►
From YouTube: Athens Planning Commission - October 7, 2021
Description
Athens Planning Commission - October 7, 2021
A
Is
there
anyone
that
will
be
speaking
before
the
planning
commission
today
and
if
so,
raise
your
right
hand
and
just
say
I
will
after
I
say
what
I'm
gonna
say
say:
do
you
promise
to
tell
the
truth
the
whole
truth,
but
the
truth
before
the
planning
commission
great
disposition
of
many
minutes,
so
we're
going
to
start
with
the
disposition
of
the
july
1st
meeting
minutes
and
those
who
are
eligible
to
vote
are
myself
nancy,
bain
and
john
you're
able
to
vote
on
this
one
as
well.
B
Move
that
we
adopt
the
minutes
as
presented
a
second.
A
All
right
any
discussion
on
them
hearing,
none
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
all
right.
Those
meetings
are
adopted,
disposition
of
the
july
15th
meeting
minutes
and
that
will
be
austin
nancy
and
john
again,
and
I
will
not
be
able
to
vote
on
that
one.
Nor
will
andy
stone.
A
Any
discussion,
okay,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
all
right.
Those
minutes
are
adopted
august
5th
meeting
minutes,
and
this
will
be
everyone,
except
for
commissioner
bain.
So
this
is
the
august
5th.
A
Okay,
austin
second
in
discussion,
all
in
favor,
saying,
hi:
okay,
those
have
been
adopted,
the
september
2nd
special
session
public
hearing
minutes,
and
this
is
everyone.
B
I'll
move
once
again
to
accept
the
september
2nd
special
meeting
minutes
presented.
A
A
Second,
second,
by
nancy,
any
discussion
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
aye.
Okay
cases,
we
have
title
41
for
marietta
memorial
freestanding
emergency
department
on
206
columbus,
road.
D
We've
had
thank
you,
mayor,
we've
had
some
chance
to
look
at
marietta
memorial
freestanding
emergency
hospital
located
on
206
columbus
road
yeah.
We
did
get
some
revised
plans
yesterday
afternoon
and
I
spent
the
evening
yesterday
and
this
morning
with
jessica
dying
and
the
engineering
public
works
to
review
those,
and
we
did
have
some
comments
that
I've
put
on
your
desk,
but
these
these
plans
are
they're.
They
do
address
most
of
what
of
what
we've
talked
about
before.
These
are
new
comments
that
have
come
up.
D
They're,
they're
kind
of
minor
most
of
them
are
fairly
minor
comments,
but
that
we
would
like
to
see
the
landscaping
plan,
and
I
won't
go
into
detail
on
all
this
we'd
like
to
see
a
photometric
plan
to
review
that
we'd
like
to
make
sure
that
they
field
locate
and
verify
all
the
existing,
especially
the
storm
water
utility.
That's
out
there,
they
I
need
some.
We
need
some
additional
information
on
the
bmps
that
they've
got
a
turbine
system
that
they
want
to
install
and
so
we'd.
C
Mr
chairman,
if
I
can
make
a
point
so
I
I
did
meet
with
the
representatives
of
the
engineering
firm
out
on
this
particular
site,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
had
brought
up
before
is
specifically
the
storm
situation
there,
and
you
know
we
traipsed
through
the
weeds,
and
we
found
all
the
existing
infrastructure,
that's
there,
so
that
they
could
shoot
that
in
and
and
while
there
needs
to
be
some
additions
to
the
plans.
C
The
alignment
is
sufficient
to
meet
my
concerns
that
we
had,
which
was
which
was
basically
the
that
they
captured
existing
conditions,
the
way
that
they
are
because
it
could
create
a
major
problem
if
they
didn't
capture
those
and
my
review
of
these
plans
that
they've
resubmitted
indicates
that
they
have
captured
those.
C
Now
there
are
some
notes
on
there
that
still
say
as
per
city
gis,
which
is
incorrect,
because
we
went
out
there
and
we
told
you
where
it
was
so
it's
not
for
city
js,
it's
per
where
we
told
you
where
they
were,
and
so,
if
you
can
get
that
stuff
updated
as
well
as
these
other
things
that
were
identified
by
the
engineering
public
works
department.
C
Has
approved
title
41
plan
reviews
with
the
condition
that
the
the
designer
make
the
changes
required
by
the
engineering
poke
works
department,
and
I
would
propose
that
be
the
the
direction
we
go
today.
D
We
have,
we
would
like
to
see
the
updated
landscaping
plans,
those
weren't
included
in
that
submission
that
came
yesterday.
We
we
are
planning,
I
think,
we're
planning
on
going
to
the
shade
tree
commission
on
the
14th,
which
is
a
week
from
today,
7
pm
with
those
plans,
but
I'd
like
to
get
those
and
get
those
distributed.
Everybody
as
soon
as
possible.
A
Okay,
I
was
looking
at
particular
at
the
parking
plan
and
noting,
what's
required,
versus
what
they're
going
to
provide
under
these
plans
is
that
they're
required
49
parking
spaces,
but
they're
going
to
have
80
five
they're
required
to
have
five
ada
parking
spaces
and
they're.
Actually
gonna
have
nine
so.
D
Yes,
the
staff
has
looked
at
that
fuel
if
you'll
note,
one
of
the
comments
is-
and
we
had
discussed
this
with
the
with
the
developer-
that
the
southeast
entrance
on
columbus
road
be
for
emergency
access.
Only
that'll
make
the
alignments
with
the
what's
going
on
across
the
road
better.
It's
really
no
no
better
location
than
where
they
have
for
the
in
for
the
main
in
and
out
for
this
project.
This
is
really
the
best
location
for
it.
B
And
and
everything
complies
with
the
floodplain
regulations
out
there.
C
We
are
still
working
through
that
they
they're
working
through
fema's
floodplain,
the
floodway
requirements.
Those
have
to
be
approved
at
the
federal
level,
and
so
mr
sands
is
in
communication
with
our
district
office
in
chicago
about
getting
through
all
that.
If,
if
I,
if
I'm
not
out
of
turn,
if
the
planning
commission
is
going
to
vote
to
approve
today
with
conditions,
I
would
make
sure
that
one
of
those
conditions
that
we're
approving
for
is
approval
through
fema.
C
C
I
guess
deviation
from
what
the
the
current
flood
insurance
rate
map
say
up
there
by
by
by
the
developer
here,
going
through
this
process
on
this
project,
which
is
probably
something
that
should
happen
20
years
ago
with
the
original
commercial
subdivision
that
was
built
and
it
was
never
a
closed
process
through
fema,
and
this
will
close
it.
So
it's
it's
actually
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
E
Scott
sams,
with
sans
decker,
just
wanted
to
introduce
myself
and
say
I'm
available
for
any
questions
also
say
the
the
city
staff
has
been
just
fantastic
to
work
with
on
this
project.
So
we
appreciate
all
the
all
the
help
that
they've
given
us
available
for
any
questions
does.
B
A
A
So
should
we
make
a
motion?
Would
someone
like
to
make
a
motion
with
conditions.
C
I
I
would
move
that
the
planning
commission
accept
and
approve
the
title.
41
review,
with
conditions
presented
by
the
code,
epw
and
and
planner
staff
be
completed
prior
to
construction,
beginning.
F
A
A
That
was
in
the
purview
of
the
planning
commission
and
as
we
move
forward
again,
it's
just
good
to
remind
people
that,
based
upon
the
the
decision
or
the
vote
on
the
amended,
amended
athens
city
code,
title
23
that
it
will
potentially
go
to
city
council
for
opportunities
for
citizens
to
continue
to
engage
with
city
council.
But
at
this
point
it's
before
us,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
director
stone.
C
Thank
you,
sir.
All
right
for
the
planning
commission
members
that
are
here
there's
lots
of
paper
in
front
of
you,
but
to
to
do
some
clarification.
C
The
document
that
has
the
date
of
10
721
on
the
top
of
it
with
only
yellow,
highlights
included,
is
the
quote-unquote
clean
version
that
if
we
approve
the
changes
today,
that's
what
we
would
return
to
the
to
the
city
council
for
them
to
take
up.
As
as
our
approved
planning
commission
review
of
this
recommended
change
of
the
zoning
code.
C
I'd
ask
you
to
set
that
aside
right
now
and
instead
go
we're
going
to
go
kind
of
line
by
line
to
talk
about
the
specifics
in
the
the
one
that
has
the
multi-colors
and
that's
the
one
behind
it.
If
you
look
at
it
and
it's
got
several,
it's
got:
yellow
and
green
and
like
an
aqua,
blue
and
those
are
the
ones
that
we'll
talk
through.
So
I
know
that
all
of
us
met
separately
with
with
paul
logue,
the
city
planner.
C
So
so
everyone
has
some
familiarity
with
this,
but
ultimately
what
we
did
is
we
took
the
recommended
changes
to
the
zoning
code.
C
Ultimately,
we
think
that
the
changes
that
we
we've
come
up
with
to
the
change
the
recommended
change
legislation
both
meets
the
goals
of
reducing
onerous
parking
requirements
and
and
and
turning
some
land
that
currently
is,
is
devoted
to
parking
unnecessarily
to
a
higher
and
better
use,
while
at
the
same
time
protecting
our
our
neighborhoods
and
the
character
of
our
neighborhoods,
particularly
the
r1
zones,
which
I
think
were
some
of
the
biggest
concerns
of
folks
that
had
issue
with
the
proposed
changes.
C
So
you
know
that
is
the
the
purpose
and
of
what
we
did
by
by
combining
our
recommended
changes
with
the
changes
the
council
had
already
put
forth
for
us
to
consider
so
going
down
through
the
the
list.
The
way
that
this
document
reads
anything
that's
highlighted
in
yellow
or
is
not
not
struck
through
with
any
or
struck
through
with
not
any
highlights
are
those
original
changes
with
city
council
if
something
is
struck
through
in
green.
C
That
is
something
that
we
have
subsequently
said
now.
We
need
to
strike
through
this
and
as
a
planning
commission
to
as
a
recommended
deletion
that
we
have
if
something
is
in
green.
That's
in
caps.
C
That's
an
an
item
that
we
recommended,
adding
as
a
planning
communication
based
upon
the
suggestions
that
we
got
from
city
staff
and
from
members
of
the
public
who
commented
and
then
lastly,
the
portion
that
are
in
all
caps
strike
through
and
are
highlighted
in
aqua
are
recommended
additions
by
city
council
that
were
recommended
deletions
by
the
planning
commission.
So
I
realized
that
the
the
different
colors
can
be
a
little
bit
confusing,
but
this
kind
of
guides
us
all
towards
the
different,
the
different
direction
that
we
were.
C
We
were
attempting
to
to
achieve
here
so
going
down
through
the
first
section.
The
recommendation
was
that
the
current
180
square
feet
of
excessive
of
per
parking
space
be
changed
from
a
less
than
to
a
more
than,
and
we
we
disagreed
with
that.
You
got
to
have
a
minimum
on
parking
spaces.
C
However,
we're
recommending
that
otherwise
people
will
say
that
this
this
little,
this
could
be
the
parking
space
right
as
far
as
the
you
know,
square
footage,
but
we
recommended
shrinking
that
to
150
square
feet,
which
is
more
in
line
with
combat
cars
with
on-street
parking
that
we
have
in
a
lot
of
places
around
the
city.
So
we
think
that
that's
that's
sufficient
going
on
down.
C
You
note
that
there's
a
change
in
green,
where
it
says
or
r3
zone
is
a
recommended
addition
by
planning
commission-
and
this
specifically
addresses
mr
wharton's
comment.
I
think
from
the
public
hearing
that
we
had,
which
talked
about
currently
stack
parking,
is
not
permitted
in
single
family
dwellings
in
our
three
zones,
which
is
silly
and
that
just
inclu
causes
us
to
have
to
increase.
C
You
know
more
space
devoted
to
to
parking
spaces
in
order
to
have
individual
access
to
that
and
in
all
those
cases
people
can
you
know
that
live
in
those
single
family
dwellings
that
are
that
are
rentals
in
our
threes.
They
can
coordinate
with
their
roommates
to
to
figure
out
how
to
get
in
and
out
and
who
needs
to
move
who's
car
when
and
so.
C
So
we
think
that
addition
is
a
is
a
reasonable
addition
moving
on,
if
you
go
down
to
2308.01d,
this
was
a
recommended
change
by
by
council,
and
we
believe
that
should
stay
that
thousand
feet.
C
That
change
is
fine.
You
know
it's
easy
to
walk
a
thousand
feet
less
than
a
quarter
mile,
so
moving
from
250
feet,
and
that
gives
some
flexibility
to
businesses,
particularly
to
have
their
allocated
parking
a
little
bit
further
from
their
their
facility.
Even
if
it's
not
you
know
that
that
gives
some
flexibility
to
them.
C
Moving
on
down,
there's
a
significant
amount
of
strikethrough
that
was
recommended
by
the
the
council
or
was
in
the
initial
proposed
change.
We
think
a
joint
used
parking
agreement
is
appropriate
there
and
so
that
that
should
stay
moving
down
to
f
right
now.
The
code
is
in
air
because
it
refers
to
a
b1
downtown
business
zone,
and
that
is
not
correct.
It's
b2d
by
our
zoning.
So
what
we're
saying
is
strike
b1
and
change
it
to
b2d,
which
is
the
correct
zoning
that
this
particular
section
is
referring
to.
C
We
also
believe
that
it's
unnecessary
to
put
this
reference
to
a
joint
used
parking
agreement
as
per
230804,
because
the
b2
d,
by
definition,
is
already
allowed
to
use
the
improved
public
parking
as
its
business
parking,
which
is
the
parking
garage,
the
city,
municipal
parking
garage
and
as
long
as
that
parking
garage
exists,
which
we
don't
foresee
it
falling
down
anytime
soon
it
will
it
will.
It
will
continue
to
be
able
to
be
the
business
parking
for
those
businesses
that
that
build
in
the
b2d.
C
C
You
can
see
these
are
the
original
changes
that
that
the
council
proposed
and
or
that
the
council
member,
that
proposed
the
changes
proposed
with
basically
striking
the
current
language
on
joint
facilities
and
putting
a
joint
use
parking
loading
and
unloading
agreement.
C
We
agree
based
upon
both
the
feedback
from
the
public,
as
well
as
the
staff
review,
that
this
is
a
good
change.
One
of
the
things
that
came
up
was
the
inability
of
the
code
office
to
track
deed
restrictions
over
time,
and
that's
true
that
that
that
that's
not
something
that
we
would
review
every
year.
However,
it
is
something
that
we
can
check
on
the
front
end
when
a
permit
comes
through
to
see
what
exists
as
far
as
the
legal
instrument,
whether
it's
an
easement
deed
restriction
or
a
lease.
C
I
think
we
had
said
that
or
other
was
was
something
that
I
don't
think
it
reflects
in
here,
but
but
that
was
we
can
check
that
at
the
beginning
and
then
in
the
future.
If
there's
a
complaint,
you
know
three
years
down
the
road
five
years
down
the
road.
We
can
go
back
and
look
at
what
that
original
permit
said,
go
back
to
the
to
the
owner
and
say
wait
a
minute!
You!
C
You
brought
a
lease
at
the
beginning
that
that
said,
that
said,
you're
going
to
use
parking
for
over
here
and
where's
your
lease
is
still
in
effect
and
they
say
well,
no,
we
let
that
lease
right
now,
I
said
well,
they're,
no
longer
compliance
and
then
they're
in
violation
so
based
upon
complaint
in
future
years.
We
think
we
can
that
this
is
workable.
Bottom
line
did
I
did
I
say
that
correctly?
Yes,
mr
riggs,
okay,
thank
you
all
right.
Moving
further.
C
We
don't
recommend
any
changes
in
in
230805,
c
e
or
f.
In
all
cases,
title
27
adequately
addresses
the
concerns
with
those
changes
related
to
you
know
how
much
of
it
is
is
paved.
C
Likewise,
230325
there
in
e
is
the
is
the
dark
skies
efforts
to
make
sure
that
that
are
our
lighting,
because
it
says
right
now,
adequately
lighted
in
the
zoning
code
here
or
this
portion
of
the
zoning
code
that
other
portion
of
the
zoning
code
was
was
passed
later
and
that's
specifically
talking
about
not
not
over
lighting
things
and
having
to
cut
off
lights
and
such
so.
C
It's
just
a
kind
of
a
cleanup
language
and
that's
that's
sufficient,
and
then
there
was
a
original
proposal
to
strike
through
the
parking
being
permitted
on
on
the
roof
of
a
structure,
and
we
we
don't
think
that
should
be
removed.
We
think
it
should
be
modified
because
there
are
some
locations
in
the
city
where
on
roof
parking
is,
is
currently
taking
place
a
couple,
and
then
our
thinking
is
that
as
long
as
plans
are
are
prepared
by
the
design
professional.
C
You
know.
Structural
plans
are
prepared
by
design,
professional
and
there's
a
four
foot
wall
around
the
facility.
We
think
that
should
remain
in
there
all
right
going
to
the
230806
exceptions,
and
this
is
where
the
majority
of
the
of
the
changes
based
on
the
public
input
that
came
from
from
the
citizens
that
spoke
at
the
meeting
as
well
as
what
we
got.
That's
where
the
majority
of
the
changes
are
taking
place.
C
So
so
you
know
originally,
it
said
the
number
of
required
parking
spaces
may
be
reduced
as
follows,
and
we
said
may
be
reduced,
and
this
is
a
clarification
from
the
minimum
required
number
of
parking
spaces
in
table
b.
Okay,
that's
really
what
we're
talking
about
reducing
him
from
is
from
that
bulk
controls
tape
rule.
So
we
believe
that
needs
to
be
added.
C
The
discussion
about
transit-
we
just
added
that,
as
a
exception,
into
the
exceptions.
Okay,
that's
the
reason
why
that
first
portion
goes
away
completely
or
we
recommend
that
it
goes
away
completely,
because
we
just
included
that
as
one
of
the
exceptions
there
in
in
number
one,
then
the
exceptions,
the
minimum
required
vehicle
parking
spaces
may
be
reduced
for
up
to
50
percent
versus
75
percent.
We
thought
75
percent
was
a
little
excessive
and-
and
we
think
50
is
more-
is
more
appropriate.
C
The
the
the
second
item
b
there
replacing
this
is
just
kind
of
clean
up
language,
as
opposed
to
substituting.
We
think
that
that
is
clear
by
saying
replacing
and
then
e.
C
So
e
is
really
the
one
where
we
address
the
concern
that
we
heard
about
transit
from
folks
at
the
meeting
that
that,
ultimately,
you
could
have
a
situation
where
you
had
a
transit
line
that
ran
through
an
r1
zone
and
you
could
create
a
situation
where
people
didn't
have
to
have
any
parking,
because
transit
line
ran
through
our
one
zone,
and
so
we
think
we've
cleaned
that
up
here
and
that
number
one
it's
unnecessary
to
refer
to
planned
unit
developments,
because
every
planned
unit
development
goes
to
council
anyway,
and
so
zoning
doesn't
really
apply.
C
So
you
don't
even
it's
it's
kind
of
redundant
to
say
that
a
plan
you
developed.
So
instead
we
struck
that
and
and
stuck
in
here
development
sites
in
r3,
b2,
b2d,
b3
and
m
zones
that
are
within
1500
feet
of
an
existing
public
transit
service
stuff,
not
the
line
because
they
don't
run
on
a
health
hail
system.
They
run
on
on
a
stop
system.
C
So
from
the
stop,
and
then
note
that
it
doesn't
include
r1
zones
in
here,
so
we
think
that
these
two
changes
adequately
address
the
concern
that
that
folks
had,
while
at
the
same
time,
still
being
in
the
spirit
of
the
of
the
of
the
proposed
changes
in
the
first
place,
which
is
to
try
to
make
less
onerous
requirements
on
on
parking
proceeding
on
down
through
the
the
next
section.
C
If
you
get
to
you,
say
this
correctly,
to
f
I'm
sorry
to
g
residential
tax
incremental
financing
projects,
that's
just
a
cleanup
language.
That's
we
think
that
was
just
an
omission
that
came
from
the
council
moving
on
down
to
the
the
2308
07
allowable
uses
of
excess
parking
spaces.
C
You
know
now
have
the
opportunity
to
make
changes
so
long
as
they
conduct
a
study
number
one
that
says
that
that
the
parking
is
not
necessary
and
then
number
two
that
that
the
municipality
has
reduced
the
minimum
parking
requirement.
Since
the
building
was
permitted
such
that
the
space
is
converted
would
no
longer
be
required,
so
if
they
can
demonstrate
that
they
don't
use
them
or
if
the
code
changed
such
that
it
would
no
longer
be
required,
they
can
come
back
and
seek
a
reduction.
C
We
did
switch
the
code
enforcement
office
to
the
service
safety
director
and
that's
more
in
line
with
the
remainder
of
our
our
code.
In
that
the
service
state
structure
is
the
approval
authority
for
all
all
permits,
simply
because
that's
a
standing
office
that
exists
in
our
code,
whereas
the
subordinate
offices
could
change
over
time.
C
So
in
most
cases
you
know
I
defer
to
the
judgment
of
the
departments
anyway
and
then
going
down
to
the
bulk
controls
the
items
in
yellow-
and
this
is
that
table
b,
the
items
in
yellow
were
the
original
changes
that
they
had
proposed
and
we
thought
the
first
couple
of
them
made
sense
here
getting
into
the
the
third
one
on
that
last
page.
C
I'm
sorry,
second
to
last
page,
we
added
banks,
businesses
and
professional
offices,
not
providing
on-site
customer
service
and-
and
this
I
think,
addressed
one
of
the
business
owners
concerns
that
came
before
the
the
public
hearing
going
down
to
the
to
the
blue
or
the
aqua.
C
Is
there
a
chance
for
you
guys
to
talk
on
this?
One
make
sure
I
get
this
correct,
so
so
the
the
accessory
dwelling
and
the
misuse
swelling.
Those
were
the
original
changes
that
were
proposed
and
we
think
those
should
be
struck,
and
instead
we
thought
we
could
adequately
address
those
by
inserting
the
duplex
townhomes
and
the
owner
occupied
single-family
homes
and
the
dwelling
non-owner
occupied
single-family
homes.
As
as
portions
of
these
other
changes.
So
can
you
speak
to
that
a
little
bit
more
yeah?
C
Well
to
start
with
andy
their
service
date,
the
director's
phone?
We
did
combine
the
duplex
townhomes
and
multifamily
into
one
section,
because
they
are
of
a
similar
nature,
while
also
separating
out
owner-occupied,
single-family
residential,
as
well
as
non-owner-occupied,
single-family
residential,
because
there's
we
heard
from
the
meetings
and
we're
all
aware
that
there's
a
difference
between
those
type
of
uses,
the
accessory
dwellings
was
struck
because
of
the
current
based
on
current
language,
they're
not
permitted
to
have
an
accessory
dwelling
on
a
in
an
r1
zone
and
any.
C
If
you've
got
multiple
buildings
in
an
r3
zone,
then
you're
going
to
treat
that
as
multiple
buildings
in
an
r3
zone
or
in
an
r2
for
that
matter,
what
it
does
in
it.
In
essence,
it
reduces
the
amount
of
parking
required
for
an
apartment
or
a
rental
that
has
one
occupant.
C
Currently,
if
you've
got
a
one
bedroom,
one
permit
occupant
uptown
athens,
you're
required
to
provide
two
parking
spaces.
This
allows
for
one
parking
space
provided
if
there's
one
permitted
occupant,
but
then
for
each
additional
occupant.
You're
continue
to
maintain
a
requirement
to
provide
one
parking
space
for
each
permitted
occupant,
which
is
the
same
as
what
city
code
has
right
now.
C
It
clarifies
that
for
owner-occupied,
single-family
residential
there's
still
a
requirement
to
have
two
spaces
as
written
in
code
today,
however,
if
you
have
a
non-owner-occupied
single-family
residence
in
that
situation,
you
are
required
to
provide
one
space
per
occupant.
So
if
you've
got
three
unrelated
people
living
in
an
r1
single-family
home,
which
is
what
we
have
which
is
what's
allowed
today,
you
still
have
to
provide
three
parking
spaces,
no
difference,
but
just
clarifying
that
language
to
make
sure
that
it's
understood
to
applicants
and
then
addressing
the
situation
of.
C
Does
that
make
sense?
Yep!
Absolutely
thank
you,
so
we
can
continue
on
down
the
the
so
that
that's
that
last
page
here
to
the
medical,
we
think
the
veterinary
addition
is
makes
all
the
sense
in
the
world,
as
well
as
the
increasing
to
every
400
square
feet
of
floor
area
instead
of
every
200.
C
That
seems
to
be
in
line
with
the
uses
that
the
medical
and
veterinary
uses
that
we
see
around
the
city
right
now,
then,
the
next
section
and
this
this
is.
C
This
was
about
restaurants,
nightclubs
and
similar
facilities,
and
there's
a
lot
related
to
the
additional
spaces
for
the
interior.
You
know
we're
seeing
that
that
you
know
restaurants.
C
You
know
now
are
functioning
differently
than
maybe
your
traditional
restaurants,
so
we
thought
that
250
square
feet
for
four
area
was
that
made
a
lot
of
sense
just
to
just
to
simplify
that
to
say
one
space
for
every
250
square
feet,
and
then
this
last
section
down
here
with
the
except
to
specify
convenience
stores,
department
stores,
drugstores
and
grocery
stores
just
having
it
for
250
square
feet
as
well.
C
If
you
remember
the
exceptions
relative
to
the
transit
stops,
we
think
that
will
allow,
for
you
know,
maybe
some
of
the
larger
stores
that
have
to
create
large
parking
lots
or
would
have
to
create
large
parking
lots.
Because
of
this
250
square
foot.
Floor
area
requirement
could
be
mitigated
by
being
near
a
transit
stop,
and
then
I
think
the
last
two
are
just
a
little
cleanup
languages
here
with
the
way
that
square
feet
is
written.
C
But
so
we
think
that
we
incorporated
the
concerns
of
the
public
as
well
as
continuing
to
meet
the
spirit
of
the
original
intent
of
this,
which
is
to
maybe
remove
some
of
the
more
owners
parking
requirements
that
we
have,
that
that
cause
us
to
devote
more
space
than
is
necessary
to
parking
and
instead
allows
some
of
that
space
to
be
to
be
better
utilized
for
a
higher
and
better
use.
A
All
right,
I'd
like
to
start
with
any
comments
from
the
planning
commissioners
on
these
unsaid
changes.
Also
note
that
you
do
have
a
quote-unquote
claim
copy
here.
That
just
has
the
yellow
highlights
where
the
strikethroughs
and
additions
have
been
put
into
this
document.
B
This
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
mean
that
they're
hiring
a
consultant
to
do
this.
This
study
it
could
be,
for
instance,
if
somebody
collects
good
data.
A
property
owner
collects
good
data
about
over
the
years
about.
What's
you
know
how
many
spaces
they
actually
use
with
the
apartments
they
could
use
that
data
they
could
internally
do
their
own
parking
study.
Is
that
correct.
B
I
think
that's
good
and
then
back
on
the
s
last
page,
then,
when
we
were
talking
about
the
the
bulk
about
the
one
parking
space
for
each
250
square
feet
area.
Is
that
a
net
area,
a
gross
area?
Does
that
include
storage
space?
And
you
know
the
kitchen
and
all
of
that?
Is
it
all
inclusive.
D
Typically,
what
the
code
office
does
is
look
at
the
usable
space,
so
restrooms
storage
areas
that
aren't
going
to
typically
be
occupied
are
not
included
in
that
square:
footage.
Calculation,
okay,
so
the
mechanical
room
stuff
that
you
wouldn't
typically
occupy.
We
just
look
at
the
space
that
you
would
typically
use
and
occupy,
so
that
number
will
be
reduced
from
the
from
the
gross
square
footage
of
us
of
a
building.
C
Well,
if
they
have
the
parking.
C
So
number
two
relates
to
the
fact
that
if
the
code
changes
and
reduces
the
amount
of
parking
that
they'd
have
to
to
demonstrate,
so
it
isn't,
it
isn't
hand
in
hand
yeah,
it's
not
a
it's
another
order.
Okay,
so
they
like,
for
instance,
an
example
would
be.
You
know
if
someone
said
said
well,
the
code
changed.
I
don't
have
to
buy
the
space
anymore.
You
know.
Well,
not
necessarily
you
got
to
demonstrate
to
the
to
the
city
that
you
don't
need
it
via
a
study.
C
A
Okay,
nothing
from
you,
nancy
yeah.
A
lot
of
work
went
into
this
and
a
lot
of
of
listening
to
again
both
the
opposition,
as
well
as
the
support
for
the
parking
off
street
parking.
I
will
offer
brief
comments
from
anyone
who's
here
and
wants
to
speak
to
this.
H
Good
deal,
okay,
my
name
is
alan.
Swank
live
at
40
000
places.
Speaking
on
behalf
of
myself.
If
you
look
at
the
screen
right
here,
you're
standing
at
the
corner
of
watt
and
maplewood
yesterday
at
about
3
15.
yeah
you're,
looking
east,
this
is
the
car
pickup
line
for
students
at
the
new
east
elementary.
H
H
This
is
looking
east
on
maplewood
school
on
your
right
and
then
this
is
looking
around
the
corner
at
extension
of
lloyd
street,
as
it
goes
over
to
sunnyside
that
car
on
your
right
is
stationary.
H
H
I
don't
know
if
this
is
part
of
something
you
could
recommend
to
council,
and
I
don't
know
if
what
you've
said
today
puts
an
end
to
this,
but,
as
I
think
joni
said
last
time,
perhaps
if
this
isn't
the
end
of
this,
the
suggestion
the
council
might
be
because
we
will
have
four
newly
elected
council
members
in
a
little
over
a
month
to
possibly
convene
a
tax
task
force
to
take
a
look
at
parking
as
a
whole
in
athens
on
a
zone
by
zone
basis.
H
I
Mr
stone's
ability
to
go
through
corrected
versions
of
this
is
pretty
astounding,
based
on
the
fact
we
use
four
or
five
colors
and
and
at
some
point
I'd
like
to
see
a
copy
of
it.
I
I
don't
know
if
I'm
going
get
it
in
color
or
not
two
things
I
mean,
there's
several
things
that
still
disturb
me
about
what
you're
proposing
the
thousand
feet
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is
because
on
the
street
that
I
live,
we
have
that
situation
at
250
feet
and
I
I
monitored
it
for
several
years
and
the
third
person
in
the
house
always
parked
on
the
street,
and
I
I
I
for
convenience.
I
I
mean
why
why
should
they
drive
250
feet
and
that
was
the
crow
flies,
but
we're
talking
several
blocks
around
the
corner
to
park
in
this
dedicated
spot?
It
doesn't
work.
That's
my
experience.
The
other
thing
that's
really
disturbing,
and
I
had
a
question
about
the
15
feet,
but
now
it's
from
the
actual
stop,
not
the
line,
but
it
includes
r3.
I
I
Would
you
let
pfizer
do
all
the
studies
for
their
coven
vaccination?
No,
because
it's
a
self-interest
thing
you
can't.
You
can't
allow
the
landlord
to
do
the
study
either.
The
code
has
to
do
the
study
or
it
has
to
be
required
to
go
before
some
other
board
to
be
investigated
because
you're,
just
asking
for
problems.
I
I
One
in
particular
was
off
mill
street
and
the
property
was
required
was
a
lot,
was
given
a
variance
for
a
gravel
parking
lot,
but
had
to
put
a
cement
buffer
up
10
feet
and
also
had
to
abide
by
shade
tree
recommendations.
I
It
took
me
four
years
through
the
previous
administration
and
the
previous
code
office
to
finally
get
the
code
down
there
to
make
them
comply
with
with
the
10
feet,
buffer
of
cement
or
pavement
on
the
gravel
parking
lot
and
then
to
throw
all
this
into
complaint
driven-
and
I
mean
I
don't
think
it's
a
citizen's
job
to
follow
up
on
this.
I
I
think
we
need
to
go
back
to
250
feet
and
let
that
go
to
the
board
of
zoni
appeals
for
approval
it.
I
It
just
solidifies
the
possibility
of
the
right
thing
happening
according
to
the
law
and
and
I'm
afraid,
if
you
do
this
r3
thing
1500
feet
from
a
bus,
stop
in
my
neighborhood
and
do
a
self-study
by
a
landlord.
Those
cars
are
going
to
end
up
on
my
street
because
the
cars
are
going
to
exist
anyway.
So
thank
you
for
all
your
work
and
for
listening.
A
Okay,
I'm
seeing
head
shaking
okay,
all
right
would
someone
if
there's
no
other
comment
and
no
other
comment
from
the
commissioners.
Someone
like
to
make
a
motion
to
adopt
and
send
this
on
to
city
council
or
to
to
not
about.
B
I'll
move
that
we
adopt
the
revised
documents
as
prepared
for
prepared
by
mr
stone
and
and
mr
riggs
and
mr
mr
logue
as
well.
I
guess
second.
A
In
a
second
from
nancy
bain,
any
any
discussion,
I
do
want
to
say
that
this
is
not
that
dissimilar
from
some
of
you
may
remember
the
short
term
rentals
to
where
we
took
in
a
lot
of
the
public
comment,
both
for
and
against
and
and
came
to
again
a
common
ground
to
make
that
decision-
and
this
is
the
same.
A
I
congratulate
all
who
worked
on
this,
and
in
particular
I
know
that
paul
logue
city,
planner
and
director
riggs
and
certainly
andy
stone,
but
but
the
the
this
this
body,
you
know,
discussed
this
multiple
occasions.
A
We
did
take
into
account
all
the
conversations
all
the
the
written
and
verbal
testimony
trying
to
find
the
best
common
ground
possible.
As
we
looked
at
this.
So
that's
my
only
comment
on
this
and
again
I
will
remind
everyone
that
this
is
this.
If
voted
in
a
firm
in
the
affirmative,
this
will
go
on
to
city
council
city
council
will
take
it
up
for
its
three
readings
in
30
days.
So
there
is
more
opportunity
for
the
public
to
speak
when
that
moves
to
council.
A
B
Okay,
I
would
also
like
to
thank
council
council
person
fall
and-
and
I
guess
paul
was
originally
a
part
with
her
of
putting
this
together.
I
don't
know
who
all
on
council,
but
you
know,
I
think
this
is
something
that's
been
is
long
overdue
and
I
think
hopefully
you
know
I
don't
know
what
the
end
result
will
look
like
on
this.
B
Hopefully
something
will
actually
be
voted
on
by
council
and
but
I
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
this
can
change
over
time
too,
as
we
look
at
it
and
see
how
it
works
or
doesn't
work.
Hopefully
you
know
people
can
continue
to
adjust
it
and
and
make
it
work
better,
but
but
I
think
this
is
long
overdue
and
I'm
really
appreciative
of
of
those
that
you
know
from
beginning
to
to
this
point
have
been
involved
in
it.
A
Okay,
hearing
no
other
discussion,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
aye
aye
opposed
same
sign;
okay,
it's
unanimous.
It
will
move
on
to
city
council
and
I
believe
we'll
get
that
to
the
clerk
of
council
later
today
or
tomorrow.
Tomorrow,.
A
All
right,
I
really
appreciate
both
of
you
sitting
through
everything.
At
this
point
in
time,
we
probably
should
have
amended
the
the
order
in
which
we
do
business
and
to
get
you
up
first,
but
communications,
title
41,
we're
going
to
start
with
280
east
state
street
addition
and
renovations
montel
llc.
J
J
So
kurt
commissioned
us
to
help
him
with
this
project.
The
intent
is
to
take
an
existing
building.
The
the
front
office
area
would
remain
the
same.
J
The
intent
is
to
take
the
rear
office
area,
remove
the
roof,
take
it
down
to
slab,
leave
the
exterior
walls
and
build
a
three
apartments:
three
handicap
accessible
park,
apartments
and
one
office
area
at
the
rear
portion
of
that
building
and
then
I'll
add
a
second
floor
to
the
rear
portion
and
make
that
be
four
apartments.
J
The
we
have
been
working
with
the
utility
companies
and
the
electric
line
at
the
rear
of
the
parking
lot
and
coordinating
that
we
have
been
working
with
the
city
obtaining
information
regarding
existing
utility
lines
to
the
site.
J
The
intent
is
to
make
the
rear
of
the
building
more
similar
to
the
front
of
the
building
in
the
style
of
the
front
building.
So
it's
it's
it's
more
attractive
to
the
community,
instead
of,
instead
of
just
being
like
there
so
make
and
unify
that
whole
building,
so
it
looks
as
one
so
that
is
the
intent
of
the
project.
J
Certainly,
the
handicap
accessibility
in
the
first
four
apartments
is
a
is
a
large
part
of
what
kurt
wants
to
do
here
and
the
another
item
that
he
was
proposing
was
that
this
the
correct
group,
but
potentially
moving
the
bus
stop
to
the
to
this
site,
he's
open
to
that.
If
that's
something
that
someone
would
be
willing,
a
group
or
whichever
entity
that
would
be,
would
be
interesting
to
entertain.
That
idea.
B
Is
this
is,
is
this
the
the
the
okay
yeah?
Okay?
I
thought
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that's
some
glass
block
and.
D
H
C
C
A
Again,
this
is
a
communication,
so
this
will
come
back
to
us
as
a
case,
I
don't
like
I'm
going
to
throw
this
to
director
riggs
any
comments
from
you
or
from
now.
D
The
reason
this
is
coming
before
the
title:
41
is
it's
actually
a
51
100
square
foot
change.
So
if
it
had
been
there's
just
a
100
square
hundred
square
feet
over
the
requirement
needed
to
go
to
the
planning
commission
for
review.
A
A
The
next
communication
again
title
41:
this
is
crenshaw
green
apartments,
phase,
three
in
phase
four
off
of
state
route.
682
again
as
a
reminder,
this
is
the
property
that
was
annexed
into
the
city
of
athens
by
the
by
city
council,
and
the
wota
cooper
group
is
already
has,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
has
broken
ground
on
phase
one
and
phase
two
and
moving
forward.
So
this
would
be
in
addition
to
that
two
more
structures
on
that
particular
property.
D
Mayor,
I
don't
think
we
have
anybody
here
representing.
I
tried
to
communicate
with
them
yesterday
this
morning,
so
they
may
want
to
do
their
communication.
G
A
Very
good
director
riggs
do
you
have
if
we
were
to
go
through
the
process
and
we
will
it
as
a
case
as
title
41
moving
forward.
Can
you
give
us
any
ideas
to
how
many
additional
housing
units
phase.
D
Three
and
phase
four
we're
actually
on
the
plans.
I
think
there's
phase
three
is
54.
C
A
I
I
should
add,
you
know,
city
of
athens.
We
have
heard
from
what
a
cooper
about
the
possibility
of
having
the
speed
limit
change
on
682
again
that
would
require
you
know,
odot
being
involved
in
that
process,
and
so
I
think
that
director
stone
that
we're
with
our
new
director
of
engineering
and
public
works
that
you
know
we're
certainly
looking
to
see
if
something
like
that
could
be
done,
because
this
would
certainly
increase
the
volume
of
vehicles
that
will
be
running
along
this
stretch.
C
B
C
Preliminary
meeting
with
the
designer
and
the
developer
for
this-
and
that's
when
I
say
we-
I
mean
city
staff,
where
we
spoke
to
a
couple
of
the
different,
the
different
items.
One
of
the
things
that
we
were
real
clear
with
them
is
now
that
they're
going
to
have
functionally
four
different
complexes
or
four
different
buildings
in
this
area.
All
on
the
other
side
of
the
state
highway.
C
With
this
many
people
living
at
this
location,
they
have
to
make
a
connection
to
the
city's
bike
and
pedestrian
infrastructure
system,
and
you
know
you
know,
I
would
recommend,
when
the
time
comes,
for
this
commission
to
condition
this
development
partially
in
part
on
on
them
meeting
that
requirement,
because,
as
it
stands
now,
there
are
some
internal
sidewalks
in
order
to
get
from
your
front
door
at
the
apartments
to
the
parking
lot,
but
there's
nothing
to
go
and
get
you
to
the
sidewalk
system
of
the
rest
of
the
city
to
the
bike
path
system
of
the
rest
of
the
city.
C
So
I
would
expect
that
they
will
bring
forward
some
sort
of
design
that
accommodates
them.
The
other
comment
that
that
I
have
is
preliminary
indications
are
that,
even
with
the
geometry
of
the
roadway
and
this
proposed
development,
the
odots
look
at
the
at
the
at
the
warrant
for
dropping
the
speed
limit
on
that
state
highway.
C
It
does
not
meet
the
war
under
the
thing,
so
you
know,
and
you
can,
you
can
want
to
drop
the
primo
facial
speed
limit
all
day,
but
if
it
doesn't
meet
the
the
warrant
then,
and
that
that
warrant
process
is
a
real,
deliberate
process
that
talks
about
volume
and
talks
about
geometry
and
talks
about
driveways
and
trips
out
of
those
driveways
as
a
reason
to
drop
a
speed
limit
on
a
state
highway
and
it
currently
doesn't
need
it.
B
And
the
first
two
develop
the
first
two
phases
of
this,
as
I'm
looking
at
this
map
are
to
the
left:
yes,
okay,
and
how?
Let
me
ask
a
question:
how
what
what
requirement
would
odot
have
about
crossing
that
road
with
a
bike
bike
lane
or
sidewalk?
What
what's
going
to
be?
How?
How
would
that
look?
I
mean
I
don't
know
where
they
would
want
to
do
this
yeah
if
they
want
to
try
to
get
all
the
way
up
to
the
light
at
682
or
I
mean
but
and
union,
but
how
would
they
cross
that.
C
C
C
You
know
west
union,
and
we
got
one
on
each
state
street
kind
of
where
you
know
it's
a
pedestrian
actuated
device.
That,
then
you
know,
gives
a
flash
indication
when
something
goes
across
at
the
location.
B
I
mean
right
now:
there
is
bike
traffic
that
flows
from
off
of
armitage
across
to
lurik.
I
mean
that's
a
great
location,
you
know
because
of
the
already
existing
traffic
that
goes
there
and
it
would
get
you
back
to
the
connectors
to
the
to
to
the
path
as
well.
B
B
C
To
the
road
it's
well,
if
you
look
on
the
to
the
right
of
way,
I'm
guessing
nancy,
I'm
looking
at
paige,
it's
tough
to
see,
but
I'm
looking
page
c100
at
the
building
there
for
phase
three.
It
does
say:
25
foot
front
setback,
so
I-
and
it
appears
to
me
based
on
that
scale,
that
the
25
foot
front
setback
is
from
the
right
of
way,
but
the
road
is
probably,
I
think
what
john
said
around
55
or
60..
C
We
did
ask
about
draining
the
pond
and
when
we
talked
to
them
I
think
right
now.
They're
actually
relocating
wildlife
from
that
pond.
Over
to
the
to
the
wetland
that
the
city
developed
on
the
northwest
bike,
packs
path,
spur
project.
B
Is
is
the
university
of
state's
storm
water
draining
into
that
pond.
C
Extend
that
48-inch
culvert
that
goes
underneath
682
through
the
area
where
the
pond
currently
is
and
then
further
back
on
that
parcel
and
then
it
discharges
into
what's
the
name
of
it:
factory
creek
factory.
B
Is
that
going
to
create
a
more
of
a
problem
on
richland
where's,
margaret's
creek
dump
into
the
river.
B
G
C
Commercial
building
there,
the
apartments
when
they
built
they
they
they
met
a
new
title,
27
stormwater
retention
requirement.
So
they
were,
they
retained.
You
know,
and
it
was
separate
and
distinct
from
the
original
university
of
state's
plan.
So
I
think
it
primarily
includes
well.
It
does
include
those
apartments.
It's
after
going
through
detention
ponds
there
in
front
of
the
apartments,
so
the
roadway
on
the
boulevard
portion
of
the
roadway
up
to
not
quite
up
to
the
altamonte
ultimate.
C
A
B
So
it
looks
sounds
like
it's
around
180
units,
then,
because
I
think
the
fir
there
was
a
hundred
units
in
one
and
two
about
a
hundred
years.
A
Yeah
and
again
this
is
workforce
housing.
So
it's
something
that
is
certainly
needed
here
in
the
city
now,
reports
from
city
planner
or
from
director
eggs
development
code
enforcement.
E
C
Two
comments
very
briefly:
planning
commission
members.
We
are
beginning
to
work
on
what's
called
our
ada
transition
plan,
which
is
I'm
not
sure
it's
been
a
while.
I
think,
since
we've
had
a
meeting,
it's
a
requirement
under
federal
law
that
the
any
city
that
has,
I
think
more
than
50
public
employees,
has
to
have
an
ada
transition
plan
which
focuses
on.
How
are
you
going
to
get
a
city
that
was
built
prior
to
the
americans
with
disabilities
act
established?
How
are
you
going
to
try
to
ultimately
achieve
conformance
with
ada?
C
What
we're
doing
and
how
we're
and
what's
our
what
and
then
address
our
priorities
into
the
future,
so
I've
got
an
intern
that
I'm
working
with
while
he's
working
for
us.
Excuse
me,
we
are
starting
to
work
on
this
project
right
now,
we'll
be
probably
working
on
it
through
next
year.
C
There
will
be
some
public
facing
components
we'll
have
some
meetings
etc.
We're
reaching
out
to
the
city's
disabilities
commission
right
now
to
to
touch
base
with
them
and
then
we'll
be
working,
doing
inventories
of
a
lot
of
city
buildings
to
double
check,
our
doorways
and
the
entryways,
and
all
those
things
to
see
what
the
requirements
are
and
where
we're
meeting
and
then
and
then
discuss
priorities.
So
that's
just
awareness
so
that
your
understanding
of
that
project
moving
forward.
C
Another
item
that
we've
been
working
on
spending
some
time
on
is
is
a
census
review.
I
know
there's
been
some
media
articles
about
that
double
checking
to
see
what
happened
last
summer
with
how
the
enumeration
was
done
in
athens
and
whether
we
think
it's
accurate
or
not.
G
F
I
would
have
at
least
said
something
so
I'll
say
it
now,
which
is
that
I
appreciate
the
attention
that
certain
safety
director
stone
gave
to
pedestrian
bicycle
connectivity
for
that
project.
The
kershaw
project
I've
been
thinking
about
that
all
along
that
there
needs
to
be
some
way
to
improve
connectivity
from
that
facility
to
the
bikeway
in
particular,
to
connect
people
that
are
going
to
have
fewer
vehicles
than
average
for
the
city
for
city
residents.