[ROLL CALL]
[00:00:13]
IF WE CAN PLEASE HAVE ROLL CALL.
AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS.
THE COMMISSION WILL PRESENT THE AGENDA BY THE STAFF, A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THIS WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ABOUT THE AGENDA ITEM AT HAND. WE WANT EVERYONE TO BE HEARD, AND WE ASK YOU KEEP YOUR TIME TO 5 MINUTES AND YOUR COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE AT HAND.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT A Q&A. THE QUESTIONS THAT MAY ARISE MAY BE ANSWERED ONCE THE HEARING IS CLOSED AS WELL AS PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO SIPE IN AFTER YOU SPEAK. AFTER EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. AT THAT TIME THE REPRESENTATIVE, APPLICANT, AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND RESPOND TO ANY COMMENTS BROUGHT UP DURING PUBLIC HEARING. ALL OTHER DECISIONS WILL BE MADE BY CITY COUNCIL AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO OPEN CITIZENS COMMUNICATION. IF THERE'S ANYTHING ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA -- THAT IS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ABOUT, PLEASE DO SO NOW.
SEEING NO ONE, WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE ANY OLD
[CONSENT AGENDA]
NO. >> WE'LL MOVE TO CONSENT AGENDA. THIS EVENING OUR CONSENT AGENDA IS BROUGHT TO US AND INCLUDES PACKET MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 8TH, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 14TH, AND SIX ITEMS. IS THERE ANY ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CONCEPT AGENDA,
COMMISSIONERS? >> I'M GOING TO REQUEST THAT NUMBER 3, FINAL PLAT FOR HANSEN FARM SUBDIVISION BE PULLED, PLEASE.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO PULL HANSEN.
>> YEAH, I'LL SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO PULL HANSEN OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA. ALL IN FAVOR?
AND THE REASON FOR REMOVAL IS RECUSAL OF MS.
[3. Final Plat – Hanson Farms Subdivision]
>> COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A FINAL
APRUBL. >> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
THANK YOU. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT
AGENDA. >> WE'LL WAIT FOR MS. LOVVORN TO COME BACK AND RECONVENE.
>> AND WITH THE RETURN OF OUR COMMISSIONER, I'D LIKE TO RENEW MY MOTION TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ON ACONSENT AGENDA.
[7. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING]
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?>> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. ONTO NEW BUSINESS.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A ZONE AND TEXT AMENDMENT. SO THIS WAS -- THIS WAS KIND OF THE EFFORT THAT STAFF HAS MADE TO JUST KIND OF PERIODICALLY REVIEW THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND IDENTIFY ANY ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED FROM REQUESTS THAT WE GET THROUGHOUT THE YEAR OR JUST KIND OF RUNNING INTO OMISSIONS THAT WE NOTICED OR THINGS THAT WE FIND THAT HAVEN'T WORKED.
SO IN THIS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THIS, SO I'M GOING TO TACKLE THE FIRST PART.
SO WE HAD A GENTLEMAN COME ININ WEEKS AGO WHO WAS
[00:05:03]
TRYING TO REZONE -- WHO WAS TRYING TO ANNEX AND REZONE TO NC-40. AND LO AND BEHOLD WHEN WE WERE LOOK AT NC- 40 DOES NOT HAVE ANY BULK REGULATIONS.EVEN THOUGH NC- 40 IS A ZONING DISTRICT, IT ALREADY EXISTS, AND WHEN WE REVIEWED OUR ORDINANCES ONE OF THE NOTES FROM 1996 WAS THAT NC-40 WAS OMITTED AND THAT THESE REGULATIONS WERE NOT CREATED.
AND SO I HAD STAFF PULL TABLE 52 WITH A ZOOMED IN VERSION OF THE TWO ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WERE ON BOTH SIDES OF IT, ONE THAT WAS SMALLER AND ONE THAT WAS GREATERCH THE BULK REGULATIONS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED AS THE AMENDMENT FOR TABLE 52 TO HAVE FOR NC- 40 IS THE AVERAGE BETWEEN THESE TWO. SO NC- 48 AND NC- 39 WE HAVE DRAFTED THAT LETTER AND WILL BE SENDING THE LETTER OUT TO RESIDENTS OF HAMILTON HILL DRIVE, TO INFORM THEM WHY WE ARE ADDING THIS.
LIKE I SAID IT ALREADY EXISTS. IT'S BEEN AN OMISSION FOR 30 YEARS THAT WE NEEDED TO ADDRESS. THAT IS WHAT THIS ZONING AMOUNT IS ABOUT FOR THRKS C- 40, JUST ADDING SOMETHING THAT REALLY SHOULD HAVE ALREADY EXISTS. LIKE I SAID, IF YOU DO NOT LIVE WHERE HAMILTON HILL IS, THIS DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. THE ZONING DISTRICT WAS DESIGNED TO FIT THAT LOT -- TO FIT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ANYWAY. SO REALLY CORRECTING THE OMISSION.
AND THEN THE SECOND PART OF THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT HAD TO DO WITH SOLAR PANELS.
LIKE I SAID WE'VE RECEIVED SOME INQUIRIES ON THAT, NOT NECESSARILY FROM AS PLANNING, DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY FROM ANY RESIDENTS. CODE AND INSPECTIONS STAFF HAVE, SO THEY'VE HAD TO REGULATE THIS ON A RESIDENCE LEVEL AND INDUSTRIAL LEVEL.
THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES THEY COME AND ASK US.
CURRENTLY WE'VE -- AND THEN FOR INDUSTRIAL PARK THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL OTHER EUROPEAN BUSINESSES AND OTHER COMPANIES THAT NEEDED TO ADD SOLAR PANELS. WHAT WAS UP WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR SOLAR PANELS AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
TRADITIONALLY AND NATIONALLY THAT HAS BEEN A HOT BUTTON FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLACES OF NOT WANTING SIGNIFICANT ACREAGE TO BE BOUGHT UP WITH HOPES OF IT THEN BEING A SOLAR PANEL FIELD ONLY THOUGH IT'S ONLY LIKE A 20-YEAR USE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THAT WILL REMAIN A CONDITIONAL USE. EVERYTHING ELSE WILL BE TREATED AS A STRUCTURE. I KNOW THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT DO WE WANT TO POLICE THINGS, THE SOLAR PANELS BEING IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
WE TALKED ABOUT IT. THERE ARE SEVERAL PROGRESSIONS TO ALLOW FOUR PEOPLE WHO HAVE A SOUTH FACING HOUSE OR STREET FACING SOUTH HOUSE TO CAPTURE SUNLIGHT WITH THEIR SOLAR PANELS BY NOT HAVING THEM ON THE HOUSE. SO THE ORDINANCE AS IT READS WOULD ALLOW SOMEBODY TO HAVE A POSTED SOLAR PANEL ON IN THEIR SIDE YARDS THAT COULD FACE THE SOUTH. IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW -- AND IT'S ALSO ON -- IN THE TEXT SOLAR PANELS CAN'T BE TALLER THAN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. IT COULD EXTEND UP PAST THE HOUSE TO GARNER THE SUNLIGHT, AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING I KNOW Y'ALL MENTIONED YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT AND POSSIBLY CHANGED. SO IF YOU GUYS WANT TO ALLOW SOLAR PANELS TO BE ON THE ROOF, THEY CAN. I WANT TO POINT OUT THERE ARE TWO PROVISIONS SOMEONE IN THE SITUATION THEY COULD STILL CAPTURE SUNLIGHT AND IT NOT BE ON THE ROOF. THAT WAS REALLY IT. LIKE I SAID THE EXTENT OF THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS HAVE TO DO WITH ADDING THE BULK REGULATIONS FOR NC- 40 AND THEN ALSO ADDING REGULATIONS TO REGULATE SOLAR PANELS IN RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SCALE.
THANK YOU. SO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. AND ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS IN PUBLIC HEARING, HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE AS
ANY COMMENT OR DISCUSSION BEFORE OPENING PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY, THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO US ABOUT THESE TEXT AMENDMENTS, PLEASE DO SO NOW. SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? >> CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT -- WITH THE SOLAR PANELS BEING TALLER THAN THE HOUSE.
[00:10:01]
HOUSE. TYPICALLY THEY'RE ON A ROOF.>> YOU COULD BUILD A STRUCTURE THAT --
>> YES, YOU CAN. SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO DO THAT, AND I GUESS AS FAR AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES GO AND HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, SO "FIRST THINGS FIRST" FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE FLAGPOLES IN THE HOUSE, FLAGPOLES CANNOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
I GUESS SOMETHING FUNCTIONAL LIKE A WINDMILL OR SOLAR PANELS, THOSE CAN BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE DOES ACTUALLY DEPEND ON -- DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION THEM BEING HIGH ENOUGH TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOMETHING, WHETHER THAT BE TREES, WHETHER IT BE THE SHADOW OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. SO THAT IS WHY IT'S ABLE TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
ALSO I THINK THAT'S A FAIR CAVEAT GIVEN THE RESTRICTION THAT IT CAN'T BE ON THE FRONT- FACING STREET SIDE OF THE ROOF.
AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S SO IT CAN REACH UP AND GET OUT OF THE SHADE OF SOMETHING. LIKE I SAID, IT CAN EITHER OPERATE IN THE SIDE YARD OR EXIST IN THE BACKYARD AND EXTEND PAST THAT.
I THINK IT'S 10 FEET THAT CAN BE HIGHER THAN THE PRIMARY
LIMIT. >> OH, YEAH, THERE'S A LIMIT.
IT'S NOT LIKE IT'D BE LIKE THIS 80-FOOT POLE IN SOMEONE'S YARD. IT WOULDN'T BE THAT.
AND ALSO JUST TO POINT OUT, LIKE I SAID WE DO NOT -- IT'S NOT THIS HAS BECOME PERVASIVE IN TOWN.
I THINK THE OFFICIAL SAYS I THINK HE'S BEEN HERE HE THINKS THERE'S TEN TOTAL ON RESIDENCES.
COMMENTS, MOTIONS? >> WELL, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ZT- 2025 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN
[8. Subdivision Regulations Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING]
AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. OKAY, THIS IS KIND OF IN TWO PARTS, TOO. ALSO THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND PART, AND WE'LL GET TO THAT. THAT'S WHAT I'VE HANDED OUT TO EVERYBODY. JUST KIND OF HAS TO DO WITH THE SECOND PART OF THE TEXT.
THERE WERE -- SO IN OUR SUBDIVISION RECS THERE WAS MENTIONED 30 PLUS TIME AND IT WAS NOT CLEARLY DEFINED WHAT SEWER IS, SO THIS IS A CLARIFICATION POINT TO STRICTLY DEFINE THAT WAY WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE STAFF, OVERNING BODIES AND ANY POTENTIAL ENGINEERS THAT WAY THERE'S NO CONFUSION. WE'RE DEFINING WHAT SEWER IS AND WHEN IT'S MENTIONED IN THE SEWER REGS. LIKE I SAID PUBLIC SEWER FOR DIFFERENT THINGS, JUST NEEDED TO BE DEFINED WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE FOR IT.
SO IT'S JUST THOSE DEFINITIONS BEING DEFINED. AND ON THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, THE SECOND PART OF THE AMENDMENT WAS -- HAD TO DO WITH ADDING THE COUNTY ENGINEERS SIGNATURE BLOCK FOR ALL PLATS.
AND SO THE ORIGIN OF THIS JUST JOINT CONVERSATION WITH SOME ISSUES WE'VE BEEN HANDING WITH CONDO PLATS SLIPPING THROUGH. SO FOR EVERYBODY IN THE CROWD WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITHOUT GETTING TOO TECHNICAL, SO PEOPLE HAVE THE OPTION TO CONDO PLAT THINGS. AND SO IN THE PAST IT'S REALLY JUST BEEN WE'VE HANDLED IT. WE MAY HAVE AN MUD WHEN THAT'S MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT. AND INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY CONVEYING LAND WHICH WOULD BE FEE SIMPLE DIVISION PEOPLE GO A SUBDIVISION.
WE DO HAVE REGULATIONS NOW THAT TREAT THEM AS LAND CONDOS.
CONDO PLATS ARE THEN SUBDIVIDING THE BUILDING.
SO LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A TEN- ROOMROOM BUILDING.
YOU WERE GOING TO CONDO EACH ROOM OR EACH UNIT, SO THEN THOSE DID NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. SO THOSE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT, AND SO SOME OF THOSE ARE JUST POPPING UP IN DIFFERENT PLACES, JUST KIND OF BYPASSING US, BYPASSING THE COUNTY. SO SOMETIMES WE WOULD HAVE THEM WHERE WE'D REVIEW THE MUD AND BE PART OF THE PUD OR LARGER THING OR BYPASS US ENTIRELY.
AND SO WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO CAPTURE WITH REQUIRING THE COUNTY ENGINEERS SIGNATURE BLOCK ON ALL OF THE PLATS IN THE CITY I GUESS WAS TO STOP THIS OMISSION OF CONDO PLATS BYPASSING THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ENTIRELY.
AND SO THE AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE REALLY KIND OF SPEAKS MORE TO NARROWING THE SCOPE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER'S SIGNATURE ONLY BEING REQUIRED ON CONDO PLATS. SO I'M GOING TO READ WHAT THE AMENDMENT IS, AND I GUESS YOU GUYS CAN MAKE THE MOTION FOR THE AMENDMENT, AND THEN
[00:15:04]
THE AMENDMENT WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES VERBATIM. SO HERE'S THE AMENDMENT.SAME BLOCK FOR PLANNING DIRECTOR, ENGINEER, AND PLANNING JURISDICTION OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE LIMITS. THE COUNTY ENGINEER'S CERTIFYING APPROVAL OF THE PLAT.
>> IS THAT FOR BOTH THE FINAL PLATS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS -- THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO SHUT THIS LOOPHOLE DOWN ON PEOPLE CONDOING BUILDINGS AND THEN AVOIDING -- SAYING THEY'RE CONDOING A BUILDING AND AVOIDING THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, PRETTY MUCH.
OR JUST USING -- LIKE I SAID THERE'S A LOT OF JUST CONDO PLATS, PEOPLE WITH CONDO ON LAND, PEOPLE CONDOING BUILDINGS, LIKE I SAID, AND THEY WERE NOT BEING SEEN BY THE COUNTY.
THEY WERE NOT BEING SEEN BY THE CITY AND PEOPLE WOULD GO RECORD THEM AND THEN THEY'D POP UP.
TIST, LIKE I SAID, CAUSING ISSUES ON BOTH
THE AMENDED LANGUAGE, YOU'D LIKE US TO VOTE ON THAT SEPARATELY?
>> YES. SO YOU'D NEED TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AND THEN YOU'D NEED TO VOTE ON THE AMENDED LANGUAGE.
>> I WAS GOING TO ADD, TOO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP.
THE COUNTY ENGINEER APPROACHED US. WE BEGAN SEEING SOME THINGS WHERE SOME LAND CONDOS HAD BEEN RECORDED AND NOT REVIEWED BY ANYBODY. ACCORDING TO STATE LAW THAT DID MEET A SUBDIVISION CRITERIA THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REVIEW OF THE CITY AND THE COUNTY AS THOSE WERE IN OUR PLANNING JURISDICTION. SO IN DISCUSSION THE COUNTY ENGINEER AND I MET WITH PROBATE JUDGE, AND THE RESOLUTION WAS THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TONIGHT, THE COUNTY ENGINEER WILL BE PROPOSING A SIMILAR CHANGE TO THE COUNTY CODE. I THINK THIS MONTH, MAYBE NEXT MONTH -- I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN THEY MEET NEXT, BUT THAT WOULD BASICALLY PROVIDE A CODIFICATION OF THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A SIGNATURE ON LAND CONDOS SO WE'RE BASICALLY BRINGING THOSE INTO OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, WHICH THEY SHOULD
BE. >> THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE STATE ALREADY AND THEY JUST DIDN'T DO IT?
>> WELL, THE STATE -- THE STATE HAS CERTAIN STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, FOR LAND CONDOS THAT I THINK MAYBE THE ATTORNEY CAN SPEAK TO THAT
SPECIFICALLY. >> YEAH, THE LAND CONDOMINIUM, A TRUE LAND CONDOMINIUM MEET THE DEFINITION OF A SUBDIVISION AND SO THE COURTS HELD --
>> SO IT SHOULD BE REGULATED LIKE
SO THE ISSUE WERE PEOPLE WERE GOING UNDER THE CONDOMINIUM LAW, MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS, FILING IT WITH THE PROBATE COURT THINKING THEY HAD A LAWFUL CONDOMINIUM WHEN IN FACT THEY DID NOT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT GO THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.
>> SO IS THERE GOING TO BE -- IS THERE GOING TO BE SOME SORT OF REMEDY TO THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY COME
THROUGH? >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW WE CAN GO BACK AND FIX SOME OF THINGS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DEAL WITH THOSE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
A GOOD POINT ON THAT YOU MENTIONED IT DOES -- SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THAT. BY REQUIRING THE SIGNATURE BLOCK IS WHAT WILL CATCH THE -- THE PEOPLE IN THE PROBATE OFFICE WHEN THESE PLATS ARE SUBMITTED TO KNOW, HEY, THESE ARE SIGNATURE
BLOCKS. >> WHICH IMPLIES THEY WENT THROUGH THE RIGHT PROCESS.
>> WHICH WOULD KICK IT TO THE COUNTY ENGINEER AND THE COUNTY ENGINEER ENGAGE US TO ANYTHING.
>> SO THIS AGENDA ITEM HAS A PUBLIC HEARING.
THEY CAN HEAR THE AMENDMENT AND THIS AT THE SAME TIME? OR TWO SEPARATE
PUBLIC HEARINGS? >> NO, JUST ONE PUBLIC
HEARING. >> ONE PUBLIC HEARING, TWO VOTES. GOT IT.
OKAY, GOOD EVENING. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE AGENDA ITEM FOR SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENT. IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME, PLEASE DO SO.
SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, WE DO NEED TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FIRST.
>> I NOW WOULD ADD THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS READ OUT LOUD NEEDED TO BE AMENDED TWICE I THINK IT'S IN ARTICLE 3 E1M AND EK1M.
SO BOTH OF THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED TO THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY
GO FOR IT. SOMEONE'S GOT TO DO
[00:20:01]
A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN FOR E1M AND K1M -->> YES, SORRY, OF ARTICLE 3 OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MS 2025-049. IS THAT
PERFECT. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
>> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU, MS. LOVVORN.
IF WE NOW CAN MOVE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT THAT APPROVES THETHE SEWER
AND CHANGES. >> THAT ONE WAS EASIER SO I'LL TAKE THAT ONE. I MOVE TO APPROVE MS 2025- 049 SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENT.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
>> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU SO MUCH.
[Items 9 - 11]
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO DO THE NEXT THREETOGETHER. >> YEAH. ALL RIGHT, SO IF YOU JUST WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT ONE. OKAY, SO THIS ITEM -- THIS IS THREE ITEMS. THIS IS TEMPORARY ZONING REQUEST ONE TO DDH, ONE FOR PDD AND THE CONDITIONAL USES ASSOCIATIONED WITH IT. LIKE I SAID MEET ON MONDAY AND HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT. THEY'D LIKE TO TABLE THIS TO A DATE CERTAIN OF NOVEMBER 13TH, WHICH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN NOVEMBER.
BUT WE'LL BE TABLING ALL THREE ITEMS AND SO THERE'LL BE NO PUBLIC HEARING FOR THOSE TONIGHT. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE NOVEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, I DO NEED A POSTPONANT TO DATE CERTAIN.
>> CAN WE DO THEM ALL AT ONE TIME, OR DO WE HAVE TO DO THEM
SEPARATELY? >> SINCE THEY'RE SEPARATE ON THE AGENDA, I WOULD DO EACH ITEM
SEPARATELY. >> MOVE TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN NOVEMBER 13TH, 2025, CASE
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO POSTPONEMENT AA FOR NOVEMBER 13, 2025.
>> MOVE TO POSTPONE RZ-2025-018.
>> TO DATE CERTAIN NOVEMBER 13, 2025.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO POSTPONE TO 11/13/25.
>> MOVE TO POSTPONE, SORRY. MOVE TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN 2025-CO-049.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO POSTPONE UNTIL 11/13/25. ALL THOSE
[12. Annexation – Smith Annexation]
AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR TAKING ALL THAT
ALL RIGHT, THIS REQUEST IS THE SMITH ANNEXATION.
IT'S FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 31 ACRES. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S JUST NORTH OF MS. JAMES ROAD RIGHT HERE AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST FARMVILLE ROAD.
IT'S CURRENTLY OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, BUT IT'S TOUCHING RURAL, AND IT'S GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN A REZONING REQUEST INVOLVING ALL OF THAT LAND THAT IS RURAL TO THE SOUTH.
IT IS WITHIN OUR OPTIMAL BOUNDARIES. YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING WITHIN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARIES IS SHOWN IN THIS IMAGE. THAT'S REALLY THE MAIN POINTS OF THIS PROPERTY, AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANNEXATION CASE, IF Y'ALL HAD ANY OFF THE TOP OF YOUR
HEAD. >> QUESTIONS? ANNEXATION. ANNEXATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, SO COMMISSIONERS, WE DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS?
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE AX-2025- 012 SMITH PROPERTY
ANNEXATION. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[00:25:01]
[13. Rezoning – Mrs. James Road Rezoning - PUBLIC HEARING]
>> ALL RIGHT, THIS IS CASE 2 OF 2 DEALING WITH THAT PROPERTY AND THE ADDITIONAL TO THE SOUTH.
THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION REQUIRED FOR APPROXIMATELY 58 ACRES GOING FROM RURAL TO LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OTHERWISE KNOWN AS LORD.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS PLOTS MAP IT'S THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS VOTED ON FOR THE ANNEXATION, BUT IT ADDS THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
IT'S IN RURAL TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 58 ACRES.
SO THERE'S TWO SITE PLANS I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU.
THIS OUTLINES THE ZONING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS TINY PORTION RIGHT HERE IS LEFT GREEN, AND THAT'S THE ONLY PORTION OF THE TOTAL 63- ISH ACRES THAT IS GOING TO REMAIN RURAL WHILE THE REST IS REZONED TO LLRD. THIS IS BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER HAS PLANS DIFFERENT FROM THE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS THAT THEY WANT ON THE RURAL PIECE OF LAND AND LLRD IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN RURAL, SO THEY DECIDED TO KEEP THAT 13- ISH ACRE PIECE IN THE ZONE THAT IT CURRENTLY SITS IN. YEAH, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AS YOU CAN SEE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND IS MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL, AND LLRD WOULD BE A TRANSITIONAL ZONE TO GO FROM THE DDHS TO THE NORTH. IT FALLS IN BETWEEN THOSE DDHS AND RURAL IN DENSITY, SO --
>> SO HOW DOES THIS -- YOUR COMMENTS HERE, COMMENT NUMBER 3 TALKS ABOUT THE SEWER OF ALL THINGS.
>> HOW'S THAT -- IS THIS WITHIN THE -- GOING TO BE WITHIN THE NEW DEFINITION OF A SEWER? BECAUSE THAT MEANS THE CITY HAS TO OWN IT OR COMPANY.
IT'S NOT -- BECAUSE WHEN I SEE LOW PRESSURE -- PRIVATELY MAINTAINED LOW PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM, THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT MATCHES
SO I GUESS KIND OF -- LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT, THIS WAS ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THIS REZONE. AND WHAT THIS WAS GOING TO DO, AND I GUESS THE -- SO, I GUESS IF YOU COULD GO TO -- IF YOU COULD GO TO THE LAYOUT. THERE WE GO. SO ON THE ANNEXATION AND I GUESS THE POINT OF THIS REZONING OF GOING TO LLRD INSTEAD OF RURAL WAS THE INCLUSION OF THE MAJOR STREET PLAN.
SO THERE'S A MAJOR STREET THAT CONNECTS MS. JAMES AND FARMER ROAD. GETTING THAT MAJOR STREET WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT RIGHT-OF- WAY TO GO THROUGH, THAT SEWER COULD CONNECT TO THE OTHER SIDE. LLRD DOES TALK ABOUT THE LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM. WHAT THE LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM DOES, IT DOES BOLSTER THE BUFFER BETWEEN DDH AND RURAL.
SO PRETTY MUCH THAT WOULD END THE EXTENSION OF ANY SEWER PAST THIS TO THE WEST. LIKE I SAID IT MATCHES THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.
I THINK THERE'S A COMMENT IN THERE THIS SUBDIVISION DOES NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD FOR GRAVITY SEWER FROM A LOT COUNT STANDPOINT, SO SINCE IT IS UNDER THAT THRESHOLD THAT A LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM IS THE PREFERRED FROM THE HERE.
I GUESS WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT IT WOULDN'T LEAVE AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT THERE'S NO CONCERN FROM STAFF SIDE THAT THESE WOULD FAIL AND THERE SHOULD BE NO CONCERN FROM PROPERTY OWNERS THESE COULD FAIL AND LEAVE PEOPLE OUT WITH A SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLAR REPLACEMENT.
I GUESS IF I TRIPPED UP ON ANYTHING, CHRIS, YOU CAN COVER
THAT. >> I THINK YOU COVERED IT WELL.
THE ONLY THING YOU CAN ASK ABOUT THE DEFINITION.
THE PUBLIC SEWER PORTION OF THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE.
THAT LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM WILL ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE PUBLIC
SEWER. >> I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. THANKS.
>> THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. IF THAT'S OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE MS. JAMES ROAD REZONING, I'LL OPEN THAT NOW. PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO SIGN IN
AFTERWARDS. >> YES, MA'AM, I GOT
ADDRESS. >> IT'S BRANT, AND I'M 1931 WEST FARMVILLE ROAD. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF I COULD MAKE THIS CONDITIONAL REQUEST A BUFFER OR A SCREENING FENCE. ALL THAT'S RURAL NEXT TO MY HOUSE, AND I THINK SOME OF THAT'S GOING TO BE GONE.
I MEAN, I'VE GOT SMALL KIDS AND THAT'S WHY WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE, RIGHT, IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO A RURAL ZONING AREA. SO I'D LIKE TO PUT IN THAT REQUEST, SEE IF Y'ALL MIGHT TAKE IT OFF FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO
[00:30:04]
COME AND SPEAK BEFORE THIS AGENDA ITEM? OKAY, SEEING NO ONE.>> SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
>> I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT LAYOUT HERE THAT'S NOT IN A PLAT YET, AND THE TIME TO REQUEST CONDITIONS AS FAR AS FENCES AND BUFFERING GOES, THAT WILL BE ON A PRIMARY PLAT. WE'LL JUST KIND OF MAKE A NOTE OF THAT AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE. I'M SURE THAT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE TIME TO PUT THAT CONDITION ON IT WOULD BE ON A PLENARY PLAT NOT NECESSARILY ON A REZONING.
>> OKAY, PERFECT. GOOD TO HAVE IT ON THE RECORD, THOUGH.
OKAY, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION AND I DON'T RECALL US SPEAKING ABOUT THIS AT PACKET. IS THE REASON BEHIND LEAVING THAT ONE SPOT RURAL --
>> YEAH, SO GREAT QUESTION. I FEEL LIKE IT WAS PROBABLY SEVERAL MINUTES AGO WHERE WE APPROVED THE AMENDMENT TO RURAL CONDITIONAL USES AND THE ADD FORFOR MORE COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT USES IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT. THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
THEY ALWAYS SAW COMMERCIAL AS BEING A PART OF THE SUBDIVISION, WHETHER THEY WERE GOING TO DO MORE INTENSITY OR THEY WERE GOING TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS.
AND SO THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY COULD REZONE IT TO, AND WE LET THEM KNOW WE RECENTLY CHANGED THE RULE DESIGNATION TO ALLOW FOR SEVERAL CONDITIONAL USES. THEY THINK THEY'LL BE ABLE ABLE TO GARNER SOME COMMERCIAL UNDER THIS LOT UNDER THE CONDITIONAL PROVISION YOU ALL RECENTLY
APPROVED. >> SO IT DOESN'T -- IN THE FUTURE IT WAS NOT TO -- FOR
DENSITY. >> NO, IT WILL NOT BE -- IT'S NOT BEING LEFT SO THEY CAN COME BACK AND DO DDH OR DO TOWNHOMES OR SOMETHING. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS FOR.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS GOING TO BE, LIKE I SAID, THE USES ALREADY KIND OF ALLOCATED FOR IT IF IT'S ANOTHER COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT USE THEY CAN FIND.
BUT THEY WERE PRETTY EXCITED WHEN WE TOLD THEM ABOUT IT, SO THEY'RE EXCITED TO TRY IT.
WOULD THAT COMMERCIAL USE BE BROUGHT BEFORE THIS?
>> ANOTHER GREAT QUESTION. SO ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL USES NEED TO MEET THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, IF THEY HAVE ANY AND HAVE TO GET A PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL FOR IT TO BE APPROVED.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, OR MOTIONS?
>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE CASE RZ-2025- 019, MRS. JAMES ROAD
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? IT CARRIES.
THANK YOU. AND THAT GOES TO PUBLIC -- CITY COUNCIL WHEN? DO WE KNOW? 21ST,
IT'S NOVEMBER. SHOULD BE THE SECOND IN
[14. Preliminary Plat - ADARE Phase 1B - PUBLIC HEARING]
>> GOOD EVENING. >> THIS IS REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THIS IS LOT 18 IN THE ADARE PHASE 1. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 12. 5 ACRES AND THEY ARE CONVENTIONAL LOTS.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU
HAVE. >> I THOUGHT WE DIDN'T DO PLATS UNDER SIX LOTS.
>> THIS IS FOR RIGHT-OF- WAY AS WELL SO --
>> RIGHT-OF-WAY. DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> DEDICATION. OKAY, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR ARE WE OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING? I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADARE PHASE 1B, PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? MOTIONS, QUESTIONS?
>> OKAY, I'LL APPROVE CASE PP-2025-025 FOR APPROVAL, ADARE
[00:35:06]
SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[15. Final Plat – ADARE Phase 1B ]
MOTION CARRIES. >> THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. SAME FOUR LOTS. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON
THIS IS A FINAL PLAT FOR ADARE PHASE 1B.
FINAL PLAT DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVE TO APPROVE FINAL PLAT 2025- 026, ADARE PHASE 1B.
[16. Conditional Use – Auburn Flex Works - PUBLIC HEARING]
>> MOTION APPROVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
YOU. >> SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR SEVERAL USES LOOKING AT HILTON GARDEN DRIVE.
THAT'S IN THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND THE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY 3. 62 ACRES, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A WAREHOUSE FACILITY FOR BUSINESSES TO OPERATE OUT OF.
THE APPLICANT HAS OPTED TO PURSUE POTENTIAL USES AT THE ON SET OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO THE BASE USE I GUESS WOULD BE WAREHOUSE -- COMMERCIAL SPORT WAREHOUSE AND EVERY OTHER USE LISTED UNDER COMMERCIAL SPORT AND OFFICE. THOSE ARE ALL POSSIBLE TENANTS. WE NEVER RECEIVED A TENANT LIST, BUT I'M SURE THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO WHO THEY EXPECT TO BE RENTING TO.
I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE PUBLIC HEARING? DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL
THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M SURE THERE'LL BE QUESTIONS AFTERWARDS. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USES FOR AUBURN FLEX
>> LEE, CONJURE ENGINEERING FOR THE APPLICANT.
GOING TO GET THROUGH THIS, BUT IF Y'ALL GOT ANYMORE -- A COUPLE THINGS. I KNOW WE MENTIONED THE TENANT LIST. WE TALKED THROUGH THAT AT THE BRIEFING, WORKED THROUGH SOME OF THAT. THE REASON WE DIDN'T PROVIDE A TENANT LIST THEY DON'T HAVE ONE AT THE MOMENT. THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE PROJECT IS VIABLE BEFORE THEY LEASE OUT ANY SPACES.
THIS LIST OF CONDITIONAL USES UNDER THE -- YOU KNOW, ALL OTHERS GROUP WITHIN THAT CDD COMMERCIAL SPORT, SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO TENANT LIST.
I THINK THAT THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT AND THE FUTURE OWNER OF THE FACILITY WOULD BE TO GET ALL THIS APPROVED, AND THEN IF THERE ARE ANY POTENTIAL TENANTS THAT COME TO THEM WANTING SPACE THAT WOULD FALL OUTSIDE OF THAT, THAT WOULDN'T ALSO BE A BY RIGHT USE, WOULD COME BACK FOR ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL CONDITIONAL USE AFTER THE FACT.
ONE CONCERN INITIALLY DURING THE PRE-AP WITH PLANNING STAFF IS THEY'RE NERVOUS ABOUT POLICING SOME OF THAT.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ON SITE MANAGEMENT OF THIS FACILITY TO HELP CONTROL THAT STUFF. BUT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT ANY FUTURE USES THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT WOULD COME BACK TO BE APPROVED BY Y'ALL AFTER THE FACT.
I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. AGAIN, YOU GOT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AUBURN FLEX WORKS.
COMMISSIONERS? COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?
>> I NEED THE APPLICANT BACK UP
>> THAT'S TRUE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE BUILDING IS -- HOW MANY -- IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALL UNDER ONE ROOF FROM THIS. IS IT?
>> RIGHT NOW WE'RE SHOWING THREE SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
>> OKAY. >> HONESTLY, WITH CONFIGURATION, WE'RE GENERALLY GOING FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH THIS CONDITIONAL
[00:40:02]
USE, BUT I IMAGINE -- IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE SITE PLAN REALQUICK. >> YEAH, CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? NOT THAT ONE.
I GUESS THE OTHER ONE, I'M SORRY.
>> THAT ONE DOESN'T SHOW ME --
>> SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF SIMILAR PROJECT THEY'VE DONE IN ANOTHER STATE THAT WOULD BE THE EXACT SAME SETUP THEY WANT TO DO HERE. IT'S GOING TO BE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS.
THE SITE PLAN WE'VE GOT NOW IS MULTIPLE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WE THINK IS VIABLE ON THE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
MY GUT TELLS ME JUST BY HOW EVERYTHING'S CONFIGURING, HOW IT'S GOING TO CIRCULATE, WE MAY HAVE ONE MORE BUILDING BY SPLITTING THE LARGER L- SHAPED BUILDING THAT'S ON THAT SITE PLAN. IF YOU WOULDN'T MINE SWITCHING TO IT. I DON'T HAVE THE FLICKER.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORK THAT. THERE'S A LARGER L- SHAPED BUILDING ON THE BOTTOM PORTION OF YOUR SITE PLAN THERE.
THAT CORNER IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE TOUGH FOR THE INTERIOR LAYOUT OF EVERYTHING. IN GENERAL SEVERAL BUILDINGS, TENANT SPACES PLIT UP WITHIN THOSE ROOFS, SO THERE'D BE MULTIPLE TENANTS IN EACH BUILDING BUT THEY'D HAVE ALL THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL SPACES, PARKING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT,
EVERYTHING. >> THAT WAS MY OTHER CONCERN WAS THE PARKING SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO BE IN
TRUE. >> AND YOU'VE LISTED SEVERAL THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAT MAY HAVE -- THAT'S ONE THING I WAS WONDERING ABOUT IS THE PARKING ON THIS LAYOUT.
>> THAT'S A VALID CONCERN. I THINK ONE THING THAT'S GOING TO HELP LIMIT SOME OF THAT IS THESE ARE NOT GOING TO BE LARGE SPACES. THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE BROKEN UP RELATIVELY TIGHT. I THINK -- AND I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT MIX IN MY HEAD BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING OVER 3,000 SQUARE FEET IN A SINGLE SPACE. THE OTHER PIECE OF THAT, THE PARKING IS GOING TO MEET THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE STANDARD COMMERCIAL SUPPORT. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT AND I BELIEVE THIS WAS IN THE PACKET -- HELP ME OUT IF THIS WAS NOT IN THE PACKET. BUT ONE OF THE USES WE HAD ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED TO THAT STAFF WAS NOT RECOMMENDING WAS, LIKE, A GENERAL RETILE- TYPE USE.
THESE SPACES ARE NOT INTENDED FOR SHOP SPACE AND, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC TO COME AND PURCHASE GOODS AND SERVICES FROM. IT'S MORE SMALLER COMPANY OPERATIONAL FACILITIES, MAYBE I THINK THE OTHER PROJECT THEY'VE DONE ELSEWHERE THERE'S A LOT OF -- THEY CALL IT E- COMMERCE, BUT IT'S LIKE WHOLESALE- TYPE PEOPLE BUYING STUFF ONLINE, MOSTLY THEY'RE KEEPING PRODUCT AND THEN SHIPPING IT OUT OF THERE KIND OF DEAL BUT ON A SMALLER SCALE.
>> I THAT IN MIND, IF SOMEONE APPROACHED THEM FOR A RESTAURANT, WHAT WOULD THEY SAY? THAT WOULD BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT USE.
>> BUT COMMERCIAL KITCHEN IS IN HERE, AND I THINK ABOUT A COMMISSARY KITCHEN BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A LOT OF FOOD TRUCKS, ET
CETERA. >> THERE'S KIND OF A NEED FOR THAT.
>> AND A RESTAURANT BRINGING IN A LOT OF TRAFFIC.
>> AND ANYTHING LIKE THAT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S ORDINANCE WHEN THEY CAME TO BRING THAT UP.
FACTOR. >> I THINK ALSO -- THAT'D KIND OF VIOLATE THE WHOLE NO FOOT TRAFFIC WHERE PEOPLE KIND OF COME IN THERE FOR THINGS.
THAT WAS A PRETTY BIG STICKING POINT, AND I THINK THE OTHER THING WAS ALSO FIRE SUPPRESSION AND KIND OF WHATWHAT WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE ON A LARGER SCALE,
TOO. >> I HAVE A CONCERN THAT BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION, AND IT IS THE -- THERE AT THE ENTRANCE INTO AND OUT OF AUBURN, AND WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS FOR YEARS AND YEARS ABOUT THE ENTRANCE INTO AND OUT OF AUBURN ONOPE ONOPELIKA ROAD. EVEN WITH BOTTLING PLANT, WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS, COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, IT MAKES ME THINK OF LARGE TRUCKS THAT WOULD BE PARKED IN THAT AREA.
AND WHILE I HAVE PERSONALLY NOTHING AGAINST LARGE TRUCKS, IN FACT, I ACTUALLY LOVE THEM -- I DON'T LIKE SEEING THEM IN A LOCATION LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, WHERE THERE'S - - AND SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AND THE WAY IT WOULD LIKE AS AN ENTRANCE AND AN EXIT INTO OUR CITY ESPECIALLY WHEN WE JUST SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AND TIME AND, YOU KNOW, JUST RENAMED THE BRIDGE OVER THERE TO MAKE IT SOMETHING SPECIAL, SOMETHING WE'RE SO PROUD OF.
>> SO ALONG THOSE LINES, IS THIS A GATEWAY LOCATION?
>> SO I GUESS IF YOU COULD GO TO THE
[00:45:04]
>> IT DOES. I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT MAKES THE RIGHT ON GLENN AND THEN SHOOT- OFF ON BENT CREEK. BUT AS YOU KNOW YOU'RE ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO -- AS YOU KNOW, YOU'RE CLIMBING AS YOU GO UP, SO A LOT OF THAT YOU'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE FROM THE ROAD. SO THAT WOULD NOT HAVE TO MEET OUR 429 CORRIDOR STANDARD FROM A BUILDING MATERIAL STANDPOINT, AND SO I THINK -- AND A LOT OF THE USES A LOT OF IT'S GOING TO BE CONTAINED INTERNAL.
THERE WAS ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS. THERE WILL BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE. THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS ASKED AND CAME UP IN THE MEETING.
THAT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. I DO GELT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THERE'S STORAGE UNITS ON GLENN BELOW THE AIRPORT. THERE'S REALLY NOTHING ELSE THAT COULD GO THERE. YOU -- IN THEORY I DON'T THINK YOU'LL REALLY BE ABLE TO SEE THIS FROM THE ROAD WOULD THERE ALREADY BEING BUILDINGS THERE.
AND LIKE I SAID THIS ISN'T SUBJECT TO 429 WHERE THERE'D BE CERTAIN CLADDING MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR IT.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS ONE OF THE MAIN ENTRANCES IS OVER AN EASEMENT RIGHT. AT WHAT LEVEL? YOU KNOW, IS IT PHASE 3 POWER WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW OR IS IT TRUCKS, IS IT 18 WHEELERS OR JUST --
>> YEAH, AND SO, I MEAN, A LOT OF IT, LIKE I SAID, IT'S JUST CONTRACTOR, STORAGE, I THINK OF THE IDEA OF EVERYTHING BEHIND THE MALL OF A LOT OF THOSE DIFFERENT USES, THOSE KIND OF USES WHERE IT'S NOT FULL- SCALE INDUSTRIAL,÷÷ IT'S NOT EVEN KIND OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
IT'S JUST WHERE PEOPLE MAY HAVE SOME OF THEIR WORKSHOPS, WHERE THEY'RE WORKING IN THE BUILDING. LIKE I SAID, THAT'S UP TO Y'ALL IF YOU FEEL IT'S AN APPROPRIATE USE IN THIS
USES? >> YEAH, THOSE THINGS BEHIND THE MALL ARE NOT WHERE SOMEONE STOPS OFF TO GO TO THE GAS STATION. AND YOU WILL SEE IT FROM THE GAS STATION. YOU WILL -- I MEAN, WHEN YOU ENTER AND EXIT OUR CITY --
>> I GET THAT. TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE EASEMENTS, WE DIDN'T PUT THAT ON THERE, BUT THE ENTIRE SITE IS LAYERED WITH EASEMENTS. THE ENTIRE, I GUESS THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT'S NOT TOUCHING THE STREET, ALL EASEMENTS GOING UP.
BUT THE OTHER PART OF THIS WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS IT WAS GOING TO HAVE TO GET UNDER SOME THINGS. I THINK IT'S AT 48,000 SQUARE FEET RIGHT NOW BUT I THINK THE THRESHOLD IS 40.
>> I THINK WE'RE MEETING WITH WHAT WE GOT.
>> I LOVE THE IDEA. I JUST DON'T LOVE THE
LOCATION. >> AND SO TO THE OTHER POINT ABOUT THE PHASE 3 POWER AND THE DIFFERENT USES WE WERE TRYING TO REGULATE, I THINK THAT WAS AS USE CASE BASIS AND GET AN IDEA OF WHAT TENANTS THEY WERE CHASING OR WHAT TENANTS IN OTHER LOCATIONS THAT THEY HAD. LIKE I SAID STAFF WAS JUST GENERALLY CONCERNED ON WORST-CASE SCENARIO FINDING OUT ABOUT -- FINDING OUT ABOUT POOR STORAGE OF SOMETHING AND THEN THERE BEING AN EMERGENCY BECAUSE SOMETHING EXPLODED KIND OF DEAL AND NOT HAVING THE FIRE SUPPRESSION ADEQUATE FOR THAT. THIS IS SOMETHING WE'D HAVE TO WORK THROUGH IN DRT IF IT WAS APPROVED.
>> CRD ALLOWS A TON OF USES AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.
SO FOR INSTANCE WE COULD SAY ABSOLUTELY NO TO ANY OF THESE AND JUST LET THEM BRING THEM BACK AS THEY HAVE THEM BECAUSE THE USES ARE STILL LEADING TO WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THEM? I MEAN THE USE -- ARE YOU CURBING THE USE BY HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AND ROLL-UP DOORS AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A LOADING DOCK TECHNICALLY? DO ALL THE ROLLP DOORS FACE TO YOUR POINT NOT SEEING A BUNCH OF DOORS WHEN YOU COME OFF THE
SO UNDER THE CURRENT LAYOUT A MAJORITY OF THEM WOULD FACE INTERNALLY TO THE SITE.
YOU SEE THE PARKING LOT. THERE WOULD BE AS WE HAVE IT LAID OUT NOW THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE DRAWING WOULD HAVE OUTWARD FACING DOORS. THAT'S MORE -- THAT'S FACING TOWARDS BENT CREEK TO A POINT.
IS IT A LITTLE BIT LOWER, THAT COULD BE THE CASE.
I THINK THAT COULD BE REMEDIED WITH SOME LAYOUT CHANGES, AND I DON'T THINK WE'D BE OPPOSED TO THAT AT ALL.
BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD FIX PRETTY EASILY. WITH REGARDS TO THE TRUCKS, THIS IS NOT A FLEET YARD. THERE'S NO -- THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY AVAILABLE PARKING FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OTHER THAN MAYBE THE OCCASIONAL DELIVERY, WHICH I WOULD SAY IS PROBABLY NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET AT ACADEMY, SAMS, EVEN SOME OF THE RESTAURANTS LIKE
[00:50:01]
MOE'S AND BAUMHOWERS'S. I'M NOT CONCERNED FOR USE PARKING OTHER THAN THE OCCASIONAL DELIVERY GOING IN THERE.>> WELL, A BOTTLING PLANT, WHICH IS LISTED, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TRUCKS GOING IN AND
IT WOULD BE ON A VERY SMALL SCALE, SO CONSIDER THE SPACE MAYBE. THAT WOULD ALSO BE IF THAT'S A CONDITION THAT THAT'S A USE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED, I DON'T KNOW THAT WOULD BE A --
>> AND THEN FOR THAT TRAFFIC COMING OFF BENT CREEK, IF THERE ARE BIG DRUGS OR WHATEVER THEY'RE HAVING TO WIND THEIR WAY AROUND THAT ROAD THERE BETWEEN WAFFLE HOUSE AND THETHE STATION?
>> NOT NECESSARILY. THERE WOULD -- WE COULD CIRCULATE IT A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM.
IF THEY'RE COMING FROM THE INTERSTATE, THAT'S AT THE LIGHT SO THAT WOULD BE A PRIMARY POINT OF ENTRY, CORRECT. AND IT'S FULLY COMPLIANT BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING FROM A DIMENSIONAL PERSPECTIVE WITH ANY OTHER PUBLIC ROAD WITHIN THE CITY, SO I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT TRUCK CIRCULATION THROUGH THERE.
JUST FROM A DIMENSIONAL PERSPECTIVE. WE COULD ALSO EVALUATE BECAUSE THAT IS ON THE PROPERTY, RIGHT, SO THAT'S A PART OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE BENT CREEK RIGHT-OF- WAY TO THAT LIGHT. I MEAN, IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF PAYMENT EVALUATIONS WE NEED TO DO ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, I'M SURE THEY'D BE WILLING TO DO THAT. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY THAT WOULD SPEAK TO SOME OF
THAT. >> HOW ARE WE GOING TO KNOW WHAT THAT SAYS? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE USES ARE.
>> OKAY, SO CONDITIONAL USE, COMMISSIONERS.
DO YOU HAVE ANYMORE QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT OR
STAFF? >> I DID WANT TO SAY THERE'S NO LOADING DOCK.
>> NO LOADING DOCK, THANK YOU.
>> REMOVE ALL THESE ADDITIONS AND JUST LET IT
BE. >> LIKE I SAID THERE IS A LITANY OF CHOICES.
YOU CAN CAN EITHER APPROVE IT, Y'ALL CAN DENY IT, Y'ALL CAN POSTPONE IT. Y'ALL CAN PULL CONDITIONS OFF IT AND MAKE CONDITIONS INSIDE OF IT.
I THINK THAT SEEMS A LITTLE CUMBERSOME. FROM THE ONES YOU HAVE REAL CONCERNS ABOUT AND A TENSITY STANDPOINT YOU WANT TO SEE AND KNOW -- IF YOU WANT THEIR PROPOSAL TO BE BUTTONED UP AS FAR AS I WANT TO KNOW THE USERS, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS, WHAT KIND OF VOLUME THEY'RE DOING. THERE'S LOGISTICS WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT AND I GUESS THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WAS GOING TO BE -- IF THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THAT GLENN HILTON GARDEN INTERSECTION, Y'ALL CAN REQUEST MORE INFORMATION AND Y'ALL ARE FREE TO DO THAT. LIKE I SAID, YOU GUYS HAVE A LITANY OF CHOICES BEFORE Y'ALL.
IF IT'S A QUESTION YOU GUYS WANT MORE INFORMATION, I'D SAY YOU GUYS GOT TO GIVE STAFF A DIRECTION OF WHAT THAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION YOU GUYS WANT THEM TO INCLUDE. IF YOU GUYS AREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH SOME OF THE USES THEY'VE LISTED OR BUT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH OTHER ONES, YOU ALL CAN PULL THOSE USES OFF OR FLAT DENY IT AND MAKE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL.
>> IF IT'S DENIED IT'S ONE YEAR BEFORE THEY CAN COME
BACK. >> THAT IS CORRECT, WITHOUT A
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. >> EVEN IF IT'S ALREADY ZONED CDD AND THERE ARE USES PERMITTED BY
THEN WHAT THEY COULD DO IS PURSUE÷÷ BY RIGHT USES AND STRAIGHT TO DRT PRETTY MUCH.
>> SO, I MEAN -- YOU CAN MAKE WHATEVER MOTION YOU WOULD LIKE
SO WHAT MORE INFORMATION DO WE
USE. >> SO I GUESS -- THIS IS WHAT LEE MENTIONED. SO HERE THEY HAVE NOT PURSUED.
THIS IS A BUSINESS MODEL THEY'VE UTILIZED IN ANOTHER STATE AND KIND OF STAFF WAS CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT THAT 10 WANT LIST LOOKED LIKE IN THE OTHER STATE.
SOUNDS LIKE Y'ALL ARE CURIOUS ABOUT THAT AS WELL.
OUR END OF IT IS THE DISCUSSION DEPENDING ON IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE POWER OR NOT AND WHAT KIND OF SPACES WERE GOING TO BE AVAILABLE UP TO 3,000 SQUARE FEET, WHAT POTENTIAL USERS THAT COULD ATTRACT.
>> BUT IF I PUT A TENANT IN THERE AND MY TENANT WANTS THREE OF THOSE 3,000-SQUARE FOOT SPACES, THAT'S NOT LIMITING ME.
[00:55:02]
>> BUT NOT HAVING MAY LIMIT THAT TENANT
MIX. >> DOESN'T SOUND LIKE Y'ALL HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH. IF Y'ALL WANT TO POSTPONE IT OR STRIP IT FROM A USES POINT THAT'S FINE. ALSO LIKE THEY SAID THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HAD BEEN DONE, BUT I THINK THAT'S ALSO WE NEED USES TO KIND OF GO OFF OF. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WHERE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT COULD WORK TOGETHER TO KIND OF MAKE THE HYPOTHETICAL WORST-CASE SCENARIO TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD TIP. BUT I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE.
>> I MEAN, I THINK IT'S ALREADY ZONED AND HAS APPROVED USES THAT ARE BY RIGHT. THAT THEY COULD MOVE FORWARD AND TRY TO FIT. IF NOT, I FEEL LIKE CONDITIONAL USES ONE BY ONE BY THEIR TENANT MIX, HAVING TO REQUEST IT. DENYING IT FOR A YEAR SEEMS LIKE --
>> SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE ARE Y'ALL SEEKING TO POSTPONE FOR MORE INFORMATION JUST LIKE TRAFFIC STUDY, TENANT MIX OR --
>> I'M TOTALLY GOOD WITH THIS.
>> TOTALLY UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO GO ONE OR TWO MONTHS. THAT'S FINE.
>> WE THINK THE TRAFFIC STUDY COULD BE PROVIDED IN A MONTH AND A TENANT LIST? TWO MONTHS?
>> I GUESS THAT'D BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE AUBURN FLEX WORKS CU-2025- 052 TO THE DATE DECEMBER 11, 2025, FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT INCLUDES THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND POTENTIAL TENANT USE.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PROPOSED POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 11, 2025. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
[17. Conditional Use – Country Club Cottages - PUBLIC HEARING]
>> ALL RIGHT, SO NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS CONDITIONAL USE FOR COUNTRY CLUB COTTAGES.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE WEST SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. IT IS IN THE CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SUBURBAN SO CRDS.
THIS IS A PLOTS MAP OF THE YEA. YOU CAN SEE COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE HERE SO THINK RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF AUBURN CITY LIMITS.
THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS WELL.
YOU CAN SEE HOW IT'S KIND OF ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE CITY. AND THIS IS AN EXHIBIT KIND OF JUST SHOWING THE OVERALL JUST WHAT THE COTTAGES WILL LOOK LIKE. THIS IS A MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT DESPITE WHAT THE WORDING OF COTTAGES DOES MEAN. THAT'S JUST WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS DECIDED TO CALL THE PROJECT, SO -- AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? AT FIRST GLANCE THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC
HEARING. >> I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STAFF COMMENTS.
>> ONE DISCUSSES THE PROHIBITS RESIDENTIAL USES FROM BUILDING -- ON RESIDENTIAL USE TAKING ACCESS FROM THE COR DOR FRONTAGE, WHICH IS NOT ON THE CORRIDOR. IT'S NOT ON OPELIKA ROAD, SO I'M WONDERING WHY THAT'S THERE TO CONSIDER IF THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT WAS EVEN ADDRESSED FOR US TO
IT'S JUST A CLARIFYING COMMENT. I MEAN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT "S," SO IT'S JUST AS A FOOTNOTE TO BE THERE.
>> FURTHER DOWN THE LIST -- JUST SORT OF SEE
[01:00:02]
POTENTIAL PRECEDENT WE'RE SETTING IN THIS AREA.THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS WE'RE MAYBE SETTING PRECEDENT THAT MAY DEVELOP MORE, THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT'S WHAT WE TRULY FELT LIKE SHOULD GO THERE. DO YOU HAVEHAVE COMMENT ABOUT
MAN, THIS GOT LOUD ON ME. OKAY, SO MIXED USE JUST TO REITERATE THAT MIXED USE CAN BE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL.
I GUESS I THINK ABOUT CRDS AND I THINK SPECIFICALLY THIS LOCATION JUST KIND OF TAKING EVERYTHING INTO CONTEXT. CRDS LIKE I SAID MIGHT BE MORE PERMISSIVE THAN CDD. I GUESS IT DOESN'T HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT THAT CDD DOES, AND ALSO WITH IT BEING UP AGAINST THE RAILROAD, IT'S REALLY JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW, LOCATE THERE AT YOUR OWN -- AT YOUR OWN RISK KIND OF DEAL.
BUT I GUESS TO THE -- FURTHER TO THE NORTH EAST WITH THERE WAS THE DUKES CIRCLE. THAT WAS PRETTY INTENSE MIXED USE COMMERCIAL TOWARDS OPELIKA ROAD, AND ALMOST 40 USES OF RESIDENTIAL IN THE BACK. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PROPERTY AROUND THERE CHANGING HANDS. SOME OF IT NOT, YOU KNOW, RETAIL COMMERCIAL. SO OF IT IS COMMERCIAL AS NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL.
I'VE GOT QUESTIONS ABOUT LIMOUSINE SERVICES, I'VE GOTTEN QUESTIONS ABOUT PEOPLE EXPANDING THEIR TOW TRUCK OPERATION. THERE'S AN ENTIRE HOST OF USES TO EXPAND OUT THERE, ALSO EXISTING HOUSING DOWN THERE. I DON'T THINK THIS IS -- COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, I DON'T THINK THE COMMERCIAL DIRECTOR IS GOING TO LOSE ANY SLEEP IF ALL THESE THINGS BECAME COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL OR ALL THESE THINGS WERE COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USES JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE SITE.
SO I THINK IT STILL DOES MEET THE MIXED USE KIND OF DEFINITION. LIKE I SAID, IT'S REALLY JUST A HODGEPODGE OF USES JUST BECAUSE IT, ONE, IS IN THE PERIPHERY OF THE CITY AND ALSOALSO UP AGAINST THE RAILROAD TRACK, BUT ALSO INTERNAL CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN ALL OF THEM PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT CAN BE IMPROVED BUT SOMETHING WE WOULD NEED A BIGGER DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO AGREE WHETHER THAT BE ACCESS EASEMENTS OR CORRECTION APPEASEMENTS ON OPELIKA ROAD. ANY REDEVELOPMENT OVER HERE FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT AND STAFF SIDE WON'T BE MET WITH TOO MUCH OPPOSITION AS YOU TRY TO TAKE DIRECT ACCESS OFF OF OPE OF OPELIKA ROAD.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE STUDENTS THERE PROBABLY.
>> YEAH, SO THE DUKE CIRCLE PROJECT WAS DEFINITELY FAR MORE INTENSE.
BUT I THINK OPELIKA AS A WHOLE, I KNOW ENGINEERING DOES HAVE ANAN STANDPOINT.
BUT WITH THAT PORTION JUST KIND OF BEING WHERE IT IS, IT JUST HASN'T BEEN SOMETHING WHERE WE'VE IDENTIFIED -- WELL, I THINK WE'VE IDENTIFIED WHAT THE SOLUTIONS ARE. IT JUST HADN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND I THINK THE INTERNAL CONNECTIVITY AND FLOW BETWEEN TRAFFIC WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THIS GOING, ANYBODY TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT OUT OF THERE AT CERTAIN TIMES OF THE DAY IS GOING TO BE INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT.
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNTRY CLUB COTTAGES.
IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK.
I AM THE DESIGNER FOR THE OWNER, AND I DON'T -- I'M ON THE ZONING COMMISSION IN MY TOWN AND THE ORDER OF BUSINESS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO SPEAK WITH ME OR NOT, BUT IF YOU HAD FURTHER QUESTIONS THAT I COULD ANSWER, I'M HAPPY TO SEE --
>> THANK YOU. AND PLEASE SIGN IN.
>> THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNTRY CLUB COTTAGES, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR ANYONE. MOTIONS?
>> MOVE TO APPROVE CASE CU-2025-053.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
[18. Conditional Use – 415 North Ross Street ADDU – PUBLIC HEARING]
[01:05:02]
THANK YOU. CONDITIONAL USES TONIGHT.MICROPHONE. >> YEAH, I'M TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM ACTUALLY LIFTING IT. IT JUST CAUSES TOO MUCH -- TOO MUCH DAMAGE. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS REQUEST IS FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SPECIFICALLY AN ACADEMIC DETACHED DEVELOPING UNIT OR ADDU. IT'S A LOT EASIER TO SAY ADDU.
IT'S JUST OFF NORTH ROSS STREET AND ALL SIDES OF THE ZONING DISTRICT AS WELL THAT'S CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT URBAN. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO TOUCH ON WITH THIS SLIGHT PLAN IS MIXED USE 2 AND THE CRU ZONING DISTRICT DEAL. THIS ZONING DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH THE TRANSITION FROM THE MORE URBAN AREAS TO SUBURBAN AREAS. SO THIS LIKE MY LAST CASE IS MORE OF A TRANSITIONAL PROPERTY.
AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED WITH AN ADDU IS FIVE BEDROOMS, FIVE BATHS. SO WHEN YOU HOLD IT AGAINST THE ALREADY EXISTING USES THAT ARE SURROUNDING THE AREA, THE COMMERCIAL THAT FRONTS HERE AND RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, THE MORE MULTI- UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON TOP AND SOME OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY TO THE SOUTH.
IT FITS WITHIN THE MIXED USE 2 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS WELL AS THE INTENT OF THE CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT URBAN. SO SINCE IT ALIGNS WITH BOTH, OR I JUST WANTED TO OUTLINE THAT IT DOES ALIGN WITH BOTH, AND THAT I CAN ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE ABOUT ANY OF THE COMMENTS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. I THOUGHT THAT I SAW A DIFFERENT PARKING OPTION.
>> YOU PROBABLY DID. THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE ITERATIONS. I THINK AROUND A THIRD.
THE APPLICANT HAS ANOTHER ONE. THERE IS PARKING AND THE DRIVE AISLE. THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS, LITERAL MOVING PARTS TO THIS.
SO I'M SURE THE APPLICANT WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO YOU WITH A DIFFERENT SITE PLAN.
>> WE RECEIVED IT YESTERDAY. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE SPECIFICALLY Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE SEEN, BUT WE RECEIVED A NEW ONE YESTERDAY. BUT SINCE THIS ONE WAS PUBLISHED AND WAS WITH THE SITE PLAN REVIEW DONE ON CONDITIONAL USE, WE WENT FORWARD WITH THIS ONE.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK IS THIS TANDEM PARKING?
>> SO I GUESS WE'VE, TO MY CHAGRIN, IT'S SOMETHING WE AS A STAFF NEED TO ADDRESS. I KNOW OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO LOOK AT.
OTHER ENGINEERS ACROSS THE NATION HAVE -- DIFFERENT CITIES HAVE STANDARDS THAT REGULATE IT AND SOMETHING THAT ISN'T FROWNED UPON, I GUESS INTERNALLY WE PROBABLY NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON IT BECAUSE I GET IT FROM A FUNCTIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE SPACE AND THE GEOMETRY OF SITES, IT FUNCTIONS KIND OF AS A QUASI- PARKING REDUCTION, BUT THAT'S NOT KIND OF NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. WE'RE STARTING TO SEE IT A LOT MORE, AND BEFORE IT BECOMES TOO PERVASIVE ON SITES TECHNICALLY THEY MEET, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE FEEL ABOUT IT AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AS FAR AS FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT. BUT I THINK THE OTHER SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DOES NOT UTUTILIZE TANDEM PARKING, SO THERE'S THAT.
>> YEAH. LIKE I SAID THIS ISN'T THE ONLY PROJECT WHERE THERE'S BEEN TANDEM PARKING.
I GUESS THEY WOULD SAY THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT WITH ALL THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE. IT'S NOT LIKE A MASSIVE APARTMENT COMPLEX WHERE YOU COULD BE PARKED BEHIND SOMEBODY WHO LIVES ON A DIFFERENT FLOOR WHO MAY NOT BE THERE AND BE GONE FOR A WEEK.
LIKE I SAID IT'S JUST SOMETHING WE NEED TO HASH OUT- TERMY, PROBABLY SOONER RATHER THAN
LATER. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. SO I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 415 ROSS STREET
>> I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, 327 OPELIKA ROAD. I DO HAVE AN INEASEMENT FOR MY ENTIRE DRIVEWAY. MY DRIVEWAY IS ON ROSS BEHIND. MY DRIVEWAY TAKES UP HALF OF A DRIVEWAY, BUT I HAVE AN EASEMENT FOR THE ENTIRE DRIVEWAY THAT GRANTS ME ACCESS TO THAT DRIVEWAY.
HALF MY DRIVEWAY IS ON MY PROPERTY, BUT I HAVE
[01:10:04]
ANNESEMENT TO THAT EGRESS WHERE I HAVE SPACE TO GET IN AND OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY. MY CONCERN IS THE PARKING.IF IT'S A VERY SMALL LOT THERE. IT'S LIKE 0. 19 ACRES I BELIEVE, THE LITTLE HOUSE THAT SITS THERE NOW, WHICH THE TEARDOWN SITS LIKE 750 SQUARE FEET.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE FIVE PEOPLE LIVING THERE WITH FIVE DIFFERENT VEHICLES, HOW THEY'RE ALL GOING TO GET IN AND OUT OF THERE. I MEAN, IT'S LIVING AROUND STUDENTS. I LOVE STUDENTS.
IT'S FINE WITH ME. I LOVE MY HOUSE. I HAVE A POMEGRANATE TREE.
I HAVE ALL KINDS OF BEAUTIFUL FOLIAGE AND A GREAT HOUSE. I REALLY LOVE MY HOUSE AND I PLAN TO STAY IN MY HOUSE AND NOT SELL THAT PROPERTY. BUT I HAVE TO SAY SINCE I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN '92, THE CITY HAS TAKEN PART OF THE PROPERTY TO WIDEN ROSS. THEY'VE ALSO TAKEN PART OF MY FRONT YARD TO BEAUTIFY OPELIKA ROAD, SO I'M KEEPING MY LOT THAT'S STILL THERE.
I THINK I'VE GIVEN A LOT TO THE CITY. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM BUILDING STUDENT HOUSING OR ADDU, BUT I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET IN AND OUT AND THAT I STILL HAVE ACCESS TO GET IN AND OUT OF MY DRIVE. SO THAT'S MY -- MY CONCERN.
>> THANK YOU. DON'T FORGET TO SIGN IN,
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THISTHIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SEEMS OBVIOUS. IS IT A
SHARED DRIVE? >> YES, THIS IS. I THINK THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENTS ENGINEERING HAS MADE JUST KIND OF RELATED TO THE DRIVEWAY FROM THAT REGARD.
>> WELCOME. CAN YOU PULL UP THAT PLAN, PLEASE? SO WITH THE FORSITE GROUP REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
WE RAN TITLE ON THE PROPERTY. THERE'S NO EASEMENT THAT SHOWED UP FOR ACCESS, FOR SHARED ACCESS OR CROSS ACCESS OR SHARED DRIVEWAY EASEMENT. NOTHING SHOWS UP THAT'S RECORDED AND TITLED, SO WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT.
IN REGARDS TO THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A 15- FOOT BUFFER ON THAT SIDE ANYWAYS.
SO IF A PORTION OF HER DRIVEWAY HAS TO REMAIN ON OUR LOT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ACCOMMODATE IT WITH THE CURRENT SITE PLAN. WHEN FIRST GOT PRESENTED THIS PROJECT, THERE WAS A PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT WRITTEN ON THIS PROJECT THAT SOMEBODY SUBMITTED AND REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE, AND THEN THEY PULLED IT BEFORE IT CAME TO YOU, BUT THERE WAS A STAFF REPORT.
AND IN THAT IT WAS REQUESTED THAT PARKING BE IN THE REAR.
OKAY, AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE PARKING IN THE REAR WITH THAT. IN THIS PARTICULAR USE AND ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE AND IN THIS PARTICULAR ZONING WE'RE IN AN URBAN SITUATION, IN AN URBAN ZONING, WHICH HAS MORE OF A STREET FRONT AND URBAN FORM TO IT ALONG OPELIKA ROAD AND ALONG ALONG THE ZONING, BUT THE ADDU REQUIRES A 20- FOOT SETBACK. SO THIS BUILDING IS 20 FEET BACK JUST IN ORDER TO MEET THE ADDU FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
IF I WAS DOING SOME OTHER FORM OF A USE THAT WAS PERMITTED BY RIGHT OR CONDITIONAL THAT WOULD BE BEFORE YOU, MOST OF THE TIME I WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO HAVE A 5 FOOT FRONT BUILDING SETBACK.
THIS BUILDING WOULD BE PULLED ALL THE WAY UP TO THE STREET. THESE PARTICULAR NUANCES OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES US TO HAVE A 20- FOOT ORDINANCE SETBACK.
HERE'S THE LAY OUT WE DID REMOVING PARKING FROM THE BACK. IN THISNERED INSTANCE IT ALLOWS PARKING NOT TO BE IN THE FRONT. WE'RE SHOWING PARKING BEHIND THE FRONT PLANE OF THE BUILDING, ON THE SIDE. I'M SHOWING YOU WHERE WE CAN FIT SEVEN SPACES.
WE WILL ONLY HAVE SIX. IT'S JUST DETERMINING WHETHER OUR GARAGE WILL BE FOR FOUR OR FOR THREE, YOU KNOW? BUT WE HAVE ROOM FOR THREE OUTSIDE. IT DOES HAVE THE 24 FEET TURN AROUND AND ALL THAT STUFF, SO THIS IS A PLAN THAT -- THAT CAN MEET THAT SAME REQUIREMENT.
IT JUST HAS PARKING ON THE SIDE AND NOT ON THE FRONT. AND, YOU KNOW, IN REGARDS TO, LIKE, IF WE HAVE TO HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY, THAT ONLY MAKES THIS -- THIS LAYOUT EVEN MORE -- WORK EVEN MORE.
[01:15:05]
OUR DRIVEWAY WOULD SLIDE DOWN, WE'D HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH OUR NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR. SO IT ONLY FURTHERMORE MAKES THE SITE EVEN MORE COMPATIBLE THERE. NOW, I DON'T KNOW IN REGARDS TO THAT IS IF THERE IS AN EASEMENT, RIGHT, AND THERE IS A SHARED DRIVEWAY, HOW DO WE DEAL WITH A BUFFER ALONG A SHARED DRIVEWAY?>> SO DRIVERS CAN BE IN THE BUFFER YARD.
THAT ISN'T A BIG DEAL. THAT WOULD BE THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENED WITH THE PROJECT.
>> SO IF ANYTHING OUR DRIVEWAY MAY SLIDE DOWN.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR ABOUT THAT. BUT ANYWAYS, SO I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU ALL THAT AND KIND OF EXPLAIN HOW WE WERE SHOWING THE DRIVE IN THE REAR, WHERE YOU'RE CRUNCHED ON TIME.
I WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE JUSTICE THAT THE 5- FOOT BUILDING SETBACK WAS BETTER THAN THE 20, BUT WE COULD -- WE COULD ONLY DO WHAT THE ORDINANCE SHOWS, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE LANDED.
SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
COMMISSIONERS. >> OKAY, MOVE TO APPROVE CASE CU-2024-021.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> I GUESS I JUST WANT TO KIND OF ADD A LOT OF THE NUANCES JUST KIND OF AROUND THE DRIVEWAY AND THINGS, THOSE THINGS ARE BEING HANDLED KIND OF DURING DRT, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY TALK TO THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER OR I GUESS YOU GUYS CAN REQUEST FROM THE CITY EVENTUALLY ONCE THOSE PLANS ARE APPROVED, KIND OF WHAT THE STATUS OF THE SHARED DRIVEWAY WILL BE AND YOU GUYS CANCAN THE PLANS FOR THAT.
[19. Conditional Use – 613 Luverne Avenue - PUBLIC HEARING]
>> SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL USE FOR MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S LOCATED AT 613, 615 LUVERNE AVENUE IN THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING ZONING DISTRICT. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS COMPRISED OF TWO LOTS, APPROXIMATELY 26,000 SQUARE FEET. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES DESIGNATE THIS PROPERTY AS NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION. THE INTENT OF THAT IS TO KEEP THE EXISTING DENSITY AND THE HOUSING TYPES OF STABLE AND EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. SO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT'S TECHNICALLY NOT IN LINE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. HOWEVER, IT DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT DDH AND THE ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS IN DENSITY.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT THREE UNITS EACH CONTAINING THREE BEDROOMS AND 3 1/2 BATHS. THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AN ADDU. RIGHT NOW AS THE FLOOR PLANS SHOW 40% OF THE LIVABLE AREA IS PRIVATE SPACE, LEAVING 60%. SO THERE'S A MAJORITY COMMON SPACE, SO IT'S NOT AN ADDU, WHICH IS USE THAT'S NOT PERMITTED IN DDH. ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT IN DDH, OCCUPANCY LIMITS -- OCCUPANCY IS LIMITED TO FAMILY.
THE FAMILY DEFINITION COMMONLY AT DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS TYPICALLY CATER TO THOSE WHO MEET THE FAMILY DEFINITION. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THERE IS ONE STAFF REMATION FOR APPROVAL AND THAT'S FOR THE LOT.
>> AND CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE IT'S MUD. THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GOING TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME FOR LUVERNE AVENUE.
>> I'M JESSICA. I'M THE BUILDING DESIGNER FOR THIS PROJECT. I'M JUST MAKING MYSELF KNOWN IN CASE YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. THE CLIENT ORIGINALLY WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WANTED TO DO MORE DENSITY, BUT WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING THROUGH THE ZONING, THIS IS -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE TIED INTO, SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE MOST OUT OF THEIR INVESTMENT. I WANTED TO POINT OUT THATTHAT THE FLOOR PLAN WE ARE FOCUSING ON A FAMILY- STYLE HOME
[01:20:04]
LAYOUT. SO WE'RE AWARE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU.
PLEASE SIGN IN, IF YOU HAVEN'T. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD?
>> I'M GREG HOWARD, RESIDENT OF AUBURN, 613 LUVERNE AVENUE. I'M JUST BECOMING AWARE OF THE MULTI- UNIT ON THE STREET IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE WANT TO KEEP IT SINGLE- FAMILY HOME. I THINK THIS HERE MORE ALIGNS WITH STUDENT HOUSING.
YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIGHT I'M OPPOSED FOR THAT.
SINGLE-FAMILY I'M FOR THAT. I DON'T WANT TO BRING MORE TRAFFIC IN WE ALREADY HAVE. THERE'S A LOT OF PARKING ALREADY ON OUR STREET ALREADY THAT WE DON'T LIKE THAT WE REALLY DON'T NEED.
I WISH THEY COULD PARK ON THE OTHER SIDE OR SOMETHING.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE KIND OF WHAT IT IS.
I KNOW THAT'S NOT EVEN A SINGLE- FAMILY HOME.
THAT'S GOING TO BRING -- AND IT'S HARD TO EVEN GET OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAYS BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF CARS ON THERE THAT DON'T EVEN REALLY LIVE OVER THERE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO I JUST DON'T GET WHY THEY WANT TO DO A MULTI- UNIT THERE. SINGLE-FAMILY, I'M ALL FOR IT.
BUT THAT THERE, I OPPOSE IT GREATLY.
SO I JUST WANT TO SAY MY PIECE. AND, PLEASE, LET'S KEEP THINGS
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. >> THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY WIFE AND I LIVE IN 767 NORTH DONOHUE DRIVE, WHICH IS ADJACENT.
SO MY BACKYARD FACES THIS ENTIRE LOT.
SO I MOVED THERE, PURCHASED THE HOME IN 2009.
I CAN SAY I'VE WORKED WITH STUDENTS, GRADUATED FROM AUBURN, MOVED HERE, GRADUATED AND WORKED HERE FOR 20 YEARS. WORKED DIRECTLY IN STUDENT AFFAIRS. SO I UNDERSTAND STUDENTS THEMSELVES QUITE A BIT. ACROSS THE STREET FROM US IN FRONT OF THE HOME ACROSS DONOHUE THERE'S ALREADY I THINK TWO OR THREE ITEMS DIRECTLY ACROSS THAT ARE STUDENT HOUSING.
AGAIN, LIKE GREG OVER THERE, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO SINGLE- FAMILY HOUSING. BUT NOW I WALK OUT IN MY BACKYARD AND WHAT USED TO BE TREES AND A NATURAL SOUND BUFFER, NATURAL SOUND BUFFER IS NO LONGER THERE.
MY FIRE PIT AND JUST SIT OUT AND ENJOY THE MUSIC AND ENJOY THE FRESH AIR, I CAN NOW SEE MY NEIGHBORS. WHICH IS GOOD THING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE ALSO HAD A BUFFER BETWEEN US. SO THE CONCERN IS WHILE IT IS DESIGNATED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE CASE. AND SO TO HAVE STUDENTS THERE, LIKE I SAID UNDERSTAND HOW STUDENT LIFE WORKS, BUT MY WIFE AND I JUST RECENTLY GOT MARRIED AND WE'RE CELEBRATING A YEAR AND A HALF, HOPING TO START A FAMILY PRETTY SOON. SO THAT COULD AFFECT OUR LIVELIHOOD, OUR PEACE OF MIND, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, SO THIS WASN'T TOLD TO US WHEN WE MOVED IN. I HEARD CONSTRUCTION ON A SATURDAY MORNING AT 6:00 IN THE MORNING WHEN TREES STARTED COMING DOWN.
YOU'VE GOT TO THINK OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS, CONSTRUCTION NOISE HAPPENING AS WELL AS WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE THERE. AGAIN, NOT OPPOSED TO NEW CONSTRUCTION, NOT OPPOSED TO PROGRESS IN THE CITY OF AUBURN. SEEN IT CHANGED THE LAST 25 YEARS, SO NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. I REALLY WANT THE BUILDERS TO THINK ABOUT WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
JUST THINK ABOUT THAT. I HAVE PICTURES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S TIME TO SHOW THOSE BUT THERE'S PICTURE OF MY BACKYARD AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW. MY NEIGHBOR ALSO LIKED TO GO OUT AND NOW THERE'S A DIFFERENT FEEL OF HOW THAT PROPERTY IS NOW. NOW IT'S LIKE, OKAY, IF SOMETHING IS BUILT THERE, WHO'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THAT BARRIER NOW? THERE'S NOTHING BLOCKING OUR HOUSE, PROVIDING PRIVACY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO THAT'S MY CASE HERE IS THAT -- AND ALSO THE PARKING.
THE KIDS THAT ARE ON THE STREET -- ON THE SIDE STREET ON LUVERNE, THERE'S A LOT OF KIDS THAT GO TO A READING BACK THERE,
[01:25:02]
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM THERE AND KIDS THAT NATURALLY LIVE THERE.IF YOU ADD POTENTIALLY STUDENT HOUSING AND GUESTS OVER THAT'S MORE CONGESTED HOUSING ON THAT STREET, ALREADY BUSY STREET. WE ALREADY HAVE DRAKE MIDDLE SCHOOL, WHICH I KNOW HOW IT IS COMING OUT IN THE MORNINGINGS SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DYNAMICS CHANGING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WITH THAT I YIELD MY
PLEASE SIGN IN. ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD?
>> 608 LUVERNE. THAT'S WHERE MY MOM LIVES. SHE LIVES RIGHT ACROSS FROM WHERE THE HOUSING WOULD BE BUILT. I ALSO LIVE, ME AND MY HUSBAND, RIGHT NEXT DOOR. SO JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT HE SAID ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE PRIVACY AND NOW ALL THE NOISE AND HOW WE GRILL IN THE BACK.
AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, IT'S, LIKE, OPEN AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT PRIVACY ANYMORE. ALSO ON 608 LUVERNE IS WHERE MY MOM LIVES. SHE GOT A HABITAT HOUSE BUILT.
THERE'S THREE OTHERS THAT'S IN THE AREA.
ALSO WITH OUR HOME IT'S REALLY CONGESTED, SO WE LIKE TRYING TO GET TO MY MOM'S HOUSE, AND IT'S LIKE A MAZE TRYING TO MANEUVER THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CARS THAT'S OVER IN THAT AREA. SO JUST TO SAY AS FAR AS THE HIGH RISE HOUSES, AND I OPPOSE THAT. BUT FAMILY- ORIENTED HOMES, WE'RE ALL FOR IT.
ALSO WITH THE FRAZIER TERENCE SUBDWAGZ WAS APPROVED IN 1946.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD ONLY CONTAINS SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES.
THE DENSITY AND HOUSING TYPES SHOULD BE RETAINED AND NOT THE HIGH RISE STUDENT HOUSES BUT MORE FAMILY- ORIENTED HOMES.
PLEASE SIGN IN. ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD?
>> MY NAME IS TRAVIS GILLYARD. I LIVE WITH MY MOM AT 619 LUVERNE AVENUE. WE'RE PRETTY MUCH RIGHT BESIDE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BRING IN.
AND WE'RE ALREADY BEING AFFECTED.
YOU KNOW, WE GOT NEW RODENTS. YOU KNOW, WE GOT -- WE GOT A FAMILY OF RACCOONS THAT LIVES IN OUR TRASH CAN.
SO WHERE'D THEY COME FROM? LIKE EVERYONE ON THE STREET IS SAYING WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO SINGLE-FAMILY BECAUSE WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE A SINGLE FAMILY ON OUR STREET, BUT FOR THREE UNITS LIKE MULTI- UNITS THERE'S 12 APARTMENTS -- THERE'S 12 PEOPLE.
THERE'S 12 PARKING SPOTS. WE ALREADY HAVE NO PARKING ON LUVERNE. LIKE, OUR HOUSE SITUATION AT THE END OF THE STREET, LIKE THEY TAKE OVER OUR STREET. WE'VE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES BECAUSE THEY PARK OVER IN RIDGE CREST WHERE THEY HELP THE KIDS AT. THEY DON'T HELP ANYBODY ON LUVERNE. BUT, LIKE, WE ALL LIKE TO STICK TOGETHER. LIKE THEY'RE SAYING WE ARE DEFINITELY NOT OPPOSED TO MORE SINGLE FAMILY'S, BUT WE REALLY DON'T WANT STUDENTS ON OUR STREET JUST PRETTY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD?
>> HI. >> MY NAME IS GLENN ANDREWS.
AND I LIVE AT 624 WEST VIEW DRIVE.
[01:30:24]
IN THERE. THEY FINALLY GOT TWO VACANT LOTS IN THERE, AND THEY WANT TO PUT APARTMENT HOUSE, TWO STORIES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THREE STORIES. WE GOT A FAMILY THERE, THEY GOT THREE CARS -- I MEAN THEY HAD THREE CARS AND THEY BOUGHT THREE MORE CARS AND NOWHERE TO PARK.THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD IS A PROBLEM.
IF THEY BRING SOME APARTMENTS IN THERE, THAT'S GOING TO BE MORE PARKING AND AIN'T NOBODY GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH AND COME OUT.
BUT WHEN I WENT IN THERE, YOU CAN SEE FOR MILES.
OUT THERE NOW ITIT KIND OF LIKE A TOWN.
WASN'T NO TWO- STORY BUILDINGS. GUESS WHAT WE GOT NOW? IT LOOK GOOD, BUT THEY OVERDONE IT. BUT I WANT A NICE PLAY TO STAY, AND I LIVE ON WEST VIEW DRIVE. I GOT A SINGLE HOUSE, AND I LIKE IT. AND THAT'S RIGHT OFF OF WEST VIEW DRIVE. THAT'S RIGHT OF DONOHUE.
GOT A HOME ON WALTER STREET, AND I GOT A SISTER OVER THERE AND IT'S BETTER OVER THERE THAN WHERE I'M AT.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO LIVE AND TRYING TO MAKE IT.
BUT THESE HOUSES KEEP GOING UP, AND THESE CARS KEEP COMING IN, AND THERE AIN'T NO ROOM TO WIDEN THE STREET, SO WE JUST GOT A MESS WITH THOSE HOUSES GOING UP AND UP AND AIN'T QUITE ENOUGH ROOM.
JUST ENOUGH ROOM TO PUT THE HOUSE IN THERE.
BUT THEY'RE PULLING THEM IN THERE. AND SOME OF THEM HOUSES AIN'T ENOUGH ROOM TO WALK AROUND THEM. SO WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM IN THERE. PLEASE DON'T LET NOTHING ELSE COME IN. THANK
I THINK SHE ACTUALLY DID IT FOR YOU. I THINK YOU'RE GOOD.
>> ANYONE ELSE BEFORE I CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT FOR LUVERNE STREET.
I THINK TO ME I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
WE DON'T ALLOW THE ADDUS IN THIS AREA, AND PARKING IS ALREADY PROVIDED ON THE LOT OFF THE
EVEN THOUGH WE'RE JUST HERE SHOWING USE FOR THE MUD, JUST TO CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE RENTALS, IF THEY'RE BEING SOLD, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
BUT THE OTHER PART IT'S NOT ZONED FOR FIVE UNRELATED PEOPLE TO LIVE HERE. IT IS ZONED FOR NO MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED PEOPLE TO LIVE
HERE. >> I GUESS KIND OF THE MECHANISM FOR THAT, SO IF THERE WERE ANYBODY -- IF THERE WERE ANY DOUBTS OR SUSPICIONS ABOUT THAT, PEOPLE COULD REPORT THAT TO THE CITY, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT INSPECTIONS WOULD GET TO THE BOTTOM OF.
>> WITH THAT MUCH AVAILABLE SPACE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I'M CLOSE TO THE CAMPUS, I'D PUT ALL MY FRIENDS IN WITH ME. I REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS BECAUSE OF THE IDEA THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THIS IS NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION.
>> WHAT ARE WE PRESERVING HERE? WE'RE NOT PRESERVING A NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PUTTING HIGH DENSITY INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD.
NOW, DDH HAS ITS PURPOSES, I THINK.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING A NEW DEVELOPMENT OUT SOMEWHERE AND YOU'RE PLANNING IT AND YOU'RE WORKING IT IN, YOU'RE
[01:35:01]
NOT JUST PLOPPING -- EVEN THOUGH THIS IS ZONED DDH, YOU'RE NOT JUST PLOPPING HIGH DENSITY IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE- FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. I JUST, I HAVE A REAL HARD TIME WITH THAT.>> LET'S TALK ABOUT DENSITY AND DDH.
>> YEAH, SO PERFORMANCE SUBDIVISIONS IN DDH ARE 5. 5 UNITS AN ACRE. HOW BIG IS
>> SHE IS CORRECT. SHE DID COME WHEN WE HAD OUR DISCUSSION AROUND THIS, THEY WERE INITIALLY PROPOSING MORE DENSITY, AND WE TOLD THEM, HEY, THE DENSITY CAP IS THIS. YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD FROM A UNIT STANDPOINT. AS YOU ALL KNOW FROM A DDH IS REGULATED ON THE UNITS NOT BY BED.
SO THE ITEMS, LIKE THIS IS KPLIEPT.
IT'S JUST STILL LIKE I SAID THIS IS THE ENTIRE REASON WE TALKED ABOUT, THAT'S WHY SINGLE- FAMILY HOUSING IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND THEY ARE ALLOWED IN DDH BUT THERE ARE CONTEXTUAL USES AROUND DOES THIS MAKE SENSE, DOES THIS KIND OF FIT OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN? THOSE ASPECTS ARE REASONS TO
NEIGHBORHOOD. >> CORRECT. LET ME -- I DO HAVE A
QUESTION. >> IT IS ONLY THREE UNITS, RIGHT? THEY ARE NOT MULTI --
>> YES. IF YOU WANT TO -- DO WE HAVE -- I FEEL LIKE THE EXHIBIT SHOULD HAVE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
>> YEAH, THAT ELEVATION. SO THESE AREN'T THREE STORIES.
THESE AREN'T THE ADDUS YOU GUYS MAY SEE OR EVEN THE ONES OFF FRASIER STREET.
>> THEY COULD CONDO IT. THEY WERE JUST ABLE TO BUILD THIS MANY UNITS AND MOVE FORWARD
WITH THAT. >> WELL, I AGREE WITH PHIL.
THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION, WHICH MEANS IT MAINTAINS THE CHARACTER OF WHAT EXISTS ALREADY. AND I DON'T SEE THAT THIS MAINTAINS THE CHARACTER AT ALL, SO I WILL OPPOSE
THIS. >> SO HOW DOES THAT FIT IN WITH NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION?
>> YEAH, SO NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION I GUESS DIFFERENT -- DIFFERENT FROM -- I GUESS IT'S THE FUTURE LAND USE OF CONSERVATION DISTRICT SO PRESERVATION SPEAKS TO PRESERVING THE CHARACTERISTIC OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. SO CHARACTER CAN BE DEFINED AS, YOU KNOW, LOT SIZE, USE, I THINK EVEN KIND OF THE LANDSCAPING AND FOLIAGE JUST KINDS OF FROM, YEAH, HOUSING TYPES. SO THAT'S WHAT KIND OF WHAT IT SPEAKS TO. SO IF THERE WERE A HODGEPODGE OF DIFFERENT -- DIFFERENT USES, DIFFERENT DENSITIES, WERE THERE WERE SOME EXISTS TRIPLEXES, QUADPLEXES THAT'D BE DIFFERENT IF THE ZONING PERMITTED IT. BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION REALLY DOES SPEAK TO WHATEVER THE PREDOMINANT USE IS AND THE CHARACTER OF THAT STREET, IT NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED WITH ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO. IT'S SUPPOSED TO EXCLUDE THAT.
>> THEY'RE PRESENTED AS MUD S, BUT ARE THEY, YOU KNOW, SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES?
>> YEAH, SO GREAT QUESTION. SO THESE WOULD BE SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES IF THEY WERE ON ITS OWN LOT. YEAH, SO THAT'S THE OTHER THING.
THE STREET FRONT EDGE, I'D HAVE TO MEASURE IT REAL FAST, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'D BE ABLE TO GO ANY -- IA, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS ALREADY PERFORMANCE. SO I DON'T THINK THEY'D HAVE THE NECESSARY STREET FRONTAGE TO GET THREE
CURRENTLY. >> IT'S ON TWO LOTS.
>> RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS I DON'T THINK THEY COULD CREATE A THIRD.
YOU NEED THE NECESSARY STREET FRONTAGE TO DO
THAT. >> THE STREET FRONTAGE OF THE COMBINED LOTS IS 122 FEET SORRY. SO SHE'S THE APPLICANT, SO IF SHE'D LIKE TO SPEAK SHE'LLSHE'LL TO COME BACK UP TO THE MIC. 142 DOESN'T ALLOW FOR PERFORMANCE SUBDIVISION. THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS 50, SO THEY'D NEED A VARIANCE TO OBTAIN THREE LOTS.
>> SO NOW I'M CONFUSED. THIS PLAT OR THIS CONDITIONAL USE PRESENTS THREE HOMES ON THOSE TWO LOTS. AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THEY CAN'T DO THAT. THEY'RE GOING TO DO -- THEY CAN DO TWO OF THE HOMES ON THE
LOT. >> IF THEY HAD TWO LOTS, IF
[01:40:01]
THEY MADE IT A TRUE SUBDIVISION BUT THEY'RE COMING FOR A MULTIPLE UNITDEVELOPMENT. >> REMEMBER AND THERE WAS CONDITION THEY'D HAVE TO DO A CONSSOLIDATION PLAT TO DO THREE UNITS ON ONE LOT, WHICH WOULD BE MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT. WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO IS SINGLE-FAMILY --
>> NEED TWO OF THOSE -- APPROVAL TO DO THREE OF THOSE.
>> CORRECT. WITH CONSOLIDATION PLAT.
AND THEN ALSO THERE WOULDN'T -- NORMALLY IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS YOU MIGHT HAVE PEOPLE WHERE THEY'LL DO, LIKE, A CUL-DE- SAC OR LOLLIPOP KIND OF DEAL WHERE THEY CAN TURN INTO. THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE OFF A PRIVATE STREET TO DO THAT EITHER.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE COMING BEFORE YOU GUYS WITH AN MUD AND THERE'S CONDITIONS IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CONSOLIDATION PLAT.
>> THE DDH, WHAT'S THE FAMILY --
>> YEAH, SO DDH IS THE FAMILY DEFINITION WHERE NO MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED.
>> SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR,
>> WELL, AGAIN, THIS IS NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT STATES IN OUR PLAT AS STAFF HAS STATED WAS APPROVED IN 1976. THAT IS 79 YEARS, SO I'M STILL A
NO. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS?
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTIONMOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE OF 397 MARTIN AVENUE --
>> SORRY. I KNEW -- LONG NIGHT. 613 LUVERNE AVENUE CU-2025-055.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE. ROLL CALL PLEASE.
COUNCIL. >> YEAH, THIS WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL AT THE NEXT MEETING -- NOT THE NEXT MEETING. NO, IT WOULD BE THE NEXT MEETING. 21ST, I'M
>> YEAH, I'M SORRY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTERWARDS TO ASK STAFF, BUT YOU CAN'T TALK ANYMORE OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[20. Conditional Use – 397 Martin Avenue - PUBLIC HEARING]
SORRY ABOUT THAT.>> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE ANOTHER CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR 397 MARTIN AVENUE. THIS IS AN MUD, MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF NORTH ROSS STREET AND MARTIN AVENUE, AND IT'S IN THE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PROPS MAP YOU'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT THE END OF ROSS STREET SO IT IS GOING UP NORTH ROSS STREET AS WELL AS MARTIN AVENUE.
AND THE FUTURE LAND USE TO SHOW THIS AREA AS MEDIUM SLASH HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO THIS IS THE MAIN EXHIBIT RIGHT HERE.
YOU CAN SEE IT'S A FIVE- UNIT MULTIPLE- UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY IS, WHICH IS OVER HERE, IS OBVIOUSLY IN THE FLOODPLAIN, SO THEREFORE IT IS NOT BEING USED AS WELL AS THE TOPOGRAPHY IS KIND OF WHAT DO YOU SAY JUST UNDESIRABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT KIND OF GOES UP AND DOWN EVERYWHERE, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT BEING SHOWN FOR DEVELOPMENT, BUT OTHER THAN THAT I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER SOME
QUESTIONS. >> IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 397 MARTIN AVENUE TOWNHOMES.
AT THIS TIME IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS?
[01:45:03]
THIS IS ZONED RDD. THESE TWO ARE THE SAME?>> YES. I GUESS KIND OF -- I THINK HE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, BUT EVEN THOUGH IT DOES SAY TOWNHOMES AND I THINK IT IS TOWNHOME STYLE I THINK IT IS TECHNICALLY THE USE IS MUD, SO IT'S MULTIPLE UNITS ON ONE LOT.
>> MOVE TO APPROVE CASE WZ, 2025-005.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WRONG ONE. >> OH, YEAH, YOU'RE GOOD.
OH, WHAT ARE YOU -- ALL RIGHT, 144 SOUTH ROSS STREET
[21. Waiver - 144 South Ross Street ]
WAIVER REQUEST. ALL RIGHT, SO ACTION REQUESTED IS WAIVER OF 3 FEET TO THE MINIMUM GROUND STORY HEIGHT OF 15 FEET FOR GROUND STORY RESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW A GROUND STORY HEIGHT OF 12 FEET AT 144 SOUTH ROSS STREET.YEAH, SO, ALL RIGHT, THIS IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM HERE. YOU GUYS MAY REMEMBER YOU GUYS RECENTLY APPROVED A SIMILAR WAIVER ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE AT THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH OF THIS. WE HAD A DDRC MEETING ON TUESDAY WITH THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION, I GUESS FOR EVERYBODY WHO DOESN'T LIKE ACRONYMS, AND SO HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION JUST AROUND WHAT THE INTENT OF THAT LANGUAGE IS SINCE THE DDRC GOVERNS AND I WAS KIND OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STANDARDS AND THE DESIGN TABLES. AND SO I GUESS WE COULD GO TO THE RENDERINGS. YEAH, SO THEY REALLY LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK ALSO THERE WAS GREATER DISCUSSION.
THAT'S JUST THE SITE PLAN. CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE? THERE WE GO. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND -- THERE'S REALLY JUST KIND OF A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. THERE REALLY WASN'T MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HEIGHT DISCRETION.
I THINK 15 FEET MADE A LOT MORE SENSE, MADE MORE SENSE IN URBAN WHERE THEY SAW THE PROLIFERATION OF PROGRESSIVE MIXED USE AT THE GROUND LEVEL.
FOR THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS THEY WERE A LITTLE MIFFED BY THE 15 FEET BEING THIS FAR DOWN, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO CHANGE. AND SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TABLE 5. 6 AND WE'RE OPENING UP THE ZONE ORDINANCE SOON, THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THOSE HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS THAT GETS ADDRESSED. THIS IS SOMETHING THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
FROM A HEIGHT STANDPOINT THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE WAIVER, THEY UNDERSTOOD, AND ALSO THOUGHT IT WAS A DECENT DEVELOPMENT. LIKE I SAID I THINK 95% OF THE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT OTHER ASPECTS.
I THINK IT WAS THAT'S HOW SUPPORTIVE THAT THEY WERE.
IT IT WAS REALLY KIND OF WE UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE ASKING FOR 12, WE JUST GRANTED 12 ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND ALSO THERE'S A STATEMENT THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE 15 FOOT OF MINIMUM FLOOR STORY REQUIREMENT ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
AND I THINK ALSO IT'S TIME TO DO THAT JUST BECAUSE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PRESSURE IN THE URBAN NAISHS ESPECIALLY URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD EAST IS NOT SLOWING DOWN ANYTIME SOON.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS WAIVER THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. I WAS ON THIS WHEN WE DID THE WHOLE 15 FEET NOT REALIZING THAT IT WENT THIS FAR AND ALSO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF WEST, AS FAR DOWN AS WEST GLENN IS. SO I ACTUALLY
AGREE COMPLETELY. >> I JUST, I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF. LOOKING AT THIS RENDERING OF THE FRONT THAT'S GOING TO BE ON ROSS,
RIGHT, IS THAT -- >> NO, SO I GUESS CAN YOU GO TO -- IS THERE ANOTHER RENDERING OF THAT THAT'S INCLUDED? THOSE ARE THE SIDES THAT WOULD BE FACING ROSS, OR ONE OF THOSE IS. I THINK ONE OF THOSE IS THE WEST
ELEVATION. >> DID WE NOT IN THAT LAST ONE THAT WE GRANTED THE WAIVER DOWN --
>> CORRECT. SO THAT WAS KIND OF TWO PARTS.
SO THERE WAS THE 10- FOOT ELEVATION ON THE INTERNAL ONES THAT WEREN'T VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, AND THERE WAS A 5- FOOT WAIVER FOR THOSE AND A 3- FOOT WAIVER FOR THOSE THAT FACED ALONG THE
RIGHT. >> THIS ONE IT WAS JUST ASKING FOR THE BLANKET 12, AND THE OTHER ONE WAS MULTIPLE BUILDINGS. SO THERE WAS KIND OF THE L-BUILDING THAT WRAPPED THE STREET AND OTHER BUILDING THAT WAS INTERNAL. THIS WAS ONE BUILDING.
>> DIDN'T THEY HAVE TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT IT WAS TALLER THAN IT WAS?
>> NO, SO -- YEAH, THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING.
[01:50:02]
WHEN YOU WALK ROSS STREET THERE AND THE APPLICANT IS HEREHERE TO YOU ABOUT AND GIVE HIS SPIEL. AND THERE'S THE STEPS, THERE'S THE PORCH, HAVE THIS GRAND IFTRANCE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE 4 FEET ABOVE IT AND HAVE THE LEVEL CEILINGS. IT LOOKS 15 FEET HOW THEY'VETHEY'VE HANDLED AND HOW THE INTERPRETATION HAS GONE.BUT THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO BE 12 FEET.
THAT'S HOW THEY GOT THE WAIVER. KIND OF BE THE SAME THING WITH THIS ONE. THE WAIVER IS 3 FEET WHICH WOULD APPEAR TO BE 12. I GUESS IT WOULD JUST APPEAR TO BE 12 FEET.
>> SO WHEN THEY HAD THE MEETING IN DDRC THEY SAID THEY WERE FINE WITH IT?
>> YES. LIKE I SAID THEIR POSITION IS FROM A RESIDENTIAL STANDPOINT IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE FOR CEILINGS TO BE -- FOR A FLOOR TO BE 15 FEET. AND I GUESS KIND OF EVEN WHEN YOU HEAR THE 12 FEET, IT'S KIND OF A MISNOMER WHAT THE CEILING HEIGHT WOULD BE.
IT'S 10, 10. 5 ON THE FLOOR SYSTEM.
SITTING ON THIS I KIND OF FEEL LIKE AN ARCHITECT.
THERE'S THE FLOOR SYSTEMS AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT KIND OF GO IN IT, BUT LIKE I SAID THEIR POSITION IS VERY STRONG THAT THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THE 15- FOOT IN URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS.
LIKE I SAID, I THINK AT THE TIME OF THIS THEY REPLACED THIS ON URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD WEST, BUT THIS IN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD EAST AND URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD SOUTH, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS THIS MASSIVE LEVEL -- I MEAN MASSIVE LEVELS OF REDEVELOPMENT. BUT NOW THESE ARE MUCH MORE RESIDENTIAL THAT AREN'T STUDENT- BASED WHERE WE'RE LIKE, OH, NOT THAT, II I THINK YOU CAN -- AND IN SOME STUDENT DEVELOPMENTS YOU CAN BE A LITTLE MORE CARELESS ABOUT WHAT THE APPEARANCE MIGHT BE, AND I THINK ON THESE AND ESPECIALLY WITH THIS DEVELOPER IN PARTICULAR, THEY ARE NOT CARELESS ABOUT THE APPEARANCE. AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S
HAPPENING ON A LOT OF THESE. >> I THOUGHT THAT ORIGINALLY WE WERE REQUIRING THEM TO HAVE COMMERCIAL ON THE BOTTOM EVEN IN THAT AREA.
>> SO THERE ARE -- YEAH, YEAH. SO THAT IS CORRECT.
SO THERE ARE CERTAIN STREETS IN TOWN WHERE RESIDENTIAL IS NOT AN OPTION. SOMEONE LIKE OPELIKA ROAD WHERE RESIDENTIAL IS NOT AN OPTION AT
ALL. >> THAT WAS THE 15 FEET WAS --
>> A MORE BROWN STONE LOOK WHENWHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS WHOLE
PROCESS. >> THERE IS THE PROVISIONAL ON THE GROUND. IT'S 18 FEET.
THERE'S A MARK THAT HAD TO BE BUILT AND IT'S WEIRD BECAUSE IT HAD SLOPES IN IT. THE DDRC'S INTERPRETATION AND I GUESS THEIR POSITION KIND OF GOING FORWARD IS THAT 15 FEET IS TOO HIGH EVEN FOR URBAN -- EVEN FOR AN URBAN FEEL FOR RESIDENTIAL. I THINK THEY'RE PROBABLY COMFORTABLY HANGING OUT AT ABOUT THE 12 TO 12 FEET RANGE.
>> AGAIN, THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING THIS WAIVER. IF THE COMMISSION HAS A MOTION.
SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[OTHER BUSINESS]
OKAY. OTHER BUSINESS. I DO HAVE SOME OTHER BUSINESS.
MRS. WENDY BIRMINGHAM PASSED AWAY EARLIER THIS WEEK, AND I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT FOR HER SERVICE ON THIS BOARD AND COMMISSION, AND JUST SAD TO HEAR THE NEWS. BUT AS A COMMISSION WE DID SEND AN ARRANGEMENT FOR THE FAMILY.
[STAFF COMMUNICATION]
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION? ANY UPCOMING MEETINGS?>> NO, I GUESS KIND OF THINGS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH.
THAT'S IT. I DON'T ANTICIPATE THE VOLUME SLOWING DOWN. I THINK EVERY DAY KATIE'S STAYING LATE SENDING OUT MORE PRINT OUT REQUESTS. IT NEVER ENDS.
WE'LL SEE. HOPEFULLY WE DON'T BREAK THE 20 THRESHOLD NEXT MONTH, BUT I DOUBT IT.
>>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.