2026-09-03 - Planning Commission

00:00Let's do it.

00:10>> All right.

00:13Great. Good evening. Welcome to the

00:16September 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Apple

00:19County Planning Commission. You're

00:21watching this meeting on YouTube. You'll

00:23find the meeting agenda at

00:24acc.com/planning.

00:27For those of you here in person, there

00:28is a sign-in sheet and copies of

00:30tonight's agenda on the table by the

00:32door. So, here's the process for the

00:34items on the agenda. First, staff will

00:36make a presentation. Then, we move to

00:38public comment in support of the

00:40application. We allow 10 minutes for the

00:42applicant to first address the

00:44commission, followed by members of the

00:45public speaking in favor who receive

00:47three minutes each. After comments in

00:49support of the application, we move to

00:51comments in opposition. All speakers

00:52receive three minutes, but if you are

00:54here representing a specific interest

00:55group such as the homeowners

00:56association, please let us know so we

00:58may allocate the appropriate amount of

01:00time. When addressing the commission,

01:02please provide your name, address, and

01:03nature of your interest in the project.

01:05After public comment, the applicant or

01:07their representative may request a

01:09two-minute response. Please note the

01:11timer. It will display a yellow light

01:13when you have 30 seconds left and a red

01:15light when your time has expired. Once

01:17you've heard from members of the public,

01:19the planning commission will discuss the

01:20item. We will not receive additional

01:22public comments unless there is a

01:24specific question to be addressed.

01:26Exhibits may be displayed by the

01:28applicants or public at the podium.

01:30Written correspondence received by noon

01:32yesterday has been forwarded to the

01:33commission and is part of the public

01:35record. Any additional written materials

01:37to be placed into the record must be

01:39read during the public comment period.

01:41Please direct your your comments to the

01:43planning commission, not to the

01:45applicants. And please refrain from

01:46applauding or jeering any of the

01:48speakers. And finally, please note that

01:50this meeting is being broadcast live and

01:53our microphones are very sensitive.

01:55Please silence your cell phones. Thank

01:57you.

02:07So,

02:11my

02:13do I have a motion to

02:20record move agenda.

02:24>> We need a new agenda. Shores,

02:26>> I think I

02:33think

02:35[laughter]

02:36>> All right.

02:37And we're going to include the items

02:40that were on the desk as

02:44>> what

02:46from Sarah seconded by

02:47>> second.

02:49>> Okay. All those in favor say

02:50>> before we vote if I could for the record

02:53had

02:54>> the clarification about the item sitting

02:56in front of you.

02:56>> Yes, please.

02:57>> Since that discussion that we just had

02:58is not on the record.

02:59>> Yeah. Yeah.

03:00>> Um my motions.

03:01>> Yeah. I wanted to address it

03:02>> discussion of your motion.

03:04>> Okay.

03:04>> Yeah. Just making it clear that the two

03:07items that were present for the planning

03:09commissioners at the start of the

03:10meeting tonight, one is um not rewarded

03:14but re edit edited and reformatted.

03:18There's a better word um text for the

03:20west clocks overlay. Um clarifying some

03:24issues that were discovered since

03:25packets went out. Um the substance of

03:28what you have read in your packets is

03:31still there. it's in a better order and

03:33a better flow with some language in

03:36there that references to um vehicle

03:41storage becoming parking things like

03:42that. So um the intent the content not

03:45changed. I just want to make sure that

03:46that's clear for y'all. And then the

03:49other is a memo that was drafted and

03:51posted on Monday of this week regarding

03:53the mall special district overlay. Um

03:56that is an edited memo that is different

03:59than the one that went in your packet.

04:00So just making sure you have both in

04:03your hands for your consideration this

04:06evening. Um so there thank you for that.

04:09>> Thank you. Um, all those in favor of

04:14accepting the document say

04:16>> I

04:20um okay minutes

04:24I have a minute.

04:26>> Um, any changes to the minutes

04:30or approve?

04:33>> Okay.

04:34>> I will note that we will edit the

04:35minutes to remove the reference to

04:38on the first page. I keep I keep

04:41repeating.

04:41>> Yeah, they're they're actually minutes.

04:43So, we will make sure that they're noted

04:44as minutes. [laughter]

04:46>> All right. All those in favor say I.

04:50>> All right. May courts.

04:53Any May courts update?

04:54>> There is no presentation for Mayors this

04:56evening.

04:56>> All right. Is there any public comment

04:58related to Mayports?

05:01No. All right. So, let's go to item

05:05number one under old business 100 Newton

05:07Bridge Road.

05:13Oh,

05:14I'm gonna recuse myself this discussion

05:17as I work with this group.

05:24[clears throat]

06:09All right. For whatever reason, it's

06:10going up to my other

06:13[laughter]

06:41All right, let's try one more thing.

06:47That' be some inception moment for

06:48people on the stream.

07:05Promise it was working. [laughter]

07:28All right. Good evening everybody. Uh

07:31this first case this evening is 130

07:34Newton Bridge Road. Um there are two

07:36aspects to this request. One is to amend

07:40the PD uh that is currently on file for

07:44the entire property. So that request is

07:47PD2026-06-1175.

07:51And then depending on how that goes,

07:52there's the opportunity potentially for

07:54some overlay language and that would be

07:56under zone 2026-06-1065.

08:02Click on there for me. Thank you. Okay.

08:06Um so the uh portion of the request so

08:12reducing the plan development there has

08:14been a plan development on site for

08:16about seven or eight years um generally

08:19referred to as general time over over

08:22the site. Uh portions of that have been

08:24constructed con excuse me constructed on

08:27the northern portion of that plan

08:29development. However, the southern

08:30portion has not. So the applicant is

08:32looking to remove that southern portion

08:34from the existing plan development uh

08:37reszone the property to commercial

08:40general CG and then create overlay

08:43language for the two parcels that would

08:45be coming out of that plan development.

08:48Um so this has been described as a

08:49mixeduse opportunity. The overlay

08:52language would allow flexibility. So

08:54there would be that underlying CG zoning

08:56and then there would be some overlay

08:58rules that sit on top of that that would

09:00govern a few aspects of how any future

09:03development would come through there.

09:05The original PD is 35 acres. This

09:08request would remove 19.47 acres from

09:12that. There is an existing factory

09:15there, the Westclocks factory, um, of a

09:17little over 230,000 square feet. There

09:21are currently 462 spaces on sites. The

09:24code allows for one and a half times the

09:28um the spaces. So the request is to

09:31allow a range between the existing 462

09:35uh but not to exceed 693.

09:38It currently has approximately a 3 and a

09:40half acre front green space. So you'll

09:43see here the green and the red and black

09:46boxed area comprises the existing plan

09:49development. Um, so we have the

09:51apartments that are along Newton Bridge.

09:54We have the facility that housed Wayfair

09:56and some Terrapin distribution

09:59um,

10:01up until recent times. And then a

10:03portion of the PD had a connection to a

10:06future greenway that would be coming up

10:08this rail corridor right here. So this

10:10has all been constructed in light green.

10:13The connection up here was not

10:15constructed. Um, however, that would be

10:17the one portion of the plan development

10:20that would be remaining uh with little

10:22incentive to actually have it um

10:24constructed. So, the portion down here,

10:26this is the old factory site. This is a

10:29lot of the parking. We have some of the

10:31back of house parking back here. Um,

10:34some woods. There's a small um track put

10:37together by the mountain biking

10:39association. And then we have that front

10:41green space here. Otherwise, we're at

10:44the intersection here of where

10:47uh Barber Street becomes Newton Bridge,

10:50uh where Chase Street and Barber all

10:52come together. Where that comes across

10:53is Derry Packac Road. We have the

10:56Terrapin facility here. Um we have

10:59Athensclar County Fleet. We have some

11:01other government operations throughout

11:02here. We have some industrial operations

11:04throughout there. And in fact, we've got

11:06a bunch of buildings that have a bunch

11:08of potential with without any current

11:10tenants on there. So, here's zoomed out

11:12just a little bit. Um, showing the loop.

11:15You can just see right here at the

11:17bottom. So, we're just on the north side

11:18of the loop where Barber and Chase come

11:20together there and form Newton Bridge

11:22Road.

11:24This is the future land use. It was

11:27changed with the future land use map

11:29update to town center and that extends

11:32um a little bit beyond the boundaries

11:33here. So, not just this site got the

11:35town center designation, some of the

11:37area across the street and even some of

11:38the surrounding properties that are

11:39currently either vacant or mostly used

11:42in an industrial capacity.

11:44The zoning change is shown here. So, we

11:48have the EOPD. If that was to go

11:51forward, this area would become

11:53commercial general without a plan

11:55development. This area would remain

11:57EOPD.

12:00You can see there's a little bit of

12:01environmental areas off to the side

12:03there, but none on the property.

12:05Here's a survey of the area that the

12:08applicant is looking to create the

12:10overlay on.

12:12Here's a few images. So, we've got this

12:15the existing parking lot out there. Um,

12:18definitely showing a little bit of wear

12:20over time. And then it also um sort of

12:22goes into a little bit of a gravel space

12:24there as it goes towards Dair Road. This

12:26is the sort of back of house area that

12:29has had obviously um loading and

12:33unloading traffic for years back when

12:35this was a factory and been turned into

12:36some parking. It then connects through.

12:38So if you look all the way down here,

12:40this actually connects through to where

12:42the existing portion of the PD is. That

12:44would be this area right here. This is

12:46where the two come together. So this is

12:48the facility that Wayfair used to be in.

12:50Um and then the um distribution facility

12:53for Terrapin.

12:56You can see some of the existing stuff.

12:57Again, this is on the existing plan

12:59development. So this is a storm water

13:00facility with a plaza out front leading

13:03between the uh uses, the office

13:06industrial use and the residential use.

13:09And then this is the area in front of

13:10the existing facility that has a little

13:13bit of parking and then the green space.

13:15And all along Newton Bridge Road, we

13:17have this 12 foot wide multi-use path

13:20going up there that hopefully will

13:22connect um into town before it's too

13:24long. This is the existing plan

13:26development plan on file. So you can see

13:28the two uh residential portions here,

13:31the distribution and the office portion

13:35that would remain in the plan

13:36development. The design down here was to

13:39break up the factory into four different

13:41structures, have an auxiliary building

13:43to the rear, uh potential for a hotel

13:46down at the bottom. This was proposed to

13:48be a real entertainment district. So,

13:49this was like an amphitheater kind of

13:51converted between the indoor outdoor

13:53space. Uh you can see associated storm

13:55water facilities and parking there. This

13:58is some imagery of the structures from

14:01the original PD. Here are some

14:04renderings from the original plan

14:06development.

14:10Okay. So, a little bit of discussion

14:12about what um is there and what is

14:15proposed. So, the existing plan

14:17development had 181 square feet broken

14:19up into those four buildings. This

14:21application would leave the 234,000

14:24square foot building in place. That is

14:27mostly flexible in its use. um that the

14:30use allowances in the CG along with what

14:32we'll go over here that the applicant is

14:34proposing would be allowed. Um so the

14:37original PD used up the residential

14:40portions in this one. If it was to move

14:42forward with the overlay language,

14:43residential would be permitted to be in

14:45there. There was that front lawn

14:47pavilion space with a potential venue

14:49that could be up to about 3,000 square

14:51feet. Um the current one would like to

14:54keep an amount of communal space. They

14:56use that uh lawn space currently for

14:59some uh special events that have gone on

15:01out there and they would like to keep

15:03that. Uh you can see the parking there

15:05uh pretty on par with where the the

15:07maximum would be potential. There is a

15:11little bit more connection shown into

15:13the um the structures on the plan

15:16development with a drive-thru area there

15:18in the middle of the structure. U all we

15:20have currently for this one is that they

15:22would retain that front lawn. um they

15:25would have the flexibility to then

15:26potentially break up that building or

15:28provide plaza pedestrian space within

15:31that and amongst that. The hotel has

15:33been removed from this but it would be

15:35permitted under CG zoning. They are

15:37asking to raise the maximum building

15:39height from 65 ft which is the CD CG

15:42standard to 80 feet. Um there was a tree

15:45management plan on file with the PD.

15:47This one would only kick in a tree

15:49management plan if there is additional

15:51coverage added to it. similar for storm

15:53water infrastructure. And then lastly,

15:56that connection to the greenway was a

15:57part of the PD, but at this point with

15:59this one, there is not any reference to

16:02that.

16:04So, in the two parcels for the overlay,

16:06they're looking to have CG allowances um

16:09in terms of the use chart. However, they

16:11are offering up some things that they

16:13would not be allowed to. So that's quick

16:15vehicle servicing, vehicle repair, auto

16:17RV sales, a distribution center,

16:19self-service storage, construction

16:21materials, mortuary, drive-thru

16:23facilities, gas stations, data centers,

16:26and kennels. So that's the ones they

16:29would like to restrict. um they would

16:30like to be permitted to have a few

16:32additional ones that are not by right in

16:34CG and that is commercial outdoor

16:35recreation, wholesale nursery, light

16:38manufacturing up to 50,000 square feet

16:40in total, um sale of products that are

16:43grown on site and then also allowing

16:46residential on the ground floor.

16:49So the elements of that just sort of

16:51mentioned residential on the ground

16:52floor is one of the big ones that's um

16:54not permitted in the commercial zones.

16:56You need to do commercial on the ground

16:58floor and then you can have residential

16:59above that or below that. They are

17:02looking to raise the residential density

17:04from 24 beds to the acre. 24 36. Now I'm

17:10guessing on the fly. Sorry.

17:12>> 24 to 50. Apologies there. So an

17:15increase in that allowance. Um they're

17:18asking to raise that building height.

17:19They're asking to raise the floor area

17:22ratio um up to three. And then they

17:26would also like to have up to 24 special

17:29temporary special events there. Um they

17:32are offering up a slightly different uh

17:34slightly modified parking arrangement.

17:35So if residential units are put in

17:37there, one and twobedroom units would

17:39require one space. Three plusbedroom

17:42units would require 1.75 spaces. The

17:46maximum parking as mentioned would be

17:48one and a half times that current

17:50aotment. Um and then the one aspect of

17:54that parking is that they looked they

17:55want to keep it as is and not have to um

17:58update it to our current standards in

18:00chapter 930 with the exception of any

18:03ADA requirements which they would meet.

18:06So in the staff report you'll see we

18:09offered up a few conditions. Um

18:13we have changed a little bit our stance

18:15on this first condition. Do I need to

18:17address that slightly Bruce? Okay. So,

18:20uh, we're originally proposing that they

18:22find an opportunity to create that

18:25connection, uh, within 3 years if they

18:29were to move forward with this overlay.

18:31Uh, however, in talking with our legal

18:33team, we would like them to work on a

18:36connection down Dair Road, which also

18:38lines up nicely with that same uh, rail

18:41to trail that could potentially come

18:42through with the greenway network plan

18:45that would also line up with an Athens,

18:47clar county property on the other side

18:48of that. So, if we had any trail head

18:51parking or any amenities, it lines up

18:54with an ACC property and would allow us

18:56to um amenitize that that opportunity as

19:00opposed to the current PD which runs

19:02into a property that we do not have any

19:04control over. So, that has been changed

19:07and that is should be reflected in the

19:09information we handed out to you before

19:10the meeting. In terms of the overlay, we

19:13have um four conditions that we are

19:17offering up. So that the project will

19:20maintain a minimum of three acres in

19:22open space or community gathering space.

19:24So that could be part of that front

19:25lawn. That could also be done in a

19:27variety of other ways, kind of similar

19:29to what the original plan development

19:31had.

19:32adding some text to section M that would

19:35prevent commercial short-term rentals to

19:38be any more than 10% of the residential

19:40dwelling units. Currently, there is uh

19:42no cap in the CG zone that they retain a

19:4750-foot natural buffer along that

19:49eastern edge. So, the properties to the

19:51east of this are still functioning

19:53industrial properties. There's

19:54currently, depending on where you

19:56measure, somewhere between about a 60

19:58and a 90 foot buffer already over there.

20:00So maintaining a substantial portion of

20:03that to buffer this property which would

20:06have um a lot more potential residential

20:08use, potential entertainment use with

20:11people moving around um and just um be

20:14able to buffer those uses that are

20:16adjacent from that type of activity. And

20:19then lastly to um looking at an

20:23opportunity where if this overlay goes

20:25forward that they would be upgrading the

20:28parking at some point in time. So um

20:31half of the allowable parking is 346

20:35spaces [clears throat] spaces, excuse

20:37me. So after 500 spaces become required

20:41to conform with the minimum parking

20:43design requirements

20:45um and 50% of the parking lot tree

20:48requirements. Uh uh we can talk through

20:51that one a little bit, but the idea

20:52being that leaving the parking as is for

20:55now and then as the site develops and

20:58money flows in that they eventually get

21:00closer to our modern standards with our

21:02parking requirements. So this is really

21:06a broad thing. So, I've offered up just

21:08a few questions and thoughts that we

21:10have looked at and considered throughout

21:12this. Um, since there's a bit of unknown

21:15to an overlay and um that that

21:17flexibility there, we enjoy as staff the

21:22opportunity to have flexibility. Um, we

21:25see that the PD is obviously not coming

21:27together. The finances of that are tough

21:29and it's a very big project. It takes a

21:32lot of capital and a lot of work to get

21:34that together. So, flexibility makes

21:35some sense. Um, but as we go through

21:37that, um, are we properly regulating for

21:40a cohesive community development for the

21:42benefit of Athens, clar county?

21:45Can we, as I mentioned kind of with the

21:47parking, um, allow the renovations to

21:50begin and then slowly build up into

21:52compliance situations? And then lastly,

21:55uh you know, something this body talks

21:57about a lot usually is you see a plan,

22:00are there any asurances that if that

22:02plan does not go through that something

22:05else very different or very out of

22:07spirit with what might be proposed or

22:09being done by this applicant might be

22:11able to come to fruition. So that's some

22:13of the thinking we had, some of the

22:15stuff we thought you all might consider.

22:17staff is recommending approval of the PD

22:20amendment with conditions and then also

22:23approval with conditions of the overlay

22:25text.

22:28I will leave that there. That concludes

22:29staff report.

22:31>> Thank you. Now we'll hear from the

22:32applicant.

22:41Thank you.

22:52>> Um,

22:54thank you.

22:56West Clocks.

22:57>> Introduce yourself.

22:58>> Russell Edwards. Thank you.

23:01>> Address.

23:02>> 564 Palaski Street, Athens, Georgia.

23:0530601.

23:07Um,

23:09current condition of West Clocks. We're

23:11uh

23:13really close to making something happen

23:15here, but uh still got some work to do.

23:17So, see the decrepit nature. Uh things

23:21haven't improved uh substantially since

23:24we were last year. But we are cleaning,

23:26salvaging bit by bit.

23:30The roof. Oof. The roof. The roof. The

23:32roof. five acres of roof all caving in

23:37in a publicly hazardous way.

23:41Uh estimates $7 million to redeck this

23:44roof and fix it. As I mentioned at our

23:46first meeting, we have worked on the

23:49front 17,000 square foot that's under

23:51the concrete decking that you can see in

23:53the top right corner that has fresh

23:55tposs, watertight. We uh have been

23:58hanging out over there. Uh but we got a

24:01lot more work to do.

24:03Um, some points I'd like to hit. The PD

24:09sadly

24:11is a failure.

24:14What are the results of the PD?

24:1819 acres here and 200,000 plus square

24:21feet of warehouse space has been

24:22neglected for now a couple decades.

24:26The vast majority of the building needs

24:27significant renovation, including that 7

24:30million roof replacement.

24:33Um, the reason we're looking at the

24:36commercial general zoning classification

24:38is that the base zoning under this PD is

24:40EO. That's not in compliance with the

24:42future land use map. As we mentioned at

24:44the last meeting,

24:46it's also our vision with the overlay to

24:49enhance the amenities that could develop

24:53a town center by cutting out data

24:57centers. We don't think a data center

24:59would be appropriate in a town center.

25:02We don't believe the quick service auto

25:05and fuel centers. We've cut all those

25:08out. And we've added some other things

25:09that just seemed like they should be

25:11there already. you know, the outdoor

25:13recreation. We've talked to folks about

25:16a putt putt course, disc golf, other

25:18other fun things for families. The name

25:20of this business group with these folks

25:23is Funtown. We want to create some

25:25family fun here in Athens, Georgia. Um,

25:29the overlay ultimately provides and

25:34unlocks opportunities

25:37for local entrepreneurs and artists. We

25:41seek to dismiss conditions because

25:44conditions are costs.

25:46The lower we can bring down the cost,

25:49the lower the barriers of entry we can

25:51erect here, the more vibrant, locally

25:54driven place we will establish. The

25:57number one takeaway that we had from our

26:00first chat when we were here late into

26:03the night, midnight,

26:06uh glad to be on the front of the agenda

26:08this time. uh was accountability.

26:13We want y'all to uh do to be compelled

26:16to do some of what you claim you want to

26:18do. And we have built that

26:19accountability into the overlay district

26:22by allowing for a third of the

26:24residential component upon approval of

26:26the overlay with the remaining

26:29residential allotment only being

26:31entitled once 50,000 square feet of the

26:34commercial component receives a

26:36certificate of occupancy certificate of

26:38completion. So, the residential is

26:41phased in by law as long as we keep our

26:44promise to develop the cool fun stuff,

26:4750,000 square feet of it. Uh we believe

26:50all this together in the bald wax helps

26:53get us towards that town center

26:57by removing some of these conditions by

26:59using and developing this brown field

27:03that's currently a public hazard

27:06uh an environmental cleanup site. By

27:08using what we can that's there we can

27:12keep costs low and unlock opportunities

27:16for local entrepreneurs and local

27:17operators. That's what we're doing here.

27:20Next, some responses to the conditions.

27:23Uh, one, we can we can we can kind of

27:27throw that one out because we were

27:29looking at these conditions. We were

27:30thinking, yeah, dairy pack would

27:32probably be a better place to do this in

27:34the long run because that's land that we

27:37own and we can build on that. So, uh, I

27:40think we're going to be able to come to

27:41an agreement on whatever greenway trail

27:43that needs to be. Um, three acres of

27:46public outdoor space. Yeah, totally. We

27:49absolutely want to save the front lawn

27:50as we discussed in the first meeting.

27:52The Magnolia Grove, we've already

27:54planted more magnolia that we salvaged

27:56from the core outdoor spaces, big corner

27:59lot.

28:01The SDR restriction, that one that one

28:03caught us by surprise. Um, we've we've

28:07been in a lot of discussions developing

28:09this overlay and our position on this is

28:12that

28:16we just revised our STR ordinance in

28:19December of 2025. And in commercial

28:22general zones, STRs are permitted by

28:24right.

28:26And so I'm I'm just completely surprised

28:29and caught off guard by a 10%

28:31restriction restricting all the

28:33residential 10% of STR. In my mind, if

28:37STRs are going to come to Athens,

28:40this does appear to be an optimal site.

28:43We're not in the middle of someone's

28:45neighborhood. We're not throwing

28:46tailgate parties on Mill Circle. Um

28:51so I will object to the STR. I would say

28:56if we were just going straight CG

28:58without an overlay, STR would be

29:00permitted by right. Um the 50% na the 50

29:04foot natural buffer question there

29:06because it seems like that's moving to

29:08dairy pack at one point that was along

29:10the back of the lot. Um, so our position

29:15though with the buffer though kind of

29:17goes back to where

29:20conditions equal costs. And right now

29:24behind this property is a Georgia Power

29:26layown yard.

29:28It's it's an industrial parking lot. So,

29:32it might make sense in the long run to

29:35construct buildings closer to that rear

29:38lot line that face inward towards green

29:41space and have the building serve as a

29:44screen for the layown yard.

29:48So again, the buffer kind of came out

29:52and this is our response a little bit by

29:54surprise on the buffer, but I think we

29:57can probably work this out where we want

29:59to put the greenway and where a buffer

30:00needs to be to protect that greenway

30:02connection. I think that makes sense. Uh

30:05the parking design requirements, the

30:08private called it, how did it get into

30:11parking? It's private car storage. Um,

30:13[laughter]

30:15editor, uh, we are committed to restripe

30:20the existing impermeable surface used

30:22for car storage and bring it into

30:23compliance with ADA. Any newly developed

30:26impermeable surface, we agree to have it

30:30meet ACC design requirements.

30:34However,

30:37the improvements

30:39caused a little bit of some alarm. uh

30:43within the staff recommendation because

30:46it creates this cost uncertainty.

30:49Um it's sort of a huge distraction on

30:52our ability to price in the cost of the

30:54development. It puts a potentially large

30:56expense on the horizon that's hard to

30:59incorporate into a business model that

31:02prioritizes utilizing existing site

31:04capacity.

31:07It ignores actual parking availability,

31:10focuses on a formulaic application of

31:14car storage mandates, and I I guess my

31:16my my mind and my gut just kind of goes

31:18to this place where we've got 462 spots.

31:24We are committed to restripe them and

31:26make them compliant with ADA. any

31:29conditions or design guidelines that get

31:31put on this car storage are going to do

31:33nothing but add cost and increase the

31:37barrier of entry for entrepreneurs and

31:39people to lease area out here. And so we

31:44respectfully object. We would love to

31:46just restripe what we have. We have 462

31:49spots. We have no intention to create

31:51any more spots here because if we create

31:53more impermanmeable surface, we trigger

31:55all of the storm water requirements and

31:57we go down this rigma roll of hundreds

31:59of thousands of dollars in increased

32:01site costs. This building right now,

32:05this parcel, it's a it's a zero. It it

32:08is a drain on the public

32:11community. It's a public hazard. We have

32:14some committed individuals that live

32:16here in Athens, Clark County, the

32:18development team. That's all Athens kids

32:20in the public schools. Here we go. We

32:23want to bring this building back to

32:25life. We want to activate this building.

32:28That is the community benefit that we

32:30are bringing to the table. Um, look

32:34forward to hearing the discussion

32:38and uh

32:40that concludes my remarks. Thank you.

32:43Thank you.

32:46>> Is there anyone here to speak in support

32:48of the

32:51>> I we have a couple the the funtown group

32:54has a couple of folks who uh have me

32:56statements from uh supporters who were

32:59not able to be here. So I have some hard

33:01copies. Oh, we have

33:03>> y'all are welcome to read things at the

33:05podium. Just introduce yourselves.

33:07>> Go ahead.

33:08>> Hi.

33:09>> Hi. My name is Ary Edwards. Um, and I

33:11live at um, Warner Duncan Springs.

33:13>> 500 500 [laughter] just moves. Sorry.

33:18Um, and I just want to say I purchased

33:20the store Agora in 20 in 2002 and I

33:23operated as a vintage co-op. The lowcost

33:27rent and small spaces I was able to

33:29provide vendors incubated numerous

33:31businesses and entrepreneurs that are

33:33still active today. Community, Starlight

33:36Shroom, Vix Vintage, ND South, Loyo

33:40Records, just to name a few, all began

33:42inside my store, Agora, my original

33:44Agora. I invested in Westcots with the

33:47same idea in mind. If we can

33:48incrementally and affordably activate

33:51small spaces for entrepreneurs, we can

33:53create something really cool. Low cost

33:55and low barrier of entry helps locals

33:58first. Development conditions like what

34:01doomed the planned development increase

34:03costs that that are then passed on to

34:05tenants and block opportunities.

34:08Please abolish the PD and allow me to

34:10unlock opportunities for local

34:12entrepreneurs like I did for 25 years in

34:15downtown Athens. This building is

34:17currently a public hazard. The community

34:20benefit is bringing it back into service

34:22and providing lowcost opportunities for

34:25local entrepreneurs. Is that too much to

34:27ask? Thank you very much.

34:35>> My name is Gray Riley. I live on 170

34:38Hendricks Avenue in Athens and I'm one

34:41of the partners in the West development

34:44and um

34:47I'm frankly just really excited about

34:50what this um place can be. It's a really

34:54unique and cool uh opportunity for

34:57people

34:58like myself with young kids who have a

35:00tendency to um

35:04just destroy our own house. And uh we're

35:08constantly, especially in the

35:09summertime, looking for a place where we

35:11could take our kids that isn't our house

35:13and run around and wear them out. And um

35:16and frankly that is the motivating

35:18philosophy behind me getting involved in

35:20this project is is this you know if it

35:23wasn't Funtown LLC. I'm not a real

35:26estate developer. And so my interest is

35:29as a neighbor and a and um and a patron.

35:33Um, and to that end, I just to to hit a

35:36the nail a little more clearly on the

35:39head about the um strict application of

35:44the PD versus the flexible approach of

35:46the overlay. Um, this thing is a puzzle

35:50and we don't know how to solve it. We're

35:53working on how to solve it, but we don't

35:54know yet. And we are not um nobody what

35:59we do know is that a very well

36:01capitalized professional development and

36:04uh property management company couldn't

36:07make it work here. And so um that is

36:12uh that is the one clear thing we know.

36:15And so how we get to, you know, having a

36:19children's museum and a p course and a,

36:21you know, little fun uh blackbox theater

36:24and like the kinds of things that that

36:26my wife and I want to have in the in the

36:28neighborhood. Um

36:32that is much more difficult if we have

36:35to put storm water retention under the

36:37parking lots and stuff, you know, and do

36:39all the things that would come with a

36:40green field development. So putting

36:44especially the parking require the

36:46recommended uh change of the of the

36:48trigger is a real cost uncertainty that

36:51we were struggling to figure out. All

36:53right, well if we have a tenant with a

36:5510-year lease, how do we price in the

36:57potential for a half a million dollar

36:59expense? Do we make that 10th or 20th

37:02tenant incur the entire expense of

37:05improving all or do we make these early

37:09tenants who are taking a real risk

37:10signing up and you committing to us for

37:13a long term um

37:16pay a little bit more for a project that

37:17may never actually have to be built. And

37:20so that uncertainty and that that cost

37:22is something that we're really really

37:24trying to keep a lid on and do this in

37:28an organic stepbystep

37:30um real kind of authentic Athens

37:33interesting way.

37:35>> Thank you guys.

37:35>> Thank you.

37:38>> Yeah.

37:38>> Anyone else to speak and support?

37:41>> Um hi, my name is Jose Pñena. I live on

37:44290 Gillivan Drive and I'm speaking on

37:47behalf of a good friend of mine and

37:48owner of a local business, Kristen Bach.

37:51Uh, dear members of the Athens Clark

37:53County Planning Commission. My name is

37:55Kristen Bach. I regret that I am unable

37:57to attend tonight's meeting in person,

37:59but I appreciate the opportunity to

38:00share my personal support for the

38:02thoughtful redevelopment of this

38:03important property. As Athens continues

38:05to grow, we need spaces where

38:07independent businesses, artists, makers,

38:10entrepreneurs, and creative ideas have

38:12the opportunity to take root, sparkle,

38:13and thrive. These are the people and

38:16places that give Athens its colorful and

38:18unique character, and make our city

38:19somewhere people call home, to visit,

38:21and invest in. The Newton Bridge area

38:23has historically existed somewhat

38:26outside the cultural spotlight of

38:27Athens, but it is certainly not

38:29geographically removed from the life of

38:30our city. I have long seen this area as

38:33Athens's next opportunity for growth and

38:35matches.

38:37This gives us an opportunity to think

38:38about West Clocks as much more than the

38:40redevelopment of a single property. It

38:42can become a place to eat, create,

38:44experiment, experience art and culture,

38:47discover local businesses, meet

38:49neighbors, and participate in community

38:50life. I have had the opportunity to

38:52speak with the new owners about many of

38:54their ideas for West Box, and I have

38:56been inspired by both their vision and

38:57the heart behind it. I believe that they

38:59are thinking beyond the development of a

39:01property and considering what this place

39:02can contribute to the future of Athens.

39:05That distinction matters. Growth should

39:07not only mean more housing or more

39:08commercial square footage. It should

39:10also mean creating the social and

39:11cultural spaces that turn development

39:13into community. With thoughtful

39:15development like this, Athens can grow

39:18while creating opportunities for

39:20artists, musicians, makers, and small

39:22business businesses to grow alongside

39:24it. This is Athens. This is the future

39:26of Athens. We have this chance to

39:28preserve a building where generations of

39:30Athenians once worked and made things

39:32and allow a new generation to make

39:34something that there there again. Not

39:36only products and arts, but businesses,

39:38relationships, culture, and community.

39:41I hope we will embrace the opportunity

39:43for Westox to become a creative and

39:45cultural heart for this growing part of

39:46our city. A place that honors where

39:48Athens has been has been while helping

39:50us imagine where Athens can go in an

39:52inspired destination that feels

39:55unmistakably Athens. Thank you for your

39:56consideration and for your services.

39:59>> You

40:04>> Hi. Um I'm Claire from Masheski and I

40:06live on 558 West Broad Street, Athens,

40:09Georgia. Um I've been helping the

40:11ownership group plan and coordinate

40:13events on the property and I'm really

40:15excited to see this project come to

40:17life. We've had a great time hosting a

40:19slip and slide back to school party

40:20where among other things we were proud

40:22to promote and support the local gifted

40:24savings program which just announced a

40:26successful round to fund a $1,000

40:29investment for every ninth grader in

40:31Athens Park County Public Schools. I

40:33want to express my support for the

40:35project and ask you to work with them to

40:37keep costs low and support local

40:39businesses and nonprofits. And then I

40:42have something from Michael Rersburg.

40:44Um he is writing in support of the

40:47Westcots proposal. I live on I live in

40:49the Boulevard neighborhood. The proposal

40:51will help create in my opinion much

40:53needed commercial development along the

40:55Newton Bridge corridor that is in scale

40:57with the corridor and surrounding

40:59neighborhoods. The requirement that the

41:01commercial property be developed first

41:03before multi multifamily is developed

41:05seems a good way to ensure that the

41:07commercial development actually moves

41:09forward and is not just replaced by a

41:11large multifamily multif family complex

41:14which I also support. Thank you Michael.

41:17>> Thank you.

41:19Anybody else to speak in support of the

41:22application?

41:26Okay. Hearing none. Is there anybody

41:28here to speak in opposition the

41:34Okay. All right. We'll take it on this

41:37side of the room for discussion.

41:45Talk about the plan development.

41:50There's anything yawning at you?

41:52>> I just want to think maybe we should

41:54talk about the conditions. Um

41:57the um

42:00applicant said something about um that

42:04some of the residential uh zoning would

42:07only be unlocked after 50,000 square

42:09feet of commercial space had been

42:11developed. And I just wanted to ask

42:13Bruce if um that would be if the way to

42:18um

42:20accept that proposal from the applicant

42:22would be to make it a condition of an

42:24approval motion or um

42:29because it's not written into the

42:30overlay district ordinance.

42:33>> It it is

42:34>> it is

42:35>> Oh, okay. That that

42:37>> we changed it since the last meeting.

42:38>> Where is that? I was

42:39>> where is it in in the

42:42>> under D recommended density

42:46upon approval of it's in the middle of

42:48that paragraph upon approval of the

42:50creation onethird of the maximum

42:51residential density permitted shall be

42:53available then the following 2/3 would

42:56be available

42:58um

43:00>> I don't think that works

43:02>> pass

43:07a new version of

43:10>> I think that there might be a couple

43:11words missing from the wording of G

43:14because I think it I was kind of

43:16confused by that part

43:19but basically

43:22think the ide

43:28will become available.

43:30>> Yeah. But I think is the purpose to

43:34actually I don't is the is the purpose

43:36to

43:38only allow one third of the maximum

43:40allowable permitted residential units

43:43after which time the commercial needs to

43:44be built out and then the other two/3s

43:46can be built. Is that

43:49>> that is acceptable to the

43:52>> Yeah, that's that's in my copy if I

43:54>> Yeah. The way it's the way it's phrased

43:55seems to me to say that

43:58>> um

43:59>> after you get certificates of occupancy

44:01for the initial one-third of residential

44:03density then

44:04>> then you get

44:04>> remaining twothirds of residential

44:07commercial eleed

44:09um and it

44:10>> it's missing the commercial element.

44:11>> Yeah, exactly. It what triggers the

44:14two/3s is the oneird getting cos and not

44:17the 50,000 square feet of commercial

44:18getting the last line that says of

44:20nonresidential use within the west box

44:23overlay.

44:26No,

44:28that must have been that must have been

44:29removed from what we said.

44:32>> Okay. So,

44:33>> there sorry, wasn't there a

44:37not these recommendations there? There

44:40was something I thought there was a

44:41slide.

44:46>> I don't think it's on there. Was it in

44:48the

44:48>> Was it from the

44:49>> applicant [laughter] slides? So if you

44:51read the text, so this part wasn't meant

44:53to have changed at all. There was a

44:55little bit of cleaning up because the

44:56language didn't meet exactly how we

44:59would write an ordinance. So the copy

45:01that's in your packet that the applicant

45:03submitted, I don't think that part was

45:04meant to be amended at all between

45:08Yeah. when the packets went out and

45:10>> that was an error. So So F on what was

45:13in your packet. The remaining

45:14residential density shall become

45:16available upon the issuance of

45:18certificates of occupancy including

45:19temporary cos for a cumulative minimum

45:22of 50,000 square feet of non-residential

45:24use.

45:26>> We're missing

45:27>> that's what we're missing. But and even

45:29that wording is a little awkward.

45:30>> Yes.

45:31>> And so I think I think what we're in

45:33agreement with is that the trigger was

45:37the 50,000 square feet of

45:40non-residential being issued cos. opens

45:44up the potential for the remaining

45:45twothirds of the residence and that can

45:48be that can be restored and clarified

45:53upon the issuance of certificates of

45:55occupancy

45:56for a cumulative minimum 50,000 square

46:00ft of non-residential use

46:02>> right

46:04including temporary cons for

46:06non-residential use for the initial

46:09onethird

46:11yeah gap the remaining 2/3 a residential

46:13density not available. Yeah. So, we're

46:17missing that

46:19that nonresidential use.

46:2250,000 square feet of non-resident.

46:26>> Yeah. It in the version sitting in front

46:29of you where the word upon is in the

46:33middle of that paragraph. I believe

46:34[clears throat] the text

46:36that should have preceded that was the

46:38rema the the 50,000 square feet should

46:40have kicked in.

46:43in that right in that spot. Yes.

46:45>> And for whatever reason it it dropped.

46:47So, but that's

46:50that is the trigger.

46:52>> Yeah. Yeah. There was a tiny bit of

46:53cleanup that had to go on just because

46:55of some of the words in there to make it

46:57code compliant. That was not meant to I

46:59think that might have just been a

47:01editing error there. The the the section

47:03that the applicant turned in was not

47:06meant to change in that section. Unless

47:08I'm incorrect, Austin,

47:11>> that clarify the Z map.

47:15>> Um, it does. Yeah. So, so, um,

47:19I mean, we have two versions in front of

47:22us. Um, one of which is on a double

47:25sided sheet of paper that was sitting at

47:26our desk when we arrived here today, and

47:28one of which was in our packet. So, I'm

47:29going off the double-sided one that we

47:31received today. And

47:35I take it that um

47:39correct me if I'm wrong, Bruce. What

47:40you're saying is the sentence in the

47:42middle of part G that says upon the

47:43issuance of certificates of occupancy

47:45including temporary cos

47:48>> for

47:49>> and we would replace the initial

47:50one-third of the maximum residential

47:52density language with

47:54>> the 50,000

47:55>> the 50,000 square feet

47:59>> then the remaining 2/3 becomes Yes.

48:01>> Yeah. um

48:03>> of non-residential

48:04>> so uh upon the issuance of cos including

48:07temporary cos for not less than 50,000

48:11square feet of um

48:15non-residential use right

48:19is there another copy of that I that I

48:21could see

48:24I haven't seen it

48:30does that have an extra

48:36just

48:51thought

48:52>> y

48:52>> um did we resolve that?

48:56I mean in terms of like that that that's

48:58that we have the updated wording for

48:59that for that. Yeah, let me just say it

49:02out loud for the record so that it'll be

49:04in the minutes. Um, in sections G of the

49:09Westlocks special district overlay

49:12ordinance text that we received tonight,

49:15U,

49:17the sentence beginning upon the issuance

49:19of certificates of occupancy will

49:21replace the words

49:23for the initial one-third of the maximum

49:25residential density permitted by this

49:27section with the words

49:30for not less than 50,000 square feet of

49:32non-residential used

49:41and then the remainder of that sentence

49:42as printed already. I'm not altering

49:44this just says then the remaining

49:46twothirds of the residential density

49:48permitted by the section shall be

49:50available for you.

49:53So yeah, that resolves my question about

49:55how to accomplish that if that's factory

49:59is staff and the applicant. out.

50:04>> Um I think for me on this one, I am in

50:06favor of this and

50:09um in favor of removing the PD, I'm in

50:11favor of the overlay and I when everyone

50:15has had a chance to say what they need

50:17to say, I want I want to work on the

50:19conditions and deal with kind of dive

50:21into the conditions.

50:22>> There's a condition on the PD and

50:25there's a condition for the overlay.

50:29So

50:29>> the condition on removing the PD,

50:31>> right?

50:33Um

50:36Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. So

50:38both I mean I just think we you know the

50:41applicant brought up

50:43their responses to that and I just think

50:45they needed to kind of work through

50:46those. Um but I also just you know want

50:50to make sure the folks who

50:54want to speak more generally about the

50:55project before we dig into conditions um

50:58have a chance. Yep.

51:00>> So, first of all, I'm not against um but

51:04I do want to jump in. You sort of laid

51:05it out. I I have a a major concern

51:09uh that I think we need to get out early

51:13and

51:15we are we're hearing good fun stuff.

51:19There's nothing legal that obligates

51:21them to do it. Nor is there anything

51:24legal that will obligate the next owner

51:26of that property. So, if I and and

51:29correct me if I'm wrong, um the the the

51:32one good tooth in this is to get at

51:35least 50,000 square feet of uh

51:39non-residentidential in there before

51:41they can go on to the second twothirds

51:44of apartments or residential, whatever

51:47form that comes in. Um so, that's a

51:51that's a good struggle. When I read

51:52that, I got a little better. I was like,

51:54okay, there's something. But that is

51:58about the only thing that gives any kind

52:01of restriction from this turning over to

52:05anybody else. It's already turned over

52:07once or twice. And uh it's going to take

52:11a special skilled developer to pull this

52:14off. And

52:17so

52:18I I do think we need to consider the

52:21fact that we're really voting on black

52:24and white words and not on colorful

52:27things that are good for Athens. That's

52:29my that's my concern. I love the fact

52:32that these folks are Athens people. That

52:35gives me more reason to trust. uh I

52:38recognize uh them and and I have no lack

52:42of trust in their desire to do the right

52:45thing, but we're not here to look at

52:47people in the face and go, I trust you

52:49because this world is going to hand them

52:52all kind of new things as they do this.

52:55Uh I'm a little concerned and I get it,

52:58but

53:00we don't even have a napkin drawing of

53:02the thoughts. where we're we're we're

53:04totally taking away the restrictions

53:06that are there which are very good. I

53:09mean that was a good project and we're

53:14we're pulling it off and

53:17opening it up a lot. and

53:22question I've got Bruce for you along

53:24those lines

53:26the and maybe it's in here but if if

53:30they've decided if if if anyone decided

53:33owners of that property um

53:36okay we're just going to do a part we're

53:38just we're going to put as many even

53:40under the restrictions we we're going to

53:42do a third and then we're going to do

53:4350,000 square feet build out doesn't

53:46have to be occupied it just has to be um

53:49the OS or TCOs. And then we're just

53:52going to fill this thing up with

53:54apartments. That's what we see best use.

53:57Is is it in here how many total beds

54:00that would be?

54:02The the math, I believe, works out to

54:05972

54:08total bedrooms. No, that's not units,

54:10that's bedrooms. So, those bedrooms

54:11could be arranged in one bedroom, two

54:13bedroom, three bed, you know, um type

54:15units. But yeah, 9 I think 972 is the

54:18max for the acreage at the 50 beds per

54:20grain.

54:20>> Okay, that's based on the acreage.

54:22That's correct.

54:23>> Not on any other. Okay, so

54:29I I I'm not Yeah, I'm struggling with

54:32it. This is that that's I appreciate

54:35that tooth. Um you know, like we asked

54:38for or meat on the bone, whatever it

54:39was. uh that they at least are going to

54:42okay, we'll build these, then we'll do

54:43that, then we'll get on to the rest of

54:45the apartments, uh, pardon, residential,

54:49but I I just and we don't do it much at

54:53all, and I'm not even sure if we've done

54:55it in a couple of years on this

54:57commission, but pulling

55:01pulling something off um like what we're

55:05doing and a plan development

55:09and and giving giving it

55:12more of such an open

55:16do what you want to some extent and and

55:20you know the the only restrictions are a

55:22couple of these things that's that's

55:24serious business. We've got something

55:26good. There is somebody in this world

55:28that can come in there and build it. Um

55:30I've seen things done that are that are

55:33very difficult and the right person can

55:35come in and and do that. But at the same

55:39time, do we want to wait 10 years for

55:40that? So I I understand all of these

55:44things. I'm struggling, I guess. But I

55:46do think we need to careful about all of

55:50the putt putt and all of that with all

55:51due respect that that could be there.

55:54And I think their intention is that and

55:57realize what we're voting on are are the

55:59words. I guess that's that's what's

56:01going to go forward in the world. And if

56:03they stumble or if they just have a

56:05meeting and say, you know what, I think

56:06we're just going to sell this. I need to

56:08get back to what my life was. It goes on

56:11the market and somebody else can come in

56:14with those restrictions, but change it

56:16up a little bit. So,

56:20>> yeah, I I just wanted to [clears throat]

56:21say generally like I'm strongly

56:23supportive of this. It seems like a

56:25great improvement. Um I hear Alex's

56:27concerns about like, well, we never know

56:29that the private property owner is going

56:31to build the thing they say they want to

56:32build, which is true. We don't. It's a

56:35world of, you know, a county of tens of

56:38thousands of parcels owned by a bunch of

56:40different people and entities and um

56:44until they actually break ground and get

56:46their financing and stuff like that, you

56:48know, it's hard to know exactly what's

56:50going to go up. Um that's always true

56:52with every property, right? We lift PDs

56:54all the time, though. We we uh do away

56:56with old bad PDs that failed all the

56:59time. Um and

57:02um this is one of those PDs, right? This

57:04this PD is not going to get built. Um

57:06there was a very well- capitalized

57:07developer group that u that got it

57:11reszoned and we voted to approve it some

57:14years ago and it sounded good what they

57:16wanted to do and then they just could

57:18not make it work. And it's not because

57:20they didn't have ready access to capital

57:23or development expertise. It's because

57:26the project as planned by them just um

57:30didn't work. It didn't pencil. And so

57:32they sold the remaining land. And to a

57:36local developer group who um

57:40at the very least we can say today has

57:43very good intentions for what they want

57:44to do. And so my inclination would be to

57:46get the heck out of their way and let

57:48them run a little bit and and try and

57:51make something great there because it

57:52sure as heck won't happen if um we throw

57:56a bunch of hurdles in their way. So I'm

57:59supportive and I also like Sarah said

58:01there's some stuff I want to talk about

58:02on the conditions but I'll wait on that.

58:04>> Yeah. Um yeah I am also supportive of

58:08removing the PD. Um

58:12also generally supportive of the overlay

58:13district also want to talk to the

58:15conditions. Um

58:19>> yeah the the

58:20>> you want to start to discuss some

58:21conditions.

58:22>> Um I don't I don't know if anyone else

58:24had chance if they wanted to

58:26>> I would just be repeating what everybody

58:28else has said. So like I would rather

58:29move on to discussing the details the

58:32same way.

58:33>> Yeah. Okay. Great. Um,

58:37uh, I'm interested in starting with the

58:38parking because that's one I'm the most

58:40curious about. Um,

58:42why don't we start with the condition

58:44related to the PD first?

58:46>> Okay. And then we can see if there's

58:48anyone wants to make a motion and then

58:49we can move to the overlay.

58:53>> Oh, okay. I guess we need to vote on the

58:55PD and then the overlay. Got it. Got it.

58:57Um, yeah. I guess my only my only

59:00question with the

59:02uh condition on removing the PD is

59:06I know that

59:08it's written one way in the packet.

59:10staff has said in the presentation

59:14we reconsidered that and then uh the

59:17applicant said oh yeah what staff is

59:19saying about reconsidering it that

59:20sounds good to us too but I don't know

59:22what the wording of that is it just no

59:25condition or

59:27>> no the the

59:29the and and Mark correct me if I'm

59:31getting this off but the condition not

59:34the one on the screen but the one that's

59:36been discussed and that the applicant is

59:37generally supportive of is to have the

59:40greenway connection as contemplated in

59:42the PD not being in that alignment but

59:45to be provided as part of the alignment

59:48of their of the overlay their holdings

59:51so that it would follow dairy road.

59:55>> Yes.

59:56>> Like how would we vote on that?

59:57>> Yes. If we want to put the site plan up

59:59>> something would that actually just be

1:00:02reducing the PD right vote on that and

1:00:05then as part of the overlay that

1:00:07connection would be written into the

1:00:08overlay. So, it's a two-parter really.

1:00:11If we're amending the PD to reduce the

1:00:13boundaries,

1:00:14>> yeah,

1:00:15>> then it could also be an amendment of

1:00:16the PD to remove the greenway connection

1:00:19as shown in the PD as well. And so

1:00:22really what we'd be left with is a PD

1:00:24that is for the multif family and a PD

1:00:26for the non-residential warehousing uses

1:00:30that becomes the PD

1:00:33moving forward because the PD is going

1:00:35to live. It it's not going away in

1:00:37total. getting reduced.

1:00:39>> So the the question I think to wrestle

1:00:42with is do you leave the greenway in the

1:00:44existing PD or not? You could. It's just

1:00:49unlikely to be built because we don't

1:00:51have the triggers anymore because the

1:00:53triggers were in the southern portion

1:00:55that is now proposed to be in an overlay

1:00:57and no longer in the PD.

1:00:59And then the overlay could contemplate a

1:01:02greenway connection.

1:01:06And what we're talking about is an

1:01:07alignment along Dairy Pack Road. And I

1:01:10think what we could suggest is we've got

1:01:13language that we're getting used to of

1:01:15saying multi-use path have standards for

1:01:18what a multi-use path is. Widths,

1:01:20pavement depths, those types of things.

1:01:22So a multi-use path along the dairy pack

1:01:25frontage within the overlay would be

1:01:28something that staff could interpret if

1:01:30if that's what you're comfortable with.

1:01:32So, we would be requiring them to

1:01:35construct a multi-use path on their

1:01:38[clears throat] own property alongside

1:01:40Dair Road, not to go all the way to the

1:01:43greenway on somebody else's property.

1:01:48>> Ask a quick question about All right.

1:01:50So, that we're just want to make sure I

1:01:52heard this right too.

1:01:55If we pull the PD off

1:01:59so that we can go forward with uh the

1:02:02plan they want,

1:02:04>> the new overlay does cover the north end

1:02:09that's already built.

1:02:11>> Okay. So, the 50,000 square feet of of

1:02:15commercial has to be on that in the over

1:02:18>> southern half. Okay. Okay. voting to

1:02:21reduce the size of the PD,

1:02:23>> right?

1:02:23>> Which is that change.

1:02:24>> Is there anything else we have to vote

1:02:26on in the change of the PD besides

1:02:28reducing the boundaries,

1:02:31>> the multi-use path goes not in that

1:02:32vote? It goes into condition.

1:02:35>> I I would I would offer to you that if

1:02:37you're amending the PD, you can include

1:02:39that as part of the amendment. It is

1:02:41removing an element from the PD. Aren't

1:02:44we removing these parcels from the PD?

1:02:46Removing these two parcels from the PD.

1:02:48>> Okay. So we can't say like

1:02:51make dair the the frontage multi-use

1:02:53path be a part of the PD because there's

1:02:55no PD anymore on this. So it would have

1:02:58to just be a condition in the overlay.

1:02:59>> That's right. That's right.

1:03:02>> And because we have different owners of

1:03:03the parcels that are remaining in the PD

1:03:06and they're not party to this request,

1:03:10you know, we we we can't impose

1:03:12conditions on them,

1:03:14>> right? So I think I think the comfort

1:03:16level is removing a requirement of the

1:03:19PD not imposing dude.

1:03:22>> I think we should vote on or talk about

1:03:24the conditions like you were getting

1:03:26started before a vote on the PD because

1:03:29I think the conditions might make anyone

1:03:32who's feeling uncomfortable about

1:03:33removing

1:03:35from the PP might change how they feel

1:03:38about it. Okay. Sparks on the teeth.

1:03:43Oh, maybe Sarah, do you want to start

1:03:45with um working?

1:03:48>> Yeah, I would I would be just be

1:03:51interested in

1:03:54hearing

1:03:56uh

1:03:58a little more from staff about the uh

1:04:02condition number four under the overlay.

1:04:05Um

1:04:08what uh what what will it look like to

1:04:11make all existing required spaces

1:04:13conform with section 939 9310?

1:04:19>> So one of the things that's not out

1:04:22there right now are parking lot trees.

1:04:24>> So the landscaping requirement for

1:04:26parking is is not a part of this at all.

1:04:30And so um not just the striping, it's

1:04:33also that element of of the ratio of

1:04:36trees to parking spaces. So the thinking

1:04:38here was not to put any kind of

1:04:41retrofitting requirement on this first

1:04:45lift of use in in the development that

1:04:49at some point there would be a reason

1:04:51when it is functioning and potentially

1:04:55bringing in money to a point to get

1:04:58those spaces to to line up with

1:05:00expectations with striping ADA

1:05:03requirements and the trees.

1:05:05>> Okay. Okay. Um I see. So until the

1:05:09project requires 346 spaces means until

1:05:14X number of

1:05:16>> housing units are built

1:05:18>> or commercial uses whatever it may be

1:05:20whatever mix of uses that generate to

1:05:23that number

1:05:25once we get north of that

1:05:28>> then we're asking for the retrofit.

1:05:30>> Yeah that's overlay. And prior to that,

1:05:32there's no not even restriping as far as

1:05:36the condition. They may restripe it.

1:05:37>> They may restripe it, but yes.

1:05:39>> And and the ad I mean the ADA

1:05:41requirements would

1:05:44like those those will exist whether

1:05:47there's an overlay condition or not,

1:05:49right? Like

1:05:50>> yeah,

1:05:50>> your development has to be ADA compliant

1:05:52regardless of whether or not the zoning

1:05:54requires it.

1:05:54>> You can't eliminate that requirement

1:05:56with the overlay. No.

1:05:57>> Yeah, you can't you can't eliminate it

1:05:58with the overlay. And also like

1:06:01>> part of a CL or something.

1:06:02>> It's just it's just like we even if you

1:06:04don't put it into the overlay, it's

1:06:06still like they still have that

1:06:08obligation to be ADA compliant.

1:06:10>> Federal law, right?

1:06:11>> Um under federal law. So

1:06:16yeah, I'm I I I think that I think that

1:06:18the applicants um uh explanation and

1:06:22reasoning was really illuminating uh as

1:06:24far as the burden that it would place uh

1:06:28to make them redo existing parking

1:06:31spaces. Um,

1:06:37and as far I mean, uh, uh, the ADA is

1:06:40really important and that's why I was

1:06:42kind of talking through what I was

1:06:43thinking there because oh yeah, that

1:06:46will still happen like that that

1:06:48requirement is still going to be there

1:06:49regardless of whether we say it has to.

1:06:53Um, and then beyond resting and

1:06:55provisions. Yeah. Um,

1:06:57>> there are two triggers here. I just want

1:06:59to make sure that's clear, too. There's

1:07:00the 346 and the 500. And Mark, I want to

1:07:03make make sure you spent more time with

1:07:05this than me. 346 is saying

1:07:08[clears throat] other than striping for

1:07:10safety and the ADA compliance, it would

1:07:12there wouldn't be anything expected up

1:07:14to the 346. If you get north of 346, the

1:07:18existing, not anticipated, but existing

1:07:21and required, not extra, but just the

1:07:23required spaces for the uses that are

1:07:25out there.

1:07:26>> Okay. those would be expected to

1:07:28conform.

1:07:29>> Okay.

1:07:30>> And then when we get north of 500 spaces

1:07:33being required, not provided but

1:07:35required. Yeah.

1:07:36>> Then the balance everything has to be

1:07:39brought into standard. So there's really

1:07:40two milestone moments with parking as

1:07:43far as phasing into conformance with

1:07:46with what our community standards are

1:07:48for parking.

1:07:49>> Yeah. And I would just say that the 500

1:07:51is above what they currently have. So

1:07:54they've stated that they don't even

1:07:55actually want to go above that if they

1:07:57can avoid it. So it'd be looking at

1:07:58flexible parking. So that that's like

1:08:01more things coming into the development

1:08:04type arrangement when when that would

1:08:05even ever kick in.

1:08:07>> Yeah. Um,

1:08:10and if they if they get in there and

1:08:12like

1:08:14want to for whatever reason, you know,

1:08:16like build something on top of the

1:08:18existing parking spaces and then build

1:08:20new parking spaces in another part of

1:08:22the property, any new parking spaces

1:08:24they build would have to be in complian

1:08:26with those design requirements.

1:08:28>> Okay.

1:08:29>> And that's not even necessarily

1:08:30something we would have to have as part

1:08:32of the overlay. That's just underlying.

1:08:33>> That doesn't need to be.

1:08:34>> That's right.

1:08:35>> Yeah. So the idea, so if I understand

1:08:37what you just said, Sarah, you're saying

1:08:40that basically any existing parking

1:08:43spaces just have to be striped and

1:08:45brought up to ADA standards. Any new

1:08:47parking spaces have to be built the

1:08:50trees supposed to

1:08:51>> is that sort of

1:08:54I will my my my final word on it is I I

1:08:58think that we should not recommend

1:09:01condition number four. Um

1:09:04it it doesn't seem like the stress that

1:09:07it would put on potential redevelopment

1:09:09would be worth

1:09:11trees in the parking lot. It's a great

1:09:14trees in the parking lot. Great thing

1:09:15for spaces

1:09:19seems to cause a real problem for

1:09:22making this whole space better for

1:09:25everyone. Seems like the applicant said

1:09:27that caused the problem would be to go

1:09:28back and do the current spaces. Is that

1:09:31how you all understood that? Like

1:09:33>> and just the curbing and the black

1:09:35topping like the redoing that parking

1:09:37lot would be tremendously cutting into

1:09:39the existing cement parking built

1:09:44beyond that has to

1:09:46>> CG which we don't need to

1:09:50>> just don't make them redo the existing

1:09:52parking lot which would be

1:09:54getting rid of condition four right

1:09:56because that's what condition four is

1:09:58about. just restricting.

1:10:00>> So without making any condition well

1:10:03they would

1:10:05>> be allowed to have a remain I mean like

1:10:09is there a condition need to be in there

1:10:11that

1:10:13sort of absolves them from having to

1:10:15improve current parking?

1:10:18>> No, that's in their language

1:10:20>> as their their proposal

1:10:22has the following language. Existing

1:10:25vehicle storage parking shall not

1:10:27require improvements beyond restriping

1:10:30and provision of Americans with

1:10:31disability act mandated spaces. The

1:10:33vehicle storage lots shall remain

1:10:35largely as is for the intended

1:10:37installation of a solar power shade

1:10:39canopy. So that's existing. Key word

1:10:43there is existing. Existing gets to stay

1:10:44in the condition that it's in other than

1:10:46the maintenance of it to meet ADA or the

1:10:49striping to understand where a space is

1:10:51and where it's not.

1:10:53to to Sarah's point about new

1:10:58would follow code by default the way

1:11:00this is worded in what they proposed.

1:11:03But where's the thing that you just said

1:11:04in the new document?

1:11:07>> That's not in there. That was in the

1:11:09applicant's proposal, not in

1:11:13>> proposal.

1:11:14>> The thing about the the solar powered

1:11:17>> Oh, okay.

1:11:18>> Yeah. Yeah. Because because we wouldn't

1:11:20want to put in for the intended

1:11:21installation of a solar powered shade

1:11:22canopy into an overlay district. That

1:11:25doesn't make any sense. It's not

1:11:27>> and and what the condition that was

1:11:31proposed in response to that idea was to

1:11:33use the paid structure as relief from up

1:11:36to 50% of the tree requirement.

1:11:39>> So

1:11:40>> yes, but yeah.

1:11:41>> Okay.

1:11:42>> And and

1:11:44I just think we should not put that

1:11:47requirement in for an existing parking

1:11:49lot. That's my opinion.

1:11:54>> Yeah. We just need to get that sentence

1:11:55that was in the old document that goes,

1:11:57"Existing vehicle storage areas shall

1:11:59not require improvements beyond

1:12:00restriping a provision of ADA mandated

1:12:03spaces." Yeah,

1:12:05>> that didn't make it. That's unless I'm

1:12:07not seeing it.

1:12:09>> Didn't make it into the new document.

1:12:12>> Well, it wouldn't need to be like we

1:12:14wouldn't need to put anything about

1:12:16existing things in the overlay.

1:12:18>> I think we would get permitted to build

1:12:20to build that.

1:12:23>> Okay. Okay.

1:12:23>> The the normal practice is when you have

1:12:26a change of use and we run a new parking

1:12:27number.

1:12:28>> Ah

1:12:28>> the required parking associated with

1:12:30that new use has to meet current code

1:12:32for the parking

1:12:33>> and that's trees and

1:12:34>> yeah yeah that makes sense.

1:12:37>> So we do need to add the applicant's

1:12:40paragraph about private vehicle storage

1:12:42design requirements

1:12:45if yes that's

1:12:46>> and then I would say that last sentence

1:12:49not being there.

1:12:51>> Yes. the last sentence.

1:12:52>> Yeah, just the second sentence. Existing

1:12:53vehicle storage area shall not require

1:12:55approve on restriping and provision of

1:12:57ADA.

1:13:00>> Okay.

1:13:01>> To section H.

1:13:06>> So, can I just stay on that for a

1:13:08second? All right.

1:13:10>> Sorry about this. Where are we or aren't

1:13:12we on the tree part of the park?

1:13:17We're uh

1:13:18>> you had just said something about we

1:13:19don't want that to keep them from

1:13:21developing. Uh I was just want to know

1:13:24where we landed on the

1:13:25>> new parking. So anything over 462 spaces

1:13:28right

1:13:30>> well there's actually aren't there like

1:13:31a lot more than that existing like no.

1:13:34Oh that's a that's

1:13:36>> yeah

1:13:37more that was that yeah that was me

1:13:39reading the

1:13:42standards maximum allowed. Yeah.

1:13:45>> Anything above 462 would require would

1:13:48be new development department which

1:13:50would require compliance.

1:13:51>> Correct. Okay. Just

1:13:52>> am I right on Bruce? The issue with it's

1:13:56not just they would have to curb and

1:13:58perhaps repave hundreds of parking spots

1:14:01but once they've disturbed a certain

1:14:03number of square feet by doing that then

1:14:05they have to do storm water for

1:14:09>> that whole area. Uh

1:14:11>> right. There's a cumulative amount of

1:14:13land disturbance. that once you get

1:14:15above that, then you have to retrofit

1:14:17the storm water as well. And that's a

1:14:18trigger.

1:14:19>> Okay? And they would have to retrofit

1:14:20the storm water for that the acres of

1:14:22parking lot that exists right now.

1:14:24>> They would have to retrofit for the

1:14:25amount they're disturbing, not for the

1:14:28acres of asphalt.

1:14:30>> Okay?

1:14:31>> It would be storm water. It's it's a

1:14:32redevelopment site, so the standards for

1:14:34storm water are considerably less than a

1:14:36new building. Um, but they are there.

1:14:39It's it's a real thing. And this this

1:14:42allowance to not have to saw cut for

1:14:45tree islands over, you know, hundreds of

1:14:48of spaces probably would get pretty

1:14:50close to the trigger for having to look

1:14:53at storm water at some point. So there

1:14:55is that factor if that's where you're

1:14:57thinking.

1:14:58>> Yeah. So it's a it's a huge additional

1:14:59expense um beyond just parking

1:15:02construction

1:15:04and the storm water.

1:15:06Just making sure I get the math here.

1:15:09Get over the 400 and something spaces.

1:15:12Storm water has to be part of that that

1:15:15the new parking spaces has to be and has

1:15:19to have storm water management

1:15:22>> and but it doesn't trigger the original

1:15:24400 and something. It can be left alone

1:15:26and you can go back to the 400 the

1:15:29original 400 and something repave it

1:15:32even curve it but is that considered

1:15:35disturbing it? Okay. So footprints there

1:15:39there's parking lot they redo the

1:15:40parking lot curve it they're cool

1:15:42they're fine back there.

1:15:43>> Okay.

1:15:47>> So we talked about the TV amendment

1:15:49related which will we find about the

1:15:52multi-use path. We've talked about

1:15:54parking.

1:15:56I believe the applicant said that the

1:15:59minimum three acres combined open space

1:16:01was that they're amendable to that. Is

1:16:03that correct?

1:16:04>> Okay. And then

1:16:07um the other two left are the

1:16:09restriction on commercial short-term

1:16:10rentals and the 15 foot n natural

1:16:13buffer. I had a question about the

1:16:14buffer. What would normally be required

1:16:17in CG?

1:16:20In CG when above when abudding

1:16:23residential you have a choice of buffers

1:16:26>> and what's in budding now I forgot um

1:16:28just what is that zone like

1:16:31>> partial

1:16:31>> industrial industrial

1:16:34>> so is there any buffer required

1:16:36>> so the the buffer typically is required

1:16:39on the side of the non-residential use

1:16:42right so that they already there so

1:16:46>> so can't really put that requirement on

1:16:49the existing

1:16:50use.

1:16:51>> So there's a setback that would be

1:16:53required but not a buffer, not a natural

1:16:56planted buffer.

1:16:57>> So the right so the buffer

1:17:03>> Yes. I guess that's Yes.

1:17:06>> This is a buffer that would be for the

1:17:08benefit of whoever is occupying this

1:17:12redeveloped land. It's not like when

1:17:14we're usually talking about a buffer.

1:17:15It's

1:17:15>> the inverse.

1:17:16>> It's the inverse. And so I'm

1:17:20when it's something new like this,

1:17:23I'm I'm a little bit like, do we need to

1:17:26require that? Because anyone who is

1:17:30moving on to here as a tenant or

1:17:31developer

1:17:33will see, okay, there's no 50-ft buffer.

1:17:38Do I want to be here? Do I want to do

1:17:40business here? Do I want to live here?

1:17:41And if there's, you know, no one who

1:17:43will do any business there without a 50

1:17:45foot buffer, then the people who own it

1:17:46land will say, "Okay, well, we need to

1:17:48put a buffer in to get those things."

1:17:50But I don't think it's something we need

1:17:51to require.

1:17:52>> Feel the same way.

1:17:53>> Yeah, I feel the same way on that one.

1:17:55It's it's for the benefit of this

1:17:56property. So, let them decide how they

1:17:58want to protect this property. If they

1:18:00want to put mini golf alongside that

1:18:02property in the 50 foot space, that

1:18:05seems fine. And it'll keep the apartment

1:18:07separated from the industrial use. And

1:18:09so a buffer is just kind of wasted land

1:18:11here. And so I don't I don't see the

1:18:13need for that.

1:18:16>> And for the commercial short-term rental

1:18:18requirement, is it is it true that we

1:18:20don't require any we don't have any

1:18:23limitations on that in commercial

1:18:24general?

1:18:26>> Correct. I mean, we have um

1:18:32in other sections we have the one

1:18:33parcel, but in the case of commercial,

1:18:36that's that's not the case. it's

1:18:38considered a commercial use.

1:18:40>> I definitely understand why staff put

1:18:42that in there. I think 10% is pretty

1:18:44low. Like I I understand the applicant's

1:18:47argument that we don't do that anywhere

1:18:49else.

1:18:51Um

1:18:52but we're just kind of getting into this

1:18:55short-term rental wise. And so I think

1:18:58it's worth discussing.

1:19:01I mean, I guess to me the question is,

1:19:04are we if we were to remove that

1:19:07condition in our recommendation, would

1:19:10um are we okay with that every unit here

1:19:14becomes a commercial short-term rental

1:19:16or the half of them become that?

1:19:18>> It could be 100%.

1:19:19>> It could be 100%.

1:19:21>> They could build a hotel by Right.

1:19:22Right. Yeah.

1:19:24>> So, can I jump?

1:19:26>> Sure.

1:19:27>> To that, too. That was one of the things

1:19:29and I agree with the applicant here. I I

1:19:32I don't understand it why it's there and

1:19:35can I don't know Bruce if you want to

1:19:38say why staff has put that in there but

1:19:42I don't I don't see the purpose and and

1:19:46I mean

1:19:48it either is commercial or it's not and

1:19:50so why are we doing that and that might

1:19:53help them where we're so concerned that

1:19:55they have the money to do what they want

1:19:58to do if they can fill up some of these

1:20:01things a little quicker, make a dollar.

1:20:03Um, they're going to go where the money

1:20:05leads them. And like I've said, um,

1:20:09short-term rental is the most

1:20:10inefficient hotel there is. Uh, it's

1:20:13it's more efficient to get these

1:20:15long-term renters in there if that's

1:20:17what they're doing. But Bruce, what was

1:20:18the purpose of that?

1:20:19>> Well, and let me clarify one thing and

1:20:21I'll happily answer that, too. So, it is

1:20:24one per parcel, but there's nothing in

1:20:26this that that that would put a cap on,

1:20:30you know, how well there is a cap on how

1:20:32many parcels you could get because the

1:20:33math is going to just produce what it's

1:20:34going to produce, but it is one per

1:20:37parcel. Commercial short-term rentals

1:20:39are allowed one per parcel by right. So

1:20:42thinking of this as an overlay, the 10%

1:20:45was taking into account that there might

1:20:47be parceling that occurs and there might

1:20:49be a variety of developments that are

1:20:51that are occurring. 10% represents 97

1:20:54bedrooms of short-term rental potential

1:20:57use with that condition. But um your

1:21:00question

1:21:02I think you just so the 10% was sort of

1:21:05adding up sort of a one per parcel sort

1:21:08of thing. That's how you

1:21:10>> the 10% was acreage the 19 acres

1:21:15>> and and

1:21:17trying to think you know in all the

1:21:19conversations with the applicant and all

1:21:20the things that I think that have been

1:21:22sort of thought through the and then

1:21:24hearing y'all's discussion last month or

1:21:26previously was um the balance of uses

1:21:30and in that mix and so this was an

1:21:33attempt to to recognize that commercial

1:21:35short-term rental is an allowable use in

1:21:37CG

1:21:38But with the goals of what this overlay

1:21:40have been stated to be, how does that

1:21:42fit?

1:21:43>> And and is there a a tolerance within

1:21:46that for how much is too much? So that

1:21:48that that's where this was coming from.

1:21:50>> So it sounds like, if I'm hearing you

1:21:52right, the existing zoning allows

1:21:55commercial short-term rental as of right

1:21:57in CG, but only one per parcel. So

1:22:00they're not going to get 97 bedrooms of

1:22:02commercial short-term rentals under a

1:22:0310% unless they get

1:22:05>> 97 parcels, right?

1:22:07They build apartments and condo them

1:22:09then.

1:22:10>> Correct. [clears throat]

1:22:12>> Uh they build 300 the first third of the

1:22:14density. They built 300 and something

1:22:16apartments bedrooms

1:22:18>> 324

1:22:19>> and and condo them. Uh

1:22:23then

1:22:25this proposed condition would limit them

1:22:27to using 10% of those condos as

1:22:31short-term rentals. But as a

1:22:33>> we would limit them to using 10% of I

1:22:36think we would look at bedroom count. Um

1:22:39>> okay.

1:22:39>> Yeah. So 10% of the bedroom count as

1:22:41arranged in whatever units you want to

1:22:43do would be the the ceiling with this

1:22:47condition.

1:22:47>> Okay.

1:22:48>> I guess I don't have strong feelings on

1:22:50this because on the one hand like

1:22:52writing bespoke special weird little

1:22:54conditions for a single parcel is

1:22:57generally not a great idea. But on the

1:23:00other hand, this seems unlikely to

1:23:02affect the applicant because it strikes

1:23:06me as highly unlikely. They're just like

1:23:09Alex said, like, you know, if they build

1:23:11a hotel, they'll build a hotel, but

1:23:13running STRs is like labor intensive and

1:23:15and inefficient. And it strikes me as

1:23:18unlikely that they're going to be do

1:23:21that. I suppose they could build

1:23:22apartments and the economy could take a

1:23:24turn and they could find some of those

1:23:25apartments hard to fill and then they'd

1:23:27want to rent them and then I wouldn't

1:23:28want to have this condition on there.

1:23:30But it strikes me that it's not an

1:23:32important condition to have on there. Um

1:23:36just because, you know, condos are hard

1:23:39to finance and it strikes me they're not

1:23:41likely to do that. So they're not going

1:23:43to run it, you know, have a huge number

1:23:46of short-term rentals under any

1:23:47circumstances.

1:23:50So if we consider um the future land use

1:23:54map and what we see as this area as you

1:23:58know town center, traditional

1:24:00neighborhood

1:24:02with a mix of residential, commercial

1:24:04office, entertainment, does that impact

1:24:08I mean do those are those kinds of areas

1:24:11negatively impacted by a certain

1:24:13percentage of short-term rentals?

1:24:16you want to create that that kind of

1:24:19place if you've got seven

1:24:21>> they can put a hotel there so I would

1:24:22say no

1:24:24>> I think a hotel is different though

1:24:26>> I don't think a I mean you can agree or

1:24:29disagree but but if we're talking about

1:24:31they might build a bunch of condos and

1:24:32STR them that's in form very similar to

1:24:36a hotel it's not like we're talking

1:24:38detached homes that are being yard.

1:24:44>> I don't see this being an important

1:24:48condition either.

1:24:50>> They're going there. They're spending

1:24:51money. They're enjoying the what's there

1:24:55what's what's offered there. They're

1:24:56going out to other parts of town

1:24:58probably too.

1:25:00See that as as an issue?

1:25:03>> Yeah.

1:25:04>> I will make a motion on the PD. Um,

1:25:10I'm looking for my wording.

1:25:12Sorry. Uh,

1:25:15is what is needed from a legal

1:25:17standpoint just the removal of these

1:25:19parcels from the current PD? Is it as

1:25:22simple as that? If we decide to put the

1:25:25multi-use path elsewhere?

1:25:28>> Yeah, it I mean that leaves the

1:25:29multi-use path in the remaining PD, but

1:25:32I mean that's

1:25:34>> not going to happen.

1:25:34>> It's not necessarily a problem. Yeah.

1:25:36>> Okay. So, I'd make make to make a motion

1:25:39that we remove these

1:25:42>> two parcels from the current the

1:25:44existing plan development.

1:25:47>> Second.

1:25:53>> Yeah.

1:25:54>> Second. All right. Uh we'll do a voice.

1:25:57All those in favor say I.

1:25:59>> I

1:26:00guess.

1:26:02>> Yes. Okay. Um I'm ready to try. I think

1:26:05I've captured what we said.

1:26:07>> Okay.

1:26:07>> Okay. Um so I'd like to make a motion

1:26:11that we

1:26:14approve the

1:26:16um

1:26:18the West Clock special district overlay.

1:26:22Um

1:26:24and

1:26:26that we would like to

1:26:31include the following. Um, one is that

1:26:34the owner of 10130

1:26:36shall construct a multi-use path at the

1:26:39southeastern boundary of the property

1:26:41along Derpac Road

1:26:43and use staff's language within three

1:26:46years of the CO or certificate of

1:26:48completion for the first permitted

1:26:50construction activity following the

1:26:52adoption of proposed overlay.

1:26:55That's Ellen. two is staff's condition

1:26:59about open space which is currently

1:27:02staff's condition um

1:27:05number one

1:27:10three is to add the sentence about

1:27:15parking from the original overlay and so

1:27:18the sentence I'm referring to

1:27:21is

1:27:24um

1:27:26that The phrase existing in so from the

1:27:29original overlay in the private vehicle

1:27:31storage design requirement section

1:27:33the sentence existing vehicle storage

1:27:36areas shall not require improvements

1:27:38beyond restriping and provision of ADA

1:27:40mandated spaces

1:27:43and that would either go

1:27:46in section H parking standards

1:27:50or if it needs to be a parking design

1:27:52requirement section it could be that as

1:27:54well. I don't know if that needs to be

1:27:56separate. I don't know how the lettering

1:27:58of this thing works.

1:27:59>> Well,

1:28:01the way you phrase that, we'll lift that

1:28:03language and and put it into

1:28:06>> H. [clears throat] Okay. Yep.

1:28:09>> And then

1:28:12um and then we will fix item G in the

1:28:15new one as per Matt's wording earlier.

1:28:20So the sentence starting with upon the

1:28:21issuance

1:28:23is replaced with

1:28:28>> I wrote it down here. I can read it if

1:28:30>> please will you

1:28:32>> replacing in that sentence that Sarah

1:28:34referenced the words for the initial

1:28:36one-third of the maximum residential

1:28:38density permitted by this section with

1:28:41the words for not less than 50,000

1:28:43square feet of non-residential use.

1:28:49Um,

1:28:54okay. And then, and so where does that

1:28:58where does that stop? Where where would

1:29:00they pick that sentence back up again?

1:29:01>> And then it picks up again with the

1:29:02remaining two.

1:29:03>> Okay.

1:29:05Um, and then

1:29:12I think that

1:29:16is it. Um,

1:29:20yeah.

1:29:29>> That's a motion. Do I have a second?

1:29:35>> All right. Any discussion?

1:29:39>> Clarification.

1:29:42So 50 I'm trying to see where this is

1:29:46covered. 50,000 square feet of

1:29:49nonresidential use.

1:29:52Does that mean indoor non-residential

1:29:54use or does that mean a Frisbee golf

1:29:57course slash I'm just I'm just making

1:30:00sure we know what we what we're doing

1:30:03here.

1:30:05It it doesn't necessarily specify

1:30:07structure. In fact, because the trigger

1:30:10could also be a certificate of

1:30:11completion. I think would be another

1:30:14thing that we would

1:30:16>> Oh, no. It doesn't say.

1:30:17>> It does say occupancy.

1:30:18>> It says occupancy. So, that would be a

1:30:20structure. Yes.

1:30:21>> So, it's I'm just clearing it.

1:30:24>> Thank you for saying that.

1:30:26>> So, it would have to be an indoor can't

1:30:28be an outdoor occupied

1:30:30>> something

1:30:32a

1:30:34California can't come in and occupy and

1:30:36do this and that counts as the 50,000

1:30:39clubhouse.

1:30:40>> Yeah. We have an office thousand of it.

1:30:43Thousand other square feet

1:30:45golf.

1:30:48>> Okay. Just I'm cool. That's a good

1:30:50question.

1:30:51>> Uh other question sorry the

1:30:57minimum of three acres combined

1:30:59maintained open space community

1:31:00gathering space. Is that reflected in

1:31:03this or is that just another is that is

1:31:06that an additional condition? That's

1:31:08>> it's the that's item one.

1:31:11Right. So, actually maybe what you're

1:31:12getting at is

1:31:13>> Was that in your motion?

1:31:14>> Yeah. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I missed that.

1:31:16Thank you.

1:31:16>> That was in my position.

1:31:17>> And I would only maybe on that one the

1:31:21last thing I would say is like any

1:31:23lettering that you all need to fix just

1:31:25that that would be part of it.

1:31:27>> 100%.

1:31:27>> I don't think that that's L anymore.

1:31:30>> Right.

1:31:31>> Right.

1:31:31>> I do have one question real quick. Do

1:31:33you all have um temporary special events

1:31:36defined elsewhere in the code?

1:31:37>> Yes.

1:31:39And is there a limit? I have a question

1:31:40on the same thing. Is there a limit in

1:31:42the zoning for how many of those they

1:31:45can do a year? Because I noticed that

1:31:48the submission from the applicant has a

1:31:50section K in their ordinance that staff

1:31:52dropped in this um two-sided version. I

1:31:55don't know if that was intentional, but

1:31:57can we talk about not intentional, but

1:31:59>> yeah, that would be carried forward. K

1:32:01would be carried forward.

1:32:02>> Okay.

1:32:02>> That's what they had asked for. That

1:32:04wasn't being modified. We didn't have a

1:32:07condition to remove that, but they were

1:32:09asking for essentially two per month,

1:32:12>> right? So, they can do holiday markets

1:32:13and trick-or-treating and whatever. Uh,

1:32:16two per month rather than being limited

1:32:19by what's in the for underlying zoning

1:32:21and and so as you understand it, that's

1:32:23part of Sarah's motion.

1:32:24>> Yeah.

1:32:25>> Okay. Good. Just want to make sure.

1:32:27>> And then just for clarification on the

1:32:30uh parking addition, are we keeping the

1:32:32it as parking and not private vehicle

1:32:34storage? Yes,

1:32:38>> they kind of mean different things.

1:32:39>> Yes, they do.

1:32:42>> Even though I I respect the applicant's

1:32:44point there, but I think Yeah.

1:32:47>> All right, we'll do a voice vote

1:32:51or roll call, whatever that is. Sorry.

1:32:52Roll call. Is that what you want?

1:32:54>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, great. Um Gary,

1:32:57>> yes. Please. Oh, sorry. Abstaining. It's

1:33:01not bad.

1:33:02Yes. Paul,

1:33:04>> yes.

1:33:05>> Gofflin,

1:33:06>> yes.

1:33:08>> Sams,

1:33:09>> yes.

1:33:10>> Gladria,

1:33:11>> yes.

1:33:21>> Um, okay. Item number two, 1295

1:33:26US

1:33:2829.

1:33:43All right. So, staff report for 1295 US

1:33:47Highway 29 North. Um, this is a reszone

1:33:51request. um it is a type one request

1:33:54looking to change the future land use

1:33:56map from neighborhood center to major

1:33:58corridor as well as zoning map change

1:34:01from agriculture residential to

1:34:03commercial general. Um this is a

1:34:05commercial development including two

1:34:08standalone structures service parking

1:34:09lots and one shared access drive. It's

1:34:11important to note request this is not a

1:34:14binding site plan. This is just a

1:34:15concept submitted as part of the

1:34:17application. It's also important to note

1:34:19it includes only 2.38 acres of the

1:34:21current existing 4.17 acre parcel. So it

1:34:25is a split zone request. We'll talk

1:34:26about that a little bit more as well. Um

1:34:29also this application mentions a

1:34:31possible future variance for that

1:34:33buffer. We actually just received that

1:34:34in our office today. So they have put in

1:34:36that variance request that will be

1:34:38curred by the hearings board.

1:34:40Um this is going to be an aerial shot.

1:34:43Y'all are familiar with this. We looked

1:34:44at this a few months ago. We've got US

1:34:47Highway 29 bordering this property. We

1:34:49have Pinewood Estates, the manufactured

1:34:51home community that is also adjacent.

1:34:54Currently, um the parcel in question is

1:34:57vacant. It is full fully wooded. Um

1:34:59there is a gas station that is located

1:35:01just to the south um off of Trail Creek

1:35:04Drive, which is a private drive. Um that

1:35:06also is going to come up in our

1:35:07conversation this evening. Um there's

1:35:09also a bus station currently located

1:35:12right in front of this gas station um as

1:35:15well.

1:35:17A few photos of the existing site. Um so

1:35:20again, Pinewood Estates, you can see

1:35:21that welcome sign leading up Trail Creek

1:35:23Drive and then the aforementioned bus

1:35:26station is right or bus stop is right

1:35:28there as well.

1:35:31So this reflects the future land use. Um

1:35:34you'll see the kind of split nature of

1:35:36this request. Um the image you see on

1:35:39the left is the parcel as it exists. Um

1:35:42looking at the right is going to be how

1:35:45the parcel is split. Um the applicant

1:35:48has started a replatting process but

1:35:50that is not finalized. So the request

1:35:52before you this evening would be to

1:35:54split zone and also to split the future

1:35:55land use on one existing parcel.

1:35:59Same thing we're looking at here with

1:36:00the zoning map going from AR to just a

1:36:02portion of that changing to commercial

1:36:04general

1:36:06and looking at environmental areas. We

1:36:08have a few in the nearby area but none

1:36:11directly within these property lines.

1:36:14And this is going to be the plan um that

1:36:16was sent in. We see minor changes from

1:36:18what was received earlier uh this

1:36:20summer. Um you a lot in the staff report

1:36:24we spoke about some issues with access

1:36:27um that was also addressed earlier in

1:36:29the staff report earlier this summer

1:36:30when we first saw it. Um so this

1:36:32specific access drive that is shared

1:36:34between the two post facilities um is

1:36:38still from this application attached to

1:36:41residential parcels that would be in

1:36:43this area. Um, so definitely needing

1:36:45some clarification on that, some

1:36:47separation, which TPW noted in their

1:36:49comments for this application. Um,

1:36:52another thing to consider is Trail Creek

1:36:54Drive is not a public road. That

1:36:55actually is a private drive that is

1:36:57zoned AR. So getting commercial access

1:37:00from um an AR parcel is not permitted in

1:37:03our code which explains the technical

1:37:05condition we'll go through where we are

1:37:07asking for there to be or proposing um a

1:37:10condition to allow for commercial access

1:37:12out of that AR road.

1:37:16Um more site conditions as they

1:37:19currently stand. Um again as I said this

1:37:21is a vacant property currently and it is

1:37:23fully wooded.

1:37:25And um again a reminder this is a piece

1:37:28of a larger puzzle. Um the two special

1:37:30uses that have moved forward and been

1:37:31approved by mayor and commission at this

1:37:33point uh were kind of part and parcel

1:37:35with this a few months ago. Um this is

1:37:37the commercial area we are discussing

1:37:40this evening.

1:37:43In terms of staff analysis, uh, with

1:37:45compatibility with the comprehensive

1:37:47plan, um, that's pretty inconclusive

1:37:49just because nature of a reszone

1:37:50application is they don't need to commit

1:37:52to us on what it's necessarily going to

1:37:54be used for. So, it's hard to, um, think

1:37:56about community benefit with that. Um, I

1:37:58can't really come up with a whether or

1:38:00not it's compatible there. In terms of

1:38:02future land use map, um, the shared

1:38:04access with limited curb cuts does align

1:38:06with future land use. Um the development

1:38:09as proposed in the non-binding site plan

1:38:11seems scale appropriate for the context.

1:38:14Um and it is adjacent to other major

1:38:15corridor parcels. Um so we do staff does

1:38:18find it compatible with future land use

1:38:20map as it stands. In terms of some notes

1:38:22on technical reviews we received from

1:38:24other departments. Transportation and

1:38:27public works does require a 50 foot

1:38:29separation between residential and

1:38:31commercial drives. Um that separation is

1:38:33not reflected in the application in

1:38:35front of you this evening. So just

1:38:37wanting some clarity on that. Um there

1:38:39also were notes from transportation and

1:38:41public works around safety concerns for

1:38:43the proposed use because of the hightra

1:38:46area. Um and there is a recommendation

1:38:48for sidewalks. We saw that also

1:38:50replicated from um our transit

1:38:52department as well. And public utility

1:38:54department also notes that sewer is not

1:38:56available for this parcel. Um and a

1:38:58sewer main extension would be required

1:39:01um for the use.

1:39:05staff finds it partially compatible with

1:39:06the zoning mapping ordinance. Um it

1:39:09would move an current uh non-conforming

1:39:12AR parcel into compliance. Um it

1:39:14increases the lock coverage and tree

1:39:16canopy requirements which could allow

1:39:19compatible compatible development or

1:39:21overdevelopment um and loss of green

1:39:23belt. So a little bit of partial there.

1:39:25Um and then also the access issues I

1:39:28mentioned earlier in ter in terms of

1:39:30going through an AR parcel to get to a

1:39:31commercial use and um the split zone

1:39:34nature of the request um doesn't quite

1:39:37make it compatible with our zoning map.

1:39:40Staff also finds it partially compatible

1:39:41with adopted government plan studies and

1:39:44programs that is mostly looking at

1:39:46transportation plans. thinking about our

1:39:48metropolitan transportation plan, our

1:39:50transit development plan. Um, and oh,

1:39:54there's one more that I'm forgetting.

1:39:55Apologies. Um, but that is mostly around

1:39:58um with the major corridor designation

1:40:02wanting there to be some sort of

1:40:03pedestrian aspect and connectivity.

1:40:05However, with the nature of this

1:40:06corridor, that doesn't really match up.

1:40:11And all that said, our staff

1:40:13recommendation is approval with some

1:40:15technical conditions providing a

1:40:18sidewalk along Trail Creek Drive um and

1:40:21the US 29 pathway frontages um to

1:40:23mitigate pedestrian vehicle conflicts.

1:40:26Again, per those notes we received from

1:40:27TWW and our transit department. um

1:40:31dealing with the split zone nature of

1:40:33the proposal. Uh applicant shall submit

1:40:36a final plat that remedies that split

1:40:38zone split zone condition and the plat

1:40:41shall be recorded prior to the submittal

1:40:43of plans for commercial development in

1:40:45the proposed area.

1:40:48Commercial traffic shall be permitted to

1:40:50traverse 210 ft of Trail Creek Drive,

1:40:53which is a private roadway zoned AR.

1:40:55That's that access I was mentioning.

1:40:56that 210 ft gets us to where their

1:40:59proposed access is. Um so we would allow

1:41:01for that traffic to occur but not any

1:41:04further. And then um only commercial

1:41:08rural uses and general regulations are

1:41:10permitted until sewer is present on the

1:41:12site. So that's a condition and

1:41:13conversation with those notes from PUD.

1:41:18Um and I will leave you all with the

1:41:20site plan as proposed and thus concludes

1:41:23staff of work. Right.

1:41:24>> Thank you. Now we'll hear from the

1:41:25applicant.

1:41:30>> Good evening. I'm Jeff Carter with

1:41:32Carter Engineering Consultants 1010

1:41:34Commerce Drive in Bogart. And we came

1:41:37before you uh I guess it was a few

1:41:39months ago um to uh talk about this

1:41:41project. Um just uh just a reminder,

1:41:44this project is part at least we

1:41:47consider it part of Country Club with

1:41:49Estates. It's the same ownership group.

1:41:51Um just to kind of give you a brief

1:41:53update, uh the special use permits uh

1:41:56for both Pinewood and Country Corners

1:41:59were approved last Tuesday. Um the

1:42:01water, which is a huge part of this, uh

1:42:04for Pinewood Estates, um contracts have

1:42:07been signed, permits have been obtained,

1:42:10precon meetings have been done. There's

1:42:12actually pipe on the site. I've talked

1:42:14to the contractor myself. Uh so that is

1:42:17underway. Um, so there will be water uh

1:42:20uh domestic uh public water and pinewood

1:42:24estates hopefully in the next uh next

1:42:26few months as construction goes. Um, so

1:42:30uh I did want to mention that this is

1:42:33really um we consider it one project

1:42:37even though it's it is a it is a resone.

1:42:40Uh we were hoping this was gonna we

1:42:42could kind of bind this all together um

1:42:44in the previous meeting but because of

1:42:46schedules we couldn't do that. But it's

1:42:48it's still very significant to to the

1:42:51developer who by the way Mike Warren who

1:42:53spoke last time he really really wanted

1:42:56to be here but he has a anniversary trip

1:42:59and he made the right decision. So uh

1:43:01but he did want to say that he wished he

1:43:04could be here. Um just a couple of

1:43:06points in the staff report that I want

1:43:08to make sure that you guys are aware of.

1:43:10First of all the sanitary sewer I know

1:43:12that was mentioned a couple of times in

1:43:13the report. Those plans have been

1:43:16submitted, have been reviewed, and have

1:43:18been approved. We have not paid the fees

1:43:20and not had the precon meeting yet. Uh

1:43:22but it is coming up through um the uh

1:43:25Pinewood Estates community. And so um

1:43:28that is um that is in the works. So we

1:43:31don't see any problems with with that.

1:43:33As far as the traffic goes, um just

1:43:35wanted to remind you, we talked a little

1:43:37bit about this last month, uh but we've

1:43:39done a very significant traffic uh

1:43:41impact study. We've studied every

1:43:43intersection from country corners all

1:43:45the way up to 72. So, uh, and that the

1:43:49traffic's not not an issue, uh, for this

1:43:52as a result of this development. So, um,

1:43:55we don't see as far as the staff

1:43:57conditions, we understand them. We don't

1:44:00have any issues with them. We

1:44:02understand, you know, the need for

1:44:03sidewalks. We're okay with that.

1:44:06um the the property owner really feels

1:44:08like this development will serve the the

1:44:10the residents in in Pinewood and Country

1:44:13Corner. So, what they're thinking is uh

1:44:16retail, medical clinic, that type of

1:44:18thing where people could, you know,

1:44:19could um frequent this uh this

1:44:22development. And so, um so we uh we

1:44:25appreciate your support and um we'll be

1:44:28happy to try to answer any questions

1:44:30that you may have. So, thank you for

1:44:31your time.

1:44:32>> Thank you.

1:44:34Is there anyone here to speak in support

1:44:36of the application?

1:44:41Is there anyone here to speak in

1:44:42opposition to the application?

1:44:47Okay. Hearing none.

1:44:54We got a question for staff. Was

1:44:58there an additional variance that you

1:45:01were I think I maybe didn't catch the

1:45:04the variance that came in today. What

1:45:06was that one?

1:45:08>> Um it was a variance application for a

1:45:11buffer I believe. But that that's not

1:45:13part of this application. That's

1:45:15something that hearing board is

1:45:16handling. Yep.

1:45:18>> It was just mentioned in their

1:45:19application. So I wanted to note it.

1:45:26Um,

1:45:27>> regarding the future land use,

1:45:32we This was Bruce, we looked at this

1:45:37actual piece of property. I mean, it it

1:45:40rang out at me and you've got a better

1:45:42memory than I do, but we we actually

1:45:44toyed, I believe,

1:45:47and felt it was a piece that could serve

1:45:53and to clarify some of the reasons why

1:45:56it is we put it as as neighborhood.

1:46:00Um,

1:46:02but I we we took a minute on this and

1:46:04and I don't know even how it came out

1:46:07but it popped out. We discussed it if

1:46:10you remember and that's how I remember

1:46:13and we we we

1:46:16went both ways on it like I I think um

1:46:19we just sort of said well let's just

1:46:21let's go neighborhood because what a

1:46:24great piece of property to serve that

1:46:26neighborhood like you mentioned the

1:46:27applicant um and unlike a property last

1:46:33month where I was pretty strong moving

1:46:36downtown I was I'm pretty strong about

1:46:39not moving downtown

1:46:41uh future land use and expanding into

1:46:43those neighborhoods. This is not

1:46:47this is not the same. So

1:46:50I I may seem inconsistent about that,

1:46:52but this this just kind of carries that

1:46:55corridor over. So my background and in

1:46:59all of the future land use, I don't see

1:47:01an issue changing that.

1:47:06Sure.

1:47:10I'll make the motion uh that we um

1:47:14motion to change from neighborhood

1:47:16center to major corridor.

1:47:23>> Was that Sarah with the

1:47:25>> Yes.

1:47:27>> Do we need to make sure that these

1:47:29petitions go in election?

1:47:31>> So, this is just a few days. So, Oh, I'm

1:47:33sorry. You're right. The refund

1:47:38All right. All those in favor say I. I.

1:47:41>> You oppos.

1:47:43All right.

1:47:46I'll make a motion to approve this

1:47:48change with the staff conditions.

1:47:51>> The reason.

1:47:52>> Okay.

1:47:54Second.

1:47:54>> Okay. Any question?

1:47:56>> Yeah. Just a quick question about the

1:47:58third condition. that commercial traffic

1:48:00shall be permitted to traverse 210 feet

1:48:03of Trail Creek Drive, a private roadway

1:48:05zone AR. Um,

1:48:09is step suggesting that condition

1:48:11because the same owner owns

1:48:15like it's a private road. If they were

1:48:18to sell this parcel,

1:48:22does that create a problem?

1:48:24Well, so once if this condition were to

1:48:27go forward, the way it would be played

1:48:29out in plan review is we we would have

1:48:31an easement

1:48:33that we would require so that that sets

1:48:36it up for if there's a change down the

1:48:37line in ownership or some other

1:48:39situation. We've got the framework in

1:48:42place to recognize that limitation in

1:48:45the way of an easement document.

1:48:47>> Right. Yeah.

1:48:48>> Okay, sounds good. Okay.

1:48:53All right. We'll do a voice vote again.

1:48:55So, all those in favor say I.

1:48:57>> I.

1:48:58>> Any oppose.

1:49:00>> All right.

1:49:04All right. Next is

1:49:09Oh my god, all the

1:49:12[laughter]

1:49:12Atlanta.

1:49:13>> Yeah. Yeah. The various addresses on

1:49:15Atlanta Highway. [laughter]

1:49:24So this item is coming back to you um

1:49:28and tabled at the previous meeting. Uh

1:49:30this is a two-part request. So this it

1:49:34involves an existing plan development

1:49:36which is noted on the screen as well as

1:49:38a reszone request that is establishing

1:49:42uh special district overlay um over a

1:49:45very similar but not exact um area that

1:49:47was uh the PD previously.

1:49:51Um

1:49:53so this request was initiated by the

1:49:55mayor and the commission through a

1:49:56resolution in March of this year. And in

1:49:59that resolution, there were a series of

1:50:01items that were to be incorporated into

1:50:03the creation of this mall area special

1:50:05district overlay. Um, we went through

1:50:07those at last month's meeting. Those

1:50:09items have not changed. They're on the

1:50:10screen. Um,

1:50:13those have been incorporated into the

1:50:15draft of the special district overlay

1:50:19that is attached to the report. Um, and

1:50:22we'll get to that in a minute and we'll

1:50:23go kind of section by section, but just

1:50:25to give you a sense of where we are,

1:50:27Georgia Square Mall property, but this

1:50:29also includes

1:50:31um, properties here. So, what you're

1:50:33seeing in the dash line is the boundary,

1:50:36sorry, the boundary of the existing PD.

1:50:39Um, what you'll see in some images that

1:50:41follow is that boundary is adjusted

1:50:44somewhat along the frontage because the

1:50:47Levan Group who purchased the mall and

1:50:50came through as the applicant to create

1:50:52the PD has also expanded their holdings

1:50:55in the area to include these properties

1:50:57along the frontage that weren't prior.

1:51:00You look here, you see sort of a gap.

1:51:03The Burger King was not included. Um, I

1:51:06think that is the Zachb was not included

1:51:08at the time. Pep Boys was not included

1:51:11at the time. That has changed.

1:51:13So that's why this dashed line is now

1:51:16larger and picks up those properties.

1:51:17But every other boundary is the same as

1:51:20the existing PD.

1:51:22This map shows current future land use.

1:51:24So with the 2045 future land use plan,

1:51:28uh this area was given the urban center

1:51:30designation and we'll talk about that in

1:51:32a minute.

1:51:34The reszone request would go from what

1:51:36you see on the left, which is the PD

1:51:38with the underlying CG, to the boundary

1:51:41on the right. The hatching indicates um

1:51:44the overlay, the underlying zoning would

1:51:46not be changing. So, you would have CG

1:51:48with a special district overlay sitting

1:51:50on top.

1:51:52And then this shows the environmental

1:51:54areas. Um there's been some discussion

1:51:58um in the town hall meetings and and

1:52:00certainly in some of the neighborhood

1:52:01meetings. This is the Lake Mueller

1:52:02subdivision here to the north. Um, this

1:52:06lake exists outside of the special

1:52:08district overlay, but there is a little

1:52:10bit of buffer off of the outfall that

1:52:13comes out of that that that is inside

1:52:14the overlay. Other than that, there is

1:52:16really no other environmental area of

1:52:18any kind of consequence inside the

1:52:21overlay.

1:52:23Some photographs

1:52:25of the mall as it exists.

1:52:29And this is the analysis from prior

1:52:31month. Um, just want to include that for

1:52:33the record. There's no specific

1:52:35development proposal here. Um, and

1:52:37that's kind of the nature of of an

1:52:39overlay. Overlay sets guidelines. The

1:52:42overlay sets expectations and and puts

1:52:44them into code, but there is nothing in

1:52:46the way of a binding design. Um, there

1:52:49is a purpose statement that is a part of

1:52:50every one of our special district

1:52:52overlays. That's what you see on the

1:52:53screen. That's been in your packet. This

1:52:55has not changed from the prior month. Um

1:52:58the notion here second sentence the use

1:53:00of design requirements will help to

1:53:01ensure that new development is visually

1:53:03and functionally compatible with unique

1:53:05character of the transition area that

1:53:07contains commercial residential and

1:53:09institutional uses.

1:53:12So photographs uh slides I should say of

1:53:15renderings and elements that are part of

1:53:17the existing PD on the property. Um,

1:53:20we'll go through these fairly quickly

1:53:21because you saw these last month, but

1:53:24the existing plan development site plan

1:53:26is what you see on the screen. Mixeduse

1:53:29development, broken up footprints, um,

1:53:32anticipated those uses and and proposed

1:53:34to kind of lock those into place uh, as

1:53:37as well as having some expectation for

1:53:40how uh, vehicles and and pedestrians

1:53:42would move throughout.

1:53:45There was a phasing

1:53:47idea that came with that that was

1:53:49incorporated into the PD and that's what

1:53:51the various colors represent on the

1:53:52screen.

1:53:55And then this image shows the mix of

1:53:57uses that that are a part of that PD um

1:54:00colorcoded uh on the left. So you can

1:54:03kind of see on the right the plan how

1:54:05those were supposed to work together.

1:54:07[clears throat] Then the architecture

1:54:08that was proposed, we'll go through

1:54:10these images really quickly. These were

1:54:12all binding elements that were indexed

1:54:13against numbered buildings you see on

1:54:16the right hand side of the screen. Uh a

1:54:18variety of multif family or mixeduse

1:54:20buildings. Um some commercial and then

1:54:24moving into some town home type

1:54:26structures that were anticipated.

1:54:29Future land use designation as I

1:54:31mentioned is urban center and the

1:54:34language associated with that urban

1:54:35center designation was was a part of the

1:54:37planning commission's discussion last

1:54:39month. So, I wanted to make sure we had

1:54:41it in front of us as well if you want it

1:54:42for reference. Um, but what we're

1:54:45looking at here for an urban center, and

1:54:47this is the only part of town that has

1:54:49this designation. So, let me just make

1:54:50that clear as well. Um, they are meant

1:54:54to be dense. They are meant to have a

1:54:56mix of uses. They are meant to

1:54:58incorporate green spaces and plazas. And

1:55:01as referenced to your third spaces, um,

1:55:04surface parking lots are generally not

1:55:05encouraged. Um, so the the notion here

1:55:09is it's a destination use that involves

1:55:11density and once you arrive there,

1:55:13you're you're you're walking around and

1:55:15experiencing this space that has more of

1:55:17an urban character.

1:55:19Um, future land use, it's worth saying

1:55:22these are goal statements. These are not

1:55:24regulations, but these are goal

1:55:27statements and they're relatively

1:55:29recently adopted.

1:55:32So the analysis of the overlay again

1:55:35this is from prior month uh what was

1:55:38requested as part of the the um

1:55:42resolution is what you're going to see

1:55:43on the screen here. So an Athens transit

1:55:45facility is something that was requested

1:55:47to be a part of it. Um what is being

1:55:50suggested here is that um that Athens

1:55:54transit facility rather than being part

1:55:56of the overlay as a requirement it would

1:55:58run in tandem as part of a development

1:56:00agreement. Um so because we don't have

1:56:04the predictability of where it will go

1:56:05and it's hard to do that in an overlay

1:56:07but would be very much a part of this

1:56:08proposal as it moves forward. RM3

1:56:12density was requested 50 beds per acre.

1:56:15Um affordable housing units. The notion

1:56:18here is that payment in loo would be

1:56:20made available to this development.

1:56:22Presently the way the code is set up

1:56:24commercial general would not be able to

1:56:25participate with the payment in loo

1:56:27option of inclusionary zoning. This

1:56:30overlay would offer that option.

1:56:33Both ground floor residential use would

1:56:35be allowed and then there an allowance

1:56:37for attached single family units. The PD

1:56:40said had a max of four. This allowance

1:56:43would go to eight. There's also the

1:56:45notion here of having a ratio of beds

1:56:49and baths in our multif family that is

1:56:52um

1:56:54you know not ever to be a one in one.

1:56:56You would have no more than two full

1:56:58baths regardless of the unit type and

1:57:01that there would be no more than two and

1:57:02a half parking spaces across the multif

1:57:04family calculation. Um these are all

1:57:07standards that we also have in the

1:57:09overlay for the varsity property, the

1:57:12broad streetet overlay. And the notion

1:57:14there was it it does tend to result in

1:57:17those multif family dwellings um

1:57:19targeting something other than a

1:57:20student. Um not necessarily that

1:57:23students couldn't live there, but we do

1:57:24tend to see the one bed, one bath ratio

1:57:27in most purpose-built student housing.

1:57:30Building height allowance. So the notion

1:57:33here was that you'd be able to go to 100

1:57:35ft in areas that aren't within 250 ft on

1:57:39the edges of residential property next

1:57:41to the overlay. So that higher in the

1:57:43middle, lower on the edge. And lower in

1:57:46this instance means a maximum of 45 45

1:57:49feet tall in those locations, which is a

1:57:52reduction from what the PD would allow.

1:57:55Um, tree and landscaping standards have

1:57:57been relaxed, um, flexed a little bit.

1:58:00Um, thinking back to those images,

1:58:02there's not a lot of conserved canopy to

1:58:03conserve on the site. Um so the notion

1:58:06here is what we're going to get is new

1:58:08plantings and that a 50% tree canopy

1:58:11minimum would be required per

1:58:13development site.

1:58:15Um design standards would still be in

1:58:18place to specify architectural materials

1:58:19for any parking structures. And moving

1:58:23forward to encapsulate what what was

1:58:26heard last month in and sort of the

1:58:28justification for tableabling

1:58:30we heard five things being raised by the

1:58:32planning commission at that time. Um

1:58:36the the elements that were suggested

1:58:38were looking at the plan development. Is

1:58:41there a method or could the overlay

1:58:44carry forward features in the PD and

1:58:47still create an overlay? And so the five

1:58:49things that we heard are on the screen.

1:58:52one, a requirement for a mix of uses to

1:58:54avoid a single-use development of the

1:58:56property um and to avoid any kind of

1:58:58disproportionate amount of residential

1:59:00use in an area that's otherwise well

1:59:03suited for viable commercial. Um that

1:59:05was a conversation point. Two,

1:59:08provision of some sort of shared

1:59:10contiguous green space in an amount that

1:59:12supports integration and activation of

1:59:14residential and non-residential uses.

1:59:16Um, as worded, the overlay wouldn't

1:59:19require that other than the plaza

1:59:22standard that we currently have have in

1:59:23the code for large commercial

1:59:25developments and that's a modest plaza

1:59:28standard. It does exist um but it

1:59:30doesn't necessarily require a central

1:59:32green space and so that that was a

1:59:34discussion point of all last month.

1:59:36Inclusion of standards for the resulting

1:59:38incremental development to be internally

1:59:40walkable. So again, we don't have a

1:59:41binding plan out of this and um I can't

1:59:45remember which commissioner it was that

1:59:47raised the question of pathways and

1:59:50walkways, but the question was raised,

1:59:53how could that be a part of the overlay?

1:59:56fourth um provision for some sort of

2:00:00orderly arrangement and in an adaptable

2:00:02development approach because that's the

2:00:04reason for relieving this PD is to allow

2:00:06this to adapt and respond to market um

2:00:09realities

2:00:11but with the understanding that that is

2:00:13going to provide attractive development

2:00:15site options as well. So how do you

2:00:18balance that predictability with

2:00:20adaptability and and and something able

2:00:22to respond? That was definitely

2:00:25something that was discussed. And then

2:00:26there was a very singular comment about

2:00:29uh restricting uses to not include any

2:00:32new drive-thru facilities. Um so all of

2:00:36those points were made and I think they

2:00:39were they were in response to that urban

2:00:41center definition, but they were also in

2:00:44response to what the PD had included. Um

2:00:47so we wanted those to be brought back to

2:00:50you. That's what you asked for.

2:00:52Um, in that proposed text that is

2:00:56attached to the report, it is the same

2:00:59text that you had at last month's

2:01:01meeting. It hasn't changed for

2:01:03discussion. I've got all of those

2:01:05sections available to us. Um, I do want

2:01:08to note what was profered was a list of

2:01:11uses with the exception of the following

2:01:13that are on the screen. So, CG would be

2:01:15allowed except for those nine. Um,

2:01:21give you a minute on that.

2:01:24And then the other language that we have

2:01:27on the screen looks at residential

2:01:29density, minimum lot size, building

2:01:31heights, the buffer requirement that was

2:01:33talked about. All of that is unchanged

2:01:36from the prior month. Um,

2:01:39we have tree and landscaping standards,

2:01:41the 20% overall tree canopy, but 15% per

2:01:44development site guaranteed with the

2:01:46thinking that what we're going to have

2:01:48are street trees and some other trees

2:01:50that are going to make up that other 5%

2:01:52over the development of the sitist

2:01:54whole. Um, the standard for parking

2:01:57structure, the same language exists in

2:01:59the West Broad overlay. Um, so the

2:02:02notion here is that that would be

2:02:03treated the same. Should there be a

2:02:05parking structure, there would be

2:02:07standards on the exterior materials for

2:02:09that.

2:02:11And then the residential standards, the

2:02:13ground floor dwellings would be allowed

2:02:14throughout this whole overlay with the

2:02:16exception of the first 250 ft off of

2:02:19Atlanta Highway.

2:02:21Um, and so that's uh something that was

2:02:25in the resolution um to be carried

2:02:28forward. So that's that wording. Um the

2:02:31same language about town homes being

2:02:32able to connect have up to eight

2:02:34attached town home units. Um that multif

2:02:38family could have the the the two no

2:02:41more than two full baths and then the

2:02:42parking standard as well. And then this

2:02:46is where the language about the transit

2:02:48facility.

2:02:49The notion here of a twoacre site was

2:02:52part of the resolution. So that's been

2:02:53carried forward. Um but there would be

2:02:58um

2:02:59triggers to this and I think that

2:03:01language right there. The selected site

2:03:02shall be approved by Athens clar county

2:03:05and the ownership of the site

2:03:06transferred to the unified government

2:03:08prior to the issuance of a co for the

2:03:10first phase of development within the

2:03:12mall area special district overlay. Um

2:03:15and the goal here is that Athens Transit

2:03:17would be able to have access uh for

2:03:19appropriate transit routes within the

2:03:21overlay to function properly. that would

2:03:23be done as a separate development

2:03:25agreement.

2:03:28That's next item. So, I'm going to stop

2:03:30there. There was information that was

2:03:32provided in response um to y'all's

2:03:34questions last month. Happy to answer

2:03:37any questions that you may have about

2:03:38that information. Um in the interest of

2:03:43being able to kind of work through

2:03:46anything that you have, we have the

2:03:47ability to do that this evening. Um, if

2:03:50there's any sort of language that you

2:03:51want to talk about, um, knowing that

2:03:54this is rather complex, we're prepared

2:03:57to kind of work through it on the screen

2:03:58if that's helpful. If it's not helpful,

2:04:00then we don't have to do that. But, uh,

2:04:03happy to answer any questions as as you

2:04:05may have.

2:04:09>> Um, all right. Since we are awkwardly

2:04:11the applicant in this, um, we will go

2:04:14straight to public comments. So, um, and

2:04:16do you speaking in support of the

2:04:19application?

2:04:22>> Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Um, my

2:04:23name is John Williams at 30 Schles Drive

2:04:26in At Georgia here tonight representing

2:04:28the mall develop developer in this case

2:04:31and not the applicant. Uh, just want to

2:04:33go through a couple of of things. I

2:04:36understand that this is difficult and we

2:04:38all wanted the plan that we came up with

2:04:40that we worked so long to do uh with

2:04:43$200 million worth of public benefit in

2:04:45it. Uh and Tad doing the doing the lift

2:04:47on the

2:04:49the development piece, but it's

2:04:51unfinanced can be done. I mean, you guys

2:04:54know who the development team is on this

2:04:55and if they can't get it financed, it's

2:04:57not going to be done. So tonight we're

2:04:59asking, county's asking and the county

2:05:03as a public private partnership also had

2:05:07an opportunity. They could have issued

2:05:09some bonds. They decided they didn't

2:05:10want to issue bonds. So we're in this

2:05:13point where we can't do anything with

2:05:14this property. So please consider uh the

2:05:18overlay as the mayor commission

2:05:21recommended it to be done. An overlay

2:05:24it's not just for I mean we're not the

2:05:26only beneficiary here. The developer is

2:05:29getting extra building height, which is

2:05:30only 5T more than what you're going to

2:05:32look at later on tonight with some

2:05:33height increases in CG's zone. They're

2:05:35getting no ground floor commercial

2:05:37possibly if they want to do that. Um,

2:05:41they're getting no vine and sight plan.

2:05:44They're getting conser no conserve tree

2:05:46canopy and there's nothing there to

2:05:47save. They're getting to attach eight

2:05:49town houses instead of four. no minimum

2:05:51lot size and an increased density which

2:05:55according to the future land use map uh

2:05:57should be the second highest density in

2:05:59the county which is 50 beds per acre for

2:06:01RM3.

2:06:03Okay, so that's what the upside is for

2:06:05the development side. The county side

2:06:08you're getting limiting objectionable

2:06:10uses in CG zone. You're getting a

2:06:13transit site that you have to have to

2:06:14get transit all the way out to the

2:06:16county line for free. You're getting uh

2:06:20no bed bath parity and limited parking

2:06:22which we've already proven works and has

2:06:24been done uh in Millage. You're getting

2:06:26parking structure screening. You're

2:06:29getting no public dollars going into

2:06:32this project and a remaining TAD that

2:06:35for everything they build is going to

2:06:36fill up a bucket. Then that TAD dollars

2:06:39can be used for public improvements and

2:06:41public projects out there like transit

2:06:44station.

2:06:46you're getting all other CG zoning

2:06:49standards enforced which include open

2:06:51space requirements, landscape area

2:06:53requirements, plaza space requirements,

2:06:56which I know Bruce said wasn't very

2:06:57much, but if we had just as much square

2:07:01footage up as the existing mall on this

2:07:03project, it would require 100,000 square

2:07:05foot plaza.

2:07:07And that's that's over, you know, two

2:07:09and a half acres worth of plastic space

2:07:10just for the mall itself, not including

2:07:12any other development that would be

2:07:14required by the code. You're getting

2:07:16sidewalk interconnectivity, which we'll

2:07:18have to do on private roads or public

2:07:20roads around there. Um, and you're

2:07:22getting um lower building heights

2:07:25adjacent to residential, lower than

2:07:27what's out there today. So, the what's

2:07:29on the table today, what the mayor and

2:07:31commission requesting staff to put in

2:07:34front of you was that Anyone

2:07:39else here to speak in support of the

2:07:41application?

2:07:45Anyone else here? Anyone here to speak

2:07:47in opposition to the application?

2:07:51I'm right up.

2:07:56My name is Lisa Sprislucky. I live at

2:07:58186 Cherokee Ridge, right off Huntington

2:08:00Road. And I'm going to start out by

2:08:02saying I am not fully against what is

2:08:05going on out there. Something needs to

2:08:07be done. It doesn't need to be a mall.

2:08:10Um we need to address more housing in

2:08:14this in this um county. My biggest

2:08:17concern are the amount of traffic that

2:08:20is going to increase on that single road

2:08:22that comes in and out of our

2:08:24neighborhood and other neighborhoods

2:08:25that go down Huntington Road. It is

2:08:28difficult on almost any day to get in

2:08:30and out of that neighborhood with that

2:08:31single light going onto the Atlanta

2:08:33Highway, especially right now as

2:08:35everything has been under construction

2:08:36for the last four years. Hopefully, that

2:08:39will be done within the next year and it

2:08:40will improve until we add another 2500

2:08:44residents. I don't know what the number

2:08:46of residents are that's going to be

2:08:47added to this space, but along with

2:08:51retail, restaurants,

2:08:53um other

2:08:57things that you know people can come out

2:08:59there to do is going to increase the

2:09:02amount of traffic that's on that road

2:09:04and make it even more difficult for the

2:09:05people that already out there. None of

2:09:08that has been addressed in any

2:09:10conversations that I've been to and I've

2:09:12been to quite a few just to hear what is

2:09:14going on. Again, I want to support what

2:09:17is going on, but I also want them to be

2:09:20somewhat sensitive to the communities

2:09:24that are around there and that access

2:09:25those spaces every day. Um,

2:09:30that's really all I have to say. Thank

2:09:31you.

2:09:32>> Thank you.

2:09:33>> Anyone else here to speak in opposition?

2:09:36Y'all can come up.

2:09:43My name is Helen Wilts and I live at 139

2:09:46Biscane Drive which is adjacent to the

2:09:49mall. I've lived there for over 50

2:09:52years. I've watched that our

2:09:55neighborhood change from pretty rural to

2:09:58increasingly more commercial and

2:10:01difficult to navigate. Um I do remember

2:10:04when the mall was built and the activity

2:10:07that came with the mall initially. There

2:10:09were times that we could not get out of

2:10:11our neighborhood. Um, there was no

2:10:16Maryland Farmer Road, so you had to come

2:10:19and go on Huntington. I also remember

2:10:22when we were promised when they were

2:10:24building the mall that Huntington Road

2:10:26would never be used as a main access to

2:10:29the mall, which immediately changed

2:10:31after the mall opened. So, my faith in

2:10:35the provisions that are put on

2:10:38development is a little bit low right

2:10:41now, but I do think the mall needs to be

2:10:44redeveloped. It needs to be a part of

2:10:46the community, but you need to be aware

2:10:49of the people that have lived there for

2:10:51a long time. And you all who live not

2:10:54near there work hard to protect where

2:10:57you live. But we seem to be given up to

2:11:02well we need the commercial development

2:11:04we need the tax dollars but it's not

2:11:06fair to people who have invested in

2:11:08living in this community for 50ome

2:11:11years.

2:11:14>> Thank you. Anyone else care to speak in

2:11:16opposition to the application?

2:11:22>> Okay.

2:11:23Well, thank you. [clears throat] Um,

2:11:26before we start discussion, I did want

2:11:28to note there was something in our

2:11:30packets that's not posted online and it

2:11:32noted a couple things that I just wanted

2:11:34to kind of note for the public. Um there

2:11:38was there were some parts of our

2:11:39discussion last time um for example

2:11:44making sure it was a mixeduse

2:11:45development and um the idea that there

2:11:47be a minimum of 150,000 square feet of

2:11:50leasable commercial space that is um

2:11:53that relates to what's in the proposed

2:11:56um plan devel or in the in the current

2:11:58plan development um minimum of two acres

2:12:01of continuous uh contiguous public green

2:12:03space. I thought it was interesting

2:12:05seeing as how we just talked about three

2:12:06acres at West Locks which is notably

2:12:10smaller um and at least having a minimum

2:12:13of two acres um developed within the

2:12:16overlay um a singular multi-use path

2:12:19designed um to Adam County standards the

2:12:22minimum width of 12 feet installed

2:12:24connecting the Huntington Road right of

2:12:26way to the eastern edge of the overlay

2:12:28with the mall access road on the western

2:12:30edge of the overlay um and another multi

2:12:34path, multiuse path going from Atlanta

2:12:37highway to the mall access road. Um,

2:12:43and the minimum block size setting those

2:12:46um of seven acres, which I think is

2:12:49really generous. Um

2:12:52and the um making sure that within 250

2:12:57ft of Atlanta highway um the oh sorry

2:13:01with exception of the portion of the

2:13:03overlay that is within 250 ft of the

2:13:05Atlanta Highway uh right away drive for

2:13:07uses um are added to the list of

2:13:10prohibited uses.

2:13:12So just wanted to make sure that was out

2:13:14there. Um,

2:13:16who wants to start?

2:13:21>> Um,

2:13:23so

2:13:25at our last meeting, we reviewed this

2:13:28overlay um district proposal. We raised

2:13:33the concerns that Kristen just mentioned

2:13:35that were in the memo staff gave us

2:13:37today. Um, and we tabled the proposal

2:13:42um, with I think it says in our minutes

2:13:45from last meeting with direction to

2:13:48staff to produce a revised text

2:13:50amendment identifying a area of the mall

2:13:54property that would remain as a core

2:13:57urban center because the proposed

2:13:58overlay district does not um, preserve

2:14:02any

2:14:04public green space uh, or anything like

2:14:06that that's shown on uh PD plans and I

2:14:09understand the PD plan has been

2:14:10difficult to finance and I'm um and the

2:14:12mall property does need to be

2:14:14redeveloped and so I'm certainly

2:14:17favorably inclined towards something

2:14:19like this but I think we all seemed to

2:14:22be of one mind uh last time in terms of

2:14:25needing a revised text amendment. Um

2:14:29and so it was frustrating to learn uh at

2:14:32our agenda setting meeting today right

2:14:34before the public meeting um that

2:14:39staff had not prepared the revised text

2:14:42amendment as directed at our previous

2:14:44meeting because the manager's office as

2:14:47I understood it told staff not to do

2:14:50that. Um and so I just wanted to call

2:14:54the manager's office. This is in no way,

2:14:56I hasten to add, a criticism of staff.

2:14:58Um, ordinarily when we ask staff to do

2:15:02something to help us do our work, staff

2:15:04uh does an excellent job of of doing

2:15:07that. Um, and I I I wanted to publicly

2:15:10register my frustration with the fact

2:15:13that what we asked the help we asked for

2:15:15this time was not done. And I wanted to

2:15:18call the manager's office's attention to

2:15:21section 8-1-2 of the Athens clar county

2:15:24code of ordinances which says and I

2:15:26quote the planning commission shall be

2:15:29entitled to receive such assistance from

2:15:32the employees of the government as it

2:15:34shall request.

2:15:36Um, and so I would ask that the

2:15:38manager's office in the future please

2:15:41comply with that provision of the law

2:15:43and not stonewall our efforts to get um,

2:15:47assistance from staff. It's very

2:15:49important that we produce a good overlay

2:15:51district product here. I'm sure that's

2:15:54the right approach. Um but stonewalling

2:15:58us on the effort to get the help that we

2:16:00need to do that uh and trying to just

2:16:02ram uh the initial proposal through

2:16:05strikes me as um an inappropriate

2:16:09procedure. And uh so I don't know u

2:16:13honestly how we can take the inadequate

2:16:17text amendment that was presented to us

2:16:19last month and is now being presented to

2:16:20us again this month and send it forward

2:16:23in good faith. I think, you know, my

2:16:24inclination would be to table it again

2:16:26and renew our request for assistance.

2:16:30>> Yeah. And to that point, I think this

2:16:32entire process that this came from the

2:16:34mayor commission as a directive to staff

2:16:38to create this overlay for a commercial

2:16:41development is completely inappropriate.

2:16:44Is not a good use of staff's time and is

2:16:47not it puts them in the awkward position

2:16:49of having to feel this request which

2:16:52should come from the developer, not from

2:16:54staff. It's ludicrous that this county

2:16:57is the petitioner in this when this is a

2:16:59private development and we're losing so

2:17:03much time and effort in getting the

2:17:06input of all the residents in that area

2:17:10for what? Like we can't even get a small

2:17:13portion of something drawn by the

2:17:15developer. We're throwing all of that

2:17:17away and we're

2:17:21Yeah. uh and the idea that now we have

2:17:22to send something forward because of

2:17:24this process the way the process came to

2:17:27us as directed by the mayor and

2:17:28commission rather than this being an

2:17:30actual planning process. So now the

2:17:33process itself is screwed up because of

2:17:35how it came to us to begin with and now

2:17:38we're left in this impossible situation

2:17:41of like now we have a PD that we know

2:17:43isn't working and that's fine. I accept

2:17:45that. But there's no other alternative

2:17:47other than something written on a piece

2:17:50of paper that honestly doesn't really

2:17:52mean anything. And we're just letting

2:17:54somebody develop whatever the heck they

2:17:56want on this property that has so much

2:17:58potential. Like this is such like we've

2:18:01said, this is the size of downtown

2:18:03Athens and now we're just letting it fly

2:18:05in the wind. Like we'll see what

2:18:06happens.

2:18:08Nuts.

2:18:14because this has gone down unusual and

2:18:18not in our typical way. I think I have a

2:18:20little bit of confusion about what the

2:18:22development group are they pushing back

2:18:25on the things that we've push stated

2:18:27here and this is really a question for

2:18:30the development group. Are they saying

2:18:32that the things that we discussed

2:18:34last month are not feasible and they

2:18:38don't think they work [clears throat]

2:18:40for the project?

2:18:42I'm not really sure what

2:18:44>> Yeah, I don't understand why we get we

2:18:47clocks we got a revised plan, right? We

2:18:50got a revised overlay based on our

2:18:52comments and great. All right, now we

2:18:54have something to work with. Now we just

2:18:56have nothing.

2:18:57>> Typically, an applicant is able to say

2:18:59express why a condition that staff

2:19:03recommended

2:19:04wouldn't work for them.

2:19:06>> In this case, I'm not really sure if

2:19:09that's what's being told to us or not.

2:19:12and we don't have an applicant who we

2:19:14can ask,

2:19:14>> right?

2:19:21>> Maybe pulling back from the process a

2:19:23little bit. I also just the thing that

2:19:26strikes me as so important that staff

2:19:28said tonight is that this is the only

2:19:31urban center.

2:19:32>> Yeah. that a process a citizen-led and

2:19:35driven process to update the future land

2:19:37use map

2:19:39concluded that this is our one urban

2:19:41center and defined it in terms that I

2:19:44don't believe the current overlay

2:19:47support I still even if we were to take

2:19:50the

2:19:52current overlay text add to it some

2:19:55version of

2:19:59of the five items that were initially

2:20:02included

2:20:03I still don't think we're getting the

2:20:05multi-use.

2:20:08I still don't see anything that except

2:20:10for the first 250 ft from Atlanta

2:20:12Highway, there's nothing that prevents

2:20:14this from being a sea of apartments.

2:20:16Nothing. Um, and that's still my biggest

2:20:22problem. I may think in some ways that

2:20:23was our when we were asked last month

2:20:26for guidance our guidance was look at

2:20:29the definition of urban center that

2:20:33that's that's basically what we were all

2:20:36I think saying is that

2:20:39these these text these portions of the

2:20:43special district overlay

2:20:45are don't don't

2:20:48create what the urban center was was

2:20:50intended to

2:20:52And this is the only urban center that

2:20:54we have.

2:20:54>> That's right.

2:20:55>> So, we have a definition for a thing

2:20:57that may not actually exist when all is

2:20:59said and done.

2:20:59>> Yes.

2:21:01>> Exactly.

2:21:04>> I want to bring up one other point

2:21:06because we got really in the weeds about

2:21:08urban center and how it needs to

2:21:09function and how everything that was in

2:21:12the overlay district language that was

2:21:14presented to us didn't quite hit that.

2:21:16But I think the neighborhood has brought

2:21:19up a really great point that sort of got

2:21:20lost in our discussion I think last

2:21:22month which is access. Right now

2:21:25Huntington is a mess and whatever if

2:21:27we're going to do an urban center here

2:21:29the access points have to be improved.

2:21:31They're right. I mean that doesn't work

2:21:35even in its current you know iteration

2:21:37without any life going on there. It's a

2:21:39difficult street to navigate.

2:21:42So I just want to make sure that doesn't

2:21:43get lost in itself.

2:21:44>> Yeah that's fair.

2:21:48I think also the thing that I I saw last

2:21:52time and I see this time is that even in

2:21:54the purpose and intent of the special

2:21:57district overlay.

2:22:00The second sentence says the use of

2:22:02design requirements will help ensure

2:22:03that the new development is visually and

2:22:05functionally compatible with unique

2:22:07character

2:22:09etc. And unless I'm mistaken, the only

2:22:13thing that really gets at design

2:22:15requirements,

2:22:17depending on how a person defines design

2:22:19requirements, is it sounds like we've

2:22:22got some requirements around the parking

2:22:24structure.

2:22:28Yeah. And you know, I recognize that

2:22:31maybe building height could be seen as a

2:22:33design requirement, but um I don't

2:22:36really think that's in the spirit of

2:22:38even the purpose and intent of the

2:22:40overlay as stated.

2:22:43That being said, it sounds like the

2:22:45position we're in is that

2:22:49I tend to agree with you, Matt. like I

2:22:51feel like we still need to

2:22:53ask for this to be

2:22:56reworked, but if it is really true that

2:22:59we are legally obligated because this is

2:23:01a zoning request, not a text amendment,

2:23:05that we have to do something tonight and

2:23:07so

2:23:09if that's the correct interpretation of

2:23:11what we have to do, then why have to do

2:23:14it?

2:23:14>> So, yeah, I mean,

2:23:17we could recommend denial. we could send

2:23:20the message that this is not enough for

2:23:23an overlay district.

2:23:25Uh

2:23:27and it and it opens up uh our only urban

2:23:32center

2:23:33to

2:23:35very bad outcomes, outcomes that no one

2:23:37wants. Um we're a private developer.

2:23:43>> That's an option. What if we recommend

2:23:45denial on the

2:23:48PD question

2:23:50>> and table the text amendment?

2:23:52>> It's two separate questions, isn't it?

2:23:54>> That's a good question. I don't know the

2:23:56answer to that.

2:23:57>> Enacting the PD and then there's the

2:23:59enacting the overlay district and that

2:24:01enacting an overlay district is not a

2:24:03zoning action. That's a text amendment.

2:24:05So,

2:24:07um Austin, can you clarify what uh we

2:24:11can or are ought not to the table? So,

2:24:14I'll defer to Well, I'll echo what Bruce

2:24:16said. Since it's already been tabled

2:24:18once, it's not appropriate for another

2:24:20table.

2:24:22>> What legal?

2:24:23>> Sir,

2:24:24>> there's nothing in the bylaws that

2:24:25actually say that. So, we have to

2:24:27default to Robert Schu's order.

2:24:29>> I'm sorry. It says in the planning

2:24:30commission bylaws.

2:24:31>> It's not specifically um referenced in

2:24:34the bylaws. the only the bylaws only

2:24:38contemplate the applicant requesting a

2:24:39table and not the planning commission

2:24:42making a motion to table. Um and so we

2:24:45have to default to Robert's rules of

2:24:47orders.

2:24:48>> I don't I think

2:24:48>> and so and I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'll

2:24:51finish. Yeah.

2:24:52>> Thanks. So in section 14

2:24:55um of Robert's rules of order, there's

2:25:00something called a motion to postpone to

2:25:02a definite time. What's interesting is

2:25:04Robert's rules doesn't even contemplate

2:25:06a motion to tapement. The actual

2:25:08terminology is a motion to postpone to a

2:25:10definite time. And I think that we've

2:25:12historically interpreted a motion to

2:25:14table to be motion to postpone to a

2:25:16definite time because you're actually

2:25:18postponing the action on the question

2:25:20that that's pending before the body.

2:25:22Right? So 14.8 Eight

2:25:26places limits on a motion to postpone to

2:25:29a definite time. When the time to let's

2:25:33see when the time to which a question

2:25:35has been postponed arrive question is

2:25:37taken up it can be postponed again if

2:25:40the additional delay will not interfere

2:25:43with the proper handling of the proposed

2:25:45motion.

2:25:47So in this instance, we have a process

2:25:50that is subject to the ZPL, but more

2:25:52importantly, we have an item before the

2:25:55planning commission as a recommending

2:25:57body.

2:25:58In Title N, the ordinance does

2:26:00specifically state that the planning

2:26:02commission has to make a written report

2:26:04of its recommendation so that can be

2:26:06passed on to the mayor and commission

2:26:07for a full vote. And so it's it's

2:26:10already been tabled once. We don't have

2:26:11the applicant requesting an additional

2:26:13table. I submit, and I think this is

2:26:16what Bruce was saying earlier, we're on

2:26:18a timeline that was established through

2:26:21Baron Commission action by resolution

2:26:23and implementation by the manager's

2:26:25office. And so it's our opinion that

2:26:29it's not appropriate to do another table

2:26:31because that will ultimately interfere

2:26:34with the proper handling of the motion.

2:26:36And then as an aside to that, I think

2:26:39there are some, you know, we we've

2:26:40talked about this internally. There are

2:26:42some other additional due process

2:26:44considerations we have to consider about

2:26:46making sure we move this along in a

2:26:47timely fashion and that's does Athens

2:26:50clar county have to provide due process

2:26:52to Athens clar county the applicant

2:26:55>> well Athens clar county is not building

2:26:57this I think the developer is

2:26:58>> but the applicant is not the developer

2:27:01so

2:27:01>> the the developer hasn't requested

2:27:03anything

2:27:04>> sir so I've given you what our opinion

2:27:06is about the

2:27:07>> okay let me I I just have something to

2:27:08say about that you said that the the

2:27:10bylaws don't contemplate a table except

2:27:12at the applicant's request and that's

2:27:14not true. I read them today. What you're

2:27:16looking at is section 10, Roman numeral

2:27:1910 subp part D which talks about

2:27:21applicant requests for a table. But in

2:27:24section 10A where it describes uh the

2:27:27procedure and says in the absence of

2:27:29specific rules of procedure, the

2:27:31following procedure shall be utilized.

2:27:33Uh and then subp part A says the

2:27:36planning at planning commission meetings

2:27:38the following procedure will be followed

2:27:40regarding all items before the planning

2:27:42commission. And it says staff presents

2:27:44the report. Public input will be

2:27:46received. Public [clears throat] input

2:27:47will be received from anyone in

2:27:49opposition. Um

2:27:52public input session will close and no

2:27:53additional public comments will be

2:27:55accepted. The planning commission will

2:27:56then discuss the request. Um the

2:27:59planning commission will then entertain

2:28:00a motion and take a vote on the request.

2:28:03Motions can be for approval, approval

2:28:05with conditions to table or to deny. So

2:28:08we can table at our own instance. We do

2:28:11not have to wait for an applicant.

2:28:13>> You're absolutely correct. And that's um

2:28:15so so so please correct me if I'm if I

2:28:17misspoke that. The fact is the planning

2:28:19commission has already tabled it once

2:28:21pursuant to this provision, right? And

2:28:24so there's nothing in here about the

2:28:26authority of the planning commission to

2:28:27table it for a second time. So that's

2:28:29why we default to Robert.

2:28:32>> If we table it for further development

2:28:34of the record and then that record

2:28:35doesn't get developed, can we not table

2:28:38it for further development of the record

2:28:40since it happened the first time?

2:28:42>> I think our interpretation is is no. You

2:28:44have to make a recommendation based on

2:28:46the information from and it to Sarah

2:28:48Garing's point, it can be for a motion

2:28:50to deny if you don't feel like you have

2:28:51enough information. I mean

2:28:53>> delay indefinitely.

2:28:55Uh at this point I would uh my feeling

2:28:59is uh uh I see what you're saying uh

2:29:04uh Matt and I generally think you're

2:29:07right and also uh

2:29:12I don't know it it sounds like if the

2:29:16lawyers if the attorney's office has

2:29:18developed a position uh that tableabling

2:29:21would be inappropriate

2:29:23uh that we simply cannot do that and

2:29:26that it would pass

2:29:29pass forward onto the American

2:29:31Commission without recommendation. Is

2:29:33that what would happen? Like if if we

2:29:35like if we if we voted to table if we

2:29:38voted to table, right? Just crazy

2:29:41thought. That was that was what what we

2:29:44all passed a vote on. What would then

2:29:46happen?

2:29:47>> I don't know that's ever come up before.

2:29:49[laughter]

2:29:52>> Yes. Yes. I maybe this is because I'm

2:29:56still relatively new but before when

2:29:58we've tabled something and here we've

2:30:01got with the directive to identify the

2:30:04core urban center language comes back to

2:30:07us. I don't I guess I'm missing how this

2:30:10is an actual table when we tabled it

2:30:13last time we get something back from an

2:30:16applicant that hasn't happened. That's

2:30:18what I'm saying.

2:30:18>> How is our table complete?

2:30:20>> We didn't get anything. So you're not

2:30:22>> you did I get something

2:30:24>> got a memo that got adjusted by the

2:30:27manager

2:30:28>> and and we've established that those two

2:30:30memos are part of the record.

2:30:35>> Okay. You received additional you

2:30:37essentially have two memos.

2:30:38>> Yeah.

2:30:39>> Okay. So you did receive a response and

2:30:43that response was directly related to

2:30:46the information that was requested

2:30:49at the prior meeting.

2:30:51So I don't

2:30:53>> updated overlay district. So the the

2:30:58language and and we can

2:31:02in in reviewing the record and and I

2:31:05know we have minutes now which are what

2:31:08they are right um going back to what I

2:31:13heard in our discussion my notes

2:31:15reflected and what I heard when I

2:31:16listened to the meeting again was a list

2:31:19of that's how I developed the list of

2:31:21concerns that you had was going back and

2:31:23listening to that line of questioning

2:31:26And what I heard specifically too was to

2:31:29take those things and relate them to the

2:31:31PD. So there were things that you were

2:31:34interested in that had measurable and

2:31:36and had numbers associated with them

2:31:38that were in the PD. Bring those forward

2:31:42and put them in language that could be

2:31:44used in amending should you choose to do

2:31:48so. The special district overlay. So

2:31:50that's why that first version of the

2:31:51memo was worded the way that it was. You

2:31:54had language that came from the PD. The

2:31:57existing zoning, I guess, is another way

2:31:59to say it. That's the existing zoning on

2:32:01the property. So, that gives it

2:32:02validity. It's not a concept. It's a law

2:32:05that's on the property. Those things

2:32:07were quantified. Those things were

2:32:10itemized and then there was a notion,

2:32:12not a notion, but a note put in beneath

2:32:15it that related it to the PD, which was

2:32:18responsive to what you were asking for

2:32:20last month. So,

2:32:23as far as crafting a whole another

2:32:25special district overlay text amendment,

2:32:26no, that that was not produced. But the

2:32:29content for the things that you did

2:32:31discuss was produced. And so

2:32:36the opportunity exists this evening to

2:32:38amend

2:32:40to to create based off the information

2:32:42that you asked for which was delivered

2:32:45an amended special district overlay

2:32:47>> in the most awkward way, difficult way

2:32:50possible by doing it on the fly with

2:32:52stuff in a document that we would then

2:32:54have to insert

2:32:56live in front of an audience into a new

2:32:58document which I've never I mean I've

2:33:00been the commission seven years. I've

2:33:02never seen this before.

2:33:03>> [laughter]

2:33:04>> Matt.

2:33:04>> Yeah.

2:33:05>> I mean, one way to

2:33:09comply with the direction that we gave

2:33:11last time would be to revise the overlay

2:33:13district text. Um, I think the other way

2:33:16that's in the spirit of what we

2:33:17described is to identify a core urban

2:33:20center. I think that language was used

2:33:22um on the existing PD plan that would

2:33:25not be removed from the PD. Um so that

2:33:28where they show a public green and and

2:33:31other sort of amenity space and perhaps

2:33:33the the uh multi-use paths and stuff

2:33:36like that that we might see have uh I

2:33:40expected we would see perhaps a site

2:33:42plan that would say we've highlighted in

2:33:44green these areas that pursuant to the

2:33:47planning commission's directions you

2:33:50know uh perhaps shouldn't be removed

2:33:52from the PD and then the overlay

2:33:53district applies everywhere else. Um, I

2:33:56mean, there's more than one way to to

2:33:58skin that cap, but um, at the end of the

2:34:01day, I I understand that we're receiving

2:34:04legal advice from the council's office

2:34:07that says that our bylaws say that we

2:34:10can table any item that comes before us,

2:34:13and they don't say that we can't table

2:34:15twice, but they also don't explicitly

2:34:18say that we can table multiple times.

2:34:21And so

2:34:24then we look to Robert's rules which

2:34:26says you can um postpone to an

2:34:29indefinite time as many times as you

2:34:31want unless it would interfere with

2:34:33consideration of the proposal. It seems

2:34:36clear to me that tableabling once more

2:34:38wouldn't interfere with consideration of

2:34:39the proposal. In fact, it would

2:34:41facilitate our proper consideration of

2:34:43the proposal. Um and at the end of the

2:34:45day, I think I'm right on this and

2:34:47Austin, please correct me if I'm wrong.

2:34:50Um,

2:34:53all procedural questions

2:34:56get resolved by the chair of the

2:34:58planning commission. Um, it says that

2:35:01right in section 3A1 of the bylaws. The

2:35:04chair shall decide all points of order

2:35:06and procedure unless directed otherwise

2:35:08by a majority of the planning

2:35:11commission. So, at the end of the day,

2:35:12if if the chair thinks that if the chair

2:35:15would entertain a motion to table, I

2:35:18think that that's within her power. a

2:35:20motion table.

2:35:25>> So moved

2:35:28>> second

2:35:31>> discussion

2:35:32>> I'll send some discussion just a

2:35:34reminder and I I'll I'll make it quick

2:35:36but Bruce said the word destination. We

2:35:39talked about that. I've definitely

2:35:41talked about it at our last meeting on

2:35:43this subject

2:35:45and

2:35:47that that area that urban center is a

2:35:51destination. is not an apartment

2:35:53complex. That will crush the western

2:35:58west side of Clark County because

2:36:02west of that area is the population of

2:36:05between Georgia and

2:36:08Atlanta. And that

2:36:13this property will attract

2:36:15those folks onto Clark County who will

2:36:18spend their money. And it'll also

2:36:21attract people from Clark County out

2:36:23there who will spend their money or buy

2:36:27their goods, whatever it is they want to

2:36:28do. Uh, this is a huge piece of I mean a

2:36:32vital piece of property and

2:36:36rushing this into something that's so

2:36:38open-ended

2:36:41is is an awful thing to do to Athens,

2:36:46Clark County. from a guy who worked out

2:36:49at the mall selling clothing at in the

2:36:53early 80s when the dagum thing was

2:36:55opened. I mean, I know what it did then

2:36:58and I know what it can do now and it can

2:37:01do grow and not harm downtown like

2:37:05things happen, but downtown was a

2:37:07different animal back then than it is

2:37:08now. two can live together. But this is

2:37:11going to attract people over the line

2:37:15into our county, help us grow. And if we

2:37:20take it lightly and fill it full of

2:37:22apartments, we that that that entire

2:37:25area is is going to be so much more

2:37:29worthless than it is today. And it's

2:37:31trying to climb out. They're doing good

2:37:34things in real estate. Those

2:37:36neighborhoods are working hard.

2:37:38uh the Huntington Road, those areas,

2:37:42their value is doing well. Uh it could

2:37:45go down on past at Cleveland Road back

2:37:48there. It this should be a destination.

2:37:51And like I said, I should want to go out

2:37:54there. Athens deserves what it had in a

2:37:58more modern form which was the current

2:38:01PD the the current developers did a

2:38:04fantastic fantastic job coming up with

2:38:07something that was great

2:38:09economy changed things changed it can't

2:38:11be done just like this other one okay so

2:38:14we're going to try to fit something else

2:38:15in there but I think to just write this

2:38:19off as you know with the details we have

2:38:22are it's it's it's crushing

2:38:26to a lot more of Athens than just

2:38:28Atlanta Highway out there.

2:38:31>> Given what we got the last time we

2:38:34tabled from the applicant, do we want to

2:38:36be extremely specific about what we want

2:38:40this time?

2:38:41>> Well, Madam Chair, I need to correct

2:38:42something that

2:38:43>> that Professor Hall said. And so, he's

2:38:45right in part that the chair does decide

2:38:47all points of order and procedure, but

2:38:50I'm going to read the full sentence of

2:38:51the bylaws. The chair shall decide all

2:38:54points of order and procedure unless

2:38:57directed otherwise by majority of the

2:38:59planning commission comma subject to

2:39:02these bylaws title 8 and title nine of

2:39:05the zoning and development standards

2:39:07county and Robert's rules of order. So I

2:39:11I do not think it would be proper to

2:39:12entertain a motion be because your

2:39:15authority to file points and order is

2:39:17subject to Robert's rules of order.

2:39:20That's my opinion.

2:39:22What is the concern exactly? Is it a due

2:39:24process issue? Is that the potential

2:39:28argument against this?

2:39:30>> It was the section of rules that that I

2:39:33read earlier. And there are some other

2:39:34due process concerns that I'm not going

2:39:36to get into here, but

2:39:38>> the primary table.

2:39:40>> I'm sorry.

2:39:40>> Section doesn't actually say the word

2:39:41table.

2:39:43>> Yes. Section 14.8. Because the actual

2:39:45terminology is a motion to postpone to a

2:39:48definite time

2:39:50which does places like it places limits

2:39:52on the the ability to essentially

2:39:55postpone something indefinitely.

2:39:57>> But we're not postponing it

2:39:58indefinitely. We're postponing it to a

2:40:00specific amount of time.

2:40:01>> Sure. But it does say that it cannot be

2:40:04it can be postponed again if the

2:40:05additional delay will not interfere with

2:40:07the proper handling of the proposed

2:40:09motion. In other words, a a

2:40:12recommendation to the mayor and

2:40:13commission. And I think what what Bruce

2:40:16has been saying is that that that we are

2:40:17on a timeline here that was established

2:40:19through the resolution

2:40:21pass.

2:40:24>> The resolution itself doesn't specify

2:40:28period of performance.

2:40:29>> Okay. So then we don't have time.

2:40:30>> Is that the manager's office? Yes.

2:40:34>> So then we don't have a timeline.

2:40:35>> I think that think we have a time. Well,

2:40:37>> it's hard to argue. I think that

2:40:40tableabling it interferes with the

2:40:41proper consideration of this item. In

2:40:44fact, I think failing to table it makes

2:40:47it impossible to properly consider this

2:40:48item because it's just not ready for

2:40:51consideration. So, I think even under

2:40:53Robert's rules of order, I think that

2:40:55would be true if this was the final

2:40:56decision-making body,

2:41:01but it's a recommendation that's

2:41:03ultimately going to be decided by the

2:41:04mayor and commission. I I disagree with

2:41:06that interpretation. We don't have to

2:41:08agree, but that's what the attorney's

2:41:10office is

2:41:12advising. What's

2:41:12>> the point of us even being here if we're

2:41:14just sending something straight up the

2:41:15mayor commission?

2:41:16>> Well, I think we're failing the mayor

2:41:18and commission by sending what I think

2:41:20we believe to be an incomplete.

2:41:23I understand what they are asking for

2:41:26and I do not think the current ordinance

2:41:28text um

2:41:31gives them what they need and it's kind

2:41:34of our job to dig in and

2:41:37um my concern is that if we don't

2:41:41either we could spend a lot of time

2:41:45trying to do this on the fly in a public

2:41:48meeting or we could ask our professional

2:41:51planning staff to do it. Um, but either

2:41:55way, I I worry that kind of touching on

2:41:58my point earlier, whether we whether we

2:42:01if we were to vote on the PD and vote on

2:42:03the overlay

2:42:05either direction in either of those two

2:42:07votes, I think our

2:42:10recommendation would need to be

2:42:11accompanied by like let's say for

2:42:14example, we recommend yes on the

2:42:16removing the PD um no on the overlay,

2:42:20but in the same way that staff says for

2:42:23us, if you all are going to approve,

2:42:26here's

2:42:27what we recommend. Like, we we need to

2:42:31give them enough information because

2:42:35right now it it it really it would be

2:42:38crazy for any elected official to say

2:42:41yes to this. And so we're not really

2:42:43giving

2:42:45them enough information to work with by

2:42:48giving this kind of incomplete set of

2:42:52standards.

2:42:53Um just

2:42:57uh agreeing all the way, but also um

2:43:03was it the zoning procedures act that

2:43:05that makes uh

2:43:08uh that that puts it did the zoning

2:43:10procedures act put a timeline on the

2:43:13removal of the PD?

2:43:15>> That is the zoning action that's part of

2:43:17this. Yes.

2:43:18>> Does but I read the zoning procedures

2:43:20act earlier today and I missed that. So,

2:43:22can you guys tell me the section of the

2:43:24Georgia code that puts a on the timeline

2:43:29for considering the zoning action? I'm

2:43:30sorry if I missed it.

2:43:33>> I would want that right now. We'd have

2:43:36to go into recess and have me go pull

2:43:37that for you.

2:43:41>> I don't I don't have it memorized.

2:43:42>> Okay.

2:43:43>> Um Austin, do you do you not have it

2:43:45memorized?

2:43:46>> I can look into it.

2:43:47>> Will you take five minutes? I got I got

2:43:49to take a bio break anyways. Yeah, let's

2:43:51take a 5minute recess

2:43:53back at 8:49. Five.

3:14:25We want Sarah.

3:14:26>> She was She was charging her car in the

3:14:28parking lot. She I just texted her.

3:14:29>> Okay, very good.

3:14:31>> Um, are we back?

3:14:34>> Good. Okay.

3:14:36>> Want to call us back into order?

3:14:37>> Um, yeah. All right. Talk to our recess.

3:14:40>> All right. So in in revisiting

3:14:44across multiple fronts everything that

3:14:46was referenced from

3:14:48um the staff side on these timelines um

3:14:52did look at CPL zoning procedures law we

3:14:55did look at Robert's rules of order we

3:14:56did revisit the bylaws so here's what I

3:14:59can clarify about zoning procedure law

3:15:01there is nothing in zone zoning

3:15:03procedure law that prescribed the time

3:15:04of performance for the planning

3:15:05commission source of my confusion it was

3:15:09there is a time of performance that

3:15:10actually translates into our ordinances

3:15:12for the county commission. There's a

3:15:1440-day window that we have by ordinance

3:15:17that is based on zoning procedure law

3:15:19that keeps us compliant with that law

3:15:21for action to be taken within 40 days.

3:15:24That does not apply to the planning

3:15:26commission. So there is no ZPL based

3:15:31reason um to

3:15:34move any item along on any particular

3:15:36timeline. Although there is due process

3:15:40consideration that have to be taken into

3:15:42account, we can't indefinitely hold

3:15:44things. People are required to have um a

3:15:47fair and honest hearing on their request

3:15:50and for action to be taken for it to

3:15:52move along in a reasonable amount of

3:15:54time. So the reasonleness standard also

3:15:57comes into play in reading Roberts

3:15:59because Robert's rules of order is going

3:16:01to kick in because the bylaws

3:16:03as as Austin noted

3:16:06they anticipate tableabling which is

3:16:08actually an improper term which is what

3:16:11we spend a good bit time working through

3:16:14should be postponent.

3:16:16Um tableabling is inelegant but it is

3:16:19what's in our ordinance. So we are left

3:16:20to deal with an inelegant term. Um, I'll

3:16:24save you the rest of that discussion

3:16:25about the elegance of tableling, but it

3:16:27is a real thing. So, motion to postpone

3:16:30is what we're talking about from

3:16:31Robert's rules in order to achieve what

3:16:32you're asking. And in rule 148

3:16:39are the terms for how that works.

3:16:43>> An item to be postponed for a reasonable

3:16:46time to be set in the future. In this

3:16:49instance, reasonable I think connects to

3:16:52a couple things. One, it needs to be

3:16:54regular business of the planning

3:16:55commission. It can't be on a special

3:16:56call or something else. It needs to be

3:16:58following that routine. And then the

3:17:00other part of reasonable is that it

3:17:02needs to be the amount of time necessary

3:17:05to produce the work product that you're

3:17:07asking for. So to your point before we

3:17:11took recess, knowing what it is that you

3:17:14want needs to be a part of the

3:17:16discussion of this motion that's on the

3:17:18table so that an appropriate and

3:17:20reasonable amount of time can be

3:17:22assigned to produce it.

3:17:26>> All right.

3:17:26>> Yeah, that's correct.

3:17:28>> So would that be determined with a does

3:17:31a motion need to be remade postponement?

3:17:33And so is the time to give that

3:17:35direction or during the discussion of

3:17:38the motion. Is that the way to do that?

3:17:39>> That's what I'm saying. So, so

3:17:41discussion of the motion and then the

3:17:42motion could be amended to clearly state

3:17:46time certain in which it'll be coming

3:17:48back before this body.

3:17:50>> So, we're in the discussion of the

3:17:52motion mode right now. We have the

3:17:54motion on the table on a second. so that

3:17:57we can discuss the details of what we

3:18:00want to see come back at the time.

3:18:05>> And from staff's perspective is the more

3:18:07detail the better like

3:18:09>> Oh, absolutely.

3:18:10>> Okay.

3:18:17>> Well, I've got a couple little like

3:18:19numbers that I'm trying to make sure

3:18:22that one of them is

3:18:28in the

3:18:31commission's

3:18:32um resolution, one of the things they

3:18:36asked for, sorry, it was item

3:18:41six.

3:18:43Um the second sentence of that is

3:18:45buildings within 20 250 ft of a property

3:18:47line shall have a 40 foot maximum

3:18:49height. I think Bruce, that's where I

3:18:51got a little bit about the 40 versus

3:18:5340%. And so I'm sorry 40 versus 45%. So

3:18:57I just wanted to clarify

3:19:00whether so the where that translates is

3:19:03to item eight in the ordinance or

3:19:05overlay text. Which one is correct?

3:19:08Seems like there might be a typo in one

3:19:09of them.

3:19:10>> 45T

3:19:12>> is the correct is

3:19:14>> okay. So you think there might be a typo

3:19:15in the on page two of the staff report

3:19:17item.

3:19:19So on page three of the staff report

3:19:24six, building height

3:19:26subsection meet B reduction of maximum

3:19:29building height to 45 ft.

3:19:31>> So that is another request I'd like to

3:19:32make that we have

3:19:36that page you're talking about. I don't

3:19:39know why it exists. Why don't we just

3:19:41have the two-pager at the end as what

3:19:43we're responding to because it just

3:19:46introduces confusion.

3:19:48like there's the the mayor commission's

3:19:50recommendations or resolution topics and

3:19:53then there's this one pager on page

3:19:56three

3:19:58which I spent a bunch of time making

3:20:01notes about and then found out that on

3:20:03pages eight and nine is what we're

3:20:05actually supposed to be responding to.

3:20:08I actually didn't realize you know what

3:20:09I'm saying.

3:20:10>> Yeah. Yeah. So

3:20:11>> I I do and the language

3:20:14and this is part of what's made this a

3:20:16little

3:20:17iterative is the resolution did have 40

3:20:21ft. The 45 is what has been

3:20:27through the course of the development of

3:20:28this and the research the 45 that was a

3:20:31typo.

3:20:32>> Okay.

3:20:32>> 45 was what was always intended. 45 was

3:20:34what was always mentioned. 40 was

3:20:36somehow in the resolution. 45 is a

3:20:38clarity point that staff's

3:20:39[clears throat] been able to kind of get

3:20:41out of the process.

3:20:42>> Okay.

3:20:43>> So, what you're seeing on page three

3:20:47and consistent with what you're seeing

3:20:48on page nine is the correct measurement

3:20:52for height, 45 ft.

3:20:53>> Okay. I just think Yeah. So, I guess two

3:20:57things.

3:20:58You clarified the 40 versus 45, but I

3:21:01think when we see this again, there

3:21:03can't be two versions of I think that

3:21:05the the page three needs to go away. We

3:21:08just need the or we just need the

3:21:10overlay. And then the other other kind

3:21:12of similar question I had was the

3:21:15question about

3:21:17that the commission said tree and

3:21:19landscaping standards shall include 20%

3:21:21total tree canopy and 0% conserved

3:21:24canopy. So, this might be the same thing

3:21:27where

3:21:29item I on page nine, tree and

3:21:32landscaping standards

3:21:34that says 20%.

3:21:36I think maybe on the um

3:21:39on page three it didn't.

3:21:42So, I think 20% is what you're going

3:21:44for, but there was this difference and I

3:21:46was wondering if what the intention

3:21:49there was. Basically, it's saying 20%

3:21:52overall tree canopy covers required

3:21:53throughout the overlay and then each

3:21:56development site needs to have 15%. So,

3:21:58I don't think that was a mistake, but

3:22:00can you explain that?

3:22:01>> Sure. How that math works?

3:22:02>> Yeah. Yeah. So, so the goal here is the

3:22:06notion is that

3:22:08we have 78 acres that we're working with

3:22:11that is going to have roadway network

3:22:12through it and that sort of thing that

3:22:14will have street tree requirements

3:22:16and then and so those will add to that

3:22:19canopy calculation beyond what a

3:22:22development site is also going to

3:22:23provide.

3:22:24>> Okay, that makes sense. So if we get 15%

3:22:27on the variety of development sites that

3:22:29happen over time, we're the goal is to

3:22:31have 20% total with that other 5%

3:22:34happening largely with street trees that

3:22:36are in common areas and not on any one

3:22:39development site.

3:22:40>> Okay. Y

3:22:44>> I've got other things but I'll let you

3:22:46all contribute.

3:22:48Um, so

3:22:50one of the main questions I have and I

3:22:53don't know if I'm able to ask the

3:22:56developer is what part of this PV aside

3:23:00from the bonds really didn't work for

3:23:03them from a economic standpoint. I mean,

3:23:05I it's hard for us to go back in and add

3:23:08in all these requests that we want to

3:23:10see without knowing if things that we're

3:23:14putting on them

3:23:16may not be feasible.

3:23:18And in a normal

3:23:20situation where the applicant wasn't the

3:23:23city, we'd be able to ask those things

3:23:25>> and we'd be able to know really what

3:23:28didn't work.

3:23:29>> So we could avoid putting that back in

3:23:30the overlay language. In this case, we

3:23:33don't have that opportunity. Is there

3:23:34any workound for that?

3:23:36>> I think

3:23:39let me think through this. I think the

3:23:42history on the item is dependent upon

3:23:44that information that that is that is

3:23:47the basis for the request to amend the

3:23:50PD dissolve the PD um is that whole

3:23:54point that whole notion so I don't I

3:23:56don't think that's an unfair question

3:23:57it's probably something again in the

3:23:59discussion of work product

3:24:02if that is something you need to know to

3:24:04be able to how to to be able to provide

3:24:06staff with direction on what to produce.

3:24:09>> Yeah. Otherwise it format I think it's a

3:24:12fair question to put to the property

3:24:14owner.

3:24:15>> Yeah.

3:24:15>> And that I think staff should ask that

3:24:17like

3:24:19you know that that should be part of

3:24:20what you all are doing

3:24:22>> so that we have that information at the

3:24:24next meeting

3:24:25>> so we don't accidentally

3:24:27>> put them back in the hole.

3:24:28>> Yeah. It's like we're it's it's it's

3:24:31like

3:24:33when we have an an applicant and we

3:24:36bring them up to ask questions and then

3:24:37we go based off that, but we have to do

3:24:39it over the course of another meeting.

3:24:41Yeah. We're just like stacking up those

3:24:43questions that we would ask an

3:24:44applicant,

3:24:45>> right? If it weren't the city taking

3:24:48this request.

3:24:49>> Yeah. Yes. Um, kind of relatedly to

3:24:52that, you know, that I think the main

3:24:54thrust of all our comments at the last

3:24:56meeting was um, this is an urban center

3:24:58on the future land use map. We just did

3:25:00a future land use map which designated

3:25:02this for that kind of special um, land

3:25:05use. And um, as drafted, the ordinance

3:25:09doesn't contemplate anything like an

3:25:11urban center. It could just be row after

3:25:13row of apartments

3:25:15u, and so a big public benefit is gone.

3:25:19And um you know we just had this

3:25:22Westclocks um thing earlier in this

3:25:24meeting where um I think the applicant

3:25:27came up with kind of a creative

3:25:28structure to ensure that we were getting

3:25:31a public benefit and amenity kind of

3:25:33thing that we um

3:25:36wanted to see which was to have sort of

3:25:39a trigger for additional residential

3:25:41development where first you have to you

3:25:44only get a certain amount a third and

3:25:46then once you've done x number of square

3:25:48feet of commercial space, then you

3:25:50unlock the other two/3 and um and um

3:25:55that's not the only way probably to do

3:25:57something like that. But but I would

3:25:59maybe suggest um if what we want here is

3:26:02an urban center, you know, um I don't

3:26:05think staff knows which part of this

3:26:07parcel

3:26:09um would work best for that. I don't

3:26:12think you all can be expected to know

3:26:13that. The applicant probably does. their

3:26:14PD shows an urban center area where

3:26:17there's a green and there's a bunch of

3:26:19commercial around it and there's

3:26:20apartments above and stuff and and um

3:26:23maybe that doesn't work um as drawn on

3:26:27the PD uh but it may be that uh in

3:26:31consultation with the property owner um

3:26:36y'all could identify kind of a similar

3:26:39structure because if what we ultimately

3:26:42want to see is an urban center on that

3:26:44site. Um then I think a critical part of

3:26:47that is going to be to designate some

3:26:50section of the site where there will be

3:26:54not just the 250 ft adjacent to Atlanta

3:26:56highway but some section in the center

3:27:00somewhere in the site where there is

3:27:01kind of an urban center where there's

3:27:03you know u restaurants and maybe there's

3:27:06offices and there's just different kinds

3:27:07of commercial kind of downtowny sort of

3:27:10vibes and it doesn't have to be the you

3:27:12know a big part of the huge part of the

3:27:14site but is 78 8acre site. So, you know,

3:27:16there may be um a section that could be

3:27:20developed in such a way. And so, in in

3:27:23talking about the financial feasibility

3:27:25and stuff, I would hope that uh that

3:27:29y'all can identify like, you know, what

3:27:31are some parameters that might work?

3:27:32It's West Fox is a 20 acre parcel and we

3:27:35said you got to build 50,000 square feet

3:27:36of commercial to unlock the last

3:27:39twothirds of your residential density.

3:27:42This site is four times that big. So, I

3:27:44would think that um it's probably going

3:27:45to be bigger than 50,000 square feet of

3:27:47commercial. But, um anyway, that's just

3:27:50to add some some texture to to Jen's

3:27:53comment. Um I think that it might be

3:27:54helpful to um identify where's the urban

3:27:58center at the center of this 78 acre

3:28:00parcel. um that you know it's a lot

3:28:03easier to lift the PD and give them all

3:28:06the flexibility they need to build what

3:28:08pencils um if we know we're still

3:28:11getting kind of an urban center portion.

3:28:14>> Okay. So, so urban center in the

3:28:17language of the future land use

3:28:19designation is what I hear you using and

3:28:22then in what you've said you've kind of

3:28:24described two different things. you

3:28:26you've kind of described the open space,

3:28:27I think, in a in a in a way, and then

3:28:30you've also talked about a trigger

3:28:32similar to what we talked about earlier

3:28:34tonight that guarantees

3:28:36a mix,

3:28:38>> right?

3:28:39>> Because that that's what that's what the

3:28:40trigger was with West Clocks. So, if

3:28:42that's

3:28:44you're you're saying that's what you

3:28:45would like considered.

3:28:47>> Yeah. It doesn't have to be a huge green

3:28:48space. I mean, it could be, you know,

3:28:50green space and it's a trigger for mixed

3:28:52uses. It's two things that you're asking

3:28:53for. Well, it could both of them an

3:28:56urban center with plazas and meeting

3:28:58space.

3:28:58>> Let's separate them. Okay. I'd rather

3:29:00see a flatout minimum

3:29:04two acres of green space and open space

3:29:08as one component and then separate from

3:29:11that some sort of like tiered or

3:29:13milestonebased approach to residential

3:29:16and commercial components to the

3:29:18development. Would you also want a

3:29:21milestone based approach to the

3:29:23development of the green space?

3:29:25>> No inclusion of it.

3:29:28I think it just needs to beed but I yeah

3:29:33>> but not necessarily built first like so

3:29:35so maybe it it could be part of a

3:29:37milestone where after certain amount of

3:29:40residential then you got to do all these

3:29:41amenity kind of

3:29:42>> Right. Right. Yeah. Regarding the green

3:29:44space requirement, I think it is notable

3:29:47that we required

3:29:50West Clocks to have three acres

3:29:53>> and we're at 19 something acres and

3:29:56we're requiring a 79 acre parcel to have

3:29:59two.

3:30:00>> Yeah.

3:30:01>> And

3:30:02I don't know

3:30:05um I don't really know how that's

3:30:07defined exactly. I don't know if the

3:30:09word contiguous was used with Westlocks.

3:30:12Was that used in that overlay? Okay. So,

3:30:16I I think that that is maybe up to

3:30:18staff,

3:30:20but I would like to see more green space

3:30:24than two acres. And I think that maybe

3:30:27it needs to be distinguished. You know,

3:30:28maybe the key is the contiguous piece

3:30:31and that's why it is different in West

3:30:33Blocks, but I think that just needs to

3:30:35be developed a little bit more.

3:30:36>> How much green space was in the PD?

3:30:38Anyone know how much you got two acres?

3:30:42>> Roughly two acres.

3:30:43>> Yeah. Did that include storm water

3:30:45management areas?

3:30:46>> Uh, no. I Well, I I think there was

3:30:49anticipated some below grade

3:30:51>> Okay.

3:30:51>> storm water. But

3:30:52>> was there any surface water? Surface

3:30:54storm water management

3:30:54>> to the north.

3:30:55>> Okay. Yeah.

3:30:57>> Yeah. Because the note I had on that was

3:30:59like even if two acres doesn't seem like

3:31:01a lot, we saw a plan that included like

3:31:05how we get around in the trees and the

3:31:07landscaping. So even if it was 2 acres,

3:31:11it felt like there was also space to

3:31:13move around too, right?

3:31:16>> And the elegance I think of staff's

3:31:20item two

3:31:22it contiguous

3:31:24I think was very good in that

3:31:29two acres of contiguous public public

3:31:30green space is different than just two

3:31:33acres worth of green space across the

3:31:35property, right? because it it um

3:31:38supports the notion of like a vein or

3:31:40centralized green space or something

3:31:41that's kind of which was one of the

3:31:44elements we really liked about the plan

3:31:46development. So I I you know I'm I'm

3:31:50basically agreeing at the very least

3:31:52with items one and two one being the

3:31:55minimum of 150 square feet of peaceful

3:31:58commercial space

3:32:00which staff specifically says relates to

3:32:02the area of commercial footprint

3:32:04included in current PD and then the

3:32:07requirement. So I'd for sure with those

3:32:09two from the initial memo, I'd really

3:32:12like to see those

3:32:14be part of what comes to us next.

3:32:17And frankly, um, three as well, the

3:32:20multi-use path.

3:32:21>> Yeah,

3:32:23>> I would want to be sure that all

3:32:25residential doesn't allow for ground

3:32:28floor that there's a certain proportion

3:32:32of that residential space that still has

3:32:34to keep the commercial element. So that

3:32:36all the commercial again back to what

3:32:38Matt was saying not pushing all that out

3:32:40to the at

3:32:41>> that is

3:32:42>> okay it's there's a certain amount of it

3:32:44>> not an amount there's an area where

3:32:47ground flooror residential is not

3:32:49possible so it's

3:32:50>> but that's only on Atlanta highway

3:32:52>> that's the two that I'm just telling you

3:32:53that's in there but it's related to the

3:32:55250 the 250 ft off of the Atlanta

3:32:58highway frontage the ground floor

3:33:00residential is not an option the way

3:33:02it's worded right now that's not an

3:33:04option in that area

3:33:05>> I would like to be sure that there is

3:33:07some ground floor commercial retained

3:33:10within the urban center.

3:33:13>> Yeah. Yeah. Like

3:33:14>> not just Atlanta highway.

3:33:15>> Yeah. That that is that and also that

3:33:18the commercial and the tiered approach

3:33:22is not Atlanta highway.

3:33:24>> Yeah. That's a biggie,

3:33:27>> right? Because that's a corridor, not an

3:33:29urban center.

3:33:30>> That part doesn't center.

3:33:33And I'd also like to see some tip points

3:33:35for when they have to add in new access

3:33:38points because the more life you put on

3:33:40here, if you keep pushing that Hington

3:33:42Road, it's just going to make matters

3:33:45worse.

3:33:47>> Additional access points.

3:33:51I think also looking at the five items

3:33:52from staff, I'm skipping item four for a

3:33:55second because I don't understand it

3:33:56very well, but item five um which

3:34:01um

3:34:03talks about adding

3:34:05to the list of prohibited uses adding um

3:34:08drive-through uses. I agree with that. I

3:34:12would also add quick vehicle servicing

3:34:14to that. Is that considered a

3:34:16drive-through use or is that its own

3:34:17thing?

3:34:19No, that's that's a separate use in the

3:34:21use table. Quick servicing.

3:34:23>> Yeah.

3:34:25>> I would I would add that.

3:34:29>> Can I

3:34:31want to clarify, Jennifer, on more

3:34:34access points. There's already three

3:34:37going off of Atlanta highway

3:34:40into there. Um I just want to understand

3:34:43what you're saying. Just want to make

3:34:45sure that

3:34:45>> or what do you think

3:34:47>> current access points because the way

3:34:48that they are now

3:34:51I mean I'm trying to remember how that

3:34:54all orients but the access points on

3:34:57Atlanta Highway. You've got Huntington,

3:34:58you've got Crane Drive and then you've

3:35:01got a couple of spots where you can pull

3:35:03into the businesses that are along

3:35:05Atlanta Highway and you've got Farmer

3:35:08but I don't remember multiple points

3:35:10around Atlanta.

3:35:11>> All three they all they all connect

3:35:12there. One goes Huntington and then has

3:35:15at least two,

3:35:17>> but that's still off of Huntington,

3:35:18>> right?

3:35:19>> But that is an access point. Then

3:35:22there's another one right kind of in the

3:35:24middle by Zachby's

3:35:26to the mall and a mall area parking and

3:35:30goes to that kind of perimeter road

3:35:33inside the mall front and then there's

3:35:35the one at the light by Burger King. I

3:35:38just don't My thing is

3:35:41[clears throat]

3:35:42what could they do different?

3:35:43>> No, I get it. I get it.

3:35:44>> Before it is even worse. We don't want

3:35:46to add another drive. I don't

3:35:48>> I I also want to note

3:35:51you've got you've got some limitations

3:35:53with the Atlanta Highway frontage. One,

3:35:55you have a jurisdictional.

3:35:57>> It's not low road. Two, you've got a

3:36:00significant grade change, but you've got

3:36:02those two things competing for very

3:36:04limited opportunities to do curb cuts

3:36:06beyond what's already there. Okay.

3:36:08>> Um,

3:36:08>> so is what it is.

3:36:11>> Yeah. And to the north, you have built

3:36:14out in the form of Holiday Estates and

3:36:16then all of what's built out to

3:36:18[clears throat] the west. There's no

3:36:19opportunity for punching through an

3:36:21interconnection

3:36:23off of that mall access road any really

3:36:25any differently without tearing

3:36:27something down to accomplish it. So that

3:36:29seems like a

3:36:30>> a bridge too far. So

3:36:32>> maybe what it we should think about is

3:36:35language around making sure that

3:36:36whatever the internal road network is,

3:36:39it's not over stressing one of the

3:36:42existing access points.

3:36:44>> Connectivity between the existing roads.

3:36:47>> Yeah.

3:36:55Did we add anything about green space or

3:36:58sidewalks being

3:37:00part of I mean and it's possible that

3:37:02this is already here but part of all of

3:37:03that interconnectivity

3:37:07>> make sure that it stays mobile within

3:37:09>> sidewalks would be in sign standards

3:37:12would they okay

3:37:15sidewalks inside.

3:37:23>> Yeah, within the park on on private

3:37:26roads. There was the item number three.

3:37:29>> Okay. The multi-use path.

3:37:31>> Um

3:37:34just padding.

3:37:35>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

3:37:36>> Houses or green space area shall have

3:37:38access to at least one of the required

3:37:39multi-use paths. So there is some like

3:37:45>> connectivity. No, you're good.

3:37:46>> Um,

3:37:48>> so here's again my concern because we're

3:37:52all trying to build a better Athens in a

3:37:55sense with this unique and and vital

3:37:57piece of property.

3:38:00This is where it gets clumsy dealing

3:38:02with the county and that directly with

3:38:05the developer and having even a

3:38:10the um non- voting session to understand

3:38:14are we just rebuilding the PD again?

3:38:16Like that's that's where we have to be

3:38:18careful where you know because I'm very

3:38:20strong on we need we we we don't need

3:38:23ground floor residential throughout the

3:38:25whole thing because that kills it being

3:38:28a destination. uh the lending and and so

3:38:32but if we are you know we if we aren't

3:38:35doing something

3:38:37proper

3:38:39then it's again like I said we've just

3:38:42built back the same problem they're

3:38:44trying to get away from or we're not

3:38:47covering something at all. So it it gets

3:38:51difficult to just I don't want to keep

3:38:52throwing it in the bag and then

3:38:54everybody goes back it's like it's the

3:38:56same damn thing. So, but on that point

3:38:59and then yeah, sorry.

3:39:01One of the notes I have here is to to

3:39:04sit with the owner and get their

3:39:06feedback on the limiting associated with

3:39:08the PD that were unavailable and to

3:39:11avoid those and what comes back to you.

3:39:14>> That would be a huge help.

3:39:16>> Yes.

3:39:16>> Okay. I don't know what's not working.

3:39:18>> But we Yeah. Avoid those.

3:39:19>> How can I help?

3:39:20>> Explain that to us.

3:39:21>> Give the context. But yes, you know.

3:39:23>> Yeah. Because what I don't want is like

3:39:26everything pick your exact same text

3:39:27again.

3:39:28>> Yeah.

3:39:28>> On one point to Alex. Oh, no. Yeah. Go

3:39:30ahead. Sorry.

3:39:31>> I was just going to say that we had

3:39:33discussed that that was already in the

3:39:34notes of like that. I think that I think

3:39:37that that's honestly the biggest thing

3:39:40uh that is required for proper

3:39:42deliberation of this is that

3:39:44information. Um

3:39:47and and maybe like if we're we're still

3:39:50discussing the motion to table, right?

3:39:52Um so like

3:39:56I don't know is there is there any are

3:39:59there any other points of like further

3:40:01information

3:40:02that anyone

3:40:04needs and then there's like you know

3:40:06more deliberation once that information

3:40:08is out in the open like is there

3:40:11anything else that that that people are

3:40:13like

3:40:16need to ask for this

3:40:22I think we covered a lot of what we what

3:40:24we wanted to see the last time around,

3:40:27you know, between the

3:40:30>> I think mixing uses seems to be like the

3:40:32under o overarching or underlying theme.

3:40:36>> Yeah. One thing to your point, Alex, is

3:40:38that um this relates to I have a

3:40:41question about the inclusionary zoning

3:40:42portion of this is that one thing the PD

3:40:46had on it that this does not have

3:40:48associated with it is the requirement of

3:40:50affordable housing units,

3:40:52>> which I think it's fair to say probably

3:40:54effectively tied the developers hands

3:40:57behind their back a little bit. Um

3:40:59that's an assumption I'm making. Know

3:41:01for sure. Yeah, but I I I did have a

3:41:05question about being um the recommended

3:41:10text explicitly and I can't remember

3:41:12where I saw it um explicitly

3:41:16providing for

3:41:18like pointing out that the inclusionary

3:41:20zoning is

3:41:23>> payment and loop.

3:41:25>> Yeah. Where is that in here again? Is it

3:41:29>> under residential? So where is it in the

3:41:31actual right I'm looking in the in the

3:41:34two pager

3:41:35>> e the resident so I guess what I was

3:41:38this is more an opportunity for me to

3:41:40understand this a little bit better is

3:41:43that are you even though CG zoning would

3:41:47be allowed to take advantage of the

3:41:50inclusionary zoning ordinance as

3:41:52currently right no so it's only CD

3:41:56>> yes the payment and loo option is not

3:41:58available

3:42:01The payment is new option is not

3:42:02available anywhere under RZ

3:42:04>> CD.

3:42:07>> Got it. Okay, that makes sense. So

3:42:09that's why you're including it in here.

3:42:11Okay.

3:42:13>> Can you help us understand the maximum

3:42:16block size of seven members thing? So

3:42:19that was again that was sort of

3:42:21responding to your kind of line of

3:42:23thought last month and in evaluating the

3:42:26PD which was the touchstone for

3:42:29preparing everything that was in there

3:42:31responding to those things. Um measuring

3:42:34the box there was the the largest block

3:42:39without an interruption of 50 feet or

3:42:42more in width was seven acres.

3:42:47So, so looking at the PD, looking at

3:42:49that layout, there was a block in there

3:42:52in that binding site plan that was a

3:42:57total of seven acres.

3:42:59>> But the longest length

3:43:01on the

3:43:02>> I

3:43:04uh

3:43:06I could figure it out. I think I think

3:43:08the width the width is sticking out of

3:43:10my head was more like 250

3:43:14almost 300 feet of width. So,

3:43:18but the seven acre knowing that the

3:43:20overlay doesn't have that binding grid

3:43:23or layout that the PD had, the seven

3:43:26acres gives that amoeba flexibility to

3:43:29to make it fit the shape that it needs

3:43:31to fit for whatever market driven or use

3:43:34driven decisions need to be made. So,

3:43:36seven acres. Um,

3:43:38>> are there actual block standards though

3:43:40that are different from that? So we have

3:43:43maximum block size that exists elsewhere

3:43:45in the code that does not apply to

3:43:46commercial zoning of three acres

3:43:50and that that is more compatible. It's

3:43:54kind of lifted loosely from the downtown

3:43:57block arrangement loosely. Um the 7 acre

3:44:01again was was lifting from the PD

3:44:05the largest one in there and the notion

3:44:07that if you've got

3:44:10the acreage of I mean it would be

3:44:12essentially 10 blocks so you have 79.4

3:44:15four acres of overlay. If you have a

3:44:18maximum seven block area, I mean a seven

3:44:21acre area for a block. And if you relax

3:44:23your eye and kind of visualize

3:44:27getting movement through there, 10

3:44:29blocks seemed like a good number of for

3:44:32that area given the context. It's kind

3:44:35of a a suburban retrofit and that type

3:44:37of thing.

3:44:39>> I hear what you're saying. When I read

3:44:40this, I was because I I seem to recall

3:44:44that the original PD also had a waiver

3:44:46for the block size to allow for those

3:44:48longer apartments

3:44:50>> as it related to the Yes.

3:44:52>> Yeah. So, I actually hesitate to take

3:44:55something from the PD and just apply it

3:44:57to something in this overlay like that

3:45:00because it was so special related to the

3:45:02layout and so we don't have a layout. I

3:45:04don't really want to go there, you know.

3:45:06>> Yeah, I agree with that. The PD had

3:45:09reasons why it needed big blocks because

3:45:10they were doing lots of multi-use paths

3:45:13and lots of other sorts of things. And

3:45:14so, um,

3:45:16>> yeah. So, the question,

3:45:17>> we have residential block size

3:45:19development standards

3:45:21>> that say three acres. Um, why not stick

3:45:25with that unless they come back and say,

3:45:27"Hey, can we get a waiver for this area

3:45:28where it makes a lot of sense to have

3:45:30bigger?" I just say those don't apply to

3:45:32commercial zones.

3:45:33>> No, but this is potentially nearly 100%

3:45:36residential.

3:45:38um but for the urban center but but

3:45:41great swaths of it are going to be

3:45:43residential. So it's zone commercial but

3:45:45we're doing an overlay where they can do

3:45:47very substantially concentrated

3:45:50residential.

3:45:53>> Bruce I'm trying to remember what we

3:45:57were talking about at our last planning

3:45:59commission that this item was responding

3:46:01to. I can't remember like the the block

3:46:04maximum block.

3:46:06>> There was there was discussion back to

3:46:08the language of the urban center

3:46:09definition. Um and there was discussion

3:46:13also related to massing. I think you

3:46:16guys were kind of I think I think there

3:46:17was some I think

3:46:18>> we talked about

3:46:19>> I think potentially Jennifer

3:46:21>> um thinking about the PD the binding

3:46:25site plan how it broke things up. I

3:46:27think that was one of your points.

3:46:35And maybe there's another way to get at

3:46:36the massive besides the blocks

3:46:42>> to a point that you had about a

3:46:44different item last month. If you have

3:46:4610 blocks and you have a 100 ft,

3:46:49whatever the proposed height was, you're

3:46:52going to have long caverns.

3:46:54>> And that was something that Yeah. that

3:46:56you we talked about. And

3:46:58>> we about that in the context of the West

3:47:00Broad.

3:47:01>> Yeah.

3:47:03>> You had that on both sides of the

3:47:04street.

3:47:05>> Yeah. A canyon.

3:47:08I I wonder if we've done a good job of

3:47:12having some specifics, giving staffs of

3:47:16directives,

3:47:17making it clear that we want to see a

3:47:19revised overlap text rather than a

3:47:25memorandum or whatever that attachment

3:47:28was. We want to see it actually

3:47:29incorporated into the text.

3:47:32And being I hesitate to get into the

3:47:35design of it because we don't we just

3:47:37don't know and that feels like a whole

3:47:40range. So

3:47:42do we feel confident that we have

3:47:44things? I've been taking notes but I

3:47:46think you have notes too. Do you want to

3:47:49read them out?

3:47:51>> I mean I have like three pages.

3:47:53>> Okay. That's fair.

3:47:54>> Trying to really transcribe.

3:47:57I mean go ahead first and I'll

3:48:00>> so if we go forward with this and we've

3:48:03given directive but part of that

3:48:05directive is to find out what didn't

3:48:08work for the developer

3:48:11does when we reconvene on this we're

3:48:14getting language

3:48:16but we're not I guess what I'm trying to

3:48:19get at is you'll come back with language

3:48:23>> and concerns from the developer so the

3:48:25language will be

3:48:28baked around what those concerns, what

3:48:30worked and what didn't work. Are we

3:48:32we're not really having an opportunity

3:48:34to revisit this once we know their

3:48:37concerns.

3:48:38>> So, I think I can respond to that and

3:48:41you know what I'm taking that as almost

3:48:44um part of a research. It's a it's a bit

3:48:47of an interview and then put that in in

3:48:50writing so that you have it as part of

3:48:52your packet so it's part of the record.

3:48:54Um certainly the owner has already

3:48:56spoken, the owner's representatives have

3:48:58already spoken when this has been heard.

3:49:00Um they they have the ability to do that

3:49:02and you have the ability to ask them

3:49:04questions to clarify things. So what

3:49:07you'll be responding to is the record

3:49:08you're asking me to develop through that

3:49:10interview, through that sitdown, um in

3:49:13questions that I think you've given us

3:49:15some structure to ask. Um

3:49:18what what I want to confirm with this

3:49:21motion

3:49:23is that everybody there's consensus

3:49:26amongst this group that this list of

3:49:28things the discussion that's gone on you

3:49:30all agree with because it's a planning

3:49:33commission directive. It's not a series

3:49:36of individual directives. It is a

3:49:37planning commission directive. So if

3:49:39there's anything that has been discussed

3:49:40that anybody is wanting to revisit

3:49:42because you're not comfortable with it,

3:49:43now is the time I guess to make sure

3:49:46that you don't want it part of the

3:49:48motion or to have that discussion.

3:49:51>> But I the only thing or No, go ahead,

3:49:53Jennifer.

3:49:53>> I was going to say, but I think the

3:49:54information that you get from the owner

3:49:56as to why the PD did not work will

3:49:59inform I mean that's information that we

3:50:01don't have now. That will inform could

3:50:03inform whether we think that the things

3:50:05that we have said we want are actually

3:50:07what we want.

3:50:08>> Right.

3:50:09>> But at this moment these things are what

3:50:10I think. Yeah.

3:50:13>> Comfortable with everything

3:50:14>> things things we things things we

3:50:16definitely want more information about.

3:50:18>> I'm just trying to move the eye to a we

3:50:23>> Yeah. The only one I I still I know you

3:50:26explained it but I still don't

3:50:27understand item four. So if you if you

3:50:30all keep that or skip it.

3:50:34>> Are we saying we don't want them to skip

3:50:36it?

3:50:37>> My understanding was that

3:50:39>> we're looking at we want to see a

3:50:40revised or um overlay that um that

3:50:45includes a tiered or milestone based

3:50:48approach to having a minimum of 100,000

3:50:51square feet commercial along with

3:50:54interpersed um residential. um the space

3:50:59requirement of um at least two acres of

3:51:03continuous green space. Um the

3:51:06additional access points um providing

3:51:11connectivity throughout the um property

3:51:14with the existing road network um and

3:51:17restricting Atlanta high the drive-thru

3:51:20use to the Atlanta highway properties.

3:51:25You saying skip ground floor.

3:51:27>> Wait, what are you want?

3:51:28>> I think we're specifically saying want

3:51:30any drive-through uses anywhere.

3:51:32>> That's that's what I meant.

3:51:33>> Yeah, sorry that I might have said that

3:51:35wrong.

3:51:36>> Then we also said multi-use path.

3:51:38>> Yeah. So the the text number three

3:51:43>> and some ground floor residential or

3:51:45commercial that's within the urban

3:51:47center, not just facing Atlanta highway.

3:51:49>> Yeah. So the ground floor commercial

3:51:50that's not Atlanta highway that's within

3:51:53the development.

3:51:54>> Yeah.

3:51:57>> And Bruce, just one thing since there

3:51:59was discussion of block size and want to

3:52:01get to we and I'm not sure that everyone

3:52:04weighed in on that. I just looked it up.

3:52:06I was curious. The varsity site is 6.19

3:52:08acres. So to visualize what seven acres

3:52:10looks like, that's a really big block

3:52:13and you wouldn't want to see this parcel

3:52:15be like 10 of those. if they needed a

3:52:17couple of blocks like that as part of

3:52:19their development scheme, maybe that'd

3:52:21be okay. But I but I think generally we

3:52:23have a a three acre block size for as

3:52:28they're getting into the more

3:52:28residential areas. I think probably our

3:52:30normal standards

3:52:32>> um ought to apply, but if in urban

3:52:34center part they needed to do something

3:52:36like that with a bunch of commercial

3:52:38facing the streets, could

3:52:39>> maybe that's fine. like at planning

3:52:41director's discretion or uh that that

3:52:44allows some flexibility without opening

3:52:47up all of it to just big old seven acre

3:52:51blocks.

3:52:51>> Yeah.

3:52:54>> Do you all also agree with adding quick

3:52:57vehicle servicing?

3:52:58>> Yes.

3:52:59>> Yeah. that list

3:53:03>> uses.

3:53:10>> Okay. So, so with that list, the

3:53:14question then that perhaps I can help

3:53:16work through and and this may also

3:53:18involve a question to the property owner

3:53:20because you've asked for some scheduling

3:53:23to occur with them. um time of perform

3:53:26to produce the work product that you're

3:53:27asking for. Um

3:53:32I'm assuming that we've got a property

3:53:35owner that is going to be willing to

3:53:38schedule fairly soon. It's just whether

3:53:40or not, you know, bringing these things

3:53:42to bear and hearing this discussion,

3:53:44what kind of time it's going to take to

3:53:45assemble some answers. Um,

3:53:49I think this list,

3:53:53assuming they're available, well, let's

3:53:54just do that. Let's ask availability if

3:53:56if we want to call up

3:53:59property owner

3:54:02to speak to that. Sure.

3:54:10>> Excuse me. Mark Jennings, 1547

3:54:12[clears throat]

3:54:13Lasers Drive, Watkinsville, Georgia.

3:54:15owner 11 week old more property. Uh

3:54:18yeah, we're available this week or next

3:54:21Friday, Monday. Good deal.

3:54:24>> Thank you.

3:54:24>> All right. So, with that in mind, um

3:54:28given this list and given what we're

3:54:30starting from, um to bring this back to

3:54:32you

3:54:34for your October meeting means that this

3:54:37would have to be put together in the

3:54:39span of two and a half weeks

3:54:42really to get it back into packets. and

3:54:45out to you um with the proper review

3:54:49that it that it would need to get.

3:54:51>> Is that enough time?

3:54:52>> Um that's a pretty aggressive timeline.

3:54:55Um if if um

3:55:02you know we we we won't be shutting down

3:55:04the planning department to just focus on

3:55:05this one issue, but we do know that this

3:55:07is a very important topic. And um

3:55:12I would like the ability for longer with

3:55:15the with the opportunity to bring it to

3:55:17you sooner if we're able to produce it.

3:55:20That's what I'm wondering if we wanted

3:55:21to say like sort of a maximum of two

3:55:23meetings by

3:55:24>> up to 60 days and then you bring it as

3:55:27soon as you're ready.

3:55:28>> Yeah.

3:55:28>> To be heard by the planning commission

3:55:30no later than the November regularly

3:55:32scheduled meeting

3:55:34>> by the window.

3:55:35>> Yeah.

3:55:35>> Yeah. And

3:55:39>> that works.

3:55:40>> All right. So that would need if if

3:55:42that's agreeable to you all that would

3:55:44need to be an amendment to the motion to

3:55:46set that time certain.

3:55:48>> Okay. So if you want to make that

3:55:52motion Sarah and I

3:55:54>> I want to make that amendment. What do I

3:55:57magic words?

3:55:58>> So you would like to amend the motion to

3:56:00add that we would see this

3:56:03>> Yeah. item again in

3:56:06no later than the November meeting.

3:56:08>> Yeah. I Yeah. I would like to amend my

3:56:10motion to add that time frame.

3:56:13>> I will second the amended motion.

3:56:21All right, we'll calling

3:56:24yes. Lee,

3:56:25>> yes.

3:56:26>> Derrisburg, yes.

3:56:27>> Paul,

3:56:28>> yes.

3:56:29>> Yes.

3:56:30>> Sams,

3:56:31>> yes.

3:56:33>> Yes.

3:56:36>> Stephanie,

3:56:50text amendments. Yep. [laughter]

3:56:54>> The next meeting agendas.

3:57:00>> So, the next two items are for

3:57:02discussion only. I will hit these

3:57:05highlights as quickly as I can without

3:57:07doing any disservice to the discussion.

3:57:09Um, I do want to recognize Aiden His

3:57:12Julian from Is that close enough?

3:57:15>> Julian is

3:57:19not close at all.

3:57:20>> That's not close enough.

3:57:23[laughter]

3:57:24>> So, Aiden is here from HCD. He is the

3:57:29primary staff person for administering

3:57:31our inclusionary zoning ordinance

3:57:33aspects that come out of that

3:57:35department. um which is really the nuts

3:57:37and bolts of the financials. Um so we

3:57:41work together on these things um and he

3:57:43has been kind enough to provide some

3:57:44data

3:57:46uh that I'm going to share as part of

3:57:48this presentation. It's not buried

3:57:52underneath other notes. There we go.

3:57:54Okay. So um this was part of a

3:57:57resolution. This this is there were it

3:58:00was a three-part resolution to bring

3:58:02text amendments for for y'all to work on

3:58:05things and take them into consideration.

3:58:07Um this one is focusing on revisiting

3:58:09the inclusionary zoning ordinance for

3:58:11the purpose of expanding the payment in

3:58:13lu option.

3:58:15So uh that was from a resolution on June

3:58:189th 2026. um the language on the screen

3:58:21and in italics is exactly um as that

3:58:24resolution requested um to focus not

3:58:27just on commercial but the RM zones as

3:58:29well. So RM and C zones having this

3:58:31opportunity um and the notion there of

3:58:34the with the full array of bedroom unit

3:58:36combinations that that statement relates

3:58:39to the table that is important for

3:58:42calculating those payments. So um

3:58:46all right there we go. Um, couple quick

3:58:50notes. This was in your packet, so we

3:58:51don't have to read this together, but I

3:58:52do want you to make you aware.

3:58:54Inclusionary zoning ordinance was

3:58:55adopted in April of 2022. So, we've been

3:58:57working with this with slightly over

3:58:59four years um of track record. And the

3:59:02reason why this is coming before you is

3:59:04based on that track record of

3:59:05performance um

3:59:08not act not producing at the way that

3:59:11was anticipated.

3:59:13So, uh, the purpose of it though, those

3:59:15two points at the top are important. So,

3:59:18it was a a way to get a defined

3:59:20percentage of housing affordable to very

3:59:22low and low-income households to

3:59:24incentivize that. Um, just a reminder,

3:59:27state of Georgia, we can't require

3:59:29inclusionary zoning. We can't mandate

3:59:31it, but we can offer it as an option.

3:59:33Um, and then to have housing that meets

3:59:36existing and anticipated future needs

3:59:37for those same very low to lowincome

3:59:39households. Um, a little more detail in

3:59:42the next statement gets into how that's

3:59:44to be delivered. The notion here is that

3:59:47you have a range of choices. You have a

3:59:49range of locations. You try to hit a

3:59:51variety of ages and family sizes. That

3:59:53the point is to have this program not

3:59:55zero in on a certain demographic.

3:59:59Okay.

4:00:00So, inclusionary zoning, the payment and

4:00:02loo. I've got a list of items to be

4:00:04considered as part of this that that

4:00:06were meant to be conversation starters

4:00:08for this group. Okay. Um I'm going to

4:00:10summarize those very very quickly.

4:00:12>> Uh

4:00:14that payment [clears throat] in loo

4:00:16effort was intended to get onsite to to

4:00:21relief from the on-site requirement

4:00:23because most inclusionary zoning the

4:00:25point of inclusionary zoning is to get

4:00:27on-site affordable and to realize the

4:00:29efficiencies that come with that

4:00:31construction project. And you get a

4:00:33couple things. One, you get scattered

4:00:35site affordable housing. two, it's

4:00:38scattered and integrated into other

4:00:41market rate housing. And so you you have

4:00:44um a different social context for where

4:00:48those units are. It's it's it's a blend.

4:00:51And that um the notion also is that that

4:00:54developer is skilled in the development

4:00:58arena and knows how to find the

4:00:59efficiencies to make it work. And it's a

4:01:01partner that works in that realm

4:01:03differently than a public agency can. Um

4:01:07so those were the intents behind that

4:01:10inclusionary zoning payment in Lou was

4:01:12really designed as an initial kind of

4:01:13relief mechanism and a way to provide

4:01:17some relief from that harder standard to

4:01:20meet but also capitalize an effort for

4:01:23an agency to do good things for housing

4:01:26provision elsewhere. All right. Um there

4:01:30is an affordable housing fund that has

4:01:32been created and is administered by the

4:01:34manager's office by ordinance. Um the

4:01:37assignment of that management of that

4:01:38fund is largely delegated to HCD. That's

4:01:41where the payment and L funds go. Um,

4:01:45the inclusionary zoning ordinance talks

4:01:47about there there's a an allowance that

4:01:50if you do payment in if you do

4:01:51inclusionary zoning, let me just say

4:01:53that that you're eligible for a bump in

4:01:56density and a decrease in parking. So up

4:02:00to a 50% increase in your density and up

4:02:03to a 20% reduction in your parking. So

4:02:06more people, less parking spaces is one

4:02:08of the things that is meant to

4:02:09incentivize this. Um, as we get through

4:02:14this, what we're what we're wanting to

4:02:16bring to the discussion is that if

4:02:18you're going payment in L, it means all

4:02:20the units or at least more of the units

4:02:23are going to be market rate. Market rate

4:02:25housing tends to need the parking is is

4:02:28the the one to one ratio of in this town

4:02:30in a college town context. We tend to

4:02:33have more of a ratio practically of one

4:02:36car per bedroom multif family. Um, our

4:02:39ratio is not one per bedroom for parking

4:02:41spaces. It's less than that already. And

4:02:44what we don't want to have is an

4:02:47inadvertent unintended consequence

4:02:50of where these projects sit being next

4:02:53to a neighborhood have pushed a problem

4:02:55for parking out of a development and

4:02:57into a neighborhood.

4:02:59So um what we're suggesting is that if

4:03:02we do a reduction in required multif

4:03:04family parking ratios that those

4:03:06reductions be contextsensitive. They

4:03:08need to work in a spot where they can

4:03:10realistically work and not be a excuse

4:03:12me a blanket provision. Um so here's the

4:03:16text amendment.

4:03:18Um what's being proposed here and it's

4:03:20this is it one one screen promise. Um in

4:03:23section A it's to add

4:03:26under this option all of the pro all of

4:03:29RM zones and all of the C zones and

4:03:31striking CD only may choose to make a

4:03:34payment in L

4:03:36and then adding a section C says

4:03:39qualifying projects which a qualifying

4:03:41project is the language that's in the

4:03:43inclusionary zoning for who has

4:03:45demonstrated they can meet inclusionary

4:03:48zoning standards a qualifying project

4:03:51opting to do payment in loo is not

4:03:53eligible for the parking reduction

4:03:55because essentially what you're building

4:03:56is market rate.

4:04:00That is the end of the staff report. But

4:04:02I will say this from the data that we've

4:04:05collected

4:04:07um performance on the ordinance so far

4:04:09from 2022

4:04:12we've had five bedrooms approved five

4:04:16bedrooms of housing approved that are on

4:04:18site by so and that project hasn't been

4:04:22built.

4:04:24So in the market we have zero approved

4:04:27we have five. Now the payment and L

4:04:30option has been used and to this point

4:04:34we have let's see thank you again. Um

4:04:39we have a

4:04:42where's our [clears throat] total?

4:04:43>> Oh sorry

4:04:45>> uh so

4:04:48payment in L payments received so far.

4:04:51So Mitchell Street 155 Mitchell just

4:04:54under $2 million 1,965,000.

4:04:59Uh the core spaces 7,717500.

4:05:06Um that along with

4:05:11I think there was another balance moved

4:05:13into that housing fund. But what that

4:05:15fund is able to be used for so far by

4:05:17ordinance is for loans. So for

4:05:20affordable housing loans performance out

4:05:24of that fund so far is Nota phase one a

4:05:27loan of $600,000 that produced 80

4:05:30affordable units not phase 2 um a loan

4:05:34of 3.5 million that produced 146

4:05:38affordable and then Classic City Heights

4:05:40a $1 million loan that produced 68 total

4:05:44affordable units which was 100% of that

4:05:47project. So that is the reason why this

4:05:50text amendment is coming forward.

4:05:54Is that fair?

4:05:55>> And to give the total the total payment

4:05:57we've received is 9,723,000.

4:06:00>> There we go.

4:06:07>> Any public comment?

4:06:11>> Go ahead. Um so I was on the committee

4:06:15that wrote the inclusionary zoning uh

4:06:17ordinance way back when and um so um I

4:06:22have a couple of thoughts on this one is

4:06:25expanding the payment in L option um

4:06:29makes perfect sense. The reason we

4:06:30initially allowed it in CD is because um

4:06:34we figured

4:06:36units are least attractive in a student

4:06:38oriented building. like families don't

4:06:40necessarily want to live near a bunch of

4:06:4120- year olds um with the hours they

4:06:44keep and so on. So um on-site units are

4:06:47less attractive if if it's a downtown

4:06:49student oriented apartment building. Um

4:06:53but you know it the the concern was and

4:06:55it seems to have been borne out by four

4:06:57years of statistics that u some

4:07:00developers are going to find that the u

4:07:04the trouble of having to administer

4:07:06affordable housing units with an

4:07:09affordable housing partner and so on on

4:07:11their site just doesn't u isn't

4:07:14worthwhile. And so it may be that um

4:07:18allowing a payment in LU option will

4:07:20encourage some developers who are

4:07:22building uh medium density stuff in RM

4:07:25zones or CG or whatever um to do u to

4:07:29opt into inclusionary zoning provide

4:07:31more funding for affordable housing um

4:07:33etc. So I think that's all a great idea.

4:07:35However, um the the parking thing

4:07:38concerns me. Um for this reason right

4:07:41now

4:07:42um one of the incentives for

4:07:45inclusionary zoning is you get a parking

4:07:47reduction of 20%.

4:07:49Um that's true in CD, that's true in RM,

4:07:53that's true in every place where you can

4:07:55do inclusionary zoning. If you opt into

4:07:58the program, you can get a parking

4:08:02reduction. Um, and we haven't seen a

4:08:05lot. I think, you know, for Bruce

4:08:06mentioned, like most students in fancy

4:08:09apartment buildings have a car and so

4:08:11most student housing developers don't

4:08:12actually want to take advantage of that

4:08:16um

4:08:17that parking reduction. What they of

4:08:19course bases and these other folks who

4:08:22have opted in, it's not the parking

4:08:24reduction as much as it is the extra

4:08:26density that that provides the incentive

4:08:28for them to do it. Um, but with that

4:08:30said, we just saw a project uh I think a

4:08:32month ago, David Ellson presented it. It

4:08:34was that one by Hill First Baptist

4:08:36Church where they were trying to extend

4:08:38CD one more block and use inclusionary

4:08:41zoning and all that. And he specifically

4:08:42said, "We want the parking reduction.

4:08:44We're building student housing and we're

4:08:46going to charge money for parking. Um,

4:08:49we're going to charge the students 100

4:08:50bucks a month or whatever." And that was

4:08:52part of the incentive for them because

4:08:54it's a weird site. um and getting the

4:08:57parking garage to work with geometry and

4:09:01everything was just challenging. So they

4:09:03had some tandem parking and they had

4:09:04some they wanted a reduction and I think

4:09:07that undoubtedly there are students in

4:09:09the market who want an apartment but

4:09:11don't need to have a car here or they

4:09:12park on campus. You know there's there's

4:09:14plenty of student parking uh available

4:09:17on campus and they can pay the

4:09:19university $40 a month to keep their car

4:09:22there. So, um, my inclination on the

4:09:25parking part of it is just if some few

4:09:28developers want a parking reduction and

4:09:30if it incentivizes them to opt into

4:09:32inclusionary zoning, if that's the

4:09:34carrot that makes them want to do it,

4:09:37let's let them do it. I think most of

4:09:38them won't. The market generally, you

4:09:42know, wants lots of parking for these

4:09:45apartment buildings. Um, and so most

4:09:47developers probably are not going to

4:09:49want to do it. But it's certainly not

4:09:50accurate to say that um as I said in the

4:09:53memo that the justification for

4:09:55including the reduction in the original

4:09:56ordinance was the acknowledgement that

4:09:58the affordable occupants are likely to

4:10:00not need as much parking. That was only

4:10:02part of it. There's also the other two

4:10:05things that you mentioned in the end of

4:10:06that paragraph which is it allows more

4:10:09of the land to be used for housing

4:10:11construction which may be valuable to

4:10:13some developers and it results in

4:10:15development cost savings less storm

4:10:16water etc for the developers. So, I

4:10:19would say like um if a developer is

4:10:23incentivized to participate by a parking

4:10:25reduction

4:10:27um more power to them, even though most

4:10:30of them probably aren't going to want

4:10:32it. Um and the last thing I'll mention

4:10:34is even if everybody disagrees with me

4:10:36on that, I think the way it's drafted,

4:10:38we're taking away the parking reduction

4:10:40um even in commercial downtown, not only

4:10:44in the expanded areas of RM and other C

4:10:47districts. We're saying even David

4:10:49Ellison's project and there would be BC

4:10:51CD if approved

4:10:53no longer could get a parking reduction

4:10:56there um

4:10:57>> if they're not providing on-site

4:10:58affordable

4:10:59>> if they're right. Exactly. Which which

4:11:00student developers aren't going to. So I

4:11:02don't know if that was intended but that

4:11:03seems like

4:11:04>> it was okay. Um well anyway I think

4:11:06that's a bad idea. Uh CD and anywhere

4:11:09else but everything else I fully support

4:11:11seems great

4:11:13there.

4:11:15Um,

4:11:17and I generally agree with uh everything

4:11:20Matt just said. Um, and I mean I do

4:11:23think that

4:11:25the

4:11:29that project

4:11:31near Hill Street um which may or may not

4:11:34go forward for a number of reasons, but

4:11:37it is I think the

4:11:43the place

4:11:45that

4:11:46most illustrates the concerns I I just

4:11:51heard um from Bruce from staff of oh we

4:11:56don't want

4:11:58uh reduction in parking to lead to

4:11:59overflow of student cars on the streets.

4:12:02Um

4:12:04and

4:12:06I personally still agree with everything

4:12:07that Matt said. I think that uh it's a

4:12:09worthwhile trade-off. I think that um

4:12:13cars parked on city streets is a normal

4:12:15thing and we all need to stop being so

4:12:17afraid of it and it's not actually a

4:12:19social justice issue. Um

4:12:23that's my opinion, but I do want to

4:12:24acknowledge that like that's the

4:12:26trade-off.

4:12:28>> I think it's worth it. If I can say two

4:12:30things. One, I would hesitate making any

4:12:32references to another project that's in

4:12:34the mid phase of review

4:12:37>> because you don't want to you don't want

4:12:38to make a comment that

4:12:40>> we're not deliberating on that project.

4:12:41>> For sure. Abs. Absolutely. Absolutely.

4:12:44>> 660 project.

4:12:45>> Um we've got plenty of other projects to

4:12:47use as case studies. So that I would

4:12:50like you to take that seriously. too.

4:12:53Um, the notion here is, and I said it

4:12:56very quickly in the interest of time,

4:12:57but perhaps I should have said it

4:12:58slower, content, context sensitivity for

4:13:03parking reduction is what we're

4:13:05suggesting, not in the text amendment,

4:13:07but in the analysis that we don't

4:13:09disagree that parking ratios need to be

4:13:11revisited. And and that is actually one

4:13:15of the tasks that is in yet another

4:13:16resolution for for us to be looking at.

4:13:20What we're saying is to bluntly put

4:13:23something in that is a paytoplay to get

4:13:26a 20% reduction on something that

4:13:28developers don't like to have to pay for

4:13:30because structured parking is very

4:13:32expensive. Um what we're seeing is more

4:13:36of a trend where they're happy to pay

4:13:37for that ability maybe not to get the

4:13:40full 20% but in the case of some of them

4:13:42they do want the full 20%. And we have a

4:13:45future land use map that is

4:13:46incentivizing and trying to direct these

4:13:49types of projects along corridors. Those

4:13:51corridors sit in a lot of cases right

4:13:54next to neighborhoods. And these

4:13:57fringes, these edges are already we

4:14:01already know we're going to have a

4:14:03little bit of rub there. and a little

4:14:05bit of rub's okay, but to suddenly also

4:14:08add the ability to write a check and get

4:14:11a 50% bump on the number of humans in

4:14:13there at the same time that you're going

4:14:15to push down the facilities to serve

4:14:18those humans in in the form of the

4:14:20parking going down.

4:14:23Some spots that may be fine, other spots

4:14:25that may be a problem. And this opens

4:14:28the door for it to just go into the

4:14:30system without that context sensitivity.

4:14:34So, parking ratios,

4:14:36absolutely, we need to we need to be

4:14:38looking at those things. We need to be

4:14:40thinking about how to work with getting

4:14:42those correct corrected. Um, we were

4:14:46just leery having seen what we've seen

4:14:50of expanding this further

4:14:53um and and creating what we're starting

4:14:55to see. and and the money is starting to

4:14:57move like we are seeing projects that

4:14:58are paying very large amounts to get the

4:15:02bump in density and not provide the

4:15:05parking. So I I think our trend line is

4:15:07showing that's more of a thing that

4:15:09developers are comfortable with. That's

4:15:11all.

4:15:12>> I ask one question.

4:15:14>> Um when you say uh it's cheap but one of

4:15:18them is very quick. Um does does CD have

4:15:21parking requirements

4:15:23>> for residential?

4:15:24>> For residential. Okay. Um uh

4:15:29and when you say problems,

4:15:32what do you mean

4:15:33>> causes problems? What do you mean?

4:15:35>> I mean, you could probably imagine them.

4:15:37>> I I don't think Well, I have different

4:15:41like

4:15:42>> Yeah.

4:15:43>> code enforcement in the in the life we

4:15:45live, code enforcement is an issue for

4:15:47parking in random locations. um yellow

4:15:51curbing of curb and enforcement of that

4:15:53program getting think curb you know

4:15:55streets adopted and then enforcing that

4:15:58is an issue this type of thing could

4:16:00exacerbate that and it and I I don't

4:16:02think that's a could in like it might I

4:16:04think it's a could like it will

4:16:06>> yeah yeah

4:16:07>> and where we have a lot of these

4:16:08corridors especially in in town areas

4:16:10they're next to neighborhoods that were

4:16:12developed at the turn of the century not

4:16:14this century the prior century and the

4:16:16streets don't really meet the standards

4:16:18for two-way flow know very well and on

4:16:21street parking today

4:16:22>> and so you have a safety concern in that

4:16:25instance. Now I agree that on street

4:16:27parking is a urban reality

4:16:29but where again context sensitivity if

4:16:34you have a less than 40 foot wide

4:16:35rideway that has a paving width that is

4:16:38even less than that adding on street

4:16:40parking or encouraging the fact that

4:16:42people are just going to find a spot the

4:16:45create a space approach

4:16:48it's it's it it creates a livability

4:16:51issue for those other folks in outside

4:16:53of that development

4:16:54And and I think there's a there's a way

4:16:56to address that that just needs to look

4:16:59at the district level or the

4:17:00neighborhood level or the street

4:17:02classification level.

4:17:03>> Yeah. [clears throat]

4:17:05>> Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I think this is

4:17:08great and I know that obviously it's

4:17:10working. We're getting a lot of money

4:17:11from it,

4:17:13>> but it is also the reality is is that

4:17:17the land that's left closer in is very

4:17:20expensive. And the only kind of

4:17:23residential that makes sense is going to

4:17:24be market rate because they have to be

4:17:27able to build something pricey for the

4:17:29land uses. So this gets back to

4:17:31something we talked about last month

4:17:33that one potential unintended

4:17:36consequence that I think we're going to

4:17:37see from this expansion is that we will

4:17:41have our more affordable housing

4:17:43continue to be pushed out. So, I mean, I

4:17:48just think that's going to happen and

4:17:50we're going to end up with pockets of

4:17:53affordable housing, which I don't think

4:17:55any of us really wanted to see rather

4:17:58than having it more interspersed.

4:18:05Sir,

4:18:06>> um I just wanted a quick reminder or for

4:18:10you to remind us. Um the developer can

4:18:14get

4:18:16they can get both of those perks

4:18:19and the and whether they get both of

4:18:21those perks, the density bump and the

4:18:22parking reduction that relates to how

4:18:26many affordability affordable units

4:18:28they're willing to either build or pay

4:18:30in lie of. Like do they just kind of

4:18:32automatically get both?

4:18:34or

4:18:35>> they automatically have those available

4:18:37to them. They don't has to use them.

4:18:39>> The benefit is the amount that they have

4:18:42to either give or build in return for

4:18:46that benefit different if they choose

4:18:49one or the other. Can they say I just

4:18:51want the parking minimum or I just want

4:18:53the density bump?

4:18:54>> They just get them both.

4:18:56>> So if it's a qualifying project, they're

4:18:58picking a path. It's either 80% or 60%.

4:19:02That's, you know, and then when they

4:19:04meet those metrics, that unlocks

4:19:07the the either the density increase and

4:19:12the parking. It it it opens it up. They

4:19:14don't have to use it all, but both are

4:19:16open at the full amount. It's not

4:19:17indexed. It's not like you get a 20%

4:19:20bedroom increase if you do fewer of this

4:19:24or fewer of that or a different AMI.

4:19:28Am I saying this correctly?

4:19:30>> Yes. Yep. There's two options. Um

4:19:34whether you do 80% AMI units or 60%. I

4:19:37think it's 15% of the units have to be

4:19:40affordable if you do 80% AMI and 10% or

4:19:4360% AMI. But yes, so you get if your

4:19:47project qualifies, you get all of those

4:19:49incentives. There's no T.

4:19:52>> Got it. And so you qualify or you don't

4:19:54under one of those two right pathways.

4:19:57And if you qualify,

4:19:59you can get both perks.

4:20:01>> Yes. You get the density bonus, you get

4:20:04the parking reduction, and CD also gets

4:20:07a commercial space reduction.

4:20:09>> Okay.

4:20:10>> Yeah, that's true.

4:20:10>> And if you

4:20:13have you ever had a developer take

4:20:16advantage of the density bump and not

4:20:18take advantage of the parking minimum

4:20:20option?

4:20:21>> I think core spaces, right? No, they're

4:20:24>> they

4:20:26doing Yeah, they're this project here is

4:20:29doing absolutely doing the reduction in

4:20:30parking and the full okay a lotment of

4:20:34>> that's what you're Yeah. And that's the

4:20:35point you're trying to make is that they

4:20:36are doing both and it's sort of

4:20:40counterintuitive

4:20:41that they're getting more density and

4:20:44getting the parking reduction.

4:20:45>> It's not counterintuitive. It it it has

4:20:48the potential to create a spillover

4:20:51effect to the surrounding properties and

4:20:52surrounding neighborhoods and and it is

4:20:55it has been a an issue that we've had to

4:20:57really work through because the

4:21:00spillover of of undererved or

4:21:03underparked projects is going to impact

4:21:05potentially a a county park or

4:21:09potentially impact a county parking

4:21:12structure,

4:21:12>> right? Um, so it's that's what we're

4:21:16trying to be thoughtful about and and um

4:21:20yeah, I think I explained it. Do we know

4:21:24if core spaces or the other developer

4:21:28would have participated?

4:21:31Um, this is probably an question. would

4:21:34they, you know, do we have any reason to

4:21:36think that they would have um opted into

4:21:38inclusionary zoning only for the density

4:21:41if they didn't get the parking

4:21:42reduction?

4:21:44>> Um I'm not sure. I don't know. Did Did

4:21:46that come up in your conversations with

4:21:49them?

4:21:50>> Wasn't really on the table.

4:21:52>> Okay. So, we got $9 something million

4:21:55and if we hadn't offered the parking

4:21:57reduction,

4:21:59we might have gotten none of that. We

4:22:01got seven

4:22:02>> seven from them, but I can't say for

4:22:05certain that never came up. They didn't

4:22:07say, "Oh, you know, we need this.

4:22:09>> We need this or we would have never

4:22:10done."

4:22:11>> There's the land swaps part of it, too.

4:22:14>> Yeah, there was a whole lot to it. But I

4:22:16mean, um,

4:22:18what I hear what I hear staff saying is

4:22:21this has worked the payment in L has

4:22:24worked in commercial downtown. Um the

4:22:27on-site units has not really generated

4:22:30much of anything anywhere.

4:22:32Um so let's expand payment in Lou to

4:22:36other zoning categories in the hopes

4:22:38that it'll generate some uh payments

4:22:42there for the affordable housing fund,

4:22:43but also let's cut the knees out from

4:22:45under the commercial downtown thing

4:22:46that's generated $9 something million.

4:22:49um the way it was written and has not

4:22:52yet created any problems just because

4:22:54maybe because of the timeline maybe it

4:22:56will I don't know but we haven't seen it

4:22:58create a problem in a neighborhood. It

4:23:00it sounds like um

4:23:03we're getting ahead of a potential

4:23:05problem but also potentially just kind

4:23:06of killing the goose that's laying these

4:23:09golden eggs so that we might not get

4:23:10anybody opting in to

4:23:14>> pay.

4:23:16um just on on the on the table by way of

4:23:21comments um

4:23:23of trying to balance the

4:23:28competing issues, right? Um,

4:23:32I wonder if it is possible to keep the

4:23:35payment in L to keep the to keep the

4:23:37parking uh

4:23:40uh to expand the payment in L option to

4:23:43RM and C uh while keeping the potential

4:23:48well while keeping the potential for the

4:23:50um

4:23:52parking reduction in CD only or even

4:23:55keeping like a you know a lesser like a

4:23:5710% parking reduction in CD.

4:24:00uh something something more in between

4:24:02than completely uh wiping the parking

4:24:07reduction option off of payment and loop

4:24:10projects.

4:24:23>> Right.

4:24:25Right. So

4:24:28help

4:24:29>> no other input.

4:24:33>> Thank you for that.

4:24:35>> Right. Maximum building height in voting

4:24:39district.

4:24:43>> Three hours.

4:24:45[laughter]

4:24:48>> Some people cross the line and you're

4:24:50like whatever. [laughter]

4:24:53>> All right. Um this set of text

4:24:57amendments was also a part of that same

4:24:59resolution from June. Um this is

4:25:01focusing on building height standards in

4:25:02our commercial zones. Um specifically

4:25:05the wording in the resolution spoke to

4:25:09stories.

4:25:11So um increase the maximum height

4:25:13regulations applicable to structures and

4:25:15C zones up to two additional stories in

4:25:19the commercial zoning district generally

4:25:22and then specifically in commercial

4:25:24downtown four additional stories and

4:25:27that a stipulation folded into this that

4:25:30there would be a stepping into this that

4:25:32if um a commercially zoned property um

4:25:36is adjacent to RS zoned property and

4:25:39we're looking We've done some analysis

4:25:41for RS and RM just to kind of look

4:25:44equally across residential. Um the the

4:25:48100 ft of the commercially zoned

4:25:50property that is adjacent to the RS and

4:25:53RM would not be eligible for the

4:25:55increased building height. They've yet

4:25:56to use current standards. So in downtown

4:26:00100 ft um in commercial neighborhood 65

4:26:04ft same in commercial general. So in

4:26:08trying to pull this together into code

4:26:10language um we had a few things to to

4:26:13consider. Um and one of those things is

4:26:17how we measure height. So we started

4:26:20immediately after this resolution was

4:26:22passed talking with building inspections

4:26:24and with fire marshall's office. Um some

4:26:26of you all remember with um some of our

4:26:30high-rise developments near the edges of

4:26:31downtown. We had to sort through

4:26:33building height measurement how it was

4:26:35measured, where it would be allowed to

4:26:37be taller than 100 feet, if it could be

4:26:39at all.

4:26:41And there are some factors to take into

4:26:43account. Um, we're still working on

4:26:47revisions to the language on how to

4:26:50measure building height. Admittedly,

4:26:52what we have right now is even

4:26:54challenging for staff and it's certainly

4:26:56been challenging for applicants. um

4:26:59despite our best attempts to draw

4:27:01pictures and and explain it. But we're

4:27:05going to work on that and you will have

4:27:06something when this comes back to you

4:27:08that is in the form of some language

4:27:10that feels like blends building code,

4:27:12fire code, and zoning code into

4:27:14something that everybody can support and

4:27:16understand and that our development

4:27:18community can read and know how to draw.

4:27:21Okay. All right. Um

4:27:24so we have these definitions. There they

4:27:26are. If you ever have want to have some

4:27:28fun, a little story problem from

4:27:29geometry, try doing one of these. Um, it

4:27:33can be done. Let me just tell you that

4:27:35it can be done.

4:27:37Um, so in section 9103, we've got a list

4:27:40of issues to think about. Um, I'm not

4:27:43going to read all these to you, but what

4:27:45we've got here is a an approach in this

4:27:48ask of adding stories. We need to know

4:27:50what a story is. And so for commercial

4:27:53zones, different [clears throat] from

4:27:55residential zones, commercial

4:27:56construction stories are a little bit

4:27:58bigger. So don't think about your house,

4:28:01think about this building. So from floor

4:28:05to ceiling actually to roof deck here

4:28:08we're pretty close to 15 feet when all

4:28:10is said and done because above these

4:28:12ceiling tiles we have duct work and we

4:28:14have other things going on trusses and

4:28:17you know and so commercial building

4:28:19typically has that kind of space in the

4:28:22living space and additional space to

4:28:24handle the things you have to do to meet

4:28:25code and that all factors into a story.

4:28:29So for the purpose of understanding

4:28:30these so that we can have a number,

4:28:32we've said 15 feet.

4:28:35When you talk about adding two stories,

4:28:36you're now talking about 30 feet. In the

4:28:38in the case of downtown, if you're

4:28:40talking about four stories, you're

4:28:41talking about 60 feet. So going from

4:28:43100t tall to 160 feet tall is

4:28:45effectively what this ask is in the

4:28:49resolution.

4:28:51um

4:28:53with what we're considering here, we

4:28:57have a third aspect to this resolution

4:28:59that is talking about a TDR program,

4:29:02transfer of development rights. The

4:29:04third part of this resolution asked

4:29:07staff working with the planning

4:29:08commission to develop a program for

4:29:11transferring residential density in our

4:29:13commercial downtown zone. So that

4:29:17let's say you have a property that's a

4:29:18very small lot that you couldn't build a

4:29:20building tall enough to maximize the 200

4:29:23beds per acre on the sixth of an acre

4:29:27lot that it is. They still have that

4:29:30property right, but they can't achieve

4:29:31it. There's no physical way to do it.

4:29:35Theory here is that that is that is a

4:29:38right that could be transferred

4:29:39elsewhere within the zone to somebody

4:29:41who has assembled enough land to

4:29:42feasibly accommodate it. Well, if

4:29:45they're going to be able to accommodate

4:29:46that additional density that has that

4:29:48could transfer, they're going to need

4:29:49more building to do it. And so in this

4:29:52recommendation, what we're saying is

4:29:55perhaps we should think about indexing

4:29:58the additional building height for CD

4:30:00against participation in the transfer of

4:30:03those residential.

4:30:06I'm going to go through this really

4:30:07quickly. fire marshall's here to answer

4:30:09questions if you have any, but there is

4:30:11a there is a tipping point at 75 ft that

4:30:15we've been um educated on that happens

4:30:18for the fire marshall and inspection

4:30:19department. When you get above 75 ft in

4:30:23height, there's additional code

4:30:25considerations that have to be taken

4:30:26into account. Um once you're above that,

4:30:29those code considerations are almost the

4:30:31same

4:30:33at infant item really. And so you start

4:30:36to have a new level of of of

4:30:39realization of dollar amount where you

4:30:41need more height to make the money to

4:30:43pay for that additional. So the 76 foot

4:30:46tall building super expensive per square

4:30:48foot as opposed to the 120 foot tall

4:30:52building where you've added more

4:30:54leasable space and more marketable

4:30:55space. Um so it it's a reality that we

4:31:00want to reflect and and we'll see right

4:31:02into this. Um,

4:31:08Cassie, unless we get questions, I don't

4:31:09know if we're going to get to your

4:31:10mapping, but if we get questions, we

4:31:12definitely will. She's done some really

4:31:14cool GIS work. Um, so let me get to what

4:31:17we're proposing here. And it it lives

4:31:20for now until we get to definitions. It

4:31:22lives really just in table 9103.

4:31:25Everything in yellow um is what we're

4:31:28talking about as a potential text

4:31:30amendment. So

4:31:33we have a floor area ratio maximum that

4:31:36applies in our C zones. We found in

4:31:38practice this doesn't this really hasn't

4:31:41produced a lot of results. What what has

4:31:43produced results is our minimum floor

4:31:46area ratio that we have on certain

4:31:47corridors because it it forces

4:31:50developments to go vertical in a lot of

4:31:52cases and create mixed use. The maximum

4:31:55becomes really bad math when you start

4:31:58to get too tall.

4:32:00For instance, in downtown, a 5.0 F

4:32:06will never will in a lot of cases make

4:32:07it where you can never achieve this

4:32:09additional building hike. It makes it

4:32:11hard to get to 100.

4:32:13So, what we're proposing here based on

4:32:15the performance lessons learned over 25

4:32:17years is just to eliminate the maximum

4:32:19F. Let building height, let setbacks,

4:32:22let lock coverage all do their job to

4:32:24create the envelope and and don't reach

4:32:27any deeper than that. um entertaining a

4:32:30minimum F in the future for some of

4:32:31these zones outside of these corridors

4:32:33or beefing them up I think is the way to

4:32:35go. Um and then the text amendment we're

4:32:39contemplating here is for commercial

4:32:42general two additional stories 30 ft. Um

4:32:46that becomes 95 ft with that caveat. Um

4:32:50footnote 4

4:32:52that you can only achieve that when

4:32:53you're 100t in to your commercial

4:32:57CG or commercial downtown zoned

4:33:00property. Um, we're suggesting the

4:33:02additional two stories for downtown for

4:33:04now with the ability to add two

4:33:07additional stories should we have this

4:33:09TDR transferable development right

4:33:11program. That that creates a connection

4:33:14for that additional 30 ft of height and

4:33:17a reason for it. Um what we don't really

4:33:19want to do is give away that capacity of

4:33:22development without the tradeoff of the

4:33:25other um benefit that we're trying to

4:33:28achieve with that TDR.

4:33:30Commercial office is a transitional zone

4:33:32that lives next to a lot of RS and RM

4:33:34properties. Adding another 30 ft to the

4:33:3840t to create 70 foot tall buildings

4:33:40next to single family seems like a

4:33:42pretty unpopular concept even with a 100

4:33:45foot nudge. Um, so our suggestion at

4:33:49this point is to not make a change to

4:33:50CO. Similarly, CN has a maximum height

4:33:54of 65 ft. I can only think of one

4:33:56instance where we've come close to

4:33:57achieving that and it was not a very

4:34:00wellreceived project, although I think

4:34:02things have settled. Um, you may know

4:34:05it.

4:34:06>> Okay. Might be close to your house,

4:34:09right? Um, but we that there's really

4:34:12only one instance of that um where there

4:34:15was a parking structure involved. There

4:34:16was a a multi-story building that

4:34:18fronted on Prince Avenue. Um, and when

4:34:22you think contextually about where a

4:34:24commercial neighborhood is, streets like

4:34:26Millage, Baxter, um, sure there may be a

4:34:30handful of locations where going above

4:34:3265 ft by a floor might be possible. Um,

4:34:36but they are so few and far between. and

4:34:39then commercial rural. I can't think of

4:34:42a single development that we've had in

4:34:43my time here that has been more than two

4:34:45stories tall and and a true two stories.

4:34:48So, um 65 ft is what code allows today

4:34:52is probably just fine.

4:34:55That is what you've got in front of you.

4:34:59Um like I said, Cassie's got this. Trust

4:35:01me, it's it's cool. And and what we can

4:35:04do it hurts, doesn't it? Just a little

4:35:07bit.

4:35:08Um,

4:35:10>> send us her map to look at in her.

4:35:12>> It's kind of not it's I mean it's a

4:35:14dynamic GIS like we got a whole it's not

4:35:17just

4:35:17>> can just play with it and look at it.

4:35:19>> Should we make it a story map that gets

4:35:21pushed

4:35:22>> to the web?

4:35:25>> Um, but does

4:35:27>> Oh, sure.

4:35:28>> If if if

4:35:30this is I mean this is in y'all's

4:35:32packet. We could discuss you could pull

4:35:34it up real quick just so we get a little

4:35:36air time.

4:35:37>> [laughter]

4:35:37>> It's fine.

4:35:39>> Okay. I want to see

4:35:43>> intro.

4:35:48>> Um but yeah, discussion. Um certainly

4:35:50welcome comments if we're on the right

4:35:53track. Do you think we should be looking

4:35:55at this differently?

4:35:57Any thoughts?

4:35:59>> I mean, I want to talk about fire piece.

4:36:02>> I think that's pretty important. Um that

4:36:05this would potentially

4:36:07require additional staffing and

4:36:09additional specialized training. So,

4:36:13>> why not?

4:36:14>> I would love to hear more about that if

4:36:15you're open to telling

4:36:18>> um I was kind of wondering what that

4:36:20really means for you all.

4:36:22So NFPA, National Fire Protection

4:36:26Agency, is sort of the guidelines of

4:36:28fire service. And um so right now on a

4:36:32high-rise, it takes 43 personnel to

4:36:36achieve a high-rise fire with all of

4:36:39the, you know, the rent teams, which is

4:36:43teams there in case something happens,

4:36:45they're able to go in there and get

4:36:46firefighters out. Um you have fires, how

4:36:50is that?

4:36:50>> 75 foot. Okay,

4:36:52>> we have those

4:36:53>> um is what that would be considered.

4:36:56>> Um right now if we had a incident, we

4:37:00can cover that, but that leaves every

4:37:03truck will be on that scene except for

4:37:05one fire truck

4:37:06>> in the entire county.

4:37:07>> In the entire county.

4:37:08>> Wow.

4:37:10>> So, um the staffing requirements that we

4:37:13would like to see and the mayor

4:37:15commission, we have been adding

4:37:16personnel to our trucks. We would like

4:37:19to see that continue. additional

4:37:21personnel, more personnel like downtown

4:37:24um fire station number three, some of

4:37:27those areas where these highrises are.

4:37:29We would like to see more personnel on

4:37:31those trucks, not necessarily buying

4:37:33more trucks, you know, um we would like

4:37:36to see four personnel on each apparatus

4:37:39that we have. And if we had that, of

4:37:42course, it would take less people or

4:37:44less trucks on theme because we would

4:37:45have the personnel.

4:37:47And so what is going from 75 to 100 or

4:37:52130? How does that change your staffing

4:37:54needs?

4:37:55>> So u because there's more jobs, just

4:37:57more, you know, if you had a fire on a

4:38:00100 120 foot floor, you know, that's

4:38:03firefighters climbing 120 foot up. By

4:38:06the time they get all the equipment

4:38:07there, they're pretty much already out

4:38:09of air. Um they have to, you know, it

4:38:12takes a lot to get all the hoses and

4:38:14everything up there. So, it's just

4:38:16really just keeping them safe and

4:38:18filtering them through as far as you

4:38:20know, you can work for about 15 20

4:38:21minutes on a actual fire and then you

4:38:24need to have rehab,

4:38:25>> right? And so, is the requirement for 43

4:38:28personnel associated with the high-rise

4:38:30incident? Is that the same if the

4:38:32high-rise is 75 ft or 100 ft?

4:38:36>> That's that's the recommendation. Of

4:38:38course, 75 ft building, it wouldn't take

4:38:41nearly the personnel that a 120 foot

4:38:44person uh building would be,

4:38:46>> but that's just the threshold as far as

4:38:48the 75 foot, that's what they say,

4:38:50high-rise operations would need.

4:38:52>> Okay? And so you if you were in a city

4:38:55that had multiple 100 to 130 foot

4:38:58highrises in it, you would have to staff

4:39:02that

4:39:03more intensively

4:39:06if everything just had 75 ft or

4:39:08>> Yes. I mean some staffing on those

4:39:10trucks could be five personnel on an

4:39:12engine whereas we're running three

4:39:13personnel on some of our engines.

4:39:15>> Okay.

4:39:16>> Where they would have two additional

4:39:18personnel per truck.

4:39:21our rescue truck, our heavy rescue

4:39:23truck, we have two personnel on it.

4:39:26Okay. A lot of the larger cities, even

4:39:28Glet, Atlanta, they'll have four to five

4:39:31people on those trucks. So, it's just

4:39:33it's really bodies in the seats is what

4:39:36>> So, is it correct to say that a an

4:39:39ordinance like this that considers

4:39:41raising the maximum building height in

4:39:43downtown

4:39:44would require more fire resources, would

4:39:47require the department to get higher

4:39:49>> staffing, higher budget? It's really

4:39:51staffing. I mean, as far as our

4:39:53equipment and everything, we've done a

4:39:54really good job. We've got really good

4:39:56trucks and and, you know, an apparatus.

4:39:59So, I mean, it's really just a personnel

4:40:01issue.

4:40:01>> Yeah.

4:40:02>> We're firefighters.

4:40:04>> Okay, that's good to know.

4:40:06>> It sounds like you need that now.

4:40:09>> We have been working on it. Um, past um,

4:40:13you know, several years, we've been

4:40:14adding personnels, but it takes time. I

4:40:17mean, you know, even the approved

4:40:19positions that we had, you know, we got

4:40:22them, I guess it opened up in January

4:40:25for us to get them. We are just now at

4:40:28the point of hiring those people. Like,

4:40:30so they won't really be on the trucks

4:40:32till next year because of training, the

4:40:36hiring process, and then the the

4:40:38training process that they have to go

4:40:39through.

4:40:42This is probably a silly question, but

4:40:45is there if we went ahead and we raised

4:40:47the heights, which personally I have no

4:40:48problem with outside of safety,

4:40:52can we require a developer developer to

4:40:54have to to contribute funds to increase

4:40:59fire department? I mean, like what how

4:41:02do we

4:41:02>> So that trends towards an impact fee.

4:41:07um you got to be careful that you're not

4:41:08cooking up an exaction. Um so you have

4:41:12to anticipate those things on the front

4:41:15end, which is kind of where I've taken

4:41:16your question to go. Um

4:41:19that would be a whole new ball game for

4:41:21this government um to fund personnel for

4:41:27the likelihood

4:41:28of maybe something like that happening.

4:41:31It's different than the fee that you pay

4:41:33for a water tap that you're using every

4:41:35day.

4:41:36Right. And so it's it's just a different

4:41:39discussion.

4:41:40>> Um some communities have had it. Um

4:41:45some communities approached it with we

4:41:48won't make it a requirement, but we're

4:41:49going to make it a consideration should

4:41:51you come through with like a PD.

4:41:53>> We want a PD to to have the additional

4:41:55hype. Well, as part of that PD, there's

4:41:57like a community benefits sort of

4:41:59statement. And if that developer ops,

4:42:02that's the key word, it would be them

4:42:03volunteering to provide a piece of

4:42:07equipment funding, you know, a dollar

4:42:09amount that has been indexed against

4:42:11what it costs to have the thing that's

4:42:12missing to serve their development, then

4:42:16that has been found to be okay. But that

4:42:18is not anything that we've ventured into

4:42:21in Athens Park County. How

4:42:24so keeping your line of thought do you

4:42:28have preferences or is there an opinion

4:42:30of the staff of other cities that have

4:42:34experienced growth vertical growth that

4:42:37have done it right? So the I you know

4:42:40there there are a lot of cities in in

4:42:42the United States that certainly have

4:42:44buildings taller than what we have in

4:42:45Africa and

4:42:48largely the way that that has been

4:42:49accomplished in a modern context. Yes,

4:42:52personnel you have to have you have to

4:42:54have all services in place to serve a

4:42:57bigger building. So it's more than just

4:42:58fire. Fire is super important but it's

4:43:00all of that. Adequate facilities need to

4:43:03be there. The way that they're really

4:43:05tackling it on the daytoday though is

4:43:07the type of construction. And so it is

4:43:10more expensive to build a taller

4:43:12building. Not just because it's taller,

4:43:13but you also have these factors of life

4:43:15safety where you have to have certain

4:43:17floors that are refuge floors that are

4:43:19rated differently than how you would

4:43:21normally build something shorter. You

4:43:23may have to have additional means of

4:43:25egress, additional rated towers, sta

4:43:28stairwells than, you know, perhaps the

4:43:30one or sometimes two that are required.

4:43:33So you start seeing those types of

4:43:37building approaches.

4:43:38>> Um you know more robust sprinkler

4:43:41systems with redundancies in them and um

4:43:44rather than having the firemen have to

4:43:47pull the hoses you have hose stations

4:43:49that are built and those have to be

4:43:50tested and maintained and the hoses

4:43:52replaced and you know so there's am I

4:43:54right?

4:43:54>> Yeah. Yes. So, I mean what he's talking

4:43:56about. So, fire pumps, you'll have fire

4:43:58pumps that are automatic. Stand pipes

4:44:00are automatic to where our trucks

4:44:02necessarily wouldn't be pumping to the

4:44:04fire. The building actually has a fire

4:44:06pump in the building. Now, our trucks

4:44:08are there in case that system goes down.

4:44:10Um, stairwells are rated at two to three

4:44:13hour rated stairwells. um air

4:44:16pressurization systems in those

4:44:17stairwells, you know, to suck the air

4:44:19out to make sure that that habitat in

4:44:22those stairwells stays to where somebody

4:44:24could live there. Um the type of

4:44:26construction, so you would have like

4:44:28more of a type one concrete um building,

4:44:32steel versus wood frame.

4:44:35>> Okay.

4:44:35>> Different glass.

4:44:36>> Uh yes, I mean I mean the buildings

4:44:38would be built. So that goes all into

4:44:42building code which we don't get into

4:44:43but if we

4:44:46then the code would have to be updated

4:44:48to be able to accommodate that.

4:44:49>> Yeah. So I mean and Clark County has

4:44:51already adopted you know the 2024 life

4:44:54safety um international fire code

4:44:56building code all of that. So they keep

4:44:58that as the code gets adopted by the

4:45:01state we automatically adopt code.

4:45:05I mean

4:45:07>> yes. And so here's another thing we want

4:45:09to be careful of with these types of

4:45:11standards.

4:45:12Um, we don't want to have something in

4:45:14the zoning code that somebody has a

4:45:16reasonable expectation to be able to

4:45:18achieve and then we get into plans

4:45:19review and there are technical reasons

4:45:21why you can't.

4:45:22>> So we don't want to oversell and

4:45:24underdel if it's in the zoning code. We

4:45:27want it needs to be something that you

4:45:28could realistically construct. And um

4:45:34this type of text amendment all brings

4:45:37to bear some other things that need to

4:45:38be thought about so that we don't get

4:45:40into plans review and say yeah I wish we

4:45:42could let you build you know that 120

4:45:45foot tall building we just can't because

4:45:46we don't have X um because it would be

4:45:50irresponsible for us to issue a permit

4:45:51for something that we couldn't service.

4:45:54>> You couldn't service it only because our

4:45:55code our buildings codes are not up to

4:45:58date.

4:45:58>> No no our building codes are fine. It's

4:46:00whether or not we have personnel.

4:46:01>> Oh, okay.

4:46:02>> To provide adequate protection. And then

4:46:05the ripple effect of that also is to an

4:46:07ISO rating issue and what that does to

4:46:10our insurance. You know, I mean, it's

4:46:11just I mean, there's a lot that could go

4:46:14into it. But I mean, today we could

4:46:17service that building because that's

4:46:19what we have to look at. One incident,

4:46:21we don't think about, you know, if we

4:46:23get called out, we're going to that

4:46:24incident. We're not, well, we can't send

4:46:26all the trucks because we might have

4:46:27another. We're going to put everything

4:46:29we can on that.

4:46:31>> If you get another call, well then

4:46:32that's when we have to sort of figure

4:46:36something out. I mean, we have mutual

4:46:37aid with other counties and things of

4:46:38that nature, but um even your response

4:46:41times are different, but the response

4:46:43times are very much different.

4:46:46Yes,

4:46:46>> I think in general like I'm okay with

4:46:49the change, but I feel like it's

4:46:50interesting like from our standpoint

4:46:52it's an okay change but this is sort of

4:46:54a mayor and commission issue with buyer

4:46:58services. And so

4:47:01once this goes to them, I feel like this

4:47:03becomes a matter of adoption of

4:47:06something like this in conjunction with

4:47:08a plan to make sure that we are properly

4:47:10staffed over the next few years knowing

4:47:13that it takes a time to train people up,

4:47:15but also it would take a while to build

4:47:17a building like this. So it's not like

4:47:18it's going to happen right around the

4:47:19corner, but but yeah,

4:47:23>> what problem

4:47:25is this text amendment proposing to

4:47:28solve? How did it even come up?

4:47:31>> Well, it's it's not offt target with the

4:47:34future land use plan. So,

4:47:37there was a good bit of discussion and

4:47:38here we go. Here's the mapping. Um, you

4:47:40know, we looked at corridors. We looked

4:47:42at nodes. Future land use map was built

4:47:45on the notion of a growth concept map

4:47:47that had nodes of development that

4:47:49should carry more

4:47:51more mix, more height, more footprint,

4:47:53more land utilization. Same with our our

4:47:56corridors. And so part of that was if

4:47:59we're going to look at height, well then

4:48:00let's look at it. Let's actually figure

4:48:02out what our capacity can be um and and

4:48:06try to put some tolerances into the

4:48:07system where somebody could use the land

4:48:10better.

4:48:12So Cassie, you want to describe your

4:48:14map?

4:48:15>> Oh yeah, absolutely. Amazing. Okay, so

4:48:18in sort of the light red over here, you

4:48:21have your zone base map of the CG and

4:48:23over here right now we have the CD

4:48:25shown. Um I took a 100 foot buffer from

4:48:28RS and RM parcels. That's thing is if we

4:48:32were to kind of take this further um the

4:48:35zoning comes from the center line and

4:48:37not the parcel line. So the under foot

4:48:39then like some cases like 10 15 maybe 20

4:48:41feet off and then took those buffers and

4:48:45with the existing buildings kind of

4:48:47started to show what would be in the

4:48:49buffer versus not. So green shows that

4:48:52they're not in the buffer. So those are

4:48:53buildings that could essentially be

4:48:55higher whereas red buildings um are too

4:48:59close to any residential zone and

4:49:01therefore would not really be able to

4:49:03have additional height. Now of course

4:49:05that this height would typically

4:49:07transfer to any sort of new development

4:49:09and not necessarily onto existing

4:49:11development. But this is just kind of

4:49:12give you an idea of like of the existing

4:49:16buildings in Athens, what would really

4:49:17be like affected by an ordinance change

4:49:20and what wouldn't.

4:49:22shows opportunity.

4:49:23>> Yes.

4:49:24>> Right.

4:49:24>> And are the the green are existing

4:49:26buildings that could be higher than they

4:49:27are now?

4:49:28>> Yes. And Yeah. And red could not take

4:49:30any more. And then in downtown reason

4:49:32that they're is that those are in the

4:49:35historic district and so they have

4:49:36additional guidelines and so because all

4:49:38those buildings are otherwise green but

4:49:41since they have preservation things they

4:49:43can't.

4:49:44>> Yeah.

4:49:46>> Told you it was cool.

4:49:47>> Yeah. That's really cool.

4:49:48>> It's really cool.

4:49:49>> Yeah. And you've got a whole bunch of

4:49:51different layers in terms of future

4:49:52consideration. Like you've got

4:49:54>> the future land map. Yes, we do. We can

4:49:57turn those on. Don't pay attention to

4:49:59any of the naming.

4:50:02Um we have

4:50:04let's see.

4:50:07And we had some great color great color

4:50:09choices partly by Ellie and the hot

4:50:12pink. We have the I think neighborhood

4:50:16centers.

4:50:18Yeah. And then in the the smaller patch

4:50:21red. We have the town centers and you

4:50:24kind of zoom out a little bit. The black

4:50:26is the major corridor and the dark gray

4:50:28is the minor quarters to kind of show

4:50:31that these are pretty much in line with

4:50:33certain choices for the CG and the CD a

4:50:38little bit.

4:50:39You just see a little bit of interaction

4:50:41with the future land use. Yeah. Places

4:50:43where it lines up, places where it

4:50:44doesn't. But in case that was a point of

4:50:46curiosity for y'all as well. This is

4:50:48great.

4:50:50>> Is there any way that you can like drop

4:50:51into a street view and show like current

4:50:54building height and then

4:50:56>> uh No, I mean that would be a further

4:51:00thing. We do have in pro we have 3D and

4:51:04I believe we have that license. Yeah. Um

4:51:09but that is not available right now.

4:51:14impromptu treaty.

4:51:16>> Oh, can we do a fly time on print?

4:51:19[laughter]

4:51:21>> I mean, this is very cool, but I do also

4:51:23think that seeing what happens to the

4:51:26built environment with these

4:51:28>> Yeah.

4:51:29>> height changes would be interesting.

4:51:30>> Yes.

4:51:31>> Or what could happen to it.

4:51:32>> And it and it's and it with regard to

4:51:36the corridors, it's looking at it from

4:51:37two perspectives.

4:51:40All perspectives would be helpful but

4:51:41definitely what does it do to a corridor

4:51:43and then what does it do to the backside

4:51:45where you're and it shouldn't be a back

4:51:47I shouldn't say back what do you what

4:51:49happens when it is adjacent to single

4:51:51family

4:51:52>> so if you start to see in in the case of

4:51:55CG that that is starting to pop by being

4:51:59close to RS um what would it be like if

4:52:02you had a 65 foot tall building and then

4:52:05a 95 foot tall building Um we don't have

4:52:09that many instances of a 65 foot tall

4:52:11building really. Um so it it it would be

4:52:16pretty dramatic.

4:52:18>> Open up a whole another can of worms

4:52:19with

4:52:21sheds and rights.

4:52:23>> Sure.

4:52:25Yeah.

4:52:25>> And that's where that transferable

4:52:27development, right,

4:52:29program thought for commercial downtown

4:52:32is is is a bit of a us going in the lab

4:52:36and experimenting a little bit with how

4:52:38this can work legally and then how it's

4:52:40going to what it's going to produce from

4:52:41an urban design standpoint and how do we

4:52:43write code to manage it and then how do

4:52:45we have a system to handle those

4:52:47transactions without creating a bank. um

4:52:50because that's what we're trying to

4:52:50avoid is creating a bank for these

4:52:53development rights because that's when

4:52:54things get a little crazy. So um

4:52:58>> I'm sorry, what do you mean by that? I

4:52:59didn't understand that. Creating a bank.

4:53:01>> Well, so with transferable development

4:53:03right programs, um you'll see them

4:53:06around where

4:53:09you don't have to have a receiver for a

4:53:11sale. So you're selling your development

4:53:13rights to the bank and then cashing out

4:53:16at a market rate that's been determined

4:53:17by ordinance. And that bank has to be

4:53:19capitalized to be able to pay you for

4:53:21those or be able to make a transfer that

4:53:24is equalized in terms of value in

4:53:26something else. But it's still a bank.

4:53:28It still functions as a bank. And then

4:53:30those rights sit in that bank. And do

4:53:32they earn interest or do they just sit

4:53:34at the present value forever or what do

4:53:36they do? And then you have to have then

4:53:38a willing buyer to come. Transferable

4:53:40development rights always have to have a

4:53:42sender and a receiver. Senders can't be

4:53:44receivers. Receivers can't be senders.

4:53:46It's, you know, it's a they go one way,

4:53:49they flow one way, and you have to

4:53:51designate those up front.

4:53:54Otherwise, it's a contract thing, which

4:53:55is not very legal. You have to designate

4:53:58who's a sender, who's a receiver, and

4:54:00you can have periodic revisions of

4:54:01those, but you got to start with

4:54:02something. Um and the way we modeled a

4:54:06TDR program when we first proposed it in

4:54:102003

4:54:12um was to have this as a private

4:54:16transaction and in lie of money what you

4:54:18were transferring development density

4:54:22and so that's why the RM3 zone was

4:54:24created. It was the penthouse zone for

4:54:26what you could transfer. So there were

4:54:28no properties in town that were zoned to

4:54:29RM3 on purpose because the thought was

4:54:33if a ascending zone out in the AR, which

4:54:37was where the sending zones were in that

4:54:39concept, was sending development density

4:54:42into an RM2 zoned property. They were

4:54:45buying the ability to go to RM3

4:54:48with all the rights and responsibilities

4:54:51that come with RM3. And that was the

4:54:53transaction. That way we didn't have to

4:54:55have a bank. We didn't have to track

4:54:57dollar value. It was it was a transfer

4:55:00of density that we were calculating.

4:55:05That didn't happen.

4:55:08>> Feel like we have feedback. Do you have

4:55:10feedback?

4:55:14>> Zoom in on downtown.

4:55:16>> Yeah. Um, the only thing I would just

4:55:19like to kind of insert into the

4:55:21conversation is just that

4:55:24anecdotally and and when you hear people

4:55:26who lived here for a long time are lived

4:55:29here and then left and come back and

4:55:31been kind of um totally shocked by how

4:55:36different downtown looked. Um, I think

4:55:39when I first saw this suggestion of a

4:55:42text amendment, my first thought was,

4:55:43"Oh my god, no way." like to to

4:55:49as a person who generally like I'm not

4:55:51afraid of density. I still and this kind

4:55:55of gets to what Jennifer was saying

4:55:56about it would be nice to have some

4:55:58visuals because maybe that's not as big

4:56:00a deal if I think of but I think that

4:56:04Athenians have been asked to absorb so

4:56:06much change to commercial downtown and

4:56:09it is shocking if you really think about

4:56:11how much it's changed for folks.

4:56:14shocking. And so the idea of

4:56:18adding more height to downtown

4:56:21because I sort of feel like I need to

4:56:22speak for those people. Like you kind of

4:56:25don't really realize it when you're just

4:56:26living amongst it and then somebody

4:56:27comes in town that used to live here 10,

4:56:3015, 20 years ago and they're like, "Holy

4:56:32crap, what happened?" And I don't mind

4:56:36what's happening. I mean, I have mixed

4:56:38feelings about what's happening

4:56:39downtown, but I generally think that

4:56:40it's a good place for residential

4:56:42density, but

4:56:45the face of downtown has changed

4:56:47drastically and this changes it even

4:56:50more. I think it's worth thinking about

4:56:52a little bit, but I would like to be

4:56:54able to visualize it.

4:56:56>> So, it it it brings more importance to

4:56:58our historic districts, I think, in a

4:57:00way. Um, I'll be honest with you as

4:57:03we're thinking about a TDR program for

4:57:05CD and again it's only the CD zone. One

4:57:08of the concepts that's being given

4:57:10consideration is that you're sending

4:57:12properties or the ones that are in the

4:57:13historic district and the receiving

4:57:16locations are ones that can handle the

4:57:18capacity, you know, and are

4:57:20appropriately located. It's not

4:57:21necessarily the balance of CD.

4:57:24limitation that historic property is

4:57:26experiencing because of its the historic

4:57:29designation is a is a right that their

4:57:33neighbor who doesn't have that they

4:57:36don't have or right

4:57:38>> regulationally

4:57:39send that

4:57:42>> it's going to equalize the playing field

4:57:44a little bit

4:57:44>> that's interesting

4:57:45>> um but I will say this as a percentage

4:57:48the the shock factor of a 100 foot

4:57:53building becoming 130 is far different

4:57:57than a 65 foot tall building becoming

4:57:5995,

4:58:01right? As a percentage. So I, as much as

4:58:04I agree about your observations about

4:58:06downtown, I think I think perhaps that

4:58:09visitor coming back would be even more

4:58:11shocked to see 95 foot tall buildings

4:58:14stringing out along our corridors, not

4:58:18necessarily taller buildings downtown.

4:58:20So that's part of what we're trying to

4:58:22think through is is where is this

4:58:25appropriate and and all this is still

4:58:29very much a way to achieve the change

4:58:31that was being talked about with feature

4:58:32land use map and how to grow in areas

4:58:35that don't destabilize or um

4:58:40gentrify or or or or have ill impacts on

4:58:45neighborhoods. Let's look at the

4:58:46underutilized corridors and the nodes

4:58:48where we've said we have capacity to

4:58:50grow. And those nodes by and large tend

4:58:53to be

4:58:54underdeveloped

4:58:56pseudocommercial quasi commercial

4:58:59opportunities for more mixed use.

4:59:01>> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And you

4:59:04know, I I just kind of in some ways I

4:59:07just feel like that has to be said. And

4:59:09whether I think it's something we have

4:59:11to respond to is another question. Um,

4:59:15that's just what it is to live in Athens

4:59:18now is to hear people expressing their

4:59:26>> um, displeasure or whatever about the

4:59:29changing face of of Athens. So, I think

4:59:33yeah, I don't even know if I agree with

4:59:35myself. I just feel like I have to say

4:59:37that.

4:59:37>> Yeah. Because I think I might argue that

4:59:39like a lot of those green squares were

4:59:41all built in the last five years.

4:59:43They're not tearing down the mark to put

4:59:45up a 100 foot building, you know, the

4:59:48bottle works even for that matter. Like

4:59:50who's going to tear that down and build?

4:59:51Maybe someone I doubt it. So I think

4:59:54that's that's another for me the map is

4:59:56actually more useful for the corridors

4:59:58because then I can see like, oh, would

5:00:00this actually affect the neighborhood or

5:00:02not? And that was a really easy way to

5:00:05look at

5:00:06>> the overall impact and that potential I

5:00:09think is where we can get more out of

5:00:10these

5:00:13So,

5:00:17is there any way to add like vacant land

5:00:20part like things that don't have

5:00:22buildings on it? That could easily

5:00:24become the max building height.

5:00:26>> I don't have that on here I can add. But

5:00:28I do have it on a different thing, but

5:00:30my computer is dead. So,

5:00:32>> I mean, those are essentially a figure

5:00:33ground. So, wherever you don't see a

5:00:35building footprint is either parking lot

5:00:38>> or it's,

5:00:40>> you know, landscaped area. So, or just

5:00:43un undeveloped in some form or fashion.

5:00:45Um, so that it's kind of the photo

5:00:48negative is showing you those clean

5:00:50slates.

5:00:51>> Yeah. But all of those places aren't

5:00:52necessarily developable.

5:00:54>> Yeah.

5:00:55>> No, but that's a different question.

5:00:57>> Undeveloped. I mean developable. You

5:00:59could have

5:01:01a a vacant parcel that's not really

5:01:03developed.

5:01:04>> Yeah. I mean I think my question is is

5:01:06there a way to visualize what is likely

5:01:08to become the you know the the first

5:01:13>> right?

5:01:14>> Yeah.

5:01:15>> I think

5:01:17we yeah there's there's probably ways we

5:01:19can put a a question to that come up

5:01:22with an answer. I don't know it'll be a%

5:01:24accurate but

5:01:25>> Right. I think that's also where us just

5:01:27being able to poke around on it because

5:01:28I can think of some spots that could be

5:01:30right for development and I'm curious

5:01:31where they would land on this map.

5:01:33>> Yeah.

5:01:35>> Being able to explore it on your own and

5:01:37compare what's on the ground.

5:01:41>> How tall is the CNS building?

5:01:47>> Is that our That's our tallest ride.

5:01:49There's nothing.

5:01:50>> Bank of America.

5:01:52>> That's the CN. Yes. So that's when you

5:01:53be down there.

5:01:54>> They're about 10 stories. Like they

5:01:56haven't been any talish.

5:01:58>> That's what

5:01:59>> 10 stories.

5:02:01>> Well, how many?

5:02:02>> But now the stories are probably a 10 to

5:02:0412 foot.

5:02:05>> Yeah, I was going to say probably

5:02:06shorter versus

5:02:07>> thought Hyatt popped over with its bar.

5:02:13>> Yes, it did.

5:02:14>> So the [clears throat] uh the the the

5:02:17string lights on the Hyatt are probably

5:02:19at about 112 ft.

5:02:22Um, I think the CNS building is probably

5:02:25taller still. It's probably 125. Did the

5:02:28did the the housing of the HBAC's and

5:02:32all that kind of stuff on the top.

5:02:34[clears throat]

5:02:35>> Maybe maybe less than that, but

5:02:37>> yeah,

5:02:37>> but the brick goes up probably over 100.

5:02:40>> We could

5:02:45[laughter]

5:02:45all right. Um I don't have a report but

5:02:48I did ask Sarah to provide a quick recap

5:02:52of our subcommittee.

5:02:54>> Yeah. And so where the creative housing

5:02:57options subcommittee is right now is

5:02:59we're pausing somewhat and reaching out

5:03:03to commissioners specifically to get

5:03:06feedback from them to let we want to um

5:03:11you know talk about our work with them

5:03:13but primarily listen to their concerns

5:03:15and just see if doing that which

5:03:18hopefully will that will be wrapped up

5:03:20by the middle to end of this month that

5:03:23that will help us understand if there's

5:03:26some different tax we need to take for

5:03:28different things we need to be thinking

5:03:30about or a different approach. So that's

5:03:32what's happening right now. We also are

5:03:36planning an event for sometime in

5:03:38October um that would be what was the

5:03:41term that was used this morning?

5:03:43>> Um the creative housing carnival.

5:03:46>> Yeah, something along those lines. but

5:03:48something um that would be ideally kind

5:03:50of a fun way to get some public input on

5:03:53on these topics. Um and then we would

5:03:56still like to have a planning commission

5:03:58public input session. Um and ideally

5:04:02like to do that after January 1st. I

5:04:04think that's a change from what we

5:04:06talked about in this room last time. Um

5:04:10because at that time I think we had

5:04:12wanted to do it prior to the end of this

5:04:14year. And so that's a change that we

5:04:16might need to talk about.

5:04:18>> Yes, that was something

5:04:21>> motion that we voted on.

5:04:22>> Yes. I So last meeting we said by the

5:04:25end of the year which was translates

5:04:27into months and given the speed at which

5:04:30things are happening that's really not

5:04:32reasonable. So given that we had that as

5:04:35like a motion um to like kind of

5:04:38override that and update that, I would

5:04:40entertain a motion to post a public

5:04:44input work session after January 1st of

5:04:472027

5:04:49related to the creative housing options

5:04:51subcommittee.

5:04:53>> And so can I make that motion or I'll

5:04:55make that motion.

5:04:57Second.

5:04:58>> Okay. Um all those in favor say I.

5:05:02Right.

5:05:05>> And what I think that represents is just

5:05:08a little bit of a slowdown on the part

5:05:10of the committee and being

5:05:13uh a little bit more deliberate about

5:05:15how to proceed

5:05:18um given sort of the commission response

5:05:20to the first um set of amendments we

5:05:23proposed.

5:05:27>> All right.

5:05:30>> I have nothing further to report. All

5:05:34right, then. Um

5:05:37All right. Well, then all those in favor

5:05:40and say I

5:05:41>> All right. Yeah.

```*