9.b.1. Kent Property LDD. Rezoning of approximately 34.7 acres from Rural (R) to Limited Development District (LDD). Property located at 801 Ogletree Road. Applicant: East Mag. Investments, LLC.

[9.b.1. Kent Property LDD. Rezoning of approximately 34.7 acres from Rural (R) to Limited Development District (LDD). Property located at 801 Ogletree Road. Applicant: East Mag. Investments, LLC.]

>> ALL RIGHT. ITEM 9 B-1 IS A REQUEST F EAST G DEVELOPMENT. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY AND A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED.

>> I'LL INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AND ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT

>> SECOND >> I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND.

DOES ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH A VET ON THIS THIS EVENING. SEEING NONE, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE THE TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

ANYONE WANT THE TALK TO THE ITEM ABOUT THIS PUBLIC ITEM? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? I KNOW MR. COBLENTZ THIS IS IN YOUR WARD. YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

>> I DO. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

[00:15:01]

I'LL ASK THESE QUESTIONS. FIRST QUESTION I HAD, SOMETHING THAT'S COME UP IN CONVERSATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS IS WHY THE LDD VERSUS THE ZONING INNED SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.

>> ABSOLUTELY. STAFF IS HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD THE HEAR WHY THEY REQUESTED THAT.

I HAVE THE ANSWER, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF.

>> COULD YOU COME FORWARD? >> I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. SO IT'S PROBABLY BETTER ANSWERED BY STAFF, BUT IN REGARDS TO THE ZONING, THE REASON WHY THE N.C.

ZONING WAS CREATED WAS WHEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS CREATED, THIS N.C. ZONING WAS ACTUALLY USED ON EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT NEW NEIGHBORHOODS. SO TRADITIONALLY WE DON'T...

WHEN WE COME IN FOR NEW ZONING, WE USUALLY COME IN WITH DDH, LDD, THE NORMAL ZONING SOME THE N.C. ZONING WASN'T CREATED AS A NEW DISTRICT, IT WAS MORE PUT IN PLACE ON EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS BACK WHEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS REDONE.

>> ULTIMATELY THE N.C. ZONING HAS A DIFFERENT SETBACK, AND THE SETBACKS WERE GENERATED BASED ON MEASURING THE DISTANCE FROM HOUSING AT THE TIME THIS THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, HOW THEY SAT BACK FROM THE STREET. THE FRONT, THE SIDE, AND THE REAR SETBACKS SOME THE SETBACKS ARE VERY DIFFERENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICT DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF YOUR LOT VERSUS ALL OTHER ZONES IN THE CITY.

>> ON TOP OF, THAT WE WENT WITH LDD ZONING AND THE PDD OVERLAY.

THAT REALLY HANDCUFFS US MORE THAN JUST NC84 ZONING.

>> OKAY. SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE PRESENTING YOU A PLAN, AND IF APPROVED, THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO, RIGHT? ANY DEVIATION, MODIFICATION FROM THAT ANYTHING HAS TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD AS A REZONING CONDITION. IF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES, AND I'M AN NC84, THEN YOU CHANGE WITH THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, BUT BECAUSE I'M IN A PDD, I'M LOCKED IN TO WHATEVER IS ON THIS PLAIN THAT WE AGREED TO NOW. IT'S SET IN STONE.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGED.

MY SITE-SPECIFIC ZONING ON WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IS LOCKED IN. SO IT REALLY HANDCUFFS US MORE THAN ANYTHING. SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THAT ZONING. BUT THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE N.C. STUFF. I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS NOW. I HAVE DONE A LOT OF REZONINGS.

I HAVE NEVER REZONED ANYTHING TO N.C. ZONING.

IF ANYTHING, WE HAVE REZONED OUT OF N.C. OR DONE SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE HAVE NEVER PLACED THAT ZONING ON A NEW INFIELD-TYPE DEVELOPMENT.

>> BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF SOME OF THE LOTS, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT SLOPES, STREAMS AND WETLAND, SOME OF THE SETBACKS WOULD HAVE BEEN CHALLENGING TO FIT IN UNDER THE

N.C. ZONING DISTRICT. >> CORRECT.

WE DO HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON TOP OF ALL THIS THAT ARE EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE, BUT IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, REAR SETBACK IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S REALLY NOT DEFINED IN THAT ONE, AND THEN THE P.D.D. ALLOWS US A LITTLE RELIEF.

>> THE L.D.D. WITH THE P.D.D., MR. KRAUSE, THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH WHAT'S IN OUR LAND USE PLAN YOU WOULD SAY OVERALL

WITH THE P.D.D.? >> ABSOLUTELY.

WE ALSO HAVE OUR PRINCIPLE PLANNER HERE, WHO HANDLED THIS CASE. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, I'LL HAVE LOGAN TAKE A DEEPER DIVE IN.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS, WHICH THEY ARE COMPLETELY LOCKED DOWN, NO MATTER WHAT, AND YOU SAW THOSE CONDITIONS.

AND WE'RE ALSO TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NEXT CASE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, MUCH TO COME, THE P.D.D. IS A VERY IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THIS. WE CERTAINLY DON'T RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPROVE THIS ZONING FROM A STAFF LEVEL AND NOT APPROVE THE OVERLAY. THAT'S WHAT CHANGES TH THINGS.

MR. KIPP, DO YOU HAVE SOME THINGS YOU WOULD LIKE THE ADD?

>> I WOULD MENTION THE LAST TIME A PROPERTY WAS ZONE IN SEASON WAS 2005, THE COTSWOLD. SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE NOT ZONED PROPERTY TO N.C. P.D.D. IS REALLY THE BEST ROUTE TO CONDITION A PROPERTY TO WHAT IS BEING APPROVED.

SO IF THE P.D.D. IS APPROVED, LIKE BRETT WAS SAYING, THAT'S

[00:20:02]

LOCKED IN WITH THAT APPROVAL, AND THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT WOULD TRIGGER HAVING TO COME BACK BEFORE THE COUNCIL TO MAKE ANY KIND OF CHANGES.

>> LET'S GET AN EXAMPLE OF DENSITY OR LAND USE OR

CONDITIONAL USES. >> IT'S PRETTY MUCH LOCKED DOWN.

EVEN CHANGE IN THE STREET CONFIGURATION CAN TRIGGER A P.D.D. HAVING TO GET AN AMENDMENT.

>> MOST OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE P.D.D. NOW BASICALLY REINFORCE MOST OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND STUFF THAT THE NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ANYWAY.

SO MINIMUM LOCK SIZE AND ALL THAT STUFF WAS --

>> TWO-ACRE LOTS. >> CORRECT.

>> ALL THIS IN THE P.D.D. CONDITIONS ON IT, BASICALLY

FURTHER, YOU KNOW -- >> TO GET TO THAT, THE L.D.D. IS ALL YOU'RE CONSIDERING AT THIS TIME.

WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT ONE. I WANT TO REMIND THE COUNCIL, WE CAN NEVER CONDITION A BASE ZONE WITHOUT AN APPLICANT'S APPROVAL.

YOU DID THAT ON A ONE-OFF THING ON C.D.D. RECENTLY BECAUSE IT'S CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE. THE L.D.D. IS WHAT IT IS, BUT ON THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, CONDITIONS MAY BE PLACED ON THERE, FROM DAY ONE THE CONDITION HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF THAT THESE BE TWO-ACRE MINIMUM LOTS AND SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL ONLY.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY USES. NO OTHER CONDITIONAL USES WERE APPLIED FOR. NO OTHER HOUSING TYPES, JUST

THAT. >> OKAY.

ANOTHER QUESTION THAT CAME UP IN DISCUSSION WITH MY DISCUSSION WITH THE NATION AN FLOODING AND THE WETLAND AREAS THAT ARE IN THERE, AND I BELIEVE WE'VE HAD SOME MEETINGS WITH THE NATION AROUND THERE ABOUT SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.

SO MS. FRASER, I'M NOT SURE OR MS. KRAUSE IN YOU ALL WANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORS OUT

THERE. >> MS. FRASER CAN DESCRIBE SHE'S MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OVER 30 ACRES AND 15 HOMES.

YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 100% LOT COVERAGE WITHS AS FAULT AND CONCRETE AND OTHER THINGS. I THINK THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL FLOODING AND OTHER THINGS. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CREEK, TIGER TOWN DRAINS THROUGH THIS CREEK, A GOOD BIT OF TIGER TOWN.

MS. FRASER, DO YOU WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THOSE

CONDITIONS? >> I DID MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS MAYBE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. WE TALKED ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. WE HAVE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS THAT PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THE CITY AS WELL AS THE REGULATED FLOODPLAIN AREA. WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING MR. BASQUIN'S PLANS. WE HAVE NOT APRIEWFERRED THEM YET, BUT I DID TELL THE NEIGHBORS THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN OUR DESIGN DEADLINE, THERE ARE PROTECTIONS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO ADVERSE IMPACTS DOWNSTREAM BASED ON THIS

DEVELOPMENT. >> OKAY.

THAT'S MAINLY ALL MY QUESTIONS. I'LL JUST SUMMARIZE A FEW THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THIS AREA. I MET WITH... EVERYONE I MET WITH, THEY HAVE BEEN VERY CORDIAL CONVERSATIONS.

I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THAT AND THE CITY STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER, TOO, FOR Y'ALL'S EFFORTS AND PUTTING TOGETHER A PLAN THAT'S SUITABLE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE AREA AROUND IT. SO I THINK THE L.D.D. WITH THE P.D.D. OVERLAY ACCOMPLISHES A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE... OF THE GOALS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO I THINK IT'S OVERALL A GREAT PLAN.

I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S EFFORTS AND WHAT THEY DID THERE.

THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE FROM THE COUNCIL HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS?

>> YES, I HAVE A QUESTION. JUST PROCEDURAL QUESTION.

IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM CONTINGENT ON THE FOLLOWING

ITEM BEING APPROVED? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BECAUSE UNLESS -- AND THE STAFF CAN REMIND ME -- HERE'S 2T PROBLEM, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS ONLY BEING REQUESTED TO OVERLAY ON A LIMITED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, WHICH DOESN'T YET EXIST ON THIS PARCEL SOME YOU MUST DO ONE AND THEN THE OTHER.

STATE LAW, OTHER THAN LIKE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ANNEXATIONS, THERE'S SUCH A THING AS PREZONING.

STATE LAW HAS NOT PROVIDED A PROVISION THAT I'M AWARE OF.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> YES, SIR. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT I'M VOTING ON, SO I WANT TO ASK THREE OR FOUR QUESTIONS IF I MAY.

DO THE COVENANTS TRUMP ANY ZONING DESIGNATION THAT WE MIGHT LABEL IT WITH, WHETHER N.C. OR P.D.D.?

>> NOT AS FAR AS THE CITY IS CONCERNED.

IT'S NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR

FORM. >> SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH DWELLING SIZE OR LOT SIZE OR SETBACKS OR RESIDENTIAL USE

[00:25:06]

ONLY, OR ONLY ONE DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT, WE HAVE TO RELY ON WHATEVER ZONE IT WAS.

>> YOU RELY EXACTLY ON THE ZONING ORDER FINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE.

ANY COVENANT ISSUES ARE PRIVATE MATTERS BETWEEN PRIVATE PROPERTY

OWNERS. >> YES, OKAY.

SO IN A WAY, IT'S APPLES AND ORANGES.

ONE IS ENFORCED IN COURT, THAT WOULD BE THE COVENANTS.

AND THEN THE OTHER ONE, HOW WOULD THAT BE ENFORCED?

>> WELL, BOTH TECHNICALLY COULD BE ENFORCED IN COURT, BUT ONE IS THE LAW OF THE CITY AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS A LAW OF THE CITY. THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WOULD BE IF SOMEBODY'S NOT COMPLYING WITH THAT, THE CITY WOULD BE PARTY TO THAT ON THE COVENANT SIDE.

ON THE COVENANT SIDE, THE CITY IS NOT A PARTIED TO COVENANT.

THAT'S JUST A PURELY PRIVATE MATTER THAT COULD BE AJ ADJUDICD

IN CIVIL COURT. >> SO BOTH STAND?

>> I COULDN'T ANSWER THIS QUESTION, MEANING WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT THE COURT COULD NOT COMPEL THE CITY THAT I'M AWARE OF THE ENFORCE COVENANTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A LOU OF THE CITY. THEY COULD COMPEL PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO DEAL WITH IT, BUT NOT THE CITY.

>> OKAY. AND JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, THE COVENANTS SAY THERE IS A FOOT-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE REAR LINE AND 150 FOOT FROM THE FRONT LINE AND 40 FEET TO THE LEFT AND TO THE RIGHT OF ANY DWELLING. THAT'S WHAT I READ IN THE

COVENANTS? >> YEAH, I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE COVENANTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GERMANE TO THE ZONING CONSIDERATION. AND N.C. ANYTHING, IT'S 50 FOOT TO THE FRONT AND REAR. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A P.D.D.

OVERLAY WOULD REQUIRE OF THE HOUSES IF ANYTHING.

>> A P.D.D. OVERLAY, I'LL HAVE MR. KIPP SPEAK TO THIS, A BASE

ZONE WOULD PREVAIL. >> YOU WERE CORRECT WITH THE N.C. 90 WOULD BE 45 FEET ON THE FRONT, 50 ON THE REAR, AND 18 ON THE SIDE. AND L.D.D. FOR CONVENTIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOTS, THE FRONT SETBACK IS 25 FEET, THE SIDE IS A MINIMUM OF 15, AND THE REAR IS 40 FEET.

BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ALL HOMES TO MEET THE AGE RESTRICTION.

>> OKAY. AND THAT WAS THE L.D.D.?

>> THAT'S THE L.D.D. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY NUMBERS FOR

THE P.D.D.? >> IT'S BASED ON THE BASE

ZONING. >> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. WELL, IF WE APPROVE A P.D.D.

OVERLAY, THEN WHAT WE'RE ALSO... I DON'T HAVE A RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF ME OR A RECOMMENDATION FOR A MOTION OR ANYTHING.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M VOTING ON, BUT IF WE APPROVE THE P.D.D.

OVERLAY, IT WOULD BE FOR 15 SINGLE-FAMILY, DETACHED HOMES,

IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY BECAUSE I'M REQUIRED TO BY LAW, THAT IS THE NEXT DISCUSSION ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, NOT THE L.D.D. I WANT THE MAKE SURE WE DON'T CONFUSE WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. AND THEY ARE IN TANDEM TOGETHER, I UNDERSTAND, THAT BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CLARIFY ON THE

RECORD WITH THAT QUESTION. >> ALL RIGHT.

A COUPLE OF FINAL QUESTIONS, NOT NEARLY AS FULL OF TENSION I GUESS, BUT IS KENTWOOD DRIVE, IS THAT GOING TO BE OPEN TO

OGLETREE? >> NO, IT IS NOT.

>> OKAY. AND THE ONLY ACCESS IS JUST AS DRAWN IN THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN?

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

WOULD THERE BE, AND I MAY BE GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS COMES IN, BUT IS THERE A PEDESTRIAN TRAIL OF ANY

SORT? >> THERE IS NOT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT HAS FULL PURVIEW OVER SUBDIVISIONS AT THEIR FEBRUARY 9TH MEETING, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT AND THEY REMOVED THAT CONDITION, MEANING THEY DIDN'T ADOPT IT, SO THEREFORE IT IS NOT REQUIRED.

>> AND GREEN SPACE, AS WELL? >> SO THERE IS A... THERE WAS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION HAVING TO DO WITH THAT.

THE RESOLUTION THAT IS BEFORE YOU, WHEN YOU GET TO THE P.D.D., THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT RECOMMEND THAT THAT IS PART OF THE RESOLUTION. THAT'S NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH A GREENWAY EASEMENT THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATED AS PART OF THIS PRIOR SUBDIVISION REGULATION AND POLICIES.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT WOULD BE?

>> THAT CONFUSES PEOPLE IN DIRECTION, BUT IT'S ON THE

[00:30:03]

OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE CREEK FROM THIS SUBDIVISION.

YOU COULD SAY IT'S NORTHISH, BUT WE GET INTO NORTHEAST-ISH.

>> IS THAT OUT OF LOT 12? >> OUT OF WHAT WAS... WHAT IS LOT 12 NOW. IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK. YOU SEE THE CREEK RUNNING

THROUGH THERE. >> ALL RIGHT.

I THINK THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY.

ROLL CALL? >> GRISWOLD

>> YES, MA'AM. TAYLOR?

>> YES. >> WITTEN

>> YES. ADAMS?

>> YES. COBLENTZ

>> YES, MA'AM. MOREMAN

[9.b.2. Kent Property PDD. Rezoning of approximately 34.7 acres to apply the Planned Development District (PDD) to property located at 801 Ogletree Road. Applicant: East Mag. Investments, LLC.]

>> YES. PARSONS YES.

>> SO ITEM 9B2 IS A REQUEST FROM EAST MAG INVESTMENTS TO APPLY THE OVERLAY TO SOME 31 ACHERS WITH A BASE ZONE OF LIMITED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY REQUESTED APPROVAL ON THE JANUARY 12TH MEETING.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY. >> I'LL INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE

AND ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT >> SECOND.

>> THE MOTION IS SECONDED. ANYONE IN THE COUNCIL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH A VOTE ON THIS THIS EVENING? SEEING AND HEARING NONE, WE'LL VOTE.

IF YOU'D LIKE THE COMMENT, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM

COUNCIL? >> I'M NOT READY FOR A VOTE.

I NEED TO ASK THAT I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON, IT'SER IN WRITING OR SOMEBODY NEEDS TO READ IT FROM SOMETHING.

>> SO WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON IS THERE IS A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION. I TRADED OUT THAT RESOLUTION TODAY. IN ESSENCE THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED TO YOU APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

IT'S RIGHT IN FRAU OF YOU ON THE DAIS.

IT WAS ALSO IN YOUR PACKETS BUT WE ADDED THE CONDITIONS TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED MOVING FORWARD.

SO YOU ARE VOTING ON THAT. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT AS THE GOVERNING BODY TO AMEND CONDITIONS, BUT THINGS BACK, TAKE THINGS OUT. THAT'S YOUR CALL.

THEY'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU. SO SOME OF THOSE CONDITIONS, YOU KNOW, ARE GERMANE TO THE LOT SIZES AND SO ON THAT WE TALKED

ABOUT EARLIER. >> JUST FOR THE RECORD WE HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES. WE HAVE PERMITTED USE IS ONLY

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. >> CORRECT.

>> WE HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO DRIVEWAYS AND THIS IS THE ONLY

ACCESS FROM OGLETREE. >> CORRECT.

>> PLUS THE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

>> THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS ADDED.

AND AS WE DISCUSSED, ONLY ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS DO YOU SEE THEM. YOU SEE THEM WITH CONDITIONAL USES A GOOD BIT, BUT IN ZONING YOU DON'T NORMALLY SEE THEM

EXCEPT FOR WITH P.D.D.S. >> THIS IS ALL THAT CAN BE DONE UNTIL WE HAVE A MEETING LIKE THIS SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE THE

CHANGE THIS DOCUMENT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

THIS IS WHERE THIS IN A TITLE SEARCH, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THIS IS RUNNING WITH THE LAND. THIS IS A ZONING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN ESSENCE, AND THIS RUNS WITH IT. THAT'S WHAT MR. BASKIN WAS TALKING ABOUT. IF THE PARAMETERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION ZONE EVER CHANGE, THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

SO THE COUNCIL FROM TIME TO TIME WILL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THEY ARE HAVING TO LIVE WITH CERTAIN PARAMETERS IN HERE.

UNLESS THIS GOES THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION, GETS TO YOU, AND YOU OR THE NEXT GOVERNING BODY DECIDES THE AMEND IT OTHERWISE, THIS IS WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO STICK WITH TO

DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY. >> THERE'S NO WIGGLE ROOM.

THEY HAVE TO STICK WITH THIS? >> NO WIGGLE ROOM.

AN WE REMOVED THE CONDITION... WE USED TO ALLOW PLANNED DOCUMENT DISTRICTS TO EXPIRE, AND WHEN THEY EXPIRED, IT WOULD TAKE THE BASE ZONING AWAY. THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE AFTER WE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT PREVIOUSLY.

NOW THE BASE ZONE DOES NOT EXPIRE.

IT REMAINS. THE BASE ZONE WOULDN'T REVERT BACK THE RURAL. SO IF THEY DON'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, AND I EXPECT THIS TO BE LIKELY VERY POPULAR, BUT IF THEY DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD, IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT IF THE P.D.D. EXPIRED.

ONE CAN ONLY EXPIRE AFTER LA LACK OF ACTIVITY ON IT, WHICH

IS, HOW MANY MONTHS IS IT NOW? >> 18.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. COMMENTS?

[00:35:05]

AGAIN, MR. COBLENTZ, THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS, TAKING THE CALLS AND HAVING THE MEETINGS.

ALL RIGHT, ROLL CAL? >> GRISWOLD.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> YES, MA'AM.

[9.b.3. Woodward Oaks PDD Amendment. Amendment to the Planned Development District (PDD) on 236.54 acres zoned Development District Housing (DDH) of approximately 4.19 acres from Rural (R) to Development District Housing (DDH). Property located on Miracle Road/Lee Road 83 between West Farmville Road and North Donahue Drive.]

>> YES. MOREMAN YES.

>> 9BIS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT ON 246.54 ACRES AND 4.19 ACRES ZONED RURAL IN THE WOODWARD OAKS DEVELOPMENT TO MODIFY PHASE 5 BY REPLACING 29 COTTAGE HOUSING UNITS WITH 27 TOWNHOUSE UNITS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY. A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED.

>> I'LL INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AND ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> SECOND. >> THE MOTION IS SECONDED.

DOES ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH A VOTE ON THIS THIS EVENING? SEEING OR HEARING NONE, AT THE TIME WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF YOU'D LIKE THE ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THIS TOPIC, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YES, SIR?

>> I RESIDE AT 806 THIRSTINGS DRIVE IN THE WOODWARD OAKS SUBDIVISION. I HAVE A FEW REMARKS PREPARED.

LOOK AT THE AMENDMENT, THE POPULATION DENSITY SEEMS TO NOT BE IMPACTED. THAT'S A GOOD THING.

ASPECTS, POTENTIAL FROM FARMVILLE TO NORTH DONAHUE, HAVING A THOROUGHFARE SEEMS UNSAFE AS DRIVERS ALREADY SPEED.

I THINK IT'S 20 FEET TO TEN FEET.

WHERE ARE THE KIDS GOING THE PLAY IF YOU OCCUPY THOSE HOMES.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A SAFETY ISSUE TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN.

FURTHER, THE STREETS ARE FAIRLY NARROW, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM FOR THAT PARTICULAR CATEGORY. I THINK IT'S ARTERIAL.

I DON'T REMEMBER. IT'S 27 FEET.

PEOPLE PARK ON THE STREET FROM TIME TO TIME WHILE KIDS REGULARLY PLAY IN THEIR FRONT YARDS DUE THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE REAR LOTS. IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS THIS CREATES BLIND SPOTS FOR TRAFFIC AND SIGNIFICANT SAFETY HAZARDS.

IN THIS AMENDMENT, THERE APPEARS TO BE DIRECT ACCESS FROM THE SCHOOL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS.

THIS IS FIRST TIME ANY OF US HAVE SEEN THIS MODIFICATION.

IT'S SHOWN IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT PLAN, BUT I COULDN'T FIND IT WRITTEN. I ALSO GOT A COPY OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY, AND I COULDN'T FIND IT IN THERE EITHER.

AND SO I HAVE TRIED TO, YOU KNOW, TALK TO THE CITY AND THE STATE AND GET AN UNDERSTANDING, LIKE ACQUIRE A COPY OF THAT PLAN, AND THEY JUST BOUNCED ME BACK AND FORTH.

THE CITY SAID IT WAS ON THE STATE.

THE STATE'S LIKE WE'RE NOT GIVING IT TO YOU UNLESS YOU'RE A CERTAIN PERSON, EVEN THROUGH THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST.

SO I KIND OF IN THE MONTH THAT I HAD, I JUST GOT TOO BUSY AND COULDN'T FOCUS ON THAT. MAYBE SOMEONE CAN SPEAK TO IT.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ACCESS WILL BE DRIVABLE.

SO IT'S BASICALLY GOING TO FUNNEL CARS THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WOULD THERE BE ANY WAY FOR THIS FORUM TO PROPOSITION OR REQUIRE THIS ACCESS TO BE PEDESTRIAN ONLY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL? IT SEEMS THAT VEHICLE ACCESS WOULD DRASTICALLY INCREASE THE VEHICLE TRAFFIC THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS ALREADY DEALING WITH TRAFFIC ISSUES.

I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO CONTROL TRAFFIC SUCH AS SPEED BUMPS, ET CETERA, BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE, THOSE TYPE OF RESTRICTIONS ARE LOOK TOLL THAT SPECIFIC AREA AND THE AREA STRAIGHTAWAY. PEOPLE HIT IT AND THEN SPEED UP.

SO FURTHER AT THE CITY PLANNING MEETING, ATTENDEES SAID WE COULDN'T EVEN KEEP A STOP SIGN UP, SO HOW WILL WE KNOW TRAFFIC MEASURES WILL BE EFFECTIVE OR MAINTAINED.

MIRACLE ROAD WILL BE FINISHED. SO THAT'S JUST... I DON'T KNOW IF THAT COULD BE SUBMITTED AS SOME CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO HAVE IT FINISHED FROM NORTH DONAHUE.

AND THE AMENDMENT, THE PROPOSED ITEM HAS AN ADDITIONAL AMENITY BUILDING, HOWEVER, LANGUAGE IN THE DOCUMENT SUCH AS "POTENTIAL" OR "MOST LIKELY" CAUSES CONCERN BECAUSE IT'S WEAK AND GENERIC.

TERMS LIKE SHALL AND SHAT NOT ARE MORE APPROPRIATE.

THERE WERE PROMISES FOR A PLAYGROUND FOR WHICH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS/WAS DESIGNED AND MARKETED TO VARIOUS PEOPLE AND DIFFICULTIES DURING THE BUILDING PROCESS, ATTEMPTING TO BASICALLY

[00:40:02]

THE BUILDER MADE A LOT OF PROMISES.

I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS ABOUT THE PROMISES THE BUILDER MADE EVERYBODY, BUT I WANT THAT TO BE UNDERSTOOD.

AND OUR MAIN CONCERN IS WHAT'S BEST FOR AUBURN AND WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR COMMUNITY, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT'S BEST FOR SOME SPECIFIC DEVELOPER. THERE WERE A LOT OF PROMISES MADE AND A LOT OF THOSE PROMISES WERE OR HAD BEEN DELIVERED ON, A LOT OF THESE SAFETY ISSUES THAT WE SEE MAY NOT BE PRESENTED PRESENT BECAUSE THE KIDS WOULD HAVE A PLACE TO COMMUNE AND PLAY. WE DO HAVE SIDEWALKS.

WE DO HAVE SIDEWALKS. WE HAVE NATURE TRAIL THAT GOES AROUND THE ENTIRE THING, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE CENTRALIZED, THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD POKE FROM WHERE YOU'RE AT, A QUARTER-MILE WALK TO ACCESS THAT THING. SO IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER.

SO IT'S JUST... THERE'S A LOT OF SAFETY THINGS AND A LOT OF WEAK LANGUAGE INVOLVED IN THIS. WE FEEL THIS BODY, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER, HAVING REPRESENTATION ON THEIR BOARD FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE BOARD IS... THE H.O.A. IS COMPRISED OF THE DEVELOPER SOLELY.

WE'VE ASKED TO BE ON IT AND HEAD IT UP AND HELP THEM OUT, BUT THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO PLAY BALL IN LAYMAN'S TERMS.

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN.

>> IT'S H H-O-D-G-E-N. >> WOULD BIT FAIR TO SUMMARIZE YOUR CONCERNS ARE CAR ACCESS, THE ORIGINAL PLAN FOR VEHICLES AND NOW THERE'S A CHANGE AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OVERALL PEDESTRIAN CHILD SAFETY IN THE

NEIGHBORHOOD? >> THAT'S PRIMARY.

AND SECONDARY IS YOU'VE GOT 500 HOMES AND YOU'VE GOT ONE AMENITY BUILDING. THEY SAID, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PROBABLY MIGHT MAYBE HAVE AN AMENITY BUILDING.

THE LANGUAGE ISN'T STRONG ENOUGH FOR ME.

WHERE I'M FROM, YOU USE TERMS LIKE SHALL AND SHALL NOT.

YOU BIND SOMEBODY TO SOMETHING, YOU DON'T SAY, I MIGHT GO DO THIS. I UNDERSTAND IT'S THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY. I GET IT.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT PROVIDES CONFIDENCE THAT PEOPLE LIVING IN THE AREA THAT WHAT IS BEING SAID WILL HAPPEN, ESPECIALLY BASED ON THE PROMISES THAT WERE MADE BEFOREHAND AND THEY'RE NOT DELIVERING. LIKE WE HAVE NO RECOURSE.

THAT WOULD BE MY SECOND ISSUE. >> SURE.

WELL, YOU WERE SPEED READING THROUGH THERE, I'M NOT SURE I CAPTURED EVERYTHING AS I WAS TRYING TO SUMMARIZE IT.

>> I'M SORRY. IT WAS A LOT.

>> I GET IT. I GET IT.

YOU DID A GOOD JOB. HAS THAT E-MAIL BEEN SENT TO

ANYBODY ON STAFF? >> NO, WE'VE JUST BEEN BOUNCING IT AROUND. I CAN TYPE IT UP.

I JUST LAST MEETING, THEY RECOMMEND I JUST READ THROUGH IT. I CAN SEND IT TO YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. >> REAL QUICK, I DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE ANYBODY, THE DESCRIPTION ON THE SCREEN IS NOT CORRECT.

WE'RE NOT REZONING ANYTHING. IT'S JUST AMENDING THE P.D.D.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. STAFF WAS POINTING THAT OUT.

WHAT'S IN YOUR PACKETS IS CORRECT.

THAT MAKES IT SOUND LIKE YOU'RE REZONING.

YOU'RE JUST AMENDING THE P.D.D. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN. ANYBODY LIKE THE ADDRESS THE COUNCIL IN PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS ANDREW PEACOCK.

I RESIDE ON JAMES PARKWAY. I WAS THE SECOND HOUSE.

I WAS NOT AN EASY SELL. MY WIFE AND I MET WITH THE REALTOR THAT REPRESENTED OUR DEVELOPER FIVE TIMES TO ASK A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS THAT WOULD HAVE MADE COUNCILMAN MOREMAN'S QUESTIONS LOOK VERY SHORT.

WE HAVE A CLOT OF CONCERNS, NUMBER ONE BEING THE SAFETY, BEING ON THE PARKWAY. WE WERE SHOWN THE FIRST REVISION OF WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE WERE NEVER SHOWN A SECOND ONE.

ON THAT ONE WE DIDN'T HAVE TOWN HOUSES ON THE PARKWAY.

WE WERE TOLD THAT ALL HOUSES WOULD BE 25 FEET OR FURTHER AWAY FROM THE CURB. THERE WOULD BE FOUR TO SIX BEDROOMS LIKE OURS, THEY WOULD MATCH.

WHEN WE WENT TO THE MEETING LAST MONO, I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BEING PROPOSED FOR THE NEW TOWNHOUSES AND BEING ASKED THAT THEY ARE TEN FEET AWAY FROM THE CURB DIRECTLY OFF OF HIGHWAY 72 OR THE ROAD. THE SITE ISSUES THIS WOULD CREATE IS UP AS CHILDREN AS MINE PLAYING IN THE STREET ARE A GREAT CONCERN. WE DON'T HAVE LARGE LOTS THERE, OUR LOTS ARE VERY SMALL. THEY HAVE LARGER HOUSES.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ROOM FOR THE KIDS THE PLAY.

A LOT OF THEM PLAY IN THE FRONT YARDS.

THE DANGER IS... IT'S MIND BOGGLING TO ME THAT SOMEBODY WOULD ASK FOR THESE TOWN HOUSES TO BE BUILT TEN FEET AWAY FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. AS MR. HODGEN POINTED OUT, WE

[00:45:05]

HAVE HAD A LOT OF PROMISES THAT HAVE FALLEN SHORT.

ONE THING WE ASK WITH YOUNG CHILDREN, WILL THERE BE A PLAYGROUND? WE WERE TOLD ABSOLUTELY THERE WOULD BE IN THE AREA ABOVE THE POOL AREA.

THAT'S A 10.75-ACRE PLOT. A LOT OF RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT'S NOT A LARGE ENOUGH PLACE FOR THE PLAYGROUND.

IT'S BEEN REMOVED TO MEET THE OPEN SPACE CRITERIA DEEDED FOR THIS NEW REVISION. WE HAVE HAD THINGS LIKE OUR POOL OURPOOLS IN IT. IT HAS THREE HOLES WHERE THE LIGHTS SHOULD BE. THERE'S IN LIGHTS.

WE HAVE ISSUES WITH OUR CLUBHOUSE WHERE SIDING HAS FALLEN OFF AND IT'S NOT BEEN REPAIRED.

I WAS NEARLY IN AN ACCIDENT WHERE THE AFOREMENTIONED STOP SIGN WAS ABSENT, HAS BEEN ABSENT FOR FOUR MONTHS.

NO CONCERN TO THE DEVELOPER. IT WAS BROUGHT UP SEVERAL TIMES.

THERE'S NOT A STOP SIGN. IT'S BEEN REMOVED WHATEVER THE ISSUE WAS, IT'S NOT. THERE THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF PROMISES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE EMPTY.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE WEBSITE AND I SEE P.D.D. ZONING, MY CONCERN IS THAT IT SAYS THE GREATEST FLEXIBILITY AVAILABLE TO THE DEVELOPER. MY QUESTION IS, WHAT HAS THE DEVELOPER DONE TO AFFORD MORE FLEXIBILITY? THEY'RE ALREADY NOT DELIVERING ON WHAT THEY PROMISED.

WITH THIS BEING A HOT TOPIC IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD POOL, UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF REPRESENTATION HERE TONIGHT, YOU LOOK AT PROMISES SUCH AS TEN MILES OF WALKING TRAILS. THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT TOUCHED ONE INCH OF THOSE WALKING TRAILS.

THAT'S BEEN DONE BY A RESIDENT, BILL PERRY AND OTHER VOLUNTEERS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO HAVE BUILT AND MAINTAINED THOSE.

MY SON IS A BOY SCOUT. THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF HIS PROJECT THAT HE SPENDS HELPING CLEAR AND MAINTAIN THOSE AS WELL. BASICALLY AS A RESIDENT, I'M STANDING HERE ASKING CAN WE HOLD THE DEVELOPER TO SOME OF THE PAST PROMISES BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER?

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

ANYONE ELSE? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THERE WERE A COUPLE COMMENTS RELATED TO CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL P.D.D. THERE WAS... I GUESS I'D USE THE WORD ACCUSATION THAT THEY HAVE NOT OWNED UP TO WHAT THE ORIGINAL P.D.D. SET FORTH. IS THAT IN FACT THE CASE? AND IF THAT WAS, DID IT GO BACK THROUGH THE SYSTEM AS THE AMENDMENT IS LOOKING TO DO TONIGHT?

I KNOW -- >> I'LL HAVE OUR STAFF SPEAK TO A GOOD BIT OF THAT. WHAT A REAL ESTATE AGENT AND A DEVELOPER TELL POTENTIAL PROPERTY BUYERS AND OWNERS MAY BE SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE CITY STAFF IS LOOKING AT AND WHAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO AS PART OF THEIR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ZONING OR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.

SO YOU HEAR FREQUENTLY FROM CITIZENS THAT ARE VERY FRUSTRATED ABOUT THAT, AND THAT AGAIN, WE ARE VERY HAPPY AND WILL GLADLY REQUIRE ANYONE TO DO WHATEVER IS REQUIRED BY THE CITY, BUT BEYOND THAT, WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO PROMISES THAT WERE MADE. AND SO I CAN HAVE OUR STAFF WEED THROUGH IF WALKING TRAILS WERE PART OF THE ORIGINAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THEY SAID WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO INSTALL THOSE, WE CAN SPEAK TO IF THAT WAS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OR A REQUIREMENT OR IF THAT WAS MARKETING IN TERMS OF IT DID NOT INVOLVE THE CITY. WE CAN ALSO TALK THAT THERE WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A ROAD CONNECTION THROUGH TO FARMVILLE.

NOTHING ABOUT THAT HAS CHANGED THAT.

WAS FROM DAY ONE. THERE WAS SOME SHIFTING FROM FORMER MIRACLE ROAD BEING IMPROVED OR PARTS OF MIRACLE ROAD TO ACTUALLY SHIFTING A LOT OF IT LOU THE SUBDIVISION, THE CITY ENGINEER CAN SPEAK TO THAT. AND WE'LL GLADLY SPEAK TO IF ANYTHING I CAN TELL YOU, IF THINGS ARE NOT BEING COMPLIED WITH WHEN YOU LOOK AT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, THOSE WILL ALSO SAY THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE AND THESE THINGS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BY A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME. SO I WILL HAVE CITY ENGINEER FRASER GO OVER A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MIRACLE ROAD.

ALSO I'M GOING TO PUT UP ON THE SCREEN IF WE NEED TO THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN YOUR PACKETS. I'LL PUT THAT UP IN JUST A

MINUTE. >> YES, THE MASTER PLAN IS COMPLIANT WITH WHAT WE'VE SEEN FROM THE BEGINNING AS MEGAN MENTIONED, MIRACLE ROAD. JAMES DIDN'T BROOK PARKWAY IS TURNING INTO MIRACLE ROAD. THIS COUNCIL HAD VACATED PORTIONS OF MIRACLE ROAD OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

SO MIRACLE ROAD WILL BE ABANDONED ON THE NORTH END OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE END CLOSEST TO SARAH LANE WILL REMAIN, BUT THE RIGHTS OF WAY HAVE BEEN VACATED AND WILL BE RECORDED AS

[00:50:03]

THESE ARE RECORDED SOME THE MAIN ROAD THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE JAMES BROOK PARKWAY AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER

DEVELOPMENT PLAN >> WAS THERE A WALKING TRAIL THAT WAS A CONDITION OF THEIR P.D.D.?

>> FROM MY WRECK IT WASN'T REQUIRED, BUT THE DEVELOPER

OFFERED TO DO TRAILS. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

IN THE ORIGINAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE P.D. D.

REZONING, THAT HAD TALKED ABOUT DOING SOME BIKE TRAILS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THAT WAS FORMALIZED IN 2019 AMENDMENT, WHERE THEY RECEIVED AN INCENTIVE IN EXCHANGE TO ESSENTIALLY HAVE INCREASED OPEN SPACE AND BIKING TRAILS SOME THOSE WILL BE EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED AS THE DEVELOPMENT FINISHES OUT.

SO I THINK A LOT OF THE COMMENTS WE'VE HEARD HAVE BEEN RELATED TO THIS IS AN ONGOING DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE NOT FINISHED WITH THE

BUILD OUT OF THIS PROJECT. >> THEORETICALLY, LOGAN, WOULD WE HOLD UP FINAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, ACCEPTANCE OF

RIGHT-OF-WAYS? >> THE LAST PHASE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SHOW ANY OUTSTANDING OPEN SPACE, ANY AMENITY LOTS, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BUILT YET.

>> WHAT'S THE TIME FRAME ON THIS ENTIRE PROJECT?

>> MAY OF 2030 WOULD BE THE LAST PHASE.

>> THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE.

CAN WE ASK HIM? >> ABSOLUTELY.

AND REAL QUICKLY, I'M PUTTING THE CURRENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN YOU HAVE IN YOUR BINDERS, THE PROPOSED ONE, THIS IS AS IT SITS CURRENTLY. SO I WANT TO SHOW YOU THE ROAD CONFIGURATIONS AND HOW ONE GETS THROUGH THERE TOWARD FARMVILLE

LARGELY UNCHANGED. >> SO REAL QUICK BEFORE MR. BASKINS, THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SETBACK OFF OF WEST FARMVILLE BASED OFF OF THIS LAYOUT DOES NOT SEEM LIKE THAT'S THE CASE. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S MUCH FURTHER

OFF OF FARMVILLE. >> AS PART OF THE INCENTIVE AND EXCHANGE. THERE IS A FRONT SETBACK, BUT IT'S CLEARLY STATED IN THE CONDITIONS THAT THAT'S ONLY APPLICABLE ON THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE NOT ON THE PARKWAY, SO THE SIDE STREETS. THAT'S WHERE THE TEN-FOOT SETBACK IS. THE REASON FOR THE TEN-FOOT SETBACK IS MOST OF THE HOMES THAT THIS DEVELOPER BUILDS HAS THE GARAGES IN THE BACK, SO IT HAS A LONGER DRIVEWAY.

SO THERE'S MORE ROOM FOR CARS TO PARK ON THE HOUSE LOT AND NOT IN THE STREET. THE CITY'S REGULATIONS ALLOW YOU TO PARK ON THE PUBLIC STREET IN THE ROAD THERE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THEIR HOME SITES, HOW THEY SET THEM UP IN HERE, IS FOR THE GARAGE TO BE IN THE BACK FOR THESE LONGER DRIVEWAYS TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET OFF THE STREETS.

ON THAT TEN-FOOT SETBACK. YOU KNOW, JUST A COUPLE... I CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THESE. I'M SURE YOU HAVE CONCERNS.

THIS IS IS AN ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SITE.

THERE ARE OVER 500 HOMES OUT HERE.

THIS THING IS ONLY LIKE MAYBE 30% COMPLETED IN REGARDS TO NUMBER OF LOTS, AND NOT NEAR THAT ON THE NUMBER OF HOMES.

THE CURRENT AMENITY POOL, CLUBHOUSE AND STUFF THAT'S INSTALLED THERE, THAT WAS DONE RIGHT AFTER PHASE ONE WAS COMPLETE AND RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION. SO THEY DID BUILD AN AMENITY ON THE FRONT END. THE TRAIL SYSTEM THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, MR. PERRY IS PART OF THE 5 501(C)(3) THAT'S A BIKE RIDING GROUP, AND THOSE GUYS KIND OF THE AGREEMENT WAS IF WE DEDICATE THE OPEN SPACE AND ALLOWED THEM THE ROOM, THEY WANTED TO BUILD THE BIKE TRAILS OUT HERE AND THE DEVELOPER COMPLIED. SO THEY HAVE BILL A SIGNIFICANT TRAIL SYSTEM THROUGH THERE, AND THERE WILL BE MORE.

THIS THING WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2017, OKAY.

IN 2019 WE CAME BACK FOR AN AMENDMENT WHEN THE DEVELOPER SOLD THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY FOR THE FIRE STATION.

THEN WE CAME BACK BACK IN 2021 H AN MENTAL INCORPORATING WHEN THE SCHOOL NAILED DOWN HERE. AND SO ALL ALONG, ALL ALONG FROM DAY ONE, IT WAS EXPLICITLY CLEAR AND MADE TO US AS THE APPLICANT

[00:55:06]

AT THE TIME THAT JAMES BURKE PARKWAY WAS REPLACING... THERE HAD TO BE A RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR, A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN FARMVILLE AND NORTH DONAHUE.

AT THAT TIME, MIRACLE ROAD, WHICH IS STILL A GRAVEL ROAD, WAS A COUNTY ROAD. SO THE THOUGHT WAS THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE THAT COLLECTOR, RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR ROAD CONNECTING THROUGH THERE AND THAT FARMVILLE ROAD WAS GOING TO BE ABANDONED FAR MAJORITY OF THAT AREA.

IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER WE GOT OUR P.D.D. APPROVED THAT ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HERE, WHICH NOW UTILIZES MIRACLE ROAD AND PAVED THE FIRST PART OF MIRACLE ROAD, CAME IN.

THAT WAS AFTER THIS. BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE PLAN. MIRACLE ROAD HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PLAN TO BE ABANDONED THROUGH THE SITE.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL 2017 APPROVAL.

THE ROAD NETWORK IN CONNECTION TO THE SCHOOL, THAT WAS DONE AS PART OF THAT 2021 AMENDMENT. THERE'S NOTHING CHANGED ON THAT.

THE ONLY CHANGE THAT YOU'RE AMAPPROVING RIGHT NOW IS ON THAT PLAN THAT YOU SEE, THOSE ORANGE... THOSE UNITS THAT ARE COLORED ORANGE, THOSE ARE TOWN HOMES.

THOSE WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN 2021 AMENDMENT.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE CHANGED WAS THERE WAS... WE GOT APPROVAL FOR 25 COTTAGE-STYLE HOUSING UNITS, WHICH WAS A DIFFERENT PRODUCT TYPE, AND ALL WE'RE DOING IS CHANGING THOSE COTTAGE-STYLE UNITS TO TOWN HOMES.

SO WHERE THESE TOWN HOMES FRONT THE ROAD, IT'S THE SAME AS IT WAS ON THE LAST APPROVAL OF 2021.

NO CHANGES THERE. >> REAL QUICK, THOUGH, WHERE THEY FRONT THE ROAD, YOU'LL SEE A METAL ROAD.

THAT'S THE ORANGE TO THE FAR RIGHT OF YOUR DRAWING RUNNING THROUGH THAT WAS JUST APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE

A PRIVATE STREET, MR. BASKIN. >> CORRECT.

>> SO SOME OF THESE ARE GOING TO FACE, BUT THE HOMES THAT FACE JAMES BURKE PARKWAY, BRETT, THOSE WILL NOT HAVE DRIVEWAYS ON THAT SIDE. THEY WILL ENTER THROUGH THE

PRIVATE ROAD? >> YES, WITH IT BEING A RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET, WE'RE LIMITED BY CITY REGULATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF CURB CUTS, THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS WE CAN HAVE ON THERE. SO WE HAVE THESE TOWN HOME STREET FRONTED THERE TO WHERE IT'S REAR ACCESS TO THEM.

THERE WON'T BE DRIVEWAYS. THEY WILL BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE TOWN HOMES BUILT ON THE FRONT SIDE PHASE 2 OFF OF DONAHUE THERE. AGAIN, THEIR FRONT THE PUBLIC STREET WITH REAR-ALLEY ACCESS. IN REGARD TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, LORD, I HAVE DONE FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES, WHETHER THEY WERE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE OR FOR THE SCHOOL GOING NEXT DOOR THERE. THE CITY HAS COPIES OF ALL THOSE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE SCHOOL TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THERE.

THE CITY ENCOURAGED AND ONE OF THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THERE AS WELL, JUST, YOU KNOW, THE WAY SCHOOLS GET SERVED AND THE BUS TRAFFIC AND ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF.

IF YOU'RE INSIDE THE TWO-MILE RADIUS, THE BUSES DON'T RUN.

SO IT'S EITHER, YOU KNOW, BIKES, WALKING, OR PARENTS DROPPING OFF. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE CONNECTION TO THE SCHOOL WE THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE CITY.

IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE DEVELOPER AS WELL.

AND REGARDS TO OPEN SPACE, WE MORE THAN EXCEED THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. IF YOU HAVE AN AMENITY WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE, IT'S PART OF THE OPEN SPACE.

THERE IS NO SEPARATION IN REGARDS TO THAT.

THERE IS A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE REQUIRED BY CODE, BUT THERE IS TECHNICALLY NOT A REQUIREMENT OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE IN THOSE OPEN SPACE AREAS. USUALLY YOU PROVIDE THAT AND COMPLETE THOSE. WE DO HAVE A POOL AND A CLUBHOUSE AND A BATHHOUSE CURRENTLY UP THERE.

WE RAN INTO A SITUATION ON... I'VE RUN INTO ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE IN A P.D.D. LIKE THIS, WE DIDN'T DESIGNATE THERE WAS AN AMEN AREA THERE, AND IT PREVENTED THE NEIGHBORS WHO BUILT OR PURCHASED AROUND THAT AMEN AREA, IT PREVENTED THE POOL AND CLUBHOUSE FROM BEING CONSTRUCTED BECAUSE THEY OPPOSED IT. WE HAD TO COME BACK THROUGH THIS BODY TO GET AN AMENITY APPROVED IN THAT AREA.

WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS SAYING, HEY, GUYS, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN AMENITY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD AROUND HERE, IT MAY BE A POOL, IT MAY BE PICKLEBALL COURTS.

IT MAY BE A PLAYGROUND OR SOMETHING, BUT WE PLAN ON THIS BEING A W A RECREATIONAL AREA. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON.

[01:00:02]

MARKET CONDITIONS DRIVE A LOT OF THAT ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE.

I THINK THAT'S ALL. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GO THROUGH THAT LIST. BUT I THINK ONES

I THINK I GOT. >> THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THOSE. CAN I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU COMMUNICATE WITH THE APPLICANT THAT MAYBE SOME INCREASED COMMUNICATION WITH THE HOMEOWNERS AS TO TIME LINES AND WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THEY WERE INDICATED AS MARKETABLE AMENITIES AND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND A TIME LINE FOR THAT, JUST SETTING EXPECTATIONS WILL GO A LONG WAY. AND GOODWILL THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED ARE THINGS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW, AND THEY'RE BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, SO I JUST AS A COUNCIL PERSON FOR THIS AREA ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO BACK AND ASK FOR MAYBE SOME INCREASED COMMUNICATION.

>> I AGREE. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATIONS AS WELL. I HAVE NOTED THESE DOWN.

I WILL COMMUNICATE THAT SO THEY'RE AWARE, AND HOPEFULLY THEY CAN WORK TOWARD ADDRESSING THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM

THE COUNCIL >> CAN YOU PUT THE ORIGINAL PLAN

BACK UP? >> THANK YOU.

>> WHAT ARE THESE PURPLE THINGS? >> THOSE WERE THE COTTAGE HOMES.

>> AND THE ORANGE ON THIS DRAWING?

>> THOSE ARE TOWNHOMES. THAT PART WASN'T CHANGING.

THE PURPLE IS CHANGING TO ORANGE.

>> THE PURPLE IS NOW CHANGING TO TOWNHOMES?

>> UH-HUH. >> AND THE ROAD FRONTAGE ON

TO... >> JAMES BURKE.

>> JAMES BURKE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED FOR THE ORANGE ONES ON THIS OVAL HERE ARE UNCHANGED TO WHAT'S BEING

PROPOSED NOW? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ALL RIGHT. IN THE DOCUMENT HERE IT SPECIFIES THAT THE SPECIFIC BIKE TRAIL SHOULD BE DEFINED AND SHOWN ON THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

I DON'T SEE THAT ON THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

COULD SOMEBODY TELL ME WHERE THIS SPECIFIC BIKE TRAIL IS THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ON HERE? I'M ON PAGE 404, TOP PARAGRAPH.

IT SHOULD BE SHOWN ON THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS REQUIRED BY

THE ORDINANCE. >> THESE WERE STAFF COMMENTS.

THEY ARE NOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

IT WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT IF THERE IS ANOTHER AMENDMENT, THE PLAN BE UPDATED TO SHOW THEM, OR IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO, TO GO AHEAD AND UPDATE THE MASTER

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SHOW THOSE. >> THIS IS UNDER THE INCENTIVES.

IT'S NOT UNDER STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.

>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO NUMBER --

>> PAGE 404. >> BUT IF YOU LOOK DOWN ON PLANNING CONDITION AND GENERAL STAFF COMMENTS, IT'S JUST SAYING SHOW BIKE TRAILS THAT ARE TO BE PROVIDED.

THAT'S A COMMENT SAYING AS YOU SUBMIT PLANS, YOU HAVE TO SHOW THOSE. THAT'S REMINDING THEM YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THROUGH CERTAIN LEVELS OF OUR DEVELOPMENT IF YOU

DON'T DO THAT. >> ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. ALSO SPECIFIES THAT OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY BOTH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE PARKS AN RECREATION DIRECTOR.

HAS PARKS AND RECREATION APPROVED ANY PROPOSED OPEN SPACE

IMPROVEMENTS? >> NO, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN BEFORE THEM. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. IT SAYS --

>> WHAT HAPPENS IN A STAFF MEMO LIKE THIS.

WE'RE DESCRIBING WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN.

IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S HAPPENED YET.

IT'S TELLING YOU THESE THINGS WILL HAVE TO BE DONE AS YOU GET DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. IT'S POINTING THAT OUT AS PART

OF THE EXCHANGE. >> IS THAT WHAT HAS TO BE DONE

BY THE FINAL PLAN? >> YES.

>> OKAY. >> A LOT OF THIS IS FOR INFORMATION OF WHAT OUR REGULATIONS SAY SUMMARIZE ENTERING A DOCUMENT AND SOMETIMES WE WEAVE SUBDIVISION REGULATION COMMENTS ALSO AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL COMMENTS IN HERE. JUST SO THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND YOU HAVE AWARENESS THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS DO EXIST AT THE STAFF LEVEL.

FOR RULES YOU ALREADY ADOPTED. >> OKAY.

SO IT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO GIVING UP THE SERVICE RATIO, AND IN EXCHANGE WE'RE GETTING THESE... THIS BIKE PATH.

>> THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN THE '21 AMENDMENT.

>> IT WAS IN >> SO YOU'RE NOT CONSIDERING THAT TONIGHT, BUT IT'S JUST ALREADY THERE.

[01:05:02]

>> THE SECOND INCENTIVE IS TONIGHT, RIGHT?

>> NO. LOGAN?

>> PART OF THE CHANGING FROM COTTAGES SO TOWN HOMES, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE IN THE I.S.R. REQUIREMENT.

SO I BELIEVE THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY GETTING A NEW INCENTIVE. THEY'RE JUST CHANGING WHAT THAT INCENTIVE IS APPLIED TO. BUT IT'S THE SAME INCENTIVE IN EXCHANGE WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY.

IT'S JUST NOW APPLIED THE TOWN HOMES INSTEAD OF COTTAGES.

>> OKAY. I'M IN THE CLEAR THEN.

IT SAYS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE IN ADDITION TO THE ONES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

SO ACCORDING TO THIS THERE IS A SECOND INSEASONTIVE BEING INSEND OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS ON THE BOOKS PREVIOUSLY.

THAT'S ON PAGE 304 AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

>> MS. ROBINSON CAN SPEAK THE THAT.

>> SO THAT SECOND EXCHANGE WAS SPECIFIC TO THE COTTAGE HOUSING, AND SINCE THAT IS BEING REPLACED, THAT SECOND INCENTIVE GOES AWAY. SO THIS IS A NEW REQUEST FOR A SECOND INCENTIVE FOR THE TOWNHOUSES.

>> SO KATIE, IN ESSENCE THEY WERE BOTH IMPERVIOUS RATIO EXCHANGES, WHICH IN ESSENCE IS ALLOWING THEM TO PAVE A LITTLE MORE OR THE PUT A BIGGER FOOTPRINT IF IT MEETS THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, BUT ARE THEY AKIN TO EACH OTHER?

>> YES. >> WHAT MR. KIPP WAS SAYING THIS WAS ON COTTAGE HOMES BUT TO PUT IT ON A TOWNHOME, YOU HAVE TO SWAP IT OUT. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

THEY'RE TRADING ONE FOR THE OTHER.

>> OKAY. THE SECOND INCENTIVE IS ALREADY DONE. IT'S A MATTER OF CHANGING...

>> THE HOUSING TYPE IS IS CHANGING FROM COTTAGE HOMES.

SO COTTAGE HOMES ARE TYPICALLY SMALL LITTLE DETACHED HOMES THAT HAVE BIG GRASSY AREAS AROUND THEM.

THERE'S A FEW PROJECTS AROUND TOWN.

SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S A LITTLE DIFFERENCE OF EXCHANGE.

WE DEFINE THEM DIFFERENTLY. >> AS PART OF THAT SECOND INCENTIVE, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE BUILDING THIS SPECIFIC BIKE TRAIL, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE SHOWN BUT ISN'T?

>> AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY'RE SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SHOW IT. SO WE HAVE STAFF COMMENTS AT TIMES THAT THINGS ARE NOT FULLY COMPLETED.

SO IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE A VALIDATED APPROVAL, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SUBMIT A PLAN SHOWING THE BIKE TRAILS TO THE STAFF. SO IF THEY DON'T, THEY WILL HAVE

NO APPROVAL. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT IS THIS I SEE RIGHT HERE?

>> OKAY. [INAUDIBLE]

>> THE CEMETERY, THE JAMES BURT, IT'S A DESCENDANT OF HIS AND HIS GRANDSON ACTUALLY OWNS AND RETAINS THE RIGHT OF THAT CEMETERY AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY, BUT IT'S A FAMILY OF THE FAMILY THAT SOLE THIS PROPERTY.

IT'S ONE OF THEIR ORIGINAL DESCENDANTS

>> WHILE I HAVE YOU REAL QUICK, HAVE YOU SEEN ANY RENDERINGS OF WHERE A PROPOSED BIKE PATH MAY BE?

>> YEAH, FOR THE MOST PART IT PARALLELS THE CREEK ON THE NORTH SIDE THROUGH THERE AND KIND OF LOOPS UP INTO A LOT OF THE GREENWAYS THAT COME OFF OF THERE.

THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHERE WE HAD THE BIKE TRAIL COMING AND LOOPING BACK WAS THEN TET ORIGINALLY.

SO IT'S MAINLY ALONG THE CREEK SIDE DOWN THERE AND ALONG THE CREEK BUFFER AND THEN IT KIND OF LOOPS UP IN BETWEEN THE CULL

CUL-DE-SAC AREAS THERE. >> WOULD IT TIE INTO WHERE THERE IS AN OPEN LOT HERE ON THE WEST SIDE, LIKE RIGHT AS YOU COME IN?

>> YES, SO WHEN YOU COME IN, YOU COME DOWN YOUR LEFT, YOU SEE THAT LITTLE GREEN AREA. THERE'S A CONNECTION TO THE BIKE TRAIL THERE, AND THERE WILL BE MORE LIKE THAT THROUGHOUT.

>> OKAY. >> NOT GOING THROUGH SOMEONE'S

LOT? >> NO.

[01:10:01]

NO, NO,. WE'RE TRYING TO TIE THEM DIRECTLY INTO THE BOULEVARD AND INTO THE JAMES BURT PARKWAY.

THERE ARE A FEW FINGERS OFF THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SACS THAT ARE BETWEEN LOTS, BUT NONE OF IT IS DIRECT ACCESS THROUGH ANYBODY'S

LAWN. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? ANY REASON WHY THIS SHOULDN'T BE DELAYED AND WE STUDY IT? MS. CROUCH?

>> WHAT IS IT YOU WOULD NEED TO STUDY?

>> WELL, INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT TONIGHT.

I FEEL LIKE IS NEW INFORMATION FOR ME, AND I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT IT DIDN'T MATTER.

SO I GUESS I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW.

>> THAT'S CERTAINLY UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

AS YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE MEMOS, THE STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION ARE COMFORTABLE. THAT'S CERTAINLY UP TO YOU AND

THIS IS YOUR DECISION AS A BODY. >> THERE ISN'T A WHOLE LOT OF CHANGE SINCE FIRST TIME WE SAW THIS.

>> NO, SIR, AND YOU WERE ON THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN THIS STARTED.

>> I DO RECALL WHEN WE FIRST WERE SHOWN THIS, WHEN WE WERE ASKED TO ANNEX THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE STUDY AREA AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE VERY PROUD OF THE WALKING/BIKE TRAILS THAT WOULD BE A PART OF THIS, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS KNOW THAT THIS IS OF GREAT INTEREST TO THOSE WHO ARE BUYING HOMES IN THAT AREA. I WOULD SAY THAT AS I ASKED MR. BASKIN TO GO BACK AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEVELOPER THAT COMMUNICATION IS KEY AND PARAMOUNT TO THE COMFORT LEVEL OF THOSE WHO ARE BUYING HOMES AND SETTING EXPECTATIONS IS VERY IMPORTANT. I DO THINK WE'VE ASKED AND WE'VE BEEN GIVEN INFORMATION ON QUITE A FEW OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED AND SOME OF THEM AGAIN ARE ISSUES BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE HOMEOWNERS, BUT AGAIN, THAT GOES BACK THE COMMUNICATION.

I DO THINK THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE BIKE/WALKING TRAIL WE'VE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE COULD AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS THAT INFORMATION. BUT BASED OFF OF JUST THE CHANGING FROM COTTAGES TO TOWN HOMES AND NOT AFFECTING THE DENSITY, WHICH IS THE ITEM THAT IS BEFORE US THIS EVENING.

I FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD AND VOTING ON IT.

>> THE DENSITY FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT CHANGED,

CORRECT? >> NO.

>> OVERALL IT'S STILL THE SAME. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? MR. MOREMAN, YOU MADE A REQUEST. SHOULD I RECEIVE THAT AS SOME

TIME OF MOTION TO POET BONE? >> YOU WOULD NEED A MOTION TO POSTPONE BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE, CORRECT?

>> YOU WOULD. >> LET ME MAKE SURE I FOLLOW

THROUGH WITH YOUR WISHES. >> I MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE FOR TWO WEEKS. OR UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING I SHOULD SAY, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THREE WEEKS I BELIEVE

>> YES. IT WOULD BE MARCH 14TH IS

THE NEXT MEETING. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL.

>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING WHICH IS MARCH 14TH. IF YOU SAY YES, THEN YOU WOULD BE VOTING TO POSTPONE. IF YOU SAY NO, YOU'RE VOTING TO

MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE? >> MAY I SAY SOMETHING?

>> YES, PLEASE. >> INITIALLY WHEN THE CITIZENS -- THE MADE COMMENTS, IT ALARMED ME BECAUSE IT WAS FIRST I HAD HEARD OF CONCERNS OFF OF THIS ITEM, HOWEVER, I DO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONVERSATIONS AND THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED AND THE ANSWERS WE'VE BEEN GIVEN BASED ON THE ITEM THAT WE'RE VOTING ON THIS EVENING, WHICH IS THE AMENDING THE P.D.D. FROM COTTAGES TO TOWN HOMES, WHICH IS THE TASK BEFORE US. WE ARE NOT ASKING NOR ARE WE SHIFTING ANYTHING ELSE RELATED TO THE P.D.D.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT DELAYING IT OR POSTPONING IT TO MARCH 14TH WILL SERVE, NOT ONLY THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA BUT ALSO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.

I WOULD LIKE A FURTHER EXPLANATION FROM THOSE WHO ARE ASKING TO POSTPONE TO CLARIFY WHAT THEY SEEK TO GAIN FROM

THAT. >> SONNY OR KELLEY?

[01:15:01]

>> FAIR ENOUGH. I ACCEPT YOUR COMMENTS AS SPOT ON, AND I JUST... THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS, THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROJECT, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD NEED TO PUSH IT OFF VERY FAR, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID TONIGHT THAT WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO CONSIDER FOR MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES, BUT AS YOU SAY, THE THINGS THAT WE'RE VOTING ON HAVE ALREADY BEEN EITHER VOTED ON OR NOT CHANGED VERY MUCH, SO I ACCEPT THOSE COMMENTS, AND I CAN'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

>> ANYONE ELSE? YOU KNOW, IT'S EASY TO GET INVOLVED IN EVERYTHING WITH A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE AND SCALE AND LENGTH, 2030 THE FINAL BUILD OUT.

AS MS. CROUCH REFOCUSED US EARLIER IN THE MEETING, WE'RE HERE TO FOCUS ON THIS MENTAL, WHICH INVOLVES THESE COTTAGE HOMES GOING TO TOWN HOMES. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. SO WE'LL THIS A ROLL CALL VOTE ON POSTPONING UNTIL MARCH 14TH.

SO, YES IF YOU WANT TO POSTPONE. NO IF YOU DO NOT.

LINDSEY IN >> ADAMS?

>> NO. >> NO

>> DAWSON? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> GRISWOLD? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> YES, MA'AM.

>> PARSON >> NO.

>> NO. >> NO.

>> NO YOU'RE BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION WHICH IS MOVE FOR

APPROVAL. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. WE'LL DO THE ROLL CALL ON

APPROVAL. >> [INAUDIBLE]

>> YES, MA'AM. >> PARSON

>> YES. >> WITTEN

>> YES. ADAMS

>> YES. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> DAWSON? >> YES, MA'AM.

GRISWOLD >> YES, MA'AM?

[10.a. Conditional use approval. Planning Commission recommendation. Public hearing required. LawnGolf USA. Commercial recreational use (pickleball courts and miniature golf course). Property located at 2601 East University Drive. Applicant: John Ronney Watson.]

>> COBLENTZ >> YES.

>> ITEM 10A IS A REQUEST FOR AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USES TO BE LOCATED AT 2601 EAST UNIVERSITY DRIVE. THIS APPROVAL REQUEST IS ONLY THE REMOVE A CONDITION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PLACED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL THAT STATED THAT VEGETATION ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY MUST REMAIN UNDISTURBED. THE OWNER WOULD LIKE THE PLACE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THIS AREA.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS AMENDMENT REQUEST AT ITS FEBRUARY 9TH MEETING.

A PUBLIC MEETING IS REQUIRED. >> ALL RIGHT.

A MOTION TO SECOND. THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THIS TOPIC, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I WOULD LIKE THE MOVE WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE 14TH OF MARCH TO ALLOW RESIDENTS OF THE AREA A BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

I HAVE RECEIVED NUMEROUS COMMENTS FROM E-MAIL NEXT DOOR AND OTHER SOURCES ASKING THAT THIS BE DENIED, BUT I THINK WE OWE IT TO THE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA TO UNDERSTAND THIS A LITTLE BIT BETTER. I MOVE TO POSTPONE.

>> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND A SECOND.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE PROCEDURALLY --

>> YOU'RE TRACKING PERFECTLY. >> GOOD.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION TO POSTPONE?

ANY DISCUSSION? >> JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, STAFF HAD A LOT OF CONTACT WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

THEY ARE AWARE OF WHERE SIGNS WERE PLACED LIKE THEY ARE WITH

ALL. >> I DID RECEIVE SOME INQUIRIES AND WAS PROVIDED ADDITIONAL DETAIL BY WAY OF MY FACEBOOK PAGE. AS A RESULT OF THAT I CONTINUE TO GET ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON TOP OF THAT.

THAT'S WHY I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE RESIDENTS A OPPORTUNITY TO

CONSIDER THIS FURTHER. >> CAN WE FOR THIS EVENING UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF WHAT... I MEAN, IT STATES FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, BUT DO WE KNOW HOW MANY CAN GO THERE, WHAT... DO WE HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS

PROPOSED FOR THAT AREA? >> I UNDERSTAND IT'S A MAXIMUM OF FOUR HOMING BUT THAT BASE ZONE IS C.D.D., COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, SO THAT DOES ALLOW CERTAIN THINGS, WHETHER THAT WOULD BE A TOWNHOME OR DETACHED HOME OR WHAT HAVE

[01:20:05]

YOU. MS. ROBINSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? >> NO, THE ROAD FRONTAGE ON THAT PROPERTY, IT'S JUST OVER 200 FEET.

FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE 50 FEET.

SO THEY CAN HAVE FOUR, BUT THE APPLICANT INDICATED THEY WOULD ONLY BUILD THREE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES.

>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE? DO WE KNOW?

>> WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE HAPPY TO CORRESPOND WITH THEM, GET MORE INFORMATION AND MAKE SURE THEY ATTEND THE NEXT MEETING.

>> MS. CROUCH, ORIGINALLY IT WAS GOING TO BE LEFT WITH A 15-FOOT BUFFER YARD, BUT HOMES WERE DISCUSS WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED IN MAY 2020. CAN THE STAFF JUST KIND OF WALK THROUGH THAT DECISION, HOW THAT CAME TO FRUITION.

>> YES. SO THIS WAS THE VERY FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WAS HELD ON ZOOM.

SO THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF MISCOMMUNICATION I GUESS, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DID INDICATE AT THAT TIME THAT HE PLANNED ON BUILDING RESIDENTIAL ON THE EASTERN SIDE.

BUT STAFF MADE IT A RECOMMENDATION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO LEAVE THAT PORTION UNDISTURBED.

THE APPLICANT MAYBE DID NOT HEAR THAT, SINCE WE WERE ON ZOOM, AND DIDN'T QUESTION IT, SO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH STAFF CONDITIONS. SO LEAVING THAT PROPERTY

UNDISTURBED. >> BUT THE APPLICANT THOUGHT THAT WHAT WAS APPROVED WAS THREE HOME SITES?

>> WELL, WOULD ALLOW FOR THREE HOME SITES.

>> THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING ME. >> THERE IS ALSO DISCUSSION BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE JUST PAST THIS A CURRENT HOME SOME THERE WAS A GOOD BIT OF DISCUSSION AND THERE WAS AGAIN LAST THURSDAY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT ON THE 9TH ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S STILL BUFFERING BETWEEN EXISTING HOMES AND THIS LET ALONE POTENTIAL FOR NEW HOMES BUILT.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION.

THERE IS STILL SOME BUFFERING REQUIRED.

EITHER WAY, SO REALLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT HERE AT THE INTERSECTION OF CAB STREET AND EAST UNIVERSITY DRIVE. THE CITY ENGINEER WILL HAVE SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY BEING TOO CLOSE TO EAST UNIVERSITY DRIVE. BUT WHEN WE CROSS THAT BRIDGE, AGAIN, THIS BODY ADOPTS A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF WHICH YOU'RE THE POLICY-MAKERS. WE IMPLEMENT THEM IN A LOT OF THAT DETAIL COMES AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND PLANNED REVIEW WHERE THERE'S NOT DOING TO BE A DRIVEWAY RIGHT AT THE CORNER THE

CITY ENGINEER WILL PROTEST. >> AND I WILL SAY THAT THE RESIDENCE OF SHELTON MILL CONSIDER CONCERNED PRIMARILY ABOUT WANTING A BUFFER ON THAT PROPERTY.

BUT A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE THREE HOUSES WOULD BE MORE OF A BUFFER THAN WHAT IS PLANNED TODAY.

>> WHICH IS A FEW TREES AND SOME SCRUB BRUSH.

>> SCRUB BRUSH HAS MOSTLY BEEN CLEARED, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

SOME TREES. >> SOME TREES.

>> YEAH. AND THEY'RE KIND OF LIMITED UP, YEAH. SO THAT IS STILL NATURAL IN ITS OWN WAY, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE ARE ALSO CONCERNS.

THESE ARE A SMALLER WHIFFLE BALL FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.

I THINK YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH OUT WITH A 9-IRON AND A PITCHING WEDGE. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSS ABOUT WHO WAS GOING TO HIT WHOSE ROOF SOME A LOT OF THOSE THINGS WERE VETTED IN THE ORIGINAL CONDITION.

TO COUNCILMAN GRISWOLD'S POINT ABOUT POSTPONEMENT, I RECALL THIS ITEM ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND IT DID GENERATE A FAIR AMOUNT OF CITIZEN RESPONSE, SO TO THAT IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS ARE AWARE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND I CAN TOTALLY SUPPORT YOUR POSITION ON THIS,

COUNCILMAN GRISWOLD. >> MY EARLIER CHECK WAS ONLY TO LET YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS A GROUNDSWELL AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND THERE WAS NOT.

AWARENESS COMES AT MANY LEVELS. THAT'S UNDERSTOOD.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU INFORMATION.

>> I FULLY AGREE. IT MAY JUST BE A CASE OF THE SQUEAKY WHEEL, BUT FOLKS ARE WHO HAVE TALKED TO ME SO FAR ARE ADAMANT ABOUT LEAVING THE NATURAL VEGETATION IN LIEU OF TOWN HOMES. I WANT TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS AND GET BACK WITH ME ON

WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM. >> IF WE WERE TO POSTPONE THIS AND COME BACK, COULD WE... IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF REQUIRING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, STATING THAT THEY COULD ONLY BE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND CAN NOT BE TOWN HOMES AND/OR...

[01:25:02]

>> IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE. WE WILL DOUBLE CHECK THAT.

I DON'T SEE WHY NOT. BUT GETTING A PRECURSOR WARNING,

WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK. >> OKAY.

THE SINGLING-FAMILY PORTION OF THAT IS FINE DEPENDING ON IF YOU ARE DETACHED OR OTHERWISE. WE HAVE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.

>> SURE. BECAUSE IN LINE GOING SOUTH OF

THAT ARE TOWN HOMES. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE TO DELAY UNTIL MARCH 14TH. ANY OTHER COMMENTS RELATED TO THAT? MS. CROUCH, WOULD THIS BE A

VOICE OR SHOULD IT BE A... >> YOU'RE A VOICE, YOU'RE FINE.

>> OKAY. SO ALL IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING UNTIL MARCH 14TH, PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE >> AYE.

>> OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL POSTPONE UNTIL MARCH 14TH, WHICH WE HAVE NOT

FORMALLY ANNOUNCED. >> YOU DID CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT YOU'RE WELL WITHIN THE AUTHORITY TO REOPEN IT AT THAT TIME SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO.

[10.b. Interlocal agreement. Lee County Commission. Amendment of existing interlocal agreement for subdivision review and approval process in the City of Auburn's planning jurisdiction.]

>> ALL RIGHT. ITEM 10B AUTHORIZES THE AN AGREEMENT WITH LEE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN'S PLANNING JURISDICTION DUE THE LEGISLATIVE ACT 2021 297. THE PLANNING COMMISSION

UNANIMOUSLY REQUESTED APPROVAL. >>

>> I SECOND THAT. >> THIS DOES NOT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO IT. SO DISCUSSION FROM THE COUNCIL?

>> I JUST -- QUESTIONS? YES, MA'AM?

>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS A LITTLE BIT.

I GUESS I MISSED THE PACKET MEETING ON THURSDAY.

PROBABLY GAVE A GOOD EXPLANATION OF IT.

I READ A LOT OF THIS IN THE PACKET, BUT I DIDN'T REALLY GET

A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING. >> IN A NUTSHELL, THE CITY BY STATE LAW HAS LONG HAD THE AUTHORITY WITH AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE WITH THE COUNTY TO EXERCISE OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WITHIN OUR PLANNING JURISDICTION AND ACT BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE IN 2021 TOOK OUR PLANNING JURISDICTION FROM FIVE MILES TO THREE MILES AND AS OF JANUARY IT IS NOW 1.5 MILES.

SO OUR AUTHORITY ONLY RESIDES NOW AT THE 1.5-MILE REALM.

SINCE THERE HAD BEEN A LEGISLATIVE CHANGE, STAFF GOT TOGETHER WITH LEE COUNTY, AND IT STILL ALLOWS THE CITY AND COUNTY TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT ABOUT. THIS IT WAS DECIDED THE AGREEMENT WAS AGING AND IT SHOULD BE REVISED.

SO ALL THIS IS SAYING IS BASICALLY WE TAKE THE LEAD ON SUBDIVISION REVIEW IN THE 1.5-MILES.