8.d.1. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Memorandum of Understanding for resurfacing the Charlotte and Curtis Ward Bike Trail.

[8.d.1. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Memorandum of Understanding for resurfacing the Charlotte and Curtis Ward Bike Trail.]

MOTION CARRIES. >> ITEM 8D 1 -- MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE RESURFACING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CHARLOTTE AND CURTIS WARD BIKE TRAIL.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> I WOULD LIKE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. I KNOW WE ARE REVAMPING THIS TRAIL. I HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONSTITUENTS REACH OUT OVER THE YEARS ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THIS TRAIL. EXCITED

TO SEE THIS ON THE AGENDA. >> PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR -- WE WILL GET INTO THAT IN A SECOND. THERE IS ALSO A SOCIAL MEDIA POST TODAY ASKING FOR SOME THINGS AS WELL AS SOMETHING SUBMITTED THROUGH OUR -- AND I WILL REMIND EVERYONE THAT TALK ABOUT THE NUANCES OF THE AGREEMENT. THE CITY DOES NOT OWN THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT IS OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. SO WE DON'T HAVE CARTE BLANCHE TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT ON THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND I WILL HAVE DAN TALK ABOUT HOW THIS AGREEMENT IS GOING TO WORK .

>> SURE. SO THE CHARLOTTE AND CURTIS WARD BIKE TRAIL IS 1.6 MILE ASPHALT PAVED SURFACE TRAIL THAT RUNS THROUGH ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE PROPERTY ALONG PARKWAY . OVER THE YEARS, THE TRAIL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2000 SO OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS IT HAS DETERIORATED TO THE POINT WHERE IT WARRANTS RESURFACING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO RESURFACE THE TRAIL . IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED THROUGH A JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT THROUGH THE CITY AND ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THE CITY PER THAT AGREEMENT -- MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE INSTRUMENT TO PERMIT US TO PERFORM THAT MAINTENANCE. SO THEY HAVE BEEN PERFORMING THAT MAINTENANCE FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS . THIS PRETTY MUCH JUST -- YEAH -- CEVILLA SOLIDIFIES THAT AGREEMENT. THE ESTIMATE FROM THE PROJECT IS $500,000. FY 26 BUDGET. THIS AGREEMENT IS A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT.

AND 80 C AND R WILL REIMBURSE US FOR HALF OF THE COST .

>> IF WE EXCEED THE HALF-MILLION IN TERMS OF PROJECT COSTS IN ESSENCE BECAUSE IT IS 50% REIMBURSEMENT IT COULD GO UP MORE . WE ARE EXPECTING TO SPEND AT LEAST HALF 1 MILLION IN THE

GENERAL FUND. >> CORRECT. WE ARE IN THE DESIGN PROCESS NOW AND WE WILL HAVE A REFINED ESTIMATE SOON INAUDIBLE ] TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE FINAL

PRICE AS WELL. >> GOING FORWARD. IS IT BY WAY OF EASEMENT ?

>> THERE IS AN EASEMENT THAT IS ESTABLISHED

>> COST WISE, GOING FORWARD, DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE ] EACH YEAR ON THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS ?

>> ANNUAL MAINTENANCE WILL BE PERFORMED BY PUBLIC WORKS. WE DO HAVE A MAINTENANCE REGIME WE HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM ON WHAT THAT MAINTENANCE WOULD LOOK LIKE.

>> OKAY. GREAT. >> DOES THIS AGREEMENT ALLOW BECAUSE BOTH COUNCILMAN DAWSON AND COBLENTZ WITH CONCERNED CITIZENS ALONG PARKWAY WHEN TREES EITHER FALL DOWN OR BRANCHES OR HANGING LOW, DOES THIS GIVE US THE ABILITY OR DO

[00:10:01]

WE STILL HAVE TO WAIT ON THE OWNER?

>> WITHIN THE PATH OF THE EASEMENT ESTABLISHED FOR THE

BIKE PATH, YES. >> BUT OVER THE STREET ITSELF,

NO. OKAY. >> OVER THE ROADWAY WILL BE THE

RESPONSIBILITY OF ADC AND R. >> JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SINCE YOU GUYS BOTH GET A LOT OF CALLS ABOUT THAT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS ?

>> COMMENT, IF I MAY. I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT DR. CHARLOTTE CURTIS WARD. THEY WERE A BIG PART OF MY GROWING UP YEARS IN AUBURN. BOTH WERE FULL PROFESSORS IN THE PHYSICS DEPARTMENT AT AUBURN UNIVERSITY. IN FACT, DR.

CHARLOTTE WARD TAUGHT ME PHYSICS FOR SIX WEEKS IN HIGH SCHOOL WHEN MY TEACHER WAS UNABLE TO COMPLETE THE ACADEMIC YEAR. SHE WAS MARVELOUSLY FUNNY AND BRIGHT . IT WAS INTERESTING THAT SHE CAME TO CLASS EVERY DAY ON A BICYCLE. SHE TRAVELED FROM HER HOME JUST OFF NORTH COLLEGE STREET TO THE HIGH SCHOOL, WHICH WAS LOCATED AT THAT TIME ON THE CORNER OF DEAN AND SANFORD. WE ADMIRED HER TREMENDOUSLY FOR HER INTELLECT AND WIT . SHE WAS A WELL-RESPECTED MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL AS OUR WHOLE FAMILY. IT WAS VERY FITTING THAT THE AUBURN COMMUNITY CHOSE TO HONOR THE AWARDS WITH THIS BICYCLE TRAIL. I GUESS IT WAS OVER 2000 AND 2001 THAT IT WAS CONSTRUCTED. AS COUNCILMAN COBLENTZ SAID, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH TAKING ON THE RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THIS 1.6 MILE TRAIL . SO I AM

ALL IN. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE ?

[8.d.2. Bodines Landscape Services. Veterans Memorial Park Landscape Renovations. Public Works Department. $89,445.]

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED TO MAKE THE MOTION CARRIES.

>> AUTHORIZES A CONTRACT WITH BOAT I LET SKIP SERVICES FOR THE VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK LANDSCAPE RENOVATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF

$89,445. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY HOW PROUD I AM OF THE AUBURN CITIZENS AND THE CITY STAFF AND THE COUNCIL FOR UNDERWRITING AND SUPPORTING THIS FACILITY. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO THE CITY FOR DESIGNING AND MAINTAINING THE VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK AND TO THE MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM FOR HOSTING CEREMONIES THERE TWO TIMES A YEAR . TO HONOR THE VETERANS OF OUR COMMUNITY. I THINK IT SPEAKS A LOT ABOUT OUR CITIZENS AND THIS COMMUNITY THAT WE WOULD DO THIS PROJECT AND MAINTAIN THIS PROJECT. IT MAKES ME VERY PROUD.

>> THANK YOU. >> ONE THING FOR YOU ON THAT. WE ARE ALSO GRATEFUL TO BE ON THE VETERANS COMMITTEE -- CONSTRUCTION YEARS AGO, WHO, WHEN WE BID THIS PROJECT, THE GIFT OF THEIR LABOR AND WE ONLY PAID FOR THE MATERIALS. LABOR AS WE KNOW IN A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT CAN BE OF EDGE -- HUGE PART OF THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND

ITS ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. >> ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE AYE. ANY OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

[9.a.1. Zoning and Annexations. Planning Commission recommendations., AL City Council 1. Pre-zoning. Cox Road. Approximately 36.60 acres to Development District Housing (DDH). Property located on the west side of Cox Road, immediately south of 2384 Cox Road. Unanimous consent necessary. Public hearing required. 2. Pre-zoning. Cox Road. Approximately 36.60 acres with the Planned Development District (PDD) overlay designation. Property located on the west side of Cox Road, west of Dawson Drive, east of Tamplin Farms Subdivision. Unanimous consent necessary. Public hearing required. 3.Cole Place, Phase 1 Annexation. Approximately 85.85 acres. Property located onSociety Hill Road, east of Nash Creek Drive and north of the Mitchell Farms development. Postponed from November 18, 2025.]

THE CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVED. >> 9A 1 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 36.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF 2384 COX ROAD TWO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION FAILED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BY A VOTE OF 9-0 AT ITS NOVEMBER 13TH MEETING. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY IN A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED.

>> ON THE COUNCIL HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD THIS EVENING? SEEING AND HEARING ON, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THIS TOPIC. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL.

>> GOOD EVENING.

THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT , OUR PROPOSED ZONING IS GOING AGAINST THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN . THE WRITEUP MENTIONS THERE IS EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES NEED TO BE IN PLACE .

AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SECURE AN OFF-SITE EASEMENT TO THE WEST TO EXPAND THE SEWER FROM THE INDUSTRIAL PARK UP TO THIS SITE SO WE CAN SEWER THE SITE, WHICH I THINK IS DIFFERENT THAN WHEN YOU WERE EVALUATING US FOR THE FUTURE

LAND USE. >> YOU KNOW, IN PARTICULAR ON THIS IN THIS CORRIDOR OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST 10, 15 YEARS, THE COUNCIL HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS ALONG THIS CORRIDOR.

IN '22, THEY BUILT A NEW INTERCHANGE. IN 2022, WE WIDENED THE TWO LANE ROAD TO A THREE LANE ROAD. IN 2024 WE INVESTED

[00:15:02]

IN THE BUCKYS DEVELOPMENT ALONG THERE. I GET CALLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY PROBABLY ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH. EVERYBODY IS LOOKING JUST BECAUSE THEY SEE THE INVESTMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE .

THE LACK OF DEVELOPMENT . EVEN ON THE OTHER END OF THAT CORRIDOR THE CITY INVESTED A COUPLE YEARS BACK. SO IN REGARDS TO INFRASTRUCTURE , I'M NOT SURE WHAT OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE.

SUPPORT BUCKYS THROUGH THERE AS WELL. THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE. FOR THAT AREA. IT'S JUST WHETHER OR NOT THAT AREA DOES END UP COUNTY. THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, WE ARE ASKING FOR PRE-ZONING. WE ARE ASKING FOR THE ZONING. IF WE DON'T GET THE ZONING, WE DON'T WANT TO ANNEX IN. I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT IS A GREAT THING. OUR PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IS ORIGINALLY WE WERE LOOKING AT DOING ABOUT 130 UNITS IN THERE ON THIS 40 ACRES.

WE REMOVED ABOUT A THIRD OF THAT. WE ARE ONLY ASKING FOR 89 UNITS. WE ARE SHOWING MORE THAN 50% OPEN SPACE IN THIS, SO THIS IS A FAIRLY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT . ONLY ABOUT 2 1/2 UNITS PER ACRE . AS I MENTIONED, WATER IS AVAILABLE THERE. IT'S KIND OF UNIQUE . MOST OF THE TIME WHEN WE ARE ANNEXING IN TO THE CITY, IT IS BECAUSE WE WANT TWO THINGS, WATER AND SEWER. IN PARTICULAR HERE, WE DON'T NEED THE CITY'S WATER. WE JUST NEED THE SEWER. BUT FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, IF THIS PROPERTY DOES REMAIN IN THE COUNTY, THERE ARE OTHER DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS FOR THIS. IN THE COUNTY, THERE IS NO ZONING. WE CAN DO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT -- COULD DO ALMOST ANYTHING. ONCE WE BRING IT TO THE CITY , WE HAVE TO MEET THE CITY'S REGULATIONS. BUT IN REGARDS TO WHAT IS ALLOWED ALONG THEIR -- THERE, THERE IS NO ZONING. THERE COULD BE ANYTHING.

WHETHER THAT IS OFFICE WAREHOUSE , WHETHER THAT IS RV PARK , TRAILERS. YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO IS PROVIDE ON-SITE SEWAGE. SO I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE DENSITY WE ARE ASKING FOR IS OUT OF LINE IN THAT AREA. BUT I ALSO THINK THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE FOR REDEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.

WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS

FROM THE COUNCIL ? >> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MEGAN INAUDIBLE ] ANY KIND OF TRAFFIC STUDY BEEN DONE AND PRESENTED?

>> PART OF ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM THAT WILL BE LOOKED AT COMING UP

IN THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC STUDY. >>

>> NO, SIR. 2026 RESOLUTION WILL BE COUNTED AT THAT TIME . WE

HAVE NOT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK BRAD. HOW MUCH MORE TRAFFIC DO YOU EXPECT THIS DEVELOPMENT

COX ROAD ? >> USUALLY FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WE USUALLY HAVE ON AVERAGE -- A HOUSE GENERATES ABOUT 10 TRIPS PER DAY. SO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE 89 UNITS, IT WOULD BE 89 -- 890 TOTAL TRIPS. PEOPLE COMING AND GOING.

>> WHAT TYPE OF DOLLAR FIGURE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT FOR A HOUSE

? >> THESE HOMES WOULD PROBABLY BE IN THE THREE TO 450 RANGE. IF YOU GO A LITTLE CLOSER TO COX AND WIRE AT THE ROUNDABOUT THERE, YOU KIND OF HAVE 500 PLUS PRICE POINT. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT , THEY ARE RIGHT UP THERE. SO WE ARE TRYING TO GET RIGHT BELOW THAT 500 PRICE POINT. WHAT IT WOULD BE ANTICIPATED.

>> THANK YOU. >> NO PROBLEM.

>> COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION? WHAT DROVE THE DECISION TO GO

FROM 130 DOWN TO 89? >> WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF STAFF AND COUNCIL . 130. GETTING A LITTLE HIGHER DENSITY. YOU LOOK AT A LOT OF THE -- A LOT OF OUR MASTER PLAN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES . MOST OF THOSE FOR THE MOST PART IF THERE ARE NO TOWNHOMES , IT IS USUALLY IN THE 2 1/2 TO THREE UNITS AND ACRE RANGE. WE ARE

[00:20:04]

TRYING TO GET IT DOWN BELOW THAT. WE WERE ABOVE THAT. WE WERE ABOVE THREE UNITS PER ACRE BEFORE. WE WERE JUST TRYING TO GET IT DOWN CLOSER TO A LOWER THRESHOLD ON THAT.

>> THERE WOULD BE SOME TOWNHOMES.

>> NO, NO. THERE WOULD BE NOT. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR ONE, WE DID PDD ZONING, WHICH LOCKS US INTO A PLAN . SO THE PLAN THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET SHOWS 89 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS .

THAT IS ALL THAT WE COULD DO . IT IS KIND OF LIKE A CONTRACT ZONING IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE DID. IF WE WOULD HAVE ZONED THIS TO , SAY, DDH, YOU CAN DO UP TO 3 1/2 TO FIVE UNITS PER ACRE DEPENDING HOW YOU DID IT. WE ARE PROPOSING A FIXED ZONING THAT LOCKS US INTO THIS MANY UNITS .

89 IN THE PACKET. >> A THIRD OF AN ACRE EACH.

>> YES. YES. AND WE HAVE A LOT OF OPEN SPACE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAYOUT AND THE WAY WE HAVE THAT LAYOUT, WE SHIFTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD FURTHER TOWARD THE BACK. A BIG BUFFER BETWEEN COX ROAD AND WHERE THESE HOMES ARE. A BIG BUFFER. SO WE ARE TRYING TO LEAVE A LOT OF WOODS AND STUFF. LIKE I SAID, OVER 50% OPEN SPACE. TYPICALLY WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THIS SITUATION IS ONLY ABOUT 30% WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING. IF WE ARE DOING A BUNCH MORE JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE IS SENSITIVITY IN REGARDS TO DENSITY

>> THERE'S A LOT OF OPEN SPACE . A LAKE. A POND, I GUESS. SO WHO OWNS THE OPEN SPACE? DOES THE DEVELOPER RETAIN?

>> NO, THE HOMEOWNER. SO IT WOULD BE OWNED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? BENEFIT OF THE

NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> WHAT IS YOUR TIMELINE IF APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE

HOMES? >> WHEN WE GET APPROVAL FROM HERE, USUALLY BY THE TIME THEY ARE ABLE TO PUT UP THE FIRST TO START BUILDING A HOME IS PROBABLY ABOUT A YEAR IN REGARDS TO WE HAVE TO DESIGN AND PERMIT , BUILD THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE . WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO GET A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FIRST, THEN DESIGN , PERMIT, GET IT APPROVED, AND THEN BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO COME BACK TO YOU GUYS, BRING YOU GUYS TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT TO ACCEPT THE FINAL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO THAT IS USUALLY ABOUT A YEAR BEFORE WE START.

FOR THE MOST PART, MOST OF THESE HOMES WOULD START BEING OCCUPIED 18 MONTHS PROBABLY . IN REGARDS TO HOW QUICKLY THESE THINGS ABSORB , IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE WHETHER THAT IS IN WOODWARD OAKS OR ANY OF THESE OTHER PLANNING COMMUNITIES , USUALLY ON AVERAGE WE ARE ABOUT A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS ABOUT 50 HOMES A YEAR. AND IT USUALLY TAKES 2 TO 3 YEARS TO KIND OF BUILD UP AND GET THAT MOMENTUM TO START HAVING THAT MUCH. SO I WOULD SAY YOUR FIRST YEAR WOULD BE TICKLED PINK IF WE HAD 10 HOMES, 20 HOMES. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? KIND OF KEEP BUILDING FROM THERE. THIS THING WOULD BE 5 TO 6 YEARS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS,

QUESTIONS? >> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE

STUDIED THIS ? >> JUST RECENTLY.

>> RECENTLY. SO WE MAINTAINED IT.

>> IT WAS PRESENTED IN A MEETING. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YEAH. THAT IS CORRECT. INITIALLY THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR WAS LOOKED AT 41 ACRE LOTS. I GUESS SHOWS IT . I'M TALKING EVERYTHING NORTH OF THAT ALL THE WAY TO THE INTERSECTION OF SWAN'S FARM AND EVERYTHING.

THAT WAS DOWNGRADED AS A RESULT JUST FROM WHAT THE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE, LACK OF OTHER RESOURCES . KIND OF LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY AND CONSIDERING UP ZONED TO ABOUT DDH . LOOKING AT IT FROM OUR LENS OF ZONING EVERYTHING KIND OF IN BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND EVERYTHING NORTH OF IT WAS KIND OF THE DECISION ON OUR PART FROM NOT ADDING THAT MANY HOMES -- POTENTIAL HOMES JUST ALONG THIS CORRIDOR THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE RESOURCES OR INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT

AT THAT TIME. >> AND IT WAS STUDIED . BEFORE THIS, THIS WAS A FOCUS AREA STUDY AND IT WAS STUDIED TWICE IN A ROW BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL CAME UP NORTH OF HERE. YOU WENT THROUGH AN EXERCISE RECENTLY

[00:25:03]

WHERE YOU ADJUSTED LAND-USE BEFORE YOU MADE A ZONING CHANGE THAT THEN ADJUSTED LAND-USE. THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE CONTINUING TO LOOK AT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO CHANGE THE ZONING HERE, THE FACT EVERYTHING NORTH OF HERE WOULD BE VERY ELIGIBLE FOR THE VERY SAME ZONING. WHEN YOU DO THAT AND YOU GO OUT AND DO THIS, THIS IS YOUR CHOICE AS CITY COUNCIL. YOU ULTIMATELY ADOPT A LAND-USE PLAN AND MAKE ZONING DECISION, BUT I WANT TO REMIND YOU WHEN YOU GO IN AND PUT A ZONE LIKE THIS AND THEN PUT A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OVERLAY, WHETHER YOU DO OR DON'T, IF PEOPLE AROUND THIS PROPERTY ARE ASKING FOR THE SAME THING AND IT HAS SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, IT WOULD BE HARD TO NOT APPROVE THAT. THOSE ARE JUST

THINGS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. >> EVEN THEN, I KNOW THE COMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT LEAVING IT IF IT REMAINED IN THE COUNTY. THERE IS NO ZONING. BUT THE COUNTY DOES FALL TO OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, CORRECT? ON A RURAL BASIS.

ONE ACRE? >> THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES

THERE. >> GOOD TO SEE -- DISTINCTION.

>> I GUESS OUTSIDE OF IT I THINK IT WOULD BE THREE ACRE LOTS.

JUST FROM WHAT IT IS DOING NOW SINCE THEY ARE NOT ANNEXED IN.

THEY WOULD ALSO BE INVOLVED FROM THE ACCESS STANDPOINT.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE PLANNING JURISDICTION ?

>> FIRMLY INSIDE OF THAT. FIRMLY INSIDE THE PLANNING JURISDICTION. SO THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN INSIDE THE BOUNDARY, OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS. BUT IF YOU WERE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS BUT INSIDE THE SAY IT IS A THREE LOT MINIMUM. VERSUS IF YOU WERE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY . INSIDE THE PLANNING JURISDICTION, YOU'VE GOT A ONE

ACRE LOT SIZE MINIMUM . >> ISN'T THAT ONLY FOR SUBDIVISIONS ? THEY COULD PUT SOME OTHER KIND OF BUSINESS

STRUCTURE ? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> USE IS NOT BEING CONTROLLED. IT IS JUST A MATTER OF

SUBDIVIDING . >> ACCESS AND LOT SIZE IS WHAT

WE WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT. >> THEY TOOK THE ENTIRE PARCEL AND MADE IT A USE, TO YOUR POINT.

>> THEY COULD PUT MOST ANYTHING THERE. THE ONLY THING WE HAVE CONTROL OVER WHATSOEVER IS IF THEY CHOOSE TO PUT ANOTHER TYPE

OF SUBDIVISION THERE. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS ?

>> THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE WITH IT IS FUTURE LAND USE.

THIS BEING ONE HOUSE PER ACRE PROPERTY. I WOULD HAVE NO TROUBLE WITH THAT. THIS CAN'T GO AGAINST FUTURE LAND USE INAUDIBLE ] I WILL SAY THIS. THIS IS VERY HARD DECISION TO MAKE BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPER. I KNOW HE IS A GOOD PERSON AND DOES GOOD WORK. I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING BRAD DOES FOR US. BUT I JUST CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE VOTE FOR 89 HOMES

FUTURE LAND USE LIKE THAT. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU, CHIEF. GIVEN THE RECENT WORKSHOPS THAT WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN AND TRYING TO SHOW GOOD FAITH TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, IT SEEMS THAT THIS IS COME UPON US . THIS IS THE VERY KIND OF SITUATION THAT WE ARE MAKING DECISIONS TO AVOID. ON ITS FACE , I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE ARE RUNNING UP AGAINST OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. SO FOR THAT REASON

WITH YOU , CHIEF . >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. ROLL CALL.

[9.a.2. Pre-zoning. Cox Road. Approximately 36.60 acres with the Planned Development District (PDD) overlay designation. Property located on the west side of Cox Road, west of Dawson Drive, east of Tamplin Farms Subdivision. Unanimous consent necessary. Public hearing required.]

CANNOT APPLY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE A BASE ZONE AT THE MOMENT.

SO THEREFORE THAT ITEM WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. JUST AS YOU AGREE. THAT DEFECT OWED WITHDRAWS IT, AND IF YOU ARE

[9.a.3. Cole Place, Phase 1 Annexation. Approximately 85.85 acres. Property located on Society Hill Road, east of Nash Creek Drive and north of the Mitchell Farms development. Postponed from November 18, 2025.]

READY, WE WOULD CARRY ON TO 9A 3. REQUEST TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 85.85 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOCIETY HILL ROAD EAST OF NASH CREEK DRIVE AND NORTH OF THE MITCHELL FARMS DEVELOPMENT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS COLDPLAY'S PHASE ONE.

[00:30:01]

PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST . THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED FROM THE NOVEMBER 18TH MEETING . WE HAVE ALREADY HAD FIRST READING, SO YOU DO NEED A MOTION FOR APPROVAL TO PROCEED .

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO POSTPONE TO THE NEXT COUNCIL.

>> JANUARY 6TH ? >> THANK YOU. JANUARY 6, 2026. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT -- I KNOW IT IS IN THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY, BUT THE IMPACTS OF THIS ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN. BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME VARYING ASPECTS OF THIS. I JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME IF THAT IS OKAY WITH THE COUNCIL.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND TO POSTPONED TO JANUARY 6, 2026. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS ? >> IS IT OKAY TO ASK IF THIS IS GOING TO REMAIN RURAL? OR DO WE KNOW?

>> GOOD QUESTION. SO SINCE IT IS IN THE ALEC OGLETREE WATERSHED, THAT WOULD LAKE OGLETREE WATERSHED. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO. IT WILL NOT REMAIN RURAL. BUT EFFECTIVELY THERE IS ALREADY A PLAT ASSOCIATED WITH IT. IT IS THREE ACRE LOT MINIMUMS.

>> WITH THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY BEING AUTOMATIC WITH THE LAKE OGLETREE WATERSHED, THAT IS 1 1/2 ACRE LOTS ARE THE MINIMUM.

IT WOULD AVERAGE THE SAME THAT THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING THREE ACRE LOTS AT THE MOMENT. I'M NOT SAYING THEY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT CHANGING . JUST, THAT WOULD BE THEIR PREROGATIVE. THEY CANNOT DO LESS THAN 1 1/2 ACRE LOT, NOR EXCEED THE DENSITY OF THREE ACRES ACROSS THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROJECT.

>> WOULD THIS REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE

DEVELOPMENT ITSELF? >> POSSIBLY. SCOTT?

>> WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THEY DO A TRAFFIC STUDY . IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS SOMEONE WILL NOT HAVE ONE. BUT THAT IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE

D.A.R.T. PROCESS. >> THANK YOU.

>> MOTION AND SECOND TO POSTPONE TO JANUARY 6TH. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE AYE. AND HE OPPOSED? WE WILL HEAR THIS THE FIRST MEETING

[9.b. Amend City Code. Chapter 12. Exclude gross receipts from consumable vapor products. ]

OF THE YEAR. >> AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY CODE TO EXCLUDE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM CONSUMABLE VAPOR PRODUCTS. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY.

>> I WILL INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AND ASK FOR UNANIMOUS

CONSENT. >> SECOND.

>> EVENING. SEEING AND HEARING NONE , QUESTIONS? COMMENTS ?

>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION , AND ORDINANCE TO ADD VAPOR PRODUCTS TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS EXCLUSIONS. CAN YOU TALK TO

THAT? >>. THERE IS SOME STATE LAW CHANGES. I WILL HAVE OUR DIRECTOR

>> AS THE MEMO SAYS, WHEN THAT ACT WAS PASSED, YOU PUT A TAX ON VAPE PRODUCTS. THEY SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED LANGUAGE THAT SAID WE NEEDED TO EXCLUDE THAT FOR MANY BUSINESS LICENSE CALCULATION. AND SO AHEAD OF BUSINESS LICENSEES WE NEED TO GET THAT IN OUR EXCLUSION TO BE FORMALIZED. IT IS JUST A PART OF THE ACT. A PART OF THE LANGUAGE THEY INCLUDED AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO.

>> SO IN ESSENCE THEY WOULD REMIT THEIR RECEIPTS TO THE STATE AND THEN THE STATE WOULD SEND OUR PORTION TO US?

>> SO THE TAX ITSELF IS SOMETHING THE STATE WILL COLLECT. THIS IS A STATE SHARED ATTACKS, BUT THIS THAT WE ARE DOING IS JUST WHEN THEY RENEW THEIR BUSINESS LICENSE, THEY ARE CALCULATING THEIR GROSS RECEIPTS. ANY RECEIPTS THAT THEY HAD FOR SELLING BAKED -- VAPE PRODUCTS WOULD BE EXTENDED.

>> SO THEY WOULD PAY THE BASE FOR THE BUSINESS LICENSE. OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ? COMMENTS ? OKAY. ROLL CALL. YES.

[10.a.1. 178 North Donahue Drive Tattoo. Commercial and entertainment use (tattoo shop). Property located at 178 North Donahue Drive.]

>> ITEM 10 A 1 IS CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USE FOR A TATTOO SHOP FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 178 NORTH DONAHUE DRIVE. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BY A VOTE OF 4-3 IN ITS DECEMBER 11TH MEETING. A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL. YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE

[00:35:02]

RECORD AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL. OKAY.

WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY COMMENTS OR

QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL ? >> IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? BECAUSE I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IF THAT IS OKAY.

>> IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD?

>> 362

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. BARNETT, WOULD THERE BE -- WE HAVE HAD SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE USE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. IN ONE OF THE PROPOSALS THAT I WOULD HAVE IS TO AMEND THIS TO INCLUDE OPERATING HOURS TO END BY 9:00 P.M. THAT WOULD BE OKAY? OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR. >> BEST, YOU WOULD MAKE A MOTION

TO ADD A CONDITION OF THAT. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS ? COMMENTS?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND A CONDITION THAT THE OPERATING HOURS AND AT 9:00 P.M. ON ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

>> WHAT DAYS OF THE WEEK ? >> ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. ALL

DAYS. >> I SECOND THAT.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADD A CONDITION OF 9:00 P.M. CLOSURE.

ANY COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AND HE OPPOSED . THAT CONDITION HAS BEEN ADDED.

ONE MORE TIME. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK TATTOO ESTABLISHMENTS HAVE HAD IN THE PAST A BAD REPUTATION . I THINK THAT HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY WITH THE ADDITION OF A LOT OF SAFETY PROTOCOLS THAT HAVE GONE INTO PLACE. ANYONE WHO MAY HAVE HAD A TATTOO LATELY KNOWS THAT THE COST OF THE TATTOO OR A PIERCING IS RATHER EXPENSIVE. SO I WOULD THINK THAT THE CAUSE FOR CONCERN FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE WOULD BE GREATLY DIMINISHED BASED OFF OF CURRENT RULES AND REGULATIONS AND COSTS AND NOT THE PREVIOUS PERCEPTION OF OUTLAWS AND BIKER GANGS GOING INTO TATTOO PARLORS.

>> JUST A QUESTION. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY FEEL FOR THE KIND OF REVIEW THAT IS MISSES SUCH AS THIS WOULD BE UNDER HEALTHWISE ?

>> PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT. >> THAT IS SOMETHING WE MANAGE DIRECTLY. PUBLIC HEALTH. THAT IS NOT A FUNCTION OF THE CITY. IT

IS STATE THROUGH THE COUNTY. >> ONE WOULD ASSUME THERE ARE SUCH

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE 9:00 P.M. ENFORCEMENT OF THAT. WOULD IT BE THROUGH CALL IN OF ISSUES OF BEING OPEN PAST 9:00 P.M. OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OR HOW DO WE GO ABOUT ENFORCING THAT ?

>> WE DON'T HAVE A TON OF HOURS RESTRICTIONS ON BUSINESSES. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE OUT LOOKING FOR BUT IF WE GET A COMPLAINT THAT IT IS OPEN PAST THAT TIME, OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD BE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO REMIND THEM OF SUCH, AND IT WILL SAY ZONING TO GETS ISSUED AND ALSO BE MADE AWARE IN WRITING OF THE CONDITION. WE WOULD ENFORCE IT IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH IT FIRST FROM A WARNING STANDPOINT AND NEXT WEEK AND ELEVATE. I DON'T EXPECT THAT TO HAPPEN, BUT WE COULD ELEVATE IT TO MUNICIPAL COURT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION IN ESSENCE.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> YES. >> I RECEIVED A COMMENT FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL RIGHT UP AGAINST IT. A MATTER OF FEET FROM A BEDROOM TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WHAT KIND OF COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED AT THE

PLANNING COMMISSION? >> SO WE HAD ONE PERSON SPEAK AND THE PUBLIC HEARING -- IT WAS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. HE OWNS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO THE ESTABLISHMENT. HE BROUGHT UP THAT HE MEASURED IT. IT IS ABOUT EIGHT FEET OR SO.

URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD WEST. EAST OF NORTH DONAHUE IS ONE OF THE FEW PLACES IN TOWN THAT HAS MAXIMUM SETBACKS. THE MAXIMUM SETBACK IN THIS LOCATION IS 10 FEET. IT CANNOT BE GREATER THAN 10 FEET.

THE BUILDING IS REQUIRED TO BE THAT CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND IT IS REALLY, REALLY CLOSE. I GUESS THE MINIMUM IS ZERO. YOU

[00:40:02]

CAN HAVE A ZERO LOT LINE BUILDING. THE ONLY PERSON WHO SPOKE SPOKE ABOUT THE PROXIMITY TO IT. PROXIMITY TO THE BEDROOM.

LIKE I MENTIONED IN THE MEETING, THIS IS A REQUIREMENT BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE IT HAS TO BE THAT CLOSE TO MAXIMIZE DENSITY

DOWNTOWN. >> WAS THAT THE ONLY CONCERN

FROM THE PUBLIC ? >> THAT WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO

SPOKE AGAINST IT. >> COUNCIL RECEIVED AND EMAILS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE SAME FAMILY WITH THE HOMEOWNERSHIP.

>> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED ?

>> CAN WE GET HANDS? ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM TWO.

[10.a.2. 726 Harper Avenue MUD Conditional Use. Performance residential development (mulitple-unit development). Property located at 726 Harper Avenue.]

>> ITEM 10 A 2 IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, A MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 726 HARPER AVENUE IN THE CORRIDOR EAST ZONING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. A PUBLIC

HEARING IS REQUIRED. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND THIS TIME. PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL. OKAY. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE ON COUNCIL HAVE A COMMENT OR QUESTION?

>> QUESTION. WILL THIS BE A THREE-STORY BUILDING LIKE 644

JUST A FEW DOORS DOWN? >> HE IS GETTING TO IT. JUST A

SECOND HERE. >> IT WILL NOT BE.

ON THE BUILDING. IT'S GOING TO BE THREE THAT GO BACK INTO THE PROPERTY. NOT GOING VERTICALLY. IT WILL BE THREE

HORIZONTALLY. >> STRAIGHT BACK?

>> CORRECT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? IN

[10.a.3. 732 Mercer Circle. Performance residential development (multiple-unit development). Property located at 732 Mercer Circle.]

THE MOTION CARRIES. >> ITEM 10 A 3 IS REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 732 MERCER CIRCLE IN THE EAST ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. THIS REQUEST WAS THE DECEMBER 11TH MEETING.

>> MOVED FOR APPROVAL. >> THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO