Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

County Planning Commission. If you are watching this meeting on YouTube, you will find the meeting agenda at accgov.com/planning. For those of you here in person, there is a sign-in sheet and copies of tonight's agenda on the table by the door. Here's the process for the items on the agenda. First, staff will make a presentation. Then we move to public comment in support of the application. We allow 10 minutes for the applicant to address the commission followed by members of the public speaking in favor who receive three minutes each. After comments in support of the application, we move comments to oppos we move to comments in opposition. All speakers receive three minutes. But if you're here representing a specific interest group such as a homeowners association and you haven't let us know in advance, please let us know ASAP so we can allocate the appropriate amount of time. When addressing the commission, please provide your name, address, and nature of your interest in the project. After public comment, the applicant or their representative may request a two-minute response. Please note the timer. It will display a yellow light when you have 30 seconds left and a red light when your time has expired. Once we have heard from members of the public, the planning commission will discuss the item. We will not receive additional public comments unless there is a specific question to be addressed. Exhibits may be displayed by the applicants or the public at the podium. Written correspondence received by noon yesterday has been forwarded to the commission and is part of the public record. Any additional written materials to be placed into the record must be read during the public comment period. Please direct your comments to the planning commission and not to the applicant. Please refrain from applauding or jeering any of the speakers. Finally, please note that the meeting is being broadcast live and our microphones are quite sensitive. Please silence your cell phone. Thank you.

So, I will entertain a motion to introduce the documents and reports. So moved. All right. Second. Second. All those in favor say I. I. Okay. All right. Um the March 5th planning commission meeting minutes. Any changes or Yeah. I just noticed one very small typo in the petitioner's name under the first item on new business in the minutes. Um Scott Haynes last name was misspelled. So with that one edit motion to approve or

okay second. All right. All those in favor say I. Okay. Uh May courts. No May courts. We have no presentation tonight. Any I know we got spoiled that front. Um,

any public comment related to May courts? Hearing none. All right. Before we get into our old business, I have something I would like to enter into the record. Um, I've been asked by my employer to formally explain my affiliation with the University System of Georgia in connection with my service on this commission. While I don't believe that affiliation creates a conflict with my role here, I'm providing this disclosure in the interest of transparency. I'll read that into the record now. I'm currently employed by the Georgia Institute of Technology. In that capacity, I am an employee of the University System of Georgia. Separately, I serve as a volunteer member and chair of the Athens Clark County Planning Commission. My service on the planning commission is independent of my employment and is not performed on behalf of my employer. I do not have any direct role, responsibility or involvement in the management, oversight or decision-making related to properties, projects or operations of other institutions within the university system of including any matters that may come before the planning commission. This disclosure is provided to ensure transparency with applicable reporting expectations. And with that, let's move to old business, 4190 Lexington Road. Too far. There we go. Okay. Hi, I'm presenting the staff report for the four properties at 4190 Leington Road, 150 Pine Cone Place, 120 and 140 MS Lane. This is zoning case 2026-01-000018. This is a type one zoning request requiring a change in the future land

use from general business and single family residential to mixed density residential. They're also requesting a change in the zoning map from CG and RS8 to RM1. The fourth um parcel in the request is already zoned on one. This is the aerial from 2025 showing the site. It's 11.33 acres um encompassing these four largely developed or undeveloped properties. There's a a vacant single family house that still exists on one of the lots. Um it's surrounded um by multif family to the west and to the north. Um single family to the south and a mix of single family and duplex to the west. There's also a a large area of open space to the west. The future land use currently shows uh commercial uh sorry general business along the Lexington Road corridor with single family residential on the remaining portion. They're asking for mixed density residential for all four zoning here uh shows commercial general along the Lexington Road corridor. Um some RS8 behind that and the portion that is already zoned RM1. Um that uh current zoning would allow for 175 bedroom units as it is currently zoned. They're asking for RM1, which would allow for 181 uh units on the full 11.33 acres. There are environmental areas on this property. Uh Cedar Creek and the associated 75- ft riparian buffer right along the eastern edge and cut across

at the rear portion of the property. And this is the uh concept plan, not a binding plan, but a concept plan. Um showing 45 new lots. Uh they also are proposing three building uh house plans, a duplex, which would be uh those would be located on the five parcels that are around the culdeac, those larger parcels. and two um single family detached house plans, a fourbedroom and a threebedroom to be split evenly between the remaining parcels. Um so looking at the concept plan as it is now, it doesn't really show how that fourbedroom plan could be accommodated because the lots are too narrow. So um staff finds that this concept plan wouldn't achieve the 180 proposed units that they uh have suggested. They have addressed the um sewer capacity concerns not on the plan but um I think in talking with public utilities they will uh have a private sanitary sewer storage on each lot and a lift station to to pump that on off hours. Um they are proposing a second access point onto Pine Cone Lane um or planes, excuse me, but that is the rightway is substandard. It's only partially paid. So all of that will have to be brought up to public standards before that uh can be accepted. And as as was mentioned earlier, um the concept plan is not approvable by right. it would require multiple variances before it could um or it could be approved. So the staff recommendation um Steph finds this project is partially

compatible with the 2023 comprehensive plan. Um it will create affordable housing with a variety of housing types. Um but we acknowledge that it does not ensure infrastructure or connectivity. All right. It is compatible with the future land use map and the zoning map given the presence of multif family housing immediately adjacent and its location along virtual corridor and as mentioned before there are some ordinance related corrective actions that will need to be addressed um in plans reach but staff's approval or recommendation is approval. That concludes the staff report. Now we'll hear from the applicant.

Good evening. Jeff Carter with Carter Engineering Consultants. We're the civil engineers on on the um project. And last uh month we came before you um and just listened mainly listened to to what you guys uh had to say. And uh there there is one one big change from the previous plan and that was uh we came to you requesting a RM2 zoning which would allow us 272 bedrooms. And after listening and and looking at the project, uh kind of re-evaluating what we really feel like we can do uh to make this project viable, uh we have dropped back to an RM1 uh zoning designation. And so I would like to point out that the development that you see here u the back 75 roughly 75% of the property is already zoned R1. And so the the ask or the request has been significantly reduced. Uh we're really just talking about the first or the the front part of the property that is zoned RS8 and commercial general. And so I did want to point that out. Um and so we felt like we've addressed the concern that we heard about this the thought that this was a too dense of of a development. uh the the Sante sewer uh came up last month and I I wanted to point out in our in our narrative application that we provided you if you turn to the back uh after so following the meeting last month went back to the utility department and I said okay you know this issue came up uh we had talked about it previously I felt good about it but it did come up at the planning commission meeting so we talked in more detail about what we our our concept Right. And so this is just a concept at this point.

We're going to go through full design and permitting process and all that. Um, but I did get from the assistant director of engineering from the public utilities department an email that I put in the back of your narrative uh that says uh confirming this is an acceptable approach for public utility department. And so I just wanted to point that out that um you know I feel like that we'll we'll be able to uh permit uh the you know the project um with um you know with the sanitary sewer and I just just wanted to to mention that. Uh a couple other things that um was brought up and and the stream buffer there is a stream buffer through this uh property. Uh we will be at the time of plans review submitting full storm water management plans. Um the county does, as you know, has a rigorous storm water ordinance that will meet um the variance to to to intrude into the buffer and all that. We will be seeking that. And so all that will be worked out and permitted um at the at the permitting stage. And so, um, I felt like we've addressed, um, you know, the the largest concerns that we heard. Um, this will bring, uh, a lot of affordable housing. Um, you know, this is this is somebody who's local that's built before. Um, and so, um, you know, we feel like this will be a good thing for the county. So, we would appreciate your support and I'll be glad to try to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anybody else here to speak in support of the none? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Come up.

Yeah.

Hi, my name is Ken Forier. I live at 160 Spruce Valley Road, Cedar Creek subdivision. I'm the past president of the Cedar Creek Civic Association, thank goodness. Um, and I'm speaking on behalf of Cedar Creek residents whose homes abut Cedar Creek and which are served by the impacted sewer system. Most of you I think all of you have gotten a copy of my comments and I'm gonna deviate from what I wanted to say because I just heard something that we didn't see in the staff report about sewer modifications, public works, and I'm going to jump down to we noticed in the staff report there are a lot of issues that still remain. There was a lot of discussion about public utilities wasn't sure of this. We can't see how we can fit 181 units in this lot. So we saw these problems and the master staff reports suggest that most of these issues can be handled through staff development and developer consultations and design and design and permitting. And we heard that some of that has happened in the last month. But this moves solutions from one of public out oversight to a closedd dooror negotiation process. The public didn't get to see any of these changes. We haven't seen his solution to the sewer problem that we brought up last month. We haven't seen a solution to some of the lots being overlaid by the Cedar Creek flood plane area. Maybe those solutions have already been decided to, but the public, my constituents in Cedar Creek haven't seen that.

Uh, our preference is for more solution development to occur with public review. These solutions will impact the quality of life for many of the Cedar Creek subdivision, many of those in Cedar Creek subdivision and potentially all of those along the creek as well as those served by the impact impacted sewer system. We just heard him say that uh this development uh will provide uh reasonable housing, low-end economic housing. When we read the master staff report, we didn't really see an economic justification for the zoning for the zoning change. The proposed connection to Pineome Lane will cost the county currently unplanned upgrades to roads and storm water management. County staff don't see how the developer will will be able to build 181 units, but could build 175 units without having to change zoning. So why is he asking for the zoning change? He can get all but six units uh without having any of this change.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Well, that was three minutes. Okay. Anyone else to speak in opposition

major document here was submitted yesterday. John Reynolds 180 rolling wood drive Georgia. So, greetings. Um, first want to just encourage the commission to to reject the proposal to change to all RM1 zoning, maintain the current zoning, which already includes RM1 as well as the CG and RSA. You know, ideally, we'd like that not be area to eliminate a lot to remain as undeveloped green space, but you know, it's an already developed area. There's some health and well-being benefits that local community there. But since this space is now planned for development, want to walk you through the rationale to keep the current zoning base on the document presented, excuse me. So there's many important factors to this proposed development that are not accounted for or addressed on the report. Noise pollution from the buildout of 180 units. Added traffic on Lent Road. New parking spaces and lots and potential exist for impacts on air and water quality. Flooding in the watershed problems are still in construction just mentioned as well. And the two creek spurs on Rollingwood Drive that would have to have the negative effects of both upstream and downstream. multif family area around the oaks apartments. There's some crime there. Historically, there's been crime problems. This can be cyclical, but it increases the possibility of crime spill over hotspotting at proposed development. Potential decline in property value, although variable and be influenced increased noise, crime, privacy, and aesthetic concerns. Are there only rental properties in this proposal? This is unclear. And we encourage owner occupied housing that builds financial equity and community engagement. Look at these factors individually. None or all could happen, but taken together collectively, they could have a substantial impact on Cedar Creek community. Regarding the master staff report, unanswered questions, first ACC commission meeting remain in the current report. Just as we discussed, plus identified unidentified variances and mitigation strategies,

missing details about that build and construction associated costs. to wrap up the current zoning provide a balanced mix of distribution in a communityfriendly in both scope, size and scale. So we encourage the commission to support smart growth, balance reszoning, which includes saying no sometimes and development that respects the local community to keep and maintain the current zoning level with a mix of development including those affordable owner occupied housing safe street areas if possible preservation of the green space positively impacts both the Cedar Creek and Lexington Road areas. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in opposition? Uh, hey, my name is Monica Rididgeway. I live at 215 Rollingwood Drive in the Cedar Creek neighborhood. I'm here to respectfully reiterate my opposition to the proposed resoning for the Brooks of Lexington. I know the applicant is asking for RM2 to RM1. This doesn't change or solve the main concerns that were raised previously. The most significant issue that remains is the infrastructure, specifically sewer capacity. Um, even at RM1, this development represents a substantial increase in wastewater demand. At this time, there's been no clear publicly available evidence demonstrating that. Um, even the planned above ground system in the downstream infrastructure can support this increase without risk. Without a capacity analysis, there's real concern about system strain, potential overflows, backups, especially during heavy rain. Any failure in this system would directly impact the adjacent creek and downstream water quality, raising both environmental and regulatory concerns, negatively affecting my neighborhood. In addition, the site itself includes sensitive environmental

features and only compounds that risk. Uh the back 75% that's already zoned RM1 includes the creek and how do you safely fit highdensity housing there? Beyond infrastructure, the proposed density remains incompatible with the surrounding single family residential character. Even at RM1, the transition is abrupt and significantly insufficiently buffered, which will impact the quality of life for the existing residences. Um, at a minimum, I respectfully ask that conditions of approval be considered, a full sewer capacity in downstream impact analysis, including impacts from the developer secret sewer plans. Um, at minimum a 50-ft buffer between the development and the existing comp complex and single family homes instead of the current proposal of 10 ft. the 75 foot riperian undisturbed buffer on either side of the creek and binding conditions requiring any necessary infrastructure upgrades to be completed before development begins. Without these safeguards, approval would be premature and not supported by sufficient evidence. Like we said before, we are not opposed to reasonable growth. However, growth must be aligned with the capacity and infrastructure and limitations of the land. For this reason, I respectfully urge you to recommend denial of this resoning request. Thank you for your time and consideration.

To speak in opposition. Hi. Um Janet Fridge 210 Rollingwood. Am I allowed to ask a question? Where is 120 Mertz Lane? I I was looking for it was mentioned at the beginning there 120 and 140 Mertz something or MYRTS. I couldn't find it on my map. I was just trying to understand the area. Yeah, 4190 is obviously the the front. I think 120 MERS is behind that and 140 MERS is the currently RM1 parcel and then the one that's kind of off to the side. Okay. So, it's not on the map right now. It's like that horizontal road, right? Okay. I see.

It's not really a road.

Okay. Yeah. All right. Um because when Yeah. When I look at the um when I look at my map, I see, you know, Midway, which sort of goes around in Oak Drive, and then Pineco Place JS Off, but there's no merch on here. Um I So I drove over there today. I live on Rollingwood just, you know, across the street um from where this would uh affect. And I don't know how many of you have traveled into that area, but um Pine Cone Place, well, the one of my main concerns is the the traffic that would spill over into the adjacent neighborhood. Um the and this is, you know, not a great way to show you, but um the roads in that little area are extremely narrow. Um this is at the end of Pine Cone Place that there's apparently another house that's currently blocked off by cones for some reason. I think it's an unoccupied house. Um but there's there would be a lot of work that would be needed to to update um that connection to the neighborhood which has very narrow streets. Um there you can't really tell from this photo but the there's no nothing on the edge of this road of very steep drop off there and so I do have concerns about the increased traffic that would come into that neighborhood. Um, the other issue, which Ken did not have time to get to, concerns on street parking that would apparently go over the riparian buffer. Um, and I I agree just with the general principle that approval should be done in a way that's transparent to the community and not after the fact uh with with um changes that we're not able to respond to. So, thank you all for your work.

Anybody else in opposition? Last call. Hearing none. Um I will invite the applicant up for two minutes of response if they would like that.

Yeah, I think um again we are trying to bring affordable housing to to the community. um a lot of there's nothing really secretive about the sanitary sewer issue. I mean, there's going to be a lot of details that'll come out and quite frankly, if we can't design this, we're not going to be able to build it. Um at this point, we just have a conceptual um idea that we vetted out with utility department. So, um a lot more to come. This is just the beginning step of developing the the property. So, we have a long way to go uh before we um before we get there. Uh in terms of why uh reszoneer RM1, uh there's a commercial component to this that's right now commercial general that we can't put uh single family homes on because it's commercial. So, there's a lot of lot of problems uh with trying just to keep a multiple zone property, a subdivision. Um and so that's you know why we are asking for uh to have it all one zone which is RM1. It just makes it a lot cleaner and makes a lot more sense uh to do it that way. So thank you.

Thank you. All right. So we'll take it behind. Who wants to start? Yeah. Um, I think this is a good time to ask if you guys staff could kind of explain the plans review process and I think to maybe alleviate some of the concerns about things happening behind closed doors. Sure. That works. Sure.

Um, so zoning actions are looking at and this is this is a request to go to a new zoning classification. There is no proposal for a binding plan and and what is on the screen is a representation of what the applicant should do. Um the request though if approved would make what you see on the screen all RM1. Um then the applicant's next step if this was approved would be to submit plans for new development review and we have several pieces of code and engineering practice that come into play to review those. That's also a publicly accessible process. So our plans review process um residents, citizens, concerns can sit in and watch kind of how those discussions work, but everything that is happening in those discussions is application of existing law or professional code or accepted practice. Um things that have already been voted on, things that are already adopted. So um it's detailed engineering and there is rigor to that. So on the notion of storm water, um a full analysis of what happens on this property and how it would discharge into the creek or how it would discharge into a street or onto an adjacent property. All of that is going to be analyzed and it cannot have a greater impact than it currently has. So the current conditions set set the baseline and whatever the development does the new development can't exceed that. So things have to be controlled and detained and released properly from the property to whatever system it's going into. Um same is true of sanitary sewer. The role and I think the response that came from public utilities wasn't intended to be some private communication. In fact, I think that's

why the applicant put it with the application was there is a design solution for handling the sanitary sewer that Athens clar county has said is acceptable that is available to the applicant to design with um traffic analysis. Similarly, whatever design capacity that this would have for trip generation, Lexington Road has to be able to handle it. And if there is or the interconnection to Pine Cone has to be able to handle it. If there are off-site improvements that need to be made to accommodate what's proposed, then the applicant, the designer, the developer is responsible for making those improvements. So, it would not be on Athens Clark Countyy's nickel to improve Pine Cone any more than it would be for us to make whatever changes to the entrance off of Lexington Road. That is for the developer to do. Um,

and so the developer can't I was going to say fire emergency access. So, all of this rigor is brought to it. the fire marshall. Um they're going to look and make sure that they can respond safely, that there's adequate turnaround area, there are no obstructions. Um water connection also making sure there's adequate capacity. And if there are improvements to be made to that, then that's the developer's responsibility to meet the standard that we expect to be met. And they can't get their land disturbance permits until they do. They cannot get their land disturbance activity permit until they have a design that is approved by all those bodies. All the all the code has to be brought to bear.

Great. I think that's exactly what I wanted. And so we could be having this conversation with no plan having been submitted. It could be straight reszone. There's no plan because really this plan is meaningless from the standpoint of what we're deciding. we're deciding on is RM1 appropriate land use for all of these parcels. That's right. Um and so the fact that the for example the applicant put a couple of variances on that plan um we're not even responding to that. Is that right? The request was for a straight reason. Okay. So it doesn't matter that it's on that on plan. Right.

Okay. Um and and just to be very clear, we're talking about RM1 units and bedrooms are the same thing. In RM1 bedrooms, Yeah. when when you see the 180 or the 175 calculation, that's referring to bedrooms. Yeah. Okay.

Oh, I actually have one more question. Sorry. Um uh one thing that I noted on this plan, even though we're not necessarily responding to this plan, but just I'm curious about our our um stream buffer requirement. Can somebody build a road or bridge over a stream like that? Yes.

And so they just have to do it according to all the regulations that would manage it. Yeah. Okay. Can I ask a question for um staff for um for our public utilities? Um

um I I was curious about the note about the property and I'm not able to sign it now for it. Um note that each property have its own lift station. Is that the right terminal for that? That's correct. Like its own little pump that would pump up to the sewer line. Is that what's happening there? That is what has been proposed by the development team. Is that something that we see elsewhere in the county?

We see it's pretty common to have a grinder pump system for a single family home that cannot connect via gravity to the sanitary sewer. So, um it's not a necessarily an uncommon system. Um, I don't don't have a lot of technical knowledge on the specifics of the of the system. Like I said, really the concepts just been presented to us. Um, and it's basically putting doing individual storage on the lots instead of having a large size tank do all the storage. And that would be something that would only be in effect if there was like a a rainstorm or would that be for all the times?

It would be it would be designed for um off peak discharge which would be it would hold the what it's holding until like 3 o'clock in the morning or something. Yes.

Um, it kind of I don't I don't want to make assumptions, but it kind of seems like that's sort of a oneoff situation where you just happen to have a house that can't reach, not necessarily an entire subdivision in that situation. Would that be a correct characterization? I mean, it is a oneoff if you're looking at like these pump systems are typically used for, like I said, um, a house that can't connect via gravity to sewer. This is a capacity issue that we're dealing with and the development as a whole cannot um, you know, add to that to the the capacity issues. system issue that we're grappling with.

That's that's correct. This that's just the the method that the development is proposing of how to address. All right. Thank you. Question. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Um so, how is this different? And I know that we're not supposed to get into all the sewer stuff, but people seeing this come up more and more. Sure. Is this something that would be alleviated if the sewer system was updated out there or will this always be the condition on this property?

It it would not is not our intent that this always be the the situation. We have um as a part of our service delivery plan plans to upgrade the um main trunk line that this uh basin discharges to. So when we have these temporary solutions because the upgrades that are coming haven't come yet, how does that affect the long-term plan to tie in your long-term plans with the systems that were designed to be temporary? Does that make it more cost effective? Does it eliminate the need where you wouldn't need to do those improvements over time? or does it make it more complicated and more cost prohibitive to do those system upgrades that are needed when you have to take in these temporary solutions that are on a larger scale a neighborhood scale rather than the individual house.

So all of these systems, you know, are intended to be privately owned and maintained. That's that's the requirement. So, as far as our improvements, um can't say that it specifically changes what we plan to do. Um it's, you know, it's going to be what we're trying to do is take account of where these systems are and you know, our plan would be for there to be a pathway to decommission um you know, this the storage tanks so that there could be just a straight connection to our but

then they're forever still in the ground. And one last question on that is you said the homeowner's responsibility. Would it act like a septic tank? I mean, are they maintaining it the same way? Pretty much. That's my understanding.

Yeah. Um I mean, we're we're still working out the details, but you know, I think in in decommissioning these tanks, we'll have to see what that exactly is going to look like. Um there's also the idea of of using them for like overflow storage if you know the uh development decides to delete that and serve

and and I guess one more question too. So keeping in mind that what we're seeing is not a binding plan. It could be anything built there within cloud. Um would there have to be some sort of storage solution regardless of what would be built there because of the situation with the system

any high intensive user. So anything any amount of significant residential. Yes. Um there there we have some capacity constraint basins where we are still able to allow some types of development. zoned by right and if it's a lower intensive user. But um probably pretty much any residential use you may see on this property require would have that requirement.

I'm a little confused about the we're talking about this solution you mentioned this is on each on each house. Not a few be each one has a indiv.

I just want to note that the proposed zoning change increases the uh canopy requirements uh for these lots. Um you're concerned about trees. what the applicant is asking for increases the requirement for conserving uh and andor planting. Both uh the conserved canopy requirement goes up to 35% from 10 and 15 and the total canopy require requirement goes up from 40% to 55%. This reszone puts it into a zone that will save more trees if these labs are developed. That is some one thing I wanted to note. Um I am glad that we heard from staff. I'm glad that Sarah Barsford asked for that clarification because I do think that talking about plans hearing more about plans review every single time something we need to do. Um something that's not very well understood. Um the plans review that was mentioned is also something that would happen if this is developed without resoning. Right. Land review is something that happens anytime anything is built uh in Athensburg County and not every single thing that is built here uh goes through a a legislative process. Um that would be insane uh from a administrative perspective. Um this seems like a reasonable request to me. Um, I as much as providing a I know that I'm I'm in the minority in that uh I I never I I always prefer not seeing proposed uh plans like this for a straight resone where they it's not

binding. Um, I know every time someone comes up and asks for a straight rizone without anything like this, more people uh than not will say, "Well, I I want to see an example." But having this out as an example of what RM1 density would look like roughly even it's even more dense um probably than than could be approved through plans review is what it sounds like. But this is not an apartment complex. This is a single family subdivision with detached homes and a handful of duplexes. Um, it seems to align with uh the surrounding areas. As we've already noted, much of this land is RM1. Um, I want to echo something that the applicant said, which is that uh developing three lots that are such different in such different zoning categories would be uh extremely unfeasible because of the different setback requirements, the different lot coverage requirements, the different design requirements. Um, it's it absolutely makes sense why you would want all of the parcels in your development to be under the same zoning category. Um, and this is the zoning category that the largest parcel in here already is. It is uh the lowest level of multif family density that we have and it is transitioning from this Cedar Creek area to Lexington Road uh with the staff board. I I support this. That is that is what I'm getting at. I I think this is a good plan. I support this request. No, I'll just I I agree with um everything Sarah said and um

yeah, 7.7 acres of it is already RM1. Um a few acres is RS8, so it's a very slight up zone of that portion. And then the front frontage on Lexington is CG. So it's sort of a down zone of that portion. So it it just sort of it it seems to kind of be a wash in terms of the allowable density. It just removes some um unnecessary uh you know difficulties in trying to harmonize the different setbacks and the different requirements of these different zonings if someone was to do a development there. Um and um I think the the canopy point is a great one. I had not noticed that in the table in the staff report, but but yeah, more trees end up on an RM1 lot than on RSA or CG. Um so um I think that the all of that together with um Sarah Barisford's colle with Bruce about you know that the density that's shown on the concept may be more than can be developed on this site that they're going to have to go through dealing with all of Athens county's professional staff all of the different areas of expertise about what can be safely done there without burdening the creek with um risk of excess storm water discharge or uh sewer discharge, any sewer discharge. Um you know that they'll have to go through all that process and we have professionals who uh whose job it is to um figure out what can be developed on the site and what can't. So, I understand I appreciate the neighbors comments and I understand the the concerns, but um I have confidence in county staff to um to properly address those concerns at the plans

review and and permitting stage. Um so, this doesn't seem like a major change in terms of intensity of possible development. it just removes a bunch of unnecessary um complications and hurdles with with multiple zoning on a single track. So um yeah, I think it it seems like a sensible thing um keeping in mind that sort of one of my biggest animating principles um in the work we do here is that Athens needs a lot more housing because a lot of people who uh grow up here are forced to leave because they can't afford houses here. And so more housing is great. More housing that's relatively small in footprint and uh and relatively affordable is especially great.

So I support it. I want to make a motion more comments.

Um staff clarify for us if if there are any buffer requirements between um like the RM1 and RS properties. So there's a variable buffer requirement. It can be achieved with um it steps down whether it involves a fence or plantings or not. Um if you use a natural buffer, it's a 50-ft buffer. If you have a planted buffer, it's a 25 foot buffer. And if you use a fence and plantings combined, it's a 10-ft buffer. So all of those code requires to you to use one of those methods for buffering between multif family and uh in this particular instance single family that there would be no buffering requirement between the two RM1 you know the RM1 that's to the east would not have a buffer requirement similar zone similar use.

So the buffer requirement would apply to the backs of the four properties on Rollingwood that back up to it. Yes. Would it apply anywhere else? Like maybe up I guess kind of on that like to the right of cone on the western edge and then on the southern edge. Okay. Yeah.

Yes. I would like to make a motion to recommend approval. Second. Second. All right. Any other comments on the motion? Oh, two votes. I'm sorry. That's right. Oh, so future land use and then the res. All right. I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of the changes to future land use. Second. Okay. Any comments on the future land use? All right. We'll go to the vote. All righty. Motion on the floor is for approval. It would be future land use change. Garren, yes. Fleece, no. Harris, yes.

Paul, yes. Yes. Ass. Yes. Sams, yes. And Lord, yes. Motion passes 701. like to make a note and recommend approval of the requested reason. Second. Any other comments on the returning? I'll just say since I'm just sending voice, I'm a little bit nervous of opening the door for some more intensity when we haven't figured out some of the bigger things with the sewer capacity and the creek.

All right, we'll go to a vote. All right. The motion is for approval of the zoning change from commercial general at all RS8 to RM1. Garrick, yes. Police, no. Parisford, yes. Yes. Yes. Pass. Yes. And Lord, yes.

Motion passes seven. Okay. Item is 1930 new Jimmy Daniel Ro. There we go. Got it. Okay. Uh, the following is the staff presentation for 1930 new Jimmy Daniel Road zoning case 202610019. Could you move that with Xbox?

All right. The request is a type one resoning change, future land use map change from employment center to mixed density residential and a zoning map change from EI employment industrial to RM2 mixed density residential. Uh this is an aerial of showing the property which is undeveloped. Um there's a storm water retention pond uh in the rear that also goes on to some adjoining properties. This is the proposed future land use map change. On the left is the current uh employment designation. On the right would be the change to mixed density residential. Uh this is the proposed zoning map change from EI employment industrial to RM2. Uh this is the environmental areas map. As you can see here, uh the previously mentioned storm water retention pond is here and there's a little bit of riparian buffer here in the back uh right of the property. This is kind of a a wider aerial view kind of showing you the general area and in which this property sits. Uh up here to the north is Sam's Club. You can see this area is largely undeveloped um and is primarily zoned for employment industrial um that hasn't really taken place over the years. And over to the west is more residential with a a little bit of commercial here along New Jimmy Daniel Road. This is the concept plan uh submitted by the applicant uh for a town home development. Again, like the previous proposal, this plan is non-binding. um just sort of showing um what the potential for this property could be. In general, um staff is recommending approval for this project um for creating more housing and nodal development. Um there's a lack of

walkability with this plan, but although this uh reasonzoning change would create an isolated zoning district, staff finds that it is more likely that the future of this area is going to lean towards residential as opposed to more employment industrial uses in the future. Um so staff finds that this would be an appropriate change um for what's more realistic to occur in this location. Um, there were some concerns uh when y'all first saw this item a couple months ago regarding sanitary sewer. Uh, the applicant has come to an understanding with the public utilities department uh on that score and those uh concerns can be worked out during glance review. Um, so in general uh staff is recommending approval of this project. That concludes the staff report.

All right. Thank you. Now we hear from the applicant. Jeff Carter with Carter Engineering Consultants. We're the civil engineers on this um project and we feel like this is a really good location for town homes. Um in recent years there's been uh several developments around the area that is very similar in terms of the style and the density and that sort of thing. So close to shopping, close to the highways. Um so we feel like it's a really good location. Um the I did include in the narrative uh kind of very similar to the last uh project an email from the assistant director of engineering with the public utility department. I did go meet with him uh discuss uh in in concept how we would handle sanitary sewer and uh I got a return email says thank you Jeff confirming that this is an acceptable concept. So, I just wanted to make sure that you guys uh knew that that that's in your in your packet. So, um I think that was the main uh concern from from our meeting last month. And so, uh I feel like this is a really good project that could happen very quickly and get some affordable housing online for applicants. So, be glad to try to answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else here to speak in support of the Right. Anybody here to speak in opposition?

Okay, that's very nice. who want to start question about um I I one thing I noted was the size of the storm water pond on the the site plan was on a on the map and out there kind of curious I don't really know who this question for you could tell us more about My name is Kyle Bolton. I'm frustration works on land development engineer. Uh, as far as the storm water pond goes in this, uh, I believe we kind of shook concept. Um, it's probably going to be, you know, our kind of standard variable. I have an infiltration trench in the bottom of the pond and there'll be detention requirements on top of that and it'll it'll meet all those requirements. I do want to clarify the existing pond out there isn't really a storm water pump. It does have like an outlet control structure and things in it, but it's actually not it's not in great shape. Uh we've done a visual inspection of it. Uh that's one reason the applicants making their own detention system and it's going to be outside that pond. Uh just because it'd be really expensive to bring that up to compliance.

And so is the pond we're seeing on this plan a different pond altogether or is this just a highly engineered version of the existing? Yeah, it'll be it its own thing. It actually won't hold water because it'll have to be an infiltration system. We have runoff reduction requirements. Uh so there at times when it rains you'll see water in it and then it'll usually go away by you know within 72 hours. Okay. Yeah. And and so it is so I know I'm sorry this but it that the pond we're seeing on the plan is not the same pond you're seeing on a map or is it? No. No. They're they're two two separate things. So on the on the right hand side of that plan over there you can see the actual outline of the existing pond. that's out there. It's a great fishing pond, that kind of deal. Okay.

Uh the the little one that's kind of tucked in around the buffer zone that that it will be the storm water. Okay. The original pond remains. Yes. Yes. Yeah. That pond's actually spread across multiple properties. So,

it seems like a no-brainer to me. That whole area, you know, years ago, we thought it was going to be developed at deployment industrial and that has not happened. Everything that's been built out there is town homes and uh small single family homes and and that's the direction it's going and um so this is really just kind of ground truthing um what's already happened and is happening in that area um to to reszone this parcel. So um it seems like that's what we should do. And so I make a motion to approve these land use. Uh we get two votes on this, right?

Second. Um all right. Motion to approve land use. Second. Any other comments? Okay. All righty. The motion on the floor is intended to future land use designation of property from employment to mix residential hearing. Yes. Lee, yes. Harris, yes. Paul, yes. Yes. Pass. Yes. Sams, yes. And Lord, yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right.

I'll make a motion to approve the zoning change from EI to RM2. Second comments. All right.

Move to approve the zoning change. Garren, yes. Police, yes. Barrister, yes. Paul, yes. Pass. Sams, yes. And Lord, yes. Motion passes. again.

Um, my, you know, my apologies. I completely missed the beginning. I wanted to swap the order of the new business items. So, I wanted to secure 1165 Oorf Avenue first. So, items number two and three under new business. Um, we have a recusal See you have a problem with that otherwise that's what I want to do next. All right. So it shall be done. So next we will see item number two under new business 1155 Avenue.

And at this point um I am announcing that I will be recusing myself from discussion and voting on this matter because I uh have a financial interest in the property. All right. We'll come find you when we're done.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you all. Uh the next case we will hear is 1165 Oglethorp Avenue. There are two actions that the applicant is looking to take at this time. There is an existing plan development on this site um that the applicant is looking to dissolve. So that request is PD2026-3-0482. There we go. Thank you real. And then if that vote is successful, they would like to reszone the property. And so that request is zone 2026-3- 0446. So the first request, we have an existing plan development on this site from 2022. Uh they're looking to take that off of the site. It has a current binding plan. If that is successful, they're seeking to reszone the property from CNPD to RM1, so commercial neighborhood to residential mixed density. The future land use for this property would remain as traditional neighborhood as RM1 is compatible with that zoning. The existing planned development provides a mix of neighborhood scale commercial apartments, attach detach units, and senior units. Uh few statistics there. They're proposing 11 two-bedroom apartments, six detached two-bedroom dwellings, 14 attached units that are three-bedroom, seven attached that are two-bedroom senior dwelling, and just under 8,000 square feet of commercial. They were proposing a cafe or coffee shop and a child care facility. The proposed reszone is to include a non-binding plan and they have given us a concept. So, that concept is a single structure apartment building with 22 one-bedroom and 34 two-bedroom

apartments. Um, we do not make zoning requests and recommendations off of some of these features. Uh, but they have indicated in their staff report that they're looking for low-income housing tax credit financing credits. Lots of credits there. So, you can see here the traditional neighborhood is um on the parcel as is the surrounding property. We have Ogal Thorp Avenue there to the north and then this backs up to portions of um Forest Heights and the Breen Ridge subdivision which is a standalone subdivision there off of Oglep Avenue. You can see here in the initial request if uh the first one goes through it would be dissolving. So we're going from CNPD to CN. The second request is to then go from that to RM1. Here is an aerial of the site. Um, just across the street is Ogalorf Elementary School. There to the east is the Forest Heights Baptist. Um, and then you can see down the bottom Landor, which connects into the greater Forest Heights. And then you can see Breen Ridge. Um, if you still need a little more context, uh, right up in this area is the medical complex that's there. And then the Ogal Thorp Avenue curves on down here to the loop and becomes Talisy just down the road. There are no environmental areas. Here is the plan development that was approved. A lot of work went into this development and staff sees this as the type of development that the comprehensive plan is really looking for. Um, and so you'll see in the staff report and in some of this presentation, we've kind of mirrored some of that language to if this is to change and go forward that some of those aspects are um continued along. So, we've got two smaller neighborhood commercial

buildings right up here. Those two combined are that 7688 square foot number. Um, those were to have a few apartments above it. We then had some townhouse style depart um, excuse me, dwellings right here. 14 of those. We had the six detached units that are around a green and then we had the seven senior units there. We've got a little bit of surface parking here behind the commercial. We've got some plaza space. We've got some surface parking here. And then simply a uh pedestrian connection, not a roadway connection to Landor Drive. Here is the concept again non-binding concept that is being um offered by the applicants. You've got um the single apartment structure and then you have the surface parking surrounding a little bit of amenity there in the rear. So um we did not see a justification in the proposal for why this uh plan development cannot go forward. Um it meets a lot of the criteria that staff is looking for and that the comp plan asks for. Um, as we mentioned, it provides that neighborhood scale commercial could potentially serve those dwellings, the offices or the school with the uh cafe, coffee shop and child care that was proposed. There was um in this PD there is a mix of housing. This is something we ask for in all of our neighborhoods if possible. And this mix provides different opportunities for families at different price points or individuals who would so choose to live there. That scale also happens to reflect uh the surrounding houses and the offices and institutions. Um so we've got mostly one-story two-story dwellings around here. We've got the church next door. The offices across the street are mostly onetory or two stories in the rear where topography allows. And then we've got Ogalorp Elementary across

the street being mostly a one-story structure. The proposed plan is not binding, but the concept is for a single multi-story structure that is larger than the adjacent buildings. Um, and that the uh it proposes to provide a one of the housing types that we see very often. So many requests that come through this body are four um apartment complexes and specifically one and twobedroom apartment complexes. So this is something that we have approved a lot of and have a lot on our market and have a lot coming into our market as well. So without that justification, staff is recommending this be tabled. Um staff does see this to be partially compatible with the comprehensive plan. This is an infill and redevelop or excuse me just an infill opportunity here. So we've got a bunch of surrounding property. We've got a nice corridor along Oath Corp Avenue. um unless you get stuck there around school time. It gets a little tough at those times. Um this proposal would decrease the variety because of the existing plan that is in place. That variety is reflected in unit type and prices and is a little bit and that we see that the current one does complement the um Oakorp Elementary property across the street as families could live here and very easily get there for school. The additionally this opportunity is for additional housing but the proposal is limited to just that single form as mentioned um is compatible with the future land use map. We do see this as sort of close to spot zoning. Um the existing plan does have a obvious multifamily component to it and CN does allow for that and there is some additional CN around there. However, this would be the only RM property um in this area if it was approved. staff does um understand that uh there might be some support for this and so we're recommending some conditions and

these conditions are simply to mostly reflect what has been there in the planned development. So residential structures up to three stories be permitted and pulled towards Oglethorp Avenue. So, a depth of 150 ft. That kind of reflects how far back the church sits uh on an adjacent property. That residential units beyond that not exceed the 30 ft in height. That an applicant is not able to use our variable height setback allowance that is in 91522, which would allow them to go up an additional 10 ft beyond the allowable 30 feet in the RM1 zone. and that the residential structures be broken up so as to not have more than 10 units in any single building or group of dwellings. That uh will conclude the staff report. Guess I believe that site plan.

Thank you from the applicant.

Uh good evening. David Ellson on behalf of the applicant. Uh we ask that you please recommend approval of this proposal tonight. uh decline stats recommendation for a table. Uh as we head in our application, uh we are applying to seek for low-income housing tax credits and we need to be able to proceed before the mayor and commission at their next vote in May in order to meet the next May filing deadline. So if this is tabled then you'll effectively kill this project. I say that that beyond that you should recommend approval for this project. Uh we understand that staff appreciated the existing PD uh and quite frankly it's a cool project. Unfortunately, it's not a feasible project. Shortly after the existing PD was approved, uh the interest rate market changed and it rendered that project not financially viable. Uh circumstance, the financial headwinds had not made this that project more attractive. And so that project is just not going forward. And so we ask you to consider this project that we're applying tonight under the current circumstances in which this is a vacant piece of land that's been vacant for over a decade. And so in light of that, we ask that you consider this application on the merits beyond what's you know the previous PD to consider many of the purposes and goals that are going to be advanced on the comp plan if you approve this. Uh, this proposed use calls for 90 bedrooms with all units being under 80% AMI, all units under 80% AMI. And so we respectfully disagree with staff's comment that this is relatively common in the community. I would submit that having a development of 90 bedrooms with all units under 80% AMI uh is uncommon and it represents grounds to approve this uh project. Uh some of the other priorities uh and goals of the comp plan are advanced by increasing the supply of housing

particularly quality housing for seniors. Uh this is going to be for senior housing. Uh not only is there a uh covenant that will run with the land, but we have offered as a condition uh that this be restricted to 55 years or older. Uh we understand that there are concerns about the fact that we do not have a binding site plan. We understand those concerns and so in order to help address those concerns, we're willing to offer as a condition that all units will be affordable. You know, all units will be over the 80% AMI. That was not offered in our previous submission, but we're willing to offer that tonight. And I'll work with staff to firm up that language. We believe this proposed use is compatible with the surrounding community and the neighbors. Uh this is a much less intense use than when it's current PD. Uh we included some traffic counts and there's a relatively 65% reduction in traffic that will be generated from our proposed use. If you look at uh the design standards uh for a CN zone versus RM1, you'll see that uh we have much uh lower height um requirements. um you have to comply with other design requirements to be more compatible with a residential zone uh rather than the existing CM. Uh if you review staff's report, uh you'll see that they find that RM1 zoning is compatible with the zoning map. You'll see in staff's report that this request is compatible with the comprehensive plan. Also see in the report that staff supports the proposed reszone as offers more housing opportunity. uh you see through all the other departments, the AC arborist, uh transportation, public works, public utilities, uh they have all recommended approval for this project and we'd ask that you would also approve this project. Uh we'd ask that you um not approve the conditions that are

recommended uh because it will kill this project by way. For example, one of the conditions recommended conditions was breaking up the structures should not have more than 10 units in any single building or group of dwellings. So this is senior housing. So anything over one story is going to require an elevator. So as a practical matter, you're going to have at least five buildings, five elevators. Some point time it stops being eligible, stops being affordable housing. And so if you implement all these conditions in here, uh you're going to remove this from being possibly developed for affordable housing for seniors. And so we understand these recommendations, recommended conditions were driven by a desire to have a plan that's similar to the current PD, but this current PD simply is not possible. Uh we ask that you please consider this from the viewpoint that this is vacant land that is not being used for any reason whatsoever. Uh we've offered a project that is consistent with the comp plan and and the zoning map. Uh we're offering conditions to address any concerns that there's no binding site plan, specifically a 55 plus zoning, 100% affordable. Uh and we're also willing to uh have a 65- ft front yard setback as well. uh if we believe that this is this project in particular is going to be a valuable benefit for the community and we believe it's compatible in between these the church next door and the single family as well. It's certainly more compatible than a CNZ PD. Uh the developers are here as well and I'd like to yield the rest of my time so they can introduce themselves and talk about this project as well. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Josh Thomasson. I'm with Pedmont Housing Group. Uh we'll be the developer and long-term owner of this property. Um I've been an owner and developer of affordable housing since 2010. Um right now we already have 30 properties um completed in Georgia and South Carolina. We're not a national builder. We build properties where we can drive to and watch them be constructed and check on them when they're under operations. All of our properties are affordable housing. The majority of them are affordable senior housing. But we also have affordable workforce housing, which we actually have under construction right now off of Braay Street here in Athens. And that the name of that property is JRJ Legacy Village. It's about 25% complete right now. Um, so I say that to get to the point of I mean right now we're offering it up as a condition. We would like you to place a condition on us saying that it's going to be 100% affordable for folks at 80% or less of area median income and that uh a condition be placed on us that the residents must be 55 or older so that everybody's comfortable that we're not pulling the bait and switch here. Um, I've never built market rate apartments and I've never planned on building it because this is what I know how to do and what we have a passion for. Um, in addition to those, as David said as well, um, you know, kind of where the building sits now is is is where it's designed now is in addition to the setbacks that are required. So, we'd be willing, especially to help out our neighbors, uh, to say that building will still the setbacks that we're showing now will still apply um, to this development so that we don't show you a building that's here and then move it to the back. And there's multiple reasons, as Dave mentioned, why

it needs to be one three-story building. Um, one of which is, you know, there's a sewer line that runs through the back. Can't build back there. can't build multiple buildings because then we'd be building five elevators and and then the last few items are actually more important. You know, our residents, this is a retirement community for them. Um, and they want to be able to get on the elevator and go downstairs and hang out with their friends, play cards, potluck, bingo nights, and everybody's comfortable being in one building that's has secure access that you have a fob that lets you in, and that's the only way anybody gets in the building. Um, so we think we we think that driving force behind having one while it is a larger building, it'll still be less than 40 feet and within the guidelines uh will be an attribute to the community and to our residents. And then just I'll touch briefly on the previous plan was a plan development um that couldn't go forward and that that plan uh had three community stakeholders uh in it east of Athens group and then uh Habitat for Humanity and right now the name is Messy but the folks that wanted to do the daycare we met with them not too long ago. All three groups are uh it was Destiny. There we go. Um, all three groups are on board what we're doing because we're providing 100% affordable housing in this area. I'll answer any questions you'll have, but otherwise I'll shut up. Oh, last thing I said, I'm sorry. Athens Land Trust. So, we partner with Athens Land Trust on JRJ Legacy. They're a co-developer and co-owner with us on that property and will remain so. Um, same partnership with this development. It will be a joint venture between Pemont Housing Group and Athens Land Trust and will remain safe. Thank you.

There anyone else here to speak in support of the proposal? Anyone here to speak in opposition to the proposal?

Hi. Uh, I'm Justin Sanders. I live on 125 Breen Ridge which is the third house down from Oval Corp Avenue. Um I have some serious concerns about um a number of aspects of this proposal. Um most of the uh houses along Breenidge basically directly abut this property. Uh and if no one has a fence then uh you know there's basically nothing there and you're looking straight into what they're developing. Um, and the previous plans we've gotten a fence which is this proceeded something that I would also request although I don't know if that's uh possible with without a binding type plan. But my main concern is the height uh of this building. I feel like it doesn't match the character of Forest Heights. Uh I did like the plan the existing plan which I think better benefits the community of Forest Heights with commercial space and residential spa. uh residential buildings that match more along the lines of what is existing. Um I I guess I disagree with that applicant about um this you know fitting in with sort of what's there. Uh this would be a substantial change to the Ogal Thorp skyline. Uh particularly the the residents along Breenit would have you know lights again we're talking 30 to 40 feet high. We have lights up high um at night um more lights in the day. The parking lot like plenty of traffic. There's a lot of disruption and I don't see a lot of mitigation for fences or or necessarily appropriate trees. um to mitigate those kinds of adverse effects to the like what we have shifting. Um, and I I'm also a little concerned about the sewer requirement, um, which I

believe the proposal says they would have to store. And I don't know that that's I have found a location on the plan anywhere on the property. And I don't I don't have enough information to know, but I'm a little concerned about what failure modes for sewage storage looks like and um, what area that would affect. Uh, were something to go wrong and if that were close to, you know, existing neighborhood properties. uh in something happen, what what is the impact of that? That's something I'd be more interested in knowing. Uh I basically have a lot of questions. Um it doesn't it doesn't feel like a good fit for the neighborhood in a way that the previous uh existing plan does. And I understand that density is important to make it affordable, but I really feel like uh the city can do a better proposal than this for this uh lot. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in opposition?

Good evening. Uh my name is Agnes Chazinski. I live in Forest Heights. Um the first wind we got about this, this blew up on our neighborhood Facebook page. There are a lot of concerns. Um one is traffic. Um there's going to be at least a hundred cars. That's 100 cars across the street from Oglethorp A Avenue Elementary School. If you have ever been anywhere near Ogal Thorp Avenue at 5:00 in the afternoon, it backs up to Forest, not the lower Forest Heights Drive entrance, but the middle Forest Heights Drive, traffic is backed up there to the loop. This is 55 and plus. This is not a retirement center. I'm 63 years old. Okay. So, retirement, I don't think so. Um there's a lot of caveats and conditions there. I also think that also by making this subsidized housing like this, it devalues our own property values in our neighborhood. I know the neighbors in Breenidge have worked really hard on increasing property values as well as forest heights. Um we value our canopy. We're called forest heights for a reason. There's trees and deer everywhere and um the lights are a big problem. I think the lack of privacy for the single home families there and along Landor are huge. And this really does not fit at all with the environmental and the traditional neighborhood feel. This is not a traditional neighborhood feel. This could be a 40ft story building stuck in the middle of nowhere. Even Ogal Thorp Avenue Elementary is a singlestory home is a singlestory school. It there could this there could be a better design and this is just not a good fit. And I understand people want affordable housing but a multif family a multi- complex like that and density does not fit in the traditional neighborhood

area. People bought in our areas and Breenidge for a single family experience. If I wanted to live in a denser housing area with multiple options, we would have lived elsewhere. People value their yards there, the quietness, and that's going to eradicate that. When you're still 55 and plus, people are working. They're going to be in and out of that gate and traffic all day long, and it's bad enough as it is right now. So, I think um I think this could be there could be a better plan. I don't think this is well thought out. I think this is going to be cheaply thrown up and it's really not going to enhance property values at all in that district area as people have worked very hard to remodel and update and make our areas great. Thank you.

Yes.

Hi. Uh my name is Brenda Handrin. I live at 1060 Ogalafor. Uh, so I'm just right down the road and to reiterate the trouble of people that spoke before me, traffic is a thing. Um, so and I would know I'm on it. Um, so 55 and older, yeah, I question I saw the proposal um and I questioned where the information came from. Um, the last data that I saw for 2025 for Georgia was that people are working longer. So 55, you're still working. And if you're married, have a spouse, have a partner, that's two cars. So that's a lot of cars to then go on Ogor. And from what I see, there's only one entrance and one exit. that is Ogulfor which is across from the school. So there are times during the day that I cannot make a left into my own home. I cannot I have to think about it. So of where I'm going and what I'm doing. So yes, I do have to take a long way around in order to access my house at some points of the day. It's not just to forest heights from the loop. It's beyond that. Sometimes it's to CVS which is on the corner that you can't even turn because of the traffic. If there was another solution maybe a diversion of traffic is a thorough fair. There's if you want to cut through somewhere you're going to take Oor. That's the only option. So if there is a proposal for something else to

I don't want to put it on a land door that's going to affect forest ties. So no I no make something happen with the traffic. If you tell me that there's no traffic I invite you to come to my house. Um secondly, um I know that it's not part of the application, um but the power grid, um Forest Heights has a major problem with power going out on a clear and sunny day, no cloud in the sky and no wind. Um, I don't have as much of a problem as forest tights, but what's the what's the thing with the power?

Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I just want to stand in support of the three. Say your name and your address. Mary Williams, 115 Breen Ridge Lane. I'm Justin Sanders neighbors and Pam Turners. So, I just want to stand in support of what they've already said. They made some good points and I agree. Thank you. Anybody else to speak in opposition?

Hello, my name is Sarah Sapinsky. I also live at 125 Breen Ridge and it's a great place to live. I would like to address the false sense of urgency

that the proposal is bringing forward by saying that we need to rush this through to be approved in May. I feel like is not taking into account the planning that is appropriate for a development of this size. And I would just like to ask for affirming the staff's proposal of tableabling this for additional development time, additional time to look at the requirements of the community and to reach out to some of their neighbors for the concerns that they would have heard had they asked us before this meeting. Thank you so much. I live, my name is Susan Brooks and I live at 155 Landor. In 2022, it was we fought to to get a changes and different things that would accommodate the neighborhood. It worked, but they didn't financially have the money to do it. I am with saying that please do not rush this process. It is of the most importance that we get this right and it just it just doesn't affect I I want to have um affordable housing. I think it's important but I also want it I want the neighborhood to be a part of this. Um the development of this land is just extremely important to a neighborhood who has been there for a long time and the people have invested not only in their homes but they've invested in the community. We have a blueberry festival that's amazing. We

we've gone around and we've planted blueberries in um people's yards. And so there's an investment in our community. And so this should also be an investment in our community. And please take the time consider what's good for the neighborhood, what's good for the community, what's good for the school, what's good for the traffic. I also have concerns about the sewer. I'm so confused about that. how you can only it's restricted. It's a lot that I don't understand and I just I would really want to have more information before we go forward. You anybody else to speak and I'll

um I'm Abby Bennett. I am at 150 Landor Drive. I'm Susan and Byron's neighbor. She was neighbor of the year at our blueberry festival. June can see why. Um I I love our neighborhood and I am very I'm speaking in descent but I am very pro we need more housing in our community and we need more safe places for people to be. Um this morning because I knew I was coming here I counted and clocked how long it took me to turn left out of the neighborhood. Um I work for the public school system and it was 2 minutes and 26 seconds at 7:45 and it wasn't even that busy. That's after school starts at Ogal Thor Avenue. And so I I want there I love that there's a walking path here, but I also loved in the previous plan how Scott Hendershop was potentially having a cafe. I want this to be a place that people in Forest Heights can have community and work together because we have coffee clutch on Saturdays. We have blueberry festival. We have women's meetings. We have all these things. We have yoga at Kate's house. And that's like something for the community. And I really feel like if we're just throwing something up because we have to rush, I I I tend to agree. So I really I'm in dissent, but I know that there can be something better because we want more I I don't mind having more people in our neighborhood. I want them to be part of our community, but I don't know if we need to rush it just to put a building up.

Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Rick Stanziel. I'm from 360 Wood Haven Parkway. The first house I ever lived in in Athens was at 1080 Oak Avenue, which is right across the street. Right down right down the street, please. Uh, so I just want to echo my neighbor's concerns that um, those of you that know me know I'm a staunch defender of private property rights and strong advocate for density, but I just don't think this is the right place for this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in opposition? All right, hearing none, I will invite the um applicant up for two minutes for any sort of response.

Yes. Uh just a few comments. Uh there's a comment about traffic and we'll note that uh under the current PD there's uh 571 daily trips and under our proposed use there's 194 which is a 65% reduction in traffic. Uh there was concerns about compatibility uh with the surrounding neighborhood and historically this property has continued to be downzone. First it was a PCG for medical office. Then it was downzoned to this current CND and now we're downzoning again to RM1. And so each time we're reducing the intensity of the development uh which requires additional setbacks design requirements to be more compatible with a residential use. Uh we understand there are always concerns when a new development comes in uh but we believe this is the best possible mean RM1 is the least intense uh non-s single family residential use you can have in the county. So we believe this is a good project. Uh we believe this is the best possible project to serve the needs of the community as determined by this body and staff and the mayor commission through the comprehensive plan. Uh we respect the disagree that we're trying to rush anything through. We submitted it everything on time, but we would just submit that if there's any delay before this body, it would kill this project. We would ask that you let the mayor commission decide the merits of this action, and we recommend approval. Uh we have uh even beyond uh the setbacks uh that are authorized by the ordinance. Uh we have even be you know, I think we're at 110 ft side setbacks from Breenrage and by code, I think it's 15. So even beyond what's allowed by RM RM1, we're going out of our way to try to accommodate the neighborhood and accommodate uh the goals of the community. Uh but thank you

for your time. Please recommend approval uh with our conditions of 55 plus 100% affordable. Um thank you all. Thank you. All right, want to start us off? Can I ask Mr. Allison a question. Sure. Do you mind? Sure. So if you miss the May deadline and it kills it. Why? Because uh the application deadline for the uh income tax the low income tax credit program is the day after or the day after the mayor commission notes

and that'll never happen again ever. Basically what would happen is it would just this project would be taken off this calendar and there may be an opportunity to come back any next year. But basically if we if this does not get on the mering commission calendar in May then there's a 0% chance of getting the entitlements necessary to submit the application to the state of Georgia by the May site deadline. I believe it's two days after the merit commission. I I guess the the real question I've got is

the is this is that an annual thing the state of Georgia does? So it doesn't necessarily kill it. The deal can hang, but it's going to be it'll have to wait until then. I mean, it's a whole another year, in other words. Well, there's no guarantee that this developer is going to be willing to put this under contract. Right. Right. That's the issue. But but I mean there there would be a chance for that property to to get from the state of Georgia a year from then or another chance eventually. But you know there's no there's no guarantee this developer be here. No developer that you know that the property owner be willing to you know go through this process again. I mean

right. No I do understand that but it it it would be up to the developer. Is that want to ask the developer? Exact. Yeah, if he wants to add to that the developer call from back you seem eager to do it and I'm happy to hear. I'm not trying to

so that that certainly could be the case. So the tax credits are handed out are handed out. They are uh competitively doled out in Georgia through a competitive process through what a document known as a qualified allocation plan. That document changes from year to year. So one year the states incentivizing uh developing senior housing or workforce housing in certain types of areas or certain types of census tracks that have uh you know changing goals. So next year this site might score competitively enough to be funded or it might not and it might not score for five years you know but or it might maybe comes back in two years. There's just no guarantee. Okay. So there's at least some chance.

That's correct. It doesn't. The word kill means forever to me. Um uh broken knees means maybe another chance. So it's Yeah, it's probably at least both both knees broken. Probably not just one. Yes. Yes, sir. You're welcome. Probably your arms maybe. I That's kind of what I I wanted to get the gist of that. Like something this year that would never happen again for sure. Or maybe maybe not. Okay, perfect. That's But just to clarify too, sorry for one second. So like it is a still a process. So even if it's like however it would happen down the road, you still have to apply for the tax credit. That's right. So we we apply in May and then we'll find out in probably September. Okay.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you all. Have a question for staff. I think I'm not sure who would be the right. Um I guess my first one is um I is there what is the reason for recommending a table if it's anything other than just slowing things down? So some of the information that was presented this evening was not in the application.

And so that that was where staff was looking for further development of the record. Um the justification for dissolving the PD which we heard presented tonight. um some of the other information like the the profered conditions I think have been adjusted and and said more explicitly um that wasn't a part of the submitt so it's that kind of information um plus if there was other response from the discussion at this body that they would respond to in a design change um we do remember the process from 2022 to um so recommendation for tableabling was for the things we needed to develop the records that was also for the opportunity for discussion.

Okay, great. And then um on page two of the staff report, the third um suggested condition if approval were be proposed was that residential structure shall not utilize a general exception to structure height in section 91522. Can you explain that? So there is an allowance in our code where you have um additional setback where you can increase by right building height. Um so we were just sort of anticipating how the design process would go if we weren't addressing that clause that's in the code then that would provide a codebased opportunity to go above the 30 feet tall. And I think I think the applicant responded to what what the intent there was very well that was trying to lift some of those important elements from the PD and incorporate them if this were to be approved to kind of pass those into this new development as a set of standards.

Okay. And so in RM1 now without taking advantage of that what is the talisability can be? 30 30 rather than Yes. 30. And so more or less three um stories or two

um depending on construction um you know you can get comfortably a two and a half story building in 30 feet. Um if there's any excavation or site change to topography, sometimes you can get another level of usable space in a lower level. Um but two two and a half is probably practical inside a 30 foot limit height wise.

Okay. And so I guess what I'm not understanding is that just looking at those same staff conditions, the first one being that residential structures of up to three stories tall should only be permitted in those first 150 ft of the property. But but the RM1 zoning um doesn't allow three stories really, right? Unless they excavate. So, well, okay. I I think we were suggesting those as conditions where that could move forward as a condition of adoption that would have an allowance for a three-story building. Okay. Okay, that makes sense. Yeah.

Okay. And then why was 150 ft chosen? It was that depth I think where the church structure is. It kind of set and the commercial and the parking lot that were associated with the PD. Yeah, it was like 147 or something. Mark, would you mind putting up the old PD, the current PD on there? And I just was curious if you could show us where 150 ft was on that. Yeah, it was it was something around um where the town houses began. So the Yep, there you go. It was right. It was in the 140s. So yeah. Okay.

Making round numbers. probably still have more to say on this one, but it this was those of us who were here for the PD. It was uh painful and wonderful. Like it took a long time and I think everyone was pretty um pleased with it and it's actually just kind of a sad reality of development that that is too expensive to develop. I don't even know things hadn't changed if it would have been um feasible, but um I I I know we've got to sort of talk about one thing at a time, but I and I guess this is also procedural question. We vote first on removing the PD. What happens if you vote to remove a PD, but then you don't um you don't vote to then put a new zoning classification onto the property? Does it refer back to what was before the PD?

No, it would refer to the underlying zoning, which was which I think is TN. Yeah. Okay. And Okay. I have a question for transportation. Are there any plans to widen Ogal Thorp at any point? because I do get the traffic concerns and it seems like that would be something that could happen at some point which would make a lot of these setbacks a little less relevant.

Going to be honest, I don't think there are any plans to widen Ogal Thorp. Uh generally we look the other direction where road diets are, you know, making things more pedestrian friendly. Um I'm not aware of anything in that regard. So

there um just on that concept, I wanted to first echo something that um the applicant mentioned um which is existing plan has commercial uses on it. Commercial uses generate more traffic than housing. Um, I'm just uh I'm echoing that because I know that a lot of people don't necessarily believe it when the applicant says it. Um, but this is something that I know to be true. Um, commercial uses generate more traffic than houses. We only ever really hear about complaints about traffic when it's an application to build houses. That's a topic for another day. But just to say that this is a less traffic intense use than the existing PD if the concern is traffic. Um I have a question for the applicant. Um which is I understand that um so staff has proposed these four four conditions. Uh I know that uh the um breaking up the structures into groups is a is a no-go for y'all. Um I wanted to ask if any of the top three conditions are uh immutable.

Yeah. So if you look if we can go back to just a site plan of our proposal basically 150 ft is essentially around third of the parcel and and we just can't fit we can't fit the structure on the site if you with those conditions. Okay.

And again, just trying to do affordable senior housing one structure and just we don't believe we can make this site work with those conditions. We we can make the site work with the setbacks that are consistent with this site plan. um which would be 65 ft at the front yard uh or 110 ft from from the Breen Ridge boundary. Um but we cannot comply with the stats recommended conditions. Okay, thanks. Good. Sorry. I got for now.

Okay. Yeah. Um, one of the things that was a big issue with the PD in 2022 was the residents of Lander Drive were concerned about traffic spilling out onto Lander Drive. And so, if I remember correctly, this was the the current PD in place was in direct response to that in that only there there's only pedestrian access, which is also what the developer has drawn on this site plan. But is that actually does a site with this many units on it require two eress points?

That's a very good question. And I know that with the Bray Street property, the solution was um that was a really weird property because I had this like triangular point that came into Braay Street. And I think the solution there was that we created a second egress that was emergency use only. Um, and that satisfied the county's requirement that there be second egress, but it was gated essentially and fire and first responder would have access to that gate. Is that kind of how and so would something like that probably be necessary here?

Well, with with that not having been analyzed, um, you know, trip generation for the volume that's in there, um, could require by code the second point of access. You're you're absolutely right. And um even if I mean even if the second the second point couldn't come from Ogal floor because there's not enough separation between those driveways. So the only option would be Landor. Um the way this could go is if it was only for fire and emergency access and restricted to that. That is something that we've done in the past where we can justify it. Um but it's been, you know, relatively unique situations. Um you know, the benefit of the PD was it was a binding site plan that said you only have to have the one driveway and it had been vetted by fire and emergency and and you know using 2022 data,

right? Um, so you know, with this request moving forward without a binding plan, we don't have that opportunity for the development to get that approval on the front end to only have one driveway. So, we'd have to do the analysis during the plans review phase and it may result in some connection to Landor being necessary in some way, even if it's just for emergency. Okay. Yeah. And I know that was I think probably Kristen you were here. I can't remember who was on the commission during that time. Maybe it's maybe just two of us.

Were you on that one Sarah? Yeah. And I remember that being a big deal with Landor Drive. Yeah. So, can I just touch on that again? Somehow my brain missed. There's a possibility this may need to connect the land. Yeah, it may be required pass mayor commission and y'all it comes back for all the details.

Yeah, when it gets into without this being something that is a binding condition of approval saying one driveway is sufficient without that being a part of a legislative action. It would have to meet code. Code would require a second point of access if the trip generation tops out. and you know this this is there it's it's it's in this is going to be something that's talking it's going to be talked about. Um but Sarah's correct in remembering that from the Braay Street example there was a another alternative that didn't allow for general um resident use on a daily basis. It would only be for emergency vehicles. That may be possible here. We just haven't reached that level of analysis. But it could once it leaves this room and leaves the mayor and commission, it could be required and could be granted that they have a an entrance onto Landor for their use.

Conditioned it. We could condition our whatever our recommendation is to Well, I don't know if we could do that. You can. Um it it would it's always helpful if that's informed, right? You know, this is one of those things about further development of the record, right? Yeah. Um but yes, it's always better if you have your technical staff being able to weigh in both transportation, public works, but also our fire marshall. Um that just hasn't occurred yet, right? So we we could put a condition that it cannot connect

and then and then if that's there fire marshall says we have to have it then that's the end of that plan. Well, okay. You can recommend that condition and then there would be response for the mayor and the commission to consider from staff to that condition and that that analysis would also be able to be presented to the commissioners before it becomes

right. I mean they'll go through the process but exactly still back to staff and fire marshall and everyone and they if they see that condition mayor commission you know goes right along with that then it gets back to planning and all y'all do and fire marshall once again says no we got to be able to get in and out the back way. It it won't h as long if the conditions there then that cannot happen.

Correct. Right. I think I was kind of coming at it more from the standpoint of thinking that one of the ways that one of the sort of compromises I think that worked pretty well with the PD was that it really it it created a pedestrian c uh connection so people living in that community could to the extent they wanted to be a part of the surrounding neighborhood but not necessarily just use it as a cutth through. And I think that that was kind of the spirit of that was sort of to protect the neighborhood from that the only that the way that these two spaces interact with each other is um just as a cutthrough basically. And so what I'm kind of thinking about is whether there's a way for us to condition it. Not so much where we say absolutely no second access point, but more that if there if an access point is required, it is something that has is just for you know I think the spirit behind the second access point is emergency vehicle. So, one way to do that, I think, would be to condition it where we're still creating the protection that that neighborhood wanted from being a cut through. Um, so maybe saying something like that if a second access point is deemed to be required by fire, which I would sort of argue that we'd want to go with that recommendation, um, that it would be a li a limited access or there's a name for that kind of access point. I don't know what it is, but it's just for emergency vehicles.

Morris Tites already has um a lot of speeding issues there. They've been really petitioning for um traffic stop measures slowing down. Um there's, you know, there's if you look on the page, you'll see a lot of issues with um you know, parents worried about the kids because people are cutting through from different areas of Oglethorp and you know, both ends of foresight. they already have a lot of issues adding that onto Landor landor. Even if it was emergency access road, you can use it anyway just because that road is so there's so much traffic and so few places to go that you just kind of go wherever you can go. So they put in the entrance on, you know, even if it's an emergency on land or I believe that's going to be used by

I think they're gated. I think they're created with a code maybe and maybe maybe that would that would but yeah you're because you're right because there's I mean at five o'clock traffic goes from Hawthorne stand still traffic from Hawthorne all the way to the loop. Yeah

as it stands now and I think what's kind of interesting about the first um PD was that even with a commercial application you have a coffee shop and child care that can be utilized by all the people around there. you don't necessarily have to have a car. You know, if you're in Forest Heights, you're in Breen Ridge, if you're in um you know, Nottingham, all that, you don't necessarily need a car to access those some of those commercial uses. So, I think that was me what made that kind of attractive to to all of us, you know. Um and this kind of cuts out all of that, you know, and it just and it isn't characteristic of the neighborhood at all. um if you're getting into three and potentially four stories. Um so yeah, there's there's some there's still some things I think are problematic to all people who live on that corridor and I know there's reduced reduced trips in the studies from original PD to the the current one. But again, I I think those commercial uses uses original one lending again to more pedestrian traffic than than probably is. So yeah, it's just there's not and and the streets won't be widened. You really can't widen a lot especially on the side opposite war sites. You really can't do anything with that. They have, you know, there's no setback houses are right there. Um you'd be going to people's yard. It's not not feasible. There's a lot of lot of challenges pushing this thing through right away.

You want to say something?

Um, yeah. Just just to be clear, the the additional pedest pedestrian traffic to the commercial uses be in addition to the higher number of trips generated. Like there's no saying saying no to this. The only reason that you would think uh and you know not a bad reason, not bad logic, but the only reason that saying no to this would uh have less of an impact on traffic than the existing PD is because uh keeping the existing PD is a a way of saying don't develop this at all at least in a you know in a commercial way. Um because definitely these houses would generate more traffic than than nothing that is currently there. existing PD would generate more car traffic almost certainly. And I think Sarah does bring up a good point in that and this is very tough. I don't necessarily I I really respect where the neighborhood's coming from, but I also understand product and how this works and the land cost and I think it is a good use as having lowinccome or affordable housing for seniors. But I definitely understand the concern. It could we put a condition for fencing or some sort of barrier? So on that point um again this would be there would be no binding plan. So all the code would would be applied at the time of development. Um multif family next to single family there will be a fence requirement at a minimum. Um so it' either be 10 feet with a fence landscaping on either side of the fence or it' be 20 feet of a planted buffer or

the 50ft natural buffer um wherever it is adjacent to anything single family. So the because I I was thinking about the fencing as well and I remember the fencing conversation back in 2022. Um and so that's getting it straight in my brain. The reason we had that whole conversation about fencing in 2022 was because it was a PD. We don't need to have that conversation on a straight reason. The the in this instance actually takes care of that. Yeah. Okay. The fencing would be taken care of for the recommended people. Yeah. 10 10 foot 20 foot 50 foot

only a fence is only required in the 10 foot right the fence would be require 10 foot option if you go wider you don't have to do the fence but it could it would have to be 20 feet of planted heavily planted range is there anything in the plans review that would address the light concerns for having that

so we have a whole chapter on lighting um that requires no trespass off site, fully cut and shielded lighting, so you can't actually see the source of the light. Um, so there I mean it's baseline standards. There's also a foot candle measurement for how bright the lights can be. Um, and in multif family it's relatively low. Um, so there there are performance standards on those things. I guess where I'm struggling a little bit here is that I don't think it's fair, I guess, to well, I don't know. I guess I don't think it's fair to deny the request to take the PD away because um I think that's actually kind of problematic from a property rights standpoint. But if the PD goes away, then we're back at the CN zoning. And the CN zoning um gives you actually a much more sort of you know, you get 65 feet of building height. You have less canopy, you have same residential density, you can cover 75% of your lot with impervious surface. And so their requested zoning um where your maximum building height is 30 ft with this exception that um they can be employed conserve canopy 35% total canopy 55% like I like that um I can only cover 55% of a lot um I I think we

all know in some ways the PD is a good example of how much um after a reszone if you can get a reszone s get a successful reszone that's just the beginning of a long process of plans review and financing and tax credits and everything and so I I just kind of you know just kind of trying to get back to just the land use versus the um even just our kind of stated community values about developing affordable housing I can't I can't really imagine standing in the way of um housing affordable to 80% AMI. Like we need more of that and um that is generally a rental product and um it's very rare for us to get something like that where it's protected for an affordability period. I think this one was 30 years. I'm not sure. That's pretty great affordability period. So, I don't know. I'm all over the place, but I I guess I um yeah, I I guess I'm ready to make a motion at least to get us started and kind of see where we are, which is that I would make a motion on the um the request to remove the PD um which is I'd like to make a motion that we approve that component of this request. I'll second that.

Okay. Any other comments? Sorry, ma'am. We'll go to a vote. All right. The motion is to approve the dissolution of the existing plan development. Garren, yes. Lee, yes. Harris Street, yes. No. Pass. Yes, the motion passes six to one.

Yes. Um I guess I would also like to make a recommendation on the reszone. Um I yeah I would like to recommend we approve the resone request um with the condition that if a secondary uh access point is deemed necessary by um staff that it be that it still provide the vehicular protection of of the residents of Lander Drive and beyond so that it would be required to be a emergency like gated controlled access point only.

What about the Oh yes and that all of the things that the applicant said um that that the conditions related to affordability that were offered would be be required. So that would be that all units are to be rented or to be available to um households earning 80% or AMI or less. Um age age restriction of 55 years or older for 30 years. Um is there anything else I'm missing there? That that was the one I was thinking.

There was mention of a 65 foot front setback. Oh yeah, remind me what that was again. That was something they offered, right? If you have a clarification from the applicant, maybe that's helpful because it was said differently at two points. Yeah, Mr. Ellison, could you clarify the 65% setback? I'm sorry. Repeat that. Could you clarify what was said about the 65%. So basically,

under our site plan, we have a 55 foot front yard setback. Uh we have a 110 foot setback to the Breen Ridge subdivision. Um and basically I think for simplicity's purposes I think for tonight we can recommend a commit condition uh that um the setbacks uh will be at least um we make this exhibit to basically Sure. Um, why don't we take a moment and well, all right, what this represents and I'll happy to pass it around so you can be comfortable with it before you make it part of your motion. But as the applicant's portraying, what you would be lifting off of this to inform the motion would be binding to 65 ft front yard setback. here.

Correct. 110 feet of setback from the Breenriidge subdivision and 160 156. Yes. To Landor. From Landor. Yes. And I'll share that with you guys. So those three dimensions and they're they're grayscale dimensions on there. How much to land? 156. do the right way. Buildings set back, right? Yeah.

And when you say something like 156, that means that's the minimum from say the corner to the property.

The closest point of that building to the land rightway line would be 156. Same with the 110. closest portion of the building to any shared property line with the Breen Ridge subdivision would be 110 and then a closest point of the building 65 ft or greater from I don't see the numbers. So, I'm sorry. You can borrow

my glasses. I don't know which part of the glasses. I'm so trying to find them.

I had that written, but I just I could not see the number that's all what you're asking me to see. Okay, I believe in

Sarah, are you making those uh setbacks uh a condition part of your motion? I think yes, I am. Yes. Um, so we would say setbacks as shown on the exhibit provided by the applicant. Yes. Okay. Um,

you want me to call those back? Yeah.

Okay. Uh, approve with conditions. Those conditions being four items. First, second drive would be for emergency access only if it's required. two, 100% of the units um shall be provided to households earning eight under 80% AMI. Third, um the applicant is offering that all residents it would be age restricted to 55 and older only. Fourth, setbacks for development would be as shown on the exhibit provided by the applicant. Um,

can I ask the people's thoughts about something before I complete my motion or should I just make it and then make it and see if we can have some

second. So the couple of questions I have are whether it is whether the 55 plus is important um whether it's affordability that's most important or if it's both. And the second question I have for the group would be that one thing I like about the non-binding plan is the sort of pedestrian connection both to Landor and throughout and just wondering what people think of that and whether that's kind of overreach to ask that to also be on the

you say that last one again walking fast right like so the people who live there can walk on the property people who live behind could walk through the property to get to Ogal Thorp and I'm wondering Like to me that's a benefit of this drawing, but this drawing is just a drawing. So I'm curious what you all think about whether either of those should be addressed in the motion. I don't think it needs to be addressed in the motion. And the Yeah. And it has enough of benefit that it

it has its own reason for being doesn't need to be required to ask. And what what do you all think about the age restriction? I think it's good. It's for the inevitable uh this is just going to be student housing discussion. And if that's what if that's what they're asking to be built, I would argue back on that that if we have the affordability component being right across from the elementary school, if it doesn't work out with this developer, then we still need the opportunity to have affordable housing right across from the school that could be families. I think it's a good point.

So, but it would still have the age restrictions. That's that's what we're talking age restriction on it or not. I think one or two bedrooms which where the age restriction would be important but if a new developer came around with a three or fourbedroom affordable plan that would be meaningful to the school across the street.

Yeah, I'd be open to that getting taken. Um, I will probably be voting no on this because I don't think Forest Heights or Lindor needs any connection to this. That's the had the president's house issue had any kind of connection to Boulevard, I'd have voted no for it. And I'm the one that voted. That was the school of yes or single no to deny what, however. Y'all got the gist of that whole neighborhood got the gist of how I voted. But um um so that I don't I don't like any connection to the neighborhood. I don't I don't I think it needs to be an Ogal Thorm Avenue development and not anything. And if they want to walk through the neighborhood, they can do their own path or or but even even a driveway that's unused visually connects it. And so I don't agree with that part, but I think you might think about your own neighborhood. Would you want that? Just something something to consider. And I think the 55 plus is a good thing. I think those are people living on fixed incomes. Take inflation to it. Those fixed incomes get less and less. It's less valuable every year. 55 plus protects seniors who again they're they're affected the most by inflation not not us you know it's not it's not matter so I think the 55 plus isn't a bad thing to have on it

yeah but if it's but if it's a if we're already putting the affordable restriction on it then no matter who is living there they're still below that income like it's double y Yeah, like it it doesn't it doesn't stop people 55 plus from living there. Um it just makes it so that if in the future the demand for affordable housing in that location or like subsidized affordable housing it's restricted lean more towards families that that flexibility could be there. Um,

I think that we need to be a little cautious of putting the same level of restrictions back on the property that we're just undoing the restrictions on if it ever is going to be developed. And maybe there's a question, is it ever going to be developed? I think I'm kind of inclined just to leave it at 55 because the develop because the developer offered that and proposed that and I think that has pretty clear connection to points they need to get um low income income housing tax credit. So I think I don't need to discuss my discussion anymore. Yeah. Okay. So we're all clear. Yeah. My second my second still stands.

All right. The motion is for approval with four conditions. Uh that the second drive would be required to be limited to emergency access only if a second drive would be required. Number two uh is that households be limited to 80% of AMI. Number three, there is a age limit of 55 plus development. Uh number four, uh the proposed setbacks as shown on the applicant exhibit apply uh to the front yard, sideyard, and rear yards of property. I think the one thing that's missing there, Robert, is just the the affordability period,

and I think they've offered the a 30-year affordability period. So, would that apply to the AMI condition or to the age limit? Um, both. Yeah, both. Okay. Yeah. I wanted. All right. Hering. Yes. Police. Paris. Yes. No. Pass. Sams. No. And yes.

All right. Motion carries. Five to five to two. Excuse. Before we move to the next item, since we did, this is always so awkward when we get something introduced to us. Since we passed around that paper and it was referenced in the motion, I would like to entertain motion to accept it to the record. Moved. Second. All right. And all in favor say I. I. I.

Next item. Um 155 W Davis Road item number one. Okay. All right. Our next case is 155 W Davis Road zone 2026-3-0442. The request here is a reszone from commercial neighborhood CN to mixed density residential RM3. Um that quest is mostly due to the future land use that that exists on the property. So that is general business. So, they are not seeking to change that future land use. Um, fairly similar to the last request, we have a non-binding plan for a multifamily development that is seeking affordable housing tax credits. This proposal is for 52 apartments that would encompass 80 beds. And this is for a mixed three and fourtory building. Again, non-binding. So, here we have the site. We are on Whit Davis just uh a little bit south of where it connects to Lexington Road. So

you've got the gas station right there at the corner of Lexington Road, the dollar store, and the Tractor Supply here. Just to the south of this property is um Southeast Clark Park. That is the portion that connects to the playground, the World of Wonder um and the trail system that connects over to the portion of the park with the balls. We have some um residential across the street here and then we have um the park and then we have mostly commercial along Lexington Road. So currently this feature land use is general business and you can see it's general business along the corridor that's pretty similar. Um, you can sort of see a tiny bit. Uh, we've got residential future land use over here, a mix of traditional neighborhood and single family residential. Um, and then we have the government property to the south where the park is located. This demonstrates the proposed change from CN to RM3. This is, you know, uh, similar to the last case. This kind of fits in with the future land use as we've mentioned. However, it would be um kind of on that edge of spot zoning. This would be one of our few RM3 properties if it is to succeed. Um however, staff has discussed this and sees it fitting in with the future land use and uh some of the intensities that uh abut that towards Lexington and then the park serves as a buffer um towards the south. So, here's the site. Um, formerly occupied back in the day. I believe it was uh torn down in and around 2012. And the natural elements have begun to take over the old parking lot and site. You can see here the non-binding proposal. So, there is the apartment

structure pulled towards Wit Davis. Um, some surface parking to the south and to the rear. Uh, a little bit of amenity space. And then they have also worked with leisure services to have a path connecting into the park. The staff sees this as compatible with the 2023 comprehensive plan. Uh calls for affordable housing variety. This is close to a commercial node. Um the future land use map that we're really excited to hopefully see next week. Um shows a node across the street at the Walmart development and it also has corridor designations along Lexington Road. also adjacent to the county park. Uh transportation options out here uh with ACC transit consistent with the future land use map, the zoning map and the ordinance. Um similar to the last one, non-binding plan for age targeted affordable housing seeking the same tax incentives that were just discussed. Sanitary sewer extension issues are present. Um but there is a solution. The closest manhole is right across the street where it kind of goes into that single family. It's that's a mix of single family and duplexes across the street over there. Um but uh PUD has mentioned that they see a solution available. Staff is recommending approval.

All right. Um so now we'll hear from the applicant.

Thank you. David Ellison, happy applicant. Uh this is anyway similar to the last uh application. What we're trying to do is apply to reszone this from CN to RM3. Uh we think this is going to be a nice transitional use between the commercial properties uh along Lexton Highway and the single family residential. The fact that we can put affordable senior housing next to the park we just think is fabulous. Uh we're uh staff has recommended once a connection uh with this project in the park. We're going to offer that as a condition. Um this meets all the uh objectives and update comprehensive plan. Um we are also offering as a condition uh that this would be age restricted to 55 years older. Um in fact this project came before y'all last year around this time. uh y'all recommended approval and uh it got tabled before the mayor and commission because there was concern about this being non-binding site plan and uh potentially student housing. At that point in time, the developer and the property owner could not get an agreement to do the age restricted zoning condition. So got tabled for the mayor commission. We mixed the missed the uh tax deadline. So we had to withdraw it. This time uh the developer and the property owner were able to reach an agreement uh that this would be age restricted as a zoning condition in addition to the uh private covenant they'll run with land in order to address any of those concerns. Uh this would be 35 apartments at 60% AMI and 11 apartments uh at 50% AMI. Uh we're not seeking to uh participate in the inclusionary zoning ordinance uh because we don't need any of the bonuses. We don't need the density bonuses and the parking bonuses, but uh we do intend to

apply uh abide by those uh provide these low income restrictions and of course we would have that age restriction. I would ask that you please uh recommend approval as so we can go more than our commission. Thank you.

Thank you. here to speak in support of the opposition to speak opposition to the application. Okay, this was a good idea last year and I still think it's a good idea. Um, I don't have all of the staff report in front of me because it only printed oddnumbered pages.

Oh, so um I apologize. I don't think you get to apologize. Well, I apologize for not having it. I'm live. Um, so I will I will not make the motion because I not 100% sure how any conditions need should be phrased, but that's

Well, I was if Sarah's done I was just going to ask question. Okay. Um, so yeah, I I thought housing may was a good idea last year when we saw it and I still think it's a good idea there. Um, RM3 is one thing that we don't see a lot of and I wondered why. Um, maybe this is a question for you, Bruce, or maybe it's for the applicant, but um I think they could get the density number they're getting either by doing RM2 with inclusionary zoning or by doing RM3. Um, and uh I wondered, you know, sometimes we hear people say like, "Oh, we don't like to do spot zoning." And and RM3 anywhere in Athens is pretty much spot zoning because there's almost no RM3 in Athens. So um can you talk a little bit about why that's the the right approach here? Maybe the applicant and and also Bruce.

So um RM3 is consistent with the future land use plan. So we don't have to change I believe with RM1 RM2 that they change the uh uh character area on the comp plan. Oh okay fair enough. Right. that. Yeah. Great, Alex.

So, how do we with the 80% of the total housing units um or for at least the one or at least one person in the unit has to be 55 years or older. Um I'm going to start with you and if it needs to be Mr. Ellison, we'll give to that. But how do we keep up with that? How does the county monitor that? So, the expectation from a staff standpoint is there will be annual reporting. How that might operate, I I would defer to the applicant, but we're going to have to have some sort of annual accounting um to demonstrate compliance. Yeah. Have you all has the county done that yet? Well, that's only a percentage have to be

that's where we coordinate where that's been a um requirement that has to be met. We coordinate with our HCD folks. um they're more familiar with that kind of reporting process. Um as a condition of zoning, we haven't had it that often. As a condition of funding, we do. So there's a mechanism um for understanding that we would just roll that reporting into the compliance u mechanism for keeping up with this if it was and can I ask Mr. Alison, part of the question,

this language is pulled exactly from the uh language the state requires for compliance and so um they already have to demonstrate compliance with the state anyway. So I imagine it wouldn't be that difficult to demonstrate compliance with the county, but that's that's ex verbatim where that language comes from.

Okay. And then and you could say it's none of my business because it it it isn't necessarily but it's close as we're learning because the 55 and older thing is going to be gaining uh a little traction coming up. Um the the idea of not going 100%. I I see that as being a much easier way to manage the place, but again I'm not managing it and it's not my problem nor is it up for me to ask. But is there is there something that flips that 80% that brings something better to Athens or to the community?

So, it's my understanding that um the reason why you don't want to do like 100% is that you let's say there's a vacancy then all of a sudden you lose your CF and then you're less than 100%. or this scenario that has you know there is a care surviving spouse or caregiver etc. you know, don't want to be a scenario where you got to kick out somebody, a family member or grieving widow in order to keep your CO. I mean, their model is to have senior housing. I mean, they're not trying to pull a one like senior housing, student housing, completely different. So, we're not trying to Yeah.

pull a one here. We just don't have a scenario where we're losing a co because of a cork like that. All right. Fair enough. Thank you. Anyone make a motion to approve. Okay. A second. Okay.

Is that with the conditions the developer offered in their letter? Um yes. So should I spell those out? Okay. So um with the conditions off offered by the developer including actually we don't do we need to include the conditions about the affordability level or just age both I would say what they're offering

okay so that 35% of the 35 of the apartments will be restricted to 60% AMI qualifying households, 11 apartments and 50% AMI um uh for 30 years. Um um and then the other conditions offered by the developer including that the developer will provide a connection between the project and Southeast Clark Park and that 80% of the total units of property must be occupied by at least one individuals 55 years of age or older um etc. the rest of that item number two for the developer offering. One question. Um, if this development didn't go through and a new developer came, could they exceed the units at the threshold of AMI that we state forward here or do they have to stick to that number that the way we've put the condition? I think it would do better represent them as percentages of the

I was wondering the same thing. So if for some reason a future developer if this didn't work out or something this says 35 apartments at 60% AMI 11 at 50% AMI we want to make that more represent that more as a percentage of total units they were to build more units. You could you you could add no fewer than

Yeah. Maybe maybe just no fewer than, right? Yeah, I think we just add no fewer than 35 and no fewer than 11 because this resoning doesn't pres prevent them from um yeah, doesn't prevent them from actually building units than the 852. We need to restate this to make sure we got it. Yeah, I wanted to get it. Yeah.

Um the motion is to approve with four conditions. Um first being no fewer than 35 apartments will be restricted to 60% of AMI for 30 years. Number two is no fewer than 11 apartments will be restricted to 50% of AMI for 30 years. Number three is that the developer will provide a connection to Southeast Clark Park. And number four is that 80% of the total housing units for the property must be occupied by at least one individual who is 55 years of age or older, up to 20% of the units may be occupied by others, including surviving spouses or children of residents who were 55 years of age or older when they died, and caregivers. Okay. Garrett.

Yes. Please bear. All I'm going to abstain from this one. Uh pass. Yes. S. Yes. Yes. Motion passes six to 0 to one. All right. Did I make a request that we make it a little less cold in here? A little bit early in the year to be cold. I'm cold. Is nobody else cold? I'm cold with you.

It's like way colder in here than it is out there. You know, it's only barely spring. I don't need to be annoyed with AC already. Save some energy. All right. 150 Wear Street.

All right. This is the staff presentation for 150 Wear Street uh alternative compliance uh ADC 2026 030443. The request is for alternative design compliance for two code requirements in the CD commercial downtown zone. Uh the first is for a public sidewalk requirement and the second is for building materials allowed in the commercial downtown zone. This is a aerial photograph of the site. Uh it doesn't look like this currently though this is only just from a year ago. Um the structure that you see there is has been demolished. Uh the parking lot does remain as shown on this aerial photograph. However, uh this is the current zoning map which would remain the same. Uh this is the proposed design. And you can see that it's largely similar to what was there before uh with the location of the building specifically. Uh the parking lot would remain the same. Uh this is the proposed structure as offered by the applicant. Um the proposal is for metal sighting to be used on the building. That's sort of at issue here. Uh with regards to the alternative design compliance being allowing that for those building materials in the commercial downtown zone. Uh the proposal is for the uh Canopy Aerial Arts Studio to be uh located in in the new structure. Uh staff's recommending uh approval with the condition. Um staff finds that the development is partially compatible with the 2023 comprehensive plan um specifically compatible uh with respect to incorporating the arts into new developments. Uh not compatible in terms of prioritizing alternative transportation modes. This particularly applies with the requested exemption for not installing sidewalk along wear street. Um staff found that uh that

sidewalk connection would be beneficial for those with both mobility issues and trying to access the structure from uh local transportation stops and other alternative transportation. In general staff finds that this is compatible with future land use map, the zoning map and the ordinance. Uh with regard to the um with regard to the building materials, staff finds no real issue um with the request of the applicant. The character of the area in which this property is located is somewhat industrial in nature due to the proximity to the railroad tracks um as well as the previous building having metal siding as well. It's not really a departure from what's in that area uh currently. Um staff does recommend that the following condition be applied that the alternative design compliance for uh sidewalk installation uh not be approved. So uh to sum up, staff recommends approval of alternative compliance for building materials but denial uh for the alternative compliance for sidewalk installation along street. That concludes the staff. All right.

Thank you from the applicant. Hello. Uh, my name is Katrina Evans with ENE Architecture. I live at 495 Pullman Avenue and I have Ann Woodruff, executive director of Canopy Studios with me.

Hi. Um, my name is Ann and I'm the executive director of Canopy Studio. We are a nonprofit aerial dance organization that has been part of the Athens community for the last 24 years. We are currently located in the Chase Park Warehouse which is off of um Tracy Street. At Canopy, we provide movement education, performance opportunities, and a creative home for people of all ages and abilities. Our work blends art, art, athleticism, and community engagement, serving hundreds of local families each year. In the last five years, we've served more than 4400 individuals. 2,700 of those people reside within Athens, clar county. We understand that this that a project like this comes with a responsibility. We are committed to being thoughtful neighbors and operating in a way that aligns with community standards. We are excited about the opportunities that this project will allow us to deepen our partnership with the local schools. We already offer adaptive PE field trips to every student with a disability who attends self-contained special education within Clark County School District. And we provide afterchool programming um for students from both Burks and Ogthorp Avenue Elementary School at no cost to the school or to the individuals. With this new building, we'll be able to offer more community partnerships, scholarships, and ensure that access to the arts remains equitable. Canopy has always been more than a studio. It is a place where people build strength, confidence, and connection. We look forward to continuing our mission for decades to come. I hope that you can support this variance request for our new home. Thank you for your time, and I'm available for questions. Um, I'd like to thank staff for the report and their recommendation recommendation for approval with conditions. I will just um say that the

sidewalk was a reach, so we're just going to scrap that from our request. I think it's, you know, everyone pushes back on that, but in the end, it's advantageous. Um, our firm has actually been involved with Canopy Studios for 24 years. We actually built their existing facility in the warehouses. And the reality is that that the organization has been shopping for a new site for a decade. They've outgrown it. We've looked everywhere. We purchased a property. We've um you know, there have been a lot of sites we've looked at. This building, we actually thought initially that we were able to keep it, but the height just the limitations don't facilitate um don't really allow PB to operate how they need to operate. Uh we even looked at picking the building up. That was not an option. Um so we're here tonight to seek relief for the limitations on the metal panel. Um obviously the existing building did have metal panels. Our proposal is to have metal panels but to have architectural metal panels on the primary facade and then the other three facades would have a more traditional exposed fastener metal panel system. Um but instead of sort of the cheapest possible material, we're trying to use well we are using a mega rib panel that has more um the spacing is a little bit more generous. So it's not a super tight rib which is pretty traditional. Um so the bottom facade or the bottom image is the front facade. So we are allowed by right to use 25% of exposed fastener metal panel systems which we are doing on the top left. Uh the far right is a vertical

architectural metal panel concealed fasteners and then the bottom left is same just a different um pattern. I will point out that the college avenue which is the top one is set back 127 feet from college. So visibility is maybe lessened and then you can kind of see the dash line and that dash line actually indicates topography. So a fair amount of that facade is actually underground and then the rear facade which you think is you know maybe really visible is largely um underground entirely not underground but the topography slopes up so quickly that it's it's just not a visible facade. Um, I will also note on the College Avenue facade, we are planning a substantial mural and some of that kind of offsets some of the administration requirements. So why do we believe this is beneficial for our community and really in a in a nutshell where street is not Clayton Street. The same standard should not be applicable to this particular street. There's four different buildings on this street right now and um three out of the four I believe already have metal panels on there. It's an industrial um street and applying those same standards um really doesn't maintain the character area for this space. Um it's also worth noting that the alternate compliance guidelines were established almost 20 years ago and in that time frame I mean metal panels have evolved so much. There's, you know, panels that look like wood. There's there's just fascinating battle panel systems out there. And and I think the limitations are really built around the um old school aluminum panels that what the

gallium panels. There you go. I'm losing my vocabulary. Um so I just think metal panels are beautiful. Uh they're also super durable. The other material that we are allowed to use is cementitious materials. And so you'll see all around downtown where excuse me uh multif family projects have used cementitious material and it just ages poorly. Like three years after they're built, they're in need of a new paint job. um the metal panels, the inherent um finishing system would last 20 years under warranty, so the product's going to look better. Um, I think Oh, and then just a side note, I think that your I know that the alternate compliance requests often lead to sort of amendments of the zoning code, and I just think that it's pretty outdated. again the evolution it I think just from a citizen's perspective allowing that p that material in sort of the pallet allowed for downtown it's it's beneficial for all of us um and that is it appreciate your consideration and happy to answer questions

thank you

I would call for for and against but I see nobody else Um so hearing none um let's see what else um I think that uh with the applicant saying that they uh are immutable to the staff's condition essentially they're withdrawing a push through the alternative compliance on the sidewalk. Um metal facade makes absolute sense in this location. Uh metal was the old building that was there. It is in a warehousy type area right next to the railroad. Um and uh staff recommends approval. I'm going to make a motion to approve this request with staff's condition.

Have one question. What's the cost of the sidewalk? I just want to be sure that that is not really an impediment to canopy. Yeah, because I would actually get because I don't need and then ask the question. Yeah. All right. So, right, we know the class sidewalk. I mean, I think it's probably a $20,000 item.

I mean, because I would actually be in favor of the, you know, in this case, the variance for the not having the sidewalk. You know, I used to see these a lot in the hearings board and, you know, I would kind of think about it. There's no other sidewalks on where where doesn't really go anywhere. um you know, I don't think it's a hugely valuable sidewalk. So, um and it is a big it is a big cost and uh yeah, and I kind of have fundamental disagreements with the idea of always kind of passing off the expense of sidewalks to the property owners. You know, we don't do that with streets and I kind of see that sidewalks are, you know, a public space and a public good, much like streets are. That's just a fundamental kind of disagreement with that part of the ordinance. But, uh yeah, I would be in favor of the variance to not require the sidewalk. Um I I believe the sidewalk needs to be there. It was there. Um it's it's there for a reason which I won't go all into, but this changes and then if the property next door makes a major change. We got a sidewalk now that connects and so that is the whole purpose of it and I do believe in it and and I've been a developer and at least one time we had to put in the sidewalk. it's just like paying the it is just the expense and um so I think in this case I like uh the idea that the designer said just let's put the sidewalk in it could help later. Having said that um I'm I'm also good with uh everything they're doing. I think you're that close to the railroad. you're this is a little different spot than other parts of the road on college uh would be. So anyway, that's my

I also just want to add that I I agree with the applicant's um kind of opinion that you know the ordinance could be, you know, re-examined because I think it is about outdated. I really like you know metal design. So I think we should look at having more of it allowed in downtown.

Yeah. Um, I fully support the the requested waiver about metal siding. I agree with uh what the applicant um and Mike said about how metal sighting has changed. And I I also just um hate uh more than anything looking at that stupid building that's across the street from this building that has cementitious siding on it. Um that looked awful the day it went up and has only gotten worse. Um, so I can we ban that? Just swap them. Can we legalize medical?

Yeah, I move to revise our ordinance to that. Um, I'm kidding. I don't, but uh but I would support that uh if staff came with a revision to accommodate new new kinds of metal siding and maybe to rethink whether we want party board um on big buildings. I'll tell um as to this like uh metal siding on W Street makes perfect sense. Everything looks super industrial over there. I'm all for that. Um I would have been fine with with not having a sidewalk. I totally agree with Alex. Like generally sidewalks are important because then the next property and then the next property and then you do have a sidewalk and and so doing it peace meal.

This would be a sidewalk to nowhere except I guess the canopy driveway. um which is not unimportant because some people might you know walk to Canopy to go see a show and and um so that's good. Um I is it am I understanding right that it's the entire frontage um of this parcel which is like looking at Q public looks to be 180 ft on the diagonal and then maybe another 20 um parallel to where so a couple hundred linear feet of sidewalk is that um so um yeah I mean hearing the applicant say they don't want the sidewalk waiver I guess I'm not going to fight fight him on that. Um, but I

mean, I'm sure they'd still rather not have it. I think she said it. It's a great tree. Yeah, it is a great tree. That was my point is, you know, if looking at the photo, I did wonder like why why do we have to lose the tree just to put in a sidewalk? Because, you know, I assume the sidewalk's going to be going to intersect that curb cut well back of the street so that it's level. And so then can we not go around the tree or something with they have to plant street trees part of the sidewalk. So we actually

Well, I noticed that was one part of the reason I was in favor of the sidewalk um allowing them to not have the sidewalk is um is some of the staff technical assessment comments. TPW said uh at least you know having sidewalk up to the driveway would be good but then uh the arborist said if you take out the existing street tree you'll have to replace it. Uh and it's a whatever you know looks like it's a 30 or 40 year old tree. So it's going to be a long time before a new tree is going to um look like that. So I like trees in our warehousy districts of downtown too. So anyway, I'm I'm willing to consider not um not requiring a sidewalk as well.

So I agree with Alex that generally they're super important, but but I think wear street is kind of unusual because it just goes to a one more industrial building beyond this one and and that's it. Let me just say as Matt has said, and sorry to Alex to push back, but I don't see the benefit for the sidewalk gear in losing the tree, in adding the extra cost canopy. I mean, you're almost feeling like you're pulling into a parking lot as it is. It doesn't really present as a street. So, I would rather support a motion that didn't require them to put a sidewalk in. We have a current motion. Is that a substitute motion? I can I make a substitute motion before we vote in trouble?

Well, let's let Sarah go. Sarah's vote go. Yeah, it would be it would be appropriate to make a substitute motion. Okay. Then I make a substitute motion that we approve this without the sidewalk requirement. So approve as requested by the application. Oh yes, it needs I'll second that. discussion. Yes, Alex. So, um, in this discussion, can I ask the applicant a question? I don't I don't think we ever Okay. Do you mind? Um, does Canopy own this property?

They do not. They have a 20 plus year land lease. So, all right. That's my question. Sir, how many year can it be? It's it's works out to 20 with multi-year renewal processes built in 20 including multiple renewals or 20 plus years. So the first one is it 15 years and then it's fiveyear increments for renewals.

So my thinking on that is canopy's not directly paying for the $20,000 indirectly all this does happen. I understand that. I would say just to caution the thought of and I'm looking at the map, if there's a sidewalk here that does connect to College Avenue, which I believe it would, then that that this area could become a get a little more life to it. If Canopy's there and it's incredibly popular and loved by the community, the sidewalk will help draw other business in there which will help feed off each other. So that's again why I'm in favor of a sidewalk and just just laying that back out there. I think overall we gota

we're hitting high with the sidewalk. Could be a whole could be a whole new little arts district. it. I think it's going to be really good for that area, right?

And I I would totally agree with that normally, but I really think that, you know, kind of wear street is uniquely just like doesn't go anywhere. It's just almost like a parking lot street. You know, I don't see people really like I don't I honestly don't think it's worth, you know, $20,000 or cutting a tree down just because, you know, if they walk past Canopy there, there's only like two other businesses down there. And I don't see them just to help those two other things down the road. Doesn't seem worthwhile to me. Doesn't seem like it's going to be a lot of traffic. Um on the current discussion I I um can I ask the applicant if um like wear street when I have been there um appears to dead end into shrubs at the end but looking at it here on the map I see that it actually is it deadends into the AKA property which then connects to the greenway right on the other side of Aka's parking lot and is there any sort of physical barrier to that connection? being made because my personal experience of being on wear street inclined me toward Mike's view that this doesn't go anywhere but having considered it more and and heard from Alex like you know maybe there's the prospect of a greenway connection and a cool little artsy warehousy district eventually in which case I very much want a sidewalk

I mean there's a topographical challenge between wear street and council on aging so um greenway perspective effective as a bike path. I would say unlikely. Um possibility of a pedestrian connection. Um maybe I mean to your to your point Matt, I have biked down that part of the greenway and you come out sort of on the side of ACCA. come up the front of it and then you if you follow that driveway out you end up at College Avenue which you could then take a left and then continue to the sidewalk around to the front of camp. So like in terms of connectibility if I were on a bike it would make it but you could also like come up the street too. So like but to your point there is a greenway connection there which is interesting

which again maybe means a sidewalk is a good idea. Can I add I I don't know the rules. Um but the other side of wear street is CSX property and we all know that CSX doesn't let go of anything. So further development is only going to be limited to our side of the street where the sidewall would be. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And there's I got to think that there's so little traffic on where you know people are just going to be kind of walking wherever they want anyway. that supposed to encourage that. But, you know, sidewalks are best on roads with lots of cars, too. And I just don't see where as being

I would like to vote. So, um, so yes, let's read do motion first, right? So, we're going to substitute motion first. Okay. The motion on the floor is for approval as requested by the applicant for both alternative compliance Consessions. No. Police. Yes. Harrisford. Yes. Paul, no. Pass. Yes. Sams, no. And Lord, yes. We have a tie.

33. Huh? I'm sorry. 43 in. Oh, somebody wins. Who is it? Apologies. 43 in favor. Yes. You almost got to do it. Can I take this moment though and back to you? I've read Robert's rules where it says the chair can they they can vote to change the vote. In other words, they can vote to make it a tie. Dude, I hate to put you on the spot, but I brought it up before. Am I wrong in that or am I correct in that? I think that's how we've historically interpreted it. I could look into it.

It's been I know what you're saying. I think the practice has been in the event of a tie that the chair vote to like change the outcome. Change the outcome and that would change the outcome. I wouldn't vote, right? But what I'm not asking I'm not asking you to I'm just saying that's always something that's it's always interpreted as to I've interpreted it as change but he was not that's the moment to bring it up. Just for the record I think our bylaws say specifically the chair will not vote unless in case of a tie. Yes. Robert's rules may say that.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, all right. So, we're moving to other business. And keep in mind that you might have only three items listed, but we have a new number one. A new number one. A new number one.

Yeah. So, the number one item that was added after the package went out. the procedural thing u that is communicated to us by the clerk of committee that we need to take care of and the result of that action will be a letter that I'm writing on your behalf back to the clerk and it's for this purpose. So there is there are some new rules about boards, authorities and commissions. And what we're having to do is um when we have members of a board that are eligible for reappoint, there is confirmation of that from the board that that sitting member is affirmed to be eligible um to reapply. And so in this goround we had two planning commission members, Mon'nique and Taylor. Um Mon'nique um has respectfully made us aware that she's not going to be reapplying. Um Taylor has made us aware that he is going to be reapplying. Um so this evening, what we would need for me to be able to write this letter that the clerk is asking for is a motion to affirm uh Taylor's eligibility to reapply as a planning commission member. And that motion passes that I'm able to write the letter that says what you did. So moved.

Second. Okay, Matt and Sarah. Okay. Um, all those in favor. Very good. Thank you. So now we got to be on good behavior. Off. Now I can use the word eligibility. Um yeah, how and how how are we determining his eligibility? So you know what what are the factors for eligibility? Um live here. I'm sorry. Got to live in the county,

right? So there's a handful of things that are just sort of statements of fact like that. You have to be an Athecar County resident. Um there are aspects of performance that could also be weighed into eligibility. you know, attendance is one of those things. Um, do we have an attendance role? Is it like three? Yeah. So, three unexcused absences, I'm just supposed to make the clerk aware. Okay. And and that is that opens the door for consideration of that particular person being removed um and their position posted. Is that three in a year?

I think it's three consecutive. I knew there was more than just three. pretty consecutive. Um, you know, I I've never had to do that. Um, gotten close, but I've never never had to do it. Um, but the guidelines that were that are at the basis of why y'all just did what you did, I haven't seen the full text,

so I I can't fully answer if eligibility somehow has been fleshed out in in what um the clerk's working with. I I hope to see it real soon. Um, but this action takes care of what needed to be taken care of. The other thing is that I understand is in there, this action in this affirmation is supposed to be done prior to posting. Um, in this instance, it's already been posted. So, we're kind of behind procedurally already. So, there's some grace on what we're doing right now. But, we've had to do it for the HPC. Um, I don't think we had to do it for the hearings board, but it's

I remember we had that thing on the hearings board once. Remember it's like the two people for renewal didn't know it and then it got posted and two other people applied and they didn't they were like, "Oh, what?" And then it was too late for them to apply again so they just got booted off. Yeah. Yeah. They were like cuz remember it was like Yeah. Yeah. So that that happened during a change changing of the guard. Okay. And there was some record keeping that didn't didn't pan out. Then Richard came back again, but he had to wait like two years or something. Yeah. Yeah. I do agree with though with Al Alex's question in the sense that um

I'd hate for that process to be like, you know, I might not like or agree with another planning commissioner, but I'm going to stand on their right to be here. And so I'm kind of wondering a little bit about how you would protect that from I know. I know we can vote each other off. How do you trying to be good tonight? What I and I've raised this concern that same concern to the clerk and to the manager's office that we have to have an understanding of what eligibility entails. Yeah. And um so that to your point, what what are we voting on and with what

feel bad voted because I honestly didn't completely understand afterward afterward. Well, I thought I understood until you said the word eligibility again and I was like yeah that word was picked. Yeah. Um, and so, you know, I think the intent isn't for groups like this group that has more rigor and more structure to it.

Um, I think it's intended, it's in response to some other groups that perhaps are looking for that same rigor and structure. Um, and it's to help the commissioners in their appointment process get affirmation from the sitting board like, "Yeah, this person's great. we want him back. I think I think that was the spirit of it, but the unintended consequence I think from what I understand so far is that it opens the door for other things to be considered and talked about if we don't have structure to it. So, I want to find out more about the structure and um we'll make it clear.

A good moment to clarify like attendance policy because that to me that would be the only reason that I would believe that somebody shouldn't be on the commission would be if there's sort of a pattern of missing. But missing three in a row. Yeah, it, you know, that to me to me that's the really the legitimate one where I would maybe argue that I would maybe not vote in favor of somebody being eligible, but might be worth I don't know in this process maybe that will come up. I would agree with that too because like showing up is really the most basic Yes. part of it. Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. Okay. Um, and then the um nominating committee

under the chair's report. So, right. Are you are you done? Oh, wait. No, sorry. Planning director. Wait. Nope. You're here. Oh, right. I'm first. Yes. Okay. Now back to number one. Um, so nominating committee. I don't want to have what happened the last two years where we awkwardly kind of stumble into nomination. Um, so I'm just looking for at least two people to uh put their hat in the ring to be the nominating committee, which basically means you're sending an email to the other person and being like, "Hey, do you think you should be chair and vice chair?" And then you just kind of ask those people and strong arguments doing it. So, um, okay. All right. Who wants to join? Sarah,

I'll do it. Okay. Somebody's got to know who does this. So Sarah and Mike, we need to vote on that. That's just like a thing. We just I just never had a nominated. No, I actually have. We have because I was on one once with Maxine and we literally just stood and talked in a corner for approximately two minutes. That was it. Committee. It's a real short committee assignment. So that's fine. Are the the current chair and vice chair, you can do two terms, right? I I believe you and you've each done one, right? The bylaws say the chair shall appoint any committee as it may be necessary. I'm appointing Mike and Sarah as committee. Okay.

I want to get clarification on is that correct that somebody can be a chair's term as one year and they can serve two consecutive? Yeah. Okay. Same with vice chair. Sure. Okay. Okay. Is it okay to ask if either one of them want to do it again? Well, you can just do that. You do that later. bring the work. I know, but isn't that a question for them? Yeah, we'll do it. Okay, but we do it privately. I was just trying to do it. I was like, okay, I'll ask the question. Committee of the whole. Okay. Committee on the I That's your report. Okay. I was just asking if we're allowed to ask because I didn't say I had to ask right now.

I think we do ask. I think but we just do it outside of our committee work. Okay. Okay. Good. On the side. All right, vote me off.

Planning director's report. I just wanted to give you a couple updates. Three updates, not a couple. Um, first, planning commission subcommittee was not able to meet this morning. Um, the plan is to meet next Thursday. Um, otherwise there'd be more of a complete update coming forward. Um, the work that is moving forward so far is to put together text amendments for accessory dwelling units and minimum square footage for residential units. That'll be the first two to come forward. Um, we're hoping to move that through during the summer months for a vote. Um, the next time that group meets, they will be putting in place a chair of that subcommittee. Um and we will also start divying up the work for the rest in the remaining portion of the text amendments that are coming forward. Um so really good group. Um not all of a singular mind which is really excellent I think. Um everybody brings a lot to the table. Um so from a staff standpoint we're super excited because these are a lot of the things that we've been waiting for an opportunity to do and here it is. So good things will be coming. um data centers. Just an update on this. Um the mayor and the commission extended the moratorum through June. Um they have it on their agenda for next Tuesday to take action. I think the action that you're likely to see has to happen, but you're likely to see it remanded back to the planning commission and remanded with um directives on things to look into, research to be done, questions to be answered. Some of those have been of a legal nature and the attorney's office is tasked with those things. Some of them may not be and in fact I

would anticipate some of them will be more performance-based standards. um some things that they have since read since getting the proposal that came from the planning commission. Um there's been several opportunities for community engagement. There's been um I mean it's just it's one of those topics you can find something to read about anywhere any time and I think they're starting to do that. So I don't know yet what our directives are going to be but we'll know Tuesday. Um and then they will become your directives and then we'll work with you on on getting it done before the moratorium expires in June. That's data centers. Uh future land use map. I don't even want to like it's supposed to be voted on Tuesday night. Uh we have five commissioners that have um worked with staff to put together commission defined options for their districts. Um that's good news. I I think I think that shows engagement. Um I think they're they're really interested in investing in the final product. Um to the point where I would love to be able to give you all the mapping tonight. Um but we are still having phone calls about it at 4:00 this afternoon. So, um, my promise to you is when it goes to the commissioners, county commissioners, um, which will happen tomorrow, it'll also be going to you as planning commissioners as an FYI, as well as to the steering committee as an FYI. Um, that's a promise we made and that's a promise we'll keep. Um, but I will say from a staff standpoint, the edits that have been proposed have not been um, they've not shaken the map to its core. I think the the single most um I don't even want to use the word aggressive, but the change that was made that is probably the largest in impact um

for the future uh is what's been considered for the Sandy Creek basin and that's coming from Commissioner Thornon. Um she's made no secret that this was something that she wanted to have changed on the map. She's she's done that. Um it those changes have been proposed as if sewer had been extended. Now that hasn't happened. And so I think the way she's explained it is this is a 20-year view. And if we have a service delivery plan that programs for an extension of sewer within the 20-year life of this future land use map, then it justifies a land use designation change. that service delivery plan is also on their radar for next couple months honestly. So her co is saying well let's go ahead and put the future land use change on the map and then we'll work on the dollars and cents of an extension and that's how she's approaching it. Um, so that's the way this will be presented is each of those five commissioners, excuse me, CDOS's can be taken up in as a package or they can be divided out as part of a motion. Um, right now the plan is for us to produce a single map that incorporates all of those CDOS's into one image and then whatever motion comes out of it, we'll amend the map accordingly if we have to. Um, so on Tuesday night, we're going to have two maps up in the council chambers. We'll have uh the one that came from you by recommendation and then we'll have the CDO sort of all-encompassing version. Each the commissioners are going to receive maps A through a A B C D E maps A through E with each of the commissioners CDO presentations.

Are those visual or are those a list of parcels? Okay.

Yes. So, I'm just curious. So, the first go around with the mayor commission potentially voting um they got information late in the week and then over the weekend the the map and then the one or two commissioners had their changes and that sort of disrupted the flow of them voting. Uh they were they were very disturbed by that. right or wrong I done that but or of that um are are they being fed some of this already like or is this going to sort of do the same thing because now we've got five commissioners making changes.

Yeah, that's a whole that's a big load and so what's any thoughts on that? Right. So so staff's working really hard to make sure the communication is is out there as early as possible. Um so as soon as we get it, we're producing it. We're communicating it. Um the reality is we were getting changes today. Yeah. So um by communicating it tomorrow, a 24-hour turnaround time is pretty good. Um it it really couldn't have been any faster. Um I will tell you the five commissioners if that's helpful. Um

so Commissioner Link had a series of changes. Uh Commissioner Wright had a series. Uh Commissioner Meyers had a loan map change. with some text changing. Um, Commissioner Thornton that I just described and then Commissioner Hamby and were they because again at that voting meeting things came to a a halt. Um, well, a commissioner said, "Okay, we basically got a couple of months to do this. Don't wait till the end."

Right. But yet y'all are are y'all are y'all getting new information because of like y'all sort of kicked back to their thoughts and then they're redoing or is this information just has not come to y'all's office until now. When the information comes in, we map it. Best way I answer that. So in other words, you don't say something kind of kick it back and make them fix.

So or adjust. It has depended on the commissioner whether they wanted to engage in a discussion and and think options, we did that. If they wanted the research done and present me with what staff thinks, if I give you this goal, what would you produce? We did that. And then we had also a commissioner saying just do this for me. There's no there wasn't a discussion. They said exactly what they wanted. We made the change. Okay. So it it whatever form the communication needed to take, we worked with them. But some new information is coming to y'all's office. Like I said, this afternoon it was clarified. Yeah. Still on some of last minute is still happened, correct?

Yep. But we're all hands on deck as far as turning it back out. Yeah. No, and I I know y'all Well, this isn't this isn't toward y'all. This is understood. And and the goal long time to get information in. Yeah. Well, the goal is to make sure it goes out Friday. Um, sometimes CDOS's are being developed the day before a vote or the day of and and so we're we're holding fast to tomorrow. Okay. Um, so those are my three.

Okay. Announcements otherwise we can move. All right. Second. All right. All in favor? I I All right. We're seconding the motion. jacket. I think it's going to be a little I think we must I felt it glowing on me the whole time and I was just like about it cuz