT FAMILIAR THE FACT THAT WE MAY BE TRYING TO GET OUT ON MOORS MILL ROAD AND SO FORTH AND RUN DOWN -- THEY JUST -- THEY'RE GOING 45 AND THEY LOOK AROUND THERE'S NO SPEED LIMIT ASKING FOR A 35 OR A 30 OR WHATEVER IT IS. I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST WHATEVER HAPPENS ON THIS PROJECT, THAT THAT BE DECREASED.

IT'S ALREADY A SEVERE PROBLEM TO ME AND IF YOU'VE EVER COME OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT -- SO YOU'VE GOT INVESTED WHAT WE CONSIDERED --

>> CAN YOU WRAP IT UP THERE SIR 'CAUSE YOUR TIME'S UP.

>> OKAY. I'M SORRY.

I THOUGHT THAT THAT WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL AND PEOPLE WOULD SEE THAT IT SHOULD BE RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY EXTENDING BACK THERE. JUST THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD WOULD CONTINUE TO BE RESIDENTIAL AND I APOLOGIZE FOR GOING OVER TIME BUT I DO GET INVOLVED IN THESE SORTS OF THINGS.

>> THAT'S QUITE ALREADY. >> ALL RIGHT

>> WHATEVER THE OUTCOME I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO THIS COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN IN. THANKS.

SIR? >> GOOD EVENING.

I'M KEVIN WELLS 1115 PLAQUEMINE CIRCLE IN BENBROOK.

I JUST WANT TO SUPPORT EVERYTHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID. I WOULD ASK YOU TO VOTE NOT TO CHANGE THE ZONING AND LEAVE IT AS IT IS.

FOR THE SAFETY CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WITH THE LAKE THAT'S IN BENBROOK AND THEN IT'S GOING AGAINST THE COMP PLAN 1230S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ZONED FOR THAT. IN TERMS OF WHAT PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SAID BY THE BEING A DANGEROUS INTERSECTION IN THAT AREA BECAUSE YOU GOT A HIGH-RISE ON MOORS MILL COMING DOWN INTO THE BENT BROOK AREA. IT IS A DANGEROUS INTERSECTION.

THE ACCIDENT HAS BEEN THERE -- ONE OF THEM, IN FACT, WAS A ROLLOVER. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT JUST BE, YOU KNOW, SHOULDED UNDER THE BED AND AWAY AND DANGEROUS.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, THANK YOU.

>> SIR? >> HI MY NAME IS KRISTIN AND I LIVE AT 2547 GLEN BROOK DRIVE. I'M JUST HERE REPRESENTING MY FAMILY IN OPPOSITION TO DO THE HAMILTON PLACE PDD MY HUSBAND WOULD BE HERE WITH ME AS WELL HE'S COACHING YOUTH SPORTS RIGHT NOW SO MY FIRST CONCERN IS DRIVER CONFUSION AS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAYING THE OPPOSING LEFT TURNS.

THE MAP REALLY DOESN'T DO IT JUSTICE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GIVE THE TOPOGRAPHY OF GIVING YOU THE TWO HILLS ON EITHER SIDE.

'CAUSE THE SITE DISTANCE IS LIMITED ALREADY.

I HAVE 3 CHILDREN AND ONE IS ABOUT TO TURN 16 AND THE OTHER ONE IS 14 SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY OF GRAVE CONCERN TO ME.

AND ALSO IN OTHER NOTES IT IS OBVIOUSLY -- YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW -- YOU DO KNOW IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE LAND USE COMP PLAN THAT PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED A DENIAL AND STAFF COMMENTS IT IS, QUOTE, NOT DESIGNED INTEGRAL OF THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IT CONVERTS HAMILTON PLACE -- IT WOULD CONVERT HAMILTON PLACE TO COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR UP TO HALF A MILLION SQUARE FEET OF RETAILER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT SETS A PRESS DETENTION FOR A FURTHER COMMUNITY -- A FURTHER COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT DOWN MOORS MILL TO EAST LAKE.

ALSO DRIVEWAY ALIGNMENT DOES NOT MEET PAST REQUIREMENTS OR CITY

[01:50:01]

APPROVAL OF THE DRIVEWAY SPACE WAS FOR SERVICE VEHICLES ONLY AND SHARED USE DRIVEWAY FOR OFFICE USE REQUIRE A BZA APPROVAL SINCE THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL BASED ON IT BEING SERVICED ONLY. SO THEN I HAVE 3 QUESTIONS FOR YOU ALL TO PONDER. FIRST DOES THE CITY OF AUBURN WANT THE PRECEDENCE OF APPROVING THESE TYPES OF PDD AMENDMENTS BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE SETTING A PRESS TENSE NO. 2 WHAT TO PREVENT A LANDOWNER FROM ADDING ADDITIONAL CURRENT RURAL ZOB PROPERTY INTO THIS PDD THAT CAN REACH FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE MOORS MILL HAMILTON ROAD ALL THE WAY TO THE DISTRACTION OF EAST LAKE AND 3 IT'S A GOOD PRACTICE ON A PDD WHEN A DESIRED PLAN HAS NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ARE MUCH RISKIER AND IT IS ONLY REQUESTED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY STABBED ALONE DISTRICT AND NONNEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER INSTINCT ALLOW THAT USE -- DOES NOT ALLOW THAT USE.

THANK YOU. >> GOING NEXT? OKAY. I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION.

>> D >> WELL, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE

ITEM NO. 9. >> SECOND.

>> I'LL SECOND IT FOR DISCUSSION.

>> I HAVE A MOTION FOR SECOND SO LET'S HAVE OPEN AIR DISCUSSION.

>> HOW MANY HOMES COULD THERE BE IF IT WERE HOMES?

>> THAT'S THE MAX DENSITY THAT'S A QUESTION

>> THE MAXIMUM DENSITY JUST ON THE BASE ZONING WOULD BE 8 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THESE WOULD HAVE TO BE -- THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE A CONVENTIONAL CONFIGURATION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A 70 FOOT ROAD WIDE FRONTAGE UNLESS IT'S ON A CUL-DE-SAC SO AT BEST THEY COULD GET 4 HOME SITES OR FOUR LOTS.

>> SO FOUR IN REAL LIFE? >> YEAH, THEY MAY WANT TO SPEAK MORE WHAT'S ACTUALLY PRACTICAL BUT --

>> GOT IT. >> AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION MAYBE FOR ALLISON TRIP COUNTS FOR RESIDENTIAL HOMES VERSUS OFFICES. I FEEL LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT -- AND I DON'T NEED AN COMPATIBLE NUMBER BUT JUST A GENERAL STATEMENT. I BELIEVE WE RECALL WE TALKED ABOUT THAT THE LAST TIME WE VOTED ON THIS.

>> RESIDENTIAL GENERATES ABOUT 10 TRIPS PER UNITED AND I APOLOGIZE I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER FOR OFFICE USE BUT BASED ON THE -- SO BUT BASED ON THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OFFICE IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE TRAFFIC IMPACTS STUDY BASED ON

OUR THRESHOLDS. >> REFRESH MY MEMORY.

WHAT'S THE ZONING TO THE -- WHAT IS THAT, THE EAST.

I GUESS IT'S NORTH-SOUTH. WHAT'S THE EAST?

>> TO THE EAST IS RURAL. >> RURAL.

OKAY. >> AND THE COMP PLAN -- WHAT'S THE LAND USE PLAN SAY ABOUT THIS AREA? THIS PROPERTY AND TO THE EAST I'M KIND OF -- WELL, IT'S GOING

TO STAY RURAL. >> THE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS CONSERVATION, CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL.

>> FOR THIS PROPERTY. >> FOR THIS PROPERTY.

>> OKAY. WHAT ABOUT TO THE EAST.

>> LIKEWISE >> OKAY.

>> AND THEN ONE OF THE SPEAKERS BROUGHT UP A REAL INTERESTING PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT THIS -- THE PUBLIX PROPERTY WENT FOR BZA AND WAS THIS CURB CUT WAS APPROVED AS A SERVICE USE ONLY? ANYBODY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HOW

THAT -- THE DETAILS ON THAT? >> FROM WHAT WE'VE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY STATED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL IT WAS MENTIONED UPON REVIEWING THE MINUTES FOR THAT CASE A CITY

[01:55:08]

>> I'D LIKE TO ASK BRENT A QUESTION: WHAT -- WHY DID YOUR CLIENT INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OFFICES FROM THE LAST TIME? 'CAUSE ALL OUR TRAFFIC STUDIES ALL OUR AGONY THAT WE WENT OVER THAT WAS BASED ON A LITTLE

LESSER. >> WELL, WE ORIGINALLY -- WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED IT AT 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND WITH AN EXPANSION -- AND I THINK WE ASKED FOR, LIKE, 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF EXPANSION ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE.

THAT WAS WHAT THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS.

IN TALKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND EVERYTHING -- IN WHICH WE REDUCED IT DOWN AND WE WERE WILLING TO GO DOWN TO 33 AND THEN WE REMOVED THE COMMERCIAL EXPANSION REQUIREMENT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY WE'VE KIND OF -- WE WHITTLED THIS THING DOWN THINKING THAT WE WERE NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH THE MOVE FORWARD AND, YOU KNOW, NOW WE'VE BEEN STUCK IN THE GROUND FOR ANOTHER 12 MONTHS SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE CAME BACK WE CAME BACK AT THE ORIGINAL REQUEST OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU KNOW, IN REGARDS TO THE TRAFFIC AND TRIP GENERATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VEHICLES EXITING THAT DRIVEWAY, BASED UPON THE COUNTS AND THE PROJECTED TRIPS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LESS THAN 25 PEOPLE TURNING LEFT OUT THERE DURING THAT PEAK 1 IT SHALL HOUR.

I MEAN, THE VOLUMES OUT HERE ARE -- DURING THE PEAK HOUR COMING OUT OF THIS DRIVEWAY ARE VERY LOW.

YOU KNOW, THE COUNTS WE HAVE COMING OUT OF THAT DRIVEWAY TURNING LEFT I WOULD THINK WOULD BE THE CONCERN OUT OF THAT DRIVEWAY AND THE EXISTING CONDITION CONDITION THERE WERE TWO LEFTS OUT THERE IN THE MORNING AND 10 IN THE PM AND THEN -- AND THEN PROJECTED WITH OUR -- WITH OUR TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, THERE'S WE'RE IN THE AM3 COMING OUT AND 17 IN MAKING THAT

LEFT OUT THERE -- >> THAT'S EXISTING.

>> NO EXISTING -- >> PROJECTED.

>> YEAH PROJECTED TOTAL SO EXISTING -- THERE'S TWO PEOPLE TURNING LEFT OUT THERE IN THE MORNING AND 10 PEOPLE TURNING LEFT OUT THERE IN THE AFTERNOON. PEAK HOUR; RIGHT?

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT?

>> NO EXISTING RIGHT NOW WHAT PUBLIX IS DOING RIGHT NOW.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> WHEN YOU ADD IN -- WHEN YOU ADD IN THE PUBLIX AND THE OFFICE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 36789 TURNING LEFT OUT THERE IN THE MORNING AND 17 IN THE AFTERNOON IN THE PEAK HOURS -- IN THAT ONE HOUR PEAK HOUR.

SO -- I MEAN, IN THE GLANDS SCHEME OF THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VERY LOW VOLUME. THE SITE DISTANCE STUFF THAT WAS MENTIONED THE CITY WENT BACK AND DID SITE STUDY.

THEY HAD A SPEED STUDY AND A CRASH STUDY OKAY.

AND THEY TOOK THAT BACK ALL THE WAY CRASH BACK STUFF BACK TO 2017, OKAY THERE WAS ONE CRASH AT THE BENBROOK EXIT.

THERE WAS ONE CRASH WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE LINED AT THE CVS DESTROY ALONG WITH PUBLIX THERE WERE TWO CRASHES FROM 2017.

THE SPEED STUDY SHOWED THAT 45 MILES PER HOUR WAS THE APPROPRIATE SPEED BASED ON THE 80 PERCENTILE SPEEDS OUT THERE AND, YOU KNOW, THE OFFSET DESTROY COMMENT NOT BEING CITY STANDARDS. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THOSE POINTS TO MAKE SURE -- I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNING OF THAT BUT THE OFFSET DRIVEWAYS -- YOU KNOW THERE'S OFFSET DRIVEWAYS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND THE CITY PROVES THAT TO COUNCIL.

>> BEFORE YOU GO, MAYBE I MISSED IT BUT YOUR ANSWER TO HIS QUESTION -- WE'VE GOT A HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED.

>> UH-HUH. >> BUT I THINK HIS QUESTION -- AND YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED IT BUT WHY WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT 3 IN OUR -- WHERE DID YOU GO TO 40,000 WE KNOW YOU DID BUT THE

QUESTION WAS WHY YOU DID THAT. >> I MEAN, WE WERE GOING BACK TO

THE ORIGINAL REQUEST. >> REQUEST.

>> YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK -- YOU KNOW, WE OFFERED -- WE OFFERED TO MEET. WE TRIED TO WORK WITH THEM WE CHANGED ARCHITECTURE WE DID ALL THESE THING AND WE WERE NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH AND GET DOWN TO --

>> I REMEMBER SOME OF THE ZOOM MEETINGS WE TALKED ABOUT THESE TRAFFIC COUNTS AND STUFF BEING DONE DURING THE PANDEMIC AND

[02:00:04]

PANDEMIC -- >> WELL, I MEAN, I THINK ALLISON HAS SEEN ENOUGH TRAFFIC STUDIES OR COUNTS -- I THINK --

>> THE ORIGINAL CONVERSATION ON THIS ONE WAS THAT WE TOOK COUNTS IN THE SUMMERTIME AND DID AND PROJECTED IT UP AND THEN WE CAME BACK AND REDID COUNTS TO CONFIRM WHETHER WE INCREASED THEM ENOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR THE NONSUMMERTIME.

>> I THINK ALLISON HAS THE EXPERIENCE TO DO SOME OF THESE

WITHOUT SO MANY COUNTS. >> LET'S GET BACK TO OUR DELIBERATION HERE. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WHAT'S -- I GUESS I HAVE A COMMENT -- A QUESTION I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHO TO DIRECT IT AT. WHAT'S THE IMPACT OF GROWING THIS FROM A COMMUNITY TO A -- NEIGHBORHOOD TO A COMMUNITY -- SHOULD WE APPROVE THIS PDD IT'S GOING TO GROW IT INTO A COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER. WHAT'S THE IMPACT?

LIKE SO WHAT? >> PRETTY MUCH.

IT'S MORE -- >> ESPECIALLY IF WE ADD THE RECOMMENDATION OR THE RESTRICTION THAT IT NOT GO ABOVE 125,000 SQUARE FEET WHICH WAS RECOMMENDED IN THE BEGINNING.

THIS IS WHAT YOU RECOMMENDED IN THE BEGINNING.

>> RIGHT, SO JUST BY DEFINITION OF WHAT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER VERSUS A COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER THEY ARE TIED IN THE ZONING ORGANS TO SPECIFIC THRESHOLDS JUST AS A MEANS OF CLEANING UP THE SITE IF IT WERE TO BE APPROVED, CLARIFYING FOR THE RECORD THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY BECOMING A -- TECHNICALLY YES THEY'RE BECOMING A COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER BUT THEY'RE NOT -- THE REQUEST IS RELATED TO THE OFFICE

AND THE THRESHOLDS. >> SO POTENTIALLY COULD THEY -- I MEAN, ACQUIRE THE LAND FARTHER TO THE EAST AND INCORPORATE THAT

IN INTO A EVEN BIGGER -- >> NO, THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

>> 1,000 SQUARE FEET. >> WHAT'S REPRESENTED HERE IS WHAT WOULD BE LOCKED IN THROUGH THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

ANY CHANGES TO THAT WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER AMENDMENT AND

ANOTHER CONDITION USE PROCESS. >> AND PARTICULARLY IF WE ADD THE CAVEAT THAT IT BE LIMITED TO 125,000 SQUARE FEET TOTAL? OR IS THIS -- IF THAT THIS WAS GRADED WITH THAT STIPULATION,

THEN IT CANNOT -- >> KNOCK DO YOU KNOW AMENDMENT.

>> YES. >> NOW, IS THAT PART OF THIS

PACKAGE? >> IT IS --

>> IT'S PRETTY ENTERTAINING. >> IT'S A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

>> OKAY. OH, YEAH I SEE IT HERE.

>> DO YOU HAVE A CLARIFICATION QUESTION.

>> NOWHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

OKAY. >> THE MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DID THAT MOTION INCLUDE -- THE

125,000 SQUARE FOOT LIMITATION? >> WELL, UNDER THE ANALYSIS IT

IS. >> IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE

COMMENTS IN. >> YES.

>> IS IT ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOT THE MAXIMUM OF 125.

>> OKAY. >> SO THAT'S IN THERE SO WITH

STAFF COMMENTS. >> OKAY.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY

AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. >> NO.

>> NO. LET'S HAVE A VOICE VOTE AND A

ROLL CALL. >> ROBIN BRIDGES.

THE MOTION FAILS. >> SO THE OTHER ONE BECOMES MOOT

[10. Conditional Use – Hamilton Place PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00717]

HAMILTON PLACE PL202100717. AND THIS IS THE CONDITIONAL USE.

>> YES, THIS IS SAME PROPERTY SAME APPLICATION.

THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR OFFICES IS NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A CONDITION USE PROCESS AND AS PART OF EITHER A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER OR PART OF A PDD, THEREFORE, WITHOUT THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL TO THIS APPLICATION AS WELL. HERE IT IS SITE PLAN.

>> OKAY. THIS STILL REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING DESPITE THAT SO I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE DO SEEING NO ONE CLOSED TO PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A MOMENT AND ASK FOR SUBSTITUTION.

[02:05:07]

>> I MOVE TO ITEM NO. 10 ON THE AGENDA BE DENIED BASED ON PREVIOUS ACTION -- PREVIOUS AGENDA.

>> OKAY. A MOTION FOR DENIAL.

A SECOND? WE CAN'T PASS IT --

>> OKAY. SO WITHOUT A SECOND WE'LL -- I

GUESS WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER MOTION. >> FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION I

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> A MOTION TO SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? I GET MAIN DISCUSSION IS THAT WE HAVE NOT APPROVED THE PDD --

>> AND THE SECOND THING -- IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY AND I LIKE BE MISTAKEN BUT THIS ACCESS GOES THROUGH THE PUBLIX AND WE SENT THAT TO COUNCIL AND THEY DISAPPROVED IT BECAUSE OF THAT SO THIS CONFIGURATION HAS ALREADY BEEN TURNED DOWN BY THE COUNCIL AND THEY'RE THE DEFINING AUTHORITY WHAT HAS BEEN DONE.

I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO SEND IT BACK TO THE SECOND TIME FOR THE SAME THING THEY ALREADY DENIED SO THAT WOULD BE TWO REASONS I WOULD HAVE TO NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION.

>> SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY

AYE. >> I'M SORRY.

I'M CONFUSED. >> OKAY.

IT DOESN'T GO BACK BECAUSE IT CAN'T -- I'M CONFUSED ABOUT WHY WE'RE VOTING ON IT? SO IT WOULDN'T GO BACK

REGARDLESS CORRECTED? >> SURE IT WILL.

>> YEAH, YOU ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION --

>> YES, I'M SORRY. IT IS GOING TO GO BACK.

>> SO IT WILL BE HEARD AT CITY COUNCIL.

>> RIGHT. >> 'CAUSE THEY COULD APPROVE THE

FIRST ONE. >> GOT IT, THANK YOU, YES.

>> WELL, THEN LET'S DISCUSS THE COMPLICATIONS OR THE IMPLICATIONS HERE. DOES THAT MEAN SINCE IT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL THAT IT WOULD NOT -- THAT THE PDD BE AMENDED, DOES THAT MEAN THEN BY VOTING TO APPROVE THIS THAT THE

OFFICE -- >> WAIT A MINUTE WE'RE NOT -- IT'S RECOMMENDED DENIAL BY THE STAFF WE'RE MAKING A MOTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT THE PREVIOUS ONE -- THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FAILED.

>> RIGHT. >> OKAY.

SO THE PDD AMENDMENT FAILED. >> RIGHT.

>> IF THIS IS APPROVED, IF WE RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL, THIS CONDITIONAL USE DOES THAT MEAN THE CONDITIONAL USE COULD BE

PLACED THERE. >> NO.

>> WITHOUT BEING PART OF THE PDD.

>> NO OKAY. SO I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE DOING

THIS. >> IT'S JUST A FORMALITY.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> OKAY.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. >> NO.

>> THE MOTION FAILS. >> JUST FOR FOLKS IN ATTENDANCE.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS -- I CAN GIVE YOU EMAIL OR PHONE NUMBER IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG. WE ARE NOW ON ITEM -- LET'S SEE.

[11. Annexation – APCo West Tech Subdivision PL-2021-00718]

>> YES, SIR. IT SHOULD BE A STEPDOWN CASE FOR YOU. [LAUGH]

>> SO AS YOU MENTIONED THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE AUBURN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 5.78 ACRES WHICH ARE LOCATED ON THE IS OUTSIDE OF CORPORATE PARKWAY WEST OF REILLY STREET. THIS REQUEST WOULD TYPICALLY BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BUT IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY A REZONING REQUEST SO WE HAVE INCLUDED IT UNDER NEW BUSINESS.

THE PROPERTY IS CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING CITY LIMITS ON THE WEST SIDE. PROPERTY OWNED INDUSTRIAL AND THEN THERE'S A SMALL PORTION OF PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH ZONE RURAL AND THE PETITION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNEXATION AND

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING ON

THIS SO CAN I HAVE A MOTION -- >> I'D MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 11 AS PRESENTED -- YOU KNOW, BY THE OWNER BY THE APPLICANT.

>> SECOND -- >> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS?

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> OPPOSED SAY NO.

[12. Rezoning from Rural to I – APCo West Tech Subdivision PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00719]

THE MOTION CARRIES. >> OKAY.

[02:10:01]

RECOMMENDATION. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

IT IS THE SAME SUBJECT PROPERTY OF THE PREVIOUS REQUEST APPROXIMATELY 5.78 ACRES TO BE REZONED FROM RURAL TO INDUSTRIAL. THE APPLICABILITY PLANS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCT A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER TO SERVE THE PUBLIC SAFETY OR PUBLIC SAFETY.

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS OFFICE PARK, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPORT WHICH THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT IS IN LINE WITH AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL.

>> THANK YOU. THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYBODY LIKE TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE DO.

SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A

MOTION AND DISCUSSION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE

PL2002100719 AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND.

>> THE MOTION AND SECOND IN DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES.

[13. Preliminary Plat – Cotswolds, Phase 4 PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00736]

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR COTSWOLD PHASE 4PL202100376.

MR. KIP? >> YES, SIR, THIS IS REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION PLAT CONSISTING OF 117 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS 3 OPEN SPACE LOTS AND ONE LOT FOR PROPOSED OUTER LOOP RIGHT-OF-WAY.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS RICHARD STAR AND JAMES STAR REPRESENTED BY BARRETT SIMPSON. THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF COTSWOLD WAY LOCATED IN THE DDH ZONING DISTRICT. YOU PREVIOUSLY HEARD A FEW MONTHS BACK A REQUEST FOR COTSWOLD PHASE 3 TO BE JUST SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

THIS IS COTSWOLD PHASE 4. THE SUBDIVISION PLAT MEETS THE CITY OF AUBURN, THEREFORE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR ALL COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY. IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

>> YES I WOULD. >> COME ON UP.

>> MY NAME IS JUSTIN PECK I LIVE AT 2516 TET BURY COURT WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY THERE.

THE RICHLAND CORNERED WHERE WE LIVE ON IS PRETTY HEAVILY OVERDEVELOPED AT THIS POINT. THIS YEAR WE FINALLY STARTED SEEING SOME ISSUES ESPECIALLY WITH EVERYONE COMING BACK FROM COVID -- THE FIRST TWO WEEKS OF SCHOOL WE HAD THE MAYOR, THE POLICE CHIEF, THE ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF, SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES AND PUBLIC SAFETY REPRESENTATIVES ON THAT CORNER DOWN THERE ALMOST EVERY MORNING TRYING TO RESOLVE SAFETY AND TRAFFIC ISSUES WITH GETTING PEOPLE IN AND OUT BECAUSE OF SO MUCH TRAFFIC THAT'S COMING IN THAT RICHLAND CORRIDOR AT THAT TIME THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'VE BEEN GOING ON THAT WE'RE OPENING THE SCHOOLS AT 7:00 AM. WE ACTUALLY MOVED UP THE OPENING TIME FOR BOTH RICHLAND AND CREEKSIDE SO FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD I THINK IT'S A GOOD PLAN AND WE SHOULD PUT IT IN THERE AND THE TIMING I FEEL LIKE POTENTIALLY IS A LITTLE BIT UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE WE DO NEED SOME CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THAT RICHLAND ROAD DOWN THERE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE USING PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING TO PAY FOR THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THEY'LLVILLE TO DEAL WITH TO COME DOWN THE RICHLAND AREA SO IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE COULD DELAYING THIS UNTIL WE COULD BUILD SOME TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT TO THAT RICHLAND -- THERE'S AN ARTERIAL ACCESS THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED I BELIEVE THAT CONNECTS UP TO FARMVILLE OR DOWN TO MLK THAT WE STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO AS WELL -- SO ALL THE DEVELOPMENT I WOULD PREFER THAT BE DELAYED UNTIL WE GET BETTER ACCESS AND ENTERODOWN THERE TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ISSUES AND ESPECIALLY TO NOT INCREASE COSTS ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DOWN THERE AS WE TRY TO TRAVEL THROUGH THAT AREA IN THE MORNING. THANK YOU.

>> YEAH, SO PLEASE SIGN IN ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A

[02:15:01]

MOTION AND DISCUSSION. >> MAY I ASK AN ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION? PLANS REQUIRE BOTH NOT JUST A MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT BUT THEY HAVE TO HAVE 5 VOTES.

>> AFFIRMATIVE. >> TO PASS IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. I WOULD ASK TO --

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> NO. 13.

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION FOR SECOND

DISCUSSION. >> IN REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION OF PUBLIC HEARING HOW MUCH CLOSER WE HAVE A WE HAVE AN ENGINEERING PLANS DONE AND PLAN TO GO OUT FOR CONSTRUCTION I THINK FOR A SECTION OF THAT ROAD IF YOU DON'T -- PLEASE JUST GIVE

US AN UPDATE. >> SO THE PLANS FOR THE CONNECTER ROAD ARE VERY CLOSE TO BEING COMPLETED.

I AM STILL WORKING WITH ALDOT FOR FINAL APPROVAL FOR HIGHWAY

14. >> SO WHERE WOULD THAT -- WHERE

WOULD THE CONNECTION BE? >> IF HE WAS REFERENCING WHAT WE'RE CALLING AS THE RICHLAND CONNECTER IT WOULD COME ACROSS FROM CREEKSIDE SCHOOL THE WESTERN-MOST ENTRANCE AND GO THROUGH THE PROPERTY KNOWN -- IT CAME TO YOU AS THE LANDINGS -- NOT THE LANDINGS THE PLAINSMAN LEAK SORRY AND WOULD TIE ABOUT 950 FEET WHERE THE CHINES RESTAURANT IS IT WOULD BE EAST OF THAT AND IT WOULD COME DOWN TO MLK.

>> SO LET'S SEE THE BLUE -- >> THE BLUE LINE ON THE MAP YOU'RE LOOKING AT. JUST EAST OF WILLOW CREEK.

>> NOW, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT EXIST -- WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RED AND THE BLUE THEN.

>> THE RED IS THE CLASSIFICATION.

IF IT'S DOTTED THAT MEANS IT'S PROPOSED SO THAT'S A DOTTED BLUE MEANING -- I THINK THAT ROAD WILL BE A COLLECTOR.

>> YEAH. >> IF YOU GO TO THE WEST THAT WILL BE THE OUTER LOOP THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE

PRIOR CASE OF OLD SAMFORD. >> SO THE DIFFERENCE -- THERE'S

DIFFERENT TYPES OF ROADS. >> DIFFERENT CONVERSATION THAT'S

CORRECT. >> I'M VERY GLAD TO SEE THE ONE ON THE LEFT AT LEAST SHOWING UP ON A DRAWING.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> ANY PROJECTION ON START DATE

ON ANY OF THAT? >> ON THE CONNECTER ROAD?

>> YEAH. AS SOON AS ALDOT GETS THROUGH DOING ALDOT AND WE GET AN APPROVAL, I'LL HAVE A BETTER

IDEA -- >> OKAY.

>> IS THERE A SPECIFIC HOLDUP OR JUST THEIR PROCESS --

>> YEAH. >> 'CAUSE I THINK YOU SUBMITTED

IT SOME TIME AGO. >> I DID.

OR TALK TO THEM SOME TIME AGO. >> WE RECEIVED A SECOND ROUND OF COMMENTS ABOUT A WEEK AGO AND SO THE CONSULTANT AND I HAD A

CONFERENCE CALL WITH THEM TODAY. >> GOOD.

>> WE THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND HOPE TO SOON GET IT --

>> VERY TIMELY. >> UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

>> WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN ONE OF THE -- I AGREE WITH PATTON OR POTTER I CAN'T READ MY OWN REQUIRE.

PATTON -- PATTON THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE ISSUES OF PROBLEMS OUT THERE. THE PROBLEM OF TRAFFIC OVERLOAD.

THE PROBLEM WE DO NOT HAVE A MORATORIUM AND THIS PROPOSAL THIS SUBDIVISION MEETS THE TECHNICAL OR EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SO I THINK WE'RE PRETTY WELL NEEDED -- NEED TO APPROVE IT.

>> I THINK THAT THE CONDITION IS THAT THE OVERALL COMMISSION NEEDS TO APPROVE IT BUT IN AN INDIVIDUAL WAY --

>> SURE. >> SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT NOW.

SO LET'S HAVE A VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

>> NO. >> OKAY.

MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT.

[14. Conditional Use – Embrace Church PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00542]

RECALL. >> THIS IS A REVISED CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR THE -- FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL USE BEING A CHURCH LOCATED AT 2142 NORTH CLINICS STREET AND THE DDH ZONING DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGNATION. THIS SITE IS IN THE TUSCANY PDD NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE TUSCANY SUBDIVISION WHICH IS SEPARATE BUT WAS ORIGINAL APPROVED IS IT A -- AS A CHURCH IN 2017. AFTER THAT -- OR, EXCUSE ME, DURING THAT HEARING AND THAT REQUEST THE SITE WAS PROPOSED TO BE A 16,250 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY.

[02:20:06]

THE CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION TO THIS ONE IS PERSONALLY IN REGARDS TO -- REGARDS TO PARKING IS FAIRLY MINIMAL EVEN THOUGH THE SIZE OF THE FACILITY IS GROWING, THE OVERALL NUMBER OF ATTENDEES TO A SERVICE ARE ONLY CHANGING MINOR SO THE PARKING IS CHANGING JUST A LITTLE BIT BUT NOT SIGNIFICANTLY. THE SITE ITSELF YOU COULD SEE THAT THEY'VE REORIENTED IT A LITTLE BIT WORKED WITH THE PARKING PLAN. THEY HAVE PROVIDED A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT DOES PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BUFFERING TO THE SOUTH AGAINST THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

THE STAFF FEELS IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ACCOMMODATE ON THE BUFFERING MIX OF USES AS IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

I'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY -- I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATION IN REGARDS TO THIS. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WAS TIED UP WITH A PREVIOUS TRIP THAT WAS NOT -- HE WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE. PENDING THE QUESTIONS OF YOUR

STAFF. >> THE CASE REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ABOUT EMBRACE CHURCH SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ASK FOR PROMOTION AND DISCUSSION ME HAVE ON APPROVAL WITH STAFF

CONDITIONS. >>-SECOND ANY DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

[15. Conditional Use – Son’s Ford Parking Lot PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00738]

PARKING LOT MISS ENGLISH. >> IT'S PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED 114 EAST VETERANS BOULEVARD IN THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING DISTRICT APPROXIMATELY 30,000 SQUARE FEET AND SHARES ACCESS WITH EXISTING ON THE SITE DRIVE. THE AREA IS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.