Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

your eyes on the timer device next to Bruce, the little traffic light there. Display, uh, it'll go to yellow when you have about 30 seconds before your 3 minutes are up and a red light when your 3 minutes are up. And if you keep talking after that, we will get the cane. Please direct your comments to the planning commission and not to the applicants. And please refrain from applauding or jeering any of the speakers. If your comment is a question about the project, about the proposal, you can say your question at the podium, address it to the planning commission. The applicant will hear it. they can respond if they want or we can address it when we get to our discussion. Uh but don't turn away from the podium, look for the applicant, start talking to them and having a separate side conversation. This is important. Once the public hearing is closed, the planning commission will proceed to discuss the item. We will receive no additional public comments unless requested by the planning commission. Exhibits may be displayed by the applicants or 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 public comment within the time limits previously stated. Uh I would like to briefly acknowledge that we have uh some staff members outside of planning with us. Mr. Young from economic development, Mr. Vaughn from the fire marshall, Mr. Dalton from public works, and Mr. Bond from leisure services. may come to ask you all questions as uh as the night goes on. So you have been warned and um one thing uh before we start wanted to acknowledge that there was a posting error about the time of this meeting today. I heard that there were some folks who showed up here

at 3:00 because we had at one point discussed maybe this meeting starting at 3:00. It did not because a lot of us have to work. But I hear that a lot of you all showed up because that got posted in error. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you for being here anyway. We're so glad you're here and to get your comments. And finally, please note that this meeting is being broadcast live. Please turn off or silence your cell phones right now. And with that, let's get into our general business. Um, can I get a motion to for the introduction of staff reports and all other documents submitted to the planning commission into the official record?

Second. All in favor? All right. Um, can uh does anyone have a motion regarding approval of the July 3rd Planning Commission meeting minutes? Motion to any motion to accept them? Make a motion. Second. All in favor? All right. Is there any member of the public uh here to provide public comment on May courts? Bruce, do we have any news from May courts? We have nothing to report.

Okay. And with that, we will move on to our first item of bold business. We'll hear the staff report. This is on 10:30, 1040, and 1060 Mon Highway and 100, 104, 110, 120, 140, and 1450 Puritan lanes. I know. I was going to say, thanks for doing that.

Are we good? Hey, this is uh the staff report for PD number 2025-04-0702. The aformentioned addresses on Mon Highway and Puritan Lane. Oh boy, there we go. This is a request for a plan development and reszone from mixed density residential RM1 to RM2 with a PD. The proposed plan is for 70 units with a total of 227 bedrooms, the maximum allowed in an RM2 zone. The applicant has also requested to acquire uh Puritan Lane rightway from ACC. and the applicant has requested one waiver to reduce the conserved canopy from 25% to 17%. The property is located on the northwest corner of Mon Highway and Puritan Lane and uh ex currently exists as nine separate parcels. Uh the properties would be combined into a 9.549 acre track that includes the abandoned rideway. There are um single family structures on each of the existing lots and the applicant would seek to move those if possible. The area is served by a transit route uh transit route number nine which is making highway 5 points and the only um bus stop is up here at the entrance to the River Club Apartments. The current proposal does not include a crosswalk uh across min highway to access that stop. The properties are already designated

mixed density residential. The proposed use is compatible with the future land use map and no changes required. In the staff report, we state that the project is not compatible with the character description, which calls for buildings to be oriented toward the street with good pedestrian connections and easy access to public transit. We should have clarified that the buildings are now oriented toward the street. So, it does meet that portion of the description. However, to provide easy access to the public transit project requires a safe pedestrian crossing um on Mon Highway. Uh it the property is currently zoned RM1 as are most of the surrounding properties. The distillery which is across Mon Highway is zone CN and the adjoining uh ACC property is zone G. There's a little bit of RS5 to the south and that um is part of what was historically the mill housing mill village and those single family structures are similar in character and size to what is currently existing on the on the site. Um, it should be noted also that the the the main difference between the two zonings is that uh the density would allow for 76 additional bedrooms. Um, with that extra density though, the project does not introduce any type of variety in the housing types. It would qualify for inclusionary zoning which gives a 50% density bonus incentive if they include affordable housing options to very low and lowincome households. They would be required to provide a

variety of bedroom options to accommodate diverse family sizes and incomes. And in doing so, the project would more closely meet the goals of the comprehensive plan by offering a broader range of housing options. So, the site plan shows the 12 two-story townhouse style structures that have three and fourbedroom units. The entrance at the center of the development right here um is now a private drive and about half well not about half of the units have been oriented either towards the private drive or towards making highway making the or eliminating the need for the two previous uh waiver requests that um dealt with building orientation and pedestrian access. And while this does create a new bro block block break, staff has determined that the one of the blocks is still larger than three acres. So measuring from the edge of the pavement along the private drive to the um retaining wall and from the lot line at Mon Highway to this edge of pavement and including the parking lot and um dumpster pad that comes out to about 3.4 acres. So therefore the applicant either needs to request a waiver or amend the plans. Um there's on street parking on the connecting drives and two small lots as well. Uh open space is mostly along the perimeter of the property as well as a little bit on the abandoned right of way. The applicant has requested a waiver to reduce conserved tree canopy from 25 to 17% which staff does not support this request. Um, a finer

grained configuration that maybe breaks up those large foundations and works with the existing topography could require less grading and allow for more conserved canopy. Um the easement in the green provides access to the sewer trunk uh through the development and out onto uh towards the McNuts Creek and it also provides access to the ACC property um for maintenance as well as future access to some walking trails. And there are in addition to that there are the five parking spaces that have been um dedicated for park use during the day. Um the architecture hasn't changed much from the preliminary proposal. Uh units are grouped in five or six uh per building requiring 12 large slab foundations. staff feels these could be broken into smaller buildings to reduce grading and size of retaining walls and allow for more variety in housing type. There are a few buildings proposed um that show the same number of units but are stepped to follow the topography. So staff's recommendation is denial. Um we find that it does part it is partially compatible with the comprehensive plan. It will add to the housing supply but only offers a single housing type. Projects of this size really should offer multiple housing types and forms that support a range of residents and household types. Um we also find that it's compatible with the zoning and future land use map in terms of the use. It's incompatible with the future land use character description that calls for pedestrian access to

transit and also it could take advantage of the inclusionary zoning um density bonus. The one waiver that was uh requested is for the conserved tree canopy and as stated previously staff does not support the waiver and would rather see a finer grained approach that works with topography and preserves tree canopy. Um there are some suggested conditions if approved. Um, one that the plan shall be amended to resolve all outstanding corrective actions um mainly by issu uh requesting a waiver for the maximum block size or amending the plans. And also number two, the plan shall be amended to address issues raised by leisure services um including change uh adding to the easement so that there's enough area for the trail to follow a contour line. um that the five parking spaces for the ACC park use be changed from compact as shown on the plans to standard size spaces. The developer will work with ACC park planning office to install signs for the parking. The sidewalk will be extended to provide a pedestrian connection from the parking area to the to the trails and bike racks would be moved accordingly. and a 6' wide curb cut would be added to allow access for um for the vehicles when maintaining the front property. And the third condition is that the applicant will design and install a pedestrian crossing um across Mon Highway in conformance with the standards of TPW and transit.

And that concludes the step report. Thank you. At this time, we will hear from the applicant.

Good evening. My name is Justin Greer with Pitman Engineering, 1050 Barber Creek Drive. I appreciate the opportunity to present this project before you this evening. Um, as we begin, I want to highlight um that coming out of the last meeting, we worked diligently on plan revisions to address staff's concerns and trying to eliminate some of the waiverss we were requesting. Originally, we were requesting four waivers and we felt like we've modified the plan to address at least three of those. Uh, since the last time you reviewed the plan um viewed the project back in May, we have moved units uh to front along Mon Highway. So these turned. We also modified the main entrance drive coming in be more like a private drive with on street parking. In doing this, we were able to eliminate two of the waiverss. However, in doing that, we had to give up something on site and it was a second direct access point that we had to give up right here. I want to take a minute to discuss uh tree canopy. Um as this is one of the waiverss we could not eliminate. On the screen you'll see an aerial of the site. At a quick glance it looks like there's a lot of trees. Um but if you'll notice on this slide you'll see just how much canopy there is actually in green. So there's a lot of area you know in here that's just really not true canopy cover. Um our existing site is roughly 9 and a half acres total. Uh and of that those tree groups as you see in green they total about 5.10 acres. That's about 50% of the site. 54%. Um the required tree save area is 25% of the overall site. This means that we would need to retain 50% of that canopy uh to meet the 25% site conserved canopy requirement. And that's illustrated in red. Um again, as you can see, we're really limited in the areas that that have trees. We tried to focus the bulk of our

development toward making highway out of that main bulk of body of trees to try to preserve that area um to mitigate not meeting the conserved canopy requirement. Oh, well, let me show you this. So, the purple area is what we're conserving. That's about 17%. That's what we're proposing on our plan. So, we've tried to keep that tree area, you know, tried to maintain that bulk of that tree area in the rear of the property and and that's due to topo requirements. grading overcoming that um to mitigate not meeting the conserve canopy requirement we're proposing a total tree canopy conserved and planted of 60% of the site we're only required to have 50% that's 10% over and that 10% makes up the difference in the conserve of what you we would have been required and we're not um next I would like to touch on staff's comments about block size um as you can see in this illustration this is what we have interpreted to be blocks. Um, which is a little different from staff. And this area to the north is 2.97 acres. I think staff said they counted it to the back of the curb. We counted the sidewalks out of the block. That that'd be a roads that'd be acquired as part of the road. We also included this area here as part of the private drive. Um, we didn't show parking on that. Here we have a hammerhead here to get firet truck turnaround. Same thing here. Um, in talking with Bruce, we did provide on street parking. I'm sorry, we did provide street trees on both sides of that drive. And in talking with Bruce, it re it cannot be counted as a as a drive because we don't have sidewalks on both sides. Um, we thought about that, we talked about that internally to provide sidewalks on this western boundary means more grading, which means that, you know, like we just showed in there, we would encroach that tree safe area even more. So that's one reason we tried we did not show sidewalks on this

side. There's some sidewalks connecting these this part. We can go back and add a sidewalk connecting the this upper and lower here. Um uh the other thing about the sidewalks is we felt like providing access to the trail head here um and and providing the parking. We designated some parking in here. five spaces to access that trail head. Um that you know that could be you that can be seen as a tradeoff for the required sidewalk because really all that sidewalk is doing on this western side. That's a dumpster. That's a dumpster. You're connecting two dumpsters and there's nothing over here. No residences. So it's really not going to be used as much as as you know these in here adjacent to the buildings or through here. If staff doesn't think we meet the requirement, uh we do need that variance to be brought forward uh to the mayor and commission. Uh in the staff report, it states that breaking the units into smaller buildings should be considered to reduce the need for extensive clearing and grading. Um so we looked into that um after getting this staff report. This is our concept plan as as you have received it and this is the change. So, I'm gonna flip back and forth a little bit so you can see how changing. So, we've divided every unit internally into two units. What that does is you're required to have 15 foot of separation between the units. So, breaking up those buildings means that this western development side pushes out to the west an additional 30T. It encroaches more into the tree area. Um, and I'll flip so you can see one more time. That's our proposed and that's how it shifts 30 feet to the west kind of northwest. Um, breaking the units apart would decrease the tree safe area down to about 12% which we're proposing 17.

It would also increase the amount of walls on site, lengthen all utilities, increase the storm water pond, add additional pavement, and increase the block sizes. Uh it would also increase the amount of cut dirt on site and that equates to about 90 dump trucks an additional 90 dump trucks of dirt coming off the property. Um breaking the units apart is not not a feasible option for this site based on too and other parameters. Um, see I think I think staff did mention about on page four of the report that section B says the project is not compatible with the character area description which calls for buildings to be oriented toward the street. We addressed that by moving buildings. Um I have a that this is the bigger block size. That's the reduced screen space on the modified plan. So, uh, lastly, the staff report mentions multiple times about inclusionary zoning along with introducing a variety of bedroom options. In one section, the report specifically states that the project could take advantage of inclusionary zoning, which provides incentives to include affordable housing options to very low and lowincome households that will meet existing anticipated needs of those households. And while we agree and we do agree that inclusionary housing, inclusionary zoning and affordable housing options are needed. We feel that they are needed in correct locations. Every project is not a good location for that product type. This site is located outside of Loop 10. It's not inside Loop 10, it's outside Loop 10. It's almost on the county boundary. Um there are no doctor's offices. There are no daycarees, no grocery stores, no schools. There are no public amenities within reasonable walking or biking distance of this development. The only walkable restaurants within walk the only restaurants within walking

distance are higherend restaurants across the county line in Okone. Um I mean we to us site is not a great location for very low or lowincome households who may be relying predominantly on public transit transportation. The good thing is there is a bus stop right across the road, but that's a long way to have to travel every time you need to go do something if you're if you're relying on public transit if you're not or if you're trying to save money on gas. Um, we feel the site is better served for young professionals, new families, or even grad students. It is ideally suited for those individuals who would work in Okonome County but spend their income and tax dollars in Clark County and pull revenues back into this community. That's the easy thing. You have people living that may not can afford to live. They may not they're not a lot of housing options for young professionals in Okone County. Therefore, they live here, work in Okon, bring their tax dollars back, spend it in this community. We think that's a benefit. Uh, the developer is here tonight, Mr. Blake Underwood. I'll yield my time to him. Thank you very much.

Good evening. My name is Blake Underwood. I live at 160 Stanton Way in Athens. I want to touch on a few of of the uh comments that we received a couple of months ago, and I understand where those were coming from. Um, I don't think we did a good job showing you some of these things initially and I want to bring that before you today with some pictures and renderings to uh address some of those thoughts. First, the plan did not give a sense of community or home is something that we heard. I submitted a few pictures and renderings to help. You see the town homes from phase one, you know, right here. So, just give you some live images. These are basically what we're looking to do again in phase two. Um, we already have a clubhouse, a fire pit, hammocks under the restored water tower, pool, fitness center, meeting rooms, dog park, sandbar at the creek, nature trails. We're adding an interconnection for the two phases, a pickle ball court in phase two, and another dog park. Um, another comment was regarding how phase one did not pay homage to the old mill. We really didn't have a lot to work with from the from the mill. It was in total disrepair. However, we did our best by using materials from the mill were possible. You know, I'll show you here. This is inside the clubhouse at the conference room. We use wood from the mill to make this accent wall. That table was made out of wood from the mill. These are grindstones that come out of the mill, which is used at the front entrance sign. There's one on each side of the entrance and we probably would use more of those to create the second one. Um, I get another three minutes in a second as a speaker for sharing time.

Well, I didn't know he was going to use it all. I think that what typically the applicant is 10 minutes. Yes. Um so he has two minute rebuttal. Yeah. So we'll we'll stop you here. You'll have a two-minute rebuttal and uh we'll we can call you up and usually do for further clarification about stuff.

He was supposed to use four or five minutes. Um, all right. Thank you for uh that. At this time, we will take public comment. Is there anyone from the public here to speak in favor of this application? Step up to the podium.

Um, commissioners, thanks for your time this evening. My name is Jeff um at 2025 South Millage Avenue um with with the applicant. So, we're proud to present this as essentially phase two of Puritan Mill uh development, which is I do want to point out uh one of the most popular uh highly one of the most highest rated bad English um one of the highest rated uh communities in really all of Athens. uh almost all five stars on Google. People love to live there. It's wellkept, well-maintained. Um and we hope to continue that success with with phase two. The goal of the development is to provide additional muchneeded quality housing in an area appropriate for such housing. Uh meets the county's goals of expanding housing availability without encroaching on traditional neighborhoods. Do note the current use is already allowed in the current zoning. We're merely asking for an increase in density. By granting this request, we'd be able to overcome considerable cost from the topography, which is mentioned in staff report. Uh take over responsibility for the maintenance of Puritan Lane, which right now no one else uses. Um we're offering to provide public access and parking at our cost for the county owned land directly behind the property. Right now, it's landlocked. No one can access it. Uh this will allow it to be a public park for everyone's use. Um we're offering the the existing homes on site to the county at no additional cost. Um and we are providing a diverse mix of four different floor plans um in the development across the two phases. And we feel the request is fitting given that all adjacent properties are zoned from multif family and the nearby Lynon Lane development is actually granted RM3 zoning not too long

ago. This infill location will minimize extending sewer and water lines and public infrastructure. Uh again saving the county on maintenance costs. Uh property is well connected. Again we mentioned the bus stop across the street but uh there's walking trails adjacent to the site. There's retail and restaurants. just a couple blocks away. Essentially, this in our mind represents an organic way to make a a mixeduse node uh very naturally. So, we look forward to your feedback and we we like this project and and we hope that you do as well and we welcome any comments and feedback and thank you again for your time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here from the public to speak in favor of this application? Is there any member of the public here to speak in opposition to this application and walk on up one at a time? Please remember, state your name, address, and the nature of your interest in the project.

All right. Jason and Karen Coran, 1010 Min Highway. Um, that's my property. I think I mentioned this last time on the upper right. So, I appreciate this new entrance. I think this is a much better proposal. Um, but this is our south corridor, right? 15 years ago. When you came into Athens, what'd you drive on that? Trees. It was beautiful. Now, we want to drive and on the roads, you want to put town homes and apartments right there. So, I I I kind of disagree with that. It's we're we're becoming a modern city, not a classic city here. Um I fell in love with that property. We planted all kinds of blueberry plants, trees, flowers were horiculturalists. Um but now I'm just feeling like in Athens we're getting pushed out. This there's no reason I didn't have a vehicle for two years. Okay. I took transportation every day. Not a problem. I grew up north where that's all we did was take transportation, subway, and this and that. So, that's no excuse. Um, we have plenty of places to rent. They're just all very expensive. My daughter's been looking for six months and they're nowhere to be found. We need affordable housing. I'm all about that and I support that. um like a tree canopy. What what worries me is erosion and grading. You got a river over there, river on the other side. It's probably too late. I mean, we're spraying pesticides and all this and that. It's going in. It's almost a lost cause. Couple years ago, I had bees now. They travel about two, three miles, but I they all died. I can't keep them alive anymore. And I think that's just

from development from all over. and pesticides and things. I think in 2030 years is where we got to start thinking, right? What are we going to face for development then? Maybe it'll be too late because we just, you know, hey, in the loop, let's just take all the trees down and just put barns, you know, it doesn't make sense to me. It's great to have the trailway, but uh I just have some concerns here. Let me see what else I got. I didn't really plan for it tonight. Um, I do believe staff did a great job, so I appreciate that. Um, let me see. Also, with the trees, if you're going to put trees in and you put one height tree, that's not good enough. You need a variety of trees for different animals. We are not paying attention. We had bears on our properties, deer, and where are they going to go? Running in the streets, accidents. Some people may die from it. You know, we got to start thinking about everything, nature and each other. I'm not opposed to the development, but I think they probably are trying to maximize their profits where I think it needs to be a little more thoughtful. Thank you.

Thank you.

There's anyone else here to speak in opposition to this application? Please step up. All right. Well, with that, we will uh allow the applicant two minutes for rebuttal. You would like it.

Guess that kind of worked out. Um, that point over how to pull it back up. He's He's doing Okay. So, I just wanted to uh basically point out a few things that we've done in the development, paying homage to the to the old mill and show what we have as far as making this community and home feel. Um, all right. Was speaking about the um the wood in the inside the clubhouse, furniture made out of out of the wood out of the mill. Um, you can see, you know, this is the lobby area of the clubhouse where we have the ping pong fitness center. You know, there sandbar with the, you know, historic dam there with the iconic waterfall. A couple images are not loading there, but can't remember where they were. But this one was sitting under the water tower that we restored, which we had to go to great lengths and, you know, cost a ton of money to keep that fe feature where it was and build around that massive structure. Um, there's a fire pit underneath there. That's what the people are sitting around. Um, hammock garden under that as well. Uh you'll see here is wood that we used at the pool area on the building. Uh those are beams out of the mill.

Um you know finally the you know one of the other big concerns was the tree canopy and I think Justin hit on that pretty well. You know, yes, we are asking for a waiver to go down from 25 to 17%, but we are want to plant back more than more than that to cover that at 60% total cover. Um, we're good with all the leisure services request and the crosswalk going across making highway. Um, I think Justin touched on the, you know, changing the um, which is part of the leisure services request going down the contours. That's fine. I think, you know, adding that um waiver request on the block sizes due to two different ways of, you know, two different means of math there, probably if you will. Um instead of us grading more, needing more uh tree canopy waiver, let's just drop the sidewalk. We're donating the the parking and the access. So, it's a win-win for everybody. Uh so, really at the end of the day, I think the the real question is is density. Do you want more housing stock in this area? Do we need more housing in Athens? RM1 and this product type and design town homes is allowed by right? We are asking for a modest increased RM2. The community has shown us the answer is yes by filling up phase one which has brought our expansion about. RM2 is in compliance with the future land use map and definitely in line with what has been done in the area recently. Wood loan is RM2. Lynon Lane is RM3 zoning, both developments at the intersection of Lumpin and Mon Highway. Um, thank you for your time and I hope you will support our project like the community has over the last two years.

Thank you. And with that, uh, public comment is closed. No further public comment on this issue. No further questions from the audience. Let's bring it behind the rail. Does anyone want to start us off? Alex, I just wanted I I got the projects wrong when I mentioned the disclosure. This is the project that the developer reached out to me. We communicated. I said I was not able to discuss this project. He professionally said okay. And that was that. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Um so I appreciate the staff report and I think I I mostly agree with it. I think the um it may surprise some people in the room to hear me uh say this, but um as much as I generally support increases in density because Athens badly needs more housing, I do have some concerns here. Um the current zoning for this these parcels would allow by my calculation about 151 bedrooms and the requested reszone gives a 50% bump up to 267 bedrooms. Um and uh the important thing to me is that our code allows the applicant to do that unilaterally without coming to us for approval or going through a discretionary process simply by opting into our voluntary inclusionary zoning program. They can get a 50% density bonus in RM1 in exchange for providing the public benefit of um a small number of relatively affordable housing units. Um so um all the effort and money that has gone into this essentially to me amounts to um asking for the density bonus without providing the public benefit that our inclusionary zoning ordinance um gives them the opportunity to provide. Um as I say increasing density is generally great. We need housing really badly. There are often trade-offs. There are trade-offs here. Um one of those is a loss of canopy. They're saying, you know, to put in 227 bedrooms, we have to get a waiver down from 25 down to 17% of conserved canopy. That's not insignificant, but if we were getting a public benefit in the form of them having opted into inclusionary zoning, I would feel like, well, there's a trade-off. You know, I'm willing to give up some trees for some affordable units.

Um staff recommended breaking up some of the buildings, and I heard that Mr. Greer say if we do that it shrinks the canopy even more. But of course that's premised on 227 bedrooms, right? It's only because uh they have an increased density in this proposal that breaking up the units um encroaches further into the tree canopy area. So uh when he said that breaking up is not feasible here because of topo that's only true if the increased density is granted. And again, um that's something that I would certainly be um inclined to support if there uh if the applicant had chosen to opt into the inclusionary zoning. Um a couple of the other things I don't really have a problem with the three acre lot size thing. I you know, I heard what the applicant said about it's either 2.97 or just over three depending on if you go to the curb or the sidewalk. And so if it's three or 3.02 or whatever, it's that doesn't really concern me. Um, I appreciate the park access and the five dedicated parking spots for that. That sounds good. They do see feel kind of hidden to me. I'm not sure that members of the public will generally know about them or feel welcome driving into this private development to go and park in the spots that are um for part of the day supposedly reserved for citizens using the park. Right. I'm not sure that people will will uh be aware of them or feel comfortable with them. So I, you know, I think I would prefer uh if parks if parking spaces for the park access were dedicated and were on land owned by Clark County um so that it could be uh the the park usage could be enforced. Those are minor points. Really to me it's just uh a request for uh a significant density increase without providing the um public benefit that our

ordinances contemplate or that sort of thing. Any other thoughts, questions?

So, this listening to the gentleman um was in the neighborhood um and I had mentioned in the last meeting that's this used to be the road to Okone County. This is the that's how you got to Okone County pretty much um from anywhere center of Athens or not. you didn't have all these other bridges. Um, but you could go way out toward where the mall is and get over bridge had a way, but this was this was how you got to that part of OK County. Um, going back to the mill, and again, it's my preservation blood in me, I guess. But this this was a nice mill area. I knew it as a kid that it was a mill area. I knew the houses were milloriented. I uh mill used to function, made ski rope. I was a water skier. Thought that was cool. Um the mill's gone and it was more than likely unable to be saved. I'm not arguing uh the the demolishing of that, but and I appreciate the uh the good work they did to bring in some of those millboards and and items and the extra uh work they did for the water tank. But I the reflection the current project that is there that's there is not a strong reflection that that was an old mill and this mimics the current project that is already up and it's it it's no use to make it mimic the mill more because it's not even on that property. But we're getting rid of those millhouses, which they can rightfully do. Somebody could just go in and

probably demo them. They're they're not protected. So, uh there's nothing we can do to protect them, but the project would more than likely at least fit the area. as as Matt said and I'm becoming Mr. don't go to RM2 from RM1 guy it feels like but and and we need the density future land use is full of the need of density has been pounded in my head how important that is but 50% more that number that I brought up last uh meeting over another project it just adds and so 50% less of that or actually it would only be 33% less than what we're seeing down would lighten the area up and not just like a massive apartment structure. If I understand and if I can ask Bruce by right, they can build apartments. If they didn't have any waiverss and they were good with RM1, they can build apartments. Correct. Correct. I mean, they just go in and do it. They just work out the details with y'all. They're not coming before us or the mayor and commission. So, they have a right to the apartments and and I think apartments are fine. Um, it just it's disappointing the houses have to go. And I do want to make it clear, uh, removing those houses and putting them somewhere else kills the history of the house. It It's over. They're just old wooden houses at that point. What makes those houses valuable is that they are the mill houses that were built around a mill. Uh, you move them out to anywhere else and um, they're no longer historic. They're old houses. And so, let's keep that. But I appreciate that they're willing to uh at least try to do that because that is a good effort. And um and I will say and I always like to try to end on a positive

note. This this developer is a good developer. Um the the developments around town, I mean, you can spot them. I don't when I'm talking to anyone that might live in them, they they enjoy them. They're they're run. They're well built. They look nice. Um no issue with this developer. Uh, and I want to see them do more development in town. My thought is though, the we're just packing them in there a little bit and for that part of the neighborhood, uh, that stretch of Lincoln Highway comments, questions? Yeah, I'll just sort of reiterate. I appreciate the point that you made, Matt, and I just want to make sure I understand it because I think it's really important is what you're saying that that we now have a provision in our code that would allow this density, but in return for that density would have to be some affordability. Is that more or less right?

Yes, that's exactly right. It's our voluntary inclusionary zoning program which the developer can opt into and they don't need any discretionary approval. they can just take an RM1 parcel and build 24 bedrooms per acre by opting into that rather than 16 which is the underlying. Yeah. And in some ways it's a great example what that ordinance was intended to do would be if you're going to give a bit from that standpoint in the community then you also then get some affordability. So

great. That's I just want to agree with that. I think that's a great point. Um, I have a question for staff. Um, there's a issue in here with the conserve canopy requirement that I have never seen before. I'm curious about it. Um, which is, uh, areas dominated by these invasive species are not eligible for can tree canopy cover credit. um someone who is more knowledgeable about trees than I am. Is it is it uh feasible uh or just a huge a huge lift to make those areas no longer be dominated by kudzu or Chinese privet? Like could the developer hypothetically increase their conserved canopy by removing the invasive species or is that just a lost cause?

Yes.

Okay, great. Um that's that's that's super interesting to me. Thank you. Um that is just I think an important uh other piece of information to keep in mind. Uh I do think it's interesting and I'll keep this very brief. Uh the the uh discussion about Puritan Mill, the discussion about this is the road to Aone County um really hinges on the idea of the value of this parcel as a view from your car. Um, and I just I think it's I I'm not making a value judgment on that at this time. Just think it's important to put that out there like when people say and the applicants uh description of the of you know saving the wood from the mill and how they incorporated the mill into the building I thought illustrated this really in a really interesting way. They said, "Oh, we are keeping the mill alive. We are keeping the history of the mill alive, but it's inside the building where you can't see it from your car." Uh, which they didn't say, but that's the disconnect that I immediately noticed. Blake, that's people aren't complaining that you didn't do anything to preserve the mill. They're complaining that they can't see it from their car. Um, so I don't have a vote on this. Um, I think the discussion has been great. I just wanted to make that explicit. If that's something we value, I think we should make it explicit. Um,

I had a question. Yeah. talking about the um inclusionary zoning issue of this property. When we're talking about developers, the applicant um mentioning that this is not an area that you would have access to services and things like that. What What is our overall goal when we're talking about adding inclusionary zoning into developments? Are are there developments from the county's perspective or planning perspective that are better or worse or make more sense for inclusionary zoning? I kind of want to go back to that because I thought it was interesting a sense of what take is on that.

Yeah. So, geographically, the zones that are eligible to participate in the inclusionary zoning program are in areas that are either more suburban or urban in character. So our RN zones, our commercial downtown zone, those are zones where you you have the option for that inclusionary zoning activity. We don't have an option for single family residential zoning. We don't have an option presently for AR. So So the way the the program is set up, the zoning categories that are eligible for it are in those areas that tend to be in higher density or have access to services um have have the opportunity for infrastructure at least if not immediately adjacent at least close close by. So that locationational aspect I think was anticipated with the zones that we were targeting to be eligible for the voluntary program in the first place.

I would just add to that that as a member of the committee that drafted that ordinance. Um the you know the zones that are eligible are all of our commercial zones and all of our RM zones. Um those RM zones are scattered all over the county, right? And there was no uh discussion of some RM1 being better than others. It's just there, you know, there's RM1 all over the county. Um, regarding the the developers comments on that, I would point out there's um restaurants that are walkable to this. Um, yeah, they're over the county line. They're, but they're, you know, a couple hundred yards away. Um there so there's jobs, there's restaurants, there's offices, there's barber shops and retail stores and so on in a development that's um very close to this. Also, it's well served by transit. So I I don't buy the um the comment that this is a bad site for affordable housing. I think any site that's you could say the same thing about this being a bad site for housing generally, right? I mean, uh, any site that's appropriate for housing, I think, under the inclusionary zoning ordinance is appropriate for affordable housing, uh, because, um, people of, you know, modest incomes, uh, need housing in all the same places that people with greater incomes need housing.

You can have a car and need affordable housing. Absolutely true. Yeah. So, yeah, I was uh I was going to add pulling this up. to um 80% AMI is $45,000 a year for a single person. Uh $58,000 a year for a family of three. This is a population that owns cars in Athens Park County. Yeah. Yeah. And I was my only comment was gonna be I think a lot of my points have already been said and you know it like I do think that this would be a good place for inclusionary housing and um yeah it seems like the increase in density is really only to serve you know the developers and doesn't really have a whole lot of public good and I hate to see the any sort of reduction in conserve canopy.

Y that's it right. Uh anyone want to make a motion? Someone make a motion. I move to uh deny the application. Okay. Motion to recommend denial. Is there a second? Second that. Want to get a vote? Second.

Okay. Motion to recommend denial. Lee. Yes. Barsford. Paul. Yes. Laughlin. Yes. Dams. Yes. Anders. Yes. Lord. Yes.

Motion passes unanimously. Right. Moving on to our first item of new business. We have a staff report. 585 Vine Street. and commissioners. Um, for 55 fine street 1351, we can't hear. Yeah, I'm sorry. Can you speak up?

Oh. Oh, I can try. The applicant has requested an amendment to the binding site plan associated with the existing PD on 585 Vine Street. The triangle plaza located at 585 Vine Street and 121 Avenue is made up of existing retail spaces. The intended amendment is so that 585 Vine Street can be redeveloped into an educational teaching kitchen with a community garden space. pick those changes to the building at this time. Um, this is the PD exhibit for both lots that currently make up the existing PD. The bottom portion uh on the south end is the subject parcel under discussion tonight. There is no proposed changes to the top portion along Nelly B. The subject property is made up of five separate parcels and is about 0.53 um acres in total. The surrounding area is all residential with some retail making up the Nelly B Avenue portion of the PD. The future land use map dictates such the surrounding area as main street business with mixed density residential and traditional neighborhood surrounding the subject parcels. the due to the compatibility there is no request by the applicant to change the future land use map for the special use department and I think I those switched

both this is the proposed zoning the surrounding area is zoned commercial neighborhood government and single family residential or multif family residential similarly to the future land use there is no request to alter the zoning of the property This is the proposed site plan showing the changes in impervious coverage and parking lot configurations. They are proposing a decrease in impervious coverage as well as a proposed layout for the community garden along the west side of the lot. This picture is a front view of the entire subject parcel from the corner of Nelly V and Fine Street. Um overall staff finds the request compatible with the 2023 comprehensive plan by creating publicly available and accessibly gather accessible gathering spaces within neighborhoods. Staff also finds the request compatible with the future land use and zoning map. Um staff recommends approval and that concludes presentation.

Thank you. At this time, we'll hear from the applicant.

Good evening. Uh my name is Buck Bacon. Uh I'm uh with WA Engineering. We're located at 355 OB Street here in Athens, Georgia. And I'm here speaking on behalf of the applicant uh the East Athens Wellness Experience and Farm Neighborhood. Um this is one of those projects that that kind of makes you feel good. Um, we're proud of Rashi and uh the team that has directed and guided the vision for the redevelopment of this site. Oh, thank you for I just dove right in. Uh, and uh, we're honored to be able to present this uh, project to you this evening. Uh, we are asking for your approval to the amended plan development being presented tonight. Uh, next slide. So, uh, the original plan development was approved in 1996 that included both 151 Nelly B Avenue and 585 Bond Street. U 151 Nelly B is the parcel to the north. 585 is the parcel to the south. We're asking for an amendment to just the portion of the PD that our client owns. 585 Vine Street. That is a portion of the PD in the south. Next slide. Uh this is an image of the existing site. Next. And then the proposed uh PD as staff uh noted uh reduces the impervious lot coverage by reconfiguring the existing parking areas and reducing a driveway cut along Nelly Avenue. Uh and incorporating new pores pavers to manage water quality and runoff reduction. Uh the improvements include more defined sidewalks along all street frontages, new street trees, lawn areas, and we're also proposing community garden at the western corner of the site. Next slide. Uh this is just a a rendering. Uh next slide.

Uh this project also includes some interior renovations uh converting the current space to a teaching kitchen and classroom. And uh just want to tell you guys thank you for for considering this. We're super excited about the project uh and Robins that uh it will bring to the block. Uh we respectfully request your support of the PD. Thank you. Thank you. At this time we'll move on to public comment. Is there any member of the public here who wishes to speak in favor of this application?

Good evening. Um, I appreciate being here tonight. My name is Amy Cassain and I live at 526 Highland Avenue in Athens. I'm here in my capacity as the corporate citizenship coordinator for Better Communities Collaborative and WA Engineering and I want to express my strong support for this amendment. Um, I'll echo Buck in saying that this is one of those projects that has been very exciting to be a part of. Um, I first became involved with Rashi and Farm to Neighborhood in the fall of 2022 when our company offered to help with the grant application to fund improvements at this property as a way to expand Farm to Neighborhoods um, programming. I worked with Rashi and her board and we submitted the grant application in November of of 2022. The grant was awarded in May of 23 and since that time I've been responsible on a pro bono basis for with the company for grant management. So we've been working with Rashi on that. Um, one of the exciting things about working on this grant was getting to know more about Farm to Neighborhood and Rush um and working to develop a project concept that would align with that um nonprofit's mission with their mission to create a community where everyone has access to delicious, nutritious, and affordable food choices. Two of the ways that Farm to Neighborhood fulfills that mission right now is through their senior fresh and healthy youth programs. The healthy youth program is an educational one that empowers youth to cook, grow, and thrive. And senior fresh provides seniors living in low-income areas with fresh produce. Um, Farm to Neighborhood has also cultivated a network of local and minority farmers who help them provide nutritionbased services to low-income adults, families, and seniors. Um, getting back to the grant, the stated the stated goal of the grant program that we looked at was, I quote, fund investments in neighborhood features, including parks, recreation facilities, sidewalks, and healthy food

access as a way to improve physical and mental health outcomes. It was it grew out of the COVID vaccine or grew out of the COVID pandemic was part of the reason for this grant being started. um that was a perfect fit for what Farmto neighborhood was doing and wanted how they wanted to expand their programming. So the grant was in the amount of $965,000 and it the funding um it will create as Buck mentioned a teaching kitchen and a community garden and that community garden will include green space where neighborhood families and can recreate and space for outdoor education activities centered on wellness along with a community garden. So the combination of these improvements will increase farm neighborhoods capacity to address food insecurity and offer educational programming around nutritional nutrition and healthy eating. Coincidentally, both of those things are very important in helping in having a positive impact on health issues such as high blood pressure and obesity. The project has been abandoned the East Athens wellness experience and its ultimate goal is to become a wellness hub supporting the health and wellness of the community especially the East Athens community and I really do believe that this is just a great project. Um it will result in significant improvements to the Triangle Plaza. You know it's just in terms of physically it'll be great for that area and it's very in line with the stated goals and strategies of the comprehensive plan. So the first step to realizing this vision is its approval tonight. And so I hope that you will do that. Thank you so much.

Thank you. There anyone else here to speak in favor of this application?

Um you said it's such a wonderful job. I can be really quick. My name is Janine um Labuzison Delane. I um represent 100 Wstone Drive um here in Athens and I'm in the capacity today um in a three different roles. Um, one, I am um a recruitment coordinator for the University of Georgia SNAPED program where I've been for 10 years advocating and building our partnerships throughout the state in regards to helping lowincome families and communities get access to nutrition education around their efforts to try to um uh fight the obesity and um high blood pressure and all the you know isms that we have throughout um the state of Georgia. And then secondly that brought me into my role as a board chair for farm to neighborhood and its conception. Um just um knowing Rashi from the community and talking about her interest to want to um mitigate food insecurity here locally and taking experience of what I know uh not just for Clark County but throughout the state and the barriers that are also faced um when you have those efforts of good intention and we were able to kind of give birth to what farmto neighborhood has become today. Um, I'm proud to say that even with all without the beauty and aesthetics and all the great things this project is going to bring forth for our Athens community, we're doing the work. And that's what I'm really excited about in regards to um hitting the community on the ground even without the grant. it wasn't even in place yet, but where we were already serving families and providing um nutrition educational support and doing all the great work that's needed, you know, just to show that you're committed to the the task, if you will. Um and then when this grant came, you know, forth, it was a great opportunity to just try to go for it and see what happens. And we're really excited about the outcome and the support that we have been getting um locally for this particular effort. Um unfortunately the

program that I'm representing um with the University of Georgia SNAPED um will be closing our grant um this end of September is for for much of what we understand um our program funding was cut where we definitely had anticipated to be a very strong arm of nutrition education um for this project. However, you know, we still have connection to other resources that we definitely will support the classroom efforts um that this project um will avail for the community and helping youngsters in their efforts. You know, we still have our extension services where we'll be able to still access um even from that capacity um nutrition education for those youngsters through our 4 and things like that. and we'll still make sure we can pull in other resources for the adult programming that we did anticipate to also be able to render in this environment. However, um again, um we are still excited to be a partnership for the long-term vision of what this project, you know, will be bringing forth and we do hope that we can consider all of you all tonight on a good thumbs up and voting for us to bring able to bring this project forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else here to speak in favor? And and you can just you can just step on up after the next person steps back. You don't even have to wait for me to ask.

My name is Mildred White. I live at 260 Nelly B Avenue, Athens, Georgia. And I'm here. I'm I wasn't familiar with what was being proposed for uh that area. And I'm right up the street from it. And I think it's a very very good idea and uh my only concern is we need transparency and make sure that the grant money is used for what it's designed for. And I've lived in this community for a while and I've seen a lot of grant money come through, but I've seen not enough done with the grant money. I have no objection to this. It's a beautiful plan and we need it in that community because we do have a lot of young people that need these services. But the only thing I want to uh address is that the grant money is being used for those purposes where we can see some action in East Staff. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Lily Daniel Taylor and I am part owner of property at 230 L Avenue which is going to be right at the back of uh the proposed project. Um we are my mom and I are first time uh homeowners there. I think I was going to the 10th grade when they were able to purchase the land known as the Pine Subdivision. In those uh 60some years, 50 late 50s or 60ome years that been there, there's been a lot of uh things going on. What started off as an excellent neighborhood soon uh change, but that's life. What my concerns are now is that uh 35 years ago, I'm a parent of a a son that was murdered there, but we chose to stay. My mom and dad living at that time chose to continue to live there. It's not where you live, but it's how you live.

So, with the upcoming I'm like um Mrs. White here. I have a concern. There's been a lot of talk because 30ome years ago, which most of you probably weren't even born, um there were changes made on the on the block and uh things began to happen, but it was only after 20 or 30ome children were killed over there. it began to change and those changes took place uh and even a police precinct was uh precinct was built. All of that work rail for a while but what hindered it now you still ducking and dodging. My mom who's 93 years old said that's home and that's where she wants to be. What are we going to see as valid? Is education is good, but what happens when you're calling 911 and some fireman here want to get permission or a police head before they come in. We're looking for change. What that change is going to be is going to depend on the people that's been elected to look out for the welfare of whatever area that you are responsible for. Uh a lot of people as myself didn't know about it, but I know that in reaching a goal is going to work for everyone and not for a personal benefit. And I'm not saying that's what what it is, but it looks like uh with everything changing back like it was 30 some years ago, the uh lotterying and all of that uh in that area, nothing has changed.

It needs change, but let that change be in a positive way that we can say that without a doubt progress has been made or was made. Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else here to speak in support of or in favor of this application?

Hi. Hi. My name is Evelyn Bletock. I don't live in the area now, but I own four pieces of property in the area. Three pieces of property in the area. 229, 227, and I think it's 4 233. And my son lives there in the area. He never we left but he never wanted to leave and he went back and I have two grandchildren, a daughter-in-law that live on Vine Street. My husband is a pastor on Nelly B right up the street up there. And we don't get grants, but we feed every month. We to the pandemic, we open up our doors, picked up two van loads or three, brought them to the church, fed them, gave them a bag of food, and we still bag food up once a month and take it out. They respect us in that neighborhood. The church was broken in for the first time last week, 35 years. But the people in the neighborhood, I went and walked and talked to them. I know y'all didn't do it, but if you know anybody did it, come and let us know and they said, "Yes, Miss Blutz, because we are respected in that neighborhood." I have children that grew up there. My husband used to go there, drink and buddy, but he got called to preach, so he don't go up there. But we still go down there. Every month we're down there

passing out bag talking to the people. My children grew up with most of those people and they know me as Miss Blood and they respect me. Thank you. Any other public comment in support of this application?

Good evening. Um my name is Rashi Malcolm. Um I'm at 135 Chavis Lane. Um I actually um have a lot of interest in representation. One as the owner of 585 Vine Properties which owns the the property um on this side the two lots in the back and uh half the parcel on the opposite side of the Nellybe Avenue. Um, I'm also the um founder um director of Farm to Neighborhood as well as a tenant on the property as the owner of Rashi's Cuisine. Um, I was hoping I didn't have to get up and speak, so my voice is kind of cracky because I'm nervous. um this project um and what we do with Farm to Neighborhood as our president had stated um you know we did long before this grant came about and even when we talked about food insecurity and the work that needs to be done in Athens. Um you know we started actually on the west side where we were originally and then you know we continued to work on the east side. We actually still work all over the the county and even outside of Athens. This project when that grant came available, it was was crazy because as Amy stated, we kind of was like, "Okay, we'll apply for this." But we really didn't think we were going to get it. So, when we got it, we were like, "Whoa, okay, this is really happening." We support a youth program called healthy youth where we teach youth about economics and we teach them in ways through service manufacturing and agriculture. We teach them that there are so many ways that you can make money and even if you don't want to be in the food pipeline, you can take a lot of those soft skills that you learn and be able to go into other industries which still work with food. you know, if

you're a biologist, a chemist, you know, pharmaceuticals, you want to, you know, design clothes, you know, whatever the case may be. So, with this project, this allows us to reach out to other nonprofits and other organizations as well to help them teach um their participants about soft skills. We've heard from individuals who deal with foster care students who age out of the system, who don't know how to, you know, cook or clean. the this kitchen will allow them the opportunity to do that. This teaching garden is not just about another community garden just set up in a community. We're teaching people how to fish. We're teaching people how to plant and grow from their own homes. And if they want to be able to have their own garden at their house to beautify the space that they live in, then they'll be able to learn those skills here. And we also need to have more community spaces that are focused on the entire nucleus of the family, not just partying at night and not just for the kids. Something that we all can be able to take advantage of. So, I hope that you can continue to support this and I thank you for your time.

Is there anyone else here to speak in support of this application? All right. Is there any member of the public here to speak in opposition to this application? Okay. Uh I think no rebuttal is needed. Yes. And with that uh public comment is closed. We will take it behind the rail. Um, and I just want to start us off with a quick question to staff. So, uh, in the in the, uh, application and in the slideshow we got, um, a little more in this application, there's a lot of interior renderings, a lot of seeing what the what the what the learning kitchen would look like, what the floor plan on the inside would look like. Correct me if I'm wrong. Nothing on the inside of that building is relevant to us, right? Okay. Um, so just to kind of make clear to us and to the public what is the scope of our discussion here. Um, uh, as important as, uh, transparency with grants is, um, and how and worthy of discussion for sure, that is also not. We are not involved with the grant. Um, we can't dictate whether or not this uh, this this comes to fruition. Our vote of recommendation is should this be allowed to be built? This thing that is on the screen right there. So just clarifying for everyone in the audience. And if you're thinking why are they talking about this other thing? This is the scope of our discussion. Is this a good amendment to the existing plan development so that it can look like that? That being said,

would anyone here like to open up to discussion? Um, could I just start with a motion to approve? I'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further discussion from anyone? Yep. No, just want to say that this is a fantastic program and I've seen over the years the work that Rashid has done in the community and how passionate she is and I wish we could make a million more of her and a million more of this type of program all over Athens. And uh Sarah, did you have anything to add as the maker of the motion? I think it's proper second what she said. I think it's great. All right. Saw your hand.

Yeah, I agree with what Jen said. Uh don't have anything to add to that. Great. She walks the walk. Love all around. Any further comment? Yes.

I just wanted to reiterate some of the key things that I heard. Um and I do have to kind of question if it applies because it does apply. I think when we talk about future land use and how we use the land that we are responsible for, this this covers several bases um particularly around functionality, cultural development and optimizing existing space by creating educational platforms for that community and a community that needs it so much. Um one of the things that stood out to me uh is multigenerational impacts. There are lots of different age groups that live in that space that need to be positively impacted and hope needs to be reinstilled. And so to me that is a part of the decisions that we make with regards to neighborhood development.

Right, Alex? Removing asphalt, putting in a garden sounds like good idea. Ready to vote? Okay, Stephen. roll. I just not break the tradition. Motion to approve. Lee, yes. Harrisburg, yes. Paul, yes. Yes. Sams, yes. Sanders, yes. Lord, yes.

Motion passes unanimous. Got another one. We got next.

Good evening, commissioners. Up next is 480 South Mill Avenue for special use SUP 2025 071361. The request is for a special use permit in commercial office, the Millage Avenue corridor overlay for a sorority. The the applicant proposes to demolish the front building on the property uh closest to Millet Avenue and construct a new building for assembly space in its place for that sority. They proposed to reconfigure and add five additional parking spaces. The new assembly space building would be two stories tall with a basement and they would be converting the existing rear apartments into sorority housing. Nine variances were requested. One was determined to be unnecessary. I'll go into that in a second. All right. This is our parcel here. Subject parcel here. And you can see the parcel is on Millage Avenue here. And then down here in this area is Baxter. So Baxter Street. So we are close to that intersection. This parcel here is a single family home on the left and another sorority here next to it on the right. well as a youth ministry young life here to the back left and then the um Clark Central High School is here at the back right up next to it. Right. This parcel is future land use um is mixed density residential

and that would not change proposal. Um current zoning is CO commercial office in this Mill Avenue overlay. That's what the hashing represents. As well as um in our local historic district on Millage Avenue and Ozoning would just be same zoning but with that special use permit on top. This is a view of the front of the property. That is the building that would be demolished in the front yard that faces Millig Avenue. On the left here shows that single family home that's on the left side of the right there is that sorority house that's on the right side of the subject parallel. These photos show some of the variance requests that we're looking into. So top left shows that retaining wall that take a look at top right shows that drive aisle and the width of it and sort of same for the bottom two photos showing the drive aisle just from different views from different parts of the parcels. And then this photo shows that back of the property and this side here being the vegetative screening that um separates the parcel from the high school in the back. Right. So these are the nine request variances. Variance A is a variance from section 9103 to increase the maximum lot coverage from 65% to 79.3%. That is a variance that staff did not see justification to support.

Variance B from section 9-10-3 to increase the minimum landscaped area from 35% to 20.7%. Variance staff did not see a speific expectation to support variant C is a variance from section 9-12-7 to increase the maximum floor to area ratio within the Millage Avenue special district overlay from 0.5 to 0.65 65 that also did not find my find justification to support that variance variance D from section 9-15-13 to allow retention of a 32 in tall retaining wall within a vision clearance area allowing that was only 30 inches in height oh and staff also did not find justification to support that variance um variance E was section section 9-15-13 to allow driveways not compliant with section 7-2 that is the variance that staff found to be not applicable since milled avenue is a state ride ofway subject to do standards variance F the variance from section 9-20-2 A2 to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 154 that is the assembly number at 235. That was another variance that staff did not find justification to support. Variance G is a variance from section 9-30-9B3 to allow retention of the one-way drive aisles of approximately 11 ft width instead of 12 feet. That is another variance that staff did not findation 2 support. Variance H is a variance from section 9-30-9E6B

to allow no additional screening at the rear of the parking area adjacent to Clark Central High School. That variance staff did find justification to support. That is our one we support. Um, and then variance I is from section 8-7-15J15 to allow 21 continuous parking spaces without a tree island instead of a maximum of 14 continuous spaces and that is a variance that staff did not find justification to support. All right. So, this is our existing site showing Millig Avenue here on the right and here on the back is where meets up with Clark Central and showing here where the drive aisle comes through and the the alleyway that is or the alley drive that is just um 11 feet wide. There's parking here along the back between the high school and the parcel. And then the alley here is used to drive down to Baxter Street. Now you can use that alleyway that's connects from actually this parcel here where the sority is goes down through behind that Young Life building and then to Baxter Street and then parking along here for these apartment buildings and then out onto Millage. And then this rectangle here is representing the building that would be demolished. This site plan is our proposed site plan. Uh we've labeled the areas where the variances are requested. So um at the I guess the whole site shows your lot coverage and landscape area and then the red area here is represented for that floor area ratio

building that is proposed and then to be built after the original one is demolished. Um, our yellow here is representing the vision clearance area from this retaining wall that is higher than typically allowed. And green all along here is that drive width that is one foot off of what is normally required. And then the purple is the tree island that is 21 spaces and of usually level 14. So in regards to the variance variances, staff supports variance H regarding the elimination of the requirement of additional screening at the rear of the subject property. All other variances do not meet the five criteria to justify justify granting the variance approval. So our staff recommendation is for denial. Staff found that the proposal is partially compatible with the 2023 comprehensive plan. A retention and redevelopment of the existing structures for the apartments is compatible. Reduction in housing units though that the that would be available to the general public. If not, so those housing units would then be only used for the sority itself. would be available to the general public and do find that it is compatible with the future land use maps that is makes sense residential would continue to be so that would be compatible with the zoning map because there's no need to change there and generally compatible with the ordinance as well. We did find that the proposal complies with the special use criteria as well. Um, however, the lack of correction to the driveway width to allow fire apparatus access and the lack

of provision for parking plans for those larger chapter meetings and events prevent staff from fully supporting the requested current. This project be approved. Over staff recommends the following condition of approval would be a direct sidewalk connection to be constructed from the front eastern most structure that one that is proposed to be demoted rebuilt to the public sidewalk along milcludes the staff report with the existing site plans. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Right. At this time, we'll hear from the applicant. I want to get this to get you squared away. One more. One more down. I want I want to leave the proposed up rather than the existing one that had the color in it. You want your Oh, that could be my second one. I want the other one that was the staff had prepared that had the location where all the variances were. That's fine. Let me know when you want the other.

Okay. Good evening. I'm Brett Thurman. I'm an engineer with Armit within Thurman here in Athens, Georgia, 330 Research Drive. Um I represent the uh applicant Alpha Z Delta. Sororities and fraternities face a difficult process to build in Athens Clark County. That is by design. The difficulty has increased as only so many areas are acceptable to ACC residents or where fraternities can can locate. Over time, since the special use ordinance on sororities and fraternities was passed, the acceptable areas for youth organizations have been mainly Millage Avenues, Lumpan Street, and the downtown zone. UG also has self attorneys on the UG campus. The available properties all come with challenges to meet the requirements of Athens clar county if we're dealing with a sorority or fraternity. I remember pri delta had two variances in 2006. That was the first one we ever did. High cappy had three variances in 2014. Alphi Omega which was not my project had um five variants proposed all related to parking. I do not know which ones are approved and which ones are not. There was some modification I saw in what was built versus what was planned. So, but it started with five and now we come before you where we have right now nine proposed and really eight because one's not available not not allowed because G dot's in control of the entrance. But my point is that we believe we will continue to see multiple variances required for properties in any suitable location that we can locate a sorority house in aclar county. Now, I left the parking discussion out of my variance application, and that's my mistake. Rest assured, we will obtain a parking agreement with Clark Central High School. In fact, in our experience, we cannot get a building permit without

first producing a signed parking agreement. We just recorded one for Delta Zeta for 41 spaces. We intend to approach the superintendent again for the 121 spaces that the Alpha Z Delta will require to meet the total required number of spaces for assembly at 154. The Delta Zeta parking agreement was vetted and approved by the plane department and it was recorded this month in the beginning of yeah, excuse me, in the beginning of July. Uh we'll still have the same terms and conditions in this parking agreement uh between Alpha Z Delta and uh CHS that's in with the one for Delta Zeta. This includes parking on Monday night from 5 to 6:30 for chapter meetings and parking at Clark Central High School for special events. Based on the number of parking spaces required at CCHS, this is a $33,500 investment every year. No wonder the school likes to enter into these agreements. It's a little extra cash flow to help them out. I proposed nine variances and planning determined that one was not needed. I'll take them in order based on staff's report which listed them as A through I. Variances A, B, and C are related. A is an increase in impervious, B is a decrease in impervious, and C is an increase in F. The sorority believes the size of of the sorority house that AMT has designed is the minimum requirements to fill their programming needs. It is probably feasible to get all programming in a three-story house with basement. However, the building height would go over the maximum allowed in the zone, which is 40 ft. This would reduce the impervious, but the F would still say the same and just put it in three floors instead of two. Um, furthermore, the scale of the chapter house would be out of proportion with nearby properties in this scenario as a

three-story structure with a basement. For this reason, we propose a two-story house resulting in a 1468 square foot incre of increased coverage. staff noted in their F discussion that the basement area is not included in the that the basement area when not included in the FA creates an F of 0.55 and with the basement underground it is not contributing to the perceived bulk and scale of the building and they go on to note which is why F is considered in this zone variance D retaining wall height upon further review we'll meet this requirement by reducing the wall height to meet the limit same time we will bring the side retaining walls in to meet a new 12oot driveway minimum. Therefore, if that's acceptable, the applicant does not need this variance. Variance E staff determined that this was not necessary and I note that we will work as G dot as required similar to what we did at PYAPI where they we did a we did a radius in and they allowed us to go down below their their minimum allowed to something smaller that would fit the urban landscape there. Um variance F, we will still require a variance to limit the number of parking on site to 35 spaces and again we'll obtain the 121 lease spaces for the Clark Central High School. In effect, the mayor and commission have repeatedly voted on projects that provide the number of bedrooms on the site and has parking offsite to meet the other things. They they've voted for this over and over again in our experience and all the ones we've brought before you and to mayor and commission. Um variance G, we have reviewed the plans and have made some adjustments to achieve a 12-oot drive aisle except for a few places where power poles are located. Can can you pull up that other slide?

So, we looked at and the you can see in the red hatch. Can you pull it up a little bit so I can see all of it? There we go. So, that is the red indicates a 12oot drive that we're able to put into um the space here. So, we can meet the 12oot minimum. Uh it makes it a little tight against the wall on the shared property line with the other sorority. And it also pushes down toward the as staff noted toward the the uh exit doors on the back. They have a have a landing outside, but we can make it all fit. And uh but again, we're going to have to remove a little more pvious areas in order to get that done because we're taking that we're taking out some pvious area on that on that northern side of the property. The original increase of impervious overexisting was three and a half%. With the plan we submitted with with the making the 12oot drive aisle and also putting in a tree island as part of that we go to 4.8% over existing. So that's how far we are over what's existing on the ground. Now uh if this is acceptable the appent does not need this variance. We assume that this will alleviate some of the concerns of the fire marshall for fighting this fire any type of of emergencies there are fighting fires. Uh variance H planning supports his variance and we agree with them. Uh and variance I I have determined that I can place nine parallel parking spaces instead of the eight shown down there below. If you look down at the bottom of the plan on the south side, there's three spaces and then a space where a tree encroaches a little bit into the parking and then and then five. And what I've been able to do is we we we put a we put another parking space, parallel parking space where that tree is. We probably lose that tree, but in the plan um right in the middle there's a 21. It

marks the number of parking spaces that are on that on that side in the angle parking and right to the right of that is where we'll put new tree island and so that will cover we won't need that variance then if that's acceptable. All right to summarize out of nine variances proposed one was determined to not be needed three are not needed if we take the minor changes to the plan but five are still required. Okay. Uh, three of those are for the three of those are for the the pvious pvious and F. And the another is for parking the parking agreement. And the last one is the 12T I mean meet the 12oot drive. So the variances for the limit the number of parking spaces 35 on site. All right. At this time, I'd like to yield my remaining time to David Matheni. He wants to des address the sorority house. Thank you. David Matheni, architect with AMT. I'd like to reiterate that there are very few locations available for a relatively new sorority to have a presence in Athens. So therefore, we need your help in securing the use of this property for Alpha Z Delta. Clearly, we are working with a property that is fully built out and we are trying to meet as many of the ordinances as possible while allowing three of the existing apartment buildings to remain in place rather than demolishing and demolishing them and needlessly filling up our landfills. If it had been possible, we would have used the street facing building and remodeled. But the building with 8 foot ceilings and very limited square footage

just doesn't cut it for sarity use. Designed in a new building with full basement allows us to create dining room, chapter room, study rooms, house director suite, and handicap accessible bedrooms that are all required in today's sarity while being able to house residents and perfectly good existing apartment buildings. It's a win-win for this property. And I also want you to know that we have been through concept review with uh historical preservation commission with no critical comments and and our design and in fact we work to pay homage to the character of the buildings already existing uh on this property.

That'll use your time.

Thank you. Please help us work this out. Is there any member of the public here to speak in favor of this application? Is there any member of the public here to speak in opposition to this application? All right. With that then we will take this behind the rail. Um, now to get us started to try to wrangle this very very complicated. Um, we have the issue of the special use permit which is just Did you want to Were Were you just waiting until I was done? Um if you like

it. Okay. Um then yes I will continue. Uh so special use with it special use criteria the use of a sorority house in this uh in this location and then there are the nine but actually eight variances. staff has made recommendations on many of these. Um, and there are four that I'm hearing from the applicant right now. They think that they could withdraw, but we don't have that in front of us. Um, so if we could uh start our discussion with the special use approval and then move on to the variances or Matt, what would you like to say? Yeah, I was going to just say um I'm hearing a lot of changes of foot and you know that there may be a parking agreement in the offing that some of these variances that uh were extensively written up in the staff report and in the application uh may not be necessary based on changes that they are in the process of making to their site plan. And so it seems to me that maybe um this is not yet right for our consideration at all and and should we consider perhaps tableabling it for 45 days to allow them to come forth with a documented parking agreement with a new site plan with all of these ch and then an actual definitive list of the variances that they're asking for because I feel like we uh I'm sure everybody else did too spent you know a bunch of time thinking about the variance um criteria area for nine variances that are briefed in the paperwork and now we're hearing that we don't need half of those. And so it feels to me like um maybe this is a moving target that we really can't um efficiently discuss

today, but should suggest that the applicant come back when it's fully baked.

I would generally agree with that. I was going to say the same thing, but just based on the shared parking agreement. I think we just have to we just can't really let go on a promise that it'll be there. And that is a lot of parking spaces. I don't know if I've ever seen a development that has come through for us that needed the shared parking agreement needs so many. I do understand though that sir use I would say for the reasons Matt said just reiterating that the lack of the actual shared parking agreement is kind of problem for me to be able to really evaluate it. Uh does someone want to make a motion?

Um I will make a motion. Uh but let me ask Bruce if there's some required number of days or optimal number of days to make that motion for. So uh in the past we have given a window. Um there has been the three months I believe. Um so they could return within the three months. Um the next available cycle I believe would would the earliest opportunity to hear this again would be the October meeting. Um believe that's true. So yeah, but three months if if the motion was to table for a period not to exceed three months.

Okay. I move to table this application for a period not to exceed three months to permit the applicant to work out these loose ends and um submit a more definitive plan. Second.

Right. Uh we've heard from the motioner and the seconder. Is there any further discussion of this motion? Can I just add one little thing? And I'm borrowing Sarah's uh words from another um proposal that was tabled that to have it come through nice and clean and go to the go to any mayor and commission nice and clean I think raises the opportunity for it to be understood. So that is why I would uh vote in favor of the table. I'll just add one point of discussion on my own motion, which is that I was dumbfounded by the 154 parking space requirement for a sorority, which according to the application materials has 100 members. Um, Bruce, can you help us understand that? So, the the ratio that the code requires for the assembly space is what's driving that number. It's it's not necessarily the membership itself or the bedrooms on site, although those are factors to be taken into account. It's the occupant load um possible in that that gathering space. And it's not just the chapter room. It's any public space that would be able to allow for congregation of people in the building. So, it could be study areas and things like that that are all inclusive.

Curious, is it taken into any consideration those numbers that there is such good public transport access? like there's buses right there because it seems like, you know, we're talking about like an hour and a half a week kind of thing. And if they actually built a hundred extra parking spots, that would seem like a huge waste of space to me, you know, for just that little amount of use. So, I just I don't know if like the calculation takes into account that, you know, it would be nice to encourage these people to not drive to these meetings and maybe not having parking spots is a way to do that in the right location, right? This process allows for that to be taken into account. Okay.

Yeah. Do you mean by that that for instance they could request a variance saying instead of 154 we'd like to have 110 or 90 or whatever and and that would be a variance that they could try to make the case for if that's where they ended up in in the next three months.

That's right. And yeah, a transportation management plan is often what we see out of this. There is one there's some language that was submitted, but it was it was not to the level of specificity or forcibility that we've seen with other submitts that have had alternate transportation plans and requirements and agreements signed by chapter members and you know things like that that carry a little more weight. Um the language was there. It was just not as firm as what we've seen with other submittals. All right. Is the discussion good? More discussion. Ready for a vote. Then vote uh on the on the motion on the floor. Motion to table. Lee, yep.

Harrisford, yes. Paul, yes. Laughlin, yes. Sams, yes. Anders, yes. Yes. Passes unanimous. getting to getting close to eight. This next one

let's do one more and then we can take a take a five after we get into the future. So The first time I voted. All right. Good evening everyone. Name is Stephen. Audience. Hello.

Our application here is at 5:30 North Hole Street. That's in the process of changing from 180 and 115 Hickman Drive. If you happen Googling out there, you may find old addresses, but it's part of a larger redevelopment that's changing the street layout and the addressing system. It's a bit of a unique request. We don't see alternative compliance very often. It's limited to the downtown area and the downtown portion of our code, section 9-10-6 and in this case specifically C8, which regulates retaining walls. They're asking specifically for four wall sections that exceed the allowable combination of height and setback that the code requires. It's a type three decision for our ordinance, which means that the planning commission decision is final. This will not be moving on to the mayor and commission unless they were to appeal. The walls are the subject of the vote, but they are associated and part of a multif family residential project on this property, which is phase two of the Bethl Homes redevelopment, which is part of the north downtown master plan that was adopted several several years ago. It is also part of the north downtown design area for our code. The alternative compliance process exists to allow deviations from development standards for projects that are in that commercial downtown zone that don't meet those design standards as long as they can satisfy the criteria for alternative compliance. So the code reference 9 10 6 C8 is longer than this, but I want to draw you to two sections that are uh particularly relevant. First is the reason that they need the alternative lines in the first place,

which is the the clause that says retaining walls the in front, rear or sideyard adjacent to a public ride ofway or private street shall be set back from a public ride ofway a minimum of 2 feet for every foot of wall height above 3 feet in height. So you got to set it back two feet for every foot of wall height above 3T in height. The code also states that retaining walls over five feet in height shall be screened by a landscape buffer meeting the standards of an adjacent piece of code. However, wall art, including murals, sculptural or other decorative treatment of exterior walls may extend for a maximum of 50% of the wall length. So landscaping and murals can be used or shall be used to screen these walls. Uh in they're required for walls over 5T, but our recommendation in this case for three of the wall sections is that we would apply this section even though they're not 5T but in exchange for letting them have a closer setback and then they could be addressed with uh some landscaping and and decoration. So, the purpose of this regulation on walls is to provide engaging patterns along the street, including regular and frequent openings in buildings that are at the street level where you would experience them as you walk by. Doors and windows cohesively arranged across the whole facade. Um, there's some research that's been done that indicates people have a preference for facelike patterns on buildings. detailed ornamentation, an orderly hier hierarchy of structures. These are all things that create engagement for humans. The ordinance is also there to prevent retaining walls that are excessive in

size and length because they create blank facades that erase those patterns and therefore discourage people from using that space, especially along our streets. This is the location of the site highlighted in yellow. Uh like I said, this property is in is in the midst of shifting. So right now we have a street that runs right through it, but that you if you go out there, you'll see that there's a newly constructed multif family phase one right here. Uh and the street is going to eventually come right here and then essentially create a grid. That's why the address is in flux as well. Um, this is all part of the north downtown master plan redevelopment, uh, which is aiming to provide, you know, additional housing, mixed income housing, uh, what we might say capital A, subsidized affordable housing. It's all part of this project. This is the future land use. It's downtown. It would remain that way, as are all the other properties around there. There's also commercial downtown zoning in the north downtown design area which was approved as part of the established as part of the redevelopment plan. Back to walls for a second. Um historically in other parts of downtown we would have handled slopes by uh sloping the um the building itself. Like you can see here we have our entrance slightly higher on this in this unit than we do here. That would be a a multi-tenant building where you would have different levels. In other areas you can see that they did small buildings and then stepped them down and that creates that engagement. That's how people dealt with sloping terrain of downtown Athens historically. Recently we've moved towards using

retaining walls. This is the uh a view of one of the angles of the new building that's just been constructed out there. And you can see we've got retaining wall here and then part two of the wall stepped back just a little bit. So that's an exhibit of of what the law requires. Now we've got the landscaping. We've got fence, but you don't get the street the same level of street engagement there. This is an example of of a mural that could also be used to satisfy some of the code. This is also downtown. And this is an example of some of the walls that are being proposed. And you can see we've added some landscaping here to hide it. And it's fairly small and it supports a landing. So you can have large walls, you can have small walls. Those are all part of the project. We have one wall in particular, F2, that is about 70 feet long, 6 to 8 feet height. This is an existing wall downtown that roughly approximates that. There perhaps be some more landscaping in the proposed one than than is here, but this gives you kind of the visual of what you would see at ILA. This is the overall site plan. We have a block size apartment building taking up a whole new block. We have a parking deck in the interior. And then it's hard to see here exactly, but the red highlights there are exactly where those wall sections need the alternative compliance. There are other walls on site but they are able to meet the code as is highlight the ex the the actual sections of wall here. We have section A um which you can see is located here on the site plan at this corner and then you can see the the 2D visual of the elevation there. So fairly small supportive of landing there. This is wall F2. This one is, as I just

said, about 70 feet in length, 6 to 8 feet in height. I'll give it away. This is the one that staff does not support. We just feel like it's too long and it would, you know, impose some uh it would just not meet the spirit of what the uh code is looking for. And then we have two smaller portions wall J2 and J3 here uh broken up to these sections there. So the test to satisfy for uh granting alternative clients is a four-part test. The request would result in public benefits greater than any negative impacts. The request is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan. and the request is consistent with the attributes of the downtown and of the down design area described in the alternative compliance guidelines and the request conforms to the relevant alternative compliance guidelines. So I mean it needs to meet all four criteria. What are those design principles and attributes? They are listed in your staff report. They are also listed here for your reference. Generally creating a pedestrian friendly environment creating that human scale. It feels just right. It's not too big. It's not too small. It feels um a bit like a a bit of an embrace for a human. Establishing visual continuity while also allowing some creativity and diversity in individual buildings. A mixing of the uses that creates a more vital downtown. Um, downtown is supposed to be a place of collective memory, public expression, human and humane experience, really centering the the human experience here and not, for example, the automobile. And then making sure that downtown is accessible, diverse, sustainable, um, and a vibrant place. Alternative compliance asked that projects work to

quote meet the design standards for commercial downtown zoning, but where they can't, they should reflect consistency with their design area and meet general design principles as just listed here. We've assessed it for compatibility with the 2023 comprehensive plan. I would note that the overall project the the redevelopment the multif family building here is compatible with redeveloping challenge multif family housing adding affordable housing in this case explicitly so um it's owned by the Athens housing authority and contributing to the vibrancy and diversity of downtown. The comp plan also calls for walkability and staff feels like there are opportunities for the applicant to improve the design of their walls to better align with the comp plan. It is compatible with the future land use map. In general, we note that large buildings on slopes and downtown Athens and Athens in general has a lot of slopes often need very large foundations and therefore they need large walls. The trouble with those walls is that it can create that blank facade and elevates the risk of creating dead zones along the rideway, which we're trying to avoid. So, with that overall principle in mind, we do think that wall sections A, J2, and J3 satisfy the alternative compliance test largely because they are fairly small in size and won't create much impact. However, staff does recommend using that code requirement for landscaping and decoration even though they're they wouldn't automatically trigger that by their height. However, wall section F2 again seven is is just a bit too long and too high to satisfy that test. So, we're recommending approval um with conditions

as worded here and also in your staff report. That concludes the staff report. Thank you, Stephen. At this time, we will hear from the applicant.

All right. Good evening. My name is Buck Bon. I'm with WA Engineering located at 355 Onita Street here in Athens, Georgia. And I'm here to speak on behalf of our of the developer and owner, the Athens Housing Authority, Columbia Residential, along with the partners, Jonathan Rose Companies and the Unified Government. Um, both uh both the site construction. Well, one, I want to just go ahead and say that obviously we're asking for your support and approval of the proposed alternative compliance elements as proposed. Um, the proposed project is phase two of the North Downtown Athens master plan. Phase one was recently open and is currently occupied. Uh this phase is obviously a continuence of the master plan and includes 182 units of which 73 would be 30% AMI and 73 would be 60% AMI. There is approximately uh 70 ft of elevation change across phase one and phase 2. This is an exhibit from the master plan that was approved that that reflects that significant change in topography across the site. There is approximately 30 feet of grain change across phase 2. Uh as you can see in this slide, well, we can't can't really see. We could zoom in, but the if you imagine standing at the intersection of uh Strong and Lumpin Street and then going to the diagonal corner of North Lumpin or excuse me, North Hall and Madison, there's approximately 30 feet of gray change across the block. Um we have been able to manage and mitigate

most of this grade change through uh three separate floor elevations. Um, however, that does require the addition of sight retaining walls. So, there are four walls, as Stephen mentioned, walls A, F2, J2, and J3. I think really the focus is is really on on F2. Uh, if we can go to So, wall A staff supports, we're good with that. That's great. Awesome. Wall J2 and J3 staff supports. That's great. So, Wall F2 is the subject of of the conversation tonight. Um, so it's important to to note that uh this is in the north downtown design district where groundf flooror dwelling units are allowed in CD zone and of course all of this this facility is where has ground floor dwelling units which must be ADA accessible must meet certain requirements uh that are uh set forth by the DCA and other funding sources for this project. Uh so it does necessitate some retaining walls. Uh we did review staff's report uh we understand the intent and so in as a in response what we'd like to propose as a long F2 uh create a art mural along the the length that that 70 foot length. We've intentionally uh not not been too detailed. We want to make sure that there's some artistic agency in the design of of this mural. Uh but that's what we're proposing as a solution to F2. Um and we'd like to ask that you approve that. Um what I would note is uh is is that this project has been reviewed uh through the plan review per uh process. So site plans are ready to go. Uh the uh building plans are ready to be permitted. This is the only remaining item uh to check off the the

list to allow us to move forward. uh if you uh support this tonight, uh we're going to start construction in hopefully this fall and uh on some muchneeded affordable housing. So with that, I'm going to ask that you support this approach to addressing staff's concerns with F2 and really appreciate your time tonight. Is there any member of the public here to speak in support of this application?

Sheila Chris the executive director of Athens Housing Authority. Um thank you. Tonight um we would like to request for the support um for the wall. I would like to say um phase one also known as the view not just to uh say that we're pleased to mention that it's not only 100% lease it is 100% occupied. We do believe that with staff recommendation, the mural would be not only uh satisfied, but it would also bring a sense of community within the development. Thank you. Thank you.

There any other member of the public here to speak in favor of this application? Good evening. My name is Betty Gomez, 800 Sudbury Road, Sandy Springs, Georgia, and I'm representing Columbia residential and affordable housing developer in partnership with the Athens Housing Authority. And we solicit your support in allowing us to build the mural to satisfy the intent of the objection or override the objection. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other member of the public here to speak in support? Is there any member of the public here to speak in opposition to this application? All right, with that, we'll take it behind the rail. And I believe we need to start with a bit of procedural business. Um, correct me if I'm wrong. The the mural is not in this application, right? Correct. So in order to consider the mural that would need to be accepted as an amendment to the application. Is that right?

Or could we not impose it as a condition on approval? I think our discussion prior to in agenda setting and and prior was that that would be a requirement because this is a type three.

Yes. and and and part of uh what could have happened here was if there was an exhibit that was very specific um we might have had to accept that and make it part of the record to to keep it clean and build the record properly. I think I I may not be getting this quite right but I think the applicant is just generally asking for a mural to be placed on the 70 foot length of that wall without any specificity about the content of the mural or the materials or or anything else. So maybe what we given what we talked about before was if we had something very specific this might be able to be handled as a condition of approval just given the lack of specificity. It's an approach. It's not an actual design.

Okay. So this is this is a condition. It could be that it could be a condition but it cannot be an amendment. Okay. Great. I have a question about that. Is the landscape elements that we saw in that drawing part. Would that be part of that? That's a good question for the Yes, the the landscape would remain that so the mural is in addition to the proposed landscape. Okay, thanks. So, if we were to make a condition, we would need to specify both that there would be a mural and there would be I don't really know if we need to like get specific about quantity or height or the plantings were part of the submittal already. Okay. So adding the

So if it was adding the mural, that could be noted that it's not removing the landscaping. It's as submitted with the addition of the mural. Got it. Okay.

All right. Can I just ask a question of the maybe this is the applicant or maybe this is a question for you Bruce but um what's the alternative here to I mean I tend to agree with the staff that that the other three here are fine because they're very short walls but this 70 foot wall I mean they're very um retaining walls feel like a lazy way out of uh I mean a simple way to deal with topography but also there's like Stephen showed us in the exhibits like there's a lot of topography in downtown Athens and so we have staggered entries where they're you know each each entry is at a progressively lower height and so there's other ways to do it that are more kind of pedestrian friendly and I generally agree with the staff report that um wall F2 is maybe a bridge too far um and I just wondered like what's the alternative here? Why can't you do staggered entries? Or if I'm understanding page LC511, u when I look at the top half of that page where you show the top down view, like the bird's eye view of wall F2, it looks like the purpose of wall F2 being close to the sidewalk is to provide additional patio space for the apartments that are up on top of that patio. And so why not shrink the patios and do a greater setback so that you don't need alternative compliance. So I just wonder if you can talk about why you have to feel like you have to do it this way and and what the alternatives are and why those are unacceptable or undesirable.

Yeah, I've been approached. Yep. Okay. That that is a great question and and I will say that often retaining walls are used as a lazy way out of solving a problem. That is not the case here. So, uh, if if we look at this drawing here, I don't know how the laser,

right? Yeah. So, as you look along each one of these frontages, there are, uh, dwelling unit entrances along the entire frontage. So, uh, and and and to address the patio, those patios are ADA access. So, by code, we're required to provide direct access to the public street or sidewalk from those dwelling units to the street. uh and then we have to do that in a fashion that is ADA accessible and it's not simply uh acceptable to uh access the units from the interior through ADA accessibility. The ADA accessibility regulations require that that both entrances be fully accessible. And so these aren't really patios. These are access walks to ADA accessible walks to enter these units. and uh the the retaining walls. There are multiple retaining walls, I'd say. I mean, obviously, we got the Jay uh in and in and laben the retaining walls that provide multiple access to these. I will say that we've we've worked diligently with the planning staff and the public works staff to solve a multitude of structural challenges with those retaining walls to ensure that we have egress. It's certainly not a lazy approach to it.

Yeah. And I didn't mean to cast a No, I know. I know, Mr. B. But when you say that they're ADA accessible, I think I see stairs on the picture. There there is one that is not ADA accessible. That is the wall. That is that is this one here. And that that we have to ask for an exception when we get there from from from our ADA accessibility consultant. That one just it's just impossible. Okay. on on LC511 though, aren't there? It looks like there's 10 steps or so heading up to the patio. It's ADA accessible through this location and around the building and through here. There's another set of stairs here.

Okay. So, those patios are not separated. People can walk out of their unit and then go across their neighbor's patio until they find correct. Yes. Yes. It is a means of Okay. Yes. Not patio. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good.

Any other questions for the applicant while he's up here? Okay. Further discussion? And uh uh could you pull up the four criteria we're looking at just as a reminder? This is what we're going by making this decision. Thank you. I don't have any problem with this. To me, keeping the ADA accessibility is more important for the residents. And also having that extra height there is going to provide a little bit more privacy and potentially security for the people living on that ground floor that they wouldn't have if they didn't have that remaining wall there. So, I'm I'm I'm totally fine with their alternative of putting a mural there. I think it's another opportunity for public art downtown. If they could open that process up and have a call for artists within the community that would use even better.

Agree with a lot of the same things Jen just said. You know, it's not a huge hangup for me. I think overall this is a good project and uh the mural I think is a good solution. you know, I like to support local artists and I think keeping the ADA accessibility is important, too. So, overall, I think I can move past any hesitations with retaining wall and I like the solutions that they're offering. Agree with all that. I don't I don't think that I'd probably want a little buffer between the street and my patio as well. So, I was gonna make a motion to Yeah. All right. Um uh do you um are you thinking of it with the condition about the mural or no condition? No condition.

Okay. Motion to approve uh alternative compliance uh without conditions. Um so I'll just say that I would second it if the mural was a condition. Me too. Okay. So I would like to see it as a condition if I'm misported. Okay. So, uh, so this is a competing motion then. Oh, I didn't mean it like that. I was just offering my, um, cooperation with Mon'nique's motion if she wanted it, provided that she's willing to add the condition. But maybe she can find somebody else who will second without that provise.

I did I did check to see if she wanted the condition. She said no. Is there a second for approval? No conditions. Second with approval, no conditions. All right. Um, can I make an alternate proposal to to approve with conditions? Uh, yep. Do you have a second? Uh, which which conditions specifically the mural that they would have to do public art on the 70 foot span? Uh, for for wall okay section have two. Um, I'll second that motion.

All right. So, I believe we uh need to have a vote on the Yeah. Uh, vote on the substitute motion. I have a question that I think discussion. Yeah,

I think so. Which is that staff did recommend um uh I think that they added a condition to their recommendation of approval of of three of the four wall sections. Do I have that right? And so I don't know if that means we need to make a second substitution or if if any yeah we need to kind of address that unless um does the what you're saying is does the condition include denial of that wall still

well I think what I'm saying is that when staff made the recommendation um they they're recommending approval of three of the four three of the wall sections with conditions which I actually think they had one condition um there because the the recommended denial of the fourth one and so and then we're talking about adding a a sort of going against the recommendation on F2 and accepting the applicant's willingness to add art to the wrong part basically. So I think we have to kind of address because when staff added that condition to their approval everything about landscape buffer etc wall art etc is part of that approval recommendation. the the staff recommendation came with the wording that says as long as it is screened or decorated in accordance with section 9106 CC C8.

Okay. So, do you need that condition or is it that was a that was it wasn't made as as explicit as we sometimes do, but that that is a condition that staff is recommending for wall section A uh J2 and J3. And we added F2 to that condition. Would that kind of Yeah, it sounds like a friendly amendment that folds that in and it would require they are on F2 and what you would recommend what staff recommended for the other three too. Okay. I would be in favor of that amendment to the thing I seconded.

Okay. So J's motion uh approval with conditions uh set by staff but instead of all the wall sections except for F2, it's every wall section under that condition. That make sense? And then the mural on F2 second condition. Yes. Okay. rather than in a second condition. Sure. Take the first condition as worded and then you would make your own second condition. Okay. Two specific. Okay. Yeah. With a mural. Yes. So my motion is acceptance with all of the conditions and a mural

on F2. Just to be clear, staff had two conditions. One of which was to deny F2. So don't say I would think you wouldn't want to say all but just addition first condition and your second condition approving F2 with a addition of a mural. Yes. So to clarify the first two conditions that staff is recommending, the first one first one commission this one the first one condition that staff is recommending and an additional recommendation for the mural condition. Y do we need to address Mon'nique's motion though?

I think Robert's you vote on the substitute motion first. It's a substitute motion. So we we would vote on that passes. It replaces Mon'nique's motion. Yes, Stephen. Whenever you are ready. No. No rush whatsoever. Motion to approve with conditions. First one is staff. The second one is the F2 approval with the mural. Fleece. Yes. Mayor's turn. Yes. Paul, yes. Mclofflin, yes. Sams, yes. Sanders, yes. Lord,

yes. Pass unanimously. Right. Um, and I think before moving on to our next uh two items, we should take a seven minute break. So at 30.

Seven minutes. Okay guys another

All right, let's move on to uh future land use and short-term rentals. two items that uh are very trivial. So, it shouldn't take long, right? Nothing to discuss. Okay. Have a what I hope. Nope. Yes. I got back.

Uh we're going to revisit future land use. Mark gave much more in-depth presentation when we had this before you in the work session format. Um, we have trimmed that presentation down just to hit some highlights for tonight in case there's anybody here that didn't get the benefit of hearing that or is this is maybe the first time that they're hearing about the subject. So, we'll we'll go through that not quickly but at a good clip and then I want to get into discussion. Um, we want to be able to have public comment received before we have the discussion with you. So, um, we do want to allow for time for that. So, here we are. 2045 future land use map presented to the planning commission for action should you so choose this evening. It's kind of an exciting night. It's a two and a half year process. Um feels really good to be talking to you about it. So as we noted before, why do we do this? And this is a it's a policy document. This is something that every community that has any kind of planning aspirations has something like this. They may call it something different, but most folks call it a future land use map. And so this was the very first action item to come out of the 2023 comprehensive plan. Future land use maps are in every comprehensive plan in the state of Georgia and they're usually done at the same time part of that singular planning process. That's how we've done it in the past. Um this time is different because kept losing the opportunity to actually finish the future land use maps. There was so much energy in the comprehensive plan. So we broke it out this time and made it the very first action item out of the 23 comprehensive plan. So we go through this to determine where development can take place and in this case we're actually looking at where development density can realistically be increased. We know we've got growth coming. The growth is not going to stop. We've projected that we may have 30,000 plus people over the life of this plan.

So that's 20 years. um in order to hit the guiding principles that I'll show in a minute. What we're looking for is opportunities to bring that growth into appropriate areas that already have services. So to consider what are those trade-offs for making an a more efficient land use pattern and then also not insignificantly to talk about how to do this with an eye towards affordability and quality design again in a realistic way so that those things can be achieved. So tonight we're asking for your consideration and potential action on three components that need to move forward to the mayor and the commission for their consideration. The three things are the future land use map itself which is in the middle easel here. Um the future land use map designations themselves, the wording of the categories, the narrative that goes with each of those needs to be adopted. And then the third thing is we have a table in Athens clar county. We're the only county in the state that actually con converts future land use to zoning and considers it every single time we have a zoning action that is inconsistent with the future land use map. Most communities kind of put off the future land use map and it becomes a reference tool. We actually have it in our ordinance that we have to take a look at. And so we feel like this is a contract with the community that we're keeping up with this promise that when we go through a two and a half year process, we're not going to forget about you. We're gonna make this part of the discussion every time. So those three things are what we're needing to forward. Is it gonna I do that?

Sorry.

Okay. So we do have a future land use map. I just want to make that abundantly clear. A little bit of confusion about that. Um we have had a future land use map in this community for as long as I've worked here and that started in 1998. had one for a couple decades before I started working here. Um, this is our current future land use map. This map, should we adopt the 2045 future land use map, this map would go into the archives and we would move along. Mark talked about these guiding conditions that we started out with this process, but I think it's worth saying again, there are some things we can change, there are some things we can't change. Those rigid things are the things we typically want to protect. So environmentally sensitive areas uh first and foremost open space and respecting our topography. As we've heard earlier this evening we are not a flat community. We do have rolling areas and those areas are significant and we we want to work with those whenever we are building or or changing our community. Speaking of builds, so the built environment is something that's relatively firm. So our water, our storm water, our roadways, our sanitary sewer, those things are are built pieces of infrastructure along with our greenway and our trails. Um those networks are relatively firm. Can we add to them? Can we move them? Yes, but typically at great expense. So we want to make sure that we're holding on to those and getting the best utility out of those investments we have in our community. And then the third category is a little softer, tends to be more policy based and it's it is more malleable and it is something that's subject to community discussion like a comprehensive plan like our zoning regulations and the future land use map certainly is one of those things. So we talked about the big ideas we are going to grow we think 30,000 people by 2045. We have heard from every corner and I think we believe it to be true that

housing variety and availability has to increase in order for us to grow in a sustainable way and have opportunity for everybody in Athens. And then we know very well that we have expensive and aging infrastructure that needs attention. This future land use map is intended to set the table for us to do that responsibly over the next 20 years. So, in the new future land use map, uh, future land use steering committee report that you were sent a link to yesterday, one of the images that's in that report is this image that's on the screen. It's meant to summarize um the entire process we've gone through since the spring of of 2023 to this moment and frankly beyond because we are talking about into the fall of this year. um having discussion with the county commission about this project. Um lots of community input. We feel pretty strongly that we've had some key milestone moments where we've heard from the community and we folded it into the process and that has yielded a set of guiding principles that we've interpreted into um a growth concept map. That growth concept map and those principles were then used in concert with looking at our existing future land use to come up with a new set of descriptions. And this graphic helps you see how we moved from one list of future land use categories to the current list that we're proposing. And then when the map was developed for the future land use map, one of the key priorities we heard from the community was don't go crazy. don't change everything. Now, we did say very publicly every piece of property is under consideration and the future land use steering committee took that to heart. Um that was absolutely a part of their deliberation and as they came to it, we ended up with those properties that are colored in this image were

those properties that the steering committee found. There would be some change even if it was in name only. Um, what you have here is government property that has since been split into three categories. Everything that was government is now either park or it's or it's education or it's government. So, we thought that was a good change. The steering committee felt like that was more specificity to the map that was helpful when thinking about land use. There's also change on this map that's considered with regard to ground truthing. So, I just took off the government. The light green areas in particular are those areas in our rural parts of town um that already have a density that is greater than what we think of with our rural future land use. And so we're not looking to return those subdivisions or those neighborhoods back to farm fields. So the thinking here is that the future land use map should take those things into account. We recognize those. The steering committee said yes, we need to come up with a category for that and that category is rural residential. You take those off the map. This is the amount of substantive change that the steering committee is proposing on this version that's before you. It represents less than 6% of the land of Athens clar county. But we feel pretty strongly that making changes in intensity along these corridors that you see or in the nodes where we have intersections of those roadways and making sure that we're doing that where we have adequate sewer service. This is the amount of change that would be necessary to accommodate the growth that we think is going to happen over the next 20 years. I want to keep saying that this is a 20-year vision. So these changes are not something that's going to take place in the next 24 months. This is something that's meant to handle our growth over two decades. So all of that was translated into a brand new 2045 future land use map that

looks like this. The steering committee spent a good bit of time, frankly, going parcel by parcel in some instances to come up with this representation of what we think Athens, clar county needs over the next 20 years to accommodate our growth and still have the opportunity to grow in the future to make better use of our infrastructure um and to provide quality of life for everybody who's going to be here over the next two decades. So that other deliverable that's part of this is that compatibility matrix. And you all have seen this off and on as you hear um items before you. Maybe you haven't seen it quite like this. This is what it looks like in the code. It's extremely interesting to look at, right? Black and white, little X's and boxes. But it's a pretty powerful tool and this is what sets us apart um with how we think about future land use and have made it part of our discussion with the development community. part of our promise to the community to keep up with things. This is a very key component to that. So, this is that third aspect of what we'd be asking you to consider and forward to the mayor and commission. Um, so those are those three items. I've got a series of map images that we can go through if necessary. Uh, we have queued up that slider tool that's on the website if that's helpful. If we get down into the nitty-gritty of some things, we can certainly do that. Um, but I'm going to end there with the staff presentation and and uh we can open it up for public comment and um happy to answer any questions anybody might have. Thank you.

Um Stephen, since you're typing the stuff up, would this be a for thing you're looking for or is this a general public comment? All right. And minutes.

Yep. Three minutes still applies. Um, is there any member of the public here to make uh make a comment about the proposed future land use map? All right. Uh, I do recognize that some of our steering committee members are here. Appreciate your presence and all the work that you did. That said, let's take it behind the rail. Um I will note for those watching at home for the record uh just again we did have a work session where we had a much longer presentation uh and a longer discussion about this. Most if not all of the folks here were there most not all um were there. So someone watching online is saying doesn't seem like you guys have much to say about this. It's real important that that was also streamed online and you can watch our discussion from that and our discussions about this many times previously. So just putting that out there. Does anyone have anything that they want to say or a motion to make on this item?

I just have a question about this compatibility matrix. Um, yep. I understood you to say and like from from this table here I see that the government category has been split now into three different things. Government, education and parks and open space and um I don't I see on this compatibility matrix I see G&P uh government and parks. Um am I missing the education? Education is not a zone. It is the future land use category but it is not a zoning category. So where we have education as a future land use it would be compatible with either institutional or government zoning.

Okay. Yeah. Um my other question sort of related to education is um is what about like neighborhood child care centers where somebody runs a a child care center in a single family residential area or something like that? Um is that um is that a special use permit or is that something that is you know zoning related or how how does that work?

That's a good question. So education at that scale um typically is folded into either residential areas as a special use or it's allowed by right in the use table that we have in our zoning code in our commercial zones for example. Um I think RM might allow for daycare with maybe limitations or maybe not even. So it's it doesn't translate into a specific um zoning category, but we have educational uses that are broken out in our use table that's in every single zoning chapter. Have a long, but it's accommodated through the the zoning code itself. A daycare as opposed to a trade school as opposed to um a grade school or a college. Those are all separate uses in our use table that is in every zone. And there's ones where they're appropriate, permitted outright, and there are others where they're not appropriate, and there's some that are special use approval.

Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Um, my my only other kind of general comment, I think this is all great. I really u think that the committee did a great job and staff did a great job and uh the the table and the map and everything make a great deal of sense. I did want to make a suggestion. There was a slide about five slides back that if was running slides could jump back to. It has a bunch of arrows on it showing how well that yeah um uh I suppose it should have an arrow from downtown to downtown just like it has an arrow from employment to employment center but my comment was this um the intention of this I don't think is um executed as well as it could be like general business if you follow the red arrows is it show we now have um three categories or or no four general business, major corridor, town center, and urban center. Um, and I just wanted to suggest that to make that more approachable to the public and the mayor and commission that um it might be uh if you space out the stuff on the left and group the related things on the right so that all four things that split off from general business are clustered. got the red arrow going over to show like that, you know, I think it'll just be more clear at a glance to the lay person who has not been through multiple meetings about this process what that graphic is intended to u indicate and why it's good and helpful. But I I think it is really uh useful all this work that the committee did to kind of u develop these additional categories and everything I think is is commendable and u I just wanted to suggest some minor tweaks to that. So maybe not a circuit diagram

if that looks like you're rewiring your garage door opener or something, right? The idea of the circuit diagram was good. I just think if you look at the organization of the two lists, they're just alphabetical. And I would think what Matt's suggesting is sort of especially when you have something like general business has been split into four or a couple others like that like um the main street business has been split into minor corridor, neighborhood center. You might as well put those two next to each other because it's it's not like that list on the right is by intensity. It's just alphabetical right now. Yep. Is there a line to single family residential I just noticed or is it just light colored?

No, there's no just like Matt mentioned downtown employment center. Single family just translate over. Yeah. I'm not sure why we did employment center honestly, but we could do all of them or none of them. Awesome. I mean, the many presentations we've done, we've got exactly what you've just mentioned. So, we'll slide that in for the the mayor commission and the benefit of the public. Thank you.

I would say my kind of overall comment is um you know, I think this is great. I think the committee did a great job. You know, I think this is kind of a great illustration of how these type of processes should work. You know, it was like tons of public input. the committee did a great job and you know I really trust in the process so I don't have a lot of like granular things to pick apart because I feel like you know people that know a lot more about the specifics have kind of made these decisions and looked over it a lot so I feel very comfortable with everything that's been done and I really appreciate all the hard work

I do remember there was a comment I feel like during our last meeting about the descriptions on this page was that ever addressed or was there any updates on it it was to match um I'm glad y'all brought all this up again because

like some of if I if I may Bruce um some of these charts were in our working brain coming out and it makes sense and to hear y'all say and see it's that's really what matters now and so I remember the comment that you were referring to I believe and it it's So the group, it's just a matter of the groupings, I believe, is what the comments about.

General public had some questions about the groupings that are on that. They're clear to me, but if we just want to make sure the flow from just a kind of a walk up reader versus the flow versus a working uh circuit diagram. Uh, and because that diagram makes perfect sense to me, then it it doesn't necessarily do and it needs to be easier and uh, so it flows. Would it be helpful on the rainbow sheet? If along here there was something that that had I don't want to say it's another column, but it would function like another column. We would just make it smaller. That said, all right, these bandwidths are commercial and then you move into mixed use and then you move into residential and then

you know and just and along the sides you have you might have two or three rows coming out of a block that says commercial and then you'd have five rows coming out that are residential or largely residential or Yes. You know what? And and it sort of gives a a topical heading. Yeah. I think that would make it very healthy friendly. Yeah.

Um I I will just draw our attention to the uh future land use categories full text um which is one of the three documents that we are voting to approve or not. Um which seems to have been responding to these comments. Um look at it the way that it's grouped. Following was in downtown and is similar downtown. Following was previously in general business, urban center, town center, general business, major corridor. Um, so I do like how the text uh that is is a subject of our vote today. Um, certainly seems to be responding to that um that feedback in a way that agrees very clearly. One thing I would add, um, it seems like during our work session, even we would get a little bit caught up in kind of conflating future land use designation and zoning. And I definitely see that amongst members of the public. And I if I could sort of anticipate what I think will happen at the mayor commission meeting is that those members of public who are continuing to conflate the two things are going to be loud and proud. And I'm worried about that because of how many years has gone into this. And I think we all generally feel very comfortable about the process um like Mike was Mike was saying and and so I wondered a little bit when I first looked at the compatibility matrix like if that doesn't if that's what people and including the commissioners are going to be looking at. Um I kind of made the same mistake Matt did when I first looked at it because it took me a second to figure out like future land use is here. That's where education is because I looked at that exact same thing. I wonder if that page if that's what the

commissioners are going to be getting is the is the moment to provide a brief explanation of what I think what I think the way people get confused is they think that since there are certain zoning classifications that are compatible with a certain future land land use designation it means that it's all possible and allowed kind of like that that that because you I think there's a concern that like if you've identified something like just to take our top example on this sheet major corridor so what's allowed there or what's compatible with that land use is RM2 RM3 cog and then the um kind of institutional open space categories and I think that there's a concern that people have that that because a very intense use is compatible with that future land use designation that that that there that it's an easy get easy reason to get that like that it's oh that that would be that there's a little bit of a sense of panic that you could have CG everywhere for example and um that future land use designation is not the best example because I think where it gets into things really of course is residential And so I think people think like if you reszone um what's the one that keeps coming up I think but like um I don't know maybe maybe minor well actually trying to think of a good example of what I'm trying to say that you know there's just a concern that if in a particular you know we've seen now a couple of applications come through where people

are really really fighting they don't want to go from RM1 to RF2 and I think there's a concern like if you look at mixed density residential I think there's a concern people have that everyone every lot in a mixed density residential future land use could in fact be an RM3 even though that's not what we're saying at all with future land use map but it is saying that RM3 is compatible in that future land use does that make sense I I I see what you're saying. So part of this is an opportunity to reinforce process of of changing zoning. For example, when somebody makes a request, it's not an automatic. What I hear and and I could see that confusion coming out of this. Um what this in essence does for somebody is it doesn't change what you can or can't ask for. It changes how much time it takes to make that ask.

Yeah. And you could ask for something. I mean, everybody has a right to ask for a reason on any piece of property, right?

And so I think I think what you know, we see this a lot on the planning commission that that neighbors and people come and they are like they've got their pitchforks because they're mad that we even are considering, right? They're like, "How are you guys how why are you guys even considering that?" like they don't understand like you have to we have to like staff just has to respond and so I think that that gets a little bit that they're you know I heard somebody say at one of these meetings recently like well now you guys are just going to now you're just going to be upzzoning all RM1s to RM2s now and and worried that if you have a future land use designation that allows RM2s that you're like greasing the skids. You're not greasing the skids. it it you're it's you're talking about your difference between type one and type two. So there's there's that administrative piece that makes it a little easier. It doesn't make it more likely. It just makes it administratively easier. Yes. And I think there's some way there was a way even one or two elected people who were in the room during the work session I'm talking about responded that made me think that they even didn't quite understand

and were possibly even going to vote against this on principle. So I think we really need to get out ahead of that misunderstanding. I think whenever I've talked to somebody and explain this process and what it is and most importantly what it isn't, they always seem to feel a little better about it, but like they lead with not understanding it. And I'm worried about I'm concerned about that this all of this work could get kind of thwarted by people not understanding. I know I'm taking like five minutes to make a point. It's a little bit of a challenging point to make, but it kind of gets

what could we do? Well, that's why I was wondering a little bit about like on the on the page that the commissioners get with the compatibility matrix, maybe there's an opportunity to add some explanatory text in there. It needs to be a different piece of paper because you're trying to be clear that they're not voting on it. that's fine. But just like to really be clear because I think also

I remember going to one of the public input sessions and a a member of the public said to me like the planning staff keeps saying that this is not zoning and I think that's disingenuous and here's why. And I kind of understood what they were saying like it is not it is not correct to say this is not zoning. It it most definitely impacts zoning, but like we just have to be very clear and you know I think that you guys could do as good a job way better job than I could ever do. But just sort of describing just providing a little bit of that big picture text, especially because you have commissioners who weren't here when this all started and possibly weren't even thinking about future land use path. Um, and so to them this might feel like kind of coming out of nowhere or only having been worked on for two years or something. But I just think we need there's a still a little piece of education that needs to happen. It lets them understand that just because there's just because there are more there there are zoning classifications that are compatible with the land use doesn't give doesn't impact whether that can be reszoned or not. It's in like it's just because there's a you know just because you're in a in a place if you live in a place with RM1 but RM and you've got a piece of property that's owned RM1 but RM2 is also allowed future land use um that doesn't make us like that doesn't make that piece of property more likely to get reason I think it's trying to reassure people that there's not going to be all these big upzoning pushes is just because of the future land use designation.

That's right. Um and I don't know if they understand that all of

Yeah. Um, if I if I may, um, I think that we've we've gotten into a com just to clarify, I think we have, uh, gotten into a conversation that is more giving feedback to the planning staff about issues that we see that they should be aware of and and we hope that they would address in their communication. um and and away from because I think that the the sort of explanatory documents that you were talking about would not be is are not what we are voting to approve or uh recommend approval or denial for just to clarify what I think we're looking at because the things that we are voting to approve or deny are going to be the same you know recommend approval denial for are going to be the same pieces of text and information that the mayor and commission will vote on and they're not going to be voting on the explanatory documents that that show them the whole process. You know what I mean? So, I think ju just for for the conversation moving forward, I think it's worth clarifying.

If I may though, I appreciate the feedback and and the delivery of the message is critical, right? And if anything that the last two and a half years and certainly working with the Syria committee has taught us is that people understand like anything people understand this topic differently. They under they learn different ways. Some folks it's more tactile. They have to go stand in front of something um and and and see it and hear it and touch it and other folks can read it and get it. And then other folks can hear presentations and hear logic and and engineering asurances and it makes sense. And so we kind of have to hit everybody where they learn with this. And it's a super complicated subject area because it's not a subject area, it's every subject area. And how we present that is going to be critical. So Sarah, I appreciate I appreciate your it wellw wishes is what I'm I'm taking from it. Like you know, good luck. Uh

but style matters.

Yeah. Um but I think you know we we're ready for that. I I we know we're going to have to have different modes of delivering this information. We have a work session that I think tenatively is going to happen in October. Our hope is that we have opportunities between again should should y'all take action tonight that that moves this forward. um between now and October, we are working with the manager's office to maybe create some some creative and friendly opportunities to dig into this in a way that we don't have to worry about quorum and we don't have to worry about all this other stuff. Let's have a let's answer the questions that the community has because they were being passed on to our elected officials and they're doing their job in representing those people that are concerned and let's hear from those folks and let's talk about them and let's let's walk through it and maybe there is something about it that isn't quite right. Even though we've had a whole lot of time put into it, we need to be open to the fact there might be something that we have to do to make it approvable. Um, but yeah, to your point, I I think we're going to have to find a bunch of creative ways. And if there's anything about this process, it's been we've had creative ways of talking to people since day one. I mean, we started out with blocks, right? So, um, we're here for it. Let's let's talk about it.

I have a question kind of following that. What if it doesn't pass the commission? Does it just come back and need to be revised or so? What if it doesn't pass? Yeah. Just curious. Give me a minute, Mike. Stops. You know, we we have a future land use map, right? We have a compatibility ma matrix. Um we have been nursing along our future land use map with fiveyear updates to our comprehensive plan. Probably 10 years past when we should have. So the what if is we're already doing the what if. If this doesn't pass, we go back to what we had before.

And the cause and effect of that and we're seeing it is we have a higher frequency of reszone requests. We have a higher frequency of type one reszone requests where we have peacemeal approaches to changing our future land use map and we're doing it without without benefit of current data and and current terminology and current recognition of our situation and so we're we can go back to that. That's what we've been doing. Um will we try to pass this again with some changes? So 28 is the next comprehensive plan. Okay.

Right. So the point of doing this reason why it was step one and 23 was to have a community process where this was our focus. We weren't talking about all the parts of the comp plan. We were talking about future land use. Get that in place. Start making changes to actually make this vision become a reality. Whether that's zoning changes or neighborhood plans or corridor plans or whatever those things are. and maybe even have a year or two under our belt of working with a new future land use map. And then when the 28 comp plan comes around, we'll have some performance data. Mhm.

Then we get it right. We'll have 12 to 18 months maybe of seeing if it's working. And if it's not working, we have a comprehensive plan effort where we can we can make adjustments to it. Um that was the that was the scheme. That was what we were thinking would would be an easier way for the community to wrap their mind around it, to feel like they still have control and an opportunity to to maybe manipulate or change something that doesn't seem to have played out well in the early going. Um, but yeah, come 2028, we're going to have another comprehensive plan that we're taking up. We'll be working on it. As soon as this is finished, we're going to start working on it. Um, if that answers your question.

Yeah. And I'm sure it'll pass. I'm not putting out any bad. Oh, it's a great It's a great question. You start with a new steering committee. The whole process starts over again. And is it as comprehensive is what we just went through? So, the comprehensive planning process, I mean, and and we're kind of moving out of what this is, but that's okay. The comprehensive planning process, the next time we do it, is going to have a different look than it has had in the past. I can't even tell you what it's going to be yet. Um, surprise.

Well, I this matters. like so the outcome of this is going to affect how we approach the comprehensive plan. If this is finished, then our comprehensive plan can be more robust. We can dig into some other things. We can maybe engage with some other outside assistance to focus on special topics that were represented here. Um, if this doesn't move forward, then we're kind of back to dealing with nuts and bolts and and we're still wrestling with big ticket questions that we feel like the steering committee wrestled with and and represented on this map so we can start getting into smaller areas of discussion and not smaller but more focused areas, more granular. Yeah, housing that's not granular. It's like that's a big deal, but this would set the table for us to dig into that.

We go further. We elaborate and build on this. We're not starting from scratch where if this doesn't pass, we are starting from scratch in 2028. That's right. Well, like would one possibility be that in our deciding if we decide to take a vote on this tonight, make a recommendation, is is it appropriate or Yeah. Is it appropriate for us to where a recommendation is like the the idea that they would that they would just vote it down and it dies is kind of crazy to me. Um but can we recommend that that not happen? In other words, they can ignore us, but like can we recommend that it comes back

and vote a second or kind of like well that there's specific feedback given so that it doesn't just at the mayor commission that it comes back and can get so the mayor and commission has the ability to remand things back. Okay. Which they did with the short-term rentals. Very next topic on tonight's agenda. We get remanded it back. Can I make a motion? Yeah. Um, I'm hearing a lot of support uh for this effort and these products in this room. And so I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of the uh three documents before us. The future or is it? Yeah. The rainbow thing and building

rainbow thing, the map thing and the grid thing. So not the rainbow. Okay. Not the Oh, the actual text. The text, right? the compatibility matrix and the map itself. I revise my motion. Yes. I'll second. Okay.

Ready. Um so any further question discussion questions? Sorry it's late clarify which documents we are approved. So the map itself map map right and then the compatibility matrix. Well, in the capac that's number three. Y matrix. That's right. In the grid matrix, that's three. Yep. Matrix.

Um, I will I will add my two cents before we take a vote. Uh, which is just to say that in addition to the piece, this is this is we do not adopt a new future land youth map. In addition to it being bad planning in the ways that that Bruce described having to do everything peacemail, um I would also for the benefit of whoever is listening and making these decisions, note that it is currently 9:14. We're not done. Uh this is not the longest meeting that we have had in the past six months. And I know that the mayor and commission meetings go on like that as well. Not only is this bad planning, it's everyone's time. And in the case of the planning staff who has to go through all these applications, it's everyone's money. That's what happens when we don't update a future land use. It costs costs us all time and money. We got to do this comprehensively. And I hope that we can uh take take the thousands of public comments that have been collected, the hundreds of hours of work that have been put into this by members of the community, not just staffed, but in addition to staff, we can move this forward. So, I don't have a vote, but that's my two cents. There you go.

Motion to approve. Lee, yes. Hall, yes. Mclofflin, yes. Sams, yes. Sanders, yes. Lord, yes. Motion passes unanimously. Madam Chair, I know this is out of order and you can tell me that, but if I could ask for two minutes of personal privilege as a member of the stere. Does one of us need to make a motion for that sort of thing to happen or is that

I could be through by Go ahead. Thank you. Um, as a member of the steering committee and I'm representing myself, but I feel confident that I'm representing other people. We This may not come back here. We're praying it doesn't come back here. Um, but I think this is an appropriate time for us to say to you that members of the planning department have been excellent as we've gone through this process. um much as in a family. We didn't get along sometimes, sometimes we did, sometimes we fussed, sometimes we hooked, but they have been superb resources and I think we need to um to thank them for their work. I think it's appropriate for Bruce to call their names and um I I just wanted to say that to this body.

Thank you. I would second that. Thank you. All right. Um, we will move on to our last item of new business, short-term rentals. Now, this is a I'm sorry, this is for discussion only tonight. So, comment, Madam Chair, it's been brought to my attention that the agenda does note that there is a public input opportunity on this.

Yes. Um, with that in mind, uh, we will go through this. Uh, I can tell you this was a discussion only and it was it was kind of a listening session for the public, but I can see that we've advertised it for public input. So, um, we'll follow through on that. Uh, so I'll go through my presentation and I'll step aside for the public to be able to offer their comment. All right. So, a quick update on why we're here. So, the short-term rental program has been in existence since February of um 4. And in March of this year, we completed another milestone. March 1st was when the legal non-conforming list of short-term rentals was was finalized and posted. and that kicked into action a key component of our short-term rental program in Athens, clar county, which is a sunset period of 24 months as adopted. Um, so that started and that's for those legal non-conforming short-term rentals that were in existence prior to adoption for a defined period of time by code. Um, they are allowed to continue without permit. That's legal non-conforming. I just want to say that part out loud because that's key. The program also sets up a way for folks to get permits and to be conforming. And what we have before us tonight are really five topic areas that we're going to talk about. But our ordinance, as it's set up, creates two types of short-term rentals. We have a home occupation short-term rental and we have a commercial short-term rental. One is defined as being essentially the opposite of the other. So, this is this could go very quickly. a home occupation short-term rental. As noted on the screen, the applicant for those is the owner occupant of the property or a long-term tenant of that property owner. So that operator of that short-term

rental is either the owner occupant or a long-term tenant. The other rule with a home occupation is only one structure on the parcel may be permitted for use as an STR. There's only one STR permitted as a home occupation, not multiple units, one advertised unit. So, I just want to make that clear. A commercial short-term rental is not subject to those standards. And we have certain areas organized by zoning where home home occupations are the way you can function as a short-term rental. And you can do that through a permitted process administratively handled by staff. There are other areas where they're permitted by right as commercial short-term rentals. And then there's a handful item number two that require special use permit approval. Commercial short-term rentals in the RM, the mixed density residential, the EO, employment office, and the AR zones require special use permit approval. We've seen a handful of those come through. And I think that's where we've had um a source of confusion and and uh a desire for a little more specificity on on how to make decisions about those special uses. But that is one component of what these ordinances were set up to be able to honor and allow for and permit. Um, so as a bit of information, all of the short-term rentals that we had operating at the start of this program, we did a heat map of those so you can see the distribution around the community um within the perimeter clearly is what we're talking about. But the east side has their fair share, the northwest side has their fair share. So it's not just a downtown issue. This is not just an in town neighborhood issue, but it's certainly concentrated in those areas. So, this is all of the short-term rentals that were in operation um at the start of this program, regardless if they had permits or not. This is

everybody that was operating. This next image shows those legal non-conforming short-term rentals, the folks that are on our list. And so, it is a subset of the total, but you can see it's the bulk of the total. I think right now the legal non-conforming list comprises 711 units or operations. Let's just say it that way. 711 short-term rentals. Um if you're on that legal non-conforming list, it means you have not come through a permitting process. You're legal, but you haven't got a permit to operate. Now, every short-term rental is required to pay their excise tax and and they're all required to have an occupational tax certificate. That's that's a requirement for everybody and that's that's outside of the discussion here with from the zoning standpoint. So, I want to make sure that's clear. Um, but if you're on that legal non-conforming list, you can function for the period of the sunset, which is 24 months, which started March 1st. So come March 1st of 2027, if you haven't gotten your permit, those operators needed to have recognized that that's the moment that they can no longer operate. Okay, so the short-term rental program, we had five requested areas of study. the mayor and commission recently when considering the text amendments that came through a couple months back. Um they took action on a handful of those suggested text amendments, but they did not take action on any revision to the sunset clause, which there was an extension of that that was under consideration to go from two years to five. and they chose not to take action that night on the relief valve provision that was pro um produced um and asked instead for it to come back to this body for discussion. So, we're going to do that tonight. This group has asked staff to look at

three other issues to look at licensing of short-term rentals, to discuss enforcement of short-term rental regulations and how those operation expectations are are handled by staff. And then third to think about special use review criteria for short-term uses. So that's how we got our five topics. I'm going to run through these really quickly um and then we'll come back to this because we have some discussion prompts that are on the next slides. So we'll we'll come back to this once we have public comment wrapped up. Um regarding the duration of the sunset clause for legal non-conforming short-term rentals, there's really two two questions that we kept hearing over and over. Is the adopted two-year time frame too short or too long? And and there's definitely a whole bunch of different thought on that sunset time frame. Second question is, are there advantages legally, financially to having that time frame be adjusted to an outyear? Specifically, if you go to a 5year or sevenyear or 10ear time frame, do you need a relief valve any longer? The purpose of the relief valve is to provide someone who bought a property with an expectation of operating a short-term rental there to be able to have their investmentbacked expectations come back to them in a reasonable amount of time. And so the relief valve is one of those things where it was designed to provide for someone who may have a unique circumstance and can provide data to help demonstrate how it's unique in terms of those the duration it takes to make their money back. Just to say it bluntly. Um if two years isn't enough, if five years isn't enough, whatever it ends up being, this relief valve was designed for somebody to come forward and say that's that's not going to work. I'm going to plug in our data which we had very prescriptively written out was

very much like filling out your taxes but it was all there provide the data and it will produce a number for you and if that number at the end is beyond the sunset period whatever it may be you then have gone through the exercise for us to honor that number that's produced by the relief valve. Um there was a hard pause put on that concept. And so the question the prompt that's on the screen is if the sunset period is extended is there even a need for the relief valve provision? If there's interest in it then we can dig into the wording of that relief valve and and help everybody understand. But I think if there's not an interest in that then we need to look at the timeline of that sunset period. All right. So licensing of short-term rentals. has come up a couple times primarily as a way one to get data to get an accounting of our short-term rental uses helps with enforcement. Um, but it's important to note that licensing provisions don't live in Title 9, which is where you find zoning and and uh development regulations. So, planning commission works on Title N issues. um licensing exists elsewhere in the code and it's and it's beyond the scope of of this body, but we wanted to bring it back before you because you asked and I think having the discussion is important. So, is there just to put the question bluntly, is there an interest in the licensing procedure? And and if there is, um this would be the the night tonight to say yes or no and and to give it whatever qualifiers on that you may want to hear. Um, I will say that from a legal standpoint, going through that process does present some challenges and um, we can get into some of those things within certain limits in in the discussion tonight, but it's it's not as simple as go forth and make a license

enforcement. So, we noted this before, but I think it's worth saying again. Uh, a lot of this is being driven by um the experiences that individual property owners that are neighbors of short-term rentals are having um not favorable experiences. And so the reason why we have an ordinance in the first place is to try to wrap our minds and our programming around this and and try to manage it. Um, so the whole point of this is to have some measurable and easily observable things when somebody's operating out of bounds. And um, the code is set up to help us with that. Especially from a home occupation standpoint, I think it's pretty clear for the commercial short-term rentals. Um, they do function more or less as accommodations. They are commercial uses. That that word is meaningful. And so we have a lot of code that tells us how commercial entities are supposed to operate. Those are the things that we're going to enforce if somebody's out of bounds. We have software that we purchase that helps us find short-term oper short-term rental operations that um are in locations that we know we don't have any recognition of. and it gives us an opportunity to do some education with that property owner and bring them through a process to get their paperwork taken care of. All of our enforcement starts with an education focus first before we get to a citation. And so we have that effort that we're working on. Um there was a suggestion about a three strikes rule, the bad apple rule. Um I've heard different ways of of referring to it, but essentially when you have a routine offender, how are those dealt with? Again, this is outside of zoning and um we can talk about that, but um anything that we have right now with regard to enforcement goes through the standard process that we do for any

kind of code enforcement. And in this case, we have a short-term rental um dedicated code enforcement officer. and and she has been working on this since day one and has some data that we can share during discussion um of what they've been able to do in the last uh well since m March and and since adoption. So finally special use review criteria um and I won't get into this too much now but I do want to spend some time on it here after public comment. Um, I think that there is some interest and I think there's some logic behind opening the door for some buy opportunities for commercial short-term rentals rather than having them live in a special use category to the extent that they are right now. If we do that as buy right though, we need to put some guard rails on it. Um, and so what you have up here is some suggestions about maybe having percentages. Um you'll see a concept represented here about divided and undivided multif family development. What does that mean? That's that recognition of the fact that we have a text amendment recently adopted that allows for condominiums to be considered as tax parcels just like tax uh commissioner's office. They as being their own parcel can are eligible for their own short-term rental use. Um, so maybe if we look at multif family development that hasn't been divided into condominium ownership, maybe there is something there that's qualitatively different. And I think we've definitely heard some special use requests for condominiumized, that's a term, developments as opposed to those that have not been. Um, and maybe there's something there that we can look at that's a standard that allows for things to be by right. And if you go beyond a certain tolerance that we can put in code, then you're a special use. Um,

performance criteria for the the commercial short-term rental uses is something else that staff has been trying to look at other communities and and think logically through for how things could operate here in Athens. Couple suggestions there are to look at. Maybe there's qualitatively better places for commercial short-term rentals to be physically located. Um maybe there's ways that they interact with the other units as part of a a multif family development or as part of a neighborhood that we could put in place. But the two prompts here are is there support for increasing buy opportunities for commercial short-term rentals? And is there interest in removing commercial short-term rentals even as a permitted use in divided RMZONE projects? Because those divided RMZ zone projects, as we've heard from public comment from right here, function almost like subdivisions. They function like neighborhoods. And we currently allow for home occupations to function in those neighborhoods. If you had a divided RMZONE property, could you make the argument that it's like a subdivision, it's like a neighborhood, and the home occupation version of short-term rentals is just enough. Okay. Um, we'll come back to these slides. Uh, I'm going to put maybe this back up here for public comment. And I appreciate your attention.

Thank you.

Okay, I'll open it up to public comment. Is there any member of the public here tonight who wishes to offer public comment on this discussion of short-term rentals for which there will be no vote tonight, just to be clear? I know you're all shocked to see me stand up. Thank you for the public comment allowance. Um, had I known there would possibly not be public comment, then we probably wouldn't have been here today. But members of the commission, I'm Joey Tucker. I live at 138 Valleywood Drive. I'm the president of the Athens Area Association of Realtors, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you uh about the role of short-term rentals in strengthening, not weakening, our community. I'm speaking about the sunset and the um the need for more short-term rentals. Not just home occupancy or commercial, but the ability to have a short-term rental within any zoning. Um and it should be a private property, right? If we had a dedicated noise and parking ordinance officer, then we wouldn't have this problem because that is the issue that was brought before us first and the whole reason we're here is for noise and parking and disruptance of neighborhoods. So, if we had a dedicated officer there instead of one on short-term rental, then we would have um already had this issue taken care of. Short-term rentals bring visitors who spend local money. They restaurants, shop in our stores, visit our hotels, go to the cancer center, classic center, family reunions, weddings, construction jobs, support our farmers market, the hockey team, concerts. Um they benefit local downtown. They help keep local jobs, generate tax revenue that funds infrastructure and services like Wild Rumpus and other community events. Um, not to mention they also support UG and football, which is what most people think they're only used for is football game weekends, but that's not what they're mainly used for. That is just six weekends out of the year. Owners of short-term rentals have

a vested interest in keeping their properties in excellent condition. Well-maintained homes enhance curb appeal and help neighborhoods. Many short-term rental owners also reinvest and upgrade in renovations which support local contractors and trades. It brings tourism diversity. We are a community of diversity, right? Hotels can't meet every traveler's needs. Short-term rentals offer unique spaces for family homes, cottages, and attract visitors who might come who might not come otherwise. This broadens our tourism base, making our local economy less dependent on seasonal hotel peaks. Short-term rental equals 30% of our hotel motel tax. Short-term rentals bring people from all over the country and the world and our neighbor into our neighborhoods. This fosters cultural exchange, keeps our town on the map as a vibrant, welcoming place, and often results in repeat visits and even future full-time residents who invest in our community. It offers flexible housing use for some residents renting their home. Short-term provides vital supplement income, helping them afford their mortgage, taxes, and maintenance. Short-term rentals are not just about tourism. They're about economic s sustainability, housing preservation, and community vibrancy. With reasonable regulations, we can ensure that we we remain a benefit, not a burden to our neighborhood. So I ask that you remove the sunset clause and if you can't remove it then push it 30 to 45 years then then there's no need for the relief valve. It is essentially the length of a mortgage. So if someone buys the property it's the length of their mortgage. Then you're not having to get some from Atlanta like last time an attorney who didn't even live here come up with a relief valve to submit to y'all to vote on to tell you what the property value should be. We're letting the mortgage take care of itself if they're not allowing. So, I ask to keep

the to remove the sunset. Thank you. Thank you. Any other member of the public here to speak tonight? Sure.

Hi, I'm uh Jeff Leadford. I spoke to you last time y'all talked about this. Uh I am with Georgia Realtors uh here to uh help address some of the concerns. we have dealt with this issue in other areas um and really to kind of serve as a way to advise on on what might be a workable solution. Um we've heard the term commercial a lot in this and I think I mentioned last time this is not a commercial use. This is residential and I did I know there was some question about that last time, but there is plenty of court rulings from New Jersey to North Carolina on it, but I figured I'd look in Georgia and yes, there are in Georgia short-term rentals have been deemed by the Supreme Court as a residential use. Backing that up, we can go back a number of years and when you look at what qualifies as a residence, um this is one of those things which the long-term residence versus a short-term uh as far as a tenant. Um there was a case involving um it was I think it was do that. So the um short-term rental was decided by Morgan County BA and that was that they are a residential use. It's on the usage, not on whether you're making a profit on it. On how long something has to be for you to have it as a a qualify as a residence or how many residences you can have. The differentiation between a dwelling and a residence and whether it's residential use and duration uh was also established in uh Doure versus uh Baker. And so in that uh one of my favorite quotes was it said you don't have to live in your house for 30 days to qualify it as your residence on day one it's your residence. So whether you are there for a day whether you are there for 30 years it can qualify as a residence as so long as you have the right to use it for that period of time for a residential use. If I were to look at a commercial use of a

short-term rental I think that would be if I'm renting it for a commercial purpose. I am, you know, rebuilding a motorbike there. I am, uh, operating a an office, uh, you know, kind of the the the office by office rentals, things like that. That would be a commercial use. But if I am there to house a single family, residential purpose, bringing my kids there to stay, I am there by myself, whatever, that is a residential use. So I do caution you to be careful with that because back to the point of why this is important. There's a statute in Georgia that is very clear. You cannot have a registry of residential rental properties that goes back to 2004. Uh it's been a long-standing statute. It does apply for short-term rental equally. And there is a pending case in Tybee Island. And I really don't want to see y'all go into that uh because it's a dangerous area where if you adopt this, the next one could be then you know once that's decided it could hit you and you haven't done this yet. Um the sunset could address it and also there is a way to do licensing without having the registry and we would be happy to help with that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh my leg. Good evening, guys. I'm Nathan Son. I live at 330 Ansley Drive over on the east side. And I'm in support of getting rid of the Sunset Clause and like Joey said, adding additional uh short-term rentals to Athens, clar county. It's a vital part of our county. Um in my neighborhood, I can tell you I have three of them in my neighborhood. I drive by two of them every day, twice a day. They give us no problems. They're the prettiest houses on the street. Um, I live in a re res rental neighborhood primarily and I can point out the slim lords on there who have not fixed up and literally the the roof is needing to be replaced, the siding's falling off. Those are not your neighbors. Those are those are commercial ne commercial landlords that are way out there. Um, I'm also going to talk on the sunset clause and property rights. So, I'm going to use something I'm going to say everybody picture their car what color it is. me is blue is my son's favorite color is blue and he buys a car two or three years ago it's in it's in rough shape he fixes it up he's driving it he's loving it everybody in the neighborhood saying oh it's looking so great it's looking so great on the west side another guy he buys a blue car he doesn't really fix it up he's speeding down the roads he's speeding through five points he's throwing litter out he's parking wherever he wants turning up the radio they go after that guy no tell my son he can't have a blue car anymore He's got to sell it. You wouldn't let that happen. Don't let that happen with a sunset. Don't tell property owners who are fixing up the property who doing playing by the rules there are not bad there are no bad apples. There are bad apples out there, but there are ways to get rid of those bad apples. We can enforce those rules and get rid of them and still allow the 30% hotel tax to come to the county where we can use it to use for affordable housing and anything else that we would like to do. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other member of the public here to speak on this item? Here it comes.

Good evening. And y'all volunteer for this job. That just amazes me. But I do appreciate what y'all do. Uh and it needs to be done. My name is Charlie Upurch and I live at 145 Tilman Lane, Athens, Georgia. I'm also a realtor. I own Coal Banker Upurch Realy. Uh we've been in business since 1958 in the Athens area. I'm real proud of the business that we've got. Um and I love our I love our business. It's great. Um and one of the things I like about my business is that, you know, uh look out for people's personal property rights, private property rights. Um that's what real estate's all about, you know, is uh allowing people to buy and sell homes and and do commercial real estate as well. But um so I always go back to and y'all have heard me say this before. I go back to when we decided, you know, there was going to be no more than two unrelated um per household. You know, it's uh it was practically uninforcable. Uh and it's hard to prove that who's there permanently and who's not. Um I feel like this is going to end up being the same way. It's going to be a hard thing to police, to monitor. Um but there are ways. There's noise pollution, there's uh light pollution, all the things that we've talked about here uh for years and years, but um thank goodness and I've heard that they're going to have uh hold on, not code enforcement officers. They've hired them uh Clark Countyy's hired them, if I've heard right, y'all correct me if I'm wrong, but they've hired code enforcement officers uh to work nights and weekends. We should have had that all along. We should have had that all along and that would have taken care of a lot of these problems. Um, and then when we start talking about the sunset clause, you know, I think about add drugs at five points. I love add drugs. Um, go there regularly, maybe too often, but uh, when you go to add drugs and you uh, you know what? If we were told ad drugs, hey, hey, we want to do a

drugstore in Athens, Georgia. Hey, yeah, come on. Uh, but we're only going to give you three years to to run your drugstore basically. U, so you got to make your money as fast as you can. And then well and then they've got to what do they do? They stop being a drugstore, you know. And so now we're telling people this can be done. I understand why we're having these conversations. You can put limits on there. I say limits. You can put uh I don't want them doing it if they're not paying taxes. So they need to register. And I don't know if that's the same thing as I can address that.

But uh they need to register. And um so I need to give my time to him. He's a lot smarter than I am, but um but uh it can be handled by code enforcement, by um the police officers, and I'm going to relieve my time to go back to it. Yeah, basically, yes, you can do that. There actually is a new state law that's put in place um House Bill 399, which will address some of the bigger concerns with the corporate owners of these properties, not the mom and pops. Can answer any questions on that if you want,

and we sure don't mind helping either. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Is there any other member of the public here to speak tonight on this issue? All right. Uh with that being said, uh Bruce, did you want to roll back the tape? I understood you kind of sped through some stuff so we could uh let our gentleman here have their say. after waiting so long.

Are you doing that or am I think you're doing doing it?

Okay. Um, so the order of that's on the screen was was intentional. Um, and and it it feels like the first two items are linked. So, why don't we start with the sunset clause discussion? Um, first of all, we've talked about this, we peacemealed it, and sometimes we lose sight of what's actually in the code. Does everybody understand the sunset clause? That's what the short-term rental ordinance. If you do, that's fine. Then that that helps us move on. If you don't, let's talk about it. Okay. Um, it is only for the legal non-conforming short-term rentals. Okay? So, there's nobody else who's eligible for that. It only works for those folks that were operating prior to the code within those limits that are specified in the ordinance. A new short-term rental property owner or operator is not eligible for the sunset clause. So, right now we have 711 properties on that list. um the way it's worded right now with the time frame and the time frame is really what we're focusing on. But even if the time frame is changed, we haven't been talking about the other rules that go along with the legal non-conforming list that are in the ordinance. Namely, if it changes title, you're no longer on the legal non-conforming list. that, you know, changing title, selling to someone else, even reconfiguring your LLC to involve different people on the title is sufficient to no longer enjoy the benefit of that legal non-conforming status. So, I just want to make sure that's clear. Okay. So, first question is, is the two-year time frame too short or too long?

That's a good question. Yeah, if there is a a complaint, whether it's noise, trash, anything for somebody who's on that legal non-conforming list, there's actions, there's penalties against them, but it doesn't do anything to revoke their ability to revoke. There's nothing to revoke because they have no permit. Okay. Once they have a permit, they're not on the list. They're not legal, non-conforming. They're legal and conforming. But if they permit for Nope. No. What kind of permit are you talking about? Home occupancy permit. The home Yeah. home home occupation permit for a short-term rental or the commercial SDR, whichever category they fall into.

Um, now your your question is about code enforcement, period. Um, these properties are treated the same as any other property from a starting point on parking or noise or trash or anything else that is out of bounds by code. They're subject to code enforcement and but nothing would stop them from doing this usage if they continue to get

I think like time there was like a thousand fine was the most similarly if a grocery store keeps putting its garbage outside the dumpster. We don't shut down the grocery store. We deal with the garbage that's sitting outside the dumpster. Right? So we treat everybody the same way when it comes to code enforcement. So nobody's business is shut down as a as a penalty of having something that's out of bounds with regard to noise or or trash or parking, those types of things. We deal with the problem and there are if if the problem is not resolved, there are penalties related to the problem, but it's not to the use of the property.

But it that's not entirely true across the board, is it? Right. I mean, if a if a business requires a permit to operate and the permit comes up for renewal, then surely they're the fact that they've been in repeated violation of a bar serving liquor to kids or or you know, a grocery store that

that's the difference between permitting and licensing. So, a bar would have an alcohol license, an alcohol permit. So, a permit gives you the ability to do the use. now go forth and do the use and and if you do it the wrong way, we deal with the circumstances of the whatever's out of bounds. Um, we don't issue licenses for commercial uses. We don't issue licenses. There's no zoning license and that's what can be revoked and and we don't we don't have that. So all of our short-term rental regulatory language exists in the zoning code presently and so there is no lensure that you know there are permits and so we treat those permits the same as we do for anybody else. You are awarded a permit you don't have to renew your permit you just have to function under the rules of that permit if that makes sense. Yeah, that does make sense. And actually, that kind of brings me to the comment I was going to make. Like, you know, it seems clear that bad apples are the problem here. and and a lot of um effort has been spent on trying to figure out is there a way that we can allow the short-term rentals that are not a problem and that are um enabling the county to you know uh deal with surges in hospitality needs like when more people want to for graduation or or whatever reasons want to uh come to town than there are hotel rooms. Um, but there are clearly some bad apples, right? We've heard from a lot of citizens who have a uh one of those short-term rentals in their neighborhood. And um so I guess my my comment is about what you just said, Reese, but also about this concept that um licensing is outside the the zoning power and thus beyond the purview of of this body. Uh, I think that's right. But um the distinction you just drew between

permitting and licensing, I just want to kind of push back on that a little bit because in looking at the special use permit section of the zoning code 9-20-6, which is squarely within the planning commission's powers, it says the conditions which the approval authority may impose include on any special use permit include but are not limited to the following. Um and then there's uh a whole long list of 15 uh different types of conditions um including things like regulation of noise or similar nuisances regulation conditions pertaining to duration of use. Um, and then the catchall at the end, any other conditions that will make possible the development of Athens Park County in an orderly and efficient manner uh and in accordance with the provisions of this of this title. So, I guess my question is um if uh the mayor and commission wanted to um address the bad apple problem, but but um allow good short-term rentals to operate. Could they not uh could we not in in service of that goal um begin a practice of issuing special use permits with a durational limit? you know, you get a you want a special use permit for your STR, you get 24 months and then you've got to reapply. And then in the reapplication process, um, a bad apple that has been the subject of a significant number of code enforcement um, visits and, uh, findings, that would certainly be something that the mayor and commission might take uh, into consideration in deciding. Yes, you we're going to renew this guy's permit, but we're not going to renew that person's permit because

this is a bad apple over here. Uh, and that seems uh I don't know exactly where the line is between permitting and licensing, but if we're allowed to limit duration and limit noise and similar nuisances, um, then uh maybe there is a way within the zoning code that we can u focus our fire on the bad apples. So that is not nobody's getting revoked, which is kind of where the conversation has been. That's not revocation. That's just timing out.

Exactly. Everybody times out and reapplies and there's just a a streamlined process for reapplication that um you know where you're saying the factor for the next consideration of the next application for that same property could include the history of operations of what's going on. Um I'm writing it down. It's an interesting idea. I I think where where it may and I and I'm just thinking and talking at the same time. If it's not the same person who's applying for that next special use at that same address, but you're still going off the history.

You're if you're using history, it's not their history. So that's kind of we've heard a lot about the operator makes the difference. I think we we get testimony time and time again about the operator makes the difference and and I think you're what you're getting at is a way for the operator to prove their their worth and and maybe be recognized for doing a good job by getting their next special use approved because that factor's been involved. It's an interesting idea. Um, we're kind of jumping a question off the screen though. So, if you could focus on the sunset clause. These are the things I have to respond to. I'm just these are all good ideas and we're kind of spitballing. Um, there's a there's a slide for that.

Yeah. Okay. So, Bruce, are you liking this sort of uh popcorn interrupting mode of conversation? I is that good for you? We need to stay topical so that I have a hope of getting this in the morning by 9:00 a.m. to the third floor of city hall. Yeah. Um, so on so question that we are looking at is the adopted two-year time frame too short or too long or sunset clause? Are there advantages to a longer one? Are you going to have uh something to say about this? Uh, no. Because I think this is kind of the wrong order because a lot of these issues could be addressed with the licensing question. You know, the whole I think this one

I I think that it could. And just to back things up a little bit, you know, I'm sad that Kristen's not here tonight because she and I have emailed about this a lot actually. And um you know, and I emailed all the commissioners and I went and had meetings with whoever would talk to me about this. So I tried to figure out what they would want too. And I think we might be wasting our time a little bit by focusing on the sunset clause first because the impression I got is that everybody wants licensing and so okay you know we could kind of direct

Okay. If I may if I may as long as anything that we So so you are you saying that as long as there's licensing we could get rid of the entire rest of the short-term rental regulations that we have put in place? Well, kind of what I'm thinking, you know, especially after this conversation and the commissioners I've I've talked to and stuff, um, you know, I don't think that this is a zoning issue. I think this is a regulatory issue and a licensing issue and I don't think this is something that the planning commission is going to figure out because I don't think that it's I don't think it's our I think it's too big of a scope for this. Okay? You know, I think what we need and Kristen took a lot of time in putting together a list of what other communities have done, you know, in licensing and you know, and I talked about that with the commissioners and I mean my ideas and I heard their ideas. I really think that that's the direction that everybody wants to go in that I've talked to was the licensing and you know, I kind of asked a lot of questions about how we get to where we were and you know, why do we have the ordinance the way we have it? And a lot of it was just like, you know, one commissioner told me very point blank that they just saw this as like easy. They kind of got tired of it and they just wanted to pass something, you know, and they thought that they're doing the licensing and the regulations and, you know, she was like having the politicians come up with it all was just like too much and they just kind of settled on on this, you know, and nobody really thought that it was like a great solution. And I think that's kind of why we're having all these problems now that we need to come back to is that I don't think this is the right the right way that we're going about this necessarily. I think that we do need to think about what other communities have done and they have kind of you know created a regulatory framework and licensing and you know how this could help I think with you know the sunset clause in particular is that you know a lot of the push back we're getting from you know all the people we heard from tonight is the sunset clause you know and I don't think that anything we're talking about in regards to the bad apples really addresses the you know the housing issue that a lot of the commissioners have

said that they're interested in like you know that it's affecting the kind of stock of housing in in Athens. And I think the licensing could help this. And you know, you could have like a certain amount of permits that you give and you know, if it like there's like a more housing becomes available and we feel the housing's not an issue anymore, you could like dial up that number of permits or dial it down based on the amount of housing. You know, I think it would help with the bad apples because, you know, you would have to like like a liquor license, you could lose you could lose your you could lose your lose your license. Yeah. So, I think that there's a lot of ways that we could address a lot of these issues through a licensing thing. Okay. Um, and I have a lot more to say, but

Okay, Alex, I I I see you. I may I I want to ask a question that may provide clarity to this conversation or maybe not and then we can let it go. And so, this is maybe for our attorneys uh if if you guys uh have any uh anything to do with this. So, the regulation that Matt was talking about was through the zoning code. So, we'll set that aside. Does the county license businesses? Does the does the city do the city or county municipal governments have licensing authority over businesses or is that something that is owned by the state? So, so for instance, a good example is title three of the official code of Georgia annotated and that that deals with alcohol lensure and and local governments are specifically given some authority to do licensing um in the alcohol context. Um a lot of people call a lot of people talk about business licenses. What those actually are occupation tax certificates. So that's a, you know, I think sometimes people use that term a little in artfully. Um, that that's an interesting legal question. I will say that um it can get kind of complex. We've I mean we've looked at that question before. Um, you know, a lot of times if if um counties and cities are are licensing a certain business or a type of business, it's because they've been given authority in general law and the official code of Georgia annotated. Um, so I I I don't want to give like a a specific answer because it it can get a little complicated on the ability of of local governments to license things and things like that. But um generally it would be what I would say is it's a lot of times it's preferable if there's something the official code

of Georgia annotated that that gives us some authority on that. Yeah. Otherwise it's fight that's right and sometimes you know you know you do run into areas too where you you maybe the state regulates something and then there's an argument about whether there's field preeemption and all that kind of stuff. So it gets it gets really complicated really quickly on that question. Okay. Thank you. Is it not accurate to say that we do license hotels in Athens? We issue occupation tax certificates. I think we issue um like they do the hotel hotel hotel mot hotel mot hotel mot hotel mot hotel mot hotel mot hotel mot hotel mot hotel mot hotel mot hotel motel tax certificates. I I don't think we don't have a specific license that I recall.

We can't tell we can't tell a hotel you can't be a hotel anymore. We can tell you like you can't have anyone in here anymore because you haven't paid your taxes or whatnot. We cannot issue a business um we cannot issue a business or an occupational tax certificate um which is which is different than the licensing which happens through the state right well an occupation tax certificate is is authorized under uh chapter 13 title 48 but to annotate it there's some specific um parameters around that okay

so I I guess to to try to try to not be on forever. Alex, you had your hand up though. Yeah. I'm just going to answer the questions like you asked us. Thank you.

Um question one, uh adopt the two-year time frame too short or too long uh is too short does not give. That is the number one thing that popped with everybody in my industry. It's loaded on the time frame. I didn't think the man commission would would pass the whole thing because of it. So that leads to the next one. Are there advantages of five, seven or 10? Those numbers probably need further discussion and that's what we're doing here. But yes, it does. It allows people to get their money back um on their investment when they thought they were able to do this and then they found out they're no longer able to do it. like um Mr. Up Church's example of a pharmacy or add drugs. So, that's that's been one of my I mean, there are a lot of things I didn't like about any of this, but that was one of the big things that uh I I think that needs to be extended or taken off or something. And again, I don't know I don't know the year that that should be, but this is input for the mayor commission to hear. And um and that leads me and I'll hold my next thing on this relief valve. I'll wait till that I'll wait till that shows up to talk about that.

Great. I do think that there is probably um uh enough people in this room are interested in regulating short-term rentals through zoning that we could probably have everyone answer this question. And your your your takes are duly noted. Um do this question. Does anyone else have an answer to this question? Too short. Oh, sorry. Oh, yeah. It's too short. If we had to go if we have to keep a sunset clo clause, it should probably go out closer to the seven or 10 year

absolutely. That said, I don't think we need the sunset clause at all or re relief valve. If we could find another way to go in a permitting process or a regulatory way, which I think would be better. Okay. So, I'm hearing a little echo echo echo there. Gary, did you have the same thing? Yeah, I mean I I think it's too short. I think

it's it's hard to say it's an arbitrary time. Two, five, seven, 10. Um, it's hard to say what makes sense. I think the longest term possible for me to make sense because but I think we identified there's over 300 of these non-conforming that can never be conforming. And so I think it's for those people that those people should be able to operate I think as long as they want to honestly. Um okay. Uh any anyone else who uh as long as we're not bad.

As long as Sorry. So sorry. So sorry I I missed I missed the cadence there. Um I'm going to give my two cents uh which is that I also think the two-year time frame is too short and I'm the one who proposed it. I thought for sure that the Marin Commission could change it after consulting with the attorneys because I think that what that the difference between a two, five, seven or 10 year time frame is a question of legal liability uh and that they should talk to the attorney the attorney's office about that and that's the judgment that I would take on it. Um two frame is too short five seven year time frame. the advantages uh less less jarring, less scary to uh people who had decided to get into the short-term rental business um and and reduces our liability. Matt,

um I was just going to say that the um I I too have come around to uh thinking that two years is perhaps too short. I think the principal advantage of going out to five or maybe even longer is doing away with the need for their relief valve. As Bruce discussed, uh the relief valve is um at best very complicated to administer and uh the purpose of the relief valve is to eliminate the possibility of a claim for a regulatory taking. um which the uh purpose of the Supreme Court president on that that Bruce alluded to says uh people have investmentbacked expectations and if you regulate them in a way where they've not been able to recoup their investment then that may constitute a taking right and so the uh longer period of time of at least five years u I think vastly reduces the likelihood that anybody would be able to credibly make a regulatory taking claim. Um, and thus obviousates the need to have a complicated safety value. Um, so I I think simplicity argues for having a a longer sunset clause if we're going to have a sunset clause at all.

Um, are you going to give an answer to this question? Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Let me talk. I can talk. Um, I know you have the problem here, but I uh I think that the two years too short. I mean, I don't think that we should have any sunset clauses because I think that the whole trouble we're seeing is that we're getting sued by people who saying it's a taking and stuff. And once again, I think that all these people that would be sunsetted would totally love the idea of a license or a permit instead that they could if they were a good apple, they could continue operating. And, you know, if they're a bad, then it's some protection for the neighbors. So, I I really don't see a need for a sunset clause at all. I think there's a better solution. Okay. Grandfathered permanently. Got some opinions.

Not permanently. They would still get they'd have to get their license and if they were bad, they would get it revoked. So, it's not nothing's permanent because there's always the chance that if you're a bad Apple, you could lose it. Okay. At any time. Okay. Let's let's But if you're a good Apple, you get to continue indefinitely. Let's move on. Maybe the next question is about licensing. Maybe not. I know it's number three valve, right?

We already have we have we if the sunset period is extended, is there a need for a relief valve provision? Does anyone have any additional brief responses to this question? Um uh I will say so the question is if is there a need for the relief valve? The premise of the question is the sunset period is being extended. relief valve. Um, and my my very brief answer to this is uh this basically the same as the last one, which is this is a question of legal liability. I think that the marit commission should defer to the attorney's office. Um, Mike,

I don't think that there's a need for a relief val because I think it's overly complicated and I think it gets into the the area of like, you know, when does the government ever guarantee you get your investment back? You know, I would say that these these people open their business in an uncertain regulatory atmosphere. You know, I'd say that any sort of commercial operation was never allowed in a residential area. So, I kind of don't see the need for a relief valve at all because I think it's just, you know, what about a relief valve for the neighbors who now have a bad apple next door, you know? So, I think it's a little bit unfair to protect the investments of one sector of the population and not protect everybody's investments. So, I'm just against the relief valve as a general thing.

Okay. Um, let's let's go around, Alex. So, I think it also depends on how long the extended. So, I think the relief valve is a terrible idea for a multitude of reasons. So, the calculation has to at least take it out far enough at a minimum. I don't know what that is because I left my calculator at home, but that that has to be considered. Okay, Matt. Do you have anything to say? You want to pass? Nothing to add. Relief. Terrible aid. Overly complicated. Waste of time. Okay. Monique, you got anything to add? That's not necessary. Okay. Nope.

I agree with Carrie exactly on the read valve. Okay. So, nobody likes further question. Right. So for clarification, if nobody likes the relief valve, then it seems like the mathematical challenge is at a minimum what sunset period duration is necessary to eliminate the need for the relief valve. Is that fair to restate? I don't know if there's any and then there's no need for a sunset my response. It's so different for every case. That's the thing I run into. It's like, you know what? somebody like super overpaid for their house and now they're saying they need like 20 years to recoup their investment. Like it just doesn't make sense. There's too many there's too many variables for like making your money.

So the good news is we do have a finite number of people impacted by this. Yeah. Right. So we have a sample size that is known. Yeah.

Um of those the analysis could be done to kind of ballpark some of those things. I'm not saying to the point of like by god this is it but within a reasonable tolerance plus like you know so I I'm so here's here's my question what I'm asking is if there's universal support amongst this group that the relief valve is not something you're in favor of then if there to to Sarah's point if there's a legal need to still cover our bases with the sunset clause then the math needs to be done to figure out what is the length of that sunset clause that does the job.

Is there a question there? Do you support that statement? I don't know if does the math need to be done. Or if you're asking if there's one set period that we could agree on that would work. Should it be discovered by math, not by us right now? That's right. That's my question. Matt, I'll talk to I'm gonna say yes. I think though you were asking is should math be used to determine literally the length like the sunset not for each. Yeah. It's so it's sort of like but then everybody's getting a different sunset. No one sunset. Yeah. Well, I mean I know the relief val the point of the relief val was to some people get longer, some people get shorter.

You put it out far enough to where everybody's math works. That's what I I think what Bruce is saying is if you were able to model it to a reasonable degree of certainty where you could say if you have a relief val or excuse me not a relief valve a sunset mixing mixing things up here a sunset clause that goes out to a certain amount of time and you feel relatively comfortable that for most businesses of this type that they would be able to recoup their investment within that period of time. Sure, there may be an outlier, but for the vast majority of them, we we fairly certain using modeling that that that you could put it out that far. You know, are you comfortable with that concept where we could Sure. I mean, that's Raise your hand if you're comfortable with that concept.

We had to have it in place is what you're saying. Yeah, we had to have something claws in place. Is that the concept? Sure. I mean, if you are uncomfortable with that concept, what do you have to say?

I want to add, if I may, to that so staff hears this though. So here's the next issue with investors. I've take when I invest in this, I'm not investing in that. So I choose to invest in this. I didn't invest in that. So it was fine to do this five years ago or whatever years ago. And to me, there's the reason I don't like sunset also is if recoup it's not just a matter of breaking even. I don't I don't think that's a fair thing to throw that just okay, I've got 500,000 invested in this by this amount of time. Soon as I hit 500,000, I get it back. Well, you didn't get anything for the 10 years it took or whatever that took. So, I know we're not doing their investing for them, but they legally made an investment that that now the county said that's illegal. Um, that that's why I just that's just one more reason that this we we tightened that sunset whether it's 15 years or 10 years, which I mean we loosen it but not enough. We've still interfered with somebody's investing. That is a reasonable thing for someone to be upset enough to hire some help on how to deal with that with the county. That's my fear. That's we we still hadn't gotten out of it. Like we're we're almost out of the thorns, but we still just left that one. So I'm I'm telling you that I'm not asking for any back push on that.

Interesting.

That' be a consideration in the math. I have a question for just curious like in terms of like recouping your investment like when we bought like when in the past buying a residential house like you recoup your investment by selling it and it was either higher or lower when you bought it. So that is still like the option that is available to these owners and it was the same option that's always been available to homeowners. like there was never this this idea in the past that you had to have some sort of like value on top of the actual real value of your property when you were buying a residential house. So I think we're kind of crossing into admitting that these are commercial operations because we're talking about having to recoup investment on top of just the real property investment. So I'm kind of curious like what's the I'm not saying this is any kind of like value statement. I'm just saying that like, you know, I still think that that same like recouping your investment still exists based on how like I would recoup the investment on my house. Just as a thought. I don't know.

I have a comment. There's been benchmarking done about this very topic, right? Has that been filtered into these these questions and responses already? because I feel like we're starting from ground zero when we don't have to and there's just so many options and ideas floating around and it's really it shouldn't be that complicated. we should be able to make a clear decision based on factbased statistics that work in other areas.

And and that was the nature of my question is if we if it's okay and if we're directed to do so, go go figure out that number, do the modeling as John said. Um, yes, there are ways to do that. And frankly, the relief valve math that was put together anticipates precisely that that process. So, and and it was done by experts in the field, folks that don't have skin in the game here locally. It it wasn't pre-cooked. And so, we have a pretty clinical stepbystep guide to do exactly that that we drafted. Okay.

So, that that is full disclosure. That's that would be staff's next step is to use that tool. If it's not going to be part of the code, we will use it to reverse engineer a sunset duration that accomplishes the legal end goal that that we think is important. But I think there's a couple of big things like we are assuming that it's government's responsibility to um that a person who buys a house to re recoup their investment. What about all the other Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Talk crossed up.

Let me reply to that. The relief valve math took that into account.

Yeah. So, you know, what Alex is saying, but also the counterpoint of Mike and your counterpoint, it's folded into that. So, we're we're going to be okay. Like I, you know, and we weren't going to spend a bunch of time kind of pull that apart, but we can if we need to. But I'm suggesting that the mechanics that we put together does produce a number. It does do it in a way that is legally defensible to talk about investmentbacked expectations from folks that do appraisals from folks that work in the real estate world. That's why we did it. So, if the relief valve is overreach or it's not y'all aren't comfortable with it, fine. We may still use it to revisit the sunset duration and and arrive at a comfortable number as a proposal.

Okay. That's what I'm saying.

Yeah. I just wanted to say we should resist very hard any temptation to try to figure out how to calculate the relief valve, which is a lot of what I'm hearing talking about. I think the the question is simply um if there is to if we're going to get rid of the relief valve by having a longer sunset um do we approve of the idea of staff you know using math to figure it to model it and figure out how do we make sure that almost everybody at least gets their investment back at expectations met and I think my answer to that is yes and and talk about um you know um how to figure out whether somebody's made money or not or whether the government has any responsibility to worry about that is beyond the scope of this question and um beyond the scope of what I think we should be talking about at any time of day, much less 10:20 at night.

Yeah, I I Okay, I'm I'm going to say uh I wish I had a whiteboard because I I feel like there's a visual here. Bring us up to order. So we're saying the relief valve terrible, too complicated to be in too complicated to be in an ordinance. Relief valve kind of creates a return on investment like curve lot of really specific data points. We use all that math that creates that algorithm and use it to create an average that's that's very high in that sunset period. Right? So like relief valve says the most you know our scatter plot lands us at seven years for instance. So then you'll have probably some people who can keep on operating that air you know that Airbnb long past the relief valve would have paid them for. They'll recoup more than their investment because of the specifics of the math that we won't get into. But it's better to have that simple law that gives a lot of people the benefit of the doubt, the benefit of a little extra time than it is to have a very complicated law that gets very specific with it.

How's the Yeah, I think the modeling provides consistency and I think that's what's most significant when making these kind of decisions for people's investments in their lives. Any investment is risky. Any investment is risky. Consistency and a rational basis on a rational basis. Correct. Hey, it also guarantees that it's a that you're supposed to make a profit on this or recoup your investment. You know, I would say that there's no guarantee that any any investment not gerine to the to the I think that we're assuming that we're giving that you're doing it again. I think that we're saying that Airbnbs are guaranteed to make back their investment. They're not. You're going off topic, right? Yeah. We're not saying that. I think you guys are being mean. I don't think it's off topic. Yeah.

I really don't. Yeah. Shut up. I I think what Mike is saying, what I was saying is like that there's this there's this assumption that's being made that is a value judgment that this group hasn't talked about. Yeah. Like there's a guarantee that it's a good investment. I'm saying that maybe an Airbnb is not a good investment and you lose money. Like why are we saying that the that we have to assume that they have to make back their investment at all? Because the attorney's office has advised the mayor and commission and us that the United States Supreme Court has said yeah that when an investor is regulated out of a business that investmentbacked expectations is part of the test of whether a

taking has occurred that requires the government to write them a check which is why I'm the sun test. But this is the goes back to the discussion of the sunset clause and licensing because I would say this whole discussion is a waste of time if we just had a licensing permitting system. We wouldn't be taking anything from anybody. I can't wait to get to the licensing district. Well, we should start with that. Like I said, then we wouldn't waste time on this stuff. I would make all these more. We have three more. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I just want to remind everybody, we're talking about people that did something legal and the government changed the rule and made it illegal to do what they were doing. That's my that is the legal problem with

hush. Whether they make money or not is no one's problem. When you buy something and you want to make money, whether it's an Airbnb or leasing out long-term, it's up to you to make the money. But when the government changes the rule, that's what got all of this going. So, I'm just saying that and I'll be quiet again. I think that's assuming that. Right. There we go. We are moving on. Okay, I still have a counter opinion. Do I interest? Okay, question. The question is, is there a licensing procedure for the short-term rental operations? Their interest. If there is there interest, raise your hand if you're interested. Sure. Let's hear some doubt down the road. Not tonight. Let's hear more about it.

Okay. Raise your hand if you are interested. Let's get a count. Let's see. Do we have a consensus? Okay. Raise your hand if you're not interested. I'm half interested. Like I'm I'm interested, but I'm not saying I like that. And and here's what I'm going to say before I move to the next slide. Licensing requires terms of eligibility for licensing, right? Not everybody gets to have a license. So I'm just saying that out loud. Yes,

this is not maybe the the full extent of the answer that maybe folks might anticipate. So we will work on this. Okay. Enforcement. So again, this this body, this was a comment, this was a concern. Um I wanted to walk you through what we've done. We've got some data points that got just as the meeting starting this evening about what we've done so far. Um if I can let you know what those are really quickly. Um, there have been several hundred warnings for nuisances at properties that are have are are identifiable as short-term rental operations. Now, warnings for those nuisances or violation are for all kinds of things, parking, noise, trash, everything that may or may not be associated with a short-term rental operation itself, especially where they're home occupations. It could be the person who lives there, who owns the property is the source of the violation. But there have been several hundred in the time that we've had this ordinance that um code enforcement has worked on. Um that is per address. So another thing to point out, sometimes we have an address that has multiple short-term rentals and there are violations, multiple violations for that one address. So the number starts to go up when you have and I won't name spish specific properties here tonight, but we have multiple unit properties where the vast majority and in one case all of the units are short-term rentals. Every single one in the building is a short-term rental. Um and and there have been compliance issues at those properties. Um 39 citations have been written. 35 of those came into compliance before their court date. Four are currently pending. All

right. Um 68 total code cases have referenced or cited STR uses or STR related issues. Um so I'm throwing out some numbers. We're we're idling either below 50 or below 100 depending on the scale of severity. Um, and that really has been that level of enforcement has really been taking place since the legal non-conforming list went live on March 1st. So that's the frequency. Some of these predate that. I don't want to overstate that. But the vast majority of these have been working since March 1st because that's when we've kind of eased out of pure education mode and more into enforcement. All right. Um, so we do have a dedicated staff person. the mayor and commission have asked for and I think I think the the position that is working more than uh Monday through Friday 7 to 5 um the funding for that actually hits halfway through the year. So that position wouldn't come online until the new year because the money's not there to hire somebody until the new year. Um, but that is a first to have a position like that that's functioning beyond normal business hours for code enforcement. Um, part of that justification for it was for short-term rental, but it wasn't exclusively for short-term rental is my understanding. Um, because there are other things that go into these ordinance violations, parking, noise, trash, those aren't short-term rental violations. They are ordinance violations of a broader sense. Is there anything else about enforcement that either you kind of want to get on the record, get off your chest or you know, but I I think this is an opportunity to kind of say those things. There's not much more at the moment that we're proposing other than getting that

staff person online in the new year and focusing on the ordinances that we have on the books. Can I ask a question? Sure. If we move or if we all collectively want to see licensing of some sort, but the licensing itself is out of our purview, how do we answer your question about enforcement? Yeah, because it sounds like we could tell we could say more things that we want to see enforced, but they're Yeah, I don't jeopardize the

So, licensing if that were something that were to come into existence offers another opportunity for another enforcement. That's very true. any any sort of pursuit of language about lensure is going to involve some understanding also of how to enforce that and administer it. So we can deal with that as we're drafting that and I think is that fair Austin? Okay. But good question. All right. Anything else on enforcement? All right.

So this is what I thought was going to be the fun one, y'all. Um All right. So, special use review criteria. This one's been tough to work our way through. Um, the issue we have at hand is we have special use criteria that is pretty generalized. It's it's meant to be a one-sizefits-all list of things to consider for anything that's a special use. Um, we have one example in the code where we have additional special use criteria for something that is unique that's related to airport operations because we have a different concern about safety and the operations of the airport have different factors that go with it. So, we have an example already in our code where we have developed unique special use criteria for things related to the airport. The suggestion here is perhaps we could have some unique criteria related to short-term rentals that would help sift through when we can support a yes and when we can support a no. All right, having said that, logical next question is if we can find a pathway to say yes, is that not a reason to put in the code to just say yes and not have to go through a special use process? So maybe there's a better way for me to state that. Is there a way for us to revisit how and where short-term rentals are allowed? And we're talking in this case specifically about commercial short-term rentals, ones where there is not an owner occupant. Um,

are you talking about a certain zone? Could be. Okay. Yeah, could be. The focus right now, I mean, we we're struggling with RM as a general rule, but you know, it could be something else somewhere down the line. You know, our special use requests have been for the RM, right? We've had one uh AR and it it went through with very little discussion. And do we have any special use in place for commercial zones? Sure. And I mean for STRs and commercial zones? No. So is there any regulation about STRs and commercial zones at all? Commercial? No. Now there's regulations. Here's how you do them. Okay. Right. But yeah, but they they can by Right. You could

you come through a process have a it's administrative. Okay. Yeah. And what is that? Is that that administrative process? That's you registering or you No, not not registering. Sorry, I use a bad word. But what what are you doing? What are you, let's say you already have a commercial um use that has some residential units in it. If you want to start renting those residential units out that you don't live in, you're an owner. building a commercial zone. Do you have to do anything? Code has process for that that's not special use and that's just an administrative what are they coming in and doing? No one's done that yet.

But what would they do theoretically? It' be plans review as as we would treat any other commercial use. But if it's already if they're not really changing they'd have to change something. So if you take a storefront and make it a place where somebody's going to spend the night, you're going to have to do something. Well, I guess I mean something for like CN where you might already have residential units there. Let's say you've you've got residential units there. You've got 12 of them. You've always rented those out long term and you decide you want to do short-term. You're not really changing the use. Do you do anything?

Now, sometimes the the use change isn't isn't super involved. Uh you know, if if um we have maybe a high-rise example is a good example. you have a high-rise that was built, pretty aggressive building code standards, um, fire and safety standards. All of those things have been met for the apartment building. Those same standards largely meet what you would look for for overnight accommodations that aren't for long-term occupancy. They're for short-term occupancy. You may have checked a bunch of boxes. There there there are some other paperwork related things like um your certificate of occupancy would be different um that may have different things from a building code standpoint to keep up with.

Okay. But more or less doing the paperwork and coming through plans review because if it's code compliant to be an apartment building, it's really close, if not exactly the same, to also function as a short-term rental, but it's a different use classification. And so we have to update that and and make sure we go through that process to make sure everything's there. Especially if you have an older building if it was built at a time when some of the current codes weren't needed, but now you you want to shift into this short-term rental commercial function. There may be some upgrades you have to do for fire building.

You were changing from long-term. So you're what you're describing also applies if you're changing from long-term rental to short-term rental. Correct. the duration of of stay we've got as a use change in our code. Okay. Y

um I would just like to briefly uh address something that I don't think has been addressed yet uh because I've just heard unchallenged over and over and over again that the only thing we care about is bad apples. If it weren't for these bad apples, no one would care about short-term rentals. That's just categorically false. Half the reason we started doing this whole thing when we started doing it was because of the impact of short-term rentals on the price of housing and the availability of housing in Athens Clark County. Um, not to mention the cultural impact that it has on the neighborhoods where it hits hardest in that heat map. Um so this is the the really the first thing that we're talking about. Um you know I think uh when it comes to when it comes to grandfathering when it comes to the sunset clause when it comes to the relief valve or whatever that all exists in in one category of affecting people who have businesses and how you feel about it. This is a thing that continues to have that impact on which housing units of of of you know of which we still have a shortage are being removed from the uh the actual residential market. Uh so I uh I support I I do support increasing uh by right opportunities because I can see some use for these units in RM and AR zones and it is

clearly untenable that we continue to take these on a special use basis. Um but I don't know. There's just the there there's got to be some way to to stop the the flood. You know what I mean? Well, you make them known. Yeah. Okay. Actually, yeah. Um, that's that's that's right. That's right. Yeah.

You can make them you could make them a nonp non-permitted use.

Yeah. I think it actually especially in AR zones because when we're talking about AR zones, a owner occupancy in AR makes sense. You're talking about your your own house that you rent out. You're talking about your your ADU or whatever. for short-term rentals in a in AR zones. That makes sense. In RM, I think that whatever we have in single family, we should apply to RM. Maybe with the exception of downtown. Maybe with the exception of downtown. That's my opinion. I would support limiting or outright banning in the in the RN because for what you said I mean the bad apples are not the only objection that we've had um in AR I don't have any problem with them being done by right I feel like they're out there they're not impeding anybody else necessarily around them the one that we approved felt like a good use for that so when they're a little bit more secluded I think it's less of an issue than in the RM and less of an opportunity to take a unit away from a long-term renter. The other thing that I would add here, and this came up on Tuesday night's meeting, it feels rhetorical, but because we sat through Wood Lake couple weeks ago, last month, we should also include that if the HOA prohibits this, they can't go any further with the special use permit because we did all sit through this. mayor and commission sat through and and it seems like they should have never been able to use that special use permit because the HOA didn't allow for it. So I don't know why governing body of that decision.

Yeah. So

um cotailing that uh I guess the HOAs or pro I'm sure there's a lot of legal work being done in a lot of HOAs and I can check around you can check around people in our office a little better because that is that outgo municipalities. So if they say you can't do it there nothing we can do here to help you out. Um, so I would say most of that just falls in line with the HOA. Um, and but I will also say just look at all the for lease signs when you go home or go to work tomorrow compared to two years ago. It I say it every meeting and I'm gonna say it every meeting and you're deeper into that than I am. the other day and it's it's it's all over the place. There is a lot to lease and a lot to purchase in this town and it affects my life livelihood right now. People aren't buying quite as fast. So, it's to to to to just lay it on that um short-term rental is affecting the market. I still haven't seen the proof of that and I'm living the proof that it is not affecting the market. It it it touches it. It touches it because everything touches the market, but it is not the cause of the rental situation out there. And I I would love to see the proof that it is the cause of the of of housing not being affordable. it took off long before um the rental short-term rental hit. It just it spiked and people are doing things and that's where the market went. Anyway, um I do want to bring that back into the fact that that it is it is

not good cause. I I will say that in our original discussions I think it was never you know pinned not I don't think I well certainly there are some people out there who have said it is the cause and I was I have not was not one of them and I don't think anyone in this planning commission president or past was was one of them you're right um I will also say just from a logical perspective uh the the fact that this is affecting your livelihood does does explain why we have so many people from the association of realtors every time we talk about this because it seems to impact realtors more than uh more than anyone and it's I there are many factors to this all these for lease signs started going up in my neighborhood specifically I have seen many for lease signs go up on places that used to be short-term rentals with the like the the fact that we are seeing all these for lease signs popping I'm not saying it's because of our short-term rental regulations, but I will say that we started seeing it after we enacted them, which doesn't, you know, the the the sunset and the grandfathering hasn't happened, but it has already taken effect for these purchases. And that makes it and, you know, see, we're seeing it nationwide to an extent. I know that there's a lot of causes. What's not so good for realtors is better for people who are trying to buy a house or even lease one. And I mean, we've been in we've been in uh buyer and renter death mode for so long. I don't think I don't think the pendulum because I I don't think we're I don't think we're we're close enough to that to the other side being a problem. Okay. So, have we answered your questions on this?

I could go about 20 minutes on that, but I'll I'm gonna hold off on that. I deal with I deal with long-term rentals daily, so have some insight, but I'll I'll save that for another time. I just And this is uh I promise because we could do that all. But I but I do have Sorry. No, you're still talking. I'm sorry. You keep going. I do have a perspective to share at some when I think has some value. But again, it's 11th. So, I won't I'm going to shut my mouth tonight. So, so I I do want the short-term rental thing does not affect my income. I don't deal in short-term rentals. I don't I do I want to make sure that part was clear.

The the fact that the market's saturated like it was, you know, six years ago is is what I was expecting. So, so what's on the screen? I'm going to try to summarize here and and you can tell me notice is cracked or this is worth looking into a little bit further. The notion of having something that that provides for a byite opportunity in the RM zones that it's just not a straight special use. Um, I heard comments saying they shouldn't be allowed in the RM at all. So, I'm hearing that viewpoint. Um, we're also hearing the sentiment that if you are in a um an aging or or not even that old apartment complex and there's one or two units out of the 10 or 20 that are functioning as a commercial short-term rental, is that okay? And, you know, some people kind of shrug their shoulders. We're you just sort of read the room, you get different reactions. So the notion here was coming up with in response to those different reactions that we were hearing and seeing maybe there's an allowance for up to for 10% of the last of the units in an undivided I keep wanting to point out why I'm using that term those that hasn't gone condo right so it's still got one property owner and everybody in there has a lease that one property owner so it's undivided multif family development if 10% of those units were allowed by right up to 10% as a commercial STR and and we're talking about RM zones predominantly here. Is that okay? Um and then what we picked here was 10% 10% already exists in the code for some for some latitude. 10% is one of those

things. It's like there's even some things that that there's planning director discretion for up to 10% of a variance on a setback or a parking amount.

Um so rather so that number exists in there as as a reasonable metric and so we we picked that and then from 10% to 25% maybe that requires special use approval and anything beyond 25% is no. If you get beyond a quarter of your development as commercial STR, that's no. And 25% also exists in the code. That's something we use with regard to residential density. We have a standard saying no more than uh 25% of a multif family development can have fourbedroom units or higher. So we're already that that kind of feels the same almost with the occupant load aspect of short-term rentals. So that's why we said 25%.

I like that. Yeah, I I heard and totally agree with what Sarah and Jen were saying about RM that single family homes or homes on a parcel in RM1 zones should be treated like homes in RS zones. I'm thinking of like Hancock Reese where it's zoned RM, but it's not really multif family. It's just small homes on small lots. Like those should be treated the same as RS. But what you're talking about where you've got a 12-unit property or a a 30unit property um allowing it as of right in those sort of situations does make a lot of sense. It's owned by an, you know, a single owner who has every incentive to make sure that um the short-term rental people are not noisy or leaving trash everywhere because he's got long-term tenants to keep happy. And so I think that's one kind of lowhanging fruit way to um streamline the process and reduce the number of special use permit applications with no real harm. So everything you said makes a lot of sense to me including that 10 and 25% cut offs. You know that all seems uh very reasonable. So another idea that's been floated is that one option by right would be if you were between 10% and 25% you could get commercial STRs if you also provided an inclusionary zoning unit. And what I've got on the screen is a 1 to1 ratio ratio on that just to get the conversation started as a concept. But if you got if you wanted to get to 14 or 15% well anything north of 10% you've got to provide one inclusionary zoning unit for each CSTR unit that you're proposing and kind of came up with this based off of some of the comment we've had from the

podium from property management honestly that the cash flow I'm paraphrasing the cash flow of a of a commercial short-term rental is functioning at a pretty high level than just normal rents. So maybe that's justification for taking something and you want to be able to function that way beyond 10% by right. Let's use that to offset a reduced rent for somebody else within that project. It's a thought worth I think worth thinking about and and there wouldn't be a payment in lie associated with that. If you do it, you're also providing the unit. you're not paying into something in in exchange.

And so would this be a special use that would go through the commission or something do administratively or

administratively? That's the idea is this is another way to not have to go through a special use. It would just be in the books to be able to do this and it's using a tool we already had. Um, another thought is to say divided multif family developments, and I I mentioned this earlier this evening, those that are condo parcels, treat them like a subdivision. And and maybe that's the situation where it's a no. You can do them as a home occupation, but not as a commercial short-term rental. It needs to be owner occupied to be able to do it if you're in a divided, parcled multif family development. So moving down the list some performance criteria and this is where we're like okay if we come up with criteria and you meet the criteria why do you need to get a special use. So the thinking here is all right what if we had performance criteria about placement of the commercial STR just for conversation um what if we said specific placement says within a multif family development those need to be towards the right ofway or towards the entrance not at the back of a development. Um do it that way there's no question you want relief from that standard that's a special use.

So now we have something that we're measuring against. seems like you're getting in the weeds. You're starting to micromanage and get in the weeds a little there.

It' be nice to narrow down the discussion and get into the weeds on something that's actually measurable. And that's the point is if we're if we're going to do this right now, the special use discussion is not in the weeds at all. It's it's open-ended. It has no form. It has no guard rails. It has no substance. The notion here is we're saying these places are okay. This placement's okay. You want to do something different and you want to go above these other metrics, you know? So, so let's let's be on an apartment complex with 20 units. Um, I feel like we could reasonably just leave it to them to decide which units are optimal for short-term rental usage. And I would just hesitate to Okay.

Um, restrict that person's property rights for no clear benefit. Like it, you know, u I just don't see the the benefit of saying it has to be on the public right away. I agree. And and if you're talking about an apartment building, then a prohibition on sharing a common wall means you can't do it in an apartment building. So I don't fair enough like grasp. Yeah, I got you that.

It it's it's difficult to come up with something measurable when you have something that the the the substantive difference is the duration of use and in some degrees the occupant load that happens in these. that that's you know an apartment has two people living in it. It could have two short-term renters. Yeah.

Are we worried about that one? No, we're worried about we're worried about when there's more the bad apple sort of thing. But we need to have something measurable if we're going to review it up front. Otherwise, we're always reacting to the performance. Which brings us back to the lensure idea. Right. So, I get it. The notion here is that if we the special use experiment seems to be breaking down and so trying to either completely abandon it, which is not on the screen as an option, um could be as a question. Should these ever be a special use? Might have the answer after discussion of saying no. No, they're not. It's either they're either allowable by right within certain tolerances or they're not.

Yeah, I think that uh I I see where you're going. Uh and basically of the measurable uh standards that you have put forward the ones in number four. So like 10 to 25% sounds like a great idea. The ones in four less of a good idea than the than the ones up there. If that was the only way that we could possibly limit the number in a multif family thing was to do those kinds of things then it would be I feel more worth discussing or you know I'd be more more open to like be like okay we can do it then but feels like there's a better one on the screen

but I generally agree with that that the two bullets under the performance standards seem less important or that's something that maybe could be added later but it seems it does seem like the top three kind of more effectively and they seem like sort of more administratively straightforward. Um the the one thing that to me would if if this was the route you're going to take, the other thing I think would maybe need to be added is because the law is a little bit weird about HOAs, could you put into this that if the homeowners association explicitly pro prohibits this that supersedes this process?

You don't even have to say it. It already does. That's true. I mean HOA that's the thing about the situation we were talking about before the HOA has can evict you. HOAs can evict you from a neighborhood like rightiz the last month with a a special use permit that the HOA should have superseded it and it didn't. It was their respon it should never come to us. It was their responsibility to police that the HOA's responsibility. I feel like that may be an anomaly. We did see that one, but most most owners are going to know that their HOA prohibits it and they're never going to apply because they know I think that was just a strain. That was just an odd behavior by that one owner. So, I don't know that we

like what Bruce is saying about the inclusionary uh zoning from the get-go because I think it would put a new developer in a position where they've got to think about this and it could change how they want to move forward with their development. if they want to try to have short-term rentals there, they could offset it with with some lower rents. So, I think anything we can do that moves us away from special use permits, which we've seen, we vote one way, mayor commission votes another way. It's far too arbitrary. So, we need either more by right or just outright.

I totally number four is almost uninforceable. I mean, you just there's it'd be really hard to to manage that and figure out who's doing what and how. I mean, I just Yeah, I I think it's I think we need to make it as streamlined and simple as possible. Maybe it's not that maybe that's not possible. I don't want to prolong this, but I just a suggestion like I I the I get the idea behind number four like do we want some objective SUP criteria? And I think

you know things that leap to mind include like does this property have sufficient off- streetet parking to avoid burdening the neighbors uh you know when they're being if it's being used as an SGR u are there uh particular conditions of the property in terms of you know subpar setbacks from the neighboring homes that make it inappropriate you know like specific criteria where uh that would enable us to intelligently review a particular SUP application rather than what we have right now, which is, as you said, general criteria that don't really offer any guidance.

I mean, a long-term rental, the two people living there are going to have friends over. They're going to have girlfriend or boyfriend or partner might visit. They're going to have maybe they're having a gathering of friends. I mean, you're ultimately you could be dealing with some of the same issues. Maybe not as frequently, but still. I mean, there's still some similar things you're going to deal with there. So, I don't know. If if the special use were to go away, if there's set if there's support for that to not be part of this regulatory setup items one, two, and three that are up there, I think folks are are comfortable with the general idea, but it might modify number one to say that you just get 10% by right. The only way to get above 10% in whatever percent we ultimately land on is to do the inclusionary zoning. There is no special use approval for 10 to 25%.

Yes. True. Is that streamline it? Make it Yeah. Simplify. Absolutely. And so is your thinking that that would apply to undivided multif family but not to divided. Divided it would just not be well to Jen's statement about no none and RM. I think some of that was inspired by the conversation that we heard with the Woodlake example, which is a divided multif family development. Um, so yes, that was the idea. I think those are good.

All right. I appreciate everybody's feedback and I I know this is one of those things that's got everybody kind of twisted and and and I I wish Mike was still here and and Mon'nique the amount of energy and thought outside of this room is greatly appreciated and I don't want to diminish that. Um so I I know there was research going on beyond he wasn't thinking they weren't thinking about this just during this meeting. So staff super appreciates that. That's we've got a really good group with you all to think about these things as you're driving around town or as you're just taking a moment or when you notice something. That's what's going to make this ordinance better. And that's I think in part the recognition that the mayor and commission was giving by remanding this back is let's hear allow the planning commission a chance to focus on these topics one more time and let's bring that input back so that they can have that as part of their thought process going forward.

So thank you for that. I think if I can just I'm great idea to do it this way and I just write something that we had to start thinking and voting on. So I appreciate staff bringing it forward this way. Very good job.

Yeah. One thing I just add to that is like we keep talking about these big issues, future land use, STRs at the end of these our meetings and we're all kind of tired and over it and these are big questions and I just watched a lot of people today get shut down when they were bringing up the big questions like and we we never give ourselves time to actually talk about those. There's big things here about sort of the way we sanctify the fle single family neighborhood. the way like why is if we think these are so bad for the housing market why are they okay in RM like we we we sort of get shut down we want to talk about these bigger questions even though so we've never talked about them and and we get to them and then someone's like no no no stop talking we got to stay on task and I feel like we we're we're still not giving ourselves sort of like with fresh minds starting with some of the bigger questions we kind of start with these details and at this point. It's It's probably not fixable, but it's but it's the thing I observe every time is that we just can't quite go there because it's just too like heady and I don't know out of out of scope with what we're supposed to be talking about, but they matter. These big questions about this like they matter. Um and even like I've heard a lot of statements tonight where I thought like that's actually not correct or we don't know if that's correct or but we just kind of keep going because we have to keep going. we that we we never really can get some of these big questions answered as far as I'm concerned. Like even there's I always see that there's an assumption. It seems like I I didn't see this tonight, but sometimes I think people assume that if you start if you don't allow um like STRs in commercial STRs in single family zones that suddenly all those houses are going to go into the market. We don't know that. Like we don't know that everyone's going to say, "Well, I can't do this anymore, so I'm going to sell it." They're going to turn it to a

long-term rental. They're going to keep it as like a family cottage. They're going to do like non long-term like traveling nurse rental things. They're going to do a lot of different things because people are doing this for a lot of reasons. And we never really talk about that. There's a variety of reasons that people are doing this. And it doesn't all fit into, you know, it's not like, oh, we're suddenly going to get 711 houses back in the market in the next two years, 5, seven, 10 years, whatever that ends up being. I just don't see that necessarily being an assumption. We can just

So, two things that staff has mentioned on that very point, Sarah, is is to give this body a chance to wrestle with topics and not have to vote on other business items. And so we have looked at um in the summer months when the mayor and commission take a pause from their regular business meeting that would be an opportunity for this body to tackle some educational items. The way the cycles work we might still have some voting items in there but we'd have fewer at least the thinking is. And then the holidays, which is not popular, I know to have an extra meeting or not an extra meeting, but a meeting at all. But that would be an opportunity for us, say at a December planning commission meeting, um, first Thursday of that month to tackle a topic, you know, and we're going to need to do that, especially if future land use is moving forward and we start getting into implementation of code changes that we want to see. housing related code changes is going to take discussion of the topics that you were just bringing up.

Yeah, we're gonna have to be able to talk about those things, know what things we need to regulate and which things we need to leave. I mean, we didn't really fully even get in those. It's been an hour and 45 minutes, so we do need a longer time for that. Yeah. And I would just like truly afforded that. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to re extend the invitation to mayor and commission to have a joint session. Yeah. On any of this. I know they didn't want to take us up on that this time, but if we don't get this all hammered out, I hope they'll take us up on that the next time. Okay, I'll pass that on. All right. Well, is there Yep. Are we done? Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Um, so, uh, as you all know, I emailed you about this before we went through this meeting. So, this wasn't the result of having gone through this meeting. Um uh we are having uh I'm making uh I'm putting on here reconsideration of the vote from last meeting on planning commission chair. Uh I nominate Chris Morales. She is accepted via email. Email. Yes. Uh she's accepted that nomination. I second the motion. Great.

I all Okay. Great. Um so uh all uh all in favor Christrista Morales for planning commission chair unanimous. Um I nominate myself for vice chair. Second. All in favor for me as vice chair say I. I unanimous. Uh planning commission chair's report. I have no report. Bruce planning director's report. Do you have a report? No ma'am. Thank you. Do you have any announcements? Anyone? Anyone? All right. I would like to entertain a motion to adjurnn.

So move. Second. All in favor? All right.

Okay. issue was that issue also can is that you are not the chair as Granny.