[ROLL CALL ]
[00:00:14]
STARRING AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? SO I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
>> SORRELLS. SMITH. HEFFREN. MARY BOYD. CHARLES DAN BARRY
JUNIOR. >> THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS
[BOARD ELECTION FOR 2024 ]
IS BOARD ELECTION FOR 2024. WE HAVE TWO POSITIONS OPEN . CHAIR>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A NOMINATION FOR FROST ROLLINS TO CHAIR BZA FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
>> WILL FAULKNER. >> WHAT A SECOND.
>> THERE WE GO, THANK YOU. >> WILL FAULKNER.
>> ROLLINS. AMY SEARLES. TIESHA SMITH. MARTY HIRE FRIEND. MARY BOYD. CHARLES JIM BERRY JUNIOR.
>> THAT ITEM IS APPROVED. OUR NEXT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR. I NOMINATE LETICIA.
>> FROST ROLLINS. AMY SEARLES. LETICIA SMITH. HEFFREN. MARY
BOYD. CHARLES DAN BARRY JUNIOR. >> SO THAT ITEM THAT IS ALSO
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
APPROVED. THAT APPOINTMENT IS APPROVED. SO NOW WE MOVE ONTO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 6 2023 MEETING. ITHAS BEEN QUITE A WHILE. >> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FOR THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING?
>> OKAY I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MEETING MINUTES
FROM DECEMBER 6 2023. >> SECOND
>> OKAY SO THOSE HAVE BEEN APPROVED. OUR NEXT ITEM IS MY
[CHAIRMAN’S OPENING REMARKS]
OPENING REMARKS. THIS IS OUR NEW BUSINESS SECTION OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSONS AGGRIEVED BY ANY DECISION OF THE BOARD MAY WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER SUCH DECISION APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT HAVING JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO SECTION 908 .02 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN ALABAMA. AND THEN THERE IS ADDITIONAL STATEMENT.>> YES. >> THANK YOU VICE CHAIR.
>> THE BOARD CONSISTS OF FIVE REGULAR MEMBERS INTO SUPER -- THE SUPERNUMERARY'S. DISSIPATE IN ALL DISCUSSIONS BUT ONLY VOTE NECESSARY TO ASSURE FOR VOTING MEMBERS AND HAPPY BOARD CONSISTING OF FIVE MEMBERS WHEN POSSIBLE. ALL DECISIONS ARE MADE AT THE ROLL CALL VOTE AND A CONCURRING VOTE OF FOUR MEMBERS IS REQUIRED TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE.
>> ONLY ADDITION TO THAT WOULD BE NORMALLY I GUESS IN THE PAST WE HAVEN'T HAD PUBLIC HEARINGS. I GUESS WE DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE A LIMIT ASSOCIATED. I GUESS JUST KIND OF IT DOESN'T REALLY SEEM ON THE UP AND UP TO JUST ARBITRARILY IMPOSED AND TAKE THAT AWAY WHEN WE HAVE INTEREST. WE GOING TO DO IS PUBLICCOMMENT WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR THIS MEETING. BUT WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. FIVE MINUTE TIMER. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK IT WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. IN THE FUTURE WE DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE THIS.
>> SO THIS IS AN ITEM OR THIS WAS SOMETHING LEFT OFF OF OUR PARTICULAR BOARD RULES OF ORDER. WE'VE ALWAYS HAD PUBLIC HEARINGS. EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK. WE JUST NEEDED TO TAKE CARE OF THAT DETAIL GOING FORWARD.
SO, NOW ALL THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE ON THE SAME
[1. Variance to Section 511.03 (G) to allow an accessory structure to be placed five (5) feet to the rear of the front building line: Neighborhood Conservation District (NC‐48) of The City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance. ]
PAGE I BELIEVE ABOUT THAT. SO CONSISTENCY HAS BEEN ACHIEVED.THIS IS OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 502.0 2C TO ALLOW TOWNHOMES TO BE SITUATED BEHIND ONE ANOTHER. THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT -- >> IT HAS TO BE THE MINUTES.
[00:05:05]
>> I GOT OUT OF THING THAT I GOT EVERYTHING OUT OF ORDER. I FELT THAT SOUNDED BIZARRE. MY APOLOGIES.
>> I CAN GET US STARTED. >> TURN IT OVER TO STAFF.
>> THIS IS ITEM BZ 2024 001 THE HANSEN ACCESSORY BUILDING THE REQUEST IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 511 03G TO ALLOW ACCESS RESTRUCTURED TO BE PLACED FIVE FEET TO THE REAR
OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE. >> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT JAMES D HANSEN IS REQUESTING THIS FOR A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE A CARPORT WHO WISHES TO INSTALL ON HIS PROPERTY. THAT WOULD BE LESS THAN 10 FEET TO THE REAR OF THE FRONT BUILDING PLANE. THE EXACT TEXT IN THE ORDINANCE IS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL BE PLACED NO LESS THAN 10 FEET TO THE REAR OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE. HE IS CITED FIVE FEET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND C 48. AND IS SURROUNDED BY SIMILAR ZONING.
HE'S PROVIDED A SITE PLAN THAT WOULD SHOW WHERE THE CARPORT WOULD BE INSTALLED. AGAIN HE HAS CITED IT FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE VARIANCE WOULD BE FOR I BELIEVE FOR 5 FEET. STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE IS TOPOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CITED AS A REASON FOR HIS VARIANCE REQUEST. IF YOU CAN SEE THE POLYGON THAT IS HIGHLY THE IN YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IN THE CONTOURS. THOSE THIN LINES ARE AN ELEVATION DIFFERENCE OF TWO FEET IN THE THICK LINES ARE AN ELEVATION OF FIVE FEET. THE PROPERTY DOES SLOPE FROM ABOUT 25 FEET FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER. STAFF HAS NO OTHER COMMENTS. HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> HAVE THEY GIVEN US ANY SORT OF A PLAN FOR WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE ? WILL IT MATCH THE EXISTING EXTERIOR OF THE HOME? WHAT DOES THE STRUCTURE LOOK LIKE?
>> ALL I UNDERSTAND IT IS JUST A CARPORT. I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE IT WOULD HAVE A ROOF AND WALLS AND WHATNOT. I DID NOT RECEIVE ELEVATIONS WITH THE APPLICATION.
>> NOT ONE OF THOSE -- TYPE STRUCTURES THAT YOU CAN JUST
PURCHASE AT A -- >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
>> WHERE THERE ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM NEIGHBORS
OR JOINING LOTS? >> THERE WERE NOT.
>> THERE IS SLOPE ON THE PROPERTY -- THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE CARPORTS -- COULD YOU DO A SMALLER CARPORT ? JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE.
>> THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE PROPERTY SLOPES I GUESS I CAN KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH. SO, I GUESS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE HOUSE IS. IT IS KIND OF CENTERLEFT. IF I FLIP TO THE HOUSE, THAT CLUSTER OF LINES THE APPLICANT IS CLAIMING THAT THAT CLUSTER IS A STEEP CHANGE IN ELEVATION.
AND SO HE WOULD LIKE TO PUT I GUESS THE CARPORT CLOSER TO THE HOUSE. WITHIN THAT 10 FEET. I THINK IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE HE CAN GIVE MORE INSIGHT ONTO HIS REQUEST.
>> OKAY ABOUT A DOUBLE CARPORT?
>> YOU ARE SAYING YOU DROVE IN THE DRIVEWAY AND WENT STRAIGHT AHEAD AND MOVED THE RED BOX TO THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY. IS THAT WHY HE CAN'T PUT IT THERE BECAUSE IT IS TOO STEEP?
>> IT SLOPES FROM THE SPRINGHILL DRIVE TO THE REAR OF
THE BUILDING IT SLOPES UP. >> AND SO HE IS SAYING HE WOULD BE BUILDING INTO THE HILLSIDE.
>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE WITH US TODAY?
>> I DO NOT SEE HIM. >> THE LOT NEXT DOOR WHAT IS
THAT IS THAT TREES? >> ONE OF THESE MAPS THAT
ONE. >> IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A CREEK THAT COMES DOWN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS TOUCHING
[00:10:03]
THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF THE LOT. BUT THE PROPERTY THE SURROUNDING AREA IS LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL VERY WOODED.>> THIS HOUSE SITS PRETTY FAR BACK. YOU CAN TELL.
>> NO COMMENT FROM NEIGHBORS >> NO
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> AT THIS POINT WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. FOR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM.
>> OKAY SEEING THERE ARE NO COMMENTS I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN TO BOARD DISCUSSION.
>> I'M SORRY. >> MA'AM WOULD YOU MIND COMING FORWARD AND SIGNING IN FOR US?
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WOULD YOU MIND
STATING YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR US. >> CAN YOU TALK INTO THE
MICROPHONE PLEASE? >> SHE NEED A CAR.
>> SO IN OTHER WORDS WE ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY
ARE TRYING TO DO. >> MA'AM YOU ARE THE NEXT
>> YOU'VE ALREADY SIGNED IN. >> YOU ARE IN GOOD SHAPE.
>> GIVE US ONE SECOND. >> I WISH WE HAD A PICTURE OF THE HOME JUST TO GET BETTER THAN A SKETCH DRAWING. I DON'T KNOW WE CAN MAKE THAT REQUIREMENT. SEEING THERE IS A SLOPE AND IF THIS THE ONLY PLACE THAT ONE CAN REASONABLY -- I'M INCLINED TO APPROVE THIS IS PRESENTED.
>> AS LONG AS IT MATCHES THE HOUSE AND THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH NEIGHBORS. IT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE THING TO DO.
>> ARE WE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT ANY FURTHER
DETAIL ON THE APPEARANCE? >> I THINK YOU CAN MAKE CONDITIONAL . MATCHING THE EXTERIOR --
>> I'M PRETTY SURE THAT IS COVERED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES HAVE TO MATCH. THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ANYWAY. WITH THE CARPORT IT IS NOT A SHED. THAT IS NORMALLY THINGS THAT SHEDS ARE SUBJECT TO. A CARPORT IS JUST MORE SO -- YOU CAN PUT IT THERE AND I GUESS THEY DON'T HAVE A SUPER INDUSTRIAL LOOKING CARPORT. BUT I STRUGGLE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO SECTION
[2. Variance to Section 502.02 (A), Performance Residential Development Standards (Single‐Family Detached house), of The City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance ]
51103G TO ALLOW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR BZ 2024 001.>> SECOND >> THAT MOTION IS APPROVED.
OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS THE FOSTER STREET SUBDIVISION.
THIS IS A THREE-PART VARIANCE REQUESTS. ONE IS FOR 20 FEET A VARIANCE OF 20 FEET TO THE REQUIRED 50 FEET DETACHED HOME. THE SECOND REQUEST IS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A MINIMUM LOT AREA AT LESS THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 5000 SQUARE FEET.
THE THIRD PART OF THIS REQUEST IS A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FLOOR AREA RATIO GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 35% FDR IN THIS
AREA. >> HERE IS THE PROX MAP FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT IS LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. AT FOSTER STREET SLAUGHTER AVENUE. IT CONSISTS OF FIVE LOTS WHICH TOTAL JUST OVER NINE ACRES. THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION AND SEE EIGHT. IN 2018 AS PART OF THE NORTHWEST AUBURN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. AND DISTRICT IS DESIGNED TO PROMOTE INFILL DEVELOPMENT BY ALLOWING A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES. THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR THE FOSTER STREET SUBDIVISION. IT IS PROPOSING A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 58 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS. 34 LOTS WOULD HAVE TWO BEDROOM UNITS. AND 24 LOTS WOULD HAVE THREE
[00:15:03]
BEDROOM UNITS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PERMITS A DENSITY OF UP TO EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. WHICH FOR THIS PROPERTY WOULD ALLOW UP TO 72 DWELLING UNITS. AND THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS AT A DENSITY OF 6 POINT FOR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. HERE IS THE PRELIMINARY LAYOUT WHERE I'VE MARKED WHICH LOTS WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE OF EITHER 20 FEET OR 15 FEET. THEY ARE ASKING FOR AN OVERALL VARIANCE OF 20 FEET. TO ALLOW ANY LOT TO DEVELOP AS LOW OF A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS 30 FEET. 24 LOTS ARE SHOWN WITH A 30 FOOT LOT FRONTAGE. AND 25 LOTS ARE SHOWN WITH A 35 25 LOTS ARE A 35 FOOT LOT FRONTAGE. AND THE LESSENING OF THE LOT WITH CONCEIVABLY CAUSES THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL VARIANCES WHICH LEADS TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE MINIMUM LOT AREA AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS.THE PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. WHICH MAKES IT HARD TO KNOW WHAT EXACT FIGURES ARE NEEDED THE MINIMAL MINIMUM VARIANCES NEEDED TO DEVELOP AS THEY HAVE PRESENTED. AND JUST TO KNOW -- OTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TYPES PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THIS DISTRICT ALLOW AS LOW IS AN 18 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. TOWNHOUSE LOTS ALLOW UP TO DOWN TO 18 FEET. HENCE ONE HOUSE LOTS ALLOW 25 FOOT LOT WITH. ALL OF THOSE TOWNHOUSES WHEN HOMES AND SINGLE-FAMILY OUR -- PRODUCTS. TOWNHOMES AND TWIN HOUSES ARE ATTACHED UNITS. WHEREAS SINGLE-FAMILY DOES OFFER A DETACHED HOUSING PRODUCT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE OFFICIAL BODY TO REVIEW THE SUBDIVISION PLAT. WHICH IT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO US FOR REVIEW AT THIS TIME. THE APPLICANT IS PERFORMING DUE DILIGENCE JUST TO SEE IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP IN THIS MANNER. I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> I FEEL LIKE I HAVE LOTS OF
>> EXCUSE ME CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE ? PEOPLE
HAVE A HARD TIME HEARING. >> I HAVE I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE HAS NOT APPROVED THE SUBDIVISION. ALL THIS IS JUST CONCEPTUAL. BUT, BASED ON WHAT THEY ARE ENVISIONING, THEY ARE SAYING I NEED THESE VARIANCES JUST BECAUSE THE IDEA IS I WANT TO PUT X NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS AREA. SO THIS IS WHAT I AM WORKING WITH. BUT, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN DO WITHOUT THE VARIANCES?
>> I HONESTLY AM NOT SURE. >> I CAN ANSWER THAT. YES. SO YES THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE CONVERSATION AROUND WHAT CAN GO HERE. FROM IT BY RIGHT. A LOT OF THAT A LOT OF -- A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION INITIALLY TOOK PLACE AROUND ANOTHER PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED HERE BY RIGHT. THAT STAFF DID NOT FEEL WAS CONGRUENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WOULD'VE BEEN OUT OF PLACE. AND SOLD THIS PRODUCT I THINK WHAT IS BEFORE US I THINK THAT CAME WITH STAFF WAS SOMETHING THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION . INTERNALLY THAT WE HAD WITH THE DEVELOPER ABOUT KIND OF TWEAKING THEIR PRODUCT AND THINKING THROUGH WHAT WOULD BE A BETTER FIT FOR THIS AREA.
OTHER THAN I THINK WHAT THEY INITIALLY CAME WITH. THIS PRODUCT IS A REFLECTION OF A LOT OF WORK FROM THE DEVELOPER JUST TWEAKING IT. THEY WENT IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAN I THINK THEY INITIALLY CAME FORWARD WITH. BUT I THINK I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR IF THEY HAVE THOUGHT THROUGH OTHER PRODUCTS. THAT ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. THEY FELT THIS WOULD FIT A LOT BETTER THAN THE INITIAL PRODUCT.
>> WHAT WAS THE INITIAL PRODUCT ?
>> SO I GUESS KIND OF THIS ONE WAS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE OTHER ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN TOWNHOMES THAT WOULD BE
[00:20:03]
AFFORDABLE TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. >> SO THAT IS WHERE I WAS GETTING AT. AT THE END OF THE DAY IF WE CAN CALIBRATE THIS PRODUCT THAT WE ARE TALKING IS TO GET US TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE AREA. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GOOD FIT FOR THE
COMMUNITY -- >> I GUESS FROM A LOT SIZE, I THINK STANDALONE SINGLE DETACHED FAMILY HOMES. THE INITIAL PRODUCT WAS MARKET MARKET RATE TOWNHOMES. MUCH MORE IN LINE I GUESS -- STANDALONE HOMES. THEY WOULD'VE BEEN MARKET RATE TOWNHOMES. THIS ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN THIS ONE IS MUCH MORE LOOKING AT GETTING THE DENSITY AND ALLOWING FOR TO FIT THE SURROUNDING AREA. WHAT THE HOUSING TYPES LOT SIZES ARE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. A PRICE RANGE
AS WELL. >> COULD WE -- I'M IN REAL ESTATE. AFFORDABLE HOMES MEAN MANY THINGS TO MANY PEOPLE. IS
THERE A COST POINT? >> IF YOU ALL TALKED ABOUT THE PRICE POINT PUBLICLY. I GUESS THE PRICE POINT FOR THE TWO BEDROOMS ARE 180,000. THE PRICE POINT FOR THE THREE BEDROOM HOMES WERE AROUND 260,000. 250 5000. THAT IS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND AUBURN I THINK. ANYONE LOOKING FOR HOMES RIGHT NOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND NEW CONSTRUCTION.
>> I THINK THE ATTEMPT IS LOOK AT THE DEFINITION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THEY ATTEMPTED TO BUILD THAT OFF OF THAT BASIS. THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD LOOK AT FROM THE HOUSES THAT ARE BUILT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH OUR
>> THEY DO OR DO NOT ? COULD YOU REPEAT ?
>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND BASED ON WHAT I'VE LOOKED AT IS THERE ATTEMPTING TO LOOK AT THE LOW TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSING DEFINITION DEVELOPED BY HOOD HUD FOR ESTABLISHING
THESE PRICE POINTS. >> THESE ARE CONFORMING WITHIN
THAT PRICE POINT ? >> THESE LOOK TO BE IN THAT
RANGE, YES. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
>> OKAY I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. FOR COMMENTS
FROM -- THE AUDIENCE. >> I GUESS I SHOULD ASK THE APPLICANT IF HE WISHES TO SPEAK.
>> IT IS ALL COMING BACK. IT HAS BEEN SIX MONTHS SINCE WE
MET. >> GOOD AFTERNOON LAKE RICE BARRETT SIMPSON ENGINEERING. I WILL BE BRIEF. UNLESS ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAS QUESTIONS. DID A GREAT JOB OF WALKING US THROUGH HOW WE GOT HERE. AT THE END OF THE DAY WHAT WE CAME WITH THE DEVELOPER ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND HAD A VERY DIFFERENT PROJECT IN MIND.
WHICH WAS QUITE FRANKLY A VERY SUPER HIGH-END TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. AFTER MEETING WITH STAFF IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS NOT WHAT THIS COMMUNITY NEEDED. AT THIS LOCATION. AND SO THE DEVELOPER HAS WORKED EXTREMELY HARD TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PROVIDE FEESIMPLE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS AT A PRICE POINT THAT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF -- TALKING ABOUT JUST A SECOND AGO. SO, THAT IS THAT WAS KIND OF THE DIRECTION THAT THE PROJECT WAS HEADED TOWARDS. JUST PIVOTED HEADED TOWARDS A NEW DIRECTION. THEN THE QUESTION BECAME HOW DO YOU DO SO? TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE TO OVERCOME IS THE FACT THEY ARE FEESIMPLE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS.
WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE A SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF STREET FRONTAGE ALONG NEWLY CONSTRUCTED STREET INFRASTRUCTURE. WHICH IN THE DEVELOPMENT WORLD IS THE GREATEST PART OF THE HINDRANCE TO TWO THINGS WHICH IS DRIVING THE PRICE OF THE LAND BASIS OF EACH LOT DOWN. AS WELL AS BEING ABLE TO FIT A DENSITY ON THE LOT WHERE YOU GET ENOUGH HOUSES TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A PRICE POINT THAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE IN AUBURN AS
[00:25:07]
FEESIMPLE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. IN ORDER TO DO SO THE WAY TO DO THAT IS DIMINISHED STREET FRONTAGE. SO AUBURN ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES A MINIMUM 50 FOOT LOT WITH FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND PERFORMANCE ZONING. WHICH WOULD OBVIOUSLY RESULT NOT ONLY IN MUCH ADDED INFRASTRUCTURE COST PER LOT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME A MUCH SMALLER DENSITY ACROSS THE DEVELOPMENT . WHICH ROUGH CALCULATIONS THAT $180,000 TWO-BEDROOM HOME WITHIN BECOME A $260,000 TWO-BEDROOM HOME. YOU CAN KIND OF EXTRAPOLATE FROM THERE. THE THREE BEDROOM HOME JUST GETS HIGHER AND HIGHER. SO WHAT WE FOUND WAS TO MEET THE NEEDS WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS LOCAL COMMUNITY HAD, THIS WAS THE BEST ROUTE FORWARD. TO GET TO THAT IDEA OF A FEESIMPLE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME FOR SALE PRODUCT AT A PRICE POINT THAT WAS WE WERE LOOKING FOR. SO, AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION, SO THE WAY THE REASON YOU HAVE A SCHEMATIC PLAN IN NATURE IS PLANNING COMMISSION COULD NOT ACT ON THIS PLAT BECAUSE THE PLAT WILL COME BEFORE THEM WITH THE NOT MEETING THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE 30 FOOT LOT INSTEAD OF 50. THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD NOT APPROVE THAT WITHOUT THIS BOARDS APPROVAL FIRST.SHOULD THIS BOARD SEE FIT TO APPROVE THESE VARIANCES, YOU WOULD FOLLOW-UP IMMEDIATELY WITH A SUBMITTAL OF A PLAT TO MATCH THIS THAT WOULD GO BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AS A PRELIMINARY PLAT HOLLOW IT UP WITH FULL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. JUST A QUICK HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT HERE. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. I'M JUST PROCESSING . SO ONE I WILL COMMENT THAT I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO BRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THIS COMMUNITY. I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO DO THAT. NUMBER TWO IS THERE ANY -- MAYBE THIS QUESTION WAS JUST ANSWERED -- IF THIS THE VARIANCES ARE NOT APPROVED, IS THERE ANY VARIATION OF A SUBDIVISION THAT COULD STILL MOVE FORWARD AND SOME OTHER
CONFIGURATION? >> NOT IN THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT. THERE IS NO NO WAY WE CAN CONCEIVE OF A FEESIMPLE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING THAT WOULD GET ANYWHERE NEAR THESE PRICE POINTS. TO MEET THAT NEED.
WITHOUT THESE VARIANCES. SHOULD THIS VARIANCE NOT BE APPROVED I THINK THERE ARE A MULTITUDE OF IDEAS. NO CONCRETE PLANS. THERE IS ALWAYS THE OPTION OF SOME OF THE PERMITTED BY RIGHT USES OF TOWNHOMES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS WANTED OR NEEDED HERE.
>> TO SECOND THAT, SO -- AEDS ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED UNDER THE ORDINANCE. THEY NEED A MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES. THE SITE IS NOT COTTAGE HOUSES WAS ANOTHER THING WE LOOKED AT BUT IT ALSO NEEDED A VARIANCE AS WELL. MIKE SAID WHEN WE LOOKED IN AND THROUGH THE ENTIRE ZONING ORDINANCE. I THINK IN THE FUTURE WE HOPE TO HAVE A FLEXIBLE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS US TO DO THIS. THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON. UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITIONS VARIANCES WERE THE ONLY WAY THAT WE COULD THAT SOMETHING COULD THE PRODUCT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED IS THE ONLY WAY IT CAN COME FORWARD AND BE APPROVED WITH VARIANCES.
>> THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE SAYING IT IS THE ONLY OPTION IN THIS PARTICULAR CONFIGURE THAT THIS PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION OF THIS PRODUCT IS THE ONLY THING THAT YOU BELIEVE THEY COULD COME UP WITH.
>> CORRECT. MINIMUM LOT SIZE IT WOULD NOT MEET. THE COTTAGE HOUSES WOULD NOT WORK BECAUSE THE LOT WITH WOULD NOT MEET WE HOPE TO WORK TOWARDS PUTTING TOGETHER AN ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS THE FLEXIBILITY FOR PROJECTS LIKE THIS. THE FUTURE OF AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THINGS SUCH AS A WIN-WIN FOR PUBLIC AMENITIES. IN EXCHANGE OF TRADE-OFFS AND
[00:30:01]
THINGS LIKE THAT. ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS ALSO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE ARE OTHER THINGS WHETHER THAT BE GREEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DETENTION PONDS MAINTENANCE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. MINIMUM LOT WITH SETBACKS FA OURS ALL OF THOSE THINGS AT THE COST OF THE END PRODUCT. THOSE OF THE FLEXIBILITY WE ARE LOOKING FOR. NOT JUST ABOUT GETTING ARCHITECTURE AND PLACES ARE ADDING THIS TO THE IN PLACES.THIS IS ABOUT ALLOWING THE FLEXIBILITY FOR SOME OF THESE AND OTHER INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS. TO MOVE FORTH. IT IS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT GETTING -- IT IS ABOUT ALLOWING THE FLEXIBILITY OF
THESE PROJECTS AS WELL. >> JUST TO MAKE SURE MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHERE WE WERE GOING. YOU MAY HAVE GOTTEN THIS. THE POINT THERE IS NO OTHER OPTIONS. THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCES.
NONE OF THOSE WOULD GET YOU INTO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RANGE. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE CLEAR ON THAT.
>> SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE ARE TWO ROADS IN AND OUT TO MAKE A U SHAPE. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 140 BEDROOMS. CONCEIVABLY TWO CARS PER HOUSE. HUNDRED 16 NEW CARS. THIS IS A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD WELL-ESTABLISHED.
LOTS OF FAMILIES AND LOTS OF CARS. IS THERE A PLAN TO SOMEHOW MITIGATE TRAFFIC? I DON'T SEE GARAGES. I SEE DRIVEWAYS. I'M NOT SURE IF THEY ARE PAVED DRIVEWAYS. DO WE HAVE A PLAN HAVE WE DONE ANY TRAFFIC STUDY IMPACT STUDY?
>> THOSE ARE PARKING PADS OUT IN FRONT. THEY ARE PAVED. NO MA'AM. SO, WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TO FIND OUT IF WE HAVE A POTENTIAL PROJECT. PART OF THE PART OF THE STAFF CITY OF AUBURN STAFF JOB IN PLANNING COMMISSION IS TO OVERSEE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU ARE HAVING.
THERE WOULD BE SHOULD THIS PROJECT MOVE FORWARD IN THIS CONFIGURATION, THE CITY OF AUBURN HAS REGULATIONS IN PLACE ON WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT TRIGGER A TRAFFIC STUDY. IF A TRAFFIC STUDY IS REQUIRED ONE WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVIDED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION PLANS COULD BE APPROVED.
>> ANYTHING ANY OUTCOME OF THAT TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WERE DETRIMENTAL IN NATURE WOULD HAVE TO BE MITIGATED.
>> JUST ANOTHER COMMENT. WE SAW EARLIER WHERE OBVIOUSLY SOMEONE THAT LIVES IN THE COMMUNITY WAS COMING FORWARD AND SAYING THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO DO.
HAVE THEY SEEN? >> YES MA'AM. I SPENT ABOUT TWO HOURS AND 15 MINUTES AT A VERY SIMILAR PODIUM MONDAY NIGHT. AT THE BILL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH. DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY. THERE WERE ONE CERTIFIED LETTERS WENT OUT AND THE SIGN WENT UP THERE WERE CONSIGN PROPERTY OWNERS. THE COUNCIL PERSON REPRESENTING THIS DISTRICT REACHED OUT. I MET WITH HER AND CITY REPRESENTATIVES ON FRIDAY KIND OF EXPLAINED WHAT WAS GOING ON.
AND THEN SHE WAS ABLE TO FACILITATE A COMMUNITY MEETING FOR MONDAY NIGHT. SO I CAME OUT MONDAY NIGHT AND TRY TO
ANSWER AS MANY QUESTIONS. >> THAT IS IT. THANK YOU.
>>> THESE ARE TWO-WAY STREETS CORRECT ?
>> THESE WOULD BE STANDARD CITY STREETS. THEY WOULD SLAUGHTER AVENUE CURRENTLY DEAD ENDS TO THE PROPERTY. WE WOULD EXTEND SLAUGHTER COME BUILDING NORTH-SOUTH STREET. THEN ANOTHER EAST-WEST STREET THAT WILL COME BACK OUT AND COME BACK ONTO FOSTER AT A INTERSECTION. TO GIVE EMERGENCY SERVICES IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. JUST GENERALLY TRY TO TIE IN WHAT FOR GOOD TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. IT IS A FAIRLY STANDARD LAYOUT. THEY ARE STANDARD CITY STREETS.
>> DO THEY MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT ?
>> YES >> THIS WOULD BE ON 50 FOOT RIGHTS-OF-WAY. I BELIEVE FOR A SUBDIVISION OF THIS SIZE MINIMUM PAVEMENT WITH WOULD BE 22 FEET +24 INCHES OF CURB AND GUTTER. YOU WOULD HAVE IT WOULD LOOK THE STREETS WOULD LOOK LIKE ANY OTHER SUBDIVISION IN AUBURN.
>> THOSE ARE SIDEWALKS? OKAY. >> IT IS NOT A FUNCTION OF THERE ARE CERTAIN WAYS TO GET TO AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. BUT THOSE ITEMS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO SHOULD NOT DIMINISH THE USE OF THE SUBDIVISION. SO YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME STREETS. YOU HAVE THE SAME SIDEWALKS. ALL YOU
[00:35:01]
ARE DOING IS MAKING A MORE NARROW LOT FOR A MORE NARROWPRODUCT TO MEET THAT NEED. >> ANY IDEA -- THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOMES. ANY IDEA WHAT TYPES OF FINISHES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?
>> I BELIEVE THEY ARE ALL HEARTY SET. THESE ARE HARDY.
WERE ANY ELEVATION SUBMITTED? I DON'T KNOW THAT COMMUNITY HAS SEEN ELEVATIONS. STAFF HISSING ELEVATIONS. THEY ARE A HARDY PRODUCT. SIMPLE GABLE ROOF.
>> THANK YOU. >> SO I WILL THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU SIGNED IN.
>> DID WE RECEIVE COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS?
>> I SPOKE TO -- >> I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF THAT WAS HEADED OFF BY THE MEETING ON MONDAY NIGHT. I
THINK WE'VE GOT PUBLIC INPUT. >> I DID RECEIVE A COUPLE
PHONE CALLS. >> IN FAVOR OR AGAINST?
>> THE ONE LADY I SPOKE WITH YESTERDAY AT FIRST SHE WAS AGAINST THE VARIANCES. AFTER I SPOKE WITH HER SHE CALLED BACK TO SAY THAT SHE WOULD NO LONGER BE EMAILING IN CORRESPONDENCE OF OPPOSITION. HER QUESTIONS HAD BEEN
>> I WILL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC HEARING. COULD YOU PLEASE SIGN
IN AND STATE YOUR NAME? >> SOME I KNOW AND SOME I DON'T KNOW. BEEN OUT OF COMMISSION WITH HEALTH CONDITIONS. MY NAME IS BERNARD JACKSON. I OWN APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES AND DEVELOPED IN THAT AREA. LOW-COST HOUSING. I HAVE BEEN BUILDING AND DEVELOPING AROUND AUBURN FOR OVER 30+ YEARS. THE REASON YOU SEE THE OUTPOURING OF THE COMMUNITY HERE TONIGHT IS BECAUSE OF A LACK OF COMMUNICATION. AND IF YOU GUYS WATCH THE OLD MOVIE WITH CLINT AND'S WOULD -- EASTWOOD. WHAT WE HAVE IS A LACK OF COMMUNICATION. THIS THING HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER A YEAR AND A HALF IN TERMS OF DISCUSSION. AND IT IS VERY VERY -- THAT ARE COUNCILWOMAN JUST FINDS OUT ABOUT IT. TWO OR THREE WEEKS BEFORE. ALL THE PEOPLE YOU SEE HERE THE REASON THEY ARE HERE IS BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST NOW FINDING OUT ABOUT IT A WEEK OR SO BEFORE. THE PEOPLE AREN'T IGNORANT. THEY ARE NOT STUPID. THEY JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY AT THIS POINT IN TIME SOMEBODY IS GOING TO TELL THEM WHAT IS AFFORDABLE FOR THEM? NOBODY HAS SURVEYED THE COMMUNITY. THE MEETING ON MONDAY NO PRICE POINTS. NO DIRECT POINTS TO THE PEOPLE.
THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING YOU PEOPLE FOR GUIDANCE. TONIGHT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO THIS. CHARGING THE DEVELOPER FIRST DO YOUR HOMEWORK. EVERY DEVELOPER OR BUILDER OR WHOMEVER TALK TO YOUR PEOPLE. BECOME PROXIES. KNOW WHAT KIND OF PRODUCT THEY CAN AFFORD. DON'T GO READ SOMETHING OUT OF A BOOK OR MAGAZINE AND TELL THEM EVEN -- THERE IS 100 HOUSING UNITS. MOUTON DRAKE AND RIDGECREST. THAT IS NOT COUNTING RIDGECREST. PEOPLE THAT NEED HOUSING BUT CAN THEY AFFORD IT? THIS YOUNG LADY ASKED THE QUESTION WHAT IS AFFORDABLE ? THAT IS THE QUESTION THESE PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW TONIGHT. YOU HAVE TO QUALIFY. MOST OF THESE PEOPLE DON'T MAKE 50 TO 70 AND THEY DON'T HAVE TWO INCOMES AND THEIR HOMES. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT IS AFFORDABLE. THE CITY CAN TELL YOU WHAT IS AFFORDABLE BY THEM SUBSIDIZING THE HOUSING THAT THEY BUILD. THEY CAN FIND LOTS . DEVELOPERS ARE IN IT FOR THE PROFIT. THEY ARE NOT IN IT FOR THE PEOPLE. IN AUBURN ALABAMA. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. IF I WAS NOT AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PERSON THAT WAS COMPASSIONATE TOWARD MY PEOPLE. I DON'T LIVE THERE BUT I OWN PROPERTY IN THAT AREA. IF I COULD AFFORD TO BUILD WHICH I PLAN TO. I WOULD PUT SOMETHING THERE THAT MOST OF THESE PEOPLE COULD AFFORD. I WOULD BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE. WITH THE CITY ON LOWERING THE COST OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE. MAINTAINING SOME OF THE GREEN SPACES AND EVERYTHING THAT ARE THERE. BUT
[00:40:04]
YOU HAVE TO BRING SOMETHING TO THE TABLE TO GIVE TO THE PEOPLE. YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE AND TAKE. THESE PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD THAT. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS 75 TO 100 YEARS IN AGE. VERY WELL ESTABLISHED. THEIR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS WANT TO COME BACK HOME. WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO SEE WHEN THEY GET THERE? TRAFFIC DUMPING OUT. WE'VE BEEN HERE WE'VE DONE THIS MOVIE BEFORE. AT BELT MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH.THIS PROJECT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN UP. YOU HAVE 58 FAMILIES THAT ARE GOING TO DUMP THEIR TRAFFIC DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH. THAT IS NOT A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. THAT IS A CONNECTOR STREET. IT GOES FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER. PEOPLE GO IN AND TURN AROUND.
IS GOING TO BE ACCESSIBLE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. YOU HAVE SUNDAY SERVICES. YOU HAVE WEDNESDAY NIGHT BIBLE CLASS.
YOU'VE GOT WEDDINGS. YOU'VE GOT FUNERALS. THESE PEOPLE DON'T -- THEY HAVE TO GO TO CLASS BUT THEY HAVE TO GO TO WORK. THIS KIND OF A DEVELOPMENT IS NOT THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE. TRUST ME. I WORKED ENGINEERING FOR 8 YEARS IN THE CITY. AND I KNOW THAT THERE IS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY. WHY DON'T THE CITY PARTICIPATE ? WHY DON'T YOU ASK OTHER DEVELOPERS OR WHY DON'T YOU DO SOME -- THERE ARE MANY OPTIONS. THERE ARE MANY OPTIONS. AND WHAT YOU HEAR TONIGHT THE REASON I SAY TABLE IS BECAUSE GIVE THE DEVELOPER TIME. NOT FOR A YEAR TO PLAN. BUT GIVE HIM SOME MONTHS OR SO TO GO BACK AND TALK TO THE PEOPLE.
THEN YOU WON'T HAVE THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK YOU ARE ABOUT TO HEAR FROM THESE PEOPLE TONIGHT. I STAN WITH THE PEOPLE. I DON'T LIVE THERE. I CAN AFFORD WHAT THEY ARE OFFERING. BUT I DON'T WANT THESE PEOPLE TO BE HOMELESS SOMEPLACE. THEY WILL TELL YOU HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
>>> THE DEVELOPER ACTUALLY DOES HAVE SOME OF THE ELEVATIONS. WE WILL GIVE THOSE TO YOU ALL SHORTLY.
>> OKAY >> THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED --
>> THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ALMOST WENT 100% NO.
>> THIS WAS DISTRIBUTED AT THE RECENT MEETING.
>> ONLY MONDAY NIGHT. >> THANK YOU.
>> LACK OF COMMUNICATION. >>> WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE I WOU
GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE BOARD. >> CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME?
>> I NAZ MARTIN 502 BIRCH STREET. RIGHT THERE ON THE CORNER OF THIS PROPERTY. I HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE I'VE BEEN IN THE AREA JUST ABOUT ALL MY LIFE. AS THEY WERE SAYING IF ANYBODY LOOKS AT THIS MAP UP HERE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE SLAVE SHIP WE BROUGHT OVER. JUST LOOK AT IT. EVERY SECTION WHEN I WAS A CHILD GROWING UP WE HAD FIVE OR SIX NEIGHBORHOODS.
LOOK AT THE BACK LINE. LOOK AT UP IN DRAKE TOWN. ALL THOSE BIG DUTCHMAN HAS COME IN AND JUST REALLY JUST DESTROYED THE
[00:45:01]
WHOLE SECTION. NOW IN OUR SECTION OVER THERE WHERE WE ARE NOW IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS STILL ALLOWABLE. SO I DON'T WANT SOME BIG COMPANY TO JUST COME IN AND DESTROY THAT. SO, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AS FAR AS PAYING $180,000 FOR A TWO BEDROOM. A LOT OF KIDS HAVE GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE AND THEY ONLY ARE MAKING LIKE $58,000 A YEAR. THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. THAT LITTLE SPACE -- 10 ACRES.YOU'RE GOING TO PUT 58 HOUSES THERE -- MY NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR DON'T EVEN HAVE TO COME OVER. I CAN SIT ON MY PORCH AND HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE AND THEY CAN BE ON THEIR PORCH AND HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE. ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS BIG COMPANY IS GOING TO COME IN AND WANT US TO CHANGE THE RULES. IF IT IS 50 FEET LET IT BE 50 FEET. THE CITY DID SOME HOUSING RIGHT DOWN THE STREET BELOW THAT. THEY DID NOT COST $180,000 FOR NO TWO BEDROOM. I KNOW PRICES HAVE GONE UP BUT MAKE IT SO THE PEOPLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD CAN AFFORD THOSE HOUSES. I KNOW EVERYTHING IS GOING UP EVERYWHERE. IF THE PEOPLE ARE NOT MAKING THE MONEY THEY CAN BEFORE YOU KNOW IT -- WE WON'T HAVE IT WILL BE PEOPLE STUDENTS STAYING IN THOSE APARTMENTS. AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC THE TRAFFIC IS ALREADY BAD NOW. CAN YOU IMAGINE 58 MORE FAMILIES ? IF IT IS A HUSBAND AND WIFE AND THEY HAVE TWO KIDS. BY THE TIME THEY ARE TEENAGERS THEY HAVE CARS. THEY WON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PARK THEIR CAR. THEY WILL HAVE TO PARK IT ON THE STREET. THAT MAKES -- IT IS TOO CONGESTED TO TRY TO PUT THAT MANY HOUSES ON 10 ACRES OF
LAND. >> WE DON'T NEED NO TWO BEDROOM. EVEN IF IT IS A SINGLE PARENT AND THEY HAVE TWO KIDS , THEY STILL NEED MORE THAN TWO BEDROOMS. THE FIRST BEDROOM IS GOING TO BE I'VE BEEN IN SOME OF THOSE APARTMENTS THAT THE BEDROOM IS SO SMALL YOU HAVE TO HAVE JUST A TWIN BED. YOU CAN'T PUT THE DRESSER. YOU PUT THE DRESSER IN THE HALL. YOU ALL NEED TO RECONSIDER.
>> THE CITY CAN TAKE OVER AND DO IT JUST LIKE THEY DID THOSE DOWN THE ROAD. THAT WILL BE FEASIBLE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
>> ON THE CITY SO FOR THE HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT THROUGH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THAT PRICE POINT WAS I THINK ABOUT 180,000 THE CITY WAS ABLE TO PUT A DOWN ABOUT 165. IT WAS HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED. HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED. AND SO EVEN LOOKING AT THE PRODUCT THAT BEFORE US. WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE WITHOUT HEAVY SUB SEDATION FROM THE CITY.
>> WORK ON IT. >> HOW MUCH WAS IT SUBSIDIZED?
CAN WE GET THAT? >> THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO SOME RESEARCH IN ORDER TO PULL THOSE NUMBERS TOGETHER. AS FAR AS DISCUSSIONS FOR THIS MEETING I GUESS I WOULD ASK FOCUS ON THE REQUEST. THEY HAVE TO GET THIS IN ORDER TO GET TO THE NEXT STEPS. THERE IS A LOT THAT WOULD HAVE TO PLAY AFTER THAT. WE REQUEST -- FOCUS ON THAT.
THE CITY HAS PARTICIPATED THROUGH THE NORTH AUBURN -- TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THAT PRICE TAG HAS GONE UP THROUGH THE YEARS. WE ARE ALL FACING THAT.
>> UNDERSTOOD. >> I KNOW THEY WANT TO KEEP IT AT THE 160 -- 180 RANGE. I DO THIS EVERY DAY FOR A LIVING. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE BUILDER WILL BE ABLE TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT WOULD MAKE ANY KIND OF PROFIT. THE PROFIT MARGIN MOST WANT TO GET. I'M SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE PRICE POINT. THE PRICES WILL COME IN AT 200 OR 295.
>> I HOPE I'M WRONG. THAT IS MY PREDICTION.
>> I'M SORRY. >> IT IS STILL A PUBLIC
HEARING. >> LET'S CONTINUE ON PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE A LOT TO DISCUSS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M AT 883 -- AUBURN ALABAMA. MY CONCERN IS I KNOW WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND I KNOW THINGS COST. MY MAIN CONCERN IS 58. BECAUSE I LIVE IN THE CITY OF AUBURN ONE OF THE HOUSES THEY BUILD. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACRES THAT IS. IF YOU SEE OUR HOUSES THEY ARE SO CLOSE
[00:50:05]
TOGETHER. YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE WITH CHILDREN AND CHILDREN LIKE TO PLAY. OTHER PEOPLE DO NOT WANT CHILDREN ON THEIR LAWN.SO, MY CONCERN IS THIS MANY HOUSES IN THAT LITTLE SPACE.
AND AGAIN THEY SAY ABOUT THE PARKING. THEY KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO PARK ON THE ROAD. I HAVE A CAR. I HAD ME AND MY TWO SONS. WE HAD CARS. THEY WILL SAY YOU CAN'T PARK ON THE STREET. LITTLE DRIVEWAY WOULD NOT HOLD BUT TWO CARS. WHAT DO THEY WANT? THEY WANTED TO HAVE SOMETHING OR NOT HAVE SOMETHING. I KNOW THINGS COST. 58 UNITS THAT IS GOING TO BE SOME TROUBLE. I JUST FEEL LIKE I HAD CHILDREN. I HAVE GRANDCHILDREN. MY NEIGHBORS DO NOT WANT THEM PLAYING ON THEIR LAWN. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE CAUSING PROBLEMS. BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT THAT MANY HOUSES AND THAT LITTLE SPACE.
SO, MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU ALL REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS. I KNOW WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AUBURN. JUST THINK ABOUT THE TROUBLE THAT IS GOING TO COST.
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. CAN THEY -- AUDIENCE MEMBERS ALLOWED TO SIGN IN WHILE SOMEONE ELSE IS SPEAKING?
>> THEY CAN OR AFTER THEY SPEAK IS FINE.
>> I BOUGHT A HOUSE WHEN THE CITY 2007. I ONLY PAID $83,000 FOR MY HOUSE. I KNOW THINGS HAVE GONE UP. $180,000 IS TOO MUCH FOR AFFORDABLE HOME. I'VE GOT ONE MORE QUESTION. WHY SHOULD WE GIVE SOME -- TO BUILD THAT STRUCTURE? I WAS TOLD THE CITY WANT TO TAKE SOME OF OUR LAND TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE.
WHY SHOULD WE GIVE OUR LAND AWAY?
>> I DON'T THINK -- >> I WAS TOLD THE CITY THAT YOU ALL NEEDED -- 30 FEET OF OUR PROPERTY. I DON'T THINK THAT
WAS THE CASE. I WOULD SAY NO. >> TO MAKE THE 50 FOOT --
>> THE DEVELOPER OWNS THIS LAND.
>> EVERYTHING THAT IS ON HERE IS OWNED BY THE DEVELOPER. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT-OF-WAY OR SOMETHING RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS ALREADY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. I'M REALLY CONFUSED AND THE IDEA THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD REQUIRE ANY OF YOUR LAND. I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT IS
COMING FROM. >> THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TOLD.
>> THAT IS NOT ACCURATE. >> I CAN'T ALLOW YOU TO
>> SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT -- AND ONE OF THE FIVE THEY HAVE
ALREADY BOUGHT? >> JUST TO CLEAR UP ANY CONFUSION THERE IS NO INTENT TO TAKE ANY LAND BY EMINENT DOMAIN. THE DEVELOPER OWNS THIS LAMP WHERE SLAUGHTER AVENUE DEAD ENDS WAS AN EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. JUST BECAUSE IT MAY BE GROWN UP AND IT IS NOT PAVED NOBODY WILL BE LOSING ANY PORTION OF THE LAND IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO PROCEED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MAY HAVE HEARD. I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THINGS LIKE THAT MAKE YOU STARTED. SLAUGHTER AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD'VE ALREADY EXISTED EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT CURRENTLY CONNECTED. THEY WERE THINKING FOR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY. WHETHER THAT WAS A ONE HOUSE ON THIS NINE ACRES OR FIVE HOUSES OR 58 HOUSES. THE BODIES LAND WILL BE IMPACTED. BY THIS. NO ONE'S LAND IS GOING TO BE TAKEN AWAY.
IN OTHER WORDS -- >> JUST STATE YOUR NAME.
>> SO IN OTHER WORDS THE LETTER THAT MY AUNT GOT -- CAN
I SHOW IT TO YOU? >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS?
I'M SORRY. >> IT IS FROM I GUESS THE CITY. IT IS SAYING THAT FOR THEM TO BUILD AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ON THEIR, THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE SOME OF
[00:55:03]
THE LAND. THAT IS WHAT ALL THE COMMOTION IS ABOUT. LIKE YOU SAID COMMUNICATION. AND THEN -- NONE OF THEM KNEW ABOUT THE MEETING. SO HOW ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE A MEETING AND DISCUSS STUFF WAS SOME OF THE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON.SOME OF THE PEOPLE ARE ELDERLY PEOPLE. LIKE THEY SAY MY GRANDMOTHER STAYS THERE. SHE PASSED AWAY. I GREW UP THERE.
I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 57 YEARS. IT IS JUST GOING TO BE A BIG DIFFERENCE AND A BIG CHANGE. I'M NOT SAYING A CHANGE IS WRONG. BUT SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE SICK IN THEIR WAYS AND
STUFF. >> WE UNDERSTAND CHANGES HARD
AND DIFFICULT. >> WHAT GOT THEM SO UPSET.
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT TAKING SOME OF THEIR LAND.
>> IS THIS OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION?
>> IT IS A LETTER SOME OF THE LETTERS THAT ARRIVED ABOUT THE MEETING. THEY JUST GOT IT YESTERDAY.
>> CERTIFIED LETTERS. THAT IS WHAT THE COMMOTION IS ABOUT.
>> ARE YOU BRINGING THIS LATER UP THIS LETTER UP?
>> HOLD ON. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT TO OUR ATTENTION.
>> HE IS PULLING IT UP. SO YES.
>> I HAVE THE LETTER. I DON'T -- TO ME IT DOES NOT
>> DO WE HAVE A PROJECTOR? >> IT WILL COME UP ON THEIR.
>> 920 SLAUGHTER AVENUE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. I BELIEVE IT IS TOO CONGESTED FOR THEM TO PUT 58 UNITS. IN A SMALL AREA LIKE THAT. IT IS TOO CONGESTED. THIS IS THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM I GUESS A CERTIFIED LETTER. EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT. ANYBODY WANT TO SEE IT?
>> IT SHOULD HAVE THE OFFICIAL AUBURN LOCAL AS WELL AS THE
PLAT. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND SHARING IT WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO LOOK AT IT.
>> THANK YOU. >> SO, IS THERE A WAY I CAN MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?
>> I THINK SO I GUESS IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO FINISH TALKING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. I CAN CLARIFY THE LETTER. THERE IS
NO MISTAKES IN THE LETTER. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME LETTER.
>> IT SAID EVERYONE IS REASSURED --
>> I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1967 OR 68. IT IS TOO CONGESTED TO PUT 58 UNITS IN A LITTLE AREA LIKE THAT. IT IS GOING TO BE
A WHOLE LOT OF CONFUSION. >> TOO CONGESTED. THAT IS THE
PLAIN TRUTH. >> I CAN READ THE LETTER. I CAN EXPLAIN EVERYTHING STEP-BY-STEP.
>> WE HAVE IT HERE. >> IT IS GOING TO BE TOO CONGESTED NO MATTER WHAT THE LETTER SAYS.
>> SO WE'VE GOT IT UP ON OUR SCREENS. THE LETTER THAT YOU BROUGHT FORWARD IS A LETTER FROM THE PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR. AND IT IS ADDRESSED TO PROPERTY OWNERS. IT IS DATED MARCH 22ND 2024. IT IS IT APPEARS TO BE AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THIS ITEM WILL COME BEFORE THE BZA . AND EXPLAINS WHAT THEIR REQUEST IS. AND GIVES SOME DETAILS THAT I BELIEVE HAVE ALREADY BEEN COVERED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> I WANT TO EXPLAIN THERE SEEMS TO BE A MISUNDERSTANDING.
SO AS THE LETTER READS, WHERE THE MEETING IS GOING TO BE HELD. THE PURPOSE IS TO HEAR VARIANCE REQUEST FROM LAKE RICE SIMPSON TO SECTION 50202 A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. CITY OF AUBURN ZONING ORDINANCE. THE
[01:00:01]
FIRST REQUEST TO ALLOW A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 30 FEET WITH THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS 50 FEET. SO I GUESS JUST TO REREAD THAT THE FIRST REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 30 FEET WITH THE REQUIRED LOT WIDTH IS 50 FEET.THAT SPEAKS TO WHAT THE MINIMUM LOT REQUIRED ON STREET FRONTAGE FOR ALL SUBDIVISIONS. THAT IS NOT A ASK OF ANY PROPERTY OWNER WHO RECEIVED THE LETTER. THAT IS JUST A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE DEVELOPER THEMSELVES ARE ASKING FOR FOR THE LOT FRONTAGE FOR THEIR SUBDIVISION WITHOUT THEY ARE TRYING TO CREATE TO BE LESS THAN 50 FEET AS LOW AS 30 FEET.
THAT IS NOT IN ASK FOR ANYBODY'S PROPERTY. FOR ANYONE TO GIVE UP LAND. I WANT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SECOND REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A MINIMUM LOT AREA LESS THAN REQUIRED 5000 SQUARE FEET. AND SO MIKE SAID IT EARLIER. MINIMUM LOTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE 5000 SQUARE FEET. IF THEY COULD SHRINK THE LOT WITH IT CAN INCREASE THE DENSITY WHICH CAN PROVIDE MORE UNITS FOR THE LAND ETC. FOR AFFORDABILITY. ONCE AGAIN --
>> THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD 58 --
>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE SPEAKING. DID I INTERRUPT YOU?
>> COULD WE -- I WANT TO GIVE YOU YOUR FULL TIME TO SPEAK.
IT HAS BEEN A LOT OF A LOT OF QUESTIONS HAVE COME UP. IF YOU DON'T MIND WOULD YOU LET HIM CONTINUE TO CLARIFY?
>> WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU. >> THE THIRD REQUEST THAT LESS THAN REQUIRED -- RATIO GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM 35% FOR ALL LOTS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF -- NORTHWEST OF SLAUGHTER AVENUE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT. JUST TO CLARIFY, THE LETTER WAS NOT INTENDED TO CONVEY THAT THE CITY WANTED ANY LAND FROM ANYBODY. IT WAS JUST STATING THE MINIMUM LOT WITH A 50 FEET BE AMENDED DOWN TO 30 FEET TO ALLOW FOR THE DENSITY OF THE SUBDIVISION. THIS WAS NOT A REQUEST FOR ANYBODY TO HAND OVER LAND. THIS IS NOT AN ACTION OF PREEMPTING EMINENT DOMAIN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT RUMOR CAME FROM. DEFINITIVELY EMPHATICALLY THAT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE LETTER. THIS LETTER WAS SIMPLY A COMMUNICATION ABOUT WHAT THE VARIANCE WOULD BE. THIS IS NOT EMINENT DOMAIN. THIS IS NONE OF THAT. THAT IS A RUMOR ANYONE HEARD I'M SORRY THAT IT MAY HAVE UPSET YOU. I'M SORRY IF IF YOU CAME DOWN HERE AND THAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING.
STRICTLY JUST A RUMOR. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE MEDICATION IS FOR.
IT WAS TO COMMUNICATE THAT THERE WOULD BE A REQUEST ON STRIKING THE LOT WITH SHRINKING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND AND ALSO THE FDR -- WHAT CAN BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY. I JUST WANTED TO SPELL THAT RUMOR RIGHT NOW. I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. AS FAR AS THE RIGHT AWAY.
[01:05:07]
>> THIS IS REALLY JUST WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO DO WITH THEIR LAND. IT IS PART OF IT.
ENDS UP A LOT OF VISIBLE REACTIONS.
EVERYONE IS REALLY RILED UP ABOUT IT AND WANTS OUR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE ELSE WILL DO ON THEIR LAND.
THIS IS THE -- OF THE VARIANCE PROCESS DOESN'T APPROVE THIS.
IT REALLY ALLOWS WHEN THIS GOES TO PLANNING COMMISSION THAT IF IT WERE TO FAIL, THE VARIANCE WOULD BE THE WAY TO MITIGATE THAT. PLAT STILL MAY NOT BE APPROVED FOR OTHER REASONS. THE PRIMARY PLAQUE COULD STILL BE DENIED IF IT DOES NOT MEET OTHER STANDARDS.
BUT THESE THREE, THE VARIANCES ARE APPROVED, WOULD NOT BE REASON TO DENY THE PLAT. A LOT OF PROCESSES HAPPENING.
COPYRIGHT, ET CETERA. THIS IS WORKING THROUGH.
BLAKE MENTIONED THE VARIANCES NECESSARY FOR THIS TO GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE PLAT.
>> PRETTY MUCH WITH ALL SUBDIVISIONS OR DEVELOPMENTS THAT COME THROUGH THERE IS REVIEW OF THE TRAFFIC AND WHAT THE PROJECTED TRAFFIC AND HOW IT WILL IMPACT THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. TRAFFIC STUDY WILL BE REQUIRED AND IF THERE IS ANY MITIGATION WHETHER THAT BE THAT SOME OF THE BIGGER THINGS THAT HAPPEN WHETHER THAT BE INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS, BIGGER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, APPROVALS HAVE BEEN A RESPONSE OF THAT TO ACCOMMODATE THE TRAFFIC FLOW. ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT WE ARE SEEN FOR A DEVELOPMENT WILL BE ADDRESSED AND MANDATED THEY HAVE TO ADDRESS IT TO DEVELOP. THAT IS PART OF THE REGULATIONS AND PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE BEING TOO CLOSE TOGETHER?
>> THAT IS DENSITY. I GUESS DENSITY . I THINK DEPENDING ON WHO YOU ASK IT HAS POSITIVES.
BUT I THINK THE DENSITY NOT MUCH GREATER. WE HAVE OTHER DENSITY AREAS WOULD BE WHAT I AM TRYING TO GET ON.
OTHER PLACES WOULD'VE BEEN HIGHER THAN THAT.
OVER HERE, THIS IS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO ALLOW FOR THE SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED PRODUCT. THAT IS WHAT IT IS FOR.
AND SOME OF THE BIGGER CITIES AND OLDER CITIES, BIRMINGHAM OR MONTGOMERY, PLACES LIKE THAT, THEY HAVE SMALLER LOTS TO ALLOW
FOR THESE TYPES OF PRODUCTS. >>
>> WE'VE HAD A LOT OF COMMUNICATION WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AROUND IT.
A LOT OF BECAUSE THEY GET WILL ALSO FOR NOT JUST WORKFORCE HOUSING, BUT THEY GET A LOT OF REQUESTS FOR LOW INCOME OR NO INCOME HOUSING, AS WELL. SOME OF THOSE PRODUCTS FROM A BUILDABLE NEW CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT, THAT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE IN SOME REGARD. BUT I THINK WHAT THIS PRODUCT WOULD BE LOOKING FOR, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS SOMETHING WE ARE GOING TO DEFINE WHEN WE GET TO WORKING THROUGH SOME OF THE GRANULAR DETAILS. AROUND APPROVING THIS.
BUT I THINK FROM WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT VERY LOW OR NO INCOME SOME OF THOSE PRODUCTS WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.
SINGLE-FAMILY PRODUCT NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE
I JUST -- I REALLY AM STRUGGLING WITH HOW WE ARE GOING TO GET TO THE END RESULT. I THINK SOMEONE SAID EARLIER THAT IT IS A COMMUNICATION ISSUE.
IT IS REALLY NOT UNDERSTANDING. AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE ALONG THE WAY WE COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD. NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT NOW, BUT WE ARE HERE TODAY FROM A BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT.
I DIVE INTO DO WE AGREE WITH THE VARIANCES TO ALLOW THEM TO
[01:10:02]
BE ABLE TO BUILD A PRODUCT THAT WOULD MEET THE NEEDS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUT WHAT THE FOCUS ON IS THE PRODUCT ITSELF. THAT GOES BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION. IF I APPROVE THIS VARIANCE AM I APPROVING THE PRODUCT. THAT IS CONFLICTING TO ME BECAUSE I AM HEARING NOW I WOULD BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT THE BUILDER -- IT IS HIS LAND, HE OWNS IT.HE CAN DO WHAT HE WANTS. BUT I THINK THE BUILDER MAY HAVE HAD SOME GOOD INTENT WHEN HE WANTED TO PUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN WHAT IT IS THAT IS NEEDED.
I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO GO.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING ALL OF THAT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET TO EVERYONE.
YOU ARE GOOD. THIS IS A BEAST HERE.
AT LEAST FOR OUR WORK. PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> MY NAME IS GERALDINE -- AND THE HOUSES WOULD BE RIGHT IN MY BACKYARD. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO ASK IF THERE IS ANYBODY IN HERE WITH ALL THAT IS GOING ON
INAUDIBLE ] >> WOULD YOU MIND ADDRESSING
BECAUSE, NUMBER ONE, YOU PUT THAT MANY HOUSES BACK THERE IT IS GOING TO BE A SAFETY ISSUE. BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE PARKING IN TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT PLACES.
AND IF A FIRE BREAK OUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT YOU WILL HAVE HOUSES SO CLOSE TOGETHER. THIS TO ME IS NOT SUITABLE TO CONTINUE WITH THIS PROJECT RIGHT NOW UNTIL YOU REALLY GNASH WHAT PEOPLE NEED. JUST SO MUCH TO CONSIDER.
YOU CONSIDER THE FAMILIES, THE CHILDREN.
THEN YOU HAVE THOSE COMING UP --.
THAT PLACE WILL BE A STRAIGHT STREET.
GOING TO LEAVE THEM UP HIGHWAY 14.
HIGHWAY 14 AND ACROSS THE STREET, PEOPLE GOING TO WORK, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE ACCESSIBLE.
IT IS A LOT TO CONSIDER AT THIS POINT.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. CAN I REQUEST YOU PULL UP THE MAP ON OUR MONITORS? THANK YOU.
ACTUALLY IT IS ON YOUR MONITOR, BUT NOT ON OURS.
>> ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> I'M SORRY. CAN WE BRING HIM THE MICROPHONE OR IS THERE A WAY A --? SORRY TO MAKE YOU TRAVEL SO FAR. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE ON AT HOME AND CANNOT BE HERE TO PARTICIPATE IS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND HEAR YOUR COMMENTS, AS WELL.
WHAT WAS YOUR NAME AGAIN? >> MY NAME IS JOHN --.
I LIVE IN THE AREA WE ARE DISCUSSING NOW.
I LIVE ON -- STREET. I AM WONDERING
[01:15:18]
>> IF YOU WANT TO FINISH YOUR COMMENTS I WILL ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AT THE END. I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU.
>> THE OTHER THING IS, I'M FEELING NONE OF YOU LIVE IN THE AREA, DO YOU? MCNEILL, SIR.
>> THAT AREA. PASSED DOWN FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION.
>> LET'S LET HIM FINISH HIS COMMENT.
>> WHAT I AM REALLY THINKING ABOUT THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. --
>> WE CAN NOTE THAT WAS A QUESTION ASKED AND TRY TO GET
>> WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GET TO ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS SO THAT WE
DON'T INTERRUPT YOU. >> REALLY WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN THAT AREA WANT TO SEE THIS PROJECT GO THROUGH. PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT AREA, TALKING ABOUT ACROSS THE STREET --
>> HAVE ALL THE CONVERSATIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO WITH ANYONE AT ANY POINT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HERE HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK AND THAT WE GET ALL OF THEIR COMMENTS ON RECORD SO THAT WE CAN USE THAT AS A BASIS TO GO FORWARD AND CONTINUE THIS PROCESS WITH AS MUCH PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT AS WE CAN GET. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE OVER THERE IF THEY WANT TO SEE THIS PROJECT
GO THROUGH TO STANDUP. >> THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE, TO
GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SPEAK. >>
>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS WOULD LIKE TO COME
FORWARD? >> THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT WHAT WAS THE COST OF THE HOMES ON THE OTHER STREET.
WITH CONVERSATION WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REACHED A PRICE POINT OF 165. THERE WAS -- THE CITY CONTRIBUTED TO. THERE WERE OTHER .
] JUST REACHING THAT PRICE POINT WITHOUT -- IS NOT COMMON.
I GUESS ON THE NEW ROAD PUNCHING THROUGH US FAR AS SLAUGHTER THIS WOULD BE THE END OF SLAUGHTER.
AS YOU SEE THE WEST SIDE OF SLAUGHTER WOULD END IN A RETENTION POND SO IT WOULD BE A SONG ABOUT NOT GOING ALL THE
WAY THROUGH BYRD STREET. >> WE HAVE A FEW MORE PEOPLE.
>> MY NAME IS -- ALLEN. I KNOW THERE IS CHANGE.
[01:20:07]
WE DO NEED MORE HOUSES. I DON'T KNOW IF 180 TO 260 IS AFFORDABLE. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE AMOUNT, THE --. I KNOW THEY PUT A LOT OF MATTER AND UP WITH THAT. I DON'T SEE THEM SELLING.AND THEN AFTER YOU GO SO LONG NOT SELLING THEN WE WILL HAVE INAUDIBLE ]. THAT IS A PROBLEM I HAVE WITH IT.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? ANY OTHER CITIZENS?
THANK YOU. >> AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
MY NAME IS BARBARA SEXTON AND I HAVE LIVED IN AUBURN ALL MY LIFE. THE LAST 10, 15 YEARS MY MOTHER PASSED AND SHE WAS TRYING TO REDEVELOP OUR HOME.
THE CITY TOLD HER SHE CANNOT DO IT.
DEVELOPER COME IN AND BOUGHT THE WHOLE PART.
WANTED TO GIVE HER A BETTER HOME TO LIVE FOR HIM.
DEVELOPERS CAN MOVE IN AND TAKE OVER EVERYTHING.
DOESN'T THE CITY OF AUBURN HOW MONEY? CAN AFFORD TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE THE DEVELOPERS TAKE OVER. ALL OVER THEN.
WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER CITIZENS LIKE TO SPEAK? WITH THAT WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN TO BOARD DISCUSSION.
>> ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER IN ALL THE DISCUSSION THIS JUST ALLOWS HIM TO GO TO NEXT STAGES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THE SUBDIVISION, TO APPROVE EVERYTHING ON THE PLAN. DOES IT MEAN IF WE SAY YES OR NO TO THIS THIS WILL HAPPEN TONIGHT.
>> I ALSO WANT TO REITERATE THAT THE REASON THAT I AM ALSO HUNG UP ON THE 58. I KNOW IT IS NOT AFFORDABLE.
I'M RIGHT THERE WITH YOU. REALISTICALLY THAT IS THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE WOULD PROBABLY CURRENTLY HAVE IN AUBURN. I WANT TO STATE THAT PRETTY PLAINLY. --'S HOUSES -- GOES UP.
CAN'T GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT GETTING DENSITY..
WE ARE NOT TAKING MORE LAND TO GET TO THE 10 ACRES.
ALLOW US TO GET MORE BREATHING ROOM.
-- THE DEVELOPER OWNS THAT. THEY ARE FAR MORE DENSE PROJECTS THAT HE COULD PUT ON THAT THAT WOULD BE ORIGINALLY PLANNED THAT WOULD BE MARKET PRICE CONDOS.
WHEN I TELL YOU WHAT MARKET PRICE CONDOS ARE IT IS WAY MORE THAN $260,000. I KNOW WE ARE GETTING HUNG UP ON DENSITY. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT TO KEEP IT ON PRICE POINT THAT WOULD BE AFFORDABLE IT
COMES WITH THAT DENSITY ISSUE. >> MENTIONING THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE. THERE IS A LEGAL DEFINITION.
[01:25:01]
IMPORTANT TO BE PRUDENT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ARGUING WHETHER SOMETHING IS AFFORDABLE OR NOT. BECAUSE IT IS RELATIVE.WE MUST BE CAREFUL WHEN WE SPEAK OF THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALL USING THE SAME DEFINITION AND REFERENCES.
>> PLAT PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE STARTED THIS CONVERSATION WITH IT BEING CONCEPTUAL.
I THINK PART OF THE SENTIMENT IN THE ROOM AND THE MOTION IN THE ROOM IS BECAUSE THE DENSITY IS NOT WITH THE COMMUNITY ONCE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IS THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ALL OF THIS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED AND TRY TO MAKE SOME TYPE OF AMENDMENT? HAVE SOME CONVERSATION.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE KNOW FOR SURE IS THAT THERE IS A LEVEL OF MISTRUST. AND WE KIND OF HAVE TO ACCEPT IT. WE HAVE A WHOLE COMMUNITY OF CITIZENS WHO ARE SAYING THAT THEY FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN THE INFORMATION. AND SO IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT ON HOW WE FEEL ABOUT IT. IT IS WHAT IT IS.
AND I FEEL LIKE IT IS THE WRONG PLACE.
BUT RESTING ON THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS TO HOW WE PROCEED. SO I'M CONFLICTED.
I FEEL THE PAIN IN THE ROOM AND I UNDERSTAND AND I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT AFFORDABILITY IS REAL ON THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY. THE INTENT, IF IT IS TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND BRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE COMMUNITY, I'M STRUGGLING AS TO THEN, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE MAKE IT HAPPEN FOR THE PEOPLE WE ARE SAYING THAT WE WANT TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR? THERE MIGHT NOT BE AN ANSWER. BUT FROM A BOARD DISCUSSION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE THINK IT IS AFFORDABLE OR NOT AND WHETHER WE ARE FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES ARE NOT, IF THE PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE FEEL LIKE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS IT WILL TURN OVER AND IT WILL BECOME SOMETHING THAT THEY FEEL LIKE IS NOT WHAT THEY WANT AND IT IS GOING TO FEED INTO THE MISTRUST AND THAT THAT WAS THE PLAN ALL ALONG.
>> I GUESS THE THING I DO -- THAT I HAVE TRIED TO ARTICULATE IS, THE TABLE FOR NRD, AS FAR AS WHAT IS PERMITTED IS SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED, TOWNHOMES, DUPLEX, COTTAGE HOUSE, MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. BUT PRETTY MUCH ALL THE HOUSING TYPES, TWIN HOMES AND SINGLE- FAMILY.
ALL OF THOSE ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE WOULD JUST BE PLANS SUBMITTED AND CONSTRUCTION.
>> I FORGOT ABOUT THAT. >> THAT IS THE SCARY PART.
>> . THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ANY INPUT AND WOULD JUMP IN MAYBE DOUBLE.
>> AND AT A MUCH HIGHER PRICE POINT HERE PROBABLY 300,000 AND
UP. >> SO THAT IS KIND OF THE POINT OF WHAT I WAS GETTING AT. WE TALKED ABOUT A PROCESS ON HOW THIS GOES, INFORMING PEOPLE.
TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE REQUIREMENT TO INFORM PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC, THERE IS ONLY A NARROW SCOPE OF THINGS WHERE THAT HAS TO HAPPEN.
CONDITIONAL USES AND VARIANCES ARE WHERE THOSE THINGS HAPPEN.
THIS IS NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE THIS HAPPENS.
IF SOMEONE WAS TO SAY, THESE ARE MY RIGHTS AND I HAVE THESE PERMITTED USES AND I'M SUBMITTING THIS AND YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO APPROVE IT, THERE WOULD BE NO PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE WOULD NOT BE A LOT OF PUSH.
NO GIVE-AND-TAKE. ALSO NO DISCUSSION ABOUT PRICE
[01:30:03]
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. SO IT CAME HERE FIRST.
BUT IT COULD HAVE GONE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CORRECT?
>> RIGHT. SO WHEN THE APPLICANT WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW THINGS GO, A PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE FINAL PLAT, HAS VERY SPECIFIED STANDARDS THAT THEY MUST MEET.
THE LOT WITH AND THE MINIMUM AND FAR WOULD HAVE BEEN A REASON THIS WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED OR BEEN ALLOWED.
AND PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN LET IT GET TO THAT POINT.
VERY YES OR NO COME PASS OR FAIL, IT DOESN'T MAKE IT HERE.
THE POINT OF GETTING THE VARIANCE FIRST IS THAT THESE ARE THREE REASONS WE KNOW WE WILL HAVE ISSUES AND MAY BE ALLOWED TO WORK ON THE FAR. BUT THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AN AREA IS THAT THEY MUST HAVE. AND SO THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT MEETS ALL THE OTHER STANDARDS EXCEPT FOR THOSE TWO FOR SURE AND POSSIBLY THE FAR.
THAT WAY THEY CAN PUT FORWARD THE PRODUCT.
LIKE I SAID, THE BUY RIGHT OPTION DOES EXIST.
>> SO IF WE APPROVED THE FIRST TWO AND NOT THE THIRD ONE, THAT GOES TO PLANNING, RIGHT? AND THEN WE HAVE TO GET THE THIRD ONE APPROVED IN ORDER TO GET IT MOVED FORWARD.
>> WE AT LEAST APPROVED NUMBER ONE.
NO PLAT GOING FORWARD. AND THEN THE THIRD IS THE
PERCENTAGE. >> AND MAY OR MAY NOT.
>> THAT IS KIND OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THAT, THAT WE WOULD DEFINITELY INCLUDE THE FIRST TWO AND THE THIRD ONE AND THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK.
THAT WAY IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD JUST TAKE AND WORK ON THIS AND FIGURE THIS OUT.
THEY INDICATED THAT THEY THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD ON F.A.R.
BUT LIKE I SAID, IT IS A MEETING AND ALL THOSE THINGS COMING BACK FOR IT. SO IT MIGHT NOT BE NEEDED.
THAT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO.
>> IS THERE ANY ISSUES WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACES?
>> THAT WAS ANOTHER QUESTION INITIALLY AS WELL.
THEY HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THEY CAN MEET THAT AS WELL.
>> ASKING ABOUT THE DRIVEWAYS ARE, IT IS HARD TO TELL.
>> FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW, DOES THAT IS WHY THE STAFF REPORT, COULDN'T REALLY SPEAK IN DETAIL.
SOME THINGS ARE HIGHER. IT SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND WHEN THEY DO, THERE WILL BE A LOT OF WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MATH ON THIS WORKS AND WE ONLY HAVE THOSE AREAS FOR BUFFERS LIKE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION, IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE SURROUNDING LOT, IT IS A VERY WOODED AREA.
ARE THEY GOING TO TRY TO KEEP AS MANY TREES? KEEPING THAT LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THAT (INDISCERNIBLE) IS NOT
I'M NOT SURE IF ANYONE HAS EVER SEEN THE BAGS I CARRY AROUND.
SAYS INSIDE SUCKS. THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN THE FOCUS IN THE FOREFRONT AT A LOT OF MEETINGS.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER CONVERSATIONS WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER ON COME HOW TO BE LOOK AT PRESERVING GREEN SPACE IN THIS POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT? THERE ARE THINGS BEYOND THIS.
WE ARE WORKING ON IT TO MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK.
LIKE BLAKE MENTIONED, THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT GO INTO DRIVING -- A LOT OF FACTORS THAT GO INTO DRIVING UP THE COST OF THE TO BE PRODUCT AND MANAGING GREEN SPACES ONE OF THOSE AND THAT IS ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD.
I JUST WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT IT IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF MY MIND AND SOMETHING WE CAN BRING TO DISCUSSIONS.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE ON THE PLAT ON THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, IT SEEMS LIKE THE HOUSES WERE (INDISCERNIBLE) WHERE THEY BACK UP TO KENDRICK PROPERTIES AND RIGHT THERE ON WHAT WOULD BE ON SLAUGHTER. THE FRONT IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSES. IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP ANY GREEN SPACE AND IN OTHER HOUSES BACK UP FRONT ON FOSTER. I WOULD WANT THAT TO BE A CONSIDERATION TOO SO THAT
[01:35:02]
THERE IS MINIMAL IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING HOMEOWNERS.>> THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT TRAFFIC.
WINDED TRAFFIC PATTERNS COME INTO PLAY?
>> THAT HAPPENS -- KIND OF THINKING THROUGH WHAT THE CONFIGURATION WOULD BE. WHEN THINGS GO TO GET CONSTRUCTED AND GO THROUGH THE DART PROCESS.
>> I GUESS IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, TUESDAY WOULD WORK TO THE DART PROCESS AND GO THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION AND FIGURING OUT THE CURRENT -- THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
AND WHATEVER WAS MANDATED BY THE TRAFFIC STUDY, WHETHER IT IS TURNING LANES OR ADDITIONAL LIGHTS, ET CETERA, THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE.
>> PERFECT. >> SO AT THE DEVELOPER EXPENSE. THEREFORE INCREASING
DEVELOPMENT COST. >> SO WE ARE NOT WEIGHING IN
ON DEVELOPMENT COST. >> I MEAN, THEN IS NOT -- WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SOLUTIONS ARE OUT THERE OR WHAT PROBLEMS ARE
>> IT IS SO UNLIKE MANY OF OUR ITEMS LIKE A CHICKEN AND EGG TYPE SITUATION. IF WE APPROVE THIS, USUALLY I FEEL LIKE THINGS ARE FURTHER ALONG AND WE HAVE MORE TO RESPOND WHO. MAYBE THAT'S -- IT JUST APPEARS TO BE THE CASE BECAUSE OF WHERE WE ARE.
>> HOW ARE WE IN CHANGING THAT 50-FOOT REQUIREMENT VERSUS IS
HAVING TO APPROVE THAT? >> I GUESS IDEALLY, -- ON
THIS SITUATION. >> THE MINIMUM LINE, THE 50 FEET WOULDN'T CHANGE. WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON IS PUTTING TOGETHER A PLANNING DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REMOVE THE LOT MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES AND FORCE THEM INTO THE PDD AND HAVE A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY ON LOT WIDTH.
SO HOW WE HAVE STRUCTURED IT SO FAR.
THERE ARE CERTAIN PARAMETERS FOR THE LAND USE MAP AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT IT IS THE TIMELINE ON THAT.
I WOULD SAY, LATE SPRING. BUT THAT HAS BEEN IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
[01:45:29]
>> HE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO SET UP THIS INFORMATION YOU
[01:45:31]
WOULD NEED BUT I'M NOT SURE ANY OF THE INFORMATION YOU WOULD REQUEST WOULD BE IN YOUR PURVIEW.SHOULD NOT FOR US BUT FOR THE DEVELOPER.
BASICALLY TO REAPPLY AND WITH A MORE COMPLETE PACKET.
I'M USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE. >> YES.
>> AND I GUESS THAT HOW THIS WOULD DEVELOP, A LOT OF THE GRANULAR DETAILS ARE MORE HANDLED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO WHEN WE HAVE THESE MEETINGS WITH PEOPLE AND WE HAD ONE TODAY AND WE TALK ABOUT WITH THE MUST HAVES MUST BE. LIKE WE REALLY NEED TO SEND IT IS OKAY. YOU EITHER NEED A WAIVER FOR THIS. SO IT HAPPENS THAT THE EARLY OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT. SO WHEN THEY WORK THROUGH IT INTO THE NUMBERS, THEY ARE LIKE, WE WILL DEFINITELY NEED THIS VARIANCE. SUED DIVING IN DEEPER TO THE DETAILS ON OTHER STUFF REVIEWED BY OTHER BOARDS, WHETHER DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM, THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST UP FOR THEM ON THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL.
THEY KNOW CONCEPTUALLY, THEY WILL BE BELOW THE 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH AND THE SQUARE FEET. THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CLERK PRELIMINARY PLAT WILL BE SUBMITTED.
THEY WILL NO SPECIFIC LOT SIZES AND THEY WILL KNOW WHAT THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
A LOT OF THOSE THINGS ARE JUST APPROVING THIS OR DENYING THIS.
APPROVING THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO GET TO WHAT THE ANSWERS WOULD BE. A LOT OF THE GRANULAR DETAILS
ARE HANDLED BY OTHER ENTITIES. >> AND THEN THE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK AGAIN IN THE MEETING OR OUTSIDE OF A MEETING IN THE FORMAL OR INFORMAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH
SO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS ACCOMPANIED BY PUBLIC HEARINGS.
I'M DONE. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY
NOW WE ARE MOVING ON TO THE SECOND PART.
THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A MINIMUM LOT AREA LESS THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 5000 SQUARE FEET. TO CLARIFY, THIS IS --
>> THIS WOULD NOT FALL ALONG THE SAME GUIDELINES.
STATEMENT. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE TO MINIMAL LOT OF 5000 SQUARE FEET.
>> THE VARIANCE IS ALSO -- THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS ALSO APPROVED. THE THIRD PART IS VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE AREA RATIO GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OF
35%. >> A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE RATIO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 30 -- 35
>> IF WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND, IT DIES.
I SAID DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> THIS IS ONE I DON'T
PARTICULARLY LIKE. >> THE MOTION FAILS.
>> I THINK THAT IS THE LAST OF THE AGENDA ITEMS.
>> ALL RIGHT. INSTEAD OF JUST LETTING THE THIRD ONE DIE, WE NEED TO TAKE A MOTION TO DENY IT.
I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE THIRD PART OF THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE MAXIMUM 35% F.A.R.
[01:50:08]
>> YES. >> ANY OTHER TECHNICALITIES
THAT I NEED TO GO OVER? >> I GUESS FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, HOW I ENVISIONED THIS FROM A VERY HIGH LEVEL, LIKE I SAID, WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS.
FOR A PROJECT LIKE THIS TO WORK, IF THIS WERE TO MOVE FORWARD, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.
THERE ARE OTHER EXCHANGES WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT BEHIND-THE- SCENES ABOUT HOW TO GET TO AN AFFORDABLE PLACE WITH THIS.
BUT ALSO, I GUESS THE HUD REQUIREMENTS IN THE GREEN SPACE WOULD BE HANDLED IN THE AGREEMENT.
AND THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.
>> SO THIS CONCLUDES THE MEETING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.