[00:00:07]
          >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. 
          [I. Call to Order]
THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DECATUR PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SEPTEMBER THE 12TH, 2023, AND WE ARE STARTING PRECISELY AT 07:00 PM. 
          MY NAME IS HAROLD BUCKLEY AND I'LL BE CHAIRING THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING. 
          THIS IS A SEVEN MEMBER COMMISSION OF THE DECATUR RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          THIS COMMISSION HERE IS APPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND LAND SUBDIVISIONS. 
          IT ALSO REVIEWS AND RECOMMENDS CHANGES TO THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS AND FUTURE LAND USE PLANS. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO ACQUAINT YOU WITH THE PROCEDURES THIS COMMISSION FOLLOWS IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS MEETINGS. 
          WE WILL HEAR APPLICATIONS TONIGHT IN THE ORDER THAT THEY LISTED ON THE PRINTED AGENDA. 
          APPLICANTS ARE GIVEN TIME TO PRESENT THEIR CASE WHEN THEIR APPLICATION IS CALLED. 
          SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING PARTIES ARE ALSO GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR REMARKS TO THE COMMISSION. 
          PLEASE BE SURE TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE BEGINNING YOUR REMARKS. 
          SINCE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT TO CONVINCE THE COMMISSION TO VOTE IN THEIR FAVOR. 
          APPLICANTS ARE ALSO ALLOWED TO PRESENT REBUTTAL TO ANY OPPOSITION AGAINST THEM. 
          OPPOSING PARTIES ARE NOT GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. 
          WHILE WE DO NOT FORMALLY LIMIT THE TIME FOR MULTIPLE PARTIES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO AN APPLICATION, WE DO ASK SPEAKERS TO REFRAIN FROM SPENDING TIME REPEATING ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED. 
          INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS ARE ALSO ASKED TO BE AS CONCISE AS THEY CAN WHEN MAKING THEIR REMARKS. 
          ONCE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE APPLICATION. 
          PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ANY APPLAUSE OR DIALOGUE DURING OR AFTER PRESENTATIONS. 
          ALL REMARKS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION DIRECTLY AND WE ASK YOU TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING ANYONE ELSE DIRECTLY. 
          PLEASE SHOW THE SAME RESPECT TO ANYONE WHO IS SPEAKING THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO RECEIVE YOURSELF. 
          THE PLANNING COMMISSION RENDERS FINAL DECISIONS ON SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS, BUT IT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WHICH HAS FINAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY ON THOSE CASES. 
          WE'RE SUPPORTED THIS EVENING BY ANGELA THREADGIL, OUR PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, AND EILEEN DELA TORRE, OUR STAFF PLANNER. 
          AT THIS TIME, I WOULD ASK MY FELLOW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES, STARTING AT MY FAR LEFT. 
          >> JASON FRIEDLANDER. 
          >> JOE GRECO. 
          >> JOHN MCFARLAND. 
          >> RACHEL COGBURN. 
          >> GREG CHILICK. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, WE WILL START OUR REGULAR AGENDA. 
          UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS, WE HAVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING ON JUNE THE 13TH. 
          [II.a. Approval of Minutes from June 13, 2023 regularly scheduled meeting.]
HAS EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE VERY BRIEF MINUTES? ARE THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED? 
          >> I MOVED. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. 
          IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> ABSTAIN. 
          >> WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AYES AND AN EXTENSION. 
          THE MOTION PASSES. 
          MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS, 
          [III.a. CitySwitch, applicant, has requested a conditional use permit to construct a new  wireless telecommunications facility within an I – Institutional zoning district on the  railroad right-of-way, which is owned by CSX Transportation, Inc., and accessed via  Maediris Drive, Decatur GA.]
WE HAVE THREE APPLICATIONS. 
          THE FIRST ONE IS AN APPLICATION WHERE CITY SWITCH HAS REQUESTED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITHIN AN INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT ON THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH IS OWNED BY CSX TRANSPORTATION INC, AND ACCESS VIA MAEDIRIS DRIVE DECATUR GEORGIA. 
          IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT TODAY? 
          >> YES SIR. 
          >> IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN FEEL FREE TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS IVY CATO. 
          I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH A LAW FIRM OF BAKER DONELSON. 
          OUR ADDRESS IS 3414 PEACHTREE ROAD, SUITE 1500, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30326. 
          I AM HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF CITY SWITCH TO PRESENT THE APPLICATION. 
          I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PRESENTED. 
          THE WAY I USUALLY DO THIS IS TO GO THROUGH AND TALK ABOUT THE ORDINANCE AND THE NEED FOR THE TOWER OR THE ETC. 
          WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT [NOISE] A TOWER THAT WOULD BE I CALL IT CO-LOCATED ON THE CSX RIGHT-OF-WAY. 
          IT WOULD BE A 60 BY 50 COMPOUND. 
          IT'S IN AN INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT, IT'D BE 150 FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER WITH A 10 FOOT LIGHTNING ROD. 
          I HAVE GIVEN YOU TWO PIECES OF PAPER. 
          ONE PIECE OF PAPER SHOWS THE SEARCH RING, 
          [00:05:05]
SO THAT ONE LOOKS LIKE THIS. 
          THE OTHER ONE SHOWS THE COVERAGE IMPACT THAT IS PROPOSED BY THE TOWER. 
          I'M PULLING UP MY MAPS HERE SO I GET ALL MY STUFF RIGHT. 
          YOU CAN SEE ON THE COVERAGE MAP, THE TWO THAT WE THINK ARE REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          YOU CAN SEE THIS AS OVER HERE NEAR CLAREMONT ROADS GOT BOULEVARD. 
          THAT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THIS, AS YOU CAN SEE, TO THE SOUTH, IS JUST DOWN THE RAILROAD LINE TO THE SOUTH OF THAT DENSE DISTRICT. 
          THERE'S A PUBLIC SERVER THERE. 
          THE LANDMARK THAT I THINK STICKS OUT IS THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A SINGLE MONOPOLE TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC'S THAT MOST PEOPLE WHO'VE DRIVEN BY THERE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE NOTICED. 
          IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT TOWER IS GOING AWAY AND WE'RE ACTUALLY IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE TENANT ON THAT TOWER ABOUT THEIR INTERESTS IN THIS NEW PROPOSED TOWER. 
          THAT TOWER HAS ONE POSITION. 
          THIS NEW TOWER, BASED ON THE DRAWINGS YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, HAS FOUR POSITIONS. 
          THE BIG PICTURE IDEA IS THAT THIS PROPOSED TOWER WOULD BE ON RAILROAD RIGHT AWAY, WHICH IS A QUASI INDUSTRIAL USE TO ME. 
          THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE SOME OF THE TREES, BUT OVERALL, YOU'D STILL HAVE A FAIR NUMBER OF TREES TO SHIELD THE BASE AND TO SHIELD PEOPLE WHO WERE CLOSER FROM SEEING IT. 
          OBVIOUSLY, THE FURTHER AWAY YOU GET THE LINE OF SIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THE TOP OF IT. 
          IT WOULD HAVE MORE CAPACITY FOR TENANTS AND IT WOULD INCREASE IN BUILDING COVERAGE SIGNIFICANTLY. 
          IF YOU LOOK ON THIS COVERAGE IMPACT MAP THAT I'VE PRESENTED TO YOU, THE BOTTOM RIGHT PICTURE IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW. 
          THERE'S RELATIVELY POOR, AS REPRESENTED BY THE ORANGE BEEN BUILDING COVERAGE. 
          THAT COVERAGE IS EITHER NON-EXISTENT OR OUTDOOR COVERAGE. 
          THIS TOWER WOULD BE ONLINE. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GREEN THAT WOULD COME ONLINE AND ALLOW SIGNIFICANT IN BUILDING COVERAGE. 
          THE SEARCH RING INCLUDED A GOOD BIT OF THE COMMERCIAL AREAS, I CALL IT. 
          WE MOVED THE TOWER AT THE EDGE OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BUT NEAR ENOUGH TO THE HOUSES THAT YOU ACTUALLY GET GOOD IN BUILDING COVERAGE FOR HIGH DENSITY BROADBAND, ETC. 
          THEN WE'VE SUBMITTED DIFFERENT DESIGN DRAWINGS AND I MAY TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE A SERIES. 
          THEY'RE LIKE T1. 
          THEN IT'S FOLLOWED BY A SURVEY. 
          BUT A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF THE MONOPOLE TOWER THAT WE HAVE CAN BE FOUND IN THE APPLICATION OVER ON C3 OR C4, I BELIEVE. 
          THAT SHOWS YOU THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TOWER. 
          WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE PROPOSED ANTENNAS FOR WHICH THERE'S ALREADY A CLIENT ON THE TOP. 
          THEN THERE SHOWS THREE MORE LOCATIONS DOWN HERE. 
          THERE'S A LOCATION FOR A CSX'S INTERNAL WIRELESS NETWORK DOWN LOW. 
          YOU'VE GOT A 150-FOOT TOWER, 10-FOOT LIGHTNING ROD, AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR LIGHTS OR ANYTHING. 
          YOU'VE GOT A STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE SERVICED PROBABLY ONCE A MONTH, TWICE A MONTH BY A PICKUP TRUCK. 
          SO YOU'VE GOT VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION. 
          I DON'T WANT TO SAY NO TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION, BUT IT'S AS MINIMAL AS IT COULD GET. 
          YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT WILL REALLY ONLY BE VISIBLE. 
          IT WILL CONTRIBUTE NO NOISE AND NO LIGHT. 
          IT'LL SIT THERE AND RECEIVE CELL PHONE SIGNALS. 
          THERE'S A COMPOUND AT THE BOTTOM. 
          THE FENCE DETAILS ARE ENCLOSED AND ITS DESIGN PURSUANT TO YOUR ORDINANCES. 
          [00:10:04]
THERE IS A ANTI-CLIMB BARBED WIRE DEVICE AND IT IS, I BELIEVE, A SIX-FOOT-TALL FENCE SO THAT FOLKS CAN'T CLIMB ON IT. 
          THAT'S THE OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. 
          I THINK YOU GUYS ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS, BUT THIS IS OVER THERE WITH THE MCDONALD'S AND THE PUBLICS. 
          YOU'VE GOT FOUR NODES OF HATYA [NOISE] CITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          THEN WE COME [NOISE] SOUTH TO THE RAILROAD RIGHT AWAY. 
          THAT'S WHERE WE PROPOSE TO PUT THE ANTENNA. 
          IN LOOKING AT YOUR STANDARDS. 
          I WENT THROUGH AND LOOKED AT THE STANDARDS. 
          THE FIRST STANDARD IS THAT IN ASKING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE, THE FIRST STANDARD IS THAT THE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS MUST BE SET BACK AT LEAST 200 FEET OR THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER, WHICHEVER IS GREATER FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE UNLESS A GREATER SETBACK IS EXPRESSLY REQUIRED. 
          WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM THAT BECAUSE WE'RE ON A LONG THIN PIECE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. 
          THERE IS ACTUALLY SOME EXTRA LAND AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS STRAIGHT RIGHT AWAY. 
          IT HAS ABNORMAL, IRREGULAR SHAPE WHERE WE'RE GOING. 
          BUT WE WOULD NOT REACH THE 200-FOOT SETBACK. 
          WE HAVE A ENGINEERING LETTER THAT SAYS SHOULD THE COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY COLLAPSE, IT WILL COLLAPSE WITHIN THE COMPOUND AND LIKE THEY DON'T JUST FALL OVER, THEY COLLAPSE IN ON THEMSELVES. 
          IT WOULD COLLAPSE WITHIN THE COMPOUND FURTHER. 
          ACCORDING TO MY MEASUREMENTS, THE NEAREST STRUCTURE IS ABOUT 150 FEET AWAY. 
          I JUST WENT ON THE TAX ASSESSORS WEBSITE AND DID A PRETTY BASIC MEASUREMENT. 
          THE NEAREST STRUCTURE IS PRETTY MUCH ALMOST THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER AWAY. 
          WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE SAFE AND WE ARE ASKING FOR THAT VARIANCE. 
          WE'VE GOT THE FAULT ZONE LETTER AND WE SEEK RELIEF FROM THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THAT STANDARD. 
          THE NEXT STANDARD IS THAT TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS MUST BE A NEUTRAL COLOR. 
          THIS IS GOING TO BE A GALVANIZED STEEL, NON-REFLECTIVE STRUCTURE THAT'S DESIGNED TO BLEND IN AS WELL AS THAT IT'S GOING TO BLEND IN. 
          THEN WE HAVE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE WE USE LANCE OR MATERIALS, COLORS, AND TEXTURES TO SCREEN. 
          WE BELIEVE WE CAN PLOW ON THAT. 
          THE GROUND FACILITY WILL ALSO BE JUST NON-REFLECTIVE, GALVANIZED STEEL FINISH, BUT IT WILL BE IN A WOODED AREA. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE UP AGAINST THE ROAD. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN, THE ACCESS ROAD ACTUALLY YOU COME OFF THE PUBLIC ROAD AND THEN YOU GO NORTH FOR A GOOD BIT TO GET TO THE COMPOUND WHERE THE FACILITY WILL BE. 
          THE TOWERS CAN'T BE ARTIFICIALLY LIGHTED UNLESS REQUIRED. 
          THE LIGHTING IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FAA OR THE FCC. 
          MUST BE ENTIRELY ENCLOSED BY A SECURITY FENCE AT LEAST SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, AND EQUIPPED WITH THE ANTI-CLIMB DEVICE THAT'S ON PAGE C3. 
          WE MEET THAT AS WELL. 
          THE NEXT REQUIREMENT IS THAT WE MUST PRESERVE THE EXISTING TREE GROWTH IN NATURAL LAND TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE WE ARE DOING THAT. THEN IT DOES. 
          WE ARE ASKING FOR ONE OTHER VARIANTS BECAUSE AT A MINIMUM, A LANDSCAPE STRIP 10 FEET IN WIDTH MUST BE PROVIDED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE TOWER SITE. 
          AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE THERE. 
          THE HARDSHIP THAT RESULTS IN OUR REQUEST FROM A VARIANCE RESULTS FROM SEVERAL UNIQUE FACTORS, IS THE LINK THAT THE ODD SHAPE OF THE RIGHT RAILROAD RIGHT AWAY THAT I PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. 
          CSX'S NEED TO PERIODICALLY MAINTAIN AND TRIM THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER. 
          BASICALLY, IN ORDER FOR THEIR TRAINS TO RUN SAFE, THEY PREFER THAT THERE NOT BE A VEGETATIVE BUFFER IN THERE. 
          NONE OF THIS AND THERE'S JUST BASICALLY NOT MUCH ROOM FOR ANY ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, AND WE WOULD PROFFER TO THE COMMISSION THAT NONE OF THESE WERE OUR FAULT. 
          WE ARE TRYING TO PUT THIS IN THE LEAST OBTRUSIVE PLACE THAT WE COULD FIND. 
          WE ARE BUILDING THIS TO THE MINIMUM HEIGHT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO GET THE FOUR DIFFERENT ANTENNA OPPORTUNITIES TO PUT ON THERE. 
          THIS IS NOT LIKE SOME 250-FOOT SELF-SUPPORT. 
          VAGUE LATTICE TOWER IS 150 FEET, WHICH BASED ON MY OBSERVATIONS BECOME A STANDARD MINIMUM HEIGHT TO GET THE SIGNAL, 
          [00:15:05]
BUT YET HAVE A MINIMUM IMPACT ON ANYBODY ELSE AROUND THE AREA. 
          [NOISE] WE'LL COMPLY WITH ALL FCC REGULATIONS. 
          AS FAR AS RADIO WAVES AND THAT THING, THIS OBVIOUSLY WILL BE AN APPROVED AND COMPLIANCE STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED WITHIN THERE. 
          WE DID THE COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY AS REQUIRED BY YOUR ZONING AND THE CITYSWITCH DOES NOT HAVE ANY TOWERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS INDICATOR OR WITHIN 1.5 MILES THEREOF. 
          WE CONFIRM THAT AND WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION ON THAT. 
          THERE ARE OTHERS WHERE WE BASICALLY COMPLIED BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY NO TOWERS AROUND. 
          I THINK THE NEAREST TOWER IS LIKE 1.8 MILES AWAY. 
          THEY'RE NOT IN THE CITY AND THIS IS WHAT THE CLIENT OR WHAT CITYSWITCH NEEDS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A CELLULAR SERVICE BASED FOR IT'S TENANT. 
          THERE ARE SOME GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR CONSIDERATION WHETHER THE PROPOSED USE IS SUITABLE IN VIEW OF THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTY. 
          THIS FACILITY, LIKE I SAID, WILL BE BUILT NEXT TO A HEAVY RAILROAD. 
          THE SEARCH RANK THAT I GAVE YOU, SHOWS THE FACILITY IS REALLY LOCATED ABOUT IN THE CENTER OF THAT SEARCH RING. 
          SORRY ABOUT THAT. IT'S JUST FAR ENOUGH TO THE SOUTH THAT IT PICKS UP THE NECESSARY RESIDENTIAL WHILE STILL SERVING THE COMMERCIAL WITHOUT BEING LOCATED DIRECTLY IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE FACILITY WILL BE LOCATED IN THE INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT THE NEEDS FOR COLLEGES, SEMINARIES, AND HOSPITALS. 
          BASED ON OTHER THINGS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT AND WOULD SUPPORT THE INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT. 
          WE DON'T BELIEVE THE PROPOSED USE ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE EXISTING USES. 
          AGAIN, WE'VE LOCATED NEXT TO A RAILROAD RIGHT AWAY. 
          THERE SHOULD BE A LOT OF RELATIVELY FOR DENSE URBAN TIGHT SPOTS SUCH AS THIS THERE'S A LOT OF TREES IN THAT AREA. 
          THEY SHOULD SHIELD IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. 
          CERTAINLY MORE THAN THE ONE THAT'S IN THE PUBLIC PARKING LOT. 
          AS IT CONCERNS PROPERTY VALUES. 
          WE HAVE COMMISSIONED MULTIPLE STUDIES ACROSS THE SOUTHEAST TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE AT THIS TIME THAT SHOWS THAT CELL TOWERS, ACTUALLY WHEN YOU DO THE PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS, LOWER PROPERTY VALUES. 
          WE DO BELIEVE WE MEET THAT ASPECT OF THE ZONING AS WELL. 
          AGAIN, I MENTIONED IT'S NOT GOING TO BE EXCESSIVELY BURDENSOME OR EVEN MARGINALLY BURDENSOME ON THE ROADWAYS IN THE AREA. 
          YOU JUST HAVE ONE PICKUP TRUCK THAT COMES AND SERVICES IT. 
          THE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE PROPERTY WILL BE PROVIDED OFF OF A PRIVATE ROAD. 
          THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHERE TO PUT THE GATE, SO WE ARE NOT CLOSED AFTER THAT. 
          THIS THE FIRST, I CALL IT THE FIRST RODEO FOR THIS APPLICATION. 
          WE'RE OBVIOUSLY WILLING TO TALK TO PEOPLE AND TO ENTERTAIN WHAT FOLKS HAVE TO SAY. 
          THERE ARE OTHER REQUIREMENTS LIKE THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED TOWER OR THE PROXIMITY OF THE TOWER TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, NATURAL USES ON ADJACENT PROPERTY, THE TOPOGRAPHY, THE TREE COVER, AND THE FOLIAGE. 
          I THINK I HAVE ADDRESSED ALL OF THOSE BUT SHOULD ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. 
          I JUST DON'T WANT TO SIT UP HERE AND REPEAT MYSELF. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, EITHER IN PERSON OR ONLINE? [NOISE] HEARING NONE. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION? YES. WHEN YOU START YOUR REMARKS, PLEASE START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. 
          >> YES. 
          >> HELLO. MY NAME IS TARA BOSE. 
          MY ADDRESS IS AT 235, MADEIRAS. 
          I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH MY WIFE PRIYA SAHA, WHO'S IN ATTENDANCE. 
          THE PROPERTY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, 
          [00:20:01]
BUT WE PLAN TO HAVE IT AS OUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE, WHICH WOULD HOLD THREE GENERATIONS OF OUR FAMILY. 
          CURRENTLY, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE IMAGES, OUR PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSAL. 
          WE HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, ESPECIALLY AROUND THE VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUILD THIS ANTENNA. 
          OUR MAIN CONCERN ARE THE ASSESSMENT AROUND THE FAULT ZONES AND THE SAFETY TO THE PROPERTY AND FAMILY. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'VE DONE STUDIES AROUND THE PROPERTY VALUE AND THAT'S REALLY NOT OUR MAIN CONCERN REALLY. 
          IT'S JUST THE SAFETY OF ME AND MY FAMILY. 
          OF COURSE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY VALUES WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED. 
          IT WOULD BE A DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT FROM OUR BACKYARD. 
          I HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. 
          I WOULD LIKE MORE, AT LEAST IN OPPOSITION TO AT LEAST GAIN MORE INFORMATION FOR MYSELF, FOR MY FAMILY SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME PEACE OF MIND THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD NOT AFFECT US IN ANY NEGATIVE CAPACITY. 
          [NOISE] THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION, EITHER IN PERSON OR ONLINE? 
          >> I DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL ON ZOOM. MR. ROFF. 
          >> MR. ROFF, AS SOON AS, YOU ARE UNMUTED, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. 
          >> GREAT. I'LL MAKE IT BRIEF. 
          I HAVE TWO CONCERNS THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP. 
          I HAVE MANY MORE, BUT I'LL JUST KEEP IT BRIEF TO THOSE TWO. 
          I LIVE IN 228 WESTCHESTER DRIVE. 
          THE TWO ARE NUMBER 1 WITH ALL THE DELEMENTS. 
          HOW DOES IT MAKE SENSE SUPPLANTED BY A TRAIN TRACK? NUMBER 2, GIVEN ALL THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED, SINCE IT DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES, WHY WOULD THIS BE GRANTED AT ALL? I MEAN REALLY. THAT'S IT. 
          >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION? 
          >> MISS LINDA EARHART. 
          >> MISS EARHART, IF YOU WILL UNMUTE YOURSELF, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. 
          >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. 
          I LIVE AT 132 NEW YORKER DRIVE INDICATOR RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. 
          I COMPLETELY AM AGAINST THIS PROPOSITION. 
          I BELIEVE IT WILL HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD DURING CONSTRUCTION, DURING DISRUPTION OF WILDLIFE AND GREEN SPACE, IT WILL HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AFTER CONSTRUCTION BY OPENING UP A DEAD END ROAD TO [INAUDIBLE] FOOT IN CAR TRAFFIC. 
          IT WILL HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO REAL ESTATE AND HOME VALUES. 
          THERE IS A TOWER THAT IS CLOSE BY, IT'S IN PUBLIC PARKING LOT, AND THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION. 
          THERE IS THE CORNER THAT RAILROAD TRACKS IS ABOUT 4 OR 6 MILES FOR NORTH AT THE TRIANGLE OF TRACKS WOULD BE THE SAME ELEVATION. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT ANOTHER OPTION BE EXPLORED. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? GOING ONCE. GOING TWICE. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT ANY REBUTTAL? 
          >> I HAVE A ENGINEER'S LETTER. 
          >> SPEAK TO US DIRECTLY. 
          >> I HAVE AN ENGINEERING LETTER. 
          I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE WITH HIM. 
          THAT WOULD HELP. I'M SORRY. 
          AS FAR AS THE VARIANCES, THE VARIANCE IS RESULT FROM AN EFFORT TO TRY AND PUT A CELL TOWER NEAR SOMETHING THAT IT'S MORE AKIN TO RAILROAD, THEN TRYING TO ZONE THIS THING IN SOMEBODY'S YARD OR ON THE EDGE OF A PARK OR A GOLF COURSE OR SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS WE'VE TRIED. 
          OUR THOUGHT IS THAT THE VARIANCES ARE WARRANTED BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO PUT THIS IN A SMALL, RELATIVELY NARROW LOT. 
          WE'VE DONE THE DILIGENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SAFETY IS STILL THERE. 
          I THINK THAT'S ABOUT THAT. 
          THE TRIANGLE AND SHE JUST SPOKE ABOUT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE BY PUBLIC ROAD. 
          IF YOU GO TO THE NORTH OF THIS, THERE'S THREE RAILROAD TRACKS THOUGH CAN INTERSECT AND THERE'S A GREAT BIG TRIANGLE. 
          BUT IF YOU LOOK AT PUBLIC ROAD ACCESS, AT LEAST TWO OF THE ROADS COME OFF ON A OVERPASS 
          [00:25:03]
AND THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO GET TO IT PRACTICALLY, YOU'D HAVE TO CROSS OTHER PARCELS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, ETC. 
          WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER OF CONDEMNATION, SO WE CAN'T JUST TAKE FOR SOMEBODY TO GIVE US THEIR PROPERTY, TO GET BACK INTO THAT TRIANGLE AND YOU'D HAVE TO GET A RAILROAD CROSSING. 
          THE PUBLIC PARKING LOT, AGAIN, WE UNDERSTAND THAT ANTENNA IS GOING AWAY. 
          THIS ANTENNA WOULD BE REMOVED AND OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE AND IT WOULD GIVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE TENANTS. 
          I THINK THE ONE ANTENNA IS IN THE PUBLIC PARKING LOT IS MAXED OUT AT ONE BECAUSE THE COMPOUND IS TINY. 
          I MEAN, IT'S AMAZING. 
          THEY FIT ANYTHING IN THERE AT ALL. 
          WHEN YOU HAVE THESE CELLULAR SERVICE, THEIR CELLULAR ANTENNAS, YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE EQUIPMENT ON THE GROUND TO TIE IT INTO THE FIBER-OPTIC BACKBONE, SO THAT ULTIMATELY, WE'RE STILL USING TELEPHONE WIRES TO ACTUALLY TALK. 
          WE JUST HAVE A LITTLE RECEIVER THAT TALKS TO AN ANTENNA AND THEN IT GETS RELAYED TO WIRED CONNECTIONS. 
          I THINK THAT ADDRESSES THOSE. 
          WE AGAIN, THIS IS WELL REMOVED FROM MOST RESIDENCES. 
          I WOULD SUBMIT THE RESIDENCES THAT ARE CLOSEST TO IT WON'T EVEN BE ABLE TO SEE IT BECAUSE THEY'RE INSIGNIFICANT TREE CANOPY IN THIS AREA. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. 
          >> I DO ACTUALLY. 
          >> SURE. 
          >> IN READING THROUGH YOUR MATERIALS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE PURPOSE OF THE TOWER IS TWO-FOLD. 
          YOU HAVE A RAILROAD RELATED PURPOSE. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE INVOLVING SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AND THEN YOU HAVE GENERALLY AVAILABLE CO-LOCATION OPPORTUNITIES. 
          IS IT THE SAFETY EQUIPMENT THAT'S DRIVING THIS? THE OTHER PART IS A BONUS OR IS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND? WHAT IS THE MAIN DRIVER FOR THE NEED FOR THIS TOWER? 
          >> I WOULD SAY BOTH OF THEM ARE DRIVING IT. 
          RAILROAD TECHNOLOGY IS CHANGING. 
          YOU HAVE A LOT MORE GOODS THAT WERE ALL BUYING OFF AMAZON AND THEY ALL HAVE TO COME OFF OF A BOAT SOMEWHERE. 
          THAT'S WHY THE RAILROAD IS EVEN INTERESTED IN TALKING. 
          [NOISE] OTHERWISE, WE WOULD BE TRYING TO DESIGN THIS ON ONE OF THE OTHER OPTIONS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. 
          THEN IT'S A GOOD OPTION TO PUT CO-LOCATION OPPORTUNITY. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT BOTH OF THEM ARE DRIVING. 
          >> I WAS ASKING BECAUSE I'VE LOOKED AT YOUR COVERAGE MAP AND THAT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS GEARED MORE TOWARD GENERAL COVERAGE LIKE T-MOBILE, SPRINT, VERIZON. 
          BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COVERAGE FOR THE SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK? IS THERE A SIMILAR GAP THERE? IF SO, DID YOU-ALL LOOK AT OTHER LOCATIONS ALONG THE RAILROAD THAT MIGHT SERVE AS A SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE SITE? 
          >> I THINK THE PARTICULAR LOCATION OF THIS IS PROBABLY BEING DRIVEN BY THE SEARCH RING THAT I GAVE YOU. 
          THE RAILROADS EQUIPMENT IS THEIR EQUIPMENT. 
          WE JUST OFFER THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOCATE IT ON OUR TOWER. 
          I DON'T FEEL IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE MEDIUM TRIED TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          >> THEN FINALLY, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BARBED WIRE, AND WHY THAT IS NECESSARY. 
          WHAT SECURITY RISK OR ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE THAT REQUIRES THE SECURITY FENCE TO BE TOPPED WITH BARBED WIRE? 
          >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS IN YOUR ORDINANCE. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO MEET THE ORDINANCE. 
          MR. [INAUDIBLE] YOU CAN CORRECT ME [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> FAIRLY STANDARD WITH THESE [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> I WILL SAY THAT YOU HAVE PERSONAL INFORMATION FOR THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE RUNNING THROUGH THESE FACILITIES. 
          I MEAN, I'M OVER HERE BUYING STUFF ON AMAZON WITH MY CREDIT CARD, AND SO FIZAL, WHEN YOU HAVE INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES, FIZAL, IF SOMEBODY CAN GET TO IT AND PLUG IN AND START THE DOWNLOAD THEM, I THINK THE MOST BASIC IS CREDIT CARD SKIMMER THINGS PEOPLE PUT ON GAS STATION. 
          IF YOU COULD DO THAT WITH SOMEBODY WHO'S CHECKING THEIR ONLINE BANKING, CHECKING THERE 401(K) ACCOUNT, YOU NAME IT. 
          I THINK THEY COULD GET INTO A LOT OF MISCHIEF. 
          PHYSICAL SECURITY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THESE FACILITIES. 
          >> I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS A LESS INTRUSIVE OPTION. 
          [00:30:01]
THE THING I WAS THINKING OF IS AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERPASS OR YOU HAVE THE FENCE AND THEN IT CURVES OVER TOWARDS THE ROADWAY TO MAKE THAT UNCLIMBABLE, WILL SOMETHING LIKE THAT BE POSSIBLE IN PLACE OF THE BARBED WIRE MAYBE? 
          >> WE COULD LOOK INTO, MA'AM. 
          >> WHAT I'LL DO, I'LL CLARIFY WHAT THE CODE SAYS, THE STANDARDS OF USE. 
          IT SAYS TOWERS MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH AN ANTI CLIMBING DEVICE. 
          THIS IS FOLLOWING THE SENTENCE THAT SAYS A SECURITY FENCE OF AT LEAST SIX FEET IN HEIGHT NEEDS TO BE AT THE PERIMETER. 
          BUT THEN IT NEEDS TO BE ALSO EQUIPPED WITH ANTI-CLIMBING DEVICE, SO IT DOESN'T REQUIRE BARBED WIRE. 
          THAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE OPTION. 
          >> THERE COULD BE PROBABLY OTHER OPTIONS. 
          >> [NOISE] ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? 
          >> YOU CAN MAKE THAT A CONDITION. 
          [NOISE]. 
          >> I'M INTRIGUED. WHAT TYPE OF CONDITION? 
          >> I DON'T THINK THAT YOU COULD JUST HAVE SOME OTHER COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE ANTI-CLIMBING DEVICE THAT'S NOT BARBED WIRE. 
          >> THAT'S APPROVED BY THE PLANNING STAFF? 
          >> YES. 
          >> THEY'RE ORNAMENTAL OFFENSES THAT PROVIDE THAT. 
          >> YES, SIR. 
          >> HOW MANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE WITHIN THE 200-FOOT RADIUS OF THE POLE'S LOCATION? 
          >> I WOULD HAVE TO GO COUNT. 
          WELL, 200 FEET IS [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> IS OUR ORDINANCE. 
          >> I WOULD SAY NO MORE THAN A DOZEN. 
          >> A DOZEN? 
          >> AT MOST. PROBABLY EIGHT. 
          >> HAVE YOU APPROACHED ANY OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS? WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT FALL RADIUS. 
          IT APPEARS THAT IF YOU DRAW YOUR 200-FOOT CIRCLE AROUND HERE, THERE'S PORTIONS OF THESE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WHERE IT BECOMES UNBUILDABLE IF THEY'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN SAFETY OF ANY STRUCTURE. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOUR COMPANY WOULD DO TO OBTAIN AN EASEMENT FOR THE PORTION OF THE 200-FOOT RADIUS THAT MIGHT FALL WITHIN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES? 
          >> THAT'S WHY WE GET A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO LOOK AT THIS AND FIGURE OUT WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO DO SHOULD IT COLLAPSE. 
          >> I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. 
          IF YOU HAD THAT LETTER, I'D LOVE TO SEE IT, NOT NECESSARY, BUT IS THIS PART OF THE MONOPOLE'S PARTICULAR DESIGN? IS THIS IN INDUSTRY DESIGN WHERE THEY ARE ALL GUARANTEED TO COLLAPSE? IS THIS A PARTICULAR SPECIAL MODEL THAT'S DESIGNED TO DO SO? IF SO, THEN WHY IS THIS NOT STANDARD PRACTICE IN ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES 200-FOOT MINIMUM CLEARANCE OR SETBACKS RELAXED IF THESE MONOPOLES ALL ARE GUARANTEED TO COLLAPSE WITHIN A 60 BY 50 COMPOUND? 
          >> I CERTAINLY CAN'T ANSWER AS TO WHY THE JURISDICTIONS ORDINANCE IS THE WAY IT IS. 
          I CAN TELL YOU THAT AFTER PRESENTING MANY, MANY, MANY OF THESE, WE'RE NOT CHOPPING OVER A TREE. 
          IF YOU CHOP A TREE, IT JUST FALLS OVER. 
          THIS THING HAS A LOT OF INERTIA AND SUPPORT IN THE GROUND JUST TO HOLD IT UP AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT WINDS OR SOME FORCE IN EXCESS, A HURRICANE-STRENGTH FORCE, AND SO WHEN THAT DOES, WHEN IT DOES FAIL, IT FAILS GRADUALLY. 
          IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO JUST TOPPLE OVER LIKE A TREE. 
          OBVIOUSLY, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. 
          THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE ENGINEERS LOOK AT IT AND ISSUE A PROFESSIONAL OPINION BY A LICENSED, REGISTERED ENGINEER AS TO WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY'RE THE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S QUALIFIED TO DO THAT. 
          >> I SEE FROM THIS LETTER THAT IT APPEARS THAT WIND IS THE ONLY FORCE THAT THE ENGINEER IS CERTIFYING THAT THE MONOPOLE WILL RESIST THE FORCE OF. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER FORCES OR FALL SCENARIOS WHICH ARE ALSO CONSIDERED? 
          [00:35:09]
          >> NOT BY THAT LETTER AS YOU POINTED OUT. 
          >> NO, OKAY. 
          >> LIKE A TRAIN DERAILMENT LIKE WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THAT WASN'T A CONCERN BY THE ENGINEER? 
          >> NO. 
          >> SABOTAGE OF THE BASE. 
          >> CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THE TOWER AT THE PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER, AND HOW YOU CAME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT TOWER IS NOT GOING TO EXIST ANYMORE? 
          >> THAT'S WHAT MY CLIENT HAS RELAYED TO ME. 
          IF THE COUNCIL WANTS MORE PARTICULARS ON THAT, THE COMMISSION, I CAN GET MORE PARTICULARS AND WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT IT. 
          >> AS OF PRESENT, THERE IS A TOWER THAT MEETS THE CRITERIA THAT YOUR CLIENT NEEDS, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT AT A FUTURE DATE, IT MAY NOT EXIST ANYMORE. 
          >> THE TOWER THAT EXISTS HAS A TENANT ON IT. 
          IT CANNOT ACCEPT ANOTHER TENANT, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT MEET OUR NEEDS. 
          IT IS NOT A VIABLE OPTION FOR CO-LOCATION. 
          DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE INFORMATION ON THE OTHER TOWER, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT. 
          >> I DON'T HAVE THAT WITH ME TODAY. 
          >> THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, I KNOW YOU'RE CALLING THIS A MONOPOLE. 
          THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE TOWERS THAT'S GOING TO HAVE WIRES STICKING OUT OF IT. 
          >> NO. THIS IS LITERALLY A SINGLE POLE SHOWN IN THE DRAWING AND THEN IT HAS ANTENNA ARRAYS ON TOP OF IT. 
          BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY GUY WIRES. 
          IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY LATTICE STRUCTURE, IT'S JUST ONE GALVANIZED POLL. 
          >> THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS REGARDING THE COVERAGE MAP. 
          I GUESS, WHICH CARRIER IS THIS SHOWING AND DOES THE COVERAGE CHANGE DEPENDING ON WHICH CARRIER, LIKE IS THIS A DISH MAP? 
          >> THIS IS A DISH MAP. 
          THE COVERAGE WOULD CHANGE BASED ON OTHER SITES ANOTHER PROVIDER MAY HAVE. 
          >> YOU'VE OPTED FOR THE TALLER TOWER IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CARRY MORE ANTENNAS FOR OTHER CARRIERS. 
          HAVE YOU HAD ANY INTEREST FROM OTHER CARRIERS OR IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF MAKING THE TOWER SHORTER TO CARRY FOR YOUR CLIENT? 
          >> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ENTITY WHO'S ON THE PUBLIC'S TOWER IS INTERESTED, IS TALKING ABOUT LOCATING ON THIS AS WELL. 
          >> BUT I THINK YOU HAVE FIVE SPOTS FOR ANTENNAS, IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> FOUR AND THEN THE RAILROAD. 
          >> YOU HAVE TWO EXTRA THAT NO ONE HAS PARTICULARLY EXPRESSED INTEREST IN? 
          >> NO, BUT JURISDICTIONS REQUIRE CO-LOCATION. 
          WHEN YOU BUILD ONE, YOU TYPICALLY BUILD ONE TO SUPPORT THE JURISDICTIONS' REQUIREMENTS SO THAT WHEN ANOTHER CARRIER WANTS TO ENHANCE THEIR SIGNAL IN THIS AREA, THERE'S A READY PLACE FOR THEM TO GO, INSTEAD OF THEM COMING BACK AND ASKING TO BUILD ANOTHER TOWER. 
          >> MY POINT IS THAT IF THE PUBLIC'S ONE DOESN'T GO AWAY, THEN YOU HAVE THREE OPEN SPOTS. 
          >> WE'D HAVE TWO. 
          >> EXPLAIN. 
          >> SURE. WE GOT FOUR TOTAL. 
          WE'VE GOT ONE TENANT DISH GOING ON NOW. 
          >> IF PUBLIC'S DOESN'T GO AWAY BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> IF PUBLIC'S DOESN'T GO AWAY THEN WE HAVE THREE. 
          GOT IT. SORRY. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME THING. 
          >> ANYTHING ELSE? 
          >> GOT A FEW QUESTIONS. 
          I THINK THIS SET BACK A COUPLE OF TIMES OR PROVIDE THE LETTER. 
          THERE'S NO MENTION ABOUT A GENERATOR. 
          I IMAGINE THERE IS A GENERATOR ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. 
          >> THERE WILL BE A BACKUP GENERATOR. 
          >> THERE'LL BE BACKUP. HOW OFTEN DOES IT RUN? WHAT ARE THE NOISE LEVELS THAT IT WILL PRODUCE AT THE PROPERTY LINE? 
          >> I WILL GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. 
          I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. 
          >> I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY HAS CODE ORDINANCES REGARDING NOISE FROM GENERATORS WHEN THEY'RE NOT RUNNING IN A TRUE EMERGENCY. 
          >> WE'D OBVIOUSLY COMPLY WITH THOSE. 
          IT HAD TO BE TESTED FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT NOT. 
          >> WELL, THEN THAT'S WHEN THE NOISE IS PARTICULARLY CONCERNING. 
          THEN REGARDING THE VEGETATIVE SCREENING, YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE CODE REGARDING THAT, IS THAT COMING FROM CSX THAT YOU CAN'T PLANT ANYWHERE ON THE SITE OR JUST ALONG THE RAILROAD SIDE? YOU GOT FOUR SIDES TO THIS SITE. 
          [00:40:02]
WHAT IS CSX SAYING? 
          >> I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION DIRECTLY, IS THE HONEST ANSWER. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WANT THE SITE AS TIGHT AS IT CAN BE SO THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE TRACKS. 
          >> THEN WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE VEGETATION POST-CONSTRUCTION? IS THAT CITYSWITCH OR CSX? 
          >> CITYSWITCH. 
          >> CITYSWITCH, ACROSS THE ENTIRE SITE? 
          >> WELL, THEY'D BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THEIR LEASED AREA. 
          >> THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THAT? 
          >> WELL, THE PROPOSED VEGETATIVE BUFFER, THE NATURAL FREEZE. 
          >> WHO'S RESPONSIBLE? I SAW A PICTURE AND I SEE VINES AND WHATNOT ON THE TREES WHICH MAKES THEM POOR QUALITY. 
          WHO'S GOING TO KEEP THE VINES OFF THE TREES? IS THAT CITYSWITCH OR IS THAT CSX? 
          >> I WOULD IMAGINE IT'S CSX. 
          I THINK WE'RE CLEARING THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TREES THAT WE NEED TO GET THE FACILITY CONSTRUCTED AND TO HAVE ACCESS. 
          >> CITYSWITCH GETS ACCESS TO THE SITE VIA SOME RELATIONSHIP WITH CSX, BUT THEN IT TAKES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER REQUIRED FOR THE TOWER ON THE SITE. 
          >> WELL, THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE LEASE AREA, SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO GO. 
          >> I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. 
          >> ANYONE ELSE? 
          >> THE BACKUP POWER, IS THAT PROPANE? 
          >> I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. 
          >> IT CAN HAVE A BIG ENOUGH PROPANE TANK. 
          WE WOULDN'T WANT IT EITHER. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, EVERYONE WOULD. 
          [LAUGHTER] 
          >> DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> I WILL NOW OPEN THE FLOOR TO DISCUSSION. 
          ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SHARE OR REPORT, OR SUPPORT? 
          >> I GOT CONCERNS ABOUT THE FOLLOWING. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REPORT FOR YOUR REGARDING GREG RIGHTFULLY POINTED OUT IT'S ONLY ABOUT WIND. 
          NOTHING ABOUT ANY OTHER NATURAL OR MALFEASANCE THAT COULD OCCUR ON THE SITE THAT COULD TOPPLE THIS, THEN IT'S GOING TO FALL. 
          COULD FALL ONTO PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. 
          I'VE GOT CONCERNS ABOUT THAT FOR SURE. 
          BECAUSE IT WILL FALL LIKE A TREE IF IT'S SOMETHING'S DONE AT THE BASE. 
          I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT AS I BROUGHT UP THE VEGETATIVE SCREENING. 
          I MEAN [NOISE] THERE'S JUST A SCREEN SOMETHING, YOU CAN HAVE TREES BUT THEN YOU CAN SEE IT THROUGH THE BOTTOM OF THE TREE. 
          PROPER VEGETATIVE SCREENING STARTS AT SHRUBS UNDER STORY AND THEN TALL HARDWOODS. 
          WITHOUT CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT, AND I KNOW WHAT TYPICALLY THE RAILROAD SIDES PROPERTIES LOOK LIKE. 
          THEY'RE COVERED IN KUDZU AND IV AS THE TREE SURVEY POINTED OUT PRIVATE AND IT'S GOING TO LOOK TERRIBLE. 
          I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. 
          CITY SWITCHES ASKING FOR THIS, THEY'RE [NOISE] GOING TO GAIN THE VALUE OF THIS BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. 
          DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THEY'RE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THAT MEDITATION IN A WAY THAT WOULD MEET THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS. 
          I'M NOT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT NOT BEING OLD PLANT ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACKS MEAN WORKING [NOISE] BUT [OVERLAPPING] IF THEY CAN'T REPLANT ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, VERY STRONGLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT COULD GO A LONG WAY TO MAKING IT AT LEAST VISUALLY BETTER. 
          THOSE ARE MY TWO BIG CONCERNS WITH THIS AS PRESENTED RIGHT NOW. 
          >> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? 
          >> JUST A FEW. NOBODY USUALLY LIKES WHATEVER CELL TOWER IN THEIR BACKYARD. 
          BUT I WOULD SAY AS LOCATIONS GO, IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD. 
          I ALSO WOULD SAY THAT THE COVERAGE THAT AREA IS PRETTY TERRIBLE, ITS PROGRESS ISSUE. 
          THOSE POINTS NOTWITHSTANDING, I WOULD SAY THERE'S SOME MERIT TO ACTUALLY SAYING THAT THIS IS A PRETTY SENSITIVE WAY TO DO IT. 
          [00:45:03]
I THINK YOU ARE TRYING TO MINIMIZE IT BY CUTTING OUT AND LEAVING AS MANY OF THE TREES. 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY CSX WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A VEGETATIVE BUFFER FACING THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE. 
          THAT SEEMS TO ME TO NO NEGATIVE IMPACT. 
          I THINK THERE IS A MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF IT SO THAT IT DOESN'T BECOME OVERGROWN. 
          UNSIGHTLY THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL FALL, THE ONE IN PUBLIX IS PUTTING A LOT MORE PEOPLE AT RISK. 
          AGAIN, TO DIMINISH ANYBODY WHO'S NEARBY BUT THE MORE PUBLIC THOSE AREAS GET THE WORST THAT SITUATION BECOMES. 
          IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE HOW WHEN SOMETHING DOES FALL, WHAT IS THE SOURCE AND IT'S FALLING? IT'S THERE'S A LOT OF IT'S MOST LIKELY TO FALL WITHIN. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO IF IT GETS HIT WITH A TORNADO, IT COULD GET THROWN TO BLOCKS FROM THERE. 
          IT'S A QUESTION MARK, BUT IT'S NOT ONE THAT'S UNCOMMON WITH ANYTIME YOU HAVE THE TALL OBJECTS HITTING UP. 
          THAT'S LIKE THE PROBLEM WITH PROGRESS. 
          THOSE ARE JUST COMMENTS THAT ARE YOUR OBSERVATIONS. 
          >> I'LL ADD ONE THING. I MEAN LOOKING AT HOW THEY HAVE THIS SITED, IT'S TWO-THIRDS ALONG THE LINEAR PART AND IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARCEL. 
          I WONDER IF THEY COULDN'T PUSH IT NORTHWEST INTO THE FAR CORNER, PUTS IT CLOSER TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND MOVES IT FARTHER AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS. 
          THERE'S THE YMCA PROPERTY WHICH IS, I THINK LARGELY JUST A VEGETATED AREA THAT I'M NOT SURE IF THEY HAVE ANY PLANS ON DEVELOPMENT OVER THERE BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. 
          BUT I DO WONDER IF THEY MOVED IT FARTHER INTO THE CORNER AND THEN THAT GETS THEM AT POTENTIALLY WITHIN THAT FAULT ZONE THAT THEN IT WOULD NOT [NOISE] POTENTIALLY RISK THE RESIDENTS THAT IS CLOSEST TO THE TOWER ITSELF. 
          PUTS IT CLOSER RAILROAD TRACKS BUT, PART OF THIS TOWER IS PARTLY THERE FOR THE RAILROAD TRACKS. 
          THEY'RE GETTING INTO DIRECT BENEFICIAL USE OF THE TOWER. 
          TO THAT END I THINK IF THEY WERE ONLY BUILDING IT FOR THE RAILROAD TRACKS, IT WOULD ONLY BE 60 FEET TALL NOT 150 FEET TALL BECAUSE I THINK THAT LOWER DIPOLE ANTENNA IS. 
          IF I UNDERSTAND [NOISE] CORRECTLY, THAT IS THE INCENTIVE FOR CSX. 
          IT'S THE UPPER ANTENNAS THAT ARE THERE FOR THE CARRIERS. 
          I THINK, YEAH, TO THAT POINT IT WOULD ONLY BE 60 FEET TALL IF IT WAS ONLY THERE FOR CSX. 
          >> I BELIEVE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE PUBLIX POLL DOES NOT HAVE A FALL RADIUS THAN INTERSECTS ANY OF THE STRUCTURES THAT IT'S PLACED WITHIN THE PARKING AREA SO THAT IT WOULD ONLY FALL ON PARKED CARS. 
          THAT FALL RADIUS IS IMPORTANT INCITING STRUCTURES IN IF THAT PART OF THAT RADIUS INTERSECTS WITH NAD'S PRIVATE PROPERTIES WHETHER IT'D BE THE YMCA OR THE HOMEOWNERS, YOU'RE LIMITING THEIR POTENTIAL USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. 
          THEY CAN'T BUILD THERE, ENGINEER'S LETTER OR NO. 
          THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE TACT THAT THERE IS ALWAYS THE POTENTIAL THAT THE POLL COULD FALL AS A SINGLE UNIT. 
          THAT'S WHY WE DRAW THOSE FALL RADII. 
          THESE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BEING IMPACTED AND I DON T THINK THAT THE COMPANY HERE HAS FULLY ADDRESSED THAT OR APPROACHED THEM TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL COMPENSATION. 
          >> OR MITIGATING THE RISKS. 
          >> YES. 
          I'VE DONE A FEW OF THESE APPLICATIONS OVER THE YEARS AND MOST OF THE TIME. 
          THE MONOPOLE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ISN'T REALLY JUST ONE UNBROKEN SHAFT. 
          >> IS SEGMENTED. 
          IS SEGMENTED, THEN YOU HAVE FAILED JOINTS EVERY SO OFTEN. 
          YOU HAVE A WIRE CABLE INSIDE, IT'S A HOLLOW TUBE THE TOWER, YOU HAVE A WIRE CABLE THAT'S ANCHORED TO THE GROUND. 
          IT GOES STRAIGHT UP THE MIDDLE TO THE TOP AND IT'S BOLTED [NOISE] TO THE TOP. 
          IF THAT THING WERE TO FALL THOSE PIECES, IT'S NOT LIKE A SOLID THING FALLING THOSE PIECES WILL MOVE AND DO OTHER THINGS AS THEY FALL. 
          BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK HERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT. 
          WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE STRUCTURE. 
          WE DON T KNOW WHERE THE CRUMPLE ZONES ARE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT. 
          [00:50:03]
          >> ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S EQUIPMENT AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WHICH ALWAYS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME SEPARATED IN A HIGH WIND EVENTS, AND FLY FOR SOME DISTANCE THAT'S A SAFETY CONCERN FOR ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS WELL. 
          THAT'S WHY CITIES LIKE TO CATER HAVE ESTABLISHED THE SETBACKS. 
          >> DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY TO YOUR POINT, THAT'S PROBABLY MY BIGGEST ISSUE IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF OPEN QUESTIONS THAT DON'T SEEM LIKE THEY'D BEEN INVESTIGATED OR AT LEAST REPORTED TO US. 
          AS FAR AS LIKE, WHAT EXACTLY CSX IS GOING TO REQUIRE FOR THE VEGETATION? JUST I WOULD LIKE SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE OTHER TOWER THAT EXISTS RIGHT NEXT DOOR IS NOT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE ANTENNAS AS THEY CURRENTLY STAND. 
          >> I THINK WITH PUBLIX THE LIMITATION IS THE AMOUNT OF LAND ON THE GROUND FOR THE EQUIPMENT, ALL OF THE CELL PHONE. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. [OVERLAPPING] SWITCHES. 
          >> THAT'S MY POINT THOUGH. I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION GOING FORWARD AND WHEN IT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED AT THIS POINT. 
          >> WHAT I HEAR IS THAT AS A BODY [NOISE] THIS COMMISSION IS NOT DISMISSING THE POTENTIAL FOR THE TOWER TO GO HERE OUT OF HAND, BUT THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE USED TO MAKE THIS FENCE CLIMBABLE AT THE TOP OF IT. 
          NOISE QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY RELATIVE TO ANY GENERATOR THAT'S ON THAT SITE. 
          QUESTION ABOUT THE TOWER STRUCTURE AND FAULT ZONE, ALSO QUESTIONS ABOUT LANDSCAPING AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE LONG-TERM FOR SCREENING PURPOSES. 
          WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN EITHER RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS OR NOT. 
          WE CAN RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION OR WE COULD VOTE TO DEFER THE APPLICATION TO A LATER DATE TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR INFORMATION GATHERING AND NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH FRANKLY. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPETITE IS DEVOTED JUST. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> TO PUT IT DOWN, WHAT DOES THAT TRIGGER FROM THE APPLICANT STANDPOINT, DO THEY HAVE TO WAIT PERIOD OF TIME OR DO THEY JUST RESUBMIT? 
          >> AS A BODY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS PROVIDING THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          THEY ARE THE ONES TO TAKE FINAL ACTION. 
          IF THE CITY COMMISSION DOES TAKE ACTION TO DENY, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THEN THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL TO THE DEKALB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. 
          >> IF WE DEFER IT, WE'RE JUST TELLING THE CITY COMMISSION WE'RE NOT READY TO VOTE ON IT YET. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> SO IT'S GOING TO THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          >> RIGHT, AND IF YOU DEFER IT, I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ON BOARD WITH THAT AS WELL. 
          THEN WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THE UPCOMING DATES. 
          FOR INSTANCE, THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WOULD BE OCTOBER 8TH. 
          >> NEITHER VOTE YAY OR NAY AND VOTE TO DEFER. 
          IT DOESN'T GO TO CITY COMMISSION. 
          IT SITS HERE. 
          >> CORRECT. THE APPLICANT WOULD COME BACK AND PROVIDE THE ANSWERS TO THOSE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WERE ALSO ASKING THE APPLICANT TO DO SOME OUTREACH WITH THE NEIGHBORS REGARDING THE RISK AND THEN THEY WOULD RETURN OCTOBER 8TH, IF THAT IS THE AGREED UPON CALENDAR. 
          >> MR. QUAN, WOULD THE DEFERRAL OF THIS APPLICATION HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON YOUR ABILITY TO MOVE THIS DEVELOPMENT FURTHER OR WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH A DEFERRAL? 
          >> IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY SLOW US DOWN, BUT WE WOULD BE WILLING TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION. 
          SEE IF WE CAN ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION? 
          >> I AM SO SORRY. 
          I'M ALREADY LOOKING AT 2024 APPARENTLY. 
          [LAUGHTER] SO THE ACTUAL DATE FOR 2023 IS OCTOBER 10TH. 
          I'M A PLANNER. I'M LIKE, WAY OUT. I'M OUT OF HERE. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> TEN-TEN, THAT'S EASY ENOUGH TO REMEMBER. 
          >> SO ADDED TO THE LIST OF QUESTIONS, I THINK ONE OF THEM MIGHT BE THE EXACT SPECIFIC LOCATION. 
          [00:55:04]
DOES IT HAVE TO BE RIGHT THERE OR CAN IT BE FURTHER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND MORE TOWARD THE INDUSTRIAL ONES TO THE BACK. 
          IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? IS THERE A REASON WHY THAT WASN'T INITIALLY CONSIDERED? 
          >> SO THERE'S CONCERNS WITH NOT MEETING THE 200 FOOT SETBACK AS IT RELATES TO THE FAULT ZONE. 
          EXPLORE VEGETATIVE BUFFER FACING RESIDENTIAL SIGNS. 
          MORE DOCUMENTATION, IF POSSIBLE, ON THE PUBLIC'S TOWER. 
          IMPOSSIBLE OTHER PLACES FOR LOCATION WITHIN THE SMALL AREA OF THE TOWER THAT MAY INCREASE THE BUFFER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          >> WITHIN THE CSX RIGHT OF AWAY. 
          >> WITHIN THIS CSX RIGHT OF WAY. 
          MORE INFORMATION ON THE BACKUP GENERATOR AND THE NOISE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD OUTRAGE. 
          >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FROM CITY SWITCH TO OUR MEETING ON OCTOBER 10TH, 2023. 
          >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR A DEFERRAL TO OCTOBER THE 10TH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? 
          >> THAT CAN DO. 
          >> IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE DEFER THIS APPLICATION TO OUR OCTOBER THE 10TH AGENDA. 
          ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ON THE MOTION? 
          >> DO WE NEED TO LIST OUT WITHIN THE MOTION THE THINGS THAT WE'RE REQUESTING. 
          >> I HAD IT FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          [OVERLAPPING] MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SEE YOU IN A MONTH. 
          >> SEE YOU IN A MONTH. 
          >> THE NEXT APPLICATION ON OUR AGENDA IS BY MICHAEL CLIFFORD, 
          [III.b. Michael Clifford, applicant on behalf of Vision Hospitality Group, property owner, has requested special exceptions to increase building height from 80 ft. (max.) to 82 ft. (proposed); to reduce the streetscape landscape zone for purposes of a drop off  lane; and to allow 100% off-site parking in adjacent parking decks for the  construction of a new hotel at 213 Swanton Way, Decatur GA.]
WHO IS THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF VISION HOSPITALITY GROUP AS PROPERTY OWNER. 
          HE HAS REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 80 FEET MAX TO 82 FEET PROPOSED TO REDUCE THE STREETSCAPE LANDSCAPE ZONE FOR PURPOSES OF A DROP-OFF LANE AND TO ALLOW 100% OFF-SITE PARKING IN ADJACENT PARKING DECKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOTEL AT 213 SWANTON WAY DECATUR, GEORGIA. 
          I SEE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT OR AN APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE TO PRESENT. 
          WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION? 
          >> SURE. GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS MIKE CLIFFORD. 
          I'M WITH BCA STUDIOS ARCHITECTS. 
          WE'RE AT SUITE 540 1 WEST COURT SQUARE. 
          IT'S AROUND THE CORNER RIGHT HERE ACTUALLY. 
          WE'RE HERE FOR THREE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR A NEW 240 ROOM HOTEL. 
          IN YOUR PACKET, TRY TO SCREEN GO TO THE SECOND PAGE. 
          THIS IS A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. 
          SO OUR PROJECT MAINLY FRONTS ON SLOT AND WAY, BUT WE ALSO FRONT ON COMMERCE AND FONT-STYLE IN PLACE. 
          WE HAD THAT WHOLE HALF CLOCK. 
          I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT ON THIS SHEET IS IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONTOUR LINE IN THE STREET, WE'RE AT 1,016 ELEVATION. 
          IN THE VERY OPPOSITE CORNER, WE'RE JUST BELOW 1,009. 
          SO THE SITE DROPS QUITE A BIT FROM ONE CORNER TO THE NEXT. 
          WHICH IS A CHALLENGE FOR A FOOTPRINT LIKE THIS WHERE WE'D LIKE TO HAVE EVERYTHING ON THE SAME LEVEL, AND IT JUST REORIENTATION. 
          THIS SITE IS NOT FAR FROM HERE. 
          TO THE PAGE EAST ON THE PAGE IS ONE BLOCK AWAY, IS THE DECATUR PART OF STATION DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM SWANTON WAY IS THE [INAUDIBLE] BUILDING. 
          BECAUSE THAT'S THE TWO SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES, THERE'S ALSO A PARKING DECK NEXT TO 1 WEST COURT SQUARE. 
          >> HE IS ACTING UP? 
          >> NO, WRONG BUTTON. 
          THE NEXT PAGE IS OF OUR FIRST FLOOR PLANS UP IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER GIVES THE STATISTICS FOR THE BUILDING AS FAR AS SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE NUMBER OF HOTEL ROOMS, AS WELL AS THE BREAKDOWN OF THE TYPE OF HOTEL ROOMS. THE SPRINT LEVEL OR GROUND LEVEL IS MAINLY ALL PUBLIC SPACES. 
          THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS U-SHAPED, WITH COURTYARD SPACE TO THE INTERIOR. 
          THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS NOTED BY THE TERM VEST FOR VESTIBULE AT THE BOTTOM CENTER OF THE FOOTPRINT. 
          [01:00:02]
ENTERING THE BUILDING TO THE LEFT IS LOBBY SPACE, DINING SPACE. 
          AT THE WEST END OF THE BUILDING IS WHAT WILL BE CALLED BLUESTONE CAFE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A CHAIN THAT IS BEING BROUGHT THROUGH THE US FROM AUSTRALIA. 
          IT IS A CAFE OFFERING THAT WILL ALSO SUFFICE FOR BREAKFAST FOR GUEST. 
          THERE'S A SEPARATE DINING AREA FOR THE HOMEWOOD SUITES GUESTS. 
          THERE IS I GUESS STARTING AT THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER, THERE'S A FITNESS SPACE, THERE'S STAFF SPACE, THERE'S MEETING ROOMS. THEN IF YOU LOOK IN THE COURTYARD SPACE, THERE'S A LARGE EVENT AREA. 
          THERE IS A SWIMMING POOL, THERE'S HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING YOUR SEATING, GRILLS AND THEN SPACE FOR GAMES. 
          LOOKING AT THE SIDEWALKS AROUND THE BUILDING, WE'RE MEETING THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT CLEAR SPACE FOR PEDESTRIANS AND THE SIX-FOOT LANDSCAPE ZONE. 
          AND TO POINT OUT, ONE OF OUR SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST WAS FOR A DROPOFF LANE BREAKING THE CURB LANE ON TO THE SIDEWALK. 
          BUT WITH A DISCUSSION YESTERDAY WITH ANGELA AND CARRY AND PLANNING, THEY PRESENTED AND WE AGREE THAT IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THAT, WE WOULD HAVE ON STREET PARKING, THE SIX-FOOT LANDSCAPE ZONE, PROVISION OF A FOUR-FOOT BICYCLE LANE, AND THEN OUR 10 FOOT CLEAR SIDEWALK ZONE. 
          WE SEE THAT AS A WIN-WIN FOR EVERYBODY ON THAT ONE AND WE WOULD TECHNICALLY, I GUESS, WITHDRAW THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST SINCE WE WON'T NEED THAT ANYMORE. 
          I'M GOING TO THE NEXT SHEET. 
          THIS IS JUST THE HOTEL TOWER WITH THE GUEST ROOMS. THERE ARE SIX LEVELS OF GUEST ROOMS. IF YOU GO TO THE SHEET 6, WE DO HAVE A ROOFTOP RESTAURANT AT THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, JUST TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE VIEWS ALL THE WAY TO THE DOWNTOWN FROM THAT CORNER OF THE BUILT. 
          THEN THE NEXT SHEET IS NEXT YEAR RENDERING WHERE WE CALL OUT REALLY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. 
          THE ZONING IN THIS AREA IS AN 80 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO THE ROOF STRUCTURE. 
          WE ARE SHOWING THE HEIGHT OF 82 FEET. 
          THIS IS MAINLY DUE TO THE GRADE DROPPING MORE THAN SIX FEET ACROSS THE SITE FROM ONE CORNER TO THE NEXT. 
          THIS IS THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. 
          IT WANTS TO BE A LITTLE BIT TALLER BECAUSE WE HAVE A RESTAURANT ON THE TOP FLOOR, BUT IT'S ALSO THE LOWEST GRADE POINTS. 
          WE'RE MEASURING FROM THE MAIN FINISHED GROUND LEVEL, SO IT'S REALLY A LIKE 18 INCHES BELOW FINISH FLOOR TO OUR ROOF HEIGHT. 
          TECHNICALLY WE'RE AT 82 FEET TALL, SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN EXTRA TWO FEET, ALMOST AS A SAFETY TO MAKE SURE WE DO NOT GO OVER THE 80 FOOT HEIGHT. 
          THEN THE REST OF THE SHEETS JUST ILLUSTRATE THE BUILDING EXTERIOR WITH SOME NOTES CONCERNING THE ROOF HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION. 
          WE ALSO NOTE SPECIAL EXCEPTION NUMBER 2 FOR THE DROP-OFF LANE WHICH WE NO LONGER NEED. 
          NEAR THE END, YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING AND AXONOMETRIC JUST TO SHOW THE MAXIMUM OF THE BUILDING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET TO MEET WITH BUILDING. 
          WE'D BE ROUGHLY THE SAME HEIGHT AS THAT BUILDING. 
          OF COURSE, THE COURTHOUSE JUST ACROSS THE FORMER IS TALLER AND THERE'S OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE AREA TALLER THAN US, AND OF COURSE STRUCTURES THAT ARE NICE. 
          HE'S TALKED ABOUT SPECIAL EXCEPTION NUMBER 1 FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT. 
          LISTED AS SPECIAL EXCEPTION NUMBER 3 IS FOR PARKING. 
          IN THIS AREA WERE REQUIRED TO PARK A MINIMUM OF 20% OF OUR SPACES ON-SITE OR REQUESTS IS TO BE ABLE TO NOT PARK ANY ON-SITE AND PARK 100% OFF-SITE. 
          JUST TO GIVE YOU THE NUMBERS THEY ARE LISTED IN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. 
          THIS PROJECT WITH THE NUMBER OF HOTEL ROOMS WE HAVE WOULD REQUIRE 181 TOTAL PARKING SPACES, 36 WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE ON SITE. 
          MY CLIENT VISUALIZE PENALTY CURRENTLY HAS THE LETTER OF INTENT 
          [01:05:05]
WITH THE PARKING DECK ADJACENT TO ONE WEST COURTS SQUARE FOR THAT PARKING. 
          THE DETRIMENT OF PARKING 36 SPACES ON SIDE. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE RIGHT NOW, THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 57 SPACES. 
          YOU WOULD BE BRINGING CARS ONTO AND OFF THE SITE THROUGH CURB CUTS ACROSS THE PARKING LOT FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BIKES. 
          OF COURSE, IT EATS UP A LOT OF JUST GROUND FLOOR AREA FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF, SO THAT'S WHY WE WOULD LIKE TO PARK OFF SITE. 
          THE HOTEL WOULD OFFER FULL-SERVICE BALLET FOR ITS GUESTS TO ROT CARS TO CITE, AND WE'RE ALSO ANTICIPATING A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF OUR GUESTS BEING DROPPED OFF OR TAKING MOTOR TO GET TO THE HOTEL SINCE WE'RE ONLY WALK AWAY. 
          THAT'S REALLY THE WHOLE STORY FOR THE PROJECT. 
          I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JOE, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION. COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE CHANGE FROM THE DROP-OFF REQUESTS? YOU STILL HAVE THE NEED TO DROP PEOPLE OFF. 
          IS THAT JUST BEING HANDLED IN THE ON-STREET PARKING THAT'S STRIPED OFF OR? 
          >> THAT IS CORRECT. YES. WITH THE RECENT DOWNTOWN MASTERPLAN ADOPTION AND WANTING TO CONTINUE TO BUILD OUT REALLY GOOD STREETSCAPES AND CONTINUE TO BRANCH OFF OF OUR CYCLE TRACK ALONG COMMERCE DRIVE, WE HAVE A WILLING DEVELOPER WHO IS LOOKING TO ENHANCE THOSE STREETSCAPES. 
          I DID HEAR A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE REDUCTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ZONE WHICH WOULD AFFECT ADDITIONAL STREET TREES BEING IN OUR DOWNTOWN. 
          THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT THE SENIOR ENGINEER AND MYSELF, ALONG WITH MIKE, THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING AS AN ALTERNATIVE SO THAT WE'RE ENHANCING THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE. 
          KEEPING A CONTINUOUS LANDSCAPE ZONE, A SIX-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE ZONE, AND THEN ALSO PROVIDING FOR THAT DROP-OFF AREA FOR THE GUEST. 
          THE CURRENT RIGHT-OF-WAY, AT LEAST, ROUGHLY CURB TO CURB, NOT INCLUDING THE GUTTER, IS ROUGHLY 45 FEET. 
          WE HAVE QUITE A LOT OF ROOM AND WIDTH TO WORK WITH. 
          IT'S JUST FOR THE PORTION, AND IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR SCREEN HERE, THIS IS A GREAT DRAWING HERE, BUT THIS IS REALLY FOR THIS SECTION BETWEEN COMMERCE DRIVE AND PONTS PLACE BECAUSE YOU SEE OVER ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE HOW THE CURB LINE COMES OUT THERE NEAR THE BREWERY. 
          WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THE ON-STREET PARKING AS ONE WAY CURVES AROUND, BUT CERTAINLY WE CAN FOCUS ON THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH. 
          >> CAN YOU CLARIFY AS FAR AS THE PARKING AND THIS TRAVEL LANE, YOUR CLIENT WOULD THEN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UPDATING THE ACTUAL STREET ITSELF THERE OR IS THE CITY HANDLING THAT PART? 
          >> WELL, TYPICALLY, WE WOULD LEVERAGE THIS DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE THOSE STREETSCAPES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN THE CITY WOULD COVER THE COST FOR THE RESTRIPING AND WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLOCK. 
          >> RIGHT. WE WOULD DO EVERYTHING TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF CURB, WHICH WERE ALREADY BE DOING MAINLY ON PONTS BECAUSE IT WILL BE REDOING ALL THAT STREETSCAPE AND POSSIBLY ON PLACE, AND THE STREETSCAPE ON COMMERCE IS ALREADY IN PLACE. 
          I THINK YOU DON'T WANT US TO TOUCH THAT. 
          >> THAT IS CORRECT. [LAUGHTER] NO MODIFICATION. 
          >> PLEASE NOTE. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> I WENT AHEAD YESTERDAY, WENT OUT AND MEASURED, SO THE GREEN THAT'S SHOWN ON COMMERCE IS THE CURRENT BIKE LANE THAT IS THERE. 
          >> YEAH. DID ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE MOVED ON? THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, EITHER IN-PERSON OR ONLINE? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE, OPPORTUNITY SOLD. 
          IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION? 
          >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO, COMPUTERS MAKE ME NERVOUS WHEN YOU START PRESSING BUTTONS, [LAUGHTER] THINGS DISAPPEAR. GOOD EVENING. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, FOR BEING HERE. 
          I KNOW YOU COULD BE IN A LOT OF OTHER PLACES. 
          [01:10:01]
MY NAME IS CATHY GANNON. 
          I LIVE AT 335 WEST PONCE PLACE. 
          NOT WEST PONCE PLACE, [LAUGHTER] WEST PONCE AVENUE. 
          THANK YOU. I AM HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE DOWNTOWN DECATUR NEIGHBORS. 
          I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THAT ASSOCIATION, WE DO HAVE A PLANNING CHAIR WHO HAD TO BE OUT OF TOWN THIS EVENING, SO I'M GOING TO TRY AND FILL IN FOR HER. 
          BUT I'VE GOT ABOUT 20 YEARS OF LAND USE AND PLANNING AND ZONING EXPERIENCE, SO I HOPE SOME OF THESE COMMENTS WILL BE HELPFUL. 
          WE'RE NOT TOTALLY AGAINST THIS, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE FOR OR AGAINST, SO WE'RE PROBABLY MORE AGAINST THAN WE ARE FOR. 
          BUT AS YOU KNOW, FROM LAND USE PLANNING, ZONING CLASSES, WHEN A PLAN COMES IN REQUESTING VARIANCES, IT GENERALLY MEANS THAT THE BUILDING IS TOO BIG FOR THE LAND. 
          I THINK THAT IS A BASIC PROBLEM WITH THIS DESIGN. 
          BUT JUST IN TERMS OF CORRECTIONS OF THE PLANS, I DIDN'T QUITE GET THE ONE THERE, BUT THE VICINITY MAP THAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR TOPO IS INCORRECT AS YOU'VE PROBABLY ALREADY FIGURED OUT. 
          IT MAY HAVE BEEN LEFT OVER FROM THE LAST PROJECT. 
          ALSO, ANGELA MADE REFERENCE TO THE RECENT TOWN CENTER PLAN 2. 
          ONE OF THE NUMBER 1 PRIORITY ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN THAT WAS THAT THE UDL, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, BE UPDATED. 
          THERE WERE OVER 1,000 PEOPLE WHO GAVE INPUT ON THAT PLAN AND THAT PROCESS, AND THEIR CLEAR PREFERENCE WAS FOR THINGS OF A NATURE OF A SMALL TOWN FEEL, WALKABILITY AND MORE GREEN SPACE, NONE OF WHICH WE SAW IN THIS HOTEL EXTENDED STAY DEVELOPMENT. 
          I THINK SOME OF THE CORRECTION YOU JUST NOTED, I DIDN'T HEAR IT ALL, IT'S HARD TO HEAR BACK THERE. 
          BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE PUT THE STREET SCAPE BACK IN. 
          THAT WOULD BE A CLEAR IMPROVEMENT. 
          OUTSIDE OF THE SQUARE, THE AREA THAT PEOPLE MOST ENJOY IS WEST PONCE AND THE DEPOT AREA, AND WEST PONCE DOES INCLUDE WEST PONCE PLACE. 
          PONCE PLACE EVEN HAS ITS OWN ACTION ITEM. 
          YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S DESIGNED, THE IDEA IS TO CREATE THIS PEDESTRIAN FIRST STREET, THEY CALL IT. 
          IT WOULD SUPPORT AND CONNECT TO EXISTING BUSINESSES AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS, AND IT WOULD BE A FESTIVAL KIND OF STREET THAT'S RETROFITTED WITH MORE OUTDOOR DINING, WIDER SIDEWALKS, MORE LANDSCAPING, AND MORE TREES. 
          EXIT PHOTOS AT THE END OF THE HANDOUT I GAVE TO YOU GIVE AN OVERVIEW PICTURE OF THE BEFORE AND AFTER IDEA. 
          THAT WILL ALSO HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN A REDO OF THE UDL. 
          ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME OUT OF THERE IS THAT THE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE MOSTLY ALONG COMMERCE DRIVE, AND AS YOU GO DOWN WEST PONCE, IT WOULD BE MORE OF A STEP-DOWN TOWARD A VILLAGE TYPE DEVELOPMENT SCALE. 
          IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A FULL BLOCK DEVELOPMENT, WE WOULD HAVE HOPED IT WOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT UP ON COMMERCE DRIVE AS OPPOSED TO COMING BACK DOWN TOWARDS THE REST OF THE WEST PONCE PLACE. 
          TO BE FAIR, THE PLAN DOES CALL VERY STRONGLY FOR A HOTEL. 
          WE JUST HAVE CONCERNS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE HOTEL IN THIS LOCATION. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T FIT THE IDEAS THAT WERE PUT FORTH IN THAT PHOTO THAT I SHARED WITH YOU. 
          THEY HAD A LINKAGE TO AN OPPORTUNITY ZONE ACROSS THE STREET, WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY, BUT WITH A VERY LARGE FULL BLOCK DEVELOPMENT ON SWAN WAY ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO MAJOR, BIGGER DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET WITHOUT REALLY GOING OVERBOARD IN TERMS OF OUR SCALE AND DENSITY. 
          WE'VE GOT SEVERAL CONCERNS THAT RELATE PRIMARILY TO WEST PONCE PLACE, ONE OF WHICH IS THE DOUBLE DUMPSTER LOADING LAWN ON PONCE PLACE. 
          IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING CONDUCIVE TO THIS PEDESTRIAN FIRST FESTIVAL ACTIVITY. 
          THERE IS AN EXISTING SINGLE LANE. 
          IT'S A 10 FOOT WIDE DUMPSTER ACCESS NOW. 
          IT IS A DUMPSTER FOR PAPER USE ONLY FROM THE OFFICES. 
          THAT WILL, OF COURSE, CHANGE TO FOOD AND SOLID WASTE BEING CARRIED IN AND OUT OF WEST PONCE PLACE. 
          WHEN WE WALKED THAT AREA, 
          [01:15:03]
ALSO WITH THE DOWNTOWN CONSULTANTS AND STAFF, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE BROUGHT UP CONSISTENTLY WAS THE IDEA OF DEAD ZONES BEING CREATED DOWNTOWN. 
          THESE ARE WHEN YOU HAVE THESE BLOCK LONG FACADES WITH NO ACCESS IN AND OUT, AND IT CREATES WHAT WE CALL A DEAD ZONE. 
          THAT IS WHAT'S BEING CREATED ON COMMERCE DRIVE WITH THIS BUILDING. 
          THAT LARGE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT SIMPLY EXACERBATES THIS PROBLEM WHERE YOU HAVE NOT VERY GOOD, INTERESTING WALKING DURING THE DAY AND SAFETY ISSUES WHEN YOU'RE WALKING AT NIGHT BECAUSE THERE'S NO IN AND OUT ACTIVITY. 
          THERE MIGHT BE FOLKS HANGING OVER THEIR BALCONIES, BUT THAT DOESN'T REALLY GIVE YOU THE SAFETY ON THE STREET THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. 
          AS YOU READ THE NARRATIVES AND AS YOU SPOKE ABOUT IN THE LAST APPLICATION, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONDITIONS TO IMPROVE THE PLAN, AND I THINK VARIANCE NUMBER 1, WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE HEIGHT, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY OBJECT TO AT ALL. 
          BUT THERE IS A WRITTEN NOTE THAT SAYS THE BUILDING WILL BE SET BACK AT THE TOP LEVEL ALONG PONCE DE LEON PLACE, LOWERING THE BUILDING BY ONE STORY, AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT ISSUE THAT HE TALKED ABOUT. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU PUT THAT IN A WRITTEN CONDITION. 
          HAVING DONE THIS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, WE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF IDEAS AND WHEN IT ACTUALLY GETS TIME FOR SOMEONE TO BE BUILDING IT OVER HERE WHO WAS NOT PRIVY TO ALL OUR DISCUSSIONS AND PERHAPS DID NOT READ THAT SENTENCE IN THE APPLICATION, IT GETS LOST IN THE SHUFFLE. 
          IF IT'S WRITTEN OUT AS A SEPARATE CONDITION, IT IS MORE LIKELY TO BE IMPLEMENTED. 
          >> PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU. 
          WOULD REPEAT THAT SENTENCE AGAIN. 
          >> IT'S IN ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS AND IT'S ALSO IN THE PACKET I GAVE YOU. 
          IT SAYS THAT THE BUILDING WILL BE SET BACK AT THE TOP LEVEL ALONG PONCE DE LEON PLACE, LOWERING THE BUILDING BY ONE STORY AND THIS IS WHERE THE BAR IS, I BELIEVE. 
          THAT BAR AREA GETS PUSHED BACK IN AS I RECALL, AND SO IT APPEARS TO BE ONE LEVEL SHORTER THAN THE REST OF THE BUILDING. 
          WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS WAYS TO HELP MITIGATE THE IMPACT ON WEST PONCE PLAYS, AS YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE ONE STORY, ONE BLOCK LONG AREA OF MOSTLY RESTAURANTS AND SOME OTHER SHOPS. 
          WE HAVE A 25 FOOT SETBACK ON SWANSON WAY AND CERTAINLY A 25 FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE GREAT TO MITIGATE THAT HEIGHT OVER EDGE OVER THIS ONE STORY STREET. 
          I REALIZE THAT WILL PROBABLY PUT A CRAMP ON THE SIZE OF THIS BUILDING. 
          HOWEVER, THE ANOTHER POSSIBILITY WOULD BE FOR THE THE BUILDING ON WEST PONCE PLACE, WHICH IS MOSTLY THE CAFE. 
          THAT AREA TO BE TWO STOREYS FOR THE WIDTH OF PERHAPS 10 FEET IN A DEPTH OF PERHAPS LIKE 10 FEET IN TWO STORES WHERE THAT CAFE IS. 
          IT WOULD HELP MAKE THAT. 
          THEN YOU GO UP FOR TWO STOREYS AND THEN YOU GO UP FROM THERE. 
          IT WOULD HELP MITIGATE THAT IMPACT ON THE STREET. 
          THAT IS WHAT THEY DID AT THE CONDOMINIUM THAT I LIVE IN ACTUALLY IS INDENTATION OFF OF THAT MAIN FACADE. 
          YOU DON'T GET THIS WALL OF A BUILDING ALL THE WAY ALONG ON WEST PONCE PLACE. 
          ALSO MAKING THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE CAFE ON WEST PONCE PLACE, THERE IS A RAMP, BUT IT GOES UP THE SIDE AND IF THAT RAMP ENTRANCE ON WEST PONCE PLACE, THAT COULD BE A CONDITION. 
          COULD BE THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE CAFE. 
          IT WOULD LEND TO THAT STREET, PEDESTRIAN ATMOSPHERE, MORE SO THAN A CONCRETE RAMP. 
          THOSE ARE MOST OF THE THINGS THAT ARE CONCERNED WEST PONCE PLACE I EMPHASIZE THEM HERE DURING VARIANCE ONE, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THAT FIRST CONDITION, BUT THERE'S OTHER CONDITIONS TO HELP MAKE WEST PONCE NOT SO OVERBURDENED WITH A HUGE TALL BUILDING. 
          I THINK WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF VARIANCE TOO. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT THE DROP-OFF LANE AND WE DID HAVE A MAJOR CONCERN ABOUT THAT. 
          I'M PLEASED TO SEE THAT Y'ALL DID SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND PLANNING WITH THE ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WILL BE PARKING ON THE STREET PARKING THAT WILL BE SPECIFICALLY FOR DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP PURPOSES. 
          [01:20:03]
WE WILL PUT BACK IN THE SIX-FOOT LANDSCAPE AND THE TEN-FOOT SIDEWALK. 
          I DON'T WANT TO ASSUME BUT YOU COULD DO A CONDITION FOR A MINIMUM OF SIX TREES ON SWANSON WAY THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED, I THINK UNDER THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THAT ENTIRE BLOCK. 
          HOPEFULLY, WE WILL SEE SIX TREES. 
          I THINK THEY'RE TAKING DOWN SOME 14 TREES WHEN THEY END UP CLEAR CUTTING THAT THEY'RE SMALL OVER STORY TREES, ADMITTEDLY AND THESE WOULD BE LARGER STREET TREES, WHICH WOULD HELP THAT PEDESTRIAN FEEL. 
          BUT IT'S STILL A SMALL NUMBER COMPARED TO WHAT'S GOING. 
          VARIANCE THREE, 100% PARKING OFFSITE. 
          WE OBJECT TO THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          WHAT I'VE INCLUDED IN OUR LETTER IS A SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT WE THINK SHOULD BE ANSWERED BEFORE APPROVAL IS GIVEN TO THIS VARIANCE. 
          IT HAS TO DO WITH THE EXPERIENCE OVER AT HAMPTON INN AND THE MARRIOTT IN TERMS OF THEIR PARKING AND THE PERCENTAGE IS USED. 
          THE REAL DEFINITION OF WHAT IS EXCESS PARKING IN DOWNTOWN TO CATER, IT'S A TOPIC THAT CAME UP DURING THE PLAN. 
          IT COMES UP ALL THE TIME. 
          IT'S A PERCEPTION VERSUS REALITY OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE FOR PARKING AND WE GET DIFFERENT ANSWERS. 
          BUT THERE AREN'T CONDITIONS THAT WE FEEL WE CAN ADDRESS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT'S A VERY BIG ISSUE, BUT MORE TRANSPARENCY AND DATA IS NEEDED. 
          ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT BESIDES THE USAGE NOW IN THE OTHER HOTELS IS IF WE HAVE EXCESS PARKING AND HOW MUCH IS THERE. 
          ONE OF THOSE MAIN AREAS WOULD BE THE PARKING GARAGE. 
          IF WE USE IT UP FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE BUSINESS, THEN WHERE IS THAT PARKING THAT WE SAY IS SO AVAILABLE FOR THE VISITORS TO DOWNTOWN TO CATER WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT LACK OF PARKING. 
          IT'S A BALANCE ISSUE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE CERTAINLY HAVEN'T SEEN IN THIS APPLICATION THE DATA THAT TELLS YOU THIS IS WHAT'S USED, THIS IS HOW WE PROJECT BEING USED, AND THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF EXCESS THAT WILL HAVE LEFTOVER ONCE WE GIVE IT TO THIS CERTAIN NUMBER TO THIS HOTEL. 
          I THINK YOU NEED TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS BEFORE JUST SIMPLY APPROVING THAT PARTICULAR VARIANCE REQUEST. 
          IN CLOSING, I JUST WANT TO SAY, WHEN YOU OFTENTIMES I THINK IT'S COMMON FOR A DEVELOPER. 
          WHEN A DEVELOPER IS ASKING FOR THIS KIND OF VARIANCE FOR THE CITY AND THE PUBLIC TO TALK ABOUT WHAT, PUBLIC PURPOSE BEING SERVED BY GIVING THIS DEVELOPER THESE VARIANCES. 
          THESE ARE FAVORS THAT YOU'RE GIVING TO THEM TO HELP THEM PUT A BUILDING IN. 
          ANOTHER CONDITION I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL WOULD BE TO HELP AGAIN, THIS WEST PONCE PLACE AREA, REALLY WE'RE HOPING THAT IT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE SOMETHING NEW AND FESTIVE AND AN AREA TO BROADEN THE SQUARE, IF YOU WILL. 
          WE CAN'T DO EVERYTHING IN THE SQUARE. 
          THIS IS A SMALL PLACE, BUT YET A VERY WELL USED PLACE. 
          RIGHT NOW IT BECOMES A VULNERABLE EDGE WITH A BIG, BIG DEVELOPMENT GOING RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. 
          IF YOU'RE THAT PROPERTY OWNER AND YOU DON'T SEE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CONCEPTS WERE PRESENTED IN THE PLAN. 
          THE THOUGHT MIGHT PROBABLY AS YOUR TAXES GO UP, IT'S TIME TO SELL AND SO YOU JUST MARCH THAT LARGE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. 
          YOU'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE VULNERABLE EDGE. 
          ANOTHER CONDITION THAT COULD OFFSET THAT AND ALLOW FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE IS THAT THERE IS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HOTELS GIVE US IS A GREAT DEAL OF REVENUE. 
          SOME OF THAT REVENUE IS TAX REVENUE, SOME OF WHICH IS HOTEL MOTEL TAXES. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CONDITION THAT WOULD SET ASIDE SOME OF THE HOTEL MOTEL TAX FOR THAT TO GO TOWARD THE BEGINNING OF THE RETROFIT OF WEST PONCE PLACE PER THE TOWN CENTER PLAN, THAT IS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. 
          IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. 
          [01:25:03]
EVERYONE WANTS A HOTEL INDICATOR. 
          WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT IT FOR YEARS. 
          IT BRINGS LOTS OF SPENDING MONEY, IT BRINGS LOTS OF TAXES. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS JUST A LITTLE TOO MUCH HOTEL FOR THE SPACE THAT THEY ACQUIRED, THUS NEEDING THESE VARIANCES. 
          OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE IN THE INCLUSION OF THE SEVERAL VARIANCES THAT I NOTED. 
          IF YOU CHOOSE TO PROVE THIS TONIGHT, OTHERWISE, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU GET MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO THE OFF STREET 100 PERCENT PARKING IN THE VARIOUS GARAGES DOWN THE STREET. 
          I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          >> THANK YOU. GOOD TO SEE YOU. 
          >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION EITHER IN PERSON OR ONLINE? OPPORTUNITY GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. 
          BEFORE WE CALL THE APPLICANT BACKUP FOR REBUTTAL, ANGELA, I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE PLANS IN FRONT OF US, PARTICULARLY, WHAT PAGE IS THIS? THE THIRD PAGE OF THESE. 
          I THINK ALONG COMMERCE I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE I DO SEE THAT THE BUILDING HAS ARTICULATION ON THAT. 
          I GET THE CODE, THE EAST FACADE, BUT I CAN'T TELL HOW MUCH FENESTRATION IS ON THAT SIDE. 
          IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE THERE ISN'T ANY IN THE BOARDROOM HAS THE WINDOWS FACING SOUTH? ARE THERE ANY MINIMUM FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE THAT WOULD APPLY HERE? 
          >> YES. ALONG COMMERCE DRIVE, PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE GROUNDS FLOW DOES HAVE FENESTRATION. 
          THERE'S NO IN AND OUT ACCESS. 
          THERE'S NO DOOR ENTRY, BUT THERE ARE WINDOWS ALONG THAT FACADE. 
          I THINK THE ARCHITECT CAN SPEAK MORE SPECIFICALLY TO THIS. 
          I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A MECHANICAL ROOM THAT MAY BE SHADED OR SOME OTHER FILM ON THE WINDOW THAT SO THAT WE DON'T SEE INTO IT. 
          BUT ALL OF THESE OTHER WINDOWS SHOULD BE FAIRLY OPEN AND VISIBLE, SUCH AS THE FITNESS ROOM, THE MEETING ROOM ETC, BUT THE ARCHITECT MAY BE ABLE TO SPECIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          >> CALL THE APPLICANT BACK TO THE PODIUM YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ANY REBUTTAL TO ANY OPPOSITION POINT THAT'S PRESENTED. 
          >> SURE. 
          >> THANK YOU AMANDA, ADDRESS THAT RIGHT AWAY. 
          WE PLAN FOR EVERY STREET FACING SIDE TO BE PUBLIC. 
          RIGHT NOW THE MECHANICAL ROOM IS SHOWN WILL PROBABLY BE RELOCATED AWAY BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE IT THERE EITHER. 
          WE'RE JUST [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] IN THAT PHASE. I APOLOGIZE. 
          WE INTEND TO MEET AND EXCEED ANY FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS ALONG ALL THE STREET FACES. 
          WE WANT TO STORE IT ACTUALLY ALMOST BE SEE-THROUGH. 
          FROM THE STREET YOU'LL SEE THROUGH THE LOBBY TO THE SPACE, THROUGH THE COURTYARD SPACE IS THE INTENT OF THE DESIGN. 
          I GUESS JUST TO GO DIRECTLY TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS JUST MADE FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT. 
          WE WOULD AGREE TO ANY CONDITION AS FAR AS THAT 25-FOOT SETBACK UP AT THE TOP. 
          THAT CAME ABOUT WITH EARLY CONVERSATIONS WITH ANGELA ON MINIMIZING THE HEIGHT ALONG THAT STREET THE BEST THAT WE CAN. 
          I WOULD CAUTION THAT WENT UP ONE STORY AND THEN SITTING BACK WOULD SEVERELY HAMPER BECAUSE YOU CAN BUILD IT, BUT IT WOULD SEVERELY HAMPERED THE TOTAL COUNT OF KEYS. 
          WE CALL THEM KEYS, THE ROOMS FOR THE BUILDING, WHICH DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THE PROJECT. 
          BUT BY FAR IS THE OTHER CONDITION WE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO AGREE TO THAT. 
          AS FAR AS ALONG THE STREETSCAPE HAVING DOORS, OF COURSE, HAVING A HOTEL CONTROLLING YOUR ENTRIES AS A SECURITY CONCERN. 
          SO WE WOULD MAINLY HAVE THE MAIN ENTRANCE VESTIBULE. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER ENTRANCE FURTHER DOWN TOWARDS PONTS PLACE THAT LEADS TO THE ELEVATORS FOR WHEN THE ROOFTOP RESTAURANT IS OPEN. 
          THAT WOULD BE A DIRECT ACCESS FROM THE STREET AND THEN AROUND THE MAIN ENTRANCE FOR THE BLUESTONE CAFE IS WHERE THAT RAMP IS. 
          I DID HAVE STAIRS AND WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WITH THE GRADES AND SO YOU JUST WEIGH IN WAS THE RAMP AND NOT HAVE THE STAIRS, BUT WE WILL WORK ON THAT ENTRY TO MAKE IT LOOK MORE LIKE A MAIN ENTRANCE AND HAVE MORE PRESENCE ALONG POSSIBLY ALL IN PLACE. 
          I LOVE PLANTS PLACE AND THE LILIES IS ONE OF THE PLACES I LIKE TO GO EAT. 
          [01:30:02]
WE'RE ALL IN ON ACTIVATING THAT STREET SPACE. 
          THE DIFFICULT SITE. 
          THERE ISN'T EXISTING DUMPSTER OR SHOWING OURS AND AN AGREEMENT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO EXPAND THAT AREA AND CLEAN IT UP WITH A FULL ENCLOSURE WITH THE TALL WALLS. 
          DOES THE SCREEN IT OFF IS BOBBY KNOWS WHAT VISION IS HERE WITH ME SAYS THAT'S AGREEMENTS ALL THIS SIGNED TO MAKE THAT HAPPENED RIGHT THERE FOR US AND IT'S SET BACK FAR ENOUGH FROM THE STREET TO MEET, ANGELA REMIND ME HOW MANY FEET WE NEED. 
          >> OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I DON'T HAVE THAT BUT IT'S [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> WE HAD A MEETING, YOU MEASURED THAT WE WERE SHORT. 
          WE PUSHED IT BACK AND [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> IT IS AT LEAST 30-FEET, IF NOT 50-FEET. 
          >> I THINK ITS 50-FEET'S [OVERLAPPING]. YEAH, I THINK I WAS AT 35. 
          >> I CAN LOOK IT UP. 
          >> NOW WE'RE AT 50. 
          WE'VE WORKED HARD TO MINIMIZE ITS PRESENCE ON THE STREET. IT'S PUSHED WALL BACK. 
          I RUN THROUGH INDICATOR AND MY HALF TIME WHEN I RUN DOWN BELIEVES THERE'S A SEMI-TRUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF STREET UNLOADING, SO WE HAVE SET UP FOR OUR DELIVERIES TO BE OFF STREET TO THE HOTEL. 
          FOR PARKING OF COURSE, WE WOULD HAVE SIGNED AGREEMENTS FOR THE SPACES WE NEED. 
          I'M SURE THAT WOULD BE TIED EVEN TO ORLANDO STARBUCKS PERMIT, IF NOT EARLIER OUR AGREEMENTS SO WE KNOW WE WILL HAVE THE PARKING REQUIRED. 
          I WORK AT WEST COURT SQUARE I LOOK OUT ON AN EMPTY PARKING DECK ROOFTOP EVERY DAY. 
          I KNOW THAT THERE'S SPACE IN THESE DECKS BECAUSE I LOOK OUT MY WINDOW AND THERE ARE EMPTY. 
          I'M SURE THERE'S WITH OUR LETTERS AND INTENSE THE WEEK WE CAN SECURE SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE HOTEL. 
          IT WOULD THAT BE FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT REQUIRED, NOT JUST THE EXTRA 20% I THINK IT'S 181, I DON'T HAVE MY PAPER WITH ME [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> BEFORE I OPEN THE FLOOR TO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ANGELA, I WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK TO YOU BECAUSE GIVEN THE DOWNTOWN LOCATION, THIS APPLICATION HAS A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND THAN USUAL IN TERMS OF PROCESSES. 
          I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THAT WITH US. 
          >> OF COURSE, WHENEVER THERE ARE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR SPECIAL ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR PROJECTS AND OUR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, ESPECIALLY IN OUR DOWNTOWN THAT PROJECT WOULD FIRST GO TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. 
          THIS PROJECT DID GO TO THE DDA AT THEIR AUGUST MEETING AND IT DID RECEIVE SUPPORT FROM THE DDA. 
          THEY ARE THE ONES TO ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE US TO RECONSIDER THE DROP-OFF LANE. 
          THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING THAT DESIGN TODAY. 
          BUT OVERALL THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. 
          BUT OF COURSE NOW IT'S BEFORE YOU AND WITH THE COMING FROM THE STAFF, THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION OF SUPPORT IN TERMS OF IN YOUR DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT I'VE PREPARED FOR YOU, THERE IS A LIST OF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. 
          I'M IN THAT ORDINANCE AND OF COURSE THIS WOULD BOTH THE SUPPORT FROM THE DDA AS WELL AS YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD THEN BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR FINAL ACTION. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ADVOCATE? 
          >> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. CAN YOU CLARIFY ON CONDITION TO THE LANDSCAPE ZONE, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU NOW MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS, BUT FROM THE DOWNTOWN INDICATOR MAYBE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SIX TREES ALONG CERTAIN WAY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. 
          >> YES AND SO IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT PARTICULAR IMAGE IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE THE NEEDED TREES THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE STREETSCAPE STANDARDS. 
          I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO MEASURE THAT OUT MORE SPECIFICALLY WITH THE CITY ARBORIST. 
          I'M HESITANT TO PUT A NUMBER OF TREES WITHOUT HAVING THE CITY ARBORIST CONFIRM THAT IT'S FIVE OR SIX, OR EVEN SEVEN. 
          WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS THE CITY STREETSCAPES STANDARDS FOR THE LANDSCAPE ZONE? 
          >> AT A MINIMUM? 
          >> AT A MINIMUM, YES. 
          >> BUT NO EXCEPTION. 
          >> WE WOULD MEET THE STANDARDS. 
          I MEAN, I JUST QUICKLY AFTER WITHDRAWING [LAUGHTER] THE OTHER WAYS TREES HAVE REQUIRED SPACING AND THERE'S ALSO STREETLIGHTS AND OTHER STREET FURNITURE AS GOING THROUGH THE PERMANENT PROCESS, WE WOULD MEET ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 
          >> IT TYPICALLY USE STREET TREES ARE 40 FEET ON CENTER. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> I'VE GOT A QUESTION, DESIGN. 
          I'M A MECHANICAL ENGINEER, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, 
          [01:35:01]
ALTHOUGH IT I'M TRYING TO PLAY WITH [OVERLAPPING]. 
          THE FESTIVAL AREA ON POSITIVELY ON PLACE THAT'S IN THE MASTER PLAN AND THEN SEEING THE THE RELATIVELY WIDE DRIVE TO THE DUMPSTER SERVICE LOADING ZONE, WHICH I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE YOU CAN PUT A DUMPSTER OTHER THAN THERE. 
          I DON'T WANT IT ON COMMERCE AND NOT A FUN [NOISE] BUT THE TRUCKS COME TO THE DUMPSTER EVERY SO OFTEN. 
          THEY'RE NOT THERE ALL THE TIME. I'M WONDERING. 
          >> I THINK IN THIS ERA WERE REQUIRED TO USE THE MUNICIPAL AND THEY HAVE A LIMITED SET OF POLES THEY'LL DO. 
          >> RIGHT. 
          >> I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SHOWING DOUBLE BECAUSE OUR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WILL INCLUDE THE NEIGHBORING. 
          >> RIGHT. 
          >> THAT WORKED [INAUDIBLE] WITH SO HIS DUMPSTER IT'S CURRENTLY I THINK IN THIS PARKING LOT WILL COME OUT OF THAT AND INTO THE ENCLOSURE. 
          >> WHAT I'M SEEING IS JUST LARGE PLAZA. THEY'RE THAT. 
          IT'D BE USED OCCASIONALLY BUY A TRUCK, BUT AT TIMES FOR A FESTIVAL, COULD I JUST WONDER IF THE OWNER OF THE HOTEL, AND WITH YOUR HELP ENVISION HOW YOU CAN MAKE THAT A PLAZA AT TIMES, MAKE YOU DO DOUBLE DUTY. 
          >> I THINK IT WANTS TO BE MORE THAN JUST CONCRETE FOR SURE WE WOULD AGREE. 
          >> I THINK THAT COULD POTENTIALLY MITIGATE SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT ALL OF THAT AND THAT BEING A FESTIVAL AREA, ETC. 
          BECAUSE THAT'S THE SORT OF LIKE, WOW, THIS IS A WONDERFUL LITTLE PLAZA RIGHT HERE THEN. 
          EXCEPT FOR AT THE TIME WHEN THE TRUCK COMES IN AND GET THE DUMPSTER. 
          >> WELL, IT CAN ALSO BE THE SAME SUPPORT SPACE WHEN YOU HAVE LET'S SAY THAT [OVERLAPPING] BECOMES WHAT THE DOWNTOWN VISION IS. 
          IT'S GOING TO NEED SOME SUPPORT SPACE THAT'S. 
          >> RIGHT. 
          >> THE ABILITY TO JOINTLY DO THAT WITH YOU. 
          >> ANY OTHER OTHER QUESTION. 
          >> GO AHEAD. 
          >> ANGELA. 
          >> CAN YOU CLARIFY IF THE WAIVER OF THE 20 PERCENT ONSITE IF THAT ALSO IS A WAIVER ON THE BIKE PARKING MINIMUMS, IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE EIGHT BIKE PARKING SPACES CURRENTLY, AND I THINK 181 YOU'D BE REQUIRED TO 10. IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> CORRECT. YES, THE EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR 100% OF THE PARKING TO BE LOCATED OFF-SITE. 
          THEY ARE STILL REQUIRED TO PROVIDE BICYCLE PARKING AND IT'S BASED ON THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES. 
          THERE ARE 181 SPACES. 
          THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE 10 BIKE PARKING SPACES. 
          TYPICALLY IN OUR STREETSCAPE STANDARDS, WE USE THE U-SHAPED BICYCLE RACKS AND THOSE PROVIDE FOR TWO EACH. 
          WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT PLACING FIVE BICYCLE RACKS OR 10 BIKE PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE STREETSCAPE LIKE THE AMENITY OR LANDSCAPE ZONE, OR IN INTERIOR OF THE HOTEL. 
          BUT JUST TO HAVE THOSE 10 SPACES. 
          >> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTION GO AHEAD, GREG. 
          >> WITH YOUR PROPOSED PARKING AGREEMENTS, WHAT'S THE MECHANISM TO RESERVE THE SPACE IS FOR HOTEL USE. 
          >> YOU MEAN FROM GUEST OR? 
          >> YES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES? WHEN A GUEST COMES, THEY WOULD COME TO A VALET STATION WHO WOULD TAKE THEIR CAR TO PARK FOR THEM. 
          THEY WOULD HAVE A TICKET AND THERE WOULD BE A CHARGE WITH THE GUESTS FOR THE VALET SERVICE. 
          >> WITHIN THE DECK, WOULD CERTAIN SPACES BE RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE USE OF THE HOTEL? 
          >> I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THAT, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SPACES REQUIRED. 
          IT'D BE A LEGAL AGREEMENT. 
          NOW WHAT THEY DO WITH THEM, THE PARKING DECK, I DON'T KNOW. 
          >> TYPICALLY, WHAT I'VE SEEN OVER THE YEARS IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OFF-SITE SHARED PARKING ARRANGEMENT, YOU HAVE THE LEASE FOR THE PARKING SPOTS, AND THEN THOSE SPOTS ARE MARKED VERY CLEARLY THAT THEY'RE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THAT LEASE PARTY. 
          NOW, HOW YOU ENFORCE THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION, BUT THAT'S HOW YOU DIFFERENTIATE THEM TYPICALLY. 
          >> THANK YOU. WHAT SPACES ARE MADE AVAILABLE FOR EMPLOYEES OR WHAT PROVISIONS ARE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE EMPLOYEES, PERSONAL VEHICLES? 
          >> THAT WOULD BE THE OWNER'S QUESTION. 
          I DON'T KNOW. BOBBY, YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT. 
          >> COME TO THE MIC AND START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. 
          >> MY NAME IS BOBBY KNOWLES WITH VISION HOSPITALITY GROUP, THE DEVELOPER OF THIS HOTEL. 
          OUR ADDRESS IS 411 BROAD STREET, CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE. 
          I'M A RESIDENT INDICATOR ELEVATE 110 WEST BENSON STREET. 
          TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO, WE GET AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PARKING LOT OR STRUCTURE AS THIS IS, AND THERE WILL BE DESIGNATED AREAS FOR THE THE VALET PARKING, 
          [01:40:05]
SO THE GUEST PARKING AND THEN THIS AGREEMENT STILL THERE'S A LETTER OF INTENT. 
          WE'RE STILL WORKING OUT ALL THE DETAILS, BUT THERE WILL BE PROVISIONED FOR EMPLOYEE PARKING AS WELL. 
          IT WILL BE DESIGNATED BETWEEN US AND THE OWNER OF THE DAY. 
          WE'LL JUST FIGURE THAT OUT AS IT DEVELOPS. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >>YES. 
          >> A COMMENT TYING TOGETHER SOME OF THE CONDITIONAL WHO REQUESTS THAT WERE FLOATED OUT THERE. 
          BUT OBVIOUSLY, IT'S A WIN-WIN, AND THAT WE DO I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE SIGNIFICANT PARKING INDICATOR AND IT'S A MATTER OF FIGURING OUT HOW TO BEST UTILIZE IT. 
          BUT THAT IS QUITE A SAVINGS TO NOT HAVE TO BUILD THAT PARKING AND TO BE ABLE TO USE IT FOR REVENUE PRODUCTION INSTEAD. 
          I MEAN, I LOOK AT IT AND I FEEL LIKE IT'S A REALLY PRETTY WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN THAT CLEARLY YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY AND I THINK IT'S IN A GOOD LOCATION. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY GOOD THINGS ABOUT IT. 
          THE ONE THING THAT JUMPS OFF THE PAGE TO ME IS THE MISSED OPPORTUNITY, ESPECIALLY IN CONTEXT OF THE MASTER PLAN, BUT IT'S PARTLY THAT RELATED TO THE ACTIVATION OF WEST PONCE AND MAKING THAT PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY AND INHABIT IT. 
          YES, YOU HAVE A STOREFRONT ON THERE, BUT I WOULD'VE THOUGHT MAYBE THERE'D BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE SOME ACTUAL FEELING OF LOWER-SCALE FRONTAGE EVEN IF YOU DON'T CHOP IT ALL THE WAY. 
          I MEAN, I GET THAT YOU CAN'T JUST JUMP 20 KEYS OUT OF IT. 
          BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE AN ENTRANCE AND IT FEELS LIKE THAT COULD BE DUE TO BE A PARTNER ON THAT STREET AND TO HELP ACTIVATE IT AND TO HELP SERVE THOSE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT FEELS LIKE THE ONE EASY MISSED OPPORTUNITY THAT MAYBE COULD BE A REASONABLE CONDITION. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE PROBABLY GIVEN THAT. 
          SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE IN PERCOLATING ANYWAY? 
          >> YES. I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A MINUTE AGO, BUT YEAH. 
          WE'RE JUST GOING TO WORK THAT ELEVATION TO MAKE IT MORE STREETSCAPE-FRIENDLY. 
          THEN THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS THE WAY THAT THE SIDEWALK SLOPES. 
          WE'D LIKE TO DEVELOP NICHES IN THE BUILDING FOR SEEDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO MAKE IT MORE PEDESTRIAN. SO YES. 
          >> JOE, THAT JUMPED OFF THE PAGE AT ME TOO WHEN I SAW THAT CAFE AND THEN I SAW THE RAMP ALONG THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND I WAS LIKE, OH, THAT EDGE IS SCREAMING TO HAVE INTERACTION WITH THAT STREET. 
          ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OR CONCERN THEY WANT TO? 
          >> CAN IT BE ON GRADE AND YOU HAVE AN INTERNAL RAMPS AND STAIRS SOMEWHERE SO THAT IT'S ACTUALLY GOT A STREET FRONTAGE THAT SAYS SO? 
          >> ALREADY HAVE SOME IDEA. 
          >> JUST KNOW THAT THERE'S ALREADY INTERNAL RAMPS IN THE HOTEL JUST TO DEAL WITH THE GRADE CHANGE. 
          >> YES. 
          >> THE ABILITY TO LOBBY LEVEL DROPS TWICE, DROPS FROM THE PALMAR SIDE, TWO FEET DOWN TO THE MAIN LOBBY, AND THEN ANOTHER 30 INCHES DOWN TO WHERE THE CAFE IS AND WE'RE STILL ABOVE THE SIDEWALK 
          >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS BODY WILL DO, BUT IF THIS WERE TO MOVE FORWARD TO CITY COMMISSION, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CRYSTALLIZE THOSE ALTERNATIVE IDEAS FOR YOUR RAMP AND HAVE THEM READY TO PRESENT BY THEN? 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> JUST CURIOUS. ANYONE ELSE? 
          >> YEAH, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. LOOKING AT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED FROM THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORS THE COLLECTION OF THE HOTEL TAX FOR THE RETROFIT OF WEST PONCE. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS MENTIONED WAS TRYING TO PUT PERMEABLE PARKING AND THINGS LIKE THAT ALONG THE WEST PONCE. 
          I'M LOOKING ALSO, AND IT LOOKS LIKE UNDER THE CREATE, WELCOMING, AND VIBRANT OPEN SPACES, ONE OF THE ACTION ITEMS WAS TO UPDATE THE STUDIO TO ENSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENTS PROVIDE SEMI-PUBLIC SPACES OR THEY HAVE AN IN-LIEU FEE WHEN THEY DON'T PROVIDE THOSE. 
          I'M CURIOUS IF A MECHANISM EXIST OR COULD EXIST POTENTIALLY AT A FUTURE DATE FOR AN IN-LIEU FEE FOR THIS 20%. 
          BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL HANDOUT TO SAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONSTRUCT THESE SPACES SO IS THERE A MECHANISM THAT CAN EXIST TO HANDLE THAT? 
          >> THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS IN-LIEU FEE MECHANISMS USED FOR STREETSCAPES, SUCH AS SIDEWALKS, ESPECIALLY IN OUR RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          I WON'T GO TOO DEEP INTO THAT. 
          THE OTHER IN-LIEU FEE THAT WE HAVE IS FOR THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. 
          BUT ONE OF THE IDEAS IN OUR DOWNTOWN MASTERPLAN IS TO PERHAPS HAVE AN IN-LIEU FEE FOR WHEN DEVELOPERS REQUEST NOT TO PROVIDE ANY PARKING. 
          EVEN A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT WHERE THERE'S OFF-SITE PARKING SHARED WITH ANOTHER GROUP. 
          [01:45:06]
I THINK THE CURRENT WAY THAT OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IS SET UP IS IT'S INCENTIVIZING DEVELOPERS TO LOCATE WITH ANOTHER COMPATIBLE USE OF OFF-SITE PARKING TO GO AHEAD AND USE THE EXISTING PARKING FACILITIES WHERE THEY'RE PRIMARILY PRIVATE PARKING FACILITIES FOR WITH A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT. 
          WHEN WE LOOK AT THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, THERE IS A TABLE THAT PROVIDES FOR COMPATIBLE USES. 
          HOTELS AND OFFICE USES ARE THE MOST COMPATIBLE USES JUST BECAUSE THE PEAK HOURS OF THE TIMES THAT THE PARKING IS USED, THAT'S THE IDEAL SITUATION. 
          I THINK THAT IN IN-LIEU FEE, WHEN THERE IS A DEVELOPER WHO JUST DOESN'T WANT TO PROVIDE ANY PARKING, DOESN'T WANT TO SEEK A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA AND A FUTURE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE. 
          AGAIN, I THINK IT'S ABOUT INCENTIVIZING ALTERNATIVES THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT ON-SITE, YOU REALLY NEED TO WORK WITH AN AREA PROPERTY OWNER TO PROVIDE THAT PARKING. 
          IT ALMOST DISINCENTIVIZES NOT PROVIDING ANY PARKING AT ALL. 
          BUT THERE IS THAT IN-LIEU FEE JUST IN CASE. 
          THAT'S ON THE HORIZON FOR FUTURE DISCUSSIONS. 
          I DO WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY MS. GARNER ABOUT HAVING THAT HARD DATA. 
          WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD THAT HARD DATA COMING OUT OF COVID JUST YET. 
          WE DEFINITELY HAVE HARD DATA PREVIOUS TO THE COVID. 
          WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH ARC, WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING AT OUR DOWNTOWN PARKING, THEY DID IT. 
          THEY HELPED US WITH UPDATING OUR DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY. 
          I WILL SAY THAT THE HAMPTON IN THEIR PARKING DECK IS WOEFULLY UNDERUSED. 
          IT'S NOT REALLY ADVERTISED AS A PUBLIC PARKING. 
          THERE ARE A FEW HUNDRED PARKING SPACES IN THAT PARKING DECK. 
          AS FAR AS THE MARRIOTT COURTYARD THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOTEL ITSELF, THE CONFERENCE CENTER IT IS ALSO ADVERTISED FOR PUBLIC PARKING. 
          WE ALSO PROVIDE DISCOUNTED RATES FOR LOCAL RETAILERS FOR THEIR EMPLOYEE PARKING AS WELL WITHIN THAT PARKING DECK. 
          THAT IS GETTING USED QUITE WELL. 
          THEN WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ONE WEST COURT SQUARE PARKING DECK, I THINK IS AROUND 470 PARKING SPACES WITHIN THAT DECK ALONE. 
          LIKE THE ARCHITECT SAID, A LOT OF THOSE UPPER LEVELS ARE UNDERUTILIZED DURING THE DAY AND THAT IS EVEN WITH PUBLIC PARKING AVAILABLE, AS WELL AS THE TENANTS WITHIN THAT OFFICE BUILDING. 
          THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER PARKING DECKS. 
          THERE'S ONE WEST PONCE THAT WAS THE I GUESS THE CALL CENTER FOR EMERY NURSING. 
          THAT HAS NOW BEEN AN ADJACENT PARKING DECK AGAIN WITH A COUPLE OF HUNDRED PARKING SPACES THAT IS NOW OPENED UP FOR PUBLIC PARKING. 
          I JUST SAW THE SIGN GO UP RECENTLY. 
          THEN THERE'S ALSO THE TASKFORCE FOR GLOBAL HEALTH THAT HAS OVER 200 PARKING SPACES WITHIN THAT DECK THAT SITS FAIRLY VACANT. 
          THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES WHERE THERE ARE COMPATIBLE USES TO GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT AND PROVIDE THAT PARKING IN A NEARBY LOCATION. 
          THERE IS PLENTY OF SPACE JUST BETWEEN TASKFORCE AND ONE WEST COURT SQUARE PARKING DECK. 
          THAT'S OVER 700 PARKING SPACES RIGHT THERE FOR PRIMARILY OFFICE USES. 
          >> THERE WAS ONE THING THAT STOOD OUT TO ME ON THE DOWNTOWN PLAN WAS 11,211 PARKING SPACES JUST IN THE DOWNTOWN [LAUGHTER] AT CITY THE POPULATION HERE. 
          IT'S MANY OF HOUSEHOLDS. 
          >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> WELL, I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO DISCUSSION AMONGST OURSELVES. 
          [01:50:01]
[NOISE] AS USUAL, WE HAVE THE THREE OPTIONS OF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION WITH OR WITHOUT CONDITIONS, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION, OR RECOMMENDING DEFERRAL. 
          IF THERE'S ANY UNREADINESS ABOUT WHETHER WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, AND WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO START OUT SHARING WHAT THEY'RE THINKING. 
          >> ONE CONCERN I DO HAVE IS WITH THE PARKING AND THE NEW LAYOUT, THE WAY IT'S CONSTRUCTED. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ALLOCATED TO SHORT-TERM USES SO THAT IT DOESN'T GET CLOGGED UP WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING INTO THE OFFICES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO PEOPLE WHO ARE DROPPING OFF LUGGAGE HAVE A PLACE TO PARK AND THEY'RE NOT PARKING IN THE BIKE LANE OR ON WEST PONCE? I DON'T KNOW, IT SOUNDS THIS IS UNDER THE CITY THOUGH, BUT IF THE 15-MINUTE PARKINGS OR JUST SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE ALL BECAUSE MY CONCERN WOULD BE THE PEOPLE DROPPING OFF THEIR LUGGAGE AND JUST DOUBLE PARKING IN THE STREET AND CAUSING OTHER ISSUES. 
          >> GOOD POINT. 
          >> IF I MAY RESPOND TO THAT. 
          FOR THOSE DEDICATED PARKING SPACES, NOT THE DROP-OFF ZONE, BUT THE DEDICATED PARKING SPACES. 
          WE WOULD UTILIZE THE PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, WHICH IS PAID PARKING TO KEEP THAT TURNOVER HAPPENING. 
          >> ANYBODY ELSE? I HAVE A QUESTION ACTUALLY. 
          BECAUSE WE HAD THREE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WHAT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE WE DOWN TO? 
          >> WE'RE DOWN TO [BACKGROUND] THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 80-82 [OVERLAPPING] AND THEN THE PARKING ONE [OVERLAPPING] THEN THE SECOND ONE, WHICH WAS RELATED TO THE DROP-OFF IS NO LONGER THERE. 
          MY QUESTION, ANGELA, IS, HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THAT SECOND SPECIAL EXCEPTION? DOES THE APPLICANT WITHDRAW THAT REQUEST OR WOULD WE RECOMMEND THE DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE? 
          >> IF I MAY, IF WE CAN CLOSE OUT OF THIS PRESENTATION AND BRING UP THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. 
          BECAUSE IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, WE HAVE A [NOISE] POTENTIAL OF SEVEN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 
          I WOULD SUGGEST MODIFYING OR ADDING AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD ADDRESS, LET'S SEE HERE. 
          FOR INSTANCE, THE VERY FIRST SUGGESTED CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS THE PROPERTY SHALL BE DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO PLAN, SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT B1 THROUGH B7. 
          I WOULD SUGGESTS THAT THE EXHIBIT B1 BE REPLACED WITH THE UPDATED VERSION THAT WAS PRESENTED TONIGHT, WHICH SHOWS THE LANDSCAPE ZONE, [NOISE] THE DROP-OFF AREA, ALONG WITH THE ON STREET PARKING AND THE FOUR-FOOT WIDE BICYCLE LANE. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> THEN ALSO UNDER THAT LAST PARAGRAPH, WHERE IT'S DISCUSSING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THAT THE SECOND ONE BE ELIMINATED. 
          IT'S SAYING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO ONE INCREASE THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 80 FEET TO 82 FEET. 
          >> I GOT IT. 
          >> THAT SECOND ONE WOULD BE [NOISE] REMOVED. 
          >> JUST OMIT THAT FROM THE MOTION. 
          >> YES. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> REMOVE ITEM 2 [BACKGROUND]. 
          >> YES. 
          >> WOULD YOU CHANGE [INAUDIBLE]? 
          >> I THINK IT WOULD BE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ONE, INCREASE BUILDING HEIGHT AND TWO, TO ALLOW 100%. 
          >> YES, GOOD POINT. 
          >> THEN THE SECOND CONDITION OF APPROVAL MAY NEED TO BE MODIFIED AS WELL, SO ADDITIONAL STREET TREES SHALL BE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE STRIP AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY ARBORIST OR AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY STREETS-CAPE STANDARDS. 
          >> OKAY. [BACKGROUND] 
          [01:55:29]
          >> THE OTHER THING I HEARD FROM AT LEAST TWO OF THIS WAS, THE CONSTANT LEON PLACE STREET FEEL [OVERLAPPING] ENHANCING THAT, AND I HEARD MR. CLIFFORD SAY THAT HE'S GOT SOME IDEAS. 
          [LAUGHTER] CAN WE SAY PURSUE THOSE IDEAS? 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] 
          >> SOUNDS LIKE YOU WILL. 
          >> I THINK AS WELL AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I EXPECT THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORS WILL SHOW UP AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING AND MAKE THEIR POSITIONS KNOWN. 
          IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE DEVELOPING PARTY TO PROACTIVELY ADDRESS THOSE BEFORE THAT MEETING. 
          >> GUESS I'M THINKING IS IF WE AS A COMMISSION, AGREE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD ENCOURAGE, COULD WE JUST SAY WE ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO DO THAT AS WE VOTE ON THIS? 
          >> I DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE IF WE RECOMMEND A CONDITION THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD BE ATTACHED ON APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. 
          BUT IF WE'RE ASKING FOR THEM TO DO SOMETHING BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, BY THE TIME IT GETS TIME FOR THAT CONDITION TO BE ADDED, IT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE. 
          >> OKAY. 
          PROCESS. OH, HEY, YOU AND ME BOTH. 
          [LAUGHTER] DO WE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR A MOTION THAT ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE? 
          >> YOU'RE SAYING YOU WOULDN'T PUT IN A CONDITION RELATING TO THE BOND STREET ACTIVATION? 
          >> I WOULD NOT PUT IN ANY RECOMMENDED CONDITION THAT INVOLVES ANYTHING THAT HAS TO BE DONE BETWEEN THIS MEETING AND THE LAST MEETING. 
          >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. 
          I'M GOING TO NEED TO HELP THAT. 
          [LAUGHTER] 
          >> I'LL USE EXHIBIT B1 WITH UPDATED PLAN PRESENTED AT THE MEETING ON 9/12/23. THAT'S ONE I HEARD. 
          >> STARTING WITH THE SEVEN, REPLACING EXHIBIT B1 WITH THE UPDATED EXHIBIT FROM TODAY, I THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT CONDITION 2 THAT NEEDED TO BE ALTERED AS WELL. 
          >> IF I COULD, ANGELA SUGGESTED TACKING SOME LANGUAGE ONTO THE END OF THAT SO THAT IT WOULD READ, ADDITIONAL STREET TREES SHALL BE ACCOMMODATED TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE PROPOSED DROPOFF LANE OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE, LARGER TREE PITS OR LANDSCAPE STRIP SHALL BE PROVIDED AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY ARBORIST OR AS REQUIRED BY CITY STREETSCAPE STANDARDS. 
          THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE FROM HER FOR THAT SECOND CONDITION. 
          >> DO I NEED TO READ THE OTHER FIVE AS WELL? 
          >> NO, YOU CAN JUST SAY AND THE REMAINING CONDITIONS AS PROPOSED BY THE STAFF. 
          >> AS WELL AS THE REMAINING FIVE CONDITIONS AND THEN THE OTHER ONE THAT I THINK I HEARD THAT WE DISCUSSED WAS THE DUMPSTER SCREENING ALONG PAWN'S PLACE. 
          >> WHEN YOU SAY [OVERLAPPING] BARRIERS. 
          >> REQUIRING SOME FORM OF DUMPSTER SCREENING. 
          >> UP TO THERE. 
          >> THAT BRINGS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CONDITIONS TO EIGHT WITH THAT LAST ONE WITH THE DUMPSTER SCREENING. 
          DO I HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? 
          >> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. 
          >> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH A MODIFIED VERSION OF THE STAFF'S CONDITIONS AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTION OR CONCERN ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, WHICH BRINGS US TO OUR LAST ITEM OF NEW BUSINESS. 
          [III.c. Lawton Jordan, applicant on behalf of Christopher and Catherine Stirn, property  owner, has requested a change of zoning from R-60 – Single Family Residential to R50 – Single Family Residential for the properties located at 0 S. Candler Street and  538 S. Candler Street, Decatur, GA.]
A LOT IN JORDAN, APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF CHRISTOPHER AND CATHERINE STERN, PROPERTY OWNER, HAS REQUESTED A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R60 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALS TO R50 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES 
          [02:00:02]
LOCATED AT ZERO SOUTH CANDLER STREET AND 538 SOUTH CANDLER STREET TO DECATUR GEORGIA AND I SEE MR. JORDAN IS HERE TO ADDRESS US. 
          IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          >> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. 
          MY NAME IS LON GERRARD WILLIAMS [INAUDIBLE] 12TH SYCAMORE STREET. 
          I'M JOINED BY MY COLLEAGUES, SAM OTAUS AND SHAMIL MALCOLM WHO ARE THERE AND THERE AND THE LANDOWNERS ARE RIGHT BEHIND THEM. 
          AS YOU STATED, THESE ARE TWO LOTS AND THEY'RE BOTH ZONES ARE R60 AND WE'RE SEEKING TO RE-ZONE THEM TO R50. 
          THE LARGER LOT HAS 74 FEET OF FRONTAGE AND THE SMALLER LOT HAS 26 FEET OF FRONTAGE, SO COMBINED, THEY HAVE 100 FEET, BUT THE SMALLER LOT, IS A PRACTICAL MATTER OF UNBUILDABLE, SO WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO DO IS REZONE THEM TO R50 THEN ADMINISTRATIVELY RE-PLOT THEM, SO THEY WOULD BOTH HAVE 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE. 
          THE HOUSE ON THE LARGER LOT WOULD REMAIN AND THE SECOND NEW LOT THAT WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE WOULD THEN BECOME A BUILDABLE LOT, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO DO BY THIS REZONING. 
          AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, ALSO IN OUR LETTER, THERE ARE REALLY NOT MANY DIFFERENCES AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, BETWEEN R50 AND R60. 
          THE LOT WIDTH IS THE MAIN ONE AND R60, YOU HAVE TO HAVE 60 FEET AND R50, 50 FEET, THERE IS A SMALLER MINIMUM FRONT YARD AND A SMALLER MINIMUM SIDE YARD IN THE R50. 
          BUT ALL IN ALL, WE THINK THIS IS A VERY POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WHEN YOU RIDE BY THIS LOT NOW THERE'S BASICALLY, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, A GAP THERE IN THE STREETSCAPE AND SO WHAT THIS WOULD DO WOULD BE TO TAKE A BUILDABLE LOT TO ALLOW IT TO BE BUILDABLE AND WHEN SOMETHING WAS BUILT THERE, YOU'D HAVE A CONTINUOUS STREETSCAPE, WHICH WE THINK IS MUCH BETTER AND AESTHETICALLY, VERY NICE. 
          IN TERMS OF IMPACT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN OUR LETTER. 
          IN MOST, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE MORE BUILDABLE LOT AS A RESULT OF THIS, SO THAT'S THE IMPACT. 
          ONE MORE BUILDABLE LOT. 
          OUR LETTER ALSO GOES INTO A GOOD BIT OF DETAIL ABOUT AFFORDABILITY. 
          IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THESE LOTS, THERE ARE SIX OTHER LOTS THAT ARE R60, BUT THEY HAVE EXACTLY 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE, SO THIS LOT WOULD FIT VERY WELL INTO THE EXISTING PATTERN OF HOMES. 
          IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY THERE, WE DID AN ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSED VALUE OF R50 OF THE LOTS WITH 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE VERSUS THE LOTS WITH GREATER FRONTAGE, AND THERE WAS A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE, THE LOTS WITH 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE HAD AN AVERAGE VALUE OF 200,000 DOLLARS LESS. 
          NOW THAT'S NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY MORE AFFORDABLE THAN THE BIGGER LOTS. 
          WE THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE THAT GOES TOWARDS THE CITY'S GOALS OF CREATING MORE HOUSING. 
          I WILL BE QUIET AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? YES. 
          >> KRISTEN, 735 KIRK ROAD DECATUR, GEORGIA. 
          MY WIFE AND I OWN THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT SIT ZERO AND 538 AND THE POINTS THAT LOT MADE, I'D JUST LIKE TO REITERATE OR PRESS UPON THAT IN THE VIDEO, THE EFFORT THAT WENT INTO THAT IN CREATING NEW ZONING. 
          OUR 50 DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE THE 2015 UDO. 
          IT'S COME ON BOARD BECAUSE THE CITY, THROUGH ALL OF THOSE EFFORTS, FELT THAT IT WAS A MECHANISM TO CREATE NEW RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES WHILST MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          TO LATIN'S POINT IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET FROM US ARE TWO 50S AND A 42, ADJACENT TO US TO THE SOUTH AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR TO 50-FOOT LOTS AND THEN IF YOU DRAW JUST A SLIGHTLY LARGER OVAL, THERE'S 1850-FOOT LOTS OR SMALLER, THEY'RE ALL FRONT CANDLER. 
          YOU GO FURTHER OUT AND YOU CONTINUE THAT PROCESS, SO IT'S A MIXTURE OF THESE LOT SIZES. 
          ADDITIONALLY, IN 2016, DECATUR 360 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT SECTION, UNDERNEATH LAND-USE ZONAGE AND RESIDENTIAL, VERY EXPLICITLY, THE CITY IS STATING THAT THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, 
          [02:05:03]
WHICH TOOK EFFECT IN 2015 THE R50 AND RM 22 ZONING DISTRICTS WERE ADDED TO ENCOURAGE DENSER SINGLE FAMILY LIVING AND PROVIDE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES AND SO WE JUST SEE THIS AS A VERY NATURAL PROGRESSION, CONSIDERING THAT THERE ARE ALREADY TWO EXISTING LOTS. 
          THE LOTS WERE CREATED WHEN WE ACTUALLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY BY THE CITY WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THE LOT TO THE SOUTH OF US WHEN THE NEIGHBORS SOLD HER PROPERTY, SHE OFFERED IT TO ACT AS SHE NEVER BROUGHT IT INTO HER. 
          SHE KEPT IT SEPARATE. WE ALWAYS MAINTAINED IT, SO WE FIGURED IT MADE SENSE FOR US TO DO THAT. THANK YOU. 
          >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION EITHER IN PERSON OR ONLINE IF THERE'S ANYONE LEFT ONLINE? HEARING NONE IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? ETHAN, WHAT'S GOING ON ONLINE? YES, SIR. 
          >> HI. JOHN AND SUSAN SEE MY WIFE OVER THERE ASSOCIATE BROKER, A REALTOR. 
          NORMALLY I WOULD SAY YES, I MIGHT LOSE A LISTING OVER THIS, HOWEVER I'M PROTECTING THE PUBLIC ALSO. 
          BEFORE YOU'RE OFF TO THE RACES [OVERLAPPING]. 
          556 SOUTH CANDLER. 
          SOME NEIGHBORS ARE THEIRS. 
          I'M FOUR DOORS DOWN. 
          I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE ANYWAY, FROM THEM, I SAY DOWN BECAUSE THAT'S THE THING. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF WATER GOING THROUGH THERE. 
          AS AN ENGINEER IN THE ARMY, I'D SAY, YEAH. 
          YOU'D HAVE TO DO THINGS AND HOPEFULLY I'M SURE THEY WILL, THERE ARE NEIGHBORS TO MEDIATE THAT WATER. 
          BECAUSE THE TEACHER SIDE OF ME, BY THE WAY, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU KNEW THERE'S A SOUTH CANDLER INTERMITTENT STREAM RIVER THERE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF MY WIFE'S BACK THERE, SHE SHOULD BE RAISING HER HAND BECAUSE YES, THERE'S A LOT OF WATER COMING THROUGH THERE AND I'VE GOT A PICTURE BASICALLY OF MY LAST NEIGHBOR WHO HIS HOUSE FLOODED AUGUST 7TH. 
          HE HAD A LOT OF WATER GOING THROUGH THERE. 
          I'M SURE THEY'RE GOING TO MEDIATE THE WATER AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          BUT WHEN YOU SAY THERE'S NO IMPACT, THERE IS IMPACT. 
          THE MORE HOUSES, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE ON KIRK STREET. 
          THERE'S ALSO KIRK RIVER AND STREAM WHEN IT RAINS, IF ANYBODY KNOWS IF THEY'VE BEEN ON KIRK, SAME THING. 
          IF MY WIFE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD, SHE CAN ADD, BUT BASICALLY, THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. 
          THE SCHOOL TEACHER AND HE SAYS, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU HAVE. 
          BUT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO KNOW. 
          YOU ALL MIND I LIVE THERE, BUT I DO. 
          THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          >> I'M SUSAN, 556 SOUTH CANDLER. 
          WE'RE TOTALLY NOT AGAINST IT AT ALL. 
          WE JUST HAD QUESTIONS, WE'RE JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WATER. 
          OUR NEIGHBOR THAT'S BETWEEN THAT LOT AND OUR HOUSE, CAME TO US LAST MONTH AND KNOCKED ON OUR DOOR AT NIGHT AND SAID HELP US, OUR HOUSE IS FLOODING. 
          WE'RE JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER AND WE'RE NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE PLACE TO BRING IT UP OR [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE PLACE TO BRING IT UP. 
          >> LIKE HE SAID, THIS IS OUR FIRST MEETING. 
          WE JUST MOVED IN 11 MONTHS AGO. MOVED TO THE CANDLER. 
          >> WELL, WELCOME TO THE CANDLER. 
          >> THANK YOU. I CAME FROM LOWBROW. 
          THAT WAS OUR CONCERN. 
          WE WEREN'T SURE WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MAKE THE WATER SITUATION BETTER AND MAYBE SOMETHING COULD BE DONE TO MAKE IT BETTER FOR ALL THE NEIGHBORS ALONG THAT AREA WHILE THIS CONSTRUCTION IS BEING DONE TO YOU AND I DO IT RIGHT. 
          >> GOT IT. 
          >> MAKE IT BETTER NOT WORSE. 
          >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? HEARING NO FURTHER OPPOSITION. 
          MR. JORDAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT REBUTTAL? 
          >> [NOISE] I'LL GO REAL QUICK. 
          I THINK WE'RE CERTAINLY GOING TO CONFORM WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          WE ARE CERTAINLY WILLING TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS. 
          WE CERTAINLY DON'T DESIRE TO EXACERBATE ANY WATER PROBLEMS AND WE WOULD LOVE TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE THEM BETTER. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M IN A POSITION TO TALK KNOWLEDGEABLY ABOUT THAT RIGHT HERE, BUT I THINK THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE A GOOD STARTING POINT. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. 
          >> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JORDAN? 
          >> I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION RELATED TO THE DIFFERENCE, WHICH I PROBABLY SHOULD KNOW, BUT BETWEEN R50 AND R60 IN TERMS OF FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR IS IT GOING TO CAUSE WANTS TO STEP FORWARD FROM ALL OF THEIR NEIGHBORS, OR IS THAT NOT THE CASE? 
          >> THE DIFFERENCE, THE FRONT YARD IS A MINIMUM OF 30 FEET, AND R60, A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET, AND R50. 
          [02:10:03]
          >> IF I MAY ADD TO THAT, WHEN WE HAVE A BLOCK FACE THAT IS BUILT [NOISE] OUT SUCH AS SOUTH CANDLER, WHENEVER THERE'S NEW CONSTRUCTION, WE WOULD BE TAKING THE AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK. 
          I DID DO SOME MEASUREMENTS ALONG THIS BLOCK FACE AND IT VARIES. 
          WE HAVE AS CLOSE AS 20 FEET. 
          SOME OF THEM ARE ABOUT 40-45 FEET. 
          NOT INCLUDING WHAT WE SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN. 
          THIS IS BY FAR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THAT SITS BY FAR WAY BACK. 
          ANY NEW STRUCTURE WOULD JUST NEED TO COMPLY WITH THAT AVERAGE FRONT STAFF SETBACK REQUIREMENT. 
          >> ANGELA, I TOOK A LOOK AT THE GIS MAP. 
          CAN YOU VERIFY, IS THIS THE FIRST ZONING OF R50 THAT WOULD EXIST IN THE CITY? 
          >> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT, YES. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> SHOULD HAVE SOME [LAUGHTER]. 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          >> SURE. 
          >> MAYBE FOR THE GROUP. 
          [LAUGHTER] IT'S SOMEWHAT RELATED TO WHAT THE OTHERS ASKED ABOUT. 
          HAVE YOU LOOKED AT SOME POINT YOU'D WANT TO DEVELOP THE NEW LOT WITH A HOME AND POTENTIALLY REDEVELOP THE OTHER LOT WITH A HOME. 
          I DON'T WANT YOU PLAN TO TEAR DOWN OR WHAT IT'S REALLY NOT MY CONCERN. 
          BUT CAN YOU DEVELOP A HOME WITHOUT VARIANCES RELATED TO SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUSNESS, OR TREE CANOPY COVERAGE? [NOISE] WHAT I'M REALLY ASKING IS IF WE SAY YES, GO R50 HERE, FOUR MONTHS FROM NOW, YOU'RE IN FRONT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SAYING, HEY, WE GOT THIS PECULIAR LOT, AND NOW WE NEED TO GO ABOVE IMPERVIOUSNESS OR WE CAN HAVE THE TREE CANOPY COVERAGE. 
          HAVE YOU VETTED THAT? CAN YOU DEVELOP THIS AS IS AND MEET ALL OF THE CITY ORDINANCES WITHOUT VARIANCES? 
          >> WELL, THE ANSWER IS WE HAVE NOT DRAWN UP PLANS FOR IT. 
          I'M CONFIDENT BASED ON THE THE MINIMUM SETBACKS AND THE SIZES THAT YES WE CAN, WITH THE HOME WITH ALL THE STANDARDS [OVERLAPPING]. 
          YOU HAVE GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE LOT, THE TYPICAL SIZE OF THE HOME IN THIS AREA? YES WE CAN. NOW, I CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE. 
          I CAN'T SAY THAT TWO YEARS FROM NOW SOMEONE'S NOT GOING TO COME IN AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE. 
          BUT UNDERSTAND THAT IF IT'S US COMING BACK, THERE'S [LAUGHTER] AN EXPECTATION THAT WE'VE MADE THESE REPRESENTATIONS. 
          >> DOES ON THE POINT OF WATER, IT'S THE IMPERVIOUSNESS AND TREE CANOPY COVERAGE THAT IMPACT THE WATER THE MOST. 
          >> I UNDERSTOOD. YES, SIR. 
          >> WELL, IF HE WOULD START WITH [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> CHRIS CARNIGAN, WE DID A GOOD BIT OF THAT BACK WHEN THE CITY WAS WORKING ON IT'S STORMWATER MASTER PLAN, WE WORKED, WE ATTENDED A LOT OF THE MEETINGS BECAUSE WE DO GET QUITE A BIT OF WATER FLOW THROUGH THERE. 
          THE CITY HAS DETERMINED IT AS AN OVER GROUND FLOW THAT SEEMS TO ORIGINATE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT ON BUNCOMBE. 
          BUNCOMBE TAKES A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WATER AS DOES PORTION OF CANDLER FLOWING TO THAT AND THERE WERE MITIGATION SYSTEMS PUT IN MANY YEARS AGO WHEN THAT WAS REDEVELOPED THAT DON'T SEEM TO MEET THE SCALE OF THE VOLUME OF WATER AND SO IT OVERFLOWS AND SO IT IS ON THAT LIST TO AT SOME POINT BE ADDRESSED. 
          BUT IT DIDN'T MEET THE STANDARD THAT SOME OF THE OTHER PRIORITIES DID. 
          THE LOT COVERAGE AREA RELATIVE TO PERMEABLE IS THE SMALLER OF THE TWO NEW LOTS WOULD BE IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM OF AN R60 LOT. 
          I THINK IT'S 11,000 SQUARE FEET AT MINIMUM. 
          THEN THE LARGER WOULD BE CLOSER TO 13,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          THERE'S PLENTY OF AREA. 
          THE LOTS WOULD AVERAGE 300 FEET DEEP. THEY ARE BIG. 
          THEN THE COMPOSITION OF THE TREE CANOPY ON THE LOT IS UNIQUE, IT'S EITHER IN THE BACK OF THE YARD OR IT RINGS THE YARD. 
          THE SURVEY THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO IT HAS A FULL TREE SURVEY TO IT. 
          YOU CAN SEE POSITIONALLY, CONCEIVABLY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PLANS TO CURRENTLY DEVELOP IT. 
          WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAXIMIZE WHAT THE POTENTIAL IS AND MAYBE SET THE STAGE FOR EITHER DISPOSSESSING THE PROPERTIES OR COMING UP WITH A PLAN ONCE WE KNOW WHAT OUR [NOISE] ORDERS ARE. 
          THERE'S POTENTIALLY ONE TREE THAT MAY NEED TO BE REMOVED, BUT IT WOULD STILL LEAVE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTIES. 
          [02:15:04]
THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OR CONCERNS THAT THEY WANT TO SHARE OR A MOTION THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO MAKE? 
          >> I MEAN, LAST ONE. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE LOTS ARE WORDED IN THERE TO GO TO THE R50. 
          >> IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> I'LL SECOND. 
          >> IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION. 
          ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ON THE MOTION? RACHEL? 
          >> DO WE NEED TO REFERENCE THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE? 
          >> THERE IS ONE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITION IN THE DRAFT COORDINATES. 
          DID YOU WANT TO MODIFY YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT CONDITION? 
          >> COULD YOU REREAD THAT? 
          >> YES. THE DRAFT ORDINANCE HAS A CONDITION, THE PROPERTY SHALL BE DIVIDED INTO TWO LOBES, EACH HAVING A MINIMUM LOBE WIDTH OF 50 FEET MEASURED AT THE BUILDABLE AREA, AND EACH DEVELOPED IN THE COORDINATES WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES OF THE DECODER UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. 
          >> AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT CONDITION, AND I ASSUME THE SECONDARY HAS NO OBJECTION TO THAT. 
          >> CORRECT. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WITH V1 STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITION. 
          ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. [OVERLAPPING] AYE. 
          THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          WITH THAT, WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY RUN THE GAUNTLET YET ONE MORE MONTH. 
          THE AGENDA DOES NOT HAVE ANY ITEMS UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS. 
          COUNCILOR, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER? 
          [IV. Other Business.]
          >> FOR OTHER BUSINESS, I DO WANT TO SHARE THAT MR. MIKE TRAVIS, WHO HAS BEEN SERVING ON THIS BOARD FOR CLOSE TO 10 YEARS AND HAS BEEN THE VICE CHAIR, IS UNFORTUNATELY NO LONGER A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF DECATUR. 
          HE IS NO LONGER ABLE TO SERVE ON THE BOARD. 
          THAT IS A REASON WHY HE IS NOT HERE TONIGHT, AND WE WILL NOT SEE HIM FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR, WHICH IS HIS TERM. 
          WITH THAT, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE BOARD APPOINT A NEW VICE CHAIR IN THE POTENTIAL ABSENCE OF OUR CHAIR. 
          >> ARE THERE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? 
          >> THIS ONE, WE ALL SUDDENLY PUSH BACK WITH [LAUGHTER] A PREEMPTIVE AND DOMINATION. 
          [LAUGHTER] 
          >> AGAIN, THIS IS JUST IN THE EVENT THAT MR. BUCKLEY IS NOT ABLE TO BE WITH US. 
          >> ANGELA, ARE YOU TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT RACHEL SHOULD BE BY THE PLACEMENT OF [BACKGROUND] [LAUGHTER]. 
          >> WE DO HAVE MORE SENIOR MEMBERS SITTING CLOSER TO MR. BUCKLEY. 
          [LAUGHTER] 
          >> ANYONE WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY? 
          >> I CAN DO THAT. I THINK MY TERM ENDS THE END OF NEXT YEAR. IF THAT'S. 
          >> YES. WE WILL DOUBLE-CHECK, BUT TYPICALLY IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY IN THE NEW CALENDAR YEAR, WE WILL REASSESS REVOTE. 
          YES. [LAUGHTER]. 
          >> THANK YOU, RACHEL. WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          >> CAN WE RENDER THAT DECISION BY CONSENSUS? BASICALLY, IS THERE ANYONE WHO OBJECTS TO THAT? 
          >> OBJECTION. 
          >> CONGRATULATIONS. BATTLEFIELD PROMOTION COMPLETE. 
          [LAUGHTER] [APPLAUSE] 
          >> OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PRESSING MATTERS TO SHARE WITH YOU. 
          LOOKING AHEAD TO OUR OCTOBER 10TH MEETING, WE DO HAVE A NEW APPLICATION THAT WILL BE COMING FORWARD. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'LL BE SEEING THE MADEIRA DRIVE TOWER. 
          JUST PLAN ON OCTOBER 10TH FOR THE NEXT MEETING. 
          [02:20:02]
          >> THAT WAS GOOD. YES. 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION, ANGELA. 
          IT'S RELATED TO THE 2020 STORMWATER MASTER PLAN AND WE'VE GOT IT MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES HERE. 
          IN THAT MASTER PLAN, THERE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CHANGES TO THE UDL. 
          WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THAT? BECAUSE THAT WAS APPROVED DECEMBER OF 2020, ALMOST THREE YEARS AGO. 
          [NOISE] WHAT'S THE STATUS OF WHEN WE MAY SEE SOME OF THOSE TEXT AMENDMENTS? 
          >> THOSE TEXTS AMENDMENTS HAVE ALREADY COME ABOUT AND THEY HAVE BEEN MADE. 
          ONE OF THE BIGGEST ONES, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YES. 
          >> I CAN INTERRUPT, OTHERS IN THERE THAT HAVE NOT. 
          IT WAS THE ADOPTION TO BASICALLY FOLLOW THE GEORGIA CODE, I KNOW THAT GOT APPROVED, BUT THERE'S OTHERS ARE REGARDING AND IT'S ACTUALLY THE CITY ENGINEER IS STARTING TO COMMENT ON ZONING BOARD APPLICATIONS AND SAYING 2 INCHES OF RAINFALL TO BE ABSORBED. 
          GEORGIA CODE SAYS ONE, BUT THE TWO INCHES IS IN THE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN AS A RECOMMENDATION. 
          I APPLAUD THE CITY ENGINEER FOR FORWARD THINKING. 
          THERE'S ALSO SOME ASPECTS OF THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN RIGHT DOWN. 
          THANK YOU, EILEEN, FOR POINTING THIS OUT TO ME. 
          IF YOUR LOT IS BELOW 9,000 SQUARE FEET, SO YOU HAVE 40% IMPERVIOUSNESS, WHICH IS 3,600 SQUARE FEET. 
          FOR LOTS AND LOTS SMALLER THAN THAT. 
          SOMETIMES THEY ARE ACTUALLY ALLOWING MORE THAN 3,600 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUSNESS. 
          IT'S A WEIRD THING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SEEMS TO BE COUNTED AND WE'RE ALL LIKE HUH, BUT IT ACTUALLY. 
          [NOISE] IT'S THERE. 
          YOU CAN HAVE A SMALLER LOT WITH MORE ABSOLUTE IMPERVIOUSNESS THAN A LARGER LOT IS ALLOWED FOR THE ORDINANCE. 
          LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE AND LOOKING AT THE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I THINK NEED TO BE IMPROVED UPON AND YOU MIGHT SAY FIXED. 
          I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS IS THE STAFF WORKING ON THAT, AND THEN THE OTHER POTENTIAL. 
          THIS IS GOING TO BE WORKED FOR US, IS IF WE HAVE A MEETING WHERE WE HAVE NOTHING ON THE AGENDA, PERHAPS WE HAVE A WORKING SESSION WHERE WE DO SOME PLANNING, AND WE ACTUALLY START TO DO SOME CODE WORK TO HELP THE CITY. 
          BECAUSE I KNOW THE STAFF ARE SWAPPED OUT WITH TRUST ME, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SWAMPED WITH LOTS OF WORK. 
          WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF TIMES WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE A MEETING WHERE WE COULD HAVE SAT HERE FOR AN HOUR AND WE WOULD'VE MADE A LITTLE BIT OF PROGRESS. 
          I THINK. I JUST WANT TO SAY IT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE NEED TO BE MOVING FORWARD. 
          >> YEAH. LET ME CHECK WITH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT HAVEN'T OCCURRED TO SEE ABOUT THE STATUS. 
          IF THERE ARE SOME DRAFTS THAT THEY'RE CONSIDERING TO COME AND PRESENT THOSE UNDER OTHER BUSINESS, AND YOU'LL GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THIS BOARD BEFORE IT'S FINALIZED AND BROUGHT FORWARD. 
          I DO KNOW THAT WITH THE STORMWATER CODE, THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ZONING PROCEDURES LAW. 
          HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN OUR PROCEDURE UNWRITTEN POLICY TO BRING THOSE CHANGES TO YOU ALL AS A COURTESY REVIEW AND COMMENT AND IT BEFORE IT'S TAKEN ON TO THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          BUT I DO LIKE THIS WORK SESSION IDEA AND WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN. 
          [LAUGHTER] 
          >> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER? THEN AT THIS POINT, WE ARE ADJOURNED. 
          [NOISE]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.