[ROLL CALL] [00:00:08] >> I'D LIKE TO CALL THE JULY MEET FOR THE AUBURN PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER. >> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE START, I TWO LIKE TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS, THE COMMISSION IS PRESENTED WITH AGENDA ITEMS BY THE CITY FLANK DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTATIVE FOR EACH ITEM WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENTS AND TERESA QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION, I WILL THEN OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING IN WHICH YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND ONCE EVERYONE IS HEARD WE WILL THEN TAKE IT UPON THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF TO MAKE A DECISION. BOTH CITY COMMISSIONERS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE AGENDA ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION MOTIONS AND VOTE AND THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE BASED ON LOCAL LAWS CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2030 AND THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY. WE WILL GET STARTED, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD WITH CITIZENS COMMUNICATION ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. [CONSENT AGENDA] SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL MOVE TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE EVENING. IT HAS MEETING MINUTES FROM OUR JUNE PACKET MEETING AND REGULAR MEETING AS WELL AS ONE ANNEXATION AND FINAL PLAT. >> MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> SECOND. >> ALL KNOWS IN FAVOR, OPPOSED, THANK YOU. [1. Annexation - Jaramillo Annexation AX-2024-005] THE NEW BUSINESS, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT STARTED WITH THE FIRST FIVE ITEMS ANNEXATION'S YOU NONE OF WHICH REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME, SO IT WILL BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS. SO WE WILL START FIRST ONE. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS THE JARAMILLO ANNEXATION. THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS IN THE AGENDA THAT ARE ANNEXATION THAES ARE OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARY AND PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN PRESENTED THE PROPOSED UP THE DATE TO THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY THAT WOULD INCLUDE SEVERAL OF THESE ANNEXATIONS BUT THIS PROPOSED UPDATE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, HAS NOT BEEN SEEN, HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL YET, AND SO, SINCE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL YET, THE FEELING WAS THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION INSTEAD OF BEING GIVEN THE CONSENT LIKE A TRADITIONAL ANNEXATION NOT ACCOMPANIED BY REZONING THAT THEY SHOULD GO TO COUNCIL AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS BUT SINCE IT'S OUTSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY THAT'S WHY THEY'RE GIVEN ITEMS AND OTHERS ON ROADS THAT ARE NOT MAINTAINED BY THE CITY THAT TWO THEN ADD TO THE THRESHOLD OF THE CITY HAVING TO GET CLOSER TO MAINTAINING THAT ROAD SO JUST IN THAT VEIN OF THOUGHT THAT WAS THE REASONING FOR PULLING THESE ANNEXATIONS OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND GIVING THEM THEIR OWN ITEM. I DON'T KNOW WHY I CAN'T SAY AGENDA THIS EVENING. THAT'S Y. ALLR YOU'LL SEE ON THE OUTBOUNDRY MAPS THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND THE CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM, SO ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? >> YES, I TO. SO, IF WE WITH THE CURRENT DRAFT UPDATE OF THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY, WOULD THAT INCLUDE ALL OF THESE ANNEXATIONS? >> YES. AND SO, ALL THE ANNEXATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US TONIGHT ARE ALREADY IN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY OR IN THE PROPOSED UPDATES TO OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. >> OKAY. >> BUT THERE'S NO ACTUAL RUSH TO MAKE THESE ANNEXATIONS AS FAR AS THE CITY IS CONCERNED N. OTHER WORDS THE WORKS WE NOT BE PRESUMPTIVE BY THE CITY COUNCIL DECISION IF WE ACT WITH POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION ON THESE? >> OUR POSITION FROM THE STAFF SIDE WAS SINCE YOU ALREADY PRESENTED IT TO THE FLANK COMMISSION AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAY WOULD RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL AND GOET CITY COUNCIL. IT'S NOT LIKE ANNEXATIONS LIVE HERE. IT'S ONCE IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL EVEN WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM Y'ALL THEY [00:05:02] CAN OPT TO DENY SO THAT'S WHY THE POSITION WAS TO RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL EVEN THOUGH THIS WASN'T ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. >> THE CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE TO ADOPT AND APPROVE OR OPTIMAL THE CHANGES. >> YES AND THEY CAN APPROVE ANNEXATION REGARDLESS OF THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY ANYWAY. >> AND WAS THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY PROPOSAL AMENDMENT, WAS THAT AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY COUNCIL? >> YES, AND SO, FAR SEVERAL OF THESE, SOME OF THEM ARE SUSTAINED REQUESTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS AND HILLANDALE WAS ONE OF THE ONES I WOULD DIFFERENT ITERATION OF THE COUNCIL THAT DIRECTED STAFF TO LOOK AT INCLUDING HILLANDALE WITHIN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY SO SOME OF THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY STAINTD REQUEST FROM PROPERTY OWNERS CONSIDERING ARE PRESENTED AND ON HILLANDALE IT WAS ONE OF THE DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL AT THE TIME, FIVE YEARS AGO THAT THEY LOOK AT IT THE ADDING HILLANDALE TO THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY AND BRINGING IT INTO THE CITY. >> BUT IT WASN'T AT THE TIME. >> AND IT'S NOT IN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. >> STILL. >> CORRECT. >> WHEN THE COUNCIL BE GIVEN THE PROPOSAL? >> CURRENTLY WE ARE WORKING ON SETTING UP THE WORK SESSION FORS COMP PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE AND SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S JUST A SLEW OF MORE SESSIONS THAT NEED TO BE SET UP LATE SUMMER EARLY FALL. >> BASED ON THIS INFORMATION IS OPTIONS ARE APPROVING STONED COUNCIL POSTPONED BUT WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL DATE CERTAIN SO THERE ARE OPTIONS FOR THAT. >> RIGHT. >> TO DO IT TWO MONTHS AT A TIME UNTIL STUFF TIME AS IT'S DONE OR DENY WHICH DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE'RE READY TO DO EITHER. >> BASICALLY WE'RE SAYING THAT OR OPTIMAL BOUNDARY PLAN IS OBSOLETE. >> NO, NO, NO. I JUST KIND OF THIS IS REALLY JUST IN LINE WITH THE FIVE-YEAR UPDATE OF THE COMP PLATE SO KIND OF HOW WE WENT OVER IN THE PRESENTATION THERE. WERE CORRECTIONS THERE. WERE ADDITIONS, TLEEGSZ SO THAT BOUNCED SO THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY EXPANDED INTO OUT A POKE A, THE SO DIDN'T MAKE SENSE HOW IT GOT LEFT OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THERE ARE OTHER PLACES THERE WAS SUSTAINED REQUESTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS THE FUTURE LAND USE EITHER SHOULD CHANGE OR DEVELOPMENT WAS COMING IN AND MADE SENSE FOR THE CITY SO IF WANT TO REFERENCE BACK TO THE AT THAT TIME WE SHOWED AROUND THE OPTIMAL BOUND RID AND FUTURE LAND USE CHANGES THERE WAS A BALANCE THAT DID NOT DISREGARD THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY WASN'T LIKE WE WENT TO THE EDGE AND ADDED HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IT WAS STILL RULE AND OTHER PLACES WE TOOK RULE OUT SO I THINK THE OVERALL THEME AND AL BIGS AROUND THE OPERATE MA'AM BOUNDARY CHANGES WAS TO REFLECT WHAT WAS ALREADY DEVELOPED SOME PLACES BUT THEN ALSO TO BALANCE TAKING OUT AND ADDING THINGS BACK SO IT WASN'T A HAPPEN HAZARD ATTEMPT AT CHANGING BOUNDARIES ON A WILLIAM SO OPTIMAL BOUNDARY IS STILL IN EFFECT AND GOVERNED BY THE WEATHER IS AND WATERSHED BY THE ROAD MAINTENANCE WHAT MAKES SENSE FROM TRAFFIC CIRCULATION POINT SO TALL PLANS UTILIZED TO GO IN OPTIMAL BOUNDARY ARE STILL IN EFFECT AND WHAT WE STILL CONSIDER WITH OPTIMAL BOUND RID SO I THINK THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY IS GIEDING FOR ANNEXATION FOR NICE UNDERSTAND THAT AND APPRECIATE THAT'S STILL THE CASE BUT THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY IS JUST ONE THING. WHAT ABOUT THESE ROADS AND SOME OF THESE POTENTIAL ANNEXATION ITEMS THAT ARE NOT PAVED THAT GAOEPT CURRENTLY MAINTAIN AS A AS A MUNICIPALITY? WHAT ABOUT CITY SERVICES BUSES ET CETERA? >> SO THOSE WOULD BE? OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE ONCE WE GET TO THE WORK SESSION STANDPOINT WITH THE COUNCIL WORKING WITH THE SCHOOLS THAT THEY HAVE, OPINIONS AND I'VE TALKED TO THEM JUST BRIEFING THEM ON SOME OF THE COMP PLAN UPDATES. THEY'RE VERY FIRM IF IT'S OUTSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY GENERALLY SPEAK THEY TO NOT SUPPORT IT COMING INTO THE CITY BECAUSE THEN THOSE ARE AT THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER UNDERSTANDS THOSE SERVICES ARE GOING TO BE DENIED THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THE FUTURE PROPERTY OWNER WILL FEEL THAT WAY THEY WILL FEEL ENTITLED TO THOSE SERVICE WHETHER IT BE TRASH OR SCHOOL BUSES STOW THEY'RE FIRM ON STANDING WITH OPTIMAL BOUNDARY THIS CASE SO I GUESS FOR TONIGHT THERE'S STAFF PRESENTATION FOR EACH OF THEM ASSOCIATED WITH THEM BUT THIS WAS PRIMARY DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD THE PACK AND LUNCH MEETING ON MONDAY, BEING A TIPPING POINT LOOKING AT ANNEXATIONS WHERE THEY'RE COMING IN SO MANY COMING [00:10:02] IN RAPID SUCCESSION AND LOOKING AT THE CITY HAVING TO EXPAND SERVICES AND THE MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHAT THAT WAS DOING TO CITY RESOURCES. >> JUST IF I COULD ADD ONE POINT ON THAT. SO THERE WAS A POINT MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING ANNEXATION HOW THE SIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. WE HAD? DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS A WHILE BACK. THAT DID NOT, FOR DOES IT NOT BY DEFAULT EXTEND THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY HAS REMAINED THE SAME UNTIL THE COUNCIL ADOPTS A NEW OPTIMAL BOUNDARY THAT IS JOINED TO ONE OF THESE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT BECAUSE IT MADE THAT PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS BUT DID NOT EXTEND THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. >> THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY WAS NOT >> IT'S JULY, SCHOOL STARTS IN AUGUST THERE, WERE PEOPLE TO RECOMMENDED THE ANNEXATION AND WANTED TO WAIT MAIN GOAL TO GET THE KIDS IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR THE YEAR UNDERSTANDING THIS WOULD BE THAT DECISION MADE FROM THE COUNCIL AROUND AROUND THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY SOMETIME THIS SUMMER BUT SINCE THAT HASN'T HAPPENED IT FORCED THE HAND OF WE WOULD LIKE TO GET OUR KIDS IN THE SCHOOL STOW THEY WANT A DECISION ON IT SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S A SLEW OF ANNEXATIONS ON THIS AGENDA PARTICULARLY SO THAT'SY SAID ALSO, THE PROPOSAL AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE FROM STAFF AND PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO PRESENT TO IT THE COUNCIL YET AND THE COUNCIL HASN'T MADE A DECISION, SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE PULLED UP AS AN ITEM AND NEED TO HAVE THEIR OWN DISCUSSION AND PART OF THAT IS WE DON'T WANT TO BE PRESUMPTIVE ABOUT WHAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO. THEY CAN STILL DENY IT. THEY CAN GO TO THE WORK SESSION AND SAY WE DON'T AGREE WITH THESE AND I SAID THESE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF, THE FINAL DECISION RESTS WITH THE COUNCIL. ANY FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY? ALL RIGHT. SO, JARAMILLO ANNEXATION THE RECOMMENDATION THE REQUEST IS RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROXIMATELY 14.84 ACRES, LOCATED ON HILLANDALE DRIVE, 660 LEE ROAD, HILLANDALE DRIVE AS YOU CAN SEE IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY STOPS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD ON HILLANDALE DRIVE AND THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THERE PROPERTY THAT ALLOWS IT TO BE CON TICK US TWO THE CITY ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION WAS ANNEXED EVEN THOUGH TECHNICALLY OUTSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY AND NOW FROM A LOT SIDE STANDPOINT THE MINIMUM IS THREE ACRES. THIS MEETS [INDISTINCT] ROAD, HAS ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BUT DOESN'T MEET OUTSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY SO THIS IS ONE. ONES THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR APPROVAL BASED ON THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION THAT THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY BE UPDATED AND EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THIS LOT BUT IT CURRENTLY DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS LOT AND THIS LOT IS CURRENTLY OUTSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. SO THE TIRNLT OVER FOR QUESTIONS. >> ALL RIGHT. DOES THE EXTENSION ONLY INCLUDE THAT LOT? >> NO. IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXPANSION DOWN OF THE PROPOSED OPTIMAL BOUNDARY GOES DOWN TO ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE BIG LOT THAT'S IN THE JUST SOUTH OF IT SO TWO INCLUDE THE EXISTING RESIDENCES ON HILLANDALE DRIVE THE PROPOSED UPDATE WOULD INCLUDE. >> WHY WOULD WE RECOMMEND EXTENDING IT TO THE MIDDLE OF THE NEXT LOT? IS THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID? >> YEAH, SO IT'S JUST KIND OF ROADS GET CUT INTO A LOT AND THE LOT NEVER CORRECTS ITSELF, IT'S ONE PROPERTY OWNER. IT DEAD ENDS IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, NO SUBDIVISION DOWN THERE. >> STOW CURRENTLY LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION STOW CURRENTLY THAT IS A COUNTY ROAD MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY. >> CORRECT. >> THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ANNEXATION UP HERE TONIGHT ON HILLANDALE. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SO, WHAT DOES THE TRAFFIC PEOPLE THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THINK ABOUT WHEN WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TAKE OVER IN MAINTENANCE OF THIS ROAD FROM THE COUNTY? [00:15:06] >> WHICH IS UNPAVED, RIGHT? >> YES, CURRENTLY UNPAVED. >> THAT'S REALLY THAT DON'T COME DOWN TO OUR DECISION. THE COUNTY REALLY HAS THE AUTHORITY ONCE WE OWN SO MUCH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY DOWN, THEY GIVE IT, YOU KNOW, TO US. >> OKAY. I GUESS THEN LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY. LET ME ASK THAT QUESTION THIS WAY:HOW MUCH MORE DO WE HAVE TO TAKE IN FOR THEM TO SAY YOU OWN MOST OF IT? >> WE CURRENTLY ALREADY OWN MORE THAN HALF, NOT OWN BUT THERE'S MORE PROPERTY IN THE CITY LIMITS THAN OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS STOW WE WILL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNTY, IT'S PART OF OUR INNER LOCAL THE AGREEMENT THAT DETERMINES THOUSAND TWO JURISDICTIONS HANDLE MANAGEMENT. FOR VARIOUS THINGS AS WELL AS ROAD MAINTENANCE SO WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT DISCUSSION YET, THE COUNTY HASN'T COME TO ASK FOR IT YET BUT I THINK THE ONE THING THAT SHUCK CLEAR IS THE CITY WOULDN'T BE ANY OBLIGATION TO PAVE THE ROAD SO THE RESIDENTS OUT THERE OR IN THE FUTURE KIND OF UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN IF THEY'RE ANNEXED IN OR THE CITY TAKES ON THE ROAD WE'RE NOT UNLESS OBLIGATION TO PAVE IT. JUST? NAPKIN MAP ON JUST PAVING IT WOULD BE A LITTLE SHY OF HALF A MILLION DOLLARS SO NOT REALLY A COST BENEFIT SITUATION FOR THE CITY FROM THAT STANDPOINT. >> THE REST OF CITY SERVICES ARE NOT ANTICIPATETH OR EXPECTED? >> CORRECT. >> YOU KNOW, I'LL HAVING A HARD TIME THINKING ABOUT TRYING TO APPROVE THERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT INSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY, ONE, BUT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME YOU KNOW, DENYING THIS BECAUSE IT COULD BE IN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. AND I THINK IT'S SUCH A BIG DECISION AND THERE'S FIVE OF THEM HERE THAT ARE KIND OF JUST THIS ALL COMES TOGETHER ALL AT ONCE. >> MAKING DECISIONS WITHOUT THE BACKUP OF THE DOCUMENTATION NEED. >> AND DECISIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO INCLUDE THESE. SO, TO ME THE ONLY THING I THINK SOUNDS REASONABLE IS POSTPONEING TO? DATE CERTAIN SO WE CAN GET PAST FLORIDA DEL CITIES. >> AND I WOULD AGREE WITH PHIL ON THAT EITHER POSTPONE IT OR DENY IT. >> DENY IT TO ME SEEMS UNFAIR IN A SENSE. >> BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO FEEL, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE PRESENTED WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD. AND WHETHER THERE'S ENOUGH IN THE BUDGET TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE. >> BUT, THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY IS ON THE BOOKS. >> RIGHT. >> CURRENT. >> AND IT'S OUTSIDE AND WE TURN DOWN PEOPLE REPEATEDLY WHO ARE OUTSIDE THAT BOUNDARY. >> YEAH. >> SO ONE. THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER ANNEXATION IS ONE OF THE RARE APPLICATIONS THAT THEY CAN'T COME BACK, TIME LIMIT ON IT, SO UNLIKE OTHER ONES WHERE YOU WOULD NOT GET A USE PERMIT THEY CAN'T COME BACK FOR A YEAR WITHOUT THE SUBSTANTIAL REASONS. ANNEXATIONS WE HAVE HAD ANNEXATION'S COME BACK IN FOUR MONTHS TIME AND I GUESS ALSO, IN OUR MIND LIKE WHEN THE RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR APPROVAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IT WAS WHETHER IT WAS FOR Y'ALL TO MAKE A DECISION ON IT AND ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL WHO NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON IT EITHER WAY WHETHER THAT BE THROUGH WORK SESSION SETTING OR THAT BE AT THE DIAS AT THE MEETING WHERE IT'S LIKE WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION OR PRESENTATION ABOUT IT BUT SINCE IT'S HERE WE ARE GOING TO MAKEA DECISION SO OUR THOUGHT PROCESS WAS WE WOULD GET A DECISION FLANK COMMISSION AND THE DECISION TWO GO TO COUNSEL FOR FINAL DECISION IF THEY WANT TO BRING HILLANDALE IN THE THEY DIDN'T IS A SAME WITH OUR ANNEXATION'S ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. >> THE RECORD -- SORRY. >> I I GUESS I DON'T SEE THAT OUR LET'S SAY WE APPROVE THEM ALL I DON'T EQUATE THAT TO BEING PRESUMPTIVE OF THE CITY COUNCILIST DECISION. WE ARE JUST MAKING RECOMMENDATION. THEY STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY NO TO THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. THEY CAN SAY NO TO THE ANNEXATIONS. THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY TWO LIKE. OUR, I SEE OUR APPROVAL IF THAT'S THE WAY WE DECIDE TO GO AS SUPPORT OF THE STAFF'S DIRECTION TO TRY TO TAKE THIS PROCESS AND SERVE OUR CITIZENS WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING AND THEY KNOW THIS IS POTENTIAL THREW ULTIMATE. >> I ALSO WOULD SAY I LOOKED AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THE SCHOOL [00:20:02] DISTRICT HAS BASICALLY DECIDED WE DON'T MIND THAT WE THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE PART OF THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY IF THEY'VE ALREADY PRETTY MUCH ACCEPTED THE PRESUMPTION AND I'M LIKE YOU. I THINK, IF WE ARE BEING PRESUMPTIVE, THEN THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE RIGHT TO OVERTURN THIS AND WILL BUT WE DO HAVE SOME FAMILIES THAT ARE WAITING ON A SCHOOL DISTRICT. I'M SENSITIVE TO THAT NEED THAT THEY TWO LIKE AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS SAID, WE ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THEM. >> HOWEVER THE FAMILIES KNEW WHERE THE CITY LIMITS WERE UNLESS THEY'VE LIVED THERE 30 YEARS OR SO AND MANY OF THEM HAVE. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO THINGS IN AN ORDERLY MANNER AND WE ARE A PLANNING COMMISSION AND WE'VE GOT A DOCUMENT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THAT TWO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHAT IT NEEDS TO DO THIS KIND OF THING BUT IT HASN'T BEEN PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL SO UNTIL IT'S PASSED I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO ACT ON THIS. >> IT'S NOT PRESUMPTION I DON'T THINK BECAUSE IF WE HAVE A RULE I GUESS LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY AND IF VUL IN PLACE, LET'S FOLLOW THE RULES. THE RULES SAY DON'T ANNEX OUTSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY RIGHT NOW. >> GREAT DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS. WOULD YOU CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I MOVE TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN ON THIS. >> SECOND. >> DATE CERTAIN, WHAT WOULD THAT BE? >> LET'S SEE, JULY, AUGUST. >> WHEN IS THIS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL? >> WE DON'T KNOW. >> WE DON'T KNOW YET SO WE'RE GOING WORKING ON, LIKE I SAID OTHER WORK SESSIONS AND DON'T HAVE A SCHEDULE FOR IT. >> SEPTEMBER MEETING? >> IF THERE'S NO TIMELINE, I WOULD LIKE THE MOTION TO BE AMENDED TO DATE CERTAIN AT LEAST ONE MONTH AT A TIME FOR THESE FAMILIES ESSENTIALLY THAT ARE PUSHING THEM OUT TWO FULL MONTHS. >> SO, AMEND MY MOTION TO SAY POSTPONE UNTIL A DATE CERTAIN, THE NEXT AUGUST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. >> ALL RIGHT. >> SECOND. >> WHAT DATE IS THAT? >> AUGUST 8TH. >> OKAY. >> COULD SOMEBODY RESTATE THAT, PLEASE? >> WE'RE VOTING ON AN AMENDED CERTAIN TO DATE CERTAIN OF AUGUST 8TH. >> POSTPONEMENT. >> FOR A POSTPONEMENT. WE MUST VOTE ON THAT DATE CERTAIN FIRST. I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ON THAT. ALL IN FAVOR? [AYE] [NO]. THAT WAS TO POSTPONE THERE WAS NO THE DATE CERTAIN GIVEN. SO I HAVE A MOTION. AND SECOND. >> I'M SORRY. >> POSTPONE BUT DIDN'T GIVE IT A DATE CERTAIN. >> SO, RIGHT NOW WE JUST NEED TO VOTE TO JUST -- TO POSTPONE. >> WE HAVE A SECOND. >> IS THAT TABLED? >> SO WE JUST NEED TO VOTE TO CLEAR THIS OUT. >> WHAT'S THE MOTION? >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO POSTPONE. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> 5-3. [3. Annexation - Simonton Annexation AX-2024-016 ] >> HI, EVERYONE. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 5.2 ACHE NEARS THE CITY LIMITS, THE LOCATION IS [00:25:03] 812 WINTERHAWK DRIVE, ONE PARCEL, APPROXIMATELY A.2 ACHERS IN, MAJORITY OF PROPERTY HAS DENSE VEGETATION, THERE IS A SINGLE DETACHED ON SITE, THE PROPERTY IS CONTIGUOUS TO CITY OF AUBURN BOUNDARY TO THE WEST AND IS CONFORMING LOT OF REGARD AS THE MINIMUM LOT REQUIRED IS THREE ACRES FOR RURAL ZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY OUTSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY AS SHOWN IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2030, HOWEVER THERE IS THE A PROPOSED UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHARED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT SHARED THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE ALL LOTS ON WINTER HAWK DRIVE UNTIL THE [INDISTINCT] INTERSECTION. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS FORWARDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY AS PART OF UPCOMING AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. >> SO I GUESS KIND OF THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS DEPENDENT ON THIS ONE, SO, ITEM AFTER THIS CAN'T ANNEX IF THIS DOESN'T ANNEX BECAUSE IT'S ON CONTIGUOUS BY THIS LOT. >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? >> SAME GARMENTO, I WOULD MOVE TO POSTPONE WITH DATE CERTAIN, AUGUST 8TH, 2024. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED. >> NOE. >> ROCKIN' BRIDGES. >> NO. >> DANA CAMP. >> YES. >> CHANCELLOR. >> YES. >> WISDOM, NO. >> MCCORD YES. >> REESE [INAUDIBLE] >> JOSEPH VICE-PRESIDENT. >> 5-3. SINCE THERE ONE DOES NOT MEET CURRENTLY, SAME THING, YOU NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON IT. >> OKAY, THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR THE SAME ARGUMENTS. [4. Annexation - Sheppard Annexation AX-2024-017] >> WAIT. GO AHEAD. >> THIS IS ANNEXATION REQUEST OF APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES, ALONG 261 [INAUDIBLE] WINTERHAWK DRIVE IT IS PLEDLY EAST OF THE CASE YOU JUST HEARD, SIMILAR TO ANNEXATION, AND IS CONTINGENT ON OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IS THE CONTINGENT OF THE APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION TO THE WEST BY CITY COUNCIL. AGAIN IT IS CURRENTLY OUTSIDE OF THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. HOWEVER, THERE ARE THOSE UPDATES TO THE [INDISTINCT] AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONERS. >> I'LL MAKE THE SAME MOTION BASED ON THE SAME ARGUMENTS OF POSTPONEMENT UNTIL A DATE CERTAIN, AUGUST 8TH. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> OPPOSED. OKAY. [5. Annexation - Hemard Annexation AX-2024-018 ] >> THIS NEXT ANNEXATION IS A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4.45 ACRES ON LEE ROAD 25 ALSO KNOWN AS HILLANDALE DRIVE. THE MAP SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IN REGARDS TO THE CITY LIMITS. I TOUCHES ON THE CITY LIMITS ON THE NORTHERN BACKGROUNDRY OF THE LOT AT HILLANDALE DRIVE. THIS MAP SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S LOCATION IN REGARD TO THE TROMD, THE STEM OF THE LOT ACTUALLY IS WITHIN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY BUT THE ACTUAL MAIN PORTION OF THE LOT IS OUTSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. THE RURAL PROPERTY HERE, IS THE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY BUT WAS ANNEXED BY THE CITY COUNCIL I BELIEVE IN DECEMBER OF 2023. [00:30:18] >> IT IS A 4.45 ACRES THE FRONT DAMAGE AT HIGHLAND DRIVE IS 30 FEET, WHICH IS ENOUGH FOR ITS TO BE CONSIDERED A FLAT LOT, AND WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> IS IT ENOUGH FOR IT NOT TO BE CONSIDERED A FLAT LOT? >> IT IS CONSIDERED A FLAT LOT. >> OKAY. >> WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON FLAG LOTS THAT'S COMING UP AS WELL IN THIS UPDATE. DOES IT MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS? >> IT WOULD. WE ARE UPPING OUR REQUIREMENT FROM 25 TO 30 TO MEET THE COUNTY REQUIREMENT. >> SEES CONTINUATION OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED AT THE PACK AND LUNCH, NON-CONFORMING LOTS OR LOT SIZES WERE JUSTIFICATION FOR DENIAL BY LEGAL COUNSEL AND THEY ARE NOT WHICH WE HAVE ANNEXATION POLESI ON SHAPE OR CONFORMITY BEING A REASON FOR DENIAL AND IF IT'S NOT IN OPPOSITION TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE THE [INDISTINCT] FOR ANNEXATION. >> COMMISSIONERS. >> DISCUSSION OF THAT QUICK. WE HAVE OFTEN BEEN TOLD WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO ANNEX OR THE RECOMMEND THE ANNEXATION OF ANY PROPERTY. SO, IF WE HAVE THAT DISCRETION, I MEAN I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH THE COUNCIL BUT SOMEHOW THAT SEEMS IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD. >> NO, IF LET'S SAY THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THIS ONE IS, NO I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE, THE DISCUSSION WAS I DON'T HAVE ISSUE BEING OUTSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY, I HAVE ISSUES WITH THE SHAPE OF THE LOT TO THAT WOULD MAKE US LIABLE AND BE A DEFENSIBLE REASON FOR THAT NOT FOX ANNEXED IN THE FUTURE. >> AND WOULDN'T BE NON-CONFORMING IF ANNEXED. >> NO. NO, IT'S A LEGAL LOT OF RECORD. >> BULL WE HAVE PRECEDENT FOR BRINGING THIS TYPE OF PROPERTY IN BECAUSE WE SAW IT IN THE PREVIOUS MAP ADJACENT TO THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY AND WE HAVE A PRECEDENT RIGHT THEY'RE THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET THAT IS ALSO PART OF, ALSO NOT IN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY RIGHT NOW, BUT HAS ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED BY THE CITY. AND BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I SEE NO REASON TO DELAY THIS ONE. >> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND, ALL KNOWS IN FAVOR SAY AYE. NO. >> BRIDGES. >> YES. >> CAMP. >> NO. >> CHANSLER. >> NO. >> WISDOM. YES. >> MCCORD. >> NO. >> REESE. >> NO. >> RITENBAUGH. >> NO. >> AISTRUP. >> YES. >> THANK YOU AND THE NEXT. [6. Annexation - Shuman Annexation AX-2024-019 ] ALL RIGHT. S SHOE MAN ANNEXATION . . . FOREST MILL ROAD. THE REASON THIS WAS INCLUDED EVEN THOUGH NOT ACCOMPANIED BY REZONING CURRENTLY THE CITY DOES NOT MAINTAIN MORRIS THE [INDISTINCT] AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STAFF'S FEELING WAS THAT ITS LOCATION THE IMPLICATION OF ANNEXING PROPERTY THAT IS ON ROADS THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY MAINTAINED BY THE CITY WARRANT THEIR OWN DISCUSSION, NOT NECESSARILY IT DIDN'T AMOUNT TO RECOMMENDING THEM NOW AS YOU SEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL BUT JUST THAT THESE ITEMS NEED THEIR OWN ITEM. [00:35:03] THESE AGENDA ITEMS NEED THEIR OWN ITEM. THAT WAY THERE CAN BE A DISCUSSION AROUND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ANNEXATION ARE. THAT MIGHT BE A DECISION GOING FORWARD. THAT WAY THERE IS MORE THOUGHT AND DELIBERATION AROUND NOT JUST ANNEXINGS BUT ALSO AT WHAT PACE ARE WE ANNEXING AND WHAT IMPLICATIONS OF THOSE ANNEXATIONS SO THAT IS WHY THIS ONE IS INCLUDED OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA, SO IS IT CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY, IT IS. THIS IS AN ODD SPOT. THERE ARE PLACES IN THE CITY ON THE PERIPHERY OF IT SAW TOOTH IN AND OUT OF THE CITY, MAJORITY OF THE CITY OUTSIDE BUT YOU GOT THINGS IN THE CITY SO IT GETS ODD AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PLACES BUT IT'S CONTIGUOUS TO NORTH AND WEST OF THE PROPERTY AND ONLY THING SIGHTS ON A STRETCH OF ROAD NOT MAINTAINED BY THE CITY THAT COULD TIP THE THRESHOLD . . . AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY NOW MAINTAIN THE ROAD. WITH THAT I TURN IT OVER FOR QUESTIONS. >> WHAT IS THE CITY'S POSITION ON MAINTAINING THIS ROAD? >> I THINK IT'S RECOGNIZED IT'S INEVITABLE, THE AT THE NORTHEAST CONNER OF THIS IT'S GOING TO BE A FUTURE PARK SITE SO I MEAN LIKE I SAID IT'S PRESUMPTIVE THE CITY IS GOING TO MAINTAIN OUT OF FORREST MILL ROAD TO THE EDGE OF THE CITY LIMITS WHICH EXTENDS PAST THIS INTERSECTION. >> YOU WOULD CHARACTERIZE THIS ONE AS DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHERS. >> CORRECT, SO THIS IS INSIDE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. THIS ONE IS WELL INSIDE OF IT. LIKE I SAID THE ONLY THING WITH THIS ONE IS JUST THAT GOING FORWARD THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANNEXATION'S ON ROADS NOT MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. I THINK WE MENTIONED LAST MEETING SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE PROJECTS THAT HAPPENED ON SAND HILL ROAD AND SAND HILL ROAD IS AT ONE AS ANNEXATION'S HAPPEN THAT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER ONE THAT COMES INTO THE CITY AND THERE'S GOING TO BE CONSIDERATION AROUND IT SO THERE'S GOING TO BE DISCUSSION WELL THIS MEETS, DO WE NEED TO HAVE MORE NUANCED DISCUSSION AND STANDARDS AROUND ANNEXATION IN SOME AREAS AND WHAT HEIGHTS GOING TO DO TO ROAD MAINTENANCE. >> IF I COULD ADD QUICKLY THIS, CAME UP IN DISCUSSION AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OR TWO AGO, WHERE WE WERE ANNEXING PROPERTY, IT CAME UP WHEN THE COUNTY WAS GIFTING US SOME OF THOSE ROADS. SO THE QUESTION WAS WHO WAS GOING TO MAINTAIN OR BRING THEM UP TO CITY STANDARDS. WE WERE ACCEPTING THEM AND OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEM AT THIS POINT. THAT HAS STRUCK A CHORD TO ALLOW THE POLICY-MAKERS TO BE AWARE THAT THIS IS THE CASE AND I WILL SAY FOR DEVELOPMENT AS THEY COME IN WE GENERALLY WORK A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OUT WITH THEM OR? FASHION WHERE THEY PERFORM IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STREETS AHEAD OF US BEING ABLE TO TAKE THE ZONES SO THESE ONE OFFS WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT COMING IN AND AFFECT OR FUTURE STOCK OF STREETS TO MAINTAIN THAT'S BECOME VERY IMPORTANT IS OUR RESURFACING BUDGETS HAS GROWN FROM A MILLION, MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS TO $5 MILLION A YEAR FOR THE NEXT SIX YEARS AS WE'RE FORECASTING, SO THOSE THINGS ARE REAL AND YOU KNOW WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE POLICY-MAKERS ARE AWARE OF THOSE SO THAT TWO PROBABLY HAS YOU JUST SAID THAT WOULD COME UP IN A STAFF REPORT SO Y'ALL ARE AWARE OF THAT. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I MOVE TO FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR RECOMMENDATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE THE ANNEXATION. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOPPOSED? THANK YOU. [8. Preliminary Plat - Vintage East - PUBLIC HEARING PP-2024-024] >> GOOD AFTERNOON. OKAY. THIS ITEM IS A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 30 LOT FOREMOST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES 26 [00:40:02] TOWN HOUSES, ONE LOT FOR A PRIVATE STREET, ONE LOT THAT IS OPEN SPACE, AND TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE ENTRANCE INTO AUBURN FLATS, WHICH USED TO BE WESTERN ATLANTIC AND UNIVERSITY DRIVE. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED CDD AND IS JUST WEST OF THE VINTAGE. BACK IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A BANK MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A COMMERCIAL BUILDING WERE APPROVED. THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE REQUESTED THAT THE MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT PORTION OF THE PROJECT BE CONVERTED INTO TOWN HOUSES, AND IN ADDITION TO THE PLAT REQUEST, THEY ARE REQUESTING TO SUBDIVIDE OFF A PRIVATE STREET ALL OF THE LOTS HAVE FRONT DAMAGE FROM THE EXISTING PRIVATE DRIVE HERE. SO, BOTH COMMERCIAL LOTS WILL ACCESS HERE AND THEN THE TOWN HOUSES ALTHOUGH THEY WILL HAVE THIS RIGHT HERE WILL BE A PRIVATE STREET, ACCESS TO THAT PRIVATE STREET WILL BE HERE. WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER AS WELL AS THE PLAT, AND I DID RECEIVE A COUPLE OF CORRESPONDENCES, ONE FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING THE CROSS ACCESS FROM THE PROPERTY HERE TO HIS ADJACENT PROPERTY. THERE IS OR ARE WETLANDS AND A STREAM ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY THAT MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO FAST THROUGH, AND CROSS THE PROPERTY TO PROVIDE ACCESS. THE WET LAND DELINEATION I BELIEVE WAS PRESENTED WITH THE DRT WHEN IT WENT FORWARD WITH DRT FOR THE MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT SHOWS THE WETLANDS, AND CROSS ACCESS WAS NOT REQUIRED. THAT IS THE THE ONLY CORRESPONDENCE THAT I RECEIVED. ANY QUESTIONS? >> SO, CROSS ACCESS FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL PARCELS ON THE FRONT EAST UNIVERSITY AND NO CURB CUTS? >> CORRECT. >> EAST UNIVERSITY. >> CORRECT. >> I ALSO RECALL? DISCUSSION ABOUT HAVING A TRAFFIC LIGHT. >> YES. THAT INTERSECTION WILL BE SIGNALIZED IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS I BELIEVE. >> EVEN WITHOUT THIS BUILDING OUT. >> OH, YES, YES. >> OKAY. >> EXCUSE ME. THIS PROJECT ACTUALLY KICKS THE WARRANT FOR THAT SIGNAL. >> OH, NEVER MIND. >> SO US APPROVING IT SAYS THE SIGNAL GOES. >> BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT I WAS AWARE OF, YES. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO INVITE YOU FORWARD IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO SIGN IN. >> MY WIFE IS MARY ANNE STYLES. WE ARE THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND WE REQUESTED CROSS ACCESS. >> TO THE EAST? >> TODAY WEST FROM OUR PROPERTY. >> WHAT'S YOUR THE [INAUDIBLE] >> YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> CRAIG WALBERG, 1655 CREEK WOOD TRAIL. SO WHAT I'M THE NOTICING IS TWO GLARING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND WHAT WAS PROVIDE FOR DATA TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OFF FOR CONDITIONAL USE. WHAT WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONDITIONAL USE WETLANDS IT LOOKED TO BE A HUNDRED FOOT LAKE ALL THE WAY TO THE PROPERTY. WE SUBMITTED A DOCUMENT THAT SHOWED WHAT WE THOUGHT REFLECTED ACCURATE WETLANDS DELINEATION WHICH HAS NO WETLANDS ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT PER SE. THIS IS BASED OFF SURVEYS. THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THE EXACTLY MATCHES WHAT WE PRESENTED ALMOST, SO LOOKING BACK IN TIME YOU MADE A DECISION BASED OFF A HUNDRED FOOT WIDE LAKE TO POTENTIALLY DENY ACCESS WITH US, AND YET WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IT'S BEEN COMPLETELY REVISED TO WETLANDS SO THAT'S AT ONE CONSIDERATION. THE OTHER CONSIDERATION I HAVE HOPEFULLY YOU'LL ADJUST IS IT LOOKS TO ME THAT THE ORIGINAL PLAT WAS NEVER ENTERED INTO THE [00:45:01] CONDITIONAL USE THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY CREATED THE MAJORITY OF THE PARCEL TO BE USED N. THAT PLAT IT ACTUALLY STATES THERE IS A WEST ADJACENT LOT ACCESS FOR UTILITY INGRESS AND EGRESS ON THE FORMAL PLOT WENT TO PROBATE TODAY AND STATED IT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO HAVE ACCESS TO LOT 1B AND 2 TO THE WEST AND THAT DID NOT SHOW UP IN THE CONDITIONAL USE SO THOSE TWO THINGS ARE NOW IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THERE SHOWING THIS DOCUMENT NOW AND WAITS NOT IN YOUR CONDITIONAL USE DOCUMENT SO ON THAT THERE'S SOME LEGAL PRECEDENCE THAT SAYS THERE'S ACCESS TO THE WEST AS WELL AS WETLANDS HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED TO WHERE THERE ARE NO WETLANDS TO THE FRONTS OF THE PROPERTY. THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IS EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE PROVIDE THERE WAS A TIP OF THE WETLANDS AND TO ME THE ROAD COULD BE ADJUSTED TO WHERE WE'RE NOT ON THE WETLANDS SO IT SEEMS DIFFERENT WHAT WAS CONDITIONAL USE AND NOW WHAT'S SHOWING IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT I GUESS OUR REQUEST WOULD BE COULD YOU CONSIDER THE CROSS ACCESS AS IT'S STATED LEGALLY OR IN THE SUBDIVISION DOCUMENT AND ALSO THE SEVERELY ADJUSTED WETLANDS NOW CORRESPONDS TO WHAT WE IT? TO YOU AND SHOWS VERY LITTLE IF ANY THERE AND WHEN WE TALKED TO TOUSH ENGINEERING FIRM AND HAD THE WET LAND SURVEYED THEY STEAD PASSAGE WOULD BE MINIMAL IF ANY AND BE STANDARD AND ROUTINE SO THAT WAS SOME OF THE EXPECTATION SO IT SEEMS TO ME WERE YOU OPERATING OFF DATA THAT WAS INACCURATE OR OMITTED AND YET NOW SHOWING UP IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THEIR WAY WHEN WE'RE SUGGESTING WE WOULD LIKE TO REREQUEST THE ACCESS WHERE IT'S SHOWN CLOSE TO THE FRONT AND THE RESIDENTIAL LOT COMES OVER ACROSS DO. >> WHEN YOU'RE DONE PRESENTING I DON'T WANT TO CUT OFF YOUR FINAL 90 SECONDS. >> THAT'S FINE, WE'RE DONE. I WOULD WANT TO SAY THERE WAS GLARING INCONSISTENCINCONSISTEN [INDISTINCT] WHERE WAITS OVERDATED. >> LEGAL DOCUMENT STATES THERE IS EASE MEANT TO THE LEFT WHERE IT'S PROVIDED. [INAUDIBLE] >> SO, IT WASN'T IN OUR BENEFIT WHAT WAS PROPOSED WHERE LOOKS LIKE IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT [INDISTINCT] SO I JUST WANT TO STATE THAT. >> HOPEFULLY YOU'LL CONSIDER THAT. >> SO YOUR REQUEST IS ON YOUR PAST CONDITIONAL APPROVAL YOU TWO WANT THE ROAD CONSIDERED. >> WE WOULD LIKE TO YOU USE ACCURATE DATA SO WHEN YOU'RE MAKING DECISIONS YOU HAVE PROPER DATA TO UTILIZE. WHEN YOU SEE A LAKE THAT'S HUNDRED FOOT WIDE WEST LANDS I WOULD UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD RESPECT . . . WHEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL THAT'S NOT THE SAME DATA WE USE IN THE CU AND SO THERE'S LAND NOT WATER IN THAT AREA SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HERE WE'RE PRELIMINARY PLAT USING DATA THAT DIDN'T EXIST DURING CONDITIONAL USE BUT SHOULD HAVE WITH DECISIONS IN THE CU SO IF YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT YOU'RE ACCEPTING THAT THINGS HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY THAT WERE NOT PRESENTED IN THE CU. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> RIGHT BUT LIKE I SAID I'M TRYING TO GET WHAT IS YOUR FIRM REQUEST. >> WE TWO LIKE TO HAVE WEST ACCESS AS WE PROVIDED HERE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> EXCUSE ME, SIR. SPEAK TO THEM. >> SORRY. ANY QUESTIONS? SORRY. >> I YES. WHO TWO BUILD THAT ROAD? >> WELL, THE DEPENDS IF YOU LOOK AT THE THEY'RE ASKING FOR A SUBDIVISION, A REWORK OF THE ORIGINAL PARCELS SO IF I UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT REGULATIONS THAT WERE STATED IN THE VIDEO THAT MY WIFE PRESENTED THEY SAID THAT'S TIP CLIFF STUCK TO THE ADJACENT LOT IN QUESTION. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. OUR PROPERTY WAS DONE IN '85-86 THAT'SY DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT SAME STANDARD IF THAT MAKES SENSE. >> OKAY. >> ANY QUESTIONS? THANKS. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS THE STILL OPEN. GAOUNT TO TALK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? [00:50:03] OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN IF ANY AT ONE ELSE TWO LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. APPLICANT. >> BLAKE RICE, [INDISTINCT] BASQUIN NEERNG. I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO WHAT WHAT MR. WAL BERG BROUGHT TO YOUR TENSION THE ORIGINAL USE WAS BASE YOUTH OFF CITY DATA AS FAR AS WHERE WETLANDS GO. >> YOU'RE KEFRG TO HIS CONDITIONAL USE. >> YES, AS WELL AS THE NATIONAL WENT LANDS INVENTORY, A SUBS DID SHOW LESS WETLANDS WERE THERE BUT THE STREAM IS STILL THERE. IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH CITY STAFF DURING DRT. THIS ITEM WAS ACTED ON BY THIS COMMISSION DURING THE CONDITIONAL USE, THE SAME ARGUMENT WAS THERE REGARDING THE CROSS ACCESS. IT WAS THEN ACTED ON BY CITY COUNCIL AT BOTH TIMES I BELIEVE CITY STAFF STATED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR CROSS ACCESS AS THAT LOT TO THE EAST WOULD HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ITS OWN CURB CUT ON THE TO UNIVERSITY DRIVE. WITH THAT BEING SAID THERE WAS NO REASON TO HAVE A CROSS ACCESS CROSSING WHAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A SMALLER WET LAND THAN WAS ORIGINALLY SHOWN ONCE GOOD DATA WAS RECEIVED BUT IT'S STILL A THE STREAM WITH REQUIRED BUFFER YARDS IN THERE, ALSO JAYS DON'T THE FLOOD PLAIN. IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTEING THAT DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, THAT IT WAS SHOWN THAT THIS PROPERTY ALSO HAS ACCESS TO THE EAST THROUGH THE EXISTING BREWSTERS PARKING LOT THROUGH A PLATTED ACCESS EASEMENT. SO THAT IS HOW THE CONDITIONAL USE INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED TO THIS COMMISSION AND SUBSEQUENT LID TO CITY COUNCIL. AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL PLAT, WE HAVE RESEARCHED THIS. THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL PLAT IN 1985 THAT CREATED A LOT TO THE WET WHICH IS CURRENT THREW PRIVATE DRIVE THAT FEEDS THE APARTMENTS TO THE REAR AND THEN A LARGER LOT PASSED IT, AND THE MR. WAL BERGS PROPERTY WAS A YEAR LATER SUBDIVIDED OUT OF THAT LARGER LOT. IN THAT ORIGINAL 1985 PLAT THE DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT PARCEL WAS GIVEN ACCESS TOWARDS THE PRIVATE DRIVE, ULTIMATELY ON WHAT WAS LEFT FOR A FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH WAS NEVER CONSTRUCTED, ULTIMATELY APARTMENT FACILITY ALL THE REASONS THAT IT'S NEVER DEVELOPED BEFORE WERE BECAUSE THE ACCESS TO THAT PRIVATE DRIVE COULD NOT BE GRANTED. WE HAVE AS A GROUP, THIS DEVELOPMENT GROUP HAS WORKED WITH THE OWNERS OF THAT PRIVATE DRIVE AND HAVE GOTTEN ACCESS BUT THERE IS NO LEGAL RIGHT FOR ANY PROPERTIES TO THE EAST TO ACCESS THAT PRIVATE DRIVE. I DON'T WANT TO SAY ANYTHING OUT OF HAND BUT WHAT MR. WAL BERG IS SAYING ABOUT THE LEGAL END OF THAT ORIGINAL PLAT IS INCORRECT. THAT IS WHERE IT STANDS TODAY. THIS IS BEEN ACTED ON, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN GONE THROUGH DRT. MR. CHANSLER, TO YOUR ANSWER, YES, THE SIGNALIZATION OF THERE INTERSECTION IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS PROJECT. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. >> WAIVER, DO YOU WANT US TO DO THAT SEPARATELY? >> YES, SO YOU'LL NEED TO APPROVE THE WAIVER BEFORE YOU APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. SO, THE SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT T.C. WE ARE MAKING THE FINAL STAFF INTERNAL AMENDMENT'S WHERE WE SEND TO IT LEGAL TO GET THEIR OPINIONS AND THAT WILL BE ON THE SUBSEQUENT SEPTEMBER AGENDA SO WE'LL GO OVER THAT IN ONE OF THE [00:55:04] LUNCH MEETINGS AS A GENERAL UPDATE. I'M LIKE WHAT WE THINK THE SUBSTANCE OF IT WILL BE AND BARRING ANY MAJOR DEFENSIVE UNITED NATIONS OR CHANGES FROM LEGAL THAT'S WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE. >> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. >> SO, ARE WE IN A SITUATION SIMILAR TO ANNEXATION WHERE WE HAVE CHANGES THAT ARE COMING OR ARE THESE CHANGES FOR THE PRIVATE DRIVE? >> YEAH, SO THERE'S AT BEEN THE MECHANISM TO REQUEST A WAIVER FOR PRIVATE DRIVE. I THINK THE ONLY THING WE WERE CHANGING IS IT'S GOING TO BE A WAIVER. THERE'S JUST GOING TO BE SITUATIONS WHERE WE SUPPORT IT AND SITUATIONS WHERE WE DON'T SO THIS WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE WE WOULD SUPPORT IT. THIS IS NOT ACTING AS A ROAD. THIS IS A CONTAINED PARKING LOT WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TO SUBDIVIDE OFF OF SO THE ONLY I GUESS EXTRA LEVEL TO THIS ONE IS THEY'RE REQUESTING TO SUBDIVIDE OFF A PRIVATE STREET THAT IS TAKING ACCESS OFF A PRIVATE STREET BUT THEY HAVE AGREEMENT WITH PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE ACCESS OFF THE PRIVATE STREET STOW NOW THEY NEED TO SUBDIVIDE OFF WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A PARKING LOT. >> WHICH IS ONE OF THE OTHER CHANGES THAT WE DID. >> YES. >> IS THAT AGREEMENT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN PERPETUITY? >> I GUESS THAT WOULD BE A REQUEST FOR THE APPLICANT. I CAN'T SPEAK. >> IT IS IN PERPETUITY. >> COMMISSIONERS. >> MOVE TO APPROVE THE WAIVER FIRST. >> SECOND. >> OKAY, SO FIRST WE ARE APPROVING, MOTION TO APPROVE THE WAIVER TO STUB DIVIDE ON THE PRIVATE DRIVE. MOTION AND SECOND. THE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSEED WAIVER ANIMOTION CARRIES. NOW WE STILL NEED TO DO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. [INDISTINCT] THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. ONE SECOND. BUILT MORE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE NEXT. >> YEAH, SO I'M SORRY. THE APPLICANT BUILT MORE REQUESTED THE ITEM BE PULLED TO HAVE AGENDA. THEY DON'T WANT A DECISION. THEY WANT IT TO BE PULLED TO HAVE AGENDA, SO I GUESS JUST WITH THE TIME OF EVERYTHING, WE DIDN'T UPDATE IT I GUESS ON THE PAPER AGENDA. >> SORRY. [10. Preliminary Plat - Eagle Creek Estates - PUBLIC HARING PP-2024-026] >> ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT CASE BEFORE YOU IS A REQUEST FOR REVITALIZED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 26 LOT CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION EAGLE CREEK ESTATES ON DIJT PARKWAY [INDISTINCT] THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT 36 AND A HALF ACRES, IT IS ZONED LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WHICH WAS RESOENTD IN THE DECEMBER OF THE GUT FROM RURAL. SO THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WAS APPROVED IN NOVEMBER OF 2022 EXPIRED IN MAY OF 2024 AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A NEW PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THAT SUBDIVISION. THE PLAT REMAINED BASICALLY THE SAME. THERE WERE SOME PLIEN OR LOT LINE REVISIONS, AS WELL AS THE ADDITION OF A COMMON AREA FOR THE MAIL KIOSK. THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLANS AS WELL AS APPROVAL THEY'RE WAITING FOR FROM THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE NEW PRELIMINARY PLAT. [INAUDIBLE] >> THERE ARE A FEW COMMENTS BUT NOTHING THAT TWO -- WOULD HOLD ANYTHING. >> INFORMATION FOR EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM, SO IF YOU HAVEN'T ATTENDED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BEFORE OR ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS DO GET A PACK NET THE MAIL THAT HAS STAFF REPORTS, THE PRELIMINARY PLATS ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE DISPLAY ON SCREENS AND EXTRA INFORMATION INCLUDING THAT SO THEY HAVE THAT PHYSICALLY AND [01:00:01] HAVE A MEETING ON MONDAYS WHERE WE GO OVER THE PACKET IN GREAT DETAIL WHERE THEY'RE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS AND PRESENTED THE PLAT SO I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK WE GOT TO THIS ITEM WEREN'T PRESENTED ANY INFORMATION AND APPROVED THIS SO THEY HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ON THIS . . . I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT. >> ONLY MY COPIES APPEAR FOR ANYBODY WHO COMES TO SPEAK. >> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM REGARDING EAGLE CREEK ESTATES. OKAY. YES, MA'AM. >> LAURA MCCORMICK. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET IN MINT TRAIL, 355 BARKSDALE LANE. I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY PEOPLE OTHER PEOPLE I SPEAK FOR BUT THERE WERE SEVERAL IN THE FACEBOOK GROUP AND APPROVED YEARS AGO TO CHANGE THIS BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY INTO A MULTI-USE MANY MANY ACRE LOTS WHATEVER BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE REALLY CONCERNED NOW AFTER SEEING IT CLEAR CUT, AND BLOCKED, AND KNOW EROSIONAL BLOCK PUT UP UNTIL TODAY AFTER THEY LOGGED THAT WHOLE SECTION AND JUST REALLY INTERESTED TO KNOW HOW AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN SEEING ALL THIS PROPERTY DESTROYED, RIGHT ABOVE A NATURAL CREEK AND WET LAND, AND A CREEK THAT RUNS INTO A RESERVOIR FOR THE CITY AND OUT OF CLUB LAKE, WHO DO WE CONTACT WHEN WE SEE THINGS THAT MAY BE CONCERNING WITH US ALL THE EROSION AND THE RUNOFF IN THESE PROPOSED LOTS THAT ARE GOING TO RUN IN PERENNIAL STREAM THERE. ARE LOTS OF WETLANDS IN THERE. YOU MAY NOT HAVE A PLAT. EVERYONE OF THE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE HAVE A STREAM IT LAND OR UP LAND ZONE OR SOMETHING SO WE'RE ALL VERY CONCERNED BUT WHAT IS IN PLACE AND WHO CAN WE CONTACT TO TALK ABOUT THIS LOT COMING IN. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> THANK YOU. >> I'LL ANSWER IT AFTER ALL THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> ALL RIGHT. PUBLIC HEARING STILL OPEN. >> JAMES STONE. I HAVE LIVED ACROSS THE STREET FOR 45 YEARS FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. >> AND YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE? >> I SPOKE TO YOU ORIGINALLY AND ON THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, ORIGINAL LIMIT PRESENTED ALMOST ALL OF US WERE PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT A NEW ROAD WAY CONNECTING TO [INDISTINCT] PARKWAY. WE HAD HOPED THAT THE OUTLET WOULD BE ONE OF THE ADJOINING STREETS THAT'S ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND HOWEVER, IT WAS APPROVED TO COME ON TO STHEL [INDISTINCT], NOW I WENT TO YOUR 2030 COMP PLAN AND RIGHT THERE IT IS, IT PLAINLY STATES, SURVEYS, AUBURN RESIDENTS REMEMBER YOU TWICE ARE VOLUNTEERING TO SERVE ME, NOT THE PROFESSIONALS. SURVEY SHOWED AUBURN CITIZENS ARE PRIMARILY NUMBER 1 NOT CONCERNED ABOUT PARKS, ALL OF THE FEEL GOOD STUFF. THEY'RE PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC. THE COMP PLAN SHOWS THAT AUBURN IS TERRIBLY DEFICIENT WITH ITS EAST-WEST TRAFFIC FLOW. AND THROUGH THE COMBINATION OF OGLETREE COMING DOWN WRIGHT'S MILL ROAD, ALL THE TRAFFIC FUNNELS AS THE PRIMARY WEST CORRIDOR DOWN LITTLE STHEL TOUR, WHICH IS A STATE HIGH WAY, FOLKS AND BECAUSE OF A LACK OF CITY PLANNING AND ANTICIPATION, YOU HAVE TAKEN A CITY HIGH WAY THAT'S ABOUT THIS NARROW, NO SHOULDERS, AND YOU'VE COMANDEERED IT INTO THE PRIMARY EAST-WEST CORRIDOR. [01:05:04] AND YOUR COMP PLAN SHOWS A PROPOSAL THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER, TEXAS ENDING WRIGHT'S HILL ROAD DOWN TO SAND HILL. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN YOUR MATERIALS. IT ALSO SHOWS THAT VETERANS PARKWAY CAN BE EASILY A FEW HUNDRED YARDS EXTENDED TO SOUTH VIEW. SOUTH VIEW OF COURSE, CONNECTS TO UNIVERSITY. WHICH WOULD BRING MUCH OF THIS TRAFFIC JUST EXITING NEXT TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP ON SOUTH COLLEGE, RIGHT BEFORE THE INTERSTATE BRIDGE. EITHER ONE OR BOTH OF THOSE WOULD MAKE AN IMMENSE WITH S SHELL [INDISTINCT], THE LOCATION FOR THOSE COMPANIES ARE OUT DOWN NEAR SAND HILL. THEY HAVE TO COME UP SHELL TUMOR, AND YOU HAVE ALL DAY LONG. WE HAVE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES. WE HAVE BICYCLE FOLKS HOLDING ALL OF THIS UP, IT'S A MESS. NOW, YOU GUYS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PLANNING. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE READING. THE PLANS THAT HAD BEEN DONE AND THEY'RE EXCELLENT. HOWEVER, THEY MEAN NOTHING UNTIL SOMEBODY SETS SOME PRIORITIES. WARREN, I'M TALKING TO YOU, BOB I'M TALKING TO YOU. I'VE BEEN TALKING TO THESE GUYS FOR 30 SOME ODD YEARS. COME ON. HELP OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SOME PRIORITIES AND GIVE US? EAST-WEST ALTERNATIVES. >> THANK YOU AGAIN FOR VOLUNTEERING. >> THANK YOU. >> CAN WE GET YOUR ADDRESS? >> CAN WE GET YOUR ADDRESS, SIR? MAY WE GET YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE. >> 500 SHELL TUMOR PARKWAY. >> AND PLEASE SIGN IN. >> AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND STILL SPEAK ON THERE ITEM. SEEING NO ONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, TO ADDRESS THE FIRST QUESTION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CLEAR-CUTTING ON THE SIDE DELINEATION OF THE WETLANDS, SO FOR THOSE OF YOU [INDISTINCT] CREEK ESTATES HAD BEEN APPROVED 2022 BUT THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT EXPIRED, ALREADY WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH DRT, HAD APPROVED DRT PLANKS AND HAD A PRECON SCHEDULED THAT HAD EXPIRED. SO I GUESS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE IDENTIFIED THERE WE WANT TO CHANGE IN THE SUBDIVISION IS IF SOMEBODY LAST DRT PLANS APPROVED DRT PLANS ESSENTIALLY IT EXTENDS THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAT FROM THE INITIAL 18 MONTH TIME PERIOD THAT THEY HAVE AND GIVES THEM ANOTHER 18 MONTHS, THAT TWO GIVE 36 MONTHS TO START INCOMPLETE CONSTRUCTION AND MAKE IT THROUGH FINAL PLAT PROCESS WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMPLICATIONS TO GET ANOTHER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL STOW SINCE THEY HAD DRT PLANS . . . I THINK WEARTV PRECON CAN WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS PRECON SO IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I TALKED ABOUT INTERNALLY, SO CHECKED WITH ENGINEERING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT FOLKS . . . AND THEY TWO REAPPLY FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT THEY HAD ALREADY APPROVED DRT PLANS FOR SO THAT IS WHAT THERE IS, SO THERE IS THE REQUEST OF ANOTHER PRELIMINARY PLAT EVEN THOUGH LIKE I SAID THEY HAVE APPROVED DRT PLANS. WHEN YOU PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT YOU TAKE THAT TO DEVELOPMENT APPEARED SO YOU HAVE USES NUMBER OF LOTS AND THE GRANULAR DETAILS LIKE SETBACKS UTILITIES, STORM WATER ALL OF THOSE GRANULAR DETAILS LIKE SHE MENTIONED WATERWAYS ON THE WEST SIDE ARE THE ACCOUNTED FOR THOSE THINGS [01:10:02] ARE RIGOROUSLY STUDIED . . . BEFORE THEY MAKE TO IT FINAL PLAT . . . AND ONCE YOU HAVE DRT PLANS YOU COME. SO IT'S A PRETTY METHODS CAL PROCESS THAT WE ARE FORCED TO FOLLOW AND SINCE WE HAD APPROVED DRT PLANS . . . AND THEY WERE GOING TO REAPPLY FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO EX-TEN THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. SO I GUESS IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE WATERSHED I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. >> WATER RESOURCES IF THEY SEE SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. >> DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? >> NOTHING REALLY TO ADD OTHER THAN WE WILL MAKE SURE I'M SURE STAFF IS WELL AWARE. PROJECT AND DO ROUTINE INSPECTIONS, WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY THAT WE'RE ON TOP OF ANY ISSUES ON THE SIDE. >> AND CAN YOU TELL THE PUBLIC ESPECIALLY MS. MCCORMICK, WHO ARE THEY TO CALL? >> YES, MA'AM. IT'S OUR WATERSHED MANAGER MISS MARLA SMITH, CAN YOU CALL ANYONE IN WATER MANAGEMENT AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THOSE ADDRESSED THE NUMBER IS 334-501-3060. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. >> BACKGROUND HERE. >> THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF OUR MOST DISCUSSED WHEN THE WEST FACE DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE DRINK WAS CREATED AND THAT'S THE PART IN THE PING, PDD BUT IT'S A COOPERATIVE DISTRICT WHICH UNDER ALABAMA LAW ALLOWS THE OWNER DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY TO HAVE CERTAIN INCENTIVES WHICH HE TWO THEN COLLECT FROM THOSE WHO RESIDE IN THAT AND PROVIDE THE UTILITIES THEY FIND WITH THE MONEY THAT THEY HAVE FROM THE TENANTS [INDISTINCT] AND THIS AREA WAS VERY MUCH UNDER DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AT GHEPER WILL AND SHELL TUMOR ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH GOT CAUGHT. THIS IS A MULTI-USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS NOT REACHED ITS FULL POTENTIAL BECAUSE IT GOT CAUGHT IN THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL DOWN TURN IN 2008 AND THEREFORE HAS NOT BUILT OUT BUT THAT WILL BE A RATHER INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL AREA AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOT SET UP UNDER THE DISTRICT LAWS TO SEE. THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED LED AS INTENTIONED, YOU BUFF ERRING THE PEOPLE WHO WERE CONCERNED WHO LIVE ON SHELL TUMOR AND INTO TWHILER WILL, BUFFER THEM FROM THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SO THAT'S WHAT THIS PROPOSAL IS DOING IS BRINGING IN HOUSES UNDER THE LED CRITERIA. WHICH MAKES THE ZONE AND AS WELL AS THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. PERSONALLY I THINK THINK THAT SHOULD PROVIDE SOME CERTAINTY TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PROPERTY. YES IT IS NATURAL RESOURCE PROPERTY, VERY NICE ENVIRONMENT THERE, BUT IT IS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, IT'S CLOSE TO THE INTERSTATE. SHELL TUMOR HAS BEEN AN ISSUE BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING UNIQUE. IT CAME UNDER THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION RESOURCES BECAUSE IT'S PART OF [INDISTINCT] STATE PARK. SO ANY WAY, I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD COMPROMISE ON HOW THAT PROPERTY CAN BUFFER THE RULE AND THE NC-2054. >> I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU. >> PLEASE. >> NO, PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSE. >> SO ANYWAY, I STAND ON WHAT I SAY. IN FACT THIS WAS THE LED WAS CREATED FOR THE BUFFER THERE AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION. I THOUGHT IT WAS PROPOSED FAIR ENOUGH AND EVERYBODY SEEMED TO BE SATISFIED THAT THAT TWO WORK. NOW IT'S ALWAYS WHEN THE BULLDOZERS COME THAT PLANS CATCH PEOPLES ATTENTION. [01:15:03] THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE TIME. >> COMMISSIONERS. COMMENTS. >> MOVE TO APPROVE [INDISTINCT] WITH STAFF COMMENTS. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? [UNANIMOUS] [11. Rezoning - Sugar Creek Lot 1A - PUBLIC HARING RZ-2024-006] THANK YOU. UP NEXT, IS A REZONING AT 900 GOOK DRIVE A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.89 ACRES FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, NC-20 TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING. OH THERE'S THE PLAT. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PART OF A LARGER THREE ACRE PARCEL. IT WAS REZONED. THIS SHOWS A LARGE REZONING THAT OCCURRED IN 1988, 159 ACRES AND REZONED ABOUT 25 ACRES HERE FROM RURAL TO NC-20 AND ABOUT 134 ACRES FROM RURAL TO DDH. THIS IS THE STHUG CREEK ESTATE [INDISTINCT] THIS SHOWS THE PLAT OF THE SUBJECT PRATT WHERE IT WAS CONSOLIDATED TO CREATE THE THREE ACRE PARCEL. THE DDH ZONE ALLOWS A DENSITY OF 5.5 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE AND THE APPLICANT LAST REQUESTED A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD BE EIGHT UNIWITNESSES A DENSITY OF TWO AND A HALF, 2.59 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE. THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE PROPERTY IS NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION WHICH CALLS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING DENSITIES IN THE AREA T2.59 IS IN LINE WITH PARK LANE, SUBDIVISION OVER HERE WHICH HAS A DENSITY OF 2 MONTANA 6. SUGAR CREEK ESTATES AND THE MORRIS MILL PHASES HERE HAVE A DENSITY OF ABOUT ONE DWELLING UNIT AN ACRE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING USED LIKE TO SAY ON THE REZONING. >> HELLO. THE MY NAME IS JOHN REGISTER AND LIVE AT WHAT I CALL THE OLD OTHER THE ORIGINAL MOORE'S MILL NEIGHBORHOOD. >> YOUR ADDRESS. >> 1669 LAUREN LANE IN AUBURN AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD A JOINS THE SUGAR CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD AND I CAN'T SAY THAT I HAVE ANY KIND OF OPPOSITION TO THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. WE HAVE STUDIED IT. LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO ENHANCE THE VALUE OF THE AREA. DO I WANT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN ABOUT THE REALLY THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA AND THE KIND OF THE OVERLOADED SITUATIONS THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH WITHIN THE LAST YEAR TO 128 MONTHS WE HAVE HAD TAUREAN COMMUNITY CHURCH BUILT ACROSS THE ROAD. ANYBODY IN THE AREA MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH THE TRAFFIC SO THAT HAS BEEN VERY PAINFUL. WE HAVE AN ENTRANCE INTO SLUG CREEK AS AN OPTION TO GET INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND INTO MOORE'S MILL. WE HAVE A ENTRANCE OFF MOORE'S MILL ROAD INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I CAN TELL YOU IT'S OFTEN A GAME OF CHICKEN, YOU FEEL YOU'RE PLAYING CHICKEN TRY TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S QUITE DANGEROUS AND I'VE SEEN SCHOOL BUSES NARROWLY AVOID ACCIDENTS SO I GUESS I'M HERE TO REALLY HIGHLIGHT THIS. MOST OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH IT. FOR ALL I KNOW YOU MAY HAVE DONE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY ON IT. I SPEAK FOR MYSELF, SKAINT I'M REPRESENTING ANYBODY SPECIFICALLY BULL I KNOW THAT MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS FEEL THE SAME WAY, AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE ALREADY PLANNING TO POSSIBLY PUT IN A THE ROUND ABOUT OR A TRAFFIC LIGHT IN ONE OF THOSE ENTRANCES IN THE NEAR FUTURE OR IF YOU'RE NOT, IF YOU TWO CONSIDER THAT. I FEEL THAT IT'S ESSENTIAL. I FEEL THAT THE SITUATION IS HONESTLY UNSAFE AND I'M CONCERNED WITH MY FAMILY GOING IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SCHOOL BUSES, TRYING TO NAVIGATE [01:20:01] THAT AREA SO AGAIN I THINK THE DWP ITSELF IS GOING TO BE GOOD FOR THE AREA, BUT THE CHURCH TAUREAN COMMUNITY CHURCH HAS A LARGE MEMBERSHIP. IT IT'S OVERTAXING THE INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S EXPLODED IN THAT AREA IN THE LAST 10-15 YEARS AS YOU KNOW. THERE'S A SCHOOL GOING INTO THE CHURCH IN COMING MONTHS, THERE WILL BE MORE TRAFFIC AND THIS ADDITIONAL 8 HOUSES WILL BRING IN 8 FAMILIES THAT WILL BE MORE TRAFFIC. SO AGAIN, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE PLANNING ANY KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT MIGHT TERESA THESE ISSUES AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU SIR. ANYONE ELSE TWO LIKE TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SIR, WILL YOU PLEASE SIGN IN? >> MY NAME IS JOY TURNER AND I LIVE AT 1794 COVINGTON AND I COME IN AND OUT ON MY FAMILY COMES IN AND OUT OF THOSE TWO ENTRANCES INTO SLUG CREEK AND TVR SAME PROBLEMS THAT HE HAD. ESPECIALLY AFTER THE CHURCH AND THE CITY WHERE THERE WERE TWO LANES COMING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THEY MADE IT THREE. SO THERE'S TWO EXITING AND IF THERE'S TWO CARS THERE, YOU CAN'T SEE WHO IS COMING FROM THAT WAY AND THEY CAN'T SEE IT WAS COME FROM THAT WAY, SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY PUT THAT AND IT'S HARD TO GET OUT ON TO MOORE'S MILL ROAD BECAUSE OF THE NEW TURN THAT LEADS FROM HAMILTON TO THE RIGHT ON MOORE'S MILL ROAD BUT MY MAIN OBJECTION IS FOR WHERE RESIDENCE WAS THAT BURNED DOWN TO THE GROUND. NOW THAT'S WANTING TO BE REZONED, I MEAN IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD. WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO PUT THESE TOWNHOMES OR WHATEVER IN THE FUTURE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ONE RESIDENT PER LOT? I KNOW ACROSS THE STREET IS ONE HOUSE ON THIS FLYER IT HAS DDH ACROSS LAUREN LANE WHERE THERE'S A HOUSE THERE, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ALL THESE DDH'S AND ALL THE THREE LETTERS SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE, BUT I'M REALLY AGAINST THAT BEING REZONED EXCEPT FOR RESIDENCES. I TWO LIKE TO SAY NC 20 RATHER THAN BEING REZONED DDH, WHATEVER THAT WILL MEAN. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU. AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING WE WILL ADDRESS TALL QUESTIONS. >> I WAS THERE WHEN A PORTION OF THE HOUSE BURNED DOWN. WE WERE OPPOSE FORCED WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY TWO BRING TO US BUT WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER, WE THINK WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BRING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ACCEPTABLE AND BETTER WHAT WE ORIGINALLY SAW, SO AS ONE HAS A VERY VESTED INTEREST IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, I LIKE WHAT WE HAVE SEEN SOME WHERE CLOSE TO THE MAGNOLIA CLUB NEIGHBORHOOD SO I GUESS TO SOMEONE WHO LIVES SO CLOSE TO THAT, I DO APPRECIATE THEY HAVE A COMPROMISE AND WORK WITH US IN THAT REGARD SO THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. APPL APPLICANT. >> GOOD REASON, GREG [NAME] REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. THERE'S A COUPLE OF COMMENTS IN THE PACKET I'LL GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A SUCH A ESTATE CONDO LOOK NO THAN . . . ALL THERE ON MOORE'S MILL AND LOOK AND FEEL LIKE A SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH [01:25:06] SINGLE DETACHED HOMES. IT'S JUST ON THIS THE PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY THERE'S THREE ACRES, THE FRONT PIECE ONE HALF ACRE PIECE ON THE CORNER WAS NC-20, THE REST OF IT DDH SO WE HAVE A SPLIT ZONE PIECE OF PROPERTY AS WARREN ALLUDED TO IN OUR PACKET AND TOLD TUESDAY HISTORY OF NC ZONING IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE ZONE TO. IT'S A PROTECTED ZONE EVEN WHEN THEY DID THE REZONING WHEN I DON'T THINK I WAS AROUND. >> '86. >> SO IT WAS A LOT. THERE WAS QUESTION ABOUT ASSOCIATION, YOU KNOW, THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WILL BE ITS OWN SEPARATE CONDO ASSOCIATION THAT WILL MAINTAIN THE SHARE DRIVE THAT THE PROPERTIES WILL BE TAKING ACCESS OFF OF, BUT IT WILL BE A PARCEL WITHIN THE SUGAR CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD HOA SO THIS WILL BE PART OF THAT, SO IF YOU LIVE OF THERE YOU'LL YOU ABOUT PART TWO OF ASSOCIATIONS, PROPERTY ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS THE OVERALL. WE DID EVER AN AGREEMENT, CAN I SEND THIS TO NEIGHBORS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD VOTED AND AMENDED THEIR COVENANTS TO ACCEPT WHAT WE WERE DOING AND THAT WAS A VOTE OF THE ENTIRE SUGAR CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT WAS APPROVED. SO, WE HAVE THAT. OTHER THAN THAT, YOU KNOW, I'D BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T SAY THIS. ACCESS TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AS YOU PROBABLY ALL KNOW IS EVERYBODY WANTS TO GET OUT ON MOORE'S MILL AND ON HAMILTON BUT REMEMBER THERE WAS A CONNECTION FROM RIVER WOOD THAT WOULD HAVE CONNECTED IN BACK TO CHAMPIONS BOULEVARD AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD NAUGHT THAT CONNECTION AND NOW THERE'S NOT THAT CONNECTION THERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, IN REGARD TO WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY WANT IT'S PART OF THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS OR GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS TO HAVE CROSS ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY. IT'S ONE OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE STAFF IN THIS BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THE CONNECTION BUT DID GET VOTED DOWN BY CITY COUNCIL. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. SO THE SAME PEOPLE IT HAPPENS IN A LOT OF THESE SITUATIONS CERRELL I ON PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING THE CONNECTIVITY AND WE GET INTO A SITUATIONS 20 YEARS LATER EVERYTHING IS DEVELOPED AND THE BACK WAY OUT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST WAY OUT AND IT'S NOT THERE SO I JUST WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE OF THAT THAT THERE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE OTHER WAYS TO GET OUT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. >> WOODLY IS ALSO AN EXIT. >> WELL YEAH, AND YOU CAN CONNECT OVER AND GO ACROSS FROM TOWNS. THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS TO GET OUT, BUT YOU GOT TO BE ABLE TO. >> THOSE ARE THE MAIN TWO. >> SO I GUESS I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO, THE CITY IS VERY AWARE OF THE TRAFFIC SITUATION OVER ON MOORE'S MILL, HAMILTON, AND JUST THE INTERSECTION OF OGLETREE. THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WAS PROPOSEED IN THIS AGENDA THAT WAS IN RELATION TO THAT KIND OF HAVING TO TO WITH TRAFFIC STOW CITY IS DEFINITELY AWARE OF IT. THERE ARE UP GRAIDZ PLANNED AND THE CITY ENGINEERS BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING PACE OF DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN HAS REALLY KIND OF PUT THE SCRUTINY ON THAT INTERSECTION. THERE'S REALLY A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT WHEN IS THAT GOING TO IN ARE THOSE UP GRAIDZ GOING TO HAPPEN AND WHAT DO THEY NEED TO BE TO ACCOMMODATE JUST THE RAPID PACE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING SO I DON'T WANT YOU TO LEAVE THIS MEETING FEELING THAT THE CITY IS IGNORING THAT. THE CITY IS VERY AWARE OF THAT STUDY AND I WAS LOOKING AT WHEN TO AND HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE BEST SOLUTION. SO. YEAH. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. VOTING FOR REZONING. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE RZ 2024006. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND, ALL KNOWS IN FAVOR. [12. Conditional Use - Sugar Creek Lot 1A - PUBLIC HARING CU-2024-030] OPPOSED. THANK YOU. SAME LOCATION, DIFFERENT REQUEST. [01:30:16] [READING]. >> SO, DDH DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT HOUSING AND NC 20 IS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION WITH 20,000 AND CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT, WE SHOULD COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT DEFINITION BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE HEARD BUT THIS IS 8 SINGLE TAMALE DETACHED HOMES SO THESE ARE EIGHT SEPARATE BUILDINGS. >> FUNCTIONALLY IT WILL LOOK LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD. IT JUST HAS, YOU ACTUALLY PULL UP THE RECORD BOOKS IT'S ONLY ONE LOT FROM DENSITY STANDPOINT FROM I THINK WAVES OF PUCK ENGAGEMENT LIKE THE GENTLEMAN SPOKE EARLIER, PEOPLE WERE NOT A FAN OF THE FIRST ITERATION SO I THINK FROM THE STAT SIDE, THE REZONING THIS WASN'T A DRASTIC SHIFT. SO, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE MAY LOOK AT, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT NAME INSTEAD OF PUTTING OUT A MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT COMPLEX IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WITH THAT TURN IT OVER TO YOU ALL FOR QUESTIONS. >> I MIGHT ADD THAT THE DDH CARRIES THE SINGLE-FAMILY DEFINITION SO THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE FAMILY PER UNIT CORRECT, AND I GUESS THE OTHER PART OF THIS, SO DDH LIKE I MENTIONED IS SOUGHT AFTER BY A LOT OF [INDISTINCT] SO ON THREE ACRES THEY COULD HAVE DONE 16-17 SO THIS IS HALF OF THAT SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE IN LINE WITH LOT STANDPOINT . . . SO HAD TO BE CAUGHT MAULTY UNIT BY DEFINITION. >> THANK YOU. THIS REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE. >> WE LIVE IN THE BACK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE'RE NOT PRIVY TO ANY OF THIS INFORMATION. WHERE CAN I SEE THIS? >> IT IS PUT OUT ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE AND IF YOU'RE A HOMEOWNER, AND IT TOUCHES THIS PROPERTY, YOU GET A LETTER. >> TOUCHES, THE BURNT DOWN HOUSE PROPERTY? >> AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION USUALLY GETS AN EMAIL. >> OKAY. WE'RE A CONDO ASSOCIATION IN THE BACK THAT HAS TO USE THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THOSE OPTION. >> AND THIS IS STHUG CREEK [INDISTINCT]. >> I'M JUST SAYING, WE ARE INFLUENCED BY THIS PROJECT. WE HAVE TO GO IN AND OUT THOSE ROADS, SO WHY EVER WE NOT HEARD? >> WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> WE HAVE HAD PEOPLE QUESTIONING AND WONDERING ABOUT NOTICING PUBLIC POLICY. SOME OF THEM HAVE BOUNDARIES [01:35:05] WHERE THEY'RE 500 FEET, AND THEN THE CITY DOES GO THE EXTRA MILE. WE HAVE A COORDINATOR WHO HANDLES THESE THINGS, REVIEWS OUR AGENDA COMES TO THE PRELIMINARY MEETINGS WHERE WE SEE THE APPLICATIONS AND SO, THEY HAVE A RELATIONSHIP. THAT WAY WE CAN HEAD OFF THE BACKLASH. SO THE CITY GOES TO A LOT OF EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF N. I THINK FROM AN A JOINING PROPERTY STANDPOINT AND SOME OF THE BUFFERS THAT ARE REQUIRED, THE CITY DOES GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT, WEARTV A RELATIONS PERSON THAT HANDLES THIS DIRECTLY AND ADDRESSES THE HOA LETS THEM KNOW, ENCOURAGES THE DEVELOPERS TO REACH OUT AND HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT GOVERNS IT AND I GUESS IT SOUNDS LIKED YOU'RE OUTSIDE THAT BOUNDARY. BUT I THINK AS I SAID WE HAVE HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS ON IT AND OUR POSITION IS WE'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND SO WE PUT THE INFORMATION OUT ON THE WEB SITE, WE PUT SIGNS ON THE PHYSICAL SITE, THE CITY DOES DO A GREAT JOB AND IT'S A LOT OF EFFORT FROM STAFF. WE HAVE A PERSON WHOSE SOLD JOB IS TO HANDLE. >> QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT AND STAFF, THE [INAUDIBLE] >> BEFORE YOU DO THAT, CAN YOU READ THAT RECOMMENDATION? >> YES. >> THE CORRECT VERSION IS IT'S CORRECTION FOR APPROVAL. IT'S WITH APPROVAL AND NOT CONDITIONS. THAT WAS A TYPO. RECOMMENDATION WITH APPROVAL. THE APPROVAL. >> I MOVE THAT [INDISTINCT]. >> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> OKAY. [13. Conditional Use - One Auburn - PUBLIC HEARING CU-2024-024] THE NEXT ITEM ON [14. Conditional Use - Ecological Insulation - PUBLIC HEARING CU-2024-029] [01:41:01] THE AGENDA. >> THIS IS A NEW APPLICANT. THIS IS I GUESS TAKING HOLD HERE. THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE ANY OF THE AREA. >> THANK YOU. >> THIS ALSO REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD ABOUT THIS. SEEING NO ONEWILL . [15. Waiver - 525 Auburn Drive - PUBLIC HEARING WZ-2024-006] >> OKAY. THE LAST CASE FOR YOU TONIGHT IS A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER TO ALLOW FOR A SUBDIVISION OFF A PRIVATE DRIVE. 525 BARNE DRIVE. THE LOT HERE WOULD BE SUBDIVIDED EAST TO WEST CREATING THESE NORTH AND SOUTH LOTS. BOTH THE LOTS WOULD MEET THE 12,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE. IN 1997 THE RIGHT OF WAY IN FRONT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS VACATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHICH LEFT A SMALL SLIVER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE NORTHERN LOT WOULD ACCESS OFF THIS TEN FOOT PRIVATE DRIVE. IT IS UNPAVED AND SEE HERE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THERE WAIVER. THE PRIVATE DRIVE DOES NOT SUPPORT EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS AND APPLICATION OF OUR REGULATIONS DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF ANY REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. IF THE COMMISSION IS AGREEABLE TO APPROVEING THE WAIVER I DID ADD A COUPLE OF CONDITIONS IN MY STAFF REPORT, ONE BEING THAT THE PLAT SHALL INCLUDE A NOTE THAT NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION IS PERMITTED, AND THAT NO VARIANCES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTHERN LOT AND I WOULD ASK IF YOU ARE TO APPROVE THE WAIVER THAT YOU STRIKE THE SECOND CONDITION. I WAS NOT THERE THAT DAY AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN CONDITION THAT. SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> CAN I QUICKLY? LOT 4 HOW IS IT ACCESSED. >> IT'S ACCESSED FROM THE PRIVATE DRIVE. >> SO, I DON'T SEE THE NUMBER OF THE LOT BUT [INDISTINCT]. >> YES. THERE ARE TWO TO THE NORTH OF THE DRIVE. EXCUSE ME. THREE TO THE NORTH THAT ACCESS THE PRIVATE DRIVE AND ONE LOT THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE THERE ON THE SOUTH USES -- THERE'S ONE OF THOSE LOT THAT ALSO USES THAT PRIVATE DRIVE. >> THEY ARE NON-CONFORMING. >> EMERGENCY VEHICLES COULD NOT GET TO THEM. >> AS I UNDERSTAND IT. IT IS OUR FIRE CHIEF RESPONDED. HE SAID THE NEAREST FIRE HYDRANT IS 500 FEET AWAY. >> WHO OWNS THE PRIVATE DRIVE? >> I'M NOT QUITE SURE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.