[ROLL CALL]
[00:00:04]
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
THANK YOU. BEFORE WE START I LIKE TO GIVE OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS.
THE COMMISSION WILL BE PRESENTED WITH ITEM FROM THE STAFFMENTF A PUBLIC HEARING AND THIS IS THERE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ABOUT THE AGENDA ITEM.
WE WANT EVERYONE TO BE HEARD AND KEEP YOU-ASK YOU KEEP YOUR TIME AT 5 MINUTES. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT A Q & AS. AS QUESTIONS ARISE THEY WILL BE ANSWERED ONCE THE HEARING IS CLOSED.
DON'T FORGET TO SIGN IN AFTER YOU SMEEK.
SPEAK. AFTER EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN, EVERYONE WILL HAVE THEIR COMMENTS ADDRESSED BY STAFF OR APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE HERE FOR THE AGENDA ITEM.
YOU HAVE RESPOND TO COMMENTS BROUGHT UP DURING PUBLIC HEARING AND WILL VOTE BASED ON STATE AND LOCAL LAWS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 2030. SUMMARIZE THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY RELATED TO-A COMMISSION IS APPROVAL AUTHORITY. THE COMMISSION ACTS AS ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND BOUND BY STATE LAWS CITY ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY MEET OR EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS CODIFIED IN LAW AND REGULATIONS.
PLANNING COMMISSION IS-BODY TO CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT IN THE CASE OF SUBDIVISION PLATS. ALL THE DECISIONS WILL BE MADE BY COUNCIL AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION POSITION. THANK YOU.
AT THIS TIME, I LIKE TO OPEN CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.
THAT IS SOMETHING IF YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO SOMETHING NOT ON THE TONIGHT AGENDA. SEEING NONE, CLOSE CITIZEN
[Additional Item]
COMMUNICATION AND ONE OLD BUSINESS ITEM.>> BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THAT ONE, I WANT TO MAKE A ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE ON THE ORIGINAL AGENDA LIST, ITEM 6, PRELIMINARY PLAT BROWN TOWNHOMES. THAT ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT AND WILL NOT BE A HEARING TONIGHT.
THERE WILL NOT BE HEARING. THE ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT AND NOT HEARD TONIGHT.
>> THANK YOU. >> AND THEN, I GUESS ON ANOTHER NOTE, THERE WAS SOMETHING-WE TALKED ABOUT THE MASTER SIGNER PLAN, ITEM 11, FORMALLY ITEM 12, THERE IS SOMETHING STAFF NOTED AND I GUESS I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, PROBABLY REQUEST THAT TO BE POSTPONED WHEN WE GET TO IT.
THAT IS AT THE VERY END. ITEM 11.
[1. Preliminary Plat – Bud Black Road & West Farmville Road ]
>> THANK YOU. >> REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 138 LOT PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS LOCATED CORNING BUD BLACK AND WEST FARMVILLE ROAD AND PHASE 10 OF PRESERVED PDD.
THE UPDATED PLAT HAS REMOVED 27 RESIDENTIAL LOTS SO NOW THERE WILL BE 131 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 5 OPEN SPACE LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS.
ORIGINALLY PHASE 10 OF THE PRESERVED PDD APPROVED FOR 374 TOTAL UNITS, 178 SINGLE FAMILY AND 196 MULTIFAMILY.
AUTUMN RIDGE PHASE 1 AND 2, WHICH ARE BOTH WITHIN PHASE 10 OF THE PRESERVE PDD TOOK UP 69 UNITS WHICH LEFT 305, 109 SINGLE FAMILY, 196 MULTIFAMILY.
FOREGETHE MULTIFAMILY AND BUILD 131 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LEAVING 174 LOTS ON THE TABLE.
THE PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR APPROVAL. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS PRELIMINARY PLAT AND OLD BUSINESS AND WE DID HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT LAST MEETING. SO, WE WILL BE NOT OPENING UP PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> PERFECT.
SO, COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS--OR THOUGHTS OR
MOTIONS? >> I MOVE TO PROVE 2025047 BUD BLACK AND WEST FARMVILLE.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
>> ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? THANK YOU. NOW MOVE TO CONSENT AGENDA.
[00:05:01]
THERE ARE TWO ANNEXATIONS AND OUR MINUTES AND THERE IS A REQUEST TO REMOVE ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.IF YOU PLEASE MAKE THE MOTION. >> I LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO REMOVE BOTH ITEMS 2 AND 3, THE ANNEXATION FOR DAVID AND KELLI RUSSELL AND THE ANNEXATION FOR KELSO AND BROOKE HAMILTON FROM THE CONSENT
>> MOTION AND SECOND. TO REMOVE TWO ITEMS FROM CONSENT. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? THANK YOU.
SO, WE DO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSENT OF JUST APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM PACKET AND REGULAR MEETING IN
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.
[2. Annexation – David & Kelli Russell ]
THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM ANNEXATIONTHIS IS A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 3 ACRES.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SANDHILL ROAD ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS ON THE EAST.
THAT PROPERTY THAT IS ADJACENT TO WAS ANNEXED IN 1988, AND THERE IS ONE-THERE IS A RESIDENTS ON THE PROPERTY HERE AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANNEXATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR
THE APPLICANT AND/OR- >> YES, I REQUESTED BOTH OF THESE TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AND THE DISCUSSION WILL BE SIMILAR FOR BOTH OF THEM.
MY CONCERN IS THAT, THE RESOURCES THAT ARE GOING TO GO TO THESE DEVELOPMENTS-IN THE CONCERN IS THAT AT SOME POINT-RIGHT NOW THE ROADS ARE COUNTY ROADS, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND SO, AS WE START-TRY TO EXPAND OUR FOOTPRINT AROUND THE CITY AND WE START ANNEXING PROPERTIES IN HERE, WE GET ROADS BECOME ASSIGNED TO THE CITY AND WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEM AND MAYBE PAVE THEM AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
SO, RIGHT NOW BOTH OF THESE AND AGAIN, I'LL TALK ONE AT A TIME, BUT IT IS THE LOW PRIORITY FOR ANNEXATION AND MY QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT WOULD BE, WHAT ARE THE DECISIONS THAT GO INTO THE COUNTY BASICALLY SAY ING THIS IS YOUR ROAD NOW AND YOU HAVE TO--BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE A CHOICE IN THAT AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
ONCE THE COUNTY DECIDES IT IS OUR ROAD, THEN IT IS OUR ROAD AND THEN ALL THE RESOURCES HAVE TO GO TO THAT TO DO WHAT
WE NEED TO DO. >> I GUESS ENGINEERING LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
>> HOW DO THEY MAKE THE DECISION?
>> THE DECISION ONCE A YEAR THE CITY GETS WITH IT COUNTY TOGETHER AND THEY LOOK AT THESE AREAS WHERE YOU YOU HAVE CONTIGUOUS AN EXATIONS. ONCE YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT LENGTH OF ROADWAY YOU HAVE THAT SCENARIO WHERE YOU GOTTEN ANNEXATION ON BOTH SIDES AND THEN MY UNDERSTANDING, THIS IS STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES US TO TAKE OVER OWNERSHIP THAT PORTION OF THE ROAD.
THAT HAPPENS ON ANNUAL BASIS CURRENTLY.
SO, IT ISN'T NECESSARILY THE COUNTY SAYING HEY, WILL YOU TAKE THESE PLEASE OR YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE THIS.
>> IT IS FUNCTION OF HOW MANY ANNEXATIONS WE MOVE ALONG THE ROAD AND THE FARTHER WE GO, THE MORE THEY ARE INCLINED TO TURN THE ROAD OVER
>> SO, IT WOULDN'T BE JUST THE ROAD.
SO, THE ANNEXATION PRIORITY IS DONE FROM A LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS AND FROM THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.
WHAT IT LOOKS AT IS, ACCESS OF UTILITIES, IF YOU CAN GET CITY WATER AND SEWER. THESE AREAS, PRETTY SURE SANDHILL ROAD DOESN'T HAVE SEWER, DOES IT?
>> NO, IT DOESN'T. >> SO, SO ON THAT AND THERE IS ALSO JUST FOR THE FUTURE, IS THIS-WOULD IT-IS IT IT EASILY DEVELOPABLE? IT IS FLAT? IS IT WET? ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS AND ALSO LOOKS AT KIND IS IT IN THE PLANNING JURISDICTION OF OPELIKA OR THE EXPANSION OF [INAUDIBLE] BUT, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS REALLY SO FAR ON THE FAR REACHES THAT EVEN
[00:10:04]
THOUGH IT IS IN THE BOUNDARY IT DOESN'T LEND TO ANY DENSE DEVELOPMENT SO THEREFORE THE ANNEXATION PRIORITY WOULD BE LOW BECAUSE THE ONLY THING POSSIBLE ON IT WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING FROM A RESIDENTIAL STANDPOINT OR NON RESIDENTIAL USE. BUT, THAT IS WHAT THE ANNEX PRIORITY SPEAKS TO IS THAT THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE THERE WOULDN'T BE MUD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.THIS IS JUST SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING WHERE THE BURDEN IS ON THE CITY TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES.
WHAT THE TAXES WOULD YIELD PRETTY MUCH.
THAT IS WHAT THE REFLECTION OF ANNEXATION PRIORITY.
WHEN YOU GET IN TOWN TO PIECES LIKE WHERE THE BOUNDARIES IS LOCATED AND HIGH CAPACITY FOR SEWER AND A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT HIGH INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT THAT THEN OFFER SALES TAX ET CETERA, THOSE THINGS ARE HIGH ANNEXATION, HIGH POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT AND HIGH POTENTIAL TO YIELD REVENUE FOR THE BURDEN OF SERVICE IN THE AREAS AND WHEN YOU GET TO SPARSE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT ISN'T THE CASE.
IN THIS INSTRETCH ALONG SANDHILL AND AROUND THE PERIPHERY OF TOWN, THE MAIN THING FOR THE ANNEXATION ACCESS ABILITY OF THE UTILITY, THE STRAIN ON THE CITY SCHOOLS HAVING TO RUN BUSES, SO ANOTHER FOR ROADS AND ANNEXATION NORTH OF 280 WHERE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DOESN'T WANT TO CROSS 280 MORE 10 THEY HAVE TO. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT GO INTO WHY THE ANNEXATION PRIORITY IS LOW.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE PIVOT OF THE ANNEXATION PRIORITY IN THE [INAUDIBLE] WATERSHED THERE IS MORE APPETITE NOW FOR THE CITY TO HAVE OWNER AUTHORITY OVER THE WATERSHED WHICH SHIFTED IN THE PAST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT DEVELOPMENT TO BE THERE.
THE REFLECTION JUST HAS TO DO WITH ACCESS OF UTILITIES OR LACK ACCESS AND STRAIN ON THE SCHOOLS AND THE STRAIN AND THE YOU YOU TALKED ABOUT HAVING TO PICK UP ROADS THAT ARE NOT IN THE CITY. I JUST CHECKED THE PORTION OF SANDHILL ROAD IS OWNED SQUL MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY. IT IS STILL A SPECKLED OVER THERE WHAT IS IN THE CITY AND WHAT'S OUT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE MATRISH.
MAT REX. THIS IS CONTIGUOUS AND IN THE CITY AND RULE.
A THREE ACHE R RURAL LOT DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO FURTHER DIVISION OF THE ACREAGE.
>> YEAH, THAT CORRECT. THEY DID-WE TALKED ABOUT IT MONDAY. THEY DID INITIALLY APPLY FOR THE WAVER. THAT WAS DENIED ON THE LOT MINIMUM WAVER.
I THINK OVER A YEAR AGO. CLOSER TO MAYBE 18, 24 MONTHS AGO. THE LOT MINMAN WAVER, BUT THEY DENIED THE WAVER AND SUBMITTED A ADMIN PLAT
AND COMPLIANCE LOTS. >> SO, SHOULD THIS BE ANNEXED? BESIDES THE ROADS, WHAT SORT OF RESOURCES WILL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT TO BEAR NOW BY THE CITY TO SUPPORT THIS?
>> CURRENTLY ALREADY EXIST? >> THAT DONT--
>> SO, THIS WOULD JUST BE IF THEY WERE INCLINED TO SEND KIDS TO CITY SCHOOL THERE IS TRASH RUNNING OUT HERE.
SO, THERE'S TRASH PICKUP AND THEN CITY SCHOOLS-
>> WATER? >> NOT GOING TO BE EXTENDED.
THOSE ARE THINGS. WATER AND SEWER ARE NOT EXTENDED TO THE LOCATION.
IT IS RUNNING TRASH SERVICE AND ALSO CITY SCHOOLS ALSO WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO SEND A BUS TO THE HOUSE.
>> IS THERE ALREADY TRASH PICKUP AND SCHOOL FOR THE CONTIGUOUS AREAS?
>> I GUESS, KATIE, DO YOU KNOW IF-I KNOW THERE IS RESIDENTS ON IT OTHER SIDE.
FOR THE LARGER PIECE IS THIS-IS THERE A RESIDENTS ON THE LARGER PIECE DOWN THERE?
>> ON THE LARGER PIECE TO THE WEST?
>> TO THE EAST. >> TO THE EAST?
>> THAT IS THE SMALLER PIECE THOUGH.
>> BUT THERE IS ONE MORE TO IT NEXT TO IT THAT IS REALLY BIG.
>> I THINK THAT IS VACANT OR UNDEVELOPED.
THAT PIECE HAS BEEN IN SINCE 88 AND THEN THE SMALL PIECE THAT TOUCHES SANDHILL I THINK THAT WAS ONE 89 OR 92.
[00:15:02]
>> YEAH, SO YOU CAN'T SEE IT ON THE SCREEN.
YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE COMPUTER. THE WEDGE HAS A HOUSE ON IT AND THAT IS OCCUPIED.
THE PIECE TO THE NORTH THE LARGER BLOCK SQUARE DOWN AND TOUCHING SANDHILL ROAD THAT ALLOWS THE PIECE TO BE CONTIGUOUS
IS VACANT. >> AND ACROSS THE STREET?
>> NO, NO, NO. TIFFANY, THE PIECE IMMEDIATELY TOUCHING IT.
>> I KNOW WHICH YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
I'M ASKING ARE THERE HOMES ACROSS THE STREET CEPHAL
>> THERE ARE HOMES ACROSS THE STREET AND OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING. >> WE ARE ALREADY PROVIDING GARBAGE AND SCHOOL?
>> GENERALLY. WE DON'T HAVE IT ON THE MAP BUT IT IS SPECKLED ON THE SIDE AND SO THERE'S-STRETCH OF FOUR HOMES THAT ARE NOT IN-THERE ARE SEVERAL HOMES NOT IN, BUT THEY ARE AND SO IT JUST TOUCH AND GO WHAT IS IN AND OUT.
COMMISSIONER CHANSLER'S POINT, THE FAR WEST SIDE OF SANDHILL ROAD HAS A CONTIGUOUS PART IN THE CITY.
DEDICATED TO THE CITY AND MANDATED WE TAKE IT OVER.
YOU ARE TRYING TO GET AT HERE IS THAT, AVOIDING THAT ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE ROAD, WHICH WOULD THEN LEAD TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE CITY OWNING THE ROAD.
>> IS THERE A WATER AUTHORITY SERVICING THAT AREA NOW?
>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE UNDER THE WATER.
>> YOU HAVE A BIGGER LIKE MAP? HOW THIS IS RELATED TO THE REST OF THE CITY?
>> DO WE HAVE THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY ESPECIALLY WITH THIS ONE?
>> WE DON'T. >> PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING ON THE NORTHERN PART OF SANDHILL ROAD IS ALL IN. THERE ARE NO PARTS OF THE NORTH SIDE OF SANDHILL NOT IN THE BOUNDARY.
ANYTHING PREVENTING A LOT OF THOSE TO COME IN IS A LOT DONT TOUCH THE CITY AS ALL.
SANDHILL ROAD IS A VERY LONG ROAD,B WHICH IS THE OTHER PART OF
THIS. >> I THINK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AND ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH MY POSITION ON THIS ISSUE THAT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ANNEXATIONS THAT FITS THE DEFINITION OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT POLICY, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD DISCUSSION TO HAVE.
I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE RIGHT HERE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SO, I MOVE-READY FOR-I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE A X2026-001.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED?
[3. Annexation – Kelso & Brooke Hamilton ]
THANK YOU. NEXT.>> THE NEXT ANNEXATION REQUEST IS A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY LIMIT FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 3 AND A HALF ACRES.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON LEE ROAD 25 WHICH IS ALSO HILLADALE ROAD.
IT IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS ON ITS WEST SIDE ACROSS THE STREET AND THIS AREA IS IN A PORTION OF THE OPTIMAL BOUNDARY THAT GREW DURING THE LAST FUTURE LAND USE UPDATE.
AND, THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET THAT IT IS CONTIGUOUS TO ANNEXED IN 2024.
THERE IS NOT A HOME ON THE SITE, BUT THE HOME OWNER OR PROPERTY OWNERS DO INTEND ON BUILDING A HOME AT SOME
POINT. >> THIS PARTICULAR ROAD?
>> YES. >> IT WAS BROUGHT IN WHEN-HAS IT BEEN BROUGHT IN?
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY SPOTS ALONG HILLADALE THAT ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.
THIS MAY BE THE FIRST PIECE. IF IT IS ANNEXED.
>> IS IT SAFE TO ASSUME THIS IS IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS THE LAST ITEM IN TERMS OF ALL THE STUFF WE TALKED ABOUT?
>> YEAH, SAME THING. PROBABLY KIND OF EVEN MORE SO SKEWED SINCE HILLADALE DRIVE ISN'T EVEN-IT IS OFF SANDHILL ROAD. I THINK THIS WAS ONE OF THE ONES WHERE THERE WAS [INAUDIBLE] PUTTING THINGS-TAKING THINGS IN AND OUT INCREASING IT FROM THE COUNCIL SIDE.
I GUESS SAME ISSUE THAT NO SERVICES ARE EXTENDED.
THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THE BURDEN WOULD BE MORE ON THE CITY TO
[00:20:01]
SUPPORT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING THEN IT WOULD BE SUBSIDIZING IT OR THE DEVELOPMENT IS PAYING FOR THEMSELVES.>> LEE COUNTY IS MAINTAINING THAT DIRT ROAD?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THIS IS CURRENTLY A ROAD MAINTAINED BY LEE COUNTY.
>> JUST A QUESTION ON THAT. WHAT ARE DECISIONS BEHIND PAVING A DIRT ROAD?
>> SO, PRETTY MUCH-THE COUNTY IT IS HUNDRED PERCENT OR NOTHING.
YOU EITHER ALL PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG THE ROAD NEED TO AGREE TO THE ROAD BEING BUILT AND PAVED BECAUSE THEY NEED RIGHT OF WAY. ESSENTIALLY FOR DIRT ROADS, THE TRICK BAG FOR US IS SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE PRESCRIPTIVE AND THE PROPERTY LINES ARE THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD.
UNTIL IT IS SUBDIVIDED AND DEDICATE SUFFICIENT RIGHT OF WAY WE CAN'T HAVE A ROAD AND ON OUR END-
>> YOU CAN'T PAVE IT. >> RIGHT.
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE SUFFICIENT RIGHT OF WAY.
SAY WE GET RIGHT OF WAY, THERE IS A PRIORITY LIST FOR THE CITY.
LIKE WE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] ROAD.
THERE IS A LONG LIST OF ROADS IN TOWN THAT PEOPLE THAT RESIDENTS HAVE COME TO THE CITY AND ASK FOR THEM TO BE PAVED.
THE CITY ONE REASON OR ANOTHER DECIDED THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THIS TO BE PAVED SO ALSO KIND OF THEM ALL COMING TO THE CITY AND BECOME CITY ROAD WOULD NOT TRIGGER US HAVING TO PAVE IT, IT IS JUST ADDED TO THE LIST.
>> ESSENTIALLY GET IN LINE AND WAIT?
>> THERE IS A LONG LINE AS YOU ARE AWARE.
>> PURCHASE AND KNOWING YOU ARE LIVING ON THE ROAD.
MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AX-2026-002.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.
[4. Preliminary Plat – Greenwood Village – PUBLIC HEARING ]
NEW BUSINESS. >> THIS IS REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 149 LOT SUBDIVISION, 1566 WEST FARMVILLE ROAD IN DEVELOPMENT HOUSING DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OVERLAY. A PART OF THE GREENWOOD VILLAGE PDD APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER 2025. IT WOULD BE A SUBDIVISION OF 53 AND A HALF ACRES AND 146 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 2 FUTURE COMMERCIAL LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT.
MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS 5 THOUSAND SQUARE FEET ALL THE LOTS MEET OR EXCEED THAT REQUIREMENT. THERE WAS ONE CONDITION ON THE PDD AND THAT WAS THAT IN ORDER TO EXCEED 60 PERCENT OF TOTAL LOTS AT FINAL PLAT THEY HAVE TO BUILD THE AMENITY PARK, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND THAT NOTE HAS
BEEN PUT ON THE PLAT. >> THERE WAS SOME KIND OF-I MISSED WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
THEY HAD TO PUT THE AMENITY IN BEFORE BUILDING?
>> BEFORE 60 PERCENT OF THE LOTS AT FINAL PLAT.
THAT NOTE WAS MADE ON THE PLAT. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT GREEN SPACE THAT IS SEPARATING THESE? IS ANY THAT BUILDABLE? WHERE THE CREEK IS BETWEEN THE
TWO? >> THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
YOU CAN ASK THEM. >> OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE'LL DO THAT AND I LIKE TO OPEN THAT NOW.
IF YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD TO SPEAK ABOUT GREENWOOD VILLAGE.
YOU ARE ASKING BUILDABILITY ON THE BIG GREEN SPACE IN THE MIDDLE? CAN YOU GO TO THE PART THAT SHOWS THE WHOLE--WHO IS CONTROLLING?
THERE IS ONE VIEW OF THE PLAT SHOWING BOTH PHASES THAT MAY BE BEST TO LOOK AT THERE.
YOU GOT A PRINTOUT HERE? PERFECT.
OKAY, THAT LOOKS GOOD. SO, YOU GOT THE WESTERN PHASE WHICH GOES FIRST THEN THERE IS EASTERN PHASE WHICH IS LITTLE BIT LARGER. THAT WHOLE CENTRAL AREA.
, THE GREEN STRIP IN COLOR, THAT WOULD BE THE STREAM BUFFERS THAT ARE
[00:25:05]
SET UP IN THE ORDINANCE SO THAT DEFINES THAT.EVERYTHING BEYOND THAT THERE IS PRETTY GOOD TOPOGRAPHY BUT A JURISDICTIONAL STREAM OR FLOOD PLAIN, THERE IS NONE THAT THERE SO IT WOULD BE BUILDABLE.
>> THAT 37 PERCENT IS BUILDABLE RIGHT NOW? NOT ALL. THE GREEN AREA IS INCLUDED IN THE PERCENTAGE.
>> BUT THE STORMWATER DETENTION AREA, IS THAT BUILDABLE SPACE?
>> IT WOULD BE IF WE WERE NOT PUTTING A DETENTION POND THERE.
WE GOT OUTLINES THERE. SOME THAT OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE SUBMITTED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THE DETAIL C A LCS WITH IT SIZING OF THE POND HAVE NOT TAKEN PLACE.
WE ARE HEDGING ON THE HIGH SIDE. WE DON'T HAVE TO BACK DOWN
LOTS. >> GIVEN THAT TOPOGRAPHY YOU HAVE TO BRING IN A LOT OF FILL.
>> WE ARE CUTTING A LOT, BUT YES, SIR.
THERE IS A LOT OF DIRT MOVING ASSOCIATED WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING NOW.
IT WOULD BE MORE. THAT IS CORRECT.
IT IS HEAVILY WOODED NOW, BUT ONCE TREES-IF TREES WERE CLEARED YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TELL.
THERE IS A LOT OF TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SITE.
THAT IS CORRECT. >> ENGINEERING NOTES MENTIONED PEDESTRIAN TRAIL RECOMMENDED. WHAT IS THE STATUS THAT?
>> THAT WILL BE-WE'LL DO ALL THAT ON THE DETAILED DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE PERMITTING THROUGH DRT. THAT IS PART OF THOSE AMENITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO 60 PERCENT BUILD-OUT. THOSE AMENITIES INCLUDE-WE GOT SHOWN ON THERE AND WENT THROUGH THAT IN GOOD DETAIL WHEN WE CAME THROUGH FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE AND PDD, PLAYGROUND AREA, PAVILION OR GAZEBOES AND TRAIL SYSTEM. WE ARE TRYING TO LEAVE AS NATURAL AS WE CAN, JUST AS PART THAT AMENITY.
>> LET ME ASK ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT TWO INCENTIVE GRANTS.
THERE IS 20 PERCENT INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SMALLER LOT SIZES, RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR. >> HOW BIG OF A HOUSE YOU PLAN STICKING ON THAT?
>> LORD. I THINK WE-I GOT THOSE NUMBERS.
I MAY BOW SPIT BALLING A BIT-IT ISN'T GOING TO EXCEED 2600 SQUARE FEET.
>> 5 THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LOTS NOW?
>> I THINK THEY ARE TOUCH BELOW THAT.
THEY DON'T GET BELOW 5 THOUSAND.
>> THEY HAVE 5 THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT.
WE COULDN'T EXCEED THAT. >> HALF OF THE SPACE WILL BE FOR A HOUSE?
THEY ARE IN THE CENTER THAT EASTERN PHASE THAT WOULD COME SECOND.
>> OKAY. >> HAPPY TO ANSWER ANYTHING ELSE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN IF YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONERS IF YOU HAVE
EITHER ONE, BUT WE'LL SEE. STAFF MAY ANSWER THIS.
ONE OF THE ENGINEERING COMMENTS ON THIS WAS THAT STREET A MUST LINE UP WITH THE ENTRANCE TO THE SCHOOL THAT IS ACROSS THE STREET. OF COURSE THIS DOESN'T HAVE IT ON THIS, IT HAS IT BY THE TIME FINAL PLAT GETS HERE, BUT IS THAT NOT GOING TO TAKE UP SOME SPACE FOR THE COMMERCIAL LOT OR-? HOW YOU GOING DO THAT? OR-TAKE UP A LOT OR WHAT? YEAH.
>> IT MAY. LEE CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT.
THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY MY CONCERN.
>> I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW THAT WILL BE DONE.
>> THERE WAS A PRIOR ITERATION GOING THROUGH REVISIONS OF THIS THAT SHOWED IT ALIGNING SO WE WERE ASKING IT GO
BACK TO THE GENERAL CONCEPT. >> THAT WILL BE THE ONLY ENTRANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION OFF FARMVILLE? STREET A. AND THE OTHER ENTRANCE IS GOING TO BE OFF OF LEE ROAD.
IT WILL BE IMPROVED AS A CITY STREET UP TO THE CONNECTION.
>> QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS?
>> I HAVE SOME CONCERNS. FIRST OF ALL, I LIKE
[00:30:04]
DEVELOPMENT. I SUPPORTED IT BEFORE AND I THINK IT IS NEEDED AND RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SCHOOL DISTRICT, SO THIS IS VERY MUCH JUSTIFIED AS FAR AS A DEVELOPMENT GOES. WHAT I HAVE CONCERNS WITH IS THE TWO INCENTIVE GRANTS.LET ME SEE IF I CAN'T SPECIFY THIS BETTER FOR YOU.
IF I'M THINKING ABOUT PIECE OF PROPERTY WHERE IT IS 1 HUNDRED PERCENT BUILDABLE AND THEN WE HAVE 15 PERCENT SET ASIDE FOR GREEN SPACE, THIS BUILDER IS REALLY SETTING ASIDE PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT CAN BE BUILT UPON.
THEY ARE LOSING INCOME IN THE PROCESS.
WHEREAS, IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION AND OTHERS LIKE IT, WE HAVE A PRETTY BIG SPACE THAT IS SIMPLY-WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO BUILD UPON. VERY EXPENSIVE.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY WE WOULD PROVIDE A PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE FOR THIS TYPE OF SITUATION WHERE FRANKLY FOR THE BUILDER TO BUILD ON THIS SPACE EVEN THOUGH IT IS A LOT OF SPACE THAT IS GREEN SPACE, RIGHT? IT IS REALLY NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THEY KNEW GOING IN THEY HAVE A LOT OF THIS PROPERTY THAT ISN'T GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.
THE RULES ARE IN PLACE FOR WHAT THE LOT SIZE SHOULD BE SO YOU KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS SO HARD PRESSED TO SEE WHAT THE HARDSHIP IS TO JUSTIFY ANY PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE, BECAUSE FRANKLY, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY CAN'T USE ALL THE SPACE, BUT THAT'S JUST PART AND PARCEL BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW THAT GOING IN. AND SO, I HAD PROBLEMS WITH THAT. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY SITUATION THAT WE HAD LIKE THAT TOO.
WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY WAS PUTTING IN--WANTING TO DO A CONSERVATION OVERLAY AND I REMEMBER THINKING, WHAT'S MY ISSUE WITH THIS? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH IT? MOST OF THE SPACE WASN'T BUILDABLE. SO, BECAUSE IT ISN'T BUILDABLE, THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF US.
OUR COMMUNITY WE ARE HERE TO REPRESENT OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR COMMUNITY INTEREST AND I REALIZE THEY WANT PACK AS MUCH INTO THE SPACE AS POSSIBLE FOR BUILDING, BUT ALSO IT BEING NICE AND EVERYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT. I JUST AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I DON'T THINK THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES. I JUST THINK THEY SHOULD BE REGULAR LOT SIZES AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE DONE ACROSS THE BOARD. I JUST IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE I DON'T THINK IT IS JUSTIFIED.
>> I'M SORRY TO BRING THIS UP, BUT I BELIEVE THOSE WERE GRANTED WHEN WE APPROVED THE PDD.
>> ORIGINALLY? >> WITH THE PDD NOT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
>> I WILL ADDRESS THAT. SO, I THINK THE THING THAT'S DIFFERENT, THIS IS ECHOED COUNCIL CITY MANAGER BROUGHT THIS UP SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT THE CITY NOT WANTING OPEN SPACE THAT IS FLOOD PLAIN AND DUCK HUNTING LAND WE DONT NEED. THE THING THAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS ONE IS, THE CONDITION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR THE NOTE ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THEY CAN NOT REALIZE MORE THEN 60 PERCENT OF THE LOTS THEY WERE GRANTED UNTIL THEY BUILD OUT THE AMENITIES.
I THINK THAT IS A CLAUSE THAT SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN TOWN WOULD WANT BECAUSE OF DEVELOPERS HAVE SHUNNED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY ON THE AMENITIES THEY WERE TO PROVIDE, AND THEY DID DUE DILIGENCE, THEY MET WITH THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR, PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR DID NOT TAKE IT EASY ABOUT THE AMENITIES THEY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE.
THE GAZEBO AND PLAYGROUND IS NOTED ON THERE AND FOR SCALE IT LOOKS SMALL BUT IT IS VERY SUBSTANTIAL.
IT IS THE SAME GAZEBO SIZE AT MLK PARK OFF 14 OVER THERE FAR ON WEST GLEN AND THERE WERE STANDARDS GIVEN TO THEM FOR WHAT THE PLAYGROUND NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE.
THOSE ARE COMMITMENTS THAT NORMALLY PEOPLE DO NOT MAKE.
THESE ARE COMMITMENTS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THEM.
STAFF ALSO HAS THAT FEELING AND I THINK THAT IS ONE THING WE HAVE PUSHED FOR MORE OF.
WE DO NEED TANGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
OPEN SPACE IS COOL, BUT THERE HAS BEEN A LARGER PUSH FOR FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN PUSHING AND ASKING AT THE FORE FRONT AND THIS DEVELOPMENT MADE A EFFORT TO DO THAT AND PUTTING A NOTE ON HAD PLAT THAT LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY THEY CAN REALIZE UNTIL THEY BUILD THOSE FACILITIES IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT
[00:35:03]
DIRECTION, BUT- >> I JUST THINK-I UNDERSTAND.
THIS IS SOME INITIATIVE THAT I HAVE BEEN LIKE-IT HAS BEEN GIVING ME HEARTBURN BECAUSE IT IS ONE THING WHERE I SAY WHAT BOTHERS ME AND WHAT BOTHERS ME, THERE ARE DEVELOPERS OUT THERE GIVEN 15 PERCENT BUILDABLE SPACE AND THEY ARE NOT GETTING ANY PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES.
THE APPEARANCE HERE-I THINK THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND OTHERS LIKE IT, WHERE FRANKLY WHAT THEY ARE GIVING UP IS UNBUILDABLE SPACE AND THEY ARE NOT GIVING UP ANYTHING.
>> I THINK NOT REALLY EGREGIOUS-I THINK ONE OF THE NOTABLE ONES WAS THE FINAL PHASE OF MIMMS GRANTED WHERE I THINK IT WAS A UPWARDS OF 40 TO 50 PERCENT.
A LOT THAT THEY PUSH BACK BUILDING THE BRIDGE BECAUSE THAIS IS A REVENE. WE CANNOT--
>> I WAS FINE WITH THAT. >> SO, I GUESS THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE WORKING ON AND LARGER DISCUSSION HOW WE MOVE FROM A SPACE OF OPEN SPACE, FUNCTIONAL USABLE OPEN SPACE THAT IS ACTUALLY MORE AN ASSET TO THE RESIDENTS BEYOND BEING PASSIVE SPACE, BUT ONE ISSUE IS THAT RUN INTO PERFORMANCE ZONING ALLOWS A BENEFIT IF YOU SET ASIDE OPEN SPACE YOU GET MORE DENSITY.
PRETTY MUCH A LOT OF DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS, BUT THEN I THINK THAT IS ONE THING WE WILL PROBABLY LOOK AT IN ZONING REWRITE HOW TO FURTHER INCENTIVIZE TO GET THE ACTIVE USE AND NOT JUST GETTING DONATED DUCK HUNTING LAND.
>> IF IT IS 15 PERCENT ACTIVE USE, GREAT.
THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN USE THIS SPACE ARE BUNCH OF LITTLE KIDS WHO PLAY IN THE CREEK.
THAT IS ABOUT IT. >> COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR MOTIONS?
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.
[5. Preliminary Plat – Longleaf Crossing, Phase 5D – PUBLIC HEARING ]
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 77 LOT PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
IT IS A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THIS REQUEST IS FOR A 77 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH 72 TOWNHOUSE LOTS 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS AND 1 LOT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL WAS APPROVED LAST MAY AND INCLUDED 53 TOWNHOUSES AND 1 OPEN SPACE LOT.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DOWNS WAY AND THE DENSITY OF THIS PHASE IS 12.48 DWELLING UNITS A ACRE AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS 14 PERCENT, AND THE MINIMUM REQUIRED OPEN SPACE FOR THIS PHASE IS 15 PERCENT OPEN SPACE AND THEY PROVIDED 17 AND A HALF.
AND I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE FOR-
>> THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF COMMENTS.
IS THERE ANY OF NOTE? >> I THINK THE GIS COMMENTS ARE
STRICTLY-CORRECT. >> THE ONE FROM THE WATER WORKS? ABOUT THE LACK OF SYSTEM REDUNDANCY.
>> I'LL LET YOU TAKE THAT ONE. >> I CAN ANSWER THAT.
THAT ENTIRE AREA, IF YOU LOOK FROM A WATER PERSPECTIVE NOW IT IS SERVED BY A SINGLE 10 INCH LINE THAT COMES DOWN DOWNS WAY. A DEAD-END MAIN THAT RUNS THE LENGTH OF DOWNS WAY.
WE GOT CONCERNS ABOUT REDUNDANCY AND HAVING ADDITIONAL FEET IN THE AREA JUST DUE TO THE FACT IF WE HAD A MAIN BREAK WE HAVE LOT OF PEOPLE OUT OF WATER.
WHILE THAT IS REPAIRED. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE AREA NOW AND ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF EVALUATING SOME WAYS TO PROVIDE A REDUNDANT FEED TO THAT AREA.
THAT WILL BE LOOKED AT AS PART OF THE DRT PROCESS.
SIMILAR THING WITH SEWER. THAT ENTIRE AREA RIGHT NOW EVENTUALLY FLOWS INTO A SINGLE 8 INCH SEWER PIPE.
COULD BE CAPACITY ISSUES WITH THAT.
AGAIN, WE'LL LOOK AT THAT AS PART OF THE DRT PROCESS AND ANY TYPE OF
[00:40:02]
UPGRADES WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> WITH THOSE UPDATES, UPGRADES BE LIMITED TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OR WOULD IT ALSO INCLUDE THE FOLLOW-ON PROPERTIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PLATTED LATER?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. WE WOULD LOOK AT IT AS A WHOLE.
IN ADDITION TO THE FUTURE THINGS COMING UP.
>> THIS AGENDA ITEM REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK ON LONGLEAF CROSSING PHASE 5D, PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW.
SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?
[7. Conditional Use – Project Joy – PUBLIC HEARING]
THANK YOU. >> THIS NEXT REQUEST IS FOR RECOMMENDATION CITY COUNCIL FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR INDUSTRIAL USE SPECIFICALLY MANUFACTURING FACILITY AT 2270 RILEY STREET.
THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES AND THE AUBURN TECHNOLOGY PARK WEST SUBDIVISION AND IT IS IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO LOCATE THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING 120THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE MOST RECENTLY OCCUPIED BY A COMMERCIAL SUPPORT USE.
THE CHANGE IN USE FROM COMMERCIAL SUPPORT TO INDUSTRIAL REQUIRES THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL.
>> AND WHAT WAS THE MANUFACTURING BECAUSE THIS IS THE OLD SIO2 BUILDING CORRECT?
>> YES, THAT WAS CONSIDERED A WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER.
>> SO, WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION. OKAY.
>> THANK YOU. THIS DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO CONDITIONAL USE PROJECT JOY, PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW.
SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS. >> MOVE TO APPROVE CU-2026-001, PROJECT JOY.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.
[8. Conditional Use – Auto Services Center– PUBLIC HEARING ]
>> GOOD EVENING. THIS IS REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR ROAD SERVICE USE, AUTO REPAIR PAINT BODY WORK.
140 SPIRIT DRIVE AND ZONED COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT.
YOU SEE ON THE MAP THE PROPERTY TAKES DIRECT ACCESS OFF SPIRIT DRIVE AND NOT EAST VETERANS.
AND HERE IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
GATEWAY COMMERCIAL. THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM THE SOUTH BACKS TO I85.
IT IS VISIBLE FROM I85. THE TREES ARE DEAD IN THE WINTER OF COURSE.
BUT ALSO WORTH NOTING THIS PROPERTY IS SET BACK FAR ENOUGH FROM I85, PUSHED BACK SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT WE REQUIRE A 10 FOOT BUFFER AUTOMATICALLY BECAUSE OF THE LAND USE INTENSITY.
THIS PROPERTY ALSO IS PUSHED BACK FAR ENOUGH FROM SOUTH COLLEGE STREET THAT IS FAIRLY [INAUDIBLE] WITH THAT, I AM
HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> ON I85, IT HAS ROOM, BUT THERE ARE ANY MATERIALS OR NEED TO BE A FENCE YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH OR BUILDINGS PARTICULAR FINISH MATERIALS?
>> GATEWAY? IS THIS CLASSIFIED AS GATEWAY?
>> NO. SO, I THINK WE RUN INTO THIS ON OTHER THINGS.
WE HAD ON THE OTHER SIDE OF VETERANS WHERE FACILITY HAD TO SCREEN, NOT SCREEN BUT CLAD FOR VETERANS AND NOT ON THE VIEW FROM INTERSTATE. THAT IS THE SAME THING.
>> OKAY. >> THE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THAT GENERAL AREA, THAT ARE ALSO VISIBLE FROM 85, DO THEY ALSO HAVE LIKE THE BUFFER, THE TREES AND ALL THAT BECAUSE IT IS DOWN IN A RAVENE?
>> THEY HAVE STANDARD BUFFERS THEY ABIDE BY AS WELL AS
>> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON CONDITIONAL USE AUTO SERVICE CENTER ON SPIRIT DRIVER, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. ARE WE--THIS IS A STAFF
[00:45:04]
QUESTION. ARE WE GOOD WITH WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE AS YOU DRIVE INTO AUBURN? COMING DOWN I85 AND-IS THIS GOING TO BE-IS THERE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT AT ALL?>> YEAH, SO WE WILL GET RENDERINGS SINCE WE HAVE TO COMPLY FROM EAST VETERAN SIDE.
JUST DETAILS ABOUT STORAGE AND JUST ALL THOSE THINGS, BUT I GUESS IT IS-MORE IN LINE WITH LIKE WHAT CAR DEALERSHIP, THERE ARE A LOT OF CAR DEALERSHIPS DOWN THERE.
IT ISN'T A JUNK YARD, IT IS JUST MORE IN LINE-
>> [INAUDIBLE] >> YEAH, NOT A JUNK YARD, JUST CARS SERVICED.
ACTIVE USE CARS NOT A PULL APART.
>> [INAUDIBLE] >> BRETT BASQUIN, FORESITE GROUP. WHAT IS SERVICED IS IT FRONT HALF ON VETERANS.
REALLY THE STORAGE IN THE BACK IS NEW VEHICLE STORAGE.
LIKE NEW CARS FOR INVENTORY STORAGE, BUT IT ISN'T LIKE-CARS BEING SERVICED WON'T BE IN THE BACK PARK THAT IS REMOTELY VISIBLE FROM 85. THIS IS MAINLY-MOST OF THE STUFF SERVICED WILL BE TOWARDS THE FRONT ON THE VETERAN SIDE NEAR THIS. BACK HALF WAS JUST PICKING UP INVENTORY BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SONS FORD AND USED CAR DEALERSHIP SO RAN OUT OF SPACE OF INVENTORY OF VEHICLES TO SELL.
THE MORE VEHICLES ON PREMISE- >> IT LIKE TWO BUSINESSES MORE OR LESS? YOU HAVE THE AUTO BODY PLACE, BUT STORAGE FOR-
>> CORRECT. IF SPIRIT DRIVE WASN'T THERE, IDEALLY THIS IS ALL ONE, BUT YOU HAVE THE HOTEL IN THE MIDDLE. ESSENTIALLY WRAP THE HOTEL NOW WITH MOST OF THE PROPERTY.
THANK YOU. >> THANKS, THAT HELPS.
>> MOTION, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.
[9. Conditional Use – Project Dasom– PUBLIC HEARING ]
THANK YOU. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS REQUEST FROM--IS THIS ON?
>> BARELY. >> THIS IS REQUEST- DEVELOPMENT BOARD. THERE WE GO.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE MANUFACTURING.
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2201 RILEY STREET.
THERE IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
INDUSTRIAL. AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AUTO MOTIVE MANUFACTURING.
THESE PROPERTY SPECIFICS DID RECEIVE APPROVAL IN 2021.
FOR A MANUFACTURING FACILITY. THIS IS JUST PROPOSED EXPANSION OF IT. WITH THAT, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> YES, SO THERE IS A EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THAT PROPERTY. IS THIS A ADDITIONAL BUILDING OR IS THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY PART
OF THIS AS WELL? >> YEAH, SO THIS IS PROPOSED EXPANSION OUTLINED IN BLUE RIGHT HERE.
THIS PORTION ALREADY EXISTS. CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL IN 2021 AND ALREADY BUILT.
JUST EXPANSION. >> MORE THEN DOUBLING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
IS THE LOT STILL FITS WHAT WE- >> SO, I SAW FAR VERY PERMISSIVE IN INDUSTRIAL ZONE BY DESIGN.
>> THIS REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU LIKE TO COME WITH CONDITIONAL USE PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS. >> MOVE TO APPROVE CU-2026-004.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION SQUL SECOND.
[10. Conditional Use – Vapen Jays – PUBLIC HEARING]
>> HELLO AGAIN. THIS NEXT REQUEST IS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT USE SPECIFICALLY A SPECIALTY RETAILER OF CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCT.
THE PROPERTY IS AT 1452 OPELIKA ROAD, SUITE C.
THE BUSINESS VAPEN JAYS LOCATED OUT OF THIS MULTITENANT BUILDING SINCE
[00:50:07]
2017. OUT OF SUITE B.IN 2021, THEY INTRODUCED HEMP SALES TO THEIR BUSINESS AS ALLOWED UNDER THE 2018 FEDERAL REFORM BILL.
IN AUGUST OF 2025, THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE PASSED HB445, WHICH REQUIRES RETAILERS OF CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCTS TO LOCATE IN A SPACE WHERE THEY SELL CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCTS ONLY, AND THIS APPROVAL WILL PERMIT OR WOULD PERMIT THEM TO LOCATE WITHIN ESTABLISH THE PRIMARY USE IN SUITE C OF THE MULTITENANT BUILDING.
THE USE WILL BE LICENSED. THEY ARE LICENSED BY THE STATE.
THEY HAVE HAD TO CEASE THEIR SALES OF CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCTS TO GO THROUGH THE LICENSING PROCESS.
THE LICENSE WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO SELL ANYTHING THEY HAVE NOT SOLD IN THE PAST, AND WOULD JUST REGULATE THE SALES OF THOSE PRODUCTS.
>> SO, CLARIFYING QUESTION. SO, VAPEN JAYS EXISTS.
>> YES. >> THIS IS A REQUEST TO ALLOW SALE OF HEMP PRODUCTS IN THE STORE THAT THEY WERE SELLING BEFORE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THEY WILL TAKE IT OUTSIDE-THEY HAVE TO REMOVE IT FROM SUITE B AND LOCATE IN A LOCATION THAT IS THE ONLY THING THEY
THANKS. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS ONLY GIVING THEM PERMISSION IF THEY RECEIVE THE LICENSE FROM A BC AND A BC WILL REGULATE?
>> THIS CONDITIONAL USE REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD TO SPEAK ON VAPEN JAYS, PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW. GOOD EVENING.
>> MY NAME IS MEGHAN HARDESTY. I OWNED AND OPERATED VAPEN JAYS IN AUBURN OVER 9 YEARS RCHLT I REQUEST APPROVAL TO RELOCATE MY LOW DONES HEMP PRODUCTS.
DUE TO RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW I HAVE TWO OPTION APPLY FOR ALCOHOL LICENSE AND KEEP THE PRODUCTS UNDER ONE ROOF, OR I CAN SEPARATE THE HEMP PRODUCTS INTO THEIR OWN PROPERLY LICENSED UNIT.
I AM CHOOSING TO SEPARATE THEM BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO ADD ALCOHOL TO MY BUSINESS MODEL.
VAPEN JAYS OPERATED UNDER A HARM REDUCTION PHILOSOPHY FOCUSED ON SERVING ADULT CUSTOMERS.
INTRODUCING ALCOHOL WOULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF MY BUSINESS.
THIS ISN'T A EXPANSION, THESE ARE PRODUCTS I HAVE SOLD TO ADULT CUSTOMERS FOR YEARS.
THE ONLY CHANGE IS RELOCATED NEXT DOOR TO COMPLY WITH THE UPDATED REGULATORY STRUCTURE.
MY GOAL IS SIMPLE, TO REMAIN COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW WHILE CONTINUING TO OPERATE SPAEBL IN AUBURN JUST AS I HAVE NEARLY A DECADE. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION AND OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS TONIGHT.
THANK YOU. >> PUBLIC HEARING REMAINS OPEN IF YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD.
SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CU-2026-005.
>> SECOND. >> LIKE DISCUSSION.
>> MOTION, BUT I JUST WANT-INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO, WE ARE APPROVING THIS UNDER-DO WE HAVE--NOT ORDINANCE OR DO WE HAVE RULES THAT APPLY TO THIS SORT OF PRODUCT SPECIFICALLY? BECAUSE THIS IS SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIAL.
>> YEAH, SO THAT'S- >> I FEEL WE ARE WINGING IT IN
THAT IS GOOD QUESTION. SO, THIS IS CURRENTLY HEARD UNDER THE ALL USE REGULATION UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND DOES NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC USE TABLE.
DOES NOT HAVE A ZONING DESIGNATION.
THERE IS NO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARD ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AT ALL.
[00:55:01]
THIS IS ONE THING STAFF IS IN THE MIDST OF PUTTING TOGETHER SPECIFIC ORDINANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE DIFFERENT NUANCES WITH IT.THERE IS FINANCE ASPECT AND PUBLIC SAFETY TO BRING FORWARD TO YOU AND THE COUNCIL FOR TEXT AMENDMENT.
>> SO, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. SO, CURRENTLY IT IS UNDER ALL OTHER CONDITIONAL USE? IT WILL MOVE OR COULD MOVE TO COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USE AS A
RETAIL STORE? >> I THINK IT PROBABLY IS CARVED OUT AS ITS OWN THING.
>> TONIGHT IT MOVES FROM OTHER USES TO RETAIL SALE?
WHAT IS IT CATEGORIZED TODAY? >> IT IS NOT.
>> I KNOW. IN MY OPINION I DON'T FEEL AS A CITY WE REGULATE THAT.
THEY ARE BEING REGULATED BY OTHER PARTIES HIGHER UP THEN US, SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU'RE SAYING THERE IS POTENTIAL CHANGES COMING TO A SPECIFIC CATEGORY, RIGHT?
THAT IS CORRECT. WE'LL PROBABLY END UP CARVING OUT SPACE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO SPEAK
SPECIFICALLY TO THIS USE. >> OKAY.
SHE HAS BEEN THERE 9 YEARS DOING THE SAME THING.
THE STATE CHANGED HER REGULATIONS, RIGHT?
>> THE FEDS. >> DOES--WHAT CHANGES WITH US? ACCEPT HER USE? SHE NEEDS TO HAVE US APPROVE A SECOND STORE.
JUST QUESTIONING THAT USE. >> STATE REGULATIONS.
>> RIGHT, FOR STATE REGULATIONS.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD AS A CITY AT AUBURN HAVE SOMETHING STRICTER. THAT WOULD BE THE QUESTION BEFORE US. COULD YOU HAVE A STRICTER REGULATION OR DOES-
>> I DON'T THINK--IT WOULD SPEAK TO DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS AS FAR AS WHERE THINGS CAN AND CAN'T GO.
REALLY WOULDN'T--YEAH. NOT NECESSARILY LIKE WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO.
THERE ARE BOARDS THAT REGULATE THAT.
THAT ISN'T OUR RESPONSIBILITY. STAFF AND I THINK ALSO THIS BOARD LOOKS AT LAND USE AUTHORITY AND I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER CHANSLER IS GETTING AT IS THE IDEA OF CITING THIS IN OPTIMAL LOCATION.
>> IT IS PROBABLY RIGHT. IT IS PROBABLY LOCATED IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
I'M THINKING AS THE INDUSTRY GROWS, NEED TO HAVE OUR HANDS AROUND
THAT. >> I GUESS THE ANTICIPATION IS THERE LRP INFLUX OF APPLICATIONS NOT JUST NEW FOLKS SEEKING BUT EXISTING BUSINESSES.
SINCE THE LAWS CHANGED ON THEM, NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS MODELCHANGED.
SINCE THE LAW CHANGED THERE MAY BE OTHER BUSINESS OWNERS WHO ARE LOOKING TO THEN GET LICENSED WHETHER MOVING TO A DIFFERENT SPOT. THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO CODIFY ON OUR END SO THIS IS APPROVED FROM ALL USES AND TO DRIVE THE POINT HOME, I THINK WE HAD I THINK IT WAS THE GROOM TRANSPORTATION.
THEY WOULD BE TRAVELING UNDER ALL OTHER USE AS WELL, BUT THEY NEEDED A VARIANCE, NEVER MADE IT THIS FAR, BUT THAT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IT IS ODD CATCH-ALL THAT HAS BUFFERS, DOESN'T APPLY AND HASN'T BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH.
I THINK ON THIS I THINK THERE IS DESIRE ON THE CITY SIDE ON STAFF SIDE DEFINITELY TO COME UP WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WOULD REGULATE THIS FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT.
>> THAT IS HELPFUL. >> THAT'S IT.
>> I UNDERSTAND. >> THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. DID I DO THAT?
>> WE HAVE MOTION AND SECOND TOO.
>> WE ARE READY. >> HATE TO-- PERSONALLY I LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE MORE FIDELITY ON SOME OF THESE THINGS. SORT OF--I HATE TO VOTE IN DENYING. WORTH CONSIDERING.
WORTH POSTPONING THIS TO GET SOME THAT POLICY PUT IN PLACE?
>> SINCE WE HAVE A MOTION, COMMISSIONER MOSELEY NEEDS TO WITHDRAW THE
[01:00:03]
MOTION. >> YOU CAN AMEND THE MOTION.
>> YEAH. YOU HAVE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO BE POSTPONED.
>> RIGHT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I THINK--JUST HARD-PRESSED TO FEEL THE NEED TO DELAY THIS FOR THIS BUSINESS OWNER GIVEN THE FACT SHE'S ALREADY HAD THIS SHOP IN THIS SPACE FOR A LONG TIME.
I DOUBT IF OUR NEW CITING REGULATIONS WOULD BE ANOTHER MUCH DIFFERENT THEN WHERE WE PUT ALL THE OTHER VAPE SHOPS, AS WELL AS LIQUOR STORES AS WELL.
>> THAT'S FAIR. >> I DON'T FEEL THIS LOCATION IS SOMETHING THAT ANY OF US ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. I THINK WE SORT OF SAID THAT UP
HERE. >> I FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING THE MOTION BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THERE.
>> AS TIME GOES ON YOU BUILD--THE STAFF WILL BUILD MORE POLICY AROUND THIS SORT OF THING.
>> CORRECT. >> AS A MATTER OF COURSE.
I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> MOTION AND SECOND ON THE TABLE. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? THANK YOU SO MUCH.
[11. Conditional Use – Ridgecrest Redevelopment – PUBLIC HEARING]
>> HELLO. THIS NEXT REQUEST IS FOR ALSO RECOMMENDATION CITY COUNCIL FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES.
COMMUNITY HEALTHING SERVICE AND DAYCARE AS WELL AS OFFICE USE LOCATED AT 945 NORTH DONAHUE DRIVE IN THE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
THE PROPERTY IS JUST UNDER 21 ACRES, AND THE REQUEST IS TO FACILITATE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE AUBURN HOUSING AUTHORITY RIDGECREST PROPERTY. THE PROJECT HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL IN THE PAST IN 2021, 23 AND 24.
AND THIS REQUEST WILL ACCOMPANY A NEW APPLICATION TO HUD.
THIS PLAN RECONFIGURES THE UNITS A BIT, BUT THE NUMBER OF UNITS STAYS THE SAME. THEY WILL BE GOING FROM 106 UNITS TO 176.
>> STILL DO IN PHASES? >> YES, THREE PHASES.
>> AND THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTIES WILL STAY IN THE
AREA? >> NOT CERTAIN, BUT SHARON IS HERE AND SHE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU WANT TO COME DURING PUBLIC HEARING, I OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
SHARON. AUBURN HOUSING AUTHORITY.
LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR VICE CHAIR BISHOP AND ALSO HAVE CIVIL ENGINEER HERE AS WELL.
BLAKE IF YOU HAVE CIVIL ENGINEERING QUESTIONS HE CAN ANSWER THOSE.
SO, YOUR QUESTION WAS REGARDING THE RESIDENTS.
YES, WE SENT NOTICE TO 56 FAMILIES THAT WOULD BE EFFECTED KWR SENT GENERAL INFORMATION AND RESIDENTS INFORMATION NOTICE AND ALSO HAD TWO MEETINGS WITH OUR FAMILIES AS WELL.
SO- -RELOCATION IS A BIG TOPIC AND IT WILL BE CHALLENGING BUT IN ORDER TO DO WHAT WE DESIRE TO DO, IT IS CHANGE THE FACE OF PUBLIC HOUSING IS GREATLY NEEDED. SO, OUR DESIRE IS TO CREATE VACANCIES WITHIN OUR PROPERTIES TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF RELOCATION FOR THOSE WHO WE ARE NOT ABLE TO RELOCATE WITHIN THE PROPERTIES, THEY WILL BE GIVEN A SECTION 8 VOUCHER. THOSE VOUCHERS CAN BE USED TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENT.
IT WOULD BE AT THE RESIDENTS DISCRETION AS A HUD REQUIREMENT.
SO, IT IS BEAUTIFUL THING FAMILIES WILL HAVE OPTIONS.
MOST OF OUR FAMILIES DESIRE TO COME BACK, BUT THEY DO HAVE OPTIONS TO RELOCATE WITHIN THE PRIVATE SECTORS A
COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVE APPROVAL-
>> LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN.
SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVE APPROVAL OF
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?
[12. Master Signage Plan – The District at Richand Road]
MASTER SIGNAGE PLAN. WE DIDN'T TOUCH ON THIS MUCH MONDAY IN THE MEETING.
IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE SIGNAGE LIKE THE NEXT TO THE SITE PLAN.
[01:05:04]
SO, THIS IS WHERE THE DISTRICT RICHLAND ROAD.TWO THINGS TO PAY ATTENTION TO. SO, I GUESS KIND OF HOW THESE WORK, THE MASTER SIGNAGE PLAN NORMALLY YOU SEE THEM IN THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OR SHOPPING CENTERS WHERE THEY UTILIZE THESE TO GET OFF PREMISE SIGN FOR SEVERAL OF THE BUSINESSES:OFF PREMISE SIGNS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN CITY AUBURN. IF YOU WANT A SIGN IT NEEDS TO BE ON THE PROPERTY.
SHOPPING CENTERS ARE THE COMMON THING NEAR THE ROAD AND DON'T OWN IT KIND OF DEAL.
BUT, I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SIGN LEGEND, ENTRY MONUMENT A, THE BLUE ONE.
ONE REGULATION FOR THE CITY IS EACH MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ONLY HAS ONE ENTRYWAY.
ONE ENTRY SIGN I GUESS. THEY HAVE TWO.
SO ALSO JUST IN THE STAFF REPORT, THEY EXCEEDED THEIR SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOTMENT.
TECHNICALLY WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PERMIT THIS.
ALSO WITH THE OTHER PART OF THIS, THE APPLICATION TOOK INTO ACCOUNT WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR FROM A RETAIL SIDE, WHICH ALSO ALLOTTED MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
BY APPROVING THIS, WE WOULD BE EATING UP ALL OF THE SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE BEFORE THEY EVEN GOT RETAIL-ANY RETAIL AND I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT BETWEEN 20-30 THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND ASKING FOR A AMENDMENT.
THIS JUST NEEDS TO BE REWORKED ENTIRELY.
YOU GUYS DENYING THIS WOULD SEND THEM BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD FOR A YEAR. THIS JUST NEEDS TO BE POSTPONED AND STAFF WILL WORK WITH THEM.
REACHED OUT TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ABOUT IT.
HE WILL BE ON IT FIRST THING IN THE MORNING TO GET ON THE PHONE AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE.
>> ONE MONTH DELAY? >> YEAH, I THINK ONE MONTH SHOULD BE GOOD.
>> AND [INAUDIBLE] >> MARCH 12.
>> IS THAT A MOTION? >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MS-
>> PROPOSE. >> TO POSTPONE TO DATE CERTAIN MARCH 12, 2026.
>> MOTION AND SECOND TO POSTPONE.
[OTHER BUSINESS]
WE FINALLY GOT SCOPE AND CONTRACT.
I MENTIONED TO YOU ALL JUST ABOUT SCOPE AND SCHEDULE AND HOW THAT WILL LOOK. PRETTY MUCH I THINK WE'VE MET WITH THE CONSULTANT SCOTT AND I AND WE WERE LOOKING AT DATES. I THINK PRELIMINARILY WE ARE LOOKING AT THE WEEK OF MARCH 23 AND SO I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THERE IS GOING TO BE SERIES OF INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETINGS, EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS AND INTERNAL REQUIRE THE GOVERNING BODY TO BE THERE, THAT IS YOU LOVELY PEOPLE. WE WILL SEE IF THEY WANT TO MEET WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT ONCE OR BREAK IT UP. THEY ARE THINKING 6 TO 8 BEING A CROWD. REALLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE SIZE AND TIMING, BUT JUST HOLD YOUR CALENDAR FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 23 TO KIND OF REALLY RUN THROUGH YOUR THOUGHTS OF SOME THINGS WHERE YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THINGS YOU LIKE TO CHANGE AND THINGS YOU NOTICE AND THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT ARE GOOD TO BRING UP ABOUT WE LIKE TO SEE FUNCTIONAL USEABLE SPACE OTHER THEN WETLANDS.
I WANT TO MAKE AWARE OF THE DATE, MARCH 23 THE WEEK.
I WILL GET WITH YOU. I THINK THEY WILL BE WITH YOU MULTIPLE DAYS.
NOT ALL OR NOTHING SITUATION. I WILL LET THEM KNOW YOUR-MIDAFTERNOON. FINISH 5 OR 6.
I WILL BE IN TOUCH BUT MARCH 23 IS THE MEETING WITH THE CONSULTANT.
[STAFF COMMUNICATION]
AND>> ANYTHING OR MOTION TO ADJOURN? SORRY. AND, I HAVE ONE THING.
YOU ALL WERE SPEAKING CONCERNING THE DIRT ROADS AND LIKE TO OFFER CLARITY SINCE IT WAS SEARCH A IMPORTANT TOPIC TONIGHT. I REACH OUT TO A LIFELINE VIA TEXT DURING THE MEETING.
WE HAVE LESS THEN 2 MILES OF DIRT ROADS ON 6 STREETS WE MAINTAIN IN OUR INVENTORY. THERE ISN'T MANY MORE IN THE FRINGE WE CAN POTENTIALLY ANNEX.
[01:10:03]
ONE MAIN ISSUE WITH THE DIRT ROADS IS THERE IS NO RIGHT OF AVAILABLE.A LOT IS JUST-THERE IS A ROAD THERE AND PEOPLE PROPERTY LINES GOES TO THE ROAD SO WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT MATTER.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS, WE CAN'T JUST PUT ASPHALT ON TOP OF DIRT ROADS.
WE HAVE TO BUILD A ROAD. THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO BUILD. VERY VERY EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN, SO CONSTRUCTING A ROAD IS MUCH MORE--CONCERNING THE DOLLARS AND WHERE IT IS SPENT IS WHERE WE FOCUS OUR ATTENTION. WE CAN OBVIOUSLY MAINTAIN A DIRT ROAD. THEY BOUGHT THEIR HOUSE AND BUILD ON A DIRT ROAD, WE CAN MAINTAIN THAT.
THEY HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED THAT WAY FOR CENTURIES, SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT AND PUT PRIORITIES NEEDED.
HEALTH, SAFETY WELFARE BECOMES A ISSUE THAT CAN SWING A PRIORITY.
WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONERS, ANYTHING ELSE AND OR ADJOURN MOTION?
>> MOVE TO ADJOURN. >> SECOND.
>> ALL IN FAVOR? >>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.