[ROLL CALL]
[00:00:21]
>> WENDY BIRMINGHAM. DAVID WISDOM?
>> HERE. >> WE SHOULD BEGIN OUR BUSINESS BY OFFERING YOU ONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO SOME ISSUE IN THE CITY RELATED TO PLANNING THAT'S NOT IN OUR AGENDA. WE WILL HAVE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE ITEMS IN THE AGENDA AS WE GET TO THEM.
IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO BRING TO THE BOARD, WE OFFER THIS OPPORTUNITY NOW. I SEE NO ONE COMING SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE AGENDA. AS WE MOVE TO THE AGENDA, FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT HAVE ATTENDED THE MEETING OR NOT ATTENDING IN A LONG TIME. THE NORMAL BUSINESS, ITEMS WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE STAFF. THE PLAINTIFF WILL ASK STAFF QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COMMENTS AND ISSUE.
WE WILL THEN GET THE PROPOSED OR DEVELOPER OR THE PERSON, APPLICANT, THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY IN MANY CASES FOR PUBLIC HEARING. CERTAIN ITEMS REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WANT TO HEAR FROM CITIZENS.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO STATE RIGHT NOW AND I'LL DO AT EVERY MEETING, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU AND WE DO LISTEN TO WHAT THE CITIZENS SAY. HOWEVER, IN MAKING THE DECISIONS, THIS BOARD, WE MUST CONSIDER A VARIETY OF VARIABLES TO INCLUDE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, CASE LAW RELATED TO PLANNING ISSUES.
THE OVERALL GENERAL IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS OUR OWN ORDINANCES AND GUIDELINES. SO WE WILL THEN AFTER WE HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER AND CITIZENS, WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE FIRST ORDER. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE NO OLD
[CONSENT AGENDA]
BUSINESS THAT I KNOW OF. IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS.THAT WILL BRING THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WE HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS TONIGHT AND USUALLY AT MOST MEETINGS THAT DON'T REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING THAT ARE FAIRLY TECHNICAL IN NATURE. IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT CUT AND DRY BUT IT REQUIRES OUR DELIBERATION AND APPROVAL.
WILL WE HAVE PRESENT FOR THE AGENDA ITEMS, STEVE?
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. TONIGHT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, YOU HAVE A PACT FROM NOVEMBER 7TH, AND NOVEMBER 10TH.
YOU HAVE ANNEX OF DAVIS ESTATES. YOU HAVE AN ANNEX SAYINGS CITY OF AUBURN PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CENTER, AT 7384 U.S. HIGHWAY 280 WEST. THE LAST THING IN THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THE FINAL PLANT FOR HUNTER'S HILL AND THAT'S OFF SANDHILL ROAD. THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANY MEMBER WHO WISH TO REMOVE ANY OF THOSE ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? I MAY SAY FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT, TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE AWARE OF THE ITEMS FOR ANNEXATION OR THE OPTIMUM BOUNDARY AND SET BY THE BOARD IN THE CITY COUNCIL. IS THAT CORRECT, STEVE?
>> MY APOLOGIES. >> THESE ITEMS FOR ANNEXATION, WERE FROM THE OPTIMUM BOUNDARY, AS POLICY, IN THE PLANNING BODY.
IF THERE'S NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION, IS THERE ANY MOTION TO MOVE THE
>> MOTION MADE, IS THERE A SECOND?
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE
>> AND ANY OPPOSE? THE CONSENT OPPOSE.
[4. Rezoning – Links Crossing, Phase 5 – PUBLIC HEARING]
THE NEW BUSINESS, REZONING. >> THIS IS THE FIRST REQUEST OF TWO CASES FOR LINKS CROSSING. THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.19 ACRES FOR RURAL FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
[00:05:04]
HOUSING. PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE CURRENT, SOUTH IRON STREET, AND OFF MILL CREEK ROAD.FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATES THE PROPERTY AS LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY, THAT PERMITS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES AND SIX DWELLINGS ACRES PER ACRE. AND THE PROPOSED DENSITY IS 3.82, DWELLING, PER ACRE. AND THE PROPOSED REZONING, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DES NATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
>> ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE APPLICANT THAT WISHES TO MAKE ANY COMMENT? OKAY. THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING AS DO ALL REZONING ITEMS. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WISHES TO RAISE ANY QUESTIONS OR MAKE ANY COMMENTARY ABOUT THE PROPOSAL? NOW I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN THE DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? IS THERE ANYONE PREPARED FOR THE MOTION
>> MOVE TO APPROVED. >> MOTION HAS MADE.
>> SECOND. >> AND FOLLOWED TO THE REZONING REQUEST WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.
[5. Preliminary Plat – Links Crossing, Phase 5 – PUBLIC HEARING]
>> ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT OFF IS LINKS CROSSING PHASE 5 ALSO FOR
16 LOT SUBDIVISION. >> YES, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY FLAT APPROVAL FOR A CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CONSISTING OF 16 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IT'S LOCATED IN TERMINUS. THE REQUEST, ALL PREVIOUS PHASES OF LINKS CROSSING SUBDIVISION ARE ZONED DDH WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY ZONED RURAL. THE REQUEST IS FOR APPROVAL OF 16 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT MEET ALL SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND ALLOWING DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND FUTURE LAND USE.
THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
AND PRELIMINARY APROMPT -- APPROVALS ARE CONTINGENT PRELIMINARY COUNCIL OF THE MEETING.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? OKAY. IF NOT, THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO WE WILL OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING NOW.
ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS SUBDIVISION APPLICATION.
I SEE NO ONE, SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANY ONE TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER BY THE BOARD.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE 2022-027 WITH CONDITIONS.
>> ALL RIGHT, IS THERE A SECOND? >> 2022-026.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE AND SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF SAID MOTION, SAY AYE.
THE MOTION IS CARRIED AND IT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
THE NEXT ITEM IS PRELIMINARY FLAT.
>> I'M SORRY. THAT WAS APPROVED.
THAT DOESN'T GO TO COUNCIL. >> I'M SORRY, YOU'RE RIGHT.
>> I GET WOUND UP. IT'S CHRISTMASTIME, YOU KNOW.
>> NEED TO PUT MORE EGG IN MY NOG.
[6. Preliminary Plat – Next Step, LLC – PUBLIC HEARING]
>> 6 LOT SUBDIVISION AND THE PLANNING JURISDICTION THIS IS LOCATED AT 219 LEROY 663.
HERE'S AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY, THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 3.16 ACRES. AND LIKE I MENTIONED, IT'S OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. IT'S ALSO OUTSIDE OF OPTIMAL BOUNDARY JUST SOUTH OF THE LIMIT.
HERE IS THE PROPOSED FLAT DIVIDING THE PROPERTY IN 6 LOTS.
[00:10:04]
IT'S DESIGNED AS A FAMILY SUBDIVISION, STILL SUBJECT TO OURS. THE APPLICANT DID RECEIVE WAIVERS IN JULY OF THIS YEAR TO FACILITATE THE SUBDIVISION.THE WAIVERS TO THE FLAG LOT REGULATIONS AND MINIMUM LOT AREA. AND WITH THOSE WAIVERS, WE
RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO ADD TO THE REPORT? IF NOT, WE WILL NEED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AND I WILL OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS OR ASK ANY QUESTIONS? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK THE STAFF FOR ANY DISCUSSION. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT SHE SAID. THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE OPTIMUM BOUNDARY THAT THE CITY HAS SET BY POLICY THAT WE WILL SOURCE NOT LIKELY TO BE ANNEXED ANYTIME IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
EVEN THOUGH THIS IS, AND WE'VE ALREADY GRANTED THE WAIVERS ON THE FLAG LOTS. SO IS THERE ANY, ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS MADE AND SECONDED.
ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY
>> MOTION IS APPROVED. WE NOW MOVE FROM A PRELIMINARY
[7. Final Plat – Next Step, LLC]
PLATT TO THE FINAL PLAT. >> 6 LOT SUBDIVISION AND PLANNING JURISDICTION AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> DOES ANYONE WANT TO BRING ANYTHING TO OUR ATTENTION TO THAT ONE? THIS IS A PUBLIC PLAT.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AFTER THE COMMISSION.
>> MOVE TO APPROVE FF-2022-025. >> MOTION HAS MADE AND SECONDED FOR APPROVAL. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY
>> ALL OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES.
[8. Conditional Use – 861 East Magnolia – PUBLIC HEARING]
WE NOW MOVING TO CONDITIONAL USE ON EAST MAGNOLIA.THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SPECIFICALLY A DUPLEX.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 861, EAST MAGNOLIA AVENUE IN THE DDH ZONING DISTRICT. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS DDH AND NC5 TO THE EAST. THERE ARE SEVERAL EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES AS WELL AS DUPLEXES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE, WHICH IS LOW TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS THE DDH ZONING DISTRICT. SO WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. ONE SPECIFIC CONDITION IS THAT AN ADMIN PLATT. THIS IS A REVISED SITE, SHOWING THAT THEY CAN MEET THAT 75 FOOT LIP ACROSS MAGNOLIA.
I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY CROSS CORRESCORRESPOND
ENTERS. >> DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO ADD TO THE PRESENTATION? APPARENTLY NOT, SO THIS REQUIRES ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING OF WHICH I WILL OPEN NOW.
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
AND NO ONE DOES SO WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT FOR COMMISSION DISCUSSION. ANYTHING ON THIS ONE?
>> AND CU-2022-060, WITH RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TO
CITY COUNCIL. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE WITH
CONDITIONS. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY
>> ANY OPPOSED, SAY NO. THE MOTION CARRIES.
[9. Waiver – Cope Property – PUBLIC HEARING]
WE ARE NOW READY FOR A WAIVER REQUEST FROM COPROPERTY.[00:15:10]
>> YES GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS FOR A WAIVER FOR SUBDIVISION, SPECIFICALLY THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL LOTS MUST ABUTT ON A PROPERTY STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS BUT OPERABLE BOUNDARY.
IT IS IN ESTATE DRIVE, WHICH IS A PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS WISHING TO ESSENTIALLY SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY, IT'S AN 18 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS. ONE OF WHICH APPLICANT, IS TO CONSTRUCT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
SO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATION, EVERY LOT, SHOULD BE AROUND A DEDICATED PUBLIC STREET. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS TO INSURE THAT ALL LOTS ARE ACCESSIBLE AND THE ACCESS PROVIDED IS BUILT AND DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES SUCH AS FIRE, REFUGE COLLECTION.
AND IN THIS CASE, THE SPECIFIC LOT WILL TAKE ACCESS IN A PRIVATE DRIVE, WHICH IS A STATE DRIVE.
AND IT DOES NOT PUBLICLY OWN OR MAINTAIN SO THE CITY THEREFORE CANNOT GUARANTEE ACCESS OR THE ROAD PROVIDED THE STANDARD NECESSARY FOR SERVICE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL THIS WAIVER REQUEST AS THE REGULATION, DO NOT DEPART THE OWNER OF USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. AND THE WAIVERS, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MAILS BE REQUIRED. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO
BRING INFORMATION TO US. >> YES, BRETT ASPEN, REPRESENTING MR. POPE. AND ESTATE DRIVE WAS BUILT IN THE LATE 70S AS A PRIVATE STREET.
THAT ROAD WAS OUT THERE EVEN BEFORE MORRIS WAS PAVED.
MORRIS WAS A DIRT ROAD AT THAT TIME.
IT'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME. MR. POPE, HE OWNED IN THE EARLY 80S. AT THE TIME, SUBDIVISION REGULATION THAT WAS ASKING FOR WAIVERS WERE NOT IN PLACE, WERE THEY IN THE CITY OR THE COUNTY. IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, WE ARE DEALING WITH THE COUNTY. IN REGARDS TO THIS, THE HOUSE YOU SEE IN THE FLAG LOT IN THE MIDDLE, THAT'S IN THE CITY, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY THAT HE OWNS IS IN THE COUNTY.
THE REST OF THE SUBDIVISION IS A MIX OF COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY AND CITY OWNED PROPERTY. AND IN 2004, MR. COPE SUBDIVIDED AND CUT OUT HIS HOMESTEAD OUT IN THE MIDDLE, IN ORDER TO ANNEX TO THE CITY, SO HIS DAUGHTER COULD GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL.
THAT WAS BACK IN 2004. HERE WE'RE COMING BACK NOW IN 2022, THE SAME DAUGHTER WANTS TO ESSENTIALLY BUILD A HOUSE AND BE ON THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY OR ADJACENT ON FAMILY LAND, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO CARVE SIX ACRES TO 15 ACRES TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING FOR MR. COPE'S DAUGHTER.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SUBDIVIDE HERE AND SELL-OFF PROPERTY FOR FINANCIAL GAIN. THIS IS REALLY MORE OF TRYING TO CREATE A PARCEL WHERE HIS DAUGHTER COULD LIVE ON THE SAME PIECE OF LAND OR ADJACENT TO HIM.
YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE REGULATIONS AND WE HAVE THIS WAIVER PROCESS FOR THOSE ONE OFF CONDITIONS THAT DON'T FIT INTO OUR NORMAL NORMAL DAY TODAY LIKE WE SEE IN THE SUBDIVISION OF A PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND, IF WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD A PRIVATE STREET AND SUBDIVIDE OFF OF THAT, WHILE THAT WOULD BE, I COULD UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD WANT TO PREVENT THAT BUT AT THE SAME TOKEN HERE THIS PROPERTY OWNER HAD THIS PROPERTY FOR 40 YEARS. HE'S SUBDIVIDED HIS OWN PIECE OFF AND HE HAS PLUS OR MINUS 30-SOMETHING ACRES LEFT.
IF WE'RE SAYING WE'RE NOT DOING ANY ILL WILL TOWARDS THE OWNER
[00:20:01]
OF THE LAND, BY DOING TWO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, I THINK WE ARE ALL MISUNDERSTOOD IF WE DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE DENYING REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. EVERYTHING SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY BUTTS TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST.TO THE WEST IS EAST LAKE. THOSE ARE ONE ACRE LOTS THAT'S BUTTINGNESS. THE PRIVATE DRIVE, IT'S IN BETTER SHAPE THAN THE COUNTY NEXT TO THE CHURCH.
I WENT OUT THERE AND TOOK SOME PICTURES.
YOU COULD SEE THE ROAD HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AND IS WELL MAINTAINED. IT'S PROBABLY IN BETTER SHAPE THAN A LOT OF ROADS DEFINITELY IN THE COUNTY, SOME IN THE CITY.
THIS ROAD WAS RECENTLY OVERLAID, I WOULD SAY WITH A NEW WING SERVICE IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THIS IS COMING IN ESTATE DRIVE.
HIS DAUGHTER IS BUILDING A HOUSE, WE WANT TO BUILD THE PIECE OUT. YOU COULD SEE, IT'S IN GOOD SHAPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS. THIS ROAD IS OWNED BY THE H.O.A.
IT IS MAINTAINED BY THE H.O.A. THE H.O.A. HAS PAID FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE ROAD.
THIS IS A TURNOVER OF THE STATES TO ROCKWOOD, WHICH IS ASSIGNED AS A COUNTY ROAD, BUT IT'S NOT A COUNTY ROAD.
IT'S A COUNTY STREET. THE STAFF ROUND-UP, THE STATE, THE SUBDIVISIONS ARE REPRESENTED, THE SUBDIVISION AS REPRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, DOES NOT POSE AN UNDO RISK OR CREATE AN IMPACT IN THE CITY. THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET.
WHAT IT DOES STATE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON A PUBLIC STREET, THEY CAN'T RECOMMEND APROFRL. THERE ARE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS SIMILAR TO THIS, THAT HAS PRIVATE STREETS, THAT ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. A COUPLE OF THOSE ARE ALL AROUND THIS AREA IN MORRIS MILL. HAND POINT, IN THE MIDDLE OF HOLE, NUMBER 14TH, 15TH, SUBDIVISION.
THAT'S A PRIVATE STREET WITH LOTS ON IT.
THOSE ARE HALF ACRE LOTS. NOW THAT'S CONSIDERED MULTI-UNIT, INSIDE OUR ORDINANCE.
AS A PRIVATE STREET, WITH SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS OWN IT. THE OTHER ONE THAT'S OUT THERE, TOO, IS MILLWOOD. AT THE CORNER OF RIGHT THERE, WHOLE NUMBER 2. FAMILY STREET, SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. IT'S A SINGLE STREET.
IT'S CONSIDERED A MULTI-UNIT. THE DAKOTA SUBDIVISION.
PART OF THE DAKOTA SUBDIVISION, IS LARGE LOT, SINGLE RESIDENTIAL WITH PRIVATE STREET. THERE'S A PHASE -- I'M SORRY, A MAJORITY OF THAT OUT THERE, THE FIRST PHASES ARE PUBLIC STREETS.
THERE IS A NEW PHASE THAT'S OUT THERE, WITH LARGE LOTS SUBDIVISION, OFF A PRIVATE STREET.
AGAIN, IT'S CONSIDERED MULTI-UNIT.
THOSE ARE LARGE, THREE ACRE PLUS LOTS.
MY POINT OF YOU IN SAYING, ALL THREE OF THE SUBDIVISIONS WERE BUILT WITHIN THE LAST 15-20 YEARS.
THE SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN OUT THERE FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS.
I THINK, TO DENY THE ADDITIONAL USE TO CARVE A 6 ACRE PARCEL OUT OF A 50 ACRE TRACK, FOR A FAMILY MEMBER TO BUILD A HOUSE, I THINK THAT'S UNREASONABLE. SLIDE DOWN TO THE -- THIS LAST
SLIDE >> YOU SEE THE PROPERTY IS.
IF YOU SLIDE DOWN, THE PARCEL DOWN THERE.
AND THIS IS THE YOUNG WALKER SUBDIVISION, BACK IN 2019.
THAT LOT WAS SUBDIVIDED. IT'S ON THE SAME PRIVATE STREET WE'RE ON. IT DID NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WAIVER PROCESS. I THINK THAT'S MISSED IN AN ERROR. MY POINT OF IT IS, WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TO GET A WAIVER TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.
TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE VISION IS AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. I FEEL LIKE, THIS IS NOT IMPING OR PUTTING AT RISK THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I HOPE YOU'LL VOTE WITH US, IN ORDER TO GRANT THE WAIVER. WE UNDERSTOOD WE MAY HAVE TO GO TO THE COUNTY. WE REALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING, BECAUSE WE'RE WITHIN THE PLANNING JURISDICTION, THE FIRST STEP BEFORE WE GO TO THE COUNTY EVEN THOUGH WE'RE IN THE COUNTY
[00:25:03]
ON THAT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.I KNOW I THREW A LOT AT YOU. BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> I DO REAL QUICK.
>> YOU SAID THE H.O.A. IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE ROAD. DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE
COVENNANCE? >> BEEN DOING 6 OR 7.
JUST SAYING. IT'S BEEN UNDERSTOOD FOR, SINCE THAT TIME. WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEM, MAINTAINING THAT ROAD, WE HAVE NO WARNING, ON THE HOMEOWNERS ON
THE ROAD. >> DOES THE HOMEOWNERS, ASSOCIATION OPERATE LIKE MOST OTHER HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS, WHERE THERE'S ANNUAL DUES AND ASSESSMENTS.
SO THERE'S ADEQUATE REVENUE THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO MAINTAIN
>> HOW MANY PROPERTY OWNERS? I WAS GOING TO ASK KIND OF LIKE
IN THE SAME LINES? >> 23 HOMES OUT THERE, WITH TWO
MORE IN CONSTRUCTION. >> MR. COPE IS THE PRESIDENT OF
THE H.O.A. AS WELL. >> ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING SO I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE? I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD. QUESTIONS ARE
>> I WILL SAY, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT.
HIS PROPERTY, AND THIS IS A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE WAIVERS, IS FOR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT ROAD HAS BEEN THERE LONG BEFORE THESE ORDINANCES OR THESE REGULATIONS ARE IN PLACE.
THIS IS THE EXACT SAME SITUATION I LIVE ON AS WELL, ON A PRIVATE ROAD. AND SHOULD WE AT SOME POINT, SHOULD WE DECIDE TO THE CITY LIMITS TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY.
PERHAPS I'M NOT THE MOST UNBIASED PERSON IN THE WORLD, BUT I DO THINK, WE SHOULD PLACE UNDUE TO THE HOMEOWNER, TO GIVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND NOT MAKING A REGULAR SUBDIVISION.
TRADITIONAL SUBDIVISION. >> I WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANTS AND ROBIN'S COMMENTS. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, FAMILY PROPERTY, THAT BACKED UP TO THE PROPERTY.
AND I SPENT LOTS OF TIME OUT THERE OVER THE YEARS.
I REPRESENT SELLERS IN THE AREA. I HAVE SPENT A GREAT TIME IN THE AREA. THIS IS A VERY, VERY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DO THINK THE POINT OF WAIVER IS TO TAKE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE SPECIFICS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPLICANTS. SO I THINK GRANTING THIS PARTICULAR WAIVER IS NOT MAKING A BLANKET STATEMENT FOR THE FUTURE, OTHER APPLICANTS THAT WANT TO DO THE SAME THING, SPECIFICALLY WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
IT MAKES ACCESS FOR SAFETY VEHICLES VERY EASY.
I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM GRANTING THE WAIVER, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION NEEDS TO BE DENIED BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR GUIDELINES.
>> ANYONE ELSE? I AGREE THAT THESE ARE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THEREFORE, IF ANYONE IS PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONCLUDE THE FACT, THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL UNIQUENESS ABOUT THIS, SO IT WON'T GET CAUGHT INTO YOU DID IT FOR HIM, YOU DID IT FOR THAT.
THIS IS A LONG TIME EXISTING SUBDIVISION.
THERE'S ONLY ONE NEW LOT, THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE WAIVER.
IT'S THE ROAD IS HOMEOWNERED ASSOCIATION MAINTAINED.
THERE APPEARS TO BE ADDITIONAL REVENUE.
ANY COMMENT BY THE BOARD TO MAINTAIN THAT ROAD.
YOU COULD SAY THAT IF YOU WANT TO.
[00:30:01]
. >> I'LL BE DELIGHTED TO MAKE A MOTION THAT INCLUDES ALL THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS, TO APPROVE 2022-011. .
>> THE WAIVER BE APPROVED AND SUBJECT -- BECAUSE OF THE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? AND ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION
>> ANY OPPOSED, SAY NO. THE MOTION CARRIES.
[10. Waiver – Whispering Pines – PUBLIC HEARING]
. >> NEXT ITEM IS ANOTHER WAIVER
FOR WHISPERING PINES. >> SECOND WAIVER REQUEST ON THE AGENDA, A REQUEST FOR THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR LAND THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS BUT IN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 473 LEROY ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS WHISPERING PINES ROAD AND WEST OF THE AUBURN TECH PARK. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO SUBDIFD ONE EXISTING LOT, APPROXIMATELY 5.9 ACRES INTO THREE LOTS FOR THE RECORD. TWO OF WHICH DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS THREE ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR LAND THAT'S IN THE OPTIMUM BOUNDARY. TO BE CONFORMING, THAT RULES ANY DISTRICT THAT IS ALSO THREE ACRES.
ESSENTIALLY THE PROPERTY, AS YOU COULD SEE, IS ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION, IF IT WERE TO BE BROUGHT IN THE CITY LIMITS, WHICH REQUIRES THREE ACRE LOTS SIZE.
THEREFORE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE WAIVER REQUESTS FOR THAT REASON, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT, THE OWNER REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE ONE. >> ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I THINK I HAVE ONE ANNEXATION QUESTION, SINCE YOU MENTIONED IT. I SEE THE LOT AND I DON'T HAVE THE -- TO THE SOUTH OF THE PIECE OF THE PROPERTY, THAT'S WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE THREE ACRE LOT?
>> YES. >> FOR ANNEXATION TO TAKE PLACE, THAT LOT HAS TO BE ANNEXED, BY THE CONTINUITY, BECAUSE IT WILL BE THE ONLY ADJACENT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
IS THAT CORRECT? >> NOT QUITE THERE IS.
TO THE WEST, IT'S ADJACENT. >> IS THAT --
>> WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL. IT'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME, MANUFACTURED HOME LOCATED IN THE PIECE.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO RETAIN THAT. BUT AS I SAID, IT'S IN THE COUNTY. THEY HAVE NOT EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO ANNEX AT THIS TIME. AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> DO WE KNOW THE PROFITS OF THE
SUBDIVISION? >> I BELIEVE TO SELL THE LOTS.
>> WHAT HE'S DONE, IT APPEARS TO ME, INSTEAD OF DIVIDING IT INTO TWO LOTS APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES EACH, ONE, HE'S HALF OF THAT. AND IF HE COULD GET TWO LOTS,
ONE OF THEM WOULD BE 2.8 ACRES. >> IT WOULD STILL NEED A WAIVER.
IT'S GOT TO BE 3 ACRES. >> AND MUCH CLOSER.
>> OKAY. >> AND DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE
ANY SAY? >> GOOD EVENING. I'M MARK TIPPONS, I'M HERE FOR THE OWNER, MS. RICHARDS, KNOCKED A KNEECAP OUT OF JOINT AND COULDN'T BE WITH US.
IF YOU BE SO KIND TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE -- THIS IS AN OLDER SURVEY, THAT WAS DONE BUT THE 1.4 ACRE AND THE 1.4 ACRE IN I PROFUSELY APOLOGIZE IF THERE WAS COMMUNICATION BREAK DOWN.
THE SUBDIVISION WAS TO BE 3.0 ACRES WITH THE SOUTHERLY PART, WHICH HAS THE HOME ON IT, TO RETAIN THE CHARACTER, WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. MR. RANDY BODE IS A LOCAL BUSINESSMAN AND LIVES IN CAMDEN RIDGE.
HE WANTS TO MERGE BOTH OF THESE INTO A 2.8 ACRE TRACK, IF THE
[00:35:10]
COMMISSION WOULD BE SO GRACIOUS AS TO PRESENT A WAIVER.HE DOESN'T WANT TO SELL IT OR SUBDIVIDE IT.
WHAT HE DOES, HE HAS A TREE SERVICE AND, OF COURSE, HE CAN'T KEEP THE TRACTOR WITH THE FRONT-END LOADER AND HIS LIFT, THAT HE GETS UP TO CUT LIMBS AND TREES IN HIS DRIVEWAY AT CAMDEN RIDGE. HE WANTS BOTH OF THE PROPOSAL, SO I UNDERSTAND, IT'S FOR THE 2.8 ACRE.
WHAT HE WANTS TO DO, IS HE'S RENTING IT NOW, TO STORE HIS EQUIPMENT ON. WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS BUILD A WORKSHOP AND HAVE ONE BATHROOM, NO SHOWER, NO BATHTUB.
JUST ONE TOILET AND SINK AND ALL.
SO THAT IS HIS INTENTIONS AND HE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST, YOU GRANT HIM A WAIVER. HE'S DESIROUS TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY OF AUBURN AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE, AS HE COULD GET.
IT IS CONTINUOUS WITH THE INDUSTRIAL PARK IN THE WEST END.
. >> SO THE REQUEST IS TO DIVIDE
. >> THE SURVEY WAS DOING THAT WAY B BUT.
>> FOR SOME REASON, I THOUGHT WE REDUCED IT TO 2.8 ACRE LOT AND 3.0 ACRE LOT. .
>> THAT WOULD BE WHAT HE WANTS. >> YES, MA'AM.
>> HE WANTS THE 2.8. HE WANTS, WHERE HE COULD PULL UP AA AND.
>> MY QUESTION TO STAFF, DOES THIS HAVE TO BE RESUBMITTED.
>> THE CLEANER WOULD BE TO MODIFY AND RESUBMIT AND HAVE THE GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS THE INTENTIONS.
>> DO WE THEN, EITHER TAPE, TRYING TO KEEP HIM FROM HAVING TO GO BACK TO THE PROCESS, IF WE TABLE IT.
RESUBMIT, THAT WOULDN'T BE THE SAME SUBDIVISION, WOULDN'T IT?
>> THE SUBDIVISION RIGHT NOW -- THE SUBDIVISION PLATT.
. >> COME BACK IN WITH ANOTHER
APPLICATION. >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE PREFERRED CLEAN ROUTE. I'M NOT SAYING, YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
. >> WHAT WE HAVE HERE BEFORE US, IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR.
WE CAN'T GRANT ON A VERBAL APPLICATION OR VERBAL REQUEST I
WOULD THINK. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AGAIN, PLEASE ACCEPT MY MOTIONS, APOLOGIES FOR THE OVERSIGHT ABOUT THE -- AS FAR AS RESUBMITTING, DOES IT HAVE TO BE BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR.
>> I'M GOING TO LOOK AT MY STAFF.
WE NEED A DRAWING. TO PLAN IT, YOU WOULD NEED A SURVEY. YOU NEED A DRAWING BY THE SURVEYOR AND ALL OF THAT. .
>> I'M THINKING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE, YOU COULD MODIFY THE REQUEST, SUBMITTED, WHATEVER PAPERWORK, YOU HAVE A REQUEST, CAME ALONG WITH IT. MODIFY THE REQUEST, SPECIFICALLY, REQUESTING TO SUBDIVIDE THIS 5.8 ACRE PIECE OF LAND. ONE WOULD BE 3 ACRES.
YOU'RE ASKING FOR THOSE TWO LOTS, AND WAIVER FOR THAT.
AFTER THAT, IF THAT WOULD BE APPROVED, YOU COULD PROCEED FOR
THE SUBDIVISION PLATT FOR THAT. >> AND WE COULDN'T COMMIT IT WOULD APPROVE AT THAT TIME. .
>> YES, SIR. I FULLY UNDERSTAND.
I EXTEND MY POLICY. >> WE CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
SHOULD WE DENY THE WAIVER AND HAVING COME BACK IN WITH ANOTHER
REQUEST? >> COULD WE JUST MODIFY THIS?
>> I WOULD BE OKAY WITH POSTPONING RECONSIDERING, LET THEM MODIFY, BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING.
[00:40:03]
. >> I THINK WE SHOULD TABLE THIS.
>> AND WE HAVE UNDER ALABAMA LAW, WE HAVE 30 DAYS TO ACT ON
THE SUBDIVISION. >> I THINK THE POLICY IN THE PAST, THE COMMISSIONER DOESN'T TABLE THINGS.
I'M USED TO THAT IN SOME STATES. .
>> I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS EXPRESSED, THE DESIRE TO HAVE IT
POSTPONED. >>ND AN I APOLOGIZE.
MS. RICHARDS REALLY HURT HER LEG BAD.
I KIND OF GOT INTO THIS AT THE LAST MINUTE.
I UNDERSTAND FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, IT WAS INDEED, TO BE A 2.8 ACRE CONDITIONAL USE OF SORTS.
HE JUST WANTS TO PUT A SMALL WORKSHOP ON IT WITH A BATHROOM.
>> I THINK WE CAN POSTPONE IN TIME FOR HIM TO REVISE THE
PAPERWORK. >> DO WE WANT TO SAY?
>> AND WE NEED TO MAKE CERTAIN. >> I MOVE TO POSTPONE TO THE JANUARY MEETING, THE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING.
>> WHAT DATE? >> JANUARY 12TH.
>> JANUARY THE 12TH. >> I WILL SECOND.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, THAT WE POSTPONE ACTING ON THE PROPOSAL UNTIL OUR MEETING IN JANUARY, WHICH IS THE
>> 12TH. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND ANY IN DISCUSSION. ANYONE, APPROVE SAY AYE.
. >> OKAY. I BELIEVE WE'RE AT THE END OF THE AGENDA. AND THERE IS -- CHAIRMAN HAS NO
[OTHER]
COMMUNICATIONS. HOW ABOUT STAFF COMMUNICATIONS>> I WILL. >> STAFF IS AWARE, TONIGHT IS MY LAST MEETING FOR AT LEAST A LITTLE WHILE, AS I CURRENTLY, IN THE PROCESS OF MOVING TO THE WAY, MY PERMANENT ADDRESS WILL BE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OR PLANNING JURISDICTION FOR A LITTLE WHILE. I WANT TO SAY HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY AND HOW MUCH I'VE ENJOYED MY TIME IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND YOU SHOULD EXPECT TO STILL SEE ME AT THE MEETINGS, HOPEFULLY IN FRONT OF THE PODIUM. AND IF I'M IN THE CITY LIMITS AGAIN, I WILL TURN IN MY APPLICATION FOR A SEAT IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGAIN. I VERY MUCH ENJOYED IT.
>> WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE BOARD.
I MAY POINT OUT TO THE PUBLIC. YOU HAVE BEEN THE MAYOR'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE BOARD. WE APPRECIATE THE SERVICE THAT
YOU DID FOR THE LIAISON WORK. >> AND IF YOU LIKE.
>> AND ANY OTHER
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.