[00:00:12]
          MEETING TO ORDER. ROLL CALL. >> CAMP. 
          >> HERE. >> REESE. 
          >> HERE. >> ECHOLS. 
          >> HERE. >> LOVVORN. 
          >> HERE. >> AISTRUP. 
          >> CHANSLER. >> HERE. 
          >> MOST. >> HERE. 
          >> DAVIS. >> HERE. 
          >> BEFORE WE START I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW, THE COMMISSION WILL BE PRESENTED WITH AGENDA ITEMS BY THE STAFF, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED AS APPROPRIATE BY THE ITEM AND THIS WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. WE WANT EVERYBODY TO BE HEARD AND WE ASK YOU KEEP TIME TO FIVE MINUTES. 
          THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT Q&A SO WE MAY NOT GO BACK AND FORTH WITH YOU DURING PUBLIC HEARING BUT WE WILL, AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, ADDRESS COMMENT WITH ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. A REPRESENTATIVE AND APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER AND RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS AND THE COMMISSION WILL VOTE BASED ON THE STATE AND 
          [CITIZENS’ COMMUNICATION]
LOCAL LAWS AND SIT PLAN 2030. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN CITIZEN'S COMMUNICATION, A TIME IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT ANYTHING NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. 
          [1. Conditional Use – Auburn Flex Works – PUBLIC HEARING ]
WE CLOSE CITIZEN'S COMMUNICATION AND HAVE ONE OLD BUSINESS ITEM. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. I WILL GET INTO THE USES IN A SECOND. THE PROPERTY IS AT HILTON GARDEN DRIVE. 3.62 ACRES, FUTURE LAND USE DOES DESIGNATE THIS AS GATEWAY COMMERCIAL. SO I HAVE GIVEN EACH OF Y'ALL A TENANT LIST AND UPDATED LIST OF CONDITIONAL USES, WITH THE UPDATED TENANT LIST, WE HAVE DECIDED TO KIND OF CONDENSE THE CONDITIONAL USES SO WE ARE NOT GETTING CONDITIONAL USES FOR THINGS THAT WOULDN'T PERTAIN TO THIS. WE HAVE, RIGHT NOW UNDER COMMERCIAL SPORT, WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTOR, WAREHOUSE, MINI WAREHOUSE, AND ALL OTHERS. THE ALL OTHERS INCLUDES CONTRACTORS OFFICES, WHICH IS ON THE THE TENANT LIST HVAC TO CABINETRY, AND SHOWROOM AND SPECIALTY TRADE WOULD FALL UNDER CONTRACTOR'S OFFICES. THE ONES DESIRED TO BE REMOVED ARE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, CUSTOM FABRICATION, SMALL ENGINE AND RETEARS , SALES, BAKERY, PRINTING, PUBLISHING. I THINK THERE WERE COMMENTS AT PACKET MEETING Y'ALL WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THEY COULD DO BY RIGHT OR CONDITIONALLY THAT THEY AREN'T ALREADY REQUESTING, SO I PROVIDED TABLE 41, EVERYTHING IN BLUE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT, ANYTHING NOT HIGHLIGHTED IS CONDITIONAL USE THEY ARE NOT LOOKING AT AND THEN ANYTHING HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW IS WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING. IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT, IT DOES NOT PERTAIN, COULD NOT BE DONE IN CDD. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS, I KNOW WE HAVE 
          SEEN THIS BEFORE. SO. >> SO, WHY IS OFFICE BEING-- 
          >> THAT IS-- >> CONDITIONAL USE? 
          >> THAT IS AN ERROR ON MY END. I HIGHLIGHTED THAT, PERMITTED BY RIGHT, THEY ARE LOOKING AT THAT, FOR SOME USES THEY ARE OFFICE 
          SPACE. >> ALL RIGHT. GOTCHA. 
          >> WHY WAS THE-- WHAT IS THE LOGIC BEHIND TRYING TO REMOVE THE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, OR THE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, YEAH? 
          >> COMMERCIAL KITCHEN WAS REMOVED BECAUSE NONE OF THE LIST FIT COMMERCIAL KITCHEN. THE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN. THEY ARE NOT EXPECTING TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN IN THERE. 
          >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> I THOUGHT THE SAME, WONDERED 
          IF IT WAS POUTER OR WATER. >> OKAY. 
          >> OKAY. THANK YOU. THIS OLD BUSINESS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC 
          HEARING. >> YEAH, CAN'T REMEMBER IF WE-- I FEEL LIKE WE DID HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING BUT IF YOU WANTED TO REOPEN, YOU ARE FREE TO DO THAT. 
          >> DO I NEED A MOTION OR CAN I JUST OPEN? 
          >> I THINK YOU JUST OPEN. >> IT WAS ADVERTISED IT WOULD BE OPEN PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT? OKAY. I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK 
          ABOUT THIS CONDITIONAL USE. >> GOOD EVENING. ENGINEER FOR 
          [00:05:03]
THE APPLICANT, FIGURED I WOULD GET IT ROLLING. SO, I HAVE A LIST OF SEVERAL DISCUSSION POINTS FROM THE LAST TIME Y'ALL SAW THIS, AS Y'ALL REMEMBER, ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT WE NEEDED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WAS GET A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE. WE HAVE DONE THAT. I BELIEVE DAN HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT. I DON'T KNOW-- I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WAS PROVIDED TO Y'ALL IN THE PACKET OR IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW SOME OF THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THAT. IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THAT AFTER THIS, I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER SOME OF THOSE. LONG STORY SHORT, WITH THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, THIS IS A PRETTY-- EXPECTED TO BE A PRETTY LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT WITH REGARDS TO TRAFFIC MINT CREEK, SPECIAL GARDEN INN THAT DOESN'T HAVE MUCH TRAFFIC AT THE MOST AND EAST WOOD AVENUE, NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE WE WERE ABLE TO PICK UP AND THERE WERE NO WARRANTS FOR IMPROVEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WERE FOUND AS PART OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY. I THINK THE BIG ONE EVERYBODY WAS WORRIED ABOUT WAS RIGHT THERE AT EAST GLEN LEFT TURNS COMING OUT OF THERE. 
          BUT FROM AN ANALYSIS IT DOESN'T WARRANT A SIGNAL SO ANY IMPROVEMENTS LIKE THAT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE, WOULD HAVE TO BE DIRECTED BY COUNCIL OR ENGINEERING SERVICES, JUMP IN IF I AM MISSPEAKING ON ANY OF IT. I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE MAIN POINT OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT. THERE WERE ONLY MITIGATION PIECE THAT WAS IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS THEY DID RECOMMEND A STOP SIGN AT THE TERMINAL HILTON GARDEN DRIVE, BEHIND THE WAFFLE AND THAT DOES NOT EXIST, WE WOULD NOT HAVE ISSUE PUTTING A STOP SIGN AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          OTHER THINGS I WAUNTDED TO TOUCH ON WITH REGARDS TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED ORIGINALLY, REID DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING, SEVERAL OF THOSE, DANA, I THINK YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE BOTTLING 
          PLANT. >> RIGHT. 
          >> WE NOT DOING THAT. THE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN WAS BROUGHT UP. WE ARE NOT SAYING THERE COULD NEVER BE A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, BUT, AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE-- 
          >> YOU WILL HAVE TO COME BACK. >> THEY WOULD COME BACK FOR IF THERE WAS A TENANT. THERE WILL BE ON SITE MANAGEMENT AND THEY HAVE GOT TWO OR THREE OTHER FACILITIES WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER THAT DO SIMILAR THINGS, THEY JUST DIDN'T HAVE ON THE TENANT LIST. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEIR TENANTS IN THE OTHER FACILITIES ARE MORE STRAIGHT COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE. THE TENANT LIST YOU HAVE HERE WOULD BE THE OTHER TENANTS THEY HAVE, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THEM DO NOT MEET THE USE, WE ARE JUST LOOKING FOR CONDITIONAL USES. I I THINK THEIR INTENT WOULD BE MOST LIKELY BUILD THE FACILITY, I THINK THEY HAVE GOT ENOUGH BACKING JUST FOR WHAT THEY WOULD EXPECT FROM PURE OFFICE USE STANDPOINT, TO BE ABLE DO IT WITHOUT SOME CONDITIONAL USES BUT OBVIOUSLY IT MAKES SENSE TO GET SOME OF THESE UP FRONT. ONCE AGAIN, THE OFFICE SPACE WAS BY RIGHT. TRUCK TRAFFIC, LOADING DOCKS, NO LOADING DOCKS HAVE BEEN ADDED. I KNOW THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE MEETING. THERE ARE NO LOADING SPACES ON THE SITE. ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE DELIVERED TO ONE OF THE BUSINESSES WOULD BE TRANSIENT LIKE YOU WOULD ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL, YOU KNOW, OFFICE SPACE. NO OUTDOOR STORAGE WITH ANY CONTRACTOR USES, I KNOW THAT IS NOT IN THERE AND WE ARE NOT INTENDING DO ANY OF THAT. I MENTIONED ON SITE MANAGEMENT. 
          THERE WERE A COUPLE OTHER THINGS . THE ESTHETICS OF THE BUILDING WERE SOMETHING ELSE BROUGHT UP ORIGINALLY AT THE MEETING. I WAS MISTAKEN WHEN WE CAME IN HERE ORIGINALLY ABOUT THIS WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE CITY'S OVERLAY REGULATIONS. ACTUALLY, BECAUSE WE HAVE ACCESS TO THAT LIGHT RIGHT THERE BY WAFFLE HOUSE, THAT TECHNICALLY IS PROPERTY, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE QUARTER OVERLY REGULATIONS. THE OTHER FACILITIES THEY INTEND TO MIMIC WITH THIS WOULD MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THEY ARE MASONRY ON THE EXTERIOR, THEY HAVE A LOT OF GLASS ON THE FRONT OF THESE. THAT WAS SOMETHING ELSE I WANTED TO THROW OUT THERE. THAT WOULD BE HANDLED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS AND DOCUMENTED AND ALL THAT. THOSE WERE THE POINTS I WANTED TO HIT. BUT, AGAIN, Y'ALL GOT ANY OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS A WHILE, SO, PLEASE, LET ME KNOW. HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, COMMISSIONERS, 
          [00:10:02]
          COMMENTS? >> JUST SO I AM CLEAR, THE ONLY TRAFFIC MITIGATION IS THE STOP SIGN BY THE WAFFLE HOUSE? 
          >> DAN, YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT? 
          >> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL THE MITIGATION WILL BE AT THIS POINT. SO, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF TALKING WITH THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER, WE SENT COMMENTS, THEY SENT FEEDBACK, AS SOON AS WE GET THE REST OF THE INFORMATION WE WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANY, MITIGATION THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE. 
          >> THAT WOULD BE IN DRT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. 
          >> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, TELL ME A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR A LIGHT AT EAST GLEN. I AM CONCERNED THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION ALREADY AND IF WE ARE JUST SAYING ADD MORE TRAFFIC AND THERE IS NO IMPACT, I AM KIND OF HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THAT. IS THAT SOMETHING? I GUESS THE TRAFFIC STUDY WILL SAY WHETHER WE NEED IT OR INDICATE THAT. CAN WE, AS A MUNICIPALITY, PUT A LIGHT IN THERE IF WE DECIDE WE NEED TO DO THAT? 
          >> WE CAN. THAT IS A CITY ROAD. I WILL LET, IF BRANDY IS WILLING, I WILL LET HER SPEAK IN DETAIL HOW THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORK AND WHEN THEY CAN GO IN. 
          >> THANKS. >> SORRY. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME UP HERE. SO, YEAH, TRAFFIC SIGNALS ARE WARRANTED BASED ON FEDERAL GUIDELINES, AND IF THEY MEET THOSE WARRANT CRITERIA, THEN THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO MAKE THE INSTALLATION. IF, THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT IS, OR THROUGH THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, IT IS SHOWN IT WOULD BE WARRANTED, THEN, YES, WE WOULD MAKE THAT A CONDITION OF OPENING THIS PROJECT. AS TO YOUR QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY CAN DO IT, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT ANY GIVEN TIME. SO, THE CITY DOES HAVE 
          THAT AUTHORITY AS WELL. >> WHAT WOULD THEY-- IF THEY WERE TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION AND TRY TO GET ONE APPROVED, WHAT SORT OF INFORMATION DO THEY NEED? WHAT WOULD THEY BASE IT 
          ON? >> THE CITY COUNCIL? 
          >> YEAH. >> IT WOULD BE BASED ON THE 
          WARRANT ANALYSIS, TYPICALLY. >> DOES THAT INCLUDE DATA THAT HAS TO DO WITH PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS THAT HAPPENED? 
          >> IT CAN. THERE ARE ABOUT EIGHT WAYS TO WARRANT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL. ONE OF THOSE LOOK AT COLLISION HISTORY AT THE INTERSECTION, AND MODIFICATION S TO WARRANT THAT. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, THANKS. >> THAT ALSO, WHEN LOOK AT COLLISION HISTORY, THEY LOOKED AT THAT FOR THE LIGHT THERE AT 
          BENT CREEK AS WELL. >> THE ONE AT BENT CREEK AND 
          GLEN? THE EXISTING LIGHT? >> YEAH, EXISTING LIGHT THERE. 
          WHERE YOU CAN TURN INTO WAFFLE HOUSE, OR WHEREVER. 
          >> SO, COLLISION HISTORY WAS NOT PROVIDED AT THAT LOCATION BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXISTING SIGNAL THERE. SO, WE DID NOT PROVIDE COLLISION DATA FOR THAT BUT WE DID PROVIDE IT FOR THE HILTON GARDENS AT GLEN INTERSECTION. 
          >> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> WHOSE DOCUMENT THIS SHOWED UP ON MY DESK AND I WAS WONDERING, I WANT EXPLANATION. 
          >> THAT IS THE USES, RIGHT? LIKE, YEAH, YEAH. 
          >> DEVELOPER? >> YEAH THAT IS TENANT LIST THEY 
          SHARED. >> FROM AN E-MAIL I CREATED. 
          >> CORRECT. >> SO THIS A LISTING OF POTENTIAL USES, CONTRACTORS THAT HAVE USES THAT ARE--ER END OF 
          THE FACILITY. >> NO, SO, LIKE THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, THEY ARE MIMICKING OTHER FACILITIES LIKE THIS AND THOSE ARE THEIR EXISTING TENANT LIST. SO, THE CONTEXT IS WE HAD TR PRE-ADMIN MEETING THEY DISCUSSED MULTIPLE USES THEY WERE LOOKING AT, THAT IS ONE OF THE REQUESTS STAFF HAD WAS PROVIDE THE EXISTING TENANT LIST OF THE BUSINESSES THAT HAD-- 
          >> LIKE MOST LIKELY-- >> CORRECT. CORRECT. 
          >> NOT PEOPLE WHO NECESSARILY REACHED OUT, JUST SOMETHING THEY ARE EXPECTING THE MARKET THEY ARE TARGETING. 
          >> LIKE PRE-APPROVALED CONDITIONAL USE SO EACH APPLICANT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO COME BEFORE US, CORRECT? 
          >> RIGHT. YEAH. RIGHT. BECAUSE THE BIGGEST PART OF THE CONVERSATION WAS TRYING TO WRAP OUR ARMS AROUND WHAT THE SCOPE OF USES WERE GOING TO BE GOING ON IN THE FACILITY AND THE SCALE AND RANGE OF THE TENANTS THEY HAD. SO, THEY FINALLY DID PROVIDE IT BUT WANTED TO PROVIDE WITH YOU ALL BECAUSE IT CAME UP IN THE PACKET MEETING ABOUT WHAT WERE THE TENANTS THEY WERE ENTERTAINING. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> NO. 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION. AND THIS IS, BECAUSE JENNIFER HAS BROUGHT 
          [00:15:03]
THIS UP BEFORE, AS THIS BEING A MAJOR CORRIDOR INTO AUBURN, CAN YOU SPEAK TO, I GUESS THE APPLICANT, WHAT IS YOUR BUFFERING AROUND? WHAT IS IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE AROUND THIS? IT IS A MARRIAGE COMING INTO, INSTEAD OF SEEING LIKE WAREHOUSE-TYPE THINGS THERE. I KNOW WE HAVE SLOPPING AROUND THERE, WE HAVE SAM 'S AND THINGS LIKE THAT BUT NOW WE WILL HAVE A LITTLE WAREHOUSE, TO ME, THAT IS WHAT IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE TO 
          ME. >> SO, I GUESS-- 
          >> I KNOW THERE ARE CITY GUIDELINES AND THINGS BUT WHAT 
          WILL IT LOOK LIKE AROUND IT? >> SO, I GUESS FOR YOUR ANSWER, BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS ARE OFTEN TIMES DRIVEN BY LAND USE, IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY. I THINK THE ODD THING ON THISSER THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING OUR EVERYTHING AROUND IT WILL BE INTENSE WITH THE CAR WASH, EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND GAS STATION AND HOTEL AND RESTAURANT, BUT I THINK TO THE SOUTH OF Y'ALL EVERYTHING IS VACANT. THAT WILL BE AN ADD ONE WHERE THERE IS REALLY BIG, REALLY BIG DESPAIRTY IN WHAT LAND USE INTENSITY IS. THAT IS NORMALLY WHAT ENDS UP DRIVING IT FROM THE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS SO THAT COULD BE FIVE FEET TO 20 FEET AND KIND OF THE DIFFERENT FENCES AND THINGS. 
          THAT IS WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY CODE AND WHAT DRIVES IT IS LAND USE. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT WHATEVER-- THAT IS A BUFFER YARD. THERE IS CLADING REQUIREMENTS. 
          >> YEAH. >> CLEAR CUT. ARE YOU TAKING 
          EVERYTHING OUT? >> OKAY. 
          >> YOUR VISION OF WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE. 
          >> ONE IS THE CLEAR CUT, I WILL SPEAK TO THAT. THERE IS NOT A WHOLE LOT THERE NOW. SO THIS WHOLE, WHAT IS THAT? EASTERN SIDE OF HILTON GARDEN DRIVE, I THINK THIS ALL WAS DEVELOPED, READY 20-SOMETHING YEARS AGO WHEN THE HILTON GARDEN INN WAS ORIGINALLY PUT IN. THE LOTS THAT HAVEN'T DEVELOPED YET, PRIMARILY THEY ARE AT KIND OF MAJOR THOROUGHFAIR INTO AUBURN PART OF THE REASON I THINK THEY HAVEN'T DEVELOPED IS VISIBILITY. THEY DON'T HAVE GREAT VISIBILITY FROM GLEN AT ALL BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATION DIFFERENCES, AND IT IS LOWER THAN BENT CREEK SIX TO TEN FEET, DEPENDING WHERE YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT. WHENEVER THEY PAD GRADED ALL OF THIS, THEY JUST DID THE BARE MINIMUM AND, AGAIN, NO FAULT OF ANYBODY'S, IT IS ALL THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO, THE MINIMUM COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR STABILIZATION AFTER YOU-- PROBABLY SEEDED IT, SINCE THEN IT IS PRETTY SCRUBBY IF YOU LOOK OVER THERE, IF THERE ARE ANY TREES, THEY HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, IT IS PROBABLY SCRUB PONDS THAT WENT IN, YOU KNOW, JUST BY ACCIDENT OVER THE YEARS, WHILE THAT THING WAS GROWING UP AND LEFT VACANT. WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, WE WOULD PROBABLY MULCH EVERYTHING, CLEAR AND GRUB IT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN THERE, THERE IS AN OUTLINE AROUND THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. ALSO ENCOMPASSES PART OF THE BACKAGE ROAD. WE WOULD CLEAR FOR THE MOST PART, AND ALL OF THE BUFFERS THAT WE MENTIONED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCE FOR LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. IT WILL LOOK A LOT BETTER THAN IT DOES NOW FROM A LANDSCAPING PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE IT IS ALL GOING TO BE CLEAN, IT WILL HAVE A GREEN PERIMETER. WE ARE GOING TO MEET WHATEVER THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ARE ON THE PERIMETER BASED ON LAND USE INTENSITY. AS FAR AS THE WAREHOUSE LOOK, THE STRUCTURE OF THESE WILL BE PREENGINEERED METAL BUILDINGS, I KNOW YOU'LL A FAMILIAR. THE CLADING ON THE OUTSIDE WILL NOT BE THE CORRUGATED METAL PANEL WITH THE EXPOSED FASTNERS AND ALL THAT STUFF. IT IS GOING TO HAVE CMU MASONRY ON THE OUTSIDE, SO BLOCK, BUT IT WILL BE AN ARCHITECTURAL BLOCK. IT WILL BE A NICE, CLEAN LOOK. MOST OF THEIR OTHER FACILITIES ARE PAINTED BLOCK, AGAIN, THAT WOULD MEET THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS. I THINK A LOT OF THE STUFF AT WAFFLE HOUSE, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, I THINK WAFFLE HOUSE IS RED BRICK AND I THINK SPLIT PLACE BLOCK ON THE BOTTOM. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE RED BRICK BUT IT WILL BE SIMILAR MASONRY MATERIAL. WE THINK IT WILL BE A NICE, CLEAN LOOK, WE HAVE CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS OCH WHAT IT WILL BE NOW. AGAIN, THIS IS A COMPUTER GENERATED MODEL, SO, THE BLUE WOULD BE MORE OF LIKE ARCHITECTURALNER SUILATED METAL PANEL. OTHER EXISM ALS OF THAT, NOT IN COLOR BUT OTHER EXAMPLES BE WOULD BE THE SCIENCE CENTER. 
          THE WHITE, IT DOESN'T COME THROUGH, BECAUSE OF THE SCALE, BECAUSE SO YOU CAN'T SEE THE JOINTS BUT WOULD BE CONCRETE MASONRY. THE ROLL UP DOOR S YOU ARE SEEING ARE INTENDED TO BE 
          [00:20:05]
GLASS, SO GLAZING. THERE IS LOT OF THAT GOING ON. IN OTHER MARKETS. WE HAVE DONE SEVERAL IN BIRMINGHAM AND THEY LOOK NICE WHEN THEY ARE DONE. THAT IS THE INTENT. THERE IS ALSO INTERIOR LANDSCAPING, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE GOT STREET TREES UP AGAINST THE BUILDING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE WILL MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE. DOES THAT HELP? I FEEL LIKE I AM 
          RAMBLING. >> YEAH. 
          >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CU2025-052. 
          >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. 
          >> ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED? >> AYE. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> NOMINATE REESE. 
          >> I THOUGHT THEY SAID ROLL CALL. 
          [CONSENT AGENDA]
          >> UM, OKAY, NEXT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE HAVE APPROVAL OF PACKET MINUTES DECEMBER AND REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, FINAL PLAT-NORTHGATE, SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT WEBSTER AND PROSPER 
          PLAINSMAN LAKE TWO. >> MOVE TO APPROVE. 
          >> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 
          [5. Rezoning – Bent Brooke, Phase 2, Lots 51 & 52 – PUBLIC HEARING ]
          >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? 
          >> ON TO NEW BUSINESS. >> GOOD EVENING. THIS NEXT REQUEST FOR YOU IS A RECOMMENDATION CITY COUNCIL TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY SIX ACRES TO LIMITED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, IT IS CURRENTLY IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTYERIZE LOCATED 2591 AND 2595 GLEN BROOKE DRIVE, PHASE TWO OF THE SUBDIVISION. BENT BROOKE PHASE ONE WAS REZONED FROM RURAL TO LDZ IN 20, SORRY, 2004, THEN PHASE TWO IS FOUR-LOT SUBDIVISION. THESE LOTS AT THAT TIME, THIS WAS ONE LOT, AND IT WAS REZONED IN 2018. THE REMAINING SIX ACRES HERE, THERE ARE CURRENTLY TWO HOMES CONSTRUCTED. THE APPLICANT IS WISHING TO SUBDIVIDE-- LET ME MOVE PAST THESE-- THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION SHOWING HOW THEY MAY SUBDIVIDE IT OR HOW THEY WOULD LIKELY SUBDIVIDE IT AND THE HOME WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED HERE ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE LOT. THERE IS A LARGE ALABAMA POWER EASEMENT ON THE EASTERN PORTION. STAFF HAS NO CONCERNS WITH THE REQUEST, CONSIDERING THE REMAINING PROPERTY SURROUNDING IS LDD ALREADY, IT IS A PRACTICAL REZONING REQUEST. 
          >> I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          >> COMING DOWN THE SAME FLAG LOT? 
          >> THEY WOULD SHARE ACCESS FROM THAT FLAG, THAT STEM, YES. 
          >> COMING OFF OF-- >> THEY WOULD NOT-- 
          >> ONE ADDITIONAL? >> YES. 
          >> OKAY. >> NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          >> AT ALL. >> NO. 
          >> THEY HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING THREE ACRE LOT. 
          >> YES, AND IT IS IN THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICTMENT THEY WILL BE RESTRICTED TO CONVENTIONAL 
          SUBDIVISION ONLY. >> OKAY. PERFECT. 
          >> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THAT AT THIS TIME, IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT BENT BROOKE PHASE TWO, PLEASE COME FORWARD. 
          >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS TIM, A RESIDENT AND MEMBER OF THE BOARD ON H SHGS A OF THE BENT BROOKE NEIGHBORHOOD. 2586 GLEN BROOKE DRIVE, THREE HOUSES DOWN FROM THE ENTRANCE OF THIS PROPOSED PLAN. I HAVE GATHERED A COLLECTIVE INFORMATION FROM A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOOD WHO WEREN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT SO I WILL SPEAK ON BEHALF OF EVERYBODY. I AM HERE TO FORMALLY VOICE STRONG OPPOSITION TO CASE RZ2025-209, PROPOSED REZONING OF THE SIX-ACRE PROPERTY AT 2595 GLEN BROOKE DRIVE, WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE DET RIMENTAL TO OUR COMMUNITY. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, PARTICULARLY IN THE CUL-DE-SAC ALREADY HAS STRUGGLES WITH HIGH VOLUME TRAFFIC, DAILY CONGESTION 
          [00:25:07]
AND SAFETY HAZARDS. INCREASING HOUSING DENSITY WILL INCREASE THE TRAFFIC, POSING A RISK. DEGROGATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND PROPERTY VALUES, WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED THE REZONING WILL NEGATIVELY ALTER THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS CHANGES NOT IN LINE WITH OUR CURRENT FEEL AND DESIGN OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THREATENS TO DECREASE THE PROPERTY VALUES. FINALLY, I MUST BRING UP THE APPLICANT'S HISTORY OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY. THE APPLICATION FOR THIS REZONING BY MICHAEL AND ANELT HOLT DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF FAILING TO ADHERE TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT A MINOR ISSUE, IT IS ABOUT THE FUNDAMENTAL DISREGARD OF THE STANDARDS AND ALL OF THE RESIDENTS, FOR ALL RESIDENTS THAT ABIDE TO PROTECT OUR INVESTMENT AND COMMUNITY. I HAVE SENT A PICTURE, I ALSO HAVE THIS SHOWING-- 
          >> I GUESS, IF, SORRY, CAN YOU JUST GO TO THAT EXHIBIT? SO, NORMALLY, LIKE THE REASON WE FORCE THAT, WE REQUEST PEOPLE TO SEND THINGS IN, WE SCREEN THEM AND THERE IS A WHOLE THING, BUT 
          THIS IS THE PICTURE YOU HAD. >> YES, SIR. 
          >>POLOGIZE FOR MISCOMMUNICATION, AS YOU LOOK HOAR, THIS IMAGE IS SURROUNDED BY THE CENTER PICTURE SHOWING ESTABLISHED ARCHITECTURAL OF NEIGHBORHOOD, TRADITIONAL BRICK AND STONE CREATED COHESIVE COMMUNITY. IN THE CENTER IS THE HOUSE THE APPLICANTS HAVE BUILT IN THE PAST. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS MODERN, WHITE, FARM HOUSE STYLE, STARK CONTRAST TO EVERY OTHER HOME. I THINK IT IS A GOOD LOOKING HOUSE, HOWEVER IT DOESN'T MATCH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS WAS BUILT IN A DIRECT OPPOSITION, THIS COM BINED WITH OTHER VIOLATIONS, LIKE A NON-PAVED DRIVEWAY, DEMONSTRATES A CLEAR PATTERN OF UNWILLINGNESS TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND ESTABLISH STANDARDS. THIS MAKES US QUESTION IF THEY WON'T FOLLOW THE EXISTING COVENANTS FOR A SINGLE HOME, WHY WOULD THEY EXPECT TO ADHERE TO THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PROJECT. FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, EXISTING TRAFFIC, THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN, THE POTENTIAL HARM OF PROPERTY VALUES, AND DISREGARD FOR COMMUNITY STANDARDS, WE FIRMLY BELIEVE THE PROPOSAL IS NOT INBEST INTEREST OOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE AND URGE AND CONSIDER THE IMPACT AND DENY THE REZONING AND REQUEST OF CASE RZ2025-029. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND 
          CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU. PLEASE SIGN IN IF 
          YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> HELLO. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. COMMISSION, FELLOW CITIZENS, MY NAME IS BRANDON MILLER, WE LEAVE IN THE BENT BROOKE NEIGHBORHOOD, LOT 44, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO LOTS 51 AND 52 THAT ARE REQUESTING THE REZONING OF THE LDD. THIS AFTERNOON I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WHY MY FAMILY AND NEIGHBORS ARE PASSIONATELY OPPOSED TO THE REZONING. I WILL USE THREE POINTS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I ONLY GOT FIVE MINUTES. NUMBER ONE WOULD BE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE HOME OWNERS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. THEY WILL BE NEGATIVE LY AFFECTED. NO WAY AROUND THAT. 
          THE FIRST MAP DIDN'T SHOW IT BUT THE SECOND HOUSE ON LOT 52, 
          IF YOU COULD SHOW MY PICTURES. >> YEAH, THEY ARE THE NEXT ONES, 
          THERE WE GO. >> HERE WE GO. THIS IS FROM MY BACKYARD. THIS IS THE HOUSE THEY BUILT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO REGARD TO PRIVACY. THERE IS NO PRIVACY SCREENING, AS YOU CAN SEE. ZERO. 
          AND THIS HAS DIRECTLY AFFECTED OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. THEY DECIDED TO FACE THE HOME DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE BACK OF OUR HOME, SO WE CAN LITERALLY SEE DIRECTLY INTO THEIR HOUSE. WE CAN SEE DIRECTLY INTO SEVERAL ROOMS OF THIS HOME FROM OUR LIVING ROOM, FROM OUR DINING ROOM, FROM MY HOME OFFICE, AND FROM OUR BEDROOM. WE HAVE TRIED TO INSTALL PRIVACY SCREENING ON OUR OWN, BUT WE HAVE FAILED TO REGAIN A RESEMBLANCE OF THE PRIVACY THIS HOME ONCE HAD FOR 19 YEARS. THIS HOME ON LOT 52 IS 
          [00:30:02]
ALMOST FOUR YEARS OLD, AND STILL NO PRIVACY SCREENING HAS BEEN INSTALLED. WE HAVE ENDURED A SHOCKING LACK OF PRIVACY DUE TO THIS. IT IS ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING. THIS IS ALL FROM THE SAME PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE ASKING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP MORE HOUSES BEHIND MY NEIGHBORS, WHO ARE GOOD FRIENDS OF MINE. NUMBER TWO, COMMON SENSE. VOTING YES TO THIS REZONING WOULD ALLOW ONE PROPERTY OWNER TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT FIVE PROPERTY, ADJACENT PROPERTY OTHER THANS. IT WOULD ASSUME ONE NON-PAVED DRIVEWAYS, JUST ONE DRIVEWAY, THIS COULD PRESENT UNWANTED AND NOISY TRAFFIC BEHIND OUR HOME, AND DUE TO THE FACT THERE IS NO BERM, NO BARRIER, OR ANY PRIVACY PROTECTION OF ANY KIND, THIS WILL COMPEL EXISTING HOME OWNERS TO PAY OUT OF POCKET TO INSURE THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE AND PRIVACY ISN'T TAKEN BY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT. FURTHERMORE, WE FEEL THE CITY WON'T BE ABLE TO SERVICE THESE HOUSES, TRASH CAN'T BE PICKED UP AT THESE PROPERTIES, LEAF AND LIMB CANNOT SERVICE THE PROPERTIES, IF THERE WAS A FIRE, I AM NOT SURE A FIRE TRUCK COULD GET BACK THERE. 
          REZONING COULD BE DISASTROUS. LASTLY, MY THIRD POINT, PROPERTY VALUE. AS A BOARD MEMBER, I AM A BOARD MEMBER OF THE BENT BROOKE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, I HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE HOME OWNERS IN PHASE ONE. I HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THEM WHEN IT COMES TO THE GREATEST INVESTMENT ONE CAN MAKE IN THE BEAUTIFUL CITY OF AUBURN, ALABAMA. THE LOT OWNERS HAVE SHOWN DISREGARD FOR NEIGHBOR CONCERNS OF PRIVACY AND THEREFORE I DON'T KNOW ANY FAITH THAT THEY WILL CONSIDER OTHER NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS AND PRIVACY WITH ONGOING DEVELOPMENT. WE BELIEVE IF YOU APPROVE THIS REZONING, OUR HOMES WILL BE ALL NEGATIVELY AFFECTED. 
          CHANGING THE ZONING NOW AFTER THESE HOMES AND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS, SEEMS LIKE A TERRIBLY UNFAIR HARDSHIP FOR MY FELLOW HOME OWNERS OF BENT BROOKE TO UNDER TAKE, HAD WE REALIZED THESE LOTTED WOULD BE RECONSIDERED FOR REZONING, WE WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT THE HOME. IF YOU ARE UNSURE OF YOUR VOTE, I IMPLORE YOU TO COME TO MY HOUSE AND WALK OUT MY BACK DOOR SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT REZONING WOULD ALLOW AND WHAT THE CALAMITY, ABSOLUTE CALAMITY OF BENT BROOKE PHASE TWO ALLOWED TO ME AND MY FAMILY. 
          IN CLOSING, I HUMBLY ASK YOU ALL TO VOTE UNANIMOUSLY NO ON THE REZONING OF 2595 GLEN BROOKE DRIVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME 
          AND CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD? 
          >> GOOD EVENING. I AM DANNY TANKER, I LIVE AT 1101, WE HOME WILL BE EXACTLY ADANT TO THE NEW CORRECTION. STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF LOTS 51 AND 52. LIKE I SAID, I AM EXACTLY ADJACENT TO THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. I E-MAILED EACH OF YOU MY CONCERNS ALONG WITH AN ATTACHED DOCUMENT SHOWING MOST OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO ALABAMA POWER EASEMENT AND THE WET WEATHER CREEK ON THE PROPERTY, I THINK ALL OF THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE DEMONSTRATION THAT THE PRESENTER GAVE. THE HOLT FAMILY, WHOSE PRIMARY RESIDENCE SEEMS TO BE FLORIDA OR THEIR MAILING ADDRESS ALREADY HAS TWO HOUSES ON THE PROPERTY, I THANK YOU THEY HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT. AND IS THE OPINION OF MANY ADJOINING HOME OWNERS A THIRD AND FOURTH HOME IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH IDEALS AND PLANS, FOR EAST LAKE, THIS IS NESTLED BETWEEN THOSE TWO LOVELY NEIGHBORHOODS. THE WELL ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER, MATURE TREES, LIMITED ACCESS, AND STRONG COVENANT DESIGNED TO PROTECT SAFETY, COMPATIBILITY AND PROPERTY VALUES. HOME OWNERS LIKE ME PURCHASED THEIR NEARLY TWO DECADES AGO, I LIVED THERE 19 YEARS. WE RELY ON GOOD FAITH ON THE EXISTING ZONING AND UNDERSTANDING THIS PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED OR INTENSIFIED. THIS REZONING 
          [00:35:02]
WOULD INTRODUCE INCREASED DENSITY, TRAFFIC, AND NOISE DIRECTLY BEHIND ECISTING HOMES. MY PROPERTY LINE IS, MY HOUSE IS 50 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS WOULD ELIMINATE CRITICAL DEGREE BUFFERS, REDUCE PRIVACY AND CREATE SAFETY CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY WHERE CHILDREN REGULARLY PLAY. IT WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT PROPERTY VALUES AND FORCE HOME OWNERS TO INCUR ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR BUFFERING AND LANDSCAPING. FOR THESE REASONS WE RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO DENY THE REQUEST. I URGE YOU TO HAVE THE HOLT'S PUT IN A PROPER PAVED AND CAN CURBED STREET FOR ACCESS TO THE LOTS OR THE CITY SHOULD ALLOW ACCESS FOR MORESMILL ROAD . THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY CURRENTLY USED FOR ACCESS IS UNSIGHTLY, NOISY, AND REMINISCENT OF SOMETHING IN THE COUNTY. NOT OUR PROPERTY.PLEASE VOTE NOE NO ON THIS. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU YOU. 
          >> GOOD EVENING, I AM CAMILLE RAI, 1101 HUNTING CREEK COURT, YOU JUST HEARD FROM MY HUSBAND, NORMALLY I DON'T THINK IT APPROPRIATE FOR HUSBAND AND WIFE TO SPEAK. WE HAVE DIFFERENT POINTS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE AND ALSO, WE ARE THE ONES BEING THE MOST AFFECTED BY THIS. SO, I WANT TO URGE YOU TO FORMALLY AND, I MEAN I FORMALLY AND EMPHATICALLY IMPOSE THIS . AS YOU SAW BENT BROOKE IS LOVELY, QUIET, THERE IS A COMMON ARCHITECTURE, YOU HAVE SEEN THAT. I WON'T REHASH THAT BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE ENTRANCE INTO THE BENT BROOK NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE IS NO EGRESS FROM ANY DEVELOPMENT ON TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD DRIVE OTHER THAN GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN LOT 51, ALL THE WAY DOWN LOT 52 AND COMING OUT ON THE FAR END. BENT BROOKE HAS STRONG HOA AND THESE EXIST TO PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, COMPATIBILITY AND OUR PROPERTY VALUES AS BRANDON SAID. HOMES SELL QUICKLY AND INCREASING PRICES BECAUSE IT IS A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE. MY HUSBAND PURCHASED HIS PROPERTY 19 YEARS AGO, AND HE PURCHASED THEM WITH ASSURANCE THAT THE ZONES WERE IN PLACE, KNOWING WHAT HE WAS BUYING WHEN HE BOUGHT IT. SO ALL THE LOTS INCLUDING LOTS 51 AND 52 WERE SOLD WITH THAT CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF ZONING LAWS. 
          HOME OWNERS, LIKE MY HUSBAND, MADE THAT SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT INTO THEIR HOME KNOWING THAT, I MEAN, WHEN HE BOUGHT, HE KNEW AT MOST ONLY ONE OTHER HOME COULD BE BUILT THERE. THE HOME OWNERS OF LOT 52 AND 52 KNEW THIS WHEN THEY BOUGHT. SO THEY WERE WITH THE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE ZONE WAS WHEN THEY PURCHASED. CHANGING THAT NOW VIOLATES HIS GOOD FAITH IN PURCHASING THAT HOME AND HIS REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS THAT THE ZONING WOULD REMAIN. IT IS LIKE, TO ME, CHANGING RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF A GAME, BECAUSE ONE PLAYER WANTS TO DO THAT. IF REZONING IS APPROVED AND DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED BEHIND OUR HOME, AS THEY SAID, IT WILL BE IMMEDIATE AND SEVERE, CONSTRUCTION, AND ONGOING USE WOULD INTRODUCE PERSISTENT NOISE, LITERALLY JUST FEET FROM OUR BACK DOOR, AND ELIMINATING THE MATURE TREE S, WHICH PROVIDES OUR ONLY BUFFER FROM THERE TO MORESMILL ROAD. YOU KNOW, THE TRAFFIC PATTERN THERE IS INCREASING DRAMATICALLY. IT IS DEFINITELY GOING TO DECREASE OUR PROPERTY VALUE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, AS BRANDON SAID, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO INVEST, AGAIN, WHICH WE ALREADY INVESTED ONE TIME, IN ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TO PROVIDE OUR OWN BUFFER BETWEEN US AND THE HOME THAT HAS CURRENTLY BEEN BUILT BUT WE WILL HAVE TO DO THE WHOLE OTHER SIDE BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A BUFFER. THAT IS LOT OF OUT OF POCKET MONEY FOR US. WE PURCHASED UNDER CURRENT LAW. EQUALLY CONCERNING IS THE ACCESS AND, A I SAID, THERE IS NO EGRESS. THE DRIVEWAY IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE END. THERE IS THAT CONCERN ABOUT EMERGENCY VEHICLES ET CETERA. DON'T GET ME WRONG Y AM FOR THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO USE THE PROPERTY UNDER CURRENT LAWS AS THEY SEE FIT. BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE BUYING WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT. WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE BUYING WHEN WE BOUGHT IT. TO CHANGE THAT IS UNFAIR. SO ALLOWING THE ZONING CHANGES AFTER HOME OWNERS RELIED ON ESTABLISH RULED IT ERODES OUR TRUST IN THE PLANNING PROCESS AND REZONING IS GOOD FOR ONE FAMILY, YET DISRUPTS THE LIVES 
          [00:40:03]
OF FIVE OTHERS. FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND THE DENIAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST OF LOTS 51 AND 52. THANK YOU. 
          >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD? SH 
          >> GOOD EVENING, I AM TODD HOLD, THIS IS MY WIFE, TONY, THE 
          APPLICANTS FOR THE APPLICATION. >> YOUR ADDRESS? 
          >> 2595 GLENBROOKE DRIVE. I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THE TWO MOST RELEVANT POINTS FOR THIS REZONING, ONE IS THAT WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING TO DO WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS JUST SOUTH OF US RECENTLY DID, AND THAT IS TO REZONE THEIR RURAL TO THE LDD. 
          SAME EXACT, YOU KNOW, TYPE OF APPLICATION. SECONDLY, WE ARE TURNING THESE-- WE WANT TO TURN THESE LOTS INTO MORE CONSISTENT WITH HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT THAN THE AREA, WE ARE WANTING TO TURN IT INTO LOTS THAT ARE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THESE EXISTING AREA. EVERYTHING, 100% OF EVERYTHING AROUND THE LOTS ARE LDD. WE JUST WANT THIS TO BE CONSISTENT LDD. JUST TO CORRECT A COUPLE THINGS SAID EARLIER, ONE ABOUT HOAVIOLATIONS, THESE LOTS ARE NOT PART OF BENT BROOKE HOA, THESE ARE SEPARATE. THERE ARE NO HOA VIOLATIONS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT PART OF THE HOA. I ALMOST FEEL LIKE I NEEDED TO BRING A CHARACTER WITNESS WITH ME TONIGHT. SO, LIKE I WASN'T HAPPY WHEN THE LOTS BELOW US WERE REZONED, BUT THE FACT IS WE ARE ALL VERY BLESSED TO LIVE IN A WONDERFUL CITY, A WONDERFUL COMMUNITY, AND PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE HERE BECAUSE OF THE GREAT EDUCATION AND FAIR PROPERTY VALUES AND CLIMATE HERE SO HOUSES ARE POPPING UP EVERYWHERE. NO ONE IS EVER HAPPY WHEN THEY CAN LOOK OUT OF THEIR BACKYARD AND SEE GREEN SPACE AND TREES AND BEAUTY, NO ONE IS HAPPY WHEN THAT TURNS INTO A HOUSE, BUT IN A COMMUNITY LIKE THIS, IT HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE DAY. SO, I HATE THAT THEY ARE DISAPPOINT WOULD IT, BUT IT IS SIMPLY JUST ASKING, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DO SOMETHING THAT HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN DONE AND EVEN RECENTLY IN THIS CONTIGUOUS AREA HERE IN TURN ING LOTS INTO SOMETHING MORE CONSISTENT. THE OTHER INCONSISTENCY IS THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE THREE OR FOUR HOUSES, YOU KNOW, THIS IS FOR ONE ADDITIONAL HOUSE. ONE ADDITIONAL HOUSE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT WAS SAID IS JUST NOT ACCURATE. 
          >> HELLO Y AM TONY HOLT. I JUST-- I HAVE ONE QUESTION. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT PARENT WOULD EVER WANT TO STOP ANOTHER PARENT FROM THEIR SON BUILDING NEXT DOOR TO THEM? THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. MY OLDEST SON LIVES NEXT DOOR TO US, HE IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE THAT YOU SAW, IT IS AN ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL HOUSE AND ACTUALLY BRINGS THEIR PROPERTY VALUES UP BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE, AND EVEN BIGGER AND NICER, AND MY OTHER SON WANTS TO LIVE NEXT DOOR. SO, WHAT PARENT WOULD EVER WANT TO STOP A MOM FROM HAVING THEIR SONS NEXT DOOR? SO THAT IS MY 
          ONLY QUESTION. >> I WILL END WITH THE NEIGHBOR DRAMA IS ONE THING, AND IT MAY BE RELEVANT BUT I THINK WHAT IS MOST RELEVANT IS THE PRECEDENT SET WITH LDD LOTS-- 
          >> EXCUSE ME. YEAH, I DON'T REALLY HAVE JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS, LIKE BOTH OF YOU SPLITTING IT UP, SO I GUESS WE-- 
          >> THEY WERE THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS THE REASON I DIDN'T-- 
          >> THAT IS FAIR. THAT IS FAIR, I GUESS. ALL RIGHT. 
          >> OKAY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          >> YES. >> I AM SORRY I HAVEN'T BEFORE NOW. I HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING STILL OPEN. 
          >> SO, I HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SO YOU ARE THE APPLICANT. I REALIZE YOU CAME DURING PUBLIC HEARING, DIDN'T STOP YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE THE APPLICANT BUT I NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF ANYONE THEREIS ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD 
          LIKE TO SPEAK. >> CERTAINLY. THANK YOU. 
          >> IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE WE CLOSE IT? EVERYBODY HAS SPOKEN. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT AND/OR STAFF, PLEASE, 
          [00:45:02]
          ADDRESS THEM NOW. THANK YOU. >> I THINK MY ONLY QUESTION CURRENTLY IS WHAT YEAR DID YOU-- HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED THIS 
          PROPERTY? >> PLEASE COME TO THE MIC. 
          >> WE PURCHASED THE FIRST LOT, PROBABLY 15 YEARS AGO, AND THEN PURCHASED THE SECOND LOT BEHIND IT, MAYBE A YEAR OR TWO AFTER THAT. SO MAYBE 13 YEARS, THE NEW HOUSE THAT IS THERE, I THINK I HEARD SOMEONE SAY IT HAS BEEN THERE FOUR YEARS, IT HAS BEEN 
          THERE TWO YEARS. >> WHICH LOT IS THAT ON? THE NEW 
          HOUSE, IS THAT 51 OR 52? >> 51. 
          >> YEAH. OKAY. >> AND YOUR HOUSE IS ON 52. 
          >> YES, MA'AM. >> THAT WAS THE FIRST LOT YOU 
          PURCHASED. >> CORRECT. 
          >> OKAY. >> SO, CAN I ASK QUESTIONS? 
          >> MY QUESTION IS THIS, SO, RULES ZONING ORDINANCE, ALLOW FOR ONE HOUSE PERTHREE ACRES, THIS IS A SIX-ACRE PROPERTY. 
          WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND CHANGING THE ZONING TO LDD? 
          >> TO PUT ONE ADDITIONAL HOME ON THAT BACK LOT. 
          >> AND YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITH THE CURRENT ZONING THAT WE HAVE? 
          >> IF WE CAN, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW. 
          >> NO. >> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING WE CANNOT. THAT IS WHY WE ARE ASKING-- 
          >> LESS THAN THREE. GOT IT. >> WHERE IS THE SECOND LOT, THE 
          OTHER LOT GOING TO BE ON THAT? >> NO, IT IS THIS ONE. THIS ONE 
          RIGHT HERE. >> THIS IS LOT 51. 
          >> YEAH. >> SINCE, I GUESS IF YOU BACK OUT OF THIS, LIKE GO TO THE-- I GUESS. 
          >> YES. THAT IS BETTER. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, KIND OF TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, STREET FRONTAGE, THE NORTHERN LOT HAS FRONTAGE FROM MORESMILL BUT CANNOT TAKE ACCESS BECAUSE IT IS ARTERIAL. AND TURN LANE ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OF THAT. 
          THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE ACCESS FROM THE STEM. I GUESS THE REQUIRED FRONTAGE FOR EVERYBODY, IT IS DIFFERENT ON CUL-DE-SACS THAN JUST ON STRAIGHT STREETS. FOR THE MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE THAT YOU NEED ON A CUL-DE-SAC IS 25 FEET VERSES NORMALLY YOU WOULD NEED 70, DEPENDING ON THE ZONING DISTRICT, PERFORMANCE, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. SO, EVEN THOUGH THEY WILL BE ABLE TATAKE FRONTAGE OFF AND BE LEGALLY CUM COMPLIANT LOT, THEY WILL HAVE TO ACCESS ACCESS FROM THE ACTUAL STEM. THEN I GUESS TO SPEAK TO SOME CONCERNS THAT SOME FOLKS HAD AROUND FIRE ACCESS AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THOSE THINGS, WHEN WE ACTUALLY PROCESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE PLAT, THOSE WOULD BE THINGS WE WILL ADDRESS THEN. KIND OF ABOUT IF THEY WILL BE FIRE ACCESS FROM THE ROAD OR 
          WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN THERE. >> CAN I SAY THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY PROBLEMS AT ALL WITH UPS OR FED EX, THEY GO STRAIGHT BACK AND THEY LIKE IT BECAUSE I CAN HAVE A LITTLE TURN AROUND, SO THERE HAS BEEN NO PROBLEM WITH ACCESS AND ALSO, THE FACT LITTLE CHILDREN ARE BACK THERE, THERE ARE NO CHILDREN. MY LITTLE GRANDSON, WHO IS TWO, IS THE ONLY CHILD BACK THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY ARE SAYING THERE IS ISSUES WITH CHILDREN PLAYING 
          BACK THERE, BECAUSE WE ARE THE-- >> THAT IS NOT PURVIEW. 
          >> JENNIFER, MR. LOVVORN, DID YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION? 
          >> YES, THANK YOU. >> I MUST HAVE MISSED IT. 
          QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT, COMMISSIONERS? 
          >> TELL ME WHY THIS IS NOT IN THE HOA. 
          >> IT WAS-- THIS PLOT OF LAND, THE FOUR LOTS, MICHAEL DILWORTH DID THIS DEVELOPMENT AND PURCHASED THE INITIAL BENT BROOKE FIRST AND ADDED THESE FOUR LOTS AFTERWARDS AND THEY WERE NEVER PUT INTO THE SAME OFFICIAL H SHGS A OR THE SAME OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT. I AM NOT A HOME BUILDER SO I DON'T BUILD THESE HOMES. MICHAEL DILWORTH, IF IT WERE APPROVED, WE COULD BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE, MICHAEL DILWORTH WOULD BUILD IT AND HE 
          HAS A REALLY GOOD REPUTATION. >> THAT IS NOT-- 
          >> THEM BEING HOA. >> THAT IS SEPARATE MATTER, WE HAVE NOTHING ON THAT. THAT HAS TO GO TO CIVIL COURT. THERE IS 
          NOTHING WE CAN DO HERE. >> SO, IT HAS SURROUNDING LDD AND IT HAS THE REQUEST IS WHAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON IS TO REZONE 
          [00:50:03]
FROM RURAL TO LDD. 
          >> THAT IS JUST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH 100% OF THE LAND THAT IS 
          CONTIGUOUS. >> WHAT IS THE DENSITY? 
          >> PERFORMANCE CAN GO TO FOUR, I THINK IT IS MORE THAN CONVENTIONAL IS LIKE TWO. TWO DWELLING AN ACRE. 
          >> THIS HAS GOT OVERLAY. >> DOESN'T IT? 
          >> PRETTY BIG STICKING POINT, THE REASON, PRETTY MUCH CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT IT IS RESTRICTED ON LOT SIZE IF YOU CANNOT HAVE SEWER. SO, THEN YOU CAN DROP DOWN IN LOT SIZE IF THE LOT DOES HAVE SEWER, AND SO EVEN THOUGH ALL OF THESE, EAST LAKE ARE QUARTER ACRE LOTS, THAT IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE 
          CONSERVATION, THEY HAVE SEWER. >> THANK YOU. Y'ALL CAN BE 
          SEATED. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> BY RIGHT, THEN, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED AND AS LDD, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLINGS THAT CAN GO THERE 
          WITH THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY? >> ONLY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO ONE 
          MORE, PRETTY MUCH. >> ONE ADDITIONAL. 
          >> CORRECT. SO, I KNOW THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE NORMALLY TALK ABOUT, CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT, RESTRICTS AND OFTEN TIMES CONSERVATION OVERLAY IN PLACE WHERES THERE IS NO SEWER, FURTHER DOWN, OTHER SIDE OF SOCIETY HILL, WHERE THE MINIMUM IS THREE ACRES, ESPECIALLY ALSO IN THE WATER SHED, WITH THIS BEING IN THE WATER SHED AND HAVING SEWER ALLOWS THEM TO GO SMALLER AND BE CONTIGUOUS, THAT IS HOW EAST LAKE AND BENT BROOKE ACHIEVED THAT IN OVERLAY, A DIRECT RESULT OF HAVING SEWER. 
          ONE OF THE FEW PLACES, COUPLE OF PLACES IN TOWN, LIKE WHERE THIS IS A THING, WHERE CONSERVATION OVERLAY AND SEWER ALLOW THESE PEOPLE, ALLOW THE RESIDENTS TO REALIZE SMALLER LOT SIZES THAN TRADITIONAL THREE ACRE OR ACRE AND A HALF. 
          >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MOTIONS , COMMENTS? 
          >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE CASE RZ2025-029 PHASE TWO. 
          >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. 
          >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RR? >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED? >> MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. 
          >> AS A REMINDER, REZONINGS ARE APPROVED FINALLY BY THE CITY 
          [6. Preliminary Plat – Asheton Glenn, Phase 2 – PUBLIC HEARING]
          COUNCIL. ER >> ALL RIGHT. SO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR-- 
          >> PAUSE, PLEASE. LETS WAIT AND LET EVERYBODY GET OUT THE DOOR. 
          >> THANK YOU. PLEASE CONTINUE. >> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 11-LOT PERFORMANCE SUBDIVISION, 10 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SLOT, ONE OPEN SPACE LOT, GENERAL LOCATION IS WATERCREST BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 280. THIS IS ASHETON GLEN, HERE IS SECOND PHASE FOR APPROVAL. YOU CAN SEE THAT TO THE NORTH, HIGHWAY 280 IS KIND OF ABUTTING THAT. THERE WILL BE NO LOTS TAKEN OFFER OF THAT AND WITH THAT I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER 
          ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY? I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? 
          THERE WE GO. THANKS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT. 
          >> JON, 2858, ANNANDALE LANE . I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT, THERE IS ONLY ONE LOT THAT IS OPEN SPACE, AND I COULDN'T TELL FROM THE MAP WHICH ONE THAT WAS. CAN SOMEBODY HELP ME WITH THAT? 
          >> WE WILL ANSWER THAT ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. 
          >> OKAY. I REALLY WANTED TO-- IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOT LANDS ON THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT, WHERE OUR LOT IS IN PARTICULAR, IT IS REALLY IRREGULARLY SHAPED TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROXIMITY TO 
          [00:55:01]
THE WETLANDS BEHIND US. , AND IT SEEMS THAT THE LOTS IN THE PROPOSED LOT LANDS HERE THEY ARE NORMAL, TYPICAL, SMALLER LOTS TOWARD S THE STREET ENTRANCE, BUT THEN AS YOU MOVE FURTHER BACK, THEY GET BIGGER AND NOT SURE THE REASON FOR THAT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALL THE HOMES WERE PROPOSED TO BE THE SAME SIZE, THAT ARE SMALLER THAN THE REQUIREMENT FOR OUR EXISTING SUBDIVISION, SO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE PART OF THE SUBDIVISION OF OUR SUBDIVISION BUT DOES CHANGE THE CHARACTER FROM OUR SUBDIVISION FROM INVESTMENT STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT ANYBODY THAT HAS A WOODED VIEW IN THE BACK NEVER WANTS TO SEE THAT GO AWAY. THAT IS UNREALISTIC, I KNOW THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. IT DOESN'T STRIKE ME THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO GET THAT, BUT SOME OF THE LOTS APPEAR TO EXTEND INTO THE WETLANDS, THE GRAY, DARK GRAY AREAS THERE. WHICH WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ALL OF THE LOTS ON OUR SIDE ARE ODD SHAPED BECAUSE WE COULD NOT ENCROACH ON THE WETLANDS SO I AM WONDERING IF WE ARE PLANNING TO DESTROY THAT SECTION OF THE WETLANDS? AND OBVIOUSLY I WOULD BE AGAINST THAT. ARE FOR THAT REASON ALONE, I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU GUYS VOTE THIS DOWN UNTIL A LOT PLAN IS PROVIDED THAT, YOU KNOW, IS ENFORCING THE SAME RESTRICTIONS THAT THE ORIGINAL NEIGHBORHOOD DID TO AVOID WETLANDS. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU, PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO SIGN IN. PLEASE SIGN 
          IN IF YOU HAVEN'T. >> I HAVEN'T. 
          >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, MY NAME IS BENESIA, I LIVE IN AUBURN, ALABAMA. THIS PROPOSED PLAN IS RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE. I AM HERE TO FORMALLY OPPOSE THE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW HOMES BEHIND US. MY HOUSE SITS AT A HIGHER ELEVATION, AND AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PREVIOUS THING, DOES AFFECT PRIVACY. MY MASTER BEDROOM, MY LIVING ROOM, AND MY KITCHEN, EVERYTHING FACES IN THE BACKYARD. SO PRIVACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND WHEN I PURCHASED THIS HOME FOUR YEARS AGO, MY AGENT WAS HELPING ME BUY THE HOUSE, CALLED THE PERSON WHO OWNED THAT LAND AND ASK, BECAUSE THAT WAS MY MAIN CONCERN IF THERE WERE GOING TO BE ANYMORE HOUSES IN THE BACKYARD. AT THAT POINT THEY SAID THERE IS NOTHING THAT COULD COME BECAUSE OF SPACE THERE. MY OTHER CONCERN IS THERE IS A CREEK THAT FLOWS BEHIND US, I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION NOW OR NOT, BUT ARE THERE ANYING TO BE ANY LAND FILLINGS? IF THEY DO, THE CREEK IS GOING TO MOVE IN OUR BACKYARD. 
          >> WE WILL ANSWER AFTER PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. 
          >> OKAY. BECAUSE THE WAY OUR HOUSE IS DESIGNED IS UP ON ELEVATION, BUT ALL THE WATER FROM THE COMMUNITY COMES DOWN AND OUR BACK YARD STAYS FLOODED DURING HEAVY RAINS. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT PICTURES, I WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IT, BUT THAT IS MY 
          ONLY POINT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, PLEASE SIGN IN. 
          ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, IF WE CAN GET THE ANSWERS ABOUT OPEN SPACE AND THE WETLANDS. 
          >> YEAH, I THINK SOME OF THE DESIGN QUESTIONS, I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO, AND THEN ALSO ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WETLANDS AND FLOOD PLAIN AND I WILL TALK ABOUT 
          [01:00:01]
          PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL STUFF. >> THE OPEN SPACE LOT IS 32, THE LOT THAT SEPARATES THESE LOTS FROM THE OTHER LOTS. YOU KNOW, THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT PRIVACY, THAT IS ABOUT 110 FEET WIDE, MINIMUM. THAT IS STREAM, THERE ARE STREAM BUFFERS. WE DON'T PLAN, THERE ARE STREAM BUFFERS SO THERE BE A LOT OF VEGETATION THAT SEPARATES THE PROPERTIES. I CAN'T THINK, YEAH, THERE ARE WETLANDS AND STREAMS ON THE PROPERTY THAT HAVE BEEN DELINEATED AND WE WILL WORK WITHIN THE CONFINES OF WHAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN AND THROUGH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN REGARDS TO THAT. YOU KNOW, THESE LOTS MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PLAT AND CITY OF AUBURN AND REZONING. THIS IS CDZ ZONING, PERMIT OF TOWN HOMES AS WELL, WE AREEN DOING SINGLE FAMILY, SAME BUILDER BUILDING THE STUFF OUT THERE ALREADY, PRETTY NICE LOOKING HOMES RIGHT 
          NOW. >> THE LOT LAYOUTS ARE ENGINEERING, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU HAD TO DO BASED ON TOPOGRAPHY 
          AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. >> YEAH, AND HOUSE SIZE, SET BACKS, AND ALL THAT STUFF. THE OPEN SPACE ALLOWS US TO DO PERFORMANCE, GIVES US FLEXIBILITY IN REGARDS TO SETBACKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THAT IS PART OF THE WAY OUR 
          ORDINANCE WORKS. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> I GUESS KIND OF THE THING THAT BRETT DIDN'T TOUCH ON, THIS ISN'T FLOOD LANE LIKE ACROSS THE STREET. THE THING HE MENTIONED STREAM BUFFERS, SO THERE ARE THINGS YOU CAN'T BUILD INSIDE THE STREAM BUFFER, THAT IS WHAT IS DELINEATED ON THE PLAT. THERE WON'T BE FILLING OR ANYTHING, LIKE THE LADY MENTIONED IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. BUT THE LOT SIZES, LOT DESIGN, LIKE BRETT MENTIONED, OPEN SPACES IS A REQUIREMENT IF YOU REALIZE, THAT IS PROVIDE. THEN LOT SIZES NOT BEING COMPLIANT WITH THE, NOT AKIN TO OTHERS IN THE GENERAL AREA, WITH IT BEING PERFORMANCE, MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR PERFORMANCE ZONING 5,000 SQUARE FEET, ANYTHING ABOVE THAT DOES COMPLY AND SO WITH THINGS LIKE THIS, LIKE I SAID, KIND OF IN THE AREA WITH IT BEING CDD, OFTEN TIMES YOU SEE OPEN SPACE DEDICATED AND THEY CAN REALIZE THAT FROM LOT SIZES AND MEET. I THINK THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE CONFIGURATION OF STAYING OUT OF THE WETLAND FROM DESIGN STANDPOINT, THAT IS REALLY TUPE THE APPLICANT, SOMETHING THEY CHOOSE TO DO. WETLANDS AND FLOOD PLANE INPARENTLY DIFFERENT. IF YOU HAD FLOOD PLAIN, THAT IS DIFFERENT. THESE ARE STREAM BUFFERS, THAT THEY CAN'T PUT A 
          STRUCTURE. JUST DIFFERENT. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? MOTIONS? 
          >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE PP2025-045. 
          >> SECOND. >> SECOND. 
          >> MOTION AND SEVERAL SECONDS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          [7. Preliminary Plat – Longleaf Crossing, Phase 10 – PUBLIC HEARING]
          >> GOOD EVENING, THIS IS REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL FOR PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR A 13-LOT SUBDIVISION, 12-LOTS FOR TOWN HOUSES AND ONE LOT FOR OPEN SPACE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG DOWNS WAY, WITHIN THE COLLEGE CROSSING PDD. AND THIS IS THE PLAT, THE PARCEL CURRENTLY IS 1.26 ACRES, AND THEY WILL DIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO THE TOWN HOUSES HERE, THIS LOT UP THE NORTH IS THE OPEN SPACE LOT, AND THEY ALL TAKE ACCESS FROM A PRIVATE EASEMENT 
          IN THE BACK. >> OKAY. 
          >> THAT IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK. 
          >> I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS REQUEST. 
          >> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING NOW, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT LONG LEAF CROSSING PHASE 10, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? 
          >> MOVE TO APPROVE CASE PP2025-046. 
          >> SECOND. >> SECOND. 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO QUESTION ANSWER, I AM PLANNING A COMMENT 
          [01:05:07]
NUMBER TWO, WHAT IS THAT ALL ABOUT? BECAUSE IT RESOLVED. 
          >> LET ME GET TO IT. >> THAT JUST MEANS THERE NEEDS TO BE A SIGNATURE BLOCK ADED TO THE PLAT. THAT IS ALL. 
          >> I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF A ISSUE GETTING THIS. 
          >> NO, NO. >> THANKS. 
          >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND L. THOSE IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. 
          [8. Preliminary Plat – Bud Black Road & West Farmville Road – PUBLIC HEARING]
          >> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 168 LOT PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 98 SINGLE FAMILY, 67 TOWN HOMES AND TEN OPEN SPACE LOTS, CORNER OF BUD BLOCK ROAD PRESERVE PDD. THIS IS PREVIOUSLY PHASE TEN OF THE PRESERVE PDD. 
          THERE IS 21% OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIRED FOR WHAT EACH INDIVIDUAL PHASE OF PDD AND IT IS, LAYOUT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN OF THE PRESERVE. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF COMMENTS, IF THEY WERE TO BE ADDRESSED, WOULD MEET THE 
          REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE A MESSAGE. 
          ARE WE-- >> SO, YEAH, I GUESS THE APPLICANT WAS HERE, I GUESS WANTED TO SPEAK EITHER DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING OR BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING, JUST KIND OF ABOUT THE COMMENTS ON THE STAFF REPORT. 
          >> APPLICANT? 
          >> GOOD EVENING. BRIAN STONE WITH BCC STONE HOPESISM WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AND DECIDED IT WOULD BE BEST TO LET THE PUBLIC HEARING GO TONIGHT AND WE COULD HEAR ANY COMMENTS, CONCERNS, ANYBODY HAD AND ADDRESS THEM. THE PLAT WILL NOT MATERIALLY CHANGE, I THINK THE PLAT, MOST OF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUSTED AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAS BEEN SITTING BACK YET BUT SHOULD BE ADJUSTED. WE REQUESTED THIS BE TABLED BUT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND HAVE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT SINCE NOTICES WERE GIVEN. WHILE I AM HERE, I COULD GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE PLAN TO DO. WE HAVE 28 ESTATE LOTS OFF OF BUD BLACK, ONE ACRE OR GREATER. WE ARE NOT GOING TO MASS GRADE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THERE ARE 63 SMALLER, MORE CONVENTIONAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS BEHIND AUTUMN RIDGE. THOSE ARE GRADED IN THE EARLY 2000S BY THE LAND OWNER. THE TONE AND EVERYTHING HAS BEEN GRADED TO THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY LAID OUT AND CONSISTENT WITH HIS PRIOR APPROVAL. THEN WE HAVE 67 TOWN HOMES BETWEEN THERE ALONG, THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ON IS THE EAST&THER STATE LOT NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE RIGHT AND WE ARE TRYING TO SEPARATE THEM ALL WITH GREEN SPACE. ALL THE LOTS WILL BE PUBLIC SEWER AND WATER OBVIOUSLY AND WE WANT TO DO A LOT OF LANDSCAPING, NICE, DECORATIVE ENTRANCE, BIG MONUMENT ALONG BUD BLACK, THAT WILL BE THE FOCAL POINT WHERE WE ARE GOING TO ENTER OURS, WE SUBMITTED NEW TRAFFIC STUDY TO THE CITY GOING OVER ALL THE TRAFFIC IMPACT BUT OUR DEVELOPMENT AND MOST THE SIDE WE PLAN TO GET IT TO COME IN THROUGH BUD BLACK BUT IT DOES HAVE A CONNECTION TO AUTUMN RIDGE. PROBABLY CROSS CONNECTIVITY, PEOPLE WILL GO IN AND OUT, WHICH EVER THEY CHOOSECH WHAT WE ARE PRESENTING, PRIOR APPROVED WITH WAY MORE DENSITY THAN WHAT WE ARE PRESENTING HERE TONIGHT. THERE THERE WAS MULTIFAMILY STUFF ENTITLED. I FEEL WHAT WE ARE DOING IS REDUCTION TO WHAT WAS PRIOR APPROVED. I WANT TO SPEAK AND HEAR PUBLIC COMMENTS SO WE CAN ADJUST FOR THE NEXT MEET G 
          ING AND REQUEST THIS BE TABLED. >> IS THAT AN ORDER THAT CAN 
          MOVE FORWARD? >> THAT IS FINE. 
          >> SO-- >> AND THEN TABLE? 
          >> YEAH. >> UP TO Y'ALL IF YOU DECIDE WANTED TO TABLE. OR GIVE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, I THINK THE CONCERN WAS JUST IF THERE ARE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS THE NEIGHBORS HAD, THEY CAN GET THEM ADDRESSED NEXT MONTH, FIND OUT SOMETHING THAT WAS DETRIMENTAL AT THE NEXT PUBLIC 
          HEARING DEAL. >> I AGREE, IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED-- IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON BLACK AND 
          [01:10:09]
          WEST, I WILL OPEN THAT. >> NOT REALLY CONCERNS ON MY 
          END-- >> NAME AND ADDRESS. 
          >> I NOTICED-- PEOPLE CLEARING STUFF. 
          >> BEEN HERE EIGHT YEARS. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THIS WAS GOING TO BE CONTINUATION OF AUTUMN RIDGE, YOU MENTIONED PHASE TEN PRESERVE, CROSS THE STREET. THERE WERE TWO ENTRANCES, ONE CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END, BUT ALSO ANOTHER ENTRANCE FOR THE DOWN AUTUMN RIDGE BEHIND OUR HOUSE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE, CUTS OFFS AND COMES BACK. SO, I GUESS MY QUESTIONS WERE, YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED IT, AUTUMN RIDGE, WAS THERE GOING TO BE A CLUB HOUSE? POOL, ALL THAT STUFF. THAT GOT CUT OFF. KIND OF MOVING FORWARD, IS THERE GOING TO BE HOA INVOLVED? CURRENTLY WE DON'T 
          HAVE HOA. >> HERE FOR COMMENTS. 
          >> YEAH, ANOTHER CONCERN TOO, IS WE HAVE BEEN THERE EIGHT YEARS AND DIDN'T THINK ANYTHING WOULD BE DEVELOPED, THERE IS BIG SEPARATION, I DIDN'T THINK ANYTHING WOULD BE-- WE HAVE BURIED OUR DOG BEHIND OUR FENCE WHICH I GUESS AT THAT POINT IS PROPERTY OF ONE OF THESE YARDS, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE THING IS TO DO WITH THE REMAINS IF I HAD TO MOVE THEM. JUST A CONCERN, NOT CONCERNED WITH THIS IDEA OF GROWING OUT HERE. THAT IS, I GUESS, TRAFFIC TOO SINCE FARMVILLE IS JUST ONE WAY, BOTH WAYS, ADDING A WHOLE BUNCH OF TRAFFIC, I KNOW THERE IS GOING TO BE LOT MORE BUILDING OUT THIS WAY, HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE BEEN ADDRESSED? I KNOW WE GOT SCHOOLS AND STUFF OUT THERE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A TURN LANE, MY SON GOES TO WOODLAND PINE, SO YOU CAN'T TURN LEFT TO GO DOWN DONAHUE. THAT HAS BEEN AN ISSUE AND I THINK THEY ARE KIND OF WORKING ON THAT BUT THAT IS PROBABLY 2027, 2028 WHEN THAT HAPPENS. IS THERE PLANS TO EXTEND AND WIDEN FARMVILLE ROAD FOR THE TRAFFIC THAT IS COMING? THOSE ARE MY MAIN CONCERNS, LOGISTICS. AND THEN THE PHASES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SINCE THERE IS TWOENTRANCES COMING IN FROM AUTUMN RIDGE, AND ENTRANCE FROM BUD BLACK, AND THAT DOES LOOK LIKE AN ENTRANCE FROM FARMVILLE 
          >> HELLO. I AM SANDY LITTLE, 2293 BUD BLACK ROAD. WE HAVE BEEN ON BUD BLACK FOR THREE YEARS. WE MOVED TO BUD BLACK BECAUSE WE LIVED IN GRANITE HILLS TURNED INTO STUDENT HOUSING AND A NIGHTMARE OF FIGHTING SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT WERE ILLEGAL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT DONE ANYWAY. I HAVE A STRONG THERE OF HAVING SPENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO REMOVE MYSELF SO I DIDN'T BECOME A NUISANCE TO THOSE AROUND ME INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE THOSE SAME PROBLEMS TO BE FACED WITH. I AM CONCERNED WITH THE LARGE NUMBER OF HOUSES ON THE SMALL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LOTS, I THINK IT IS INTERESTING THAT IN AUBURN WE ARE SPEAKING IN SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF ACRE PLOTS. 7,000 SQUARE FEET, 3,000 SQUARE FEET, THAT IS SCARY, WHEN YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE THREE TO THREE ASK A HALFERICS ACRES AND NOW FACED WITH HAVING YOUR PROPERTY FACE, MY FRONT DOOR WILL LITERALLY LOOK INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, HAVING HEARD THE OTHER CONSTITUENTS SPEAK ABOUT 
          [01:15:04]
NO BUFFERS, I AM GLAD TO HEAR THAT THEY ARE PLANNING FOR SIGNIFICANT BUFFERS, BUT HOW DO WE INSURE THOSE THINGS ARE IN PLACE SO THAT OUR HOMES THAT WE HAVE SPENT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY AND, YOU KNOW, HAVEN'T PAID THE WHOLE MORTGAGE OUT YET, WE ARE STILL PAG FOR THESE THINGS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THOSE TYPES OF LOTS? HAPPY TO HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE, UNDERSTAND THE FLIGHT OF MANY PEOPLE TRYING TO FIND AFFORDABLE HOME. WE HAVE A 27-YEAR-OLD FACING THAT HERSELF. 
          WE ARE NOT TRYING TO SAY WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE THERE BUT WE DO WANT TO PROTECT OUR HOME AND PROTECT THE SAFETY OF OUR HOME, AND THE SERENITY THAT WE PAID FOR. WE PAID FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WOODED AREA IN SERENITY, AND I AM AFRAID IF MY HOME IS THE FIRST HOME ON THE ROAD, I HAVE NEARLY BEEN HIT BY A CAR PULLING OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY MULTIPLE TIMES AS IT IS WITH THE FEW HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED ON OUR STREET AND THE BUILDING TAKING PLACE, I DON'T KNOW THE ROAD, DOWN AT THE OTHER END, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING-- THERE IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC INCREASED IN THOSE THREE YEARS. OUR WATER PRESSURE, I HAVE SPOKEN TO OUR FRIENDS AT THE CITY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, LITTLE LACK LUSTER. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT ADDITIONAL HOMES AND HOW THE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL CONTINUE TO SERVE US IN THAT WAY. WE NEED TO BE SURE WHEN WE ARE ADDING THE NEIGHBORHOODS WE ARE PROTECTING THE PEOPLE ALREADY EXISTING AND I WOULD ASK YOU CONSIDER THAT. I AM NOT SAYING WE DON'T WANT IT, I AM A LITTLE ALERTED TO KNOW THE ENTRANCE IS GOING TO BE ON BUD BLACK. I THINK THERE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS ON OUR ROAD IF YOU DO MAKE THAT ENTRANCE ALLOWED THERE. I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT AND TO CONSIDER THE SAFETY OF THOSE OF US WHO DO LIVE THERE AND THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO MOVE THERE IN THE FUTURE. I UNDERSTAND IT IS A DONE DEAL, BUT LETS PLEASE MAKE SURE WE PROTECT EVERYBODY'S 
          RIGHTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> GOOD EVENING, MICHELLE TUCKER, 2410 BUD BLACK ROAD. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TONIGHT AND VOICE CONCERNS REGARDING THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPER HAS PROPOSED 91 SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THE PERPLEXING PART OF THE PROPOSAL IS ADDITIONAL OF THE MULTIFAMILY HOMES. THE PDD WAS PASSED 20 YEARS AGO. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A MASTER PLAN, THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR A CITY TO HAVE COHESIVE BUILDING, BUT AND TO HAVE REGULATED GROWTH, UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MULTIFAMILY HOMES WERE DEEMED REASONABLE 20 YEARS AGO. YOU LOOK, THERE ARE NO MULTIFAMILY HOMES WITHIN A MILE AND A HALF, THE CLOSEST TOWN HOME IS AT NORTH DONAHUE AND WEST FARMVILLE. ALL OF THE PRESERVE ARE SINGLE FAMILY-HOMES, ALL THE HOMES ADJACENT TO THIS LOT AT LEAST AN ACRE. IT CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THE PRESERVE, IT CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF BUD BLACK ROAD. BUD BLACK ROAD IS PART OF IT IS COUNTY, PART OF IT IS ZONED RURAL CITY OF AUBURN, WE HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST THREE ACRE LOTS AND NOW I LIVE IN HERMAN ALEXANDER SUBDIVISION AND WE, BY COVENANT, HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST A HOME 2,000 SQUARE FEET. SOME OF THESE TOWN HOME LOTS, I WILL SAY THAT IN QUOTATIONS, ARE BARELY 3,000 FEET. THE WHOLE LOT IS BARELY BIGGER THAN THE MINIMUM OF MY HOUSE. IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SOMEONE SPOKE ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, BUD BLACK IS A DARK ROAD. THERE ARE NO LIGHTS. YOU TURN OFF OF WEST FARMVILLE ON TO BUD BLACK, MY BRIGHT LIGHTS COME ON BECAUSE IT IS THAT DARK. AND WE ARE WANTING TO PUT A BUNCH OF HOUSES THERE, THAT IS DANGEROUS. SO, I REQUEST THAT THIS BE DENIED AND THAT THE BUILDER COME BACK WITH A 
          [01:20:05]
DIFFERENT TYPE OF PLAT. I AM NOT AGAINST GROWTH. OBVIOUSLY I MOVED OUT THERE WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS. IT IS A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE. BUT WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT. I HAVE CONCERN THIS IS BEING TABLED. ARE YOU GOING TO REMEMBER OUR COMMENTS? 
          >> YOU ARE BEING RECORDED RIGHT NOW. 
          >> BECAUSE THAT IS MY CONCERN OF THE TABLING. THANK YOU, I HAD MANY CONCERNS ABOUT ALL OF THE REQUESTS ON THE APPLICATION AS 
          WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          >> AMY, BUD BLACK, WE HAVE FOUR GENERATIONS ON THE LOT. THREE TO FIVE ACRES. SANDY IS FIRST LOT, WE ARE SECOND, MICHELLE IS THE THIRD LOT. ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC WILL BE RIGHT THERE. WE CANNOT HANDLE HOUSES THERE. WE ARE ALL EDUCATORS, TRAFFIC IS AN ISSUE, WE NEED INFRASTRUCTURE. THE THREE TO FIVE ACRES IS WHAT WE HAVE, TOWN HOUSES DO NOT MATCH. THEY DON'T GO WITH ESTHETICS, PEOPLE WANT TO BE THERE, WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. BUT MAKE SURE IT MATCHES WHAT WE ARE DOING OUT THERE. THAT IS ALL. 
          THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> YOU SIGN IN? >> YES. 
          >> >> JOSH ALEXANDER, 2146 WEST FARMVILLE ROAD AND PRESERVE. I KNOW GROWTH IS GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT TOWN HOMES, I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST IT. THAT IS NOT AGAINST ESTHETICS OF THAT WHOLE AREA. THE ROAD IN FARMVILLE, MY HOUSE IS AT THE ENTRANCE OF AUTUMN RIDGE, AND I AM LIKE THE FOURTH ONE DOWN. THE TRAFFIC IS AWFUL IN THE MORNINGS, WHEN I DROP MY DAUGHTER OFF AT WOODLAND PINES AND TRY TO GET TO WORK AT PUMPFRY, IT IS ABOUT 50 MINUTES TO GET DOWN THERE. NO LEFT TURN AT THE RED LIGHT TO GET TO DONAHUE, THE RED LIGHT, THREE, FOUR, FIVE TIMES BEFORE YOU ARE ACTUALLY ABLE TO TURN. YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT IS SET UP FOR THE TOWN HOMES, I THINK WE-- SOMEBODY TRIED TO DO THAT IN THE PRESERVE WITH THE TOWN HOMES LAST YEAR, OR THE YEAR BEFORE. AND I THINK THEY SHUT IT DOWN AND HAD TO REDO THOSE LOTS IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN, I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG. MY NEIGHBOR, JAMES, THAT LIVES AT THE END OF OUR CUL-DE-SAC, THEY TRIED TO PUT THEM DOWN THERE PAST HIM, AND HE, I DON'T KNOW, I JUST DON'T THINK IT IS RIGHT TO PUT THE TOWN HOMES DOWN THERE. I THINK THEY NEED TO BE REDONE FOR 
          ACTUAL HOMES. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? 
          >> HELLO, I AM JANIE, 2181 WEST FARMVILLE ROAD. I AM NOT AS PREPARED AS THE ONES BEFORE ME THAT SPOKE. I THOUGHT THIS WAS STRICTLY INFORMATIONAL, I GUESS I MISUNDERSTOOD. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT FOR NUMEROUS REASONS I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC. WE WERE DENIED ACCESS, DIRECT ACCESS TO FARMVILLE ROAD WHEN WE BUILT OUR HOUSE 16 YEARS AGO AND OUR LOT WILL BACK UP TO FOUR OF THE TOWN HOME LOTS. I THINK THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY OUT OF CHARACTER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE BOUGHT INTO. WE WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS TRAFFIC PROBLIC TO GO DIRECTLY FROM OUR DRIVEWAY TO FARMVILLE ROAD. SO ABOUT 25% OF MY LOT END ED UP BEING A RIGHT OF WAY WITH AN ACCESS ROAD. SO, I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC. I ALSO FEEL THAT ACCESS FROM BUD BLACK ROAD IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ON LARGE SCALE, SIMPLY BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE COMING FROM AUBURN, YOU ARE GOING TO COME OUT FARMVILLE ROAD, TURN ON AUTUMN RIDGE, AND THEN YOU ARE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE ARE CHILDREN BACK THERE. THE STREETS ARE NOT REALLY THAT WIDE, WE HAVE MULTIPLE CARS THAT PARK ON THE STREET, WHICH, AGAIN, I GET THAT. THAT IS WHERE YOU LIVE, THAT IS WHERE YOU PARK YOUR CAR, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE 
          [01:25:03]
GOOD FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC GOING TO THE TOWN HOMES. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN AND AROUND. ANYWAY, I AM SORRY, I AM NOT VERY PREPARED AND I AM PROBABLY RAMBLING. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. 
          BUT I DO THINK THAT THE TRAFFIC AND THE ACCESS TO THOSE TOWN HOMES IS NOT APPROPRIATE. I AM VERY CONCERNED. THANK YOU. 
          >> ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COME FORWARD? SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, AND TAIL IT. DO YOU HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED? 
          >> YES, SO I GUESS SINCE SOME PEOPLE HAD DIRECT QUESTIONS AROUND TRAFFIC, TOWN HOMES, I WILL SPEAK TO THOSE, WHERE WE ARE AT WITH IT AND PRELIMINARY PLATS, THINGS UP FOR REVIEW, THINGS UP FOR DISCUSSION. SO, APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS, GOT ON TRAFFIC, PRELIMINARY PLATERIZE THE PLACE TO TALK TRAFFIC, NOT REALLY REZONE. TRAFFIC STUDY, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. THERE IS A LOT OF SCRUTINY PLACED ON INGRESS, EGRESS, AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE DONAHUE, FARMVILLE, BUD BLACK CORRIDOR INTO AN AGREEMENT NOT IN PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BUT ASSOCIATED WITH THE LARGER AREA, ALL THE HOMES GOING ON THERE. SO THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, I GUESS AFTER I AM DONE SPEAKING I WILL FLIP THIS TO ENGINEERING, THEY CAN TALK ABOUT WHERE THE IMPROVEMENTS LIE, WHAT THE FUTURE OF THE CORRIDOR IS. BUT I GUESS ON THE, AS FAR AS THE PDD BEING APPROVED OVER 20 YEARS AGO, SO, WHEN THE APPLICANT SPOKE, WHEN HE DID MENTION THAT THIS COULD BE MUCH DENSER, I THINK THEY WERE APPROVED 400 LOTS IN THE SAME AREA, THAT IS DOUBLE. IT IS LOT. SO, THE ADDITION OF TON HOMES IS NOT A DEVIATION FROM THAT. IF THERE WERE A DEVIATION FROM THE PDD AMENDMENT, THEY WOULD NEED TO APPLY FOR PDD AMENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. THIS WAS APPROVED WITH A SLEW OF QUADPLEXES AND QUADPLEXES AT THE TIMES WERE SYNONYMOUS WITH TOWN HOMES, WHEN THEY ADDED THE TOWN HOMES AND PIVOTED AWAY FROM QUADPLEXES, IT WAS STREETED AT THE SAME. THIS WAS APPROVED OVER 20 YEARS AGO WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT T IS NOT A CONDITIONAL USE THEY ARE ASKING FOR, IT WAS GRANTED UNDER THE PDD. I THINK THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. WHY WAS ALL OF THIS DENSITY ALLOWED OUT THERE? I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE OF THE CITY ASKED THAT AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A BOUNDARY, LOT OF SCRUTINY NOT ALLOWING MASSIVE DEVELOPMENTS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN WHERE THERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE IN BETWEEN WHERE CITY SERVICES AND RESOURCES ARE, SCHOOLS, GROCERY STORES, THAT IS A REASON FOR MODERN PLANNING PRACTICES AND METRICS WE USE TO DENY A LOT OF THESE THINGS OUT OF THE GATE. BUT THESE THINGS WERE APPROVED, PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND THEY ARE, LIKE YOU SAID, ARE ENTITLED TO ANOTHER 400 LOTS IF THEY WANTED TO, PROVIDED THEY CAN MEET ALL OF WATER PRESSURE AND THINGS, THE THING YOU MENTIONED, ALSO TALKING ABOUT INGRESS AND EGRESS, THOSE ARE THINGS WE LOOK AT ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT LEVEL, NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE FIRE FLOWS, INGRESS, EGRESS, RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH, CONNECTIVITY, TRAFFIC, ALL OF THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT PRELIMINARY PLAT LEVEL. THAT WAS SOME COMMENTS IN THE REPORT, WE HAD QUESTIONS THINGS NEEDED TO BE HAMMERED OUT. OVER THE NEXT MONTH WE WILL BE ADDRESSING THOSE, LOT MORE SCRUTINY ON THAT. WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION, WE WILL NOT HAVE THAT MANY COMMENTS, WE WILL HAVE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS. I GUESS ON-- I THINK ON INGRESS, EGRESS, CORRIDOR, WHAT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE, ENGINEERING, DID Y'ALL WANT TO LIGHTLY TOUCH 
          ON THAT? OR-- >> I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WITH THE MULTIENTRANCE, IS THERE DECEL AND A SELL LANES AT INDIVIDUAL ENTRANCES, FARMVILLE OR BUD BLACK, REQUIRED? 
          >> WE GOT THE REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THIS YESTERDAY. WAS THAT TODAY? TODAY, ACTUALLY. WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT YET. BUT I THINK I MENTIONED IN PACKING MEETING THERE WERE REVISIONS TO 
          [01:30:02]
THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTING, SHOWED ACCESS ON FARMVILLE, REMOVED THAT SO THIS ONE, YOU MENTIONED MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS. THERE IS ONE EXISTING NOW FOR AUTUMN RIDGE. THEY ARE LOOKED AT ON THE 
          TRAFFIC STUDY. >> SO LITTLE PRELIMINARY. 
          >> LITTLE BIT. >> RIGHT. 
          >> FOR THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT. 
          PARTS OF THE RESERVE BEING BUILT OUT CURRENTLY, AND THEN, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THERE IS OJECTS DONAHUE, IN TWO PHASES, SO PHASE ONE IS AROUND 90% RIGHT NOW IN THE DESIGN, THAT WILL BE THE FIRST TO GO OUT ANDER GO UNDER CONSTRUCTION, UP TO THE BRIDGE. 
          >> OKAY. >> TO THE BRIDGE. 
          >> AND SECOND. >> THE DONAHUE WILL BE PHASE TWO 
          THAT WILL HAPPEN. >> BRIDGE TO FARM. 
          >> COUPLE YEARS AFTER THAT. >> BRIDGE TO FARMVILLE? 
          >> YES. 
          >> THERE ARE LONG- TERM PLANS THAT MISS JAMES AND FORMAL ROAD IN ADDITION TO THE WIDENING OF THE÷÷ ROAD. 
          >> YEAH. SO THEN ON THE BUFFER. 
          WE TALKED ABOUT BUFFERS ARE THE LAND USE INTENSITY FOR SINGLE- FAMILY HOUSE. HEY, I WOULD LIKE A FENCE OR SOMETHING ON THE PROPERTY, THAT IS SOMETHING THEY CAN WORK OUT WITH THE DEVELOPER. 
          JUST KIND OF ON OUR END OUR REGULATIONS WOULD NOT REQUIRE THAT FROM THE SINGLE- FAMILY 
          HOUSE. >> IS THE TOWNHOUSE BACKING UP INTO THE SINGLE- FAMILY HOUSE THE SAME THING? 
          >> I GUESS THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT. 
          EVERYTHING BEING PART OF THE PDD IT WOULD BUFFER ON THE SAME PDD FROM ONE ANOTHER WITH SIMILAR USES. I THINK ONCE AGAIN, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WHERE THEY NEED TO DIRECTLY APPROACH THE DEVELOPER ABOUT WHAT THE ANTENNA IS. 
          >> ALONG WITH HOA QUESTIONS AND AMENITY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN DISCUSS THAT. 
          >> CERTAINLY, AND THE PHASING, 
          AS WELL. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, AND YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE. WATER PRESSURE. 
          >> THERE IS A VERY LARGE WATER MAIN ALONG FARMVILLE ROAD. 
          >> WHEN ARE WE GETTING THE 
          TOWER? >> WELL, THERE'S ALREADY A WATER TOWER THAT SERVES THISTHIS AREA. THE OTHER TOWER THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO IS UNDER DESIGN CURRENTLY. 
          >> OKAY. >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION ALSO ABOUT TRAFFIC AS A CONCERN, MAINLY, OF A LOT OF PEOPLE AND INDEED, FARMVILLE ROAD IS NOT -- IT HAS QUITE A BIT MORE TRAFFIC THAN 20 YEARS AGO WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED. WHAT KIND OF -- YOU KNOW, THE TOWNHOMES ADD A LOT OF DENSITY, AND SO -- HOW THIS TRAFFIC NOW CONSTRICT THIS DEVELOPMENT -- CAN THAT -- IF WE FIND THAT TRAFFIC IS JUST, TO ME, FARMVILLE IS NUTS. 
          I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT -- I THINK IT'S A LITTLE INTENSE NOW. 
          >> I THINK THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD AGREE WITH YOU AND THERE ARE TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT BACK THAT UP, AS WELL. I GUESS, HOW THOSE TRAFFIC CONSTRICTING THINGS IS REALLY JUST MORE OF WHEN WEWE THE PLOTS IN AND WE GET THE TRAFFIC STUDY, PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE OFFSIDE IMPROVEMENTS. EITHER THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE IT ESSENTIALLY. 
          ON THE GRADE AND EVERYTHING ALONG THAT CORRIDOR JUST WITH THE -- EVERYBODY WHO HAS DONE THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THERE WILL TELL YOU THEY DO HAVE TO PAY INTO THAT FUND FROM DON HUGH TO FARMVILLE, AND EVEN BY BLACK BECAUSE IT HAS A CONNECTION TO THAT, AS WELL. 
          THAT'S A POINT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 
          TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION FROM A CONSTRICTION STANDPOINT, THEY ARE LIMITED TO, IF THEY CANNOT MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS IN PHASING TO SUPPORT THE DENSITY THAT THEY ARE DOING THEN THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PERIOD, AND SO, WITH THE TRAFFIC STUDY BEING SUBMITTED TODAY I GUESS STAFF WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO IT WHEN THE PRELIMINARY PLOT COMES BACK, BUT 
          [01:35:01]
THAT IS A CONSTRICTION. EITHER THEY MAKE THE OFFSIDE IMPROVEMENTS OR THEY CAN'T REALIZE THE DENSITY THAT THEY'RE MOVING FOR ON THE PLOT. 
          >> THAT AFFECTS THE ROAD RIGHT AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT APP? 
          >> KIND OF. I THINK THE BIGGER PART OF IT IS REALLY JUST KIND OF LIKE I SAID LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE DONOGHUE FARMVILLE, THERE IS A FUND AND ANGELA TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT THOSE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT ARE COUPLED WITH THESE REZONING REQUESTS AND THESE DEVELOPMENTS AS THEY MOVE FORWARD THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY INTO THESE FUNDS AS THEY GO. 
          >> EXPANSION OF FARMVILLE? 
          >> CORRECT. CORRECT. 
          >> I GUESS ON JOE'S LINE, WHEN WE DO THE TRAFFIC CITY OUT THERE, FARMVILLE ROAD, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPMENTS OFF OF FARMVILLE USE FARMVILLE ROAD. THAT HAS BECOME ALMOST A MAJOR CORRIDOR OR INTO THE CITY FROM 
          280. >> THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE AWARE OF, AND I THINK THAT'S ALSO KIND OF WHY YOU GUYS DO THE SCOPING FOR THE TRAFFIC STUDIES AND IDENTIFY THE DIFFERENT INTERSECTIONSES. 
          OFTENTIMES WHEN PEOPLE COME FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, SAY IN THIS EXAMPLE, RIGHT? IF THEY WERE GOING TO SAY, HEY, WE'LL FOCUS ON WHAT IMPROVE MENTS BY FARMVILLE. 
          OFTENTIMES THEY SAY NO, NO, THEY HAVE A SCOPING MEETING PRIOR TO SOMEONE GOING OUT TO DOING THE TRAFFIC STUDY. IT'S NOT JUST A SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME IN AND IDENTIFY AND HAND PICK THE INTERSECTIONS, AND THEY ARE TOLD BY STAFF NO, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THESE INTERSECTIONS AND WE HAVE STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT, AND THEN YOU'LL DO YOUR TRAFFIC STUDY. 
          SO IT'S NOT EVEN -- THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS NOT JUST GOING TO SPEAK TO THE INTERSECTIONS AND THE IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE TRAFFIC STUDY WILL SPEAK TO THE SCOPE THAT WAS GIVEN TO THEM BY STAFF THAT IS OFTENTIMES IN PLACES LIKE THIS WHERE IT'S INTERSECTIONS ALONG THE CORRIDOR THAT WILL ALSO BE IMPACTED AND THAT'S WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COMES IN AND IT'S A GRADUATING SCALE ABOUT WHATEVER THEIR CONTRIBUTION IS TO THAT TRAFFIC LEVEL IN THE FUTURE AND ALSO WHAT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE BECAUSE LIKE YOU MENTIONED, EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF IT THAT FARMVILLE IS NO LONGER THE RURAL ROAD IT USED TO BE. FARMVILLE CARRIES A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND IT IS THE MAIN ARTERIAL THAT LIVE IN THAT SECTION OF TOWN GOING DOWN DONOGHUE. THAT NOT SOMETHING THAT'S NEWS TO STAFF. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WORK TOWARD HOW TO FUND THAT AND WE PUT IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND EXECUTE THAT. TO EVERYONE WHO SPOKE ABOUT TRAFFIC, LIKE I SAID, THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE REVIEWED AND SOMETHING WE CAN SPEAK TO. 
          I GUESS IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SCOPE AND THAT, THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT STAFF WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. 
          >> OKAY. SO AT THIS POINT. 
          >> YOU NEED TO TAKE A VOTE. 
          >> I NEED THE DATE. 
          >> OH, YEAH. SO -- YEAH, SO A MOTION TO THE TABLE FEBRUARY 12TH. 
          >> POSTPONE THE DATE. 
          >> POSTPONE THE MOTION IS WHAT I NEED FEBRUARY 
          12TH. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION POST TONE FEBRUARY 12, 2026. THE PRELIMINARY PLOT 
          PP-2025-047. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. 
          >> JUST A POINT ON THAT. YOU DID CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND SO YOU DID NOT CARRY THE VOTE AND CARRY IT OVER. SO YOU COULD OPEN IT, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A SPECIFIC ACTION BY THE COMMISSION. 
          >> RIGHT. 
          [9. Conditional Use – 306 East Thach Avenue – PUBLIC HEARING ]
          >> I'LL LET EVERYBODY GET OUT NOW. I'LL GIVE AN OVERVIEW REALLY QUICK. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO FOR 306 EAST THACH AVENUE WITH THE SUBSEQUENT WAIVER. THERE ARE TWO SLIDES. THERE'S THE CONDITIONAL AND TWO WAIVERS AND SO THERE WILL BE A MOTION FOR EACH WAIVER, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH ONE, FOR EACH WAIVER REQUEST, AND SO THEN ALSO ON THAT, I GUESS I DID WANT TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW. THE CONDITIONAL USE AS YOU GUYS VOTE ON THE USE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNCIL AND THE CONDITION RESTS ON THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          THE WAIVERS DO NOT GO TO COUNCIL. 
          [01:40:05]
THE WAIVERS ARE YOU ALL'S, AND SO IT WAS KIND OF MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE TWO THAT ARE REQUESTING, AND I THINK SOME OF THE ENGINEERING COMMENTS SPEAK TO THE POSSIBILITY OF OTHER ENGINEERING WAIVERS THAT MAY BE REQUESTED, AS WELL. SO I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON THAT. CONDITIONAL USE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE WAIVERS ARE FINAL. 
          WHATEVER DECISION YOU GUYS MAKE TONIGHT. THAT'S FINAL. THERE'S NO COMING BACK ON THAT AND LOOKING AT THE BYLAWS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ANYTHING THAT IS DISPOSED OF BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR RULED ON MUST BE TABLED WITHOUT COMING BACK UNLESS THEY ASK FOR A SPECIFIC HEARING OR TO PROVE THAT THEIR REQUEST IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THEY INITIALLY ASKED LIKE THEY HAD. 
          SO THAT WAS IT. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, THIS IS A REQUEST FROM FORSYTH GROUP LLC, FOR A DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR THE PRIVATE DORMITORY. IT IS 306 EAST THACH AVENUE IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD SOUTH ZONING DISTRICT. 
          THE PROPERTY TAKES DIRECT ACCESS OUT OF EAST THACH AVENUE. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE. 
          YOU CAN SEE BY THAT RIGHT THERE. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A PRIVATE DORMITORY CONSISTING OF THREE UNITS WHICHWHICH HAVE BED, FIVE BATHS EACH. THE APPLICANT IS NOT INTERESTED OR INTENDING TO DEMOLISH THE HOUSE THAT IS AFRONTING EAST THACH AVENUE. THE PROPOSED DORMITORIES ARE BEHIND THE RESIDENCE THAT IS LOCATED TOWARD THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, AND AS ALREADY MENTIONED THERE ARE TWO WAIVER REQUESTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST. 
          THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF EMAILS, CALLS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONDITIONAL USE AND ITS LABOR REQUEST FROM NOT ONLY PROPERTY OWNERS SUCH AS THE ONE NEARBY, BUT AS WELL AS CONCERNED CITIZENS, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE. THE WAIVER REQUESTED ARE ITS OWN CASE LIKE I MENTIONED AND IT WILL HAVE ITS OWN PUBLIC HEARING. 
          >> OKAY. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND SEE IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND/OR STAFF? 
          >> BRETT BASQUIN, FORESITE GROUP. THE USE WE'RE ASKING FOR IS PURPOSE-BUILT STUDENT HOUSING OR TO BE ABLE TO REFERENCE AS PRIVATE DORMITORY WHICH ALLOWS US TO DO FIVE BEDROOMS, FIVE BATH AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE SPACE INSIDE EACH UNIT IS GREATER OR LESS THAN 50% WHEN THE COMMON SPACE INSIDE THE UNIT IS GREATER THAN 50% ANDAND IT'S MULTI-UNIT. WHEN THE PRIVATE SPACE OF BEDROOM, BATHROOMS AND PRIVATE SPACES GREATER THAN 50% THEN IS CONSIDERED PRIVATE DORMITORY. SO THE USE OF APARTMENTS OR ADDING ANOTHER BUILDING IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT, THE QUESTION THAT'S HERE IS CAN WE DO IT AS PURPOSE BUILT WITH THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE? THE GOAL, AS YOU CAN SEE IS WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP THE CHARACTER AND TRYING TO KEEP THIS HOUSE WITHOUT DEMOLISHING THIS HOUSE. SO THE EXISTING HOUSE IS A FIVE BEDROOM, THREE BATH HOUSE FROM POSED TO STAY THERE. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY TAKES ACCESS -- THE NEXT ONE. THE DRIVEWAY CURRENTLY IS A DRIVEWAY THAT GOES TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PARKING IS LOCATED IN THE REAR. 
          THERE'S A GRAVEL DRIVE WITH GRAVEL PARKING IN THE BACK. 
          THE BIG TRAE ON THE TREE ON THE RIGHT AND THE BIG OAK THERE IS PRETTY MUCH OUR PROPERTY LINE. 
          [01:45:01]
SO OUR HOUSE, THIS EXISTING HOUSE IS ALMOST 20 FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          THAT'S OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. THE EXISTING VEGETATION THAT'S THERE WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE OR YOU PROBABLY CAN'T SEE THROUGH THERE IS THE FENCE IS ON OUR SIDE OF THAT VEGETATION. THAT VEGETATION IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE'S LINE OF THAT FENCE, BUT IF THAT FENCE, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN SOME MORE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXHIBIT, THE FENCE AT THE GREATEST IS SIX FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE AND ABOUT FOUR FEET IN THE OTHER AREAS. 
          MY POINT TO YOU IS IF WE HAVE TO MOVE THIS FENCE TO THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THIS BUFFER WE'LL BE KNOCKING OUT ALL OF THE VEGETATION, BUT IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PICTURE, THIS PROPERTY LINE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET AROUND HIS HOUSE TO OUR SIDE BECAUSE HIS HOUSE IS LITERAL LEIGH ON THE PROPERTY LEAN WITHOUT THE BUMPOUT. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE RIGHT THERE, RIGHT? IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE DOWN YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEY HAVE A GARBAGE CONDITION. SEE THE GARBAGE CAN BETWEEN THE HOUSE? I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU REFERENCE ON PROXIMITY THERE. 
          ? THAT'S THE WAIVER THAT'S COMING HAS TO DO ON THAT 
          SIDE. >> YEAH. 
          SO WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING TO DO IS NOT KEEP THIS -- RIGHT NOW, EVERYBODY WHO DRIVES INTO AND USES THIS PROPERTY AND DRIVES BY THEIR HOUSE, RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR HOUSE AND PART OF GRAVEL AND INTO THE BACK. WE WERE FROM POSING JUST CLOSE OFF THIS DRIVEWAY AND PUT A NEW DRIVEWAY TO YEES, THE CURRENT SITE PLAMED THAT WE'RE SHOWING THREE NEW UNITS AND THE DENSE ACRE THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE ZONING. 
          >> IT'S LESS, YES. WE'RE NOT MAXING 
          OUT. >> I'M SORRY, I'M DREW, THE PROPERTY OWNER. WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE 20 BEDS. 
          AND SO THE QUESTION IS, THEY TALKED ABOUT THE PACKET AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO ADDRESS IT. 
          WE'RE ASKING FOR THE USE AND WE'RE HAVING TWO WAIVERS. THE TWO WAIVERS ARE ONE FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT, AND THIS IS IN THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORING DISTRICT WHERE THE FIRST FLOOR HAS TO BE 15 FEET. WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ON THE STREET. THIS PROPOSED BUILDING IS IN THE BACK RIGHT THERE, OKAY? THERE IS A FOUR-FOOT ELEVATION AS YOU SAW IN THE PHOTOS, THE HOUSE SITS UP. THE OTHER PART OF IT IS YOU, IN THE INFINITE WISDOM OF WHEN THIS WAS DONE, WHEN WE MADE IT 15 FEET, IF YOU GO THREE STORIES IT KICKS US TO ANOTHER FIRE CATEGORY. WE HAVE TO HAVE A LARGER FIRE ACCESS ROAD TO YOUR FACILITY AND SO IT'S MORE EXTREME. SO IF WE CAN STAY AT 12 FLOOR FIRST-FLOOR HEIGHT AND GO TO THE OTHER MINIMUMS ON SECOND AND THIRD, WE CAN KEEP THE HEIGHT UNDER 30 FEET AND KEEP FROM PROVIDING A 26- FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY BACK THERE FOR A FIRE TRUCK TO GET BACK THERE. THAT'S NORMAL. THE SECOND ONE IS THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE BACK FOR PARKING. SO THE WAIVER IS NOT ON -- 
          >> I KNOW THAT. I THINK I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU IN A PACKAGE SO YOU GET THE WHOLE REALM. SO WE HAVE AND THE HOUSE ONLY GOES TO THE BACK OF WHERE THE EXISTING HOUSE AND DEBT COMING OFF COMES BACK TO. IT SHIFTS TO ANOTHER PROPERTY WHICH IS TRUE MULTI- FAMILY WHICH IS THE NORMAL APARTMENT COMPLEX BEHIND THEM. I'M SAYING ALL OF THAT TO YOU IS BECAUSE JUSTICE -- IT WAS, SAYING, LOOK, YOU PUT A LOT ON HERE. IF YOU LOST ONE AND YOU REDUCED THE DENSITY BY ONE UNIT YOU WOULD WOULDN'T PROBABLY NEED THE WAIVER. WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE USE. THERE ARE FOUR OPTIONS FOR YOU GUYS. IF YOU CAN IMPROVE IT WITH BOTH WAIVERS, RIGHT? AND WE BUILD WHAT'S ON THE PLAN HERE. THE SECOND ONE IS 
          [01:50:02]
IF YOU APPROVE THE WRUS USE AND APPROVE THE FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT, WE EITHER, ONE, HAVE TO CUT ONE UNIT OR TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE AND BUILD IT AS A DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION. 
          THE USES DOESN'T CHANGE. IF YOU GRANT THE USE, BUT NO WAIVERS, WE CAN STILL DO THE PROJECT, BUT WE'D USE THE UNIT OR TEAR DOWNDOWN TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE OR THE PURPOSE BUILTBUILT WITH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AND WE CAN STILL BUILD IT AS MULTI- FAMILY, IT'S JUST THE RATIO IS DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AND SO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, LIKE, THOSE ARE THE FOUR POTENTIAL OPTIONS THAT CAN HAPPEN. IT WILL REDEVELOP, BUT DREW'S BIGGEST THING WHEN HE CONTACTED ME WAS I REALLY WANT THIS EXISTING HOUSE. 
          EVERY TIME I'VE DONE A DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN I'M ALWAYS IN THE PAPER COMPLAINING ABOUT TAKING DOWN THESE NICE, OLD HOME, YOU KNOW? I WANT THIS TO BE A SITUATION WHERE YOU GUYS GET TO MAKE THAT DECISION, AND I CAN PUT YOU GUYS IN THERE INSTEAD OF ME. 
          SO, THE WHOLE GOAL IS TO SAVE HAD HOUSE AND TO MAXIMIZE THETHE USE ON HIS PROPERTY. 
          >> I NEED A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON THE BUFFER AND HOW THAT CHANGES. SO MY POINT TO YOU -- 
          >> I KNOW THAT'S THE NEXT THING, BUT RIGHT NOW I NEED ALL OF THE 
          INFORMATION. >> YOU'RE ASKING -- 
          >> THE BUFFER WAIVER. YOU JUST TOLD ME THAT YOU HAVE SIX MORE FEET TECHNICALLY THAT 
          YOU CAN USE. >> I STILL HAVE TO MEET -- 
          >> THERE A PROPOSED BUFFER. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW IN AN EXISTING CONDITION BECAUSE IT'S JUST A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE, THERE'S TECHNICALLY NO BUFFERING BETWEEN HOUSE AND HOUSE. SO THEIR DRIVE -- MY WHOLE POINT IN SAYING THAT, IF WE WERE ABLE TO DO THIS BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES WE'RE CUTTING OFF THE DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THERE AND WE'D BE ABLE TO KEEP THE BUFFER THERE. THE ONLY PART WHERE WE'RE ENCROACHING IN IT IS IN THE REAR CORNER, THE BACK REAR CORNER RIGHT HERE. THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE WHERE WE'RE ENCROACHING INTO IT WITH THE NEW PARKING THAT'S THERE. 
          >> I MET WITH THE OLSONS, I BOUGHT THIS IN 2019 AND HER DAD BUILT IT AND IT'S BEEN IN THEIR FAMILY SINCE THE '20S. 
          THEY LIVED DOWN THE HOUSES FROM US, AND I'VE NEVER TOLD ANY OF THEM DOWN. 
          IT WILL BE STUDENT RENTAL, AND SHE AND I AND I LET BOYS LIVE THERE FIRST. THEY DIDN'T LIKE THIS. I MUCHED IN GIRLS ANY VERY NICE, OLDER COUPLE SINCE THE THEN, THEY DON'T WANT ANYTHING IN THEIR BACKYARD. MY GOAL IS TO WHEN THEY WALK OUTOUT THEIR FRONT DOOR THEY DON'T SEE ANY CHANGE. 
          I TOLD THEM IT WAS GOING TO BE A BUFFER YARD ISSUE. WE NEED 15 FEET BUFFER YARD FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE TO MINE TO WHERE I CAN'T PARK AND CAN'T DRIVE. IF I HAVE TO, AND I TREATED THEM VERY KINDLY SAYING THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, BUT THE FENCE, IF WE DO HAVE TO MOVE THE FENCE AND ESTABLISH A NEW BUFFER YARD, IT RUN, I THINK THAT WHITE BUMP- OUT STRUCTURE IS EITHER ON MY PROPERTY WITHIN SIX INCHES OF IT. ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY HAVE A FENCE THAT COMES NEXT TO THAT PART OF THEIR HOUSE THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER BE AROUND AND THEY PLANTED PLANTINGS NEW. 
          THEY COMPLETELY CHANGE FROM VISITATION. SO THAT'S THE MAIN REASON FOR THE BUFFER YARD IS SO WE CAN HAVE A COUPLE OF PARKING SPOTS THERE. THE GOAL IS FOR EVERYONE TO DRIVE IN ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE MAIN GOAL IS TO KEEP THE EXISTING HOME. 
          I TOLD THEM, HEY, I WANT TO ADD SOME UNITS ON THAT, AND THERE WILL BE MORE MONEY ON THIS, THERE WILL BE 20 BEDS TOTAL. BY RIGHT YOU CAN DO 36. 
          I THINK EVERY HEAVY USE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT OF THIS PROPERTY, IF WE DROPPED IT TO $500,000. 
          >> MOST PEOPLE, AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. 
          IT'S NICE TO KEEP SOMETHING OF THESE HOUSES ON THACH, THERE ARE VERY FEW PLACES LIKE THESE IN 
          [01:55:02]
AUBURN. THE ELEVATION HELPS WITH THAT HEIGHT. NO ONE'S GOING TO SEE IT FROM THE STREET, BUT IF YOU DO, IT WILL LOOK VERY HIGH. 
          NEXT DOOR IS THE COTTAGE. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT 15- FOOT HEIGHT. SO YOU HAVE THESE COTTAGES NEXT DOOR THAT LOOK MINIATURE. THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME ELEVATION AND THE EXTRA FOUR TO FIVE FEET AND THEY HAVE EIGHTEIGHT TEN ROOT RIGHT THERE. 
          SO THEY LOOK VERY PUNY COMPARED TO THIS HOUSE. MINE IS GOING TO BE IN THE BACK. SO THIS IS ALSO PERMITTED TO HAVE COTTAGE, ANY OF THOSE TYPE OF THING, AND I UNDERSTAND THE OLSONS. THEY DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO COME, BUT I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST WITH WHAT YOU COULD PUT THERE. 
          >> HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR 
          QUESTIONS. >> CONDITIONAL USE IS FIRST. 
          THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY VOTING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. ANY QUESTIONS? MOTIONS? YEAH, SO -- CAN WE GO BACK TO THE -- IF YOU CAN GO TO THE LAYOUT WITH THE PARKING. 
          THAT ONE. 
          YEAH. SO THE NOTION HERE IS THAT THESE -- THESE CARS ARE GOING TO COME IN FROM THE SIDE, PARK IN FRONT OF THESE UNITS AND THEN YOU HAVE THOSE TWO OTHERS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE SIDESIDE YARD, IF YOU WILL, IF I HAVE THE LAYOUT CORRECT, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY USE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT WE JUST SHOWED. 
          THEY ARE NOT -- >> THIS IS PARKING FOR HOW -- 
          >> THAT'S PARKING FOR THE HOUSE. 
          >> ON THE BOTTOM OF THE HOUSE IS THE NEW IN AND OUT FOR ALL OF 
          THESE BACK IN THE BACK. >> IS THERE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES? WHAT IS IT? 1.1. 
          >> IT'S 1.1. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW IF THE RESOLUTION IS THERE TO SEE IT. 
          I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WILL WANT TO POINT OUT. 
          SAY THIS WHOLE THING WERE TO REDEVELOP OR JUST IN GENERAL. 
          WE WOULDN'T ALLOW PARKING TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, SO THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT I GUESS IS KIND OF BEING LOST IN THIS, AND I GUESS MAINTAINING A HOUSE AND ALL OF THAT, BUT THAT'S THE THING OF, LIKE, STRIKING THE MIDDLE WHERE THERE ARE NEW REQUIREMENTS AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING CURB CUTS, AND THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT OF ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT OR ANY CORRIDORS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE PARKING ON THE STREET, AND THAT'S JUST THE OLDER PLACES IN TOWN ESPECIALLY JUST THE DOWN TIM. 
          YOU HAVE THE CARS PARKING ON THE STREET AND NEAR THE SIDEWALK AND EVERYTHING, AND THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER REDEVELOPMENT. JUST BECAUSE OF THE EXITING CURB CUT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO GIVE UP. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. 
          >> SO THE PARKING ON THE TOPTOP PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE GETTING RID OF THAT DRIVEWAY, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT CURB CUT. 
          >> YEAH, I MEAN -- 
          >> THAT'S WHAT WOULDN'T BE 
          ALLOWED? >> SO, THAT'S IF THEY WERE TO REDO THE WHOLE THING. THAT'S THAT'S, LIKE, THAT'S ONE OF THE NUANCES OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT PEOPLE DO. 
          SO WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXISTING CURB CUT, YOU CAN KEEP IT. 
          WE DON'T MAKE YOU THEY WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK TO THEM AND ADD ANOTHER ONE WITHOUT LOSING THIS ONE AND EVEN MOVING FORWARD AND ADDING THE PARKING FOR THIS FROM A REDEVELOPMENT STAND POINT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ALLOW. 
          IT'S ALSO INTERESTING BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING THIS, RIGHT? THEY'RE SUBDIVIDING IT, THEN RIGHTS ARE THEN ATTACHED TO ONE PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE SAME PROPERTY AND THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO COMPLY, AND THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO COMPLY. ? SO THERY A WEIRD STRIKE IMBALANCE. GENENTECH GENENTECH GENERALLY, IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT THAT WE DO PUSH FOR OF NOT ALLOWING THAT. 
          [02:00:01]
          >> AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THE REQUIREMENT IS THERE'S 15 BEDROOMS AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 15 SPACES? 
          >> NO, NO. I THINK IT'S, LIKE, 1.1. 
          >> 1. 1 PER BEDROOM. 
          >> YEAH. SO IT WOULD BE, LIKE, 22. 
          IT WOULD BE 22 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. 
          SO IF YOU GUYS HAD ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YOU GUYS CAN ASK HIM. 
          >> I THINK IT DOES COME DOWN TO KEEPING THE SAME STRUCTURE. 
          YOU CAN EVEN PULL UP THE STREET VIEW, BUT MOST OF THE MOST PARKING ON THACH IS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSES. 
          IF YOU DO TEAR SOMETHING DOWN YOU DO HAVE TO COME BACK. 
          IF YOU GO PAST THE COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT THERE'S A HOUSE THERE, AND THERE ARE FOUR CARS PARKED IN FRONT OF THAT. YOU COME BACK UP FROM ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS, IT'S PARTIAL THAT IS OWNED AND PARKING IS IN FRONT OF THAT. 
          IT IS NOT ABNORMAL. I DO KNOW THE FUTURE GOALS WITH IT, BUT CURRENTLY, THAT'S WHERE TENANTS PARK. 
          IT'S JUST THAT WE CAN CUT THAT DRIVEWAY WOULD REDUCE THAT. 
          >> IF YOU GOT RID OF THE HOUSE YOU'D HAVE TO GET RID OF THE DRIVEWAY AND HAVE THE OTHER ONE. 
          YOU COULD ONLY HAVE ONE DRIVEWAY,÷÷ IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? 
          >> THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY IS THE ONE TO THE WEST, RIGHT? 
          >> WEST, YES. 
          >> RATE. 
          >> EXACTLY. RIGHT. SO THEN THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY WOULD THEN BE THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM OF IT, BUT I GUESS -- THAT'S THE THING I'M TALKING TO DAN, AND THE DRIVEWAY SPACE ON THACH. 
          >> TO MEET THOSE YOU COULDN'T HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS. 
          SO, I MEAN -- WE PROBABLY, IN A CASE LIKE THIS JUST RECOMMEND TO GET RID OF THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND JUST HAVE ONE, AND I GUESS I'LL SEE WHY THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP IT, AND IT'S ANOTHER DRIVEWAY AND IT'S PARKING SPACE, BUT IF YOU ACCESS IT FROM THE STREET IT'S AA DRIVEWAY. 
          >> I JUST WANT TO ASK, HOW MANY CARS ARE ON THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY? 
          >> HOW MANY ARE GOING TO PARK 
          THERE? >> YEAH. 
          >> TWO. 
          >> TWO. 
          >> YES, MA'AM. 
          >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. 
          >> KNOW IT'S A LITTLE UNCONVENTIONAL AND A LOT OF THA KRSHG H UNTIL SOMETHING IS TORN DOWN AND PUT BACK IN THERE. I THERE'S NOT A LOT OF EMPHASIS OR KEEPING OLDER HOMES AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT, BUT I DO LIKE KEEPING OLDER HOMES AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE KIND OF -- 
          >> DO YOU HAVE RENOVATION PLANS TO THE EXISTING HOME? 
          >> NO. IT WILL NOT BE TOUCHED. 
          WHEN I BOUGHT IT IN 2019 I RENOVATED IT AND IN THE SPRING OF 2020 KIDS MOVED IN. IT HAS MOST OF THE ORIGINAL FEATURE, THE TRANSOMES AND THE DINING ROOM AND ADDED A BATHROOM. THAT WILL NOT CHANGE. WHAT YOU SEE THERE ON THE FRONT WILL STAY THE SAME. 
          SO ANYONE WHO IS DRIVING PAST IT IS GOING TO SEE MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OUT BACK, BUT NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT MOST NEW THINGS ARE. 
          >> COMMISSIONERS? 
          >> SO, QUESTION, AS I LOOK AT THE PLAN, WERE THERE NOT ANY OTHER OPTIONS TO GET PARKING? I SEE SOME SPACES THAT COULD BE UTILIZED. 
          >> PARKING'S TOUGH. 
          >> IT MIGHT NOT BE YOUR DESIRED THING TO DO, BUT -- 
          >> YOU'RE ASKING WHERE ELSE WE COULD PARK? YOU'RE SAYING YOU SEE SOME SPOTS WHERE WE CAN PUT PARKING? 
          >> I'M SURE FOR YOU AND YOUR TENANTS THAT DECK IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO GET RID OF, BUT DO YOU HAVE SPACE WITH THREE SPACES THERE. 
          YOU COULD GET RID OF THE ISSUE WITH THE PARKING SPACE THAT IS IN THE BUFFER YARD WHICH IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION TO THE ZONING 
          ORDINANCE. >> I MEAN, YEAH. 
          IT'S PART OF THEIR HOUSE AND PART OF THEIR LEASE. 
          Y I YES, I COULD REMOVE IT. I COULD REMOVE THE WHOLE HOUSE. THAT'S NOT 
          MY INTENT. >> AND WE ALL APPRECIATE THAT, WE DO. I THINK EVERYONE ON 
          [02:05:02]
THIS COMMISSION APPRECIATES THAT. 
          >> MOST OF THE EMAILS WEWE 
          WOULD APPROVE IT. >> YEAH. 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          >> YES? >> SAY THE APPLICANT SELLS THIS PROPERTY CAN SOMEONE ELSE TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN AND DO WHAT THEY WANT ANYWAY? 
          >> IF YOU GUYS WANTED TO CONDITION IT ON MAINTAINING THE FACADE TO THE FRONT -- THAT SEEMS LIKE A LOT JUST GIVEN IT'SIT'S UTILITIES OR SOMETHING, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH HISTORIC PRESERVATION COULD BE A REAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL KIND OF DEAL. IF THEY WERE TO SELL THIS UPON PROERY SOMEBODY COULD TEAR DOWN THE WHOLE THING AND THE OTHER PART OF THIS, AND THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING ANY DEVELOPER IN TOWN FROM BUILDING A MASSIVE PORCH ON THE FRONT WITH COLUMNS. FOLKS DO IT. SOME OF THE ADUS HAVE THEM. 
          I GUESS THAT'S THE FIVE POINTS INTERSECTION AT GRANGE LAKE. THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING FROM ANYBODY IN TOWN FROM BUILDING A MODERN ITERATION OF THIS. THEY WANT IT TO BE A HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL -- AND BUILD THOSE TO GIVE IT A MODERN TAKE. THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING ANYONE AND PEOPLE DO NOT DO IT. 
          THAT IS A CHOICE. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THERE IS ANOTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE THAT DAN ALLUDED TO. AS PROPOSED, THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS THAT APPROVE LIKE THIS. FROM A DRIVEWAY SPACE AND STANDPOINT FROM PARKING IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. FROM THE TECHNICAL LEVEL ON THE SITE PLAN BEING APPROVED THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT THIS WOULD RESEMBLE THE FINAL PRODUCT. I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE DEBATING ABOUT THE USE AND FROM A GENERAL SITE PLAN STANDPOINT, THERE ARE RESERVATIONS ON STAFF SIDE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WOULD BE MAINTAINED AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT. 
          >> CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION BEFORE THE MOTION? WITH RESPECT TO THE 15TH FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT REQUIREMENT? 
          >> THAT'S THE NEXT ITEM. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ALL ENCOMPASSING FIRST. I CAN GO FORWARD? 
          >> THANK YOU. SO IS THERE ANY INPUT FROM THE CITY DESIGN ON THAT AS A REQUIREMENT FROM A REAR- FACING BUILDING OR DOES THAT -- OR DOES UNIVERSITY SOUTH REQUIRE 15 FOOT REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE BUILDING IS FACING? 
          >> YES. THAT'S COME UP ON MULTIPLE POINTS. IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DISTINCTION ABOUT WHETHER IT FACES THE STREET OR NOT. IT'S THE ENTIRE LOT. 
          FOLKS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTING WAIVERS FOR PEOPLE SUBMITTING RENDERINGS WITH IT TO JUST SHOWCASE WHAT THEY'RE DOING. WITH THOSE ON THE TABLE THE DDRC HAS KIND OF BEEN OPEN TO IT AND JUST PROVIDED THAT -- IT LOOKS THE WAY THEY WANT IT TO LOOK KIND OF DEAL, SO -- 
          >> ANYTHING ELSE? ANYONE? OKAY. 
          >> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE KCU 2025- 073 PRIVATE DORMITORY CONDITIONAL USE. 
          >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED? 
          >> NO. 
          [10. Waiver – 306 East Thach Avenue]
          >> THANK YOU. OKAY. REMEMBER THESE NEXT AGENDA ITEM WAIVERS WILL BE DONE SEPARATELY. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS THE SECOND PART OF THE 306 EAST THACH AVENUE AND THIS IS A WAIVER REQUEST BY FORESITE GROUP LL, TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM FIRST STORY HEIGHT FROM 15 FEET -- 
          >> TO A LANDSCAPE BUFFER. SO THERE ARE TWO MAIN 
          [02:10:01]
BOXES THAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IN THIS EXHIBIT. THE BOX HIGHLIGHTED RED IS 
          THE -- >> WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. 
          >> SO ARE WE -- 
          >> JUST TALK ABOUT THE HEIGHT. 
          >> SO THE ONE IN RED IS REGARDING THE HIGHLIGHT. 
          I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT ONE. THAT IS A WAIVER TO REQUEST -- TO ALLOW 12, YOU KNOW, FEET STORIES INSTEAD OF 15. 
          WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER 
          ANY QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. THESE WAIVERS DO REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN THAT AT THIS TIME. 
          SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          COMMISSIONERS, HEIGHT FROM 15 FOOT TO 12 FOOT FIRST FLOOR. 
          >> I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, WHERE IT'S LOCATED. WE HAVE CHANGED AND WE WAIVERED DOWN ON THE CORNER THERE AT THACH AND ROSS? 
          >> YES. 
          >> AND THAT WAS FRONTAGE AND 
          THAT WAS IN THE BACK. >> 
          YEAH, SO. >> THAT WAS THE SAME 
          SITUATION. >> AND I GUESS, THERE ARE SEVERAL ON ROSS THAT GOT KIND OF THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS THAT ALL OF THOSE CAME WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DDRC, AND THIS ONE 
          DOES NOT HAVE ONE. >> HAS IT GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS? 
          >> I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE CONCERN. 
          THE HEIGHT IN THOSE AREAS WAS FROM FIRE OR SOMETHING OR 
          CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL. >> SO SIMILARLY SIMILARLY THE ONES ON THE CORNER -- SO THE ONES ON THE CORNER HAD INGRESS STUFF AND KIND OF THEIR DESIGN, AND I THINK THEY ENDED UP SNEAKING UNDER IT, AND THE ONES ON THE BACK WERE THE REAL ISSUE AND THE TOWNHOME AND THE DESIGN OF KIND OF WHAT THEY WERE ACHIEVING. I IMAGINE THEY'RE STILL TOWNHOME STYLE AND WHAT THROWS THEM IN IS THE DORMITORY USE AND THE RATIO STUFF THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT YEAH. THAT'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL HAVE RULED ON IN THE PAST, BUT THE ONE ON THE CORNER IS MORE SO FOR THE ONES IN THE BACK SPECIFICALLY, AND THOSE GOT DOWN TO TEN, NOT 12. 
          >> IT'S STILL THE SAME BASIC 
          SITUATION. >> IS THERE A PARTICULAR NUMBER WAIVER THAT COMES WITH THIS 
          REQUEST? >> IT'S THE SAME, YOU'RE RIGHT. IS IT WZ? IS THAT THE WAIVER? FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING A 
          MOTION? >> I IMAGINE IT WOULD BE TIED TO WHATEVER IT IS IN CITY WORK, AND SO IF WE HAVE -- WE'LL -- SO WE'LL MAKE 110 AND WE'LL HAVE THE OTHER ONE AS 11 SINCE THERE'S NO OTHER WAIVER. 
          SINCE IT'S 25, IT WILL BE THE LAST ONE ANYWAY SINCE ALL OF THE OTHERS WILL BE 26. 
          >> SO IT WILL BE WZ-2025-010. 
          >> AND THE NEXT ONE WILL BE WZ-2025-11. 
          >> AND IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY 
          CHANGE. >> COOL. 
          >> I MOVE THAT WZ-2025- 10 THAT IS MOVING THE HEIGHT FROM 15 TO 12 FEET FOR THE FIRST FLOOR. 
          >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? 
          >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. 
          [Additional Item]
BACK WITH THE SECOND WAIVER. THE HIGHLIGHTED BLUE RECTANGLE AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE CONDITIONAL USE SECTION 420- 404 WITH THE PARKING SPOTS WITH THE BUFFER YARD, THAT IS WHAT LANDSCAPING IS REQUESTING IS ENCROACH INTO THE 15- FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU ALL THAT WAIVER REQUESTS DO ACT AS VARIANCES AND THERE HAS TO BE A SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP FOR A WAIVER TO BE GRANTED. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ALL OF US ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. WHAT BRETT TOLD US WAS WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS BACK CORNER AND NOT THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          >> CAN YOU ALL HELP ME? 
          >> NOT FROM -- BOTTOM LEFT. 
          >> YOU ALL WERE LOOKING RIGHT HERE? 
          [02:15:05]
          >> GOTCHA. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THIS IS LOOKING NORTH, WE ARE THERE AT THE BOTTOM LEFT. THIS IS THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE 15- FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER. 
          >> WHERE THE FENCE IS. 
          >> THE GRAVEL SERVICE WHERE THE CAR IS GOING TO BE PARK SIDE ALLOWED, BUT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DRIVING OR PARKING SPOTS. 
          >> OKAY. SO THESE TWO SPOTS RIGHT HERE AND THEN MAYBE ONE OF THESE, ONE OF THE THREE THAT IS PROPOSE SIDE ENCROACHING INTO THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE. 
          >> THEY'RE GOING TO CLOSE THAT UP ANYWAY. 
          >> YEAH. I WOULD PROBABLY ENCLOSE IT. 
          >> RIGHT. 
          >> WELL, THAT'S THE PROPERTY. 
          >> THAT'S THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE EXISTING HOUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE IS ON TOP OF THAT PROPERTY LINE. SO IT'S NOT EVEN FOLLOWING ANY OF THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS, 
          RIGHT? >> YEAH, BUT I GUESS -- SO SINGLE- FAMILY HOUSES DO NOT HAVE TO BUFFER FROM ANYTHING. 
          THEY'RE THE LEAST INTENSE USE. WHEN YOU ARE PUTTING A DORMITORY YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO SO. 
          >> IT COMES WITH THE DORMITORY USE 
          THEN. >> RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          AND SO I GUESS, WITH THEM REALIZING THE BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS FINE, THAT'S A FUNCTION OF PERFORMANCE ZONING ASSOCIATED WITH IT, BUT COUPLED WITH THIS, KIND OF LIKE MY POINT, EVEN WITH THE WAIVER ASSOCIATED ON THIS, THAT'S NOT A WAIVER TO THE DRIVEWAY SPACE THERE. THAT'S NOT A WAIVER THAT ANYTHING LIKE THIS IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE DIFFERENT SITE PLAN. 
          ON OUR END IT'S NOT SUBDIVIDED LIKE IT'S ONE PROPERTY. 
          >> RIGHT. >> FROM FROM THIS BUILDING? 
          >> BUT THAT EXISTING PIECE RIGHT NOW IS ALREADY A GRAVEL ROAD. 
          >> HALF OF IT IS. 
          >> YEAH. AND SO WE TALKED ABOUT THIS MUCH, AND I HAVEN'T THOUGHT MUCH ABOUT IT AND WHEN THINGS REDEVELOP, THINGS HAVE TO -- I GO THERE ALL OF THE TIME AND IT DRIVES ME CRAZY, BUT THE SECOND STORY, THE GRAVEL PARKING LOT. I'M NOT A FAN OF IT. 
          I AM NOT A FAN OF IT. SO I THINK THAT'S PART OF IT, THOUGH. THE REDEVELOPMENT QUESTION AND HOW MUCH DOES THAT EXTEND TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, LIKE I SAID, IT'S ONE LOT, AND THEN FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT SIDE OF ALLOWING PARKING TO EVEN STILL BEBE ON FRONT END OF THE BUILDINGS. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING ATAT FROM THE SPACING TO ALLOWING A PARKING LOT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS AND THERE IS THE USE SIDE AND THE TECHNICAL DRT SIDE THAT THE SITE PLAN WOULDN'T MEET THAT, AND WE STILL HAVE TO HASH THROUGH THAT. 
          >> DO YOU KNOW THE REASON THAT THIS IS REQUESTED TONIGHT INSTEAD OF LATER WHEN THEY DO A 
          PLAT. >> THIS WILL BE A PRETTY CUT AND DRY REDEVELOPMENT. 
          >> OKAY. THERE'S NO REASON. 
          THE ONLY REASON THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE IS IF THEY WANTED TO MAINTAIN THAT ACCESS, BUT THEN, LIKE, THAT'S THE THING AND THEN WE GET INTO AN ACCESS FLIGHT ABOUT CREATING A FLAG LIKE THIS. I'M SAYING THE TWO DRIVEWAY CUTS AND THE TWO CURB CUTS ARE GOING TO BE A POINT OF CONTENTION KIND OF GOING FORWARD. I DON'T LIKE SEEING IT AND THE ONES FURTHER, DEEPER INTOINTO LOT. 
          IT'S ALL JUST A PART OF IT. 
          >> LET ME ASK -- CAN WE ASK 
          STAFF A QUESTION? >> YEAH. 
          >> WHY NOT EXTEND THE DRIVEWAY ALL THE WAY? YOU HAVE SOME SPACE ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. 
          >> YES, SIR. >> THAT COULD BE PARKING, AS WELL, CONCEIVABLY. YOU KNOW, SO YOU JUST TAKE 
          THAT -- >> BEHIND? 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> I'M TALKING ABOUT -- 
          >> TO THE SOUTH. 
          >> ON THE BOTTOM SIDE, WHICH IS SOUTH, I THINK. 
          FOLLOW THAT LINE AND FOLLOW THAT DRIVEWAY TO THE BACK AND THEN HAVE THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING HAVE PARKING. 
          >> WE LOOK AT THAT. BRETT'S THE ENGINEER. MY THOUGHTS ARE, AGAIN, WITH THE OLSONS AND THE NEIGHBOR AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE BUFFER YARD IS REQUIRED BECAUSE WE'RE NEXT TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, CORRECT? SO IF THIS NEXT DOOR WAS A DUPLEX IT WOULD NOT BE 
          REQUIRED. >> NO, IT WOULD. 
          IT'S AN INTENSITY DIFFERENCE. 
          >> IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN THE BACK PART IS AGAINST AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. 
          >> CORRECT. SO WHERE THAT DOT IS IN THE MIDDLE IS NOT APPLICABLE. THAT BLUE SHOULD BE REMOVED. 
          [02:20:05]
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LOT BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE OLSONS. 
          WE FELT THAT REDUCING THAT DRIVEWAY TO A COUPLE OF PARKING SPOTS INSTEAD OF HAVING, I HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH THEM ABOUT CARS DRIVING. ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAD CARS COMING IN AND OUT AND EVERY CAR IS PASSING BY THEIR HOUSE WHICH IS BUILT OVER THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S THEIR ISSUE, BUT THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF SPACE IN HOMES. 
          >> WEIGH DON'T THINK THE DRIVEWAY IS FAR ENOUGH. 
          I CAN'T WHEN, JOHN, AND THE BUFFER YARD AND TRYING TO KEEP IT AS IT IS. 
          ONE OF YOU COMMENTED ON, AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T A REASON, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE LESS USED THAN WHAT'S THERE NOW. 
          IT WILL STAY THE SAME FOR THEM. THEY'LL HAVE THE SAME BUFFER YARD IN PLACE. THERE WILL BE TWO CARS PARKING THERE INSTEAD OF CARS DRIVING IN AND OUT ALL THE TIME. SO IT'S GOING TO BE LESS OF AN ENCROACHMENT OR INTRUGSZ INTO THEIR THEIR LIVES WITH A COUPLE OF PARKING SPOTS THERE THAN IF YOU HAVE TO COME IN, TEAR DOWN EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE, PUT A FENCE. THAT'S WHERE THEY COME IN FROM THEIR BACK AND GO OUT AND TAKE THEIR TRASH CAN TO THE STREET AND THAT'S INHIBITING THEIR ACCESS TO THE BACK THIS ALLOWS US TO NOT DO THAT. 
          >> THE BLUE WAIVER IS SHOWING THE LENGTH. 
          IT SHOULD BE A PART IN THE FRONT WHERE THE TWO CARS ARE ANDAND THEN PART AT THE BACK WHERE THEY HAVE THE ONE CAR THERE. THE OTHER STUFF THAT WAY IS AGAINST THE MULTI- FAMILY UP THERE THAT DOESN'T EXTEND. 
          SO IT'S TWO GAPS THAT WE'LLWE'LL FILL IN  THE TWO GAPS AND THE HOUSES. 
          SO THAT'S THAT. 
          >> AND IT'S ALREADY VERY WOODED RIGHT THERE NOW. 
          THE THING ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY SPACE AND WAIVER IS WHEN WE SUBMITTED THIS, WE UNDERSTOOD THIS WEB A CONCERN AND WE SUBMITTED THE WAIVER WHEN WE SUBMITTED THIS, AND SO THAT HASN'T BEEN RULED ON YET. IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S SOMETHING WE FORGOT. WE SUBMITTED THE DRIVEWAY SPACE AND THAT'S ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVERS THAT WE APPLY SEPARATELY AND NOT THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          >> THE ONLY TIME IT COMESCOMES YOU IS WHEN WE APPEAL IT. WE FILED THATTAL READ WHEN WE FILED THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION. RIGHT. WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR A LITTLE RELIEF ON THOSE AREAS THAT ARE CLOSE, BUT TO TRY TO HELP THEM OUT WHICH IS WHAT I TALKED TO THEM ABOUT, SO -- 
          >> OKAY. COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU. THIS WAIVER REQUEST DOES NOT HAVE THE 15 FOOT? 
          >> NO. IT'S TO ENCROACH. 
          >> PARKING I DON'T ENCROACH. 
          >> YEAH. I GUESS IT WOULD BE WHERE THE ARROW IS. AS A WHOLE, IT WOULD BE BOTH OF THOSE, BUT I GUESS KIND OF -- YEAH, SO -- I GUESS, AND I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF MY THING. SO HINDSIGHT'S 20/20. 
          ON THIS, MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS A SITE PLAN THAT WOULD NOT MAKE IT THROUGH DRT WITHOUT THE WAIVER, THAT ANOTHER WAIVER THAT YOU GUYS HAVE NOT DECIDED ON OVER THAT STAFF DECIDED ON EITHER, BUT THAT'S KIND OF -- TO ME, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE, LIKE, WHAT YOU ALL -- IN THEORY WHAT YOU ALL ARE GRANTING AND WHAT YOU COULD GRANT, RIGHT? WOULD BE THE PARKING ON THAT SIDE, BUT THEN ALSO THOSE PARKING SPACES, BUT THEN THERE'S THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PARKING SPACES STAY. 
          THAT'S NOT A GUARANTEE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE FROM STAFF TO MOVE THOSE AND IT WOULD BE MOVED FURTHER ON SITE WHICH WOULD CONGEST IT. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO PROBABLY HOLD OFF ON THIS AND MAKE A DECISIONS ON BOTH OF THOSE AT THE SAME TIME. YEAH. 
          I'D SAY IN MY OPINION THEY NEED TO BE TOGETHER. 
          IT'S ACCESS FROM THE STREET. SO ON STAFF'S SIDE -- RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. SO THERE'S NO 
          [02:25:02]
GUARANTEE THAT THEY WOULD KEEP THAT. 
          THAT IS STILL SOMETHING THAT MAY GO AWAY, AND THEY'RE FREE TO APPEAL THAT. 
          >> WE CAN'T MAKE THAT DECISION. THAT HAS TO COME FROM -- 
          >> NO, NO, NO. STAFF WOULD -- IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO TABLE IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT STAFF PROVES IT, DENIES IT AND THEN IT'S ALL WAITING IN THE BALANCE. 
          >> CORRECT. >> OUR DECISION MIGHT HAVE SOME WEIGHT UP ON THE STAFF. 
          >> OKAY. EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THE CONDITION. 
          >> WHAT CONDITION? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? 
          >> YOU SAID YOU COULD MAKE IT A CONDITION. 
          >> OH, BRETT SAID THAT, BUT THAT'S THE SITE PLAN THING, BUT I GUESS, LIKE, ON MY END I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY -- WE WILL STILL NEED TO HASH OUT KIND OF WHAT ALL NEEDS TO COMPLY. THEY'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING THIS, AND SO NORMALLYNORMALLY REDEVELOPMENTS THOSE THINGS ALL HAVE TO COME INTO COM PLAYANCE AND THAT'S YET DRIVEWAY'S FACING AND THE STREETSCAPE STUFF AND BUFFER YARDS AND THERE IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING ON SITE. 
          >> AND THE HEIGHT MADE SENSE TO 
          YOU? >> THE WAIVER, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE MAKING A DECISION WHEN WE DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE FACTS. 
          THAT IS SOMETHING -- 
          >> THE QUESTION IS, BY GRANTING THE WAIVER, IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, IT COULD BE IRRELEVANT, BUT IT ALSO COULD GIVE THE STAFF -- 
          >> SO I GUESS -- WHAT YOU'RE GRANTING -- I WOULD SAY WHAT YOU'RE GRANTING A WAIVER TO WOULD BE THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE. THE TWO OR THREE TO THE WEST SIDE, TO THE TOP OF THE PROPERTY THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE STREET, THOSE MAY NOT EXIST IS WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          SO THE WAIVER THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT, IN MY OPINION WOULD BE THE ONE THAT'S A PART OF THE LARGER PARKING LOT, LIKE WHERE THE ARROWS ARE IN THE MIDDLE. THAT RIGHT THERE AND KIND TOF THEIR POINT, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GET A 
          WAIVER. >> NO, IF YOU WANT TO PUT THE ARROW ON THAT AGAIN, THE HIGHLIGHT. 
          THAT RIGHT THERE. THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE GIVING THE WAIVERER TO. IF YOU MOVE IT TO THE RIGHT, CHRIS. YEAH. ALL OF THAT, I'M SAYING, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT EXISTS BECAUSE STAFF WOULD REQUEST THAT -- 
          >> BETWEEN STAFF. >> RIGHT. 
          BECAUSE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THEY WOULD NEED THE DRIVEWAY SPACING WAIVER TO ACHIEVE IT. 
          WHICH ON OUR END, IT'S NOT JUST THE DRIVEWAY SPACING WAIVER, IF THERE WAS A WAY TO PUT PARKING IN FRONT, IT'S A LOT OF THINGS. 
          >> SO ARE WE REALLY IN A POSITION TO GRANT 
          THIS WAIVER? >> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT YOU WOULD GRANT. YOU ARE GRANTING THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE. YOU ARE GRANTING THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE. 
          >> THINK THE GRANTING, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY WOULD BE GIVING STAFF LEEWAY TO WORK WITH THEM ON THAT. IF THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL CURB CUT ON THE WEST SIDE THEN THE PARKING WOULD GO AWAY. THE BLUE DOT, THAT IS THE BACK PROPERTY LINE OF THE ADJACENT HOUSE. 
          AND IT'S JUST FALLING OUT, AND THAT'S WHERE PARKING WOULD GO. SO THE WAIVER IS NEEDED TO AT LEAST APPLY FOR THAT PIECE, SO, YES. 
          >> DO WE HAVE AN ADEQUATE INCIDENT PARKING SPOT IF WE GRANT A WAIVER? 
          >> IS IT WHAT? A DRIVEWAY? I DON'T KNOW -- 
          >> THE STICKING POINT -- 
          >> IF WE ALLOWED THE WAIVER. 
          >> IT WOULD. THAT'S THE OTHER THING. THEY HAVE TO MEET THE ON- SITE PARKING STUFF. 
          >> I GUESS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WOULD THEY HAVE ENOUGH IFIF DECIDE THAT THEY'VE GOT TO CLOSE THIS DRIVEWAY, THIS CURB CUT. 
          >> I AM SURE BRETT'S A GOOD ENOUGH ENGINEER TO FIND THAT OUT. THERE ARE MORE PARKING SPACES ON SITE. SIMPLE MATH. 
          HE'S GOOD AT IT. 
          DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DECISION THAT WOULD GET IN YOUR WAY, STAFF'S WAY TO CUT YOU OFF FOR SOME REASON. 
          >> BUT HE CAN'T COME BACK FOR A 
          [02:30:04]
          YEAR. >> THE WAIVER IS NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT PIECE OF THE DRIVEWAY BACK HERE SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE FULL ACCESS TO MANEUVER ON THE ROAD. 
          THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT STAFF APPROVES THAT ADDITIONAL CURB CUT. 
          >> OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. SO REALLY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VERY LIMITED, LITTLE LABOR. THAT'S REALLY. 
          THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S BEFORE US, AND SO THE HARDSHIP ISSUE, AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF IMPORTANT FOR US TO THINK ABOUT IS CREATED BECAUSE HE'S DECIDED TO KEEP THE OLD HOUSE WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS A COMMUNITY WANT. 
          >> WANT. >> YES. 
          >> CAN I LET YOU PAUSE ON THAT AND THINK ABOUT IT SO THAT I CAN GO TO THE PUBLIC FOR THIS PARTICULAR WAIVER? 
          >> MADAM CHAIR. 
          >> BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN 
          WAITING. >> AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE WAIVER FOR THE -- 
          >> BUFFER. >> BUFFER. 
          I'M NOT SEEING ANY SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. DID YOUR WORDS COME TOGETHER FOR YOUR COMMENTS? 
          >> NO. I'M JUST THINKING THAT -- I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A MOTION, AND I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE WZ-2026- 11 FOR THIS ONE LITTLE 
          SECTION. >> 0011. 
          >> 011. 
          >> WZ-2026 -- 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> THAT. 
          >> AND SO FOR THIS BUFFERING SPACE TO BE REDUCED. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> I'M GOING TO REPEAT THAT. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE WAIVER, WZ 2026-001. 
          >> THANK YOU. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? 
          >> NO. 
          >> NO. 
          >> NO. >> ROLL CALL, PLEASE. 
          >> 6-3. 
          [11. Conditional Use – Project Apollo – PUBLIC HEARING ]
          >> OKAY, THE NEXT REQUEST FOR YOU IS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR REVISED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USE AND DATA CENTER LOCATED AT 1571 WEST SAMFORD AVENUE IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZOENG DISTRICT. THE BUILDING IS IS 76,000 SQUARE FEET, AND THEY ARE WANTING TO EXPAND TO CREATE ANOTHER 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE INITIAL DATA CENTER BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 2021, AND THERE ARE NO MAJOR -- WELL, STAFF HAS NO CONCERN WITH THE QUESTION, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          >> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT NOW, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD FOR PROJECT APOLLO. SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. 
          COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS OR 
          MOTIONS. >> MOVE TO APPROVE KCU- 2025 HELP 077 PROJECT APOLLO EXPANSION. 
          >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN 
          [12. Conditional Use – West Samford Substation – PUBLIC HEARING]
FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. 
          >> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USE POWER SUBSTATION LOCATED AT 1501 WEST SAMFORD AVENUE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THIS LOT IS NEXT TO THE PREVIOUS CONDITIONAL USE OF THE FUTURE LAND USES UTILITY WHICH IS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE PROPOSED USE IS. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. 
          >> THANK YOU. THIS ALSO REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? 
          >> MOVE IT APPROVE KCU-2025- 078 WEST 
          SAMFORD SUBSTATION. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. 
          [13. Street Naming – Lee Road 23 – PUBLIC HEARING ]
          >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED? 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. LEE ROOD 23. 
          [02:35:04]
DAMON, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE MAP I CAN EXPLAIN IT. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, I GUESS IS TO CHANGE LEE ROAD 23 TO GIVE IT A NAME NEAL ROAD. THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS SO, IF YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR -- IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER, THERE WAS AN ANNEXATION AT THE END OF THIS ROAD IF YOU PUT THE THING ON IT. 
          THERE WE GO. THAT WAS ANNEXED AND SINCE THAT IS IN THE CITY IT NEEDS AN ADDRESS IN THE CITY. WE DO NOT USE LEE ROAD NAMES FOR ADDRESSES IN THE CITY SO IT MUST BE GIVE KNOW A ROAD NAME. 
          IN THE LEE COUNTYCOUNTY IT IS NEAL ROAD. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE THE NAME CAME FROM, NEAL ROAD, AND THAT IS THE REASONING FOR GIVING THIS NEALNEAL ROAD, AND THEN I GUESS ARE THERE OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE LOCATED OFF OF NEAL ROAD? NO, THERE ARE NOT. ALL OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE DOWN THERE ARE ADDRESSED RIDGE LINE TRAIL AND OAK ROAD AND THEY HAVE A STREET NAME THAT IS IN THE CITY. 
          THIS WOULD BE THE LONE ADDRESS THAT WOULD BE OFF OF NEAL ROAD THAT HAS TRIGGERED THIS NEEDING A RENAMING. 
          >> COOL. 
          >> SO. ALL RIGHT. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> GREAT. THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. I'D LIKE TO OPEN THAT AT THIS TIME IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK TO THE ROAD NAME CHANGE? SEEING ME ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? ? MOVE TO APPROVE, IN S-2025- 061 RENAMING LEE ROAD 23 TO NEAL 
          ROAD. >> SECOND. 
          >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. 
          [OTHER BUSINESS]
NOW TO THE FUN PART. IN OTHER BUSINESS THIS EVENING, AS IT IS JANUARY OF 2026, WE HAVE AN ANNUAL MEETING TO ELECT OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION OUR CURRENT OFFICERS ARE OSCAR MOSLEY AS SECRETARY. DANA KEMP AS VICE CHAIR AND MYSELF 
          AS CHAIR. >> I HAVE A MOTION, MADAM CHAIR, IF I CAN ON THAT? 
          >> YES, SIR. 
          >> I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF KEEPING A GOOD THING GOING I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RETAIN ALL THREE OFFICERS FOR THIS ELECTION AND THAT WILL BE NONET REESE, AND VICE CHAIR AND OSCAR MOSLEY AS SECOND. 
          >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT MY TERM ENDS IN JUNE AS HISTORICALLY -- 
          >> FOR NOW. 
          >> WHAT? 
          >> I THINK I'M DONE IN JUNE. SO, BUT HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST, IF YOU ALL ARE OKAY WITH THAT, AND YOU JUST HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION AT THAT TIME. 
          >> I'M GOOD WITH THAT. 
          >> SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WOULD BE REALLY SAD BECAUSE I WAS NOT PREPARED TO DO OFFICERS TONIGHT. 
          I'LL JUST BE HONEST WITH YOU 
          ALL. >> WE'VE GOT THAT TAKEN CARE OF, THEN. 
          >> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. THIS TOOK A LOT LONGER THAN I THOUGHT IT WOULD. 
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.