[ROLL CALL]
[00:00:09]
>>> IT'S 5:00, IT'S TIME TO CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUBURN PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.
WE'LL BEGIN BY HAVING THE SECRETARY CALL THE ROLL.
>> HERE. >> WE WILL BEGIN WITH CITIZENS' COMMUNICATION. ANYONE THAT HAS AN ISSUE TO BRING TO THIS BODY THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION AND MAKE DISCUSSION TO THAT IF YOU'D LIKE TO.
I WILL OPEN THAT PART OF OUR PROGRAM BY INVITING ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION OTHER THAN WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
WE'LL TAKE YOUR INPUT AT THAT TIME.
I SEE NO ONE. SO WE'LL MOVE ON.
AND BEFORE WE GO TO THE OLD BUSINESS, LET ME MAKE A BRIEF WORD ABOUT THE PROCEDURE IN CASE THIS IS THE FIRST MEETING YOU'VE BEEN AT IN AWHILE. THIS PLANNING COMMISSION HAS SEVERAL RESPONSIBILITIES. MOST ARE ALL THE ZONING ISSUES WE'RE ADVISORY TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
HOWEVER AT THIS POINT IN OUR ZONING ISSUES, WE ARE OFTEN IN MAKING DECISIONS WE HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY ALABAMA LAW. DURING THAT PUBLIC HEARING, CITIZENS CAN ADDRESS US ON ANY ISSUE RELATING TO THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AND WE'LL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT. WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER STATE LAW. WE HAVE TO CONSIDER OUR ORDINANCE AND CITY CODES AS WELL AS THE CASE LAW AS RELATED TO SOME SIMILAR ISSUE. AND AFTER TAKING ALL OF THAT INPUT, WE WILL THEN HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, I MENTIONED WE WERE ADVISORY TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IS A TECHNICAL REVIEW AND -- IT'S LATE IN THE AFTERNOON -- REVIEW OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IS A TECHNICAL REVIEW AND THEREFORE THE DECISION IS PLACED ENTIRELY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO AFTER WE GET THE PUBLIC HEARING INPUT, WE WILL THEN DECIDE HOW THAT RELATES IF IT'S TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE UNDER OUR
[1. Preliminary Plat - Beehive Park - PUBLIC HEARING PP-2023-010 ]
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR APPROVAL.SO WITH THAT ASIDE, WE WILL BEGIN OUR DELIBERATIONS WITH OUR OLD BUSINESS WHICH IS PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEEHIVE PARK. THAT WAS TABLED AT THE LAST
THAT IS CORRECT. BEFORE YOU IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 11 LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION.
IT WAS POSTPONED LAST MONTH AT YOUR LAST MONTH MEETING.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON BEEHIVE ROAD.
IT WAS ANNEXED AND REZONED IN MAY OF THIS YEAR.
IT'S ZONED INDUSTRIAL. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THE LOTS ALL HAVE FRONTAGE ON THESE STREETS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO BEING ANNEXED AND REZONED. THEY ARE REQUESTING A WAIVER TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IN ADDITION TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE OFF OF A PRIVATE STREET AS OPPOSED TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THEY ARE ALSO SEEKING THAT WAIVER. STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE WAIVER AND WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AS WELL. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE.
>> OKAY, ONE QUICK QUESTION. OFF THE STREETS THAT ARE SHOWN THEN ON THE INSIDE THE PLAT'S PERIMETER ARE PRIVATE STREETS?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> ALL RIGHT.
WOULD THE DEVELOPER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WANT TO SAY ANYTHING AT THIS TIME ABOUT IT? OKAY.
THIS BEING A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS SUBJECT? IF YOU DO, FEEL FREE TO COME FORWARD, SIGN THE BOOK BEFORE YOU SIT BACK DOWN REGARDING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. I SEE NO ONE COMING FORWARD SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK THE COMMISSION --
>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IT MENTIONS UNDER THE SECTION GREEN SPACE AND BIKE FACILITY IMPACT, IT MENTIONS A BIKE PATH ON BEEHIVE ROAD BUT I'M NOT SEEING IT. IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE
PLAT? >> NO, IT WILL NOT BE ON THE
PLAT. >> THE FUTURE BIKE PATH IS JUST IDENTIFIED IN OUR PLAN SHOWN THERE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATED CONSTRUCTED ET
[00:05:03]
CETERA WITH THIS SUBDIVISION. >> MORE THAN LIKELY IT WOULD BE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BEHIVE R
-- BEEHIVE ROAD. >> ANYMORE QUESTIONS? IF NOT IS ANYONE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE PP-2023-010 BEEHIVE PARK.
>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION
[CONSENT AGENDA]
>> ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.
THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
AND THE CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE REMOVE THE FINAL
PLAT 801 OGLETREE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR?] OKAY SO WE WILL TAKE IT UP SHORTLY.
THE CONSENT AGENDA? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE
OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> SECOND.
>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
[4. Final Plat - 801 Ogletree FP-2023-013]
AND THE MOTION CARRIES. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP THE 801 OGLETREE. WOULD SOMEONE MAKE APRESENTATION FOR IT, PLEASE? >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
PREVIOUSLY THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED AT YOUR FEBRUARY MEETING. THIS IS THAT FINAL PLAT.
THE PLAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THE PRELIMINARY. WE'VE KIND OF, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU ALL LOOK INTO THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THERE WAS ONE CONDITION FROM WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
IT IS CONDITION NUMBER ONE UNDER WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO APPROVE THE PLAT OF ALL CONDITIONS EXCEPT
THAT COMMENT OR CONDITION. >> WHICH IS THE BACKLOG?
>> NO. IT CANNOT OVERLAP WITH A PRIVATE EASEMENT. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE OWNER AND OUR CITY LEGAL COUNSEL TO KIND OF HASH OUT THE DETAILS ON THAT. BUT IT SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE
THERE'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING NECESSARY FOR THIS.
DID STAFF HAVE ANYMORE QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR ONE?
IF NOT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE FP-2023-013 TO 801 OGLETREE WITH CONDITIONS AND ALSO REMOVING THE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONDITION NUMBER ONE.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
[5. Rezoning - Cox and Corporate - PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-008]
AND THE MOTION CARRIES. RIGHT NOW WE BEGIN OUR NEW BUSINESS. THE FIRST ITEM IN NEW BUSINESS, ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE AGENDA IS REZONING COX AND CORPORATE.>> YES, THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST FOR APPROXIMATELY 3.1 ACRES FROM COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. AND JUST A QUICK NOTE, THE ICD WAS JUST RECENTLY ADOPTED BY COUNCIL IN MAY OF 2023.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COX ROAD AND CORPORATE PARKWAY ADJACENT TO BUCEES.
THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATES THE PROPERTY AS FUTURE COMMERCIAL, THEREFORE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THIS DESIGNATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REZONING REQUEST AND THERE'S NO COMMENTS TO NOTE.
>> OKAY. IS THE PETITIONER REPRESENTATIVE HERE WISH TO SAY ANYTHING? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? I SEE NO ONE, SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE CASE RZ-2023-008 COX AND CORPORATE
[00:10:04]
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND MULTIPLE SECONDS AND WE'LL CALL FOR ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
[6. Rezoning - East Glenn Mixed Use - PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-009]
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED SAY NO? THE MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE GLENN MIXED
USE REZONING. >> YES, GOOD EVENING.
THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST FOR 0.52 ACRES FROM NC6, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO CRD-E CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EAST. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1009 EAST GLENN AVENUE. CURRENT USE IS A DUPLEX ON THE PROPERTY. IF YOU WILL RECALL, WE RECENTLY REZONED, I SAY RECENTLY, WITHIN THE LAST 18 MONTHS OR SO, REZONED THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF THIS TO CRD-E AS WELL. BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE WITHIN THE OFFICE, MIXED USE, FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
MIXED USE OFFICE RESIDENTIAL, FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
WE SEE THIS REQUESTED ZONING FITTING VERY WELL WITH THIS FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION THROUGH THIS STRETCH OF EAST GLENN AVENUE. CONTINUES TO TRANSITION AND REDEVELOP OVER TIME. WITH THAT, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WITH NO COMMENTS.
>> OKAY. IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE DEVELOPER WISH TO SAY ANYTHING AT THIS TIME? JUST WALKED OUT THE DOOR. ALL RIGHT.
I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE? OKAY, ALL RIGHT. THEN THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING SO WE SHALL OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE? IF NOT WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE NEED FOR DISCUSSION, ANYTHING YOU NEED,
COMMISSIONERS? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TO FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR
APPROVAL RZ-2023-009. >> SECOND.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES.
OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS ALSO A REZONING, IT'S AN EAST
GLENN MIXED USE. >> MR. CHAIR, I BELIEVE THAT WAS
THE ONE WE JUST DID. >> OH THAT'S RIGHT.
LET ME TURN THE PAGE HERE. OKAY.
THIS IS ROCKHOUSE FARMS. OKAY, YES.
[7. Annexation - Rockhouse Farms AX-2023-011 ]
ROCKHOUSE FARMS, WHO'S PRESENTING THAT?THERE YOU ARE, KATE. >> HERE I AM.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 85.79 ACRES.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON BRIDLEWOOD DRIVE, EAST OF CREEKWOOD SUBDIVISION. AND THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY IS ABOUT 100 ACRES AND THEY ARE RECOMMENDING OR PROPOSING TO LEAVE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY.
SO THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO BRING IN ABOUT 85 ACRES.
YOU'LL SEE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN PINK THERE, THAT IS THE AREA THAT WILL REMAIN UNINCORPORATED.
AND THE REMAINING PROPERTY WILL BE BROUGHT INTO THE CITY LIMITS.
THE PROPERTY FRONTS ON BRIDLEWOOD DRIVE WHICH IS A PRIVATE STREET. THAT STREET IS IDENTIFIED ON OUR MAJOR STREET PLAN AS A RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR.
SO IT WILL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO STANDARDS IN THE FUTURE.
AND WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> AND YOU'RE CONFIDENT THEN THAT IT MEETS OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS?
>> WE'LL GET TO THE PLAT ON THE NEXT ONE.
THIS IS JUST THE ANNEXATION. IF YOU'LL NOTICE THOUGH ON THE PROX MAP, YOU'LL SEE THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE WEST OF THE PORTION THAT'S GOING TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS, THOSE TWO PIECES ARE ALSO IN THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW. SO LEAVING THAT 14 OR SO ACRES IN THE COUNTY IS GOING TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF AN ENCLAVE, AN EXISTING ENCLAVE. JUST WANTING TO POINT THAT OUT.
[00:15:03]
>> IT'S A VALID POINT TO MAKE. >> IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT?
LEAVING THAT OUT? >> I AM NOT CERTAIN.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE, SO THEY CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR
YOU. >> WHEN SHE'S FINISHED I WOULD
LIKE YOU TO COME UP. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> OKAY, THANK YOU, KATIE.
NOW SIR, WOULD YOU COME AND ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
FIRST STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE. >> YES, SIR.
MY PRIMARY RESIDENCE IS DIRECTLY TO THE WEST.
MY WIFE ASHLEY AND I AND OUR FOUR KIDS LIVE ON 17 ACRES.
WE'RE ONE OF THE RESIDENTS OF CREEKWOOD TRAIL.
WHEN WE BROUGHT THE 17 ACRES A FEW YEARS AGO, WE BUILT OUT THERE. APPROXIMATELY IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT, 7 OR 8 OF OUR ACRES ARE IN THE CITY AND BEHIND US IS COUNTY AND WE INITIALLY SET OUT TO PURCHASE JUST A FEW ACRES AS A BUFFER AS THE FAMILY DECIDED TO SELL US 100 ACRES, HERE WE ARE A FEW YEARS LATER AND EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING OTHER FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, SOME WITH CHILDREN, SOME WITHOUT, IN REGARDS TO THE COUNTY JUST THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOT HAVE THE LIMITATIONS THAT COME WITH BEING IN THE CITY, BUT ALSO BEING IN THE CITY.
SO REALLY THIS IS JUST GIVING ME A LITTLE BIT OF A BUFFER NEXT DOOR AND IT'S JUST ADJOINING THE COUNTY PROPERTY THAT I HAVE JUST NORTH OF WHERE THE FOOTPRINT OF MY HOUSE IS.
>> SO ACCESS RIGHT NOW IS THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY?
>> THEY ARE CONTIGUOUS. I BELIEVE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS CREATE A 30-FOOT STRIP DOWN THE LEFT SIDE STRAIGHT DOWN.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE COUNTY WOULD REQUIRE FOR US TO HAVE PROPER ROAD FRONTAGE TO A CITY OR COUNTY STREET.
SO THAT'S THE PLAN CURRENTLY. >> SO YOU'RE LEAVING IT OUT OF THE ANNEXATION SO THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE INCUMBERED BY CITY
RESTRICTIONS, IS THAT IT? >> YES, SIR.
>> AND WHAT TYPE OF RESTRICTIONS WOULD THAT BE?
>> THIS MAY SOUND LIKE REDNECK, AND MAYBE THIS IS REDNECK.
BUT I'M REALLY INVOLVED IN OUR CHURCH AND ONE OF THE FIRST FEW WEEKS OF LIVING HERE WE HAD A BIG YOUTH GROUP COME OVER AND WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO GET A BURN PERMIT, AS LONG AS WE'RE IN THE COUNTY WE CAN HAVE A BONFIRE. ANOTHER THING IS AS FAR AS DISCHARGING AN ARCHERY WEAPON INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, I'VE HEARD DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT THAT.
MY SON AND I LIKE TO SHOOT OUR BOWS IN OUR BACKYARD.
JUST THINGS REALLY OUTDOOR RELATED IS NOT THINGS THAT ARE DEVELOPMENT RELATED, MORE PERSONALLY JUST RECREATIONAL
RELATED. >> YEAH, BUT YOU'RE TOTALLY SURROUNDED BY CITY LIMITS THEN IN TERMS OF --
>> WELL I'M CURRENTLY, YES, SIR. AND I WOULD STILL BE CURRENTLY IF ALL OF THIS IS BROUGHT INTO THE CITY.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. ANYMORE QUESTIONS?
>> WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
ANYBODY WISH TO COME AND ADDRESS THE BODY -- NO PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED ON THIS, IT'S AN ANNEXATION.
WE WON'T HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. >> WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS THIS.
>> ALL RIGHT, SO HERE WE GO. WE HAVE THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 85.79 ACRES LEAVING AN ENCLAVE OF WHAT SIZE
IS THAT? >> APPROXIMATELY 14.5 ACRES.
>> WITH A 14 ACRE HOLE IN OUR CITY.
>> YES, BUT I WISH I COULD ZOOM IN ON OKAY, THERE WE GO.
SO MR. HERRING'S PROPERTY WHERE HIS RESIDENCE IS IS ON THIS LOT WHERE THE CURSOR IS. AND A PORTION OF THAT LOT IS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS CURRENTLY.
SO HIS RESIDENCE IS HERE AND THAT IS IN THE COUNTY.
>> BUT BEFORE THE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY, THAT IS NOT AN ENCLAVE OR A HOLE, IT IS JUST COUNTY PROPERTY?
[00:20:01]
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YES. >> BUT NOW IT WILL BE SURROUNDED
>> AND THAT HAS BECOME AN ISSUE IN SOME PARTS OF OUR CITY IN
RECENT MONTHS. >> I WOULD KIND OF ARGUE THAT THIS IS MORE PERSONAL USE THAN SOME OF THOSE OTHER ENCLAVES.
TO ME THAT THIS MAKES A LITTLE MORE SENSE THAN SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THIS ONE.
>> I JUST THINK IN TERMS OF MAYBE HOW WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT THIS IS THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE LEAVING BIG HOLES IN TERMS OF THE WAY IN WHICH WE ANNEX. WE HAVE A CHOICE WITH ANNEXATION AND WE DO. IF THERE'S A BIG HOLE THAT'S BEING CREATED, THEN MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T BE CREATING THAT HOLE.
MAYBE IT SHOULD ALL JUST REMAIN RURAL IN THE COUNTY.
>> WHAT YOU CREATE IS AN INCONSISTENT SET OF STANDARDS WITH WHAT ONE CAN DO ON THEIR PROPERTY.
THAT TO ME IS A PROBLEM. >> BECAUSE YOU'RE SURROUNDED BY
CITY FOLKS. >> AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT ON YOUR PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THESE HOUSES THAT CANNOT DO CERTAIN THINGS, YOU CAN. AND I WOULD THINK THAT AND THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY PROBABLY GOING TO AS WE HAVE A SUBDIVISION HERE LATER, GOING TO TRANSFER TITLE OF THESE LOTS TO SOMEBODY WHERE HE IS NOT AFFORDING THEM THE SAME PROTECTIONS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE IF THEY WERE ALL IN THE CITY.
BUT IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO COMMENT ON THIS?
>> I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. HERRING AGAIN.
IS THERE ANY THOUGHTS OF BRINGING THAT PROPERTY INTO THE CITY AT A FUTURE DATE? WOULD YOU COME BACK UP TO THE
MICROPHONE? >> ONE OF MY CHILDREN JUST LOVES HORSES. IF YOU EVER DRIVE OUT THERE, THERE'S HORSES AROUND, THE GARDNER STABLES.
SO MY GOAL IS TO HOLD ONTO IT FOR ONE OF MY CHILDREN.
AT THAT POINT AUBURN CITY IS A BLESSING TO GROW UP IN, THAT'S THE REASON I LIVE IN AUBURN. I LOVE THE CITY OF AUBURN.
SO AT THAT POINT -- AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS.
AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS. BUT THAT'S MY THOUGHT PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM?
>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE CASE AX-2023-011 ROCKHOUSE FARM ANNEXATION RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE'LL HAVE A MOTION AND SECONDED.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
>> 4-2. >> THIS WILL STILL MOVE FORWARD
[8. Preliminary Plat - Rockhouse Farms - PUBLIC HEARING PP-2023-011 ]
TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR TUESDAY MEETING.>> OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 12 CONVENTIONAL LOTS ON THE SAME PROPERTY THAT WAS JUST CONSIDERED, ROCKHOUSE FARMS. THEY ARE PROPOSING 12 LOTS THAT WILL FRONT BRIDLEWOOD DRIVE, AGAIN CURRENTLY A PRIVATE STREET.
WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT THE ROAD HAS TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CITY STANDARDS AND CONVERTED TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
ALL OF THE LOTS HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE ALONG BRIDLEWOOD DRIVE,
[00:25:07]
HOWEVER THEY WILL BE ACCESSED ABOUT WHERE THE CURSOR IS NOW BY A PRIVATE DRIVE THAT WILL LEAD BACK TO THE LOTS.ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OR COMMENTS THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE LEE COUNTY ENGINEER STATED THAT BECAUSE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO REMAIN IN LEE COUNTY, THEY NEEDED TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THAT LOT. AND MR. HERRING TOUCHED ON THAT A SECOND AGO. THEY GAVE TWO OPTIONS, AND I BELIEVE THEY ARE LEANING TOWARDS OPTION TWO, PROVIDING A 30-FOOT STRIP FROM LOT 12 TO BRIDLEWOOD DRIVE.
AND WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS. >> SMALLEST LOT?
>> JUST UNDER FOUR AND A HALF ACRES.
AND THE LARGEST LOT IS 15 ACRES WHICH IS THE PORTION THAT'S
GOING TO REMAIN IN THE COUNTY. >> AND THE ACCESS THROUGH THERE WITH THE POLES THROUGH THE LOTS IN THE BACK WILL BE A PRIVATE
>> ANYMORE? >> YEAH, LET ME ASK A QUESTION ABOUT PROCEDURE. CITY COMMISSION GOES WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION, SAYS NO TO THE ANNEXATION, DO WE STILL HAVE TO,
WE STILL NEED TO RULE ON THIS? >> ABSOLUTELY, YES, SIR.
>> IF I COULD NOTE, IF FOR SOME REASON THIS PROPERTY WERE NOT TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, IT CERTAINLY DOES FALL UNDER OUR PLANNING JURISDICTION AND OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
HOWEVER SINCE SOME OF THE REGULATIONS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ACTUALLY BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, FOR EXAMPLE THIS 30-FOOT REQUIREMENT, THERE WOULD BE SOME CHANGES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE TO THE PLAT AS PRESENTED IF THEY WERE, ALL OF THE LOTS WERE NOT TO COME INTO THE CITY.
>> WE WOULD TAKE ACTION ON THAT IN THE FINAL PLAT?
>> UNLESS THERE WAS SOME SORT OF MAJOR RECONFIGURATION, THAT'S
HOW I WOULD ENVISION IT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW. DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? YES, MA'AM.
>> GOOD EVENING. HOW ARE Y'ALL THIS EVENING? I'M CYNTHIA ATKINSON. MY PHYSICAL ADDRESS CURRENT ADDRESS IS 1817 -- HOWEVER, I WAS BORN AND RAISED ON IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE MAP WHERE IT SHOWS THE GARDNERS, SO OUR FAMILY IS THE CLEMENTS FAMILY, DR. BILL CLEMENTS WAS A VETERINARIAN. SO WE HAVE THE LAND, WE OWN THE LAND WHERE SHELTON COVE IS. SO WHEN HE PASSED AWAY, MY SISTER HAD THAT LAND AND SOLD IT.
WE HAD JOINED SHELTON COVE AND WE'VE COME 1,000 FEET DOWN TO THE ENTRANCE INTO THE GARDNER STABLE.
WE ARE COUNTY AND MY FATHER DIED ON THE LAND, MY MOTHER IS 85 AND IS GOING TO STAY THERE UNTIL SHE PASSES.
AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT AS A FARM FOR MANY GENERATIONS.
SO ON BEHALF OF WILL, I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WE KEEP IT AND WANT TO KEEP IT IN THE COUNTY IS I SHOWED AND TRAINED HORSES ALL MY LIFE.
WE HAD CATTLE, WE'VE HAD ALL KIND OF LIVESTOCK.
AND THERE'S A BEAUTY TO THAT. AND AS AN AMERICAN OUR PERSONAL RIGHTS, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW HOW QUITE TO SAY THIS, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE AS A LANDOWNER, THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID TO BE ABLE TO HAVE YOUR HORSES AND YOUR CATTLE.
SO I PERSONALLY DO PULL FOR MR. HERRING FOR THAT PORTION, BECAUSE IF HE'S GOING TO STAY WITHIN COMPLIANCE OF THAT, THAT'S THE AMERICAN WAY. WHY CAN'T WE HAVE OUR HORSES AND THAT KIND OF THING. SO I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I PERSONALLY AM IN FAVOR OF BEING ABLE TO HAVE THAT. AND WE'RE BASICALLY NEIGHBORS.
SO WE WERE HERE, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE WERE THE PEARSONS AND THEN GARDNERS WHEN WE ACQUIRED OUR LAND.
I WANTED TO PUT THAT THERE ON BEHALF OF HIS ACCOUNT.
[00:30:01]
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A FAIR THING. BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR ALLOWING ME TO EXPRESS THAT AND WE THANK YOU ALL FOR WHAT YOU ALL AREDOING. >> YOU'RE SAYING DON'T EXPECT YOUR PROPERTY TO COME IN FOR ANNEXATION?
>> WE DON'T EXPECT TO EVER. WE WILL DO MORE LIVESTOCK IN THE FUTURE. BUT THANK YOU ALL.
WE APPRECIATE YOU ALL. GOD BLESS Y'ALL.
>> MA'AM, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SIGNING IN RIGHT THERE.
>> I'M MICHAEL, I LIVE AT 1766 CREEKWOOD TRAIL IN AUBURN.
I SPEAK AS AN INDIVIDUAL BUT I'M ALSO PRESENT FROM THE CREEKWOOD DEVELOPERS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I'M DELIGHTED WITH THE NATURE OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THAT IT'S FEW HOUSES, IT'S LARGE LOTS, AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN CREEKWOOD.
I'M ALSO DELIGHTED AT THE PROSPECT THAT OUR ACCESS WOULD BE IMPROVED. BUT I THINK I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE MAJORITY OF OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS TO BE DEVELOPED THAT WE LIKE THIS ASPECT OF IT.
THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? IF THERE'S NOT ANYONE ELSE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND RESUME DISCUSSION. COMMISSION, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS DECISION?
IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE PP-2023-011
WITH COMMENTS. >> MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
[9. Conditional Use - Boulevard Phase 7 - PUBLIC HEARING CU-2023-015 ]
AND THE MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE CONDITIONALUSE FOR BOULEVARD PHASE 7. >> I AM NOT JOHN WHITLOW, BUT I AM PRESENTING HIS CASE FOR HIM. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, MULTIPLE-UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SUMMERHILL ROAD, SOUTH OF OLD STAGE ROAD. IT IS THE SEVENTH PHASE OF THE BOULEVARD, THE SIXTH PHASE WAS APPROVED LAST MAY I BELIEVE AND IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, ALMOST COMPLETE.
THIS PHASE WILL CONSIST OF 16 UNITS SHOWN THERE.
AND WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE CASE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE AS WELL AS THE ZONING FOR MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER HERE TO MAKE COMMENTS? WE'LL OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUBLIC INPUT.
IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE ITEM? I SEE NO ONE SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IS THERE ANY NEED FOR DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION?
>> MOVE TO APPROVE CU-2023-015 THE BOULEVARD PHASE 7, FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY NEED TO DISCUSS THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED SAY NO? AND THE MOTION CARRIES.
THAT BRINGS US TO, WE HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS THAT I KNOW OF.
I HAVE NO COMMENTS. HOW ABOUT STAFF?
>> NO
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.