2026-11-05 - Planning Commission

00:00posted agenda yet, but if it is, that

00:03that'll be made known.

00:04Um

00:05and we will definitely have a discussion

00:07about what that will or won't do to our

00:09procedures

00:11um once we know

00:13what it is we're working with. Um

01:55>> Let's get this show on the road, right?

01:59Let's get this out.

02:00>> Do [laughter] it. Do it.

02:03>> All right.

02:04>> I'm calm.

02:06>> You got to get to me.

02:07>> [clears throat]

02:08>> Okay.

02:09All right. Hi. Welcome to the November

02:121st, 2026 meeting of the Apple Valley

02:14County Planning Commission. Um if you're

02:16watching this meeting on YouTube, you'll

02:18find the meeting agenda at

02:19accgov.com/planning.

02:21For those of you here in person, there

02:22is a sign-in sheet and copies of the

02:24agenda uh by the door.

02:26Uh so, there's a process for the items

02:28on the agenda. First, staff will make a

02:29presentation.

02:31Then we move to public comment in

02:32support of the application. We allow 10

02:34minutes for the applicant to address the

02:36commission followed by members of the

02:37public speaking in favor who receive 3

02:39minutes.

02:40After comments in support of the

02:41application, we move to comments in

02:43opposition. All speakers receive 3

02:45minutes. If there are specific interest

02:47groups, such as a homeowners

02:48association, please let us know so we

02:50may allocate the appropriate amount of

02:52time.

02:52When addressing the commission, please

02:54provide your name, address, and nature

02:55of your interest in the project. After

02:57public comment, the applicant or their

02:59representative may request a 2-minute

03:01response.

03:02Please note the timer. It will display a

03:04yellow light when you have 30 seconds

03:06left and a red light when your time has

03:07expired.

03:09Once we have heard from members of the

03:10public, the Planning Commission will

03:11discuss the item. We will not receive

03:13additional public comments unless there

03:14is a specific question to be addressed.

03:17Exhibits may be displayed by the

03:18applicant or public at the podium.

03:20Written correspondence received by noon

03:22yesterday has been forwarded to the

03:23commission and is part of the public

03:25record. Any additional written materials

03:27to be placed into the record must be

03:28read during the public comment period.

03:30Please direct your comments to the

03:31Planning Commission and not to the

03:33applicants, and please refrain from

03:34applauding or cheering any of the

03:36speakers. And finally, please note that

03:38this meeting is being broadcast live,

03:40and our microphones are sensitive and

03:42they're right in front of you. Please

03:43silence your cell phones.

03:55All right. Does anybody want to move to

03:57introduce staff reports and other

03:58documents?

04:00>> So moved.

04:01>> Okay.

04:03>> Second.

04:04>> Second. All right, all those in favor

04:05say aye.

04:06>> Aye.

04:06>> Aye.

04:07>> All right.

04:08Um

04:09the

04:1215 minutes.

04:13>> I had one edit that I sent to Ellie.

04:16About

04:18the very end.

04:18>> I'm Stenger.

04:19>> Yes.

04:20>> We ended in the in the morning and not

04:22in the afternoon.

04:23>> [laughter]

04:23>> Well, that was a really long one.

04:28>> Other than that?

04:30>> I'll make a motion to approve.

04:32>> Okay.

04:34>> Second.

04:35>> Second. All right, all those in favor

04:36say aye.

04:37>> Aye.

04:37>> All right.

04:39Um May Courts.

04:41>> No May Courts report this evening.

04:42>> All right. Is anybody here to comment on

04:44May Courts?

04:47All right. Hearing none, we'll move to

04:48the first item of old business.

04:51Um the parcels assembled on Atlanta

04:53Highway.

05:01>> Here we go.

05:02All right. Uh

05:05this is a plan development and rezone

05:08action

05:09um with parcels listed on the screen.

05:13The request here is a zoning map change

05:14from commercial general plan development

05:16to commercial general, but then

05:18subsequently also the approval of a text

05:20amendment that would create a special

05:22district overlay for the future

05:24development of the parcels involved.

05:28This is all coming out of a resolution

05:29that was passed on March 3rd of this

05:31year.

05:32Uh the items specified in that

05:34resolution are on the screen, items 1

05:36through 7, uh previously reviewed at

05:38other meetings of this body. Um

05:41this is the site involved, the Georgia

05:44Square Mall properties, as well as some

05:46out parcels between the mall and the

05:49Atlanta Highway frontage.

05:52Future land use on this has this

05:54designated as urban center.

05:59Zoning map proposal um somewhat

06:01difficult to show of change that's

06:03occurring, so that's why we added the

06:04hatching. The hatching indicates on the

06:07right-hand side of the screen indicates

06:09what would be included inside of the

06:10special district overlay if approved.

06:13On the left-hand side, you see a dashed

06:15line for the PD.

06:17Um

06:17that appears to be carried over. The PD

06:19designation would come away. So, the PD

06:22goes away, CG straight CG zoning with

06:24the overlay sitting on top.

06:27Environmental areas in the proximity of

06:29this are really to the north.

06:31Um there's a very small area, 75-ft

06:34buffer, that that is at the northern

06:37edge of the property. Other than that,

06:38there are no environmentally sensitive

06:40areas.

06:41Photographs of the site include these.

06:44These might be worth updating at some

06:47point.

06:48Um

06:50quick procedural overview on this. There

06:52is no specific development proposal

06:54accompanied with this

06:56uh with the zoning map amendments.

06:57There's nothing associated with the

06:58special district overlay that comes in

07:00the form of a binding plan. There is a

07:03series of regulations, and the purpose

07:05of these is to enable redevelopment of

07:07the subject properties over time.

07:09The specified development parameters

07:11that are unique to the area and that are

07:13intended to respond to the surrounding

07:15context.

07:17From a future land use analysis

07:19standpoint, I noted that urban center is

07:21the designation that's on it. Um was

07:23part of the recently adopted 2045 future

07:25land use map.

07:27Um bless you.

07:29Um the existing planned development uh

07:32that is on the property now that was

07:35adopted a couple years ago

07:38is directly cat compatible with that

07:40urban center future land use

07:41designation.

07:43Um there is no change to the future land

07:45use map that's being requested or that

07:47is required.

07:48Um the CG zoning is compatible

07:51with the urban center designation.

07:56There are some image that are a part of

07:58that approved PD.

08:00This is the site plan that the existing

08:04binding site plan.

08:06Um this depicts the phasing of that site

08:09plan that was anticipated.

08:12This shows the breakdown of the uses

08:14that were included within the planned

08:16development.

08:18And some representative views of the

08:20architecture that was intended for the

08:22residential, the commercial, the

08:24mixed-use,

08:25um, and some of the other structures

08:27within the property. Multi-story tenant,

08:30um, opportunities were were anticipated

08:32throughout. There were a handful of

08:35townhomes that were also anticipated on

08:37strategically located portions of this,

08:39mostly to the north or to the edges

08:41close to existing residential.

08:44The analysis of the overlay really

08:46quickly,

08:47um,

08:48the features that were associated with

08:50the resolution break out as follows.

08:52There's a a transit facility that is to

08:54be included. That was part of the PD.

08:57It's also specifically requested as part

08:59of the resolution to be associated with

09:01the overlay.

09:03Um,

09:04from a staff standpoint, we've been

09:06working with transit staff on how to

09:07properly locate that.

09:09Um, there is a desire to buy transit to

09:13definitely have a facility on the

09:14property. Two acres was identified to be

09:17sufficient.

09:18Um,

09:20what is different about this is with it

09:22it needs to be part of an uncodified

09:24portion of the ordinance. We can't

09:26really put it into code, um,

09:28specifically

09:29where this is to be without knowing

09:31exactly,

09:33um, how it's going to work out. So, this

09:35would be something that would work in

09:36parallel with the overlay.

09:39Um,

09:40the RM-3 density that's been requested,

09:42that's 50 beds per acre that would be

09:44allowed by right.

09:45That is different than the 24 beds per

09:47acre of the underlying CG zoning, but

09:49that is part of what the resolution was

09:51asking for.

09:52Also, the allowance for the affordable

09:54housing units that were considered as

09:56part of the PD,

09:57um, this development would be, uh, able

10:01to participate in the payment in lieu

10:02option,

10:03um,

10:04with the inclusionary zone.

10:07Ground floor residential would be

10:09allowed. Attached single family housing

10:11would be allowed. Those were also

10:12features of the PD.

10:14Um those would be a part of the overlay.

10:17Building height allowance was changing.

10:19Uh the request here for it this to be

10:21included is to be able to go up to 100

10:23ft.

10:24Um as long as you're not within 250 ft

10:27of any adjacent residential property.

10:30There's a a map depicting that. I'll

10:32show you an image here in a second, but

10:34if there's a map at the place at your

10:35place that shows what that would look

10:37like for the areas that would have that

10:38restriction. If you are within 250 ft,

10:41your maximum height would be 45 ft.

10:45Um

10:46tree and landscaping standards as

10:48proposed. Uh the goal here is to have

10:51redevelopment flexibility. There's also

10:53not much to conserve on this site.

10:56The notion here is that there would be a

10:58goal of tree canopy

11:00for the entire development and we'll get

11:02into the specifics of how this is turned

11:03into the wording in the ordinance in a

11:05second.

11:07And then design standards for parking

11:08structure. Um although not stated

11:10specifically in the resolution,

11:13in the discussion of the resolution,

11:15there was a lot of mention made to the

11:17overlay that was prepared for the

11:19Varsity site, um the West Broad overlay.

11:23That does have specific standards for

11:25parking structures, and so those were

11:26carried forward as part of this

11:28proposal.

11:30So just a quick bit of history on how we

11:32got to tonight. At the August meeting of

11:34the Planning Commission, the item was

11:36I should say postponed to address key

11:38elements um

11:40that were in the plan development.

11:41There's a list on the screen of those

11:43elements that were requested. Planning

11:45Commission asked for those to be

11:47looked into, brought back forward in the

11:48form of a ordinance proposal.

11:52In the September Planning Commission

11:54meeting, the item was postponed to allow

11:57staff the opportunity to meet with the

11:58property owner to identify any elements

12:00of the PD

12:01um

12:02that are otherwise unbuildable so that

12:04as this discussion kept going forward,

12:07there wasn't time spent on things that

12:08were just impractical or couldn't be

12:10done. And this body also asked for an

12:13expanded comparative table, which staff

12:15prepared,

12:16that showed the CG plan development

12:19standards metrics that are part of the

12:21current PD, um that as compared to what

12:25the commercial general with the overlay

12:27would look like

12:28as compared to what just commercial

12:30general base zoning would look like.

12:34At the October meeting, planning

12:36commission

12:37went an extra step and went into

12:39committee of the whole to

12:41workshop through the wording.

12:43Um that is going to be the substance of

12:46what we talk about tonight.

12:48Uh that was what was in your packet. Uh

12:51the motion that was made that night and

12:52was approved

12:54reads as follows: to postpone the re

12:57November planning commission meeting

12:58with direction for staff to edit the

13:00draft document to professional standards

13:02for typographical areas and errors and

13:04code consistency and to solicit written

13:06comment from the property owner and

13:08other departments as staff deems

13:10appropriate,

13:11including threshold considerations for

13:13the commercial/mixed use core and moving

13:16identified sections to the intent

13:18portion of the overlay.

13:20So, staff has done that. Um we have

13:22talked with the owner's representative.

13:25We have spoken with other departments as

13:27we routinely do.

13:29And what was in your packet

13:32starts here. I will say

13:34um in speaking with the owner's

13:35representative,

13:38there was

13:39most of the discussion was looking at

13:41the trigger

13:42that you asked staff to develop um for

13:45how that core

13:47would be built in in phases over time.

13:51Um

13:53I think to summarize how the discussion

13:54went, the the owner's representative was

13:57not really in favor of the trigger.

13:59Um

14:00of the three options, option B, which

14:02we'll get to in a minute, was the one

14:04that was found to be the least

14:05objectionable. I think that's probably

14:06the best way to phrase how the

14:08conversation went. Um but

14:11no trigger was clearly the preference

14:14um

14:14by the owners.

14:15All right.

14:17I'm going to go through and I've tried

14:18to organize this and and unfortunately

14:19this slide has the smallest font size.

14:22Um, so I promise it'll get bigger. Um, I

14:24just wanted topically not to have slide

14:27breaks in the middle of text.

14:29Um, everything in yellow is what the

14:31planning commission worked on.

14:33Everything in gray, which is only on one

14:35single slide, is going to be the

14:37triggering options. So,

14:40what you see in yellow, I want you

14:42I want you all to feel comfortable with

14:45before I move on to the next slide. We

14:46can certainly come back to any portion

14:49um, during discussion if you would like.

14:51Um, but these are literally the words

14:53that you talked about at the October

14:55meeting.

14:56Um,

14:58staff uh, and I'll I will say Robert

15:00specifically was our scribe and uh,

15:04we really wanted to make sure that if we

15:05were in committee of the whole that you

15:06all were comfortable before we left that

15:08committee of the whole what was on the

15:10screen was correct. So, that's what you

15:11have here.

15:12Um, under purpose and intent during that

15:14discussion, purpose and intent was

15:16expanded and I think refined. I think is

15:18a good way to say it.

15:20Um, there were a lot of of goal

15:23statements that were folded in and

15:25that's what you have one through 11. And

15:26they're not just goal statements, they

15:28do have

15:29some things that generated measurable

15:32standards in the other portions of of

15:34the text amendment. But the goal overall

15:36is to have cohesive mixed-use urban

15:38center. That's new language.

15:40Supporting the redevelopment and

15:41continued commercial vitality of the

15:43mall area

15:44while providing connected

15:45pedestrian-friendly environment that

15:46integrates commercial, residential,

15:48institutional, recreational, and transit

15:51uses.

15:52And then the overlay is intended to do

15:54the following, one through 11.

15:58Any questions on this one before I move

15:59I know we're going to get into

16:00discussion, but I'll I'll go through

16:02them if

16:03y'all feel strongly that I should.

16:06Okay.

16:07All right.

16:08Um, boundaries are unchanged. There was

16:10language that I think fleshed them out a

16:12little bit more clearly. Um,

16:15but it the boundaries remain unchanged.

16:18So, I didn't put that on the screen. The

16:19end result is the same.

16:21Uh

16:22the wording of underlying zoning in

16:23conflict, that was new, but the

16:25substance that followed was the same.

16:27Under uses,

16:29>> [clears throat]

16:30>> what the Planning Commission refined was

16:32that the uses in the overlay shall be

16:34arranged and designed, again reinforcing

16:38mixed-use pedestrian pedestrian

16:39orientation.

16:41And then, the list of prohibited uses

16:43had drive-thru facilities added as an

16:45additional prohibited use.

16:48The second point was also made that

16:50within the commercial mixed-use core,

16:52and this is the first part of the text

16:54that you see that referenced.

16:56Um

16:58there would be commercial and other

17:00active public-facing uses, and that they

17:02shall be oriented towards designated

17:03primary streets or corridors, pedestrian

17:05corridors.

17:07The primary building entrances shall be

17:08oriented towards streets, sidewalks,

17:10plazas, or other publicly accessible

17:11pedestrian spaces. I think those two

17:13standards overlap, to be sure, but I

17:16think there are some subtle differences

17:17between the wording.

17:21Um under minimum lot size, there was one

17:23sentence added that creation of

17:25individual lots shall enable pedestrian,

17:27bicycle, vehicular, utility, or other

17:29connections between adjoining

17:31development areas. So, again,

17:33reinforcing that notion of connectivity

17:35throughout the overlay.

17:37Building height and residential density

17:38remained unchanged.

17:43So, this was the bulk of what was new

17:45looking at the notion of a commercial

17:47and mixed-use core.

17:49Um

17:51the metric on this was in the text uh

17:54that had been previously prepared

17:571,000 square feet

17:58of leasable commercial space.

18:01Um

18:02what wasn't said that I think the

18:04Planning Commission made

18:06into a new category was that 150,000

18:08square feet of leasable commercial space

18:11would [clears throat] be the heart of

18:13that commercial mixed-use core.

18:16Um

18:17the urban core would also to

18:19a number of features, and those are

18:20spelled out below.

18:22No less than eight contiguous acres

18:26of features that qualifies as commercial

18:28mixed-use core.

18:30Um and it would not include the transit

18:32center square uh acreage, the 2 acres

18:34for surface parking.

18:36No less than one contiguous acre of open

18:38space.

18:40And there are purposes for that, and

18:42then ownership of that, how that would

18:44be controlled. Um and the public access

18:47being ensured for that open space.

18:50Primary building entrances would be

18:51oriented towards streets, sidewalks,

18:53plazas, or other pedestrian spaces,

18:55which was stated earlier.

18:57Locating surface parking, loading, and

18:58other auto-oriented functions away from

19:01these primary pedestrian areas. Yep.

19:04>> Can I ask a question about that, or

19:05would you rather that we defer all

19:07questions to the end? I just had a

19:08question about that last item you read.

19:10>> About the orientation?

19:10>> Number four, yeah. I just wanted to ask

19:12about "to the greatest extent

19:13practicable" is something that you

19:16if that's in the zoning overlay, is that

19:18something that you feel like staff can

19:22administer and enforce because, you

19:24know, uh people might disagree about the

19:26ex- you know, staff might say, "Well, it

19:29seems like you have cars running in

19:30front of the building entrances." And

19:32the apple- you know, the owner might say

19:34like, "Well, we put them elsewhere to

19:36the greatest extent practicable." You

19:38know, and so there may be differences of

19:39opinion. It's not so objective.

19:41>> Yeah, that's a fair question. Um

19:43>> [clears throat]

19:43>> administration of that wording is not

19:45going to be easy.

19:46Um

19:48it it it turns into a bit of a

19:49negotiated item.

19:52Uh

19:53giving it specificity though on on a

19:56site this big is also challenging.

19:59Um

20:00when you might have connectivity that's

20:02that just has to pass by where the

20:05loading dock is, or it just has to pass

20:07by where the dumpster is. Um

20:10we don't want to have language that's

20:12overly prescriptive and restrictive

20:15to where you just don't get things

20:17developed. So, I we can come back to

20:19that. We can wordsmith it a little bit.

20:21It

20:22that one's not easy. I I think you

20:23picked up on one that I'm I'm not I

20:25would not enjoy having to administer in

20:28plans review. Um

20:30But we can come back to it.

20:31>> Okay.

20:32>> All right.

20:33Um

20:34And then the overall development of the

20:35site shall coincide with the development

20:37of the commercial and mixed-use core

20:38when the following criteria are met. And

20:40so here's where we have

20:42the three trigger options to work

20:45through.

20:46Um I'm going to refer to my phone really

20:48quickly because we did math on the

20:50whiteboard

20:51uh

20:52to get us to these.

20:55So we have 79.4 total acres for the the

20:58overlay.

20:59What we wanted to do was take that gross

21:02amount of acreage and do a net

21:04calculation

21:05um

21:06>> [clears throat]

21:06>> to see what's left

21:08over for the discretion of development.

21:12So 79.4, you remove the 2 acres for the

21:15transit.

21:16You move remove um

21:19the

21:20storm facility, which is about 7.2

21:23acres. We were

21:26ballparking that number a little bit.

21:29Um and then we did 10% for roads and

21:33circulation. So that was 7.94 acres.

21:37And then we had the 8-acre core

21:39that that you guys had specified.

21:42So what you're left with is 54.26 acres.

21:45Um if you take that and divide it into

21:47quarters, that's 13.565

21:50acres. So now you know where that weird

21:52number

21:53came from, how it was born.

21:55Uh 13.565, and if you double that, you

21:58get 27.13.

22:01So that's that's where staff's coming

22:03from when you see

22:05uh us going to the hundredths place on

22:08triggers, which is just not how we

22:10normally do things.

22:12Um

22:13So option A is is saying that if you

22:15have

22:17the no less than

22:18than eight contiguous acres of the

22:20commercial mixed-use core are platted

22:21and recorded,

22:23that opens 27.13 acres of non-core

22:26development to occur on site.

22:29So,

22:30essentially setting aside the eight

22:33acres roughly of what's already out

22:35there with 150,000 square feet,

22:38probably maybe a scosh more presently of

22:41commercial,

22:43opens up the 27.13

22:45acres of

22:47non-core development, which could be

22:48residential development or it could be

22:50commercial or it could be institutional.

22:51It could be anything. Um

22:54And then when no less than eight

22:55contiguous eight contiguous acres of

22:56commercial mixed-use core are issued

22:58COs, the remaining acreage then becomes

23:02available

23:03for non-core development. That was

23:05option A.

23:07Um

23:09For reference, the 27 acres that we're

23:12talking about there,

23:13um starts to walk and talk a little bit

23:16like the residential

23:18that the market has produced recently on

23:20the north side of town. So, where you

23:21have the commercial core at 2972,

23:24you have new new residential. Doesn't

23:28have to be residential, but if it was,

23:30what does a residential development site

23:32look like these days? What is what is

23:34the land assembly that makes sense for

23:36somebody who's doing kind of

23:37development? It's about the 27 acres.

23:41Option B

23:43builds off of option A. So, when no less

23:46than eight contiguous acres of that core

23:48are plotted and recorded, you get the

23:4927.13.

23:51The subsequent lifts, though, are half

23:53that.

23:54So, when you have no less than four

23:56contiguous acres of the core,

23:59including the one acre required open

24:00space or issued COs, that gives you

24:0313.565.

24:05And then when the remaining four

24:07contiguous acres,

24:10then you get

24:11the other balance to work with.

24:15And then option C splits that down even

24:19further so that that first lift isn't 27

24:22acres, it's 13.565.

24:25Um so, it just

24:27there is there is a a a finer grain

24:30split. So, two acres of the core gets

24:32you 13 acres plus of non-core. Another

24:35two acres gets you another 13 and back

24:38and forth.

24:41This was

24:42kind of inspired by the discussion that

24:43this group had um

24:45and the proposal that came from uh the

24:48redevelopment of West Clocks.

24:49And it's a similar

24:51series of triggers that are built into

24:53that overlay.

24:55So, that that was our inspiration for

24:56this.

24:59Happy to come back to that when y'all

25:01are in discussion.

25:02Um

25:03for the residential standards, there was

25:05an additional sentence added here.

25:07Um y'all redid the math

25:09on on how to calculate parking.

25:12So, for multi-family, the maximum number

25:14of parking spaces shall be 1.25 times

25:17the minimum number of parking spaces

25:18required. The original wording said no

25:20more than two and a half spaces per

25:22unit. This was just another way to

25:24arrive at a similar number.

25:27Here's that image of the area that would

25:29be impacted

25:30um

25:31and boundaries of the overlay.

25:35Um

25:36parking uh

25:38there was new language regarding parking

25:41within the overlay and how it should be

25:42designed and how it should be connected

25:45and woven into the pedestrian

25:48um plan for the overlay.

25:50Um where it should be located to the

25:52side of the rear buildings.

25:54Also pretty typical standard that we

25:56have elsewhere in the code.

25:59And that structured parking would be

26:00integrated into surrounding development

26:02pattern.

26:03Um and shall be designed to minimize its

26:05visual and pedestrian impact from the

26:06streets.

26:08Uh

26:10structured parking design standards then

26:11follow in the next

26:13section and that was already in the

26:15proposal.

26:18The buffer and tree and landscaping

26:19standards are the same but just it's

26:21worth saying out loud. From a tree and

26:22landscaping standard, 20% overall tree

26:25canopy would be the goal within the

26:26overlay.

26:27Uh 0% conserved would be

26:31required. Um so everything could be new,

26:34would be new, anticipated to be new. And

26:36then each development site would provide

26:3815% of their development site with tree

26:41canopy.

26:42The reason why it's 15 and not 20

26:45is when you look at the circulation on

26:47the roadways through there and consider

26:49the street tree requirements for those,

26:52you'll reach the 20% if not exceed the

26:5420% just with the street tree

26:56requirement that we would normally get.

27:00From an open space standpoint, go ahead.

27:03Not really considerable changes. What

27:04you wanted to do was make this

27:05consistent with the code that we already

27:08have. And so the language that you

27:10proposed is really a simple sentence.

27:12Any residential development shall comply

27:14with the open space requirements of 925

27:168C7.

27:18The language that's in 8C7 is right

27:20there on the screen. So we would just

27:22have the cross-reference. We wouldn't

27:23have all that text.

27:28All right, the multi-use path and

27:29connectivity. So we're we're almost

27:31done. We got N, O, and P to do. Um this

27:34section fleshed out what was being

27:38contemplated in the original

27:40um

27:41the notion here of having three

27:42connection points for an 8-ft wide

27:44multi-use path. Those three connection

27:46points would be

27:47the northernmost access point on

27:49Huntington, the westernmost access point

27:51on Atlanta Highway, and the intersection

27:53of Maryland Farmer Way and the Georgia

27:55Square Mall property itself, which

27:57there's a mall circulation drive that's

27:59right there.

28:00Those three points would be fixed.

28:02Everything else would allow for

28:05movement of a multi-use path connecting

28:07those points.

28:09And then that path would also be

28:11supplemented by the various sidewalks

28:12that would be required

28:14along internal drives, across

28:17storefrontages, anything any parking lot

28:19more than 50 spaces has to have

28:21pedestrian circulation through it. Those

28:23would be connected also to the multi-use

28:25path.

28:27Um the notion here is that also the the

28:29developer could revise these path

28:31locations as they needed to if a site

28:33needed to be um redeveloped and pick up

28:36a piece that already had something built

28:38that could be revisited as long as that

28:40connection was restored.

28:44Um

28:45two other points coming out of that

28:47multi-use path section.

28:49One about the ownership maintenance and

28:51public access. This is consistent with

28:52the open space section of the code and

28:55that timing of construction being

28:56spelled out that

28:58this could be done at any point during

29:01the mall area redevelopment.

29:04If the path the key phrase is that last

29:06sentence. If the path hasn't been

29:07completed when the final phase of mall

29:09redevelopment is submitted for

29:10permitting the developer of that final

29:13phase would complete all the remaining

29:15sections of the path that haven't been

29:16done.

29:19And then O is the transit facility

29:22language.

29:23And then P is a section that was created

29:25um

29:26that

29:29I think the intent behind this was to

29:31create some language that said any

29:34development needs to provide and

29:36anticipate and account for the following

29:38things.

29:39Um

29:41in reading through this during the

29:42development of the presentation and the

29:44text

29:45um I think staff has looked at this and

29:47would entertain y'all's discussion on

29:48this. If this maybe starts to align more

29:51with the purpose statements.

29:53And doesn't necessarily have to sit as

29:55its own section but um

29:58if it stays as its own section I think

30:00what we would be looking for is

30:01something that brings some specificity

30:03to this so that it can be enforceable.

30:07Okay.

30:09So I'll leave that image on the screen

30:11for public comment. Um but happy to

30:14revisit any portion of the presentation

30:16that y'all need during discussion.

30:18>> All right. Thank you Bruce.

30:21Um

30:22can anyone here who can speak in support

30:24of the application?

30:29>> [clears throat]

30:30>> John Williams I live at 30 River Shoals

30:32Drive in Athens, Georgia. Here tonight

30:34on speaking on behalf of the developer

30:36of the project.

30:37Um as Bruce said, we did speak.

30:40>> [clears throat]

30:40>> And I think he captured our conversation

30:42pretty well. The developer

30:44uh

30:46first and foremost requests that you

30:48pass this tonight

30:51deny tonight and let us move forward. Uh

30:55second of all, we request we would

30:56request that you pass the one that was

30:59originally sent to you on July 15th.

31:02Uh that is in keeping with the

31:03resolution that the mayor commission

31:05passed.

31:06Um

31:07and

31:08as I told Bruce when we spoke,

31:10we

31:12do not uh

31:15agree with the changes that have been

31:16made in the last two weeks or so.

31:19Um if you could just keep that that in

31:20mind and if you have any questions, I'll

31:22be happy to answer them later.

31:23>> Thank you.

31:26Anyone else here to speak in support of

31:28the application?

31:31Anyone here to speak in opposition to

31:33the application?

31:39All right.

31:41So, take it on the side of the room.

31:44Um

31:48I don't know if anybody has any initial

31:50thoughts. I had

31:52a thought to kind of go through the

31:54slides that Bruce had and if there's any

31:57thing that anybody feels strongly about

31:59mentioning that to make a note of like

32:02what we might want to change or just

32:04make a motion to whatever. You know,

32:06maybe that's a good

32:07That was kind of my thought was

32:08structuring it of like we just just go

32:10through the through the different

32:11sections. I have a couple thoughts.

32:14Again, I don't really get a vote. So, um

32:17take that for what it's worth, but

32:20happy to have you do that.

32:24>> It sounds good to go through the slides.

32:25>> Yeah. Yeah.

32:27So,

32:29section A, any thoughts?

32:33>> Um I think this looks good. I would

32:35probably kind of thinking about what you

32:37were saying Bruce at the end that does

32:39to me make sense to have the

32:41district development framework up with

32:43the intent.

32:46Because I think it would be challenging

32:47to

32:49turn that into

32:52Unless you all unless staff has an idea

32:54of how you would do that, but to me

32:58it

32:59I yeah.

33:00>> You're talking about item P?

33:02>> Talking about item P, yeah. And I

33:03actually thought we could just delete it

33:05because I feel like a lot of it exists

33:07already in the intent.

33:11>> [clears throat]

33:11>> Yeah, that's a good point.

33:17>> Yeah, it might be kind of um

33:20redundant.

33:21>> Yeah, there's something about that the

33:23sort of the format of the list against

33:25the way that it does makes it very

33:27clear, but I um

33:30but I generally don't care that much

33:31about that. Just I just want to point

33:33out that to me it feels more like an ask

33:35than it does

33:37um

33:39I mean it it kind of it is that

33:42boundary between intent and

33:44implementation because it is saying that

33:48development shall be the phases of the

33:50development shall demonstrate

33:52the relationship between these things.

33:54And you know, to me that does feel like

33:56something you could administer, but

33:59that for the most part

34:03every

34:04piece of this development should

34:06actually

34:08address those seven things in some way.

34:11Even if it's just to acknowledge

34:15that one of them is not in

34:17the current phase that's being

34:19developed, but I I think for the most

34:20part obviously the transit facility is

34:23not going to be in every phase.

34:25Um but

34:28if it would be in some ways useful for

34:30the user, right, to be able to kind of

34:32see to make sure all those things are in

34:34there.

34:35That might be useful, but

34:39but I think you're right. It it does

34:40kind of live in the

34:42overlay and temp language.

34:45>> For what it's worth, I um

34:48like I don't have strong feelings about

34:49whether subpart P makes more sense up in

34:51the intent statement or for down where

34:53it is. Um

34:55but I I do think there's value in having

34:57it. Um

34:58so I I would

35:00um

35:01I'm thinking of favor of deleting it

35:02entirely. Um

35:04I see sure to see Sarah's point about

35:06maybe moving it up to intent. Um

35:09but I don't have strong feelings about

35:11that.

35:11>> I mean it is being prescriptive and is

35:13saying that the plan shall demonstrate

35:15this relationship. So

35:18it also can just stay where it is.

35:20And P

35:21>> Would it make sense to move it starting

35:24with development within the overlay and

35:26just have it as a line after number 11

35:30where it's just like living as part of

35:32that

35:35first section?

35:37And then it just says development within

35:38a relationship with planned and phased.

35:40So it's like part of the

35:43purpose and intent.

35:46>> Yeah, what what I would suggest is if if

35:48you want to move it to the section

35:50what I would do is where it says the

35:53overlay is intended to

35:55that would break out as a subsection one

35:58and then everything in the list would be

35:59an A through whatever 11 is in the

36:01alphabet.

36:03And then subsection two would start

36:05development within the overlay shall be

36:07planned and phased as interconnected.

36:10And so you have subsection one that is

36:12the text there and the subsection two

36:15that is the wording of P. Section P.

36:18Yeah.

36:18>> No, that seems reasonable.

36:24>> Is that

36:25like straw poll with head nods? Okay.

36:28All right.

36:33>> Those two slides we just took care of.

36:36>> [laughter]

36:37>> All right, next one.

36:40Boundaries underlying zoning conflict

36:42uses.

36:44Um

36:55And that's

37:00We got on the side.

37:05Right?

37:07>> Next.

37:07>> Next one.

37:10And on the left side building height,

37:11residential density.

37:14I I I did want to add to this

37:17there's nothing in what we have in all

37:19of these that is not compliant with what

37:22we got from the air commission. I just

37:24wanted to state that. Like

37:27the original one is not any better than

37:28that. So, anyway.

37:31These are those. Any thoughts?

37:33>> I had a question. Is this going to be

37:35part of

37:36the

37:37overlay

37:38or is this just for us?

37:40>> That's just illustrative.

37:41>> Okay.

37:42I think it's really helpful. I don't I

37:44don't think it needs to be in the

37:45overlay, but I would suggest that it

37:46goes to the goes to the air commission.

37:48>> Oh, for sure. Yep. Mhm.

37:58Next.

37:58>> All right. Next slide.

38:01Commercial and mixed-use core.

38:13>> Can I ask another question? About how

38:14many acres is Belk's?

38:17>> That 127,000 square feet comes out to

38:20what?

38:21>> In terms of acres?

38:23>> Mhm.

38:23>> I mean, that that square footage is

38:25three.

38:28>> Okay. So, they kind of like going in out

38:30of the gate if they were to put their

38:31urban core around Belk's, like they've

38:33got a measurable amount to it already,

38:36right? Cuz all these that is in place

38:39it's a lot. It's

38:40CO'd.

38:41>> So, the 150,000 square feet would be

38:43something that would be calculated could

38:45be calculated vertically. The acreage is

38:47just in plan. So, I don't it's not a

38:50one-to-one.

38:51>> Well, I guess where I'm coming with that

38:53is if that the core that we're asking

38:55for is baked around belts.

38:58And we unlock we have some sort of

39:00measure to unlock it. Like some of that

39:02unlocking

39:04is

39:04we're including the square footage of

39:07that 150,000 that's already there on

39:10site.

39:11So, there's already a little bit of an

39:12allocation going to that unlocking if

39:15they were to put that core there.

39:17By what's already there boots on the

39:19ground.

39:20So, that's already have 4 acres. That's

39:22where I was going with that. Yes.

39:27That's why I just wanted to check that

39:28assumption.

39:35>> That's good. Any other questions?

39:41All right.

39:44Okay, so this one we clearly need to

39:46have some discussion about the the

39:48triggers.

39:50What to include

39:51you want to include it.

39:53Thoughts?

39:54Questions?

39:58>> But I think all three of these options

39:59are fairly reasonable approach. I know

40:01that the

40:02developer doesn't like having a trigger,

40:04but I don't know if we

40:07I think trigger is pretty important to

40:09us when we're talking about this a month

40:10ago. And so

40:12if the developer said of like all these

40:14terrible options, B would be the best

40:16the least worst, then B looks reasonable

40:18to me.

40:19So,

40:21>> Agreed.

40:22>> All right. I just have one question. The

40:24only the major difference apart from

40:26like phasing it in smaller chunks or

40:28you know, halfway or 3/4 is that option

40:32C

40:34um

40:35is triggered by certificates of

40:36occupancy and options A and B are

40:38triggered by

40:40um filing and recording of the

40:43contiguous

40:44Am I understanding it right that only

40:46option C requires a building to go up in

40:50the urban core.

40:54>> Well, so in option A, subsection B does

40:57call for a CO.

41:00So, the first one just says you have to

41:02plat it. You have to set it aside.

41:04You know, in in A

41:05>> I see. Okay. Okay.

41:07>> And then in in B, you have to actually

41:09have built

41:11eight contiguous acres of commercial

41:13mixed-use core that have COs,

41:15then you get the other

41:17>> And and does that implicitly mean the

41:20whole 150,000 square feet cuz as you

41:23were saying like the square footage of

41:24the buildings that are in the commercial

41:26core is not the same thing as the

41:28acreage involved. So, if they put up a

41:31donut shop on

41:33part of that eight acres, but they

41:34platted and recorded the whole acres and

41:35they get a

41:37CO for just one

41:38>> No.

41:39>> commercial thing, would that not satisfy

41:41that?

41:42>> No, it'd have to be a really big donut

41:43shop. It'd have to be the whole 150,000

41:45square

41:45>> Yeah. So, if if the way I would read

41:48that trigger is these elements

41:51in H one through five would have to be

41:53or H one through four would have to be

41:55met.

41:57>> Okay.

41:57>> Yep. Okay.

41:59>> I'm good with that as long as you're uh

42:01if that's your interpretation and you

42:02think that works.

42:03>> Yes. And and I will say and I I failed

42:05to say this before, one of the things

42:06that the owner's rep made abundantly

42:08clear and I think was absolutely spot on

42:10is there has to be an understanding that

42:14is documented on how this is to be

42:16administered.

42:17This can't be left for interpretation to

42:19a future staff person. This needs to be

42:22spelled out in an SOP, for lack of a

42:24better way to put it, that says this is

42:26how this works.

42:28And I I agree.

42:29>> And that's something you as staff would

42:32do.

42:32>> Uh we we can do that. Yeah, I don't

42:35think it needs to be codified.

42:37Um but it needs to be memorialized

42:39somehow. And and I think

42:41if it's part of the overlay and it's

42:43part of the documentation, I think

42:44that's fair.

42:45Um

42:46and honestly, I think that would be

42:49something that

42:50staff would work up before presenting

42:52this to the mayor and the commission so

42:54that it's on the record at the voting

42:55session of how it's going to be

42:57administered.

42:59It It's not something I'm going to do in

43:00the spring. It It would be

43:02>> Do you need a directive from us for

43:03that? Do you need us to say, "Hey, we

43:05need you to do that as part of this?"

43:07>> If If you feel compelled to do that, I

43:09think that's fine. I I think it's a

43:10really good idea and I think we we're

43:11going to intend We're going to do it.

43:13We're going to We're going to do that to

43:14make sure that we understand what's

43:16going on. Um but yeah, if that's part of

43:19whatever motion this body makes, that's

43:20fine, too.

43:21>> Would it be reasonable to say that the

43:23developer is most inclined to like

43:26option B out of all the options because

43:28it allows

43:30for some

43:32additional residential, like it's not as

43:34such a heavy lift. They can

43:36do that commercial component or the

43:39urban core component in tandem with some

43:42residential so that they've got people

43:44living on site to monetize what we're

43:47asking of them.

43:48And I guess what I'm kind of getting at

43:50is a chicken and egg. I would imagine

43:52some of the resistance of not wanting a

43:53trigger point is wanting to build up

43:55some of the residential so that you can

43:57actually get meaningful leases on what

43:59we're asking for them to do commercial.

44:01Like that does make sense. But the

44:03trigger point absent it may mean it

44:05never comes.

44:07So, I'm just trying to wrap my head

44:08around like what makes option B the most

44:12palatable?

44:17>> I

44:18>> I think it's the only one that requires

44:20where the trigger is the

44:22platting and recording.

44:24>> A does that as well.

44:25>> Yes.

44:26Oh, is item A?

44:27>> A does that as well. A A and B both have

44:30the same

44:32kind of entry point of platting and

44:34recording. You don't have to build

44:35anything, but you do have to set the

44:36table for that construction to occur.

44:38You have to decide where it's going to

44:39go.

44:40What is this core? Where's it going to

44:42be?

44:43And remember in the language of the

44:45overlay, it can move.

44:47>> Right.

44:47>> Right. So, that would just be another

44:48plat, another recording of where it's

44:50going to be should it need to shift to

44:52help accommodate redevelopment. But,

44:55they have those same two triggers, A and

44:58B.

44:59The The functional difference is

45:02in option B,

45:04it's only four contiguous acres of of

45:06the core,

45:07but it also includes the one acre of

45:09open space.

45:11Um get that CO or in the case of the

45:14open space, a certificate of completion.

45:16So, it's four, it's not the full eight.

45:19Um and then that unlocks not another 27

45:22acres, it unlocks 13.5.

45:26>> So,

45:29I don't want to get in the weeds of this

45:30too much, but the four that's roughly

45:32four that's already activated through

45:35belts, does that satisfy B?

45:37>> It could.

45:38>> Okay. So, they could like

45:40>> platted and, you know, designated as

45:43satisfying the core and then it if it

45:45meets the standards in the preceding

45:46section

45:48with the elements that are in there,

45:50plus that open space piece,

45:52knowing that we're not counting parking

45:53lots and and those other things towards

45:56that square that acreage.

45:58Um yeah, absolutely.

46:00>> Okay.

46:04Whichever option we choose, I think it

46:07would make sense since we

46:09since you've defined commercial mixed

46:11use core in the previous section, I

46:14think maybe

46:17just being really explicit, maybe even

46:19just capitalizing commercial mixed use

46:21core

46:23and saying, you know, as defined herein

46:25or as defined in section whatever number

46:27that turns out to be, H.

46:30Just feel like

46:32you defined it

46:34using capitals and it kind of seems like

46:36you should keep that. So, it's really

46:38clear that that's what's being

46:40required.

46:42>> Here?

46:44No, sorry.

46:45I

46:46>> And yeah, we

46:48we choose the A, B, or C.

46:51>> Uh-huh.

46:51>> Right. So, you there you've defined it

46:53item H. And so, in the next one

46:55>> So, where it says commercial mixed use

46:57core area or core R. So the commercial

47:01mixed use core would be popular. I guess

47:03they didn't doesn't matter cuz they're

47:04all in H. They're all inside of H.

47:07>> Yeah, I mean this will be this will be a

47:08subsection under five. This will be 5A

47:11through whatever or whatever option.

47:14>> Okay, never mind. I was thinking it was

47:16a different section.

47:17>> No, it's the same. Yeah.

47:19>> All right, so we have some thoughts

47:21toward B. Do you guys have any thoughts

47:23on the other ones?

47:26No?

47:29>> One one um

47:31Can you just get

47:33>> Say a little more again Bruce about the

47:34>> The numbers

47:36The number of significant digits are

47:38annoying

47:40and

47:41>> Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

47:42>> But like

47:43>> Sure.

47:43>> Uh can you just explain again there's I

47:45there's 54.26

47:47acres. That's the 79 acres minus the

47:50eight for the urban core minus the

47:53some additional number. Can you just um

47:56walk us through that again?

47:58>> Sure.

47:59Happy to. Um

48:02So what we were

48:04attempting to do

48:06was

48:07come up with a reasonable calculation of

48:09the acreage that already hasn't been

48:11spoken for in some requirement or some

48:14reality. Right? So 79.4 acres

48:18less the two acres for transit

48:21less 7.2 acres for storm water

48:24which could there be multiple storm

48:26water facilities? There could.

48:29But in all likelihood it's going to be

48:30concentrated to the north end and and

48:32what we noticed in the PD which was had

48:35its fair amount of engineering attention

48:36put to it was around seven and change

48:40was the storm water. So that's where we

48:41came up with that. So two acres for

48:43transit, 7.2 for storm, we did 10% for

48:46roads

48:47and circulation. So 7.94 acres and

48:51that's where it started to get tricky.

48:52Um

48:53So there we are headed into the

48:56hundreds.

48:57Um and then eight acres specified in the

49:00core as a finished

49:01platted area of core.

49:04So, when you take those away from the

49:0579.4, you end at 54.26

49:09for what is developable and not spoken

49:12for already in some way.

49:15>> So, so um, a couple of them are like

49:17storm water sounds like it's not

49:19necessarily totally precise. Roads is

49:2210%, it's not necessarily totally

49:24precise. So, one one problem of

49:27you know, if nothing else, if we were

49:30to use option B as the example in case

49:32we go in that direction, like that third

49:35segment where they do 13.565,

49:38that may leave them with another acre.

49:39Like if if they their roads are smaller

49:41or whatever, you know, maybe they they

49:44get 57 54.26, but there's another couple

49:47acres that are unaccounted for. So,

49:48maybe the last one should be all

49:49remaining acreage.

49:51Um, but also

49:53uh, just to

49:54deal with the annoyance factor and and

49:55anticipating a question from the county

49:57commissioner about why are we looking at

49:59hundreds, you know, maybe it should just

50:01be whole numbers. Like just say 27 and

50:0327 or 27 and 13.5 and 13 and and then

50:07all remaining. The last part should be a

50:09catch all so that it's if it was 15 and

50:11not 13.5, they can develop the whole 15.

50:14>> Absolutely. And in fact, we kind of

50:16fully anticipated

50:18someone and we kind of the smart money

50:20was that it was going to be you.

50:23>> Oh, who won the pool on that one? We

50:24would be

50:26>> [laughter]

50:27>> We wanted to make sure that we weren't

50:29fudging. Like we are playing with fudgy

50:31numbers, but there is some specificity

50:34to it. So, we just want to show our

50:35work.

50:36>> Yeah. So, totally understand. Yeah.

50:40>> Just seeing if we're paying attention.

50:42>> [laughter]

50:45>> But yeah, if there's consensus that 27

50:49and 13.5 are what we're talking about,

50:53>> It would be 27.

50:53>> Yeah, I think that sounds good cuz it is

50:55just kind of estimates, so.

50:56>> Yeah, so it'd be 27, 13.5, and then the

50:59remainder is

51:00all remaining acres of non-core

51:03development made part.

51:04>> Yes.

51:04>> Yeah.

51:06>> Yeah, that sounds good to me.

51:08>> Okay.

51:09>> You have a little B?

51:10>> So, I think B.

51:11>> B with those changes.

51:15>> All right.

51:16Next slide.

51:21Residential standard.

51:26>> I

51:27>> Mhm.

51:28>> Thumbs up?

51:29>> All right. Next slide.

51:33What's that? Because we just had a

51:36>> I'm [laughter] just kidding.

51:38Wait, wait, we got to get to P,

51:39remember? So.

51:40>> Yeah.

51:40>> Oh, right.

51:42Right. Um

51:43Okay. Parking and parking. Parking.

51:48Okay with that?

51:50>> Okay.

51:50>> All right. Thumbs up. Next slide.

51:55Um buffer, tree and landscaping, open

51:58space.

52:01And that's directly from the code.

52:02>> It is.

52:03>> Yeah.

52:05All right. Cool. Next slide.

52:06>> I do have a question.

52:08>> Oh, yeah. Yeah.

52:08>> I I like referring I like putting that

52:11in in this text, but obviously it

52:14brings up the problem if that text

52:15changes elsewhere in the code. Do you

52:17have to

52:19just is it already implied that if that

52:21text elsewhere in the code changes, this

52:23changes even though this has been put in

52:25here for reference?

52:26>> Yeah, if this were ever amended

52:28>> Yes.

52:29>> write along with It would either write

52:30along or we would have to pull it apart.

52:32We'd have to break the link. If if

52:35if the depending on what the change to

52:38that section if it was something, you

52:40know, if if that was eliminated for

52:42example

52:43I think we'd

52:44that I wouldn't feel comfortable with us

52:47not acknowledging that that was

52:48referenced in this overlay. So, maybe it

52:50needs to remain in the overlay and

52:51become specific if there was some

52:53movement to remove it from the rest of

52:54the code. Or at least it would be talked

52:56about.

52:57>> So, do we need to say as much in here?

53:01>> No, I I mean I don't if you guys

53:04Well, I don't know.

53:06If you feel like it needs to be in there

53:07explicitly and not as a cross-reference,

53:10then we can certainly do that.

53:13>> Yeah, cuz the idea is the the for

53:14reference part, that's just for us to

53:16know what we're talking about.

53:18Otherwise, it just lives as just

53:19references part of the code.

53:20>> That's right.

53:21>> And if that part of the code goes away,

53:22then there's nothing to reference. So.

53:24>> And it would go away from the overlay.

53:26>> Yeah.

53:26>> All right.

53:27But I think, Sarah, that's your concern,

53:29right? Is

53:30>> I'm just sort of asking the question,

53:31are we cool with that?

53:33>> Fair enough.

53:34>> Um so, I just wonder if

53:38I yeah, I'm not sure the best way to

53:39deal with that, but

53:44>> It could be made explicit

53:46in in here and not be a cross-reference.

53:49And it's just a duplication of language

53:51and

53:52>> Yeah, you could just put that

53:54in there.

53:54>> What you see on the and that's part of

53:55the reason why we kind of put it that up

53:57there so you'd understand what it is,

53:58but yeah, if you wanted those exact

54:00words in there and

54:01no cross-reference or reference anymore,

54:03we can do that.

54:05>> I mean, one thing you could say

54:08is that

54:09any residential development shall comply

54:11with the open space requirements of code

54:12section 925

54:1487 as of the date of adoption of this

54:17overlay.

54:22Or something, I you know, I guess

54:25um

54:33I don't know, something like that and

54:34this is what it is and in fact it's

54:35changed elsewhere. I guess what I don't

54:37really know is

54:39to sort of freeze it in here in place as

54:41it is. Seems reasonable.

54:44And you just pointed out like what if a

54:45change happens to the open space

54:49that um

54:51it's good.

54:53I don't know how often that text gets

54:55changed in there. So, maybe just

54:59put it in here.

55:01>> Have

55:02>> Yeah.

55:02>> Absolutely just

55:03>> Rather than as a reference to a code,

55:05just this is this is the requirement.

55:07>> Yep, easily done.

55:10>> Okay. Great. So, you're good with that?

55:12>> Is there Is there a way

55:16I'm again I'm somebody who may ask for

55:18permission. So, they read this, they're

55:19trying to figure it out. It's going to

55:20be a lot of information

55:22um

55:24coming at them to to figure through. Is

55:26there a way to still reference when they

55:29see it blank, they think we just came

55:31out of it came up with it. I would I

55:34they came up with these more more things

55:36to do.

55:37If it's referenced to that, which maybe

55:40is why staff did such

55:43it's already it's already there.

55:46But if we can reference it in a way that

55:49protects if that's ever gone if if that

55:53I mean that I think you were struggling

55:54to say it.

55:55>> Like adding a sentence at the end that

55:57says [clears throat] if

55:59you know, shall the open space shall

56:01that

56:03text change elsewhere in the code, this

56:05would still be there. That would be

56:06another way to do it. So, either

56:08eliminate the reference entirely and

56:09just put in the overlay or I know what

56:11you're saying like it it it's a way of

56:13demonstrating that this wasn't

56:14arbitrarily chosen.

56:16>> Right.

56:17>> And so, I think another way to do that

56:19would be like

56:22this

56:23this text applies regardless of any

56:25changes that happen.

56:28>> So, there's a little bit of awkwardness

56:30to inserting that that could be avoided

56:32if we had a staff note in the

56:34presentation

56:35that makes known

56:37this is what the code already says for

56:39open space.

56:40It's just not

56:42we don't have to write some subordinate

56:43clause in there that becomes

56:46a problem down the road for some reason

56:48that we can't sit here and anticipate.

56:50If we just put the text in there right

56:52away, then I can make sure to make it a

56:54part of the staff presentation on this

56:56and perhaps in the cover memo that the

56:58open space standard is the same as what

57:00already exists elsewhere in the code.

57:03>> Reasonable.

57:06Would you be okay with that?

57:09>> Yeah.

57:09>> [clears throat]

57:10>> Yeah.

57:10All right, so we'll make it explicit and

57:12have A, B, and C in the text.

57:15>> Yeah, and then you're going to note

57:16where that came from in the

57:17interpretation.

57:22>> Okay.

57:27Yeah.

57:30>> Used half in connectivity network.

57:48That's good.

57:50>> [clears throat and cough]

57:57>> I think it's worth pointing out, you

57:58know, the

58:00this is this would be a private

58:01multi-use path that's available to the

58:02public.

58:03Um,

58:04ACC standard for multi-use path is 12

58:06ft.

58:09Um, this one is expected eight.

58:11Um, this is this is something that I

58:14think was

58:15part of the original understanding out

58:18of this project.

58:20So, that's why that dimension has been

58:21noted, but

58:23um,

58:24private path with public access is

58:27what's being produced.

58:28So, this is not for Athens-Clarke County

58:30to maintain. This is not expected to

58:32meet ACC standards.

58:36I just want to

58:37make that

58:39note.

58:41>> We good? Thumbs up?

58:43I have one question about that. Um, is

58:47there a pathway for

58:50the developer to

58:53um,

58:54build that

58:55path to ACC standards

58:58and

58:59um,

59:01I don't know if dedicating is the right

59:02word, but make it a public

59:05>> I mean, that would be outside of what's

59:06contemplated with the overlay, but yeah,

59:08I mean, it it that certainly could be

59:09done.

59:10>> The overlay doesn't prevent that.

59:12>> The overlay does not prevent that.

59:13>> Okay, that's what I was thinking.

59:14>> Doesn't obligate that either.

59:16Just want to make it doesn't obligate

59:18that either. So,

59:20on both sides. Like Athens-Clarke County

59:22is under no obligation to receive it.

59:25And and

59:27whatever developer may come along is

59:29under no obligation to talk to the

59:30county first or whatever. These are the

59:32specifications they would need.

59:33>> Yeah.

59:41All right, we're good with that. So,

59:44that's absolutely unchanged.

59:47>> [clears throat]

59:52>> And what's after that? It was just the

59:54last one, right? Yeah, that. And so,

59:55that got moved to the first section.

59:57>> Yep.

59:59It's

59:59A2.

1:00:00>> Yes.

1:00:03Okay.

1:00:06So, I think the motion is to approve of

1:00:07the changes that we've talked about

1:00:09tonight, including all of these.

1:00:11>> Okay.

1:00:15So, the changes for all second that.

1:00:18>> Okay.

1:00:19>> And then ask the question just make sure

1:00:21we have the changes. The changes are

1:00:24to move item P into the intent section

1:00:27as a new item two

1:00:30under that section.

1:00:31Keep option B.

1:00:34And update the numbers to 27, 13, and 5

1:00:38and all remaining.

1:00:41Then to

1:00:44uh

1:00:47remove the reference to the open space

1:00:49language and just

1:00:51put that language in this overlay.

1:00:54>> And the the wording that I have noted

1:00:56here is

1:00:58it would be

1:01:00I guess let's just put it back on the

1:01:01screen.

1:01:05There.

1:01:06So, it would be any residential

1:01:08development shall comply with the

1:01:10following open space requirements,

1:01:12period.

1:01:14And then it would have A, B, and C.

1:01:15>> Mhm.

1:01:16>> Yep.

1:01:16>> Yep.

1:01:22>> Right.

1:01:22>> Can I uh just discussion of the motion,

1:01:25um

1:01:27Bruce, do you

1:01:30Does it need to be part of the motion or

1:01:32or or what are your thoughts on whether

1:01:34um it's appropriate to present options

1:01:36A, B, and C to the commission and say

1:01:38that our recommendation is option B?

1:01:42Developer's preference among the three

1:01:43was option B.

1:01:45But that these were, you know,

1:01:47um in case there were were to be a CDO

1:01:49and one of those other options were

1:01:51found preferable by them. Is that

1:01:52something that you would

1:01:54anticipate including or or is that a

1:01:56decision you would want us to make

1:01:58whether

1:01:59I think it'd be helpful if if that's

1:02:00something you thought was important to

1:02:02to make that part of the action that

1:02:05you're suggesting. And then what the way

1:02:07I would deliver that, it would be in the

1:02:09presentation I make at agenda setting,

1:02:10but it would also be in a cover memo.

1:02:12Mhm.

1:02:13Um

1:02:15I don't necessarily think it's important

1:02:17to do that, but I'm I just wanted to

1:02:18raise the question cuz I could see how

1:02:20someone might think

1:02:21um

1:02:23>> I think it's important to keep it cuz of

1:02:25those the deliberation we went through

1:02:27and also the willingness to default to

1:02:30the options of the developer

1:02:32preferred.

1:02:33>> Yeah, I mean I I I guess now that you

1:02:34say that, I think maybe there's value in

1:02:37um your report, Bruce, of our findings

1:02:40and recommendation including that

1:02:42you know, um

1:02:45not just that the urban center is the

1:02:47main thing we're trying to do here and

1:02:48that that's

1:02:49what the early version of the overlay

1:02:51district lost and that we're

1:02:53recommending that they include, but also

1:02:55on the options that we

1:02:57uh

1:02:58following the West Box model thought

1:03:00there was value in

1:03:02um

1:03:04phasing, you know, allowing the

1:03:05developer to phase development of the

1:03:07urban core section so that Athens-Clarke

1:03:09County still gets the benefit of that.

1:03:12Um

1:03:14And and uh that several options were

1:03:17considered,

1:03:18but that the developer's preference

1:03:21the first choice was not to do it but

1:03:22their second choice was option B is

1:03:24better than A or C and and that we

1:03:26deferred to that. I think that's all

1:03:28valuable information.

1:03:30>> Okay. So, if if that's part of

1:03:33>> Yeah, that's right.

1:03:35Yeah, so in the additional to adding to

1:03:37the motion the additional guidance from

1:03:39Matt on providing the context in the

1:03:42staff report to the mayor commission

1:03:44about how those calculations were made.

1:03:47>> Okay. Yeah. And

1:03:49it wasn't part of the motion but it was

1:03:51part of what I've

1:03:52noted about the SOP for how the trigger

1:03:54gets administrated.

1:03:55>> Yes. Yes. So, in that same vein with

1:03:58those numbers with different options

1:04:01creating the SOP so as part of that

1:04:03motion as well. Yes.

1:04:06>> Got it.

1:04:08Emily to Sarah.

1:04:09>> Yep.

1:04:10>> Okay.

1:04:11>> Any other discussions?

1:04:12>> So, I actually have one more question

1:04:13about the options. So, the

1:04:18develop eight we plot eight contiguous

1:04:21acres. You don't have to develop 27

1:04:23acres, right? You can only develop you

1:04:25can develop 15 if you wanted.

1:04:26>> That's right.

1:04:27>> But then when you do those four

1:04:30contiguous acres, are you still only

1:04:32limited to 13 or can you pick up what

1:04:34you didn't get

1:04:36the benefit of?

1:04:37>> Still on the table.

1:04:39Yeah.

1:04:40>> So, that that second

1:04:43like

1:04:44we might need to make that explicit.

1:04:47That

1:04:47>> Okay. I think that would be part of the

1:04:49SOP.

1:04:50>> Okay.

1:04:51>> It is is to make that kind of question

1:04:54clear.

1:04:55>> It's like a rolling total.

1:04:57>> Yeah, I mean the 27 acres although we

1:04:59have seen 27 acres of development occur

1:05:02certainly like a single development site

1:05:04of 27 acres.

1:05:05There's nothing that says this couldn't

1:05:07be done in three or four different lifts

1:05:09over time with different elements,

1:05:11different developers, and different

1:05:12uses.

1:05:13Um and so if it were to be the first 15

1:05:16and then 12 sat for a season

1:05:20and then the next group comes in and

1:05:22they want the 12 plus 10. Well, then

1:05:27>> They can have it.

1:05:27>> You can have it, but you need to do the

1:05:29other four contiguous acres of the core.

1:05:32Yeah.

1:05:35And that then opens up

1:05:37the whole next wave of So, I mean, if

1:05:40you wanted even more, like then then

1:05:42that's your option at that point.

1:05:45>> After you develop the

1:05:48after all of those

1:05:49>> Any amount that goes over the 27

1:05:52>> You have to develop the four You have to

1:05:54CEO the four.

1:05:55>> You got to CEO the four. Yeah.

1:06:04>> Yeah, yeah. So, I think in the

1:06:07in the

1:06:08explanation about or the SOPs for it, if

1:06:10we can just talk about it being a

1:06:11rolling total.

1:06:12>> I can tell you the SOP will also include

1:06:15whether or not we're going to prorate.

1:06:19So,

1:06:20I'm not going to get into that as we're

1:06:21sitting here right now, but

1:06:23I [clears throat] will tell you that my

1:06:24inclination is is prorating is probably

1:06:26not how we want to administer this.

1:06:29Um but there could be interest in doing

1:06:31it that way. So, we need to be prepared

1:06:33for that question to come up.

1:06:38>> If we are going to show all three

1:06:39options

1:06:41uh

1:06:43are we going to show or you just going

1:06:44to have that in the presentations to

1:06:46sort of show that it was contemplated?

1:06:48>> It'll have it in the memo per what we

1:06:49were just discussing.

1:06:51>> Okay.

1:06:51>> Is is the overview and I will I will

1:06:53include it as part of the presentation,

1:06:55but we'll move to the option B

1:06:59that y'all are recommending. You know, I

1:07:00won't linger on

1:07:01>> Okay.

1:07:02>> A, B, and C necessarily.

1:07:03>> If you are going to show A and C as

1:07:05well, I the recommendation about the

1:07:08numbers would apply.

1:07:10You know what I mean? We we said for B

1:07:11we're going to change the numbers to

1:07:14rounding of the numbers 27 and 13.5 and

1:07:17all remaining. So, we just go ahead and

1:07:18do that with the other two.

1:07:20Make it consistent. Yeah.

1:07:22>> Okay.

1:07:23I can do [clears throat] that. And can I

1:07:24ask uh um

1:07:27I don't recall. My head is not hearing

1:07:29it right now. Did Mr. Williams, the

1:07:31representative of the

1:07:33um developer, said they would take the

1:07:38Did Did he actually say that?

1:07:40>> It was the least

1:07:41>> Yeah, he he actually said I heard Bruce

1:07:43say it, but he said it, too. I'm I'm not

1:07:46replaying it in my head here.

1:07:47>> they didn't really like any of them, but

1:07:49B was like

1:07:50>> Okay. I just want to make sure that's on

1:07:52record from the developer's

1:07:53representative and not

1:07:55>> It's in the text, too, so we're covered.

1:07:57But it's in the

1:07:59Yeah.

1:08:00>> Fair Fair point.

1:08:01>> Yeah.

1:08:07Um All right. Are we ready to vote?

1:08:10Any more thoughts?

1:08:13Worth [clears throat] a formal vote?

1:08:15>> Yeah.

1:08:16Uh Fleece?

1:08:16>> Yes.

1:08:18>> First read?

1:08:18>> Yes.

1:08:19>> Paul?

1:08:20>> Yes.

1:08:22>> Um

1:08:23McGoffin?

1:08:24>> Yes.

1:08:26>> Sams?

1:08:27>> Yes.

1:08:29>> Sabria?

1:08:29>> Yes.

1:08:30>> And Lord?

1:08:31>> Yes.

1:08:32>> All right. Motion carries.

1:08:35>> And I do procedurally just want to take

1:08:37a minute and and note

1:08:40I'm reading that vote as a singular vote

1:08:43to handle two actions.

1:08:44>> Oh. Okay.

1:08:45>> All right.

1:08:46>> Yeah, I thought it was one vote on the

1:08:48two things.

1:08:49>> Solving the PD

1:08:50>> Yeah.

1:08:54>> I'm looking to our parliamentarian. It

1:08:56would be best if they had two votes, one

1:08:57to dissolve the PD

1:08:58>> or for the system how y'all wanted to

1:09:00treat when there's a planned

1:09:01development.

1:09:02>> I agree. I agree. All right. So, if that

1:09:04first motion

1:09:06deals with the overlay

1:09:09>> We need a motion

1:09:09>> Then let's let's maybe have a motion

1:09:11about dissolving the PD.

1:09:15>> I'll make a motion to dissolve the PD.

1:09:17>> Okay.

1:09:20>> Second.

1:09:21>> Second.

1:09:22>> All right. Any other discussion?

1:09:24I wish I had thought of this earlier cuz

1:09:26I saw type two and I see type two and I

1:09:29think one vote.

1:09:31And

1:09:32I thought it was just

1:09:35>> It was a plan development and

1:09:36established small area special district

1:09:37overlay. That's the request.

1:09:39>> It was It was a code wrinkle that made

1:09:40it a type two.

1:09:42I'll just say that.

1:09:45It's

1:09:46Yeah, if it's initiated by

1:09:48the governing body, then it's a type

1:09:49two.

1:09:50>> Oh, so ACC being the applicant.

1:09:53>> Yes.

1:09:53>> Threw this wrinkle into it. Okay, well,

1:09:56that's why we don't ever really see

1:09:57this. So.

1:09:59>> So, I had a discussion.

1:10:01>> Yeah.

1:10:02>> So, there is

1:10:04no way

1:10:06that

1:10:07the Marion Commission can

1:10:10switch the order of the vote, vote on

1:10:13the PD first, then vote on the overlay.

1:10:17>> I mean

1:10:17>> It's a question, can they do it?

1:10:20That way.

1:10:20>> Procedurally, you would vote to dissolve

1:10:23to to remove the PD designation first.

1:10:26>> Mhm.

1:10:26>> [clears throat]

1:10:27>> And then

1:10:28you would take up

1:10:30the overlay. In fact, this evening, I

1:10:32regret that's what we should have done.

1:10:34Um we got right into the substance of

1:10:36it. So, that's on me. But yeah, I mean,

1:10:39those would be the steps. You got to get

1:10:40rid of the current set of rules to be

1:10:43able to enact the new set of rules or

1:10:45else you have a moment of conflict.

1:10:47>> If we're taking care of it in all one

1:10:49swoop, it still would have been taken

1:10:51care of. Like the vote, like

1:10:53the item the request was to dissolve the

1:10:55PD and establish the special district

1:10:59overlay.

1:11:00It was a two-in-one. That was always my

1:11:02interpretation.

1:11:03>> Yeah, it it it was always a two-stepper.

1:11:06There were There There is a way that

1:11:07this could have been done where the PD

1:11:09was dissolved

1:11:11and the overlay was handled separately

1:11:13in a whole different way.

1:11:16Um

1:11:19I don't I don't think anybody was

1:11:20interested.

1:11:21Nobody came forward and said they were

1:11:23interested in just going to straight CG

1:11:25on this tract. So,

1:11:27um that just hasn't ever been part of

1:11:29the discussion.

1:11:31But because we have a plan develop and

1:11:33we dealt with this with West clock,

1:11:34right? You all took two votes.

1:11:36You had to

1:11:38modify the boundaries of the PD and then

1:11:40you took the action to create the

1:11:41overlay, the West clock overlay, on the

1:11:44part that it just come out of the PD.

1:11:46So, it's same same logic, same process.

1:11:50>> I just want to but I feel like modifying

1:11:51a PD is different from just getting rid

1:11:54of it. But strictly also because if I

1:11:56understand this correctly, we could or

1:11:59or the mayor and commission could

1:12:01um remove the PD and not accept it

1:12:04overlay and so then it's just CG.

1:12:07That's an option, right?

1:12:09>> Yeah, and that's what I was saying just

1:12:10a second ago.

1:12:11Nobody really has expressed any interest

1:12:13in that. But yes,

1:12:15>> Nobody in

1:12:16on in any

1:12:18no applicant

1:12:19>> The owner, the applicant, no one has has

1:12:21expressed an interest in just removing

1:12:23the PD and letting it be base zoning of

1:12:26CG.

1:12:29>> But just for it sounds like Austin's

1:12:31point is just that to be consistent with

1:12:33the way that we have generally handled

1:12:35um

1:12:37things like this in the past, we ought

1:12:39to do it as two votes. Not necessarily

1:12:41that it's

1:12:42clearly mandated by ordinance, but just

1:12:44that

1:12:45we we ought to do it cuz that's

1:12:47consistent since the past votes.

1:12:48>> It develops a better record and they're

1:12:50two separate types of action. One's a

1:12:51text amendment and one's a zoning item.

1:12:54So, I think you need two separate votes.

1:12:58>> Yeah.

1:12:59>> But there's no requirement that we do it

1:13:01in any particular order. So, we already

1:13:02did the second one, so now we could do

1:13:04>> So, we already have that overlay.

1:13:06So, now the question is the PD.

1:13:09>> Right.

1:13:09>> And we have a

1:13:09>> And we have a motion and a second.

1:13:15>> All right. Well, I wish that would have

1:13:16been more clear, but um

1:13:18All right.

1:13:20Any other discussion?

1:13:23>> Oh, no, I'm sorry. I thought I was just

1:13:25waiting to raise my hand and say

1:13:29I have a question. No, I'm just kidding.

1:13:32>> [laughter]

1:13:33>> Okay.

1:13:33>> Who do you call?

1:13:34>> All right. Uh Fleece?

1:13:35>> Yes.

1:13:36>> Paris Reed?

1:13:37>> Yes.

1:13:37>> Paul?

1:13:38>> Yes.

1:13:39>> Baughflan?

1:13:39>> Yes.

1:13:41>> Sams?

1:13:42>> Yes.

1:13:43>> Calabria?

1:13:44>> Yes.

1:13:45>> Lord?

1:13:46>> Yes.

1:13:46>> All right. Motion to dissolve the PD

1:13:49Harris.

1:13:50>> All right. That's the last vote on

1:13:53All right.

1:13:53>> New business

1:13:55710 South Milledge Avenue.

1:14:09Hey guys. So, we're looking at 710 South

1:14:13Milledge

1:14:16Avenue. Okay.

1:14:18Um

1:14:19This request is a rezone from commercial

1:14:21office to mixed density residential two.

1:14:25Um applicant's proposal is a mixed use

1:14:27development with commercial ground floor

1:14:29and two upper stories of residential.

1:14:32There's no change to the future land use

1:14:33map of this.

1:14:36Um

1:14:37Yeah, again, no change to the future

1:14:39land use. It's mixed density residential

1:14:42in the 2045 classification and it

1:14:45remains as so.

1:14:47Um this map, bear with me, you got the

1:14:51uh Milledge Avenue historic district

1:14:53overlay on top, so it looks a little um

1:14:55funky, but the current zoning is CO and

1:15:00the proposed is RM2.

1:15:02Around the parcel along Milledge, you

1:15:04can see CO in pretty much the entire

1:15:07historic overlay.

1:15:09Um

1:15:09and to the

1:15:11you start to see residential

1:15:15beginning. You got RS15. I would note

1:15:18that RM2 is to the west, like over here,

1:15:21and like further down the street over

1:15:23there, and on this side, like over here,

1:15:25you have some RM1.

1:15:27So, it's not

1:15:28um uncommon to the area.

1:15:31There are no environmental um

1:15:33no environmental sensitive areas

1:15:36in the vicinity.

1:15:38Uh

1:15:39So, now we're starting to get at some

1:15:40site photos.

1:15:42Um the property is on a corner lot of

1:15:44Milledge and Springdale. You got

1:15:47Milledge on the frontage and Springdale

1:15:50over there.

1:15:51Uh the building's current use is office

1:15:55space.

1:15:56Uh if the building was constructed

1:15:57around 1952, it's considered

1:15:59non-contributing to the historic

1:16:01district.

1:16:03Um now you got some side and uh rear

1:16:07and kind of mentioned earlier is a

1:16:09consideration is that the parking lot

1:16:12there's really no like hard line in

1:16:15between the neighboring to the west

1:16:17parcel and our parcel that we're looking

1:16:20at here. Um both um this was originally

1:16:24a duplex and the one to the west that

1:16:27you can see right there is also duplex,

1:16:29same style, built at the same time.

1:16:32Um yeah, so here's a site survey

1:16:35submitted. Um it shows the separation

1:16:38between this parcel's driveway and this

1:16:41parcel's parking lot, which as you can

1:16:43see from that previous photo, there is

1:16:45really no distinction um apart from

1:16:48material.

1:16:49The applicant states the building

1:16:51footprint will be kept the same. Uh that

1:16:53seems pretty likely given that they're

1:16:56kind of at the edge of their lot

1:16:58coverage in beginning. And we spoke uh

1:17:01staff spoke a little bit about the

1:17:03Milledge over um historic district

1:17:05overlay. So, the setback the front

1:17:08setback can't change that much. The it's

1:17:11a eyeglasses place to the north. They

1:17:15have a setback about 45.9

1:17:19ft. Uh this parcel is about 43.1

1:17:24and then the south parcel, which is a

1:17:25sorority, is about 42.9. So, of the

1:17:29setback

1:17:31they can't have it shorter than adjacent

1:17:34and they can't have it further. So,

1:17:36since they're about 43, they can't go

1:17:38past 46 and they can't go past 42. So,

1:17:41they're kind of in the middle already.

1:17:43Um staff determines this to be

1:17:45compatible with the 2023 comprehensive

1:17:47plan given that there's infill housing

1:17:50along commercial nodes. Uh it's a

1:17:53increases with a variety of housing

1:17:55types. It prioritizes redevelopment and

1:17:59it's transitional zone from commercial

1:18:01area to residential neighborhood.

1:18:03And again, compatible with future land

1:18:05use, there's no change.

1:18:08Now, we're looking at zoning general

1:18:09regulations. The main difference is

1:18:12maximum residential density. You got 16

1:18:15under CO and you got 24 under RM2.

1:18:18And when we calculate that, under

1:18:21current CO, they could get three

1:18:23bedrooms on the parcel and under RM2,

1:18:26they could get max five beds on the

1:18:28parcel. So, it's kind of you're looking

1:18:29at three beds versus five beds and what

1:18:31they could actually build.

1:18:33And that's pretty much the main

1:18:34difference between CO and RM2. There's

1:18:36like a slight difference between

1:18:37setback, but it's pretty nominal. In

1:18:39fact, RM2 might be actually more

1:18:41restrictive.

1:18:43And then parking will just change based

1:18:45on how many residential bedrooms are

1:18:47added.

1:18:49Yes, so we find it compatible compatible

1:18:51with the zoning map.

1:18:53And it's pretty consistent with other

1:18:55ACC uh plans. There's no major

1:18:58references. Athens in Motion talks about

1:19:01proposed separated bike lane on this

1:19:03portion, but that's on just a tier one

1:19:06of bicycle projects, not yet funded. Uh

1:19:09ACC Transit does not service this exact

1:19:12portion, but it is serviced by UGA

1:19:14Transit very directly. There's a There's

1:19:16a

1:19:18pickup spot right along the corner and

1:19:20then you can walk to route five on

1:19:22Baxter just to the north and route nine

1:19:25to the south on South Lumpkin. So,

1:19:27that's a half mile walk either way.

1:19:30And yeah, the only housing community

1:19:33development solid waste plan references

1:19:35pretty much that it increases housing

1:19:38options.

1:19:40And so, staff recommends approval. The

1:19:43project aligns with the 2045 future land

1:19:45use um with the transition and

1:19:47increasing housing. And the fact that

1:19:50this property would need to receive an

1:19:53approval certificate of appropriateness

1:19:56from the historic brick historic

1:19:57preservation commission before any

1:20:00change could be made. And so, while the

1:20:02reason would be non-binding, their their

1:20:04COA would be binding.

1:20:08>> Is this the end of staff's presentation?

1:20:10Okay, thanks, Lloyd.

1:20:11Now, we'll move on to the other

1:20:12speakers.

1:20:18>> Good evening. My name is David Matheny

1:20:20and I live at 200 Mount Vernon Place.

1:20:24Um

1:20:25I see no real reason to belabor this. I

1:20:28think staff has

1:20:30clearly marked out what we're doing. Uh

1:20:32I would just

1:20:33reiterate a couple of things. One is

1:20:36that we are

1:20:38using the footprint of the existing

1:20:40building.

1:20:41Maybe even making it slightly less.

1:20:45Um and that

1:20:47the overriding issue for doing this

1:20:50rezone is so that I can have one more

1:20:53bedroom in my two condos that are two

1:20:56bedrooms each.

1:20:58And to be specific, um if I calculate

1:21:02it, I get 3.53

1:21:06bedrooms.

1:21:07I just need another half of a bedroom.

1:21:11Like this part.

1:21:12And so, this seemed to be the most

1:21:14logical path to take

1:21:16uh since we don't have uh

1:21:19a path that says, "Okay, you can have a

1:21:23half of a bedroom."

1:21:24Um so, anyway,

1:21:28I think you all are clear in

1:21:30understanding what we're trying to do

1:21:31here and um

1:21:34I'm here for any

1:21:36questions you may have for me. Thank

1:21:37you.

1:21:39>> Okay.

1:21:41Um anybody here to speak in support of

1:21:45the application?

1:21:48Anybody like to speak with her?

1:21:51I'm I'm not anybody wants to speak, they

1:21:53can come on up and speak.

1:21:59>> Thank you.

1:22:01My name is Kathy Horne. I have lived at

1:22:04248 Springdale Street for 46 years.

1:22:09Uh

1:22:10I can't I went there as a baby. We'll

1:22:11leave it at that.

1:22:12>> [laughter]

1:22:13>> I've lived here for 46 years. My home is

1:22:16on the same side of Milledge Avenue as

1:22:19the property under review this evening.

1:22:22And it's the second house behind the

1:22:24optical office on Milledge.

1:22:27I consider myself a long-term friend of

1:22:29David Feeney, uh architect who just

1:22:32spoke with.

1:22:33Um

1:22:34was employed by the owner of the

1:22:36property

1:22:37under discussion this evening, and I

1:22:39appreciate the work he has done on so

1:22:42many other efforts. I have no issues

1:22:45regarding the request alter the building

1:22:48under review as long as our historic

1:22:50preservation commission finds it

1:22:53appropriate one of the most historic

1:22:56streets in our

1:22:58However, I am concerned about inadequate

1:23:01on-site parking spaces for those working

1:23:05there, living there, and those visiting.

1:23:08It is my understanding that eight spaces

1:23:12are required. Six are available on site,

1:23:16and two are available through a business

1:23:18transaction with the owner of a nearby

1:23:21parking lot.

1:23:23My concern about this arrangement is

1:23:26where will the overflow parking go?

1:23:29What is it I what I um

1:23:32I'm sup- provided here is not the whole

1:23:34story.

1:23:38I I guess I need to discuss what would

1:23:40happen if the owner of the nearby

1:23:42parking lot collects much renewed

1:23:46parking arrangement.

1:23:48I don't I guess that the owner would

1:23:50have to go out and try to find out

1:23:52someone else that would replace him. So,

1:23:56it's hard to

1:23:57Um but we're out there for 36 years with

1:24:00three straight in the area where parking

1:24:03is is not easy to gain sometimes.

1:24:07Um

1:24:09Also, again, much of Springdale Street

1:24:13closest to the property is yellow

1:24:15curved.

1:24:16Um and as daily walk or drive down the

1:24:20lower end of the street, which is not

1:24:23yellow curved, will reflect that all

1:24:26spaces that are open to parking on the

1:24:28street are pretty much taken. Uh I would

1:24:31invite you to drive down the street

1:24:33Monday through Friday any day, and

1:24:36you'll you'll see that there's no place

1:24:39to park.

1:24:41Thank I thank you so very much for

1:24:43affording me the opportunity to express

1:24:46concern about the proposed project and

1:24:49for your review of this proposal. And

1:24:52the time and effort that's being made to

1:24:55ensure that the best possible outcome

1:24:58happens for our community.

1:25:00Again, I'm not opposed to what is being

1:25:03requested. I just want to make sure that

1:25:06our neighborhood and adjacent

1:25:08neighborhoods don't suffer because

1:25:10there's not adequate parking.

1:25:13>> Thank you.

1:25:16Anybody else to speak in support of the

1:25:18application?

1:25:19You all can come on up.

1:25:25>> Um Dory Bond, and I live at six I still

1:25:28live at 625 West Cloverhurst Avenue, and

1:25:31I'm the owner of the adjoining property,

1:25:33217 Springdale. And like Miss Bond

1:25:37mentioned, I'm not opposed to the

1:25:39development of the property. I would

1:25:40just like some consideration of how any

1:25:43overflow parking would affect my

1:25:46property. Um some type of buffer or a

1:25:48decorative fencing or something because

1:25:51from time to time there will be more

1:25:53people in that parking lot and I just

1:25:55don't want them lingering over to my

1:25:58driveway and my parking and my property.

1:26:01So, some type of consideration there.

1:26:04Just to [laughter] separate two would be

1:26:06greatly appreciated.

1:26:10Thank you. Thank you.

1:26:13Anyone else to speak in support of the

1:26:14application?

1:26:20All right.

1:26:22You know, if anybody wants to speak, you

1:26:24can just come on up. I don't call. We're

1:26:25not in class.

1:26:27>> [laughter]

1:26:27>> So, yeah, I wasn't sure about the

1:26:29support for the opposition.

1:26:31Um, I'm going to reiterate what the

1:26:33former two speakers said. My name is

1:26:35Marilyn Bakers.

1:26:37I am at 197 Blue Spring Court. Um,

1:26:41and I I do want to bring up the parking

1:26:44issue.

1:26:45Uh, I don't quite understand um,

1:26:48why eight spaces cannot fit on the

1:26:52property that is in discussion.

1:26:55Uh,

1:26:56and why there has to be this uh, two

1:26:59east spots.

1:27:01Uh, I know I am in that area fairly

1:27:03often. That's kind of my optometrist and

1:27:06I know how very tight the parking is

1:27:08there and I have seen as Kathy has said

1:27:12that the parking on the Spring Hill

1:27:14spreads over uh, during daytime hours

1:27:17quite a bit. So, that's really my

1:27:20question. Uh, again, the the building

1:27:23itself sounds uh, very appropriate for

1:27:26the use and the uh, conditions uh, that

1:27:29are there. But, I do not understand why

1:27:33there can't be eight spaces and keep it

1:27:36on site.

1:27:37Um,

1:27:38I I don't know if this leasing of spaces

1:27:42is

1:27:43uh, something that is regularly done

1:27:45already. That's I I just I only heard

1:27:48about this issue yesterday, so I

1:27:51I haven't had a lot of time to research,

1:27:53but um I have been uh

1:27:57meetings before, and I do know that you

1:28:00always say that you're not setting a

1:28:02precedent, but the fact is that when

1:28:05something is done once, it can set a

1:28:09precedent, if not de jure, at least de

1:28:12facto, and people say, "Well, you did it

1:28:16for for this, why can't it be done for

1:28:18this?" And if you say yes to that, then

1:28:21you've created a a spreading concern. If

1:28:25you say no to it, then you're considered

1:28:27to be uh favoring one party over

1:28:29another. So,

1:28:31um

1:28:32again,

1:28:33uh my concern is exactly what the other

1:28:37two people have said, uh that that if

1:28:40there's a way for the parking to be on

1:28:43this

1:28:44on this lot, uh eight spaces, seems like

1:28:48that wouldn't be too big an ask. Um then

1:28:51that's what should be done,

1:28:54uh and then I would have no objection to

1:28:57the the um

1:28:58use of the building itself. Thank you.

1:29:01>> Thank you.

1:29:02Anyone else to speak in support of the

1:29:04application?

1:29:08Hearing none, is there anyone here to

1:29:09speak in opposition to the application?

1:29:14>> It was sort of in opposition.

1:29:15>> Yeah.

1:29:17>> [laughter]

1:29:19>> Um all right. So,

1:29:23we'll take it behind the railing.

1:29:25Yeah, I know it's kind of weird. I know

1:29:26y'all spoke in support, but I I can

1:29:28invite Mr. McAnally, if you want to come

1:29:30up and have any response.

1:29:32Comments?

1:29:35>> Thank you. It's David McAnally.

1:29:37Um

1:29:39I would love to be able to have all

1:29:41eight spaces on there, but there is just

1:29:43simply not enough room, unless I'm

1:29:46allowed to have parking in front, and I

1:29:48am not allowed to have parking in front.

1:29:51Um where the the way I'm able to get

1:29:54even six parking spaces is that I am

1:29:56going to be doing a one-way driveway off

1:29:59of Springdale

1:30:00and onto Milledge. That's the only

1:30:03possible way to do it to get the six

1:30:06that I

1:30:07have on there now. We'll be doing a

1:30:09combination of

1:30:11uh, some 90° parking and some parallel

1:30:14parking, but

1:30:16there just simply is not and um, to

1:30:19answer Ms. Vickers'

1:30:22uh, question about is this done

1:30:24routinely?

1:30:26Actually, it is done routinely to get

1:30:28off-site parking. They have

1:30:31specific uh,

1:30:33requirements for being able to do that

1:30:35and um, so we're

1:30:38uh, able to do that

1:30:40and that's actually already been

1:30:42secured.

1:30:44And um,

1:30:45but we we're doing the best we can with

1:30:47the mass property that we have.

1:30:51Okay.

1:30:52>> Thank you.

1:30:55>> [clears throat]

1:30:55>> All right, who wants to start the

1:30:56discussion?

1:31:00>> I have a question.

1:31:00>> Okay.

1:31:02>> Staff, I think um,

1:31:04how many parking lots how many parking

1:31:06spaces are required now for this

1:31:08property?

1:31:11>> Cassie, did you

1:31:12calculate that?

1:31:14Here's here's

1:31:15>> how formal each space was, but I think

1:31:17you could fit about six or seven on

1:31:20there right now.

1:31:21>> What what could fit versus what is

1:31:23required? So, um, what's required right

1:31:26now is that whole it's legal

1:31:28non-conforming for what's, you know,

1:31:30for what's there. I think it's the the

1:31:31best way to phrase it. So,

1:31:33um, that wasn't part of our analysis,

1:31:35but yeah, it's it's the two office

1:31:37suites.

1:31:38>> Yes, it's about a little over 1,800, so

1:31:41if that's divided by 450, it's four or

1:31:43five spots.

1:31:43>> Yeah.

1:31:44>> Yeah.

1:31:46>> Um, and then my second question, one

1:31:47thing I was surprised when I was looking

1:31:49at this this week was that

1:31:51we apparently round down.

1:31:55But is that how we Is that generally how

1:31:57that's done?

1:31:57>> What?

1:31:58>> For

1:31:59for calculating the number of bedrooms.

1:32:00Like so this was 3.52,

1:32:03so they we round down.

1:32:04>> Yeah.

1:32:05>> Okay, I didn't know that.

1:32:07>> Well, it's it's the whole number. So I

1:32:09mean

1:32:10kind of like the applicant's point,

1:32:11there's

1:32:13rounding up produces this sort of thing

1:32:16you're chasing after.

1:32:18Um so it's it's

1:32:20each whole number increment. So I

1:32:22wouldn't I wouldn't phrase it as

1:32:23rounding down, although that's the

1:32:24effective result.

1:32:26>> 3.52, that's rounding down.

1:32:28>> That's three.

1:32:29>> If you're not three bedrooms. Yeah. If

1:32:31you're not

1:32:31>> 3.9 would also be 3.9 is three bedrooms,

1:32:34yeah.

1:32:37>> Good to know.

1:32:40Can I ask

1:32:41>> Okay, go ahead.

1:32:42>> Well, I I was just curious.

1:32:46We can't park in the front because of

1:32:49the lot constraints or because of the

1:32:52code that lets that says we can't park

1:32:54in the front.

1:32:55>> Correct.

1:32:56>> Okay.

1:32:57Be able to get the extra two spaces if

1:32:59that was waived.

1:33:01>> So

1:33:02we have a couple of things at play here.

1:33:04We have a standard We have two standards

1:33:06that that don't allow for the front yard

1:33:08parking.

1:33:09Um

1:33:11in the commercial zones, which this

1:33:12would go to arm two,

1:33:14but um

1:33:16there's no allowance for front yard

1:33:17parking, nothing between the building

1:33:19and the street. The second is you have

1:33:20this overlay that is unique to Millage

1:33:23Avenue,

1:33:24um that further restricts that and

1:33:26reinforces that requirement. So

1:33:29>> [clears throat]

1:33:29>> it would be

1:33:31it would be asking for relief from not

1:33:33one but two sets of standards.

1:33:35>> Yeah.

1:33:38>> I have a

1:33:38question, I think, um for

1:33:39[clears throat] Mr. Matheny and then

1:33:41maybe a related one for Bruce. Um

1:33:44is the intention

1:33:46uh

1:33:47if this rezone is approved to um stop

1:33:50using the building for office space and

1:33:52convert it to fully residential? It's to

1:33:55>> It we will we will [clears throat] have

1:33:57office on the

1:33:58first floor.

1:33:59>> Okay, it's to it's to be the

1:34:00>> residential above.

1:34:01>> Okay.

1:34:02>> Right.

1:34:02>> Okay.

1:34:03>> Which is, you know,

1:34:05uh

1:34:05part of what CO is. I mean, we're

1:34:07actually not making any differences

1:34:09between CO and RM2 except for the

1:34:13getting that one more bedroom. So, it

1:34:16will be office on the main floor. And

1:34:18the second, third floor will be

1:34:20residential.

1:34:21>> Got it. Thank you. Um and then Bruce, um

1:34:25so if it's rezoned to RM2, they can

1:34:28still do office on the

1:34:31uh ground floor?

1:34:33>> Up to 2,500 sq ft of office is allowed

1:34:35in the RM2

1:34:37per lot.

1:34:38Yeah.

1:34:38>> And so then the parking calculation is

1:34:41they need four for the

1:34:44office based on square footage, and then

1:34:46two more per

1:34:49um

1:34:50unit bedroom unit. It's not per bed It's

1:34:51not like one per bedroom. It's just They

1:34:53need two per apartment, and they have to

1:34:55They're They're intending to do two

1:34:58apartments of up to five bedrooms.

1:35:01And And so that would require four

1:35:03spots.

1:35:03>> Okay. Got it. Thank you.

1:35:06>> So, is there an allowance in the code

1:35:08any place for uses like this where the

1:35:10parking needs may not

1:35:13be in competition with each other? Like

1:35:15you

1:35:16You have You have office during the day

1:35:17and then more often.

1:35:19>> There's a 25 up to a 25% allowance for

1:35:23compatible uses to share space.

1:35:25Um

1:35:27so administratively we have that

1:35:29opportunity available to us, which would

1:35:32address the concern.

1:35:34Um

1:35:36what

1:35:39and this may be a better question for

1:35:40the applicant, um

1:35:42if that comes up in plans review, that's

1:35:44a way for us to address it. If

1:35:45operationally

1:35:47the owners

1:35:49and they know that they need the eight

1:35:51spaces, I think that may be more in line

1:35:53with what the development intent and

1:35:56needs are.

1:35:57>> Got you. Got you. Yeah.

1:35:59>> But we do have that in the code and we

1:36:01do use it in many places where parking's

1:36:03at a premium and we have a legitimate

1:36:05documented

1:36:07compatibility between uses. Say for

1:36:10example, AM versus PM food service.

1:36:13Or um residential where you have offices

1:36:17is one of those where we've looked

1:36:18favorably on that. Offices tend to be

1:36:20gone by 5:00 or 6:00.

1:36:22Occupants tend to be coming home from

1:36:23work around the same time. So,

1:36:26uh we've definitely looked into that

1:36:28when when it makes sense.

1:36:30>> So, then I think my question is for Mr.

1:36:31Matheny. Have you considered this

1:36:36So,

1:36:37>> Um

1:36:37>> We have. Frankly, we have not and mainly

1:36:40because you just can't predict

1:36:43when a residence is going to be wanting

1:36:45to be at home and

1:36:47and then commercial is

1:36:50allowed to have their parking for as as

1:36:53required. So, I mean, had it been

1:36:56something more like uh

1:36:58what Bruce was talking about where there

1:37:00was a clear delineation about what

1:37:03something being opened at one time of

1:37:04the day and something being opened

1:37:07at another part of the day. Clearly,

1:37:09that generally happens with

1:37:12restaurants or you know, that's a

1:37:14breakfast lunch place and then

1:37:17then another restaurant is a dinner

1:37:18place only then you know, it it makes a

1:37:21lot of sense.

1:37:22Uh

1:37:23I would not personally be comfortable

1:37:26with having since it's residential.

1:37:30And I mean, you know, it's also the sort

1:37:32of thing that

1:37:35I don't know. I I I think the way this

1:37:37would work is that there would be four

1:37:39designated spaces for the office area

1:37:42and then two des- I mean, two designated

1:37:45spaces on site for the owners of the

1:37:48condominiums, which means that they at

1:37:51least can have a car that can park

1:37:53at their unit and then they would have

1:37:57another option for space for a

1:38:00or

1:38:02you know, that type of thing. So,

1:38:04that that's why we're

1:38:07solving the other parking spaces.

1:38:09>> Thank you.

1:38:10>> [clears throat]

1:38:14>> Um I did notice on the slide that was

1:38:16shown building height. I think our new

1:38:19building height is 35,

1:38:22not 30.

1:38:24And just to I just want to make sure I

1:38:26clarify that.

1:38:27>> here.

1:38:28>> But it was 30 up there. So, I just want

1:38:30to make sure we have that.

1:38:31But actually what I'm understanding,

1:38:33either way, even once that is resolved,

1:38:36um

1:38:38the applicant's asking the applicant has

1:38:40the opportunity to go higher currently,

1:38:43and the new zoning would would actually

1:38:45restrict the height more.

1:38:48Just want to point that out.

1:38:50It's actually technically every kind of

1:38:53a reduction in density or at least

1:38:55mass.

1:38:57So, is it 35 or 30?

1:38:58>> 35.

1:39:01And CO was 40.

1:39:03>> Yeah.

1:39:04>> [clears throat]

1:39:04>> I just want to

1:39:06really for the people in the audience

1:39:08who have parking concerns, revisit the

1:39:11shared that the parking arrangements

1:39:13that we've seen on Milledge that for the

1:39:14sorority house. That is a pretty common

1:39:16thing to have a lease for off-site

1:39:18parking. And can

1:39:20>> Five Points in general has a lot of it.

1:39:22>> Yeah. How does that work again? Like if

1:39:25they lose that lease, they have to

1:39:27replace the lease with another option.

1:39:30>> The way the code the way the required

1:39:32code requires these agreements to be set

1:39:34up if they're being used to meet a

1:39:35parking minimum

1:39:37is

1:39:39the Athens-Clarke County is named in the

1:39:40agreement as somebody who has to be

1:39:42notified.

1:39:43And we have to be notified, I believe

1:39:44it's within 30 days of the agreement

1:39:47ending for any cause.

1:39:49And that allows us time to communicate

1:39:51to the property owner or operator or

1:39:54manager, whoever's responsible for the

1:39:56property, that we have to have another

1:39:58agreement executed or that use cannot

1:40:01occur until we have the agreement

1:40:03sufficient to support the use.

1:40:05>> And in this case where you've got both

1:40:07office use, which has its own parking

1:40:09requirement, and residential,

1:40:11if either use has to cease due to lack

1:40:13of parking, what one takes precedent?

1:40:16The office

1:40:18or the residential?

1:40:19>> I mean, I I think

1:40:21from a staff standpoint, we would just

1:40:22ask

1:40:23ownership to tell us what the remedy is.

1:40:26It's it's their their call.

1:40:28>> Okay.

1:40:31I think we've had a lot of success with

1:40:33those generally. If they ever caused

1:40:35problems, I mean, we've got a couple

1:40:36spots where it's an issue, but

1:40:39>> it's an interesting piece of code to

1:40:40administer.

1:40:42It It It It involves a good bit of

1:40:45research, and every now and again we

1:40:48have to

1:40:49make some follow-up phone calls and go

1:40:50visit people and do that kind of thing,

1:40:52but as a general rule, it I I think it

1:40:55functions the way it was intended to

1:40:57function, which is to allow for these

1:40:59types of settings, especially in-town

1:41:01locations, to grow and adapt and respond

1:41:04to different market conditions or

1:41:06different interests in the property.

1:41:08>> Um cuz there isn't like a lot of bus and

1:41:10pedestrian access, so I kind of think

1:41:11that it's sometimes we have too much

1:41:13parking, you know? If you encourage

1:41:15people

1:41:16on village

1:41:17>> pursue other means of transportation.

1:41:19>> Yeah.

1:41:20>> Yeah.

1:41:21>> Cuz we've seen this with a lot of the

1:41:22fraternity houses, too, like there's so

1:41:24much bus there that

1:41:27people have options.

1:41:27>> also like in this case where there is

1:41:30this option

1:41:32that Mr. Matheny was saying he doesn't

1:41:33really want to explore that because the

1:41:36developer in these cases that they are

1:41:38the applicant they they are motivated,

1:41:40they need the parking, too. They

1:41:41understand that they're trying to lease

1:41:43the office space, they're trying to

1:41:44lease the condos or sell the condos, and

1:41:47and somebody's going to want to have

1:41:49parking, so they're motivated to find

1:41:51that that guaranteed off-site

1:41:54parking, so

1:41:56I don't know. I'm fairly comfortable.

1:41:58>> It's also It's also such a good location

1:42:00that somebody might live there that

1:42:02doesn't even have a car. Doesn't need

1:42:04any parking, you know? So it could be

1:42:06like a

1:42:07a resident with zero zero parking needs

1:42:09moves in.

1:42:16Um

1:42:17if

1:42:18the chair would entertain a motion, I'm

1:42:20ready to make one.

1:42:22I move to

1:42:24approve the application.

1:42:26>> Okay.

1:42:27>> I second.

1:42:28>> All right.

1:42:29Um any other discussion?

1:42:35All right. We'll just do a

1:42:37one of those votes.

1:42:40>> [laughter]

1:42:40>> It's not a roll call. Great. We said

1:42:42voice vote. Yeah.

1:42:45>> A dance vote?

1:42:46>> [laughter]

1:42:48>> Is that it? Where we

1:42:49>> vote.

1:42:50>> All right. That's the next.

1:42:54>> Um oh, that's me. Sorry.

1:42:56>> [laughter]

1:42:57>> I'm so sorry. Um all those in favor say

1:43:00I.

1:43:01Any opposed?

1:43:03All right. Thank you.

1:43:05>> Thank you.

1:43:06>> Um okay.

1:43:08>> I'll do my thing after.

1:43:09>> [laughter]

1:43:13>> Uh I'm sorry. I'm running out because

1:43:14it's like not even 8:00. So,

1:43:17>> [laughter]

1:43:18>> Get

1:43:19uh

1:43:20and I um

1:43:22Okay. So, we're going to

1:43:24planning commission chair report and I

1:43:26realized I I'm so sorry, Sarah. I forgot

1:43:28to ask you

1:43:30to

1:43:32have time to think about what we read

1:43:34about this morning with our

1:43:35subcommittee. Um

1:43:38>> Speak to that.

1:43:38>> Okay. I'm so sorry. So, yeah. My report

1:43:41is simply

1:43:43um going to Sarah's

1:43:45>> [laughter]

1:43:47>> our affordable housing subcommittee.

1:43:52Um would you like to do your name? Yeah,

1:43:54I was I was saying the name and I'm like

1:43:55that's not the right name, but believe

1:43:57it to Bruce to say the right name cuz

1:43:58he's I believe came up with it.

1:44:00>> I I have I actually happen to have it in

1:44:02front of me, and but I do also know that

1:44:04Ellie has memorized it.

1:44:05>> There he goes.

1:44:06>> It is the Athens-Clarke County Planning

1:44:08Commission Subcommittee on zoning reform

1:44:10for affordable homeownership.

1:44:12>> Excellent. Yes. Sounds like a Fiona

1:44:14Apple

1:44:15album title, doesn't

1:44:17>> [laughter]

1:44:20>> So very briefly, as you all know, the

1:44:23four members of the Planning Commission

1:44:24and

1:44:25four four members of the GAC committee

1:44:28are part of the subcommittee

1:44:31on zoning reform for affordable

1:44:32homeownership.

1:44:33Um and we are currently kind of working

1:44:37on two tracks. We're planning a public

1:44:39outreach education

1:44:42um event or two or three or

1:44:45uh

1:44:46approximately February-ish

1:44:48of 2027. And so plans are underway to do

1:44:51that, to get

1:44:53um

1:44:54folks that are interested in the topic

1:44:55to come and think through some of these

1:44:58topics that we've been thinking through.

1:44:59And then at the same time we're also

1:45:02trying to keep um thinking about the

1:45:06process by which we're going to make

1:45:07recommendations to the mayor and

1:45:09commission. Um and we'll be sending a

1:45:11We're just We decided we're going to

1:45:13keep try to keep them in the loop, let

1:45:15them know what what we're planning,

1:45:16what's been going on. Um we're going to

1:45:19take the opportunity of new

1:45:20commissioners coming in in January to

1:45:23send them a memo at that time just so

1:45:24that they can

1:45:26be um sort of updated on what we're

1:45:28doing and why and and understand their

1:45:31role in

1:45:32our creation. So um

1:45:35that's what we're doing. Um and we meet

1:45:38uh couple times a month.

1:45:40First and third Thursday. We're not

1:45:42meeting the first

1:45:44the second Thursday in the second the

1:45:47third Thursday in December we're not

1:45:48meeting, but otherwise we're keeping

1:45:50that schedule. Those meetings are

1:45:53open to the public to come and observe.

1:45:55Um

1:45:56they're 9:30 to 11:00

1:45:59on the first and third Thursday of March

1:46:01of the year. [clears throat] So

1:46:04that's the report. Um have I missed

1:46:05anything there?

1:46:06>> And one thing I add about that event

1:46:08that you mentioned, I know there was

1:46:10some interest from other folks on the

1:46:12Planning Commission to just be involved

1:46:14with the committee, but we can only have

1:46:15so many people. But, this is an

1:46:17opportunity if you wanted to like help

1:46:19out with just like talking to people

1:46:21about town home or a duplex or something

1:46:25like that. Like,

1:46:26this is opportunity to plug in from like

1:46:28a community engagement standpoint. So,

1:46:30we could

1:46:31bring on folks in that capacity. So,

1:46:34just kind of stick that in your head and

1:46:36we'll come back to it in a couple

1:46:37months. So.

1:46:40I guess.

1:46:42That's all I got.

1:46:43>> Nothing else, Madam Chair, from the

1:46:45>> I mean, I could go on about some other

1:46:47things, but I just know that I am

1:46:50putting the

1:46:52um next Marin Commission agenda setting

1:46:54and

1:46:55uh regular session on my calendar. And

1:46:58if anybody else wants to join me, um we

1:47:00can have a little

1:47:03fun hangout. So, yeah.

1:47:05>> Yes, please share that.

1:47:07>> [laughter]

1:47:08>> Um okay.

1:47:11All right, planning director's report.

1:47:12Yes.

1:47:13>> Yeah.

1:47:13>> Uh I think probably the biggest news to

1:47:16report

1:47:18I'll start with page three and then

1:47:19we'll move to page one. But, page three

1:47:21is uh

1:47:22deadline for December meeting is

1:47:24tomorrow.

1:47:25Um right now we have nothing in.

1:47:29One?

1:47:30>> Just kidding.

1:47:31>> [laughter]

1:47:33>> All right. Well, there you go. Hey, that

1:47:34still sounds great after the meetings

1:47:36we've been having lately.

1:47:37So, we'll [laughter]

1:47:40There you go. Okay. Well, then then

1:47:42we'll be meeting in December.

1:47:44Uh

1:47:45Sorry.

1:47:46>> [laughter]

1:47:47>> That's your fault.

1:47:48So, the December I just want to remind

1:47:50everybody the December meeting is not

1:47:52the first Thursday in December because

1:47:53that's the parade.

1:47:55>> Yes.

1:47:55>> December 10th

1:47:57is the planning commission meeting,

1:47:58second Thursday.

1:48:00And I was saying the wrong date last

1:48:02night and earlier. So, I'm saying this

1:48:04is much for me as I am saying that.

1:48:06>> Just it's not

1:48:06>> I was smart. I put it on my calendar at

1:48:08the beginning of the year correctly. So,

1:48:10I must have remembered it from last

1:48:12December in January when I put them all

1:48:14in my calendar.

1:48:14>> Early year you was very smart.

1:48:16>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:48:16>> I remember.

1:48:17>> Uh-huh.

1:48:18>> I do it for the whole year at once.

1:48:19>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

1:48:21>> Um then page front page headline top of

1:48:25the fold.

1:48:27This is Robert Walker's last planning

1:48:29commission meeting with

1:48:32Robert thank you for your service.

1:48:35Robert is the new planning director for

1:48:38the city OF DAHLONEGA, GEORGIA.

1:48:43EXCITING.

1:48:45SO YOU'LL HANG OUT IN THAT GOLD MUSEUM.

1:48:48>> [laughter]

1:48:49>> Pretty cool.

1:48:50Uh you're learning all kinds of lore

1:48:52from the area, right?

1:48:53>> Yep. The locals are called nuggets in

1:48:55case you ever need to

1:48:59They like it.

1:49:01They like it. [laughter]

1:49:02Aw, little nuggets.

1:49:07Everything you ever need to know about

1:49:07Dahlonega.

1:49:09>> Uh yeah. I'll I'll come back with many

1:49:10reports for you.

1:49:12>> That's right. Did you know there's a

1:49:13killer German place there?

1:49:15>> I've heard that. I've heard that.

1:49:16>> I've heard that.

1:49:17>> I think that that place The Smith House

1:49:19is good. All you can eat

1:49:21>> So you were you were at full staff for

1:49:22like 3 weeks?

1:49:24>> We were at full staff

1:49:26>> It wasn't my fault.

1:49:27>> [laughter]

1:49:27>> That was not for several months,

1:49:29actually. So

1:49:30>> Okay.

1:49:31>> We had this really cool full pool moment

1:49:33for the first time in about 8 and 1/2

1:49:34years.

1:49:36Um that he managed to screw up.

1:49:37>> Yeah.

1:49:38>> And then we had a bunch of really long

1:49:40meetings.

1:49:40>> Ali actually and then surprisingly we

1:49:42lost a lot of people.

1:49:44>> Uh

1:49:45Anyway, I I I want to thank Robert.

1:49:47Robert's one of those one of those rare

1:49:50employees that started out as an intern

1:49:52and worked through a number of positions

1:49:54over the years.

1:49:56So he's seen a lot.

1:49:57>> And now planning

1:49:58>> Leaned on him a lot and and he's he's I

1:50:01could I could later on tell you the

1:50:03impacts he made on the department. I

1:50:04won't do that right now right here. But

1:50:07um a lot of good came from his time

1:50:09here. So I'm very thankful that that

1:50:11he's worked with us. And excited that

1:50:13he's going to be where he is and doing

1:50:14the work that he's doing. It's a it's a

1:50:16cool spot. They're wrestling with town

1:50:18and gown issues.

1:50:19They're trying to figure out short-term

1:50:20rentals.

1:50:22They're trying to do a bunch of things

1:50:23that that obviously we're all wrestling

1:50:25with, too.

1:50:26>> [laughter]

1:50:29>> Isn't that

1:50:30Isn't everybody figuring that out still?

1:50:32>> [laughter]

1:50:34>> Beyond that, I Those are my two big

1:50:36things. Next month then

1:50:38Your last day being November

1:50:4113th.

1:50:42And they saved the moon tree. That's a

1:50:44big development.

1:50:46>> [laughter]

1:50:50>> That's all we got.

1:50:50>> Yeah.

1:50:51All right. So, I'll entertain a motion

1:50:54>> So moved.

1:50:56>> Second.

1:50:56>> All right. All those in favor?

1:50:58>> [clears throat]

1:50:58>> All right. Thank you.

```*