[00:00:13]
>> DIDDY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL
>> I WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THIS MEETING WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT SUCH AGENDA ITEMS. WE ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR 25 MINUTES AND COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE AT HAND. THE REPRESENTATIVE AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER
[CONSENT AGENDA]
>> IF THERE IS SOMETHING NOT ON THE AGENDA THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO US ABOUT, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE COMMUNICATION AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS. WE WILL MOVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. IT IS MADE UP OF OUR NOVEMBER PACKET.
[4. Rezoning - Donna Crossing CDD - PUBLIC HEARING]
MAY I HAVE A MOTION? >> MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
AGENDA. >> ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED?
[5. Rezoning - Donna Crossing PDD - PUBLIC HEARING]
THANK YOU. >> WE HAD SEVERAL LATE REQUESTS TO PULL THESE OFF THE AGENDA.
[6. Conditional Use - Donna Crossing - PUBLIC HEARING]
[2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – PUD Amendment- PUBLIC HEARING]
[00:05:12]
>> ALL IN FAVOR? THANK YOU. MOVING FORWARD. NEW BUSINESS TONIGHT. WE WILL KICK OFF WITH A BANG.
>> THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING AND WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS WITH ANTICIPATION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS AND I KIND OF WALK THROUGH HOW WE GOT HERE.
TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND AND TO GET SOME INITIAL FEEDBACK OF WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE AND CONSTRAINTS WERE WITH ZONING ORDINANCES AND RIGID ASPECTS OF IT DID NOT WORK AND ALSO LOOKING AT WHENEVER THEY ARE TRYING TO DO DEVELOPMENTS THAT THEY THOUGHT WERE WANTED FOR INCENTIVIZED IN CERTAIN AREAS THERE IS A LOT OF INTEREST IN ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY CENTERED AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT AND SOMETHING THAT WAS SIMILAR TO OUR ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY, WHICH WE HAVE A LOT FREQUENTLY. THERE IS A MINIMUM SIZE OF 10 ACRES. WE ARE ENTERTAINING A MINIMUM AND GETTING AWAY FROM THE BASE ZONING. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IT ALLOWS CURRENTLY IS A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY WITH AN EXCHANGE OF INCENTIVES TO AN EXTENT. THAT IS ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT WE WANT TO GET AWAY FROM ONE REMOVING THE ASPECT OF IT. IT WILL FUNCTION AS A REZONING AND PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THROUGH A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD, WE KIND OF GOT TO A PLACE WHERE WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO STRIP DOWN AND REALLY A DISCUSSION WITH THE STAFF LEVEL AND HAVING THE COMMITTEE ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND STILL HAVING THE AGGRESSION AND COUNSEL INVOLVED. HOW DO WE GET TO A PROCESS THAT WOULD WORK AND KEPT THE DISCUSSION AT STAFF LEVEL AND ANY AND ALL DEVELOPMENT EVERYWHERE. THAT IS THE THING THAT WE WANTED TO BALANCE. WE BUILT A PROCESS THAT ALLOWED US TO HAVE INTAKE AND STILL HAVE A LOT OF RIGOROUS STAFF INPUT AND KIND OF PUT IN FRONT OF MY DECISION MAKERS OF MY CITY AND IN LINE WITH WHAT WE WANTED. THE BIGGEST FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM THE DESIGN COMMUNITY WAS THAT WE ARE STILL IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SOMETIMES WE DON'T HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE COMMENTS OR DECISIONS THAT WE KNOW THAT WE WANT AND WE ARE BEHOLDING TO WHATEVER END AND WHAT SECTION OR SOMEWAY AND WE HAVE TO DO THIS AND ENFORCE THEM OR THAT WE MAY NOT TOTALLY BELIEVE IN. WHAT WE ENDED UP DOING WAS REALLY RELYING HEAVILY ON THE PROCESS. THE WORK SESSION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE PRE-OPS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR PROJECTS. FOR THE PUD ORDINANCE AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. I WILL KIND OF GET TO IT. ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WAS HAVING THE PRE-APP AND GOING TO THE COMMITTEE, THEN WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH AND GOING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL , THEN WE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL MONTHS AND KEEPING THINGS UNDER THE 20 WEEK THRESHOLD, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS. I KNOW YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND HOW WOULD THAT WORK. I KNOW THIS CAME THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION AND THERE WERE LOTS OF CONCERNS. THEY HAVE ALL OF THESE VARIANCES . THERE IS NO HARDSHIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO POINT OUT WAS THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD BE A GOOD CANDIDATE. AS YOU NOTICE , THE TOTAL ACREAGE IS UNDER 10 ANCHORS ACRES, SO IT WOULDN'T MEET THE MINIMUM AND THAT WASN'T AN OPTION.
SMALLER LOTS, SO THEY COULD INCREASE DENSITY AND PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE PRODUCT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP FOR PEOPLE IN TOWN. ALSO, IF YOU GO WITH ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT IT TRIGGERS , EVERYONE IN THE CROWD , THAT IS ONE OF
[00:10:05]
THOSE NUANCES THAT CATCH A PROJECT AND IT WOULD PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND BE CONGRUENT WITH AREAS CURRENTLY EXISTING FOR CHARACTER AND ALL OF THESE THINGS WITH GREAT DETAIL AND SOMETHING ON THE BACK END, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET ALL OF THESE VARIANCES, ET CETERA. THIS IS ONE OF THE PROJECTS WHERE WE LOOK AT THE PUD WHERE THERE WOULD BE A SESSION ON THE OFFSET. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? WE HAVE THIS CONCEPT THAT WE REALLY BELIEVE IN, THEN WE MOVED TO HAVING THE PREOP HOW WE HAVE WITH ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENTS NOW , WHETHER THAT BE A SUBDIVISION . WE IDENTIFY THAT THEY WOULD DECLARE IN THE MEETING AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO PUD AND I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE, BUT THAT WOULD WORK. WE WOULD ADD THE PUD COMMITTEE AND TALK ABOUT , DO YOU THINK THIS MAKES SENSE? SEVERAL DEPARTMENT HEADS LIKE THE EXECUTIVE OF DEVELOPMENT, CITY ENGINEER AND PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR, THEN THE MAYOR OR MIRROR APPOINTEE . THE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS THAT WE WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO CAN GIVE ENOUGH INPUT AND HAVE A PULSE ON THINGS GOING ON FOR THE DEVELOPERS COMMUNITY AND IF YOU GET A BINARY THUMBS UP OR DOWN FROM THIS COMMITTEE , THEN THEY HAVE ENOUGH OF SAY OR TO MOVE FORWARD NO MATTER THE TIMELINE ON THE BACK END. THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE FROM THE DESIGN COMMUNITY. THEY WANT ASSURANCES THAT THEIR PROJECT WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WE SET IT UP THE WAY WE DID. LET'S SAY WE HAVE THE APPROVAL , THEN WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD TO STAFF AND VERY RIGOROUS , ESSENTIALLY LIKE ALL OF THOSE DETAILS, SUCH AS THE ISR , SETBACKS ET CETERA. THOSE WERE THINGS THAT WE WOULD ME AND LOOK AT THE EXCHANGES , SO ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO FOCUS ON WITH THIS PROJECT WAS HOW IT MADE SENSE CONCEPTUALLY AS A BIG PICTURE AND IT WAS THE DETAILS THAT MADE IT DIFFICULT.IN THIS SITUATION, IT WOULD BE USED TO MASSAGE THE EDGES AND MAKE IT POSSIBLE , SO THAT WE AREN'T GRANTING VARIANCES THAT DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE. ONE OF THE THINGS WOULD BE , IF IT IS TO ALLOW AND MASSAGE THE EDGES OF THINGS, COULD IT BE MISUSED TO ALLOW THINGS WE DON'T REALLY WANT? THAT IS STAFF DISCRETION. THE IDEA IS TO NOT HAVE THINGS POPPING UP PLACES WHERE WE NEVER INTENDED FOR THEM TO GO, BUT FOR THINGS WHERE THERE WERE -- I WOULDN'T SAY OUT OF CHARACTER , BUT A PRETTY BIG DEVIATION AND A MASSIVE EXCHANGE , SO IT DOES ALLOW FOR THE EXCHANGE. CURRENTLY , THERE IS THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. YOU CAN HAVE THE UNDISTURBED BUFFERS WHERE THEY GET BONUSES OR SINGLE-FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING , BUT IT IS MORE OF A FORMULAIC EXCHANGE. THIS EXCHANGE IS MORE BASED ON THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMITTEE AND HOW IT FEELS. THAT COMMITTEE WOULDN'T KNOW THE NEEDS FROM A POLITICAL LEVEL , BUT ALSO FROM ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING THE NEEDS FOR THE CITY ON WHAT WE ARE SEEING FROM A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND IT WOULD MAKE SENSE. THAT IS WHY WE GOT AWAY FROM THE MODEL, BECAUSE THEY DO THE FORMULA AND WE HAVE A 20 FOOT BUFFER AND PUT IT ALL AROUND AND ADDING FIVE OTHER UNITS. THIS MAKES SENSE AND IT'S LIKE, IS THAT ACCESSIBLE? ARE THERE A BUNCH OF TREES? ON PAPER, IT MET AND YOU STILL KIND OF GET SOMETHING IN THE PRODUCT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY. THIS IS REALLY COOL AND MAKE SENSE WE BEND THE RULES A LITTLE BIT. JUST FROM THAT REGARD, THAT IS THE SPIRIT AND THOUGHT AROUND THE PROCESS AND SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT OUR WORK SESSION . THE FUTURE OF WHERE THIS GOES AFTER THE APPROVAL, THEY HAD A WORK SESSION WITH IT AND AT MY MEETING ON MONDAY PRIOR TO OUR PACK AND LUNCH MEETING , THERE WILL BE ANOTHER SESSION WHERE WE ARE WORKING THROUGH EVERYTHING AND THE BIGGEST THING IS THAT WE HAVE HAD
[00:15:02]
SEVERAL ROUNDS OF REVIEW WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND I THINK THAT THERE IS STILL DISCUSSION AROUND WHAT THE COMMITTEE WILL LOOK LIKE AND I THINK THE TIMELINE OF GETTING COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT THOSE EXCHANGES CAN BE . EVEN THOUGH WE'VE DONE 90 TO 95% OF THE WORK, THE JANUARY WORK SESSION ASSOCIATED WITH IT WILL BE REALLY BIG, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE FINAL ONE BETWEEN THE COUNCIL COMMISSION WHERE WE HAVE TO FINALIZE THINGS , THEN WHAT GOES TO COUNSEL WILL BE DECIDED AND WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER MEETING WITH THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS TO GET THEIR OPINION OF THE FINAL TEXT AND WORK CHART AND FLOWCHART OF WHAT THE SESSION WILL LOOK LIKE. THAT IS A LOT OF THE CONTEXT AND THOUGHT AROUND THE PROJECT THAT THIS DIRECTLY COULD APPLY TO THAT WOULD WORK . THERE IS NO MINIMUM , SO IT'S ENVISIONED AROUND PROJECTS THAT THEY DO NOT ALLOW FOR. RIGHT NOW, IT ISN'T ALLOWED IN RURAL . I THINK IT WAS KIND OF ENVISIONED AS A CLOSE COUSIN , WHICH WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT AND ALLOW FLEXIBILITY . AS FAR AS THE CONTROLS AND GUARDRAILS, IT IS MUCH MORE BASED ON STAFF DISCRETION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO A PUD . IT IS A RIGOROUS STAFF INVOLVED AND LYRICAL DECISION TO BE GRANTED AND NO ONE WOULD BE ENTITLED, WHICH IS A THING FOR EVERYONE TO REMEMBER. THAT IS THE GUARDRAIL . WE COULD SAY NO AND PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE GRANTED ONE. WITH THAT, I TURNIT OVER FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> YES, THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING AND I KNOW YOU PROBABLY HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT ADDITION TO OUR REGULATIONS IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM. SEEING NO ONE.
>> ISN'T THAT REMARKABLE? REMARKABLE.
>> AMAZING. YOU CAN READ IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS HOME FOR NIGHTTIME. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . COMMISSIONERS,
I KNOW YOU HAVE COMMENTS. >> YOU MENTIONED WHO MIGHT BE ON THE COMMITTEE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE ASSUMING THAT WE WILL HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTED. WILL THAT BE THE ONLY PARTICIPATION IN THIS AND MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT THIS? WILL ANY OF THESE COME BACK FOR THE PLANNING
COMMISSION? IS THERE A NEED? >> GREAT QUESTION . THE COMMITTEE IS AT THE OUTSIDE AND AT THE START OF THE PROCESS. WE WILL GO PREOP, THEN THE COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THE BINARY YES AND NO OF , DOES THIS GET TO GO FORWARD? IF YOU GET A NO, THEN YOU CANNOT PROCEED AT ALL AND IT SOMETHING YOU ARE
>> IT WOULD GO TO A STAFF WORK SESSION, THEN THERE WOULD BE THE APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION . BOTH BODIES AS A WHOLE ARE INVOLVED AND YOU STILL NEED RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. IT IS A DISTILLED GROUP THAT REPRESENTS AND CAPTURES THE OPINIONS AND GENERAL DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE.
>> WITH THE APPROVAL THROUGH YOU, THEN IT COMES TO US , THEN WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AT THAT TIME?
>> CORRECT. A WORK SESSION WILL NOT BE REQUIRED, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A WORK SESSION AT EITHER LEVEL FOR THE PROJECT. THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING AT BOTH. A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROJECT. >> I'M NOT A DEVELOPER, SO I DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS, BUT WHY WOULD EVERYTHING BE A PUD? ANYTHING SMALLER THAN 10 ACRES , I WANT TO BE A PUD, SO
I CAN DO WHAT I WANT TO DO. >> EVERYONE COMES IN NOW AND ASKS FOR ONE. IN THEORY, THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE MUCH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE ADEPT AT AND TALKING PEOPLE THROUGH WHAT THE LIMITATIONS OF THEIR PROPERTY AND LETTING THEM KNOW
WHAT THEY ARE REALLY AFTER. >> A LOT OF STAFF INVOLVEMENT.
[00:20:11]
>> ABSOLUTELY. ONE OF THE THINGS WE RUN INTO IS HOW PEOPLE REALLY LIKE TO DO THIS THING AND THEY NEED VARIANCES.
WHAT DO YOU NEED A VARIANCE FOR? ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO DO THAT. I DON'T NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT. NO, YOU DON'T.
>> ONE OTHER QUESTION. ARE WE VOTING ON APPROVING THIS TEXT AMENDMENT TONIGHT ? I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT WE WOULD GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND COULDN'T POSSIBLY CHANGE
THERE, AS WELL. >> YES, I THINK THAT IS BECAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY INVOLVEMENT FROM THEM AND THEY HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT AND BEEN TOLD THAT IT'S COMING. THERE IS A LOT OF ANTICIPATION, BUT HAVE NOT SEEN THE TEXT.
>> WILL MOVE IT AND IT WILL GO FORWARD.
>> YEAH. LIKE I SAID, WHAT WE WANT TO GIVE THEM IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE DONE WITH AND I'M NOT SAYING WE ARE TAKING COMMENTS FROM THEM , BUT IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE AND WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY, THEN WE ARE OPEN TO IT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> AGAIN, HOW LONG IS THE PROCESS? HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE FROM THE TIME THE DEVELOPMENT COMES?
>> I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT MX OF 18 TO 20 WEEKS, WHICH IS INCREDIBLY LONG AND FOR COMPARISON, THE LONGEST PROCESS WE HAVE NOW ARE THE REZONINGS , WHICH TAKES A WHILE TO PUBLISH AND THERE'S A MONTH IN BETWEEN WHERE IT'S HITTING A COUNSEL .
WE HAVE THE BIG CONDITIONAL USES WHERE THEY HAVE TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE APPLICATIONS . THEY ARE WORKING TO PUT TOGETHER THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS, WHICH TAKE TIME . IT WOULD PROBABLY BE LONGER, BUT ON SOME THINGS WHERE YOU JUST HAD THE OTHER DAY UNDER TWO ACRES WITH MIXED-USE STUFF. SOME THINGS LIKE THAT WERE IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A HOME WILL TAKE 20 WEEKS. THEY JUST NEED THE FLEXIBILITY . THEY ARE MASSAGING AND NOT THE MASSIVE EXCHANGES. THEY WILL WORK THEIR WAY INTO THE FOLD AND BEHOLDING TO THOSE DOUBLE PUBLIC HEARINGS , BUT THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE THE OPTION. THEY WOULD EITHER HAVE A REASON OR IT WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE.
>> I HAVE SEVEN ACRES AND JENNIFER HAS SEVEN ACRES. WHAT
IS THE CRITERIA? >> IF YOU COME TO ME AND ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS OUTLANDISH AND WE HAVE TO SAY NO, THEN WE HAVE TO SAY NO. IT'S NOT A COMPLETE DEVIATION FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN OR COMPLETE DEVIATION FROM ZONING ENTIRELY. SOME PEOPLE MAY SHOW UP AND SAY, I WANT TO BUILD THIS 80 FOOT THING AND PUT 500 UNITS AND IT WILL BE SENIOR LIVING , BUT WE WILL SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT. ABSOLUTELY NOT. I GUESS WE HAVE HAD THINGS WHERE IT'S LIKE, WE WOULD LIKE THAT AND MAYBE AT A LESSER SCALE OR WE THINK IN THIS SCENARIO THAT NOW WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND THOSE ZONING WORDS WORKS. THAT WILL BE THE ANSWER FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. THAT IS THE ANSWER THAT PEOPLE GET NOW WHEN THEY WANT A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY. WE HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT , BUT THE DENSITY IS THE DENSITY AND THERE IS NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. THAT IS PART OF THE PROCESS. SOMETIMES THEY ARE SOLUTION ORIENTED.
>> OKAY. >> WHAT I LIKE IS THAT IT'S ANOTHER TOOL FOR STAFF AND DEVELOPERS TO COLLABORATE ON
THE PROJECTS . GOOD JOB . >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WOULD
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE TO NUMBER SEVEN.
[7. Annexation - Samples Property Annexation]
[00:25:17]
>> THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF 52.5 ACRES INTO THE CITY AND IT IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST FARMVILLE ROAD BETWEEN AUBURN LAKES ROAD . AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROPERTY IS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND RURAL DESIGNATION UPON ANNEXATION IF APPROVED, HOWEVER THIS PROPERTY AND I WANT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT OF THE NEXT TWO ZONING REQUESTS , AS WELL. IT'S WITHIN OUR BOUNDARY AND MEETS ALL OF THE OTHER ANNEXATION CRITERIA, THEREFORE STAFF IS
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >> I KNOW THAT ANNEXATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING , BUT THIS NEW ANNEXATION PRIORITY IS HIGH BASED ON OUR LEVEL.
>> IT IS HIGH. >> YEAH, IT WAS BASED ON THAT FROM THE OLD ONE AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE WITH ANYONE, BUT WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF TALKING ABOUT IT. THIS IS REALLY BASED ON THE PROXIMITY , LIKE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE , SO THERE IS A NEW FIRE STATION AROUND IT AND ALSO HOW FARMVILLE ROAD HAS DEVELOPED AND BUILT OUT OVER THE PAST DECADE OR SO. IT IS A MASSIVE ENCLAVE. OFTENTIMES , YOU CAN SEE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS OF IS THIS AN ENCLAVE OR NOT? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SMALL POCKETS AND THIS IS 53 ACRES. THAT IS HOW THIS ONE HAS THE PRIORITY IT DOES HAVE. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE OUTSTANDING AND IN AFFLICTED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT STAFF REPORTS IS THE CONCERNS ABOUT UTILITIES AND IF THEY ARE POSSIBLE OR NOT WITH THE WATER PRESSURE AND DIFFERENCES . THAT IS HOW I GOT THE PRIORITY THIS HIGH.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS?
>> MOVED TO APPROVE ANNEXATION 2431 .
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN
FAVOR? OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> THE SECOND OF THREE REQUESTS
[8. Rezoning - Greenwood Village DDH - PUBLIC HEARING]
WITH THIS PROPERTY IS THE FIRST REZONING REQUEST , 2053.5 ACRES TO TAKE IT FROM THE RURAL ZONING DESIGNATION TO DEVELOP DISTRICT HOUSING . AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROPERTIES FUTURE LAND USE IS DEDICATED AS RURAL, SO WITH THE SUBSEQUENT REQUEST, YOU WILL SEE THAT WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE. I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT THE UPDATES TO THE PLAN THAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED AND THAT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN DOES PROPOSE A CHANGE TO THE PROPERTY TO MAKE IT LOOK DENSITY RESIDENTIAL , WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR UP TO 20 UNITS PER ACRE , SO WITH THE 163 LOTS BEING PROPOSED, THAT WOULD PUT THIS AT 3.05 . I WANTED TO MENTION THAT THE CHANGE COULD BE ON THE HORIZON IF IT'S VOTED AND APPROVED. SINCE THIS PROPOSED USE AND FUTURE LAND USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT IS PROPOSED , THEN STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST . IF THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE HOWEVER YOU DEEM , THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO ATTACH A CONDITION TO OTHER APPROVAL , WHICH STATES UPON APPROVAL OF BOTH RECENT REQUESTS TO DEVELOP A AGREEMENT THAT SHALL BE DRAFTED FOR SEWER EXTENSION TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS EXISTING SANITARY SYSTEM ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEVELOPER. WITH THAT BEING SAID, JUST TO REPEAT , STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL , BECAUSEOF INCOMPATIBILITY WITH USE. >> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REZONING OF GREENWOOD VILLAGE TO MOVE FROM RURAL . WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ? COME FORWARD,
PLEASE. >> MY NAME IS CLAY CARSON AND I LIVE AT 217 AUBURN LAKES ROAD. YOU COULD SEE MY PROPERTY IF
[00:30:03]
YOU BACKED THE SLIDES UP. I OWN 217, 225 AND MY IN-LAWS ON 245 -- I OWN 245. I HAVE BEEN IN TALKS WITH THE NEIGHBORS TRYING TO DRESS UP THE CORNER, AS WELL TO TRY TO AT SOME POINT IN TIME DEVELOP MY USE OF PROPERTY . OUR CONCERN IS THAT AT THIS POINT IT WILL BE LOW DENSITY AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A 500 UNIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY THERE . I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO MASTER PLAN THIS OR IF THINGS NEED TO BE LOOKED AT WHERE AT SOME POINT IN TIME THAT ACREAGE WOULD BE DEVELOPED, AS WELL . WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT A BUFFER AGE.NO ONE WANTS TO BE LOOKING AT ANYONE ELSE'S PROPERTIES .
THERE IS A POWER LINE THAT GOES THROUGH IT WITH NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO EXCEPT PARKING ON IT. I KNOW THAT THERE IS SEWAGE AND STUFF COMING IN. WE WOULD LIKE SOME SEWAGE, AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU LIKE TO TIE THAT IN AT THE SAME TIME. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT ALL WORKS. I'M HERE TO SPEAK FOR MY WIFE, BECAUSE I TOLD HER I WOULD. SHE WANTS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND HOURS. I'M SPEAKING FOR MY IN-LAWS, AS WELL. THAT IS THE CONCERN WE HAVE. IT HAS HIGH GROUND AND THERE IS A BIG ELEVATION CHANGE. THEY ARE SIX FOOT TALL AND GROW TO BE 20 FEET TALL , THEN WE WOULD SEE EVERYONE AT THAT POINT AND THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION CHANGE IN BETWEEN. WE TALKED TO AND SECURED SOME BUFFER AGE WITH THE NEIGHBORS WITH LIGHT POLLUTION, AS WELL. THINGS ARE CONCERNED, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU ALL LOOK AT THINGS. IF YOU LOOK AT RINGS AS HOLISTIC OR COMPARTMENTALIZED. AT SOME POINT, I WILL COME UP HERE AND HAVE THE SAME CONVERSATION JUST TO LET YOU KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF HE WANTED TO TIE IT IN. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
REPRESENTATIVE? THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT
TO SHARE? >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHAT WAS YOUR LAST NAME? CARSON. I WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO CARSON AFTER THIS. ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. I KNOW JOHN MENTIONED INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THE USE PLAN AND YOU ARE AWARE AND IT SOUNDS IT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE PACKET, BUT THINGS ARE OPERATING UNDER A LITTLE BIT OF A TECHNICALITY, SINCE YOU ALREADY APPROVED THE CHANGE OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.
ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DISCUSS, I'M HERE.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN IS THE FUTURE OF DIGITAL LAND USE PLAN GOING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL?
>> TUESDAY. >> IS IT A WORK SESSION ?
>> IT'S GOING TUESDAY. IT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO STAY. LIKE WE TOLD THE APPLICANT AND MULTIPLE PEOPLE, ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE A DECISION ON IT AND APPROVE EVERYTHING THIS MONTH ? I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT. I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL
BE IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL. >> I DO WANT TO POINT OUT HOW WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND WE HAVE BEEN HOLDING OUT FOR THE CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN . UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT IT FOR SO LONG , WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH STAFF THAT THE PLAN WAS COMING IN WITH A PROPERTY OWNER IN CALIFORNIA AND WE HAVE EXCEEDED WELL BEYOND THE ORIGINAL DUE DILIGENCE OF THE PROPERTY , SOPHIE EARNED OF THE FIRE, WHICH IS WHY WE WOULDN'T HAVE CONTINUED TO KICK THIS OUT , BUT I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT
[00:35:02]
OUT THERE. >> THEY SAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL . COULD WE MOVE FORWARD IF
THAT'S THE CASE? >> IF IT WERE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL? WE ARE STILL ASKING FOR SOME EXCHANGES RELATIVE TO THE LOT , BUT FROM A DENSITY PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE
FINE. IF THAT WERE THE CASE . >> I THINK WE SHOULD BE MOVING ON THIS GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO THE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY . IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO CHANGE RECOMMENDATION, THEN THEY WILL DITCH THIS PROJECT. I SEE NO REASON TO DELAY THIS , BECAUSE IF IT GOES FORWARD , THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT. I WOULD MOVE TO GO AHEAD AND WOULD LIKE TO MOVE AND I WON'T DO IT YET, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
>> AS WHAT IT WOULD BE IN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN?
>> GIVEN WHAT THEY WANT TO DO , THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
>> MY QUESTION REGARDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS WITH RESPECT TO THE WATER SEWER REQUIREMENTS. YOU SAID THAT IF WE APPROVED THIS PROPOSAL , THEN THERE WOULD ALSO BE THE VERBIAGE AROUND ADDITIONAL MONIES PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER FOR WATER AND SEWER. IF THIS WAS LTD , WITH THAT
APPLY? >> YOU CAN'T REZONE TO A MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT UNLESS IT IS AVAILABLE TO THE SITE . THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WOULD GUARANTEE BY CONTRACT THAT THEY WOULD GET THE SEWER TO THE SITE. WE WOULD NORMALLY BE WITH THIS , BUT BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR DENIAL, WE ARE NOT PROCEEDING WITH ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.
>> OKAY. >> WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS IF WE WANT TO -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT. IT'S DENIED FUTURE LAND-USE SAYS RURAL AND/OR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL , BUT ONCE IT'S IN PLACE IT'S FINE EVEN FOR THEM. RIGHT NOW, RURAL IS
WHERE I'M BASING MY VOTE ON? >> YEAH. LET'S SAY THEY APPROVE IT ON TUESDAY , WHAT DO WE BASE OUR DECISION ON?
>> OUR POSITION IS THAT ON REZONINGS ASSOCIATED , WE RECOMMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND YOU ALL AT HAVE THE LATITUDE. GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT RESTS WITH THE BODY. IT DOESN'T REST WITH STAFF. IS NORMALLY BLACK-AND-WHITE PER THE OBJECTIVE , THEN WE HAVE WAIVERS, CHECKS AND BALANCES.
AS FAR AS THINGS MAKING SENSE WITH HOW YOU FEEL OR HAVE BEEN WORKING ON , THAT IS A RESPECTABLE DECISION BASIS. IF YOU ARE AT THE MIND-SET THAT YOU APPROVED THE LAND-USE PLAN AND THAT YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND YOU WANT TO VOTE WITH THAT, THEN THAT'S FINE. ON THE STAFF SIDE , WE WILL ONLY RECOMMEND BASED ON APPROVED AND ADOPTED PLANS BY CITY COUNCIL,
WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD DO. >> WITH WHAT WE GOT BEFORE US, WOULD THAT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT WE HAVE APPROVED TOWARD CITY COUNCIL? MAKE SOME CHANGES TO
MAKE SURE IT HAPPENS? >> NO, THE ONLY THING -- THE REASON THEY ARE PURSUING WITH OTHER EXCHANGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT FOR THE VAST MAJORITY, THEY MAY USE LOTS IF THEY HAD TO GO STRAIGHT DBH WITH THINGS LIKE THAT. THIS IS IN LINE WITH WHAT YOU APPROVED. THE RURAL DESIGNATION WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT UTILITIES. I REFERENCED IT IN A MEETING DUE TO THE EXPERIENCE WITH A LOT OF OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CONTROL UTILITIES GIVING TO THE SITE WITH CONCERNS AND WORKING
[00:40:01]
THROUGH THAT FOR THIS. A LOT OF PAST APPLICATIONS ON THIS AND THE ISSUES WERE UTILITIES, BUT ON THIS THEY WERE TO PROBLEM SOLVE FOR THAT. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE PLAN , OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD PROBABLY BE DIFFERENT. LATITUDE DOESN'TREST WITH US, BUT WITH YOU ALL. >> ESSENTIALLY, YOU ARE MAKING IT WHERE WE ARE VOTING TOWARD OUR FUTURE LAND-USE PLAN THAT
WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M FOR THIS , BUT I DO IT WITH RESERVATION. I THINK THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE THIS APPROVED. WE ARE IN THE
SITUATION THAT WE ARE. >> CONSIDERING IT WHEN WE DO PASS THESE MOTIONS, IT IS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. HOWEVER UNLIKELY THAT IT MAY BE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TO STOP APPROVE THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ON TUESDAY, THEY THEN SUBSEQUENTLY COULD NOT APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE, AS WELL. THERE IS A CATCH THERE . WE ARE NOT IN A LEGAL LIMBO
HERE. >> AND READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> ISSUED TO APPROVE? >> I MOVE APPROVAL OF 2024-0 19 WITH THE STIPULATION OR CONDITION THAT THE AGREEMENT SHALL ME DRAFTED REQUIRING PUBLIC SENATORIAL SEWER EXPANSION TO THE DEVELOPMENT . ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WILL BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPER.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE REZONING . ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT.
[9. Rezoning - Greenwood Village PDD - PUBLIC HEARING]
>> THE FINAL REQUEST FOR THIS PROPERTY IS TO APPLY THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGNATION TO THE 53.3 ACRES LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, WHAT YOU JUST DISCUSSED, THE CURRENT LAND-USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE, BUT THERE ARE UPDATES ON THE HORIZON THAT WOULD MAKE A PROPOSED USE COMPATIBLE IF THOSE ARE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. I MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, BUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS 153 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LOTS WITH A RECREATION OPEN SPACE AREA, WHICH RUNS THROUGH THE MIDDLE. IT WILL HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS AS IT CURRENTLY SHOWS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING ONE INCENTIVE , LIKE MENTIONED BEFORE. IT WAS A 10 FOOT DECREASE TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH THAT IS ALLOWED , SO TAKES IT FROM 50 FEET THAT IS CURRENTLY THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN THE DBH ZONING DISTRICT AND 40 FEET FOR SOME OF THE LOT'S
>> IT'S NOT ALL OF THEM , BUT JUST PART OF THE REQUEST AND THEY WILL APPLY IT TO WHERE THEY NEED TO. IN EXCHANGE FOR THIS INCENTIVE , THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING THIS 17 ACRE PARK AND RECREATION AREA THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE DEVELOPER OR A . I HAVE HAD SOME CORRESPONDENCE ON THE PROPERTY , BUT MOST OF IT IS INFORMATIVE CONVERSATION. NOBODY OPPOSES OR IS 100% FOR IT , BUT THEY JUST WANT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. SIMILAR TO THE REQUEST BEFORE OR EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT WE ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL, BECAUSE IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FUTURE LAND-USE PLAN. IF THE MOTION IS TO BE MADE FOR APPROVAL , THE SAME CONDITION AS BEFORE WITH THE MEETING AND AGREEMENT TO BE DRAFTED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND COST BEING INCURRED BY THE DEVELOPER AND WE WOULD WANT
THAT CONDITION APPLIED. >> COULD I ASK A QUESTION? AS FAR AS THE PARK GOES OR THE GREEN SPACE, HOW TYPICAL IS THIS? I KNOW WE HAD GREEN SPACES THAT ARE SOMETIMES LAID OUT . THIS SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE FOR EVERYBODY IN THE GENERAL
[00:45:06]
VICINITY . TELL ME MORE . >> IT'S NOT PERFORMANCE?
>> AT HIS PERFORMANCE . SINGLE-FAMILY.
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT. I HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR AROUND UTILIZING DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY FOR MORE GREEN SPACES FROM HER PERSPECTIVE .
IT IS TAKING ON MAINTENANCE OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE GRAND PARTS . SHE WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK OBTAINED BY THE H AWAY FOR HER PERSPECTIVE AND I THINK THE ACREAGE FROM A SIZE STANDPOINT ARE COMMENDABLE FROM HER PERSPECTIVE WITH FACILITIES AND AMENITIES ASSOCIATED WITH IT DID NOT WARN OR WERE NOT ATTRACTIVE TO HER FOR TAKING OVER AS FAR AS MAINTENANCE COSTS AND EVERYTHING FOR THEM TO BE A CITY PARK. IT SHOULD BE A PART MAINTAINED BY THE A .
>> HOW DOES THAT WORK OUT? >> YOU CAN ASK THEM. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. FOR THE OVERLAY OF GREENWOOD VILLAGE, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK FOR THE AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NO ONE AND WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS?
>> APPROVAL OF RZ-2024-020 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE AGREEMENT SHALL BE DRAFTED REQUIRING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWAGE EXPANSION TO THIS DEVELOPMENT WITH COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPANSION FOR THE SEWER SYSTEM OR RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.
>> MOTION AND SECOND . I HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION QUESTION.
CONNECTIVITY HAS BEEN DRILLED INTO ME . THIS IS VERY NOT
CONNECTED . >> WE DO TAKE A LOOK AT IT INITIALLY WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING AND IT WAS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS WERE WE TOLD THEM THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS IT OR GET BACK WITH THEM AND WE DID. LOOKING AT THE NATURE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES , WE FELT LIKE IT WASN'T NECESSARY . THE ACCESS TO THEM WITH PERSONS THAT ARE NEARBY AND THEY WERE CHOPPED UP IN NATURE , SO IT DIDN'T NECESSARILY ITSELF TO ANOTHER BIG MASS DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD MAKE IT CONNECTED THROUGH HERE . THAT IS HOW WE GOT TO THAT POINT.
>> I LIKE THAT RESPONSE. GET THEM ONTO SOMETHING ELSE.
>> WE WILL STILL SEE THAT WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT EVENTUALLY . THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING INTERESTING TO THINK ABOUT .
THAT IS A LOT OF HOUSES COMING OUT OF ONE SPOT. NO FLOW-THROUGH ACROSS TRAFFIC OR ANYTHING.
>> GOES TO THE SCHOOL, TOO. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? I FEEL LIKE WE ARE OKAY. YOU WEREN'T VERY
STRONG . >> THE NEXT REQUEST FOR YOU IS
[10. Preliminary Plat - Old Row Townhomes - PUBLIC HEARING]
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT A SEVEN LOT TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF US AT 337 EAST MAGNOLIA AVENUE IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD USED TO ZONING DISTRICT AND IT'S JUST OVER HALF AN ACRE IN SIZE. LIKE I MENTIONED, THE PLOT IS FOR SEVEN TOWNHOUSE LOTS AND THE PLAT SUBMITTED SHOWS A LOT HERE AS THE PRIVATE DRIVE. THIS WILL BE ELIMINATED AND THAT ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY WILL TAKE PLACE FROM A PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE AND[00:50:04]
THESE WILL BE EXTENDED EAST AND WEST ACROSS THE PROPERTY , SO A SEVEN LOT SUBDIVISION . THE MAXIMUM DENSITY IS 85 BEDS PER ACRE AND IT WOULD BE A LOT 47 BEDS ON IT . EACH OF THE TOWNHOUSES WILL HAVE THREE BEDROOMS, SO 21 BEDS. THE PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL UPON ADDRESSING STAFF COMMENTS ANDRECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> THEY DO REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, SO IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TODAY ABOUT OLD ROAD TOWNHOMES, PLEASE COME FORWARD . LIVELY CROWD. NO ONE IS COMING FORWARD. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING .
COMMISSIONERS? >> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS ABOUT GREEN SPACE. IT IS REQUIRED IF YOU WILL TAKE HEAT AWAY GREEN SPACE FOR BETWEEN THE TOWNHOMES OR AS THE
TOWNHOMES ARE LAID OUT . >> I WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE BEHIND THE TOWNHOMES ON THE WESTERN SIDE.
>> APPLICANT? >> THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST ONES YOU ARE SEEING BACK WITH THE PRIVATE STREETS AND HOW WE WANT TO DO IT. WE ARE ALSO AN ART DIRECTION OF WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE ON OUR OWN LOTS. THERE ARE STILL NUANCES TO WORK OUT WHAT THAT NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE AND PROVIDE RELIEF ON SOME OF THE STUFF , BECAUSE IT MIGHT CREATE CONFLICT. GREEN SPACE IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION FOR PROJECTS FOR OPEN SPACE, AS WELL. THAT IS WHAT WE WORKED INTO FURTHER
PRIVATE STREET CONVERSATION. >> AGREE.
>> THE EIGHTH LOT. AGAIN, ON THE DRAW THAT WE HAVE IN TERMS OF DESIGN WHERE WE ALREADY PULL THAT OFF WITH SEVEN LOTS WITH AN EASEMENT. THE EIGHTH LOT WILL BE BEFORE THE PRIVATE DRIVE AND PART OF WHAT WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER WITH SOME OF THE PRIVATE DRIVES , SO THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE PROPERTY WILL BE WHERE THE LOT IS THAT GOES FROM FRONT TO BACK, WHICH ACTUALLY FRIENDS OR IS ADJACENT. ANY GREEN SPACE WITH THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE AND TO THE WEST.
>> MOVED TO MOVE PRELIMINARY PLAT 2024 51 .
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU.
[11. Preliminary Plat - Northgate Phase 3 - PUBLIC HEARING]
>> NEXT, ANOTHER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR 150 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE PROPERTY IS ON NORTH COLLEGE STREET JUST SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 280. THE PDD HAS A SPLIT ZONE AND THE PORTION SUBJECT TO THE REQUEST IS IN THE CDD PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S JUST OVER 35.5 ACRES. THE PLAT SHOWS A MIXTURE OF SINGLE-FAMILY TWIN HOME AND TOWNHOUSE LOTS . THERE WILL ALSO BE TWO MIXED-USE LOTS AT THE CORNER HERE OR INTERSECTION OF CITRUS PLACE AND NORTH COLLEGE. THESE WILL HAVE BUILDINGS WITH COMMERCIAL ON THE BOTTOM AND APARTMENTS AT THE TOP. IT ALLOWS THEM 45 APARTMENT UNITS . THE STAFF REPORT DOES LIST A NUMBER OF COMMENTS. THE MAIN ONE BEING THAT THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRES TWO CONNECTIONS TO THE PROPERTY HERE ON NORTH COLLEGE STREET AND ONE COMING FROM THE TOWNHOUSES AND ONE COMING FROM THE MIXED-USE LOT. IT WILL NEED TO BE REVISED .
THE PLAT NEEDS TO BE REVISED . IT WILL ALSO NEED TO BE REVISED, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS REARRANGED SOME SINGLE-FAMILY AND TOWNHOUSE LOTS , BUT OTHER THAN THAT , WE
RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU. WITH THIS PLAT,
[00:55:07]
IT REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THAT NOW IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. NO ONE. THANK YOU. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?>> MOVED TO APPROVE NORTHGATE SUBDIVISION PHASE THREE.
>> SECOND. >> DO WE NEED TO ADD CONDITIONS? I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY
OPPOSED? THANK YOU . >> CONDITIONAL USE FOR
[12. Conditional Use - Gamble Winter New Office - PUBLIC HEARING]
COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USERS OF WAREHOUSE. THE PROPERTY IS AT 375 WEST VETERANS BOULEVARD AND IT IS IN A CDD DISTRICT WHERE COMMERCIAL SUPPORT IS CONDITIONAL USE AND THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY IS MASTER PLAN MIXED-USE, WHICH INCLUDES A BROADER MIX OF USERS , WHICH ARE CONTEXTUALLY APPROPRIATE .THE PROPERTY SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED RECENTLY AS OFFICES, MINISTRIES AND WAREHOUSES AND THE LIMITED AREA AND COMPATIBILITY. THE PROPOSED USE IS CONDUCIVE TO THE CITY'S CODE FOR THE STUDY SITE AND
STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU. FOR THIS USE OF PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED AND I WILL OPEN THAT AT THIS TIME IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> MOVED TO APPROVE CU-2024-045 , GAMBLE WINTER NEW OFFICE .
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THANK
YOU. >> THIS IS ANOTHER REQUEST FOR
[14. Conditional Use - The Boulevard Phase 8 - PUBLIC HEARING]
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL . A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF GIDDENS STREET AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS MDR D AND THE NORTH PROPERTY IS , THIS PART IS THE SICK -- SIX PHASE OF THE LAFARGE. THIS IS THE EIGHTH PHASE. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP PUTS THIS IN A MEDIUM OR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL . THE MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED YOU THIS CURRENTLY IS UNITS PER ACRE. THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN HAS 6.8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING ALL PHASES OF THE BOULEVARD , WHICH IS ALSO LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM . THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS A CHURCH. THERE IS A SINGLE-FAMILY ON THE RIGHT AND ON THE TOP IS A MULTI FAMILY. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE AT INTENSE , BUT SIMILAR TO THE PROPERTIES , WHICH CONTAIN FAMILY UNITS AND THE OTHER THING TO NOTE IS PROPERTY IS VISIBLE FROM THE COLLECTOR ROUTE , SO THE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO FOLLOW GUIDELINES OF THE OVERLAY REGULATIONS . FINALLY, THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ARE A LITTLE NONCOMPLIANT, SO THEY NEED TO BE COMPLIANT -- THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO ADD THOSE BUFFERING DEPARTMENTS IF THISUP IS APPROVED. >> THOSE ARE PART OF THE
CONDITIONS? >> YEAH, THOSE ARE PART OF THE
[01:00:02]
CONDITIONS. >> GREAT. THIS CONDITIONAL USE DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE BOULEVARD PHASE EIGHT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK . PLEASE DO SO.
SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE CU-2024-047
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED ? THANK YOU.
[15. Conditional Use - 708 Harper Avenue MUD - PUBLIC HEARING]
>> THE FINAL AGENDA ITEM IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO ALLOW PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICALLY MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 708 HARPER AVENUE . SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND IT IS SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT AND NORTHWEST. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS MIXED-USE, TOO. IT ALLOWS FOR BROAD MIX OF USES AND ONE OF THE USES IT CALLS OUT IS HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT , WHICH WE HAVE SEEN POP UP IN THIS AREA RECENTLY, ESPECIALLY IN 2022 WHERE THE LOT THAT IS TWO TO THE WEST . 644 HARPER AVENUE WAS APPROVED AND IT RUNS VERTICAL. THIS WILL RUN HORIZONTAL. SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND A LITTLE BIT MORE ALIGNED WITH WHAT YOU SEE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD , BUT NONETHELESS THE SAME TECHNICAL USE. WITH ALL THAT SAID, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL HAVE AN ENTRANCE THAT FACES AND OPENS DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE STREET AND IT'S HARD TO TELL, BUT IN THE SITE PLAN AND ALL OTHER SITE PLANS OR ELEVATIONS THEY GAVE US, THERE IS AN ENTRANCE THAT FACES THAT WAY . THEY HAVE IT AS WE WANT IT CURRENTLY. I JUST WANT TO CALL THAT OUT AND MAKE SURE
IT IS COVERED. >> YOU WEREN'T LOOKING AT THIS DOWN THE STREET. OKAY. THIS CONDITIONAL USE ALSO REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING, SO I WILL OPEN IT NOW FOR HARPER AVENUE .
SEEING NO ONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> MOVED TO APPROVE CU-2024-048 WITH CONDITIONS.
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED ? THANK YOU
[STAFF COMMUNICATION]
SO MUCH, COMMISSIONERS. OTHER BUSINESS? COMMUNICATIONS?>> THANK YOU. QUITE A BIT OF WORK SESSIONS ARE GOING TO BE TOWARDS THE FRONT END OF THE NEW YEAR FOR NEXT MONTH AND I THINK WITH THE JOINT WORK SESSION WITH THE COUNCIL, THERE WILL ALSO BE OTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST. I MENTIONED THE CONDITIONAL USE WHERE THEY WILL BE READY TO HAVE A WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION GOING OVER SOME THINGS. THEY ARE NOT ENTERTAINING RESIDENTIAL UNIT USES , BUT PRETTY LARGE WITH SEVERAL HUNDRED ACRES. THAT WILL BE ANOTHER ASK PROBABLY SOMETIME IN JANUARY . AS AN UPDATE, SOME THINGS ON THE INTERNAL SIDE. WE STARTED THE KICKOFF OF LOOKING AT THE ANNEXATION POLICY AND REFINING SOME OF THE INPUTS FOR THE PRIORITY . SOMETHING THAT WE ARE WORKING ON AND WILL PROBABLY HAVE SOMETHING FOR YOU ALL THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS, SO PROBABLY EXPECT A BUFF.PRODUCT AND THE FINISHED PRODUCT IS PROBABLY AROUND MARCH . WORKING INTERNALLY ACROSS A LOT OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS , SO THERE WILL BE DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT SHOW UP AND EXPLAIN COMMENTS . I THINK IT IS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR ALL OF
[01:05:01]
US AND THE SEVERITY OF THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMENTS AS IT IS RELATED TO THE STAFF REPORT THAT WE MAKE FOR YOU ALL.JANUARY AND FEBRUARY WILL HAVE LOTS OF MEETINGS.
>> I NEED A MOTION. >> MOVED TO ADJOURN.
>> SECOND.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.