Jan 11, 2024 Planning Commission

[00:00:08]

'S BANK IT IS 5:00. >> WE WILL ASKED THE SECRETARY TO CALL THE ROLL.

[ROLL CALL ]

>> DANNA CAMP, HERE. ROBIN BRIDGES, HERE. WENDY BIRMINGHAM, HERE. BOB

RITENBAUGH, HERE. JOSEPH AISTRUP, HERE . >> WE SHALL BEGIN THE MEETING AND THE FIRST THING ON OUR AGENDA AS ALWAYS IS CITIZENS COMMUNICATION. IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY LAND ISSUE THAT'S NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO DISCUSS THOSE ITEMS AS THEY COME UP ON THE AGENDA. ANY PLANNING ISSUE IN THE CITY LAND-USE ISSUE THAT YOU WISH TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COME FORWARD NOW.

LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS ON ANY OF OUR HEARINGS AS WELL AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME TO FIVE MINUTES AND WE FOR THE RECORD FREE TO SIGN IN BEFORE OR AFTER YOU SPEAK. I SEE NO ONE COMING

[OLD BUSINESS]

YOU WILL INTRODUCE US TO. >> CERTAINLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TONIGHT WE DO HAVE ONE ITEM OF OLD BUSINESS. THIS WAS AN OLD WAIVER FOR 4439 SANDHILL ROAD. IF YOU REMEMBER THIS WAS THE WAIVER REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AND CONSOLIDATE AN EXISTING LINE. THE ORIGINAL WAS TO SUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING LOT INTO A 1.39 AND CONSOLIDATE WITH A 25 ACRE LOT WHICH WOULD MAKE IT 26.2 ACRES. WHEN THEY WENT FORWARD WITH THE FINANCING AND EVERYTHING THEY REALIZE THEY DID NOT -- WHAT THEY DID WAS INSUFFICIENT IN THAT THEY HAD TO SUBDIVIDE AND CREATE TWO NON-CONFORMING LOTS. THEY COMMUNICATED THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE ONE CONFORMING LOT. SO DUE TO THE TRANSITION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT AND I THINK HOW THE CASE WAS HANDLED, THIS WAS AN INTERNAL MISTAKE ON STAFF SIDE. SO THEIR REQUEST OF READING THEIR WAIVER STATES THE RUSTLES OF THE RICHARDSON'S ARE REQUESTING THE WAIVER TO DIVIDE LOT TO BE ONE INTO TWO PARCELS.

RUSTLES WOULD PURCHASE 1.62 ACRE LOT THAT ADJOINS THE EXISTING LAND AND 1.62 PARCEL FROM LOT TO BE ONE HAS AN EXISTING AMOUNT. THE RUSTLES ARE CURRENTLY RENTING SOME WHICH OVERLOOKS THEIR LAND LOT TO A1 AND THE RICHARDSON'S WOULD RETAIN THE 1.39 ACRE PROPOSED PARCEL WITH REMAINING TWO STRUCTURES ONE OF WHICH IS THEIR HOME. SO FROM THEIR WAIVER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THEIR ATTENTION WAS TO CREATE TWO NON-CONFORMING LOTS. BUT WHAT WAS CAN GET ON THE STAFF REPORT WAS I WANTED TO CREATE ONE NONCONFORMING LOT AND THEN WHEN IT CAME IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT'S WHAT WAS ARTICULATE INLETS WITH STAFF ARTICULATED AND THAT'S WHAT YOU VOTED ON. WHEN THEY CAME BACK AND WANT TO SUBDIVIDE WITH TWO NONCONFORMING LOTS WE AREN'T ABLE TO DO BECAUSE YOUR VOTE IS ONLY IN SUPPORT OF GRADING ONE NONCONFORMING LOT. WE ARE BRINGING THIS BACK TO YOU ALL WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT THE INTENT IS TO CREATE TWO NONCONFORMING LOTS AND NOT CONSOLIDATE THE SECOND ONE WITH THE EXISTING 25 ACRE LOT. THE REASON FOR WANTING TO NONCONFORMING LOTS AS THEY WANT ONE PARCEL FOR THE HOUSE AND ONE PARCEL FOR THE LAND AND ITS FOR FINANCING PURPOSES. AND EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT CLEAR ON WHAT THEY ARE ASKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION I BELIEVE THE ONUS IS ON THE PROFESSIONAL AND THE STAFF AND THE MISTAKE WAS INTERNAL THAT IT DID NOT TRANSLATE THAT WAY TO THE STAFF REPORT. SO I'M BRINGING IT BACK WITH OLD BUSINESS WITH A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THE REQUEST IS. THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING TO CREATE TWO NONCONFORMING LOTS. THE NONCONFORMING PORTION IS THAT THE LOT MINIMUM IN THE RULE ZONING DESIGNATION IS A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES AND NEITHER OF THOSE LOTS MEET THE LOT MINIMUM. SO WITH THAT, DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. T■HE VISUAL NOW, I GUESS THE OLD VIGIL WAS JUST TWO COLORS BUT THE ONE IN RED IS THE LOT THAT WILL BE RETAINED BY THE RICHARDSON'S. HE'S THE PERSON RENTING THE HOUSE TO THE YOUNG FAMILY OF THE RUSTLES. THE GREEN IS THE HOUSE THAT WITHOUT RUSTLES ARE CURRENTLY LIVING IN HOPE TO BUY. THE YELLOW IS THE RUSTLES ADDITIONAL 25 ACRE LOT THAT ON THE FIRST MEETING THAT THEY STATED THEY WANTED TO CONSOLIDATE WHAT THEY DO NOT WISH TO CONSOLIDATE THEM AND

THEY WANT THEM TO REMAIN SEPARATE. ANY QUESTIONS? >> YEAH. ARE THEY THE OWNER OF

[00:05:03]

THE LARGE PARCEL? >> CORRECT. >> THEN THEY CAN MAKE THE GREEN LOT CONFORMING BY ADDING SOME PROPERTY FROM THAT LOT WHICH EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM. RIGHT?

>> YES. I GUESS I COULD BID LIKE I SAID I THINK THEIR WISH -- I GUESS IF THEY COULD DO THAT AS FAR AS THEY WOULD END UP BEING THREE SEPARATE LOTS AND FOR FINANCING THE WANT TWO SEPARATE LOTS OF THAT WOULD WORK FOR THEM. I KNOW THE LAND LOT IN THE HOUSE LOT BEING

COMBINED DOES NOT WORK FOR THEM FOR FINANCING. >> WHAT IS GREEN IS THE THREE

ACRE LOT. >> THEY DIDN'T RESENT ANY OPPOSITION.

>> I GUESS THEY ARE NOT HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF BECAUSE THEY HAD A

FAMILY EMERGENCY THEY HAD TO ATTEND TO. >> AND THAT'S THE STORY WE GOT THE NIGHT THEY CAME BEFORE US IS THE REASON THEY NEEDED TO DO THIS. BECAUSE OF THE FAMILY.

>> YES. LIKE I SAID I WATCHED IT AND THEY ARTICULATE WHAT THEY BELIEVED WAS THEIR POINT.

LIKE I SAID, THEY ARE NOT PROFESSIONALS. THEY ARE JUST A MIXUP AND THAT ONUS IS ON STAFF. AND I THINK NOW THEY WOULD LIKE THERE TO BE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS. ONE FOR THE HOUSE AND ONE FOR THE LAMB. SO IF YOU ALL WISH TO MAKE THE EXISTING LOT OF 1.62 AND HAVE THEM RE-SUBDIVIDE TO MAKE IT LOT TO BE THE MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES THAN THAT WOULD BE

SUFFICIENT. >> THAT WOULD MEAN A MOUSE THE NONCONFORMITY THAT WOULD

MINIMIZE THE NONCONFORMITY. >> THIS WOULD REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> NO. THIS IS NOT -- THIS IS THE WAIVER. >> OKAY.

>> AND SO -- BECAUSE THE WAIVER IS STILL ASKING TO CREATE TWO NONCONFORMING LOTS. BUT I GUESS YOU ARE SAYING THAT INSTEAD OF GRANTING THE WAIVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO JUST SEE THEM

RE-SUBDIVIDE IT INTO THE THREE AND THE LOT MINIMUM. >> YES. ONE NONCONFORMING LOT.

>> NO, YOU APPROVED IT FOR ONE.

>> SO LET'S STICK WITH THAT AND WHAT THEY CAN DO IS A THREE-ACRE LOCK.

>> APPROVED THE WAIVER FROM ONE SO THEY ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO MAKE IT WORK AT THIS POINT.

THEY HAVE A COME BACK TO US AND SAID -- >> THAT'S MY QUESTION. WOULD IT BE OKAY TO VOTE WITH THEM NOT BEING HERE TO TELL US WITH THEIR OWN WORDS WHAT THEY WANT

TO DO. >> THEY HAVE A PETITION WITH THE DEPARTMENT.

>> I WOULD CONSIDER A LOT OF THEIR BACK-AND-FORTH COMMUNICATION A PETITION. AND SO LIKE I SAID I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION ON THEIR SIDE BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THIS IS WHAT THEY GOT AND THEY WENT TO THE BANK AND ALL SORTS OF STUFF IS WHEN THEY REALIZED WHAT WAS VOTED ON AND WHAT WAS DECIDED ON WAS NOT WHAT THEY NEEDED.

>> TECHNICALLY WE COULD SAY EXACTLY WHAT WE VOTED ON TO BEGIN WITH AND THEIR OPTION

BECAUSE YOU HAVE ON IS TO MAKE IT A THREE ACRE LOT. >> THEY COULD DO THAT.

>> OTHERWISE THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO US. >> THERE IS NO ACTION REQUIRED

ON OUR PART. >> SO IF YOUR DECISION IS TO NOT GRANT THE TWO NONCORPORATE AND LOTS OF 1.62 AND THE MAKE THEM RE-SUBDIVIDE TO HAVE THAT LOT BE THREE ACRE MINIMUM THAN THE OTHER LOT BEING MORE THAN -- IF THAT'S THE POSITION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEN

THAT'S WHAT I WILL RELATE TO THEM. >> THEY HAVE TO COME BACK FOR

THE RESUBDIVISION? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> SO THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THAT THIS DOES NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD FOR THE WAIVER

BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE OP SHOULD TO MAKE IT CONFORMING. >> CORRECT.

>> SO IF YOU ALL TAKE A VOTE ON THAT -- >> THAT WE WOULD STAND BY THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION. THAT MEANS WE VOTE TO TURN DOWN THE PETITION? THE PETITION TO TWO

NONCONFORMING LOTS. >> I MOVED TO DENY THE CURRENT POSITION FOR TWO NONCONFORMING LOTS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE A WEIGHT OUT TO MAKE THAT ONE LOT A THREE ACRE LOT.

[00:10:06]

>> SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER TO QUIET DISCUSSION?

>> THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN. >> YES.

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> OKAY ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE. THE MOTION

[CONSENT AGENDA ]

CARRIES. >> THAT'S ALL THE OLD BUSINESS. SO THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH INCLUDES ONE PLAT OF PHASE EIGHT AND TWO SETS OF MINUTES.

FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSING GOT NO. AGENDA APPROVED WHICH BRINGS US TO NEW BUSINESS. THE FIRST OF

[2. Waiver - Preserve, Phase 6 WZ-2024-001 ]

THE NEW BUSINESS IS A WAIVER FOR THE PRESERVE PHASE SIX. >> THIS IS AN APPEAL TO THE WAIVER THAT WAS DENIED FOR THE PRESERVE PHASE 6 WHICH INVOLVED TURN LANES ON THE ROAD ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS FOR STREET THAT WILL BE AT THE FAR WEST END OF THE DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN BUD BLACK AND PEAR TREE FARMS DEVELOPMENT. BASICALLY THE WAIVER REQUEST AND IT WAS DENIED. THEY ARE NOW APPEALING THAT. TO NOT HAVE TO PUT IN THESE TURN LANES AND I WANTED TO MENTION THAT THERE WAS A VERY SIMILAR BUD BLACK AT THE INTERSECTION THAT IS TO BE BUILT. A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS THERE NOW. THAT WAS PHASE 4 AND THEY PUT IN A APPEAL TO WAIVER AND THEY GOT IT DENIED.

>> THAT'S IT. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I WOULD ASSUME. I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. I THINK THEY WERE NOT EXPECTING TO HAVE TO DO IT FOR WHATEVER

REASON. >> AT THAT POINT WE WOULD HAVE FOUR FOR THE WHOLE PRESERVE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THANK YOU. >> DO THEY HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK TO THEIR CASE? BUT GOOD EVENING. I'M THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THE PROJECT. I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH DAN ON THE REQUIREMENT FOR TURN LANES UNDERSTANDING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL IS REQUIRED FOR A PROJECT. IN APPLYING FOR THE WAIVER UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE APPEAL FOR THE BUD BLACK INTERSECTION -- LET ME BACK UP. THEY TRAFFIC STUDY WAS PERFORMED BACK IN 2018. AND THE TRAFFIC STUDY WARRANTED A RIGHT TURN LANE AT BUD BLACK BUT THEY RECOMMENDED IT FOR PHASE 6 INTERSECTION THAT'S WHY WE ASKED FOR A WAIVER TO THE SUB RAGS BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC STUDY DID WARRANTED. THAT'S WHY WE ASK IT. BELIEVE ME, WHEN SKIPPING OUT ON ANY COST OR ANYTHING OR IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY WE ARE APPEALING IT. THIS THREE PROPOSED TURN LANES FOR THE SITE BUT WE ARE THE WESTERNMOST ONE. WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IT IS BECAUSE THE

TRAFFIC STUDY DIDN'T WARRANT IT. >> THAT TRAFFICS THAT HE DID

ANY FUTURE PROJECTIONS? >> YES SIR, IT FACES IT PROJECTED ALL PHASE SIX AND

SEVEN. >> OKAY. >> I'VE WORKED WITH DAN AND

THAT'S WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR THE WAIVER REQUEST. >> IT'S REQUIRED. PART OF THE

MASTER PLAN. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> LIKE I SAID, THE ONLY RE-REASON WHY WE ASKED FOR THE APPEAL BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY. WHAT WE DID IN THE PROCESS IS WE OFFERED TO HAVE A RIGHT TURN LANE ONLY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE REQUESTED IN OUR WAIVER BUT THAT WAS DENIED AS WELL. THAT'S WHEN THEY SAID LEFT AND

RIGHT. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS? >> STANDBY AND TAKE A SEAT.

>> HOW FAR APART ARE ALL OF THESE FROM BUD BLACK TO PARTRIDGE IS ALL I CAN SEE.

[00:15:04]

IT'S A LONG WAY. [LAUGHTER] >> THIS ENTRANCE IS PRETTY FAR OUT.

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> THE OTHER ACCESS IS ACROSS FROM BUD BLACK ROAD.

>> I WENT ACROSS TO PARTRIDGE. SO THAT IS WHAT I WAS WONDERING.

>> WHAT WE HAVE IS THE TWO THINGS WORKING AGAINST EACH OTHER. THE TRAFFIC STUDY WHICH I'M UNDER THE PRESSURE AND IS ADVISORY. THEN WE HAVE OUR STANDARDS. THE STANDARD SAY WE WILL HAVE IN AND OUT TURN LANES ON AN ARTERIAL. AND THEN WE LOOK AT TRAFFIC STUDIES AND WE KIND OF SAY OKAY, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR IS THERE SOMETHING WE'RE SEEING HERE

THAT WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. >> IN SOME CASES ENGINEERS AND DEVELOPERS WILL HAVE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATED IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY. I DON'T WANT TO SOUND MEAN GOT TO GET OUT OF THEM OR TO REQUEST WHAT IS THE FUTURE. SO PART OF THE PROCESS SOMETIMES OF GETTING THOSE THINGS APPROVED. I WOULD SAY THEY ARE CONFLICTING STANDARDS BUT OUR STANDARDS IN THIS CASE DON'T NECESSARILY JUST ACCOUNT FOR THE DEVELOPMENTS TRAFFIC.

>> EFFECTIVELY ESPECIALLY AS THAT IS GROWING OUT THERE, THAT IS 45 MILES PER HOUR OR MORE.

>> I THINK IT IS 65. >> IN THIS TRAFFIC STUDY, IF I HEARD CORRECTLY, WAS DONE IN

2018. THAT WAS SIX YEARS AGO. >> IN THE EARLY PHASES OF THE PRESERVE WHEN I THINK IT WAS CONSERVATION DRIVE AND THE NEXT ONE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS WE USED WERE ACTUALLY 60 MILES PER HOUR. THE 60 OR 65 BECAUSE WE USE THE 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED AT THAT TIME. WE DIDN'T ASK MR. WHITE TO DO THAT. SO HE'S USING THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT.

>> THIS IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING AREAS OF THE CITY A LOT OF TIMES IF YOU DON'T DO IT NOW YOU DON'T EVER GET IT DONE. ANYBODY HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ISSUE? IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING SO WE CAN TAKE IT TO A VOTE.

>> I BOAT TO DENY THE WAIVER. >> I SECOND. >> SECONDED THAT WE DID NOT THE WAIVER. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? THEN I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE AT ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY SAY AYE, OPPOSING GOT NO. THE MOTION CARRIES.

[3. Preliminary Plat - Links Crossing Phase 4 - PUBLIC HEARING PP-2023-032]

>> MOVING TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WHICH IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LINKS

CROSSING PHASE 4. >> THIS ITEM, THE APPLICANT SEEKS PLAT APPROVAL FOR 38 LOT SINGLE FAMILY CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED OFF MILK CREEK ROAD SOUTH OF SCHELL PARKWAY IN THE DTH ZONING DISTRICT. THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS AKIN TO PLANNING COMMISSION OF MAY, 2021. IT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION BUT HAS SINCE EXPIRED AND THAT'S WHY IT'S COME BACK AROUND FOR A SECOND TIME. YOU SEE THE FINAL PLAT FOR PHASE 4 IS THE NEXT ITEM. PRELIMINARY PLAT -- MILL CREEK ROAD HAS A PROPOSED MIKE PATH ALONG THE AREA THAT THIS PHASE ABUTS AND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION IS NOT NEEDED OR PROVIDED. THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO I WILL SIT DOWN AND COME BACK UP.

>> BEFORE WE OPEN THE HEARING, DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE ANYTHING THEY WISH TO ADD OR

PRESENT? >> [INAUDIBLE] GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS I WANT TO REFLECT BACK ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO WHEN THIS ROAD WAS GROWING UP. I WAS THERE AT THE MEETING THAT

[00:20:06]

IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT, IT GAVE THE PLAN DIRECTOR DISCRETION TO TERMINATE THIS BEFORE IT EVEN STARTED AND YOU CAN'T BUILD ONE OF THESE IN 18 MONTHS. THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TAKES MONTHS. SO WE WILL COME BACK WITH FIFTH AND IT'S ABOUT TO EXPIRE. I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. MAYBE SOMETHING YOU WILL LOOK AT.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> OKAY. WE WILL OPEN THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN AND DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE? I SEE NO ONE SO WE WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND CONTINUE ANY DISCUSSION AS NECESSARY.

>> A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. AND APPROVED THE 2023-032. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE, AND OPPOSE SAY GOT NO. THE MOTION CARRIES. PRELIMINARY PLAT IS APPROVED.

[4. Final Plat - Link Crossing Phase 4 FP-2023-027]

>> FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR LINKS CROSSING PHASE 4 . STAFF RECOMMENDATION ONLY CHANGE FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITION AND THAT CONDITION BEING STAFF COMMENTS BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO

RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT. NONE ARE SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE. >> OKAY. DO WE NEED TO ADD

ANYTHING TO THIS? >> NO, SIR. >> AMEND TO APPROVE 22 3-027

WITH CONDITIONS. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVED WITH THE CONDITIONS IN ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE, OPPOSE SAY GOT NO. AND THE PLAN IS APPROVED. WHICH BRINGS

[5. Annexation - Lowry Property AX-2023-018 ]

US NEXT TO THE LOWER RATE PROPERTY. >> THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 160 ACRES INTO THE AUBURN CITY LIMITS. PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD NINE ALSO KNOWN AS BILTMORE LANE AND TO THE SOUTH OF -- THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE WEST TECH PARK ANNEX. ADDITIONALLY THREE OTHER ANNEXATIONS HAPPENED IN THIS PROXIMITY IN THE PAST YEAR. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY, IT'S WITHIN THE CITY'S OPTIMAL BOUNDARIES AND ALSO CONTIGUOUS WITH TWO OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED. AND ARE IN THE CITY LIMITS. SO IT DOES MEET OVER ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNEXATION AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ON THIS

ANNEXATION REQUEST. >> DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD?

>> HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. >> ALL RIGHT. THIS IS AN ANNEXATION AND NO PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE A X 2020 THROUGH -018. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND

[00:25:05]

[6. Rezoning - Lowry Property - PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-017]

>> THIS IS THE LOWER PROPERTY REGARDING A REZONING. >> YES. THIS IS THE REZONING REQUEST FOR THE SAME PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY 160 ACRES FROM RURAL TO THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE AREA IN THE SURROUNDING AREA IS TRANSITING TO MORE INDUSTRY AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES OVER THE YEARS. AND LIKE I STATED BEFORE, THE SUBJECT PRIOR PARTY IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY WITH THE WEST TECH PARK AND ANNEX THAT WAS REZONED IN 2007 AND 2015.

ADDITIONALLY THERE ARE THREE OTHER REZONINGS THAT OCCURRED IN APRIL OF 2023 LAST YEAR. THE MCALLISTER PROPERTY IN THE WEEKS PROPERTY THAT ALL OUR NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT BEING SAID SETH IS REQUESTING APPROVAL AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THE INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF THE CITY IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WISH TO ADD. IF NOT THIS WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. IF NOT I CLOSE THE HEARING. ANY

DISCUSSION? IS THERE EMOTION? >> RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION OF MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY, AYE. OPPOSE, SAY NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES.

[7. Annexation - Chewacla Ridge Subdivision AX-2023-019 ]

>> NEXT IS THE CHEWACLA RIDGE . RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 130 142.57 ACRES. THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THIS HOUSE HAD OF SAND HILL ROAD AND WEST OF LEE ROAD 23. THIS PROPERTY IS ABOUT THREE MILES WEST OF SOCIETY HILL ROAD. IT ENCOMPASSES PORTIONS OF FOUR PARCELS OF PROPERTY. AND THERE IS RULES OWNED PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH. THIS MAP SHOWS THE PROPERTY'S LOCATION WITHIN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. IT'S ON THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. THE REQUEST MEETS THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ANNEXATION AND STAFF

RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> OKAY. >> IS THIS A CHANGE FROM

EARLIER? >> YES, THE MAP -- THE NEXT PHASE THE PRUNE LARRY PLAT WILL DECIMATE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WILL APPROVE THE PROPERTY FURTHER TO THE WEST. BUT THERE ONLY REQUESTING TO ANNEX A PORTION OF THE ACTUAL SUBDIVISION PROPERTY.

>> OKAY. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE PLAT IN A MINUTE. >> OKAY.

>> DOES THE PETITIONER WISH TO ADD ANYTHING? >> [INAUDIBLE]

>> THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE ANNEXATION AND DOES NOT REQUIRE A HEARING. COUNSEL? COMMISSION?

IS THERE MOTION TO BE MADE? >> I WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE A X 22-09.

>> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. THAT WE PROVE WITH RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE, AND OPPOSED SAY, NO. AND THE

[8. Preliminary Plat - Chewacla Ridge Subdivision - PUBLIC HEARING PP-2023-034]

MOTION CARRIES. >> WHICH BRINGS US THEN TO THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS CHEWACLA

RIDGE SUBDIVISION. >> YES THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY JUST PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD DIVIDE PROPERTY INTO 42 SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL LOTS. LOCATED SOUTH OF SAND HILL ROAD AND WEST OF LEE ROAD 23. THE SUBDIVISION IS APPROXIMATELY 178 ACRES. 142 OF WHICH WILL BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. THE LOT HERE ON THE WESTERN PORTION APPROXIMATELY 36 1/2 ACRES IN SIZE WILL REMAIN OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS. THE PROPERTY WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM SAND HILL ROAD AS WELL AS LEE ROAD 23. AND

[00:30:02]

THEY RANGE IN SIZE FROM THREE-36.5 ACRES. LEE COUNTY MAINTAINS THIS PORTION OF SAND HILL ROAD AND THEY WILL BREAK WHERE A LEFT-HAND TURN LANE ON SAND HILL THAT WILL BE FIGURED OUT DURING THE DART PROCESS. THE SUBDIVISION -- LET ME BACK UP. WE DID RECEIVE ONE CALL FROM MR. TERRY DONE HIM DONHAM WHICH LIVES ON THIS PROPERTY HERE. HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT DRAINAGE AND WAS HOPING TO GET SOME INFORMATION REGARDING WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS MAY TAKE PLACE FROM. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND THE PLAT MEETS OR

EXCEEDS THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. >> I HAVE QUESTIONS. WE ARE OKAY WITH THE FLAG LOTS COMING OFF THE MAIN STREET GOT DEDICATE STRAIGHT.

>> THEY ARE NOT FLAGGED LOTS. >> GREAT GREAT SECOND, WHY [INAUDIBLE].

>> I BELIEVE A LARGE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS IN LUKE LANE. >> IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM --

[INAUDIBLE]. >> I HONESTLY CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT.

>> IT WILL BE A COMPLETE CUL-DE-SAC. OUT TO THE WEST. >> A GREAT QUESTION.

>> QUESTION RELATES TO THAT IS HOW IS THAT PROPERTY ACCESS? >> THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN IN

THE COUNTY? WILL BE ACCESSED OFF CHEWACLA RIDGE COURT HERE. >> IT'S NOT STUBBED OUT HAS A

COMPLETE -- >> IT'S A CUL-DE-SAC. >> SO IT IS LANDLOCKED.

>> IT HAS ACCESS. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> THAT'S A DRIVEWAY.

>> IT'S ACCESS. RIGHT THERE. THE TOP OF THAT CIRCLE IS THE DRIVEWAY.

>> THERE ARE TWO LOTS THAT FRIEND THERE AS WELL. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> SO , THEY CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS HERE AS A REMINDER. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> IT'S VACANT. >> SO THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE SPECIFIC

QUESTIONS. >> LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

>> BASELINE SERVING. 1899 WEST FARM HILL. WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ANSWER FIRST?

>> WHY, FIRST. >> 36 ACRES. >> THIS IS A CALL NUMBER CONGLOMERATION OF PEOPLE. IF YOU CAN IMAGINE ALL OF YOU ALL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW YOU WANT TO DO THIS ONE PIECE OF LAND AND ALL AGREEING ON IT, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. SO WE HAVE SEVERAL MEMBERS HAVE DECIDED WHICH ONES THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AT THIS POINT. AND ONE WANTS THAT ONE AND HE DOESN'T CARE THAT IT'S OVER 50% FLOODPLAIN. HE'S LIKE, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. SO IS REASON IS I WANT THAT BIG LOT AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT AND I WANT IT TO BE PRIVATE AND NOT ANYONE AROUND ME AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT. HE SAID, I DON'T REALLY NEED ANYTHING. I DON'T THINK HE HAS KIDS OR ANYTHING SO HE IS THINKING SO LOW. SO THAT'S HIS THING IS LIKE, I KNOW WHAT I WANT AND I WANT THIS. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT HE IS SAYING THERE. AND IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME, NOT NECESSARILY FOR WHAT I HAVE.

BUT FOR HIM THAT IS WHAT HE WANTS AND THAT'S THE ONE HE CHOSE.

>> WHAT ACCESS WILL BE THIS -- WITH CITIES STANDARDS AND CUL-DE-SAC AND EVERYTHING BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER LOTS -- I CAN'T SEE THE NUMBERS BUT THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO THAT WILL ACCESS USING THAT

CITY STREET. >> SO THAT CUL-DE-SAC WILL BE CURVED.

>> YES BUT IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY THE FRONTAGE OF IT WILL HAVE ENOUGH FRONTAGE FOR A CITY

[00:35:02]

STREET THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ACCESSIBLE FRONTAGE. >> AROUND THE TIP END OF THE

BULB. >> BUT YOU ARE GOING TO CURB IT. IT'S CURB AND GUTTER? SO FOR HIM TO ACCESS HIS LOT BY VEHICLE, HE HAS TO JUMP THE CURB.

>> IT'S A DRIVEWAY. >> IT'S A PUBLIC CUL-DE-SAC SO HE HAS THE RIGHT.

>> I SEE. >> I DON'T REALLY SEE. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN

ZOOM IN ON THAT. >> I CAN'T SEE IT. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> I DIDN'T CATCH THIS. >> THERE WE GO. >> IT WILL MAKE MORE SENSE. IT

DOESN'T CUT ACROSS LIKE THE TANGENT OF THE CURB. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> IT COMES IN AND HAS -- YES, IT HAS ENOUGH OF THE CURB TO BE A FRONTAGE.

>> IT'S A SEMI-CUL-DE-SAC. >> I THE QUESTION. I SEE THAT THE CITY OF AUBURN DOES NOT PROVIDE SANITARY SEWER NOR DO THEY PROVIDE WATER SERVICE. SO ARE WE LOOKING AT A SUBDIVISION

ALL WITH THREE ACRES OR MORE ALL WITH SEPTIC AND WELLS? >> SEPTIC, YES. WELLS, NO.

[INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE WORKED WITH THEM ON ONE HAS ONE THING AND THE OTHER HAS THE OTHER AND NOW THEY TALK AND THEY'VE GOTTEN TOGETHER AND THEY GOT AN AGREEMENT TO BE UP TO RUN --

WATER TO BE UTILIZED FOR THAT. PUBLIC WATER AND NOT WELLS. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS? I

APPRECIATE. THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR. >> LET'S SEE. WE HAVE AN OPEN

PUBLIC HEARING. >> NO LET ME ASK ONE QUESTION. THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT OF

ACCESS OFF WAS THE ROAD TO THE NORTH. >> SANDHILL.

>> SANDHILL. SO IS THAT AN AUBURN REQUIREMENT OR COUNTY REQUIREMENT. I GUESS MY POINT

IS, IT SHOULD BE REFLECTED HERE BECAUSE IT IS NOT. >> SO WHEN WE HAVE ROADS THAT CITY PRODUCT PROJECTS OR ROADS THAT TIE TO COUNTY ROADS WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE COUNTY REGULATIONS. WE WOULD REQUIRE THEM BASED ON THE STREET CLASSIFICATION BUT IF THE COUNTY SAYS, NO, THEN WE CAN'T MAKE THE DEVELOPER DO THEM. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT IN THE STAFF REPORT. WE DON'T GET WITH THE COUNTY ONCE THE PLAT IS APPROVED AND DETERMINED IF THEY WANT LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANES AT EITHER OF THOSE ENTRANCES. DOES THAT ANSWER

YOUR QUESTION? >> YES. IT DOES BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE KIND OF INTENTIONALLY SETTING OURSELVES UP AGAIN -- IT'S A REQUIREMENT BY THE COUNTY SO THEY WILL

ENFORCE THAT OR MAYBE THEY WILL? >> NO, WHEN THAT COUNTY HAS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROAD, THEY GET TO DETERMINE HOW THE TIE-INS ARE MADE. LANE

WITS AND IF IT INCLUDES -- >> WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A SAY.

>> WE DON'T HAVE SAY. KIND OF LIKE IF THERE'S A STATE ROUTE HOW IT GETS DETERMINED.

>> OKAY. >> OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING DOES ANYBODY WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENT OR ASK ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL? I SEE NOT SO WE WILL CLOSE THAT PART OF THE MEETING. AND CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION. I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE CASE PP 2023-034. TAKE

SECOND. >> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION.

>> I WANT TO COVER UP ITS OWN IF I OWN LOT 42 AND I'M IN THE COUNTY NOW, I CAN USE THE ROADS AND ACCESS ALL I WANT THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION AND DO WHAT EVER I WANT TO AS FAR AS COMPLYING WITH THE COUNTY ON MY PROPERTY. EVEN IF IT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE HOMEOWNERS ON WHAT FIVE AND SIX OR WHATEVER THOSE ARE. AND WE ARE ABOUT TO APPROVE THAT.

>> YES, CURRENTLY. THAT IS THE WAY IT IS. [INAUDIBLE] >> THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS DOES THE SUN DIVISION MEET THE CRITERIA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS?

>> A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY, AYE. OPPOSE SAKE,

NO. MOTION CARRIES. >> ITEM IS A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AUBURN TOWNHOMES.

[Items 9 & 10]

[00:40:04]

>> THANK YOU. WE WILL CONTACT ON THIS. ORIGINALLY ON THE AGENDA THERE WAS A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AUBURN AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ONE AUBURN. THERE WAS ORIGINALLY THREE TO VOTE ON BUT TODAY THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A FORMAL REQUEST TO MOVE THE CONDITIONAL USE AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH A PRIVATE ROAD ON SARAH LANE. SO I GUESS WITH THAT THEY SUBMITTED THE FORMAL REQUEST AND IF YOU ALL COULD COMPLY WITH THIS WE CAN MOVE THESE THREE ITEMS TO THE

FEBRUARY MEETING. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> IT WILL BE FEBRUARY EIGHT.

FEBRUARY EIGHT FOR THE FEBRUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. >> THIS IS WITH THE APPROVAL OF

-- >> THERE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS HAVE TO BE ACTED UPON IN 60 DAYS. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVE THEMSELVES UNLESS THEY ARE NOT ACTED UPON UNLESS I THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A FORMAL REQUEST BY EMAIL TO MOVE THIS TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING WHICH EXTENDS THE CLOCK ON THE PLAYER PRELIMINARY PLAT.

>> PER APPLICANT REQUEST, POSTPONE TO DATE CERTAIN MOVE TO POSTPONE CASE CU 22

THREE-048 AND PP 2023-035 . TWO FEBRUARY 8. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED THAT WE MOVE THOSE TWO DATE CERTAIN FEBRUARY 8. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR THE MOTION, SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY, NO. THE MOTION CARRIES.

[11. Preliminary Plat - Dawson Villas - PUBLIC HEARING PP-2023-033]

>> WE ARE NOW TO DAWSONVILLE IS. >> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INCLUDES A WAIVER TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A PRIVATE DRIVE TO CONSTITUTE MANDATORY STREET FRONTAGE FOR LOTS. THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATE 24.5 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN THE COX AND WEIER ROADS. THE PLAT IS COMPRISED OF 116 TOWNHOUSE LOTS. 12 TWIN HOME LOTS. THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS AND ONE LOT FOR A PRIVATE DRIVE. THESE LOTS HERE OUTLINED IN PINK RECOMMENDED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF THOSE AT YOUR MEETING LAST MONTH. THEY WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE PLAT THAT MOVES FORWARD FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED AS A MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON ONE LOT OF RECORD. AND SINCE THEN THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CONVERT THE RESIDENCES INTO FEASIBLE LOTS WHICH REQUIRE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET. HENCE THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A PRIVATE STREET TO ALLOW THAT FRONTAGE. THE WAIVER WAS APPROVED BY YOU FOR PHASE I AT LAST MONTH'S MEETING. THE LAYOUT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND THE PLAT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS UPON APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER AND ADDRESSING STAFF

COMMENTS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> WITH THE WAIVER?

>> YES. >> OKAY. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO BRING ANY INFORMATION TO US AT THIS TIME? OKAY. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE WILL OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING NOW. IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS PROPOSAL? SEEING NO ONE SO WE

WILL CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING. AND CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE.

>> WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION LAST MONTH. >> I'M CURIOUS. REFRESH MY

MEMBER REMEMBER IT ON THE CONDITION OF THIS WAIVER? >> IT WAS GATED.

>> IT WAS MAJOR ECONOMIC IMPACTS [INAUDIBLE] >> IT WAS A GATED COMMUNITY.

RIGHT. >> SO AS A REFRESHER. THE PIVOT FROM THE CONDOS TO THE TOWNHOMES WAS DUE TO FINANCIAL OBSTACLES WITH THE INSURANCE. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE PRIVATE

[00:45:08]

>> WE KIND OF DEBATED TOO YOU KNOW IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT. AND OKAY WHO'S GETTING -- HOW

IS THE PUBLIC GETTING HURT BY THIS? >> THE BZA GRANTED THIS FOR US AND DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TOWNHOUSES

AND LEAVE THEM BEHIND EACH OTHER. >> THERE -- THEY DIDN'T REALLY GIVE A FORMAL REASON SO SHE SATED WITH IT. FROM THE DISCUSSION, ESSENTIALLY THE BUILD PRODUCT WAS FROM THE BUILDING CODE STANDPOINT IT WAS TO TOWNHOME STANDARDS. AND THEN I GUESS THEY ESSENTIALLY JUST THOUGHT THAT THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE CONDO AND A TOWNHOME WERE FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES SEMANTICS. I GUESS FROM WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THE BIG THING WAS SUBDIVIDING THE PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE STREETS. THEY SAW THE BUILDING PRODUCT WOULD BE THE SAME. THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE BUILD PRODUCT SO FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE THEY DID NOT SEE ANY REASON TO UPHOLD THE TOWNHOME DEFINITION OF CANNOT BE BEHIND OR IN FRONT OF ONE ANOTHER.

>> [INAUDIBLE] BEING ABLE TO BUILD ON PRIVATE STREET COULD >> CORRECT.

>> AND SO THE HARDSHIP AND THE REASON THE APPLICANT INITIATED IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE MASSIVE UPTICK IN INSURANCE RATES ON CONDOMINIUMS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE SOUTHEAST WITH THE FREE ZOSTER AND THE SHIP GETTING INSURANCE WOULD MAKE SELLING THESE UNITS UNVIABLE. THAT'S WHY THEY WENT TO THE BZA TO GET THESE DEFINED AS TOWNHOMES BECAUSE APPARENTLY IN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY EVEN THOSE THE ESSENTIAL THE SAME PRODUCT, IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, SOME OF THE INSURANCE AGENCIES ARE NOT AND THEY INJURE THEM DIFFERENTLY SO THEY ARE HENCE AFFORDABLE AND CAN BE SOAPY THAT THE REASON FOR COME TO THE BZA FOR THE REQUEST AND THE REASON FOR COMING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SUBDIVIDE OFF THE PRIVATE STREETS THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO INSURE THESE PROPERLY TO MAKE THEM A SALABLE

PRODUCT. >> I SUGGEST WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS THEN.

>> RIGHT. >> RIGHT. SUBDIVIDE THE PRIVATE STREETS. THAT SOMETHING

INTERNALLY WE ARE WORKING ON. >> WE KIND OF MADE THE POINT THIS IS SUCH A UNIQUE SITUATION THE WAY IT PRESENTED ITSELF THAT WE WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT ON THE RECORD THAT THIS IS

ACCESS OFF THAT PRIVATE ROAD. >> ALSO THE APPLICANT DID MENTIONED THEY WERE HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC. SO THEY WANTED THE GATE INITIALLY FOR THE PRODUCT

BUT ALSO HAVING ISSUES WITH CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC. >> THIS WAS ALSO PRODUCT FOR

55+. AND THAT WAS THE MAZER MAJOR REASON FOR THE GATES. >> OKAY.

>> I LOST TRACK. I CALLED THE PUBLIC HEARING? I THOUGHT I HAD.

>> I THOUGHT YOU DID. >> YES. >> I STARTED MOTION WHICH I

WILL CONTINUE. PP 2023-033. SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED FOR APPROVAL. FOR THE PLAT AND THE WAIVER. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY, AYE. OPPOSED SAY, NO. MOTION CARRIES.

[12. Rezoning - Fountain Gate Church - PUBLIC HEARING RZ-2023-018]

>> THAT BRINGS US TO FOUNTAIN GATE CHURCH. >> THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST AT 1415 MORSE MILL ROAD FOR FOUNTAIN GATE CHURCH. CURRENTLY THE SITE IS ZONED RURAL AND THERE'S A VERY LIMITED FLOOR TO AREA RATIO THAT SEVERELY LIMITS THE EXPANSION POSSIBILITIES OF THE CHURCH. SO THEY HAVE INTENTIONS TO NOT ONLY EXPAND BUT BUILD AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING. SO THEY ALREADY AT THE OF WHAT THEY CAN BUILD UNDER THE RURAL DISTRICT SO THEIR INTENTION IS TO REZONE TWO LIMITED DEVELOP DISTRICT WHICH WOULD THEN ALLOW THEM TO BUILD THE EXPANSION AND ANY OTHER FOR THE EXPANSION OF THEIR CONSENT. CURRENTLY THEY

[00:50:02]

RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL TO REZONE. >> NOW UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IS LOVE. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT CONDITION?

>> DOES OFFER NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTERS. BUT THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THIS LOT IS INSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY A CHURCH. THE PLANS ARE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A

CHURCH. >> OKAY. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. YOU WANT THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK. YES. OKAY.

>> I AM MATT COBB. >> THE QUESTION I HAVE IS MORE OF FUTURE PLANS. BECAUSE THIS IS QUITE A DENSE INTERSECTION WITH A LOT OF ACTION GOING ON. MY QUESTION IS MORE ABOUT FUTURE PLANS. THIS IS A BIG ENOUGH PROPERTY TO HAVE -- WILL THERE BE A SCHOOL OR WILL WE

ADD ON TO THIS QUICK >> AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE CHURCH AS IT SITS TODAY THEY ARE HOLDING THEIR SERVICES IN A GYMNASIUM. SO WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT AND ARCHITECTS HAS BEEN INVOLVED IS WE STARTED DESIGN LAYOUTS TO DO 100 BY 150 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS 15,000 SQUARE FEET. IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY, ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD. SO UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, WE CAN ONLY DO 15,000 SQUARE FEET. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE PLUS OR -13,000 EIGHT SO THEY CAN'T ADD ANYTHING TO GET OUT OF THE GYMNASIUM TO HOUSE THE SANCTUARY. WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT IS ADDING AND BUILDING A SECURE ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD WHICH OPENS UP THE REST OF THEIR STUFF FOR ADMINISTRATION. BUT NO SCHOOL. THEY HAVE LIGHT -- BUT THAT'S NOT THEIR INTENT. RIGHT NOW THEY WANT TO GET OUT OF THE GYM WITH STADIUM SEATING IN A BASKETBALL GYM NATION GYMNASIUM INTO A REAL THING. I KNOW LTD HAD PLENTY OF CONVERSATION WITH THE STAFF ABOUT WHAT IS THE LEAST LIMITED OR I GUESS CONSERVATIVE WAY TO GET TO THE NEXT DEPTH SO THEY CAN BUILD THIS AND THIS IS WHAT WE DEVELOPED FOR YOU ALL TO GIVE THEM THEIR SANCTUARY BUILDING. WE KNOW THERE'S RESTRICTIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING. WE'VE

BEEN WORKING THROUGH THAT AS WELL. >> THAT HELPS. THANKS.

>> ANYMORE QUESTIONS? >> WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK

TO SIR? >> WALTER NORTH 1617 MORSE MILL ROAD. MY MAIN ISSUE IS GOING TO BE IF THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT TIME TO ADDRESS THIS PORTION OF IT, IN ITS BE DONE AT A LATER TIME. JUST LET ME KNOW AND I'LL MAKE IT HOME IN TIME TO SEE IN CIS. MY MAIN QUESTION IS THE WATER RUN OFF. I AM THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. THE WATER FUNNELS FROM BEHIND THE CHURCH AND ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO OR LESS, THEY MADE -- THEY PUT IN ADDITIONAL PARKING UNBEKNOWNST TO ME. AND IT FUNNELS, IF YOU CAN SEE THE GREEN CHURCH. ABOUT 50 YARDS BEHIND THAT IT FUNNELS RIGHT DOWN -- OF THE WATER FUNNELS DOWN THERE SO WHEN THEY MADE THAT A WORKING LOT SERVICE THEY FUNNELED MORE WATER. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING TO MATT AS THEY ARE ALSO GOING TO ADD MORE PARKING. EVEN MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. SO NOW THEY ARE TAKING ALL THAT WATER THAT THEY ALREADY STARTED FUNNELING DOWN AND THERE FUNNELING IT WITH ADDITIONAL WATER. ONCE YOU PUT UP THAT BIG BUILDING AND PUT ADDITIONAL PARKING, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE LIKE A RIVER

COMING THROUGH MY PROPERTY. [INAUDIBLE] >> YOU ARE THE LOT RIGHT NEXT

DOOR? >> YES. >> I THOUGHT THAT WAS YOUR

DAD'S? >> I BUILT THERE 30 YEARS AGO. >> [INAUDIBLE]

[00:55:11]

>> I THINK IT IS RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE. >> YES, SIR THE FIRST PICTURE SHOWS MY FRONT YARD AND IF YOU WILL LOOK AT THE TOP PICTURE, BEFORE THEY DID THEIR INITIAL PARKING PLACE, ALL THAT WAS GREEN GRASS AND PLANTED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT LITTLE BRICK WALL. NOW AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S WASHED AWAY ALL MY GRASS AND WASHED AWAY TO THE POINT THAT WE HAVE AN EXPERT PUT A DRAIN IN FRONT OF THAT BIGGER ROCK WALL. BUT IT CAN'T HANDLE ALL OF THE WATER WE ARE ALREADY GETTING FROM THE CHURCH. THE NEXT PICTURE JUST SHOWS THAT AT ONE TIME THAT WAS A FUNCTIONING DRAIN WHERE THE WATER WOULD COME THROUGH. IF YOU TURN TO PAGE FOUR, AND THIS WAS NOT THE BIG RAIN THE OTHER DAY. THIS WAS PREVIOUS TO THAT. YOU CAN SEE HOW THE WATER COMING UP THE CHURCH PROPERTY IS A SMALL RIVER ALREADY. AND SO ALL THE WATER THAT'S NOT GOING TO SOAK IN ON THE TOP OF THAT CHURCH BUILDING AND THAT NEW PARKING LOT WILL CONTINUE TO RUN IN AND MAKE IT A QUAGMIRE ON MY DRIVEWAY. PAGE 5 AGAIN SHOWS THE SAME THING. AND SIX AND YOU CAN'T TELL MUCH OF ANYTHING BECAUSE I'M NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER. SEVEN SHOWS THE DRAINAGE AND SO DOES EIGHT AND ALL THOSE ARE PRETTY MUCH SIMILAR SO THAT IS OUR MAIN PROBLEM IS IF WE REZONE THIS AND BEGIN TO EXPAND LIKE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OR WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WITH PARKING AND IMPERVIOUS SERVICES, PERMEABLE SURFACES -- I ONLY LOST MY FRONT PASTURE. WHEN THE STATE ENGINEER AND THE CITY TOLD ME THAT WATER BEING FUNNELED TO ONE PLACE INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH A PERMEABLE SURFACE DOES THE SAME TYPE OF DAMAGE. SO, THEY CUT ME OFF FROM USING HAVE MY PASTOR FILLED UP MY LEG AND KILLED MY FISH. BUT I TRY TO BE A GOOD SPORT ABOUT THAT BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, I CAN'T CONTINUE -- THIS IS MY FAMILY HOME FROM NOW ON AT LEAST ACCORDING TO MY WIFE AS LONG AS SHE LETS ME STAY WITH HER. SO I JUST CAN'T SEE LETTING A RURAL LOT LIKE THIS

BE TURNED INTO SOMETHING THAT WILL JUST DO CONTINUAL DAMAGE. >> THIS POSSIBLY WILL ALLOW THEM OBSOLETE WANTING TO DO EXPANSION THAT HAS TO HAVE A SITE REVIEW THIS WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THEY PUT IN THE PROPER MITIGATION MEASURES TO

CAPTURE ANY RUNOFF WATER AND -- >> THEY SAID THEY WOULD PUT IN A RETENTION POND BUT EVEN WATER AND A RETENTION POND HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE BUT IT'S ALL BECAUSE THE OTHER WAY WHERE MY SON WILL TRY TO BUILD HIS HOUSE, IT WILL RUN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF HIS HOUSE. AND LIKE I SAY, NO OFFENSE TO THE CITY ENGINEERS OR ANYBODY ELSE, I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THEM BEFORE HOW WONDERFUL THEIR WATER RUNOFF PLANS ARE. NOW I HAVE GOT FIVE ACRES I CAN'T HARDLY GET TO BECAUSE OF THAT. I THINK IT WAS MORE OF THE STATE AND THE CITY.

BUT THEIR LACK OF AGREEING TO LISTEN TO A SPECIALIST WHO TOLD THEM WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I GUESS I'M FIGHTING TO STOP MORE DAMAGE THAN I'VE ALREADY LET THE CITY WALK AWAY WITH.

>> OKAY. RIGHT NOW THIS ISSUE BEFORE US IS TO REZONE WHICH WOULD ENABLE THEM TO EXPAND PERHAPS. THE ISSUES RELATED TO STORMWATER RUNOFF AND OTHER ISSUES LIKE THAT WILL TAKE

PLACE DURING THE SITE DEVELOP THE SITE REVIEW PLAN. >> YES, SIR.

>> AND ANY CONDITIONAL USES ADDED AND TAKE CARE OF THAT TOO.

>> OKAY. I APPRECIATE IT. >> IT'S ON THE RECORD THAT YOU HAVE A RUNOFF PROBLEM.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT. >> SPEAK TO THE FRONT.

>> WE DID SPEAK ON THE PHONE ABOUT WHEN THIS CAME OUT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. AND I DRESSED THAT WE WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH HIM WITH ANY ISSUES AND WE COULD FIX IT CURRENTLY.

THE FACILITY HAS BEEN THERE FOR SO LONG THAT THERE WAS NO DECISION. I'M NOT SURE IF AT THIS POINT IF WE HAVE TO GET USE APPROVAL OR REZONING APPROVAL. IF THERE WILL BE PARKING ADDED TO THIS ADDITIONAL. WE MAY BE ACTUALLY CHANGE IT UP TO A POINT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE PARKING OR ASPHALT THAT RUNS VERTICALLY ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK. SO RIGHT WILL BE ADDING DETENTION TO THIS AND MEET CITY STANDARDS. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WE DISCUSSED THIS ON THE PHONE WORK I'D BE WILLING AND THE CHURCH IS WILLING TO DO

[01:00:04]

>> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THIS DURING THIS HEARING? THERE IS NO ONE SO WE WILL CLOSE THE

HEARING. AND CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. >> THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST

BROUGHT TO L.E.D. FROM INSTITUTIONAL IS WHAT IT IS. >> IS CURRENTLY RURAL AND

ASKING TO REZONE TO L.E.D. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE RC TO ALL 23-018.

>> MADE AND SECONDED AND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY, AYE.

OPPOSED SAY, NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES. >> MALL BOULEVARD. 1948.

[13. Conditional Use - R.E. Michel Company - PUBLIC HEARING CU-2023-046]

>> FOR THIS ITEM THE REQUEST IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USE THAT BEING A WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION FACILITY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1948 MALL BOULEVARD IN THE CDD DISTRICT.

>> FUTURE LAND USE FOR THIS PROPERTY IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. A DAY THAT DESK MISSIONS AS INTENT TO COMMIT COMMERCIAL SUPPORT FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES SUCH AS WHOLESALE WAREHOUSES AND SERVICES SUCH AS -- STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. IN OUR ANALYSIS WE DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING TO TO EGREGIOUS. THE WAY THE PARKING IS ASSESSED FOR THIS USE IS BASED ON THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES AT ANY GIVEN SHIFT. SO THERE'S ABOUT 15 PARKING SPACES ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY. WE DON'T FORESEE IT TO BE AN ISSUE BUT THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL TAKE NOTE WITH ANY OTHER PLANS THAT COME THROUGH ON THAT PROPERTY. RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL FOR

APPROVAL. >> THE PETITIONER WANT TO BRING ANYTHING ELSE TO OUR ATTENTION? IF NOT THEN WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL? I SEE NO ONE SO WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND MOVE TO APPROVE CU 2023-046.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED AND THE PROPOSAL HAS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AND

[14. Conditional Use - East Glenn Bank - PUBLIC HEARING CU-2023-047]

>> NEXT IS EAST GLENN BANK. >> THIS REQUEST IS FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR ROAD SERVICE YOU SPECIFICALLY A BANK WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH. LOCATED AT 1901 EAST GLENN AVENUE JUST WEST OF THE AIRPORT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CDD OR COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT AND AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CDD ZONING DISTRICT AS WELL. THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS A GATEWAY COMMERCIAL FOR FUTURE LAND USE. IT IS HARD TO TELL , THE NUMBERS ON THIS SITE PLAN BUT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A ONE-STORY APPROXIMATELY 6200 SQUARE FOOT DEVELOPMENT WITH FOUR TOTAL DRIVE-THROUGH LANES ON A TOTAL OF 1.35 ACRES.

CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR THIS PROPERTY FOR THE SAME EXACT USE WAS GRANTED IN APRIL 2022 BUT IT HAS SINCE EXPIRED. SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

>> ALL RIGHT. THE PETITIONERS HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? >> FORESIGHT GROUP ON BEHALF OF THE BANK. THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS APPROVED AND WENT THROUGH ORIGINALLY STARTED AS A TWO-STORY BUILDING. THIS WAS I WOULD CALL IT WAS GOING OUT FOR PRICING IN CONSTRUCTION DURING THE GREAT INFLATION. I WOULD CALL IT GOOD OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST 18 MONTHS. AND SO THE BUILDING HAS BEEN WHITTLED DOWN FROM TWO-STORY TO ONE-STORY. WE WERE ASKED IS SUPPOSED TO START CONSTRUCTION RIGHT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR BUT THEN IT CAME UP THAT WE REALIZE THE

[01:05:01]

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? I DON'T KNOW IF I

OPEN THE HEARING BUT I WILL OPEN IT NOW. ANY DISCUSSION? >> CU 2023-047.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECOND AND RECOMMENDATION OF

[15. Annual Meeting of the Commission to Elect Officers]

WRITING OFF INTO THE SUNSET. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> SO, --

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NOMINATE OR ELECT NONET REESE AS OUR CHAIR COMMENCING NEXT MONTH. BUT IF DR. MCCORD WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR FOR THE REMAINDER OF HIS TENURE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND ROBIN WOULD AGREE TO SERVE AS SECRETARY TO THE COMPLETION OF THE TENURE OF YOUR TERM, THAT IS THE THREE CANDIDATES I WOULD PROPOSE TO

PUT FORWARD FOR FEBRUARY AND THE REST OF THE YEAR. >> I SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> SO THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL CANDIDATES? >> WHO'S RUNNING?

>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT? OKAY. AND ALL IN FAVOR THE

MOTION SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY, NO. MOTION CARRIES. >> CONGRATULATIONS.

>> OKAY. THEN THE CHAIRMAN HA

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.