Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

homes in there and an apartment complex and Peach Tree City said no. Oh, really? You can do one acre, not 15. Ready to go? Okay, you guys ready? Yes. Okay. I'd like to uh get the microphone. I'd like to call the January 26th planning commission meeting to order. For everyone in attendance who are citizen of the United States, please stand and join me in pledging the allegiance to the flag of our country. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Thank you. Want to welcome everyone in attendance this evening. Uh we have several members of Peach Tree City's finest, our our fire department, uh EMS, as well as our uh city engineers. Um also we have uh city manager and uh member of council. So, thank you for for being here this evening and of course all of the people here um in in the public from uh from the neighborhoods. Um we're going to go ahead and move right along. staff. Any announcements this evening?

Well, I'd like to give just a reminder for um comments um for public comments. We do not have a public comment um for this particular portion. Only the the actual hearing, the public hearing will have comments here from the public which is an item further at the um bottom of the agenda. So today we'll not have any other comments.

Okay. I I do appreciate that and and if everyone in attendance does understand what uh what our director has said is that there will be no public comments this evening. We have received and when we get into the actual item uh we have received comments uh via via email via via staff. Um and those have been read. Um so just want to let you know that if you did submit anything those were received and uh have been uh have been read. Um, so any presentations? No, sir. Not at this time. Any agenda changes? No, sir. Okay. Approval of minutes. So, we have the minutes from the January 12th, 2026 Planning Commission. Any move.

So, we have a motion to accept as submitted. Yes. So, we have a motion to submit as to accept as submitted. Um, in a second. Any other comments or questions on that? Okay. That being said, all those in favor of approving the minutes from the January 12th, 2026 planning commission meeting signify by saying I. I. I. Okay. Minutes approved as submitted. Okay. Old agenda items. Nothing for that. Okay. So, we're going to get right into the new agenda items. The first one is discussion to consider a text amendment to the parking ordinance section 909 off- streetet automobile parking requirements. And I'll turn that over to staff.

Yes, sir. Thank you for this opportunity. Um so we have discussed previously um some proposed amendments to the parking ordinance. So um we have where golf cart parking is being considered to have revisions or creation because it's not currently one as at this time. Um, so what we're seeing for section 909, uh, we're looking into seeing how we can add those provisions for the off- streetet parking while section 706 requires for there to be connectivity within our existing paths. So, um, one of the points that were made were that if we are requiring for development to connect to those paths, we should also allow for there to be such parking for those carts. And so that's why the discussion is here for today. Um, so we're here to discuss any potential um, revisions that you may have or considerations that you know you all may look to see moving forward. Um, I'll go in a little bit more detail as to what's coming up for us. So, golf cart parking um the planning commission spoke at the last meeting and suggested that we have a substitution to where if example would be given if a business is required to have 20 parking spaces, they'll only um be required to have 15 if they're going to have the five spaces be substituted with golf cart parking. staff has suggested that we consider um in restricting where that location would be just so it can be easily marked and identified. Um we identify it anywhere. It could be where in your handicap parking it could be anywhere near the um closest uh parking space of the building or you know in that kind of direction as a suggestion. Um I will say I will spend a lot of time with my peer behind me the engineers um as they will be very heavily used for that information. Um, bike parking. Um, a council member

mentioned that he would like to see that we mimic that as well with bike parking because we are promoting that. Uh, we are very big on of course golf carts, bikes, and walking. So, with that being said, um, allowing for those three to be considered by adding the the bike parking as well for that and mimicking the same requirements for um, locations. Okay. Third, we're looking at the ation for street parking. So I gave a a little bit of a summary in my staff report as to how we could look at this. Um I gave an example on medical um just as an example because uh teleaalth services um is something that's really big today. So you're seeing where there may be an opportunity for lesser parking. This is just an example. Of course we haven't, you know, done much studies on that. Um, but we're seeing where currently today we have one parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. Um, we're thinking as an example, you could require it to be one for every 300. That means that you're lessening maybe just a parking space here or there, but we can definitely go in more detail um once we bring this back to you for adoption. Okay. And so lastly, um it has been recommended that we look at the entire um parking code because that gives us a chance to see if we're up to standards for what we're seeing today um in regards to trends for parking and lane use. So just as a reminder, your city council initiated this January 5th. We're here today to discuss it and bringing it back to you on February 9th for potential recommendation over to council. And then that action for council once they're ready to hear will be March 19th. So, Chairman, this concludes my report.

Great. Thank you very much. I know these are definitely some subjects that we've touched on in the past um both uh especially the golf cart, but also the uh the bicycle parking and storage um as well as the um just overall parking numbers at at certain locations. Um going to go ahead and and open it up. Um, commissioners, do you have any any questions of of staff based upon the presentation and the information that was provided? Commissioner. Yes. Yep.

All right. Uh, I guess thank you. My only question is we when we started talking about this last week, uh, pre at the previous meeting, parking, automobile parking takes up a certain amount of spot and we're talking about giving some of that up towards golf carts. I'm not sure where the bike parking comes in to add this to this ordinance. It seems like a totally different topic because it doesn't take up any of the the property that parking would be on that would be on the sidewalk.

We we've seen a a increase in requests for bike parking over the years. I I know that it probably hasn't happened since since you've been on the commission, but I know that uh for Scott, Ken, and myself, at the very least, we've seen an increased uh requ request for that kind of a facil facilitation for public use of commercial spaces. I guess my only question was does it belong in the same ordinance? Yeah. Yeah, that's a good question. Yeah, I don't have

and I think that's something that we can discuss. Um again, I hate to put Dave on the spot, but that's one of the things that he and I will spend some time, you know, as it comes to land development, of course, um looking to see how that best suits the land. Um when you were speaking earlier, I thought each land would be different. It'd be sight specific, right? because some some of the developments aren't existing and how can we make it so that that you know we can enhance or or play a part in what we're proposing today and then it'll be probably a little easier for those that may have the ability to create new land. So, um with that said, I think we can bring that discussion back to you and let you know that we had considerations and you know play a part in what options we have. Thank you. Of course.

Sure. Any other questions? I have one question about size of the golf cart space. Um, are you proposing a one for one, meaning just reabeling a car parking space for a golf cart space? Because the golf carts are getting bigger and bigger. Yeah. And bigger. Um, and some of the spaces in some of the shopping districts now that are striped, they they don't fit.

So, I will tell you, interesting you bring that up. I saw a compact car parked next to a golf cart and the compact car was smaller than the golf cart. So, that's an interesting point. Um, we were thinking to reduce it based on the standard size, but you're right. I think of a larger family has a larger golf cart. Uh, we wouldn't want overhang from that parking slab. So, we can definitely consider that to ensure at least the length. The width would be the same pretty much, but it's the length that changes.

I I think we do have to consider the ADA compliance also with the golf cart. believe there's new ADA compliance issues with with parking. I don't know if that impacts bicycle type storage. Um but we really probably need to take a look at that because I know it was brought up in the past about the golf cart um spots are going to have to widen a bit because of ADA compliance. That's something we'll need to take a look at. One other suggestion is when we do the signage for the golf cart parking, if we can put something in there that says no cars allowed at all, because I've seen folks park, you know, you've got them lined up and I've seen people pull up, get out of their car, go into a store,

okay, that aren't from Peach Tree City and you're like, you can't do that. Um, so if we can just clearly market that, that's not a thing to do. Oh, thank you. Any any other questions? First world problem. Yeah, I know, right?

I I guess I do have a question of of staff on the the number of parking spots. Um, and I know we touched on the teleaalth. Um, and I know Commissioner Halverson said, you know, some of the properties that he's familiar with, you know, especially some of the the services and and things like that, they're looking to cut back because people aren't coming out and and parking there. But it wasn't very long ago, well, maybe it was it was precoid, so I guess it is a little while ago. Um, but I know there was a lot of requests or at least several requests coming in to expand parking u because of especially medical facilities. I I think we had a max of I can't remember is it 25% that we could go over the minimum or the whatever the parking I think it was 25%. Or or right around there. Um, so I'm just I'm looking at this going, you know, I definitely think we need to have flexibility um depending on the property and and what the business is and what the usage will be. Um, my only concern um and I guess that would be something to to take a look at. U if we've had those requests, if we haven't had those recently and we're seeing the opposite now of of reduction, then I think it's definitely something we can we can take a look at. My concern, I guess question in the comment. My concern would be that if we do give up those spots and say the property grows, the the the footprint grows because we don't have a spot or or it's used for something else, it's not easily backtracked to go and put another parking spot in there.

Right. So,

right. So, there's there's a couple things going on there. So, um I will say that there are some uses that have requests for more parking spaces um to be allowed for versus then it being stuck at the minimum, right? Having a little bit more flexibility to have more. So, yes, that's the part on the um the fourth component where we're doing the full review of this the actual um development um for for parking. But then there's another component where um existing parking may exist for a site, but then we may encourage for it to be areas that's not used at this time to be promoted for parking of golf carts. It could be so many different things that we just haven't explored yet to bring it back to you. But this is good conversation to allow for me to bring it back to our peers and the development team that we have here to just lay out these discussions, bring out ideas, and then go from there and bring it back to you for um consideration.

Sure. Absolutely. I think I think the most important like you said is is the flexibility to be able to take that full review and really see what's going on with that property. There's a portion in my staff report that also says let's be mindful that this is possibly a trend. Um you know with that trends you try to reverse and go back to. So we just have to be mindful of what we're creating to ensure that we're not making things you know impossible to go back to. Exactly. Okay. So any any comments?

No. Yeah, I have just a couple of comments. So, I I I do appreciate and and and like the idea that staff suggested about the um I guess suggested not mandatory location of golf parking park parking spots. I think that's great to have in there. I think our former planning director used to call it Rockstar parking, which I I think that's kind of nice. Um I I do agree with Commissioner Allen. I I I think that the the bicycle parking and the uh the reduction in spaces or I guess the eviction spaces for certain properties that I think those should be separate.

Okay. I I'd love to see a survey of commercial properties done in terms of their usage and if they would I mean I don't I don't I don't know if they'd give us good data. You know, I mean probably to think about how that survey was designed, but I'd love to see something that could give us an indication of how much is actually being used and how much we really need in our commercial properties and spaces. I'm I'm trying to remember when we did the when we did the 54 West overlay update. Um, and I I should have that in front because I know I referred to it when I was looking at the LED lighting also. Um, but do either of of you and Commissioner Hamner recall where we

kind of designated for for bicycle parking? I mean, we weren't taking parking spots. No, it was it was separate areas that we're were looking at that weren't part of the parking lot. Is is that correct? That's Yeah, that's correct. parking, but we also weren't really directive in terms of being like it needs to be true there. Yeah. It was one of those when we get further along kind of with, you know, looking at the UDO, you looking at things that we were hoping down the road, um that's when I think we were going to kind of say, hey, this is for all locations in Peach Tree City. We recommend it's in this type of location

with still some flexibility, but you know, trying to at least signify where we would like to see it. So, yeah. Yep. And quite honestly, I'd love to see it be mandatory um for for commercial properties. I mean, you know, we have a the one of the largest multi-use path systems in the country. So, a lot of people use their bikes on it. The fact that we don't have it is is quite surprising to me at least. Um and then finally, I think the signage idea is a good one too for the golf parking. I'd love to see that as well. But, you know, a follow-up question I would have to that is do do we need to put in code enforcement would be able to enforce for that or would it be something that already exists in the code?

So, that is something that I've had a conversation with our senior code enforcement officer on that. Um, and I can say that he and I have discussed various options of that. So, that could be a part of our proposal as well to you for code enforcement action. That'd be great. Yeah. Nothing further. Sure.

Any other comments? No. Okay. I think overall it's a it's a very good starting point. Um you've definitely hit on some of the some of the subjects we've talked about numerous times. So looking forward to kind of see the the refinement and kind of the the final version as to what that looks like. But I think we have some some good ideas, some good discussion on that. So thank you. Awesome. Thank you. Okay. The next is a uh discussion to consider a text amendment to the lighting ordinance section 731.2 of the land development ordinance and turn it back to staff.

Yes, sir. So, this is probably an easier one. Um so, when it comes to land development and permits are coming our way, there's language that allows for um light fixtures and it gives the word only because that means it's only allowing for those um types that you're seeing there. So, we're asking to add the LED option to that. Um, I've given a sample of that in your packet to see what that language will look like per the code and staff is prepared to bring it back to you unless you have any um other amendments. We're proposing for that item to be brought back to you February 9th for your consideration and recommendation to council and then for council on March 19th. Okay, great. So again, we'll go ahead and start with any questions. Does any commissioner have any questions of staff on the lighting?

Just a clarification. Absolutely. on what type of properties would this be? Thank you, sir. Yes, that would be for commercial and industrial. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. I I would like you to amend one sentence. Okay. So, in 731.2 light fixtures, the last sentence says um the same type of lighting must be utilized for all fixtures and light sources on the site.

Okay. um that can be misleading. I think what you really want to say or what the intended language is is for all similar type of applications that the light fixture should be similar because the language implies that everything on the site needs to be the same. And that's not it's different applications. If you're doing a a Ballard versus a general lighting, you're not going to use the same type of light. So, okay, just to be more specific relative to typology versus sight. Just too general. Understood. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Hammer.

Yeah. So, some of the older LED type lights have what's called a blue light glare associated with those and there can be limited by prevented by uh having some uh rules around the actual temperature of the lights. So, we have something like that in there in order to prevent, you know, to promote a certain quality of the LED lights. So, there's two different things. I'm going to jump on that. You know, I'm a lighting nerd.

Um, so there's CRI, which is color rendering index. It's kind of 90 or above. Um, and then there's temperature, which is what the commissioner is talking about. Um, 5,000 Kelvin is this color, which is cold, and 2,300, 2500, 3,000 is warm lights. That's like incandescent.

So, I think we can talk about what the intent is maybe with the commissioners is, you know, the way it was originally written is that you don't want all these different color temperatures all over your site because it just looks awful. Um, so we just have to decide for commercial properties, it's better to be a cooler temperature. Typically, for office, you're going to have more of a 5,000 color temperature for lighting. If you go for residential type quality, if it's like a nice restaurant, you're going to want something in a 3000, right? So, I don't think we want to kind of mandate just one color temperature. I think it would be depending upon the use typology. Um, that would be my recommendation and we can talk about how to do that, but I think that's what you were talking about. That is

that's a good point and and I think to add to that and I don't know the easiest way to do it but I I would like to see something of the preferred lighting is LED. Um you can do that with LED before you couldn't. Yeah. I I I definitely think let's let's default to LED, you know, as as the preferred and then if they move away from there, there's options. But I I think we need to move I really think we need to move everyone to to LED. I don't know what your your thoughts are on that either. Why?

Um I I think power usage I think longevity um as compared to certain ones. I mean you're looking at sodium vapor or mercury vapor hallides. Um I I I think it's just a better overall move to more environmental stewardness to go over to to the LEDs also um just from a a usage standpoint of disposal and and things such as that. So I I think you probably find most commercial properties pretty much going to to LED. Um, but I I'd almost like to say, hey, this is preferred, not required, but just it preferred.

I would I would agree with that language, preferred instead of required. Yeah, it it doesn't back him into a corner. Um, but at least it moves him in the right direction, I think. I agree with that. Yeah. And colors, I'm I'm not sure in temperatures, I'm not sure the best way to handle that either. I mean that's that's a good point. Um you could have a similar um language like we have that last sentence that you suggested right for the yeah similar typology of light that should have a similar temperature rating. Yeah. Similar applications right would have similar lighting temperatures or or like you said. Okay.

So I have a question. This may be more for you. I may not be able to answer. You did get earlier. It's my understanding though that the blue light glare and some of the temperature stuff is more associated with older LEDs. Is this something that as technologies gotten better before these type of lights, it's basically just like more of a non-issue or what are your what are your thoughts on that if you can answer? I can answer that one. So years ago when they first started to do LEDs um and they were dimming them,

they it would stay the same color temperature. So to try and get an incandescent light that dimmed um it they had to actually change the color of the light to change it from that color to more of a more yellow when a like a true incandescent light would dim. The original drivers couldn't do that properly so it look blue. So the new the new technology allows you to do that. Um at least my understanding is um because originally and this was 2016. Um, it was kind of new technology at that point. Since then, it's been exponentially better. Um, so you're not going to find, it would be difficult for you to find an LED fixture now that was blue by accident.

Got it. Because they're too cheap now to be able to make that mistake. Makes sense. In my opinion. Yep. I'm not an expert, but that's my opinion. Definitely appreciate it. Could Could I ask a question of Commissioner Halverson? We there's a whole um chart in the ordinance that talks about um maximum illumination levels at different points. Would would LEDs would we do you think we need to take a look at that? I mean would LEDs automatically increase is it going to be difficult to maintain um the light levels that are okay.

Yeah. So foot candles are based upon the type of fixture and the height and ratio of what it's spreading. So they it's not just one bulb. It's you know you can put like 14 of them in there. So don't worry about foot candles. We're just talking about color and typology. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? No. Okay. I definitely think again we have some some good things to uh to take and have that reviewed and incorporated. Okay. Definitely look forward to to seeing that when it comes back. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you staff for that. Thank you.

Okay. So, we do have a public hearing. Uh the public hearing is the consideration of a text amendment to section 917 of the city's code of ordinances related to short-term rentals. If you give me a second, I will go ahead and give the public hearing procedures. Okay. When the public hearing is opened, members of the planning commission will become hearers. No action on their part is in order until the chairperson declares the hearing complete. The chairperson will allow each side equal opportunity to the floor. Individual members of the public will be given up to five minutes to state their case. First, city staff will present and request present the request and provide an assessment of compliance with city code. Next, those supporting the issue will be heard, and that does include the applicant. Then, those opposing the issue will be heard. Prior to closing the public hearing input portion of the meeting, city staff and the public will be given the opportunity to ask questions of either or both sides of the issue. When the chairperson is assured that input is complete, the the public hearing shall be ended and the planning commission may then debate the issue and render a decision. All speakers from the public are asked to follow these rules. One, come to the microphone and state your name and neighborhood prior to making remarks. Two, keep remarks under five minutes and please do not repeat others comments. And three, address all comments to the chairperson. Thank you. And with that, like to turn things over to staff.

Thank you. There we go. All right. So, the World Cup is planning to come to our home in Metro Atlanta June 1st through July 31st. Um, looking to see where there may be an influx of um visitors in Fed County, particularly being with our new stadium nearby. Um so we're looking to see where we would like to have an amendment added to the um current ordinance that allows for as you're seeing um at the latter part where it provides for um the permit to basically be uh not required during that time. that allows for residents to have the ability to uh earn such fundings without having to report it to their income tax and so forth. So, um with that being said, um city council Oh, wrong button. Sorry. City council initiated this August 21st. Um we're bringing it here tonight for your recommendation consideration. Um and then you'll see where council was proposed to hear at their next council meeting on the 12th. the language is attached um in your um packet and if you have any questions I'm available.

Okay, great. Thank you. Since city council and and staff are basically the applicants, I'm going to go ahead and open the floor up to those supporting the issue. Do we have anyone supporting the issue? Please step forward. No. Okay. No one. Um then those opposing the issue, do we have anyone in opposition? Okay. If there's no one uh for or or opposing, gonna go ahead. Um and do we have any questions to to city staff? I have two questions.

We'll have that after we we close it. Yeah. So, no other questions. No questions. Okay. That being said, I'm going to go ahead and end the public comment period period of the public hearing. I'm going to open it up to the commissioners to uh ask and debate the issue. Okay. Just a couple of questions. I don't I don't oppose this uh this amendment. Um but I do have a question. Um, you know, if someone rents their home in a particular neighborhood, um, is there a limitation on how many people can be in that home that's rented and how many cars are allowed to park around on the streets?

So, are you speaking of the current code or you're asking about what's the proposal? It actually applies to both. So, we're not proposing for there to be any restrictions on the change of arcing and so forth. Um, so with with the code's current um language, I do believe it it it doesn't specify the number of cars or people. It just gives the impression you cannot be without compliance or cause nuisance on the surrounding neighbors. That was my concern, the nuisance.

Yeah. So, so to that point, I think what you're trying to get at, and correct me if I'm wrong here, is that this this doesn't um erase the regulations and guidelines on short-term rentals even during that period. So, those those regulations and guidelines except for the permitting are still in place. Correct. Okay. During this time frame.

Yes, sir. And I appreciate that that comment. So, um this changes nothing within your um short-term rental ordinance. The only thing it changes is that a permit would not be required. Um that means that if if anyone wishes to have um their homes rented during those those timings shown, they're allowed to do that without having to go through the provisions of receiving um the requirements of the permit. Um but then soon after um that event ends with that date, it goes back to those restrictions and requirement. Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Hammer.

Yeah, just to make sure I'm clear on this, the other parts associated though with the the short-term rental outside of the application component, do those still apply during that time, like for example, we have things in terms of being like, you know, the we need to have a local contact person, like will that still be required? Everything still remains every provision. The only thing that changes is the requirement for requiring a permit. to be applied for during those times. That's it. Got it. So, so to to Commissioner Hamner's point there, um you know, right now we have a notification requirement that you have to notify your neighbors.

It's not clear from the way this amendment is written that that requirement doesn't apply. Where's the language?

Hold on one second. Section 97. I want to see the language real quick. Sorry. Yeah. So the way the way I read this and the way our attorney wrote it is that none none of the short-term ordinance will be in effect during those two months.

So they will not get a per they will not need to get a permit. They will not need to tell people that they're doing it. So for two months the STR ordinance is not in effect. But if they want to do this permanently, if they want to become an STR, you know, past the World Cup, they're going to have to go get a permit. So, this is basically a way to promote the World Cup and people to do the Augusta rule where they can lease out their house for 14 days and not have to report it on their income tax. So, that's what this whole program is. And the county uh Fay It Forward, which is a new branch off of the development authority, is putting together a whole website. They've actually already got it where you can register your house and put it onto their website, which has a master list of places to rent for the World Cup. Chairman Renau, quick question for you.

Absolutely. So, if your neighborhood was an HOA and HOA rules stated that you cannot have a short-term rental period, correct? This that would not have anything to do with that, right? The HOA would override it. That's my point. Yeah. Okay. They should be more restrictive, but they restrictive. Correct. Okay. I just wanted the public to understand that this isn't a free-for-all for everybody. No, it is not. Question. Absolutely. How long does the normal process take the permitting process? So, we typically see where applications come in and within 5 days we're able to give the permit back out. So, it's a quick process. Thank you.

So, that leads my next question. If it's so quick, why remove the permitting process? because there's a restriction on how many houses can be STRS in city. Are we close to that already? I thought we weren't close to it. But the whole idea was is the the pay it forward approached uh us and council about just letting our ordinance cease for the two months just to make it on easy people and re easier on people and to really entice people like you know you don't have to get a permit for these two months. you can rent it out for 14 days just to try to get people into the county, spend dollars here. Okay.

I I understand the the premise behind it and and I don't have an issue with with the premise of of opening it up. I guess my my little bit of concern is that it suspends everything within 917. Um, is there an avenue to perhaps not do the full permit but still but still have a a list or registration of of those homes? um as well as remove the limits on having those that the number of of short-term rentals because that that's one of the big issues is opening it up. So, could we remove that limitation on the percentage of the number of homes in the city that are that are capable of of being a short-term rental? Number one. And number two, would we still be able to have a list? Because I think one of the big concerns was, you know, if you have these, of course, you know, they are they are businesses. Um, you know, hence why some of the business license and things like that would also need to be considered. Uh, but there are provisions in there, especially when you come to, you know, the the first responders, the EMS, the the fire of of having some of that looked at and taken into consideration. as well as I know you know the parking u you know there was concerns about where people would park if they had groups of people in and the trash and things like that. So, if we're suspending everything in 917, is that the best way to handle it? Or is there a better way to go in and take out those specific provisions that would still allow the city to watch over things, but open it up to allow more people to come in and utilize that that functionality?

Create a temporary special permit for two months, right? Something. Yeah. So, that a registration. Yeah, just just even a registration so we know, you know, what what properties in case there is an issue. Um, you know, from from a police standpoint or code enforcement standpoint. And and I know our ordinances do cover some of those other items already. Um, but it would be a little bit more specific than that these properties are being used for this purpose. Anything's possible. Sure. That's kind of my answer. It's uh just depends on what you all want and what council's going to end up wanting. Yeah.

Uh our our recommendation is this just because it is just it's a two-month period and we want it to be as easy as possible on people after talking uh with the outside parties. So,

it's just a matter of what you all want to do. I guess what I'm concerned about is, you know, we had several residents of different neighborhoods that don't have HOAs come to us when we we were considering the short-term rental ordinance and there were some significant issues that they dealt with in their communities in regards to short-term rentals. And I think if we have absolutely no guidance, regulation, restrictions on short-term rentals for two months without any requirement that you show that you're going to be even attending the World Cup, I think we're just opening our doors back to that same kind of problem for two months in the summer. Can I piggy back on that? Yeah, please.

If we have a registration process, then after the two months is up, included in the registration process would be the rules. This is it. two months, you're done. No more. After that two months is up, anybody that violates it would have been given notice up front and could not claim ignorance.

But there may be there may be homeowners who would only look to do this. I mean, I guess it's something similar when I used to live in Indianapolis with the Indianapolis 500, Brickyard 400, people would rent their houses out and and leave um rent them out for for RVs and just usage. Um, but that was the only time they would do that during those those two races basically. Um, so that's why I'm thinking of this as is something similar. It may be someone who would want to do it just for the World Cup but has no propensity to do it as a short-term rental going forward. Understood. I'm just talking about those who would take advantage of it later. Correct. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. No, I I think the intention is great. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Um, but is it is it the best to suspend all of 917?

Well, I'm not even worried necessarily about that. What I'm concerned about is that how do you undo it? In other words, if you know, if you start it and someone's like, great, you know, I have a short-term rental. I've never had a short-term rental before. Look at all of this income. Well, I own another house. I'm just going to keep it going. And it's just open-ended because there's no registration. No one knows I have it. I'm not registered. I don't have a permit. And I'm going to keep going as long as I'm gonna go until I get caught. So, that was kind of the intentionality of if you just register it and then you know it expires after two months, then you and if you want a short-term rental and you like doing it, then you have to apply for a permit to be able to continue. I guess my answer to that is they could do that now.

You have to go through code enforcement to true for operating without permit. They can, but this would definitely We have monitoring software, right? But you're you're now inviting people to do this. How is this process going to be advertised so people know they have the benefit of doing it? It it'll all be probably Fay it forward pushing it. They're already pushing it. Um our public communications will probably send out something with the Augusta rule that you could do it for up to 14. The whole point is the 14 days, not two months.

Gotcha. Um, the only thing you all discussing that I'm thinking about is we could we could potentially require them to register their house on the Fay Ford website for rental because that's where all this is happening. Um, and give us a copy. You know, we could, you know, we could require them to come and give us a copy that they're doing this and that make sure that it's on the Fay for website. You just raised another question. In my mind, it's two week rental. The games are two months long. Can I rent my house for two weeks eight times? No. Four times? No. So, it's just one time.

You can rent your house for 14 days per calendar year and not report the income. Okay. Thank you. But if you wanted to during this two-month period, you could rent it four times and then report the income. You could. So, we're allowing unrestricted rentals potentially four different times or more within that two-month period without any regulation or restriction is what it sounds like to me. I still don't have an issue with it. I just I don't

I like the idea of people coming to our community and enjoying our community during this period of time. I just think that throwing all the rules that we've put in place to preserve our communities and the nature of our community is not the right way to do it. Commissioner Hamner, did you have a comment?

I was going to add as well is that yes, we have the municipal rules in place, but the individuals that are doing short-term rentals through Airbnb, etc., have Airbnb rules to follow. So, we're opening up renting rentals, short-term rentals in in our our neighborhoods and in our community that are actually going to have less rules applied to them in comparison to our traditional uh Airbnb locations. Again, you know, we have some good rules and obviously we spent a lot of time talking about the short-term rental. We we implemented some good rules. Obviously, I didn't agree with every single one of them. That was the one no vote. But, you know, again, you know, I I get concerned when, you know, we're talking about not having a local person uh that that could be uh contacted for this. You know, there was the issue with uh the smoke rice house where it was subletled out when somebody was renting it and then they rented it to somebody else and that was causing a huge huge issue. Again, things like Airbnb and those rules are supposed to prevent those type of things, but there's no rule whatsoever saying that, hey, you know, one person rents it and then they can rent it to somebody else. I don't know. It just feels like there's by saying there's no we're we're going to suspend the the short-term rentals. It's more than just uh saying, you know, we're not going to do the municipal rules on this. It's it's taking away all rules with it because again, you know, even if we didn't have the municipal rules, there would still be Airbnb rules, etc. And some of the short-term rentals that we have right now. So, it seems that there's just going to be, you know, we could we could have hypothetical situations in terms of what could go wrong with this, but you know, those those could happen during this period. So I think we have we have some some concerns from from the commission. Um

so we have an option. We could we could try to put something together um draft it up to to send it back to to city council through staff. Um we have the option to of course approve as or recommend approval as submitted. Uh, we could also recommend, you know, denial as as submitted and send it back and have them take a take a larger look at it. Um, like to get your your thoughts. Is staff opening is staff receptive to taking our comments back and maybe creating a different proposal that would at least put in place some some guidelines or or or maintain our current guidelines for these types of rentals during this time period. maybe just taking away the limitation of the number that's allowed just for this period of time

because we're on a tight timeline. I would ask this is ask I would ask that you all make a motion tonight whether it's negative or positive. Um, but I would say add in your comments like if you want to talk right now about what your changes would be like what you would want to stay or go like we want some kind of proof you know permit we want local contact like we want these things to be in effect still. I would take those comments and then still make a motion so we can go to council quicker. Are are we able to pull up the full ordinance because I know we just have a section of it here.

I can get Yeah, I got a com. Well, I I guess Mr. You know, just listening to all of the comments, I think if we were to stipulate u that you at least register um your activity that would cover a whole lot of sense. But register with who? I guess would be my follow.

Well, that would have to figure that out. Yeah. Yeah. because, you know, right now you have to get a permit from the city in order to operate one of these short-term rentals within our city limits. And there's a a myriad of rules and regulations that apply to the to the use to the operation of these types of rentals and and some of those do fall within I would say they're they may be probably covered um you know with certain things of of the city ordinances as they are but some were very specific to to short-term rentals of course hence why we had this uh this section added. Sir Chairman, I will also add that this has already been advertised for council at this point. So, I just want to add that,

okay, it's ready for a recommendation for you. Okay, under the short timeline that we have, I would add to Hans's point that we had a point a local point of contact. I think if we had them register with the city and they provided a local point of contact in case something went wrong that we could move forward. That would be my recommendation. Okay. Given such shortness to work with it. I appreciate that. Yeah. Any

any thoughts from the other commissioners on those? I definitely think at a minimum that's that's what we need. I I absolutely agree. Um, and again I and I think we all understand the reason why this is this is coming out, you know, and and definitely want to welcome everyone to to Peach Tree City. Um, but as both Commissioner Chris, Commissioner Hamner said, we did spend a lot of time um going back and forth between us and staff and and city council to come up with a usable short-term rental. Um, and it does seem that, you know, we seem to be setting it all aside, just everything. Um, because that may have been the easiest path because it is difficult to go in and take certain sections out and and maybe amend those. Um, you know, for this um thoughts, comments, Commissioner Chris, anything? It's it's hard for me to, you know, when we did do all that hard work, um, and we put in place what I think was, you know, a good compromise after a lot of discussion, significant amount of discussion, to suspend it for two months and allow the Wild West to come back, I think is is wrong. I I I I do think that the intention of it is good. I just think that the way that it's put together currently, I I do not support it. Any other thoughts, comments? Commissioner Hamner, I know you were we were all three of us involved in that very much. Any other thoughts on this?

I'm just going to just second what Commissioner Chris just said.

Okay. I I think you know what what I would have as a minimum for recommendation is is they definitely have to be you know registered in in some way shape or form. Um if if it does go through a county agency then at minimum it has to to come to us. But I do have concerns as to the rest of the requirements that we're like I said we're part of 917 when when we develop this. Um, and that's why I kind of asked to pull it up to see if there's any way we can go ahead and and pick out pieces um that we may be able to retain from a recommendation standpoint. Um, you know, my my fear is is, you know, if we don't come up with something, then there's a very good possibility that this may be recommended for for denial. U, we'll have to see which which direction that would go. Um, do we want to go through and and take a look? Um, it's going to take a little bit of effort to go through and and take a look at it or are we to the point where it's it's all or nothing?

I don't think it's all or nothing. I think the recommendations that we made here in this end is more than nothing. Uh, I I agree that ideally we'd have more restrictions to this. Ideally, it would almost completely mirror what you've already worked on, but we don't have that luxury right now. It seems to me like we're either a no or we provide a a yes with two or three additions. Or or we could say no with because we're making a recommendation to city council, right? It's just a recommendation. We could say no, but we could say if it were to be approved, we'd like to see X, Y, or Z. Absolutely. That would what I would

and and I think that's a good point. You know, we we are not as as the planning commission the final say on this. We just make a recommendation um to city council and then city council will take that and uh um use our input and in how they see fit to go ahead and make their final determination and vote on that. Um so, do we want to go ahead and and make some recommendations?

I can make a motion. Uh so uh I move to recommend um denial or or is that the right word uh of the tax amendment to section 917 the city's code of ordinances related to short-term rentals uh with um with the with comments right that the planning commission recommends some sort of registration guidelines or otherwise in terms of what uh what is required for uh local residents or property owners that would like to util or uh engage in this type of rental activity during this time frame. There should be some sort of registration and some sort of guidelines provided

and a local point of contact and a local point of contact. Yeah. Do we want to see anything else with that? Is that I mean I think that's a a I don't want to say a good start, but but but I think that's aside from going through and taking a look at everything. I think that's I think it's vague enough that they can figure out what what they want to do with it. Sure. Okay. Any other comments? No. Okay. Um so we second the motion.

Okay. So if you could I'm gonna go ahead and restate it to make sure. Um, so there's a motion to recommend denial um of this uh of this uh ordinance change um for the short-term rental section 917 um with comments um and those those comments and recommendations are a a registration um and we'll leave that up to to council and staff to to come up with that um as well as a a local point of contact um for that also. Um, so I think those are are two good so we know um at least the properties that are um as well as the point of contact in case something does happen forbid that

and additional guidelines for short-term rental during that time frame. Yeah. And any additional guidelines for for short-term rental during that time. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? No. Okay. All those in favor of denial of the text amendment to 917 of the city's code of ordinances related to recommendation of denial to the uh text amendment to section 917 of the city's codes of ordinances related to short-term rentals um with the said contacts signify by saying I

I all opposed recommendation for denial with comments. Thank you. Unfortunately, that was not quite as straightforward as as we may have thought it was. So, but that's that's okay. That's okay. Um, workshop items. Uh, so now we have a concept plat Brad Shaw Estates 201. Um, and as was brought up at the beginning, um, workshop, there are no public comments during a workshop. Um we have received those comments uh concerns, questions that have come in um via email um from from the public. Those were passed on to the planning commission from staff. So we have those and and we've uh read those over. Um this is a discussion between the planning commission staff um our city services um as to the uh the current proposed concept plat for Bradshaw Estates. So going to go ahead and turn it over to staff. All right. So, I'm just going to try and give you a brief overview of um how they're meeting zoning requirements and a and a a brief explanation of the the proposal and then we'll turn it over um as we normally do to the applicant to add anything and then to you all for questions and comments. Uh so, the property is located We're calling it two 2011 Sumar Road. That was really just a place to a placeholder for us to file it. Um, but it is located at the Sumar Road is right here. So, it's right at the end of Sumar Road. Uh, would be the entrance to the subdivision. Uh, and here is the full uh property. This is a little bit deceiving because the entire

parcel is not at the moment proposed uh to be developed. It's about, this is about the dividing line somewhere in here. Uh, and the property is zoned R43, excuse me, single family residential. And just so you know, this blue area represents the city limits of Peach Tree City. So, this is Faget County here. Um, there's a little strip of Peach Tree City to the north and then Faget County. Um just some requirements of the R43 uh zoning district. Uh the minimum uh lot size is uh 1 acre. The minimum floor area required for a dwelling unit is 1500 square feet. Uh setbacks are front 50, side setback 15, rear setback 30 feet. Uh this is the overall plan. I will show enlargements of both uh sections. So, the property is proposed to be um divided into two sections, a northern section and a southern section, north south. Uh it's divided by uh the creek that runs through the property. The northern section is proposed to have 30 lots and the southern section 29 lots for a total of 59 lots. Um so let's see the access of from the northern uh section would be through I believe this is Sims Road through the Kedan um subdivision Kedran Hills and then south from Sar Road down here. Uh the only connection between the two sections is a a golf cart path across the creek.

So the requirements for um a conceptual plat uh include things such as approximate location of property lines, approximate location of existing and proposed easements, approximate topography, approximate location and widths of streets. You notice how all this is approximate because of course we'll pin down all the details during um the next phase of the platting process. Um approximate location and size of the lots um multi- youth multi-use paths and and green belts and other areas to be landscaped. I did want to point out here we'll go to the so this is the northern section. These little boxes here are showing you that um they can fit a a footprint of 2,000 square feet on each of these lots and that does meet the 1500 square foot requirement. Um let's see. they they are providing they're required to provide um open space public space at um a rate of three acres per 100 dwelling units. So in this case for 59 lots uh that total comes up to 1.77 they're providing 2.22.

Repeat that please. the per the uh land development ordinance, they're required to provide at least three acres of open space per 100 dwelling units. So that math calculates to 1.77 acres for the 59 lots and they're providing 2.22 acres. And let's see. Uh, some of that area is down here, uh, near the entrance. And sorry, now I'm not finding the other one. Anyway, we can have the developer point those out to us. Um so as far as any special um screening um the land of ordinance only requires special screening uh between commercial and multif family subdivisions that abut single family residential subdivisions. So they aren't required to have any um specific buffers between this development and the surrounding uh single family developments. Um they are providing they are providing this green belt right here between this subdivision and the street. Uh that prevents these lots from being multiple frontage lots. because they would front their own their street and then the new street. Uh there also there's also a buffer

required along what we call major thoroughares and Subner Road is a major thoroughare and its requirement is for a 25 foot wide uh city-owned green belt adjacent to the road. So that's what this strip right here is. Those are pretty much the basics of the uh proposed development. Um there there have been some concerns by some internal uh staff including um fire and the police department uh that relate to response times uh and being able to because there's no connection between the two. Um I I'll read this statement from the police department. I don't think we have a representative here, but um uh the addition of roadway infrastructure and res residential development in this area as proposed in the northern section of the Bradshaw development would further increase response times uh and expand the number of residents and locations potentially impacted by those delays. Um their suggestion to mitigate these concerns uh is the inclusion of a connecting roadway between the northern and southern port parcels with access to both a story lane and summer road. Um the fire department has expressed uh concerns similar to this. And of course in addition we have received several comments from adjacent parcel owners which were included in your packet and um some additional ones sent to you today uh for your for you to review. Let's see. Yeah, that's all.

Okay. Um before we have the applicant come up, I I just kind of want to go over the the concept concept plat approval process. Um just for the commissioners are are aware. So section 402 is the concept plat approval process. Um and just as we've heard, the city planners shall submit the results of the staff's review um in writing to the planning commission for review the workshop meeting. Formal staff recommendation including conditions as appropriate will be presented to the planning commission prior to being heard as a new agenda item which we have. Um in the workshop meeting, the planning commission shall review the concept plat and supporting documentation consideration for the requirements of section 401. And I'll I'll touch on that. Um Laura did touch on that, but I'll touch on it also. Of these regulations in the city planners report, uh the planning commission and the city planner shall discuss the results of their review with the applicant and make recommendations for improvements, modifications, or changes. Um so section 401, without getting into everything, um there's there's really I think uh two sections um that really cover the residential, and Laura, please correct me if I'm wrong, the first item is industrial parcels, which which that we don't have. Um but street rightaway and payment shall be provided in accordance with city specifications. Um and number two, the city engineer may with the approval of city council proposed additional requirements regarding design and construction of streets, curbs, gutters, multi-use paths, and sidewalks. Um I think the fourth item is again the uh the permanent landscape screening from from industrial to residential which we don't have. So just wanted to kind of bring everyone up to speed as to what we're what we're really taking a look at this evening. So, um,

could I just I usually I didn't end with this, but so we don't we don't typically make a recommendation. Um, but we staff has reviewed the plat with regards to the zoning ordinance and development standard requirements and we have determined that they are meeting those. Um, and we have no uh conditions to add at this time. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, do we have the applicant or applicant representative? We do. If you'd please step forward and state your name and who you represent.

Good evening. Jason Walls with Highland Land Planning. Um, here with Chad Floyd, with Chad Mcomes. Um, Lauren did a pretty good job. Just want to reiterate that we first turned this in about February of last year. So, we've gone through about 11 months of review discussion. Pretty much every staff member over there we've met with address as many concerns as we could from the public. And we think we have a pretty decent here. Just want to open up for discussion and answer any questions y'all have.

Great. Thank you. So, commissioners, we're going to handle this very similar to what we typically do with the public hearing. Like to go ahead and get questions first um of the applicant staff, um our our city services, they're open also. Um so, Commissioner Hans or Commissioner Gan, if you'd like to go ahead and uh start things off with questions first. Yes. If you don't have any, we'll come back to comments. I do have several questions. Okay. Absolutely.

Um I had a chance to go out and look at the property um and walk walk u the streets u and you know and I've I've read I've read the comments from from the neighbors and there's some really important comments there. But if you look at the the way I saw the property, the the topography of the property varies depending on where you are on the property, but um generally when you come in off of uh the main road, uh it seems like it's it's uh topograph topography goes downward toward Ashley Drive neighborhood. And so definitely there's some there's some concerns um that I read about potential drainage issues um uh in terms of u erosion as as well as uh as buffers and so forth. I guess a some questions that I have is, you know, if you look at the lot sizes, and you've already addressed that issue, the the lot sizes for this development are very similar to the developments that are adjacent to the existing property. Is that correct? The lot sizes terms of one acre,

what was that? One acre minimum. Yeah. Uh, so I'm saying that the lot sizes of this proposed development are similar to the developments that are adjacent to it, the existing developments similar. Yes. Are they one acre or more? I don't I don't have that data.

Okay. um in terms in terms of the um and this is this is an issue that I look at is is how it might might protect might uh affect property values. Uh, I know that the development um shows that there's 15 the minimum 1500 square feet, but as I walk these streets to the adjacent neighborhoods, these are very very nice homes in these neighborhoods. And it looks like the the square footage is probably range anywhere from more than, you know, more than 2,000 square feet up to three or 4 thousand square feet. So, I'm just wondering um what the intent is of the developer in terms of the size of homes. I know it says that the minimum requirement is 1500 square feet, but are the homes going that are going to be built here. Are they going to be similar uh to the quality that are in in these other adjacent neighborhoods? That's a that's a just a question I have from a value standpoint. Um, and I'm I'm assuming that the developer will have a an erosion uh plan and a drainage plan that will address the issues u that that have been raised already. Um, I do have a concern about the entrance in terms of double fronted lots and I don't know how that how that is addressed throughout the count throughout the city. Um, is that a standard practice that we have to allow double fronted lots or is that specifically something that's against ordinances?

What was that question? You know, those those five or six lots that are uh that are on Ashley that that abut uh this proposed road that's going in there, the those lots back up to their proposed road. So, that makes them a double double fronted lots, right? Are you talking about those right there? These lots. No, the road is over here. This is green space. I understand that. But that's that's a buffer. But but the road is still behind the the lots, right? They would only be double frontage if the road touched the property line.

Okay. Okay. Depends on how you look at it, I guess. Yeah. Okay. Um, is there on on the individual lots when the when the homes are built on those lots, is there a a percentage or a ratio u in terms of what's required to be left in terms of land landscaping or natural trees?

Say that again. Is there a requirement when when an when there's a individual lot with the home is built? Is there a requirement to leave a certain percentage of natural landscape there? There is not. The requirement for um every residential lot in the city is to have two trees um minimum 2inch caliber. So they can remove all the trees and put two trees back and meet the requirement. Got it. And I guess the the last question I have is is, you know, I'd like to get get some more feedback from the police and fire department about uh a the response time as well as the traffic circulation.

Good. If if you would like to ask that, we we do have Okay. our I'd like I'd like to get more detail in terms of what what your thinking is there. Good evening.

Good evening. I'm Clint Murphy. I'm the fire chief. Um so, uh we have tried our best to uh figure out what the response times would be there. Our main concern is from our research probably about four decades there has been a road that was going to run called the Northeast Collector or the Northeast Bypass or some variation of that name. and we had relied on that going in at some point to connect us to the backside of Kedron Hills just to have an easier response time into that so that when it's they are completely within their bounds uh from the fire code to split it in half the way they have our concern is just the actual response times because our secondary engine which comes from Petri Parkway has to go all the way up to Kedron Hill and then all the way back already to Atoria and now we're going to add I think it's 30 homes on the north side of it. So, and then we're going to have another subdivision on this is essentially two subdivisions if you think about it,

right? So, that's our concern is like the extent adding to what is already a long response time. So we we have somewhere between I think GIS did it for us and it was 7 minutes and 30 seconds drive time. We need to be there in 9 minutes 20 seconds. So we have a minute and a half turnout time as a standard. So we're already there. So that's our concern with it is we're just adding more time. And I would say the police department has the same problems. the connection. There's only one way in there and one way out already. So, our hope was that once this road was built, we thought would be a collective road, that would solve one of our problems as far as access to it.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions while the chief is there? Not for the chief. Not for the chief. No. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Y, any other questions? Yeah, let me just go back to one of the questions I had and address that to the developer. Um, are you the are you the builder as well? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. You are. Are are in in terms of the the homes that are going to be built in that area, are they going to be similar to the homes that are already in that area? I'm not too sure about that. I I do know it's hard to give a minimum size, but we do know the price points probably one and a half to two million and up. Okay. Thank you.

They are be larger homes than the minimum size. That's what I wanted to understand. Thank you, Commissioner Allen. I have two questions for you. Should I address these comments? I mean, the questions. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I apologize. Yes. Go ahead. Yeah.

Size we just talked about drainage. I will say this, we we did choose to move the road to the low side of the hill. Um being former city engineer myself in Fedville, the um drainage between lots is a big problem. This allows us to capture the drainage. That's why the the roads on the downhill side. All the storm water will be captured and piped. If the road was on the high side, you would have backyards. We got to figure out how to pick up storm water from these lots nowadays because of water quality treatment. So now we're going to end up putting a diversion or piping system down there along the back property lines of the lots at the story lane. So this is the best way for us to capture storm water and prevent future drainage problems. So we'll be taking the burden of Sedwick or whoever's to our east, I guess, draining onto us. We'll have to prepare our lots appropriately to get that water to the road, pipe it to the to the ponds. So that was that intent. Um the entrance was I guess required to be opposite of that road and we did we just came in to adjust it to get to the lots. That's based off of one of our I guess the original design did not have it lined up with Sar. Um but we have been asked to line it up with Sar. So we did that. We do have green spaces on both sides of the entrance. Then I think the missing green space is um is where that dark spot is. It's on at the end of a culde-sac. There's a lot that's no good for anything. So we're going to try to make it a passive park or maybe a water quality pond. And when we when I say passive, we have no intent of having a pool house or anything like that for this number of lots. Um, a lot of these type homes will have pools. Um, we plan on having passive parks, meaning um like uh maybe plant some trees and some shrubs and invite birds and stuff. You can have a like a bird sanctuary type type area or dog park, things like that. Um, percent green space per lot I think is, you know, we're going to be very similar to everybody around us. if we had an aerial photo of the site. I don't know if it's possible for you to go to Google Earth or something or or Q public, but once these everything around

us, that question came up, is is same zoning 40 R43. Once it is built out, you can see Sedwick and everything to the east of us. These trees grow in, it's it's not it's not going to be like a Talson place where it's a quarter acre, halfacre lots, mass grade the entire 80 acres and then build your houses. This is strictly the roads are graded in at grade. So we're going to come in clear paths for the roads for the utilities for the storm water and then each house will um clear the trees necessary for their you know house layout and all that stuff. Um one thing we have changed since we kind of maybe in the past month is we decided to be on public sewer. So that's going to prevent the septic systems um which is additional clearing. You know you need to clear the primary and the secondary drain fields. We won't have that issue anymore because we're going to offer public sewer. um police and fire. We have met with fire chief and the fire marshal. Um think we have that addressed. Our intent was to add so if we have phase one being south and phase two being north, phase three would be the rest of the property if that ever gets developed. And the intent was to build a crossing across the um creek at that time. Um I'll be honest with you, when we were laying out this subdivision, we initially had a crossing. Um I was working on the Kelly Green gate closure at that time. We did that for Plantara. That's stuck in our heads. It is the same deal. It would be lots of driveways off a road. We feel like it might be a very big impact to Kedron Hills to have a connection. People may be short circuiting or going through. So, we just going off of what we did at Plantar Ridge, which is closing a road. Knowing that out here, I think crab lane's already been closed. Um, it was our intent to think of safety from that standpoint. We have worked with them quite a bit on the timing and understand that. So that was our intent with breaking this up into two. So I think that addresses all your questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Allen. Well, questions. Yes, I have two. One on the road. If you've discussed this with the city and the city still has concerns about response time, why not take that golf cart path and turn that into a crossing? I understand having just left Plantara Ridge. Yeah. I understand the need to not or the desire not to have through traffic, but if the fire department's concerned about being able to get to homes, I would think that that would win over too much traffic. So, why not take that golf cart path and turn it into a road?

Um, we could consider that. At our last discussion with them, we haven't had a chance to meet with the police chief yet, but last discussion with the chief and the fire marshal, it was once we exceeded 30 homes, which we're at 30 homes on both sides now. There are some IFC rules where if you have over 30 lots, you have to have two ways in, two ways out. And that was going to trigger us making that connection. So, we were profering doing it in the third phase. All right. We could certainly do it in the second phase or this. I mean, I would recommend you did that would be my thought. But my second question is on Bradshaw South, the green space between the existing homes and the new homes that runs in between the backyard and the road, is that 50 foot wide? Am I reading that right? Yes, sir. that that is 50 ft. Um,

and what do you intend to do with that? Um, undisturbed. Leave it as wooded. Um, I think in the notes on our most recent revision, we added um that we would add some woody vegetation to it. So, what I see in sites like this is you have a lot of tall pines, a lot of tall old hardwood um hardwood growth down by the creeks mostly, but those don't provide this level of screening. So, we would come back in with some level of woody vegetation. I don't want to say private, but there's um wax myrtles, things of that nature that are in the, you know, eye height to 20 ft tall range and and try to plant that area or supplement that area as needed uh to provide that visual barrier. Okay.

Something else that's unrelated but would help with land disturbance is we do plan on using live bottom arch pipes. So, we have two minor creeks that we cross. We'll use a live bottom pipe. We did that on Stage Coach Road, which approaches um the New Booth Middle School. It's basically a half round of pipe that allows the creek to stay live and active. It doesn't disturb the creek. Fish, whatever can can make their way through. That has in walls and it's kind of like a little bit less land disturbance when we do that. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Chris.

Yeah. Uh couple questions for the applicant because you talked about phase one, phase two, and phase three. Uh does the the owner of this parcel developing the land own phase three already. Mr. Bradshaw owns all 170 acres. It's our intent to develop the first 88 acres. Not 100% sure about the rest. He hasn't committed on that. Why are we not seeing a flat for all three at once? It's just not I don't think the second half is under contract. So you don't own it. So you don't own. So Mr. The seller of the lands lot is that actual house on I don't know if you want to address this any Chad but the house that you can see on the far left

that's essentially his backyard. He's keeping his backyard. So he's so he's planning to continue to live on that third phase. He lives he currently lives in a house and he has a barn in the middle of this site. He has some trails back there. I think he mostly uses it as his backyard kind of a place for whatever. I think a lot of people go back there. So he's planning on living there for his life. Um Um question for staff. Knowing that Mr. Bradshaw wants to continue to live there, would there be any problem with the applicant bringing all three phases to us uh and platting it and and so that we can we can decide how it's all going to work now instead of piece mealing it together later?

Can I make a statement first? We've asked and he won't allow us from our standpoint. He won't allow you to to at least plat it. I mean, that would restrict him. Just I would like to see what it's going to look like as a whole. I mean, we have a sketch of it. We just We have a sketch be approved as a whole. That's my opinion

because I I don't I don't like how this looks. Um I don't think it looks like the rest of Peach Tree City around it. And I and I think that it would there's an opportunity to make the entire parcel look like the surrounding area. I don't think this achieves that. So I I think that that this is halfbaked. I'd like to see the whole the whole parcel developed and brought to us as a complete plat and then we can approve that. That that would be my opinion.

I'd like to hear the opinions of my fellow commissioners. But I I think that there's a lot to consider here. You know, I know I'm speaking a little out of turn, but uh uh you know, we're we're looking at not only the the safety concerns for the fire and the police getting to that top neighborhood, but I think we're speculating on what's going to be in that third phase. And I think that we should see it all at once. Well, I believe there's positive intent obviously, but it is kind of a penny now for a dollar later. We we will do this when as developers 10 years, 15 years down the road, you could be gone and the next developer comes in and does something completely different.

And unfortunately, what's been done can't be undone, right? Could only be changed possibly if if possible. I would prefer to see it all at once the same. Commissioner Chris, any other questions? No. So we we can show that but not plat it because we don't have the you see what I'm saying. I guess we could show it but not legally plat it as I think that you know from my perspective you know I think from the community's perspective who lives in the area here it would be nice to know what it's all going to look like.

Um I guess I guess my question is more of a legal question. So we can show it all day long on the concept plat but once we go to the preliminary plat and the engineering plans it kind of becomes a more formal. Are you suggesting that it just be on the concept plat and not necessarily the next six phases of construction or design of construction?

I think you know because from what staff at least indicated me with their head mo movements previously was that there's no problem with approving the three different phases and you know Mr. Bradshaw can continue to live there um and there can always be a process where you come back and make changes if needed. But I think from a I I want to see what the whole thing is going to look like. Um and I think that it should be approved as a whole because it's a large piece of land. It's one of the last large pieces of land we have here in Peach Tree City and I think it needs to look like the rest of Peach Tree City in the area. I don't think this does it. Excellent question. Yes, Commissioner Allen.

Has Mr. Bradshaw provided you with any idea of when he would consider opening up phase three? Commissioner Halerson, I'll restate what he just said. After everything is sold in phase one and phase two, after everything is sold in phase one and phase two, then they'll develop phase three with the money from phase one and phase two.

Is that correct? Okay. Um, if we're going to talk about personal opinions, well, do we have any questions first and then we'll then we'll get to that. Yes, questions. Yes. Um, I have concerns or questions about some of the plats directly related to the um 100red-year flood plane. on the size of the lot. 52 in particular. Um, it doesn't seem like it works from

the one that's wedged right in there on the south side of the circle. The far right. Nope. On the middle. Right next to the cart path. No. Over. Right next to the cart path down. Down. Left. Left. Left. Left. Left. Right there. Yeah. No. Yeah. One right there. Yep. And your concern is the size of the house or not? So,

just a not usable lot. Um, and also the slope of it, the grading, it's it's wedged in there. Um but I guess in general my question is um what concerns or how did you as you developed the plot um what were your concerns relative to mitigating the 100red-year flood plane other than the pad is going to be above the flood plane.

So the 100red-year flood plane if you can tell is the green and so or actually I'm sorry the green is the FEMA flood plane. The actual future conditions flood plane is the red hatch. So FEMA did their studies back in the 70s. I guess they might have been supplemented. The red hatch, if I'm not mistaken, is what we call the future conditions flood study that was done by the city 2008 or so. So that's more up to-date study. So you can see it's way smaller. Um the topography goes high in elevation there. It's 100% compa contained within the 100-year undisturbed buffer. So there's no disturbing. Um, further to our right where the green gets kind of fat off our property, there's a lake. So, we've already been told by engineering and it's in the ordinances that we have to do sunny day breach analysis of the lake. We set minimum finished floors that they're going to be, you know, well down there. We won't have anything even close because of the elevations of these lots. So, no, we're not really worried about the the flood elevations. Understand your concern about the size and shape of the lot. And as we we could shorten that culde-sac up five feet or something or 10 feet and maybe address that when we get into the engineering stage, it would look just like this. Well, again, this is a concept plat. We followed up preliminary platin engineering plan. So, we really haven't done that level of engineering yet, but I do I do want to reiterate that the buff that the future conditions flood plane is within the 100-year buffer 100% and we are well above it. So the only concern would be the breach analysis if that dam was ever to flood were required by code to kind of have minimum finish floors significantly higher.

Okay. So I'm going to ask one more question. So you had said earlier that you didn't want to lay out phase three because it would be platted and you were discussing language between a concept plat versus actually having it platted. Correct. And you just stated this is a concept plat. Correct. So you could theoretically do this for stage three. Oh no, I have I have sketched it out. I sat down with the chief and and fire marshall and we looked at what a third connection would look like in phase three as a concept which is add 20 lots total to both sid to to I mean total between the two sides. Yeah, I would

very similar oneacre lots same thing. Yeah, I would I would agree with Commissioner Chris that it's difficult to evaluate an entire impact of a layout with only having half the information. Um, sure we can say, "Yeah, that works for that, but it we're concerned that the cascading effect of what we don't know is going to negatively affect not only the existing residents, but the future residents of what you're building in phase one and phase two." Right. The other question I have for you is that there it may be more palatable to the neighborhoods surrounding it if you less if you lessen the density. Um, in other words, if you did two acre lots with a 4,000 square foot house, you'd have and and I'm just speculating on the fire commissioner's point of view that you have less um number of risk. So, it's kind of risk management gets reduced because you have less objects to catch on fire.

Yeah. Um, and potentially you're creating a different um typology that's more desirable. I I don't know. Um I don't know the economics of it. I'm not a developer, but I can kind of speculate that um your return on square footage obviously if you have higher density it's it's better.

Well, obviously there's no twoacre lots around us. Um I would like to point out talking about the planning of this. This is basically the next phase of all the stuff around us. So Mr. Bradshaw's family owned all the land around us. So the smoke rise land, the smoke rise corners which is new, Sedwick in the county, uh I forget the other name of the subdivision to our east, all those were part of the Bradshaw land and they were I went back and looked the plats were done 10 lots at a time. I mean they came peace mill there's 10 plats for Kedron Hills and Ketron estates. Um so this is basically and there's connectivity provided Sims there's Patina point I think there's a location down there. So, this is I don't want to say the 20th version of this same thing, but it's just a continuation of what was done 20 something years ago. It's unfortunate that these lots weren't developed 20 years ago with that plan, but this is just 20 years later continuing the same plan, making the same connections that were there.

I will say this is very difficult property. It is possibly why it wasn't developed 20 something years ago. This is extremely hard. So, I don't want to kind of dismiss the fact that what you've done isn't really good run at it. Um, all I'm suggesting is that I think it would help us up here um understand a little bit better to make the best decision if we have more information. Um, so I'm not saying I could say lots of things, but I'm I'm trying to um be inclusive of the rest of my commissioner's opinions relative to help us understand so that we can help you.

And I did want to add something that I thought of as we worked with the fire marshall. Um, we are exceeding city requirements on the roads. So the road width does the road width required by the international fire code does not match the road width allowed in the city. So we're expanding our road by one or two feet in width. We're expanding our culde-sacs from 80 feet to 96 feet. Um and we're providing the what I call an eyebrow, but it's a turnaround at certain intervals so they don't have to go as far before they try to turn around if they pass the house. So we have worked with um um Fire Marshal Jenkins over there and and kind of addressed as many concerns as we could. So um this is different than other subdivisions in that sense.

Commissioner Hersonson, any other questions? Commissioner Hammer, questions. Right. Yeah. So I have some questions for the applicant, but first acknowledge I know there's a lot of folks that are here. Uh I'm assuming uh you know there's we've seen a lot of concerns, a lot of emails. Somebody sent us a video of uh you know some of the concerns that they have on this. Earlier you mentioned that you had you know tried to talk to some of these individuals. Can you just go into more detail in terms of the way that you've worked with the the the neighbors of uh the property that's being discussed and ways that maybe you could help alleviate some of the concerns that they have?

Well, two gentlemen here tonight came to our office. We met with them, listened their concerns, and after that meeting, we did shift it over. Uh we've had a lot of phone calls ourselves speaking to to people oneonone. So void there. Um and we received the comments and we met with the city and looked at the comments, the same comments you guys have. Um as a matter of fact, the last one I think was new to me today um as I looked at it this morning and I tried to address those, but most of those are engineering based um segment control stuff like that. We're going to obviously when we get to you know the engineering phase. So the only two to reach out to us we met with they came into the office and we sat down and looked at it but we have been receiving text and comments from others some in support you know some telling us asking us questions.

Understood. Um so you touched on something that I wanted to dig into a little bit more the erosion uh component of this. Could you talk a little bit more about you know again there's concerns that this is going to cause erosion for some of the properties that are already there. What are you going to do in terms of that?

I mean, we'll prepare three-phase road control plans meeting the state and city requirements. There'll be sediment control. It's I think it's been pointed out that topography is kind of wonky here. So, we're going to have a lot of, you know, sediment storage basins. Um, we are surrounding two, you know, one large creek. I think that's pretty pretty big. So, we'll have to protect that. Double road type C fence, stuff like that. So, we just, again, we're at the concept stage. We'll get the necessary rose control. The other thing is with a one acre lot subdivision again we're only clearing the roadways right so we're not every time you have a house built there'll be individual road control plans for that house so this will be a common development tertiary permites every house built will have to get a tertiary permit from the state uh get those plans I think you guys approved tertiary plans or not I don't I'm not sure so the overall plans will mostly be for the roads and the ponds and then each lot will have their own individual plan as they get built

understood Has there been any other concerns that you got you've heard that you've addressed that you just want to help again? Yeah. Clarify or just try and give these folks just some greater confidence as heard the concern about the connectivity um both sides. No, we don't want the connection. We live in Kedron Hills or yes, we do want the connection mostly from fire services and police now. Um that wanted the connection. Um have not dug too deep into that. Um, what was the rest of the question? I was just asking again if there was anything else that you've heard.

We shifted, so originally when they first submitted it, the road was about 10 to 15 feet off of the lots there. We shifted the road 50t over. Now we have a 50 foot buffer there. We modified how we were doing um the common spaces and moved them forward, stretched that out and stuff like that. So we have addressed that. Understood.

All right, those are my questions. I just have a few questions and this is probably both both for you as as well as the city engineer. Um and it goes back to is just what you you talked about, you know, the road number one and and the connectivity. Um there's there's a bunch of levers that can be pulled um to to change some things, but when you pull one lever down, another one goes up and it creates another issue. And and as Commissioner Hverson said, this is a most of the properties we've had remaining in Peach Tree City have been very difficult. Um and that's the reason why we've had them remaining in Peach Tree City. Um you know, it it comes up with a lot of creativity and and you know, maybe thinking outside the box to fix a lot of the issues or or try to fix a lot of the issues. But the the question is when the road which is road A um you know concerns with with some of the residents from from Ashley way of having the road even with the 50-oot buffer um if if the road was moved to abut Sedwick so on the property of of Fyet County what impact would that have number one to the way things go in there because you've said you've kind of kept kept it up on the hill. Um, and and you know, I'm I'm thinking first and foremost about the residents of Peach Tree City, and I apologize to any who are in in unincorporated Fyet County because there may be a time in in the future where you may be residents of Peach Tree City. Uh, but at this time, those those properties are not. And I'm really focusing in on on the residents. What would happen if that road was moved? Um, well, like I said at the very beginning, if if the road's on the high side, now we have to control storm water for the lots. They're going to not drain

forward into the road because they're going to be below the road. So, we're going to have to figure out a way to capture, I think, every every lot and put either they're going to have individual water quality treatments on their lot and we would try to divert the water, either pipe it or ditch it to the nearest pond. Um, I think this would create I don't know if they allow I think you've had this situation once in Petri City where you've allowed um water quality ponds on the individual lots. I'm not sure that's a good way to maintain them. Right now we're going to be able to put as this is the design. We're going to pipe all the water to the nearest pond and treat it there. And and this is not, you know, something that I'm saying, hey, this is what, but I'm looking at the hypothetical um as to, you know, try to address again some of the concerns from from those residents that are currently on Ashley Way as to what other impacts this may cause for for there's an understanding of that that again if you pull one lever, something else happens,

right? my opinion, we see a lot of flooding complaints from neighbors and so my attempt was to com to address that to intercept that water with the road. Um, I don't think that will happen in this case. I do believe there will be more trees cut down if we're having to collect the water in the backyards and attempt to pipe it or ditch it somewhere or provide individual detention ponds back there. Okay. I believe there will be more clear.

Appreciate that. Um, second item and and I know again we've we've talked about the connectivity or or lack of connectivity between the the north and south phases. Um, if if taking into consideration very much so, you know, the recommendations and the concerns of our our first responders, um, you know, the last thing in the back of my mind is is someone not being able to get to a situation. um you know and because we weren't able to connect something um and and that would be more tragic than than five cars going through at one point in time quite frankly. Um but is it possible um to go ahead and if we would look to or possibility to connect to put a bridge over Flat Creek at that point to connect that culde-sac that's on the southern part to the end of the street that's on the northern part.

Can you go back to the overall? So if we were doing the road through there. We would prefer it to be where the golf cart where the golf cart okay just to keep the just to make it a zigzag through the neighborhood for all the people that are just under circuit and that's that's why I was asking that question but but looking at Plantara it also had two or three zigzags and it was an issue. So that anyways that's why we're here. Ironically a golf cart path in Petri City requires a 50ft rideway and so does a road. So that crossing there is actually 50 ft. So we could make that connection in phase two rather than phase three. I I I guess if that's a requirement, we we just we're trying not to have a plantary rich situation,

right? And and understand that completely. Um, again, this is going back to the concerns of our of our first responders, you know, being able to to address situations within the city, which, you know, you know, we we already have, you know, a need for for additional services over in the uh over in the west part of the city as it stands already. Um, you know, and the last thing we want to do is is create another situation um if we don't have to create a situation. So, that that was the question. The developer wanted me to point out that we probably wouldn't put a bridge in there. We would probably pipe it. Um there is the option for the live bottom arch pipes there as well. Okay.

Um the the reason it would go there rather than straight up along the right hand side is you're too close to the neighbor's property. So whenever you cross a flood plane, you have to ensure you have a zero rise. I don't think you're allow 01 or something like that. So to have no rise that close is near it's nearly impossible. Wouldn't like it that close down.

Well, you would have to lose lots to be able to do that. Of course, that's that's part of it of of taking it straight if you would, but I understand understand. Um, question and I appreciate it. Question to I guess the staff as well as city engineers. So, and and if I'm wrong, please please tell me I'm wrong. So, if we're looking over in the the Flat Creek golf course area, um, you know, we've had some some major flooding, especially when we've had a hurricane or two decide to park themselves over top of us. Um, did the city at one point in time, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, did the city go in and purchase or buy a couple properties back in one of those developments at some point, or was it considered because of continuous flooding? We we have purchased property over the years u in in different areas of the city. uh North Fairfield comes to mind and drawing a blank on some of the areas, but yes, we have we have purchased property because of flooding issues.

Okay.

And that's what I thought. I couldn't remember. I know I think that was one of the the areas um you know that that we did at one point in time, but I I couldn't remember. I wasn't aware of others, but um you know, one of the one of the good things and bad things about about Flat Creek is is that you know, it's only good for certain things. of course, golf courses and and green spaces and things such as that. And you know, my concern is that are we creating another situation u especially with those lots that are signified in the in the FEMA flood plane even though there's been another flood analysis done by by the city. Um you know, are we creating a situation where we don't need to create one with with those properties? Um, you know, I know one of the homes, um, I think on lot 53, if that is correct. I mean, it's going to be right up against the side setback almost to be able to to put it in there or or very close. And that's just again the concept what it shows. Um, but I'm I'm a little concerned with with what I'm seeing from that and I just wanted to kind of a confirmation from from that standpoint. So So thank you. and and there are and just to add to that, there are requirements in the ordinance for a certain amount of area to be outside of the flood plane when you plan a lot. So,

okay, I appreciate it. Okay, those are my my questions. So, I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go back to uh any other questions before I before I move on to comments. Okay, so I'm going to go back to Commissioner Hamner. Um comments.

Sure. Yeah. So, um, let me just say this is a difficult property. To echo, uh, what some of the other commissioners said, uh, it's very much in line with, uh, the property that's still available in Petri City. It's all everything that's not developed at this point is going to be incredibly difficult. I'm glad you guys picked up on that and you guys asked some good questions on it. As you consider uh the way that you vote on this though, just a couple things to keep in mind is that you know obviously this is zoned the way that it is. Uh the plat overall is aligned with the way that this the zoning is on and and obviously city uh city staff as well also uh recommended that this overall meets a lot of the requirements on it. Uh I will say this as well is that you know ideally of course you know it would be great to see the full platted out but there is precedence in terms of of you know having different uh phases of these things. Um it all sounds like as well you know that the developer has uh tried to you know go above and beyond in terms of the of the way that some of this is set up uh on this. Now, I know not everybody in the public is happy about this and has concerns about it, and I think those are all incredibly valid, but I think overall that this would fit uh in terms of when we look at precedent, when we look at the ordinances that the city has that would meet a lot of those.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Halverson. Comments.

I want to reiterate that this is a difficult lot to lay out. Um I do understand that presidents have a lot of concerns about it which I have concerns as well and I think that um you can phase anything you want. Um but ultimately I think it's important for us to see the entire intent and then phase from there um for us to give you the proper feedback. So I just still have concerns about the division. I have concerns about the flood plane. I have concerns about the density. Um but as you duly pointed, it does meet the requirements in Future City. Um I just think it's challenged.

Can I make a comment about developing in phases? Um just some of you that have been around here longer probably recall Crest Wind Everton. Um they were developed in phases and we never saw the next phase until they were ready to do it. Um Everton has nine phases. Crestwind I think five five or six. Five.

But but I think that makes a good point. Um you know at some point in time the developer or the property owner has to have a vision as to what this looks like. um if I own that amount of property and I was thinking about doing things, I have a vision as to what I think I'm going to do with this. Um you know, and it's unfortunate that maybe in those situations where it's, you know, a phase and then a phase and a phase. Um I'm actually going to bring it back to smoke rise. You know, you look at smoke rise and there's not just one smoke rise. There's how many different smoke rises? U because it was another phase and another phase and another phase. Um and for the most part those phases are very complimentary to each other um you know which which is good but that didn't have to be the case um so I I think if we can do that and and see it alto together especially in a situation like this u where there's very much concern as to you know fire police EMS u when there's concern with uh you know water runoff an erosion. There's concern with, you know, like I said, just the general connectivity and and things such as that. Um, I I think it's important if it's possible to do it, even though it's may not be required, I I think it would really help us all um and and help the city to make the right decision um as we get into the the kind of the final platting um you know, or or the next phase of of the platting to go ahead and and really have that that idea. So, um, I I kind of took away from Commissioner Chris there because I have a couple other things, but Commissioner Chris, I'm going to

turn it back over to you. Yeah. No, thanks. I mean, I think, um, to just to just to kind of go back to my previous comments. I mean, I think the to for me to see the the greater idea, it doesn't need to be, you know, fully platted. Sure, I get it that things can be developed in phases, but to see the full idea, at least for me to give proper feedback is important. Um uh you know what what I am concerned about is that you know basically we're talking I think I heard 20 maybe 20 two different 20 sets of 20 homes in the third phase. So 40 homes we're talking about adding a 100red homes or is that I'm sorry 20 total and seven 20 total.

Oh 20 total. Okay. So we're still talking about about 80 homes that we're adding to the far northwest corner east corner of our city. Um, and when you look at some of the the neighborhoods around this one, you see a lot more encouragement of multiath use for instance, right? And and that's something that's in our comprehensive plan. And so for me, not to see the rest of it and not to see where, you know, we're encouraging use of alternate transportation, which I think is important when we're looking at the bigger picture in our city. it's hard for me to give my my full opinion and comment. Um, so that's that's kind of where I am at. Um, and and why I'm I'm asking for the for the whole design. I I have concerns. I'll echo my fellow commissioners about the safety about getting police and fire back into that north uh development there. Um, I do appreciate the applicant taking into account um the water concerns of these lots and the and the placement of the road. I think that's fantastic. Uh, major kudos to working with the community to figure out what works best from a transportation and water um diversion standpoint. But um, you know, from my standpoint, I I think I I really would like to see the whole plan. I don't know if we're voting today or if we're just is to continue to talk about this. You know, I I'd like to see more of an encouragement of you using the alternate modes of transportation because adding 80 homes to this area, I think it's going to be beneficial for them to be well connected, not only in terms of the the roads that they have access to, but also the multipath use system. So,

so this would be a good time. I'm sorry if I did forget to bring this up. when we bring it to you for voting there there is a condition that the engineers city engineers have put on the property um they are requiring the developer to construct a multi-use path along u Sumner Road um the original comment was on the western side but there has been some discussion um to put it down the eastern side but they are going to be required uh and we'll make that an approval condition when we bring it back to you to vote to make a connection further south on summer Well, unfortunately, I don't think I have anything that shows it. Um, let's see.

Shows it a little bit more, but it would, you know, come down Sumar Road and uh down towards the end there's a another connection. That'd be nice because right now that's just surface street for for any golf cart traffic that comes down.

Can I add to that? What's really weird? For some reason, Sumar Road as it heads south to the highway only has a 30 foot rideway. There is a 50 foot green space that I think per the ordinances usually are for um car paths. So, the intent is to take the car path about thousand feet south to where it crosses. I don't know what road that is, but crosses some below the entrance to Smoke Rers. And so, we would connect it to there. And then obviously, it's connected via road networks to the back side of and and a and a question I guess on on connectivity too and everything where is and a question of staff the multi or the um mixeduse development that's that's going in off of off of 54 um I'm trying to to pinpoint it of course and we don't have a a map of the whole area up

that red that's that's is is that where we're looking at I think that's the red lu Yeah. Is that the word right? Yeah, we're also doing that one. There is connectivity between smoke rers and the red. So just getting into smoke rice corners gets carts from there, right? And that's supposed to be restaurant heavy. So it would everybody from those subdivisions be able to come vision's already been made through smoke riner to that commercial lot. Yep. So we're making the connection from the residential area to That's what I was looking at. Perfect. Thank you. They're trying to pull it up on Google Maps now so that it's easier to understand. It it's just another thing as we kind of go go through

looking at that. It's just as you know kind of requesting the the entire area to be you know from the conceptual plat side. It's also nice to see where everything kind of ties into each one of these separate developments um whether residential or commercial. So we have a pretty good idea of of how things look. There's my So, here's you can see the existing cart path that crosses Sumar right there. That's that's the goal. We're we're trying to get them via a cart path from the new development down Sumar either on the left or right or in the middle or overhead or Montreal or something down to to that that crossing there. Okay, perfect. That's the goal.

Okay, that's the condition that we wanted. Okay, that that would be excellent. That'd be really good for for the community. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Chris. Any other No, I'm just I'm just excited to see the entire PL and um you know, I think I'd love to see some some more connections to the cart path or connections to the existing cart path in Smoke R. Um just because I think when you see the entirety of the plat and and how it could potentially encourage alternate vehicle use, I think for those 80 homes, that's really going to impact, you know, how they live. Peach Tree City. So that's that's what I'm excited to see. But but thanks for bringing it forward.

Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Allen. Comments. Yeah. Can we go back to uh Riaw South?

So one, as a former police officer, I'm always concerned about response time and would love to see a road placed. I was looking for the black and white version. See the response times reduced for fire and uh police. And then I just like the concept of of slamming home neighborhoods and buildings and malls and every last uh green space that a city has. Orlando used to be a beautiful city and now you can't find any trees. One thing that Creswin did a great job in if you look at I guess either one Bradshaw south or north where you have we'll use 48 47 49 46 that area right there where the homes up come back to each other Crestwind did a great job putting buffers in there so that you couldn't see the home behind you there weren't any chances to look into windows and it just feels like these are if if the saturation of homes in this area is pretty dense I would have like could have seen fewer lots or at least a buffer in between the yards so they're not looking at each other's back windows.

Please, I would just point out that these are oneacre lots. Those are quarter acre lots. So there's four times the amount of land per lot than over there. And then if we had the aerial photo pointed up, I would just looking at what's existing around us, that's how this is going to look. Okay? It won't look that way on day one because we're clearing the roads, but you can the aerial photo from Google Earth. Those trees are crowded over. If you go through the history of Google Earth, um you can go back to like 1993, even 99, you see it start to get built and yeah, you can see some clearing for the roads and all that stuff, but then it within eight eight years it crowds up and it's over and it's just like it is today. Okay. And so we're intending to continue that same thing on with this.

And thank you for your willingness to answer the questions. Really appreciate it. Commissioner Allen, anything else? No. Commissioner Gant,

um I would just say thank you for answering the questions and the comments that you made today. You set my mind at ease that um that your development will be on par or better than the developments that are adjacent to it. So, thank you for that. Um also, um I have a better understanding of u the work that you're doing to mitigate the concerns that the neighbors have. Um, I know there's probably still some work to be done and I'm concerned about that, but uh, overall I think what you've done fits in very nicely. Um, and appreciate everything you're doing. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, and I just I echo the same. U, you know, this if the the solutions to to the issues and the questions were were simple, this would have been developed probably ages ago. Um and and as we talked about, you know, there are no simple properties really left in in Peach Tree City to to develop. Yeah. So

Yep. Um I I I do thank you for for trying to take into consideration u you know the feedback that you received from from the original um in in making the changes and trying to make some changes um to to this new version of the conceptual plat. Um I I think as you heard, you know, there's still some concerns as from from the residents as well as the commissioners as well as our our first responders. Um you know, I I still have some some concerns my myself. Um you know, again, as the other commissioners said, with with connectivity, um but if we connect to go ahead and take care of possibly a a response time, um does that connectivity now open it up for for pass through? Um that's that's very possible. Um and what is the what is the most important thing out of out of that I think is is something we need to take into consideration. Um you know again one of the questions was those lots that are that are in that 100-year flood plane. Um and what situations the city has faced in the past where you know we've we've fast approached that if not exceeded in certain areas of of the city. Um, and are we creating an issue um that we don't need to create by possibly um reducing lot size so a house could be better situated um away from that or or being creative with with some of those. There may not be a perfect solution again for that. Um but I think it's definitely something to keep in mind. um appreciate all the work that you did with the streets and and making it easier u widthwise as well as like you said some of the eyebrows that that I did notice in there for for turnarounds and things such as that. U that's very important for for not only just our our fire and and fire department police but also services that come through whether

it's trash or or anything else as as we have coming through the city. Um, still have, like I said, still have some concerns as to to connecting the two. Um, as well as what that would look like with that phase three. Um, it's very possible that some of the concerns and the questions that were brought up might be answered um or at least alleviated by seeing that that third phase. Um, then again, that third phase may bring up other questions and concerns. Um, but I think until we see that, I think it'd be very difficult, again, we're not taking a vote on this, but a very difficult proposition, um, if this would come back to to the planning commission as is, um, without maybe some of those thoughts being at least fleshed out and incorporated. Um, you know, it may be a very difficult discussion, even further to to have than than just the good discussion we we've had this evening. So,

can I have one more comment? Absolutely. I I'm sorry to go back to this and I just thought of an idea. Um it's my understanding that there's a possibility that in the Crestwood neighborhood they're going to create a back entrance for first responders that's gated that nobody else can use and they'll have a some sort of gate mechanism to open it when they come through. No through traffic. If we did something similar that might uh handle the concerns the neighbors have of through traffic and handle the concerns of first responders. If you build the road then put a gate in it that only first responders have access to that might make both sides happy. Just a thought.

That's interesting proposition. Yeah. David, you have a I didn't know if you had a comment on that. I was just commenting that yes, that a gate is possible. Okay, that's something to consider with that. Um, so it' still allow I mean you'd still have to to build something over top of Flat Creek and and but you would have to put a gate at that point. Wouldn't have the through traffic prevents traffic. You wouldn't have the through traffic problem, but we would be able to hopefully alleviate some of the some of the possible concerns from from fire and and EMS and the police. So, thank you.

Yeah. Okay. Um, any other comments or or questions?

Oh, just I want to state for the record that the surrounding um properties are also the same zoning R43 that they came up much earlier and I think um Mr. Walls even mentioned it at some point but I just want to make sure we told you that and I I think you need to make I know you've talked about your concerns um and if that's what you want them to go on to make possible changes of course next time they come back they're going to want you to consider approval. So, make sure they know um you know what you're hoping to see when they come back. Yeah.

Okay. So, let's go ahead and put those together and and get it over um to to staff. Um so, number one is is concerns about the fire and EMS and police. Um and that is more from a from a response. Um so that would be a a possibility of of looking at then connectivity. Um definitely u number one. Uh number two is uh seeing the phase three conceptual um which again may take care of of item one or it may add to item one of the connectivity. Um show path.

Cart path. Correct. density, I think, from a from a from Commissioner Halverson looking at, you know, is there any way to to possibly reduce density to take care of some of these other situations? Um, I'm missing something. What am I missing? Yeah, clear layout of of water management. Is that a more clear layout of the water? I mean, you've done a really nice job of explaining it to be honest.

The the storm water, I guess. Just just that statement on that if you've really studied it there's probably like eight or nine different ponds. That's because it's draining in different directions and so we're having to capture it in multiple directions. So there was some thought put into where those blue ponds are kind of currently shown. It's kind of hard to see up there. I was just going to say it's kind of well even it's very hard to see when you'all get these email to. But yeah, even in even in the conceptual plat it's it's a little difficult to see some. maybe a better diagram to go along with the next I probably add some color to it. Yeah, that would that would help. Absolutely.

Um and you know as part of that connectivity of course you know what what Commissioner Allen brought up with you know with the possible gate just for uh just first respond. Um, Commissioner Gand, I think the only other issue that I can think of is u a little more specificity about the the buffer that he was going to put along that road backing up. So along the road A. Yeah. You know that that 50 foot that seems to taper off and then kind of grows there. Yeah. Y and that's behind the homes on uh on Ashley Way. Mhm. I just thought of um Have you guys done a traffic study for how many cars are going to dump on a summer way?

Yeah. Down to the side. I mean, typically it's I think two three cars per house times Yeah. I think it's two to three trips per day. So, meaning a trip in and a trip out. So, be six or so trips a day. But I don't know if this exceeds the requirements for traffic. I don't think it does. Okay. I was just curious if you did. Yeah. Um if you have the information, you can just share with us. Yeah, we I can definitely add that to the plan. So there's just it manual has trips per day per lot. It's different for the size lot. So we can provide what the new traffic impacts would be. Great. But it should be minimal. It's very similar to everything around us in this area. It's not it's not going to be disruptive.

These aren't quarter acre. And I guess one one other thing I guess a question to to city engineering um with that mixeduse development going in and I'm trying to remember I believe there is going to be one is there going to be one stoplight that's going to be in front of that mixeduse development on 54 or is it just going to be um I can't remember what it's called. It's just going to be left right hand turns going in and you'll have to come out one direction or the other. If I recall, it was a just a right in right out. Just write in right out. Okay. I couldn't remember if there was going to be a cut. It's gonna be a modified R cut. Okay.

They're not going to restrict. This is permitted through G do. They're not going to restrict what's coming out of whatever that road is across from us, Genevieve Court maybe, but they're going to restrict our lefts out, our left outs. So, we'll only be able to go left in and right out or something. And and the only reason I'm I'm kind of wondering is now we have you know, 88 homes with x number of trips and that section of Sumner that goes out the 54, which of course Sumner is an odd one because it's kind of two parts of Sumar.

Um, that's going to go out and that can only basically you can only go right out of there. Is that correct? Or can you come across and make a a left as you're heading towards Fagetville on 54 east? You can go both directions.

Or can you go? Okay. I I appreciate it. I I've gone past there so many times that I don't pay attention to it. So, I I do appreciate that. It's just one more area where, you know, we're going to have traffic and and not even looking at the city streets, but looking at the major thoroughfare of that traffic coming in onto 54 right before or right after sort of thing that mixeduse development. Um so, it's it's something as again looking at the big picture. Um you know, we always look at don't always but but we focus in on that development at the time and don't always think about well what's next and and what's next and what's next be a tough turn.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Um

one last thing for me for for phase three I'm particularly interested in how you're going to connect to the cart path that that runs along the very top of uh Lake Kedan where Flat Creek comes out to the north and east. if if there's a plan to connect into that cart path because I think that's going to serve that area significantly if that makes sense. So if you see how Flat Creek comes out of Lake Hedin at the very top and north and east there's two there's two car paths on either side of Lake Hedron that come down and around from there and I think that's going to be at least from my perspective significant in in the usability of of carts and al alternate transportation from that area. Are you talking about those locations?

No, not talking about So the this this little corner I can circle I can circle it on the screen there. That little corner there's a couple of paths that go up to smoke y trace there. And I'm interested to see how phase three will connect in to those paths. Understood. Yeah. I'm not so sure based on the creeks and the topography that we're even developing that area. that's that kind of fingers down. It's it's kind of separated over there. It's not it's not enough land that's out of the flood plan and and upland or so. So there there will be a green space with lot uh not lot three um

phase three and we have it laid out. So I'm going to be able to get it to you within a day or two if you took a pencil sketch if we can get to you tomorrow. But um okay.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. So I think those are our items. Any other any other items from the commissioners? No. Okay. Well, again, want to want to thank everyone um want to thank staff in city engineering and and our fire department from for coming out. Thank you for for your input. Really appreciate that. U staff for putting this together and from from the applicant. Uh and want to also thank the comments that we received from from the residents. Um hopefully all that will be taken into consideration as we as they go through and and provide possibly some updates as to uh as to what we'll see for the final that will come in in front of us for a for a vote then. So okay. So that's everything for the workshop. Um Laura, I think you have one more one more slide for the Next meeting. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. Next meeting of February 9th. Any other comments, questions from commissioners? Okay. Anything else from staff?

No. Perfect. So, do we have a motion to adjurnn? So, do we have a motion to adjurnn? Do we have a second? Second. Motion to journ. Second. All those in favor signify by saying