Planning Commission Meeting
Video Transcript
Duration: 101 minutes
Speakers: 11
Miraculous.
Alright.
Good evening. My name is Katie Singleton. Welcome to the May 20 meeting of the Roswell Planning Commission.
Roswell Planning Commission is a member or made up
of citizens of Roswell appointed by mayor and council to hear items from planning and zoning department.
Items that we hear tonight either move forward back move back to mayor and council for approval or in this case, a preliminary plat, then we'll move forward through planning and zoning for
land disturbance permits. Please silence your cell phones.
If any item is presented,
the staff will present their item, make their report. And then if the applicant will come forward and make a presentation, we may have questions for staff or the applicant. And then if a member of the public is here, they'll have the opportunity to
ask questions.
I think we're ready to get started. Angela?
Thank you, madam chair. Good evening, madam chair and commission members.
We are here
this evening to review a preliminary plat, 935 Old Chadwick Lane, Grand Reserve,
Phase
4.
First, as a refresher, I just wanted to take a look at the
subdivision review process.
Why why are we doing this in the first place? Subdivision review helps us ensure that all subdivision
and sale of land complies with the applicable
requirements of the EDC.
And when is the subdivision review required?
It's required for any division of land into two or more lots, recombination
of two or more lots, tree removal, land disturbance, or grading,
extension of public utilities,
dedication of public right of way, abandonment
of public
of existing public right of way, and extension of public streets.
By definition,
a preliminary plat means a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets
and alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision consistent with the requirements of the UDC.
The preliminary plat
major subdivision process followed by the land disturbance permit and the final plat.
This is a aerial view of our subject property tonight, 09:35
Old Chadwick Lane.
For a little background,
Phase 4 of Grand Reserve at Litchfield consists of 60.3
acres and 36 single family lots. It's owned a g 43
agricultural.
All lots are at least an acre in size.
The land directly to the east of Grand Reserve Phase 4 is in the city of Milton.
It is Zone C 1, community business,
new new
commercial development including a convenience store with fuel pumps, is under construction.
At their March 10 meeting, the mayor and council approved with conditions
a revision to the site plan that repositioned the emergency entrance
approximately
500 and feet 550
feet south of its original location
between Lots 112 And 113
in order to comply with g dot requirements.
A condition was added requiring this to be a full access entrance with the alignment based on g dot approval,
which is condition three that we're going to look at next.
Just for the record, I'm gonna go ahead and read that.
The access along Arnold Mill Road will be a full access entrance that will align with Chadwick Farm Boulevard and the commercial development across the street in Milton.
If g dot does not approve full access, then a write in, write out access that does not align with Chadwick Farm Boulevard.
Preliminary measurements show adequate intersection site distances met for full access at Chadwick Farm Boulevard.
The applicant shall provide site distance certification. If full access is approved by g dot, the medium
certification.
If full access is approved by g dot, the medium stripe median
striping along State Route 140, Arnold Mill Road, shall be converted to a 12 foot wide left turn lane.
Improvements within State Route 140, Arnold Mill Road right of way shall be approved by g dot.
I wanted to take a minute to,
go over how the applicant
attempted to comply with this condition.
In March, the applicant emailed DOT, g dot, requesting that they look at a sketch showing conditions for full access entrance that align with Old Chadwick Road. And I'm not gonna read all of this, but this is the email
that the applicant sent to DOT
requesting that they review the sketch.
And this is the sketch drawing
that they submitted.
The applicant stated, I copied the width of the driveway, cut across the street and projected it to the west side and then measured from the tangent
of the tract to the tangent of Old Chadwood.
This shows that the driveway spacing was less than the required 230
feet.
That is the red those are the red markings on the bottom right hand
side.
Then this is DOT's response
stating that
the indicated
spacing
indicated driveway
spacing
is the required driveway spacing is 230 feet
in order to adhere with g dot standards.
And they
stated that what was presented would not meet those requirements.
And g dot asked that the applicant make adjustments and return a preliminary
review prior to submitting
g pass.
As a as a result of GDOT's response, the revised plan shown on the next slide includes a write in, write out access that does not align with Chadwick Farm Boulevard.
During Toll Brothers formal application to g dot to satisfy condition three,
condition four states,
the transportation
director shall have approval authority to validate that the revised site plan complies with condition number three during the land disturbance permit review process.
Other changes to the site plan, such as changed lot lines or reduction in units,
should not require additional council review,
provided that the site plan meets all other UDC requirements.
As a result,
per condition four, the transportation
director will direct the applicant to submit plans to g dot in an attempt to meet these conditions.
The result of all of that, this is the
site plan
that
the revised site plan that the applicant is requesting
planning commission approval of this evening.
And that's a large site plan.
Staff recommendation.
Approval of the preliminary plat with the mayor and council conditions adopted on 03/10/2025.
These conditions are as follows.
The owner developer
shall develop the property in substantial accordance with the site plan dated 01/1725.
The number of lots and units are not guaranteed as a reduction may be required due to staff comments during the development process.
Two, telecommunication
towers are prohibited.
Three, the access along Arnold Mill Road will be a full access entrance
that will align with Chadwick Farm Boulevard and the commercial development across the street in Milton. If GDOT does not approve full access, then a right in, right out access that does not align with Chadwick Farm Boulevard.
Preliminary measurements show adequate intersection site distance is met for full access at Chadwick Farm Boulevard.
The applicant shall provide site distance certification.
If full access is approved by GEDOT, the median striping along State Route 140 Arnhemville Road
should be converted to a 12 foot wide
left turn lane. All improvements within the State Route 140 Arnold Mill Road right of way shall be approved by g dot.
And number four, the transportation director
shall have approval authority to validate that that the revised site plan complies with the condition number three
during the land disturbance
permit review process.
Other changes to the site plan such as change lot lines or reduction in units should not require additional council review
provided that the site plan meets all other UDC requirements.
That concludes the staff presentation.
Thank you. Any questions for staff?
Would the applicant like
to print their item?
I would. They did such a thorough intro. I might not need half my
slides. Thank you for that and and
staff's time.
So
when we came to you in in May,
you asked us to revise the site plan,
to show the concept for
the entrance change in compliance with the new zoning conditions.
We've done that. I'll get into the details of that
in a minute.
You had a couple other kind of housekeeping items, and we took care of those too.
You wanted a lot table and you wanted us to show our work behind
the septic approval. So we included the detailed septic plan.
As for
the revisions to the entrance,
I want to give you some background info.
As I mentioned
briefly in our
last meeting, this project has been
a long road in process.
We
originally had this property under contract in 2021,
obtained preliminary plat approval, started LDP,
and then one of the sellers
pulled out of the project. And in 2024,
we,
came back to terms with the sellers,
reinitiated the approval process,
actually submitted our preliminary plat in November of last year. So six months ago about.
And have been through many rounds of,
fastidious
staff review,
with some stops and starts.
Originally,
even prior to this plan, the the old, old plan,
the plan was
for the the main access to be through,
the rest of the Grand Reserve
community. And there was a
just emergency access only entrance on Arnold Mull Road, which was originally
way up top at that north cul de sac.
And, you know, we got the comment from GDOT,
that that entrance had to be the minimum two thirty foot spacing
from our neighbor's driveway
to the north. So that is,
the comment that started all of this.
And
by city code,
in order for us to revise the plans to comply with the GDOT requirement, we had to go back to council for a site plan amendment.
So in May, we did that and,
council approved the site plan amendment. But we got a bit of a surprise,
which was they added a condition,
upgrading it from emergency access to Excuse me. I just wanna correct. It's March. I know you keep saying May, which Oh my gosh. I just wanna make sure because it's not it's a recording, but it is I think you're talking about the March meeting. You're absolutely right. Yes. Okay. Mhmm.
So upgraded from emergency access only to to
full vehicular traffic on that entrance.
And
that's something that was evaluated back in 2021
and approved as just emergency
access. And then unfortunately,
this time around, we went back.
You know, The situation
had changed and it became
full access.
And so
I think in part
in acknowledgment of those,
the long process and the delays and the and the setbacks,
I believe the intention
of conditions,
three and four
was to allow us to proceed with the approval of the preliminary plan
at that May 18,
or sorry, March
planning commission meeting and and to revise the entrance in the LDP process. But
at that meeting,
you advised us you wanted to see the conceptual plan revised to comply with the new zoning conditions prior to approving the plan, which we understand.
So, you know, our new entrants
will still need to comply with that same two thirty foot spacing requirement,
in addition to all the detailed
requirements that thank you for the thorough
condition wording, right? So if we move it
south, we can't move it so far south that it then has that same conflict with Old Chadwick Lane.
We expressed that in the staff meetings leading up to site plan amendment. We mentioned it again in the council meeting for the site plan amendment.
And
I believe that's why,
and other people can weigh in on that for sure,
the condition is worded to provide two scenarios.
We knew we would need to comply,
but they wanted us to at least ask the question of whether GDOT would approve an alignment with Chadwick Farm Boulevard.
So when we prepared our revised plans, we reached out to GDOT
to see if there was any way they could approve that alignment, and they replied they could could not.
So so that's why,
we we went down the road that we did
and
did the write in, write out alignment
in compliance with the other scenario in in condition three.
I know that's been the source of questions, and and it needs some more discussion.
And,
probably don't need these slides anymore. Have you seen
this? That is the change.
Condition wording,
for that scenario with the writing write out access.
So a,
bullet detail also showing the the desal lane that we anticipate will be needed there.
And
I could stop there
or
I can
launch into
prior to this meeting,
staff relayed to us that you all had some questions,
about
the access and Old Chadwick Lane.
And we had some additional meetings to work through that and talk through those.
I can
go ahead and speak to that if you'd like.
Okay.
So,
first, I want
to point
out site plan here.
Along the south side, along Old Chadwick Lane, there are 10 existing houses,
that have,
access out onto the rear onto Chadwick Lane. Some of them have fences and and gates. And there's
additionally, there's a a seven acre lot
in in Milton on the corner there,
which house that that has
rear access on Old Chadwick Lane.
The Toll Brothers
approached I believe every one of the owners were close to it
at the outset
of
the reinitiating planning
to see if they would support abandoning Old Chadwick Lane.
And they were unhappy about the discussion, so we had to to stop rather than,
upset our customers.
So
regardless of whether
Old Chadwick provides
primary or secondary access, it's
public right of way.
And whatever happens in the future,
GDOT is gonna look at the at the current condition.
So we really
cannot make statements to GDOT that that we don't know to be,
permanently factual
to support a condition that
is against
the feedback that we've gotten from
the neighbors.
But we do already have a zoning condition
to to cover this. And,
LDP approval is contingent
on on Jeff Littlefield.
And he can be very difficult at his discretion
process, making sure that we're showing our work.
And, you know, even if
we submit an LDP in the next
month, you know, that's gonna be probably a four month process to work through all of that. So,
just
not something that
really aligns with this current process, and we don't want to get stuck in an endless feedback loop.
So,
hopefully, that
addresses
some of the questions that you had. I'm
I'm happy to
talk through things further.
Staff has reviews
reviewed our revised plans and
certified them as fully compliant. And, we're we're here tonight to to ask for your approval.
I I have is the email that you showed earlier the only communication
oh, I'm sorry.
Is the email you presented earlier the only communication you had with g dot? That was your formal application?
So
going
back farther. Right?
There there was the initial
comment about the North entrance,
and there was some
discussion,
which has also been forwarded to the city,
you know, about,
could we get a waiver on that? Right? And they said absolutely not.
And that was just for a driveway.
So,
it's been an ongoing discussion.
You know, we we, of course, revisited it.
And
their response there about next steps and all of that, that's that's LDP
process. The GPAS system, that's their portal where we'll need to submit, and and those are all steps that occurred
in LDP.
We really could not go to them,
right now with any kind of a
formal application. That's just they would laugh us out of the room. But they need fully engineered plants, which
happens
now. Alright. I think Jeff, would you mind, since you're here, if you could let us know what your perspective is on this?
The applicant's correct.
They can't just submit a hypothetical
to GDOT. So it's public right away.
As long as it is public right away,
GDOT will look at it. We can't put a gate we can put a gate up, but GDOT will just say you can open a gate. Mhmm. So they will not look at that.
I will submit
to counsel through our communication
process
if there's a desire
to abandon that. Now that would it it's a tall order to even abandon that because
all of those property owners to the south of this page would have to agree. Mhmm. Also, Toll Brothers is the landowner above, and they would have to agree.
But if it's possible and they want us to pursue
actually trying to abandon the right of way, then we will take those steps to abandon,
at least to see if we can abandon.
But that would take pretty much a 100% of the property owners saying they
because we have to have someone to abandon to. So even if the council says, yes, we want to,
we would still have to abandon it to somebody.
And so it may or may not be possible,
but as a good faith effort,
we would definitely take those steps take those steps. It will go to senior leadership early next week, the briefing with all of the information here. It'll go to the elected officials about midweek next week to see if there is a desire to do that.
Okay.
So in your view, where in this conditions of mayor and council are we in these processes
in conditions three and four? I mean, we typically do that in the LDP. So we make a lot of comments.
Right. We make a lot of comments, honestly. Right. But I'm just talking we're bound by what's in these conditions that were written in that meeting. And so that's what I'm talking about. So in your view, where are we in that process?
They can't really submit officially to GDOT. So I don't know where exactly you would consider us being, but we're taking these steps
now ahead of LDP
to see if there's a desire
to actually if there's no desire, then there's really no conversation. It's the council agrees that. But if there is a desire, then we'll take the steps and let them know
in that briefing
what
what it will take and then see where we go from there as far as their desire to abandon it. Right.
And then that answered your question. Well, it does. Because
in my view, we're sort of stuck with the way these conditions were written in terms of a break in the process and how things work. Because the way these conditions are
break in the process and how things work. Because the way these conditions are written and listening to the applicant, listening to what you're saying is we're still, if you will, stuck in condition three because we haven't gone through this process with the mayor and council yet to determine if there's an appetite to pursue abandonment, which would change
conditions in terms of making an application to GDOT. So I'm not saying I don't know what GDOT's gonna do. But in my view, we're still stuck at number three. And then I think that's why number four is there, to give you the ability
to
go to the write in, write out later in the process without going back to mayor and council. But in my view, because we haven't done this work, we're not at a point yet where you can make that determination. Is that fair statement? Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. Yeah. They will be asking what information is actually sent to Gmail. So
what
are
they actually
evaluating? Right.
Now we know that if we don't abandon the right of way, there is a good chance that we will not get that full access. Right.
But that'll be a step that we take. But then we'll ask what information
they submitted,
you know, to GDOT to make sure that is sufficient.
And that's that would be our typical process is, like, what did you say to GDOT? And we would want them to actually have a package Mhmm. That they review.
You know, this might not be the only reason GDOT denies it. It could be Right. We don't we don't know any of that. This issue. Mhmm. So they could just pile on, but we would wanna know what those things are to see if they could be mitigated or not. Right. And that has not happened yet. No. And that would happen in Right. Which is, I think, what these contemplated. But until that's done, we're still at number three. We're still at a aligned Yes. Road. Correct? Yes. Alright.
Are there any questions for Jeff, Eric?
Eric Schumacher.
When it comes to solving the issue with,
Old Chadwick Lane, might there be some alternatives
to abandoning it? You know, perhaps
changing how you access that so that it's maybe from other parts of the the development
and terminating before,
on Old Arnold Mill Road or Old Arnold Mill Road. Is that correct? Is it 140?
Arnold Mill Road.
Yeah. It's the G Dot Route. 40. Yeah. Arnold Mill Road. Yeah.
Yeah. We can certainly look at that.
So so
I was looking through,
some of the old preliminary plat applications
from
his owner,
back in '21, I guess, and maybe even in '22.
And on their site plans, they indicate that,
at least a portion or the whole portion of
this old Chadwick Lane is a prescriptive easement
rather than a street? It's actually written on their
applications. I believe it's I believe it's right of way. Now we would rely on the survey. So when they have the surveyors come out, we would look at that. But it it is maintained by the city. It is a city street,
and it does show up, like, on Fulton County GIS. It shows up on Roswell GIS.
I took the opportunity to take some sections out of the previous site plans. We can put them up on the overhead if we think it's important,
but they are marked up,
as prescriptive easements. So then I guess I understand that things can happen over time. The city starts,
you know, taking over a roadway and improving it. That that can happen.
But in the case of this development, it's four it was four phases.
So,
we have this lane actually affecting all four phases.
It's touching a property in all four of them.
What I was wondering is it doesn't look like, the
phases accommodated
accommodated
turn putting a,
cul de sac or a turnaround or anything or bring this road all the way through into the development,
would that be normal? Because it seems like it's a nonconforming
road even if it's an alley because there's no turnaround on it.
I don't know that I can answer that because it actually services
a a home right now.
So
I don't think they could
possibly do Okay. Who ever owns it? I don't know who owns a home, but that's their primary access. So if this subdivision doesn't
come in for some reason,
they would still need that as their road. Sure. Then then turns into I think on the map, it shows Turner Road, but
we don't maintain that. So it's it's literally their driveway.
But Old Chadwick Lane is our road, and it does service that parcel.
So the old the Old Chadwick Lane
actually continues straight along. And, you know, on our GIS, it does show this Turner Turner Road,
which is perhaps a driveway, but it's showing up in GIS and even Google as a road.
But let's say that doesn't exist, and this continues on and it actually dead ends at a at a parcel
in phase three.
And there's actually a bit of of,
stormwater or,
water easement, you know, cutting through that property that's marked on the on the site plan for
for phase three. So I was just wondering if there was any intent
to actually do something with the street or require the developers to do something with the street other than just leave it as a gravel drive. It's would be kind of normal, I think,
to require a turnaround if this is actually intended to be a street.
Tip
typically, not on our streets. Like, we wouldn't ask them to improve
our streets necessarily. Now
they can connect to them and they can do other things, but we typically wouldn't ask them to improve, like, on our street. That would be the city's responsibility.
And then would it be in mostly dirt road
if they if it were converted to,
say, an asphalt road, it would pose the city some issues
with drainage,
stormwater
that then we would have to go back and probably try to acquire some more right of way, honestly, to Okay. Accommodate some things like that. But it it's unknown, but it's a risk, I guess, if we were to, say, convert it to something like a paved roadway. Sure. And I know you haven't been with the city a long time. So, you know, I think some of this might have been planned and developed before your time. Oh, way before my time.
Right. So but it but it does look like there's been intentional development around here
without really looking at what this road is, but I but I do see,
you know, on one of the preliminary plots, there was an intention by Toll Brothers to to vacate the the,
prescriptive easement.
And if it was a prescriptive easement, let's just hypothetically say, if it was a prescriptive easement,
you know, the new lots that were created
don't automatically
get that easement.
You know, we don't really if if it was a prescriptive easement, we wouldn't know who owned it. We're we're we're assuming that Chadwick family is owning it for the one house,
but I don't know what the other house was at the end of Old Chadwick Lane that is no longer there.
To the best of my knowledge, we
own all like, the city owns
all of Chad
Old Chadwick Lane all the way to where it terminates.
The other portion of the easement is it's not the city's easement if there is a easement, but we would look at that the surveys of that in the plans. And if it's showing easement, we would have that addressed. Okay. Yeah. We wouldn't want easement going to the same as parcel.
From looking at the old preliminary plots, it just raises a lot of questions. And I think there were some unknowns around
why is
this Turner Road showing up when it maybe doesn't exist. And, you know, is it a prescriptive easement if it was put on plans by more than one surveyor,
for instance? And it could be, but that can be addressed. It it's not the city's easement. The city doesn't need it. So it is it could be for that one parcel or
historically
could have been needed, but
definitely not needed.
To my knowledge, it's not needed now and it's not the city. Sure. Well, I just thought so, Michelle, I I'm not finished with Jeff.
For this,
the survey they provide is stamped and sealed.
So to pursue
the history of the planning and ownership,
we rely on the seal
stamped and sealed
of what their surveyor has presented to us.
So,
you know, I think that there's potentially some other ways to to solve this issue with you. By maybe bringing bringing in an alleyway,
from, you know, not off of 1140?
Yeah.
140. With yourself. Yeah.
You know, to see if we can't get around that issue that they have with the with the drives.
But I you know, when I first received this packet, none of this information or exchange with g dot was present in it.
So it it left myself and the public asking the question, why why aren't we meeting the condition that
council was so clear to put, you know, in the condition,
you know, that these streets should align and should be a full full, you know, entrance exit. Exit
so you can take a left, you
know, going north, on your on your way out. So,
you
know, seeing
this exchange, I mean, I do see the exchange. I do
I do acknowledge that, but I'm not sure that that is the person that approved things, and it didn't really look like an actual application to me. You know, it is certainly informational, and I'm sure that person, you know, holds an official role. But I guess I'm not familiar with what happens with happens with a normal application to g dot, whether it's a group of people and they decide or if there's a variance process, etcetera.
They would look at plant, like,
plans, like, we look at plans, and then they would address
all of the issues that they see. Not they wouldn't just of sight
distance or proximity to a driveway. They would give you a list, kinda like we do. We give a list of issues so that they're not
commenting multiple times. So we we do attempt to not comment multiple times. Sometimes it happens, but they're the same way. They they look at at, like, we're gonna all the issues. So they're okay. You fixed this issue.
Oh, wait. No. You have this issue. So they would when they submit, they will submit
all of their issues. So if there's a vertical site distance, horizontal site distance, they will comment on all of those.
Okay. Is there a a variance process? If if the rule is it has to be 230
feet between driveways, is there
a process with g dot for It's not it's it's not typical at all. Maybe in a urban environment, you might see that. But, you know, pretty much this is rural for this area, and it it's pretty
difficult. They would not But I mean, there is an official process for a variance. There is a there is yes. Definitely. So you can submit and ask for a variance. We ask GDOT for variances on our projects all the time and we pretty much get shot down Yeah. 90% of the time. But you try. But we try. There's a good faith effort to try to meet those needs.
We try to get the best product that we feel for the city.
Okay. So I I would just add that I think we have,
UDC code 1144,
improvements
along state highways.
It says, you know, item b says an approved permit for a proposed access
or improvements as required by GDOT and must be incorporated into the construction drawings for the project prior to issuance of a land disturbance permit.
Yes.
I'll let Eric finish this question. Yeah.
So so what would normally happen here is that the applicant would have to apply for
and and receive
approval
for their access
off of one forty, and this would have to be done
and incorporated into the drawings
before an issuance
of land disturbance. So it could happen during
the land disturbance
review process.
Yes. They would wanna see any construction entrances to see how they are addressed. They would wanna see any any work that's done in the right of way.
They would want to see what is done. They they want their standards in there.
So, yes, they would definitely look at it just like the city looks at it. They they want all the information so that they know what they're getting. Because there will be a construction entrance of some sort, I assume. Sure. So they would want all of that information. Any work that's done in the right of way, they wanna know about so they can inspect it.
And with this code, we require
the
actual,
approved permit
before
we issue a hazardous permit. Yeah. They would have to get a permit from g dot or they literally cannot work off of off of Arnold Mill Road. Right. So they wouldn't be getting a land disturbance permit until
the final entrance or exit or ride in, ride out or whatever we might be doing
according to a preliminary plat. They won't be getting their land disturbance permit until they have an official
approved permit from g dot.
Yeah. Because we would wanna see it as well. So Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you. Alright.
I just wanted to reiterate that,
at the outset, before we even went back for the site plan amendment, we looked into,
with GDOT, you know, could we get a waiver? And they said absolutely not.
It's they categorically cannot even entertain it until all other options, period, have been exhausted. So,
we didn't wanna have to go back for the site plan amendment. So May I may I ask a question? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So So I know that you interact with somebody at g dot with some conversations, phone calls,
and emails. But,
you know, from my perspective, I don't know if that's just a person at g dot telling you something or whether that's the official,
you know, position that is signed and stamped,
etcetera? That's that is the the person that would be reviewing our plans.
Daniel,
can you speak to that at all?
Daniel Hawker, the civil engineer for the project.
Just a little bit on this variance process with g dot. I've designed many g dot entrances on projects
all around Atlanta and
way g Views variances,
they will grant variances in certain circumstances. But if if you can show them an alignment that meets all of their standards,
they're not gonna grant a variance
for something that's substandard
if you can prove that you have a option that works.
So in their minds,
this alternate shifting it to the left
that allows us to do a right in, right out, that would be compliant in theory during
full design. That's what they're gonna grant. It wouldn't give us a variance to reduce that distance with old Chadwick.
Oh, I'm sorry. Did I not answer the question?
Yeah.
Yeah. That's that's what we'll be reviewing. Yeah. Divina is the director at g dot. So she oversees the the staff engineers that actually do the reviews.
Is is there a committee
doing approvals or is it just one person?
So their process is you have a staff engineer at g dot that will do the initial plan review, provide comments
that we have a back and forth much like we do with the city.
And
once you get that person's approval, it goes to a final approval by the director, which would be Divina.
And this is normally, like, an official process where you submit an application with
a notary and some plans and they Yeah. The application take some time and come back to you with an official statement,
you know, an official letterhead, this kind of a thing. Yeah. That's when you go through your land disturbance permit for the full approval.
Okay. Thank you.
I mean
and
question for the applicant.
So listening to
Jeff talk about what his process is gonna be after
today
and then listening to what Toll Brothers has done to this point,
there's to me a disconnect. And it's it appears to me you've presupposed
what Jeff is going to do
in land disturbance, and you've already incorporated what you think the outcome of that process is going to be and assumed a result.
And that work's not been done yet. That's that is because
originally,
the the intention
was for us to be able to proceed, get our preliminary plan, start that whole process, get it figured out in LDP.
The planning commission, you all requested for us to show conceptually
what the plans would look like to
to comply.
So
the our no. Excuse me. Our request would be to comply with the conditions of mayor and council in condition number three. What happens in land disturbance is beyond our purview.
Right. And I think that's why the condition is written that way. That's exactly Right. The crux of the issue is that
we're we're we're in a perpetual
fear of panic loop. I agree. That I mean I agree. But here we are, and we're not we can't step outside of the condition that mayor and council set.
I mean, that we're that's not the universe we're operating in where we can set condition three aside and pretend like we've already gone through the process.
Jeff Littlefield has the ability, according to condition four, to say, you know what? We're gonna move on from the aligned drive, and we're gonna go to ride in, ride out after he's worked his process. He has not yet worked that process. And he cannot.
And and that's why that's not what's being asked. We're fully
What is your what do you mean he cannot?
He cannot what?
That's an LDP
Right. That's what I'm saying. That's something he's gonna do later. That's the conditions
where we're designed for it to work that way.
I agree. I mean, we agree that we're still in condition number three with an aligned road until Jeff Littlefield says different.
That's the way the conditions are written, and he's not made that determination yet. Is am I correct in that, Eric?
So I just I just wanna clarify.
Prior to the previous plan planning commission
meeting for this application,
Kitty and I had a had a staff had a meeting with Jeanne,
Jeff Leatherman,
Michelle,
and Angela,
and we talked about why we didn't think
this application was ready,
for that planning commission meeting. And the and the reason was,
that the street didn't align.
And we asked staff at that meeting
to have
the applicant draw the aligned street
on the site plan
so that we could address that
in the meeting. And that's what we expected for this meeting. We we
expected to see an aligned drawing.
We didn't expect a lot
of engineering or anything. We just said, hey.
Just draw the road so it's a line so that it meets condition three for a preliminary plat.
Right? If you had to move it later because you didn't get the approval
because that happens after you make the application to GEDOT, after
the city has worked with you on
using
good faith, right,
exhausting all angles
for how to align those rooms.
If you get
an official
denial from GDOT,
then
Jeff would Littlefield, the transportation director,
would allow it potentially. It would he would be able to decide at that point, but we haven't had an official denial.
We did not get a drawing
that met what counsel said that they wanted, which was an aligned road.
They can't submit, though. I don't know.
They can't submit
to g dot until they have their LDP.
So we have
process, we we will
review process. Yes. Review process. To actually getting it. Exactly. No. Before they get definitely before they get their LDP. Alright. But in that review process,
that that's where we will do our due diligence. We're actually starting
ahead of that
by asking mayor and council
if they
have even a desire to,
like, abandon the right of way or change the use of that right of way Sure. To whatever it is. But we have to determine
or they have to determine, I should say,
if they have that willingness to. Because if they don't, there there's
really no option. Now we can still ask them to submit to g dot when they are in the LDP process.
But more than likely, it will be turned down for the reason of
the proximity
to Old Chadwick Lane. But I but to your point, that process hasn't started of pursuing that with mayor and council to see what their appetite is for re abandoning the road, that that's something you're gonna start as part of the LDP process. And the applicant has not made an application because we're not at that point in the process.
So and and I'm not asking this question, Jeff. I'm just stating for
in my view, that's why we have a problem here because we're being asked to approve something as though g dot has already rejected and we're ready to go. And we're also hearing, we'll wait. We're gonna go back to mayor and council and see what the appetite is for moving the road. Yeah.
I I would just like to add that it you know, the email that I was
given
when I had questions for staff because I didn't see anything in the packet related to how we got here
without alignment.
The the email from
from Toll Brothers
to staff, Angela,
and yourself says
you know, from the applicant, you know, it says in response, the revised plan includes the ride in, ride out access that does not align with Chadwick Farm Boulevard. This complies with condition number three as highlighted
in yellow below.
So the applicant believes
that at this point,
when we give them a preliminary plat approval,
that they are they are going to only work towards a write in and a write out and legally
bound to that, that you won't be able to modify that at this point. Because they're suggesting,
you know, and implying
that they are meeting condition three. But I know we do not provide any comments stating that that was acceptable either. Right. Right. And which is why Hold on. Hold on. So so no. You can't interrupt me. I'm still I'm still questioning. Okay? So
please,
staff notes from you
do not go into any detail.
They're included in the packet. They don't go in into any detail that anything more needs to happen.
You say in these staff notes, approve it.
K? That's the problem that I'm seeing.
Beyond the fact that we don't have an official statement from GEDOT, that we don't have a drawing
that drew the street with alignment.
I actually see you saying in staff notes, approve this preliminary plat. And it doesn't say approve this preliminary plat because we're gonna continue to do these things.
It says approve it. So I worry Conditions are a little bit that this is binding.
That's because that's our typical review process. I mean, we literally sit in a room
every Wednesday
and review
through the LDP process. Sure. And then we come back with resubmittals.
But we sit in there with ComDebt. We sit in there with Stormwater,
and we're all making comments.
And I know they go and review it before we even review it. And then we double review it, and we all make our comments. Sure. And so
those comments are
addressed
at that point. This is a little bit different though
because it is a substantial
difference in the preliminary plat and and site plan.
Well and I think this is why, you know, the I would have to assume this is why the condition was written this way. It assumes number three until Jeff Littlefield says different,
and he has not yet said different is my view. I have I have not commented on the email. We are not at condition number four. Because we are not at that point. But We're not at that point in the process. That's the review
process that we take.
Yeah. I agree. I agree. So I I would like to say something because I was at the meeting that
was after mayor and council approved the site plan revision with these conditions.
And,
it was expressed that planning commission did not have an appetite
to approve the plan at that meeting, but however you wanted it to be heard
so that you could give the applicant direction. No direction was given to the applicant at that meeting.
Prior to the meeting,
the statement that you're now stating was we wanna see the alignment was not stated in that way. It was stated in the way that we want to see what Toll Brothers
is going to make official application
to g dot with.
That was the statement. Do you have an audio record of that?
Of course not. Because it was a you know what the Somebody might. Well, I mean, that begs the question, though. So is it the intention of Toll Brothers that they never intended that's saving they never intended to comply with full access. Yeah. I understand
the the
the problem we're in here, but we're we're using language that doubles down on on that take where the language was
we want to see
what they're going to submit with, and the submissions
that were
submitted
aligned with that. They Toll Brothers felt like they weren't gonna get anywhere based on their communication. They provided that to us, and they provided us with the document that they're gonna move forward and engineer
for the LDP documents that they will make official
application to g
dot. That doesn't mean the entire conversation
is done, but they they followed the process that was laid out. I disagree with you. I understand that, and I disagree with you, and that's why I'm making my statement because that is not what was tasked
to the applicant. It was
show us what you're gonna submit to g dot. None of that confusion. I am sorry there was that issue too. Both Kitty and I in that meeting
told you we wanna see the road drawn on the site plan according to the condition
where it is aligned with the street.
I disagree that you used the language that said it had to align
it they had to show a plan of alignment
that is not something they felt like they could officially
move forward with g dot. And if I could please make my point because I am the staff who's advising on this.
So I would never
recommend
a developer
to move forward
expending development dollars on a process
that they felt they were going to be denied at a at a scenario that is outside our purview.
We're not GDOT.
We haven't even begin to discuss what GDOT
denies.
If if
if Old Chadwick goes away as a road, but becomes a driveway for someone because one person wants it,
GDOT's history is that they won't approve it.
So what you asked is that they proceed forward and you wanted to see the plan that they were gonna submit to GDOT.
They followed the process outlined in
in condition three,
but it's not done. Condition three could still be met, and that is up to the next steps.
At preliminary
plat,
you asked them to show what they were going to submit to gdot. This is what I told brother who are very clear with you. It's okay. Is what is to be submitted to.
So I understand.
Still the reality is
we are still at stage three.
It is our responsibility
as a planning commission.
The only thing in our scope
is to take a site plan with whatever conditions mayor and council places on it
and the Roswell code, and we look at the preliminary plat and make sure that those things line up. That is our role, and that is it. It is not in our purview to change whether there's an access or whether there's not.
The conditions clearly contemplated that there would be a process that the city would pursue where they would decide and they would work with the applicant about whether they would get to that stage four, but that there would be some effort expended
to make the roads align. To this point, no effort has been expended, and we have presupposed
the conclusion and are ready to move forward
to application. That is not what mayor and council intended. That is not what the
likelihood is, but there is a chance that there are options the city may have, and it's gonna go back to mayor and council in some kind of process through a memo meetings to determine whether there's an appetite for mayor and council to pursue that. That's not up to us. That's up to mayor and council because
it's their condition. But planning commission and staff do not have the ability to
remove those conditions and skip step three and go to step four just because of what g dot may or may not do. I have no idea what g dot's gonna do. All I know is the gonna do. All I know is the last thing mayor and council said is align the road, and we're still in number three because mister Littlefield has not worked his process yet, which condition number four
supposes.
And so what I'm saying is we are not, as a planning commission, gonna jump to condition number four because we're not part of land disturbance. We're gonna stay in our lane, and our lane is we still live in condition three because mister Littlefield has not done his work. The applicant agrees that this has not gone to mister Littlefield,
that has not pursued that process,
and their view is this is ready to go and ready to submit
for to GDOT.
And we are not I'm not prepared personally to prove
a preliminary plat
that would be submitted to GDOT, and then it would circumvent
condition for the mayor and council
has like, that it would cut that condition off at the knees. And I don't think that would that's outside the lane of what planning commission has the authority to do. Is that a fair,
someone?
If they draw it
where you wanted to see it, it would certainly be denied.
Well,
then then you have the authority in the next process to make that change and move forward. We just don't have the authority because of the way these conditions were written. Does that make sense?
I mean, it clearly says that transportation will be the ones that make that call in land servants, not us.
Eric?
I have a question. Just just out of curiosity,
if if we had a preliminary plat
today drawn that had the road aligned
and and
we proved
it,
we would be following the same process.
Correct? I mean, you would still be working with them. Always follow the same process. No difference to you where the road is, to be honest, because you're just going to have them apply for it.
You and you'll work with council and staff and maybe even the residents to see if, you know, removing that road even makes a difference for DDoDOT. But we'll have some activity,
a good faith effort to try to meet the objective of of counsel. I mean, is that correct? I mean, I don't really see a problem with drawing the road where it's aligned on the preliminary plat, to be honest. Should I is there something I'm missing?
I mean, they could have a line
just show a line. I mean but I mean, if if they brought a drawing, if the submission wasn't a line drawing the authority to make the change in the next stage anyway. I don't really understand what the big deal is.
I mean, if they had a drawing today, for instance,
and they broke out with a Sharpie and said, okay. Here's the line,
you know, would that
be okay for
you? I don't know if I understand your questioning.
I mean, the But The trouble we're having is that the applicant truly believes that after today,
the only thing they're gonna need to do is do the write in and write out because they've met condition three.
But without comments back from us, so
just g dots comments, but we don't know what was submitted Well, and your for information
to g dots. And to be fair, your comments that we should approve it the way it is.
I mean, that would be our recommendation
would be to approve it because of the process that we follow.
Well The process So but it would be better maybe if if your if your objective is to align the roads and you had some confidence that through some creativity,
we could get GDOT to approve it, then it makes more sense to actually draw the road. I mean, it is ours because we actually
brought that as a suggestion.
It was a fire access. Uh-huh. Could have stayed a fire access, but we actually brought it as
a full access that the citizens can use.
Yep. And then that to Calcutta. Sure. Sure.
Well, I mean, I'm just saying that is, I think, 10. So I guess maybe maybe it's a question for the applicant. Katie?
I mean,
like, in terms of the process, what difference does it make where the road is today if Littlefield can flip it
based on
the work he does with staff council and GDOT in the next weeks.
So that's
I think the the
I think we're coming to a similar
conclusion, I hope, which is
we can't
move forward without we have to submit our LDP,
right? And
when we go through that process,
we will
go through our due diligence
with Jeff,
but
we can't start without the LDP.
And
I think something that maybe isn't being taken into account is it's been a very long process. And,
for for the sellers, for Toll Brothers,
there's
they don't have to
hang on forever. And so the whole the whole deal,
time is of the essence.
And,
it it sort of goes
both ways in terms of where you're saying what difference does it make, you know, where the road is now, it's all gonna be figured out during LDP,
I kind of I return that to you in the sense that
time is of the essence. We need to move forward.
You know,
we we will work through the process with Jeff when we get
into LDP.
And counsel did not intend to give us an endless feedback loop in in conditions.
Right? I mean, it was it was designed
to work that
way. And,
you know, we we really felt that we were
doing our due diligence,
right, in
in moving forward things to the extent that we could at this stage, and that's all we can do.
And so Well, I mean, I I question
why when you submitted those emails to GDOT, why you didn't first have a conversation with transportation when this was their request to align the roads about what they were thinking and what they thought the options were. We did.
And and transportation said, yes. Let's go in and flip it to a ride in, ride out?
So transportation's
already given you the step four clearance?
So
they
they gave us
some proposed wording. This all happened very quickly before the meeting,
by the way.
Which meeting?
The the site plan amendment
meeting.
Oh, with council? Mayor and council meeting. Okay. I guess.
Yeah.
Yeah. March 10, not May 10.
So yeah. I mean, throughout that whole process, we we
expressed, hey. You know, this all started because of this 230 foot spacing thing. We're gonna have to comply with that, whether it's on the top side or the or the bottom side, wherever it goes.
And and he rightly brought up, there's a lot of other factors too. There's sight distance. Right? I mean, there's
the whole GDOT review, it's gonna have to go through.
And
they wanted us to explore it,
and that's what we're doing and that's what we'll continue to do in the LDP
process. Well, I mean, you say we're going to continue to explore it, yet you also say we explored that with GDOT, and here's where we are, right in, right out. So it sounds like we've already explored it and come to a conclusion. Do you see the disconnect?
And I'm you know, we have no we have no place in this. Like,
I don't care where it it is. Honestly, I don't. I don't care if it's a write in, write out. All I know is we're appointed by mayor and council. We're accountable to the people that live in Roswell. There was a public meeting. The residents want the write in, write out. Mayor and council asked for the write in, write out.
They Right. Don't know. Or Full access. Full access. Full access. They answered the full access. That's what everybody wants. That's what we are we just wanna see that this complies with condition three until we get to land disturbance, and then Jeff Littlefield decides what the path forward is. That's where we are in the process. That's where we are with preliminary plat. We are not part of LDP, so we can't speak to that. I don't know what will happen. I don't know what GDOT will do. I don't know what mister Littlefield will do. All I know is what mayor and council said and what their desire was and what they
expressed in the condition.
And what you're saying is, well, you know, that's just gonna be hard, so we moved on to step four. No. I'm I'm saying we we physically
it's impossible. We cannot proceed
without
we have to get past our preliminary plat, get into our LDP so that we can fulfill I agree. And we can approve a preliminary plat tonight that shows an alignment, and that will keep you moving forward. And then mister Littlefield can flip it to a ride in, ride out when he's ready to do that. But he doesn't sound like he's ready to do that yet.
I mean, I completely agree that we should approve a preliminary plaque tonight that shows the alignment. I don't think anyone has a problem with
that, but we don't have one.
And they literally draw it on
this right here. Let's get a Sharpie. Let's let's cross out this and draw an alignment. And draw a Sharpie that where we want g dot to
start reviewing.
It's not a full align for this is
I I have a I have a couple questions.
Zoning condition three states that,
if g dot does not approve the full access, then a write in, write out access that does not align with Chadwick Farm Boulevard may be approved. So and then condition four states the transportation director, which is Jeff here,
shall have approval authority to validate that the revised plan complies with condition number three. Right. So my understanding of the question is,
director Littlefield, do you agree that we have complied with condition number three with the denial from the g dot director? He didn't have a denial. He doesn't have one. He's already said there's not an application. I don't understand.
GDOT the director of GDOT has denied the at, the access entrance that aligns with Chadwick Farm Boulevard. So, again, that goes to my point earlier presupposing, and you're he's already said they're gonna pursue this next week with mayor and council to work on a right end a full access, and now you're saying no. We're done with that. I we can't have it both ways, which is that we need to My understanding was the right away what was that was to discuss the old Chatham Boulevard right away or right right away abandonment.
Which is the purpose of which would be to align the entrance.
Which would take six to nine months assuming you get all
adjacent property owners consent to do so. Okay. And this is the crux of the issue. In your view, you guys are done.
And whatever they do next week, you are never going to do anything other than write out. We need to say what we mean now. So I have two more questions. I think I'm gonna I have a question.
If you don't mind, this is Eric Schumacher. I have a question for you.
Why didn't you raise this concern at the council meeting when the condition was applied to you?
The condition was worked live during the meeting. Yeah. Did you accept it?
We did. Did you believe that
alignment would be possible?
We during the meeting,
did
state
that we would still have to comply with the 230
foot spacing in indirect response. Yeah.
I don't do you think that we've exhausted all options to remove that 230
foot barrier?
At this point, as of today, we have gone as far as we can to do anything. If the city chooses to abandon old Chadwick Land, that is that is on the city to do. But Toll Brothers has exhausted all possible possible remedies at this time.
So so you believe that the email that you got is an official denial?
Or as far as we can go right now, yes. Because we can't submit a full g dot,
access permit application until we are in the LDP process.
But the access permit
that you review process process. Out, not a full access. So just just to clarify, and this is maybe for the public too.
We say LDP process a lot, and I just wanna make sure that's before you actually get the permit. It's the LDP
review process. That's correct. So I just wanna make sure that everybody's understanding that. Yeah.
So I think that's you know, I think what you're raising is my concern, and I totally totally get you know, you let you ask your questions, but,
you know, we just don't think that
that there's an actual denial yet.
And I know I know it seems very likely. Right?
But it doesn't seem to me that there's been good faith effort on the part of Toll Brothers and the city and the city. Because, you know, really, planning commission,
I think we even said in the meeting, we are very willing to be available,
you know, and we would love to see information along the way. But yet, you know, it was six weeks before we saw, you know, after you submitted to the city this plan before I even saw it. I'm sorry about that. If if I had seen this the March,
I would have raised the same concerns then. We would have saved a lot of time. But I think that, you know, it's perhaps, you know, the the staff that that accepted your email didn't think that this is gonna be a problem, but it is clearly a problem. So I'm sorry for that.
I just I just wanted to clarify one thing on g dots process. Mhmm. So their denial or approval, it doesn't come in a formal formal letter. It's gonna be an email just like what we presented. So whether we gave them a preliminary layout or
layout or a fully engineered set of drawings which we would plan to do in the next step, if I give them a fully designed drawing, aligned it, I'm gonna get another email back the same as what they just sent us saying denied you don't meet the distance requirement,
move the entrance. That's what they're gonna say.
I mean, so let's I mean, we can't we don't know what anybody would do, but we do know that mister Littlefield has a process he's going to initiate
with
city leadership, mayor, and council where they would pursue options that may result in the abandonment of the road, which would change that result. Not I don't know if that's gonna happen or not. That's what's gonna happen in land disturbance permit.
But none of that's happened
yet.
Do we need to take a break for a few minutes? Do you wanna take a break? Yeah.
Let's take ten minutes. Let's take ten minutes. Alright.
Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. There we go. It's okay. Alright. It's 08:50PM.
We're reconvening the May 20 planning commission meeting.
Do we have any updates from applicant?
I can have,
just an additional moment, please.
Jeff is reviewing
GDOT correspondence.
Okay.
Alright. I just wanna make sure that the recording has started again since we
A recording is working?
I'm sorry. Just give us a minute.
Okay. Is it streaming?
Yes.
Okay. Thank you.
Alright. I'm sorry. I totally interrupted you.
Alright. So I I read through several emails between Toll Brothers
and g dot.
They did submit
good faith effort as far as that third
condition.
Mhmm. They
they showed
access.
They
GDOT actually did deny
based on
the access that was showed across from Chadwick Farms.
So I don't know what
Is it just I'm sorry to interrupt. I apologize. It would So I think we covered this is it the same email chain that we've we all have received or a different Probably.
I don't know who received it. But,
I mean, this would be considered
So this wasn't an actual application,
though. Right?
But they need to get into LDP process in order to actually submit a package, like k. Official package. But this
is what I would consider to be a good faith effort
to
submit.
We, the city,
we want a full access movement across from Chadwick Farms Boulevard.
They're asking, okay,
depending on if site distance is verified,
you still don't meet
the two thirty foot requirement,
for driveway to driveway.
So
in my opinion, it would be a good faith effort. Now we would still make comments
through the LDP process, but this
does suffice as far as
an effort to show that this full access
movement is denied by DDOT.
So are you saying you're no longer gonna pursue this with mayor and council as to whether or not they will be able to I want to pursue
to see what their desire is. Right. It's it's completely up to mayor and council. But Right. I agree. That's just something that's going to happen. Thank you.
Thank you. I appreciate that clarification.
In my view, this condition was set by mayor and council's response to the people that live in
the adjacent development.
And there's an expectation based on that public meeting that this would be an aligned road until something different happened. And then I'm hearing from mister Littlefield that they they still have more work to do
in terms of pursuing this with mayor and council and whether they want how far they want to go with this, which
that's outside of our purview to change anything. And it's certainly outside of what planning commission do to to circumvent or thwart what mayor and council intended or what the residents expected would happen
subsequent to that meeting.
I mean, is that a fair statement?
And I think that's the quandary that we're in.
And so I'm looking for a way out of it. Michelle?
You.
I'm wondering
how the conditions that we propose you
reintroduce onto the an approval of the preliminary plat, change that view
or not, because it's still continuing to show what I hear you saying is the good faith that staff is doing good faith and pursuing everything and being an advocate
for what mayor and council instructed, right, on that condition. They want us to pursue that. So giving you those instructions, we just couldn't put that down as a condition,
that we are pursuing that to find that answer.
So you would have you'll have both the proposal,
the of the plat, and you'll have the continued condition that they are still required to pursue that.
Right. And so if they would give you the one tonight,
drawn as you you're asking,
I I thought I understood that you were asking us to draw and show it here and that you could've you would feel comfortable approving,
showing the drawing that it's aligned, and that's the intent.
So since it's the intent, since you know,
Littlefield
staff is pursuing this with council,
what what would further satisfy this evening
for,
allowing them a preliminary plat? Because I think I'm hoping you heard
they can't submit an LDP
for they can't submit to GDOT without an LDP, the drawings to start the process. It doesn't end there. Right. I understand that. So they can't do that without letting
staff
talk with,
city council and mayor
over something that they can control. And I where I wanna end and I will end is to say,
you're these are things that the applicant doesn't control.
So we they're conditioned to things they can control,
which is to to pursue it,
but they can't control if mayor what's gonna happen with it, and they can't control when GDOT says no. The only thing so if they've completed what they can control,
then
we it seems you'd wanna allow the process to go as mayor and council saw that there may be ways that g dot may not, but let's keep little let's keep your transportation director on it. And so you have that condition to put it on this if you would like to keep keep the applicant going over things they can control.
Well, I would I would in my view
and, Eric, after I'm finished,
I can't remove part of a condition. So I don't know if it's hard what they can control or not. That would be what should have been considered when these
whose control or it's in council's control, that's outside of our control because it's been reduced to paper. Eric, what are you gonna say?
Yeah. Eric Schumacher. I I was just gonna say that I I think it would be my interest as as one of the members to see
the preliminary plat reflect the aligned road so that we could approve that
tonight and,
that,
you know, the process can happen this this week,
I guess, this next week,
you know, where our transportation director is gonna interact with council to see
if there's appetite for,
you know, doing something with the road to see if we can get closer to g dot approval with an official application.
Since that seems seemingly already going to happen, it seems like if we can make it happen, then you'd already have a preliminary plat with an aligned road
for that. If I may, can I confirm are you saying that if we draw the lines similar to what's shown on the screen here,
an entrance that aligns with Chadwick Farm Boulevard,
we can proceed deny it with a potential approval, you know, based on the board's name? That is exactly what we're saying. So if that entrance does change, if if GDOT issues official denial
and we have to shift to a ride in ride out and to comply with distance requirements,
would we have to come back here? Is that would that be considered a substantial change? I mean, in my view, it it it is a substantial change, but I I think because of the way the condition has been written,
Littlefield can slip flip to the right in, right out, and you can continue to move down that process and then simultaneously come back to us. I don't view it as a whole. So so I I would say Right. You know, I and I and I observe that there's a timing concern. And,
you know, I'm personally committed, and I and I apologize to you for for any delays that happen on the part of the city around communicating this information to planning commission and, you know, all the issues that have come up. And, you know, I'm very willing to, you know, do a special call meeting,
if if and when,
you know, a preliminary plat change is required by our code, and you must come back with this project to us to get something approved.
So I would I personally commit to that, and I can't speak for everybody else, but maybe we'll get some nods, you know, for everybody here. We we would do that for you considering
the situation. It is obviously very confusing.
It's unfortunate the language was written this way. It's often the case on the fly, and we have to navigate it. We try to do our best. So there would be that. So we we commit. And I will recommit,
like I have with you guys on a previous project and this project,
I'm always available for emails, like, from the city. It would have to come from the city when it's this kind of application. But if
people wanna share stuff with blind commission, they can always do that. They just ask to get for it to get passed along. And I would be happy to have, you know, provided a lot of this feedback back in March to to try to speed things up. So just so you know, like I can't change that now. But obviously,
we're very willing to try to help you
with
our
scope.
I want to be clear so that we don't get again farther down the road and then
not be where we thought or hoped we were.
If we were to do this tonight,
go off of
that
exhibit,
it's
the
expectation
then that we would have to be submitting, you know, it's
very expensive. You know, it could be $50, $100 of engineering. Right?
Developed GDOT plans
based on
that layout.
I I
it's outside of our scope to understand that process, and I think that's certainly something that that our transportation director
is going to be handling for you according to the condition.
So that would be up to them.
We need to be on the record now.
Okay. So the question
so make sure I understand is would they have to develop fully engineered plans to submit to g dot?
My take would be
no.
Based on all of the situations that surround this, there's there's several anomalies.
So I think just showing the actual where we wanna align it with a line
is sufficient. I
agree. Okay.
Clear.
We're gonna have them back up and do what they already did.
I've never seen a drawing that was fully aligned.
Can you give us a few minutes? Yes. Mhmm. Sidebar official. Alright. We're gonna take another five five minutes, ten minutes. Thank you. It's 904. We're gonna take five minutes.
Adjourn
or take a break.
Talk to us.
Well, I think if we're on I guess, the question was
tangents for the proposed roadway alignment. Right.
Is that sufficient? It does show an arrow pointing to
the
Chadwick Farms Boulevard and it lining up directly across from that. Is that line as opposed to them just drawing a thicker line, is that sufficient?
It would be sufficient for me. Is it a is it a full drawing or just that section? Because we only saw a small piece. Could we do it on the full drawing?
On
the
I don't know which one. Excuse me. It's Yeah. What we have excuse me. What we have digitally is an excerpt from the full drawing. So it is on the full drawing, and it's an excerpt of that.
Right. What was the paper that was just that? Is that what the dotted line that showed?
Right. So can we just do that? Can we show that on the drawing, the full drawing? You have to x out the And then just x out the other one. Yeah. So we have Right. So that's what I'm I would prefer to see that other than the second one. It's the bolder line. There was a red. It was pretty narrow, but Don't we have to get this out of the line? Right. But, Eric, did you have something?
I I was just gonna say, I think I think I think and I'm not might not be me, but I think somebody can come up with some language to describe that sufficiently
using
that piece of paper and that no Sharpie marks to say that
that we approve
with the road alignment
as drawn with the Sharpie
in black.
I think I think somebody could do that. Like, I don't know. Which should we do that or should mister Littlefield do that anyway? Carol? And don't we have to x out the one that's above that
on the same piece of paper so there's no confusion? You might need to, but I I think that some language could could sufficiently say that the
that the road would be moved
to to
the
location that was physically drawn,
you know, with the Sharpie
without having to exit out. But if you'd like
if it's your suggestion, they should exit out. I'd like an excellent. I'd like it. Yeah. I can. See the what's shown up here over on the
The red line? Is that what you're saying? Yes. With the
curb cut location. And then in red, it's over here, but existing street, Chadwick Farm Boulevard.
And those are those are the curb cuts for it. Mhmm. And then that's their proposed alignment, the tangents for the proposed center line, and then it shows it
aligning in the middle of Chadwick Farms Boulevard.
And
okay.
Yeah. That's I'm fine with it. At the end, that's
okay. So if that's what you yeah. Definitely.
I'm o overhand.
For the record, the comment states, I know my my handwriting may look like chicken scratch,
entrance to a line with Chadwick Farm Boulevard, and I've drawn an x on the previously proposed,
entrance to State Route 140. Can you draw it darker?
I can't see that. I'm sorry. X.
Alright.
Angela or Jeanne, what page
of the
thank you. Drawings
was that previous
screen that we were looking at that had the red line with the alignment?
What page was that?
Does that make sense on the electronic packet?
What page was just up on the screen?
But it was from a previous plan set. That Okay. So that's not what was submitted. That's the only thought
behind
using this one instead Okay. Is that this is from the very latest plan set. Okay. So this reflects the current. Okay. I understand.
Alright.
Would everybody be
would that is this acceptable
to draw it this way?
I think it would be for me if the language for discussion? What's the future? Opening this for discussion. Is this acceptable
with this Jim?
Yeah. I think it's fine if we do this. And and the wording is that that,
so let me ask you a question. So are we gonna approve
or are we gonna recommend this
back to be done? I'm I'm lost. We're approving the preliminary plat with the change With the change? Okay. Indicated in the physical drawing. Okay. Yeah. That would be the objective objective. Right? To to save on time.
Right? And then,
who do we want to try to come up with a sufficient language
for the condition that is moving this on this drawing?
And I guess we'll need to have
staff accept this drawing and date
it and refer to it in the condition.
So the suggestion was made to
approve the preliminary plat as shown during the
public meeting.
With some additional language that's very specific. Not language, but just to clear up what plan.
What version
meet the physical copy from the public meeting with the
manual changes,
and then we'll describe those changes. Is that appropriate?
Yeah. I mean, I would
Alright.
Here, there's a date on it.
April 8.
The preliminary plat.
And and we did handwrite in the the 05/2025
date too. Okay.
Yes. Yes.
Right.
K. Thank you.
Okay.
Eric?
I don't wanna complicate this. I really don't. Do do we think we need to say anything about
whether there was an official approval from g dot or not at this point?
As part of the motion?
Yeah.
Let me look at the language again.
The condition.
Including the conditions that were recommended to keep in there about g dot?
Three and four would be re imposed? Is this something you just submitted? The It was on the yes. It was in our presentation. I'm not interested in that condition.
The three and four from mayor and commission. That one's already
attached,
but the new one that we got. No. She was referring to three the conditions
that the preliminary
plat be approved with the conditions that mayor and council approved on
March 10. It's implicit.
Yeah. But that's what she was talking about. Okay. Not anything else. No. No. No. We we can't obviously change the conditions from mayor and council. That's
not what was suggested. She said just
subject to the conditions that were placed on the project by mayor and council on March.
Do you do does somebody feel that's required?
It's generally what we present to
any commission when bringing a preliminary plat forward if there were conditions imposed.
So
you're suggesting that it should we should just re restate
as a condition
that the
Well conditions for mayor and council are included.
Made you feel better that we were taking them from the site plan revision phase to the preliminary
plat in acknowledgment that they would continue to? I Which I believe that's not necessary. I believe they ride. You know, we will always, but that is what was discussed.
Well,
I mean, I think our motion will be to approve 20245074935
Old Chadwick,
the preliminary
plat dated 05/2025
manually
edited
during the meeting
with the conditions of mayor and council
would be appropriate. So it's clear that we're making a break from the packet, if you will. Edited or revised?
Revised. Revised
during the meeting to reflect the road change
from a ride in right out to an aligned road to Chadwick Farm Boulevard. The entrance change. Entrance change.
Is that correct?
Might be a little redundant. But, I mean, would it even make sense to say after that
something along the lines of
subject to
group zoning conditions?
Further making it clear it's relating back to to that process.
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Okay. I think so. And I think it's I mean, a little intentionally redundant.
This this particular drawing is taken out of context from the packet too, because the packet does include
Right. The screenshots
of the resolutions from council as part of the drawing.
So
I'm just gonna go with what I I think it's good. I think it's good as long as we're getting consensus from the room.
I don't I don't we we obviously don't have any authority to remove anything from council. So that if it needs to be restated, we
can. For the record, I I think we are in a we are in agreement with the language that you proposed. Okay. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
Any more questions for our applicant? Is there any one from the public that would like to make a comment now that it's been talking about this for a couple of hours? And we need to get out of here. There's a thunderstorm. There's a tornado
coming. Yeah. We need to go. Alright.
There's any further discussion. Are we ready for a motion?
I will make a motion.
Katie Singleton.
I move we approve agenda item 20245074934
935
Old Chadwick,
preliminary plat for grand reserve phase four.
We're approved let me start over. I'm gonna start over. Alright. It's Kitty Singleton.
I move, we approve item number 20245074535
old Chadwick.
Three what did I say? Five thirty. Oh my goodness. I'm gonna start one more time. Alright.
Kitty Singleton. I move we approve agenda item 20245074935OldChadwick.
The preliminary
plat as revised
during the planning commission meeting on April
05/05/2025.
I don't know what's wrong with me.
05/20/2025.
Tonight. Tonight.
Okay.
To reflect
the entrance change
to be moved from the right in right out further north on Arnold Mill Road
to a location
physically proposed to align
with Old Chadwick Farm Boulevard.
It's not that it's it's not old.
Chadwick Farm. Is it Chadwick? Chadwick.
With the conditions originally
approved by mayor and council.
That's is that close?
It's not my best work. Okay.
Waiting for Junita Okay. To catch up and read it back. Would you wanna read that back to me?
No. You don't want to? I don't I don't wanna hear it. I don't wanna hear what I said. Okay.
Alright, Angela. What have you got? Okay. I can read Angela as she can. Okay.
Angela, your microphone isn't on.
Approval of number
220245074935,
preliminary plat for Grand Reserve phase four
as revised
during the 05/20/2025
planning commission meeting to reflect
the entrance change
to be moved from I didn't get that.
Right in right out
alignment
to a location to align with Old Chadwick
with the
Old Chadwick Farm Drive.
There's no Old Chadwick Farm Boulevard. Chadwick Old Chadwick Farm. I'm sorry. No old. Just Chadwick. Chadwick Farm Boulevard
to align with Chadwick Farm Boulevard
with the conditions originally approved by by council.
Is is that good for everybody? She didn't say the
935935
Old Chadwick. Old Chadwick.
Yeah. 20245074935
Old Chadwick.
Right.
Is everybody good?
I know. Well, we have to have a second. Yeah.
Is there a second,
Jen? I'll second the motion.
All in favor?
It's unanimous.
Approved.
Alright.
Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes in the last meeting?
I don't know if everyone was here.
Girls and Jim were not here at the last meeting. Well, then we just have people
Oh, no. That I'm sorry. That was the February meeting. Is there
okay.
Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Like which one?
From the March 18 meeting?
What's the one I'm saying? Who was not here last month? I wasn't. So we should be fine. Who? Before?
Last month, there was no meeting. No. March. Who was here at the March meeting?
From the March meeting. This is Jamie Payton, planning and zoning director. Absent from the March meeting was Jim Walsh,
Jason Fraser,
and doctor Charles Krieger.
So we can't approve the minutes. We do only have three.
Is that correct, Jeanne? We'll wait till next time.
Okay. So we'll take the minutes up for the next meeting. Is there any further business?
We're adjourned. Thank you.