[ROLL CALL]
[00:00:16]
COMMISSION TO ORDER. CAN YOU GIVE US A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? BEFORE WE START JUST WANT TO GIVE A COUPLE OF RULES OF THE ROAD SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS HOW WE PROCEED HERE.
MAKES IT EASIER AS WE GO ON. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED WITH AGENDA ITEMS BY THE PLANNING STAFF AND THEN AFTER THAT PRESENTATION, THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AGENDA ITEM HAS THE OPTION TO MAKE COMMENTS IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO AT THAT TIME. AND IF THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED WHICH MOST OF THESE TONIGHT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS, I'LL OPEN IT UP AND THAT IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORWARD AND 1350EK ON THE ISSUE AT -- SPEAK ON THE ISSUE AT HAND.
WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO KEEP YOUR TIME TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS AND KEEP COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE AT HAND.
WE HAVE A SPECIAL ROLE WITH SUBDIVISION PLATS.
BY ALABAMA STATUTE, THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION SUCH AS OURS IS THE FINAL PA APPROVAL FOR THESE SUBDIVISION PLATS SO WITH REGARD TO THOSE, THERE ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON MOST PLATS AND WE WELCOME ALL COMMENTS THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK, FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT AGAIN BUT WE WANT YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO CONFIRMING THAT THE PLAT MEETS OR EXCEEDS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS C.O.D. IDENTIFIED IN LAWS -- CODIFIED IN LAWS. ALSO OTHER THAN SUBDIVISION PLATS WE'RE THE FINAL AUTHORITY EVERYTHING ELSE IS A RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY COU COUNCIL. THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS CITIZEN COMMUNICATION. THERE'S TWO CATEGORIES AT THIS TIME. ONE IS ANYTHING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN SPEAKING ON THAT, THAT'S THE TIME TO TALK AND ALSO ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA AT ALL.
LIKE IT'S NOT EVEN HERE. SO IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT AT THIS TIME, CONSENT AGENDA OR SOMETHING ELSE ON YOUR MIND, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> SEEPING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.ANY STAFF COMMENTS ON CONSENT? WE WENT OVER -- JUST A COUPLE OF
ANNEXATIONS. >> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONTENT AGENDA INCLUDING THE APPROVAL OF
>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?
[3. Preliminary Plat – Longleaf Crossing, Phase 5C – PUBLIC HEARING PP-2022-004]
>> MOTION PASSES. FREEZE AS YOU SAID PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL.
A REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT-LOT TOWN HOW'S SUBDIVISION ON DOWNS WAY AND LOGAN COURT. HERE'S THE AERIAL.
IT WILL SHOW THE PROPERTIES AT THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF DOWNS
[00:05:03]
WAY. HERE IS THE PROPOSED TEST.HERE IS THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE PROVIDED AFTER THE CONDITIONAL USE.
SO I WOULD SAY WE HAVE RESUBMITTED OUR PLAN SHOWING THE TOWN HOMES. THE REAR ALLEY ACCESS, WE WOULD ASK THAT NOT BE A REQUIREMENT. WE ARE NOT FRONTING ON TWO STREETS SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACCESS THE PARTIALS FROM THE FRONT. ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND LOOK FOR A MOTION OR SOME QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION.
>> I GOT A QUESTION. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THEY HAD WITH THAT REQUIREMENT THAT IS SET BY THE CITY THAT -- RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY IS THAT IT'S BECAUSE THEY WERE ACCESSING FROM TWO STREETS. I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT'S THE
IMPEDIMENT. >> I THINK YOU SAID THEY WERE
NOT FRONTING ON TWO STREETS. >> WEREN'T FRONTING ON TWO STREETS. THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.
ALL RIGHT. WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM?
>> WHY IS NOT FRONTING ON TWO ST STREETS GAUZE YOU'VE GOT LOGAN COURT THERE.
>> IT'S ABOUT ACCESS FROM THE REAR.
STUCK WITH ACCESS IN THE REAR. >> THAT'S RIGHT AND MY QUESTION IS THE REASON FOR THAT WAS THAT IT DID NOT.
WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM? ON A CORNER UNIT LIKE THIS ACCESS HAS TO COME FROM THE SIDE STREET FOR THE CORNER UNITS. BUT THE OTHER UNITS DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE ACCESS OFF THE SIDE STREET.
THEY CAN TAKE ACCESS OFF THE STREET IN FRONT.
THEY CAN. IF WE DO REAR ALLEY ACCESS, THEN WE HAVE NO BACKYARD. WE ESSENTIALLY HAVE A DRIVEWAY ON THE BACK. AND THEN ON THE FRONT IT KIND OF GOES BACK TO SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD WHERE Y'ALL ARE WORRIED ABOUT TOWN HOMES AND HOW THEY FACE THE STREET. ARE YOU SEEING THE BACK OR THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. AND THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN.
A TRUE BACKYARD. IF YOU HAVE A REAR ALLEY ACCESS ON A TOWN HOME YOU HAVE NO YARDS BECAUSE YOUR SIDES ARE WALLS.
WE JUST WANT THAT FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE IT OFF THE FRONT.
>> CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT LONG LEAF CROSSING PH 5 C PRELIMINARY
[00:10:33]
PLAT BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO ALL COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY STAFF. EXCEPT THE ITEM ONE OF PLANNING.>> JUST REMOVE THAT. ALL IS GOOD.
OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MR. FOOT, I BELIEVE.
[4. Conditional Use – Chipotle Remodel – PUBLIC HEARING CU-2022-007]
THIS REQUEST AS MENTIONED IS ANOTHER CONDITIONAL USE FOR A REMODEL. THIS IS AN EXISTING RESTAURANT IN TOWN IF WE COULD FORWARD THE SLIDES TO THE APPROPRIATE PLACE THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. THANK YOU.CHIPOTLE DOESN'T HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT AMOUNTS TO THAT BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE AN ORDER IN IT SO IT'S ONLY FOR ONLINE ORDERING IF YOU WILL FROM YOUR PHONE, FOR INSTANCE. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I BELIEVE THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM A TRADITIONAL DRIVE THROUGH AND SOMETIMES THAT TAKES A LITTLE MORE TIME AND CAN SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE SO SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT THEY'RE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF CAR STACKING SPACES REQUIRED AND THERE IS A MINOR EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING THAT GOES ALONG WITH THIS THERE ARE COMMENTS WE TALKED ABOUT ON THE EXPANSION. IT'S SHOWN CURRENTLY AS A METAL FACADE WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED PER OUR REGULATIONS.
WE'VE SPOKEN WITH THE APPLICANT AND THEY'VE INDICATED THAT RATHER THAN REQUEST THEWARE THAT THEY WOULD CHANGE THE MATERIAL TO AN ACCEPTABLE MATERIAL SUCH AS BRICK.
WE DON'T HAVE REVISED PLANS YET BUT WE'LL ENFORCE THAT WHEN IT COMES THROUGH FOR DRT SO IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A PROBLEM FOR THIS AT THIS POINT IN TIME SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN YOUR REPORT AND I WOULD JUST ALSO STATE THAT UNDER PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS THERE ARE FOUR CONDITIONS IN YOUR REPORT.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MINOR CHANGES.
FOR NUMBER THREE THAT WAS A DISCUSSION THAT WE WERE HAVING WITH THE APPLICANT WHEN WE FIRST LOOKED AT SOME OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE NEW ADDITION WAS GOING TO BE HIGHER THAN OLD EXISTING PORTION OF THE BUILDING. AND WE WERE NOT SURE IF THEY WERE EXTENDING THAT AROUND THE FULL 360 DEGREES OF THE BUILDING OR NOT. AT THIS POINT IN TIME I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY ARE BUT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT IN OUR CODE PER SE AND THEY'RE NOT AFFECTING THAT PORTION OF THE BUILDING EITHER SO I THINK AT THIS POINT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO GO AHEAD AND DELETE CONDITION RECOMMENDED AS NUMBER THREE.
OKAY. AND THEN ON NUMBER FOUR JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT FOR THE RECORD THAT THE RECOMMENDATION THERE IN NUMBER FOUR I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE SHOULD CHIPOLTLE OR ANOTHER RESTAURANT OCCUPYING THIS SPACE EVER DECIDE THEY WANT TO HAVE A TRADITIONAL DRIVE THROUGH AND PUT IN A MENU BOARD THEY CAN'T JUST DO THAT.
THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT IT IN GOOD DETAIL AND IT MAKES SENSE. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION ON THIS. THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE JUST A REAL QUICK QUESTION, WAS THERE ACTUALLY A
WAIVER IN HERE FOR THE PLANNING? >> NO.
THERE WAS BUT IF THEY'RE GOING TO FIX IT SO THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE BREAKS SO THEY WOULD NOT NEED THE WAIVER.
>> OR USING EXISTING CURB CUTS I SUPPOSE.
>> OKAY. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY?
[00:15:01]
COME ON.HELLO COUNSEL MEMBERS. I'M JUST SERVING ON BEHALF OF -- IT PROVIDES THE CONSEQUENCE OF PLACING THAT ORDER ONLINE AND PICK IT UP AT THE PICK UP WINDOW.
IT'S SHOWN TO BE A GREAT ASSET TO THE COMPANY TO OUR GUESTS AND ESPECIALLY AS WE JUST HAVE SURVIVED THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS IN THE PANDEMIC HAS REALLY MADE A HUGE IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY TO THE GUESTS SO IT'S AN EXPANSION TO THE CURRENT BUILDING AS YOU MENTIONED EXTENDS IT OUT SO THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING MAJOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BUILDING SO WE KNOW THAT CAN BE COST EFFECTIVE AND ALSO WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THE AMOUNT OF EQUIPMENT, GAS LINES, IT'S MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE TO JUST DO THE ADD ON RATHER THAN RELOCATE TO A NEW AREA.
THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SEEING NO ONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION OR A MOTION.
>> I HAVE A COMMENT. I FEEL LIKE AS TIME CONTINUES TO GO ON, WE'LL HAVE MORE OF THIS PICK UP WINDOW SITUATION AND IT MIGHT BEHOOVE US TO HAVE THAT TERMINOLOGY MAYBE AS PART OF OUR DESCRIPTIONS SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT IT IS VERY DIFFERENT I FEEL LIKE THAN A DRIVE THROUGH WITH A MENU ORDERING BOARD.
SO THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WE RECEIVED TODAY I FEEL LIKE IF HE HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS GOING ON HE MIGHT NOT HAVE HAD AN OBJECTION TO JUST SOMETHING
TO THINK ABOUT. >> AND THANK YOU.
I'M SORRY. I DID HAVE THAT PRINTED OUT AND MEANT TO MENTION IT IN CASE YOU DIDN'T SEE THE EMAIL.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION.
HOW MANY ROAD SERVICE DO WE HAVE?
>> CHICK-FIL-A I BELIEVE WOULD BE A ROAD SERVICE.
>> -- >> CHANGING FROM A RESTAURANT TO A ROAD SERVICE ON A BUSY, YOU KNOW, SURFACE STREET.
>> THERE'S MCDONALDS. THAT'S ANOTHER ONE.
>> I'VE KIND OF BEAT THE SAME DRUM FOR MANY YEARS IF WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARDS URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND WE WANTED TO SEE SOME URBAN FORM ON THIS AND THIS LOOKS LIKE THE REGULAR FORM IN MY PERSONAL OPINION AND IT'S JUST HAS THE POTENTIAL OF STACKING UP AND CAUSING TROUBLE THAT WE'VE HAD THERE IN THE PAST. NOW I GET THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT IT'S MOBILE ORDERING AND I SUSPECT THAT COULD HELP. BUT I'M STILL OF THE MIND THAT WE WANT -- I BELIEVE IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT, WE WANT PEOPLE OUT OF THE CARS. SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE IN FAVOR
OF THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. >> JUST A COMMENT.
IF IT WAS A NEW BUILD, SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT IT MORE STRICTLY.
I THINK THE TRAFFIC AND THE DRIVE THROUGH IS MUCH MORE EXTREME. AND, AGAIN, IT'S MAYBE JUST A PICK UP IS KIND OF HOW STAFF LOOKED AT IT.
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. >> WE'RE NOT INTENDING TO LIMIT
[5. Conditional Use – Auburn Distribution Facility – PUBLIC HEARING CU-2022-008]
[00:23:15]
THEM IN THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT THEY CAN OPERATE SO WE ANTICIPATE THEM GOING TOWARD A 24-HOUR SERVICE POSSIBILITY.THERE ARE TWO WAIVERS. ONE IS THE BUILDING ITSELF.
THE BUILDING IS CONSISTENT OF A METAL FACADE.
IF HE AT THAT IS RESTRICTED IN -- METAL IS RESTRICTED IN THE USE THAT YOU CAN HAVE FOR A CORRIDOR.
SO THE FIRST REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THIS TYPE OF MATERIAL.
AND THEN THE OTHER WAIVER IS A REQUEST TO HAVE A VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK FENCE EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT AND THAT'S PART OF THE SECURITY FENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IT IS NOT PROPOSED UP AT THE STREET BUT IT IS PUSHED BACK A WAYS AND THEY WILL HAVE A BUFF ALONG VETERANS BLVLD SO THERE'S ROOM -- BOULEVARD. SO THERE'S ROOM FOR PLANTING VEGETATION THERE THAT I THINK WOULD SOFTEN THE VIEW OF THE FENCE AND THE VIEW OF THE MATERIAL ON THE BUILDING AS WELL. IT'S THE HEIGHT AND LOCATION FORWARD OF THE BUILDING. MY APOLOGIES, YES, SIR.
SO HAVE YOU THE MATERIAL AND THE HEIGHT AND ALSO THAT IT'S FORWARD TO THE FRONT OF OF THE BUILDING.
MORE OR LESS LIKE THE FRONT YARD.
APPRECIATE YOU ASKING THAT QUESTION.
>> OKAY. SO WITH THAT, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL.
FORWARDING OF COURSE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
[00:25:03]
COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.THE CONDITIONS IN YOUR REPORT THERE'S JUST ONE AND THAT SAYS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TWO WAIVERS TO THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY RECOMMENDATIONS, THE REMAINDER SHALL APPLY.
TALKS ABOUT CONSTRUCTION APPLIES WITH 42907 OF THE ZONING ORDER JANZ. SO WITH THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION
IS TO FORWARD WITH APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU.
I'M CHRIS, I'M WITH DESIGN GROUPS THAT WILL BE INTEGRAL IN THIS BUILDING. I WANTED TO THANK STAFF REVIEW, THE PRESENTATION, AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE DID WANT THE 24-7 OPERATION JUST BECAUSE OF THE FUTURE AND EVERYTHING ELSE WITH THE INTERSTATE AND THOSE THINGS.
SO ULTIMATELY, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BUT THE WAIVERS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED. WE'RE GLAD TO DISCUSS THOSE AS WELL FOR REASONS. THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION OR A MOTION.
>> ARE WE PULLING THE TWO WAIVERS TO BE SEPARATE?
>> YEAH. PART OF SOME DISCUSSION WE COULD
HANDLE IT. >> DIDN'T WE SAY WE COULD DO
THEM ALL AT ONCE, A PACKET. >> WE CAN DO THEM ALL AT ONCE.
>> AS LONG AS THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS TO THAT.
>> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. GO APPROVE.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE 008 WITH THE CONDITION AND INCLUDING THE APPROVAL OF THE TWO REQUESTED WAIVERS.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.
I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY COLLIDING WAIVERS IS GOOD IN THIS PARTICULAR CORRIDOR AND NOT OTHERS.
>> MOSTLY IT'S PROBABLY THE CONTEXT OF WHERE IT IS.
I KNOW IT'S -- THE REASON THE WAIVER IS NEEDED IS BECAUSE OF THE ZONING AND OF COURSE IF YOU GO ANOTHER 100 FEET OR SO TO THE WEST YOU'RE INTO A DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT AND INTO THE TECH PARK. I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF THE
ZONING. >> IN THAT CASE WOULD THAT BE
WE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO IDENTIFY HOW MUCH OF THIS SITE THEY CAN GO OUT AND CLEAR AND EXPOSE IF YOU WILL FROM THE ROAD AND SO WITH THAT WHOLE RIGHT HAND SIDE THERE BEING PRESERVED I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO AS YOU'RE DRIVING BY TO SORT OF STARE WHEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE GOOD VISIBILITY OF THE MATERIAL. PLUS THE BUILDING IS BACK I THINK IT WAS 90 OR 100 FEET FROM THAT THE ROAD.
MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN TOUGHER SAY AYE.
[6. Conditional Use – The Tavern – PUBLIC HEARING CU-2022-009]
MOTION CARRIES.>> OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS NUMBER SIX.
THIS IS THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE TAVERN.
CU-2022-009. >> STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL.
>> THIS IS A REDIVEST FOR COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USE AT 307 NORTH COLLEGE. THE PROPERTY IS .72 ACRES LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
IT HAS BEEN USED HISTORICALLY AS A RESTAURANT.
MORE THAN ONE FROM WHAT I HEAR. THE LAND USE PLAN HAS THIS
[00:30:16]
DESIGNATED AS MIXED USE 2 WHICH CALLS THIS AREA A TRANSITION FROM THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO SUBURB I CAN'T WHICH IS WHY STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE LAND USEPLAN. >> CLARIFICATION ON OUR MOTION.
>> I MOVE THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR THE TAVERN CU DO WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE BY CHANCE?
ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY? >> I'M SORRY.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WOULD GET MY OPPORTUNITY.
>> SO SECOND FOR DENIAL FOR THIS REQUEST.
THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NO. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES.
RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
[7. Conditional Use – East Glenn Bank – PUBLIC HEARING CU-2022-010]
>> OKAY. AND DOES CONFORM WITH THE LAND USE PLAN AND THE AREA.
[00:35:03]
MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY ACTIVATION? -- ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING. SORRY.
[8. Conditional Use – Westshore Multi-family – PUBLIC HEARING CU-2022-011]
WEST SHORE MULTIFAMILY. 2022-021.>> YES. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2240 EAST UNIVERSITY DRIVE. AND THE UNIVERSITY SUBDIVISION HERE TO THE SOUTH. THE SITE PLAN HERE IS GOING TO SHOW THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING 32 UNITS AND SEVEN BUILDINGS AGE THEN THE SECOND REQUEST FOR A WAIVER IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL BUILDINGS WITH A STREET FACADE SHALL HAVE ONE FUNCTIONAL ENTRY AND AS THIS PLAN SHOWS ONLY BUILDINGS ONE AND SEVEN MEET THIS STANDARD. NO.
JUST ONE. WHICH WILL THEN NEGATE THE NEED FOR THE SECOND WAIVER. IF THAT'S NOT CONFUSING.
WE RECEIVE NO CORRESPONDENCE FOR THIS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS -- WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
>> I GUESS I'M STILL HAVING A LITTLE YOU BIT OF A PROBLEM WITH THE WAIVERS. I NEED MORE DETAIL.
>> SURE. >> BECAUSE IT'S -- YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE IF WE DON'T IF WE APPROVE THE FIST ONE THE SECOND IS NOT APPROVED BUT WE WILL -- 50% OF THE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE A FRONT ENTRANCE ON THE PUBLIC STREET THAT STILL NEED TO BE A WAIVER BUT THEN REQUIRING THE ENTRIES ON THE SOUTHERN ENDS OF 1 AND 7 WOULD NEGATE THE NEED FOR THE WAIVER.
[00:40:09]
>> ASSUMING IT'S FUNCTIONING? >> YES.
CORRECT. >> AT THE PARKING? I'M SORRY. SAY AGAIN?
>> WOULD THEY ALSO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ANOTHER DOOR FOR THE
PARKING? >> I DON'T SEE WHY NOT.
AS LONG AS THEY'RE FUNCTIONING >> I DOUBT IT ADDRESSES THAT BUT IT NEEDS TO BE A FUNCTIONAL DOOR.
>> NO PAINTED ON DOOR. >> THERE'S NOT ANYTHING THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE A SECOND DOOR.
>> THAT BRINGS ME TO HOW DO WE PROCEED BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SECOND ONE IS KIND OF MOOT. SO THE FIST ONE YOU ONLY HAVE ONE BUILDING TODAY THAT FACES THE PRIVATE PUBLIC.
ONE OUT OF SEVEN. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE AT LEAST 50% SO YOU NEED FOUR SO IF THEY WERE TO PROVIDE A FUNCTIONING DOOR ON BUILDING ONE AND SEVEN, FACING THE ROAD, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THREE OUT OF SEVEN SO THEY STILL NEED A WAIVER TO HAVE THREE INSTEAD OF FOUR. ARE THESE UNITS GOING TO BE -- WE HAVE A NUMBER OF UNITS BUILT IN THE 70S AND EVEN 60S WHERE THEIR BALCONIES, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL IT BUT ALL OF THEM ARE OPEN LIKE STACKS. BUNK HOUSES IF YOU WILL.
I DON'T MEAN TO BE DEROGATORY BUT WHAT WILL THE FACADE ON THESE BUILDINGS I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS WORKING ON THOSE.
>> THE UP STAIRS HAVE THEIR OWN DOOR TO THE OUTSIDE.
TO A BALCONY THAT COMES DOWN A SET OF STAIRS TO THE END OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. SO ALL OF THEM WILL BE
ACCESSED FROM THE GROUND FLOOR. >> YES.
>> ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S THE WIDTH OF THIS SPACE SET BACK FROM THE EAST UNIVERSITY DRIVE.
IT LOOKS FAIRLY -- >> PROBABLY AT LEAST A HUNDRED
FEET. >> I COULD NOT TELL FROM THAT.
>> MORE THAN A HUNDRED FEET. ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME ELEVATIONS AND STUFF.
TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION, RIGHT, BUILDING ONE, SO THE ONE FURTHEST TO THE WEST IS ABOUT 150 FEET OFF OF THE ROAD.
BUILDING SEVEN, YOUR FURTHEST EAST MOST UNIT IS 214 FEET OFF THE ROAD. SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE # # HUNDRED FOOT TRANSMISSION EASEMENT SEPARATING EAST UNIVERSITY FROM THE FRONT OF THESE UNITS.
SO THERE'S 100 FOOT OF EASEMENT THERE.
AND TO THE WEST OF US IS THE NEW OFFICE BUILDING AND STUFF OVER THERE. THAT HAS SOME CHALLENGING GRADES. SO WHEN WE HAD THIS OVERALL PARCEL HERE WITH THE TRANSMISSION EASEMENT ON THE FRONT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO SOL ADVANTAGE SOME KIND OF USE OUT OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THE LIVING UNITS HAVE THE BEDROOMS ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND THE FIRST FLOOR SPACE. THESE UNITS ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FOOTPRINT OF WHAT YOU SEE IN THE GARDENS OF GATEWOOD DEVELOPMENT OVER THERE OFF OF NEAR LEE SCOTT.
OKAY. SO THEY'RE SIMILAR TO THAT.
SO THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT WE'RE UP AGAINST
[00:45:01]
HERE IS ESSENTIALLY THAT 50% OF OUR BUILDINGS HAVE TO HAVE A FRONT ENTRANCE FACING THE STREET.OKAY. THAT REGULATION CAME ABOUT.
IT WAS MORE OF WHEN WE STARTED GETTING MORE URBAN INFILL AND WHAT WE STARTED GETTING WAS POSTAGE STAMP SIZE PIECES OF PROPERTY AND ALL YOU COULD DO WAS FIT A BUILDING WITH A SIDE.
SO WHEN WE BACK UP ORDERS TO THE STREET -- BUT THESE REGULATIONS AS WRITTEN IN THE STANDARDS ALL CAME FROM URBAN INFILL, URBAN SENSE. NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WE'RE ON THE BYPASS.
THE CLOSE TOING BUILDING IS 150 FEET.
AND WE'RE JAMMED BACK BEHIND THIS TRANSMISSION EASEMENT.
SO THIS IS THE END UNIT OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK.
THERE'S A BRICK FACADE ON THE FRONT WITH HARDY BOARD WHERE YOU'RE SEEING IS PROBABLY BOARD AND BATTEN.
IN THE MIDDLE UNITS, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY POP UP FOR THE BEDROOMS UP THERE. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS NOT A FLAT FRONTED ARCHITECTURE. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS, RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE WHERE YOU WALK INTO THE FRONT DOOR IMMEDIATELY TO YOUR RIGHT IS A DINING ROOM.
SO WHILE WE ARE GOING MULTIUNIT, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE CALL THIS IS THESE ARE TOWN HOME UNITS BASICALLY BEING SOLD AS CONDOS. RIGHT.
THIS IS NOT A RENTAL PROPERTY. IT'S A FOR SALE PRODUCT THAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON USING. ALL RIGHT.
SO HERE'S OUR SITE. HERE'S EAST UNIVERSITY.
OUR SITES TO THE RIGHT OF THIS PICTURE AND YOU CAN SEE THE TRANSMISSION EASEMENTS AND STUFF THROUGH THERE.
YOU CAN SEE WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT NEXT DOOR IF I'M DRIVING ON EAST UNIVERSITY AND I WANT TO RUBBER NECK AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON OVER THERE, OKAY, THE FIRST BUILDING IS THE SAME DEPTH AS THAT OFFICE BUILDING BACK THERE SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HARDLY SEE THIS FIRST BUILDING FROM THE STREET.
NOW IF I GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THE STREET, YOU KNOW, I STILL HAVE THE GRADE OF THE PARKING LOT BLOCKING THE VIEW.
BUT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE THE TRANSMISSION EASEMENTS CUT THROUGH HERE AND I GOT WOODS ON ONE SIDE AND WOODS ON THE OTHER.
OKAY. HERE'S A VIEW IF I'M WALKING OUT OF MY UNIT AT GRADE HERE, I CAN'T EVEN SEE EAST UNIVERSITY.
HERE'S JUST ANOTHER PICTURE. THIS IS A PUCK WHICH YOU ARE OF THIS 100 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT IS MAINTAINED AND MAN CURED BY ALABAMA POWER SO THIS TREE LINE IS RIGHT ON THAT 100 FOOT MARK SO OUR BUILDING IS 40 FOOT BEHIND THERE SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO KEEP SOME OF THIS VEGETATION THAT WE CAN IN FRONT OF THIS BUILDING ONE. BUT WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO KEEP THE VEGETATION THAT YOU SEE HERE.
THIS VEGETATION YOU SEE HERE ALONG THE ROAD IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP IN FRONT OF BUILDINGS FIVE AND IN FRONT OF BUILDING SEVEN.
SO WHILE WE DO HAVE THIS REGULATION, IT'S NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL, I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE FEEL LIKE THE FUNCTIONING ENTRANCE IS REALLY NOT APPLICABLE.
[00:50:02]
TO THIS PARTICULAR SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT.SO BE HAPPEN FOY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
GET BACK TO WHAT THESE THINGS LOOK LIKE.
THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WANT TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I KNOW I ASK YOU TO OFFER COMMENTS ALL THE TIME. HOPE YOU DON'T MIND.
HAVING LISTENED TO THE DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS TAKING PLACE ON THIS TONIGHT I WOULD JUST OFFER ONE COMMENT WHICH IS THAT IT'S HELPED TO GUIDE YOU. IF YOU AGREE WITH SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT MENTIONED TODAY THAT TEND UNITS AND IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO ADD DOORS ON THOSE FACADES.
IF THAT'S YOUR POSITION TONIGHT THEN WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS MODIFY THE WAIVERS AS THEY'VE BEEN PRESENTED IN YOUR REPORT.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WOULD BE ASKED TO APPROVE A WAIVER TO ALLOW ONE BUILDING OUT OF THE SEVEN THAT FRONTS ON EAST UNIVERSITY DRIVE AS OPPOSED TO 304 AND BE ONE OF THOSE SEVEN RIGHT? THREE OUT OF SEVEN.
OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO TRY OUT A MOTION?
>> DONE EVERY SINGLE ONE SO FAR. >> KEEP GOING.
>> I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE CU 2022-011 INCLUDING BOTH WAIVERS.
RIGHT. IT'S WHAT? THAT IS A MOTION INCLUDING BOTH WAIVERS.
>> AND I SECOND THAT MOTION. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? >> YOU KNOW, I -- I -- HOLD ON ONE SECOND. DO YOU WANT TO AMEND IT?
>> GO AHEAD, JOE. >> I MEANT I UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT TYPE OF REGULATION IS IN PLACE BECAUSE EVEN ON MAJOR THOROUGHFARES LOOKING AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING IS NOT VERY A TRACTIVE AND TREES CAN BE CUT DOWN AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS AND SO I THINK THE INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT BUILDINGS -- THEY'RE FACING THOROUGH FAIRS HAVE A FRONT AND I UNDERSTAND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS TRYING TO FIT IN THERE AND THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT AS MUCH IN THERE AS THEY CAN IN ORDER TO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE A PROFIT AND I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF PROFIT. BUT I ALSO THINK THERE'S REGULATIONS FOR A REASON. AND I THINK THAT I DON'T LIKE LOOKING AT SIDES OR BACKS OF BUILDINGS WHEN I'M ON MAJOR THOROUGHFARES. AND I'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF THAT AND EVERY TIME I DRIVE PAST IT, I DON'T LIKE IT.
I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS IF THESE WERE TWO-STORY BUILDINGS THAT LOOK LIKE OTHER STRUCTURES BUILT HERE.
THIS IS VERY RESIDENTIAL LOOKING AS OPPOSED TO -- THAT'S THE DEFINITION YOU HAVE TO USE. AND BECAUSE OF THE WET LANDS TO THE EAST IS ALSO A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE BUT YES I AGREE WITH YOU. UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THIS BUT BECAUSE OF THIS UNIQUENESS HERE I'M WILLING TO GRANT THE WAIVERS.
>> OKAY. AND THEN I JUST -- >> GO AHEAD.
AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD TO THAT BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY AMEND THE WAIVERS TO NOT REQUIRE THOSE FRONT ENTRANCES ON THOSE OTHER TWO BUILDINGS.
ONE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT ENHANCES THE DESIGN.
[00:55:11]
SO I THINK YOU'RE ASKING TO NOT HAVE THEM PUT THE DOORS ON THESOUTH FACADE. >> SO YOUR AMENDMENT SAYS REMOVE
I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I MADE THE CORRECT MOTION.
YOUR MOTION REQUIRES THE ENDS OF ONE AND SEVEN TO HAVE DOORS.
>> THE AMENDMENT AS I HEAR IT IS TO GRANT A WAIVER THAT SAYS YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE DOORS ON THE ENDS OF BUILDING ONE AND SEVEN.
IS THAT CORRECT? >> I SUPPORT THE WAIVERS AS IS
WITHOUT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. >> THAT'S WHAT YOU MEANT.
>> SO THE WAIVERS AS IS IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE IN MY MOTION TO APPROVE.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. >> ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I NOTICED THAT BUILDING ONE IS NOT SET BACK.
DOESN'T HAVE ANY OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT WET LANDS OR ANYTHING ELSE. IT IS VERY CLOSE TO THE ROAD IS BUILDING ANY OTHER BUILDING. AS WELL AS THE FLINTAGE ROAD ON UNIVERSITY. WELL, IT IS -- HE MAKE AS A GOOD POINT IN TERMS OF ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF THE BUILDINGS TO THE EAST, ONE IS JUST A THREE-UNIT BUILDING WHICH MEANS IT'S SET BACK TO MIDWAY OF THE BUILDING NUMBER FIVE.
BUT BUILDING TWO NOW BUILDING ONE COULD BE SET BACK.
IT COST THEM A COUPLE OF UNITS BUT IT COULD BE SET BACK WHICH WOULD BE THE SIDE OF THAT BUILDING WOULD BE FURTHER AWAY FROM EAST UNIVERSITY. AND SET SAME OR AT LEAST BACK TO THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE STREET AS BUILDING FIVE.
THEY COULD DO THAT. >> MY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY EARLIER WAS I DON'T THINK IT ENH ENHANCES FUNCTIONALITY OR A TRACTIVENESS ENOUGH.
AND ALSO I PERSONALLY DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE THAT FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT EITHER. I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF THOSE PARTICULAR RESIDENTS HAVING TO WALK AROUND TO WHAT BASICALLY WOULD CONSTITUTE THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
I WOULD OBJECT TO IT JUST FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT AS WELL.
TO HAVE THAT ENTRANCE MOVED AWAY FROM THE OTHER ENTRANCES TO THE OTHER UNITS. SO I THINK ME PERSONALLY FOR THOSE TWO REASONS, I DON'T THINK THAT REQUIRED CHANGE IS ENOUGH
TO WARRANT -- >> THE REDESIGN.
>> SO YOU'RE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT THEN?
>> NO. I'M SUPPORTING HER MOTION FOR
THE WAIVERS. >> WITH THE CLARIFICATION BUT I WANTED TO JUST GET ON THE RECORD WHY.
HELP ME WITH YOUR SECURITY CONCERNS.
THOSE TWO ENTRANCES ON THE ONE AND SEVEN THEY WILL NOT ENTER FROM THE SAME VANTAGE POINT AS ALL OF THE OTHER UNITS IN THAT BUILDING. IF I HAVE TO GO AROUND TO THE SIDE. THE PARK IN THE FRONT AND WALK
UP THE SIDE OF THEIR BUILDING. >> THAT'S A VALID POINT.
>> WHICH IS MUCH MORE SECLUDED BECAUSE OF VEGETATION AND THE DISTANCE FROM THE STREET AND THOSE OTHER THINGS.
>> BUILDING NUMBER ONE IS SET RIGHT UP TO THE FRONT -- TO THE
POWER. >> THAT'S STILL A GOOD DISTANCE AND IT COULD BE MOVED BACK. THAT COULD BE ADJUSTED.
>> LIKELY NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE SET BACKS AND THE BUILDINGS
DO HAVE TO BE 15 FEET APART. >> THE REAR SET BACK WOULD HAVE
TO BE AT LEAST 18 FEET. >> YEAH.
[01:00:02]
>> SO THOSE TWO BUILDINGS WILL HAVE TO BE --
>> SMALLER. THAT'S -- HE COULD BE MAKING IT SMALLER BUT COULD I COMMENT ON THAT? IT LOOKS LIKE BUILDING ONE ON THE WEST SIDE AND IF YOU DISAGREE, LET US KNOW BUT THAT BUILDING DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE BUILT UP TO THE POWER LINE EASEMENT.
IT'S QUITE A WAYS OFF. MAYBE 40 FEET.
SO WHAT YOU HAVE THERE IS A SWATH OF WHERE PEOPLE WERE FORCING A BUILDING ON A SITE IN A WAY THAT IT WAS NOT ARCHITECTURE LITTLE AESTHETICALLY AT LEAST IT LOOKED
A LITTLE ODD. >> IT WAS AN URBAN SETTING AND IT WAS SET RIGHT UP TO THE STREET AND I WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT IT BUT I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM THIS
PARTICULAR DESIGN >> PEOPLE ARE PUTTING BACK DOORS OF BUILDINGS ACTUALLY FACING THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE.
SO WE HAD TO COME WITH SOMETHING THAT DID AND THAT CANNOT MATCH ALL POTENTIAL SITUATIONS AND SO IN THIS CASE, THIS ONE TO ME IS ENOUGH DIFFERENT THAT I CAN GRANT THE WAIVERS.
>> OKAY. WE STILL HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> I NEED CLARIFICATION. >> SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE IT WITH THE WAIVERS AS REQUESTED.
DOES THAT MEAN THE MOTION DOES NOT INCLUDE EITHER OF THE STAFF CONDITIONS AND REALLY NUMBER ONE IS JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE PLAT WHICH I THINK WILL TAKE PLACE NO MATTER WHAT.
SO THAT DOES NOT NEED TO BE A CONDITION PER SE BUT YOU'RE ALSO NOT INCLUDING NUMBER TWO BECAUSE THAT'S CONTRARY TO WHAT I
UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTION TO BE. >> JUST FOR THE RECORD.
>> I THINK IT'S FOR APPROVAL WITHOUT EITHER OF STAFF'S CONDITIONS IN GRANTING THE WAIVERS AS REQUESTED.
>> WHICH WOULD MEAN -- >> TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT AS
PROPOSED. >> WITHOUT CONDITIONS.
>> AND I BELIEVE THAT IS WITH WAIVERS AS REQUEST.
>> ALL RIGHT. EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT?
>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.
[9. Conditional Use – Auburn Hotel – PUBLIC HEARING CU-2022-012]
>> OKAY. THE NEXT ONE IS AUBURN HOTEL CONDITIONAL USE
THE URBAN BANK DEVELOPMENT SITE. TO THE WEST OR EXCUSE ME THE NORTHEAST OF THAT PROPERTY IS THE NEW AUBURN PARKING DECK.
>> HERE IS THE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY.
IT IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CEOD AND THEN WE'VE GOT UNE TO THE EAST.
[01:06:01]
THIS IS IF YOU'RE ON GLEN AVENUE FACING THE HOTEL.THE FRONT OF THE HOTEL WOULD BE ON THIS SIDE.
THIS IS THE VIEW FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE AUBURN BANK BUILDING. AND THE FRONT IS GOING TO BE OVER HERE ON THE LEFT. THIS WILL BE THE REAR OF THE BUILDING IF YOU'RE ON BURTON STREET WHAT YOU'LLED SEE IS THE -- YOU WOULD SEE IS THE VOIR DIRE LAY DROPPOFF AREA OVER HERE IN THIS AREA. AND HERE'S THE VIEW FROM THE FRONT OFF OF NORTH GAY STREET. THERE IS A PROPOSED COFFEE SHOP I BELIEVE OVER ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE AS WELL AS A LOUNGE AND ROOF TOP RESTAURANT.
A BUILDING. >> AND THERE WILL BE PLATTING REQUIREMENTS. SO BRICK, STONE.
>> THANK YOU. WOULD A REPRESENTATIVE BE HERE TO SPEAK?
>> I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THIS PROJECT.
I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE HOTEL ON BEHALF OF AUBURN BANK AND I'M ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THIS REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? PLEASE DO.
SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION OR A MOTION?
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE CU-2022-012, AUBURN HOTEL TO FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?
>> CLARIFICATION. THE HORIZONTAL PARKING SPACES ON NORTH GAY, ARE THOSE SPACES POTENTIALLY DEDICATED TO THE HOTEL OR JUST PUBLIC PARKING LIKE THE REST OF THE AREA?
>> THEY'LL BECOME PUBLIC PARKING IF THEY CAN SHUT THEM ON THE
RIGHT OF WAY. >> PUB LICK PARK SGLG THERE WILL
OKAY. SO MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[10.Conditional Use – North Ross Expansion – PUBLIC HEARING CU-2022-013]
OKAY. NEXT ONE, NUMBER TEN, CONDITIONAL USE NORTH ROSS EXPANSION. CU-2022-013, MR. FOOT AND MS. REESE ARE RECUSED FROM THIS ITEM.>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THIS REQUEST IS FOR ANOTHER
[01:10:02]
CONDITIONAL USE. BASICALLY, YOU HAVE TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THOSE LOTS TODAY TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH FOUR INDIVIDUAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED ON THOSE TWO LOTS AS THEY'RE INCORPORATED AND THERE'S A PLAN I THINK ON THE NEXT SHEET -- THERE YOU GO, YOU CAN SEE THE TWO NEW OR THE FOUR NEW HOMES. IT SHOWS RELATIVELY NARROW BUT THEY ALL FIT ON THE TWO SLOTS THERE TODAY AND LET'S SEE.SO FOUR ADDITIONAL UNITS. TWO THAT ARE REMOVED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL BEING FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL WITH I BELIEVE THERE'S JUST ONE CONDITION OF APPROVAL AND THAT IS THAT THE FLOOR PLAN OF EACH ADDITIONAL UNIT MUST BE REVIEWED AND DEEMED A MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT AND NOT CONFIGURED WITH A PRIVATE DORMITORY. JUST SOMETHING THAT AS TIME GOES AND WE LOOK AT THESE DIFFERENT FEATURES WE DON'T HAVE PLANS FOR TODAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO COMPLY WITH OUR REGULATIONS AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD ANTICIPATE IS LOOKED AT DURING BRT. THANK YOU.
IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? LOOK FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR A MOTION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
>> I'LL SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.
[11. Misc – Street Naming – PUBLIC HEARING MS-2022-003]
MOTION PASSES. OKAY. LET'S SEE.OUR LAST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS A STREET RENAMING.
MS. SHEPARD, THIS IS MS-2022-003.
>> NO MORE CONDITIONAL USES. A WHILE AGO A PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED IN ON LEE ROAD 958 FOR MR. CORBETT AND WHENEVER THAT HAPPENS, WE CHANGE THE STREET NAME FROM LEE ROAD 958 TO A CITY STREET NAME. HOWEVER, THE UNOFFICIAL NAME IS TAYLOR COURT AND THE CITY OF AUBURN ALREADY HAS A TAYLOR COURT SO THIS IS TO RECOMMEND THE STREET BE NAMED HENRY FARMS. HE WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE WITH HIS STREET NAME AS HENRY FARMS UNLESS OTHER PROPERTIES ANNEXED IN.
THIS WON'T AFFECT ANY OTHER PROPERTIES ON LEE ROAD 958 BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ANNEXED IN CURRENTLY SO ONLY HIS AND EVERYONE ON THE STREET RECEIVED A LETTER REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD CHANGE THEIR ADDRESS.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE THAT CARES TO SPEAK? AS FAR AS A PUBLIC HEARING, ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE NAME CHANGE.
>> I'LL SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? >> MOTION CARRIES.
>> STAFF COMMUNICATIONS. >> NOT TONIGHT.
THANK YOU, SIR. >> OKAY. WE'RE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.