[ROLL CALL] [00:00:10] CALL OUR AUGUST, 2025 LENDING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER . ROLL CALL PLEASE. >> WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW FOR THE PROCESS. THIS PLANNING COMMISSION IS PRESENTED WITH AGENDA ITEMS BY THE STAFF. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED AS APPROPRIATE. THIS WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ABOUT THE AGENDA ITEM AT HAND. WE WANT EVERYONE TO BE HEARD AND WE WOULD ASK YOU TO KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES AND RELEVANT TO THE CASE AT HAND. AFTER EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ONCE CLOSE THE PUBLIC WILL NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER ANY FOR THE QUESTION OR RESPOND TO COMMENTS. IT WILL GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM BOTH STAFF AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT IN RESPONSE TO YOUR RUSSIANS AND CONCERNS THAT HAVE COME UP HERE IN PUBLIC HEARING. THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE BASED ON STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, AND THE CITY CONFERENCE A PLAN 2030. IN ADDITION, I WOULD LIKE TO SUMMARIZE OUR ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY RELATED TO THE APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION PLATS. BY ALABAMA STATUTE A COMMISSION SUCH AS OURS IS THE FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR SUBDIVISION PLATS. AS COMMISSION ACTS AS AN INDUSTRY OF BODY AND IS BOUND BY THE LIMITATION OF OUR STATE LAWS, CITY ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION WHILE PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED THIS COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY IS FOR CONFIRMING THAT THE PLATS MEET OR EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS IN OUR CODIFIED LAWS AND RELATIONS. FINALLY, THE ADVISORY BOARD THE CITY COUNCIL, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SUBDIVISION PLATS FROM ALL THE DECISIONS WILL BE MADE BY CITY COUNCIL AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITION. THANK YOU AND PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN CITIZENS CAN MEDICATION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK BEFORE US ON ANYTHING NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA PLEASE COME FORWARD. I'M SEEING NO ONE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS [CONSENT AGENDA] TONIGHT. CORRECT? OKAY. AT THIS TIME WE WILL MOVE TOWARD THE CONSENT AGENDA. FIRST, I NEED TO REMOVE ITEM NUMBER TWO, ANNEXATION OF SANTA LAKERS REDIVISION OF LOT 1. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO REMOVE THAT? >> MOTION TO REMOVE NUMBER 2, ANNEXATION OF SANTA LAKERS REDIVISION LOT ONE PICK >> SECOND PICK >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THANK YOU. AND AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF OF SAID ANNEXATION SANTA LAKERS REDIVISION LOT ONE AND PASS THE GAVEL TO VICE CHAIR DANA CAMP. >> THIS INVOLVES THE ANNEXATION [2. Annexation - Sandhill Acres Redivision Lot 1] OF SANTA LAKERS REDIVISION LOT ONE. >> THE ACTION WAS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 14.7 ACRES AT 4474 SAND HILL ROAD. LIKE WE DISCUSSED EARLIER THIS WEEK , AND THE PACKET HE MEETING ON MONDAY, THE STAFF DOES HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH ANNEXING THIS PROPERTY SINCE THE PROPERTY IN THE GREEN THAT HAS THE BLUE , I WANT TO CALL IT SQUIGGLE, BUT IT'S A DRIVEWAY IN IT. THEY ARE THE SAME OWNER. RIGHT NOW THERE'S A RESIDENCE ON THAT PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. ANNEXING THIS ONE WOULD THAT ALLOW FOR THIS TO BE 20 ACRES, WHICH THEN CAN BE SUBDIVIDED INTO MULTIPLE LOTS. THE STAFF'S CONCERN IS JUST WITH IF WE ARE GOING TO LAND -- ANNEX LAND LIKE THIS THE ONLY VIABLE PATH FORWARD, THE ONLY REASON TO DO THAT WOULD BE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADEQUATE FRONTAGE. INSTEAD OF ANNEXING AND THEN STAFF MAY BE COMPELLED TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT DID WORK. THIS IS IN OUR PLANNING JURISDICTION. IT WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ANYWAY. KIND OF LIKE WE DISCUSSED BEFORE, THE CITY IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO ANNEX ANYTHING, EVEN IF IT IS CONTIGUOUS, EVEN IF IS IN THE BOUNDARY. EVEN IF THE ANNEXED PRIORITIZATION IS HIGH. THE CITY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ANNEX ANY LAND. IT'S ALWAYS JUST A DECISION IF THE CITY DECIDES TO DO IT OR NOT. ALSO IN OUR ANNEXATION POLICY, THE STAFF CAN RECOMMEND A DELAY OR HOLD FOR ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO PROVIDE CONTEXT. AS IS THE INTENT WITH ANY ANNEXATIONS AS WELL. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE EXERCISING HERE. WE'RE ASKING THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE -- IF THERE IS ANY INTENTION TO FURTHER SUBDIVIDE THIS BEYOND [00:05:02] WHAT IS EXISTING. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? >> YEAH. WE TYPICALLY ASK APPLICANTS BEING ANNEXED AND FOR THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION, I DON'T RECALL THAT. >> NORMALLY WE DO, ACTUALLY. THAT'S WHY YOU GUYS NEVER GET MASSIVE. I WOULD SAY PEOPLE THAT REQUESTS THE ANNEX ARE NOT ASSOCIATE WITH HER. THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S EITHER A NONCONFORMING LOT, LIKE UNDER AN ACRE, OR IT'S LIKE I HAVE NO PLANS AND I'M JUST COMING INTO THE CITY. THIS WAY YOU GUYS WILL NEVER SEE A DARE OR THE CORNER FARMVILLE LAKES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT ANYTHING THAT COMES IN A CANDY FUTURE SUBDIVIDED, AND WE THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENT, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ASK FOR. SO THAT IS WHY OFTENTIMES YOU GUYS WILL SEE THAT WHEN ANNEXATIONS OR NONCONSENT AGENDAS BECAUSE THERE ARE ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, WHETHER THAT'S A REZONE OR PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT FALLS BEHIND IT, THE STAFF WANTS TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A COMPLAINT PRELIMINARY PLAT BEHIND IT. THAT WAY IF THE PROPERTY DOES CHANGE HANDS AT LEAST WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH SOMEONE WHO IS PRETTY FEISTY. I WAS SOLD THIS OR BOUGHT THIS UNDER THE INTENT THAT I CAN SUBDIVIDE OR DO ALL THESE THINGS AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY DEALINGS WITH THEM. THIS WILL OBLIGATE US TO DO ANYTHING. IT'S JUST ONE OF THE THINGS ON OUR END, JUST KIND OF CLEANING UP TRANSACTIONS. THAT WAY THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SUBDIVIDE THIS THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE DONE. >> IS THIS IN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY? >> YES. NEXT MAP, PLEASE. NEXT ONE. THERE WE GO. >> OUR PACKET SAYS IT'S LOW PRIORITY. CAN YOU TELL US THE REASONS WHY? >> THE ANNEXATION PRIORITY LIST WAS DONE OVER A DECADE AGO. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING TO REDO IN THE NEXT COMING YEAR. BUT THE CURRENT ANNEXATION PRIORITY REFLECTS VIABILITY FOR THE MOMENT. WHAT THAT MEANS IS, CAN UTILITIES BE EXTENDED TO IT? CITY UTILITY SPECIFICALLY. IS IT WITHIN, I GUESS WHAT SCHOOL DISTRICT TO THE CURRENTLY ATTEND? WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR BUS ROUTES? IS ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED? WHAT IS THE TOPOGRAPHY LOOK LIKE, ET CETERA. WHAT IS ADJACENT TO? HOW FAR DOES IT AWAY TO GET EMERGENCY SERVICES TO AND ALL THESE THINGS. THE LOW VERSUS HIGH PRIORITY LIST FOR THE CITY SPEAKS THE PROXIMITY AND VIABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS OUT ON SAND HILL ROAD. IS NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF SAND HILL ROAD, BUT IT'S GENERALLY PRETTY FAR. OUT TOWARD THE SOCIETY HILL SIDE OF IT. THERE'S NEVER GOING TO BE EXTENSIVE UTILITIES OUT HERE. THIS IS ALREADY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY 'S WATER DISTRICT. AND THERE WOULDN'T BE SEWER HERE EITHER. SO THE VIABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT IS VERY LOW. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S EVER GOING TO BE QUARTER ACRE LOTS OUT HERE. IS WHAT HAPPENED. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT THE LOW ANNEXATION PRIORITY MEANS IS THAT THIS IS NOT VIABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. >> ARE THERE SUFFICIENT SERVICES OUT THERE TO WARRANT ANNEXATION? >> WHEN YOU SAY WARRANT ANNEXATION, I GUESS -- CAN PETITION ANNEX. AND EVERYTHING OUT HERE IS RURAL. THERE ARE BUSINESSES ALONG SAND HILL. OUTSIDE OF THAT THE WE ARE NEVER REALLY, DUE TO THE TAXATION STRUCTURE OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, THE PROPERTY TAXES ARE NEVER GOING TO BE THAT BIG OF A PUSH FOR A CITY ON A RESIDENTIAL SIDE LIKE THIS. THE INCENTIVES AREN'T THERE TO ANNEX A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE FROM THE CITY. >> I SEE THAT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM HAD NO COMMENTS. >> YEAH. PRETTY MUCH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT STANDS ON THAT IS A STANDING , BINARY POSITION. IF IT WAS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY, NO. THEY GOT AWAY FROM PROVIDING INDIVIDUAL ANSWERS BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD THEN CALL THE SCHOOL BOARD IF THE SCHOOL BOARD EVER EXPRESSED BEYOND AN INDIVIDUAL CASE. IF IT'S IN THE BOUNDARY THERE OKAY. IF IT'S OUTSIDE , THEY ARE NOT OKAY WITH IT. THERE ARE NUANCES TO THAT. LIKE IF I EVER HAVE TO CROSS 280 THEY WOULD STRONGLY ADVISE AGAINST ADDING WAREHOUSES . >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? >> REFRESH MY MEMORY TO ASK US TO SAND HILL ROAD. ILLEGAL SUBDIVISION. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS LOTS DOESN'T HAVE ANY FRONTAGE. BUT IT'S THE SAME OWNER THE PROPERTY AND AGREE TO THE NORTH. IF THEY WANTED TO DO A CONSOLIDATION PLAT THIS WOULD [00:10:02] THEN GAIN ACCESS TO SAND HILL ROAD IN THE MINIMUM 70 FEET. FROM AN APPROACH STANDPOINT, TO SUBDIVIDING GET SIX LOT SOURCE OF A LOT OF THIS. YOU DO FLAG LOTS TO DO IT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A ROAD THAT WOULD THEN GO THE LENGTH AND THE ENTIRETY TO GIVE EACH LOT ON THE FRONTAGE. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO SEE ON A PRELIMINARY PLAT. >> THEY COULD DO BASICALLY THREE ACRE LOTS. >> RIGHT. YOU HAVE TO DEDICATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THERE TO BE A ROAD, TURN LANE, ALL OF THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS, JUST FROM NOW, SOMETIMES PEOPLE SUBMIT FLAG LOT REQUESTS IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS. THAT WOULD BE A HARD KNOW. IT WOULD BE A FILING PICKER THAT CAN DO THIS WITH ONE OR TWO, IT WOULD BE ALL OF THEM. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION? >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE. ONE TO DO A ROLL CALL? >> >> 7-1. IT IS DENIED. >> THANK YOU. NOW WE HAVE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA NEED TO BE APPROVED. MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 7TH, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 10TH . ANNEXATION AND TO FINAL PLATS. >> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN [5. Annexation - Persimmon Drive Property] FAVOR? >> AYE. >> IN A POST? THANK YOU. NEW BUSINESS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS REQUEST IS AN ANNEXATION REQUEST FOR APPROXIMATELY 5.83 ACRES LOCATED OFF OF LEE ROAD. ALSO KNOWN AS PERSIMMON DRIVE. AS YOU'LL SEE, HEAR, IT IS LOCATED JUST NEXT TO THE LOTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED FOR A COUPLE OF REQUESTS LAST MONTH OFF OF PERSIMMON DRIVE. IT IS CURRENTLY WITHIN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY , SURROUNDED BY THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND EAST ARE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AS WELL. SO IT'S CONTINUES ON TWO SIDES. THE ANNEXATION PRIORITY IS HIGH WITH THIS PROPERTY . WITH THAT, I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ANNEXATION. >> DOES NOT REQUIRE HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE AX-2025-008. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE . [6. Rezoning - Persimmon Drive Property Development Project - PUBLIC HEARING] >> SO THE SECOND REQUEST IS REGARDING THE SAME PROPERTY, SAME BOUNDARIES AND ALL , 5.83 ACRES . AND THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM THE RURAL THAT IT JUST GAINED PENDING ANNEXATION APPROVAL TO INDUSTRIAL. LIKE I SAID, IT'S THE SAME EXACT SITE WITH THE SAME EXACT BOUNDARIES. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION , I GUESS I DIDN'T PUT IN THERE. BUT THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION EXISTS AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. SIMILAR TO THE LOTS THAT ARE TO THE EAST OF THIS PROPERTY. AND THIS IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE SOME COMMERCIAL PORT USES. WITH THAT, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS [00:15:06] REZONING. >> AT THIS MOMENT. >> WHY DO WE USE THE TERM, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WHEN THAT'S NOT IN OUR TABLE OF GENERAL REGULATIONS? I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT . BUT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT I CAN FIND. >> LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, THE REASON I POINTED OUT THE PLAT INDUSTRIAL , IT'S A LOT OF COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USES. THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS IN A WAY IS WHAT I WOULD SAY. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, WHEEZE TO WORK SLIDE INDUSTRIAL. THE INTENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE IS TO ACCOMMODATE USES , LIGHT COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USES . IT SPECIFICALLY GOES INTO DETAIL ABOUT WHOLESALE WAREHOUSES AND SERVICES SUCH AS EXTERMINATORS, PLUMBERS, ET CETERA. IT'S REALLY JUST MEANT TO KEEP THE INTENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL USE , SOMETHING WITH LITTLE MORE INTENT. >> IS NOT SIMPLY MANUFACTURED OR ANYTHING. >> ALSO, HOURS OF OPERATION. YOU HAVE SOME THINGS IN THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL PARKS THAT ARE 24/7. LIKE DRIVING AND WAS TO LOOK AT -- ROAD TONIGHT. JUST A DISTINCTION BETWEEN USE AND OPERATION. LIKE YOU SAID, INDUSTRIAL IS NORMALLY SOMETHING RESERVED FOR MANUFACTURING AND THIS IS COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USE. >> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PERSIMMON DRIVE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REZONING. FROM RURAL TO INDUSTRIAL. IF YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> IT AFTERNOON PICK >> GOOD EVENING. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OF THE MAP CARD I THINK IT HAS 46. >> YES, MA'AM. THOSE OF THE NEXT TWO AGENDA ITEMS. >> BUT I'M JUST SAYING, IS IT ANYTHING DIFFERENT? >> ALL THE SAME PROPERTY. ALL THE EXACT SAME PROPERTY. I THINK THE NEXT TWO ACTUALLY REQUIRE PUBLIC AS WELL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW OR THEN. >> IT'S NOT ABOUT SPEAKING. I WAS JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT. THE FIRST REQUEST. THE ZERO 11 PART. AND HAS THE CU-2025-046. THE SPARKLE RIGHT HERE, ON THE MAP, IT HAS THE 2025-045. SO THEY DIDN'T GIVE US ANYTHING WITH 46. I WAS JUST CONCERNED, IS ANYTHING DIFFERENT? >> SAME PROPERTY, DIFFERENT ACTIONS. >> YEAH, BUT I JUST WONDER WHY I DIDN'T GET ONE . THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. >> OKAY. >> I DID RECEIVE A CERTIFIED LETTER. >> THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S IT. >> THANK YOU. PLEASE SIGN IN, IF YOU WILL. PLEASE SIGN IN , IF YOU WILL. >> THIS IS MY FIRST PLANNING MEETING. >> WELCOME. WELCOME. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NO ONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? REZONING REQUEST. >> MOVED TO APPROVE RZ-2025-01 ONE. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE . >> ANY OPPOSED? [7. Conditional Use - Persimmon Drive Property Development Project - PUBLIC HEARING] >> THIS NEXT REQUEST REGARDING THE SAME PROPERTY, 301 LEE ROAD 15, ALSO PERSIMMON DRIVE, FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USES, SPECIFICALLY CONTRACTOR WAREHOUSES AND OFFICES. AS YOU CAN SEE , IT'S SURROUNDED BY [00:20:07] EITHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE SINGLE-FAMILY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY IN RURAL AND THEN SOME LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES AS WELL. IT'S THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF THE CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD AND WAREHOUSE REQUEST THAT CAME BEFORE YOU MONTHS AGO. THIS REQUEST IS SIMILAR BUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S PROPOSING APPROXIMATELY 13,800 SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL BUILDING WHERE THE LARGEST WAREHOUSE WOULD BE ABOUT 12,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE TWO SMALLER WOULD BE AROUND 900. IT'S DIFFERENT FROM LAST MONTH BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW REQUESTING A STORAGE YARD USE. SO ANYTHING WOULD BE STORED AND OPERATING WITHIN WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED. >> 13,000, INCLUDING THIS NEW ONE AND FIELD? >> JUST THE NEW WOULD HAVE THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE SITE PLAN IT FEELS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH LAND-USE DESIGNATION. AND THAT'S ALL BANKING ON THE REZONING APPROVALS AND EVERYTHING THAT CAME BEFORE. -- I THINK THE APPLICANTS ARE ALSO HERE FOR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. >> -- EXIST? >> I DON'T THINK SO. BUT THEY WILL CONFIRM THAT. >> IT LOOKS LIKE A DRIVEWAY LINE. WITHOUT MEASURING AND SCALING THINGS OFF, I'M NOT SURE. >> CLARIFICATION, THE OTHER TWO BUILDINGS ARE ACTUALLY INAUDIBLE ] >> YES. I'M SORRY. >> THAT'S WHAT CAUGHT MY EYE. >> YOU'RE RIGHT. >> THIS PROPERTY BUSINESS. ALL OF THESE LOTS ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO CONSOLIDATE USING A PLAT BEFORE DOT APPROVAL IS GRANTED. I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THE CONDITIONAL USE. IT WOULD BE CONNECTED TO THE BUSINESS. AGAIN, NOT USED AS A STORAGE YARD. JUST MORE OF AN INTERNAL. LIKE I SAID, I KNOW THE APPLICANTS HERE. IF THEY CAN PROVIDE ANY FURTHER CLARITY AS TO WHAT THEY WERE INTENDING, FEEL FREE. THANKS. >> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR PERSIMMON DRIVE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING A PICK IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. >> MOVED TO APPROVE -- >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? >> JENNIFER STEPHENS. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> YOU CAN LOWER THAT IF YOU NEED TO. YOU KNOW I CAN'T SEE [8. Rezoning - Greenwood Village DDH - PUBLIC HEARING] ANYBODY. >> THIS ITEM IS A REQUEST TO PRESENT APPROXIMATELY 53.5 ACRES FOR DEVELOPMENT HOUSING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF -- LAKES ROAD. THERE IS A SUBSEQUENT REQUEST FOR THE DISTRICT OVERLAY, SAME PROPERTY. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS RURAL -- EVERY THREE ACRES. THE PROPOSED PLAN WITH THIS REZONING BRINGS 146 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS, WHICH IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT DESIGNATION QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ITEM. >> OKAY. REZONING REQUEST. PRE-ZONING DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS . >> I DO. WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE [00:25:01] OF A PRE-ZONING? >> GREAT QUESTION HONESTLY. IT'S SO NICE TO ASK . VERY RELEVANT QUESTIONS. REZONING IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. NORMALLY, ON THE AGENDA, YOU'LL HAVE THE ANNEXATION THAT GOES BEFORE THE REZONING. RIGHT? BECAUSE THE CITY, AS A RULE, WE DON'T HAVE ZONING CONTROL OVER ANYTHING THAT IS NOT IN THE CITY. WE HAVE SUBDIVISION POWER PICS OF THOSE THINGS ARE IN OUR PLANNING JURISDICTION. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO ZONE THEM. IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA, THIS IS A STATE OF ALABAMA THING, THIS IS SOMETHING I LEARNED WHEN I MOVED HERE. IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA , YOU CAN REQUEST THAT YOU GET A DECISION ON THE ZONING OF SOMETHING. ON A PROJECT , BEFORE YOU ANNEX IT. AND I'M NOT TALKING ON THE SAME MEETING. YOU HAVE SIX MONTHS AFTER YOU GET PRE-ZONING APPROVAL TO THEN AN EXIT. -- IF IT'S IN THE CITY, THAT MEANS I MUST TAKE THE RISK, ANNEX MY PROPERTY, BUT THEN THEY CAN STILL TELL ME KNOW. -- SUPPORT THE PROJECT PRIOR TO ANNEXING IT. AND THEN DEAL WITH THE PERMANENCE OF BEING ANNEXED. WEATHERBY TAXES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. IT IS SOMETHING THAT APPLICANTS CAN ASK THAT THEIR PROPERTY BE PRE-ZONED. WHAT THAT DOES IS FLIP THE ORDER OF THINGS ON THE AGENDA. IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THERE WILL BE THE ZONING QUESTIONS FIRST. SAME THING IN THE COUNCIL MEETING. THAT WAY, THE APPLICANT CAN GET A DECISION. SO IF THE ZONING REQUEST FAIL THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ANNEXATION. IS NOT ANNEXED, NO HARM, NO FOUL. THE TAXES DON'T GO UP. >> OKAY. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. >> GREAT. THIS PRE-ZONING DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD WITH THE PRE-ZONING REQUEST FOR GREENWOOD VILLAGE, PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW. I'M SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS , QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS REZONING? >> I HAD AN OBSERVATION. WE JUST UPDATED THE LAND-USE PLAN RECENTLY. RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL WAS AN ISSUE THAT KIND OF CAME UP . HAS THE CASE -- CITY COUNCIL DECIDED, ONCE WE HAVE OUR INPUT -- >> CORRECT. >> THE CITY COUNCIL CAME IN. THE FINAL APPROVAL WAS THEY WANTED THIS TO REMAIN RURAL. SO NOW WE HAVE A LAND-USE PLAN THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS , THAT WAS JUST VOTED INTO PLACE BY THE CITY COUNCIL , AND WE ARE SEEING THIS BEFORE US NOW. I JUST, I CAN'T SEE GOING BACK ON OUR CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATED AND VOTED ON. SO NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS REZONING. >> PHIL, I HAVE THE SAME REACTION. I RECALL THOSE CONVERSATIONS . IT FELT LIKE IT WAS TOTALLY AGAINST. >> ZONING CHANGES, THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME. BUT AT THIS TIME OUR CITY COUNCIL DECIDED THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO. WE WANT THIS TO REMAIN RURAL. I HAVE TO GO WITH THAT. >> AS AN UNELECTED PERSON I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I FEEL STRONGLY THAT THE COMMISSIONERS, AS A WHOLE, PUT IN A LOT OF EFFORT TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS ABOUT THE AREAS THAT WERE SPECIFIC TO OUR CITY. AND THIS IS SURROUNDED BY TO SUSTAIN IT. >> I AGREE. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN HAS BEEN UPDATED TO BE RURAL. I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS EITHER. >> SO I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE RZ-2025-013. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. FROM RURAL TO TDH. I'M SAYING THAT WHICH WAY TO VO >> NONET REESE? [00:30:05] >> YES. >> DANA CAMP? >> NO. >> PHIL CHANSLER? >> NO. >> JENIFER LOVVORN? -- JOSEPH AISTRUP? >> THE REST OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA , WE HAVE THE PDD AND THE ANNEXATION. >> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING [9. Rezoning - Greenwood Village PDD - PUBLIC HEARING] TO REZONE PROXIMALLY 3.5 ACRES WITH THE >> CAN YOU TALK UP? >> YES. SAME PROPERTY. NORTHSIDE . THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN POSES 146 PERFORMANCE -- RESIDENTIAL. TWO FUTURE COMMERCIAL LOTS AND A PRIVATELY MAINTAINED 21 ACRE PARK. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TWO. THE FIRST IS A 10 FOOT DECREASE TO THE REQUIRED LOT WITH. THE SECOND IS A 20% INCREASE TO ALLOW FOR RATIO. THAT WOULD BE THE 21 ACRE PARK AND PARKING IN THE REAR FOR THE FUTURE COMMERCIAL ON THE LOTS THAT ARE ALONG THE WEST. LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE FUTURE LAND USE IS RURAL, WHICH DESIGNATES A DENSITY OF -- FOR EVERY THREE ACRES. IT'S GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THERE IS ONE CONDITION ON THIS PDD THAT THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED. THAT IS, IN ORDER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO BE SEEN 60% -- AND THE PARKING ENTITIES MUST OCCUR. THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES REQUIRE THAT STAFF GIVES RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE OF ITS INCOMPATIBILITY WITH FUTURE LAND USE THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS CASE IF YOU HAVE THEM. >> THIS PARK, PRIVATE, PUBLIC? >> PRIVATELY MAINTAINED. PRIVATE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO SPEAK TO IT. FOR ALL PDD'S WHEN A PARK IS EVER OFFERED AS AN EXCHANGE THEY MUST SEEK THE APPROVAL OF THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR. THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR REACHED OUT. WE HAD A MEETING ABOUT DIFFERENT FACILITIES THAT WILL BE REQUIRED. THIS PARKING TRAILS , -- GAZEBO AND THERE'S ALSO A TYPE OF PLAYGROUND. THOSE OF THE BIG THINGS. THESE ARE THINGS THAT THEY COMMITTED TO THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE WITHIN IT. SO EVEN THOUGH THE RECOMMENDATION, THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE LAND USE AND EVERYTHING, THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE EFFORT ON THEIR PART. THIS IS AN UPDATED MASTER PLAN. IF YOU GUYS HAVE LOOKED AT THE OTHER ONES, THE PARKING WAS TOWARDS THE ROAD. THE FILLED SILL -- FACILITIES ARE TORE THE ROAD. THE PARK FACILITIES AND AS WE MOVE TO THE INTERIOR, KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE. YOU CAN SEE THE PARKING SPACES ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN. THERE'S BEEN COLLABORATION AND THEY HAVE GOT THE APPROVAL OF THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR THE OFFERING OF A 21 ACRE PRIVATE PARK IS ADEQUATE FROM HER PERSPECTIVE OF LEGITIMATE PARK FACILITY. >> DID THEY ALSO SAY BIKE TRAILS AROUND THERE TOO? >> BIKE TRAILS. I THINK IF YOU WANT TO THROW AIR QUOTES AROUND IT. IT'S NOT CONNECTED TO THE ACTUAL GREEN SPACE PLAN. THAT'S ANOTHER PDD ON THIS AGENDA. THIS ONE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE WALKING TRAILS. THERE MIGHT BE GRAVEL OR ANYTHING THAT COULD BE USED AS BIKE TRAILS FOR THE RESIDENTS. BUT NOT PART OF AN EXTENSIVE BIKE NETWORK. THIS IS GOING TO BE AN INTERNAL PARK ONLY. >> OKAY. THIS ACTION REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING. FOR THIS PDD REZONING FOR GREENWOOD VILLAGE I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS POINT. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS AGENDA ITEM. >> LEE THARP, APPLICANT. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT WHAT WAS JUST TALKED ABOUT. THE QUESTION ON THE BIKE PATHS, IT'S MORE OF LIKE A MULCH, NATURE TRAIL KIND OF THING. BUT I'M SURE THERE WOULD BE KIDS ON BIKES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WITH REGARDS TO THE SITE PLAN, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY, I KNOW YOU GUYS HAD SOME DISCUSSION, EXCUSE ME, WITH THE LAST AGENDA ITEM ON SOME OF THIS. PART OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SITE PLAN FROM WHAT Y'ALL SAW RECENTLY , THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, ALL THE STUFF WE TALKED ABOUT, YOU WILL NOTICE THERE ARE TWO COMMERCIAL OUT PARCELS THAT ARE PART OF THE PDD AND ONE IS ON THE SIDE, ONE IS [00:35:02] ON THE WEST. THE DENSITY HAS BEEN CUT, ALL OF THAT GOOD STUFF. PART OF THAT WAS DONE IN COLLABORATION WITH STAFF, AS JUSTICE MENTIONED. WE TALKED TO ALICE , THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR. ALSO, I HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNCILMAN BETH WHITTEN SINCE THIS WAS IN HER WARD, TRYING TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE WITH WHAT'S GOING TO BE PROPOSED. ONCE WE GOT SOME OF THAT STUFF WORKED OUT. I JUST WANT TO BRING IT BACK, ESPECIALLY SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE HERE. OTHER THAN THAT, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THIS GETTING PULLED ORIGINALLY WAS DUE TO SOME INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERN WITH ROAD. YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF THE INTERSECTION AT FARMVILLE. THE TIMING OF THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD LINE UP WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION BEING MADE, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT WAS THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF THE COUNCIL. WE CAN SPEAK TO ALL OF THAT. JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK. >> THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ? I'M SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS FOR THE PDD REZONING OF GREENWOOD VILLAGE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. SO YOU REDUCING LOT TO 40 FEET. RIGHT? >> YES. A PORTION . ALL OF THEM. >> NOT ALL OF THEM? >> NO, SIR. >> WHICH SIDE? >> THEY ARE PRIMARILY JUST INTERIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT. SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LOOK ON THE EAST SIDE, YOU'VE GOT THESE TWO, BIG CENTRAL BLOCKS. THOSE WOULD BE 40 FOOT WIDE LOTS. SEVERAL ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THAT PHASE AS WELL. THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE THE STANDARD A LOT MINIMUM WITHIN ZONING ORDER. >> FOR THE PARK, IS ANY OF THAT ACTUALLY BUILDABLE? >> THE CENTER AREA? IF YOU LOOK, WE MAY NOT HAVE DONE OUR BEST WITH THE COLORS, EVERYTHING IS GREEN. THE LIGHTER SHADE OF GREEN, AROUND THE BLUE AND THE CENTRAL CREEK, RIGHT THERE, THE LIGHTER SHADE OF GREEN IS ALL WITHIN THE DESIGNATED BUFFERS FOR THAT STREAM. SO WE WOULDN'T BE TOUCHING ANY OF THAT. THE TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SIDE IS PRETTY AGGRESSIVE. SOME OF IT IS BUILDABLE, YES. NOT ALL OF IT. WHICH IS PART OF WHY WE ARE TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE SPACE AROUND THERE. INCLUDING, WE MENTIONED THE PARK, SOME PAVILION SPACE , A LITTLE PARKING LOT FOR ACCESS AND THAT STUFF AS WELL. AND THE AMENITIES , WE WOULD LIKE TO THINK THEY WOULD BE SPLIT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CREEK. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT CONNECTIVITY ON THIS ONE BEFORE. TRAILS AND STUFF, MAYBE A LITTLE, SMALL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ACROSS THE CREEK FOR CONNECTIVITY FROM A PEDESTRIAN PERSPECTIVE. BUT THE IDEA WOULD BE, IF IT MADE MORE SENSE ONCE WE GOT TO THE DETAILED DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESIGN OR SOMETHING, TO SPLIT THE AMENITIES AND HAVE A SMALLER PLAYGROUND AREA. WE ARE MOSTLY LOOKING IN THE PDD DOCUMENTS FOR A SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WE CAN TALK THERE WITH ALLISON. THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR. >> WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY REASONS FOR THE 40 FOOT LOT WITH ? >> A COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE, THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER , TRYING TO SAY THIS. WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DELIVER IS MAYBE AT A DIFFERENT PRICE POINT THAN WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IN A LOT OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE AREA. THE IDEA IS AT A LOWER PRICE POINT, IT MAKES IT WITH THE 40 FOOT LOT. OBVIOUSLY THEY WILL BE LOTS MORE HOUSES. AT LEAST SOME OF THE FRONTAGE PORTION OF IT. THEY'VE ALSO HAD SOME SUCCESS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE WITH DOING THAT SORT OF DENSITY . THAT WAS ONE REASON FOR IT. AND JUST A GENERAL DENSITY ACROSS THE DEVELOPMENT WAS ANOTHER. WE HAVE DECREASED THE DENSITY, WE ARE WELL BELOW THE THRESHOLD FOR THE DPH ZONING THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED. GET A LITTLE MORE DIVERSITY IN THE UNIT >> >> CORRECT. CORRECT. AND PART OF THAT IS DUE TO THE 40 FOOT LOT MINIMUM. RIGHT? THAT WAY YOU CAN GET A LITTLE BIT MORE HOUSE. [00:40:02] >> WHAT ABOUT SANITARY SEWER? DO WE HAVE ANY CONCERNS ] >> WE'VE HAD EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SCHOOL AND THEY ARE, IN PRINCIPLE, AGREEING TO PROVIDE THE EASEMENT AND WE ARE DOING A LOT OF WORK WITH THOSE GUYS. WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT. THERE ARE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE SOUTH OF WOODLAND PINES . THE BLUE CREEK, RIGHT THERE, THE DRIVEWAY AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN IS THE WESTERN ENTRANCE TO WOODLAND PINES AND THAT CREEK KIND OF FOLLOWS THAT SAME PATH. THEN CROSSES OFF THE PROPERTY. WE ARE BASICALLY GOING TO BE RUNNING, WE WOULD BE RUNNING SEWER ALONG THE CREEK UNTIL HE GETS OFF PROPERTY AND GOING ACROSS TWO HOMEOWNER 'S PROPERTIES TO THE NORTHERN CUL-DE-SAC OF THE DONAHUE RIDGE. WE HAVE MET WITH THEM . WE'VE GOT AN AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE. OBVIOUSLY, NO PAPERWORK OR EXCHANGE HAS BEEN DONE. JUST BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO GET THROUGH THIS STAGE BEFORE ANYTHING HAPPENS. THE DESIGN WORKS. WITHOUT ANY KIND OF -- WE HAVE TALKED TO WATER RESOURCES A LOT ABOUT SOME OF THAT. NONE OF US WANTED A LIST STATION HERE. SAME WITH WATER. WE CAN SUPPLY IT WITH UTILITIES. AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE -- ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED. WE WILL BE PLANNING ON DOING AS FAR AS TURN LANES. >> OKAY. THERE IS A TRAFFIC STUDY? >> THERE IS A TRAFFIC STUDY. >> WHAT WE SHOWN -- WE'VE SHOWN IS WHAT THEY RECOMMEND. >> MAYBE NOT SO MUCH ON THIS PLAN BECAUSE IT'S NOT OVERLY DETAILED. WE WILL HAVE LEFT TURN LANES ON COUNTY ROAD 91, LEFT TURN LANES INTO THE ONE CONNECTION ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. PREVIOUSLY, THERE WERE TWO CONNECTIONS. THAT WAS ANOTHER BIG DISCUSSION POINT WITH MISS WHITTEN . SO WE HAVE CLEANED SOME OF THAT UP. RIGHT TURN LANES WITH CONNECTIONS AS WELL. THE PLAN WOULD ALSO BE , FOR THE PART -- COMMERCIAL OUT PARCELS, THE ACCESS INTERNAL YOU STREETS THAT WILL BE BUILT WITH DEVELOPMENT OR FOR THE CASE OF THE OUT PARCEL IN THE WEST DIRECTLY OFF OF COUNTY ROAD 91. WHICH WOULD BE IMPROVED TO MEET CITY OF AUBURN STANDARDS INAUDIBLE ] >> THIS IS, DEPICTED HERE, CLOSE TO THE EXIT. IS THAT THE ENTRANCE TO THE SCHOOL? >> AGAIN, WE WILL DO BETTER ON OUR RENDERINGS NEXT TIME. YOU CAN SEE IT BACK THERE, THE EAST ENTRANCE TO WOODLAND PINES, THE ORIGINAL PLAN YOU GUYS SAW SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, WE WERE ALIGNING OUR CONNECTION WITH THAT DRIVE. I'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SCHOOL. THEY ARE NOT REAL INTERESTED IN HAVING THOSE TWO DRIVEWAYS ALIGNED. ALSO, WE RAN INTO A BIT OF A SIDE DISTANCE ISSUE WITH THE DRIVEWAY BEING LOCATED AT THAT POINT, BEING ON THE INSIDE OF THE CURVE. SO WE'VE SHIFTED IT AND WE CAN POTENTIALLY SHIFT IT A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE HILL TO IMPROVE THAT. WHERE WE ARE SHOWING NOW, WE MEET THE SITE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT SECTION OF ROAD. THAT WAS PART OF WHY WE SHIFTED IT. IT'S A FAST ROAD. IT'S A LONG DISTANCE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'M SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONERS? ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR MOTIONS? >> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE SMALL LOTS GOING INTO A RURAL AREA. -- WHICH REQUIRES THREE ACRE LOTS. STANDPOINT IS A CONCERN. GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE ACCESS FOR THE COMMERCIAL -- I THINK WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE THAT A CONDITION WE APPROVE. THIS IS NOT A CONDITION NOW. >> THIS IS JUST PRE-ZONING. >> YEAH, PRESIDING. >> I GUESS THE INGRESS AND EGRESS WILL BE BEYOND A PRELIMINARY PLAT. THAT WILL BE SOMETHING , SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED , THAT WOULD BE A TIME TO MEET THAT CONDITION. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE CAN DO. >> WHEN WILL THIS GO TO COUNSEL? >> SHOULD BE NEXT MONTH. SO NOT THIS MONTH, BUT IT WILL BE THE SECOND BY SEPTEMBER. >> [00:45:05] >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO IMPROVE PDD REZONING FOR GREENWOOD VILLAGE. >> >> 5-4, APPROVED. >> CAN GET CLOSER TO MIKE FROM? [10. Annexation - Samples Property] JUST TALK CLOSER TO THE MEGAPHONE. >> THIS IS THE ANNEXATION REQUEST FOR THE SAME PROPERTY. IT IS CONTIGUOUS. IT WOULD HELP ELIMINATE AN ENCLAVE SO IT MEETS THE ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS. THE ANNEXATION IS HIGH. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. >> SO THE ANNEXATION LEVEL IS HIGH WHY? >> IT'S NOT NECESSARILY INFILL. IT IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SCHOOL AND THERE'S A VERY BIG QUESTION ABOUT THE UTILITIES . AS OF LATE, WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ABLE TO BE ANSWERED. THERE'S ALSO A FIRE STATION NOT TOO FAR FROM HERE AS WELL. LIKE I SAID, FOR THE ANNEXATION PRIORITY, VIABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE ABILITY FOR THE CITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES. THIS PROPERTY CAN BE DEVELOPED AND WOULD BE ADEQUATELY SERVED EFFICIENTLY BY CITY SERVICES IF WE SO SHOWS TO DO SO. >> MAKES SENSE. THAT'S WHAT YOU CALL COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. >> THANK YOU. THIS IS AN ANNEXATION AND DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE ANNEXATION AX-2025-005. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IS IN FAVOR? ANY POST? THANK YOU. >> SO NOW WHAT HAPPENS? >> YEAH, SO BOTH RECOMMENDATIONS , NOT A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE FOR THE REZONING TO TDH. VOTE OF CONFIDENCE FOR THE PDD. AND I GUESS THE VOTE OF CONFIDENCE FOR THE ANNEXATION. THOSE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS. >> AS RULE WITH THE PDD OVERLAY THAT GOES DDH. >> LIKE I SAID, I THINK THIS JUST KIND OF SHOWS WHERE YOU ALL ARE AT WITH THE PDD THAT, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, EVERYTHING THAT YOU ALL ARE LOOKING AT, THINGS FROM THE LAND-USE AUTHORITY, IT MAKES SENSE TO Y'ALL AS A BODY AND THAT IS SOMETHING FOR THE COUNCIL TO WRESTLE WITH. THEY WANT TO KEEP IT RURAL, NOT AN EXIT, THAT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. >> OKAY. >> THANKS. >> WE HAVE TO RAISE THE SKIN. >> OKAY. HERE WE GO. WE HAVE A REZONING REQUEST. THIS IS THE [11. Rezoning - The Orchard - PUBLIC HEARING] ORCHARD PROJECT . THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPLY THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PDD DESIGNATION TO APPROXIMATELY 10.1 ACRES. NEXT SLIDE. THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY SITS JUST SOUTH OF I-85. THIS IS WRIGHTSVILLE ROAD. THIS IS I-85, THE BRIDGE GOING OVER. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY 10.1 ACRES AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS RURAL BUT IT IS PENDING DDH REZONING , WHICH HAS BEEN PUSHED BACK TO SEPTEMBER 16TH. CITY COUNCIL MEETING BY REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL. THIS WAS ON THE JULY 8TH MEETING. SO THE DDH HAS [00:50:02] ARTIE PASSED THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION. IT JUST HAS BEEN POSTPONED BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED, SPECIFICALLY, TO APPLY THE DDH DESIGNATION TO THIS. I'M ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. BUT I WILL ALSO SHOW YOU THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WELL. THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN , THIS IS CONTINGENT FOR THE PDD TO GET APPROVED. AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING HIS 21 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LOTS. AND FOR THE PDD TO BE OVERLAID TO THIS IS TO LOCK IN THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR 21 LOTS SPECIFICALLY. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? >> JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THIS DOES NOT HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? >> NO, SIR. >> OKAY. >> IS WRIGHTSVILLE ROAD THE ONLY WAY IN AND OUT OF THIS? I THOUGHT THEY WANTED TO A PRIVATE ROAD OR PRIVATE DRIVE. >> YES. SO THE ONLY ACCESS WILL BE INTERNAL FROM WRIGHTS MILL ROAD, WHICH LOOKS LIKE THE CENTER ACCESS POINT. THERE'S THREE TO THE LEFT OF THE SCREEN, LOT 1, TWO AND THREE. THEY TAKE FRONTAGE OFF OF WRIGHTS MILL ROAD TO BE LEGITIMATE SUBDIVISIONS. BUT ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WILL COME FROM THE PRIVATE SHARED DRIVE ON LOT 21 . SO THERE WILL BE MORE DETAILS ABOUT THIS WHEN THERE IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. THIS IS JUST A MESS OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN. REALLY, JUST A SITE PLAN TO LOCK IN THE UNIT COUNT. SO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS WHAT WILL DETERMINE, THERE WILL ACTUALLY BE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF ON THE VIABILITY OF THAT PRIVATE SHARED ACCESS, BUT THAT NEEDS TO BE , THEM CROSSING THE CREEK AND WHAT THE FATE OF THOSE FIVE LOTS, LOT 21, LOT 20, LOT 1, TWO AND THREE ENDS UP BEING IN THE CONFIGURATION OF THE REST OF THE SITE. >> THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD, FOR LOTS 12, 13 AND 14 , 85, DO WE TYPICALLY DO ANYTHING AS A CITY TO REQUIRE SOME SORT OF -- I KNOW THIS IS AHEAD OF THE CULINARY PLAT. >> NOT REALLY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD DO. FROM CITING THE HOUSE OR WHATEVER THEY ARE DOING. WE HAVE SEVERAL LOTS THAT BACK UP TO THE INTERSTATE AND FRONT THE INTERSTATE IS AS OF NOW. BEING FRONTAGE FROM IMMINENT DOMAIN SITUATION OR OTHER ONES THAT ARE ACTUALLY JUST BACKED UP , THEIR BACKYARD IS JUST AGAINST I-85. >> I'M GOOD. >> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS THE ORCHARD PDD REZONING REQUEST. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ABOUT THIS AGENDA ITEM. I'M SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE . >> IS THE APPLICANT HERE? PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> YES. THERE'S A REASON WE WOULDN'T EXTEND STREET TO THE SOUTH >> YES. WITH THE CREEK AND THE IMPACTS. YEAH. A LOT OF TIMES, IF WE ARE TAKING ALL THE BUFFERS, YOU GUYS ARE ASKING WHY WE ARE TAKING ALL THE BUFFERS AND NOW WE ARE NOT TAKING ALL THE BUFFERS. WHY AM I NOT TAKING OUT THE BUFFERS? TRYING TO ANTICIPATE YOUR QUESTIONS HERE. YEAH, WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE AS MUCH OF THAT GREEK THROUGH THERE ORIGINALLY. WE DIDN'T THINK THIS GREEK WAS IN AS GOOD OF SHAPE AS IT WAS. SO IT'S A JURISDICTION THROUGH THERE. WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID AND KEEP THAT SAVED THROUGH THEIR AND STILL TRY TO REDEEM SOME VIABLE LOTS AS WELL. >> WE HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY? >> IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY. BUT WE HAVE TURN LANES. YOU KNOW, TURN LANES ARE REQUIRED BECAUSE IT'S ONE STREET CLASSIFICATION. ALL OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY WOULD TELL YOU IS WHETHER OR NOT THOSE LANES ARE WARRANTED THERE . YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GOING TO WARRANT A SIGNAL OR ANYTHING . IT'S NOT FRONTAGE. BUT THAT IS, ESSENTIALLY -- BASED UPON THE STREET CLASSIFICATION THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE TO PUT IN REGARDLESS. UNLESS WE [00:55:01] CAME BACK TO YOU ALL . WE ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE TO FILE A WAIVER THROUGH ENGINEERING FIRST IF THEY DENY IT. >> I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS TREE. I'VE LIVED 19 YEARS ONE BLOCK OVER. -- RIGHT THERE IS VERY DECENT. I THINK YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED AT THE TRAFFIC. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS BECAUSE THE BUSES COME THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SCHOOL BUS TRAFFIC. HOW THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT THAT. WERE A POTENTIAL FOR PROBLEMS. -- , TANGLEWOOD, NOW COMING OUT OF HERE WITH 240. THE REPORT SAYS 240 TOTALLY DAY. BUSES COMING IN THERE NOW? IS THERE ANOTHER POTENTIAL PROBLEM FOR SAFETY ASPECTS? >> THEY COULD PULL THAT AND TURN AROUND IN THERE. >> DO NOT SEE A NEED FOR MAYBE AN ACCELERATION LANE OR TWO? BECAUSE YOU ARE COMING DOWNHILL FOR THE INTERSTATE. IT'S BUSY AND IT'S 45 MILES PER HOUR. >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AN ACCELERATION LANE TO SOUTH? >> THE CLOSEST PLACE TO THE INTERSTATE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO MONTGOMERY . >> I WOULD ANTICIPATE THE MAJORITY OF TRAFFIC IS GOING TO MAKE IT TO TOWN, NOT THAT WAY. YOU'LL HAVE SOME. I DON'T DISAGREE, YOU'LL HAVE SOME. >> -- TRAFFIC CONTINUING TO COME DOWN. >> YEAH. I KNOW. >> ONCE AGAIN , THERE WILL BE SOMETHING ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AS IT COMES IN. THE BEST CONDITION YOU WANT, YOU CAN THROW THAT ON THE PLAT. >> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE CASE RZ - 2025-015. >> MOVED TO APPROVE . ALL IS IN FAVOR? >> AYE . >> A POST? THANK YOU. >> JUST KIND OF THE STAFF [12. Annexation - Hickory Creek] POSITION WAS WE WERE GOING TO MOVE TO POSTPONE THESE FOUR ITEMS. WHEN I TALKED TO THE APPLICANT THEY EXPRESSED THAT THEY PREFER TO JUST BE DENIED TONIGHT INSTEAD OF BEING POSTPONED JUST BECAUSE OF DUE DILIGENCE AND ALL OF THE THINGS. WE HADN'T TAKEN IT OFF THE AGENDA BUT SINCE I'VE KINDA BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, KIND OF LOOSELY AWARE OF THIS FOR ALMOST A YEAR NOW , I WILL GO OVER ALL THE CASES FOR THIS. THERE ARE FOUR CASES ON THIS ONE. THERE'S THE ANNEXATION, THE TWO RESULTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT CONDITIONAL USE AT THE END OF IT. I JUST WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT LIGHT. YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WHERE WE CAN GET STARTED? WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE ENTIRETY OF IT TONIGHT. >> ALL FOR CASE TOGETHER RIGHT NOW? >> NO, NO, NO. NO. OKAY. SO THE HICKORY CREEK ANNEXATION REQUEST. THIS IS 68.5 ACRES ON SAND HILL ROAD ACROSS FROM MILLCREEK ROAD. AT THE CONFLUENCE OF -- CREEK. IT'S CURRENTLY INSIDE OF THE BOUNDARY , FUTURE LAND-USE IS SLATED TO BE RURAL. SEE YOU GUYS CAN GO TO THE NEXT MAP AND SHOW THE BOUNDARY. WELL INSIDE OF THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY . JUST KIND OF NORTH OF THE GREENS AND ALL THAT. MILLCREEK ROAD. IF YOU GUYS HAVE DRIVEN DOWN THERE I FEEL LIKE THE BOTTOM OF MILLCREEK ROAD SNEAKS UP ON YOU A LOT QUICKER THAN YOU WOULD THINK LOOKING AT A MAP. BUT YOU TURN THE CORNER AND SUDDENLY THERE'S ALL THESE HOUSES. IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANNEXATION IS MEDIUM. THIS ANNEXATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANNEXATION? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE ANNEXATION. >> FROM A MEDIUM STANDPOINT, [01:00:02] THERE IS THE SEWER TREATMENT FACILITY THAT'S IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THIS . FROM UTILITY STANDPOINT, YOU GUYS CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING AREA, FROM A VIABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT , AS WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE NEXT ITEMS, -- IS A DROPDEAD POINT. AS WITH THE APPLICANT TALKED ABOUT. THEY'VE DONE OTHER PRODUCTS DOWN HERE AND ISSUES THEY HAVE RUN INTO. JUST ON THE SHORT TIME THAT I'VE BEEN HERE, OUR SECOND SUBDIVISION NOW. THAT'S RUNNING INTO SOME REAL QUESTIONS ABOUT VIABILITY DOWN THERE FROM WATER STANDPOINT. THIS IS THE END OF THAT. EVERYTHING WEST OF THE CREEK IS WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. OVER THE EAST OF THE CREEK IS THE DIVIDING LINE ON ANY DENSITY BEYOND ONE DWELLING UNIT EVERY THREE ACRES. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE AX-2025 -010. -- >> APPROXIMATELY 60.5 ACRES FROM RURAL LOW-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. [13. Rezoning - Hickory Creek LDD - PUBLIC HEARING] SOME ACRONYMS. WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT. SO WE WILL GET INTO WHAT THE ACTUAL OFFERING IS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE LDD HAS A PERFORMANCE DESIGNATION. IF THEY CAN GET A DENSITY OF FIVE DWELLINGS AN ACRE. IF THEY GO CONVENTIONAL, WHICH IS DEDICATING OPEN SPACE, JUST KIND OF BUILDING OUT THE ENTIRETY OF THE LOT, IT IS TWO. YOU GUYS CAN SEE, THERE IS LDD ACROSS THE STREET, THERE IS A RURAL TO THE WEST, THERE'S A PDD OVERLAY WITH CDD BELOW IT. AND THERE'S ALSO RURAL TO THE WEST , AND C9 TO THE NORTH. CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO SUBDIVISION ON C9. THERE'S ALSO A SIGNIFICANT FLOODPLAIN. IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT FLOODPLAIN ON THIS LOT AS WELL. SO IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. YOU GUYS CAN SEE HOW THE DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION IS REALLY CLUSTERED. WE WILL GET TO THE OFFERINGS OF THE DIFFERENT ONES. PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING IN LDD, THE ONLY THING THAT IS BY RIGHT IS SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING. ALL OF THE RESIDENTS , ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL TYPES WILL BE CONDITIONAL AND HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. SO WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THIS ON THE PDD. >> I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO POSTPONE . TALK ABOUT THAT SOME MORE. WE ARE NOT POSTPONING THIS? >> YEAH, I GUESS , LIKE I THINK MY REACHED OUT TO THE APPLICANT TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT IT AND INFORM THEM THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE POSTPONING IT FROM THE APPLICATION . THEY ARE HERE TONIGHT, THEY CAN TALK ABOUT IT. BUT THEIR POSITION WAS JUST MUCH MORE THAT IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR DUE DILIGENCE , WHICH THEY HAVE FOR A BETTER PART OF A YEAR, I WOULD SAVE READY TO GO BUT THEY HAD A GENERAL SITE PLAN. I'D SAY AS EARLY AS JANUARY OR FEBRUARY MAYBE. AND SOME OF THE CONTEXT, IT HAD A REALLY LONG DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD. THEY THOUGHT SUMMER WOULD BE GOOD. THEY ALREADY RE-UPPED ON THEIR DUE DILIGENCE ONCE. SO THEY WOULD RATHER GET AN ANSWER AND THEY CAN GET TOLD NO SOONER AND KIND OF PIVOT TO SOMETHING ELSE. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THEY WOULD PREFER. BECAUSE IF SOMETHING GETS POSTPONED THEN THEY DON'T GET AN ANSWER AND THEY DON'T GET A CHANCE TO MEET THE DEADLINES. >> THE REASON THEY WANTED TO POSTPONE US BECAUSE, I MEAN, THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, TRAFFIC STUDY . IT'S READY FOR PRIME TIME. >> CORRECT. THEY CAN SPEAK TO THAT. THAT WOULD BE THE REASON AGAINST APPROVAL. THAT WOULD BE MY POSITION ON THAT. >> I'VE GOT A QUESTION . I'M LOOKING AT THIS LAND-USE PLAN DESIGNATION FOR 2030. IS THIS THE 2030 UPDATE? >> THIS IS NOT THE 2030 UPDATE. THIS IS ALSO RURAL. SO THAT IS WHY THIS WAS -- THE STAFF POSITION WASN'T TO POSTPONE FOR A FUTURE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THE STAFF WANTED TO POSTPONE BECAUSE, LIKE PHIL SAID, NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. SO EVEN ONCE WE GOT THOSE THINGS , IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FARMVILLE REZONING WHERE IT DIDN'T COMPLY WITH THE FUTURE LAND-USE PLAN SO WE WOULD HAVE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL. BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BE HEARD. SO THEIR POSITION IS FINE . IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A DENIAL, LET THERE [01:05:05] BE A DENIAL. BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD TONIGHT. THAT WAY THEY CAN MOVE ON TO CITY COUNCIL. >> IF THEY SHOULD ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, TRAFFIC STUDY, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ET CETERA, COME BACK IN A FUTURE DATE AND WE CAN ENTERTAIN THIS THING ALL OVER AGAIN. >> IT SEEMS TO ME THEY ARE TAKING UP COUNSEL TIME THAT, FRANKLY, THEY SHOULDN'T BE TAKING UP BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. >> YEAH. >> YEAH. IT'S ONE THING FOR THEM TO WANT TO BE DENIED BUT THEIR APPLICATION IS SIMPLY NOT READY. BUT THEIR APPLICATION IS NOT READY. THAT'S NOT ON US AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SAY TO THEM , WE ARE GOING TO DENY THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT READY . RATHER, WE SHOULD BE SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL YOU ARE READY. >> YEAH. YEAH. >> THAT'S MINE. OTHERWISE, YOU'RE JUST TAKING UP COUNSEL TIME FOR NO REASON. AND OUR COUNCILS TIME IS VALUABLE. >> GOOD POINT. >> THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT? CAN HE SPEAK TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS? THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. IF WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT FIRST. DEAL TO SPEAK OR DO PUBLIC HEARING FIRST? LET'S DO PUBLIC HEARING. THERE MAY BE MORE QUESTIONS. AFTER PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED. I WILL OPEN THAT NOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK ABOUT HICKORY CREEK LDD REZONING REQUEST. YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO THAT AFTER IF YOU WOULD. >> KEVIN GASTON, 4132 CREEK VIEW COURT. THE NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH HOUSES . I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE TOWNHOMES. I DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE SETUP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEING UNLIKE ANYTHING IN OUR CORNER OF TOWN. OUR CORNER OF TOWN IS TRULY ONE OF THE LAST REMAINING QUIET CORNERS OF TOWN. WE FEEL LIKE. THERE'S A REASON WE ALL LIVE OUT THERE. MR. DAVIS HAS BROUGHT BEFORE SEVERAL CONCERNS WITH TRAFFIC. I'M NOT SURE THE LAST TIME ANYONE IN THIS ROOM HAS TAKEN A TRIP DOWN SAND HILL ROAD RECENTLY. IT IS MASSIVELY USED. COMING-OUT QUARRY, DUMP TRUCKS . THIS IS ALL PART OF INDUSTRY, WHAT IS DOWN THAT ROAD. I'M VERY CONCERNED WITH THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. ESPECIALLY WITH THE COMMERCIAL USE WITH THE GROCERY STORE , THE GM AND SOME OF THE OTHER AMENITIES BEING PUT IN THERE. THAT JUST DOES NOT FIT WITH OUR CORNER OF TOWN IS LIKE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? >> 4125 CREEK VIEW COURT. ALSO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MR. GASTON IS MY NEIGHBOR. WE HAVE THE SAME GENERAL CONCERNS . NOT JUST TRAFFIC, BUT INFRASTRUCTURE IN GENERAL. AS YOU POINTED OUT, IT'S ON A FLOODPLAIN . WE ARE NOT TECHNICALLY IN AUBURN CITY WATER. WE ARE IN -- WATER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY IS LIKE, WHICH WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM FOR US. THERE'S AN ELECTRICAL GRID WHICH, ON THAT PART OF TOWN, HAS A LOT MORE RAISED WIRES, A LOT MORE TREES, WHICH LEADS TO A LOT MORE POWER OUTAGES WHEN IT COMES TO ANY KIND OF INCLEMENT WEATHER. SO A LOT OF OUR CONCERNS ARE RELATED TO NOT JUST TRAFFIC. WE HAVE A LOT OF FAMILIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF IT LOOKED LIKE THE DESIGN HAD CITY PUBLIC PARK, IF WE WANTED TO ACCESS THAT WE COULD NOT LET OUR KIDS CROSS THE ROAD. WE WILL NEVER LET THEM GET NEAR THAT ROAD. IF WE DID THAT WE WOULD NEED SOMETHING LIKE A STOPLIGHT, WHICH WOULD HURT THE TRUCKING, BECAUSE THEY ARE PAID BY DELIVERY . SO THEY WOULD NOT LIKE THAT. SO THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME KIND OF, NOT JUST TRAFFIC ISSUE , BUT DEALING WITH A LOT OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND USAGE OF THE ROAD. SO THAT'S OUR MAJOR CONCERN. THANK YOU. >> KYLE CASEY, CREEK VIEW COURT. THIRD WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. WE MOVED BACK SEVERAL YEARS AGO. MY NEIGHBOR BACK HOME WAS ALWAYS 10 ACRES AWAY ACROSS A POND AND [01:10:03] PASTOR. SO THIS IS A MOVE FOR ME. LIKE KEVIN SAID, IT'S REALLY QUITE AREA. THAT'S WHAT KIND OF SOLD ME ON THE SAND HILL AREA. IT'S KIND OF YOUR LAST FRONTIER FOR THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. KIND OF LIKE WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, IT'S A VERY BUSY ROAD. I WORK HERE FOR THE CITY COURT AND I HAVE HEARD SEVERAL TIMES -- ANY KIDS OVER THERE. THE CURVE COMING DOWN SAND HILL COVERED BY THE WATER , IS CALLED& CURVE. WHAT I HEARD. THAT'S MY CONCERN. KIND OF THE TRAFFIC, THE BUSINESS OF THAT ROAD. DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT SHOULD STOP. BUT THE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO MAKE SURE IT'S A SAFER PLACE FOR OUR FAMILIES AND WHOEVER LIVES ACROSS THE STREET. PLUS, MILL CREEK, YOU ARE OUT OF THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE OLD GOLF COURSE USED TO BE WHERE THAT STAGE IS. MILL CREEK -- A NIGHTMARE RIGHT NOW. AND THEN YOU HAD ALL THAT TRAFFIC GOING OVER, WHICH WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT DEVELOP IN EARLIER. THAT'S A LOT . THE CONGESTION THAT CAN BUILD UP. SAFETY IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN. I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> HOW ARE Y'ALL? 238 KELLY LANE. WE ARE GETTING READY TO BUILD OUR HOUSE OUT ON SAND HILL ROAD. I, FOR ONE, THINK THEY RAISE A LOT OF GOOD POINTS. I DO THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD ADD TO OUR AREA . THIS IS THE LAST AREA ON SAND HILL ROAD THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS WITH COMMERCIAL. IT'S VERY RURAL OUT THERE. WE HOMELAND OUT THERE AS WELL. IT'S A LOT OF BIG HOUSES, A LOT OF FARMS. WE TRAVEL INTO TOWN TO DO ANYTHING I THINK THIS WOULD BE A NICE ADD TO THE AREA. THAT'S ALL GOING TO SAY. >> PLEASE SIGN IN. ANYONE ELSE? >> DUSTIN. 1600 SAND HILL ROAD. OWNER OF 40 ACRES OF MEALY ACROSS THE CREEK FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN ADD. I THINK MR. GASTON AND SEVERAL OF THE OTHER SUMMED IT UP PRETTY WELL. THE BRIDGE THE SIDE OF THE CREEK , VERY NARROW . A TON OF TRAFFIC. COMING FROM THE QUARRY . AGAIN, VERY UNLIKE ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S OUT THAT WAY IN GENERAL . AGAIN, MOST OF THOSE THINGS WERE PRETTY WELL SUMMARIZED AND I AGREE WITH MOST EVERYTHING OUT THERE . THE OTHER, SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA, ARBOR WOODS , -- RIDGE, ALL WERE HELD TO STANDARDS TO KEEP THE DENSITY DOWN. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT I THINK THE DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS. >> THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING. MIKE COCKRELL, 2216 MT. VERNON LANE. I'M ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN AND I'M GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN . IN TWO OR THREE MINUTES I CAN GET TO WHATEVER I NEED TO GET TO. I JUST THINK THIS , ALONG WITH THE COMMERCIAL ASPECT OF IT, ALONG WITH THE GREEN ASPECT OF IT I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME KIND OF CONNECTIVITY WITH THE CITY. IS THAT CORRECT? AS FAR AS GREEN SPACE IS CONCERNED. >> YES. I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AT THE END. >> I JUST THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEEDED. IT'S GREAT. ON THE SOUTH SIDE AS OPPOSED TO THE NORTH SIDE. IT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO HOMEOWNERS DOWN THERE . I HAD A CLIENT TELL ME THAT THEY LIVE AT CREEK VIEW. THEY BOUGHT AT CREEK VIEW BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE VELVET [01:15:01] WAS GOING TO COME THEIR WAY AND NOTHING HAS COME THEIR WAY. I THINK IT WOULD BE A BENEFIT >> ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> PRETTY REGISTER, KELLY LANE. I AM WILL'S WIFE. ALSO BUILDING OUR HOUSE OUT ON SAND HILL. THE FAMILY HAS GOT SOME LAND OUT THERE. PERSONALLY, CONSIDERING THAT WE ARE PLANNING TO LIVE THERE FOR OUR WHOLE LIVES , HOPEFULLY, GOD WILLING, WE PLAN TO BE OUT THERE FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PROJECT , I DO LIKE IT A LOT. I WOULD SAY IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THAT IF YOU LIVE ON SAND HILL , AS FAR AS SHOPPING OPTIONS, YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO EITHER GO MARK, ALL THE, OR YOU HAVE TO GO TO TIGER TOWN. I PERSONALLY AM A VICTIM OF THAT. >> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. SEEING NO ONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. QUESTIONS WERE HAVE THE APPLICANT JOIN US I GUESS. >> FROM A CONNECTIVITY PEACE, WHAT THEY ARE REFERENCING WAS THE TRAIL ASPECT OF IT. WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT MUCH MORE ON THE PDD FOR THE REZONING. THE FLOODPLAIN , I GUESS IT'S 32 ACRES . ON THE PLANE IT'S SHOWING THAT'S BEING DEDICATED TO THE CITY. WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. THE GREEN SPACE MASTER PLAN THAT HAD BEEN UPDATED HAS A LOT OF THE GREENWAYS. THEY ARE ALONG MAJOR CREEKS. THIS BEING A CONFLUENCE OF IT, THERE'S PIECES ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF THIS TIRE THING THAT KIND OF RUN ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE AND THE EAST SIDE OF IT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT HIGHLIGHTED IN THE PDD AND I THINK HAZEL HAS A PRESENTATION WHERE IT HIGHLIGHTS. WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT LATER PICK >> GREAT. APPLICANT? >> HOW ARE Y'ALL TODAY? HAYES EIFORD, SANFORD GROUP. ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPMENT. OUR OFFICE IS AT 2249 MILLS ROAD , SUITE 120. LOTS OF QUESTIONS APPEAR. TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE CONFUSION. THE BACK STORY OF THIS PROJECT IS WE BROUGHT THIS IN ABOUT A YEAR AGO. WITH A VERY SIMILAR PLAN, LDD WITH THE PDD OVERLAY. THERE WAS TALK ABOUT THE PDD ORDINANCE THAT WAS COMING IN. THIS FIT PERFECTLY IN THAT KIND OF BOX. WE HELD OUT FOR COUPLE OF MONTHS WAITING FOR THAT ORDINANCE . WE CONTINUE TO HOLD OUT. IT HASN'T SUBSTANTIATED YET. THAT IS WHY WE'VE GONE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND IN REGARD TO OUR TIMELINE , MEETING THE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE, WE ARE JUST TRYING TO GO AHEAD AND GET AN ANSWER, LIKE I MENTIONED, LIKE JUSTICE MENTIONED EARLIER. REALLY, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, I WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION PREPARED TO ANSWER A LOT OF THESE CONCERNS HE HAS BROUGHT UP AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THAT IF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE. >> I HAVE IN THE PDD ONE. IT'S UP TO Y'ALL. IF YOU WANT TO HEAR NOW, IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT THEN, EITHER OR. >> HAVE YOU GUYS INFORMATION? >> WE DON'T HAVE A FORMAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT YET. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, CONVERSATION WITH WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT . THE TRAFFIC STUDY BY STAFF, THAT HASN'T CHANGED . I DON'T WANT TO SIT HERE AND SAY THAT HE JUST SHOWED US, IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, I THINK HE'S HAD A PLAN TOGETHER. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS ABOUT IT. LIKE I SAID, THERE IS NO FORMALIZED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR OTHER PROJECTS. WE ARE LOOSELY AWARE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAYES EIFORD INTENDED TO BRING IN. WE HAVE HAD TWO OR THREE IN THIS PROPERTY ALONE. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THIS. WE VETTED IT TO THE POINT WHERE THERE IS A FORMALIZED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOW. >> SO I ASSUME WAY INTO THE NEXT [01:20:01] , UNTIL WE GO TO THE NEXT ITEM. BECAUSE WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS ITEM 1ST. >> THAT'S HOW I WOULD SAY. YEAH. THIS IS JUST OF THE ZONING. BUT I THINK THE PDD TALKS ABOUT EVERYTHING IN ITS ENTIRETY THAT WRAPS EVERYTHING UP AND PUTS IT TOGETHER. >> WHAT I WOULD ADD THERE, WE WOULD NOT HAVE THIS -- CONSTRAINTS OF THE CALENDAR AND AHEAD AND BE VOTED ON TODAY. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS? HICKORY CREEK LDD ZONING REQUEST. >> THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE, THE DOCUMENT SAYS NO REZONING OF LAND UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE. ARE THERE ADEQUATE PUBLIC UTILITIES AVAILABLE NOW? >> THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WOULD SPEAK TO. NORMALLY, THAT HAS BEEN REZONED FROM RURAL TO DDH OR WHATEVER. BY A DEVELOPING AGREEMENT. IN THE PAST, WE SAY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE IRONED OUT BEFORE THEN. SO WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING IS THAT THEY MAY GET A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN THERE MAY BE A LAG FROM WHEN IT GOES TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND GOES TO COUNSEL BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE BUTTONED UP. THERE ARE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THERE. FOR THIS, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. IF YOU GUYS WANTED TO VOTE IT DOWN THEN THAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE REASON WHY. LIKE I SAID, THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION . IT IS HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING FORMALLY SIGNED TO AGREE TO WITH BOTH PARTIES. >> A CONDITIONAL ZONING REQUEST? >> YEAH. >> WE HAVE COMMENTS THAT SPEAK TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THIS WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT. A DEVELOPING AGREEMENT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THIS, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, TO BE HEARD BY COUNSEL PRIVILEGE. >> THE REASON I ASK THAT IS BECAUSE THE COMMENT ON THIS REZONING REQUEST, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY CHANGE FROM RURAL, SINCE IT WAS JUST ANNEXED, TO THIS, UNLESS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS PUT INTO PLACE. AS A COMMISSION, WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THE PDD TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE WITH OUR DECISION AND THAT. >> YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO CONDITION THAT ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SIGNED AT THE TIME THAT IT'S PASSING, THAT'S FINE. WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. I THINK WE ARE ACTIVELY TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM THAT IN THE FUTURE. THAT WE WANT THE UTILITIES TO BE BUTTONED UP FOR YOU ALL MAKE A DECISION. THAT WAY -- RECOMMENDING A REZONING WITHOUT ADEQUATE UTILITIES IN PLACE TO REALIZE THE DENSITY. >> PERSONALLY, YOU AS A DEVELOPER HAVE ISSUES. BUT THAT'S NOT OUR CONCERN. OUR CONCERN IS MAKING SURE IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT YOUR DEVELOPING, IT'S THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT, NEXT DEVELOP AFTER THAT THAT COME THROUGH HERE AND MAKE SURE ALL OF THE I'S ARE DOTTED AND T'S ARE CROSSED. IT IS AN OPTION FOR US TO POSTPONE THIS. RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. >> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM AND THE NEXT TWO ITEMS UNTIL 2011 AND NOT SEND ITEMS TO THE COMMISSION THAT DO NOT HAVE THE I'S DOTTED AND T'S CROSSED. I JUST THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP THAT ESTABLISHED AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE EXPECT. >> YEAH. >> SO I MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE RZ-2025- 012 . >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO POSTPONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? >> SO YOU WILL NEED TO POSTPONE [14. Rezoning - Hickory Creek PDD - PUBLIC HEARING] THE NEXT TWO AS WELL. >> DO WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING? OR CAN WE JUST POSTPONE IT? >> AND ASK A QUESTION? CAN YOU CLARIFY ON YOUR MOTION AND A DECISION ? YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PREVIOUS ITEM. HE WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO BE ABLE TO PULL THAT BACK OPEN ? SO IF YOU DO POSTPONE THESE ITEMS, COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE PUBLIC HEARING BEING POSTPONED WITH THAT? [01:25:02] >> UPON POSTPONEMENT THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE REOPENED. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEAK TO IT TO THE PREVIOUS ONE. YOU CAN ALWAYS OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU'VE ALREADY HAD ONE. SPEAKING TO THE FACT THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO THE REZONING TO LDD. HOWEVER, WITH THE OTHER ITEMS , WE NEED TO ACT ON THOSE, IF YOU DO ACT TO POSTPONE THEM, AND I DO REFERENCE THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE HELD OVER TO THE NEXT. >> FOR THE NEXT TWO. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> MAKES SENSE. >> OKAY. >> CAN WE MOVE TO PROPOSE TO POSTPONE BOTH ITEMS? THE NEXT TWO ITEMS TOGETHER? OR DO WE HAVE TO VOTE SEPARATELY ON THEM? >> SEPARATE. >> I WOULD SAY DO THE INDIVIDUAL CASE NUMBERS. >> THAT I MOVED TO POSTPONE RZ-2025-016 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 11TH, 25 , AND THAT WE THEN HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. RIGHT? >> YET. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. [15. Conditional Use - Hickory Creek - PUBLIC HEARING] ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? >> AND MOVED TO POSTPONE CU-2025-046 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 11TH, 25. AT WHICH TIME THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL TAKE PLACE FOR THAT. >> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE . >> ANY OPPOSED? ONE SECOND. ONE SECOND. WE ARE JUST TAKING A MOMENT FOR EVERYONE TO GET SETTLED AGAIN. I JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER JOE -- JOSEPH AISTRUP IS LEAVING. UE [16. Conditional Use - The Corner Market Plus - PUBLIC HEARING] APPROVAL FOR A COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USE, WITH THAT BEING A PACKAGE STORE. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY LOCATED ON 850 MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE. SO, LOOKING AT THE PROXY MAP, THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE AREA. SO, THIS BOX HIGHLIGHTED IS THE CURRENT MARKET STORE, IT IS PRETTY MUCH JUST LIKE FOOD, GAS STATION, THEY ALSO SELL BEER, THEY ALSO SELL WINE UP TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF ALCOHOL. WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS A 510 SQUARE FOOT REPURPOSE OF AN INTERIOR SPACE FOR WINE THAT IS HIGHER PERCENTAGE, AS WELL AS LIQUOR. SO, LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, THIS IS NOT AN ADDITION, THIS IS A REPURPOSE AND A 510 SQUARE FEET OF INTERNAL SPACE. THERE WILL BE A SEPARATE DOORWAY THAT IS SEPARATE FROM THE MAIN CORNER STORE, SO NO ONE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE MAIN STORE IN ORDER TO GET ACCESS TO THIS. THIS IS SIMPLY ITS OWN SPACE, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> SO, HOW DOES THIS SEPARATE INSTANCE WORK? SO, YOU COME IN, YOU GO INTO THE PACKAGE STORE, AND YOU CHECK OUT AT THE COUNTER, THAT CASH COUNTER THAT IS IN THE GROCERY STORE? OR, HOW DOES THAT WORK? >> RIGHT. >> I GUESS I KIND OF GOT LOST WITH THAT. >> YEAH. >> TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT. >> YEAH, SO, THIS IS ACTUALLY ON MY COMMUTE TO WORK AND I HAVE STOPPED IN HERE FOR LUNCH BEFORE, TO GET SOMETHING BEFORE LUNCH, LIKE IN THE MORNING. BUT, IF YOU IMMEDIATELY WALK INTO THE DOOR, LIKE, TO YOUR LEFT, IF YOU JUST WALKED IN AND STUCK OUT YOUR LEFT HAND, YOU WOULD TOUCH THE COUNTER. IT IS ALL PLEXIGLAS, WHATEVER, WITH A GUY STANDING BEHIND THE COUNTER, RIGHT THERE. SO, THEY HAVE CIGARETTES AND EVERYTHING BEHIND THERE, JUST KIND OF TYPICAL GAS STATION, JUST KIND OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. BUT, THEN, THEY HAVE OTHER OFFERINGS, AND GENERALLY IT LOOKS A LOT BIGGER ON THIS THAN IT REALLY IS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE AISLES AND STUFF IN THE MIDDLE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS OTHER STUFF -- BUT, THERE IS AISLES VERTICALLY, AND THEN HORIZONTALLY IN THE STORE, AS WELL. BUT, THE COUNTER, I IMAGINE WOULD STAY IN THE SAME [01:30:02] PLACE. IMMEDIATELY, WALK IN, IT IS ABOUT 10, 15 FEET OR SO, THIS IS NOT TO SCALE. BUT, YEAH. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT THIS IS A STATE REQUIREMENT, THAT THIS HAS TO BE ISOLATED, I THINK WE DISCUSSED THAT BEFORE, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT, THIS CONFIGURATION THEY HAVE SHOWN IS PRETTY TYPICAL FOR THIS KIND OF FACILITY. >> AND I THINK I ASKED THIS AT PACKET, HOW FAR IS THE NEXT STORE, THE NEXT LIQUOR SALES STORE? >> 0.4 MILES. >> WHICH WOULD BE -- >> RIGHT. THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. AND AS THE APPLICANT HERE, DO WE KNOW? YEAH, OKAY. I JUST -- YEAH, WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD ABOUT THE CORNER MARKET PLUS CONDITIONAL USE, ITEM. >> GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. >> I AM STEPHEN FAULK, PASTOR OF AUBURN CHURCH, 576 MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE HERE IN AUBURN, ALABAMA. AS WE HAVE THE FOUR HERE AGAIN VOICING OUR OPPOSITIONS WITH A LIQUOR STORE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OUR CHURCH. THERE ARE ALREADY TWO PACKAGE STORES, LIQUOR STORES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, AND THIS WILL BE THE THIRD ONE. AND FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS THAT I HAVE SHARED IN A LETTER TO YOU, WE ARE NOT OPPOSING TO CAPITALISM AND PEOPLE DOING VARIOUS BUSINESS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE, FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND FOR THEMSELVES. BUT, WE DO STAND IN OPPOSITION TO A LIQUOR PACKAGE STORE, AND THIS BEING THE THIRD ONE WITHIN 1500 FEET. OF THE CHURCH. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO EXPRESS OUR OPPOSITIONS TO PREVIOUS PACKAGE STORES, BUT WE WILL GO FORWARD DOING THAT. MANY OF OUR LEADERS FROM THE CHURCH ARE HERE, TO STAND IN AGREEMENT WITH ME ON THIS POSITION. THANK YOU. SCHEMA >> CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN IN? IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO THE ITEM AT HAND? >> GOOD EVENING. I AM DORIS TALBOT, I LIVE AT 667 EXPRESS AVENUE HERE IN AUBURN. AND AS SAID BEFORE, WE DON'T WANT A PACKAGE STORE AT FAMILY DOLLAR AND WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER PACKAGE STORE IN THE COMMUNITY. WE WOULD ACCEPT A POLICE SUBSTATION. NO, THIS PACKAGE STORE IS RIGHT THERE, TOO. AND WE HAVE A NEW SUBDIVISION COMING UP OFF OF THE STREET AND I AM SURE THAT THE BUYERS OVER THERE WOULD NOT APPRECIATE A PACKAGE GOING THAT CLOSE TO THE COMMUNITY. SO, I LOVE IT, AS OTHER MEMBERS OF MY CHURCH HAVE SAID. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> HOW YOU DOING? >> HI. >> MY NAME IS ANGST AND STEEL, I AM A MEMBER OF AUBURN DESIGN CHURCH. >> YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE? >> SAY IT AGAIN? >> YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE? >> MA'AM? >> YOUR ADDRESS. >> 1309 AUBURN DRIVE, AUBURN, ALABAMA. I AM A MEMBER OF, LIKE I SAID, AUBURN DESIGN. AND AS PASTOR SAID, WE OPPOSE ANOTHER LIQUOR STORE, RIGHT HERE AT OUR FRONT DOOR. AT NOT JUST OUR CHURCH, BUT I THINK OUT OF THE BACK DOOR OF THAT STORE IS ANOTHER CHURCH. AND TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE A SLAP IN [01:35:04] THE FACE TO THIS COMMUNITY, TO PUT A LIQUOR STORE IN THE FRONT DOOR OF A CHURCH. 1500 FEET FROM ANOTHER CHURCH. WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP AUBURN, AUBURN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD? >> GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS PAMELA PITTS AND I RESIDE AT 412 KIRSTEN ROAD, AUBURN, ALABAMA. I AM A MEMBER OF AUBURN DESIGN CHURCH. I AM IN OPPOSITION OF A PACKAGE STORE. I WILL ENCOURAGE THAT IF SHE DEVELOPS A BAR AND GRILL, SOME TYPE OF RESTAURANT, THAT WE WOULD WELCOME SUCH A THING. BUT, JUST AS A PACKAGE STORE, WE ALSO HAVE HOUSING AUTHORITY TO FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THERE THAT GIVE THE WHOLE PROJECT AND YOU HAVE DRAKE'S APARTMENT, A LOT OF KIDS BACK AND FORTH. TEENAGERS, TRYING TO GET WHERE THEY GET. SO, THAT IS WHY I OPPOSE IT. >> THANK YOU. >> HELLO, HELLO. MY NAME IS NOAH D SCOTT I LIVE AT 1515 COMMERCE CENTER, AUBURN, ALABAMA. I AM OPPOSING THAT -- THAT'S TOO MUCH. I DO NOT -- I DON'T DRINK, I DON'T SMOKE. BUT, TO SEE OUR YOUNG KIDS GET INTRODUCED TO THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I OPPOSE THAT, BECAUSE AS A MOTHER, TO SEE MY KIDS TO GROW UP AND DRINK -- I OPPOSE THAT, THEN. BUT, THE STATE OF ALABAMA GAVE THEM THE RIGHT BECAUSE THEY TURNED 21. BUT, TO SEE OUR YOUNG CHILDREN HAVING TO GO AND BE ABLE TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL OR HAVE SOMEONE ELSE TO PURCHASE FOR THEM -- LET'S NOT MAKE THAT EASY FOR THEM. SO, I DO OPPOSE THAT, MYSELF. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. SEEING NO ONE, I AM GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. APPLICANT, YOU CAN COME FORWARD, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. >> GOOD EVENING. I AM RORY I LIVE AT 9662 AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT R&C ENTERPRISES, THE APPLICANT. I AM VERY SENSITIVE TO WHAT I HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF FAMILIES OF THE CHURCH BUT I WILL ALSO ADD THAT I AM A MEMBER OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH, THE CHURCH THAT IS RIGHT THERE BESIDE THE STORE THAT MY SISTER AND I BUILT OVER 18 YEARS AGO IN NORTHWEST AUBURN. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD, YOU KNOW, I DON'T STAND FOR, IN THAT STORE -- I SHOULD SAY, THE MARKET. AND I SAY "THE MARKET," INTENTIONALLY. THAT WHEN WE BUILT THIS STORE 18 YEARS AGO, WE DIDN'T CALL IT A "STORE," WE CALLED IT A "MARKET," BECAUSE WE WERE LOOKING TO BRING VARIOUS ITEMS, DRIED GOODS, THINGS TO THE COMMUNITY THAT HADN'T BEEN IN DEVELOPMENT FOR 40 YEARS. WE HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 18 YEARS NOW, AND THERE IS A FOOTPRINT, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE 500 SQUARE FEET OF THE PACKAGE STORE BEING ABLE TO SELL LIQUORS AND ALL. THE INTENT IS NOT TO CORRUPT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE INTENT IS NOT TO OFFER THINGS THAT WOULD NOT ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE SIMPLY OFFERING THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO OFFER BY A LOT OF OUR CUSTOMERS AND MEMBERS. SO, I PLEDGE TO CITY HALL, I PLEDGE TO YOU, ALL, THAT ANYTHING WE DO AT 18TH AND KING DRIVE, THAT IT BE DONE IN GOOD TASTE. IF IT GETS DONE IN GOOD TASTE AND REFLECTS AUBURN, IT WILL REFLECT THE TYPE OF GROWTH THAT WE HAVE. AND WE WILL ALWAYS BE MINDFUL OF THE CITIZENS WHO LIVE IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY AND ASSURING THE KIDS AND ARE SAFE, AND EVERYTHING ELSE, OTHERWISE. SO, I'M JUST HERE TO SAY THIS IS NOT DONE WITH ANY ILL INTENT AND NOT CAREFUL THOUGHT. WE ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT I HAVE BEEN DOING IN THE COMMUNITY FOR OVER 20 YEARS. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT OR STAFF? OR, DO WE NEED TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ANSWERED? >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PARKING SITUATION, THERE. IT'S -- I WILL WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE FINISHED SIGNING IN. SO, WITH THIS, THERE ARE NO PLANS TO [01:40:09] EXTEND THE PARKING LOT AT THE BACK ON FOSTER STREET, CORRECT? >> UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN'T. THAT IS ALL THE LAND WE HAVE, THERE. OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE LOOKED OVER THE SPAN OF THINGS, BUT JUST RIGHT NOW, THE APPETITE IS NOT TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION, SO WE ARE LIMITED BY WHAT WE HAVE, AND THE SPACE THAT WE HAVE, IS WHAT WE HAVE. >> BUT, PARKING WOULD BE, IF APPROVED, PARKING WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME FOOTPRINT? >> YEAH, NO -- YEAH, IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD REVIEW. I GUESS, JUST VERIFY IF THERE WOULD BE MORE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED VERSUS WHAT IS ALREADY THERE, BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE. >> I WAS ASKING IN REFERENCE TO IF THIS IS GOING TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF VISITORS? >> PROBABLY. BUT, I MEAN -- YEAH. SO -- SO, I GUESS, KIND OF, HOW WE DERIVE PROPERTY PARKING, IT IS NORMALLY BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO, AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD REVIEW. JUST, KIND OF, IF THEY HAD THAT WITH THE PARKING, HOW MANY PARKING SPACES THEY HAD, OR WHATEVER. BUT, I GUESS ON A LOT OF THESE, ON THE COMMERCIAL SPACES, IT IS RARELY A CASE WHERE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH, SO WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS DOWNTOWN, WHERE THERE IS EXISTING NONCONFORMITY, AND I GUESS FOR THE GOALPOST THERE COULD BE ONE IN PARTICULAR WHERE THOSE PARKING SPACES DON'T EVEN APPLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BACK OUT ONTO THE STREET TO GET OUT OF THEM. SO, THIS WOULDN'T BE THE CASE, THERE. THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD REVIEW, SO I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENT MAY GO UP, BUT LIKE I SAID, COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES ARE NORMALLY OVERBUILT ON PARKING, SO IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT THE SITE PLAN WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? >> DO WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN AUBURN ABOUT DISTANCES, FROM SCHOOLS, AND CHURCHES, AND OTHER TYPES OF ESTABLISHMENTS? >> I DON'T THINK WE DO. LAST TIME I LOOKED AT IT, IT WAS JUST KIND OF -- THE FARMVILLE AND THE COMMERCIAL SECTION, UP THERE. SO, THERE IS A STATE LAW THAT DOES REQUIRE THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT, I GUESS THAT'S -- THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING ON, I GUESS, THAT THE STATE WOULD REVIEW. LIKE I SAID, THAT IS ALL SUBMITTED ON THE LIQUOR LICENSE SIDE. >> I AM CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING. I LOOKED AT GOOGLE EARTH AFTER THE FRONT PARKING LOT WAS FULL, AND THEY TOOK THAT PICTURE, AND IT IS A LONG WAY BACK IN THE PARKING LOT. JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF -- I BELIEVE -- ADDITIONAL PEOPLE. BECAUSE I KNOW THE OPAL ROAD AND GAY STREET WERE NOT POPE WAS PUT IN, I AM IN THE AREA QUITE A BIT, AND MULTIPLE TIMES, THE PARKING INCREASED, THE NUMBER OF CARS INCREASED. >> IF I COULD, I WOULD JUST, ADDITIONALLY, ON THE BACK OF THE STORE -- AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE JUST DID RECENTLY -- THERE IS REAR ENTRY INTO THE STORE THAT MAKES IT EASILY ACCESSIBLE FOR THOSE PARKING IN THE REAR TO ENTER, AND LESS CONJECTURE ON THE FRONT SIDE. SO -- >> BUT, THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO COME -- TO GET INTO THIS, THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM THE OUTSIDE, RIGHT? >> YES. AND THAT IS WITH THE CONSIGNMENT STORE. >> OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> I DO NEED TO SAY, COMMISSIONER CHANSLER IS RECUSING HIMSELF. COMMISSIONERS -- COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, OR EMOTIONS? >> JUST ONE MORE TIME, IF WE SAY THERE WAS ANOTHER LIQUOR STORE WITHIN PROXIMITY -- >> YEAH. YES, YEAH. SO, .04 MILES, THAT IS AT THE CORNER OF DONAHUE AND MLK, AND IF YOU GO SOUTH ON DONAHUE FROM THERE, MAKING A RIGHT, AND ACROSS THE TRACKS, WHEN YOU GET TO THE LIGHT, TO THE LEFT ACROSS THE STREET IS ANOTHER ONE, THAT IS GOALPOST. THAT IS AT THE CORNER OF GLENN AND DONAHUE. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, THIS WOULD BE THE THIRD LIQUOR STORE WITHIN A HALF -- CALL IT A HALF-MILE AREA? HONESTLY, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. BUT, AGAIN, FOR REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID BY OTHERS, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. [01:45:04] IT FEELS EXCESSIVE, TO ME, AS WELL. >> I WOULD AGREE. THE COMMUNITY IS OPPOSED. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, WE NEED TO VOTE ON IT, RIGHT? SO, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE CU-2025-040. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE APPROVE OF CONDITIONAL USE OF PACKAGE STORE. NOW, FOR VOTING. >> O, SECOND. >> I VOTE YES. >> JUST DEBATING ROLLCALL, OR -- >> ROLLCALL. >> ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> NONET REESE? >> YES. >> CAMP? >> NO. >> VANESSA ECHOLS? >> NO. >> JENNIFER STEPHENS? >> NO. >> OSCAR MOSELEY? >> NO. >> WALKER DAVIS? >> NO. >> HI, COMMISSIONERS. OH, GOOD. COULD YOU PLEASE LOWER THAT? I CAN'T SEE. OH, IT CAME BACK UP. >> IT'S A MAGIC DUST. [17. Waiver - Greenbriar Subdivision] >> THANK YOU. THIS NEXT REQUEST IS A WAIVER TO THE CITY OF AUBURN SUBURBAN REGULATIONS THAT PERMIT FLAG LOT FROM A COLLECTOR ROAD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AT 389 SHELL TUMOR PARKWAY WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A CORRECTOR. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 7.39 ACRES, IT HAS JUST OVER 400 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON SHELL TOOMER AND THE APPLICANT WISHES TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT IS THREE ACRES. SO, POTENTIALLY, THIS COULD HAPPEN. WE HAVEN'T SEEN A FORMAL PLAT SUBMITTED, YET, THAT SHOWS THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION OF THE LOTS. THE STANDARD MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT IS 70 FEET, HOWEVER THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ALLOW A FLAG LOT TO BE A MINIMUM OF 30 FEET UP THE ROAD FRONTAGE. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THIS EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS A PROPOSED LAYOUT WITH THE 30 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE ON SHELL TOOMER. AND THAT REALLY IS ALL, FOR THE PRESENTATION. I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THIS WAIVER DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. SO, IF Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND/OR STAFF? >> YEAH, I WOULD IMAGINE -- SHE IS HERE, SHE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. >> APPLICANT, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS, YOU ARE FREE TO COME FORWARD. >> PROBABLY THE SHORTEST ONE HERE, RIGHT? GOOD EVENING, AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS BECKY TUTTLE AND I LIVE AT 389 SHELL TOOMER PARKWAY. I PREPARED SOME, SO I'M JUST GOING TO READ STRAIGHT FROM IT, IF THAT'S OKAY. SOME CONTEXT TO WHY I DON'T HAVE A PLAT FOR YOU, RIGHT NOW. SOME CONTEXT BEHIND WHAT I AM REQUESTING TO DO. WHEN I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2022, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS IN MY DECISION WAS THE UNDERSTANDING BASED ON THE INSURANCES FROM THE LISTING AGENT AND A PRELIMINARY LAYOUT PROVIDED AS EXHIBIT A. I HAVE EMAILED SOME -- I HAVE EVEN EMAILED THAT EXHIBIT AND I HAVE ONE WITH ME, IF YOU NEED IT. >> YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? YEAH, THERE WE GO. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. THE EXHIBIT A WAS PROVIDED TO ME WHEN I WAS REVIEWING PURCHASING IT, AND I WAS TOLD THEN THE SUBDIVISION WAS POSSIBLE WITH THE LAYOUT IN EXHIBIT A. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE ASSURANCES WEREN'T BINDING, I DID ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND BEGAN THE PROCESS SOON AFTER PURCHASING, TO SUBDIVIDE. AT THAT TIME, I SHARED A EXHIBIT A WITH A PLANNING ENGINEER THAT IS NO LONGER WITH THE CITY, AND NO CONCERNS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE UTILIZING A 30 OR 35 FOOT ACCESS, LIKE WAS MENTIONED. UNFORTUNATELY, SOME DAMAGES THAT WE DISCOVERED TO THE HOUSE MADE [01:50:07] IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE IT. HOWEVER, I HAVE GONE AHEAD AND PURCHASED A SURVEY. SO, THE WAIVER THAT I AM REQUESTING IS KIND OF A PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE WAIVER WILL BE APPROVED TO HELP ME MITIGATE SOME OF THE COSTS FOR DOING A SURVEY FOR PERMISSION TO SUBDIVIDE. THE WAIVER I AM REQUESTING, IT ADDRESSES TWO MAIN CHALLENGES. THE PLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING HOME -- WHICH LIMITS HOW PROPERTY CAN BE DIVIDED WITHOUT CREATING PRACTICAL INDIVIDUAL ISSUES. AND, THE NEED FOR OUR FLAG LOT TO WORK AROUND THAT CONSTRAIN LAW, WORKING AROUND THE PROPERTY'S NATURAL APPEAL. SO, AS WAS MENTIONED ON PAPER, MY LOT DOES HAVE ABOUT 435 FEET OF LOT FRONTAGE. SO, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH MAKING THAT 70 FOOT REQUIREMENT WOULD BE EASY TO DO. BUT, BECAUSE OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND THE WAY THAT THE HOME THAT WAS THERE WHEN I PURCHASED WAS POSITIONED, MEETING THAT RULE WOULD MEAN A NUMBER OF THINGS. IT WOULD MEAN THE LOSS OF APPROXIMATELY ONE THIRD OF AN ACRE ON THE EAST SIDE, PUSHING THE REAR PROPERTY LINE SET BACK EXTREMELY CLOSE TO THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING HOME. IT WOULD MEAN CUTTING INTO THE EXISTING NATURAL LANDSCAPE, REMOVING MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN FRUIT TREES I HAVE PLANTED, RELOCATING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, CREATING IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOTS, CREATING NEW DRIVEWAYS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE HOME, EXTREMELY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING HOME. AND SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERING THE LANDS' TOPOGRAPHY. BUT, IN CONTRAST, GRANTING THE WAIVER WOULD ALLOW ME TO USE THE DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. ON THE IMAGE TO THE RIGHT, THE YELLOW LINE ACTUALLY SHOWS AN EXISTING ROUNDABOUT DRIVEWAY THAT IS ALREADY THERE. IT WOULD PRESERVE THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE AND FRUIT TREES, IT WOULD AVOID MOVING UTILITIES, AND IT WOULD WORK AROUND THE FLOOD ZONE THAT IS ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE, AND IT WOULD ALSO HELP MITIGATE THE CONSTRAINTS OF THESE TWO WERE EASEMENTS THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO ONE OF THE LARGEST SEWER MAINS IN THE CITY, AND IT WOULD MAKE BETTER USE OF ITS IRREGULAR SHAPE WITHOUT DISRUPTING ITS CHARACTER. WITH REGARDS TO THE COLLECTOR ROAD RESTRICTION, MY PROPERTY DOES NOT AND NEVER WILL, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, EVER DIRECTLY ACCESS THE COLLECTOR ROAD AS SHOWN IN ALL OF THE APPENDIX A SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THE ROUTE TO THE ROAD ACTUALLY PASSES THROUGH STATE PARK PROPERTY. ALL SUBDIVISION ACCESS HAPPENS ENTIRELY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BEFORE REACHING THE PARK BOUNDARY. BECAUSE OF THIS, THERE IS NO CHANGE TO CITY OR STATE INFRASTRUCTURE, NO NEW TRAFFIC PATTERNS, NO SAFETY HAZARDS. AND IN FACT, MY SITUATION MIGHT, COULD REASONABLY BE INTERPRETED AS MEETING THE INTERNAL SUBDIVISION STREET EXCEPTION IN THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. SO, IN SUMMARY, THIS WAIVER ISN'T ABOUT BENDING THE RULES FOR CONVENIENCE, IT IS ABOUT APPLYING THEM WITH FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS UNIQUE PROPERTY SITUATIONS. IT ALLOWS ME TO RESPONSIBLY SUBDIVIDE IN A WAY THAT PRESERVES THE ENVIRONMENT, PRESERVES EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, AVOIDS UNNECESSARY COST AND DISRUPTION, AND MAINTAINS THE BEAUTY OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, SO I DO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? >> I GOT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. SO, THE ISSUE, HERE, SOUNDS LIKE IT IS, WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD PRELIMINARY PLAT. I MEAN, IF WE HAD A GOOD, LEGIT PRELIMINARY PLAT, WE COULD START ACCOUNTING FOR ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THE PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND SEE IF THEY MAKE SENSE, OR NOT. >> YEAH, THAT IS PART OF IT. I THINK IT MIGHT BE SECONDARY. BUT, YEAH. >> WHAT IS THE MAIN THING? IS THAT THE FLAG LOT HITTING THE -- >> YEAH, I THINK SO. AND I THINK THE PLAT, NOT HAVING A PLAT, MEANS THERE IS NO ACCURACY TO WHAT WE ARE DOING, AND I THINK THAT IS THE -- THAT IS THE MAIN REASON. KIND OF LIKE, TO THE HICKORY CREEK STUFF, SOME OF THE STUFF THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP, WE DON'T REALLY APPROVE THINGS WITHOUT -- >> SO, WE ARE NOT REALLY SAYING THAT, IN PRINCIPLE, THIS IS A BAD THING. THIS IS -- YOU KNOW, WE COULD, GIVEN THE RIGHT [01:55:05] INFORMATION, WE CAN MAKE RIGHT DECISIONS AND ADJUST THINGS AND MAYBE WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN? >> YEAH. I THINK ALSO, KIND OF THINKING THROUGH JUST DIFFERENT LOT CONFIGURATIONS. AND I GET IT. NORMALLY, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE DEALING WITH BUSINESS OWNERS, LAND DEVELOPERS, YOU KNOW, GETTING THE SURVEY DONE. YOU KNOW, THAT'S PENNIES ON THE DIME FOR THOSE GUYS, THEY GET 1 MILLION OF THOSE DONE. I UNDERSTAND, FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, WITH AN ACID ASPIRING TO SUBDIVIDE, THEY MIGHT GET A PRICE TAG ON WHAT THE SUB ACRE LOT WITH THE CREEK AND EVERYTHING MIGHT BE. BUT, ON OUR END, YOU CAN'T TAKE A -- YOU KNOW, A SKETCH UP DRAWING TO THE COURTHOUSE AND RECORD IT. THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. SO, IT'S JUST KIND OF WHERE WE ARE AT ON, WE CAN'T CERTIFY THAT THERE IS THREE ACRES THERE, TO EVEN MAKE A -- EVEN SHOULD YOU GUYS APPROVE THIS WAIVER, WE STILL WON'T BE ABLE TO CERTIFY, YOU KNOW, WILL THOSE THREE ACRES BE MADE? AND I THINK THAT IS PART OF IT. >> I AGREE WITH THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF ARBITRATOR IS THE RIGHT WORD, BUT FROM 7230, IS THAT WITHOUT A SURVEY, OF THE PLAT, KNOWING IT REALLY EXISTS? THAT WAY, IF IT IS A POSSIBILITY THAT SHE NEEDS FROM 7230? >> YEAH, I GUESS, BECAUSE WE CAN MEASURE EVERYTHING ON THE GIS. BUT, EVEN THEN, THE GUYS COME IN AND THEY WILL TELL YOU, WE HAVE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE THEY USE OUR GIS DATA FOR THE PRELIMINARY STUFF, AND THEN THEY WILL ACTUALLY GET A SURVEY AFTER EVERYTHING IS APPROVED, AND IT DID ACCOMMODATE FOR SOMETHING. SO, ON OUR END, WE ARE REALLY KIND OF DEALING WITH PRECISION ON THIS, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE GEOMETRY OF THE 70-30 -- >> FOR THE EASEMENT AND -- >> IT STARTS TO MATTER A LOT. THE OTHER PART -- AND I THINK -- YOU KNOW WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND AS A SUB DIVIDER, SHE COULD GIVE HERSELF A FRUIT TREE EASEMENT. I DON'T THINK THERE HAS EVER BEEN A FRUIT TREE EASEMENT, BUT YOU COULD PUT AN EASEMENT ON THERE THAT WOULD PRESERVE THE TREES. SO, I THINK THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE SICK THERE TO BE TALKED ABOUT AND I JUST DIFFERENT GEOMETRIES THAT ARE POSSIBLE BUT LIKE I SAID, I THINK A LOT OF THAT JUST HAS TO DO WITH, ON OUR END, WE CAN'T REALLY REVIEW SOMETHING IN THEORY. BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU GUYS GAVE THE WAIVER, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT WHEN WE ACTUALLY GET THE SUBDIVISION PLAN, WE WOULD LOOK AT IT AND GO, "THERE ARE STILL SEVERAL THINGS THAT NEED TO CHANGE." >> AND THAT IS ACTUALLY TWO LOTS SO THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO COME BEFORE US, ANYWAY. >> RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE AN ADMIN PLAT. LIKE I SAID, I THINK EVEN GIVING THE WAIVER, ALL OF THAT, WHAT I MEAN IS THAT I COULDN'T -- STAFF WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY, "WE ARE NOT GOING TO SIGN THIS BECAUSE OF PLOT WITH," BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE AREN'T OTHER REASONS THAT WE CAN'T FIND THE PLAT. >> GREAT. >> WHAT DID YOU -- >> I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF SHE POSTPONED -- ASKED ABOUT POSTPONING THE DECISION? I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HELPS WITHOUT -- >> YEAH, SO, LIKE EVERY ITEM, YOU GUYS CAN APPROVE, DENY, POSTPONE, JUST, WE CAN HAPPILY ENGAGE THE APPLICANT WITH IT, BUT LIKE I SAID, I THINK UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS JUST NO ASSURANCES ON OUR END THAT WE CAN GIVE SOMEBODY WITHOUT LOOKING AT A PHYSICAL PLAT THAT HAS THE DIMENSIONS ON THE ACCURACY OF -- LIKE, THERE AREN'T THREE ACRES TO BE HAD, HERE. >> IS THERE TIME TO HAVE A PAPER REQUEST? CAN WE HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK? >> NO, THAT'S CONDITIONAL USES, PRETTY MUCH, AND REZONINGS. NO, NO, NO, NO. NO, NO, NO, NO. >> OKAY. OKAY, THIS IS A REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING. SO, COMMISSIONER? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE CU-2024-003. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR GREENBRIER SUBDIVISION. ROLL CALL? >> NONET REESE? >> NO. >> DANA CAMP? >> NO. >> CHANCELLOR? >> NO. >> VANESSA ECHOLS? >> NO. >> JENNIFER STEPHENS? >> NO. >> MOSTLY? >> NO. >> DAVIS? >> NO. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WELCOME TO OLD BUSINESS. >> I AM SORRY, I AM SO SORRY. >> YOU ARE NOT WRONG, BOTH OF THESE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE, SO [18. Extension of Conditional Use Approval - ArchCo North Dead Road] -- SO, ACTION ON REQUEST FOR THIS ONE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF USE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AT 1397 NORTH DEAN ROAD. OKAY, YOU GUYS ARE [02:00:08] FAMILIAR, ARCHCO, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT IN THE MEETING ON MONDAY, POSSIBLY THE FIFTH TIME THAT THEY HAVE SHOWED BACK UP, THEY HAVE ASKED FOR SEVERAL EXTENSIONS. THE MARKET REALLY HAS DONE A NUMBER FOR WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT AND THEIR FINANCING HAS BEEN THE REASON THEY HAVE ASKED FOR EXTENSIONS IN THE PAST. THE REASON THEY ARE ASKING FOR EXTENSION ON THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT. THEY ARE, AS YOU KNOW, THEY ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF SELLING THE PROPERTY TO INTERLUDE AND INTERLUDE HAS AN ACTIVE CONDITIONAL USE ON SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY YOU ALL, AS WELL, SO WE HAVE KIND OF GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS INTERNALLY. BUT, PRETTY MUCH, ARCHCO'S REASON FOR ASKING IS TO PROTECT THEIR INTEREST IN THE DEAL. SHOULD THE DEAL FALL THROUGH, THEY CAN STILL HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE. TECHNICALLY, THEY HAVE APPROVED ENGINEERING PLANS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED AGAIN BY STAFF, BUT THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN THEN TURN AROUND AND SELL TO SOMEBODY ELSE, IS THERE REASON FOR ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION. THE STAFF OPPOSITION TO THIS, JUST BEYOND THEM SHOWING UP MULTIPLE TIMES AND ASKING FOR THE EXTENSION WITH THIS PROJECT AND TYING UP LAND, THE IDEA OF HAVING MULTIPLE SITE PLANS UNDER ONE USE ON THE SAME SITE IS AN ISSUE. SO, YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE CONDITIONAL USES, YOU CAN HAVE INFINITE CONDITIONAL USES ON A SITE, YOU CAN DO THAT, NO PROBLEM. HAVING MULTIPLE SITE PLANS UNDER ONE CONDITIONAL USE IS MORE OF AN ISSUE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE TWO COMPETING PROJECTS, TWO COMPETING COMPANIES. IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE ANY SENSE. BUT, IT IS KIND OF ON THEM. I MEAN, INTERLUDE WAS AUTHORIZED WITH THE APPLICANT, WITH THEIR APPLICATION AND PERMISSION FROM THE SELLER TO DO SO. I THINK KIND OF UNDER OUR LENS, WE PREFER TO HONOR THE LATEST SUBMISSION, AND KIND OF STICK WITH THAT. AND SO, THAT IS WHERE STAFF COMES DOWN ON IT, WE DON'T REALLY THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE TWO ACTIVE SITE PLANS UNDER ONE. I THINK IT IS ONE THING IF THE SITE PLAN GETS ALTERED FROM ONE TO ANOTHER. BUT, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO START OUT WITH TWO, AND THEN GUYS COME HERE WITH, I HAVE SITE PLAN A, B, OR C, AND WE WILL JUST KIND OF CHOOSE AS WE GO, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO OPEN IT UP TO. >> THE SITE PLANS ARE WITH TWO DIFFERENT APPLICANTS? >> CORRECT. >> AND DIFFERENT? >> CORRECT. VASTLY DIFFERENT. SO, ONE OF THEM IS I THINK A NETWORK OF -- IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT ONE? YEAH. SO, AS YOU GUYS SAW ON THE OTHER ONE, IT WAS MUCH MORE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAD MULTIPLE DIFFERENT HOUSES, DUPLEXES, TRI-PLEXUS, SINGLES, AND THIS IS JUST -- THESE ARE BIGGER BUILDINGS, PRETTY MUCH. AND SO, THIS IS VASTLY DIFFERENT JUST FROM THE SITE PLAN AND ALSO WHAT WOULD BE BUILT. >> AND THE OTHER ISSUE WAS THE REASON FOR THE SIX MONTHS WAS BECAUSE THIS, UNDER ARCHCO, IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE? >> CORRECT. THE EXPIRATION DATE IS SEPTEMBER 19TH. >> IF IT EXPIRES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO -- >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND APPLY FOR AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONDITIONAL USE, DO THE WHOLE THING. SO, THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT, ET CETERA. BUT, LIKE I SAID, THEY EXPRESSED IT WAS PURELY TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS, SHOULD THE INTERLUDE DEAL FALL APART. THEY ARE CONFIDENT IN THE INTERLUDE DEAL, BUT THEY WANT TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS. >> SO, THE PEOPLE THAT -- SEE, ARCHCO WANTS TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS. SO, IF THE OTHER GROUP, INTERLUDE? >> INTERLUDE. >> INTERLUDE. >> INTERLUDE FALLS APART, OKAY, THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN AND PUT FORWARD A NEW SITE PLAN? >> YEAH. >> BUT, IF IT GOES THROUGH, WHAT WOULD BE -- AND WE APPROVE THIS -- I MEAN, IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY KIND OF CONFLICT OF SOME KIND OF INTEREST, THERE? I MEAN, WOULD THAT TURN INTO A CIVIL THING BETWEEN THE TWO DEVELOPERS, OR? >> I GUESS, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT ALREADY BE IN THAT TERRITORY BECAUSE I GUESS TECHNICALLY INTERLUDE DOESN'T EXPIRE FOR ANOTHER MONTH. OR, ARCHCO DOESN'T TECHNICALLY EXPIRE FOR ANOTHER MONTH, BUT INTERLUDE WAS APPROVED A MONTH OR TWO AGO. SO, I GUESS, IN OUR LENS -- >> BY THE CITY COUNCIL? >> CORRECT. WE ARE HONORING THE LATEST ONE. THE LATEST ONE, IN OUR MIND, HAS LEGITIMACY AND IS VESTED FROM A CONDITIONAL USE STANDPOINT. EVEN THOUGH ARCHCO DOES HAVE APPROVED ENGINEERING PLANS. LET'S SAY THEY -- >> BOTH, CURRENTLY APPROVED, RIGHT NOW. >> THEY ARE, THEY ARE PRETTY YEAH. BUT, LET'S SAY ARCHCO SHOWED UP AND WAS LIKE, "HEY, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS VOTING, I WANT A BUILDING PERMIT," WE WOULD HAVE TO REVISE [02:05:01] THEM. WE WOULD DEFINITELY CHECK WITH LEGAL ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY OF THEM MOVING FORWARD WITH THEM HAVING JUST APPROVED ANOTHER SITE PLAN. YEAH. AND I GUESS THE OTHER PART OF THIS I GUESS IS ASSURANCE BUT THE DUALITY OF IT IS ALSO COMPLICATING. ARCHCO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ADVERTISED THIS TO INTERLUDE. INTERLUDE DIDN'T SHOW UP HERE AND MISREPRESENT THE SITUATION. ARCHCO GAVE INTERLUDE PERMISSION TO ACT AS THE APPLICANT. AND SO, ARCHCO IS INVOLVED IN ALL OF THESE. LIKE I SAID, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME, ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES I HAVE HAD TO ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT COMPETING SITE PLANS ON THE SAME PROPERTY. >> COMPETING SITE PLANS ON THE SAME PROPERTY, DIFFERENT APPLICANTS? I UNDERSTAND, TRYING TO PROTECT INTERESTS, THOUGH, ON THE PROPERTY. SO -- AND THEY ARE ALREADY CURRENTLY EXISTING? >> AND LIKE I SAID, FROM OUR LENS, WE HONOR THE LATEST ONE. SO, WE WOULD HONOR -- >> RIGHT. >> WE WOULD HONOR INTERLUDE. >> IS THERE A CONDITION, OR COMMENT, TO BE PLACED ON SAID EXTENSION, SHOULD IT BE APPROVED, THAT SAYS SHOULD INTERLUDE PULL THEIR FIRST PERMIT, OF ANY KIND, THIS GOES AWAY? >> YEAH. I MEAN, IT WOULD HAVE TO, JUST BECAUSE IT IS FINITE. JUST BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET -- YEAH. SO, I -- >> SO, THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN ANYWAY? >> YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. I THINK THAT IS INHERENT. THAT IS -- THAT IS IMPLIED, FOR SURE. >> SO, YOU ARE SAYING INTERLUDE HAS TO PULL THEIR FIRST PERMIT BY SEPTEMBER 15TH? >> NO, NO, NO, NO. >> DECEMBER 15TH? >> YEAH, YEAH, ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, SO, ARCHCO'S LATEST EXTENSION RUNS OUT -- >> SEPTEMBER 15TH? >> RIGHT, IT RUNS OUT IN SEPTEMBER. INTERLUDE, WHO JUST WENT TO CITY COUNCIL A MONTH OR TWO AGO, THEY GOT A FRESH 18 MONTHS. >> OKAY. >> FRESH 18 MONTHS. SO, IN OUR MIND, IF WE JUST HONOR THE LATEST ONE, WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEM UNTIL 2026, 2027. AND SO, ARCHCO BEING IN ON THAT DEAL, THAT WAS SOMETHING WE BROUGHT UP IN THE PRE-APP MEETING, SOMETHING WE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT, LIKE, WE DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WOULD PURSUE THIS, BUT THEY WERE ADAMANT THAT THEY WANTED TO PROTECT THEIR OWN INTEREST AND THEY WANT TO FILE ANOTHER EXTENSION, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE CURRENTLY IN A DEAL WITH INTERLUDE. >> SO, ARCHCO IS NOT PLANNING ON EXECUTING THIS CONDITIONAL USE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T -- >> >> YEAH, ARCHCO'S PLAN IS TO HAVE SOMETHING VIABLE TO SELL, I GUESS? BUT, THEY STILL DON'T -- THEM NOT HAVING A CONDITIONAL USE OR APPROVED PLANS TO SELL, DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THEY STILL OWN THE LAND AND CAN SELL IT, SO THEY STILL HAVE AN ASSET, IT IS JUST NOT APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE WITH APPROVED ENGINEERING PLANS, ESSENTIALLY. >> SO, THEY JUST -- >> COMMISSIONERS? >> THEY JUST CUT IT, SEPARATE THEM? WELL, I GUESS I WILL -- THERE IS NO RULE -- OR, THERE IS, I GUESS. I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE CU-2024-007. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE EXTENSION FOR SIX MONTHS OF ARCHCO ON DEAN ROAD -- COMMISSIONERS, SORRY. ROLL CALL? >> NONET REESE? >> YES. >> DANA CAMP? >> NO. >> PHIL CHANSLER? >> NO. >> JENIFER LOVVORN? >> YES. >> VANESSA ECHOLS? >> NO. >> JENNIFER STEPHENS? >> YES. >> OSCAR MOSELEY? >> COMMISSIONER LOVVORN NO.. >> WALKER DAVIS? >> NO. >> WHAT WAS THE VOTE? >> 3-5. >> 3-5. DENIED. [19. Extension of Conditional Use Approval - Café Racer] >> OKAY. FINAL -- >> FINAL AGENDA ITEM. >> ALL RIGHT, EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE AND APPROVAL FOR CAFE RACER. >> I REMEMBER THEM! >> YES, CENTRAL LOCATION, 220 AND 204 OPELIKA ROAD, THEY HAD A PARCEL ON THE INSIDE, TO THE EAST, PRETTY MUCH. OKAY. SO, IN THE MEMO -- SO, THIS ISN'T CONDITIONAL USE, YOU DON'T [02:10:01] REVIEW THE INSIDE OF THE PROJECT, WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE REASONS WHY THEY NEEDED, WHY THEY ARE PETITIONING FOR EXTENSION. SO, IT GOT APPROVED, THEY BROUGHT IT DOWN TO PLANNING COMMISSION, WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PULLED BACK, WORKED THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING WHERE THEY NEEDED TO COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION. EXPRESSED THAT THEY WERE DIFFERENT, DID THAT, THEN THEY WENT AGAIN TO PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY ENDED ON A TIED VOTE, 4-4, AND WHEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVED, 8-1. AND THEY CAME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY WANTED A WAIVER ON BUILDING MATERIALS. I THINK THAT UNANIMOUSLY FAILED. AND SO, THEY GOT ALL THE WAY THROUGH DRG. AND ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO WAS SUBMIT ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. WE ARE, I GUESS, IN AUGUST, I THINK WE GOT IT, LIKE, THE EARLIEST -- LAST WEEK IN JULY, FIRST WEEK IN AUGUST. AND SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, I REACHED OUT, AND I WAS LIKE, "HEY, WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS?" IT HAS KIND OF ALWAYS BEEN IN THE BACK OF MY MIND, LIKE, THIS HAS GONE OVER AND OUT, WHERE IS THIS? WHAT ARE THEY DOING? THEY JUST HAD TO SUBMIT SOME ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ARE NOT APPROVED, PRETTY MUCH PEERED SO, THE REASON I TALKED ENGINEER FORESIGHT, THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING PLACES AT OTHER LOCATIONS, AND THE INTERNAL CONFIGURATION DID NOT WORK. THEY WERE GETTING A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND THEY WANTED TO REDO IT. AND SO, EXCUSE ME, SO, THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING WITH ARCHITECT, AND REDOING THE INTERNAL LAYOUT OF THE CAFE RACERS AND THAT IS PRETTY MUCH WHERE THEY GOT. LIKE, "HEY, WE ARE WORKING ON IT, WE ARE WORKING ON IT, WE ARE WORKING ON IT," BUT MONTH 17, THEY ARE ANOTHER ONE THAT EXPIRES IN SEPTEMBER AND THEY ARE PUSHING FOR A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION. I THINK THEIR PLAN IS TO START CONSTRUCTION IN JANUARY. SO -- THAT IS WHERE THAT IS AT. SO, THE REASONING WAS, AS I SAID, THEY ASPIRED TO REDO THEIR INTERNAL DESIGN TO WORK BETTER FOR THEM. AND THEY FINALLY GOT AROUND TO IT, AND THEN THEY SUBMITTED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. I THINK ENGINEERING SAID THEY ARE GOOD TO GO WITH DRT, TODAY. SO -- >> THIS IS NOT A REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING? COMMISSIONERS? >> I■ DRIVE BY HAT MPTY CORNER. >> YEAH, EVERY DAY. >> WHEN YOU GO BACK IN TOWN. IT'S CRAZY TRAFFIC DOWN THERE. >> YET. >> WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WHEN THIS CAME UP THE FIRST TIME. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEFORE US. MONTHS. BECAUSE -- AND THE REASON WAS THEY ARE REDESIGNING THE INSIDE? >> YEAH, LIKE, AND I GUESS ON THAT, IT DOESN'T REALLY -- IF YOU GUYS WANT TO EXTEND IT, YOU CAN. IF YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. BUT, THAT'S IT. THAT'S THE REASON THEY GAVE TO ME, WHEN I TALKED TO THE ENGINEER, IS THAT THEY WERE CHANGING THE INTERNAL DESIGN, LAYOUT OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING. >> WHAT IS THE IMPACT IF WE DENY IT, THOUGH? I MEAN, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS? DOES IT HAVE TO COME BACK? >> YEAH, SO, PRETTY MUCH, THEY WOULD HAVE A PRETTY TIGHT TIMELINE TO KIND OF GO FROM THE APPROVED DRT PLANS OUR END OF THE RACE FOR THEM, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET -- TO RATIFY YOUR CONDITIONAL USE, YOU MUST GET A BUILDING PERMIT. AND SO, BUILDING PERMIT -- IT IS LIKE EROSION CONTROL AND SEVERAL OTHER THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO DO WITH CODES. SO, IT IS NOT JUST SITE WORK AND STUFF, IT IS BEYOND THAT. SO, WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT IT WHEN THIS INITIALLY WAS ON THE AGENDA AND THERE WAS SOME DOUBT THAT THEY WOULD MAKE IT WITHOUT EXTENSION BECAUSE IT EXPIRED IN SEPTEMBER. >> YES, IT WAS SIX MORE MONTHS, THAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR APPROVAL. >> YEAH, I MEAN -- YEAH. I MEAN, THEY JUST -- 18 MONTHS. I MEAN, WE WERE HERE, AND THE 18 MONTHS WENT BY. SO -- BUT, YEAH, THEY ARE PUSHING FOR THE EXTENSION. >> I AM OPEN-MINDED. >> I MEAN, IT DOESN'T HURT ANYTHING -- >> I DON'T THINK SO. >> YEAH, I'M OF THE MIND TO GO FORWARD WITH IT. >> ALL RIGHT. THERE'S THAT. WE DON'T HAVE TO RE-UP THE WHOLE THING. >> I JUST DON'T LIKE THE APPROACH, BUT THAT'S JUST PERSONAL. >> APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. A FEW THINGS. SO, WE CAME BEFORE YOU IN SEPTEMBER OF '24 FOR BUILDING MATERIAL WAIVERS. WE PRETTY MUCH HAD CIVIL PLANS DONE [02:15:02] BY THE END OF LAST YEAR, DECEMBER. WE HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY THAT GOT DONE IN APRIL. AS JEFF JUST MENTIONED, THEY ARE BUILDING THEIR SECOND FACILITY IN ATHENS. THIS WAS GOING TO BE THE PROTOTYPE STORE THAT WAS KIND OF USED. BUT, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS TWICE, IT GOT PUSHED OUT AND DELAYED, SO THIS OTHER STORE ENDED UP BEING THE PROPOSED PROTOTYPE THAT WAS USED. THAT STORE WAS BEING BILLED, BY THE TIME WE WERE TRYING TO FINALIZE THIS, WE WERE ABLE TO SUBMIT FOR ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND WE STARTED RUNNING INTO ISSUES THAT THEY WANTED TO IMPLEMENT BEFORE THEY BUILT A THIRD STORE. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE ALL OF THE SAME MISTAKES, SO TRYING TO USE THE LESSONS LEARNED IN THAT FACILITY. SO, THEY ARE FINALIZING ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. OUR GOAL IS TO SUBMIT IN SEPTEMBER, FOR US TO HAVE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS APPROVED. OUR DRT PLANS GOT APPROVED THIS WEEK, FINALLY GOT ALL OF THAT SOUNDED OFF ON THE REVISED ARCHITECTURAL MOTIVATIONS. SO, WE GOT THAT TAKEN CARE OF, SO THE GOAL IS FOR US TO SUBMIT IN SEPTEMBER AND START CONSTRUCTION IN JANUARY. SO, THAT IS THE GOAL. THEY HAVE ALREADY CLOSED IN DELAY IN, SO IT IS ONE OF THOSE. SO, IT JUST KIND OF SLOWED DOWN IN WANTING TO IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES THAT THEY ARE WANTING TO IMPLEMENT, MOVING FORWARD ON THIS NEW FACILITY. SO, IT IS -- I THINK THE NEW LOOK OF THE BUILDING I THINK IS ATTRACTIVE, AND I THINK IT IS DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE, IT IS GOING TO LOOK GOOD, DON'T GET ME WRONG, BUT THERE IS A SPACE, A BIG OUTDOOR PATIO AND THIS KIND OF STUFF, I THINK THERE IS A BIG ADDITION TO WHAT YOU GUYS PROBABLY WILL EXPECT FROM PEOPLE FROM THE RESTAURANT SPACE, COMING IN TO YOUR DISTRICT, HERE. SO, THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONERS? >> OKAY. I WILL MOVE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I MOVE? OKAY. I WILL MOVE TO -- >> >> -- EXTEND CASE CU-2024-004. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? >> I THINK IT WAS THE ACCENT. >> ANY VACATIONS? WELCOMES? [STAFF COMMUNICATION] >> YEAH, SO -- >> >> YEAH! SO, YEAH, SO, THANK YOU FOR THE FIRST MEETING. SO, NEW COMMISSIONERS, JENIFER LOVVORN AND VANESSA ECHOLS, THANK YOU, ALL. QUITE THE FIRST MEETING. A LOT OF NOS, A LOT OF ACTION. A LOT OF ACTION. I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU ALL, THAT MAY REQUIRE SOME DEBATE. SO, I HAVE BEEN -- I HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF REQUEST AS OF LATE FOR VARIANCES TO SETBACKS. I THINK IN MY INBOX, WE GOT ONE WHERE LIKE, THERE WAS NO SOLUTION, OTHER THAN BUILDING PLATS AND I STILL DIDN'T RESPOND TO THEM. I DIDN'T -- WE HAVE A BCA MEETING COMING UP. BUT, WE HAVE ABOUT SIX -- I GOT ABOUT LIKE 6 TO 7 REQUESTS IN MY INBOX ABOUT VARIANCES OVER THE PAST I THINK 30 TO 45 DAYS, TO SETBACKS AND LET'S SEE. AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS INTERNALLY, HOW WE WANT TO HANDLE IT. SO, THERE IS REALLY TWO SOLUTIONS. AND I AM APPROACHING YOU ALL WITH THIS, JUST FOR THE QUESTION PURPOSES OF, IF, YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH IF WE GET MULTIPLE VARIANCES THAT ARE IN THE SAME THING, SAME VEIN OF THOUGHT, NORMALLY THAT IS REASON FOR LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE AND GOING, "MAYBE SOMETHING ISN'T LOOKING TO WORK HERE, WHAT CAN WE CHANGE? WHAT IS PALPABLE FOR EVERYBODY? WHAT WORKS?" SO, WE ARE KIND OF AT THAT POINT. SO, IF YOU JUST LOOK AT IT, AT THE NC CHART, SOME OF THEM ARE PRETTY ONEROUS, SOME OF THEM HAVE 42 FOOT SETBACKS. I MEAN, WE ARE NOT TALKING DNC 72 OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WE ARE TALKING NC 15, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, A THIRD OF AN ACRE LOTS, WITH THESE MASSIVE SETBACKS ON THEM. SO, WE HAVE LOOKED AT -- KIND OF WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE IDEA OF, DO WE MAKE A TEXT RECOMMENDATION, AND SHAPE SETBACKS? OR, DO WE CREATE [02:20:29] A NEW ZONING DISTRICT, LIKE AN URBAN ZONING DISTRICT, THAT WOULD KIND OF FUNCTION THE SAME AS SIDEWALKS? SO, FOR THE NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER, SIDEWALKS FOCUS ON, IF YOU HAVE A SIDEWALK IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOUR STREET DOESN'T HAVE ONE, YOU MUST CONVINCE EVERYONE ON YOUR STREET THAT WE WANT THE SIDEWALK AND THEN YOU COME TO THE CITY AND THEN THE CITY WILL GO ABOUT BUILDING THE SIDEWALK, BECAUSE IT TAKES EVERYBODY BEING IN AGREEMENT ON IT. SO, WE COULD LOOK AT CREATING A ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD THEN HAVE RELAXED SETBACKS, BUT IN ORDER TO REZONE TO IT, IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT BLOCK TO DO IT. AND SO, IT WOULD BE THE SAME THING FROM A USER STANDPOINT AS NC. THE ONLY THING ALLOWED IS SINGLE-FAMILY. THE SETBACKS WOULD JUST BE RELAXED BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE HAPPENING IS SOME PEOPLE ARE BUYING THESE LOTS, OR THEY WANT TO RENOVATE THEM, AND JUST, I MEAN, JUST BRUTAL. LIKE, BRUTAL. THEY ARE COMING IN HERE, THEY WANT TO DO THE NONCONFORMING, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ONLY EXPAND A NONCONFORMING BY 25%. OR, YOU ONLY HAVE LIKE 50% OF THE VALUE. SO, OUR THOUGHT WAS, IF WE SHAPE THE SETBACKS AS A TEXT AMENDMENT, THAT IS ALL FINE, WELL, AND GOOD, DON'T REALLY PUT ANY PRESSURE ON US, BUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WHEN ANYONE WENT TO DO A RENOVATION -- AND I KNOW SOMEONE WHO BOUGHT AN AND SEE THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT WE SHAPE THEM -- COMING TO US IN GOING, HOW CLOSE CAN I GET TO MY HOUSE? AND THEN, IT IS A PROBLEM AT A VISUAL LEVEL. IT KIND OF PUTS STAFF IN A BIND. WHAT WE WOULD PREFER, JUST KIND OF TO TALK ABOUT IT ON A STAFF LEVEL, IF WE CREATED THIS SINGLE USED DISTRICT THAT GAVE PEOPLE THE OPTION, AND THEN HAVE WITH THEM ONCE THEY ARE NEIGHBORS, NO ONE, NO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN COME TO US WITH THE ISSUE OF, "I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS." YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S PROPERTY GOT REZONED AND GOT AGREED IT TO. SO, REALLY, JUST COMING TO YOU ALL FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL STANDPOINT. WE COULD COME TO YOU ALL WITH A TEXT AMENDMENT OF SHAVING THESE SETBACKS, KIND OF GOING THROUGH NC. IF YOU GUYS AREN'T FAMILIAR, THERE WAS ABOUT 30 NC DISTRICTS. THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM. OR, WE COULD CREATE ANOTHER ZONING DISTRICT, URBAN. >> IS THIS -- ARE THESE VARIANCES COMING FROM ONE AREA IN TOWN? >> NO. A LOT OF THEM ARE IN NC, THOUGH. A LOT OF RNC IN AN URBAN AREA. WHEN I SAY "URBAN," I MEAN I WOULD SAY DEFINITELY INSIDE THE LOOP OF A CONCENTRATION OF SOUTH OF SANFORD INSIDE OF DEAN. AND SO, THAT'S -- SO, FOR EVERYBODY, YOU HAVE PAIN STREET, PLOTTED IN THE 1920S, SO YOU HAVE OTHER THINGS OVER THERE PLATTED IN THE 1930S, SO YOU HAVE THESE LITTLE COTTAGES PEOPLE ARE SELLING, IF YOU WANT TO BE IN THESE AREAS. BUT, YEAH, MY MOM IS THE NINTH OF 10 AND I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THEY WERE RAISED IN A THREE BEDROOM, THREE BATH HOUSE. >> SO, I AM OF THE OPINION NOW, GET IT REZONED. >> DO YOU WANT TO DO THE REZONING? >> YEAH, BUT COMING TO YOU ALL. NORMALLY ON THESE TEXT AMENDMENTS, WE TRY TO GET FEEDBACK FROM YOU ALL. YOU GUYS WOULD SEE IT. IT IS NOT LIKELY CREATE IT, WE APPROVE IT, IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH COUNSEL AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SO PEOPLE WILL KNOW. AND THERE WOULD BE NO CONDITIONAL USES FOR TOWNHOMES, QUADS, NONE OF THAT. SAME USE AS NC. IT STAYS NC, PRETTY MUCH. FUTURE LAND USE, EVERYTHING, WOULD BE THE SAME. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD CHANGE WOULD BE THE SETBACKS AND THEN PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO REZONE THEIR ENTIRE BLOCK, SO WE COME UP WITH SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FROM A LOCATION STANDPOINT, WHAT QUALIFIES AS URBAN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL OF THE INTERNALLY, BUT LIKE I SAID ON OUR END, IF WE SHAVE THE SETBACKS AND IT IS JUST APPROVED, PEOPLE WOULD THEN COME TO US WITH PROBLEMS, ONCE THEY HEAR, "I THOUGHT MY NEIGHBOR HAD TO BE 40 FEET FROM THE LINE AND NOW HE IS 10, WHAT IS GOING ON?" SO -- >> YEAH. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS WRITTEN OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE, INTO SOME DETAIL, SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AND STUDY IT A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE THIS SOUNDS LIKE A BIG DECISION. >> OH, YEAH, YEAH. ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. SO, YEAH. WE CAN KIND OF PUT THAT FORWARD. THAT IS SOME OF THE STUFF THAT WE WILL BE LOOKING AT. BUT, YEAH. SO, PRETTY MUCH, I MEAN, THE RUBBER IS ABOUT TO HIT THE ROAD. WE ARE FULLY STAFFED. WE HAVE OUR -- I HAVE MY BUDGET PRESENTATION ON MONDAY, WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE REZONING ORDINANCE AUDIT. THAT WILL BE ONE OF THE BIG PROJECTS. >> THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE THAT HAS ALL OF THE UPDATES FROM THE PUD, THE TEXT AMENDMENTS, ALL OF THOSE OTHER THINGS. SO -- >> IT'S A GIFT. >> YES! YES. YES. >> A NEW COFFEE TABLE. >> >> IF YOU GET YOURS DOWN, LET ME KNOW. >> YEAH. SO, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. SO, PUTTING AS A NOTICE JUST KIND OF FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL STANDPOINT, JUST ON WHAT YOU GUYS WOULD THINK. THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL BE WORKING ON. SO, THERE IS THE ZONING ORDINANCE AUDIT, THERE IS THE TABLES THAT WE WILL BE LOOKING AT, SO WE WILL BE WRAPPING THAT UP, KIND OF STARTING NEXT MONTH. WE JUST KIND OF GOT INUNDATED WITH THE BUDGET SEASON * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.