[ROLL CALL]
[00:00:08]
>>> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO BRING THE JUNE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS.
FOR THE PUBLIC MEETING. ANSWERS UNDER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. THEN OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING AS APPROPRIATE. AND THIS ARE BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ABOUT THE AGENDA ITEM AT HAND. QUESTIONS AND RESPONDENTS WILL COME UP AT THE HEARING. AT THAT TIME THEY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH COMMISSIONERS AND MOTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS AND A VOTE. OUR ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY RELATED TO SUBDIVISION PLATS ALABAMA STATUTE OUR FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR SUBDIVISION PLATS.
BUT UNDERSTAND THAT WE MUST CONFIRM THAT THEY MEET AND EXCEED SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. IF WE COULD HAVE ROLE CALL
NONET REESE. JENNIFER LOVVORN.
AND A CHANCE DURING THE MEETING IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO US ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. SEEING NO ONE, WILL CLOSE.
WE DO NOT HAVE OLD BUSINESSES. FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
FROM CONSENT AGENDA BEFORE MOVING FORWARD.>> I GUESS WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE GOT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE TALK ABOUT IT. COMMON SENSE FROM GIS.
THEY WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH GIS AND THE PLANNER.
ASIGNED TO THE CASES AND HAVE THEM DOWN TO SIX COMMENTS.
BACK OF THE MEETING TONIGHT. BUT I JUST WANT TO LET YA'LL
KNOW. >> OKAY MAY MOTION AGENDA FOR
IT'S MAY. >> THAT'S THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THOUGH.
DO WE NEED TO AMEND IT? >> YEAH JUST LET HIM CHANGE THE
MOTION. >> MOVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[5. Preliminary Plat – Parker Creek Townhomes, Phase C – PUBLIC HEARING ]
AGENDA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOUR?THANK YOU. MOVING TO NEW BUSINESS.
>> ALL RIGHT, SO I KNOW I THINK AT THE END YOU ALWAYS ASK JUST KIND OF ABOUT IF WE GOT ANY FEEDBACK FROM NEIGHBOURS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING. AND WE DID.
ALL THOSE QUESTIONS KIND OF NEEDED TO BE ANSWERED BY THE APPLICANT THOUGH. SO IN THE PRESENTATION, ONCE YOU GUYS-- ONCE CHRIS IS DONE WITH HIS PRESENTATION I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHERE THE QUESTIONS ARE.
I GUESS A LOT OF THEM DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT BUT WITH THE DESIGN OF THE SITE.
AND ABOVE THE SITE. AND SO THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS
FOR THE APPLICANT. >> ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, OUR
[00:05:05]
FIRST ITEM ON NEW BUSINESS IS-- THIS IS A REQUEST FROM LEETHART ENGINEERING. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 39 LOT SUBDIVISION. 330 EAST ALONG LEAF DRIVE AND A SPLIT ZONE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING DDH.YOU CAN SEE HERE THIS IS THE PROXIMITY MAP.
AS SAID, IT IS SPLIT ZONEED. THE MAJORITY OF IT THOUGH IS DDH. SO THAT WOULD BE THE ROLLING THING. BUT FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS, YOU WOULD HAVE THESE LOTS IN THE FRONT IN CDD FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS. THOSE WOULD BE ALLOWED.
ALL RIGHT, SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT 37 TOWN HOME LOTS AND PROVIDE TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS.
AND WITH THAT I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITH THE FUTURE PHASES OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE CONNECTIVITY TO THE SOUTHERN ROADS. AND THIS DOES NOT-- NOT ENOUGH.
SO WITH THAT-- HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY WILL YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD SINCE WE HAVE QUESTIONS
WE ALREADY KNOW? >> SO WE HAVE FROM-- PROPERTY OWNER. .
THOSE FOUR QUESTIONS. IS THERE A PART OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. TRUE PRESERVATIONARY OR OTHER PROTECTOR ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.
BEEN SUBMITTED PRETTY MUCH WHAT YA'LL'S PLANS ARE FOR THAT.
AND WHAT IS THE DESIGN OFT TOWN HOMES.
ONE OR TWO STORY AE. AND THEN THE EXISTING TREES.
ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY. PROPOSED TO REMAIN OR MAY THEY BE REMOVED DURING THE DEVEL
DEVELOPMENT? >> JUST WANT ME TO GO--.
>> SO I GUESS YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE ON THE SCREEN.
YOU'D HAVE TO ZOOM IN. SO THERE'S LOT 33 AND LOT 32 TOWARDS THE ENTRANCE AND IT'S GOING TO OBLONG THAT BACK UP TO THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES PRETTY MUCH.
>> YOU MIGHT HAVE TO HELP ME AS I GO TO REMIND ME WHAT ALL
THOSE QUESTIONS ARE. >> SO FIRST ONE, JUST ANY PROTECTED BUFFER PLANS ALONG PLAT 32 AND 33.
THEY-- I GUESS PART OF THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A BUFFER WOULD BE REQUIREED. THAT'S GOING TO BE MORE OF A
YOU ANSWER, RIGHT? >> YEAH BUT FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT. WHAT'S THE--.
>> WE'RE-- NO LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED TO THIS POINT. JUST BECAUSE WE'RE AT THE PLAT STAGE. THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE-- YOU KNOW, PERMIT SUBMITTING ONCE WE GET TO THAT POINT. WE'RE GOING TO MEET ALL THE STANDARD CITY REQUIREMENTS. I BELIEVE THIS SECTION OF LONG LEAF IS CLASSIFIED AS A CORRIDOR.
SO THERE'S SOME LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. BUILDING MATERIALS ALL YA'LL ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH. SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR A CLEAN FRONTAGE THAT WOULD HAVE SOME LANDSCAPING ASSOCIATED TO IT.
I CAN'T SPEAK TO EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE, BUT BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THIS WILL KIND OF GO TO THE CLEARING QUESTION I THINK LATER ON.
BASED ON WHAT'S OUT THERE, THERE IS A FAIR AMOUNT OF ELEVATION CHANGE FROM THE ROAD BACK TO THE LARGE CREEK THAT WE WERE STOPPING AT BEFORE WE GET TO.
SO I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY UNLIKELY THAT WE WILL MAINTAIN EXISTING VEGETATION ACROSS THE STREET FRONTAGE.
WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO DO IT WITH LANDSCAPING.
THAT WOULD BE MY GUESS AT THIS LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESIGN. THERE'S SOME MATURE TREES WHEN WE GET BACK IN THERE ESPECIALLY CLOSER TO THE CREEK.
IT'S NOT-- THERE'S NOT A LOT OF BIG TREES UP BY THE STREET FRONT. JUST NOT SCRUBBY BY ANY MEANS.
I THINK IT'S BEEN MULCH RECENTLY.
SO IT LOOKS PRETTY CLEAN THROUGH THERE NOW.
BUT NO, I IMAGINE WE'RE PROBABLY JUST GOING TO HANDLE
IT WITH LANDSCAPING. >> AND THE BUFFER BETWEEN 33
AND 32 AND THE NORTH? >> YEAH THE NORTH GOING TOWARDSER THOSE HOUSES. WE'LL MEET THE CITY'S BUFFER REQUI REQUIREMENTS, BUT AS FAR AS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOING TO BE EXISTING OR IF WE'RE GOING TO PLANT IT, I IMAGINE IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A COMBINATION OF BOTH. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE THAT
ANSWER RIGHT THIS SECOND. >> CAN I ASK WHERE IS PARKING GOING TO BE? IN FRONT?
OR BEHIND? >> THEY'LL HAVE GARAGES.
[00:10:02]
SO THERE'LL BE-- I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO CAR GARAGES.IN THE FRONT, THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH NO REAR ACCESS ON THESE.
NO, MA'AM. >> OKAY THAT'S WHAT I WAS
ASKING. >> THEY ARE GOING TO BE-- AND IF YA'LL BEEN DOWN THERE RECENTLY, THIS IS THE THIRD PHASE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE VERY SIMILAR UNITS TO THE FIRST TWO PHASES.
SO THOSE ARE ALL FRONT LOADED PARKING.
I FEEL LIKE I'M MISSING ONE. >> YES I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION IS ONE STORY OR TWO STORY UNITS?
>> THEY'LL BE TWO STORY. LIKE I SAID, SAME THING THEY'VE
GOT GOING OUT THERE NOW. >> STREET SCAPE STYLE.
>> OKAY. WELL A REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEA HEARING?
>> OKAY. IF YOU COME UP WITH SOMETHING.
HAPPY TO ANSWER. >> OKAY AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARKER CREEK TOWN HOMES PHASE C. AND PLEASE COME FORWARD AND SIGN IN AFTERWARDS. WE'LL OPEN THAT NOW.
>> MY NAME IS CRAIG BARNES. COULD YOU PUT UP THE PREVIOUS SCREEN. I COULD SHOW YOU EXACTLY.
SO AT THE CUL-DE-SAC THERE AT THE VERY TOP OF LOT ON THAT CUL-DE-SAC COMING DOWN OAK HILL COURT, THAT'S MY PROPERTY 1556 OAK HILL COURT. SO THE VERY CORNER OF THAT PIN TO THIS PROPERTY THAT WE'RE VIEWING TONIGHT IS ALSO MY PIN.
COMING BACK SOUTH TO THE PROPERTY.
SO THE QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD HAVE WOULD BE ABOUT THE CURRENT STORM WATER LEVELS. THERE'S A SMALL STREAM RUN-OFF IN THAT AREA. OBVIOUSLY RECENTLY MY PROPERTY WAS UNDER WATER. IT'S BACKED UP DOWN TO THE GAS LINE. SMALL CULVERT MAJORLY UNDERSIZEED. THIS WATER WENT UP AND OVERTOP OF THE GAS LINE. IT COMES DOWN BECAUSE OF THE VOLUME THAT WE HAD THIS WEEK. SO MY CONCERNS WOULD BE AROUND THIS WATER BACKING UP EVEN MORE SO WITH THIS PROPERTY.
WHAT IS THE PLAN? KNOW THERE'S A RETENTION POND IN THE DESIGN. IS THAT GOING TO HELP TO BUFF ER THE EXISTING? I THINK ALSO THE PLANTS AND THE TREES. TALKING ABOUT THE VEGETATION UP TOWARDS THE MAIN ROAD. AND MATURE TREES REFERRING TO DOWN ALONG THAT STREAM. I SAW IN ANOTHER DRAWING THERE WAS A GREEN ZONE. SO IS THAT GREEN ZONE GOING TO EXIST? DO THE TREES BECOME SOMETHING THAT'S UNTOUCHED? THE CURRENT TREES THAT ARE THERE NOW? AND I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ME.
COUPLE. >> THANKERS IN OPPORTUNITY.
ON-- IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE ON THIS PLAT NORTH--.
>> YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> MY NAME IS MELISSA HURT.
I OWN RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THIS.
>> BUT WHERE DO YOU REALLY LIVE?
FULL-TIME RESIDENCE. >> YES, I AM.
I LIVE ON LILY LANE IN TOWN CREEK.
THE OTHER DRAWING FROM THE DEVELOPER HAD NORTH TURN TO THE LEFT. SO WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT TO THE NORTH, I WAS VERY CONFUSED. I THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT TO THE EAST OF THIS PROPERTY. BUT I OWN THE PROPERTY.
THE GREEN PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF KENNEDAL AND EAST LONG LEAF WHICH IS THE FIRST ONE THERE UP AGAINST THE BACK OF THIS PROPERTY. AND I ALSO OWN A PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE THE ENTRANCE TO THIS PROPERTY WILL BE. SO I HAVE MULTIPLE INTEREST IN TRAFFIC AND THINGS LIKE THAT. MY MAIN INTEREST HERE, THE CDD FOR THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE PINK WILL NOT CHANGE DUE TO THIS PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE'LL ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING. >> YES BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THAT PINK ZONE.
AND THE OTHERS DOWN AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC AND THE YELLOW DON'T HAVE THAT, SO I WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE THAT.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS DRAWING, THOSE HOUSES.
THE FIRST TWO THERE ON KENDALL COURT OR THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, THE BEDROOMS, ARE VERY CLOSE TO THIS PROPERTY LINE.
SO LIKE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, I'M VERY KEEN THAT THERE IS A PHYSICAL BARRIER WHETHER IT'S BUSHES, PRIVACY FENCE, SOMETHING THAT BUFFERS THESE PROPERTIES FROM THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO QUESTION AGAIN, HE SAID THEY WERE TWO STORIES.
BUT SOME OF THOSE TOWN HOMES ARE ACTUALLY THREE.
THE GARAGE IS ON THE GROUND LEVEL AND THERE'S TWO FLOORS ABOVE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHICH IS IT? I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT DRAINAGE. THAT NOTHING COMING OFF OF THIS
[00:15:01]
PROPERTY AND THOSE TOWN HOMES ENDS UP ON THE LOTS THERE ON KENDALL COURT. AND THAT'S MY LIST.>> OKAY THANK YOU. PLEASE SIGN IN IF YOU HAVEN'T.
OKAY ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD?
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOE TWORTY I LIVE AT SF 1664 OAK HILL COURT. IN THE OAK HILL COURT SUBDIVISION JUST TO THE LEFT OF WHERE CRAIG, HE WAS UP HERE TALKING. ONE QUESTION I'VE GOT.
I'VE GOT A PLAT SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING UP HERE.
THAT'S THE MOST UNLEGIBLE PLAT I'VE SEEN IN MY LIFE.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN SEE WHERE YOU CAN READ WHAT THESE LEGENDS ARE. YOU CAN'T EVEN DETERMINE.
I SEE THE LOTS ET CETERA. I SEE THE GREEN ZONE.
SOME OTHER THINGS. I'D LIKE TO SEE A PLAT THAT I CAN READ AND UNDERSTAND. THAT'S ONE QUESTION I'VE GOT.
ANOTHER ONE, I SEE, I GUESS, NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE THE LEDGE. AND I SEE THESE DOTTED LINES ON BOTH SIDES IF YOU WILL OF THE GREEN AREA.
WHAT ARE THEY? IS THAT A FENCE? OR IS THAT A-- AN ELEVATION LINE? JUST WHAT IS THAT? AND OF COURSE I'M CURIOUS TOO ABOUT THE ROAD TO NOWHERE. WHERE IT STOPS.
JUST WHERE IS THAT GOIN'? AND WHAT KIND OF IDEA IS GOING TO BE COMING FROM THAT? BUT MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS AGAIN THE SAME VEGETATION UP AND DOWN THAT CREEK.
TREELINE, I KNOW I'M A RETIRED PROFESSIONAL FORESTER AND DONE BNPS ALL MY LIFE. AND I THINK THAT THEY'D CERTAINLY BE FOLLOWING I WOULD EXPECT THEM TO BE FOLLOWING EXTREMELY WELL AND THE ELEVATION IS-- WAS MENTIONED BY THE I GUESS THE GUY THAT'S DESIGNING THIS STUFF.
IS A GOOD DROB. MORE SEVERE THE ELEVATION.
YOU SHOULD BACK OFF THAT CREEK FATHERER AND LEAVE MORE VEGETATION ON IT. ANYWAY THOSE ARE ARE SEVERAL OF MY CONCERNS. WHAT I WOULD DEFINITELY LOVE TO SEE A PLAT THAT I CAN READ. I'LL SIGN IN.
>> THANK YOU SIR. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD? SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I THINK WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. I'M SORRY IS IT FOR THIS AGENDA
>> NO, SIR. IF YOU'LL PLEASE COME BACK.
THE DOTTED LINE. >> SURE, OKAY.
I BELIEVE THE DOTTED LINE THAT WAS REFERENCED IN THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION, TWO BLACK-- THICKER BLACK LINES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CREEK, THAT REPRESENTS THE LIMITS OF THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLANE. THAT'S RIGHT.
YEP. THE ROAD IS STUBBED TO THE NEXT PHASE. AND ACTUALITY THREE LOTS THAT ARE PLANNED NORTH. SO TO THE EAST-- AT THE END AND MY PRINT IS TOO SMALL TOO. COULDN'T READ MY NUMBERS THERE BUT THE THREE AT THE END, THOSE WILL NOT BE BUILT UNTIL A FUTURE PHASE IS APPROVEED. AND IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC. SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY DID ON
PHASE TWO I BELIEVE. >> THE TWO STORY COMMENT AND QUESTION IS THAT JUST ABOVEGROUND?
>> YES MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY ARE TWO STORY PERIOD PLAN FOR
THIS PHASE. >> SO ALL THE STORM WATER?
>> THE STORM WATER WATER. THERE WERE SEVERAL PIECES OF THAT THAT WE COULD GET RELATIVELY DETAILED ON THAT IF WE NEEDED TO. BUT I KNOW ONE THING WAS MENTIONED ABOUT SOME BACK-UP RELATIVE TO OUR MONSOON WE HAD TUESDAY AFTERNOON. I KNOW PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY IN TOWN WAS AFFECTED BY THAT. SO I IMAGINE THAT THERE WAS WATER PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT BLACK DASH LINE THAT'S ON THAT
[00:20:02]
MAP AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER. IT WAS PRETTY SEVERE STORM.I CAN SEE IT. YOU KNOW BACKING UP.
MORESO THAN WHAT PEOPLE ARE USED TO.
AND I IMAGINE THAT'S PARTLY DUE TO-- WE DON'T GET STORMS LIKE
THAT ALL THE TIME. >> I'LL SAY THIS.
THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS DOWNSTREAM.
ALL THE ENGINEERING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS BY THE CITY OF AUBURN. WE'LL MITIGATE ALL OF OUR STORM WATER ON SITE FRIAR DISCHARGING.
AND THAT WILL ACCOUNT FOR-- ALL OF OUR-- INCREASE AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. WITH A DEVELOPMENT.
HOUSES, ROADS, THING LIKE THAT. SO THAT POND.
IT'S JUST IN BLUE IN THE PLAT. SO THAT IT'S NOT CREATING ADVERSE AFFECTS TO ADJACENT PROPE PROPERTIES. .
AT THAT. SCREENING REQUIREMENTS.
THAT ARE GOING TO BE PUT ON THIS BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
I DON'T BELIEVE IN THIS ZONING SCREEN FENCING IS A HARD AND FAST REQUIREMENT. I WILL SAY THAT IN THE PREVIOUS PHASES THE DEVELOPER HAS CHOSEN TO PUT FOOT PRIVACY FENCES IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS. I IMAGINE WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE DOING THE SAME THING HERE.
>> A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS. CDD ZONING WILL NOT CHANGE UP
WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY ZONING.
THIS IS IN THE CREEK. >> I KNOW THAT'S NOT YOUR PROPERTY. MAYBE IT IS.
>> SO THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAN TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU SEE IT ON THE PLAT, ARE A PART OF THIS DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY.
THE PLAN WOULD BE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE SHOULD HE CHOOSE TO DEVELOP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK WHICH IS WHERE THE ROAD'S GOING, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLANE.
WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING STREAM BUFFERS. AND THAT'S CITY ORDINANCE AS WELL. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT PROPOSING-- I DON'T FORESEE ANY REASON TO PROPOSE IMPACT TO THOSE STREAM BUFFERS. THERE'S ALSO-- AND THERE'S MENTION OF THE GREEN HATCH ON THE PLAT.
JUST FOR EVERYBODY'S REFERENCE. THAT IS THE LIMITS OF A U.S.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND.
SO WE WANT TO AVOID PARTICULARLY WITH THIS PHASE, SINCE WE'RE NOT CROSSING THE CREEK WITH A ROAD.
WE WANT TO AVOID TOUCHING THAT AT ALL COSTS.
IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT COST IMPACT.
JUST ANOTHER REASON TO BE BEYOND THE EXISTING VEGLATION.
>> SO FOR THE OPEN SPACE. IT'S THE INTENT THAT THE OPEN SPACE IS IN THAT PLAT LAND FLOOD AREA.
>> PARTLY, IT IS PARTLY IN THE FLOOD PLANES.
SOME OF IT'S TAKEN UP BY THE POND.
BUT THE MAJORITY OF IT IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
>> AND ONE OTHER PERSON. ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC. IN AND OUT OF WHERE THE TOWN HOMES ARE. WAS IT GOING TO BE TURN LANES?
>> ME AND LOGAN TALKED ABOUT TURN LANES ALL THE TIME.
>> EVERY DAY. >> WE'RE SHOWING A PROPOSED RIGHT TURN LANE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE NEW ROAD CONNECTION. AND I BELIEVE WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LIFT IN IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY. SO WE'RE PLANNING TO DO ALL
THAT. >> AND THEN FINALLY A PLAT TO BE ABLE-- WHERE SOME OF THEM COULD BE ABLE TO READ A LITTLE
BIT BETTER. >> IN MY DEFENSE, WHEN I DREW THIS THING, IT WAS ON A 24 INCH BY 36 INCH PIECE OF PAPER.
IF WE NEED TO BRING SOME PRINTS NEXT TIME.
WE CAN DO IT. OKAY, THANK YOU.
I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
IS THERE-- THIS IS PRELIMINARY PLAT.
A LOT OF THE QUESTION WES DON'T KNOW WOULD BE DEALT WITH PRYER
[00:25:01]
TO FINAL APPROVAL. >> YEAH THAT'S CORRECT.
SO SOMETIMES IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO REQUIRE TYPE TWO OR TYPE THREE FENCES. THOSE ARE PRETTY HEAVY DUTY.
TO GET THOSE DETAILS. ALSO BACK ONLINE.
THAT PEOPLE CAN SEARCH. >> IF WE WANT TO DICTATE THAT
ONE TYPE OF BARRIER THERE. >> I GUESS YOU COULD DO IT NOW.
THAT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE IF YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT TURN LANES THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
>> OKAY COMMISSIONERS. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYMORE
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOUR? >> ALL: REY.
[6. Preliminary Plat – Canterbury – PUBLIC HEARING ]
CANTER BURY. >> CANTER BURY PRELIMINARY PLAT. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL 14 LOT-- 1455OGLETREE ROAD. ALL RIGHT SO THIS IS THE 14 LOT PERFORMANCE SUBDIVISION. ONE OPEN SPACE LOT DISCOUNTED TO OPEN SPACE LOTS ON-- CURRENTLY DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM. CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE DIDN'T ADD IT.
COOL. OKAY SO AS YOU GUYS CAN SEE, THERE ARE THE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS.
AND OPEN SPACED LOTS AND THE DETENTION POND.
AS A PART OF THIS. AND SO THIS IS ON OGLETREE ROAD. IT IS AN ARTERIAL.
WE TALK ABOUT IT IN THE STAFF REPORT.
SO FROM A FUTURE STANDPOINT. NEIGHBOURHOOD PRESERVATION.
REALLY DENSITY, CHARACTER AND SO I THINK CHARACTER'S REALLY ONE OF THOSE MORE-- KIND OF LOOKING AT LOT SIZE.
TREE COVERAGE, ET CETERA. THOSE TYPES OF USES.
REALLY MATCHING THE CHARACTER. SO THE HOUSE IS IN LINE FROM THE USAGE STANDPOINT BUT THE LOT SIZES ARE A LOT SMALLER THAN THE SURROUNDING AREAS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF HALF ACRES THAT TURN AROUND. AND THEN KIND OF TO THE SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH AND KIND OF THE INTERIOR.
THAT'S WHERE THOSE SMALLER LOTS ARE.
ABOUT 7,000 AND 8,000 SQUARE FEET.
I THINK BASE LOT AND THIS ONE IS ROUGHLY 5500.
SO THEN THE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. KIND OF WANT TO CLARIFY ON THIS. SO THERE WAS THE WAIVER TO ARTICLE FOUR SECTION B. IF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED AND THE RIGHT OF WAY OF A STREET TO BE CONTINUED SHALL BECKS TENDED TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO WANTED TO WAIVER TO NOT EXTEND TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AS REQUESTED. AND THEN I GUESS I WANT TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON THE NEXT WAIVER.
SO THIS WAS WAIVERED ARTICLE 4 SECTION E4D SUBDIVIDING OFF A PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE. TO ALLOW FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AND ALL RESIDENTIAL USES EXCEPT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED.
SO WE QUITE THE CONVERSATION WITH THIS INTERNALLY.
JUST KIND OF WITH THE APPLICANT.
THEY ARE ARE NOT TRYING TO SUBDIVIDE OFF OF A PRIVATE STREET. THEY WOULD SUBDIVIDE OFF OF A PRIVATE STREET IF IT WOULD ASSUAGE ANY CONCERNS.
THAT'S NOT REALLY A CONCERN THAT WE HAVE.
SO THEY WOULD-- THEY ARE REQUESTING REALLY THAT OFF OF A 30 FOOT ALLEYWAY. SO THIS IS A RIGHT OF WAY THING. SO INSTEAD OF HAVING TO DEDICATE A 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO A 30 FOOT PUBLIC ALLEY. I THINK ON THE-- SIDE.
I DON'T THINK-- WE TALK ABOUT IT INTERNALLY.
I THINK WE'D BE AMEN TO BELIEVE THAT.
FROM HAVING A 30 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY TO AN ALLEY TO GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. I THINK WHAT THE THING TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT UNDERSCORES ALL OF THIS.
IF THERE IS NO CONNECTIVITY TO THE SOUTH, WE DO NOT-- WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THIS. SO PRETTY MUCH-- AND SO THE STAFF'S POSITION WOULD BE-- I'LL GO OVER THE CONDITIONS.
BUT AS FAR AS THE WAIVERS ARE CONCERNED.
THE WAIVER TO SUBDIVIDE OFF OF A 30 FOOT ALLEY IN THIS SCENARIO, NOT AN ISSUE FOR US. IF-- TO GRANT THE WAIVER AND TO
[00:30:02]
ALLOW THEM TO NOT CONNECT TO THE SUB BOUNDARY, THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE FOR US AND WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE SUBDIVISION.>> IS A 30 FOOT ALLEY OKAY IF THEY CONNECT-- I MEAN JUST SIZE OF ROAD AND RIGHT OF WAY. IF THEY CONNECT?
>> YES. AND I THINK KIND OF LIKE THIS IS A REALLY PARTICULAR SITUATION WHERE THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO MAINTAIN THE CAPACITY OF OGLETREE AND GET THOSE ACCESSES. THAT WAY WE'RE NOT GETTING A BUNCH OF DRIVEWAYS ON OGLETREE AND IN THE FUTURE FOR THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY AS IF IT REDEVELOPMENTS.
AND DECIDE TO SELL THAT WAY WE CAN GET ACCESS OFF OF A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND WE CAN GET ACCESSES OFF OF OGLETREE.
SO JUST KIND OF WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT PORTION WITH THE
WAIVEER. >> ISN'T THERE A SPACE SNISH.
>> WE DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
>> THEY DO NOT. AND SO-- THAT IS TO THE-- I GUESS IF YOU-- CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THE MAP SO PEOPLE CAN KIND OF SEE. SO IT'S TO THE RIGHT.
ALL THE WAY TO THE VERY FRONT. OKAY SO THAT'S NOT REALLY LEGIBLE. BUT THOSE TWO-- SO THERE'S TWO RECTANGULAR LOTS. OPEN SPACE THE HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. SO IT'S 7500 SQUARE FEET.
I THINK THEY SAID THAT THEY ARE OPEN TO JUST REARRANGING IT.
SO THAT'S REALLY KIND OF GEOMETRY THING.
LIKE WHERE THEY NEED TO SOLVE IT.
WHERE THAT'D BE FINE WITH A CONDITION THAT'S WHY THERE'S A CONDITION WHERE THEY DO NEED TO MEET IT.
TO AMEND THAT. TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
BUT I GUESS KIND OF-- REALLY THE DISCUSSION IS REALLY ON-- YOU KNOW, SIZE OF THE LOTS. DOES THAT KIND OF MATCH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE SUBDIVISION.
LIKE I SAID I THINK A LOT OF THINGS ARE COMPLIANT.
IT'S JUST KIND OF THOSE NUANCES AND THINGS THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT. SO WITH THE TWO WAIVERS, SUBDIVIDE OFF OF PUBLIC ALLEY THAT WAS 30 FEET RIGHT AWAY INSTEAD OF 50 FEET. WE WOULD BE SUPPORT TO NOT
CONNECT TO THE SOUTH. >> WHEN YOU SAY NOT CONNECT TO THE SOUTH. WHERE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
>> RIGHT SO IF YOU COULD ZOOM BACK OUT PLEASE.
AND REALLY JUST GO BACK TO THE PROX MAP.
YEAH OKAY SO PRETTY MUCH IF YOU FOLLOW ALL THE WAY DOWN KIND OF FROM THE HATCHED AREA. THAT'S CURRENT PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WITH THE LBB ZONING AND RULE ZONING. THERE IS AN INTERSECTION OF OGLETREE AND OLD COUNTRY ROAD. WHERE WHAT WE WOULD LIKE, I GUESS WOULD BE A PUBLIC ALLEY OF 30 FEET RIGHT AWAY.
THAT WOULD THEN GO THROUGH THIS AND THEN SERVE AS THAT CONNECTION FOR OLD COUNTRY ROAD THAT WOULD THEN ALLOW FOR REAR ALLEY ACCESS. AND PEOPLE NOT TAKING ACCESS OFF OF OGLETREE ROAD. WHAT WE EVENTUALLY RUN INTO WHEN PEOPLE SUBDIVIDE THESE BIGGER PROPERTIES ON ARTERIALS IS THAT THE DRIVEWAY SPACING MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO SUBDIVIDE AND REALTIZE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL OF THEIR SITE.
EVEN THOUGH PERFORMANCE SUBDIVISIONS ARE AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE WHO YOU KNOW-- 50 FOOT LOT MINIMUMS AND THOSE KIND OF LOTS WITH MINIMUMS, THEY CAN'T MEET BECAUSE DRIVEWAY BASED ON ARTERIALS LIKE 350 FEET. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE
CONFLICTS. >> SO FOR THEM TO SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT, THEY HAVE TO GO DIRECTLY SOUTH.
>> RIGHT AND SO I GUESS-- NO-- SO IF YOU CAN GO TO THE PLAT.
SO YOU SEE HOW IT'S JUST-- JUST KIND OF DEAD ENDS INTO THAT OPEN SPACE. WHAT WE NEED TO HAPPEN IS THAT THE ROAD WOULD NEED TO BE EXTENDED AND WHATEVER THAT LOT NUMBER IS. YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE PAPER.
BUT THE LOT FURTHEST TO THE LEFT IS LOT 11.
NEEDS TO EXTEND TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S IT. THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE. SO THE DECISION TO REALLY GEOMETRY THING. AND I THINK WE CAN SATISFY WITH CONDITIONS. THY POSITION WOULD JUST BE SUPPORT OF THE WAIVER TO SUBDIVIDE OFF THE PUBLIC 30 FOOT ALLEY WHICH IS THAT SECOND WAIVER.
SO THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE WAIVER TO DENY CONNECTIVITY.
TO THE SOUTH. >> SO THE STORM MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE ONE THING 30 TO ALLEYWAY.
IS THAT GOING TO BE THE CONNECTION TO THE SOUTH?
>> CONNECTIVITY. DOES IT NEED TO BE A REGULAR SIZED ROAD. 50 FOOT ROAD? THEN IT'S OKAY WITH THE 30 FOOT ALLEYWAY TO MAKE THAT
CONNECTIVITY? >> YEAH AND SO THIS WOULDN'T BE-- SO THAT CONNECTION ISN'T ON A MAJOR STREET PLAN.
IT'S-- THERE'S NO-- I GUESS ROADS DO HAVE A SET RIGHT AWAY THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE. BUT THIS WOULD BE MORE HE CALLS THEM CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT LANDS WHERE YOU REDUCE ACCESS.
[00:35:01]
THE PARTICULAR ACCESS OFF OF THE SIDE STREETS.SO IT'S NOOT KNOT LIKE WHERE-- IN OUR SEPARATE PORTS.
MAJOR STREET PLAN AMPLIFICATIONS.
THERE IS NO MAJOR STREET PLAN. LIKE I SAID THIS IS MORESO AN ACCESS MANAGEMENT AS A PART OF PRELIMINARY PLATS MAKING SURE ACCESS DOESN'T GET WONKY ON OUR ARTERIALS AND COLLECTOR'S.
>> SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS, IS THIS OKAY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY?
>> PAVEMENT WITH A REGULAR STREET IS 24 FEET.
SO IT'S NOT THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE.
>> IT'S A RIGHT AWAY OF 50 THOUGH.
>> THE RIGHT AWAY IS BIGGER. YES.
IN THIS CASE. FROM OUR STANDPOINT, THE 30 FOOT RIGHT AWAY IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC UTILITY, THING LIKE THAT. THAT WOULD BE GENERATED FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE. >> AND THAT'S OKAY FOR CONNECTIVITY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO TRY TO
UNDERSTAND. >> FOR LOW-- WHAT WE WOULD VIEW AS FAIRLY LOW INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT.
A 20 FOOT PAVEMENT CAN WORK. YOU SEE IT ALL THE TIME IN MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO-- THE PAVEMENT WITH ITSELF HERE IS NOT A HUGE CONCERN.
>> AND I THINK ALSO TO THE POINT, THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE O-- LIKE BECAUSE NOT LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE UPZONED.
AND GOING TO BE LIKE 50 TOWN HOMES ALL TAKING ACCESS OFF THIS ROAD. LIKE THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. IF THERE EVER WAS REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE FOR A MODEST AMOUNT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEVER AMOUNT TO THE 70 THRESHOLD FOR TRAFFIC STUDY. THAT WOULD MEN WARRANT THE CREATION OF A BIGGER ROAD WHERE THIS REALLY WOULDN'T BE SUFFICIENT. AND LIKE I GUESS THE ROAD THAT CARRIES ALL THE TRAFFIC IS OGLETREE AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO CORRECT. KIND OF THE VEHICLE TO SEND
EGRESS OUT OF. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTED?
>> YEAH. >> GENERAL GOOD BIT OF STAFF COMMENTS. NOTHING BACK BREAKING.
I THINK THE MAIN CONDITION MINIMUM OPEN SPACE PERFORMING SUBDIVISION IN LBD. TALK TO NAPKIN ABOUT IT.
THEY THINK THEY CAN-- ONCE THEY SLIDE THE LOTS KIND OF GET RID OF THOSE. LOT 101 AND LOT 102.
GUESS WHAT THEY'VE DEDICATED IS JUST THOSE FROM OUR SUBDIVISION STANDARDS THIS WOULD NOT MEET. SO THEY DO THINK THAT THEY WOULD MEET IN. SO THAT'S WHY IT NEEDS TO BE A CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE MET IN THE DRT PROCESS.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE?
>> AND THE CONNECTIVITY IS NOT AN ISSUE?
YEAH-- SO-- DO NOT GRANT THAT WAIVER.
IS WHAT I AM SAYING. >> DO NOT GRANT THE WAIVER.
OKAY. >> OKAY SO THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. AND WE WILL BREAK UP THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND EACH WAIVER SEPARATELY TO VOTE ON.
>> YEAH-- AND I WOULD SAY ON THE WAIVERS FOR A SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY PLAT. AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE HEARING OF CANTERBURY. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM.
WE'RE GOOD TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S REQUESTS.
TO PROVIDE A STUB TO THE SOUTH. JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
SEEING NONE NOE ONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS WAIVERS FIRST. >> START BY SAYING MOVE TO NOTION MOVE ARTICLE 4 SECTION B.
AND THAT'S THE-- THE ACCESS TO THE SOUTH.
THE CONNECTIVITY. I'M LOOKING AT THE ONE TALKED
[00:40:02]
ABOUT NOT HAVING CONNECTIVITY. >> CORRECT.
YEAH SO THAT'S THE WAIVER FOR ARTICLE 4 SECTION B.
OKAY. SO I MOVE TO APPROVE THE WAIVER
TO ARTICLE 4 SECTION B. >> SECOND.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE WAIVER.
SO VOTE ACCORDINGLY. ON-- ALL THOSE IN FAVOUR.
WE'LL DO ROLE CALL. >> NONET REESE.
THANK YOU. >> I MAKE A MOTION.
TO APPROVE WAIVER TO ARTICLE FOUR SECTION E4D FOR CASE
>> VOTE MOTION SECOND. TO APPROVE.
>> MOVE DISCUSSION FIRST. WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S
DISCUSSION. >> ALL RIGHT YEAH SO I KNOW THAT PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
EXCEPT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED. SO WHEN WE'VE REFERENCED THESE AND KIND OF WHAT THESE MOTIONS ARE.
WHAT'S BEEN ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE AND WHAT IS DISCUSSION IS.
SAID-- CALL TO CLARIFY AND SUBDIVIDE OFF OF A PUBLIC ALLEY. WHETHER BIT PRIVATE OR NOT.
I GUESS-- HOLD ON. TO THINK THROUGH THIS.
I GUESS LIKE-- THEY WERE THINKING THROUGH.
IF IT WAS GOING TO BE A PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE.
THEN THEY'D BE FINE TO SUB THAT OFF OF IT.
AND I JUST THINK IT WAS A PREFERENCE FOR US.
THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION. AT SOME POINT IF THEY THINK THEY STILL NEED THE WAIVER FOR THE SECOND ONE.
AND THEN IF THEY DON'T NEED THE WAIVER FOR THE SECOND ONE, YOU CAN JUST DO THAT ONE TOO OR YOU CAN GRANT IT.
>> APPLICANT? WILL YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU STILL NEED THE WAIVER TO SUBDIVIDE OFF OF
PRIVATE ACCESS? >> UM-- NO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY DOES THE WAIVER THAT WE SUBMITTED SUBDIVIDE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS OFF OF PUBLIC ALLEY? IS THAT WHAT'S BEING VOTED ON HERE?
>> YEAH. JUST NEEDS TO BE A WAIVER OFF
OF A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. >> YEAH.
>> SO IT'S NOT NECESSARY IN THIS CASE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED OFF AN ALLEY. ESSENTIALLY.
YEAH-- OKAY COOL. SO-- ALL RIGHT SO-- KIND OF AS IS IS FINE. LIKE I SAID, I THINK THE VERB YJ WOULDN'T CHANGE. JUST THE INTENT IS WHAT WE ARE CROSSED ON. WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE EARLIER IN THE WEEK.
SO APPROVING THIS DOES NOT GRANT THEM THE ABILITY TO SUBDIVIDE OFF OF A PRIVATE STREET.
SORT OF GRANTS THEM THE ABILITY TO SUBDIVIDE OFF OF A PUBLIC ALLEY. INSTEAD OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE ALLEY IN THIS SITUATION.
>> WOULDN'T IT BE CLEAR JUST TO-- ARTICULATE IT IN THE WAIVER? AS THAT VERSUS WHAT IT SAYS
RIGHT NOW? >> IS IT IN THE SAME ARTICLE? WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW VERSUS THE PUBLIC?
MAIN PRIVATE DRIVE? >> YES AND WE WERE KIND OF BACK AND FORTH ON THIS WITH THE STAFF.
JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS BETTER.
I KNOW IN THE PAST THE STANCE OF THE CITY WAS SOMETIMES THEY DON'T WANT THE ALLEYS TO BE PUBLIC BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE MAINTENANCE POICHT SO THERE WAS JUST A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS BACK AND FORTH ON OUR END OF DO YOU PREFER IT TO BE PRIVATE? WE WERE POTENTIALLY THINKING WE MIGHT DO SOMETHING UNIQUE WITH THE ALLEY.
BUT WE KIND OF LANDED ON THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CITY WOULD PREFER THE ALLEY TO BE PUBLIC. AND SO THAT'S OUR STANCE.
WE JUST WANT TO BE IN CONFORMITY TO WHAT THE CITY STAFF IS REQUESTING. AND I THINK IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE SUBMIT A WAIVER THAT ALLOWS US TO HAVE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS OFF OF A PUBLIC ALLEY.
>> RIGHT TWOFOLD, RIGHT. >> YES.
WOULD THAT PREVENT THEM FROM DOING--.
VOTE YES. >> YES, IF YOU WANT TO ALLOW
>> YEP, IT'S THE SAME. >> OKAY GREAT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THE MOTION.
>> I HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE WAIVER TO ARTICLE 4 SECTION E4D TO SUBDIVIDE OFF OF A 30 FOOT PUBLIC ALLEY AND FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED.
>> SO I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE MOTION TO REALLY
[00:45:02]
JUST SECTION FOUR AND THEN TAKE OFF D.SO WHERE IT IS IN THE SUBDIVISION RANKS.
A LOT TO ABUT A STREET UNDER AN ALLEY EITHER PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MAY NOT BE USED AS A MEANS FOR ANY LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THESE REGULATION.
THEY ARE GETTING THAT T WAIVER TO THAT AND IT'S NOT-- DOESN'T HAVE A LETTER ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
>> YEAH, SO YEAH IF YOU JUST WANT TO AMEND IT.
LIKE I SAID, SO WAIVER THE ARTICLE FOUR SECTION E4 IS IS ENOUGH. JUST LEAVE OFF D.
>> GOT IT. I NEED AN AMENDED MOTION
PLEASE. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER TO ARTICLE FOUR SECTION E4.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF WAIVER. ARTICLE FOUR SECTION E4.
THANK YOU. NOW WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION. PLEASE.
ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO APPROVE WAIVER TWO ARTICLE 4 SECTION E4D. HAVE A MOTION SECOND ON THAT.
AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOUR. ANY OPPOSED?
>> DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> WERE YOU ADDING THE
CONDITION? >> WE'RE NOT TO PRELIMINARY PLAT YET. I'M BACK TO THE UNAMENDED MOTION THAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON. THAT WE NEED TO DENY.
>> YES. >> SO-- MOTION AND A SECOND.
TO APPROVE WAIVER TO ARTICLE FOUR SECTION E4D.
>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER--.
THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT. ALL RIGHT.
GREAT BOTH WAIVERS NOW PRELIMINARY PLAT.
>> MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE PP-2026-007 PRELIMINARY PLAT CANTERBURY SUBDIVISION. WITH CONDITIONS.
>> WITH CONDITIONS. >> SECOND.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOUR? >> ALL: AYE.
[7. Preliminary Plat – Old Row Townhomes – PUBLIC HEARING]
>> YOUR NEXT CASE BEFORE YOU IS FOR REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 8 LOT TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION. LOCATED JUST TO THE WEST OF US AT 337 EAST MAGNOLIA. IN THE URBAN NEIGHBOURHOOD EAST ZONING DISTRICT. THE COMMISSION APPROVED A PRELIMINARY PLAT IN DECEMBER OF 2024 FOR A SEVEN LOT TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION. AND SINCE AN APPLICANT IS JUST COMING BACK TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL LOT.
THESE LOTS WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM A PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE OFF OF MAGNOLIA. THE ZONING ALLOWS 85 BEDS AN ACRE AND FOR THE LOT SIZE, THIS WOULD PERMIT 50 BEDS.
EACH UNIT HERE WILL HAVE THREE BEDROOMS. SO 24 BEDS. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> THIS OLD ROAD TOWN HOMES DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS AGENDA ITEM.
RYAN IS NOT HERE BUT IF YOU ANY QUESTIONS FEEL FREE TO ASK.
I THINK LIKE AMBER MENTIONED. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS ONCE.
WE DID DRT. ON A PREVIOUS VERSION OF IT.
GOING BACK THROUGH IT. SO-- AGAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD? OKAY.
SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS, PROMOTIONS, DISCUSSIONS.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE PP2026-008.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVER? >> ALL: AYE.
[8. Rezoning – The Lexington – PUBLIC HEARING ]
>> SO THOSE NEXT TWO CASES REZONING FROM SOUTH COLLEGE CORRIDOR DISTRICT AND REZONING FROM THE CCD TO PED.
OVERALL PROJECT MAKES USE OF COMMERCIAL ON BOTOM AND RESIDENTIAL UP TOP. SO I WANT TO LET YA'LL KNOW AT
[00:50:03]
THE OUTSET. SO DETAILS ABOUT THE PROJECT AND PUD PRESENTATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE PUD, THEN I WOULD-- NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO VOTE>> ALL RIGHT REQUEST TO REZONE 1.5 ACRES FROM-- TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT. AT 1117 SOUTH DON AHUE DRIVE.
THIS IS A PRECURSOR TO THE PUD REQUEST.
WHICH IS-- WILL BE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH FIRST FOUR COMMERCIAL AND 15 FOR SALE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM ABOUT THIS
>> I GUESS THIS IS PROBABLY THE ONLY THING TO ADD ON THIS.
WHEN THIS WAS REZONED. IN THE PUD STUFF.
BUT JUST BEFORE YA'LL VOTED ON THIS, THIS WAS INITIALLY REZONED SECD WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS ONE PARCEL.
ALL THE PARCELS AROUND THERE. AND NOW ICE BEEN SUBDIVIDED.
AND SO THE INTENT OF THAT WAS TO PRESERVE THE HARD CORNERS FOR COMMERCIAL. WHAT WAS HAPPENING WAS THERE WAS A RUN ON STUDENT HOUSING. ON THESE HARD CORNERS.
AND THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE FOR COMMERCIAL USE.
SO THE CITY RE-ZONED ALL THOSE PROPERTIES TO SECD AND SECD RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT ALLOWED.
PERIOD. AND HAD IT BEEN SUBDIVIDED LIKE THIS BACK WHEN THAT HAPPENED THIS PROPERTY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENSNARED IN THAT CITY-LED INITIATIVE.
I WANT TO PROVIDE THAT CONTEXT, WITH THAT IS HOW THIS PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES CAME SCCD AND THAT IS WHY THERE IS COMFORT WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CCD REQUESTS HERE.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT PERSONALLY WE NEED TO LOOK AT THESE TOGETHER. LIKE IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS PUD, THEN DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE CDD. OKAY, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REZONING OF THIS LEXINGTON.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
SPEAK ABOUT THIS AGENDA ITEM. >> BRETT-- REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS RESIDENTIAL USE. UNFORTUNATELY OUR CURRENT ZONING RESIDENCE DOESN'T CONTEMPLATE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. SO BACK WHEN THIS SCCD WAS BEING DONE REALLY THERE WAS NO REAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN TOWN. THE USE OF COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST AND RESIDENTIAL ABOVE IS A MORE PROMINENT DEVELOPMENT TYPE THAT WE END TO SEE IN PLACES AND THEN WOULD BE A GOOD USE ALL AROUND THE CITY HERE. JUST YOU REALLY CAN'T DO IT.
BECAUSE WE-- THE WAY WE'RE HAVING TO DO IT.
>> TO THE PUD ROUTE. SO BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO ONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVE TO APPROVE RZ-2026-004
>> ALL IN FAVOUR. >> ALL: EYE.
[9. Rezoning – The Lexington PUD – PUBLIC HEARING ]
NOW-- >> ALL RIGHT REQUEST RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPLY THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION TO APPROXIMATELY 1.15 ACRES.
ALL RIGHT SO THIS IS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THE PAST PUDS THAT EVER COME THROUGH HERE HAVE BEEN SO VASTLY DIFFERENT. THE ONE THAT HAD 24 UNITS.
THE OTHER ONE THAT HAD TEN UNITS.
AND NOW WE HAVE THIS ONE THAT'S ON 1.15 ACRES.
AND SO THOSE TWO WERE-- THE OTHER TWO WERE HUNDREDS OF ACRES. MASSIVE.
THIS IS NOT THAT. THIS IS JUST KIND OF URBAN INFILL. VERY SIMPLE FROM THE EXCHANGES.
SO IF WE WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
YEAH THERE WE GO. SO PRETTY MUCH LIKE I SAID, THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH. REALLY ON THE COUNT.
LIKE THERE WERE ON THE OTHER ONES WHERE WHOLE USES.
BULK REGULATIONS AND ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS.
WITH THIS ONE THE FOCUS WAS-- YOU KNOW WE HAD SEVERAL PRE-APPS HERE BUT THINGS THAT WERE NOT GOING TO BE-- WHAT WE INTENDED. KIND OF BEST USE KIND OF DEAL.
SO THE PUD WAS UTILIZED TO GET US A PROJECT THAT COULD DELIVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL.
AND THEN WITH 15 KIND OF UNITS ABOVE IT.
AND SO ONE OF THE EMPHASIS OF THAT WAS ELEVATED ARCHITECTURAL
[00:55:05]
STANDARDS. SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT BEYOND THE 429. SO 429 DOES ALLOW THE SIDING.HARDY BOARD AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SEE.
THIS IS-- ALWAYS KIND OF PUNCHED WINDOWS.
SOME DEPTH. THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD COULD ALMOST BE IN SOME URBAN NEIGHBOURHOODS FROM THE QUALITY THAT IS TO IT. AND THEN THERE'S BEEFED UP LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT THE COUNTY PROVIDED THAT THERE WILL BE COMPLIANT WITH. AND SO THEY'LL PUT SIDEWALK ON I GUESS WHAT IS THE NORTH SIDE OF IT.
COME UNDER PRIVATE EGRESS AND THEN 5 FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG DONAHUE THOUGH THERE IS A MULTIUSE PATH ACROSS THE STREET ON THE OTHER SIDE. I THINK THE REAL DISCUSSION WITH THIS ONE WILL BE PROPOSED USES.
INITIALLY THEY DID REQUEST ALL THE USES IN SCCD.
SO THAT'S WHERE EVERYBODY DOESN'T DEAL WITH THOSE A WHOLE LOT. OUR ZONING ORDINANCE DOES IT NOT DO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT VERY WELL.
THEY HAVE TWO OPTIONS. IT'S SECD.
OR CDD. UNLESS YOU'RE DOWNTOWN.
EVERYWHERE ELSE, LIKE YOU KNOW, BUT CDD.
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING PERMITTED.
AND THEN WE'RE BACK WHERE WE STARTED WITH THE PROBLEMS OF HARD CORNERS NOT BEING PRESERVED FOR COMMERCIAL.
SO THEY REQUESTED ALL THE USES. JUST KIND OF WANTED TO GO OVER WHAT THE USES WERE. SO WE LIMBERED THESE UP PRETTY GOOD. WHAT WE ENVISIONED.
ONLY TWO SPACES. SO THERE'S BARBERSHOP, BEAUTY SHOP, BOOK, HOBBY, MUSIC, SPORTING GOODS STORE.
GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORE. HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE STORE.
STATIONARY GIFT STORES. PROFESSIONAL STUDIOS.
RESTAURANT. SPECIALTY FOOD STORES.
ATMS CONVENIENT STORES. SMALL GROCERY LESS THAN 3,000 SQUARE FEET. NO FUEL.
MOBILE VENDOR FOOD COURT WITH CONDITIONS.
MEDICAL OFFICE, OFFICE PRIVATE LIBRARY.
MUSEUM BILLIARDS SHORT TERM RENTALS MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT. SO CONDITION ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOBILE VENDOR FOOD COURT. THIS WOULD BE NOT LIKE A PERMANENT HOME. LIKE IF THEY WERE HAVING COME OUT THIS TUESDAY OR SATURDAY WE'LL HAVE MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS OUT HERE. THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE RIGAMAROLE THEY COULD GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS AND HAVE THAT AS A USE.
THIS WOULD NOT BE-- NOT INTENDED TO ALLOW IT TO BE A PERMANENT HOME FOR THOSE. AND AS MENTIONED IN THE CONDITION. THAT'S WHY THERE'S A CONDITION.
SO THOSE RELEASES THAT WE SENT TO THE APPLICANT AND THEY WERE ACCEPTING OF THAT AND THIS IS SOMETHING THEY CAN WORK WITHIN THE CONFINES OF. REALLY EXCITED FOR THIS.
UTILIZING THE PD TO GET URBAN INFILL.
AND I SAID THAT WAS ONE OF THE GOALS.
ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH THE PDD IS THAT IT IS-- HAS A TEN ACRE LOT MINIMUM. VERSUS THIS HAS NO ACRE LOT MINIMUM. THAT'S WHY SOME CAN UTILIZE IT IN THESE SCENARIOS FOR URBAN INFILL PROJECTS.
SO WITH THAT DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'D BE HAPPY TO
ANSWER THEM. >> DO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS CHANGE BECAUSE IT'S RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL?
>> THEY WERE BLENDED A BIT DOWN TO SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO ONE PER BEDROOM AND DOWN TO 277 WHICH I THINK IS 400.
I THINK THE GOAL WITH SOME OF THE PUDS EVEN THIS ONE IS STILL INNOVATIVE DESIGN. BUT FROM A SITE PLAN STANDPOINT. IT MADE SENSE FOR THEM FOR THE DESIGN THAT THEY HAD. SO THE PARKING DID CHANGE SLIGHTLY. WASN'T ONE WHERE YOU HAVE A MASSIVE REDUCTION OF .5 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SURE. AND THAT WAS DONE FOR THE BEEFED UP LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WE WANTED.
SO--. >> AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE LEXINGTON PUD.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOVED TO APPROVE CASE RZ-2026-013 LEXINGTON WITH CONDITIONS.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. APPROVED LEXINGTON PUD.
[10. Rezoning – One Auburn Walker Carlton CDD – PUBLIC HEARING ]
>> ALL RIGHT SO THIS IS APPLICANT REQUESTING 9.92 ACRES FROM DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING.
[01:00:03]
DDH TO CDD COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1415SARAH LANE.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS ROAD IS NORTH DONAHUE AS YOU ARE HEADING NORTH. THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IS DDH.
WE HAVE ANOTHER REZONING REQUEST COMING UP RIGHT AFTER THIS FOR LITTLE GREEN PARCEL THAT'S HERE.
BUT SO THERE'S A FUTURE LANE USE MAP.
THE FUTURE LANE USE MAP HAS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE LATER.
BUT APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD 12 TOWN HOME UNITS.
TO AN ALREADY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OF 33 UNITS.
THE REQUEST OF CDD WILL ALLOW THREE BED THREE BATH UNITS.
WE CAN TALK A LIL' BIT MORE ABOUT THAT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. BUT OTHER THAN THAT.
>> ON THE SAME. >> TWO PARTIALS ENTIRELY.
IT'S A WHOLE PPD. CAN'T BE OCCUPIED BY GREATER THAN TWO UNRELATED. SO THAT'S THE-- THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION. SO THE EXISTING ONES THAT ARE OUT THERE ARE ALL THREE BED THREE BATH.
ARE-- UNDER THE FAMILY DEFINITION.
>> YEAH THE ONES CURRENTLY ARE. >> DDH IS FAMILY.
NO MORE THAN FIVE. DDH CARRIES WITH IT NO
SHORT-TERM RENTALS. >> YEP THAT'S ALSO CORRECT.
>> CDD DOES. ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I OPEN THE
HEARING UP. >> SO WAIT A MINUTE.
>> NO-- I MEAN-- YOU HAVE QUESTIONS PRIOR.
TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SO--.
TO ME, THIS LOOKS A LOT LIKE SPOT ZONING.
I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND HOW DO WE HAVE ANY KIND OF INFORMATION ON THAT. THE SINGLE FAMILY DEFINITION
AND SORT OF PROPERTIES. >> SO THE CAVEAT.
THAT'S KIND OF WHY THEY ARE PROPOSING A PDD OVER IT.
SO THEY RESTRICT THE DENSITY WITH IT.
I THINK THE UNIQUE THING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW THERE'S-- THE SECTION ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT.
IT'S NOT NOTED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
TO DEVELOP-- YEAH-- AND SO KIND OF THE-- THIS IS KIND OF THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT. SO IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE UNDERDEVELOPED. NEVER GOING TO REACH THE 9 ½.
THEY'D HAVE TO DEVELOP IT DIFFERENTLY.
TO KIND OF GO THERE BUT ALSO BE CONDITIONAL USE.
SO HOW THEY'VE DONE THIS IS KIND OF TOWN HOME SITUATION.
ADDING THIS ON. MAXIMUM DENSITY CAN'T BE ACHIEVED FOR TWO REASONS. BOUNDED BY FLOOD PLANE AND FLOOD WAY. FLOOD PLANE YOU CAN BUILD IN FLOODWAY YOU CANNOT. THERE IS ALSO BAD SOIL.
I THINK THEY FOUND AN OLD LANDFILL THAT WAS ALSO ON THE PROPERTY THAT PREVENTED IT AND & ANY DEVELOPMENT.
SO I JUST HAVE TO FORM-- LIKE THE MAX DENSITY.
ON A LOT OF THINGS FROM A NUMBER OF YOU STANDPOINT IT WOULD PROBABLY NEVER REACH THAT.
BUT THE REAL QUESTION FROM THE FAMILY DEFINITION OF WHAT THEY ARE GOING FOR. THERE'S GOING TO BE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION.
>> SO--. >> WITH ALL WE JUST SAID WHY
WOULD WE CHANGE? >> CAN I ADD SOME CLARITY.
TALKED TO LEGAL EARLIER ABOUT THIS AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION MEETING EARLIER WITH THE LEGAL COUNCIL.
AND SO BASICALLY WHERE THIS SITS WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT SPOT ZONING.
THE COURT WOULD MAKE THAT DECISION.
HIS COMMENT IS AS YOU SAID THE REASON IT BEING THAT IS NO
[01:05:01]
QUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE.SO THEY WOULD NEED TO COME BACK AND PETITION FOR YOU KNOW SOME CHANGES TO THE LAND USE PLAN FOR IT TO BE-- CONSISTENT WITH THAT. SO-- APOLOGIZE.
PRETTY HASTY DAY TODAY SO I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO FOLLOW BACK UP WITH JUSTICE. BUT I DID WANT TO OFFER THAT
CONVERSATION I HAD WITH LEGAL. >> WOULD THE PDD HELP THAT?
IT WOULD NOT. >> THIS IS SOMETHING WE WERE REAL CANDID WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT.
A DECISION IF THERE WAS AN APPETITE TO DO THIS OR NOT.
I THINK COMING FROM PLANS OR ANYTHING STANDPOINT.
SOMETHING REALLY TO CHANGE IN THAT WAY.
DH'ING DOES REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE.
TO GET THEY HAVE TWO BECAUSE THEY INCREASE ONE OF THE UNITS ON THE BACK END OF IT. BUT LIKE I SAID-- THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE WOULD BE FROM THE-- UP TO FIVE UNRELATED. WHEN PEOPLE DO COME IN TO ASK US. YOU KNOW, I WANT TO DO THIS THING, WE DO LET THEM KNOW. HEY GREAT BARRIER THAT YOU HAVE. BUT DUO ADVICE THEM OF HOW THEY WOULD ACHIEVE IT. SO FROM WHAT THEY DID WANT TO DO AND WHAT THEY DID ASK US AND WHAT THEY ASPIRE TO DO, ASKING TO REZONE THE CDD WITH THE PDD WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO DO IT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE TOLD THEM TO DO.
>> SO GOING PUD BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY PRE-DEVELOPED WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN--. >> THAT IS CORRECT.
SO THAT IS A DISTINCTION IN PUD IS WE DO NOT ALLOW RETROACTIVE PUD APPLICATIONS. YOU ARE CORRECT.
>> I JUST WONDER WHAT'S THE PROBLEM IS WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE HERE? YOU KNOW IN TERMS OF-- THEY CAN BUILD IT BY RIGHT. AND JUST--.
>> UNRELATED. >> THEY WANT TO-- RIGHT.
THEY CAN RENT TO FAMILIES. >> TOWN HOMES ARE PROBABLY MORE RENTABLE BY PROFESSIONALS. YOUNG PROFESSIONALS.
IT'S NOT COMPLETE FAMILIES THAT RENT.
AND A LOT OF YOUNG PROFESSIONALS NEED A ROOMMATE.
>> WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR REZONING? I SEE WHAT THE STAFF REPORT SAYS.
>> RIGHT. SO THEY CAN GET UP TO THREE UNRELATED. AND THEY ARE OVER THEIR DENSITY BY .09. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MAXIMUM OF FOUR, THEY ARE AT 4.09.
>> OKAY. >> AND SO TALK ME ONE AH LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE LAND USE PLAN THOUGH? IT'S NOT. YEAH SO I GUESS BACK TO THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. NORMALLY CDD.
IS 4.9 TO 4 KIND OF DEAL. BUT ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THAT IS ONE OF THE MECHANISMS THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED. TALK ABOUT.
PALATABLE. LIKE I SAID, I THINK WE ARE VERY CANDID WITH THEM ABOUT THIS IS REALLY JUST KIND OF A DECISION OF IF THE APPETITE TO DO THIS OR NOT.
TO EXPANSION OF REZONE THIS TO DDH THEY COULD DO THAT TOO.
COULD BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT PAP LITTLE LESS UNITS SINCE THEY PUT THAT LAST PIECE. BUT THAT'S REALLY IT.
>> BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE PROPERTY.
THEY KIND OF-- THEY MEET THE LAND USE DEFACTO.
>> RIGHT. >> DENSITY ISN'T SOMETHING TO PAY ATTENTION TO. WHERE THEY WANT TO RENT TO YOUNG PROFESSIONALS. AND PEOPLE IN THE LATE 20S.
THEY HAVE ROOMMATES. SITUATION LIKE THAT WHERE THEY ARE RUNNING INTO PROBLEM AND TURNING AWAY PEOPLE FROM SIGNING LEASES. BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE CITY KNOCKING ON THEIR DOOR PRETTY MUCH.
THAT IS THE REALITY OF IT. AND LIKE I SAID, WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND ASK US ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, WE TELL THEM HERE IS THE BEST WAY. HERE'S HOW YOU COULD DO IT.
[01:10:03]
>> IT'S UP TO THE CITY TO DECIDE.
ALL RIGHT. NO OTHERS FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REZONING OF 1 AUBURN WALKER CARLTON CDD. IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE SPEAK ON
I'M FROM MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA. AND I'M WITH THE DEVELOPER.
IT'S A GREAT PROJECT. I DON'T KNOW IF YA'LL HAVE SEEN THE PROJECT. BUT WHAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO IS JUST SAYING. WE GOT YOUNG PROFESSIONALS THAT ARE LOOKING FOR GOOD SOLID PLACES.
THAT ARE KIND OF OFF FROM CAMPUS.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS PROVIDES. IT PROVIDES IN THAT AREA THAT'LL NEVER BE BUILT. PICKLEBALL COURTS.
GOLF CHIP, PUTTING. ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
SOMETHING TO ENHANCE YOUNG PEOPLE.
AND WHAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO IS THERE'S TWO OR THREE.
I MEAN, RENT'S NOT CHEAP. AND WE'RE HITTING A WALL.
WE HAVE VACANCIES BECAUSE WE CAN'T RENT TO TWO OR MORE NON-FAMILY MEMBERS. AND THAT'S REALLY THE REASON.
>> THANK YOU. PLEASE SIGN IN, IF YOU DON'T
COUPLE THINGS. IN REGARDS TO THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL. WE PUT THEM IN FOR A COUPLE OF THINGS. LOCKS US DOWN TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND THE EXACT LAYOUT. AND THEN IN REGARDS TO THE WAY OUR ZONING ORDINANCE IS SET UP, WE ONLY HAVE TWO ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM. YOU EITHER HAVE TWO UNRELATED.
OR FIVE UNRELATED. THERE'S NOTHING IN BETWEEN.
AND SO WHEN WE'RE STUCK WITH THREE BEDROOM UNITS AND YOU HAVE THREE PEOPLE AS I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THREE UNRELATED PEOPLE CAN'T LIVE THERE.
SO YOU RUN INTO A WALL OF THAT OR RUN INTO ISSUES OF-- YOU DO RENT TO THREE UNRELATED AND THEN YOU HAVE ISSUES THERE.
WHEN WE WERE HAVING DISCUSSIONS WE WERE REQUESTING CAN WE JUST DO THREE UNRELATED AS A REQUEST? BUT WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT ESSENTIALLY FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE IT'S EITHER TWO OR FIVE, THERE'S NO IN BETWEEN, OKAY. AND REGARDS TO THE LAND USE, THE LAND USE MAP. THE MAXIMUM DENSITY-- OR THE LAND USE MAP SAYS FOUR UNITS PER ACRE.
.09 OVER. AND THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR THE PDD ON TOP OF THIS.
WE UNDERSTAND WITH THE USE, THERE'S CONCERN THAT WE COULD INCREASE DENSITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THE PDD CAPS THAT. WITHOUT US HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE EXACT REZONING PROCESS.
LIKE WE'RE DOING. BUT AGAIN WHAT'S DRIVING THIS WAS THE FAMILY DEFINITION OF TWO UNRELATED AND FIVE.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD? OKAY SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> THE FIRST QUESTION THAT CAME TO MY MIND AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THIS IS DOES THIS MEET THE INTENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN? SO BY ALLOWING THE THREE UNRELATED ET CETERA TO THE PDD. DO WE STILL MEET THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE? OR ARE WE--.
>> YEAH SO LIKE I SAID COME FROM A NUMBER STANDPOINT, THE NUMBER'S NOT REALLY-- IT'S NOT DOUBLE.
IT'S NOT 9 ½ LIKE CDD NORMALLY IS.
BUT ALSO WHAT THE CITY'S LEGAL STANCE IS.
GOT A STRONG CANDIDATE FOR SPOTS AND ALL THAT SPACE WITH CDD. BUT JUST KIND OF IF YOU DO THE MATH UNDER THE RAW MATHS IT'S NOT GOING TO LEAD YOU TO PLACE WHERE IT'S SAYING EIGHT VERSUS LIKE FOUR.
IT'S 409 VERSUS 4. >> SO JUST TO CLARIFY, WHAT IS AROUND THIS AREA THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING? IT'S ALREADY BUILT. IT'S ALREADY DESIRABLE.
I HEARD SOMEONE SAY-- IT'S JUST THAT THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO
[01:15:01]
ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN THREE.MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED. >> YEAH SO THEY'VE BEEN-- THEY ARE CANDID ABOUT THAT. JUST IN THE MEETING WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS. THEY WERE RUNNING INTO-- THEY WANT TO RENT TO MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED.
ONLY PLACE IN TOWN WHERE IT'S NOT IN BETWEEN IS ON THE FOUNDRY WHERE PART OF THEIRS IS THREE UNRELATED.
BUT THIS HERE IS THE TOWN HOMES.
THAT'S PART OF-- OAKS TO ACROSS THE STREET THERE AND THEN ALL THE FARMS FOR THE PLAT YOU JUST APPROVED.
THAT'S GETTING HOUSES ON IT IN SHORT ORDER.
AND THEN THIS IS THE OLD MIRACLE ROAD.
SO NECESSARILY IS UNDERDEVELOPMENT PRESSURE RAPIDLY CHANGING. BUT FROM A DENSITY STANDPOINT.
LIKE I SAID, I MEAN DENSITY FROM A NUMBERS STANDPOINT CAN'T CHANGE THAT MUCH. BECAUSE OF THE INCOME ON THE PROPERTY FROM THE OLD SOIL. TO THE FLOODWAY.
>> YOU'RE NOT CHANGING. IT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED.
SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING THERE.
WE'RE JUST ACTUALLY ALLOWING THOME USE THE PROPERTY THAT THEY HAVE IN A WAY THAT IS FINANCIALLY SUITABLE?
>> THAT IS ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
LIKE I SAID. THIS IS APPROVED UNDER DDH.
AND SO-- THEY CAME BACK AND THEY WANTED TO DO THE SIMILAR DENSITY. THEY'D HAVE TO LOSE A UNIT.
BUT THEY COULD DO THE SAME USE UNDER DDH.
IT'S JUST THE FAMILY DEFINITION OF ALL THOSE THINGS.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS.
I WILL VOTE NO BECAUSE IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION MONDAY ABOUT SPOT ZONING AS WELL.
EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT IS FAMILY DESIGNATION.
WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY AND YOU GO TO CDD THAT IS HIGHLY PER MISSIVE, AND AS WE ALL KNOW, WE HAVE-- YOU CAN HAVE MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED THERE. AND AS YOU SAID, THEY CAN STILL BUILD THAT ON HERE. BUT ONLY TWO UNRELATED.
SO I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS. >> ONE MORE QUESTION.
THIS IS WHAT THE CITY SUGGESTED THEY DO?
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? >> THE CITY WILL-- IF YOU COME TO ME AND ASK ME A QUESTION ABOUT HERE'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, I WILL TELL YOU THE WAY TO DO IT.
LIKE FROM AN AGNOSTIC POINT OF VIEW.
THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT. SO I WOULDN'T SAY SUPPORT.
JUST MORE-- IF YOU WANTED TO REZONE AND GET OUT OF A TWO UNRELATED. YOU'LL REQUEST TO REZONE TO CDD. I WOULD SAY MY POSITION IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE TECHNICAL AGNOSTIC ANALYSIS.
>> IN OUR FUTURE PLANS FOR THE CITY.
ARE THERE ANY PLANS TO GO? TO HAVE A ZONING THAT'S
ANYTHING BETWEEN TWO AND FIVE? >> I IMAGINE LIT COME UP IN THE ZONING RELAY. AND I IMAGINE IT WILL BE HIGHLY CONTESTED. FOR THE AREAS THAT DO NOT WANT IT. SO-- I IMAGINE.
IT PROBABLY WILL BE. BUT YEAH.
>> OKAY, COMMISSIONERS. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ROLE CALL PLEASE. >> NONET REESE?
[11. Rezoning – One Auburn Dumas Lot CDD – PUBLIC HEARING ]
>> ALL RIGHT, WE STILL HAVE TWO MORE CASES REGARDING THIS.
SO THIS IS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.09 ACRES TO RURAL TO CDD.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1750 MIRACLE ROAD HIGHLIGHTED IN THAT LITTLE BOX. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AGAIN THIS IS PART OF THE SAME DEVELOPMENT. SAME DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.
I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING AT THIS
[01:20:02]
TIME. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND GOING BACK TO THE ZONING MAP. JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS.
MOST OF OUR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IS IN THE COUNTY.
BUT THE ONLY PIECE THAT'S SOUTH OF US.
THE CITY OWNS THAT IS RULED. THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE BLUE WAY GREENWAY LAUNCH POINT. THAT IS A PARK.
THE OTHER GREEN RURAL IS ACROSS THE STREET-- THE STREAM AND IS THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL. SO-- YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE SURROUNDING WITH IN REGARDS TO CHANGING THE USE AS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT OR CHANGE THAT AREA, IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOOD. WE'RE ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT.
ACTUALLY OUR DEVELOPMENT IS WHAT BASICALLY WAS ABLE TO GET SARAH LANE ACTUALLY WAS SITTING DEFUNCT FOR ABOUT 8 TO 10 YEARS AND WE WERE ABLE TO PUSH TO GET THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED.
BUT YOU KNOW IN REGARDS TO THE USE SIDE OF THAT, THE WHOLE REASON WHY WE WENT THE PDD ROUTE WAS TO TAKE THE CDD OFF THE TABLE. BUT IT'S JUST-- YOU KNOW, OUR ORDINANCES IS LIMITED IN HOW YOU DO IT.
BUT WE ARE SURROUNDED IN COUNTY PROPERTY.
SO WE'RE NOT REALLY-- WE'RE PROTECTING THE COUNTY.
WE'RE NOT PROTECTING THE CITY PROPERTY.
>> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD? OKAY SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS THE SEPARATE LOT.
>> MOVE TO APPROVE CASE RC2026-011.
>> HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 1 AUBURN DUMAS LOT.
ROLE CALL PLEASE. >> NONET REESE?
[12. Rezoning – Kyser One Auburn PDD – PUBLIC HEARING]
>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT AND LASTLY.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO APPLY THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OVERLAY TO APPROXIMATELY 11.01 ACRES.
PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED AT 1415 SARAH LANE AND 1750 MIRACLE ROAD. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT THE PDD OVERLAY.
>> YEAH SO AS A BYPRODUCT OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER WITH THE PUD, THIS WOULD HAVE CAME THROUGH AS A PUD BEFORE AND THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TRIED TO REZONE IT IF THEY HAD TO CONTROL ALL THESE PROPERTIES AT THE TIME.
BUT THIS PROPERTY WAS I THINK ON THE SURVEY LIKE 9.92 WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF THE DUMAS LOT. SO THEY WERE JUST UNDER THE PDD. SO I THINK THAT'S WHY ONE OF THE REASONS WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ALLOTMENT ON IT.
THE PUD LIKE I SAID I MEAN, YA'LL HAVE KIND OF VOTED.
JUST WHERE WE ARE ALL AT AWARE OF OUR SUPPORT.
I WOULD THINK OF THIS PDD ADDITION AKIN TO THE-- ROAD WHERE WE HAD THOSE SUBDIVISIONS DOWN THERE.
WHERE I THINK THERE WERE 19 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES PROPOSED IN A SUBDIVISION. WHEN THE DENSITY FROM THE REZONING WOULD HAVE BEEN 55 AND SO THEY WERE PROPOSING THE PDD AMENDMENT TO IT. THE PDD OVERLAY TO IT TO CAP ALL THE USES. AND STRIP THEMSELVES.
ALL THE OTHER USES SAID THIS WAS REALLY NOT JUST YOU KNOW-- UNCONSTRAINED. UNMITIGATED CDD.
THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPMENT.
UNRELATED KIND OF DEAL. LIKE I SAID, THE PDZ MORE USED AS A TOOL. STRIPPING USES.
AS AN OLIVE BRANCH TO THE CITY. >> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. THIS ALSO REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. REZONING OF KYSER ONE AUBURN PDD. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD? SEEING NO ONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE RZ2026-012 ONE
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[13. Conditional Use – Collegiate Condotel – PUBLIC HEARING ]
[01:25:02]
THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR A COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USE CONDOTEL TO BE LOCATED AT 211 SOUTH GAY STREET. THE APPROXIMATELY 9,000 SQUARE FEET. .2 ACRES.IT CURRENTLY IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
PARKING FOR THE ADJOINING HOTEL PROPERTY.
TO THE NORTH. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN 11 UNIT CONDOTEL. CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS WHERE EACH UNIT IS OWNED INDIVIDUALLY AND ARE DEVELOPED FOR SHORT-TERM TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY AND NOT AS MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS.
LONG-TERM RESIDENCE OR LONG-TERM RENTALS.
THE UNIT MIX IS TEN THREE-BEDROOM UNITS.
AND ONE FOUR-BEDROOM UNIT THAT OCCUPIES THE FIFTH FLOOR.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE UC ZONE IS 75.
CURRENTLY THE PLAN SHOWS AN 82 FOOT 9 INCH STRUCTURE.
WE DO ALLOW A LENIENCY OF 4 TO 6 FEET OF HEIGHT ON DREK DEK RATTIVE PARAPET PLUS ANYTHING FOR MECHANICAL.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A WAIVER WITH THIS REQUEST.
FOR COMMERCIAL USES WHICH CONDOTELS ARE ARE ARE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL AND WE REQUIRE 18 FEET MINIMUM GROUND STORY AE HEIGHT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 15 FOOT GROUND STOREY HEIGHT. THE DDRC MET LAST WEEK TO EVALUATE THIS. THEY ARE AMENABLE TO THE WAIVER AND ARE IN FAVOUR OF ITS APPROVAL.
HOWEVER THEY WILL MEET AGAIN THROUGH THE DRT PROCESS SHOULD THIS MOVE FORWARD TO ADDRESS ANYMORE MATERIAL ISSUES.
OR LANDSCAPING AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING.
AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THIS LOT IS CURRENTLY USED AS A EXTRA PARKING FOR-- OR PARKING MEDIAN PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE HOTEL ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
CONDOTELS ARE PARKED AT TWO SPACE.
FOR TWO TO THREE BEDROOM UNITS AND THREE SPACES FOR FOUR OR MORE BEDROOM UNITS. SO THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED 23 PARKING SPACES FOR THE CONDOTEL.
RIGHT NOW THE SITE PLAN. SHOWS 20 FULLY STACKED TANDEM PARKING SPOTS WITH A NOTE SAYING THAT THREE WILL BE PROVIDED VIA AN OFFSITE LEASE. THIS DOES LEAVE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT ONLY 19 SPACES PROVIDED ON THE LOT FOR THE HOTEL ITSELF. LOOKING AT THIS DEVELOPMENT TOGETHER AS BOTH HOTEL AND CONDOTEL, 63 SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED BETWEEN BOTH OF THEM. THE SITE PLAN.
THE TWO SITE PLANS COMBINED SHOW A TOTAL OF 39 SPACES WHICH IS 24 SHY OF THE REQUIREMENT. THERE ARE A FEW STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. THE FIRST ONE IS FOR ACCESS TO GUEST ROOMS BEING LIMITED EXCLUSIVELY TO INTERIOR CORRIDORS. BEING ACCESSED VIA THE MAIN LOBBY. NO FULL-TIME RESIDENCY SHOULD BE PERMITTED AND THIS SHOULD BE WRITTEN INTO THE BYLAWS OF THE CONDOTEL. A FUNCTIONAL ENTRANCE SHOULD BE PROVIDED ON THE FIRST FLOOR FROM GAY STREET AND ANY REQUESTS TO REDUCE PARKING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING MEETING STAND RSD SET FORTH IN SECTION 51304. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF
YOU HAVE THEM. >> SO MY BASE QUESTION IS.
OKAY SO THIS IS URBAN CORE. I THOUGHT WE WERE IN MORATORIUM
ON THE URBAN CORE? >> THIS IS A COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT. >> THIS IS NOT A MULTIFAMILY
SO THIS IS-- GOT YOU. >> MY QUESTION IS THE PARKING.
IS THAT GOING TO BE WORKED OUT? IN DORT OR WHAT?
>> SO THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A REQUEST.
SO PRETTY MUCH IN URBAN CORE YOU ARE ALLOWED-- TWO THINGS.
IN THIS YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE OFFSITE PARKING.
ALSO IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, YOU CAN ASK FOR A REDUCTION OF YOUR COMMERCIAL VENTURE. A REDUCTION OF PARKING.
SO I THINK THEY'VE-- THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
OF WHAT THEY REQUESTED. BUT THAT'S KIND OF THE EXTENT
OF IT. >> AND THE HOTEL ASKED FOR A
REDUCTION ALREADY, RIGHT? >> YES.
AND SO-- WELL, YEAH. THE APPLICANT WOULD BE A LOT BETTOR EXPLAIN THAT. BUT I GUESS THE CURRENT HOUSE IS USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
BUT A PART OF IT IS-- THEY ARE USED AT THAT REAL ESTATE FOR PARKING. AND SO THAT PARKING GOING AWAY, LIKE I SAID WOULD HAVE TO BE A COUNT FOR IT NEW SITE PLAN OR OFFSITE PARKING AGREEMENT THAT THEY ESTABLISHED.
>> HOW FAR OFFSITE IS OFFSITE PARKING?
[01:30:04]
>> MAN. I DO NOT HAVE METRICS.
SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THE URBAN CORE LIKE URBAN NEIGHBOURHOODS REALLY DO HAVE A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY THAN OTHER AREAS. ON GRAND JUNCTION ON EAST GLEN BEHIND KROEGER. SO OVER THERE LIKE GLENN WHERE THE METHODIST CHURCH IS AND ALL THAT.
OFFSITE PARKING HAD TO BE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND KROGER WAS A STRETCH BECAUSE THEY DON'T SHARE PROPERTY LINES.
BUT DOWNTOWN ESPECIALLY KIND OF OUR HOTELS.
I THINK KIND OF INDUSTRY I THINK ESPECIALLY IN A BIGGER CITIES. THEY PARKED CARS 20 OR 30 MINUTES AWAY. I THINK THE GRADUATE HAS OFFSITE THE UNIT OKAY.
SO I GUESS TO USE THAT AS A STARTING POINT.
THAT'S NOT HARD AND FAST RULE. KIND OF IN THIS ROLE AND I THINK WE HADN'T MADE ANY DECISIONS YET ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS WHY IT'S HERE. URBAN CORE.
TO DRC. SDIC MENTIONED SUPPORTIVE OF THE WAIVER 18 TO 15 FEET BUT THE REASON FOR THAT IS CONDOTELS ARE COMMERCIAL BUT BY THEIR USE ARE RESIDENTIAL USES.
SO THEY SUPPORT IT GOING DOWN TO 15 FOR THAT DISTINCTION ALONE TO MOVING TO 18 FEET THAT IS COMMERCIAL USE AND THAT IS
WHY IT'S BEFORE YOU ALL. >> AND I DON'T SEE THIS WAIVER.
IS THAT IN A DIFFERENT PLACE? >> NO.
>> SO IF YOU DECIDE TO VOTE ON THB TONIGHT YOU NEED TO DECIDE
ON THE WAIVER FIRST. >> OKAY THANK YOU NO MORE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE COLLEGIATE CONDOTVENLT EL.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS AGENDA ITEM PLEASE
COME FORWARD. >> LEE THARP FOR THE APPLICANT.
WE TALK PARKING I SUPPOSE. SEVERAL THINGS THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT. ONE THING RELATED TO PARKING EARLIER ABOUT IF A WAIVER IS REQU REQUESTED. WE SUBMITTED A WAIVE WERE THAT REQUEST BUT JUST WASN'T SURE IF THAT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION RIGHT NOW. SO YEAH.
>> I'D SAY SO. >> EXCEPT THE WAIVE WERE SUBMITTED WAS A REDUCTION FOR. UP TO THREE BEDROOMS FROM THE CONDOTEL TO PARKING SPACES UP TO FOUR.
REQUIRES THREE. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION OF UP TO FOUR REQUIRING TWO. UP TO THREE REQUIRING ONE.
SO BASICALLY CUT OUR PARKING REQUIREMENT FROM 23 TO 12.
THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY MINIMIZE HOW MUCH PARKING WE HAVE TO GO GET OFFSITE. WHICH WE WOULD APPRECIATE.
AS WELL SINCE IT WOULD OPERATE JUST LIKE A HOTEL.
BASED ON THEIR HISTORICAL OPERATIONS THEY USUALLY DON'T GET PEOPLE BRINGING MORE THAN ONE CAR WHEN THEY ARE STAYING.
AS FAR AS HOW PARKING IS CONSIDERED.
SO OUT FRONT. JUST FROM THE AGREEMENT USING THE VALET SERVICE. THE THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT WE WERE OPERATING UNDER. WASN'T REALLY HARD AND FAST ROLE. WE HAD A THOUSAND FEET IN OUR HEAD. HOW WE WERE OPERATING.
CURRENT PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THE METHODIST CHURCH JUST TO THE NORTH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THATCH.
AND SO THAT WOULD CONTINUE AND GROW.
BEEN SPEAKING WITH SOME FOLKS TO THE SOUTH.
[01:35:01]
IF HE NEEDS ANYTHING INITIAL THERE.SO SPECIFIC PARKING QUESTIONS? MAYBE I NEED TO WAIT UNTIL
YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPLE COMING.
BUT IN ONE CAR. THIS IS A-- BEDROOM UNIT.
NOT TRYING TO GET ALL UP IN THE PARKING.
I THINK THEY CALL THAT A SUITE. THAT'S BEEN OUR DISCUSSIONS TO THIS POINT. I'M JUST SPEAKING FROM MY EXPE EXPERIENCE.
I HAVE THREE VERY SMALL CHILDREN SO ANY TIME WE GET SOMETHING WITH MORE THAN ONE BEDROOM WE'RE STILL ROLLING IN ONE CAR. THAT'S AS FAR AS I CAN SPEAK TO IT. BEEN PROVIDED BY THE OWNER.
>> DID YOU SAY THERE WAS A WAIVER FOR THE PARKING IN HERE?
BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE IT. >> NO.
ALREADY MENTIONED THAT THE DDRC WAS IN THE 15 FOOT WAIVER.
GOING TO BE A VERY PRETTY BUILDING.
EXCITED ABOUT IT. SO THAT WAS.
I'LL BE BACK IN A SECOND. THANK YOU.
>> DO YOU WANT A PUBLIC HEARING.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. OWNERS OF THE COLLEGIATE HOTEL THE NEXT DOOR. WE'VE BEEN THE OWNERS AND THE OPERATORS FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS.
AND CAME UP EARLIER ABOUT PARKING THERE THAT WE DID GET A REDUCTION FROM 1.5 SPACES TO ONE BEDROOM.
WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY OPERATED THAT AT 41 SPACE PER BED AT THE HOTEL AND WE HAVE A GREAT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE PARKING WORKS IN DOWNTOWN AUBURN AND RUNNING A BUSINESS.
AND WE ALL KNOW IT'S A CHALLENGE.
WE SEE THAT CHALLENGE EVERY DAY RUNNING A RESTAURANT DOWNTOWN AND NOBODY WANTING COTO COME EAT THAT'S LOCAL DOWNTOWN BECAUSE THERE'S NO PARKING. SO THAT AFFECTS EVERYBODY.
ESPECIALLY US BUSINESS OWNERS. SO THAT IS A PRIMARY BUSINESS PLAN IN OUR DEVELOPMENT. WE DO WORK WITH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET JUST TO THE SOUTH. WE'VE OPERATED WITH THEM FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS. WE'VE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT GAINING PERMANENT PARKING SPACES FOR OUR GUESTS.
AT THEIR LOCATION. WE'VE ALSO TALKED TO THE PEOPLE AT 255 EAST THATCH. THAT OWN THE OLD MAMA GOLDBERGS. 16 SPACES THERE.
THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO AT LEAST SINCE THE DAY WE OPENED.
ALSO TALKED WITH THE NORTH CUT WHO HAS PLENTY OF SPACES JUST TO THE SOUTH OF US THAT ARE ALSO WANTING TO LEASE US SPACES. FOR THEM THIS IS A MONEY GENERATOR. THEY'VE GOT BUSINESSES THAT ARE LOOKING TO FIND NEW REVENUE SOURCES.
SO THE PARKING IS NOT ONLY VERY SOLVABLE.
BUT WE HAVE MULTIPLE WAYS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
ONLY ONE WAY TO SOLVE IT LIKE OTHER HOTELS AND DOWNTOWN AUBURN, IT'S A LITTLE HARDER WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO SLEEP WITH THAT MANY PEOPLE. ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER IS.
AUBURN. WEEKENDS WHERE WE'RE NEEDING ALL 40 SPACES AT THE HOTEL. THAT'S REALLY WHERE YOU HAVE TO WORK IT THE HARDEST. SO THE PARKING PROBLEM IS RESOLVABLE. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE'LL BE HAPPY TO
ANSWER THOSE. >> OKAY PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN. IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD ABOUT THE COLLEGIATE CONDOTEL.
SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS?
WAIVER FIRST PLEASE? >> WELL, I STILL HAVE THE QUESTION ABOUT THE USE AND THE REDUCTION IN PARKING.
I UNDERSTAND. THE AVAILABILITY EVIDENTLY.
BUT WHAT IS THE FOCUS OF RENTAL.
IS THIS GAME DAY? IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF GAME DAY. IS IT-- SOMETHING ELSE.
[01:40:01]
IF IT'S GAME DAY YOU WOULD PROBABLY SEE MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE THERE. MOST LIKELY BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME.>> SO THE QUESTION. WHO ARE THEY-- RENTING TO?
>> WHO ARE THEY TARGETING. WHO WOULD THEY EXPECT TO RENT
TO? >> I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE THE EXACT SAME CLIENTELE THEY HAVE AT THE CURRENT HOTEL.
IT'S GOING TO FUNCTION AND OPERATE THROUGH THE COLLEGIATE HOTEL. THEY'LL BOOK THESE ROOMS ON THAT WEB SPIEPT THEY'LL USE THAT LOBBY TO COME AND GET THEIR KEYS AND CHECK IN. WHOLE THING.
>> COLLEGIATE IS NOT A SUITE. OR IS IT? SINGLE? YEAH.
>> DON'T ANSWER THAT. ZMRI GUESS KIND OF-- FROM A STANDPOINT CONDOTELS ARE CONTEMPLATED AS THE ORIGINAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S A CONDITION THAT THERE CAN'T BE A PRIMARY RESIDENCE THERE.
IT IS THE ORIGINAL SHORT TERM RENTAL FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
SO IF THEY ARE SOLD. PEOPLE WHOEVER BUYS.
SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. THEY CAN COME DOWN THURSDAY TO SUNDAY KIND OF DEAL. BUT THAT'S IT.
>> YES. SO THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.
JUST TO CLARIFY, AND I APPRECIATE HIM, BUT HE'S GETTING TO THE BUSINESS DETAILS.
SO THESE INDIVIDUAL UNITS WILL BE OWNED.
AND THEN THEY WILL BE OPERATED AS RENTAL UNITS FROM THE HOTEL.
SO PEOPLE WILL GO ON THE WEBSITE WHEN THE OWNERS ARE NOT THERE OCCUPYING. AND THEY'LL HAVE THE OPTION TO RENT IT. SO IT WOULD BE FUNCTIONING AS ADDITIONAL TEN UNITS OF THE HOTEL.
THEY CAN ALSO OPT NOT TO BE IN THE RENTAL PROGRAM.
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY FULL-TIME RESIDENCE DOWNTOWN IS NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING AFTER. BUT TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, WE WILL NOT BE ALLOWING ANY SUB-LEASES.
ANY SHORT-TERM RENTALS. ANY NON-FAMILY RENTALS OUTSIDE OF THE RENTAL PROGRAM. SO THESE UNITS CAN ONLY BE RENTED THROUGH THE COLLEGIATE HOTEL.
THESE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE ON VRBO OR ANY OTHER SITE.
SO WE MANAGE THAT. WHICH WOULD HOPEFULLY-- ANY THING IFS SOME RANDOM PERSON WAS RENTING THAT'S NO. AIR BNB AND WASN'T MANAGING THE PARKING SITUATION AND ALL THE THINGS THAT GO INTO THAT. WE WOULD BE OPERATING THOSE AS
AN EXTENSION OF THE HOTEL. >> SO POINT OF CLARIFICATION? IN THE COLLEGIATE, YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL ROOMS.
>> SO IN THIS CASE YOU WOULD HAVE TEN THREE-BEDROOM UNITS.
SO THE POTENTIAL WOULD BE THAT SOMEONE WOULD RENT A SUITE THREE DIFFERENT UNRELATED PEOPLE.
STAYING IN EACH OF THE BEDROOMS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.
>> MY POINT IS YOU COULD HAVE SOMEONE COME FROM BIRMINGHAM.
AND ATLANTA AND FLORIDA ALL COMING TO STAY IN THAT ONE.
YOU COULD HAVE THREE VEHICLES. >> CORRECT.
LIKE WITH OUR HOTEL WE SAY WE OFFER ONE PARKING SPOT PER PERSON. AND THEN YOU'RE REQUIRED TO FIND YOUR OWN PARKING. WHICH IS A STANDARD PROCEDURE.
BUT YES, I WANT TO CLARIFY THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE-- THESE THREE UNITS AREN'T GOING TO-- ONE UNIT ISN'T GOING TO TURN INTO THREE ADDITIONAL RENTALS. ONE RENTAL.
SO TYPICALLY YOU'D HAVE A FAMILY WITH THREE KIDS.
AND THEY ARE ALL COMING IN THE SAME CAR.
OBVIOUSLY COULD ALWAYS HAVE MORE THAN ONE CAR.
>> RIGHT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS? >> COMMENT HERE.
I'M STILL NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS WHOLE PARKING THING.
I'M NOT SURE RUSHING INTO THIS IS THE BEST IDEA.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION.
OR SESSION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO GET SOME CLARITY.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS SPACE. AND YOU LOSE YOUR PARKING NOW WHERE DO YOU GO IT'S JUST NOT CLEAR TO ME.
GOING LOCATION THAT IT'S AT. IS TROUBLESOME WITH THE PARKING. I HAVE A CONCERN.
HOW TEASE CITY LOOK AT THIS. >> BREAKING POINT.
>> SO I GUESS KIND OF-- YOU KNOW-- THE ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW
[01:45:01]
FOR-- THIS IS STRICTLY COMMERCIAL.NOT RESIDENTIAL AND I THINK KIND OF HOTEL MOTEL STUFF.
THE ONE COMMERCIAL VENTURE THAT DOES HAVE REQUIRED PARKING IN THESE AREAS. NORMALLY URBAN CORE COMMERCIAL DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR IT.
SO-- LIKE I SAID I THINK. KIND OF WHERE THEY WOULD BE.
AND DISTANCE AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF.
>> A SIMILAR SITUATION ON THESE WITH CARMELO'S RESTAURANT.
>> YEAH THAT WAS DRIVEN BY THE SPACE.
THAT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER THAN I THINK WHAT THEY INTENDED. THAT CAPACITY 300 OR 400.
FOR SOMETHING ELSE IN THE EVENING AND THEN WE ALL HAVE
PARKING TO BE TAKEN. >> I HAVE TO ADMIT I'M NOT ALL THAT CONCERNED. I THINK TRADITIONALLY DOWNTOWN THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY THAN WHAT IS BEING THOUGHT OF I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.
I THINK THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS WILL BE ABLE TO GET THE KIND OF SPACES RENTED OUT FROM THE CHURCH AND FROM ACROSS THE STREET AND FROM THIS PLACE AND FROM THAT PLACE BECAUSE THESE FOLKS HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN MAKING SURE THEIR CUSTOMERS HAVE A PLACE TO BE. AND THAT THEY KNOW WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARKING. AND PROBABLY OVER TIME IT'S GOING TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT BASED UPON JUST SIMPLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH PARKING AROUND THE AREA.
ALL OF A SUDDEN MAYBE THE METHODISTS START HAVING TOO MANY PEOPLE SHOW UP. YOU KNOW THERE ARE ALL VARIETY OF DIFFERENT REASONS BU I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY HERE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
>> I'VE TRAVELLED TO MULTIPLE PLACES AND IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO GO TO A POPULAR SXAER BE DIRECTED TO OFFSIDE PARKING.
SO THAT'S NOT A BIG ISSUE FOR ME.
>> MY QUESTION IS THIS IS CONDITIONAL USE.
SO PARKING IS NOT WAIVER. SO TELL ME ABOUT HOW THIS FITS TOGETHER AS FAR AS MOVING FORWARD OR NOT.
SO COMMERCIAL USES CAN LOOK AT ADMINISTRATIVE REPARKING REDUCED. PRETTY MUCH.
A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY.
JUST BECAUSE. OVERFLOW PARKING FOR WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE. LITTLE BIT THING.
JUST NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED. >> COULD WE COLLECTIVELY.
THAT WAS EVEN ON THE TABLE. PUT A CONDITION BEFORE THAT
PARKING ISSUE. >> YEAH THAT'S.
NOT SOMETHING THAT COMES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE CONDITIONAL USE ITSELF. >> RIGHT SO CONDITIONAL USES SHOULDN'T BE APPROVED UNLESS YOU HAVE CLARITY.
SHOULDN'T VOTE ON CONDITIONAL USES UNLESS THERE'S CLARITY ON ALL THE CONDITIONS AND EVERYTHING.
THIS IS KIND OF WHY THESE THINGS ARE CONDITIONAL USES.
>> OKAY. >> SO WE HAVE TO HAVE A WAIVER
FOR THE 15 FOOT. >> YEAH SO LIKE I SID.
THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF ALL THAT.
>> ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION NEEDED? ON THIS CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST? BY NO MEANS ARE WE THE FINAL OF ANY OF THIS.
WE'LL GO FORWARD TO ALL THE THINGS THAT COME AFTER US.
>> CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO WAIVER.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WAIVER FOR KCU2026-024 FOR FROM
18 FEET TO 15 FEET. >> SECOND.
>> I VOTE MOTION TO APPROVE THE WAIVER FOR HEIGHT CHANGE FROM 18 TO 15. ALL THOSE IN FAVOUR?
THANK YOU. >> AND NOW I MAKE A MOTION TO
APPROVE KCU-2026-024. >> SECOND.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR CONDITIONAL USE COLLEGIATE CONDOTEL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOUR?
[01:50:02]
[14. Conditional Use – Bash Reformer Pilates – PUBLIC HEARING]
>> HELLO AGAIN. THIS REQUEST IS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF CITY COUNCIL FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT USE A FITNESS STUDIO LOCATED AT 237 NORTH GAY STREET IN THE URBAN CORE ZONING DISTRICT.
YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT THE PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY ARE ALL IN THE URBAN CORE AS WELL.
THIS USE WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN AN EXISTING MULTI-TENANT BUILDING WITH ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USES THERE ALREADY. THERE IS NO PARKING REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL USES IN THE URBAN CORE.
BUT THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THAT THERE IS PARKING AVAILABLE ON THE SITE. AND THIS USE IS APPROPRIATE IN THE URBAN CORE AT THIS LOCATION.
>> THANK YOU. THIS CONDITIONAL USE DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO BASH REFORMER PILATES.
SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS? >> I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION FROM STAFF OF JUST IF THE APPLICANT COULD I HAVE TO PART OF THE BUILDING THAT THEY'LL BE OCCUPYING ON THE SITE PLAN OR THE FLOOR PLAN THAT'D BE APPRECIATED.
>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> PLEASE COME FORWARD.
PILATES YOU SAY? >> THAT'S NOT FUNNY NONET.
>> NICK KAYS 235 NORTH GAY STREET.
JUSTICE, WHAT WAS THE-- SO IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THAT BUILDING THERE THE STRETCH OF THE ROOF THAT YOU SEE IS 241.
WOULD BE WHERE BASH IS OCCUPYING.
>> YEAH. I GUESS IT'S KIND OF-- IT'S NEXT FLOOR PLAN SHARED. WHOLE FLOOR PLAN PRETTY MUCH.
>> YES. >> OH WHOLE 241 SECTION BACK THERE. OKAY.
>> AND THAT IS JUST THE BASH SPACE.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE KCU-2026-025 BASH
>> ALL IN FAVOUR. >> ANY OPPOSED.
[15. Conditional Use – Christ Presbyterian Church – PUBLIC HEARING]
>> ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR INSTITUTIONAL USE. THE CHURCH ACROSS FROM PINE HALLS CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
PROPERTY ZONED DDH APPROXIMATELY 19.7 ACRES AND IS CURRENTLY VACANT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR 6 66,000 SQUARE FEET. THE INITIAL PHASE WILL ONLY INCLUDE 11,000 SQUARE FEET AND THERE'S NO TIMELINE.
FOR THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH.
THERE IS A GREENWAY EASEMENT THAT WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE PLATTED.
THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS MASTER PLANNED MIXED USE.
DESIGNATION WAS RESERVED FOR LARGER TRACKS OF LAND.
HOWEVER DUE TO THE SURROUNDING PARTERN OF DEVELOPMENT THE CHURCH WOULD BE CONTEXTUALLY APPROPRIATE.
PARKING FOR CHURCHES ARE ASSESSED AT THE SANCTUARY CHURCHES PLAN ON HAVING A 500 TO 600 OSEAT CAPACITY WHICH WOULD REQUIRE 125 TO 150 PARKING SPACES.
THE SITE PLAN SHOWS 220 RIGHT NOW ALL TO BE WORKED OUT DURING THE DRT PROCESS ACCESS. ON NORTH COLLEGE STREET IS BEING WORKED THROUGH CURRENTLY. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
IF YOU HAVE THEM. >> THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? OR I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED FOR CHRIST'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION AND THAT'S ABOUT THE CONDITION THAT'S ON THIS.
[01:55:02]
>> YES. SO THE CONDITION REFERENCE IFS THEY SHARE ACCESS FROM PICK ELEMENTARY DRIVE SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN THE PRE-MEETING.
INITIALLY KIND OF WHAT THEY SHOWED HAD I GUESS THREE-- ONE CONNECTING PICK ELEMENTARY. AND THIS WAS SOMETHING WHERE WE MADE THE COMMENT. THIS CONDITION SHOULD THEY DECIDE TO DO IT. WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE PURSUING THIS. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE ON THAT. LIKE I SAID IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US IN THE MEETING THAT WE FELT AN OBLIGATION TO SPEAK TO SHOULD WE GET INTO THE DRT AND THEN IT'S BECOMES A STICKING POINT THEY PROVIDE EASEMENTS OR NOT.
SO JUST SOMETHING THEY MADE US AWARE OF.
THAT'S THE COMMENT THAT PERTAINS TO THAT.
EVEN THOUGH WHAT IS BEFORE YOU ALL DOES NOT REFLECT THAT PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T IRONED THAT OUT YET.
>> APPROVED KCU2026-026. >> SECOND.
>> WITH CONDITIONS. >> SECOND.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[16. Conditional Use – Shelton Mill Townhomes, Phase 5 – PUBLIC HEARING]
>> CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR SHELTON MILL TOWNHOMES PHASE FIVE. THE APPLICANT DAVID SLOCUM IS REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY CONTAINS 145 UNITS AND IS ALREADY A MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE 39 UNITS WHICH HAVE FRONT PARKING ACCESS. ALONG SHELTON MILL ROAD WHICH WILL BE DEMOLISHED. THESE WILL BE REPLACED WITH 35 NEW TOWN HOME STYLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WHICH WILL BE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE. ALONG SHELTON MILL BUT WILL INCLUDE REAR PARKING AND SINGLE CAR GARAGES.
THE PROPOSED USE APPEARS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT.
OR DDH. AS IT IS A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND IS COMPLIMENTARY TO SURROUNDING USES.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
>> THANK YOU. THIS DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE? >> MAN-- WE LIVE AT 972-- DRIVE. RIGHT ACROSS.
BUT WE ARE CONCERNED. THEY WILL REDUCE THE PRODUCT.
SO THAT WAS OUR CONCERNED. JUST.
PLEASE SIGN IN. WOULD LIKE TO.
TO COME FORWARD? SEEING NO ONE.
WE'RE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. DAVID SLOCUM CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT. NEAR THE EXISTING ENTRANCE.
THAT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BE CUT DOWN.
THERE REALLY ARE NO. NOT SURE WHAT THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE BUFFERS. MEETING ALL THE BUFFERS.
>> QUESTION IS THIS IS JUST A FRONT ON FILM.
>> ANOTHER EXHIBIT. >> YEAH THERE WE GO.
[02:00:15]
COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. I DON'T THINK YOUR PROPERTY WILL HAVE ISSUES. YOU WON'T SEE A DECLINE IN YOUR PROPERTY VALUES BECAUSE OF YOU THIS.TEARING DOWN THE OLD STUFF AND PUTTING IN A NEW TOWN.
>> YEAH I GUESS FOR PEOPLE. I GUESS DRIVING BY, I GUESS WHEN WE HAD THE PRE-APP ON THIS, THESE WERE BUILT IN THE 80S. SO WHAT THE OWNER SAID THEY'VE SERVED THEIR USEFUL LIFE. REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND THEY VIEW THIS AS AN UPGRADE.
>> SO. >> IT IS A DEFINITE UPGRADE.
COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVE TO APPROVE KCU-2026-027
SHELDON MILL TOWNHOMES. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOUR?
[17. Conditional Use – KettenWulf – PUBLIC HEARING]
THANK YOU. >> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN INDUSTRIAL USE. THE PORTION OF THE INTERSECTION. WHICH IS A NEWLY DEDICATED ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR 280,000 SQUARE FOOT MANUFACTURING FACILITY.
18.683 ACRES AND IS CURRENTLY VACANT.
THE FIRST PHASE WILL ONLY INCLUDE 156,000 SQUARE FEET.
PARKING DONE AT ONE SPACE FOR EMPLOYEE ON THE LARGE SHIFT PLUS ONE PER COMPANY VEHICLE ON THE PREMISES.
THE CURRENT SITE PLAN SHOWS 90 PARKING SPACES FOR THE FIRST PHASE AND PROVIDES I BELIEVE 220 FOR ANY EXPANSION.
SO THEY SHOULD BE GOOD ON PARKING.
I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
>> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.
CONDITIONAL USE. FOR KETTENWULF.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEAR GOING ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM.
SEEING NO ONE. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMENTS SCOMBHES. >> MOVE TO APPROVE
KCU-202-028KETTENWULF. >> SECOND.
>> ALL IN FAVOUR? >> ALL: AYE.
[18. Conditional Use – Celebration Event Center – PUBLIC HEARING ]
>> THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR ENTERTAINMENT USE EVENT CENTER LOCATED AT 1000 MAIN STREET SUITE B MIDTOWN.
PROPERTY OWNED DISTRICT SUBURBAN.
PROPOSING TO UTILIZE A SQUARE FOOT UNIT.
FOR PRIVATE. MAY ALSO BE USED AS AN OFFICER WORK SPACE FOR OTHER OFFERINGS. I BELIEVE.
STUFF LIKE THAT. >> THERE'S COMMENTS.
>> YEAH. I GUESS IF YOU WANT DED TO ELABORATE ON WHAT THE FEEDBACK WAS FROM INSPECTIONS.
>> WITH EVENT CENTERS, THEY ARE NOT SURE.
I DON'T THINK THEY'VE DONE A BUILDING INSPECTION YET TO SEE WHETHER BATHROOM FACILITIES WOULD BE NEEDED.
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE LOOKING INTO.
WE DON'T-- I DON'T THINK WE HAVE STANDARDS RIGHT NOW IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR EVENT SPACES.
>> YEAH SO THAT'S-- SO WITH THAT, THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON. DRAFT ORDINANCES.
AND I SAID IT'S THAT TYPE OF FRAT HOUSES.
ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING IN TANDEM WITH INSPECTIONS ON THAT.
BUT I GUESS MY POSITION THAT I KIND OF MADE CLEAR ON MONDAY WAS WE PREFER INSPECTIONS TO FIRM UP THEIR POSITION ON IT.
BEFORE THEY MOVE CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
SO MUCH SCRUTINY KIND OF PLACED ON THEM AND PARKING AND ALL THE THINGS AND THE ADDITIONAL CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE AROUND THEM. ONCE WE GET THAT SQUARED AWAY I
[02:05:01]
THINK WE'LL BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE BECAUSE THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO TELL YOU GUYS WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED AND WHATWON'T. >> I WOULD SAY POST PERIMETER.
>> OKAY. >> DO YOU WANT ME TO STILL DO
PUBLIC HEARING ♪ >> I'D RATHER POSTPONE PIT.
>> ALL RIGHT POSTPONE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE KCU-2026-029 UNTIL JULY 9TH.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND TO POSTPONE JULY 9. ALL IN FAVOUR.
[19. Conditional Use – New Day Car Wash– PUBLIC HEARING ]
WE'RE GETTING THERE. THE NEXT REQUEST IS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF CITY COUNCIL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR ROAD SERVICE USE. A CAR WASH AT 2865 EAST UNIVERSITY DRIVE. IN THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT.THE USE WILL BE LOCATED NEXT TO ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING STORE EASE. STORAGE FACILITY AND THE RUSSELL BUILDING SUPPLY. ON CURRENTLY ON THE SITE.
AND ACROSS FROM THE SHOPS THAT CARRY CREEK NEIGHBOURHOOD SHOPPING CENTER. THE USE WOULD TAKE ACCESS FROM TWO POINTS ON A PRIVATE DRIVE OFF OF EAST UNIVERSITY DRIVE.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE. COURT ORDER REGULATIONS WOULD APPLY TO THE SITE. IF THE SITE WAS TO BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE VACUUM BAYS-- THEY ARE PROPOSING 20 OF THEM.
THAT THOSE WOULD BE CLAD. AND I CAN POTENTIALLY ANSWER
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC
>> THIS CONDITIONAL USE DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.
FOR NEW DAY CAR WASH. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THAT NOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS
MY NAME IS DANIEL I'M HERE ON BEHALF REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT. SO THIS CASH WASH WE HAVE SHOWN AS ON THE SITE PLAN. THEY ARE PROPOSING THEY'LL CLAD THE VACUUM PUMPS AND WE'RE OPEN TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE. >> AND-- FACE EAST UNIVERSITY.
>> YES. >> I GUESS IT'S NOT AN OR SITUATION. BOTH.
BUILDING HAS TO BE CLADDED PERIOD.
AND IF THEY WISH TO HAVE THE SITE ORIENT THIS WAY AT EAST UNIVERSITY, THOSE NEED TO BE CLADDED AS WELL.
SO IT'S NOT A-- THEY CLAD ONE OR THE OTHER.
IT WAS BOTH. >> OKAY I FEEL LIKE THERE WAS A QUESTION IN THE PACKET ABOUT A DIFFERENT ORIENTATION.
>> YEAH SO I GUESS THAT'S NOT-- I GUESS THAT'S WHERE WE LEFT IT ON ON THE STAFF SIDE. IF THEY WANT IT ORIENTED THIS
WAY VACUUMS CLADDED AS WELL. >> OTHER OPTION IS TO FLIP
ALL RIGHT. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. A WAY THAT LAND LOOKS LIKE WITH THE DRAIN AND I GUESS THE CREEK.
I GUESS THE RETAINING WALL. IT'S JUST GOING TO SIT UP AND
BACK. >> IT'S GOING TO BE OUTSIDE THE SEWER EASEMENT AND TO MAKE THE PAD AND SITE BUILDABLE.
WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE. >> DOES IT KIND OF SIT HIGH AND BACK I GUESS FROM THE ROAD? I MEAN IT JUST-- I DON'T KNOW.
IT LOOKS THROUGH THERE WHERE THE STORAGE.
EACH UNITS--. >> KIND OF LIKE HE'S SAYING.
ACTUALLY GOING TO REMAIN VERY WOODED.
EVEN THOUGH THOSE ARE PINE TREES AND CANOPIES OUT THE TOP THERE. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY FAR BACK FROM THE ROAD. I THINK PROBABLY THE BIGGEST QUESTION ON ORIENTATION WAS THE LEFT TURN COMING OUT OF I GUESS-- I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE NAME OF THIS ROAD BUT THE PRIVATE ROAD MAKING A LEFT GOING NORTHBOUND.
THAT WAS ONE THAT HAD A LOT OF CONSTERNATION FROM ENGINEERING AROUND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN SO I'LL CLOSE THAT IF I CAN. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD? SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. COMMISSIONERS.
[02:10:04]
>> YES. I HAVE A QUESTION, THOUGHT ON THIS. I GUESS WHERE IT SAYS DO NOT ENTER, IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE WHERE YOU CAN COME OUT? LOOKS LIKE THERE'S THREE WAYS TO ACCESS.
>> YEAH. SO IT'S REALLY, I GUESS THAT'D
BE BETTER. >> YEAH THAT'S MY QUESTION.
>> SO THE DESIGN INTENT WOULD BE EXIT ONLY.
AND THEY WOULD JUST IMMEDIATELY EXIT TOWARDS THE LIGHT.
SO EXIT ONLY NOT ENTRANCE. AND BE SECONDARY USE FOR FIRE
>> SO WITHOUT STROG MAKE THE U TURN.
>> SO IT WOULD BE OVER IN FRONT OF THE STORAGE AREA.
YEAH. IT'S ACROSS THE ROAD THERE.
AND THAT WOULD BE WHERE THE LIGHT IS.
OKAY. BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WAS CONFUSING IS WHY IS THAT OTHER DRIVE THERE?
ACROSS FROM RUSSELL. >> EXIT ONLY FOR ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T WANT TO BACK THEIR CAR OUT.
AND THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE DRIVING THROUGH THERE.
SECOND WOULD BE FIRE ACCESS. SO THEY WOULD EITHER ENTER OR EXIT THROUGH THERE TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE.
>> OKAY SO NOW YOU'RE SAYING CUSTOMERS CAN GO OUT IF THEY
DON'T WANT TO USE. >> THEY CAN CHOOSE TO GO OUT THAT SIDE. IF THEY'D LIKE.
>> BUT YOU CAN'T GO IN. >> YOU CANNOT GO IN-- CORRECT.
THANK YOU. >> UM-- THIS IS KIND OF A-- QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO IF WE-- FLIP THIS.
SO THAT THE BUILDING IS TO THE EAST UNIVERSITY SIDE, JUST THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO BE CLADDED? OR WOULD WE STILL HAVE TO CLAD THE VACUUM?
>> YEAH, SO JUST THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO BE CLADDED.
>> YES YOU'RE THE APPLICANT. 90% WOULD BE THE LOCATION.
VERY FEW PEOPLE WHO LEAVE AN EXIT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE VACUUM AND TO THE POINT HERE. THERE WAS A DUAL PURPOSE FOR FIRE MERNLANCY ACCESS. HONESTLY WHEN YOU TALK THIS WITH STAFF, IF THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE TO PUT THE BUILDING TO THE FRONT, WE WOULD PROBABLY WITHDRAW OUR APPLICATION.
FOR US, WE ARE VERY FINICKY ABOUT HOW WE DESIGN OUR BUILDINGS. HOW A CUSTOMER VIEWS.
AND I WILL TELL THAW WE HAVE-- I THINK WE'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB WORKING WITH THE MASTER DEVELOPER ON MOVING SOME OF OUR USUAL DESIGN THAT WE DO TO FIT WITH THE CLADDING AND THE BRICK. ALSO TALKED TO THE STAFF ABOUT THE VACUUMS BEING CLAD. WE'RE GOING TO-- WE'RE A VERY HEAVILY-THERE'S MORE. I THINK THERE ARE MORE
I THINK WE JUST INCLUDE THE SITE PLAN ON THIS ONE.
>> WE HEAVILY LANDSCAPE OUR SITES.
BEEN CLEAR FE THEY ARE DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY VACUUM EQUIPMENT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE CLADDED BOOMS. AND SO WE JUST PROBABLY BUILT THE MOST EXPENSIVE CAR WASH IN AMERICA. BUT WE JUST DO IT VERY NICE.
>> JUST A VIEW FROM EAST UNIVERSITY.
>> JUST THE VIEW FROM EAST UNIVERSITY THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT. SPECIALLY IT BEING THE CORRIDOR SORT OF AREA. BUT IF IT'S CLAD AND THE CITY STAFF IS SATISFIED I'M GOOD WITH IT TOO.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT IS YOUR COLOUR SCHEME?
>> WELL NORMALLY IT'S WHITE. WITH BLUE STRIPE.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THE MASTER DEVELOPER HAS ASKEDTOUS MATCH MORE OF THE COLOUR SCHEME WITH THE CROSSING.
DARKER BROWNS. >> YEAH IT WAS IN THE SUBMISSION AS WELL. SORRY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE
ACCESS TO THAT. >> THAT'S WHY I ASK YOU SAID THERE WERE OTHER THINGS. I THINK THAT MATTERS.
>> YES. >> THE BRIGHTER IT IS THE MORE
OF AN EYE DRAW IT IS. >> DON'T SAY EYESORE NOW.
VERY QUICK. QUICK ON THE FEET.
>> ALSO ELEVATION. FROM A DRIVER'S PERSPECTIVE.
[02:15:10]
>> I THINK PROBABLY THE ONLY OTHER RELEVANT THING-- I KNOW THE MANAGEMENT-- I KNOW CHRIS MENTIONED THAT THEY ALL HAD INFORMATION YA'LL NEEDED. AND WANTED TO GET JUST ON WATER USAGE. I THINK THEY ANSWERED LAST
WEEK? >> YEAH WE GOT THAT INFORMATION ALREADY. IT'S REALLY THE AMOUNT OF WATER THEY RECYCLE. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT COME UP. WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT OUR HEAVY WATER USES DURING THE DROUGHT.
YOU KNOW A FEW WEEKS AGO. AND WE HAD SOME OF OUR EXISTING CAR WASHES THAT WERE PRETTY HIGH VOLUME WATER USERS.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR SOME INFORMATION ON THEM. ACTUALLY THE INFORMATION THEY PROVIDED THEY RECYCLED ABOUT 60% OF THEIR WATER.
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> OKAY COMMISSIONERS?
>> MOVE TO APPROVE CU-2026-030. >> SECOND.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. ALL IN FAVOUR.
THANK YOU. >> SO THIS IS CONDITIONAL USE
[20. Conditional Use – Seohan Plant #3 – PUBLIC HEARING]
APPROVAL FOR SEOHAN PLANT NUMBER THREE.IT'S SOUTH OF KETTENWULF. THE APPLICANT THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF YOU A INTURN REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDUSTRIAL USE AUTO SUPPLY MANUFACTURING FACILITY.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 478,250 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR AN AUTO MOTIVE SUPPLY ASSEMBLY AND WAREHOUSING FACILITY. PHASE ONE WILL INCLUDE A 258,250 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. LEAVING ABOUT 220,000 SQUARE FEET FOR FUTURE EXPANSION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED USE APPEARS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENSE OF FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS. THE TIME FOR IT.
IS THERE A-- AN EMPTY BUILDING ALREADY SITTING THERE?
>> NO. SO THIS IS ALL KIND OF SLOW MARCH FROM A FUTURE LAND USE STANDPOINT.
WEST ANNEX TWO. SO THERE'S AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK DOWN THERE AND THEN THAT'S IF YOU GO TO THE DEAD END OF THIS ROAD, THAT'S WHERE YOUNG'S PLANT FARM IS.
AND THEN FURTHER UP THERE WAS SCHOOL PROPERTY.
BUT NOW IT'S-- PROPERTY. SO-- THAT-- I DON'T-- THE ONLY BUILDINGS I THINK OUT THERE IS THE YOUNGS PLANT FARM.
>> THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I'LL OPEN THAT NOW. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CONDITIONAL USE AGENDA ITEM.
SEEING NO ONE, CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVE TO APPROVE
>> SEOHAN PLANT NUMBER THREE. >> MOTION TO SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOUR? >> ALL: IE.
[21. Conditional Use – ‘229 Teague Court Expansion – PUBLIC HEARING ]
>> ALL RIGHT. 229TEAGUE COURT EXPANSION.
REQUEST RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USE MANUFACTURING.
SO TEAGUE COURT RIGHT OFF OF PUMP AVENUE ONE OF THE OLDER INDUSTRIAL PARTS OF THE CITY. EXISTING BUILDING ABOUT 51,000 SQUARE FEET. PROPOSED EXPANSION IS ABOUT 30,000 SQUARE FEET. THEY ARE LOOKING AT ACQUIRING ADDITIONAL LAND TO THE EAST. LIKE I SAID THIS IS AN EXPANSION SO EXISTING CURB CUTS ARE WHAT IS GOING TO BE USED.
I SAID EXISTING EXPANSION SO UTILITIES AREN'T A CONCERN EITHER. AND & WITH THIS TEAGUE COURTS NOT A CORRIDOR. JUST THE PRETTY KIND OF DRY UNDUST REAL USE EXPANSION AND EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PARK OFF OF PUMP-- ON TEAGUE COURT. SO WITH THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. HAPPY TO ANSWER.
>> DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL OPEN THIS NOW IF YOU HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CONDITIONAL USE 229 TEAGUE COURT EXPANSION? SEEING NO ONE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS?
[02:20:02]
>> MOTION TO APPROVE CU2026-040229 TEAGUE COURT
>> A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOUR?
[22. Conditional Use – Shug Jordan Residential – PUBLIC HEARING]
LAST BUT NOT LEAST. A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT A 12 UNIT MULTIPLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1256SHUG JORDAN PARKWAY IN THE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY HAS FRONTAGE ON SHUG JORDAN, JUDD AND ALBERTA. AND THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD TAKE ACCESS OFF OF JUD AVENUE. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY IS NEIGHBOURHOOD PRESERVATION.THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN A RE-DEVELOPING AREA.
THERE HAS BEEN A 16 UNIT COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT HERE. WELL-- TO THE SOUTHEAST.
AND THEN DOWN HERE IS GOING TO BE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH A TOWNHOUSE STYLE PRODUCT WITH COMMERCIAL SPACE.
WHILE THIS PROJECT DOES NOT DIRECTLY ALIGN WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE USE AT THIS LOCATION.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS OR
CONDITIONS OR COMMENTS? >> WE DID HAVE COMMENTS.
NOTHING GROUND BREAKING AND THERE WERE NO RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OR APPROVAL. MM HMM.
>> JUST REMEMBER THE IMPACT THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT
MOVING THE INGRESS AND EGRESS. >> YEAH SO WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE. THE NEXT EXHIBIT SO INITIALLY IT WAS CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION OF JUDD AVENUE AND RICHLAND ROAD. JUST WAS NOT COMPLIANT WITH DRIVEWAY. INTERSECTIONS FACING.
THAT MIGHT BE THE WRONG TECHNICAL ENGINEERING TERM.
NOT AN ENGINEER. SO BUT THAT WAS THE ISSUE.
SO THAT PUSHED IT FURTHER AWAY. AND THEN I GUESS THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.
SO YEAH KIND OF FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE STANDPOINT I THINK A SIMILAR THING. SPOT ZONING ON THE TABLE HERE SINCE THIS ISN'T A REZONING REQUEST.
THIS IS JUST CONDITIONAL USE. REALLY WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR MEETING BEFOREHAND IF ZONE RDD WHICH IS REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. 16 DWELLINGS AN ACRE.
FIVE UNRELATED IF AT ALL POSSIBLE AND RDD AND YOU KNOW THE-- DID JUST GET-- THE COTTAGE HOUSES WITH THE MULTIFAMILY ACROSS THE STREET. AND GOING TO BE LITTLE COMMERCIAL NODE. SO THERE'S THAT.
AND THEN THERE WAS-- THAT ALSO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPACT LOTS. SO THOSE ARE PERFORMANCE LOTS
OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET REALLY. >> I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT WE DID RECEIVE SOME CORRESPONDENCE AND THERE WAS A GENTLEMAN WHO EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH AN INCREASE IN STORM WATER RUN-OFF. PARKING THAT MAY HAPPEN ON JUDD
AVENUE AND TRASH. >> PARKING REQUIREMENTS MET.
>> YES. AND SO YEAH-- SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY THEY GOT THIS STREET PARKING INTERIOR TO THE SITE.
THAT IS A REQUIREMENT LIKE ALL RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS MUST PARK ON SITE PARKING IS REQUIRED. AND THEN KIND OF THE OTHER ASPECT OF THAT. ALBERT-- ITS OWN WORLD AS FAR AS FROM A DRAINAGE STANDPOINT. ENGINEERING CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
THERE'S A LOT OF WATER OVER THERE.
>> OKAY. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE ON SHUG JORDAN RESIDENTIAL.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE DO SO NOW.
>> I'LL TALK FAST BECAUSE I'M HUNGRY.
>> THIS IS JUST A CONTINUATION. WHAT WE'VE DONE ACROSS THE STREET ON JUDD. FEEL LIKE IT FITS PRETTY WELL WITH WHAT'S RECENTLY BEEN TO WHAT'S PIPER GLEN.
KIND OF THE EDGE OF PIPER GLEN DIRECTLY ACROSS ALBERTA.
THE-- THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW RENDERING SO YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T SEE THIS BEFORE RIGHT NOW.
BUT IT'S A SIMILAR SET-UP. IT'S ALMOST LIKE A HYBRID OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE FIRST-- I DON'T WANT TO CALL THEM PHASES BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T TECHNICALLY RELATED.
BUT WITH THE COTTAGE MIX WITH THE TOWN HOME STYLE UNITS AND THAT CENTRAL COURT THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE
[02:25:02]
DEVELOPER ON THIS. AND WE THINK IT'S WORKED OUT REALLY WELL WITH THE COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT OFF OF JUDD.SO THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT. ALSO TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE FRONTAGE ALONG ALBERTA. IF YOU HAVE BEEN OUT THERE THERE'S A LOT OF TOPOGRAPHY. THERE'S AN EXISTING CITY.
WAS THE CITY CONSTRUCTED BY I THINK ITS OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY.
NEIGHBOUR WALL UP ON RICHLAND. MAYBE MISSPEAKING THERE.
LOWING KN CORRECT ME. THAT'S D.O.T. EXCUSE ME.
A LOT OF TOPOGRAPHY. GETS PRETTY GOOD GOING DOWN THE HILL THERE TOWARDS ALBERTA. WHICH IS PART OF WHAT'S DRIVING WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO PUT THE DRIVEWAY HERE.
THE TOPOGRAPHY IS A REAL CONSTRAINT ON THIS ONE.
THERE WILL BE KIND OF A TERRACING EFFECT FROM-- WITH THE WAY WE'VE BUILT THE PADS AND EVERYTHING.
THE WAY THE PARKING LOT WILL GO IN FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE AND FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE THIS IS REALLY THE BEST WAY THAT WE COULD LAY THIS THING OUT.
TO BE ABLE TO ONE BE COST EFFECTIVE, BUT TWO, HAVE IT PLAY THE WAY THEY WANT IT TO. BOTH INTERNALLY AND AT THE STREET FRONTAGE. SO THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT WITH HOW THIS THING PRESENTS KIND OF OUTWARD.
THIS IS THE GOAL THERE. YOU MENTIONED AT ONE POINT THEY CAME WITH A DIFFERENT CONCEPT. A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS TO FREE UP ABOUT THAT. CAME UP WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT. PUSHED IT.
MORE THAN A HUNDRED FEET BACK DOWN TOWARDS ALBERTA.
TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE. THOSE ARE THE MAIN POINTS.
THEY ARE BIG ON LANDSCAPING MAKING THINGS LOOK GOOD.
EVIDENCEDED BY THE LAST COUPLE ELEMENTS.
THIS IS A VERY SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THE GOAL ON HOW WE WOULD HANDLE STORM WATER HERE WE'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S STANDARDS.
SEVERAL OF THE APPROVED METHODS OF WATER QUALITY TREATMENT ARE INFILTRATION CONTROLS. WHICH REDUCE RUN-OFF.
NOW OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ADDING IMPERVIOUS AREA BUT THE GOAL WOULD BE TO MITIGATE THAT WITH ATTRITION CONTROLS.
LIKE THERE'S A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US. SO WE WOULD EVALUATE THAT AS WE DESIGN IT TO SEE WHAT'S GOING TO WORK BEST WITH THE LAY-OUT AND THE TOPOGRAPHY. GOT ANY QUESTIONS? I'M AROUND. THANK YOU.
THOSE COME FORWARD TO SPEAK ON THIS.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS? COMMENTS, MOTIONS?
>> MOVE APPROVAL CU-2026-043. >> SECOND.
>> MOTION TO SECOND. ALL IN FAVOUR?
>> ALL: AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. OTHER BUSINESS?
>> NO UPDATES FROM ME. >> MOVE TO ADJOURN.
>> ALL: AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.