Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

I'll go ahead and call to order the June 9th meeting of the Auburn Plan Commission. And I do want to remind you, if you haven't signed into the back when you entered, please make sure you put your name down on the clipboard back there for the record. And also, there's a copy of the agenda back there as well for you to look at. Can we go ahead and have a roll call, please?

Here. Here. Here.

I can confirm that we do have a quorum. You all should have had access to the May 12th, 2026 meeting notes. Is there any questions on the minutes? Or if not, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve. Second.

Any further discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, all in favor of saying aye? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Is there any need to modify the agenda? On to old business. There is no old business, but we do have four items underneath the new business, the first being anatomist development plan. This is PC development plan 2026-3. I'll go ahead and open a public hearing and turn it over to the staff for the staff report.

National Automotive and Truck Museum of the U.S. Incorporated. They are requesting a development plan approval for what's referred to as the NAPA's cold storage building. It was proposed to be located at 1630 Wayne Street. A development plan requires public hearing was advertised in the SCAR of May 27th, and there were six adjacent property owners notified. So the property boundary itself highlighted BUILDING. WE'LL HAVE ONE ACCESS POINT OFF WAVE STREET WITH A PAVED AREA PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE its way down to the detention basin, which will detain the water and then release the water at a control rate to the creek. Building elevations just show again what the building is supposed to look like. The seven garage doors would actually face north.

The side of the building of the west elevation would be along Wake Street. THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS ZONED TO IS, WHICH IS AN INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THAT ZONING DISTRICT. OUR PROPERTY IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN OUR WELL-HIPPED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT. WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AS FAR AS USE OF THE BUILDING AND CONTAINMENT IS A PERMITTED ALLOWABLE USE IN THAT OVERLAY DISTRICT. The photographs of the property just basically illustrate the three residential buildings that are there. Again, all three of those buildings are going to be demolished. This is the northernmost building. The aerial photograph of the property, it highlights the boundaries of this area and the three homes that are proposed to be demolished. There will be one single family home, but they do not own, adjacent to the building to the south along Wayne Street. And of course the ACD, The southernmost one relocated out to private property and that pole provides service down Wayne Street as far as as far as also We have received one email, just a question regarding the architectural design of the building, and provided information regarding that. A public notice has been posted since May 22nd. So again, with the institutional zoning of the property, the use that they wanna have there is permitted. The building itself is a little over 9,000 square foot. There'll be seven vehicular garage doors facing north and there'll be uh pedestrian doors on both the east and west side of the building to be able to walk into the building without raising one of the larger doors i provided development standards for the institutional district all the setbacks have been met from the proposed building there's really no parking standard minimal parking for a ridiculous storage ability such as this

PROVIDING THE ACCESS TO THE INDIVIDUAL BAIT DOORS OFF OF WAYNE STREET, BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME PAVEMENT AREA THAT PROVIDES PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES THAT COULD BE PARKED THERE YET NOT A LOT FOR THE GARAGE DOORS. THE THREE EXISTING DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE THERE FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WILL ALL BE REMOVED AND, AGAIN, REPLACED WITH ONE ACCESS DRIVE.

I think that's required a long, wide street. That's just the buffer between what would be the property line with a pavement area with a metal roof but that does be our requirements a specific architectural standard states that whatever uh siding materials are used on the front facade that would be the north facade that's the main entrance to the building is what has to be utilized on a public facing facade which would be less facade whether using metal siding and metal trim on the front facade

they're allowed to use that on the side. So it's all four-sided with that material.

And so there has been some concern expressed by a resident upon that part of the proposal, but again, are indicated in compliance with our standard.

If it was a core to overlay, that's a completely different set of standards. That's very specific basic requirements, four-sided architecture to match, totally different standards.

For pedestrian access, there's a sidewalk that will be removed as part of the whole demolition activity there.

But Wake Street is part of a larger trail program that's going to be occurring. The county's going to be working on as far as getting the trail all the way from 11A all the way up to Wake Street. The trail will be going down Wake Street. lane street the madness plans do show a destruction of a deep foot trail segment that would be from their entire property actually it's going to be extended all the way up to where the crosswalk is in front of the acd museum building so they're complying with the trail standards that we have in constructing that they also have off of that they'll have they have a pedestrian side public water sanitary sewer for the building the rest of the building is not required i already mentioned the storm water control and the drainage board has approved the storm water plan for this project so overall the development plan does comply with all the standards of the udo and the staff does recommend approval of this development plan subject to three conditions our

before the building can be occupied. Our final condition is that all the work needs to be done according to the approved plan.

I have submitted proposed findings of that in your consideration.

Thank you very much. Is there any questions from commission members? Or staff? Thank you. We may call you back up. Would anybody like to come and speak on behalf of the petitioner? My name is Don Montesmith. Please come up to the mic and say your name and who you're representing.

I'm Don Montesmith.

I'm treasurer to the board and member of the board of directors authorized to speak. This storage facility is desperately needed for us. We worked with Jim extensively over the last couple of months to make sure everything's in compliance. We just asked him to approve this for us. And it'll be an improvement of that stretch of industry here really well.

All right. Thank you. OK, anybody from the public that would like to come speak on or against the project, please come forward and speak. Please step up to the microphone, state your name and address. On all of these today, we have four of them. Try to limit your comments to about three minutes long. That doesn't just pertain to this one. It pertains to all of them, just so everybody can speak and we can kind of get moving through the four items we do have on the agenda.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Dan Braun, 630 Greenbrier Boulevard in Auburn. I guess I want to say, first of all, I do support this structure. I do believe it's needed, and I would love to see NAPIS have this type of facility available to them. However, I do have a couple of concerns. The statement that it complies with UDO, I think it complies at the absolute minimum.

My belief is because Main Street would be considered an arterial street, the UDO states

clearance from Lincoln Street. Does give an exception, does say that if the driveway can't be 150 feet, then it needs to be at the farthest point of the property from the intersection, which this driveway does not meet that. It does, I will agree, meet the fact that it is within 60 feet, which is the absolute minimum standard UTO list. So I did want to kind of make that point of clarification The other concern that I have is in the 2040 plan in three different places, it states that South Wayne Street is considered to be or could be considered to be an entrance corridor into the city. And I do believe that once the overpass is built over the railroad tracks, it will become even more so. I actually rode my bike down that way the other day. and was really impressed to see that Praxis is making the change to their building. Pokorny's Restoration really did a nice job on the front of their building when they remodeled. The former auto parts store, Dean's Body Shop, I believe now has a concrete or stone-based installation company that they've done a real nice job of their property. buildings that have been remodeled and really dressed up the appearance. My concern with this particular building is the fact that it's going to look like a pole barn. And I would hope that if we can come to some kind of agreement, hopefully with the folks in Atmos, that maybe we can do something a little bit different rather than have a pole barn looking structure in that space. Again, I do support it. I do think Atmos needs a building. I respect their ability to have that. on there. UVO means better as far as dry waste insert, and I would like to see something

There has been talk about a mural or something on the side of the building facing Wayne Street.

You know, saying, hey, you see the district this way. Something that would obviously be approved by the city or whoever approved that. So we have thought about things to address it on.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to come and speak to this project? Anybody else from the public to come and speak to this project? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the commission for any other questions or comments of the project. No, I'm good. No questions or comments? Would you please turn to the last page, the findings of facts? We do have to approve the findings of facts. There are five of them. And there are basically our standards that it meets the 2040 plan and so forth. We need to have those voted on in the affirmative. I'll entertain a motion at this time.

I move to approve the findings of fact for BC Development Plan 2026-003 in the affirmative.

I'll second.

I have a motion and a second. Is there any questions or comments and anything in particular of the five that anybody has a question or issue on? Seeing none, all in favor of approving the finding of the facts for PC development plan 2026-3, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carried. And last but not least, we need to approve this PC development plan. And we do have the three conditions that we need to be mindful of in making the motion.

move to approve PC development plan 2026-003 with the three staff provided conditions.

Second. We do have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Final discussion, I guess? No, I'm good on it. Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you very much and good luck. Item number two, 1000 West Auburn Drive rezoning. This is PC zoning 2026-3. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing and turn it over to the staff for the staff report.

Thank you.

Chris Horton. I've been zoning of what's known as lots 1 through 12 of lot 9 in the Aubrey-Colman division of the city of Auburn. It also includes the east half of what's vacated Hazel Street adjacent to the lots. Requested to rezone the property from currently R3, which is high density The proposed area, that's proposed for, that I talked about the lots, is this area. That is between Hubbard Drive and the Cal Avenue. It is to the west of Dallas Street. The property itself directly, all the lots are zoned R3 property to the north.

our manufacturing building property itself is I did include the Auburn snippet from the Auburn 2040 plan which is the future land use plan the fourth component of any rezoning request is to review what is the Auburn 2040 plan show The property that's on the east side of Dallas, north side of DeKalb, is reflected as residential. Photographs of the property.

I'm sure we've all been very familiar with this. Well maintained by Auburn Manufacturing. It's basically just a very large, green field area.

that's actually a view that would go on the screen of what would be indicated hazel street the project advisory committee did review the uh discuss the application institute for the meeting we we have had several people contact the department request the application

The lots themselves are part of this rezoning request. They've been there since 1914.

I've been doing research. It looks like that in 67, the properties.

I couldn't find where they were sold. Bell and Wilhelm was with White Industrial.

And the zoning of White Industrial stayed on these lots, with these lots, since 1989. Just to back up. Clearly, these lots were part of that Coleman addition. They were intended to be residential lots. This was, you know, going way back with the beginning.

At some point in time, again, the property obtained the line industrial zoning. It had that zoning from 67 until 89. In 89, the city went through a process where we created a new zoning code for the city and an entirely new zoning map for the city. It was at that time to R2, which on that old code was single-family. Later that same year, 1989, the City Planning Commission came forward and reclassified the zoning to R3. The R3 at that time was multi-family residential. They retained that zoning classification until the UDO was adopted.

changed the zoning of that property to R3, but it was under the UDL, R3 is now single-family residential. High density with single-family residential.

So that's the current zoning of the property. That's proposed for the rezoning. I did provide the development standards for the current zoning of R3 as well as the light industrial district, VI1. Certainly VI1 has much higher setback standards Let's start with manufacturing, import, environments, warehousing, storage, all permitted uses within the Iowa zoning district.

Talking with the property owner, the reason for the rezoning request, and he'll be able to clarify this and expand upon this. We have a big manufacturing facility of property.

He owns it. So I would and he also has these thoughts attached to it That he helps that are a better are one that I think it does has created in documentation, but I've seen some issues specifically on financing of the property the most property where you have having a consistent zoning doesn't be able for options specifically for it you were thinking of selling the property consistency and it removes the question of one of these losses own residential that are attached to my property that I know so I think he's trying to address that concern in looking at these lots together planet single

and buy one of those lots it construct a home on that lot but they still need to be set back requirements which is 25 foot off the road five foot side yard so you're probably talking shotgun style houses but it is certainly doable where they can buy two lots across the lot by living home when they can buy all the lots at the low my point being is that most of the lots in they are buildable today there's only the last eight through 11 which are interior don't have any frontage on the street because the city vacated hazel street so those are not billable by themselves they could be combined with another lot or something wanted to i just wanted to point that out that they certainly are billable today under our code and one thing that i didn't mention here that i do

Under the rezoning identified, the setbacks are much greater within the I-1 zoning district.

But if it is rezoned to I-1, even with those setbacks, there is buildable area.

And when I threw it out, calculated it out, you can get about 150 by 200 foot The other bill looks further to the west as far as averaging it out. He wouldn't have to maintain a 100-foot setback. It'd probably be more because of the 780-foot baller drive. He would be able to go the same off the cow.

He would have to maintain a 100-foot setback to walk it. would not be easily be able to have an addition to the building there's a significant storm sewer and sanitary sewer main going between where the existing building is and these lots basically the hazel street right away area um they it'd be it's nothing's impossible storage building it could be a small manufacturing building that's what would be a lot of the property uh just a comment again I've already mentioned the commercial building there on Dallas and Auburn that's the styles beyond salon we have a couple of them we have a single family home there along Dallas Street as well as a a two family residence at the corner of Dallas longer exist so with that staff looks to the you know again our recommendation based upon the 2040 plan it identifies the appropriate future land use as industrial we get zoned it that way which is fine is like says currently billable as residential but the request to reclassify the facility complies with the 2040 plan and that's the important part of that one

that anything that would be built there has to come back to the planning commission to develop a plan. That's the other important aspect of it. So we'll know better if something is proposed, what would happen there. So staff is recommending a commission for this to the common council with a favorable recommendation.

That findings of fact are not required, that there are factors for you, depending on what you consider rezoning.

Thank you. Any questions for the staff?

So, Jim, is zone R3 right now, what uses can you put on it right now?

Just single-family homes.

It could be a single-family detached home. It could be a manufactured home. That's really it. It's just residential use. Okay.

Lots, about 45, 46 feet wide.

You said what are the... 50 feet. What's the setbacks from the side?

Five foot on the side. So you can have a 40-foot wide.

Okay.

Any home that would be built there would have to have a one-car garage.

Okay. So likely if something were to be, I mean, it's possible to put up on 50-foot blocks, more than likely something would be high, too.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. So with that size of the lot, you're looking at small house, manufactured house? Yes. Not trailers? Not trailers. Modular house. Manufactured.

Okay. Any further questions? Thank you. We may call you back up. Would anybody on the petitioner's behalf like to come and speak to the rezoning?

I didn't realize. My name is Chris Gordon. realize I have to convince 11 people to do this.

This property is discombobulated. It's got a lot of things going on.

It's not as simple as looking at 12 lots. It goes back to the last expansion actually encroached into part of that subdivision that's previously plated with these lots. That's one thing. Secondly, in order to purchase that property, I had to convince SBA, it's a loan authorization, to convince them that I'm not in the real estate business. They're not in the real estate business. I'm in the manufacturing business. I did get approved, which I think was in your packet. I did get approval from them. The basis of that was I secured a survey by Foresight. And what came out in the Foresight, besides the fact that it was an integral part of the building, is that, I did not know at the time, but the Hazel Drive and the alley between those toilet blocks had been vacated by the city. So that was one step. And then the other thing that came out was that, yes, I wanted to be consistent with the main property. What came out was a setback. They said, Chris, you have to have a 100-foot setback on the beach. And so that was in consideration. And their conclusion on that, if I may read, was that as a result of the vacation of the planet public right of ways within the adjacent to the lots in question the ability to assess and develop individual lots by a prospector purchaser is severely limited and essentially impractical at this point and if you do when you add up the there's 21 parcels in this of the 21 19 are 30% plus or minus of the property. And of that 19 parcels, some are residential, some of them are light industrial.

It's a mixed bag. But if you add it all up and you look at what you've got, you have a very limited for housing.

You might get one or two homes out of it. And be consistent with the majority of the property, consistent with the second. and the fact that it's been vacated for any kind of residential, it concludes that I'd like to get it cleaned up once and for all. I've got 21 parcels I gotta pay every year, and it's on 30%, 19 of them are in this small area. And the thing that also that came up in the purchase of this, we had a, IDM covenant not to sue. And in that, their summary of that project, summary on page one and two, under the environmental restrictive covenants, DRCs, for use restrictions, it says the owner shall not use the real estate for residential purposes. And that was in the covenant. And so you add all these things together, And I just want to, what I want to do is I want to get it remapped into three partials. And I want to clean up the majority, the 19. I mean, there's a sliver here, there's a sliver there. And it's not a pretty sight. But you add it all up, it just doesn't really indicate to be residential.

So Chris, reiterate that again. So you're saying that there is a restricted covenant in place right now that prohibits residential use?

My understanding is there's a covenant not to sue, and part of that covenant is the environmental certificate of completion voluntary remediation program and the summary of that exhibit one project summary is on the second page it says the owner shall not use the real estate for residential purposes and the story that's pretty clear and um but i mean it was after what was it 1967 did you mention it was it was our one which is what it should have been but then there's been an expansion and 74

In 1984, in 1988, there was another expansion. And then you encroach on each of the previously plotted, well, a portion, not all of it, of the original plotted subdivision. And then the city says, hey, we're going to vacate because this is not practical for residential.

And then you get a surveyor who says, Chris, when it's all said and done, between the setbacks and what you've got in the encroachment and part of the property, really don't have much left for any kind of significant home that I would be proud to build. And then on top of the off is that the idea becomes, hey, I can't use it for residential.

Just to change what you said there for a second. You said R1. It was in 67L1. Light industrial. It was not R1. Yeah, not R1. R1 would be residential. That's what you stated. I just wanted to clarify it was L1. Correct. Sorry. I interrupted another question.

You said that was an IDEM report? I'm sorry? That was an IDEM report? Yes. That you're referring to? Okay. No, I just, that's an Indiana, what's it?

Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

But it all started with the SBA property.

And I had to convince them, and they're not easy to work with, to say the least. I had to convince them. I'm not in the real estate business. I'm purchasing this because I want to be in the manufacturing. He said, well, we don't finance real estate property. And then when we get into the weeds, if you will, in this case, the grass, that's what came out of it. They've approved it. The property was vacated.

One of the expansions in 1988 was built on some of the previous

Gotcha. Any further questions for the petitioner?

So if you get this rezoned, what's your plan? Are you going to develop it? Me?

Over here?

So if you get this rezoned, what is your plan?

Long term, I would like to see it probably stay industrial.

And it might be coming, I don't know, some kind of late industrial. I mean, I don't have any

and got them off you go through the story and then it's all okay and it first started with the sba but yeah you know it's it cleaned it up right now i like to pay three bills instead of 19. but that's not the reason why i want to do it okay okay any further questions all right we may call you back up if other questions arise so thank you very much thank you very much Okay, I'm going to turn it over to the public at this point. So would anybody from the public like to come up and speak? Again, please state your name and address. And then again, time-wise, let's try to keep it to three minutes or so.

I like their pictures and everything. Mine aren't as fancy. I just wanted to show you. My name is Mary Jo Levy, L-A-V-Y. I live at 702 DeKalb Avenue. My front yard faces this lot.

I've lived here 36 years.

I bought it when it was brand new. This is my neighborhood. This is the lot they're talking about, and he does keep it really nice.

And this is me taking pictures from the lot here.

And then these are just pictures of my neighborhood and my front yard and how nice it looks now where nobody's going to see it. Well, anyway, um, this restricted covenant that he talked about, I actually have a copy of it and I have a petition opposing the rezoning. And, uh, I'll give you this and I have a few pieces of, a few documents that I've been able to pull offline about the restrictive covenant and what it's about. And I'll just give you these copies, can I do that?

Sure, I don't know, how many do you have?

The petition has more than 60 names on it opposing the rezoning. And most of them are from the immediate neighborhood that I showed you and that, you know, all around there, all three of those blocks. I got people signed from every single house and, uh, I wrote a little speech or whatever, but okay. So we're asking you not to vote for this rezoning. And I re I circulated a petition while researching the property, after receiving notice of the application to rezone, I discovered there's an environmental restricted covenant attached to the deed since 2011. I think they said that they rezoned it residential in 89. Did they say that? Because in 1989 is when they found there were chemicals in the soil and the subsoil and the groundwater. And because of that, we're opposing this rezoning to protect our families from environmental health and safety risks tied directly to the soil. As you guys may or may not be aware, the site at 1000 Drive carries a heavy industrial footprint. According to official Indiana Department of Environmental Management records, the property is registered under the VRP project number 6931001. State data explicitly shows a documented history of hazardous chemical contamination at this site, specifically industrial solvents affecting the surface soil, subsurface soil, and the groundwater. Because of this hazardous history, this neighborhood has serious concerns about its rezoning. Rezoning this residential lot to light industrial opens the door for commercial development, which requires heavy digging for deeper foundations, commercial parking lots, and commercial utility lines. Excavating soil that the state has flagged for solvent contamination risks stirring up historical taxes directly next to our homes. Chemical solvents in the groundwater can create toxic vapors that rise through the soil. If this site is commercialized, what recent testing has been done to prove the vapor intrusion will not migrate into our residential yards or affect our indoor air quality. Chemical solvents, I already read that. A yes vote tonight gives the developer a blank check to bring commercial traffic, heavy excavation, and unknown businesses onto a recovering environmental cleanup site. Therefore, I feel the safest and responsible use for this land is to keep it zoned exactly as it is residential. There was an application filed back in 2005 or 2006 trying to get it rezoned. We petitioned that as well. The point I'm making is we never heard about any of these chemicals or any of this environmental contamination during that whole thing. So I'm hoping that you guys could put in the public record of this meeting that project number, which is 6931001, put it in the official record. And please vote no for the stream zoning. that reason because there are still chemicals in that ground and that's why they've got the restrictive covenant they've cleaned it up through the years and got them lowered but they're still there and so to build or anything on that lot you can stir up the chemicals the subsoil the pure on water it's just i think it's a danger for not just our community but auburn auburn's community in our beautiful neighborhood. And I think that's that in a nutshell.

Thank you. I have a question for the assistant city attorney here. With a restricted covenant like this, I don't have it. She says she has it. If we rezone this, it would still follow the property, correct? Okay. That would still follow the property even if it's rezoned, correct?

Yes, it does run with the property.

So if it says you shouldn't put residential there, something would still need to happen for any construction to be there, correct?

Can I make a clarification? Sure, yes.

Because I'm not privy to that.

We're mixing a few things here. So, yeah, we have the IDEM report. It was recorded. There's been remediation. What's important about this whole IDEM report is what property is it specific to. So it provides a very specific legal description. It is legal description of the manufacturing building property. It is not part of the 12 lots that are proposed for rezoning. That was never contaminated. According to the report, the contamination was in the southwest corner of the industrial building that has been remediated. So when we read that residential is not allowed, residential is not allowed on the legal description for the property, which is the industrial building. it does not, the IDEM report does not pertain to the 12 lots. It's not included with the legal descriptions. That makes sense. Just in looking at the details of the weeds, I just wanted to clarify that. But yeah, the covenants do apply and no residential use applies to the main industrial building property.

But not these 12 lots. Okay. Thank you. Covenant covers all the real estate.

It does not.

Not the way it's written with the legal description in the covenant. Okay.

Well, I might want to research a little bit more because I'm not really sure myself. I just know that it's really scary that there are chemicals. And yeah, the majority of them are in the southwest corner. But they had chemicals in other areas that they actually were able to get rid of, but which left that Southwest as the area that they could never get the chemicals.

And you did say they went through remediation and that's taken care of, right? Yes. Thank you.

Yeah, I know I had a remediation cleanup, and that's why at the end of that, they put this covenant, restricted covenant on it.

On the other properties.

On the whole property.

No, not as terms of what they're saying. So I get it. Thank you. I want to give other people an opportunity to speak as well. So thank you very much. Would anybody else from the public like to come and speak on or against? Please come up, state your name and address.

And I just want to start off by saying that I personally oppose the resuming for this because one, there is concern of potential chemicals in the ground. If there is anything that gets stirred up in there, we've got a bunch of kids that play around. We've got people that walk their dogs.

with folks outside and be able to see your neighbors and everything.

I don't want to lose folks to the higher traffic area. Children play outside, many of us are pet owners, and folks frequently take walks around the block to exercise. a peaceful neighborhood, and I'd really like to keep it that way, and I think most of us would. We care for our homes, we love and take pride in the community we've got, and any kind of business going in that small plot of peaceful area would greatly alter the characteristics of the land. The other thing I'm concerned about in general is property evaluation. positive for us homeowners there. The existing area is beautiful. I love that it's open and we can see just some grassland.

Having more buildings just kind of in the way would be, frankly, nicer.

But also, I think it helps keep a peaceful area for kids to play in from time to time.

But the health concerns that I have issues with. I don't really want anything being brought into our homes that could cause any further damage. So I do request that you vote no.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public like to speak on or against the project? Sure, let's get one more question, and then... Yeah, let's go ahead and have you give the reply. Hold on, hold on, hold on. If you want to reply specifically to that one, please come up and make a quick rebuttal. I had something I was going to reply as well, but I was going to wait until the end.

I'm hearing a lot about this remediation that took place, and exactly my reason why it's not inhabitable for residential. For what? The reasons that they're bringing up. You don't want to disturb that. It's been remediated. But I don't want to play around with that as a residential. And that's why they put it in a covenant. It can't be for residential.

Okay, thank you. Go ahead and come on back up.

Hello, my name is Kenneth Heights. I live at 619 DeKalb Avenue, just right down the street. We already have issues with semi-traffic there. And if we have more industry, it just increases that semi-traffic flow. Plus, if we have another factory come in, our water and electricity will go up. That's all I have to say.

Any further discussion? I mean, I'm sorry. Any further comments from the...

okay you can give them to her hello my name is neil jewell i work at i mean i live at 707 hellett avenue pretty close to ryan there um i am against this rezoning we do have uh chemicals i have that when i i lived at that house for 21 years had to have our house mitigated for radar.

So, and I am one of those people that takes the walk around the block with my dogs and with more traffic from the semis it would be very unsafe. We have kids riding their bikes there and there are signs that says no

trucks and yet they still go and sometimes even workers from the 1061 Black Shadow who probably wants to buy that land and build on to their establishment there and that's an asshole company and their stuff smells horrible they're loud and

At times when the wind picks up just right, we can smell that for a long time.

And I would rather not see that result to where Black Shadow can build on to their establishment.

Anyone else from the public like to come to speak? One up.

Matthew Cope. I'm not an immediate resident of the area. I am representing my wife and my son on this issue. We have an invested interest in ownership in 1810 and 1812 Dallas Street. Our property is directly east The entire neighborhood is directly affected by today's request to rezone. Over 43 immediate neighbors close to the area have signed a circulated petition to stop the rezoning application. While the southwest area does include some light industrial zoning, as noted, their property values go down for the residents as history says yes this sign type of rezoning request came up over 16 18 years ago another company wanted to resell in that area from r3 to commercial luckily the neighbors rallied together and got the rezoning request denied now again it's time to deny the rezoning

I have a quick question. Do you have any data to support your saying that the property values go down? I have heard that time and time again, yet I have never seen any data provided. Well, Jim, come on. I'm just asking. Do you have any data today with me?

No. Okay. But if your house is listed, your house where you're at now.

Thank you. Anybody else from the public like to come and speak? Anyone else? Does it need to be in the public hearing or after?

I'm going to go ahead. No one else wants to come up and speak. Go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the commission for further discussion.

Yeah, I've got a question. I just want to make sure whether we keep it R3 or zone it to I2 or I1. If they could still build on it, is that correct? You could still put a structure on that property regardless of the zoning decision?

Yes. So under the current zoning, as I mentioned, you could build single family residence on the A lot combination of lots. If we reclassify the zoning to I-1, there will be a buildable portion of that property for a building to house an I-1 use.

Yeah. So it's basically just a different use, but a building could still go on that site.

Yes. A building or buildings. Yes. Okay. And then the...

Other question is the item report did state that those parcels, that lot we're considering today, was not contaminated. Is that correct?

Well, the item report was, again, based upon a property that had a specific legal description. Yes. The specific legal description did not include the 12 lots that are part of the request this evening. So it didn't address contamination cleanup or anything because it wasn't part of that.

So they did look at that section they just looked at.

They were looking at the main industrial building, and there was contamination there. It was remediated, and then they placed a covenant on that property, but not the 12 lots. Thank you. That's the way I read it, so.

I'm curious about what caused the contamination. What was there before?

Don't know. I mean, it was chemicals. I don't know the specifics without getting back into the report.

Was there a building there?

Yes, there was a manufacturing building there. That's gone now.

No, the building is still there.

That building is still there. So that contamination came from.

Yeah, we'll let him clarify.

Okay. My understanding. And this goes back to the time in Essex. And they were using solvents and the way they disposed of it.

And then United Technologies wanted to purchase it, and they couldn't because they found a contamination.

And from Indiana, they said, hey, you have done what you needed to do to remediate it. You completed it. However, there's these restrictions. And it's half and half. How much do you want it for residential, knowing that you have that? And I think they built a case that you really don't want to put mums on that. And it's like I said, right now it's already encroached into the plot, some of the plot previously of that subdivision. And then the city comes along and says, we're going to vacate that. Well, why are they vacated? They vacated because we're not going to put the houses on it.

But yet, the masks, those of us, are residential.

So I'm sort of a no-man's land here. I've got 19 parcels, and half of them are light industrial, and most of them, a lot of them,

Yeah, we're repeating the same arguments. We understand that. Is there any further questions?

No, the only thing I wanted is clarity because we've heard three different versions. You're unfortunately also echoing the same that's in conflict with what the report's identifying is. The covenants aren't imposed on these 12 lots. They're imposed on an alternative section of that.

I understand that it applies to the property of 1,000 Auburn Drive. and that real estate is part of 1000 Baldwin Drive.

Okay.

Okay. Public hearings closed. That was just clarification. Any further discussion? I mean, as of right now, there's no plans to build anything on the site. It's more of a cleanup to get fewer bills, other things, and get it around. I get everybody's concern. Is there any more?

It might be helpful to explain what we look at as the city and the board for spot zoning and how this is not that.

Can you scroll to the zoning map?

The good thing is it is so high with the 2040 plan. Yeah, right.

When you look at spot zoning, you take a zoning district that is isolated by itself with nothing around it that matches that zoning. That C1 zoning is... Could be, meets the terminology of spot zoning. When you take the red, when you take the request this evening, it's already I-1 to the west and to the south. So we're extending the boundary north and east. That is not what people call spot zoning. Okay. And plus, and the other part of spot zoning is it's not compatible with what would recall the future land use map. In this case, it is compatible with the future land use map.

Jim, I have a question. If it would get rezoned, so the entire piece of property would be light industrial, once there is a project proposed for that lot, would there then be a meeting where that project would have to get approved?

Yes, there would.

So at that time, the neighbors could all see what's proposed to go in there and have comments about something real instead of imagined.

That is correct, yes. So the new building upon the area we're talking about this evening would trigger a development plan requirement. which is a public hearing process back in front of this board. So that's where they have to come in and show the specific plans for the property. Where's the building going? Setbacks, access, parking, the architecture of the building. They have to show all those details, just like we saw with the Natmas building. That is required. Thank you. I got a question for Jim.

So it sounds like he's got multiple parcels. tax parcels and it sounds like you would be interested in combining tax parcels can he combine tax parcels that are zoned differently or would they need to all be in the same zone i don't know that you could combine if it's different zoning i know we recently did that we the county recently allowed that somebody to combine lots that actually had two different zoning designations um

If there's different land use designations, such as we have the industrial land use and then we have vacant, I wouldn't want to answer. I don't know for sure that you can combine that. Certainly, if these are rezoned to industrial, he can combine all the industrial lots into one for tax purpose, tax ID purposes.

And that might be... something you'd be interested in doing if all the property was zoned the same, combine all those tax parcels into one parcel, eliminates the multiple.

Can I point something out on this? When we talk about the 12 lots, this is Hazel, which was vacated by the city, which wipes out the frontage for these lots here. Also in addition was his alley was vacated. So you've lost, you've lost that. Okay. Now you look at the survey, which they say it's a hundred feet setback. Now you've eliminated this. You've eliminated the front of that. You eliminated that. You're down to basically two lots, but it's all said and done. So when you say, Hey, that's a, You know, that's for 12 lots. It's not. You're really getting down to two between the setback here and the back, the setback here and the front, and then the vacated aisle. You know, you're really down to that.

And this portion here is the original top of the subdivision. So it's, you know, it doesn't look as clean as it appears.

So just to clarify, though, with the 100-foot setback, you said the average, though, of the other would be about 75. So 70, 75 wouldn't quite be the 100.

That's right. That's under the industrial zoning. Residential zoning has a much less setback. So you can build more than two homes on all that acreage.

But if it got rezoned industrial, that's when it shortens up the area that's buildable.

It does.

Immensely. It takes out two acres. Eight of the 12 properties, basically. So it's very little.

Yeah. I still think you could fit a fairly good-sized building because, again, the setbacks won't be 100. They will be reduced between 70 and 80 foot off of DeKalb and off of Auburn. You still have 100 off of Dallas. But you can still, within that and stay out of where the utilities are, put a decent-sized building or buildings.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. And as it's zoned right now, and by your understanding of what IDAM said, we can put one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight manufactured houses on it right now.

It's possible. Yes. Yes. You certainly, the use would be allowed. And with the setbacks, you would be able to fit multiple residences there. Yes. Okay.

with any development plan that comes before it whether it be residential or um industrial it triggers all routing which includes county water and soil and all of the other associated departments that are committees that need to review it is that true because it's planted lots right now for us or not for residential sorry for industrial yes yes for residential no we it's more of an internal review

unless somebody wanted to come in and replant the lots.

So safety was the predominant concern. Being industrial actually offers them another layer of protection to identify and mitigate risk as well.

Yes.

Any further discussion? The rezoning does not have findings of facts. However, on the last page, if you can scroll down to the last page, We do have these considerations, these five considerations that we need to take into account. So please briefly review those. And at this point, if there's no more discussion, we will need a motion to forward this to council. Now there are three options. It's got to go to council no matter what. It's got to be a favorable recommendation, unfavorable, or no recommendation. So at this point, we need a motion to forward that, one of those three different ways, to the council.

I would move to forward a favorable recommendation for PC zoning 2026-003 to council.

I second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? We'll try this as a voice vote. We'll just see how it goes here. So all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, it's unanimous. Okay, on to the remaining two items underneath new business. These are both for North Point. The first is a rezoning, the second is a primary plat. So I will go ahead and open the public hearing for PC zoning 2026-4. and turn it over to the staff for the staff report.

Thank you. Rudy Ida, who's representing the property owner, which is A6 Properties LLC.

main street is actually north of the bridgewater north subdivision requesting the change of zoning from currently it's a split zone a part of it so agricultural under the city and a larger part of the property is actually under county uh zoning jurisdiction which is the immediate family residential uh so they're requesting request by the zoning of the entire property to the city district which is part THERE WERE 14 ADJACENT PROPULAR GIVEN BUILDINGS. THE PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE YELLOW, AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE ZONING MAP HERE, THE GREEN area of the city and currently it's it's so agricultural the whole area there was so agricultural back in the day and as development occurred it has changed its zoning classification so this is kind of a remnant of days of yesterday if you would a county that has all that area that you see in bolido that's actually so the r2 accounting the property owner

with that and with the next time your agenda and what their requests will be zoning the entire property um can become a fall under the city zoning so any property owner in the county when you're adjacent to the city you can request your property being in the etj and have city zoning classes If you see the adjacent zoning, the subdivisions both to the west, to the south are still R1, and now we have some R2 property, which is the larger undeveloped tract to the west.

The future land use plan, the 2040 plan does designate residential as the appropriate use of this property moving forward.

A few photographs of the property. Right now, Approach Drive, according to the subdivision, does dead end to the north. So you see the dead end of the street. This is showing the properties divided very heavily wooded on the east and Tillamook land on the west. That's a good picture.

Approach Drive would actually go right along that trail line from the subdivision. That tree line, I'm sorry. Area photograph probably actually

south and to the west and then wouldn't land a lot of wetland in the area and floodplain to the north and to the east so project advisory did discuss the rezoning application at institute's fourth meeting we've received uh at least four inquiries a couple today actually came in but we post the public notice sign that does draw a lot of attention uh people asking what's going on and that's in their neighborhood. So most of the, there hasn't been an objection listed to me. There have been concerns that there's just been an interest in what's happening there. The next item of your agenda shows a more detailed plan, and that's what I've been showing anybody interested in the project. So again, I mentioned the voluntary annexation petition will be brought forward to council at its next meeting. And again, the jurisdiction,

land is currently in the etj area of the city okay what i do note that the um i already mentioned that the annexation of the property does not change zoning when you annex it it always retains the zoning that it had knowing when

residential subdivision to be built there.

One thing to note, I mentioned that you can actually see it here on the city's building. The Bridgewater subdivision is R1.

There are a number of lots within that subdivision that are non-conforming, meaning they do not comply with

that they wanted to have the lots match the lots there for bridgewater north one it'd be the requirements are one so they they came in if you recall and resold that area to r2 again a lot of the lots still meet the requirement but there's also a considerable number that are

So the lots are not considered non-conforming. The standards for the R2 I provided here, so the standards would be the 10,000 square foot minimum lot and a 60 foot minimum lot width. And I have a setbacks that apply to the R2.

Again, this is a Siegel family residential subdivision, Siegel family residences.

coincident with the subdivision of North Hawaii proposal, just for reference.

Thank you very much. Is there any questions for the staff? Okay, thank you. Am I calling back up? Would someone on behalf of the petitioner like to come forward and speak to the project? Please come forward, state your name.

I am Amy Schweitzer. I am with A6 Properties.

question for the petition. Thank you. Thank you.

We may call you back if there's questions.

Anybody in the audience like to come up and speak on Oregon's the project? The zoning? Yeah, sorry, not the project yet. Yeah, the second one's the development plan, sorry. Just the rezoning. Okay, seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the commission for discussion. Any further discussion? I'm comfortable with it. Okay, she's already flipped to the back page. I was going to tell her to do that, but we've got the five considerations again. These are not findings of facts. I think it fits pretty well with the surrounding area. So again, we need to make a motion to either forward this with a favorable, unfavorable, or no recommendation to the council. There's no findings of fact. It's the five considerations.

Move to forward PC zoning 2026-004 with a favorable recommendation to council.

Second.

Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

Motion carried.

On to the primary plat, PC primary plat 2026-2. Go ahead and open the public hearing and turn over the floor to the staff of the North Point primary plat.

Let's get through most of the report specifically, get into the details of the subdivision point-to-point. The development did go through the routing committee, several reviews, and you'll see the comments there. There's still a change that needs to be made with the legal description of the primary plan that is being worked on and uh it's one of the routing comments that i do identify as a condition to comply with the oppressive routing conference project advisory met back on june 4th to review this application again we've had a number of residents inquire about the subdivision and just wanted to know what would be proposed What they, with the primary plan, the application will follow coincident with one another, but you also see in addition that the rezoning of the property in R2 does need to occur in the primary plan if you make a decision to be effective.

I mentioned the development standards for the R2, so all the lots meet the plot area, the lot width requirements, and then there would be the applicable set match for any new home in the R2.

There are utilities, water, sewer, are currently on approach drive to the dead end of approach drive over to continue to the north to serve the property. There's electric service available to provide electric service to the site. The wetlands.

primary plaque really shows that one with boundary on the flat so it demarcates basically an untouchable area so no development can occur within that level of area no excavation could occur within that level restore water control

are um there's currently a county drain that crosses to the properties if you see on the drawing it's fake there's a gas blue line that is a current tile it goes through the property it has previously been relocated as part of subdivision development both for bridge water and for greeners

that has not gone through that process yet that's that'll be an important step when we get to infrastructure plans they do propose to uh construct a detention pond in the southeast corner of the subdivision it's a heavily flooded area right now so they will have to be triggered before this but that's the most logical place for a detention basin for the subdivision the county grant will not go into that

will be directed to the new detention basin, which will then release water to that county tile. Our open space requirements for this subdivision, which are exceeded because of the common areas that they're providing.

They're over 33% of the sites are permanent open space. There is a requirement in the UDL for connectivity. one way out if you would there is a connectivity index this proposed primary plan does not provide all the connectivity requirements that are necessary it does fall below the udo requirements the connectivity that they're proposing of course approach drive to the south is the main the only access to the property additionally we will be proposing a east way of basically farmland right now that is to the east of the property so that would be their future connection just like bridge

exist to the north and really limit us to any potential to get access out to the county roads in the north. So really the only place to go is to the east.

There's a little bit of common property line between a very large tract that the applicant owns, undeveloped south of Breeders Glen, but it's not enough to have a street in there. So there's not enough ride or wind width to make a connection

and Planning Commission to, in essence, grant a waiver to consider what are the factors and what are the development around improvements, connectivity, are there environmental, are there topographic issues? I think that's what the staff is looking at, and I think the city is looking at as far as providing connectivity as much as they can. There's also a component of pedestrian connectivity discussion as well I know they're the information documentation the applicant submitted talking about pedestrian connectivity options certainly sidewalk connectivity to the south of the Bridgewater will be continued through the entire subdivision that does lead into the next item of pedestrian connectivity which any new public street within the city is required to have a 5 foot sidewalk

all the lots within the proposed primary plan will have five foot sidewalk in front of them there's one component on approach drive that is common area so approach drive common area a is to the east where the wetland area you know you gotta you have the roadway there which you also have if you have that five foot sidewalk along the side of the roadway it's a way to approach it to the wooded area what the applicant is proposing on the primary plan is a little bit of white path that is a proposed natural trail that will that place partly exists within the woodland area northern most lot all the way south along approach drive to the next available public lot available lot as i looked at and you know there is sidewalk connectivity for every lot to get back down to the bridge water all the way down the morning the there's sidewalk on the east side of approach driving wherever there's So I think connectivity is still provided, it's just not your typical sidewalk that you see. But again, every lot has access to a sidewalk to get you back into town.

So that is a second, in essence, waiver request, is instead of doing a public sidewalk on that side of Approach Drive, they're proposing to do the trail. I already mentioned the East West Roadway is a sawgrass way

is a requirement right now if you look at the primary plan it's just dead ends and the city no longer just allows a street to get in that property like what approach drive did there has to be a way to turn around maybe for emergency vehicles service vehicles like the requirement is to have a uh at least a temporary cul-de-sac it either needs to be upon the property of the subdivision or it can be on an adjacent property if there's an easement the details of that have not been worked out in the plan as broad shows it going to the property line but again that has to be addressed before we would approve any uh infrastructure plans for what's known as section two of the subdivision so i'm just pointing that out

that it has been brought up to the applicant to address it.

It's just details perhaps, the ability to put that temporary cul-de-sac on the property to the east. There are two phases for the subdivision. Can we scroll to the plat?

If you look at the plat drawing,

part of section one this is providing the detention for the entire subdivision a lots of long sawgrass way are part of section two there was discussion recently about common area a is actually in section two and in reality when we consider the trail we're going to consider that That segment, Common Area A, probably should be in Section 1 as well. We have not discussed this with the applicant.

This just came up very recently.

But it is our thought that Common Area A should be part of Section 1, and then some type of, something in place to allow the public to walk upon that common trail. Because again, the sidewalks are public for everybody, not just the residents of North Point. If we're gonna allow the waiver, that's, you know, we support that as staff. Like the idea of the natural trail, there just needs to be some protection for the public on that trail, you know, as they get back to the public sidewalk. So we believe that section light perhaps should be redrawn. Section two along Sawgrass Way is fine, or phase two. But common areas A and B should be part of section one class.

uh that would be a recommended conditions not in your staffing board uh that's what that would recommend so as we get to the recommendation that we have recommended conditions and there's the two waiver requests by the applicant we feel a staff both are reasonable requests don't you try or negatively impact the subdivision in any way the proposed sidewalk

request we feel again since all the lots have access to a true concrete public sidewalk the primary plan complies with all the other requirements and standards of the UDL so staff does recommend approval of the two waiver request and recommend the primary plan subject to what I have listed here five conditions and proposes six to one

the first condition as i already mentioned is um approval of the classification of zoning needs to occur for this to the archery district for this primary plan to be valid that drainage board still needs to approve the storm water plan which includes a relocation of the county drain a temporary cul-de-sac does need to be provided for the eastern terminus of sawgrass way that would be again part of the infrastructure plans for section two

uh there is a requirement for the storm water management BMP maintenance agreements needed that's done for all of our projects in the city and then a routing comment that I mentioned need to be addressed with revised plan sheet whatever proposes the sixth condition is inclusion of common area A in section one of the subdivision and that provisions made for public access to the consideration Thank you any questions for staff and the commission members So Jim is common area be part of section one. It is the detention base is part of section one.

Yes Because of the trail because of the trail Yes So be clear

annexation they don't technically have to approve the annexation it is a voluntary annexation council won't but it technically not required we have subdivisions that we approve the platform okay third is the cul-de-sac drawing

Would it be better suited to wait until those are approved for us to approve the primary plan? I mean, the primary plan, if you approve it, the primary plan is not going to be valid without the rezoning.

It doesn't comply. They won't be able to go to the next step of secondary plans that won't comply with the requirements. It will have to be drastically changed without the rezoning.

So having a primary plan conditioned upon rezoning, I think we've actually either done it

has to be done it has to be addressed when the next step if you approve primary plan that zoning happens their next step is infrastructure plans and staff is not going to allow that to go to the board of works for acceptance or approval without that temporary call is that being addressed somehow i just don't think enough time it was alive for the applicant to secure an easement off-site if that's what they wanted to do otherwise you probably wouldn't

I've heard the horse issue before. That's one of the arguments I had before, but it was alleviated by assigning it as a condition that would make it a moot point if it failed.

And I'd rather not have the petitioner have to come back to another plan commission meeting if it's not needed.

Anything further for staff?

Okay, thank you. We may call you back up. Would somebody on behalf of the petitioner like to come forward and discuss the project and in particular the sixth condition that We're just made aware of.

Good evening, Brett Miller, MLS Engineering. Thank you, Jim, for that presentation. We have no issues adding the wetlands areas in section one. It's kind of probably something we just overlooked. But I think the wetlands is something that the developer wants to use as a nice feature for the subdivision and the reason for the trail.

I think the only other thing I would like to add would be on the drain rerouting. you know, red flags at that time of, you know, absolutely not.

They were in favor of what we were drawing up.

So I think that's pretty much it.

I don't need to answer any technical questions.

Anybody from the commission have any questions?

The cul-de-sac, did you answer that?

That's going to be in section two, I think.

I think would make mention that ideally maybe something offsite. It's a temporary turnaround. Section two, it is all wooded section. Ideally, when we started this, it's like we want to keep as much trees

Any further questions?

I don't know if it'd be for you or for the applicant, but the public access on a common area from a covenants restrictions or a liability standpoint, are you guys prepared to make that degree of consideration for public use on your private land for that trail aspect?

I don't think we have an issue with it. We'll try to limit that to the trail,

just showing you something pretty.

It's gonna look like this, you know, how we handle that. That'd be kind of limited to maybe just the limits of that space.

Try to make this drill a nice feature for the neighbors. Okay, thank you.

just curious. How does the, is the trail maintained? I could have missed it, but is it the trail maintained at all? Or is it kind of like set it and forget it?

Sure. So,

For example, Bear Creek has one, and we've put one back through between Cub Drive and Kodiak Trail. And inherently, it's neighborhood HOA members just going back and clearing the brush and clearing it as a walkable path we've laid. sawgrass and material and stuff down there to help ensure it's clear, but it's a nature walk. It's not a reinforced... I would imagine this would be something relatively similar.

That example, did it take the place of a public sidewalk? Nope.

It was actually something one of the Cub Scouts and one of the residents put in as part of a Cub Scout project or a Boy Scout project and had just since been added and continued.

Mm-hmm.

Any further questions? Okay, thank you. We may have more questions for you. Anybody from the public like to come and speak to the project? Please state your name and address.

Okay. Hi, Mr. Finchel.

Hi, Mr. Retired Person.

I'm Jamie Marley. I live at 2009 Approach Drive in Auburn. Yes. And I don't know, was it you that I talked to on the phone? Okay, good. We've lived in the subdivision North Phyllis for eight years. And for those eight years, we've had construction, you know, getting the houses built. We were one of the first 12 homes there. And it's pain, right? So we love the idea of this and we're not opposed to any of that, but what we are opposed to is the approach drive entrance only to this development, right? Because rocks, cement, electric, everything comes through and they park their cars. We've got lots of kids, you know, back in that area now, lots of travel, and that's going to be the only entrance to doing anything. So we would like to see in that area like a construction only temporary entrance access somewhere other than Approach Drive. And I went riding around, you know, taking a peek. And so I looked at that exact part that you were talking to me about, about the south of Greenhurst, Greenhurst One, and I guess it would be north of Andy's past property. And, you know, I don't think that that's an accessible road, but I do think that it's accessible for people to get through to do that kind of work. You know, someplace other, I don't know where it would be, we've talked in great length about it, but that's just our major concern, is that's the only access for, what is it, 44? Plot 44? That's a lot of years. You know, it took like, And Emily was really great at getting all of our stuff sold and that things were going up, up, up, up. I think we have 32 lots. I'm not sure in the villas. But it took eight years to get it done with tractors and trucks everywhere. And we're all like, woohoo, it's done. Now it's not, you know. So now everything is going to come back. And that's just the only concern that we have. We just wanted to go on record saying that, so.

So you're talking about to the west, that farmland area? I think it's being farmed right now. So that's where you were kind of saying, but I think it is being... Yeah, I know.

Yeah. there's there's space there i don't know if it's a possibility or not but we just wanted to go on record anyone else from the public like to come and speak

Hello, my name is Joan Waldron, and I live at 2018 Approach Drive. And I would like to second everything that she said. I'm only in my home five years, and I don't get paid with you because I'm done with the nail clops in the ceiling and just the dirt in the streets. And so I know that that doesn't seem like a big thing.

I hear you live there.

And I guess I'd like to know, with 44 homes being built what is the percentage that our traffic is going to increase? And what is the mileage from where a coach drive ends now into this street? And I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that street that goes north of there. You said they could cut across eventually? No? They cut across?

We're it?

So no plan B is in order if we protest and it falls on... ears that really don't want to hear it. So I would appreciate it if you would consider, if that's going to go in, and it sounds like that part is a done deal with the North Point company, that you would at least try to consider another street. I mean, you're telling me there is none?

None at this time. They don't know it's adjacent to the property.

The only one that connects to that property is Approach Drive.

There's no adjacent property or public access that doesn't dead-end into a cul-de-sac anywhere near the access point.

No, and...

To maybe give you some context, I live out in Bear Creek, so I've got that as a very good frame of reference. There's currently now slotted to be 213 houses, and it took about 25 years to get a secondary access as it built south to County Road 56. So just 25 years later, there was built out far enough south where there was an additional access. There was roughly 270 homes out there with one single entrance. As it built out through nine sections. So I understand the pain point. I have three houses in there. But unfortunately, without a degree of connectivity, when you do have that much mileage, it makes it a very difficult thing. difficult consideration. And this is 40 houses compared to 240, and that didn't bridge a requirement from public safety or others to require a secondary access.

To reiterate, it took, I don't even know how many homes were here when I got here. There was five.

There was five. And, you know, I think even what she's saying is just, we're looking at something temporary. We're not looking to have anything built or anything like that. Just let the construction workers come down at temporary access to come do that stuff. That's all I'm asking. I think that she'd be happy with that as well, you know.

It still has to mess our homes though.

If they don't put a temporary in right now for construction, yeah. But you're right, if they, yeah, the 44th, it would just be our entrance.

What is the mileage? Do you have any idea from where approach ends and the end of this subdivision? Because even if you take three, and is it going to be two-story family homes? Could they put apartment buildings in there?

No. Okay, good.

But Is it going to be like villas or just two-story family homes? Like we got a mix in Bridgewater.

Jim, do you want to explain the R2?

Excuse me?

Do you want to explain the zoning that we went through prior and what can go on the homes tour? Yeah. Jim.

It's restricted to single-family detached homes. They could be a villa home like the Bridgewater North. It could be just a non-villa home, but they will be single-family detached homes. So yeah, I don't know if there's two story, one story that I don't believe that has been made that the city doesn't control that. We only control the minimum size of the home.

Thank you.

Anybody else from the public?

Anybody else from the public?

I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it back over to the commission for further discussion. Any further discussion? Okay, before we go into findings of facts, I believe we need a motion to add a number six condition. I wrote down something, but it's not what you said. I said common area A, trail to be included in phase, in section one. You said it more. I'll set that motion. be stated as number six.

Could it be as simply stated as to five presented motions of the one verbally detailed as the sixth by staff? Because it's on record, we can go back and look at the notes to pull the exact language.

OK, I guess we don't need to add number six until we do that then. So I was going to add that first, but that's fine. Let's go ahead and take a look at the findings on. Again, we have our standard five findings. We need to approve those. So I need to entertain a motion.

Move to approve findings of fact for PC primary plot 2026-002 all in the affirmative. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on those? Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carried. So we do need a motion then to approve with the two waivers and the five plus one conditions.

move to approve PC primary plat 2026-002 with the two waiver considerations as noted by staff, the five written presented staff conditions, as well as the one verbally stated by staff during their staff report.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. On to reports. Address report.

Thank you. One address item this evening. The appeals told something it's gone through a little bit of a change since the play commission looked at it being that at one point there were a few flexes approved as the town hall buildings about 15 units in the back quarter that plan has changed where they removed proposed townhouses only doing the duplex units So we have addressed. These are now public streets initially. They were going to be private. They will now be public street. So one access off of County Road 36A and then a north-south cul-de-sac road in the middle of the development. Road name would be Sloan Court. Just a quick question. This is a side note. How long ago was that development plan approved?

Right, the percentage.

It's been in the works for a couple of years.

Yeah. Okay. So you say it doesn't trigger it to come back. Why does it not trigger it to come back?

There are certain thresholds that have to be met if they're changing, like the access points off of the county road.

Certainly, you know, it's a PD district, so the plan development district allowed certain uses. It changed. They got rid of the townhomes. Well, that didn't trigger it to come back. They had another use. They just... they've kept the duplex units. They didn't make enough changes. The interior roadway, it used to be a looped roadway, if you recall. Now it's just the one cul-de-sac. Didn't feel like that really triggered a whole new primary class.

Many years ago, we passed an ordinance, I believe part of the UDO or whatever, that certain things didn't have to come back to plan commission if modifications were made.

So, yeah. When they were deemed basic and administrative, if there were minor changes to the plot that did not overall change the scale of the program.

And that was spelled out. I just don't remember everything that was spelled out.

Yeah, that was five years ago or so, at least. One question, though. This confuses me because it's a dual-ended cul-de-sac with the same name going in as well as going parallel. That seems different. Shouldn't it be two different street names?

There was discussion.

Is there a north and a south Sloan Court at that point? No.

There's a similar situation in Bridgewater. I don't remember what street it is.

One of the bridge water areas that are just like that, that we used as an example or reference. Same type of situation.

All right. Any further discussion? All in favor of the address report, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Anything further from board members? City, county, liaison?

We're getting into something fun. Animal feeding day. OF OPERATIONS. WE CONSIDERED SOME TEXT CHANGES TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. MOSTLY THAT WAS JUST SOME CLARIFICATION. THEY WENT FROM A 10-FOOT SET BACK TO A 30-FOOT SET BACK FOR A 299 COUNT OF CATTLE. this is going to be something that's going to be kind of a big deal because there's a lot more of these operations moving into the county especially the east side and we don't really have any good regulations right now in terms of containing any manure control and you know requirements for how many animals per acre or anything like that. They thought 10 acres was good for 299 cattle. Nobody can give a number and all the farmers on the panel are worried that it's going to be a slippery slope if you start designating some of those things. So we're looking into it. So we did give approval to send that to the COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES, BUT I THINK WE ALL AGREED THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF STUDYING NECESSARY FOR WHAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING.

ARE THEY REFERENCING THE IDEM STANDARD?

YES.

A LOT OF THAT COVERS THAT.

the 299 on cattle i think it's 5.99 for horses it's 29 000 for chickens so there's been several chicken barns approved they're 27 000. um what i don't see one of my questions was who's approving the manure containment plans and they're like well nobody really It's just that if there is any contamination runoff, then you can report it to IDEM and they'll come out and check it. But I also know that Braun signed something that is changing some of the things in IDEM. So I don't know what those changes are right now. One of the guys, I think it was, Dovan Wise said, yeah, they're trying to loosen up some of the regulations a little bit. So I don't know, but I think that everybody would like to make sure that our environment is protected, groundwater and soil and air. So that's what we're looking at.

We're lucky with that.

Yeah, it is.

Project Advisory Committee? Nothing. City staff?

We will have a meeting in July. We have one item for your agenda.

Okay. And city attorney? Okay. Next meeting will be July 9th at 8 p.m. 8 a.m. Oh, project divide. No, no, no.

I'm reading around one.

Yeah, sorry. What? What? July what?

14th.

14th. There we go. That's 6 p.m. I read the project advisory. Sorry about that. Okay, I'll entertain a motion. Move to adjourn. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

Motion carried.