Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

I like I do too.

Are we good to go? Huh? monitor. We can see that one. That's fine. I mean, we good to go. Okay. I'll go ahead and call to order the July 8th uh meeting of the plan commission. Can we have a roll call, please? Here. Here. Logan, Chris Lamb here, Mike here, Daryl McConnell here, Devin Bolan here, Susan May, Lucas Straw, Joseph Scholdus, John Good here, Suzanne Davis here, and I do believe we have a quorum because we needed six, correct? So, we're good. any anything underneath organizational business? Seeing none, on to approval of minutes. You should have all had access to the June 10th, 2025 uh minutes. Does anybody have any questions, comments, changes, alterations, anything? I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of passing the minutes, please signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carried. Any need to modify the agenda from staff or commission members? All right, seeing none, on to old business. We don't have any. The new business, we have two items. The first one is a development plan for the city of Auburn Water Department. This is PC development plan 2025-7. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing and turn it over to staff for their staff report.

Thank you, sir. James Karette city. So this request city requesting development plan approval for additions and improvements to the water department facility located at 800 street. This development plan did require publication for legal star that was on June 25th. There's actually 12 adjacent property owners that were notified of the bricks itself. The property itself is zon industrial and a couple of site photographs. Sure, you're familiar with the facility, but this is the facade facing north office. This is just a side view to the west. Again, the buildings come out closer to to the street and again photograph shows the overall the aerial view. So the addition will be out front and then the larger addition is towards the north to the back towards the back. We did not receive any public input request. This site plan I've just illustrated building. The front part is the uh main office area for the facility. The back part would be three bays, a service bays for the uh maintenance facility itself. There is some additional parking going um just to the east and west of the front expansion of the building. would be four customer spaces on the west side of the building. The east side parking

space will be for staff. The two entrances to the property remain as they are not changed a little bit back the two drives. The project was routed back on 20th. There are some outstanding the project engineers aware of those working on getting those plan sheets to staff and then the project advisory committee review back on July 3rd. Overall um the addition uh of the north side with a truck will be going in about 4500 square ft. the addition of the south side to about 2700 square feet. That front part of the building does extend solid areas to reduce that required setback. Uh the water department building is complies with the current foot building setback. Um, so in order to build it towards the road, they did request the various to reduce it to 65 ft. The board approved that. Part of that was as you look to the east, other buildings to the east are closer than the 100 ft. So the new uh addition parallel with the other buildings to the to the east of the facility. Uh I provided the I1 uh district standards because all the other water limits are met. I mentioned before the customer parking area right now for the building customer we're able to go to the buildings really clear and I think that's part of this whole process is it's not clear where the customer entrance is. There's not been parking

really parking maze etc. So this addition provides a clear entrance. It provides parking for anybody that does go to the facility as a customer. The uh architecture of the building is going to be consistent with what the current building is. Those standards have been met. They are requesting a waiver of a pedestrian connection. So, a lot of our our businesses, the new businesses that come in are required to have a connection from their entrance to the building to the public. This public sidewalk along uh currently this particular project does not include a connection for people that walk to the facility. probably it could be considered a facility that doesn't have walk-in customers like your retail or a restaurant perhaps could eat. But that is u the things for the request just await that requirement on site utilities of course are there there are going to have to be some modifications for gas service beh do service lines for sewer service to the new addition board some additional coverage on the property surface did approve the overall plan that basically collect water on site and it does go via pipe to the storm seal on stream. Uh so with that um the development plan complies with the development standards of the all the other design standards of the staff does recommend the PL commission waiting for the sidewalk requirements and accept the staff proposed bodies of fact and approve this development plan subject to three

conditions. The standard erosion control condition has to be in place. The routing comments need to be addressed as the engineer project is aware of those and of course all the site to be completed prior to consideration. Thank you Jim. Any questions for staff? Um if granted would the waiver for the pedestrian connectivity need to be added this condition? It needs to be part of the motion. Okay. Yeah. I didn't I didn't put it along with also the routing comments too. So it needs to be the three conditions, the routing comments and the waiver. Correct. Is there any variances being reflected by this at all? No. No. Thank you. Anybody from the petitioner like to step forward? Yeah, Mike. Um we're working with construction on these additions. We ironically met with the city on um what they want to do here. Uh we're improving the drainage, replacing a bunch of existing hard surface that it's certainly reliab And um you know the staff report was pretty thorough. I don't know that there's anything that I can add to that other than we have general comments. We knew about most of them before and you know make changes [Music]

questions. Thank you. Okay, at this point I will open the floor to public opinion. If you have any comments or concerns over this um development plan, please step forward, state your name and address for the record. Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak to the water department's plan? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. Oh, sorry. Sorry, I didn't see you. What has been the city's plan for the last 30 years is put sidewalks everywhere and you're not going to connect the sidewalk where it is a lot. Does that make any sense to anybody else? This is the sidewalk from this current sidewalk up to the building the door is. And I think the the reason why it's to the approach. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Well, I hope everything goes as easy tonight. Anything else before I close the public hearing? Okay. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open it to the commissioners for comments or anything about this. I think it's a good idea. I've gone out there a couple times to park and it's just it is hard. You're right parking right in front of bays and I think this is going to be a nice addition. So, Jim, I won't be voting on this since I'm the city employee. Okay. Overall, it's pretty straightforward. Okay. Can we take a look at the findings of facts, please? We do need to approve these first before we make a motion to

approve the uh the development plan as a whole. So there are five, there are five, all are written on the affirmative. Are we willing to accept the um findings of facts for this PC development plan to approve the findings of fact in the affirmative for PC development plan 2025-007? I'll second. We have a motion, a couple seconds. Are there any further comments or concerns over these findings? Seeing none, all in favor of approving the findings signify by saying I. Opposed. Motion carried. Now to the um development plan as a whole, we need a motion. And again, it needs to take into account the waiver for the sidewalk to the front entrance, the three conditions that are giving, and any existing routing comments that haven't been satisfied need to be satisfied. So, those three things need to be made along with it. Is there anything else I'm messing up, Matt, Jim? Okay. Move to approve development plan granting the waiver connectivity as requested. as well as satis requirement to satisfy all routing comments and the three conditions provided by staff. I'll second it. Motion to second. Any final comments or concern? All right. All in favor signify by saying I. I motion carries. Thank you very much. Good luck. Take care. On to item number two, Auburn Estates resoning. Um even though it's not technically a resoning. Uh, so this is classified as PC zoning 2025-1. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing and turn it over to staff.

They're requesting to modify approved establish approve development district or project. Um this is for a 29.45 four acres of land southwest corridor drivea the modification to the plan the ordinance itself to eliminate three land that are currently approved that's industrial storage units and multiple replace those This um again it's listed on the building listed as a zoning case. It is technically not a resolving the zoning of the property is development that remains the same when you establish a plan development district zoning ordinance for the property. So you determine what uses are allowed on the property and determine what the standards are to develop that property. What is being proposed the zoning states and development uses allowed and the standards for those uses what's being modified with this request. The uh request does require public hearings. It was advertised in the star 25th. There were 12 adjacent public notice signs on the property as well. So the property itself identified that is the property the entire 29th plus property and it does include the existing house and the bar on the property. Again I mentioned this property is so peace plan development.

So the great shade of that is pl development. zoning. The zoning surrounding the property from the north to R2 and institutional to the U east is C1 which is neighbor and commercial and R1 residential. To the south is R1 residential along 46A. the remainder of the property to the south county under county zoning but it is zoned industrial county and then the land to the west so back to city zoning of heavy industrial I know that the Auburn 2040 plan which does establish what future land uses should be for the property it does show for this property mixed residential which is single family two family that all the next developments for residential. We have a few photographs of the staff department just showing you the layout of the property if you would. This is a drive looking south of 46A. This is the existing house and bar. This would be part of a commercial. This is along 468 looking west the south property line. This probably will come up in your discussion this evening. There's a pretty substantial tree road that exists along that entire south along drive that is located to the east. This is from Cairo 31 south and this is just north of Cyro 31 and most of the property is still land. So this this

here shows what's called an establishment plan. So when the property dealer initially came forward and one of the applicant property or Henderson property at the time came forward when he purchased the property years ago with a plan for property his plan was to get the zoning plan development and then he came up with what's called an establishment plan that lays out what land he desires for the property and where they would be located at. So that's what this plan this is currently what exists that he could come in today the property owner and develop according to this plan. So there is commercial along Auburn Drive. There is commercial where the existing house being around. So those are the basically commercial areas south of the the barn area. He proposed storage units basically self storage units south of that along 1468 he had an apartment community and based upon the acreage of the property that that would have about 170 apartment that's along county road 31 south of the commercial area we have high industrial so that bas on the size of the property there was a osed probably about 150,000 industrial building of that property. That again is what is currently approved for the property as far as land uses. So with this request this evening, one of the things he's going to do is replace three of those land uses to eliminate the industrial apartments and the self storage units and replace it with single family residential. So that's that's the gist of the request. That's the base of the request itself is the establishment plan.

What that what he identified um as a single family residential is something similar to our R3 which is our higher density single family. So the only thing that would be allowed if this gets approved is single family detached homes. uh he is proposing most of the standards and we'll get into that are R3 similar standards. What's important about um the R3 district and actually any single family district whether it's R1, R2, R3, there were three types of homes that allowed to be built high properties like R1, R2 or R3 that would either be just your conventional site built home. So your stick built home on the property. It could be a modular home which is a home that's constructed on a factory but it's constructed with the same design standard the same one family one two family dwelling as the same. So with that particular home built in a factory brought to the site assembled ethic units on permanent foundation. It has the exact same code standards. That's what that home was built on the property that's permitted anywhere. The third type is a manufactur which is a constructed in a factory. It's on a different frame structure but is brought to the property. It does have to be placed on permanent foundation. Has to have pitched roof all that has to have minimum size but again that is that is allowed into the city. You have R12 R3. That's that's really important to remember that it doesn't come up a lot when we have reselling R1 probably because whoever's requesting the reselling didn't really but they

attempted to. I think the assumption is that we site number. So the recent resistance is probably number one example behind people that subdivision is R3. They came in they asked for an agricultural R3. It showed at that time it was just the result show. I think the assumption was that we site those homes. He probably stated that, but we have to keep in mind that that's not what has to go over any of those three options on those laws just as anywhere. And I I just I just been stressing that point a little bit because I want to make sure we're clear. If somebody walks into our office, get permit, that property is on R1 and R2 or R3, doesn't matter where it's at. It could be a Bridgewwater. It could be CL. We will issue a permit for any one of those three homes. What's the manufacturer home? We will issue a permit for that. Now, that said, there may be covenants in place. I would assume that Bridgewater has covenants against. But again, I want to make it clear the city has predetermined that those home styles are appropriate in our residential districts. So just keep that in mind as you go through this. What's happened in this particular request is that when the applicant came forward and asked for you know some direction of this is what my plan is how do I go about making this happen? He came in and was up front was requesting and he was looking at a different product than what we were currently getting in our subdivisions you know the states bridge water all those and wanted to do a modular manufactur

I indicated this is the zoning your plan zoning is appropriate you would have to request a change of that establishment uses so that's the reason for the request when he stated he wanted to do manufactured modular that's what I also said I would think people want to see what you have in mind what your layout can look like and that's that conceptual plan that I think it was part of the notice that went out where he laid out his intent for laying out the property with that conceptual plan so that is kind of how we got to where we're at this evening I'll get into the standards and the additional asks that that this request a couple of other things. The project has been routed for review of course committee at the project advisory committee. We've gotten a lot of public input on this obviously a lot of individuals promising we probably received one that I documented whether it's a calls stop somebody email I collected what have been put in writing in the folder that's all there so just a few staff comments the current guest owner did purchase a property back in March of this year. They purchased the property out of the 20 district. So I mean with the five uses that are that of the property property itself is not within the city. So but it is within the jurisdiction of the area of the city. But with that said, the property owner has submitted a voluntary annexation petition for that's currently being reviewed. It's

separate from this request, but I want to identify that he passes that consideration by the council that will be considered. If the um applicant if approved, the applicant again is a claim to subdivide the property. Um and the intent would be that he would claim he would create the loss just like any other subdivision. get that flat reported. He would then have the home brought to to a property brought to the property foundation and have all the improvements that are necessary for that install and then sell the home. So it's different than some communities that we just purchased a lot here. I don't believe purchase a lot. Again, that's the current intent. He's not held for that. The um development district ordinance is the real controlling document that's included in your package information. The ordinance itself is what establishes the list of uses allowed and those specific standards, the design standards and the development standards. So this evening we're looking at step one of a three-step process. The first step is to get those uses and the standards set. Step two, which is a separate application, separate public hearing process is really a more of a primary class application. That's where he comes in with more detailed information, information about lot sizes, lots of you know layout, the streets. He comes in with how is he serving the property with water sewer

support all of those typical details you would have for subdivision will occur at step two and then step three is the actual secondary plan is the actual establish that allows them to transfer and sell. Uh so overall we're we're in step one of this process and again with step one we're going to be looking for that concept plan and submitted but that has should have no bearing on your decision this evening it's only a illustration of his intent not to that we can't hold for that and but it does illustrate his ask and that's what's important about it illustrates the width he's asking for the density he's asking work. So it has relevance and that's why I wanted him to submit but I don't want to focus on that because he could totally change the layout of that if he meets the standards that he's asking to establish. So with the uh with those uses um he's looking at for the single family all the uses that are allowed for that modular fashion for the C1 area which is the hous it's our less intensive commercial the two lots along all our drive has C2 uses which which is our is what you see above seven street. This is this is the uh development standards that this we need to focus on because this is this is his little zoning code establishing the property and it residential area the neighborhood commercial which is where the houses and the general commercial. So all the

standards for the neighborhood and general commercial are the same standards of our commercial district which is simply restated. The residential standards is where the modifications from our typical R3 district are at. And to backtrack for a second the whole purpose of the plan development district is to allow flexibility. Otherwise, he just resorted to R3 and asked for something. The plant district is purposeful that allows a mixture of uses on a property. So, we went from multiple uses now to two commercial and single family, but there's still a little bit of mixture of uses that allows flexibility in those design standards. So our other plan development district we have in the city the crews uh at the auto facility that's a plan development district the fieldstone development not built yet this is one that was improved by the soccer field if you remember a few years ago the white city soccer field that is development and the new 715 development which has the new roadways that were built behind McDonald Starbucks all that development this So those when they came in those three areas specifically set out uses and development standards just for their property and it allowed modifications. Each one of those has modifications to the standards he's asking for in this property. Um the square footage of the lot is is the same as the archery. He is asking for a modification of lot width from archery standard. What he's asked to do is a fifth plumber. The standard R3 is 60. All the setbacks are the same. M minimum quality unit size. Each home has to be at least

900 ft size. The setbacks together are the same. The parking requirement is the same. Every home has to have two parking spaces. And so you would have to provide that. He's asking for a microcl require one car garage anywhere in the city. He's asking that there be no garage required. He could still have one unit, but it's not required. And the last one is would be a lot coverage. This is the amount of a lot that's covered with the home, the driveway, the shed. Um that currently has 50% of a lot to be covered. On the smaller lots that may be close to being met, so uh the request is 60%. Some of the lots are very are large. it will be about meeting 50% but there might be some that at least the current layout you ask that would be able to feed that those are the three as of the development standard if we were comparing it to the R3 the conceptual plan just focus on this second is this so this is the layout that heed And it shows uh roadways between 46A and 34 east. It show the north south along. This particular layout has 67 lots. These 67 lots of do the lot size lot width as it's showing he has all the

lots would have a system. So those direct access from a lot of 31 the block a in the middle that you're looking at there I think no matter what development on the property that attention gets the most popular with water request um with this type of request it's not a zoning request it is a request to modify standards of the district the applicant can doing [Music] is committing to certain uses the property perhaps development standards or other requirements or the planning commission or council is there can also place conditions of a commitment use of the property requirement commitment of use is important because it's it's a guarantee that what's the property owner says what they're going to do. So if they come forward and say, you know, we're just going to do we're just going to do we don't intend to do manufact That's a commitment. If you strike, take it out of the ordinance, you don't have to do on that. You take it out of the list of uses, it can't be on the property. So, the commitment uses the document is perhaps still could be done or he voluntarily does it, it could be done, but by you striking it, that's the same with the development that you see in that table. So if the planning condition feels there'll be the garage needs to be required and no becomes but yes it's just required already

that number doesn't have to be it could be what you feel is a commission city whatever you feel is appropriate he's asking for better I'm just telling you what where you have the ability holding as a as a commission to adjust things is now this is the only step we have that option once we get these standards in place that's what they are and he could change that plan that not layout if he meets lot with if he meets lot size all that and compliance generally with our code he can make the lot sound totally different what show so I only use the concept as an illustration is the standard that matter is a lot you know setbacks everything else setbacks I don't want to I don't want to just skip over his asks are not very easy his ask are these are the standards I would like to develop that property that's the whole purpose of development is to set the standards think something unique uh on the property something that is needed and I think that kind of leads into the staff recommendation on this something community needs. So as staff, you know, goes through with with plan and we work with the with the property owner at the time they came in with the initial we were appropriate uses for the property industry. That's how we got approved. It's also appropriate to do residential there as the plans show. So um a single family residential use the ordinance again establishes what uses of the standards. I note that um the staff

is we are not specifically recommending a commitment of use or anything of that nature. Again you have that ability with that order. So as you look at this ordinance is part of that ordinance under uses identify the uses that's where you straight out the standards you want to change the standards do it within the ordinance itself as part of your motion. The commitment of use is a is a a means but we can accomplish it in the same way with the condition or modification. The uh again the three there's a specific product he's trying to achieve here is different than product we have anywhere in the city. That's how staff looks at it. This particular property has industrial zing completely on the left side almost completely on the south side. Any residential development of this properties of a higher density such as pass similarities is a transitional use a commercial property. transitional use of property is a good thing. But it's a product that we all heard we need and I think it's clear that we need it. He's trying to meet a specific demand city. The only reason that I think this really came to the forefront of people's minds is because he was very upfront with the house. Lots of states came in and asked for R3. There was nobody in the room. nobody because you know it was single family resial if he come forward and said I'm doing single family residential I don't believe most of these people would be here because even though the staff reports like what was it came out of listed uses it just

doesn't focus on but because he made the ask and he being upfront we included 5 foot home manufactured home site home with the the notice and everything we've been saying. So, we're trying to be very transparent and difficult to be transparent in what the specific ass is. I just ask that we remember that those rehosts are allowed anywhere in the city and that's how staff looks at it. I want to treat this property different than any other properties. So, our recommendation is to make a change. Um we're not recommending any commitment or changes in the standards. We are supporting the standards that he's asking for and supporting the land. Those three types of homes that he's asking the there aren't a factor this request. There are considerations and there are different considerations that reselling. It's just the way the code is written. So they may not seem to apply. We're really amending the ordinance, the text of the ordinance for the uh for the subway property. So that's why those considerations are listed there. So again, you don't need to make specific bonding, but there's a lot of consider. But again, staff is recommending that board this request uh which is the modification of the east plan development district ordinance uh to the council with a favorable recommendation. And just to close the comments, this is a recommendation we make tonight because six votes for um either favorable or unfavorable vote any less than six recommendation to council, but it does

go to council. Um if it if there is a decision that I made it would go to council after 5th meeting that is not a public hearing when it was public for a while but no public hearing. So with that I will thank you very much. I was notified that my my been working this text I got. So hopefully now it's it's working. The bugs are worked out. So I appreciate your um comments there. I do have one question for you. So in the ordinance under article 4 design standard subsection C. It it refers to the garage. But one thing else that it adds that you haven't talked about in the staff report is a storage shed shall be provided for each residential unit or lot. So you mentioned earlier something about a shed, but you said if and this says they will. So if we decide maybe to put the garage as a yes, maybe want to want to take that part out as well because that would give them some storage. Correct? I mean there for a garage. I thought people don't have so storage shed.

Thanks for that. Thank you. Anything else? Any questions for commission for staff? Yeah. So, quickly with the current zoning the property, what we approved for the plan last time, we've got light industrial, we've got storage units, we've got the apartment community. Within that apartment community, how many units? Just looking at the density of the size of the property the density of maximum of 100% 100% of those units is there any requirements or restrictions on what type of compartment complexes in no it be class A it could be sub yeah we don't control the type of unit or Okay. So, as it's owned right now, they could go put 70 units of subsidized housing in there any type of but they would have to meet the M3 standards. Correct. Yes. Anything else for staff? Thank you. Would somebody on behalf of the petitioner like to step forward and speak to the project? Would somebody on behalf of the petitioner like to speak to the project? Thank you. Please step forward, state your name and address. It's on, but he's 6'5. Sorry. Sorry. Go ahead.

Is there anything you would like to add? minimum there's going to be nothing less mention three different houses but they have the same regulations manufactured through all permanent home trailer. Okay, hold on. Hold on. The public will have time later. No, not at this time. And not until I open it to the public. You can later. Yes. again. Please allow him to speak. You'll have your chance momentarily. I I do have a question then on your statement about the 900 not even close

to what the minimum is. What could we change that to in the ordinance from 900 up to because if we make changes we need to make it to the ordinance. What can we comfortably? Did you say 1350 is your smallest? Okay. So, I plan on making that motion later to increase it to 1350. Are there any other standards um that you would be willing to kind of slide on? We've had conversations. I I heard him talking about garage um and the two changes other changes the 50 foot and also the um 60 to 50 foot and also the um the percent change from 50 to 60%. Would you be willing to deal with those changes if those got made? Um the lock coverage. So the lot coverage for regular R3 is 60 feet and the proposed lot width here is 50 feet. So you'd be okay increasing it from 50 to 60 ft. You might lose I don't know how many lots that would be but Okay. you're adding. Any other questions from the computer? Just so I you said that the new standards are minimum house size 1350 square feet. You will commit to not doing any manufactured housing.

These are for sale only, not rentals. The price range target is 220 to 300,000. And you will be adding a garage. And this is a purchase outright, not a lease to own. Also, I have a question about the street. Um, you want to have this remain a private street. That would indicate an HOA would be set up and that would funds to maintain the street. Um, is that right? The only way we would accept the street is if you built the street to city standard and that would require sidewalks, curb and gutter, you know, minimum street width. So, right, Jim. So, that may be a deciding that might change your thinking depending on what you had in mind for a street. The other thing about the HOA is you're going to have a detention pond, retention, detention, and we all know what those look like if they're not taken care of. And that's typically by an HOA. So, I don't know what you got in mind for future maintenance. Real quick, Jim, he's talking about larger homes than what we were envisioning. Does that change the maximum lot coverage in the standards? That does that affect that at all? It could affect that. The standard is what he's asking for is the 60%. Again, that's the amount of coverage of the lot by the home, which includes a garage and the uh driveway, the page driveway area. if if he can fit the home on the

property and the driveway and stay whatever size and stay under the the 60% that he's asking for, then he would be okay. That that's the limiting factor is that covered, right? So as as that layout is on here, the lots are like 50 by 100 at the smallest. Okay. So small is talking about 5,000 square foot lot. You're doing 1350 coverage ratio which puts your state coverage ratio under that right? Yeah. I mean his lot sizes are 7500 and up. So he's above the minimum with it even if his all his lots as he shown on that concept plan are above the minimum. Um, but again, even with that minimum size lot, he would be limited to how much he the size of the home would would be limited by the the lot lot coverage, which is why it got bumped up to 60 because maybe on the smaller lots you might do that about sight coverage ratios. What does that house? What else is the house plus any concrete surface? So, the driveway typically and if there's a sidewalk, the garage to the door, any any other building, a shed or a garage. That's why you're saying that that pretty close when you look at the those three factors on the the the smallest he has again is 7500 square foot. So that's why we looked at that which is I think it's 150 depth 50 width believe that was anything else from the commission. Anything you'd like to add before we open it to the public? Okay. Thank you very much. Please stand by. We may have some questions for you. Okay. Before I open the floor to the public, I'd like to remind you to come up to the microphone, the podium, and

state your name and address for the record. Please make sure not only people that approach that the commission members speak to the microphone. I got another text that some people aren't speaking into their microphones. Please make sure that's there for the record. Um, please address your comments and questions to the commission, not to the staff or the petitioner, and then we'll make sure we get those questions addressed. Uh remember the plans again as Jim had stated um are conceptual and could change prior to the filing of the primary plat if this modification passes. Regardless again of the results tonight and again Jim also mentioned this this will be forward to city council at the August what was the date again? August 5th um meeting. So you'll have another chance to speak on this. So be please be prepared to do so. What I'm going to do before I turn it over here is set a time limit. And legally, Shapiro versus City Grove, but the 10th Circuit says that we are allowed to do this. Was passed in 2007. I'm going to set the time limit at three minutes. You have three minutes to speak. Um, there's a lot of you in the room, so please be mindful of everybody else. I know a lot of you are probably still going to have the same comments over and over again and questions, but again, please address the questions to us and then we will get the answer. Either we will answer it or the staff or the petitioner will answer it. So, I'll go ahead at this time then and open the floor to public comment. Again, please feel free if you want to start a line there, that'd be great. Be fine. Good evening. My name is Bob. I'm attorney. Uh, Carlex is a manufacturing facility here in Auburn 200 employees. This facility is located just west of the proposal across county road at least 31. Um as of right now the plan that is proposed is compatible with the adjacent area west. You have

industrial, you have commercial, you have storage units, you have the apartment as you are moving towards 46A. What you are doing and this is I've done this is a reason you're changing the map. You're changing the ordinance and what you're proposing is to put a high density or at least a residential development right up against the industrial district on 31 which Carl likes believes is having indust having that kind of a residential development against um so that is their main concern. They don't believe they think the plan estate is consistent that the one was approved. They don't believe it should change because bring that many residences also brings potential nuisance complex because you're putting residential immediately adjacent to industrial. So, Carlax is opposed to change uh for those reasons and um one of the things is that they are concerned people are going to move into this residential community and not know that there is this industrial. They bought land to the east of their facility and they are worried about potential uses places they would choose to expand. And I can tell you putting a residential development this close would certainly make them question whether or not they would ever expand their plan because um unless the there was some kind of a protection um for airports for example airports usually have covenants to say hey if you move into this resident you can't complain about the industrial area right in the JC they have those kinds of covenants around GM. So, um, they are opposed to changing. They do not think it's good for their facility. They don't think it's good for the future of the facility. And if this uh

were to receive a favorable recommendation, they would want either a city council or they would want this evening a requirement that the developer put a comment in there that they cannot uh complain. It's what we call kind of an anti-nuisance complaint. So, they would have to evaluate that. So I don't see a timer. I know I'm close to my time. So that that is mainly so but that they are they are to change the plan and they would ask that you give it an unstable recommendation because it is incompatible. Thank you. You still have five seconds. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Next. And I appreciate Mr. David's comments regarding the square footage coming up. And however, I'm struggling with the math of a 50 foot wide lot. How do you accommodate that home with setbacks on those blocks? I don't understand that. Seems like a long skinny house to me and a low pitch growth. And those spell manufactured homes. I know there are a lot of good manufacturers for modular homes out there. I've seen a lot of them. I've been in construction for years. not in favor of you know make a single light mod but I'm concerned about the lot sizes

versus what you can put on there. So the lot sizes to me I look at the block plan it's going to have to change somehow. So my question is how do you accommodate that 1350T home on a lot with the lock coverage percentage correct? Have we done the math? I haven't run the numbers. That's the one. I'm concerned about the density of population in that plat also. Um you mentioned about the D you mentioned about the streets being city code where they can be accepted in sense that's a lot of added expense but I think it's something that should be definitely looked at that will be a plus for the addition those are my comments thank you thank Baptist Church. We're on the norththeast corner of that intersection there. So my concern is the quality for the people that live there. uh this high density uh residential area does not make any sense. In fact, there are so many moving parts to this, so many things that need modified. I wonder if the hard work has been done

preliminarily to present a coherent plan of something that Auburn could be proud of. Um, so I I'm for more residential area. I'd rather see homes there than apartments and storage buildings. Um, but the concern is the high density. So I' I'd like to see lots bigger, larger streets, wide enough where first responders could get down the road if need be. I might say a playground in the area, sidewalks, something that that people would really enjoy. They enjoyed living there and living in Auburn. But just trying to cram people into a a specific small amount of space where homes I think would be perpendicular to the road. Is that correct? Keep in mind, keep in mind this is a conceptual plan. This may change. That's why we're not referring to it. Mainly refer to the standard is what you need to keep dealing with. I just wanted to speak from my heart and just say that as a as a as a pastor and I know I've exceeded radio. Oh yeah. We're concerned about quality of life. We want to see people living on top of one another. We want to see them with garages, sheds, sidewalks, fly roads. Thank you. Owner I saw

first of all you need to know the flooding area of that farm the center there I I put new tiling in but I know there frames it heads back towards county road 31 right side road there's a big flood plane there so that all has to be addressed before they get built they need to put retention pond And 31, best my knowledge, I watched it for years. It's a chicken city and that's going to have to be redone 46A. They've always complained about it comes up to Alber. So you're talking about put 70 more homes out there. is gonna be ridiculous. And you have to put a stoplight out there. That's all I have to say. Thank you. [Music] Go ahead. Hi, Jeff. Hi, Jessica Hardy. Uh, 1314 Pro in Auburn. First, I'd like to take a moment to thank this council. At the last meeting I was at, we decided to keep article 9 with the letters going to our um constituents. So, this is what it looks like when you anoint people and tell them what's going on. So, again, thank you for sending out those letters and doing that. Um, on the topic at hand, I would just like to state that as a resident, I am frustrated with this zoning. uh this property was already specially zoned for one developer property owner in USA and now we're going to reszone it again for another property owner because that particular development didn't work out. If I'm living next to something and it's was owned one way and you can just easily

change it to another how do I trust where I'm at and what I'm doing. The zoning needs to stay. It was made for a reason. Carlex obviously agrees with that. They bought their property knowing this property owner brought this property knowing what it was zoned. And I know it's kind of a change in zoning, but zoning is obviously for a reason. It tells people in an area what they can buy, what they can do with it, what they can't. And the city of Auburn lately has been doing a lot of snapments on changing zoning. And it's not been great for the residents. We have that whole new development going over there by the senior living facility, Ashel. I don't think that should have gone there. It doesn't sound like it's going very well either. Iron Horse in Garrett that was these modular builtup homes that didn't do so well in Garrett. So I would very much the way it stands so that I know as a resident when I move into an area or do something that zoning stays that way. It's important. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is David Mc Williams. I live down 37. So I don't actually live by this property, but having uh quite a few places over this whole United States. I can assure you that most of the things that people concerned about will probably get the benefits that are claimed usually a long way around the road to getting them. If uh how many lots do you see in this total? I might ask the residential part of it. But again, it's it's it's a concept. It's it's a concept. Keep in mind, it's a conceptual plan, so it's going to change. So, I understand what you're asking. But again, this is not the final pres because the higher the density of living that you get usually results in a much higher number of crime calls and things

like that. So, the police over here, they're going to be wanting to have some more officers hired to help take care of this. It's usually not just one or two, but it's going to be two, three or four. So, if you add all that cost that goes to that and everything else, we don't really come out too good as a society for making high density living. People have to have some uh ownership and pride in what they're going to live in when they have a responsibility to take care of it. And uh that's pretty much what I got to say, but I don't see much benefit at all. And as somebody just said, when the people bought the property, they knew how it was zoned. So they're not being offended or hurt in any way if they're denied on they want to have residential that's great but make a residential home that people can live and be happy. I don't know too many people buy $300,000 50 foot water. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Water B. I live at 3332 County Road 46A Auburn. I'm a stone stroke from this property and I personally do not want a modular slashmobile home park in my neighborhood. There's a lot of people out there that have built some very nice homes and we do not want our property values to go in the toilet and our property taxes to go up just because of this in a low in this location. There could be better uses for this property. Like the gentleman said, a park building in that neighborhood that would be super. I don't know how many other people in this room I can speak for, but we do not want a mobile home, modular home park in our community. We've been out there too long. One of the things you got to remember, ladies and gentlemen, we won't answer to everybody in this room. It's what the public wants. It doesn't matter what's best for the city of Auburn. I want to

before you speak, I'd like to make a comment. Thank you for your I appreciate it. But again, he's taking the mobile home type off the table through through the process mobile home manufactured, right? He's taking that off the table. It's going to be removed. This is not going to be a mobile home park. And again, that is a conceptual plan. That's not the final plan. Eventually that'll come up. So, please go ahead. My husband John, we can't hear those speakers. Please. With my husband, John. We right south of this property. So, that makes us the longest adjacent property owner. I agree with most of the comments made. I had this nice little speech, but they've already spoke for me on that. I think the lots the dots definitely have to be wider. 50 feet, that's the length of our barn. And I'm trying to envision a house and a garage. Just I I can't see it. But the main reason I'm here is that fence row that divi that divides the two properties. Those oak trees have been there for us. And if we leave them alone, they'll be there after us. So please, whatever you do to develop, stay back 100 feet or so from that fence line because if you disturb the roots too much, the oaks will not the the trees just can't take that. They may not die immediately, but they'll die sooner. So stay back. I understand with a 100 foot or a 200 foot deep lot to ask for 100 feet is asking quite a bit. But wouldn't you rather leave live in a place with big old trees in your backyard and big oldies in your backyard? Thank you.

Go ahead. Somewhere so people can see it. You put it on overhead. We don't have like a document camera or anything. Okay. Just again, but state your name and address. Lake Shore Drive, Auburn. Uh my sister and I own the property to the north of this uh development. And uh to give you a little background information, Howard and Dan Howard and Donna McDaniel bought a house across from the Dec airport years back. And their house was built on a county tile. The county tile plugged up. It blew up in their basement which had been finished into a family room in their son's uh bedroom. It also warped the main floor in their home. this um uh also that's why I want this up but was there's a county tile that had been vacated that goes across this property to the middle where that drain is that Kenny was talking about. Um you can't build on a county tile even though it's vacated. So, some of these proposed homes are on that above that tile. Um, if you've seen out at County Road 45 and County Road 28, you see the flooding that's out there at the Anderson's Mill. That county tile plugged up. There's three fields that been flooded for probably three to five years and they're not being able to be used.

So, I don't want anything happening above that tile that can plug it up. Yeah, I think that's it. Okay. Thank you very much. Whoever's next, please come on up and speak. Yeah. Come up and state your name. You gota do it the official way. My name is Adam Kaine. I live at 107 Ashwood Drive. A quick question I have, Jim, of you and the commission at this point, right? You're asking us to focus on the specifics of what he's asking for, right? And I realize looking at this in front of us here, what you guys are just going to do is change a zone. That's what all you're looking at this point. Correct. Not the zoning, the wording of the plan development that's already been zoned this way. So it's not technically changing the zoning, but it's changing the standard of what can go in those spots like we're changing zoning is not changing. My question is, if the average citizen came in here and asked for everything that they were asking for, would that even be taken into consideration? Depends on circumstance. It depends on circumstances and location. I mean, yeah, that that's fine. Where I'm going with this, I mean, I believe that what they're asking for the amount of changes. I mean, literally, he comes in here and changes it right when he comes in here, and he has that right to do that. But again, it forces everybody in here to take another look at things, right? I can only speak for my family and everybody that's in our community and everybody sees this thing and they think automatically one thing, right? You guys know what we're talking about. Trailer Park, we don't want it. We don't need it. But from my perspective, I'm looking at it. We've got huge increases in traffic will be out there. You're

going to have infrastructure that's going to have to be addressed out there. Stress is put on that. negative property values on everybody that's surrounding it. I mean, there are three 400,000 plus homes out there right now. Um, we work very hard to maintain our properties. The biggest thing for me is community character and compatibility with that area. That does not fit with that area. I'm sorry, it doesn't. You can call it a modular housing unit. You can call community. You can call it whatever you want unless it's a standard residential home like Thad Nixon and his group have been putting in along that whole road down there on 46A. I don't understand the point of it. I'm fully empathetic of of people that are looking for, you know, affordable housing, but again, I don't think that's it. I don't think that's the way we want to go as community because what stops it from going across the street to the other side of the road? because there's a wide open field there. I don't want to be looking at a trailer park at the end of my road and we pay a lot of property taxes in the city. And again, I'm urging you guys to deny it based on all the changes he's asking for. There's a lot of changes in there that don't meet our existing code. So that's the reason why I'm asking you to deny. Thank you, Adam. My name is Carla Kelly. I live on uh Serenity Court, Auburn, and I've been here two years. Deep breath. I bought a villa um off of County Road 46A and that villa was a brand new villa two

years ago. Paid 283,000 for it. It's 12 1250 square feet. Um my my thought is why not build villas for 55 and older. The baby boomers are coming. we're all older and um we're 55 and older, you know, and make it the roads wide enough so the EMSs can come down there and the fire trucks like they do right now in our edition, you know, it's it's um a fact of life. So, let's put appropriate streets in there, make it a nice pond, make it something like you all said, you know, make it proud, you know, make us proud. But I'm telling you, we're gonna run out of housing for seniors. And I'm here to say, why not? That's all I got. Thank you. Greg Wolf, 3320, county 46A. Uh, the biggest thing I got is, uh, Kenny, he's talking about the water issue and stuff right there. We're on the same fence line as Stoops and our neighbor's house. Big storms 2 in 450 yards up their house isn't to their house. But if they build it up any in that corner at all, it's going to go over the road, which it already has six or seven years ago, and they ended up coming in and cleaning that tile along the ditch. But, you know, that's my concern. Gotcha. Greg Wolf. Thank you. Thank you, Greg. One thing about that, I'm pretty sure this is true. Um the drainage board would see this as a primary plat issue, not for this. That's why this is not even being addressed here. So, just for everybody's FYI, um

it would be addressed at the primary plot once a plan comes forward. So, conceptually they do have a retention pond there, but again that could change. Anybody else? My name is Char Sen and I live at 1301 Elmer Street. Um, the couple of things that I have have to do with um, just um, verifying whether or not you can even fit the square footage on these 50 foot lots that are being proposed. Um, a 1323 foot manufactured home or modular is basically 49 feet wide. that takes up the whole lot. There's no room for a garage. You add a a standard twocar garage on say Somerset Ridge is 20 by 21. So you add 20 feet to that and you're at the 70 foot lot right there. So I guess my question is are we putting these modulars in sideways? So, what is that going to look like? And are we allowing these mobile car ports? And are we having porches? Um, are there going to be covenants and restrictions? Um, that that would take care of a lot of things like um your rose lawn. These are the covenants and restrictions that they have that that will keep things from happening that shouldn't be

happening. Rose lawn looks like that which is a lot smaller than what you're talking about. But I don't understand how in the world the properties on Rose Lawn are they're assessed value which a lot of times assessed values are less than actual values. We've got one that is 2774. We've got one that is 2844 and one that is 2439. I didn't look them all up. I just looked a few up to see where we were at. I don't understand how you can do something for $220,000. Um I think that we ought to leave the zoning at two. Leave it be. It was just reszoned. It's consistent. Zone two is consistent with what is already in that lake in that area right across the street. The whole greater subdivision, Mason's Village, Somerset, Coventry. Why Why would we want to have something right across the road that isn't consistent with what we've got? Just one thing before someone else steps up. Two things. I believe it's M3 right now, right? It's not R2. Is it M3? We're correct over there. But it's M3 in there. And then the covenants and restriction issue would come about later with the primary plat not with this because this is just the reclassifying the standards.

R3 it's a different it's not R2. It's currently M3. It's already developed as development. So you can't change your zone. That's okay. It's okay. It's confusing the surrounding community as it is. Correct. Anybody else? Please step forward. Thank you. I'm Lita Hollinger. I live at Chandler Way. Um, traffic is a huge thing that I'm worried about. Um, 46A is busy. A lot of Bear Creek comes through that way. a lot of people that want to bypass things. You also have Auburn Drive extended which comes our semis that come from SEI new process. All those on the east side come down that way they get 11A they get on 69. Also your large industrial trucks on there constantly. um you add as many homes as they're saying um double that in the number of cars you're going to have coming through there every day. Their road access they're looking to come out on Auburn Drive. If you go out and look, there's not much room between 31 and the intersection of 46A. Those people that come out of 31 are sit there quite a while in the morning because they can't get out. You add this, you add an entrance, an ingress, egress to come out between 31 and 46A is going to be a nightmare. Coming out on 46A is also you are real close to the intersection. Uh your site to the south on 46A is not

the greatest. Now that it's been repaved, it's a raceway. You're going to have a problem. Um, so traffic is a huge, huge issue, at least for me. Um, and I know we talk about affordable housing. Auburn needs it. The Cal County needs it. There's no no doubt. The thing is $220,000 to $300,000 is not affordable housing. It's just not. if they're modular is what I'm hearing. I'd like to know what financial institutions are even going to loan on modulars. In my office alone, I have lots of problems with people trying to sell their home because it was a modular. Yes, it was put on a foundation, but they have a hard time getting financing. That's another issue I'm finding that I don't know what institutions are going to finance that. Um, HOAs are important. I hope they have one and I hope they keep it up because those are that's how you keep them looking, but having them set in sideways at 220 to 300,000 just doesn't add up. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] Hi, I'm Russ Emer. I'm from 1501 Dixberg Drive. Uh, looking at this, there's a couple things I see wrong with it. Number one, if they put the house in there, I'm assuming that they're going to face each other. The front door won't face the street. And because of that, your driveway also is going to be one

car wide. I'm assuming that's the way it's going to be. Uh so you take a family, uh mother, father, they got two cars. Who's going to park in the driveway? Who's going to park on the street? Well, so the next thing you know, you got somebody that's got a kid who's driving. They got three cars. So you got cars parked all along that street there on all these narrow plots. The other thing is is I live on 51 or not 51 but Denesburg Drive and State Road 8 from Japan from Decal Pas down to Auburn Road. It's like a bypass because they get so much traffic coming back and forth. Everybody from the south side of the town wants to cut across to go down Duesenberg. they come out to the other side of the town so they could go to their subdivisions or whatever they are. The other problem is is that Auburn Road comes around is supposed to be the bypass. Well, it's to me it's like a a drag racing thing because there is nothing on the east side other than that Dollar General that they just put in. Everybody has to go to the other side of town to buy groceries, to buy gas, anything else that they want to do. Everybody runs back and forth. All the restaurants are out there. So, here you're going to put more housing on this east side of town and all these people are going to be going back and forth also. So, why why are we putting people over there? Why why can't we put restaurants on that side of town? Why can't we put a grocery store there? Why does everything have to be on the west side of town where it's so congested that most of the time you can't get through me that should be solving the problem over there and trying to help our end of

town rather than trying to make our end of the town like the other side. Thank you. Thank you. um to to address at least part of this comment again. Remember that plan up there is not the plan that's going to be presented. So, and I understand it's what you're referring to because it's a conceptual that was presented. Um and also we can't dictate what goes where. I would like to have restaurants there too. It's the developers that are going to put things in. So, well, like most families, we gather junk. I'm not saying, you know, everybody doesn't. So, you don't have a garage. So, you put it in your shed, pretty soon your shed gets full. Where does the stuff go? That's outside the shed. No, we agree. Yeah, that's just the way it is. Thank you. I just wanted to address at least some of that. We can't dictate it. So, thank you. Anybody else like to speak? Jim, and we're still looking at those two commercial lots, the front, right? Yeah. My name is Mike Ste. I'm on the Bills of Coventry. T E U R Y. My concern is yes, you should make it no less than a 60 foot lot, you know, for anything out there because in Mason Village, even some of their homes, you can barely get a lawn mower between each house. Kids can shake hands through the window, you know. And I'd like to see a Myers out there with the gas station, too, I'm sure. Okay, next Paul Dman 1507 Oak Chase. I just wanted the commissioners to know

Ladies and gentlemen, if this room was big enough, I don't know if you're aware of it online. There's a petition and it's five over 500 voices on my commission that couldn't get in here tonight. So, I just want to make you guys aware of that. There is a petition out there. I don't know if you've seen it online or not. Have not. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? If you would like to speak, um, please maybe slide up so we're not waiting so long. I know it's hard to walk from back, but if you'd like to speak, please line up there so it could be a little quicker between. Hi, my name is Eler. I live at 1700 Elm Street and I live right on the bike. It is very common for cars to be racing up and down that road. So for the police officers, if you want to get your quota, go down there because I hear it almost every night. My biggest concern is when I look at these, those lots are small. And if you think about single family homes and you have what, two, three children, where are those children going to play? Because I don't see a playground on them. My biggest concern is the bypass is a dangerous place to be and that's where the kids are going to be riding the bus. I don't want somebody to get killed, you know, and that's my biggest fear is that somebody will get hurt and it's like we have to protect our children and there will be children running across there, running to other people's homes. That's my biggest fear. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Derek Wymer, 1104 Sycamore

Court in Auburn. Uh, you say you didn't know petition was going on at all? 546 signatures on this petition opposed to the modular home plan. And another uh question, why weren't all the homeowners adjacent notified in the mail by with with a letter? My sister got one and she lives on corner 35 in Auburn Drive. Uh we didn't get one. None of our neighbors got one. So, it's kind of like a big secret. You know, you got to look and see, you know, signs aren't aren't viable. I mean, you can't see the weeds are growing up and it's like, okay, there's a what's that say as you're driving by because they're so small. And then the person listed, Toby Buck, he's in might not even from Auburn. He's from Pendleton. So, he doesn't know the community like we know it. And also the crime, we've got enough crime in Griswall. We've had murders, drug deals, uh suicides. We got enough of that. And putting all these homes stacked up on top of each other with call it lowincome housing that breeds crime. And we don't need any more of that. And like somebody else said, we're gonna have to hire more officers. Uh, you know, a lot of things are going to have to change in order to accommodate this. Who's, you know, we need an HOA. Uh, you know, that'd be down the road. But somebody has to police this because it's just it's just going to be another breeding grounds for crime. So that's all I've got. Thanks, Good evening. My name's Heather Hanus. I live at 4930 County Road 35. I've been to a couple of these planning before. Um I was here when we talked about Thomas Estates at your last meeting. And one of the things that I hear from all of you

is the 2040 plan. Where is the 2040 plan? Because I think the residents of Auburn need to be better informed of what that plan is. It's posted underneath the uh building planning development department on the city's website. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. Would anybody else from the public like to speak? My name is Robert Surface. I live at 11:02 Sycamore Court. My property backs right on the old brick road. And then when I set on my porch on my shed to look south, I can see the open fields and I can see the trains. I don't want to see a bunch of homes unless it's for elderly people that will take pride in keeping it up. That's all. Thank you. [Applause] Hello, I'm Kenneth Brown again. Something I forgot to mention the first time. I built a big building which you guys were all in favor of big quarter time uh just directly east of the lobster have on 40 or on Auburn Drive. You guys said everything was great. But then when I went to the city, the city denied me three different times. They told me I had to they wouldn't allow a driveway to go on Auburn Drive. I had to move my building three times to get my driveway to come out on 46A. So those two lots, they have commercial go out out on Auburn Drive will never get approved by the city.

Would anybody else from the public like to speak? Please step forward. Hello, my name is Marilyn Craig, 1903 Grayson here in Albert Drive, Mason Village. I'm a young lady, and I'm going to say young, who had said that we needed more senior living. Absolutely. One of the things that we miss here in Albert besides a lot of things is senior living, quality living, affordable living. If you're sitting here and telling me that you're going to put in 220,000 to $300,000 homes that's set up like mobile homes, one, there is no way in hay I would pay it. Two, you are not not focusing on the seniors or the residents of Auburn. Please uh please address the commission. No, no, please address the commission. Yes, we have to focus on Auburn, the residents of the quality of Auburn. I don't care how you want to cut it. That's a mobile home park. It might be a manufactured homes, but who in the heaven's name is going to pay $300,000 for a a home that comes in a flatbed? Really? Number one, [Music] any of you go by a $300,000 home sit on a 60 or 50 lot 120 set up like a mobile home park. When you need a cup of coffee, your neighbor hands it to you. Think about it. That's number one.

Number two, every one of us are taxpayers. Look at the construction. Look at the police. Look at the traffic jam. Look at what it's going to cost Auburn for somebody else to get his money in his pocket. That is what intensity is. That's not quality. Nothing about that is quality. Do you have any place for the kids to play? Look at the entrance and exit. Look at it real close. There is one entrance, one exit. You have the police coming in. You have the fire department coming in. You, every one of you are going to be looking at a budget in a couple of years. And we've got a big problem. We're going to have a big problem because my backyard drains. I live in a villa and it floods and I spent four years at the nine with my HOA because my backyard goes down and it slopes and guess what? The tile is broken. We as an HOA do not have the money to fix it and it was three and four feet deep. In fact, I called and had the board of health because I had mosquitoes so bad I could not in my own backyard. And you know what the good old Decal County said? Well, guess what? Decal County has mosquitoes. Live with it. Okay, you've reached your three minutes. Can you kind of clip it up here? But take that into consideration because it is going to get your budget doubled for somebody that wants to make money and it isn't in your pocket. Thank you. And the $300,000 which is set up like mobile. No. Thank you. [Applause] Would anybody else from the public like to speak?

And again, this these are conceptual plans. These are not the plans where the roads come out and necessarily aren't where they're going to come out in the future. All right. My name is Justin Alvarado. I live on 1410 Somerset Ridge Drive. Um really close to it. Um I think everything's been said. Um I would like to ask the council that to not approve this. It's just not in the best interest. I totally agree. Houses are going to go there one way or another. Maybe half that. That's what I would like is not near the amount of foot traffic. Really everything's been said. So, thanks. Thank you very much. Probably don't need the microphone. I always told I talk too loud. Paula Straer, 1117wood Circle. Uh does anybody look into the how many kids might be going to the schools? Are the schools built to take on maybe a hundred more kids? Also too, if the left if the houses could face the road, they make house they make manufactured houses that look like twotory regular houses. if they made actual lots but the houses so they face the roads that may not be quite so quite as bad because I kind of live kind of caddyy quarter from it but when you're just putting them like she said boop boop boop boop that's a it's a trailer park no matter how you say it it's a trailer park but they do make regular regular devices that you can't really tell our modules and that they face the roads have a It'd be like a regular a regular old city. That's it. Thank you.

Would anybody else from the public like to step forward and speak either in favor or against the project? Any other? I'm going to give everybody a chance. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. So now before we begin discussion amongst the commission members, I'd like to draw your attention to the considerations listed at the end of the staff report. While formal findings of facts are not required for the request to modify the uses allowed and applicable development standards for this plan development district staff has provided five key points for our review. It should be recognized that the conceptual plan is only an illustration of his intent. The commission should avoid u delving into the plan itself um as part of the modified um request. It is not binding and it could change following this modification. However, if this modification is approved, any future primary plat filed that meets the applicable criteria would generally be generally be entitled to be approved. Therefore, any changes that we want to make to the district's criteria, many of which we've discussed, needs to be made at this time. So with that context in mind, I'll now open the floor for discussion amongst commission members and I guess I'll go first. Okay. I had an opportunity in reviewing this to also go back and revisit the planning commission zoning class our case 2023-9 which reszone this property initially from agriculture to its

current planning development district um classification or designation that case included 14 considerations not just the five that are presented to us now several of these I believe uh remain relevant to our discussion today even though we're just doing a text amendment to amend what's already been passed. Here are the five. I I think that we should also consider the current conditions and the character of existing structures and uses in the area. The most desirable use for which the land area is adapted. Number three, the conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction. Four, the testimony of the applicant. and five relevant evidence uh presented by other individuals. Um some of the issues that I see with this um before even considering doing this would be uh within can you turn to um standards whether I guess they're duplicate from the f this staff report and also the ordinance. speaking to the ordinance that changes are going to be made um the standards um you know I if this would have come to us initially this way I I don't think I would have approved it in the first place um the apartment idea with the industrial and the commercial I think I was fine with um so anyway the standards that I would like to see changed on this before I can even consider this would be the lot width increased back to 60% or 60 feet instead of the 50 feet because that's consistent with R3 the garage requirement whereas it's not a twocards garage requirement it's a onecar garage requirement and the R3 I'd

like to see that garage requirement added back in as a yes versus a no with a lot laid out the way it is I'm still probably okay with the uh what's the percent coverage 60% versus the 50% coverage I'm still okay with that modification being there. Um I do want to see the removal of manufactured so it's only modular home. And one of my other biggest concerns and this is where I have a really pro big problem is the streets remaining private and not public of the street with it needs to be w it needs to meet city standards um for fire trucks for emergency vehicles. Um, I gotta look to see where that's actually at within the I had it written down somewhere, but I got so many notes I can't find it. Um, but I I would like to see that change as well. Without those, I don't know if we need to do conditions, commitment of use, change the ordinance. If all those could be done in the ordinance, but that's where I stand on it. So I'm not really as presented ready to make a favorable recommendation at all unless changes are made. So the I remember looking at this proposal when we initially changed it to a plan development and one of the major discussions was the conversion from I believe they originally had it requested for I2. Um, and we expected the change over to I1 to allow a barrier between and the transition between in that community space to soften that transition as we begin to move toward the residential area. Um, the original plan was how do you then bridge that with the apartment community where they store their stuff?

That was the intent of the storage unit. So, there was a cohesive plan for something like that. Um going back to the ver very first um speaker from the audience uh from Carl the attorney um concerns about noise as they look to expand next to an industrial I2 um yes when we look at the plan development an adjacent property of I2 to R3 is acceptable adjacent property of an M3 to a supply um to an I2 is acceptable but we've been through enough these meetings that there will be public issues if Carl likes to expand further onto their walls. Um the I echo a lot of your concerns specifically. I noted the the road requirements um as a significant concern as well as uh um the lot width being a significant concern. It's hard not to revert back to the conceptual drawing, but recognizing what is functionality or functionally capable within that lot um and within their plan and within what they're trying to do based on the information we've been provided, which is all we can really base our assessments on. Um, I'm struggling with accepting this because we lose that barrier um and transition as we move from industrial to residential. And that was a big selling point of even developing and voting for the original PD early on was it allowed that progressive transition through that area. Um, which this current proposal does not provide. I'm also uh leaning toward the recommendations already been made here,

but the one that I think is going to be needed is the first speaker came up and said uh just like with airports, the protection of filing complaints. I don't know exactly how that would be mentioned or put into motion, but if business does want to expand next to this supposed uh housing development, uh they would need to be protected or at least I think they should be protected from complaints or lawsuits. Any other discussion? Different lots in the different areas. So we have a reference Grayson Drive the smallest lot Chandler 60t 60 Denberg and Oak Chase is above 80. So at 50 ft, this is by far one of the smallest lot sizes we have in that area. I am going to tell you that I am a proponent of affordable housing. I know somebody made a comment that it's not affordable housing in this world. It is in today's market. It is new houses are being constructed for 350 and their market knows it's affordable housing. It's not. um kids who are making 60 $80,000 a year cannot afford that. They can't afford the 220s, 250s, 260s. It's something as a as a as a city we need to be looking at. We need considering however in this case, uh looking at the surrounding properties in the area, I'm not in favor of going from a 60 to a 50. So that's where I'm going to stand on this as well. um Bob Airman's comments as well that carries

the weight with me. Um that u putting that much residential in this area was something we discussed when we approved that PD and we wanted that transition going from the I2 to the I1 to the apartments in warehouses over to where we're at with residential. That is that was a conversation we all had. So we had to stick with that original conversation as well. So that's that's why I'm going to lean on. So echoing what you guys are saying that's what I think Jim before any motions or even may should Keith have a chance to reply to any of this. Yeah. Yep. Do you have anything else you would like to add or comment since you don't have a microphone in front of you? There you go. Yeah, I think the 60 foot lot is not a deal killer as far as that goes. Um, as far as uh all the houses will face the road. They're not facing the behind the road. So, they all face the road. When you pull up, the garage is going to be there. Front porch's going to be there. They all face the road. So, I know that's been couple questions they've asked about that. So, As far as the flooding, I mean, I know storm drains as it's all developed, that should be all taken care of in the in the civil drawing. So, I I don't Yeah, I know that probably floods out there. There's a low out there. Well, that all be taken care of with uh with with that. And I know, you know, a lot of people think that 60 homes is a lot, but right now it zone where I can put 300 apartments on there. So the density

could be a lot more than what I'm asking for here. So that's just I hear that a lot too. So that was about what was going to go in there was two or 300 apartments right there plus the store and then there's still commercial component on the back, but I thought this would be a little lesser impact than 300 apartments. anything on the street being a public street and you want the width of that if that's what we need to do with the sidewalks and everything connectivity I I missed it. Did you say the 60 foot wide lot was Okay. Okay. Make sure. Thank you. Jim, you mentioned something. Uh, city street being one thing, but sidewalks. I just said sidewalks. Yeah, that's okay. I'll speak louder. So, okay. So, with all of the changed now verbally to us is significantly different than what was presented to the staff and what the recommendations are for staff. So what are our options at this point? Is this something that they can withdraw and reapply based on what you've heard? Do we have to vote on this? Do we have to make Jim? You you don't you have uh the option for a favorable, unfavorable, or no recommendation. um the applicant could choose to withdraw the application and start over or you could make a um I guess the the way to modify the ordinance would be if you chose to give

a favorable recommendation with the following conditions that would then be added to the uh ordinance for consideration by the council. So now like at council where we make a motion to amend by changing article five article six of the ordinance we can't do it through motion to amend the ordinance. You could do that or you could say a favorable recommendation with the following conditions that are a but we could attack one by one because then I don't know if everybody's in favor of sure making the streets like I think everybody's going to be okay with 60 foot and dry and and garage. So that could be made as one motion and we could break it up. Sure. Might be easier that way. Does that answer your question? It does. There just so many changes. It's not like one or two things. It's like the entire development plan is not scrapped. So I think it's be very difficult for us to try and get through with these. It could be done. I'm just saying it's so if we were to propose a favorable with a significant number of conditional modifications. I've got kind of what the consensus is here written down. Um, it's still on the council to determine what those actual conditions of the new building would be. It's not the acceptance of them outright if they then would have to consider each condition individually as well. Correct. Well, we if we edit the change to the ordinance, it's there and then we'd have to change that back. It wouldn't be if we edit and amend the ordinance, the ordinance changes. Okay. Correct. And I mean, if you gave an unfavorable recommendation, no, council

still could pass it. Is going to hear it and they could pass it even if it's unfavorable. Yeah. This is an opportunity for the public to be heard, for the commissioner to be heard, and for the commission to weigh in and and hope that the council takes your comments. Uh well, but um I'm not sure what the filing is for this, but from from a developer perspective that's the developer question. Is it more prudent for you to amend your proposal and refile or would it be more prudent for you to accept a finding from this commission with significant number of conditions likely that then you're trying to meet? What would be your verbal course of action? I think if we get a favorable way we talk about I'd be okay with that. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. I say would you rather amend your plan come before us once again with with a clearer perspective. Yeah. Based on some of the feedback that you've heard here today. Um or get a move forward with a significant number of conditions. I probably good either way, James. Well, I wasn't asked, but I'll give opinion. That's by that's by the applicant. It again we're we're we're not addressing that plan's out. So the only thing we're addressing is is that box up there, the list under the R list under residential and the the uses. So that right now the uses allowed are R3 the same as R3 which allows manufactured home. But if the applicants agree not to do manufactured

home then we will strike that as one of the uses allowed. we cannot or any future owner cannot do a manufactured home. That's a simple change to the ordinance. The other changes we're talking about are in the table. So, if we just go down in that table and we're looking at lot width 60 foot the garage requirement. So, we changed that no to a yes. And um forgot the minimum um dwell as to going from 900 to 1350 changed with this go through and just change those. That's really what and then it this planning commission that's what you recommend. That's what city council will see in in that that table will be modified to meet the planning commission's recommendation. still struggle with the transition area on this one specifically. Yeah, even with the changes, I don't know that I'm I don't know. I don't know where I stand, but I want to get those changes made. Can I go ahead and make a motion from the president's chair? So, here's my here's my motion. I'm going to make a motion to amend article 3 development standards making the following changes. Number one, the minimum lot width will increase from 50 to 60 ft. The minimum dwelling unit size will go from 900 square feet per dwelling unit up to 1350 square feet per dwelling unit. And the garage requirement changes from no to yes. That's a motion. Do I have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

[Music] That's in a different section. That's why I wanted to break it up into the sections. So, any any further discussion on those three changes just to the development standards? Okay. It's the same. Yeah. That brings it into compliance with pretty much everything with the exception of the percent as R3 is really 50, but I'm okay increasing it to 60C here, I think, to help accommodate the size. Any further discussion? All in favor of sign uh sign. Yeah, I did. Yeah. All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carried. The sidewalk one I saw I think is in article four design standards. Um okay. So we also then need to change article 4 section C which says residential uses are not required to have a garage. A storage shed shall be provided for east residential lot. I make a motion to change um article 4 design standard subsection C to say residential uses are required to have a garage. Period. End of statement. I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on changing article 4 subsection C? Hearing none. Um all in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carried. Um E of the same article down to E.

Sidewalks are not required along the interior private streets. Um okay. I'm going to before I make a motion, I'm going to ask on this. So, should I change it to sidewalks are required and interior public streets will be dedicated to the city of Auburn? Something streets will be built city streets and to city standards. Okay. So, sidewalks are required. Oops. Keep in mind that the infrastructure cost could be more expensive and that's going to be up to the developer. Okay. Put in city streets, curb and gutter to our specifications, sidewalks, ADA ramps. It's going to be it's going to be something that the developers that that could make or break the developers profit margin, but I'm just throwing that out there. Gotcha. I'll ask the developer, would you be willing to do that? I mean, that's part of it. Yeah. I mean, obviously gota put it in the plan and run the numbers, but yeah, I mean, if it's if I can dedicate to the city, I think that'd be a benefit and meet the city standards with sidewalk. Yeah. Okay. Since he agrees to do that, I'd like to change article four design standard subsection E to say sidewalks are required along the interior streets and all streets shall meet city standards. We have a motion to second. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carried. Uh the other one is to remove

um Oh, I lost my place. Remove manufactured housing and make it modular only or Yeah, that is stick built, right? Or still built. Yeah. So, I got to find where that's at. I have it written down as number four. And that must be not in the ordinance. That must be in the must in the staff report number four. I didn't see it in the ordinance. It's listed under article two of the ordinance. Okay. Uses. Thank you. So perhaps if you offer to add at the end of the sentence, you could accept out manufactured homes. Okay. So would allow the site built for modular just not manufactured. So if I just said um modular or uh manufactured homes are excluded rather do it in the affirmative modular that's the way the way it currently reads just everything that's allowed in R3. So if you put if you said UDO section 2.13 are allowed with the exception of manufactured homes. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to amend um the first paragraph of article two uses at the end of the sentence um the first par the first paragraph to add with the exception of manufactured homes. We have a motion and a second. All in

favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carried. Have I missed anything? Is there anything else? You did state that all the property face the road. So your traditional trailer appearance would not be that so front door facing roadway structures. That was part of the plan was that indicated that none of them would be the trailer approach where facing doors. So would that be best added as a condition and the and the garage too, right? You would never have a room to do a side entrance garage. That's the only thing condition or That could fall under article 4 design standards. You want to add something concerning that? That's where you would add it. Add a G. I'll let you take care of that one. I move that under article 4 design standards related to this development would have the requirement for front facing front road facing front doors and garages. Letter G. Yes. Oh, I guess on May. So, any any more discussion? It does say that provide a paid parking at least two vehicles, right? And that's in garage, right? Correct. Drive. Yeah, that's still that's consistent with R3.

Okay. So we any more discussion on G about um front facing front doors and garages? Okay. All in favor signify by saying I opposed. Motion carried. So modifying these this is the recommendation that goes to council with or without recommendation. We just changed what is yes there there is one thing that hasn't been addressed and you mentioned uh earlier the commitment that um no one that purchases a lot there can complain against the noise from industrial. So tight. That's a Is that the legal term for it? Due to an existence. Um, it's a great question. Um, [Music] I mean, it would have to be subject to the covenants, but I'm not I'm not exactly sure how we would Isn't there something set up now where you like the commercial going in with Dollar General, they have to put the fencing up? Is that They technically didn't have to, but now that we've changed the ordinance, it would or something. I don't I don't know that it it applies, right? Residential next to commercial. Um,

I'm I'm not sure what the wording should be, but I think you could make a requirement that the covenants and restrictions have language that the residents can't complain against Carlex for existing. Um, where I'm struggling with it is I don't know how much good that ultimately is going to do for Carlex. People are going to complain and do Carlex has the legal protection that there's tons of case law that says you can't move next to something that you consider a nuisance and then complain about the nuisance. There's about like hog farms and all that kind of stuff. Racetracks, railroad tracks. Yeah. All kinds of those types. So, um I I don't know exactly what the language would look like, but you could add a Well, from the county on every plat that we approve, they they read into the record that the owner of the plat will not object to the use of if their adjacent land is agricultural, they will not object to the legal use of anything that happens within that agricult cultural. So if dog hog farm goes in next to him, hey, too bad. You know, you know, that's allowed. Yeah. Yeah. So they they read it in for everyone. Yeah. That's And how do you get people to how how do you say you can't complain about something? I don't know ask you about the city of people. So there's a non in the restrictions within that provision that that says the community as a whole the HOA can't the

individual do anything but the HOA can't object to well and it's I mean it's just like that situation. So you you have a non-remonstrance, an annexation happens, you you try to object, someone can say they can they can pull that out and say you you you bought a property that had this. And there's been all kinds of issues with non-remonstrance and changes in the law and all that. But that's the same thing ultimately Carllex could do is say we have this provision, but there's nothing that could someone your HOA can't show up at your door and say dismiss your lawsuit right away. There's still Carla, if somebody brought a lawsuit against them, they'd still have to go through a process to dismiss it for that. But um we could require them to put language in that says that the the owners of the the owners of the uh properties in the HOA agree not to object to any legal use of the surrounding properties. how much actual effect that has because again I think Carllex has they've got decades and decades of pace law on their side that says you were here these houses came later as long as you are legally operating and doing things that you're allowed to do. You don't no one gets to ask you to leave because they came later. Um, but that's something that could be put in. I think for further development on the west side of that or the east side of that lot, if they were to expand it, that's obviously lost goodwill driving that further expansion of their operations. Should they choose that not based on their existing? Yes.

Any further discussion on that? Anybody want to know? I think the intent would be I I would just like to add I'm not a voting member but I've listened to what everybody said and I think that for the developer people residents of Auburn want it to be you know have have a healthy community where it's familyfriendly housing and also handicap accessible for seniors so that if somebody you know people requested senior there should be proper access through the doorways and, you know, into the residence and everything else. Um, and there should be areas of recreation for the kids because people that buy these affordable homes um will have kids. So, there should be it it should have a quality of life is what we're looking for. And I don't think we can mandate that with any kind of laws, but that's just a request. Any other discussion? Um, I'm I'm I'm with you. The buffering is kind of still an issue for me. When I look back to the current, like I said, I look back at the zoning that took place before changing it from agriculture to plan development. um the conservation of values through the jur values of properties through the jurisdiction. I don't know if there's any real data on that. Um plus with the changes that we made, I think it's helped. Um what would be the desirable use for the land in the area as adopted? Um affordable housing is as one of those

criterias or conditions and the character of existing structures and uses in the area. That's where it's a little bit different. um because the others are designed a little bit differently. They're not the the R3, they're R2s. Um that being said, I don't know. We need a motion one way or another. So, we need either a motion to um forward to council um with a favorable recommendation or forward to council with an unfavorable recommendation. address is the that transition, right? As this plan is our management we just put into place. This falls directly within the requirements. It falls in directly with what all the other properties in that area are comp. Okay. So, it's a lesser density. It is complying with lot sizes. It's complying with the the building sizes. Um, everything we're seeing in all of the surrounding here. That's true. So, it's definitely better in my opinion because with the apartment complex, if they could put in Yes, that is my concern. 100%. You could do that today without any without us changing anything. Yeah, they can put that in. So with these changes, I think that this is a better use than with those changes. Correct. Thank you. And I I did want Chris, you had made a comment about favoring the potential for an unfavorable recommendation with the conditions. I don't I don't think you can really do that. It's either if it's unfavorable, it's unfavorable. If it's

favorable, you're you're adding your conditions. Um, but we made amendments, so they're in there. But unfavorable, it's you're you're saying vote no on this. So, your changes don't really they they don't really matter at that at that point. It's up to the council and what the um and they can always come back and change them. They could make those same, you know, anyone on the council, they could make the same suggestions. Um, but I I just think it's it's I did not know that. I thought our conditions were fixed now that it would be going now with whatever recommendation made. No, I don't I don't And I did want to mention one thing about council again. As you said, there would not be a public hearing there, but there's always a place on the agenda for public comment. So, there's always a place for public comment. That's where you would want to make your comment if you're here regardless of the way it goes. So you will have a chance to speak. So looking for a motion boil down. This is basically take out PD basically considerations north and resial south. Would we consider an R3 district in this area? Is it suitable for an R3 that meets all the grade plus another one that had required frontage properties at that point now that the streets will meet the standards sidewalks the it's gone back to 60 ft. Yes, I think so. I personally that's the decision we're making if we accept an R3 in this area plus a couple of other conraints on this property. It's on the developer determine if it's profitable or not based on

summary. Okay. And keep in mind we need a majority which is actually six. We need a quorum basis. No, he's not. That was the other one. Still need a motion. I would like to see this rather than approve. You want to make a motion forward the council with a favorable recommendation with the conditions that we've set forth. I will. Yes. I guess that sounds like a motion that she's making a motion to uh forward this to uh the city council with a favorable recommendation. Do we have a second with the conditions? I'll second. Have a motion. Second. Any further discussion? I'm going to try it with just a a call. A roll, not a roll call. We'll try it the other way. All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carried and it's unanimous. Seven votes. Again, please plan on attending city council meeting and August 5th. If you have any other questions, thank you for your willingness to change some of the standards. We appreciate that. Yeah. Uh so please be aware the standard or the plan that was on the screen is no longer the plan that was report significant modifications and scope has changed. So please keep that in mind as well. And thank you all for coming. I'm just going to give them a minute to clear out here so we can finish our business. I'd hate to gabble.

have to face the road. We still have business to conduct. Please take it outside. We still have business to conduct. Thank you. I'll go ahead and proceed on to reports. Address report. We have no address report. Board members. Anything from city county leazison? No. Nothing from county project advisory committee. Nothing on the agenda from city staff. We city. We do not have any maybe you'll get to it. We don't have any applications filed for the uh August meeting. So, we'll likely be careful with that. Okay. Thank you. Uh, city st um attorney. City attorney. Yeah, I have I have a bunch of stuff take away. Okay. Go ahead. No, we're good. We're good. Any other public comment? Yeah. Please step forward and state your name. My name is Hogi and I live at 3299 46A directly across from the property. I do have a question. If you're planning on going through with this, when is the timing frame on it? Well, this has to go to council and it has to be read twice and then I don't know how long he's got to go back and crunch numbers. So, I'll ask him a year from now. I'll ask him what what would you be looking for as a potential time that you would start? I'd love to do it by the end of the year. Okay. And approvals and things like that. Yeah. You currently said this or county it's city. It is city. Well, the property is city. They're looking for annexation. that will be on the next city council um agenda. So that is on there. So it will be annexed into the city. Okay. Prior to their final going through the primary plan and secondary stage. What is the sit back on 46A for this

property? It's the back. What's the back size 25? Is it on 46? It would well that's also would be a foot. So that lots any lot that would have double frontage it's in front of both sides. So it's a 25 foot 25 foot from the property line from the property line. Okay. And the other question I have is um it just went over my head. Let me think. What was it? I forget. Sorry. let her speak and then if you remember it before I close the public speaking you can come back up. Please go ahead and say your name again. Samore Drive Auburn. I own the property to the north of this um development. Um the county tile I was talking about. Uh it it runs two two um areas into mine and it is a work. It is vacated since 2012, but it is working. My farm will drain in three days if we get a heavy rain. So that tile also goes over to the middle of this property and runs up across where you're planning on building. And uh like I said, if you build on that county tile or you move it around and plug it up, we're all going to be in trouble because it drains all properties between there and Cedar Creek. Again, that will be something that will be brought up at with the primary plat. That's the second stage because it will have to go before drainage board. So, please keep your eye out for the public notice again when it comes back to

submitting a primary plat. Okay. Yep. I remember with the additional changes, modifications, are you going to be sending out letters again to the owners? No, there will there typically would not be because there's there's not a public hearing at the council. It will not go out between now and the the council, but when the primary plat is filed, you will. So, not for the continuation of this, but for the primary pl second stat, it will be sen. I don't know if it will, but it will be sent out the property when it was mined property adjacent to it. Okay. My actually it looks my driveway is right across from the entrance. Gotcha. Gotcha. And the other question I have, do you are you confirming that you will have HOA restrictions? Okay, that was my concern there too. One entrance. There's three entrances. Yeah, there's three entrances. two, one on the back side, one on the front, one on across from my driveway. Thank you. Okay. Um, keep in mind as staff said, we may not end up having a meeting next month. Um, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Got a motion, a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. All oppose. Oh man, I don't know that right commercial

Do you