[ROLL CALL] [00:00:08] >> GOOD EVENING. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE APRIL 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. ROLL CALL, PLEASE? >> DAN ACCOUNT? >> HERE. >> DAVID WISDOM? >> HERE. >> JOSEPH AISTRUP? >> HERE. >> JENNIFER STEPHENS? OSKAR MOSLEY? >> HERE. >> WALKER DAVIS? >> HERE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW FOR THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE ARE PRESENTED BY AGENDA ITEMS BY THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT FOR THE AGENDA ITEM WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE COMMENTS OR ASK SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED AS APPROPRIATE AND THIS WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ABOUT THE AGENDA ITEM IN HAND. WE WANT EVERYONE TO BE HEARD, BUT PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES AND DO NOT CONTINUE TO REPEAT, AGAINST THE SAME AGENDA ISSUE ITEM. FOR THE ITEM. WE ARE THEN BROUGHT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND TO THOSE. THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE BASED ON STATE AND LOCAL LAWS AND CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2030. FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A POINT FOR THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ADVISORY BOARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SUBDIVISION PLAT DECISIONS. ALL THE DECISIONS WILL BE MADE BY CITY COUNCIL AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S COMMISSION. THANK YOU, AND PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP CITIZENS' COMMUNICATION. IF THERE IS ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL [CONSENT AGENDA ] CLOSE CITIZENS' COMMUNICATION. WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS, CORRECT? AND THE CONSENT AGENDA, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR OUR MARCH MEETINGS, PACKET AND REGULAR, A FINAL PLAT FOR ARBORS PHASE TWO, AND FINAL PLAT FOR UPTOWN ONE. COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT [3. Annexation - Mar El Webster Property ] AGENDA. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE. >> AYE. >> THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE TO NEW BUSINESS. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. THE FIRST ITEM UNDER NEW BUSINESS TONIGHT IS ANNEXATION REQUEST THE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 211 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 430 LEE ROAD 0053, ALSO KNOWN AS WEBSTER ROAD. HERE IS THE MAP FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF WEBSTER ROAD ON THE SOUTH OF MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE AND THIS MAP SHOWS ITS LOCATION WITHIN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY. THE REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA OF ANNEXATION POLICY, FOR ANNEXATION. AND THIS WOULD BE HEARD AT THE CITY COUNCIL'S MAY 20TH MEETING. >> THANK YOU. AS AN ANNEXATION, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, SO COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR ANYTHING ELSE? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. THE TRAFFIC STUDY SAID THE ANNEXATION WOULD GENERATE 207 TRIPS, PER DAY. IS THAT HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW? CAN YOU CONTEXTUALIZE THAT FOR ME? >> YEAH, THAT WASN'T A TRAFFIC STUDY, THAT IS JUST AN APPROXIMATE NUMBER. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE FOUND, BASED ON THE ZONING AND WHAT WOULD BE THERE. >> AND IS THAT HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW? >> THAT WOULD BE AVERAGE. >> AVERAGE? OKAY. >> YEAH, IT IS KIND OF BASED ON THE RULES, WHICH IS AN AVERAGE OF WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE THERE, BASED ON THE ZONE. JUST KIND OF WHAT WE HAVE IN THERE, AS FAR AS ANNEXATIONS. >> ANYTHING ELSE? QUESTIONS? >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE MARIO WEBSTER PROPERTY ANNEXATION. [4. Rezoning - Mar El Webster - PUBLIC HEARING ] >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. SEVERAL ITEMS. >> TWO MORE. >> THIS REQUEST IS FOR LIMITS THAT THE PROPERTY JUST RECOMMENDED TO BE ANNEXED, IT IS FOR A RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY COUNCIL TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY [00:05:01] 130 ACRES OF THAT PROPERTY, FROM RURAL TO INDUSTRIAL. THE MAP SHOWS HERE, THE PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE REZONING REQUEST. THIS SHOULD SORT OF BE ROTATED. NORTH IS TO THE LEFT. BUT, 80 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY WOULD REMAIN IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY RURAL. HOWEVER, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL VOTE AT ITS MEETING NEXT TUESDAY, ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THAT TO INDUSTRIAL. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? ANYTHING FROM HIS ENGLISH AT THIS TIME? >> WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR THE THREE LOTS? >> FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. >> SO, NO SPECIFIC BUSINESSES WILL MOVE THERE, YET? >> THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. AS A REZONING REQUEST, THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THAT, AT THIS TIME. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE REZONING, PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> HI, MY NAME IS GEORGE RAINEY. I OWN A PROPERTY ON BELLWOOD PLACE. >> AND YOUR ADDRESS? >> 1863 BELLWOOD PLACE. >> THANK YOU. >> I LIVE ON THAT PROPERTY AND I MIGHT BE A BIT PREMATURE ON THIS TOPIC. I'M NOT WORRIED SO MUCH ABOUT THE ZONING CHANGE, AS MUCH AS ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, ITSELF. BELLWOOD HAS A DIRECT ROAD THAT GOES TO THIS PROPERTY, AND I RECEIVED SOMETHING FROM THE HOA SAYING THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A REQUEST TO USE THAT ROAD AS ACCESS FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND THAT -- I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE TERRIBLY DETRIMENTAL FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS A VERY SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT HAS MAYBE 10 DUPLEXES ON THE LEFT SIDE. ON THE RIGHT SIDE, IT'S GOT A SMALL APARTMENT BUILDING THAT PROBABLY HAS 12 UNITS, KIDS PLAY ON THIS ROAD. THEY ARE -- IT IS MAJORITY RENTERS. I THINK I AM ONE OF THE OWNER OCCUPANTS. BUT, WE HAVE KIDS GETTING PICKED UP AT THE BUS STOP AT THE CORNER, RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF WEBSTER AND BELLWOOD, AND IT ALSO HAS A TIGER TRANSIT STOP, SO THERE IS A TON OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THAT ROAD. IT IS A SMALL ROAD. IT IS A ROAD DESIGNED TO HAVE TRAFFIC THAT DOESN'T GO THROUGH AND STOPS AT THE END OF BELLWOOD. AND I JUST THINK THEY NEED TO FIND ANOTHER METHOD TO ACCESS THAT PROPERTY, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, RATHER THAN MOVING THROUGH BELLWOOD. AND SO, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING I AM SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT WITH YOU? OR, IF THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE TALKED ABOUT RIGHT NOW? >> GO AHEAD. >> YEAH, JUST FOR ROAD CONNECTIONS AND THINGS THAT ARE HANDLED FOR PUFF PRELIMINARY PLATS, THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. , THE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING REZONED ISN'T CONTIGUOUS TO THE BELLWOOD PLACE PROPERTY, SO THERE WILL NOT BE ANY ROAD CONNECTIONS. BUT, I DID JUST WANT TO SAY, SO, ROAD CONNECTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT IS MORE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, NOT THE REZONING REQUEST. >> OKAY. WELL, THEN, I GUESS I AM OPPOSED TO IT BEING REZONED, IF THAT MATTERS, BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLEVIATE MY ISSUE, REGARDLESS. SO, THANKS FOR HEARING ME OUT. >> THANK YOU. >> PLEASE SIGN IN, IF YOU HAVEN'T, ALREADY, MR. RAIN. YES. ANYONE ELSE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? OKAY, SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? >> SO, TO BE CLEAR, THAT IS NOT BEING REZONED? THE STUFF OUT THERE AT BELLWOOD GOING INTO A PROPERTY THAT IS NOT BEING REZONED? >> CORRECT. CORRECT. AND SO -- YEAH, AS YOU CAN SEE, SO, THERE IS A DIFFERENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED FOR THE REZONING, THEN WHAT IS BEING ANNEXED. SO, THIS -- I DON'T REALLY WANT TO CALL IT A QUADRANT -- BUT, THIS CHUNK THAT IS HANGING OUT IN THE NICK OF THIS IS NOT BEING REZONED INDUSTRIAL. SO, THIS COULD BE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT IS NOT A PART OF THE INDUSTRIAL THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED. >> I GUESS MY POINT IS THAT, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A ROAD IN THE NEAR FUTURE. >> WHERE -- >> I'M SORRY. >> WENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSE? I'M SORRY. >> BUT, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL THE CITY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT, KEVIN? >> THE ONLY THING I WILL ADD, IF YOU CAN SEE THAT NEW ROW THAT WILL BE COMING IN FROM WEBSTER, THAT WILL BE THE PRIMARY ACCESS FOR THE PROPERTY, THERE ARE A FEW OTHER FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY, OR FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY DESTINATIONS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE MAJOR STREET PLAN, THAT WE WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IN THE NEXT ONE, BUT PRIMARY ACCESS TO THE [00:10:01] PROPERTY WON'T BE DIRECTLY OFF OF WEBSTER. >> YES, THANK YOU. >> YES, OKAY. GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE -- >> OH, SORRY. >> NEXT PAGE. SORRY. I GOT THE WRONG PAGE. THERE IT IS. RZ-2025-002. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. [5. Preliminary Plat - Mar El Webster - PUBLIC HEARING ] ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. WELCOME BACK. >> YES, THANK YOU. GLAD TO BE HERE. THE LAST REQUEST RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY IS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR FOUR LOT ADDITIONAL SUBDIVISION WITH RIGHT-OF-WAY. TYPICALLY, THE CONDITION WOULD NOT HEAR THIS REQUEST, AS IT IS ONLY FOUR LOTS, BUT SINCE THERE IS NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED WITH THE PLAT, THAT IS WHY IT IS COMING TO YOU FOR APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, ONE, TWO, THREE LOTS, HERE. THERE IS A FOURTH LOT, AROUND THE EDGES OF THESE LOT LINES. THAT IS AN OUTLAW THAT IS RESERVED FOR FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THERE ARE TWO PROPOSED STREETS ON THE MAJOR STREET PLAN THAT ARE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO, THAT OUTLINE IS TO FACILITATE THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> AND DO WE HAVE THE -- TO BACK UP FOR A MOMENT -- DO WE HAVE THAT VIEW? LIKE, FROM 14 TO -- THAT ONE, YES. OKAY. >> SO, THERE IS ONE STREET THAT RUNS NORTH TO SOUTH, AND THE OTHER WOULD RUN EAST TO WEST. >> OKAY. >> ACROSS THE PROPERTY. >> OKAY. >> THE PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. >> OKAY. >> AND WHEN THIS IS HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL, THE FUTURE LAND USE WOULD BECOME INDUSTRIAL, IF APPROVED. >> YES. >> THE SECTION THAT IS NOT REZONED AT THIS POINT? >> YES. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND IT DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. SO, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE -- THIS TIME I WILL GET IT RIGHT -- >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. [6. Preliminary Plat - Oakmont Phase II - PUBLIC HEARING] ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> HI! >> THESE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE FOR OAKMONT PHASE TWO, WHICH IS PART OF YOUR REFORMS. THE FIRST REQUEST IS FOR A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 66 LOTS, AND IT IS A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF OAKMONT DRIVE, IN THE YARBROUGH FARMS PDD. THE UNDERLINING ZONING FOR THE DISTRICT IS CDD. THIS REQUEST IS FOR 66 LOTS ON 31 ACRES, 64 OF THE LOTS WILL BE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND IT HAS TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS. THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS AND THE ORIGINAL PLAT THAT WAS APPROVED IN FEBRUARY OF 2021, IS THE ORIGINAL HAD 70 LOTS, AND THIS IS 66. AND THE STREET NETWORK DIFFERS A LITTLE BIT, AS WELL. ORIGINALLY, THIS CUL-DE-SAC CUT THROUGH TO THE ADDITION OF OAKMONT, THE EXTENSION OF OAKMONT. HOWEVER, THERE IS TOPOGRAPHY ISSUES, SO THEY ARE STILL PROVIDING CONNECTIVITY, BUT THROUGH EASEMENTS, RIGHT HERE. AND IT IS STILL GENERALLY CONSISTENT, WITH THE STREET NETWORK AND THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND IT MEETS ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL WITH THE CELEBREX. >> THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF COMMENTS? >> YES. MOST OF THEM ARE NOTATIONAL AND GIS RELATED, AND THAT IS ALSO BECAUSE THERE IS A FINAL PLAT ACCOMPANYING IT. BUT, IT IS BECAUSE IT IS REVIVED. >> OKAY. ALL OF THIS IS STILL UNDER THE MASTER PLAN AND ALL OF THAT? >> YES. AND ALSO, THE D.A.R.T. PLANS WERE APPROVED PRIOR TO OUR [00:15:01] LAST AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. SO, THIS PLAT WILL MEET THESE SUBRECS FROM 2021. >> WHEN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. SO, THERE IS A PDD ON THIS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SO, IT WAS ORIGINAL PLAN, THE SAME CAME THROUGH, THAT CUL-DE-SAC WAS NOT THERE, THE ROAD ACTUALLY EXTENDED OVER TO OAKMONT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SUBSTITUTING JUST AN EASEMENT IS ACCEPTABLE? I MEAN, WHY ISN'T IT STILL A ROAD? >> WELL, THERE WERE TOPOGRAPHY ISSUES, BUT THEY ARE STILL MEETING THE INTENT OF THE CONNECTION, BY ALLOWING THE LOTS THAT ARE AFFECTED TO STILL ACCESS THAT EXTENSION OF OAKMONT. AND THAT WAS DISCOVERED DURING THE D.A.R.T. REVIEW OF THE PLAN. >> AND THAT WAS OKAY, THERE? >> YES. >> YES, THIS ISN'T LIKE A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. IF IT WAS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE -- >> CORRECT. >> AND ALSO, THIS WOULD BE A RESIDENTIAL STREET. SO, IF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A MAJOR STREET PLAN THERE, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE ROADWAY MIGHT HAVE MOVED, BUT THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, "OH, WE ARE JUST NOT GOING TO HAVE THE ROAD AND PROVIDE AN EASEMENT." SO, THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN THAT ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE ON A BIGGER ROAD. >> >> I MEAN, THE PLAT. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU. AS A PRELIMINARY PLAT, THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TONIGHT ON OAKMONT PHASE TWO? WE WILL OPEN THAT, NOW. SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE CASE PP-2025-007. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR X >> AYE. [7. Final Plat - Oakmont Phase II ] >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> I AM BACK AGAIN. THIS NEXT REQUEST IS FOR THE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF OAKMONT PHASE TWO. 66 LOTS, 31 ACRES. AND IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. >> THANK YOU. THE FINAL PLAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO, COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE CASE FP-2025-009. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR FINAL PLAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? [8. Preliminary Plat - RISE Auburn Consolidation Plat - PUBLIC HEARING ] >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, RISE AUBURN CONSOLIDATION PLAT. SO, THEY ARE SEEKING FOR APPROVAL FOR A SINGLE LOT OF 4.27 ACRES TO BE USED FOR PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. ALL RIGHT. SO, THIS IS WEST GLENN. NORMALLY, WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING, YOU ALREADY SEE THE FINAL PLATS, ONCE THEY HAVE APPROVED ENGINEERING PLANS, OR THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE, THIS IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THIS IS A CONSOLIDATION PLAT. SO, WHAT THEY ARE DOING, THEY ARE PUTTING TOGETHER MULTIPLE LOTS, AND THEY ARE MAKING IT ONE LOT FOR DEVELOPMENT DOWN THE ROAD, SO THAT IS WHY IT IS ACCOMPANIED WITH A FINAL PLAT AND THERE ARE NO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR ENGINEERING PLANS, ET CETERA, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REFLECTED ON THE FINAL PLAT. SO, THIS IS JUST A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR THE CONSOLIDATION AND THE ONLY REASON YOU GUYS ARE SEEING THIS IS THIS IS THE THRESHOLD OF SIX THAT WOULD MAKE IT AN ABNORMAL PLAT. NORMALLY, THINGS LIKE THIS WOULD BYPASS YOU, BUT JUST DUE TO THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT HAS COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION -- >> SO, WHEN THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT, WILL WE SEE IT AGAIN? >> NO, IT IS A BUY WRITE USE. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. TOTAL NUMBER OF BLOCKS ASSEMBLING? >> YEAH, THEY HAVE SEVEN. >> SEVEN. OKAY. WELL, THIS IS -- WHAT ABOUT STAFF COMMENTS? STAFF COMMENTS? >> YEAH, DID WE -- >> KNOW, AND A LOT OF THE THINGS WITH THE LOT CONSOLIDATION, I WOULD SAY, ARE PRETTY TERTIARY TO THE REST OF THE PROJECT, SO THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE SITE DESIGN AND EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT THOSE THINGS ARE ALL KIND OF ENCOMPASSED IN THE DRT, WITH ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS. SO, THERE HAS BEEN AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF SCRUTINY ON THIS PROJECT. I THINK WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR ABOUT SIX, EIGHT MONTHS, JUST WORKING WITH THE [00:20:02] DEVELOPER AND THEIR ENGINEER. SO -- >> OKAY. >> MOVED TO APPROVE CASE -- >> HOLD ON, I'M SORRY. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONSOLIDATION PLAT AND REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. >> SORRY. >> SO, WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME, IF THERE IS ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY ABOUT THE CONSOLIDATION OF THESE LOTS? SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW, COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE CASE PP-2025-011. >> SECOND. [9. Final Plat - RISE Auburn] >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> YES, SO, THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT, JUST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS, NORMALLY THERE WOULD BE APPROVED ENGINEERING PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL PLAT THERE, BUT THERE ARE NOT BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE RELATED TO THIS. SO -- >> OKAY. >> THIS IS A FINAL PLAT, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE FP-2025 FINAL CONSOLIDATION PLAT. [10. Rezoning - Aaron Schmidt Office Project - PUBLIC HEARING ] >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOVE AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, AARON SCHMIDT OFFICE PROJECT, SO, THAT WILL BE THE REST OF THE WAY. >> ALL RIGHT! >> SO, THE REQUEST TO CITY COUNCIL TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 11.29 ACRES IN THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, RIGHT OFF OF BEND CREEK. ALL RIGHT, SO, THE APPLICANT REACHED OUT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, JUST SAYING THE DEVELOPER WOULD LIKE TO INCORPORATE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, SO JUST KIND OF AN OFFICE SPACE THERE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL, IT IS NOT THE TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE, LIKE AN INDUSTRIAL PARK. IT IS MUCH MORE OF AN OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USE. THEY WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE IS A ROUTE THAT THEY COULD INCORPORATE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. SO, TO DO THAT, THERE IS GOING TO BE CDD. SO, INITIALLY -- AND IF YOU COULD GO TWO SLIDES FORWARD? THERE WE GO, THAT ONE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE TWO LOTS, HERE. SO, THE ONE TO THE NORTH INITIALLY WAS LIKE, HEY CAN WE WE REZONE THIS ONE? I THINK TRADITIONAL WHEN WE GET A REZONE REQUEST, WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF REZONING SMALLER LOTS. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE REZONINGS HAPPEN IN CHUNKS, WHERE IT MAKES SENSE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE REZONING CAN STAND ON ITS OWN OR MAYBE FIT AND BE CONGRUENT WITH OTHER ZONING IN THE AREA. SO, WE SUGGESTED IF THEY WERE GOING TO REQUEST A REZONE TO CDD, THAT THEY INCORPORATE A PIECE OF THE SOUTH TO MAKE UP THE ENTIRE 11.2 ACRES. SO, THAT WAS A STAFF SUGGESTED THAT THEY INCORPORATED INTO THE REZONING. SO, IF WE GO BACK? SO, THIS IS GATEWAY COMMERCIAL, SO WE DO HAVE ZONING DISTRICT FOR, BUT THEY KIND OF HAD THE INKLING TO INCORPORATE RESIDENTIAL. SO, THE REQUEST RECEIVED WAS CDD. AND I KNOW WE ARE NOT REALLY FANS OF REZONING TO NAKED CDD IN A LOT OF CASES, BUT THIS IS JUST AN ELIMINATION OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A LESS PERMISSIVE ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLOW MIXED USE WITHOUT ALLOWING THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING THAT CDD DOES ALLOW. AND SO, IF YOU GO TO THE ACTUAL ZONING -- ACTUALLY, GO BACK. BACK, ONE MORE. CDD IS PREVALENT IN THAT AREA, IT ALREADY EXISTS. LIKE I SAID, THIS IS KIND OF JUST A HOLDOUT WITH THE ORIGINAL ZONING OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED, PEOPLE GOT CDD ALONG THESE MASSIVE CORRIDORS, AND I THINK IN A LOT OF THESE SITUATIONS, THESE BIG THOROUGHFARES, COMMERCIAL IS WHAT THE LAND-USE IS. WHERE CDD IS PRESENT, THERE CAN ALSO BE A POSSIBILITY OF SECOND FAMILY HOUSING. SO, THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE DEVELOPER, WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY REACHED OUT, WAS TO INCORPORATE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE COMMERCIAL USES THEY WERE TRYING TO ESTABLISH. WE DID RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER AT THE UNIVERSITY. I SHARE THAT LETTER WITH YOU ALL TODAY, YOU WERE MENTIONING THE FAA ZONE AND EVEN THOUGH THERE IS EXISTING CDD IN THE AREA WHERE RESIDENTIAL AS POSSIBLE, THAT THEY WOULD OPPOSE ADDING THE POTENTIAL OF MORE RESIDENTIAL, WITH THIS REZONING. >> CURRENTLY, INDUSTRIAL? >> CURRENTLY, INDUSTRIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL IS NOT ALLOWED. >> FUTURE LAND-USE IS GATEWAY? >> GATEWAY, COMMERCIAL. LIKE I SAID, THIS REQUEST IS MUCH MORE OF A REFLECTION OF THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND NOT HAVING A SCALED DOWN ZONING DISTRICTS THAT COULD ALLOW -- THAT COULD BE AS PERMISSIVE AS CDD WITHOUT ALLOWING SINGLE-FAMILY OR OTHER SMALLER SCALE RESIDENCES, WITH THAT RIGHT. >> WHEN I READ THAT, THAT LETTER, IT SUGGESTED THAT THEY WERE JUST OPPOSED TO ANY [00:25:05] RESIDENTS IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, BECAUSE THE AIR POINT -- AIRPORT NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, IT WASN'T JUST SINGLE-FAMILY. THAT WAS MY INTERPRETATION, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YEAH, I THINK THEY ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT, BUT I THINK THAT WAS KIND OF THE TONE I GOT, AS WELL. AND LIKE I SAID, A ZONING DISTRICT THAT MIGHT ALLOW MIXED USES, AND ALSO ALLOWED COMMERCIAL, BUT MAYBE HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL AS CONDITIONAL, WOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE. BUT, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS JUST KIND OF A LIMITATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TO ASK FOR CDD TO ACHIEVE SOME THINGS. >> ANYBODY HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY. >> CAN WE SAY THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT APARTMENTS? >> YEAH, SO, CONDO UNITS, LIKE I SAID, ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR. NOT NECESSARILY LIKE A FREESTANDING THAT HAD INTERESTS OFF THE GROUND FLOOR. I THINK IT WOULD JUST KIND OF BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH, AND PROBABLY OPERATE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AIRPORT. >> AND ARE EXCEPTIONS NOT ALLOWED IN GATEWAY, COMMERCIAL? >> NO. >> IT DOESN'T ALLOW ANY. >> YEAH, RESIDENTIAL DOESN'T, AND ALSO SAME THING WITH INDUSTRIAL. SO, LIKE I SAID, SO, WE HAVE EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL USES, WE HAVE EXCLUSIVE -- WE HAVE EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL ZONING INDUSTRIAL, SO WE HAVE EXCLUSIVE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. LIKE I SAID, THE MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE VERY IN BETWEEN, THAT IS DD AGE, WITH THE SHOP OUT CENTER, AND YOU ALSO HAVE CDD. BUT, TO GET THE USES, WHICH ARE THE PRIMARY ONES, LIKE I SAID, YOU WOULD ACHIEVE THAT THROUGH CDD. >> OKAY. >> THAT IS HEADING TOWARD GATEWAY COMMERCIAL, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YEAH. >> THAT IS THE OFFICIAL YET LAND-USE? AND IN WHICH CASE, THAT IS JUST TOTAL COMMERCIAL, NO RESIDENTIAL USES, AT ALL? >> I THINK THERE IS A WORLD WHERE WE WOULD CONTEMPLATE MIXED-USE, BUT I THINK WITH THE PROMISE OF THE AIRPORT, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. >> OKAY. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AARON SCHMIDT OFFICE PROJECT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> HI. >> HI. >> MY NAME IS RICHARD GAITHER, I AM THE DIRECTOR OF OFFICE PLANNING AND SPACE MANAGEMENT AT AUBURN UNIVERSITY. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY, AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF BILL HUTTO, THE DIRECTOR IN THE AIRPORT, AND MARK STERLING, THE DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE AT THE UNIVERSITY. AND THANK YOU FOR SHARING A LETTER THAT WE PREPARED. REGARDING THE PROPOSED REZONING AT THE AIRPORT, THE PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE ALLOWANCE OF RESIDENTIAL ON THIS SITE. THIS LOT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE AIRPORT AIRFIELD. THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT REVIEW RESIDENTIAL AS BEING A COMPATIBLE LAND-USE, NEXT TO THE AIRFIELD. OBVIOUSLY, IT IS UP TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE IF IT IS APPROPRIATE, BUT IT IS THE FAA'S RECOMMENDATION THAT RESIDENTIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE, HERE. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION AT ALL TO DEVELOPING, HERE. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO COMMERCIAL, HERE. OUR ONLY CONCERN IS THAT THE CDD DISTRICT PERMITS RESIDENTIAL, BY RIGHT. WE DO WANT TO FOLLOW FAA GUIDELINES, FOR DEVELOPING AROUND THE AIRPORT. AND THEREFORE, WE JUST DO NOT RECOMMEND THE CHANGE IN ZONING TO ONE THAT PERMITS RESIDENTIAL, BY RIGHT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THERE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL IN THIS SAME PROXIMITY TO THE AIRFIELD? >> YEAH, THERE IS A, I GUESS, SAME PROXIMITY, PROBABLY NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, BUT THERE ARE HOUSES OFF OF AIRPORT ROAD. THERE IS A HOUSE ON AIRPORT ROAD AND AN ENTIRE SUBDIVISION RIGHT NEXT TO IT. I USED TO DRIVE BY THAT HOUSE ALL THE TIME. >> CAN YOU PUT A FINGER ON IT? >> NO, SO I GUESS IT WOULD BE IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER. YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT ON THIS PROXY MAP. >> >> YEAH, PRETTY MUCH, BECAUSE WHAT IT IS OVER THERE, THERE IS A GOLF COURSE, AND ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE GOLF COURSE, THERE ARE WAREHOUSES, KIND OF AT THE INTERSECTION OF ANNA LOU, THERE IS A CPA, THERE IS A WAREHOUSE, AND THERE IS A DAY [00:30:01] CARE, ANOTHER HOUSE, AND THEN THERE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT 18 HOUSES ON IT, AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER HOUSE, AND ANOTHER FORM, AND THEN YOU RIDE AROUND, AND THEN THERE IS TOWNHOMES RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE AIRPORT ENTRANCE, AS WELL, THAT BACKUP TO DUCK. AND THEN, THERE IS THAT COMMERCIAL NODE THERE WHERE THERE IS THAT CHURCH, CONQUER FITNESS, AND THEN A CAR DEALERSHIP. SO, NOT IN THE IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF IT, BUT, I GUESS, OF THE AIRFIELD, BUT IT IS THERE. >> BUT, NOT ADJACENT? >> NO, IT'S ACROSS THE STREET. >> WELL, IT'S ACROSS THE STREET, BUT NOT RIGHT THERE IN THE PROPERTY. >> YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. SO, I WOULD NOT SAY SIMILAR, AS AN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY, BUT YOU COULD DEFINITELY -- THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO COULD THROW A ROCK AND GET IT OVER THE FENCE AT THE AIRPORT, FOR SURE. >> OKAY. >> SO, WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS, WE PREVIOUSLY HAVE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR OFFICE, AND SOME COMMERCIAL -- A RESTAURANT, AND WHERE ELSE, THERE. THE APPLICANT WAS DESIGNING, AND HAD A DESIRE AS PART OF HIS OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE, TO HAVE TWO OR THREE APARTMENT UNITS ABOVE THE WAREHOUSE SPACE, IN LIKE A LOFT SPACE. THAT IS HOW THIS CONVERSATION STARTED AND WENT DOWN THE ROAD. WHEN WE TALKED TO THE CITY, AS JUSTICE MENTIONED, IF YOU ARE GOING TO REZONE, YOU HAVE TO BRING IN THE OTHER PARCEL. SO, WE OBTAINED APPROVAL, FOR THE OF REST OF THAT LAND, THE SCARRED PARCEL TO THE SOUTH THERE, AND YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE FRONTAGE ON THE GLENN THERE IS CDD, OTHER THAN THIS. THERE IS NO INTENTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THIS AREA. YOU KNOW, THE HIGH MIXED-USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS NOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE BEST USE OF THIS IS COMMERCIAL. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AMONGST ALL ITS WONDER, HAS A LOT OF SHORTCOMINGS, AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM WHERE, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY, WE HAVE CDD, AND BROAD USES. YOU COULDN'T EVEN PUT A CDD OVERLAY, IT IS INDUSTRIAL ZONING. BUT, IT PROHIBITS RESIDENTIAL. IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE, WE COULD BUILD 75 FEET. I COULD BUILD AS FAR AS I COULD WITH MINIMUM SETBACKS. THEY ARE DEFINED SETBACKS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONING. WHETHER IT IS 10, 20 FEET, WHEREAS IF THE CDD IS ANGLED, I HAVE TO BE SO FAR OFF THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THAT. SO, AT THE END OF THE DAY, ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE, IS PUT TWO OR THREE APARTMENT UNITS ABOVE THE WAREHOUSE ON THAT PARCEL. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO DO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, OR ANYTHING OF THE LIKE THROUGH THERE. IT IS CHALLENGING THROUGH THERE, ANYWAYS. SO, THERE IS A LOT OF PROHIBITIONS TO THAT. I KNOW THERE IS SOME QUESTION BEFORE, IN REGARDS -- I THINK IT IS STAFF, IN THE PACKET MEETING -- ABOUT, CAN WE CONDITION IT UPON NOT HAVING THAT? I THINK WE ARE OKAY ON OUR SIDE WITH THE CONDITIONING, ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. AGAIN, WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS PUT TWO OR THREE APARTMENT UNITS ABOVE THE WAREHOUSE SPACE IN THAT AREA. SO, THAT HOPEFULLY GIVES YOU A FEEL OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. THIS IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. THIS IS A MIXED-USE PROJECT. MIXED-USE IS KIND OF WHAT EVERYBODY DOES. UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN'T DO MIXED-USE HERE BECAUSE OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. >> TALK TO ME ABOUT WHY YOU WANT RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT THERE? >> FOR THE THREE UNITS? ONE, ONE OF THE OWNERS IS A PILOT, THEY HAVE THE RESTAURANT THERE, HE HAS HIS BUSINESSES THERE, HIS TYPE OF WORK HAS A LOT OF TRAVEL, AND HE HAS A LOT OF PEOPLE GOING AND MOVING TO DIFFERENT PLACES FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. SO, IT WOULD CREATE INTERIM SPOTS FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO HOUSE SOME OF HIS PEOPLE IN BETWEEN, THAT ARE MORE, YOU KNOW, TRANSIT TYPE WORKERS, THAT MOVE FROM JOB TO JOB, IN 12, 18, 24 MONTH TRUNKS, YOU KNOW? SO, THAT'S -- >> I HAVE A QUESTION. TO EITHER ONE OF YOU. STAFF, OR BRETT. WITH THIS BEING IN THAT AIRPORT ZONE, ARE Y'ALL REQUIRED TO DO NOISE ABATEMENT? >> YES. THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS, WHETHER YOU ARE IN THE RUNWAY ZONE, THE DIFFERENT ZONES -- >> RIGHT. >> YES. >> APPLICANT? >> SO, WE ARE SAYING APARTMENTS FOR -- OVERNIGHT STAY, OR SOMETHING? [00:35:01] >> YEAH, YOU KNOW, IF WE REZONED TO CDD, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU GUYS FOR CONDITIONAL USE, TO GET THOSE TWO UNITS, THREE UNITS APPROVED, SO WE WOULD BE HAVING TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU, WITH MORE DETAILED INFORMATION, ON THAT. >> WE CAN CONDITIONALLY USE A REZONING. >> UNDERSTOOD. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONERS? >> SO, MY QUESTION ISN'T NECESSARILY FOR WHAT THE IMMEDIATE COMMERCIAL USE IS, FOR THIS PROPOSED REZONE. MY QUESTION IS ABOUT, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE REZONE AND THE PROPERTY CHANGES HANDS? NOW, IT IS CDD, AND RESTRICTS THE SECOND OWNER, OR THE THIRD OWNER, BUT THAT IS WHY I STRUGGLE WITH THIS ONE. >> OKAY. >> I'M GOING TO GET IT STARTED, AND I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE CASE RZ-2025-003. >> I WILL SECOND IT. >> WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? >> I THINK IF THIS WAS NOT IN THE AIRPORT DISTRICT, IT PROBABLY WOULD BE OKAY, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. YOU KNOW, WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, I THINK IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THIS. >> MEANING, IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR FUTURE LAND USE YOU FOUND THAT WAY? LIKE, THEY COULD DO EVERYTHING RESIDENTIAL? >> WELL, I GUESS IT'S THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT THAT IS AN ISSUE IN MY HEAD. >> MAYBE NOT. YOU STRETCH INTO THE FUTURE AND WHO KNOWS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN? LOW VOLUME ] >> YEAH, THAT IS MY CONCERN, TOO. THAT -- THIS, WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED TODAY, THAT USE, I DON'T REALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, IT IS THE FACT THAT THE SECOND OWNER MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT IS A BEST USE FOR THIS ZONE. AND FOR THAT REASON, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO LOOK AT -- OR, YOU KNOW, LOOK AND SEE IF WE CAN CHANGE OR ADD A NEW DESIGNATION TO HAVE SOME CONDITIONAL USES, JUST FOR THAT. BUT, I JUST DON'T THINK IT IS WISE TO GRANT SOMETHING AS PERMISSIVE AS CDD, RIGHT HERE NEXT TO THE AIRPORT. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR ZONING REGS, AND IF WE HAVE TO CREATE A GATEWAY COMMERCIAL -- >> WITH NO RESIDENTIAL -- >> WITH NO RESIDENTIAL. YES. THEN, WE SHOULD. >> OR, RESIDENTIAL, CONDITIONALLY IN THE ZONE. >> THERE YOU GO. >> OKAY. DISCUSSION IS GREAT. MOTIONS? >> WE DON'T HAVE THE -- >> OH, I'M SO SORRY. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OF THE REZONING? ALL OPPOSED? >> AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> NAY. >> ROLL CALL, PLEASE? >> COMMISSIONER REESE? >> NO. >> COMMISSIONER CAMP? >> NO. >> DAVID WISDOM? >> NO, MAN. >> OSCAR MOSLEY? >> NO. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY, SO, WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT, JUST BECAUSE YOU NEEDED ONE MORE THING. [11. Preliminary Plat - Cherokee Road Subdivision - PUBLIC HEARING] >> I'M NOT THAT BUSY. >> I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE BORED. >> THAT'S AWESOME. ALL RIGHT, SO, BRENTWOOD SUBDIVISION, APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES INTO AN 11 LOT PERFORMANCE SUBDIVISION. ALL RIGHT. SO, YOU REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR TOWNHOMES FOR -- I THINK IT WAS EIGHT UNITS? >> IN DECEMBER? >> YES. I THINK THAT SPLIT VOTE HERE AND BAILED AT THE COUNSEL [00:40:04] OF HER -- COUNCIL LEVEL, SO THEY CAME BACK FOR THAT SUBDIVISION, TWO OF THOSE LOTS WITH OPEN SPACE MAY GO FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. SO, KIND OF LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT IN THAT MEETING IN DECEMBER, THERE IS JUST A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF EASEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO CONNECT TO THE ROAD DOWN BENEATH, BUT NOW THAT CAN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE ARE HOUSES THAT ARE ZONED ON THE OTHER SIDE. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT CAME UP WAS, HOW DOES THIS BECOME DD AGE? SO, THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHO ACTUALLY IS A REASON THIS IS DDH, OWNS LAND ON GAY STREET, THIS IS JUST A PIECE OF PARCEL THAT TOUCHED IT, AND I GUESS THERE IS ANOTHER PIECE THAT IS CURRENTLY NC THAT WAS REZONED FROM DDH. SO, THAT IS THE PIECE THAT ALLOWS ALL OF THIS, SO THERE WAS A LARGER CHUNK OF DDH THAT THEN WOULD HAVE TRANSITIONED INTO NC. BUT, THAT PIECE WAS REZONED AND DISPUTES WAS STUCK AND LEFT, STILL CONTIGUOUS WITH A PIECE AT GAY STREET. BUT, I COULD TALK ABOUT, THEN -- SO, THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF WORK TO DO, THERE ARE EASEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MOVED, RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT NEEDS TO BE VACATED. YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE LINE ON THE PLAT. BUT, WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IS AN 11 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS. SO, THAT WAS KIND OF THE BIG DEBATE AT THE TIME, MUD, TOWNHOMES, VERSUS SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING. SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING WAS POSSIBLE, IT WOULD JUST COME AT THE EXPENSE OF TREES IN THE AREA. >> AND THIS MEETS THE LOT SIZE? >> YEAH, SO, I THINK THERE ARE JUST SOME QUESTIONS AROUND -- SO, THE OTHER THING WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT, WHEN WE HAVE THIS PRE-OP, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO BY NOW, THIS WAS NOT ONE OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER CONTRACT, WHERE THEY ARE WORKING WITH DUE DILIGENCE, WITH A LEVEL OF URGENCY. PROPERTY WAS OWNED, OWNER WAS JUST KIND OF SEEING WHAT WAS POSSIBLE, DIDN'T REALLY HAVE DRUTHERS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. HOWEVER UP OR DOWN, IT DIDN'T REALLY MATTER. SO, THEY ARE KIND OF WORKING THROUGH THIS, AND THAT IS WHY THERE WAS A REQUEST WITH THE VACATIONS AND ALL OF THE THINGS AT ONCE. THEY ARE JUST GOING TO WORK THROUGH THAT AND GET A DIRECTION OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. SO, THIS IS JUST AN OPTION THAT SEEMS MORE PALATABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO -- I WILL GO AHEAD AND -- GO AHEAD. >> I'M SORRY. SO, THERE WERE TOWNHOMES PROPOSED -- I WROTE IT DOWN -- AND NOW, THESE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES? >> CORRECT. YEAH, YEAH. SO, THIS IS JUST THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, TO CREATE THOSE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> YES, THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SUBDIVISION AT CHEROKEE ROAD. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT AT THIS TIME, YOU MAY COME UP AND SPEAK. SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE PP-2025-008, CHEROKEE ROAD SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. [12. Preliminary Plat - Brentwood Subdivision Phase 3 - PUBLIC HEARING] ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> OKAY, SO, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 43 LOT BRENTWOOD SUBDIVISION. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, SO, THE OTHER SIDE OF 85, GOOD OLD CDD, AGAIN. SO, THIS PROPERTY -- HOLD ON. LET ME -- ALL RIGHT. SO, WHEN WE HAD THIS PREAPT, THERE WAS DISCUSSION AROUND WHAT WAS THERE, WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE WAS -- GO TO THE NEXT ONE -- FUTURE LAND USE FOR THIS, IS OBVIOUS. THAT IS KIND OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, BUT, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT USES. SO, ONE OF THE USES IS THEY WANT TO DO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN SOME FORM OR CAPACITY, SO THEY WERE IN BETWEEN M.U.D. AND TOWNHOMES, SO, TOWNHOMES WITH A BINARY OPTION AND THAT REALLY JUST HAD TO COME FORWARD FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. SO, IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THE ACTUAL PLAT? ACTUALLY, I THINK IT IS FORWARD TO THE PLAT. THERE YOU GO. SO, 43 LOTS. THEY WILL ALSO BE DOING A PRIVATE STREET. SO, THAT IS WHY YOU SEE THE CONFIGURATION, AND THE DARK PART IS WHAT THE EASEMENT IS GOING TO BE. AND SO, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT ONE? THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF FLUFF LANES, I GUESS TO THE EAST OF THIS. BUT, THAT IS NOT A PART OF THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT IS MUCH FURTHER, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS. SO -- ALL RIGHT. SO, IF YOU GUYS HAD ANY QUESTIONS? >> SO, REALLY, ALL OF THIS IS JUST ON A PORTION OF -- [00:45:03] >> CORRECT. YEAH, YEAH. SO, WE NORMALLY DON'T CLOSE THE BASE MAP, BUT ON THE BASE MAP, IT SHOWS REALLY WELL. ON THE EAST OF THAT, THERE IS THE CREEK WHERE YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE OUTLINE. EVERYTHING IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CREEK, PRETTY MUCH. LIKE, ON THE RESIDENTIAL. >> OKAY. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. SO, BRENTWOOD SUBDIVISION PHASE THREE, WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK? WE WILL OPEN THE HEARING, NOW. SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE CASE [13. Conditional Use - Grand Junction - PUBLIC HEARING] PP-2025-010 BRENTWOOD PHASE THREE PRELIMINARY PLAT. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. GRAND JUNCTION. THE ACTUAL REQUEST IS RECOMMENDATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL USE, 28 UNIT MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 1027 EAST GLENN AVENUE. ALL RIGHT, SO, THIS IS ANOTHER RETRY. SO, THIS ONE CAME THROUGH A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, NOW. THERE ARE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS TO IT THAT ARE LACKING, NOW. AND SO, WHAT IS DIFFERENT BETWEEN THAT PROPOSAL AND THIS ONE, THERE WAS A BREWERY THAT IS NO LONGER INCLUDED. THEY ALSO REARRANGED THE UNIT STRUCTURE A LITTLE BIT, AS WELL. BUT, THEY ARE STILL TAKING ACCESS OFF OF CHERRY STREET. THAT WAS A BIG DISCUSSION AT THE TIME, AS WELL. I WANT TO SAY, I THINK -- NO, I THINK THAT WAS THE BIGGEST THING. SO, IT WAS JUST THE OMISSION OF THE BREWERY, IT IS GOING TO BE A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, THERE WILL BE SOME OFFICE SPACE AND COMMERCIAL WITHIN IT, BUT THEN THERE WILL ALSO BE IMMEDIATE, AS WELL. AND I THINK I'M -- I THINK THEY MOVED AROUND THE UNITS FROM ONE DESIGNATION TO THE OTHER, BUT THAT WAS ABOUT IT. SO, LARGELY STILL THE SAME. I KNOW THE BREWERY IS WHAT INITIALLY EVERYBODY WAS EXCITED ABOUT, BUT THAT IS NO LONGER IN THIS SECOND RENDITION. SO -- >> EVERYBODY WAS VERY EXCITED. ABOUT THAT. NO COMMENTS, IN PARTICULAR. IT WAS JUST ABOUT THE TOWNHOME STYLE? >> YEAH, PRETTY MUCH, TOWNHOME, M.U.D., JUST MOVING THOSE AROUND. SO, THAT WAS REALLY THE ONLY CHANGE. SAME, SAME, BUT DIFFERENT. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. THIS CONDITIONAL USE DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO, I WILL OPEN THAT, AT THIS TIME. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD? GRAND JUNCTION. SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? >> QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? >> HAS ANY WORK STARTED ON THIS PROJECT, AT ALL? >> I'M SORRY, WHAT DID YOU SAY? >> HAS ANY WORK STARTED ON THIS, BECAUSE I KNOW THE PRELIMINARY EXPIRED? >> NO, NO. >> SO, NO WORK HAS STARTED? OKAY. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE OF CU-2025-007, GRAND JUNCTION. >> SECOND. [14. Conditional Use - Boulevard Phase 8- PUBLIC HEARING] >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, BOULEVARD PHASE EIGHT. ALL RIGHT, SO, THE RECOMMENDATION -- THE ACTION REQUEST WAS RECOMMENDATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL USE, EIGHT UNIT MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AT 324 GIDDENS STREET. THIS IS RIGHT OFF OF HARPER AVENUE. SO, IT IS ZONED MEDIUM DENSITY URBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO, THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE BOULEVARD THAT IS REALLY KIND OF -- DOMINANT IS THE WRONG WORD -- BUT, IT IS THE PROMINENT DEVELOPING OVER THERE, ALONG HARBOR, KIND OF GOING ALL THE WAY UP AND TOUCHING OAKMONT ROAD. ONE OF THE THINGS, THEY RECENTLY CAME THROUGH AND HAD A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, AND THEY WANTED TO INCREASE THE UNIT COUNT. SO, YOU CAN DO LESS UNITS, BUT YOU CANNOT DO MORE UNITS WITHOUT COMING BACK AND GETTING A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. SO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WASN'T -- LET ME JUST GO TO THE NEXT ONE COME TO THE SITE PLAN. NEXT ONE. YEAH, IT WAS JUST KIND OF -- THERE WAS JUST SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING TO BE THE FATE OF GIDDEN STREET, IF IT WAS GOING TO BE THERE, OR NOT. THAT WAS IT. AND THEN, JUST KIND OF GOING THROUGH PARKING AND WHERE THAT WAS GOING TO GO. BUT, PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS JUST KIND OF IN LINE WITH WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. THERE WERE ALSO EXHIBITS OF WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE. IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT ONE? YEAH. SO, LIKE I SAID, THESE ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT -- SO, THE BIGGER PART WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DOWNSIZE FROM SOME OF THE THREE AND FOUR BEDS AND GO [00:50:02] DOWN TO THE ONES AND TWOS. SO -- >> ANY QUESTIONS, RIGHT NOW? OKAY. THIS CONDITIONAL USE ALSO REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THAT, AT THIS TIME. SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE CASE CU-2025-009. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU, ALL. [STAFF COMMUNICATION] DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS? COMMUNICATION? >> NO, I DON'T THINK SO. SO -- SO, I SAY THAT, AND THEN I START TALKING. >> >> SO, ONLY COMMUNICATION, NO NEW COMMUNICATION, JUST NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT WILL BE IN THE AGENDA, IN MAY. BUT, THAT'S REALLY ABOUT IT, SO THAT'S ALL I GOT. AND THEN, I GUESS, JUST A SMALL UPDATE, WE DO HAVE TWO THINGS TRYING TO MOVE THROUGH THE PUD PROCESS. SO -- >> VERY GOOD. >> OKAY. THANK YOU! I NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN, PLEASE? >> MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> ALL THOSE IN FA * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.