Sep 14, 2023 Planning Commission

[ROLL CALL]

[CONSENT AGENDA]

[00:01:52]

IT WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN TO ORDER. WE PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS? NO OLD BUSINESS.

>> OKAY CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> MUCH TO PROVE.

>> SECOND. >> WE ARE ON TO NEW BUSINESS. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE AS WE DEAL WITH THIS CASE LAW BUT YOUR INPUT IS ONE PIECE AND ONE VARIABLE THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AS WE COPE WITH THESE ISSUES IN OUR CITY. THE OTHER ITEM THAT WE OFTEN DEAL WITH, WE HAVE SEVERAL ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS REGULATING THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR SALE. ANTHE STATE OF ALABAMA HAS GIVEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEFINAL AUTHORITY . WE DEVELOP REGULATIONS AND WHEN WE SEE A SUBDIVISION THAT APPEARS BEFORE AS OUR JOB IS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT THAT SUBDIVISION CONFORMS TO THE REGULATIONS AS FAR AS PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS WITH DEVELOPING

[1. Annexation - Thomas AX-2023-014]

THE FIRST ITEM IS THE ANNEXATION OF THE THOMAS PROPERTY.

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THE FIRST REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS ONE OF TWO ANNEXATION PETITION . THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE FAR SOUTHWEST AREA OF TOWN.

THIS IS NEAR MACON COUNTY. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING TO ANNEX A PORTION OF THE EXISTING RECORD. THAT PORTION IS A LITTLE OVER 1 ACRE.

THE INTENT OF THE REQUEST IS ONE OF TWO REQUESTS THAT ARE RELATED.

THE INTENT OF THIS REQUEST IS TO PROVIDE ACCESS AND CONTINUITY TO THE SECOND ANNEXATION REQUEST OF THE MAY ANNEXATION. THE PETITION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED MEETS THE CRITERIA. THERE IS ONE GUIDELINE FROM THE POLICY THAT'S NOTBEING MET .

THAT IS A MINIMUM ANNEXATION AREA FOR THESE 3 ACRES. FOR THAT REASON STAND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THIS PETITION. I DID WANT TO MENTION THE THREE-ACRE GUIDELINE IS NOT ENTIRELY CONSISTENT HERE BECAUSE THAT STRIP OF LAND CANNOT BECOME ITS OWN ON THE RECORD. WE DO NOT HAVE A NONCONFORMING LOT THE PETITIONER FOR THE NEXT REQUEST IS HERE. IF YOU'D LIKE TO ASK ANY

[00:05:05]

AGREED UPON HE MAY BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU SOME MORE DETAILS. >> ESSENTIALLY THE REQUEST IS

TO ANNEX JUST A PIECE OF A PARCEL. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IT WILL NOT CHANGE OWNERSHIP. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

IT WILL NOT BE SUBDIVIDED OUT. >> AS THE PETITIONER OR REPRESENTATIVE ADDRESSING THIS QUESTION THAT WILL ALLOW THE PERSON WHO HAS REQUESTED HIM TO DO THIS TO COME AND DISCUSS THE

REASONS BEHIND THIS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE OF HISTORY BEHIND THIS.

>> BEFORE YOU DO THAT PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> IS DEREK MAE.

IT'S 97 ROCHESTER ROAD IN ALABAMA. I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ABOUT HOW THIS IS COME TO BE.I WILL BE AS BRIEF AS I CAN HEAR.

IN MAY OF 2021 MY FAMILY RECEIVED DEVASTATING NEWS THAT MY GRANDDAUGHTER HAD A TYPE OF BRAIN CANCER KNOWN AS NEUROBLASTOMA. SHE REMAINED IN THE ICU FOR OVER A YEAR. AFTER NUMEROUS BRAIN SURGERIES, CHEMOTHERAPY AND BONE MARROW TRANSPLANT SHE WAS FINALLY ABLE TO COME HOME. NEVIS PARENTS NEVER LEFT HER SIDE THEY WERE WITH HER THE ENTIRE TIME. NOVA ALSO HAS A FIVE-YEAR-OLD BROTHER, A THREE-YEAR-OLD SISTER. THE DOCTORS IN BIRMINGHAM ARE TALKING ABOUT LETTING HER COME HOME. WE HAD TO FIGURE OUT SOMEWHERE IN TIME TO GO. A NEW MOBILE HOME OUT ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY SO THEY HAVE TO ASK WHERE TO BRING HOME TWO. I HIRE BRIAN FROM THE ENGINEERING GROUP TO COME IN AND THEY WORK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS WELL.THEY TRY TO MAKE SURE WE MET THE REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES. THE EXHIBIT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WAS INITIALLY APPROVED. LATER THE THREE-ACRE GUIDELINE CAME UP WHICH IN MY OPINION DOES NOT COMPLY IN THIS CASE. THE INTENT OF THAT I'M SURE HE CAN EXPLAIN IT BETTER THAN I CAN. THE INTENT OF IT IS SO THAT IT WOULD NOT CREATE NONCONFORMITY.

THE INTENT OF THE GUIDELINE IS TO AVOID THE CREATION OF AN ISOLATED LAND AREA WHICH COULD BECOME A RECORD. IT CANNOT BE ABOUT TO START WITH.

THE THREE-ACRE GUIDELINE I'M NOT SURE APPLIES IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

ICT USE BUT I DON'T SEE ITS USE HERE. I DON'T SEE HOW THIS COULD BE USED IN THAT REGARD IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I AM MAINLY STRICTLY ASKED TO BE TREATED AS AN EQUAL PARTY. I'M ASKING YOU TO DO ANYTHING UNPRECEDENTED.

THIS HAS BEEN DONE HERE BEFORE. THIS IS OVER 1.57 ACRES. BASICALLY THE SAME THING WE ARE

[00:10:07]

>> WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. >> TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THE GRANDDAUGHTER THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIVES ON THE PROPERTY FACING THE ROAD 137.

>>. AYES, SIR. Q.THE 3??

>> YOU'RE ASKING FOR THIS TO BECOME CONTINUOUS INTO THE CITY.

X CORRECT. IF THE LOT TWO FAILS I LOSE CAN TAKE WHAT YOU WHICH MEANS IT'S A BIG THING FOR ME. I THINK THEY HAVE ENOUGH TO WORRY ABOUT.

I THINK WE CAN USE WORDS TO MOVE THEM AROUND HOWEVER WE WANT TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT'S CLEARLY NOT APPLIED CORRECTLY BECAUSE THAT STEM CANNOT BE

CREATED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. ME. >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE STAFF

GIVE US SOME MORE ON THAT. >> PRIOR TO 2012 THE CITY DID NOT HAVE NUTRITION POLICY ANNEXATION TO JUST GO THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

ANNEXATION GUIDELINES AND POLICIES WERE ADOPTED TO TRY TO LIMIT THE SPRAWLING CITY LIMITS OR SITUATIONS LIKE THIS PIECE WHICH WAS DONE IN 2006. THE MAYOR REFERRED TO A MEANS GOING A THOUSAND FEET OR MORE TO CONNECT PROPERTIES THAT ARE INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED.

THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO GIVE SUBDIVISION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THIS CASE IT'S ONE PROPERTY OWNER WITH NO INTENT OF DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY. THE LOT WAS NEXT IN THE CITY LIMITS. THEN ON THE LOT SIZE IS 3 ACRES.

IN A SITUATION WHERE LESS THAN 3 ACRES ARE CARVED OUT AND CREATED AS ITS OWN LOT IT WOULD

BE NONCONFORMING. >> THIS WAS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING SO IS THERE ANY PUBFURT DISCUSSION?F NOT IS THERE ANYONE PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> I WILL MOVE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE ANNEXATION FOR 2023 ? 014 MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE IS THERE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND IS ANYONE THAT WISHES TO DISCUSS THE MOTION? THE MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND TO

COUNSEL THAT IS ANNEXATION REQUEST BE APPROVED. >> I HAVE A LITTLE BIT ON THIS.IT DOESN'T CONFORM THE ANNEXATION POLPOLICY. I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS BEEN DONE BEFORE. IS THERE SOME WAY IF WE APPROVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS CREATING A NONCONFORMITY, THIS IS KIND OF A SPECIAL CONDITION AND IT IS NOTED THAT WAY.

AS WE COME UP TO ANOTHER THING LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE WE WILL HAVE SOME REASON TO MAYBE

[00:15:07]

DISPUTE THAT FOR REASONS. >> WE HAVE IN THE PAST PLACED NOTES IN THE MINUTES WITH THIS

AND WE ARE CONSIDERING THAT AS A HARDSHIP EXCEPTION. >> ANOTHER THE PERSON THAT OWNS THIS IS NOT HERE. SHOULD HE OR SHE DECIDE IN THE FUTURE TO SUBDIVIDE THIS?

IT'S CONTIGUOUS AND HE CANNOT DO THAT. >> HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO

SUBDIVIDE THAT LAND. >> HE WAS CONTINUOUS ON ONE SIDE THAT MAKES EVERYONE

CONTINUOUS AND SUBDIVIDED. >> IT HAS TO BE NO LONGER THAN A 750 FEE.

AN OWNER WAS WILLING TO DO. HE'S NOT WILLING TO DO THAT. >> HE'S NOT WILLING TO DO 3

ACRES. >> THAT'S CORRECT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. DOESN'T PHASE OF THE MOVE

MOTION SAY AYE. >> AYE. THE MOTION CARRIES.

CAN WE CALL THE REAL. >>.

[2. Annexation - May AX-2023-013]

>>> THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS THE MAY ANNEXATION WHICH IS THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE JUST

DISCUSSED. >> THAT IS CORRECT. THIS IS THE PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. MAY WHICH IS 3 ACRES. IF THE PREVIOUS ANNEXATION IS APPROVED BY COUNCIL IT WOULD THEN BE CONTIGUOUS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANYBODY WISH TO DISCUSS THIS? IS ANYONE PREPARED TO MAKE A

MOTION? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A X ? 2023 ? 013.

>> SECOND. >> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.

THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE THE SUPPOSED SAY NUMBER WHEN YOU COMPILE THE MINUTES AND THE PART THAT MANY OF US CONSIDER THIS TO BE AN UNUSUAL CASE. THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS.

[3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Brewpub & Swimming Pools - PUBLIC HEARING ZT-2023-002]

>> THIS IS A REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF AUBURN TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR GROBREWPUBS AND SWIMMING POOLS. THE CHANGES ARE PRETTY MINOR.

IT IS A CHANGE TO THE DEFINITION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

BASICALLY JUST REFLECT MORE CLOSELY WHAT'S IN THE STATE CODE OF ALABAMA.

ON THE SWIMMING POOL AS IT IS A CHANGE. THE BIGGEST CHANGES TO ELIMINATE ANY SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FROM THE HOME TO THE POOL.

THE CURRENT CODE REQUIRES A 10 FOOT SEPARATION AND THE BUILDING CODE ALLOWS MUCH CLOSER AND DIFFERENT DISTANCES DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION. BASICALLY WE WANT TO REMOVE THAT FROM OUR ZONING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT'S REDUNDANT OR RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT THE BUILDING CODE WOULD REQUIRE.THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M HAPPY TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> NOW IT'S TIME TO CONSIDER CHANGING.

THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING SO IF THERE IS ANYONE HERE THAT WISHES TO ASK QUESTIONS OR RAISE ISSUES REGARDING THESE TWO ITEMS PLEASE COME FORWARD. NOW AND IS COMING SO WE WILL

[00:20:01]

>> AND MOVE TO APPROVE ZT ? 2023 ? 02. >> SECOND.

[4. Rezoning - District at Richland PDD - PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-012]

THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE THE MOTION CARRIES NOW WE COME TO THE REZONING OF

RICHLAND PDD. >> THIS IS A REQUEST TO APPLY THE DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PARKWAY AND RICHMOND ROAD. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN UNDEVELOPED SINCE 1984 WHEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS FIRST ADOPTED. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS MASTER PLANNED MIXED-USE TO THE NORTH WITH THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WITH GATEWAY COMMERCIAL . THE REMAINING SOUTHERN PORTION IS DESIGNATED BACK IN 2011.

ASK THE REQUESTED 275 MULTI- RESIDENTIAL USES THAT CONSIST OF DUPLEXES, TOWNHOME STYLE UNITS AND FLATS IN ADDITION TO 20,000 FT.? OF COMMERCIAL SPACE.

THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BROKEN UP INTO TWO PHASES WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION COMMENCING FIRST. THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USES WILL BE IN THE NEXT REQUEST.

THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT OF CDD DOES ALLOW FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND TOWNHOME USES BY RIGHT AS WELL AS MANY COMMERCIAL USES BY RATE. JUST AN EXAMPLE THE PATRICK PACKAGE TARGET RESTAURANTS, BUT NERI OFFICE AND MATERIAL SALES, CONVENIENCE STORES WHICH WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL.

THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION TO CONSTRUCT A MORE COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT SUITABLE FOR THE AREA. THESE ARE THE DUPLEXES, TOWNHOMES ARE RIGHT THEREBY RICHMOND ROAD AND THE FLATS BUILDING IS IN THE CENTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT HAS CREATED A TRANSITION FROM THE STANCE WITH THE DIVISION FOR HIGHER DENSITY WHICH IS FURTHER AWAY IN THE CENTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT.THE UNDERLYING ZONING ALLOWS MAXIMUM OF 5.0 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE HOWEVER THE PROJECT PROPOSES 9.8 PER ACRE. THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING A TOTAL OF 8.33 TOTAL ACRES OF OPEN SPACE WHICH IS MORE THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 6 ACRES IN THE CDD ZONING DISTRICTS.

THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM 30 FOOT UNDISTURBED BUFFER WITH THE SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST.

THERE IS A REQUIRED 15 FOOT BUFFER ALONG RICHLAND AND SHOOK STREET FRONTAGES.

>> AND ME TO GO THROUGH THE RENDERINGS HERE. THAT'S THE MAIN ENTRANCE WITH THE COMMERCIAL ANDTOWNHOMES . THAT'S THE COMMERCIAL AND THE TOWNHOMES.

THIS IS THE COMMERCIAL PORTION TOWNHOMES ALONG RICHLAND. DUE TO SIGNIFICANT TOPOGRAPHY CHANGES THESE TOWNHOMES WILL SET LOWER THAN RICHMOND ROAD. THE DUPLEXES.

THIS IS THE TOWNHOME IS AT THE DUPLEXES AT THE TOWNHOMES AS WILL WHICH WILL BE 20 FEET IN HEIGHT. THESE ARE THE FLATS WHICH ARE APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET IN HEIGHT. THIS IS JUST A BREAKDOWN OF THE UNIT.

THERE IS GOING TO BE 29 ONE-BEDROOM UNITS. 42 BEDROOM UNITS AND 155 THREE-BEDROOM UNITS. AND 26 FOUR BEDROOM UNITS. STAFF RECOMMENDS FORWARDING REQUESTS TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR COMMENTS.

I WILL NOTE SOME OF THE COMMENTS HERE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF A 30 FOOT BUFFER TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.

THE APPLICANT ALSO AND THE DEVELOPER MUST MEET STANDARDS FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

>> ONE THING I WILL MAKE CLEA . IT TOOK ABOUT FLATS.

[00:25:12]

>> DOES THE DEVELOPER HERE WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? >> NOT AT THIS TIME.

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF AT THIS TIME?

>> WE WENT TO ASK ANYONE THAT WISHES TO COME FORWARD WHEN IT'S TIME TO COME FORWARD AND I WILL CALL ON YOU. BEFORE YOU GET TO THE PODIUM OR AFTER YOU LEAVE THE PODIUM PLEASE SIGN IN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. WE WILL ASK YOU TO HOLD YOUR

COMMENTARY TO FIVE MINUTES. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS

REGARDING THE PROPOSAL MITCH AND BUZZY AT 11 3701 IN AUBURN. >> WE JUST HAD A QUESTION AND SOME COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFORTS. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE STAFF ARE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT FOR THE APPROVAL THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. WITH THAT BEING SAID THE CURRENT PLAN IS BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL. IT DOES NOT MAKE IT A PLAN SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY A

TRAFFIC STUDY WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION. >> IS AT A QUESTION?

>>. AYES, SIR. Q?

>> THE STAFF HAS RECEIVED THA . QUICK SOME OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE REGARDING THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS THAT IT WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT.

THERE IS CURRENTLY 19 OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS OFF OF THE INTERSECTION. THE ABSENCE AND AT LEAST A RIGHT OF WAY OR THE DRIVEWAY IN MY OPINION ORDERS MALPRACTICE. YOU MENTIONED WITH THE FLATS AND SINGLE TOWNHOMES IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT THERE AND THAT'S GONNA PUT AN ENORMOUS STRAIN ON RICHMOND DURING PEAK HOURS IF ANYBODY THAT'S DRIVEN UP AND DOWN WILL TELL YOU THAT IT'S ALREADY AT OR NEAR CAPACITY.

IN MY OPINION THE APPLICATION IS LITERALLY SLAC: IT COMES TO ADDRESSING THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT. I UNDERSTAND THE TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN CREATED.

THE PACKET IS SUPPOSED TO CLEARLY COMMUNICATE THE TRIPS GENERATED BY THE PROPOSAL AND THIS ONE DOES NOT. THERE'S 275 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH A FINAL POPULATION OF 713 PEOPLE. IT WOULD PROVIDE 780 PARKING SPOTS AND ANYONE THAT'S DRIVEN UP AND DOWN RICHMOND RIGHT NOW DURING PEAK HOURS ALREADY KNOWS IT'S AT CAPACITY.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE WAS NEVER A CONSIDERATION FOR AN EGRESS AND INGRESS.

I'M ABOUT DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH. I THINK IT'S AWESOME AND I'D LOVE TO SEE MORE RETAIL IN THEIR. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE RETAIL IN THEIR ALONG WITH THE HOMES INSTEAD OF LEAVING THOSE BUILDINGS MD FOR FUTURE DATES.

MY BIGGEST CONCERN AND WORRY IS THE TRAFFIC OFF OF RICHMOND IF WE COULD PLEASE CONSIDER ADDING

SOMETHING I THINK THAT WOULD BENEFIT EVERYONE. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> AND ROBIN FELL AS I LIVE AT 65 92 VILLAS WAY AND A CONDOMINIUM.

[00:30:01]

WE ARE HERE. WE ARE HERE TO BE RECOGNIZED AND TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS.

I TALK FUNNY BECAUSE I'M FROM NEW ZEALAND BUT I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND DAVE LIVE IN AUBURN FOR 35 YEARS. I THINK I HAVE ENOUGH CREDENTIALS TO OVERCOME.

I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPING THIS LAND. I AM OPPOSED TO THE HIGH DENSITY. I THINK THAT LOW TO MODERATE DENSITY IS MUCH MORE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT IS DEVELOPED AROUND IT. I HEAR TELL THAT IT WAS ALREADY ZONED FOR THIS KIND OF THING YEARS AND YEARS AGO. I THINK THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAS DEVELOPED AROUND IT IT'S A SHAME AT WHAT HIGH DENSITY ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY ESPECIALLY AS THE GENTLEMAN HAS POINTED OUT. THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC ON THAT PARTICULAR PORTION OF RICHLAND ROAD AT CERTAIN TIMES OF THE DAY.

THERE ARE TRAFFICS TO SCHOOLS THAT COME ALONG THERE. THERE'S PEOPLE GOING TO WORK AT THE UNIVERSITY AND IN TOWN AT THE ROUNDABOUT. BETWEEN SEVEN AND EIGHT IN THE MORNING IT'S PRETTY TENSE. THAT WOULD BE THE TIME THAT 780 PACKING PLACES POTENTIALLY COULD BE EMPTYING OUT OF THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IF IT IS PUT IN AS PROPOSED.

I WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE PRESENTATION HERE.

780 PACKING PLACES.PLUS A PROPOSAL FOR A 110 IN THE RETAIL SECTION.

IT'S NOT QUITE CLEAR IN THE NARRATIVE WITH THE PROPOSAL OR THE 780 INCLUDES THAT 110 DON'T THINK IT DOES. I THINK WE ARE LOOKING AT MAYBE 890 PACKING SPACES.

I JUST WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT. WHERE IS QUITE NARROW AND IT HAS UNFORTUNATE CURVES AND IT. ON OUR LEFT HAND TURN SORT OF LIKE THIS AND YOU TAKE YOUR LIFE IN YOUR HANDS WHEN YOU MOVE INTO 70 CAN IMAGINE WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE.

WITH 780 PACKING SPACES THE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE AS WE HAVE HAD A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT. IN THE SCHOOL PARKING LOT AT RICHMOND ELEMENTARY.

THERE IS NOT MUCH INFORMATION THAT FLOATS ABOUT IT BUT THERE WERE GUNSHOTS.

THERE WERE CHILDREN BEING DROPPED OFF IN SCHOOL BUSES AND OUT OF PARENTS CARS AT THE TIME. IT WAS A BIG DEAL AND THE HELICOPTERS CAME IN I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY POLICE ARRIVED. IT WAS JUST AMAZING AND HORRIFYING.

IT IS HAPPENED IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. I HOPE IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN BUT IN THIS DAY AND AGE YOU JUST DON'T KNOW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? >> MY NAME IS STEVE GUENTHER. 688 VILLAS WAY.

AND TO THINK MY ESTEEMED NEIGHBOR FOR SOME FINE WORDS. I JUST WANT TO HIT A COUPLE MORE THINGS. WE DID MENTION THAT THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE.

AT WHAT TIME DID WE DO THE TRAFFIC STUDY? >> WILL GET THOSE ANSWERS FOR

YOU IN A SECOND. >> THE DENSITY IS GOING TO BE INCREASED DRAMATICALLY.

THAT'S ONE THING THAT NO OTHER PLACE ON THAT ROAD THAT HAS THAT BIG OF DENSITY.

[00:35:05]

DOING A LEFT TURN ON CURVES AND RICHMOND ROAD IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.

YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THAT WITH THOSE CARS. AS THE FIRST GENTLEMAN SAID POSSIBLY HAVING THE EXITS AND ENTRANCES THEN SHOOK MIGHT BE THE ANSWER IF YOU WANT TO

CONSIDER THIS DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THAT LADY IN THE RIGHT WHAT

THE WHITE BLOUSE. >> MY NAME IS DOROTHY KELMAN AND I LIVE AT 48 VILLAS WAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE WHAT MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID. THERE IS VERY MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT 700 MORE CARS COMING ONTO RICHMOND ROAD IN THE MORNING AND IN THE EVENING.

OUR CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX IS HERE NEXT TO US.THAT IS A LOT OF CARS COMING AND GOING.

THERE'S JUST A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA. OUR LEFT TURN LANE IS KIND OF IN A CURVE. I CAN IMAGINE IT BEING 700 MORE CARS ON THE ROAD.

THERE ARE MANY TIMES IN THE MORNING WHEN I'M TRAVELING TO WORK THAT I HAVE TO WAIT TWO OR THREE MINUTES TO TURN OUT OF MY COMPLEX BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOL TRAFFIC.

ANOTHER ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THERE EVEN IN? WE HAVE EMPTY RETAIL SPACE.

I KNOW THAT'S NOT MY AREA BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF THIS TYPE OF BUILDING GOING ON.

THAT WAS EVERYTHING I HAVE TO SAY. >> I'M JOAN DARROW AND I LIVE IT 2446 CHURCHILL SERCIRCLE. THE GREATEST CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC.

THE EXIT LAYER AS FAR AS I CAN TELL IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM SOME EXISTING APARTMENTS.

IF YOU'VE NEVER TRAVELED TO SCHOOLS TRAFFIC BACKS UP. I DON'T SEE HOW THESE PEOPLE CAN EVEN GET OUT THAT LIVING THERE. PLUS, IT IS NOT THAT FAR FROM THE TRAFFIC LIGHT AT SHOOK AND RICHLAND. AS IT STANDS NOW I'M TOTALLY AGAINST THIS DEVELOPMENT. I DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORS.

>> THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME MY NAME IS CHRIS PATTON. I'M A RESIDENT OF COX FALLS.

[00:40:09]

IT'S SICK SIGNIFICANT TIME COMMITMENT TO GET OUT. IT'S ALMOST BETTER TO WAIT UNTIL SCHOOL IS ALREADY AND THEN LEAVE BECAUSE IT WILL BE OF MUCH QUICKER.

THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO EXIT THE DEVELOPMENTS. TURNING LEFT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBILITY BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC BACKS UP FROM THE LIGHT AND DUE TO SCHOOL TRAFFIC. I WOULD ALSO STATE THAT AS FAR AS RESIDENTS THAT LIVE HERE THERE IS NOT A LARGE SIDEWALK THAT LIVE ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET ACCORDING TO ACCOMMODATE THEM WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO CROSS IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT TRAFFIC AND THAT IS DEFINITELY AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. WHEN AN ACCIDENT HAPPENS HERE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC BEING STOPPED THAT EMERGENCY VEHICLES I CAN HAVE A TOUGH TIME ACCESSING IT. I'M ALSO A LITTLE CONCERNED AND I DON'T KNOW IF THESE ARE RUMORS THAT IT'S THE FIRE STATION WHICH IS ONE OF OUR FIRST RESPONDERS JUST ACROSS THE STREET. WILL THEY BE MOVED OR OTHERWISE SHUT DOWN.

IF THAT IS THE CASE AND WE DON'T HAVE FIRST RESPONDERS IN THE AREA TO SERVICE WHEN AN ACCIDENT HAPPENS I WOULD ASK THAT THE PLANET COMMISSION TAKE A LOOK TO THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. I'M EXCITED ABOUT HAVING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS I TALKED TO ARE EXCITED ABOUT THAT AS WELL.E ARE JUST CONCERNED THAT UNLESS THERE IS INGRESS OR EGRESS FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT IT'S GOING TO IMPACT NOT ONLY OUR LOTS BUT THE LOTS OF OUR NEW RESIDENCE. I ASKED THE COMMISSION TO PLEASE CONSIDER THIS THANK YOU.

IS ANYONE ELSE? >> I MAY HAVE A BREACH OF PROTOCOL THIS IS UNUSUAL.

A RICHMOND ROAD RESIDENT IS OUT OF STEAK AND ASKED IF I WOULD READ A STATEMENT FOR HIM.

>> KEEP IT WITHIN THE TIME AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE A COPY OF HIS NAME.

>> IT WILL TAKE A MINUTE OR A MINUTE AND HALF HE TEXTED IT TO ME.

WHAT'S MY NAME IS MIKE CRUMPLER I AM THE GROUCHY TROLL THAT LIVES UNDER THE BRIDGE THERE.

THIS TEXT MAY JUST IS FROM RICK HAVEN WHO IS DOING WORK IN THE MACKENZIE AREA.

HE ASKED ME IF I WOULD READ THIS FOR HIM. THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD A MULTIPURPOSE DEVELOPMENT. I AM AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL IS CURRENTLY LAID OUT.I'M AGAINST THE FACT THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT EVER ASKING THE NEIGHBORS ON RICHLAND ROAD FOR THEIR THOUGHTS AND INPUT.

I WOULD HOPE MY COUNCILMAN AND THIS COMMISSION WITH AT THE VERY LEAST WHAT A POST-POSTPONE IMPROVING THIS UNTIL RESIDENTS ARE ALLOWED TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS.

IT IS A ROAD THAT IS CONSTANTLY USED BY WALKERS, RUNNERS AND FAMILIES.

[00:45:23]

WE WILL BARTER PBROADER PROPERT 1999. TRAFFIC IS A HUGE PROBLEM SINCE THEN. WISH I HAD KNOWN EARLIER HAVE A PICTURE BUT IT SHOULD HAVE SUBMITTED SITTING IN MR. HAGAN'S DRIVEWAY 1.2 MILES FROM THE INTERSECTION. TRAFFIC WAS BACKED UP 1.2 MILE AT 7:53 AM. IT'S JUST INCREDIBLE. AT 7:00 I CAN'T GET OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY.I'M GONE BY 6:45 AM. A FEW WEEKS AGO THERE WAS A ZOOM CALL WITH DEVELOPERS AND WE GOT TO HEAR THEIR PRESENTATIONS. WE GAVE OUR INPUT.

WHY CAN WE NOT PUT EXITS ON TO THIS ROAD. PART OF THIS FRANCE WAS THERE'S A TRAFFIC LIGHT THERE AND I WILL BACK TRAFFIC UP. IF THEY ARE MAKING OUR POINT AND TRAFFIC IS AN ISSUE AND WHAT THEY DO IS MOVE FROM SHOGUN TO RICHMOND ROAD IT'S THE SAME TRAFFIC LIGHT IS THE PREVIOUSLY NOTED THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RICHLAND. THERE ARE TWO WAYS OUT AND IF YOU TURN TO THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR CHILDREN THERE YOU'RE TRYING TO MERGE INTO TRAFFIC WHICH IS BACKED UP INTO THE TURNING LANE I AM NOT AGAINST IT DEVELOPMENT BUT IT IS ILL-CONCEIVED.

ONCE THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO.

THE DEVELOPER WILL COME IN AND LEAVE AND WE THE RESIDENTS ARE LEFT TO DEAL WITH THE MESS AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN FIX. THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER WAY THAT WE CAN DIVERT TRAFFIC. CERTAINLY THERE'S A WAY YOU COULD DO IT WITH THE ANGLE LAST STEEP THAT IT IS. THERE IS EASILY NO WAY YOU CAN PUT IT TO ALLEVIATE THIS PROBLEM. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME FOR LETTING ME READ.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS NOT RAY. 2923 MONTANA WAY.

SAYS IN THE DAKOTA SUBDIVISION OFF OF RICHLAND. MY COLLEAGUE DOCTOR BRENNA SIMMONS IS HERE WITH THE HOA. WE PULLED OUR OWNERS AND WOULD LIKE TO JUST MAKE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS.FIRST WE RESPECT THE RIGHT FOR THE DEVELOPER TO MAXIMIZE THE VALUE AND CREATE A NICE ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY. AS THE OTHER CITIZENS HAVE SAID WE AGREE WITH THE TRAFFIC CLOCK THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE AND EVEN ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY INTERSECTION WHICH WILL CREATE AN UNBEARABLE SITUATION. WE UNDERSTAND AND I ATTENDED THE DIGITAL VERSION HEARING THAT THE DEVELOPER WAS GOING TO DO AND WE DID ASK HIM WHY NOT AN ENTRANCE ON SHOGUN THEY SAID THE STATE OF ALABAMA CONTROL SATURDAY THEIR REPLY TO THAT

[00:50:09]

AGAIN LIKE OUR FELLOW CITIZENS WE THINK THAT THIS PROJECT CAN WORK BUT IT LEADS INGRESS AND EGRESS.ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVEN'T EVEN ASKED YET. TO MY NEW ZEALAND CITIZENS I PICK THE RUGBY WORLD CUP TO WIN. IN QUEUE.

>> WE UNDERSTAND TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE AND WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAS SOMETHING MORE TO ADD? >> SHERRY GUNTER I'M ALSO HERE. THE SECOND EXIT AND I FEEL THAT ONE HAS MENTIONED IT.

YOU ARE TALKING ONLY LEFT-HAND TURNS BASICALLY AND THEY ARE SAYING THE EXITS ARE GOING TO BE RIGHT ON THE SIDE OF THE FLASHING LIGHTS. AGAIN I DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT CONSTRUCTION. I KNOW A LOT ABOUT KIDS IN SCHOOL ZONES.

I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. IT'S NOT WISE AND OLDER AND WE DON'T DO THAT.

THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> I AM KENNETH BAKER.

I LIVE AT 1252 S. RIDGE COURT. MY PROPERTY BACKS UP TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY. WHO IS THE ACTUAL PROPERTY

OWNER? >> WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT AS SOON AS WE FINISH WITH THIS.

WHOEVER OWNS IT HAS THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHO OWNED IT. >> ANOTHER QUESTION IS HAS

THERE BEEN A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT? >> IT'S 30 ACRES IN THE

DEVELOPMENT.>> WE WILL FIND OUT IN A MINUTE. >> I HAD ONE CONCERN.

THIS 30 ACRES OF STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THE PROPOSED 30 ACRE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING THE LABOR AND PARKING WITH UNPAVED LAND AND ULTIMATELY 75 STRUCTURES AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WILL BE CONFINED TO THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTLY TO YOUR ATTENTION.

HER SUBDIVISION AT CEDAR POINT CURRENTLY DOES GET ON THIS PROPERTY AND IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT COME BY I WILL GET IT RIGHT HERE AND SHOW YOU. AN EXHIBIT EXAMPLE 1 INCH OF STORM WATER WITH 1 ACRE IS EQUAL TO 27,150.29 GALLONS. THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS DENSELY PARSED. I KNOW BECAUSE THEY COME ONTO MY PROPERTY IN THAT AREA.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS HERE IS NONE OF THE CEDAR POINT RESIDENCE BACK UP TO THIS.

THEY DON'T CARE OR EXPERIENCE THE INITIAL LEVEL OF THE 275. I QUESTION WHETHER A 30 YARD

[00:55:11]

THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE VEHICLES FOR THE COMMERCIAL AREA.

I THINK THAT COVERS EVERYTHING. >> THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.

>> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I SEEN I WENT TO A CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION.

WE HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SHOOK EXIT. SEVERAL MENTIONED THAT ON THE STATE HIGHWAY.

>> ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I TALKED TO THE ENGINEER ABOUT IS TO MAKE A FORMAL REQUEST.

WE THINK THAT BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE IT MAY BE A RIGHT AND RIGHT OUT.

THAT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE LEFT AND AT THIS LOCATION DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE TRAFFIC

SIGNAL. >> TO THE PARKING SPACES INCLUDE THE DETAIL?

>> IT LOOKS LIKE THE SITE PLAN INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL SPACES. >> WE HAVE RECEIVED A PRELIMINARY STUDY IN SEPTEMBER 2022. THE CONSULTANT THAT THAT THE STUDY OUT OF BIRMINGHAM ALSO DID THE ANALYSIS FOR THE WILLIAM BUECHNER PARKWAY.

THEY USE SOME OF THOSE SAME COUNTS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES ALLOW THEM TO BE USED WITHIN

TWO YEARS OF THE SAME AREA SO THE COUNTS ARE VALID. >> YOU KNOW WHAT TIME OF DAY?

>> IT WAS SEPTEMBER 2022. >> IT HAPPENS AT VARIOUS TIMES BASED ON THE GUIDELINES.

>> BASED ON THIS BEING A REZONING AND NOT AN ANNEXATION PLATTER THERE'S A LOT THAT I

WILL GET. IS THIS REQUIRED FOR REZONING? >> TYPICALLY AT THIS STAGE IN A PROJECT WE DO NOT HAVE A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. WE ENCOURAGE PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS BUT IT WOULD BE A CONCERN FOR A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PD ZONING.

QUICK SOMEONE ASK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC STUDY. RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GEARED TOWARDS MITIGATING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. AND SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT THIS IS A QUESTION THAT WHATEVER THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WE WILL IMPLEMENT THEM.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> THAT'S PART OF OUR STAFF REVIEW.

IF MITIGATION MEASURES ARE REQUIRED TO DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES WHETHER THEY BE TIMING CHANGES, LIENS, PRINT PERHAPS REDUCING THE SIZE AND SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT TO REDUCE THE IMPACT BUT THAT'S PART OF OUR STAFF REVIEW AND DETERMINING IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS SUITABLE IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE ADJACENT CAN HANDLE IT I DID ASKED THE OTHER DAY ABOUT THE DEVELOPERS REQUESTING.

[01:00:50]

IS THAT THEREFORE A REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO DO? >> I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT REQUIRED. THE WAY WE EVALUATE ACCESS POINT IS WE WOULD LOOK AT THE CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE AT THOSE TWO DRIVEWAYS. IF THOSE ARE ACCEPTABLE BASED ON TRAFFIC STANDARDS THEN WE WOULD SAY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ACCESS POINTS ARE SUFFICIENT.

>> I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS WHAT I HEARD WAS THEY HAD NOT ASKED.I JUST FEEL LIKE THEY

SHOULD AT LEAST INQUIRE. >> THE WAY ALL THAT WORKS. YOU CAN ASK AHEAD OF TIME.

THE OUTSIDE IS PRETTY REGIMENTED IN THAT YOU'D HAVE TO SUBMIT A FULL DESIGN PACKAGE TO THEM FOR THEY GAVE YOU AN OFFICIAL YES, SIR NUMBER FROM A DEVELOPER STANDPOINT I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THEM. THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO A LOT OF WORK IN ORDER TO EVEN GET A FORMAL SUBMITTAL AND GET A RESPONSE.ALL THAT WOULD PROBABLY NOT SAY YES, SIR NO

COMPANY BASED ON THE SCHEMATIC LAYOUT. >> YOU WOULD YOU MIND ADDRESSING WHAT IS RIGHT IN THE SPACE?WITHOUT A HEARING OR PLANNING.

WITHOUT CITY COUNCIL BLARING. WHEN THEY ASK WHAT IS ALLOWED? >> CDD ALLOW SINGLE-FAMILY AND TOWNHOME USES BY RIGHT AS WELL AS MANY COMMERCIAL USES SUCH AS A PACKAGE STORE, RESTAURANT,

VETERINARY OFFICE AND CONVENIENCE STORES. >> IS THE THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO COME IN AND PUT 275 MULTI-UNITS ON HIS PROPERTY HE COULD DO THAT?

>> . >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> ONE NOTE TO THAT.

FOR ANY MULTIFAMILY THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A CONDITIONAL USE.

THE DENSITY CERTAINLY ALLOWS FOR A TOWNHOME SIMPLE TOWNHOME. WHAT IS A PLAN FOR THIS BEING

EXTENDED? >> THE PLAN IS TO CONNECTED TO THE OUTER LOOP WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY ENTER RICHMOND ROAD AT THE EXISTING AND JUST BEFORE THE TREATMENT PLANT AND GO

NORTH AND SOUTH. IT WILL END WHERE IT ENDS NOW. >> WHAT IS A GENERAL TIMEFRAME

FOR THAT? >> WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE A SCHEDULE FOR THE OUTER LOOP.

WE TYPICALLY DISCUSS IT WITH THE CITY MANAGER DURING OUR BUDGET PROCESS.ASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL REVISIT PROBABLY IN A YEAR OR TWO AND

IT CAME UP RECENTLY AT THE NORTH END. >> SHOULD THE TRAFFIC STUDY

[01:05:21]

>> WE WOULDN'T REALLY HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY WITH THE STATE ALLOWING THOSE CHANGES TO TAKE

PLACE. >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PERMITTING

PROCESS AND REQUEST PERMISSION TO DO THOSE CHANGES. >> ESTATE TYPICALLY REQUIRES FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS IF THEY WERE TO SUBMIT A PUMP PERMIT THE STATE WOULD REQUIRE THE

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO SUPPORT THAT REQUEST. >> ARE WE STILL IN TRAFFIC?

>> IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN TRAFFIC. >> NO.

>> I HEARD A LOT ABOUT HOW RICHLAND IS SO TRAFFIC ISSUES IN TERMS OF CAPACITY.

CAN YOU CHARACTERIZE WHAT LEVEL OF CAPACITY IT'S AT NOON? IS IT 110%? OR IS IT 50%? HOW MUCH CANNOT GROW WITHOUT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT OF

RICHMOND ROAD? >> I DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL NUMBER.

>> A THREE LANE CAN CARRY ALMOST 13,000 VEHICLES PER DAY. AND STILL MAKE CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER FOR THE ROAD RIGHT NOW.

>> BASED ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WE RECEIVED ON THE WORK WE'VE DONE AT THE

INTERSECTION IT IS SUFFICIENT. >> CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING THEM SORRY.

>> I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND THE ENGINEER WHAT THEIR ANSWERS ARE TO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. QUICK SPIRIT SINCE THEN. EXCUSE ME FOR BRINGING THIS I WAS TRYING TO TAKE NOTES ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS THAT I HIRED. A FEW OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HEARD A COUPLE I CAN HANDLE VERY QUICKLY. ONE WAS A STORMWATER AGAINST THE CIPRO POINTE SUBDIVISION NORTH. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU A SET OF CROSS-SECTIONS THAT SHOW THE BUFFER AND WE PROPOSED TO LEAVE IT UNDISTURBED.

IT IS OVER AND ABOVE THE REQUIRED EFFORT. SINCE THAT TIME WE'VE DONE SOME PRELIMINARY GRADING AND THE GRADING DESIGN AND REALIZE THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY CONTINUE TO EXPAND THAT BUFFER. REALLY WHAT WE FOUND SO FAR IS THE MINIMUM BUFFER IS GOING TO BE ABOUT 50 FEET TO THE NORTH AND IN SOME PLACES BEGETS UP INTO PROBABLY THE 80 FOOT RANGE. WE WILL LEAVE WHATEVER WE CAN AND TRY TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

AS FAR AS THE BUFFER, THAT WOULD KIND OF COVER THAT STORMWATER IN THE SAME LOCATIO . WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO IS THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF STORM WATER RUNNING OFF OF THIS PROPERTY TO THE NORTH CURRENTLY AND INTO THE NEIGHBORING SUBDIVISION. WHEN OUR PROPOSAL IS TO ACTUALLY CUT THAT STORMWATER OFF AT THE EDGE OF THE BUFFER. THIS RUNOFF WILL BE DECREASED SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE WE WILL

[01:10:01]

I WAS REALLY EXCITED ABOUT SEEING WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO. LIZ HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS.

I THINK THIS COMMISSION AND SOME OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES SAW THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE STARTED ALMOST A YEAR AGO. AT ONE POINT IT WAS SUBMITTED AS A TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION. I THINK ESSENTIALLY THE SAME DENSITY.

DURING THE TIME TO THE FEEDBACK WHICH WE RECEIVED BECAUSE WE REALLY WOULD LIKE SOME NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. SOMETHING THAT BRINGS MORE THAN JUST ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS TO THE AREA. SOMETHING THAT THE RESIDENCE CAN UTILIZE AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE THIS COMMERCIAL CONCEPT CAME FROM. WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE COULD TO ANGLE THIS TOWARDS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CENTRAL AND FRIENDLY COMMERCIAL CONCEPT THAT WILL CATER NOT TO THE DRIVERS BUT TO THE DRIVERS OF RICHLAND.

THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE THESE RESIDENTS CAN CONGREGATE AND FIND SOMETHING TO EAT OR BY THAT LAST THING THAT THEY NEED ON THEIR WAY HOME EVERY DAY. AFTER TAKING A STEP BACK FROM THE PROPOSED QUESTION WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THAT USE. I ALSO HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT A STATE ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT . I THINK SHE KNOWS AND I'M PROBABLY SPEAKING MORE TO THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA THEY DON'T PERFORMANCE ENVIRONMENT ASSISTANCE.

DELINEATIONS HAVE BEEN DONE WITH GEOTECHNICAL ADVANTAGE EVALUATIONS.

EVERYTHING IS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS PLUS THIS PROJECT HAD BEEN DESIGNED YET.

THIS IS AN ENTITLED EFFORT. A LOT OF THAT WILL BE HINDERED DURING THE ACTUAL DESIGN FOR ANYONE BEHIND ME THAT'S NOT USED TO THIS PROCESS. A LOT MORE INFORMATION IS TO BE GATHERED, PUT TOGETHER WITH THE ACTUAL DESIGN AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY WITH THE STAFF IS ALWAYS LOOKING OUT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS TO BE INVOLVED.

OTHER THAN THAT ARE AS ANY TRAFFIC RELATED CONCERNS. I BELIEVE MS. FRAZIER HAS ANSWERED ALMOST EVERYTHING. THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ECHO ON HER STATEMENT IS I KEEP HEARING ABOUT THE SHUCK ACCESS. THAT HASN'T BEEN ASKED FOR. IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE.

WHAT MS. FRAZIER SAID REGARDING THE PROCESS. IT'S 100% ACCURATE.IT'S ON A PHONE CALL. THAT'S NOT A GO SIT DOWN WILL YOU DO THIS.

THIS IS A VERY LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY WOULD EVEN BEGIN TO SUPPORT ANYTHING. MY PERSONAL FEELINGS AS IF THEY ARE NOT THAT'S REALLY THE

ISSUE. >> WHAT IF IT'S MADE AS A CONDITION TO REQUEST THAT ON THIS? I DO WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE OPENNESS.LIKE I SAID I DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEVELOPER HERE WITH ME. I WILL PROBABLY ASK THEM TO COME THAT ESSENCE PROCESS. A FORMAL SUBMIT ALL, MAKING THAT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS DEPENDING ON HOW THAT CONDITION IS WORDED. A FORMAL SUBMIT ALL IF YOU DO GO TO THE DEALER TO GET TOLD WHY ARE YOU HERE TALKING TO ME? THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

[01:15:02]

>> MAY YOU HAVE THAT REPRESENTATIVE ADDRESS THAT ISSUE?>> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE I'M TOLD WENDELL I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER FOR THE PROJECT.

WITH REGARDS TO THE CONNECTION I'M NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER SO I HAVE TO KIND OF DIFFER TO MY CONSULTANTS TO ADVISE ME ON THE TECHNICAL NATURE OF IT IN THE PROCESS REQUIRED FOR SUCH REQUEST. AT THIS POINT IN TIME WHAT I CAN SAY IS WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. THAT'S REALLY UP WHAT I CAN TELL YOU AT THIS POINT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WE NEED CLARIFIED? WE CAN PROCEED AMONG OURSELVES. THE FEW FACTS THAT STRIKE ME ABOUT THIS IS THAT IT'S BEING ZONED. IT'S BEEN THAT WAY SINCE THE MID 80S. THIS INTERSECTION IS A COMMERCIAL SITE.

LAND-USE PLANS SHOW THIS IS A MASTER PLANNED MIXED-USE GATEWAY CORE DOOR WITH AN INTENSIVE USE. IN MOST OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WILL REGULATE THE STANDARDS FOR BUILDINGS THAT ARE SEEN TO ME THIS IS A, ALTHOUGH IT DOES HAVE SOME

ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AS A VIABLE PROJECT. >> MOST OF THIS IS ALLOWED BY

RATE. >> IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING TO RECOGNIZE.

IF THE PROPOSAL IN A WAY WITH A VERY DENSE DEVELOPMENT IT'S THE RIGHT IN THIS PARTICULAR ZONE.

THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS WELL.HAT'S BECAUSE IT'S IN THE SAME WAY FOR ALL THESE

YEARS. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING YOU SAID.

PERSONALLY SITTING HERE LISTENING WE KNOW ABOUT RICHLAND ROAD BEFORE TONIGHT PRIOR TO THE INITIAISSUES OVER PAST FIVE YEARS AND SING THIS PROPOSAL I JUST FEEL THAT THE TRAFFIC SITUATION IS NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED HEREIN EVEN THOUGH THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE THAT IS INCUMBENT 'S COMMISSION TO SOLVE I CAN'T IN GOOD FAITH VOTE FOR THIS IN THE CONDITION THAT PRESENTLY PRESENTS ITSELF REGARDING TRAFFIC.

THAT IS MY REASON WHY WILL NOT BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT. >> THERE'S A PROCESS TO PUTTING THESE THINGS TOGETHER. ONE OF THE PROCESSES THAT TRAFFIC STUDY AND TO WORK WITH TRAFFIC STUDY TO MITIGATE PROBLEMS. I BELIEVE THAT THAT PROCESS AS IT GOES THROUGH AND THINGS GET DONE THE WAY IT SHOULD BE OF A LOT OF THESE PROBLEMS MITIGATED

TO SOME LEVEL. I CASE AND BEFORE THIS. >> THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A CONDITION TO MAKE A FORMAL REQUEST FOR A RIGHT IN

[01:20:03]

REQUEST. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. >> I MOVED FOR APPROVAL WITH

CONDITIONS IN THE CONDITION THAT YOU PLACED ON THIS. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.

>> THE CONDITION AS THEY MAKE A REQUEST. >> A FORMAL REQUEST TO L..

IF THEY DENIED IT DOES NOT STOP THE PROJECT. >> THEY WILL HAVE TO DO SOME

REDESIGN. >> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. >> PLEASE READ IT AGAIN.

>> . >> THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AND AT THE CONDITION THAT A FORMAL REQUEST BE MADE TO L. FOR A RIGHT IN AND WRITE OUT ONLY OFF SHUG JORDAN IF

DENIED IT WILL NOT STOP THE PROJECT. >> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.

>> I SECOND IT.ANY QUESTIONS . >> THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> AND HE OPPOSED SAY NUMBER. >> THE MOTION CARRIES.

[5. Conditional Use - District at Richland - PUBLIC HEARING CU-2023-018]

WHICH IS GOVERNMENT NOT TO THOSE THAT WANT TO LEAVE. >> THIS IS A SECOND REQUEST FOR THE DISTRICT AT RICHLAND ROAD. THE ACCIIS SEEKING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR THE SHOPPING CENTER USES. ONCE AGAIN THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHUG JORDAN PARKWAY AND RICHLAND ROAD.

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AGAIN IS THE MASTER PLANNED MIXED-USE ON THE NORTHERN PORTION AND GATEWAY CORE DOOR COMMERCIAL TO THE REMAINING SOUTHERN PORTION.

THE COMMERCIAL PORTION WILL BE PHASED TWO OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WILL CONSIST OF 20,000 TOTAL SQUARE FEET. APPROXIMATELY 12,000 DEDICATED TO RESTAURANT AND 8000 GRAY FEET DEDICATED TO OFFICE SPACE. STAFF RECOMMENDS FORWARDING THIS REQUEST WITH RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE COMMENTS. PHASE 1 WILL BE LANDSCAPED WITH

RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S IT. >> I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT SMALL GROCERY CONVENIENCE STOR , THERE WILL BE NO FUEL PUMPS CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT CLICK SUCH . >> DOES A DEVELOPER WISH TO

MAKE ANY COMMENTS? >> AND I HAVE HEARD AND CORRECTLY TO SAY ON TOP OF WHAT KRISTIAN HAS SAID. THE LANDSCAPING, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE SITE WILL BE GRADED ALONG WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION. IT IS OUR PROPOSAL TO PLACE THE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT BUT MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE

INTERIOR LANDSCAPING TO THE COMMERCIAL WOULD NOT BE A PART. >> YOU'RE GOING TO SCRAPE IT

AND CREATE IT QUICKLY GOING TO SEE HER? >> YES WE WOULD GRADED AS ONE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT SO IT CAN BE COHESIVE AND FLOW TOGETHER WELL.

THEN IT WOULD BE RECEDED AND RE-VEGETATED WHILE WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE COMMERCIALS GOING TO PROCEED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THE

[01:25:01]

PERIMETER LANDSCAPING. >> THANK YOU. >> THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. I SHALL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW.DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS THE USES THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN THIS PROJECT?

>> I SEE NEW ONE SO I WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING. >> I HAVE A QUESTION AND I DON'T KNOW IF I KNOW HOW TO ASK IT CORRECTLY. IT'S PHASE 2. IF SOMETHING HAPPENS DOWN THE ROAD AND THEY WERE TO DECIDE THEY DID NOT WANT TO INCLUDE THE COMMERCIAL

THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK HERE? >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME

BACK AND MODIFY THE PD. >> AS PART OF THE TOTAL PARCEL WITH THE APPROVAL IS THERE ROOM

FOR IT DEVOTIONAL FAMILY? >> . >> THERE WOULD LIKELY BE WITH THE PDD YOU CAN TAKE IT ACROSS THE SITE UNLIKE TRADITIONAL PROJECTS FOR IT WOULD JUST BE A MULTIFAMILY PORTION. I THINK IT'S NINE POINT TWO PER ACRE AND OVERALL IT COULD ALLOW 9.5. THIS WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT THAT YOU HAVE A PRETTY SMALL

AREA TO DEVELOP THERE. >> AM A FAN OF NOT HAVING DRIVE-THROUGH ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TRYING TO CREATE SOME KIND OF WALKABLE SPACE WITH THESE RESIDENTS AROUND COMMERCIAL. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT SPACE. I AM INTERESTED IN HOW THE TRAFFIC MIGHT FLOW IF YOU HAVE SOME DRIVE-THROUGH HERE.CAN I GO BACK TO THE DRAWING? THE LEFT. WHAT SEPARATES THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING FROM THE PARKING RATE THERE, THAT'S EXACTLY THE PART. WHAT CAN BE THERE? I CAN SEE SOME OF THIS THAT WE USE WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGH'S. IT IS LIKE TO SEE THE TRAFFIC AROUND THE OUTER PERIMETER OF WHAT'S GOING ON RATHER THAN SOMEHOW IT DUMPS IN THE MIDDLE AND WE GET CONGESTION.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THIS IS NOT A TRADITIONAL DRIVE-THROUGH LIKE FAST FOOD OR BANKS. WHAT THIS IS CONCEIVED AS, THERE ARE STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING THIS PROJECT BECAUSE WE COVERTHIS . ARE DOING HERE I HAVE A CENTRAL AREA FOR THE COMMERCIAL WHICH IS A USABLE OPEN WALKABLE AREA AND OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND DINING.

YOU HAVE THOSE BUILDINGS CENTERED AROUND THAT USABLE OUTDOOR SPACE.

ON THE OTHER SIDE KIND OF BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THE LARGER PARKING AREA FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, BEHIND ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT IT DRIVE-THROUGH IS KIND OF REMOVED FROM THE USABLE OUTDOOR AREA. AND NOT SITUATIONALLY CAN DO IS HIDE THAT DRIVEWAY BEHIND THE COMMERCIAL USE. WHAT IT DOES IS IT SEPARATES THAT TRAFFIC FROM THE WALK ABILITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SOMEBODY THAT PULLS IN CAN JUST COME IN A CIRCLE AROUND AND NOT GET INTO THAT AREA. DRIVE-THROUGH THE REAR OF THAT BUILDING AND THAT DRIVER IS NOT VISIBLE FROM ANY OTHER LOCATIO .

>> THERE WAS THOUGHT GIVEN TO THAT AND STAFF COVERED AS A COMMON AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS? IS ANYONE PREPARED TO MAKE A

[01:30:04]

MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 2023 ? 018 WITH CONDITIONS.

>> SECOND. >> IT IS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.>> AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.THE NEXT IS THE REZONING OF MIRACLE ROAD AND SARAH LANE.

[6. Rezoning - Miracle Road/Sarah Lane - PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-013]

>> THIS IS TO REQUEST RELATED TO THE PROPERTY. IT IS A 1 ACRE PIECE WITH FRONTAGE ALONG MIRACLE ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RESOUND FROM RURAL TO DISTRICT HOUSING. THE PROPERTY IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY THAT PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED THE CONDITION APPROVAL FOR MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT ESSENTIALLY THEY RUN INTO SITE ISSUES WITH THAT PROPERTY AND ARE WANTING TO ACQUIRE THIS PROPERTY TO INCORPORATE INTO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. THEY REQUESTED ZONING AND DISTRICT HOUSING TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH FUTURE LAND US .

IT'S A DESIGNATION OF LOW RESIDENTIAL SUMMER STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW.

IF ANY WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS? SEE NO INCOME AND WILL CLOSE A

PUBLIC HEARING. >> AND MOVE TO APPROVE CASE RZ 2023 ? 13.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

[7. Conditional Use - Miracle Road/Sarah Lane Townhomes - PUBLIC HEARING CU-2023-032]

>> AYE THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. >> WE ARE NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT THE IMMUNITY. THIS IS THE PARTICULAR SITE WHICH IS REZONED.

>> THIS IS THE SAME PROPERTY AND AGAIN THEY RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR THE OVERALL SITE WHICH HAD TOWNHOME UNITS FURTHER SOUTH AND ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE JUST TAKING THOSE UNITS AND PUTTING IT ON THIS 1 ACRE PIECE. THE DESIGN AND LAYOUT IS FAIRLY CONSISTENT ON WHAT WE REAP PRIESTLY APPROVED. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. THE ONE CONDITION IN THE STAFF REPORT IS FOR SARAH LENA TO BE DEDICATED AS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PRIOR TO THE DART APPROVAL.

>> THERE IS NOT AN ENTRANCE PROPOSED. >> THIS IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL OPEN THAT NOW. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS

PARTICULAR ITEM? >> I WOULD JUST ASK FOR THE STAFF COMMENT ABOUT ENGINEERING ON THE FINAL PLAT FOR SARAH LANE I WOULD PREFER THEY ARE NOT TO BE A CONDITION BECAUSE I THINK THE AUBURN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT IS TIED UP IN LITIGATION.

WE HAVE ACCESS TO OUR PROPERTY THROUGH SARAH LANE. SARAH LANE WAS WIDENED WITH ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENTS TO BUILD THIS NEW ROAD.

MY THING IS LET ME WORK IT OUT. I DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU IF I GET WORKED OUT.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE A CONDITION OF MY APPROVAL BECAUSE OF SOMETHING CHANGES I DON'T WAIT ANOTHER 45 DAYS TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU TO GET THAT APPROVED. I WILL WORK IT OUT ON THE DART

SIDE WITH PLAN APPROVAL. THAT'S HOW I PREFER TO DO THAT. >> @IFIT'S OKAY WITH YOU.

>> THAT WORKS FOR ME. >> OKAY ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM?

>> MY NAME IS JESSE SHEALY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 1962 MIRACLE ROAD.

WE BRING YOU GREETINGS FROM OUR FAMILY. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR CITY. DEFINITELY WE WANT TO SEE IMPROVEMENT I HAVE ENJOYED THE

[01:35:02]

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO PUBLIC ENTRANCE TO THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT OFF OF MIRACLE ROAD. IF THAT IS CORRECT THAT MEANS THAT THESE HOMES WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF MIRACLE ROAD. THE NUMBER OF HOUSES OR

WHATEVER IS IN THIS CONTENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THE ADDRESSES WOULD BE

SARAH LANE. RATHER THAN MIRACLE ROAD. >> IF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS DEDICATED AND THEY TAKE ACCESS FROM THEIR AND THAT WOULD BE THERE ADDRESS OFF OF SARAH ROA

. >> OKAY SO MY CONCERN TONIGHT IS THAT MY TIRES ARE DEFINITELY BEING CHEWED UP BY THE GRAVEL THAT IS ON MIRACLE ROAD. WE HAVE PATIENTLY WAITED FOR MIRACLE ROAD TO BE PAID WE WILL CONTINUE TO WAIT PATIENTLY FOR THIS RELATIVELY PAVED BECAUSE WE KNOW AT SOME POINT IN TIME IT WILL BE PAVED FROM DONAHUE UP TO THE FARMVILLE ROAD.I JUST WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE RESIDENTS ON MIRACLE ROAD.

THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ADD TO THE TRAFFIC ON MIRACLE ROAD AND ALTHOUGH I AM UP FARTHER AND NOT CLOSER TO THE DONAHUE SIDE OR THE SARAH LANE I DO HAVE TO TRAVEL MIRACLE ROAD.

I KNOW THE GENTLEMAN EARLIER SAID THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENT PROCESS IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER SOME NEW BUSINESS AND PERHAPS THIS IS NEW BUSINESS WITH THE REQUEST OF PAVING MIRACLE ROAD.

I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THERE FOR YOU. I THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME AND GOD BLESS EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU. I DO PRAY FOR YOU AS OUR CITY

REPRESENTATIVES. >> DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THIS?

WE WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING. >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE 20 2203 2:00 SECOND.

>> A MOTION AND A SECOND. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED?

[8. Conditional Use - Alexander Scott Homes Office - PUBLIC HEARING CU-2023-028]

WE GO ON TO THE ALEXANDER SCOTT HOME OFFICE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND

AND INCLUDE EXCEPT FOR ENGINEERING. >> SECOND.

>> THE MOTION IS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO AMEND THE MOTION. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT

SAY AYE? >> AYE DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSED? >> THE MOTION PASSES.

>> THIS IS A MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 326 NORTH COLLEGE STREET IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IS OWNED FOR A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

REQUEST IS TO REESTABLISH OCCUPANCY IN A TWO UNIT REAR ACCESSORY BUILDING.

I WILL POINT TO THAT RIGHT THERE IN THE CORNER. HERE IS THE CURRENT PHOTO OF THE STRUCTURE. STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH NO COMMENTS.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? >> THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN VACANT FOR HOW LONG? QUICK STAFF CANNOT FIND THE TIME. BUT THERE IS NO RECORD WITHIN

[01:40:05]

THE 12 MONTH WHICH IS WHAT TRIGGERS THE CONDITIONAL USE. >> IT GOES AWAY UNLESS WE

REESTABLISH THAT. >> WHAT IS THE REASON FOR REESTABLISHING? IT'S SORT OF A HODGEPODGE RIGHT THERE. ARE THERE AND ARE OFFICERS IN THE BACK THAT OFFERS THIS THAT STRIP? NOT PARTICULARLY IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA BUT THERE IS A NUMBER OF LOCATIONS WITH SOME SORT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR

RESIDENTS OBVIOUSLY WHICH IS THE CASE HERE FOR MANY YEARS. >> THE RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON A FACT THAT IT HAS NOT HAD ANY HARM IN THE PUBLIC IS NOT DISADVANTAGED BY IT.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? >> I WANT TO ASK WHAT IS IT BEING USED FOR NOW?

>> IS CURRENTLY VACANT. >> AS IT HAVE TO BE INSPECTED WHEN IT'S VACATED?

>> WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER WHO WAS APPLIED FOR THIS WILL BE DOING SOME UPGRADES TO THE INTERIOR AND SOME MAINTENANCE TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING AS WELL. IT MAY LIKELY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE HPC.

OF COURSE DURING THAT PROCESS THEY WILL HAVE THE PERMITS TO DO SO.

>>. AYES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. >> ALSO REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW.S THERE ANYONE THAT

WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? >> GOOD EVENING MR. CHAIRMAN I AM THE PRESIDENT OF ALLEN DANDER SCOTT HOME. WE ARE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE INSIDE TUCKER'S OFFICE THERE. OLDER HOME.

A HISTORIC HOME.RESTORED SEVERAL HISTORIC HOMES AND WE DO A LOT OF WORK TO THE EXISTING OFFICE. THE ISSUE WITH THIS IS IT'S NOT LIKE A GARAGE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS ALWAYS BEEN A TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT. WE PLANNED ON HAVING PEOPLE STAY THERE THAT MAY COME IN TOWN THAT WE MAY NEED. EXECUTIVE YOU RENTED OUT TO COLLEGE KIDS FOR THAT TYPE OF USE. THERE'S NO SENSE OF PUTTING THE MONEY IN RESTORING THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING AND PUTTING IN A NEW ROOF IF IT CAN'T BE USED FOR ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT A GARAGE OR ANY TYPE OF STRUCTURE LIKE THAT.

IT NEEDS A LOT OF RENOVATIONS AND OBVIOUSLY WE WILL GET THROUGH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPROVAL FOR THOSE THINGS. WE WILL SPEND A LOT OF TIME TO FIX IT IT'S REALLY A GREAT LOCATION AND A NEAT BUILDING. THAT'S WHAT THE USES THAT WE ARE DOING. THE PROPERTY BEHIND HERE IS ALSO COMMERCIAL BUT HAS

RESIDENTIAL USE ALSO. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

[9. Conditional Use - Bent Creek Office - PUBLIC HEARING CU-2023-029]

DO I HAVE A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED?THE MOTION CARRIES. >> NEXT WE HAVE THE CONDITIONAL USE ALEXANDER SCOTT OF BRIGHTON CREEK OFFICE. AS YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND IS DIRECTLY SURROUNDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT AS WELL. TO THE SOUTH INTO THE WEST

[01:45:03]

THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. IF YOU START AT THE NORTHERNMOST PART OF THE PROPERTY THERE'S GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT BUILDING APPROXIMATELY 1875 FT.?. AS YOU MOVE SOUTH EC BUILDING TO WHICH THE PROPOSED OFFICE USE BUILDING. AND BUILDING THREE IS A PROPOSED WAREHOUSE OFFICE SPACE. YOU CAN ALSO SEE OUTLINED IN RED THERE IS A PROPOSED GATED CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD. BOTH THE WAREHOUSE OFFICE AND THE CONTRACTORS FALL UNDER THE COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USE. AS YOU MOVE TO THE FINAL PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT EC THAT THE ONLY CHANGE IS THAT THE CONTRACTOR STORAGE IS REPLACED BY THE DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDINGS FOUR AND FIVE WHICH ARE BOTH PROPOSED OFFICE USES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH

COMMENTS ON THIS. >> ARE THERE ANY FFA RESTRICTIONS IN THIS PARTICULAR

LOCATION? >> THERE MAY BE SOME AS IT PERTAINS TO HIGH.

WE HAVE SOME PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS LIKE YOU MENTIONED WHEN WE HAD OUR PRE-APPLICATION MEETING. WHAT TOOK TIME FOR POWER PERMITTING WEEK TAKE A LOOK AT

THIS. >> IT WOULD'VE BEEN NOTIFIED AS WELL QUICK SO THEY WOULDN'T

SAY ANYTHING? >> . >> IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS

HAPPENS. >> ALSO REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING NOW.I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING SAYING NO AND COMING UP.

>> AIRPORT IS AWARE OF THE PROJECT. WE'VE HAD COMMUNICATION WITH THE AIRPORT IN REGARDS TO THE HEIGHT. NONE OF THE STRUCTURES ARE GOING TO BE ANY HIGHER THAN WHAT THE STRUCTURES ARE AT THE AIRPORT NOW.WE ARE FINE ON THAT SIDE OF IT AS WELL.I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THIS IS THE LAST ONE CORRECT? >> YES UNDER THEWATER RESEARCH MANAGEMENT . ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS ANYONE PREPARED TO MAKE A

MOTION? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE 2023 ? 029.

WITH CONDITIONS TO REMOVE THE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WHICH IS PRESENT ON THE SITE FOR THE

AGENT REQUIRED. >> SECOND. >> A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED SAY NO? THE MOTION PASSES. >> NOW WE GO TO STORE EASE.

[10. Conditional Use – Store Ease - PUBLIC HEARING CU-2023-031]

>> GOOD EVENING. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF THE COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USE OF CLIMATE CONTROLLED STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED AT 2811 E.

UNIVERSITY DRIVE. THE PROPERTY IS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT. A LOT OF CDD IN THE AREA AND THERE IS UNITY ACROSS THE STREET. ALSO SOME DBH TO THE WEST AND SOUTH.

[01:50:07]

THE RUSSELL BUILDING SUPPLY THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT TWO CLIMATE CONTROL STORAGE BUILDINGS TOTALING ABOUT 98,000 FT.?. THE USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT AND GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE FUTURE LAND US .

THE COURT OR OR ALLAY REGULATIONS APPLY TO THE PROJECT AND WILL PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO ANY PART OF THE BUILDINGS VISIBLE FROM EAST UNIVERSITY OR NORTH COLLEGE STREET. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THIS USE.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO NOTE? >> MAINLY NOTATIONAL AND WETLAND DELINEATION IS REQUIRED. EVERYTHING ELSE IS THERE.

>> IS THE CORRIDOR REQUIREMEN . AS THE SIZE OF THESE BUILDINGS.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THE COLLEGE SIDE WHICH IS A SET OF THOSE BUILDINGS.

>> REALLY MANY SIDES EXCEPT FOR THE SALES SIDE DEPENDING ON HOW WE ARE ABLE TO VIEW IT FROM

THOSE CORDUROYS. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE AN APPLICANT THAT WISHES TO MAKE A COMMENT? DAVID SLOGAN I MISS OF AN ENGINEER FOR THIS PROJECT.

I DON'T THINK THAT THE WEST SIDE OF THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO BE VISIBLE.

WE DON'T THINK THAT THE REQUIREMENTS WILL COMPLY WITH THE WEST SIDE.

>> YOU CAN PROBABLY MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT VISIBLE BY THIS. IT'S SORT OF TERRAIN

CHALLENGED.>> THE STREAM BUFFERS THERE ARE THE LIGHTEST BUFFERS THAT THE CITY HAS AND THERE IS SIGNIFICANT UNDER ROADS AND LARGE TREES BETWEEN THERE AND COLLEGE.

RESULTS OF THAT SMALL CHURCH BUILDING. >> WE COULD SAY THAT ALL SIDES

ARE VISIBLE. >> IT SAYS VISIBLE FROM EAST UNIVERSITY OR NORTH DONAHUE.

>> THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NORTH COLLEGE. >> THAT'S THE WRONG STREET.

>> THE WAY IT'S WORDED WOULD BE VISIBLE. >> WE DO PLAN TO ENHANCE THE LOOK OF THE BUILDING TO MATCH SO IT WILL BE A VERY NICE LOOKING BUILDING.

>> VERY GOOD. >> THIS ALSO REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

I SEE NO UNSUITABLE CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING. >> AND MOVE TO APPROVE 2023 ?

031 AS IT IS. >> SECOND. >> A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE WITH

THE SECOND. >> THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.NEXT IS GARDENS AND GATEWAY.

[11. Preliminary Plat - Gardens at Gatewood, Redivision of Parcel A - PUBLIC HEARING PP-2023-015]

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. ITEM NUMBER 11 SHOWS THE APPLICANT REQUESTING A

[01:55:09]

IT IS APPROXIMATELY 2.4 ACRES AND IS ZONED ZCDD. THERE IS CURRENTLY AN EXISTING WT LOT THAT IS INCLUDED ON THIS SUBDIVISION. SEVEN OF THE LOTS ARE DIVIDED UP THE PRIVATE STREETS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH COMMENTS.

THE MAJOR COMMENTS ARE JUST BEING IN THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITH THE DESIGN REVIE . THE LOCATION OF FIRE HYDRANTS AND WIDENING THE PRIVATE DRIVE.

>> ON THE OUT PARCEL HERE I GUESS THAT WOULD BE AT THE SOUTH AMENITY AREA.

>> YES THAT IS AN AMENITY AREA POOL CORRECT. >> ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS? >> I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS MOTION. >> GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS JULIE NELSON I LIVE AT 1431 REYNOLDS DRIVE WHICH IS ADJOINING THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED. I HAVE SOME CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS THAT I HOPE YOU CAN ADDRESS. TO THE LEFT OF THE SCREEN IS LISA SCOTT ACADEMY AND EVERY MORNING AND AFTERNOON THERE IS QUITE A LOT OF TRAFFIC THAT GOES ON THAT ROAD.

IT'S ON ACADEMY DRIVE AND THEY GET TO WORK. THERE IS ACTUALLY A POLICE OFFICER THAT IS STATIONED EVERY MORNING AND AFTERNOON. THERE'S ALSO NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT OPENED UP AS WELL. IT'S ABOUT THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE GOING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WILL NEED TO DEAL WITH IT GOING IN AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF CHILDREN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THESE HAVE A HARD TIME IN THE MORNING IF THERE IS ANY PARKING ON THE STREETS WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED FIRE HOA. I AM IN THE STONECREEK HOA. THAT SMALL PART RIGHT THERE WILL BE A PART OF OUR HOA SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WILL BE A SAFE WAY FOR KIDS TO GET ON THE BUS. I ALSO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STORM WATER.

RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE IS A DRY CREEK BED. WHEN IT RAINS A LOT THERE BECOMES A CREEK AND I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY WILL BE PUTTING IN MORE PARKING AND GETTING RID OF THE WILD AREA THERE. ALSO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE BUFFER ZONE. THEY WILL HOPEFULLY CONSIDER THIS.

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE NEIGHBORS LOOKING RIGHT INTO MY BACKYARD. THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET FROM US HAD SIMILAR TOWNHOMES PUT IN, I'M GUESSING RECENTLY. THEY HAVE FINISHED FIVE OF THEM ACROSS THE STREET. I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MANY THEY WILL PUT IN.

THERE WAS FIVE PUT IN AND THEY WILL BE PUTTING 15 NEXT TO MY HOME.

IT'S THE FACT THAT WE DON'T KNOW AND IF THEY CLEAR-CUT THE FOREST THAT'S BEHIND THERE AS

[02:00:07]

PART OF TOWN. >> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION

FOR WHAT THE PERSONAS AS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I

WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> IFNOT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING .

>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE. >> ARE YOU ABOUT TO ADDRESS

THESE ISSUES? >> I CAN. >> WILL ACTUALLY CATCH THAT WATER AND SEND IT WAIT THAT WAY. WE TIE INTO THE STORM STRUCTURE. WITH A MULTIFAMILY PLAT. WE ACTUALLY PUT IT UNDERGROUND

DIRECTLY SO IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE AREA. >> OTHER CONCERNS ARE PARKING.

I DON'T SEE A SCENARIO WHERE THEY WILL BE PARKING ON RAILS DRIVE.

IT'S THESE UNITS EVEN THE ONES HERE WILL BE ACCESSED FROM THE PRIVATE ROADS.

>> LET ME ASK ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THAT. HOW MANY PARKING SPACES PER

UNIT IN THAT DEVELOPMENT? ASK ONE PER BEDROOM. >> IT'S THE BUFFER THAT SHE

ASKED ABOUT. >> AND OF THE CUP BUFFER IS REQUIRED BY CDD.

I BELIEVE IN THE UNITS YOU REFERRED TO ACROSS THE STREET ARE THE REAR FACING A DADJACENT

PROPERTIES. IT REQUIRES A 10 FOOT SETBACK. >> WE ARE ESPECIALLY GIVING MORE BECAUSE THERE'S OPEN SPACE ON THAT SIDE WHICH IS ABOUT 5 FEET.

>> THERE MAY BE A BUFFER YARD REQUIRED. >> THERE MAY BE A BUFFER BUT

THAT WILL BE DETERMINED DURING THE HEARING. >> IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE A

RECTANGULAR AREA PAVED. >> THAT'S FOR THE POOL. IT'S AS PAVEMENT.

>> THAT'S THE PARKING FOR THE POOL. >> THE FENCE THROUGH ME.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU NEED? >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE 2023

? 015 WITH COMMENTS. >> SECOND. >> A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. THIS THAT APPROVE THE MOTION SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? >> THE MOTION CARRIES. >> NEXT SAYS THE ASBERRY HILLS

[12. Preliminary Plat - Asbury Hills, Redivision of Lot 3 - PUBLIC HEARING PP-2023-016]

SUBDIVISION. >> FOR ITEM NUMBER 12 THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A

[02:05:02]

IT ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE OFF OF THE PRIVATE STREET.THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED OFF OF SHELTON MILL ROAD AND IS APPROXIMATELY 5.53 ACRES AND THE CONFERENCE OF BUILDING DISTRICT. I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THE PLAT SHOWN IN THE PRESENTATION HAS BEEN UPDATED TO THE ONE IN THE PACKET.

JUST TO REFLECT AN UPDATE THAT SHOWS THAT IT IS A 31 LOT PERFORMANCE SUBDIVISION IN THE ORIGINAL PUT IN THE PACKET WITH ONLY 30 LOTS. I JUST WANTED TO INFORM YOU

GUYS. >> IS COMPRISED OF 27 TOWNHOME LOTS WITH TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS.

ONE IS RESERVED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS AND ONE IS A PRIVATE DRIVE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. WHEN CONDITION IS BEING THE PRIVATE DRIVE WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC. THIS IS AN PORTION FOR PROPER FIRE PROTECTION. AS THE ACCESS ROAD TO REQUIRED AND THE FIRE CODE.

>> THE WAIVER IS TO SUBDIVIDE BOTH OF THE LOTS OFF OF THE PRIVATE STREET.

>> THAT IS GOING TO BE THE ONE THAT WE ARE FACING. >> IT IS THESE 12 RIGHT HERE.

>> . >> WILL THAT BE A PRIVATE OR PUBLIC STREET?

>> THE INTERNAL STREAKS OF THE SITE WILL BE PRIVATE. THE UNITS THAT ARE FACING SHELTON MILL WHILE THEY WILL TAKE VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PARKING FROM THE PRIVATE STREET

THEY WILL BE SUBDIVIDED OFF OF THE PUBLIC. >> THE ENTRANCE STREET THERE, THAT'S GOING TO BE A PRIVATE STREET AS WELL AS THE ONE BEHIND I JUST WANT TO MAKE

SURE. >> ANOTHER COMMENT THAT STAFF HAD WAS THAT WE ARE UNAWARE OF THE FUTURE USE OF LOT 32. THAT WAS AN ITEM THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN AS IT PERTAINS TO TURNAROUND WHETHER AT THE PRIVATE STREET HAVING AN EXTRA SECOND INGRESS OR EGRESS IN THE

CUL-DE-SAC. >> DOES NOT NEED TO BE DETERMINED NOW?

>> IT DOES NOT. WE ARE JUST REQUIRING IT TO BE A CUL-DE-SAC.

>> YOUR REQUESTING THAT WE WILL REQUIRE WHAT? >> THAT WE HAVE THE ACT FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRIVE.

>> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR STAFF.>> S. HILLS WE ALREADY HAVE ONE OF THEM.

IT'S NOT CONNECTED. >> THAT IS CORRECT. THIS IS A REDIVISION OF THE

SUBDIVISION LOT. ANDERSON CAN MAKE SENSE. >> UNDERSTAND WHAT?

[02:10:13]

>> DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS. ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH WIDTH AND TURNAROUND PROVISIONS.

IT'S SPECIFIED CUL-DE-SAC. SAYS PROPER TURN AROUND.

>> PERFECT. WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT.

>> ESSENTIALLY CLARIFICATION OF THE CONDITION.

WHETHER IT BE A HAMMERHEAD OR A CUL-DE-SAC.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> SO WE HAVE TWO IN SECTION SERVICES, AND THE ONE ON PAGE TWO IS WHAT CONNOR SAID IT WAS.

BUT THE ONE ON PAGE THREE SAYS CUL-DE-SAC.

>> SO TO CLARIFY MY METHODOLOGY, I THOUGHT THAT THE COMMENT PROPERLY EXPLAINED THE CONDITION, SO I USED THOSE WORDS, BUT I DIDN'T MEAN TO CONFUSE YOU.

AS THE CONDITION STATES. >> BEFORE I FORGET, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE 2023-016 WITH THE STAFF CONDITION.

>> WOULD YOU ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THE WAIVER ON THAT AS WELL?

>> CLARIFY HOW MANY TOWN HOUSES THEY ARE BUILDING.

THE EXAMPLE SHOWS 27. THE WYNN OUR BOOK SHOWS 26.

26 IS REALLY WHAT YOU CAN BUILD, BASED ON -- DON'T WE

HAVE A LIMIT OF TEN IN A ROW? >> YES.

SO THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE SAYING THAT THEY WOULD BUILD TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS. SO THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT A SINGLE BUILDING CAN'T CONTAIN MORE THAN TEN UNITS IN THE STRUCTURE. SOUGHT WILL BE TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS ON THE 11 TOWNHOME LOTS THAT ARE TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY. SOUGHT WILL BE SPLIT.

AS YOU CAN SEE THE SCREEN -- >> ONE OF THOSE LOTS THERE IS SLIGHTLY WIDER, IF MY EYES AREN'T DECEIVING ME.

>> THE LATTER LOTS IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT STRIP, THOSE WILL BE WHERE ONE BUILDING ENDS AND THE OTHER ONE BEGINS.

>> THE WYNN OUR BOOK SIN CORRECT.

>> CORRECT. >> I'M SORRY, REFER TO THE

PRESENTATION. >> THERE ANY INDICATION WITH

THE DEVELOPER, LOT 32? >> WE ARE UNAWARE OF THAT.

>> WE DON'T KNOW YET. >> THERE A MOTION ON THE TABLE? DID YOU GET THE RIGHT CONDITIONS?

>> THE WAIVER INCLUDED AS WELL? >> IT A CONDITION?

>> IT IS NOT A CONDITION, NO. >> AND THE WAIVER.

>> THE CONDITIONS AND THE WAIVER.

>> SECOND. >> SECONDED THAT IT BE APPROVED WITH -- SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS.

AND THEN IT'S BEEN SECONDED? >> YES.

>> ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.

[13. Preliminary Plat - Woodward Oaks, Phase 6 - PUBLIC HEARING PP-2023-018]

>> THIS NEXT CASE IS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR AN 86-LOT PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE WOODWARD OAK -- UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING. THE -- OUT OF THE 86 LOT, 80 WILL BE DETACHED LOTS. FIVE OPEN SPACE LOTS, AND ONE LOT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THE PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE MOST RECENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

NOT ANYTHING TOO BIG. MAINLY JUST POINTED OUT THINGS FROM OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, MINOR ENGINEERING COMMENTS AS

[02:15:02]

JUST LITTLE THINGS THAT WILL NEED TO UPDATE.

>> THE DEVELOP HERE WISH TO ADDRESS THIS? PAY ATTENTION NOW. DON'T PLAY THAT GAME ON THAT COMPUTER.

>> THIS REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE LEFT WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS IT? THERE'S NO ONE COMING FORWARD, SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE 2023-018, STAFF COMMENT.

SECOND. >> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES.

[14. Waiver to Zoning Ordinance Section 422.02, Street Frontage Landscaping Requirements WZ-2023-005]

ITEM NUMBER 14. >> HELLO.

>> THERE YOU ARE. >> HERE I AM.

>> OKAY. THIS IS A WAIVER REQUEST FOR A LANDSCAPE STREET BUFFER YARD ON A DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR IN APRIL FOR A COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USE, A DATA CENTER. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 406 WEST VETERANS BOULEVARD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD.

THE REQUEST IS TO THE STREET BUFFER TO MAINTAIN THE VEGETATION THAT IS THERE CURRENTLY AND NOT REQUIRE THE TREE AND SHRUB THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE THE CASE.

SO AS YOU MATE RECALL FROM APRIL, DATA CENTERS ARE PRETTY SECURE AND PRIVATE COMPANIES, AND THEY ARE ONLY DISTURBING ABOUT 23% OF THE PROPERTY. SO A MAJORITY OF THAT PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE UNDISTURBED, AND THAT INCLUDES THE STREET.

HERE IS WHAT THE AREA LOOKS LIKE NOW.

THE ONLY PORTIONS OF VETERANS THAT WILL BE DISTURBED WILL BE THE ENTRANCES, AND THERE WILL BE TWO.

AND DUE TO THOSE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THEIR WANTING TO MAINTAIN THAT AREA, WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS WAIVER. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS

WELL. >> ALL RIGHT.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS?

>> THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF MY WHEELHOUSE.

SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE LANDSCAPER.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YOU SEE HOW BIG THE TREE COVER.

WE'VE GOT REALLY GOOD VEGETATION.

WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THAT. ACCORDING TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WHO HAS BEEN ON SITE TAKING THE MEASUREMENTS, WE WOULD BE PLANTING BUSHES INSIDE THE EXISTING TREE LINE.

JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.

THERE IS NO HEARING REQUIRED ON THIS ONE, SO WE CAN MOVE TO

APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. AND IT WILL BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. ALL IN FAVOR SAY HIGH.

[15. Extension of Conditional Use Approval - ArchCo North Dean Road CU-2022-005]

NOW MOVE TO OTHER BUSINESS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT MADE THIS

OTHER BUSINESS -- >> IT IS SPECIAL.

SPECIAL TAPE. >> EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. CARRY ON.

>> REQUESTING A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION FOR THE CONDITION USE APPROVAL OF -- THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1397 NORTH DEAN ROAD. IT IS IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT -- THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL IS FOR A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 250 HOMES.

CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE APPLICATION AFTER APRIL 4TH, 2022 MEETING. CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL IS SET TO EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 4TH. THE APPEAR PLAY CAN'T STATES THE REASON FOR REQUESTING AN EXTENSION IS DUE TO CHALLENGES

[02:20:04]

STAFF RECOMMENDS SIX-MONTH EXTENSION.

>> THERE ANYONE -- >> MOVE TO APPROVE CU --

CONDITIONAL USE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. IT WILL BE APPROVED.

[16. Extension of Conditional Use Approval - Auburn Distribution Facility CU-2022-008]

ANY OPPOSED SAY NO. WE MOVE ON TO EXTENSION OF

CONDITION APPROVAL -- >> WE'LL DO THAT NEXT TIME.

THIS IS ALSO A REQUEST FOR A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE FOR ANOTHER ONE OF LEE'S PROPERTIES ON WEST VETERANS BOULEVARD.

IF HEED LIKE TO SPEC AGAIN, HE CAN.

BUT THIS IS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION FACILITY AT 511 WEST VETERANS. JUST LIKE WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE THIS ONE WAS APPROVED IN APRIL OF '22.

IT IS SET TO EXPIRE IN OCTOBER OF THIS '84.

AND COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION IS JANUARY, I BELIEVE, OF 2024. AND WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF

THE SIX-MONTH EX HE EXTENSION. >> NO HEARING REQUIRED HEAR,

EITHER. >> MOVE TO MOVE CU2022-008

EXTENSION. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

[17. Extension of Conditional Use Approval - Auburn Hotel CU-2022-012]

AND WE COME TO -- >> LAST BUT NOT LEAST, ANOTHER EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USE HOTEL LOCATED AT 100 NORTH GATE STREET IN THE URBAN CORE ZONING DISTRICT. THIS, TOO, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN APRIL OF 2022 AND IS SET TO EXPIRE NEXT MONTH. THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE, HOPES TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND AN APPROVAL OF THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION.

>> SO THERE'S NO HEARING REQUIRED HERE.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS? >> I'M GOING TO APPROVE -- I

MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAY NO.

AND THE -- EXTENSION APPROVED. STAFF, ANY COMMUNICATION?

[STAFF COMMUNICATION ]

>> ONE POINT OF COMMUNICATION. LAST PLANNING COMMISSION --

>> LOGAN -- >> YOU'RE JUST MOVING OVER

HERE, RIGHT? >> HE'S JUST MOVING TO ANOTHER TABLE, SO HE WILL CERTAINLY BE WITH US IN THE FUTURE.

>> MOVE FROM A PLANNING NERD TO A CIS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.