May 08, 2025 Planning Commission

[ROLL CALL]

[00:00:04]

>> SO EXCITED TO SHARE SOME OF OUR --

>> COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER . PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> YOU WHO HAVE NOT ATTENDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BEFORE. I WILL GO OVER A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF OUR PROCESS. FIRST, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS PRESENTED WITH AN AGENDA FROM STAFF, THE APPLICANT FOR EACH ITEM WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE REQUEST AND ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. SOME ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. DURING A PUBLIC HEARING, ANYONE IS WELCOME TO SPEAK FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES WITH RESPECT TO THE AGENDA ITEM AT HAND WE SERVE ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS OF AUBURN AND WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS BUT IF YOU CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS GERMANE TO THE ITEM IT HAD A PLEASE RUMOR TO SIGN IN ON THE TABLE NEXT TO THE PODIUM. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL DELIBERATE ON EACH AGENDA ITEM BASED ON LOCAL LAWS, THE CITY OF AUBURN COPY OF THE PLAN AND FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY. I WILL NOT OPEN UP -- THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM NOT BE FOR US TONIGHT ON THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO COME SPEAK AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE, I WANT TO CLOSE THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION PORTION OF OUR

[CONSENT AGENDA ]

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR

[3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - PUBLIC HEARING ]

>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS ZONE ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT , RECOGNITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A NUMBER OF CONDITIONAL USES IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT PICK PRETTY MUCH LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT ON MONDAY, THIS IS GOING TO RESULT OF -- THE PROJECTS WE HAVE SEEN. SOME PEOPLE , WITH THE EVOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPEARANCE, NUMBER OF ROOFTOPS AND SOME OF OUR , SOME OF THE PERIPHERY OF TOWN AND SOME OF THAT MAJOR INTERCEPTIONS , PEOPLE HAVE STARTED TO ENTERTAIN DO A COMMERCIAL USES AND SOME OF THESE AREAS AND WHEN WE HAD OUR PUD DESIGN GROUP DISCUSSION WITH A LOT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SURPRISED STAFF WAS THAT DESIRE FOR THEM TO DO SMALL FOOT RENT COMMERCIAL BEAUTIES IN SOME OF THESE PLACES. THAT IT MADE SENSE AND WITH IT BEING A PUD, NOT BEING ANYTHING LIKE A GAS STATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT SOMETHING THAT'S MORE NONTRADITIONAL AND CREATIVE THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ROOFTOPS SINCE COMMERCIAL USES ARE LARGELY NOT ALLOWED IN RURAL. AND SO THAT IS WHAT THE CHANGES REPRESENT. I WILL GO OVER THEM HERE. I PROVIDED THE NEW USED TABLE WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN, AND SO THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE ALL IN COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT. I WILL GO OVER IT , BUT THE FOLLOWING USES ARE PROPOSED TO BE CONDITIONAL USES IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT PICK THE SPORTING GROUPS STORE, RESTAURANT, SPECIALTY FOOD STORES, ALL OTHERS CONSTRICTED TO CONFINED TO COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT SECTIONS. EVEN THOUGH SAYS ALL OTHERS, IT'S NOT ALL OTHER USES. JUST ALL OF THE USES THAT WOULD FALL UNDER COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT.

THAT'S LIMITED, AND THEN COMMUNITY REC CENTER, IT'S INDOOR RECREATIONAL , THEN CONVENIENCE STORE, SMALL GROCERY, LESS THAN 3000 SQUARE FEET, NO FUEL, AND MOBILE VENDOR FOOD COURT. THAT'S FOOD TRUCKS, ESSENTIALLY. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO LOCATE AND SOME OF THESE PLACES AS WELL. ALL OF THESE THINGS WOULD BE CONDITIONAL USES AND I KNOW SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE GOT WERE WHAT KIND OF CONDITIONS? AND HOW WOULD WE KIND OF MAKE DISTINCTIONS AND DECIDE , WHICH ONCE IS IT MAKE SENSE? I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY LARGELY WITH THE DISCUSSION , WHAT WE ARE OPEN TO. WE TALK ABOUT THAT WITH YOU GUYS. HAVE SOME OF THOSE THOUGHTS AND WANTED TO REFINE THIS MORE. I THINK THIS WAS THE SECOND STAB AT ADDING SOME OF THESE ON THE CONDITIONAL LEVEL AND THEN LIKE I SAID, A REMINDER THAT THESE

[00:05:01]

>> SO, IS THE INTENT BEHIND THE ZONING AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THESE USES CONDITIONALLY, BUT ALSO MAINTAIN THE RURAL CHARACTER OF

THE DISTRICT? >> YES. THIS WOULDN'T BE AN ATTEMPT TO HAVE STRIP MALLS OR ANYTHING. LIKE I SAID, I THINK VERY CONTEXTUALLY APPROPRIATE USES. LIKE MAYBE LIKE A THEMED RESTAURANT ALMOST. TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS , THINGS THAT MADE SENSE. MAYBE MORE THE NODES OR PLACES WHERE THIS WAS A DESTINATION OF A USE OF WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO. LIKE I SAID, WE WERE JUST GETTING A LOT MORE REQUESTS FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN , AND INSTEAD OF CHASING DOWN COMPLEX TDD'S OR COMPLEX BEAUTIES, IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO ALLOW CONDITIONAL

USES IN THIS REGARD. >> WERE THERE ANY THOUGHTS SO FAR IN TERMS OF WHAT SORT OF INFRASTRUCTURE HAS TO BE IN

PLACE TO HAVE ONE OF THESE ? >> WE DID HAVE A CONVERSATION AROUND WHAT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD BE NEEDED, BUT I THINK THE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN THESE PLACES WOULD BE THE SELF LIMITING FACTOR. I THINK IF YOU WERE ASKING FOR A MAJOR UPGRADE AND EXTENSION OF ANY SORT, THAT WOULD BE DISQUALIFIED. THAT PERSON'S QUESTION OF WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO LOCATE IF THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO, YOU SHOULD LOOK AT SOMEONE ELSE. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS I ALLUDED TO ON MONDAY WAS THE DEVELOPMENT CENTER'S STAFF WOULD EVENTUALLY PRESCRIBED THEMSELVES. WE RAN THROUGH THEM AND WE THINK THIS MAKES SENSE. WOULD PROBABLY WORK THROUGH ON A PROJECT LEVEL AND THEN IF WE NEEDED TO CODIFY IT WOULD BECOME A TREND BUT ON THE OUTSET, IT WAS SOMETHING WE WANTED TO HANDLE IN A

CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I CAN OPEN IT NOW. ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WHO

WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> 1650 -- POINT. I THINK THE COMMERCIAL USES , THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES ARE SORELY NEEDED. I CAN CALL OUT TO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS WHERE THIS WOULD BE NEEDED . THE ONE THAT JUMPS TO MIND IS LAZY BE ON SOCIETY HE'LL . YOU HAVE EXISTING COMMERCIAL USES THEIR AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY BUILDING STORAGE OUT THERE BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T BUILD ANYTHING ELSE IF YOU BROUGHT IT INTO THE CITY.

YOU WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO DO THREE LOT -- THREE ACRE LOT RESIDENTIAL. THAT MAJOR INTERSECTION. SO, THERE IS PLACES FOR THIS THAT ARE SORELY NEEDED AROUND , ESPECIALLY IN THE LATEST UPDATE. THERE HASN'T BEEN MUCH MOVEMENT ON THIS RURAL ZONING . YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THERE IS PLACES ON THE PERIPHERAL THAT THE CITY IS LOSING OUT ON , VIABLE COMMERCIAL AREAS. MOST OF THESE USES ARE CONVENIENCE TYPES USES.

WE ARE NOT TRYING TO BUILD GROCERY SHOPPING CENTERS. WE ARE TRYING TO FIND DAY TO DAY STUFF WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE TO CLOG UP THINGS TO GET YOU. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY POSITIVE. THEY ARE CONDITIONAL SO YOU ALL ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF OVERSIGHT OVER THEM AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE IS GOING TO LIMIT WHETHER THESE MAKE SENSE OR NOT.

THESE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE SEPTIC AND THE CITY WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IS USUALLY NOT THERE. SOME OF THESE OTHER ONES.

WATER IS PROBABLY -- SEPTIC IS PROBABLY WHAT YOU ARE GOING WITH. THERE IS TECHNOLOGY AND PLAY SECOND ALLEVIATE AND DEAL WITH A LOT OF THOSE ISSUES. IN SUPPORT OF IT. THANK YOU VERY

MUCH. >> THANK YOU. WHO WILL BE NEXT? SEEING NINE, WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . ANYMORE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS?

>> YES. I JUST AM A LITTLE UNEASY BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE WANTING. WHY DID WE LIMITED TO THESE ? I KNOW YOU JUST SAID THAT THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR.

THESE ARE SPECIFIC THINGS, BUT WHY NOT SOME OTHERS THAT ARE IN COMMERCIAL? NOT JUST COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT?

>> I THINK, FROM -- . THERE WASN'T A DESIRE TO THROW AWAY THE ROLE ZONE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IF A WHOLESALE CHANGE RULE WOULD ALMOST -- WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST REZONE IT? BUT I THINK , THIS IS MUCH MORE FROM A PROJECT BY PROJECT, CONTEXTUAL

[00:10:06]

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT IN THE NOTES ON THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES. WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS, WHAT IS THE IDEA OF THE RURAL CHARACTER OUT IN THE OUTER BOUNDARIES? WHERE WE DO HAVE A LOT OF RULE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS NOW THAT PEOPLE WANT TO DO THINGS WITH THEIR PROPERTY OUT THERE, BUT CANNOT , OR HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO SO. AND THEY MAY WANT TO DO COMMERCIAL, SO , OR SOMETHING THAT WE CONSIDER TO BE COMMERCIAL THAT FALLS UNDER THAT. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS , AND WHAT I DON'T HAVE A CLEAR VIEW ON IS, WHAT IS IT THAT WE ACTUALLY WANT

OUT THERE? >> IS THERE SOMETHING ON HERE

THAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST ? >> WE TALK ABOUT A CONVENIENCE STORE , BUT LESS THAN 3000 SQUARE FOOT . WHY NOT SOMETHING

A LITTLE LARGER? >> BECAUSE THEN I THINK WE GET INTO ALMOST THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER SCALE , AND THEN LIKE I SAID, THAT WOULD ALMOST WARRANT, ZONE CHANGE ENTIRELY.

AND I GUESS IF WE DO WANT TO LOOK AT, I THINK ANNETTE NEXT COMP STUFF, WHEN WE DO THAT ZONE REWRITE OF IDENTIFY, MAYBE WE JUST WANT HIGH INTENSITY USES AT ALL OF OUR NODES AND SCALE DOWN FOR SOME OF THE RURAL STUFF. IT'S A CONVERSATION THAT IS WORTH BEING HAD BUT ADDING TO GET TO THAT BIG OF A CHANGE WOULD MAKE SENSE TO KIND OF TAKEN INCREMENTAL APPROACH OF SEEING WHAT THE MARKET COULD HANDLE AND WHAT DEVELOPERS HAD AN APPETITE FOR IN THESE AREAS. IF THE ROOT TOPS IN SOME OF THESE PLACES COULD SUPPORT IT, INSTEAD OF GOING WHOLESALE, NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER WITH ALL ITS LIMITATIONS AND THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED WITH IT, BUT I THINK, IF WE WERE GOING TO ALL OF A SUDDEN PUT AT THE LAZY BE INTERSECTION, 100 PARKING SPACES, ABOUT 70,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAT PEOPLE WOULD PUSH

BACK ON. >> I'M NOT THINKING OF THAT AREA. I'M THINKING ABOUT THE RURAL AREA THAT SURROUNDS 280.

>> WELL I GUESS --. A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT IS UP THERE, THAT DOES HAVE A DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE 280 CORRIDOR AND LOOKING AT THAT. THAT HAS THE INCLUSION OF 280 HAS A MUCH MORE , MUCH LARGER CAPACITY FOR COMMERCIAL USES, COMMERCIAL INTENSITY AND THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. I WOULD SAY THAT'S ACROSS 280 MIGHT BE A BETTER EXAMPLE BUT I THINK EVERYTHING THAT ABUTS 280, AND EVEN FROM INFRASTRUCTURE STANDPOINT CAN HANDLE A LOT MORE. THAT'S WHY

WE ARE GETTING ALMOST 80 UNITS. >> THEY WOULD ASK FOR REZONE,

NOT SAY --. >> YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.

SIMILAR TO THE FARMVILLE AND 280 TOWNHOMES WITH THE COMMERCIAL USES, THE INTERSECTION OF THERE. THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY INTENSE USAGE BUT THAT MAKES SENSE. THAT IS RIGHT ONTO 80 AND ALSO WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THAT IS.

>> WE ALSO HAVE UTILITIES TOO. WATER AND SEWER IN ADDITION TO THE ROAD NETWORKS TO SUPPORTED. THOSE AREAS THAT DO NOT HAVE

THAT. >> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOUTH,

LIKE LAZY BE. >> OR NORTH NEAR YOU.

>> I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE FIRST STEP TOWARDS ADDRESSING AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, AND IF WE SEE ADDITIONAL USES NEED TO BE ADDED, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO US, BUT I THINK THIS WHAT KIND OF AT LEAST OPEN UP THE DOOR A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS A PERFECT DEVELOPMENT IN THESE

AREAS. >> LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE GOTTEN A SLEW OF REQUESTS TO HAVE PEOPLE SELLING FARM PRODUCE, GROWN FARM PRODUCE, SELLING FARM PRODUCE BUT ALSO JUST HAVING THE STANDALONE PLACES WHERE THEY CAN SELL FARM PRODUCE ON THEIR

[00:15:02]

OTHER THINGS. >> SOMEONE WITH A 10 ACRE LOT IS NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PUT PROCESS TO SELL WATERMELONS.

>> NO. >> I HAVE -- FIRST OF ALL I THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA. IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. BUT MY CONCERN IS A LITTLE MORE OF THE, HOW DO YOU ADMINISTER IT? WHAT ARE THE THINGS --. HOW DO WE MAKE THE DECISION ON WHAT MAKES SENSE? WE CAN DO HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE.

THAT'S KIND OF A NO-BRAINER. WE CAN SAY, THE NIGHT BECAUSE THERE'S ISSUES THERE OR THERE IS NO PROBLEM, BUT THEN WHAT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDINGS WE TALKED ABOUT. IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE THERE? THERE'S ALL THESE LITTLE CONSIDERATIONS THAT I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, AND I DON'T WANT IT TO BE WILLY-NILLY IN MAKING DECISIONS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT NEEDS TO HAVE SOME STRUCTURE .

>> YEAH. WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS DEVELOPING STANDARDS AND DESIGN STANDARDS. IT'S SIMILAR TO SECTION 429 WHERE WE'VE GOT THE CORRIDOR STANDARDS. MAYBE WE CAN PUT A CORRIDOR FIREMAN ON THIS PICK WE HAVE TO REFINE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE. I THINK IF YOU WANT TO DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK AT , MAYBE THIS ALONG CERTAIN THOROUGHFARES, MAYBE NODES, WE ARE HAPPY TO REFINE IT.

>> THIS IS NOT EXACTLY THE SAME BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ANNEXING. WE PRIORITIZE THINGS. I THINK THIS NEEDS THAT SAME

KIND OF --. >> YEAH. RIGHT NOW , FOR EVERYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE AND FOR PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAVE CERTAIN USES THAT MUST LOCATE ALONG CERTAIN ROADS AND ROAD INTENSITY, SO HOTELS HAVE TO LOCATE ALONG ARTERIALS PERIOD.

THEY HAVE TO. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE CAN THINK ABOUT AND WE CAN POSSIBLY ADD THE STIPULATION THAT THEY HAVE TO LOCATE ALONG COLLECTORS OR ARTERIALS. WE CAN LOOK THROUGH AND SEE WHAT MAKES SENSE. WHAT DENSITIES WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE AT NODES AND CROSS-SECTIONS LIKE THE LAZY BE. AND WHEN YOU GET WAY OUT IN THE OUTBACK, THEN I'M NOT SURE, HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT CALL?

INFRASTRUCTURE? >> YEAH , I DON'T REALLY WANT TO GET INTO TRAFFIC COUNTS AND ALL THE STUFF BUT I'M HAPPY TO REFINE IT A LITTLE FURTHER AND LOOK AT IF WE WANT TO DO ARTERIALS OR COLLECTORS OR GO NODES OR MAJOR INTERSECTIONS OF COLLECTORS OR MAYBE JUST WATERED-DOWN VERSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTERS PRETTY MUCH. NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTERS OPERATE WITHIN THE SAME THING WHERE THEY NEED TO BE IN CERTAIN PLACES AND YOU CAN JUST THROW THEM PLACES. WE CAN THINK ABOUT IT THROUGH THAT AND COME BACK WITH THE REFINED VERSION THAT HAS A LITTLE MORE STIPULATION. THAT WAS ALSO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WAS RAISED FROM LEADERSHIP LEVEL OF OPENING UP BROADLY TO CONDITIONAL USE. ENTER YOU CAN'T SAY NO TO CONDITIONAL USE WHAT YOU NEED TO HAVE LIKE IT WAS THE CONDITIONS.

>> I FEEL LIKE I'M GOING IN BLIND SOMETIMES WITH THE WAY

THIS IS COMING ACROSS. >> THAT'S MY FEELING EXACTLY. I HAVE PASSED ALONG RURAL ROADS WHERE THERE IS A BEER JOINT , JUST PUT IN AN OLD HOUSE OR SOMETHING. AND THEY ARE ON SEPTIC. THEY HAVE WELL WATER AND THEY SERVE BEER . SO, I MEAN I KNOW WE DON'T WANT THAT, AND WE CAN SAY NO , BUT THE PROBLEM IS, I THINK WE NEED TO CONFINE THEM RIGHT NOW UNTIL WE KIND OF KNOW AND BUILD IT UP TO THE NODES AND MAJOR CORE DOORS.

>> WE CAN -- WE CAN REFINE IT A LITTLE MORE AND I THINK THAT'S MORE STIPULATION TO IT THAT WAY, WE WILL HAVE A MAP ASSOCIATED TO CONFINE WHERE THEY CAN GO BECAUSE I DO GET -- RIGHT NOW AS IT IS WRITTEN, IF THERE'S A RULE LOT ANYWHERE THAT IT COULD GO THERE, LIKE EVEN WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NEXT TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

>> YEAH. >> IS THIS WORTH US WANTING TO

GET SOME -- . >> YES.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.

[00:20:01]

>> SECOND. >> DATE CERTAIN.

>> NEXT MONTH? >> JUNE 12TH .

>> JUNE 12TH IS FINE. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL AGAINST? MOTION

CARRIES. >> SO, I DARE REVISE . APPROVAL

[4. Preliminary Plat - ADARE (Revised)- PUBLIC HEARING ]

THIS ISN'T A FACTOR THIS MASSIVE LOT, BUT THE MINIMUM FOR CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION IS 10 ACRES. SO, THIS IS ABOUT 200 OR SO. WITH THIS, INITIALLY THIS CAME IN AS THREE ACRE LOTS.

WHICH, BY RIGHT IN THE RULES ZONING DISTRICT, SINCE THIS IS IN THE WATERSHED, THEY OPTED FOR THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION, WHICH ENABLES THEM TO GO DOWN TO 1.5 ACRE LOTS. IT DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO INCREASE DENSITY IN ANY WAY. THEY CAN GO DOWN TO 1.5 ACRE LOTS AND YOU HAVE TO DESIGNATE PERMANENT CONSERVATION ENOUGH ACREAGE TO OFFSET , TO OFFSET THE AMOUNT OF LAND YOU ARE GOING TO DEVELOP MY PRETTY MUCH. THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. SO, THAT'S THE BIG CHANGE. THERE IS AN INCREASE IN LOT, SO OF THE 53 RESIDENTIAL LOTS , 13 ARE CONVENTIONAL AND THEN THERE ARE 40 LOTS OR DESIGNATED CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT IN GREEN. THE LARGER LOTS IN WHITE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE NORTH OF THREE ACRES, BUT ALL OF THESE ARE STILL UNDER THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGNATION. AND SO THEN, THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AS WELL AND FOR EVERYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE, THERE'S TWO TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S THE HORIZONTAL DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT LOTS, BROADWATER, AND THEN THERE'S THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COMING WHERE THE BUILDINGS GO UP, AND SO THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PUT ON THE VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS WITH, IT CAN ONLY GET SO MANY CEOS BEFORE THE ROUNDABOUT AT SOCIETY HILL .

WITH OF THE ANNEXATION, I KNOW THAT'S A CONDITION YOU WANTED AS WELL. STAFF DECIDED THAT WITH THE CURRENT DEVELOPER AGREEMENT IN PLACE, AN ADDITIONAL ONE WAS NOT NEEDED BECAUSE THE CURRENT ELEMENT AGREEMENT STILL BINDS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THAT NUMBER, THAT RESTRICTION OF CEOS ON A YEARLY BASIS, AND THEN JUST FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, THESE WILL BE CUSTOM HOMES. THE TIMELINE OF THESE HOMES BEING BUILT ABOUT 18 36 MONTHS , NOT SOMETHING WORTH -- 45 HOMES A YEAR. THEY WILL NEVER EXCEED THE POTENTIAL LIMIT. THAT LIMIT IS UNTIL 2026 WHEN THE ROUNDABOUT GOES IN ON SOCIETY HILL AND MOORE'S ROAD. AND ALSO, THIS IS COUPLED WITH THE FINAL PLAT THAT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS . SINCE THIS WAS SUBMITTED ROUGHLY A YEAR AGO ,

[00:25:05]

>> PLATZ DO REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND SIGN IN .

>> WHICH ORGANIZATION APPROVES THE ENGINEERING PLAN WITHIN THE

CITY GOVERNMENT? >> I WANT TO SAY, PUBLIC HEARINGS AREN'T Q&A SESSIONS, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN ANSWER THEM DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS AT THE END.

>> NEED TO HAVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

APPEAR IN THE MICROPHONE. >> TIM HAMILTON, 600 EAST

TEMPERED AVENUE. >> ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NONE, I WILL NOW CLOSE

THE PUBLIC HEARING . >> SO, WE DID GET SOME COMMENTS OUTSIDE OF THIS. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVES AND REVIEWS . WEB DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IS MADE ABOVE PLANNING, ENGINEERING, INSPECTION SERVICES, FIRE, WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LOOKING AT THE PLANTS JUST FROM -- I GUESS DIFFERENT ANGLES AND THINGS -- DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU ARE LOOKING AT FOUR ENGINEERING PLANS? AS FAR AS ROADS AND ET

CETERA? >> WE LOOK AT ALL OF THAT STUFF AND YOU ARE RIGHT, THAT THE RT PROCESS INVOLVES ALMOST ALL DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY, SO FOR SUBSTANTIAL PROJECT LIKE THIS, WE PRODUCE A LIST OF COMMENTS THAT'S TYPICALLY MULTI PAGES LONG. BUT WE LOOK AT EVERY ASPECT OF IT , TO BE HONEST.

CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS INVOLVE KIND OF WHAT YOU SEE HERE.

HERE'S SECOND ABOUT THE HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION. YOU ARE LOOKING AT ROADS, WATER, SEWER, STORMWATER. TRAFFIC ITEMS, TRAFFIC STUDY AND REVIEWED AS PART OF THAT PROCESS AS WELL.

DRAINAGE ANALYSIS, FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS, ALL OF THAT STUFF.

>> THAT'S ALL ACCESSIBLE. WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN AND VISITS YOU, THEY CAN LOOK AT IT IF THEY WANT TO, RIGHT?

>> THE PLANS THEMSELVES? YEAH. WE HAVE A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST PROCESS IF SOMEBODY WAS IN A REQUEST FOR THAT, YES.

>> SO, ANSWERING THAT, MOVING ONTO THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN, THERE HAS BEEN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WHO REACHED OUT ABOUT INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THEIR NOTCH OF LAND THAT THEY OWN, WEST OF THE CREEK BEING THE STOP CORNER. I DON'T HAVE -- .

IT'S GOING TO -- THE LOT OUTSIDE OF THE PLAT NORTH OF 17 . BUT THEY HAVE BEEN REQUESTING, THEY WANT ACCESS PROVIDED EITHER THROUGH THE PROPERTY OR THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE LANDLOCKED.

THEY MENTIONED THEY HAVE PROVIDED ACCESS, TALKING TO LEGAL COUNSEL. THEY HAVE POINTED OUT THIS IS REALLY A PRIVATE MATTER THAT THE DEVELOPER AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER NEEDS TO WORK OUT. AND SO, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT, KIND OF ADDRESSING THEIR COMMENT. I KNOW IN THE BEGINNING WE HAD A LOT OF OUTCRY, BUT IT'S REALLY DIED DOWN. I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT WE HAVE GOTTEN, ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AND THAT IS A MATTER BETWEEN PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER AND DEVELOPER.

>> ANYMORE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM? ANY

EMOTIONS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE PP 2025-002.

WITH CONDITIONS. YES. >> SECOND.

>> A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED, ALL IN FAVOR

SAY AYE. MOTION CARRIES. >> ALL RIGHT, THIS IS THE FINAL

[5. Final Plat - ADARE ]

STAFF. >> THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A

[00:30:04]

>> MOVED TO APPROVE CASE FB 2025 -016 WITH CONDITIONS.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

[6. Preliminary Plat - Parker Creek Townhomes - PUBLIC HEARING ]

>> THIS REQUEST IS FOR ELEMENTARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 31 LOT PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION SPECIFICALLY 30 TOWNHOMES AND ONE OPEN-SPACE LOT. IT IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF EAST LONGLEAF DRIVE BETWEEN WHERE THAT WALMART IS LOCATED AND THE TOWNHOMES THAT ARE DIRECTLY TO THE EAST. IT'S IN THE CDD ZONING DISTRICT AND IT IS SURROUNDED ON THE NORTH SOUTH AND EAST BY CDD IN THIS SCD TO THE WEST. IN THIS PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT, WITH CDD, THAT ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF NINE POINT FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF THIS SECTION OF DEVELOPMENT IS APPROXIMATELY 6.28 ACRES . WITH THE 30 TOWNHOMES, THAT PUTS IT AT A DENSITY OF 4.77 DWELLING UNITS AND ACRES. IT'S WELL BELOW . THE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED FOR THIS , IN THIS ZONE FOR A PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT IS 25% AND CURRENTLY 2.27 ACRES SIT AS OPEN SPACE, SO THAT IS 36% AND THAT'S ABOVE REQUIRED AS WELL. THIS PLAT HAS GOTTEN ENGINEERING APPROVAL THROUGH THE D.A.R.T. PROCESS AND IT HAS COME THROUGH BEFORE . IT MAY LOOK FAMILIAR TO SOME OF YOU. IT GOT PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL IN THE PAST BUT IT HAS SINCE EXPIRED, SO SINCE IT DID GET ENGINEERING PLAN APPROVAL, IT IS COMING THROUGH FOR BOTH PRELIMINARY AND FINAL. IT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY THE FINAL PLAT WHICH IS THE SAME PLAT WITH THE SAME EXACT CONFERENCE OF.

>> THANK YOU. THIS ITEM DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW. IF ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. SEEING NONE, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE

COMMISSIONERS? ANY EMOTIONS? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE

PRELIMINARY PLAT PP 2025 -018. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE FINAL PLAT FOR PARKER

[7. Final Plat - Parker Creek Townhomes ]

>> MOVED TO APPROVE FP 2025-015 .

>> SECOND >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

[8. Preliminary Plat - Longleaf Crossing Phase 9 - PUBLIC HEARING ]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS REQUEST IS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 853 LOT PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TOWNHOMES ON THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF LOGAN COURT IN THE COLLEGE CROSSING PDD. THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT IS CDD AND IS I MENTIONED IT IS IN THE COLLEGE CROSSING PDD. THIS IS THE LAST PHASE , SECTION E OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE REQUEST IS FOR 53 TOWNHOMES ON APPROXIMATELY 7.17 ACRES OF LAND . THAT PROPERTY IS PART OF A LARGER LOT OF 60 ACRES. THE REQUIREMENT FOR PER PHASE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND THEY ARE PROVIDING 7.25 DWELLING UNITS AND ACRE, 15% OPEN SPACES IS ALSO REQUIRED HER PHASE AND THEY ARE PROVIDING 15% LOCATED RIGHT HERE. AND THE REST OF THE LOTS ARE TOWNHOUSES. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> COULD YOU SHOW ME WHERE THE ACCESS IS ON THIS LOT? I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING IF THERE IS TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT WAYS OF GETTING IN AND OUT OF THERE.

>> CURRENTLY THERE IS ONE. >> SO IF YOU GO BACK , MAYBE

[00:35:05]

>> THERE IS. SECTION B HAS 770 UNITS .

>> I WANT TO GET AN IDEA OF --.

>> HERE IS THE MASTER DEVELOPER AND PLAN THAT WAS REVISED EARLIER THIS YEAR , I BELIEVE. AND, DOWN THE WAY IS THIS ROAD HERE AND THAT'S WHAT LONGLEAF THERE. DOWNS WAY WILL EVENTUALLY

LEAD INTO WEST VETERANS >> AS A BUILDER TO THE WEST --.

>> YES THERE IS AN EXTENSION TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY , HOWEVER THAT HAS BEEN REVISED TO GO -- I'M GOING THE WRONG WAY.

TO GO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. INSTEAD OF DOWN HERE.

>> BUT THEY WILL STILL BE --. >> YES, THERE WILL BE.

>> OKAY. YOU ARE RIGHT. THAT WAS THE ONLY CONCERN I HAD.

>> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK ON THIS MATTER, YOU MAY DO SO NOW. SEEING NONE, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR MOTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE CASE PP 2025-015 .

>> SECOND >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

[9. Preliminary Plat - West Tech Park Annex II, Phase C - PUBLIC HEARING ]

>> THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR THE WEST TECH PARK ANNEX II PHASE C . IT'S A COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION TOTALING FIVE LOTS THAT IT CONTAINS FOR THOSE INDUSTRIAL AND ONE IS A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOT. IS LOCATED SOUTH OF BEEHIVE ROAD AND EAST OF BILTMORE. AS YOU CAN SEE HER ON THE PROXIMITY MAP, I BELIEVE IT TOTALS APPROXIMATELY 251 ACRES AND IT'S LOCATED IN INDUSTRIAL AND PRETTY HEAVILY INDUSTRIAL AREA. THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS FOR SOME REASON NOT HEAR. BUT IT IS ALSO INDUSTRIAL, SO IT FOLLOWS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLANNED FOR THIS AREA. THAT IS A FUTURE LAND USE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN LAST MONTH AT CITY COUNCIL AND WAS APPROVED IN OUR COMP PLAN UPDATES, SO IT IS STILL PRETTY FRESH BUT IT DOES FOLLOW WHAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED. WITHIN THE PREVIOUS FINAL PLAT THAT CAME THROUGH, JUST EARLIER IN THIS MEETING, LOT ONE WAS CARVED OUT.

YOU CAN SEE IT GRAYED OUT RIGHT HERE, BUT IT IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION AS WELL AS THE THREE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL LOTS UP HERE AND THE REST OF THE PROPERTY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

TYPICALLY, THIS WOULD GO AS ADMINISTRATIVE PLAT. IT IS UNDER SIX LOTS BUT THE EXTENSION OF ANNEX STREET PROPOSED ANNEX STREET IS CONNECTING TO BEEHIVE ROAD AND ONCE THIS COMES BACK FOR FINAL PLAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE DEDICATED TO PRELIMINARY . IT NEEDS ALL OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND PLANS. I CAN

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >> ARE THERE ANY TENANTS LINED UP FOR THIS PROPERTY YET? OR IS THIS BUILDING OUT THE

INFRASTRUCTURE TO ATTRACT ? >> THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION THAT KEVIN CAN ANSWER FOR YOU. I ALSO WILL MENTION I GOT SOME CORRESPONDENCE FROM ONE NEIGHBOR. IT REALLY WAS JUST QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC FLOWS ALONG BILTMORE AND BEEHIVE ONCE THESE EVENTUALLY DO GET BUILT OUT, AND THEN CONCERNS ABOUT BUFFERS, OTHERS 75 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN , AND I KNOW IT LOOKS THIN BUT THIS IS A BIG PROPERTY. BUT BETWEEN THOSE COMMERCIAL LOTS AND THE CANNON LANE, RESIDENTIAL AREA THERE IS A 75 FOOT BUFFER AND 100 FOOT SETBACK . PRETTY SIGNIFICANT.

>> KEVIN CAN ANSWER ABOUT ANY TENANTS

>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO SPECIFIC TENANT AT THIS TIME BUT YOU WILL CERTAINLY IN THE FUTURE BE SEEING SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTS FOR THOSE TENANTS

[00:40:01]

>> THANK YOU. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK ON THIS MATTER YOU MAY DO SO NOW. SEEING NONE, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE A MOTION OR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM THE

COMMISSION? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE PP

2025-017 . >> SECOND

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED . ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

MOTION CARRIES . >> THIS IS ME. GIVE ME A SECOND REALLY QUICK. WRIGHTS MILL ROAD REZONING. ACTION REQUEST IS

[10. Rezoning - Wrights Mill Road - PUBLIC HEARING ]

THAT CAME IN RIGHT AROUND THE START, THAT RESOUND AND A SIMILAR DENSITY. ALL KIND OF WITHIN THAT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. I GUESS ALSO, JUST PERTAINING TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHEN ANYTHING GOES FROM -- IS REZONE FROM RURAL TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND DD H SPECIFICALLY, A DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED. AND SO THAT'S WHY THAT IS CONDITIONED THAT NEEDS TO BE WORKED ON AND FIGURED OUT PRIOR TO GOING TO COUNSEL. THE REZONING -- WHEN WE HAD THE PRE-OP, THE SEWER WASN'T SOMETHING WHERE IT WAS ACCESSIBLE AND TYPOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGES. IT'S PRETTY ACCESSIBLE BUT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE FIGURED OUT WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THAT'S REALLY IT. SO, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE IS ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, YOU MAY DO SO NOW.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT -- CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT REZONING IT DD H VERSUS LTD. IT HAD TO DO WITH

THE SIZE OF THE HOMES? >> LIKE I SAID, WHAT THEY WERE GOING FOR, MAX DENSITY IF YOU WERE TO REZONE THIS AND DO PERFORMANCE , IN THEORY YOU COULD GET $55 UNITS. BUT BY THE TIME YOU BILL IT OUT, BUT WATER AND SEWER, CARVED THAT UP , YOU ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET THAT MANY UNITS. SO, WHAT THEY WERE ANGLING FOR, HOW BIG OF LOTS THEY COULD BUILD, WHAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO BUILD 28 TO 3500 SQUARE FOOT HOMES , IS THE TARGET THAT THEY ARE GOING FOR. AND THEN ONCE THEY WERE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT ALL OF THE BUILDABLE LOTS, FROM THE SETBACKS, ISR FA ARE ROADS, ONCE AGAIN ACCOUNTING FOR WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS GOING TO GO, THEY WEREN'T SURE THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH LOTS FOR THIS TO ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE. AND SO IF ANYBODY WAS WONDERING WHAT CIVIL ENGINEERS DO, THAT'S THE PROCESS THEY ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. SO, THAT -- WITH THE GEOMETRY OF THIS SITE, THEY ARE NOT SURE THERE IS GOING TO BE ENOUGH LOTS TO MAKE IT MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO BUILD BIG ENOUGH LOTS FOR THEM TO BUILD THE SIZE OF HOMES THEY ARE TRYING TO BUILD. THAT'S THE

[00:45:01]

WILL SEE IT. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. THANKS.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE CASE RZ 2025-004.

>> SECOND >> MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

[11. Rezoning - Beehive Road Rezoning - PUBLIC HEARING ]

>> THIS REQUEST IS OF REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 15.5 ACRES FROM RURAL TO INDUSTRIAL . IT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BEEHIVE ROAD AND BILTMORE LANE . IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED RURAL AND WANTS TO BE INDUSTRIAL. IT ALSO FOLLOWS A LOT OF THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND CHANGING IT TO INDUSTRIAL .

THE FUTURE LAND USE LIKE I MENTIONED, THIS LOT WAS PART OF THE CHANGES THAT WENT LAST MONTH, SAME AS THE ELEMENTARY PLAT YOU JUST THOUGHT. HOWEVER THIS ONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL USE TO INDUSTRIAL USE . SINCE IT HAS CHANGED, IT DOES FOLLOW WHAT THE REZONING REQUEST IS ASKING FOR. BUFFER YARDS AND ALL OF THAT WOULD BE DETERMINED WITH A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST AND EVERYTHING IN INDUSTRIAL REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT BUFFER YARDS CAN OR WOULD BE AT THIS TIME FOR ANY NEIGHBORS BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME BEFORE YOU ALL IN THE FUTURE WHEN THIS IS PLANNED TO BE DEVELOPED AND HAS A SITE PLAN. I CAN ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.

>> THAT'S HOW THEY GOT THE 75 FOOT BUFFER AND 100 FOOT SETBACK ? IT WAS PART OF A AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND OWNERS?

>> I'M NOT SURE. >> WHEN THE CONDITIONAL USE COMES TO US, THEY WILL HAVE MADE , SOMEONE WILL HAVE THOUGHT

THROUGH THAT >> WHOEVER IS DEVELOPING WOULD NEED TO BE COMMUNICATING WITH THE RESIDENCES AND THEY PROBABLY WOULD REACH OUT TO THE RESIDENCES TO FILL IT OUT BUT WE WOULD REQUIRE ANYTHING UNTIL WE SEE IT. THE REQUIREMENT MAY BE LESS THAN WHAT IS AGREED UPON IN THE FUTURE.

>> I CAN SAY IT'S THE INTENT WHEN THE CONDITIONAL USE COMES FORWARD AND WE SHARED THAT WITH THE PROSPECTIVE USER AT THIS PROPERTY AS WELL. THE INTENT IS TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL BUFFERING ON THAT'S OUTSIDE. THEY ARE VERY OPEN TO THAT. THE LIKELY USE IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE A TYPICAL MANUFACTURING USE THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

IT WILL DEFINITELY BE LOWER INTENSITY USE BUT WE DO PLAN TO HAVE SOME SORT OF BUFFER ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS ARE. >> THANKS.

>> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING NOW. IF THERE IS ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO COME SPEAK TO THIS, YOU MAY DO SO AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS

FROM THE COMMISSION? >> MOVED TO APPROVE RZ 2025-005.

>> SECOND >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED , ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

>> SORRY, VERTICALLY CHALLENGED. >> THAT THING A WORKOUT TODAY.

>> IT'S KIND OF HARD WHEN THE PERSON IN FRONT OF YOU IS REALLY

[12. Conditional Use - Hertz Car Rental - PUBLIC HEARING ]

TALL. >> THIS REQUEST IS FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A CAR RENTAL OFFICE TO BE LOCATED AT 1655 SOUTH COLLEGE STREET IN UNIT H OF THE DEVELOPMENT, UNIT H IS LOCATED IN THE STANDALONE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN APPROXIMATELY 2005, I BELIEVE, IN . THEY HAD AN ADDITION ADDED TO THE BUILDING AND THIS PARTICULAR USE WILL BE LOCATED IN THE CENTER , IN THE MIDDLE UNIT . IT WILL BE RIGHT THERE. THE PINK HIGHLIGHTER. THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 60 PARKING SPACES ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING , WHICH IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE USE AND

[00:50:04]

ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. >> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ARE THERE ANY MOTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE CU 2025 -010 .

>> SECOND >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

[13. Conditional Use - Shelton Mill Phase 4 - PUBLIC HEARING ]

>> ALL RIGHT. SO, THIS REQUEST IS A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 102 UNITS OF MULTI FAMILY, MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE, SPLIT ZONED , THE BOTTOM , THE SOUTHEAST PORTION IS CDD WHILE THE REST OF IT IS TDH, WHICH MATCHES WHAT THE FUTURE, THE PREVIOUS PHASES OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS , I THINK IT HAD TWO COME THROUGH BEFORE THIS ONE AND THIS IS THE LATEST CONFIGURATION KIND OF MARKED UP AND THE COLORS WHAT IS LOCATED IN DDH WHICH IS THE YELLOW AND THE UNITS AND THAT CDD ZONING DISTRICT IN THE PINK. THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM THAT WE WOULD ALLOW FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ON THIS MANY ACRES, WHICH IS 102 AND HIT IT RIGHT ON THE NOSE. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING. THAT CONSISTS OF 238 BEDROOMS . I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE ABOUT THIS ONE. I DIDN'T RECEIVE , PERSONALLY RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE.

>> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING . I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO HAS ANY COMMENTS ON THIS MATTER? PLEASE COME FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGN IN WHEN YOU GET DONE WITH YOUR

COMMENTS, PLEASE. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MOVE

THIS. SORRY. >> PULL THAT MICROPHONE DOWN.

THERE YOU GO. >> THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION.

MY NAME IS JESSICA RIGHT, I LIVE AT 1129 DEKALB STREET. AND I JUST HAD A FEW QUESTIONS. CONCERNS, REALLY. THE PROPERTY BACKS RIGHT BACK UP TO MY SELF, CURRENTLY. SO, THE CONCERNS FOR ME WOULD BE THE TRAFFIC. POSSIBLY BLOCKING THE ABUSE FROM CONSTRUCTION THAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT BEHIND OUR HOUSES , POSSIBLY BLOCKING THE SOUND AND EQUIPMENT COMING IN. DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE . BLOCKING ACCESS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE TO OUR SITES TO OUR HOMES . I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS POSSIBLE, BUT THESE ARE THINGS, SAFETY WISE, THAT I THOUGHT OF AS AN OWNER. THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE WOULD BE STABILIZING THE LAND RIGHT BEHIND OUR HOUSES AND THE WATER FLOW. BECAUSE WE ARE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CURRENT , THE TOP , ALL THE WATER COMES DOWNHILL. SO, DON'T WANT THAT WATER TO GET STUCK AND AROUND US WHERE WE CURRENTLY ARE . WE DON'T WANT THE WATER TO RELEASE AND GO THROUGH, SO THAT WAS A BIG CONCERN FOR ME BECAUSE WE ALREADY, WE WORKED THROUGH THAT.

WE CAN DO THINGS TO HELP GUIDE WATER, BUT IF THE LAND IS BEING RAISED UP BEHIND US, THEN JUST BEEN VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT .

SO, JUST BASICALLY JUST PROTECTING WHAT IS THERE AND THE INVESTMENT, LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEW INVESTMENTS TO BE MADE.

AND OUR SAFETY. THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> PLEASE COME FORWARD. YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND

[00:55:06]

>> GOOD EVENING, MARY DORN I'M AT 1113 DEKALB STREET. THIS PROPOSED PROPERTY BUT UP AGAINST MY PROPERTY . I'M CONCERNED ABOUT OUR EASEMENT . WILL OUR EASEMENT TO BE ABSORBED ? I'M ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WATER . MY NEIGHBOR AND I SHARE STANDING WATER DURING STORMS AND IF WE LOSE THE RIBBING BEHIND US , I FEAR THAT WE WILL GET MORE STANDING WATER AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO OUR FOUNDATIONS. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC . ARE THEY GOING TO BE MOVING MY FENCE TO GET IN AND OUT? ARE THEY -- IS CHICKASAW GOING TO BE PLOWED THROUGH ? WILL IT ALLOW FOR MORE --. WE HAVE SO MUCH TRAFFIC IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL ALREADY. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CAN ABSORB WHATEVER , 118, WHATEVER THE COUNT IS, OF MORE TRAFFIC . AND I DON'T WANT THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC -- IS CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC GOING TO STAY ON THE SHELTON MILL SIDE AND NOT THAT DEKALB STREET SIDE? SO, THE WATER AND THE

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC . >> THANK YOU. PLEASE SIGN IN.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION?

>> I THINK WE NEED TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. FIRST

OF ALL BY THE APPLICANT . >> GOOD AFTERNOON, DAVID SLOCUM , CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT. SO, WE HAVE COMPLETED A TRAFFIC STUDY. WE HAD A MEETING WITH STAFF AND A CONNECTION TO CHICKASAW WAS PART OF THAT CONVERSATION . I DON'T KNOW IF DAN HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE TRAFFIC STUDY BUT IT ACTUALLY RECOMMENDS NOT TO CONNECT TO CHICKASAW BECAUSE IT WOULD PUT A BURDEN ON THE DEKALB STREET . SO, -- .

>> WHAT IS THE ACCESS THEN? IS HE GOING TO SHOW UP?

>> SHELTON MILL. THERE WAS A LEFT TURN LANE RECOMMENDED ON SHELTON MILL. SO, THE -- THAT CURRENTLY IS THE PLAN. BUILD THAT LEFT TURN LANE AND HAVE ALL THE ACCESS. THERE WOULD BE NO CONSTRUCTION ACCENTS OR PERMANENT ACCESS ON CHICKASAW OR DEKALB. AS FAR AS HYDROLOGY GOES, WE HAVEN'T STARTED THE GRADING PLAN. WE DON'T HAVE APPROVAL YET BUT WE WOULD ADHERE TO ALL THE STANDARDS AND SEE REGULATIONS REGARDING HYDROLOGY

STUDIES AND STORMWATER . >> PART OF THAT PROCESS, WOULD BE CONCEIVABLE THAT YOU COULD PERHAPS FIX SOME OF THE STANDING PROBLEMS THAT ARE ALREADY AROUND THE PROPERTY?

>> YEAH, MORE THAN LIKELY. RUNOFF GOING IN THAT DIRECTION TO BE COLLECTED IN OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM AND THE PARKING LOT AND REDIRECTED TOWARDS THE CREEK.

>> I DROVE THROUGH THIS TODAY . I HAVE TRIED TO LEAVE SOUTH MILL LANE AND TURN RIGHT, EASY ROUTE . I SEE A CHALLENGE WITH SIGHT DISTANCE WITH THAT SIGN ON THE CORNER . WE ARE ADDING 200+ VEHICLES . HOW WOULD WE ADDRESS THAT? OR WOULD WE ADDRESS THAT?

>> YEAH, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS IN THE ENGINEERING PLANS IN THE DRT REVIEW. THE INTERSECTION IS

A COMMON ITEM. >> I SEE THE LEFT TURN THEIR TO BE EXTRA CHALLENGING. FROM A TACTICAL STANDPOINT.

[01:00:01]

>> ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED WAS, THE SOUND, THE NOISE FROM CONSTRUCTION. WHAT TIMES -- I GUESS WHAT TIMES WILL YOU BE

--. >> STANDARD WORK HOURS, 7:00 TO

7:00. >> CITY HAS STANDARDS WHERE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO WORK. THEY HAVE TO HEAR TO HEAR -- ADHERE.

>> I WILL SAY THAT WE ARE PROPOSING -- I THINK IT IS A 40 FOOT BUFFER ON THAT SIDE AND THERE IS A 15 FOOT BUFFER

REQUIRED SOMEWHERE . >> ON THE DEKALB SIDE?

>> YES. >> SO THAT KIND OF ANSWERS A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT -- ONE OF THE PEOPLE MENTIONING EASEMENT , AND THEN -- BUT YOU WILL BE SO FAR AWAY FROM THOSE PROPERTIES ON THAT SIDE. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE AT ALL.

>> WRITE. >> AND, BESIDES TRAFFIC BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND YOU ARE WAITING ON THAT. THE OTHER ONE WAS -- THE OTHER QUESTION WAS HOW LONG DO YOU PROPOSE, OR DO YOU SEE CONSTRUCTION LASTING TO GET THIS BUILDOUT? OR ARE YOU DOING IT IN PHASES?

>> I DON'T THINK THAT HAS BEEN DECIDED YET ON HOW IT WOULD BE PHASED OR IF IT WOULD BE PHASED. WE ARE STILL IN EARLY STAGES .

>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. ANYMORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF? OR ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? ANY EMOTIONS?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE CU 2025-011. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

MOTION CARRIES. >> ALL RIGHT, SO PROJECT WEBSTER

[14. Conditional Use - Project Webster HPC - PUBLIC HEARING ]

THE ISR AND THE -- WE STILL NEED TO DETERMINE THOSE. WE MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT, A GUESSTIMATE OF WHAT WILL BE REVIEWED. WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT IS COMPLIANT WITHIN THE DRT PROCESS, BUT LIKE I SAID, THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE HATCHED . THOSE ARE THE SETBACKS AND A LOT OF THE THINGS , I GUESS FROM THE MAJOR STREET PLAN AND ALL OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS HAVE BEEN, THOSE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH THE LAYOUT OF THE CURRENT SITE PLAN. YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

[01:05:08]

>> FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE SPECIFICALLY, THIS IS FOR BUILDING ONE IN THE SUBSTATION, NOT BUILDING TWO AND THREE OR IS

THIS CONDITIONAL USE FOR ALL? >> IT'S DEFINITELY FOR ALL OF THE, IT'S FOR THE BUILDINGS. SUBSTATION, WE DO HAVE A STIPULATION , DEDICATED SUBSTATIONS ARE INDEPENDENT AND NEED TO GET APPROVED ON THEIR OWN, BUT THE SITE PLAN , HOW CONDITIONAL USES WERE, WHAT IS SUBMITTED ON THE SITE PLAN IS WHAT IS APPROVED AND SO THIS IS -- THAT'S WHAT I MENTIONED EMINENT DEVELOP OF BUILDING ONE AND FUTURE DEVELOP MEANT A BUILDING TWO AND THREE. WHEN THEY COME BACK TO BUILD BUILDING TWO AND THREE IN THE FUTURE THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET APPROVAL. IT WILL BE ABLE TO GHOST STRAIGHT TO DRT AND THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH STANDARDS SET WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

>> MAKES SENSE. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE. I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? >> MOVED TO APPROVE CU 2025

-018. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

[15. Conditional Use - Greystone Commercial Development - PUBLIC HEARING ]

MOTION CARRIES. >> GREYSTONE COMMERCIAL DEVELOP MEANT CONDITIONAL USE , REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF A COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USE. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS THE THIRD ITERATION OF THIS PROJECT.

FIRE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL HAVE EXPIRED . THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OR THIS CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST AND THE LAST ONE IS THE FUTURE LOTS WERE ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOP AND THEY HAD PROPOSED IN DRIVE-THROUGH USES. IF YOU GO TO THE SITE PLAN, THERE WAS THE CONNECTION WAS PROPOSED BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BE A MUCH MORE, THERE WAS GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PAST ITERATION, BUT THAT'S NOT INCLUDED. A LOTS, LOT 1 FOR FUTURE DEVELOP MEANT. IT MAY GO AWAY. SOMETHING TO BE DETERMINED, BUT THIS IS 100,000 SQUARE-FOOT OF CLIMATE CONTROLLED STORAGE FACILITY. THIS IS -- IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE BUT THE BACK OF THE SITE DOES ABUT INTERSTATE 85 AND ALSO ALONG EAST SAMFORD ROAD. THIS COMMERCIAL USE IS IN THE SPECIFIC VICINITY WITH MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THERE IS ALSO STRIPMALL DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT BUT NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER . SOME RESTAURANTS, CHURCHES, HIGH SCHOOL . A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL OVER THERE AS WELL. THIRD ITERATION.

THE PAST CONDITIONAL USES ARE COMING BIRD WITH THE DISTRICT THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND PAST SUBMISSIONS IS THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING ACCOUNTED FOR USE AS PLANNED, THIS ONE HAS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT LOTS.

>> YOU SAID THE BANK IN THE OFFICE WERE ALREADY BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVED?

>> CORRECT. SAYS THAT WAS APPROVED ALL OF ONE SITE PLAN, THEY HAVE ALL GONE AWAY. ALL OF THOSE APPROVALS HAVE EXPIRED, AND SO WHAT'S CURRENT NOW IS JUST THE CLIMATE STORAGE FACILITY , 100,000 SQUARE FEET AND THEN THOSE OTHER LOTS OUR FUTURE LOTS FOR POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT.

>> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR MOTIONS FROM THE

COMMISSION? >> MOVED TO APPROVE CU 2025-019

WITH CONDITIONS. >> SECOND

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED . ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

MOTION CARRIES. >> THE WAIVER. ACTION REQUEST AS

[16. Waiver - La Maison ]

SO, THIS IS -- FOR ANYBODY WHO HAS NOT PERUSED OUR GLORIOUS ZONING ORDINANCE IT HAS A LOT OF STUPID LEGENDS WHEN IT COMES TO THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT'S WHAT YOU IN THE SENSE FOUR.

THERE ARE ALL GOVERNED BY VISUAL TABLES. SO, LIKE IT STATED, THE REQUIRED GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT IS 15 FEET. AND THE WAIVER REQUESTED WAS FOR 10. LIKE I MENTIONED IN OUR MEETING ON MONDAY I WAS GOING TO TALK TO THE DRC AND GET THEIR INTAKE, THEIR TAKE ON THIS AND SO I WILL GET TO IT AFTER THIS ITEM, BUT

[01:10:01]

THEIR POSITION WAS , THEY THINK THEY CAN RELAX SOME OF THE 15 FEET GROUND FLOOR AND SOME OF THE AREAS. WITH THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE IS THAT THEY DON'T WANT THESE SQUAD HE LOOKS. THEY WANT THE REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL TO BE ABLE TO SLIDE RIGHT IN . WHAT THAT MEANS IS THEY WANT THE HIGHER CEILINGS. THEY WANT AT MINIMUM FOR EVERYTHING FRONT CORE DOORS IS 12 WHAT THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. AND THEN I KNOW ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE IT DOESN'T FRONT A ROAD, 10 FEET WOULD BE WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE . I GUESS ALSO FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, AND I GUESS PART OF THIS WAS KIND OF HOW THEY WERE THINKING THROUGH IT THAT , THERE NEEDS TO BE LARGER CHANGES THAT NEED TO HAPPEN. THEY WANT SOME JOINT WORK SESSIONS. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AFTER THIS. BUT A LOT OF THEIR CONCERNS JUST KIND OF RELATED TO THIS WAS MAINTAINING THE ABILITY TO TRANSITION TO COMMERCIAL, ESPECIALLY ON THESE MAJOR CORE DOORS. RIGHT NOW THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T SPEAK TO THAT. THE ORDINANCE , IF YOU ARE IN THIS DISTRICT AND HAVE A 15 FOOT GROUND FLOOR. LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT ON MONDAY, THE BIGGEST ISSUE WITH THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS THAT, SINCE IT IS TOWNHOMES, GARAGES IN THE BLACK -- BACK THOSE LEAD TO 50 FEET. IN OTHER PLACES WHERE GARAGES AREN'T REQUIRED, DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, THEY HAVE RENT ENTRANCES TO THESE MASSIVE LIVING ROOMS. BUT ON THIS ONE, THIS IS NOT THE CASE. IF WE WANT TO GO TO THE DIGITALS. THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE AT 10 FEET. FURTHER REASONS FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR THINGS OVER THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, 12 WHAT REALLY GO DOWN TO BUT NOT 10. THIS ISN'T REALLY AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. SOMETHING THAT WAS AS ONCE WE GOT IN THE MATTER -- MIDDLE OF IT, TALKING TO INSPECTIONS IN THE APPLICANT, 12 LOOKS BETTER THAN 10, AND THEN THAT'S WHAT 15 FEET WILL LOOK LIKE. ALSO, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION , DRC TALKS ABOUT AESTHETICS A LOT. THEY WANTED TO TALK MORE ABOUT WHAT THE POSSIBILITIES WERE HERE. GETTING THIS TO GO THROUGH . BUT THE DRC IS EXCLUSIVELY LIMITED TO THE URBAN CORE FROM THE VIEW STANDPOINT. EVERYTHING IS MANDATED TO GO THROUGH DRC. EVERYTHING OUTSIDE OF IT, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD A LOT OF INPUT ON THE TABLES THAT GOVERN THESE AREAS, THESE AREAS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO COME TO THEM FOR REVIEW. AND SO, WE DID NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE A CONDITION THAT THEY GO TO D DRC , BUT TALKING TO THE APPLICANT, THEY DID ALLUDED TO THAT THAT THEY WOULD BE OPEN TO SOME CHANGES WITHIN REASON ABOUT, ARCHITECTURE AND DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. TALKED ABOUT IT. THIS IS REALLY A DRAFT AND SOME OF THE COLORS AND THINGS, THE THINGS THAT WERE DESIGNED ARE NOT FINAL. I GUESS FROM AN AESTHETIC STANDPOINT. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THEY DID TALK ABOUT , BUT FROM THAT D DRC STANDPOINT, THEY DIDN'T THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LARGER CHANGE TO HAPPEN WITHIN SOME OF THESE TABLES, ESPECIALLY AS REDEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING.

IT'S SOMETHING WE WILL TALK ABOUT AFTER THE SPIRIT AS IT PERTAINS TO THE WAIVER , TEAM FEED , EVERYTHING ON THE ROADS , NOT SOMETHING THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF. 12 FEET IS SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD BE MORE AMENABLE TO. I THINK ALSO, GETTING AWAY FROM THE FLAT 15 FOOT REQUIREMENT ALONG, ESPECIALLY ALONG PLACES WERE DIFFERENT ROADS OR ANTERIOR DEVELOPMENT, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE MORE OPEN TO AS WELL. KIND OF GETTING AWAY FROM THE 15 FEET. ON THIS ONE, THIS IS, THIS ONE IS A LITTLE LAYERED. THE WAIVER WOULD BE FOR THREE FEET FOR EVERYTHING DOWN TO 12 FEET ALONG THE ROADS.

IT'S A WAIVER OF THREE FEET FOR EVERYTHING FRONT AND ROSS BATCH THERE. AND THE WAIVER WOULD BE 5'4" THE INTERIOR LOTS. WE DON'T HAVE AN ACCURATE SITE PLAN YET BECAUSE THERE WAS A PLAN TO MARRY PLOT BUT THEY NEEDED TO RECONFIGURE IT SO THEY'RE WORKING WITH INSPECTIONS OF HOW THEY ARE GOING TO DO THAT. THEY WILL SATISFY SOME LIFE SAFETY STUFF.

I WISH I HAD A SITE PLAN TO SHOW YOU HOW IT'S GOING TO WRAP AND HAVE THE INTERIOR LOTS SO YOU CAN SEE WITH THE 10 FEET WOULD LOOK LIKE BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT RENDERING IT. PRETTY MUCH FROM HERE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED THAT THERE IS A SOME THINGS NEEDED TO BE WORKED THERE. THERE WILL -- WITH THIS BEING ON THE QUARTER, THEY WILL HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE 429 STANDARDS. SPECIFIC MATERIALS THEY WILL BE OBLIGATED TO USE.

[01:15:02]

PROBABLY BE SUPPORTIVE OF. >> IS THIS READY FOR PRIME TIME? OR DO WE NEED TO DO SOME MORE WORK ON IT?

>> SO, THIS IS AN ODD ITERATION. I GUESS -- . I SAY ODD BECAUSE IT HAS TO COME BEFORE YOU ALL. NORMALLY, THESE ARE BY RIGHT PROJECTS. WE WILL HAVE A PRE-APPLICATION ABOUT IT. THEY WILL HAVE SOME THINGS FIGURED OUT. HERE'S THE MATERIALS, BUT FOR BY RIGHT PROJECTS, THEY ARE PRETTY BARE MINIMUM. YOU NEED A SITE PLAN REALLY. THEY JUST ARE LIKE COMING HERE'S WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT DOING. I MIGHT DO THIS MANY UNITS AND THEN IN DRT WE WILL LOOK AT IT. FOR THINGS THAT HAVE CORRIDOR, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT. RIGHT NOW, THE LIFE SAFETY STUFF WAS PRESENTING A MAJOR CHALLENGE. SO, SOME OF THESE THINGS , WITH THE WAIVER, IT WOULD NOT ALLOW SOME OF THE STUFF TO GO THROUGH. IT WOULD CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS, AND SO THAT WAS WHY THIS WAS SOUGHT AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS. THERE'S STILL SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO BE MASSAGED A LITTLE BIT. I'M TALKING TO THE APPLICANT AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY WERE OPEN TO. AND ALSO WITH JUST OUT OF THE COMPLEXITIES IN UN-E AND THE LAYERS OF DIFFERENT SETBACKS IN DIFFERENT LEVELS OF BEING ABLE TO ENCROACH IN DIFFERENT AREAS, LIKE I SAID, THAT'S WHY THERE IS A LARGER DISSECTION -- DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AS A WHOLE. FOR THIS SPECIFICALLY, IN THIS AND THE DIFFERENT FACETS OF THEM HEIGHT OF GROUND STORE RESIDENTIAL ON MAJOR CORE DOORS , THAT WAS SOMETHING WERE 12 FEET IS SOMETHING THEY COULD PROBABLY GET DOWN TO. 10 ON THE INTERIOR , I GET SOME OF THE OTHER PLACES MAY BE RESTRICTING IT. ADDING SOME SOPHISTICATION TO THAT, BUT THEN ALSO WITH THE MATERIALS, LIKE I SAID THERE WILL BE A FINE TOOTH COMB LOOKING AT, DOES THIS COMPLY WITH 429 WHAT'S ODD ABOUT THIS IS THAT BY RIGHT PROJECTS NORMALLY DON'T MAKE IT TO YOU ALL. BY RIGHT PROJECTS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME TO YOU ALL.

THEY ARE MUCH MORE REFINED ON THE BACK END, AND THEY ARE NOT REALLY REFINED ON THIS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT REALLY --.

>> THE ONLY REASON IT HAS COME TO US BECAUSE IT WAS 10 FEET

VERSUS 15 FEET. >> I GUESS IT'S THE TOWNHOME ASPECT. AND I GUESS, ALSO THERE ARE, THERE IS THE ASPECT OF WHAT THAT CHANGES FROM AN AERIAL ACCESS REQUIREMENT, LIKE THE SPACE IS NEEDED ON THE GROUND , LIKE WITHIN THE SITE.

>> IS THAT 10 AND 12 OR 12? I'M NOT CLEAR . I THOUGHT I HEARD

YOU SAY --. >> 10 AND 12. 12 ALONG THE FRONT , ROSS AND THATCH AND THEN 10 WOULD BE THE INTERIOR. SO THEN IT WRAPS AROUND AND THERE'S AN INTERIOR PORTION. THAT DOESN'T FRONT A ROAD. IT WOULD ONLY FRONT CONCRETE ON THE INSIDE ON

THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE. >> THERE'S ALREADY A DEVELOPMENT HERE ON ROSS STREET. IS THAT ALL 15 FEET?

>> YEAH, THAT WOULD BE THE THING THAT --.

>> VISUALLY, THAT WOULD BE --. >> YOU CAN ASK THE APPLICANT ABOUT IT. THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT IT APPEARS -- HOW WE CAN WORK THROUGH IT IS THAT EVERYTHING HAS APPEAR TO BE 50 FEET. YOU CAN ACHIEVE THAT WITH STEPS OR A PORCH. YOU CAN CUT DOWN ON IT. DO MUCH WITH THE END OF GETTING AT IS THEY START GETTING INTO THE 15 AND MAKE THINGS MORE REASONABLE ON THERE AND FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE BUT THEY GET THE 15. WITH YOU END UP DOING IS SHAPING UP FROM THREE DIFFERENT WAYS AND THEN THEY END UP HOLDING THIS 11 1/2 FEET OR 11 FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT WITH TOWNHOMES YOU CAN DO THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GARAGE. THE BOTTOM, LIKE YOU CAN'T HAVE, YOU CAN'T DRIVE A CAR UP ONTO A PORCH, PRETTY MUCH. IT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN EXPLAIN. BUT THAT IS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE. THOSE ARE TOWNHOMES DOWN THE STREET. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE THEIR OWN, THEY

HAVE ONE FLOOR. >> WE SPENT A WHOLE LOT OF TIME TRYING TO GET SOME DESIGN STANDARDS PUT TOGETHER, SO YOU ARE SAYING THEY DON'T APPLY THIS FAR OUT?

>> NO. THEY DO. THEY DO. SO WE HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OUR CORRIDOR REDEVELOPING DISTRICT WE HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS. THE MOST STRINGENT OF THEM ARE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS AND URBAN CORE. URBAN DISPUTE

>> THAT 15 IS SUPPOSED TO APPLY HERE.

>> RIGHT. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE WAIVER. YOU ALL ARE FREE TO ASK THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS.

>> HOWEVER -- HAVE WE EVER WAIVED A DESIGN STANDARD?

[01:20:04]

>> NO, WE HAVE, DESIGN STANDARDS THAT YOU WAIVED ARE NORMALLY JUST FOR MATERIALS. MATERIALS ARE AN ASPECT THAT COME BEFORE US. THERE ARE DIFFERENT CAVEATS, SETBACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> NOT ON THE STRUCTURE ITSELF . >> NO. AND SO WITH THAT, THAT'S WHY , IT'S MENTIONED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU GUYS CAN HAVE THE DDR SEE WEIGH IN ON SOME OF THOSE THINGS AND THAT'S WHY I GOT THAT'S WHITE I GOT THERE INPUT ON WHERE THEY WOULD BE AT CONCERNING THIS. I THINK LARGELY THERE TAKE WAS MORE , WITH REDEVELOPMENT AND EVERYTHING HAPPENING IN THE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE IN THESE AREAS, THEY WANT TO TIGHTEN THAT.

>> I WANT CLARIFICATION. >> AND WE HAVE THE APPLICATION?

>> I WANT CLARIFICATION BECAUSE WHAT THIS IS AS IS, YOU ARE ASKING FOR FIVE FOOT WAIVER. AND NOW YOU ARE TELLING US IT'S

THREE FEET ? >> DDR SEE MET AND THEY AGREED,

THEY SAID 12. >> SO, THREE FOOT.

>> PARKER WITH HYDRO ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS. IF YOU BEAR WITH ME, I WILL GIVE YOU THE HISTORY. SO, SOME OF YOU ALL, I THINK WE WERE IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION A FEW YEARS AGO, THIS NEW URBAN , THE STUFF THAT CAME OUT OF DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, THEY CREATED THE DDRC, CREATED THE URBAN STANDARDS OF 18 FOOT FLOORS AND THEN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS , 15 FOOT GROUND FLOORS , THAT WAS LIKE ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER OF 2020, I THINK. 21? I WAS HERE THE NEXT MONTH ASKING FOR THIS WAIVER.

BECAUSE I THINK IT GOT A LITTLE BIT AWAY FROM US , AS A COMMUNITY, BECAUSE MOST OF US HAD URBAN CORE IN OUR HEAD , AND THEN THIS HIT THE GROUND THAT IT WAS FOR THE ENTIRE ZONE, SO THAT THEORY OF HAVING READY TO REDEVELOP STRUCTURES IS GREAT.

THEORETICALLY. A LOT OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING BUILT , REALLY ALL OVER TOWN STILL, TIMBER CONSTRUCTION. THE REALITY OF , AM I GOING TO REDEVELOP THIS TIMBER CONSTRUCTION IN 20 YEARS OR I'M GOING TO DEMO IT TO DEVELOP SOMETHING NEW? A LOT OF THIS, UNLIKE THE URBAN CORE, YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY BUILDING A BUILDING LIKE JEWELERS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE WE WILL SLIDE IN WITH THE MIXED-USE . THESE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS MAKE IT REALLY CHALLENGING BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE URBAN PARKING STANDARDS , SO IT'S NOT LIKE I CAN HAVE A GROUND-FLOOR RESTAURANT IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD WITH TWO FLOORS OF RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE I CAN'T EVER PARK THE THING BECAUSE I'M HAVING TO PARK IT LIKE I'M OUT ON SOUTH COLLEGE. I'M NOT PARKING IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE I'M AT MELLOW MUSHROOM. SO, ALL OF THOSE THINGS GO TOGETHER. SO WHEN THIS FIRST WAS ADOPTED, THAT GROUND-FLOOR RESIDENTIAL WAS VERY CHALLENGING BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, 15 FEET. NO ONE HAS, NO ONE RESIDENTIAL IS 15 FEET. THAT'S LIKE SOME ANTEBELLUM HOMES ARE 15 FEET. SO IT WAS SORT OF, WE WORKED, AND WHEN I SAY WE, I MEAN WE, WORKED AROUND THE SYSTEM BY SAYING LET'S TRY TO GIVE IT DISAPPEARANCE OF A 15 FEET TALL. AND THAT WAS DONE FROM A STANDPOINT OF , LIKE A BROWNSTONE, LIKE URBAN BROWNSTONE. IF WE ARE IN GREENWICH VILLAGE, WE'VE GOT THIS HALF FLIGHT UP AND A HALF FLIGHT DOWN . THE PROJECT ON ROSS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT THERE, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS . YOU GO UP THOSE STEPS AND THAT FIRST FLOOR IS REALLY ONLY LIKE 11 FEET TALL , THE FLOOR. YOU HAVE ABOUT FOUR FEET WORTH OF STEPS UP TO IT TO GET TO THAT 15 FOOT NUMBER. THAT ACTUALLY HAS A BASEMENT LEVEL BECAUSE DUPLEX BEHIND IT IS LIKE SIX FEET LOWER. SO YOU FOLLOW ME EXIT SOME PROJECTS IT WORKS GREAT. A PROJECT LIKE THIS, WE'VE GOT , AGAIN, WE HAVE TO PARK THIS . WE ARE NOT EVEN PARKING THIS LIKE AN URBAN TOWNHOME. WERE HAVING TO PARK THIS LIKE IT'S A STUDENT PROJECT. ONE PER BED. SO THAT'S WHERE THE GARAGES COME IN. WITH A GARAGE FLOOR, WHAT WE END UP WITH IS A 15 FOOT TALL GARAGE FLOOR . ALSO IN PREVIOUS PROJECTS, THE FRONTAGE HAS BEEN

[01:25:04]

PROBLEM WE ARE RUNNING INTO -- >> WE ARE DOING THE SAME PROJECT ON STANFORD. OUR BUYERS , THIS IS NOT FOR STUDENTS. THIS IS PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE PRIMARY RESIDENCE IN DOWNTOWN AUBURN.

THEY ARE PULLING IN AND THEY'RE LIKE, WHAT IS MY GARAGE 15 FEET? I CAN'T CHANGE THE LIGHT BULB. IT'S ADDING ALL OF THESE STAIRS THAT I HAVE TO WALK UP TO MY RESIDENCE NEEDLESSLY . WE TOOK JUSTICE OVER THERE TO SHOW THEM. THEY TOOK SOME GREAT PHOTOS WITH THE IPHONE. I LOOK LIKE I'M ABOUT THIS HIGH COMPARED TO US IF YOU CAN PARK A TRACTOR AND A 15 FOOT GARAGE, IT'S NOT -- YOU CAN'T REACH SHELVES. OUR BUYERS DON'T WANT IT. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE , AND WE ARE TRYING TO SAY, HEY, WE WILL DO SOMETHING REASONABLE. DDRC WAS LIKE, 12 IS GOOD. WE CAN COMPROMISE AND IT MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND. THESE WILL BE VERY BEAUTIFUL. PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIVE THERE -- NOT THAT I'M PUTTING STUDENTS DOWN. THE GARAGE IS SAFETY FROM WEATHER AND CRIME AND IT MAKES IT FEEL MORE LIKE A HOME. THESE ARE FOLKS WHO WANT TO LIVE IN DOWNTOWN AUBURN. THESE ARE FOR SALE. NOT FOR RENT , SO IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE STUDENTS UNLESS SOMEBODY WHO IS WELL-TO-DO WANTS TO PUT THEIR STUDENT IN IT. BUT THESE ARE , FOR AUBURN RESIDENTS WHO WANT TO LIVE IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREAS AND WALK AND USE OUR WONDERFUL DOWNTOWN OPPORTUNITIES. SMALL ASK THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THOSE GARAGES 15 FEET. THAT'S REALLY ALL IT IS.

>> SO FROM THE -- OF OUR WE JUMPING THE GUN? THE CHANGES THAT MADE IT , THAT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW LIKE JUSTICE WAS SAYING, THIS IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT. SO, IF WE ARE DENIED THE WAIVER, AND WE HAVE TO BUILD THE 15 , THEN WE BUILT A 15 FOOT TALL GARAGE .

THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD BUT ALL WE HAVE ENDED UP -- ALL WE HAVE ENDED UP AS A COMMUNITY IS A BUILDING THAT IS THREE OR FOUR FEET TALLER THAN IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE. THERE IS NO REAL REASON TO DO THAT OTHER THAN WE HAVE JUST SORT OF SELECTED 15 FEET AS THE ANSWER. SO, I DO THINK -- I DO THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT AS A CITY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S APPLICABLE TO THE WHOLE ZONING. SO, THIS IS THE CORNER OF ROSS AND THATCH AND MAYBE IT MAKES SENSE TO PEOPLE TO BE 12 FEET TALL, BUT YOU START THINKING OF, -- ALL OF THESE LITTLE INTERIOR ZONES AND STREETS REALLY PROBABLY AREN'T --. IT WILL BE A LONG TIME BEFORE THEY HAVE A COMMERCIAL TENANT . SO, I DON'T THINK THE CONSTRUCTION -- I'M NOT PUTTING ANYBODY DOWN BUT I DON'T THINK WE ARE BUILDING THE KIND OF BUILDINGS THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED 30 YEARS FROM NOW WHEN WE DO NEED ALL OF THAT TO BE COMMERCIAL SPACE. IF THAT MAKES SENSE. THAT'S MY OPINION.

I AM GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE DDRC AND YOU GUYS MAYBE GETTING TOGETHER TO START TO LOOK AT SOME OF THESE STANDARDS BECAUSE

I DO THINK IT NEEDS IT. >> REASONABLE ARGUMENTS FOR

SURE. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO CLARIFY, SO I ALLUDED TO, AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR, DDRC INITIAL POSITION WAS THAT THEY WOULD ENTERTAIN IF THEY COULD GET -- IF THEY COULD TALK ABOUT REVIEW AND ADVISE ON SOME OF THE

[01:30:04]

THAT'S REALLY A PARKING THING. AND IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE TALK ABOUT IN THE NEXT JOINT WORK SESSION. BUT I GUESS , THE APPLICANT ALSO ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT THIS ISN'T THE FINAL VERSION OF WHAT THEY GOT. THIS WAS A LITTLE MORE THAN A DRAFT BUT FROM A STANDPOINT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED YET AND THAT WAS THE MAIN CONCERN OF THE DDRC. WHAT THEY WANTED WAS, IF THEY WERE GOING TO GO WITH THE WAIVER, THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GET REVIEW. FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN CONDITION. TALKING WITH THE APPLICANT --. YEAH. THAT IS SOMETHING THEY ARE OPEN TO. THEY ARE OPEN TO TAKING SOME POINTERS

ON ARCHITECTURAL STUFF. >> IF WE WERE GOING TO PASS THIS WAIVER TODAY AND SUBSTITUTE 12 FEET , THEN THEY COULD GO AHEAD

WITH THEIR PROJECT? >> YEAH BUT THEY ARE SO SUBJECT

--. >> THEY COULD GO AHEAD WITH IT ANYWAY BUT 15 FEET, THEY CAN'T GO ON BOARD WITH 12 FEET UNLESS

WE GIVE THE WAIVER. >> CRACKED.

>> THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE BEFORE US.

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL CONCERNS AND THE OTHER CONCERNS, THOSE WILL BE ADDRESSED IN DRT. THERE'S ANOTHER 429 CORRIDOR.

THEY AGREED TO SOME ARCHITECTURAL POINTERS AND THE REVIEW OF THE BUILDING. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT, THAT WAS A DISCUSSION AT DDRC, THAT WAS HER INITIAL STENT , WE SAID WE WOULD REVIEW IT WITH LEGAL AND THEY WERE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. THEY SAID THEY COULD NOT BE A DECIDING BODY.

>> THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT STRUCK ME FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THIS FAR OUT HAD THE SAME DESIGN STANDARDS AS SOMETHING THAT IS CLOSER TO THE URBAN COURT. I THINK , PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT THAT REALLY , THAT I REALLY AGREE WITH IS THAT , YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT COMMERCIAL DOWNSTAIRS UNTIL I'M LONG GONE. YOU GUYS ARE LONG GONE. THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING.

KIND OF FEELING THE SAME WAY ABOUT THAT. HOWEVER , AND WE HAVE A STANDARD, I THINK THE STANDARD IS TO BE ADJUSTED. WE NEED TO FOLLOW-UP WITH AND -- LET'S RELOOK AT THIS.

>> HOW WOULD WE TRIGGER THAT? >> WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT AFTERWARDS. THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS, SOMETHING WE WILL WORK THROUGH THE SUMMER, EARLY FALL HIM AND THEN PROBABLY WE WILL HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS READY TO GO , PROBABLY AFTER SEVERAL JOINT WORK SESSIONS WITH THE DDRC AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

>> AGAIN, I'M FAVORABLE TO THIS WAIVER , BUT WHAT KIND OF A PRECEDENT DOES THAT SET BETWEEN NOW AND WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO

CHANGE IT TO MAKE IT RIGHT? >> A LOT OF THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT HAVE ACHIEVED IT AND HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE. THOSE AREN'T TOWNHOMES. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN, COME UP WITH TOWNHOMES THAT HAS BEEN A TEST CASE. ON SOME OF THE OTHER ONES, WE WILL EITHER COME AS IT IS CHANGING, LET PEOPLE KNOW THIS IS CHANGING, THAT KIND OF DEAL. BUT I THINK WE WILL ADDRESS AS IT COMES UP AND FOR THE MOST PART, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HANDLE IT AND THEY HAVE BEEN USING STEPS TO ACHIEVE IT. IT'S ALL THAT IT APPEARS. YEAH. MAKE IT APPEAR THAT IT IS 15 FEET.

LIKE I SAID, THE DEVELOPERS, THEY ALREADY FOUND WAYS TO WORK THROUGH IT AND I THINK THAT WILL CONTINUE WHILE WE ARE WORKING ON

IT. >> ARE THERE SOME 15 FOOT HOUSES

CLOSE TO THIS RIGHT NOW? >> YEAH.

>> I'M TRYING TO IMAGINE. >> SO THE TOWNHOMES AT THE

CORNER OF -- . >> JUSTICE, ONE THING YOU MIGHT TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE NOT SEEING THE TABLE BUT THERE ARE SPECIFIC HOUSING TYPES THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS STANDARD. THERE'S THE HOUSING TYPES THAT ARE REQUIRED OF THE 15 FEET THAT ARE

DIFFERENT PRODUCT. >> YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. IN THE TABLE, IT SAYS CERTAIN USES ARE FULLY EXEMPTED FROM THIS. THAT MIGHT BE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, DUPLEXES, TWIN HOMES, A.D.D.

USE, SO THOSE CAN JUST EXIST. >> YOU CAN BUILD THOSE IN THE

INTERIOR . >> CORRECT.

>> NOT TOWNHOMES. >> TOWNHOMES ARE SUBJECT TO THE

[01:35:02]

15 FOOT FLOOR REQUIREMENT. >> IF WE WERE GOING TO CONSIDER THIS WAIVER TONIGHT AND PASS IT, WE COULD CHANGE IT TO 12 FOOT AND GO AHEAD AND JUST MAKE A MOTION, CHANGE IT TO 12 FEET .

WE COULD PASS IT AND THEN THEY COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR 12

FOOT . >> ON THE STREET.

>> BACKSIDE IS NOT THE CONCERN. >> WAS THAT TWO DIFFERENT -- ?

>> IT WOULD BE THREE FEET -- FOR ALL THE ONES ON THE ROAD ON THE

INTERIOR WOULD BE THE FIVE. >> OKAY.

>> DO I HEAR A MOTION? >> HERE WE GO. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A THREE-FOOT WAIVER FROM 15 FOOT TO 12 FOOT

ON THE STREET. >> ROSS AND THATCH.

>> ROSS AND THACH, AND THEN A FIVE FOOT WAIVER FROM 15 TO 10 FOOT ON THE BACKSIDE ON THE INTERIOR SIDE. IS THAT GOOD

ENOUGH? >> I SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

[STAFF COMMUNICATION ]

MOTION CARRIES. >> DO I HEAR ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS?

>> YEAH, SO YEAH, I HAVE SEVERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS. ON TUESDAY NIGHT, THAT WAS THE BIG TAKE AWAY THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A JOINT WORK SESSION BETWEEN THE DDRC AND PLANNING COMMISSION. I THINK STAFF WILL GET TOGETHER AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT INTERNALLY WHAT THE SCOPE OF THAT NEEDS TO BE AND DEFINED THAT, AND THEN WE WILL GET AROUND TO SETTING UP SCHEDULES. SO PROBABLY EXPECT SOMETHING LATE MAY OR EARLY JUNE FOR THE INITIAL INAUGURAL ONE. I THINK THEY TRAVEL OUT DURING THE SUMMER. AND THEN I THINK WE WILL MEET AGAIN EARLY FALL AND THEN IN THE MIDDLE OF FALL, I THINK WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING REFINED AND THEN WE CAN PASS SOMETHING TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR IS WHAT WE WERE THINKING. THERE WILL BE THREE OR FOUR JOINT WORK SESSIONS AND I THINK THE BIGGEST THING IS THE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE AND A LOT OF THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS WE ARE SEEING. WE'VE GOT THE HEAVY SUITED DEVELOP MEANT AND YOU AND W. WE HAVE A LOT OF THE INFILL PROJECTS AND THEN SOME PEOPLE WANTED TO LOOK AT THE SETBACKS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND INQUIRIES ABOUT THE SETBACKS IN YOU AND US. PEOPLE ARE WALKING ON SANFORD TO SEE WHAT A FIVE FOOT SETBACK LOOKS LIKE. THERE ARE DIFFERENT FACETS TO IT. JUST EXPECT AN INVITATION TO SOME JOINT WORK SESSIONS. LIKE I SAID, ONCE WE DEFINE THE SCOPE, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

>> HEAR A MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> SECOND. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.