[ROLL CALL]
[00:00:15]
>> I CALL THE COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
>> JENNIFER STEPHENS. >> HERE.
>> GREAT. FULL HOUSE. I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE FLOOR TO ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME, WE INVITE YOU. SEE NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE CITIZENS
COMMUNICATION. >> THANK YOU. SO WE HAD A LAST-MINUTE -- I GUESS WITHDRAWAL, SO FOR THE AVENUE, THE CONDITIONER USED FOR JUDD AVENUE, APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO PULL IT OFF THE AGENDA, NOT FOR CONSIDERATION, SO FULLY WITHDRAWN SO THAT WILL GO TO COUNCIL ON TUESDAY. I MENTIONED THIS IN THE PACKET MEETING MONDAY THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY END UP PULLING IT OFF BECAUSE THEY'RE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT DESIGN. THERE GOING TO ADD MORE UNITS SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO DO WITH. THIS IS GOING TO BE A WITH RAW, NOT ASKING TO TABLE ANYTHING, A FULL WITHDRAWAL SO YOU WILL SEE ANOTHER SUBMISSION AT ANOTHER TIME.
>> METAL >> NOPE, WE'LL JUST COMPLETELY
[CONSENT AGENDA ]
SKIP IT. >> NO OLD BUSINESS TONIGHT,
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTING OF FOUR ITEMS, ONE ANNEXATION, THREE FINAL PLATS AND OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER PACKET AND REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES. >> MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. NEW BUSINESS.
>> ALL RIGHT, JUST GIVE ME A SECOND. THERE IT IS. ALL RIGHT.
[5. Pre-zoning – Cox Road DDH - PUBLIC HEARING ]
SO THIS IS THE PRE-ZONING TO DDH. FOR EVERYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE, IT'S BECOME A TREND IN AUBURN OVER THE PAST COUPLE MONTHS, PEOPLE REQUESTING PRE-ZONE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRE-ZONE AND REZONING, REZONINGS ARE THE APPLICATION TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM ONE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT TO ANOTHER DESIRED ZONING DISTRICT. PRE-ZONING IS THE DESIRE TO HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS NOT ANNEXED INTO THE CITY AND GET A ZONING DECISION ON IT SHOULD IT ANNEX. SO PRE-ZONING SITES HAVE APPROVED PRESENTING, CAN THEN COME BACK AND ANNEX UP TO SIX MONTHS AFTER THE PRE-ZONING DECISION SO I WANTED TO SAY THAT FOR EVERYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE. SO THIS IS A PRE-ZONING REQUEST.THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE PRE-ZONING, NOT REZONING. SO THE RECOMMENDATION, THE ACTUAL REQUEST IS RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO PRESENT APPROXIMATELY 36 ACRES FROM RURAL TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING. OKAY SO THIS IS A REQUEST. THIS REQUEST IS NOT ALIGNED WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, IF WE COULD GO TO IT. FUTURE LAND USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED RURAL. AS YOU ALL KNOW, THERE WAS A FUTURE LAND USE UP DATE THAT WENT ON FOR ABOUT 18 MONTHS, KIND OF POST MY ARRIVAL, IT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING COMPLETED. IT'S APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR AND THERE IS EVEN AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA TO CONSIDER A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS AT ANOTHER PART OF TOWN. THIS IS NOT THAT AND I WANT TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT HOW THE FUTURE LAND USE BECAME RURAL, WHY IT WAS RURAL AND I GUESS WHY IT WAS LEFT RURAL. SO THERE WAS AN EARLIER EDITION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT INCLUDED A LOT OF THE ACREAGE TO THE NORTH OF HERE AS LIMITED, AS LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN ONE ACRE MINIMUMS, AND AT THE TIME WE WERE -- THIS REQUEST WAS INTRODUCED TO US TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AND STAFF DID CONSIDER UP ZONING THIS, I GUESS UP ZONING THAT FUTURE LAND USE PLAN TO LOW MEDIUM DENSITY, TO LOW RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN ABOUT DDH, SO ABOUT THAT FIVE
[00:05:05]
WOULD HAVE BEEN UP ZONING THE ENTIRETY OF ALL THE ACREAGE TO THE NORTH ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD, TO NOT CREATE SPOT ZONING, TO NOT BE SPOT ZONING. SO THE DECISION AT THE TIME WAS REALLY JUST FROM UTILITIES, RESOURCES STANDPOINT, THAT THIS PORTION OF CLOCKS ROAD IS NOT READY FOR THE POTENTIAL OF DEVELOPMENT SO THAT WAS LEFT OFF OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THAT WAS SOMETHING WHERE WE DECIDED LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL, EVEN THAT WAS TOO MUCH FOR THIS CURRENT AREA AND I KNOW THERE IS A STARK DIFFERENCE BECAUSE UP THE ROAD ONCE YOU GET PAST LONGLEAF THERE'S SWAN FARMS THAT'S BEEN A HERE SO JUST FROM -- THERE'S NO SCHOOLS DOWN HERE. THIS IS A THREE-WAY LOAD. ROAD HAD TO BE UPGRADED, SOME OF THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT MIGHT REQUIRE A LIGHT FROM SOME OF THE PROPOSALS WE'VE SEEN. THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT THAT. THIS IS I GUESS ON THE NEXT ONE SO THIS PROPOSAL THAT'S ATTACHED WITH IT, THIS IS JUST A REZONING, NOT A PRELIMINARY PLAT, JUST KIND OF SHOWING THE OUTLINE OF WHAT IT WOULD BE. WE ARE SEEING PROPOSALS IN THIS SO THEY SCALED IT BACK TO THIS LEVEL OF DENSITY BUT I SAID, AT THAT TIME WHEN WE WERE CONSIDERING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WAS WALKED BACK A BIT FOR IT TO BE RURAL AND NOT LARGE RESIDENTIAL AND NOT LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT WAS INTENTIONAL. I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP, KIND OF PROVIDE THAT CONTEXT. I KNOW YOU GUYS OFTEN HAVE QUESTIONS, REZONING APPLICATIONS AND WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS AROUND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CONCERNING SPECIFIC PIECES OF PROPERTY. SO JUST WITH THAT CONTEXT, EVERYTHING AROUND IT IS RURAL. I THINK THE SENTIMENT HAS BEEN FOR THE STUFF FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS, SOUTH OF LONGLEAF, THAT IT WOULD BE RURAL JUST FOR THE TIME BEING AND I GUESS ALSO WITH THAT, AT THE TIME WE WERE CONSIDERING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THERE'S A LOT OF LAND ON COX ROAD THAT WAS FOR SALE SO IT WOULDN'T HAVE JUST MEANT TO THIS PROPERTY, THIS 40 ACRES. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHER ASSEMBLAGES OF ACREAGE THAT ALSO PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN PRESENTED TO US FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT. THAT'S JUST ALL THE CONTEXT WITH THAT. HOW WE GOT TO THE RURAL DESIGNATION AND THEN WHY THIS WAS NOT CHANGED IN THE FUTURELAND USE PLAN. >> WE TALKED ABOUT SCHOOLS AND RESOURCES BUT WATER WAS OKAY, BUT NO SEWER OUT THERE?
>> NO, I GUESS IF YOU WANTED TO SPEAK TO THAT, CHRIS.
>> THERE IS SEWER TO THE SOUTHWEST BUT IT IS ACROSS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO GET THE EASEMENT TO INSTALL GRAVITY SEWER.
>> AND I IMAGINE THE APPLICANT, IF THEY COME UP AND THEY SPEAK ABOUT IT, IT WAS A THE TIME THEY HAD AN AGREEMENT WORKED OUT SO IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE . I THINK THIS WAS A LOT MORE ON THE CITY SIDE OF KIND OF THINKING THROUGH WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT KIND OF DENSITY ON COX ROAD, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND NOT BEING SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
>> CORRECT. >> IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GROWN TO
THREE LANES BUT NOT FOUR? >> THERE'S A PROJECT GOING FROM TWO LANES TO THREE BUT ALSO I THINK THE CLOSEST SCHOOL OVER HERE IS RICHLAND ROAD ON ENTRY SCHOOL SO JUST KIND OF THE IDEA OF ADDING, INSIDE THE TIME IF WE WERE TO DO THE MATH FROM -- IF WE WERE TO UP SEWN IT TO DDH, HOW MANY HOUSES WOULD BE POSSIBLE? THERE IS A GOOD OF FLOODPLAIN OVER HERE SO IMAGINE ENGINEERS GIVE ACTUAL ACCOUNTING OF WHAT IT COULD BE BUT JUST RAW NUMBERS WERE SEVERAL HUNDRED LOTS, AND I SAID IT'S KIND OF FROM A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING STAND POINT, MAYBE A LOT OF KIDS THAT THEN WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GO TO SCHOOL WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I -- IT WAS ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS.
THERE ALREADY ARE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS OVER HERE BUT JUST KIND OF INCREASING THAT ISSUE WOULD'VE BEEN PROBLEMATIC.
>> YOU'RE ALSO SEEING THAT IT WAS DELIBERATE DELIBERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE LAND USE PLAN THAT CONSIDERED THIS KIND OF GROWTH BUT THERE WAS A DECISION TO MAKE, SAID THAT WE
ARE NOT READY TO DO THIS NOW. >> SO THIS DIDN'T EVEN MAKE IT TO THE COUNCIL TO BE PULLED OFF. THIS IS SOMETHING INTERNALLY, STAFF DISCUSSION, FROM ALL THE THINGS WE WERE LOOKING AT ON OUR END, INTERNALLY, OF ALL THE FACTORS TO MAKE --
>> THIS IS NOW, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> CORRECT. SO ALL THE RESEARCH AND DELIBERATIONS THAT STAFF HAD WAS CONFIRMED I THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS
] >> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME TO THE PRE-ZONING, IF YOU HAVE ANY WISH TO SPEAK. YES MA'AM,
[00:10:04]
COME FORWARD, AND PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO SIGN IN AFTERWORDS.RIGHT THERE. >> THIS IS MY FIRST TIME.
>> WE GOING TO HAVE THIS LITTLE CLOCK UP HERE THAT SAYS FIVE
MINUTES. >> OKAY, WELL I GOT THIS FORM IN THE MAIL ON MONDAY. I AM
>> EXCUSE ME, IF YOU COULD LET DAN LOWER THE PODIUM.
>> SORRY. >> I APPRECIATE IT BEING LOWERED
BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE. >> IS THAT BETTER?
>> YES, THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS ANN WHITNEY, THANKS SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. I GOT THIS IN THE MAIL THIS WEEK SO I HAVEN'T HAD ANY TIME TO PREPARE BUT I LIVE AT 2611 COX ROAD, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PETITIONED, AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHAT CHANGED BETWEEN THE CONTEXT THAT YOU GAVE AND THIS PETITION NOW? IF THE CITY COUNCIL ASSURED US WHEN THEY CAME THROUGH, HOWEVER MANY YEARS AGO THAT WAS, AND WIDENED THE ROAD, AND I GAVE UP EASEMENT ON MY PROPERTY, THEY SAID THIS IS RURAL. WE HAVE NO PLANS TO CHANGE THIS. AND I TOOK THEM AT
THEIR WORD. SO WHAT CHANGED? >> UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS NOT A Q
AND A. >> I MEAN, SO I GUESS SINCE THAT'S JUST -- I HAVE QUESTIONS AS TO THE ASSURANCES THAT WE WERE GIVEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE, AND NOW, LESS THAN A FEW YEARS LATER, ALL OF A SUDDEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS, AND I AGREE WITH THE ASSUMPTION AND THE OPINIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
COX ROAD IS NOT READY FOR THAT MANY RESIDENTIAL ROADS, THAT MANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSES GOING IN ACROSS THE STREET. THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE'S NOTHING. AND ACTUALLY THE LAND THAT LITERALLY SURROUNDS MY PROPERTY IS ALL INDUSTRIAL BOARD USE. AND SO THE IMPLICATION TO ME IS THAT, IF THAT LAND WAS REPURPOSED FOR ANY USE, IT WOULD BE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE. IT WOULD BE AN EXTENSION OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX THAT'S ALREADY THERE. SO I AM JUST PUZZLED AS TO WHY, ALL OF A SUDDEN, THIS GROUP IS ASKING FOR THOSE CHANGES TO BE MADE. AND I WOULD JUST PETITIONED THE COUNCIL TO TAKE ALL OF THIS INTO CONSIDERATION, THAT I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE -- I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE THAT LIVES IN THE AREA, BUT I'M CERTAINLY NOT READY FOR THAT TO BE ACROSS THAT -- I DID NOT BUY THE PROPERTY 11 YEARS AGO, IF I WANTED TO BE IN THAT KIND OF SITUATION. I WOULD'VE GONE INTO A CUL-DE-SAC. I DIDN'T BUY THAT PROPERTY OUT THERE. I BOUGHT IT EXACTLY FOR THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE IN THE COUNTRY. YOU CAN HEAR THE WILDLIFE. YOU CAN SEE THE WILDLIFE IN YOUR YARD AND THEN YOU CAN DRIVE IN FIVE MINUTES AND YOU CAN BE IN THE CITY. THAT IS NOT WHAT THAT PART OF LEE COUNTY NEEDS, OR AUBURN. IT JUST DOES NOT, SO I WOULD HAVE TO SAY, IF THIS WAS A VOTE, I'D HAVE TO VOTE NO. TWO MINUTES, ANYWAY. BUT YEAH, SO LIKE I SAID, I REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO DO ANY KIND OF RESEARCH, BUT I TOOK IN FULL FAITH OF THE CONTEXT YOU GAVE BEFORE THIS AND I JUST WOULD BE ASKING MY CITY COUNCILMAN WHAT CHANGED, AND PLEASE DON'T GO BACK ON YOUR WORD, AND KEEP THAT AREA RURAL , AS IT WAS INTENDED.
ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PRE-ZONING
FOR COX ROAD? >> DO YOU WANT TO THE APPLICANT TO COME DURING PUBLIC HEARING OR AFTER?
>> YOU CAN SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, I GUESS IF HE RUNS OUT OF TIME YOU'LL ALSO HAVE QUESTIONS, HE CAN ANSWER
THOSE. >> BRETT BASQUIN WITH THE FORESITE GROUP HERE, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 37 ACRES HERE, 89 LOTS. I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN THE PACKET ABOUT 600 LOTS OR 200 OR 300 ACRES. THIS IS 37 ACRES AND 89 LOTS. IT'S ABOUT 2.5 UNITS PER ACRE. IT'S ABOUT 50% OPEN SPACE. YES THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S IN PLACE. THERE'S EXISTING WATER ALONG COX ROAD THAT'S IN PLACE. SEWER IS AVAILABLE THROUGH AN EXTENSION THROUGH THE REAR THAT WE WORKED OUT IN PLACE AND THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE. COX ROAD IS WINDING THROUGH A THREE
[00:15:03]
LANE SECTION. THERE'S PLENTY OF CAPACITY ON THIS EXIT WITH COX ROAD. LIKE MOORESVILLE CAN HANDLE THE CAPACITY IT HAS AT THREE LANES, I THINK COX ROAD CAN JUST TO PUT ALL THAT TOGETHER, REQUESTING TO GET REZONING , I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS IN REGARDS TO ACREAGE AND THE MAX DENSITY. REASON WHY WE HAVE A PDD ON THE BACKEND OF THIS IS TO LOCK US INTO THE 2.5 UNITS PER ACRE THAT WE ARE SAYING WE ARE GOING TO DO, AND NOT THE MAXIMUM 5.5 UNITS OR WHATEVER THAT BE WITH THE DDH MAX ALLOWABLE ZONING, SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>> PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN, IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO INAUDIBLE ]. SEE NONE, WE'LL CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR
APPLICANT? >> I GUESS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING'S CHANGED, KIND OF ON THE COUNCIL LEVEL. I THINK INTERNALLY WE FELT THAT, LIKE I SAID, JUST FROM ALL OUR DUE DILIGENCE PUTTING TOGETHER A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WE DIDN'T REALLY GET THE IMPRESSION THAT A CHANGE OF THAT MAGNITUDE REALLY MADE SENSE, BUT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES NOT PRECLUDE PEOPLE FROM SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS. SO FOLKS CAN REQUEST ANY ZONING DISTRICT WHERE EVER THEY WANT. THE LAND USE PLAN CERTAINLY GUIDES THAT AND KIND OF INFORMS THE CITY COUNCIL AS TO WHAT WOULD BE A PRUDENT DECISION, WHAT THE CITY IS GOING TO MAKE PLANS FOR, AND IN THEORY IT'S NOT BINDING BUT THEY SHOULD FOLLOW IT, BUT LIKE I SAID, THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE PROPERTY OWNERS FROM SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS THAT WOULD BE IN CONTRADICTION WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THAT'S THE
ANSWER TO THAT. >> COMMISSIONERS?
>> SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THEN IS PREPARED IN THE FUTURE AT THE TIME OF COUNCIL 'S CHOOSING, TO ABSORB DENSITY AT RURAL DEVELOPMENT.
>> YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT. AND SO I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE FEEL THAT, LIKE A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THIS KIND OF HAPPENS IN AUBURN. NOT REALLY PLANNED BUT THERE IS A LOT OF STRATEGIC PLANNING JUST KIND OF AROUND WHERE THERE ARE RESOURCES KIND OF PUTTING SCHOOL LOCATIONS, PUTTING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN CERTAIN PLACES WHERE THERE ARE CORRIDORS THAT CAN HANDLE THEM, ALSO IN AREAS WHERE THAT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE CASE. SO THOSE THINGS HAPPEN IN CONCERT AND I THINK KIND OF WITH SOME OF THE LONGER-RANGE PLANS OF LIKE WHERE IS THERE GOING TO BE FUTURE GROWTH IN THE CITY, WHERE IS THERE GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANT UP ZONING, THOSE ARE CONVERSATIONS AND COORDINATIONS THAT HAPPENED, I GUESS NOT WHERE THERE WILL BE UP ZONING, BUT JUST KIND OF WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND ALL OF THAT, THERE ARE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ABOUT WHAT A LOT OF THIS LOOKS LIKE, AND HOW THIS COULD IMPACT THEIR FACILITIES.
>> I GUESS I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A POINT. TO ME THIS IS ABOUT PLANNING INTEGRITY. WE PLAN THINGS ON PURPOSE AND WE DELIBERATE, AND THE CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATES, AND WE GET PUBLIC INPUT, AND ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND TO JUST BASICALLY GO AGAINST THE PLANS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE -- IT'S NOT YOU'VE GOT TO FOLLOW THE PLAN. WE NEED TO STICK TO OUR PLANS TO GROW AS WE PLANNED IT FOR THE FUTURE. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE PLAN, CHANGE THE PLAN, BUT WE ARE AT THIS POINT NOW, WE HAVE A PLAN SO I COULD FORWARD THIS AS A RESULT.
>> I AGREE. >> IT'S ALMOST A CASE OF WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING A PLAN, THEN.
>> FOR ME, I DIDN'T GET ANYTHING, WHAT WAS COMPELLING ABOUT STICKING WITH 89 LOTS IN THAT AREA, IT'S TO THE BENEFIT
OF THE CITY. >> SO I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE CASE RZ 2025 020, COX ROAD PRE-ZONING.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED?
[00:20:02]
>> AYE . >> THAT DID NOT PASS.
>> THAT IS NOT OPPOSED. SO THE NEXT ITEM IS JUST KIND OF
[6. Pre-zoning – Cox Road PDD - PUBLIC HEARING]
SUBSEQUENT, KIND OF LIKE APPLICANT MENTIONED, COX ROAD PDD, THERE ARE NO EXCHANGES IN THIS PDD, THE PDD WAS THE SIMILAR FUNCTION OF THE WRIGHTS MILL ROAD REZONING, THAT THIS WOULD LOCK THIS IN AT THIS DENSITY, AND SO IT WOULD BE 89 OF THE 37 ACRES. I GUESS YOU WANT TO GO TO THE LOT LAYOUT .NOT REALLY, THE ZONING, IT'S MUCH MORE THE QUESTION OF PRELIMINARY PLATS ARE REALLY A PART OF IT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DID COME UP A LOT JUST KIND OF BY THE DISCUSSION IN THIS LAYOUT WAS THAT WHEN WE -- I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF PERFORMANCE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE DONE IN TOWN AND OPEN SPACE, HOW THEY'RE SET ASIDE. THIS IS MUCH MORE IN LINE KIND OF WITH HOW THE GREEN SPACE RATIO SHOULD LOOK. LIKE I SAID, THAT WAS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION WITH THIS. THEY WERE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT IT BUT LIKE I SAID, NONE OF THAT WAS ENOUGH TO SWAY THE DECISION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BUT JUST KIND OF A FUNCTION OF THE PDD.
THERE ARE NO EXCHANGES, HOW SOME PEOPLE ASK FOR FA ARE, LOT MINIMUMS, ET CETERA. PDD WAS SIMPLY TO LOCK IN THE DENSITY OF
89 OF THE 37 ACRES. >> OKAY. THIS IS PDD PRE-ZONING.
THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS THE PRE-ZONING FOR THE COX ROAD PDD, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COME FORWARD? SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE RZ 2025-025, PDD REZONING.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED?
>> WHEN ARE THESE GOING TO THE COUNCIL?
>> SINCE IT IS A REZONING DECISION IT WILL BE ON THE
[7. Preliminary Plat – Old Samford Pod 3 - PUBLIC HEARING ]
SECOND MEETING IN DECEMBER, AT THE CITY COUNCIL.>> GOOD EVENING. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE OLD SANFORD PLAN DEVELOPMENT. IT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF POD ONE AND THIS PORTION RIGHT HERE WHERE THE CURSOR IS, IS THE FINAL PLAT THAT WAS APPROVED ON CONSENT THIS EVENING. SO POD THREE IS RIGHT BELOW IT AND WILL CONNECT TO THE ENTRANCE ROAD THAT COMES INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. SO POD ONE IS RIGHT HERE AND THIS IS THE MAIN ROAD, OLD SANFORD. AND THIS REQUEST INCLUDES 92 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, 41 TOWNHOUSES, FIVE OPEN-SPACE LOTS AND TWO LOTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. I KNOW THAT ISN'T WHAT THE STAFF REPORT SAYS ABOUT THE OPEN-SPACE IN THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. AND THIS LOT HERE, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THAT THE FIFTH OPEN-SPACE LOT AND THEN THESE TWO LOTS HERE OUR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THIS ONE RIGHT HERE IS GOING TO BE THE POST OFFICE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND THEN THIS WILL BE FURTHER DEVELOPED. AT A FUTURE DATE. AND I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS, AND I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE
THIS EVENING. >> THE COMMENTS THAT WE NEED TO
PAY ATTENTION TO. >> NO, ENGINEERING AND I MET WITH THE APPLICANT YESTERDAY AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE OUT A MAJORITY OF THE ENGINEERING COMMENTS. AND PLANNING'S
COMMENTS. >> ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE I OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OLD SAMFORD POD THREE. WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THAT NOW IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. SEEN NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS,
[00:25:03]
COMMENTS? >> AND TO APPROVE CASE
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
[8. Preliminary Plat – The Orchard at Wrights Mill PDD - PUBLIC HEARING ]
>> GOOD EVENING. >> YOU CAN RAISE IT UP A LITTLE
BIT. >> I FEEL BAD WHEN I RAISED IT SO THIS SHOULD BE FINE. THIS REQUEST IS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 24 LOT PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 19 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LOTS WITH FIVE OPEN SPACES ON 10.14 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE WEST SIDE OF WRIGHTS MILL ROAD JUST SOUTH OF I-85 AND THE DEVELOPMENT IS CALLED THE ORCHARD AT WRIGHTS MILL. YOU CAN SEE ON THE PLOTS MAP THAT WITH THE NEW DDH ZONING AND PDD OVERLAY THAT WAS VOTED ON AND APPROVED ALREADY, THIS AREA HAS BEEN ZONED ACCORDINGLY, AND JUST LIKE THE INSCRIPTION, IT IS SOUTH OF I-85. THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. YOU CAN SEE THE 24 LOT IN TOTAL, 19 SINGLE-FAMILY, FIVE OPEN-SPACE LOTS. I KNOW THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION AND ALSO LABOR REQUEST AFTER THIS FOR TURN LANES SO I'M SURE THAT WILL BE A POINT OF DISCUSSION. OTHER THAN THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
>> CONDITIONS OR COMMENTS THAT -- IT'S JUST A WAIVER THAT
POINTS TO THE NEXT -- >> IT'S JUST THE WAIVER REQUEST AND WE TALKED ABOUT INITIALLY THE FRONTAGE OFF WRIGHTS MILL ROAD BUT THEY DON'T TAKE ACCESS OFF OF THEIR, THERE IS A COMMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, AND THEN THEY WORKED OUT WHAT THE PRIVATE SHARE DRIVE WOULD BE BECAUSE IT'S GRANTING ACCESS TO THOSE FOUR LOTS, LOT 18, LOT 19 AND ONE, TWO, THREE POINT
>> IS IT GOING TO STAY PRIVATE, IS THAT THE IDEA?
>> YES, YEAH, THAT'S JUST A PRIVATE DRIVE. THE ROADSIDE IS FUJII STREET AND CREST STREET, APPLE STREET, FOR THOSE WHO
DON'T KNOW. >> OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS THE ORCHARD AT WRIGHTS MILL PDD PRELIMINARY PLAT. OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SEEN NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> MOVE APPROVAL OF PP - 2025-030.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> ANY OPPOSED ? THANK YOU. >> THIS IS AN APPEAL TO 89
[9. Waiver – Wrights Mill Orchard - PUBLIC HEARING]
WAIVER REQUEST FOR THE SAME PROJECT. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO FORGO INSTALLING THE LEFT TURN LANE. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO INSTALL THE RIGHT TURN LANE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, SO THE LEFT TURN LANE WOULD BE FOR VEHICLES HEADED NORTH ON WRIGHTS MILL ROAD, TURNING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. THE DOCUMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET FOR THE WAIVER SUBMITTAL. THERE'S ALSO A RESPONSE LETTER. WE DID DO A -- WE COLLECTED SOME SPEED DATA WHILE WE WERE EVALUATING THE WAIVER REQUEST, JUST TO CONFIRM WHAT WE SUSPECTED, IS THAT SPEEDS ARE FAIRLY HIGH ON THAT ROADWAY. IT'S POSTED 45 MILES AN HOUR. THE NORTHBOUND 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED WAS 52 MILES AN HOUR. I GUESS THAT'S IT FOR NOW, BUT IF I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>> COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS? REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING?
>> REALLY JUST TALK TO APPLICANT ABOUT IT.
>> OKAY. >> BRETT BASQUIN, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. WE ARE PROPOSING 19 HOMES . WE ARE ESTIMATING A SPLIT OF 75% OF THE TRAFFIC COMING FROM TOWN, THE OTHER 25% COMING FROM THE THE TRIP GENERATION NUMBERS IT'S ABOUT FOUR LEFT TURNING VEHICLES IN THE A.M. AND P.M. PEEK INTO THE SITE. THERE'S ONLY 12 MAKING RIGHT TURNS, SO NEITHER TURN LANE IS WARRANTED BUT I AGREE THE HEAVIER MOVEMENT IS GOING TO BE THE RIGHT TURN
[00:30:02]
IN. EXISTING ROAD IS LESS THAN 4500 VEHICLES PER DAY, SO IT'S A FAIRLY LOW VOLUME ROAD. IS ONLY USING OF ABOUT 40% OF ITS CAPACITY, SO THERE'S PLENTY OF CAPACITY LEFT THERE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SPEEDING, IF WE ADD LANES AND JUST ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO FREE FLOW, ADDING TURN LANES IS NOT SLOWING ANYBODY DOWN. IT'S ONLY MAKING PEOPLE GO UNIMPEDED FASTER. TURN LANES, ESPECIALLY IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, WHERE THEY'RE NOT WARRANTED, HAVING PEOPLE SLOW DOWN AND TURN SLOWS DOWN TRAFFIC ALONG THE MAINLINE. SO IF WE ARE CONCERNED WITH SPEEDS, ADDING A BUNCH OF TURN LANES ON A ROAD IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT. IN REGARDS TO THE TRAFFIC, THE CRASH DATA THAT'S OUT THERE, MOST OF THE CRASH DATA IS TURNING MOVEMENT DATA, WHICH MEANS IT'S PEOPLE COMING OUT OF THE ROADS ONTO THE STREET. WE HAVE -- WHEN WE SEE ACCIDENTS THAT ARE REAR END COLLISIONS THAT'S USUALLY DEALING WITH SPEEDING ISSUES. ON THE MAJORITY OF THE CRASH DATA, THE PORTIONS OF THE DATE OF THE CITY WAS ALLOWED TO SHARE , TURNING MOVEMENT, SO IT'S PEOPLE COMING OUT ONTO THE ROAD, NOT PEOPLE ON THE ROAD, GOING INTO THE SITES. THE TWO CITY STREETS ACROSS THE STREET WHERE A MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC IS COMING DOWN AND MAKING A LEFT TO GO BACK EAST INTO THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, THOSE ARE WHERE YOU HAVE HEAVY TURNING MOVEMENTS. AT THE END OF THE DAY THERE SHOULD BE A SOUTHBOUND LEFT BUT A NORTHBOUND LEFT IS NOT HELPING ANYTHING IN THE SITUATION THERE. SO WE FEEL LIKE , ONE, IT'S FOUR CARS IN THE PEAK HOUR, VERY FEW, WE FEEL LIKE PEOPLE SLOWING DOWN TO ALLOW THE TURNS, ESPECIALLY ON THE LEFT TURNS, IS GOING TO HELP SLOW DOWN TRAFFIC ALONG THAT AREA. AND SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, IF YOU HAVEN'T.>> SO SINCE WE ADVERTISED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE, WE
JUST NEED TO OPEN ONE. >> A WAIVER REQUEST TYPICALLY --
>> YEAH. >> I KNOW. THANK YOU. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE WAIVER FOR WRIGHTS MILL ORCHARD. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK TO THIS AGENDA ITEM. SEEN NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> JUST ANOTHER COUPLE QUESTIONS. THEY HAVE A TRAFFIC
STUDY YET, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. >> YEAH, THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S NO THRESHOLD. THEY DON'T MEET THE THRESHOLD. THE THRESHOLD IS 70 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.
>> SO I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY CONSIDER SCHOOL WHICH WILL HAVE TRAFFIC ON THE SUBDIVISION, IN AND OUT, AND AS THE CITY HAS ALREADY SHOWN, AND I HAVE WITNESSED PERSONALLY SINCE I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE IS A TRAFFIC SPEED PROBLEM THERE. AS APPLICANT SAID, A TURN LANE MIGHT HELP THAT, EVEN IF IT'S GOING INTO TANGLEWOOD. BUT WE ARE ADDING TRAFFIC. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT, IT AFFECTS THE PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO IT IS AN ISSUE SO I WOULD ASK, HAVE WE CONSIDERED OGLETREE SCHOOL IN THESE NUMBERS? BECAUSE I THINK NUMBERS SHOULD BE HIGHER WITH THE SUBDIVISION.
>> NUMBERS ARE WHAT? >> VEHICLES IN AND OUT, GOING SOUTH WE ARE ONLY SHOWING FOUR VEHICLES TURNING IN SOUTH?
>> IN THE PEAK HOURS. IN OUR PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION, WHEN YOU ARE DOING IT FOR A CERTAIN FAMILY, THERE ARE SO MANY TRIPS PER DAY AND SO MANY PEAK HOUR TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, SO YES, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF YOU DO A 50/50 SPLIT. I MEAN EVEN IF YOU DO 100% OF THE TRAFFIC GOING THAT WAY, THE AMOUNT OF LEFT TURNS BACK IN THEIR STILL DOESN'T YOU GOT TO GET UP TO 20 VEHICLES AN HOUR TO WARRANT A TURN LANE.
SO IT STILL WOULDN'T BE WARRANTED, NO.
>> I DRIVE UP THAT ROAD EVERY DAY AS WELL AND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE NUMBER OF HOMES IN TANGLEWOOD WOULD BE SIMILAR TO WHAT WOULD BE GOING INTO THIS .
>> I WOULD SAY A LOT MORE. THERE'S A LOT MORE HOMES BACK
THERE. >> AND I DON'T RECALL, AND I SHOULD NOT ON SOMETHING BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL SEEING ACCIDENTS FOR PEOPLE TURNING INTO TANGLEWOOD. LIKE THAT'S NOT A CONCERN. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. SO I THINK YOUR COMMENT THAT THE TURN LANE DOESN'T SLOW PEOPLE DOWN IS A REALLY GOOD COMMENT. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IS THAT WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TO STOP AND WAIT FOR SOMEONE TO TURN, YOU ARE SLOWING
[00:35:01]
DOWN THEN. THAT IS A FAST ROAD. SO FOR THAT, AGREE.>> I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A QUANDARY HERE. YOU KNOW IT'S NOT WARRANTED, A TRAFFIC STUDY MIGHT SAY IT'S NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF CARS, BUT WE HAVE AN ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL THAT LAYS OUT REQUIREMENTS AND TO ME, THE TRAFFIC STUDY IN THIS CASE IS -- I MEAN TO BASE IT ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS -- IT'S BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A RULE THAT SAYS IN THE DESIGN CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, SAYS THAT SINCE IT'S A COLLECT HER, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A TURN LANE. SO I'M KIND OF --
>> AND I CAN ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THAT.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING -- >> LET ME JUST CLARIFY SOME. WE USED TO RELY ON THE WARRANTS ANALYSIS. IT WAS EITHER '18 OR '19. I THINK IT MIGHT EFFECTIVE IN JANUARY OF '19, WE MADE CHANGES TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND SAID BASICALLY IF YOU ARE ON AN ARTERIAL COLLECTOR YOU ARE GOING TO PUT TURN LANES AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE WARRANT SAYS. PRIOR TO THAT WE SAID TURN LANES NEED TO BE INSTALLED IF WARRANTED.
>> THAT IT'S BASED ON A TRAFFIC STUDY --
>> YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO FULL TRAFFIC STUDY. WE IN OUR MANUAL HAVE PUBLISHED WARRANTS THAT WE PULLED FROM THE NCR HP GUIDELINES THAT ARE PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC.
>> SO IT'S NOT EVEN DEPENDENT UPON THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S JUST THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT GOING ON SO THEREFORE WE NEED A LEFT HAND TURN BECAUSE IT'S ON
A COLLECTOR. >> IS DEPENDENT UPON THE TYPE OF
ROAD. >> OUR REQUIREMENTS, IT'S FOR
ANY NEW DRIVEWAY, BASICALLY. >> WHEREAS BEFORE, WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT . WE COULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION HOW MANY CARS WERE COMING IN AND OUT OF THAT COLLECTOR STREET.
>> AND WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION. TALK TO ME ABOUT WRIGHTS MILL ROAD VERSUS MOORESVILLE ROAD WHERE WE HAVE THE EXACT SAME WAIVER REQUEST, WHAT NUMBER OF CARS ARE WE, LIKE THIS IS 4500 ISH, WHAT'S -- OGLETREE, I'M SORRY, IT'S OGLETREE.
>> ON OGLETREE WE DENIED BOTH WAIVERS.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WAS ASKING ABOUT TRAFFIC COUNT OF THOSE TWO. SINCE WE'VE SEEN IT I WAS TRYING TO REFRESH.
>> THAT SECTION OF OGLETREE HAS LESS TRAFFIC THAN WRIGHTS MILL.
>> WE DIDN'T DO A SPEED ANALYSIS ON THAT ONE BUT IT FEELS SIMILAR. THE VOLUMES I WOULD IMAGINE, OGLETREE IS A
LITTLE MORE. >> WE HAVE DONE PREVIOUS SPEED STUDIES ON OGLETREE AND THEY ARE FAIRLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE
SAW HERE. >> THIS IS 45 ISH, A LITTLE
OVER. >> THEY'RE USUALLY IN THE 50S,
YEAH. >> AND THAT'S AN AVERAGE.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE CALL AN 85TH PERCENTILE. 85% OF PEOPLE ARE TRAVELING AT OR BELOW THAT SPEED.
>> I FEEL THE LANGUAGE YOU REQUIRE, WHEN WE SAW THAT LANGUAGE ON THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SIDE, THE INTENT OF THAT LANGUAGE WAS TO PROTECT OUR COLLECTORS AND OUR ARTERIALS IN OUR MORE BUSIER STREET LOCATIONS, MAJOR INTERSECTIONS.
IT WASN'T TO CATCH ALL THESE SURROUNDING LOCAL STREETS IN THE COLLECTORS THAT ARE THIS FAR OUT, IT WAS TRYING TO CATCH THE AREAS IN COMMERCIAL AREAS OR HIGH-GROWTH AREAS.
>> OBVIOUSLY WHERE YOU'RE -- YOU'RE STILL CLASSIFIED AS A
COLLECTOR. >> WELL YEAH, BUT IF YOU HAVE A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY FOR ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THEN TECHNICALLY THEY HAVE TO GET A WAIVER FOR A TURN LANE OFF OF THE SAME ROAD FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SO THE CATCHALL OF SAYING ALL COLLECTORS AND ALL ARTERIALS IS I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD METRIC TO LOOK AT.
>> THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. >> WE ARE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS OF THIS ONE, NOT IN GENERALITIES.
>> THIS ONE IS BEING APPEALED SO YOU KNOW WE DO HAVE WAIVERS THAT WE APPROVE WHEN THE SITUATION WARRANTS IT AND WE ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT PROPOSING SOME REVISIONS TO OUR TURN LANE REQUIREMENTS, BASICALLY TO BUILD IN SOME OF THOSE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS IN LESS INTENSE AREAS. THE CRITERIA WE SORT OF ESTABLISHED AND PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.
>> WHEN WE GET THERE WE'LL HAVE A DIFFERENT WAIVER DECISION TO
MAKE. >> FOR THIS, THE CRITERIA WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND SORT OF SETTLED ON, IT STILL WOULD'VE REQUIRED ONE. ARTERIAL, REALLY LOOKING AT SPEED, IT'S 45 MILE AN HOUR POSTED SPEED AND JUST TO NOTE ALSO, I HAVE READ SOME -- THERE ARE SOME STUDIES OUT THERE THAT YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THROUGH RAIN SPEEDS WITH A TURN
[00:40:06]
LANE THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF THOSE STUDIES. MOST OF THE STUDIES ARE TO ANALYZE STRICTLY THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS AND THERE'S A TON OF STUDIES OUT THERE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ACCIDENT REDUCTION FROM THESE INTERSECTIONS COME DOWN FROM ANYWHERE TO 20% TO 50% TO 60%. SO THEY DO HELP WITH ACCIDENTSAND THAT'S THE PRIMARY. >> AND A PRETTY DECENT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THEM. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT -- THIS IS A VERY SMALL DEVELOPMENT COMPARED TO, LET'S SAY, SOME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. 60% REDUCTION, THAT'S A LOT MORE
TRAFFIC GOING BACK AND FORTH. >> AWESOME.
>> YOU WILL HAVE LESS ACCIDENTS WITH FEWER PEOPLE WHERE THE PERCENTAGES WOULD STILL BE ROUGHLY THE SAME. YOU JUST MIGHT ONLY HAVE ONE ACCIDENT A YEAR INSTEAD OF 25 A YEAR FOR A
INAUDIBLE ] DEVELOPMENT. >> PART OF OUR DECISIONS ARE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS THAT WE RECEIVE IN THESE SITUATIONS. WHERE WE HAVE LAID BEZOAR WHERE THEY WEREN'T PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED, WE GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AT THIS SPEED.
THE SPEED IS THE KEY THING FOR US HERE. YOU KEEP SAYING INTERSECTION, SO IS THE ENTRANCE INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD GOING TO BE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM BRIARWOOD OR TANGLEWOOD? I
DON'T SEE IT ON THE MAP. >> IT'S NOT ACROSS.
>> LIKE A THREE LANE INTERSECTION.
>> BECAUSE IT'S A ROAD INTERSECTING A ROAD IT BECOMES AN INTERSECTION. THESE ARE TWO CITY STREETS, YEAH.
>> IT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. >> THANK YOU.
>> THERE YOU GO. >> IT'S KIND OF CLOSE.
>> OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, SEEING ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> SO AS WE ARE EVALUATING THESE WAIVERS, THE WRIGHTS MILL ROAD TRAFFIC IS WHAT IT IS TODAY. DO WE THINK ABOUT FUTURE IMPACTS ON THAT BECAUSE WHAT MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TODAY BUT NOT HAVE THE TURN LANE MAY BECOME UNACCEPTABLE IN THE FUTURE, DO
WE THINK ABOUT THAT AT ALL? >> THAT'S REALLY THE REASON WE GOT AWAY FROM JUST GOING WITH THE STRAIGHT WARRANT CRITERIA, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE BIG INTENT OF THAT WAS TO PROTECT THE CAPACITY ON OUR MAJOR STREETS, THE FUTURE CAPACITY OF OUR MAJOR
STREETS. >> MAKES SENSE, THANK YOU.
>> WELL I MOVED TO APPROVE PC CASE WC 2025-006 , IN FAVOR OR
DENIAL? >> I HAVE ANAGEN AND A SECOND.
>> LET'S DO ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> YOU MIGHT WANT TO CLARIFY
WHAT YOU'RE SITTING ON. >> SO I GUESS IF YOU ARE VOTING TO APPROVE THE WAIVER, THAT YOU ARE GRANTING THE WAIVER AND YOU
ARE GRANTING THE APPEAL -- >> WE ARE GRANTING A NO LEFT
>> THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT TO SAY.
>> NOT YEAH, SO THEN IF YOU VOTE TO DENY THEN YOU ARE NOT GRANTING THE WAIVER AND THE LEFT TURN LANE WILL BE REQUIRED.
>> THIS IS WAIVER DENIAL SO WHAT I WANT TO DO IS --
>> THE MOTION IS FINE SO OKAY, SO AS A REFRESHER ON MOTION FOR EVERYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE, ALL MOTIONS MUST BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. ANY TIME WE EVER DO A MOTION TO DENY, WE ALWAYS END UP HAVING TO REDO IT. SO ALL THE EMOTIONS ARE IN AFFIRMATIVE.
EVEN THE PERSON THAT MAKES THE MOTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE CAN VOTE AGAINST WHAT THEY MOTIONED FOR.
>> SO GO BACK. GO BACK. GO BACK AND SAY -- WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
>> ALL RIGHT, SO NOW THIS IS A WAIVER. SO THIS IS REALLY A WAIVER TO THE CONSTRUCTION, I GUESS THE ENGINEERING TO DESIGN MANUAL. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS A WAIVER TO SO THEY REQUESTED THE WAIVER TO STAFF. IT WAS DENIED SO THEY ARE APPEALING THAT AND SO NOW IT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO GRANT THE WAIVER TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS. A VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE GRANTS THE LEFT TURN WAIVER AND THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO BUILD A LEFT TURN. A VOTE TO DENY IS A VOTE THAT THEY MUST BUILD THE LEFT TURN LANE.
>> OKAY. >> A MOTION, A SECOND, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL. NONE AT REESE.
[00:45:04]
>> WELCOME. >> ALL RIGHT SO THIS IS A
[10. Preliminary Plat – The Prosper at Plainsman Lake - PUBLIC HEARING]
REQUEST OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL SUBDIVISION, NUMBER 23, SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND THREE OPEN-SPACE LOTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 43.5 ACRES IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ADDRESS AT 1950 MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE. WE WILL TAKE ACCESS OFF OF WILL BUETTNER PARKWAY.THIS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL BUT HAS SINCE REQUIRED WHICH IS WHAT YOU SEE CONCURRENTLY. THERE IS A PROPOSED GREENWAY UPON THIS PROPERTY. THE MULTIUSE PATH THAT RUNS ALONG WILL BUECHNER WILL SERVE AS THAT GREENWAY SO THERE AREN'T ANY ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. IT'S ZONED MAX DENSITY FOR DDH. THIS COMES IN AT 2.83 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE. IT DOES MEET WITH THE ADDRESSING OF STAFF COMMENTS, DOES MEET PRELIMINARY NOW
>> THINK. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. ARE HERE FOR THE PROSPER AT PLAINSMAN LAKE PRELIMINARY PLAT, OPENING THAT PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD.
>> QUESTIONS OR NO? >> YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS. THEY WILL BE ADDRESSED POST PUBLIC HEARING.
>> HI, MY NAME IS JASON BRO, I LIVE AT 1799 WHICH IS RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF WHERE THE THERE WAS A WATERFLOW NATURAL FLOW TO THE POND, TO PLAINSMAN LAKE THERE. THEY HAVE SINCE BUILT THE PROPERTY WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THE FIRST HOUSE VERY HIGH UP , AND SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE GOING TO BE A RETAINING WALL OR SOMETHING? BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY SOME OF THE DIRT WASHING DOWN INTO MY PROPERTY THERE. AND THEN WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR WATERFLOW THAT WOULD BE COMING DOWN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT USED TO GO THROUGH THAT PROPERTY? THAT IS NOW BEING KIND OF FUNNELED BACK BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE PROPERTIES ARE BUILT UP.
>> GOOD QUESTION. PLEASE SIGN IN. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TONIGHT? >> HI, MY NAME IS REBECCA MANUS, I LIVE ACROSS FROM JASON ON ON AND MY PROPERTY ALSO BACKS UP TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE THAT FOR THE MOST PART THEY'VE BEEN VERY RESPECTFUL, BUT THERE HAS BEEN SOME ISSUES WITH DRAIN OFF AND ALSO MAKING SOME MESSES ON AT LEAST MY PROPERTY FROM ADAMS CONSTRUCTION AND INITIALLY GOT GOOD FEEDBACK FROM THEM THAT THEY WOULD CLEAN IT UP AND THEY HAVE NOT YET. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE THAT THAT HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM, AND THE WATER ISSUE IS ALSO -- I
AGREE. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I KNOW IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT FORWARD MOVEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT WITH THE WATER ISSUES. WE PUT CONDITIONS AND STUFF FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>> YEAH, SO THAT IS STORMWATER IS HANDLED BY MULTIPLE ENTITIES AT THE CITY, I GUESS IF YOU GUYS WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, WHAT THE PLANS HAVE BEEN, BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY DRAINAGE ISSUES AND I IMAGINE IF THERE IS A RETAINING WALL, IT HAS BEEN IN THE PLAN SOMEWHERE SO THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING WE WOULD KNOW.
>> I DON'T HAVE THE PLANS IN FRONT OF ME. I'M NOT SURE IF EVERYTHING IS HERE REPRESENTED. IF IT HAPPENS TO BE HERE, THEY MAY HAPPEN TO SPEAK TO THAT BUT I CAN CERTAINLY GET THOSE FOLKS
[00:50:01]
INFORMATION AND WE CAN DISCUSS THE ISSUES IN MORE DETAIL, AND I CAN FOLLOW UP AND LOOK INTO THEM. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE SOME THINGS ARE GOING ON IN THAT WARRANT BY DESIGN BUT I CAN LOOKINTO IT FURTHER. >> SO WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT MOVING FORWARD INSTEAD OF DOING SOMETHING THAT RUNS WITH
THE PLAT, SINCE WE HAVE BOTH. >> I MEAN AT THIS POINT, IT'S ONLY A PRELIMINARY NOW BECAUSE THE PRIOR ONE EXPIRED. A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN BUILT IN TERMS OF ROAD AND UTILITIES SO I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY SORT OF RESTRICTION ON THE PLAT COULD HELP WITH THE DRAINAGE ISSUE RIGHT NOW. THE ONLY THING THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS MAYBE TRYING TO GUIDE FOR THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE NEXT PHASE, TRYING TO HELP GUIDE THEIR CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SO THEY CAN BE CONTROLLED AND NOT -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME COMPLAINTS ABOUT SOME CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS.
THAT COULD BE A RESTRICTION. >> SO I GUESS FIRST IS THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER HERE TONIGHT?
>> DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT. >> DISAPPOINTING. SO I GUESS ON SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, SO KIND OF LIKE DAN MENTIONED, I'LL GET TO WHAT HE TAUGHT ABOUT, ABOUT CONDITIONING WITH CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. SO PRELIMINARY PLATS AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE EXTENDED THEIR LIFESPAN, JUST KIND OF THE 36 MONTHS, AND DISCIPLINARY PLAT EXPIRED, THEY HAD TO COME BACK, DOING THE FINAL PLAT. I SAID THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IF WE CAN SIT THROUGH AND REVIEW THEIR STORMWATER PLANS, WE GOT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO BEFORE WE SIGN IT AND I GUESS IF Y'ALL WANT TO CONDITION THAT, Y'ALL COULD. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE I GUESS JUST KIND OF FOR EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE AGAIN, JUST PRELIMINARY PLATS ARE KIND OF OUTLINED INGRESS, EGRETS, LOCKS, HORIZONTAL STRUCTURE, PIPES, ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. FOR FINAL PLAT, FINAL PLATS ARE HELD UP, THAT IS A LOT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SELL PRELIMINARY PLATS TO YOU NEED TO BE AGREED TO. SO I MEAN IF THAT'S SOMETHING Y'ALL WANT TO DO, IF Y'ALL WANT US TO REVIEW IT PRIOR TO THAT BEFORE WE SIGN IT, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO.
THAT IS UNDER Y'ALL'S PURVIEW. THAT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF PLATS AND HAD THEY BEEN HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK TO IT, MAYBE IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. AND I GUESS TO ADDRESS DAN'S POINT, THAT WAS SOMETHING MENTIONED BY THE CITY RELATIONS DIRECTOR, JUST KIND OF BEING IN CONTACT WITH THE HOA AT SOLON NEAR, TWO HOAS THAT WERE THERE BUT TALKING TO THEM, THAT THEY PROBABLY WOULD WANT EITHER DISCUSSION OR A CONDITION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC HAVE ENTER OFF OF WILL BUECHNER PARKWAY INSTEAD OF THROUGH SOLON NEAR AND I KNOW THAT GETS PRETTY DIFFICULT BECAUSE OFTENTIMES PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING DELIVERIES, PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THOSE THINGS, THEY'RE JUST TYPING IT IN TO GOOGLE AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WOULD GOOGLE PUT THEM TO MAKE A RIGHT ON 14 INSTEAD OF JUST MAKING THAT RIGHT OR LEFT ON BUECHNER AT THE LIKE, WHICH WOULD BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT, BUT IF THAT WAS THE CONDITION YOU GUYS WANTED TO MAKE, LIKE I SAID, THAT WAS SOMETHING CITY RELATIONS DIRECT YOUR, A BIG PORTION OF HER JOB IS JUST KIND OF FIELDING A LOT OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS BEFORE THEY MAKE IT TO US AND THEY BECOME FIRESTORMS
ON SOCIAL MEDIA. >> SO YOUR SUGGESTION THAT WE COULD MAKE A CONDITION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT?
>> THE FINAL PLAT. CORRECT. >> WE'VE MADE IT ON PRELIMINARY PLATS BEFORE BECAUSE THE FINAL PLAT IS JUST FOR PHASE ONE POINT
WELL. >> CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND
DRAINAGE TO BE REVIEWED BY -- >> LET ME CHIME IN. WHAT A RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS ARE A CONTROLLED PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, AS PART OF THE FINAL PLAT PROCESS, FINAL STABILIZATION IS REQUIRED, SO ANY TYPE OF RUNOFF ISSUES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I CAN GIVE THEM MY CONTACT INFORMATION AND WE CAN OVERSEE THAT AND ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES AS WELL.
>> IT'S A REGULAR PART OF THE PROCESS.
>> YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF IT.
>> WE WOULD DO A SITE INSPECTION.
>> YOU WILL GET WITH THE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE TO MY.
>> WE CAN DO THAT. >> LET ME ASK IF, ALONG THOSE LINES, BECAUSE ONE OF THE OTHER COMMENTS WAS SOMETHING ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS OR SOME KIND OF --
[00:55:05]
THERE'S A CODES ENFORCEMENT SORT OF FUNCTION THAT PEOPLE CAN GO AND SAY, HEY, THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO CLEAN IT UP THEYDIDN'T. >> YEAH, SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE ENTITIES AGAIN THERE TO FIX THAT, THAT WOULD ALERT US, BUT ALSO JUST KIND OF GENERALLY, WE DO HAVE ENGINEERING, WE HAVE A CONSTRUCTION, I GUESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BUT IT'S UNDER -- SINCE BRAD MOVED, THERE IS A DEPARTMENT THAT I GUESS THE RT WROTE THE PLANS AND ONCE THINGS GET BUILT THERE'S AN ACTUAL PART OF THE ENSING DEPARTMENT THAT GOES OUT AND VERIFIES WHAT WAS BILLED TO THE CITY STANDARDS HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED SO THERE IS A PROCESS TO DO THAT AND WE HAVE HAD ISSUES WHERE WE EITHER WERE NOT ALERTED AND PEOPLE WERE WORKING OR THAT PEOPLE WHO WERE WORKING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF WHAT THEY TOLD US THEY WERE DOING AND SO THERE IS AN ENTITY IN THE CITY THAT DOES ADDRESS THAT SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE BEST MECHANISM TO SUPPORT THAT WOULD BE THE FIX IT OUT OR JUST CALL THE RELEVANT SERVICES AND HAVE US ADDRESS IT THAT WAY BUT THAT IS SOMETHING, I SAID THAT'S NOT EVEN MY DEPARTMENT AND I FEEL THAT THIS PHONE CALLS
BEFORE MYSELF. >> I'VE CALLED.
>> YOU TRIED THE FIX-IT APP? THE FIX-IT APP I THINK IS AWESOME BECAUSE EVERYTHING I WAS GOING TO PUT IN THERE --
>> I GUESS I'LL JUST SAY THIS SINCE THIS IS A HOT MIKE AND THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE, ENTIRE DEPARTMENTS ARE GEARED TO RESPOND TO THE FIX-IT APP, SO YOU PUT IT IN THE FIX-IT APP, IT IS A PRIORITY FOR THOSE DEPARTMENT HEADS TO SEND PEOPLE OUT TO ADDRESS IT. IT IS NOT A JOKE. IT IS NOT A GAME. IF YOU PUT IT IN THE FIX-IT APP, SOMEONE WILL ADDRESS IT.
>> AND THEY ADDRESS IT QUICKLY, I KNOW FOR SURE, I'VE USED IT
SEVERAL TIMES. >> SO DON'T BE SO
CONDITION ABOUT -- >> LIKE I SAID, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE -- THAT I THINK CHRIS AND DANA ARE HAPPY TO REACH OUT TO THE PEOPLE SPOKE AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO, ON THOSE IN THE FINAL, WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET ANSWERS TO THAT AND KIND OF FOR THAT SPECIFIC SITE, WE CAN EVENTUALLY LOOK AT THE PLANS AND FIND OUT IF THERE IS A RETAINING WALL ASSOCIATED WITH THAT INDICATIONS WITH EVIL THAT
SPOKE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SO NOW WE'LL JUST NEED CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OFF WILLIAM BUECHNER PARKWAY . CONDITION
ADDED TO BOTH FINAL AND -- >> YEAH, THAT WILL BE FINE.
>> SO, COMMISSIONERS? >> I MAKE A -- HELP ME OUT. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROSPER AT PLAINSMAN LAKE PP 2025-031 WITH THE CAN ADDITION THAT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC HAS ROUTED THROUGH WILLIAM BUECHNER DRIVE.
>> WILL BUECHNER PARKWAY, THERE WE GO.
[11. Final Plat – The Prosper at Plainsman Lake Section 1]
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> AND HE OPPOSED HE'LL >> ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS FINAL APPROVAL FOR 48 LOTS CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, THAT SAME PROPERTY, JUST THE WEST PORTION OF THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT. IT IS AGAIN ZONED DDH , 10 ACRE, THIS ONE COMES IN AT 2.48 DWELLING UNITS AND ACRE. THERE IS A COMMENT TO NOTE. WILL WANT PASS TO BE DEDICATED ALL THE WAY TO INAUDIBLE ]. WITH THAT I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
>> WITH THIS SPACE IT'S DEDICATED?
>> YES, WITH THE SPACE. >> OKAY, IS A FINAL PLAT, DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. ARE THERE QUESTIONS? OKAY. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL PLAT FP 2025-029 POINT
>> SECOND. >> DO I NEED A CONDITION? OH YEAH, WITH A CONDITION THAT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC COMES OFF OF WILL BUECHNER AND CAN I PASS IS EXTENDED ALL THE WAY TO
INAUDIBLE ]. >> THAT IS CORRECT. JUST KIND OF CLEAN THAT UP, HOW -- WHAT IT MEANS IS EXTENSION NEEDS TO BE CONNECTED TO SOLITAIRE SO THE REASON HAD TO DO WITH THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND STAFF NOT WANTING AN EASEMENT FOR. STAFF WANTED TO BE IN RIGHT AWAY SO THE CONDITION I SAID IS JUST CONNECT THE EXTENSION OF
PASS. >> THERE'S A WATER MAIN THAT CONNECTS BETWEEN THE TWO NEIGHBORHOODS AND WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY WE CAN'T RELEASE THE WATER MAIN FOR USE FOR THE
[01:00:03]
>> FEEL SAD FOR THOSE PEOPLE IN PHASE ONE. OKAY, SO I HAVE A
>> TO APPROVE WITH CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND PRINTS OFF OF WILLIAM BUECHNER AND CAN PASS TO CONNECT. MOTION AND SECOND, ALL
>> OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS
[12. Preliminary Plat – Swann Bridge Phase 2 - PUBLIC HEARING]
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A 124 LOT PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 97 TOWNHOMES, 22 RESIDENTIAL HOMES, FOUR OPEN SPACE AND ONE REMAINDER LOT. THIS IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF WEIER AND COX WITHIN THE SWAN FARM PDD. IT IS ZONED DDH WITH PDD OVERLAY. THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PHASE OF THE PDD IS EIGHT DWELLING UNITS AND ACRE. THIS COMES IN AT FIVE POINT 85 DWELLING UNITS AND ACRE. PLATTED OPEN SPACE IS 15%.THIS PHASE CONTAINS 16% PLATTED OPEN SPACE. THERE IS ONE CONDITION THAT LOT 184 AND 192 MEETS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE UNDER THAT. 184 IS ACTUALLY WILL END UP BEING OPEN SPACE, OBVIOUSLY HAS 192 AND THEN THE OTHER CONDITION WOULD BE THAT SWANN DIVE WAY WOULD BE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONERS, THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SWANN BRIDGE PHASE TWO DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME, OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING. SEEING NO ONE, WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PRELIMINARY
PLAT. COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE SWANN BRIDGE PHASE TWO PP 2025-032 WITH CONDITIONS.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. >> AND HE OPPOSED? THANK YOU.
[13. Preliminary Plat – Grove Hill Road Right-of-way - PUBLIC HEARING ]
>> ALL RIGHT. SO GROVE HILL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE CITY. AS YOU ALL NOTED IN THE PACKET LUNCH ON MONDAY, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO APPROXIMATE, HERE WE GO, THE REASON THIS PLAT IS COMING BEFORE YOU ALL IS BECAUSE THERE IS RIGHT-OF-WAY THE AND DEDICATED, AS YOU ALL KNOW THE LOT THRESHOLD IS SIX FOR EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE HANDLED IN STAFF ALL PLATS THAT DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST COME TO YOU GUYS IF IT IS AN EXTENSION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, WIDENING A RIGHT-OF-WAY CAN BE HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY. SO THIS IS JUST AN EXTENSION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO FORMALLY DEDICATE THE ROAD THAT IS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED AND VERY HEAVILY IN USE FOR LAKE WILMORE RECREATIONAL FACILITY. THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING? THIS IS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. GROVE HILL ROAD PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD NOW.
>> CAN YOU ROLL THAT UP? WHERE EXACTLY --
>> I GUESS IF YOU LIKE TO TALK TO COME TO THE MIC, PRETTY MUCH.
>> YES OR. >> MY NAME IS JOHN GUEST. I RESIDE AT 731 OAKLAWN CIRCLE AND JUST STILL NOT CLEAR TO ME EXACTLY WHERE -- WHAT THE CHANGE IS. I COULDN'T SEE THE OTHER DIAGRAM, IT WAS UP THERE A MINUTE AGO.
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT ONE IS THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSES.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. >> WE ARE JUST GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HE'LL ADDRESS ALL THE QUESTIONS BUT IF
YOU WILL PLEASE SIGN IN. >> I LIVE AT 741 KENTWOOD, WHICH IS WHAT INTERSEX THIS BUT I'M DOWN FROM IT AND IN THE LETTER I GOT TODAY IN THE MAIL, WHICH IS UNACCEPTABLE, REALLY, IT WAS TALKING ABOUT DRAINAGE. WE HAVE A DRAINAGE ISSUE, BIG TIME, FROM EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PUT IN THERE, AND NO ONE WOULD LISTEN TO US. SO FROM ALL OF THAT, MY SUBDIVISION WAS PUT UP AT THE TOP, IT SAYS DRAINAGE. THIS LETTER WE GOT TODAY SAID
[01:05:01]
DRAINAGE. NOW HOW DOES THAT FACT IN FOR US? AGAIN, BECAUSE I'M UNDERWATER, Y'ALL. I'M IN A FLOODPLAIN, I KNOW, BUT I AM UNDERWATER BECAUSE Y'ALL ARE DUMPING SO MUCH ON US FROM THE SCHOOL TO THE OTHER THING SO I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I DON'T GET MORE COVERED UP THAN I ALREADY AM.>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL ADDRESS
THOSE. >> SO TO THE FIRST QUESTION, THERE IS, I GUESS THERE IS THE OTHER THING WE CONSIDER BUT NOTHING IS CHANGING, THIS IS REALLY JUST DEDICATING RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS IS A CHANGE ESSENTIALLY ON PAPER. IT'S ALREADY BEEN OPEN TO. IT'S BEEN USED. THIS IS PROPERTY THAT THE CITY ALREADY OWNS BUT IT JUST NEEDS TO BE DEDICATED AS RIGHT-OF-WAY PRETTY MUCH, SO THERE'S NO ACTUAL NEW CONSTRUCTION. EVERYTHING IS ALREADY BUILT, IT'S ALREADY OPEN, YOU KNOW PEOPLE ARE USING THE ROAD. TO THE SAME POINT, SHE IS CORRECT ABOUT BEING IN A FLOODPLAIN. SHE ACTUALLY HAD A VARIANCE APPROVED EARLY THIS YEAR TO MOVE STRUCTURE OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN, PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, BUT I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE THE AERIAL OF WHAT YOU WOULD SEE THAT HER HOUSE IS JUST SURROUNDED BY THREE SIDES ON FLOODPLAIN, WHICH IS KIND OF ONE OF THE UPDATES. TO HER POINT, TOTALLY IS TRUE THAT SHE'S IN A FLOODPLAIN. HER LOT MAY BE ONE OF THE MOST AFFECTED IN TOWN, HONESTLY, JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT IT, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE CHANGE BETWEEN THE 2019 AND 2025 MASS. NOT RELATED TO WHAT THE CITY IS DOING, THAT'S JUST WHAT'S THERE.
>> PRETTY FAMILIAR, LIKE I SAID, APPLIED FOR -- SHE HAS MADE COMPLAINTS BEFORE TO THE CITY. I KNOW SCOTT WOULD HAVE MORE TO SAY JUST KIND OF AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SERVICES WHO HAS FIELDED SOME OF THOSE COMPLAINTS, BUT LIKE I SAID, VARIANCE WAS GRANTED EARLIER THIS YEAR ON BEHALF OF THAT AND THAT JUST HAS TO DO WITH THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE AND THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE FLOOD PLANE. SO --
>> BUT THIS IS ALL INSTALLED AND DONE?
>> CORRECT. YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT SO THAT'S WHY IT'S THE PRELIMINARY AND THE FINAL PLAT, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, FINALS HAVE APPROVED ENGINEERING PLANS SO THIS IS CONSTRUCTED, PEOPLE USE IT, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE MORE ROAD.
>> PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, I'M SO SORRY, YOU CAN REACH OUT TO STAFF TOMORROW, THOUGH, FOR SURE. SO PUBLIC HEARING IS
CLOSED, COMMISSIONERS? >> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE CASE PD 2025-033, GROVE HILL RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND HE OPPOSED? THANK YOU.
[14. Final Plat – Grove Hill Road Right-of-way (Part 1 of 2)]
>> SO SAME THING. THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT. SINCE I DIDN'T ADDRESS OUR COMMENTS KIND OF ABOUT THE MAIL, WHENEVER YOU ADD PUBLIC MEETINGS WITH TRYING TO MAIL PEOPLE THINGS OR EMAIL PEOPLE THINGS, PEOPLE REALLY COME DOWN ON US ABOUT WHEN THEY RECEIVED THINGS AND I REALLY WISH I COULD SPEAK TO THAT BUT I CANNOT . SADLY WE DO NOT HAVE A MAILING DEPARTMENT. WE SIMPLY DRAFT LETTERS AND WE MAIL THEM. THEY ARE ALL MAILED AT THE SAME TIME. I ASSURE YOU THEY ARE SENT OUT PROMPTLY, ALL AT ONCE, SO I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE DISPARITY OF WHEN THEY ARRIVE. WE SENT ONE TO ONE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY ARRIVED THREE WEEKS APART AND IT'S ALL IN ONE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I HAD 36 HOUSES SO --
>> WAS THERE A SIGN LISTED AS WELL?
>> THERE WOULD'VE BEEN A SIGN FOR THE PRELIMINARY AND THE
FINAL PLAT, THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> WILL MOVE TO APPROVE FP 2024 028 GROVE HILL RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> AND HE OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> THIS ITEM IS A REQUEST FOR
[15. Conditional Use – Alley Glass Package Store - PUBLIC HEARING ]
ADDITIONAL USE INTERVAL FOR COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USE, PACKAGE STORE LOCATED AT 114 WEST AVENUE, SUITE D. APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO BUILD OUT A CURRENT SHOP, TURNED IT INTO A PACKAGE STORE UP TO 2000 SQUARE FEET.[01:10:03]
IT'S LOCATED BEHIND, IN THE ALLEY TO THE BLUE AREA FROM THAT SITE. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.>> JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THE ENTRANCE DOES NOT FACE MAGNOLIA
ALLIE. >> KNOW, THE ENTRANCE FACES
EAST. >> THE BACK OF SOUTHEASTERN?
>> OKAY. CONDITIONAL USE DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ALLIE GLASS PACKAGE STORE. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME FORWARD? SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? FOR
APPLICANT OR FOR STAFF? >> JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THIS IS A CASH AND CARRY, NOT A SIT DOWN TYPE BAR, LIKE A PACKAGE STORE.
>> YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. MOHS IS ON THE SCREEN FOR REFERENCE.
IT'S JUST FOR REFERENCE. >> RETAILER SPACE OUT ON MAGNOLIA RIGHT NOW, TWO RETAIL ONE, RETAIL TWO POINT
>> MAGNOLIA IS THE LEFT SIDE OF THE STREET, CORRECT? MAGNOLIA IS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN SO YOU KIND OF HAVE TO WALK INTO THE ALLEY TO ACTUALLY GET TO THIS PACKAGE STORE. YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT FROM THE STREET, OR IF YOU WALK BY, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME, LIKE I DID NOT KNOW IT WAS THERE UNTIL
IT WAS SUBMITTED. >> I HAVE A COMMENT. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT SINCE THE LAWS CHANGED THIS YEAR THAT IN ORDER TO BE AS A TRUE SMOKESHOP IN THE FUTURE YOU'LL HAVE TO BE 4000 SQUARE FEET? IS THAT CORRECT, OUR COUNCIL ? SO I WOULD THINK THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE SEE MORE IN THE FUTURE AND I WOULD LIKE CONSIDER THAT AS WE VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE.
MOST OF THE SMOKE SHOPS WOULD NEED TO CHANGE THEIR TYPE OF IS THIS BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER CAN CARRY SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS LIKE DELTA EIGHT, DELTA NINE POINT
>> THEY ARE PROHIBITED UNDER THE NEW LAWS FROM CARRYING THOSE PRODUCTS. WE'VE FOUND THAT A LOT OF THE BUSINESSES CANNOT SURVIVE FINANCIALLY WITHOUT DOING THAT SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF TURNOVER OF THESE TYPES OF BUSINESSES IN THE FUTURE AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT TYPE OF
BUSINESS IS FAIRLY LARGE. >> OKAY. I WAS NOT AWARE. THANK YOU FOR THE EDUCATION. MOVED TO APPROVE ALLIE GLASS PACKAGE
STORE, SEE YOU -2025-057. >> SECOND.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN WEBER, AYE. AND HE
OPPOSED? THANK YOU . >> CAN WE GET LIKE A FIVE MINUTE
>> MOTION >> OKAY. SO I NEED A MOTION TO
[14. Final Plat – Grove Hill Road Right-of-way (Part 2 of 2)]
RECONSIDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 14, WHICH IS THE GROVE HILL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FINAL PLAT. NUMBER FP 2025 033. NEED A MOTION TO RECONSIDER IT, TO REVOTES ON THAT.>> I MOVED TO RECONSIDER FP 2025 028.
>> 033. >> THE OTHER WAY. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I JUST -- I'LL JUST RESTATE THAT. PP 2025 --
>> OKAY, THERE WE GO. FP-2025-033.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECONSIDER FP 2025-033 . ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> THAT WAS WITH CONDITIONS ? >> JUST TO RECONSIDER.
>> THAT'S JUST TO RECONSIDER. NOW YOU ACTUALLY VOTE TO APPROVE
FP 2025-003. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO
APPROVE FP 2025-033. >> SECOND.
[01:15:03]
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE FP 2025-033.
>> NO CONDITIONS. WE ARE GOOD. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. >> AND HE OPPOSED? THANK YOU.
[16. Conditional Use – 665 Opelika Road - PUBLIC HEARING]
>> HEALTHY AGENDA TONIGHT. >> ALL RIGHT. SO THIS NEXT CASE IS A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR PEEWEE LLC. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL USE, A.K.A. A CHURCH. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 665 OPELIKA ROAD IN THE CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. FROM THE MAP YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS ACCESS OFF OF OPELIKA ROAD AND DEKALB STREET.
THIS USED TO BE -- THIS BUILDING USED TO BE USED BY EAST ALABAMA HEALTH CENTER. IT HASN'T BEEN USED FOR QUITE SOME TIME. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO USE THIS SPACE FOR OFFICES AS WELL AS CHURCHES OR CHURCH SPACE. OFFICE USES ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT BUT THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE CHURCH STILL STANDS. THIS IS AN EXHIBIT RIGHT HERE. YOU CAN SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED RED BOX IS THE CHURCH USE. EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO BE FOR OFFICES. THERE IS A DOOR RIGHT HERE. THAT IS WHERE THE CHURCH CONGREGATION WILL BE COMING IN, AND I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT CHURCH ATTENDANCE PARKING, ALL OF THAT. HE SAYS THAT ONCE A WEEK, TYPICALLY SUNDAY, THEY'RE GOING TO MEET AND IT'S A PRETTY SMALL CONGREGATION SO PARKING HAS BEEN LOOKED AT, AND I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE, SO HE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WELL. SO WITH THAT I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL
HAVE. >> OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, COMMISSIONERS?
>> IS THE BUILDING VACANT RIGHT NOW?
>> THIS CONDITIONAL USE DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT AT THIS TIME, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THE USE AT 665 OPELIKA ROAD. SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE APPLICANT IS HERE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
FOR STAFF OR APPLICANT. >> ARE ANY IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED
FOR THE BUILDING AT ALL? >> I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THIS WAS THEY WERE PURSUING SOME OFFICE USES THAT WERE BY RIGHT AND THEN THEY WERE GOING TO PURSUE THIS CHURCH USE AS A
CONDITIONAL USE. >> NOW MOVED TO APPROVE. MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE TO APPROVE CU 2025-058 TO CONDITIONAL USE.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> AND HE OPPOSED? THANK YOU. THIS NEXT AGENDA ITEM HAS BEEN
[18. Conditional Use – Warrior Court MUD - PUBLIC HEARING ]
WITHDRAWN. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT HAS TO BE DONE WITH THAT. WE'LL MOVE TO WARRIOR COURT.>> ALL RIGHT. >> SO WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION?
>> NEVERMIND. NOTHING. >> I THOUGHT I SAID THE WRONG
NUMBER. >> CAN'T FIND IT. OKAY, COOL.
WARRIOR COURT AND UD, CONDITIONING ITS APPROVAL FOR PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND UD. YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I DID NOT HAVE THE WARRIOR COURT. THIS IS MUD AT WARRIOR COURT SO JUST LIKE IT SHOWS, THIS IS THAT SIDE STREET THAT'S RIGHT OFF NORTH HODGE JUST NORTH OF THE TRACKS.
I WANT TO SAY IF WE COULD GO TO THE SITE PLAN, SO IF YOU COULD ZOOM IN ON THE TOP LEFT TO SHOW WHAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE SITE PLAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO MY STAFF REPORT FOR
THE WARRIOR COURT ONE. >> ALL RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO IT'S ON .7 ACRES. I THINK
[01:20:03]
THE PROJECT HAS SEVERAL. THERE WE GO. SO THE DENSITY. SO THE DENSITY OF CR DW IS 10 DWELLING UNITS AND ACRE AND SO THEY ARE DOING SEVERAL, I GUESS YOU GO BACK, SEVERAL STRUCTURES AND THEY ALL HAVE THE PARKING UNDERNEATH THEM SO THERE ARE CORRIDOR STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO THIS, REALLY WON'T BE VISIBLE.IF YOU GUYS WERE TO DRIVE BY IT CURRENTLY THERE ARE SEVERAL AND IT'S REALLY, REALLY OVERGROWN, REALLY OVERGROWN BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL APARTMENT BUILDINGS ALREADY BACK THERE THAT KIND OF MATCH, YOU SEE FROM THE STREET IF YOU DRIVE BY THE AVENUE, THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW IS ALREADY OVERGROWN. THIS IS JUST REDEVELOPMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND THIS ISN'T ONE OF THE MAJOR STREETS THAT'S SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND TABLE 5A, FT. BRAGG AVENUE AN MUD REALLY DOES FIT THE AREA. THAT DOES HAVE ENOUGH PARKING. I KNOW YOU GUYS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING CONSIDERATION BUT THE PARKING IS THERE . IF YOU CAN GO TO THE SITE PLAN, SO IT SAYS PRIVATE DRIVE. IT'S A PRIVATE STREET. THAT DOESN'T REALLY MEAN ANYTHING, OBVIOUSLY. I THINK THE MAIN THING FROM OUR'S PERSPECTIVE, PRIVATE STREETS LIKE THIS ARE REALLY JUST PARKING LOTS, HOW THEY JUST KIND OF FUNCTION AND IF THEY PLAT IT THAT WAY, FINE, IF THEY DON'T PLAT IT THAT WAY, EVEN IF IT'S ALL ONE LOT, IT WOULD BE AN MUD AND NOT TOWNHOMES.
THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN SEVEN STRUCTURES ON SO SORRY ABOUT THAT. I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT HAPPENED TO MY WARRIOR COURT MUD STAFF REPORT. I GUESS IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> OKAY. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. WARRIOR COURT
CONDITIONAL USE MUD. >> BRETT BASQUIN, FORESITE GROUP . THIS IS ESSENTIALLY URBAN SINGLE-FAMILY. WE DON'T HAVE ANY URBAN SINGLE-FAMILY REQUIREMENTS. THIS WILL BE A CONDO DEVELOPER WHERE PEOPLE WILLING THEIR ACTUAL BUILDING.
THE THOUGHT IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT YOU WOULD SEE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE, THERE WOULD BE A GARAGE, A DRIVEWAY, BRING IT IN FRONT LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE IN A NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S JUST WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS THAT ALLOW YOU TO DO URBAN SINGLE-FAMILY SO WE HAVE TO DO IT AS A MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENT. AND SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT IS. SO THE THOUGHT IS IT WOULD BE CONDO DEVELOPMENTS, CONDO OWNERSHIP, EVERYTHING OUTSIDE WOULD BE YOUR OPEN SPACE AND STUFF AND UNITS WOULD BE SOLD. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANYONE ELSE? CIN NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVED TO APPROVE CU 2025 060,
[19. Future Land Use Update - Greenwood Village - PUBLIC HEARING]
WARRIOR COURT MUD. >> MOTION AND SECOND, ALL THOSE
>> ANY OPPOSED? >> GREENWOOD VILLAGE LAND-USE UPDATE. LONG TIME COMING. LONG TIME COMING. SO LIKE I MENTIONED IN A MEMO, JUST KIND OF A BRIEF OUTLINE. THIS IS COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MULTIPLE TIMES. THIS COMES BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS TWO ITERATIONS OF A PROJECT. THIS HAS COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE FORM OF FUTURE LAND-USE DECISION AND LAND-USE PLAN THAT WE'VE HAD WORK SESSIONS ABOUT, YOU GUYS HAVE VOTED ON, AT THE LATEST ITERATION WHERE Y'ALL SPLIT ON THE PDD VERSUS THE REZONE AND THAT WAS THE LATEST ITERATION. AND SO TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND, IF YOU WANT TO BRING IT TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS GROWTH CHANGE, INCONSIDERATION, WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS LOOK AT AT THE TIME OF THE FUTURE LAND-USE UPDATE. ALSO AROUND THAT TIME AN APPLICANT SHOWED UP AND WANTED TO SEE IF THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE VIABLE FOR GREATER DENSITY. THE POSITION THAT STAFF HAD WAS UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE UTILITIES, ACCESS OF UTILITIES, AND THE VIABILITY OF WATER PRESSURE GIVEN THE PROXIMITY TO THE WATER TOWER. THESE WERE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE PRE-APP, SAID WE DIDN'T KNOW, SO IF YOU COULD WRITE ANSWERS TO OUR QUESTIONS IT WOULD BE TOTALLY HELPFUL AT LEAST FROM A KNOW THE UTILITIES CAN BE PROVIDED, WE KNOW THAT ACCESS CAN ALSO BE OBTAINED AND WE KNOW THAT THE WATER PRESSURE IS VIABLE. THOSE QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED IN THAT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND SO STAFF MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND-USE PLAN, TO RECOMMEND A CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND-USE PLAN TO REFLECT THAT.
GREATER DENSITY BECAUSE IT COULD BE SUPPORTED. THE BOOKENDS OF
[01:25:02]
THIS PROPERTY ARE COMMERCIAL BECAUSE THEY'RE AT HARD INTERSECTIONS, WOULD BE HARD INTERSECTIONS IN THE FUTURE BUT THE ONES THAT ARE FURTHEST EAST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF AUBURN LAKES ROAD IS EXISTING COMMERCIAL, THAT IS STORAGE UNITS FOR ANYBODY THAT HAS DRIVEN UP THERE. THIS WAS NOTHING THAT, JUST KIND OF TAKING THE INITIATIVE, FLIPPING THE CORNER AND FLIPPING THEM ON THE OTHER SIDE AND JUST SET THE SCENE FOR THIS TO BE A HARD COMMERCIAL CORNER IN THE FUTURE THAT COULD EVENTUALLY HAVE AMENITIES FOR THE FOLKS THAT LIVE UP THERE. SO STAFF'S WHOLE POSITION WAS THE UTILITIES COULD BE PROVIDED AND THERE WAS ACCESS TO THEM, AND I GUESS A BIG PART OF THAT THE EASEMENTS TO GET THOSE UTILITIES BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF TOPOGRAPHY. THERE'S INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY OWNERS UP THERE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN AMICABLE IN THE PAST TWO DEVELOPMENT.THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, AN ENGINEER WERE ABLE TO SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS AND PROVIDE THAT ACCESS. SO THAT WAS THE REASON THAT STAFF SHIFTED THE FUTURE LAND-USE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS AND WHEN IT WENT TO COUNCIL I GUESS WHEN IT CAME TO PLANNING COMMISSION THERE WAS SOMETHING Y'ALL INITIALLY SUPPORTED , WHEN IT WENT TO COUNCIL IT WAS SPECIFICALLY PULLED OFF BY THE CITY COUNCIL, FAST FORWARD TO NOW, THAT SAME APPLICANT IS WORKING THROUGH, HAS AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL NOW AND THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD LIKE THIS BE RECONSIDERED.
AND OUR EARLIER DISCUSSION, THE FUTURE LAND-USE PLAN SHOULD GUIDE ALL REZONING AND LAND-USE DECISIONS FROM CONDITIONAL USES, I GUESS EXISTING USES AND ALSO THE REZONING OF THINGS. SO IN THE SPIRIT OF KEEPING WITH THAT AND WANTING TO FOLLOW THE PLANS AND STICK TO THEM, THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS TO BE RECONSIDERED, THIS GROWTH CHANGE. THAT WAY YOU CAN RISA CONSIDER THE GROWTH CHANGE TO HELP WITH THEIR DECISION ON TUESDAY NIGHT. SO THAT IS THE LONG STORY OF THIS GROWTH CHANGE IN NUMBER EIGHT THAT IS THE UP ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RURAL TO VIRTUALLY NO DENSITY RURAL, 18 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES, TO BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT ABOUT 148 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES.
>> I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE PLAN, CHANGE IT. SO IT GOT DONE. KNOW HOW WE WENT ABOUT DOING IT, I'M NOT QUITE SURE THAT WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT, BUT WE GOT HERE AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON AND DO SOMETHING USEFUL WITH THE CHANGE SO I'M ALL FOR THIS.
>> I WILL SAY THIS, IF WE WOULDN'T HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH US SAYING YES, THIS IS OKAY, THE COUNCIL WOULD'VE NEVER GOT THE MESSAGE THAT YES, THIS WAS OKAY. SO YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, TO ME THIS PROPERTY SHOULD'VE BEEN ALWAYS THERE. IT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF IT JUST SITS THERE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM A BRAND-NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND IF YOU'RE NOT DEVELOPING NEAR AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND WHAT DO YOU HAVE THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THERE FOR? SO I THINK THAT WE SOMETIMES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO GIVE OUR JUDGMENT WHEN THE PLAN ISN'T NECESSARILY WHAT IT SHOULD BE.
>> IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BUT AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THIS PROJECT CAME THROUGH, NOT THE LAST ONE, I THINK ONE OF THE INITIAL ONES, GENTLEMEN CAME THROUGH AND I THINK A NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH SAID HIS ONLY COMMENT WAS THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO TIE IN SO THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE REDEVELOPMENT OF HIS PROPERTY, TOO. HE ALSO SAID THAT HE WAS RELATED TO EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE ROAD AND THAT HE WAS
SPEAKING FOR THE ROAD. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE FUTURE LAND-USE UP DATE FOR GREENWOOD VILLAGE, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS? >> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE FUTURE LAND-USE UPDATE FOR GREENWOOD VILLAGE, MS 2025-055 .
[20. Waiver – 312 Bragg Avenue - PUBLIC HEARING]
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. >> FINAL ITEM, 312 BRAGG AVENUE.
THE ACTION WAS REQUESTED A WAIVER TO ALLOW A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE TO FRONT BRAGG AVENUE. SO I CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS SEE RDW ZONING DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE TO FRONT BRAGG AVENUE. CAN YOU
[01:30:02]
GO TO THE NEXT ONE? SO SEE RDW IS CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WEST. IT REQUIRES TOWNHOMES AND MUGS MULTI USE TO FRONT BRAGG AVENUE, NOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING. AND SO THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN GOING ON, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR SEVERAL YEARS. IT'S LIKE TWO, THREE, BUT THE WHOLE POINT WAS THAT WHEN THIS WAS REDONE, THEY INITIALLY, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS AND BE MULTI USE SO THEY CAN FRONT BRAGG AVENUE, THEY WANTED THIS TO FRONT BRAGG AVENUE. SO THEY PUT AN OFFICE IN THEIR HOUSE. THEY MADE AN ENTRANCE TO IT THAT WAS SEPARATE FROM THE FRONT DOOR ENTRANCE, AND THEY ADDED PARKING TO COMPLY. AT THAT TIME SINCE THEY GOT THE APPROVAL AND KIND OF ARE MOVING THROUGH, THEY MADE IT OVER TO CODES. IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCLOSE TO PEOPLE IN OUR PRE-APPS OFTEN THAT PLANNING AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS ARE NOT INSPECTION STANDARDS. THEY MEASURE HEIGHT DIFFERENTLY, THEY LOOK AT THINGS DIFFERENTLY, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS, AS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIUSE PROJECTS,, SOMETHING FOR YOUR HEIGHT AND ALSO DO SOMETHING TO YOUR FIRE SUPPRESSION REQUIREMENTS. FIRE SUPPRESSION ON THOSE TWO FRONTS, THEY WERE ABLE TO WORK OUT THE HEIGHT WITH THE CODES. I THINK THE ARCHITECT WAS BUILDING THE BUILDING TO BE A LITTLE SHORTER, TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THEM. BUT THEN THERE WAS THE FIRE SUPPRESSION REQUIREMENT, NOW THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE DOING THE DART PROCESS, THEY REALLY JUST ADDED THE OFFICE TO COMPLY.THEY DO RUN A BUSINESS. WE COULD HAVE THE OFFICE. THAT'S REALLY NOT AN ISSUE TO US BUT OUR INTENT IS TO LIVE YOUR. THOSE ARE GOING TO BE OUR FULL-TIME RESIDENCE. AND AS THEY KIND OF MOVED ON AND THEY FOUND OUT ABOUT THE FIRE SUPPRESSION, THIS IS A LOT CONSIDERING WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A BUSINESS HERE, THIS IS ONLY TO THE PUBLIC. REALLY JUST DOING THIS TO COMPLY TO LEAVE HERE SO THE USE WAS NEVER GOING TO CHANGE. USE WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE PERMANENT, SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE RESIDENCE AND OFFICE THAT COULD'VE BEEN USED FOR THAT BUT THAT WASN'T THEIR INTENT, AND LIKE I SAID, THE INTENT HASN'T CHANGED AND THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, THIS IS NOT LOOKING AT IT. YOU WOULD NOT GUESS THAT THIS IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE. TO QUOTE THE APPLICANT, SHE SAID THIS LOOKS LIKE A HOUSE OUT OF MIAMI.
FLAT ROOF, SQUARE BUILDING, IT'S A NARROWER LOT, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU'D SEE IN A TRADITIONAL SUBADULT AND SOMEWHERE. I THINK FROM A SPIRIT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, I THINK THIS COULD EASILY BE A WALK-UP THREE UNIT FLAT BUT IT'S NOT. IT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE. IT'S THE STRUCTURE. SO I THINK FROM A STRUCTURE STANDPOINT IT NEEDS KIND OF WHAT THE REDEVELOPMENT GOALS ARE. I THINK THERE ARE FURTHER THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO SHIFT ON THEIR PLAN TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING BUT THOSE ARE THINGS THEY SAID THEY ARE WILLING TO DO. THEY HAD NO PROBLEM TAKING THE PARKING OFF, MEANING THEY ALREADY MADE EVERYTHING FROM A SET X 10 POINT. THE ONLY THING THAT THEY ARE SEEKING RELIEF FROM IS THE FIRE SUPPRESSION REQUIREMENT THAT IS PUT ON THEM FROM QUALIFYING AS MULTI USE WHEN LIKE I SAID, THEIR INITIAL INTENT WAS THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO BE THERE TO COMPLY WITH THE USE WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE FOR THEIR SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE AND THEY DON'T INTEND ON HAVING ANY CUSTOMERS OVER TO THIS RESIDENCE TO CONDUCT ANY
BUSINESS. >> OUT IN THE FUTURE WHEN MAYBE THEY SELL IT AT SOME POINT, DOES SOMEBODY HAVE TO COME BACK IN AND HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE OR SOMETHING, AND GET THE FIRE SUPPRESSION PUT IN, AND BLAH BLAH BLAH?
>> GREAT QUESTION. IF SOMEONE WERE TO BUY THIS AND I GUESS IT SET UP TO BE A LIVE/WORK, IF THEY WERE TO EXECUTE THE WORK SIDE OF IT THEY WOULD HAVE TO INSTALL FIRE SUPPRESSION.
>> A USE ISSUE . >> CORRECT, SOMETHING THAT WASN'T PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND THEY NEEDED CONDITIONAL USE FOR, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE D.O.T. REVIEW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADD SPRINKLERS AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT CODES WOULD
>> THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS WAIVER REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING FOR 312 BRAGG AVENUE. I'LL OPEN THAT AT THIS TIME. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> HAVE THERE BEEN OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA THAT
HAVE BEEN -- >> THERE'S ONE OTHER
SINGLE-FAMILY. >> I GUESS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES CURRENT. >> THAT'S TRUE.
>> BUT I GUESS THE LATEST REDEVELOPMENT ON BRAGG AVENUE IS UPTOWN, WHICH IS I THINK 39 TOWNHOME UNIT DEVELOPMENT
[01:35:03]
THAT'S RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD FROM THIS. AND I GUESS THERE'S THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES ON THE END OF DONAHUE, BUT FOR THE MOST PART THEY'RE JUST REALLY HADN'T BEEN A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT. SO THE REDEVELOPMENT SO FAR HAS BEEN TOWNHOME REBEL THE REDEVELOPMENT AND I GUESS EVEN THE MUD IN TOWN DON'T LOOK LIKE THIS BECAUSE FLATS AREN'T A CONCEPT THAT WE HAVE. NORMALLY PEOPLE DO TOWNHOMES AND THEY GO VERTICAL.THEY'LL BE THE ONE, TWO, THREE, THAT'S ALL ONE UNIT INSTEAD OF THREE SEPARATE UNITS. SO EVEN THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE AN MUD OUT OF ANOTHER CITY, THAT WOULD BE THE THREE DIFFERENT, THREE WALK-UP'S KIND OF DEAL . THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THIS DOES HAVE AN ELEVATOR ON IT. AND SO I THINK KIND OF ON MY END, LET'S SAY THEY WERE JUST GOING TO DO TYPICAL TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION FROM A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE, GARAGE FACING THE STREET, NOT SOMETHING WE'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF. I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS THE BUILDING USE, REALLY WITH MORE PROGRESSIVE ZONING ORDINANCES, YOU HAVE FORM-BASED CODE. IT'S REALLY THE FORM-BASED CODE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR OUR CRD W WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THREE, FOUR STORIES, SOMETHING WHERE THE GARAGE DOESN'T FACE THE STREET, CAN BE MULTIPLE THINGS IF THERE IS EVER GOING TO BE IN OFFICE ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR AND IT DOESN'T REGULATE THE USE. SO FROM MY LENS, THE FORM OF THIS BUILDING I THINK IS WHAT SPEAKS TO MUCH MORE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AND WHAT THE ASPIRATIONS WERE FOR CRD-W.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVE TO APPROVE WC-2025-007.
[OTHER BUSINESS ]
>> SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> WE HAVE OTHER BUSINESS. >> YEAH, SO TO BE REACHED OUT TO YOU ALL ABOUT A DATE, KIND OF ABOUT A HEARING. WE WILL BE SETTING THAT UP. I NEED TO TALK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WE WILL COORDINATE TO MAKE SURE THAT DATE WORKS FOR THEM AND THAT I WILL BE IN CONTACT WITH EACH OF YOU ABOUT IT. SO THAT'S ALL I GOT. NOTHING MORE. I GOT NOTHING MORE. I GOT NOTHING MORE. I GOT NOTHING MORE. THAT'S ALL I GOT.
>> SOUNDS OMINOUS. >> THAT'S ALL I GOT. I GUESS KIND OF THE REASON FOR THIS, THE REASON FOR SCHEDULING A SEPARATE DATE, WE'VE MOVED SO MANY THINGS OFF OF THIS AGENDA AND THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT WE KNOW ARE COMING, THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON NEXT MONTH AGENDA, IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG MEETING AND SO THE HEARING IS GOING TO TAKE AT LEAST AN HOUR TO 90 MINUTES. SO DOING EVERYBODY A SOLID.
>> WHAT ELSE TONIGHT? >> I GUESS JOHN ACTUALLY SLIPPED OUT ON US. JOHN'S LAST DAY IS A WEEK AGO, TWO FRIDAYS AGO. HE TOOK ANOTHER JOB, CITY OF ATLANTA.
>> THAT'S JOHN. WE DID AND SAY GOODBYE TO JOHN. HE HAD TO LEAVE
ABRUPTLY. THAT'S ALL. >> MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.