2026-10-20 - Mayor and Commission Agenda Setting Session

01:31Everyone, it is 6:00 p.m. so we'll go

01:32ahead and get rolling. It is Tuesday,

01:34October 20th, 2026 and we are here for

01:38the monthly agenda setting meeting of

01:39the Athens-Clarke County Mayor and

01:41Commission. Uh we'll begin with reading

01:43of our civility pledge provided to us by

01:45the Georgia Municipal Association, which

01:47indicates that the way we govern

01:49ourselves is often as important as the

01:50positions we take, that our collective

01:52decisions will be better when different

01:54views have had the opportunity to be

01:56fully vetted and considered, that all

01:58people have the right to be treated with

01:59respect, courtesy, and openness, that we

02:02value all input, and we commit to

02:04conduct ourselves at all times with

02:05civility and courtesy to each other.

02:09Uh as we begin, let me note that if we

02:10get to around 8:15 and we have not

02:13concluded with all business, we'll take

02:14a 15-minute break at that point. Um

02:17we're going to have uh multiple

02:18opportunities for public input tonight,

02:20so I want to describe how that works.

02:22We'll have an opportunity for public

02:23input on the consent agenda, which is

02:25currently items 1 through 6, an

02:27opportunity for each of the

02:29recommendations from the Athens-Clarke

02:30County Planning Commission, which are

02:32items 7 through 12, and then an

02:35opportunity for old and new business, uh

02:38which are items 13 through 21.

02:42Uh each of those opportunities for

02:43public input is a 3-minute opportunity

02:46per segment of time. You'll see the

02:48light in front of Clerk Howard. Uh it

02:51will turn green when you provide your

02:53name, place of residence, and let us

02:55know the item to which you are speaking.

02:57It will turn yellow when you have 30

03:00seconds remaining, and then it will turn

03:01red when your 3 minutes has expired, and

03:04I'll thank you for your time with us

03:05tonight so we can get on to the next

03:07person who's lined up the podium. Um

03:09first order of business tonight is to

03:12ask commissioners, is there any item

03:13that you would like to remove from the

03:15consent agenda for discussion?

03:19Commissioner Myers?

03:20>> Number Number two, I believe. Let me

03:22just make sure that's right. Number

03:25>> Yes, number

03:25>> Two.

03:25>> Number two.

03:27>> SPLOST 2020

03:28HVAC

03:30Any other item?

03:31>> Six.

03:35>> All right.

03:36All right. Two and six will move to

03:38discussion.

03:39All right. Um so, is there any member of

03:42the public who would now like to speak

03:44to items

03:461, 3, 4, or 5?

03:49Give you a moment. Check your agenda. 1,

03:523, 4, 5.

03:59All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead

04:01and we'll have presentations from

04:03planning director Bruce Loney.

04:05>> Roll call.

04:08>> Oh, we didn't do roll call. There we go.

04:11Do a roll call for third calendar.

04:14>> I will be here.

04:15>> Gavin Ford.

04:16>> Here.

04:17>> May.

04:17>> Here.

04:17>> Taylor.

04:19Wright.

04:19>> Here.

04:20>> Fisher.

04:20>> Here.

04:21>> Johnson.

04:22>> Here.

04:23>> Culpepper.

04:24>> Here.

04:25>> Myers.

04:26>> Here.

04:26>> Thornton.

04:27>> Here.

04:27>> Hamrick.

04:28>> Here.

04:29>> Thank you, Madam Clerk. I appreciate it.

04:31No, that's good. Thanks. Um all right,

04:32we'll go ahead and get presentations

04:34from planning director Bruce Loney uh

04:36followed by public input, followed by

04:38commission discussion individually on

04:40each of those items.

05:06Good evening, Bruce. How are you?

05:08>> Good evening. I'm doing well.

05:09>> Glad to have you with us. All right, we

05:11have uh

05:13two property specific items

05:16and then series of

05:19Geez.

05:20Yeah, three property specific items uh

05:23and then uh

05:25name change and then two text

05:26amendments.

05:27>> [clears throat]

05:27>> That is correct.

05:29First item on the agenda this evening,

05:32all of these items are from the October

05:341st Planning Commission meeting.

05:36First item is for 4730 Old Lexington

05:38Road. This is a rezone request

05:41related to an in a future land use map

05:44change related to the construction of

05:47fire station number five.

05:49Um the request is consistent with the

05:51commission defined option that was

05:52approved by this body

05:54on October 7th of 2025. Um

05:58future land use map changes from rural

06:00to government.

06:01The zoning map change is from

06:03agricultural residential AR

06:05also to government.

06:08Here's an aerial view of the site

06:11to know you're familiar with.

06:15Old Lexington Road is to the north of

06:17the site.

06:18There you see on the future land use the

06:20designation of rural would be rural

06:23residential, I'm sorry, would be changed

06:25to government.

06:27The zoning designation would be changed

06:29from AR also to government. And I should

06:32say this practice is consistent with all

06:34of our fire stations.

06:36Um they are all zoned G government.

06:41Here's mapping of the environmental

06:42areas in the area. Um there are none

06:45present on the subject property.

06:48This is the survey that was submitted to

06:50depict the property.

06:52And then this is the site plan that was

06:54informational as part of

06:57the SBLOST request and and the

06:59deliberation that y'all had a year ago.

07:03This is some of the information that was

07:04provided as part of that presentation.

07:06The lower right-hand corner of the map

07:08in the red circle, that is the location

07:12in the center of the new fire station

07:14number five in this. Kind of helps

07:16explain the reasoning behind that

07:17location.

07:20As I noted, y'all took action

07:23back in October of last year and you had

07:26some directives that went along with it.

07:27You had five points.

07:29And these five points were all intended

07:31to mitigate any negative impacts that

07:33might come.

07:34So one was minimizing the footprint of

07:36the facility. Second was compliance with

07:39ACC lighting ordinances.

07:41Third was making sure there's buffers,

07:43berms, or other design uh features

07:46involved to mini- minimize the visual

07:49impact on the project from the

07:50neighboring properties.

07:52Also, to ensure that any fuel or

07:54material storage on site was managed

07:56properly. And then, the sidewalk

07:58requirement was waived along Old

08:00Lexington Road.

08:03Planning Commission's consideration of

08:04this

08:05landed with approval. They found that it

08:07was compatible with the comprehensive

08:09plan and the future land use map. Also

08:11compatible with the zoning ordinance,

08:13and as I noted, our practices from

08:14before.

08:16Um and it was definitely consistent with

08:18SPLOST project number six.

08:20And that concludes staff's report.

08:22>> All right. Thanks, Bruce. I appreciate

08:23it. Is there any member of the public

08:24here to speak to this item tonight?

08:28So, line up.

08:31>> Good evening.

08:31>> Good evening. Uh my name is Mike

08:33Greenly. I'm at 181 Whisperwood Lane,

08:35and

08:37I represent the Athens-Clarke County

08:39government on this project, and uh we

08:42just are here in support of the

08:44uh just we we support the

08:46recommendations that were made by the

08:48planning department and the planning

08:51commission. And I'm just here to answer

08:52any questions that you guys have.

08:54>> Thanks, Mr. Greenly.

08:54>> Thank you.

08:55>> Is there anyone else here to speak to

08:56this item tonight?

08:59All right. We'll come for discussion.

09:00This is, of course, in District 1.

09:03>> Love to see it.

09:04Um yep, this is a straight rezone,

09:07turning the agricultural property to

09:09government for fire station.

09:12>> Any other input?

09:14>> Great.

09:15>> All right. We're going to move on to the

09:16next one.

09:18>> Okay.

09:20Uh the next item is a master plan

09:22development consideration for properties

09:25located at 600 and 660 West Broad

09:28Street, 363 Reese Street, and an

09:31unaddressed parcel on North Finley

09:33Street.

09:36The request involves a future land use

09:37map change from mixed density

09:40residential and major corridor.

09:42Major corridor is along the frontage on

09:44Broad mixed density residential is the

09:46designation towards the north which

09:47we'll see in a minute.

09:49To downtown.

09:51Uh this also involves a zoning map

09:53change from commercial general and mixed

09:55density residential CG and RM2

09:58to commercial downtown with a plan

10:00development

10:01and also this would be located within

10:03the West End downtown design area. All

10:06of our properties that have a CD

10:08designation are also a part of a design

10:11area overlay.

10:12Uh the proposal is a mixed-use

10:14development on just under 2 and 1/2

10:16acres with 181 apartments

10:20uh arranged across the 181 apartments

10:23would be 425 bedrooms.

10:26The applicant has indicated they intend

10:28to pursue the inclusionary zoning

10:30payment in lieu option.

10:32Um and a key feature of this development

10:35is the restoration of Tanyard Branch.

10:38Um a portion of which is piped on the

10:40subject property.

10:42There were three waivers requested and

10:43I'll give you some more information on

10:44those in a moment.

10:47Here's an aerial view of the property.

10:49To the east you'll see Finley Street.

10:52Finley being the current boundary of the

10:55downtown future land use designation.

10:58Um

10:59we have high-rise development there. On

11:01this property we have uh

11:04actually a whole bunch of things that

11:06have occurred over the years. Uh this

11:08was the site historically of the first

11:10botanical garden um operated by the

11:12University of Georgia and um in

11:15conjunction with

11:16uh garden club, the first garden club I

11:18believe in the United States.

11:20Um we also have uh Reese Post Park Reese

11:23Pope Park in the northwest corner.

11:26Um we have properties here that are also

11:29in the historic district which I'll show

11:31you in a minute. We have some

11:31undeveloped properties as well.

11:37Some photographs that indicate

11:41the conditions on site today. The upper

11:43left-hand corner is looking from the

11:45north

11:46to the south into the site. That is a

11:49multi-family property there.

11:51Single-family home type construction but

11:53multi-family occupancy.

11:55In the upper right, we have the creek

11:57area now, which you can see is largely

11:59overgrown.

12:01Um the West Broad frontage is what you

12:03see towards the bottom.

12:05Um we have a a mishmash of paving and

12:08some single-story commercial.

12:10Um this has been a property that has

12:12been considered for redevelopment many

12:13times over the years.

12:15And it's just been very difficult to uh

12:17put something together with the location

12:19of the creek and the proximity to the

12:21roadway.

12:23Some other photographs that give you

12:24context.

12:28So, future land use map on the left is

12:30our existing. There you see the major

12:32corridor designation on Broad Street.

12:34And the residential the mixed-density

12:37residential in that um kind of orangey

12:39yellow in the upper right-hand corner.

12:42That um was seen as a transition into

12:45the neighboring land use.

12:47Um Finley Street being that edge of

12:50downtown, which you see in the fuchsia.

12:52What's proposed is to carry that

12:53downtown designation across Finley

12:55Street across all of the subject

12:57properties.

12:59The rezone request is shown here.

13:01Existing zoning is CG commercial general

13:03on Broad

13:05with mixed-density residential to the

13:07north.

13:08Um

13:09on the right, you'll see what's

13:10proposed. Commercial downtown with the

13:12planned development.

13:15>> [clears throat]

13:15>> Here's that environmental areas view

13:17that shows the current stream bed. Um

13:21that stream bed is proposed to be

13:22relocated as part of the design for this

13:24project. And the remaining portion to

13:27the east that you see kind of disappear,

13:29um that would be unpiped, daylight, and

13:33connected to a new piping system uh

13:35within Finley Street.

13:38Here is the site plan that was

13:40submitted.

13:42Um

13:43the high-rise development is to the

13:45bottom of the view.

13:47The creek being realigned and mitigated

13:49and restored is through the center of

13:51the block.

13:53In the upper left, you have Reespope

13:55Reespope Park in the center.

13:57On the north side, you have a new park

13:59area that would be private. Um it was

14:02developed in conjunction Whoops. In

14:04conjunction with

14:06Hills First Baptist Church,

14:08which is across the street.

14:10Um and a series of townhomes that are

14:12proposed that would face Finley, but

14:13also be within the center of the

14:16property, very close to that park area.

14:19Uh the next image

14:21shows you the boundaries of our historic

14:22district on this property.

14:24So, this item has been in review with

14:26the Historic Preservation Commission for

14:28a certificate of appropriateness

14:29approval.

14:31Um they have not received that COA

14:33issuance to date, um but they are on

14:36track to have that completed by the end

14:37of the year.

14:41Here are the architectural elevations

14:43that were submitted.

14:44Um these have shifted somewhat since the

14:48original submittal.

14:49Um there's improved variation um between

14:52the upper stories and the street level

14:54stories. Um a lot of movement um within

14:58that, which is seen as beneficial and

15:00was responsive to what was heard by the

15:01Planning Commission.

15:03The key plan off on the right kind of

15:05shows you that movement in and out um in

15:07the footprint.

15:12This is the The image at the top is what

15:14would be adjacent to the stream.

15:16Um so, there is considerable attention

15:18being given to

15:20uh a green screen along the back of the

15:22building, but also new trees and

15:24appropriate plantings along the stream,

15:26not just to cool the water, but also to

15:29serve as mitigation plantings for any

15:31runoff. Here are the townhomes that are

15:33proposed.

15:34Three-story townhomes.

15:38In the analysis of this request, it's

15:40it's kind of complicated. Um

15:43It is partially compatible with the 2023

15:45comprehensive plan. It is definitely

15:47infill. The proposal is supportive of

15:49our affordable housing goals through the

15:51inclusionary zoning payment in lieu

15:53option. They are providing additional

15:55green space in the form of un-piping the

15:57stream.

15:58Um

16:00From the future land use map, it is

16:01directly incompatible.

16:03The downtown designation did stop east

16:06of these subject properties.

16:08It's incompatible with the zoning map

16:10and the ordinance. Um

16:12Going from the CG with the RM to up to

16:17the commercial downtown is quite a jump.

16:19Um what would be something that was more

16:22in line and would be a type two request

16:25would be a RM3 or CN zoning.

16:28Um the applicant's interest was though

16:30to have the CD zoning to allow for more

16:32units.

16:33There were three waivers requested. One

16:36to remove the requirement for ground

16:37floor commercial in the CD zone.

16:40Two, to offer limited tandem parking.

16:43And so tandem parking would be a space

16:45that allows for two cars to pull in,

16:47essentially taking one of the spaces.

16:50And that car is blocked. Um but to use

16:52the land more efficiently to allow two

16:54vehicles in that kind of configuration.

16:57That's not something that our code

16:59supports.

17:00Um the ground floor commercial in a CD

17:02zone is not something that our code

17:04currently supports either. The third

17:06waiver is to allow studio apartments

17:08that go below 450 square feet. When this

17:10was Excuse me, when this was submitted,

17:12we hadn't had the text amendment yet

17:13that removed the minimum square footage.

17:15So that waiver is no longer necessary.

17:21The other analysis that came over the

17:23course of many months of working through

17:24this, um, not just for this submittal,

17:27but also for the variance that was

17:29required, uh, for to the stream buffer,

17:32public utilities department has concerns

17:34regarding the fact that we don't yet

17:36have reviews completed with the Army

17:39Corps of Engineers

17:40or Georgia Environmental Protection

17:42Division.

17:43The determinations of those two agencies

17:46are going to provide the substance of

17:48what the buffer width ultimately needs

17:50to be and how the area of buffer has to

17:52be treated. What types of plantings,

17:54what types of disturbance, where can the

17:56storm water go, where can the stor-

17:59where the, uh, sanitary sewer can go.

18:01All those things have yet to be

18:03determined.

18:04Um, so, public utilities has

18:09noted those concerns. We've expressed

18:11those. Um,

18:12we also have the fact that there is a

18:14sewer main. As I noted, uh, there's a

18:1620-ft easement that is supposed to go

18:17along with that.

18:19That needs to, by our current practice,

18:21be located outside of the stream and the

18:23stream bank. Um, should we ever have a

18:25failure of that infrastructure, having

18:27access to that away from the stream is

18:29important.

18:30Fire Marshall expressed concerns that

18:31there was insufficient space for fire

18:33safety to be met. I'll give you some

18:35detail on that in a second when we see

18:37the conditions that were proffered by

18:39the planning commission.

18:41And then the planning department was

18:42just noting that, uh, you know, we still

18:44have a 2045 future land use map that

18:46recently adopted had a downtown edge

18:48along Finley Street, and this is moving

18:51that edge, which is a significant land

18:53use policy question.

18:55Um, the notion here was to have major

18:57corridor designation to allow for

18:59transitional areas between downtown and

19:02our established neighborhoods,

19:03particularly historic neighborhoods.

19:07There are a handful of corrective

19:08actions that need to be completed. One,

19:11um, as part of the variance that was

19:12approved earlier this year, there was a

19:14condition of approval that a memorandum

19:16of understanding be entered into between

19:18the developer and the unified government

19:21because the project is going to impact

19:23land that we own, that Athens-Clarke

19:25County owns that is just north of the

19:27project area on the western side.

19:30There's a piece that's outside of Reese

19:31Pope Park

19:32that we own that is

19:34outside of the park area but is still

19:36ours to control.

19:38Um

19:39without the MOU, well, the MOU really

19:42can't be completed until we have the

19:44determination from the Corps of

19:45Engineers and EPD

19:46because that MOU is going to need

19:48specifics. We're going to need to know

19:49how things are going to perform and we

19:51don't have those answers yet from those

19:53state and federal agencies to tell us

19:55what is actually happening along the

19:57creek and that creek is partially on the

20:00property that we control.

20:03The project requires a COA, which I

20:05noted, which needs to be completed, but

20:06that is in process.

20:08Um we had some inconsistencies in the

20:10plan submittal themselves. We had some

20:12math that didn't math.

20:14Um

20:15it was slight, but it was enough when

20:16something's binding that we needed to

20:18have that corrected. That is potentially

20:20something that could be ironed out um

20:22prior to this body taking action.

20:25And the technical assessment comments um

20:28that I noted before, they all need to be

20:29addressed in some form or fashion.

20:33So, Planning Commission recommendation

20:35after considerable discussion was to

20:38approve.

20:39They had 10 suggested conditions which

20:41are shown on the screen.

20:43The first one being rather important.

20:46The notion here is that you could

20:48designate an area on the binding plan

20:50that allows the flexibility for the

20:52stream restoration and for the utility

20:54installation. The edges are binding. The

20:57content of that area is not binding. So,

21:01it would allow for us to respond to what

21:02these regulatory agencies are going to

21:04tell us we have to do within a defined

21:07space. Um, that is noted as a blue area

21:09through the center of the plan and I'd

21:10be happy to show that to you again if

21:12you need it.

21:13Second point is that there be a minimum

21:16buffer requirement that aligns with the

21:17binding site plan that sets a total

21:19square footage of buffer rather than a

21:22distance off the stream. And that's

21:23important because if we hear something

21:25from

21:26the federal government or the state

21:28government that that buffer needs to

21:30perform differently, if we use if we

21:33have a fixed measurement off the creek

21:35in terms of a buffer, we may have to

21:37bring this back before you for something

21:38that might be a rather small change. If

21:41we have a total square footage, that

21:43allows flexibility for that

21:45shape to be moved and expanded and its

21:49edges change as long as we don't dip

21:51below the amount of protection that is

21:54shown on the binding site plan. And that

21:55was something the planning commission um

21:57felt comfortable with.

21:59As noted, item three is dealing with the

22:00Corps of Engineers and EPD.

22:03Four and five are talking about tree

22:05canopy standards. Uh

22:09Essentially moving forward the fact that

22:11tree canopy metrics would be binding as

22:12part of the plan.

22:14That there'd be proper spacing for the

22:15trees and that they would still follow

22:16commercial general standards. Commercial

22:18downtown zoning has no tree canopy

22:21standard. And so this carries that

22:23forward which was found to be reasonable

22:25by the planning commission because there

22:26would be plantings along the stream.

22:29Six, all town Well, six and seven deal

22:33with responding to the fire marshal's

22:35concerns.

22:36Six addressed the fact that there are

22:38townhomes fronting on Finley Street um

22:42that needed to be designed properly to

22:45address fire code for access. And seven

22:48is working with the fact that we have

22:51access that they would need to be able

22:52to essentially pull a hose into the

22:54center of the site at an appropriate

22:56distance which is 150 ft. Cannot exceed

22:59that or else we have issues. Um

23:02Eight, the utility lines would need to

23:04be coordinated so that um we don't have

23:07tree conflicts.

23:09Uh that's in front of those three

23:10townhomes on Finley Street. Uh planning

23:12commission worded this condition to say

23:14that they must be removed. Um if the

23:16utility lines are handled differently,

23:18then that would allow for those trees to

23:20be accommodated, but um this condition

23:23gives the latitude for no trees to be

23:25required in the area of the utility

23:26lines.

23:28Uh nine is dealing with the fact that

23:30we've got right of way to be donated in

23:33an easement for transit.

23:36Um

23:37there was mention made of a transit stop

23:40to be folded into the design of this

23:41project. Um this condition just

23:44memorializes the fact that we wouldn't

23:46have to come back to the mayor and

23:47commission to ask for a change to be

23:48able to accommodate that shelter.

23:50And then having 10-ft clearance between

23:52trees and bus stop, that was something

23:54that came from our transit staff to make

23:55sure that safety and sightlines can be

23:57accommodated. Um so planning

24:00commission's recommendation is approval

24:01with those 10 conditions, and I'm happy

24:03to answer any questions.

24:05>> Thanks, Bruce. I appreciate it. Is there

24:07any member of the public who'd like to

24:08speak to this? If so, you can line up

24:09the podium now.

24:12>> Uh good evening, David Ellison, the

24:13applicant on this project. Only have 3

24:16minutes, so I'd just highlight some of

24:17the brief benefits of this project.

24:19First one, as you're aware, we're going

24:21to be restoring and stabilizing the

24:22stream. Uh this is going to have to be

24:24approved by the US Army Corps of

24:26Engineers, state EPD, and ACC staff.

24:30We've also proposed a neighborhood park

24:32and garden. Uh

24:33Hill First Baptist Church has designed

24:35this park. The developer will build it

24:37at his expense and then grant the church

24:39a perpetual easement. Uh that perpetual

24:42easement agreement is within your

24:43materials.

24:44Uh we'll be participating in the

24:46inclusionary zoning ordinance by paying

24:48a 2.2 million payment lieu, even though

24:51we're not going to be using any of the

24:52density bonus associated with that

24:54program.

24:56Uh but beyond those benefits, we believe

24:58this project is going to be consistent

25:00with the future new future land use map.

25:03Uh, the goal of this development was try

25:04to get a step down from CG to CD.

25:08Uh, the developers originally reduced

25:09the density from, uh, by 20% by removing

25:12the top floor.

25:14Uh, the idea behind this project is that

25:16the six-story mixed-use building along

25:18Broad Street is consistent with the

25:20existing major corridor designation,

25:23which calls for high-intensity mixed-use

25:25development with a height of three to

25:27seven stories. So, at six stories, we

25:29fall beneath that.

25:30The rear parcels are facing Reese

25:32Street, which are part of the

25:33mixed-density residential, which calls

25:35for two to four-story houses, shared

25:37green spaces, or multifamily.

25:39So, our three-story townhomes and the

25:41green space on Reese Street fits

25:43squarely within the existing future land

25:45use map.

25:46We believe our project also advances

25:48many of the guiding principles of the

25:49future land use map. One is redeveloping

25:52a corridor ripe for transformation.

25:54Uh, three or four developers have tried

25:56to make this project work, but it

25:57hasn't, and these buildings are

25:58dilapidated.

25:59Two, minimizing sewer expansions and

26:02growing capacity within the existing

26:03network. This property is already served

26:05by a sewer, and the developer will be

26:07making improvements to benefit the

26:08entire sewage basin at its expense,

26:10which are estimated to be about $2

26:12million.

26:13Three, supporting environmentally and

26:15fiscally sustainable growth.

26:16I already mentioned the stream

26:17restoration, the sewer improvements will

26:19help the entire watershed.

26:21But also, most of the productive parts

26:23of Athens are largely tax exempt, and

26:26we're increasing the productivity of

26:27this land for the benefit of the entire

26:29county.

26:30Uh, the annual tax revenue from this

26:31would go from 22,000 to about 1.3

26:34million per year the year after

26:35completion.

26:37This is in addition to the 2.2 million

26:38inclusionary zoning payment.

26:40Uh, with the best of my time, I'd like

26:42to just point out that we do need some,

26:44uh, conditions. Uh, I propose a

26:46condition that addresses, uh, planning

26:48commission's recommendations on one and

26:50two to provide some design flexibility.

26:53And also, we are asking for condition

26:56number five to be revised to eliminate

26:58the requirement to comply with the

27:00conserved canopy requirement. Well, we

27:02can comply with the 40% total canopy,

27:05but we cannot comply with conserved

27:06canopy and make this project work. Thank

27:08you.

27:09>> Thank you, Mr. Allison.

27:11>> [clears throat]

27:11>> Good evening.

27:14Good evening, Joseph with SBG 180

27:16Homestead Drive.

27:18I'm with the development team and three

27:19things I want to talk about. One, the

27:20commemorative garden.

27:22Uh two, the stream restoration. And

27:24[snorts] then uh three, I'll touch on

27:26well, trees and fire. Maybe make it

27:28four. Um yeah, very excited about the

27:30commemorative garden that you see uh to

27:33to the north there. That um oval, the

27:36green oval there. Uh the design was a

27:38result of a design shret with the Reese

27:39neighbors.

27:40And it will be a sacred space for Reese

27:42neighborhood as well as Athens citizens

27:44and visitors.

27:45The Reese neighborhood has a

27:47embarrassing wealth of beautiful history

27:49and that story needs to be told.

27:52The commemorative garden includes a wall

27:53of remembrance, a series of interpretive

27:55panels telling the illustrative story, a

27:58flex lawn, a variety of seating, steps

28:00up to a platform that will function as

28:02an event stage as well as an outdoor

28:04classroom. Um so, very excited about

28:06this component of the project. Secondly,

28:09we're excited about the stream

28:10restoration.

28:11This is [snorts] without a doubt good

28:13for the environment.

28:14Um and sustainability is important to

28:16Athens, but stream restoration is

28:18expensive and it is rare. And this is a

28:21first for Athens and I understand

28:23some of the apprehension.

28:25Staff wants to get it right. Athens

28:26wants to get it right. We want to get it

28:27right. So, we have a uh stream

28:30consultant who's been doing this for 30

28:31years. He didn't write the book, but he

28:32was trained by the people who wrote the

28:34book on stream restoration. He's been

28:35working with us. He's been handling the

28:37design. It is not complex to him. It is

28:40actually simple. Um and we have been

28:42progressing those plans. We submitted to

28:44the Army Corps and we're finishing up

28:46plans for uh the EPD. And we're going to

28:49submit those next week. We've been

28:51reviewing all this with TPW and we feel

28:53like there's a good understanding.

28:54They've been collaborative in meeting

28:56with these uh

28:58uh federal agencies and state agencies

29:00that are reviewing and we feel like

29:01there's a good understanding of what's

29:03what's going on here.

29:04Um more can be said about that if you

29:06have more questions. Uh finally, trees.

29:08Um like David mentioned, we do need to

29:10revise one of those conditions. It was a

29:12long planning commission meeting. We can

29:15meet the planted canopy of 40% but we

29:18can't conserve trees here doing the

29:19stream restoration. That's just simply

29:21not feasible. If you've been out to the

29:23site, you will notice there aren't a lot

29:25of quality trees where we're um doing

29:27[snorts] the work here. They're mainly

29:28invasives.

29:30And then finally on the the fire

29:31marshal's concern, um

29:34we have uh

29:35you know, reviewed these plans with him

29:36several times. Um we're good on the the

29:39building to the south of the stream. It

29:41was one of the townhomes when they were

29:42looking at this a third time that they

29:44measured and realized we didn't have a

29:46150-ft hose pull all the way around to

29:48that back townhome. And it looks like

29:50we're going to have to drop that

29:51townhome as we move forward but the

29:53condition is in place. We will meet the

29:55fire marshal's concerns and we will make

29:58sure that we're compliance there. So,

30:00that that concern should not be

30:02Thank you.

30:03>> Thank you, Mr. Bates.

30:04>> Thank you.

30:05>> [clears throat]

30:05>> Good evening.

30:07>> Hi.

30:08Taller than Joseph.

30:10>> [snorts]

30:10>> Hi, I'm Tommy Sennett with the developer

30:13on this project. Uh

30:15Uh 3449 Wynadot Street. Uh I'm here

30:19today to speak to you about uh how this

30:22project came about and how we have

30:24worked with the community to make sure

30:26that we can fulfill everyone's input,

30:28all stakeholders input into a project

30:30that can actually be built and be

30:32successful in Athens. Um so, we we

30:35started this project at the beginning of

30:37this year and we know that multiple

30:39multiple developers over the decades

30:41have tried to redevelop this.

30:43We know at least three of them have

30:44tried to do this just in the last 15

30:46years. And so with that in mind, this is

30:49a very complicated site due to the

30:51stream that runs through it.

30:53Um and so with this in mind,

30:56uh we met with on the outset with the

30:59Reese Street neighbors as well as

31:00Hillcrest Baptist Church to understand

31:03what what how can we work with them

31:07because we understand that we want to be

31:08good neighbors and how can we get them

31:11um to support us because we know that

31:13we're not going to get this project to

31:14work if we can't have support from our

31:16neighbors. And so we have had over 10

31:19meetings with Hillcrest Baptist Church

31:21as well as the Reese Street neighbors.

31:23Um as Joseph mentioned, we held a design

31:25charrette. They came up with the idea of

31:28this historic commemorative park. Um and

31:31it's a fantastic opportunity celebrate

31:33the neighborhood, but also the history.

31:35And we have committed to to building

31:37this park as a unique uh opportunity in

31:40addition to the stream restoration.

31:42Um and so through those design

31:44charrettes, they have helped us

31:46um curate this space and they have they

31:48have designed it. Um and we've listened

31:51to them. We've also via our multiple

31:53planning commission meetings heard from

31:56the planning commission that they wish

31:57that there was a transitionary zone on

31:59this location. CD zoning is to the right

32:02and then you step down to less than 50

32:04units 50 beds per acre to the left. And

32:07the planning commission challenged us at

32:08our first meeting. We actually had

32:09proposed 536 beds and the planning

32:12commission challenged us, "This is This

32:14is just as dense as CD

32:16um and we think that this is a

32:17transitionary zone." So we listened to

32:19them and we reduced the density. We

32:21chopped off the entire top floor of the

32:23building, which equaled 106 beds, which

32:25was 20% of the entire density.

32:28Um

32:29and we listened to the planning

32:30commission and that is why we we're

32:32excited that they they ultimately

32:34approved us at the final meeting. In

32:36addition, we met with the Cabbot

32:38neighborhood during as well as Reese. We

32:40heard that we wanted to reduce the

32:41height, so we reduced the height. We

32:43also wanted to not have a canyon on

32:44Broad, so we have this undulation here.

32:46You see step backs. So, we've created

32:48plazas to to create a pedestrian

32:49experience.

32:51Um and and we wanted to respond to the

32:52neighborhoods not have noise pollution.

32:54These are passive only courtyards to

32:56ensure that we're responding and

32:57respecting to our surrounding

32:58neighborhoods.

33:00Um and we're excited that when we

33:01stepped it back, we actually were able

33:03to put trees in these plazas. Everyone

33:05we've gotten a lot back um from

33:07stakeholders that we want trees along

33:09Broad, so we're excited to to bring that

33:10here as well.

33:10>> Thank you, Mr. Senator.

33:11>> Thank you.

33:13>> Good evening.

33:14>> Hi there.

33:17>> [snorts]

33:17>> I'm Julie Roth and I reside at 146

33:21Dearing Street.

33:22And I am here in opposition to this

33:25project. Um there are many reasons I

33:27oppose this, but some of the most

33:29important ones to me are first of all

33:32that the rezoning violates the just

33:35adopted 2045 future land use map that

33:38clearly

33:39defined downtown ending at Finley

33:42Street. Um this was approved by this

33:44body just in April of this year after

33:47more than 2 and 1/2 years of work by

33:49concerned citizens, public input

33:51meetings, planning commission members,

33:54and it's just so frustrating that we

33:56spend all this time and ask for all this

33:59input and then less than a year later

34:01we're already ready to move it

34:03a block.

34:05Secondly, the massive proposed building

34:07facing Broad Street will dominate the

34:09Dearing Street neighborhood. It actually

34:11rises a couple of stories above the

34:15homes on Dearing Street.

34:18Um the intersections of Broad Street

34:20with Finley and Pope are already

34:22dangerous and this development will only

34:24make that situation worse.

34:27Probably one of the biggest problems to

34:28me with the development is that there

34:31are 425 beds down from the over 500 that

34:34they proposed, but they're only

34:36providing 211 parking places. We know

34:39that these college students coming from

34:41Atlanta are all going to be bringing

34:43their cars with them, and those cars

34:45have got to go somewhere, and the

34:47developer should have to provide a

34:49parking space for every one of those

34:50cars.

34:51All the neighborhood streets from the

34:54historic neighborhoods on either side of

34:56this development are narrow streets.

34:58They have parking on one side already,

35:01and all those spots are basically full.

35:03There's just nowhere for these cars to

35:05go. The Rambler didn't have enough

35:07spaces for all of their bedrooms, so now

35:10all of those students are parking their

35:11cars in these historic neighborhoods,

35:13and we just have no more capacity for

35:15cars. Somebody's got to provide parking

35:17for all these people.

35:19Um

35:21we appreciated the changes that they

35:22made in the setbacks on the frontage of

35:24Broad Street, but their large pool deck

35:27there on the right-hand side of the

35:29development is still there. It's up

35:32elevated up from the street, and it has

35:34three walls surrounding that swimming

35:36pool terrace where all the partying will

35:38be going on, and that will project all

35:40the sound directly across to our Dearing

35:42Street neighborhood.

35:44Um I feel like the development should be

35:46moved and downsized to accommodate the

35:49stream flow of Tanyard Branch, and we

35:51should not be moving the natural stream

35:53flow to accommodate the building.

35:56Um and lastly, I think this rezoning

35:58vote is premature. Why would we vote to

36:01rezone next month when we don't even

36:03have permits yet from the EPD? What if

36:05they don't get the permits? Then we've

36:06got a commercial downtown zoned block

36:10and no development to go there. I can't

36:12imagine what might end up going there

36:14after that happens.

36:15>> Thank you, Mr. Roth.

36:17>> Oh, is it done? Okay, perfect. Thank

36:19you. That was my last point. [laughter]

36:23>> Good evening.

36:24>> Good evening. My name is Gwendolyn Ayer,

36:27and I live at 254 Dearing Street. Thank

36:30you for replying to my email that I sent

36:33today, several of you.

36:35Um

36:36I moved here almost 4 years ago, and I

36:40live a half mile from downtown, walk

36:43downtown every single day.

36:45I am terrified walking the streets of

36:48Broad Street because the cars just feel

36:51like they're going to come up on the

36:53sidewalk at any moment. So, my husband

36:55and I, when we walk downtown, we always

36:57walk with the cars coming at us, hoping

36:59that if they come over the sidewalk,

37:01we're diving, you know, in the opposite

37:02direction.

37:04It's It's already an issue of safety,

37:06and it's already an issue of traffic,

37:08and I can't stress enough

37:12how

37:13we are busting out of the seams there,

37:15and I don't know how bringing 400 more

37:18tenants and their cars, 210 cars or

37:21whatever um is planned, is going to help

37:25our community at all. At the last

37:26meeting, it was it was said that

37:28actually things would improve or or stay

37:31the same, and I just can't believe that.

37:33At night,

37:35there are so many cars drag racing

37:37almost every single night. I see car

37:39accidents all the time along Pope and

37:42Church at Broad, and I don't know what

37:45the stats are for our area, but it feels

37:48like we get an accident on such a

37:51regular basis. Again, I don't think this

37:54development will help that. I am pro

37:56development. I am pro students. Like, I

37:59love the music. I love the parents

38:01weekends. I love it all. That's why we

38:02moved here. That's why we want to retire

38:04here. But, I am not pro bringing 200

38:08parking spaces needed Um I mean, I'm

38:11sorry. Not having 200 parking spaces for

38:14these tenants, and then them them

38:16parking in our streets that are already

38:18so dangerous because it's turning our

38:20our streets into a one-way.

38:23You You everybody's having to back up

38:24constantly because there are illegal

38:27parkings going on. The Rambler is

38:29definitely the cause of a lot of that,

38:31and I try really hard not to complain

38:34and get Officer Lance out there, but it

38:37is a repeated issue, and bringing 200

38:41more spots is just going to be like

38:43utter chaos. They um the developers had

38:46mentioned that they were going to

38:47provide 130 parking places for bikes.

38:51No UGA student brings a bike. Like maybe

38:53five out of out of 130. [laughter]

38:55Like it's wasted space. They've offered

38:57a Zipcar space. That's great. They've

38:59offered offered rentals for scooters.

39:02Great. But there's still 200 people who

39:04are not going to have access to a car um

39:06being parked on their their property.

39:09So, I I adamantly oppose, and I

39:11appreciate the time. Thank you.

39:13>> Thank you, Ms. Mayor.

39:15>> Good evening.

39:17>> Good evening. Um Liz DeMarco, 327 Hill

39:21Street. Um I've lived there for 26

39:24years. Um I'm actually reading uh my

39:26neighbor Stephanie Lynn's uh writings

39:30here. Um and we we live about four

39:34blocks from the proposed development.

39:37Okay.

39:38My overall point is that the parking

39:40deficit driven by this development's

39:42high density is impossible to overcome.

39:46Time and again, I've watched this

39:47commission evaluate proposals and make

39:49difficult decisions. I've seen a genuine

39:52desire to do no harm. That is why I'm

39:54asking you to look carefully at the

39:56potential harm this particular project

39:58could cause. I strongly support the

40:01Reese Street community's desire for a

40:04commemorative park and an educational

40:06facility that honors the neighborhood's

40:08history. That is a worthy goal goal, and

40:11I would like to see it become a reality,

40:13but it should not come at the expense of

40:15the surrounding neighborhoods.

40:17Planning staff identified significant

40:19shortcomings and gaps in the information

40:21provided for this project. They

40:23recommended 11 conditions to address

40:25those shortcomings and compensate for

40:27the incomplete binding site plan. And

40:30yet, 20% of that plan would be

40:32non-binding.

40:34That is not a minor detail about

40:36landscape or signage. It includes the

40:38relocation of a stream to accommodate

40:40this very large development. But, the

40:42greatest concern is parking. The

40:43planning commission recommended most of

40:46the 11 all of the 11 conditions except

40:48for the one. And the one they left out

40:50would have required the applicant to

40:52provide parking for at least 75% of the

40:55bedrooms. Staff recognized

40:58that street parking is already severely

41:00constrained. The development would

41:02eliminate 53 existing parking spaces

41:05leaving just 88 street parking spaces in

41:08a nine-block area surrounding the

41:10property. This plan

41:14current plan provides 21 standard

41:16parking spaces for 425 bedrooms.

41:21During the discussion, it became clear

41:22that at at the meeting that the proposed

41:25parking condition would be difficult if

41:27not impossible for developer

41:29with the current design proposal. So,

41:31rather than ask the design team to go

41:32back to the drawing board to resolve

41:34that problem, the condition was dropped.

41:37This is precisely why the project needs

41:39more work.

41:41We should not approve a plan by removing

41:43the condition simply because it is

41:44inconvenient. The underlying problem

41:47remains, and the surrounding

41:48neighborhoods will be left to bear the

41:49consequences. At the planning commission

41:52meeting, Mr. Loney pointed out to the

41:54planning commission that another option

41:56exists, a plan development using RM3

41:59zoning potentially combined with a

42:01density bonus for inclusionary housing.

42:04That approach could allow approximately

42:06200 bedrooms while reducing the overall

42:08height and easing the parking burden. It

42:11could also better address the concerns

42:13of the neighbors on Dearing Street. This

42:15is an opportunity to find a compromise

42:18that allows meaningful development while

42:20respecting the realities of this

42:22location.

42:22>> Thank you, Mr. MacEachern.

42:26>> Good evening.

42:27>> Good evening.

42:28>> Uh my name is Gil Hurley.

42:31I live I am a

42:33I live at 237 North Church Street.

42:36Uh I am a long-time lifelong member uh

42:40of the Reese community.

42:42I stand before you tonight in support of

42:45the proposed uh 660 West Broad Street

42:49development and the creation of the 363

42:53Reese Street commemora- commemorative

42:56park.

42:57When I think about Reese Street, I just

43:00don't think about streets, houses, and

43:02buildings. I think about people. I think

43:04about families. I think about

43:06generations who made this community what

43:10it is today.

43:11I think about the neighbors who looked

43:14out for one another, the churches that

43:17helped raise our children, and the

43:19families who worked hard to create a

43:21better life for the generations coming

43:24behind them. There is something special

43:27about living in a community where

43:29history is not something you just simply

43:32read about.

43:33It is something you live.

43:36Our family has roots in the neighborhood

43:38that reach back four generations. I

43:41understand the importance of protecting

43:44that history. But I also understand that

43:47times change. Neighbors

43:49neighborhoods change. The community must

43:53uh

43:53have opportunities to grow. What matters

43:56to me is that uh change comes, we do not

44:00forget the people who make

44:02neighborhoods special. That is why I

44:05believe the 363 Reese Street Community

44:09Park is so important.

44:12I want our children and grandchildren to

44:15have a space where they can learn about

44:18the history of this community. I want

44:21them to know that African-American

44:23families helped build Athens.

44:27That's

44:28what our church

44:30that our churches matter, that our

44:32schools mattered, and that our

44:35businesses mattered, and that is the

44:39lives of ordinary people who worked,

44:41worshipped, and raised their families

44:43here mattered because our community's

44:46history should never disappear simply

44:49because the landscape changes.

44:53I know there are different opinions

44:56about development, and I respect that.

44:58But, I also believe that those of us who

45:02call the neighborhood home

45:04deserve to have our voices heard as

45:08decisions are made about the space,

45:11about the future.

45:14We would be able to welcome improvements

45:18while protecting the character, history,

45:20and quality of life of our community. I

45:23support the project with the

45:25expectations that the developers will

45:27remain accountable to the residents and

45:31honor the commitment made to the

45:33neighborhood.

45:34>> Thank you, Dr. Brown.

45:35>> Thank you.

45:38>> Good evening.

45:40>> Good evening, Mayor and Commission,

45:43um, and staff. My name is Hope

45:45Igleheart, and I stand before you

45:47tonight as a fourth-generation member of

45:50the Reese Street community.

45:52As many of you know, I worked to get the

45:54local historic designation for the Reese

45:56Street community over 18 years ago.

45:59For my family, Reese Street is more than

46:01a historic district. It is home. It is

46:04where generations of my family have

46:05lived, worshipped, worked,

46:08and helped build community rooted in

46:10faith, education, and perseverance.

46:13Tonight, I'm in support of the 660 West

46:16Broad Street development and the

46:17creation of the 363 Reese Street

46:21Commemorative Park.

46:22I believe we have an opportunity to

46:24demonstrate that progress and

46:26preservation do not have to compete.

46:29They can coexist.

46:31Reese Street represents an important

46:32chapter in Athens' African-American

46:35history.

46:36Following emancipation, black families

46:38built churches, schools, businesses, and

46:41institutions that became the foundation

46:43of this community.

46:46Reese was not simply where black people

46:48lived. It was where black people built,

46:51led, educated, worshipped, and

46:53flourished.

46:55The proposed commemorative park at 363

46:57Reese offers an opportunity to preserve

47:00that legacy

47:01through historic markers, educational

47:03exhibits, and gathering space to tell

47:06the story of those who came before us.

47:08Because preservation is not simply about

47:11protecting buildings, it is about

47:13protecting stories and contributions of

47:16people who gave those buildings meaning.

47:19Athens is changing and development is

47:21inevitable. The question is whether the

47:24development will happen to our

47:26communities or with our communities.

47:30I appreciate the willingness of the

47:32developer development team to engage

47:35residents and community stakeholders.

47:37Other developers had not done that.

47:41These conversations have not always been

47:43easy, and they have been legitimate

47:44concerns about parking, traffic,

47:46infrastructure, and neighborhood impact.

47:49These concerns deserve continued

47:52attention and commitment to the

47:53community must be honored. But, I also

47:56believe we cannot all allow our

47:58differences about how progress happens

48:00to prevent us from recognizing when

48:02progress is possible.

48:04My neighbors, I'm sure, have emailed

48:06you, used their influence,

48:09and

48:11tried to influence your support for

48:14um against the project. None of these

48:16people actually live in Reese.

48:19They And I would would like to also

48:22share that the developer has committed 2

48:25million um

48:27million in affordable housing for the

48:28affordable housing fund,

48:30to restore Tanyard Branch, um the

48:33commemorative park, and also traffic

48:36calming mechanisms, as well as include a

48:39committee that will include Dearing and

48:41Cobham.

48:42>> Thank you, Mr. Eagle-Eagle Heart.

48:44>> Also, I would Could I uh take this

48:47pleasure?

48:48Um could the

48:49>> We're done, but you just have to get

48:51folks to raise their hand. That's all.

48:52>> Yeah, if you could if the members of

48:54Hill First could stand, please.

49:01>> Thank you all.

49:01>> Thank you.

49:04>> All right. This is in District 4.

49:08>> Yes, it is.

49:09>> All right, Commissioner Wright, I'm

49:10going to go ahead and turn it to you.

49:11>> Bruce, I have some good questions for

49:13you.

49:14Um can you go to the picture that shows

49:18um

49:20It's the mapping with the color There's

49:21so many color maps in our packet. If you

49:25could go to the one that shows our park

49:27as a green.

49:29>> Is that

49:29>> It's not the drawing. It's more of the

49:31color blocks.

49:32>> Understood.

49:33Yep. So, zoning-wise,

49:34>> E E Is that it?

49:37>> There's that.

49:37>> That That one. This one. See? So, the

49:40part And you might not be able to answer

49:41these. I know it might be follow-up

49:43question. So, the triangle, the long

49:46triangle that has the Reese address and

49:48the house, why Why that being rezoned to

49:51green?

49:53>> That is part of the development project

49:54and it is private.

49:56So it is not a public park. It is a

49:58green space associated with the

50:00development. It is not a park in the way

50:03that it is is recognized

50:05>> under the way we define it.

50:06[clears throat]

50:06>> that we define it by zoning code, but

50:08again, PD plan development has a binding

50:11site plan. If it's designated as open

50:14space,

50:15um then that's what it shall be. Um but

50:18it is private and it is subject to

50:20private regulation.

50:21>> And so I would So then can I assume that

50:23the parks and open spaces that we have

50:25are also government?

50:27>> Yeah, they're owned Yeah, the two in

50:29green are are owned by Office Clark

50:30County.

50:31>> Okay, so then if you'll scroll down,

50:33there's some other pictures and um I

50:35know that there's a lot of talk going

50:37about around about this park. Um

50:40so is that going to have vehicle access?

50:46>> No, this iteration does not. The earlier

50:49iteration did and that's why the fire

50:51marshal was able to be comfortable with

50:53the town homes

50:54um when that That was originally a

50:56parking area. And so in discussion with

50:59the neighborhood as represented by the

51:00comments,

51:01that changed in some of the iterations

51:03of this plan from the preliminary

51:05submittal to the one that you see

51:06tonight. So no, that would not be for

51:09vehicles.

51:09>> be emergency access whether it's fire or

51:13something else.

51:13>> My understanding is it has not been

51:15designed for that kind of use.

51:17>> And that's not Okay. And then um I I Can

51:21you go to the drawing or the that shows

51:23us the historic district?

51:25>> Yep, there you go.

51:25>> Okay. And so I mean, I can see why that

51:30area is designed that way

51:32to stay also in the historic district.

51:36>> As far as

51:36>> But we don't know yet.

51:37>> open space for the historic district.

51:39>> So when the historic preservation

51:40commission has this,

51:42are they only

51:44considering what's in that red hash

51:46mark?

51:47>> Correct. Correct. And there is a

51:49portion, as you can kind of see,

51:51that does extend into the footprint of

51:53the building.

51:53>> Yeah.

51:54>> Um but yeah, the the vast majority of it

51:56is the the private part. [cough]

51:58>> So, but the historic preservation, that

52:01is

52:02coming in front of them, I think,

52:03tomorrow?

52:05>> That

52:06Yes, it's been Yes, it's been submitted.

52:08>> And then, um

52:11the townhomes, I see how they match a

52:14little bit over there, but um

52:17the parts that

52:20I want your input on as far as the

52:23process and the creek, I'm moving

52:25downward now. The riparian buffer and

52:29that You said something about 20-ft

52:31buffer, is that the riparian buffer?

52:33>> So, there is no

52:34the buffer The variance that was

52:36requested essentially reduced the buffer

52:39to whatever the state says they can do.

52:41So, we currently don't know the

52:43dimension of the buffer

52:45>> cuz we don't have the Corps of Engineers

52:47state input.

52:48>> Correct.

52:48>> Okay, and are those

52:50two separate processes, the

52:52Environmental Protection Division and

52:54the Corps of Engineers? Is that two

52:55separate

52:56>> Yeah, it's two separate processes that

52:57work very closely to one another. Um the

53:00conversation My understanding, I was not

53:01a part of this, but um the applicant may

53:03be able to speak to this.

53:05Um but the conversation with EPD, I

53:07believe, is also awaiting um the

53:10determination from the Corps of

53:11Engineers to finalize their review.

53:13>> Lots of lots of checkpoints.

53:14>> Yeah.

53:15>> And then, is there Are those two

53:18entities only doing

53:21what I'm looking at It looks like a

53:23riparian buffer. Is that the only thing

53:25they're considering?

53:26Or are they evaluating the whole effects

53:29of the development?

53:30>> No, they are not. They are only

53:32evaluating the development as it relates

53:34to the condition of that stream. So, to

53:36say that it doesn't include the

53:38building, I think might be inaccurate.

53:40It definitely does include, say, the

53:42fire lane that you see

53:44>> Yeah.

53:44>> um on the western side because that

53:46comes very close and is encroaching

53:48>> Yeah.

53:48>> um to the current stream bed. Um how the

53:51development of the building will or will

53:54not impact the water during construction

53:57is absolutely going to be a performance

53:58standard that they'll have some say over

54:01quite a bit.

54:02>> Okay.

54:02>> Um but yeah, their their focus is on the

54:04stream and the mitigation of the area

54:06around it.

54:07>> Okay. And then, again, on the historic

54:10part, we have a historic marker. I'm

54:12really big on if it's historic, it

54:14should have a marker. And we do have a

54:16marker here. And is that also part of

54:19the historic preservation's

54:20consideration as to what's happening on

54:23this historic site?

54:24>> Yes.

54:25>> Okay. Um

54:28the parking

54:31uh the tandem parking.

54:34How does that That's Well, the fire

54:37marshal have a concern about that as

54:38well?

54:40>> The fire marshal didn't have a concern.

54:42Um I think if there is a car fire Yeah.

54:45involving one of the cars that is

54:47>> deep

54:48>> pinned in, um they're going to deal with

54:51it regardless.

54:52Um so, no, they didn't express any

54:54direct concerns over that. Um there were

54:57concerns about how that would function

55:00on site with maneuverability

55:02>> Yeah.

55:02>> um for the tenants, and that was that

55:04was also brought up by transportation

55:06and public works about just operational

55:08things on the site.

55:09>> Yeah, because recently we had a um

55:11information about a project that went

55:13through, and you said we couldn't have

55:15two driveways in front of a house

55:17anymore because that means one

55:20car is backing out into traffic. That

55:24there are safety reasons why we

55:26>> Yeah.

55:26>> don't allow certain parking

55:28arrangements.

55:28>> Yeah.

55:29>> And so, the tandem parking

55:32is

55:33within this structure.

55:35>> Mhm.

55:36>> So, it's also

55:39um

55:39the maneuverability is

55:42also okay. Um

55:45it's a lot to study

55:47for this project, isn't it?

55:49And I I appreciate everybody paying

55:52attention to the information that we're

55:54getting in asking as many questions of

55:56Bruce as possible so that we understand

56:00it for sure.

56:02Mr. Link.

56:04>> Yeah, so um I represented this area for

56:068 years um and I can tell you that the

56:09number one concern I heard about over

56:12and over again from folks living in this

56:13area was the parking.

56:16This is a neighborhood with really

56:17narrow streets, a lot of homes that have

56:20only one space in their driveway or no

56:22driveways at all. Um we already have

56:25some really dense student housing

56:27projects just a block away that do not

56:30accommodate all their parking needs.

56:32They're all being tossed onto the

56:34streets of this neighborhood. And this

56:36comes out and and only has parking for

56:38about half the tenants.

56:40Um if we were in a place where we had a

56:44really robust in-town transit system

56:46where you could easily hop on a trolley

56:49or a short bus every 10-20 minutes,

56:53um and there were regular shuttles back

56:56and forth to the Atlanta burbs and

56:58students weren't bringing their cars,

57:01I could see the feasibility of a project

57:03like this, but that is not the world we

57:05live in yet. I hope we get there, but I

57:08don't see it happening anytime soon.

57:11Um you know, the the they're coming with

57:14cars and the cars have got to go

57:16somewhere and they're going

57:18all up in people's front yards. I mean,

57:20I see cars parked on the sidewalk down

57:22Hancock all the time. I call them in.

57:25Um

57:26and you know, I I literally have had a

57:29little lady in

57:31my district die because she could not

57:34get driveway was taken by a student

57:37housing developer next door. She could

57:39no longer get in and out of the front of

57:41her house or the back of her house and

57:43directly into a car. She had to be

57:45carried down steps whenever she had to

57:47leave her house, um which she seldom

57:50did. She only lived about a year or so

57:52after that driveway was taken from her.

57:55Um

57:56so the impacts of all these cars on our

57:58neighborhoods and I know Commissioner

58:00Taylor can speak to East Athens as well.

58:02Um

58:03mailboxes being blocked, folks not being

58:06able to get their medicine. I rode

58:08around with the sanitation worker who

58:12had all kinds of trouble getting those

58:14trash cans. Um

58:16We hear it all the time. Those of us who

58:18represent these in-town neighborhoods

58:20that were built before cars were a thing

58:23for everybody. Um

58:26that it's the number one concern and

58:29you know, I I have concerns about the

58:31scale of this project. I mean, we

58:32literally just 6 months ago passed our

58:35future land use plan and it said

58:37commercial downtown stops at Finley

58:39Street. And already we want to change

58:42that. Um I I think that

58:44the planning staff spells it out really

58:46crystal clear that, you know, there

58:48there 10 conditions. Like when was the

58:50last time we had a project with 10

58:52conditions? Um you know, they they

58:55suggest that this is an RM3 appropriate

58:57site. There's certainly I mean, I I

59:00really appreciate, you know, the idea

59:01that they want to restore the stream,

59:03although I'm not quite sure how much

59:05this qualifies as a restoration since

59:07they're actually rerouting it.

59:10Um and I really appreciate the park.

59:12Like there needs to be some

59:13commemoration and maybe it's upon

59:15Athens-Clarke County to take that up and

59:18and make that commemoration at the Reese

59:20Pope Park.

59:21Um [clears throat] you know, we really

59:22should be doing that, I feel.

59:25Um the height of this is is just it's

59:28it's obscene. [laughter] It's a lot. Um,

59:31you know, I was under the impression

59:33this was going to be a four-story

59:34project. Um, it's a six-story project.

59:38Um,

59:39I Yeah, I mean, I I totally hear the

59:41concerns of of folks who live in the

59:44neighborhood and and I I ride those

59:46streets on my scooters and I can attest,

59:49you know, that those cars parked

59:51everywhere is it's it's dangerous. It's

59:53a dangerous condition.

59:55Um,

59:56I I also have a big question. Um, this

59:59is not a PD, correct?

1:00:01>> It is.

1:00:01>> It is a PD. Okay, so if this were to

1:00:04pass

1:00:05and for some reason the developer

1:00:07couldn't get the project back up off the

1:00:09ground, that commercial downtown zoning

1:00:12would not remain. It would flip back to

1:00:14the current zoning or does that zoning

1:00:16go with the

1:00:18>> The if if the developer, for whatever

1:00:20reason, cannot build the project, the PD

1:00:23and the underlying zoning would remain.

1:00:26>> So, any not any other developer would

1:00:28have to come back through the process

1:00:29and ask for a rezoning as well.

1:00:31>> Correct.

1:00:33>> Commissioner Davenport.

1:00:34>> Yes, thank you. I got several questions.

1:00:37I don't see

1:00:38Sarah, so I guess someone is going to be

1:00:40taking notes. Um,

1:00:42and unfortunately my computer is is

1:00:44updating. So, okay. Um,

1:00:48go through my So, right now Reese Pope

1:00:50Park is a public park where, you know,

1:00:52anybody can can visit and participate

1:00:55and enjoy, correct?

1:00:56>> Yes.

1:00:57>> So, we're going to privatize that park.

1:01:01Correct? So, it's going to be I thought

1:01:04someone said in the audience that we

1:01:06private just for the

1:01:08Keep Keep over the park piece one more

1:01:10time.

1:01:11>> So, the the Reese Pope Park is public

1:01:13and will remain public. What is proposed

1:01:15by the applicant is that sort of ellipse

1:01:18in the middle, the the oval, that would

1:01:20be on private property and would remain

1:01:22private.

1:01:24>> Okay.

1:01:24>> Yeah.

1:01:25>> All righty. Thank you. That clarifies

1:01:27that.

1:01:30Okay.

1:01:32Without the rezone, what could be Can

1:01:35you explain the density of what could be

1:01:37developed by right?

1:01:39>> Um

1:01:40And and

1:01:41>> Or you can send an email.

1:01:42>> Yeah, and and it's in on page seven of

1:01:44the staff report

1:01:46that compares the current zoning with

1:01:47what's requested. Um but 24 bedrooms per

1:01:51acre is what the commercial general

1:01:53zoning would allow as well as the arm

1:01:54two zoning.

1:01:56Um that's what's on there today.

1:01:58>> Okay.

1:01:59>> If if density was your main question.

1:02:01>> And um

1:02:03plan development. So, on the the graph

1:02:05is showing four-story town homes,

1:02:08but

1:02:10the applicant has said three-story, then

1:02:12the application also says four-story.

1:02:14>> Correct. So, during the course of the

1:02:15project, they eliminated a story. So,

1:02:18the town homes are three, and the

1:02:20building itself is six.

1:02:21>> Okay.

1:02:22I think.

1:02:27And

1:02:29and can you go over the ground floor

1:02:31commercial?

1:02:34>> Sure. In our commercial zones, the way

1:02:37our code is worded today, ground floor

1:02:39commercial is required on at least 50%

1:02:41of the ground floor.

1:02:43Um in the commercial downtown, if you

1:02:46were to participate it So, first, if you

1:02:48had commercial downtown zoning,

1:02:50you are now eligible for payment in lieu

1:02:53for inclusionary zoning.

1:02:55Uh a qualifying project with the

1:02:57inclusionary zoning ordinance also gets

1:02:59some other benefits um

1:03:02to help offset some of those costs

1:03:04associated with providing the affordable

1:03:06housing. One of those benefits is a

1:03:07reduction in the ground floor

1:03:08residential to 25%

1:03:11rather than 50%. And in this plan

1:03:14development, they're asking for no

1:03:16ground floor commercial to be required.

1:03:19So, from 50% to 25% to zero. And so,

1:03:22this PD would have

1:03:24no ground floor commercial.

1:03:27Does that help?

1:03:28>> Yeah. So, the businesses there would be

1:03:31eliminated.

1:03:32>> Correct.

1:03:32>> Okay.

1:03:33>> Yeah.

1:03:34>> Commissioner Myers?

1:03:36>> Yeah, the the

1:03:37fact the no ground

1:03:39floor retail is the one thing I'm kind

1:03:42of okay with having just had um

1:03:45What's the name of that street that goes

1:03:47right by The Mark?

1:03:49Inside The Mark?

1:03:50>> Willow? No. Hickory.

1:03:52>> Hickory Hickory Street having caught the

1:03:54nice coffee shop there where there is

1:03:56retail, but you look out across the way

1:03:58and there's a whole row

1:04:00bottom floor of The Mark just has no

1:04:03commercial at all. They're just empty

1:04:05buildings and that's been quite a while.

1:04:07So, that is one part that I I do

1:04:10I do like I'm fine with. I also love the

1:04:13commemorative garden. Um whether or not

1:04:16this is approved, I love the idea of

1:04:19considering doing something over in that

1:04:21Reese Street Park. Now, on that park up

1:04:23here by the way, since you have that up

1:04:25there, is the is everything that's in

1:04:28the county owned park?

1:04:32That's not nothing's changing there.

1:04:34Like no one's putting in you know, this

1:04:36looks like it's all part of that

1:04:37drawing, but it's actually just staying

1:04:40what it is.

1:04:41>> Correct. What What you see up there is

1:04:43the exact improvements that are there

1:04:44today.

1:04:45>> Okay.

1:04:45>> There is no involvement

1:04:48with the park space. Now, the the

1:04:50Athens-Clarke County owned piece to the

1:04:52south of the park is impacted by the

1:04:54project and that would be the subject of

1:04:56the memorandum of understanding that was

1:04:59a part of the approval with the

1:05:01variance.

1:05:01>> The historic botanical garden is right

1:05:03there as

1:05:03>> A portion.

1:05:04>> A portion of it, but not all of it.

1:05:06>> the botanical garden was larger than

1:05:08that.

1:05:08>> Yeah. Okay.

1:05:08>> But yes, that yeah.

1:05:10>> That part there.

1:05:10>> general area.

1:05:11>> Okay. So, so with the increase, I mean,

1:05:14following up on on Commissioner

1:05:15Davenport's question about what was

1:05:17allowed, we're increasing with this

1:05:20request the density from 24 units to

1:05:23220. That's not just doubling, tripling

1:05:26it, but it's multiplying it by 10.

1:05:29Um that seems like a really big increase

1:05:31um in this area that we just had the

1:05:34border of commercial downtown. They um

1:05:37I'm I'm a little concerned what this

1:05:39says to other investors about, you know,

1:05:42let's buy the next parcel and see if we

1:05:44can, you know, it's a good speculation

1:05:46uh game there um

1:05:48as well and what what message we'd be

1:05:50saying on that side. Um I do want to

1:05:53understand this parking.

1:05:55Um so,

1:05:57we got the how many would we got the

1:05:59beds? I got to go back to that. The

1:06:01bedrooms are 425 beds.

1:06:04There's 211 parking spaces.

1:06:07>> Correct.

1:06:08>> originally had a request for 75%,

1:06:12which would have had it up to about 300

1:06:15and

1:06:16a couple.

1:06:17>> Right.

1:06:17>> A handful.

1:06:18>> With no tandem spaces.

1:06:20>> two questions here. How does this work

1:06:23out in terms of zoning? Is this Is this

1:06:25Is this reduced because of the

1:06:26inclusionary zoning? Are they taking

1:06:28advantage of that?

1:06:30>> That is correct. It's also something

1:06:32they're asking for as as part of the PD.

1:06:35But yeah.

1:06:35>> it What would it be if it was just the

1:06:3720%? Isn't the inclusionary zoning allow

1:06:40for a 20% reduction in parking?

1:06:42>> It depends on the unit mix, but the

1:06:44inclusionary zoning would allow for 20%,

1:06:46so that would be

1:06:4885 spaces coming off of the 425.

1:06:51>> 425, but you'd still be well over 300

1:06:54with that. Very short of. So, just on a

1:06:56really practical level, like

1:06:59and I maybe you don't have the answer to

1:07:01this. This is not your Like, where are

1:07:03the people, even And

1:07:06100 of those people Even if there are a

1:07:08hundred people, where are those people

1:07:09going to park? Because I know that one

1:07:11of the Rambler actually has a parking

1:07:13lot that's on part of the development

1:07:15property here that they're leasing

1:07:19for the people who are living in the

1:07:21Rambler. So, the Rambler's going to be

1:07:22short. I don't know how many spaces that

1:07:24is. How many is it? I don't I don't

1:07:25know. Let's say it's 40.

1:07:27>> I'm not sure of the number, but you're

1:07:28right.

1:07:28>> So, there's going to be those people.

1:07:30So, like, where are the people going to

1:07:32park? Because this is and that and

1:07:35that's my question for you because we

1:07:36know that in any other place in the

1:07:38community, if we had this kind of

1:07:42parking needs without parking spaces, um

1:07:46you know, and and we've been told, I

1:07:48mean, in the core development, I was

1:07:49told, "Well, you're going to have to

1:07:51have parking somewhere because students

1:07:53bring the park cars." And that's why

1:07:55we're having this long-term parking with

1:07:56the, you know, in the parking deck we're

1:07:58building there. So, I'm really concerned

1:08:01about that that parking and also all the

1:08:04work that done that was done on the

1:08:06future land use plan. And then there's

1:08:07the whole Tanyard Creek, which is I feel

1:08:11like I need to do a whole like graduate

1:08:12course in to really understand what's

1:08:14going on there and how Well, I've had

1:08:17people people have written with some

1:08:18concerns about that um because it isn't

1:08:21really I mean, if you look There's

1:08:22another picture in there

1:08:24that I finally caught on to this. I

1:08:25don't know. Is this

1:08:27Is Is one of the pictures in the the

1:08:29packet which shows you where the the

1:08:32creek now kind of goes across in this

1:08:34new version in as it is right now, and I

1:08:37know some of it's most of it's

1:08:39underground, but it it goes down.

1:08:42>> Correct.

1:08:42>> So, we're rechanneling

1:08:45the [clears throat] the creek here. And

1:08:47I I like I just feel like I need to

1:08:49understand a lot more about that and how

1:08:51that is going to

1:08:54happen and get approval. It seems like

1:08:55there's a lot of things that are unknown

1:08:57here.

1:08:58>> So,

1:08:59the one [clears throat] the one thing I

1:09:01I should clarify as far as density, if

1:09:03the PD were approved, the yield would be

1:09:06170 beds per acre.

1:09:08So, it would be less than CD.

1:09:10So, I just want to make that clear. It's

1:09:12It's still a significant I think your

1:09:13point was the increase.

1:09:14>> not like looking at that. I'm looking at

1:09:16just the number of beds that there are

1:09:18not

1:09:19They're not um Yeah. Okay, you're right

1:09:21on that. But, the number of beds for

1:09:23which there are not cars, so

1:09:25>> Correct.

1:09:26>> Got uh Commissioner Fisher and then

1:09:28Thornton and then back to Wright.

1:09:30>> Thank you, Mayor. Um

1:09:32Bruce, do we know when we might be

1:09:34getting a um

1:09:36answer from the Corps of Engineers? Do

1:09:37we have any idea when that might come in

1:09:40or

1:09:41>> We do not. The The information

1:09:44submitted to the Corps is still in

1:09:46development. That submittal hasn't

1:09:47occurred yet. Um and the Corps of

1:09:50Engineers doesn't really have a standard

1:09:53response time, so it's it's hard to

1:09:54judge how long we'll wait.

1:09:56>> So, if they

1:09:57say this

1:09:59that we can't move the

1:10:01the creek or whatever,

1:10:04what happens? And I guess that's a

1:10:05development question. What happens if we

1:10:07can't if the if the Corps of Engineers

1:10:08deny

1:10:10>> Mhm.

1:10:10>> that request, what happens?

1:10:12>> So, I think that's part of the

1:10:13calculated risk that the development

1:10:15team is making. And And what they're

1:10:18offering and what the planning

1:10:19commission has recommended be be made

1:10:22part of the approval

1:10:23is that band in the middle,

1:10:27um let's see here,

1:10:29take away the historic district, it's

1:10:30easier to see. But, where that new creek

1:10:32channel is, there is an area that's

1:10:34indicated in light blue that's kind of

1:10:36hard to read in this image.

1:10:38That area would allow for flexibility

1:10:40within the edges of that that if the

1:10:43Corps says, "Well, you can only move

1:10:45this so much or you can move it in

1:10:47here." As long as it's within that

1:10:48tolerance that's built into the binding

1:10:49site plan, we're fine. If what comes

1:10:53back

1:10:54is beyond that or if there's some other

1:10:56performative thing they have to do that

1:10:58is beyond that, then that's a change to

1:11:00the master plan and it would have to

1:11:02come back

1:11:03to this group for consideration.

1:11:06Um but the the whole note notion behind

1:11:08that area of flexibility was to give

1:11:11some wiggle in there to respond to the

1:11:14core of engineers or to EPD as part of

1:11:16their evaluation. Um and I think the

1:11:19applicant feels confident that the area

1:11:21that they have set aside is going to be

1:11:22sufficient. They do have a consultant

1:11:24working with them that I think was noted

1:11:26in the comments. And and that consultant

1:11:29did contribute to the thinking behind

1:11:31the area shown on the plan.

1:11:32>> Okay. Couple more questions. Um

1:11:38I guess let's go to the development.

1:11:39What's the price point

1:11:41on these um

1:11:42townhouses and um the calls from for

1:11:44people to stay there. Do we know?

1:11:52>> So it would be

1:11:53uh comparable rentals to um you know, a

1:11:56five-bedroom, five-bathroom uh unit

1:12:00close to the downtown.

1:12:01>> all screwed the housing.

1:12:03Uh no, that's I mean

1:12:05Let's do the housing.

1:12:06>> Yeah, it's it's five-bedroom,

1:12:07five-bathroom town home.

1:12:08>> Okay. Okay. And I just want to um

1:12:12ask to my colleagues. So

1:12:16you know, we go we have this issue in

1:12:18other developments where we um

1:12:21we build something, we don't never have

1:12:23enough parking. And I I talked about

1:12:25that for the core project. It's the same

1:12:27thing. So and we approved that project.

1:12:30So here we are now, same type of deal.

1:12:34Not enough parking.

1:12:36And we trying to figure out what way we

1:12:37need to go. So you know, we're not

1:12:39consistent.

1:12:40How we do these things. There should be

1:12:42adequate parking for sure. But you know,

1:12:44we got all these other projects, same

1:12:46thing. We don't provide enough

1:12:48parking and

1:12:49and it overwhelms these neighborhoods um

1:12:52with the parking space. So,

1:12:54just come in and just give us food for

1:12:56thought for how we have moved as a

1:12:59commission, when we start looking at

1:13:00these developments, and when we talk

1:13:02about parking, and there's never enough

1:13:03parking put in it, and and every student

1:13:06has got a car.

1:13:08So, again, where where is the overflow

1:13:10going to go?

1:13:11Same thing I Same concern I had about

1:13:13the Core project. Where are those cars

1:13:15going to go?

1:13:16So,

1:13:18that's all I got. Thank

1:13:19>> Commissioner Thor.

1:13:21>> Yes, thank you.

1:13:22Um

1:13:24I always [clears throat] struggle

1:13:26Oh, I'm sorry.

1:13:28Uh I always struggle um with student

1:13:30housing,

1:13:31um

1:13:32but I do think Commissioner Fisher hit

1:13:35it on the head about being consistent in

1:13:38our

1:13:39and how we um how we how we vote.

1:13:43And

1:13:44uh

1:13:45since the developer is here,

1:13:48and he's hearing the concerns from this

1:13:50commission,

1:13:52that

1:13:53maybe

1:13:55you could go back to the drawing board

1:13:59and and deal with the parking situation.

1:14:03Um that You don't get up now.

1:14:06>> [laughter]

1:14:07>> No, but I'm saying, go back because

1:14:10parking parking is not just an issue

1:14:13with your project, it's an issue with

1:14:14all the projects. So, if you hear that

1:14:17concern, um and I'm surprised the

1:14:20planning commission did not make that a

1:14:22big deal.

1:14:23Um

1:14:25the concern from this body,

1:14:27uh

1:14:28maybe you can work and figure out how

1:14:32you can address parking, cuz that's the

1:14:34big concern that I'm hearing from my

1:14:37colleagues. Now, personally,

1:14:40I would support this project 100% and

1:14:43I'll tell you why.

1:14:45Um not because of students, because

1:14:48every time

1:14:55historic

1:14:57Athens is not just historic

1:15:01for some folk.

1:15:03There's some history that has been lost

1:15:06in other communities.

1:15:08And I think the com- commemoration

1:15:11garden is trying to address that. But we

1:15:15need to know that historic Athens or the

1:15:18historic district

1:15:20wasn't for just one group of people. So,

1:15:24I appreciate um

1:15:26Hills- uh First Baptist stepping in

1:15:28trying to get something out of a deal.

1:15:31That's what it is. It's it's a deal. We

1:15:34We You want something, we want

1:15:36something. So, I'm right now

1:15:40I would probably [clears throat] do it

1:15:41just because of my passion.

1:15:43But for safety and addressing the issues

1:15:48that my colleagues are being very frank

1:15:52about,

1:15:53that that I think is um your opportunity

1:15:56to to re-address.

1:15:59>> Got the Commissioner Culpepper and then

1:16:01I'll return to Wright and Langford.

1:16:04>> Yeah, so

1:16:05the parking is underneath the back part

1:16:08of the building. I like looking at slide

1:16:10number, I guess it's

1:16:1296 in the agenda report.

1:16:15So, and then we've got commercial in the

1:16:17front of it. Is there a way I mean, is

1:16:19there a way to get more parking

1:16:20underneath the building?

1:16:22Um,

1:16:23can you like you go up towards the

1:16:25commercial or they using that?

1:16:28>> You You may want to ask the design team

1:16:29that question, but my understanding is

1:16:31to get more parking would require more

1:16:32excavation.

1:16:34Yeah, I think what they were trying to

1:16:35do was minimize the amount of height to

1:16:37the building. So, to get more means

1:16:39going deeper.

1:16:43>> And is the pool ground level?

1:16:46>> No.

1:16:47>> It's raised up.

1:16:48>> Mhm.

1:16:48>> Is there parking underneath it?

1:16:50>> Yeah, not immediately underneath it, but

1:16:52in the footprint in that area, I believe

1:16:53so.

1:16:58>> Commissioner Whites?

1:16:59>> Um yes, I I can um a lot of great points

1:17:02and I appreciate my colleagues digging

1:17:04deep into this. Um the parking uh

1:17:07Commissioner Link covered that and it's

1:17:09has not changed. It's gotten worse since

1:17:11um this area was moved into District 4.

1:17:15Uh we we just recently as a body

1:17:18approved more yellow curbing in this

1:17:20area. I get contacted by the uh postal

1:17:24delivery. They can't get through. Uh so

1:17:27we did some updates uh for safety and I

1:17:30think we did reach out to Hill uh First

1:17:32Baptist Church uh for those yellow

1:17:34curbing, too, to make sure that it was

1:17:37uh in in their best interest, some of

1:17:39the choices of that. Um in some of the

1:17:42paperwork, it says historic Hill First

1:17:45Baptist Church. Is there a historic

1:17:47marker? Have we validated that? Cuz it

1:17:49sounds to me like that's a gap in some

1:17:52of our history.

1:17:54>> Follow up.

1:17:55>> The the congregation has has not been

1:17:57locally designated as a landmark or but

1:18:00but the Reese Hancock that district

1:18:03exists and so that's the boundary that

1:18:05you see.

1:18:05>> Got you. So I I

1:18:07I understand the the desire and the um

1:18:11everything with the commemorative park.

1:18:14I just don't want to lose sight of that.

1:18:17I- in honor honoring this church

1:18:21clearly needs to be done, but I'm not

1:18:23sure that a private park

1:18:26um

1:18:27for this development This development is

1:18:29gaining points for green space by having

1:18:32the private park.

1:18:34Because they're they're not transferring

1:18:36the property to the church, are they?

1:18:38>> No.

1:18:40>> He's I'm hearing I'm seeing a yes from a

1:18:42developer.

1:18:43>> I mean,

1:18:44they can certainly address it. What What

1:18:45we were provided was an easement

1:18:47agreement.

1:18:48>> Okay.

1:18:49>> Yeah.

1:18:49>> So, the church doesn't So, then who is

1:18:52who is keeping up the park? The church

1:18:54Is this a bird a

1:18:55maintenance for the church?

1:18:57>> Let me want to ask

1:18:58>> What would you like to ask the

1:18:59developer?

1:18:59>> can you guys explain how that's going to

1:19:00work?

1:19:01>> I would like to

1:19:01>> I just want

1:19:02I as great as this park idea is, it

1:19:06might be something that

1:19:07and the basketball court might be a good

1:19:09spot for this commemorative garden for

1:19:12us as a community to be helping with the

1:19:15idea. But David, if you could help us

1:19:17understand how the a private park is

1:19:20going to be dropped into next to a

1:19:21public park and how it's going to be

1:19:24maintained and the dignity that we are

1:19:26expecting it to have for the churches.

1:19:29>> So, under the

1:19:30Under the terms of the

1:19:31>> [clears throat]

1:19:32>> Under the terms of the agreement that we

1:19:33have with the church,

1:19:35uh we will construct the park and then

1:19:36grant them a perpetual easement that

1:19:37will run with the land. Under the terms

1:19:40of the easement, the church is

1:19:41responsible for maintaining uh the park

1:19:44area. But ultimately at the end of the

1:19:46day, as the property owner, uh

1:19:48this property owner would have the right

1:19:50and the ability to maintain it if they

1:19:51needed to.

1:19:52Uh the idea of why we're doing a

1:19:54easement is we want to give the church

1:19:57all the benefits of owning us- using,

1:20:00enjoying the land, but we get the value

1:20:03of the density. So, that's why it's a

1:20:06win-win for everybody. Uh we originally

1:20:08proposed a surface parking on there so

1:20:10that we'd use that, but uh the

1:20:12neighborhood did not want that, so

1:20:13that's why we moved towards that park uh

1:20:15concept. Um we originally were thinking

1:20:18about making this a public park, uh but

1:20:22there was some concern um from the

1:20:24church and the neighborhood about uh the

1:20:27maintenance and use of Reese Park, and

1:20:30as a privately owned park uh private

1:20:32property owners from the church and

1:20:34developer standpoint, can exercise a

1:20:37greater level of control.

1:20:38>> Got you.

1:20:39And I really appreciate that because we

1:20:42as owners of our part of the creek

1:20:46have not maintained it and that's where

1:20:48the overgrown

1:20:49part is, but I don't want the fact that

1:20:52we've neglected that property

1:20:54um

1:20:56to have us jump too quickly for somebody

1:20:58else to clean it up for

1:21:00>> We understand We had a very productive

1:21:02conversation with the manager's office

1:21:04last week and we understand as part of

1:21:06this MOU we're going to have to develop

1:21:08I mean

1:21:09we're going to maintain

1:21:11the the stream area that's on

1:21:13Athens-Clarke County property and we

1:21:15understand that's going to be an

1:21:16obligation that runs with the land. So

1:21:18once the whole reason why we've tried to

1:21:20design this is obviously any developer

1:21:23there's a lot of mistrust from some

1:21:25developer coming out of town, but we

1:21:26want to have stuff that runs with the

1:21:27land so there's a legal mechanism so

1:21:29that you know, whenever this developer

1:21:32if they ever leave, there's a mechanism

1:21:34in place for Athens-Clarke County to sue

1:21:36that developer for the church to sue him

1:21:38for there being enforcement mechanisms.

1:21:40So you don't have to trust us. I mean

1:21:42there's going to be documentation

1:21:43that'll be from y'alls perspective

1:21:45approved by y'all approve the MOU with

1:21:47the developer, but we already have that

1:21:49mechanism in place with the church.

1:21:51>> Got you. So it goes goes with it. If a

1:21:53person if the owner of the property

1:21:55changes, these arrangements are with the

1:21:58property.

1:21:58>> Yes, ma'am.

1:21:59>> And such as like with as part of the

1:22:00plan.

1:22:01>> Yes, ma'am.

1:22:02>> And then so this green space is also

1:22:04providing property tax.

1:22:06>> I'm sorry?

1:22:07>> The green the green space the

1:22:09commemorative garden is also property

1:22:10tax benefit.

1:22:12>> I mean it is going to be it's going to

1:22:13be yeah.

1:22:14>> yeah. By the church not owning it, it

1:22:16doesn't turn into not property tax

1:22:19property. That was another point I

1:22:21wanted to um

1:22:22to get out there and um and I and I told

1:22:27you that I would call you if I had

1:22:28questions, so I will because I want to

1:22:30understand a little bit better.

1:22:32>> There's a lot of stuff going on here.

1:22:33>> A lot of stuff going on here. Thank you.

1:22:35>> Sure. Thank you.

1:22:37>> Ms. Sherling?

1:22:38>> Um, yeah, I just want to remind everyone

1:22:41that the impetus for the CORE project

1:22:43was a land swap deal to enable ADDA and

1:22:48to acquire a parcel of land that could

1:22:51be developed as a parking deck.

1:22:54Um, the whole purpose that that what

1:22:56initiated that whole

1:22:59deal was that we wanted to build a

1:23:01parking deck that could be publicly

1:23:03available and thus provided some of that

1:23:05overflow parking for the CD project. Um,

1:23:08from my understanding, we have

1:23:11lower parking requirements in our

1:23:13commercial downtown district

1:23:15because the theory is people live

1:23:18downtown and they should be able to walk

1:23:20wherever they need to go, particularly

1:23:22students.

1:23:24Um, and also because there are copious

1:23:26public parking decks throughout

1:23:29downtown. This is not downtown. Like it

1:23:32we are

1:23:34the the request is to make it downtown,

1:23:36but it doesn't make it any closer to

1:23:38downtown and the publicly available

1:23:41parking decks.

1:23:42Um, you know, if there were a really

1:23:44close public parking deck to this

1:23:47project, I might have different thoughts

1:23:48about it, but I I don't see that

1:23:51happening

1:23:53anytime soon. And if anything, that it

1:23:55will create a a greater dearth of

1:23:58available parking because it's being

1:24:00built on top of what's c-

1:24:03right now being used as parking for a

1:24:05project that doesn't have enough

1:24:07parking.

1:24:08Um,

1:24:09so yeah, I mean that that it's it's just

1:24:12piling on. Um,

1:24:15and I the okay, so I have one more

1:24:17question.

1:24:18The park

1:24:20ends up getting zoned CD as part of the

1:24:22whole project.

1:24:24Okay, so

1:24:28If if there were an amendment to the PD

1:24:31somewhere down the line

1:24:33that

1:24:35you know, 20 years from now that could

1:24:37get developed CD.

1:24:41And and also I want to know um

1:24:43is the park an amenity for the

1:24:45the project for the the folks who live

1:24:47in the project? Is are do they have full

1:24:49access to it?

1:24:51Is that

1:24:52maybe the developer can answer that?

1:24:54>> development group.

1:24:55>> Yeah, that might be a question for the

1:24:56development group.

1:24:57>> What was the question?

1:24:59>> Does the the residents of the project,

1:25:02do they have full access to the park day

1:25:04or night, 24/7? Is it kind of a

1:25:06considered an amenity for the project?

1:25:09>> no, yeah, but the

1:25:10it's going to be the church's to

1:25:11maintain and use.

1:25:12>> Okay, so the church can set hours on it

1:25:15and

1:25:16police it as needed, designate the kind

1:25:19of activity that can go on there.

1:25:20>> That is our preference.

1:25:22>> So, yeah, we we have a legal

1:25:24binding [clears throat]

1:25:25agreement with the Reese Neighborhood

1:25:27Association as well as Holy First

1:25:28Baptist Church. This is an amenity space

1:25:31specifically for that organization as

1:25:33well as that neighborhood association.

1:25:34This is not an amenity for the building.

1:25:37The intention is is obviously partnering

1:25:39with the church and the neighborhood

1:25:40association that everyone in the Reese

1:25:42community can take advantage of this

1:25:43public benefit.

1:25:45And it's perpetual easement, so it would

1:25:47run forever. So, this is specifically

1:25:48created for the community. It's not

1:25:50something that we view as for the

1:25:52building.

1:25:54>> Commissioner Davenport, I have a

1:25:55question.

1:25:55>> Yes, I'm even more Stay right there, Mr.

1:25:58Allison, please. Um

1:26:00even more confused about this part, but

1:26:02I will email staff. Um Mr. Allison, you

1:26:05had

1:26:08you had stated that you would like to

1:26:11revise one and two and five um to comply

1:26:14with for 40% conserved canopy.

1:26:17Can you go over that revision from the

1:26:20planning commission?

1:26:21>> So, the fifth condition requires

1:26:23commercial general standards for tree

1:26:25canopy, both conserved and total. Um so,

1:26:28the CD zone has zero tree canopy, zero

1:26:32conserved. And so, we're more than

1:26:34willing and we're able to comply with

1:26:36the 40% total uh tree canopy. It's just

1:26:39we cannot comply with a 10% conserved

1:26:43canopy tree requirement simply because

1:26:45all the movement and what we're having

1:26:47to do on this site. Again, so much of

1:26:50the current condition of the site and so

1:26:53much of what we're asking for, it all

1:26:55ties up to the stream.

1:26:58And that's what's really is driving

1:27:01everything here.

1:27:02>> Thank you.

1:27:05>> Is that everything, Commissioner?

1:27:06>> Yep.

1:27:06>> Commissioner Fisher.

1:27:07>> Thank you. Do we know how many

1:27:09single-family homes are left in that

1:27:12community?

1:27:13>> Do we know how many What was

1:27:14>> Single-family homes. Do we know how many

1:27:16are left in that community?

1:27:17Single-family homes.

1:27:21>> When you refer to the community, is that

1:27:22block or

1:27:23>> Well, just in that area close to where

1:27:26the development is going. How many

1:27:27single-family homes are left?

1:27:30Do we know that?

1:27:31If you can't If you can get it for me

1:27:33later, I I'm just curious.

1:27:35>> There's not much single-families on it.

1:27:37>> Yeah. I'm looking at it, but I'm just

1:27:39I'm just curious.

1:27:39>> In in our neighborhood outreach, so we

1:27:42did have a neighborhood meeting with We

1:27:44reached out to every address in the

1:27:45Re-Street neighborhood. Um 70% of those

1:27:49after digging through each property were

1:27:53were non-homestead. So, uh LLC rentals.

1:27:56Um but I don't know for sure the amount

1:27:58of single-family homes. So, we do know

1:27:59that 70% 71% were rentals

1:28:02um and and non-homesteads.

1:28:04>> Okay. If that helps.

1:28:09>> All right. Rich conversation. Thank you,

1:28:11everybody. I appreciate it. All right,

1:28:13we're going to move on to item number or

1:28:15nine.

1:28:24All right.

1:28:26Item number nine is also a plan

1:28:27development. This is at 2295 Barnet

1:28:30Scholls Road and 170 Forest Road.

1:28:35Future land use map change associated

1:28:37with this request would go from

1:28:38traditional neighborhood and minor

1:28:40corridor along the frontage to simply

1:28:42traditional neighborhood. The zoning map

1:28:45change would go from RS 25, which is a

1:28:47single family residential zone, to RS5

1:28:51PD.

1:28:52So just increases the density allowed.

1:28:55The design of the project is a cottage

1:28:57court style development and along with

1:29:01that is design flexibility that is

1:29:03necessitating 12 requested waivers.

1:29:06There are 28 lots total. 24 of those

1:29:08would be fee simple detached.

1:29:11One carriage house lot and three fee

1:29:13simple attached units and those would

1:29:15front directly on Barnet Scholls Road.

1:29:18There would be a shared central green

1:29:20space and 72 surface parking spaces

1:29:23serving those 28 lots.

1:29:26So the waivers that were requested are

1:29:28enumerated here. I I could go through

1:29:30them in detail during discussion if

1:29:31you'd like, but staff's analysis found

1:29:33good reason to support all of the

1:29:35requested waivers

1:29:37based on the design as submitted. What

1:29:39they've been asking for largely are

1:29:42changes to the setbacks, lot coverage,

1:29:47lot frontage, all the things that you

1:29:48would need to do if you were doing

1:29:50single family residential detached

1:29:53in a more traditional subdivision

1:29:56design.

1:29:59But this design is not traditional. So

1:30:03here is the subject property.

1:30:05You see the little bit there on the

1:30:07left-hand side of the screen that fronts

1:30:09on Barnet Shoals. You see the little bit

1:30:11of frontage that is at 170 Forest Road,

1:30:13and then the site opens up in the

1:30:15middle.

1:30:16Um,

1:30:17there have been several redevelopment

1:30:19proposals for this site over the years,

1:30:21uh, ranging from commercial to

1:30:23multi-family to now single-family.

1:30:27Um, here are some views of those, um,

1:30:30points of contact with the right of way.

1:30:34So, the future land use would go from

1:30:36neighbor would stay neighborhood

1:30:37residential, pardon me, except for the

1:30:39fact that we have some minor corridor

1:30:42on the 170 Forest Road parcel.

1:30:44Um, that was done as part of the future

1:30:46land use map without the full knowledge

1:30:47of this development. Um, and so the

1:30:49notion here was that minor corridor

1:30:51would extend into Forest Road and allow

1:30:54for that designation to wrap the corner

1:30:56across from the church. The applicant is

1:30:58asking for that one parcel to be

1:31:01redesignated to neighborhood residential

1:31:03to make it consistent with the rest of

1:31:05the property.

1:31:08The zoning request, current RS 25, RS 5,

1:31:11PD shown.

1:31:14No environmental [clears throat] areas,

1:31:16uh,

1:31:17identified on the site. The site does

1:31:19have some storm water, um, challenges

1:31:22that the development is aware of and is

1:31:24acting,

1:31:25um, as part of their design to address

1:31:26those to help, um,

1:31:28fix some situations for the neighboring

1:31:31residences.

1:31:33So, here's one view of the design. This

1:31:35has a legend to kind of tell you where

1:31:36things, the housing types would be.

1:31:39Um,

1:31:40the notion here is that they would front

1:31:42on a central green. They would be served

1:31:44by alleys along the rears of the

1:31:46structure. There are three townhomes

1:31:49that front on Barnet Shoals off on the

1:31:51left-hand side of the screen. That's the

1:31:53only spot where you would see what you

1:31:54might identify as just a surface parking

1:31:56lot.

1:31:59Here's another view that shows the tree

1:32:01plantings that are anticipated.

1:32:05Here's the pattern book anticipated for

1:32:07the structures.

1:32:09Um, traditional style of architecture

1:32:11proposed.

1:32:13>> [clears throat]

1:32:14>> And then these would be the townhomes on

1:32:15Barnett Shoals.

1:32:19So, in the analysis of the request, it

1:32:21was compatible with the comprehensive

1:32:22plan.

1:32:23Uh, this is a traditional zoning

1:32:26opportunity. It does increase supply and

1:32:28variety of housing options in a way that

1:32:30we don't typically see and it is

1:32:31absolutely infill development. Uh, it's

1:32:33compatible with the future land use map.

1:32:36It's compatible with our zoning map and

1:32:37ordinance by going through this process.

1:32:39Uh, there is consistency with other

1:32:41adopted plans, specifically the the ACC

1:32:44Transit Development Plan and the Athens

1:32:46in Motion Plan.

1:32:48Um, staff's analysis of those waivers as

1:32:50I noted, there were 11 and and staff

1:32:53found the ability to support all of the

1:32:5411 requests given the design um,

1:32:57proposed. There was one that we wanted a

1:33:00little more information on but that was

1:33:02provided uh, during the Planning

1:33:03Commission meeting.

1:33:06There are a handful of corrective

1:33:07actions that need to be addressed prior

1:33:09to this goes going to permit. Um,

1:33:12there's a waiver request needed for uh,

1:33:15the tree species selected. Um, there was

1:33:19a comment from a fire marshal's office

1:33:21to make sure that the proprietary sort

1:33:23of paving that they've suggested is

1:33:25going to be sufficient to carry 90,000

1:33:2790,000 lbs of load for emergency

1:33:29vehicles.

1:33:30Um, public utilities department had a

1:33:32handful of corrections. Those were noted

1:33:35at the Planning Commission meeting and

1:33:37uh, the applicant understands those.

1:33:41Planning Commission recommendation is to

1:33:43approve with conditions. Those two

1:33:44conditions are as follows. That the

1:33:46residential structures shall follow the

1:33:48key architectural guidelines outlined in

1:33:50the application report and shall follow

1:33:53the character and styles illustrated in

1:33:55in elevations, just making that

1:33:56abundantly clear.

1:33:57And that there would be a landscape

1:33:59buffer between the residential and the

1:34:01neighboring commercial that would be

1:34:02enhanced to also include understory

1:34:05plantings beneath the trees

1:34:07um to help soften the light and sound um

1:34:09that comes from the service station that

1:34:12is adjacent to the property.

1:34:13And that concludes the staff report.

1:34:15>> All right. Is there anyone here tonight

1:34:17to speak to number nine? If so, line up

1:34:19at the podium, please.

1:34:21>> Good evening.

1:34:22Good evening. Joseph Bates with SPG 180

1:34:24Homes

1:34:25>> stead Drive. I'm with the uh development

1:34:27team.

1:34:29>> [clears throat]

1:34:29>> Thank you for your time and

1:34:30consideration this evening and uh thank

1:34:32you for Commissioner Myers for attending

1:34:33our neighborhood meetings for this

1:34:34project learn

1:34:36um about this this design and um and

1:34:39hear from the neighborhood and their

1:34:40feedback and input. Uh thank you also to

1:34:43Green Acres Baptist Church for hosting

1:34:44the meetings and the Green

1:34:46Acres neighborhood for their thoughtful

1:34:48input. Um we shared this design at three

1:34:51different neighborhood meetings

1:34:53and had some individual conversations

1:34:55with many of the adjacent property

1:34:56owners.

1:34:57Um and I'd summarize those conversations

1:35:00as collaborative and I'm proud to say

1:35:01that our our plan has responded to some

1:35:03of the feedback and it's a better

1:35:05because of it.

1:35:06Um the Cottages at Green Acres is a

1:35:08pocket neighborhood. 24 cottages, three

1:35:10townhomes. Each owns its own fee simple

1:35:12lot. What makes it

1:35:14different is that most cottages

1:35:16um face a shared green rather than a

1:35:18street and that's because the goal is to

1:35:20make a neighborhood that is yes

1:35:21attractive but inspires neighbors uh to

1:35:24meet, build relationships, and enjoy

1:35:26outdoor spaces together.

1:35:29You also notice that the homes do not

1:35:30have attached garages. Instead, we have

1:35:32covered parking at the rear and that is

1:35:34an intentional design choice.

1:35:36And one of the biggest challenges as

1:35:37designers, developers is balancing the

1:35:39convenience of the automobile

1:35:42while making memorable spaces. We all

1:35:44appreciate stepping out of the car

1:35:45directly into the kitchen.

1:35:47But that convenience comes with

1:35:48tradeoffs and how our homes relate to

1:35:50the streets and one another and how

1:35:52they're how the homes are designed

1:35:54themselves.

1:35:55Um so think about Five Points,

1:35:56Boulevard, Sunset, some of Athens' most

1:35:59beloved historic neighborhoods.

1:36:02Many of the cottages we admire have

1:36:03attractive architecture. Uh they have

1:36:05front porches, welcoming entrances,

1:36:08and yards that shape the neighborhood's

1:36:09character, but parking takes a much less

1:36:11prominent role. Rarely will you find

1:36:14attached garages

1:36:16in these historic neighborhoods. The

1:36:18parking the the garages are they're

1:36:20typically not existent and the parking

1:36:22is in the rear.

1:36:23So that's the vision we have here at The

1:36:25Cottages at Green Acres, inviting

1:36:27outdoor spaces,

1:36:28uh modest, attractive, traditional

1:36:30architecture, uh a setting where

1:36:32community life can flourish. It's a

1:36:33neighborhood designed for humans first

1:36:36and uh automobile automobile second, a

1:36:39neighborhood that we believe uh like

1:36:40some of our beloved neighborhoods in

1:36:42Athens will get better over time.

1:36:44I'm available for questions. Appreciate

1:36:46>> Thank you, Mr. Bates.

1:36:50>> Good evening.

1:36:51>> Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

1:36:53Uh my name is Joe Allen and I live at

1:36:54225 Forest Road in Green Acres and I'm

1:36:58literally just a few houses down from

1:37:00the proposed entrance to The Cottages at

1:37:01Green Acres.

1:37:03And I'm here tonight to express my

1:37:05support for this agenda item.

1:37:07For me, what is most notable about this

1:37:09project is that it has achieved

1:37:10something that the previous proposals

1:37:13that were just mentioned for this

1:37:14property did not.

1:37:16And that is meaningful neighborhood

1:37:19support.

1:37:21Earlier development concepts of this

1:37:22site faced significant opposition from

1:37:25residents because we felt that our

1:37:27concerns were not being heard or

1:37:29addressed.

1:37:30In contrast, the team behind uh The

1:37:33Cottages at Green Acre, Joseph and his

1:37:35folks, took the time to engage with

1:37:36neighbors, listen to feedback, and make

1:37:39changes to in response to that feedback.

1:37:42As a result, improvements were made to

1:37:44drainage, landscaping, buffering,

1:37:46parking, and overall site design.

1:37:49The willingness to collaborate and work

1:37:51through the concerns created a much

1:37:53different outcome and has earned the

1:37:55support of many neighborhood residents.

1:37:59I also believe it's important to note

1:38:00that this is not student housing at

1:38:02student housing development. Instead, it

1:38:04provides housing options for working

1:38:06families, young professionals, empty

1:38:08nesters, and retirees. The cottage-style

1:38:11homes, front porches, and shared green

1:38:13spaces create a neighborhood that fits

1:38:15the character and scale of the

1:38:17surrounding area

1:38:18while helping address Athens' need for

1:38:20more housing options.

1:38:22The project also represents a thoughtful

1:38:24transition between the Barnett Shoals

1:38:26Road corridor and the established Green

1:38:28Acres neighborhood. And again, as

1:38:30someone who lives just right down the

1:38:32road from there, you can see it on the

1:38:33map on the corner.

1:38:35Uh I believe this project demonstrates

1:38:37that growth and neighborhood

1:38:38compatibility can work together when

1:38:40developers generally listen to the

1:38:42community and respond to concerns. I

1:38:45respectfully ask that you support the

1:38:47recommendations of both the planning

1:38:48department and the planning commission

1:38:50and vote in favor of The Colleges at

1:38:53Green Acres. Thank you for your time,

1:38:55consideration, and your service to our

1:38:57shared community. Thank you.

1:38:59>> Thank you, Mr. Allen.

1:39:01Anyone for this?

1:39:03All right. Uh Commissioner Myers, we're

1:39:05back here again.

1:39:06>> Well, we're back here again, and I was

1:39:08trying to think about when that other uh

1:39:11planning item was uh before us, which

1:39:14was

1:39:15before It was good 2 and 1/2 years ago.

1:39:19September 2024. Yeah, I should remember

1:39:21that. Um so, it's back here in front of

1:39:25you, my colleagues here, for the first

1:39:27time, but for me, I've been looking at

1:39:29this with my neighbors since May of 2025

1:39:33now, this project. Um and I have to like

1:39:37say that there's I mean, I think the

1:39:38fact that there's only one person here

1:39:40speaking and in support is uh evidence

1:39:43that we don't have great resistance to

1:39:46this.

1:39:47That first meeting that we had, there

1:39:49were no designs. It was listening and

1:39:52talking about a general concept in

1:39:53there.

1:39:54That was last May. The developers then

1:39:57met with a couple of community leaders

1:39:59and neighbors and came back to the whole

1:40:01group in January of this year. Had about

1:40:0425-30 people there. People had lots of

1:40:08comments about little things and this

1:40:10and that and the uh

1:40:14developers went back. They actually have

1:40:15talked to construction people. They had

1:40:19They had a some detailed surveying going

1:40:21on. I do want to ask them about the

1:40:22drainage in a minute.

1:40:24And then brought a final design to the

1:40:26neighbors in June,

1:40:28which

1:40:29was remarkably easy and accepting

1:40:32meeting. It was wonderful and they did

1:40:35all that before they submitted it to the

1:40:36planning department. And I should say

1:40:39that we've done They've done a good job

1:40:41don't doing this. I have talked

1:40:43repeatedly about this in my newsletter

1:40:46and with the Facebook group with a very

1:40:48active Green Acres Facebook group as

1:40:50well.

1:40:52So, this this has had a lot of

1:40:55successful involvement of the residents

1:40:58in there, which I think is why this is

1:41:00being so much more successful than the

1:41:02National Pharmacy long before my time,

1:41:04the Aldis, the student townhouses that

1:41:07we looked at two years ago and such. And

1:41:10what makes this different is that really

1:41:12people feel like I think people feel

1:41:14like it's going to be an ex-

1:41:16a real smooth transition into the

1:41:18neighborhood and in sense a part of the

1:41:20neighborhood rather than something that

1:41:22they want like

1:41:24outside of the neighborhood and don't

1:41:26want anyone coming in.

1:41:27The developers have addressed the usual

1:41:29concerns with parking and drainage that

1:41:31concerns residents and traffic and

1:41:33buffers.

1:41:35There's in here this is you know right

1:41:38across the street for those of you who

1:41:39aren't on the east side. I met with

1:41:40someone earlier this week, I guess it

1:41:42was yesterday,

1:41:43uh, just the Cafe Racer and it was

1:41:45closed and I said, let's go up to the

1:41:47like the Jittery Joe's on the east side

1:41:48and he was like, "Oh, man, we can't go

1:41:50that far." Uh, so maybe maybe some

1:41:52people don't go over here that much, but

1:41:54I mean, what we're talking about is the

1:41:55neighborhood. This is that is directly

1:41:58across the street here to that left

1:41:59corner is the new Kroger's and and

1:42:02across to the the part that sticks out,

1:42:05we have the Green Acres Baptist Church

1:42:06and the Green Acres uh, strip retail

1:42:10area that has a bunch of local

1:42:11restaurants in it. So, it's really a

1:42:13great place for people who

1:42:15uh, want to live somewhere where they

1:42:17have a HOA cuz this will have a HOA in

1:42:20it taking care of it um, and be able to

1:42:23have the amenities that you can get on

1:42:25our secret, but love it lovely east side

1:42:27where we don't want, you know, people

1:42:29don't come over there, but it's very um,

1:42:31a pleasant place to live. I do want to

1:42:34emphasize as well, some people have

1:42:36said, "Who's going to live there?" Um,

1:42:38and Greystone is a

1:42:41a divi- subdivision that's just down

1:42:43into Old Lexington that are attached

1:42:45homes. It's a little

1:42:47uh, I don't know how many there are,

1:42:48probably 40, 50 houses there. Um,

1:42:51that is a that is filled with people who

1:42:53it's not a a real It's not a real senior

1:42:55retirement, but one would think it was

1:42:58and those houses don't even come on the

1:43:00market because they get uh,

1:43:03passed on through word of mouth. The

1:43:04same thing is true over there at the the

1:43:07condos on Stafford Drive and there's

1:43:10some uh, detached single-family homes in

1:43:13the back of that area and the Georgetown

1:43:14apartments as well. So, we do have a lot

1:43:17of single people over there who are

1:43:20looking for places or couples or older

1:43:22uh, professionals as well. This is

1:43:24across the street from the the vet

1:43:25school, so there may be some vet school

1:43:28uh, staff, professors and maybe even

1:43:30students um, which you know, wouldn't

1:43:34be the worst thing in the world, but it

1:43:36it is not a a community that is looking

1:43:39to draw them, um, and it's not something

1:43:41that is worrying my neighbors at all.

1:43:43Otherwise, we'd be seeing this place

1:43:45full of people here. Um, I I would like

1:43:48to ask, um,

1:43:50the developer, cuz I never quite figured

1:43:52that out, how you're successfully

1:43:54addressing the drainage things to make

1:43:57all those neighbors happy and that

1:43:59they're not here.

1:44:00>> Right. So, um,

1:44:02Athens-Clarke County oh has a drainage

1:44:05easement on the south property line.

1:44:07>> Mhm.

1:44:07>> And there was significant drainage

1:44:08problems over the years and they have,

1:44:11uh,

1:44:11so there's like a 20-ft easement. It's

1:44:12actually not on our property, but on,

1:44:15um,

1:44:15>> That's on the bottom.

1:44:17>> Yeah, the Glen Cre- the Glen Class uh

1:44:19Green Crest Drive uh

1:44:21lots. So,

1:44:23there is a there is an easement

1:44:24Athens-Clarke County maintains that and

1:44:26water drains to, um,

1:44:29storm structure that's in uh Brookwood.

1:44:31So, there really isn't issues

1:44:33drainage issues over there that that we

1:44:35know of when we talked to some of those

1:44:37neighbors because it was it was all

1:44:38resolved. Uh we even walked some of the

1:44:40the the site. It's got a pretty nice

1:44:42swale there.

1:44:44And you know, with with state

1:44:45development with with development, we

1:44:47have to meet the state minimum

1:44:48requirements so the rate of water

1:44:50flowing off of our site cannot exceed

1:44:54what it is right now in this condition,

1:44:56the wooded condition. So, there won't be

1:44:58an increased rate of runoff based on our

1:45:01development. So, that won't impact

1:45:02there. To the north, it is, uh, the

1:45:05north corner it is problematic,

1:45:07um,

1:45:08for those both homes,

1:45:10uh, on the corner of Forest and

1:45:13uh Brook- Brookwood Drive because

1:45:16essentially, there isn't a swale going

1:45:18in between their property uh lines.

1:45:20Typically, you want your swales in

1:45:21between the property lines. It kind of

1:45:23works its way in their backyards and it

1:45:26doesn't have a way to get to Forest

1:45:28Road. It's they're kind of both those

1:45:29houses are in a bowl. That's the

1:45:31trade-off of developing

1:45:33neighborhoods where you try to save all

1:45:35the trees, which I live in a

1:45:36neighborhood that tried to save all the

1:45:37trees. It does Yeah, you got to live

1:45:40with the the drainage as it exists. So,

1:45:42what we're We've talked to the both

1:45:44those neighbors.

1:45:46There's a couple of solutions. One, we

1:45:47would just

1:45:49put a swale down the middle of their

1:45:51houses and we've talked about that and

1:45:53what the impacts would look like.

1:45:55Um and then we also That's why we would

1:45:57got a detailed survey would be to

1:45:58outfall actually to Forest Road along

1:46:03um

1:46:03the the property line of the two homes

1:46:05on Forest in the corner. And that would

1:46:06work. It would require like a concrete

1:46:08flume. So, there there are a couple

1:46:10different options for how we can can

1:46:11address our the outfall there, but

1:46:13that's um

1:46:15to be determined as we get into final

1:46:16construction details and continue those

1:46:18conversations with the neighbors.

1:46:19>> And you're in contact with those

1:46:20neighbors?

1:46:21>> Yes.

1:46:21>> Good. Got their numbers. Thank you.

1:46:24>> Commissioner Devon.

1:46:25>> For it.

1:46:25>> Yeah, thank you. Beautiful. Oh, get back

1:46:27up one more time. Sorry.

1:46:29Um

1:46:30Joseph.

1:46:31Um Okay, first

1:46:33um

1:46:34I don't see now I lost my question.

1:46:37Nope.

1:46:39Uh

1:46:40what was it?

1:46:44Hold on. Give me 1 second. Okay. Um

1:46:47So,

1:46:50by the chance, would you would y'all be

1:46:52interested in putting solar panels on

1:46:53those covered parking?

1:46:56If it's If you all find some extra money

1:46:58left over after building.

1:47:00>> Yeah, I'm not I'm not prepared I'm not

1:47:02opposed to that. Um

1:47:04>> Um

1:47:06Another thing, um I love this project.

1:47:08It's beautiful, well designed. Just I

1:47:10have a question about the three town

1:47:12homes that front on Barnett Shoals Road.

1:47:15Um to me is

1:47:18Would it be Would it Would y'all be

1:47:20interested in the turning town homes

1:47:23inward and leaving that

1:47:25area facing Barnett Shoals Road in

1:47:28College Station wooded?

1:47:31You would probably add more town homes

1:47:33that way if you

1:47:35turn it

1:47:36to the side.

1:47:37>> so they would be facing

1:47:41uh like turn it it'd be facing the gas

1:47:43station on the on or or the back of the

1:47:46other house.

1:47:47>> facing Green Crest, the wooded area.

1:47:49>> Um suggesting like a 90°

1:47:51>> turn.

1:47:53>> Honestly, I really like the town homes

1:47:56fronting on the the street there. It

1:47:59kind of is in in in line with

1:48:02um the development that's that's further

1:48:04along uh Barnett Shoals Road and I think

1:48:07um we specifically selected brick to be

1:48:09kind of an elevated uh material for for

1:48:12that area. Um

1:48:15>> Okay, well I'm just just trying to help

1:48:17you out because you probably get more

1:48:18homes

1:48:19just turn it 90°, but

1:48:21>> Hey, we're not all about more homes

1:48:23right here. It's about a

1:48:25a better design, so.

1:48:27>> All right, thank you.

1:48:28>> All right.

1:48:29Commissioner Fisher.

1:48:30>> put it out gently what more.

1:48:32That that's what's your price point?

1:48:34That's all I would ask.

1:48:35>> Yeah, no thanks thanks for asking. We um

1:48:38we're looking at these were starting in

1:48:40the 400s.

1:48:40>> Okay.

1:48:41>> Yeah.

1:48:41>> Thank you.

1:48:42>> Commissioner Link.

1:48:43>> Yeah, I'm I'm really happy to see this

1:48:46come back like this. I I know there was

1:48:49a lot of contention about the last

1:48:50design um

1:48:53you know

1:48:54it was a sea of parking in the middle

1:48:56and this is sea of green in the middle

1:48:58and the stand-alone modestly scaled

1:49:00homes. I you know, I speak to folks

1:49:03every week in my own neighborhood who

1:49:05are looking to downsize but don't want

1:49:07to leave their you know, walkable urban

1:49:09environment.

1:49:11Um and I feel like you know, this is

1:49:13something that can offer that. Um you

1:49:16know, you don't have the big yard.

1:49:18You have a smaller, newer home. Um,

1:49:20you're right across the street from the

1:49:22grocery store and restaurants and coffee

1:49:24shops. Carol East side's coming on up

1:49:26over there.

1:49:27>> [laughter]

1:49:27>> Keep it a secret.

1:49:28>> Yeah, I mean, this is it's a lovely

1:49:30project. It's I I think it'll be really

1:49:32successful and I'm glad to know that

1:49:34they worked with the neighborhood from

1:49:35the get-go and and got got everybody on

1:49:38board.

1:49:41>> Commissioner Myers.

1:49:42>> Yeah, I do do want to address something

1:49:44cuz I don't know if Joseph uh will say

1:49:46this, but I

1:49:47I remember this very clearly because he

1:49:49this is to to uh Commissioner Fisher's

1:49:52um question about the price point

1:49:54because the version that we looked at in

1:49:57January actually had some smaller homes

1:50:01and cottages in it and very more

1:50:03different shapes and sizes.

1:50:05Um, one of the things that they're

1:50:07trying and most of the most of the

1:50:09community was fine with that. Um, but I

1:50:13think what they're trying to do is to

1:50:15make it also so it'll actually happen

1:50:17because we've seen planned developments

1:50:19come through and get approved and that

1:50:21not be built. So, one of the things they

1:50:23told us when they met met us and they

1:50:25showed us this and we're like, "Where

1:50:26are the little Where are the little kind

1:50:27of like tiny houses in there?" Um, and

1:50:30they had gone to various construction

1:50:33company entities who would be building

1:50:35these and said, "Hey, would you be able

1:50:38to

1:50:40Are these things that you'd be able to

1:50:41get financed and built etc. etc.?" And

1:50:44basically

1:50:47they got pushback. And so, as a result,

1:50:49we ended up with the

1:50:50the larger houses. I would have been

1:50:52happy uh

1:50:54I or happy enough with more of a variety

1:50:57in there, but I also do see the reality

1:51:00of what's going on and what the the

1:51:02price points are in houses. Um, and I do

1:51:05appreciate the kind of that design book,

1:51:07the architectural detail in there. Um, I

1:51:10think that's one of the things that

1:51:12makes it so that there's not a lot of

1:51:14pushback from the community in here. So,

1:51:17um, that they looked at this and they're

1:51:19like, "Oh, I like that. I like the way

1:51:21this looks. I want this to be part of my

1:51:23community."

1:51:24Anyway.

1:51:26>> All right, moving on to a name change.

1:51:31Okay, we don't often see these, but uh,

1:51:33these requests come through the Planning

1:51:34Commission to you for consideration.

1:51:36Uh, this is a request to rename a

1:51:38private road from Ebbs Bridge Lane to

1:51:41Big Dog Way.

1:51:44Um,

1:51:45there are seven abutting properties on

1:51:47this. Five properties with Ebbs Bridge

1:51:49Lane addresses would be impacted. Um,

1:51:52the ownership of all of those, uh,

1:51:55properties

1:51:56are in support of this and in fact are

1:51:59in some way related to, uh, the person

1:52:01that's being honored with the rename.

1:52:05Here's an aerial view of where we're

1:52:06talking about. So, to the south of

1:52:09Atlanta Highway, Atlanta Highway's at

1:52:10the top of the screen.

1:52:11Um, Ebbs Bridge Lane comes off of the

1:52:14old road bed of Ebbs Bridge Road.

1:52:17Um,

1:52:19for those of you that may have used Big

1:52:20Dogs on the river to put on the river

1:52:22and and canoe or or kayak, um,

1:52:25that is the facility that you see just

1:52:27below the red line along the river.

1:52:30Um,

1:52:31there's a handful of development types

1:52:34in this area, but only those affected

1:52:36properties that you see on the screen

1:52:38would be involved and only five of those

1:52:40have an address issue.

1:52:43Um, the way this process works is a

1:52:46request is made to the Mayor and

1:52:47Commission, notices are sent out to the

1:52:49adjoining property owners. All of that

1:52:50process was taken care of. Planning

1:52:52Commission hears the request, makes a

1:52:54recommendation, and then this group

1:52:55takes the final action. Um,

1:52:58I did want to note again that this is a

1:53:00privately owned road, but there is no

1:53:02dedication of public right-of-way being

1:53:04considered as part of this. It will stay

1:53:06private. Um one of the benefits is we

1:53:09have

1:53:10a lot of Epps Bridges. Um that's kind of

1:53:12almost Athens Peachtree

1:53:14uh in a way. And so this takes one of

1:53:16those off the list of of streets for uh

1:53:20911 to kind of sort through as to where

1:53:22they're calling and responding.

1:53:24Um so that's helpful.

1:53:27Planning Commission's recommendation is

1:53:28to approve the request as submitted.

1:53:32>> All right. Does any member of the public

1:53:34have that dog in them?

1:53:38>> [clears throat]

1:53:39>> All right.

1:53:41Let's see. Is this in?

1:53:43Wait for it.

1:53:46Oh oh this uh

1:53:48I guess this is in your district, John.

1:53:50Yeah.

1:53:51>> So

1:53:53>> [clears throat]

1:53:53>> TJ is uh

1:53:55Big Dog Terry Stevens' son and he owns

1:53:58the property now. His father passed away

1:53:59a couple years ago. Um

1:54:02they have a lot of headaches trying to

1:54:05get deliveries, trying to get Uber, and

1:54:07stuff like that down there because of

1:54:09the confusion about Epps Bridge Lane.

1:54:11Um and so it makes sense, you know, in

1:54:14trying to rename it and wants to uh

1:54:15honor his father, but also for people to

1:54:18get in and out of there effectively,

1:54:20especially when you're having college

1:54:21events, whatever kind of event you're

1:54:23using Uber or if they're getting

1:54:24deliveries. So um

1:54:26you know, I recommend this.

1:54:29I support it.

1:54:32>> All right. Lovely. All right, we have

1:54:35the two text amendments.

1:54:37That's right.

1:54:38>> All right. So both of these uh are

1:54:40coming to you tonight as part of a

1:54:41resolution that this body passed in

1:54:43June. The first that I'm going to

1:54:46present this evening relates to building

1:54:47height standards in our commercial

1:54:49zones.

1:54:50Um I'm going to go through these slides

1:54:52really quickly. I'll happy to answer any

1:54:53questions you may have, but this is the

1:54:56wording of the resolution that's on the

1:54:57screen now. So what was asked for the

1:55:01Planning Commission to consider

1:55:03was changing building height in our

1:55:04commercial zones by adding up to two

1:55:06additional stories in commercial zoning

1:55:09districts generally and then up to four

1:55:11additional stories in the commercial

1:55:12downtown zone specifically.

1:55:15And um to mitigate some of the impacts

1:55:18of that, there was a provision requested

1:55:20to be studied that would keep the

1:55:22current building heights for our zones

1:55:25um those same zones that are within 100

1:55:27ft of an RS zone property.

1:55:30Um the resolution also made mention of a

1:55:32directive about transferable development

1:55:34rights for our commercial downtown. So,

1:55:36the wording there, create the ability to

1:55:38purchase and move residential

1:55:40development density within the

1:55:42commercial downtown zoning district.

1:55:44What you have tonight is related to

1:55:46building height.

1:55:47The residential development density

1:55:49transfer within the CD zone staff is

1:55:51working on and we intend on having that

1:55:54coming back before the commission likely

1:55:55in the spring. Um

1:55:58but we'll get into the some of the

1:56:00issues we had to consider with this. So,

1:56:03we've got several definitions in our

1:56:05code that deal with building height um

1:56:07and it can be a complicated thing to

1:56:09work through and part of that

1:56:10complication comes from just context,

1:56:12trying to get um buildings to be built

1:56:14in a way that

1:56:16fit well especially when they are

1:56:17sitting next to residential zones.

1:56:20Um we're currently working with the fire

1:56:22marshal's office to

1:56:24revisit our definition language to make

1:56:26sure it's consistent not just with their

1:56:28standards which are super important, but

1:56:30with the international building code

1:56:33it's worded differently and so we're

1:56:34trying to clean those definitions up.

1:56:36That was not part of the scope of this

1:56:38resolution. So, that as much as I wanted

1:56:41to do that with you tonight, um we're

1:56:43going to have to bring that back to you

1:56:44when we have the opportunity to do so.

1:56:47Um so, we're working with current

1:56:48definitions um in this exercise.

1:56:53Um there is a suggestion here

1:56:57and I I I know it's outside of the

1:56:59resolution, but just adding one simple

1:57:02word to these definitions would help us

1:57:03work with applicants and that is to say

1:57:06that we're going to measure

1:57:08building height using the outside

1:57:10corners of building footprints. And why

1:57:12is that a big deal?

1:57:14So here's the Doughty Street building

1:57:17that you can kind of see.

1:57:18When you have an irregular footprint,

1:57:20you can have a whole bunch of corners

1:57:22that you're trying to deal with to

1:57:23figure out the building height.

1:57:25By eliminating interior corners

1:57:28you greatly reduce

1:57:31what you're measuring and you're also in

1:57:34in in our estimation, that's not what

1:57:37we're concerned with. We're concerned

1:57:38with the corners that are visible to a

1:57:40neighbor that are impacting from the

1:57:42street. Those interior corners tend to

1:57:44soften things. And so the suggestion

1:57:47that we have in the text is to add one

1:57:50single word to those two definitions for

1:57:51now

1:57:52and then allow us some time to work on a

1:57:55a more robust definition that works with

1:57:57our fire marshal's office.

1:57:59Okay, moving on.

1:58:02So a handful of things to think through.

1:58:05Saying story doesn't help us when we're

1:58:08working through something in our plans

1:58:10review process, we need a measurement.

1:58:12And so we did a little bit of research

1:58:13and what we found in our commercial

1:58:14zones is 15 feet is a pretty good proxy

1:58:17for what a story is with a commercial

1:58:19building type. That's a little bit

1:58:21bigger than what you would do for

1:58:22residential, but with a commercial

1:58:24building your framing is bigger, your

1:58:26systems take up space and so 15 feet

1:58:29seems to be about right for typical

1:58:31commercial construction.

1:58:33Um for comparison, the Judicial Center,

1:58:35um I think their floor plates are closer

1:58:38to 18 feet or perhaps above um because

1:58:42of the way they have to design their

1:58:44building. So a story for the Judicial

1:58:46Center is considerably different than a

1:58:48story that you would see for a single

1:58:50family home. So we're trying to strike a

1:58:51balance and say 15 ft is a commercial

1:58:53story.

1:58:55Um that translates to additional 30 ft

1:58:57of height in the commercial general

1:58:59zone. So, that takes it from 65 to 95 ft

1:59:02in height.

1:59:03That is something that is largely

1:59:05compatible with what we have on our

1:59:06future land use map. So, um the analysis

1:59:09on this was let's try to advance some of

1:59:11the principles that were in our future

1:59:13land use plan with this change.

1:59:15Um staff also recognizes the desire to

1:59:19have additional height in our commercial

1:59:21downtown zone. It seems like every

1:59:23single project we have in the CD zone,

1:59:25the CD zone proper as it sits today,

1:59:28is interested in additional height to

1:59:31try to make the project pencil.

1:59:33So, what is recommended is that the

1:59:36allowable height in CD be increased by

1:59:3930 ft rather than the 60 that was

1:59:42anticipated with that resolution. That

1:59:44would be two stories additional.

1:59:47And what we're suggesting is that when

1:59:48we have that transferable development

1:59:50right program in place, maybe that's the

1:59:53opportunity to get the additional two

1:59:54stories that were anticipated in the

1:59:56resolution by allowing more space if

1:59:59you're going to do residential.

2:00:04Um

2:00:05Here we go.

2:00:06Uh couple things to consider from the

2:00:08fire marshal's office when a building

2:00:09gets above 75 ft in height, there are

2:00:11additional code considerations.

2:00:14Um

2:00:14they have also made it real plain when

2:00:16we've met with them on this research

2:00:18effort that when a building gets above

2:00:20100 ft in height, there will be

2:00:22additional staffing and specialized

2:00:24training that's required. So, simply

2:00:26providing that additional height in the

2:00:29zoning code does not necessarily mean

2:00:31the fire marshal can grant it.

2:00:33And what we don't want to do is have a

2:00:35situation where we're over-promising in

2:00:36the zoning code on something that we

2:00:38can't deliver on in our plans review

2:00:40process.

2:00:41Um so, that's that's just a point that

2:00:44um I think Chief is working on and and

2:00:46we've been discussing with him about

2:00:47what that really means with regard to

2:00:49staffing and training.

2:00:51Um

2:00:52the distance, the buffering, we want to

2:00:55reverse the wording that was in the

2:00:56resolution. I think it hits at the

2:00:57intention perhaps a little more cleanly

2:01:00um to restrict building heights to their

2:01:03current maximum height, so no change,

2:01:04status quo. If you have something that's

2:01:06commercially zoned that's within 100 ft

2:01:10of a single-family residential property,

2:01:12rather than the other way around. Um so,

2:01:15what that would mean is if you had a

2:01:161-acre parcel and you had a 100-ft swath

2:01:20across the backside next to a

2:01:21neighborhood, that area, if it was zoned

2:01:23CG, could go to 65.

2:01:26When you get to foot 101

2:01:29and beyond, you would have the

2:01:31additional two stories

2:01:33available to you. So, it would step into

2:01:36the neighborhood.

2:01:39All right.

2:01:41Um

2:01:43when we were looking through this and

2:01:44did some mapping, we recognized there'd

2:01:46be some concerns that if we added two

2:01:48stories in our commercial office and

2:01:49commercial neighborhood zones, where

2:01:51those zones exist on the map today,

2:01:53um that would be taking a building in CO

2:01:56that could be 40 ft tall, which is three

2:01:58stories, to 70 ft.

2:02:01That zoning is what we see as a

2:02:03transitional zone in a lot of places as

2:02:05you step into some of our in-town

2:02:07neighborhoods.

2:02:08Um

2:02:09and a 30-ft increase in commercial

2:02:10neighborhood produces a 95-ft tall

2:02:13building. Um commercial neighborhood

2:02:15zoning is what you see in sections of

2:02:16Prince Avenue, Milledge Avenue,

2:02:19um Baxter Street, Hawthorne, some other

2:02:21places. Um

2:02:24so, in the evaluation of this and

2:02:26planning commission's recommendation

2:02:28carried this forward, um no change is

2:02:30proposed in our commercial office or

2:02:32commercial neighborhood at this time.

2:02:33Similarly, there's no change proposed in

2:02:35commercial rural. Um commercial rural

2:02:38typically, we rarely see even a

2:02:40two-story building in our commercial

2:02:42rural zones. And right now the maximum

2:02:44is 65 ft, which is plenty. Um so status

2:02:47quo is part of what's being recommended

2:02:49here for CO, CN, and CR.

2:02:54Um as part of this effort, we don't want

2:02:56to create conflicts in our development

2:02:58standards. So we have a standard in

2:02:59there that is about floor area ratio.

2:03:03And we have a maximum, which puts a

2:03:04ceiling that if we literally have

2:03:07ceilings going above in the amount that

2:03:10we're talking about, we have a floor

2:03:12area ratio standard that's going to cap

2:03:14it artificially.

2:03:15And so rather than keep that artificial

2:03:18standard, there is a minimum floor area

2:03:20ratio that we're going to keep in the

2:03:22code, but we're proposing to remove the

2:03:23maximum to allow the building height

2:03:26regulation to do its work.

2:03:30So here's what the table would look

2:03:32like. The the portions in yellow would

2:03:34be the changes, striking the maximum

2:03:36floor area ratio there in the table. And

2:03:38then in CG and CD, you will see it go

2:03:41from 65 to 95 and 100 to 130 with a

2:03:44footnote that talks about that 100-ft

2:03:47buffer for retaining the status quo on

2:03:50current building height.

2:03:53Planning Commission's recommendation is

2:03:54to approve

2:03:56um as presented, and they did note that

2:03:59they would like additional information

2:04:01and discussion on that transferable

2:04:03development right

2:04:04element of the code um before too much

2:04:07gets down the line just to make sure it

2:04:09is a new thing. We would We've

2:04:11investigated it over the years, but you

2:04:13want to make sure that gets handled

2:04:14properly and give it the time to get it

2:04:16right.

2:04:17Um and so whether that's something that

2:04:20they take up in a work session format to

2:04:21make a more educated recommendation to

2:04:23this body, um we'll see. But that's kind

2:04:26of along their lines of thinking is give

2:04:27that one some time to think it through

2:04:29and get it right.

2:04:30>> Thanks, Bruce. Any public input on this

2:04:32text amendment?

2:04:37Okay. Commission input, Commissioner

2:04:39Link.

2:04:39>> Um, so this is a lot to

2:04:42>> Yeah.

2:04:45>> This is a lot to wrap one's head around.

2:04:47You know, I'm kind of usually kind of a

2:04:48nerd about this stuff and I'm my head's

2:04:50kind of spinning. Um

2:04:53So Bruce, this only would apply to

2:04:56commercial downtown and commercial

2:04:58general.

2:04:59>> Correct. That's what's being proposed is

2:05:01just changing the

2:05:01>> Hancock corridor I mean the the

2:05:03Hawthorne Avenue corridor and and West

2:05:06Broad

2:05:08would be subject to these building

2:05:10height

2:05:11raises cuz they're mostly commercial

2:05:13commercial general.

2:05:14>> Lexington Road, Atlanta Highway in

2:05:16addition to those, but yes.

2:05:17>> But if a property that's being

2:05:19redeveloped at the higher height

2:05:22touches upon a

2:05:25RS zoned

2:05:27property, then it would not be allowed

2:05:30to go the additional height. It would

2:05:31have to retain the existing height

2:05:34standards.

2:05:35>> For the first 100 ft into the commercial

2:05:37property.

2:05:38>> What if it hits on it in the back?

2:05:41Cuz that's what we're seeing over there.

2:05:42>> the back is what's touching the RS, the

2:05:44back couldn't change.

2:05:46So you would see 100 ft of a maximum

2:05:49that is 65 ft in the case of a CG zone

2:05:52where it touches a single family

2:05:53residential zone. But as you get 100 ft

2:05:55into that commercially zoned lot

2:05:57when you get to foot 101, you can go

2:05:59higher than 65 ft.

2:06:02>> that corridor at a

2:06:04at the higher rate, but on the back

2:06:06where it touches on a single family.

2:06:08Okay, so

2:06:10>> This is party in the front, business in

2:06:12the back.

2:06:12>> Okay, I get it.

2:06:15Um yeah, so much the Hawthorne extension

2:06:18is zoned RM2.

2:06:22Um so those folks would could end up

2:06:24with

2:06:26the 95 ft in their backyard um without

2:06:29that step back. Um

2:06:32You know, there's a lot of Habitat for

2:06:34Humanity and and uh land trust homes

2:06:37over there.

2:06:38Um I I live

2:06:411,000 ft from the hospital, which is I

2:06:44don't know what

2:06:45eight, nine stories and

2:06:48I when those Christmas lights go up,

2:06:50they are shining right in my bedroom

2:06:52window. I got to raise my curtains.

2:06:54I no longer get rid of my view of the

2:06:56sky and raise my curtains up to block

2:06:58the light. Like

2:06:59100 ft is not that much.

2:07:02Like I feel like if we're going to

2:07:04consider this,

2:07:05we should extend that

2:07:07distance way

2:07:10um

2:07:12Yeah, and and I'm glad we're not

2:07:14touching the whole CNCO thing because I

2:07:16feel like we just need to re-address

2:07:18those zones and and look at our future

2:07:21land use map, our new future land use

2:07:23map, and rezone some areas um that are

2:07:27improperly zoned according to that map

2:07:29now. Um

2:07:31But yeah, this is

2:07:34This is a lot. I'm not sure the public

2:07:36is able to wrap their heads around this

2:07:38and I really think we need to take a

2:07:39good long look at like

2:07:41how this impacts on the ground,

2:07:44>> [clears throat]

2:07:44>> especially how it abuts our our single

2:07:47family neighborhoods and and our

2:07:49neighborhoods in general. Like, you

2:07:50know, we've got neighborhoods that

2:07:52visually are single family

2:07:54neighborhoods, but they're zoned RM. And

2:07:56I'm speaking specifically about a lot

2:07:58heck of a lot of East Austin and the

2:08:00Hancock corridor. Um

2:08:03And just because they have

2:08:04>> have in our um

2:08:06Q public property map is the kind of

2:08:08distance polar. It It may be beneficial

2:08:10just to utilize that tool just to give

2:08:12yourself some

2:08:13>> I I'd love to see some kind of map that

2:08:16shows the reality on the ground of all

2:08:19the properties that

2:08:21touch these zones. Um

2:08:24I feel like we could have a whole lot of

2:08:26unintended consequences and a whole lot

2:08:28of folks living in legacy homes that

2:08:31will be very negatively impacted by this

2:08:33and you know, be more ready to give up

2:08:37their homes.

2:08:40>> There There is mapping that we've

2:08:41prepared. Um I would have had it for you

2:08:43tonight, but it it got inverted. So, I'd

2:08:46be happy to um share that information

2:08:48with you between now and the voting

2:08:50session if you'd like.

2:08:51>> Okay. Thank you.

2:08:52>> Commissioner Wright?

2:08:54>> Um

2:08:55I

2:08:56didn't know if it was the time of the

2:08:57night, but that seemed like an awful lot

2:08:59I feel like I'm doing the future land

2:09:01use again. Um so, I'm going to need

2:09:05some time to process this. I'm not sure

2:09:06if I'll be ready for the next vote for

2:09:09um all the implications

2:09:11here. Um

2:09:13or if a work session's going to help us

2:09:16versus one-on-ones. I don't know, but it

2:09:19could just be me and the time of night,

2:09:21but it's a lot.

2:09:21>> Yeah.

2:09:22>> Uh A- men to both my colleagues. Um my

2:09:26biggest concern is and um

2:09:29our [snorts] fire department responds to

2:09:31all this and having the resources

2:09:35and the manpower to take care of you

2:09:37know, we talking about keep going up and

2:09:39I just think we really need to I think

2:09:41we putting the cart the horse before the

2:09:43cart.

2:09:44The cart before the horse with I would

2:09:46have to

2:09:47I think we need to really take a look at

2:09:49how this going to impact that we if if

2:09:51this get approved how it's going to

2:09:53impact um if we having to respond to

2:09:56fires and as we keep um

2:09:58going higher with these um

2:10:01with these buildings. And I don't think

2:10:03we should really

2:10:05I don't know when we going to vote on

2:10:06this. I'm not sure that it's November we

2:10:08going to

2:10:09put this on

2:10:10>> on for November.

2:10:11>> Okay, well, I think we got some more

2:10:13work to do. Um I I was hoping the fire

2:10:15chief would have been here tonight so we

2:10:17can really get a feel for you know,

2:10:20what their needs are, what type of

2:10:21equipment we would need. You know, they

2:10:23already said, you know, they would need

2:10:24more staff and equipment. Well, are we

2:10:27prepared as a government to to do that?

2:10:29We're going to approve this thing and

2:10:31these on the commercial

2:10:33um

2:10:34building still going up and we just got

2:10:36through talking about parking.

2:10:38You know, we going to have that mixed

2:10:39rate where the parking going to go. So,

2:10:41it is

2:10:42it it is a lot. Thank you. It's a lot.

2:10:45So, I don't I think for me

2:10:47we need to table this thing. I'm going

2:10:49to vote no for that. I can't see us

2:10:51moving forward until we get some other

2:10:52things in

2:10:53all the ducks in a row to make this to

2:10:55make this work properly. So,

2:10:57>> Manager Keller, are there any needs

2:10:59you'd make just kind of from a fire

2:11:00protection perspective?

2:11:01>> Yeah, I mean, the only thing I'd say

2:11:02because I wrote that one down is in the

2:11:05follow-up we'll have additional

2:11:06information from the chief as to what

2:11:09those requirements are that he's kind of

2:11:11that they've raised. And then certainly

2:11:13he'll be here obviously at the at the

2:11:15voting meeting. Yeah.

2:11:16The primary difference other than the

2:11:18code, there's some code changes, but

2:11:19that would be borne by the the developer

2:11:21of those. Typically, at some height you

2:11:23stop fighting fires from the outside and

2:11:26you start actually working inside. So,

2:11:28that's part of the code changes is

2:11:30you're anticipating more things are

2:11:31being addressed inside the building cuz

2:11:33at some point your equipment doesn't

2:11:35reach

2:11:36those those elevations. And so, which is

2:11:38true in, you know, any city that has any

2:11:41buildings of any size. And that's I

2:11:42think the training that he's mostly

2:11:44referring to is that's you've got to get

2:11:46your your your staff's equipped to be

2:11:48able to do that kind of work. But, we'll

2:11:49have we'll have that in the follow-up

2:11:51information and then we'll make sure

2:11:52he's present to be able to answer any

2:11:53specific questions from that as well.

2:11:55>> Thank you.

2:11:56>> Commissioner Myers.

2:11:57>> Yeah, I'm not sure if that map that

2:11:59you're talking about shows us where all

2:12:01the CG and

2:12:04what is it, commercial downtown are.

2:12:07But, I know that

2:12:09I mean, I just pulled up stuff looking

2:12:11at my wonderful East Side that I was

2:12:13just talking about. And hey, and and

2:12:16then having seen this development a

2:12:18little earlier, now I'm very innocent in

2:12:21terms of actually financing developments

2:12:23myself, but you know, it looks to me

2:12:26like I could buy La Fiesta and Tires

2:12:28Plus on the east side, and it might be

2:12:30the time to buy that now so that I could

2:12:32get that six-story It's right across

2:12:34from the vet school. You could get a

2:12:35nice student apartment over there

2:12:37because that's CG as all of Kroger's and

2:12:40and Publix. And that was and then also

2:12:42down by the um

2:12:44uh down by the movie theater, too.

2:12:46That'd be a good place, right? So, um I

2:12:49just like what are the unintended

2:12:51consequences of this? Or is that the Is

2:12:53that the consequence that we want? I

2:12:55mean, I think we just have to be able to

2:12:58have some conversations out loud

2:13:01to talk about that because it it could

2:13:04be

2:13:06significant changes that we should be

2:13:08asking questions about and making

2:13:11visible

2:13:12to that

2:13:14to the larger community. Um I'm just,

2:13:17you know, thinking 20 20 years down the

2:13:19road. Um anyway, I I just need sort of a

2:13:23bigger view of this and its

2:13:25consequences. Like the parking you're

2:13:27talking about, the fire you're talking

2:13:28about. Is it going to make At what point

2:13:32does, you know, when I I listened to

2:13:34this because I was listening to the uh

2:13:37planning committee that that that

2:13:39meeting that went on till way in 2:00 in

2:13:42the morning, and I was waiting for this

2:13:44other project to come up, and then I

2:13:47just That went so fast that I got to

2:13:50hear some of this as well, and we had

2:13:52one of our engineers, you know,

2:13:54well-known engineers there going, "Yes,

2:13:56we need this because if we get that two

2:13:58more stories, we're going to get a lot

2:14:01more be able to develop a lot more

2:14:03stuff, which might be the best thing for

2:14:05the community." But

2:14:08it might be something that those of us

2:14:10who are living here uh want to be aware

2:14:13of before we do that. So, I even I mean,

2:14:17I don't know if that's something you'd

2:14:18find out. Is there any kind of like what

2:14:20kind of financial opportunities are we

2:14:23opening up by doing this?

2:14:25Um how

2:14:27just something to think about.

2:14:29Is is that something that's people are

2:14:31going to jump on or is it going to be

2:14:3220, 30 years?

2:14:33>> primary impact on the development side

2:14:35of it would be

2:14:37the densities that are permitted in

2:14:38zoning sometimes end up being

2:14:40theoretical, not realistic because of

2:14:43the height they they reach their height

2:14:44limit before they reach their density

2:14:45limit, basically. So, they're not

2:14:47they're not currently maximizing what

2:14:50the zoning would permit on the property.

2:14:53So, that would create an additional

2:14:54financial incentive, obviously, for that

2:14:57piece of it. I would say and we can do

2:14:59include this in the follow-up, too, but

2:15:00in terms of things like density,

2:15:02permitted density, required parking, all

2:15:05of those standards remain attached to

2:15:07the property. It isn't changed. So, in

2:15:08other words, if you go up higher and you

2:15:11get more units, there's more parking

2:15:12required also associated with it. So,

2:15:14that that wouldn't change, but we'll

2:15:15make that clearer, also. But, I think

2:15:17that's probably the biggest as I

2:15:19understand it, that would be the biggest

2:15:20financial benefit is they would be able

2:15:23to realize more of the permitted

2:15:24density. The site already says you can

2:15:26have this many units.

2:15:27>> practically they just can't get that.

2:15:28So, how how how

2:15:30I mean, we're talking theoretically

2:15:32here. How how much would that expedite

2:15:35development

2:15:36for the community? I mean, maybe you

2:15:38know

2:15:38>> Yeah, I think it would probably make

2:15:40some parcels developable that aren't

2:15:42financially. Um if they, you know, if

2:15:44if the property in effect is being sold

2:15:47as if it could get X number of units and

2:15:50in reality they can only get 75% of

2:15:52that, the numbers don't work. If they

2:15:54can actually realize the full benefit of

2:15:56you might see some properties that

2:15:57otherwise are kind of languishing that

2:16:00would actually become developable. Um

2:16:02some of those positive part of I guess

2:16:03is some of those would come alongside

2:16:06potentially the inclusionary zoning, so

2:16:08you might see more of that use, also,

2:16:10particularly in the the downtown

2:16:12district, but I think I think that's

2:16:13what would

2:16:14>> Yes.

2:16:15>> likely be the result of it is that you'd

2:16:17get a little bit more development on

2:16:20those lots, and because of that, you

2:16:21might see some lots that right now

2:16:23aren't really financially feasible

2:16:25become feasible.

2:16:26>> Right. So so these and there may be some

2:16:29lots that are flat and not don't have

2:16:32the topogra- topographical challenges

2:16:34that now would be open to redevelopment

2:16:38because you could make your money back

2:16:40and so forth.

2:16:42>> Commissioner Hamby and Colten.

2:16:44>> Well, the thing to think about there,

2:16:45too, uh Commissioner Myers, is the is

2:16:47the impact, as Commissioner Lang was

2:16:49talking about, on on the neighborhoods

2:16:51that may be around those lots that

2:16:53aren't aren't developable as much as

2:16:54that. I I kind of don't understand why

2:16:56we just didn't focus on commercial

2:16:58downtown.

2:16:59>> Mhm.

2:16:59>> Uh and just start there and see see um

2:17:02raise it there, and then I mean,

2:17:04certainly, I think you can um

2:17:06justify, if you live in a downtown area,

2:17:09that the building should be a bit

2:17:11taller.

2:17:12Um uh from that standpoint. So, and I

2:17:15don't I'm I'm curious as to how the TDRs

2:17:18are going to work out. I remember gosh,

2:17:20it's been about 20 30 years ago now that

2:17:23TDRs that they were going to be done and

2:17:25we were talking about I wasn't on the

2:17:26commission then, but they were talking

2:17:27about TDRs during that time as a way to

2:17:32protect green space. Is that Is it but

2:17:35now it seems like it's way to um

2:17:38increase density.

2:17:41>> Commissioner Colten.

2:17:42>> I think Melissa had a point.

2:17:43>> Like she's already on

2:17:44>> Well, yeah, she's already on.

2:17:46>> I was just curious about the

2:17:47infrastructure. I mean, if we're going

2:17:48to increase it, do we have the

2:17:49infrastructure to support it?

2:17:51>> Yeah, so the the infrastructure

2:17:53calculations for sewer and water are

2:17:55based off of the

2:17:57off of the planned density. So, in other

2:17:59words, if we're planning 75 units to the

2:18:02acre, that's what the density or that's

2:18:03what the calculations are based off of.

2:18:05We're not actually realizing. Now, the

2:18:08what we've seen in the past is

2:18:10that also presumes development occurs at

2:18:12a certain pace. You know, the future

2:18:14land use map is a 20-year kind of map,

2:18:15and so anytime you accelerate the

2:18:17delivery of that density, you know, we

2:18:19have to then match that with

2:18:21infrastructure. That's why most recently

2:18:23in downtown, things moved faster than

2:18:25the actual availability of the sewer

2:18:27service. So, it's a little bit of both.

2:18:29I mean, I think in terms of overall

2:18:31planning,

2:18:33we're planning for those densities. In

2:18:35terms of the pace of that happening, we

2:18:37did we may have to, depending on how it

2:18:39would

2:18:40how fast it would work, we might have to

2:18:42accelerate some of that delivery.

2:18:44>> Is there software you can put in

2:18:46you can use with I'm sure with AI, but

2:18:48you can put in, okay, we're increasing

2:18:50this, what's the timeline of maxing out

2:18:54our you to average

2:18:56>> Yeah, I mean, we're going through model

2:18:58calibration now, so we're trying to

2:19:00gain, you know, a lot of our capacity

2:19:02constraints aren't due they're due to

2:19:05infiltration of storm water into the

2:19:07sewer system. And so, we're trying to

2:19:09figure out how much of that's really

2:19:10happening versus just modeling

2:19:13theoretically happening. We may find and

2:19:15we are finding in some instances that

2:19:18the amount of actual storm water

2:19:19entering it is not what the model had

2:19:21projected than when you actually measure

2:19:23it, so we gain back that capacity.

2:19:26Um so, yes, there are ways to do it, but

2:19:27I think our model still has some

2:19:29catching up to do before we even get to

2:19:31that stage.

2:19:33>> Commissioner Lane.

2:19:34>> So, I can certainly imagine places along

2:19:37our commercial general corridors that

2:19:40could use this kind of more dense

2:19:42redevelopment,

2:19:44but there are also plenty of places

2:19:45where I feel like it would really really

2:19:47impact adjacent neighborhoods. Why not

2:19:49just allow this through a special use

2:19:52permit process where you have some clear

2:19:54criteria that that can check off to

2:19:57kind of you don't necessarily need a

2:19:58plan development and all that, but you

2:20:00at least have some criteria to to

2:20:02for us to decide if if, you know, this

2:20:05is one of those appropriate places as

2:20:07opposed to just a blanket allowance.

2:20:11Has that been discussed at all? Has that

2:20:13been considered?

2:20:14>> what you know, what what the planning

2:20:16department was doing is we're responding

2:20:17to the direction that was provided in

2:20:20the original resolution. And so it was

2:20:22to actually increase the height. I think

2:20:24the

2:20:25the interpretation came into the COC and

2:20:28CRP said this wasn't what was being

2:20:30talked about. So, yeah, if there was a

2:20:32desire to either say for example it was

2:20:34suggested that you split out CD and not

2:20:37do CG, that would come through action by

2:20:39you all. If you ultimately get to the

2:20:41point where you would want say for

2:20:44example CG to be handled through a

2:20:45special use,

2:20:46probably we would suggest that there be

2:20:48some go ahead and approve the CD if

2:20:50everybody's okay with that, separate out

2:20:51CG and send that back for further

2:20:54conversation because we'd have to

2:20:55develop those specific criteria that

2:20:58would be used. So.

2:20:58>> Yeah. I mean I can see some, you know,

2:21:00aging strip malls and stuff out there

2:21:02that could use, you know, this kind of

2:21:04allowance, but

2:21:06I can also see some really, really

2:21:07terrible impacts on some legacy

2:21:10neighborhoods.

2:21:13>> Commissioner Thorn.

2:21:14>> Yes, I'm also kind of agreeing and I

2:21:17don't know what options

2:21:19um

2:21:20we would have um Mayor at I think I've

2:21:24heard I I think I've heard Commissioner

2:21:26um

2:21:27Hamby and Commissioner

2:21:29Link um

2:21:30suggest kind of

2:21:34I think every time we we try to do

2:21:36something that is broad brushed,

2:21:39it

2:21:40we we we

2:21:41if if it doesn't work out, it impacts

2:21:43everything. I think whatever kind if we

2:21:46could do it um changing the zoning codes

2:21:49that is just certain ones, whatever, but

2:21:52I don't think we should

2:21:54um do a broad

2:21:56broad brush, especially with something

2:21:58new,

2:21:59and see how it works. So, if there's a

2:22:02way that we can

2:22:04look at how we could break that up.

2:22:06>> Yeah, and I think you could. I mean, if

2:22:08if for example, you know, and I know

2:22:09there are some questions for all of

2:22:11these. So, if for example, you felt

2:22:13comfortable with the questions from,

2:22:16say, for the fire department, for

2:22:17example, that okay, this would work in

2:22:18CD. We kind of understand how it would

2:22:20flow. But, still a lot of questions in

2:22:23CG, and you want to go in a different

2:22:24direction. Absolutely, you could approve

2:22:27really just that element of it, and not

2:22:29the other because And I would agree, if

2:22:30there was desire to go, for example, CG

2:22:33with some additional requirements or

2:22:35special use, um we would not want to try

2:22:38to create those on the fly. You would

2:22:39want to separate CG out, send that back

2:22:42for further consideration, and move

2:22:44forward with CD with the with the

2:22:46commercial um

2:22:47downtown piece of it, just as an

2:22:49example. So, I think there are ways. Um

2:22:51you know, I know there are some

2:22:52questions even in the commercial

2:22:53downtown that will need to be able to

2:22:54provide answers to.

2:22:55>> And just to highlight a couple of

2:22:57component pieces, and and Bruce

2:22:59mentioned one that I want to underscore,

2:23:00which is that as we look at the future

2:23:02land use map, we recognize that the

2:23:05additional density on that map has been

2:23:08concentrated on major corridors and at

2:23:10major nodes. And so, this creates the

2:23:13viability really of the future land use

2:23:16map. The other thing that I would say in

2:23:18conjunction with that is that when we

2:23:20looked about two years ago at the

2:23:22viability of our public expenditures

2:23:25based on the revenue we receive in in ad

2:23:27valorem taxes, you know, we found that

2:23:30it was those more dense areas that

2:23:33actually pay for themselves effectively

2:23:35when it comes to the public sector

2:23:36expenditures. Uh from a practicality

2:23:40perspective, and and and I think

2:23:41Commissioner Myers' observation of those

2:23:43couple of properties on College Station

2:23:45Road what an interesting case study in

2:23:48that

2:23:49they're relatively small properties and

2:23:52so there really isn't the viability of

2:23:54going high enough and parking the

2:23:57necessary parking requirements on those

2:23:59properties to do a version like that.

2:24:02What if you want to just get an

2:24:03illustration in your mind might be the

2:24:05sorts of things where in the CG realm

2:24:09you would see some real practical

2:24:10benefit is a property like the the one

2:24:13where um

2:24:15uh the the former Ingles grocery store

2:24:17was on Atlanta Highway where the big

2:24:19lots is

2:24:20sort of just near the

2:24:22Honda dealership and the Aldi for

2:24:24example. So that's a that's a property

2:24:25literally in your backyard

2:24:28and you've got about an 18 or a 20-acre

2:24:31CG chunk there where you could just

2:24:34create a lot more viability if you get

2:24:36some height and you know Bob highlighted

2:24:38just the ability to get the residential

2:24:40density that you would want in a context

2:24:42like that. Um you know practical reality

2:24:45again is like if you've got a 120-ft

2:24:49deep property

2:24:51and you've got a limitation of only

2:24:53getting

2:24:55a higher height on things more than 100

2:24:57ft

2:24:58from residential properties,

2:25:00nobody's going to build a structure

2:25:01that's 65 ft for

2:25:03those first 100 ft and then 95 ft for

2:25:06that last 20 ft fronting. Um now you

2:25:09know as soon as I say that there are

2:25:10some kooky folks out there and and we

2:25:12know a few of them.

2:25:14But just in terms of sort of

2:25:15construction viability, if you think

2:25:17about the interior floor plate of

2:25:19structures, you know you're you're

2:25:20generally talking about your deeper

2:25:22properties where you would see some use

2:25:24to that.

2:25:25>> Uh Commissioner Blank?

2:25:26>> Yeah, I would like to see an exercise

2:25:28where we identify those areas where we

2:25:32could see would like to see that

2:25:33redevelopment, the ones that were maybe

2:25:35like

2:25:36town square on the future land or town

2:25:39>> center

2:25:40>> town center on the future land use map.

2:25:42Um identifying those areas and focusing

2:25:45on those areas and maybe developing an

2:25:47overlay zoning that that incentivizes

2:25:50that redevelopment rather than, you

2:25:52know, coming up with this broad brush um

2:25:54zone, you know, zoning approach. Let's

2:25:57Let's identify the areas we really want

2:25:59to see redeveloped and incentivize the

2:26:01zoning there.

2:26:03Um and then take a look at our our

2:26:05current zoning and where it even

2:26:08currently is negatively impacting

2:26:10residents and neighborhoods and and, you

2:26:13know, tweaking that. Like I truly

2:26:15believe that that CN zoning height um

2:26:1865-ft height is inappropriate for lots

2:26:22that are adjacent to neighborhoods. Um

2:26:24and many of my neighbors feel the same

2:26:26way and there's a lot of angst about

2:26:27some of those properties sitting in the

2:26:29middle of our neighborhood that could be

2:26:31have a five-story building right there.

2:26:33Um and part of the future land use

2:26:35discussion was, you know, changing that

2:26:38that land use to de-incentivize that CN

2:26:41use and bring it back to a residential

2:26:43use.

2:26:44Um you know, I really think we need to

2:26:46do that exercise and be really

2:26:48deliberate about the places where we

2:26:50really really do want to see increased

2:26:52density and and redevelopment. And

2:26:55instead of approaching it by with a

2:26:56broad brush. And maybe we shouldn't have

2:26:59sent this on to the planning commission

2:27:00and we should have initiated that

2:27:02conversation first. I know June's kind

2:27:04of crazy time of year around here and I

2:27:06don't know if many of us had enough

2:27:08brain cells in our skull left.

2:27:11>> All right, more work ahead. All right,

2:27:13we've got one more text amendment.

2:27:16Okay.

2:27:21So, this text amendment is related to

2:27:23inclusionary zoning. It's relatively

2:27:25straightforward.

2:27:26Um this also came out of resolution

2:27:29language. This was from April. Um I'm

2:27:31sorry, April 2022 is when uh the

2:27:34inclusionary zoning ordinance was first

2:27:35adopted. Um

2:27:37purposes for it are stated on the

2:27:39screen, but the goal here obviously was

2:27:41to advance a forging housing

2:27:43affordability and to provide through a

2:27:46site-by-site allowance

2:27:48of development and the payment in lieu

2:27:51option as currently adopted is only

2:27:53available to commercial downtown. Um but

2:27:57everywhere else, the thinking was you

2:27:58were going to get scattered site

2:27:59affordable built as part of a

2:28:02development because it's

2:28:04it's more efficient for the developer to

2:28:06deliver that than for somebody else.

2:28:09Um what we've seen though from a

2:28:11performance standpoint since that April

2:28:132022 adoption

2:28:15is we've only had five

2:28:18inclusionary zoning compliant bedrooms,

2:28:20not units, five bedrooms approved and

2:28:22they have not been constructed yet.

2:28:24However, payment in lieu funds received

2:28:27have totaled $9.6 million and those

2:28:29dollars and

2:28:30and those funds are deposited in our

2:28:32affordable housing fund

2:28:33and those funds have leveraged over $5

2:28:36million in loan financing and have

2:28:37created 294 rental apartments, not

2:28:41bedrooms, apartments.

2:28:42So, the effectiveness of the payment in

2:28:45lieu option has proven to deliver more

2:28:48than the scattered site design of the

2:28:51ordinance text.

2:28:53So, with that as

2:28:56motivation, I think,

2:28:58um the notion here is to expand the

2:29:01allowance for this to be in all of the C

2:29:04zones and our multi-family zones as

2:29:06well.

2:29:07Um

2:29:08there was some analysis that was done as

2:29:11part of this to revisit that scattered

2:29:13site aspect of this. And specifically to

2:29:16look at some of the incentives that go

2:29:17with payment in lieu, and we talked

2:29:19about some of those this evening, one of

2:29:21which was the 20% reduction in parking.

2:29:24Um what we see though is with a payment

2:29:26in lieu project that isn't delivering

2:29:28the affordable units, they're all market

2:29:30rate, the question was raised

2:29:33should those projects be also getting a

2:29:36reduction in parking um paying to reduce

2:29:40your parking when you have a market rate

2:29:42that

2:29:43you could argue needs the parking. Um

2:29:46and it isn't context sensitive. It

2:29:48doesn't look at It does look at distance

2:29:50to Athens Transit. 1,500 ft is required.

2:29:54Um

2:29:55but it doesn't look at other things

2:29:57related to existing neighborhoods or

2:30:00other provision for parking in the area.

2:30:02So, the recommendation that was

2:30:04presented to the planning commission

2:30:08was

2:30:10this. Okay. So, simply adding

2:30:13multi-family that are a mixed-density

2:30:15residential zones, the commercial zones

2:30:18under section A.

2:30:19Um the rest of the wording is as written

2:30:23with the introduction of a section C,

2:30:25the qualifying products

2:30:27projects

2:30:29wishing to do the payment in lieu would

2:30:31not be eligible for the 20% reduction.

2:30:34During the course of conversation and

2:30:36deliberation by the planning commission,

2:30:38that provision was struck.

2:30:42So, the planning commission

2:30:43recommendation is as follows to approve

2:30:45with a singular condition that that

2:30:47section C of the proposed amendment

2:30:49would would be deleted. So, simply

2:30:52keeping the wording to making the

2:30:54payment in lieu option available to RM

2:30:56and C zones.

2:31:00>> Can you put it on this side?

2:31:03All right. Coming to the commission.

2:31:04Commissioner Myers.

2:31:05>> Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, we got to I

2:31:07know you just went over it again, but

2:31:09you all recommended

2:31:12expanding it, but not having the 20%

2:31:14parking option.

2:31:16>> The 20% parking reduction would be

2:31:19available if you did affordable units in

2:31:21the project. If you did payment in lieu

2:31:23and instead of providing the units

2:31:26The staff recommendation to planning

2:31:28commission was to not have

2:31:30the availability of the 20% reduction in

2:31:32parking.

2:31:32>> Which is what we have now for downtown,

2:31:35right?

2:31:35>> Correct. That's right.

2:31:36>> Right. So, we would be like doing what

2:31:38we're allowing downtown, except for you

2:31:40can't do it in exchange for reduced

2:31:42parking. That's what you wanted to push.

2:31:46>> And this the planning commission said,

2:31:48"Hey,

2:31:49you don't need to do that. Let's have

2:31:51the 20% reduction in parking, which is

2:31:55kind of what the situation we were

2:31:57dealing with earlier this evening."

2:31:59>> So, the the to portray the the the

2:32:02conversation with planning commission,

2:32:04the thinking there was it's an

2:32:05oversimplification to say that if you're

2:32:07an affordable unit, you don't have a

2:32:09vehicle or you don't have two vehicles.

2:32:11You don't have the same vehicles as

2:32:12market rate. So, that

2:32:14that sort of logic was

2:32:16was called out as erroneous. Um it was

2:32:19also citing that that parking reduction

2:32:22when the the ordinance was drafted in

2:32:242022, that parking reduction was meant

2:32:26to be an incentive to actually get

2:32:28people to participate in the program.

2:32:31And the 20% was debated by the committee

2:32:34that was working on it at the time. And

2:32:37in talking with developers 4 years ago,

2:32:39it was found to be a comfortable number

2:32:42for them to work with from a

2:32:43marketability standpoint to be able to

2:32:45have a 20% reduction. And it doesn't

2:32:47mean you have to use the full 20%. That

2:32:48was also made clear, too. That's the

2:32:50cap. Um

2:32:52>> But it but the reality is it hasn't been

2:32:54used in the

2:32:57areas where someone is choosing to put

2:32:59the affordable housing in cuz no one's

2:33:00really taken advantage of that option.

2:33:03>> It It's been used with the payment in

2:33:04lieu.

2:33:05>> With the payment in lieu, right. Right.

2:33:07Right, but the payment in lieu has been

2:33:08for market rate, right? So, I mean, if

2:33:10you if you look at the logic of the

2:33:12planning commission, wouldn't

2:33:15they went one direction, but couldn't

2:33:17you go the other direction and say,

2:33:18"Hey, let's just take this 20% reduction

2:33:22out of the option for if you're putting

2:33:25units in as well. Like that's

2:33:28Why are we making this distinction

2:33:29between how many cars people are going

2:33:31to have? I mean, you could go that way

2:33:33as well in the logic. Okay.

2:33:35>> And And the other thing that the

2:33:37Planning Commission noted was the number

2:33:38of light tech projects they've seen. A

2:33:40lot of them are not looking for the

2:33:42ratio

2:33:44of parking to unit that you would see

2:33:47with market rate. And so that was That

2:33:49was being factored into the discussion.

2:33:50So that's why it kind of went back and

2:33:51forth.

2:33:52>> So if you've got a low income housing

2:33:53tax credit project and you're going to

2:33:55use inclusionary zoning, you know, that

2:33:58then you get both the density bump and

2:34:00the

2:34:01parking reduction as as two different

2:34:03carrots.

2:34:04>> Yep.

2:34:06>> So

2:34:10>> Yeah.

2:34:11>> Um

2:34:12where people are using the payment in

2:34:14lieu of getting the units, the goal is

2:34:15to get the units.

2:34:17So we haven't gotten that.

2:34:19So

2:34:20>> So the dollars go to the city for the

2:34:22inclusionary

2:34:24>> Um

2:34:25have we talked to developers to see get

2:34:28their input on this?

2:34:30>> On why they don't

2:34:32>> Any changes to inclusionary zoning

2:34:33because I feel like

2:34:35they're not taking advantage of it like

2:34:37with And I wasn't here when y'all wrote

2:34:38it, but I it's not being taken advantage

2:34:40of like we thought. We're getting the

2:34:41money.

2:34:41>> Yeah.

2:34:42>> But we're not getting the affordable

2:34:44units.

2:34:45>> Uh yes, we have. And

2:34:47the development community, especially

2:34:48our local development community and our

2:34:50local design community, supports this.

2:34:53Um it it it's something that their

2:34:54clients are asking for. We do see this

2:34:57as something that comes up. People will

2:34:58choose a PD, a planned development

2:35:00option, simply to get this ability. Um

2:35:04it's a discussion point with the mall

2:35:05overlay to make this a payment in lieu

2:35:08option.

2:35:09Um

2:35:10And so that that is very much a part of

2:35:11the discussion from folks that are

2:35:13especially seeking redevelopment

2:35:15opportunity.

2:35:16>> Yeah, I think it'll from what the con-

2:35:18and these are probably the same

2:35:19conversations you all had when you put

2:35:20this in place. I mean, overwhelmingly

2:35:23developers are telling us that they're

2:35:26going to pursue the payment in lieu

2:35:27option and not construct on-site

2:35:31affordable housing units to take

2:35:32advantage of the pieces that they're not

2:35:34their their pro formas, their mix of

2:35:37just how they construct things, the cost

2:35:39of it, it's it's much much more likely

2:35:42to result in payment in lieu than it is

2:35:44the construction of units, which I guess

2:35:46if you accept that, then at least the

2:35:49positive part of that is we're

2:35:51generating quite a bit of revenue that

2:35:53we can then put back into

2:35:55other affordable projects

2:35:57versus trying to force

2:35:59something that likely isn't going to

2:36:01happen. So, I think even if you expand

2:36:03the payment in lieu option, I would not

2:36:04expect to see additional dwelling

2:36:07affordable units constructed as part of

2:36:09these projects. I would see expect to

2:36:10see more payments in lieu coming into

2:36:12the affordable housing fund.

2:36:14>> And the general input has been that the

2:36:17underwriting financial underwriting of

2:36:18those projects is where things get

2:36:20difficult

2:36:22because the the underwriter really

2:36:24doesn't see the viability of that as a

2:36:28overall part of the capital stack.

2:36:30>> Commissioner Hanby.

2:36:31>> Yeah, so so we're we're getting money in

2:36:34to help with affordable housing,

2:36:36but

2:36:37we're also creating another problem on

2:36:39the other side when people are able to

2:36:41reduce their parking requirements.

2:36:43So, that's going to make it to where

2:36:47like on the first one like Commissioner

2:36:48Myers talked about where neighborhoods

2:36:50are going to have to to

2:36:52to

2:36:53pick up the slack. The government The

2:36:56government's going to have to pick up

2:36:57the slack when we have to build parking

2:36:58decks.

2:36:59>> Yeah, and this may be another

2:37:01you know, part of the conversation of

2:37:04you know, do you

2:37:06as as planning staff had talked about,

2:37:08you know, do you take a look at if if

2:37:10going to expand it that you don't allow

2:37:12that expansion area to have the the

2:37:14reduction in parking

2:37:15>> like that. That part was fine.

2:37:16>> And that this you know and that the CD

2:37:18piece, you know, where you're doing

2:37:20these already existing, leave it as it

2:37:22is and then as you expand it, say, "Hey,

2:37:25the parking's not." And back to I think

2:37:28Commissioner Culpepper asked

2:37:29I don't know, Bruce, if we've had the

2:37:32conversation with any developers as to

2:37:36into the expansion area if it didn't

2:37:38come with the the parking reduction,

2:37:40would would they still proceed with

2:37:42projects that make payment in lieu? I

2:37:43don't I don't know if we've had that

2:37:44conversation.

2:37:44>> point Bob, the point though also with um

2:37:47with the um

2:37:49first project we talked about, now

2:37:51they're they're asking to be changed to

2:37:53CD, so they'll

2:37:55>> Right. That That one would be

2:37:57That one would be a little bit different

2:37:58because

2:37:59And they're actually asking for a

2:38:00reduction in parking beyond that.

2:38:02>> I liked what planning staff had to

2:38:04recommend.

2:38:05>> Yeah, and I just wanted to make sure

2:38:06that I was kind of you know,

2:38:08what exist exists, it would be if it's

2:38:11expanded, that expanded area that's

2:38:13eligible would have a

2:38:15tighter standard. That part, okay.

2:38:16>> I would say of the three incentives that

2:38:18we and we did talk to

2:38:20um some developers about how this plays

2:38:22out for them, the three incentives that

2:38:24are in there is the density bonus, the

2:38:26parking reduction, and the reduction for

2:38:28the requirement of the commercial ground

2:38:30floor use.

2:38:31Um in order of preference, it was

2:38:33density bonus, don't make me do the

2:38:35commercial on the ground floor, and the

2:38:37parking I'll figure it out.

2:38:39And so

2:38:40um that's where staff felt comfortable

2:38:43looking towards that reduction not being

2:38:46available outside of the commercial

2:38:47downtown, but leaving the other

2:38:48incentives intact.

2:38:50>> Uh Commissioner Lincoln, Commissioner

2:38:52Thornton.

2:38:53>> Um

2:38:54So, I mean, as part of my understanding

2:38:56is the

2:38:57the concept of a parking reduction

2:38:59reduces construction costs, especially

2:39:01if you're having like deck parking, you

2:39:03know, I think it costs like 50, 60 grand

2:39:05a spot at this point. So, the idea is

2:39:08like by reducing the amount of parking,

2:39:10you can reduce the cost of the

2:39:13construction and hopefully make the

2:39:14units more affordable. That's not what

2:39:16we're seeing. These folks are not

2:39:17interested in in building affordable

2:39:19housing. So, why should we give them the

2:39:21opportunity to lower their cost by

2:39:23reducing their their construction?

2:39:25They're going to rent to the

2:39:28mostly to the student housing market

2:39:29that's paying really high rates. So, I I

2:39:33I really believe, yeah, we should can

2:39:35that parking reduction

2:39:37opportunity if we're expanding this. Um

2:39:41I have a couple questions. What is the

2:39:43current density? What is the density

2:39:45bonus allowance for the

2:39:48>> Inclusionary

2:39:48>> inclusionary zone? Can you refresh my

2:39:50memory? I couldn't find it in here.

2:39:51>> 50%.

2:39:52>> It is 50%.

2:39:54>> And 25% I believe in the CD.

2:39:56>> And so, it's 50% for these for these RM.

2:40:00So, if

2:40:01>> Like 24 to 36 for example or RM2.

2:40:05>> Yeah, so RM1 would be I mean, RM1 would

2:40:08be 16 to 24.

2:40:11>> RM2 24 to 36.

2:40:11>> currently have RS3 is our highest

2:40:16our I mean, RM3 is our highest RM

2:40:19density at 75.

2:40:21>> 50, but this would allow you to go to

2:40:2375.

2:40:24>> That allows you to go to 75. Okay, so I

2:40:25think that's part of the reason we're

2:40:27not seeing this.

2:40:29I mean, that's a huge gap. 50 between 50

2:40:32and 200.

2:40:35Um

2:40:36I think [clears throat] I we

2:40:37>> And and that that begs what will

2:40:39certainly be a conversation for maybe

2:40:41late next year for this body. What which

2:40:44is is there an additional zoning

2:40:45category

2:40:48>> multi-family zone. Um

2:40:51You know, and and I guess that's that's

2:40:54a with good reason they're not taking

2:40:56advantage of it because at 50, you're

2:40:58only getting 25 extra bedrooms. Um

2:41:02>> part of course the challenge and we're

2:41:04going to take a break right after this

2:41:05is

2:41:07is the question of surface parking

2:41:08versus structured parking. That there's

2:41:10a point where

2:41:13to to jump to say 60 beds an acre

2:41:16you can't really put structured parking

2:41:17there. It's not viable because of

2:41:20exactly what you noted the cost of that

2:41:21structured parking. If you get to 125

2:41:24beds an acre, you're probably making

2:41:25enough revenue off your bedrooms that

2:41:28then structured parking becomes more

2:41:30viable.

2:41:30>> And I see where you know, that's

2:41:32that's one of those middle grounds where

2:41:34I feel like you know, we need to

2:41:36re-address our zoning code and come up

2:41:38with those transitional zones where it

2:41:40is appropriate to increase our density a

2:41:42little without impacting our residential

2:41:45neighborhood. So

2:41:47Yeah. Um

2:41:48>> I think if it's

2:41:50it sounds like on and and you know, I'm

2:41:52always pursuing ways to avoid CDOs. I'm

2:41:55always going to try to do that. So it

2:41:57sounds like there is the last item in

2:42:00this item there seems to be consensus

2:42:02around for example last item, let's

2:42:04focus on CD and separate out the other

2:42:08and on this item it sounds like sure we

2:42:10can expand it but the expansion doesn't

2:42:12include the parking. I think we can work

2:42:14to create an option in each of those

2:42:17staff reports so you would have you

2:42:18could approve it as has been recommended

2:42:20or you could approve it with those

2:42:22options. So I think we can make that

2:42:24amendment inside those.

2:42:26>> Create a buffet.

2:42:27>> Yeah. Yeah, that way we don't have to

2:42:28mess with trying to craft a CDO that

2:42:30accomplishes it cuz it it feels to me

2:42:32unless I'm missing it, there seems to be

2:42:33consensus in those those directions.

2:42:36Y'all still vote where you want but I

2:42:37mean consensus at least in that being

2:42:39considered.

2:42:40>> But 11's still pretty heavy.

2:42:42But in 12.

2:42:44>> Commissioner Myers, did you have a

2:42:45follow up?

2:42:46>> No uh no, I just like that that

2:42:49well, the business on the the

2:42:50requirement for the business, is that on

2:42:52the docket to look at to change?

2:42:55I just can't like it just drives me

2:42:56crazy.

2:42:57>> Yeah, the commercial

2:42:59that's

2:42:59>> one of those items that's on that on the

2:43:00long list of hey, this is a text

2:43:02amendment needs to be looked at both.

2:43:04This is an area where I think private

2:43:06development has an interest in it.

2:43:08There's a policy interest in it cuz

2:43:09we've got a lot of empty spaces that are

2:43:11there. At the same time you're trying to

2:43:13promote mixed use so it's kind of trying

2:43:14to find where does it make sense? Does

2:43:16it make sense to have effectively the

2:43:18ground floor of the buildings all over

2:43:21the place and so yes, it is on the list.

2:43:23It isn't on the list like tomorrow. It's

2:43:25among many but yeah.

2:43:26>> Maybe just in the corners like that.

2:43:27>> All right, we've blown past 8:15. So

2:43:30we're going to go ahead and take a break

2:43:31and be back in your seats at

2:43:34let's call it 8:55.

2:46:49>> Mhm.

2:48:44>> Mhm.

2:50:39>> Mhm.

2:52:34>> Mhm.

2:54:29>> Mhm.

2:56:24>> Mhm.

2:56:31>> Returning to old and new business and so

2:56:34we're going to go ahead and take public

2:56:36input at this time and uh old and new

2:56:38business include items four,

2:56:41six,

2:56:42and

2:56:4413 through 21. Four, six, and 13 through

2:56:4920 one. So if anybody has a deep and

2:56:51abiding interest in any of those items,

2:56:53now's the time when you can let us know.

2:56:55>> the consent.

2:56:57>> Two and six. Yes, thank you. Two, six.

2:57:03All right.

2:57:07Yes.

2:57:11Good evening.

2:57:12>> Hi.

2:57:12I'm Charles Smith. I reside at 330

2:57:16Hemlock Park Drive. I'm also the vice

2:57:17president of operations at Athens Area

2:57:19Habitat.

2:57:20I come to stand on behalf of our

2:57:22executive director Spencer Fry, our

2:57:24dedicated staff, and supportive board of

2:57:26directors to say thank you to those from

2:57:29the departments of housing and community

2:57:30development, public utilities,

2:57:33transportation, public works, and the

2:57:35SPLOST capital projects who have

2:57:36reviewed our application for SPLOST

2:57:38funding.

2:57:39Building costs increased dramatically

2:57:41due to inflation over the past couple of

2:57:43years and that resulted in the decision

2:57:45to phase the construction of our

2:57:46infrastructure at Micus Creek.

2:57:49So Micus Creek phase two remains shovel

2:57:52ready as the final plat for phase one

2:57:54infrastructure was recorded in June

2:57:572026.

2:57:58This SPLOST funding will provide a

2:58:01significant step toward our capacity for

2:58:03Micus Creek, which when fully completed

2:58:06will include 63 homes plus five infill

2:58:10houses already been constructed.

2:58:13Phase two infrastructure will include

2:58:15approximately 800 linear feet of public

2:58:17roadway along with water, sanitary

2:58:19sewer, storm drain, sidewalks, on-street

2:58:22parking, and other required improvements

2:58:24that will serve 24 new lots for home

2:58:28ownership.

2:58:29The 30-year mortgages for our

2:58:31single-family homes will be $399 a month

2:58:35plus taxes and insurance.

2:58:37And because of partnerships with vendors

2:58:39who believe in our mission and

2:58:40investments into the infrastructure from

2:58:42government governmental sources, we will

2:58:44continue to keep prices low.

2:58:47There are three components for our home

2:58:49ownership program. Number one is the

2:58:51need for housing. Number two is the

2:58:53ability to partner.

2:58:56And that comes from income with our our

2:58:58clients have to be between 50% and 80%

2:59:01of AMI to pay our 0% mortgages. And

2:59:05finally, the willingness to partner.

2:59:07Our clients provide 500 sweat equity

2:59:09hours, so they build the house they buy,

2:59:12and they buy the house they build.

2:59:14When Maicus Creek is complete,

2:59:17we

2:59:18will have increased the percentage of

2:59:20owner-occupied housing in census tract

2:59:22302

2:59:24by 11%.

2:59:28And when I say we,

2:59:30that includes Athens Area Habitat

2:59:35and you.

2:59:37So, working together, we can continue to

2:59:39move the needle

2:59:41on the housing crisis.

2:59:43And again, on behalf of all represented

2:59:46from our organization,

2:59:47we want to say thank you very much.

2:59:49>> Thank you, Mr. Smith.

2:59:52Any other input on old or new business

2:59:53tonight?

2:59:55All right, we'll come for commission

2:59:56discussion. Commissioner Myers, you

2:59:58asked for discussion of item number two,

3:00:00the HVAC system over at the DFACS office

3:00:03on North Avenue.

3:00:04>> Yeah, no, um I'm ready to put that back

3:00:07on to consent. Um I had a question on

3:00:10the that in terms of the energy

3:00:12efficiency of the products and whether

3:00:14or not they were we were going to

3:00:16upgrade them with splash renewable

3:00:18energy funds. I submitted that question

3:00:21earlier today to the manager's office

3:00:22and got an excellent reply from um

3:00:25Andrew Saunders. Um and I don't know if

3:00:27you all remember cuz I had looked at

3:00:29this earlier today as well that uh

3:00:31a year ago or so we approved this a

3:00:35million dollars for building energy

3:00:37systems

3:00:39energy efficiency and energy retrofits

3:00:42that would be available for projects.

3:00:44And if I'm understanding this correctly,

3:00:47at a point down the road

3:00:50that will be an it will be analyzed to

3:00:53see if we should use some of that money

3:00:54to upgrade further. And if we do, that

3:00:57would be in that at some future um

3:01:00agenda report.

3:01:01>> That's that's mostly correct. Yes, so

3:01:05uh if you all move forward with

3:01:06approving this at the next meeting, uh

3:01:09staff will start the procurement

3:01:11activity and in that procurement they'll

3:01:12ask for a design-build uh to replace the

3:01:15entire system to the base ACC gov

3:01:18standard. But then they will also ask

3:01:20for upgrades related to energy

3:01:22efficiency and what the additional cost

3:01:24is.

3:01:25From that, they'll mix and match. So

3:01:27they'll pay that base system cost from

3:01:30these funds that are being considered

3:01:32and the additional energy upgrades would

3:01:34come from the money you all have already

3:01:36authorized for energy efficiency.

3:01:38Uh the reason why I say it's partially

3:01:40correct depending on the procurement

3:01:42method, uh there's probably a 85-90%

3:01:45chance that it comes has to come back

3:01:47for approval. But um in some cases,

3:01:50there might be proprietary work or more

3:01:52appropriately um sometimes state

3:01:54contracts that

3:01:56circumvent the process. But I'm fairly

3:01:58certain you'll see it.

3:01:59>> We're we're it will come back. So I just

3:02:00want to make sure that somewhere there's

3:02:03some recording of where that money that

3:02:06we approved last year is going to

3:02:10well, you know, make a difference in the

3:02:11energy efficiency and

3:02:13>> Yes, both sustainability and capital

3:02:15projects keep accounting of all of those

3:02:17various energy related projects and and

3:02:20where they're being those funds are

3:02:22being deployed and then also importantly

3:02:25what kinds of energy and financial

3:02:27savings result from those.

3:02:29>> That's super great.

3:02:32Thank you and back on consent. I'm fine

3:02:34with that.

3:02:35>> Any other questions about that one?

3:02:37All right, that'll go back to consent.

3:02:39Uh Commissioner Wright, you asked about

3:02:40item six.

3:02:41>> Uh due to the time of the evening, I

3:02:43think it's best if I just call the uh

3:02:45chair of the committee Patrick Davenport

3:02:47and get my uh details that I need from

3:02:49him. Thank you. And it can go back on

3:02:52consent.

3:02:54>> All right.

3:02:55Any other queries about that?

3:02:56All right, six is back on consent as

3:02:58well. All right, we're going to move

3:03:00forward to item 13. Um this is uh

3:03:03approval and award of our third-party

3:03:05administrator contract for medical and

3:03:07pharmacy services to Elevance Health

3:03:10doing business as Anthem Blue Cross Blue

3:03:12Shield of Georgia.

3:03:13>> Except.

3:03:15>> Everybody okay?

3:03:16>> No.

3:03:18I have questions.

3:03:19>> Yeah, question.

3:03:19>> 14.

3:03:20>> Go right ahead.

3:03:21>> Is it okay?

3:03:21>> Yeah, yes, question.

3:03:23>> I can send him an email because of the

3:03:24time, but I just there's

3:03:27there are multiple and we're looking at

3:03:30number 13 first.

3:03:32So,

3:03:35this I'm going to start with the title.

3:03:41No, that's number 14. Let me start with

3:03:43the um amount. I wanted My first

3:03:45question is um

3:03:47what generates the revenue total that

3:03:50that's listed here, 238? Where does that

3:03:53revenue come from?

3:03:54$238,554.

3:04:02>> So, most of the revenue for these will

3:04:05come from as ACCG of and as the

3:04:08employees pay for their insurance, those

3:04:11dollars are dumped into a fund and

3:04:14account and there's a portion of that

3:04:16that goes into administration. So, most

3:04:19of it goes to pay claims, but there's a

3:04:21portion of it and this that 238 number

3:04:23is the portion that's going toward that

3:04:27the portion of the revenue that's going

3:04:28toward that cost.

3:04:29>> cost.

3:04:30>> Yeah. And that'll be true for a couple

3:04:31of these items as it works its way

3:04:33through.

3:04:34>> Okay. Can you um

3:04:37explain the

3:04:39expenses number? Why was four $4 million

3:04:42crossed out and $681,000 is is

3:04:46presented? It

3:04:49demonstrates like a $3.3 million

3:04:51savings.

3:04:52>> Yeah, I'll

3:04:52I'll have to give you a more specific

3:04:54answer than this, but part of it had to

3:04:56do with an error when they entered the

3:04:58information when when staff entered the

3:05:00information into the agenda report. Part

3:05:02of it also had to do with the credit

3:05:04that's accounted for in the in the

3:05:06explanations within it. So, let me get

3:05:08back with you about which part is

3:05:10associated with the credit and which

3:05:11part was just the error part of it.

3:05:13>> Okay.

3:05:15I'm going to skip to my credit question

3:05:16then. So, for the 600 and 681,584,000,

3:05:23is that

3:05:25after the rebate

3:05:27of 1,078 or before?

3:05:29>> That is after the rebate. So, and the

3:05:32rebate cuz I I think Commissioner Myers

3:05:34had the question around the rebate also

3:05:36that for the most part the rebate is

3:05:38because

3:05:39purchasers of

3:05:42pharmaceuticals receive certain rebates

3:05:45from the companies that sell those

3:05:47pharmaceuticals.

3:05:48Typically, that is in kind of a

3:05:50reimbursement format under this credit

3:05:52scenario, we're actually getting that up

3:05:54front and then there's a reconciling of

3:05:56it at the at the end of that, but

3:05:59I also want to make sure for your sake,

3:06:01for everybody's sake here, that we're

3:06:02able to to break out more specifically

3:06:05than what's shown here, so that you have

3:06:07a very clear understanding of this is

3:06:09what the expenses would be

3:06:11up front, this is what would come off

3:06:13based on the credit and so on, so that

3:06:15there's not that confusion in there.

3:06:16>> clarified, that would be helpful.

3:06:19Um

3:06:21on number six of of page two

3:06:24the on the third line, I'm just going to

3:06:26read in the middle of the sentence,

3:06:28"Insurance Review Committee to remain as

3:06:30the TPA for medical and pharmacy

3:06:32services. The award notification was

3:06:35released to the vendor on August 26th."

3:06:37So, what would It's It looks like it's

3:06:39already approved. Not approved by us.

3:06:41So, my two questions I have

3:06:44was this award

3:06:46conditional based on our approval or is

3:06:49there a binding

3:06:51Is there anything

3:06:52>> what you said. So, what we do is anytime

3:06:54we get bids in,

3:06:57after those bids are reviewed and

3:06:58there's effectively a recommendation on

3:07:00who it is that appears to be the most

3:07:02responsive bidder, they are they are

3:07:04notified that that that choice has been

3:07:06made by the committee. They are also

3:07:08notified that nothing is final until you

3:07:10all ultimately approve it.

3:07:11>> I I see. It's like the cycle schedule.

3:07:14>> Yeah, and again, that'll be true with

3:07:16the ones that follow also.

3:07:18>> Okay.

3:07:21>> And I think I had shared with you all in

3:07:23one of the updates that

3:07:25as an example of this, we had another

3:07:27process we were going through for dental

3:07:29and ultimately the conclusion was that

3:07:31none of the vendors that had submitted

3:07:33met what we were looking for in order to

3:07:35achieve that, so all were notified that

3:07:38we were simply going to stay with the

3:07:40current provider and re-bid it again.

3:07:41So, that becomes part of that.

3:07:42>> Also,

3:07:45on page I think it's page three, number

3:07:4710,

3:07:48last sentence, "If ACCG what to choose

3:07:51to carve out their pharmacy,

3:07:53Elevance help would not offer this

3:07:55credit and additional fees would apply.

3:07:58And with that um looking at number

3:08:02eight,

3:08:04Anthem Elevance Health

3:08:06is going to remain as the TPA for

3:08:08medical and pharmacy services. This

3:08:11states

3:08:12that ACC loses This It looks like ACC

3:08:16loses the credit and incurs additional

3:08:18fees if pharmacy administration

3:08:21separated

3:08:22>> Right.

3:08:22>> package.

3:08:23>> Yeah.

3:08:23>> But there's nothing in here that

3:08:25clarifies or creates um that shows us

3:08:28what the financial incentive to keeping

3:08:30the package together. So, we won't We

3:08:33don't know the total if we don't know We

3:08:35don't know the savings if we don't know

3:08:36the total.

3:08:37>> Right. It would be that credit. So, the

3:08:38credit ultimately And the reason for

3:08:41that again is because we receive that

3:08:43rebate from the pharmaceutical part of

3:08:45it. So, if we peeled off the pharmacy

3:08:48piece from this, we would we would incur

3:08:52their expenses for managing it, but we

3:08:54would not receive the benefit from them.

3:08:56We would actually have to go find

3:08:57another provider who who would certainly

3:09:00also be able to qualify for those

3:09:01pharmaceutical benefits um associated

3:09:03with it. But so, that's the difference.

3:09:05But again, I think we can explain that a

3:09:07bit better when we break out all of

3:09:09those expenses um associated with it.

3:09:11>> Okay. I just have I have several small

3:09:14detail questions, but I'm just going to

3:09:15ask one more and I'll email the rest if

3:09:17that's okay.

3:09:18>> Yep.

3:09:18>> Okay. So, the O- Overall, this agenda

3:09:21omits the largest

3:09:23part of the financial picture for for me

3:09:25is what is the projected medical and

3:09:28pharmacy claims. I was expecting to see

3:09:30something like that and the plan's

3:09:32reserve position. Like what is the

3:09:34state's position?

3:09:35>> claims history um associated with it?

3:09:37Yeah, we can provide that um in there.

3:09:38Yeah, because it

3:09:40you know, remember they this group is

3:09:42administering the claims for us, but

3:09:44certainly we can provide you all with

3:09:47what our historical um claim history has

3:09:50been

3:09:52tied it

3:09:53doesn't relate a whole lot directly but

3:09:55we can show that.

3:09:56Um

3:09:57Yeah, I mean there has to be a

3:09:58projection so that they know what the

3:09:59expense is going to be. It's based off

3:10:00of what we've budgeted.

3:10:02It's never spot on. It's always going to

3:10:04be away from it but we can certainly at

3:10:07least show you looking back what the

3:10:09claims history was for the preceding

3:10:10years.

3:10:11>> Okay and I'll email the rest tomorrow.

3:10:13>> And if you want to email the ones you've

3:10:15asked to cuz I want to make sure that I

3:10:16cover those. We can do that too so.

3:10:18>> All right, great.

3:10:19>> Commissioner Myers.

3:10:20>> Yeah, um

3:10:22I'm glad I'm not the only one who is

3:10:23getting into this insurance stuff but my

3:10:25mine was all this base especially in my

3:10:27ACCG class that I took last week on risk

3:10:30and insurance. So I wanted to

3:10:32apply what I learned but

3:10:34Ilka gave me some good responses about

3:10:37the rebate credit.

3:10:39And actually as I'm looking in here it

3:10:41would probably be really helpful to have

3:10:43this in the agenda report. Um the other

3:10:46thing was the the

3:10:48the 2% the increases for the percentage

3:10:52increase for 28 and 29 and it's actually

3:10:55a 5-year thing and so she just gave me

3:10:57what they were due to increase by 2.45%

3:11:00for 2030 and 2031. Seems like that would

3:11:03be good to have in the agenda report as

3:11:05well.

3:11:06And actually I was actually looking

3:11:09in

3:11:10at wanted to know how much we were

3:11:12spending as well so that I could compare

3:11:14that to the cost of this. So but anyway

3:11:17um

3:11:18those are great responses.

3:11:19>> Yeah, I think it would be definitely

3:11:21we'll include those in the follow-up

3:11:23reports so everyone has those and then

3:11:25if it makes sense to incorporate some

3:11:26aspect of them into the agenda report we

3:11:28we can certainly do that as well. And

3:11:30and I know you all know this but I

3:11:31always feel like it's important to to

3:11:33kind of say it out loud which is you

3:11:35know these are dealing with our

3:11:37administration of our insurance programs

3:11:39that we are self-insured so meaning the

3:11:41money we put in the money employees put

3:11:43in, is what's paying our claims. You

3:11:45know, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Anthem is

3:11:47not paying you know, that we're not

3:11:49hiring them to pay our claims. We're

3:11:51hiring them to manage the claims and

3:11:53also frankly to leverage their

3:11:56um purchasing power, if you will, which

3:11:58also leads to some of those um those

3:12:00rebates that we received as well. And

3:12:01that's why um

3:12:04it really is good practice to bid these

3:12:05out every so often um as well. And I

3:12:08know that's been of interest for a

3:12:09couple of you um in the past so as well.

3:12:11So.

3:12:13>> And if I might, just for the record,

3:12:15the anybody who's really interested in

3:12:17the geeky finances of health insurance,

3:12:19this uh particular budget can be found

3:12:23on page E40 of our FY27 budget.

3:12:26Uh in FY27, we're projected to spend

3:12:30around $26 million

3:12:32uh on combined health insurance claims.

3:12:35And the at the end of FY27, we project

3:12:39an unrestricted net position of about

3:12:41$7.8 million.

3:12:43>> Do you have Is there a projection for

3:12:44the percentages that's um

3:12:46responsibility of employee versus

3:12:48employer?

3:12:49>> No, but we can get that information for

3:12:50you.

3:12:51>> Okay, great. Thanks.

3:12:52>> Yeah, and if it isn't complicated

3:12:53enough, of course, as you all know,

3:12:55insurance is done on the calendar year

3:12:56versus the fiscal year, so we're always

3:12:59kind of estimating and projecting half

3:13:01of a year forward associated with it.

3:13:03So, that's why it's important, I think,

3:13:05for us to look back and be able to share

3:13:07with you kind of what the actual history

3:13:09of claims um is because it's part of

3:13:11what we track is are we you know, we're

3:13:13spending money on wellness and are we

3:13:14seeing any movement in the increasing

3:13:16claims, for example? So.

3:13:19>> All right. Uh we'll get some information

3:13:21from staff. If you have any other

3:13:22questions, just as you look at this

3:13:23agenda report, just email those to the

3:13:25group and we'll make sure we get those.

3:13:27Uh 14 is uh

3:13:29another contract renewal in this for

3:13:31basic life insurance and accidental

3:13:32death and dismemberment insurance.

3:13:35Questions about this one?

3:13:37>> Okay. So, this is where I had the

3:13:38question about the title. So, the title

3:13:41is just says basic life insurance and

3:13:43accidental death and dismemberment

3:13:45insurance. I would would like it to be

3:13:47updated to

3:13:49to cover what's what it fully is asking

3:13:52us to approve, which is the additional

3:13:54FML long-term um I forgot what D stands

3:13:59for. Um what is D?

3:14:00>> Family medical leave.

3:14:01>> Family medical leave LTD additional

3:14:04employees and family's life insurance

3:14:05group accidental like all those other

3:14:07things. I mean, it's just not two those

3:14:10two basic things. And so, it just to

3:14:12kind of update that so it's clear. So,

3:14:15if someone were to like search

3:14:18you know, they could find it easily

3:14:20instead of just one sentence in there.

3:14:21>> Yeah, I think we can definitely do that.

3:14:23We'll need to to clarify cuz several of

3:14:26those that mentioned are employee paid.

3:14:28There's no ACC government money that

3:14:30goes into them. And so, that I think is

3:14:31why they made that separation. We'll

3:14:33just clarify that in that title so.

3:14:36>> Okay, the next one the next question I

3:14:38have and I don't have that many. I'll

3:14:39email I'll ask a few and that's you

3:14:41know, the rest. So,

3:14:43there's a on page

3:14:45number four

3:14:46on page two

3:14:48says that

3:14:52two vendors provided the full package of

3:14:53benefits. And then when you look at um

3:14:56page three, number three says

3:14:59um Unum provided Un- I'm sorry, Unum

3:15:02Provident was the only vendor who

3:15:04submitted a complete offering of all the

3:15:06products including it included in the

3:15:08RFP. So, there may be a distinction

3:15:11between the initial initially submitted

3:15:13package and a responsive complete

3:15:15package.

3:15:16But, the agenda doesn't explain that. Um

3:15:21and I just wanted to clarify um what and

3:15:24or answered was a second vendor

3:15:27disqualify afterwards?

3:15:29>> Yeah, they

3:15:31some of it had to do with timing of when

3:15:33they could actually implement what they

3:15:36were proposing. So, part of what they

3:15:37were doing So, what they effectively

3:15:40said was if we can't agree to the terms

3:15:42by a certain date, then they can't honor

3:15:44that piece of it. And so, that was one

3:15:47of the reasons why we we couldn't move

3:15:49forward with that second vendor that was

3:15:51associated with it. We did actually

3:15:53reach out to them to see if there was

3:15:54any movement that they could do to

3:15:55extend that time frame, and they just

3:15:57weren't able to. And it had, if I recall

3:16:00correctly, it had to do with some of the

3:16:02things associated with the FML

3:16:05components that they needed to be able

3:16:06to get all of their paperwork in

3:16:09a much earlier time frame, frankly, than

3:16:11our other vendor had indicated that they

3:16:13could, which was their business

3:16:15practice. So, that was fine.

3:16:16But But yeah, that was what was

3:16:18associated with that piece of it more

3:16:19than anything else.

3:16:20>> Okay.

3:16:21Oh.

3:16:23What rebates This is my last one. What

3:16:25rebates and other payments does can

3:16:28This is more so for an email, I think,

3:16:30cuz I don't I don't expect you to have

3:16:32this answer.

3:16:33>> Yeah, I would

3:16:34>> So, I will email

3:16:34>> even asked it, and I can already say I

3:16:35wouldn't know.

3:16:36>> Is it Is it like

3:16:37Can you quantify the rebates that they

3:16:39receive?

3:16:39>> Yeah, I mean, you know, my belief is

3:16:41there's probably not anything associated

3:16:43with this, but I want to make sure

3:16:44that's accurate or not. So, include that

3:16:46in the email.

3:16:46>> Okay. I will send it in an email. Thank

3:16:47you.

3:16:49>> All right. We'll get a little bit more

3:16:50about that. Item 15 is approval of

3:16:53employees' compensation for emergency

3:16:55events and emergency work programs

3:16:57policy. Questions about this one?

3:17:00>> I think they'd go to consent.

3:17:02>> Everybody good with that?

3:17:03>> The only thing I'll mention is this is

3:17:04there is a companion item that we had

3:17:07originally had on this agenda with it

3:17:08that will be coming at a subsequent

3:17:10agenda, which is dealing with on-call

3:17:14employees. That's kind of alongside both

3:17:16I mention that because both of these

3:17:18actually came about from conversations

3:17:21with

3:17:22with our staff. As we either through

3:17:24survey or reach out and meet with them,

3:17:27this kind of bubbled up of a concern

3:17:29among the employees that we're trying to

3:17:31be responsive to the so that there's

3:17:33consistency and fairness associated with

3:17:35it. So,

3:17:36um it's one of those things that um

3:17:38you know, we don't always get that

3:17:39opportunity to actually respond um

3:17:41directly to some of the concerns that

3:17:43have been raised and this is one of

3:17:44those that that we were able to do.

3:17:46>> So, I have an equity question. So,

3:17:48there's an uh equity concern?

3:17:52So, different employees can show up at

3:17:53the same emergency but receive different

3:17:56forms of compensation. And so,

3:18:00the policy isn't clear when it comes to

3:18:02comp time. So, does eight eight hours of

3:18:05program work earn eight hours of leave

3:18:07or 12?

3:18:08So, in an in an event that for for this

3:18:11program

3:18:11>> Yes, it's money. It's not comp time. So,

3:18:13that was one of the one of the issues.

3:18:15We So, what you said in your first

3:18:17statement is part of what the problem

3:18:19was, which was folks that were

3:18:21responding to these were getting

3:18:23addressed in different ways. Some were

3:18:25getting paid, some weren't getting paid,

3:18:27some were getting comp time, some

3:18:28weren't getting comp comp time. So, that

3:18:30was a part of that fairness and equity

3:18:32that was raised by the employees.

3:18:35Um and um and this this is an effort to

3:18:37make certain that it's across-the-board

3:18:39uniform um with it. And I and I do want

3:18:41to say in this case, these are

3:18:42emergencies that have been in effect

3:18:44locally declared. So, I think when we're

3:18:47closed for snow, we'll do a local

3:18:48declaration and that's when anybody that

3:18:50works within that period of time where

3:18:52that declaration is taking place is

3:18:53going to receive the same form of

3:18:55compensation.

3:18:56>> That's that's that emergency command

3:18:57center?

3:18:58>> Yeah. Yeah.

3:18:59>> Okay. Thank you.

3:19:00>> All right.

3:19:01Everybody okay with this on consent?

3:19:02>> All right.

3:19:03>> All right. Uh 16 is um uh connected with

3:19:07a earlier zoning action, which is the

3:19:09fire station number five replacement.

3:19:11It's the schematic design approval.

3:19:13Anything

3:19:14questions about this?

3:19:15>> Yeah.

3:19:15Um

3:19:16off consent [clears throat]

3:19:18um

3:19:20Yeah, just off consent. I don't like the

3:19:22design, but um if you look at all of our

3:19:25other fire stations, um there's a

3:19:28consistent design element to them. And I

3:19:31get it that this is more rural. Um just

3:19:34it looks like a frat house to me, but um

3:19:38I will be

3:19:40I'll be okay if

3:19:41>> Party patio out back?

3:19:42>> Yeah, it just

3:19:44doesn't

3:19:45If you go to Cleveland Road, North

3:19:47Avenue, Bonners Road, um

3:19:52It just this one just

3:19:54It just I don't know, but if my

3:19:57colleagues think otherwise, then

3:19:59I will, you know,

3:20:01I will concede.

3:20:03>> Commissioner Wright, woman with design

3:20:05skills, what what say you?

3:20:06>> Patrick, Patrick,

3:20:07we had to do one story. They didn't want

3:20:10the tower. They wanted it low profile.

3:20:13And this, if we look at the diagram, is

3:20:16a perfect example of the different

3:20:18heights needed for a one story.

3:20:22The bends for the trucks have to be a

3:20:23little higher, but it's still one story.

3:20:26You're not going to get a clock tower.

3:20:28I'm sorry. We already went through all

3:20:30that. Anyway, I just want to add that in

3:20:32there since we

3:20:34>> I actually think the architects will be

3:20:36very pleased that you said it looks like

3:20:37a house, even if it was a frat house,

3:20:39because that was part of the goal.

3:20:41Commissioner Link?

3:20:42>> Yeah, I have no problem with the design

3:20:43of the building for once.

3:20:45>> [laughter]

3:20:46>> Now, I think it's fine. I I think I

3:20:47think it's fine. It's yeah, low profile.

3:20:50Um my question is about trees.

3:20:53Um do we have the opportunity to kind of

3:20:57reforest some of this ginormous lot that

3:21:00we have going? I mean, that was part of

3:21:02the discussion when we were talking

3:21:03about this rural area.

3:21:06Um you know, having the opportunity to

3:21:08get some trees in there. I know you like

3:21:09trees, Andrew.

3:21:13>> These schematics don't reflect every

3:21:15part of the construction review process.

3:21:18This project will go through the

3:21:19development review process. We'll have

3:21:21to comply with our tree ordinance,

3:21:23which will require

3:21:25conservation. There's I don't I recall

3:21:27there's not a ton of trees on site now.

3:21:30And where they can't satisfy that

3:21:32conservation, they have to plant to

3:21:33reach a total requirement. Um and so

3:21:36there are tools in the ordinance that

3:21:39focus on like forest restoration where

3:21:41you're planting little tree seedlings

3:21:43and you just let them go to become a

3:21:45buffer. We've done a number of those.

3:21:48We can certainly relay to staff that

3:21:50that might be helpful in the in the

3:21:52buffering side of things, but everything

3:21:54you see here is not meant to be every

3:21:56single tree that will be planted.

3:21:57They'll actually be

3:21:58>> I imagine the tree council will be

3:22:00weighing in on this

3:22:02at some point, will we?

3:22:03>> No, we don't run development projects

3:22:06through the tree council.

3:22:08>> Okay, I'm just I'm just curious to see

3:22:10what this is going to look like cuz it's

3:22:11a great opportunity. It's a big kind of

3:22:13blank piece of land in the country and I

3:22:17know folks were concerned about you

3:22:19know, the sound impacts and trees can do

3:22:21a lot to absorb sound and add oxygen to

3:22:26the air.

3:22:28>> Commissioner Myers.

3:22:29>> Yeah, it is it is an opportunity for

3:22:31more trees if there's ever we have a

3:22:33good tree program and reforestation

3:22:35program down the line.

3:22:37There we'll just remember that that

3:22:39property's there.

3:22:40I Speaking of the tower that's not

3:22:42there,

3:22:44this isn't a nice one-story building as

3:22:46people have asked for, but if you also

3:22:49look at it,

3:22:50we're having to take two and a half

3:22:52million dollars from the unallocated

3:22:54interest from 2020 and

3:22:58even though we're and and needing all

3:23:00that money, we're also reducing the

3:23:02building a lot because of problem Now, I

3:23:06don't know how much of this is community

3:23:08asked for, but it's obviously some of

3:23:10it's savings. There's not They're also

3:23:12not going to be a community room,

3:23:13Patrick.

3:23:14Um

3:23:15and there's also I think it was what?

3:23:18There's minimal parking, which is

3:23:19probably what that the neighbors were

3:23:21happy with. I am just wanted just check

3:23:24the number of apparatus bays has been

3:23:25reduced from to three to two and the

3:23:28fueling station's removed. Another

3:23:30another problem area. Um

3:23:33but are any of these deletions going to

3:23:36impact the operations of the firehouse?

3:23:39>> No,

3:23:40those were all coordinated with the fire

3:23:42department and and are perfectly fine, I

3:23:44think.

3:23:45The community room reduction, parking

3:23:48reduction, fuel reduction were all in an

3:23:50effort to meet what the objective from

3:23:52the neighbors were, which was to keep

3:23:54the footprint as small as it could be.

3:23:56And of course then ultimately it helped

3:23:57with some cost savings as well. I would

3:24:00say the

3:24:02overwhelmingly the the driving factor

3:24:04for the cost increases is just it's been

3:24:077 years since there was a price cost

3:24:09estimate

3:24:10>> Right. But if we had all those things

3:24:12back in it, it would be even more

3:24:13expensive, right? Probably be another 2

3:24:15million. So, um I'm good with putting

3:24:18this on consent.

3:24:19>> Consent.

3:24:20>> Oh, Patrick D'Avanzo, you might hear it

3:24:22tonight.

3:24:24>> But it's not from the interest aren't

3:24:25from the Westside Park project.

3:24:27>> That

3:24:28you're right.

3:24:28>> [laughter]

3:24:29>> Or the library. It's a

3:24:30>> already got pledged for that. Yeah,

3:24:32that's right.

3:24:33>> All right, item 17 is an exercise that

3:24:36we always do after successful balloting

3:24:38for one of our

3:24:40capital projects referendum. And this is

3:24:43the T-SPLOST 2026 implementation plan.

3:24:46So, you can see the Gantt chart that

3:24:48lays out when each of the projects would

3:24:50receive portions of the funding

3:24:52allocated to them.

3:24:55>> Only thing I'll say on this one just

3:24:56because I can't you we probably can't

3:24:57set expectations

3:24:59often enough with it is when you look at

3:25:01the tearing just remember the intent of

3:25:03the tearing is as the mayor has just

3:25:04said that's when funding becomes

3:25:06available. Therefore, that's when the

3:25:08project can begin. So, there will be

3:25:10projects that by design, even if we're

3:25:12wildly successful in managing these in a

3:25:14different way, there will be projects by

3:25:16design that begin at the end of the sort

3:25:19of funding window and will actually go

3:25:22will transcend kind of the the period of

3:25:24of time. So, I

3:25:26by design projects kind of happen

3:25:28throughout the years of the project, not

3:25:31um that everything happens in year one.

3:25:34That's why we do the tiering.

3:25:35>> And of course, as you know, the package

3:25:36includes some discrete projects that are

3:25:40geographically focused and then it

3:25:41includes some funding category areas

3:25:43that you see spread throughout the

3:25:44programs.

3:25:45>> And these projects will be using,

3:25:48ideally, um this, you know, assuming we

3:25:50get the team built that we need um for

3:25:52project management, these will be the

3:25:54projects that we begin doing the project

3:25:57management in-house and and help

3:26:00sort of offset those expenses. You know,

3:26:02we won't be able to do all of them. Some

3:26:03of them will probably need some outside

3:26:05specialized um management, but certainly

3:26:07this is where we're beginning that path.

3:26:09>> Commissioner Myers?

3:26:10>> I I do want to point out just that that

3:26:12um I noted that a lot of the smaller

3:26:15item

3:26:16uh ticket price items, they're probably

3:26:18are much more specific to very like

3:26:21localized

3:26:22neighborhood needs, like the North

3:26:24Athens bus stop, the

3:26:26uh traffic calming in East Athens and on

3:26:28Leandri Drive, there's a bunch of them

3:26:30like that. And I noticed that they were

3:26:32all in the first early tier. I think

3:26:35that's good because it's a you know, we

3:26:37can check off a lot of projects and a

3:26:39win. Uh there um

3:26:41and the College Station Patrick's

3:26:43project is comes before the Barnett

3:26:45Shoals one, but that's good, too. I want

3:26:48Patrick to be happy with that. Um

3:26:51anyway, it looks good to me.

3:26:54>> Consent?

3:26:55>> Consent.

3:26:55>> Consent.

3:26:59>> All right. Uh

3:27:0118 is the next step uh in the decision

3:27:05tree that we uh part of last month as

3:27:07well. This is the facilities

3:27:09modernization project. This is the

3:27:11judicial center

3:27:12um which would approve the

3:27:13intergovernmental contract with the

3:27:15Urban Redevelopment Agency

3:27:17um and then have some additional design

3:27:19work particularly on the parking deck.

3:27:22>> Yeah.

3:27:23This one I just want to make sure it's

3:27:24clear because I know um

3:27:26folks were asking kind of not you all

3:27:27but there were some questions asked and

3:27:29as the mayor just said there are um

3:27:31multiple items attached with this. So,

3:27:33you've got change orders for project

3:27:35management, change orders for design of

3:27:37the the final design of the judicial

3:27:39center itself, the design of the parking

3:27:40deck as well as the intergovernmental um

3:27:43contract. So, um

3:27:45already noted I'm going to make one

3:27:46change in the uh in the title where it

3:27:49says it goes from change orders and

3:27:51{comma} additional design services to

3:27:53say change orders and additional design

3:27:56service just so it's abundantly clear

3:27:58that there's like six different things

3:28:00happening here not just stuff for the

3:28:02parking deck. Parking deck's important

3:28:03but it's really a small part of this.

3:28:07>> Questions, Commissioner Myers?

3:28:08>> Yeah, quick question here. On the the

3:28:10the for the intergovernmental

3:28:12urban What is that called? The

3:28:15>> It's where we look at the middle of the

3:28:16year.

3:28:17>> Agency which is for the bond, right? Um

3:28:20that bond total I wasn't in looking at

3:28:23that.

3:28:24That doesn't include anything for the

3:28:25parking deck.

3:28:28>> That's correct.

3:28:28>> That's correct.

3:28:29>> So, we still have that I mean we're not

3:28:31sure how we're going to pay for the bond

3:28:33exactly. We have some ideas but we don't

3:28:36have a funding source yet for the

3:28:38parking deck.

3:28:39>> Right. Well, we need to pay for it.

3:28:41>> Well, we've shared what our expectation

3:28:43would be is that um you know, we've

3:28:45shared in this agenda report of course

3:28:46the debt that we're talking about with

3:28:48this has at least two. There's more than

3:28:50two but at least two ways. One of those

3:28:51of course is retirement through SPLOST

3:28:53and what that would look like. One of

3:28:54those is retirement um through the uh

3:28:57the millage rate and what that would

3:28:58look like. Obviously, it could be a

3:29:00combination of those, what have you.

3:29:02Similarly, as we've talked about, the

3:29:04anticipation is that the parking deck

3:29:06would be considered at least for one of

3:29:08the SPLOST projects coming up. But also,

3:29:10you could make determinations to

3:29:12similarly do it in other other ways um

3:29:14if you wanted to do it with the millage

3:29:16rate or whatever it might be. So, but

3:29:18certainly, we're going in with the

3:29:19assumption that you would likely end up

3:29:21including it in the SPLOST if the SPLOST

3:29:23referendum were approved for it. You're

3:29:25probably going to issue debt then at

3:29:28that point using SPLOST to retire that

3:29:29debt because you'll you'll need to

3:29:31construct we'll need to construct it

3:29:33before the revenue has come in

3:29:35sufficient actually pay for um for that

3:29:37at that moment in time.

3:29:38>> Did we include that project when you

3:29:42gave us that overview during the

3:29:43retreat?

3:29:44>> Yes, so yes, so when we kind of gave you

3:29:46sort of here's how those could be

3:29:47divided up into the buckets

3:29:51and we said there's this amount that

3:29:53would likely come over here to the

3:29:54judicial center. It would include the

3:29:57money to service the debt for the

3:29:59judicial center as well as at least what

3:30:01our estimate is right now for the for

3:30:03the parking deck associated with it.

3:30:04Again, if you went in a different

3:30:05direction to pay for it, those numbers

3:30:07could be moved around.

3:30:09>> Commissioner Johnson.

3:30:10>> I didn't hear the first first part of

3:30:12what you just said, but if if I repeat

3:30:14what you just said, just say that, okay?

3:30:16So, I remember conversation we had

3:30:20maybe six or so months ago where the

3:30:21college the college station parking deck

3:30:24college

3:30:27>> Avenue.

3:30:28>> Thank you. Avenue parking deck is almost

3:30:30paid off and the revenue generated from

3:30:32that could be transferred to the parking

3:30:36deck for

3:30:37the court amount.

3:30:40>> You're you're correct. It's the it was

3:30:43>> But different

3:30:44>> Yes, so it was actually it's coming off

3:30:46and it's actually the Washington um deck

3:30:49correct. Or was it the college

3:30:50Washington? The The deck

3:30:52>> And so yes, that debt service will come

3:30:54off, but that debt service then is being

3:30:56attached to the parking deck that's

3:30:59associated with the core project, our

3:31:00share of that. Now eventually, you're

3:31:02correct, the debt service will roll off

3:31:04of that and those those dollars become

3:31:06available for other purposes, but that's

3:31:08a number of years down the line.

3:31:10>> Are we seeing a significant increase in

3:31:12revenue generated from the parking

3:31:14meters? I noticed that the tickets were

3:31:17really

3:31:18I haven't received a ticket in years,

3:31:21but I was with someone who got a ticket

3:31:22and it was $75. I was like, "Wow,

3:31:24they're $75." So, it's

3:31:27>> Yeah, I don't know exactly

3:31:28>> That's like

3:31:29you know, 400% more than what it was

3:31:31last time I saw it. So, I was just

3:31:33curious if revenue is coming in.

3:31:36>> There's an uptick the last couple of

3:31:37months.

3:31:37>> Okay. Okay.

3:31:38>> Um we're we're of course in this

3:31:39transition into the app-based payment

3:31:41program, and so there was a little dip

3:31:44right at the initiation of that, but

3:31:46I'll be glad to send the whole group

3:31:47last month's downtown development

3:31:49authority report.

3:31:50>> Oh, that'd be great.

3:31:51>> that

3:31:52month-by-month and year-over-year. So,

3:31:54you see last year as well.

3:31:55>> Do you think it would be dependable to

3:31:57use as a revenue source at this point or

3:31:59wait, I mean, until it's

3:32:01the uptick is like a hockey stick, I

3:32:03guess.

3:32:03>> So, so

3:32:04if you're thinking

3:32:06if the question is, will that be

3:32:07sufficient to support construction of a

3:32:10new deck? Answer would be no.

3:32:12>> Okay. Thank you.

3:32:14>> Yeah, can you do it? Can you do it?

3:32:15>> I just wanted to add also that it's not

3:32:17necessarily the uptick in

3:32:19parking revenue from the prices going

3:32:22up. That has been That last increase has

3:32:25been a while. It's because we don't have

3:32:28any more broken meters. We don't have

3:32:29any poles with no revenue, and so the

3:32:32process with the app is actually getting

3:32:35us

3:32:36consist all of them having the payment

3:32:39process versus

3:32:41the ones that weren't working, which is

3:32:43one of the reasons they've moved to the

3:32:44app.

3:32:45>> Mhm. Mayor, one thing I might add is um

3:32:48when y'all are thinking about what's in

3:32:49this agenda report, which is a deck to

3:32:51support uh the judicial center,

3:32:55it performs very differently from our

3:32:57other public decks downtown in the fact

3:32:59that it does two things that the other

3:33:01decks don't do quite as much. One is we

3:33:03have a lot of employee parking in there,

3:33:05and it is not our practice to charge our

3:33:07employees to come to work. And then the

3:33:09second is that we host anywhere between

3:33:12100 and 200 juror spaces.

3:33:15>> Yeah.

3:33:15>> Um and we don't charge jurors for when

3:33:17they're on jury duty. And so that does

3:33:19influence the profitability of a deck,

3:33:21which hinders our ability to try to make

3:33:23a deck uh cash flow itself here.

3:33:25>> Yeah, it's different.

3:33:27>> Thank you. That Thank you. That's great

3:33:29detail.

3:33:31>> All right. Uh item 19 uh is um pursuit

3:33:35of a project for Habitat for Humanity uh

3:33:38through our SPLOST Affordable Housing

3:33:40Fund. Uh it was part of our last SPLOST

3:33:42package that we had about $44.5 million

3:33:47for infrastructure associated with

3:33:49affordable housing. The bulk of that, of

3:33:51course, went to the North Downtown

3:33:53Redevelopment on the former Bethel site.

3:33:55Um but there were a few million dollars

3:33:57of additional funds, and the vision of

3:34:00the commission kind of all along had

3:34:02been to really direct that toward home

3:34:03ownership opportunities. And so uh the

3:34:05Habitat project represents that, you

3:34:07know, counter to rental project. And so

3:34:10>> Is it

3:34:11on consent? Can we do that?

3:34:12>> Consent, okay.

3:34:13>> Yeah.

3:34:14>> Okay.

3:34:18All right. Uh

3:34:2020 um

3:34:21uh it is is indicated as title only, but

3:34:24I understand that staff has a uh draft

3:34:26that they are ready to get in our hands

3:34:29uh very soon. So um this is uh item of

3:34:32great community interest. It's the lease

3:34:34of old fire station number two at the

3:34:36corner of uh Mitchell Bridge and Atlanta

3:34:38Highway to National EMS so that can be

3:34:41their launch point for uh for service on

3:34:43that end of town. So, Bob, I'll let you

3:34:45talk a little

3:34:45>> I'll just I'll just touch on this very

3:34:47quickly cuz we will follow up with you

3:34:49all with the the agenda report has been

3:34:51completed. It's just what we hadn't had

3:34:53all the details worked out. So, we'll

3:34:54follow it up to you so that you have the

3:34:56details. But, as we mentioned the last

3:34:58time we spoke of this, um

3:35:01we we've pivoted a bit and working with

3:35:03the attorney's office, we were

3:35:04originally talking about, you know, can

3:35:06we lease this for basically a dollar

3:35:08with some other considerations. We have

3:35:10since that time Andrew has worked with

3:35:12um the folks at National to arrive at a

3:35:15an actual payment for a lease that will

3:35:17generate um we think around $26,000 a

3:35:20year for the lease of that facility. As

3:35:23you all as you know, we mentioned to you

3:35:25that the current folks that we have in

3:35:27there, which is some of our TPW staff,

3:35:29will actually be relocated elsewhere.

3:35:31We've identified a place for them that's

3:35:34an existing office space that we can

3:35:36rent uh or lease. That lease is going to

3:35:39be much higher than what we're getting

3:35:41in revenue from from this because it's a

3:35:43different kind of place.

3:35:45It also though has extra space that we

3:35:48may be able to, if appropriate and

3:35:50necessary, when we start relocating

3:35:52folks out of Doughty, we may be able to

3:35:54move some of them into it. Or, if as we

3:35:57relocate from folks from Doughty,

3:35:59a space [clears throat] becomes

3:36:00available that we can actually take

3:36:01folks out of this particular lease

3:36:03space. So, this lease is only for 2

3:36:04years with renewable leases attached to

3:36:06it

3:36:07for the the place that we're leasing.

3:36:10We are also as a part of this getting

3:36:11the agreement um of the um of the

3:36:14dedicated resources. So, under this

3:36:16agreement, um we're not dependent on the

3:36:19hospital change their agreement in order

3:36:21to ensure that the ambulance in question

3:36:22will physically be located here, the

3:36:25paramedics will be physically located

3:36:26here, and so we will realize the benefit

3:36:29associated with the movement out of

3:36:31Oconee of that ambulance into this

3:36:34facility and the paramedics into this

3:36:35facility. Um that is actually tied into

3:36:38this lease agreement as well. Um, and so

3:36:41um, so ultimately, as we said before,

3:36:44think the level of service is going to

3:36:45increase for our folks at for no other

3:36:47reason proximity because the station is

3:36:48right in the in the western part, but

3:36:51also because they're dedicated there,

3:36:52the non-emergency services are

3:36:54segregated um, and will remain in

3:36:56Oconee, so they're not going to be

3:36:57dependent upon these ambulances actually

3:37:00providing those non-emergency services.

3:37:02Um, so that all of that and more are we

3:37:05included in the agenda report we'll send

3:37:06to you all. I just wanted to let you

3:37:07know that we had progressed past just

3:37:10hey, it's a talking item to where we've

3:37:11got um, we've got an agreement in

3:37:13principle that we want to um, put in

3:37:15front of you all at the at the meeting.

3:37:17>> Commissioner Johnson.

3:37:18>> I have just a quick comment. So, when

3:37:20you announce the um, agreed upon rent

3:37:23was going to be 23,000

3:37:2526,000 a year, um,

3:37:28a

3:37:29a a fast like lightning message came

3:37:31through and said people pay more than

3:37:33that for their mortgage. And so, I just

3:37:35want us to think about that when we um,

3:37:37allow um, and work with our partners and

3:37:41it is a benefit to be in that at that

3:37:43location, but when we have people who

3:37:46are barely getting by or or or trying

3:37:48their best to keep up with life's

3:37:50challenges, especially financial, and

3:37:52and

3:37:53we as a county the optics of allowing a

3:37:56partner to rent a space

3:37:59um, for 2,200 and and they're paying

3:38:02that plus 300 more in mortgage or even

3:38:05an apartment.

3:38:08I I I don't have to respond to the

3:38:09message. I just wanted you to know that

3:38:11that was like a fast like lightning

3:38:12message that I got.

3:38:13>> just works so you know, it's it works

3:38:15out to $13 a square foot is what um, the

3:38:18the price is and it's a it's a lease in

3:38:20which they're responsible for all

3:38:22maintenance and upkeep of the facility

3:38:23as well, so.

3:38:25>> Thank you.

3:38:26>> And uh, so we'll get full information on

3:38:28that. Uh, last one's title only also.

3:38:31This reads modification of zoning

3:38:33timeline but I just want to be explicit

3:38:34about what this is

3:38:36as you have experienced as a body we

3:38:39have the opportunity when we receive a

3:38:41recommendation from the planning

3:38:42commission to implement a up to 40-day

3:38:46delay so we can we can hold an item of a

3:38:48zoning item for 40 days. This would

3:38:51closely maybe not quite exactly but

3:38:54closely mirror it for the planning

3:38:56commission as well cuz presently they

3:38:58don't have any d any length of total

3:39:01delay

3:39:02in the ordinance and so this would say

3:39:05in the same way that we can hold an item

3:39:06effectively for one cycle

3:39:09you know what with the exception of

3:39:12an applicant request they would have the

3:39:15opportunity to hold for one cycle also.

3:39:19All right.

3:39:20All right, motion to adjourn.

3:39:22>> So moved.

3:39:24>> Is there a second? All right, all in

3:39:25favor?

3:39:26All right.

```*