2026-10-01 - Planning Commission

00:02It was totally different.

01:07Good.

01:09>> Yeah.

01:11[laughter]

01:12>> Walk around with my laptop.

01:17>> Oh my god. Why did I not do that?

01:26Okay. Hi.

01:28All right. Welcome to the um October

01:301st, 2026 meeting of the Athens Clark

01:32County Planning Commission. Um if you

01:35are watching this meeting on YouTube,

01:36you will find the meeting agenda at

01:38accgov.com/planning.

01:41For those of you here in person, there

01:42is a sign-in sheet by the door and

01:44copies of tonight's agenda. Um so here

01:47is the process for the items on the

01:48agenda. First staff will make a

01:51presentation. Then we move to public

01:53comment in support of the application.

01:56We allow 10 minutes for the applicant um

01:58to address the commission followed by

02:00members of the public speaking in favor

02:02who receive three minutes each. After

02:04comments in support of the application,

02:06we move to comments in opposition. All

02:09speakers receive three minutes, but if

02:10you are here representing a specific

02:12interest group such as the homeowners

02:14association, please let us know up here

02:17um so that we may allocate the proper

02:19amount of time. Um when addressing the

02:21commission, please provide your name,

02:23address, and the nature of your interest

02:24in the project. After public comment,

02:27the applicant or their representative

02:28may request a two-minute response.

02:31Please note the timer. Um, it will

02:33display a yellow light when you have 30

02:35seconds left and a red light when your

02:37time has expired. Once we have heard

02:40from members of the public, the planning

02:41commission will discuss the item. We

02:43will not receive additional public

02:44comment unless there is a specific

02:46question to be addressed. Exhibits may

02:49be displayed by the applicants or public

02:50at the podium. Written correspondence

02:52received by noon yesterday has been

02:54forwarded to the commission and is part

02:56of the public record. Any additional

02:58written materials to be placed into the

03:00record must be read during the public

03:01comment period. Please direct your

03:04comments to the planning commission and

03:05not to the applicants. Please refrain

03:07from applauding or cheering any of the

03:09speakers. And finally, please note that

03:12this meeting is being broadcast live and

03:14our microphones are sensitive and please

03:17silence your cell phones. Thank you.

03:37All right. Would anybody um like to make

03:41a motion to introduce staff reports and

03:43other documents?

03:45Right. Second.

03:47>> All right. All those in favor say I.

03:49>> I. Okay.

03:51um

03:53the

03:54meeting minutes. I did see the revised

03:58version of the minutes. Thank you very

04:00much. Um with my comments that were

04:02emailed to the commission earlier this

04:04week. Um anybody else have any additions

04:08or discussion of the minutes?

04:17approved. Approve.

04:23>> All those in favor say I.

04:26All right.

04:28>> All right. Um, May courts.

04:33>> Uh, there is no Makeports presentation

04:35this evening.

04:36>> Okay. Is there anybody here to comment

04:37on May courts?

04:39>> No public comment. All right. That's

04:41cool. All right. Um, okay. Okay, our

04:44first item of old business, 660 West,

04:48600 Flash Broad, 363

04:51Street and North Finley.

04:55I am going to present Oops.

05:00Yep. I'm going to present the staff

05:01report for um this is PD number

05:032026-07-1360.

05:13>> Hey, how about that?

05:32So this the request is for a future land

05:34use map change from mixed density

05:36residential in major corridor to

05:38downtown and a zoning map change from

05:41commercial general and RM2 mixed density

05:45residential to commercial downtown with

05:48a plan development in the west end

05:50downtown design area. So, the proposal

05:53is a mixeduse development with 181

05:56apartments and a total of 425 bedrooms.

06:00These are split between a multi-story

06:02apartment building facing Broad Street

06:05and eight town homes facing Finley

06:08Street and Ree Street. The project

06:11um includes a stream restoration for

06:13Tenure Branch. They'll be daylighting a

06:15section of the stream that is currently

06:18piped in creating new green space um

06:21around the stream. The developer plans

06:24to participate in inclusionary zoning

06:26with uh the payment loo option in order

06:29to take advantage of the density

06:31increase and reductions for parking and

06:35for ground floor [clears throat] excuse

06:37me commercial. There's three waiverss in

06:39this request. Two are not supported at

06:41this time and one is no longer required.

06:46So this is a project area. It's

06:48comprised of four separate parcels and

06:51totals 2.47 acres.

06:55There are properties along Broad Street

06:57that contain buildings built around the

07:0060s. The Finley Street property is um

07:03undeveloped and the Reese Street street

07:06property has a single family house and

07:08is part of the Reese Street local

07:10historic district and that area is shown

07:13in the green hatching. It's kind of

07:14tough to see sort of that.

07:18Here are some site photos. The top left

07:20is that is the house on Reese Street

07:23that is in the historic district. Below

07:25that is the larger building on Broad

07:28Street. It currently has one active

07:30tenant. Um to the right of that is

07:33behind that building. It's overflow

07:35parking

07:42that's used for the businesses on Broad

07:45Street. And above that is the um is a

07:48view looking from Finley Street towards

07:50the street.

07:54Uh here's some photos of the surrounding

07:56streets and the situation with the on

07:58street parking. Uh top left is Reese

08:02Street uh looking towards Finley. Below

08:04that is Pope Street. Um both of those

08:07are substandard in width. They are

08:10largely um they largely there are no

08:14sidewalks sidewalks along these roads

08:17other than what's right in front of the

08:19park there. Um on the top right that is

08:23Hley Street. There is currently parking

08:25there but if this proposal is approved

08:28the parking will um need to be removed

08:31for Fire Lane.

08:35This is the uh future land use maps.

08:38Excuse me. On the right is the proposed

08:42downtown designation. Um the left side

08:45shows that downtown demarcation line

08:47along Finley Street that was determined

08:50by the 2045 future land use mapping

08:53effort.

08:56This is the proposed zoning on the right

08:58with the CD and the PD overlay. It would

09:01also have that West End downtown design

09:03district overlay on top of that. And

09:06that would be changing from commercial

09:08general and RM2.

09:13This shows the current um environmental

09:17areas buffer as it is as I say currently

09:22um this does not include the proposed

09:24stream as that location on the site plan

09:28has not received a final approval yet

09:30from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Um

09:33and this is a crucial step for this

09:35project in determining the extent of the

09:38buffers and in determining the location

09:40for utilities.

09:43This is the um submitted site plan. I

09:46think the footprints of the buildings

09:49and the town homes have remained uh

09:51largely the same from the preliminary

09:53submitt. I've added the historic

09:56district district boundary on top of

09:58this to show the extent of the project

10:00that does fall within that restra

10:02historic district and still needs

10:06certificate of appropriateness approval

10:08from the HPC.

10:12This is the front elevation along Broad

10:14and the side um facing Finley Street. Uh

10:18the

10:20the big change from the preliminary plan

10:22on this is they've reduced it by one

10:24story. So instead of seven stories, it's

10:27now six.

10:29And Broad Street includes um several

10:32setbacks above that second floor to

10:36break up the facade. This has reduced

10:38the bedroom count from the original

10:40submitt, which was 530 beds, now down to

10:44425.

10:46Here's the rear elevation of um facing

10:50Reese and the side elevation facing Pope

10:53Street. Um again, the only real change

10:55here is the reduction in height.

10:59The town homes have the same elevations.

11:01They have reduced these um from six

11:04bedrooms down to five bedroomedroom

11:05units.

11:08So staff's analysis um staff finds it's

11:12partially compatible with the 2023

11:14comprehensive plan um with its focus on

11:18infill construction with the

11:20inclusionary zoning in L option. The

11:23developer will be contributing to the

11:25affordable housing fund for affordable

11:28housing offsite but the units on site

11:31won't be providing um diversity of

11:33housing type or price point. project

11:36does incorporate green space, but

11:39serious concerns remain regarding

11:41[clears throat] the lack of approval by

11:42the Army Corps of Engineers and Georgia

11:45EPD.

11:47Future land use map. Uh this project is

11:50incompatible

11:51there. Um it's the intent of the 2045

11:55future land use mapping effort um to

11:57hold downtown development east of Finley

12:00Street. and it's been advised that

12:02future developments along the edges of

12:03downtown should seek less intensity.

12:07The zoning um it's been found to be

12:10incompatible.

12:11Again, a less intense zoning that would

12:14allow density to step down from downtown

12:19intensity to the neighborhoods in

12:21historic areas would be preferable.

12:24And the waivers

12:26um the waiver to remove ground for

12:29commercial and the waiver to allow the

12:31tandem parking are not supported and the

12:34waiver to allow studio apartments 450 ft

12:38is no longer required due to a code

12:40change.

12:43So there are still some outstanding

12:45corrective actions as well as new

12:46corrective actions from the current

12:48plan. Um, there needs to be a memorandum

12:52of understanding

12:54uh for the work proposed on the ACC

12:56property. There still needs to be a COA

12:59for the portion of the project within

13:02the local historic district.

13:05The plans that were submitted show

13:07incorrect figures on the amount of

13:09commercial in as shown does not appear

13:11to meet ground floor commercial

13:14requirements for the project and any of

13:17the other technical comments from the

13:20reviewing departments need to be

13:21addressed.

13:24So staff's um recommendation on this

13:27project is denial.

13:29Transportation and Public Works and PUB

13:32both have significant concerns regarding

13:35the outstanding approvals from the US

13:38Army Corps of Engineers and Georgia EPD

13:40on that final stream location. Until

13:43this determination is made, it's not

13:45clear where the utilities can be located

13:47or how the project will impact the

13:49stream buffers. Um, PED has stated in

13:52their comments that the plan is not

13:53approvable as proposed.

13:56Fire marshall similarly has concerns

13:58that there is insufficient space to

14:00provide fire safety for the proposal and

14:03planning staff finds [clears throat] the

14:06the proposal negates the 2045 future

14:08land use map's intent to hold downtown

14:11development east of Finley Street and

14:13preserve transitional zones between

14:15highdensity projects and established res

14:18areas.

14:21If the planning commission does wish to

14:23recommend approval, these are the um

14:26conditions that are recommended. Um an

14:28area should be designated that is

14:30non-binding in nature for stream

14:32restoration and utility installation to

14:34allow for some design stability. There

14:37needs to be a set minimum buffer

14:39requirement as a total storage or

14:41percentage of the area and that US Army

14:45Corps of Engineer permit and EV

14:47encroachment permit approval is required

14:50prior to Marshall General own standards

14:53for tree canopy conserved in total shall

14:55be used. provide additional parking or

14:58find off-site solutions to accommodate

15:00one space for a minimum of 75% of the

15:04bedrooms without using can parking and

15:06address all outstanding technical

15:08comments and corrections from reviewing

15:09departments.

15:11>> This is the staff report.

15:13>> Thank you

15:15from the applicants.

15:19>> Uh good evening uh David Ellison the

15:22applicant. Before I get started, if I

15:24can just circulate copies of the

15:26proposed conditions. Thank you. Um, this

15:30is identical to what was submitted last

15:32night except for neglected to include

15:34the condition that we would participate

15:36inclusionary zoning ordinance was in our

15:39narrative. I just want to make sure that

15:40was added on there just to make sure

15:43[clears throat] bound by the

15:43inclusionary zoning ordinance.

15:45>> Mr. Ellison, will motion to take that in

15:47as well?

15:48>> I'll move that we enter this into the

15:50record.

15:51>> Second. Okay. All those in favor say I.

15:54>> All right. Thank you.

15:59>> Is there any other information you want

16:00to enter?

16:01>> Also have an agreement to grant an

16:03easement between the developer and Hill

16:05First Baptist Church which has been

16:07executed. Um happy to share a copy as

16:10well if there is a motion to accept it.

16:17All

16:18right.

16:23>> Anything else?

16:30>> All right. Thank you. Um, so David

16:33Ellison here on behalf of Cardinal. This

16:35is our second appearance before y'all.

16:37And first thing we'll do is walk you all

16:39through some of the changes since we

16:41last appeared.

16:42First thing is that what we have done is

16:44we have reduced uh the density on this

16:47project by removing the top level. Uh

16:50this is a photograph of what our new

16:52project looks like. And so by reducing

16:55the top level, we're reducing the

16:57density by about 20%. Which is 106 beds.

17:03You see the old design and the new

17:05design.

17:07Even though we are reducing the density

17:09by 20%, we still going to participate in

17:13the inclusionary zoning ordinance and

17:15pay the full $2.2 million even though we

17:18will not be using any of the density

17:20bonus. So this is $2.2 million to the

17:23affordable housing fund even though

17:24we'll not be using any of this density

17:26bonus. So the goal of this uh uh

17:29reduction was to try to be the step down

17:31from CD to the CG. Uh and also we also

17:35you can see that we have uh broken up

17:37the facade along Broad Street. You can

17:40see

17:42as you see here we also have inset

17:44plazas that are up that create a plazas

17:47down on the ground floor commercial. Uh

17:49but above they're passive plazas where

17:52there would be no uh tenants there

17:54because we want to respond to concerns

17:56from Dearing Street about potential

17:58noise.

18:00Here's [clears throat]

18:02another here's another example from

18:04here's from the re street sign

18:07previous design versus revised design

18:13and the project architect is also here

18:15and he can walk through some of these

18:17architectural details in greater detail

18:19than I and he can answer any of your

18:21questions as well.

18:27As you see, even though we have reduced

18:29the amount of density, kept uh the same

18:33level of parking, we are still asking

18:35for handle parking in order to address

18:37any concerns about parking. We also have

18:40130 uh bike spaces, which I think is

18:43roughly six times or more is required by

18:45code. Uh because we are are aware there

18:48are concerns with parking, you want to

18:49provide as many alternative means of

18:51transport as possible. In addition to

18:53bike parking spaces, the developer

18:55frequently partners with ride sharing

18:57services and other alternative means of

18:59transportation. Uh they have done this

19:01in other communities. We're confident

19:02they can do this in Athens Clark County

19:04as well.

19:08As you see, we have quiet terraces and

19:09green roofs. Uh the goal is is respond

19:14to concerns from Dearing Street uh as to

19:16noise from this potential use.

19:20Here's

19:23another example of how there was

19:25concerns last time about this was

19:27appearance of a canyon going down Broad

19:29Street. So, what we wanted to do is

19:31break it up so it's an appearance of

19:33several smaller buildings.

19:38Also want to give you an idea of the

19:39masonry uh that'll be along Broad Street

19:43as well. Uh again, we're trying to

19:45respond to comments both from uh this

19:48body, but also from the public and the

19:50neighbors.

19:54There's another inter another view from

19:56Broaden Pope

19:59and from Finley Street. As you can see,

20:01we reduced the height on Finley Street.

20:05And uh one of the reasons why we're

20:06asking the waiver from ground floor

20:09commercial is we want to keep this part

20:11here uh residential. And we don't want

20:14to put commercial towards re street. We

20:16believe this plan is a nice transition

20:18from the commercial side on Broad Street

20:20versus the neighborhood on Ray Street.

20:22In the absence of that waiver, we'd have

20:24to put ground floor commercial and we

20:25don't want to do that. We think this is

20:27a uh consistent with the current zoning

20:30and the future land use map.

20:34Another angle of the change in design.

20:40The other thing that's new is now we

20:41have finalized plans uh for the park. Uh

20:44the developer has been working uh with

20:46Reese uh the Reese neighborhood and Hill

20:50First Baptist Church to create this

20:52park. Uh this park has been designed uh

20:55by the church and on the terms of this

20:58agreement to grant ement that is now

21:00circulated amongst all of y'all. Uh the

21:02developer would construct this park at

21:04the developer's expense and then grant a

21:06perpetual park easement that will run

21:08with the land following the CO.

21:16Again, this also consistent with the

21:18future land use map because this is

21:20introducing a green space in this area.

21:26Another thing that we're offering as a

21:27public benefit is our utility

21:28improvements. uh we had uh in our

21:31package uh information about the fact

21:34that much of the utilities along this

21:36property are substandard not up to code

21:39and also uh 2002 I can't really see that

21:43there but basically I think it was 24

21:45times the amount of feal form uh that

21:48should be allowed under Georgia eggs uh

21:51and so what we're trying to do is uh

21:55offering to improve the utilities in

21:57this area which provide much benefit to

21:59the public because the public will not

22:00be paying for it, but we protecting the

22:02water quality for the entire watershed.

22:08And of course, the main thing that we're

22:09trying to do to clean up from

22:10environmental standpoint is this stream.

22:15So, we are proposing right now here is

22:18the current buffer. As you see, it

22:20pretty much blocks all development in

22:22this area. So in accordance with this

22:24variance, what we're trying to do is

22:26align this drain to allow uh basically

22:30you know align it so you can allow uses

22:32on both sides. And so what we're trying

22:35to do is we're removing the pipe and

22:37providing an open channel stream to

22:39remove all the invasive vegetative

22:41species. And you've seen these perhaps

22:44before. This is existing conditions.

22:46Here's what we're proposing. And so this

22:48is going to provide a number of

22:50environmental benefits. One, we're

22:53designing features here to introduce

22:54oxygen into this water and plant native

22:57species to stabilize the soil and

22:59provide shade to cool this water down.

23:02It's going to help protect water quality

23:04by stabilizing the soil and protect the

23:06ecological integrity of the entire

23:07wershed by introducing this oxygen and

23:10help cooling down the water through the

23:11shade. Quite frankly, we think anything

23:13would be an improvement on the current

23:15conditions, but what we're offering to

23:17do uh has to be approved by the US Army

23:20Corp of Engineers, EPD, uh and Athens

23:23Clark County. Um we're actually going to

23:26be increasing our storm water, our

23:28stream buffer by 40%. Uh so this is

23:32going to be

23:33a as a increase on existing buffer and a

23:36better environmental standpoint than

23:38current conditions. There is no storm

23:40water management on this property.

23:42Uh where things currently stand is that

23:44we've submitted our application to the

23:45US Army Corps of Engineers and we're

23:47working on our application with EPD and

23:49we've been working with Athens Clark

23:50County in that process.

23:52Uh now I want to direct your attention

23:54to some of the conditions particularly

23:56the first condition. Uh since our first

23:59submitt uh we have met with

24:00transportation public works planning and

24:02public utilities uh to address um kind

24:07of the known unknowns of this project.

24:10So, we know that uh US Army Corps of

24:13Engineers has to approve a permit and

24:15EPD has to approve an apartment. So,

24:17what we're asking y'all to do is to make

24:20these plans binding except for

24:24this blue area here.

24:28Okay, we've defined it on the condition

24:30PD30 here and also PD31.

24:35This blue area here.

24:37But even though we have some flexibility

24:40to accommodate what EPD wants, US Army

24:42Corp of Engineer wants, we also have

24:45incorporated certain minimum

24:46requirements that staff wants. For

24:48example, location of the fire lane,

24:51location of the building footprints, the

24:53location of the sewer sewer utility

24:55lines, and a requirement that we have to

24:57increase the water the riparian buffer

24:59by a minimum of 40%.

25:02Plus all these improvements within this

25:04blue area which I've referred to as the

25:07conditional improvements have to comply

25:09with the US Army Corp of Engineers

25:11permit EPD's permit and must be uh

25:15approved by planning, transportation and

25:17public utilities. And so the reason why

25:20we're asking for flexibility is that

25:23developer needs to have their

25:24entitlements to spend the money to go

25:27forward with this project. A lot of

25:29these staff comments are construction

25:31level design which are quite expensive

25:34and the developer needs to know that

25:36he's going to get its entitlements

25:38before he go through with that process.

25:40And so we're asking for flexibility to

25:42essentially put this in the hands of the

25:44experts, put this in the hands of the

25:45environmental agencies to make sure that

25:48this project and this stream complies

25:51with county, state, and federal

25:53requirements.

25:55Uh we understand there have been some

25:56comments and questions about who's going

25:58to maintain all this. Well, under the

26:00terms of the variance, we have the

26:02obligation to to enter to a memorandum

26:04of understanding and we anticipate that

26:07will include most of that. Uh a few

26:09points there have been comments about

26:11density and CD. Uh you know we don't

26:14believe this is going to expand up Broad

26:16Street. You can see here this is by

26:18right by right we are about uh 33 36% of

26:23the entire uh block here and so you can

26:27see that we're not going to be offering

26:29uh that level of density upstream

26:33and then

26:35uh also want to point out that we're not

26:37going to go back to the restor district.

26:39>> Thank you.

26:40>> And happy to answer any of the questions

26:41that you have. Thank you.

26:48Yeah. Um, yes. Speaking in support.

26:52>> Yes.

26:53>> Yes.

26:54>> Um, yes. Ed Lane with SPG Planners and

26:56Engineers, 1725 Electric Avenue,

26:59speaking uh in in support of the

27:01project. Um, so I know you have many

27:05different aspects of the project that

27:06you you'll have to evaluate the the pros

27:08and cons on. I wanted to focus just a

27:11little bit on the stream aspect of this.

27:14Um and so [clears throat] last week the

27:18we had a a call the development team,

27:21members of public works uh and the

27:24environmental consultants and the EPD

27:26director um to go over the application

27:29and and get their thoughts on uh what is

27:32proposed here for the stream.

27:34and and I thought it would be good for

27:36you to hear a little bit of the the the

27:38nature of that call since it is a

27:41someone with technical knowledge on this

27:43that is a little bit outside the the

27:45local freight and and more impartial

27:47than perhaps some of the other people

27:49like myself speaking here tonight. So,

27:52uh, the meeting covered a lot of ground,

27:54including a lot of technical, uh, things

27:56with the environmental engineers. And of

28:00course, you know, I don't want to any

28:02way imply that director Barry was

28:05saying, oh yeah, this is a slam dunk or

28:08this is going to get approved 100%. I

28:10don't think he would ever do that.

28:11That's irresponsible.

28:13Um and and of course we have not drawn

28:15the full plans or gone through that full

28:17process but with the documents you see

28:21before here what he did say was this

28:24project was very unique and unusual and

28:27that is because basically his job is

28:30adjudicating when buffers can be

28:32reduced, streams can be piped and

28:34wetlands can be impacted. That is

28:36basically the nature of his job is

28:38adjudicating when that is legally okay

28:41to do. And so someone who is unpiping a

28:44stream, doubling the buffer uh is just

28:48doesn't come across his desk very often

28:50and he expressed as much that you know

28:53this is one of the fun ones and one

28:55where someone is doing the right thing

28:58and I think it's also unusual that that

29:01is being uh you know it's not a grant or

29:03or some some big environmental project

29:06is part of a a private development. Um,

29:08and I think the only way we would get

29:10this in Athens is if it is part of a

29:13public process like this with a with

29:15with a a plan development. Um, so

29:20on that aspect, I there, you know,

29:22understand there's many reasons someone

29:24may oppose this project, but from the

29:26stream aspect alone, that part, I think

29:30we should be unamiguous that that is a

29:32huge win uh for Athens in many ways. And

29:35I know there's talk about the shade, too

29:37much shade. If you hear them on the

29:39call, we need the shade in order to get

29:41the natives to be able to thrive on the

29:43understory and actually stabilize uh

29:46this stream in the long run. Um I know

29:49I'm running out of time, so just cut me

29:51off. But in in regard to the permits, uh

29:54this caught us off off guard because

29:56this has not been the case for Athens

29:58River Mill District or Hayward Allen

30:01Ardmore. Those all have it. So thank

30:03you.

30:05Does anybody else will speak in support

30:07of

30:11>> Joseph Bates SPG? Um, and 1725 Electric

30:15Avenue. Yeah, we're very excited about

30:17the commemorative garden component of

30:19this design. Uh, Robert, if you could

30:22change this slide to the uh the Yes, the

30:25perspective actually. Yeah. Um, so this

30:29will be a top top destination for Athens

30:31citizens and visitors and it's been an

30:33honor to work on this design and learn

30:35the stories. A story untold should be

30:37mandatory reading for all Athenians.

30:39I've been introduced to that book and

30:40it's been wonderful reading. Um,

30:42important history and there is so much

30:45of it in the re uh district uh to

30:47commemorate here includes the Knox

30:49Institute, a school for

30:51African-Americans opened from 1868 to

30:541928. Monroe Morton of the Morton

30:57building, one of the many famous alumni.

30:59Then there's Hill First Baptist, the

31:01older oldest African-American church in

31:03Athens. This block is also the home to

31:05the original UG State Botanical Garden.

31:08Athens High and the Industrial School,

31:10Georgia's public uh first public high

31:13school for African-Americans was in this

31:15neighborhood. And there are many famous

31:17individuals like Dr. Ida May Herum, the

31:20first black female dentist in Georgia.

31:23So, this design spun out of a cheret

31:26with the Reese neighbors and I just want

31:28to walk you through um this design a

31:31little bit because this in my opinion is

31:33very very cool and I was glad to see

31:35this get built here. So, um going all

31:39the way in the back to re street there

31:41will be uh and and we also have some

31:43imagery kind of precedent imagery to to

31:45show um what some of these components

31:47will look like. But there will be some

31:49kind of an entry monument here. It'll be

31:51an educational monument. Um it'll be a

31:53cutout words on metal with some

31:56backlighting that will spill into the

31:58street. Look really cool at night but

32:00also look really um cool during the day.

32:02And then you have this serpentine wall

32:05that is separating this uh commemorative

32:07garden from the residences to give a

32:10little privacy. Along this wall,

32:11there'll be some um there'll be some

32:13more signage uh like an entry sign for

32:16this this park as well as interpretive

32:18panels as you kind of walk through um

32:22this garden. And as you get towards the

32:25creek, there are a series of steps that

32:27take you to an overlook of the creek.

32:28And this would function as um some kind

32:32of a stage, [clears throat] could be a

32:33platform for music, events, as well as

32:36an outdoor classroom. Um and then

32:38there's a nice flex lawn and seating

32:40throughout. Um so saying the developer

32:44is going to be responsible for the

32:45maintenance here. Uh and we've committed

32:48to high quality materials. It is in our

32:50HPC package uh with the COA. We have met

32:54with HBC twice already uh reviewing

32:56concepts and refining this to where we

32:59believe they are going to support and

33:01the last meeting we had was positive

33:03feedback on this and they're very

33:05excited about this. um commemorative

33:07garden. So we've committed to high

33:09quality materials like stone wall um

33:12laser etched interpretive panels, pavers

33:14and stone edging and then uh and high

33:17quality furniture. So this will be first

33:19class and a space Athens and this

33:21neighbor will be proud of.

33:22>> Thank you.

33:24>> Anybody else to speak in support of the

33:26application?

33:31>> Hi, my name is Tommy Sinnate uh 3449 W

33:34Street. Um, I wanted to come forth and

33:37just make sure everyone understood from

33:40our last hearing to now that we truly

33:44listened to you all, the planning

33:45commission, but we also met with the

33:47Daring Street neighborhood, the Ree

33:49Street neighborhood, the Cabba

33:50neighborhood, um, and Hill First Baptist

33:54Church, each of those stakeholders that

33:56came out to the last planning

33:57commission. We wanted to meet with them

33:58and make sure we listen to them and

34:00respond to everything that they speak to

34:02us about. And so last time I think one

34:05of the biggest topics was this

34:06transition uh between downtown as we go

34:09west down Broad Street. And so there was

34:12a few comments wishing that a few of the

34:15commissioners wish that there was a

34:16transition zone between the downtown CD

34:19and uh the RM3 and because it goes from

34:22200 to 50 beds per acre. And so we

34:24directly listen to that. We removed the

34:27whole top floor. And so by doing that,

34:29we're now in in between the 50 and the

34:32200 beds. Before we were 220 beds per

34:34acre, now we're 170 beds per acre. So we

34:37tried to listen and respond and create

34:39that transitionary zone. Additionally,

34:41the major corridor that we are on calls

34:43for four to seven stories in height. We

34:45listened that seven stories was at the

34:47top of that range. We wanted to listen

34:49to everyone in addition to Daring

34:50Street. They didn't like the seven

34:51stories cuz she they can see it, you

34:53know, at the top of the hill there. So

34:54we reduced it by a whole story down to

34:56the six stories to directly listen to

34:58the neighborhood as well as the planning

34:59commission. Additionally, parking has

35:01been a concern. So we wanted to we we

35:04reduced the building by 20% 106

35:07residents but we kept the parking the

35:09same. There's still three levels of

35:10parking. So you have 106 less people but

35:13the same amount of parking. So we know

35:15we've listened to re street as well as

35:17Cobb as well as dearing that parking is

35:19an issue. And so we respond to that

35:21directly by keeping that parking car the

35:23same. We then additionally invested in

35:25expanding our parking. We now have six

35:27times the required parking uh bike

35:30parking spaces in our building. We're

35:31committing to partner with Zip Car as

35:33well as a scooter sharing that you can

35:34rent a scooter and go to downtown, go

35:36get your groceries, go to go to campus

35:38if you want, and that that encourages

35:40people to not need a car. We're

35:41committing to all of these things.

35:44Lastly, um there was a lot of comments,

35:47we don't want a canyon on Broad Street.

35:48As you go downtown, you don't want to

35:50see this monolith. And so we redesigned

35:53the entire footprint of the building

35:56when when you saw that there there's no

35:58longer one long wall. We made massive

36:00setbacks to the tune of 70 feet three

36:03separate times and now we have it. We're

36:06trying to create smaller buildings,

36:08right? So it's not imposing. Daring

36:10Street did not want noise pollution. So

36:12we've committed to making these all

36:13green courtyards and so that there will

36:15be no noise pollution except for one of

36:17the courtyards that was previously

36:18there. Lastly, we took those setbacks

36:20all the way down to the ground so that

36:22we can now put because previously you

36:24can't put trees in the rightway. We can

36:25put trees in our plazas to create a live

36:27worth work life experience on Broad

36:29Street to reactivate to invest in the

36:32Rereet neighborhood. And lastly, the

36:33commemorative garden. We're so excited.

36:35We spent seven meetings with Hilford

36:36Baptist Church. It will commemorate

36:38their history um and everything that

36:40they stand for. So, thank you so much.

36:43>> Anybody else to speak in support of the

36:46application?

36:56Um, could you switch this to another

36:59slide?

37:00>> Sure. Do you have

37:00>> the next one? No. Well, it's the one

37:03with the artifacts

37:06um from the design. Good evening. My um

37:10my name is Hope Igelhart. I live at 237

37:13North Church Street. I come before you

37:16not simply as someone interested in this

37:18project, but as someone whose life,

37:20family, history are deeply rooted in the

37:23Ree Street community. For generations,

37:26families like mine have lived,

37:28worshiped, served, learned, and built

37:31community in Reese. My family has been

37:33connected to this neighborhood for four

37:36generations, and my home church still

37:38stands here. Decisions about Reese

37:41therefore affect our homes, our church,

37:45our history, and the future of community

37:47that has survived enormous change.

37:51Development in a historic neighborhood

37:54must be done with the community, not

37:56simply around it. and Cardinal Group has

37:59done the work to listen, meeting with

38:02the community, stakeholders from the two

38:05neighborhoods surrounding us and Ree.

38:08Throughout this process, we have raised

38:11legitimate concerns about traffic,

38:13parking, pedestrian safety, the

38:15neighborhood's historic character, the

38:18Reese Pope Park, the church, the

38:20long-term effects of bringing hundreds

38:22of new residents to uh Ree. And we have

38:27also worked together towards a tangible

38:30benefit for the community with the

38:32tenure branch repiping and also the

38:36Reese commemorative garden and outdoor

38:38classroom that we can use to teach about

38:41Reese.

38:43I am disappointed by parts of the public

38:46conversation surrounding this project.

38:49statements about what Reese residents

38:52supposedly want or what is supposedly

38:54best for Reese have not always reflected

38:57the conversations among those who of us

39:00who live, worship, and serve here. Some

39:03narratives that have been spun distort

39:06the facts or present speculation as

39:10settled truth. It is especially

39:13troubling

39:14when people who do not live in Reese use

39:17their influence to speak over those who

39:19do. People who great with greater

39:22institutional access should not assume

39:25they are better positioned to determine

39:27what is best for this historic

39:30historically black community

39:33and the people who have lived there. For

39:36more than 15 years, I have advocated for

39:38this community. I've seen projects come

39:41and go and decisions made without

39:43meaningful engagement. That history is

39:46why I remain involved through this

39:49process. I am asking the commission to

39:52listen carefully to the people whose

39:54lives are directly connected to Ree, the

39:57residents, the church, and the

39:59descendants. We need partners who

40:01respect and develop that recognize our

40:04history, protects the integrity of our

40:07neighborhood and creates meaningful

40:09benefits for the people and institutions

40:11that have established this community

40:13from generations. Most importantly, we

40:15need the dignity of speaking for

40:17ourselves and we are asking you to hear

40:20us. We know this community. We love this

40:24community and we have fought for this

40:26community. Thank you.

40:34Good evening. My name is Laura Smothers.

40:36I live at 165 Thicket Court. I'm a

40:3917-year resident of Athens. I'm a member

40:42of Hill First Baptist Church, and I'm

40:44the founder and director of the Joy

40:45Village School, which is Athens only

40:47private school centering our local black

40:50history in its curriculum. For those

40:52reasons, I'm deeply invested in this

40:54project and deeply grateful to this team

40:57for taking the time to honor our history

41:00and this design. And now I'm going to

41:04read a brief statement from my husband

41:07Solomon's mothers who could not be here

41:10tonight. Speaks well for both of us. He

41:13says, "Greetings. My name is Solomon's

41:15Smothers. I live at 165 Picket Court and

41:18previously worked as the housing

41:19coordinator with the Department of

41:21Housing and Community Development. More

41:23importantly than that, I'm a member of

41:24Hill First Baptist Church. In my time

41:27with HCD, I helped write the voluntary

41:29inclusionary zoning ordinance, led and

41:32contributed to public meetings regarding

41:34affordable housing initiatives, and

41:36supported local nonprofits in

41:38actualizing the creation and maintenance

41:40of affordable housing projects and

41:41community development programs. I know

41:44firsthand of the great care and

41:46thoughtfulness offered by ACC Gov staff

41:48members, elected officials, and

41:50commissions to ensure that the community

41:52members have a legitimate say in what

41:55happens to their neighborhoods. I can

41:57attest that in this situation, our

41:59church has had appropriate, productive,

42:02mutually beneficial conversations with

42:04Cardinal. This is a plan that is good

42:07for our church. This is a developer that

42:09is listening to our requests and our

42:12voices must be prioritized in

42:14conversations about things happening in

42:16our neighborhood. Please support this

42:19plan and in doing so support the people

42:21of Hill First Baptist Church, the oldest

42:23black Baptist church in Northeast

42:25Florida. Thank you.

42:26>> Thank you.

42:33>> Good evening. My name is the Reverend

42:34Dr. Allison Henderson Brooks. serve as a

42:37senior pastor the historic Hill First

42:39Baptist Church located at 205 North Pope

42:41Street in the Re Street District, the

42:43district directly impacted by this new

42:45development. I rise to lend my voice and

42:48vote in support perhaps for your

42:50consideration and on behalf of the

42:52members of our church. For the past

42:54several months, we have appreciated the

42:56opportunity to collaborate with Cardinal

42:58Group about this project through

43:00numerous meetings and months of think

43:02tank sessions. They have listened in

43:04good faith and gone above and beyond to

43:07address any concerns and suggestions

43:09that we have had. Therefore, the final

43:11rendering procured for the review of

43:13this commission tonight is a result of a

43:16collaborative partnership between

43:17Cardinal Group, our church, the

43:19neighborhood, and those who live, work,

43:22play, worship, and rever the historic R

43:25Street District and her preservation. We

43:27are aware of the robust debate and

43:29opposition about the efficacy of this

43:32development. And although there are

43:34there are ideological differences

43:36resulting in overreach from those who do

43:37not live in the district, it is my hope

43:40that this committee will respect and

43:42hear the residents of the historic RE

43:44street district, the members of the

43:45historic Hill First Baptist Church,

43:47which is the cornerstone connector of

43:49the community to know better than others

43:51what is good for our neighborhood and

43:53what is not. Furthermore, it is my deep

43:56hope that there will be equitable

43:58consideration for for our side of the

44:00story to be heard. Without question, our

44:03side of the story heralds in your

44:05hearing tonight that Cardinal Group has

44:07done more to ensure this project is

44:09ecologically attentive, mutually

44:11beneficial for the city and the historic

44:14R Street District and for being proven

44:16collaborative partners in these efforts.

44:19Their efforts in this process speak

44:21louder than any words can convey and I

44:23attest what they have done is more than

44:25any other developer that we have ever

44:28spoken to. To this end, on behalf of our

44:30church, may it be recorded that Hill

44:32First Baptist Church fully supports this

44:34project by Cardinal Group. And in good

44:37faith, we trust that this commission

44:39will trust our judgment as sound insight

44:41in your voting decisions on this project

44:44that directly affect the history,

44:46legacy, and enduring future of our

44:48church and our community for generations

44:51to come. Thank you for your thorough

44:53consideration and time.

44:54>> You

44:57anyone else to speak in support of the

44:59application?

45:04Anyone to speak in opposition to the

45:06application?

45:22Didn't think I was first.

45:25Good evening. My name is Kim Moss. I um

45:27have been an Athenian since 1970.

45:31I graduated from Clark Central High

45:34School. I'm a business owner, property

45:37owner, pay taxes.

45:38>> What's your What's your address?

45:40>> 220 Daring Street.

45:45We have invested

45:49into historic preservation,

45:51time and money, and heart in the Athens

45:54community for years. I'm speaking

45:56because I'm watching a process that

45:58skips its own steps.

46:00I'm not opposed to development.

46:03I'm opposed to development that doesn't

46:05comply, that doesn't honor the

46:09boundaries that have already been set.

46:12Binley Street was the boundary. The

46:14future land use plan said so.

46:17Binley Street is the western edge of the

46:19commercial downtown zoning. You made

46:22that commitment months ago.

46:24Now, you're being asked to approve

46:26density on the other side of that.

46:29Anyway,

46:30if the boundary doesn't hold, my

46:33question is what point is it for having

46:36a plan?

46:41Environmental permits are a hard gate,

46:44not a formality.

46:46The applicants environmental permits are

46:49not done.

46:50Army cores, DNR, county,ou

46:54the variances say it clearly. No

46:57construction until all three are

46:59obtained.

47:01Those are r they're not rubber stamps.

47:05It's a hard gate.

47:08They could require major changes,

47:12things that we are not aware way down

47:14the future. Um you don't know what

47:17you're actually approving.

47:21It's a hard gate. That's not a hurdle to

47:24just skip over.

47:26Um, the parking math doesn't work.

47:30I've heard a lot of um,

47:35scenarios tonight. I'm a current

47:38resident in this community. I live I

47:43walk in all of these streets every day.

47:46Parking every day in front of my home,

47:49in front of my neighbors homes is a

47:51current problem currently. that is prior

47:56to presently

47:59before a new development. [snorts] The

48:02developer proposes the developer

48:05proposal

48:06is a shortage by design.

48:10Hope Street is full is so full emergency

48:12vehicles cannot pass between parked cars

48:15currently. Currently that's before any

48:18additional cars

48:20are enhanced. Finley closes currently

48:24during the move in because the parking

48:26pressure is so severe currently prior to

48:29any additional.

48:30We have a residential permit system

48:33exists because their shortage is so

48:35constant. Currently even that system

48:38does not work. Cars cannot park. Cars

48:42park daily without permits. We can't

48:45park on our streets because they're

48:46filled. Thank you. Please vote no.

48:59Hello, I'm June Ball. I live at 445

49:02North Poke Street and I'm speaking I

49:05took my only uh email to the commission,

49:08but this is a letter from Usha Rodriguez

49:11who lives at 159 Daring Street. She

49:14says, "Dear members of the Athens, Clark

49:17County Planning Commission, my name is

49:19Usha Rodriguez and I moved to Daring

49:22Street in 2005 over 20 years ago. I came

49:28to Athens as an assistant professor in

49:30the school of law and now I have the

49:32honor of serving as the 14th dean of

49:35UG's school of law, all while living on

49:39the same cottage on Daring Street. We

49:42also are in the process of raising three

49:44children all in the same cottage on

49:46Daring Street. Many times I've been

49:49asked why we stayed here for so long,

49:51but the answer was always clear. Daring

49:54Street is an Athens treasure. Time and

49:57again I've seen alumni living by the

50:00tree that owns itself. Time again I've

50:02seen visitors on the historic Athens

50:05tour out of the bus bus marveling at the

50:09houses on our street. Time and again,

50:11I've watched UG professors bring their

50:13architecture and design students to

50:16sketch and study and learn. The proposed

50:19plan jeopardizes all of that. My friends

50:21and neighbors have already explained

50:23that speed zoning will inevitably push

50:27new traffic and parking to our streets.

50:30Indeed, non-residents already routinely

50:33park on our block. Navigating our side

50:37streets requires that drivers perform

50:39adults.

50:41They duck into empty curbside park

50:44pockets and wait for oncoming traffic

50:47before proceeding. If you've ever

50:50performed this delicate dance, you know

50:52that it requires both patience and

50:54courtesy. Qualities I fear the new Broad

50:57Street residents will lack. The proposed

51:00building will tower over our street. It

51:02will ruin that timeless magical feeling

51:05that makes daring streaks so very

51:07special. I urge you to vote it down.

51:10Sincerely, Rushro.

51:21>> Hello, I'm Tom Nicholson at 197 Daring

51:24Street, just a 100 yards from the

51:26proposed new development. Like my

51:28neighbors, I'm mainly concerned about

51:30the increased traffic and parking

51:32congestion in this high density building

51:34would bring to this part of Athens.

51:36We're still still reeling under the

51:38impact of the huge 750 bed Rambler

51:42building on the same stretch of Broad

51:44Street, which has made traffic and

51:46parking [clears throat] worse, increased

51:49noise, increased light pollution,

51:51generally eroding the quality of life

51:54for those who live immediately west of

51:56downtown.

51:58And so naturally, we're alarmed that

52:01another huge development might be

52:03constructed next door. I'd like to focus

52:05my objection to the building on the

52:08issue of uh incompatibility

52:11with them. The historic surrounding

52:14neighborhoods, especially the Daring

52:16Street, Re Street, and Coben

52:19districts.

52:21I think we'd all agree that one of the

52:22chief assets and

52:25attractions and a distinction which sets

52:28Athens apart from other towns is the

52:31historic charm of our old neighborhoods.

52:34Sadly, we lost many of our beautiful old

52:37homes in the 1960s and 70 which were

52:40carelessly swept away before anyone ever

52:44thought about uh historic preservation.

52:46But I hope we've learned from our past

52:48mistakes

52:50and we have the good sense now to

52:51protect our heritage more carefully.

52:54[clears throat]

52:55This entails ensuring that we have good

52:57zoning laws

52:59that prevent incompatible commercial

53:01development to intrude into our historic

53:05neighborhoods.

53:07Much better would be a smaller

53:09lowdensity historically sensitive

53:11development on this block which is the

53:13side of the UG botanical garden adjacent

53:15to the former site of the historic Knox

53:17Institute. It's right across the street

53:20from this cobblestone stretch of Finley

53:22that leads directly to the tree that

53:24owns itself, one of the major

53:25sightseeing attractions for visitors to

53:27Athens. And it's in the near vicinity of

53:29some of our oldest and most historically

53:31significant homes.

53:33So, please let's agree to maintaining a

53:36reasonable buffer between the

53:37highdensity downtown district and our

53:40already established historic

53:41neighborhoods.

53:43So, all we're really asking for tonight

53:44is by is that you abide by your own

53:46newly implemented future land use plan,

53:50which which recently set Finley Street

53:52as the western boundary of the

53:54highdensity commercial downtown

53:56district. That was a good decision. So,

53:59please just stick to that. Thank you

54:01very much.

54:05Hi, before I start, let me change to um

54:09something having to do with taking down

54:13what's currently up there because we're

54:16really talking about zoning. Can we just

54:19change that visual

54:22>> something in mind that you would like?

54:24>> Well, if I don't want to have the mic

54:27screen than just the reszone area.

54:30>> Okay. the thumbing.

54:34>> Yeah, you just go to the text of this

54:35the staff presentation. It was great.

54:37Just the

54:38>> Yeah,

54:39>> it was some place in the uh reszone

54:42picture,

54:43>> the comparative zoning map, the proposed

54:47tax.

54:47>> Yeah, something that gives people an

54:49idea of what's going on.

54:51>> Okay, thank you.

54:55>> Um I'm Dina Kushner. I live at 178

54:58Daring Street. Please deny the requested

55:02resoning. I look north across Broad

55:05Street when storms threaten, when there

55:08are power failures, when there are

55:10fireworks and parties. I hear the

55:14crashes at Pope Street and at Finley and

55:17can see the flashing lights of emergency

55:20vehicles.

55:22I live in historic district and can see

55:25other historic districts.

55:28My children grew up here and safely

55:31biked and walked to their public

55:33schools. This is a neighborhood, not a

55:37commercial district. It is walking

55:39distance of commercial downtown

55:41restaurants and businesses.

55:44I urge the planning commission to deny

55:47the expansion of the commercial downtown

55:50designation to include one nor block of

55:54Broad Street. The proposed design

55:57presents a wall to Broad Street. It

56:00divides historic districts and would

56:03loom over them. For what purpose? To

56:06have more beds? Their wording. To bring

56:10more people to an area not designed for

56:12the increase in foot traffic down the

56:15middle of cross streets which lack

56:17sidewalks. to bring more vehicles onto

56:20narrow streets which have limited sight

56:23lines across Broad Street. To bring

56:26Tanard Branch underground, to site a

56:29swimming pool on Broad Street to bring

56:31more noise to residential neighborhood,

56:34and yes, to increase the tax roles.

56:38My house was built by the first

56:40superintendent of schools. Aunt Lollipop

56:44did her children's programs from the

56:46living room. I promised the last Laura

56:50to live here that I would cherish her

56:54family's home of generations of Lauras.

56:58Please do not approve the reszone to CD

57:02on the north side of Broad Street. Thank

57:04you. Thank you.

57:07>> Anyone else to speak in opposition to

57:09the application?

57:29It's

57:30>> comments

57:34to accept

57:35>> Alicia.

57:36>> Yeah. Do we need a motion to accept

57:38what?

57:41Okay.

57:47>> I'm Stephanie Lyn from 226 Hill Street.

57:50I'm not here to make an argument against

57:51higher density housing. The issue is the

57:54scale of the density being proposed and

57:56what that means for park. Applicant is

57:59asking you to approve 175 bedrooms per

58:01acre instead of the 24 currently

58:04allowed, not more than seven times the

58:07allowable density. A bedroom represents

58:09a person who needs a place to sleep and

58:12park their vehicle. We should not assume

58:14that students who don't drive every day

58:16don't need parking. UG's parking weight

58:18list has grown sevenfold in five years

58:21and now exceeds 7,000. That's their

58:23weight list, showing how many students

58:26bring cars to Athens. CD zoning allows

58:29the higher density while requiring less

58:31parking because it assumes alternatives

58:32such as parking checks and street

58:34parking and surface lots, people that

58:36walk more. 66 West Broad Street is not

58:40that environment. It's immediately

58:41adjacent to established neighborhoods

58:43where public street parking is already

58:45heavily needed. The question is where

58:47will they park?

58:49This development will have 425 bedrooms,

58:52425 people that possibly need a place to

58:55park their car.

58:57There's 211 conventional spaces. The

59:00tandem spots, that's crazy. I can't

59:02imagine how it would work. So, please

59:04take a look at the handout I provided at

59:06the beginning of this meeting. I made a

59:08small correction to the math from the

59:10version that I sent y'all an email

59:12because I noticed that I had made a

59:14calculation mistake, but there are 101

59:16on street parking spaces on that threeb

59:19block radius around the development. The

59:22Rambler has 505 spaces for 750 bedrooms.

59:27They direct residents to purchase

59:29parking at Gamma Lot and Redeemer

59:33because they're sold out.

59:36But the Gamma Lot is at 616 Broad.

59:39That's going to go away with this

59:40development. And you're also going to

59:42take away the 13 spaces on Finley with

59:44the fire lane. So that means Rambler is

59:48going to lose access to 53 parking space

59:50that it already relies on for overflow

59:52parking.

59:54So if you if you approve this request,

59:56the neighborhood will have 88 spaces

59:59left and several of us have walked these

1:00:02streets many times since school started

1:00:04and I have counted zero spots available

1:00:08with the current situation without even

1:00:10counting this new development.

1:00:12The parking deficiency demonstrates that

1:00:14CD zoning does not work here. The math

1:00:17just doesn't work. And we agree that

1:00:18Athens needs better transitional zoning

1:00:20that allows additional housing while

1:00:23creating a more appropriate transition

1:00:24between higher density and established

1:00:27neighborhoods. With the future land use

1:00:29map and the comprehensive plan

1:00:30beginning, now is the time to address

1:00:32this. But for for now, I ask you to

1:00:34recommend denial of the request.

1:00:39>> Thank you. Anyone else to speak in

1:00:42opposition?

1:00:50>> Hello, good evening. Uh, my name is

1:00:51Bruno Jiri. I live at one, excuse me,

1:00:54112 Whitehead Road. Uh, I also represent

1:00:57the Upper Oak County Wershed Network.

1:00:59Uh, I spoke at the preliminary meeting

1:01:01as well. Uh I just want to preface my

1:01:04remarks by saying that uh we are all for

1:01:06stream restoration and I'm I'm going to

1:01:08limit my remarks to the stream

1:01:10restoration aspect. Uh we have

1:01:12participated in restoration projects. Uh

1:01:16and for that reason I recognize that uh

1:01:18it is not straightforward. Uh and it is

1:01:21extremely complicated. Uh and uh I agree

1:01:27with the staff report uh from the

1:01:30perspective that this uh project sounds

1:01:35great, but uh the environmental impact

1:01:38of the the moving the mainstream of the

1:01:42Tanard Creek uh is is going to out I

1:01:46think outweigh the potential

1:01:49uh aesthetic beauty. Uh and I I I I I

1:01:54hate to say it because I love the idea

1:01:55of of restoring Tanard Creek. Uh it has

1:01:58been through a lot. Uh and it is true

1:02:00that the the feal form uh levels are are

1:02:04high and it's it's it's listed as a 303D

1:02:07because of the fact that it has such

1:02:08high bacterial levels. Uh but there are

1:02:12other ways of uh dealing with that. And

1:02:16uh I have to say that Upper County

1:02:18Watershed Network has to uh recommend

1:02:21that you deny this request. Thank you

1:02:24for your attention.

1:02:26>> Anyone else to speak in opposition to

1:02:28the application?

1:02:36>> Hi, I'm Mtori

1:02:39Street about a half mile from this

1:02:42project. Um, I oppose upzoning this

1:02:45property to commercial downtown and

1:02:48changing the future land use map to

1:02:50designation to downtown

1:02:52because this would encourage further

1:02:55real estate speculation that will

1:02:57destabilize residential neighborhoods

1:03:00adjacent to downtown Athens, not just up

1:03:03and down Broad Street, but all around

1:03:05it.

1:03:07As a community, we completed the 2045

1:03:10future land use map six months ago. It

1:03:13was adopted by the mayor commission.

1:03:16It makes such a critical change to the

1:03:18downtown boundary. Now,

1:03:21we're showing that this boundary is

1:03:23fluid

1:03:25because CD zoning allows huge

1:03:28residential density.

1:03:30Property zone CD is very valuable.

1:03:34For example,

1:03:36developer of the Rambler across Finley

1:03:38from the subject property made $21

1:03:42million in 2022

1:03:45or $3.75 acre,

1:03:48which is about $5.7 million per acre.

1:03:53Two of the four parcels we're

1:03:55discussing,

1:03:57660 West Broad Street and 363 Re Street,

1:04:02are owned by the New York real estate

1:04:04investment company Gamma Holder,

1:04:06[clears throat]

1:04:07who paid 1.8 million for those two

1:04:10properties one and a half years ago.

1:04:16One and a half uh sorry, not one and a

1:04:18half years ago. Uh I'm not sure when it

1:04:20was 1.8 8 million for 9 and a half

1:04:23acres.

1:04:27They stand to make a very nice profit if

1:04:30they can upzone the property and sell it

1:04:32to the Cardinal Group.

1:04:36That's the difference between 1.8

1:04:39million for one and a half acres and the

1:04:415 million 5.7 million per acre that was

1:04:46paid for the Rambler.

1:04:49Let's respect the work that went into

1:04:51our future land use map to protect our

1:04:53residents.

1:04:56>> You

1:04:58anyone else to speak in opposition?

1:05:12Uh Liz DeMarco, 327 Hill Street. Um, and

1:05:17I spoke before you when this was had a

1:05:20concept review and I do want to correct

1:05:23the record. Um, sorry to take a little

1:05:25personal moment here, but I said that I

1:05:28was 48. I'm in that meeting. I am 58.

1:05:32[laughter]

1:05:34Um, and I said that all to demonstrate

1:05:38that um that I've been in Athens a long

1:05:41time. Um, and I am actually on Hill and

1:05:46Church, and so I'm about four blocks

1:05:48from where this um, uh, project will be

1:05:52going. Um, and so, so density is the

1:05:57whole thing here, okay? Um, it's just

1:06:00too high. And the all, uh, we have so

1:06:05many things that support a much lower

1:06:08density. You've heard it all. the future

1:06:10land use, the zoning categories for

1:06:13these parcels, and also our 2023

1:06:16comprehensive plan. On the visual of the

1:06:19staff report, there's actually a lot of

1:06:21the comprehensive plan that this project

1:06:23doesn't support. Um,

1:06:27so um

1:06:30and and I and I just want to be very

1:06:32very clear that the commemorative park I

1:06:35commend the the applicants for the

1:06:37commemorative park. it is is wonderful

1:06:41and it is long overdue. Um but the the

1:06:45problems that the over parking are going

1:06:48to create um you know for not for a lot

1:06:54of up where I am. I'm sure we will also

1:06:58see the effects um and June is who's

1:07:01right on Pope is already seeing the

1:07:03effects of the rambler. Um so I have

1:07:07during this time I have spent many hours

1:07:10evaluating

1:07:11um this project. I've reached out to

1:07:15many of the stakeholders. Um I have

1:07:18learned a lot about stream uh

1:07:21restoration and most definitely delving

1:07:24back into the important history of of

1:07:27Greece. Um, and so I want to challenge

1:07:32Athens

1:07:34um and and this and and Cardinal um if

1:07:38we can because of the density if we can

1:07:42just actually make it work. Um, and if

1:07:47we can have a vision for Athens Clark

1:07:48County and uh creative development for

1:07:53urban design um because the potential of

1:07:56this block is absolutely awesome

1:08:00um and the whole cavern. Oh, let me So,

1:08:06it's also so I wanted to recognize

1:08:09people who are not speaking. Um, but if

1:08:12they could please stand if they uh are

1:08:15in opposition for this project, but not

1:08:19everybody.

1:08:21>> Thank you.

1:08:22>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your

1:08:24time.

1:08:25For the record, we're all 32, so it's

1:08:27fine. Um,

1:08:30>> anybody else to speak in opposition?

1:08:46Am I permitted to speak if I live in

1:08:48Okone County?

1:08:52>> My name is Bill Man. I live in Okone

1:08:54County. I have been studying the

1:08:57historic botanical garden for over 15

1:09:01years. I'm the guy who sent you that

1:09:03two-page letter. I hope you all got a

1:09:07copy of it and I hope you

1:09:10incorporate that into your thinking.

1:09:16I haven't heard anything about traffic

1:09:21turning left

1:09:24turning out of the parking garage of

1:09:28this proposed project onto Pope Street.

1:09:32A left turn. It's problematic.

1:09:37Turning

1:09:38if you get on to Pope turning left out

1:09:42of Pope onto Broad Street is even more

1:09:45problem. How on earth are they going to

1:09:48do it?

1:09:52How do they do it from the Rambler or

1:09:54those others?

1:09:56It is going if this goes ahead

1:10:01and I have no stake in the thing. I live

1:10:03in Okone County.

1:10:06There's going to have to be a new light

1:10:07put in at Hope and Broad. I'm a driver

1:10:10and I drive on Broad Street quite a lot

1:10:13and I know we have enough lights on

1:10:15Broad Street. One more is just going to

1:10:19further impede traffic.

1:10:23Uh I I said something about the

1:10:26uh the daylighting of of Panard Creek in

1:10:32my letter to you and I hope you'll

1:10:34you'll look at that. But I think there's

1:10:36problems. It's easy to talk about the

1:10:40aesthetics, the enhancement, the

1:10:42environment of doing something to

1:10:46redirect Tanyard Creek. But it ain't

1:10:49going to be easy and it ain't going to

1:10:51be pretty.

1:10:55It's going to be a narrow channel

1:11:00with some plants around. They talk about

1:11:04the environment for growing the plants

1:11:06there, but I I think it's it's going to

1:11:10be minimal. And they talk and they show

1:11:12it. And if you could show the plan that

1:11:14shows the

1:11:16uh Tanard Creek. What happens when

1:11:19Tanard Creek There it is. What happened

1:11:22when Tanard Creek beats Finley Street?

1:11:24Where does it go from there? Does it go

1:11:26back underground?

1:11:28How much? What percentage? Anybody know

1:11:31what percentage of Taniard Creek is

1:11:34buried? Most of it.

1:11:38And this was the reason why President

1:11:42Reverend Alonszo Church

1:11:46proposed that this site be the location

1:11:50for the old botanical garden 1832 to

1:11:531856.

1:11:55because of that creek that creek will be

1:11:59further obliterated.

1:12:02Fine. I think I've

1:12:04>> Anybody else to speak in opposition?

1:12:12>> Going once, going twice.

1:12:16>> All right. Um

1:12:18developer

1:12:20can have two minutes.

1:12:25Can we go back to

1:12:28our presentation uh briefly on the

1:12:30environmental issue? We've engaged a

1:12:33stream professional who's been doing

1:12:35this for 30 plus years. Uh because we

1:12:37understand that this is complicated. Uh

1:12:39the three layers of approval. We have

1:12:41federal government, state government,

1:12:42and three different departments at

1:12:44AdSark County. We cannot pull any sort

1:12:46of LDP until we get approvals from all

1:12:48of them.

1:12:50Uh also been some conversations about uh

1:12:52the appropriateness of land use plan and

1:12:56uh this these are zoned M.

1:12:59Excuse me. All right,

1:13:04major corridor.

1:13:08This is a major corridor uh and mixed uh

1:13:11destiny residential. And if you see, you

1:13:14know, we are falling underneath two to

1:13:17four stories on the town homes here.

1:13:20We're at three stories. This is three to

1:13:22seven. We were seven stories with y'all

1:13:24last month or two months ago. Here we

1:13:26are at six stories. And so to say that

1:13:28this is CD, we don't think that is

1:13:31accurate is we have to do CD because we

1:13:34have to do a payment L. We can't use a

1:13:38payment L with RM3. We can't do an RM3

1:13:41and seek a waiver for increased density.

1:13:42we have to do a CD if we can reduce

1:13:45density and at the end of the day the

1:13:47only thing that's driving this project

1:13:49is we have to have the density to do all

1:13:51the stream restoration provide the park

1:13:54and all the other public benefits uh and

1:13:56again looking at future land use map we

1:13:58believe are entirely consistent with

1:14:00this the redeveloping corridors and

1:14:02those are right for transformation this

1:14:05property has been zoned CG and has been

1:14:07dilapidated for decades uh the record

1:14:10board tonight says that this is being

1:14:12used as a parking lot and that's not the

1:14:14highest to best use of this land. I mean

1:14:17look at the study here. Look at the

1:14:18value that is coming from this area. And

1:14:21so not only is it going to be benefit

1:14:23for the re street neighborhood and the

1:14:24church but for the entire community. I

1:14:27mean look at the density from c from the

1:14:29downtown area. Uh over half of this

1:14:32exempt and here you have a property that

1:14:35is off the board. We ask that you please

1:14:38approve us. Thank you for your time.

1:14:44Are you?

1:14:45>> Yes. I bring up Mr. Ellison, would you

1:14:48mind coming back up so I could ask you

1:14:49some questions?

1:14:51>> Um, I was wondering if you could maybe

1:14:54walk us through your proposed conditions

1:14:56that you was and kind of say how those

1:14:58respond with staff conditions.

1:15:02>> Sorry. Can we go back to uh my

1:15:03presentation?

1:15:08And some of them are really

1:15:09straightforward. Maybe that that first

1:15:11one. Um, if you could talk a little more

1:15:13about Okay.

1:15:15>> All right. So, the blue area

1:15:18is best defined here. I'm just going to

1:15:20show you all this. This is what the

1:15:22stream uh buffer is going to be

1:15:24anticipated it's going to be uh after um

1:15:28you go through the US Army Corp of

1:15:29Engineers and AP. But really what we're

1:15:32talking about here is utilities and

1:15:35everything else we're trying to do here.

1:15:36So this is the blue area as well. Same

1:15:39area. So basically everything outside of

1:15:42the blue area is going to be binding.

1:15:46And what we're proposing is within here

1:15:49is that all the utility lines uh the

1:15:53exact location of the stream everything

1:15:56that would be subject to approval by EPD

1:16:00and US Army Corp of Engineers. Once they

1:16:02make their determination, we come

1:16:03through uh transportation, public works,

1:16:06public utilities and planning and then

1:16:08they sign off on everything as well. Uh

1:16:11because we understand that there is I

1:16:13mean um it's been characterized as a

1:16:16part of this equation that has yet to be

1:16:18solved. And so that's why we want that

1:16:20flexibility. So you're going to see

1:16:21everything other than that particular

1:16:23area where we want to have you EPD and

1:16:26one side off audit. But at the same

1:16:28time, we understand staff has some um

1:16:31red lines uh that we're going to

1:16:33respect. You know, for example, uh the

1:16:35fire lane here. Uh there's, you know,

1:16:38certain crossings that can't happen

1:16:39except for utilities and the location of

1:16:41the building footprint. And then at the

1:16:43end of the day, staff has said there has

1:16:45to be a certain stream buffer. And we're

1:16:47fine with that because we're confident

1:16:48that we can do that. We're confident

1:16:50with our specialist Ken Campbell. And so

1:16:54the idea is that we get the entitlements

1:16:56and then we're on track to go through

1:16:58this process. I think we're submitting

1:17:00with EP uh around the 1 of November. Um

1:17:04and because Athens Clark County is a

1:17:07local issuing authority, it's my

1:17:08understanding that they're going to be a

1:17:10part of this entire process.

1:17:13>> Okay. And thank you. And I think because

1:17:17um

1:17:18because I don't think anyone else

1:17:20besides the planning commission has seen

1:17:21this document you passed out. Could you

1:17:23just go through those so everybody can

1:17:25hear?

1:17:26>> Sure. Sure.

1:17:27>> And I think I gave Mr. Lonnie my uh

1:17:29copy. Can I

1:17:32>> Thanks again.

1:17:33>> All right. So one of the conditions

1:17:34we're offering and this was a a staff

1:17:36corrective comment was uh we have to get

1:17:39a development nationwide permit from the

1:17:41United States for engineers before the

1:17:43issuance of an LBD. We're fine with

1:17:45that. You know, that's part of the

1:17:46variance. We're fine with that. We know

1:17:48we're going to have to do that even

1:17:49beyond the zoning aspects. An

1:17:52encouragement permit from EPD must be

1:17:53issued before the issuance of the LDP.

1:17:56Again, that's the condition of the

1:17:57variance. We're fine with that. Uh there

1:18:00must be a minimum tree canopy of 42,000

1:18:02square feet. Again, that's a comment

1:18:05from staff and we're happy to comply

1:18:06with that. Uh the development must

1:18:09comply with commercial general standards

1:18:11for total planted tree canopy. uh but

1:18:14will not be bound by commercial general

1:18:15conserve candy requirements. Uh six, the

1:18:19town homes facing Finley Street will not

1:18:20exceed three stories. That was a comment

1:18:23from staff as well and all utility lines

1:18:26along Finley Street are to be

1:18:27underground.

1:18:29Eight, uh the developer will grant an

1:18:31easement to Athens Clark County for a

1:18:33bus stop. Um provided the easement

1:18:36allows the developer to retain the right

1:18:37to implement reasonable security

1:18:39measures for safety and the prevention

1:18:41of nuisances in easement areas. Uh this

1:18:43was a comment from staff and we wanted

1:18:45to make sure that we have as many means

1:18:47of transportation available on site.

1:18:50Uh the bus stop must also have a minimum

1:18:5210-ft clearance zone. Uh we're also

1:18:54offering to construct sidewalks along

1:18:56both sides of 300 block of race street.

1:18:59This is a request from the neighborhood

1:19:01and the church and the developer must

1:19:03construct speed tables and crosswalks at

1:19:05Pope Reese intersection fronting the

1:19:08Hill First Baptist Church entrance.

1:19:10Again, we understand there's been a lot

1:19:11of discussions about traffic and and

1:19:13whatnot, but this is a direct comment

1:19:15from the church who want to try to make

1:19:17them happy. And finally, we have to

1:19:19comply with the inclusionary zoning

1:19:20ordinance.

1:19:22Thank you.

1:19:27We want to thank you.

1:19:31Talk about the future

1:19:33first vote and then move on to maybe.

1:19:38Yeah, Alex, I think you might have some

1:19:40fun.

1:19:41>> Yeah.

1:19:41>> Yeah.

1:19:42>> Do you want to go?

1:19:43>> Sure.

1:19:44>> Okay.

1:19:44>> Um,

1:19:46so I've got a first I've got a question

1:19:48for staff.

1:19:50>> If if this just hypothetically, if this

1:19:53were approved as is, just to keep it

1:19:56simple, and the future land use map were

1:19:59changed and the development could not go

1:20:02forward.

1:20:04uh for whatever reason the developers

1:20:06have they just can't do it and then they

1:20:09come back to us with an overlay

1:20:12to

1:20:14change the restrictions or change

1:20:16anything.

1:20:18The future the change to the future land

1:20:21use still stands. Correct.

1:20:23>> Correct.

1:20:24>> Yeah. It'll stand no matter what ever

1:20:26happens to that in the future. Okay. So,

1:20:29I just wanted to make sure. I thought I

1:20:31would, but I

1:20:33all the overlays uh happening around, I

1:20:36wanted to make sure. So, I will say

1:20:40and and I think the developers did a a

1:20:43pretty good job stepping back and

1:20:46redesigning and listening to the to the

1:20:48neighborhood and the community.

1:20:51But in the future land use steering

1:20:54committee, we held that line pretty hard

1:20:57and the the downtown

1:21:01at Finley was the end of that. It really

1:21:05never got any discussion to go forward

1:21:08because it made no sense to go when I

1:21:10say forward, I guess to go west uh up

1:21:12Broad Street. And we spent a lot of time

1:21:14on Broad Street discussing major

1:21:18corridor, minor corridor, corridor,

1:21:20whatever. We we put it as a major

1:21:23corridor to give it the stuff down, but

1:21:26still give it some uh some density or

1:21:30ability for that. And so we've done the

1:21:34work on this. And

1:21:38I

1:21:39it's not that the future land use map

1:21:42can't ever be changed. It's not that I'm

1:21:44I voted for a little change. I think in

1:21:46the last meeting, it was a much smaller

1:21:48little detail of a change. Downtown is a

1:21:51beast of of a

1:21:54um

1:21:56designation.

1:21:58And to let it inch, it's got to be

1:22:02a pretty big exception, I think, to to

1:22:04do that. And as good as this development

1:22:09company seems to have worked hard to

1:22:11make some changes,

1:22:13it's still going to change future land

1:22:15use and bring downtown further up that

1:22:18street. And personally and and I think I

1:22:23think downtown should have stopped at

1:22:24Palaski anyway. I'm not even I think

1:22:27that should have been the transition to

1:22:30Finley and so on. So I I'll just put it

1:22:34very simply. I think the entire

1:22:37discussion ends right there that the

1:22:40future land use should not be changed to

1:22:43downtown at that point.

1:22:47>> Can I ask a question and maybe this is a

1:22:49question Bruce that you can help with.

1:22:50One thing that kind of struck me was the

1:22:53density bonus the payment in L option.

1:22:56So currently, if you wanted to

1:23:00pay for additional density to the

1:23:03housing strike fund, you would you can

1:23:06only do that in commercial downtown.

1:23:08>> The way the the code is worded today,

1:23:10that is correct.

1:23:11>> Yes. So if that were to hypothetically

1:23:15change and it were to expand to all

1:23:17commercial general, for example,

1:23:19would would the developer here need to

1:23:22make that future land use request?

1:23:26not for the benefits of the inclusionary

1:23:29zoning, maybe for other reasons,

1:23:32>> right?

1:23:32>> Um but if it were to change and and you

1:23:36know

1:23:38the wording of the code today and what

1:23:40it may change to in the future may not

1:23:42have the same benefits. And so one of

1:23:45there are really three benefits right

1:23:47now available to CD property owners. One

1:23:50is the density increase. The other is

1:23:54the dialing down of the parking

1:23:55requirement and the dialing down of the

1:23:58ground floor commercial requirement. Um,

1:24:01and so I think in the applicant's

1:24:03presentation they noted that the density

1:24:05was not something that they were really

1:24:07taking advantage of with their proposal.

1:24:09Uh, but they were taking advantage of

1:24:11the reduction and the reduction in

1:24:14required commercial first floor use.

1:24:17>> Right. So if there is a change, I just

1:24:20don't I don't know what how that change

1:24:23may or may not impact those other

1:24:25benefits of the payment in living.

1:24:27>> Understood. But I just think it's an

1:24:29interesting idea that like if something

1:24:31were to change down the road like that,

1:24:34you know, like then maybe we don't need

1:24:36the future language change.

1:24:38[clears throat]

1:24:41I just have a question sort of I think

1:24:43it's for you Bruce but yeah Alex you

1:24:46might want to weigh in on this too

1:24:47because it is future use related. Um the

1:24:50future land use designation of this

1:24:52property is mostly major corridor which

1:24:56um is described in our future land use

1:24:59map as allowing three to seven stories.

1:25:02Um, but we don't have any kind of zoning

1:25:04designation in our zoning code that

1:25:06could possibly warrant a you know five,

1:25:10six, seven story building because um

1:25:13once you get past you know commercial

1:25:15general allows 24 bedrooms per acre.

1:25:17Nobody's going six stories in commercial

1:25:19general um and most of our major

1:25:21cororers I think are commercial general.

1:25:23A lot of them are. So

1:25:26>> what's the you know what's the story

1:25:29behind that? Why don't we have a zoning

1:25:32classific like a corridor commercial

1:25:34corridor zoning classification

1:25:37with

1:25:38you know presumably much less than 200

1:25:41bedrooms per acre but much more than 24.

1:25:44Why don't we have something that would

1:25:46be appropriate for corridors where

1:25:47people could build you know medium

1:25:51density housing mixed use commercial

1:25:53ground floor because it's on a corridor.

1:25:55Uh, you know, it seems like there's a

1:25:57hole in our zoning code that our future

1:26:00land use category of major corridor

1:26:02seems to presuppose that we're going to

1:26:05backfill that and come up with a zoning

1:26:07classification and we maybe just haven't

1:26:09done it yet.

1:26:10Can you just kind of walk us through the

1:26:12>> Sure.

1:26:13>> thought process of um so the zone that

1:26:16we have that that is a step in between

1:26:20the 24 beds per acre of CG and the 200

1:26:23beds per acre of CD. We have a zone that

1:26:26allows 50 beds per acre. So a little

1:26:28more than double of what the CG would

1:26:30allow by Ryan. And the future land use

1:26:34designation that

1:26:34>> you mean RM3, right?

1:26:36>> Did I say that? I'm sorry. RM3.

1:26:37>> That's what you're talking about. Farm

1:26:38three allows 50 beds per acre. Sorry. Um

1:26:41the major corridor designation that the

1:26:43future land use map has on this property

1:26:46for the frontage

1:26:48is compatible with RM3. And so that

1:26:51would allow the 50 beds to the acre. Um

1:26:55if you take that density that's allowed

1:26:57by Wright and combine it with the PD

1:26:59request

1:27:01mechanism for asking for inclusionary

1:27:03zoning payment and loo opportunity.

1:27:06um which could be something that would

1:27:08be a part of a PD request

1:27:10potentially you have the ability to go

1:27:12to 75 beds per acre

1:27:15on the corridor and that was the

1:27:17thinking that's the mechanism we have in

1:27:18the code today that is a tool that could

1:27:21be used on these corridors until we have

1:27:24the opportunity to create that zone that

1:27:26is

1:27:28a little closer to a midpoint between CG

1:27:31and CD RM3 is the best approximation we

1:27:34have right now and the inclusionary

1:27:35zoning is the best add-on to that to get

1:27:39you to 75 beds per acre. Um, so that

1:27:42maybe that answers the question. The

1:27:44other the other part of this too is it's

1:27:46not calculated off the acreage where the

1:27:48building's going where those bedrooms

1:27:51would be located. It's calculated off

1:27:52the total project acreage. So, they get

1:27:55to pull the density. if they were to

1:27:56reszone to an RM3 designation, for

1:27:59example, um the total acreage of RM3

1:28:03could be pulled forward onto that site

1:28:05as it relates to the multif family or

1:28:07the bedroom uses. RM3 also allows for

1:28:10commercial use and that wouldn't that

1:28:13could be put somewhere else on the site.

1:28:16You know, RM3 doesn't require the ground

1:28:18floor commercial is where I'm going with

1:28:20that. Does it per permit ground floor

1:28:22commercial?

1:28:23>> It permits commercial.

1:28:24>> Okay.

1:28:25>> It does. and it's got a cap, but it's

1:28:26it's meant to be very modest. It's meant

1:28:28to be neighborhood scale. So, um maybe

1:28:32that answers

1:28:32>> it sort of. I mean, you said it it's

1:28:35meant to be neighborhood scale, and

1:28:36that's been my understanding. 50

1:28:37bedrooms per acre is, you know, uh

1:28:40neighborhood scale apartments. It's a

1:28:42little more than town home density. Um

1:28:44but it's not really what I think anyone

1:28:47would build on a corridor. Um, and we

1:28:49wouldn't want, you know, a lot of ground

1:28:51flooror residential on Atlanta Highway,

1:28:54you know, or any of our corridors. That

1:28:56doesn't make a lot of sense. So, it it

1:28:57seems to me that we need a a commercial,

1:29:00not downtown, but a commercial corridor

1:29:03zoning that's 100, you know, something

1:29:05in the middle. Um, and but I'm not aware

1:29:09that there's any, you know, process

1:29:12underway to create something like that.

1:29:13But it just seems like the future land

1:29:15use map when we're talking about major

1:29:17porter going up to seven stories there

1:29:19must have been an assumption that we

1:29:20would

1:29:21>> Yeah. So amend the zoning code to come

1:29:23up with a a a middle ground

1:29:25>> and more. Yeah. So that was part of your

1:29:27question too. So

1:29:29there was always an anticipation and it

1:29:31was set out loud as part of the proposal

1:29:33with the future land use map is the next

1:29:35step would be putting tools in the code

1:29:37that are more precise in their

1:29:39implementation of what the future land

1:29:41use map was talking about. So that to

1:29:43your point, something that allows more

1:29:45density that is major corridor and and

1:29:47begins to approximate some of those

1:29:48numbers that were in the colored um

1:29:51information that was up there, the three

1:29:52to seven floors, that type of thing. Um

1:29:56it's only been six months and in that

1:29:58six-month period, we've had two

1:29:59resolutions asking for us to do nine

1:30:00other text amendments. So, um, the

1:30:03opportunity to to get on track with some

1:30:06of those things that we talked about

1:30:07with the future land use map is is yet

1:30:09to come, but we're super hopeful that

1:30:11that's a part of the the coming year.

1:30:18I I think that while last time we talked

1:30:22about this proposal,

1:30:24I was hoping to be sensitive to the

1:30:28future land use map process, but I had

1:30:31been thinking the same thing that Matt

1:30:33is sort of getting at, which is that um

1:30:37on this major corridor.

1:30:40I I I think that I am much more open to

1:30:43this future land use map change

1:30:45particularly when

1:30:47a plan unit development resoning

1:30:50application is being made that gives us

1:30:52maximum control over what that could

1:30:54look like. So to me, you know, I have

1:30:58been on this planning commission for

1:31:00nine years. We saw one overlay district

1:31:03like eight years ago and we just happen

1:31:06to be seeing two now. And I would argue

1:31:09that that is such an unusual condition

1:31:11or unusual circumstance for us to see

1:31:13that the numbers a little bit wrong

1:31:15there, but like

1:31:18the economic

1:31:20environment for doing this kind of work

1:31:23was totally different pre pre2020 than

1:31:27it is today. So when we have developers

1:31:30coming to us and saying that thing I

1:31:32said I wanted to do before is no longer

1:31:34economically feasible.

1:31:37I tend to believe them. Um, and I'm not

1:31:41worried that that we're going to see a

1:31:43ton more of that other than maybe seeing

1:31:45a PD that was um, approved 20 years ago

1:31:48coming back now because again, the

1:31:51circumstances have changed so much. So,

1:31:53I think the designation

1:31:55here as a major corridor makes me feel

1:31:58more comfortable with a future land use

1:32:00map change than I than I would have

1:32:02been. And I like the idea of being able

1:32:04to then with a PD that is really our

1:32:08best way of of generating a good

1:32:11project.

1:32:15>> Yeah. As far as

1:32:18uh the future Yeah. the future land use.

1:32:20Um,

1:32:25going along with what Matt was saying

1:32:27and what Matt was pointing out, um,

1:32:30it seems to me that

1:32:35we have a major corridor. Um,

1:32:38and right now we are missing tools in

1:32:41the in the zoning box. And unless we

1:32:44wanted to say, okay, this lot is going

1:32:46like no one no one's touching this lot

1:32:48to do anything until we have updated our

1:32:52zoning code, which

1:32:56five years from now, maybe um

1:33:01there there's going to be like with this

1:33:03lot in particular,

1:33:06I believe I firmly believe in

1:33:10honoring

1:33:12what the the future land use is. Even if

1:33:16that means having to change the

1:33:17designation because we don't have

1:33:21a a zoning category at 100 units per

1:33:24acre or

1:33:27150 like

1:33:2950 units per acre is a quarter of the

1:33:31next highest density. We don't have a

1:33:34step down right now and so we can only

1:33:41We use uh use context and best judgment

1:33:44to try to find those stepdowns within

1:33:46these planned developments

1:33:49on on this lot in particular and in lots

1:33:51like it around surrounding downtown. Uh

1:33:58yeah, it's hard it's hard for me to

1:34:00separate the

1:34:02future land use vote from considering

1:34:05the zoning request. Um,

1:34:08and I do I I I I do really respect what

1:34:11the applicant has done and the listening

1:34:13that they did from the last session in

1:34:16order to bring it down and to step it

1:34:20down and to bring it more in line with

1:34:23the major corridor and hearing hearing

1:34:25that feedback. I I think that they

1:34:27they've done a good job with that.

1:34:32I

1:34:33well we about the land use or we can

1:34:37transition. Do you have another?

1:34:39>> No, I I wanted to echo mostly what what

1:34:41Sarah said. I think my biggest concern

1:34:43is getting back to what Alex said

1:34:44earlier if we change this which clearly

1:34:48we don't have something in the middle to

1:34:50accommodate what the future land use map

1:34:52intended here.

1:34:54What happens if this developer who I

1:34:56think has gone to extent great extents

1:34:59to try to work with the neighborhood if

1:35:02they not if they're not able to

1:35:05pull this project off I'm a little bit

1:35:07wary of what we do to the future land

1:35:09use map if that opens up for another

1:35:12developer that's not quite as

1:35:14thoughtful.

1:35:17I I mean I

1:35:22this is this is why the the votes seem

1:35:25so connected to me like I wouldn't vote

1:35:28I

1:35:30I wouldn't vote for the f vote to

1:35:32approve the future land use uh if that

1:35:36wasn't also going through with the

1:35:37zoning. Um,

1:35:39which I guess would just be since we're

1:35:42probably taking one vote at a time.

1:35:45Whatever goes forward, that would be

1:35:47what I would say as a comment to the

1:35:49mayor and commission to ult ultimately

1:35:50decide like the intention was not

1:35:54change this to a downtown future land

1:35:56use. The intention was recommend

1:35:59approval of this project

1:36:02and do whatever needs to be done

1:36:06technically speaking to make that

1:36:08feasible. Um

1:36:12because uh if if the PD and the future

1:36:16land use

1:36:17then as we know the

1:36:21planned development is the only thing

1:36:23that can get built unless someone comes

1:36:25back and makes a request and if what

1:36:28they want to build looks like downtown

1:36:33I mean if it's 10 years from now maybe

1:36:35we're already getting to the point where

1:36:36it's worth revisiting the future land

1:36:40I would say that that would be like the

1:36:42minimum respectful time. But if it's

1:36:46next year,

1:36:48this conversation is still like live in

1:36:51in living memory, right?

1:36:54So I'm not I'm not terribly worried

1:36:57about it,

1:36:59right? Because it's the PD that keeps it

1:37:00from being a straight resone, right?

1:37:02From what you're saying, because it's

1:37:04valid point like if it doesn't get

1:37:05built, then what's there? Right now we

1:37:07have PD that is on it. Um

1:37:11I actually have a little bit of an

1:37:13unconventional question for uh Miss

1:37:15Igelart. Um I have a question for you.

1:37:19Um

1:37:21and um if you can come up to the podium

1:37:23please. Um, and I asked this because we

1:37:26I think Sarah and I have been on the

1:37:27commission where we've seen a previous

1:37:29proposal on this lot and um

1:37:33I and I feel like we we always kind of

1:37:36knew that this lot is going to get

1:37:38developed at some point, right? It's

1:37:40it's but it's also a very tricky lot to

1:37:42develop. And I guess I I just wanted to

1:37:45understand like

1:37:47knowing what the neighborhood has faced

1:37:50in the past and knowing the development

1:37:52pressures that are constantly on it and

1:37:55um and also just the reality of a large

1:37:58apartment building along Broad. What was

1:38:01it about this development that made you

1:38:05be like, you know what, that we're we're

1:38:06cool with this.

1:38:09What made what made me what made the

1:38:12church um made the the neighborhood

1:38:16um is the care in which they took um we

1:38:20said we do not want development on Ree

1:38:25and they made sure that the development

1:38:28is not on Ree. We said that we want

1:38:31traffic calming measures put in place.

1:38:35that is what they they are putting what

1:38:38will go into place. Um, we said that,

1:38:42you know, we want parking that it like

1:38:45again, not parking not on um Reese and

1:38:50um

1:38:52and and they put it put it underneath um

1:38:56their development. And so

1:38:59the care and the time that they put in,

1:39:02we don't know. The the thing is if we

1:39:04get another developer to come along,

1:39:06let's say they don't get approved for

1:39:09this, they're not going to put the time,

1:39:12the money, the effort into listening to

1:39:15what the community wants. Um, other

1:39:18developers have come, you've seen them

1:39:20come and go, and none of them have taken

1:39:24the time to actually listen to the

1:39:26community, to hear what the community

1:39:29um,

1:39:31wants. And so they're taking property

1:39:34that they're paying I don't know if I

1:39:37could say how much they Anyway, they're

1:39:40taking a spending a great bill of money

1:39:43to to purchase the the land on at 363,

1:39:49but the community is actually going to

1:39:52have an easement to and and the design

1:39:57is going to be for the community to tell

1:39:59Reese's story. I feel like it's going to

1:40:02be a beacon for Reese. Um hopefully it

1:40:06will

1:40:08encourage people to want to buy homes in

1:40:11Reese um versus

1:40:14um the individuals who have purchased

1:40:17homes to just rent um because it will be

1:40:21a something beautiful uh that the

1:40:23community can can utilize and also the

1:40:26fact that it'll be an outdoor classroom.

1:40:29we can teach about re uh we can have

1:40:32services um to for the community to

1:40:36enjoy and so um they even wanted to make

1:40:40beautififications to the Reese Pope Park

1:40:43but leisure services said oh we have a

1:40:46grant well they haven't done anything

1:40:47with Reese Poke Park and so

1:40:51the fact that they're putting their

1:40:53money where their mouth is and making

1:40:55sure that the community has a say I

1:40:58think that's That's the main reason and

1:41:01um

1:41:02>> Okay, thank you.

1:41:03>> Yeah,

1:41:06>> is there any

1:41:08talk of a shared parking agreement with

1:41:10the church on non

1:41:13church functioning hours with the

1:41:15developer to help relieve?

1:41:17>> I would like our pastor to to to be able

1:41:21to

1:41:22>> Sure. Yes. So, we we have we have begun

1:41:25those conversations. Let me get up.

1:41:27Okay, here we [laughter] go. I like to

1:41:29sit down sometimes.

1:41:32Yes, we have um Cardinal has uh engaged

1:41:36us in that conversation and we are open

1:41:38to that after we we've passed and if

1:41:41that helps uh part of the reason how we

1:41:43have alleviated some of the parking

1:41:45issues with the Maxon and the Rambler,

1:41:47the Rambler has only been uh talked

1:41:49about here is we do offer that for those

1:41:51communities. So, we we're clear. And

1:41:54roughly how many spaces would that

1:41:56relieve?

1:41:57>> It depends. It depends on the semester

1:41:58and it depends on what students want. Of

1:42:01course, the street is free and so they

1:42:03will take uh the street for free. But we

1:42:06up now about 52 slots. Okay.

1:42:09>> And so those those contracts can be

1:42:11renewed every year. And so because of

1:42:13the due diligence that Cardinal has

1:42:15shown our church, we are willing to to

1:42:18do that for Cardinal to amend the the

1:42:21congestion of those 75 spaces that have

1:42:24already been presented today.

1:42:26>> Thank you.

1:42:29>> Question for staff.

1:42:32>> Okay. So, I know that this body could

1:42:36would in favor of the future land use

1:42:38change, but not in favor of the zoning

1:42:42change. I can't remember and I should

1:42:45know, but I want it for the record, I

1:42:46guess, for you to answer it. The um the

1:42:49mayor and commission,

1:42:51>> they bundle vote or do they vote

1:42:53separately?

1:42:54>> They they would handle this the same way

1:42:56the planning commission does. There'll

1:42:57be two votes,

1:42:58>> right? Okay. That's

1:42:59>> land you separate from the zoning

1:43:00action. That's what I thought I knew.

1:43:03Which could depending on how that works.

1:43:07Is that something that could possibly

1:43:09they could vote to change the future

1:43:11land use and then vote not to change

1:43:16the other and then now we've made a

1:43:18blanket future land use change.

1:43:22Yes, there could be the two separate

1:43:24>> that could go on forward and there's not

1:43:26a there's not a breaking system for that

1:43:28that says wait

1:43:30>> no there's no or or neither go forward

1:43:33that's right so they could just they

1:43:35could change the future land use of that

1:43:38>> but the zoning would remain CG if they

1:43:40didn't approve the proposed plan

1:43:42development it would just be commercial

1:43:44general

1:43:44>> that's correct

1:43:45>> zoning which wouldn't allow any

1:43:46significant

1:43:48but future land use would still

1:43:50>> correct

1:43:51>> change is That's

1:43:54>> how many changes to the future land use

1:43:56map did the merit commission request or

1:43:58was voted on a few months ago? Weren't

1:44:00there like dozens of parcels that they

1:44:03made changes to?

1:44:04>> Hundreds.

1:44:05>> Hundreds.

1:44:06>> Yeah.

1:44:07>> Okay. I'm just I just feel like it's

1:44:08unlikely. I just feel like it's unlikely

1:44:11that they would change the future land

1:44:12use on this parcel now without also

1:44:16unless they wanted to change the zoning.

1:44:18You know what I mean?

1:44:21>> Yeah. I mean,

1:44:22>> if we could read minds,

1:44:23>> that wasn't the question I had. That was

1:44:25not my question of what they're gonna

1:44:27do. It's what they could.

1:44:28>> Yeah.

1:44:29>> And I'm just making sure we understand.

1:44:31>> If they're talking if we're talking

1:44:32about what they could do, I think it's

1:44:33also reasonable to bring is what is it

1:44:36that they're likely to do? You know what

1:44:37I mean?

1:44:39>> I know what you mean.

1:44:43>> So, are we required to vote on the

1:44:46future land use vote out of order?

1:44:50vote on the two votes out of order.

1:44:52>> Can we talk about the other?

1:44:54>> Yeah, that's too maybe I'm getting ahead

1:44:56of myself.

1:44:58>> I mean, there are two questions to be

1:44:59voted on. I don't think there's a

1:45:01requirement by your bylaws or ordinance

1:45:03that you have to vote on future land use

1:45:05ahead of the zoning. Um, I think I think

1:45:08we've presented it as sort of a logical

1:45:10connection though that the future land

1:45:12use change opens the door for pallet of

1:45:15zoning options that come with that

1:45:17future land use change. And so that's

1:45:19the sequence.

1:45:20>> Um, if discussing

1:45:23the PD is important for having the

1:45:26ability to take action on the future

1:45:28land use request, well then I guess

1:45:30that's that's a reason to talk about the

1:45:33PD without having taken a vote on the

1:45:36future land use question.

1:45:37>> Yeah. No, we should definitely talk

1:45:38about the funding and then think about

1:45:40how we want to vote. Yeah. What other

1:45:42comments on the PD or the green?

1:45:48>> Sarah.

1:45:50>> Um I I have a lot more trust in the

1:45:53process related to the stream

1:45:55restoration. I think that's pretty

1:45:57robust process at the state level all

1:46:00the way down to local level. And so that

1:46:04is one piece of this that I you know

1:46:06tenur branch is

1:46:09totally gross stream. It has been for

1:46:11years. I think UG has even um daylighted

1:46:16portions of it in recent years. Way back

1:46:18in the 20th century, I was an ecology

1:46:20grad student and taught undergrads um

1:46:23stream ecology and

1:46:26basic ecology and we sent him out to

1:46:28Tanard Branch and it was as the grossest

1:46:30stream like it was it's terrible. And so

1:46:33anytime somebody wants to invest in this

1:46:36stream, it it's good. anything that

1:46:39you're doing upstream, even if you're

1:46:41piping it on the on the downstream end,

1:46:44you're still better than what it was

1:46:46coming up to this point. So, I think we

1:46:48have really good people at the state and

1:46:50local level that will help make sure

1:46:52that's done right. So, that's one thing

1:46:54I wanted to say about the stream.

1:46:56Um,

1:46:59I also really appreciate the design

1:47:01modifications. I think this is a better

1:47:02project today than it was a month ago,

1:47:04like big time. And I think that maybe it

1:47:09just makes stroke my ego or whatever,

1:47:12but like I like to see when we try on

1:47:16this body to make recommendations about

1:47:18um how we can address things like the

1:47:20canyon effect of that part abroad. And I

1:47:22do think this is an improvement. Um,

1:47:27and I I really appreciate taking a um

1:47:31taking a floor off to just to sort of

1:47:34reduce the mass a little bit. So, I

1:47:36think there's some really great things

1:47:38about the project and some of the things

1:47:40that

1:47:42um somebody said one of the people

1:47:46providing public comment said that the

1:47:47potential of this block is awesome. I

1:47:50don't think that this potential of this

1:47:52block and by saying that what I mean is

1:47:55like this park um this stream

1:47:58restoration

1:48:01that that somebody wants to invest in

1:48:03this and the amount of money that it

1:48:06takes to do that and also provide those

1:48:08public benefits is massive and that you

1:48:11do need some density

1:48:14in order to afford to do that. And so I

1:48:16appreciate that and I am listening to

1:48:19the Greece street neighbors and the

1:48:21First Hill Baptist neighbors. Like

1:48:24you all are resoundingly in favor of

1:48:26this. It has real benefits to that

1:48:28neighborhood that I can see. I think it

1:48:30really concentrates the density up on

1:48:33broad in a way that lines up with how I

1:48:36view the major corridor designation. And

1:48:39um I don't know if we get much better

1:48:43than this for this piece of property.

1:48:48Um

1:48:50I first so I

1:48:53for transparency for folks who don't

1:48:56come here all the time. Um this is

1:48:59publicly available. It's on the website

1:49:01but it's often overlooked that staff

1:49:03report has a technical assessment. A lot

1:49:05of a lot of people see it. A lot of

1:49:06people don't. Just like to point it out.

1:49:08This usually the technical assessment is

1:49:10all clear. This time it's a big old

1:49:12mess. I think that the proposed

1:49:14conditions are meant to address these

1:49:17uh concerns from uh transportation

1:49:20public works with regards to drainage um

1:49:23from the public utilities department um

1:49:26and from and from the fire marshal. Um

1:49:29I've got a question about that, but I I

1:49:32would just wanted to point out uh

1:49:34transportation public works uh their

1:49:36comments on transportation because

1:49:38they're really unusual this time. um

1:49:42uh

1:49:44vehicles traveling east and west on

1:49:46Broad Street at these intersections.

1:49:48This project does not project a

1:49:49significant impact to the flow of

1:49:51traffic. Um this was from the Athensclar

1:49:55County uh transportation public works

1:49:58department.

1:50:00Uh there's some increased vehicle delays

1:50:02projected for both North and South

1:50:04Finley Street and North and South Pope

1:50:06Street during the peak AM and PM hours.

1:50:10It was also noted in TPW's review of

1:50:12this application, West Broad is included

1:50:14in our high injury network.

1:50:17We view this project's request, I'm

1:50:19skipping through some parts, to reszone

1:50:20as a suitable one with a well uh

1:50:25essentially this is viewed as a safety

1:50:28improvement for the entire county um and

1:50:30for one of our one of the roads in our

1:50:32high injury injury network. something

1:50:34that makes our roads safer by our

1:50:37transportation public works department.

1:50:39I want to point that out. I have a

1:50:41question for fire marshall

1:50:46because I understand that y'all this

1:50:48these proposed conditions we got them

1:50:50recently. I don't know if you've had a

1:50:53chance to look at any of the new things

1:50:55since these since your office made these

1:50:58comments. Are there like what are your

1:51:01current concerns

1:51:02>> right now? We still cannot support this

1:51:04with the town homes how they're

1:51:06configured

1:51:08>> and what can

1:51:09>> um just the distance um to the town

1:51:12homes and we're still unclear what the

1:51:14height of the town homes would be.

1:51:17>> Unclear about the height. That seems

1:51:19like a problem for a plan development.

1:51:22We'd usually be clear about the height,

1:51:24right? The application has four stories,

1:51:26I believe, on the town homes and and the

1:51:29condition that the applicant proper

1:51:31tonight says to not exceed three stories

1:51:33as a condition, but that's new

1:51:35information. I don't know that the fire

1:51:36marshall has seen that.

1:51:37>> Yeah. And we still don't know. So, we'd

1:51:39have to review that to see if it would

1:51:40still require an aerial

1:51:42>> Okay.

1:51:42>> access or not.

1:51:44>> And it if if it was like is it just a

1:51:49matter of height? Like is there a height

1:51:51of the townhouse? It's it's the height

1:51:53and where it is and access to the town

1:51:56homes. So, they might have to have a

1:51:58road cut in

1:52:00>> on the back side possibly. We don't

1:52:03know.

1:52:03>> Okay. Thank you. Um I applicant you have

1:52:11>> for that

1:52:12>> an idea. Yeah.

1:52:12>> Yeah. We're uh we're going to fix that

1:52:14before um the planes are binding. We're

1:52:17aware about that comment with the fire

1:52:18marshall. We're going to fix that.

1:52:20>> Okay. Thank you.

1:52:23>> And we have professionals who are more

1:52:24knowledgeable on that subject than

1:52:25[laughter]

1:52:27there are a couple of solutions we have

1:52:30and our town plan didn't change from the

1:52:33preliminary to the master. So we're just

1:52:35getting this comment in the master

1:52:37recently um and so just had a couple

1:52:40days to to respond. we can as I

1:52:42understand it the building is under 30

1:52:44feet then we don't need the fire aerial

1:52:48um aerial fire apparatus uh and then if

1:52:52we can provide hose pull for 150 ft so

1:52:56there's a potential to pull from re

1:53:00street or we just lower the the heights

1:53:02of the buildings to 30 they're at like

1:53:0432 now when we went to three so there's

1:53:06a couple of options we have if we have

1:53:08to lose a couple of units to comply we

1:53:11will find a way to comply and those will

1:53:12be the two units furthest on the end.

1:53:16>> Thank you.

1:53:19>> So just can we clarify that real quick?

1:53:21So is what um you all are saying that

1:53:24the problem is twofold? It's the height

1:53:26that that triggers the aerial need for

1:53:28aerials and then it's the distance from

1:53:31the right ofway.

1:53:31>> Yes ma'am.

1:53:32>> And that deepest town home in there is

1:53:35more than 150.

1:53:37How far it is? Uh 4.6

1:53:40>> it it's it's so it's 150 hose pole all

1:53:44the way around. So it's 146 ft to a

1:53:48corner. We can go four feet and then we

1:53:51can go four feet but we can't get that

1:53:53space in the middle. So on the furthest

1:53:57town.

1:53:58>> Okay s

1:54:02well if you want to show. Yeah, I get

1:54:03it. But I think show

1:54:04>> um

1:54:05>> so from here you pull 146 you get to

1:54:07that corner

1:54:10>> and uh with with a hose. So you don't

1:54:13get 150 ft all the way to the back side.

1:54:17Now as I read it and the fire marshall

1:54:19has a final say in interpretation. So,

1:54:21as I read it, when it's over three

1:54:23stories and you want to have an area,

1:54:26you want to have an aerial fire truck be

1:54:27able to um fight fires there, then the

1:54:30hose pull for 150 feet becomes more

1:54:33important.

1:54:35Whereas, when it is less than you're not

1:54:38requiring an aerial truck, then the hose

1:54:40pull may be less. It may have and

1:54:45well, I'm being corrected here. Um there

1:54:47are lots of examples maybe where that

1:54:50isn't met and maybe somehow they got

1:54:52grandfathered in or but uh we'll work on

1:54:55a solution and we understand this is

1:54:57that the problem has come up and and we

1:54:58just haven't time to respond to it.

1:55:00>> We will tell we will absolutely do

1:55:03whatever the [laughter]

1:55:06>> we will defin we've never not done what

1:55:07Richard has asked us to do.

1:55:09>> No question about it.

1:55:11>> I mean it seems that this is still a

1:55:13little bit of a work in progress. Would

1:55:16it be potentially appropriate to table

1:55:18this to let them work out some of the

1:55:20things that we still have some

1:55:22questions?

1:55:25>> So many

1:55:27>> I I had a related

1:55:30question. Um

1:55:32uh

1:55:35would an appropriate condition be uh

1:55:38fire like uh make necessary changes to

1:55:42the town homes to obtain fire marshall

1:55:46approval? Like would that be an

1:55:48appropriate condition from staff's

1:55:49perspective

1:55:51>> without knowing what those changes are?

1:55:53you know, part of the part of the issue

1:55:55here just sort of writ large and I'll

1:55:56I'll get to my comments in a minute once

1:55:58you maybe turn attention to the

1:56:00conditions offered by the applicant, but

1:56:04there are some moving parts with this

1:56:06submitt and on that particular point

1:56:10saying, well, it's just got to comply

1:56:11with the fire marshal. It may be that

1:56:13town home or it may be something else.

1:56:15And now we have a binding plan that is a

1:56:17movement and and that's what we're

1:56:19trying to sort through. Well, uh, like

1:56:22the way I'm thinking of it is, uh, that

1:56:25that this body, uh, if this body were to

1:56:28recommend approval with conditions, one

1:56:30of those conditions from this body to

1:56:32the merit commission would be we

1:56:34recommend approval of this, but only

1:56:38under the assumption that they're going

1:56:40to have they're going to fix the things

1:56:41that need to be fixed with the fire

1:56:42marshal before you, the merit

1:56:44commission, vote on it. Is that

1:56:47>> so that would be a reason to give time

1:56:49for that to be prepared because coming

1:56:51out of this group [clears throat]

1:56:54>> it's two weeks from now that this be

1:56:55this is being presented to the mayor and

1:56:57commission.

1:56:58>> Yeah.

1:56:58>> So

1:57:00>> that's a change to the plan from what

1:57:01this body saw

1:57:03>> and so it wouldn't necessarily be

1:57:04sufficient time for staff to like review

1:57:06any

1:57:08>> it hasn't been.

1:57:09>> Okay. Okay.

1:57:10>> I feel like these conditions are pretty

1:57:12strong. Like you know what I'm hearing

1:57:14with the fire fire conversation is that

1:57:17condition six would just need to say

1:57:19instead of will not exceed three stories

1:57:21will not exceed 30 ft. That handles one

1:57:24and then I guess the other question I

1:57:26have would be can can staff

1:57:30administratively I know like there's

1:57:32limits to what can be administratively

1:57:34approved changes to a PD after it's been

1:57:36approved. is one of the things that you

1:57:38could administratively approve is a

1:57:40reduction of a unit

1:57:44>> if if the word so on something like that

1:57:46if the wording is not to exceed

1:57:49that makes it really clear that staff

1:57:51has the ability to trim down but

1:57:55that delivery of units into the market

1:57:58has been a priority of some of y'all's

1:58:00actions and so making sure you are

1:58:03getting the bedrooms for the approval

1:58:05that you've given has

1:58:07a reason to say yes, not to do less, but

1:58:11to get the ones you're asking.

1:58:12>> We also want to for this town home to be

1:58:14within the 150 foot, right? So, we could

1:58:18>> I get it.

1:58:19>> Yeah.

1:58:19>> Yeah. So, let

1:58:22I will say this, a qualified yes that

1:58:24you could probably come up with a

1:58:26condition that if it relates to that

1:58:28last town home only and that has to go

1:58:30away if the fire marshall dictates that

1:58:32it's too far, we can totally wrap our

1:58:34minds around that and move forward.

1:58:36Because I think it could be as simple as

1:58:37that that if a

1:58:42you know a condition could be added

1:58:43where if a if a if that stretch of town

1:58:47homes needs to be reduced by a unit in

1:58:50order to comply with fire marshall

1:58:51regulations

1:58:55it can happen.

1:58:56>> Okay.

1:58:58>> Sure.

1:58:58>> But that would be like if it's isolated

1:59:01to that and it's that that well defined

1:59:03I think we're okay.

1:59:10you have additional comments.

1:59:11>> So, yeah, maybe now's a good time. Yeah.

1:59:13Um,

1:59:14>> in looking through what was uh presented

1:59:18by the applicant and that that Miss

1:59:20Barisford asked for the applicant to

1:59:21walk through of the 12 items in this

1:59:25condition, there there are eight things

1:59:27to be worked through. Um, we got this at

1:59:29four o'clock yesterday. Um, so just want

1:59:34to say that part out loud. I don't have

1:59:35any final analysis and I haven't really

1:59:37had a chance to collaborate with public

1:59:39utilities, public works, fire marshall,

1:59:42arborist on these other things. Um, but

1:59:44I'll walk through them very quickly. Um,

1:59:46item number one, AB and sub items A, B,

1:59:49and C. All of those are inappropriate to

1:59:52be a condition for the PD because PD is

1:59:55a zoning action. Zoning actions are in

1:59:57title nine of our code. anything related

1:59:59to the environmental areas ordinance was

2:00:01subject to the variance that was

2:00:03requested by the applicant maybe a few

2:00:05few months ago that's in a separate

2:00:07title of code so they had to do it that

2:00:09way so having wording related to the

2:00:12environmental areas as a condition of a

2:00:14zoning action is is not appropriate so

2:00:18those items would have to come out

2:00:21um the other wording in here there's

2:00:23some clarification

2:00:25um there's reference to a sheet in the

2:00:27PD that there is no sheet number here. I

2:00:29mean, that's being ticky tacky, but it's

2:00:31just there it is. Um, as far as the

2:00:34riparian buffer reference on 40%.

2:00:37Making sure that's clear. Um, item

2:00:40number two and number three, both of

2:00:41those are unnecessary because, um, what

2:00:44those are saying is you have to have the

2:00:45core of engineers approval before a land

2:00:47disturbance activity permit. You have to

2:00:49have the EPD approval before a land

2:00:51disturbance activity summit. You

2:00:52absolutely have to have those approvals

2:00:54before you can even have approved site

2:00:56plans. and you have to have approved

2:00:58site plans before you can get your land

2:00:59disturbance activity permit. So, those

2:01:01two are superfluous. Items four and

2:01:04five, um the math appears, and again,

2:01:07we've only had to do this for a little

2:01:08while, appears to be at odds with one

2:01:10another. So, the tree canopy minimum

2:01:1342,000 square feet would be a condition.

2:01:17So, saying they only have to provide

2:01:1942,000 ft of canopy. The next condition

2:01:22says the development must comply with

2:01:24commercial general standards for total

2:01:26planted tree canopy. And when you run

2:01:28the numbers, that's 43,000. It's north

2:01:30of 43,000 ft. So it's a diff it's a

2:01:32delta of over a,000 square feet of

2:01:35canopy. It it just doesn't add up. So we

2:01:38we need to sort that out. Um the town

2:01:41homes facing Finley, we've talked a

2:01:43little bit now. Um three stories are 30

2:01:45feet, right? So 30 feet doesn't give you

2:01:49three stories.

2:01:51Just want to say that. So, um, and

2:01:53particularly on a slope site like this

2:01:56way we measure height, it's it's really

2:01:58not going to give you three stories. So,

2:02:00so it's which is it? Is it three

2:02:01stories? Is it three feet? That's going

2:02:03to be checking NFPA standards. Is it

2:02:06really a 30-foot measure or is it really

2:02:07about the fact that you have three

2:02:09separate floors? That's what we got to

2:02:11talk through. Um, item number eight is

2:02:15regarding transit and the easement,

2:02:18which is a good thing. Um, in

2:02:21consultation with uh transit staff,

2:02:24their comment was about the easement. I

2:02:26think the applicant added some language

2:02:29here about retaining the right to

2:02:31implement reasonable security measures

2:02:32for safety and excuse me and the

2:02:35prevention of nuisances in the easement

2:02:37area. Um, that's not typical for how we

2:02:40do easements for transit where the

2:02:42private property owner can essentially

2:02:44shut it down for cause. Um, once we have

2:02:47a public service we operate the public

2:02:50service

2:02:52takes and property owners don't

2:02:53interfere with the operation of that

2:02:54that service. So there's maybe wording

2:02:57word smithing here. I I think I

2:02:59understand the intent. Um but there's

2:03:02some work to be done on that. And

2:03:07on item 10, the developer must construct

2:03:12sidewalks along both sides of the 300

2:03:14block of Re Street. Just a quick scan.

2:03:17And again, we haven't done detailed look

2:03:18at this. You've got a very narrow

2:03:20street. You've got buildings that have

2:03:22very close setbacks to that street.

2:03:24the ability to put a sidewalk

2:03:27along Reese Street is is going to be

2:03:30tough because there's not a lot of room

2:03:31to do it. And if you do put him in

2:03:35there, you may also compromise the

2:03:37amount of on street parking you have to

2:03:39make it possible. So, it's it's

2:03:42interesting. There's just not much room

2:03:43to work in and to get sidewalk on both

2:03:45sides, which is admirable. To make that

2:03:47a requirement might be problematic until

2:03:50we've actually vetted it to see if it's

2:03:52realistic.

2:03:53Um, so those are the that's the rundown

2:03:56of the eight of the 12 that need some

2:03:59work.

2:04:00>> So why is staff including conditions

2:04:02that aren't necessary to address?

2:04:05>> This is not staff's

2:04:06>> the two the two but these conditions

2:04:09that the developer proposed

2:04:11>> from staff

2:04:12>> they're responding to

2:04:14>> say the same thing about the EPD permit

2:04:16and stuff like that.

2:04:19I I will say this, we're we're making

2:04:21some clarifications about process. We've

2:04:24done our own side of the review of this.

2:04:27A lot of the heavy lifting, in fact, all

2:04:29of the heavy lifting on environmental

2:04:32areas aspect of this site was handled by

2:04:34the hearings board and it's not part

2:04:37it's related obviously and we need to

2:04:39have answers for those things to be able

2:04:41to have a binding plan to move forward

2:04:42with. I think this is where the

2:04:44applicant has offered the notion of an

2:04:48area in the middle that is designated of

2:04:50uncertainty.

2:04:53They still have to sort out with the HPC

2:04:55on the park at the COA and they're

2:04:59confident about the area to the south of

2:05:01the site that fronts on Broad where they

2:05:04don't have the answers yet um from EPD

2:05:06or core is in the middle. And so they

2:05:10don't have the answers the final answers

2:05:11on whether the stream can be re

2:05:13relocated and how. And they don't have

2:05:15the final answers on how much buffer the

2:05:17state will allow. and they don't have

2:05:19the answers for the type of

2:05:22infrastructure or other mitigation

2:05:24that's going to be necessary within that

2:05:26area of blue on the plan. And so from a

2:05:31review standpoint,

2:05:33I think it's difficult

2:05:36for us to to say it can be binding. But

2:05:40what what I think we could be

2:05:41comfortable with is if the area that's

2:05:44uncertain is the amount necessary to

2:05:47resolve all those issues.

2:05:49for lack of a better way to put it, if

2:05:51that bandwidth is the only spot that has

2:05:53things to be sorted out and we can all

2:05:55agree that's acceptable in that width in

2:05:57that configuration,

2:05:59then we're okay to move forward in

2:06:01theory with a binding site plan because

2:06:03we bound the applicant to an area of

2:06:05performance. That's where they have to

2:06:07sort things out. One of the comments we

2:06:10got from public employees was that area

2:06:12shown is insufficient

2:06:15to do what's necessary for the sewer

2:06:16line relocation.

2:06:19Specifically, I think the application

2:06:21shows the easement starting where the

2:06:24stream is best is resting vegetation. I

2:06:27think that's the notice that the wording

2:06:29that's in here. Um what pe what public

2:06:33utilities has asked for is that the

2:06:34easement begin at the top of the bank

2:06:37and everything's so tight in that space

2:06:40that the public utilities requirement is

2:06:43needing more space than what was shown

2:06:45on the plan. At least that's our

2:06:46understanding.

2:06:48So we still have moving parts on here

2:06:50that are outside the bounds of even what

2:06:52they're saying could be uncertain but

2:06:54will only live with this bandwidth of

2:06:56uncertainty. staff's evaluation and and

2:06:59Sarah, you're right. There's a lot in

2:07:01here on the technical review. Um

2:07:05think I think we're still short on the

2:07:07amount of space to act adequately

2:07:08achieve what the infrastructure needs to

2:07:10be

2:07:12>> condition number one in the stock report

2:07:15address that

2:07:18>> like

2:07:19>> for corrective actions

2:07:20>> on item uh page two bottom of page two.

2:07:24So the specific points that

2:07:27the applicant was responding to, I mean

2:07:32[clears throat] it almost seems like the

2:07:34staff the applicant attempting to

2:07:36respond to those conditions is not

2:07:37working in their favor. And what about

2:07:40these conditions that you all offered is

2:07:41what?

2:07:42>> So the timing is a key thing to

2:07:43understand. So when the staff report was

2:07:45written, conversations continued after

2:07:48the staff report and they they were sort

2:07:50of peacemeal amongst the departments.

2:07:52they weren't a unified review. So, we

2:07:56have a record that's in front of you

2:07:57that's reflected in the staff report

2:07:59with the attachments and that's what's

2:08:01in front of you. There were

2:08:02conversations that continued after the

2:08:04record was created and I think that's

2:08:05some of the confusion. Um, so

2:08:10landing on a spot where maybe some of

2:08:12these things that were offered at the

2:08:13podium could work. Um, we just need the

2:08:16opportunity to figure it out. And I

2:08:20think we still have a conflict. Although

2:08:22I' I'd certainly welcome public work

2:08:24staff or public utility staff to speak

2:08:26to this if they'd like. I still think we

2:08:28have a conflict with

2:08:31the analysis that was done at the time

2:08:33with the submittal materials and what

2:08:36they're still offering as a condition. I

2:08:38think I think it's possible that the

2:08:40area up there is still too small to

2:08:42actually accommodate the sewer line.

2:08:45So, can

2:08:46>> I can I ask the Apple Pen? Um, because

2:08:51this was the the first time we heard

2:08:53this, the EPD and the uh core of

2:08:56engineers approvals were a red flag. I

2:09:00feel like a major red flag. And um and

2:09:03it's such a complicated project. I just

2:09:06hate that there's elements of a binding

2:09:08site plan that are not

2:09:11sorted out yet. you know, like it's such

2:09:13a big massive project and I just feel

2:09:15weird having all of this work done to

2:09:18have other things not quite done. So

2:09:20then my question to the applicant is why

2:09:23not wait for at least the environmental

2:09:27approvals so we can have some clarity on

2:09:29the PD? Why why why do we have to see

2:09:32this now?

2:09:36>> Sorry to quite understand the question.

2:09:37>> Yeah. What would a like why why why are

2:09:40we seeing this without the approvals?

2:09:42Why can't we just see a final site plan

2:09:45with all of the environmental approvals

2:09:46and like the, you know, without this

2:09:48blue area? Like we just see a full PD.

2:09:51>> Yeah. I I wish that reviewers could

2:09:53review like as quick as we give them

2:09:55stuff, but they have like a huge stack

2:09:58of things to review. That's true of

2:10:00Atheis Clark County and even more so the

2:10:02EPD and Army Corps. So that is a, you

2:10:06know, six month process. we've submitted

2:10:08to Army Corps, but we may be waiting six

2:10:11months to hear back. Now, we're working

2:10:14with uh Kent Campbell, like mentioned to

2:10:17Byron. He's got 30 years of experience.

2:10:18He's done lots of stream restorations.

2:10:21They the the client has um invested in

2:10:25him doing detailed plans to get these

2:10:27submitts in, very expensive,

2:10:31and he doesn't feel like this thing is

2:10:33going to move.

2:10:35But because this isn't been a pro that

2:10:37stream restoration projects haven't gone

2:10:39through Athens Crawler County, they

2:10:41don't know and they don't have control

2:10:42over that. I mean, right? They don't

2:10:43have control of that. And so, they're

2:10:45kind of relying on the 30-year expert to

2:10:49say, "This is the design. This works.

2:10:51We've designed the senuosity, the step

2:10:53pools, we've calculated all the storm."

2:10:56Like, and

2:10:57>> you have to wait. You have to wait for

2:10:59that approval. like why

2:11:03if it's causing issues with the PD, why

2:11:06not just hang on to this until you know

2:11:08that they're like getting ready to

2:11:10review it or you have your

2:11:11>> I wish we could do that with the land

2:11:13owners. I mean, there's tight contracts

2:11:15on how long you can lock up land and

2:11:17that's why we can't even afford to be

2:11:19able to table these. Now, when we

2:11:22originally were in discussions, we

2:11:23talked, we tried to make it as ultra

2:11:25clear as we possibly could that we can't

2:11:27get EPD and Army Corps approvals before

2:11:29we get zoning entitlements because that

2:11:32that requires fully detailed plans.

2:11:34We've gone way beyond

2:11:36the level of detail on these plans of

2:11:39any other kind of plans that we've

2:11:40submitted for for zoning actions here.

2:11:44And I feel like we've done very good

2:11:45job. The purpose of the condition number

2:11:48one that we spent a lot of time and

2:11:49we've been going back and forth with

2:11:51staff

2:11:52on is to further uh give them a comfort

2:11:57level saying

2:12:00not only do we believe this design we've

2:12:03shown isn't going to move. But we'll

2:12:05also give you these promised dimensions

2:12:07that if it does move, it will only move

2:12:10this much. And if it moves more than

2:12:11that, then we will come back and have to

2:12:14ask for

2:12:15>> right

2:12:16>> brand new levels of permission. So I

2:12:18don't I think we're kind of stuck here a

2:12:21little cart before the horse and we're

2:12:23going to stay stuck here if we table

2:12:24this for another month. We're going to

2:12:26be in the same position with the same

2:12:28questions hanging out there.

2:12:30>> A lot of moving parts. We're kind of at

2:12:31the mercy of different government units.

2:12:34>> I feel like we worked this out. Joel,

2:12:36you could say

2:12:37>> Thank you.

2:12:39>> [laughter]

2:12:41>> at all.

2:12:45>> I don't know. I I just

2:12:48I think if we're particularly sensitive

2:12:50to

2:12:54I know this question of tableling is

2:12:56going to come up on a different issue

2:12:58and and we've kind of been dealing that

2:13:00a little bit with the ball overlay

2:13:01question but I

2:13:04you know if I'm going back and looking

2:13:06at the staff conditions I I feel like

2:13:08that are offered in or that are

2:13:10recommended basically the staff is

2:13:12recommending denial of this application

2:13:15but giving us a set of conditions if we

2:13:17want to move forward with it. And like

2:13:19the first condition

2:13:21requests that a designation in an area

2:13:23that's non-binding in nature for stream

2:13:25restoration utility installation um be

2:13:28identified to allow for design

2:13:30flexibility.

2:13:31Like I'm comfortable with that. Like I

2:13:35understand that you have to really think

2:13:37about that there needs to be an answer

2:13:40on this on the stream restoration

2:13:42project to be able to know where to

2:13:44place the other infrastructure. Um,

2:13:50and I wonder a little bit whether

2:13:53if we just go to the staff's recommended

2:13:55conditions

2:13:57that if we were just to modify the one

2:13:59about the town homes

2:14:02um to accommodate concerns from fire.

2:14:08Um,

2:14:11that might be condition six and seven we

2:14:13have to address if we did that. But I,

2:14:17you know, I go into these things

2:14:18thinking like, okay, this time I'm going

2:14:20to go with staff's recommendations. I

2:14:22always sort of think like we should be

2:14:24agreeing with these guys all the time.

2:14:26But then I do think we have a little bit

2:14:28of flexibility to be able to pull back

2:14:31from it and think about community, the

2:14:33benefits of the community of certain um

2:14:37certain projects. and staff knows us

2:14:39enough to know that we are going to pick

2:14:42it apart and provided a set of

2:14:44conditions for us that they at least a

2:14:47week or so ago felt comfortable with.

2:14:49And so

2:14:52I guess my question for staff would be

2:14:56with the exception of discussing the

2:14:58height limit and distance from rideaway

2:15:01limit with the town homes.

2:15:04Is there anything

2:15:07that's no longer valid in the set of 11

2:15:09recommendations?

2:15:12Recommended conditions I should say. Uh

2:15:15>> there was also the parking it number 11.

2:15:18provide

2:15:22additional parking or find off-site

2:15:23solutions to accommodate one space for a

2:15:25minimum 75% of the bedrooms without

2:15:28using tandem parking.

2:15:29>> How many additional spaces is that?

2:15:34>> 75% of bedrooms and I think we are at

2:15:39425 bedrooms.

2:15:41>> Yeah.

2:15:43318

2:15:47additional 107 spots beyond what they

2:15:50>> 107.

2:15:50>> It's 107 more than the applicant is

2:15:53proposing.

2:15:59>> So the the blue area and the uncertainty

2:16:01about the sewer pipe, I guess could

2:16:03could public utilities shed any light on

2:16:06that. Um, I mean I I hear the

2:16:09applicant's point that if indeed they

2:16:12need to extend the blue area shown on

2:16:14that drawing a little to solve one

2:16:17thing, they can just come back. That's a

2:16:19simple amendment down the road. That

2:16:20doesn't seem like a problem. But but is

2:16:23there anything you can say about that?

2:16:25>> Yeah, I think we have seen an iteration

2:16:26of the plans that conceptually

2:16:29um could could work for us. Um, it's

2:16:32just a matter of, as Bruce said, timing

2:16:34of we're receiving a submittal, when

2:16:37we're providing comments. There's been a

2:16:39lot of ongoing conversations have been

2:16:41happening. Um, I think for us, our main

2:16:44concern was knowing exactly what the

2:16:47limits of the stream restoration, where

2:16:50the stream would be located, and as as

2:16:53it pertains to the location of the

2:16:55sanitary sewer line. Um the condition

2:16:58providing us 10 ft of separation from

2:17:01the point of vested uh or rested

2:17:04vegetation does uh give us a little bit

2:17:08more assurance as far as

2:17:12um you know a a little bit higher

2:17:15comfort level. Um I think for us it's

2:17:17just a matter of understanding um you

2:17:21know what EPD is going to approve.

2:17:24>> So that's

2:17:26applicants condition one a

2:17:29um that's the one you're referring to

2:17:32that that you would if that were

2:17:34included

2:17:35then public utilities would feel

2:17:38comfortable the

2:17:40the uncertainty about the blue area

2:17:43>> assuming assuming we have a I guess

2:17:47the stream location is

2:17:50is defined some way I guess the blue

2:17:52area would be the area in which the

2:17:54stream

2:17:57Okay.

2:17:59>> Thank you.

2:18:05>> Um so

2:18:09uh two things. one

2:18:13uh

2:18:17well the the thing that is most

2:18:21pushing me towards

2:18:24uh table or postponement

2:18:26>> postponement whatever we're calling it

2:18:28now um

2:18:31is uh after all this discussion that

2:18:34we've heard so far is this proposed

2:18:37condition uh for sidewalks on Bree

2:18:40Street And um what I heard from the

2:18:43applicant that this was part of the

2:18:48conversation from uh the re street

2:18:51community uh and what I heard from Bruce

2:18:53that it might not be possible.

2:18:56Um

2:18:58I

2:18:59I don't know that

2:19:03uh moving this forward

2:19:07with a recommendation.

2:19:10Leaving that off would be in alignment

2:19:13with what the community is is coming

2:19:15forward and speaking in favor of. uh if

2:19:18if people have come up to speak tonight

2:19:20because of

2:19:22at least in part this promise of

2:19:24sidewalks and that promise is not

2:19:26actually deliverable. First of all, if

2:19:28we make it a condition and it's not

2:19:29deliverable, then

2:19:32that's a big problem. Um but if we move

2:19:35forward without that as condition, then

2:19:39I just want to weigh those, you know.

2:19:41>> Excuse me.

2:19:41>> Yeah.

2:19:42>> If if we take that off

2:19:44>> Oh, I I I I'm curious. I'm Please would

2:19:47you like the rest?

2:19:48>> I would like I would I would like I

2:19:49would like

2:19:52>> Yeah. [laughter]

2:19:57>> Um we we can take the sidewalks off. We

2:20:00just we you know we were thinking of

2:20:04regards to as we were thinking about the

2:20:06traffic calming mechanisms. But if

2:20:09sidewalks are going to be

2:20:13the red heron, please take it off. like

2:20:16[laughter] we you know um we don't have

2:20:20to have sidewalks.

2:20:22>> Okay.

2:20:23>> Okay.

2:20:23>> Thank you.

2:20:25>> Could we not say something like you know

2:20:27just add if technically feasible or

2:20:30something to the end of that condition

2:20:31so that they're required in consultation

2:20:35with staff if they need to be you know

2:20:38um not done on some portion where

2:20:41there's not enough right of way.

2:20:44um may not be required anyway. This side

2:20:46must not be required.

2:20:47>> Well, that would be on both sides of

2:20:50this would be on the other. This is also

2:20:51including the other side.

2:20:52>> Okay. So, it's required on one side

2:20:54anyway.

2:20:54>> Okay. And I would say it's about that.

2:20:58>> Sorry.

2:20:58>> I would say

2:21:01it if it's if it's a condition, it's a

2:21:04condition. If it can't be conditioned,

2:21:05leave it off.

2:21:07>> Um

2:21:09>> make the parking. Remember that it's not

2:21:10one of staff. It's not one of staff.

2:21:13>> I know. I know. But that Yeah. Um but as

2:21:16far as staff condition goes, provide

2:21:19additional parking. Uh find offsite

2:21:23solutions to accommodate 107

2:21:26parking spaces. Is that what we said?

2:21:28>> Is that was that the number?

2:21:29>> That was my quick math. You said 75% of

2:21:32the bedrooms. That's 75% of 425 is it's

2:21:363

2:21:38>> 18.

2:21:40>> Yeah.

2:21:41>> And they're proposing 211. So for 100

2:21:44more spots.

2:21:47>> You say that again. How many parking are

2:21:50in their garage?

2:21:51>> Their proposal is 211, I believe.

2:21:55And 75% of the bedrooms would be 38.25.

2:22:02>> Okay.

2:22:03looking at like half an acre of parking.

2:22:11>> I'm still trying to figure out the

2:22:12sidewalk.

2:22:12>> Um,

2:22:17>> yeah, I think I think if we get a

2:22:20partial space, we would round it up to

2:22:21the hole. So, I mean, it could be 108,

2:22:24>> but um

2:22:27we're trying to make clear what staff is

2:22:30getting at here with this requirement.

2:22:32Okay.

2:22:32>> Oh, I mean,

2:22:33>> or is that not

2:22:36>> I I I'm I'm trying to I'm trying to

2:22:38puzzle out the implication of staff's

2:22:40requirement. Um,

2:22:43which like how I'm trying I'm trying to

2:22:46visualize how much space

2:22:49how much paved like space we're talking

2:22:52about adding when we talk about adding

2:22:54107 parking spaces. Um,

2:22:59which

2:23:02back of the napkin, Mac, like 200 square

2:23:04feet.

2:23:06>> Well, it and it also Yeah. I mean, so a

2:23:08parking space, a double loaded parking

2:23:11space about 60 feet from side to side,

2:23:14>> right? And with the aisle width in the

2:23:16middle, it, you know, it works out along

2:23:18those lines. So, for two spots.

2:23:21>> Yeah. So, I mean, if you kind of string

2:23:23that out, but if it all depends on where

2:23:25they are. So if it's a single loaded

2:23:27solution, a portion of them are single

2:23:29loaded, portion of them are off-site,

2:23:31portion of them are in their structured

2:23:33parking, like all of those things would

2:23:35factor in. So I can't really give you

2:23:36>> for sure. Yeah, I'm not expecting you to

2:23:38>> kind of dig into it a little bit

2:23:39honestly. So

2:23:41>> how many are tandem in the proposal?

2:23:44>> I know staff doesn't like that, but I

2:23:45kind of do like that and and that might

2:23:48I don't I don't remember how big that

2:23:50number is.

2:23:50>> I can answer that. 20 25 total is the

2:23:53tandem. Thank you.

2:23:56Is there anyone who wants to attempt

2:23:58some sort of motion for something?

2:24:05>> Make a motion to postpone.

2:24:09>> Okay.

2:24:10>> I just don't like, you know, we're

2:24:11trying to work out in real time what

2:24:13seems like just could be submitted as

2:24:15part of the plan and I'm ready to move

2:24:17on kind of. So maybe better plan, less

2:24:20time talking about it. [laughter]

2:24:25All right. All right. We'll do a vote.

2:24:26>> Point of order. We would need like a

2:24:28it's a motion to postpone to a definite

2:24:30time. So, we just need to set certain

2:24:32time,

2:24:32>> right? Yes. Thank you. So, to rephrase

2:24:35your motion,

2:24:36>> what's the longest time that could

2:24:37because it can be before it just can't

2:24:39be longer.

2:24:40>> I mean, we've seen with those

2:24:43discussions, you know, no later than two

2:24:45meetings out and then if it's able to

2:24:48kind of get to your Yeah. next meeting,

2:24:49great.

2:24:50>> I don't want to put too short of a leash

2:24:52on it. just whatever time is

2:24:53>> and there's noticing requirements and

2:24:54things we have to do to get on

2:24:56>> whatever is the longest possible but

2:24:58also the soonest possible

2:25:00>> no later [laughter]

2:25:02>> no later

2:25:02>> have the option for the longest or the

2:25:04shortest you know what I mean

2:25:06>> okay

2:25:08>> yeah no later than December would maybe

2:25:10something workable sure

2:25:14>> is that agreeable to

2:25:15>> I would just like some of these things

2:25:17give staff a chance to see what they

2:25:18think

2:25:20>> that would you like

2:25:21>> yeah just discussion of that motion. I I

2:25:23um want to be respectful of the time of

2:25:26the um

2:25:3015 or so members of the community that

2:25:32came out to hear this and speak today.

2:25:35Um and uh and the many other members of

2:25:39the community that came out and didn't

2:25:40speak but were here. Um, and I think we,

2:25:43you know, heard a lot. And it sounds

2:25:44like there's a little bit of moving

2:25:47parts, but but a lot of which, um, can

2:25:49be handled with,

2:25:51um,

2:25:53you know, the town home thing with with,

2:25:54uh, staff discretion, the sidewalk thing

2:25:56with staff discretion. We've done that

2:25:58frequently with PDs before. um just

2:26:02included a condition that um planning

2:26:05director has the discretion to you know

2:26:08um alter the site agree with the

2:26:10applicant to remove a town home or

2:26:12something like that if necessary to

2:26:14obtain fire marshall approval. So the

2:26:16the moving parts here apart from core of

2:26:19engineers and other stuff that's under

2:26:20nobody's control and could take a long

2:26:23time um don't seem to be an

2:26:25insurmountable barrier. So, I'm going to

2:26:28vote no on the motion for that reason.

2:26:30And I I think that um you know, a lot of

2:26:33people have invested a lot of time

2:26:34already in getting us to this point. And

2:26:36and

2:26:38um I would expect that the applicant and

2:26:40staff will maybe work out even a few

2:26:41more details fire marshall wise before

2:26:43the mayor and commission would see this

2:26:45in a [clears throat] couple of weeks if

2:26:46we were to vote a recommendation yes or

2:26:48no. Um so I I would favor um making a

2:26:52decision rather than doing this for two

2:26:55hours again next month or I I can

2:26:57remember what everybody said, so you

2:26:59know, they don't necessarily have to

2:27:00come back and say it again, but they

2:27:02might feel like they should.

2:27:03>> Yeah,

2:27:03>> but they've already said it twice. Sure.

2:27:05>> Um, so

2:27:08I guess I need to I [clears throat]

2:27:10guess I would like to understand like is

2:27:12it is the

2:27:17um

2:27:19are some of these technical issues that

2:27:21need to be worked out um can they be

2:27:24worked out without

2:27:28u postponing this? like can that worked

2:27:31out piece happen just because this has

2:27:34to be technically reviewed anyway

2:27:37>> which technical things are you talking

2:27:38about

2:27:39>> well I don't really quite know what to

2:27:42do about the parking question um and

2:27:45that's a different issue but even like

2:27:46fire um the designation of

2:27:51of a general space where the where the

2:27:54flexibility with regard to where

2:27:56infrastructure gets laid relative to the

2:27:58stream restoration project like that

2:28:00kind of thing. I don't feel like that

2:28:02requires

2:28:04you all to kind of work something out. I

2:28:06mean, I guess I

2:28:09I

2:28:12Yeah, I also can remember what people

2:28:14said before, but I do think a little bit

2:28:16about asking people to come out time

2:28:18after time. But I also worry a little

2:28:19bit about

2:28:22the public engagement process where we

2:28:24keep postponing and then

2:28:27people still have to go to the mayor

2:28:29commission. But

2:28:30>> can we do a substitute motion and so on?

2:28:34And if that fails then it goes back to

2:28:36the comments.

2:28:37>> That's appropriate.

2:28:39So we I would entertain a substitute

2:28:43motion with conditions if anybody want

2:28:45to attempt that that we could vote on

2:28:50two.

2:28:55>> Do you want to make an attempt at that?

2:28:57Um

2:28:59like [clears throat] Sarah was working

2:29:00toward one so we'll certainly defer

2:29:04no talking about the No, you all have

2:29:06been talking about the fire marshall and

2:29:08what needs to happen there. The my my

2:29:12only working towards it was uh uh

2:29:15generally staff's recommendations but

2:29:19not 11.

2:29:23What else?

2:29:25Yeah, I guess the question would be of

2:29:27the staff's 11 conditions, which ones

2:29:31would [clears throat] not be able to be

2:29:32worked out in a fairly simple ma manner

2:29:35with the exception of 11.

2:29:38>> Was there anything that needed to be

2:29:39added to stat conditions to number

2:29:42sixtory towns instead of four?

2:29:45>> Okay. I think it's 30 feet actually. 30

2:29:47feet is the limit required, right? It

2:29:50don't worry.

2:29:50>> I mean, same difference. It'll it'll get

2:29:52worked out. The three story town homes

2:29:54require Yeah.

2:29:56>> Well, let's be clear. Three stories

2:29:58could result in a 38 tall building.

2:30:00>> Say 30 ft.

2:30:01>> Okay.

2:30:01>> I think that sounds like that's the

2:30:03rule. Why don't you just use the

2:30:05applicants condition six in L of staff

2:30:07condition six which says that they won't

2:30:11>> or it said it won't

2:30:12>> well no because what any and six

2:30:19so like

2:30:24the problem with problem with with

2:30:26theirs is that three stories was could

2:30:30be a different height right they would

2:30:31just say the town homes and town homes

2:30:34facing Finley Street will not shall not

2:30:36exceed 30 ft.

2:30:37>> Okay.

2:30:39>> Well, we don't have a motion yet, so I

2:30:40don't even

2:30:43on my motion. They got

2:30:44>> because we got Okay. I'm making a

2:30:45substitute motion. Substitute motion to

2:30:47recommend approval of uh the uh reszone

2:30:53request with staff conditions. 1 2 3 4 5

2:31:027 8 9 and 10. And uh additionally an

2:31:07additional condition that the town homes

2:31:10facing Finley Street will not exceed 30

2:31:13ft.

2:31:17Can I can we make one more comment rel

2:31:31>> I kind of want to know what the

2:31:33applicant can we ask the applicant as

2:31:34far a touch condition.

2:31:36>> Okay. Since we have a second we can

2:31:37discuss the motion. Does the applicant

2:31:40have any comments

2:31:42about the fire apparatus question with

2:31:45council?

2:31:48>> Thank you. Uh my name is Muhammad Mosen.

2:31:50I'm with the architect team. Uh the uh I

2:31:53agree with staff's assessment that

2:31:54getting getting the town homes below 30

2:31:56feet when we're threetory especially

2:31:58with the way that the uh height is

2:32:00measured in zoning is going to be a

2:32:02challenge. We would like to ask if the

2:32:05condition be uh

2:32:08meeting the requirement for the 150 foot

2:32:10hose drag by potentially eliminating

2:32:12that furthest town home on the west end

2:32:15so that we can get you meet the

2:32:17requirement for 1T50 hose drag and work

2:32:19through that with the fire department to

2:32:21make sure that it's the acceptance that

2:32:22meets the fire code requirements.

2:32:25>> That makes sense. And so in lie of the

2:32:2830 ft

2:32:29>> of the 30 feet because my understanding

2:32:31and please correct me if I'm wrong is

2:32:32that if it's above 30 feet then we need

2:32:35to get 100 foot a 50 foot access to all

2:32:38if it's above 30 ft then we need to get

2:32:40everything within uh 150 foot from drag.

2:32:44If it's below 30 feet then then it's if

2:32:47we yeah basically if it's above 30 we

2:32:51need to get access to the entire

2:32:53perimeter of the town homes. If we if we

2:32:55reduce if we uh oh I'm sorry

2:32:59150 foot even below 30 foot.

2:33:02>> So yes so el eliminating the town homes

2:33:04in the west the challenge we have is the

2:33:06western town home at the very end

2:33:08because that's further from Finley and

2:33:10so what we would we'd be asking the

2:33:12condition to be is we remove the town

2:33:14homes at the western edge so that we can

2:33:17fall within 130 ft of of access. Is that

2:33:20is that acceptable there in terms of

2:33:24>> looked at it before?

2:33:25>> Sure. And and certainly obtaining the

2:33:28approval working through that obtaining

2:33:30the approval from the fire department.

2:33:32>> Okay, that makes sense. I think

2:33:34>> can I can I offer while you're here

2:33:36suggestion and Rick listen to what I'm

2:33:39going to try to put out there. Under

2:33:42item number six in the staff report, if

2:33:44we changed it to three-story town homes

2:33:46facing Finley

2:33:48require

2:33:50access in accordance with or fire access

2:33:54in accordance with 2024 IFC period full

2:33:58stop

2:33:59rather than quoting appendix D15 just

2:34:02say it has to meet IF

2:34:03>> say adopted state fire codes because

2:34:06there's

2:34:07>> as amended.

2:34:08>> Yeah. Yeah.

2:34:09>> But but then that

2:34:11>> that sets a story max, right, of three,

2:34:15which is consistent with what the

2:34:17applicant noted earlier.

2:34:18>> Correct.

2:34:19>> Does not talk about a a foot measurement

2:34:21for that height. And it would require

2:34:24the hose pull standard to be met

2:34:26regardless.

2:34:28Does that does that work?

2:34:30>> That works.

2:34:31>> Okay.

2:34:31>> Sarah, would you be open?

2:34:33>> Yep. I would like to amend the motion.

2:34:37recommending the motion to stops number

2:34:39six. What they just said that says the

2:34:41three story town hall require aerial

2:34:43fire apparatus.

2:34:44>> Not Ariel.

2:34:45>> Nope. Okay. Literally literally what

2:34:47they just said. Gotcha.

2:34:49>> I'll be quiet now. Sorry.

2:34:53>> Second.

2:34:54>> Yeah. Yeah.

2:34:55>> Okay. All right. Let's do a vote.

2:34:58Should I read that back? You feel good?

2:35:01>> Do Do you want me to try to read it back

2:35:03on that one condition?

2:35:06We go.

2:35:07>> All right. Recommend approval of the

2:35:09reason request with staff conditions 1

2:35:11through 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. And an

2:35:14additional condition that the

2:35:15three-story town homes spacing Finley

2:35:16Street require access in accordance with

2:35:18adopted state fire codes.

2:35:22>> All the town homes would have to

2:35:25>> Okay.

2:35:30>> Yeah. The issue is the western most and

2:35:32they don't phase. [clears throat] So,

2:35:34okay.

2:35:36All right. Eric, yes. Please.

2:35:41>> Yes.

2:35:42>> Paul,

2:35:43>> yes.

2:35:46>> No.

2:35:48>> Yes.

2:35:49>> Sams,

2:35:50>> no.

2:35:52>> Lord,

2:35:53>> no.

2:35:55>> Right. We have four nays and

2:35:59four yays.

2:36:04Uh yeah, Morales.

2:36:06>> Yes.

2:36:07>> Okay. All right.

2:36:08>> I'm sorry I missed it.

2:36:10>> Yes. Morales. So the five days, four

2:36:14days.

2:36:15>> Just point aware that was for the plan

2:36:17development.

2:36:18>> Yeah. That's the reason the P.

2:36:20>> So we still

2:36:22does that motion fail because of the

2:36:25vote we just took that motion.

2:36:27>> Substitute motion carries.

2:36:29>> Right. So we still have to vote on the

2:36:31future land use. I'd like to make a

2:36:33motion to recommend approval.

2:36:38>> Great. Uh Derek,

2:36:40>> yes.

2:36:41>> Lee, no.

2:36:43>> Darford, Paul,

2:36:45>> yes.

2:36:46>> Mcofflin,

2:36:47>> yes.

2:36:49>> Pass,

2:36:49>> yes.

2:36:50>> Sans,

2:36:51>> no.

2:36:53>> And Lord,

2:36:54>> no.

2:36:55>> All right, we have three days and four

2:36:57yays for carries.

2:37:00All right. Next item.

2:37:20>> Only

2:37:49Sorry guys, we still got to do stuff.

2:37:59All right. So, um, next up here we have

2:38:022295 Barnes Road and 170 Forest Road.

2:38:06Um, application number ED67.

2:38:15The request is for a development

2:38:19including a future land use map change

2:38:22from traditional neighborhood and minor

2:38:24corridor to traditional neighborhood. Um

2:38:27a zoning map change from RS25 single

2:38:29family residential to RS 5 PD single

2:38:33residential with planned development.

2:38:36Um the proposal is for a cottage court

2:38:39style residential development with a

2:38:41total of 28 lots including 24 fee simple

2:38:45single family lots, one carriage house

2:38:47lot and three fe simple attached single

2:38:50family units um oriented around a shared

2:38:54central green space uh so two surface

2:38:56parking spaces in storm water

2:38:59management. There are 12 uh waiverss

2:39:02that were were requested as part of the

2:39:05master PD. Um you'll remember previously

2:39:08in the preliminary PD there were 15

2:39:10waves requested. A few were deemed

2:39:12unnecessary by staff 12 for this

2:39:15request. Um these next two slides will

2:39:17go over the requested waivers. Staff um

2:39:20generally supports most of these

2:39:22waivers. Um there's one still that um

2:39:26staff would like to see a little more

2:39:28information on specifically the um

2:39:31reduce that sideyard setback um from six

2:39:35to zero feet. Um recalled a potential um

2:39:41mention of some an easement or access

2:39:43easement but there was none mentioned in

2:39:44the report. Um

2:39:48one additional the administrative waiver

2:39:50um conserved canopy waiver request

2:39:53um the arborist is generally um is

2:39:57supportive of but asks that all

2:39:58supplementary species be native um and

2:40:02for that request as well the um

2:40:04developer is offering to plan a minimum

2:40:0655% canopy coverage which is 15% over

2:40:10the RS5 minimum. So that was an

2:40:12additional um information from the

2:40:14previous preliminary

2:40:17So here we have the um the site. So it's

2:40:21currently two parcels. We have um two

2:40:25frontages on Barnet Shores Road here and

2:40:28on Forest Road. The property is

2:40:32about 4.8 acres and see all undeveloped

2:40:36except for there's um the parcel

2:40:38fronting. Forest Road has one single

2:40:40family dwelling unit. Um the rest being

2:40:42undeveloped.

2:40:45Um you'll see here the the Barnet

2:40:46Scholes um frontage here is a little bit

2:40:50off adjacent off centered from the

2:40:52College Station Road Barnet Scholes

2:40:55intersection. We have this commercial

2:40:56neighborhood commercial corridor here

2:40:58and the Bankers um residential

2:41:01neighborhood to the back here.

2:41:04Here we have the street frontage views

2:41:08um on the left of Barnett Scholes Road.

2:41:11Here we have um the intersection with

2:41:14College Station to the left adjacent and

2:41:15the gas station commercial corridor to

2:41:17the left. To the right here there's a

2:41:19single family dwelling.

2:41:22Um on the right here we have Forest Road

2:41:24um which currently has a single family

2:41:26residence. Uh driveway on both the left

2:41:29and right side are also single family

2:41:31residences as well. Um

2:41:35here we have the current future land use

2:41:38on the left showing um the main property

2:41:42uh being neighborhood residential. This

2:41:45parcel right here um currently on the

2:41:47future land use map is shown as minor

2:41:49corridor.

2:41:51Um the request is to change for the

2:41:54whole project to neighborhood

2:41:55residential. Um so this parcel changing

2:41:59um kind of being on the edge of that

2:42:01boundary.

2:42:06This shows the uh the zoning change as

2:42:09well. So currently RS25

2:42:13um adjacent to the other RS25

2:42:16neighborhood and the commercial

2:42:17neighborhood and then commercial here

2:42:20with a change to RS5 PDR.

2:42:27So this shows um there are no

2:42:29environmental areas on or adjac adjacent

2:42:32to the property.

2:42:34So here this shows the proposed site

2:42:36plan with one vehicular access. This is

2:42:40very similar or pretty much the same

2:42:42layout as we saw previously two months

2:42:44ago. Um this one vehicular access off of

2:42:47Forest Road. We have pedestrian access

2:42:49off both uh Bars and Forest Road. um the

2:42:53internal drives, the the three attached

2:42:56units here and one cottage um house here

2:43:00and then our other units all oriented

2:43:03around this central green space here

2:43:05with some on-site storm water management

2:43:08um parking spaces um designated for

2:43:11units and also some shared parking for

2:43:13guests.

2:43:18Here another um iteration of the same

2:43:21plan. Um one minor change from the

2:43:25preliminary site plan that we saw last

2:43:27time um was the addition. So previously

2:43:31there was a six-foot privacy fence um

2:43:34all along this portion here um as a kind

2:43:38of buffer between the residential

2:43:40neighborhood um on this side. But this

2:43:43um iteration also includes um a six foot

2:43:45privacy fence here because this is an

2:43:47existing single family residence as

2:43:49well. So some additional buck there.

2:43:53These are the elevations architectural

2:43:55elevations that were included with the

2:43:57application.

2:43:59Um drawing from as the applicant

2:44:01mentioned traditional southern

2:44:02vernacular design. The applicant is

2:44:04requesting some flexibility to allow for

2:44:07modifications to the elevations and

2:44:08floor plans um to allow the homeowners

2:44:12um some flexibility for the homes and

2:44:14the look of those. The applicant has um

2:44:17included a list of key architectural

2:44:20guidelines to follow which would give

2:44:23some parameters for the architecture

2:44:24specifically of the houses while

2:44:26allowing slight variation.

2:44:29um some additional architectural

2:44:31elevations here that were included and

2:44:33these are for the the three attached

2:44:36town home units fronting Scholes Road.

2:44:40So the staff analysis um generally is

2:44:43compatible with the 2023 comprehensive

2:44:46plan by um providing a transitional

2:44:49zoning between the residential um and

2:44:51commercial corridor. Increases the

2:44:53supply and variety of housing options

2:44:56and um add some infield development.

2:44:59Also compatible with the uh future land

2:45:01use map by um including variety of

2:45:03housing types um in compat compatibility

2:45:07with the zoning map and ordinance. um

2:45:10allowing for some higher density single

2:45:11family residential as a transitional

2:45:13zone and um some consistency with other

2:45:17adopted ACC gov plans and studies um

2:45:21with um two plans here, the AC plan and

2:45:25motion plan that have recommended

2:45:26improvements um along these corridors as

2:45:28well allowing residents of this

2:45:30development to um take advantage of

2:45:33those. And um generally speaking for the

2:45:36waivers as we mentioned staff um

2:45:38supports uh most of the waivers and

2:45:39would like just a little bit more

2:45:41information were given to one of those

2:45:43waivers.

2:45:44Some corrective actions. Um these are

2:45:48some of the comments from the technical

2:45:49review from staff uh that most can

2:45:51generally be uh could be handled during

2:45:54plans review. Um we kind of touched on

2:45:57these from the arborist requesting that

2:45:58all supplementary tree species be

2:46:00native. um from the fire marshall that

2:46:04stone access roads designed to support

2:46:06minimum load of 90,000 pounds and some

2:46:09um public utilities requests in terms of

2:46:13separation from utilities and trees um

2:46:16and that the utility utility locations

2:46:19become binding.

2:46:21And then these were two recommended

2:46:22conditions that all residential

2:46:24structures shall abide by the key

2:46:26architectural guidelines as outlined in

2:46:28the application for it and shall follow

2:46:30the character and styles illustrated in

2:46:32the architectural elevations.

2:46:34And that um as was shown plan, but just

2:46:38to reiterate that a landscape buffer

2:46:40between this project and the existing

2:46:41commercial uses shall include hedges

2:46:43underneath and between the trees to

2:46:45enhance that buffer between the

2:46:46incompatible uses.

2:46:49So the staff's percept summary, the

2:46:52cottage court style residential

2:46:54development could provide a transitional

2:46:55zone between the commercial properties

2:46:58and the RS25 single family residences.

2:47:01Um the design and scale are intended to

2:47:03fit with the surrounding neighborhood

2:47:04and provide additional housing options.

2:47:07So staff recommends approval with

2:47:09conditions and that concludes the staff

2:47:12report. Thank you. Now we'll hear from

2:47:15the applicant.

2:47:19Good evening, Joseph Bates, 180

2:47:21Homestead Drive. [clears throat]

2:47:24Yeah, the plan the plan really didn't

2:47:26change since our last meeting except for

2:47:29I tried to explain why we wanted the

2:47:31waiver from six foot sideyard to a zero

2:47:35and I guess I didn't do very well. Um,

2:47:36so I'll talk about that in a little bit.

2:47:38Um but yeah, as a quick uh reminder,

2:47:42the vision is we want to design um a

2:47:44pocket neighborhood that we would want

2:47:45to live in and raise families. Lean

2:47:47McDougall's the owner of the property,

2:47:49own it for a couple years. We've uh

2:47:52looked at doing some more conventional

2:47:54kind of neighborhoods and it just wasn't

2:47:57inspiring to us or the adjacent

2:47:59neighbors either. Um so we've kind of

2:48:02come up with this plan which is a little

2:48:03more complicated in the fact that

2:48:05there's a lot of sharing which um some

2:48:08people struggle with. Well I guess all

2:48:09of us do anyway. Um but yeah uh so we've

2:48:13had a decent amount of community

2:48:14engagement.

2:48:16Um we shared this plan neighbors

2:48:18neighborhood actually three times and

2:48:21the plan is better because of our

2:48:23engagement. We've um you know responded

2:48:26to their feedback and feel really good

2:48:28about uh where this is now and how the

2:48:30neighborhood feels about this. I believe

2:48:32some have written letters of support.

2:48:36They were going to come and speak. Some

2:48:37actually came here and I did tell them

2:48:40660 was probably going to be a long

2:48:41meeting so they may they don't have to

2:48:44stick around. Um, but as we as we

2:48:46understand, we've also had a lot of

2:48:47one-on-one conversations with the

2:48:49adjacent neighbors. Um, and and have

2:48:52kind of heard their concerns and feel

2:48:53like we're addressing those. Um, so we

2:48:56don't know of any known opposition and

2:48:58we feel like we have have support from

2:49:00neighbors. So, that feels good. Um,

2:49:03yeah, the plan is

2:49:06uh, you know, the parking on the back is

2:49:10is in the back, but that these homes

2:49:12face this sheared green here. that's

2:49:15kind of different. A lot of times you're

2:49:16facing a road. Um and and so uh just

2:49:20coming off Forest Road, there is an

2:49:23existing home there. We wanted to save

2:49:25it. It needed a lot of love. It was kind

2:49:28of problematic with our drive coming

2:49:30through here. We would have had to lop

2:49:31off an addition that was not done very

2:49:34well. Um and we kind of after thinking

2:49:37about it, we were like, man, this you

2:49:38know, like a lot of neighborhoods evolve

2:49:41over time. there. Some homes need to be

2:49:44replaced. This one's replaced. No, it's

2:49:46at the same kind of like front setback

2:49:47line and and so it'll, you know, feel

2:49:50like how a lot of neighborhoods have

2:49:51evolved with a new home. Um but but

2:49:53still feels like we don't have a gap

2:49:55tooth there. Um but this drive comes

2:49:57here and then so from the neighborhood

2:50:00uh horse roads are driving, they look

2:50:02down this drive and they'd see this

2:50:03green and all these homes facing there.

2:50:05All the homes have uh 6 to 8 foot front

2:50:10functional front porches and that was

2:50:12really important to us to have like this

2:50:14semi-private space even though there's a

2:50:16lot of shared space. The green is is all

2:50:19shared space. Um within that green we

2:50:21envision like an herb garden, maybe cut

2:50:24flower garden. There's a Charles piece

2:50:26here and then um you'd have a lawn and

2:50:30then a pavilion that would have most

2:50:32likely TV fire fireplace for for folks

2:50:35to gather. Um and we also have some

2:50:39storm water management. You could see

2:50:41kind of in the middle which is cool. We

2:50:42love green infrastructure. And this will

2:50:46be a bio retention facility that's like

2:50:47a small depression in the grass that

2:50:51would fill up during storm events then

2:50:53drain after 24 hours and be usable for

2:50:55the neighborhood. We've designed um some

2:50:57pretty fun pretty fun ones actually won

2:50:59some awards here in Athens uh for storm

2:51:01water we like doing when we can um these

2:51:04kind of interactive green infrastructure

2:51:08pieces that have multiple functions not

2:51:10just managing storm water. Um yeah the

2:51:13architecture how do I

2:51:17get back to the architecture? Um yeah

2:51:20the the intent of the architecture is to

2:51:21be traditional uh in style simple

2:51:24massing and you could see on the left

2:51:28here like a variety of facades that

2:51:31could be applied. But we you know so we

2:51:33put together some conditions that would

2:51:35be binding but there's still some

2:51:37flexibility for homeowners. say they

2:51:39want to have, you know, some some

2:51:41slightly different styles. Um, and and

2:51:45so on the sides of these, and I'll try

2:51:47to get to sideyard, the sides, you'll

2:51:51see this side of the house has windows

2:51:53and a door, and then this side of the

2:51:56house doesn't have it's got a clear

2:51:58story window. Um, that's what we're

2:52:00calling the privacy wall. And we've done

2:52:04these on other projects. Uh I don't know

2:52:07if we've done any in Athens. Water parks

2:52:09one where currently um they're they're

2:52:12building these homes that are 12 feet

2:52:13apart without a sideyard. Um and there's

2:52:16a zero lot line. And the whole the idea

2:52:19is if I go back to uh the plan, everyone

2:52:24will have so they got their semi-private

2:52:27front porch. Everyone on the sideyard

2:52:29will have a private space. So, we

2:52:32envisioned this the HOA is going to man

2:52:34uh manage all the landscape areas

2:52:36because everything's shared except for

2:52:39these private spaces right there.

2:52:41>> And because these homes will be 12 feet

2:52:43apart, if we split put a lot line down

2:52:45the middle, you just have six and six

2:52:47and that wouldn't be usable space. So,

2:52:49that's why we're trying to do a zero lot

2:52:50line, get to 12 feet. like with Wire

2:52:53Wire Park and those homes, there will be

2:52:56um an easement, a maintenance easement

2:52:59that is built in for for somebody to go

2:53:02and paint their uh privacy wall if when

2:53:04they if and when they need to. Um but

2:53:07this is, you know, Trilith is an example

2:53:10where they have these zero lob lines. Um

2:53:13and Avalon, if you've been there, those

2:53:16are examples of zero lot line home

2:53:17owners that are selling, you know,

2:53:18multi-million dollars. So, kind of new

2:53:21here in Athens, but we've seen it and

2:53:23and and are working on it. And it it

2:53:25seems to again, it's it's about giving

2:53:27people outdoor space options. That was

2:53:29the goal and the intent.

2:53:32As far as the other conditions that

2:53:34staff recommended, um we're good with

2:53:37those rarely. I don't know if how long

2:53:40it's been long time since I've proposed

2:53:42any kind of non-native trees. There one

2:53:44time the arbur wanted me to plant ginko

2:53:46downtown to match other genkos for me.

2:53:49Agreed. Um but uh yeah we we agree with

2:53:53the conditions that staff has and uh

2:53:56yeah here for available for questions.

2:54:01>> Is there anyone here to speak in support

2:54:03of the application?

2:54:07>> Anyone here to speak in opposition to

2:54:09the application?

2:54:12All right,

2:54:14Matt.

2:54:14>> I move to approve with the staff

2:54:16conditions.

2:54:16>> Second.

2:54:18[laughter]

2:54:20>> Any discussion?

2:54:22>> Nope.

2:54:23>> All right. [laughter]

2:54:25>> All those say I

2:54:31>> Thank you very much.

2:54:34>> I want to take a five.

2:54:36Five minute break. We're gonna come back

2:54:38at 858.

2:54:41That's okay.

2:59:53All right. Make a laugh or we got

2:59:56everybody.

2:59:58>> I think

3:00:04>> um y'all one procedural note. Our last

3:00:07item is actually a future land use vote

3:00:10and then a reszone vote. So we um need

3:00:15to vote on the future land use the

3:00:16previous item. So if any

3:00:19>> approve the future land use change.

3:00:21>> Okay. Second. All right. And all those

3:00:24in favor say

3:00:25>> I.

3:00:29There we go. Good.

3:00:32>> What was the actual number?

3:00:34>> Six.

3:00:35>> 60. Yes.

3:00:36>> Yes.

3:00:40>> All right. So, uh the [singing]

3:00:43Savannah Highways.

3:00:47>> Yes. All right. Um

3:00:51next item is involving PD 2026071456

3:00:57and a reszone zone 202671457.

3:01:01Um, this was an item that was tabled

3:01:04previously for further development of

3:01:06the record and so that's what we're

3:01:07going to walk through tonight. Um, I'm

3:01:09going to try to focus on the new issues,

3:01:11but we'll be going through the

3:01:13presentation

3:01:14in total. Um, all right. So, this is a

3:01:18zoning map change to go from commercial

3:01:19general PD to commercial general. And

3:01:24this also involves the approval of a tax

3:01:26text tax amendment and a zoning map

3:01:28change to establish a mall area special

3:01:31district overlay.

3:01:33There's two two actions here seems to be

3:01:36the thing.

3:01:38Um some background on this that came

3:01:40from a resolution adopted by the mayor

3:01:42and commission on March 3rd with some

3:01:45specific direction on the items to be

3:01:47incorporated into what would be a

3:01:49special district overlay for the mall.

3:01:51Those items are on the screen. Here's

3:01:54the area in question. Uh, important to

3:01:57note that the mall area PD is slightly

3:02:00smaller than the area being considered

3:02:02for the special district overlay. And

3:02:04that is due to the fact that the

3:02:06ownership group involved with the PD has

3:02:10since acquired additional properties.

3:02:12Um, and those would be considered as

3:02:14part of the subd district overlay. So, a

3:02:16larger area in the overlay than in the

3:02:20This is a view of the current future

3:02:22land use

3:02:24with this area included inside both the

3:02:27PD and the overlay designated as urban

3:02:29center.

3:02:32The reszone map here depicts CG

3:02:36underlying zoning in both. On the left,

3:02:38you see the PD. On the right, the hatch

3:02:41is what's showing the overlay

3:02:43boundaries.

3:02:45>> [clears throat]

3:02:47>> This is the environmental areas in the

3:02:49area. It's also a clearer view of the

3:02:51overlay. So, it's beneficial for that.

3:02:53One little bit of environmental area we

3:02:55have is to the north of the mall

3:02:56property and it's associated with the

3:02:59outfall from Lake Mueller and some storm

3:03:01drainage that's also, I believe, got a

3:03:03spring cut of spring hit. photographs of

3:03:07the subject property.

3:03:15And what we're looking through here is

3:03:18there's no specific development proposal

3:03:20that comes with this zoning map

3:03:22amendment proposal. There's no specific

3:03:24um plan that comes with the special

3:03:26district overlay. And that's normal for

3:03:28a special district overlay. Um what we

3:03:31have today is a PD that does have

3:03:33specific elements to it that are

3:03:35binding. Um and so the purpose statement

3:03:39that's on the screen is the purpose

3:03:41statement that is included in um the

3:03:44proposed text amendment. The purpose of

3:03:46the mall area special district overlay

3:03:48is to address some general issues. those

3:03:50being public safe, healthy health and

3:03:52general welfare and then working on

3:03:55visual and architectural character of

3:03:56this mall area and providing some

3:03:59standards on how those should work.

3:04:00There's also design requirements that

3:04:02would be a part of that to make sure

3:04:05that any new development is going to be

3:04:08visually and functionally compatible

3:04:10with the area that we're talking about,

3:04:12which is a transitional area containing

3:04:14commercial, residential, and

3:04:15institutional uses. And that's the

3:04:17intent

3:04:19photograph I mean not photographs but

3:04:21images of the current PD. These were

3:04:24provided with the approval. Um you can

3:04:28see the binding thank you binding site

3:04:30plan. um had a very prescriptive layout

3:04:34for road network, pedestrian areas,

3:04:37mixing of uses, retention of a mall

3:04:39building which is in the center and that

3:04:42is the Belk area here but also a larger

3:04:45portion behind the Belk tenant space. Um

3:04:50we have a handful of mixeduse footprint

3:04:53shown here. high-rise development of I

3:04:56would say maybe mid-rise development was

3:04:58part of the PD and then the PD had a

3:05:01prescriptive location for a transit

3:05:03facility that was to be required as the

3:05:06first phase of development.

3:05:10Um also noted there was a retirement

3:05:12facility required here too. So very

3:05:15prescriptive as to the types of uses

3:05:17that were going to be a part of the PD.

3:05:20Um this image shows the phasing. So each

3:05:23color being a different phase. And there

3:05:25you can see the transit facility noted

3:05:27as phase 1B.

3:05:29Phase 1A was the creation of this

3:05:32interior sort of area in purple but very

3:05:36closely tied together. And those were

3:05:39also understood to be part of a

3:05:40development agreement separate from the

3:05:42PD but entered into between Athensclar

3:05:44County and the ownership group on

3:05:47performance for this development.

3:05:50Another

3:05:52view of the existing plan development

3:05:53that shows you the mix of uses that were

3:05:56are binding um as part of that current

3:05:59PD

3:06:02architecture is also binding and here

3:06:04the images that were part of the

3:06:05approval. Um this being a largely

3:06:09commercial space the image that we saw

3:06:11before was mixed use. This was also

3:06:13mixed use um predominantly residential

3:06:17but opportunity here for structured

3:06:19parking in the center and um some

3:06:22smaller opportunities for commercial on

3:06:23the ground floor. Another mixeduse

3:06:25structure here predominantly

3:06:27residential.

3:06:29This is a residential structure and then

3:06:31there were elements of town homes uh

3:06:34largely on the north side and and they

3:06:35were included in the PD as a

3:06:37transitional area into the existing

3:06:40neighborhoods both to the east and to

3:06:43the west.

3:06:46So from a future land use analysis

3:06:48standpoint 2045 future land use map

3:06:51calls this out as an urban center. This

3:06:54is the area on the future land use map

3:06:56designated as urban center. There is no

3:06:57other area on the map presently um using

3:07:00that category.

3:07:02Um the elements inside of that urban

3:07:05center description

3:07:07were in part driven by and meant to be

3:07:11compatible with the existing PD. Um and

3:07:14that's what's noted. Existing PD is

3:07:17directly compatible with that urban

3:07:18center designation. Um, so the request

3:07:23as presented does not involve a change

3:07:25to the future land use map and this

3:07:27language is still intact.

3:07:31And looking at the overlay, there were a

3:07:33handful of things that were requested in

3:07:35the the resolution the transit facility

3:07:39um RM3 density to be allowed by right

3:07:42which is 50 beds per acre um as opposed

3:07:44to that is in the PD and as opposed to

3:07:48the commercial general base zoning which

3:07:50is 24 beds to the acre. I believe the PD

3:07:52was somewhere around 27. There is a

3:07:54comparative table sitting at your place

3:07:57that does provide side byside analysis

3:08:01of the current PD

3:08:04the base zoning of CG and the special

3:08:06district overlay. And so if you'd like

3:08:09to use that as we discuss that might be

3:08:11helpful. affordable housing. Um

3:08:15what is what is a part of the overlay is

3:08:17anticipating that this property would be

3:08:21eligible for the payment and loo option

3:08:24and that gives them a 50% opportunity

3:08:26for an increase in density. Um it would

3:08:29also come with the other elements that

3:08:32that work with payment and loop um

3:08:34regarding parking and and um ground

3:08:37flooror residential but I mean ground

3:08:39flooror commercial but we'll talk

3:08:40there's another um stipulation that

3:08:43actually corrects for that.

3:08:46So ground floor residential use and

3:08:48attached single family housing would be

3:08:49a part of this. This was what was asked

3:08:50for. There would be an allowance for up

3:08:52to eight attached town home units. There

3:08:55would be um a limitation on where

3:08:59groundf flooror residential could occur,

3:09:01but it would be allowed to occur in the

3:09:03overlay. It would not be allowed within

3:09:05250 ft of Atlanta highway. That area

3:09:09would be reserved for ground floor

3:09:12commercial still. Building height would

3:09:14also be allowed to be taller in the

3:09:16center of the overlay. So all of the

3:09:20areas that are not within 250 ft of a

3:09:23residential property could go up to a

3:09:25maximum height of 100 ft um as proposed

3:09:28in the overlay. Um anywhere else the

3:09:31underlying CG zoning would still apply.

3:09:33So that's 60 um I'm sorry that would be

3:09:3665 but there's a condition below saying

3:09:38reduction of maximum building height to

3:09:3945 ft in those areas. So, as opposed to

3:09:43the CG65,

3:09:44this would be restricted to 45 feet

3:09:46total building height when you're within

3:09:48250 feet of um the residential

3:09:53tree and landscaping standards. There

3:09:55was flexibility that was sought if you

3:09:57know the site and looked at it. There's

3:10:00not a lot of existing canopy to protect.

3:10:03Um, so anything that was going to come

3:10:05with the PD or with what's anticipated

3:10:07with the overlay will be new plantings

3:10:10in all likelihood. Um, this would call

3:10:13for a 15% tree canopy minimum across

3:10:16every development site. Um, and then the

3:10:19parking structure, we've got some

3:10:20standards on that that would apply. Um,

3:10:23at the planning commission meeting in

3:10:25August, the item was tabled for the

3:10:28reasons noted. Um, in coming back in

3:10:32September, the item was tabled to allow

3:10:36planning staff the opportunity to meet

3:10:37with the property owner and to identify

3:10:39elements of the PD that are otherwise

3:10:41unbuildable

3:10:43and

3:10:44to give consideration to those things

3:10:46that were unbuildable. So, they weren't

3:10:47necessarily brought forward so the

3:10:49development would would have an

3:10:50opportunity for success and

3:10:52marketability.

3:10:53The items in that discussion that staff

3:10:56had with the applicant included

3:11:06the fact that we had binding

3:11:07architecture in the PD, a binding site

3:11:10plan, a binding list of uses, and a

3:11:13requirement for public benefits to be

3:11:15built as part of phase one with

3:11:18financing

3:11:20that was timing out in the development

3:11:23agreement which ended in January of this

3:11:26year. So the elements in the PD that

3:11:30were based on the discussion

3:11:34that made the PD unbuildable is the fact

3:11:36that it wasn't able to respond to the

3:11:39interest that would come from marketing

3:11:41the property for development. The

3:11:43flexibility to be able to speak to

3:11:45developers about how to build in that

3:11:47area um was problematic for actually

3:11:50getting construction to start.

3:11:55So, the actual special district overlay

3:11:58text.

3:12:00Um, and I will note and and own the fact

3:12:02that what's in your packet didn't

3:12:05necessarily [clears throat] follow the

3:12:06alphabet. Um, bonus points to anybody

3:12:09who picked up on that.

3:12:10>> Nope.

3:12:11>> Nope. Okay. So, [laughter]

3:12:13I'll say it out loud.

3:12:14>> I'm going to

3:12:16>> um Yeah. [laughter]

3:12:18>> So, K K doesn't come.

3:12:21>> All right. So, I kept that wonky

3:12:24lettering in here. That would be fixed

3:12:26moving forward. Um, but I didn't want to

3:12:29confuse what's on the screen with what's

3:12:30in your packet.

3:12:32So from what you saw in September,

3:12:38um what's in yellow highlighter is

3:12:40what's been added and and what's been

3:12:43brought forward as a proposal to address

3:12:46concerns from this group, but also to

3:12:48reflect the conversation with the

3:12:51property owner about what's problematic

3:12:53with the PD.

3:12:55Um so purpose intent remains the same,

3:12:58the boundaries same. Um we are noting

3:13:03that if there is a conflict between the

3:13:06underlying CG and the overlay the CG

3:13:10regulations

3:13:12um would fill in the gaps if there's a

3:13:14gap in in what is stated in the overlay.

3:13:17Otherwise the overlay will rule

3:13:21the uses um all uses would be permitted

3:13:25except for the following nine on the

3:13:28screen.

3:13:29Um these are largely

3:13:32autooriented uses and then some

3:13:36uh uses that are only possible in our

3:13:38industrial zone um or light industrial

3:13:40zone and then some things that were just

3:13:42found to be incompatible with uh the

3:13:44residential character of the surrounding

3:13:46area. So construction material sales,

3:13:49kennels and there was no interest in the

3:13:51cemetery or mortuary option

3:13:55minimum lot size.

3:13:58What this would the overlay would allow

3:14:00is for a waving of minimal lot size

3:14:02which would would provide for

3:14:04flexibility

3:14:05um for land assembly or creating

3:14:08opportunities for small lot development

3:14:10or shared wall construction like the

3:14:12town homes in building height. I kind of

3:14:16mentioned this already, but building

3:14:17height max would be 100 feet unless you

3:14:19are within 250 feet of the property line

3:14:22of any property that is outside the the

3:14:25overlay um and is developed with a

3:14:27residential use or a nursing home. We

3:14:30wanted to make that clear. To the west,

3:14:32there is a um a facility there that

3:14:36wanted we need to treat the same as we

3:14:38would any other residential use. So when

3:14:41within 250 ft of those uses, the maximum

3:14:45height is 45 feet.

3:14:47With regard to residential density, 50

3:14:50bedrooms for gross acre is what we're

3:14:52talking about. Um the inclusionary

3:14:54zoning would allow for a bump of 50%

3:14:57max. Um so resulting in the opportunity

3:15:00for 75 bedrooms per gross acre. Um that

3:15:05would come with a payment in lie option

3:15:08for achieving that. So, it wouldn't have

3:15:10to be built on site.

3:15:13The residential standards that are

3:15:14included in the overlay allowing for

3:15:17ground floor dwellings except for when

3:15:20you're within 250 ft of Atlanta Highway.

3:15:23Um, town home developments, like I said,

3:15:25would be allowed to attach more units

3:15:27than we would normally see. So, eight

3:15:30multif family dwellings would have a

3:15:32ratio of bedroom to bath. So, no more

3:15:34two bath, no more than two full baths

3:15:37per dwelling unit. Um the thinking

3:15:39behind that is that ratio is something

3:15:42that's more akin with general marketing

3:15:45of residential use rather than

3:15:47purpose-built student housing. Multif

3:15:49family dwellings shall have a maximum of

3:15:51two and one half parking spaces per

3:15:52dwelling as well. So that what we're

3:15:55trying to do is achieve a reasonable

3:15:57number without overparking

3:15:59um in the hope of inspiring some

3:16:01redevelopment and reuse of the parking

3:16:03lots there. That was item K by the way.

3:16:08Um, so some of the highlighted area

3:16:10that's new since September, a minimum

3:16:13commercial space requirement.

3:16:15So in looking at the PD and trying to

3:16:17pull forward some amount of what the PD

3:16:20was was providing and um requiring,

3:16:24setting a minimum of commercial space

3:16:26was something that was part of the

3:16:27discussion with this group. Um

3:16:31150,000 square feet is what's being

3:16:33proposed with this iteration. Um, we're

3:16:38saying that that commercial space would

3:16:39be measured based on permitted building

3:16:42area and that at no time would anything

3:16:45inside the overlay allow for a dip below

3:16:49150,000 square feet. Um, and we would

3:16:52make sure that we had permits issued for

3:16:54the replacement before you could have

3:16:56that dip below that that number. Um, I

3:17:00think it's correct to note that 150,000

3:17:02square feet, if you calculate the

3:17:04existing Belk building and the out

3:17:07parcel commercial, it's really close to

3:17:10150,000 square feet, if not exactly

3:17:12150,000 square feet. So understanding

3:17:15that the Belulk lease on the property is

3:17:18something that or yeah it's allowing

3:17:21them to to remain um was one of the

3:17:24things that the PD was having to work

3:17:25around and why that design reflected the

3:17:28retention of the Velk property. Um

3:17:30they're viable. They're not interested

3:17:32in leaving. Um, so that square footage

3:17:35would count towards the 150,000 square

3:17:37feet as proposed as well as the other

3:17:40existing commercial that's within the

3:17:42overlay.

3:17:43Um, [clears throat] the parking

3:17:44structure requirements here, without

3:17:47reading those to you, those are straight

3:17:49lift from the broad overlay, the West

3:17:52Broad overlay, um, which is the varsity

3:17:54redevelopment site. Um, we found that

3:17:58that language was helpful in working

3:18:00through the structured parking on that

3:18:02project and so [clears throat] we

3:18:03brought it forward for this project.

3:18:08The buffer wording, um, I want to walk

3:18:10through this one so that it makes sense.

3:18:14We're talking about buffering within the

3:18:15overlay, not buffering from overlay to

3:18:18outside the overlay. So, let's start

3:18:20with that. So whenever anything is

3:18:23developed

3:18:24inside the overlay that is commercial or

3:18:26institutional and it's a budding or

3:18:28residential use on a separate parcel,

3:18:30there is a 20 foot buffer that's

3:18:32required.

3:18:34Um and we have specifications for that

3:18:36in 915 that are referenced

3:18:38[clears throat]

3:18:39inside the overlay. If you have a

3:18:40development that has a mix of

3:18:41residential and non-residential, there's

3:18:44not a requirement for the buffer. And

3:18:46the thinking there is that if you're if

3:18:48you're building those, you're not really

3:18:51you're already blending the uses. So

3:18:53there's not the same need for the buffer

3:18:56requirement. Okay. Pre and landscaping

3:18:59standards. So a 20% overall tree canopy

3:19:02required throughout the overlay. Um 0%

3:19:06conserve for what I noted earlier. Each

3:19:09development site would have to provide

3:19:1215%.

3:19:13So how does that work? It sounds like

3:19:15we're coming up short. As each

3:19:18development works together, it requires

3:19:21that development to hit the 15% mark. On

3:19:24the roadway network, just the street

3:19:26trees alone are probably going to take

3:19:28up the difference to get us to 20%. What

3:19:31we're trying to guard against here is

3:19:33that we have a shell game of tree canopy

3:19:35where it's always promised in the next

3:19:36phase and we never get it in what's

3:19:38being constructed. So this sets a

3:19:40workable number for each phase so that

3:19:43we end up with trees every time every

3:19:46single time a development is occurring.

3:19:49Uh green space requirement is new

3:19:51wording since September.

3:19:53So trying to pull through the spirit of

3:19:57what was in the PD. Uh this is calling

3:20:00for the developer to provide one

3:20:01contiguous acre of green space within

3:20:03the overlay. um the ability to move that

3:20:06acre of green space over time as the

3:20:09development occurs, but you always have

3:20:11to provide it. Um and making sure that

3:20:14when we get that, it continues to

3:20:17satisfy the minimum area requirement. um

3:20:20that green space would be commonly

3:20:23owned, commonly accessed and managed by

3:20:25whatever association is created, whether

3:20:27it's the homeowners association, condo

3:20:29association, townhouse, whatever it is

3:20:32that's that's managing that would also

3:20:34be responsible for that green space. Um

3:20:37the green space

3:20:40as worded would count towards other code

3:20:42required landscaped area, open space or

3:20:44plaza requirement. um one acre of green

3:20:47space is not going to meet the

3:20:49requirement for large projects as as um

3:20:54stipulated by code. There is a

3:20:56percentage when you do a larger project

3:20:58where you have to provide additional

3:21:00open space. So what we may find is this

3:21:03builds out in iterations is the one acre

3:21:05of contiguous space is done and we end

3:21:08up with a network of plazas that are

3:21:10also a part of these individual

3:21:11projects. And when it's all said and

3:21:13done, um when we when we look at um

3:21:17multi-use path requirement, the goal

3:21:19here is to have that all interconnected.

3:21:22Um if not with a multi-use path, at

3:21:24least with a standard sidewalk.

3:21:28So what's being offered in this overlay

3:21:30is an understanding with that pedestrian

3:21:33connectivity that we would have a north

3:21:36south and an east west opportunity for a

3:21:39multi-use path. Width of that path is 8

3:21:41feet wide. Um 10 feet is what we see

3:21:45with Spos project. 8 feet is what's

3:21:48being suggested here with the

3:21:50understanding that there will be other

3:21:51connectivity happening with these 5 foot

3:21:53wide sidewalks that would be required

3:21:55otherwise with whatever it is an

3:21:57apartment building or a commercial

3:21:59structure or a parking lot of more than

3:22:0050 spaces that's going to have to have

3:22:02circulation through it. We're going to

3:22:04be getting other sidewalks.

3:22:07The northernmost, all of that multi-use

3:22:09path is guaranteed in this overlay to

3:22:12connect at the three points noted. The

3:22:14northernmost access point on Huntington

3:22:16Road, the westernmost access point on

3:22:20Atlanta Highway, and where Maryland

3:22:22Farmer Way intersects with the Georgia

3:22:24Square Mall property.

3:22:27At all of those points, those are fixed

3:22:28points where the multi-use path has to

3:22:30meet. Everything else in the middle can

3:22:33meander and move over time. Um, but the

3:22:36goal is to have it interconnected as

3:22:38these phases are done.

3:22:41Um, and that's a bit of a summary of

3:22:44everything that's on the screen. Um, so

3:22:47timing of construction, I think was a

3:22:49question. We were trying to address that

3:22:51with item E. The multi-use path would be

3:22:54constructed with any project within the

3:22:56overlay um, where that area touches that

3:23:00alignment. And that is something that

3:23:02we'd be working through at the staff

3:23:04level to make sure it's included. Um, if

3:23:08we get down and gone through every piece

3:23:11and somehow there's a gap, if the path

3:23:13hasn't been completed when the final fl

3:23:17redevelopment is submitted,

3:23:19that last missing piece would have to be

3:23:21done by the developer, even if it's not

3:23:23contiguous to their site. That's how the

3:23:26overlay would function.

3:23:29And then the transit facility. So, it's

3:23:32part of the PD. Um, moving forward,

3:23:35[clears throat]

3:23:35it is referenced in the overlay text,

3:23:38but the way overlays work, different

3:23:41from a prescriptive PD with a

3:23:43development agreement, this is a

3:23:45placeholder piece of code, we would have

3:23:47a separate parallel agreement with the

3:23:49ownership group that identifies the

3:23:51exact location, which would be a twoacre

3:23:54site. Um, and it would be determined in

3:23:58consultation with ACC staff,

3:24:00particularly the transit department to

3:24:02make sure it can work properly. And that

3:24:05moving forward, Athens Transit would

3:24:07have the ability through a series of

3:24:09access easements to make sure that all

3:24:12the routes that need to work through

3:24:13that private property are going to

3:24:14function and the buses would have access

3:24:17um, appropriate moving forward. So,

3:24:20those are all the components that are in

3:24:22the overlay text.

3:24:24um happy to answer any questions um and

3:24:28and we are prepared to kind of assist

3:24:30with this discussion and in the ways

3:24:33that were suggested since we last met.

3:24:35Um we're just we're ready to respond to

3:24:38whatever questions or concerns or

3:24:40process you want to follow.

3:24:42>> Okay,

3:24:43>> great. Thanks.

3:24:45>> Um All right. Since allow since ACC is

3:24:48awkwardly the applicant, um now we go to

3:24:52um public comments. Is anybody here to

3:24:55speak in support of the ACC application?

3:24:59>> Yeah. Uh John Williams, WA engineer and

3:25:0311:30 River should drive.

3:25:06I'm here to answer any questions

3:25:07represent the ownership tonight that you

3:25:08may have. Um we appreciate the

3:25:11opportunity to meet with staff. I think

3:25:13Bruce and his team did a good job coming

3:25:15up with some additional conditions that

3:25:16I hopefully address some of your

3:25:18concerns from the last time uh and also

3:25:21maintain the flexibility of what an

3:25:23overlay district is is be able to do. Um

3:25:27I do think that if we can get through

3:25:29this and and get through the mayor and

3:25:30commission that we will see this develop

3:25:32over time in in multiple phases and

3:25:35it'll be a good development for

3:25:36Athensburg County. So thank you for your

3:25:38and I appreciate your consideration. Let

3:25:41me know if you have any questions.

3:25:45>> Anybody else in support of the

3:25:47application?

3:25:51>> Anybody else here to speak in opposition

3:25:53to the application?

3:25:58All right.

3:26:01>> All right, folks.

3:26:07Oh, good.

3:26:09>> Oh, no. Okay.

3:26:13[laughter]

3:26:14>> The the main uh I really appreciate um

3:26:18the changes that staff has made. Um I do

3:26:22think that an overlay district is a good

3:26:24idea for this space. Um especially in

3:26:30the

3:26:32in the spirit of an urban center. Um

3:26:35something that is allowed to develop

3:26:37over time. uh seems like a good process.

3:26:41Um

3:26:43while also putting enough in place

3:26:45enough

3:26:48limitations that uh we don't see

3:26:52something that does not look like uh an

3:26:55urban center on that front. the minimum

3:26:59and and the front of the concern that

3:27:01was voiced last time which is is going

3:27:04to be a sea of apartments. Um

3:27:08or could be the minimum commercial space

3:27:11requirement. Um

3:27:14I I I thought this is this would be the

3:27:16biggest sticking point for me. Uh what

3:27:19we have now which is that as you said

3:27:24this minimum represents

3:27:28All of represents a reduction in

3:27:31commercial space. Um, and nothing new.

3:27:36Um, all all of the mall outside of Belk

3:27:41potentially gone.

3:27:44And then we've got milk and some

3:27:45drive-thrus. Um,

3:27:49and I just wonder

3:27:52if there's anything better

3:27:56uh possible for those

3:28:00for that for that section while still

3:28:03while still being in that realm of like

3:28:06giving enough flexibility.

3:28:11>> I agree 100%. To me, that is the most

3:28:14problematic part of what has been

3:28:16proposed so far. It's not the only

3:28:18problematic part, but it is for me

3:28:21probably the biggest problematic part.

3:28:24>> So, I guess I would ask you, Madam

3:28:26Chair, kind of prestige, really how we

3:28:28can proceed. I know we have some

3:28:32comments, questions, concerns that were

3:28:34raised

3:28:35um over the past week or so, and

3:28:40I think we kind of just need to get into

3:28:41it. And I'm not sure the best way to do

3:28:43that.

3:28:44>> Yeah, because there's a couple things.

3:28:46One was like several questions that we

3:28:48had sent and the question of like what

3:28:51are the answers to these questions and

3:28:54the specifics that we had requested in

3:28:57the last meeting that are still not

3:28:59reflected in the text. Um, and I had

3:29:03gone through and and taken the liberty

3:29:05of just like creating my own edited

3:29:07document and sharing that with Bruce. um

3:29:09if that's something that

3:29:12to to

3:29:14use as some sort of like we wanted to

3:29:16look at at that um as like a starting

3:29:18point

3:29:20projected outright or like

3:29:23>> I would like to look at that. I mean I

3:29:24don't know it'd be better to start with

3:29:26that than to start with the current

3:29:29version I think. Um so what is the best

3:29:31way for us to do that procedurally? So

3:29:33procedurally um make sure I have the

3:29:36correct term um we would make a motion

3:29:39to go into a committee of the whole. So

3:29:43it's not a work session but it becomes

3:29:45like a portion of the meeting where we

3:29:47can work as a group and [clears throat]

3:29:50um feel less constrained and it be more

3:29:54of like a working

3:29:56group of oh let's do this, let's do

3:29:58this, that kind of thing. Once we felt

3:30:00like we had um a document that reflected

3:30:05what we wanted to see from the last

3:30:07meeting, then we would move to go back

3:30:11into the regular session, right? To

3:30:13leave. Yeah. And then and

3:30:15>> Okay.

3:30:15>> Yeah.

3:30:16And so, um,

3:30:19I guess I would just ask if I mean we

3:30:22probably have to make a motion, but just

3:30:24is are people in agreement with

3:30:25proceeding like that where we would be

3:30:28working on a document and kind of making

3:30:30edits?

3:30:33>> I have a question about that. is that um

3:30:35if we go into a committee of the whole,

3:30:37does that narrow

3:30:41what we can do because you know what

3:30:44um [clears throat] Sarah and and Jen

3:30:47just echoed about like the current you

3:30:48know those sorts of comments. I I think

3:30:50I I'd be interested in hearing other

3:30:52people's comments and I have some

3:30:53comments of my own about um the um

3:30:58version that we've seen um that are not

3:31:00really like so let's edit this text.

3:31:03Yes. And I should say the edit version I

3:31:05have there are entire chunks that are

3:31:06like basically the exact same thing,

3:31:08right? Um and the 100,000 square foot is

3:31:12actually probably one of the weaker

3:31:14points in my document. So it would

3:31:16require a larger discussion of that

3:31:18anyway. Um and I in terms of I think the

3:31:22the goal is of the committee of the

3:31:24whole is to get that document to a point

3:31:26where it's hitting the certain marks

3:31:28that we wanted to see and when we get

3:31:30into like so rather than like addressing

3:31:32technical things there then we would

3:31:34come out of that committee the whole and

3:31:36then that's where where we could ask

3:31:38more technical questions if we wanted or

3:31:40just have some other options for the

3:31:42document. So

3:31:44>> okay. Yeah. So it sounds like then if we

3:31:47are in a committee of the whole that

3:31:48like we we can't do some of the things

3:31:51we would normally do like ask technical

3:31:54questions of staff and

3:31:57um am I understanding that correctly?

3:32:00>> Maybe I can help.

3:32:01>> Yeah.

3:32:01>> Staff can participate in the committee

3:32:03of the whole discussion.

3:32:04>> Okay. But that would be that would be it

3:32:08is kind of like a a work session in that

3:32:10regard that it you know we're here to

3:32:12answer technical questions as you work

3:32:15in a in a workshop environment. What is

3:32:18is not available in the committee of

3:32:20whole is addressing the public or the

3:32:22public addressing you. Um it it really

3:32:25is you guys working on things and to the

3:32:28extent that we can provide support and

3:32:29answering questions or providing

3:32:30resources, we're here to do that.

3:32:33So it is it is more constrained but it

3:32:36is really focused on the planning

3:32:38commission being able to discuss.

3:32:39>> The only restraint is interaction with

3:32:40the public.

3:32:41>> Correct.

3:32:42>> That doesn't seem like the problem.

3:32:45>> I'm gonna go to Alex. So, and I I'm

3:32:49asking us this the So, I feel a caution

3:32:54and I think I've voiced this to you as

3:32:56chair that the more we start doing the

3:33:02job of the land planner in a sense the

3:33:04more we put in details

3:33:09that just doesn't feel right. It's like

3:33:12I think we can ask for certain things to

3:33:15be done and and I'm asking you know I'm

3:33:18not saying this is absolutely correct

3:33:20and and how I'm thinking but my gut

3:33:22feeling is the more we start doing

3:33:26things that we it's one thing to ask for

3:33:30a little more green space a little bit

3:33:32of this a little bit of that. Um, it's

3:33:35another thing to really start going into

3:33:37all of this and just and it may be the

3:33:40old historic preservation deal. We don't

3:33:43design the houses. We can shift we can

3:33:46recommend shifting this so we can vote

3:33:48on it tonight, but we don't go into all

3:33:50the roof lines and all this that that

3:33:52just has to go back. And so I feel

3:33:56cautious about that. Am I the only one

3:33:59that feels like the more technical we

3:34:02get in this and I don't know how far

3:34:05we'll go. So that's still a little open.

3:34:09Then

3:34:10we start becoming responsible

3:34:14and who are we to start doing things

3:34:16when we aren't the experts at doing

3:34:19things and we miss something but no one

3:34:22knows it until it comes back around. So

3:34:24that's that's just a caution I feel and

3:34:26I don't know if that's a legitimate

3:34:28caution or not.

3:34:29>> I think that's fair. I will say in the

3:34:31document that I worked on like there's

3:34:33nothing that's as prescriptive as this

3:34:35needs to go here, this needs to go here

3:34:37kind of thing. So it's very much like

3:34:39not

3:34:42>> but but yeah

3:34:44>> I mean yeah I think that

3:34:47this is our opportunity for guard rails

3:34:49and we all understand the mission to not

3:34:52make it too prescriptive so that we're

3:34:54not putting the developer in the same

3:34:56boat that they were in with the PD. The

3:34:59only other thing I would say is before

3:35:00we go into this close session, does

3:35:03anyone have any other questions that the

3:35:06developer could potentially answer so

3:35:10that we don't go down a road that is not

3:35:14feasible for them before we start that

3:35:16process?

3:35:19Yeah, and just kind of echoing uh what

3:35:21Alex said, you know, maybe one way to

3:35:23think about it is if we're confident

3:35:26that we can edit this document to a

3:35:28place tonight where it's ready to vote

3:35:30on, then that's what the committee of

3:35:32the whole is directed at and and maybe

3:35:36we would benefit from some discussion

3:35:38about the problems that we still see

3:35:42in making that judgment. you know, that

3:35:44that would enable us to say like, "Yeah,

3:35:46let's roll up our sleeves and and start

3:35:48editing or no, let's uh, you know, I

3:35:52don't think we can get there tonight."

3:35:54And so, um, as an alternative to us

3:35:57editing, it's possible that we would say

3:35:59like, "Oh, well, you know, this needs

3:36:02further work before we could try to do

3:36:06that." And so I I I kind of share Alex's

3:36:08caution about um starting at an editing

3:36:11process that we maybe aren't sure we can

3:36:14finish.

3:36:17I would just like to also say that maybe

3:36:18you know it sounds like we could be

3:36:20getting into a rather lengthy editing

3:36:21process. Would there be any advantage to

3:36:23maybe moving this to the end of the

3:36:24meeting this session so that we can take

3:36:26care of the rest of our business items

3:36:27before it's too late for other people

3:36:29here? Maybe do the work session last

3:36:33like that.

3:36:33>> I would be amendable to that. Yeah,

3:36:35because that sounds like let's just

3:36:36knock out the meeting.

3:36:37>> Yeah, that's not a bad idea.

3:36:39>> Okay,

3:36:40>> so maybe let's Could we like

3:36:42postpone this conversation until the end

3:36:44of the meeting and move on to the next

3:36:45item

3:36:46>> and we can see where we're at timewise.

3:36:48>> Yeah, because we might, you know.

3:36:49>> Yeah. So, as

3:36:50>> I also kind of think the best thing to

3:36:52discuss at midnight, you know, you know,

3:36:55I don't do business meetings that late

3:36:57at night,

3:36:57>> but we do also have one more month that

3:36:59we could table it. So, if we can get

3:37:01into the parts tonight that we feel we

3:37:04don't have enough month, right, that we

3:37:05could continue to work on it.

3:37:07>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For sure.

3:37:09>> Um,

3:37:10>> that a motion thing or is it a chair?

3:37:12Yeah, that's what I was.

3:37:14>> Yeah. Is that a me as a chair saying

3:37:16>> just like an agenda change thing?

3:37:18>> I think you have a chair.

3:37:20>> Yeah. So, as chair, I'm going to move

3:37:23this item to the end of our new business

3:37:27section.

3:37:28um for continuing the discussion

3:37:32and we're gonna move right now to our

3:37:35first tax amendment.

3:37:39>> Question that

3:37:48business.

3:37:52>> Are they here? I think we have at least

3:37:57>> I could see somebody like leaving just

3:37:58now because they're like, "Oh, I'm

3:38:00coming back in two hours when they're

3:38:01done." So,

3:38:02>> well, you never know what we could do.

3:38:05[laughter]

3:38:06>> You never know.

3:38:07>> It sounds like they are. So,

3:38:11>> we're unpredictable.

3:38:14[laughter]

3:38:15>> Okay.

3:38:17Uh, two sets of text amendments. The

3:38:19first one of these, both of these were

3:38:20presented to you for comment at last

3:38:22month's meeting. Um they are largely the

3:38:25same as what we discussed before. Um

3:38:30okay

3:38:34it's a little out of order

3:38:38first.

3:38:50>> Ah there I'm sorry. There we go. All

3:38:53right. Okay. So, uh, revisions to

3:38:56chapter 9-27. The point of this is to

3:38:59revisit the payment in L option and

3:39:01broaden its affordability. Um, the

3:39:03purpose of inclusionary zoning. We noted

3:39:05it la last uh month. This was adopted in

3:39:08April 2022. The point here was to

3:39:12incentivize a defined percentage of

3:39:14housing affordability to very low and

3:39:16low-income households and to provide

3:39:18that housing in existing developments or

3:39:21anticipated developments to meet future

3:39:23need. Um it it is a a section of code

3:39:26that involves coordination with our

3:39:28housing and community development

3:39:30department for administration. Um, and

3:39:34when written, it was anticipated to have

3:39:38a payment in LU option for the

3:39:39commercial downtown zone only. Um,

3:39:43thinking that that might not be the best

3:39:45place or the most marketable place to

3:39:48actually achieve affordable units being

3:39:51constructed in downtown. Um, and so to

3:39:55provide for the spirit of the goals of

3:39:57this to be met by letting developers pay

3:40:01into a fund that would be used for

3:40:03affordable housing and in that way

3:40:05support the effort to provide affordable

3:40:08housing elsewhere.

3:40:10Um, in June of this year, the mayor and

3:40:12commission adopted a resolution to

3:40:14revisit that restriction to only CD and

3:40:16to open it up to both all the C zones

3:40:20and and the RM zones as well. And the

3:40:23reason for that is listed here. Since

3:40:24the adoption of the ordinance, only five

3:40:27inclusionary zoning compliant bedrooms,

3:40:29not units, bedrooms have been approved

3:40:31as part of construction. And that

3:40:33project hasn't started. Um, so we don't

3:40:36have any inclusionary zoning bedrooms

3:40:39that have been built as a result of this

3:40:41ordinance. Um, and only five have been

3:40:44approved. However, payment and L funds

3:40:47have been received in the amount of

3:40:49$9,682,500.

3:40:52Those payment and L funds are deposited

3:40:54into our affordable housing fund. And to

3:40:57date, that affordable housing fund has

3:40:59leveraged over $5 million worth of loan

3:41:01financing that has achieved 294

3:41:04affordable rental apartments.

3:41:07So, the thinking here is that

3:41:08performance in this is skewing towards

3:41:10the payment in L option. and that was

3:41:13the the reason for opening the door for

3:41:16it to be uh an option in both commercial

3:41:19and RM zones.

3:41:22So, we talked about this last month.

3:41:24Some of the things to think about is

3:41:26those original goals, um how much weight

3:41:30to put on those as we think about how

3:41:32this is moving forward for getting um a

3:41:35v a variety of locations for housing and

3:41:37and spreading these affordable units in

3:41:39inside market rate developments. Um,

3:41:41opening up to payment and loot doesn't

3:41:43say those things won't happen, but it

3:41:45definitely provides

3:41:47more of an out for it to not happen. Um,

3:41:51it's also important to note that the

3:41:52inclusionary zoning ordinance gives an

3:41:54allowance, which we heard earlier this

3:41:56evening, for parking, required parking

3:41:58to be reduced by up to 20%. Um, so in

3:42:02looking at this proposition, the text

3:42:04amendment that's in front of you

3:42:08aligns with the resolution to open up

3:42:10the payment in L option for RM and all C

3:42:13zones as well. And it includes a

3:42:15subsection C that says qualifying

3:42:17projects opting to make a payment in L

3:42:20providing affordable dwelling units on

3:42:22site shall not be eligible for the

3:42:24parking reduction found in section

3:42:259275C.

3:42:28Um so the thinking here is that if you

3:42:31got market rate

3:42:34then you have market rate realities when

3:42:36it comes to parking. Um

3:42:39some of the justification and I think

3:42:41this is something that can be argued um

3:42:44either way is that affordable units

3:42:48might be relying on transit. Affordable

3:42:50units may have one vehicle per

3:42:52household. affordable units may have a

3:42:54different economic situation period that

3:42:59is not ending up with multiple vehicles

3:43:02inside the unit. Now, that could be

3:43:04proven false. Um, but that was part of

3:43:08the thinking of the text amendment

3:43:09that's on the screen is that if you've

3:43:11got market rate, you should be looking

3:43:13at

3:43:14the parking demands of a market rate

3:43:16development.

3:43:19That is the staff report on that text

3:43:21amendment.

3:43:24Oh, do we do

3:43:26any here to speak in about the text

3:43:30member? I guess opposition.

3:43:35>> Yes, ma'am.

3:43:36>> Um, so I think this is all great um with

3:43:39one exception and that is part C of the

3:43:41text amendment. Um, the history is

3:43:45inaccurate there. I was on the committee

3:43:47with with Tim Densson and Mariah Parker

3:43:49way back when, you know, uh and and Brad

3:43:52Griffin was still the planning director

3:43:53then and he was there with us every time

3:43:55and uh and we worked on the inclusionary

3:43:58zoning ordinance and we made the

3:44:00conscious decision. The idea of of

3:44:02payment in Lou was a lot of developers

3:44:05don't want the affordable units in their

3:44:07development. And so we generally

3:44:10disfavored payment in loo because we

3:44:12it's just much easier for a developer

3:44:14who's breaking ground to put up a few

3:44:16more units than it is for us to the

3:44:19county to build the units or find a way

3:44:20to build the units. Um but you know uh

3:44:24the the counterargument is um a lot more

3:44:27developers will opt in if they can get

3:44:30extra density in exchange for cash. They

3:44:32can put that in their spreadsheets when

3:44:34they're seeing if the project pencils

3:44:35and and it either works or it doesn't.

3:44:37And so um you know if they can do it as

3:44:40a payment in loo they may be more likely

3:44:42to opt in. So, we made the decision to

3:44:43try it with very limited payment in L to

3:44:46only commercial downtown because it's

3:44:47mostly student housing there and and you

3:44:50you know uh families probably don't want

3:44:52to live with students anyway. Um but

3:44:55always with the idea that let's see how

3:44:56it works for five years and we can come

3:44:58back and expand payment and loo as an

3:44:59option if it proves to be not attractive

3:45:03to developers to do on-site units

3:45:06because you know payment and l is better

3:45:08than nothing. Um, and so this is in in

3:45:11the spirit of that, you know, this is

3:45:12exactly what was contemplated from the

3:45:14get-go that we might decide to expand

3:45:16payment in LO down the road. Um, it's

3:45:18the history part where it says in the

3:45:22staff report on page two in the third

3:45:24bullet, it it says the justification for

3:45:28including this reduction in the original

3:45:30ordinance was the acknowledgement that

3:45:32the applicants occupants of affordable

3:45:34units are likely to have reduced need

3:45:36for parking. that was secondary at best.

3:45:39It was discussed. Um but the primary

3:45:42argument for parking reduction as a

3:45:44payment and loo incentive was that

3:45:46developers value it u and may wish to

3:45:50use it. And so it incentivizes

3:45:52developers to do inclusionary zoning in

3:45:55the first place. If they want it,

3:45:56they'll use we saw, you know, a a

3:46:00project earlier today where they

3:46:01actually didn't want the density. they

3:46:02just wanted the parking reduction, you

3:46:04know, and and the thought was some

3:46:06developers will value increased density,

3:46:08others will value parking reduction, and

3:46:10so we give them a menu of things to

3:46:12choose from, and it just increases the

3:46:14incentives for them to opt into

3:46:16inclusionary zoning, which is what we

3:46:18want them to do so they can put another

3:46:19$9 million in the affordable housing

3:46:21fund, and we can generate another 294

3:46:24units with it. Um, so the primary

3:46:27argument was always developers value it

3:46:29so it gives them an incentive and so we

3:46:31should put it on the menu. It was very

3:46:34much a secondary consideration that

3:46:37um occupants of affordable units may

3:46:40have fewer cars in their household. And

3:46:42as Bruce said, that's really an

3:46:44empirical point that may not may or may

3:46:45not be true. Um, a lot of people need to

3:46:48drive to get to their job. A lot of

3:46:50working families who are at 80% of AMI

3:46:53have two employed adults who drive

3:46:56separately to their separate jobs and do

3:46:59have uh two cars. So, I don't think that

3:47:01that's really the uh it certainly was

3:47:04never the primary argument. I'm not sure

3:47:06it's satirically true. It may be that to

3:47:09some extent, particularly when you get

3:47:10into 30% AMI or 50% AMI, it may well be

3:47:13that there's one car household, but life

3:47:15requires cars generally in Athens, as it

3:47:18does in most places. Um, and so, um, I'm

3:47:22not sure that that that point is true.

3:47:25And so, uh, my suggestion would be I I

3:47:29like, uh, this text amendment part, uh,

3:47:33A and B. I would suggest striking part C

3:47:37uh because it's based on just kind of a

3:47:40a inaccurate

3:47:43recollection of of the sort of history

3:47:45that led to um including parking

3:47:47reductions in the thing at all. Um

3:47:50and um anyway, also I think it's

3:47:54arguably outside the scope of the

3:47:56resolution. The mayor and commission

3:47:57said, you know, the resolution says

3:48:00expand inclusion payment in LU beyond

3:48:03commercial downtown. It didn't say and

3:48:05consider taking away some of the

3:48:07incentives. That wasn't what the

3:48:08resolution said. So, I'm not even sure

3:48:10it's properly included. But in any case,

3:48:12I think as a policy matter, we ought to

3:48:14strike part C.

3:48:24Motion.

3:48:25>> Yeah, I'll make a motion to um approve

3:48:27it without carc.

3:48:30>> All right. Any other discussion?

3:48:34All right. Um, then all in favor say I.

3:48:40I.

3:48:41>> Any opposed?

3:48:55>> Okay. Next set of text amendments also

3:48:58by resolution from the mayor and

3:49:00commission. Um this these involve

3:49:04commercial

3:49:05uh zones and their building heights. Um

3:49:08the notion here is that in some ways

3:49:12meant to implement some things we have

3:49:14going on with the future land use map.

3:49:16As mentioned earlier, this is starting

3:49:18to open the door for some allowance for

3:49:20additional density. Um it was also

3:49:23reflecting some development

3:49:24opportunities for our commercial

3:49:27downtown u that the mayor and

3:49:29commissioner are interested in. And I

3:49:31should note uh

3:49:34third part of this resolution which is

3:49:37being going to be discussed probably in

3:49:39the spring because it's requiring more

3:49:41research involved also looking at

3:49:43transferable development rights within

3:49:44the commercial downtown zone. And so if

3:49:47you're going to move development rights,

3:49:48you need to have additional space to

3:49:50receive them. And the additional hype

3:49:53was a consideration for how how to make

3:49:55that process work. Um but uh what was

3:50:01requested was by resolution to add two

3:50:04additional stories in all commercial

3:50:07zoning districts and up to four

3:50:09additional stories in the commercial

3:50:10downtown and to keep the current

3:50:14building height requirements whenever

3:50:15you have any commercial zone property

3:50:17that is within 100 ft of anything zoned

3:50:20RS single family. So meant to be

3:50:22stepping into those single family areas

3:50:25where you have um some adjacent

3:50:28properties. Um so some challenges with

3:50:31this as we talked about tonight story is

3:50:33not immeasurable. Um

3:50:37I for for comparison sake to prove that

3:50:41point um you you could look at Academy

3:50:43Sports on Atlanta Highway. It's a

3:50:45one-story building. Um, so, uh, what we

3:50:50need is something measurable, something

3:50:51that we can actually use in the plans

3:50:53review process. And, and so what's being

3:50:55talked about here is working through

3:50:58some of those definitions on how we

3:51:00measure things and making sure that we

3:51:01can do it. What was noted last month is

3:51:04we have definitions for overall

3:51:05structure height and true elevation

3:51:07height of a structure. Um, to Matt's

3:51:11point on the previous text amendment,

3:51:14staff was originally trying to use this

3:51:15as an opportunity to work on those

3:51:17definitions, but it's proven to be

3:51:19outside of the scope of the resolution

3:51:20for right now. Um, but staff has every

3:51:23intention of coming back with some

3:51:25reconsideration of how we measure

3:51:27structure height. Um, there is one

3:51:30aspect of this that that we're going to

3:51:32propose tonight that that has been found

3:51:34to be okay at this point in time, and

3:51:37we'll show that in a minute. But we are

3:51:38going to continue working with fire

3:51:39marshall's office and building code

3:51:41officials to come up with a better way

3:51:43to measure building height. Um I wish I

3:51:46could tell you all how hard it's been to

3:51:49have that communication with our

3:51:51development community and amongst staff

3:51:53because everybody sees it a different

3:51:54way. Um so here's what we've got for a

3:51:59very modest change to those two

3:52:02definitions I just mentioned. Um, right

3:52:05now what's referenced in the code is

3:52:07that we measure the finished grade at

3:52:10each corner of the building footprint

3:52:13and we do that to create an average

3:52:14grade. And that average grade is our

3:52:16starting point to measure up to the roof

3:52:18line of the roof, right? And so all over

3:52:21town we have cross slopes. We have no

3:52:23flat land left in at in Athens. It just

3:52:25doesn't exist. Um, and when you go to

3:52:28make it flat, you now have retaining

3:52:30walls, which are also problematic in

3:52:32their own way. So this is a

3:52:34clarification that we've come up with as

3:52:37a practical way to work with the

3:52:39development community and I just want to

3:52:40codify it. So we've been using outside

3:52:43corners. So here's an illustration. This

3:52:44is the building we're in right now.

3:52:46That's the footprint of Doority.

3:52:49[laughter]

3:52:50And when you have something that has

3:52:52this many corners to it and you're now

3:52:54including inside corners that can got

3:52:56can get a little cute and a little

3:52:58cheeky. What we're really talking about

3:53:00are outside corners that are visible to

3:53:02the rightway. visible to a neighbor that

3:53:04impacts setbacks and you can start to

3:53:07play a bunch of games if you're now

3:53:09including inside corners and what counts

3:53:10as an inside corner. So, this is just a

3:53:13helpful cleaning up of things that gets

3:53:15us in line with our actual practice. So,

3:53:17all the smiley faces are outside

3:53:18corners. It's still a lot of corners.

3:53:21Um, this is not cheapening the process.

3:53:23It's just in some ways clarifying.

3:53:27All right, so commercial zone building

3:53:28height, we had a handful of things that

3:53:29we talked about last month.

3:53:32um landing on what is a measurable

3:53:36distance for a story. 15 feet for a

3:53:39commercial building is kind of the sweet

3:53:41spot. Could you have a story that's less

3:53:43than 50 feet? Yes, you could. But that's

3:53:45trending in more of a residential story

3:53:48height. Could you have a story that's

3:53:50more than 15 feet? Like the new judicial

3:53:53judicial center that's going to be built

3:53:54here has between 18 and 20 foot tall

3:53:57stories.

3:53:59um 15 ft by an industry standard was

3:54:02right in the middle. Um so what we're

3:54:05proposing is if we're going to make

3:54:07amendments to our code and our

3:54:09development standards, let's think of

3:54:11the each floor, each story as 15 ft. So

3:54:15in the zones that we're talking about,

3:54:18that would be 30 feet of additional

3:54:19height in the commercial general zone,

3:54:22which brings us to an allowable height

3:54:23of 95 ft.

3:54:27So, we're approaching current downtown

3:54:29building heights with this text

3:54:31amendment for commercial general.

3:54:33Picture where those are. We've looked at

3:54:34it tonight. It's out Atlanta Highway.

3:54:36It's out Lexington Road. It's up and

3:54:39down 441. Um it's in areas that we would

3:54:43commonly refer to as being in town,

3:54:44broad. Um some sections of Mill Alps,

3:54:48Hawthorne. Um 95t tall is what we're

3:54:52talking about.

3:54:53Um we also understand the additional

3:54:57desire for the downtown zone to get

3:54:59height. Um we're also frankly very

3:55:03interested in getting this transferable

3:55:05development right notion put together

3:55:07and having that machine in place. So

3:55:09staff's recommendation that you'll see

3:55:11reflected is that we only do 30 feet

3:55:14additional for now with the intention

3:55:17that adding another 30 ft in the future

3:55:20should we get the adoption of a true TDR

3:55:23program for the CD zone would make some

3:55:25sense. Um it leaves that penthouse level

3:55:29literally for us to be talking about for

3:55:31TDRs. Um,

3:55:35interesting thing to note and we had

3:55:36good discussions with fire marshall and

3:55:38building inspection. Any building in

3:55:40excess of 75 ft tall triggers all kinds

3:55:42of new code requirements. Whether it's

3:55:45fire suppression or whether it's means

3:55:46of construction, 75 ft is a threshold.

3:55:49So CG right now is under it. And so

3:55:52construction stays below those

3:55:54additional code requirements. this would

3:55:57open the door to go to 95 where we're

3:55:58going to have additional code

3:56:00requirements that come into play if

3:56:02somebody wants to max out that building

3:56:03height.

3:56:05Just to clarify that. So yeah,

3:56:08someone building if this change were

3:56:11made and somebody didn't want to do the

3:56:13fire suppression and whatnot, they they

3:56:15wouldn't have to if they kept it under

3:56:1775. It's not

3:56:18>> it's what they actually build that

3:56:20triggers that. Okay.

3:56:21>> Yeah. It's not it's not what's allowed

3:56:23in the code that triggers the

3:56:24requirement. Okay.

3:56:25>> It is the design. That stuff's so

3:56:26expensive that we don't expect a lot of

3:56:28buildings between 75 and 95 ft. We're

3:56:30starting to see land values that will

3:56:32start to make sense where somebody wants

3:56:34to do those additional stories and

3:56:37they'll they'll do what's required to

3:56:39make that happen. Um so we'll see. We'll

3:56:43see. Um but I will say and and this is

3:56:45to the point on I'll just keep moving

3:56:47here. Um we've got some zones where this

3:56:50additional height seems to be out of

3:56:51context. Um, so an increase in of an

3:56:54additional 30 feet in CO would be a

3:56:57building of 70 feet tall. Commercial

3:57:00office is the type of zone you see on

3:57:02Prince Avenue. Um, it's the type of

3:57:04zoning you see on Millage in town. It's

3:57:06the type of zoning you see on Lumpin.

3:57:08Um,

3:57:10we have not seen buildings

3:57:13that have maxed out the allowable

3:57:16building height today in the CO zone.

3:57:18Similarly, in CN, we have not seen I

3:57:22think I can think of one building in the

3:57:24CA CN zone that pushed the limit on

3:57:27what's allowable with 65 ft. Um, so and

3:57:33in the CR zone, just about everything,

3:57:35that's the commercial rural, just about

3:57:37everything is single story. We have had

3:57:39some things built where there's slope

3:57:41and you end up with a daylight basement

3:57:43or a twotory sort of something um that

3:57:46pushes somebody over a true singlestory.

3:57:49But to add two stories of height in the

3:57:51commercial rural, I don't think it's

3:57:53actually going to do anybody any good.

3:57:56Um another 30 feet. That would be 65

3:57:58foot tall buildings where there's no

3:58:00sewer. Just to say it plainly.

3:58:04So um

3:58:06in looking at this we also recommend

3:58:08eliminating the floor area ratio

3:58:10requirement. Why would we do that? Well

3:58:12the floor area ratio becomes now a

3:58:14ceiling literally on actually achieving

3:58:17this the building height that we're

3:58:18trying to provide for the zones that

3:58:20we're going to recommend. So

3:58:24we feel pretty confident just having

3:58:25administered this code for a while

3:58:28setbacks lock coverage are sufficient to

3:58:30get a building envelope. We really don't

3:58:32need a maximum floor area ratio. In some

3:58:35instances, we still think a minimum

3:58:36floor area ratio is helpful because it

3:58:40requires some density, but a maximum is

3:58:43no longer useful if we've got this. So,

3:58:45let's cut to the chase. The what's being

3:58:48proposed is in yellow. So, striking

3:58:50maximum F throughout the table 9103,

3:58:54which shows development standards for

3:58:56the commercial zones. And then the

3:58:58maximum building height changes that are

3:58:59being proposed are only to CG and CD

3:59:03zones. So resulting in a 95 foot max for

3:59:06CG and 130 foot max for CD. And then the

3:59:11footnote that there is there is what was

3:59:14lifted out of the resolution

3:59:16that stipulates if you're within 100

3:59:18feet of an RSON property that portion of

3:59:21the CG or CD property cannot exceed the

3:59:25current height allowed by code.

3:59:29to clarify that

3:59:31I'm imagining a parcel that is um in CD

3:59:35or CG

3:59:37and AB butts an RS zoned parcel.

3:59:40>> Okay.

3:59:41>> Um it's not that that entire commercial

3:59:44parcel is limited to the 65 ft. It's

3:59:48just the portion that's within 100 ft of

3:59:51the RS.

3:59:52>> Correct.

3:59:52>> So if it's a big enough See, they could

3:59:54still build the the higher thing. They

3:59:56just have to be

3:59:57>> the building has to be more than 100

3:59:59feet from the RS property line.

4:00:01>> Either move the building to 100 100 ft

4:00:04in an inch or [clears throat] the

4:00:06portion that is within 100 ft of RS

4:00:08steps down and doesn't max out beyond

4:00:1065.

4:00:10>> Okay.

4:00:13All right.

4:00:15That presentation.

4:00:16>> Okay.

4:00:19comments for our

4:00:21yes

4:00:25>> guess it's a little fortuitous that we

4:00:26move them all to the end because I

4:00:28wouldn't have been here to speak on this

4:00:29and I think it's an important issue you

4:00:30guys are taking up tonight um address

4:00:34>> John Williams 30

4:00:37[laughter]

4:00:38uh this is something that in the course

4:00:40of the last 20 years since the zone wars

4:00:43has been in that I' I've have a lot of

4:00:45experience with and first of all I want

4:00:47to commend you and the commission

4:00:49for doing the the fee and loo option for

4:00:52the inclusionary zoning. Something I've

4:00:54been trying to ask for to be done for a

4:00:57while because it just it wasn't ever

4:01:00going to happen with it being integrated

4:01:01into the project. It sounds like that

4:01:03was spoken about. This building height

4:01:06issue though, if if our objective as a

4:01:09community is to support affordable

4:01:11housing, if our objective as a community

4:01:13is to use that housing fund that now has

4:01:16been raised $9 million and to

4:01:19incentivize two things. One is

4:01:21developers to use it and pay the fee so

4:01:23that we can do more affordable housing.

4:01:25And two is so that when we are in areas

4:01:28that are that are in the future land use

4:01:31eyes meant to be denser areas for us to

4:01:33maximize build heights and maximize

4:01:34density for nonaffordable housing then I

4:01:37really do think you need to consider at

4:01:39least adding a story to the co and CN.

4:01:43And I would take it a step further and

4:01:45tell you that you need to add a story

4:01:46and maybe two to RM1 and RM2 because I

4:01:50can't physically design a piece of

4:01:52property in RM2 and use the inclusionary

4:01:55zoning fee in L and get the density that

4:01:59I need. It it it caps out. RM1, you

4:02:04could probably do it with one story

4:02:05more. RM2, you make it do it one story

4:02:07more. CO, you could do it one story

4:02:09more. CN, you could do it one story

4:02:11more. CG you need two stories more. CD

4:02:14you actually need probably

4:02:17three uh and I know which would get you

4:02:20at about 150 ft uh to take full

4:02:23advantage of the density that's required

4:02:27and provide the additional parking

4:02:28that's required. So that's just my two

4:02:31cents. I know staff's done a lot of

4:02:33research on it. 100% agree. Let's figure

4:02:35out a better way to measure bill night

4:02:37because Bruce and I have talked about

4:02:38that so many times and all the way back

4:02:40to Brad Griffin days. It gets very

4:02:43complicated the way we do it.

4:02:46The fire marshall issue as far as

4:02:48exceeding the 75 ft also something we

4:02:50deal with on a regular basis. At the end

4:02:53of the day, it just comes down to

4:02:54density and and and NOI net operating

4:02:57income of the project, right? I mean, if

4:02:59it's a project that supports additional

4:03:02building height with the NOI, it's going

4:03:04to support to do the mechanisms that

4:03:05need to be done with the fire marshall

4:03:07that to satisfy their requirements. And

4:03:08we it just happens almost by default

4:03:13that when you're talking about a dense

4:03:14project like that, that you're going to

4:03:15be collecting enough rent to be able to

4:03:17to support those additional building

4:03:19costs. So, I'm happy to answer any

4:03:21questions you guys have about my

4:03:23experience with this, but I appreciate

4:03:25you guys taking this up. I think it's

4:03:26important that we get this move moved

4:03:28through.

4:03:32>> Anyone else?

4:03:34>> Okay.

4:03:39>> I have a question for staff. I think um

4:03:42I want to understand a little bit about

4:03:47the TDR possibilities that might be

4:03:49coming down the road. What is the

4:03:53anticipated

4:03:55the source, what's the sync of the

4:03:57rights? Like what is the anticipated

4:03:59direction?

4:04:00>> Who's sending and who's receiving?

4:04:03>> Um, we don't have it. We're looking at a

4:04:06bunch of different options right now. It

4:04:08it may be linked to properties that are

4:04:10in historic districts versus those that

4:04:12aren't. It may be linked to properties

4:04:15that are of um such a small uh acreage

4:04:20of lot size that they can't really

4:04:23achieve a building height there because

4:04:26it's just too it's impractical. Um

4:04:28that's and then we've also kind of

4:04:30looked at just geography. where are the

4:04:32areas where additional height's okay and

4:04:34where are the areas where additional

4:04:36height is not and and determine those by

4:04:39sight lines or or um design standards.

4:04:42That one I'm a little less comfortable

4:04:44with because it's kind of more art than

4:04:46science and and we have better code when

4:04:49we have something that's based on

4:04:50something empirical and something that

4:04:52we can back up. Um but that's as far as

4:04:56we've gotten right now. We've we've done

4:04:58staff's done research looking into other

4:05:00communities on how it's worked. Um,

4:05:03you know, if you look out west, you

4:05:05know, in Colorado, there are things that

4:05:07that have been done that communities

4:05:09that have done that to preserve vistas.

4:05:12Um, and so that's the the health

4:05:15community, that's the welfare, general

4:05:16welfare sort of measure that they're

4:05:18trying to use as a community standard.

4:05:20um in New York City they have their own

4:05:22sort of set of standards that started

4:05:24here and they kind of morphed and added

4:05:26on other things. So we're just we're

4:05:29we're not wanting to reinvent the wheel

4:05:32on this. I think other people have

4:05:33wrestled with this but we want to make

4:05:35sure it's contextsensitive for Athens

4:05:37and it's actually a win-win on both

4:05:40sides. So transferable development right

4:05:43programs if it's not if it's if it's

4:05:46skewed so only one side is winning then

4:05:49another side is is is losing and and

4:05:52we're we're trying to want to balance

4:05:54that equation. The other thing we don't

4:05:56want to have is we don't want to have a

4:05:58bank of of development rights. um the

4:06:01administration of that where and what I

4:06:03mean by that is a sender could sell

4:06:05their stuff and draw out from the bank

4:06:07the value and it's sitting there waiting

4:06:09to be bought by somebody who wants to

4:06:12add to a project that is yet to come. We

4:06:15want this to be transactional. Set up

4:06:17the ordinance so that it's a private

4:06:19agreement between two people at the same

4:06:20time or two owners or two properties at

4:06:22the same time and that allows the

4:06:24government to kind of get out of the way

4:06:26and let it occur. We've written the

4:06:28rules, let the transaction take place.

4:06:30>> And so the relationship between this

4:06:32proposed height increases

4:06:35and maybe that happening down the road,

4:06:38is it as increasing the development

4:06:39potential of some properties

4:06:42>> for the building heights?

4:06:43>> Yeah.

4:06:43>> Yeah. Yeah.

4:06:46>> More buyers. If you can go to 160 ft and

4:06:49landmarks about to build to 130, they

4:06:51could just buy the right to build

4:06:54higher,

4:06:55>> right? for that.

4:06:56>> But would would somebody be able to they

4:06:58would not be able to buy the rights to

4:07:00build higher than what's allowed in that

4:07:02district?

4:07:04>> Six bedrooms and then the height would

4:07:05allow them to

4:07:06>> Yeah. Okay.

4:07:07>> achieve those.

4:07:08>> There you go. And and the the way the

4:07:10resolution reads is it's it's

4:07:14residential transferable development

4:07:16rights. It's not commercial. It's not

4:07:18institutional. It's only residential

4:07:20development capacity that is moving from

4:07:22property A to property B. and it's only

4:07:25in the CD, so it's not meant to stretch

4:07:27out on corridors or or into any other

4:07:30nodes um around town. Not now. Anyway,

4:07:33>> you mentioned historic districts like is

4:07:35is one of the purposes that like

4:07:39cool old buildings on Clayton Street

4:07:41that are only two stories high or

4:07:43something. Um might eventually get

4:07:47bulldozed to or or assembled with three

4:07:50adjacent buildings to put up a

4:07:51high-rise. And so um you allow them to

4:07:55sell the air rights to someone else and

4:07:58we get fewer buildings but still the

4:08:01market produces the bedrooms that the

4:08:04market wants but you don't have like you

4:08:06know uh the 40 W club or CA or someone

4:08:09like that like under development

4:08:11pressure to

4:08:12>> correct. It it does two things. It it it

4:08:14helps address development pressure and

4:08:16it also for those for those businesses

4:08:19or or those local property owners, let's

4:08:21just say it, who are trying to kind of

4:08:24find um a way to to keep up um and and

4:08:30and to another revenue stream. This is

4:08:32an opportunity to have a development

4:08:35right and and get paid for it. And um

4:08:39that's kind of the New York example.

4:08:40We've seen it in Chicago as well where

4:08:42they do that to preserve properties and

4:08:46let those property owners who are

4:08:47holding on to something that is seen as

4:08:48a community resource to realize some

4:08:51economic benefit without having to tear

4:08:53it down.

4:08:54>> Yeah.

4:08:56When when we last saw this, wasn't there

4:08:58a map that was kind of saw briefly that

4:09:03kind of addressed the issue of like

4:09:05>> there was

4:09:07>> right

4:09:07>> interactively remember we like very

4:09:09quickly looked at map and we're like oh

4:09:11map map and then we but it was very

4:09:13late. Um, but because that like this is

4:09:16why like I I just have a hesitation with

4:09:19this just because I don't fully

4:09:21understand how this is going to play out

4:09:24across the county. I can kind of see it

4:09:26downtown and like for me like that

4:09:29that's that's where I'm I'm at with this

4:09:31is like I'm okay with like adjusting in

4:09:33the downtown district but expanding this

4:09:37out without having a better idea of like

4:09:40the ripple effects of what this would do

4:09:43right now.

4:09:44>> Um and then coupled with that idea of

4:09:48now we can start selling development

4:09:50rights. that would be downtown. So maybe

4:09:52I'm just kind of shooting myself in the

4:09:53foot with this. But like I I just feel

4:09:56like if there's a larger purpose to

4:09:58this, I'd rather see that fuller picture

4:10:01rather than kind of peace meal some

4:10:03building heights here and then we start

4:10:05adding in other layers of what those

4:10:07could mean and start unraveling.

4:10:09>> That's fair. And and and I have to admit

4:10:11it was it was a bit of a decision on my

4:10:14part not to have the extra tool tonight

4:10:17because I knew we had a pretty lengthy

4:10:19agenda.

4:10:19>> Yeah. [laughter] um don't distract us.

4:10:22>> So, uh but your your point's well taken

4:10:24if if that's helpful. I would say that

4:10:28was also part of the thinking to focus

4:10:30on CG and CD for now.

4:10:33>> Yeah.

4:10:33>> And and not stretch to Mr. Williams

4:10:37point, not look at CO and CN for those

4:10:40ripple effects just yet.

4:10:41>> Yeah. Because even CG though, I'm still

4:10:44kind of like I still want to get an idea

4:10:46of

4:10:47>> I mean I can imagine like along our

4:10:49major corridors, but still like what

4:10:51those are adjacent to. I mean, you know,

4:10:55and and also we just had our very first

4:10:58item was about like, oh, if only we had

4:11:00that middle ground zoning

4:11:04for like a seven story to 10, you know,

4:11:08and then this kind of like increases

4:11:10that gulf between them, right? So,

4:11:14>> right, you can go 95t for 24 bedrooms

4:11:16per acre. So like

4:11:18>> you know we it it increases the pressure

4:11:21to

4:11:21>> understood

4:11:22>> increase the density even more.

4:11:24>> Understood. And it and that like I said

4:11:27in my presentation this is a step in the

4:11:30direction of implementing the future

4:11:31land use map. Um it's not the full step

4:11:34it's a half step.

4:11:35>> Yeah.

4:11:35>> And and the resolution unfortunately

4:11:39did put a guard rail on that. Like we we

4:11:42weren't talking about density. That was

4:11:44not part of the resolution. Um, we were

4:11:47talking about building height. So, okay.

4:11:49And what we're hoping is that opens the

4:11:51door for us to take those next steps

4:11:54like we wanted to do after the future

4:11:56land use map was adopted to create some

4:11:59new opportunities in our zoning code to

4:12:01implement the future land use map. Um,

4:12:04so revisiting density is is absolutely

4:12:06on, you know, what we were thinking we

4:12:08were going to be doing soon.

4:12:10>> Yeah.

4:12:10>> Yeah. I guess I mean I just know I don't

4:12:12have a vote in this but for me I would

4:12:14feel more comfortable having a tool like

4:12:16the cool map to just really dig into

4:12:20what the ramifications of this would be

4:12:22because this feels like a big change to

4:12:23me and we don't really have all the

4:12:25tools that we've used for it. I I would

4:12:27argue it's a it's a the biggest change

4:12:30is for downtown,

4:12:31>> right?

4:12:32>> Um and we already have a trend line

4:12:35where building height over 100 feet is

4:12:38is not only being contemplated but has

4:12:41occurred. So we've had PDs that on two

4:12:44that I can think of just sitting here

4:12:46that have allowed for buildings that

4:12:47have gone over that. um

4:12:51the redevelopment of the Holman Hotel,

4:12:53the old CNS, it's over 100, you know.

4:12:57So, we have a historic building that is

4:13:01over that limit, too. So for CD, I think

4:13:04it's it's it is a change, but in some

4:13:07ways it's reflective of what decisions

4:13:09the community's already been saying yes

4:13:11to on the CG corridors where I hear your

4:13:15concern is

4:13:18land assembly is going to be the

4:13:19challenge because you got to have enough

4:13:21of it to make a building that tall if

4:13:24they're going to max out the 95 ft to

4:13:26make it work. Um, and there just aren't

4:13:29that many pieces that are going to make

4:13:32sense like right off the jump. You're

4:13:34going to have to put together some

4:13:35pieces. Um, and where those exist, they

4:13:38tend not to be right next to something

4:13:40that's RS.

4:13:42So, if the concern is the protection

4:13:44against single family neighborhoods, not

4:13:46only do we have the protection of the

4:13:48footnote, but the areas where that land

4:13:50assembly is likely to take place are at

4:13:52some distance from single family

4:13:54residential. But I hear your point. if

4:13:57the the analysis and and especially the

4:13:59heads up displays is is helpful. Um

4:14:04>> Alex,

4:14:05>> first of all, you started sounding a

4:14:07little bit like me, so that that woke me

4:14:10up. Um

4:14:12[laughter]

4:14:13what am I talking?

4:14:15>> No, I was awake. But um and I tend to

4:14:20maybe back you on that. like I tend to

4:14:23like baby steps on on bigger things just

4:14:26to let it watch, see how it goes, and

4:14:28then move if we're not in a massive

4:14:30hurry to do something. Um, and I think

4:14:34you brought up a good point about the CG

4:14:37and where some of that'll be, and you've

4:14:39got good points, too, but that's you

4:14:44take 65 ft and add 30, you're almost

4:14:48adding 50%. And I'm always doing the

4:14:51percentage thing. And and that's 50%

4:14:54more 50% higher is a little more than

4:14:58when you go from 100 uh to 130. The the

4:15:02difference and and in a downtown area.

4:15:06So I I I kind of follow along with your

4:15:11where you're talking

4:15:13>> and you may get you don't know.

4:15:15>> That's true. I think Sarah had some

4:15:18vote. Um, I definitely get the concerns,

4:15:22but I do want to echo what John is

4:15:24saying, what Bruce said too, is that the

4:15:26land, the land that we have left to

4:15:28develop is very cost prohibitive. And if

4:15:32we want to try to lean into some of the

4:15:35inclusionary housing and payment and

4:15:37loo, we are going to need some higher

4:15:40height in the areas where it does make

4:15:42sense. So I just coming from that world,

4:15:46that is an absolute accurate point.

4:15:52So, kind of not rebuddling that or not,

4:15:55but maybe this is the step toward that

4:15:59because I like I'm not comfortable going

4:16:02into RM RM RM and and knocking it up uh

4:16:08two full stories or 30 feet because now

4:16:10we're doubling the size almost

4:16:14to we are for three I mean for one but

4:16:18Um that could be the progression. It

4:16:20sounds like Bruce has sort of said this

4:16:22is set to

4:16:25go watch and doesn't mean in one or two

4:16:27year you know I don't know how quickly

4:16:29but then we see and it gives us time to

4:16:31really start studying the RM thought.

4:16:36>> Um yeah I um I like the idea of getting

4:16:40rid of the maximum bummer. Um I think

4:16:44that that's just you know redundant with

4:16:46other uh building envelope limitations

4:16:49we already have. Um and um I guess yeah

4:16:55I'm not not as worried about CG because

4:16:57I think the the constraint there is

4:17:01going to be it's still 24 bedrooms an

4:17:02acre until somebody changes that. And so

4:17:05we're not going to see a bunch of 95

4:17:06foot buildings start to go up. you know,

4:17:09this is just kind of a first, this is a

4:17:11baby step and then, you know, maybe

4:17:13later we add a corridor overlay where

4:17:16you could do a 100 bedrooms an acre or

4:17:18something and then 95 ft is actually

4:17:20valuable, but we would have the choice

4:17:22of where to put that overlay. It

4:17:23wouldn't have to be on all CG parcels.

4:17:26And so, I'm not too concerned about

4:17:28this. Um, and I think that limitation

4:17:30with RS property is good. Um,

4:17:35I also I I hear uh Williams

4:17:38[clears throat] point about um RM. I

4:17:41just looked that up and RM2 is 35 ft and

4:17:43RM3 is 40 feet and those seem crazy low

4:17:46and I know they're not in the scope of

4:17:48the resolution. So you guys can't

4:17:50attack, you know, those yet, but uh but

4:17:54it does sound like that would be a good

4:17:55idea that maybe, you know, if if

4:17:58commercial neighborhood can be 65, I

4:18:00don't know why RM2 has to be 35 because

4:18:02you see those zonings close to each

4:18:05other um quite a bit. they're often

4:18:08adjacent to residential single family

4:18:11neighborhoods and um so I would I favor

4:18:14when we get there, you know, um bumping

4:18:17those up at least one story um because

4:18:20I've heard people say before that um RM2

4:18:2324 bedrooms an acre, it's hard to get

4:18:25there with town homes because you can't

4:18:28quite use the 24 because you got to have

4:18:31all the parking.

4:18:31>> I want to make a motion.

4:18:32>> What's that?

4:18:33>> I want to make a motion.

4:18:34>> Do I want to make a motion?

4:18:37be happy to make

4:18:39>> I'll if you guys get interested in doing

4:18:42our [laughter]

4:18:43as well. Yeah, I'll make a motion to

4:18:45approve uh these the text amendment as

4:18:48written.

4:18:51>> I'll second.

4:18:52>> Okay. All right. Ellie, do you want to

4:18:54call?

4:18:56>> Sure. Hearing.

4:18:57>> Yes. Police.

4:18:59>> Yes.

4:19:03>> Paul,

4:19:04>> yes. Mclofflin.

4:19:06>> Yes.

4:19:09>> Sams.

4:19:10>> Yes.

4:19:12[laughter]

4:19:14>> Yes.

4:19:15>> All right.

4:19:18All right. 4730.

4:19:24>> What? A new business already?

4:19:26>> I know, right?

4:19:28>> How did we get to it so fast?

4:19:31[laughter]

4:19:34>> Made it.

4:19:36All right, this is the easy one. This is

4:19:38>> Come on.

4:19:39>> Firehouse number five. All right, this

4:19:42is for 4730 Old Lexington Road. This is

4:19:45the reszone 2026 081800.

4:19:49So the request is to change the future

4:19:51land use from rural to government and

4:19:53also change the zoning from agricultural

4:19:56residential to government. This is

4:19:58because it is the next step in the

4:19:59process in order to get fire station

4:20:02number five up and running. Uh this is

4:20:05coming from a request uh that's

4:20:06consistent with the mayor commission's

4:20:08defined option that they approved on

4:20:10October 7th of last year. So looking at

4:20:14the property, this is our beautiful

4:20:16piece of land.

4:20:20There we go. The change would bring it

4:20:22over to government

4:20:24as well as with uh the zoning.

4:20:29There are some uh environmental areas

4:20:31but not on this property. So they won't

4:20:34cause any problems.

4:20:36Because it's a reszone, it does not

4:20:37require a binding site plan. So this is

4:20:40the uh the property itself.

4:20:44There was a concept plan that was given.

4:20:46However, that was not reviewed for code

4:20:48compliance.

4:20:51Couple pictures of it. I swear I heard

4:20:54Julie Andrews walking through the field.

4:20:57Um [laughter] it was lovely. It was a

4:21:00beautiful day. Um

4:21:02so just really quick how we got here. So

4:21:06currently fire station number five over

4:21:07on Whit Davis is in a in a state in

4:21:11which it needs to be relocated. Um both

4:21:13for safety in terms of getting more of

4:21:16the county and also because it has a

4:21:18little too much overlap with fire

4:21:20station number seven.

4:21:22With that change, what you can see is

4:21:24that it covers an area of the county

4:21:27that it previously wasn't. And nifty

4:21:30table on the side shows that much of the

4:21:32areas that u this would be covering

4:21:35would actually half the response time.

4:21:38So making it so roughly 800 um

4:21:41properties now have uh adequate fire

4:21:45support. Um it is compatible the 2023

4:21:49comprehensive plan um mostly because it

4:21:51says that we need to increase

4:21:52coordination within those emergency

4:21:54services. It's also compatible with

4:21:56future land use because fire station

4:21:58number five will provide like I said

4:22:00that fire and emergency services um for

4:22:03public safety. It's also compatible with

4:22:06the zoning map and ordinance. Um a

4:22:09little bit of a funky way because

4:22:10GZoning does not have any actual direct

4:22:13zoning standards on it. Um, but it is

4:22:15ACC's practice to have our own

4:22:18properties follow the most applicable

4:22:20zoning categories. You can also see that

4:22:22in the mayor commission's conditions

4:22:23that they had put on the squash project.

4:22:27It would be a single building with

4:22:28limited parking. Uh, those conditions

4:22:31are meant specifically to make sure that

4:22:33the residents

4:22:35being or having that limited disturbance

4:22:37for

4:22:38that consistency. So, this is like I

4:22:41said part of splash project number six.

4:22:43Uh this I'm sure as you all aware was a

4:22:46little bit of a long time coming but

4:22:48we're finally here. That site selection

4:22:50happened in 2024 um and was part of a

4:22:54joint effort to find this location. Um

4:22:57that location is going to be uh

4:22:59servicing another 800 additional

4:23:01residents uh that were not previously in

4:23:03coverage. And uh fire actually deals

4:23:06with a lot of medical emergencies.

4:23:08Majority of their stuff is not going to

4:23:10fires. It's being first responders.

4:23:12That's why all of them have EMT training

4:23:15and um and whatnot. So, this also makes

4:23:18sure that the work that they're doing

4:23:19most of the time, which is that first

4:23:21responder work, uh is able to get to

4:23:23those residents in a much better time as

4:23:25well.

4:23:27So October uh 2025 mayor and commission

4:23:31had given a commission defined option

4:23:34which included the following conditions

4:23:36and like I said these conditions are

4:23:37built in order to make sure that the

4:23:40residents have uh the best time that

4:23:43they think that they can fire station.

4:23:46So it's minimizing that footprint. U

4:23:49making sure that lighting ordinances are

4:23:51being followed. Making sure that there

4:23:54is uh plantings and buffering uh between

4:23:57those residential properties and the

4:23:59fire station itself. Making sure that

4:24:02any fuel material um are limited in

4:24:05their scope and at their you know chosen

4:24:08a specific location. Um and then also to

4:24:11wave the installation of the sidewalk

4:24:14requirement. Um, all that to say is that

4:24:17staff is recommending approval

4:24:20and that is the concept of the of the

4:24:23new court courthouse. Okay. Uh, the new

4:24:26fire station.

4:24:28>> All right. Thank you. Um, is there

4:24:30anyone to speak in support of the

4:24:33applications?

4:24:42>> Um, Mike Greenley. Uh, what is it? 181

4:24:46Whisperwood Lane.

4:24:51[laughter]

4:24:53>> It's

4:24:56woke me up. [laughter]

4:24:58>> Um, yeah. So, uh, yeah, just like was

4:25:01described, it's uh, this should be

4:25:04fairly straightforward. Uh the the

4:25:07property was purchased last year by the

4:25:10county and

4:25:12um we we've been working through this

4:25:14concept plan with the user group and we

4:25:18recently had a meeting this summer with

4:25:20all of the adjacent property owners to

4:25:22to present this plan to them to get

4:25:24additional feedback

4:25:26um incorporating both the u co items

4:25:30that were listed earlier along with uh

4:25:34the underlying zoning and the which is

4:25:36also the same as the adjacent zoning the

4:25:38AR. Um we're we're following those same

4:25:42guidelines and department. So mainly

4:25:45here just to answer any questions that

4:25:46you guys have if any and um I guess

4:25:50that's all I need to say.

4:25:53>> Anybody else here to speak in support of

4:25:55the application?

4:25:57Anyone here to speak in opposition to

4:25:59the application?

4:26:02>> All right, hearing none. This is a two

4:26:04voter, right?

4:26:07>> Yes.

4:26:07>> Okay. Two. So,

4:26:11>> I'll make a motion. Okay. Um, as a

4:26:14member of the SPLAS 2020 citizens

4:26:16advisory committee, very happy to see

4:26:19this happen. Um, this is really a long

4:26:21time coming and just this was a

4:26:22no-brainer. Like a lot of SPLAS wasn't a

4:26:25year of argument arguing, but this was a

4:26:28real clear one. So, yay.

4:26:30>> [laughter]

4:26:31>> Motion that to approve the future land

4:26:33use request.

4:26:34>> Right.

4:26:35>> Second.

4:26:36>> All right. Um all those in favor say

4:26:39>> I.

4:26:40>> Any oppos?

4:26:43>> I'll make the next motion to approve the

4:26:45zoning request from AR to G.

4:26:49Second. Okay.

4:26:51Um and all those in favor say I.

4:26:53>> I. Any opposed?

4:26:56>> Very good.

4:26:58making change.

4:27:06>> All righty. Good evening. Uh the

4:27:07following is a staff report for the

4:27:09street name change. Um it's been a while

4:27:11since y'all seen one of these. Believe

4:27:13the most recent one before this was when

4:27:16a section of Odd Street was renamed to

4:27:18Rosenel Howard. Um so this is kind of an

4:27:22unusual process. Um but it is outlined

4:27:24in our code and does come to y'all for

4:27:26recommendation before it ultimately get

4:27:27us to mayor and commission for approval.

4:27:29Uh the request is to rename Epsbridge

4:27:32Lane to Big Dog Way. Um there are seven

4:27:37total abuing properties on the existing

4:27:39Epsbridge Lane. Five of them have

4:27:42EPSbridge Lane addresses that would be

4:27:44directly impacted by the change. All the

4:27:47property owners uh including the ones ab

4:27:49budding that have uh different street

4:27:50names for their address uh have signed

4:27:53the uh petition in support of the road

4:27:56name change. Many of them are related to

4:27:58the Stevens family which has made the

4:27:59request to the planning department and

4:28:01mayor commission.

4:28:03Uh this is an aerial photograph of

4:28:05Epsbridge lanes. You can see it there.

4:28:07It is a private street. It abuts those

4:28:10seven properties there down by the

4:28:12river.

4:28:14Uh just quick overview of the process

4:28:16real quick. Um a request is made, y'all

4:28:20review it, make a recommendation that

4:28:21then moves along to the mayor and

4:28:22commission who will then take final

4:28:24action and decide on who will bear the

4:28:26cost of swapping out the road name

4:28:28signs, things of that nature. Uh staff's

4:28:31analysis. Um again, very briefly, it's a

4:28:33privately owned road. Um all of the

4:28:37property owners have signed the letter

4:28:39in support of the change. Uh staff has

4:28:42also found that um in discussions with

4:28:45fire and other 911 services that it

4:28:48would actually be helpful in reducing

4:28:50the amount of total streets named EPS

4:28:52bridge something or old epsbridge

4:28:54something else right um there are some

4:28:57other big big oak for example but uh I

4:29:00don't think that they'll get confused um

4:29:02so that concludes the staff report to

4:29:06improve the street thank you

4:29:09>> all right [clears throat]

4:29:10um Is the applicant here to speak?

4:29:14>> No. Okay. Is anybody here to speak in

4:29:16support

4:29:19in opposition?

4:29:22Okay. All right.

4:29:26>> I have an important question. How many

4:29:27roads are named dog in the cat? No, I'm

4:29:29just kidding.

4:29:30>> Daw.

4:29:32>> I know. This I think long ago a great

4:29:34opportunity was [clears throat] to have

4:29:37big dog dogs on the river. DAWG.

4:29:41Therefore, we could have a big dog way.

4:29:43Fortunately, I just not

4:29:46[laughter]

4:29:47>> I'll make a motion to approve. All

4:29:49right.

4:29:52>> Second.

4:29:52>> Second. All right. Um, do you have a

4:29:55discussion? All those in favor say I.

4:29:59>> All right. Excellent.

4:30:03All right. 2325 Card Road. Um, so this

4:30:06is for comments only.

4:30:12hasn't been waiting for.

4:30:15[laughter]

4:30:17>> Good evening. This is originally going

4:30:19to be the last thing, but nine more.

4:30:23>> Yeah.

4:30:24>> So, we're talking about 2325 Commerce

4:30:27Road, the recommendation night.

4:30:34>> Let's turn it on.

4:30:36>> There you go.

4:30:38Okay,

4:30:38>> pointer stopped.

4:30:40>> There is a future land use map change

4:30:42required for this proposal from rural to

4:30:45general business as well as a zoning map

4:30:47change from agriculture, residential to

4:30:50commercial general. Uh the applicant's

4:30:53proposed use is a 6,500 foot store with

4:30:57grass pumps. Given that request, the

4:30:59proposed is actually defined as quick

4:31:02vehicle servicing.

4:31:04The full parcel is 16.18 acres split

4:31:08across two tracks. The larger track

4:31:10fronting on Commerce Road or US 441

4:31:16there. That is a 13.07

4:31:20acres this section whereas this is 3.11

4:31:24and splitting them is the Athens line

4:31:27also formerly the Southern Railway.

4:31:30Um yeah, looking at the future land use

4:31:34map, all joining parcels are zoned rural

4:31:38in the southeast corner. Um you get some

4:31:42rural residential down here and then

4:31:45down here is general business. So

4:31:48there's no other like of general

4:31:51business in the area. And then looking

4:31:54at the zoning to the north, south and

4:31:57west, we also have agriculture,

4:31:59residential, whereas across the way on

4:32:01commerce, you have some commercial rural

4:32:03a little bit right here and some down

4:32:06there as well. Uh yes, there are no

4:32:10environmental areas on this parcel or

4:32:13captured the side.

4:32:16This is the applicant provided site

4:32:18survey. Um there is public water service

4:32:21available from Commerce Road, but there

4:32:23is no sewer service. Um not on Commerce

4:32:26Road or in anywhere in the surrounding

4:32:29area.

4:32:30Um we have a few site photos. You got

4:32:33looking north on Commerce Road and

4:32:35looking south. Uh also important to note

4:32:38is that this is the section of US 441 as

4:32:41you approach the loop that the travel

4:32:43lane decreases from two lanes to one

4:32:46lane. as you can kind of start to see by

4:32:48this right here.

4:32:50Um,

4:32:52yeah, at the along the southern edge of

4:32:55the parcel, um, which you can see in

4:32:58site survey, and I'll show up at the end

4:33:00again, there is a private drive. It's a

4:33:03dirt drive going all the way back to the

4:33:05very end. And across the street is also

4:33:09fully undeveloped, a very large parcel.

4:33:14Um the widest part of the parcel is it

4:33:16frontage on Commerce Road. The entire

4:33:19site is fully forested. There was a

4:33:21singular previous building footprint in

4:33:24the northeast corner but no longer

4:33:29uh

4:33:30yeah you can see some like topography

4:33:32change as well. Uh the site the

4:33:35northeast corner is about 730 ft and

4:33:39then the as it goes down back in the

4:33:42parcel it goes down to about 660. So

4:33:44there's some topography change across

4:33:46the site. Uh the applicant says the

4:33:49development will only be about 2 acres.

4:33:53There is no information provided on the

4:33:54use of the rest of the parcel. Um the

4:33:57plan's only concept planned. It's

4:33:58non-binding as well. Uh there's a couple

4:34:02liberties that were taken with this

4:34:04concept plan though that we asked the

4:34:07applicant to correct such as um there's

4:34:11some incorrect figures around here.

4:34:15There's some tandem parking on either

4:34:17side. There's no buffer for the sidewalk

4:34:21along Commerce Road. Uh there's

4:34:23incorrect scaling at a north arrow. And

4:34:26there's also development within the ride

4:34:29ofway of the railroad which isn't there

4:34:32either on the porcelain.

4:34:35Looking at uh the table the difference

4:34:39in general regulations. The most notable

4:34:41noticeable difference is lot coverage

4:34:44and lot size. Also of the history of the

4:34:48parcel under the previous owner, a

4:34:50reszone from AR to CR was proposed for

4:34:53office and distribution warehousing, but

4:34:56that was later withdrawn. And then

4:34:58shortly after purchasing the this

4:35:00parcel, the current um owner, who's also

4:35:03still the current owner, they requested

4:35:06and then withdrew an application from

4:35:08ARC with no proposed use.

4:35:12Uh staff finds this proposal to be

4:35:15incompatible with the 2023 comprehensive

4:35:17plan as it does not reuse existing

4:35:20development before developing green

4:35:22fields, doesn't further a community

4:35:24vision of sustainability or equity, and

4:35:27it doesn't attract or create jobs that

4:35:29offer wages that support a normal

4:35:31standard of living. While a convenience

4:35:34store around a gas station would create

4:35:36new positions, these are often not very

4:35:38many jobs at not very high pay and

4:35:42usually a high turnover rate, which is

4:35:45not the kind of economic growth

4:35:46supported by the comprehensive plan. And

4:35:49this proposal also ignores the uh

4:35:51Athenclar County intention of preventing

4:35:55sprawl into the green belt.

4:35:59Um, we also find it to be incompatible

4:36:01with the future land use map as it

4:36:03creates an isolated general business

4:36:05district. Although this location is

4:36:08autooriented, there's no pedestrian

4:36:10network or orient oriented design that

4:36:13fits the context of the area or the

4:36:15safety goals of Athensport County. Um,

4:36:18we also find it incompatible with the

4:36:20zoning map given that it's a higher

4:36:23intensity than anything around it. Uh we

4:36:27also the practice of Athens Clark County

4:36:29has been to require sewer access for

4:36:31commercial general zones. Uh that's one

4:36:34of the reasons the commercial rural zone

4:36:36was created. Um for uses without access

4:36:39to sewer and typically we see that the

4:36:42most efficient use of our the county's

4:36:45infrastructure is to expand sewer when

4:36:47demand is supported by density.

4:36:50Based on information given by the

4:36:52client, it is inconclusive if this

4:36:53proposal is compatible or not with

4:36:55leisure services network plant or make

4:36:58courts 2050 MTP.

4:37:01Uh this is the staff summary. I would

4:37:04like to make a a correction from the

4:37:07packets that was handed out previously.

4:37:09It was stated that there was no water

4:37:11capacity evaluation. There is u did

4:37:14receive that and

4:37:17that was met. I'd also like to summarize

4:37:20some of the technical comments that were

4:37:22in the staff report uh from the greenway

4:37:25network plan. Leisure services wants to

4:37:27point out that the Athens line is a

4:37:30proposed rail with trail plan. So any

4:37:33development should not interfere with

4:37:34the rail wider ofway in which there'd be

4:37:37potential interface. Um staff also

4:37:40requests a tra traffic impact analysis

4:37:44and TBW or staff has comments that note

4:37:47that US441 is on their high injury

4:37:50network and that this proposal

4:37:51replicates conditions present um such as

4:37:55that 17% of all fatal and serious injury

4:37:58crashes occur on roads over 40 miles per

4:38:00hour and over an average annual daily

4:38:03traffic of 10,000. This road is 55 miles

4:38:06per hour with about 17,300 ADT. Um, as

4:38:13about a mile south is the intersection

4:38:16of Old Commerce and 441, which is a top

4:38:19rated high injury intersection and staff

4:38:22sees this that this use would increase

4:38:25exposure likelihood and severity of

4:38:27fatal and serious injury crashes along

4:38:29the corridor given increased conflict

4:38:32points and turning movements.

4:38:34So we'd like a TIA and staff would also

4:38:37like the errors in the concept plan to

4:38:39be addressed. And that ends staff

4:38:42comment.

4:38:43>> Thank you.

4:38:46>> The applicants.

4:38:56>> Hi everyone. Finally. Uh I'm Norin uh

4:39:00601 Willow Haven W

4:39:03and I'm here to answer any questions.

4:39:12>> Okay, is that it?

4:39:13>> So uh uh we have read the staff report

4:39:16and um I agree uh the concept plan was a

4:39:20little not a little it was incorrect. So

4:39:22uh we have talked to our engineer and

4:39:25have already asked him to update the

4:39:27concept plan uh with answering all the

4:39:31deficiencies which were identified in

4:39:33the staff report. And we have already

4:39:36asked our uh the traffic study guy to uh

4:39:39run the uh traffic anal traffic impact

4:39:42analysis for that area just to make sure

4:39:45that uh whatever concerns the staff has

4:39:48identified in the report that we just

4:39:51want to make sure that it's there's

4:39:53something that we can do to overcome the

4:39:55concerns that have been identified. And

4:39:59um yes,

4:40:06if we have questions, we'll call you.

4:40:08Okay. Thank you.

4:40:09>> Thanks.

4:40:11>> Um

4:40:13All right. That seems So

4:40:16any thoughts,

4:40:19ideas,

4:40:22>> guidance?

4:40:27generally um in an area that's in our

4:40:29green belt and that is currently zoned

4:40:32agricultural residential um I would have

4:40:35a hard time supporting an upzone all the

4:40:38way to commercial general um there's

4:40:40some commercial rural across the street

4:40:42but um it's it's all very kind of low

4:40:46density and and CG would allow all kinds

4:40:49of uses apart from what the applicant is

4:40:52proposing um that might not be suitable

4:40:55that so

4:40:59generally I think not favorable.

4:41:01>> Yeah,

4:41:03>> I would agree. Um especially because

4:41:05there's 16 acres here and they're only

4:41:07proposing to use two. If they have a CG

4:41:09zoning, they're probably going to at

4:41:11some point lose

4:41:13and it sounds like it's already

4:41:14problematic from a traffic perspective.

4:41:19>> Yeah, just kind of echo that. I think

4:41:20the increase, you know, you're allowed

4:41:22to have like 80% bot coverage on CG and

4:41:24that just seems way uh too much for this

4:41:27area. So, I would generally be against

4:41:29the CG, but probably more in favor of

4:41:31like, you know, the CR that's in the

4:41:33area nearby if anything. I think CG is

4:41:36too intensive.

4:41:44>> Would a would a gas station be allowed

4:41:46in a commercial CR? Mhm.

4:41:50Yeah. And and the difference between CR

4:41:52and CG zoning typically is the

4:41:54availability of sewer.

4:41:56>> Yeah. Because you have a gas station

4:41:57without

4:41:59>> gas pumps. No.

4:42:00>> Oh, maybe it's convenience store. I'm

4:42:02sorry.

4:42:03>> Convenience stores.

4:42:04>> Okay.

4:42:05>> Convenience store, but no gas pumps.

4:42:06Yes. Thank you. Sorry.

4:42:08>> The only CG would work.

4:42:12>> Are all gas stations CG? I guess is that

4:42:14the

4:42:15>> Is that the question? I guess [laughter]

4:42:16I'm like servicing is only allowed in

4:42:20seafood.

4:42:21>> Okay.

4:42:24>> To me, the idea of not having sewer was

4:42:27kind of problematic.

4:42:30>> Yeah. Or just like anything that could

4:42:32be built there more intensive in the

4:42:34future if it's could, you know, be much

4:42:37more intense than the twoacre gas

4:42:39station proposed.

4:42:40>> Yeah. gas stations that that are kind of

4:42:42out in rural areas though. I mean, is it

4:42:45does some of them have do they run on

4:42:47something? Do you have runs throughout?

4:42:49I I don't probably have something.

4:42:52>> I know it causes trouble sometimes. I

4:42:55went to a gas station once and the sept

4:42:57tank was overflowing. the whole back

4:42:59area. If you remember where Kik's used

4:43:01to originally be out on Danielsville

4:43:02Road, the first time I ate there at

4:43:04their first location that day, the

4:43:06entire and why they had to move

4:43:07eventually was because there was a gas

4:43:09station on Septic and it's like the

4:43:11whole back of it was

4:43:14>> Yeah.

4:43:14>> And then they moved a couple months

4:43:16later to Watkinsville location.

4:43:30It's It's on the Athens

4:43:33the rail.

4:43:35>> It's like an older line.

4:43:37>> Is that line no longer used? Is that

4:43:39what they just said? Abandoned line or I

4:43:43think there is.

4:43:44>> It's still

4:43:44>> It's still It's not super active, but

4:43:47>> Okay. Um

4:43:47>> It didn't look like banned.

4:43:48>> No, there there is rail um service. I

4:43:51think there is a a train that goes up to

4:43:55the Toyota plant in commerce.

4:43:56>> Yeah.

4:43:57>> From time to time that uses that section

4:43:58of the road

4:44:00>> because there's some sections that are

4:44:02just, you know, they have trees growing

4:44:03in the middle of them and you can tell

4:44:04that from the airfields.

4:44:13>> Yeah.

4:44:15[laughter]

4:44:20>> Yeah.

4:44:23All right, friends. So, let's get back

4:44:26to um

4:44:29item three.

4:44:33Um

4:44:35>> now we're under less pressure. We don't

4:44:36have the rest of that agenda looking at

4:44:38us,

4:44:38>> right? Okay.

4:44:39>> Yeah.

4:44:41>> Going through it. So, um

4:44:45as Robert scrolls back through,

4:44:48>> what would you like on the screen? Hope

4:44:49it was helpful.

4:44:51>> Um well, so do we want to

4:44:54>> Yeah. Do we want to go into a um

4:44:57>> video?

4:44:59Thank you for remembering that.

4:45:00>> Um

4:45:01>> yeah, I will make that motion.

4:45:03>> Am I discussion of that before or before

4:45:06I second it? Does that mean we can't ask

4:45:09Mr. Williams any questions because he's

4:45:11a member of the public?

4:45:13>> Yes, but we can note on the document

4:45:15where we would have questions come out.

4:45:18We can ask this question.

4:45:20>> Did you have any specific ones now

4:45:21though?

4:45:22>> Yeah.

4:45:23>> Ask if you

4:45:24>> um

4:45:27>> I think most of the questions that I

4:45:29have are probably for Bruce um more than

4:45:32the property owner.

4:45:34>> I have a question for the property

4:45:36owner. Well from for Mr. Williams

4:45:39>> developers representative.

4:45:42So, as I think we all collectively feel

4:45:45that the commercial requirement as it's

4:45:48stated right now is problematic. Does

4:45:50the developer have an issue with having

4:45:53a greater commercial component part of

4:45:56the property?

4:45:57>> They would have an issue with that being

4:45:58required.

4:45:59>> What specifically would be the issue?

4:46:01>> That again, we're getting into dictating

4:46:04what the site is going to be used for.

4:46:06we have a commercial component for the

4:46:07first 250 ft of the road which if that

4:46:10develops out over time over you know a

4:46:1310-year period of time or whatever I

4:46:14mean just that first 250 ft with

4:46:16buildings it's going to be way more than

4:46:19than that potentially this is what has

4:46:21to remain on the site at all times as a

4:46:24minimum not to say that there won't be

4:46:27more to say that if somebody comes along

4:46:29and wants to do a mixeduse multif family

4:46:31development that there wouldn't be more

4:46:34Um it's just to say that they will

4:46:37guarantee that that is the the minimum

4:46:39that will ever be going there without a

4:46:41demand. I think that I mean I can speak

4:46:44for myself that the concern would be

4:46:46that that type of scenario would allow

4:46:49for all of the commercial development to

4:46:51be running Atlanta highway and then a

4:46:53sea of apartments behind it which would

4:46:56keep those apartments as an auto center

4:46:59deter people coming for a more urban

4:47:03center type of development more sprawl

4:47:06more suburban.

4:47:08Is it accurate to say that the

4:47:10developer's vision for the site is not

4:47:15an urban center at this point?

4:47:16>> No, that's not accurate at all. I mean,

4:47:19right now the developer is a is a is a

4:47:22blank slate. I mean, you know, the hope

4:47:24is is that parcels will develop over

4:47:27time. One of them may be senior housing,

4:47:29one of them may be multif family with

4:47:31commercial underneath. Some of it may

4:47:32just be town houses and multi in and

4:47:34regular multif family, but right now

4:47:37they can't do anything because they they

4:47:40can't even renew a a lease in the mall

4:47:42because we don't know what we've got. I

4:47:45don't know that there won't be more than

4:47:46just develop that stays at the mall for

4:47:48the next 20 years.

4:47:49>> Let me let me clarify my question. It

4:47:51sounds like there's resistance on the

4:47:54part of the property owner to any

4:47:56requirement of a mixeduse urban center

4:48:00type area of the property. Is that

4:48:03accurate?

4:48:03>> I think that's probably accurate. Like

4:48:05that it' be required, right? I mean, you

4:48:08know, I mean, just under the regular CG

4:48:11zone. I mean, they could develop it

4:48:12today. And you know, quite frankly, what

4:48:16you would get is what you got in

4:48:18downtown when you require commercial up

4:48:20underneath residential, which is vacant

4:48:21commercial space.

4:48:23>> But why wouldn't the develop or why

4:48:25wouldn't the owner just ask for a change

4:48:28of the future land use designation?

4:48:30Because right now it's designated as an

4:48:31urban center. So if they have no

4:48:33intention of developing an urban center,

4:48:35why would they have property with the

4:48:37future land use designation of an urban

4:48:39center? I don't think I said that they

4:48:40would have any intention of having it

4:48:42developed as that. I think I said that

4:48:44they they don't have a vision for what

4:48:46it's going to be. I mean, they don't not

4:48:49want it to be to be that. They don't

4:48:51>> they don't have any plans period.

4:48:52>> No, I've not I have not drawn a single

4:48:54concept plan since they told me to stop

4:48:56working on the

4:48:58eight you $3 million worth of plans that

4:49:01are developed that can be built.

4:49:05I don't have a sketch. I don't have an

4:49:07idea of what's going where. They haven't

4:49:10spent a dollar trying to figure that out

4:49:12until we get past this and know what we

4:49:13can do.

4:49:15>> So, if I can just kind of reframe

4:49:17Kristen's question, um, why isn't the

4:49:22developer asking for a change in the

4:49:23future land use if they're unwilling to

4:49:25commit to an urban center?

4:49:29>> First of all, the developer is not

4:49:30asking for this right now.

4:49:33I mean, this is this came from a

4:49:34resolution from the the mayor and

4:49:37commission to undo the PD and to put in

4:49:39an overlay. I mean, we didn't ask when

4:49:42it was done the last time for

4:49:43millillage. We didn't ask for a change

4:49:44there either.

4:49:46As far as I know, there hasn't ever been

4:49:48a land use plan change done with an

4:49:50overlay district that we have anywhere

4:49:52that I've been associated with or that I

4:49:55know of.

4:49:56>> Could you say that entire sentence

4:49:58again? As far as I know, when we did the

4:50:00Millage Avenue overlay, it was done

4:50:02handled exactly the same way. Resolution

4:50:04the commission, you guys voted on it.

4:50:07They voted on it. There wasn't a land

4:50:09use plan change there.

4:50:10>> It's not about the process. It's about

4:50:11the intent of the development. The

4:50:14process is one thing and but and the

4:50:17varsity was developed in a certain way

4:50:18because we had certain requirements and

4:50:20we worked with the developer to get

4:50:21those requirements on the overlay. In

4:50:24this case, we have certain requirements

4:50:26and we're asking to work with the

4:50:27developer to get those certain

4:50:28requirements on overlay. So the question

4:50:31is

4:50:31>> I did that overlay

4:50:33and that that's not at all how I

4:50:36>> No, we we had setbacks for the

4:50:37neighborhood. We had neighborhood

4:50:38protections. That's why there are

4:50:39certain things

4:50:40>> which we which we've done here. You

4:50:43know, we've we've lowered building

4:50:44heights and we've

4:50:45>> and we're asking for an urban center.

4:50:48>> I'm just telling you I can't agree with

4:50:50that. I mean, the commission put forward

4:50:52a a resolution with things in that

4:50:55resolution that they wanted to see.

4:50:58We met with Bruce and added some things

4:51:00that you guys wanted to see and that's

4:51:02that's where the developers at with it.

4:51:05>> If I can um the CG zoning compatible

4:51:10with urban center,

4:51:11>> right?

4:51:12>> Um the overlay and the elements in the

4:51:15overlay compatible with an urban center.

4:51:17The PD is certainly compatible with an

4:51:20urban center. So all three bands of the

4:51:24comparative table are compatible with

4:51:27urban center designation. So there there

4:51:29wouldn't be a motivation or a

4:51:31justification for changing the future

4:51:33land use designation as part of what's

4:51:35being considered here. So I I just want

4:51:37to say that part out loud that

4:51:40this is still compatible.

4:51:43it just lacks

4:51:45the PD's binding aspects that that was

4:51:50prescriptively saying these are the

4:51:52elements that will be there and so so I

4:51:55just want to I just I know you

4:51:56understand that I just want

4:51:57>> right like is compatible in the sense of

4:51:59like this is the bare minimum of

4:52:02compatibility with what is like what is

4:52:07allowed for that site right like what is

4:52:09allowed for that zoning

4:52:10>> but that's not and just because the

4:52:12American commission said we want to see

4:52:13these certain things doesn't mean that

4:52:16other things can't be part of it.

4:52:19>> Correct.

4:52:21>> I thought when you put the slide up

4:52:22earlier, Bruce, in the urban center

4:52:26definition, I recall it saying referring

4:52:27to mixed use and commercial uses at the

4:52:30ground floor with housing above and uh

4:52:34that sort of thing. And I'm not sure

4:52:36that the overlay district is compatible

4:52:39in the sense that it does not mandate

4:52:40any of that. It it requires commercial

4:52:44on the ground floor in portions much

4:52:47like the PD required commercial on the

4:52:49ground floor in portions.

4:52:50>> You mean like the drive-throughs on

4:52:52Atlanta Highway in the Belulk or or

4:52:53where

4:52:54>> in the distance off of Atlanta Highway

4:52:56that first 250 ft. You wouldn't be able

4:52:59to put residential on the ground floor.

4:53:02You would have to have commercial on the

4:53:03ground floor. State it that way.

4:53:05>> Okay. So, so the PD that is currently in

4:53:08place does have areas fairly significant

4:53:11amounts of area within it where there's

4:53:14only residential development, ground

4:53:17floor, upper floors, everything. So, if

4:53:20if we're comparing PD to overlay, I

4:53:23think the obvious difference is the PD

4:53:26is prescriptive. It's every you have to

4:53:29do what's on that sheet of paper,

4:53:30whereas the overlay provides

4:53:32flexibility. But in either case, the

4:53:35components of overlay and PD are still

4:53:38compatible with the urban center

4:53:39definition or could have the opportunity

4:53:42to deliver elements that are compatible

4:53:45with the urban center definition. Maybe

4:53:47that's a better way to say it.

4:53:48>> Yeah, I agree with this. I mean, it

4:53:49certainly is

4:53:51would allow them to deliver elements

4:53:53that are compatible with it, but it

4:53:55would also allow them to deliver um an

4:53:58ocean of town homes or or of apartment

4:54:01blocks,

4:54:03I think, right? and not um not any kind

4:54:06of gathering space, which is what I

4:54:07think the urban center um designation

4:54:12in my mind seems to contemplate and and

4:54:16require is, you know, um a place where

4:54:20people come together, not just place

4:54:22where people commute home to after work.

4:54:24>> Any other questions for Mr. Williams?

4:54:29>> If you need to sit down for now, um

4:54:32you're good. You know where we find you.

4:54:34>> [laughter]

4:54:35>> um

4:54:36>> be one of two other people.

4:54:37>> I think one thing that I grapple with

4:54:39with especially this type of discussion

4:54:41is like ACC is the applicant, right?

4:54:44Like if if the property owner wanted

4:54:46certain things, then they could have

4:54:49written overlay just like the other

4:54:51applicant that we've seen and they made

4:54:53their edits and they came back and we

4:54:55cheated over and that's what happened.

4:54:57But in this case, ACC is the applicant.

4:54:59So like yeah, there's certain things

4:55:01that like the American commission like

4:55:02said in what they passed what they want

4:55:04to see. Okay, fine. But like we also

4:55:08like this is what we do, right? So like

4:55:11are there certain things that there's

4:55:13clearly certain things that we thought

4:55:15should be part of this and they're not

4:55:18in the current iteration. So

4:55:22um

4:55:24so yeah, that that that's what I get

4:55:26stuck on. Like if if there are certain

4:55:27things the developer wants, the

4:55:28developer should have submitted the

4:55:30packet, right? They didn't. So now it's

4:55:32ACC. So

4:55:35here we are.

4:55:35>> That's kind of put us in a position

4:55:37where

4:55:40we have to lean into what we feel

4:55:43collectively an urban center should be

4:55:47because sematically this text can get us

4:55:50there. But we all know that it could

4:55:54produce a a product that feels very

4:55:57disconnected.

4:55:58>> Yeah.

4:55:59>> And would be the opposite of the

4:56:01intention of what I think we all felt we

4:56:04were getting from the PD.

4:56:06>> Yeah. Because this overlay would

4:56:08certainly allow for an urban center, but

4:56:09it doesn't it doesn't guide any urban.

4:56:13>> Yeah.

4:56:17So I guess kind of back to like the

4:56:19original motion I'd made which was to go

4:56:21into a committee at the poll. I guess we

4:56:23do that it's

4:56:26I think you're kind of raising this

4:56:27larger question of

4:56:30whether to proceed right and I I agree

4:56:34with those points but I just

4:56:37I'm kind of back to like maybe we just

4:56:39have to work through the document and um

4:56:42do the best we can. Um,

4:56:47but I also think we should be prepared

4:56:48to work through the document, sit on it

4:56:52until next session and get feedback

4:56:55>> from the applicant and not necessarily

4:56:59feel like we need to rush this through

4:57:00tonight.

4:57:02>> Sure.

4:57:05>> So, would anybody like to second my

4:57:06motion?

4:57:07>> I'll second it.

4:57:10Right. Um, all those in favor say I.

4:57:18All right. Wow. New territory. We are on

4:57:21a committee.

4:57:24>> We get to kick everyone else out.

4:57:28[laughter]

4:57:30>> Um,

4:57:32>> so yeah. So, why don't we pull up the

4:57:34document? So, I I stayed up way too late

4:57:37last night. Um

4:57:40just kind of going through some of the

4:57:42sections and thinking about um sorry I

4:57:45also changed the fonts too. There are

4:57:46like three different fonts in the

4:57:48document. [laughter]

4:57:49Um

4:57:50but um yeah, so just kind of like trying

4:57:54to parse out some of these like so the

4:57:58purpose and intent um and they they

4:58:01should still align with the document but

4:58:04I don't know anybody wants to follow

4:58:05along at home with what we already have

4:58:07on our pages but um yeah so like with an

4:58:11intent um

4:58:13>> so the idea with this is to just make it

4:58:15a little bit more of an intention

4:58:18um

4:58:21for the um

4:58:25for the overall space.

4:58:29[clears throat]

4:58:30>> Make that any bigger. Is that hard to

4:58:32read?

4:58:33>> I mean, I can make it bigger to them.

4:58:38>> I think um I generally agree with what

4:58:41you've written there, Kristen. And I

4:58:43think that

4:58:46um I think we could be really stuck on

4:58:48that right now. I wonder if I can get

4:58:50into the nitty-gritty because I think

4:58:52that you have captured what we have said

4:58:57multiple times.

4:58:59>> Yeah.

4:58:59>> Um and I am pretty sure that the body is

4:59:04in fairly agreement about that

4:59:06>> and this also is reflected in the

4:59:08different sections

4:59:09>> changes that. Yeah. So maybe let's

4:59:14>> maybe what I would say is when you'd

4:59:16like to stop

4:59:19the boundaries are pretty right

4:59:26too.

4:59:29>> And one of the things that brought up in

4:59:32my communication was the desire to

4:59:35define green. Can you do anything?

4:59:40I think that

4:59:42>> Yeah. So maybe we wait till then and

4:59:44find it.

4:59:48>> Um so there is a little bit if you go

4:59:50back up to uses. So So uses where where

4:59:54the black text starts that's unchanged

4:59:57from the current document but it just

4:59:59adds a little bit more um to again

5:00:02reinforce the mixeduse pedestrian

5:00:05oriented

5:00:07play.

5:00:09And was there somewhere did you add any

5:00:13lists for the uses?

5:00:15>> Yes. Okay.

5:00:23>> I wasn't sure if quick serve restaurants

5:00:25is the right term. Um, but I feel like

5:00:29that was what was mentioned at the last

5:00:32meeting was these two.

5:00:34>> Would that include like

5:00:38Chipotle

5:00:40and that kind of place because I would

5:00:41imagine places like that might want to

5:00:43locate it.

5:00:47>> Yeah. No, that's a good point.

5:00:49>> Is what you're trying to they're like

5:00:52like drive-throughs or or when you say

5:00:55drive-throughs and then quick surf. So,

5:00:57what additional types of

5:00:59>> Not going to lie, this was just Sarah's

5:01:01comments at the last meeting was about

5:01:03adding drive-through facilities and

5:01:04quick start restaurants.

5:01:06I want to take that one off.

5:01:08>> Yeah.

5:01:09>> Yeah.

5:01:10>> Deleting 11. Yeah.

5:01:17>> Do you Bruce, do you have the table in

5:01:19front of you right now? The use table

5:01:23or CG

5:01:24>> or CG? I do.

5:01:25>> And is that drive-thru facility the way

5:01:28it's is that the terminology used in

5:01:30that table?

5:01:33>> The ter I'm sorry.

5:01:36the number 10 on the list that's been

5:01:39added in drive-thru facility. Is that

5:01:41been is that used in the table

5:01:43>> in the use table of drive-thru facility

5:01:45is one of the uses called out

5:01:47specifically.

5:01:48>> Yeah, it's got more letters in the

5:01:50through part, but yeah, that's okay.

5:01:53>> Okay. Um,

5:01:56>> what is that? What is

5:01:59>> you want the definition?

5:02:01>> I do. Yeah.

5:02:08spelling B, use it in the sentence.

5:02:11[laughter]

5:02:11Uh, a drive-thru use, a facility or

5:02:14structure that is designed to allow

5:02:16drivers to remain in their vehicles

5:02:18before and during an activity on the

5:02:20site. Drive-through facilities are a

5:02:22type of site development that is usually

5:02:24found in conjunction with a quick

5:02:25vehicle servicing use or other retail

5:02:28sales and service use. Examples include,

5:02:30but are not limited to, drive-through

5:02:32windows, menu boards, car wash

5:02:35facilities, and quick lube or quick oil

5:02:38change facilities.

5:02:39>> Great. Thank you. Okay.

5:02:45>> Yeah, I think carry on.

5:02:48>> What did you change minimum lot size?

5:02:52Um Kristen, what what what's the

5:02:56>> um so it's more about connectivity

5:02:58there.

5:03:00So don't be used to prevent or repair

5:03:02pedestrian bicycle vehicular. Sorry

5:03:04about the spelling. Um utility or other

5:03:06connections between adjoining

5:03:07development areas. So the idea is if

5:03:08it's going to be de developed in phases

5:03:12that there's still um that the the lots

5:03:16aren't going to impede the ability to

5:03:18move through the space.

5:03:21So it's not it's not defining a certain

5:03:23size. It's just talking more about I

5:03:25mean it might affect like larger blocks

5:03:28of things. But that's really the goal

5:03:31there. Um from the staff perspective is

5:03:34that an administerable um notion. Hey, I

5:03:37I would I would ask to clarify what

5:03:40you're getting at here is not creating a

5:03:42lot that creates a dead end in something

5:03:45that would otherwise allow for a bike, a

5:03:49pedestrian or vehicle

5:03:51to cross through the overlay area

5:03:55>> or at least like

5:03:58prevent

5:03:59easier access across into another

5:04:02portion of the

5:04:05>> Yeah, I think it makes sense. I

5:04:07understand what what's happening there

5:04:09and I think it makes sense but I just

5:04:12create any problems for you all.

5:04:19>> I guess administering this this is a

5:04:21little bit different um where laotting

5:04:23patterns being sort of used to prevent

5:04:28is not how we usually look at things

5:04:30lots are created to enable. Well, I

5:04:33think that's your point, right, Chris?

5:04:34Or maybe actually

5:04:36>> of individual lots that enable

5:04:38pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, utility,

5:04:40or other connections between adjoining

5:04:42development.

5:04:44>> I think putting it in the positive

5:04:46aligns

5:04:48maybe more closely to the language

5:04:50that's in the the multi-use trail

5:04:54section of the ordinance of the overlay.

5:04:57>> So, can you update that?

5:04:58>> Sure.

5:05:00>> After this, you wanted to read that

5:05:01enable

5:05:03Yeah. Show them.

5:05:05>> Yeah, exactly.

5:05:07>> And then delete everything up to

5:05:09pedestrian.

5:05:11>> I can do that.

5:05:16>> But now it's a sentence fragment.

5:05:19>> Oh, shall enable right instead of that.

5:05:29Um,

5:05:30>> did you mean to delete that

5:05:33big child?

5:05:53>> I think that makes sense. The only

5:05:55question I have about it is um

5:06:00No, I don't have a question about it.

5:06:01Building tight. Um

5:06:06so Kristen, your

5:06:09change to that is what?

5:06:12Um

5:06:13a lot.

5:06:18>> What was number one? So it started out

5:06:21the maximum building height is uh yeah

5:06:25shall be 100 feet

5:06:30however that within 250 ft of property

5:06:33line property. Yeah. So it continues

5:06:36below.

5:06:38>> So again so it's just adding that line

5:06:40to reinforce the mixed use

5:06:47portion. How does number one work as an

5:06:50exception?

5:06:52How would we how would we achieve

5:06:54distribution? It's got to be it's got to

5:06:57be something that we can review.

5:06:59>> Could you say that

5:07:02any building exceeding the 45 foot

5:07:06height,

5:07:08we'd still need to keep the commercial

5:07:10ground floor component.

5:07:13Or is that getting more into the

5:07:18Well, I think the idea here is that the

5:07:22[clears throat] building height, it's

5:07:24it's trying not to like say these

5:07:26buildings, tall buildings here, shorter

5:07:28buildings there, but rather that the

5:07:32buildings themselves, the the the higher

5:07:35buildings are supporting the commercial

5:07:37mixeduse core and they kind of can taper

5:07:40off or do different things. Um,

5:07:45yeah. I mean, I see what you're saying

5:07:46though. Like it is kind of loosey

5:07:48goosey. So,

5:07:51but the the idea is trying to trying to

5:07:53come up with some verbiage that um that

5:07:56helps reinforce that there could be

5:07:58taller buildings with commercial that

5:08:03um and the building height will support

5:08:05that use and then it can kind of

5:08:07transition to different portions of the

5:08:09property.

5:08:14So, number two already says as you get

5:08:17close to the property line, you got to

5:08:18step down to 45 ft. Um,

5:08:23how much more granular do we need to be

5:08:25than that?

5:08:29like are are you

5:08:30>> so

5:08:30>> it's easier if it says like you know and

5:08:32within 500 feet you can go to 70 and

5:08:34then farther you can go to 100 or you

5:08:36know like I think it's easier for

5:08:38>> staff to administer something that that

5:08:40has objective standards um but shall be

5:08:44distributed to support greater intensity

5:08:46isn't really an objective standard

5:08:47>> almost feel like that could fall under

5:08:49purpose and intent like somehow be

5:08:51captured in that when we get back to it.

5:08:54>> Yeah. So

5:08:56>> maybe what I would say is I would

5:08:58recommend we maybe highlight item one or

5:09:02sort of that we're going to do go

5:09:03somewhere else with that for now. But I

5:09:06think for just this section I think we

5:09:10could probably take out the number two

5:09:12in front of within

5:09:15you know just make that be following the

5:09:18with the exception. I can't remember how

5:09:19that ended up there.

5:09:20>> Except as provided below and then yeah

5:09:24>> and Or it could actually just be accept

5:09:26within.

5:09:28Um

5:09:30>> you could just Yeah,

5:09:43>> that

5:09:45>> Yeah. Is that the only one we're going

5:09:46to say? I think if it's the only

5:09:48>> I believe so goes on to resist.

5:09:51>> Yeah. So I think you could actually just

5:09:53make it so that to avoid confusion, you

5:09:56could

5:09:57>> have that sentence say, "Yeah, just

5:09:59accept within and then it's just its own

5:10:01thing."

5:10:02>> Yeah.

5:10:04>> Yeah.

5:10:07>> How do you want to get it?

5:10:10>> Just a space and lowerase within.

5:10:12>> Yep. Exactly.

5:10:13>> Very good.

5:10:14>> And then you can delete the instance of

5:10:16it below.

5:10:17>> Yeah.

5:10:20I think between accept and within we

5:10:22should have the word that.

5:10:38So actually look at that one more time.

5:10:40So

5:10:55I actually don't quite understand that

5:10:57last second section. So we're saying

5:11:02building building height max is 100 ft

5:11:05except within 200 feet of any

5:11:09any property that abuts the mall overlay

5:11:12but is outside of it

5:11:15which has a residential use or a nursing

5:11:17home has a lower um a 45 footage.

5:11:24>> Okay, listen. This is this is unchanged.

5:11:27Yeah, that was that was in the draft.

5:11:31>> Um except the difference is that it says

5:11:35shall be 100 ft provided however that

5:11:39within 250 ft of the property. That's

5:11:42that's the only difference.

5:11:46>> So what we're saying here is the maximum

5:11:48building height shall be 100 ft except

5:11:50with except on the boundaries where the

5:11:53abuing property is residential or

5:11:55nursing home. Right.

5:11:57>> And then in those cases, it has to be

5:12:02>> 45 ft

5:12:04for that building

5:12:06>> until you're at the 250 of an inch mark.

5:12:10Then that building can go up above 45

5:12:13ft.

5:12:16>> Okay. This is basically that back

5:12:18property line.

5:12:20>> It's where the theater used to be.

5:12:23Not not not even really there because

5:12:25it's it's within we still have CG zoning

5:12:29that spills into Lake Mueller.

5:12:31>> Right.

5:12:32>> So the 250 ft measurement is really

5:12:34coming off of the west side mall access

5:12:37drive.

5:12:38>> Uhhuh.

5:12:38>> Into the site some distance. Um because

5:12:42you have the mall access drive taking up

5:12:43some of that distance. It's really

5:12:45probably going to end up aboutund

5:12:47I don't know 90 or so feet into the

5:12:49development site and then adjacent to

5:12:51Holiday Estates that area also would

5:12:56fronting Holiday Estates your maximum

5:12:58height would be 45 ft. The thing to

5:13:00understand about that eastern side is

5:13:02the grade change also. So that area of

5:13:06the mall sits lower than the roaded and

5:13:08the roaded is slightly lower than

5:13:10Holiday Estates. So 45 ft heat

5:13:13appreciably from those homes is going to

5:13:16be 40 35 maybe 30 feet depending on

5:13:20topo. Um so anyway just that's where

5:13:24that's coming from.

5:13:25>> How is that affected at Lake Mueller

5:13:26though since some of that is still CG?

5:13:28Could they end up with a 10 foot story

5:13:32building?

5:13:32>> It is crazy that there's like this weird

5:13:34CG that pushes up into that

5:13:36neighborhood. So,

5:13:38>> I know we're trying to keep this on the

5:13:39screen, but

5:13:40>> if you go back to what was in your

5:13:42packet

5:13:44>> and look at the zoning that is

5:13:47represented on that image on the top of

5:13:49the memo

5:13:51>> or in your There you go, Sarah. That

5:13:53what you got in your hand. Even better.

5:13:55Um

5:13:58the the edge of the overlay

5:14:01in this spot would would be touching

5:14:05RS5,

5:14:07but as you're pushing into this site,

5:14:08250 ft is maybe a third of the way to

5:14:12the mall access drive. Um you also have

5:14:17I will just say this part out loud. The

5:14:20way what we learned from the PD is the

5:14:23way the site drains. This is where your

5:14:26storm water is probably going to be in

5:14:28the northern side. So the buffer that

5:14:31you're going to really appreciate here

5:14:33is going to be in what is done for storm

5:14:36water and that's largely going to be

5:14:39storm water that serves the entire

5:14:40development up in this area. So adjacent

5:14:43to Lake Mer

5:14:46that 250 distance is is not it's not

5:14:50even going to get close to that.

5:14:51>> Can't even come into play because that's

5:14:52where the store water

5:14:53>> correct. And then Lake Mer also has open

5:14:55space here in their subdivision is

5:14:58considerably wider than 250 ft and that

5:15:01is undevelopable.

5:15:03>> Yeah. That's where all the environmental

5:15:04areas are.

5:15:05>> Yeah. So, so you have the subdivision

5:15:08has a buffer and then you would if this

5:15:11ever was reszoned to this line. Yeah.

5:15:14>> You then would have 250 plus

5:15:17>> the the subdivision's buffer. So

5:15:20it it's going to be its greatest

5:15:22distance away from like Okay, good.

5:15:26>> So, the wording as it as it is right

5:15:29now, despite being a little bit awkward,

5:15:32that works okay for you all from an

5:15:34administrative perspective.

5:15:37>> Yes.

5:15:42>> All right, let's keep going. Okay, I

5:15:44think you're good.

5:15:46>> Oh.

5:15:49Oh, yeah. You're right. Residential

5:15:51state.

5:15:55So that first edition is maybe we'll

5:15:58highlight that is

5:16:00>> because it again so the the section

5:16:03starts with residential development. Is

5:16:05that more of a purpose and intent type

5:16:07of thing?

5:16:08>> Yes. So the first section is what's

5:16:10currently in there now and then the

5:16:12second section was just added again

5:16:13going back to the

5:16:15>> we can sort of return and then this one

5:16:18then H is new. Yes.

5:16:23It's modified. Yeah. So, this is

5:16:25replacing the minimum commercial space

5:16:27requirement. So,

5:16:34>> I think that's a little problematic.

5:16:36>> Yes,

5:16:42>> because of because 150 is so low and

5:16:45it's currently there

5:16:47>> and it's already there. It would

5:16:48basically not

5:16:50require anything else.

5:16:54[clears throat]

5:16:55>> Can you exclude existing stuff from that

5:16:58number?

5:16:59>> I think I'd rather see commercial ground

5:17:02floor on any building that has higher

5:17:04flight height than 45.

5:17:08It forces

5:17:10have some kind of town center component.

5:17:19So one thing that is about this though

5:17:22the portion of the required commercial

5:17:24space shall be concentrated within a

5:17:26designated commercial mixed juice core

5:17:28identified on approved plan or other

5:17:29plants by

5:17:32um so this is an attempt to find a way

5:17:38to ensure that there's some sort of

5:17:42commercial core Um,

5:17:46so that portions require commercial

5:17:49space. So that could be the belts,

5:17:52right? As this is written, that could be

5:17:53the belts and then there's like maybe

5:17:56something next to the belts. So

5:18:00is that enough? It doesn't define where

5:18:03the core needs to be located. This would

5:18:05still allow for the core to be solely

5:18:07located minus Bels up at Atlanta Highway

5:18:11which again would make a bifurcated

5:18:13not cohesive plan.

5:18:16>> Is Kristen was it your thinking that

5:18:19this core area aligns with the area

5:18:22where you're not restricted by the 45

5:18:25foot building height?

5:18:26>> Yes.

5:18:27>> Yes.

5:18:28>> Okay. So that that has a physical line

5:18:31to it. So it

5:18:35whether it's a core or not, maybe that's

5:18:38just use of the word to get us to the

5:18:40concept, but you got these 400

5:18:45250 foot mental.

5:18:52That's what you're identifying as the

5:18:55core.

5:18:56>> It's

5:18:58it's a little more than that, though.

5:19:00So, so, so the, so the core could exist

5:19:04anywhere within that space, but it's

5:19:07also attaching to commercial.

5:19:10So,

5:19:12so it's not just like, oh, look, we have

5:19:14100 foot residential buildings. It's

5:19:17there's commercial

5:19:19that's part of that portion of the

5:19:21development.

5:19:24>> Yeah. I mean, you know, [clears throat]

5:19:26the um

5:19:29thing that we asked for in August and

5:19:31September

5:19:33that, you know, in the way of

5:19:35[clears throat] an urban center, um was

5:19:38a designated portion of the parcel that

5:19:41would include mixeduse

5:19:45development, commercial and residential,

5:19:48and you know, plaza, green space. Um, it

5:19:53wasn't, you know, the the in the current

5:19:55draft, the green space section is just

5:19:57like, oh, they got to have an acre of

5:19:59green space somewhere, but it counts

5:20:01toward their the landscaping stuff.

5:20:02That's not really what I think we were

5:20:04trying to do. Maybe we didn't describe

5:20:06it well enough when we talked last time,

5:20:08but but the idea was not just an acre of

5:20:11lawn somewhere. It was it was an urban

5:20:13core somewhere. and and so um you know

5:20:18maybe when rather than saying like oh

5:20:20every 100 foot building has to have

5:20:22commercial on the ground floor you know

5:20:25um I would

5:20:27another way to approach it might be to

5:20:29say you know that that um a 10 acre

5:20:35portion of the site outside of the 250

5:20:37foot boundary at the edge um shall be

5:20:42you know designated by the

5:20:47applicant which is Athens clar county

5:20:49technically although they seem to be in

5:20:51consultation with the developer and

5:20:52appropriately so and so you know they

5:20:54could work out exactly where that's

5:20:56going to be that shall be designated by

5:20:57the applicant as the urban core and that

5:21:00shall be m you know require mixed use um

5:21:04and not so single um use development

5:21:09>> or is this something like to Sarah's

5:21:11point about defining green space if we

5:21:13define define an urban core as having

5:21:15these certain elements. It doesn't

5:21:18dictate where that thing needs to be. It

5:21:20just

5:21:22helps create that vision of what is part

5:21:25of the urban core. You know,

5:21:30that might work.

5:21:32>> Yeah. I mean, the PD had a an urban core

5:21:34in the middle of it and doesn't have to

5:21:36be in the middle of it and it doesn't

5:21:37have to be the same size or shape as

5:21:39what was in the PD, but some version of

5:21:41that.

5:21:42But, you know, the led to a lot of the

5:21:46community support for the PD was um the

5:21:49vision of some portion of the parcel

5:21:54um that would be a mixeduse urban core,

5:21:57a walkable, pedestrian friendly um

5:22:00shopping and dining and

5:22:04residential mixeduse area. Um, and I

5:22:07think that's what a lot of people in the

5:22:09community wanted to see and expected to

5:22:11see and and uh I think taking that out

5:22:14is

5:22:16undesirable.

5:22:17>> Yeah.

5:22:20So

5:22:23kind of sort of show my concern a little

5:22:25bit of to me this is feeling

5:22:30like

5:22:32it it almost seems

5:22:34less detailed out of us dictating

5:22:39if we just even said and I'm just

5:22:42throwing numbers out because I these are

5:22:44not qualified numbers. I'm going to say

5:22:485 acres of green space, 10 acres of

5:22:51green space, whatever,

5:22:53and 250,000

5:22:56square ft of commercial. Put it wherever

5:23:00you want because we don't also want a

5:23:03bunch of apartments

5:23:06with empty commercial underneath like

5:23:09downtown has. So that's what's going to

5:23:12happen if we tell them to do that

5:23:14because that I mean that could happen. I

5:23:16don't know. That's my thing. I'm I'm not

5:23:18here to determine if that's a good idea

5:23:20or not. But they may come up with

5:23:23something in three years that we don't

5:23:25even know about. They don't even know

5:23:26about that. Okay, we could actually we

5:23:29got Bel here. We can build this

5:23:32commercial here and then we're we're

5:23:35using this, you know, we're putting

5:23:37ground floor. we can afford to do that

5:23:39because we have groundf flooror

5:23:41five-story apartments.

5:23:44And so that's to me that kind of thing

5:23:48feels more comfortable and then let it

5:23:50happen because they say they don't have

5:23:52a plan or we're hearing they don't have

5:23:54a concept plan drawn. Uh if this

5:23:57property sells, somebody may have a

5:23:59thought and they can work with those

5:24:01terms. If we get too technical, that's

5:24:05where I feel like we're diving in a

5:24:07little too far. And the further you push

5:24:10in on something, the things come start

5:24:13coming in behind you that you don't

5:24:15know. And I mean, Bruce has been a help

5:24:18saying, "Well, this or that if you do

5:24:20that, which is good in the language, but

5:24:22[clears throat]

5:24:23>> Alex, are you saying

5:24:23>> that's kind of a concern I've got?"

5:24:25>> Doing that and just not putting any

5:24:27spatial restrictions to it. Is that what

5:24:29you mean? I'm throwing the idea out

5:24:30there in the work session to just sort

5:24:32of not put it not put it for them where

5:24:36we think it needs to go today because we

5:24:38don't know where it needs to go in three

5:24:40years when they finally get around to

5:24:42it.

5:24:42>> Yeah, I agree with that. That I agree

5:24:44with that.

5:24:45>> I agree that telling them where it

5:24:46should be is not our role. Um but if I

5:24:50may have misunderstood you, it sounded

5:24:51like you were saying let's just specify

5:24:53a certain number of square feet of

5:24:56commercial and a certain number of acres

5:24:59of plaza and green space and that sounds

5:25:02maybe too prescriptive as well like you

5:25:05know rather than saying 250,000 square

5:25:07feet of commercial I think saying x

5:25:10number of acres shall be an urban core

5:25:13which shall have the following

5:25:14characteristics and if they can fill

5:25:17250,000 square feet of commercial

5:25:19they'll build it but if they can only

5:25:21fill 100 then that's what they'll build

5:25:23and and so I'd be reluctant to require a

5:25:26certain number

5:25:27>> you know for the same reason that that

5:25:30you know uh the mark downtown has a lot

5:25:32of vacant commercial space and stuff

5:25:34like that. So you know I think defining

5:25:37the project area but letting them figure

5:25:39out the details of [clears throat] the

5:25:42how many square feet of commercial ought

5:25:44to go there and and what exactly it

5:25:47ought to look like and what the design

5:25:48ought to be like. But just saying like

5:25:49it has to have these characteristics

5:25:51like it's mixed use. you know. Um,

5:25:55>> and so you're not saying where it needs

5:25:56to be, but you're maybe giving it a

5:25:58minimum size.

5:25:59>> Yeah.

5:26:00>> Uhuh.

5:26:01>> Yeah.

5:26:01>> I do think we need to create some kind

5:26:03of protection so it's just not all

5:26:05pushed up to Atlanta highway because

5:26:06that will be the path of least

5:26:08resistance,

5:26:09>> right? But saying like, you know, it

5:26:11mixed use meaning residential over

5:26:13commercial means it's not going to be on

5:26:16Atlanta Highway because you can't do the

5:26:17buildings there.

5:26:18>> Um,

5:26:19>> I like that idea.

5:26:22and they [clears throat] so this core

5:26:24we're talking about can kind of go

5:26:26anywhere and look like anything like

5:26:28that's saying to

5:26:30>> generally trust developers to build

5:26:32stuff that they think looks good. I

5:26:33don't think you should try to prescribe

5:26:35what it's going to look like. They're

5:26:36not going to want to build something

5:26:37that the market doesn't want. Um, so I

5:26:40think giving them largely freehand, but

5:26:42just saying the the

5:26:45I don't know if we can estimate what the

5:26:46urban core part with the plaza and the

5:26:48green space on the PD look like doesn't

5:26:50even have to be that big, but if it was

5:26:52half that big, that'd be something.

5:26:54That'd be more than we're getting out of

5:26:55the overlay district as it's currently

5:26:57drafted. And that would make me feel a

5:26:59lot better about recommending it. So

5:27:01kind of when you're saying that big, a

5:27:03physical.

5:27:04>> Yeah. Just Yeah, exactly. Six acres,

5:27:06whatever. 10 acres. I don't know what

5:27:09that number is, but

5:27:10>> acres takes over the

5:27:13takes over the green space and the and

5:27:15the

5:27:16>> Exactly. And just you got to have this

5:27:18many acres

5:27:20of

5:27:22that.

5:27:23>> So thing like elements like residential,

5:27:26commercial, green space.

5:27:28>> Yeah, it has to have res.

5:27:31It has to have at least x% of public

5:27:34plaza and you know andor green space. Um

5:27:39you know just some characteristics just

5:27:41a few bullet points of like what urban

5:27:43center means to us what we mean to

5:27:46>> so this section that says development

5:27:48within the commercial mixeduse core

5:27:51shell. It kind of touches on a bit of

5:27:54those. It doesn't include the green

5:27:55space, but um but it's like the

5:27:57orientation

5:27:59um the ground floor uses,

5:28:02minimize blank walls, and the surface

5:28:05parking um parking decks and stuff.

5:28:08>> But maybe that the first paragraph would

5:28:10be where you where you'd have language

5:28:12about

5:28:14defining that core and how big how much

5:28:17area it needs to like the minimum area.

5:28:22I don't I I feel weird about even

5:28:24defining how much space. The only space

5:28:26that I feel strongly about defining is

5:28:27the green space. Everything else and and

5:28:31I I don't I don't know what to do about

5:28:32the commercial square footage, but those

5:28:34are the only two numbers that I feel

5:28:35strongly about seeing.

5:28:39And we have to

5:28:43also realize and I think we are but I'm

5:28:46saying it whatever whatever we do send

5:28:49forward in a denial or approval or these

5:28:53details or what

5:28:56it's it's going to go to another body

5:28:58that's going to have the final say in

5:29:00vote and they need to understand and and

5:29:04I would say

5:29:06understand and and agree at least At

5:29:09least in what we're seeing, they may

5:29:11tweak it or they may, you know, do their

5:29:13own things. But that's been a concern of

5:29:15mine is that with everything that the

5:29:18mayor and commission has to do at a

5:29:20meeting, all the different things that

5:29:22come at them and possibly time limited

5:29:25on studying, I I would just caution this

5:29:28as a work working group here.

5:29:31That's we're we're trying to build

5:29:33something they'll understand. Even if

5:29:36they don't agree, they they if they

5:29:39don't go our direction or they tweak it,

5:29:41they they know what they're they see

5:29:44what we're saying and and they can just

5:29:46say, "Well, I don't think we need

5:29:48[clears throat] 15 acres of that. I

5:29:49think 10's fine or whatever." But that's

5:29:52my concern because that's that's going

5:29:54to be the ultimate thing and it needs to

5:29:57as we said in a meeting earlier

5:30:00needs to be put in a in a form that that

5:30:03they do we do some more we're doing some

5:30:06work for them but I don't want to overdo

5:30:08it at the same time and and also look

5:30:10like God they just really got too deep

5:30:13into it but

5:30:14>> I agree with that.

5:30:15>> Keep them in mind I guess technically

5:30:18it's going to go to them. So, is it too

5:30:20complicated or too wonky to get into

5:30:23requiring a definition of of a mixed use

5:30:26core? And we're kind of back to

5:30:30um defining a minimum commercial square

5:30:33footage again or because I agree with

5:30:36what you just said and

5:30:39anything that gets

5:30:43>> Yeah, I don't know exactly what to do

5:30:45with that, but I but I agree.

5:30:46>> May maybe I can help. I don't know that

5:30:49I can. I'm gonna try though. Um, if you

5:30:52deconstruct

5:30:54this the vision that you have of this

5:30:56mixeduse area and you look at the

5:30:58component parts, I think that's what

5:30:59you're coming back to.

5:31:00>> Yeah.

5:31:00>> And how much of these component parts

5:31:02make the recipe of what you think is

5:31:04consistent

5:31:05>> with the urban center future land use

5:31:07designation,

5:31:08>> right? So if we're if we're if we're

5:31:11unbaking that cake a little bit and

5:31:13trying to figure it out, then yes, the

5:31:15the square footage of leasable

5:31:17commercial space is a component.

5:31:20We also sometimes talk about

5:31:22non-residential, not necessarily saying

5:31:24it has to be commercial, it's just

5:31:26non-residential

5:31:28and and having that be a a number. Um

5:31:32because what we were hearing from the

5:31:34developer side is that being overly

5:31:36prescriptive on commercial space was a

5:31:38was hamstringing all the way. Um so I'm

5:31:42just putting that out there as well. And

5:31:44then if we are coming back to numbers,

5:31:47we haven't made it to green space yet.

5:31:50we have a definition for open space

5:31:51that's in the code that may be helpful

5:31:54with with defining that and we can lift

5:31:56from that language and say open space

5:31:59instead of green space which I can read

5:32:02that when we get there um but if you

5:32:03start putting these components together

5:32:09density urban center is characterized by

5:32:12building height and building massing and

5:32:14building proximity and um and in some

5:32:18respects

5:32:19addressing the parking issue and and

5:32:22trying to make it more active with

5:32:24buildings, not necessarily because they

5:32:25have this or that in it. It's just not a

5:32:27parking lot.

5:32:29So, I'm just throwing that out there for

5:32:31the discussion. I I don't I haven't

5:32:33gotten down to how you've addressed

5:32:35parking, but um that was kind of the

5:32:38think behind dialing down the parking

5:32:41ratio is so that we wouldn't end up

5:32:43overparked in the overlay by

5:32:46requirement, you know.

5:32:48To the point that we had earlier

5:32:50tonight, developers don't want to have

5:32:52to build parking spaces if they don't

5:32:54have to because it's far more profitable

5:32:56for them to have a leasable space or a

5:32:59unit to sell. So that ratio is different

5:33:02in the overlay. It's it's more

5:33:03permissive. So

5:33:06yeah, it's late. I don't I'm kind of

5:33:08rambling, but I I think I think we can

5:33:10put the numbers together and let the

5:33:12pieces find their way. And if the

5:33:15connectivity, this is what the overlay

5:33:18as drafted was trying to say is like,

5:33:20okay, let the pieces find their way, but

5:33:22here are some things that we for sure

5:33:24want to have. And that's pedestrian

5:33:26connectivity east to west, north to the

5:33:28south. And that as we put together these

5:33:30various elements over time, whether it's

5:33:33five acres here or an acre and a half

5:33:34there or whatever, they're all going to

5:33:36have sidewalks. are all going to have um

5:33:40orientations toward like that

5:33:41orientation statement is is part of the

5:33:44CG design standards anyway.

5:33:47So um and if it gets big enough there's

5:33:51a plaza requirement anyway.

5:33:54So some of that is already in there.

5:33:56>> I was with you but then you kind of

5:33:58veered off into suburbia. So [laughter]

5:34:01like I I I think the only difference

5:34:04though is like that that idea of just

5:34:07being very a little bit more intentional

5:34:09with defining that there be a space

5:34:13somewhere on this property that has the

5:34:17components of an urban core that

5:34:19includes green space and activation on

5:34:23the street level and non-residential

5:34:25uses. You know like that that to me is

5:34:28sort of like the bare minimum that would

5:34:30be required for space. I don't want to

5:34:32say the square footage. I don't want to

5:34:34say but and the idea here is that the

5:34:37portion of the required commercial space

5:34:38shall be concentrated within a

5:34:40designated commercial mixeduse core. So

5:34:42yes, they're at 100,000 square feet and

5:34:45yes, it's a little problematic that we

5:34:46have a Bel Island that's like 120,000

5:34:48square feet, but if they're stuck on on

5:34:51Atlanta Highway,

5:34:54there needs to be at least a core around

5:34:58Bel, right? So this is at least creating

5:35:01Okay, maybe we have a Bel Island, but

5:35:03maybe it's a Bel Island with a green

5:35:05space and a little bit more

5:35:08like connectivity around it.

5:35:11Yeah, and that would be up to them if

5:35:12they want to incorporate Belulk into the

5:35:14downtown urban and core kind of vibe.

5:35:16Great, right? I mean, downtowns used to

5:35:18have department stores. That's where

5:35:19department stores were before they

5:35:20invented malls. And so maybe they build

5:35:23up a new 21st century urban center with

5:35:26Belulk at one end of it and then they're

5:35:29commercial and plaza and so on and

5:35:32that's great. Um, but yeah, I mean I I

5:35:34feel like the the statement in the draft

5:35:37that says that the overlay has to

5:35:39maintain 150,000 square feet of

5:35:41commercial space is kind of an illusory

5:35:44requirement because they have a lease to

5:35:46Belk that requires them to maintain

5:35:48almost that much commercial space. Right

5:35:49now there's nothing anybody can do to

5:35:51reduce it below that because they have a

5:35:53lease with Belk. So we're not really

5:35:54requiring anything. That's just, you

5:35:56know,

5:35:57>> um,

5:35:57>> it's not a hundredyear lease, though.

5:35:59>> No, you're right. It'll end eventually.

5:36:01That's absolutely right. Um but um

5:36:06the I mean just for perspective on what

5:36:09visualizing like how big of an urban

5:36:11core if we wanted to do it in terms of

5:36:13acreage the varsity property I just

5:36:15measure looked on Q public it's just shy

5:36:17of seven acres from you know the four

5:36:21streets that enclose that property

5:36:23including that little corner where the

5:36:24three land trust houses are just the

5:36:26rectangle is is just shy of seven acres

5:36:30so That's a pretty good sized piece of

5:36:33property. If they did on this 80 acre

5:36:35parcel, if they could do seven acres of

5:36:38um kind of an urban core thing, I think

5:36:41that's a pretty substantial

5:36:44um thing that could potentially have

5:36:47enough business to attract people to

5:36:50come there and recreate and dine out and

5:36:54um stuff like that. Um, so I don't know

5:36:58if that's the right number, but just

5:37:00>> maybe we think of it in scales. I mean,

5:37:03if it's 10%, 15%,

5:37:05>> right? 10% is 8 acres, just a little

5:37:06bigger than the varsity property. Not

5:37:08asking, I think, a great deal. Um, I

5:37:12don't know how many acres the Bel takes

5:37:13up. So, so you know,

5:37:17>> does Bel have a 60,000 square footprint?

5:37:20>> 127,000.

5:37:22uh heated floor space

5:37:24>> and it's

5:37:25>> the footprints halfish that.

5:37:29>> So that would be an acre and a half.

5:37:32>> So if you're 8 acres is green space with

5:37:37>> Yeah, it would include green space

5:37:40>> non residential built around it.

5:37:42>> It I'm not an 8 acre green space. I'm

5:37:44saying an 8 acre kind of urban core with

5:37:47which would include

5:37:48>> each of these uses is represented

5:37:49>> each of these uses like I think the list

5:37:51of four things there which shall you

5:37:54know do that but I think that's a good

5:37:55start and then also like you know u

5:37:58provide

5:38:00um

5:38:02mixed use buildings including um ground

5:38:06floor non-residential uses and uh with

5:38:09residential above um and you know they

5:38:13can figure out how to

5:38:14arrange it. But I think just a few

5:38:16things that we expect an urban core to

5:38:18have. Um it's pretty straightforward,

5:38:21pretty simple to for the public to

5:38:23understand when they read about it in

5:38:25the flag pole for um merit vision to get

5:38:29what we're trying to do whether they

5:38:31agree or not. You know, I think it it

5:38:33feels pretty straightforward. It doesn't

5:38:35feel like, oh, these guys really went

5:38:37down a weird rabbit hole.

5:38:39>> Yeah. No, I I can I see what you're

5:38:40saying now and I I can get on board with

5:38:41that because we're not talking about a

5:38:44five acre field. We're talking about a

5:38:46section that could be anywhere in the

5:38:49development that would be 10% or less of

5:38:52the development that includes commercial

5:38:55and residential which are things that

5:38:56are already going to be part of the

5:38:58development presumably.

5:39:00just asking that they be organized in a

5:39:03way

5:39:05it just be organized in a certain way

5:39:07>> and it can be wherever on the

5:39:08development they want it to be

5:39:10>> but we need to specify that it can't be

5:39:12sliced and diced it can't be

5:39:15>> contiguous

5:39:16>> a contiguous

5:39:17>> an urban core is a contiguous area of

5:39:21the approved plan that includes a green

5:39:24space and ground floor non-residential

5:39:28above residential

5:39:30And it could be

5:39:35the walking bass and and um

5:39:40>> yeah. So maybe an age the very first

5:39:43primary pedestrian

5:39:44>> rather than the overlay shall maintain

5:39:46the 150,000 because they're doing that

5:39:48anyway. to say, you know, um the overlay

5:39:51shall incorporate

5:39:54um a

5:39:56commercial mixeduse urban core.

5:40:02Maybe not commercial, just a a mixed use

5:40:04urban core. Um

5:40:10which shall, you know, somewhere on the

5:40:12>> incorporates a green space

5:40:14>> which shall incorporates the following

5:40:16features and then a list.

5:40:18>> Yes.

5:40:22that he's going to somewhere going to

5:40:25say

5:40:27contiguous, you know, I don't know if

5:40:29we're talking about eight acres or 10%

5:40:31or what.

5:40:32>> Yeah, I guess we could say contiguous

5:40:33before mixed use.

5:40:37[laughter]

5:40:40>> And then we don't need to have that

5:40:42150,000.

5:40:43>> Yeah.

5:40:44>> Would you like me to just delete this

5:40:45section?

5:40:46>> I think so. Yeah. or highlight it and

5:40:49then delete it.

5:40:50>> Can you highlight it and remove it?

5:40:51>> I would leave the I would ask that soon

5:40:54as part

5:40:56>> Yeah, I would leave that part.

5:40:59>> Yeah,

5:40:59>> maybe just delete it and move it into a

5:41:01comment on the side.

5:41:03>> Oh,

5:41:03>> sure.

5:41:03>> Oh, sorry. Not what you just did. Yeah.

5:41:06>> Oh, I got you. I got you.

5:41:08>> Yeah. I just don't want

5:41:10>> you got I got

5:41:15>> Robert's got the most annoying up quick.

5:41:19>> I'm going to be a good stenographer.

5:41:21>> There you go. [laughter]

5:41:23>> Um,

5:41:25so it it it might be that the sentence

5:41:29that that's right now in red could that

5:41:31could be the beginning of it.

5:41:34I think before we just talk about the

5:41:35features, we need to say

5:41:41>> that I think you get into the spatial

5:41:43definition should happen there. And that

5:41:45I think is kind of where you could say a

5:41:47contiguous

5:41:49um

5:41:52>> I don't know if the best thing is

5:41:53percentage or an anchorage.

5:41:58I would yeah I would just say um after

5:42:01the words urban core in the second line

5:42:03I would put the part that's highlighted

5:42:05uh the commercial mixeduse core um the

5:42:08continuous mixuse urban core

5:42:11>> and then shall function

5:42:12>> which shall

5:42:14function as a focal

5:42:20>> um the

5:42:22urban core shall incorporate the yeah

5:42:25exactly

5:42:29I think you could maybe just call this

5:42:32this section mix. Well, never mind.

5:42:33We'll keep going.

5:42:36>> Um,

5:42:36>> do you like to name some features?

5:42:39>> Yeah. So

5:42:47>> a spatial definition then or

5:42:48>> so no less than 10% of the properties

5:42:51[clears throat]

5:42:54>> I would say I would just say eight acres

5:42:56which we know to be almost exactly 10%.

5:43:00And that way if they p if they start

5:43:01personeling it it's it doesn't create

5:43:04ambiguity.

5:43:04>> True.

5:43:06And that 8 acres

5:43:08>> includes what they already have the bel

5:43:12and the

5:43:12>> well they put it where they want. It's

5:43:14just an eight acre part. If they want to

5:43:16>> include bel and tack on five and a half

5:43:19more acres or whatever you know to make

5:43:21it eight that's

5:43:22>> start a list but we're including

5:43:25>> base already.

5:43:27>> Yeah. Yeah. They put it right on the

5:43:28edge of bulk and they want to count bulk

5:43:29in it.

5:43:30>> That's fine. It's, you know, we know how

5:43:33many

5:43:33>> minimum of eight acres was just guessing

5:43:35an acre and a half. She thought 60,000

5:43:38square footprint roughly. So that would

5:43:41be an acre and a half.

5:43:43>> Maybe it's two acres by the time you add

5:43:45on sidewalks around it and stuff like

5:43:46that.

5:43:48>> It's not totally

5:43:53I don't know what the actual footprint

5:43:55would be

5:43:57at this moment. Um,

5:43:59so ground floor nonresidential uses

5:44:04[clears throat]

5:44:05>> below.

5:44:06So

5:44:06>> what's non-residential but not

5:44:08commercial?

5:44:09>> Office. Oh,

5:44:12>> still kind of commercial. Institutional.

5:44:15Oh, like a school type thing or like a

5:44:17day. Well, daycare is still commercial,

5:44:19right?

5:44:20>> Clinic. Clinic. Okay. Um, you know, uh,

5:44:24>> residential uses.

5:44:25>> I'm just curious. Yeah. Yeah, I mean

5:44:27private a private school the nursing

5:44:30school on the east side.

5:44:31>> Oh, in the in the shopping center. Okay.

5:44:34>> Institutional use.

5:44:35>> Okay.

5:44:36>> So, it's broader than commercial. You're

5:44:37saying like your use of it

5:44:39>> non office even though it's a private

5:44:41non-residential doesn't just mean

5:44:43commercial. Nonidential is a broader

5:44:45>> kind of more.

5:44:45>> Okay. Cool.

5:44:46>> Henses of the verbs might have to be

5:44:48adjusted.

5:44:51>> I just haven't heard us make that

5:44:52distinction. I guess so.

5:44:54So actually

5:44:55>> we have bottling plant [clears throat]

5:44:56as like you know what we use for like a

5:44:58brewery or a brew something like that.

5:45:00>> Okay.

5:45:01>> I guess that's okay.

5:45:02>> Like in our industrial category.

5:45:04>> Okay.

5:45:04>> Some light indust are items two and

5:45:07items four in that list different each

5:45:09other.

5:45:11>> I think two might be slightly better

5:45:13than four.

5:45:16Although I think the lower residential

5:45:18uses it sits weird with me.

5:45:23My feelings.

5:45:34>> So actually four you could you could

5:45:35take out two and you could change four

5:45:38to like provide

5:45:39>> the first one

5:45:41>> active non-residential ground floor uses

5:45:44along design designated. I mean, I think

5:45:46that we I'd rather not prescribe that it

5:45:51has to be residential above and partial

5:45:53below. I think that that's probably what

5:45:54would happen, but

5:45:58>> is there anything else that would be

5:46:01>> the green space?

5:46:05>> Yeah. At least um X like

5:46:09>> one acre one contiguous acre of green

5:46:12space or something like that.

5:46:16and

5:46:17>> yeah continue

5:46:18>> if this is likely and just help me this

5:46:21is a question not as much concern I

5:46:24don't guess but all right so

5:46:28um it's been stated tonight that and I I

5:46:33could see why this is probably going to

5:46:35be a phased deal and not going to come

5:46:36in with everything all at once. So

5:46:41the connection to all of this, are we

5:46:44going to get into that part or is it

5:46:47covered up when do they have to produce

5:46:52this commercial and this because they

5:46:54were talking about kind of moving it

5:46:55around maybe a little bit, but that's

5:46:57not what we're talking about here. So

5:46:59>> no, that's not an urban center that

5:47:01>> I think they were talking about that

5:47:02with regard to the green space.

5:47:04>> Yeah, the one acre of green space.

5:47:07I think um you're that's part of why I

5:47:10was reluctant to say like this many

5:47:12square feet of commercial because it may

5:47:14be phased but they can start with an

5:47:168acre thing and only build commercial on

5:47:19part of it and leave some a lot more of

5:47:21it kind of you know open um and then

5:47:25later build out more as there's demand.

5:47:28if they don't see the demand to do like

5:47:30a full 8 acre downtown area right away,

5:47:33they can build the first third and

5:47:34whatever, you know, they can phase it

5:47:36just like they're phasing the rest of

5:47:37the project. But if they decided,

5:47:41okay, it's makes more sense to build

5:47:43apartments and make money that way and

5:47:45then not even touch. We're just going to

5:47:47put a grassy field out there um till we

5:47:51till we darn well please. Um what's

5:47:53going to prevent that? So some sort

5:47:56acres of green space then

5:47:59>> you mean if they put

5:48:01on and never put any commercial I mean I

5:48:04think the only thing that prevents that

5:48:05is the profit motive that if they have a

5:48:08developable acres um they're more likely

5:48:10to eventually um find a profitable way

5:48:14to develop it into within these

5:48:16parameters than to just leave it as

5:48:18grass. But if it's an 8 acre green

5:48:20space, I guess that's

5:48:23bigger than intended. That's eight

5:48:24football fields. But, you know, I I just

5:48:27can't imagine they end there and say

5:48:29like, "Okay, we're done."

5:48:31>> Yeah. But I I can easily [clears throat]

5:48:34imagine them going

5:48:37and I mean, I think if they built 4,000

5:48:40beds right now, that wouldn't be very

5:48:42smart either. Um, but so, but again, we

5:48:46kind of want to leave it to them. I

5:48:47mean, that's the flavor of this. We

5:48:49don't want to tell them exactly how to

5:48:50do it, but

5:48:52>> um the way commercial can be, it just

5:48:56this this could turn out to still be

5:49:00apartments

5:49:01and

5:49:05then 15 years down the road, they've

5:49:07done all of that because that's the

5:49:09let's just imagine that that's the quick

5:49:11money maker. I don't know if it is or

5:49:13not down the road. Um, so they just they

5:49:20you know, one thing that got me to do

5:49:23this uh a vote in favor of the uh West

5:49:27Clocks was that there was that tie in.

5:49:29All right, we can start off with some

5:49:32things that make money to start building

5:49:34apartments, but we can't go to this next

5:49:36group until we take care of this.

5:49:39>> Um, I mean, that was the deal maker for

5:49:41me because it wouldn't I wouldn't have

5:49:43gone along.

5:49:45just yeah we're going to do that we'll

5:49:47build some stuff that sure we will that

5:49:49no they won't they're going to follow

5:49:51the money which they should if I were a

5:49:53CEO of a company like that that's my job

5:49:55to do so

5:49:58if if we're going to really make this a

5:49:59destination which see you know a place

5:50:02where again people want to go to

5:50:06we either need to do that part

5:50:09or not at all because this is still

5:50:11being set up to be apartments pardon

5:50:13>> what do you think would original way to

5:50:15do that. Like I would be reticent to

5:50:17have that be the first required phase or

5:50:20first required element. The transit

5:50:22facility

5:50:24clause or whatever we're calling that

5:50:26section of this talks about

5:50:30that that site shall be designated or

5:50:33that that that the what it says about

5:50:36the transit facility is within the

5:50:37overlay. A minimum two acres site shall

5:50:40be identified for the development of of

5:50:42the facility for use by Athens Transit.

5:50:44It shall be approved by ACC

5:50:48uh etc. prior to the issuance of a CO

5:50:51for the first phase of development.

5:50:54And so

5:50:57it could borrow from that with the idea

5:51:00being it it doesn't really prevent them

5:51:04from saying like, okay, these kind of

5:51:07back acre like we, you know, we don't

5:51:09ever intend to do this, so we're going

5:51:10to put these eight acres somewhere and

5:51:12we're just never going to touch them.

5:51:14But but it could be something along

5:51:16those lines like that.

5:51:20requires that that be identified.

5:51:23Um,

5:51:25again, I would I wouldn't really want to

5:51:28prescribe the shape of it,

5:51:30>> right?

5:51:31>> Because we do want to provide, but I

5:51:35>> I'm only interested in trapezoids.

5:51:38[laughter]

5:51:38>> Good.

5:51:40>> Alex, is what you were thinking like a a

5:51:42threshold to unlock density like the

5:51:44West Clocks Yeah. proposal where they

5:51:47want 50 beds an acre, but they get 40

5:51:51until they've developed this.

5:51:53>> Yeah. It just ties this in not at their

5:51:55will to never do because because what

5:51:58we're describing is something they don't

5:52:00really ever have to do

5:52:02>> except put in a big old plot of grass.

5:52:05I'm sympathetic to the motivation behind

5:52:07that. Um, I guess my only worry is, um,

5:52:12that

5:52:14the more kind of micromanagy

5:52:18and detailed this is, the more the mayor

5:52:22and commission are, you know, might

5:52:24scratch their heads a little and be

5:52:25like, I don't know what they're trying

5:52:26to do here. And this is like there with

5:52:28the Westox thing, the applicant proposed

5:52:30it and it wasn't like our brainchild,

5:52:34you know? The applicant proposed it. We

5:52:36said that sounds great. they took it up,

5:52:38you know. Um, and so

5:52:41for us to try to craft something like

5:52:44that

5:52:45um

5:52:47to force the applicant to build it on a

5:52:49certain schedule or something just has

5:52:51that disadvantage. It seems like we're

5:52:53kind of um over

5:52:56stirring the cake batter and maybe it

5:52:59gets tough. it just gets a little

5:53:00harder.

5:53:01>> No, I mean I I I see that but and I see

5:53:04that with all the stuff we're doing

5:53:06here. Like I mean we we're we're

5:53:11that does that. So, I guess my point is

5:53:14if we're going to even think

5:53:17that I mean we don't again in three

5:53:21years when they get around to do it, you

5:53:22know, if this gets some type of approval

5:53:24and they move forward, they may that may

5:53:26be one that we're gonna go. We're gonna

5:53:28do more commercial right now.

5:53:29Commercial's hot. I don't know. They,

5:53:31you know,

5:53:32>> well, yeah, you 4,000 apartments are

5:53:33going to be more attractive to people if

5:53:35there's a, you know, Shake Shack and

5:53:38Chipotle and other Bobi and stuff like

5:53:40that. So, I would think that the

5:53:41incentives are going to be pointing in

5:53:44the right direction for them. They're

5:53:45going to want to do some of it. Um, if

5:53:48it's part of the approval, they're

5:53:49they're I think it's going to be to

5:53:51their advantage to do it. And so, I'm

5:53:53I'm comfortable relying on

5:53:56on on that.

5:53:58>> What if what if because I I appreciate

5:54:01the sentiment. Um, I'm not sure what to

5:54:05What if we put if you Robert if you just

5:54:07highlighted like following features and

5:54:09add as a comment uh trigger question

5:54:12mark and that just kind of puts a pin in

5:54:14that as like if this is something that

5:54:16we wanted to circle back to. Um

5:54:21Yeah.

5:54:23Um so because it might be that we get to

5:54:26a different section and something

5:54:27becomes a little more obvious, right? Or

5:54:29not.

5:54:30>> Yeah. Um, and then we could take that

5:54:33highlighted part and move that out too.

5:54:37>> Just delete.

5:54:39>> Um, we just delete it. It's fine.

5:54:42>> And we already have this listed

5:54:43elsewhere, right? We delete those.

5:54:45>> Yes.

5:54:47>> One other thing on this list. Now that

5:54:49we've identified like a the idea of an

5:54:518acre urban core, I would say that 8acre

5:54:55urban core probably ought not to have

5:54:57surface parking at all. Also, rather

5:55:00than saying locating surface parking

5:55:01away from pedestrian frontages, maybe

5:55:05say, you know, um shall not have surface

5:55:08parking. I don't know if they would do

5:55:09decks or just do the parking right

5:55:11outside the 8 acre zone, but either way,

5:55:13like the idea is a walkable downtown

5:55:16plaza connecting businesses and so on.

5:55:19And so, I don't think we want um

5:55:22lots. Do we need to make it clear that

5:55:24the trans two acres for transit center

5:55:27is not part of this eight acres? This

5:55:29eight acres stands on its own outside of

5:55:32that.

5:55:33>> Yes, probably.

5:55:34>> Yeah, because that would be owned by ACC

5:55:36anyway.

5:55:38So, they would be developing it.

5:55:40>> Okay. Yeah, but I mean we could specify,

5:55:42you know, show um

5:55:45not less than eight continuous acres um

5:55:48comma which shall not include the

5:55:51transit center or something like that

5:55:53>> or surface parking.

5:55:56>> Sure.

5:55:56>> Oh yeah.

5:55:58>> Or surface parking.

5:55:59>> Transit center or surface parking. Sure.

5:56:03Um,

5:56:05also we did just delete any sort of

5:56:08minimum square footage, commercial

5:56:10square footage. Do we want that to live

5:56:11in here?

5:56:14>> Seems like

5:56:14>> because are we sort of saying like if

5:56:17commercial is handled in this urban core

5:56:20that what happens outside the urban core

5:56:24would be all res with the exception of

5:56:27the Atlanta highway frontage. Is that

5:56:30sort of

5:56:31>> I think what I what I'm remembering from

5:56:32our very first conversation about this

5:56:34is just as the overlay was initially

5:56:37written there was nothing that

5:56:38guaranteed with the exception of the

5:56:40first um frontage off Atlanta highway

5:56:44there was nothing that prevented from

5:56:45being all apartments

5:56:48um and so

5:56:51I feel more comfortable with that notion

5:56:52if there is this defined mixeduse core

5:56:55>> right

5:56:56>> and being a little bit prescriptive

5:56:58about that core But then flexible

5:57:00outside of that.

5:57:01>> Yes.

5:57:03>> Um and so I don't know what a reasonable

5:57:07minimum

5:57:09I mean what was the number we just

5:57:11deleted? Was it 150?

5:57:18Um,

5:57:19>> we could put that back in here, but um

5:57:24I'm agnostic about whether the

5:57:27um

5:57:30Belk for instance, if they want to build

5:57:32the belk, you build build the urban core

5:57:34around the bulk, that's fine. and then

5:57:37you know the belt then all of the

5:57:40commercial or most of it is in the core.

5:57:42But if they built it someplace else on

5:57:44the parcel,

5:57:46you know, we don't necessarily want to

5:57:47say that the core has to have 150,000

5:57:49square feet because that essentially

5:57:51forces them to put the core next to the

5:57:53bell,

5:57:54>> right? Um, so can we say like the

5:57:57overlay shall incorporate at least

5:57:59150,000 square feet of commercial at all

5:58:03times and shall incorporate a mixeduse

5:58:06urban core, you know, so that if they

5:58:09don't want the Belulk to be part of the

5:58:11core, that's their option. But if they

5:58:13do, that's their option as well.

5:58:15>> It still puts in a position where

5:58:16there's only 10,000 square feet required

5:58:19for our new urban core. You're saying

5:58:23>> you're saying Yeah. So maybe

5:58:27I mean the the logical thing would be to

5:58:31build a corner around the belt,

5:58:33>> right?

5:58:34>> And so

5:58:36um

5:58:37>> I mean I assume it would be but I don't

5:58:39know.

5:58:40>> They'll figure out.

5:58:42>> So what would the number be?

5:58:44>> I like that being loose for them. I mean

5:58:46and easy to interpret. Um if and but are

5:58:52you kind of m back back to saying

5:58:57still doing the 150 square feet and you

5:59:01were you were saying sort of that and

5:59:03the 8 acres of mixed use.

5:59:07>> Yes. So, so now we got now instead of

5:59:10that combined it's

5:59:12elk is no longer included in

5:59:14>> No, no, I'm not I'm not saying and in

5:59:16addition it makes use it just it has to

5:59:18have this much commercial somewhere in

5:59:20the whole overlay

5:59:22and it must include a mixed use urban

5:59:25core u

5:59:29focal area for commercial residential

5:59:30civic and pedestrian activity

5:59:32incorporating the following features.

5:59:34Uh, so the

5:59:42it's not meant that they have to have

5:59:43the belt plus 8 acres and I don't think

5:59:46that this phrasing suggests that.

5:59:49>> Yeah, I think how it currently sits,

5:59:50it's fine. It question is whether we

5:59:53would want to bump the number up at all.

5:59:55>> Right. Yeah, I think that otherwise

5:59:57we've all left ourselves open for that

6:00:00eight eight acres to be green space

6:00:01surrounded by primarily residential.

6:00:05Yeah, I mean I think to the extent that

6:00:07there [laughter] is markets demand for

6:00:09commercial space

6:00:11and they have a sixacre parcel that's

6:00:14meant to be an urban core where you know

6:00:17if they build it they got to build

6:00:18commercial space they probably end up

6:00:21you know build I mean they'll build

6:00:22whatever they can profitably build. If

6:00:24there's a bunch of restaurants

6:00:27>> that want to go in there they'll build

6:00:28more than 150. But if we if we were to

6:00:32say like 175 now, then that kind of

6:00:36forces them to phase that, you know, to

6:00:39do a lot of commercial early,

6:00:41>> which they may not be able to do,

6:00:42>> which they may not be able to do.

6:00:43>> Yeah. I worry about changing the number

6:00:45just because it feels arbitrary to me.

6:00:47>> Yeah.

6:00:47>> At least 150 has a basis in reality in

6:00:50some fashion and is something that

6:00:52already exists in what we have and I

6:00:54feel weird up

6:00:58there. But again without a tip point

6:01:01like there's no we don't have to get

6:01:03that eight acres at any point any time

6:01:06in development until at some point. Yes,

6:01:09we

6:01:11>> we should move on to another section

6:01:13because it's midnight and um

6:01:15>> so are we saying though just real quick

6:01:17about are we saying that the overlay

6:01:21I are we saying that it has to

6:01:24incorporate 180 square feet of

6:01:26commercial space and a core and that

6:01:30whether that commercial is in the core

6:01:32or not is up for

6:01:35>> Yeah. So what's the point of the mixed

6:01:37use core? There's commercial on it.

6:01:44Can it just be that the mixed juice pork

6:01:47is still doing that?

6:01:49>> I mean it has to contain

6:01:51>> some commercial to be mixed.

6:01:53>> Yeah.

6:01:54>> And so do we do we put that number to

6:01:56it?

6:01:58>> Um

6:02:01I think like you said it's

6:02:07it would undoubtedly be more sensible

6:02:10for them to incorporate the belt into

6:02:11the core.

6:02:13>> Um but if for some reason they find they

6:02:15think otherwise they decide like I

6:02:16actually you know what we want to put it

6:02:18over

6:02:18>> Yeah.

6:02:19>> in this other place. Um

6:02:21>> so this gives flexibility

6:02:23>> in a way.

6:02:24>> Yeah. Yeah. We give them flexibility. I

6:02:25think that's my inclination anyway.

6:02:31Okay.

6:02:35Ground floor dwellings shall be

6:02:36permitted except within 250 ft of

6:02:39Atlanta highway or in the urban co that

6:02:42makes use

6:02:46of a question about the town home

6:02:48development statement. What's our

6:02:50maximum number of town homes we can have

6:02:52now? Six connected.

6:02:54>> Is it four or six connected town homes?

6:02:57>> The definition says 10.

6:03:00Yeah, we've got so the so the limitation

6:03:03what it's referring to is

6:03:07shared wall construction when it's

6:03:09allowed in RS5 has a max

6:03:13and so

6:03:17yeah I mean the code allows 10 as an

6:03:20open-ended thing. This was kind of a nod

6:03:22to

6:03:24bringing up some stuff that is

6:03:26restricted by single family residential

6:03:28development standards. But

6:03:32>> so we're shrinking the number of

6:03:33attached town homes they can

6:03:34>> that's

6:03:36the wording that was developed. Yes,

6:03:39it's eight is a max.

6:03:41>> Okay. I thought we were expanding it

6:03:43from what we allow. So we allow 10 now.

6:03:45>> Yes.

6:03:46>> How do we do that then?

6:03:48>> Learn something new every day. Was

6:03:51that part of the mayor commission's

6:03:52instruction?

6:03:57>> Was there reasoning behind it?

6:04:00>> That restriction I just described that

6:04:03pops up as four, no more than four.

6:04:06>> Um, being an RS limitation where we had

6:04:09the shared ball construction. I think

6:04:11that was the motivation for that wording

6:04:13is but when you have CGbased zoning, you

6:04:16don't have that limitation. But it was

6:04:19kind of neither here nor there.

6:04:21>> Okay. I mean, I sort of feel like if

6:04:22that's what they wanted, I don't really

6:04:24see a problem with that.

6:04:29>> No more than two full baths and then

6:04:30four multif family dwellings. And that's

6:04:34the one thing about parking, right? That

6:04:35that where it just says

6:04:37>> random.

6:04:39>> But I saw another version of that where

6:04:40it said the thing about 2.5 parking

6:04:42spots per drawing. Yeah.

6:04:43>> It feels kind of high.

6:04:45>> So that's that's under the parking

6:04:47structure. So the residential standards

6:04:49number four just said multif family

6:04:50dwelling.

6:04:52>> So I think we just want to delete that.

6:04:53It just

6:04:54>> Yeah. No, I think Yeah,

6:04:55>> sure.

6:04:55>> No, I think it

6:04:56>> multi family dwellings.

6:05:00>> So yeah, I think

6:05:02>> I think hold up. So I think it jumped

6:05:05when

6:05:06>> just jumped down.

6:05:07>> Yeah. If you look under parking

6:05:08structure.

6:05:09>> Yep.

6:05:10>> Where it says I1.

6:05:12>> Oh, so that should say multi family

6:05:13dwelling maximum of two and a half.

6:05:16Okay. Yeah.

6:05:18So that should be under K4. You just

6:05:20want to move that language up to K4.

6:05:22Yes.

6:05:22>> So that Yeah. So here that would go

6:05:24under there.

6:05:26But no, leave that there.

6:05:29>> I don't think it has to stay there.

6:05:32It shall have a that can go up.

6:05:34>> Oh, so that's related to the residential

6:05:35standards. That's related to that random

6:05:38multif family building.

6:05:39>> Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

6:05:40>> Parking structures are a separate

6:05:42Gotcha. special,

6:05:44right?

6:05:57now two and a half per dwelling. That

6:05:59includes studios and one bedrooms.

6:06:01That's the maximum. So a studio they

6:06:05wanted to have one space. It's fine.

6:06:07Like that would be what code allows now.

6:06:10So what this is saying is the

6:06:12[clears throat] way our code works now

6:06:13is the maximum amount of parking is the

6:06:16minimum times plus 50%.

6:06:19Which allows for single family to have

6:06:21three parking spaces. Um, so what this

6:06:26is getting at with that multif family

6:06:28also is if you have

6:06:31um

6:06:36uh in multif family development, a

6:06:38two-bedroom dwelling unit is required to

6:06:40have two spaces per unit. And the way

6:06:44this reads now is you could go to three.

6:06:46So this is shaving off half a space

6:06:49>> or as a max larger bedroom.

6:06:51>> Correct. Is it three and four also can

6:06:53have only two required?

6:06:55>> Yeah. Yeah. So, but could go to three

6:06:57with well

6:06:58>> right

6:06:59>> and so what this is meant to do over you

6:07:01know the 80 acres is half a space

6:07:05required per unit and you have who knows

6:07:07how many hundreds of units potentially

6:07:10go. Um, so it takes away half a space

6:07:13per unit of two bedrooms or higher, but

6:07:15it adds a full space per unit to the max

6:07:18for any onebedroom or studio unit where

6:07:21they're required to have one, they could

6:07:23have 1.5 and now they could have

6:07:25>> could.

6:07:25>> So yeah, so if they want to do

6:07:28more,

6:07:30they can if they have like 50% onebs,

6:07:33they'll they'll be able to put back

6:07:34those spaces that we took away.

6:07:37>> Good. Yeah. But, [clears throat]

6:07:40you know, if that's something that you

6:07:43guys are interested in in kind of

6:07:45indexing so that

6:07:49so that you can't get three, your

6:07:50maximum is two and a half, then it would

6:07:53be changing the percentage to 25%.

6:07:58Rather than a 50% bump to get to the

6:08:00max.

6:08:01>> Oh, I see. Yeah. Just say the maximum

6:08:04shall be 1.25, the minimum.

6:08:09for for all sizes. Y and that's multif

6:08:12family assuming you're going to have

6:08:14multiple units. That math is silly for a

6:08:17single family home,

6:08:18>> but for multi Yeah,

6:08:20>> that's an elegant way to do it. I like

6:08:21that.

6:08:22>> So, what's the best way to word that?

6:08:25Multif family dwellings shall have a

6:08:27minimum of

6:08:28>> no shall have a

6:08:30maximum

6:08:32uh for multif family dwellings the

6:08:35maximum number of parking spaces shall

6:08:37be 1.25 25 times

6:08:41>> required

6:08:43>> where normally it's 1.5.

6:08:45>> Okay.

6:08:56>> Can you say it again?

6:08:57>> I would say for multif family dwellings,

6:09:01the maximum

6:09:03number of parking spaces shall be

6:09:070.25

6:09:12>> and then yeah what you have 25

6:09:16minimum

6:09:25is the parking minimum for multi

6:09:27>> it's two you two spaces for a twobedroom

6:09:29or larger

6:09:33>> there's lots of people wildlife in this

6:09:37I don't know. Trying to crawl in here

6:09:39earlier.

6:09:40>> Parking has this additional paragraph

6:09:43that's um just kind of dictating where

6:09:46surface parking would go. Um

6:09:49>> I like parking integrated random

6:09:52pattern.

6:09:55>> I like that. I don't think there's

6:09:56anything.

6:09:59>> Um the only thing that's not in there

6:10:03in the new one is something about um

6:10:06that the planning director may

6:10:10>> Are you keeping those both in there?

6:10:11Sorry. Got it.

6:10:12>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that's existing.

6:10:14Yeah.

6:10:14>> Okay.

6:10:19>> Does the buffer section I think Sarah

6:10:21might ask this question.

6:10:24Um the last sentence of the buffer

6:10:26section sounds like it's saying that

6:10:27there's basically no buffer requirement.

6:10:29Is that the intention? Like the first

6:10:31sentence describes the buffer

6:10:33requirement that usually exists and then

6:10:35the second sentence says in the overlay

6:10:38if it's mixed use there's no buffer.

6:10:40>> No. So Bruce was talking about that

6:10:43during his presentation. So the idea is

6:10:45like when you have these mixed use areas

6:10:47you're not going to require a buffer

6:10:49because that's the whole point is that

6:10:51>> it's meant to be mixed use,

6:10:52>> right? So it's not just like here's

6:10:53commercial and here's residential and

6:10:54that's where the buffer would go.

6:10:57>> So and that's within a single

6:10:59development. That's that's what that

6:11:01singular aid single. Okay. So,

6:11:03>> so if they sell a parcel to somebody

6:11:05else and that person builds singleuse

6:11:09residential, then potentially there's a

6:11:12buffer from adjacent parcels that

6:11:14>> correct. Okay.

6:11:20>> And the landscape I think it's the same.

6:11:25Um, is the if you scroll up a teeny bit,

6:11:28Robert, is development site uh use like

6:11:31a term that will mean something to you

6:11:33all?

6:11:36>> I mean, it it it's a way of expressing

6:11:39as a development proposal comes in.

6:11:42>> Okay.

6:11:42>> That site associated with that proposal

6:11:45is expected.

6:11:46>> That's enough. That works.

6:11:47>> That's Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's great.

6:11:48Sure.

6:11:48>> Great. Yeah.

6:11:51So is this essentially saying that

6:11:52within that 8 acres we need to have 2

6:11:55acres of mutiduous green space

6:12:00>> well or is that outside of the 8 acres?

6:12:02>> So this is maybe adjusted now that we

6:12:05have that urban core definition. I think

6:12:08that we talked about this a little bit

6:12:09earlier that

6:12:12if we are going to talk about

6:12:14development sites then that would be an

6:12:17opportunity to require a minimum amount

6:12:19of green space for each development

6:12:21site. I would say in addition to

6:12:25the green space that's required within

6:12:27the

6:12:29core.

6:12:30>> Yeah, for sure. Um

6:12:32but I I do think and maybe you've done

6:12:34it a little or no we talked about this

6:12:36like I do think we need to really define

6:12:37green space

6:12:38>> doesn't the um yeah I think we need to

6:12:41define it as you say because because CG

6:12:44requires 20% landscaped areas

6:12:47already. So if they sell off a portion,

6:12:51you know, they sell off two acres to

6:12:52somebody five acres of build apartments,

6:12:54they've got to do 20% landscaped areas.

6:12:57And the way the green space thing was

6:12:59written is that

6:13:01>> this green space requirement counts

6:13:04landscaped areas.

6:13:06So it's not really an additional

6:13:09requirement,

6:13:10>> right? It could be sliced and diced.

6:13:12It's could be allocated anywhere.

6:13:15So maybe the first thing is to define

6:13:17green space in the M section.

6:13:20Um

6:13:24and

6:13:28so we're not saying a number in the air

6:13:30in the overlay now. It's more you're

6:13:32saying development site.

6:13:34So then it has to be percentage rather

6:13:36than

6:13:36>> I think so.

6:13:39Yeah. I don't quite know the best way to

6:13:41do that, but

6:13:43>> it already says that the normal

6:13:45standards of CG apply.

6:13:47The normal standards of CG require 20%

6:13:50landscaping on any wall, I think.

6:13:53>> Okay.

6:13:54>> Right.

6:13:54>> There's 20% landscaping for CG.

6:13:58>> Yep.

6:13:58>> Yeah. And so

6:14:01I guess yeah it's gets that do we the

6:14:04intent there is

6:14:07seeing the green space as this sort of

6:14:09usable accessible intentional

6:14:14amenities like public space versus just

6:14:16landscape space.

6:14:18>> And so could that be

6:14:22uh green space?

6:14:26Trying to think of a good way to define

6:14:28it. Um,

6:14:29>> I'm actually wondering that number

6:14:31three, if we want to move a version of

6:14:33that number three to the urban four and

6:14:36say

6:14:38the green space shall function as a

6:14:40gathering, recreation, da da, that and

6:14:42so that like public aspect because that

6:14:44to me was like key was like having a

6:14:47urban court with a publicly accessible

6:14:49green space that wasn't just a field. It

6:14:51was like we could have our

6:14:55whatever you can do stuff on it. It's

6:14:57not just like this thing you're going to

6:14:59um

6:15:01but that should be the two acres there

6:15:03within the urban urban core that can't

6:15:05be

6:15:07redistributed

6:15:09throughout the rest of the property

6:15:11meeting green space requirements for

6:15:14each individual

6:15:15>> right because if we have the the the

6:15:18urban core with green space and that's

6:15:20even like an an acre or two like I don't

6:15:23even know if it's two acres but then all

6:15:25the other if things get developed

6:15:27separately. They're going to have their

6:15:29own CG standards that are going to have

6:15:30green spaces that are within and those

6:15:32are going to be more private, right?

6:15:33That would be like, you know, some

6:15:34another development. They have their

6:15:36own. So, all we want is to have this

6:15:40public green space.

6:15:44>> Is this the time to read the open space

6:15:46definition?

6:15:46>> Yes.

6:15:47>> Okay. I also have I can also tell you

6:15:50the information that would be required

6:15:52for plazas to be required.

6:15:54Um, you know, we'll do that as well. And

6:15:57maybe maybe that'll help you. That would

6:16:00be in play with CG's own property.

6:16:05Let's see here. Open space.

6:16:14Go. Open space. a common area designated

6:16:17on the final plans of the development

6:16:20permanently set aside for the common use

6:16:22of the residents of the development and

6:16:25if so designated for the use of the

6:16:27community as a whole. The open space may

6:16:30be landscaped and/or left with natural

6:16:32vegetative cover and in which area no

6:16:34thoroughares, parking areas or

6:16:36improvements other than recreational

6:16:37facilities or specifically permitted

6:16:40underground utilities are located. This

6:16:42definition shall apply to all

6:16:44developments except conservation

6:16:47subdivisions because they have their own

6:16:49performance standards for open space.

6:16:52And is there a regulation that says that

6:16:54developments in CG have to have a

6:16:57certain amount of open space?

6:16:58>> So there is a standard for open space.

6:17:04Um

6:17:13um

6:17:15so residential so the way we break it

6:17:17out is by use. So if you have a

6:17:19residential design a residential

6:17:21development in the C zone your open

6:17:24space requirement is an area equal to at

6:17:27least 8% of the lot area. Um

6:17:31actually that's referring to RM and an

6:17:33arm too but

6:17:36um common areas with decks, patios and

6:17:39similar similar areas are eligible for

6:17:41open space criteria. Play areas for

6:17:43children are required for projects of

6:17:44greater than 20 units that are not

6:17:47designed as age limited or student

6:17:48housing. Areas covered by shrubs, pine

6:17:51straw, bark mulch, and other ground

6:17:52covers which do not provide a suitable

6:17:54surface for human use may not be counted

6:17:55towards this requirement. So that's just

6:17:58saying you have a flower bed. That's not

6:18:00your open space.

6:18:02>> So it's 8% for RM development.

6:18:05>> Yeah.

6:18:05>> And but it doesn't say one for

6:18:08>> No, it doesn't have one for the for the

6:18:12commercial zone.

6:18:14>> Well, what if we just said M open space

6:18:17um any residential development shall

6:18:21comply with the development standards

6:18:23for of RM zones.

6:18:26>> Yeah. or a section such and such. Um

6:18:37>> is there what code section is that that

6:18:39we can site it?

6:18:40>> Um sorry 9258

6:18:44C

6:18:46um seven.

6:18:51And I think with that, I mean, other

6:18:53than just making sure that the green

6:18:56space and the urban core function as a

6:18:58gathering or graic space, I don't know

6:19:00if we need the rest of this in this

6:19:02section. [clears throat]

6:19:03>> Yeah. Do you want the plaza information?

6:19:07>> Yeah, please.

6:19:08>> Okay.

6:19:09um developments involving a gross floor

6:19:12area in excess of 60,000 square feet and

6:19:16located in any C zone

6:19:19um shall in addition to basic site

6:19:22design standards also follow the

6:19:23following. Number two under this list is

6:19:28um well I'll tell you orientation and

6:19:30scale. No new buildings or contiguous

6:19:32groups of buildings shall exceed a

6:19:34combined contiguous length of 300 feet.

6:19:37All on-site circulation systems shall in

6:19:39incorporate a streetscape which includes

6:19:41curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian scale light

6:19:44standards, and street trees. Two,

6:19:47plazas. One square foot of plaza or

6:19:50public space shall be required for every

6:19:5210 square feet of gross floor area. And

6:19:55then it has standards for what

6:19:56constitutes a plaza and what you should

6:19:58put in there. Um um plaza shall be at

6:20:01least 100 square feet in area with

6:20:03minimum width and length dimensions of

6:20:0510 feet. The plaza shall consist of one

6:20:08contiguous space to be located between

6:20:11and connecting the public right ofway to

6:20:12which the primary building is oriented.

6:20:15Um I'm jumping around a little bit. Uh

6:20:17it's got to meet Georgia accessibility

6:20:18code. It shall provide no less than one

6:20:22sitting space for each 100 square feet.

6:20:25Um

6:20:27uh plaza shall provide shading relief by

6:20:30incorporating trees, structural elements

6:20:32such that the shaded area is equivalent

6:20:34to 15% of the plaza.

6:20:37Uh in addition, the plaza shall

6:20:39incorporate at least two of the

6:20:40following elements. Dining table,

6:20:42artwork, water feature, planters, or

6:20:44trees at a minimum of one tree per 800

6:20:47square feet.

6:20:48Plaza area shall have a an illumin

6:20:51illumination level of at least one foot

6:20:53candle and it shall not be used for

6:20:55product display, product advertising or

6:20:58product sales.

6:21:00>> So if the one currently one contiguous

6:21:04acre that is required in the mixed use

6:21:06core,

6:21:08could it could part of it be the plaza

6:21:13or does it have to be?

6:21:15So the thinking, the way it was drafted

6:21:17was that

6:21:19the one acre would exist and could move

6:21:23if if needed over the life of the

6:21:25overlay, but it it had to exist. Um and

6:21:29then in addition to that, there would be

6:21:32if if you pop over the 60,000 square

6:21:34feet of gross floor area, you'd also be

6:21:38providing plaza space. And that plaza

6:21:41space would be knit together with a

6:21:42network of sidewalks or the multi-use

6:21:44path either or throughout the overlay.

6:21:48So you'd have these sort of moments of

6:21:51public space and then you'd have that

6:21:54core green space that's required that's

6:21:57somewhere probably towards the center

6:22:00and these things would knit together

6:22:02organically into a network over time.

6:22:05>> Yeah, that makes sense. Um, so then

6:22:06maybe we should not like the contiguous

6:22:10acre that's part of the urban core is

6:22:13its own thing. And then as they build

6:22:1560,000 plus square feet here and there

6:22:18of apartments, they have to add plazas

6:22:20under the code.

6:22:22>> They stay under 60,000 square feet, then

6:22:24that requirement is not initiated.

6:22:26>> So if they build a bunch of 59,000 foot

6:22:29apartment developments, then they'd

6:22:31never have to do a plaza. that

6:22:33requirement would not come into play as

6:22:35a requirement. It doesn't prohibit them

6:22:37from doing it,

6:22:38>> but 60,000 square feet is that starting

6:22:40point. So 60,000 square feet, you know,

6:22:43Earth is 30,000 square feet. So take

6:22:45that footprint, double it. Anything

6:22:47bigger than that, you're doing plaza

6:22:49space.

6:22:49>> Yeah.

6:22:52So there was language in the um draft

6:22:54you circulated that said the green space

6:22:56can count toward code required plaza

6:22:58space. I would tend to think we

6:23:01shouldn't say that and just have it be

6:23:03its own thing. But then as they build

6:23:04out other apartments, if the code

6:23:06requires plazas, they'll do plazas,

6:23:10right? We don't have to require that

6:23:12because it's already in there.

6:23:14>> Yeah.

6:23:20Um,

6:23:25and so do we need to actually say

6:23:27required open space

6:23:29there since we have a definition that

6:23:31we're comfortable with?

6:23:36But we but we actually haven't stated

6:23:39that open space is required or

6:23:42in code in that code section. Does it

6:23:45just define open space or is there is

6:23:47there a threshold for that?

6:23:49The definition of open space is in 92.

6:23:52The requirement for the open space is in

6:23:54925.

6:23:55>> Okay.

6:23:59>> And that's all it is is is the

6:24:01requirement of open space. So we don't

6:24:02need to say it shall comply with the

6:24:04open space requirements of code section.

6:24:07>> It doesn't help to have the cross

6:24:08reference and that that way you don't

6:24:10have to write it all again. I mean

6:24:12that's that's helpful consistent wise

6:24:16>> to not get

6:24:17>> to not say add those words or to add it

6:24:20you're saying

6:24:20>> I no I'm just saying if you have the

6:24:22cross reference we don't need any

6:24:23>> we don't need any okay

6:24:26>> okay and so the the 925

6:24:30what

6:24:31>> that's the open space requirement of RM

6:24:36um residential developments

6:24:39and it says that they have that's the

6:24:40one he read us that says they have to

6:24:43>> have um open space equal to 8% of the

6:24:47>> parcel size

6:24:508% of the

6:24:55[clears throat]

6:24:57>> Yeah.

6:25:04So then we do want to be sure that we

6:25:06delete the

6:25:08>> We want to be sure that we delete this

6:25:11of the lot area.

6:25:12>> Yes.

6:25:13>> 8% of the lot area

6:25:19>> context that

6:25:21>> Yeah.

6:25:21>> that you're saying you want that to

6:25:23apply in the overlay. This if we have a

6:25:26straight reference to this, it's only

6:25:27going to say RM1 and RM2.

6:25:29So that's maybe more to your question.

6:25:32Lift the concept from here, but we need

6:25:34it to apply to the overlay, not just a

6:25:36cross reference because it won't work.

6:25:38>> Yeah, I think so.

6:25:39>> Okay. shall comply with the open space

6:25:41requirements of code section.

6:25:44>> There you go. But you know um

6:25:48>> or we if we're if there's any lack of

6:25:50clarity there we can just put that in

6:25:52there

6:25:54[clears throat]

6:25:55>> and past it out of the code

6:25:58>> might be

6:26:01>> because it's it's not only it's def the

6:26:04other it's defining open space

6:26:08which we haven't actually done in here

6:26:10right

6:26:11>> did we do it this is the first time

6:26:12we've actually

6:26:13>> okay

6:26:14>> defined open space So, I mean, we had

6:26:15the definition that I read. Yeah, it's

6:26:17in 9-2.

6:26:18>> That's the one in

6:26:20>> Okay. And so,

6:26:22>> in this case, do you want to have it

6:26:24cross reference code or do you want to

6:26:26just put it in here what it should be?

6:26:29What that open space requirement because

6:26:32we have to do we have to say

6:26:33specifically the open space requirement

6:26:35of fly that of the RM is what applies

6:26:38here? Now, I think I think what Matt

6:26:41said or what I heard, maybe it was just

6:26:43in my head, is that we're going to lift

6:26:47the language of 7 A, 7 B, and 7 C and

6:26:51we're going to we would take out the

6:26:52references to RM1 and RM2,

6:26:55right? So, it'll be open space A. An

6:26:58area equal to at least 8% of the lot

6:27:00area shall be dedicated to open space

6:27:01for recreation use by the tenants of the

6:27:05development. Period. instead of in RM1

6:27:08and RM2. Then the next section talks

6:27:11about [snorts] areas covered with mulch

6:27:15essentially and C talks about common

6:27:17areas with decks, patios and similar are

6:27:20eligible and then for open space

6:27:22criteria and play areas are required for

6:27:24projects of greater than 20 units.

6:27:28>> Yeah, I think that's that's clear

6:27:30enough.

6:27:37multi-use path.

6:27:39>> And so is that little sentence that's

6:27:40right above the multi-use path if we

6:27:42want that still to be in there.

6:27:50I don't really understand how that

6:27:52relates to the the

6:27:54>> we might not need it because it would

6:27:55just be per section that gets developed.

6:27:58So yeah.

6:27:59>> Yeah. So we can delete that. I would say

6:28:01is that what Bruce said earlier about

6:28:03the connectivity is

6:28:08I don't know if that is required or

6:28:10encouraged but the idea being that like

6:28:12maybe these spaces do have some

6:28:13connection to one another. Um

6:28:17but I don't know if that goes in there

6:28:19or not.

6:28:24Sounds fine.

6:28:26[laughter]

6:28:31Yeah. So, I think let's see.

6:28:38So, my concern about the multi-use path

6:28:40is is that the way we use that and

6:28:42Athens Clark County generally is that it

6:28:45is not just an 8ft path. It's a 10 foot

6:28:47or even 12 foot wide path. So, um,

6:28:53>> yeah, it does seem like it should at

6:28:54least be conform to our normal multi-use

6:28:57path.

6:28:58>> I would explain,

6:29:00>> please.

6:29:01>> The the 8 foot dimension as opposed to

6:29:03the 10 or the 12 where we've got 10 or

6:29:0612, that multi-use path is really

6:29:08serving as alternative transportation.

6:29:10It's the greenway or it's running along

6:29:13a highway. Um, in this overlay, we're

6:29:16talking about something that's a little

6:29:17more insular.

6:29:18Um, and when you actually look at the

6:29:20topo out there, the odds of us getting a

6:29:23multi-use path and and we didn't word it

6:29:25this way, but just bear with me. When

6:29:28you've got the topo going up to Atlanta

6:29:30Highway, you're not going to build a 12

6:29:32foot wide, you can barely do a 5 foot

6:29:34wide sidewalk with Falls. The same with

6:29:38um on the eastern side along Holiday

6:29:40Estates. It doesn't it doesn't work very

6:29:42well. So you're you're getting

6:29:45connectivity, but you're not design

6:29:46you're not overdesigning it to what we

6:29:49would use for the greenway.

6:29:52So eight eight was an enhanced width. Um

6:29:56eight is um actually one foot larger

6:30:00than we get when we have a sidewalk that

6:30:02backs up to the curb. We get five plus

6:30:05two in those situations. Um, so it was

6:30:09just kind of differentiating from that

6:30:11and 8 foot from a functional width

6:30:14seemed to work for two-way bicycle

6:30:17traffic somewhat uncomfortably, but you

6:30:20know, it's it's enough. Um,

6:30:23>> okay. Also with the notion that we're

6:30:25getting a sidewalk network of five feet

6:30:27in width whenever we have a commercial

6:30:29development or residential development.

6:30:31That's that's how you're going to get to

6:30:33the front door of your apartment or how

6:30:35you're going to get from your car to the

6:30:37shopping or retail or restaurant or

6:30:40whatever.

6:30:41>> Okay, that makes sense. I can see that.

6:30:43So we want to put it it back to 8 foot

6:30:45then we change that and

6:30:47>> then a person would be allowed to ride

6:30:49their bike on that. It would truly be

6:30:51multimodal. Okay. I mean, I don't know

6:30:54if there's a right answer to that. I'm

6:30:55just curious if that's how it's sort of

6:30:57conceived.

6:31:00Okay.

6:31:07>> I agree with that change those changes

6:31:09of on one, two, and three. Just the text

6:31:11changes.

6:31:28that says no Athens transit facility.

6:31:30>> No,

6:31:39I think that's

6:31:43so

6:31:45one of the things

6:31:51I felt like the green space as as staff

6:31:55had worked on it, there were some really

6:31:57good parts of that in the in the sort of

6:32:00um intentional

6:32:03public access. Is that also in open

6:32:06space definition? Like would there also

6:32:11like I think because I think we lost

6:32:13that language, right? the language about

6:32:16um the green space shall be open to the

6:32:18public during operator operating hours

6:32:20etc.

6:32:22some of that language I thought was good

6:32:23and if it's in 925

6:32:27C7 then great but if it's not then I

6:32:32think that

6:32:33>> ownership maintenance and access no that

6:32:36was

6:32:38that was unique to the overlay

6:32:40>> yeah and I

6:32:40>> Robert did you move that up to the um

6:32:45>> so we could

6:32:46>> urban center part that language about

6:32:48that it shall be open to the public

6:32:49during operating hours or is that just

6:32:51gone on it.

6:32:57>> I guess we never thought about it then

6:32:59to move it up.

6:33:00>> Yeah, I think that got lost. Um,

6:33:03>> yeah, absolutely. How about we could

6:33:05just add it to H2

6:33:07>> right after the word development. Just

6:33:09add back the sentence that says I got

6:33:11another version. The um [snorts]

6:33:15>> multi-use path language kept it right.

6:33:19Yeah,

6:33:20>> you just cut and paste from there.

6:33:35>> Just want this moved up.

6:33:39>> Might need to be in it might need to be

6:33:40in two places.

6:33:42>> Yeah, I'm going to leave it there. Okay.

6:33:45>> Yeah. So C and green space is similar

6:33:48but it's it says green space shall be

6:33:49owned maintained.

6:33:51>> I think Matt said what's item two there?

6:33:54>> Item two.

6:33:54>> Yeah.

6:34:04>> That could just then that would say

6:34:06instead of it starts with the word

6:34:07ownership but I think it would be

6:34:10>> uh the Greek open space shall be

6:34:20And I think that you can say um

6:34:27>> well so then that second so this is

6:34:28actually from the multi-use path but so

6:34:31you're going to delete after

6:34:32development.

6:34:34>> Yeah the access

6:34:35>> entity for the development and then it's

6:34:37going to say the green stat space shall

6:34:39be open to the public during the

6:34:40operating hours established for the

6:34:42green space.

6:34:44Yeah, the open space open. Can you

6:34:46repeat?

6:34:47>> Be open to the public

6:34:50during the operating hours established

6:34:53for the green for the open space.

6:34:59>> Is that confusing? The open space shall

6:35:01be open to the public during the

6:35:02operating hours established for Okay, I

6:35:05got it.

6:35:08>> Clean there.

6:35:10the now it's not g the open space in the

6:35:13urban core is not owned by a condominium

6:35:15association right like that

6:35:18>> or it could be I think it could be also

6:35:21a I think that's what in that language I

6:35:23had added um

6:35:26it said that shall be owned maintained

6:35:28by a homeowners association property

6:35:30owners association or other legally

6:35:32established entity responsible for the

6:35:34continuing maintenance and operation

6:35:37>> yeah but that feels like an HOA isn't

6:35:40the right entity. There's not, you know,

6:35:42it's a downtown area. Um, like

6:35:47>> have to maintain it.

6:35:48>> They'll be open by the [clears throat]

6:35:51I owned and maintained by the property

6:35:53owner

6:35:55or

6:35:57>> agent.

6:36:00Legally established entity.

6:36:01>> Yeah. Or Yeah, that entity language you

6:36:03said is good.

6:36:05property owner or legally established

6:36:07entity responsible for the continuing

6:36:10maintenance and operation

6:36:11>> which could be an HO they've done.

6:36:14>> Yeah, it could be whatever they want

6:36:17property also and sometimes they don't.

6:36:20That just came out of a legal class.

6:36:22>> Well, you know more about that than I

6:36:23do. So,

6:36:24>> uh in your legal thing but so that but

6:36:28you're saying is just so it could be but

6:36:30that's good with the community. Yeah, I

6:36:34think

6:36:34>> with your question you had it's

6:36:36>> Yeah, I think it's just intending to say

6:36:38it's not like it doesn't become Clark

6:36:40County land. It's still owned by the

6:36:42developer of this parcel and or if they

6:36:45want to farm it out to a

6:36:48another entity. That's

6:36:50>> I think we want Yeah, we want the sim

6:36:52similar language and the multi-use path,

6:36:54right?

6:36:57>> That's and that's

6:36:59that.

6:37:00>> Okay. Um, so yeah. So then the last

6:37:02section is just the Athens transit

6:37:04facility. And honestly, I just made some

6:37:06changes because I didn't know that there

6:37:08would be a separate um like agreement

6:37:11that more detailed with the location and

6:37:13stuff. So I'm agnostic. We just keep

6:37:16what we had.

6:37:19Could we real quick go back up to the

6:37:22the mixed juice or whatever we're

6:37:24calling that? Core. Um,

6:37:28just want to look at that for a second.

6:37:42Okay. And so does does this overlay

6:37:47language have to specify things like

6:37:50buffers and other storm water related

6:37:53stuff or is that taken care of with the

6:37:55development regulations?

6:37:56>> We don't have to put it in here.

6:38:01So I think we just need to address the

6:38:03two things we highlighted and the

6:38:05threshold.

6:38:07>> So what do you guys think about coming

6:38:10out of our special grouping? I'm already

6:38:13forgotten the name of it and um now that

6:38:17we have this document in a public place

6:38:20that clearly it needs some like

6:38:24refining a spell check. Um,

6:38:28and then this is so what you're

6:38:30mentioning like kind of coming back with

6:38:32some fresh and addressing these specific

6:38:35things,

6:38:36>> right?

6:38:39>> And would we come back fresh?

6:38:42>> No,

6:38:42>> we can't do it.

6:38:44>> Next,

6:38:45>> should any further than next session?

6:38:47>> Oh, you're saying not to do that

6:38:48tonight. You're saying to look that

6:38:50>> Yeah, I don't want to do that tonight.

6:38:51I'm just saying just

6:38:52>> if we table tonight, if you had a motion

6:38:54to table tonight, then we could come

6:38:56back in November.

6:38:57>> Postpone,

6:38:58sorry, postpone

6:39:00>> and we could table it and ask staff to

6:39:04um

6:39:05Wordsmith, spell check, you know,

6:39:08>> make sure everything's copathetic with

6:39:10code and like it makes sense in terms of

6:39:12design. they can refine it and then we

6:39:15can

6:39:15>> So can we actually go as far as not only

6:39:20asking staff but tableabling it

6:39:24with you know normally we give them a

6:39:25list of five things you know or whatever

6:39:27it is our concerns now we're really like

6:39:31we're giving them a heck of a list right

6:39:33now like great detail

6:39:36here's the table

6:39:38it I'm I'm uncomfortable

6:39:42I'm I am more comfortable, way more

6:39:44comfortable with getting it kind of

6:39:47going back through the normal table

6:39:49process where it goes back to the

6:39:51applicant which is

6:39:53>> ACC,

6:39:54>> whoever it wants to be. It's ACC, but

6:39:56they can they can discuss with the

6:39:58property owner. They can take all of

6:40:00this, make it theirs, bring it back to

6:40:04us.

6:40:04>> We're going to get this again. We're

6:40:06going to get this again. I agree. Then

6:40:08there's going to be a point in life

6:40:10where we just have to send it through.

6:40:12And but we've done this publicly.

6:40:15I I am more comfortable sending the

6:40:18applicant's

6:40:19request through than ours because this

6:40:22is turning into ours. and the first

6:40:25thing an applicant might do, I'm not

6:40:28making any suggestions whatsoever, but

6:40:31is go straight to the final voters and

6:40:36say they did all of this. They didn't

6:40:38even ask us and this is why it's all

6:40:41wrong and really confused things.

6:40:43>> I hear what you're saying. I think

6:40:44rather than asking for further revisions

6:40:47in that vein, I would say, you know, um

6:40:50ask staff to solicit

6:40:52um comment from

6:40:55>> whenever they want property owner and

6:40:56they can submit a separate written memo

6:40:59if they wish with um comments, concerns,

6:41:04refinements, anything like that. I think

6:41:06that's a a good way to proceed. Um but

6:41:10not so much like putting them at the

6:41:12keyboard to revise. I think that's

6:41:14risks. Um

6:41:16>> right.

6:41:18Document should be edited by staff for

6:41:21accuracy and typographical errors and

6:41:25alignment with the code.

6:41:28>> Yeah. And and

6:41:30>> professional standards.

6:41:31>> The applicant can make comments to what

6:41:34we put forward but not rewrite it.

6:41:37>> Yeah. And I and I hope they will. Yeah.

6:41:39So, do you need were you asking for a

6:41:41motion to come out of the committee as a

6:41:43whole? Is that

6:41:46>> I make that motion.

6:41:47>> Okay.

6:41:47>> Second.

6:41:48>> Okay. All in favor?

6:41:52>> All right. We're back. Um and

6:41:55>> to table

6:41:57um this

6:41:58>> to postpone

6:41:59>> to postpone.

6:42:01>> Perry. Carrie. Wait.

6:42:03>> No, I'm not leaving. I'm not leaving.

6:42:04>> Okay. Okay. [laughter]

6:42:07to postpone this to next month's meeting

6:42:11um and ask staff to uh spellch [snorts]

6:42:15check and otherwise clean this up as

6:42:18they deem appropriate including per code

6:42:21consistency

6:42:23um and also ask staff to um solicit

6:42:27comment from the property owner and any

6:42:33appropriate entities. I mean, if if if

6:42:35other departments I don't know if any of

6:42:36them would have anything to weigh in on,

6:42:38but as staff see deems appropriate um to

6:42:41solicit comment um written comment that

6:42:44we we can um hopefully get in our

6:42:47packets for next month.

6:42:52>> Second that.

6:42:53>> Okay.

6:42:54>> So, hold on just a sec. I realize how

6:42:57late it is, but so we actually have

6:43:01two things in there that we don't like

6:43:03where they are, right? We highlighted

6:43:05them because they probably need to go up

6:43:06in purpose and intent

6:43:08>> and we haven't and we made a comment

6:43:10that we would identify a trigger or

6:43:12threshold that prevents, you know, the

6:43:178acre core from never being built. And

6:43:21so I don't know how to I don't know what

6:43:24the answer is on the trigger or

6:43:26threshold, but I do think we can at

6:43:27least put those two items we highlighted

6:43:31up into purpose intent

6:43:33um before we But I also just want to

6:43:36register that I

6:43:41um

6:43:46I think We

6:43:51I I don't know. I don't think we should

6:43:53be postponing this again. Like I think

6:43:55that

6:43:56>> you do or you don't.

6:43:57>> I don't I So we get we get the property

6:44:01owner feedback again. We know what

6:44:03that's going to be,

6:44:04>> right?

6:44:04>> I I I do not know what it's going to be.

6:44:07>> No. No. I don't feel like I know what

6:44:08it's going to be. And also this needs to

6:44:10be cleaned up before we can vote on it.

6:44:11And I think if we actually,

6:44:13>> you know, um, look at it with fresh eyes

6:44:17tomorrow, we might have changes to make,

6:44:18right? And so our next opportunity to do

6:44:20that would be I don't like to edit and

6:44:23then vote immediately just because I

6:44:27think haste makes ways.

6:44:28>> You are right about the two points that

6:44:29we've left. Do we address those?

6:44:31>> Yeah, I would I would accept that as a

6:44:33friendly amendment. I, you know, when I

6:44:34say for staff to clean this up, that

6:44:36includes the two things we highlighted

6:44:38intending to move up into the purpose

6:44:39statement. they could do that as long as

6:44:42they're clear on what those are. And the

6:44:43thing about the threshold, I think, is

6:44:45just an open question that um

6:44:48>> it could talk about next time and staff

6:44:52um

6:44:52>> could certainly weigh in on if they

6:44:54think that's appropriate and

6:44:56>> um

6:44:58and ask for

6:45:01property owner

6:45:02>> I could tell you what they're going to

6:45:04suggest now if you'd like to hear

6:45:06>> in terms of the threshold

6:45:07>> in terms their response.

6:45:12I mean, whatever you guys want is the

6:45:14ACC is the applicant. So,

6:45:16>> what's that? ACC is the applicant. Yeah.

6:45:19>> You know, I mean, if if the if this was

6:45:22if this was a dialogue with the property

6:45:24owner, then they would have submitted

6:45:25the application. That's just my feeling

6:45:27on it. But

6:45:28>> if what

6:45:29>> if if this was a dialogue with the

6:45:31property owner, then they would have

6:45:33submitted the application.

6:45:34>> Yeah.

6:45:38>> Cool. Whatever.

6:45:40>> Okay. So, we have a motion and second.

6:45:44>> I'm I'm just going to Is it seconded?

6:45:47>> Yes.

6:45:47>> Yes.

6:45:48>> Okay. I am I'm just going to explain my

6:45:50no because I am just still very

6:45:52uncomfortable. We have written so much

6:45:54of this. I just am not comfortable, but

6:45:57I'm also not completely out of favor

6:45:59with running it. It needs to get cleaned

6:46:03up so we can see it better. But I think

6:46:06we need to not be take position of the

6:46:09applicant. I feel like that's kind of

6:46:11what we've done. We've done an awful

6:46:14lot.

6:46:15>> So there's

6:46:15>> What's the alternative to that right

6:46:17now?

6:46:17>> That's what's the alternative to that

6:46:20right now in the position that we're in.

6:46:22>> I don't have to have an alternative. I

6:46:24mean, I don't have to have to come up

6:46:25with it.

6:46:27>> Well, it's because I just it's like I

6:46:29said at the very beginning, if we do so

6:46:31much of this, it becomes ours and not

6:46:34theirs. And that is not I I don't think

6:46:38that is our job to do.

6:46:39>> Can I clarify? Do you

6:46:41>> Can I ask you to clarify? When you say

6:46:43not theirs, do you mean not the property

6:46:45owners?

6:46:46>> The the applicant is Clark County and we

6:46:50are working for Clark County.

6:46:52>> You're trying to produce the best

6:46:54>> legislation here on behalf of Athens,

6:46:57Clark County, which is the applicant.

6:46:59So, I don't think it's inappropriate

6:47:01that the Athens clar county planning

6:47:02commission write um a proposed overlay

6:47:06district when the applicant is indeed

6:47:08Athens clar county, right? I mean,

6:47:10you're you're speaking as though it

6:47:11ought to come from the property owner,

6:47:13but that's

6:47:14>> that is there is a little bit of

6:47:16confusion there because the county isn't

6:47:19the final decision maker. I mean, there

6:47:21the property owners making the

6:47:23decisions. No, the county is

6:47:26>> I mean the overlay district the county

6:47:28is.

6:47:28>> I mean

6:47:29>> somebody just spoke in this room and and

6:47:32was about to say what

6:47:34>> but they're not the applicant.

6:47:36>> I understand

6:47:37>> we if we hadn't gone through this

6:47:39process we would have a very different

6:47:41outcome here but because ACC is the

6:47:44applicant

6:47:45>> directing us to come up with the overlay

6:47:48language I feel like we're doing exactly

6:47:51what we were tasked to do. Does the

6:47:53applicant fill that?

6:47:54>> Who's the applicant here? You're looking

6:47:55at the wrong guy.

6:47:57>> I'm looking at the right guy. Bruce,

6:47:58>> I I guess I'm the representative for the

6:48:00applicant because the applicant was the

6:48:02mayor and commission. Mayor and

6:48:03commission have appointed the planning

6:48:04commission to carry forward all manner

6:48:07of things that are in the ordinance in

6:48:10title 8. Um included in those things is

6:48:14the drafting of this kind of language.

6:48:17So, um, I think if if you're if you're

6:48:21acting in the best interest of

6:48:23Athensclar County and the Athensclar

6:48:25County Unified Government is the

6:48:26applicant, then I think

6:48:29your comments are are on point.

6:48:33>> And Alex, your comments, I think, would

6:48:34be on point if Athens Clark County

6:48:37wasn't the applicant.

6:48:39If we had gone through the normal

6:48:41channels with the property owner to be

6:48:43able to address the property owner's

6:48:45concerns directly,

6:48:47[clears throat]

6:48:48>> then we wouldn't be here.

6:48:50>> Okay, that's that's that turned another

6:48:54odd that that's making more sense. It's

6:48:56just

6:48:58>> weird.

6:48:59>> We all know what the heck this is. We

6:49:01all know. So, let's call them vote.

6:49:04>> Yeah.

6:49:04>> So, I actually don't know what the

6:49:06motion is. motion to postpone and

6:49:08solicit written comment.

6:49:12>> Um

6:49:14I don't think that was the motion.

6:49:16>> Well, postpone and ask staff to clean it

6:49:18up

6:49:20in accordance with our discussion in

6:49:22there.

6:49:22>> I don't want to see a whole I don't want

6:49:25to see a whole brand new thing. Like I

6:49:28feel like we've kind of got this pretty

6:49:30well. It would only be if there's like

6:49:33something that is either like

6:49:34particularly hard to administer or um

6:49:38doesn't fit with professional standards

6:49:39or we you know like very technical stuff

6:49:43rather than and and you know a

6:49:45suggestion for a threshold or trigger.

6:49:49Um that that's the kind of input I'm

6:49:52hoping but I don't

6:49:54>> you don't want it rewritten. They don't

6:49:56want it rewritten.

6:49:57>> Postpone and edit for code consistency.

6:50:01>> Yes.

6:50:01>> For planning commission direction.

6:50:04>> Yes. So that we're seeing a clean

6:50:06version of this document and we can see

6:50:08it with fresh eyes and address things

6:50:10like the trigger or there's any other

6:50:13possible things at that point. I feel

6:50:15pretty pumped.

6:50:16>> Would you add guide guidance for what

6:50:18the appropriate trigger would be?

6:50:25I I I just I I just feel like a trigger

6:50:28might be too much for asking for the

6:50:30property.

6:50:31>> Well, we also will have time to think

6:50:33about it ourselves.

6:50:34>> Right. Right.

6:50:36>> So, is is the request to have written

6:50:39comment from the property owner no

6:50:40longer part of the motion?

6:50:45>> Open to it. There's absolutely no harm

6:50:47to it. Sure.

6:50:49>> I think that's still part of my motion.

6:50:51Okay.

6:50:52That helps me.

6:50:57>> Are we prepared if they come back and

6:50:59say none of the what we proposed works?

6:51:02>> Which is what's going to happen.

6:51:04>> Gave a chance.

6:51:05>> All we can do is our job and

6:51:08>> that's right.

6:51:10All right.

6:51:12>> All right.

6:51:14Uh

6:51:17Fleece.

6:51:17>> Yes.

6:51:19>> Harrisburg. Yes.

6:51:21All

6:51:21>> yes.

6:51:23>> Go

6:51:25Sam.

6:51:26>> Yes.

6:51:34>> We are doing one postpone.

6:51:37>> Great.

6:51:38>> Omnimus postponement.

6:51:45>> Yeah. All those in favor. Uh, I will

6:51:48forego any of the other business items.

6:51:50>> We have no reports.

6:51:53>> I got

6:51:59like

6:52:06really

```*