Jan 13, 2022 Planning Commission

[ROLL CALL]

[00:00:08]

>> GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. IT'S ABOUT THAT TIME TO GET STARTED. THIS IS THE JANUARY REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALSO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ANNUAL MEETING AT THE SAME TIME.

THE FIRST MEETING OF EACH JANUARY.

I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO CALL OUR 2022 -- JANUARY 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.

BEFORE WE START, REAL QUICKLY, I WILL JUST GO OVER WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT HERE TONIGHT. WILL BE PRESENTED WITH A FEW AGENDA ITEMS. WE HAVE QUITE A SHORT AGENDA TONIGHT. A REPRESENTATIVE FOR EACH ITEM FROM THE CITY STAFF WILL PRESENT THE ITEM.

THE REPRESENTATIVE THAT IS BRINGING THE ITEM TO THE COMMISSION WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO SAY AT THAT TIME. AND ONCE WE ARE DONE WITH THE PRESENTATIONS, THEN WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF IT'S APPROPRIATE. SOME REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING AND SOME DON'T. AND WHEN IT IS TIME TO COME UP FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, THAT'S WHEN YOU CAN COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THE ISSUE AT HAND. WE WANT EVERYBODY TO HER STOMACH BE HEARD AND WE ASK THAT YOU LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS.NCE EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN, WE WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING. WILL HAVE MAYBE SOME QUESTIONS ON CLARIFICATION AND THEN THE COMMISSION WILL MAKE A MOTION AND WE WILL DISCUSS THE MOTION AND HAVE A VOTE.

THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE BASED ON STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, THE CITY'S COMPREHENSION PLAN AND THE GENERAL GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY. ANOTHER THING WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUBDIVISION PLATS.

I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU A SUMMARY OF OUR ROLE THERE.

BY ALABAMA STATUTE, THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION LIKE OURS IS THE FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR SUBDIVISION PLATS. WITH REGARDS TO THESE PLATS THE COMMISSION ACTS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.

ZONING OR AN AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADOPTED.WHILE WE WILL HAVE HEARINGS ON MOST PLATS AND WE WELCOME EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS AT THE TIME TO COME UP TO SPEAK THEIR MINDS, PLEASE UNDERSTAND IT'S THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY IS STRICTLY LIMITED (INDISCERNIBLE) THE PLAT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CODIFIED IN THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO MAKE A POINT THAT OTHER THAN SUBDIVISION PLATS, EVERYTHING WE RECOMMEND HERE IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER TIME YOU CAN THE CITY COUNCIL AT A LATER DATE.

THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS CITIZENS COMMUNICATION.

THIS PARTICULAR TIME, THIS IS FOR ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO

[CONSENT AGENDA]

AND ANYTHING ON YOUR MIND THAT IS NOT OTHERWISE ON OUR BUSINESS FOR TONIGHT. ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS. BOTH ARE ANNEXATIONS.

ONE IS THE MCWHORTER PROPERTIES, WHICH IS PL 2021 ZERO -- 852. THE SECOND ONE IS A HENRY PROPERTY, WHICH IS PL 2020 100858.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK AT THIS TIME? SIT NG NO ONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL MOVE ON. THERE IS NO OLD BUSINESS.

WE WILL MOVE NOW TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

DOES STAFF HAVE ANY PRESENTATION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ON THAT OR ANYTHING TO SAY?OKAY.

THEN I AM LOOKING FOR MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION.

>> I MOTION TO MOVE THE AGENDA. >> SECOND.

[3. Preliminary Plat – McWhorter Properties – Society Hill Estates PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00855]

>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NO.

THE MOTION CARRIES. ONTO NEW BUSINESS.

THE FIRST ITEM OF NEWBUSINESS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT.

THE MCWHORTER PROPERTIES SOCIETY HILL ESTATES.

THIS IS PL 2020 100855. MR. KIPP .

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A 14 WATT CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SOCIETY HILL

[00:05:02]

AS THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE A PUBLIC ACCESS POINT.

OTHER THAN THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> WITH THAT HAVE TO BE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A CONDITION THAT THEY BRING THAT IN?

>> YOU CAN STRIKE IT FROM THE -- IF YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL, JUST STRIKE IT FROM THE CONDITION.

>> STRIKE IT COMPLETELY? >> MM-HMM.

>> IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT? I KNOW THERE IS A REASON BUT

WHAT IS THE REASON? >> THEY ARE PROVIDING AN

ALTERNATIVE TO IT. >> IT WILL BE A PUBLIC --.

>> DURING THE PRESENTATION ON TUESDAY -- MONDAY, I MADE MENTION OF IT DURING OUR MEETING THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE ACCESS FROM SOCIETY HILL ROAD AS OPPOSED TO INTERNALLY

BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS. >> MY POINT IS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE THAT A SPECIFIC CONDITION OR CAN WE DEAL WITH THAT LATER?

>> I THINK A RECOMMENDATION COULD BE MADE TONIGHT WITH ALL

STAFF (INDISCERNIBLE) --. >> THANK YOU.

I DON'T SEE MR. RICE. >> I'M DOWN HERE.

I'M HERE FOR HIM. >> THANK YOU.

OKAY THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF THERE'S ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND SIGN IN. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AT THIS TIME? OR SHOULD WE MAKE A MOTION?

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE --. >> SECOND.

>> WITH STAFF CONDITIONS. EXCEPT NUMBER 2 (LAUGHING).

[LAUGHTER] >> ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT?

[4. Preliminary Plat – Asheton Glenn Subdivision PUBLIC HEARING PL-2021-00857]

MOTION CARRIES.THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 4. IT IS ALSO A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE ASHETON GLENN SUBDIVISION PL 2020 100857. MR. HOWELL.

>> OKAY. SO PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUESTS.

IT'S A 21 LOT PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON A LITTLE OVER 67 AND A HALF ACRES.

IT'S LOCATED NORTH OF TOWN IN THE CDD DISTRICT.

JUST EAST OF ASHEN LAKES AND SOUTH OF (INDISCERNIBLE) LAKES.

AND TO 280 IS IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF IT.OU HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE NORTH.

IT'S A TWO SHEET SUBDIVISION. THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY, APPROXIMATELY 86 PERCENT OF IT IS IN FLOODPLAIN AND WILL CONSTITUTE THE SUBDIVISION'S REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREA.

THAT'S WHAT THIS AREA SHOWS. THE LINE IN GREEN IS A GREENWAY EASEMENT. IT'S A 30 FOOT GREENWAY EASEMENT THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE FOR THE CITY'S GREENWAY PLAN.

THE PROPERTIES THEMSELVES WILL CONSIST OF 19 UNITS.

ONE ITEM OF NOTE IS THE FUTURE LAND USE DOES HAVE A FUTURE PARK DESIGNATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF SAUGAHATCHEE ROAD CREEK WHERE IT GOES UNDERNEATH THE HIGHWAY.

THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THAT. AND WAS ABLE TO WORK WITH US OVER THE COURSE OF TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BEST WAY TO CONVEY THAT -- OR WHATEVER APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENT THAT SHOULD BE. HAVE -- STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. WE HAVE HAD SOME CORRESPONDENCE

[00:10:01]

ONE PARTICULAR HAD SOME QUESTION OR CONCERNS ABOUT DRIVEWAY SPACING ON 280, AS WELL AS THE ASHTON LAKES SIGN.

AND THE TREES TO THE SUBDIVISION ITSELF.

THE DRIVEWAY FACING UP TO 280 IS NOT AN ISSUE.

THE ASHTON LAKES SIGN WILL BE PRESERVED IN SOME ARRANGEMENT.

IN THE TREES WILL BE A FUNCTION OF THEIR OWN CONSTRUCTION.

THE OPEN SPACE WILL REMAIN UNDISTURBED.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? >> IT'S A DIFFERENT MR. CONNOR, ISN'T IT? (LAUGHING) OKAY.

>> APPLICANT IS OVER HERE. >> OH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE). >> OKAY.

THANKS. THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

I'M OPENING UP PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION -- QUESTION ABOUT ARE THERE ANY PARTICULAR CONDITIONS THAT ARE MORE, YOU KNOW, HEAVIER THAN SOME OF THE OTHERS? I UNDERSTAND THE PARK, BUT THIS IS PRELIMINARY. SO WITH LOT 1, WHEN WE GET TO FINAL PLAT, THAT SIGN AN EASEMENT AND ALL THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF? I JUST DIDN'T SEE THAT IS ONE

OF THE CONDITIONS. >> THE SIGN ITSELF EXISTS ON A CURRENT EASEMENT THAT IS HEARTY THERE.

AND IT IS REPRESENTED ON THE PLAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU.

URING THE RT WE WILL DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT IF THERE IS A BETTER OR APPROPRIATE WAY TO MAKE THAT ARRANGEMENT.

IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT WHEN IT COMES BEFORE YOU FOR FINAL.

BUT AS IT IS CURRENTLY, THAT IS HOW IT IS REPRESENTED NOW.

>> A MOTION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE.

[5. Appeal to Waiver Denial – The Tracks PL-2021-00861]

WITH STAFF CONDITIONS. >> SECOND.

>> A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED CASINO.

MOTION CARRIES. OKAY.

NOW WE ARE ONTO ITEM NUMBER 5, WHICH IS AN APPEAL TO A WAIVER DENIAL FOR THE TRACKS. THIS IS PL 2020 100861.

MS. FRAZER. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) WILL BE

RECRUITING >> WHAT'S UP FOR YOU IS A DECELERATION APPEAL. I THINK HE RECEIVED A LETTER TODAY FROM THE APPLICANT WAS UNABLE TO BE HERE THIS EVENING.

THE SUPPORTING INFORMATION IS IN YOUR PACKET AND I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> AND THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

DID EVERYBODY RECEIVE THE LETTER FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE? UNLESS THERE IS ANY QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION, LOOKING FOR

A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION -- CAN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT? I THINK IT DESERVES A DISCUSSION. ESPECIALLY HOW THE APPLICANT IS

NOT HERE TO SPEAK. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPEAL -- IS AT THE PROPER WORDING? APPROVE THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL.

GRANT THE WAIVER. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.

>> DISCUSSION? >> AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE AT THE PACKET MEETING.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH DISCUSSION THERE WAS ABOUT THE PACKET. AND I APPRECIATE PARKER LEWIS SENDING THIS LETTER TO US, SO WE CAN HEAR HIS TAKE ON THE SITUATION. HE ALWAYS DOES A VERY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING HIS POSITION TO US.

SO I HATE THAT HE COULD NOT BE HERE IN PERSON.

I THINK THE ARGUMENT FOR THE BOARD IS A FAIR ONE.

I'VE TRAVELED DOWN THAT ROAD A GOOD BIT.

NOT RECENTLY BECAUSE I'M NOT REALLY A COLLEGE STUDENT ANYMORE, SO I DON'T NEED TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD VERY MUCH ANYMORE LIKE THAT. BUTI DID LIVE DOWN THERE AT ONE POINT IN TIME. IT'S A NARROW ROAD .

(AWAY FROM MICROPHONE) I THINK WITH OUR NEW DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WE PUT IN PLACE DOWN THERE, IT SEEMS TO BE DRIVING

[00:15:03]

A DECELERATION LANES WAIVER MIGHT BE UNNECESSARY.

TO ME, A DECELERATION LANES WAIVER IS TO KEEP YOU OUT OF THE WAY OF TRAFFIC THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO SLOW DOWN FOR ANY REASON. FOR YOUR SAFETY AND FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE COMING IN BEHIND YOU.

I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE DECELERATION LENA AT THIS POINT IS NECESSARY. ESPECIALLY THE SIZE OF THE ROAD THIS PROJECT IS ON AND THE NUMBER OF CARS GOING PAST IT.

SO I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNDUE BURDEN.

>> HOW WAS THIS CLASSIFIED? HOW IS THE ROAD CLASSIFIED --

ARTERIAL? >> I THINK IT'S A COLLECTOR.

AND AT SOME POINT (INDISCERNIBLE) MIGHT BE

APPROPRIATE. >> IT IS DESIGNATED AS A COLLECTOR. I DROVE THAT STRETCH YESTERDAY.

IT'S A LONG STRETCH. THIS IS AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THAT LONG STRETCH OF NARROW ROADS, WHICH WE EXPECT TO SEE MORE DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS ONE. GRANTED, AT THIS MOMENT, I DON'T THINK -- HOW MANY UNITS DID HE SAY? 75 BEDS. 75 CARS GOING OVER THE COURSE OF THE DAY WOULD BE A REAL PROBLEM.

BUT AS THAT DEVELOPS FURTHER DOWN, AND IF THERE ARE NO EXPECTATIONS OF DECELERATION LANES WAIVER THROUGH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL TAKE PLACE OVER TIME THERE, WE WILL HAVE A BOTTLENECK, I THINK. SO IF WE ARE GONNA -- IF WE DON'T DO IT NOW, WE ARE SORT OF OPENING THE GATE FOR THE FUTURE -- HEAD OF THE STREAM IF YOU WILL.

>> I MIGHT RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THAT.

AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION ON THAT.

BUT I DO THINK WE LOOK AT THESE APPEALS AND THE WAIVERS -- THE STAFF LOOKS AT THE WAIVERS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL BE DEVELOPED DOWN THERE.

>> I THINK WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA.

>> WE CAN'T KNOW WITH CERTAINTY.

>> IT (INDISCERNIBLE) LOW DUSTS ESIDENTIAL.

BURDEN ON THIS TO BURN SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROJECT IN THE FUTURE.

AND I THINK WE ARE EDUCATED ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DETERMINATIONS ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS.

LIKE TO GO AHEAD? >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD -- FIRST OF ALL, NOT SURPRISINGLY MR. LEWIS WROTE A VERY STRONG AND INTELLIGENT LETTER. THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE LETTER IS THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE 25 MILES PER HOUR. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PARKING THERE.

THERE IS ALREADY SOME PLACES THAT WERE BUILT BEFORE WE HAD THIS GUIDELINE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A RIGHT TURN LANE PROBABLY ARE READY FOR SOME LARGER -- AT LEAST ONE LARGER DEVELOPMENT THAT ISN'T THERE. BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT BEFORE WE HAD THIS POLICY. SO WE CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE.

I THINK WARREN'S POINT IS WELL TAKEN.

WE ARE DECIDING NOW ON THE LONG TERM FOR THAT ROAD.

AND REALLY WHETHER IT'S EAST GLENN OR WEST GLEN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PLACES, UNFORTUNATELY, WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE TURN LANES -- DECELERATION LANES WAIVER AND WE DON'T.

BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION PRECEDED THE ORDINANCE OR THE GUIDELINE. SO AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO FACE REALITY THAT THIS IS A BURGEONING CITY OF 100,000 SOON AND MORE SO. WE NEED GOOD POLICY ON TRAFFIC SAFETY. YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. YEAH.

SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. >> IS THERE A PHOTO WE CAN LOOK --? I'M SORRY.

THERE WE GO.THANKS. >> I THINK -- I ALWAYS HAVE TO SAY -- I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR ALL OF OUR STAFF, ESPECIALLY ALLISON. (LAUGHING) I HATE TO PRESUME THAT I KNOW BETTER BECAUSE I DON'T.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE GONE TO GREAT, PAINSTAKING LENGTHS TO CREATE URBAN CORE DESIGN STANDARDS. TO MAKE THIS AN URBAN, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AREA. AND I THINK THAT THE SIDEWALKS AND THE WIDTH OF THOSE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS

[00:20:03]

IF WE DENY THIS. BECAUSE IT'S GOING INTO A DRIVEWAY. AND SO -- I DON'T THINK WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. YES WE CAN PRESUME THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO CONTINUE.

BUT WE HAVE SET STANDARDS THAT ARE 100 PERCENT AIMED AT CREATING A PEDESTRIAN URBAN CORE.

AND SO, TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF SPACE WE HAVE THERE, I DON'T THINK IS ANY LESS IMPORTANT THAN WHAT MAY HAPPEN HOWEVER MANY YEARS FROM NOW. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO PUNISH THE FIRST PERSON WHO COMES IN AND DOES IT WHEN IT IS

NOT YET NECESSARY. >> A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I'M NOT SURE (INDISCERNIBLE). BUT THIS LETTER IS DATED JANUARY 13 -- DID WE GET THIS IN AN EMAIL JUST PRIOR TO THIS?

>> WE RECEIVED IT THIS AFTERNOON.

2:00. >> OKAY.

THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD IS IT POSSIBLE WITHIN OUR RULES FOR THIS KIND OF AGENDA ITEMS, FOR US TO TABLE IT SO PARKER CAN BE

HERE IN PERSON? >> YOU COULD CERTAINLY TABLE IT. I THINK IN HIS EMAIL, WHICH WAS SENT TO ALL OF YOU, WAS IT NOT? I THINK HE MAY HAVE MADE SOME MENTION THERE. I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR HIM, BUT I THINK HE MIGHT HAVE POINTED OUT THAT HE WAS HOPING THIS PROJECT WAS MOVING FORWARD. IS THAT RIGHT? DID I SEE THAT? I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO --.

REENGINEER (INDISCERNIBLE) PROBABLY.

SO THAT WILL TAKE SOME TIME. I WOULD IMAGINE.

>> THIS IS ACTUALLY PART OF URBAN CORE --.

THAT WAS PART OF THE 15 FOOT (INDISCERNIBLE).

AND THE REASON FOR THAT WAS BECAUSE THIS AREA WAS INCLUDED IN THAT DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS.

>> THE ZONING DISTRICT IS UMW. BUT IT IS PART OF THE GENERAL

URBAN AREA. >> YEAH.

(INDISCERNIBLE) (AWAY FROM MICROPHONE).

RAISE CEILING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND TO PUSH THE BUILDINGS CLOSER TO THE STREET WITH WIDER SIDEWALKS.

>> AND I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY ONE THING.

I THINK MR. LEWIS SAYS THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE.

WE HAD THE SITUATION COME UP RECENTLY ON THE HEART OF AUBURN PROJECT. AND WE REQUIRED THEM TO CONSTRUCT A DECELERATION LANE ON (INDISCERNIBLE) STREET ON THE BACKSIDE. THERE IS NO PHYSICAL WAY TO DO IT ON THE COLLEGE STREET SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

THEY CONSENTED TO BUILD. SO IT'S NOT THE ONLY CASE.

IT IS A LITTLE UNIQUE TO HAVE DECELERATION LANES WAIVER AND URBAN CORE DEVELOPMENT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY

THAT. >> THINK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT. AND MY (INDISCERNIBLE) OF APPROVING THE APPEAL IS IT'S A NARROW STREET WITH A SLOWER SPEED. AND BECAUSE IT IS MOSTLY POPULATED WITH STUDENTS.IT IS NOT VERY, VERY HEAVILY TRAVELED

IN THAT AREA. >> WHAT IS THE DESIGN STANDARD THAT IS DRIVING THIS TO BEGIN WITH? AND WHAT'S MAKING THIS THE REQUIREMENT?

>> IN 2018, CHANGED OUR DECELERATION LANES WAIVER AND LEFT-HAND TURN REQUIREMENTS. PRIOR TO THE TIME -- THE LIEN WAS REQUIRED IF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANALYSIS SAID THEY WERE.

N 2018 THE LANGUAGE WAS CHANGED BECAUSE AS BOB MENTIONED, WE HAVE SITUATIONS AND HAD SITUATIONS WHERE WE WERE COMING BACK AS A CITY TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE.

PARTICULARLY DECELERATION LANES FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DIDN'T HAVE THEM AT THE CITY'S EXPENSE.

THE CHANGE WAS TO HELP PRESERVE THAT CAPACITY AND INTEGRITY OF OUR MAJOR ROADWAYS -- COLLECTORS AND ARTERIALS.

MAYBE NOT FOR TODAY'S TRAFFIC BUT FOR TRAFFIC IN THE FUTURE.

>> OKAY. AND ALLISON, HAVE WE NOT IN SOME TIMES PAST, WHERE THERE WASN'T (INDISCERNIBLE) FOR A TURN LANE? WE ASKED THEM TO DESIGN THE PROJECT SO THAT THE EASEMENT -- THE RIGHT-OF-WAY COULD BE

OBTAINED WHEN NEEDED? >> YES, WE HAVE DONE THAT IN

THE PAST. >> AND JUST DON'T BUILD IT.

[00:25:02]

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND DISCO LET'S MAKE SURE I GET THE

WORDS RIGHT (LAUGHING). >> APPROVE THE APPEAL.

>> APPROVE THE APPEAL. OKAY.

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

ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE A VOICE VOTE ON THAT, PLEASE.

THE MOTION FAILS. OKAY.

[1. Election of Officers]

THE STOMACH THAT'S THE END OF OUR REGULAR MEETING.

THE OTHER BUSINESS, WE WILL BASICALLY HAVE TIME TO ELECT OFFICERS FOR THIS NEXT YEAR. THE OFFICERS WE ARE ELECTING ARE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE VICE CHAIRMAN AND THE SECRETARY. AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT ON THE SCREEN. SO TO START WITH, THE WAY I'M GOING TO HANDLE THIS IS JUST BY HAVING NOMINATIONS FROM THE FLOOR FOR EACH OF THEM. AND THEN WE WILL VOTE DEPENDING ON HOW MANY NOMINATIONS WE HAVE.

THE FIRST OFFICE IS FOR CHAIRMAN.

SOMEONE OPEN THE NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIRMAN.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION.

THE (INDISCERNIBLE) CHAIRMAN IS GOING TO BE SERVING ABOUT 1 AND A HALF YEARS BEFORE HE LEAVES THE COMMISSION.

AND IF HE WAS WILLING TO SERVE AND THE OTHER TWO OFFICERS WERE WILLING TO SERVE UNTIL THAT TIME, THEN PERHAPS MY NOMINATION WOULD BE FOR ALL THREE OFFICERS TO CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CHAIRMAN LEAVES THE COMMISSION.

AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD ELECT OFFICERS -- PERHAPS WE WOULD NEED ALL THREE -- JUST A SUGGESTION.

>> WE COULD PUT THAT IN A FORMAL MOTION.

>> WELL, I COULD -- I GUESS -- ASSUMING THAT YOU WERE WILLING TO CONTINUE TO SERVE. AND THE VICE CHAIR.

I CAN SPEAK FOR MAC. I KNOW HE WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE AS SECRETARY. SO THE MOTION WOULD BE THAT THE THREE CURRENT OFFICERS BE REELECTED FOR THE NEXT TERM.

ALTHOUGH WITH YOU LEAVING THE BOARD IN MID YEAR, WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE A REELECTION AT THAT POINT.

>> (INDISCERNIBLE). >> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

[2. Re-Adopt 2022 Calendar as amended]

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

WE HAVE ONE MORE THING. WE ARE AT THE VERY END AND IT'S ABOUT LOOKING AT OUR CALENDAR FOR THE YEAR.

AS I RECALL, WE HAD ONE POTENTIAL ISSUE ON ONE DAY.

WELL, THERE WERE TWO. BECAUSE THERE WAS SPRING BREAK

TOO. >> SEPTEMBER 6. IT USED TO SAY SEPTEMBER 5. THAT'S FOR LABOR DAY.

AND THEN, THERE IS A QUESTION AMONG THE GROUP AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANTED TO CHANGE THE DATES FOR SPRING BREAK.

WHICH I BELIEVE IS MARCH. STAFF DID LOOK AT THAT.

IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE PACKET MEETING AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REGULAR MEETING TO JUST THE SAME DAYS BUT THE FOLLOWING WEEK? THAT DOES NOT CREATE ANY ISSUES FOR US.

[CHATTER]

[LAUGHTER] >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE THAT PARTICULAR DATE TO THE WEEK LATER. WHAT IS IT, THE 14TH AND THE --? I KNOW CITY SCHOOLS ARE THAT WEEK.

CITY SCHOOLS ARE THE WEEK OF 7 MARCH.

I'M PRETTY SURE. SO PACKET MEETING WOULD BE ON

[00:30:04]

IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYBODY? ALL RIGHT.

I'LL PUT IT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION.

I MOVE TO MOVE THAT PARTICULAR MEETING ONE WEEK LATER.

>> I'LL SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED CASINO PERCENT

[STAFF COMMUNICATION]

I HAVE NO COMMUNICATIONS. THE STAFF?

>> I DO. I BELIEVE THIS IS JESSICA'S FIRST MEETING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SHE IS OUR NEW ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT.

>> I LOVE YOUR EMAILS! THANK YOU SO MUCH!

[LAUGHTER] >> WE ARE GLAD YOU ARE HERE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.