[9.a.1. City taxes - 5 mills for general purposes (General Fund). City taxes - 5 mills for capital projects debt repayment (Special Five Mill Tax).]

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? ANY OPPOSED? THE CONSENT AGENDA

CARRIES FORWARD. ORDINANCES? >> BEAR WITH ME, WE HAVE THREE SIMILAR AGENDA ITEMS IN A ROW BUT I HAVE TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THE PACES WITH ALL OF THEM. 9A1 ADVAL ORM PROPERTY TAXES, ADMILLS FOR THE GENERAL PURPOSES AND THE CAPITAL PROJECTS DEBT REPAYMENT KNOWN AS SPECIAL FIVE MILL TAX. COUNCIL MUST ANNUALLY RENEW THE TAX FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO ASSESS PROPERTY TAXES. TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS A RENEWAL OF EXISTING TAXES. THESE ARE NOT NEW TAXES OR TAX INCREASES. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS

NECESSARY. >> I WILL INTRODUCE THE

ORDINANCE AND ASK FOR CONSENT. >> SO MOVED.

>> WE WILL MOVE FORWARD ON THIS THIS EVENING. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> ROW CALL? >> O BALANCE?

[9.a.2. School taxes - 11 mills for educational purposes (Special School Tax Fund).]

>> YES. >> GRISWOLD YES.

>> PARSONS. >> YES.

>> TAYLOR YES. >> WITTEN.

>> YES ADAMS YES. >> ADDING SCHOOL TAXES, 11 MILLS, FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. MUST RENEW THE PROPERTY TAXES TO ASSESS CITY PROPERTY TAXES. THIS IS A RENEWAL OF EXISTING TAXES.

THESE ARE NOT NEW TAX INCREASES. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY.

>> I INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AND ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. DOES ANYONE HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH AN A VOTE ON THIS? HEARING NONE, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS 9A3? WE HAVE MOVED BEYOND THE OTHER ONE. THIS ONE

IS FOR SCHOOL TAX. >> WE ARE ON 9A2?

>> STILL ON 2? ARE WE ON THE 11 MILLS?

>> YES, 11 MILLS. THAT OF COURSE IS NOT A SCHOOL TAX. IT IS THE LARGEST ONE THAT WE WILL DISCUSS TONIGHT, 1.1 CENTS PER DOLLAR OF

-- IT IS SCHOOL TAX. >> IT IS.

>> I'M SORRY. SPECIAL SCHOOL TAX FUND. MY BAD. BUT IT IS THE LARGEST ONE. IT ONLY REPRESENTS A PENNY 1.1 CENTS PROPERTY TAX RECEIVED BY AUBURN. THAT'S WHAT 11 MILLS MEANS.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> ALL RIGHT. ROLL CALL?

>> DAWSON. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> GRISWOLD YES. >> PARSENS.

[9.a.3. School taxes - 5 mills for educational purposes (Special School Tax Fund).]

>> YES. >> TAYLOR.

>> YES. >> WITTEN.

>> YES. >> ADAMS.

>> YES, COBLENTZ. >> YES.

>> ITEM 9A3, A SEPARATE TAX OF 5 MILLS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, KNOWN AS SPECIAL TAX FUND. MUST ANNUALLY RENEW THE TAX. THIS IS RENEWAL OF EXISTING TAX. IT'S NOT NEW TAX AND NOT A TAX

INCREASE. >> I WILL INTRODUCE THE

[00:15:04]

ORDINANCE AND ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> ANY HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH A VOTE? HEARING NONE, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY. ROLL CALL?

>> BRIZ WLD YES. >> PARSONS.

>> YES, TAYLOR. >> YES.

[9.b. Annexation. Mitchell Farms 2 Annexation. Approximately 210.88 acres. Lee Road 146 (Moores Mill Road), approximately 0.5 miles east of Society Hill Road. Planning Commission recommendation. Unanimous consent necessary.]

>> WITTEN. >> YES.

>> ADAMS. >> YES, COBLENTZ.

>> YES. >> DAWSON YES, ANDERS.

>> YES. >> ITEM 9B IS A REQUEST FOR MITCHELL FARMS TO AN EXAPPROXIMATELY 210 ACRES, A HALF MILE EAST OF SOCIETY HILL ROAD. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT MARCH 20 MEETING. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS

NECESSARY. >> I WILL INTRODUCE THE

ORDINANCE AND ASK FOR CONSENT. >> ANYONE ELSE ON THE COUNCIL HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS? ANY COMMENTS OR

QUESTIONS? >> TO CLARIFY, THIS IS WITHIN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARIES? IT IS ON THE EDGE BUT IT IS IN. ONE PARCEL DOWN THREE ROAD 146 WOULD BE OUT.

>> IT IS DESIGNATED AS LOW PRIORITY FOR ANNEXATION?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THE ANNEXATION PRIORITIES. ONE OF THE SHIFTING OPINIONS HAS BEEN FROM THE ORIGINAL ANNEXATION PRIORITIES, THEY ARE MUCH MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF IF A PROPERTY IS VIABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. AT THE TIME THAT THIS, CURRENT ANNEXATION PRIORITY BEING SET, THIS IS AT THE FAR FRINGES OF THE CITY AND STILL IS BUT IT NEVER WAS REALLY CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF UTILITIES NEVER MAKING IT OUT THERE BUT ALSO JUST FROM A SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT NOT REALLY BEING SUITABLE FOR THE WATER SHED. I THINK WHAT THE SHIFT HAS BEEN INTERNALLY, I THINK THE NEW UPDATE AROUND ANNEXATION PRIORITIES WILL REFLECT CONTEMPLATING BRINGING THE BOUNDS OF THE WATER SHED INTO THE CITY LIMITS FOR THE BENEFITS OF HAVING A WATER SHED IN THE CITY LIMITS. SO THAT JUST SPEAKS TO WHY THERE WAS SUPPORT OF THIS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL AND STAFF LEVEL. THANK YOU.

>> THIS WILL COME IN NOT AS RURAL BUT RURAL AND CONSERVATION OVER LOAD? WE WILL HAVE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR EXPLAIN THAT.

YES, AND AS MENTIONED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHEN THE CONSERVATION OVER LAY DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED, THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE ORDINANCES THAT HAPPENED. THE INITIAL ESTABLISHED THE DISTRICT THAT CAN BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE CITY IF SOMEONE REQUESTS IT. THEN THERE IS A CARVE OUT FOR THE LAKE OGLETREE WATER SHED. THERE WAS A SEPARATE ORDINANCE THAT REZONED ALL OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CITY THAT WAS WITHIN THE LAKE OGLETREE WATER SHED INTO THE OVER LAY DISTRICT. THAT SET THE PRECEDENT THAT IF SOMETHING WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY WITHIN THE WATER SHED, IT RECEIVED DESIGNATION OF CONSERVATION OVER

LAY. >> THERE IS A STORIED HISTORY OF THE WATER SHED PRECEDING THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PARTICULARLY IN REGARDS TO THE DAIRY FARM AND OTHER THINGS IN THE WATER SHED. THE CITY HAS BEEN TO PROTECT THE WATER SHED AND THINGS GOING INTO LAKE OGLETREE. THEY CAN'T GET ANY GREATER DENSITY BUT THEY CAN HAVE LOT SIZES AS SMALL AS 1.5 ACRES BUT THEY CAN'T BUILD ANY MORE UNITS. BUT IT WILL ALLOW TO CLUSTER UNITS AND LEAVE MORE OPEN SPACE IN CERTAIN AREAS WHICH IS BETTER FOR THE WATER SHED. THAT IS CORRECT.

>> SO IF WE HAVE 1.5 ACRE LOTS, IT'S NOT AN ACRE AND A HALF FOR THE WHOLE PLACE. I JUST THOUGHT PEOPLE MIGHT WANT TO BE AWARE OF THAT IF THEY SEE AN ACRE AND A HALF LOT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WILL BE MORE DENSITY AS YOU SAID ON THE PROPERTY. CORRECT. AND THERE IS A VARIETY OF SIZES ALSO YES. YOU CAN GO DOWN TO AN ACRE AND A HALF. IT GIVES THAT FLEXIBILITY BUT WITH THE CONSERVATION OVER LAY DISTRICT, THEY ARE SWAPPING OUT THE THE LARGE LOTS FOR A LOT MORE SCRUTINY. THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT CONCEPT PLANS, SIDEWALK WITH WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSION INTERNALLY ABOUT THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOTS, THE ROAD NETWORK, HOW THEY ARE GOING TO LOG THE SITE. A LOT O OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH

[00:20:01]

GETTING APPROVAL. THERE IS A LOT OF SCRUTINY THAT MOST ARE NOT SUBJECT TO. THAT GOES WITH THE CONSERVATION OVER LAY DISTRICT.

THEY ARE GETTING WHAT LOOKS TO BE A SMALLER LOT SIZE, THEY ARE TRADING WITH LOWER SCRUTINY FOR PRIORITY FOR THE SUBDIVISION.

>> DOES THE FUTURE ROUND ABOUT AT SOCIETY HILL IMPACT THE

DEVELOPMENT PLAN? >> WE HAD AN INITIATIVE PLAN. I WILL HAVE SCOTT COMINGS ADDRESS THAT. THERE WAS KRN CONCERN OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. THE ROUND ABOUT IS AT MORESVILLE AND ALREADY ANTICIPATED AND THE CITY COMMITTED THE FUNDS FOR THAT T WHICH THE COUNCIL APPROVED A FEW WEEKS AGO. IN ESSENCE, THAT HAS BEEN ANTICIPATED AND AS PLANNED. THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AT THIS TIME WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THESE LOTS, THAT THEY CAN'T BUILD MORE THAN TEN LOTS IN A YEAR. BY THE TIME THE DELAY OF THE PROJECT ITSELF AND THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE NECESSARY BECAUSE THE ROUND ABOUT SHOULD BE BUILT THE TEN LOTS PER YEAR WAS PREDICATED ON THE ROUND ABOUT NOT BEING FINISHED. ONCE IT IS FINISHED, IT CHANGES THE ABILITY.

>> THERE IS A TIMING PIECE IN THERE TOO, THE ROUND ABOUT OR END OF FISCAL YEAR 26. CORRECT. THAT WAS THE ANTICIPATED TIME OF

GETTING THE ROUND ABOUT BUILT. >> THANK YOU.

>> KELLY? >> THANK YOU. SO IT SAYS WE GOT 48 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 16 CONVENTIONAL FAMILY LOTS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A POTENTIAL OF 64 NEW HOMES. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I GUESS THERE ISN'T A PLAT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BUT THERE IS A SUBSEQUENT PLAT THAT IS WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THAT HASN'T BEEN SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW TO THE CITY.

>> THAT'S JUST WHAT'S IN THE --.

>> THERE IS AN EXISTING PHASE ONE THAT IS SOUTH OF THIS. THERE IS WHAT COULD BE BUILT ON IT CURRENTLY. I KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF WORK, KIND OF. IT IS A MUCH BIGGER PROJECT T THAN THAT.

>> SO IT SAYS THE EXPECTED PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWED 16 CONVENTIONAL AND 48 FAMILIES. SO POTENTIAL OF 64 UNLESS THEY CHANGE SOMETHING DOWN THE ROAD? CORRECT.

>> THERE IS, BECAUSE IT IS IN THE CONSERVATION OVER LAY, THERE WILL BE MORE SCRUTINY, WE ARE NOT DOING THREE ACRE LOTS LIKE WE WOULD NORMALLY DO IN A RURAL ANNEXATION. CORRECT. THEY CAN DO THREE ACRE, CAN'T DO MORE. WHAT CONSERVATION ALLOWS THEM TO DO IS THEY CAN CLUSTER THE DEVELOPMENT DOWN TO 1.5 ACRES AND THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE MORE LAND AND THAT WOULD BE IN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN PERPETUITY THAT CAN NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED. INSTEAD OF THAT IN THE BOUNDARIES OF LOT LINES, IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PEOPLE'S PRIVATE DECISIONS IF THEY WANED TO CUT DOWN TREES, THEY COULD DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS ON THEIR PROPERTY. BY CLUSTERING THE DEVELOPMENT, IT LEAVES LAND THAT WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OR HAS TO BE PUT IN

A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. >> THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY AT THIS TIME. THAT'S JUST AN OPTION IN

THE ORDINANCE. >> WHO PROVIDES THEIR WATER? THAT WOULD BE BOGUARD WATER AUTHORITY.

>> THERE IS NO SEWAGE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA. WE ARE LOOKING AT 64 SEPTIC SYSTEMS WITHIN THE WATER SHED.

>> CORRECT. >> IS THAT A GOOD IDEA?

>> WELL, THERE'S REALLY NO WAY AROUND IT THAT I CAN SEE FROM OUR STANDPOINT. THREE ACRES LOTS IS PLENTY BIG ENOUGH.

>> SO IF IT IS AVERAGING OVER THE WHOLE PROPERTY, IT IS

ULTIMATELY FINE. >> YEAH. FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A LEGAL BASIS TO NOT ALLOW

IT. THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? OKAY. ROLL CALL?

>> PARSONS. >> YES TAYLOR.

>> YES. >> WITTEN.

>> YES. >> ADAMS.

[9.c. Rezoning. Spring Creek Estates. Approximately 1.11 acres from NC-20 to NC-14. Property located at 615 S. College Street. Planning Commission recommendation. Unanimous consent necessary. Public hearing required.]

>> YES. >> COBLENTZ.

>> YES. >> GRISWOLD NO, MA'AM.

>> ANDERS. >> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. ITEM 9C IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 1.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED 615 SOUTH COLLEGE STREET FROM

[00:25:03]

NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION 20 TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION 14.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION FAILED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY A VOTE OF 3-5 # AT MARCH 20 MEETING. UNANIMOUS

CONSENT IS NEEDED. >> I WILL INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AND ASK FOR YOUNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> DOES ANYONE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MOVING FORWARD ON A VOTE? SEEING AND HEARING NONE. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THIS, COME FORWARD. GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU WILL HAVE 5

MIPTS TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL. >> GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS BIANNA LOUISE CITINEA. MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE LIVED AT 550 SOUTH GAZE STREET FOR 41 YEARS. BEFORE I ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT HAND, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR THE WORK AND DEDICATION THAT THEY DO BECAUSE IT IS TIME, IT'S EFFORT FOR THE GREATER GOOD AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT I'M ATTENDING THIS COUNCIL MEETING TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION FOR THE ZONING CHANGE AT 615 SOUTH COLLEGE STREET FROM NC20 TO NC14. THIS DEVELOPER'S PLAN IS TO CREATE A SMALL DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE HOUSES, THREE ON 615 SOUTH COLLEGE, PLUS TWO MORE ON THE LOT JUST NORTH OF T THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE PLAN -- IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS STATED HAS NOT APPROVED MR. HAZE REQUEST. I WOULD URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT FOR AUBURN. NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES MUST BE HEARD AND LISTENED TO. WE DO NOT WANT AS IN THEIR ADVERTISING, GIANT WHITE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DON'T WANT GIANT WHITE HOUSES ON A FLOOD PLANE. WE DON'T WANT GIANT WHITE HOUSES ON RELATIVELY SMALL LOTS NEXT TO BUNGALOWS AND RANCH STYLE HOMES THAT HAVE THE SAME SIZED LOT BUT HAVE LOTS OF WOODED AREA. WE DON'T WANT THE DECIMATION OF LARGE MATURE TREES. WE DON'T WANT SO MUCH CONCRETE ON THE GROUND THAT IT ENDANGERS THE PROPER FLOW OF WATER INTO THE CREEKS. TINKERING WITH NATURE'S DEFENSES WILL BRING MORE PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD TO AUBURN. WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED, SUFFERED CONSIDERABLE DISTRESS WITH NOISE POLLUTION CONNECTED WITH RECENT BUILDINGS. WE CAN'T OUT DOORS WITHOUT HEARING LOUD NOISE OF MACHINERY. POLICE ACCEPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO AUBURN HAPPY EASTER AND HAPPY PASSOVER THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. WHO IS NEXT? >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS COREY REYNOLDS. I RESIDE AT 733 SOUTH COLLEGE STREET. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE TALON HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION KNOWN AS THE GIANT WHITE HOUSES ON SOUTH COLLEGE STREET. SORRY. I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS SOME OPPOSITION OBVIOUSLY TO OUR DEVELOPMENT THAT CAME IN ON SOUTH COLLEGE. AND I RECOGNIZE THAT FULLY. HOWEVER I FEEL OUR LITTLE CUL-DE-SAC DID ENHANCE THE BEAUTY AND PRESERVE THE DENSITY OF THE HOME SITES ON SOUTH COLLEGE. WE HAVE SIX HOME SITES ON 5.2 ACRES OF LAND ON SOUTH COLLEGE. THAT IS IN CONTRAST TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, PUTTING 3 HOMES ON 1.1 ACRES AND ADDITIONAL TWO LOTS ON ABOUT 0.9 ACRE LOT. THERE IS DECREPANCIES BETWEEN OUR DEVELOPMENT AND THIS OTHER DEVELOPMENT BEING LOOKED AT. ON AVERAGE THE HOMES ON SOUTH COLLEGE AVERAGE HALF ACRE TOAN ACRE FOR EACH HOME SITE. SO A DEPARTURE FOR SO MANY HOMES ON SMALL DENSITY, A DEPARTURE FROM THE APPEARANCE DOWN SOUTH COLLEGE STREET. THERE IS TALK OF

[00:30:01]

ADJACENT ZONING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BEING THERE IS NC14 ADJACENT TO THE LOT. THAT ADJACENT LOT IS ON THE BACK SIDE OF THIS LOT. IT IS NOT ONLY NORTH OF COLLEGE BUT ON THE BACK SIDE. THAT BACK SIDE IS MEADOW BROOK. THAT IS A SMALL STREET OFF OF GADE STREET. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO DRIVE DOWN MEADOW BROOK ARE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON MEADOW BROOK. IT IS NOT A MAIN THOROUGH FARE LIKE COLLEGE STREET. AS THE NAME IMPLIES, THE SPRING CREEK ESTATES THERE IS A CREEK THAT RUNS THROUGH THE PROPERTY. IT IS THE LOW POINT OF THE HILL, IF YOU ARE DRIVING DOWN SOUTH COLLEGE, IT'S AT THE LOW POINT OF THE HILL. WATER COMES FROM ARBORETUM AND IS PIPED THROUGH SOUTH COLLEGE AND FLOWS THROUGH THE FLOD PLANE. IT RUNS DOWN THE NORTH SIDE AND SOUTH SIDE AND DUMPS THERE. THERE IS A LOT OF WATER TO BE MANAGED THERE. THE REMOVAL OF MOST OF THE CURRENT VEGETATION IN THE AREA TO DEVELOP THE LOT IS GOING TO REMOVE WHAT DRAWS MUCH OF THAT WATER. IT WILL AFFECT PEOPLE DOWN THE CREEK.

REMOVING THE VEGETATION, MORE WATER WILL FLOW THROUGH AND NOT BE SOAKED UP BY THE TREE AND OTHER VEGETATION THAT IS THERE.

THERE WAS ANOTHER LOT ON SOUTH COLLEGE STREET THAT WAS FOR SALE. DEVELOPERS WERE LOOKING TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY. IT WAS JUST NORTH OF THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER. I KNOW SEVERAL DEVELOPERS THAT WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW TO SUBDIVIDE THAT LOT, PUT TWO HOMES WHERE THERE WAS ONE LITTLE RANCH. THE UNIVERSITY STEPPED IN AND BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE FOR DEVELOPMENT BUT IT SEIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE UNIVERSITY WANTS TO DO WITH THE LOT BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT IT SUBDIVIDED. THERE WILL BE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS ON SOUTH COLLEGE. THERE ARE MANY OLDER HOMES. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER GENERATION OF HOME OWNERS.

OPENING THE DOOR TO REZONING OPENS THE DOOR FOR FUTURE REQUESTS FOR REZONING. THE CITY SHOULD LOOK AT PRESERVING THE MINIMUM HALF ACRE LOTS. IT'S THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE FOR VISITORS AND PEOPLE COMING DOWN AUBURN, COMING DOWN SOUTH COLLEGE. WE WANT TO PRESERVE THE SPACE. THAT IS MY THOUGHTS TO SHARE OUR CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON SOUTH COLLEGE.

>> THANK YOU. WHO IS NEXT? >> HI. MAY MY NAME IS CHARLIE O CURRY, 802 SOUTH GADE STREET. GOOD EVENING. A LOT OF WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING IS WHAT I WANTED TO SAY TOO. THE REZONING ON 615 SOUTH COLLEGE STREET, I URGE THE COUNCIL TO VOTE AGAINST THIS BECAUSE OF THE IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE IT WILL CAUSE TO NATURE AND WILDLIFE IN THE AREA. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA WHICH HAVE LED TO WILDLIFE GETTING PUSHED CLOSER TO THE ROADS AND STREETS AND HOMES PUSHED OUT. IN MY HOME, I SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN THE CREEK LOOKING AROUND AND I HAVE NOTICED THAT THERE ARE MORE FALLEN TREES BECAUSE OF THE GROUND GETS IMPERVIOUS WHEN THERE IS ASPHALT AND CONCRETE.

THAT WILL INCREASE RUN OFF INTO THE CREEK. WE ARE SEEING THAT AND A BUILD UP OF TRASH AND JUST OVERALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS THAT I HAVE SEEN THAT HAVE GOTTEN INTO THE CREEK DUE TO AN INCREASE IN RUN OFF. ON TOP OF THAT, THERE'S SOUND POLLUTION AND LIGHT POLLUTION HAVE BEEN INCREASED IN MY BACKYARD AND THE BACKYARDS OF OTHERS. NOW INSTEAD OF GOING OUT AT NIGHT AND SEEING THE STARS AND LISTEN TO THE SOUND OF NATURE, YOU CAN HEAR THE BACKGROUND OF COLLEGE STREET AND SEE THE LIGHTS OF THE HIGHWAY AS THE CARS DRIVE BY. I THINK THAT TAKES AWAY A LOT OF AUBURN AND HOW IT BALANCES BEING A TOWN AND HAVING THIS WONDERFUL BIT OF NATURE WITHIN IT. I THINK THAT IN THE WORRIES OF PRESERVING THE CREEK AND THE WILDLIFE AROUND, I THINK IT BE VOTED AGAINST THIS AND ANY FUTURE THINGS THAT COULD PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. WHO WILL BE NEXT?

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M PAUL SHACHLS, I LIVE THAT 563 SOUTH COLLEGE STREET. MY WIFE AND I RESIDE THERE FOR OVER 23 YEARS.

I WOULD TO FIRST REMIND YOU AND I'M GLAD THAT IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

WELL, SOME OF THE REASONS AND WE HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A REASON. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SUPPOSED TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENTS THAT COME UP THAT ARE -- THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT THEM AND THEN APPROVE OR DENY THEM. WHEN THEY CONSIDER

[00:35:06]

ALL OF THE INDICATORS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, THEY DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DENY IT. THERE ARE SOME LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THEY HAD. A LOT OF THEM HAD TO DO WITH COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY AND SAFETY. 50% OF THIS AREA THEY WOULD LIKE TO DIVIDE IS IN A FLOOD PLANE. THERE IS A PERENNIAL STREAM THAT RUNS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO REQUIRE A WAIVER OF A WATER RESOURCE PLAN TO GET APPROVAL FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE STREAM SIDE MANAGEMENT ZONE, PLUS FOR THE STREAM SIDE ZONE TO BE MANAGED FOREVER BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE BANKS OF THE STREAM AS IT RUNS THROUGH DEVELOPMENT. THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT HAVING TO DO WETLANDS MITIGATION. WHAT THAT MEANS IS IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT, THEY ARE GOING TO DESTROY PART OF THE WETLANDS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE STREAM. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, THEY HAVE TO DIVIDE ON TWO ACRES TO ONE ACRE, THEY HAVE TO GO OUT SOMEWHERE ELSE AND REMEDIATE WETLANDS THAT WILL BE IN WETLANDS IN PERPETUITY FOR WHATEVER WETLANDS THEY DESTROY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT. MY QUESTION IS HOW CLOSE IS THIS WETLAND REMEDIATION GOING TO BE TO SOUTH COLLEGE STREET? IS IT GOING TO BE WAY OUF IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT? WE DON'T KNOW. ONE MORE COMMENT. THE OTHER THING THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IS PUTTING THREE HOUSES ON 1.1 ACRE. SO THEY ARE GOING TO DWIGHT THIS INTO THREE LOTS. PUT THREE HOUSES ON IT. THOSE THREE HOUSES, PLUS AN EXISTING LOT WILL ALL USE A COMMON DRIVEWAY. MY QUESTION IS HOW MANY DEVELOPMENTS IN AUBURN HAVE FOUR HOUSES USING A COMMON DRIVEWAY? I'M TALKING ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES IN NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS? THERE PROBABLY ARE NONE. CAN YOU IMAGINE FOUR HOUSES TRYING TO COME OUT OF ONE DRIVEWAY BETWEEN 7:30 AND 8:15 IN THE MORNING WITH EVERYONE TRYING TO GO TO WORK AND TRYING TO GET BACK INTO THE SAME DRIVEWAY AT 4:45 TO 5:15 WHEN THEY ALL COME HOME FROM WORK? THOSE ARE THINGS WE NEED TO CONSIDER. MOST OF WHAT I HAD IS ALREADY COVERED. SO I WON'T COVER THOSE AGAIN BUT IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS COMMENT. IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE PROPOSAL IS GOING TO REQUIRE VARIANCES AND EXCEPTIONS IN WATER RESOURCE PLAN AND IN SAFETY PLAN WITH MULTIPLE HOUSES ON ONE DRIVEWAY.

MY QUESTION IS WHY OPEN THE CITY UP TO HARMFUL UNINTENDED WATER RESOURCE, TRAFFIC CONGESTION CONSEQUENCES, ALL TO JUST APPROVE A DEVELOPER'S DESIRE TO CREATE EXTRA LOTS CLOSE TO THE CITY? JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN MEET THIS CHANGE TECHNICALLY DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A GOOD IDEA. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CITY'S COMP 2030 PLAN, IT STRESSES THE IMPORTANCE OF SOUTH COLLEGE STREET BEING THE GATEWAY INTO THE CITY. DO WE WANT TO COME ON SOUTH COLLEGE STREET, TWO BLOCKS FROM CAMPUS AND HAVE FIVE HOUSES LOCATED ON LESS THAN TWO ACRES OF LAND WITH FOUR OF THEM SHARING ONE DRIVEWAY? I WOULD SUBJECT AND RECOMMEND THAT THAT CITY COUNCIL

TURN THIS PROPOSAL DOWN. . >> THANK YOU. WHO WILL BE NEXT?

>> GOOD EVENING RGS COUNCIL. MY NAME IS HAZEIFERED, WITH SANFORD GROUP. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS TODAY.

>> OKAY. ONCE WE GET THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF THE COUNCIL

HAS ANY QUESTIONS. >> MAYOR, I WOULD CAUTION IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION, YOU DON'T GET OPPORTUNITY -- STOP THE CLOCK HERE. TO OFFER INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU FEEL THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO KNOW, THEY WILL ASK YOU QUESTIONS ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSES. BUT IF YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, SAY IT NOW. YOU HAVE ABOUT 4:30

TO DO SO. . >> PERFECT. SO THERE ARE A FEW

[00:40:02]

THINGS I WANTED TO CLEAR UP. REGARDING THE FLOOD PLANE AND STREAM BROUGHT UP, THE CITY HAS MECHANISMS IN PLACE TO PROTECT THESE THINGS AND WE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THOSE PROCESSES, NO T MATTER WHAT WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT TO ABIDE BY CITY REQUIREMENTS. THE DEVELOPER HAS NO INTENT OF COMING IN AND MITIGATING ANY WETLANDS OR STREAMS ON THE PROPERTY T. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT T THE FLOOD PLANE AND HOW THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED ON THE SITE, DUE TO THE NATURE HOW IT SITS AND THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE FLOOD PLANE. IT HAS AN ODD SHAPE DUE TO WHERE THE STREAM HITS. A LOT OF THE REZONING WILL UH-UH LOW US TO MAINTAIN THE DENSITY CONSISTENT WITH THE NC14 AREA BUT DUE TO THE ODD SHAPE OF THE LOTS AROUND THE FEATURES TO MAINTAIN THE STREAM, THIS REZONING WOULD AID IN REDEVELOPING THE PROPERTY.

ANOTHER THIPG IS BY RIGHT, WE BELIEVE WE COULD GET FOUR LOTS, UP TO FIVE LOTS. THAT WOULD DRIVE DOWN MASSIVE WHITE HOUSES IF YOU WILL DOWN TO A MORE -- THEY WILL STILL BE LARGE HOUSES BUT MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS TYPICAL IN NC20 OR NC14.

>> THAUPG THANK YOU. WE WILL LET YOU KNOW IF WOE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL?

>> I'D LIKE TO HAVE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ADDRESS VARIOUS FLOOD PLANE AND CREEK CONCERNS.

>> OKAY. WHAT WE CAN DO IS WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THERE ARE ASPECTS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SOMETIMES UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL JURISDICTION. SO ERIC CAN CLARIFY OR SCOTT OR BRANDY MAY WEIGH IN BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TO DATE ON PLANS. GO AHEAD. IT WILL PROBABLY BE A 25 FOOT STREAM SIDE BUFFER AND 10 FOOT BUFFER OR MAYBE MORE. THERE ARE WETLANDS ON SITE. WITHOUT SEEING A PLAN OR MITIGATION PLAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE CAN'T COMMENT ON WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT OR WHAT WE MIGHT ACCEPT. THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES THERE AS MENTIONED. WITHOUT A PLAN, IT IS JUST GOING

TOHAVE TO WAIT AND SEE. >> I WILL REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE NOT CONSIDERING A SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION. YOU ARE PURELY CONSIDERING REZONING. SO QUESTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT ONE OF OUR CHALLENGES ON THE STAFF SIDE THAT WITHOUT A SITE PLAN, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU WETLANDS, FLOOD PLANE, STREAM BUFFER RELATED, WE HAVE STRINGENT REGULATIONS AS THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO AND AS THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE SAID THEY WILL HAVE TO COMPLY, WHETHER IT IS REZONED O OR NOT. THEY WILL HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THET CRITERIA.

>> WHEN A DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO MITIGATE WETLANDS OR FLOOD PLANES, THOSE CREDITS, DO WE DECIDE WHERE THOSE CREDITS

ARE USED OR BANKED? >> NO, YOU ARE BUYING CREDITS FROM A WETLAND BANK OR STREAM BANK ON A FLOOD PLANE SITE. YOU BUY THEM, THE CITY HAS TO BUY THEM AS TIMES AS WELL TO DEAL WITH BRIDGE PROJECTS, ONE OF OUR MOST FREQUENT. YOU ARE BUYING THEM FROM THE NEAREST BANK THAT HAS AVAILABLE CREDITS IN A REGION. THE ONLY TIME YOU GET TO DESIGNATE IS WHEN THE CITY OR ANOTHER ENTITY WILL CREATE THEIR OWN BANK FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE.

WE DON'T HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DEMAND WHICH BANK SOMEONE GOES TO BECAUSE THE CREDITS AREN'T ISSUED THROUGH THE CITY. THEY COME BASED ON OTHER REGULATORY AUTHORITIES.

>> THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE SAID BY RIGHT THEY COULD BUILD FOUR HOUSES. COULD YOU CONFIRM THAT? I WILL HAVE THE PLANE DIRECTOR SPEAK TO THAT. I WILL REMIND YOU, WE HAVE NOT SEEN FULL PLANS. ON THE NC14 THAT EXISTS TODAY AND NC20 THAT EXISTS TODAY THAT COULD HAPPEN. YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING, DRIVEWAY YET TO BE

DISCUSSED, CORRECT. >> IN THEORY.

>> CORRECT. YOU HAVE TO MEET A LOT OF REGULATIONS WHICH THEY MAY BE WORKING ON BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION AT THE TIME. BUT IN THEORY, THEY FIT AND MEET CRITERIA IN A ROUGH

LOOK AT IT. >> SO COMBINED, LIKE THEY ARE

[00:45:04]

GETTING AT, THE LOT 16 IS BIG ENOUGH THAT THEY COULD SUBDIVIDE IT. AND THEY COULD PUT TWO MORE HOUSES ON IT. SAME THING WITH

603. TWO MORE OR TWO PERIOD? >> THEY CAN DO TWO. BECAUSE

THERE IS ONE TODAY. >> SO BY RIGHT THEY CAN DO FOUR HOUSES. REZONING WOULD ALLOW THEM TO GET TO FIVE LIKE THEY

STATED. >> OKAY. MR. REYNOLDS SPOKE OF THE TALENT SUBDIVISION. WAS THERE ANY REZONING O OF THAT

PROPERTY? >> THERE WAS NOT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIALLY DENIED THE PLAT WHICH THE COURTS REDIRECTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION KINDLY BECAUSE IT MET OUR CRITERIA AND THE PLAT WAS APPROVED. THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT CUTTING A NEW ROAD AND SITE DISTANCE ON COLLEGE STREET. THE STUDY ADDRESSED THAT SITE DISTANCE WAS ADEQUATE FOR THE SPEEDS AND TIMING OF THE ROAD. THAT WAS APPROVED. ALSO REMIND YOU THAT ZONING HAS BEEN THIS WAY SINCE 1984. I CAN'T GO BACK AND FIND WHY THIS WAS THE DIVIDING LINE BUT THE CREEK WOULD BE A NORMAL REASON WHY IT SHIFTED. LOT SIZES WERE SET IN GROUPINGS AT THE TIME, 14 MEANS 14,000 SQUARE FOOT MINNM. THEY TOOK GROUPINGS OF HOUSING, LOOKED AT THE SMALLEST LOT OF THE NC GROUPING, MADE THAT THE BOTTOM NUMBER. SO THINGS MUST HAVE SHIFTED OVER THE CREEK TO LARGER LOT SIZES. BUT FROM 1984, I CAN'T TELL YOU ANYTHING OTHER THAN AS WE HAVE SEEN CITY WIDE, IT WAS LIKELY

THE CREEK WAS THE DIVIDING LINE. >> THERE IS ANOTHER LOT ON SOUTH COLLEGE. I DON'T KNOW THE ADDRESS. I KNOW THE FRENCH FAMILY THAT USED TO LIVE THERE. IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOUSE HAS BEEN TORN DOWN. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE SOUGHT REZONING FOR THAT LOT. DO WE KNOW WHAT THEY WILL DO WITH THAT LOT? ANY PLANS

PRESENTED? >> I WOULD NEED AN ADDRESS.

>> WE DON'T. ONLY THING UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 615 TO SOUTH

COLLEGE FROM NC20 TO NC14. >> MAY I ASK ONE MORE ON THE WATER SHED ISSUE, WHAT TYPICAL AGENCIES WEIGH IN ON THE WATER

SHED OR FLOOD PLANE ISSUES? >> ERIC, OR SCOTT OR BRANDY?

>> I'LL TAKE IT THEN. ANYTHING RELATED TO THE STREAM AND MITIGATION OF STREAMS AND WETLANDS WOULD BE THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. FEMA WOULD ADDRESS ANYTHING RELATED TO FLOOD PLANE, ANY MITIGATION THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO RELATED TO THAT. ADE M DEALS WITH WHEN YOU ARE EXPOSING X AMOUNT O OF DIRT WHEN YOU PUT STORM PERMITTING THROUGH. BASED ON THESE SIZES

HERE, IT DEPENDS. >> BOTH OF THOSE WOULD REQUIRE ONE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT'S INPUT OR ANOTHER. I WILL SAY WE SEE THIS CITY WIDE, NOT JUST HERE. IT IS COMMON FOR PEOPLE TO DEAL

WITH ALL OF THESE AGENCIES. >> I WATCHED WITH GREAT INTEREST THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DELIBERATION ON THIS PROPOSAL. I THOUGHT THEY HANDLED IT APPROPRIATELY GIVEN THE KIND OF CAVALCADE OF PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL. THE DRIVEWAY ISSUE, THE FLOOD PLANE. AND FOR MY TASTE, AND I THINK THE SPIRIT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE, THE APPROACH INTO THE CITY, I REMEMBER IT VIVIDLY WHEN I FIRST MOVED HERE IN 1998, THE ASTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT THAT DENSITY AND THOSE STRUCTURES CLUSTERED TOGETHER REPRESENT THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT ALL. SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS PROPOSAL.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> I BELIEVE SOUTH COLLEGE IS SPECIAL. THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT STIMULATED DENSITY BY CHANGING ZONING ON SOUTH COLLEGE. I DON'T THINK THAT IS -- I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE RIGHT THING FOR US TO DO. I DO BELIEVE THE BUILDER WOULD PUT A NICE PRODUCT THERE BUT I BELIEVE STIMULATING DENSITY ON SOUTH COLLEGE WOULD NOT BE PRODUCTIVE

[00:50:03]

FOR OUR FUTURE AND I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. I DO WANT, THE RESIDENTS TO UNDERSTAND, THAT BY RIGHT, THEY CAN BUILD FOUR HOUSES ON THOSE TWO LOTS. AND THERE IS NOT ANYTHING THIS BODY CAN DO ABOUT STOPPING THAT UNLESS THERE IS SOME DEVELOPMENT ISSUES THAT COME UP AND CHALLENGE THEIR ABILITY TO BUILD. I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES WE HAVE THE POWER TOSTOP IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO STOP A REDEVELOPMENT OF TWO HOUSES ON EACH OF THOSE LOTS. AM I CORRECT

BY SAYING THAT? >> IT WOULD BE A SUBDIVISION MATTER AND THE SUBDIVISION STATE LAW INDICATE PLANNING COMMISSIONS REVIEWING WHETHER THEY MEET THE CRITERIA SET BEFORE IN THE SUBDIVISION AND NOTHING MORE. PLANNING COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO APPROVE IF THEY MEET CRITERIA.

AS LONG AS THEY MEET CRITERIA IN SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT ADOPT SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THE

PLANINGS COMMISSION DOES. >> SO BOTH LOTS, 603 CL IS IN NC14 IS CURRENTLY 29,000 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN 615, NC20, IS 48,000 SQUARE FEET. SO THAT IS DOUBLE NC20. SO TO THE POINT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER DOES HAVE SOLE JURISDICTION OVER SUBDIVISIONS AND PREPRELIMINARY PLATS RGS THIS WOULD NOT BE THE THRESHOLD TO MAKE IT TO PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS WOULD BE HANDLED INTERNALLY. IT WOULD ONLY BE AN ADMINPLAT AND FOUR, WE WOULD HAVE DISCUSSIONS INTERNALLY ON WHETHER THEY HAVE APPROVAL FROM FEMA AND ALL THAT. THIS WOULD BE AN ADMINPLAT. IT WOULD NOT GO BACK TO PLANNING. BY THE NUMBER OF LOTS, IT MEETS

THAT CRITERIA. . >> ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER

COMMENTS. >> I'M CONFUSED. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO LOTS BUT ALL OF WHAT WE HAVE IN THE PACKET IS A SINGLE LOT THERE IS AN ADJACENT LOT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK THAT IS NC14. AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM MADE THE POINT THAT THEY HAVE CONTROL OF ANOTHER LOT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK. THAT'S WHY YOU ARE GETTING A DISCUSSION OF FOUR HOUSES PERMITTED BY RIGHT. THE REZONING IS 615, WHICH IS NC20.

>> THAT'S WHERE THIS HOME THAT IS ON THE MAPS IS.

>> CORRECT. THAT'S THE MAP. THE DEVELOPMENT IN TOTALITY WOULD BE 603 AND 615. 603 IS CURRENTLY NC14 AND DOES NOT NEED TO BE

REZONED. >> THE OTHER ONE IS ALREADY

NC14? >> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL MEMBER MOREMAN, DID

YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> I THINK SO. THIS ONLY GOES DOWN TO ABOUT WOODFIELD IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IN THIS VICINITY, IT MIGHT. SUNNY SLOPE AND OTHERS TO CLOVER

LEAF IT EXTENDS FURTHER. >> ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.

>> YEAH, N.C. CARRIES THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> WELL, JUST TO COMPARE IT TO NORTH COLLEGE, WE DON'T HAVE THE ISSUE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY, THE ISSUE OF CLUSTERED HOMES BECAUSE IT IS PROTECTED BY HISTORICAL PRESERVATION

GUIDELINES. >> WELL, LET ME --.

>> PART OF IT. >> WHAT IS PROTECTED IN THE THICK OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT JUST NORTH OF BRYANT AVENUE AND MITCH M. ONE CHALLENGE IS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER SUBDIVIDING. THEY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER NEW STRUCTURES BEING BUILT OR REPLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES BUT NOTHING WOULD KEEP SOMEBODY FROM SUBDIVIDING. A LOT OF THAT IS ZONED 8 WHICH IS 8,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUMS. IT IS A DIFFERENT

NUANCE THERE. >> WELL, I HOPE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. THAT'S NOT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE NORTH OF TOWN NOR SOUTH OF TOWN. I JUST WANTED TO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE WAY THEY LOOK. I THINK THAT FLAVOR OF AUBURN GOING NORTH, GOING SOUTH, IS SACRED. IT'S NOT SACK ROSANCT BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO US. I WOULD REMIND THE CITIZENS AND COUNCIL ABOUT THE PERSONALITY OF AUBURN. THAT IS PART OF IT.

>> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. ROLL CALL? >> PARSONS.

[10.a.1. Boulevard Phase 8. Performance residential use (multiple unit development). Property located at the terminus of Gidden Street.]

>> GRISWOLD NO. >> GORMAN.

>> NO. >> ANDERS?

>> NO. >> THAT MOTION FAILS. ARE YOU

READY FOR RESOLUTIONS? >> PLEASE.

>> ITEM 10A ONE IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERFORMANCE OF

[00:55:04]

EIGHT UNITS TO BE LOCATED AT GIDDEN STREET IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AT THE APRIL 10 MOTING. A PUBLIC

HEARING IS REQUIRED. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL, COME FORWARD AND GIVE US THE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU HAVE 5 MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL. SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE? ANY

[10.a.2. Grand Junction. Performance residential use (multiple unit development). Property located at 1027 E. Glenn Avenue.]

OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. >> 10A2 IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL USE MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 28 UNITS AT 1027 EAST GLENN AVENUE IN THE CORRIDOR EAST DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. GRAND JUNCTION AND KNOWN AS EAST GLENN MIXED USE. THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AT APRIL 10 MEETING. PUBLIC HEARING IS

REQUIRED. MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL, COME FORWARD TO DWIFB US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE 5

MINUTES TO SPEAK. >> GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING.

>> BRIAN STONE WITH BCC STONE HOMES, 687 NORTH. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU ON THIS. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS PROJECT GOT AWAY FROM ME ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND IT FOUND ITS WAY BACK TO ME. WE ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD TO IT. THE CONDITIONAL USE EXPIRED. I WANTED TO GIVE SOME, SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. IT IS SIMILAR IN SCOPE TO WHAT I PRESENTED TO YOU A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. THE PLAYERS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. WE HAVE 28 TOWN HOMES IN THE BACK WHICH IS WHAT THE CONDITIONAL USE IS ABOUT, NOTHING HAS CHANGED THERE. THE TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN THE FRONT UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A BREWERY. I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL BE DISAPPOINTED. WE DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT IT. BCC STONE HOMES WILL OCCUPY THE TOP STORY. WE WILL BE THERE PERMANENTLY. THERE WILL BE A TENANT SPACE BELOW US IN THE EAST BUILDING WHERE WE HAVE YET TO SECURE A TENT. THE WEST BUILDING AND PATIO AREA WILL BE CAR VELA'S RESTAURANT. THEY WILL DO THEIR SIXTH LOCATION IN AUBURN, ALABAMA. WE ARE READY TO GET STARTED AS SOON AS WE GET APPROVED. WE HAVE PLANS PENDING DRT. I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ANYONE MAY HAVE. ONCE WE CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, IF WE NEED TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS, WE WILL CALL YOU BACK UP. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL? OKAY. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY COMMENTS OR

[10.b. Tax abatement. 2a USA, Inc. 2410 W. Tech Lane.]

QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR AAYE? ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. 10B AUTHORIZES A TAX ABASEMENT FOR INCORPORATED AT 2410 FOR PURCHASE OF NEW EQUIPMENT. THE COMPANY PLANS TO INVEST $2.7 MILLION AND ACCEPTS HIRING FOUR NEW EMPLOYEES MOVE FOR APPROVAL SECOND ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR INDUSTRIES EXPANDING IN THE COMMUNITY. THANKFUL THEY WANT TO GROW THE BUSINESS HERE. THANK YOU TO OUR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TEAM FOR THEIR WORK.

ALL RIGHT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION

[10.c. Vacation. Sanitary Sewer Easement/Drainage and Utility Easement. GAAL OWNER, LLC. The Graduate Hotel. Property located at 212 W. Magnolia Ave. Public hearing required.]

CARRIES. >> ITEM 10C, THE SEWER AND PUBLIC UTILITIESEMENT AT 212 WEST MAGNOLIA AND AUTHORIZES THE MARIN CITY MANAGER TO EXCUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED RELINQUISHING

THE PROPERTY. >> MOVE FOR PROVAL. SECOND.

>> THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL, COME FORWARD WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE 5 MINUTES.

[10.d. CompPlan 2030. 5-year updates. Text changes for every chapter. Future Land Use Plan Amendments. Public hearing recommended. Postponed from January 23, 2025.]

>> THE MOTION CARRIES . >> THE LAST AGENDA ITEM IS AUTHORIZING TEXT AMENDMENTS AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGES TO PLAN 2030 AS PART OF A FIBER-OPTIC, THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS UPDATE AT HIS NOVEMBER 14TH MEETING AT THE CITY COUNCIL INITIALLY POSTPONE CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST IN THE DECEMBER 17TH MEETING, AND POSTPONE IT TO JANUARY 21ST . WE HAD AN ICE AND

[01:00:02]

SNOWSTORM THAT CAUSED US TO MOVE IT TO GENERATE 23RD . DURING THE MEETING, COUNCILPERSON PARSONS MADE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM SECONDED THE MOTION, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN AND CLOSED THAT EVENING. AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, COUNCILPERSON PARSONS MOVED TO AMEND THE ITEMS TO REMOVE CHANGES 5 AND 6, WHERE PRO TEM SECONDED THE MOTION AND ALL MEMBERS VOTED YES, COUNCILPERSON DAWSON MOVED TO POSTPONE THE ITEM TO THE MEETING THIS EVENING . COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING THE APPROVAL OF THE COMP PLAN 2030 UPDATE AS AMENDED BY THE REMOVAL OF GROWTH STAGES 5 AND 6 ON THE PUBLIC HEARING IS RECOMMENDED

BUT NOT REQUIRED. >> MOVED FOR APPROVAL . YOU ARE ALREADY GOOD. IT IS ON THE TABLE YOU ARE GOOD . I WOULD LIKE TO

REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING. >> OKAY .

>> OKAY WITH THAT? >> YES.

>> WE ARE OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING , IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE COME WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK. SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ?

OR AMENDMENTS? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND CHANGE 7, LEAVE ALL PARCELS PROPOSED, INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL OFFICE PARK COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL. THE TIMING IS NOT RIGHT. THERE IS SOME EXISTING RESIDENCE IN THE VICINITY OF THE PARCELS PROPOSED COULD BE CHANGED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL AND REEVALUATED IN THE FUTURE. I WOULD LIKE TO

THANK OUR STAFF . >> SECOND . A MOTION AND A SECOND. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL REGARDING THIS MOTION? DO WE TAKE A VOICE VOTE OR ROLL CALL ?

>> YOU HAVE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU THAT COUNCILMAN DAWSON ASK I SHARE AND I CAN PUT MAPS ON THE SCREEN IF YOU WOULD LIKE

TO RUN THROUGH THOSE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND

AND WILL BE -- >> THIS IS ANOTHER AMENDMENT.