8.b.(2) GAAL F and B, LLC d/b/a Graduate Hotel. 160 – Special Retail – More Than 30 Days. 212 West Magnolia Avenue.

[9.b. Zoning. Sugar Creek Rezoning. Approximately 0.89 acres from Neighborhood Conservation (NC‐20) to Development District Housing (DDH). Unanimous consent necessary. Planning Commission recommendation. Public hearing required.]

SEPTEMBER 17. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HEARING ON ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL ADAM 9B IS A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.89 ACRES FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION NC- 20 TWO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT ITS JULY 8 MEETING. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY IN A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DOES ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH A VOTE THIS EVENING ? HEARING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL PLEASE AFFORD TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. SEEING NO ONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M SORRY, THERE WAS SOMEBODY? YOU WANTED TO SPEAK, SIR? OKAY, I'M GOING TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I

[00:25:01]

APOLOGIZE. >> MY NAME IS STEVE CALLS HE AND I LIVE AT 51 LEE ROAD 2113. YOU'RE PROBABLY WONDERING WHY I'M HERE? I AM HERE TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER COBLENTZ. MY MOTHER -- YOU ARE MY MOTHER HAVE A MUTUAL FRIEND. A COUPLE WEEKS AGO WHEN SHE SPOKE TO YOU SHE MENTIONED THAT YOU MAY TRY

TO BE AT THE CONVENTION -- >> SIR, IS THIS RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?

>> OH, I'M SORRY. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO CUT THEM

OFF. >> IF YOU COULD WAIT UNTIL BEGAN. I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING AND I HAVE PEOPLE LOOKING AT ME. IF YOU CAN WAIT TILL THE END . I CERTAINLY WANT YOU TO SAY NICE THINGS ABOUT MR. COBLENTZ, BUT IF WE COULD

WAIT UNTIL THE END. >> I'M SORRY.

>> THANK YOU IN ADVANCE. >> YOU WILL GET YOUR MOMENT IN THE LIGHT IN A MINUTE. HOLD ON. NOW I'M GOING TO RECLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS?

>> JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS SPLIT ZONE LOT. IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN INTERESTING DYNAMIC. IT WAS IN SUGARCREEK.

YOU HAVE DBH ZONING ON A LITTLE OVER TWO ACRES. YOU HAVE NC- 20 ON THE OTHER. IS THERE A LITTLE HISTORY ON HOW MAYBE THIS CAME ABOUT OR CAN YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE HISTORICAL CONTEXT?

>> CERTAINLY. THIS USED TO BE A LARGE LOT, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THE BURN DOWN. WHEN IT BURNED DOWN THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT REBUILDING BACK AND WHERE IT WAS GOING TO BE REBUILT.

THERE WERE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS FROM THE APPLICANT WITH THE COMMUNITY EVENTUALLY ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO REBUILD. THERE WERE SEVERAL DURATIONS BECAUSE THE FIRST ITERATIONS DID NOT GO WELL. THEY WERE EXQUISITELY TOLD WHAT THEY INITIALLY PROPOSED WAS NOT GOING TO WORK.

THERE WAS A LOT OF HOSTILITY. THERE ARE A LOT OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS THEY CAME UP WITH A SOLUTION MINIMAL TO THIS COMMUNITY. REZONING WAS A PART OF THAT. FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT IT WAS SPLIT ZONE. IT WAS REALLY AS A RESULT OF THE TWO ZONES THAT ARE THERE. THE NC- 20 AND THE DDH. IT WAS MORE IN COMPLIANCE WITH NC- 20. YOU REALLY COULD NOT TELL WHAT THE ZONING WAS JUST BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY. IT WAS A LARGE LOT DEVELOPMENT. WITH IT BEING BURNED DOWN AND THEM OPTING TO REBUILD AND WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY TO COME UP WITH A DESIGN THAT WAS MINIMAL TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY HERE THAT IS WHY THEY CAME FORTH WITH THE REZONING AND THIS CONDITIONAL USE THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF.

>> IN 1988 IS WHERE WE GOT THE SPLIT ZONING. THAT RESIDES IN THE STAFF MEMO. THAT WAS THE RESULT OF AN APPLICATION TO REZONE DIFFERENT THINGS AND IT ENDED UP SPLITTING NC- 20. PART NC- 20 AND THE PART OF A BIGGER PERSONAL, IN LARGE PART WENT DDH. THIS WAS SOMETHING INHERITED OVER TIME. WE ARE ADOPTING -- ADOPTED THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN 84. WE ENDED UP TO GETTING SPLIT FROM RURAL TO BOTH NC- 20 AND DDH.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THE ACRES THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR REZONING THAT WERE IN THE ORIGINAL SUGARCREEK STATE SUBDIVISION AND THE BALANCE THAT PROPERTY WAS BOUGHT BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER TO A TOTAL OF THREE ACRES.

>> WITH THAT PART OF THE OLD MOORES MILL AT SOME POINT?

>> IT WITH PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY BECOME

MOORES MILL SUBDIVISION. >> AS FAR AS DENSITY IS CONCERNED REZONING THIS FROM NC-20 TO DDH, HOW MUCH MORE IS ALLOWABLE FROM A DENSITY STANDPOINT?

>> WHAT IS PROPOSED IS 2.6 AND WHAT IS ALLOWED IN TRANSIT IS 5.5. FROM THE HALF-ACRE LOTS TO THE SIZE OF THE LOTS IN THE EXISTING ZONING THERE REALLY WASN'T MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE.

THEY CAN GO MUCH DENSER. THREE UNITS MAKER DENSER AND THERE

OPTING NOT TO DO THAT. >> ONE QUICK THING ABOUT TO NOTE IS IF YOU ARE NOT DOING A MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT YOU HAVE A REZONING BEFORE YOU. THEY ALSO HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE OFF OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT RATE IF THEY DON'T DO THIS. WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN A CONDITIONAL USE COMING UP SHOWS A PRIVATE DRIVE. IT IS AS YOU HAVE ALL SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSES.

THE MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO DEAL WITH A PRIVATE DRIVE AND A FEW OTHER THINGS THAT ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO BE UTILIZED BUT TO KEEP THE DENSITY LOWER THAN THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO IN DDH. IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO SUBDIVIDE AT 5 AND HAVE UNITS PER ACRE AND GET ACCESS TO A PUBLIC STREET ALL IN THE SAME ACCORD.

[00:30:03]

>> COULD THAT HAPPEN I GUESS? IS THAT A POSSIBILITY?

>> NO. NOT WITH HIS PROPERTY. ONE OF THE FACTORS WHEN IT COMES TO THE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE OFTENTIMES IS ROAD FRONTAGE. THAT IS THE REASON THIS CONFIGURATION HAS A PRIVATE STREET THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO SUBDIVIDE OFF OF THAT INSTEAD OF OFF OF LAUREN LANE . THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THE LAW FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT TO GET THE DENSITY.

>> YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM ON A PUBLIC STREET.

>> I GUESS THAT SUBDIVISION REGULATION PROHIBITS THAT?

>> CORRECT. >> IS THAT SOMETHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD ISSUE A WAIVER FOR IF REQUESTED?

>> THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO BZA .

>> IT IS A ZONING ORDINANCE ISSUE.

>> YES. THEY ARE TIED. THEY ARE COUPLED.

>> I THINK THE DEVELOPERS WORK HAND-IN-HAND WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND ON THIS AS MR. KHAN HAS RECOMMENDED. I DO SUPPORT THIS. I DO THINK THIS IS A PROJECT THAT FITS WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, LOT SIZES, HOUSES. THERE IS NO WAY FOR US TO OBVIOUSLY GUARANTEE THIS EXACT PROJECT IS GOING TO BE BUILT HERE. I CERTAINLY AM HOPING WORKING WITH -- THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT ALL HAS BEEN PRESENTED WILL BE PRESENTED. I JUST WANT TO ENSURE AND I WANT TO GET ON PUBLIC RECORD THAT I AM SUPPORTING THIS BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED FURTHER DOWN IN THE CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IS WHAT WILL BE HERE.

I JUST WANT THAT TO BE REPORTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED AND I WOULD ASK EVEN THE DEVELOPER COMMIT TO RUNNING A LETTER THAT WILL COMMIT TO DOING THIS EXACT DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD PREFER THAT AS PART OF MY SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT. I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVERALL HAS HAD MEETINGS. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THEY VOTED PRETTY HEAVILY IN FAVOR OF WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED. I THINK OVERALL I AM GOOD. I WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND WITH THIS REZONING YOU'RE GETTING SOMETHING THAT COULD BE MORE DENSE. I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD WITHOUT COMING BACK BEFORE THIS BODY OR ANOTHER BODY TO CHANGE THIS. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OUT THERE AND I WANT THAT TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED FOR THIS BODY. THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR THIS.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> THIS SUGARCREEK , WHERE IS

THIS? >> IT IS OFF OF HAMILTON'S -- HAMILTON AND MOORE'S MILL, RIGHT ACROSS FROM PUBLIX.

>> OKAY. >> IT ABUTS TO MOORE'S MILL

SUBDIVISION AS WELL. >> I WAS JUST WONDERING WHERE

IT WAS LOCATED. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> AS MR. COBLENTZ POINTED OUT WHAT WE DO IN THE NEXT MINUTE OR TWO IS VOTING ON REZONING. WE ARE NOT VOTING ON CONDITIONAL USE UNTIL WE GET OVER TO RESOLUTIONS .

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WE HAVE KIND OF DISCUSSED THEM BOTH. WE ARE LOOKING AT .89 ACRES AND WE ARE REZONING IT TO DDH . JUST TO RESTATE WHAT MR. COBLENTZ DID THERE IS

NO PDD . >> IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE BECAUSE

IT IS NOT 10 ACRES IN SIZE. >> I WANT TO REITERATE THAT AND CLARIFY WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON.

>> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. NANCY WITH ROLL CALL.

[9.c. Non‐exclusive franchise agreement. Fiber Utility Network, Inc. Construct, operate, and maintain fiber network services. Unanimous consent necessary. Public hearing required.]

>> ITEM 9C IS A REQUEST FROM FIBER UTILITY NETWORK INCORPORATED FOR THE CITY TO GRANT A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO MAINTAIN A FIBER NETWORK IN THE CITY OF AUBURN. UNANIMOUS

CONSENT IS REQUIRED. >> DOES ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH THE VOTE ON THIS THIS EVENING? HEARING THAT WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC YOU. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

>> WE ARE CURRENTLY BUILDING INTO ALL THE RURAL COUNTIES OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA UNDER THE GOVERNOR'S NEW INITIATIVE.

[00:35:02]

CURRENTLY WE ARE SEEKING IS 3.9 MILE ACCESS INTO ROBERT TO GET TO A HUB POINT SO WE CAN GET BACK TO ATLANTA TO SERVE THOSE OTHER COUNTIES. OUR GROWTH IN AUBURN IS PRETTY WELL COVERED WITH FIBER AND ACCESS TO HIGH-SPEED DATA. OTHER COUNTIES SOUTH AND WEST OF LEE COUNTY ARE NOT. WE REALLY WOULD LIKE BE CONSENT TO OPERATE THIS AND GET THE PERMITS FOR THE FIRST INITIAL BUILD.

WILL WE ARE UNDER A REALLY SHORT TIMELINE. WE REALLY APPRECIATE ANY TIME YOU HAVE TONIGHT.

>> IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE WILL LET YOU KNOW. WE APPRECIATE IT. GOOD TO MEET YOU. ANYONE ELSE? WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES THE COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? LINDSEY WITH ROLL CALL.

>> UNDER RESOLUTIONS ADAM 10 A1 HAS BEEN REMOVED OR WITHDRAWN

[10.a.(2) Sugar Creek MUD. Performance Residential Development (multiple‐unit development). Property located at 900 Annabrook Drive.]

AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. ADAM 10 82 IF A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL -- FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 ANNA BROOK DRIVE IN THE DEVELOPMENT HOUSING ZONING DISTRICT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AND IS JULY 8 MEETING. A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED. IF I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK. SEEING NO ONE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE

COUNCIL? >> AGAIN, I REITERATE THIS IS THE PLAN THAT IS GOING WITH THAT REZONING. A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. IT IS CALLED A MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT IS A SINGLE PLOTTED LOT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. IT'S A LAND CONDO TYPE SITUATION. IT IS NOT TRULY A MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT. I THINK MOST OF THE PUBLIC WILL UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE. IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. I SUPPORT IT BASED ON THE PLAN THAT IS PRESENTED HERE . I DIDN'T WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT. I THINK THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT TYPE OF AGREEMENT IF THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT SIGNED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT IS LEGALLY BINDING THAT WOULD ALLOW US OR ENSURE THIS PLAN IS KIND OF

WHAT THEY WILL GET? >> WE DO HAVE A SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS MENTIONED THE .89 ACRE PIECE THAT WAS REZONED FROM NC-20 IS PART OF THE SUGARCREEK ESTATES. ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE AGREED TO WAS THIS WHOLE PROPERTY WILL BE PART OF THE SUGARCREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. IT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THEIR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. THEY DID AN AMENDMENT TO BRING THIS IN AND TO ESSENTIALLY THIS LAYOUT THAT WE ARE PROVIDING IS WHAT THEY ARE AGREEING TO. THAT IS WHAT WE AGREED TO ON PAPER THAT WE WOULD DO THIS DEVELOPMENT OR THIS LAYOUT. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WE ARE TIED ON THAT SIDE WITH THEM. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS WE ARE GETTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR THIS. IF WE TRY TO COME IN AND DO THIS DIFFERENTLY IT WOULD CHANGE OUR CONDITIONAL USE. WE TRIED TO ATTACH. I MEAN IF WE DID LESS UNITS WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU.