Apr 13, 2023 Planning Commission

[ROLL CALL]

[00:00:07]

THE AUBURN COMMISSION. WE WELCOME EVERYONE HERE.

APPRECIATE YOUR INTEREST. BEFORE WE BEGIN, LET'S ASK THE SECRETARY TO CALL ROLE. WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS . I WILL DECLARE A QUORUM. UNDER OUR GUIDELINES, THAT IS SUFFICIENT.

I BEFORE WE OPEN THE MEETING, WANT TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT TO THOSE WHO ARE HERE FOR THE FIRS TIME. THE WAY WE NORMALLY DO WITH BUSINESS IS THAT, WE ALLOW THE STAFF TO PRESENT TO US THE PETITION. RELATED TO THE LAND-USE DECISION THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH. THE DEVELOPER FOLLOWING, OR THE PERSON PROPOSING, HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE FURTHER INFORMATION.

AFTER THAT, IF IT REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING, AND MOST OR AL ZONING CHANGES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. WE ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE. AND AFTER THAT, WE WILL TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT. TO INCLUDE CASE LAW AND ALABAMA LAW. AND OUR OWN INFORMATION. AND, WE WILL MAKE OUR DECISIONS MOST OF OUR DECISIONS ARE RECOMMENDATIONS TO SETTLE COUNSEL. ALL SUBDIVISIONS, WHICH IS A TECHNICAL REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT SUBDIVISIONS THAT MEET OUR REGULATIONS, OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ALSO REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS A VERY TECHNICAL REVIEW. WE ONLY APPROVE IF IT MEETS THE SPECIFICS OF OUR ORDINANCES. SO, WITH THAT, BEFORE WE START, WE ALSO OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT A PLANNING ISSUE THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. I WILL OPEN THE OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW . IF ANYONE WANTS TO BRING UP A TOPI THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, WE WILL DEAL WITH THE AGENDA ITEMS AT THE TIME IT COMES UP. ANYONE

YES SIR? >> JUST CLARIFICATION. I WAS TOLD THAT WE COULD SPEAK , IF W HAD AN ISSUE.

>> ON THE AGENDA ITEM, YES. >> YES. TEA I ASSUME IT WILL REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. IF I IS A SUBDIVISION, YES.

>> DO I SCRATCH OFF MY NAME? >> NO. WE NEED A RECORD OF YOU VISIT FOR THE MINUTES. IS THER ANYONE ELSE? IF NOT, WE WILL MOVE TO THE BUSINESS. THE OLD BUSINESS. THERE IS NONE. WE

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>> SECOND. >> THE CONSENT AGENDA IS A FINAL APPROVAL FOR AN EIGHT LOT SUBDIVISION, IS MADE AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE, AND THE MOTION CARRIES. THE NEW BUSINESS IS IN ANNEXATION. OH, THE MINUTES. I' SORRY. I DIDN'T INCLUDE THE MINUTES. SO, THE MINUTES FOR THE MARCH MEETING , WHICH HAV BEEN DISSEMINATED BY EMAIL, IS THERE ANY DIRECTION THAT NEED

TO BE MADE? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE.

[2. Annexation – Greinke AX-2023-002]

>> SECONDED. >> ALL EMOTION SAY AYE. AND THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. NOW WE BRING TO THE NEW BUSINESS. WHIC

IS THE ANNEXATION. >> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF 21.9 ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS. BEFORE I GET INTO MY PRESENTATION, THE SAME REQUEST CAME BEFORE THE PLANNIN COMMISSION IN OCTOBER OF 2022. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 484 LEE ROAD. THE PROPERTIES OUTSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY

[00:05:03]

OF THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. >> THANK YOU. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? IS THERE ANY REASON, ANYTHING THAT HAS CHANGED FROM

THE ORIGINAL OF THIS ITEM? >> NO. I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANYTHING THAT HAS CHANGED. DON'T KNOW WHY HE'S

BRINGING IT UP AGAIN. >> WHAT HAPPENED IN OCTOBER?

>> IT WAS THE SAME REQUEST BROUGHT UP. IT WAS DENIED. YES.

FOR ANNEXATION UNLIKE SOME OTHE REQUEST.

>> WITH THE APPLICANT WISH TO SAY ANYTHING REGARDING THIS? OR REPRESENTATIVE? STATE YOUR NAME.

>> LUKE GREINKE. I GUESS, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO ADDRESS YOU LAST TIME. IT WAS A SCHEDULING CONFLICT. THAT'S WHY WANTED TO COME AGAIN. THE NUMBER ONE GOAL FOR ME, WE GOT TWO KIDS INTERESTED IN GETTING INTO THE CITY. THAT IS OUR BIGGEST CONCERN. WE DO HAVE QUESTIONS . I DON'T KNOW FOR LO

TO ASK QUESTIONS? >> YES.

>> I THOUGHT A GOOD POINT MADE THE OTHER DAY WAS, WHERE SINGLE ENTRY ROADS ARE TRYING TO GO BY LARGE LANDOWNERS. THERE'S NO REALLY PLACE TO GO OUTSIDE OF THIS. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I PULLED UP THE 2030 PLAN. THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARY MAP. I HAVE BEEN TO NOTICE THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WENT ON NEXT TO US, WHICH WAS FOR HOMES . AND IT APPEARS TO ME, IT WAS NOT IN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. AND THEN HE BROUGHT IT INTO THE BOUNDARY.

AFTER HE DEVELOPED THE HOMES. WAS JUST CURIOUS THE REASON? AND AFTER HE BUILT THOSE HOUSES THAT BOUGHT BROUGHT THE BOUNDARY TO US PARTIALLY. WHICH GAVE ME SOME REASON TO SUSPECT WE MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET IN. ALSO, I NOTICED WHEN LOOKED AT THE MAP, THE ORIGINA MAP DRAWING, I WOULD A MILE DOWN THE ROAD. THERE WAS A NEW DEVELOPMENT OF CHAPEL HEIGHTS.

THAT IS NOT ON THE ORIGINAL MAP DRAWING. AND THAT WAS BROUGHT IN . I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN. IT'S NOT ON THE ORIGINAL. THE UPDATED NET MAP HAS A UNIQUE DRAWING OF CHAPEL HEIGHTS. IT'S ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT WHICH WAS BROUGHT INTO THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY IS FAMILIAR WITH AND THAT WAS BROUGHT IN. I WAS JUS INFORMED OF THAT AS WELL. I KNOW MICHAEL ALLEN BUILT THOSE HOUSES NEXT TO US. THAT WAS 2020. I HAVE A MAP RIGHT HERE WHERE THE WHOLE IS. BUT IF YOU HAVE THE NEW MAP, FILLED IN WITH THE NEW BOUNDARY, THAT COMES TO US. IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IT COMES ONTO THIS. I DON'T KNOW HOW DETAILED THE DRAWING OR BOUNDARY LINE IS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT SPILLS ONT OUR PROPERTY. I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE GUIDELINES ARE. IF A LITTL BIT IS ON OUR PROPERTY, IS THAT CONSIDERED BEING OUR PROPERTY IN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY, EVEN I IT'S A SMALL PORTION? AND ALSO, WHEN I READ THE PLAN, BASICALLY, WE CHECK OUT FOR ALL OF THE GUIDELINES BEING CONTIGUOUS WITH THE CITY. AND IT SAYS SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS -- IF WE USE A LOT OF RESOURCES , IF THERE IS LOT OF COST THAT COMES TO THE CITY , AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, AL OF THE HOUSES ON THE ROAD ARE I THE CITY AND ALL THEY CAN STRES SERVICE. WE DON'T EXPECT WATER SERVICE OR SEWAGE. I WOULD CONSIDER THAT A MINIMAL EXPENSE AS IT IS OUTLINED HERE, THE BOUNDARY SHOULD BE USED AS A USEFUL GUIDE WHICH TO ME LYNN' LEEWAY ON THE JUDGMENT CALL. I JUST WANT TO BRING THOSE THINGS FORWARD. IT SEEMS LIKE OUR NEIGHBOR WAS BROUGHT IN,

[00:10:02]

ANSWERS ON THESE THINGS. >> IS THAT IT? OKAY. CAN THE STAFF REFRESH OUR MEMORIES REGARDING THOSE PREVIOUS

ACTIONS IN RECENT YEARS? >> SIR. OPTIMUM BOUNDARY WAS DEVELOPED IN 2011. IT DEFINES THE MAXIMUM EXTENT THAT WE WOUL ANTICIPATE IT GROW TWO BY 2030 IS BASED ON THE AUBURN INTERACTIVE GROWTH MODEL. ANY TIME PROPERTY IS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THAT IS A DECISION MADE BY CITY COUNCIL. WHETHER THAT'S IN OR OUT OF THE OPTIMUM BOUNDARY. WHEN PROPERTY IS ANNEXED AND IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARY, THE BOUNDARY IS UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE PROPERTY ANY PROPERTIES THAT SHOW UP NO THAT WERE THERE BEFORE, IS BECAUSE IT WAS ANNEXED. I DON' RECALL ANY TIME WHERE WE MADE CHANGES. THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS. THE OTHER WAS ABOUT THE MAP. THE MAP HAS A LAYER.

THERE ARE BOUND TO BE INACCURACIES. IT IS PARCEL

BASED. >> WHAT ABOUT THE ANNEXATION

OF CHAPEL HEIGHTS? >> CAN YOU SHOW US WHERE THAT

IS? >> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A MAP

AREAS ? >> THAT WAS ANNEXED IN?

>> I DON'T KNOW. >> OKAY. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> THERE WAS ALSO AN ISSUE IN THE PACKET THAT WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS. IT APPEARS THAT -- THIS MIGHT GO TO HOW ACCURATE THE PLAT IS. DON'T KNOW WHICH SHOWS THIS. I APPEARS THERE IS A BROWN LINE THAT ENCROACHES ON THIS PROPERTY. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT TH BOUNDARY LINE? IT SUPPOSED TO

BE THE WHOLE PROPERTY. >> IT IS THE ZONING THERE. THE ANNEXATION THERE. THEY ARE DRAWING IT IN BASED ON LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OR PLOTS. THERE ARE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS ON THAT O THE LAYER. THE GROWTH BOUNDARY OVERLAPS THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S NOT INDICATING THAT HIS PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE TO BE IN THAT GROWTH BOUNDARY.

>> ARE WE IN THE MIDDLE -- THERE IS WORK BEING DONE ON THIS. LET'S REVISIT. IN THE LAND-USE , IN PARTICULAR, THIS

OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. >> THAT'S RIGHT. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THE PLAN. RIGHT NOW WE ARE FOCUSING ON TH AMENDMENT PART. THIS SUMMER, W WILL LOOK AT ANY PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY AND WITH THAT, AN ANALYSIS OF WHERE THE PLACES ARE IN TOWN THAT SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE, VERSUS THOSE THAT MIGHT NOT MAKE AS MUCH SENSE.

>> THAT IS PROBABLY THE TIME THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH THIS.

>> WE WOULD RECOMMEND NOT LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIE ON A CASE-BY-CASE LIKE THIS. WE PREFER TO LOOK AT AN AREA

OVERALL. >> UNLESS THEY ARE IN THE OPTIMUM BOUNDARY NOW, RIGHT? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> MR. CHAIR, TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR QUESTION, JUST TO THE

[00:15:02]

>> I DO HAVE A CONCERN. WITH NOT ALLOWING THIS BASED ON THE BOUNDARY. I THINK THAT WE HAVE PROBABLY BLOWN EVERY GROWTH MODEL OUT OF THE WATER EVERY YEAR. SINCE 2011. I DON'T KNOW HOW USEFUL THOSE PREDICTIONS STILL ARE . I DON'T DISAGREE WITH LOOKING AT IT AS A HOLISTI PLANNING VIEW . EVERY REQUIREMENT IS MET OTHER THAN THAT ONE. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE PRACTICAL SENSE TO ME. TO PREVENT THIS BASED ON WHAT WE SAY THE CONSIDERATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOR ANNEXATION.

THAT IS MY OPINION. >> THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEONE RIGHT ON THE BOUNDARY. ALWAYS. WE MADE THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BEST PRACTICE, IS THIS GROWTH MODEL. IT'S NOT SOMETHING AUBURN HAS COME UP WITH ON THEI OWN. I HAVE TO BELIEVE IT'S SO UP-TO-DATE AND A USEFUL TOOL. IN THIS CASE, WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE THERE'S ONE ON THE BOUNDARY. WE COULD ADJUST IT I THE FUTURE. MAYBE WE WILL. BUT RIGHT NOW, IT'S OUTSIDE THE

OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. >> THE OPTIMUM BOUNDARY, THE REASON WE HAD THE BOUNDARY WAS TO DEFINE THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPING PROPERTIES THAT WE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE OUR GROWTH.

AND THAT IS WHY THE BOUNDARY WA PUT THERE. IT WAS DETERMINED THROUGH THAT MODEL, WHICH IS USED FOR COMMUNITIES TO DETERMINE THAT WE HAD ADEQUATE LAND WITHIN THIS BOUNDARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECTED GROWT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. IT WASN'T INTENDED TO SCREEN OUT ANYONE. AT THE SAME TIME, IT STILL SHOWS WE GOT A LOT OF LAN STILL WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE WITH THE OVERALL COMMUNITY NEEDS.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU. THE TIMELINE WAS NOT OVER 10 YEARS.

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD. OUR GROWTH I FAR BEYOND THOSE PREDICTIONS THAT WERE USED TO CREATE THAT.

BARBIE ON. >> CONSIDERING HOW CLOSE WE AR TO UPDATE, WE SHOULD AT LEAST CONSIDER THIS REQUEST . WE ARE ON THE PRECIPICE OF REDEFINING THE LINE ANYWAY. THIS IS SOMETHING WE FORESEE THAT WOULD COME UNDER THAT LINE IN SIX MONTHS. WE SHOULD MAKE THE APPLICANT APPLY SIX MONTHS FROM

NOW. >> ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. I

WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE .

>> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED FO APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WE WILL HAVE ROLL CALL THIS. INDISCERNIBLE ] THE MOTION PASSED. OKAY. WE WILL REVISIT

THAT SOON. CITY COUNCIL. >> THAT WOULD GO BE ON AND IN

[3. Rezoning – Auburn Crew HQ – PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-001]

>> THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS I A REZONING FOR AUBURN CREW

HEADQUARTERS. >> GOOD EVENING. THE REQUEST I FROM ALABAMA POWER COMPANY. THEIR PROPERTY AT 1515 PUMPHRE AVENUE IS A REQUEST TO PRESEN A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FROM CDD TO INDUSTRIAL. IT'S OVER THREE ACRES. IT WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE CITY . THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO REZONE TO INDUSTRIAL. AS STAFF HAS NO ISSUE, WE RECOMMEND FORWARDING TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? >> RUSSIANS?

>> IS THERE ANYONE REPRESENTIN ALABAMA POWER THAT WISHES TO

ADDRESS THIS? OKAY. >> IS THERE A PLAN FOR DOING

SOMETHING ON THE PROPERTY? >> THERE HAS BEEN INITIAL DISCUSSION ABOUT REMODELING OF THE PROPERTY. BUT AT THE TIME,

[00:20:05]

>> AND IT'S ALSO IN AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PARK.

THAT WILL BE ACCOMMODATED BY TH INDUSTRIAL BOARD. OKAY. THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYONE ADDRESS TO WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE RZ 001. >> MOTION DID WITH A SECOND.

[4. Annexation – Beehive Park AX-2023-004]

ANNEXATION IS TRAN20. >> GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS THE NEXT SIX ITEMS ON YOUR AGENDA ARE ALL RELATIVELY IN TH SAME AREA. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE FOR YOU GUYS. THE FIRST ONE IS BEEHIVE PARK. THEY ARE REQUESTING ANNEXATION. APPROXIMATELY 19 ACRES. IT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LEE 10 WHICH IS ALSO BEEHIVE ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS RIGHT HERE. ON THE OTHER TWO CASES, A GROUP OF CASES THAT WILL ALSO BE ON THE AGENDA COME LATER ON ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED BUT THIS IS THE PROPERTY WE AR FOCUSING ON NOW. YOU WILL SEE THAT IT IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY T THE WEST TECH PARK ON THE EAST AS WELL AS THE TECH PARK ANNEX WHICH IS SOUTH OF BEEHIVE ROAD THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROPERTY T THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERT WAS SONIC TOOLS THAT CAN BEFOR YOU LATE LAST YEAR, I BELIEVE.

AND THEN THE BRIGGS & STRATTON PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET WAS REZONED IN 2018. WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION. AND I WILL BE HAPP TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY

HAVE. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? SHE HAS PRESENTED ALL THREE, WE WILL VOTE INDIVIDUALLY. ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE THREE?

>> OKAY. THE REZONING, THAT WA THE PROPERTY I WAS JUST PICKING UP. BEEHIVE PARK ARE REQUESTIN TO REZONE THE 19 ACRES TO INDUSTRIAL FROM RURAL. HERE IS AN OVERALL MAP , EXPANDING THE VIEW OF THAT AREA. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE AREA HAS BEEN TRANSITIONING TOWARDS INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USES OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. THE TECH PARK WEST WAS DEVELOPED IN 2007. AND THE ANNE OF THE TECH PARK TO THE SOUTH WAS COMPLETED IN 2015. YOU CAN SEE THAT ALSO, THE OTHER TWO TECH PARKS ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. ALL THREE OF THOSE ARE IN A LOCATION THAT IS CENTRAL TO THE INTERCHANGE.

IT'S EASY ACCESS FOR VEHICLES. WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE REZONING FOR THIS CASE. AND, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. IF NOT , YOU WANT TO VOTE ON THIS

>> I DO. FIRST OF ALL WE NEED T DEAL WITH THE ANNEXATION. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC COMMENT DO WE HAVE ANY NEED TO

DISCUSS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE .

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ANY OTHER COMMENTS O THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NO. THE

[5. Rezoning – Beehive Park – PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-002]

WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION YOU WISH TO MAKE

REGARDING THIS . >> MOVED TO APPROVE. BEEHIVE

[00:25:02]

PARK REZONING. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR APPROVAL TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL. REZONING?

>> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, BECAUS I THINK YOU SAID AX AND NOT RZ PARK. RZ. THAT IS THE REZONING.

>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AN SECONDED . ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE. THE MOTION CARRIES TO

[6. Annexation – Weeks Property AX-2023-005]

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE NEXT IS A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF BEEHIVE ROAD. IT IS APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES. AS I MENTIONED, THE AREA A FEW MINUTES AGO, WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OTHERWISE, I WILL GO TO THE REZONING. THEY ARE REQUESTING THE CITY OF AUBURN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IS REQUESTING REZONING OF 13 ACRES FROM RURAL TO INDUSTRIAL. THIS IS A A FUTURE LAND-USE CLASSIFICATION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. WE DO RECOMMEND

APPROVAL. >> OKAY. LET'S TAKE THE FIRST PART OF THIS ONE. HAVING TO DO WITH THE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY. 13.14 ACRES. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS ITEM? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE AX 2023 005.

>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION

[7. Rezoning – Weeks Property – PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-003]

>> APPROVE RZ 2023 003. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. WE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 13.14 ACRES TO INDUSTRIAL FARM RURAL. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. AYE. THE MOTION

[8. Annexation – McAlister Property AX-2023-006]

CARRIES. OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. THE FINAL REQUEST IN THIS VICINITY IS ALSO REQUESTED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR THE ANNEXATION AND REZONING OF 78 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS ALSO LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BEEHIVE ROAD. AND, WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION. THE REZONING OF TH PROPERTY , THAT THEY GET TO THE EXHIBIT. WITH THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY, IT WILL PROVIDE UNDISTURBED A BUFFER OF 75 FEET ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IN ADDITION TO A 25 FOOT BUILDING SET BACK FROM THA 75 FEET. ESSENTIALLY 100 FEET BUFFER YARD TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON THE WEST. AND WE ALSO RECOMMEND APPROVAL .

>> OKAY. ON THE FIRST ITEM, HAS TO DO WITH THE ANNEXATION.

IS THERE ANY NEED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANY QUESTIONS?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE AX 2023 006 .

>> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. WE RECOMMEND TO SIT CITY COUNCIL FOCAL ANNEXATION OF THIS

[00:30:02]

[9. Rezoning – McAlister Property – PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-006]

ANYONE WISH TO HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? AND WHEN YOU FINISH, I YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED IN, PLEASE D SO. BE MAC IF WE CAN PULL THE MAP UP, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. AS YOU SEE THERE ON THE MAP, YOU SEE THAT PROPERTY THAT IS PIE SHAPED. THAT IS MY HOUSE. THAT' MY PROPERTY. I AM SHOCKED THA THERE WOULD BE A 75 FOOT BUFFER THAT IS BEEN SUGGESTED. THAT LOOKS OUT DIRECTLY INTO MY BACKYARD. THIS PROPERTY , I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS ANNEXED IN 2017. UNDERSTAND THAT THIS ARE WAS PREVIOUSLY UNWANTED PROPERTY , NOBODY WANTED TO LIV OUT THERE. FIVE HOMES WERE BUILT UP THERE. WE HAVE COME T ENJOY OUR PROPERTY. IF YOU LOO AT THE SIZE OF THAT PROPERTY, SUGGESTING THE SMALL BUFFER, CONSIDERING THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, THAT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. WE SPEND SO MUCH TIME OUTSIDE. IT WITH THOROUGHLY HINDER THE ENJOYMEN OF OUR PROPERTY. IF YOU LOOK A THE BRIGGS & STRATTON HOLDING, THE GRANITE PROPERTY BACKS UP TO THAT. THERE ARE PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET AND BESIDE IT BUT THE LIGHT ARE COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE AND INTRUSIVE. IT PREVENTS THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PEOPLE CLOSEST TO IT. KEEP IN MIND, WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE GROWTH OF THE CITY . WE CERTAINLY SUPPORT THAT. BUT PLEASE, I ASK CONSIDERATION O WHOEVER THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD IS, THE BUFFER HAS TO BE BIGGER. THAT I COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS OUR HOME. AND THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WILL BE THERE. THERE IS PLENTY OF ROOM TO HAV A MUCH LARGER BUFFER. TO HAVE ANOTHER WE WILL CALL IT 75 FEE OR 100 FEET, OR WHATEVER IT WA AT THE PROPERTY LINE. IT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE CONSIDERING THIS IS OUR HOME. I KNOW NO ONE IN HERE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PROPERTY THIS SIZE WITH THAT SMALL OF OFFER, THAT CLOSE TO THEIR HOME. I ASK THAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS AS IF IT WAS YOUR HOME. AND HOW IT PREVENTS IT. MY QUESTION IS, IS IT THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMEN

BOARD? >> THEY WILL. IT IS THEIR

REQUEST. >> YES, THIS IS THEIR REQUEST.

>> SO AT THIS POINT WE KNOW WHO THEY INTEND TO SELL IT TO.

>> THAT'S SOMETHING FOR US EITHER.

>> OKAY. BUT I KNOW, MY OTHER NEIGHBORS ARE HERE. THIS WILL AFFECT THEM AS WELL. I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER NEIGHBORS HERE THAT HAVE BEEN HERE MUCH LONGER THAN WE HAVE. THEY HAVE MUCH MORE PROPERTY AND THEIR HOME WILL CERTAINLY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT VIEW OF WHATEVER GOES THERE. THE BUFFER NEEDS T BE MORE. WE ARE NOT ASKING OR WE ARE NOT HERE FIGHTING WHAT GOES THERE. WEEKS AT THAT. BUT THE BUFFER HAS TO BE BIGGER.

WHATEVER MOTION I SUGGEST, EXCEPT THE MOTION, BUT REQUEST THAT THE MOTION INCLUDE THAT TH BUFFER NEEDS TO BE LARGER.

THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. >> RIGHT NOW BEFORE US IS WHETHER THIS PROPERTY WILL BE ANNEXED. OR REZONE. WE HAVE ALREADY ANNEXED IT. IT WILL BE REZONED TO INDUSTRIAL. NOT TYPE OF USES OR WHATEVER ELSE IS ALLOWED. THEIR BUFFERS ARE UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE INDUSTRIAL BOARD. AND IF YOU GO THROUGH ANY OF THE PARKS, I HAV BEEN THROUGH A NUMBER OF THEM.

HOURS ARE SO WELL-DESIGNED. SO SUSPICIOUSLY PLACE. A LOT OF OPEN SPACE AND SETBACKS FROM AL PROPERTIES.

[00:35:03]

>> ARE THEY IN YOUR BACKYARD? >> NO, I WOULDN'T HAVE BUILT OUT THERE MYSELF. INDUSTRIAL WA MOVING THAT WAY. INDUSTRY HAS BEEN MOVING THAT WAY FOR 25 OR 30 YEARS. I DON'T REMEMBER WHE THEY DID THE PARKWEST. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.

>> I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT. IF IT'S MOVING THAT WAY. BUT IF THAT WAS THE INTENT, THEN WHO APPROVED THIS IS RESIDENTIAL? T

BUILD HOMES? >> IT'S NOT -- WE DON'T DASH BACK THERE A LOT OF RULES. IT'S NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL. THE BOTTOM LINE IS, THIS PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO OTHER INDUSTRIA PROPERTIES. IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR INDUSTRIAL? THAT'S WHAT'S

BEFORE US. >> I UNDERSTAND. I HOPE WHOEVER WILL BE DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY, I HOPE THAT YOU

CONSIDER THIS. >> ADDRESSES.

>> ACTUALLY. IF THE PEOPLE ARE IN HERE I WILL CERTAINLY REQUES THAT THEY CONSIDER THE FACT THAT YOU WILL BE IN MY BACKYARD AND IN MY NEIGHBORS BACKYARD. SO, THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRES THE BOARD?

>> I AM ARLENE BOWMAN. THIS WILL ALSO BE IN MY BACKYARD.

AND MR. MCCORD, WE'VE BEEN THER SINCE 1986. THERE WERE NO INDUSTRIAL THINGS OUT THERE AT THAT TIME. THERE WERE COTTON FIELDS AND COWS. VERY FEW PEOPLE LIVED OUT THERE. OUR NEIGHBOR LIVED IN A SHACK WITH NO RUNNING WATER. NO ELECTRICITY. WE HAVE BEEN THER QUITE A WHILE. IF YOU WILL GO BACK TO THE AERIAL VIEW, PLEASE IF YOU SEE THE TREE LINE AS IT IS RIGHT THERE, ON THE PROPOSE ANNEXATION , THAT IS OLD HARDWOODS. VERY FEW PINES IN THERE. AT THE VERY LEAST, WE WANT THAT TO STAY. THERE IS A 100 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN BRIGGS & STRATTON AND BILTMORE. IT'S TERRIBLE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT PARTS YOU HAVE DRIVEN THROUGH, BUT THAT BUFFER IS UNACCEPTABLE THE LIGHTS ON THAT BUILDING AR HORRIFIC. THEY ARE BRIGHTER THAN LIGHTS ON THE OTHER BUILDINGS IN OTHER PARKS THAT W DRIVE THROUGH DAILY. THERE INTRUSIVE TO US AND THE NEIGHBORS AND WILDLIFE. THOSE TREE STANDS HAVE A LOT OF WILDLIFE AND DEER . A LOT OF APPLES. THE ONE OF THE REASONS WE LOVE LIVING THERE. MY QUESTION, YEARS AGO WHEN BRIGGS WENT IN, WAS, WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS TO THESE FIVE HOMES? THESE ARE HALF MILLION DOLLAR HOMES O THAT STREET. WE HAVE BEEN THER SINCE 1986. THERE WAS NOTHING THEN. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.

THIS WOULD BE INTRUSIVE. IT WOULD ALSO AFFECT PROPERTY VALUES. WHICH WE ALL JUST GOT OUR PROPERTY TAXES RAISED. AND NOW THIS WILL HAPPEN. I AM A REALTOR. WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES. I THINK IT'S UNFAIR AND INSENSITIVE TO THINK THAT 100 FOOT BUFFER WIL PROTECT OUR PROPERTIES. THAT I ALL THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ASK. WE KNOW WE CANNOT STOP WHAT IS HAPPENING, BUT WE CAN ALL BECOME GOOD NEIGHBORS. WE ARE IN THE CITY OF AUBURN. THEY SHOULD ALSO PROTECT US. AND THAT IS WHAT EVERYONE IN THIS TOWN WANTS. PEOPLE TO CONSIDER.

PROTECT MY HOME AND MY PROPERT VALUE. PROTECT MY WAY OF LIFE.

LET'S WORK TOGETHER. AND YOU GUYS CAN REQUEST THAT. THE IDB DOESN'T EVEN TELL US WHEN IT MEETS. THEY MEET WHEN THEY WANT TO MEET. BECAUSE WE WOULD LOVE TO MEET WITH THEM. WE ARE ALLOWED TO KNOW WHEN THAT HAPPENS. SO WE WANT IT ON RECORD THAT WE ARE ASKING , ACKNOWLEDGING THIS WILL HAPPEN, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR EVERYONE TO WORK WITH US TO MAKE THIS A MORE PLEASANT EXPERIENCE TO ALLOW THAT WILDLIFE TO STAY

[00:40:02]

AND WAY OF LIFE. THANKS. >> ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO ONE I CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION WITH TH

BOARD. >> PURSLEY, I KNOW THAT NO ON LIKES THAT THERE'S 100 FOOT BUFFER. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THERE ALL. THEY ARE AT LEAST MAKING A POINT.

>> CLAUSE I INDEPENDENT BOARD OF THE CITY. IT HAS A GOOD BIT OF INDEPENDENCE IN TERMS OF ITS DUTIES. THAT'S NOT SUBORDINATE TO THIS GROUP. ANYBODY WISH TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> THIS GOES BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.

>> THIS WILL GO BEFORE THEM. MAY 18TH.

>> ALL RIGHT. JOIN YOUR MOTION

>> MOVED TO APPROVE TRYING 1220 23 006.

>> SECOND. TEA MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. CALL FOR THE MOTION.

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION, PLEASE SO, THIS REZONING . I GUESS I'M NOT SURE IF I REMEMBER A SITUATION WHERE THIS IS HAPPENED. WHERE WE HAVE ADDITIONAL USES. WE CAN MAKE SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT ZONING. THERE IS NO

SUCH LEAD TO. >> THAT IS CORRECT . AND WITH INDUSTRIAL ZONING, THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK LATER WITH

CONDITIONAL USE FOR APPROVAL. >> SO THAT'S A POINT IN TIME WHERE WE CAN HAVE CONDITIONS PLACED ON IT ? RIGHT NOW WE ARE DOING REZONING. THERE'S NO ACTION IN TERMS OF WHAT IS

HAPPENING ON THIS PROPERTY? >> CORRECT.

>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> THE MOTION IS MADE AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE ROLL CALL

PLEASE. >> OKAY. WE ARE RECOMMENDING T

[10. Rezoning – Farmville Lakes PDD Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-004]

>> IT IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE APPROVE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL SPACE FRO 60,000 SQUARE FEET TO 25,000 SQUARE FEET. AND TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 60 MULTIFAMILY UNITS THE OVERALL IS APPROXIMATELY 101 ACRES. THE MAJORITY IS JOE ZONED. AND PORTION DOWN ON TH SOUTH IS DH. THE PORTION OF TH SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT IS HERE. LOCATED FRONTING U.S.

HIGHWAY 280 AT EAST FARMVILLE. THIS IS THE CURRENT APPROVED MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IT I PHASE SIX AND ENCOMPASSES 9.5 ACRES. THE ORIGINAL BROKE THI AREA INTO FOUR COMMERCIAL LOTS WITH 60 MULTIFAMILY UNITS. AT THE TIME, IT WAS APPROVED, YOU ALSO APPROVED OR THE COMMISSIO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A NUMBE

OF CONDITIONAL USES. >> THAT WAS IN 2018, WAS IT NOT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHANGES ONLY IN PHASE SIX TO BREAK UP INTO TWO PHASES. ONE IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AND SIX B WOULD BE THE AREA OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE PDD AMENDMENT. THEY WISH TO AS I MENTIONED, REDUCE THE COMMERCIAL SPACE TO 25,000 SQUARE FEET AND ADD AN ADDITIONAL 60 MULTIFAMILY UNITS THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT UNDER

[00:45:05]

THE MAXIMUM DENSITY IS NORMALL 9.5. BUT THE PDD ALLOWS THEM T GO TO FORT TEEN IN A PHASE. AN OVERALL DENSITY WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN UNDER 9.5. AND OVERALL WOULD INCREASE TO 3.5.

>> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAS ANYTHING CHANGED SINCE THIS WAS APPROVED WHEN THEY AGREED TO IT?

>> IN 2018? NO, THIS IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

>> IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE PETITIONER TO CONVINCE THIS BOARD WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEY LAST AGREED TO THIS .

>> IN THAT RESPECT, NO. >> AMBER, WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE? THANK YOU.

>> PHASES ONE, TWO, AND FIVE, ARE HERE AND ARE DEVELOPED AS TOWNHOME LOT. AND ALL THIS YEAR DAYS EIGHT HAS NOT STARTED CONSTRUCTION. BUT, THE REST O THE PHASES HAVE BEGUN WITH

SINGLE-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION. >> AND WHERE ARE THE 60 UNITS ? ARE THEY IN THIS PARTICULAR DRAWING?

>> THEY WOULD BE HERE. THESE TWO.

>> THE EXISTING ONES? >> I'M SORRY. THESE TWO HERE.

>> BOTH OF THEM. RIGHT NOW, THE COMMERCIAL IS C1 AND C2.

BUT THIS IS SAYING LET'S CHANG THEM INTO LESS COMMERCIAL AND

ADD MORE. >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. >> 6A, WITH A MULTI FAMILY IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, I JUST OVER 6.74 ACRES. THE TWO LOTS, THAT ARE SHOWN HERE, WHICH IS 6B, IT'S THE LARGEST

UNDER THREE ACRES. >> WHAT WOULD BE THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY REMAINING, SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED? HOW MUCH

COMMERCIAL AREA WOULD BE LEFT? >> JUST UNDER THREE ACRES. FOR COMMERCIAL. 25 THOUSAND SQUAR FEET OF COMMERCIAL.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYONE REPRESENTING TH APPLICANT WHO WOULD WISH TO SAY SOMETHING, PLEASE? ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? I NEED THE APPLICANTS. YOUR TURN WILL COM NEXT. RIGHT NOW I NEED THE APPLICANT.

>> I AM DAVID SLOCUM . THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST IS SIMPL THAT THE DEVELOP HAS NOT HAD A LOT OF INTEREST FROM COMMERCIAL LAST FIVE YEARS. HE JUST FEELS LIKE THE MORE APPROPRIATE USE WOULD DO TO REDUCE THE COMMERCIAL LAND. INDISCERNIBLE ] THE 60,000 WAS NOT A MINIMUM ANYWAY. IT WAS MORE OF AN ALLOWED. THAT IS SIMPLY WHAT IS. THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THERE WILL BE THAT MUST INTEREST TO OCCUPY 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL.

>> QUESTIONS? SLOCUM? THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL OPEN THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> I WANT TO SAY, I HAVE VITIATE WHAT YOU DO FOR ALL OF US. KEEPING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD

SAFE. AND ALIVE. >> SIR, WHAT'S YOUR NAME?

>> I'M SORRY, HAROLD WATSON. 2549 BOND BILL LAKES DRIVE. MY

[00:50:05]

THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. HE KEPT THE RIGHT TO BUILD APARTMENTS, NOT HOUSES. HE BUILT APARTMENTS. NOW HE WANTS TO BUILD MORE APARTMENTS. WE HAVE ANNEXED THE ADJACENT ROAD. ON FARMVILLE ROAD. WE HAVE MORE TRAFFIC ALREADY IN OU NEIGHBORHOOD. WERE GOING TO EXPANDED . MY CONCERN COMES DOW TO THESE THREE. ONE, THE TRAFFIC IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, PEOPLE DRIVE MORE THAN 45 MILES AN HOUR. WE FINALLY GOT ONE OF THOSE SIGNS PUT UP A MONTH AGO. 25 MILES AN HOUR. I DON'T KNOW WHO DID THAT. BUT THANK YOU FO HELPING. THAT WAS GOOD. AND SO WE HAVE NO SPEED BUMPS. I KNOW THAT'S A DIFFERENT . WE HAVE T REDUCE THE SPEED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE CHILDREN OBVIOUSLY. OUR CONCERN IS FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL THERE. THE MAJOR CONCERN IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC, IS 280 AND FARMVILLE ROAD. YOU HAVE NEW PEOPLE COMING IN AND NEW HOUSES BEING BUILT. NEW APARTMENTS. ALL OF THOSE FOLKS WILL HAVE A MAJOR I YOU ISSUE OF TRAFFIC CONCERN. WE HAVE NO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THEY KNEW I WAS COMING TONIGHT TO SPEAK. OUR CITY COUNCILMAN, SHE KNEW I WAS COMING. I APPRECIATE YOU GIVIN ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE CASE. WE WELCOME GROWTH.

WE JUST WANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT GROWTH TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AN QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL OF US WHO LIVE THERE. THEY COULD.

>> CLEAR ON WHAT YOU WANT. YOUR INTEREST IS TRAFFIC. BUT YOU ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE COMMERCIAL AS IT IS PRESENTED?

>> I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO NOT HAVE A JOB. I WANT TO MAKE SUR WE HAVE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIE TO SHOP, IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT WE WERE SO EXCITED ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BRAND-NEW. THAT' OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THE MARKETIN ASPECT. WE CHANGED A LOT OF TH THINGS THERE. THE QUESTION I GOT, DO YOU THINK IT WILL BE SAVE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD TO BUILD MORE , HAVE MORE PEOPLE COME IN THERE? AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, CAN WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE TRAFFIC FLOW? ANOTHER OFFSIDE, WE DON'T HAVE ANIMALS. WE LOVE DOGS AND CATS. BUT WITH MORE, HE WE HAVE NO DOG PARK. MY WIFE SAID NOT TO SAY THAT. BUT DID.

>> WE DO HAVE A LEASH LAW, YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT? TEA BUT WE ARE GOOD NEIGHBORS. I JUST ENCOURAGE ALL TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. AND SEE IF IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST. MAYBE WE NEED TO TAK IT SLOWER. GET SOME OF US WHO LIVE THERE MORE INVOLVED IN IT.

CAN WE WORK TOGETHER ABOUT THI THING?

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE. YES? HAVE YOU SIGNED IN? YOU

[00:55:08]

>> MY NAME IS DAVID MEGAN CORCORAN. I COULD TELL YOU MOR ABOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAN ANYONE. I SOLD 100 HOUSES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND I HAVE PURCHASED TWO HOUSES. I FEEL VERY CONFLICTED. MR. WATSON IS WONDERFUL. THE VISION THAT I WAS TOLD TO SELL TO THE HOMEOWNERS IS, WE WILL HAVE COMMERCIAL ON THE LOWER LEVEL O THESE FOUR PARCELS. LIVING ON TOP. EVERYONE WAS FINE WITH THAT. I WANT TO WALK UP ON A TUESDAY NIGHT AND GET A SLICE O PIZZA AND A BEER. GO BACK HOME.

THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF HOMEOWNER IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE NO ATTACHED. THERE ARE MANY HUNDREDS OF NEIGHBORS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE NOTHING T DO ON THE SIDE OF TOWN. IF I'M DESPERATE, I WILL GO TO WENDY'S OTHERWISE, I'M GOING TO OPELIKA. I'M SPENDING MY MONEY THERE. PROXIMITY -WISE. WHERE WE ARE, WE HANG A RIGHT AND YO ARE IN TIGER TOWN. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY A NEED FOR COMMERCIA SPACE THERE. I HAD PEOPLE THAT WERE INTERESTED IN HAVING BUSINESSES THERE. IT WAS SO FAR DOWN THE LINE, WE WEREN'T READY FOR THAT CONVERSATION. I WORKE FOR HARRIS DOYLE. I UNDERSTAND THE BUSINESS. I ALSO WELCOME THE GROWTH. MY LIVELIHOOD DEPENDS ON IT. NOT THAT LONG AGO SOMEONE WAS KILLED TURNING OUT ONTO 280 FROM THAT TREE. WE WILL ALREADY HAVE TWO MORE PHASES COMPLETED IN'S NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS ANOTHER 100 CARS. IN ADDITION TO 60 MORE APARTMENT CARS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE.

I'M FINE IF THERE ARE MORE APARTMENTS. I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE COMMERCIAL AND I WANT THAT TO BE IMPORTANT. WE HAVE DEMENTED CHEESE I MEANT TO TEASE CENTER. THEY WANT TO COME OVER AND USE OUR CENTER THAT WE PAY A LOT OF MONEY FOR.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WILL BE HANDLED. MORE PEOPLE WILL JUST BE MORE OF AN ISSUE FOR THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY A PROBLEM. WE ARE ONLY AT HALF CAPACITY. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU TEA MY OPINION, YOU LIVE IN TIGER TOWN AND GO TO A PLACE

THAT SELLS TIGER TOWN. >> I'M FROM OHIO. BUT EITHER WAY. WAR EAGLE. SEE MAC ANYONE ELSE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. I WILL SAY OFF THE BAT, I THINK THAT WHEN WE ENVISION, WE DID A STUDY. WE THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE A NEED I THE FUTURE FOR COMMERCIAL. THAT IS WHY WE PLACED ON THAT MAP, THAT WE LOOKED AT THESE NOTES RIGHT HERE. WE ARE PLANNING . THE DEVELOPER IS LIVING IN IT NOW. I UNDERSTAND THAT. WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE FUTURE AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE. I UNDERSTAND THE MARKET HAS CHANGED. I RECOGNIZE THAT. ANYONE ELSE?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THA I ALSO RECEIVED SEVERAL CALLS AND A COUPLE OF EMAILS THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE

REQUEST. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU TOUCHED O WHAT I HAVE THOUGHT FROM THE BEGINNING OF LOOKING AT THIS.

AND FROM DRIVING BY EVERY DAY. WE COMMIT TO DO OUR BEST TO PLA WISELY AND SMARTLY AND JUDICIOUSLY. AND, I DON'T THIN THAT ANYONE WHO DRIVES OUT THERE AND LOOKS AT THIS RIGHT NOW WOULD SAY THAT IS GREAT PLANNING. YOU HAVE A MULTI FAMILY COMPLEX RIGHT ON TOP OF THE PEOPLE IN THE TOWNHOUSES.

DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT BIAS THE LAST TIME HE CAME UP.

OBVIOUSLY, IT DID. AND THE OTHER THING THAT IS VERY CONCERNING IS THAT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT PROMISES BROKEN. OR THINGS THAT THE BRITISH RESIDENTS WERE TOLD . THAT IS CONCERNING. WHEN WE APPROVE SOMETHING, IT IS IN GOOD FAITH. THAT IT IS WHAT WE WERE TOLD I WAS GOING TO BE. I DON'T SEE AN REASON THAT THIS CHANGE IS

VALID. OR GOOD. >> I WILL IN SUPPORT AS WELL.

I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS GOING ON HERE. WE HAVE

[01:00:01]

PEOPLE FLY DOWN NOTHING. THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME KIND OF -- THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE PEOPLE THAT WORK WITH THAT SORT OF THING, THERE ARE CLEAR GUIDELINES THAT SAY, WHEN YOU GET ENOUGH TRAFFIC, NOW WE HAVE TO START DOING SOME OF THESE CHANGES. IF WE CAN GET THE CHANGES, THAT WOULD HELP US NOW. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT FARMVILLE ROAD IS NOW. AND IT'S ONLY GETTING WORSE. AND THEN I YOU PUT A COUPLE OF 60 UNIT APARTMENTS ON TOP OF THAT, IT WILL ONLY MAKE IT CRAZY. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO KEEP THE COMMERCIAL AS IT IS. TRY T LOWER THE DENSITY A LITTLE BIT. AND WORK ON THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ROAD ON FARMVILLE. SEE MAC ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. I WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>>

TO DENY THE CHANGE. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. WE RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROPOSAL BE DENIED. SEE MAC

SECOND. >> WE HAVE HAD A MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY, SAY AYE.

[11. Preliminary Plat – Farmville Lakes PH 6 – PUBLIC HEARING PP-2023-007]

>> ANY OPPOSED, SAY NO. THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. MOVING O TO PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FARMVILLE LAKES. PHASE SIX.

>> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A FOUR LOT MIXED USE SUBDIVISION. ONE LOT FOR FUTURE AND ONE OPEN-SPACE LOT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. I IS PHASE SIX AT HIGHWAY 280 AT FARMVILLE ROAD. HERE IS A COP OF THE PLAT. THIS LOT DOWN HERE IS GOING TO BE THE OPEN-SPACE LOT. IT IS 2.5 ACRES THESE TWO LOTS ARE THE LOTS THA THE CURRENT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AND THIS LOT WIL BE A LOT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THIS PLAT ESTABLISHES THE EXTENSION TO HIGHWAY 280. IT MEETS THE

SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. >> THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT

WE JUST DISCUSSED. >> THIS IS NO MATTER WHAT

HAPPENS? >> YES.

>> THIS COULD BE A SUBDIVISION >> THIS SUBDIVISION WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED IN 2021. IT HAS EXPIRED. IT'S BACK TO YOU

FOR APPROVAL. >> OKAY. YOU RECOMMEND WITH

COMMENTS? >> YES. MINOR NOTATIONAL, MAINLY. SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE CLEANED UP EASILY.

>> OKAY. DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE

ZONING? >> THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYONE WISH TO COME FROM THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THIS OR ASK QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL CONTINU OUR DISCUSSION.

>> A MOVE TO APPROVE . >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND

[01:05:03]

SECONDED WEIRD >> IS THAT WITH STAFF COMMENTS

>> THAT IS. WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE, AT A SECOND. ALL IN

[12. Final Plat – Farmville Lakes PH 6 FP-2023-007]

ONTO THE FINAL PLAT. >> THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE PRELIMINARY YO JUST SAW.

>> OKAY. FOCAL FINAL, THEY COM IN AFTERWARD. BUT THIS IS PRETT SIMPLE. WE ALREADY DEALT WITH THIS. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS HE WAS TO HAVE?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> TWO SECONDS?

>> WE GOT THEM. SECOND. >> WE APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FO FARMVILLE PHASE SIX. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED, SA

[13. Rezoning – Madison Park PDD Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-005]

PARCEL IN FRONT . ON WIRE ROAD. AND THE WE HAVE PART OF THAT PARCEL THAT IS WITHIN THE PDD. WE ARE SPLIT ZONED. DURING THE PRE-APP WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS WITH THE CITY, WE WERE UNDER THE OPPRESSION THAT THE LEASE PATH OF RESISTANCE WAS TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE PDD AS OPPOSED TO EXPANDING IT TO INCLUDE THE REST OF OUR PROPERT WITHIN IT. THAT IS KIND OF THE PATH WE CHOSE AFTER THE PRE-APP PROCESS. THE CONCERN IS, WE ARE FINE WITH THE USE. BUT WE WANT YOU TO STAY IN THE PDD. WE WOULD GO THAT ROUTE. WE THOUGHT SINCE WE WERE THE ONLY PIECE THAT WAS LEFT, IN REGARDS TO COHESIVENESS, WE ARE SEPARATED FROM THE REST. WE HAVE TRAILER PARKS TO THE SOUTH OF US. AND

[01:10:04]

>> THIS HAS A HISTORY. I THIN YOU REPRESENTED THEM WHEN YOU CAME IN FOR INCENTIVES ON THIS PDD.

>> I DID NOT DO THIS ONE. THIS ONE PREDATES ME. THE ORIGINAL PREDATES ME. BACK WHEN MADISON PARK -- MOST THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS THE ORIGINAL WHEN THIS THING WAS 70 ACRES.

ONCE THEY STARTED PULLING ACREAGE OUT OF THE PDD, THE DEVELOP OUR -- YOU KIND OF HA MADISON PARK, THAT WAS THREE QUARTERS OF THE WAY BUILT. AND THEN WENT INTO BANKRUPTCY.

OTHER PEOPLE BOUGHT PARTS OF THAT OUT OF FORECLOSURE AND DEVELOPED IT. AND THE REST, AL OF THE STUFF IN THE BACK, WHERE YOU HAVE THE TRAINING , THAT WA PART OF THE PDD. THAT GOT PULLE OUT. THE MAJORITY OF WHAT IS LEFT IS OUT THERE. YOU SEE A LOT OF VACANT LAND. THERE IS A FLOODPLAIN AND A STREAM. IF YO LOOK IN THAT PACKET, YOU WILL SEE THE ORIGINAL PDD AREA THAT IS OUTLINED. YOU SEE A WHOLE BIG AREA. IF YOU JUST LOOK AT WHAT IS OUTLINED, THAT IS THE ONLY 13 ACRES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. ALL OF THE OTHER USES, YOU CAN SEE IT WRAP AROUND CREEKS AND FLOODPLAINS. THOSE ARE GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT

TO DEVELOP. >> CAN WE HAVE AN AERIAL? I A HEARING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME OUT OF THE PDD TO DO THIS? PULL IN THE OTHER COMPONENT. I THAT IS THE CONCERN.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND. WHEN YO SAY PAUL. THERE IS MORE

PROPERTY? >> RP'S IS AN L. WE WRAP AROUND A PIECE OF THE COUNTY THAT FRONTS US. JUST THE STEM

IS WITHIN THE PDD. >> LOGAN, CAN YOU CLICK TO TH

MAP SO WE CAN GET AN IDEA. >> THAT RED OUTLINE IS OUR

PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE PURPLE IS THE PDD. IT WAS EITHER EXPANDING OR JUST PULL IT OUT. TO BE HONEST, IF THERE WAS MORE VACANT OUT THERE WITHIN THE PDD, WE WOULD PULL IN. BUT WE WERE THE ONLY THING LEFT. THERE'S NOT MUCH LEFT. W ARE TYING INTO WHAT THERE.

[01:15:08]

>> IN 2012 WAS WHEN THIS BODY APPROVED TO THE REMOVAL OF 39

ACRES? >> BASICALLY.

>> WHAT WERE WE THINKING? >> REMEMBER, THAT WAS A DIFFERENT TIME. THAT WAS THE GREAT RECESSION. REALLY, IT WA DIFFERENT OUT THERE. IT WAS A DIFFERENT TIME. YES. IT IS MISLEADING. THE MASTER PLAN SHOWS THAT BACK THERE. I WAS UNDER THE OPPRESSION THAT THAT WAS ALL IN THERE AS WELL. THE CURRENT PDD IS JUST THE BLUE OUTLINED AREA. WITH THREE

QUARTERS OF OUR PARCEL IN IT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. I GUESS W WILL OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING. THIS REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING FO PDD AMENDMENT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS?

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MICHAEL MUSSELWHITE . I'M INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT. A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT DIDN'T GE SAID. AND HE DID A GOOD JOB OF LAYING IT OUT. I WAS IN REAL ESTATE SINCE 1997 AROUND HERE. I REMEMBER MEDICINE PARK. THE ORIGINAL PLAN UNDER THE PDD WAS PRESIDENTIAL. IT WAS CONDO THE WHOLE WAY. LIKE HE SAID, ONLY PART OF THE PROPERTY, THE 2.4 ACRES, ORIGINAL PDD, THERE WASN'T EVEN A ROAD. THIS HAS GONE THROUGH HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF CONDOS TO THE FIRST PHASE OF MEDICINE PARK CONDOS AND THEN DOLLAR GENERAL AND THEN AUTO WITH TIGER TRANSIT BINDERS. ALL OF THAT WAS TAKEN OUT. ALL OF THE FLOODPLAIN STUFF GOT TAKEN OUT. PART OF THE PROPERTY WASN'T EVEN IN . IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO BEAT ALL OF THE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS. TO ADD IT BACK IN, WE HAVE TO GO TO TIRE AND AUTO. INVOLVE THEM AND WASTE THEIR TIME. WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE OTHER PEOPLE. LIKE HE SAID, IT'S A CLEANER WAY. YO STILL HAVE CONTROL OF WHAT COME TO BE DEVELOPED THERE. THIS IS LOT CLEANER WAY. THAT ROAD WASN'T EVEN THERE. THAT WASN'T EVEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL DIVISION OF THAT AREA. AND ALS BUCK STARR TOLD ME HE'S GOING TO BUILD COMMERCIAL. AND WHEN WE TALK TO THE CITY STAFF ABOUT IT, WE AGREED THAT THE BEST WAY TO COME IN WOULD BE FOR MULTI FAMILY. IT SOUNDS LIKE APARTMENT COMPLEX IS, BUT THAT' NOT IT. THERE WILL BE 15-16 FREESTANDING HOUSES. THEY WILL LOOK LIKE A DIVISION. IT WILL LOOK LIKE A REALLY NICE HOUSE . IF YOU DRIVE IN, THEY HAVE THE LANDSCAPE ON THE LEFT AND THEY CUT IT DOWN TO THE MIDDLE ON TH RIGHT BY THE POND. THEY HAVE A GIFT SHOP AND RESTAURANT. AND THERE'S A HOUSE TO THE RIGHT. BUT THEY USE IT AS AN OFFICE.

IT'S REALLY, REALLY, REALLY NICE. THAT IS THE VISION. THE VISION IS TO HAVE THE HOUSES THERE. AND TO REALLY TAILOR IT FOR THE GAME DAY MARKET. PEOPLE WILL COME AND BUGGIES.

THEY WILL COME INTO BUCKY'S AN GO INTO THE HOUSE. AND THEN THEY WILL GO TO THE TIGER TRANSIT OFFICE RIGHT BEHIND US ON THE HILL. TIGER TRANSIT WIL PICK UP THESE FOLKS, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GET ON THE ROAD. THEY DON'T HAVE TO DRINK AND DRIVE. THEY COULD GO STRAIGHT T THE STADIUM JUST OVER TWO MILES AND STRAIGHT BACK HOME. AND THE THEY CAN GET BACK ON THE INTERSTATE THE NEXT MORNING. THIS PROJECT BRINGS IN ALL KIND OF TAX DOLLARS FOR THE CITY. I WOULD REALLY HOPE THAT YOU

[01:20:05]

WOULD APPROVE THIS. THANK YOU. >> JUST FOR THE RECORD, MADISON PARK, WYATT DID CONTAIN COMMERCIAL, 52,000 SQUARE FEET WAS REMOVED IN 20 2007. ORIGINALLY IT WAS A MULTI- --

>> I'M SAYING THERE'S A LOT OF COMMERCIAL ALREADY BUILT NOW.

WHAT THEY TOOK OUT TO BUILD WA THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. WE ARE NOT GOING BACK WITH HIGH DENSITY. WE CAN ASK FOR HIGH DENSITY. WE ARE GOING BACK TO LOW DENSITY. HOPEFULLY YOU WILL

SUPPORT IT. >> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? IF NOT, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WIL OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

>> WHAT SORT OF USE IS TO BE SOUTH DOWN WIRE ROAD? WHAT IS NEXT TO THIS AS YOU GO AWAY FROM THE CITY ON WIRE ROAD?

>> A LOT OF IT IS IN THE COUNTY THERE ARE MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS. SOME VACANT LOTS. THERE'S A NEW DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS ANNEXED IN THE CITY AND IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

>> THAT IS A COMMERCIAL? IT'S RESIDENTIAL?

>> YES. >> THAT DOES HAVE A COMMERCIAL

PORTION OF THE PRIVATE. >> OKAY, SO, THEY COME OUT OF THE PDD AND GO BACK TO CDD ? I IT AUTOMATIC?

>> IT TO STATES. >> I'M TRYING TO GO THE LESSER

OF TWO EVILS. >> AND YOUR CONCERN OR DENIAL WAS THE FACT THAT IT WAS LOSING COHERENCY WITH THE PDD?

>> I THINK THE AREA ON THE CURRENT IS SHOWN AS COMMERCIAL.

AND SIMILAR TO THE FARMVILLE LIKES DISCUSSION. AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE, WE ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE COMMERCIAL SPACES.

>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS? ANYONE WISH TO PASS A MOTION?

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> WE ARE APPROVING IT. >> YOU'RE RECOMMENDING?

>> WE ARE FORWARDING TO THE CIT COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION

FOR APPROVAL. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. IT HAS BEEN SECONDED. IT'S FOR APPROVAL. THE APPROVAL WOULD B TO AMEND THE DISTRICT PDD DESIGNATION TO REMOVE THE 1.698 THERE'S ? THAT IS THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY

I AYE. >> THIS IS ANOTHER TIE, IS IT

NOT? >> THAT MEANS THE MOTION FAILS.

FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL. OKAY. >> CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL TO

CLARIFY? >> DO ROLL CALL.

>> WHAT DATE IS CITY COUNCIL?

>> THE 18TH. >> OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE

[14. Conditional Use – Wire Road Multifamily – PUBLIC HEARING CU-2023-009]

>> YES. MAKE A RECOMMENDATION O THIS AS WELL. THIS IS A CONDITIONING REQUEST FOR THE SAME PROPERTY. IT IS DONE FOR 16 MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE CONCEPT OR THE LAYOUT PLAN SHOW 16 UNITS. THEY WOULD BE STANDALONE UNITS. IT WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM HALEY LANE. SAC RECOMMENDS THE CONDITIONAL REQUEST.

>> CAN YOU TELL US AGAIN ON WH YOU'RE RECOMMENDING DENIAL?

>> SURE. AS I MENTIONED, THE PDD SHOWS THIS AREA DOESN'T

[01:25:02]

OF THE RESIDENCE ONLY. >> OKAY. DOES THE DEVELOPER

WANT TO -- >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. IF THEY ARE FINE WITH THE USE, COULD THEY APPROVE IT FOR CONDITIONAL USE? AND HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DENIAL? BU APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE TO WHERE IT'S MORE OF, HEY, YOU

HAVE TO HAVE A PDD? >> I WAS TRYING TO ASK THAT

EARLIER. I'M WITH YOU. >> THAT'S ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.

THE OTHER PART IS, ON THE COMMERCIAL PIECE, WE HAVE -- LIKE I SAID, IT'S AN L SHAPE. W HAVE LIMITED FRONTAGE. TRYING TO GET A STANDARD COMMERCIAL US WILL BE DIFFICULT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ROAD FRONT IS SMALL, WHEREAS A KIND OF BUMP BACK IN THERE. TRADITIONAL COMMERCIAL IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT . THE PDD OVER THERE, THE OLD MASTER PLAN, CONTEMPLATED SHORT , LITTLE BOXES THERE . THERE'S NOT MUCH SUBSTANCE. IT'S REALL NOT VIABLE IF WE ARE DOING THAT. THE OTHER THING IS, IT' IN FRONT OF COMMERCIAL. WE ARE NOT DOING THE STREET IN FRONT O WIRE ROAD. THAT IS A SUBURBAN CORRIDOR. EVERYTHING OUT THERE IS OFF THE ROAD. IT DOESN'T REALLY WORK TOO WELL FOR THE COMMERCIAL LAYOUT. JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THOSE TWO THINGS.

>> THE UNDERLINING ZONING IS CDD, RIGHT? WHY COULDN'T YOU APPROVE THIS WITHOUT CHANGING THAT PDD? YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO THIS IS STILL A USE THAT IS ALLOWABLE.

>> IT REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE.

>>

THE PDD PULLOUT IS DENIED. >> SO, WE DENY.

>> THAT WAS THE QUESTION. >> DO WE HAVE A FIRM ANSWER?

>> YES. MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF A PDD DOES NOT REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE. HOWEVER, IT WOULD TRIGGER A PDD AMENDMENT. BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE SWITCHED AND CHANGED USES

ON THE PLAN. >> SO, IF WE APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE, HE STILL GOT COME IN FOR A PDD AMENDMENT?

>> IF IT IS DENIED, YES. >> LOGAN, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, IF FOR SOME REASON THE PDD PULLING IT OUT, WAS TO BE DENIED, BUT THE CONDITIONAL USES APPROVED, THEY WOULD NEED TO COME BACK LATER TO AMEND THE PDD TO ALLOW IT TO HAVE THE

MULTIUNIT CHANGE DEVELOPMENT? >> YES. THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE MASTER PLAN.

>> IF YOU ARE ON BOARD WITH TH CONDITIONAL USE, HEAR ME OUT.

IF YOU APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE BUT YOU ARE NOT IN THE ZONE WE WOULD MAKE THE CHOICE IS IF WE TAKE THIS TO CITY COUNCIL WITHIN THE NILE ON THAT AND APPROVAL ON THIS, OR, DO I FILE TO EXPAND THE PDD TO PULL IT IN? YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? IT WOULD GIVE US OPTIONS. IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH USE. IF YOU'R

NOT GOOD WITH THE USE -- >> FOR ME, MY BASE WAS DENIAL.

THIS IS NOT COMMERCIAL. >> WHAT ABOUT MIXED-USE? MIXIN

COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL? >> ONE OF THE THINGS, WE HAD TWO STAFF DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS ON THIS. LIKE HE SAID, INDISCERNIBLE ] THERE IS A TUR LANE FROM SOUTH TO NORTH GOING IN. THAT'S GREAT. THERE WILL NOT BE A LOT OF DENSITY. YOU

[01:30:08]

NOT ON OUR PROPERTY. THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A WIDE SMOOTH CURVE CUTS. IT WOULD NOW BE ON A PROPERTY. I HEARD COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT EGRESS. INDISCERNIBLE ] WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING COMING IN TO HALEY LANE. AND THEN EGRESS. WE MATCH IT UP WITH THE BUSINESS ACROSS THE STREET. THAT'S A GOOD DESIGN. IF WE HAVE THE WHOLE PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND THE WHOLE THREE ACRES, IT WOULD PROBABLY MAKE SENSE TO DO COMMERCIAL. BUT FROM TRAFFIC FLOW, IS A TON OF COMMERCIAL. FROM ATLANTA THAT IS DEVELOPIN A 55+. ARE ANTICIPATING COMMERCIAL ALL UP AND DOWN THERE. THIS IS A VERY CLEAN DEVELOPMENT. IT IS HIGH END SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES.

WE SPENT MONTHS AND MONTHS DESIGNING THIS. THE LAND FLOWS PERFECTLY. EVERYTHING. IT HAS TONS OF CAPACITY. YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT MANY TOTAL PEOPLE OUT THERE. IT'S LIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF TRAILER PARKS. I'M JUST BEING HONEST. THIS IS THE STUFF WE WANT. THIS IS THE HIG QUALITY OF DEVELOPER WE HAVE BEEN BEGGING FOR. AND THEN WE GET BEAT UP ON THE WAY TO GET I DONE. THIS IS A GOOD DESIGN. I THINK IT'S A LOT BETTER. THANK

YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. DO WE NEED DISCUSSION? IS SOMEONE PREPARED FOR EMOTION?

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE 2023 009 RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL

APPROVAL. >> SECONDED.

>> MOTION . LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL , PLEASE. SAME AS THE LAS

[15. Preliminary Plat – Preserve Phase 5C – PUBLIC HEARING PP-2023-005]

>> THE APPLICANT HAS'S RESPECTED THAT REQUESTED THAT YOU PROPOSE THIS -- THE PETITIONER HAS REQUESTED THAT W

POSTPONE THE SPIRIT >> WHAT DAYS IT ?

>> MAY 11. >> I MOVED TO POSTPONE TO MAYB

11, 2023. >> SECONDED.

>> THE WEIGHT MOVE ON. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE PERIODS -- DOES

[16. Preliminary Plat – Preserve Phase 4C/6B – PUBLIC HEARING PP-2023-006]

>> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. THE ARE SUBDIVIDING 26 ACRES INTO 49 LOTS. PROPERTY IS LOCATED A

[01:35:07]

AND UPON ADDRESSING COMMENTS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH

COMMENTS. >> ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OF

NOTE? >> MOSTLY NOTATIONAL. AND THA NO CONSTRUCTION WILL BEGIN UNTI IT'S UPDATED.

>> THAT WAS THE BIG ONE. >> DOES THE DEVELOPER HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? OKAY. THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? I SEE NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND DISCUSS.

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE PP 2023 006. WITH COMMENTS.

>> ALL RIGHT, THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. LET IT BE APPROVED. SUBJECT TO MEETIN ALL THE COMMENTS AND THE STAFF REPORT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED, SAY NO. THAT

[17. Conditional Use – Mill Creek Data Center – PUBLIC HEARING CU-2023-004]

>> THIS IS A REQUEST. FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF A COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USE. THE DATA CENTER TO BE LOCATED AT 40 WEST VETERANS BOULEVARD. IN THE CDD ZONING DISTRICT. THEY ARE PROPOSING A 65,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR A DATA CENTER. AND WITH THIS REQUEST THEY ARE ASKING FOR A WAIVER TO THE CORE DOOR OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS. A FENCE ON A QUARTER STREET CANNOT BE LOCATE IN FRONT OF THE PLANE OR FORWARD OF THE BUILDING. AND IT CANNOT EXCEED FOUR FOOT IN HEIGHT. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, DATA CENTERS ARE A SECURE FACILITY. THERE WILL BE FENCE ALL AROUND FROM THE DRIVE HERE THERE IS A SECURITY KIOSK IN THIS LOCATION HERE. AND THEN A SLIDING GATE HERE. AND THE FENCE IS ALL AROUND THE BUILDING. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A FENCE HERE, MAYBE.

BUT, WITH THE DISTANCE THE BUILDING IS SET BACK FROM THE STREET, IT IS OVER 400 FEET, I BELIEVE. YOU MAY NOT SEE IT.

IT WILL BE ORNAMENTAL AND NOT CHAIN-LINK. WE DO RECOMMEND

APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER. >> IS UNDISTURBED VEGETATION.

ALL THE WAY FROM THE STREET TO THE BUILDING, RIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THE DACHSHUND LINE IS THE DISTURBE AREA. THE SURROUNDING AREA WILL BE UNDISTURBED.

>> YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE IT FROM THE STREET ANYWAY?

>> THAT'S RIGHT. I AM THE WORLD'S WORST WITH THIS. WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE FROM ANY OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. THE APPLICANT'S

REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE. >> WITH A LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE WILL OPEN THAT NOW IF ANYONE WISHES TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD. I SEE NO ONE. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE THE CU 202 004.

>> WITH THE WAIVER. INCLUDE A WAIVER.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. WE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH THE WAIVER TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, SAY AYE. NO, SAY NO. IT IS APPROVED. NEXT IS

[18. Conditional Use – Delta Development Group – PUBLIC HEARING CU-2023-005]

>> THIS REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE USE FOR THE SPRING LAKE PDD . WHEN IT IS APPROVED, A LOT OF TIMES, A DEVELOPER WILL GET A

[01:40:02]

OTHER THAN THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THAT ONE CONDITION. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY. DOES A POSITION OR WISH TO -- YES.

>> I AM DALE SPIDEY. MY WIFE AND I ARE THE MASTER DEVELOPER OF THIS PROJECT. AS YOU CAN TELL, WE DID WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO. WE HAD AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. WE ACHIEVED THAT. WE HAVE THE NICEST COMPLE IN TOWN. WE SPENT THE MOST MONEY. I COULD SAY THAT FOR SURE. WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE WE WERE UNDER RESTRICTIONS. WE SOLD THE APARTMENTS OFF ALREADY. WE WER UNDER RESTRICTIONS THAT WE COULDN'T DEVELOP THE RETAIL TO THE APARTMENTS. THEY NEEDED OU LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. STAGING. WE ARE AFTER EIGHT YEARS, WE ARE FINALLY THERE. WE NEED TO SELL THE RETAIL. THIS IS OUR PROJECT IT'S A LONG PROJECT. IT'S A VERY COSTLY PROJECT FEEDBACK I I RECALL, YOU WERE TOO HAPPY

ABOUT BUILDING THE COMMERCIAL. >> ORIGINALLY, WE WERE NOT GOIN TO DO IT. WE WERE GOING TO DO APARTMENTS WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF RETAIL. WE REVISED THE PLAN. WE STILL WERE ABLE TO GET WHA WE ORIGINALLY PLAN TO GET ON THERE.

>> RETAIL WILL ACTUALLY BRING ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY DO. THE RETAILS EXTREMELY PRICEY. WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY. THIS THING IS ALREADY COMPLETEL READY TO BUILD ON. RETENTION BONDS ARE BUILT. IT'S COMPLETELY FINISHED. I TO HAVE TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GAS STATION AND THE ATM. YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT ON THERE. SUE

RICK LOGAN HAS THAT. >> YES. THAT'S A BETTER PICTURE ON THE PORTION THAT IS FOUR ACRES, WE HAVE A LOT OF INTEREST IN THE HOTEL. THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT WILL - RIGHT THERE. THAT'S A GREAT SPO FOR A HOTEL. OUR ISSUE IS, WHAT ARE THE REASONS IT TOOK US ALONG, UNFORTUNATELY KENDRA MORGAN OWNS A GAS LINE EASEMEN DIAGONAL THROUGH THE PROPERTY.

THEY ARE SOMETHING ELSE TO WOR WITH. I'M JUST TELLING YOU. YOU MAKE MULTIPLE TRIPS AND PHONE CALLS TO WORK WITH THOSE GUYS.

WE TRIED TO MOVE THE GAS LINE. YOU CANNOT MOVE THAT GAS LINE.

THEY WANT $1.5 MILLION TO MOVE IT. WE ARE HAVING TO WORK AROUND THAT GAS LINE. THE ONLY REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR LENIEN ON THE ATM IS TWO REASONS. ONE, WE WERE ALREADY APPROVED

[01:45:02]

>> IS IT MORE LIKE AN IGA INSTEAD OF A CIRCLE K GAS

STATION? >> IT IS TOTALLY UPSCALE.

THERE'S NOTHING LIKE IT HERE. IT'S A MINIMART. THERE IS NO

SUCH THING AS A MINIMART. >> IS IN THE BACK OR THE FRONT?

THAT IS TYPICAL. >>

>> WE ARE GOING TO HAVE VERY STRICT RESTRICTIONS, BECAUSE O THE COMPANY THAT PURCHASED THE APARTMENTS PROMISE, THEY CAN ONLY ALLOW CERTAIN THINGS ON THE PROPERTY. BECAUSE THE APARTMENTS ARE ON THAT SIDE TH BUILDING. THIS IS NOT A TYPICA CIRCLE K. IT WILL BE IN UPSCALE PLACE WITH ALL FOUR SIDES. IT WILL BE IN UPSCALE MARKET WITH FUEL. THAT IS ONE REQUEST.

CONSIDERATION FOR THAT . I HAV A HIGHLY INTERESTED PARTY IN THAT. ON THE ATM, THE REASON I'M ASKING FOR LENIENCY IS, TH WHERE THE GAS LINE GOES THROUGH CUTS THE PROPERTY. THERE'S A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY, THERE IS HARDLY ANYTHING THAT WILL GO THERE. AS MUCH MONEY AS WE HAV IN THE SITE WORK AND BRINGING UTILITIES AND, THERE'S HARDLY ANYTHING THAT WE CAN PUT ON THA SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY. BUT, A ATM WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY. AN ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE THREE ACRES , THE MART AND THE FUEL, WE DO HAVE A BANK THAT WE ARE ALSO NEGOTIATING WITH ON THE SITE. I THINK WERE ONLY ASKING FOR TWO THINGS. LENIENCY ON TH ATM AND A MINIMART WITH FUEL.

>> WHERE IS THAT ON THE PIECE O PROPERTY?

>> I DON'T HAVE -- >> IT'S CUT OFF BY THE GAS LINE

>> IT'S RIGHT ABOUT WHERE THEY ARE POINTING AT NOW. THAT IS TH GAS LINE. THERE ARE TWO GAS LINES. IT'S TWO MAIN GAS LINE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THEY HAVE AN EASEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE.

IT TAKES UP AN INCREDIBLE AMOUN OF SPACE. THE ONLY THING YOU CAN PUT ON IT IS A MARKET. IT' THE ONLY THING WHERE WE HAVE A SMALL POSSIBILITY . NECESSARILY PRESSING AND LOOKIN FOR AN ATM. WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT POSSIBILITIES. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE GO THERE IS A STARBUCKS. THAT IS WHY WE CHOSE THAT.

[01:50:54]

>> JUST THOSE THREE. >> THOSE WERE THE THREE WITH

ROAD SERVICE USES. >> WE ARE ASKING FOR THE ATM AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A MINIMART.

>> THERE ARE OTHER ROAD USES. >> THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED. >> THEY ARE ALREADY OKAY. IT'S

JUST THESE THREE PARTICULAR? >> THAT'S RIGHT. A BANK WITH A ATM DRIVE-THROUGH IS DIFFERENT THAN A STANDALONE ATM.

>> WE ARE ASKING BECAUSE OF TH SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY.

>> OKAY. ARGUS SIGN FOR PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO HIS ASKED QUESTIONS OR DRESSES ISSUE? IF NOT, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. COMMISSION? LET M ASK A QUESTION, IF I MAY.

HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUELING STATION OR THE CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL , DO WE HAVE A OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE ? WE HAVE HAD GOOD SUCCESS ON MAJOR CORRIDORS IN ONE OR TWO PLACES.

THEY PUT THE PUMPS ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. THE BUILDING ITSELF THE BASE IS THE MAIN DRAG WILL LOOK MORE LIKE A

REGULAR COMMERCIAL BUILDING. >> FROM OUR STANDPOINT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD REALLY NEGOTIATE FOR. WE CAN ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO DO THAT. WE ENCOURAGE QUALITY DESIGN WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN. WHILE THEY DON'T HAVE SITE PLAN, THIS IS A USE YOU MAY CONSIDER. IF WE APPROVE AL OF THIS WILL BE INCLUDING SERVICES. WE WILL NOT SEE IT AGAIN. THEY DON'T COME BACK FO US.

>> HOW THIS IS LAID OUT, I DON'T FORESEE THAT.

>> YOU CAN CONDITION ON APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST SUCH THAT IF THE GAS STATION IS ALLOWED, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME

BACK AS A SITE PLAN. >> I AM WELL AWARE THAT THIS IS OUR LAST PIECE OF COMMERCIAL BEFORE YOU ENTER OTHER TERRITORY. OTHER JURISDICTIONS. I DON'T WANT TO CREATE ANY UNINTENDED LEAKAGES. BUT I WANT THAT SERVICE STATION COULD BE DISTORTED TO LOOK AS GOOD AS A DEPARTMENT STORE ON THAT

STRETCH. >> THAT IS ONE OF THE CONDITION THAT THEY REQUIRE. THERE IS N WAY THEY WILL ALLOW THAT. THEY HAVE TOTAL CONTROL. THAT WAS DETERMINED WHEN WE GOT THE

PROPERTY. >> THEY WOULD'VE APPROVED THE

DESIGN? >> THEY HAVE TOTAL CONTROL OF THE DESIGN.

>> THE CANOPIES ARE WHAT EVERYONE SEES FROM DOWN THE

ROAD. >> THAT'S WHY THE IDEA OF PUTTING THEM ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, BUT THEY WILL NEVER G

[01:55:02]

>> ARE WE PREPARED FOR MOTION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE WITH ROAD SERVICE USE X LOADING CAR WASH DETAILING SHOP. AND WITH CONDITIONS FROM STAFF.

>> YOU UNDERSTAND THE MOTION? SECONDED? THE MOTION IS FOR APPROVAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE ROAD SERVICE USE WHICH IS THE CAR WASH. AND ALL STAFF COMMENTS.

>> IT CAN'T BE ALL STAFF COMES BECAUSE ONE OF THE STAFF COMMENTS IS SERVICE USE DENIAL.

>> YES. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION

>> I HAVE SECONDED. TEA ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED, SAY NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES.

>> OKAY. NOW WE HAVE TO DO WIT OURSELVES. SONY TEXT MINUTE.

[19. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ZT-2023-001]

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THIS IS THE ZONING ORDINANC TEXT AMENDED . IT'S THE INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT. THIS WAS INITIALLY BROUGHT TO GUYS IN 2015. WHEN IT WENT THROUGH. HOWEVER, THE ICD WAS PUT ON HOLD AT THAT TIME. AND WITH MORE COMMERCIAL OR MORE PROPERTIES DEVELOPING ALONG EXIT 50, WE FELT IT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT TIME TO BRING THIS BACK TO YOU GUYS. WE CAN PRESERVE OUR PRIMARY INTEREST IS AROUND THE INTERCHANGES. THIS WILL BE A COMMERCIAL ONLY

ZONE. >> NO MIXED USES. CLARITY.

>> THAT IS RIGHT. IN YOUR PACKET, YOU WILL SEE THE USES.

MOST OF THOSE ARE SIMILAR TO THE USES ALLOWED . NO RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ALLOWED. MORE USES SUCH AS COMMERCIAL SUPPORT, AGRICULTURAL USES ARE ALSO PROHIBITED. MOST COMMERCIALS ARE USED CORRECTLY AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

>> THE AGENDA DOES NOT INDICATE.

>> IF NOT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ENTERTAINING

EMOTIONAL DISCUSSION? >> MOVED TO APPROVE.

[20. Zoning Map Amendment ZM-2023-002]

CONVERSATIONS WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, AS WELL. YOU

[02:00:05]

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THIS IS ALSO I THINK WOULD REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNTS ON THIS RIGHT NOW? I SEE NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION.

>> THIS WILL BE PUT ON FUTURE LANE USE MAPS EVENTUALLY.

>> THE FUTURE LAND USE IS NOT CHANGING AT THE STANFORD

>> WE ARE NOT GOING TO INCORPORATE THAT AT ALL.

>> IT ALREADY HAS. >> OH, IT DID.

>> THIS AREA IS INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL. THIS WILL MATCH UP

PERFECTLY. >> WE DIDN'T CREATE THE ZONE.

>> WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT IT. OKAY.

>> GREAT QUESTION, THOUGH. >> MOVE TO APPROVE 2023 002.

>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED, SAY NO. THE MOTION CARRIES. NOW, WE

[21. Skybar Waiver WZ-2023-001]

HAVE ONE MORE. >> ONE MORE. ALL RIGHT, SKY BAR

WAFER. >> THIS IS A WAIVER REQUEST IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDARD THAT WE HAVE IN DOWNTOWN , SPECIFICALLY IN THE URBAN COURT DISTRICT. IT IS FIVE DASH THREE AND IT SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH DEMONSTRATIONS. THIS ARCHITECTURAL STANDARD IS BASICALLY THAT IF YOU HAVE A FACADE ON THE GROUND STORY, A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THAT FACADE NEEDS TO HAVE OPENINGS O WINDOWS IN IT. SO IF YOU'RE A PEDESTRIAN WALKING OR DRIVING BY, YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT A BLANK WALL. WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE SPACES THAT ARE INVITING THAT ARE MORE WALKABLE. SO THA IS KIND OF THE INTENT BEHIND TH REGULATION. THEY ARE REQUESTING -- OR THEY HAVE A PERMIT AND HAS GRANTED CONSTRUCTION FOR HALF OF THIS BUILDING AS AN ADDITION. THEY HAVE BUILT OUT ESSENTIALLY THE OPENINGS BUT WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE THEM IN.

THAT WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF OPENINGS TO LESS THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED. AND HERE ARE SOME PICTURES OF THOSE OPENINGS AND KIND OF WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO. THE APPLICANT HAS STATED TH INTENT IS TO PREVENT ANY NOISE OR NUISANCES FROM SPILLING OVER INTO THE STREET. OUR STAFF FEEL THAT THE WAIVER REQUEST SHOULD BE DENIED. IT KIND OF REALLY LIMITS THE FACADE AND AS I MENTIONED, IT MAKES IT ALONG BLANK WALL.

>> OKAY. >> DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO

SPEAK TO IT? >> THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT REASONS WHY IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE IT BE AN ACTUAL WALL VERSUS WINDOWS. IF YOU'RE A CUSTOMER ON THE INSIDE THERE IS A HUGE DUMPSTER THAT THE CITY PUT THERE AND SO ALL THE WINDOWS WILL TECHNICALLY BE THERE. YOU CAN GET FIVE FEET FROM THE WALL. THE SOUND FROM THE BUILDING ITSELF, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A HOTEL NEXT DOOR, WHICH IS IN THE PLANTS, W DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY EXTRA NOISE, SO WE FEEL LIKE AN ACOUSTIC WALL WOULD HELP ALLEVIATE THAT. SO BETWEEN THE VIEW FROM THE OUTSET THAT YOU CANNOT SEE IT, AND THE FACT THA THE CUSTOMERS ARE LOOKING AT WHERE EVERYBODY DUMPS ALL THEIR TRASH, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING ADDITIONAL NOISE, WE PREFER TO ACTUALLY HAVE BE IT BEAUTIFUL WALL. SO.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTIONS? NO? THANK

YOU. SOMEONE ELSE? YES. >> IT WON'T LOOK LIKE THAT. YO LOOK AT THE DRAWING. IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL, BUT YOU MAY ONLY BE ABLE TO SEE ONE ON THE RIGHT SIDE. IT IS OBSCURED BY THE

REST OF THOSE WINDOWS. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I DON'T THINK TH WAIVER REQUEST REQUIRES A HEARING. SO LET'S DISCUSS THAT

[02:05:03]

DONE? >> SIR --

>> IT SAYS, DIDN'T WE SAY SOMEWHERE THAT THE REGISTRATIO DOESN'T HAVE TO BE OPEN. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE WINDOWS. IT

DOESN'T HAVE TO BE OPEN. >> THAT IS CORRECT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE OPEN AIR. IT CAN BE WINDOW TREATMENTS. IT CAN BE ANYTHING THAT IS BASICALLY TRANSPARENT.

>> TRANSPARENT BUT THICK, I SUPPOSE.

>> I FEEL LIKE I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THAT ON THE DDR TEAM

MEETINGS. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT'S U WITH THE DUMPSTER? IS THAT A PERMANENT SITUATION OR IS THAT BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION GOING

ON? >> PERMANENT. FOR NOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG. 10 YEARS, 20 YEARS, IT MAY NOT BE THERE ANYMORE, BUT THE BUILDING WILL BE. AND SO, BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS IS THAT THERE IS A SIDEWALK RIGHT NEXT DOOR, IN BETWEEN THE COMPACTOR AND THE FACADE, AND IF YOU GO OUT THERE TODAY, THERE ARE TONS OF PEOPLE GOING BACK AND FORTH, UP AND DOWN ON THAT SIDEWALK.

SPOKE AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CALCULATING THE CRITERIA FOR THIS, ARE WE LOOKING AT THAT ENTIRE BLOCK THERE? WE LOOK AT THE WHOLE BUILDING BECAUSE THIS IS AN ADDITION. WE ARE LOOKING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE BUILDING.

>> IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE ARE TWO CALCULATIONS. THERE IS ONE FOR THE FENESTRATION OF THE WHOLE BUILDING AND THERE IS ONE FOR THE NEW PORTION. BUT HOW THAT IS ISOLATED IS IS THE SQUARE FOOT AREA OF EACH OPENIN DIVIDED BY THE SQUARE FOOT OF THE WHOLE FACADE AT THE GROUND LEVEL.

OVER 30% AND OBVIOUSLY, AS WE G TO NEARLY 0 NOW, AND FOR THAT ENTIRE RIGHT STREET FACADE, IT IS AROUND 33%. THAT WOULD BE

FULLY REDUCED TO ABOUT 20%. >> AND THE REQUIREMENT IS?

>> 50%. DESPITE THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT IS 50% WHEN IT IS

REVIEWED, IT WAS 30%. >> THIS FEATURE THAT WE HAVE HERE IN THE PACKET INDICATES THAT THIS IS BELOW GRADE OR LOW

GRADE. >> NO. THIS IS AT GRADE.

BASICALLY, THEY HAVE SCAFFOLDING UP AND I THINK --

OF THE SIDEWALK. >> FANCY.

>> OH, C CAN WALK BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS UNDERGROUND

>> IT IS NOT BELOW GRADE? >> IT IS NOT. NO.

>> OH. >> OH. I REALLY CLOSE YOU OFF.

WISH TO MAKE A MOTION?

FOR DENIAL. >> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR

DENIAL. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> THE DENIAL IS CLOSING ALL O THE FENESTRATION.

>> CORRECT. >> SOME, OR ALL OF THEM .

>> WITH GLASS. >> SOME OTHER PLEXIGLASS OR

WHATEVER. >> SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR DENIAL AND SECONDING. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF TH MOTION, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. ALL OPPOSED, SAY NO. THE MOTION CARRIES. AND IT

[02:10:05]