8.c.1. The Auburn Game Day Law Enforcement Corporation and Area Public Safety Agencies or individuals. Provide public safety services for sporting events and/or special events at Auburn University. Public Safety Department.

[8.c.1. The Auburn Game Day Law Enforcement Corporation and Area Public Safety Agencies or individuals. Provide public safety services for sporting events and/or special events at Auburn University. Public Safety Department.]

ALL RIGHT. 8(C) 1.

>> ITEM H(C) 1 IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE GAME-DAY PROJECTS WITH THE AUBURN GAME DAY LAW ENFORCEMENT CORPORATION AND AREA PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES OR INDIVIDUALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES FOR THE SPORTING EVENTS AND/OR SPECIAL EVENTS AT AUBURN UNIVERSITY FOR THE TIME PERIOD OF AUGUST 1ST, 2026,

THROUGH JULY 31ST, 2027. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> MAYOR ANDERS: I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO ASKED -- ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, TYLOR. >> I'LL KEEP THE COMMENTS BRIEF.

I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS AUBURN GAME-DAY LAW ENFORCEMENT CORPORATION AGREEMENT.

IF YOU'VE EVER ATTENDED ONE OF OUR FOOTBALL GAMES, BASKETBALL GAMES, BASEBALL GAMES, AND YOU'VE SEEN OUR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS THERE OR IF YOU'VE SEEN ASSISTING AGENCIES FROM LEE COUNTY OR CITY OF MONTGOMERY, THIS IS THE AGREEMENT THAT MAKES THAT HAPPEN, AND STAFF HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY DILIGENTLY ON THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THIS AGREEMENT IN PLACE SO THAT WE HAVE THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO HELP OUR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS THROUGHOUT THIS NEXT YEAR. WHAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS IS AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF EVENTS THAT ARE PUBLIC SAFETY -- THAT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS ARE WORKING.

I THINK THIS PAST YEAR AUBURN ATHLETICS HAD AT LEAST 150 EVENTS, IF NOT MORE. THAT NUMBER IS NOT EXACT, THAT WE HAD OFFICERS WORKING AT UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.

AND AS WE SEE MORE INTERNATIONAL SOCCER TOURNAMENTS AND MORE CONCERTS LIKE ELLA LANGLEY THAT'S COMING, THEN THIS NUMBER IS LIKELY TO GO UP. SO HAVING AN AGREEMENT LIKE THIS IN PLACE THAT ENSURES WE'RE ABLE TO BRING IN THE BEST POSSIBLE PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE STATE TO ASSIST OUR PUBLIC SAFETY

OFFICERS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. >> MAYOR ANDERS: THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE A COMMENT? >> FIRST OF ALL, I COULD NOT GET A TICKET EITHER NIGHT FOR THAT ELLA LANGLEY CONCERT.

SINCE JULY OF 2004, I UNDERSTAND THE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS AT THE UNIVERSITY HAVE MERGED WITH THE TOWN OF AUBURN'S.

IS THAT CORRECT TO SAY? AND SO CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS AND HOW THIS WORKS AND HOW WELL IT HAS WORKED

IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, I GUESS? >> ASK OUR LEGAL COUNSEL PAUL

CLARK TO SPEAK TO THAT. >> SINCE THE INTEGRATION OF THE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE AUBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT IN 2004, WE WORKED EXTREMELY CLOSELY WITH THE UNIVERSITY ON AN ANNUAL BASIS TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR ALL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY.

WE REVIEW THIS IN MY TENURE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY EAVES DIRECTLY WITH DR. ROBERTS AND HIS STAFF O MAKE -- ATTORNEY'S OFFICE -- TO MAKE SURE THE CONTRACT IS PERFORMING THE WAY IT SHOULD.

WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REWRITING THE CONTRACT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OR REFORMING THE CONTRACT WITH THE UNIVERSITY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS UPDATED AND HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE GENERAL COUNCIL'S OFFICE TO DO THAT.

THE GAME-DAY CORPORATION IS A SUPPLEMENT TO THAT AGREEMENT THAT MERGED THE TWO POLICE DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY OUR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COULD STAFF IN AND OF THEMSELVES ANY UNIVERSITY EVENT, PARTICULARLY FOOTBALL GAMES, AND SO THIS GAME-DAY CORPORATION CONTRACT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AS COUNCILMAN ADAMS SAID SIMPLY FOR THE ABILITY TO USE ASSISTING AGENCIES IN PERFORMING THE PUBLIC SAFETY DUTIES AT THOSE SPECIAL EVENTS, ATHLETIC EVENTS AND OTHER EVENTS DESIGNATED BY

THE UNIVERSITY. >> AS I UNDERSTAND IT WE'LL LOOK AT THAT CONTRACT TONIGHT AND THEN ANOTHER CONTRACT, A SEPARATE CONTRACT FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE SERVICES AND THE RELATIONSHIP IN A FEW MONTHS, I GUESS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY.

WHO ARE THE PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT TONIGHT? WHO ARE THE PARTIES THAT WILL BE NEGOTIATING?

>> THE THREE PARTIES ARE THE UNIVERSITY, THE CITY OF AUBURN,

AND GAME-DAY CORPORATION. >> AND THE GAME-DAY CORPORATION IS MADE UP OF CITY MANAGER AND THE HEADS OF THE TWO DEPARTMENTS

[00:15:04]

AND -- >> A FINANCE DIRECTOR.

THOSE ARE THE OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION.

AND THE GAME-DAY CORPORATION WAS AUTHORIZED BY THIS COUNCIL IN 2006 BY RESOLUTION THAT AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO CREATE GAME-DAY CORPORATION. AT THAT POINT IN TIME IT WAS THE ONLY VEHICLE AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE TO ALL OF THE OUTSIDE AGENCIES PARTICIPATING BECAUSE THEIR OPEN AGENCIES COULD NOT COVER THEM FOR THE DUTIES THAT THEY WERE UNDERTAKING AS PART OF THIS CONTRACT, AND SO IT HAS BECOME THE VEHICLE TO PROVIDE THAT WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND TO GOVERN THE RELATIONSHIP AND THE REIMBURSEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE UNIVERSITY FOR PUBLIC

SAFETY OFFICERS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE IT. >> MAYOR ANDERS: ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> [TOGETHER]: JAIE. >> ANY OPPOSED?

[8.c.2. Stivers Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram. Purchase four (4) 2026 Dodge Durango AWD Pursuit SUVs. Public Safety Department. $169,892.96.]

AND THAT MOTION CARRIES -- AYE. 8(C) 2.

>> IT OUGHT RISES THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT -- AUTHORIZES -- TO PURCHASE FOUR 2026 DODGE DURANGO ALL-WHEEL DRIVE PURSUIT SUVS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT IN THE

AMOUNT OF 169,892.96. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: SECOND I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MISS GRISWOLD? >> -- MR. GRISWOLD.

>> IT SAYS OUR DEPARTMENT'S GOAL IS TO HAVE A ONE-TO-ONE OFFICER TO VEHICLE RATIO. BUT WHILE ALSO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF SPARES. HOW MANY SPARES DO WE CURRENTLY

HAVE? >> I'M NOT 100% SURE.

>> OBVIOUSLY THERE MUST BE SOME. >> YES, SIR.

>> AND THESE ARE EXPANSION VEHICLES, ADDITIONAL VEHICLES TO

THE FLEET. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THAT WERE NOT BUDGETED. AND LATER ON IN THE AGENDA WE TALK ABOUT HOW TO EQUIP THESE VEHICLES, AND THAT COMES OUT TO ANOTHER 18K PER VEHICLE. SO, I MEAN, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT QUITE A BIT OF MONEY HERE THAT WAS NOT IN THE BUDGET.

SO I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT UP. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING?

>> YEAH, I KNOW HOW HE FEELS ABOUT NEW VEHICLES AND HE'S RIGHT ON A LOT OF THAT, BUT THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT WE TRY TO GET EACH OFFICER HIS OWN VEHICLE.

ONCE WE GET THAT ACCOMPLISHED THE COST WILL WORK ITSELF OUT BECAUSE IF YOU GIVE THEM A CAR HE HAS TO TAKE CARE OF, HE OR SHE WILL TAKE MUCH MORE PRIDE IN THAT CAR TO KEEP IT UP AND IT WON'T WEAR -- IT WON'T RUN 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK BASICALLY. AND THIS IS A GREAT RECRUITING TOOL TO OFFER AN OFFICER HIS OWN VEHICLE WHEN HE COMES TO WORK HERE. IT'S VERY COMPETITIVE RIGHT NOW IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ARENA. HIRING GOOD OFFICERS.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE REALLY NEED TO RECRUIT AND NOT ONLY RECRUIT, BUT IF A BURGLAR GETS OFF I85 AND COMES INTO AUBURN AND SEES A BLACK AND WHITE PARKED CLOSE BY OR IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, HE'LL THINK TWICE ABOUT BURGLARIZING AUBURN AND GO FOR SOMEWHERE ELSE, GO BACK WHERE HE CAME FROM.

SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, KELLEY, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING REALLY NEEDED BY OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

>> I APPRECIATE IT. AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF ONE FOR ONE.

I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT HOW MANY EXTRA VEHICLES WE HAVE ON THE SIDELINE WAITING, YOU KNOW, THE SPARSE.

SO -- >> I DON'T THINK INVEST VERY MANY. UNFORTUNATELY WE HAD SOME -- I DON'T THINK WE HAVE VERY MANY. UNFORTUNATELY WE HAD SOME

ACCIDENTS. >> THAT'S THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, THE TWO THAT WERE TOTALED. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THOSE.

>> THAT'S THE REASON. WE HAD FOUR.

I BELIEVE. >> CHIEF, WOULD YOU ALSO SAY THAT -- THIS IS A GOOD RECRUITING TOOL.

WOULD IT BE A PRETTY GOOD RETENTION TOOL AS WELL?

>> ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU GOT YOUR OWN CAR, I MEAN,

YES, YOU CAN'T BEAT THAT. >> AND IF WE -- IF WE'RE, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO, YOU KNOW, JUST THE FINANCIAL PIECE OF IT, THE COST TO BRING UP A NEW OFFICER AFTER ONE LEAVES IS NOT -- IS NOT INSUBSTANTIAL COST.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. IT TAKES TWO YEARS TO GET AN OFFICER UP TO SPEED IF HE STAYS WITH YOU.

IF YOU LOSE -- ANOTHER THING ABOUT THIS, HAVE A TORNADO OR SOMETHING, LORD FORBID, NATURAL DISASTER, YOU CAN RESPOND TO OFFICERS FROM THE HOME TO THE SCENE MUCH FASTER THAN YOU CAN TO GET ASSIGNED A VEHICLE AND ALL THAT TYPE OF THING.

>> MR. CUMMINS, RELATED TO THE RECRUITING PIECE, AND I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIAL WITH US TONIGHT, BUT IS IT EASY TO SAY THAT OUR -- THAT THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE RECRUIT OFFICERS AGAINST, PER SAY, KIND OF LIKE AN ATHLETE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE OFFERING THESE VEHICLES FOR THEIR -- IS THAT WHAT WE'RE FACING AS WE TRY TO HIRE NEW

OFFICERS IN THE FUTURE? >> THAT'S MIZE UNDERSTANDING.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF COMPETITION -- THAT'S MY

[00:20:07]

UNDERSTANDING. THERE'S A LOT OF COMPETITION IT.

MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT SOMETIMES FOR US TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN THOSE OFFICERS AND SO WE'RE DEFINITELY WORKING ON, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE DO THAT EFFECTIVELY.

LOOKING AT HOME RUN DIRECTOR TO MAKE SURE -- HR DIRECTOR TO MAKE

SURE I'M SAYING THAT CORRECTLY. >>

>> YES. DID EVERYBODY HEAR THAT?

OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ING IT HOW LONG HAVE WE HAD THIS GOAL FOR ONE TO ONE? I MEAN, I ASSUME IT'S BEEN A

WHILE, RIGHT? >> I THINK -- YES, I THINK IT

HAS. >> IS THERE A REASON IT'S NOT IN

THE BUDGET? >> EVERY YEAR WHEN WE GET REQUESTS THAT COME IN, YOU KNOW, WE EVALUATE BASICALLY LOOKING AT OUR BUDGET AND THERE'S SOME ITEMS THAT GET MOVED TO A CONTINGENT BUDGET. SO THEY'RE CONTINGENT CAPITAL THAT WE'LL PUT IN THE BUDGET. BASICALLY TO WATCH THE BUDGET AND IF MONEY IS AVAILABLE AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE YEAR THEN WE CAN RELEASE THOSE AND BRING RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO THAT'S TO SAY THAT THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR THESE AND WE'RE MOVING THOSE FROM CONTINGENT CAPITAL.

THEY WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE BUDGET REQUEST.

THEY WERE JUST NOT APPROVED IN THE INITIAL BUDGET AMOUNT.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO BASICALLY BY THE TIME WE TAKE CARE OF THE EXPENSES IN HC4, TALKING ABOUT $114,000 -- 8C4 -- WELL, I WON'T EVEN -- LET'S NOT WORRY ABOUT THE NUMBERS.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> [TOGETHER]: AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? AND THE MOTION CARRIES.

[8.c.5. Thalamus, LLC. Pedestrian Signal at 320 West Magnolia Avenue. $91,000.]

ALL RIGHT. 8C5.

>> ITEM 8C5 AUTHORIZES THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR A PROJECT TO INSTALL PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL AT 320 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,000.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

MR. MOREMAN. >> THANK YOU AGAIN.

IF ANYBODY TRAVELS DOWN WEST MAGNOLIA THEY KNOW THAT PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK IS A SERIOUSENING -- CROSSWALK.

WE ALREADY HAVE ONE THERE -- IS A SERIOUS THING.

HOW WILL THIS DIFFER IN APPEARANCE AND FUNCTION THAN

WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE THERE? >> IT WILL OPERATE AS A TRAFFIC SIGNAL. WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS STUDENTS WALK UP, PUSH THE BUTTON. SOME JUST WALK ACROSS, BUT PUSH THE BUTTON, AND START WALKING ACROSS THE STREET.

SO IT BECOMES AN ISSUE WITH TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, MOVEMENT.

SO THE IDEA WITH THIS IS, YOU KNOW, STUDENTS WALK UP, PUSH A BUTTON AND WAIT FOR THE SIGNAL TO CHANGE.

THIS WILL BE A FULL CONTROLLED TRAFFIC SIGNAL THAT WILL STOP VEHICLE TRAFFIC, BUT IT WILL ALLOW THE STUDENTS TO MOVE ACROSS IN LARGER BATCHES AS OPPOSED TO A CONTINUOUS STREAM.

SO IT SHOULD -- THE IDEA HERE IS TO TRY TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW ON MAGNOLIA WHILE PROTECTING THE PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE STREET.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> OH, YEAH.

SO IT GIVES A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF TIME FOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC TO

PROCESS THROUGH THERE AS WELL. >> ABSOLUTELY, YES, SIR.

>> THAT'S GREAT. AND DOING SOME OF THE READING, I NOTICED THAT WE'RE TAKING SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT OUT OF

INVENTORY; IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

IN ORDER TO MOVE THIS ALONG AND WE'LL BE TAKING SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS OUT OF INVENTORY AND WE'LL REPLACE THA.

>> GOTCHA. AND THE UNIVERSITY'S HELPING

OUT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND BECAUSE IT'S -- ONE SIDE IS THE COLLEGE AND ONE SIDE OF THE STREET IS THE CITY. SO THAT'S VERY GOOD.

AND WE'RE UNDER BUDGET, I UNDERSTAND FROM YOU.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY.

GOOD NEWS ALL AROUND. THANK YOU.

>> OUR STUDENTS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE HAVE BREAKFAST WITH THEM ONCE A MONTH, AND THEY'VE BEEN TALKING TO US ABOUT THIS FOR A YEAR OR SO, AND EXCITED ABOUT GETTING THIS -- TRY TO RETRAIN HOW THEY CROSS THE STREET THERE AND GET THEM TO ALL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE GO TO THE SAME LOCATION, BUT THIS HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN NEEDED FOR A WHILE AND A SOURCE OF FRUSTRATION FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. I LOOK FORWARD TO IT BEING INSTALLED AND START WORKING AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN RETRAIN EVERYBODY'S HABITS AGAIN. SO -- ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> [TOGETHER]: AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? AND THAT MOTION CARRIES.

[8. CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA. (Part 2 of 2)]

DO I HAVE A MOLT TO APPROVE THE -- MOTION TO APPROVE THE

BALANCE OF THE AGENDA? >> SO MOVED.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

[9.a.1. Establish fourteen (14) stop signs and two (2) 25 MPH signs. Oak Creek Subdivision Phases 1, 2, and 3.]

>> [TOGETHER]: AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? AND IT IS APPROVED OF THE ORDINANCES.

>> ITEM 9A1 IS AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH 14 STOP SIGNS AND TWO

[00:25:05]

25-MILE AN HOUR SPEED LIMIT SIGNS IN THE OAK CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASES 1, 2, AND 3. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY.

>> I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AND ASK FOR UNANIMOUS

CONSENT. >> SECOND.

>> DOES ANYONE COUNCIL HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH A VOTE ON THIS? SEEING AND HEARING NONE, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY.

LINDSEY WITH THE ROLL CALL. >> GRISWOLD.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> MOREMAN.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> PARSONS.

TAYLOR, WIT ENS, ADAMS. >> YES.

[9.a.2. Establish three (3) stop signs and one (1) 25 MPH sign. Swann's Bridge Phase 1-B.]

>> DAWSON. >> YES ANDERS,.

>> YES. >> UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS

NECESSARY ON THE NEXT ONE. >> THANK YOU.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION. DOES COUNCIL HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH A VOTE ON THIS THIS EVENING? HEARING NONE, ANY DISCUSSIONS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY. LINDSEY.

>> MOREMAN. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> PARSONS. >> YES.

>> TAYLOR. >> YES.

>> WITTEN. >> YES.

[9.b.1 The Lexington. Rezone Approximately 1.15 acres to Comprehensive Development District (CDD). Property located at 1117 South Donahue Drive.]

>> DRAWSON. YES, MA'AM.

>> GRISWOLD. >> YES.

>> ANDERS. >> YES.

>> THERE IS A RESIGNING OF POWER PLAY 1.15 ACRES TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1117 SOUTH DONAHUE DRIVE. THIS IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEXINGTON PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF REZONING THAT WILL FOLLOW THIS PETITION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS

JUNE 11TH, 2026 MEETING. >> I'LL INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE

AND ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND.

ANYONE HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH A VOTE ON THIS THIS EVENING? SEEING AND HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL, COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL.

>> REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT TONIGHT.

THIS IS A MULTI--- THERE'S A MULTI-STAGE HERE WE'RE GOING FROM SECD TO CDD AND CDD TO PUD AFTER.

THIS BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY ON THE OVERALL PROJECT, BUT I THINK THAT THIS FITS IN LINE WITH WHAT THE CITY'S WANTING HERE. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR ANDERS: THANK YOU, BRETT. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL?

>> I HAVE SOME ON THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE.

SHOULD I WAIT 'TIL THE NEXT ITEM?

>> MAYOR ANDERS: WHATEVER YOU LIKE TO DO, SONNY.

>> ALL RIGHT, NOW. IS THAT ALL RIGHT?

>> THAT'S FINE. >> WAIT TO COME FORWARD AND

ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> SURE.

>> OKAY. I GUESS WE SHOULD CLEAR THE AIR ON ONE RIGHT UP FRONT. WILL THIS DEVELOPMENT BE

PRIMARILY FOR STUDENTS? >> NO.

>> OKAY. >> WILL THERE BE RESERVE PARKING

FOR THE RESIDENTS? >> YES.

>> OKAY. IF SOMEBODY HAS MY SPOT, THEY'LL

SAY GET OUT OF MY SPOT? >> YES, SO FOR THE CONDOS ABOVE THERE WILL PROBABLY BE DESIGNATED SPACES AND THEN FOR THE COMMERCIAL AT THE BOTTOM -- THE THOUGHT IS THAT THE ENTRY FOR RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE THROUGH THE BACK.

WE'LL HAVE LIKE A BACK ENTRY AND WE'RE RESERVING THE FRONTAGE ALONG NORTH DONAHUE FOR THE COMMERCIAL AND THE PARKING ON THAT SIDE THERE. SO WE'LL KIND OF BE FRONT AND BACK IS HOW WE'RE ENVISIONING THE PARKING TO WORK, AND SO IT SHOULD BE -- BUT, YES, I WOULD ENVISION US FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT THAT THERE WOULD BE DESIGNATED SPACES FOR EACH UNIT, YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW, UNIT ONE WOULD HAVE THESE. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THAT SITUATION.

>> THERE WAS DETERMINED THERE WOULD NEED TO BE 56 PARKING PLACES. HOW WAS THAT DETERMINATION MADE?

>> SO FOR THE -- >> AND REALLY THAT'S A QUESTION

TO THE CITY STAFF, I GUESS. >> YEAH.

SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE PARKING THIS AT ONE SPACE PER BEDROOM FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND THEN THE COMMERCIAL SPACE THERE'S ENOUGH PARKING FOR ONE PER 277 SQUARE FEET ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE. TYPICALLY IN A -- IF THIS WAS A STRICT RETAIL BUILDING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS 1 PER 400. SO WE'RE OVERPARKED ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, BUT WE'RE BASICALLY PROVIDING ONE SPACE PER BEDROOM FOR THE CONDO UNITS ABOVE.

[00:30:05]

TYPICALLY, RIGHT, ESPECIALLY WHERE THIS LOCATION IS, WE DON'T ENVISION A THREE-BEDROOM UNIT HAVING THREE CARS.

IF IT DOES, YOU'LL HAVE THREE CARS.

BUT YOU WON'T SEE THAT. WE HAVE A MIXTURE OF TWO-BEDROOM CONDOS AND -- YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THE MAJORITY OF THOSE UNITS ARE TWO BEDROOM AND I THINK THERE'S A HANDFUL OF THREE-BEDROOM UNITS WITHIN THIS.

>> I DON'T THINK WE KNEW THAT. I DON'T THINK WE KNEW HOW MANY BEDROOMS THERE WERE. I DON'T THINK WE'VE GOTTEN THE

FLOOR PLAN YET. >> OF THE CONVERSATION FOR THIS PUB CENTERED AROUND UNITS AND WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT OF CDB DENSITY IS MEASURED BY THE UNIT, NOT BY THE BEDROOM. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SECONDARY CONVERSATION WE WOULD HAVE HAD IN THE DRT PROCESS.

ONCE WE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE FLOOR PLANS TO MOVE FORWARD.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: SO IN A PUD YOU CALCULATE IT BASED ON UNITS,

NOT B BEDROOM? >> NO.

THIS PUD PARTICULARLY WAS ABOUT UNITS, AND THAT'S KIND OF TIED TO THE BASE ZONING OF CDD WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO, BUT KIND OF WITH THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE PUD I DON'T REALLY ENVISION A PLACE WHERE WE'LL HAVE STUDENT HOUSING WHERE WE LOOK AT IT BY BEDROOM.

SO THERE IS A FLEXIBILITY THAT WE CAN LOOK AT IT BY BED AND BY UNIT, BUT IN THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS BY UNIT AND THE BEDROOM COUNT WAS SECONDARY.

THE BEDROOM COUNT IS ONLY RELEVANT TO INFORM THE PARKING SPACES THAT WILL BE NEEDED -- THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ONCE THEY DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT COUNT.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SOME OF THIS IS KIND OF NEW TO US, YOU KNOW.

WE'RE HAVING TO DO DIFFERENT CALCULATIONS AND LOOK AT IT A

LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. >> YEAH, WE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH STAFF ON THE PARKING. WE ACTUALLY ADDED SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE ISLANDS BECAUSE STAFF WAS CONCERNED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT THIS TO BE -- YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AN OVERSIZED PARKING LOT. WE ADDED ISLANDS AND STUFF AND ACTUALLY REDUCED SOME OF THE PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF WHAT STAFF'S COMMENTS WERE ON OUR ADDITIONAL PLANS.

SO WORKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND IDENTIFYING THIS IS WHAT WE WANTED --S IN WHAT WE ENVISIONED TO DO WORKING WITH JUSTICE BACK AND FORTH WE CAME UP WITH WHAT WE FELT LIKE WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE PARKING RATIO FOR THE USES THAT WE ANTICIPATED

HERE. >> AND YOU'VE GOTTEN 54 OF THE 56 IDENTIFIED AND WE'RE PROBABLY OKAY ON THE OTHER TWO.

SO THERE COULD BE AS MANY AS THREE RESERVED PARKING PLACES

PER UNIT DEPENDING ON THE NUMBE- >> YES, IF THERE WAS A THREE-BEDROOM UNIT, YES, IT WOULD HAVE THREE RESERVED FOR

IT, YES. >> GETTING A HEADSHAKE HERE.

>> I'M SORRY. >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT.

>> NO PROBLEM. >> I APPRECIATE IT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> YES, MR. MAYOR.

I WAS THANKFUL TO BE PRIVY TO A PRELIMINARY MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER -- AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WITH YOU AND I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THIS NEW ZONING USE, THIS PUD.

IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL GEOGRAPHICAL PARCEL.

IT'S A PARTICULARLY -- IT COULD BE VIEWED AS A PROBLEMATIC PARCEL KIND OF TUCKED BEHIND THE FRONTAGE OF THE BUSINESSES ON SOUTH COLLEGE, SO IT'S KIND OF UP THE HILL A LITTLE BIT AND TUCKED AWAY AND HAS SOME FRONTAGE ON SOUTH DONAHUE.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S A GOOD LOOKING BUILDING, AND IT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY NICE ADDITION DOWN THERE ON SOUTH COLLEGE.

>> THANK YOU, BOB. COULDN'T AGREE MORE.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.

LINDSEY, THE ROLL CALL. >> PARSONS.

[9.b.2. The Lexington. Rezone approximately 1.15 acres to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Property located at 1117 South Donahue Drive.]

>> YES. >> ANDERS.

>> YES. ITEM 9B2 IS AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 1715 ACRES AT 1-1.15 ACHERS TO ESTABLISH THE LEXINGTON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THIS APPLICATION THAT IS JUNE 11TH, 2026 MEETING.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY AND A PUBLIC HEARING IS

REQUIREMENT. >> I'LL INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AND REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> SECOND. >> MAYOR ANDERS: I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. COUNCIL HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH A VOTE. IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM

[00:35:03]

MOREMAN. >> PARSONS, YES.

[9.b.3. One Auburn Dumas Lot. Rezone approximately 1.09 acres from Rural (R) to Comprehensive Development District (CDD). Property located at 1750 Miracle Road.]

>> ANDERS. >> YES.

>> ITEM 9(B) 3 IS AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 1.9 ACRES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1750 MIRACLE ROAD FOR THE ONE AWE .

THEY DENIED THE APPLICATION JUN. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY AND A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED.

>> I'LL INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AND ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO SECOND.

ANYONE HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH A VOTE THIS EVENING? I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL.

COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AN AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL.

>> GOOD EVENING, BRETT BASKIN WITH THE FORESIDE GROUP REPRESENTING THE A.M. CANT. I UNDER-- APPLICANT -- I UNDERSTAND -- I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH SEVERAL OF YOU AS WELL. IN THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT THIS IS A SELF-CONTAINED PROJECT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT AS FEE SIMPLE TOWNHOMES.

DURING THE COURSE OF THAT PROCESS THERE WAS -- THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT WAS TIED UP IN LITIGATION AND IT WAS NEVER DEDICATED AS PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE TECHNICALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANY ACCESS RIGHTS OTHER THAN HISTORICAL ACCESS RIGHTS TO OUR PROPERTY.

AT THAT TIME PROJECT CHANGED INTO A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS BUILT. DURING THE PROCESS OF OUR DEVELOPMENT WE WERE THE ONES THAT HELPED FUND AND SECURE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESS ON SARAH LANE AS PART OF THAT BEFORE.

WE WERE ABLE TO GET SARAH LANE DONE BEFORE THE REST OF AUBURN FARMS WAS DONE. AND SO THERE WAS HISTORY WITH THIS PROJECT. IT'S KIND OF WHY THIS PROJECT CHANGED. CURRENTLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR NOW IS WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THAT'S 100% ACCESSED AND SELF-CONTAINED DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S UNDER A DDH ZONING, WHICH HAS UP TO TWO UNRELATED AND THESE UNITS ARE THREE-BEDROOM UNITS.

WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

THE LAST RESIDENCE ON THE ORIGINAL MIRACLE ROAD.

WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE THAT PROPERTY AND ADD THAT IN THERE.

NOW THAT WE ADDED THAT IN, WE HIT THE THRESHOLD TO MEET FOR A MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES FOR A PDD. AND SO THE THOUGHT WAS WE WERE GOING TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM DDL TO CDD.

AND THEN PUT THE PDD OVERLAY ON IT.

WE WEREN'T CHANGING IT TO CDD TO INCREASE THE DENSITY.

WE'RE STILL MEETING THE DENSITY OF UNDER THE DDH REQUIREMENT.

WE WERE ESSENTIALLY DOING THIS TO MOVE FROM TWO UNRELATED TO FIVE UNRELATED. AND SO THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE PIECE THAT WE ARE BUYING AND ADDING IN CHANGING THAT FROM RURAL TO CDD. THE NEXT ONE IS TO CONVERT OUR EXISTING LOT OF RECORD FROM DDH TO CDD AND PUT A PDD OVERLAY ON ALL THREE. AND SO THAT IS THE INTENT OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET DONE. UNDERSTAND CONCERNS WITH THE FUTURE LANE USE PLAN, AND ADJACENT ZONINGS.

IT'S IRONIC THAT ACROSS THE STREET IS A CLUB AND IT'S CDD WITH A PDD OVERLAY ALLOWS 5 UNRELATED AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS. YESTERDAY WE'RE DDH AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE YOU WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. AND SO ESSENTIALLY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THE NEXT THREE AGENDA ITEMS. BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR ANDERS: THANK YOU.

>> NEVER MIND. >> MAYOR ANDERS: WE'LL COME BACK. WE'LL LET EVERYBODY SPEAK FIRST.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?

>> YES, SIR. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME HERE AND SO PARDON ME IF I DON'T DO SOMETHING CORRECTLY.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: WOULD YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE DOWN CLOSER

TO YOU? >> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> WILL YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU.

>> SUSAN SALATA, 1632 JAMES BURT ROAD.

AND WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, MIRACLE ROAD, IS A VERY SPECIAL PLACE TO US AT WOODWORK OAKS AND I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS

[00:40:03]

AFFECTS THE REST OF MIRACLE ROAD.

THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS AND HOW IT WILL GO FORWARDS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHO WILL BE NEXT? OKAY. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. MOREMAN, YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> YES, I DO. I THINK I SEE ON THIS MAP THAT -- I THINK I SEE MR. DECEMBER NIGHTCLUB ON THIS N THE MAP. IS THAT OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AND NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROJECT, IT'S ALSO OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. SO --

>> MAYOR ANDERS: ARE YOU ASKING THAT TO ANYBODY IN

PARTICULAR? >> WELL, HE GAVE ME A HEAD NOD.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. OPINION.

>> CAN I ASK MR. BASKIN TO COME BACK UP? I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.

>> NO PROBLEM. >> I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS PART OF THE AMENITIES OF ONE AUBURN, BUT I GUESS NOT.

>> THERE IS A PARCEL -- SO MR. DS IS ANOTHER PARCEL OVER. SO OUR FARCAL RIGHT NOW IS CURRENTLY -- PARCEL -- IT'S TWO EXISTING PARCELS AND WE WERE

ADDING A THIRD. >> RIGHT.

OKAY. >> WHY OURS IS TWO PARCELS IS THE OTHER PARCEL HAS FLOODPLAIN ON IT AND SO WE CARVE THAT OFF.

IT'S PART OF OUR LOT. IT'S ATTACHED TO OUR LOT, BUT WE CARVE THAT OFF SO THAT WHEN WE'RE BUILDING OUR BUILDINGS WE'RE NOT -- THOSE BUILDINGS ARE NOT IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND WE HAVE A SEPARATE PLACE IN THE SUBPLAIN, SIMPLIFIES THE

BUILDING PROCESS FOR CODES. >> YOU MENTIONED AUBURN FARMS. THANKS JUST IN PASSING THAT. DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH

THIS? >> NO.

THAT'S FURTHER EAST. YES, SIR.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: AND YOUR COMPARISON WAS THAT IT WAS DDH

OR -- >> AUBURN FARMS IS IN A PDD.

THEY HAVE THE DDH AND PDD OVERLAY.

THEM AND WOODWARD ARE BOTH THE SAME.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: OKAY. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE

STAFF? >> I HAVE SOME COMMENTS.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: PLEASE. >> I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE DEVELOPER OF THE -- THIS POTENTIAL PROPERTY AND THE ADJOINING PROPERTY AND WITH BRETT AND TALKING THROUGH THIS AND WHILE I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES OR CONCERNS WITH THE THREE-BEDROOM UNITS AND POTENTIALLY HAVING THREE UNRELATED THE RUB HERE IS THAT REQUEST IS FOR CDD AND THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THIS AREA IS NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION, WHICH WAS ALIGNED WITH THE DDH. ALSO NOT TO GET ENTIRELY TOO TECHNICAL. THE DENSITY IS SLIGHTLY OVER AT 4.09. IF IT WAS TO BE APPROVED, WHICH IS RIGHT AT THE FOUR UNITS AN ACRE THAT THE DDH PROVIDES.

HOWEVER, IN HOLDING TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND TO WHAT IS SURROUNDING THIS AREA IT, WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO APPROVE REZONING TO CDD.

THE OTHER OPTION THAT HAVE CONSIDERED AND VETTED AND NOT FEASIBLE WAS COULD THIS GO INTO A PUD? HOWEVER, TWO THINGS THAT ELIMINATE THAT OPPORTUNITY IS, ONE, THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD COME INTO THIS PIECE AND ADD TO IT IS ALREADY DEVELOPED. AND PUDS ARE TYPICALLY FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, NOT CURRENT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN ALSO ANY POTENTIAL EXCHANGES THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CREEK. SO IT DOESN'T -- IT DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR A BENEFIT FOR THE CITY, WHICH IS THE PIECE OF PROPERTY JUST SOUTH OF THIS -- OR I GUESS WEST OF THIS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY TIE INTO THE GREENWAY THAT WOULD COME THIS DIRECTION. AND I REALLY HATE IT BECAUSE I VALUE THE INVESTMENT THIS DEVELOPER HAS PUT INTO THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY WITH SARAH LANE AND ALSO WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND I DO VALUE THAT, BUT WE DO HAVE TO HOLD TO THE INTEGRITY OF OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND FOR THAT REASON I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE?

>> YES. >> MAYOR ANDERS: YES.

GO AHEAD. >> I'D LIKE THE STAFF TO ADDRESS THE RATIONAL AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS TO WHY THEY

RECOMMENDED DENIAL. >> YES.

SO PLANNING COMMISSION HAD SIMILAR HANGUPS JUST KIND OF

[00:45:04]

AROUND THE COMPATIBILITY OF REZONING -- ALLOWING THE REZONING OF CDD IN EMPLOYEES PROXIMITY TO EXISTING BDH EVEN THOUGH THE DENSITY AND UNIT COUNT WOULDN'T BE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED.

IT WAS SOMETHING THAT SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS STATED.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION DOWN HERE?

>> I WAS SIMPLY GOING TO ASK IF SOMEBODY WAS ABLE TO ADDRESS THE LADY WHO SPOKE EARLIER ON ABOUT HER CONCERNS.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: WE'LL GET TO IN A AFTER WE GET THROUGH.

-- TO AFTER WE -- IS THERE A GENERAL STATEMENT WE CAN MAKE ABOUT THE IMPACT ON MIRACLE ROAD?

>> MIRACLE ROAD WAS UPGRADED AS WAS SARAH LANE IN ORDER TO SERVE THE AUBURN FARMS. THIS DEVELOPER ACTUALLY FACILITATED GETTING SOME OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY SECURED IN THE FINAL WEARING SURFACE DOWN ON THE ROADS.

THOSE ROADS COULD BECOME FUNCTIONAL AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS PROJECT BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP FROM THE STORM.

MIRACLE ROAD WAS PLANNED TO BE PAVED TO SARAH LANE AND THAT'S AS FAR AS WE PLAN TO PAVE IT. THE 1750 MIRACLE ROAD, WHILE THE ADDRESS OFF MIRACLE ROAD, THE ACTUAL ACCESS IS OFF WHAT WE NOW CALL THE OLD MIRACLE ROAD, WHICH IS -- LEADS UP TO THAT.

SO THEY DON'T ACTUALLY ABUT TO MIRACLE ROAD.

THEN IT WOULD HAVE ZERO ADDITIONAL IMPACT ON MIRACLE

ROAD. >> CAN WE GET SOME IF YOU ARE CLARIFICATION EITHER FROM YOU, JUSTICE, OR FROM LEGAL COUNSEL ON THE SPOT ZONING QUESTION THERE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD AND EVEN FURTHER ON THE UNRELATED OCCUPANCY

QUESTIONS THAT WERE HAD? >> YEAH.

SO, LIKE -- LET ME TALK ABOUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE REALLY TRIED TO ADHERE TO WHEN IT COMES TO REZONING IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND SO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP -- A LOT OF PEOPLE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LIKE, SOMEBODY SAYS IT'S A SUGGESTION. IT IS -- IN OUR PLAN WE REVISIT IT, WE LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR WHAT WE WANT TO DO THE LAND IN THE FUTURE AND ITS COMPATIBILITY.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS NEIGHBOURHOOD PRESERVATION AND WHAT THAT SPEAKS TO, AND SO NEIGHBORHOOD RESERVATION REALLY HAS TWO MEANINGS FROM TIME TO TIME A DENSITY STANDPOINT, SO THAT'S NUMBER OF BEDS OR NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND THEN THERE IS ALSO KIND OF FAMILY DEFINITION. AND SO FAMILY DEFINITION FOR ANYONE WHO IS NOT FAMILIAR, THAT IS UP TO TWO UNRELATED OR UP TO FIVE UNRELATED. NORMALLY SEE UP TO 5 UNRELATED IN PLACES WHERE IT'S NORMALLY DESIGNATED FOR STUDENT HOUSING OR STRS ARE ALSO POSSIBLE AS WELL.

SO THAT DEVIATION FROM THE FAMILY DEFINITION WOULD PUT US AT A LIABILITY OF THIS DECISION BEING GRANTED WOULD BE SPOT ZONING. AND THAT WAS WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS REALLY, REALLY WRESTLING WITH.

AND THAT IS WHAT THE LEGAL COUNSEL ALSO ECHO IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS WELL.

>> YEAH. I'LL ADD TO THAT THAT CASE LAW IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE APPELLATE LEVEL THAT CITIES IN ALABAMA CANNOT HAVE ZONING REGULATIONS WITHOUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN PLACE. SO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MUST BE THE GUIDING FORCE FOR ALL ZONING DECISIONS MADE BY THE COUNCIL AND PART OF THAT IS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

IT IS A SUBSET OF THE PLAN. FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO BE PRESERVED IN SECURING LEGITIMATE AND DEFENSIBLE DECISIONS BY THIS COUNCIL ON ESPECIALLY REZONING REQUESTS.

>> PAUL, WHAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE A CHANGE?

>> TYPICALLY IN REZONING THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE SAID THAT COUNCIL NEEDS A COMPELLING SAFETY, HEALTH, AND WELFARE REASON, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT A SMALLER PARCEL IN RELATION TO OTHER PARCELS AROUND IT THAT HAVE A PARTICULAR ZONING.

AND WHILE THIS IS A COMBINED 10-ACRE PARCEL SURROUNDED BY AND ADJACENT TO MUCH LARGER TRACKS THAT HAVE BEEN ZONED DDH WHERE THE FAMILY DEFINITION APPLIES. AND SO IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT THE COUNCIL IN ITS DELIBERATION AND ITS DEBATE HAVE AND IDENTIFY SPECIFIC SAFETY, HEALTH, OR WELFARE REASONS WITHIN ITS DETERMINATION AND DISCRETION TO REZONE A PIECE OF PROPERTY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?

[00:50:08]

OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, YES, MA'AM. EVERYBODY OKAY? WE'LL MOVE AHEAD WITH THE ROLL CALL.

READY? >> WITTEN.

>> NO. >> ADAMS.

>> NO. COBLENTZ.

>> NO, MA'AM. >> GRISWOLD.

>> NO, MA'AM. >> MOREMAN.

>> NO. >> PARSONS.

>> NO. >> TAYLOR.

[9.b.4. One Auburn Walker-Carlton Lots. Rezone approximately 9.92 acres from Development District Housing (DDH) to Comprehensive Development District (CDD). Property located at 1415 Sarah Lane.]

>> NO. >> ANDERS.

>> NO. OKAY.

ITEM 9(B) 4 IS ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 9.92 ACRES FROM DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HOUSING TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1415 SARAH LANE FOR THE ONE AUBURN WALKER CARLTON LOT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION BY A VOTE OF 3-6 JUNE 11TH, 2026 MEETING.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY AND A PUBLIC HEARING IS

REQUIRED. >> I'LL INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE

AND ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. >> SECOND.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: COUNCIL HAVE ANY PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH THE VOTE THIS EVENING? SEEING OR HEARING NONE I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE

MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL. >> I AM THE RESIDENTS OF 1962 MIRACLE ROAD.

MANY OF YOU KNOW ME AND RECOGNIZE MY FACE, AND SOME OF YOU I'M NEW TO YOU ALL, BUT I WANTED TO SAY AT THIS TIME MIRACLE ROAD IS A VERY IMPORTANT ROAD, NOT ONLY TO THE RESIDENTS AND THOSE WHO DRIVE THE ROAD, BUT TO THE CITY AS WELL.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT WE DESIRED FOR THAT ROAD TO BE PAVED. WE JUST HEARD FROM THIS GENTLEMAN HERE THAT AT THIS TIME THE ROAD IS PAVED FROM NORTH DONAHUE UP TO SARAH LANE. IT DISAPPOINTS ME AS A NATIVE OF AUBURN AND AS A RESIDENTS OF AUBURN THAT THE CITY CAN PAVE A SIX-FOOT-WIDE WALKWAY FROM THE -- FROM THE OVERPASS ON MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO -- AS I WAS SAYING, IT DISAPPOINTS ME AS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF AUBURN TO SEE THAT PAVEMENT HAS BEEN PLACED DOWN FOR A WALKWAY, SIX-FOOT WALKWAY FROM THE OVERPASS ON MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO STATION 14 WHEN HEAR HERE ON MIRACLE ROAD AND WE NEED OUR ROAD PAVED, AND THAT PAVEMENT WAS USED FOR A WALKWAY.

I WANT EACH OF YOU TO SINCERELY CONSIDER OUR DESIRE FOR MIRACLE ROAD TO BE PAVED. AND WHETHER THAT MEANS GETTING INVOLVED WITH THE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE DEVELOPING THE ACREAGE AND THE LAND OUT THERE, I'M ALL FOR DEVELOPMENT.

I WANT THE CITY TO GROW. AND THE CITY IS DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB WITH THAT GROWTH, AND I WANT TO BE PART OF THAT.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO SEE MIRACLE ROAD NOT JUST PAVED FROM DONAHUE, BUT A COMMITMENT FROM THE COUNCIL THATTALITY SOME POINT IN TIME -- THAT AT -- Y'ALL WILL HAVE MIRACLE ROAD PAVED FROM DONAHUE ALL THE WAY UP TO WHAT IS NOW KNOWN I BELIEVE AS A NEW ROAD THAT IS FROM 677 NO LONGER A COUNTY ROAD, BUT HAVE BEEN RENAMED AS SOMETHING LIKE WOODWARD SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW.

BUT THAT'S WHAT'S RIGHT. LET'S TEAM UP TOGETHER.

AND DO WHAT'S RIGHT. FOR THE CITIZENS OF AUBURN.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> MAYOR ANDERS: YES, MA'AM.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: ANYONE ELSE? >> HERE I AM AGAIN.

MY NAME IS SUSAN SALATA, 1632 JAMES BURT PARKWAY.

RIGHT IN FRONT OF MIRACLE ROAD. I JUST WANT TO ADD A FEW WORDS

[00:55:01]

AND THAT IS MANY OF US WOULD LIKE TO SEE MIRACLE ROAD STAY THE WAY IT IS UNDEVELOPED. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S HAPPENED OUT OUR WAY, WE'RE ALL FOR GROWTH, BUT JUST DOWN THE HILL FROM THERE THERE IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT IS BEAUTIFUL AND IT'S OUTSTANDING. IT'S SUPER NICE.

ALL FOR IT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OUR BUFFER AND OUR GREENWAY AND THAT AREA, AND THEN YOU TALK ABOUT ROAD 147 AND ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO COME FORWARD FROM THERE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN AREA THAT WILL BE AFFECTED GREATLY.

AND FOR OUR PEOPLE IN WOODWARD OKLOAKS, THAT MEANS SO MUCH, BUT NOT JUST FOR THE PEOPLE THERE, BUT NOW FOR A PEOPLE THERE AT FARMVILLE IT WILL MEAN A WHOLE LOT IT.

WILL MEAN A WHOLE LOT BECAUSE IF YOU GO OUT TO THE NEW SCHOOL, I RODE OUT THERE TODAY, THERE ARE NOT MANY TREES OUT THERE.

THERE'S NOT MUCH OF A BUFFER AREA, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE HUD DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO TOUCH BASE OUT THERE, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF THERE COULD BE SOME KIND OF COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT IT'S COMING FROM EVERY AREA AND MAYBE WHEN ALL THIS WAS APPROVED THE OTHER THINGS HAD NOT BEEN DEVELOPED.

BUT NOW THAT YOU LOOK AT THE SITUATION AND YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENTS COMING FROM EVERY ANGLE WHERE -- I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYBODY ELSE. I'M ASKING, COULD WE LOOK AT IT COMPREHENSIVELY, WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO TO OUR WATER CONTROL, WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO -- I'M GOING TO SPEAK FOR THE ANIMALS OUT THERE.

THE ANIMALS. THEY'RE CRYING FROM OUT IN THE FIELDS, ALL THE TREES THAT WERE CUT DOWN THERE FROM THE SCHOOLS ALL THE WAY BACK. SO ON MIRACLE ROAD AGAIN, I WANT TO SAY IT'S A VERY SPECIAL PLACE.

IT'S UNLIKE OTHER PLACES AROUND US.

IT IS IMPORTANT IF WE COULD KEEP, YOU KNOW, THE NATURAL SCENE THAT GOD GAVE US. THERE'S NOT MANY OF THOSE AROUND. SO I JUST ASK FOR YOU TO CONSIDER -- FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION REGARDING THAT.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: WHO WILL BE NEXT? OKAY. CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?

>> WELL -- >> MAYOR ANDERS: RELATED TO

THIS ITEM. >> YES, YES.

THIS REQUEST IT FALLS IN THE SAME REGARD AS THE ITEM BEFORE THIS AND SAME REASONING STANDS AGAIN.

I UNDERSTAND THE NEED AND THE REQUEST, BUT TO HOLD TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT HAS HAD QUITE A BIT OF STUDY AND RESEARCH DONE ON ALL ASPECTS OF PLANNING IN THAT AREA THAT WE LOOK AT THIS AND DENY AS WELL ON THE BASIS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE AND THE FAMILY

DEFINITION. >> I KNOW WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THIS IN THE LAST AGENDA ITEM. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THOUGHTS? OKAY. LINDSEY, ROLL CALL.

>> ANDERS. >> IF I MAY REAL QUICK, RON.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: PLEASE. >> TO MRS. SHEALY, I'M THE COUNCIL PERSON FOR THAT AREA AND I'M HAPPY TO MEET WITH YOU IN THE COMING DAYS TO DISCUSS MIRACLE ROAD IN THAT AREA, AND I'VE HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. SALATA AND I JUST WANT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

>> MAYOR ANDERS: WE'RE GOING TO MOVE AHEAD.

YES. >> ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT.

COULD STAFF GIVE A QUICK RUNDOWN ON WHAT IT TAKES TO GET APPROVAL FOR PAVING OF A SECTION OF ROAD OR A PIECE OF ROAD? I KNOW THAT'S -- WE HAVE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DIRT ROADS WE HAVE IN THE CITY LIMITS, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY ONE OF THEM.

[01:00:03]

WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEPS? HOW WOULD THAT BE MOVED ALONG? I KNOW THE DEVELOPERS HAVE TO PAY FOR PAVING IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTIES, BUT IS THERE ANOTHER PATH FORWARD?

>> SO WE'VE GOT A FEW DIRT ROADS AND WE MAINTAIN THOSE THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS NOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MILES -- I WAS LOOKING AT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DAN BALLARD TO SEE IF

HE REMEMBERS. >> I COULDN'T TELL YOU OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I CAN GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU.

>> SO THE -- YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LOOK AT THOSE, YOU KNOW, WELFARE STANDPOINT. THING THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT THE HOUSES BOUGHT THOSE ON THE DIRT ROADS.

IT'S BEEN OUR POSITION ON THOSE TO MAINTAIN THOSE, YOU KNOW, AND KEEP THOSE ACCESSIBLE. I THINK THERE'S ONE RESIDENCE THAT HAS DIRECT ACCESS OFF OF MIRACLE -- THE DIRT ROAD PORTION OF MIRACLE ROAD AS IT IS TODAY. AS THAT AREA REDEVELOPS OR DEVELOPS THEN, YOU KNOW, THE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SOME THINGS DIFFERENTLY WITH THAT, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE LION'S SHARE OF THE TRAFFIC IS ACTUALLY MIGRATING OVER TO THE ROAD THAT GOES THROUGH WOODWARD OKLAHOMA . THE COUNCIL ABANDONED A LARGE PORTION OF MIRACLE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY I BELIEVE IN THE LAST YEAR, AND AS WOODWARD OAKS CONTINUES TO BUILD OUT, THE PARKWAY THEN BECOMES THAT DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN DONAHUE AND VAUGHANVILLE ROAD. SO THAT'S TO TAKE THE BULK OF THAT TRAFFIC OFF. SO THE TRAFFIC ON MIRACLE ROAD SHOULD BE QUITE LIMITED, YOU KNOW, FROM THIS POINT MOVING FORWARD. I DON'T THINK I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION AS FAR AS THE QUESTION, BUT --

>> THAT'S OKAY. >> IF COUNCIL WANTS US TO EXPLORE THAT THEN THE COUNCIL CAN ASK THE CITY MANAGER TO LOOK INTO THAT AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK.

I THINK THE THING IS, IT'S NOT JUST PUTTING ASPHALT DOWN ON A DIRT ROAD. WE WOULD HAVE TO BASICALLY BUILD A NEW ROAD IN WITH THAT. SO -- LOOKING AT THE CITY ENGINEER TO SEE IF HE AGREED WITH ME.

>> AND THE RESTORATION OF MULTI-USE PATHS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO -- DOES NOT HAVE A CONNECTION WITH OUR ROAD

BUILDING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. >> THAT DOES NOT.

THAT'S ACTUALLY OFFERING AN OPTION TO VEHICLE TRAFFIC TO GIVE PEOPLE MULLING MODAL OPPORTUNITIES -- MULTI-MODAL OPPORTUNITIES PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU DEAL WITH A MULTI-USE PATH.

>> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR ANDERS: MR. CUMMINS, WHEN WE MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT ROADS WILL BE RESURFACED OR REBUILT, I KNOW WE OFTENTIMES, AND MAYBE STILL CURRENTLY USE A THIRD PARTY THAT COMES AND DOES ALMOST A SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF OUR ROADS AND MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY AS TO ONES IN THE MOST DIRE NEED OF WORK.

I KNOW ALSO THAT WE'VE MADE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT TO RESURFACING OVER THE NEXT FIVE OR SIX YEARS IN OUR BUDGET.

WHERE DOES -- AND I GUESS THE NEW ENGINEER -- I DON'T KNOW, MICHAEL, IF YOU HAD A CHANCE, BUT WHERE DOES A PAVED ROAD THAT NEEDS REHAB AND RESURFACE FALL AGAINST A DIRT ROAD THAT'S GONE IN A NEED A LOT OF WORK AND REALLY TO START OVER ALMOST?

>> I'LL PUT HIM ON THE SPOT HERE.

I DID WANT TO MAKE A POINT THOUGH.

IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE DIRT ROADS WE MAINTAIN, THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC ON THOSE ROADS IS VERY, VERY MINIMAL.

SO I THINK ONE MAY HAVE THREE OR FOUR HOUSES ON IT THAT WE MAINTAIN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, ONE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, A FEW HOUSES, YOU KNOW, THAT'S QUITE AN EXPENSE, YOU KNOW, FOR THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE ON THAT.

SEE IF THE ENGINEER HAS ANYTHING TO ADD FOR VALUATIONS OF OUR STREET -- EVALUATION OF OUR STREETS.

>> WITHIN THE PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX OUR GOAL IS NOT ALWAYS TO GO FOR WORST FIRST THAT. DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

OUR GOAL IS TO PRESERVE AS MANY LANE MILES AS POSSIBLE WITH THE BUDGET THAT'S GIVEN TO US. SO IMAGINE COLLEGE STREET OR THOSE ROADS, THEY DETERIORATE RAPIDLY.

WE WOULD PRIORITIZE THOSE. HOWEVER, A DIRT ROAD STILL FALLS IN THAT CONDITION. A DIRT ROAD IS STILL A EXTRAERS HAVABLE RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION, RIGHT? IT-TRAVERSABLE -- IT MAY NOT BE TO THE CONDITION THEY WANT IT TO BE IN. HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE NEED TO BUILD THAT TYPE OF STREET SECTION AT THAT TIME.

IF YOU HAVE TWO OR THREE CARS A DAY, DOES IT JUSTIFY BUILDING A STANDARDIZED STREET TYPICAL THAT WE REQUIRE CURB AND GUTTER AND THAT ONE RESIDENCE WOULD BE BASICALLY ESSENTIALLY RECEIVING

[01:05:01]

A BENEFIT AT THE COST OF THE REST OF THE SYSTEM ITSELF.

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

SO IN THIS SECTION, THOUGH, IT IS A VERY EXTENSIVE LINK TO GET BACK TO THAT PROPERTY IT. WOULD BE AN INCURRED COST TO MAINTAIN THAT, TOO, AS WELL -- IT WOULD --

>> I GOT ANOTHER QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.

I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF PLANNING.

I'VE BEEN TO A LOT OF MEETINGS TO DISCUSS THE LAND USE OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND WHAT WILL BE BUILT WHY AND WHY IT WILL BE BUILT THERE. JUST IN GENERAL, JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS ABOUT HOW WE GO ABOUT MAKING THOSE KIND OF DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT'S RESIDENTIAL, WHAT'S COMMERCIAL, WHERE OUR ROADS GO, ALL THE THINGS THAT GO INTO PLANNING ANNEXATION, HOW THOSE THINGS WORK AND MAYBE JUSTICE WANTS TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.

I THINK BECAUSE WHEN WE REMEMBER TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT IS A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK, ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS ARE PROVIDING INPUT TO THAT COM PLAN. WE LOOK AT WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE CAN HANDLE INTENSITY OF GROWTH AND WHERE WE HAVE STREETS, WHERE WE HAVE WATER.

WHERE WE HAVE SANITARY SEWER WHERE OUR STORM WATER CONVEYANCE CAN HANDLE THAT DENSITY OF GROWTH.

AND SO THAT ESTABLISHED -- THAT'S USED TO HELP ESTABLISH WHAT KIND OF DENSITIES THAT CAN SUPPORT, INTENSITY OF USE, YOU KNOW, GETTING INTO COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, INTO RESIDENTIAL AND THEN YOU KNOW, PANING AWAY. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE CORE OF TOWN, YOU SEE A TRANSITION GO FROM DDH OR AN LED FOUR TO FIVE UNITS PER ACRE TO TRANSITION INTO RESIDENTIAL THREE ACRES AND LARGER LOTS.

AND SO THAT'S KIND OF MAJOR -- I GUESS A BROAD OVERVIEW OF HOW WE DO PLANNING. BUT WE LOOK AT THIS VERY EXTENSIVELY, YOU KNOW. LOOK TO SEE IF HE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD BECAUSE HE DEFINITELY HOLDS THE LAND USE PLAN OVER OUR HEAD EVERY TIME WE LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT COMES IN.

>> I WOULD SECOND PRETTY MUCH WHAT MR. CUMMINS SAID, THAT IT IS FIRST AND FOREMOST LAND USES ARE FORMED BY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY AND THEN SECONDLY BY THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY OF KIND OF MAIN TAGGING THAT LIKE MIC'ING TALKED ABOUT -- MAINTAINING THAT LIKE MICHAEL TALKED ABOUT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE PLACES FORGOTTEN.

IF YOU PUT DENSITY INTO A PLACE YOU CAN'T SERVICE IT WILL BECOME A STRAIN TO THE SYSTEM. FIRST AND FOREMOST UTILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE IF IT CAN SUPPORT THAT FROM A CAPACITY STANDPOINT AND SECONDLY THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MAINTAINING

THOSE SERVICES IN THOSE AREAS. >> MAYOR ANDERS: THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THAT ABOUT THE SERVICES.

PUBLIC SERVICES ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO US.

>> M'HM. >> THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO ITEM FIVE?

>> YEAH, I GOT ONE QUESTION. SO HOW MANY ROADS IN AUBURN ARE STILL DIRT ROADS? BECAUSE I WASN'T AWARE -- I WAS THINKING MAYBE MIRACLE ROAD -- I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS STILL A

DIRT ROAD. >> I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN

EXACTLY -- >> IS IT A LOT OF THEM, IS IT A

FEW? >> VERY FEW.

>> I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE EXACT MILEAGE, BUT WE HAVE CURRENTLY FIVE UNPAVED ROADS THAT WE MAINTAIN, AND I CAN GIVE YOU THE MILEAGE, YEAH. I CAN GATHER THAT LATER.

>> WE CAN PROVIDE THAT LATER. BUT HE'S RIGHT.

I WAS THINKING IT WAS, LIKE, FIVE.

THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE THAT COME TO MIND, YOU KNOW, ON A ROUTINE

BASIS TO ME THAT WE DEAL WITH. >> ANY IDEA THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE

THAT ARE SERVICED BY THOSE? >> I WAS SAYING EARLIER, NOT VERY MANY. THERE'S ONE ON MIRACLE ROAD.

THERE'S -- I WANT TO SAY THREE, FOUR, FIVE HOUSES ON BONNIE GLEN ROAD, AND SOME OF THE OTHERS ARE REALLY JUST SHORT EXTENSIONS THAT WE MAY HAVE ONE OR TWO HOUSES ON.

>> THEY'RE ALL VERY LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

>> YEAH. >> AND IF THERE WERE ANY HIGH-INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT ON THOSE ROADS THEN THEY WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO BE PAVED. THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO

SUPPORT THE TRAFFIC. >> SO ON THOSE DIRT ROADS, THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE ON THE ROADS, HOW MANY REQUESTS DO YOU GET FOR

[01:10:01]

THE ROADS TO BE PAVED? ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY TRYING TO

GET THOSE ROADS PAVED OR -- >> YEAH, SO I WAS GOING TO SAY I THINK THIS IS ALMOST LIKE A QUARTER OF THE CONVERSATION AT PLANNING COMMISSION JUST KIND OF WHETHER THAT BE THE BONNIE GLEN SHOWUP OR THE DIFFERENT FOLKS ON DIRT ROADS DO SHOW UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COME UP.

BUT THEN ALSO IT'S A CONVERSATION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REALLY HELD FIRM ON GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF SOMETHING IS AN EXISTING DIRT ROAD -- AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS, IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER, THAT WAS A -- THERE WAS PINT OF DISCUSSION TO NOT INCLUDE THINGS IN THE OPTICAL BOUNDARY THAT WERE ON ADDITIONAL DIRT ROADS BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE ADDING TO THE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE OF HAVING TO PAVE THAT ROAD AND TAKE CARE OF IT FOR WHAT WOULD BE EXISTING LOW DENSITY HOUSES.

SO THE CONVERSATION ABOUT PAVED ROADS, SHOULD HE BE PAVED, WHEN WILL THE CITY PAVE THEM, THAT COMES UP EVERY COUPLE MONTHS.

IT'S BEEN A FACTOR IN THE DECISION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOT TO ANNEX -- NOT TO RECOMMEND ANNEXATION TO YOU

ALL BECAUSE OF THAT COST. >> THESE ROADS WERE GIFTED TO US FROM LEE COUNTY IN AN ANNUAL ALLOTMENT BECAUSE OF ANNEXATION AROUND THOSE ROADS. TO JUSTICE'S POINT, THAT LED TO

US ACQUIRING THOSE STREETS. >> YOU GOOD?

>> MAYOR ANDERS: OKAY. OKAY.

[9.b.5. One Auburn. Rezone approximately 11.01 acres from Rural (R) and Development District Housing (DDH) to Planned Development District (PDD). Property located at 1415 Sarah Lane and 1750 Miracle Road.]

WE'LL GO TO ITEM FIVE. ITEM 9(B) 5 IS AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 11.01 ACRES FROM COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1415 SARAH LANE AND 1750 MIRACLE ROAD FOR ONE AUBURN MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION BY A VOTE OF 3-6 AT ITS JUNE 11TH, 2026 MEETING. UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NECESSARY AND A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED.

>> POINT OF ORDER. IS IT REQUIRED FOR US TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM SINCE THE OTHER TWO WERE NOT APPROVED?

>> IT'S NOT REQUIRED, BUT IT'S CLEANER FOR THE RECORD IF YOU

WOULD. >> THANK YOU.

I'LL INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AND ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> SECOND. >> MAYOR ANDERS: MOVING FORWARD ON THE VOTE WITH THIS THIS EVENING.

SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE

RECORD. >> YOU ALL HAVE SEEN MY FACE EARLIER. JEALOUSY SHEALY -- JESSIE SHEALY, LOCATED AT 1962 MIRACLE ROAD, OKAY? THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS HERE TONIGHT FROM THESE GENTLEMEN CONCERNING MIRACLE ROAD, AND THE DISADVANTAGES TO THE CITY FOR NOT PAVING THE ROAD, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY IS GROWING.

YOU HAVE A BRAND NEW SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL THAT'S COMING UP RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENT FROM WOODWARD OAKS THAT JUST TOOK OVER 677.

HOPEFULLY THAT ROAD WILL BE PAVED, AND ALL OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND RESIDENTS FROM AUBURN FARMS THAT ARE COMING IN.

I'M ASKING YOU ALL DILIGENTLY TONIGHT, MIRACLE ROAD IS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF AUBURN. IT IS A CITY ROAD.

IT IS MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. AND WHILE I'M ONE RESIDENT AND .

I'M NOT ONE RESIDENT. MARK DO YOU MEANLESS LIVES AT THE -- DUML ES LIVES AT THE END OF THAT ROAD, AND THAT'S MIRACLE ROAD AS WELL. THERE ARE OTHER LANDOWNERS THAT ARE LOCATED ON MIRACLE ROAD. I HAVE BEEN VERY PATIENT.

A LOT OF THINGS HAVE HAPPENED TO ME.

YOU ALL HAVE NEVER HAD A TIMBER RATTLESNAKE PUT AT YOUR GATE.

HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL? AS A RESIDENT OF AUBURN SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT AND SOMEONE DISLIKE YOU SO MUCH THAT YOU'RE ON THAT ROAD THAT THEY COME AND TRY TO SCARE YOU, PUT FEAR IN YOU. I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

I AM GOING TO STAND FIRM ON WHAT I BELIEVE, AND I BELIEVE AND

[01:15:01]

STAND FIRM THAT MIRACLE ROAD SHOULD BE PAVED DUE TO THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT THAT IS HAPPENING AND THE TRAFFIC.

THE DEVELOPER TALKS ABOUT RUNNING THE TRAFFIC THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE? WHEN YOU HAVE A PUBLIC STREET. THEY'RE NOT HAPPY THAT I'M THERE. BUT I WAS THERE BEFORE THEM.

AND I PLAN TO STAY. I PLAN TO STAY.

AND I PLAN TO SEE MIRACLE ROAD BE PAVED.

I AM PATIENT, AND GOD IS GOING TO LET ME LIVE A LONG TIME.

I'M PRAYING TO A HUNDRED YEARS. AND MIRACLE ROAD WILL BE THERE FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN. SO PLEASE DON'T DISREGARD, DON'T LET US DOWN. KEEP THE ROAD OPEN FOR THE CITY, EVEN IF WE HAVE TO LIVE ON IT FOR A LENGTH OF TIME UNTIL THE CITY CAN OBTAIN THE FUNDING TO PAVE IT.

LET US LIVE ON A DIRT ROAD. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,

FOR YOUR TIME. >> MAYOR ANDERS: THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR ANDERS: WHO WILL BE NEXT? CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? OKAY. LINDSEY, ROLL CALL.

[10.a.1. NEOS Church. Institutional use (church). Property located at 665 Opelika Road.]

>> NO. MOVING ON TO RESOLUTIONS, ITEM 10(A) 1 IS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR THE KNEE YOST CHURCH FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL USE -- NEOS -- AT 665 OBLOCKER ROAD. THE PLANNINGS COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT THE JULY 9TH, 2026 MEETING.

A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> MAYOR ANDERS: I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU'D LIKE ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ABOUT THIS, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL.

>> HEY, MY NAME IS RUDY AND I'M THE LEAD PASTOR OF THE CHURCH AND I LIVE AT 2260 BROCK DRIVE. BUT I DO MUCH OF MY BUSINESS HERE IN AUBURN AND WE'RE GRATEFUL TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY WITH A NEW CHURCH THAT'S GOING TO PREACH THE GOSPEL, HELP PEOPLE FIND HOPE, COMMUNITY, AND A PLACE TO CALL HOME.

SO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVING THAT, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'M HERE TO ANSWER THEM.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR ANDERS: THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR ANDERS: ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL?

>> I ASSUME THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CHURCH'S ACTIVITIES UP TO THIS POINT FROM CITIZENS --

>> WELL, THEY'VE NOT HAD ANY ACTIVITIES TO THIS POINT.

THEY HAVE NOT OCCUPIED THE BUILDING.

SO THEY HAVE TO GET THE CONDITIONAL USE OF APPROVAL.

PREVIOUSLY THEY HAD SECURED CONDITIONAL USE OF APPROVAL, BUT IT WAS FOR AN INCORRECTED FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING -- INCORRECT -- SO THEY'RE COME BACK THROUGH.

SO THEY HAVE NOT OCCUPIED THE PREMISES AT THIS POINT -- COMING

BACK THROUGH. >> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR

THE APPLICANT IF I MAY. >> YES, SIR.

WOULD YOU PLEASE COME BACK? >> YES, SIR.

>> I SHOULD HAVE SAT CLOSER TO THE --

>> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF SERVICES YOU PLAN TO HOST?

>> WELL, RIGHT NOW WE'RE A NEW CHURCH, SO WE'VE BEEN BUILDING OUR TEAM AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE AVERAGING ABOUT 65 PEOPLE WITH CHILDREN ON THAT TEAM. WE HOPE THAT SOMETIME NEXT YEAR, YOU KNOW, CHURCH TAKES TIME TO GROW, AND WE'RE MORE OF A ORGANIC GRASSROOTS START-UP. WE'RE NOT FUNDED BY ANY LARGER ORGANIZATION, SO WE'RE HOPING THAT SOMETIME NEXT YEAR WE MAY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE, BUT THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SOMETIME FROM NOW AND THEN AT THAT POINT WE WOULD DEFINITELY WORK WITH CITY PLANNING IF WE NEEDED TO EXPAND THE SPACE OR ADD ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, MEASURES TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BUILDING IS GOOD. BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW I DON'T FORESEE US EVEN SURPASSING THE OCCUPANCY THAT WE'LL BE

PRESENTING TO INSPECTIONS. >> OKAY.

AND CURRENTLY DO YOU OFFER CHILD CARE OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH

[01:20:06]

SERVICES? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION, TOO, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.

>> SURE. >> COULD YOU GIVE US A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE CONFUSION WAS BETWEEN THE INITIAL CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST AND THIS ONE?

>> SURE. WHEN WE LEASED THE BUILDING OUR LANDLORD HAD PREVIOUSLY SECURED A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL.

THERE WAS A MUCH SMALLER CHURCH THAT WAS GOING TO BE UTILIZING THE SPACE. SO WE LEASED THE BUILDING WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COULD SIMPLY MOVE IN, DO A LITTLE BIT OF WORK AND GET GOING. BUT AS WE GOT DOING THAT WORK THE CITY NOTIFIED US AND SAID, HEY, WE HAVE TO GET SOME OF THE THINGS IN PLACE BEFORE YOU GUYS CAN MOVE IN THERE, SO WE WANT TO HONOR THE CITY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE A HEALTHY PART OF THE COMMUNITY. BUT THAT WAS SIMPLY THE CONFUSION THERE IS THERE WAS A DIFFERENT GROUP THAT WAS GOING TO USE A DIFFERENT PORTION OF THE BUILDING, AND FOR US THAT WAS GOING TO BE TOO SMALL AND NOT GOOD LOGISTICALLY.

>> SO YOU AREN'T THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT FROM THE FIRST

CONDITIONAL USE? >> FROM NOVEMBER OF 2025 OR

DECEMBER OF 2025, NO. >> GOTCHA.

THANK YOU. >> YEAH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> DO YOU PLAN TO -- PLAN TO POSSIBLY OCCUPY THE ADDITIONAL SPACE?

>> YEAH. >> IN THE BUILDING IF YOUR CHURCH GROWS TO THE POINT -- THAT POINT?

IS THAT -- >> OUR HOPE WITH CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LANDLORD IS TO IN THE FUTURE PURCHASE THE BUILDING AND, YEAH, UTILIZE -- I MEAN, GOD WILLING UTILIZE THE WHOLE 16,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW WE'RE USING ABOUT 6,000 AND SOME CHANGE OF THAT SPACE.

BUT THAT WOULD BE FUTURE, FUTURE USE, WHICH THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT NEW PLANS AND GO THROUGH THE WHOLE STEPS TO MAKE SURE

IT'S ALL GOOD. >> JUSTICE, IS THERE -- IS THERE ADEQUATE PARKING RIGHT NOW IN THAT FACILITY FOR THE SIZE

SERVICE THAT THEY -- >> YES.

AND SO LIKE THEY TALKED ABOUT, I THINK I MAXED OUT THE USE AT ABOUT 80 AS TO MOST OF Y'ALL HAVE SEEN.

THERE IS ENOUGH SPARKING SPACES FOR THAT BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW THOSE ARE FAMILIES GOING. IT'S NOT 80 SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS DRIVING. THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THE SIZE OF SERVICES THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY TALKING ABOUT.

>> WHAT ABOUT IF YOU WERE TO MAX OUT THE CURRENT SPACE THAT YOU USE NOW? HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD IT TAKE TO

DO THAT? >> WELL, I BELIEVE WE'RE STILL WORKING ON PLANS. I BELIEVE THAT THE, YOU KNOW, OCCUPANCY WAS WELL UNDER 300. WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PHYSICALLY FIT -- WHILE THE OCCUPANCY OF THE AUDITORIUM MAY SHOW, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK IT'S LIKE 125 PEOPLE PHYSICALLY FITTING, YOU KNOW, WITH A PLATFORM AND EVERYTHING 125 CHAIRS IS UNREALISTIC. I DON'T FORESEE US HAVING ONE SERVICE WHERE WE ARE MAXING OUT THAT MUCH.

TYPICALLY IN CHURCH SPACES YOU ARE LOOKING AT 70 TO 80% OCCUPANCY IS WHEN YOU WOULD BUMP UP TO ANOTHER SERVICE.

SO EVEN IF WE DID HAVE, LET'S SUPPOSE, A CHURCH OF 300, WE WOULD BE HAVING MULTIPLE SERVICES WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS NOT OVERFILLED, BUT THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WORK WITH THE CITY MAKING SURE THAT IF WE HAD TO -- I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM, BUT IF WE HAD TO CONVERSE WITH OTHER BUSINESS OWNERS TO RENT PARKING SPACES THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD WORK WITH THE CITY AND ALSO THE OTHER

PROPERTY OWNERS. >> OKAY.

THOSE ARE GOOD PROBLEMS TO HAVE. >> EXCELLENT PROBLEMS, YEAH.

>> IS PART OF Y'ALL'S PLAN TO HAVE A SCHOOL, WHETHER IT'S NURSERY OR ONE THROUGH FOUR, FIVE --

>> THAT WOULD BE AWESOME. I THINK THE GOAL OF EVERY, YOU KNOW -- I WOULD HOPE THE GOAL OF MANY CHURCHES WOULD BE TO OFFER A PLACE WHERE THEIR FAMILIES CAN HAVE EDUCATION ON CAMPUS AS WELL. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS IN OUR DOCKET ANY TIME SOON AS WE ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO GET, YOU KNOW, THE MAIN CONGREGATION AND ALL THAT ESTABLISHED.

>> IF APPROVED THIS EVENING, IS IT FOR THE ENTIRE BUILDING OR WOULD JUST THE SPACE THAT THEY HAVE ALLOCATED LIKE THE PREVIOUS

REQUEST IS FOR THAT SPACE. >> YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT.

SO THE SITE PLAN IS THEY ARE BOUND TO THE SECTION THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED AS THE SANCTUARY. THERE IS A CAPACITY TIED TO THAT AND SO LIKE YOU MENTIONED, IT'S 270 FOR THE SANCTUARY SPACE, AND KIND OF ALSO LIKE YOU TALKED ABOUT FROM A FUNCTIONAL USE OF THE SPACE, THEY REALLY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT MANY PEOPLE IN THERE. BUT THEY WOULD BE CONSTRICTED TO RUN THE SANCTUARY SPACE THAT THEY'VE IDENTIFIED AS A CHURCH AND THEN THE REST OF THE SPACE IS OFFICE.

[01:25:01]

SO THEY WANTED TO EXPAND THE CHURCH USE INTO THE REST OF THE BUILDING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET ANOTHER CONDITIONAL USE

APPROVAL. >> AND IF COME BACK AND GET ANOTHER USE OF APPROVAL.

>> AND IF THAT WAS SUBJECTED, IT WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER

CONDITIONAL USE OF APPROVAL. >> AND JUST WHAT I MIGHT MENTION THE BUILDING OWNERS WOULD LEASE A CERTAIN PORTION.

IF THEY WERE TO LEASE THE BACK HALF OUT THAT'S COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM US AND IF THE SPACE WAS EMPTY THEN WE WOULD GO THROUGH THE STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS POSSIBLE.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE

PASTOR? >> WILL YOU MAINTAIN VEHICULAR

ACCESS FROM THE TWO ROADS? >> COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT

QUESTION? >> RIGHT NOW ACCORDING TO THE PACKET, IF YOU DRIVE EITHER IN FROM OPELIKA ROAD OR DEKALB STREET, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TWO ENTRANCES?

>> I HAVE DRIVEN DOWN THAT STREET OR THAT ALLEYWAY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY.

THERE IS CERTAINLY SOME LOW HANGING PROPERTIES THERE TO ADDRESS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER THERE BUT WE WOULD DEFINITELY MAINTAIN LANDSCAPING AND MAKE SURE THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL PART OF THE CITY WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO WORK WITH THE BUILDING OWNER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS MAINTAINED.

>> SO JUST AS A PUBLIC STREET OFF OF DEKALB STREET?

>> THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC STREET IT'S A PUBLIC ACCESS.

IT FUNCTIONS AS A CORNER LOT WITH ACCESS OFF OF DEKALB STREET AND OPELIKA ROAD. SO THE LOT IS NOT INVOLVED AT ALL, THIS IS JUST APPROVING USE OF THE STRUCTURE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE PASTOR?

>> SO THERE IS, THEORETICALLY, THERE IS ACCESS.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. AND SO THEY DO THINK OF ACCESS FROM OPELIKA ROAD AND DEKALB STREET.

BUT IF WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ACCESS OFF OF OPELIKA ROAD, THEY WOULD HAVE THE SAFETY VALVE OF DEKALB STREET WHICH I THINK A LOT OF PARCELS ON DO NOT HAVE A SIDE STREET OPTION AND SO THEY

DO. >> BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT SAFETY VALVE IS OVERGROWN AND CARS ARE UNABLE TO DRIVE ON IT?

>> SAFETY VALVE? >> THERE IT IS, DEKALB RIGHT

HERE. >> I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF OUR PEOPLE ARE USING THAT ENTRYWAY, AS I HAVE BEEN COMING IN AND OUT I HAVE NEVER USED THAT ACCESS. BUT IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT FURTHER AND MAYBE PROVIDE SOME

ANSWERS TO ADDRESS THIS. >> IS THERE ANY WAY JUSTICE THAT WE COULD ENSURE THAT THE LANDLORD OR IT MIGHT BE [INDISTINCT], MAINTAINS THAT SO THAT VEHICULAR TRAFFIC COULD

HAVE AN OPTION TO GO BOTH WAYS? >> YES, INGRESS AND EGRESS CONCERNS WOULD DEFINITELY BE A RELEVANT THING TO MAKE A CONDITION ON. I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING ON YOUR PURVIEW FROM AN INGRESS EGRESS STANDPOINT.

SO THAT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT.

>> I THINK THAT'S MORE APPROPRIATE IF THEY COME BACK FROM AN EXPANDED REQUEST. AT THIS STAGE, DO YOU THINK THAT THEIR SIZE IS SUFFICIENT OFF OF OPELIKA ROAD?

>> I WOULD SAY SO. AND CURRENTLY IF THEY ARE TO GROW, THEY WOULD KIND OF REACH THEIR CAPACITY.

AND THAT WOULD PROBABLY TRIGGER A WHOLE NEW TRAFFIC STUDY AND WE ACTUALLY NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT SECOND ACCESS.

SO I THINK WHAT THEY HAVE APPROVED FOR NOW FROM A CAPACITY STANDPOINT, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY DOWN THE ROAD, BUT DEFINITELY THAT IS SOMETHING IF THEY WERE TO COME BACK TO US WITH A GREATER CONGREGATION, WE WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT TO REQUIRE THEM TO UTILIZE THE SECOND ACCESS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT. IF THEY GO TO MULTIPLE SERVICES, WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO DISCUSS LOGISTICS AND THAT COULD

COME INTO PLAY AT THAT POINT. >> PERFECT.

>> OPELIKA ROAD IS FOUR LANES THROUGH THERE.

IS IT STILL TWO LANES EAST TO WEST.

>> YES, IN THAT SECTION. >> OR FIVE, WITH THE TURN LANE.

THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENTS.

ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. LOOKING AT THE SATELLITE VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, I DON'T SEE A ROAD AT ALL GOING UP TO BEGIN.

>> IT'S NOT A ROAD IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE ACCESS OFF OF

[01:30:02]

OPELIKA ROAD AND DEKALB. AT 6.65 OPELIKA ROAD SO IT'S KIND OF NARROW, FLARES OUT AND THEN THIS THING GOES TO THE EAST

OF DEKALB. >> OKAY.

SO IT GOES INTO A PARKING LOT, IT'S BACK BEHIND THAT BAR AND

GRILL. >> THAT IS CORRECT, IT DOES LOOK LIKE A PARKING LOT, BUT THAT IS ONE LOT.

ALL OF THAT IS ONE LOT SO THAT PROPERTY HAS ACCESS OFF OF DEKALB AND OPELIKA ROAD. OFTENTIMES, YOU SEE IT ON THE BIG ARTERIALS WHERE THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNER, ONCE IT WAS SUBDIVIDED, THEY MAKE SURE THEY STILL MAINTAIN ACCESS ON THE SIDE STREET WHEN THEY CARVED OUT A PIECE ON THAT ROAD.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND.

[10.a.2. Prosper at Plainsman. Outdoor recreational use/subdivision amenity (pavilion, pool, and playground). Property located at 1827 Kenai Pass.]

ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY I. ANYONE OPPOSED?

AND THE MOTION CARRIES. >> MOVING ON TO ITEM 10.A.2 2. PROSPER AT PLAINSMAN. OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL USE/SUBDIVISION AMENITY (PAVILION, POOL, AND PLAYGROUND). PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1827 KENAI PASS.

>> APPROVED. >> SECOND.

>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YOU WILL HAVE 5 MINUTES TO SPEAK WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF

COUNCIL? >> THIS JUST APPEARS THE DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING NICE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THE CITY IS TRYING TO HELP THEM GET IT DONE, IS

THAT A FAIR STATEMENT WE. >> YES.

AND THIS WAS ALSO A TECHNICALITY KIND OF JUST WITH HOW THIS WAS PLATTED. SO -- HOW THEY PLATTED IT.

WHEN THEY PLATTED IT, THEY DID NOT LABEL THIS APPROPRIATELY.

HAD THEY LABELED IT APPROPRIATELY, CONDITIONAL USE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY THEN LABELED. SO IF THIS WAS JUST AN AMENITY FOR THE RESIDENTS, THEY CANNOT BE OUT THERE SELLING TICKETS TO ACCESS TO THE POOL, TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

THIS IS JUST FOR ACCESS FOR THE RESIDENTS.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS