[ROLL CALL]
[00:00:06]
IT IS MY PLEASURE TO CALL THE JANUARY 12 MEETING OF THE AUBURN PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER. WE APPRECIATE SEEING ALL OF YOU OUT HERE ON AN UNCERTAIN WEATHER DAY.
THAT SPEAKS WELL OF YOUR INTEREST IN YOUR COMMUNITY, AND WE ARE PLEASED TO HAVE EVERYBODY.
WE WILL BEGIN BY HAVING THE SECRETARY CALL THE ROLL.
>> I WANT TO EXPLAIN FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AT OUR MEETINGS IN THE PAST, THE WAY WE NORMALLY PROGRESS IN OUR ORDER OF BUSINESS, IS THAT WE HAVE, THE OLD BUSINESS.
BUT WE HAVE A CONSENT AGENDA WHICH IS... IT CONTAINS THOSE ITEMS THAT HAVE GOTTEN PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OR THOSE THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING ARE PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON AS ONE AGENDA ITEM. HOWEVER, ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD CAN HAVE... CAN ASK TO HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM REMOVED SO WE CAN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION. THE NORMAL WAY WE PROCEED, THE STAFF WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION ON EACH OF THE PETITIONS AND EXPLAIN THE STAFF REPORT THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, AND THEN THE DEVELOPER WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY.
HE OR SHE OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TO ALSO BRING MORE INFORMATION BEFORE THE GROUP.
MOST OF THE ITEMS REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, AND AT THAT TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS ISSUES OR QUESTIONS OR MAKE SOME POINTS REGARDING THAT AGENDA ITEM. WE WOULD ASK ANYBODY, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK.
HOWEVER, WE ASK EVERYONE TO CHEMOTHEIR PRESENTATION... KEEP THEIR PRESENTATION OR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS THE PUBLIC HEARING MAY GO ON, WE MAY BE... WE MAY HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS AND BE SPEAKING THE SAME REASONS, AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCISENESS AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T REPEAT THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE GOTTEN YOUR MESSAGE. WE DO CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU SAY.
WE LISTEN TO EVERYTHING THAT IS SAID, BUT OUR JOB IS TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS BASED ON A NUMBER OF VARIABLES TO INCLUDE PUBLIC OPINION BUT ALSO THE STATE, FEDERAL, AND CASE LAW THAT RELATES TO LAND USE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY, NEITHER OF US REPRESENT A SEGMENT OF THE COMMUNITY.
WE DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUENCY EXCEPT THE CITY.
WE MUST LOOK AT ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUE.
AND ALSO WE HAVE TO CONSIDER PERSONAL, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. SO AFTER THOSE PRESENTATIONS, WE GO INTO OUR DELIBERATION, WE GET TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF. AND THEN WE WILL CALL FOR A MOTION. THERE IS A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY WE HANDLE SUBDIVISIONS THAN WAY WE HANDLE ZONING ISSUING. THE SUBDIVISIONS, THIS BODY IS RESPONSIBLE SOLELY BY THE LEGISLATURE FOR THE OVERSIGHT OF SUBDIVISIONS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WRIS THE REGULATIONS WHICH ARE ALSO APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AFTER PUBLIC HEARING PROCESSES. BUT ONCE THAT IS APPROVED, AND WE DO HAVE A GOOD STANDARD SET OF REGULATIONS THAT CONTAIN THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION ON HOW SUBDIVISIONS CAN BE AND MUST BE SUBDIVIDED IN ORDER TO TRANSFER TITLE OF LAND, THAT IS A VERY TECH THINK CALL REVIEW. WE HAVE VERY LITTLE LATITUDE IN SUBDIVISION REVIEW OTHER THAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SUBDIVISIONS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
SO WITH THOSE COMMENTS, I THINK WE WILL OPEN OUR MEETING.
BY ALLOWING ANYONE THAT IS HERE SPEAK TO ANY ISSUE THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. IF YOU HAVE AN ITEM RELATED TO PLANNING AND LAND USE IN THE CITY, THEN YOU WISH TO BRING IT TO OUR ATTENTION, THIS IS THE TIME TO DO IT.
HOWEVER, IF IT IS ABOUT A SPECIFIC ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WE WILL HEAR FROM YOU AT THAT TIME. ANYONE WISH TO MAKE ANY...
CREATE ANY COMMUNICATIONS AT THIS TIME?
[1. Waiver – 473 Whispering Pines – PUBLIC HEARING ]
IF NOT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ORDER OF OLD BUSINESS.OUR ONLY ORDER OF OLD BUSINESS. WILL STAFF REFRESH OUR MEMORIES
ON THAT ITEM, PLEASE? >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
[00:05:05]
THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WAS POSTPONED FROM YOUR DECEMBER MEETING. TO ALLOW APPLICANT TIME TO PROVIDE A RENEWED EXHIBIT SHOWING WHAT THEIR INTENT FOR THE PROPERTY IS. IF YOU WILL RECALL, THE PROPERTY IS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS BUT IN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY.THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR A SUBDIVISION IS THREE ACRES.
THEY HAVE A LITTLE LESS THAN SIX ACRES FOR THE TOTAL PROPERTY, SO THEY ARE REQUESTING A WAIVER TO THAT MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN ACRE TO HAVE TWO LOTS.
ONE OF THOSE LOTS BEING LESS THAN THREE ACRES.
IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR STAFF TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THEIR DESIRES ARE FOR THE PROPERTY.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I WOULD STATE THIS IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF A WAIVER THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO MAKE THAT
SUBDIVISION POSSIBLE. >> THANK YOU.
IS THE PETITIONER PRESENT TONIGHT?
WOULD YOU LIKE TO... >> YES, SIR.
I'M MARK TIPPINS, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PETITIONER.
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INDULGE YOU AGAIN FOR PURPOSES OF REITERATION. SURVEY WE HAD LAST TIME WE CAME IN DECEMBER LITERALLY DIVIDED THAT TOP TRACK ONE INTO TWO DIINVESTIGATES WHICH WAS AN INCORRECT DRAWING.
I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU AGAIN. THIS LAND JUST UNDER SIX ACRES IS OWNED BY AMANDA RICHARDS. HER MOTHER OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. AND IT WAS AND IS STILL IN THE COUNTY BUT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION.
THEREFORE, MR. RANDY BODDIE, IF I CAN BE REDUNDANT, HE LIVES I IN... CAMDEN RIDGE. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THE SUBDIVISION. HE LIVES IN CAMDEN RIDGE.
HE HAS A TREE-CUTTING SERVICE. HE WANTS TO BUILD A SMALL...
KIND OF A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN A... HE WANTS TO BUILD A METAL STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING OF THE LIKE TO PUT HIS TRACK OR THE IN, HIS EQUIPMENT IN THERE. HE CERTAINLY CAN'T CONTINUE TO KEEP IT IN HIS DRIVEWAY. AT CAMDEN RIDGE.
HE HAS BEEN STORING IT OUTDOORS. IT IS SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY.
HE WANTS TO BUILD A ROOF STRUCTURE TO KEEP HIS EQUIPMENT OUT OF THE RAIN AND THE ELEMENTS WHEN HE IS NOT USING IT.
HE INTENDS PROBABLY TO ADD A BATHROOM.
JUST A TOILET AND A SINK. AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.
HE DOES NOT INTEND TO DEVELOP THIS FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. THERE IS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE ON TRACK TWO. IN THE MAP.
IF YOU HAVE THAT BEFORE YOU. AND AGAIN, HE DOES NOT INTEND ON DOING ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS AT ALL AND WOULD EVEN BE GLAD TO ENTER INTO SOME SORT OF PROVISIONAL COVENANT WITH THE CITY IF THEY WERE TO ALLOW THIS.
HE WANTS TO USE IT STRICTLY AND SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS TREE BUSINESS. HOPEFULLY, THAT THE CITY WILL
ONE DAY ANNEX THIS AS WELL. >> OKAY.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? I WOULD BE GLAD TO ENTERTAIN.
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.
>> MR. TIPPINS. WE APPRECIATE THAT.
>> MAY I SAY SOMETHING ON THE SIDE HERE? I'M GOING TO REALLY COMMEND THESE FOLKS AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT WERE SO UTTERLY POLITE AND GOOD.
IT IS JUST... IT WAS SUCH A PLEASANT WELCOME TO DEAL WITH A YOUNG MAN WHO WAS JUST SO POLITE AND BENT OVER BACKWARDS.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> I HOPE I'M EMBARRASSING YOU TOO, BY THE WAY.
A POLITE YOUNG MAN, YOU ARE. >> THANK YOU ALL.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. IS THERE ANY... IS THERE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? THERE IS.
I GUESS THAT IS MODIFIED. WELL, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS PARTICULAR WAIVER REQUEST?
>> IF NOT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THEN OFFER THE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS.
ANYTHING IS IS THERE ANYONE PREPARED FOR A MOTION?
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE WAIVER. >> SECOND.
>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE
[00:10:02]
WAIVER. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAYSO THE AYES HAVE IT. AND THE MOTION CARRIES.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
THANK YOU. OKAY.WE WILL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND WILL THE STAFF REVIEW THE ITEMS IN THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR
US? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION, TONIGHT ON THE CON SEN AGENDA, YOU HAVE A FEW ITEMS. WELL, IT IS NOT A NUMBER.
THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. FROM THE PACKET MEETING OF DECEMBER 5. AS WELL AS THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 8. AND THEN YOU HAVE TWO FINAL PLATS. THE SUBDIVISION, A SIX-LOT PERFORMANCE SUB DIC DICISION WIH TOWNHOME LOTS ON NORTH DEBARDELEBEN STREET. AND THEN FINAL PLAT FOR THE LANDING AT ACADEMY DRIVE. THAT IS A 38-LOT CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION. THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THAT
IS THERE ANY... ANYONE WISH TO REMOVE THOSE ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? IF NOT,...
>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND IN.
>> SECOND. >> A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. WE CONSENT TO THE AGENDA.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE.
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? SAY NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES.
[4. Preliminary Plat – West Pace Village – PUBLIC HEARING]
NEW BUSINESS. THE FIRST ITEM UNDER NEW BUSINESS IS PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WEST PACE VILLAGE.I WILL HEAR THAT ONE NOW. >> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF SIX LOTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT WEST PACE BOULEVARD IN WEST CREEK PARKWAY.
AND JUST SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 85. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, ALL THE PROPERTY WITHIN WEST PACE VILLAGE IS ZONED FRS PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH A BASE ZONING OF COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. AND ON THE PLAT HERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT IS ONE HOTEL THERE. TWO HOTELS THERE.
THAT IS THE FEATURE U-HAUL SITE. AGAIN, THE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL IS TO REDIVIDE EIGHT LOTS OF RECORD INTO A SIX-LOT CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
AND THE PLAT HAS REGULATIONS. I HAVE SPOKE WITHIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. THEY HAVE NO CONCERNS.
THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
>> OKAY. ARE THERE ANY CONDITIONS OF
WE WOULD LIKE THE STREET TO BE INCLUDED WITH THE LOTS.
>> THE WEST CREEK PARKWAY? >> YES.
AND WEST PACE BOULEVARD. >> WEST PACE BOULEVARD.
ANYONE REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER WISH TO SPEAK? ANY MORE? OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYONE WISH TO ASK QUESTIONS, OR RAISE ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PROPOSAL? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE,LY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? OR FURTHER INFORMATION THE BOARD WOULD LIKE?
IF NOT, IS THERE ANYONE... >> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE CASE
WITH CONDITIONS. >> SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
>> SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS. >> SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS. ALL RIGHT.
THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY
THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN,LY RECUSE
MYSELF FOR THE NEXT TWO ITEMS. >> ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL TET THE RECORD NOTE THAT MR. WISDOM IS RECUSING HIMSELF FOR ITEMS 5 AND 6 ON THE AGENDA. AND WE WILL THEN TAKE UP THE
[5. Rezoning – Kent Property LDD – PUBLIC HEARING]
ITEM OF THE KENT PROPERTY. KEPT PROPERTY LLD REZONING.>> THIS IS ONE OF TWO PROPERTIES AT 801 OGLETREE ROAD.
THE FIRST REQUEST WAS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM RURAL TO LLD.
THESE ARE TWO REQUESTS. THEY W WILL HAVE TO BE VOTED ON
[00:15:01]
SEPARATELY. I DID WANT TO PRESENT INFORMATION FOR BOTH FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYBODY.I HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION. THE PROPERTY IS CONSISTING OF A LITTLE OVER 34 ACRES IN A SUBDIVISION.
IT HAS FRONTAGE ALONG OGLETREE ROAD.
HERE. AND A STUB-OUT ALONG KENTWOOD DRIVE ALSO CONNECTS TO IT. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RURAL.
A SMALL PORTION OF IT IS WITHIN THE LAKE OGLETREE WATERSHED.
TO THE NORTH IS A DDH AND PDD. TO THE SOUTH, UNINCORPORATED LEE COUNTY WITH NO ZONING. AND THE EAST IS NC-150.
AND TO THE WEST IS RURAL AND NC-84.
THERE IS A SURVEY WITH THE PROPERTY.
AND HERE IS THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED. THE APPLICANT RECENTLY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY AND IS WANTING TO SUBDIVIDE THE LAND INTO 15 CONVENTIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND ONE NON-BUILDABLE OUT LOT.
EXCUSE ME. PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR KENTWOOD DRIVE INTO THE SITE.
AND THE LOTS WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM THAT.
NEW RIGHT OF WAY. LOTS FOUR, FIVE,AND SIX WOULD TAKE ACCESS FROM OGLETREE ROAD. AND AT LEAST TWO ACRES IN SIZE.
EXCEPT FOR THE OUT LOT WHICH IS 1.4 ACRES.
AND MUNICIPAL WATER AND SANITARY WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE SITES.
SO AS A LARGE LOT, LOW DENSITY CONVENTIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, THE PROPOSAL DOES MEET THE STANDARDS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
AND THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REZONING TO LED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THE PROPOSAL YOU SEE HERE. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPROVAL TO PROVIDE THE PDD OVERLAY TO THE PROPERTY.
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. WHICH WOULD BE BINDING IF APPROVED BY COUNCIL. THE FIRST CONDITION IS THAT AN ADDITIONAL OUT LOT OR OPEN SPACE AREA BE PROVIDED ALONG THE CREEK. THE AREA CONSISTS OF A LARGE AMOUNT OF FLOOD PLANE AND ESSENTIALLY, TO PROVIDE AN AREA OR ENHANCEMENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND TO HELP PRESERVE THE CREEK. CONDITION NUMBER TWO: A MAXIMUM OF TWO DRIVEWAYS WOULD BE PERMITTED ON OGLETREE ROAD.
WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS SHOWN HERE.
CONDITION THREE: THAT THE ONLY PERMITTED USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES.
AND CONDITION FOUR IS THAT ALL LOTS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES IN SIZE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE OUT LOT.
SO WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF CORRESPONDENCE ON THESE REQUESTS THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING.
WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I CAN PRESENT NOW OR WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT... I THINK YOU SAID A SEPARATE OUT LOT BE CREATED. IS THERE... WOULD THAT STILL LEAVE PLENTY OF... OKAY. THAT IS CREEK PART.
THAT STILL WOULD BE ENABLING THE LOT TO REMAIN AT AT MINIMUM OF
LOT 15 IS SLIGHTLY OVER TWO ACRES.
AND LOT 12 IS 3.4 ACRES, ABOUT. >> THEY COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE THE LAND OUT OF THOSE AND EI EITHER... THERE IS SOME CREATIVE SOLUTIONS THEY COULD LOOK AT TO COMBINE IT WITH THE EXISTING OUT LOT AND MAKE THAT TWO ACRES OR THEY COULD MAKE AN ADDITIONAL OUT LOT. THERE IS SOME SOLUTIONS THERE.
THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT. >> ALL RIGHT.
DOES THE PETITIONER WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME
I WANT TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE IS, YOU KNOW, FROM READING SOME OF THE LETTERS AND STUFF FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND STUFF, YOU KNOW, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ZONING WASN'T
[00:20:04]
CREATED AS A NEW ZONING. THAT WAS APPLIED TO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS BACK WHEN WE DID A MASS REZONING IN THE 80S AND CHANGE CHANGED THE ZONING ORDINANCE.YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS.
THOSE HAVE STIPULATIONS THAT PROTECT THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
YOU KNOW, WE ARE AWARE OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND WE WILL ABIDE BY THEM. THERE IS A LOT OF THAT STUFF IN THERE. NOT ONLY DOES THE DEED RESTRICTION STIPULATE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, OUR... THE FACT THAT WE ARE DOING A PDD FURTHER DOES THAT AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF IT BEING SINGLE-FAMILY. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY ISSUE THERE. YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO GET TO THE PDD, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME FORM OF A ZONE TO GET THERE.
WE ARE GOING THROUGH LDD BECAUSE LDD IS A LIMITED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THE LDD ZONING WAS PRIMARILY CREATED TO PROTECT THE LAKE OGLETREE WATERSHED.
IT HAS THE MOST RESTRICTIONS IN IT OF MOST OF ALL OF OUR ZONING DISTRICTS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS CRYSTAL-CLEAR THAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH AN LDD TO GET TO A PDD, BUT THE LDD ZONE IS WHAT WE HAVE ON THE LAKE OGLETREE WATERSHED TO RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT. I KNOW THERE IS SOME CONFUSION THAT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD POTENTIALLY THIS INTO A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IN THE LDD ZONING, YOU CAN'T HAVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT UNLESS YOU ARE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER. AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER UNLESS YOU ARE AT THE CORNER OF TWO ARTERIAL ROSE. ... ROADS.
RIGHT NOW, OGLETREE ROAD IS NOT AN ARTERIAL ROAD.
IT IS A COLLECTOR. ALL THE OTHER ROADS AROUND THERE ARE LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS. THERE ARE NO TWO ARTERIALS TO CREATE A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER FOR A COMMERCIAL... FOR ANY COMMERCIAL USES. THAT IS ANY COMMERCIAL USES.
THAT IS EVEN OFFICE. IF YOU TRY TO DO OFFICE AND LDD, YOU HAVE TO BE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER.
WE HAVE ALL GONE THROUGH THAT ON HAMILTON PLACE BEHIND OLYMPICS.
... PUBLIX. RIGHT? WE REMEMBER THAT. I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THIS. IN REGARDS TO THE PDD CONDITIONS, YOU KNOW, IF LDD CONDITIONS ARE FINE.
AND THE PDD CONDITIONS, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TWO OF THEM.
AND THE PDD CONDITIONS, IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THIS TIME.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS BEFORE. BUT IN THE PDD CONDITIONS, WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONS. THEN WE HAVE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. OKAY? AND SO WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT FIRST IN THE REGULAR CONDITIONS.
FOR APPROVAL. IT TALKS ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE LOT NEXT TO THE CREEK. YOU KNOW, IN AUBURN, WE HAVE...
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PERFORMANCE ZONING.
AND... WHICH REQUIRES OPEN SPACE.
BUT THEN IF YOU DO A REGULAR SUBDIVISION, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE OPEN SPACE. YOU KNOW, US SUBDIVIDING INTO TWO-ACRE LOTS. YOU KNOW, IT IS A LARGE LOT RURAL SUBDIVISION. WE TYPICALLY WOULDN'T HAVE OPEN SPACE IN THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE A LOT OF FLOOD PLANE. WE HAVE CREEKS.
AND WE HAVE STREAMS, AND WE HAVE WETLANDS.
WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF STUFF ON THIS PROPERTY.
THAT WE ARE PRESERVING. AND WORKING AROUND.
IDEALLY, WE CARVED OUT THIS OUT LOT BECAUSE IT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK. WE FIGURED THAT NOBODY WOULD WOD WANT OWNERSERSHIP OVER THERE ON THAT SIDE.
IF WE HAD TO ADD MORE OPEN SP SPACE, IT WOULD GO ALONG THE CREEK AND BE BEHIND LOTS 15 AND 12.
I JUST THINK IN A LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION, HAVING OPEN SPACE NEXT TO A CREEK THAT IS IN FLOOD PLANE AND WETLANDS AND IS UNUSABLE FOR ANYBODY, PEOPLE REALLY WOULDN'T WANT THAT IN THEIR BACKYARD. WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO HAVE IT.
IF Y'ALL FEEL LIKE WE NEED IT AND YOU FEEL LIKE OPEN SPACE IS NEEDED FOR TWO-ACRE LOTS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE WILL LIVE WITH IT. THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE NOT TO HAVE THAT. THAT WAY LOT 15 AND LOT 12 WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THEY HAVE UP TO THE CREEK.
NOT THAT THE H.O.A. WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN SOME FORM OF TRAILS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THROUGH THERE.
SO THAT IS THE ONE CONDITION, LIKE I SAID.
THE SECOND CONDITION IS IN THAT ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT EXTENDING KENTWOOD UP TO OAGTREE ROAD.
AS A CITY RECOMMENDATION. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T... WE WOULD
[00:25:02]
PREFER NOT TO HAVE THAT. WE THINK HAVING KENTWOOD CUL-DE-SAC IN WITH THESE LOTS TAKEN... THE LOTS FRONTING OGLETREE, TAKING DIRECT ACCESS IS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT OGLETREE IS LIKE ALONG THERE. THE TWO CURB CUTS THAT WE ARE HAVING ON THERE WERE UTILIZING THE EXISTING CURB CUT FOR THE PROPERTY ON ONE AND THE OTHER TWO LOTS WILL SHARE ANOTHER ONE.THAT IS FINE. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER ALONG THERE ALONG WITH TAKING DIRECT ACCESS OFF OF THERE. THE OTHER PART IS, YOU KNOW, IF KENTWOOD WAS CONNECTED UP TO OGLETREE, IT WOULD BECOME A CUT-THROUGH THROUGH WINWAY. IF KENTWOOD WAS EXTENDED THROUGH THERE, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE GOING TO BE CUTTING OFF A TRAFFIC CIRCLE AND A SPEED HUMP. I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC THAT I DON'T THINK IS NEEDED.
FOR THE FEW LOTS THAT ARE ON HERE.
SO THAT IS WHY WE REALLY WOULD PREFER TO LEAVE IT FOR THE MASTER PLAN LIKE WE HAVE IT. AND HAVE IT AS A CUL-DE-SAC.
OTHER THAN THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I'M SURE WE WILL HAVE SOME MORE ONCE THE RESIDENTS SPEAK.
>> OKAY. NOW IS THE TIME WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE TO COME FORWARD. WE ALSO ASK YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND BEFORE YOU RETURN TO YOUR SEAT, SIGN... IF YOU FORGOT TO SIGN IN, WHERE IS THE... RIGHT THERE ON THE END.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS CHARLIE ANDERSON. I'M A HOME OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WE ARE MY WIFE LINDA WILL HAVE IEPS A HOME OWNER WITH MY WIFE LINDA AT 71 OGLETREE. LOT FIVE OF THE SUBDIVISION.
I'M HERE WEARING TWO HATS TODAY. FIRST HAT IS PROPERTY OWNER.
MY SECOND HAT IS A LAWYER. I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING IN MONTGOMERY FOR 37 YEARS. AND MY ROLE TODAY, I HOPE, IS NOT ADVERSARIAL OR LITIGIOUS BUT IS A COMMUNITY EFFORT TO TRY TO FIND A WAY WE CAN RESOLVE A DEVELOPMENT REQUEST WHICH WE GENERALLY... I DON'T THINK YOU WILL HEAR FROM OUR CITIZEN THAT IS WE GENERALLY DON'T OPPOSE THE SUBDIVISION.
WE JUST DON'T LIKE THIS LEGAL TERM I'M GOING TO USE, LOOSEY GOOSEY LDD-PDD WAY OF GETTING THERE.
WE HAVE COVENANTS. MY WIFE AND I HAVE LIVED IN MONTGOMERY ALL MY LIFE. I PRACTICED LAW THERE 38 YEARS.
MY WIFE AND I FOUND OURSELVES AS EMPTY-NEST ESKERS, AND FOUR YEARS AGO, WE CAME TO THE PROMISE LAND.
WE ARE ONE OF THOSE MANY IMMIGRANTS FROM I-85.
I CONTINUE TO COMMUTE. WHAT WE FOUND IN WYNNWAY WAS PARTICULARLY VALUABLE TO US. WE HAD A RURAL COMMUNITY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF AUBURN. WHICH WAS FABULOUS.
WE LOVE IT. ALL OUR NEIGHBORS LOVE IT.
WE HAVE COVENANTS THAT ARE STRONG, AND WE DON'T IGNORE AND WE DON'T, IN ANY WAY, WANT TO WAIVE OUR RIGHT TO ENFORCE THOSE IF WE HAVE TO IF THE ZONING... REZONING ENDS UP ULTIMATELY BEING SOMETHING LESS THAN WHAT WE WOULD WANT.
WE ARE KIND OF A UNIFIED VOICE. I HAVE A PETITION HERE I'M GOING TO PRESENT. ONE PETITION IS FROM ALL OF THE OWNERS OF THE OTION ORIGINAL WYNNWAY PLAT WITH THE COVENANTS IN THERE. I HAVE ONE FOR EVERY CHAIRMAN AND EVERYONE. AND THAT SECOND ONE INCLUDES NOT JUST THE ORIGINAL IN THERE. THERE ARE EIGHT LOTS IN THE ORIGINAL PLAT. LOT NUMBER TWO IS OWNED BY THE DEVELOPER WHO IS A PETITIONER HERE.
OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE THEIR SIGNATURE.
WE HAVE 7 OF 8 SIGNATURES THERE. AND PETITION TWO IS OUR PETITION THAT INCLUDES NEIGHBORS IN THE SECOND ADDITION OF WYNNWAY AS WELL AS THOSE AROUND IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY.
INCLUDING OUR NEWEST NEIGHBOR, THE JACKSON FAMILY.
ANYWAY, WE OPPOSE THE PDD AND LDD.
WE THINK THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN LIVE WITH HARMONY AND LIVE WITH THIS DEVELOPER IN SUCH A WAY THAT DOESN'T GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. WE THINK THERE ARE SOME WAYS WE CAN ADDRESS THAT. I WANT TO NOW YIELD THE FLOOR TO
MR. GLEN GLOVER. >> BEFORE YOU STEP DOWN, MR. ANDERSON, DEFINE LOOSEY GOOSEY FOR ME.
I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND. >> IS THAT A LEGAL TERM?
IT MEANS THAT YES, WE SEE WHAT YOU SAY, BUT WE ALSO KNOW THE
[00:30:03]
OUTCOME COULD BE DIFFERENT DOWN THE ROAD.A LITTLE LOOSEY GOOSEY. >> GOOD EVENING.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE OUR OPINIONS.
MY NAME IS GLEN GLOVER. MY WIFE AND I RESIDE AT 861 OGLETREE ROAD. LOT NUMBER ONE OF THE DIVISION, FIRST EDITION. IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AND EAST OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. WE PURCHASED OUR LOT IN 1978.
WE HAVE LIVED ON THE PROPERTY SINCE 1984.
I'M SPEAKING ON THE BEHALF OF THE HOME OWNERS OF THE SUBDIVISION AND OTHER NEIGHBORS ALONG OGLETREE ROAD.
THEY HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS MATTER.
WE VALUE YOUR TIME. WE HAVE CHOSEN TO HAVE THREE HOME OWNERS SPEAK TONIGHT. AND THEN IF THE OTHER HOME OWNERS WISH TO SPEAK AFTER THAT, THEN THEY CAN COME FORWARD.
WEST WE WILL ADDRESS THE ISSUES WITH THE THREE SPEAKERS.
I WOULD LIKE THOSE THAT ARE HERE FROM THE SUBDIVISION AND ADJACENT HOME OWNERS IN OGLETREE TO PLEASE STAND UP FOR A MOMENT TO SHOW YOU... THANK YOU. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY GREAT INTEREST AND A LOT OF SOLIDARITY HERE.
WE, AS A NEIGHBORHOOD, ARE IN A POSITION FOR THE ZONING REQUEST.
THERE WAS A COMMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH. LOT NUMBER TWO OF WYNNWAY SUBDIVISION IS AND WILL REMAIN A PART OF WYNNWAY SUBDIVISION.
IT IS NOT AN ADJACENT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
IT IS A PART OF OUR SUBDIVISION. I EXPECT EVERYONE IN THE SUBDIVISION KNEW THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE DIVIDED. AND WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY, AGAIN, AS CHARLIE SAID, WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO THAT.
BUT WE DO WANT TO ENSURE THE DIVISION MAINTAINS THE FEEL AND INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION.
AS YOU SAY, IT IS VERY UNIQUE IN THE CITY OF AUBURN.
THEY SAW THIS LOT WOULD BE LIKELY SUBDIVIDED AT SOME POINT.
HE MADE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR. THAT I KNEE THE COMMISSION NOR THE CITY OF AUBURN ENFORCED COVENANTS.
BUT FOR YOUR INFORMATION, MR. DICE INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING IN THE COVENANTS: AS TO LOT NUMBER TWO, SUCH LOT MAY BE SUBDIVIDED INTO SMALLER LOTS OF NOT LESS THAN TWO ACRES UPON A PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE AWE BUSH PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THEREAFTER, EACH SUCH NEW LOT TO BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE RESTRICTIONS HEREIN SET FORTH INCLUDING THIS RESTRICTION ON LOT AREA." WE TAKE THAT TWO-ACRE MINIMAL LOT TO MEAN ALL LOTS, NOT ALL BUILDABLE LOTS.
EXCUSE ME. FURTHER MORE, THENANTS STATE NO BUILDING SHALL BE LOCATED ON ANY LOT NEARER THAN 150 FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE OR NEARER THAN 50 FEET TO THE SIDE LOT LINE. NO DWELLING SHALL BE LOCATED NEARER THAN 40 FEET ANY ONE SIDE TO ANY INTERIOR LOT LINE.
AS STATED IN THE PREVIOUS PROVISION, EACH SUCH NEW LOT IS SUBJECT TO ALL RESTRICTIONS HEREIN SET FORTH.
SEVERAL HOME OWNERS WERE PREPARED TO ENFORCE THESE COVENANTS. USING LEGAL MEANS, IF NECESSARY.
EXCUSE ME. MY LOT IS ZONED NC-150.
AS IN ALL THE LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION.
EAST AND NORTH. IN ADDITION, ALL LOTS, ALL LOTS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF OGLETREE EXTENDING TO THE ENTRANCE OF OLD COUNTRY ROAD AND THEN SPRINGWOOD SUBDIVISION AND TWIN CREEK ARE ZONED NC. I ASKED SPECIFICALLY WHY NC-ZONE WAS NOT BEING PURSUED. MR. CLEVELAND STATED TO ME THAT THE CITY OF AUBURN DISCOURAGED NC DESIGNATION IN FAVOR OF MORE PERFORMANCE-BASED ZONING. STEVE FOOT STATED "TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE AT THE CITY RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER PURSUE THE LDD ZONING WITH THE PDD OVERLAY." I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF OUR INITIAL MEETINGS, STAFFER HAD SUGGESTED THE NC DISTRICT AS AN OPTION.
IN A FOLLOW-UP EMAIL FROM MR. LOGAN KIP.
HE STATED "THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION DESIGNATION AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS EXISTING DENSITY AND HOUSING TYPES SHOULD BE RETAINLD. AND OUR RECOMMENDATION AND ANALYSIS IS A REQUEST THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO MEAN THAT A NEW
[00:35:04]
DEVELOPMENT IN AN ESTABLISHED AREA SHOULD MEET THE CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. IN AN INITIAL MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT, STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT AN NC ZONE AND SLIGHTLY LARGER LOTS WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE SCENARIO.THAT SAID, STAFF MUST REVIEW THE APPLICATION ZONE REQUEST AS THEY HAVE SUBMITTED. ON THOSE CRITERIA.
IN A PHONE CALL TO MR. CLEVELAND LAST SUNDAY, I AGAIN ASKED WHY NOT NC ZONING? HIS RESPONSE THIS TIME WAS THAT HE NEEDED PDD TO HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN LOCATING BUILDING HOUSE SITES. FOR THE NC-84 ZONE, ANYTHING LARGER THAN THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND, THE FRONT SETBACK IS 45 FEET. REAR IS 50.
SIDE IS A TOTAL OF 40 WITH NO LESS THAN 18 ON ONE SIDE.
WE HAVE DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING HOW THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM ON A TWO-ACRE LOT. MAYBE ON A SMALLER LOT BUT NOT A TWO-ACRE LOT. AS NOTED, THE ONE-WAYNANTS ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE NC ZONE.
AT THE PACKET MEETING ON MONDAY, MR. STEVE FOOT HAD SAID THE DEVELOPER HAD CHOSEN LDD TO PROVIDE A LARGER BUILDABLE FOOTPRINT. HOWEVER, IN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, ALL OF THE SUBDIVISION IS DESIGNATED AS NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION. RESERVATION WOULD SEEM TO DICTATE THAT NEW LOTS WOULD HAVE THE SAME BUILDABLE FOOTPRINT AS THE EXISTING LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION.
GIVEN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF THE OTHER SUB-LOTS, THAT IS REMOVING THIS LOT, OF COURSE. IAND THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS OVR THREE ACRES. IT SEEMS REASONABLE THAT IF LOT NUMBER TWO IS SUBDIVIDED, IT SHOULD RECEIVE AN NC150 AT MINIMUM TO MEET THE EXISTING DENSITY AS SPECIFIED.
THE PACKET ALSO IDENTIFIES SURROUNDING LAND USE ON PAGE 37 IN YOUR TABLE. THIS ZONING OCCURS ONLY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT TWO. CONSISTS OF 60% OF LOT TWO.
GIVEN NEW LOTS FROM THE SUBDIVISION OF LOT TWO ARE A PART OF WYNNWAY SUBDIVISION FIRST EDITION, WE BELIEVE IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO ASSIGN AN LDD ZONE WITH ALL THE MYRIAD CONDITIONAL USE THAT IS COME WITH THAT DESIGNATION.
EVEN WITH THE OVERLAY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT APPLICANTS MUST FOLLOW THE CONTRACT THAT IS OUTLINED IN THE PDD.
THAT IS IN THE NEAR-TERM. I HAVE BEEN IN AUBURN OVER 50 YEARS. TOO MANY TIMES, I HAVE SEEN HOW OWNER'S GOALS IN LAND USE CHANGE.
I'M PUTTING THAT NICELY. THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER HAS... THE CLEVELANDS DEVELOPED A SHOPPING CENTER. BY THAT DEFINITION THAT, NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER SHOULD NOT BE THERE.
MY NEIGHBORS NOW FEEL... FEAR THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, THE LDD DESIGNATION COULD COME BACK TO HAUNT US.
AND THAT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE ZONING ASSIGNMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
TO AN EXISTING LOT THAT IS PART OF A SUBDIVISION.
IT IS ALSO ADJACENT TO OTHER SUBDIVISION THAT IS ARE ZONED NC OR RURAL. WE BELIEVE THE ZONING DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND HOME OWNERS IN THE LONG RUN AND SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO ALLOW LDD, PDD OR SIMILAR ZONING IN AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION.
WE STRONGLY FEEL THAT WYNNWAY SUBDIVISION AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL, AND ALL NEIGHBORS ON OGLETREE ROAD WILL BE BETTER PROTECTED AND BETTER SERVED IF THE PROPOSAL IS DENIED OR IF THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANTS OR TABLED BY THE COMMISSION WITH THE APPLICANTS COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE NC ZONING REQUEST THAT MEETS ALL EXISTING SUBDIVISION COVENANT RESTRICTIONS.
WE BEL THAT AVENUE CAN SAVE EVEE A LOT OF HEADACHES AND CONFLICT.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU. >> I WOULD THEN LIKE TO YIELD
THE FLOOR TO MR. CLAY CORMAN. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT, OF COURSE, YOU HAD THE FIVE-MINUTE TIME... WE DID EXCEED IT.
WITH THAT REGARD. I WASN'T SURE IF YOU CAUGHT THAT
[00:40:01]
OR NOT. FYI.>> THANKS. I'LL CONTRIBUTE SOME OF MY TIME.
I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF. I'M CLAY CORMAN.
I LIVE AT 901 OGLETREE ROAD WITH MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE JESSICA AND OUR THREE BOYS. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ZONING REQUEST.
IN FOLLOWING UP, JUST SOME OF THE POINTS THAT GLEN MADE.
WE ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH ALL OF THOSE.
AND JUST SOME ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS IN TERMS OF CONSIDERING THE REQUEST HERE TO HAVE AN LDD ZONING WITH A PDD OVERLAY.
THE FIRST IS MR. BASQUIN MADE AN INTERESTING COMMENT THAT I TOOK NOTE OF. IN THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF THE WETLANDS AND THE NATURAL AREA THAT EXISTS.
THE MASTER PLAN ESSENTIALLY THE BACK 8.5 ACRES OF THE LOT, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE DIVISION IS. IT IS ALL WETLANDS AND THE FLOOD PLANE. THEY ARE PROPOSING FOUR LOTS, THREE OF WHICH THE FOUR... THEY ARE SAYING, ARE BUILDABLE.
SMACK-DAB OF THE MIDDLE OF WHAT THEY ARE WANTING TO PRESERVE.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PRESERVATION, I THINK THAT IS KIND OF CRAZY, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BIDDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THEM.
FURTHER, THOUGH, WE FEEL THIS PLAN IS UNKED BY RABLE.
UNBUILDABLE. IT IS NOT A FEASIBLE PLAN.
IN ORDER TO BUILD A LOT, IT VIOLATES THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ALREADY AT 1.4 ACRES. JUST FOCUSING ON 15, 12, AND 11, THOSE LOTS, THERE IS SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION CHANGE.
THEY ARE SMACK-DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF FLOOD PLANE.
THEY ARE WETLANDS. IT WOULD REQUIRE ALL SORTS OF PERMITTING FROM FEMA, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, FIGURING OUT HOW TO DO WETLANDS MITIGATION TO GET BACK THERE AND BUILD.
THE FEASIBILITY OF DOING THAT IS EXTREMELY UNLIKELY THAT ANYONE WOULD GO TO THAT AMOUNT OF TIME AND COST TO TRY TO BUILD THOSE LOTS. SO WE LOOK AT IT, AND WE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MASTER PLAN IS PRESENTED.
IT WILL HAVE TO BE ALTERED BECAUSE IT IS NOT BUILDABLE.
FURTHER, T THERE ARE ALREADY FLOODING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AREA. IN FACT, IN 2000, THE CITY OF AUBURN HAD TO REPURCHASE LOT 17 THAT WAS FLOODED BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE SAME FLOOD PLANE AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS LOTS 11, 12, AND 15. SO IT SEEMS LIKE YOU WOULD BE REPEATING THE SAME MISTAKE IF YOU GO AND PUT LOTS SMACK-DAB IN THE FLOOD PLANE AGAIN. RIGHT OVER THERE.
BUT BEYOND THOSE ISSUES ABOUT THE JOKE OF USING THE WORD "PRESERVATION," THE REAL ISSUE, I THINK IT IS PRETTY NATURAL.
LOOK, TO THE EAST AND WEST, YOU HAVE THE NC-84 AND NC-150.
WHY WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE THAT WASN'T CONSISTENT WITH THAT THAT SURROUNDS IT? THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS OBVIOUSLY ON RECORD AND BELIEVES THAT NC-84... THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WAS IN AGREEMENT THAT NC-84 IS MOST APPROPRIATE. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD SKEW FROM THAT. WE CLEARLY KNOW WHY THE DEVELOPER WANTS THE LDD WITH PDD OVERLAY.
THEY WANT TO TRY TO GET MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH LESSER SETBACKS. ALL OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS HAVE ABIDED BY THESE SETBACKS. THERE IS NO REASON THAT THE DEVELOPER SHOULD GET SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND GET TO PLAY BY A NEW SET OF RULES THAT IS NO ONE ELSE... THAT WE HAVE HAD TO PLAY BY THE RULES. THEY ARE TRYING TO ALTER IT AND TO MAKE IT TO WHERE THEIR SETBACKS ARE MUCH LESS RESTRICTIVE BY GOING THIS ROUTE. IT IS A DANGEROUS FRS PRECEDENT IF YOU START DOING THIS ON THIS SIDE.
ESPECIALLY ON OGLETREE ROAD. THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY LOTS OF OTHER LARGE LOTS WHERE THIS TYPE OF STRATEGY OF REZONING LDD WITH PDD OVERLAY COULD START HAPPENING.
I THINK IT WOULD BE A SHAME ON THIS SIDE OF TOWN, ON THE OGLETREE CORRIDOR TO OPEN UP THIS PRECEDENT TO ENCOURAGE OTHER DEVELOPERS TO CONSIDER A SIMILAR TYPE APPROACH.
SO I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE THE COMMISSION AT LEAST DO ONE OF TWO THINGS TONIGHT. NUMBER ONE, REJECT... MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE REQUEST OR NUMBER TWO, AT LEAST DELAY ANY... MAKING ANY RECOMMENDATION TO GATHER FURTHER INFORMATION AND ALLOW THIS TO HAVE MORE TIME TO BE DISCUSSED. AND ON THAT POINT, THE NEIG NEIGHBORSER, WE ARE NOT UNREASONABLE.
WE FULL FULLY EXPECTED THIS WOULD BE DEVELOPED.
IF YOU ELIMINATE THE BACK HALF OF THIS PLAN, IF YOU ELIMINATE LOTS 11, 12, 15 AND 16, I THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORS AND I THINK THAT THEY COULD GENERALLY GET BEHIND THIS LOT AND BE IN SUPPORT OF IT UNDER A NC-84 ZONING WHICH NC-84 ZONING SHOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THE SUBTRACTION OF THE BACK LOTS THAT ARE IN THE WETLANDS.
AND WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SIT DOWN WITH THE DEVELOPER AND ANY OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO TRY TO WORK OUT SOME REASONABLE
[00:45:01]
AGREEMENT ON HOW TO PROCEED. WE WANT THAT UNDER THE PREMISE OF NC-84. THERE MIGHT BE THE ABILITY TOHAVE SOME EXCEPTIONS. >> YOUR TIME IS GONE.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?
I'M SIGNED IN. I'M BRETT PETERSON.
I KNOW SOME OF YOU Y'ALL. GOOD TO SEE YOU.
I'M A LONGTIME RESIDENTS OF 780 KENTWOOD DRIVE.
BEEN THERE ABOUT 30 YEARS. AND IN INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE, I'M AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN.
I DON'T HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO PLANNING. I'M IN PARKS AND RECREATION.
BUT FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT MY NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE ALREADY COME UP HERE AND TALKED ABOUT THE ZONING.
THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCERN THAT WE HAVE.
THE ZONING. I WOULD, AGAIN, SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT NC-84 SEEMS LIKE THE RIGHT, THE RIGHT SET OFSONNING FOR THE AREA. THE ONLY OTHER COMMENTS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, AND AGAIN, SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS HAVE ASKED ME TO COME AND SPEAK TO THIS. HAS TO DO WITH ACCESS.
WHEN WE SAY THAT, WE CAN SEE ON THE PLAN UP HERE, THE ACCESS THAT COMES THROUGH FROM KENTWOOD AND GOES IN.
ANOTHER POSSIBILITY WE WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER OR LIKE TO HAVE CONSIDERED IS ACCESS FROM OGLETREE.
IN OTHER WORDS, DIRECT ACCESS INTO THIS PLAN AND THEN OUT AGAIN ON TO OGLETREE. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD COMMENT ON AS WELL, WE SUPPORT THIS IDEA IF IT NEEDS TO BE THIS WAY WITH THE ACCESS COMING THROUGH KENTWOOD, BUT WE ABSOLUTELY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT A THOROUGHFARE THROUGH THAT SUBDIVISION. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE SUBDIVISION. WE ALL... A LOT OF US WALK IN THE SUBDIVISION. WE SPEND TIME ON THE ROADS, ON OUR BICYCLES OR WALKING. AND WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IF WE PUNCH THROUGH FROM OGLETREE ALL THE WAY ON TO KENTWOOD, THAT WE ARE WITH THE SCHOOL, WITH THE PLAN FOR THE NEW... I THINK THERE IS A NEW FACILITY THAT PARKS AND RECREATION WILL HAVE INTO KENTWOOD. THEN WE WILL HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC THROUGH THERE. IT IS GOING TO ABSOLUTELY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE FROM OAKLETREE INTO THE SUBDIVISION, IF NOT THAT, THEN WE WOULD SUPPORT THIS, THIS ACCESS COMING THROUGH KENTWOOD. AND LET ME ALSO SAY TO SUPPORT SOME OF THE THINGS MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE LIKELY A DEVELOPMENT HERE.
WE SUPPORT. THAT WE WANT TO WELCOME THESE NEW NEIGHBORS TO THE COMMUNITY. BUT WE DON'T WANT IT TO COME IN WITH THE PDD-LDD. WE BELIEVE THAT THE NC-84 AND NOT JUST MYSELF, BUT MOST OF MY NEIGHBORS HERE, WE BELIEVE THE NC-84 IS RIGHT FOR THAT AREA. Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME?
>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? IF THERE IS NO OTHER COMMENTS, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND WE WILL OPEN UP THE TIME FOR DISCUSSION AMONG THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WOULD YOU LIKE MORE INFORMATION FROM STAFF? WOULD THE STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THOSE COMMENTS?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, OKAY. I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THIS IN THE PACKET MEETING ON MONDAY.
I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE NOW AS WELL.
WHICH IS THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE NC-84.
OF COURSE, 84 IS 84,000 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR TWO-ACRE LOTS. AND SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ACTUALLY NC-90 TO COMPLY WITH THENANTS IF THAT WAS BEING TALKED ABOUT. JUST FYI.
>> BRETT? WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION ABOUT... OR THE COMMENTS ABOUT WHY? DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE DONE THAT ALREADY? NO. I'M SORRY.
>> IN REGARDS TO WHICH ONE? WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT ME TO
ADDRESS? >> WELL, BIGGEST ONE.
APPARENTLY. WHICH IS WHY NOT SOME NC INSTEAD
OF... >> YOU KNOW, IN THE COVENANTS, THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON SETBACKS.
AND WE WILL ABIDE BY THEM. WE HAVE SAID THAT THE WHOLE TIME. THAT WE WOULD ABIDE BY THEM.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONCERN IS THERE.
IN REGARDS TO LOOSEY GOOSEY AND CHANGING IT, THE PDD OVERLAY IS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE THING THAT WE GOT HERE.
IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT WE CAN ONLY DO WHAT'S ON THIS PLAN.
ANY MAJOR CHANGE FROM THIS HAS TO GO THROUGH... BACK TO YOU GUYS AND BE APPROVED. CHA'S DEEMED A MAJOR REVISION BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE WAY OF HANDCUFFING US INTO DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SAYING THAT WE ARE DOING. FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
[00:50:03]
IN REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, WHY WE CHOSE THE PDD ROUTE, COMPARED TO NC, I MEAN, THE BIGGEST CHA CHANGE... THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IN THEM IS YOUR REAR SETBACK ON YOUR NC ZONING.YOUR REAR SETBACK ON YOUR NC ZONING IS 50 FEET.
IN THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, YOUR FRONT SETBACK IS 150 FEET.
SO YOU KNOW, ALL THESE HOUSES ARE BASICALLY BEING PUSHED BACK AGAINST THEIR ADJACENT NEIG NEIGHBORS.
OKAY? AND, AND SO YOU KNOW, FLEXIBILITY IS MORE OF WITH YOUR REAR SETBACK THAN IT IS WITH YOUR FRONT OR SIDE SETBACKS. THAT IS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE.
IN REGARDS TO THOSE. BUT YOU KNOW, LET ME... I'LL BE CLEAR ON... LET ME BE CLEAR ON ONE THING.
THIS OUTLOT, WE CAN ABSORB THIS AND PUT IT IN 12 AND 15 IF THAT IS WHAT'S DEEMED THAT AN OUT LOT GOES WITH THE COVENANTS.
I KNOW THAT IS OUTSIDE OF Y'ALL'S DEAL.
WE WERE JUST TRYING TO PREVENT AN ISSUE FROM ARISING BEFORE.
BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. IN REGARDS TO THE FLOOD PLANE AND WETLANDS, THE FLOOD PLANE AND WETLANDS ARE ON LOTS 11, 12, AND 15. OUR DEVELOPABLE AREA IS OUTSIDE OF THOSE. SO WE HAVE ALREADY LOOKED AT THIS. REALY, WE HAVE SUBMITTED BASICALLY DESIGN PLANS SHOWING THE WATER-SEWER STREET LAYOUTS AND HOW THIS IS WORKING TO THE CITY.
SO WE KNEE THAT WE HAVE A PLAN THAT WORKS.
WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE A PLAN THAT WORKS WITH TWO ACRES.
WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO.
AND THEN BEFORE I MISSPOKE WHEN I TALKED ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER, LET ME JUST CLARIFY.
I SAID ARTERIAL. IT IS AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR.
OGLETREE IS A COLLECTOR. OKAY? THERE IS... YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY, KENTWOOD IS NOT A COLLECTOR. YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO OTHER ROAD THAT WILL BYPASS THIS TO WHERE THIS WOULD BE A MAJOR INTERSECTION. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT POINT.
I DID SAY ARTERIAL. I MEANT TO SAY COLLECTOR.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION. SO WHEN WE TALK...
THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD GOING FROM NC TO LDD HAD TO DO WITH THE SETBACKS. A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION.
>> SO ARE YOU... WHILE IT IS NOT IN OUR PURVIEW TO CONSIDER COVENANTS AND WHAT SETBACKS THEY MAY ESTABLISH, IS THAT PART OF THE DECISION THAT YOU NEEDED TO HAVE LDD TO ALSO ACCOMMODATE THE COVENANTS REQUIREMENT OF A CERTAIN SETBACK?
>> IT IS IMMATERIAL. IT IS IMMATERIAL.
THENANT RESTRICTIONS ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN CITY REQUIREMENTS. FOR THE MOST PART.
YOU WERE GOING TO VOLUNTARILY GO ALONG WITH THAT.
AS PART OF HAVING ABLDD. >> YEAH.
WE HAVE TO DO THENANTS. NO MATTER WHAT.
NO MATTER WHAT ZONING WE HAVE HERE.
WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THENANTS. WE ARE NOT... NOBODY... WE ARE NOT DISPUTING THE COVER NANTZ. NANTS.
WE WILL ABIDE BY THE COVENANTS. >> LET ME ASK THIS A DIFFERENT WAY. CAN YOU STILL ABIDE BY THE COVENANTS IF IT IS AN NC DESIGNATION?
>> YOU CAN ABIDE IN EITHER... IN ANY OF THE ZONING.
I MEAN, REALLY ABIDING BY THE COVENANTS IN THOSE SETBACKS, AS LONG AS YOU'VE GOT TWO-ACRE L LOTS, YOU ARE PRETTY MUCH GOING TO BE ABLE TO ABIDE BY THE COVENANTS.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK.
AND A MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK. IN THEIR COVENANT.
THAT IS WHAT'S DRIVING A LOT OF THAT.
AND THOSE SETBACKS ARE GREATER THAN THE CITY'S IN BOTH NC-84
THANKS. >> ANYONE ELSE? LET ME MAKE A COMMENT, TOO TO ENTER... TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THESE THINGS. I THINK THE DEVELOPER IS BEING QUOTED AS SAYING THAT THE CITY ENCOURAGED HIM TO APPLY TO PDD.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS STAFF ENCOURAGED OR DISCOURAGED.
I KNOW THAT THE CITY IN THE PAST HAS OFTEN ENCOURAGED DEVELOPERS OF LARGE TRACKS TO SUBMIT A PDD. PARTICULARLY, WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO DEVELOP THE LAND IN PHASES BECAUSE THAT THEN PROVIDES CERTAINTY. THE PDD MUST BE ABIDED BY IT...
THE ENCOURAGEMENT MAY HAVE COME FROM PREVIOUS ENCOUNTERS BY THE CITY ON OTHER PROPOSALS BY THIS DEVELOPER.
[00:55:01]
I DO NOT KNOW. NC IS KICKED AROUND A LOT.>> YOU GO BACK AND LOOK INTO OUR DEFINITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, IT WAS PLACED THERE AND IT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO SOME DEGREE, BUT WHEN THE ORIGINAL ORDER CHANCE WAS WRITTEN, THE NC WAS OVERLAID, IF YOU WILL, ON THOSE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. THOSE EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS WHO AT THE TIME OF THE OLD ORDINANCE, HAD ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT LABELS, HAVING TO DO WITH R-1, R-2, R-4.
THAT SORT OF THING. WHEN THAT WAS CHANGED FROM THAT TO THIS PERFORMANCE-BASED ZONING, WE CREATED, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS WHO WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT THE NEW ZONES WE WERE PLACING ON IT AT THAT TIME... TO PROVIDE THEM CERTAINTY, WE CREATED AN NC ZONE.
WHICH IS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE DETACHED NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT ALSO SAYS IN HERE... WE EVEN HAVE THAT INCLUDED.
IT IS A PRELIMINARY... IT IS ALSO INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WHEN NC IS DEEMED THE MOST APPROPRIATE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND A PRELIMINARY OR FINAL PLAT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHICH MEANS, THEN, THAT IT HAS TO BE ALREADY A PLATTED SUBDIVISION BEFORE IT BECOMES AN NC. WE HAVE MADE IN SOME YEARS PAST, SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT, MADE SOME NEW NC'S.
IT WAS ON ESTABLISHED SUBDIVISIONS.
ALREADY AND USUALLY BUILT OUT. TO PLACE AN NC ON RAW LAND, IT IS NOT... I DON'T THINK WE HAVE DONE THAT.
I CANNOT RECALL A TIME WE HAVE DONE.
THAT WE MAY HAVE. IT HAS BEEN VERY RARE.
BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE A NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE IT BECOMES A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
BUT PDD PROVIDES THE SAME THING IN TERMS OF CERTAINTY.
BECAUSE THAT PDD BECOMES THE ZONE THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED.
SO, FOR INSTANCE, BACK TO THE NC, IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT SOMEONE COULD COME IN, ONCE THEY HAS BEENTATE THESE HOUSES HAS BEENTATE... THEY COULD PETITION FOR NC FOR AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS WHAT NC WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO DO ANYWAY. WITH THAT BACKGROUND, FOR
WHATEVER IT IS WORTH... >> I WOULD LIKE A PERSONAL CLARIFICATION MAYBE FROM STAFF ON AN ISSUE HERE.
SO ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS, YOU KNOW, IF WE DID LDD, DID A PDD ON AN LDD ZONING, IT MIGHT COME BACK TO HAUNT US.
SO CAN ANYBODY GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF... YOU KNOW, WHAT IFS ON THAT? BECAUSE THE WAY... YOU KNOW, THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT OVER THE YEARS HERE, IS THAT ONCE YOU PUT A PDD ON A ZONE, NOTHING CAN CHANGE FROM THAT ORIGINAL PLAN UNTIL IT COMES BACK TO THIS BODY AND WE READDRESS IT.
SO HOW OTHER THAN... YOU KNOW, AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE CAN BUILD THIS OUT IN WHATEVER ZONE WE WANT.
WE COULD COME BACK AND CHANGE IT.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ALWAYS CHANGE THE ZONING OVER TIME.
THAT IS WHAT THIS PRO IS ESIS ALL ABOUT.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE A SURPRISE? I MEAN, IT COMES TO US. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHANGE IT.
PERIOD. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND THERE IS A SECTION IN THE CODE THAT DESCRIBES WHEN YOU ARE MODIFYING A PDD, ACTUALLY, IT IS TALKED ABOUT, I THINKS IN THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
THE REQUEST. AND IT HAS AN A THROUGH E.
I CAN'T QUOTE THEM TO YOU RIGHT NOW.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS THERE.
IF IT MEETS THE THRESHHOLD, THEN IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE ADDING DENSITY, REDUCING OPEN SPACE.
THERE ARE THINGS OF THAT NATURE THERE.
IF YOU WANTED TO CHANGE FROM THAT, SOMETHING ELSE, PLUS THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SAYS THAT ALL THAT IS CONTAINED HERE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, YOU ADD THAT TO THAT CONDITION. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING STAFF. TO COME BEFORE YOU FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL. AND THAT IS THE PROCESS.
IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. BUT IT WOULD BE AN UPHILL CHANGE. YOU KNOW? SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, TOO. TO WHAT IS PROPOSED TONIGHT.
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. ENGINEERING STAFF IS SAYING, RECOMMENDING CONNECTING KENTWOOD DRIVE OGLETREE.
[01:00:02]
I THINK BRETT SAID THAT IT REALLY WASN'T A GOOD IDEA.CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA?
MAYBE ENGINEERING, STAFF? >> YES, MA'AM.
I THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA. (LAUGHTER) WE ARE PROPONENTS OF CONNECTIVITY. AND WE HAVE BEEN FOR SEVERAL YEARS. WE ACTUALLY MADE THE SAME RECOMMENDATION WHEN THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT WAS DONE.
SO IT IS MORE ABOUT CONNECTIVITY FOR US.
AND GETTING MORE THAN ONE WAY IN AND OUT OF AN ACCESS POINT.
>> OKAY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, THEN.
ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN THAT SPOKE SAID HE WOULD RATHER SEE IT CONNECTED TO OGLETREE ENTRANCE AND EXIT FROM OGLETREE AND NOTHING THROUGH KENTWOOD. WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT?
>> MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE BOTH. ACTUALLY.
KENTWOOD HAS BEEN STEPPING OUT TO THIS PROPERTY FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. HAVING THE REDUNDANCY WOULD
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION. >> AND I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. LOT 11, 12, AND 15, I GUESS.
THEY ARE NOT FLAG LOTS. I DON'T GUESS.
THEY LOOK LIKE IT. IS THAT A DRIVE? IS THAT PART OF THE PUBLIC STREET?
LOT 15 IS THE ONLY PROPOSED FLAG LOT.
LOT 11 AND 12 12S ARE REGULAR LOTS BY DEFINITION IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE. >> AND THEY WOULD BE SERVED BY A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY? NOT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
>> OKAY. IT WOULD BE WIDE ENOUGH, OBVIOUSLY, FOR FIRE, WHATEVER TO GET THROUGH THERE?
ANY MORE DISCUSSION? ANYONE WISH TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS TO THE LDD THAT IT GOES WITH THE PDD ONLY? IT CAN BE REZONED WITHOUT...
>> IT IS NOT A CONDITION, PER SE.
I THINK WHAT STAFF SAID WAS THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE LDD IS BASED UPON A FOREKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD ONLY APPROVE BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER. THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT.
>> THE MOTION COULD BE MADE THAT IT WOULD BE PREDICATED ON THE FACT... IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT IS APPROVED, THE APPROVAL WOULD BE NEGATED IF THE LDD IS NOT APPROVED.
>> THE MOTION COULD SAY THAT. >> RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF COMMENTS. WELL, IT IS AN EASIEN.
>> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LDD REQUEST.
RIGHT? I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY JUST NOW IS THAT FOR THE LDD REZONING, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY... THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE LDD ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL
>> SURE. >> THERE IS A LOT OF PROTECTION OTHERWISE. THAT, TO ME, IS NOT GOING TO
HAPPEN. >> LDD IS A BRETT AREY RESTRICTIVE ZONE. WITH TWO-ACRE LOTS AND THAT SORT OF THING. YES, THE PDD GIVES CERTAINTY THERE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO... EITHER WAY, IF IT CHANGED FOR ANYTHING BUT THE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSES, WHETHER IT IS A PDD OR NOT, WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE THIS BODY TO BE RE-SUBDIVIDED. OKAY? WITH THAT, ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION. TO APPROVE, TO APPROVE CASE 2022013. INCUMBENT ON THE APPROVAL OF THE
PDD AS WELL. >> AND... AN APPROPRIATE WAY FOR
THAT TO BE STATED? >> NO COMMENTS ON THIS ONE.
>> NO CONDITIONS ON THIS ONE. >> THERE ARE COMMENTS.
NO CONDITIONS. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.
>> SECOND. >> APPROVAL AND NOW SECONDED.
IS THERE A NEED FOR DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION OR CLARIFICATION OF THE MOTION? IF NOT, THEN I WILL... LET'S
HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE? >> OF DAY.
[6. Rezoning – Kent Property PDD – PUBLIC HEARING ]
THAT MOTION IS CARRIED. AND WE GO TO THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS THE KENT PROPERTY PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.[01:05:02]
LOGAN, IS THERE ANY MORE FOR YOU TO PRESENT FOR US ON THAT ONE?>> NO, SIR. I WOULD JUST REITERATE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT CONNECTIVITY. IT IS A RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW IN THE STAFF REPORT WHICH IS NOT BINDING.
SO IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO REQUIRE IT OR NOT REQUIRE IT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE STAFF TO CLARIFY THAT.
>> THE CONNECTIVITY TO OGLETREE? >> YES, SIR.
>> CONNECT I HAVE THE TOY OGLETREE?
>> THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR... >> WELL, THERE WERE TWO THINGS THAT I HEARD. ONE HAD TO DO WITH THE EASEMENTS RELATED TO... ACCESS TO THE OUT LOT OPEN SPACE.
>> YES. THERE ARE FOUR, THERE ARE FOUR CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD BE BINDING IF APPROVED.
FOUR CONDITIONS ARE TO PROVIDE AN OUT LOT OPEN SPACE AREA NEAR THE CREEK. WHICH WOULD BE AN AMENITY FOR THE SUBDIVISION. THE SECOND CONDITION IS THAT NO MORE THAN TWO DRIVEWAYS WOULD BE PERMITTED ON OGLETREE ROAD.
THE THIRD CONDITION IS THAT THE ONLY USE PERMITTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES.
AND THE FOURTH CONDITION IS THAT ALL LOTS WOULD BE AT LEAST TWO ACRES IN SIZE. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE OUT
>> THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM ENGINEERING TO EXTEND KENTWOOD TO CONNECT TO OGLETREE WHICH IS NOT A BINDING CONDITION UNLESS YOU WOULD DESIRE IT TO BE SO.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE IS ALSO AN ITEM FROM WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT THAT IS LISTED UNDER CONDITIONS AS WELL.
SO IT JUST... SO YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT.
>> PAGE FIVE. >> I WOULD MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT. IF YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE ACCESS, IF YOU WILL, TO THE CREEK. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT IS PART OF JUST AN APPROACH TO HAVE SHARED ACCESS FOR WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AN AMENITY. TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE AREA.
WE DID NOT SET ASIDE A MINIMUM SIZE FOR THAT AREA.
YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T SAY THAT IT HAD TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO RUN BEHIND LOTS 11, 12, AND 15. SO IT WAS NOT DEFINED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT REASON. AND IF YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BEING AN OUT PARCEL, YOU KNOW THAT, COULD EASILY JUST AS WELL BE AN EASEMENT FOR, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION TO HAVE ACCESS BACK THERE.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.
>> YOU FEEL LIKE THAT IS A POSITIVE THING FOR THE SUBDIVISION AS PROPOSED. THAT WORDING COULD BE MODIFIED
ALSO. >> I FEEL LIKE THIS BACKS UP TO TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT OTHER KIND OF SUBDIVISIONS.
ARE THERE OTHER ACCESS POINTS GIVEN ON PLATS OF THIS NATURE?
>> SOMETIMES WHEN THERE IS A TRAIL THAT IS PROPOSED IN THE CITY, THEN WE HAVE A TRAIL THAT WE GET AN EASEMENT FOR.
I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE OTHER EXAMPLES OF THIS SPECIFICALLY. SO...
AS A PDD, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL IN MY BACKGROUND.
>> WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.
I WANT TO CLARIFY... I THINK I HEARD TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS.
ONE ABOUT CONNECTING KENTWOOD TO OGLETREE.
ONE INDICATED THAT WAS A POSITIVE THING.
THE OTHER THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A CUT-THROUGH TO AVOID SPEED HUMPS. BELOW KENTWOOD AND OGLETREE.
>> I THINK WHAT WAS SAID WAS THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE POSITIVE IF IT WERE OGLETREE ONLY AND NOT KENTWOOD.
NOT BOTH. >> IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.
WHY DON'T WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW AGAIN.
AND ASK IF ANYONE WANT TO ADDRESS THE PDD PART WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN SAID BEFORE.
FEEL FREE TO COME FORWARD NOW. THERE IS NO ONE COMING.
THESE LIGHTS. >> I HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE, AND I'M ON THE OTHER END OF KENTWOOD.
WHERE Y'ALL DROWNED ME. I'M 741 KENTWOOD DRIVE.
MY NAME IS DEBORAH NEWTON. I'M ON THE OTHER END OF KENTWOOD. I'M THE LAST LOT THAT BACKS UP TO THE CREEK. THESE THREE LOTS RIGHT HERE ARE GOING TO BE JUST LIKE MY LOT, AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE UNDERWATER. IN THE HEAVY RAIN THIS LAST WEEK, IT WAS WELL UP INTO MY YARD.
WAY UP INTO ANY YARD. IT IS NOT IN MY HOUSE.
I'M IN A FLOOD PLANE. I DON'T KNOW WHY ANYBODY WOULD BUY THE LOTS. IF WE ARE TRYING TO CONSERVE AND
[01:10:03]
HAVE WETLANDS IN THIS PLACE, YOU ARE TAIRKING THEM OUT.YOU ARE TAKING THEM OUT. YOU ARE MAKING THESE HOME OWNERS RIGHT HERE CLEAN UP AFTER YOUR FLOODS.
AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS. WE CLEAN UP.
YOU CANNOT DIRECT... FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE CITY DOES NO LONGER DREDGE CREEKS. WE DON'T.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DREDGE THEM.
THEY WILL COME BEHIND IT AND CLEAN UP.
WE GET ALL THE STUFF FROM THE GOLF COURSE.
WHICH THIS DEVELOPER DEVELOPED TOO AND PUT THAT OTHER LOT UNDERWATER. NO GUARANTEES THAT THESE LOTS AREN'T GOING TO BE UNDERWATER JUST LIKE MINE.
IF YOU WANT TO PUT AN EASEMENT, YES.
IF YOU WANT TO REDEFINE THIS ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, LIKE CLAY SAID AND THEY ARE UNBUILDABLE, THEY ARE.
IT IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE. BECAUSE AS SOON AS THEY CUT THROUGH THAT, IT IS GOING TO DRAIN.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY THINK IT IS GOING TO DRAIN.
IT IS GOING TO DRAIN TO THE CREEK.
LIKE IT ALL DOES. THAT IS A 7-FOOT GULLY, PEOPLE.
THAT IS NOT JUST A LITTLE STREAM RIGHT THERE THA THAT THEY ARE GG ACROSS TO GET TO THOSE. IT IS A 7-FOOT GULLY.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE?
>> THIS IS A DIFFERENT HEARING. FEEL FREE.
>> THANK YOU. BECAUSE MY NEIGHBORS REMINDED ME OF A FEW PIECES OF INFORMATION I DIDN'T PASS ON.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ACCESS THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT EARLIER.
THERE IS NUMEROUS OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS.
SHADOWWOOD SUBDIVISION, WILLOW CREEK, CAMDEN RIDGE, THE PRESERVE. ALL OF THOSE AREAS, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LOOK UP AND SEE THAT IT HAS A SIMILAR SORT OF ACCESS TO WHAT IS SHOWN HERE. AND WE WOULD SUPPORT THAT.
AGAIN, WHAT WE FELT WAS BEST WAS OGLETREE AND OUT.
WE COULD SUPPORT THIS. AND AGAIN, WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS SIMILAR TO THESE OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS WE HAVE SEEN.
WE WILL SUPPORT THAT. BUT TO PUNCH THROUGH FROM OGLETREE AND COME THROUGH THAT WAY, IT IS A CONCERN FOR US.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE AND REITERATE THAT WITH Y'ALL AND LET YOU KNOW THAT, AGAIN, MY NEIGHBORS PRODDED ME A LITTLE BIT TO COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
ANYONE ELSE? IF THERE IS NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
AND CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION. IS THERE ANY, FROM THE DEVELOPER OR THE STAFF, ANY RESPONSE TO ANYTHING THAT IS HEARD IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? BASICALLY, THE PRIOR DISCUSSION,
THE CONNECT. >> TY IS ALWAYS ADVOCATED.
PRIMARILY, BECAUSE YOU NEED TWO WAYS IN AND TWO WAYS OUT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. THERE ARE TWO WAYS IN AND OUT OF WYNNWAY. OF COURSE, YOU HAVE NORTH.
IS IT NORTH AND SOUTH? I ALL THE THOUGHT IT WAS.
ANYWAY, YOU HAVE THE MAIN ROAD THROUGH THERE.
IT HAS TWO ACCESSES. ONLY THESE 15 LOTS WILL BE THE ONES THAT COULD BE CUT OFF UNDER SOME UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
BUT ANYWAY, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? DOES ANYONE WISH TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I WANTED TO DISCUSS, CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD, THE FIRST CONDITION. SO NOT THE RECOMMENDATION BUT THE FIRST CONDITION ABOUT PROVIDING THE OPEN SPACE LOT.
TYPICALLY, I'M A BIG FAN OF. THAT AND THE BIGGER THE BETTER.
FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS USABLE OR REALLY FUNCTIONAL AS AN OPEN SPACE LOT. THEN SECONDLY, I WOULD AGREE THAT PEOPLE WITH TWO-ACRE LOTS DON'T REALLY NEED AN OPEN SPACE LOT. LIKE THOSE WITH MUCH SMALLER LOTS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M REALLY PREPARED TO ENFORCE THAT OR VOTE FOR THAT AS A CONDITION.
I DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYONE ELSE FEELS.
>> BUT IF IT'S AN OPEN SPACE L LOT, THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION HAS TO MAINTAIN IT. IF IT IS PART OF LOT 15 AND 12, THEN THE LOT OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT.
>> AND THAT IS WHERE I WAS WITH IT.
I THOUGHT THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BE CHANGING.
I AGREE WITH YOU. IT IS NOT REQUIRED.
I DON'T REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT IS A THING THAT SHOULD HAVE TO BE THERE. AND BY COVENANTS, BASED ON THESE COMMENTS TONIGHT, IT MAY NOT STAY.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT IS A THING.
>> IF THE REST OF THE... IF THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO IT, IS IT A FAIR BURDEN FOR THEM TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT AS OPEN SPACE? YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT EASEMENT ACCESS.
SOMEWHERE. WHERE YOU ARE NOT...
>> YES, SIR, MR. CHAIRMAN. MULTIPLE OPTIONS HERE.
[01:15:03]
IF YOU LIKE IT IS A POSITIVE THING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW THERE, COULD BE AN EASEMENT ACROSS THE LOT THAT IS GRANTED TO THE H.O.A. THE H.O.A. COULD MAINTAIN IT.AND YOU KNOW, HAVE THE RIGHTS TO THAT EASEMENT.
HOWEVER THAT IS DEFINED. THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.
>> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? MAKE A MOTION? THE HEARING IS CLOSED.
>> THERE IS NO HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
>> THERE IS NO HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> YOU WILL HAVE ONE JUST PUT IN. WELL, THAT IS ENOUGH OF THAT, GLEN. THANK YOU.
THAT RAISES AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
OBVIOUSLY, THE STAFF FEELS THAT THIS IS A SEPARATE SUBDIVISION OR IT WOULD NOT BE ON OUR AGENDA AT THIS TIME.
THAT IS APPARENTLY A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
>> I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
WITH CONDITIONS 2, 3, AND 4, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE WORD "DETACHED" TO CONDITION THREE, AND THE WATER RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT CONDITION AS WELL. >> OKAY.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND THAT MOTION?
OR ADDITIONS? >> I'LL SECOND THAT.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.
IS THERE A NEED TO EXPLAIN OR CLARIFY THE MOTION?
>> YES, PLEASE. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST KNOW WHAT... SO EFFECTIVELY, WHAT'S GOING HAPPEN IF WE REMOVE THAT CONDITION? WHAT HAPPENS? WHO CONTROLS THE PROPERTY? IS IT GOING TO BE INDIVIDUAL...
PEOPLE THAT BUY 12 OR 15 OR WHOPS WHO IS GOING TO MAINTAIN
THIS? >> WELL, I DOENT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. THE DEVELOPER SAYS H.O.A.
>> YEAH. THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF
IT. >> THIS WAS NOT... THIS WAS TO
HAVE ACCESS TO IT. >> THAT IS WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT?
>> NUMBER ONE,. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD, AS I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION WAS MADE, DELETES CONDITION NUMBER ONE. WHICH MEANS, THEN THAT, GOES AWAY. LOT 12, 15, 1, THOSE WOULD ALL BE INDIVIDUAL LOTS THAT WOULD BE CONCEIVABLY SOLD TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD BUILD A HOUSE ON THEM.
THERE WOULD NOT BE EASEMENTS. NOTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH
>> 16, THE OUT LOT GETS ABSORBED.
IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THEN?
>> NO. 16 HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CONDITION NUMBER ONE. THAT WAS A PROPOSED OUT PARCEL AS DRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. A NON-BUILDABLE LOT, IF YOU
>> THERE ARE NO STIPULATIONS OTHER THAN THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE CONDITION NUMBER ONE AS LISTED.
>> ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? IF NOT, I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
AND LET'S DO A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
>> OF DAY. THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.
THE MOTION CARRIES. AND WE ARE NOW MOVING TO
WOODWARD OAKS, PDD. >> JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, THE REZONING REQUEST WILL BE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 21.
>> IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO S SEE.
[7. Rezoning – Woodward Oaks PDD Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING ]
>> OKAY. LET'S OPEN NOW THE AGENDA BACK
UP TO WOODWARD OAKS PDD. >> YES, SIR.
>> OKAY. THIS NEXT REQUEST IS FOR A PDD AMENDMENT TO THE WOODWARD OAKS PDD.
LET'S JUST KEEP GOING. HERE IS AN AERIAL OF THE SITE.
IT IS APPROXIMATELY 237 ACRES TOTAL.
[01:20:03]
JAMES BURKE PARKWAY WILL RUN NORTH TO SOUTH THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THIS AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY COVERS PHASE FIVE WHICH IS LOCATED UP HERE AT THE NORTHERN SECTION OF THE PDD. NEAR WEST ROAD.THIS WOULD BE THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE PDD.
THE PRIORS ADDED OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL SPACE, A FIRE STATION, AND REALLOCATED THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN THE PDD. AND THE CURRENT MDP SHOWS 29 COTTAGE HOUSING UNITS HERE LOCATED IN PHASE FIVE.
THE PROPOSED MDP REMOVES THE COTTAGE HOUSING AND REPLACES THOSE UNITS WITH 27 TOWNHOMES AND ALSO IT REAL CASE REALLOCATES THE OTHER TWO UNITS INTO THE FUTURE PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS ALSO AN AMENITY SITE
ADDED SHOWN IN PHASE FIVE. >> WHAT AMENITY... DOES IT SAY
WHAT AMENITY THAT WILL BE? >> IT DOES NOT.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT MAY WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT.
THERE ARE... THERE ARE... THERE IS ALREADY ONE INCENTIVE WITH THE PDD. PDD'S ARE ALLOWED TWO INCENTIVES AND EXEXCHANGES. THE FIRST THAT IS EXISTING, THEY HAVE A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO TEN FEET. FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS NOT ON JAMES BURKE PARKWAY. AND FOR THAT, THEY PROVIDED PARKING IN THE REAR FOR THE OFFICE AND TOWNHOUSE USES.
THE OFFICE IS LOCATED HERE ON... THEY ARE REQUESTING ANOTHER INCENTIVE. TO INCREASE THE I.S.R., NOT TO EXCEED A MAXIMUM OF 20% FOR WHICH WOULD ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 70% TOTAL, FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED ON JAMES BURKE PARKWAY HERE WITH REAR ALLEY ACCESS.
AND ALSO AN INCREASE IN THE I.S.R. ALLOWANCE FOR TOWNHOMES WHICH WOULD ALLOW AN I.S.R. OF 80% FOR THESE UNITS.
STAFF DOES SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
THE MDP JUST REQUIRES SOME REVISION THAT IS NEED TO BE MADE BEFORE WE SUBMIT TO CITY COUNCIL WHICH WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR
FEBRUARY 21. >> THANK YOU, AMBER.
BRETT, WOULD YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD?
>> NO. I THINK AMBER DID A GOOD JOB.
I WILL ANSWER ABOUT THE AMENITY. WE WERE GOING TO DO AN AMENITY THERE. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PASSIVE TRAIL SYSTEM IN THAT AREA, FOR SURE.
WERE HAVING A PLACE HOLDER FOR, LIKE, A POOL AND BATHHOUSE.
OKAY? THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
WE BUILD A LARGE ONE IN PHASE THREE HERE.
A LARGE POOL, CLUBHOUSE, AND PARKING LOT.
WE ARE TRYING TO PREVENT WHAT WE RAN INTO WITH HIM'S TRAIL.
WE WANTED TO ADD A SECOND POOL. WE HAD TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU.
WE WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THE FRONT END THERE MAY BE A POOL HERE. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
>> THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE DOING THAT.
AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, LIKE, ON THE INCENTIVE EXCHANGES, WE ARE REALLY NOT CHANGING THEM. IT IS NOT LIKE WE ARE ADDING THEM. THE PREVIOUS INCENTIVE EXCHANGES WERE ALL SIMILAR. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE ON THEISM S.R. ONE WAS WE ADDED THAT IN THE PREVIOUS TIME FOR THE COTTAGE HOUSING AREA. AND SO WE DIDN'T NEED IT.
WHEN WE DID THAT, AS YOU COME INTO WOODWARD OAKS NOW AND THE MAIN BOULEVARD, THOSE ARE MAINLY 90 AND 100-FOOT WIDE LOTS SET BACK FROM THE STREETS. THAT KIND OF STUFF.
WHEN WE DID THESE TOWNHOMES AND THEY WERE LINING JAMES BURKE PARKWAY ON THE SIDE, WE WERE KIND OF CREATING A STREET-SCAPE.
WHAT WE DID WAS WE PREVIOUSLY SHOWED STREET-FRONTED HOMES WITH REAR ALLEY ACCESS. I FORGOT TO ADD TO... TO INCLUDE THE I.S. TROVMENT APPLY TO THOSE LOTS.
YOU WILL HAVE A REAR ACCESS. MORE I.S.R. ON THOSE LOTS.
THAT WAS SOMETHING I'M CLEANING UP WITH THIS.
IT IS REALLY ALL THE SAME THING AS BEFORE.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTION TO BRETT.
[01:25:01]
OKAY. ARE WE HEAR A... ARE WE HAVING A HEARING? WE DO NEED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. IF ANYONE WISHES TO ASK QUESTIONS OR RAISE ANY ISSUES REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL, PLEASEMY NAME IS ANDREW PEACOCK. 1621 JAMES BURKE PARKWAY.
I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT AT WOODWARD OAKS.
THE SECOND RESIDENT ON JAMES BURKE PARKWAY.
MOVED BACK IN AUGUST, A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.
WHEN I MOVED IN, THERE WERE A LOT OF PROMISES MADE BY THE DEVELOPER TO ME THAT I QUESTIONED THOROUGHLY BEFORE I PURCHASED MY LOT, BEFORE I SIGNED THE CONTRACT.
THEY HAVE FALLEN THROUGH. WE HAVE SEEN CERTAIN THINGS LIKE BIKE TRAILS. THOSE WERE PROMISED TO BE BUILT OVER TEN MILES OF THEM. THEY ARE STILL BEING ADVERTISED ON THE WEBSITE. THE DEVELOPER HASN'T DONE.
THAT THAT HAS BEEN A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL IN THE COMMUNITY.
THEY MAINTAIN THAT AS WELL. OUR CLUBHOUSE-BATHHOUSE IS LITERALLY FALLING APART. WE HAVE HAD SIDING FALL OFF.
WE HAVE HAD CHUNKS FALL OFF. WE HAVE DON'T HAVE LIGHTS IN THE POOL. UNDER THE WATER.
AS SOMEONE WHO LOST A CHILD TO A DROWNING, I GUARANTEE YOU THAT IS A VERY MAJOR CONCERN TO ME. I TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT WITH THE DEVELOPER. IT HAS BEENS TOED TO THE WAYSIDE. THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS.
OUR SIGNAGE AT THE FRONT DOESN'T WORK.
THE DEVELOPER CAN'T TAKE CARE OF WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY PROMISED.
WHAT I READ ABOUT THE PDD, THE CHANGE, ONE THING THAT CONCERNS ME, ACCORDING TO THE CITY WEBSITE, IS THE MOST FLEXIBILITY FOR THE DEVELOPER. SO FAR, OUR DEVELOPER HASN'T CASHED IN A LOT OF CHECKS THAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN.
THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE WERE PROMISED BY THE DEVELOPER. HASN'T COME THROUGH.
WHEN I LOOK AT THE NEW MAP, ONE THING THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME, THERE IS NO PARKING SHOWN. I KNOW THIS ISN'T THE FINAL SUBMISSION. THE FINAL RENDERING.
THERE IS NO PARKING FOR THE NEW AMENITY BUILDING.
THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE I ASKED ABOUT.
I WAS TOLD THAT YES, T THAT WAS ALREADY AN EXISTING PART OF WHAT WAS OUT THERE AT OUR SUBDIVISION.
THAT WAS A SECOND POOL AREA. NOW I'M HEARING THAT THAT MIGHT BE A POOL, IT MIGHT NOT BE. ALSO, I COUNT THE NUMBER OF TOWNHOUSE LOTS. THAT IS F MORE THAN 29 UNITS.
ACCORDING AGAIN TO THE WEB PAGE, FROM OUR SUBDIVISION, IT STATES THAT IT IS 517 HOME SITES. NOW WE ARE SEEING 580.
THAT IS STRAIGHT OFF THEIR WEB PAGE.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE DISCREPANCY IN THE NUMBER COMES.
FROM I FIGURED I WOULD POINT THAT OUT.
I WON'T TAKE UP ANY MORE OF YOUR TIME.
I KNOW THERE IS OTHER RESIDENTS THERE.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING MY OPINIONS.
>> ANYONE ELSE? >> HOW Y'ALL DOING TONIGHT? FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THIS FORUM TO US TO COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. I HAVE TO USE NOTES.
BECAUSE I'M A ROOKIE PUBLIC SPEAKER.
MY BRAIN GOES... >> GIVE US YOUR NAME.
>> ROBERT HODGETON. I GO BY BOB.
MY WIFE IS ASHLEY. MY WIFE AND I LIVE... MY FAMILY AND I LIVE AT 806 CLEAR STREAM DRIVE.
I WANT TO ECHO EVERY SENTIMENT THAT MR. DREW JUST BROUGHT UP.
HE WAS VERY ACCURATE IN WHAT HE SAID.
IT SPEAKS MAINLY TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS ABOUT THE DEVELOPER.
FEW PROMISES HAVE BEEN DELIVERED, IF YOU WILL.
I WILL GET RIGHT INTO IT. I DIDN'T REALLY SEE THE POPULATION DENSITY WAS AFFECTED. YOU KNOW, BY READING THE DOCUMENTS. THAT IS A GOOD THING.
HOWEVER, HOW THIS DESIGN CREATES A POTENTIAL THOROUGHFARE JUST SEEMS UNSAFE AS DRIVERS ARE ALREADY SPEEDING DOWN JAMES BURKE PARKWAY AND THE STREETS ARE FAIRLY NARROW.
PEOPLE PARK IN THE ROAD. AND THE STREET.
WE HAVE A LOT OF KIDS THAT PLAY OUT THERE.
YOU KNOW, SPEEDING VEHICLES COME BY... COMBINED WITH BLIND SPOTS, IF YOU, WILL BALLS COMING OUT IN THE ROAD.
IT IS JUST UNSAFE. IN OUR OPINION.
AND THAT IS MAINLY DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE REAR LOT AND A LOT OF THESE HOMES. IT IS FAIRLY SMALL.
THEY PLAY IN THE FRONT YARD. THE REALTOR SALES REPRESENTATIVE ASSURED MYSELF AND THE OTHERS THAT MIRACLE ROAD WAS GOING TO BE FINISHED FROM NORTH DONAHUE TO FARMVILLE.
THAT WOULD MOST LIKELY ADDRESS THAT CONCERN.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN SUBMIT CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO... FOR YOU ONE. FINISHING MIRACLE FROM FARMVILLE TO NORTH DONAHUE. IN THE AMENDMENT, THE PROPOSED ITEM IN THE NEW PLAN, THE LANGUAGE IN THE DOCUMENT IS SUCH AS POTENTIAL MOST LIKELY, ET CETERA.
CAUSING CONCERN. BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IS VERY WEAK. IN MY PROFESSION, YOU HAVE TO HAVE STRONG LANGUAGE WHEN COMMITTING TO SOMETHING.
[01:30:01]
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE TERMS LIKE "SHALL," STUFF LIKE THAT.THAT SEEMS MORE BINDING IN THAT SITUATION.
MORE CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT THE AMENITY BUILDING IS GOING TO BE.
I KNOW MR. BASQUIN SPOKE TO THAT.
WHEN WE ARE SUBMITTING PLANS, YOU WANT TO SUBMIT SOMETHING MORE SOLID. IN MY OPINION.
MAYBE THAT IS JUST THE INDUSTRY THAT I'M ACCUSTOMED TO.
THE REASON FOR THAT CONCERN IS DUE TO THE VARIOUS PROMISES AND ASSURANCES OF MORE AMENITIES. NAMELY, A PLAYGROUND FOR THE CHILDREN TO PLAY ON. JUST OUTSIDE THE MODEL HOME.
THAT HASN'T SURFACED. AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, IS AND WAS DESIGNED FORECAST, I GUESS, AND MARKETED FOR THAT PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, FAMILY LIFE OR WHATEVER.
I LOST MY PLACE. SEVERAL BILIERS HAD TO REFUSE OR POSTPONE CLOSING TO ASSURE THAT CERTAIN THINGS WERE ADDRESSED WITH THEIR HOMES. THIS GOES TO ACCOUNTABILITY HERE. I THINK YOU GET MY POINT THERE.
I'LL GO TO THE NEXT ONE. THERE APPEARS TO BE DIRECT ACCESS FROM THE SCHOOL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS VEHICULAR ACCESS OR IF THAT IS STRICTLY PEDESTRIAN.
I ASKED THAT BECAUSE... MAYBE MR. BASQUIN CAN RESPOND TO THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION BECAUSE THE REASON I ASK THAT, IF IT IS DRIVABLE, IS THERE ANY WAY TO PROPOSITION THE DEVELOPER TO MODIFY THIS ACCESS TO PEDESTRIAN ONLY AS THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL. IT SEEMS THAT WOULD DRASTICALLY INCREASE VEHICLE OR TRAFFIC THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE YOU COULD EXIT THE SCHOOL, DRIVE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ACCESS NORTH DONAHUE MORE EASILY.
HOWEVER, IF YOU FINISH MIRACLE ROAD AND MAKE THAT PEDESTRIAN, THEY COULD EXIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TAKE MIRACLE OR NORTH DONAHUE. I FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, ANY TYPE OF TRAFFIC ISSUES THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I KNOW THERE WAS A STUDY PERFORMED.
I DIDN'T HAVE THAT STUDY AVAILABLE.
I APPRECIATE Y'ALL SENDING OUT THE PLACARD.
THAT IS THE ONLY REASON I KNEW ABOUT.
THIS HOW, I RECEIVED IT LAST WEDNESDAY.
I HAVE BEEN OUT OF TOWN A FEW DAYS.
IT DIDN'T GIVE ME A LOT OF TIME TO PREPARE.
I'M SHOOTING FROM THE HIP HERE. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
I BELIEVE THOSE ARE ALL MY SPECIFIC CONCERNS OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, IF THE DEVELOPER WERE TO RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, LIKE SPEED BUMPS, WE HAVE SOME TRAFFIC CIRCUMSTANCELES IN HERE.
AS AS A WAY TO CONTROL TRAFFIC. THOSE TYPICALLY ONLY SERVE AS LOCAL HINDRANCES. AFTER THE HINDRANCE, IT BECOMES THE BACK STRAIGHT-AWAY AT TALLADEGA.
THEY JUST TAKE OFF, PUT IT TO THE FLOOR.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THE OPPORTUNITY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT.
ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN ENFORCING THE BREACH OF CONTRACTS OR WHATEVER WITHIN... BETWEEN THE HOME OWNER AND THE DEVELOPER, I AM INTERESTED IN BRETT ANSWERING A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS. ONE IS ABOUT THE ACCESS TO THE SCHOOL. THE OTHER IS THE... WELL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SPEED MITIGATION. WELL, THAT IS... THAT IS A PROCESS THAT WE HAVE. YOU CAN GO THROUGH AND YOU CAN TALK AND EXPLAIN ABOUT THAT. WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO... IF THERE IS A SPEEDING PROBLEM ON THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES.
HOW TO MITIGATE THAT. THERE WAS ANOTHER... WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? NONET, DID YOU HAVE ONE? JUST OVERALL, SHOULD WE BE... WE CAN'T ENFORCE THESE THINGS.
I DON'T SEE ANY NEED IN ADDING TO A PDD THAT IS NOT FUNCTIONING
WELL IF IT IS GOING DOWNHILL. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR LEGAL RIGHTS WOULD BE TO DO THAT. YOU ARE EXCUSED.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> INGUESS WE DO. DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?
ALL RIGHT. >> I'M NOT GOOD AT PUBLIC SPEAKING. LAUREN MAXWELL... CATCHER.
SORRY. MAXWELL IS MY MAIDEN NAME.
I'M ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE THAT MOVED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AGAIN, LIKE HE SAID, I'M NOT SURE IF ANY OF THIS AFFECTS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DECIDING HERE. PROMISED A LOT OF THINGS, NOT A LOT... THEY CHANGED THINGS CONSTANTLY.
IT SEEMED LIKE, AGAIN, I GOT THIS IN THE MAIL.
THANK YOU FOR SENDING IT. BECAUSE OTHERWISE, IT JUST COMES ACROSS AS THEY LIKE TO CHANGE THINGS FOR WHATEVER FITS THEIR PURPOSES. AGAIN, AMENITIES LIKE THE LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE CLEARS FOR US.
WHAT ARE THEY ACTUALLY GOING TO BE PROVIDING? AND I ALSO AGREE WITH THE SC SCHOOL, IF IT IS GOING TO CONNECT, LIKE SAFETY-WISE, DRIVERS, COMING THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. CONNECTIVITY ISSUES.
SO SORRY. NOT A STRONG PUBLIC SPEAKER.
[01:35:02]
BUT JUST I FELT STRONGLY ENOUGH TO COME TO THIS AND ACTUALLY SAY THAT I OPPOSE THEIR CHANGE. FOR THAT.THANK YOU FOR SEEING US. I'M JERRY COLLETTE.
ONE OF THE ORIGINAL RESIDENTS AT WOODWARD OAKS.
I CAN REITERATE EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE ABOUT A LOT OF EMPTY PROMISES, A LOT OF THINGS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED.
PLAYGROUNDS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT.
AND THEY ARE NOT BEING BUILT BASED ON SPACE, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. I HAVE PERSONALLY STARTED A COMMITTEE TO HELP THE H.O.A. SO BASICALLY, A COMMITTEE THAT MANAGES OUR MANAGEMENT COMPANY WHICH THE BOARD IS OUR BUILDER.
WHICH I FEEL IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
BUT S.O.S. IF S.O.S.... WE HAVE DEVELOPED A COMMITTEE TO MANAGE OUR H.O.A. COMPANY THAT MANAGES OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD CONTINUING PROBLEMS SINCE DAY ONE.
LOTS OF EMPTY PROMISES. YOU KNOW, THE LANGUAGE, ONE THING. DEFINITELY STRONGER LANGUAGE, THE AMENITY BUILDING. WHAT EXACTLY IS THAT? PARKING. WE ARE HAVING... THE LANGUAGE DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, STRENGTHENED.
EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE DOING.
ARE THEY GOING TO FINISH MIRACLE ROAD? WHEN WE MOVED IN, THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO FINISH THE ROAD.
WE DO NOT NEED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS A THOROUGHFARE.
WE ALREADY HAVE AN ISSUE. AND ONCE THEY BUILD... FINISH THAT SCHOOL, THAT WOULD BE A BIGGER ISSUE.
AND WILL THAT BE A WALKING PATH TO THE SCHOOL OR THE CARS? WE DEFINITELY NEED TO GET THAT CLARIFIED.
LIKE THEY MENTIONED ABOUT THE CLUBHOUSE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, THE POOL HAS BEEN A CONTINUING PROBLEM OF GETTING ANYTHING DONE. WITH THE DEVELOPER.
THEY BUILD HOUSES QUICKLY, AND THEN THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT.
AND LEAVE YOU KNOW, US TO TAKE CARE OF TRYING TO GET THESE PROBLEMS FIXED. SO A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTROL ON WHAT EXACTLY THEY ARE GOING TO BE DOING WOULD BE... WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE BOUGHT INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD MAINLY FOR THE WALKING TRAILS, SO... AND WITH ALL THE BUILDING, WE ARE ALSO HAVING SOME FLOODING ISSUES JUST CROSSING OVER THE BRIDGE ON NORTH DONAHUE. I HAVE WATCHED THE CREEK GROW WHEN IT RAINS, YOU KNOW, 25 YARDS OUTSIDE OF ITS BANKS TO NOW IF YOU DRIVE BY IT TODAY, IT IS ALMOST A HUNDRED YARDS OUTSIDE OF THE BANKS. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME FLOODING ISSUES. ON THE WALKING TRAILS, WHICH I FREQUENT REGULARLY, WE ARE HAVING FLOODING ISSUES.
THERE IS POOR MANAGEMENT OF THE WATER.
THEY ARE DOING THE SCRAPE DEVELOPMENT.
TAKING ALL THE TREES AWAY. AND LEAVING IT FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. THAT WATER HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE.
WE ARE HAVING CONTINUING ISSUES WITH THAT.
SO THAT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
WE HAVE LOST PART OF THE TRAIL BECAUSE THEY HAVE CREPT THE NEIGHBORHOOD INTO THE TRAILINGS WHICH WAS BUILT BY A PRIVATE PERSON, NOT BY THE BUILDER. IT HAS BEEN DONE COMPLETELY BY A RESIDENT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL VOLUNTEER.
BUT THEY ADVERTISE IT AS THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
THOSE ARE MAIN CONCERNS. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? YOU HAVE SPOKEN. ANYBODY ELSE, THOUGH? WISH TO SPEAK? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANDLY ASK THE STAFF OR THE REPRESENTATIVE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES. BRETT?
>> A LOT OF THESE... YOU KNOW, I'M NOT THE BUILDER.
I CAN'T ADDRESS A LOT OF THEM. >> YES.
>> IN REGARDS TO, YOU KNOW, YOU ASKED ABOUT ACCESS TO THE SCHOOL. THAT HASN'T CHANGED FROM THE PREVIOUS LAYOUT. RIGHT? THERE IS VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE SCHOOL
THROUGH THAT SIDE. >> VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN?
>> THERE IS A ROUNDABOUT CONNECTING THAT ALL THROUGH.
>> OKAY. >> SO THAT WAS ALL PLANNED TO BE THERE. IN REGARDS TO MIRACLE ROAD, MIRACLE ROAD IS... MIRACLE ROAD IS GOING AWAY.
I MEAN, MIRACLE ROAD WILL EXIST FROM NORTH DONAHUE TO THIS COUNTY ROAD WHERE THE POINTER IS AT RIGHT NOW.
BUT THE REST OF MIRACLE ROAD IS VACATED AND REROUTED AND
[01:40:02]
ESSENTIALLY, JAMES BURKE PARKWAY IS THE CONNECTOR ROAD THAT IS THROUGH THERE. THAT HAS BEEN FROM DAY ONE.NONE OF THAT HAS CHANGED. NOW, A PORTION OF MIRACLE ROAD DID LOOP THROUGH THIS SITE, AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT THEY DID WAS STRAIGHTEN OUT MIRACLE ROAD THROUGH THERE.
UP THROUGH THERE. THEY RELOCATED A PORTION OF THE ROAD. THAT WAS DONE, YOU KNOW, AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT. SO I CAN SPEAK ON THAT.
I GUESS IN REGARDS TO TRAFFIC... YOU KNOW, SPEEDING AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, THERE IS A RAISED CROSSWALK.
I DON'T THINK THE RAISED CROSSWALK IS IN YET.
THEY ARE NOT DONE WITH THAT PHASE.
THERE IS A RAISED CROSSWALK THAT GOES IN RIGHT AROUND CLEAR SPRINGS. RIGHT AROUND PHASE THREE.
THEN YOU HAVE THE ROUNDABOUT THAT IS ABOUT HALFWAY.
WE DO HAVE THIS NEW ROUNDABOUT THAT WE WILL BE PUTTING IN.
BUT YOU KNOW, THERE IS OTHER SPEED CONTROL THAT WILL TAKE PLACE ALONG JAMES BURKE PARKWAY. IN REGARDS TO THAT AMENITY AREA OVER THERE, YES, THERE WILL BE PARKING.
YOU KNOW THERE, WILL BE PARKING OVER THERE.
THE PLAN AT THIS TIME WAS FOR A POOL AND A BATHHOUSE.
BUT NOT A CLUBHOUSE. THAT IS WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT THERE. IN REGARDS TO A PLAYGROUND, PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT STUFF MENTIONED. WE NEVER HAVE IN OUR DOCUMENTS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN PROMISED OR WHAT NOT.
I CAN'T SPEAK ON THAT. IN REGARDS TO OUR LOT COUNT CHANGING. WE HAVE NEVER ASKED FOR AN INCREASE OF LOT COUNT. THE LOT COUNT HAS BEEN 580 THE WHOLE TIME. LET'S SEE.
IS THERE ANY SPECIFIC ONES YOU WANT ME TO ADDRESS? I WAS TRYING TO WRITE THEM DOWN AS I WAS GOING.
>> YOU HAVE COVERED THE ONES THAT I CAUGHT.
ALL RIGHT. THE BIKE TRAILS... IT HAS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH THE... I THINK
THERE IS A 501C-3 CORP. >> A CAMP.
>> A CAMP. THEY HAVE BEEN DEDICATING THE EASEMENTS AND THEY HAVE BEEN BUILDING THESE PICK BIKE TRAILS ON THEIR PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, THROUGH THIS AREA.
AND THAT IS HOW I ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS GOING.
AND WE WERE, WE WERE DEDICATING THE PROPERTY AND DEDICATING THE EASEMENTS BUT CAMP WAS BUILDING THESE THINGS.
BEYOND THAT, I CAN'T ANSWER. YOU KNOW, THERE WAS... YOU KNOW, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE BIKE TRAILS WERE GOING TO GO UP THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A LOT OF THESE CUTOUT AREAS AND STUFF TO GET BACK TOWARDS THE SUBDIVISION AND SUCH. WE WILL WORK ON PLOTTING WHERE THE EXISTING ONES ARE. TO UPDATE FOR THE COMMENTS ON THE MASTER PLAN. AND WHERE THE FUTURE ONES ARE
GOING. >> YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MILES
I HAVE NO IDEA. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, BRETT.
>> YES. >> I KNOW THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE PUTTING THE TWO NEW LOTS. RIGHT?
>> MM-HMM. >> IT CHANGED A LOT FROM THAT.
AND I REMEMBER IN PACKET, ALISON MENTIONED THIS.
>> YEAH. WE WOULD HAVE A FINGER.
WE WILL PUT A FINGER BACK OUT TO THAT.
THAT IS NOT A BIG DEAL. THAT IS NOT A BIG DEAL.
THAT IS NOT A BIG DEAL AT ALL. PART OF THE DETENTION OF THIS PHASE COMES OVER THERE. WE HAD TO SQUEEZE THAT SIDE O OVER. THAT IS WHY KIND WE REORIENTATED THAT AREA. THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM.
THANK YOU. >> LY ADD A COMMENT.
THAT THE UNIT COUNT DID ACTUALLY INCREASE.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY 517. THEN WITH THE LATEST AMENDMENT, THEY ADDED 29 COTTAGE UNITS AND 39 TOWNHOMES.
>> THE PREVIOUS TIME. THE PREVIOUS TIME.
WHEN WE WENT FROM THE COTTAGE HOUSING AMENDMENT... THAT'S RIGHT. YOU ARE CORRECT.
IT WENT FROM 517. WHEN WE CHANGED THE HOUSING TYPE BACK HERE TO THE COTTAGE HOUSING TYPE IN THE TOWNHOME THE
PREVIOUS TIME, IT DID GO UP. >> AMBER, CAN YOU REMIND ME EXACTLY WHAT CONSTITUTES A COTTAGE HOUSING TYPE?
>> YEAH. IT IS JUST... WE HAVE PERFORMANCE CALLS FOR WHETHER IT IS A SINGLE-FAMILY, DUPLEX,
[01:45:06]
COTTAGE-STYLE. THE COTTAGE STYLE IS MORE OF...WHERE HOUSES ARE NO MORE THAN TEN CLUSTER IN GREEN SPACE.
THEY ARE KIND OF INWARD FACING. A COMMON OPEN SPACE IN THE MIDDLE. THEY CAN BE DONE AS FEE SIMPLE OR AN OWNERSHIP. THAT IS THE LOOK AND FEEL THAT THE COTTAGE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS ENCOURAGE.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE THEY ARING TO GET TO.
>> THAT IS WHAT WE WERE DOING BEFORE.
THERE WAS DOUBLE ROAD FRONTAGES. IT WAS CRAZY.
IT GOT THERE IS REALLY NO FEE SIMPLE COTTAGE-STYLE HOUSING DONE IN AUBURN. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT.
WE COULDN'T... WE JUST... IT BECAME INFEASIBLE.
THAT IS WHY WE CAME BACK. >> ALL RIGHT.
FOR ENGINEERING I DO HAVE ONE. SINCE JAMES BURKE PARKWAY IS A PUBLIC STREET, WHAT OTHER OPTIONS DO WE HAVE TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC? THAT COULD BE ADDED OR IS IT
JUST COMPLAINT-DRIVEN? >> THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS ACTUALLY PLANNED TO HAVE TRAFFIC-CALMING INSTALLED AS THE PHASES ARE BEING BUILT. SO THAT IS WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON.
THERE IS A SERIES OF SPEED HU HUMPS, ROUNDABOUT AND RAISED CROSSINGS THAT WILL BE INSTALLED.
EXCUSE ME. ALONG JAMES BURKE PARKWAY.
AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO HELP MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC.
SO IT SHOULD... IT WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF AS
THE FAIRSES ARE BUILT. >> OKAY.
THAT IS A REQUIREMENT FOR PERMITTING.
IF IT IS NOT DONE, THERE IS PERMITTING THAT WON'T HAPPEN.
>> YES. THEY SUBMIT THE TRAFFIC-CALMING AS PART OF THE DRT PLANS. WHEN APPROPRIATE.
ANYTHING ELSE? WELL, IS THERE ANYONE PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION? ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE MOTION?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE... WITH
CONDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS. >> WITH CONDITIONS AND
A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL.
ANY SECOND TO THAT? >> SECOND.
I'M SORRY. >> MOTION AND SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE.
[8. Conditional Use – City of Auburn Public Safety Training Center – PUBLIC HEARING]
NEXT ITEM ON YOU T AGENDA THE CITY OF AUBURN.
CLOSING OUT THE AGENDA THIS EVENING IS A REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF AUBURN FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING FACILITY.
IT IS LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 280. JUST NORTH OF NORTH COLLEGE STREET. THE PROPERTY IS RURAL AND WAS ANNEXED LAST MONTH. IT'S APPROXIMATELY NINE ACRES.
AND THE REQUEST IS FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE USE SPECIFICALLY A MUNICIPAL FACILITY.
AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CAMPUS WILL CONSIST OF A...
A... I'M TRYING TO POINT. THERE WE GO.
A CLASSROOM AND MEETING SPACE BUILDING.
AND THEN SEVERAL EXTERIOR FACILITIES THAT WILL BE USED FOR TRAINING SUCH AS A BURN BUI BUILDING, DRAFTING PIT, A REPELLING... RAPPELING TOWER AND RADIO TOWER, AMONG OTHER APPARATUSES. WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? SO MUCH PAPER UP HERE.
I HAVE LOST MY AGENDA. >> THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED ON THIS.
I ASSUME. SINCE IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE.
SO I'LL OPEN THAT NOW. DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSAL FOR AN AUBURN PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CENTER? I THINK NOT. I'LL CLOSE THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION NEEDEDDED FROM STAFF?
>> MOVE TO APPROVE. CU2022061.
[01:50:03]
>> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED.
MULTIPLE TIMES. CALL FOR THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE.
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED SAY NO.
[OTHER]
AND IT HAS BEEN APPROVED. NOW WE HAVE SOME OTHER BUSINESS.I CAN'T FIND THE AGENDA. >> OH, NO.
>> HERE IT IS SOMEWHERE. THERE IT IS.
HERE IT IS. WE HAVE ONE ITEM OF OTHER BUSINESS, I THINK. THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
I WILL OPEN THAT BUSINESS MEETING.
AND OPEN THE FLOOR TO THE MOTION.
WE HAVE THREE OFFICERS... OFFICERS.
THE CHAIRMAN, THE VICE CHAIRMAN, AND THE SECRETARY.
WE WILL TAKE... WE CAN TAKE THE CHAIRMAN FIRST.
AND DO AS YOU WISH. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT IF THE THREE CURRENT PRESIDING OFFICERS ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE TO SERVE, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT FOR THE COMING YEAR, THAT THOSE THREE BE NOMINATED TO FILL THOSE SAME THREE POSITIONS THEY ARE CURRENTLY FILLING.
>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION?
>> DO YOU... >> IT IS IRONIC, IT IS IRONIC THAT WE HAD THIS BUSINESS MEETING ELECTION OF OFFICERS RIGHT AFTER THIS MEETING. I WILL SAY THAT.
(LAUGHTER) ANYWAY, I GUESS. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY
THE MOTION CARRIES. THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATION, HE HAS NO COMMUNICATION. WHAT ABOUT STAFF?
>> NO COMMENTS THIS EVENING. THANK YOU.
>> NO COMMENTS THIS EVENING. ALL RIGHT.
IF THAT IS THE CASE, I DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED.
I THINK I HAVE TO DO THIS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.