8.c.2. Coblentz Equipment & Parts Co., Inc. Purchase one (1) Ventrac 4520N Compact Tractor and attachments. Public Works Department. $77,090.66.

[8.c.2. Coblentz Equipment & Parts Co., Inc. Purchase one (1) Ventrac 4520N Compact Tractor and attachments. Public Works Department. $77,090.66.]

QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MISSION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.

>> ITEM 8C TO AUTHORIZES THE PURCHASE OF A COMPACT TRACTOR AND ATTACHMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO BE A STATE CONTRACT FROM COHENS EQUIPMENT AND PARTS COMPANY INCORPORATED

IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,000 . >> ME FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MISSION AND A SECOND. MR. KOBLENZ IS NO LONGER WITH US

>> WE NEED TO NOTE IN THE RECORD THAT HE IS RECUSED COMPLETELY

AND HAS LEFT THE DAIS. >> ANY FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS? >> I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE FOR THE COUNCIL THIS IS ON STATE CONTRACT. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET THIS PRICE FOR THIS EQUIPMENT AND THAT IS THE ONLY VENDOR ACCESSIBLE TO US FOR THIS EQUIPMENT AND WE HAVE USED COPELAND EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR YEARS.

>> ME I ASKED A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS JUST FOR INFORMATION.

IS IS THE ONLY ONE IN OUR INVENTORY?

>> I WILL HAVE MR. BALLARD EXPLAIN IN A MINUTE. WE HAD BUDGETED THIS COMING WHAT APPEARS IN THE BUDGET AS A STREET SWEEPER, WHICH IS A BIT OF A MISNOMER IN TERMS OF HOW IT WAS CATEGORIZED. IT IS FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA, TO DO A LOT OF MAINTENANCE IN TIGHT SPACES, AND WE HAD BUDGETED FOR AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING DEVICE THAT WE TESTED AND DID NOT CARE FOR IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE CARE FOR THIS. MR. BALLARD?

>> THE SECOND COMPACT TRACTOR THAT WE HAVE IN OUR INVENTORY .

THAT WILL BE PREDOMINANTLY USED DOWNTOWN, BUT THIS IS A VERY VERSATILE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT FOR US. IT HAS MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS THAT WE CAN UTILIZE, FOR EVERYTHING FROM SURFACE SCRUBBING, WHICH IS WHAT THIS UNIT WILL BE USED FOR PREDOMINANTLY, TO RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE WITH VARIOUS

ATTACHMENTS YOU CAN PUT ON IT. >> IT IS A NEARLY $200,000 SAVINGS OVER WHAT WE HAD BUDGETED.

>> WE BOUGHT ONE OF THESE A FEW MONTHS AGO ?

[00:15:04]

>> NO SIR, WE'VE INTERACT TRACTOR WE HAVE HAD FOR AT LEAST

A COUPLE OF YEARS, NOW. >> TIME FLIES. THE ONE IT IS REPLACING, IT WON'T EVEN GO UP A 10 DEGREE RAMP OR SOMETHING?

>> CORRECT. IT WILL NOT GO UP EITHER OF THE PARKING GARAGE

RAMPS. UNDER ITS OWN POWER. >> IT IS PREDOMINANTLY TO DO JUST THAT. THAT IS WHY WE ARE BUYING IT AMONG OTHER THINGS.

>> YES, SIR. IT WILL BE USED IN THE PARKING GARAGES, BUT THEN ALSO WHEN WE DO THE BIANNUAL PRESSURE WASHING OF THE DOWNTOWN SIDEWALKS. BUT YOU CAN USE THIS FOR ANY HARD SURFACE CLEANING.

IT CAN BE USED FOR ANYTHING FROM TENNIS COURT CLEANING, IF PARKS AND REC NEED IT, TO ANYWHERE WITH A HARD SURFACE. OUR NEIGHBORS WILL BE USING IT FOR THAT AS WELL. OUT HERE IN THIS PARKING LOT, THE PUBLIC SAFETY PARKING LOT WHERE WE HAVE APPLICATIONS WE CAN USE IT AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.

[8.c.3. JACOBS Task Order 4-2026 Auburn VT SCADA Conversion Automation Solutions Provider (ASP) Services. $214,000.]

>> ITEM 8C3 AUTHORIZES TASK ORDER 2026 FOR THE AUBURN BT SOLUTION PROVIDER SERVICES FOR THE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,000.

>> MOVE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND. MISSES EIGHT C3? THE BENEFITS OF THIS SYSTEM AND PURCHASE, REALLY IS THAT OUR OLD SYSTEM IS NO LONGER SUPPORTED, AND IS OBSOLETE. SO, IT IS A

NO-BRAINER FROM THAT STANDPOINT. >> CORRECT.

>> AND THE COST OF OUR LAST SYSTEM WAS $127,000?

>> CORRECT, PER YOUR QUESTION TODAY, YES.

>> OKAY. I THINK THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PUT OFF, APPARENTLY. THIS IS SOMETHING --

>> I CAN HAVE MR. CARSON SPEAK TO THAT HE CAN EXPLAIN IN NONENGINEERING TERMS , WHAT IT IS USED FOR.

>> RIGHT. THIS SYSTEM IS USED, OUR OPERATORS USE THE SYSTEM , THEY MONITOR SEVERAL MONITORS IN THEIR CONTROL ROOM, THIS SOFTWARE ALLOWS THEM TO OPERATE THE PUMPS AND MOTORS AND SEE ALARMS, AND MONITOR ALL OF THE PUMP STATIONS ACROSS THE CITY AND ALL OF THAT. THE ROCKWELL SOFTWARE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IS NOT BEING SUPPORTED ANYMORE, IT IS BEING PHASED OUT. THE LAST SUPPORT THEY OFFER IS WINDOWS 10 AND WE HAVE MOVED ON TO WINDOWS 11. GREG DOES A GREAT JOB AT I.T. TRYING TO KEEP THIS RUNNING BUT IT IS GOING TO GET MORE CHALLENGING AND NOW IS THE TIME TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON, BECAUSE THEY WON'T SUPPORT IT ANYMORE AND IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE HAVE THIS. THIS IS LIKE, AIR-TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS, LANDON CLAIMS, TO HAVE ALL THIS STUFF IN FRONT, BUT IF IT IS NOT WORKING, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING IS OUT OF

CONTROL. >> YOU ARE REFERRING TO OUR ABILITY TO PUMP SEWER , AND FOR THE PUMP STATIONS, AND TO MOVE

THINGS ALONG AT THE PLANT? >> YEAH. IT ALLOWS THE OPERATOR TO DO HIS JOB. THAT IS WHAT HE SITS THERE AND MONITORS ALL DAY, PUSHES BUTTONS AND MONITORS ALARMS AND SONS MAINTENANCE CREWS OUT. THIS IS ESSENTIAL FOR HIS DAILY ACTIVITY. LIKE I SAID, GREG DOES A GREAT JOB KEEPING IT RUNNING, BUT ALSO FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT, THIS IS A BIG THING. THE OLD SOFTWARE IS VERY HARD TO PUT IN SECURITY PATCHES, AND THIS WILL MAKE IT MUCH EASIER FOR US TO PROTECT US FROM PEOPLE WITH BAD INTENTIONS.

>> THERE WAS SOMETHING I READ IN HERE ABOUT THREE SEPARATE

SOFTWARE PACKAGES? >> YEAH. THIS SOFTWARE IS IN THREE DIFFERENT SOFTWARE'S WITH ROCKWELL. COMPANY WE ARE GOING TO WILL CONSOLIDATE THAT TO EVERYTHING IS INTEGRATED AND

EASIER TO USE. >> VERY GOOD, THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THE CONSENT AGENDA IS

APPROVED. ORDINANCES? >> ITEM 9 A AMENDS VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CITY CODE TO ADD A DEFINITION TO MULTIUSE PATH AND

[00:20:05]

TO DEFINE ALLOWABLE USES ON SIDEWALKS AND MULTIUSE PATHS.

ANONYMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY. >> I WILL INTRODUCE THE

ORDINANCE. >> MISSION AND SECOND, IS ANYONE ON COUNCIL HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH A VOTE ON THIS? HEARING ON, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

>> YEAH. I WONDER IF WE COULD GET AN OVERVIEW OF WHY WE ARE AT THIS POINT, AND WHAT TYPE OF REGULATIONS WE CAN EXPECT ON

THIS. >> WE ARE AT THIS POINT, WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH MULTIUSE PATHS, WHICH ARE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE LARGER THAN FIVE FEET IN WIDTH, AS DEFINED HERE, BUT THEY ARE NOT DEFINED IN CITY CODE CURRENTLY, AND SO IT HAS CAUSED SEVERAL ISSUES,. TWO OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT PEOPLE CAN RELATE TO, IS THAT WE HAVE A VERY NICE MULTIUSE PATH BRAND-NEW ON MARTIN IS LOOKING DRIVE, AND WE HAVE PEOPLE PARKING ON THE MULTIUSE PATH . POLICE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ENFORCE NO PARKING ON THE MULTIUSE PATH BECAUSE A MULTIUSE PATH IS NOT DEFINED IN CITY CODE AS ANYTHING DIFFERENT. IT IS NOT A SIDEWALK, BECAUSE IT IS WIDER THAN FIVE FEET. AND SO, THEY CANNOT ENFORCE VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKING ON IT , CAN'T ASK THEM TO MOVE OR DO ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LAW ABOUT IT. THE OTHER THING, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS DEFINED IN HERE, THE OTHER CHALLENGE WE ARE HAVING IS THAT THERE IS LOTS OF CONFUSION IN THE RICHLAND ROAD AND MOORESVILLE AREAS OF GOLF CARTS DRIVING ON THE MULTIUSE PATH , AND ARGUMENTS ENSUING BETWEEN PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS, AND GOLF CARTS . AGAIN, POLICE CANNOT ENFORCE GOLF CARTS BEING ON MULTIUSE PATHS, WE NEVER DESIGNED A MULTIUSE PATH FOR THE GOLF CARTS, IT WAS DESIGNED FOR BICYCLES, SCOOTERS, STROLLERS, SKATEBOARDS, YOU NAME IT . THE CONCERN RAISED EARLIER WAS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE PROHIBITED . MULTIUSE PATHS WERE CREATED WITH THE INTENTION OF SHARING WITH MULTIPLE DEVICES, BUT, LARGER MOTORIZED DEVICES SUCH AS A GOLF CART, THERE IS NOT A TIME THAT THESE WERE DESIGNED. WE ARE NOT PEACHTREE CITY, GEORGIA, AND WE DID NOT DESIGN THESE PATHS FOR GOLF CARTS, AND THEY ARE BEING HEAVILY USED, AND POLICE CANNOT EASILY ENFORCE THAT, NOR CAN WE CARRY ON A PR CAMPAIGN SAYING YOU CANNOT DO THAT, WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A LAW ABOUT IT. IT IS THE SAME WITH THE PARKING. IF YOU CHOOSE TO ADOPT THIS TONIGHT MOVING FORWARD, WE HAVE A PR CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE THAT LIVE ALONG MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE, AND ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ARE HAVING CHALLENGES WHERE WE NEED TO GET OUT ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER THINGS, TO REMIND PEOPLE, IT IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. AND SO, THE WAY THIS IS DEFINED I HAVE ALSO RECEIVED A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING CALLED A MULTIUSE LANE WHICH IS ON SANDERS, AND NORTH AND SOUTH CARRY DRIVES, THOSE ARE DIFFERENT. THEY ARE ACTUALLY ON THE PAVEMENT OF THE ROAD, AS OPPOSED TO THESE, WHICH ARE OFF-ROAD . MULTIUSE PATHS ARE DIFFERENT. SO THOSE ARE NOT ROLLED UP IN THIS CURRENT DEFINITION.'S COUNSEL WANTS TO PURSUE THAT, RIGHT NOW, A MULTIUSE LANE IS NOT DEFINED IN CITY CODE. RANDY CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THOSE OF YOU HAVE BASTIONS OR HOW WE CAME UPON THOSE BUT THOSE ARE SEPARATE AND APART AS ISSUES THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY EVALUATE AT THE DISCRETION OF

THE COUNCIL. >> REGARDING MS. COLLINS'S CONCERNS ABOUT DOWNTOWN ACCESSIBILITY, THIS DOESN'T REALLY TOUCH ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

>> CORRECT BUT DOWNTOWN ACCESSIBILITY, WHERE SPECIFICALLY , ON THE CORE OF MAGNOLIA AND COLLEGE, IN THE CORE OF DOWNTOWN, WHERE A LOT OF DEVICES ARE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED, BECAUSE OF THE VOLUME OF PEDESTRIANS AND BUSINESSES , DOORS SWING OUT. SOME SWING IN, SOME SWING OUT, BUT WE HAVE HAD NEAR MISSES ON THE REGULAR WITH A CITIZEN STEPPING OUT OF A BUSINESS AND GETTING SMOKED BY A BICYCLE, OR IS CUTER. THAT IS A SEPARATE SITUATION. SO THAT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. IN THIS REGARD, AND RANDY CAN STEP IN HERE. IN TERMS OF OUR INTENT WITH MULTIUSE PATH WAS MULTIMODAL. THIS IS BEFORE ELECTRIC BICYCLES IN THE FORM THEY ARE IN NOW, AND THEIR HIGH-SPEED NATURE, BUT IT WAS ABSOLUTELY INTENDED FOR BICYCLES OF ALL SORTS TO BE ON THEIR.

SKATEBOARDS, ET CETERA, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THESE IN THE DOWNTOWN

AREA AT THIS TIME. BRANDY? >> I WOULD JUST CONCUR WITH WHAT MEGAN SAID. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE DOWNTOWN. THOSE SIDEWALKS, WIDER THAN FIVE FEET, ARE STILL WITHIN A ZONE WHERE BICYCLES ARE NOT ALLOWED ON THEM. BUT, THIS DOES NOT REALLY SPEAK TO THAT, AND SPECIFICALLY, IT EXCLUDES THAT

AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> IT WENT EFFECT HANDICAP

[00:25:01]

SCOOTERS OR WHEELCHAIRS? >> NO, THOSE ARE EXPRESSLY CALLED OUT IN HERE AS BELONGING ON MULTIUSE PATHS. AND AGAIN, IF THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO MARINADE ON THIS, OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THAT IS FINE. WE ARE BRINGING IT FORWARD BECAUSE WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO ENFORCE CERTAIN THINGS BUT IT IS ALSO FINE TO TAKE YOUR TIME OR DO WHATEVER YOU WISH.

>> ELECTRIC BIKES AND ELECTRIC SCOOTERS ARE ALLOWED ON THAT AS

WELL? >> YES, THEY ARE ALLOWED, AND THEY ARE ALLOWED PER STATE LAW, AS WELL. WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW ON THAT AS OF RIGHT NOW. WE CAN CHANGE THAT IF THERE WERE A NEED, BUT WE ARE BASICALLY DOING -- MIMICKING

STATE CODE. >> THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS, THE SIDEWALK OVER ON MARTIN LUTHER KING. I DON'T THINK THERE IS AN ISSUE OF MOVING VEHICLES SUCH AS SCOOTERS AND VEHICLES AND THINGS, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS , PEOPLE ARE PARKING ON THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE IF YOU PARK THERE, YOU PARK ALL DAY , THAT BLOCKS PEOPLE WHO DO HAVE SOME KIND OF DISABILITY ON A WHEELCHAIR OR SCOOTER, THEY HAVE TO GET INTO THE ROAD AND THEN STRUGGLE GETTING BACK. I HAVE SEEN MYSELF ON MARTIN AT THE KING WHERE PEOPLE HAVE PARKED ON THE SIDEWALK. AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE SIDEWALK. SO, I

THINK IT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. >> YOU ARE REFERRING TO OUTSIDE OF GAME DAY, ALSO. JUST ON A REGULATED DAY THAT YOU SEE

ISSUES? >> YES.

>> THIS PUTS A STOP TO THAT, DOESN'T IT?

>> CORRECT. IN PART, THAT IS BECAUSE MULTIUSE PATHS ARE NOT CURRENTLY DEFINED IN CITY CODE, SO WE ARE HELPLESS TO ENFORCE

THAT AT THE MOMENT. >> I THINK THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO A LOT OF PARTICULAR ANECDOTAL SITUATIONS, WHICH, WE SHOULD. I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE HAD TIME TO DO THAT. FOR INSTANCE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS ALLOWED GOES VERY FAST, AND THAT IS THESE ELECTRIC SCOOTERS. THEY PROBABLY COULD DO 25 MILES PER HOUR. THEY COULD BE THE FASTEST THING I HAVE SEEN OUT THERE, OUTSIDE OF A CAR, AND THEY ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

BUT, I THINK THAT WILL BE ALLOWED, AND IT MAY BE A QUESTION OF SCIENCE RATHER THAN THE SPEED. I'M NOT SURE. HOW WE ARE ALLOWING SOMETHING THAT COULD GO AS FAST AS THEY CAN GO , WHEN A GOLF CART IS NOT ALLOWED. SO, I THINK IT IS A QUESTION OF BULK AND GETTING RUN OVER BY SOMETHING LARGE, AS OPPOSED TO IS CUTER. I'M NOT SURE WHAT OUR RATIONALE IS . WE SHOULD EXPLORE THIS AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THIS, I THINK.

>> THIS HAS BEEN VETTED FOR SOME TIME BETWEEN DEVELOPING SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY, ALONG WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. EITHER DIRECTOR MATTHEWS OR DIRECTOR CUMMINGS CAN WEIGH IN ON WHERE

WE ARE WITH THAT. >> I WILL JUST ADD THAT EVERY CASE IS GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON THAT SPECIFIC CASE. YOU COULD ARGUE THAT A ROAD BICYCLE, OR A TOURING ROAD BICYCLE CAN GO MUCH FASTER THAN THAT AND IT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE SAME PATHWAY.

>> WE ARE REFERRING TO MULTIUSE PATHS AND NOT OUR SIDEWALKS IN GENERAL. THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. THESE ARE WIDER .

>> I AGREE, THAT IS A GOOD POINT. WE DID SPEND A LOT OF TIME VETTING THIS WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. WE LOOKED AT THE STATE LAW AND TRIED TO PARALLEL WHAT WE WERE SEEING TO WORK IN

PARALLEL WITH STATE LAW. >> ON A SIDE NOTE, I AM ENCOURAGED TO SEE THE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN AUBURN AND SABALENKA IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW WITH THE MULTIUSE PATH THAT GOES BETWEEN THE AIRPORT AND THE GOLF COURSE. SO, RIDERS WILL BE ABLE TO GET THERE VERY SOON WITHOUT HAVING TO NEGOTIATE PEPPERMILL PARKWAY OR FREDERICK ROAD. THAT IS INCREDIBLY GOOD NEWS AND I THINK THAT WILL MAKE A LOT OF COMMUTERS AND CYCLISTS VERY HAPPY AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU WILL HAVE DONE ON THAT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THE POLICY, AS FAR AS DOWNTOWN, THAT HAS REALLY NOT CHANGED. BUT, WHAT IS THE DOWNTOWN DEFINED AS , AS FAR AS THE PROHIBITION? IS IT JUST

COLLEGE STREET? >> NO, SIR. IT IS MAGNOLIA, FROM WRIGHT STREET, , COLLEGE FROM PETITIONER TO MAGNOLIA, AND THEN STREET FROM PETITIONER ALSO TO MAGNOLIA , I BELIEVE.

[00:30:08]

>> AS A BIKE RIDER, I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCERNS ON DOWNTOWN. THE ONLY THING I COULD SUGGEST IS THAT RIGHT STREET IS A GOOD ALTERNATIVE TO GET FROM NORTH TO SOUTH, OR VICE VERSA.

>> RIGHT STREET IS PERMITTED. >> RIGHT. THAT IS A GOOD ALTERNATIVE FOR THOSE HAVING DIFFICULTY ON THE DOWNTOWN. THE

STREETS THAT ARE PROHIBITED. >> THIS ADOPTS A NEW SECTION REFERRING TO LOW-SPEED VEHICLES. IS THERE AN ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF LOW-SPEED VEHICLES? I LOOKED IN THE ACTUAL SECTION, I THINK, AND THEY ONLY DEFINED THEM AS LOW-SPEED, THEY SAID FOUR

WHEELS. >> CORRECT. LOW-SPEED VEHICLES ARE DEFINED IN CITY CODE AS TAXICABS, LIKE GOLF CARTS THAT WE DEALT WITH SOMETIME AGO. THEY ARE NOT DEFINED SEPARATELY, THEY ARE DEFINED IN STATE CODE AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE RELYING ON.

SO, THE DEFINITION IN STATE CODE, I WILL GET TO IT REAL QUICK, IS, A LOW-SPEED VEHICLE , INCLUDING NEIGHBORHOOD ELECTRIC VEHICLES AS DEFINED AS A FOUR WHEELED MOTOR VEHICLE WITH A TOP SPEED OF NOT GREATER THAN 25 MILES PER HOUR, A GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING OF LESS THAN 3000 POUNDS, AND COMPLYING WITH SAFETY STANDARDS PROVIDED ELSEWHERE IN CODE.

>> THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE WHAT I KNOW THAT ELECTRIC TRIKES ARE A THING THAT IS COMING. TRICYCLES, WHICH ARE THREE WHEELS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A LOW-SPEED VEHICLE. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT OUR DEFINITION OF LOW-SPEED VEHICLES IS BROAD AND ACCURATE.

>> RIGHT NOW WE ARE RELYING ON THE STATES LOW-SPEED VEHICLE

REGULATION. >> ALL RIGHT. FINALLY, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE MULTIUSE LANES, WE HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THIS INTO THE PACKET MEETING. I WOULD ASK THAT WE HAVE STAFF DEFINE WHAT A MULTIUSE LANE IS AND WHAT IS AND IS NOT ALLOWED FOR A MULTIUSE LANE. I KNOW I HAVE SOME IN MY WARD COMPLAINING ABOUT PARKING IN THEM OR PUTTING TRASH CANS ON THEM OR WHATEVER.

YOU KNOW, THEY ASKED ME WHAT IT IS FOR, AND I REALLY DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER. I THINK WHEN THEY WERE BUILT, BECAUSE I WAS LIVING THERE, IT WAS FOR BIKES, WAS THE INTENT, AND PEDESTRIAN WALKING.

BUT THOSE ARE LOOSE DEFINITIONS, I'M SURE. IT HAS BEEN A WILD. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US FORMALIZE THAT DEFINITION. I AM NOT SAYING WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TO FIND SOMETHING SO WE AT LEAST HAVE AN ANSWER WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS, WHAT IS THIS LANE SUPPOSED TO BE FOR.

>> WHAT COUNCILMAN GRISWOLD HAS DEALT WITH DURING HIS TENURE ON THE COUNCIL, QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS IS PARTICULAR PARKING IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE IS ASKING ME ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.

BECAUSE IT IS NOT DEFINED AS A BICYCLE LANE, WE HAVE NOT HAD THE RIGHT TO SAY YOU CANNOT PARK THERE ALMOST COUNCIL DECIDES

OTHER WAYS. BRENDA? >> HISTORY ON THAT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT MAYOR ANDERS MENTIONED. WE HAD PEOPLE WANTING TO RIDE THEIR BIKES, AND WE HAD PEOPLE WANTING SIDEWALKS, PARTICULARLY IN THAT AREA AND WE WERE UNABLE TO CONSTRUCT THE SIDEWALKS THROUGH THOSE PROPERTIES. SO, THE ROAD BEING VERY WIDE, BUT IT WAS NOT WIDE ENOUGH FOR BIKE LANES ON EACH SIDE BUT THAT IS WHEN WE ADOPTED THIS MULTIUSE LANE . WE CALLED IT, WITH THE INTENT THAT PEOPLE WOULD USE IT FOR BIKING AND PEDESTRIANS. SO, WALKING AND BIKING IN LIEU OF A SIDEWALK. WHEN WE SURVEYED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT THAT TIME, THEY DID NOT WANT TO RESTRICT PARKING. SO, THAT WAS A PART OF THE CONSIDERATION. PARKING AS OF CURRENT IS NOT RESTRICTED IN THAT MULTIUSE LANE. TO YOUR POINT, WE CAN LOOK AT DEFINITIONS AND DEFINING --

>> DO WE HAVE THESE LANES ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY?

>> WE DO NOT. THAT IS THE ONLY ONE RIGHT NOW.

>> IT IS IN RESPONSE TO CITIZENS.

>> DOES WRIGHTSVILLE ROAD FIT THAT DESCRIPTION?

>> NO, SIR, IT IS NOT. >> DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN QUICKLY? WE LOOKED THIS ALL UP BASED ON --

>> IT WAS ACTUALLY DEVELOPED, PROBABLY 30 YEARS AGO. I THINK IT WAS FIRST STRIPED AS A PARKING LANE, AND THEN SUBSEQUENT HOMEOWNERS DID NOT WANT PEOPLE PARKING IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSES , SO A LOT IT IS PARKING RESTRICTED BUT SOME OF IT DOES STILL ALLOW PARKING. THAT WAS A DELINEATION AT THE TIME , SOLVING A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, AND SO, THEY WERE DEFINING PARKING ON ONE SIDE AND NOT THE OTHER AND IT HAS CHANGED OVER TIME AS WELL.

>> I KNOW THAT PORTIONS OF THE SANDERS ROAD LANE DOES HAVE A

[00:35:03]

ROAD MARKED AND LANE. THERE IS THAT INITIAL ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS ONLY PUT IN WITH SUFFICIENT ROOM FOR A SIDEWALK, BUT IT HAS OUTLIVED ITSELF, I THINK. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE STAFF, WITH COUNSEL CONCURRENCE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND GIVE US A DEFINITION OF WHAT IT IS, WHERE IT IS, AND WHAT IT CAN AND CANNOT BE USED FOR. IS EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT?

>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> OKAY.

>> WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THIS A SEPARATE AND APART, WE WILL WORK ON THAT, WHETHER YOU WANT TO ADOPT THIS TONIGHT OR NOT IS MULTIUSE PATHS AND MULTIUSE LANES ARE SEPARATE, AND TOTALLY FINE TO BRING THAT

FORWARD AS SOON AS IT IS READY. >> I DO NOT MEAN TO IMPEDE OR DELAY A VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM

>> WILL DO. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS? OKAY. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE. LINDSAY?

>> KOBLENZ, JOHNSON, GRISWOLD? PARSONS? TAYLOR? WHITTEN? ADAMS?

ANDERS? >> ALL RIGHT, I WOULD LIKE EVERYBODY TO INDULGE THAT THE NEXT FIVE ITEMS ARE RELATED TO

[9.b.1. Pre-zoning. The Foundry at North College. Approximately 126.97 acres to Comprehensive Development District (CDD). Property located at the northwest corner of North College Street and Shug Jordan Road intersection. Public hearing required.]

ONE ANOTHER AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A LENGTHY STATEMENT ABOUT EACH OF THEM AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT OF ALL FIVE PICTURES HANG IN THERE WITH ME, WHILE I RUN THROUGH THE PACES EVERYBODY CAN FOLLOW US. SO, FIRST, WE HAVE ITEM NINE B1 IS A REQUESTED REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 126.97 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH COLLEGE STREET , THAT IS A CONFERENCE OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THE ELEMENTS KNOWN AS THE FOUNDRY. PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, IT IS THE DECEMBER 11TH MEETING. A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT OF THIS ITEM, AND ALL ASSOCIATED AGENDA ITEMS INCLUDING 92, THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE, TO DATE CERTAIN FOR THE THIRD, 2026, AND FOR THIS TO BE CONSIDERED FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

>> I MOVE TO POSTPONE TO DATE CERTAIN, FEBRUARY THE THIRD AND BE CONSIDERED AS A FRESH READING.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MISSION AND A SECOND TO POSTPONE EACH OF THESE ITEMS UNTIL FEBRUARY THE THIRD.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL?

>> WE NEED TO TAKE THEM INDIVIDUALLY, CORRECT?

>> WE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE.

>> AND ALSO, ONE OF THE REASONS IS , I BELIEVE WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS A WORK SESSION, SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THIS IN GREATER

LENGTH. >> ABSOLUTELY. WE ARE -- SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SAID STAFF LONG EXPECTED HE WOULD LIKELY WORKS BEST SESSION. THIS IS A LARGE DEVELOPMENT WITH A LOT OF MOVING PARTS. WE NEED TO BE SURE THAT COUNSEL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND SOME TIME WITH IT , DESIGN ORNAMENTS, AND WE WILL GET INTO THE AGENDA ITEM, MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM IN HER WARDING IS ALLOWED TO INVITE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS IN HAVE SEEN ASPECTS OF THIS FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, NOW. THE REST OF COUNSEL HAS NOT, OTHER THAN WHEN IT HIT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.

WE WANT TO GIVE AMPLE TIME TO WALK YOU THROUGH IT FROM THE START, AND TO CARRY YOU ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THE APPLICANT IS DEFINITELY THE ONE THAT IS REQUESTING THE FEBRUARY 3RD DATE. WE ALSO NEED TO BRING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FORWARD WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY IN ANY AGENDA.

>> JUST A QUESTION ON THE MOTION? WOULD WE STILL HAVE A

PUBLIC HEARING ? >> ABSOLUTELY BECAUSE YOU HAVE

NOT HELD IT AT ALL. >> WHEN YOU SAY FIRST READING, IS THIS THE FIRST READING , EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOT EVEN LOOKING

AT IT? >> WE ARE READING IT IN TO THE

RECORD. >> CORRECT.

>> YOU ARE INTRODUCING IT TONIGHT, THAT IS IT, IT IS OUT THERE IN THE PUBLIC REALM. AND THEN THE NEXT TIME, SECOND READING JUST MEANS YOU CANNOT DENY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. BUT, YOU CAN POSTPONE, OR DO ANYTHING ELSE. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

FIRST READING IS JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE. A LOT OF CITIES DIDN'T DO THINGS ON FIRST READING ANYWAY, THEY JUST INTRODUCE THEM AND THEN CARRY ON.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> YOU DO NOT NEED TO ROLL CALL

A POSTPONEMENT. >> ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

>> ITEM 9 B2 IS A REQUESTED REZONE APPROXIMATELY 155.188 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH COLLEGE STREET ACROSS FROM THE KERRY CREEK PARKWAY AND THE LEGACY SUBDIVISION FROM RURAL TO CONFERENCE OF DEVELOPMENT

[00:40:02]

DISTRICT FOR A DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE FOUNDRY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY REGIMENTED APPROVAL OF THIS PROCESS, IT IS A DECEMBER 11TH MEETING. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY. A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT OF THIS ITEM, AND ALSO ASSOCIATED AGENDA ITEMS TO DATE CERTAIN EPHEDRA THIRD, 26, FOR THIS TO BE CONSIDERED FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

>> MOVED TO POSTPONE TO DATE CERTAIN FEBRUARY 3RD FOR THIS TO

BE CONSIDERED FIRST READING. >> SECOND.

>> MISSION A SECOND ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? AND THE MOTION CARRIES.

>> ITEM 9B3 IS A REQUEST TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SUGARED AND PARKWAY FOR A DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE FOUNDRY. PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AT ITS DECEMBER 11TH MEETING. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT OF THIS ITEM AND ALL ASSOCIATED AGENDA ITEMS INCLUDING 91, 92, NINE BEFORE, AND 95 TO DATE CERTAIN FEBRUARY 3RD 2026, AND FOR THIS TO BE CONSIDERED FIRST READING

OF THE ORDINANCE. >> MOVED TO POSTPONE TO DATE CERTAIN FEBRUARY 3RD, AND BE CONSIDERED FIRST READING.

>> SECOND. HAS ANYONE GOT ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS?

>> ITEM NUMBER THREE AND FOUR DON'T HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

>> NO, MA'AM. THEY ARE ANNEXATIONS. THANK YOU FOR

ASKING. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

>> ITEM 9 BEFORE IS A REQUEST TO ANNEX PROXIMATELY 99.7 ACRES OF PROPERTY ACROSS FROM HICKORY DEGREE PARK FOR A DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE FOUNDRY. PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY COMMITTED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT OF THIS ITEM AND ALSO ASSOCIATED AGENDA ITEMS. TO A DATE CERTAIN FEBRUARY 3RD 2026, AND FOR THIS TO BE CONSIDERED FIRST READING OF THE

ORDINANCE. >> MOVED TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN EPHEDRA THIRD, AND FOR THIS TO BE CONSIDERED FIRST

MEETING. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? AND

THE MOTION CARRIES. >> ITEM 95 IS A REQUEST TO APPROVE A PUD TO APPROXIMATELY 280 ACRES OF PROPERTY FOR A DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE FOUNDRY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AT ITS MEETING.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT OF THIS ITEM TO A DATE CERTAIN OF EPHEDRA THIRD, 2026, AND FOR THIS TO BE CONSIDERED FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

>> MOVED TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN EPHEDRA THIRD AND TO BE

CONSIDERED FIRST READING. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

>> A QUICK EXPLAINER, THAT IS ZONING'S AND ANNEXATIONS TO CULMINATE, ULTIMATELY, IN 95 TO GET TO THE PLANT IN A DEVELOPING DISTRICT, AND I HAVE TO GO IN THE PREVIOUS ORDER WHEN WE GET THERE. STAFF WILL RECOMMEND, ALONG THE WAY, IF YOU GET TO ACTING UPON THIS, THAT IF YOU WERE TO CHOOSE TO REZONE ANY OF THIS, YOU NEED TO BE VERY ON BOARD WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. BECAUSE THAT IS THE CULMINATION AND CONTRACTUALLY

[10.a.1. 306 East Thach Avenue Private Dormitory. Performance residential development (private dormitory). Property located at 306 East Thach Avenue.]

LOCKING THE PROPERTY IN THE WAY YOU ARE APPROVING IT. INTO RESOLUTIONS. ITEM 10 A1 IS A REQUEST FOR USE FOR APPROVAL FOR A PRIVATE DORMITORY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 306 EAST THATCH AVENUE. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BY A VOTE OF 8-1. A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED.

>> MOVED FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. THIS TIME I WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ABOUT THIS PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU WILL HAVE 5:00 TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL.

>> BRAD ASKIN, I DECIDED TO TALK THROUGH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

WE DID GET APPROVAL AT PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS PROJECT IS A LITTLE UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT. WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE THE EXISTING HOUSE UPFRONT. IT IS A 1920S HOUSE, WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE UP FRONT AND BUILD THE ADDITIONAL THREE UNITS BEHIND THEM. SO, IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. MOST OF THE TIME , I USUALLY SHOW UP ON THE COVER OF THE PAPER WHEN WE TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE TO BUILD THESE UNITS SO WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE THIS HOUSE AND BUILD THESE NEW UNITS BEHIND. THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNER WILL GET UP AND SPEAK A BIT MORE ABOUT THAT, BUT HE HAS HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH

[00:45:01]

NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU. >> HOW ARE Y'ALL? I'M ANDREW

GOODMAN, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER. >> WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS?

>> 432 PINEVILLE DRIVE, AUBURN. THANK YOU ALL. IT IS AN INITIAL INDICATION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS DAUGHTERS AND THEY REACHED OUT TO YOU ALL AGAIN. THEY REACHED OUT TO ME, AND AFTER SEEING PLANNING COMMISSION THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO, THAT SEEMS TO HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT TO THEM, AND THEY ASKED IF I WOULD PUT A FENCE UP AND I TOLD HIM THAT WAS MY PLAN AND THAT I WOULD WORK WITH THEM ON THAT SO IT WAS NOT TOO FAR OVER THE PROPERTY. I THINK THEY WERE INITIALLY UNAWARE OF WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE WAS, OR HOW CLOSE IT WAS TO THE STRUCTURE, BUT THE MAIN GOAL IS TO KEEP THAT FRONT HOUSE. IT IS A 1920S HOUSE AND WE KNOW A LOT OF THEM GET TORN DOWN. THERE ARE A LOT OF USES THAT ARE OVER THERE . MULTI FAMILY COTTAGES WITH HIGHER DENSITY THAT YOU CAN DO BY RIGHT, THIS BEING PRIVATE DORMITORY IS ADDING A COUPLE OF UNITS OUT BACK. I THINK THAT IS

IT. >> ANYONE ELSE? CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL?

>> I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.

>> MR. GOODNER WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD?

>> WHEN I INITIALLY SAW PRIVATE IN AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD I WAS LIKE, OH MY GOD, LET'S NOT DO THAT BUT I, AS WELL AS EVERYONE ON THE COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED POSITIVE SUPPORT FOR YOUR PROJECT, I APPRECIATE YOU REACHING OUT AND TALKING TO THEM. ARE YOU GOING TO CHANGE THE FAÇADE AT ALL OF THE EXISTING HOUSE? ARE THERE CHANGES HE WILL MAKE A

DIFFERENCE ON FROM THE STREET? >> YOU ARE ASKING IF YOU PLAN

TO? >> I PLAN TO KEEP THE HOUSE AS IT IS. YOU WILL SEE SOME CHANGES TO LANDSCAPING, AND AS I BOUGHT IT FROM AN OLDER LADY , I HAVE TO GO MEET HER AT THAT MISSING HIM TO SIGN THE PAPERS. SHE HAD LIVED IN IT SINCE SHE WAS LITTLE, SO I GUESS I AM THE SECOND OWNER OF IT, AND I TOLD HER, I DON'T LIKE TO TEAR DOWN OLD HOUSES BUT IT WOULD BE FOR THE STUDENTS. INSIDE HAS BEEN CHANGED BUT THE OUTSIDE WILL

REMAIN HOW IT IS. >> I CERTAINLY APPLAUD YOU FOR

THAT. >> HE WAS A THAT SAME PORCH THERE. THE UNITS WILL BE OUT BACK. SO, YOU WILL SEE A BIT OF

A STREETSCAPE CHANGE. >> THIS IS THE SAME USE AS WHAT

YOU HAVE NOW? >> YES, SIR. NIELSENS HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE 70S . I HAVE MET THEM AND WE HAVE GOTTEN ALONG WELL. HAS BEEN GIRLS AND WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY ISSUES. I STOP BY AND SAY HELLO TO THEM. I DID TELL THEM ABOUT THIS. WE HAVE REACHED OUT AND HAVE GOOD CONVERSATIONS.

>> ARE YOU AN ESTABLISHED NATURE WAFER GROUNDS MAINTENANCE?

>> NO, THERE WILL NOT BE A NATURE WAY.

>> HOW WILL THE APPEARANCE BE MANAGED?

>> THROUGH MY YARD PLAN. >> OKAY. I HOPE IT IS NOT THE

SAME WHEN USED OVER ON DRAKE. >> I DON'T OWN ANYTHING ON

DRAKE. >>, I THOUGHT THAT CAUSE I FRATERNITY THING AT THE CORNER WAS YOURS.

>> NOT ME. >> I AM GLAD TO HEAR THAT. THAT THING IS A MESS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> YOU DON'T APPRECIATE THEIR LANDSCAPING?

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE ELSE?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION WHILE YOU ARE HERE. I HAVE WATCHED THE PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATE, AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR CURB CUTS. YOU ARE GOING TO ELIMINATE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY . IS THAT ON THE STREET LEVEL AS WELL?

>> THE DRIVEWAY, AS FAR AS HOW THE ACTUAL PARKING LAYOUT, IF THAT CURB CUT HAS TO BE ELIMINATED OR NOT WILL BE APPROVED WHEN WE MEET WITH PLANNING.

>> THAT IS DOWN THE WAYS. >> THAT DRIVEWAY WILL BE ELIMINATED. RENEE OLSEN HAD TOLD HER THAT, THERE MIGHT STILL BE A FEW CARS PARKED THERE BUT IT WILL NOT BE A THROUGHWAY ANYMORE. WE DON'T KNOW IF THE CURB LIMIT CUT HAS TO GO AWAY.

>> THEN, THERE WILL BE A NEW WHEN INTRODUCED ON THE EASTERN

SIDE OF THE HOUSE? >> YES, SIR. THERE WILL BE. THAT IS WHERE THE MAIN CURB CUT WILL BE, AND THAT IS WHERE INGRESS AND EGRESS WILL BE. THERE COULD BE A COUPLE OF PARKING SPOTS BY THE OLSONS. THEY WERE ACTUALLY APPRECIATIVE. THIS IS CUTTING DOWN ON THE CARS GOING RIGHT PAST THE HOUSE, BECAUSE IT IS

CLOSE >> YEAH, BUT WAS ENCOURAGING TO SEE . SHOULD IT GO THROUGH , BUT YOU WOULD NOT BE HAVING THAT BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN 15 RESIDENTS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE HOUSE SITS CLOSE TO THE FRONT AND

[00:50:04]

THEIR LOT IS CUT IN HALF. SHE SAID THAT BEFORE THEY BOUGHT IT SOMEONE SOLD OFF THE BACK OF IT, THAT IS THE GREENS BCC CONNECTED TO 221 ARMSTRONG. THEY DON'T AND THAT, SO THE HOUSE HAS REALLY SAT SINCE NEXT TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND IT WON'T HAVE MUCH IMPACT FROM THE BACK.

>> THANK YOU. >> CAN I JUST COMMENT HERE. WHEN THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT, THIS PORTION OF ARMSTRONG WAS DIRT.

BEHIND THE HOUSE WAS PASTOR. >> BACK WHERE TO 21 IS?

>> WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO ADD THESE UNITS. THIS PORTION OF ARMSTRONG STREET WAS DIRT. I REMEMBER IT WELL.

>> YOU KNOW THE AREA.? >> THERE WERE NO PAVED STREETS IN 1977 WHEN THEY OPENED IT UP. SO, THIS GOES BACK ALMOST THAT

FAR. >> YOU WERE AROUND IN 1907? A

>> YES, SIR. I WAS ON THE COUNCIL.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU, DREW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY

[10.a.2. Auburn Flex Works. Commercial Support (wholesale distributor, warehouse, mini-warehouse, contractor's office) and road service use (automotive paint/body work). Property located at the terminus of Hilton Garden Drive.]

OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. >> ITEM 10 A2 IS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USES, WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTOR WAREHOUSE , CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE AND ROAD SERVICE USE OF AUTOMOTIVE, PAINT, AND BODYWORKS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF HILTON GARDEN DRIVE , FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS AUBURN FLEX WORKS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BY A VOTE OF 8-1 AT ITS JANUARY 8TH MEETING ON

THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED. >> MOVED FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> MISSION AND SECOND. THIS TIME I WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL. YES, SIR.

>> I SAT TOO CLOSE TO THE BACK THIS EVENING. GOOD EVENING, WE THARP, THERE IS A BIT OF BACK STORY ON THIS, GOING THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION, WE GOT APPROVAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING BUT THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL REQUEST, FROM THE FIRST TIME WE BROUGHT IT IN, WE HAD A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE WHICH DELAYED ADDING THIS TO YOU ALL. ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, I THINK WE WILL BE GOOD TO GO FOR THAT, HEADING INTO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. A COUPLE THAT I WANTED TO HIT RELATING TO THE MAIN POINTS OF DISCUSSION AT PLANNING COMMISSION JUST SO YOU WILL HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION AS A CONTINUOUS EVENING. SEVERAL CAN ADDITIONAL USES BEING REQUESTED THAT MEGAN READ A SECOND AGO. ADDITIONALLY, WE HAD SEVERAL MORE PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT WAS TO PULL IT OFF WHEN IT CAME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THIS IS PRIMARILY GOING TO BE A COMMERCIAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, IT IS A BIT OF A DIFFERENT DELIVERY THAN WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IN A STANDARD OFFICE BUILDING.

THESE ARE SPLIT UNITS THAT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE EXTERIOR , AND THEY ARE GOING TO COME WITH A GLASS ROLLUP DOOR FOR EACH UNIT, ALONG WITH -- OBVIOUSLY A SINGLE PERSON DOOR. THIS DEVELOPER HAS SEVERAL OF THESE FACILITIES ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. THEY MAY CORRECT ME ON THIS IF THEY GET UP BUT I THINK THE ONLY ONES EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI ARE IN FLORIDA.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN WEST. BUT, THEIR INTENTION IS TO BRING A SIMILAR PRODUCT, HERE. IF THEY GET SUCCESS WITH IT. BUT, MOST OF THE TENANTS THEY HAVE ARE SOME SORT OF PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE . THE FLEX SET UP WITH THAT DOOR POTENTIAL IS WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR SOME OF THESE CONDITIONAL USES. THEY HAVE SEVERAL TENANTS INFORMED THIS REQUEST, PRIMARILY, THEY HAVE GOT SOME SMALLER CONTRACTOR TYPE USES THAT REQUIRE A BIT OF INDOOR STORAGE , WHICH IS TRIGGERING SOME OF THAT. I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANOTHER REQUEST FOR ROAD SERVICE USE ASSOCIATED WITH SEVERAL OF THESE FACILITIES THAT HAVE A WINDOW TINT SHOP , SO THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO GET SOME OF THAT CLEARED UP. EARLY, RATHER THAN COMING BACK LATER.

BUT AGAIN, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT ANY USE IS NOT ON THIS LIST WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AT SOME POINT WHEN THEY HAVE THE TENANTS

[00:55:04]