THANKFULLY, THAT DID IT. [I. Call to Order] [00:00:06] GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DECATUR PLANNING COMMISSION FOR OCTOBER THE 10TH, 2023. MY NAME IS HAROLD BUCKLEY AND I WILL BE CHAIRING THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING. THIS IS A SEVEN MEMBER COMMISSION OF DECATUR RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. THIS COMMISSION HEARS 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 BUSINESS. WE WILL HEAR APPLICATIONS TONIGHT IN THE ORDER THEY ARE 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 TYPICALLY FORMALLY LIMIT THE TIME FOR MULTIPLE PARTIES TO SPEAK, I THINK THAT THIS EVENING MAY BE A DIFFERENT SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE TURNOUT. OUR RULES ALLOW ME TO IMPOSE A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT ON INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS IN ORDER TO AVOID US BEING HERE AT 1:30 IN THE MORNING AGAIN. SO THAT IS HOW WE WILL CONDUCT THE HEARING THIS EVENING. BEING HERE THAT LATE ISN'T FAIR TO ANYONE OUT THERE. ONCE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE APPLICATION. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ANY APPLAUSE OR DIALOG DURING OR AFTER PRESENTATIONS. ALL REMARKS SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION DIRECTLY AND WE ASK YOU TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING ANYONE ELSE DIRECTLY IN CONVERSATION. 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. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. THIS IS NOT THE LAST STOP FOR ANY OF THE FOR THE APPLICATION. FOR THE CITY SWITCH APPLICATION, THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION. THIS IS THE FINAL STOP. SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE CELL TOWER, THE CITY COMMISSION WILL BE MAKING THAT FINAL DECISION AT A FOLLOW UP HEARING. WE ARE SUPPORTED THIS EVENING BY ANGELA THREADGILL, OUR PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, AND AILEEN DE LA TORRE OUR STAFF PLANNER. AT THIS TIME I WOULD ASK MY FELLOW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES STARTING AT MY FAR LEFT. JASON FRIEDLANDER. JOHN MCFARLAND. RACHEL COGBURN. GOOD EVENING. GREG CHILIK. TONIGHT WE HAVE THREE ITEMS OF BUSINESS ON OUR AGENDA. TWO OF THEM UNFINISHED. [II.a. Approval of Minutes from September 12, 2023 regularly scheduled meeting.] THE FIRST ITEM OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS THE APPROVAL OF OUR MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 12TH REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. SO HAS EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE MINUTES? ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR REVISIONS THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE? HEARING NONE. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO ADOPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED? SO MOVED. SECOND. IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING ON SEPTEMBER THE 12TH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. WE'LL MOVE TO THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE BY SAYING AYE? AYE. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THE SECOND PIECE OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS AN APPLICATION BY CITY SWITCH, WHICH HAS REQUESTED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW WIRELESS [II.b. 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.] TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITHIN AN INSTITUTIONAL I'M SORRY, INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT ON THE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS OWNED BY CSX TRANSPORTATION INC. AND ACCESSED THROUGH THE MAEDIRIS DRIVE DECATUR, GEORGIA. AND I SEE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION. WHAT I WILL ASK YOU TO DO, BECAUSE I KNOW FROM YOUR LAST PRESENTATION THAT YOU TEND TO BE VERY THOROUGH. SO IF WE COULD FOCUS YOUR PRESENTATION ON THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP LAST TIME AND WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO ADDRESS THOSE AND ANY NEW INFORMATION. SURE. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN BUCKLEY. SO WE DID A LETTER TO MS. THREADGILL THAT PROVIDED OUR RESPONSES TO THAT INFORMATION. AND I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, HAVE YOU HAD WAS THAT INFORMATION DISSEMINATED TO YOU? YES. AND SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, I HAVE READ IT. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO I DIDN'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME HANDING OUT A BUNCH OF HANDOUTS BECAUSE I GOT COPIES OF EVERYTHING IF ANYBODY NEEDS IT. [00:05:08] SO IF YOU ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE WERE ASKED WAS ABOUT THE RAZOR WIRE. THERE WAS A RAZOR WIRE OR BARBED WIRE FENCE ON TOP OF THE FENCE AND COULD WE ELIMINATE THAT? AND THAT WAS ELIMINATED. IF YOU LOOK IN WHAT IS EXHIBIT A TO THE LETTER, YOU WILL SEE THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED SUCH THAT THE FENCE DETAIL. IT'S NOW A REALLY TIGHT MESH FENCE, LIKE IT'S A ONE INCH MESH FENCE. AND SO IT'S AN ANTI-CLIMB FENCE. INSTEAD OF HAVING AN ANTI-CLIMB DEVICE ON TOP OF A STANDARD FENCE. AND SO THAT WOULD ALSO OFFER ENHANCED SCREENING BECAUSE ANOTHER QUESTION WAS, WITH THE VEGETATION AND THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER, WE HAVE NOW ADDED A VEGETATIVE BUFFER. WE GOT PERMISSION FROM CSX TO ADD THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER ALL THE WAY AROUND THE ENCLOSURE. SO IT IS FULLY VEGETATED AND COMPLIANT WITH THE ORDINANCES. THE OTHER QUESTIONS WE HAVE WAS CONCERNING THE GENERATOR. AND SO RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NO GENERATOR PLANNED TO BE INSTALLED AT THIS SITE. HOWEVER, IF A GENERATOR IS INSTALLED, WE HAVE PROVIDED THOSE SPECIFICATIONS TO THE COMMISSION. IT WOULD BE A GENERIC ENCLOSED GENERATOR THAT HAS NOISE INSULATION AND THE SPECS FOR THE GENERATOR CALL FOR 71DB, WHICH I THINK IS ABOUT THE SOUND OF A HOUSEHOLD VACUUM CLEANER. AND WE PROVIDED. A DECIBEL SHEET FROM, I THINK, YALE THAT WE FOUND ONLINE THAT KIND OF REFERENCES WHAT DOES 71DB MEAN? THE NEXT QUESTION WE HAD AND A LOT OF CONCERNS WE HAD CONCERNED THE FALL ZONE AND THE CODES REQUIREMENT OR THE 200 FOOT SETBACK THAT IS SET FORTH. AND WE WENT BACK TO THE ENGINEERS AND GOT THEM TO CERTIFY THAT THIS THING IS DESIGNED FOR AN ULTIMATE WIND SPEED OF 107 MILES AN HOUR OR 30 MILES AN HOUR PLUS AN INCH AND A HALF OF ICE. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE ENGINEER ASKED ME IS BASICALLY AT THAT POINT, YOU'D PROBABLY ALSO HAVE A CATASTROPHIC CANOPY FAILURE. SO, I MEAN, YOU'D HAVE TREES EVERYWHERE IF YOU HAD 107 MILES OF WIND IN DECATUR, GEORGIA, BECAUSE IT'S ALL IT'S A CAT TWO HURRICANE, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO REACH THIS FAR INLAND. SO THAT'S WE AND THEN THE ENGINEER ALSO CERTIFIED, BUT THE MONOPOLE IS DESIGNED SO ANY FAILURE WOULD OCCUR BETWEEN THE SLIP JOINTS BETWEEN 50 AND 100FT. SO EACH THIRD OF THE WAY UP, THERE'S A JOINT LIKE A SPECIFIED FAILURE POINT. SO THE TOWER FOLDS ON ITSELF LIKE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, BUT JUST WANTED TO PAPER THAT SO THAT WE HAD IT IN MORE PLAIN LANGUAGE FROM THE ENGINEER INSTEAD OF THE ENGINEER SPEAK THAT THEY HAD PROVIDED US LAST TIME. SO WE JUST GOT THAT UPDATED LAST WEEK. AND SO THEY HAVE CERTIFIED THAT IT WOULD, IF ANY FAILURE WOULD OCCUR NEAR THE SLIP JOINTS BETWEEN 50 AND 100FT AND THEN THE TOP PORTION OF THE MONOPOLE WOULD JUST FOLD ON ITSELF OR IT JUST KIND OF REMAINED STANDING IN A LEANED OVER, YOU KNOW, JUST GET IF IT DIDN'T COLLAPSE, IT JUST LEAN A LITTLE BIT. AND SO THAT WAS EXPLAINED IN THE LETTER THAT WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO MS. THREADGILL. WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE ANTENNAS AND HOW HARD THEY'RE LIKE ATTACHED AND THAT KIND OF THING. THAT'S A DESIGN FUNCTION THAT HAPPENS AFTER APPROVAL, BUT IT HAS TO BE DESIGNED TO THE SAME STANDARDS THAT THE TOWER WAS DESIGNED AND WE PROVIDED YOU WITH ALL THE ENGINEERING INFORMATION ON ANOTHER SAME SABER TOWER THAT THIS COMPANY DID, 150 FOOT MONOPOLE IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION. I THINK IT WOULD HAPPEN TO BE IN TENNESSEE, BUT YOU HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION ON THAT. SO IT WOULD BE DESIGNED SUCH THAT IT'S A CONTINUOUS UNIT. AND IF YOU HAD OF THE KIND OF THE SAFETY STANDARDS AND THE FAILURE STANDARDS WOULD ALL BE DESIGNED FOR THIS 107 MILE AN HOUR WIND EVENT. IF IT EVER HAPPENED. WE HAVE PROVIDED ALL OF THIS INFORMATION WITH MR. PHILIP MCGINNIS, WHO'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE WESTCHESTER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND I PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION TO MR. BOWES, WHO HAS THE HOUSE THAT'S NEAREST TO THE INFORMATION. I DIDN'T GET ANY FEEDBACK, BUT AT SOME POINT HE TOLD ME HE DIDN'T HAVE QUESTIONS AND I'M SURE YOU ALL HEAR FROM THEM LATER ON. SO I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK TO THEIR BEHALF. THE NEXT THING IN OUR LETTER HAD TO DO WITH VEGETATION. AND SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT. WE ADDED THE FULL VEGETATION PACKAGE AROUND THE ENTIRE TOWER. [00:10:02] THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE THE MONOPOLE AT PUBLIX. THAT TOWER IS PRIVATELY OWNED AND THERE'S NO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION. BUT OUR CLIENT WAS APPROACHED BY DISH BECAUSE DISH WAS UNABLE TO SECURE A LEASE WITH REASONABLE TERMS ON THE PUBLIX SITE. SO THEY WANT TO MOVE OFF OF THAT SITE, WHICH WOULD MEAN THERE'D BE NO REASON FOR THAT TOWER TO CONTINUE TO EXIST IF THERE'S NO CELLULAR CUSTOMER WHO'S RENTING ON IT. SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DECOMMISSIONED AND TAKEN DOWN IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS. THAT'S WHAT WE UNDERSTAND. THEN THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR MONOPOLE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER WITHIN THE RAILROAD CORRIDOR, AND WE HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH OUR SITE STUDY. SO WE WENT THROUGH AND HAD OUR RF ENGINEERS DESIGN A WELL THE RF WE DIDN'T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. THEY DESIGNED A STUDY AREA WITHIN I THINK IT'S A HALF MILE OR SO. AND THEN WE WENT AND APPROACHED VARIOUS PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THAT HALF MILE RING, MOST OF WHICH YOU'D SEE WERE CLOSER TO THE COMMERCIAL NODE TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE. AND THEY EITHER DIDN'T RESPOND OR THEY TOLD US THAT THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED. SO THIS WAS THE LAST ONE. AND EVERYTHING SOUTH IN THAT SEARCH RING WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN MORE RESIDENTIAL. SO WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE COULD DO TO LOCATE IT TO THE NORTH. I DO THINK ONE THING THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE LETTER IS SOMEBODY HAD ASKED IF WE COULD MOVE THE COMPOUND, LIKE TO THE NORTH WITHIN THE CSX PROPERTY. WE LOOKED AT THAT. WE WERE UNABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD BASICALLY REQUIRE A NEW LEASE, NEW ZONING APPLICATION, ETCETERA. SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. WE ALSO, AT THE REQUEST OF MISS THREADGILL DID PHOTO SIMULATIONS. SO WE HAD SOMEBODY GO OUT AND PARK A DRONE AT 150FT AND THE DRONE WAS VISIBLE. I THINK SHE WAS ACTUALLY OUT THERE DURING THE TEST AND SO SHE COULD SEE THAT IT WAS DONE APPROPRIATELY OR NOT, ACCORDING TO HER. AND SO WE HAVE PROVIDED A SERIES OF PHOTO SIMULATIONS. AND WHILE THE ANTENNA IS VISIBLE FROM SEVERAL SPOTS, THE ANTENNA IS ALSO NOT VISIBLE FROM SEVERAL SPOTS JUST DUE TO THE TREE COVER AND THE CANOPY AND KIND OF THE TREE NATURE OF THIS PART OF THE CITY. THERE ARE A LOT OF TREES AND THEY KIND OF INTERFERE WITH THE VISIBILITY OF A CELL TOWER. IT'S ON THE EDGE OF THE CITY LIMITS. SO WE'VE PUSHED IT OUT AS FAR AS WE CAN. WE'VE PUSHED IT INTO ANOTHER INDUSTRIAL USE NEXT TO THE TRAIN TRACK AND HAVE TRIED TO KIND OF TUCK IT UP NEAR A COMMERCIAL AREA SO THAT IT'S ZONED WITH LIKE STUFF. SO. I DON'T WANT TO BOMBARD Y'ALL WITH STUFF YOU'VE ALREADY READ, BUT IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE OR BE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN. JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THE BALLOON TEST, BECAUSE I LOOKED AT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS AND IT WASN'T QUITE CLEAR. BUT I THINK I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT YOU'VE REMARKED ON IT. IT'S BASED ON YOUR REMARKS. IF THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH WITH AN ARROW IN IT, THAT'S A VIEW FROM WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE BALLOON. BUT IF IT DID NOT HAVE AN ARROW, YOU COULD NOT. IS THAT CORRECT? THE ONE I HAVE ACTUALLY DEPICTS THE TOWER WITHOUT ARROWS. STAFF REPORT HAD THE ARROWS. OH, THE STAFF REPORT. OKAY. YEAH, SORRY ABOUT THAT. NO THAT'S FINE. SHOULD BE ASKING ANGELA THAT QUESTION. NO, THAT'S SO MINE, I THINK MORE ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY THE ACTUAL VIEW WITHOUT THE ARROW FOR THE EMPHASIS. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'D WANT THE ARROW. BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO SEE AND IT'S NOT PRESENT IN SEVERAL OF THEM WHERE YOU THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT. SO YEAH, I DON'T, HAVE THE ARROW, I JUST HAVE THE ONES WHERE IT'S NOT VISIBLE. IT JUST SAYS NOT VISIBLE. THAT WAS MY MISTAKE. I MIXED UP THE MATERIALS IN MY HEAD. DID ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'VE GOT A QUESTION. I'M INTRIGUED. WHY NO GENERATOR? WHY IS A CITY SWITCH NOT PLANNING? I MEAN, SO IT LOSES POWER. THIS CELL NETWORK GOES DOWN, THIS PIECE OF THE CELL NETWORK WOULD GO DOWN. SO, I MEAN, AND I HONESTLY CAN'T ANSWER THAT. THE CSX EQUIPMENT DOES NOT NEED BACKUP POWER. I JUST DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER. I MEAN, I'VE BEEN TOLD THERE IS NO GENERATOR. I FIND THAT CURIOUS THAT THIS WOULD BE PROBABLY ONE OF THE FIRST CELL TOWERS I'VE EVER SEEN WITHOUT A GENERATOR SITTING THERE, SO. OKAY. YEAH. ANYONE ELSE? YES. [00:15:02] YOUR ENGINEER'S LETTER. THE ENGINEER IS FROM THE MANUFACTURER SABER. BAUER. YES. IT'S NOT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS. IT'S FROM THE TOWER MANUFACTURER. CORRECT. OKAY. SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THE ENGINEER COULD ONLY ANALYZE THE PRODUCT THAT THE TOWER MANUFACTURER MAKES AND NOT THE FULLY ERECTED CONSTRUCTED POLE? BECAUSE THAT DEPENDS ON THE WORKMANSHIP WHEN IT'S INSTALLED? IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S NO ANALYSIS OF FAILURE AT THE BASE OR THE FOUNDATION. THIS ALL INCLUDES THE FOUNDATION AND THE BASE AND THE CELL TOWER. THE TOWER COMPANY MAKES THESE. AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE MOST RESPONSIBLE IF IT WERE TO COLLAPSE. SO THERE, I WOULD SAY, KEENLY INVESTED IN MAKING SURE THEY GET IT RIGHT. BUT IN THE LETTER I SEE A LOT OF LANGUAGE LIKE MOST LIKELY AND HIGHLY UNLIKELY. ARE THERE ANY PERCENTAGES OR NUMERICAL RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT LANGUAGE? I'VE PROVIDED YOU EVERYTHING THEY'VE PROVIDED ME. OKAY. AND TO THE EXTENT THEY'VE TOLD ME ANYTHING, I THINK I MEAN, WHEN YOU START GETTING INTO STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING, IT GETS MORE CONFUSING THAN IT HELPS. IN MY, TO ME BECAUSE I MEAN, THEY START GETTING INTO WEATHER EVENTS AND 3000 YEAR WEATHER EVENTS AND STUFF THAT IT WOULD TAKE A DEGREE IN STATISTICS TO UNDERSTAND. SO THE STUDY WAS BASED ON POSSIBLE WEATHER EVENTS CALCULATED FOR THE LOCATION HERE IN THE ATLANTA, GEORGIA AREA AND NO OTHER POSSIBLE LOAD FACTORS. PERHAPS I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING BESIDES WEATHER. AND WHAT I SEE. EARTHQUAKES. EARTHQUAKE. I SEE THIS IN PROXIMITY TO THE FREIGHT RAIL LINE. THERE ARE ALWAYS POSSIBILITIES OF DERAILMENTS OR ACCIDENTS INVOLVING FLAMMABLE MATERIAL. WHICH WOULD POSSIBLY IMPACT THE TOWER AND ITS ABILITY TO HOLD UP ITS STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. THERE HAVE BEEN ANY. THERE'S NO FURTHER ANALYSIS OF HOW IT WOULD PERFORM IN THE SITUATION WHERE A FLAMMABLE LOAD COULD CATCH FIRE ON THE NEARBY RAIL LINE. THE ANALYSIS WAS DONE FOR THE MOST PROBABLE EVENTS THAT WOULD BEFALL THE TOWER. RIGHT. OKAY, GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. NO, NO. I'LL PAUSE. HAND IT OFF. NO, I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE MONOPOLES. THEY DO HAVE THE MOST PROBABLE FAILURE AT THE JOINTS. AND IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED AS LIKE A BENT STRAW WHEN THEY FAIL TYPICALLY FROM A WIND EVENT. THE LETTER MENTIONS THAT THE TWO LOCATIONS WHERE THE SLIP JOINTS ARE 50FT TO 100FT OFF THE GROUND. THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT FAILURE LOCATIONS. IF IT WAS TO FAIL AT THE 50FT OFF THE GROUND, THAT'S 100FT OF POLE THAT'S ABOVE THAT POINT OF FAILURE. IF THAT FALLS. HOW CAN THIS LETTER SAY THAT IT IS MOST LIKELY FOR THE TOWER TO BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE 50 FOOT BY 60 FOOT COMPOUND? BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT ONE EXTREME EVENT IN ISOLATION WHERE YOU A REAL FAILURE WOULD HAPPEN. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE TO EXAMINE. THE POSSIBILITY OF EVENTS. I JUST WOULD SAY IT'S HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. OKAY. SEE MORE. COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. LOOKING AT SHEET L ONE THAT THAT YOU PROVIDED, THE CITY REQUIREMENT IS THAT TEN FOOT BUFFER. AND WHAT I'M SEEING IS A FIVE FOOT BUFFER SHOWN ON L ONE. WITH A SINGLE ROW OF THE [INAUDIBLE] THIS. THE [INAUDIBLE]. WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE PROVIDED THE MAXIMUM THAT WOULD FIT IN THE SPACE. WE ORIGINALLY DID NOT HAVE ONE BECAUSE IT WAS A CONSTRAINED SITE AND WE'RE TRYING NOT TO DISTURB ANY MORE OF THE TREES THAN WE HAVE TO. [00:20:02] OKAY. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A NOTE. WE SHOULD. I'M NOT SURE YOU HAVE TREES WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THAT FENCE RIGHT NOW. SO. SECOND THING ON THAT SAME SHEET, THERE'S A NOTE THAT SAYS LANDOWNER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING AND WATERING ALL LANDSCAPING ON SITE. IS CITY SWITCH THE LANDOWNER IN THIS CASE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CITIES WHICH WILL HAVE A LEASE WITH CSX. AND SO WILL BE THE LANDOWNER IN THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT NOTE. THEY WILL BE THE LANDOWNER. THAT'S I MEAN, THIS WAS DESIGNED FOR CITY SWITCH WHICH SO THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IS CITIES WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT GET INSTALLED WITHIN THE LEASE, MAINTAINING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER BE INCLUDED IN THAT FOREVER AND A DAY. SO THAT THEIR TOWER CONTINUES TO BE COMPLIANT WITH YOUR ZONING ORDINANCES. I HAVE A QUESTION RELATING TO THE PUBLIX TOWER FROM THE WORDING IN THE LETTER THAT YOU SUBMITTED. OUR CLIENT WAS UNABLE WAS APPROACHED. SORRY. HOLD ON. THERE WE GO WAS UNABLE TO SECURE A LEASE WITH A REASONABLE TERM ON THE PUBLIX SIDE. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY WERE OFFERED A LEASE ON THE PUBLIX SITE? HOWEVER THEY DEEMED THE TERMS NOT TO BE REASONABLE? I THINK IT COULD BE READ THAT WAY. IT'S ALSO A MUCH SHORTER TOWER. AND IT ALSO ONLY HAS ONE POSITION WHERE THIS WOULD HAVE FOUR. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT OR ONLINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE TO THE OPPOSITION. WHAT I WILL ASK IS THAT ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION LINE UP ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROOM ALONG THE WALL SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A SMOOTH TRANSITION FROM ONE SPEAKER TO THE NEXT? ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU START YOUR REMARKS, PLEASE REMEMBER TO LET US KNOW YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. AND WHEN YOU HIT YOUR TWO MINUTE MARK, I'LL GIVE YOU AN INDICATION SO THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS PHILIP MCGINNIS. I'M AT 413 WESTCHESTER DRIVE. I'M ALSO THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE WESTCHESTER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE HERE TONIGHT YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED. I'M GOING TO KIND OF KEEP THIS BRIEF. I'VE GOT IT WRITTEN OUT. REGARDING THE 200 FOOT SETBACK. I SUBMITTED THREE EXAMPLES OF TOWERS THAT HAVE FALLEN IN A LINEAR FASHION AS WELL. AND ALL THREE OF THOSE HAVE HAPPENED SINCE SEPTEMBER OF 21. THE SETBACK THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING WOULD BE 42FT FROM THE YMCA, AND THAT'S A 79% REDUCTION IN THE 200 FOOT SETBACK. ADDITIONALLY, IT'LL BE 68FT FROM 235 MAEDIRIS AND THAT WOULD BE A 66% REDUCTION IN THE SETBACK. AND THAT'S THAT VARIANCE REQUEST IS EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD BE DENIED. REGARDING THE BUFFER AREA, THE ENTIRETY OF THE SITE IS IN AN EXISTING BUFFER BETWEEN THE CSX RAILROAD AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IF THIS WAS TO BE BUILT, IT WOULD BASICALLY EQUATE TO A 70% REDUCTION IN THAT BUFFER ALONE. AND THEN THE QUESTION WAS ADDRESSED ABOUT THE FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPING. THAT'S ONLY 50% OF WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED OR STATED AS A REQUIREMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT. IN TERMS OF THE GENERATOR. A GENERATOR HAS COME INTO THIS SITE. THEY'VE GOT A FIVE BY FIVE PAD ON THEIR SITE PAD. SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN. A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THIS WOULD BE SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING. THEY DIDN'T PLAN ON PUTTING IN A GENERATOR, BUT THEN THEY LATER DID. AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SUFFERED FROM THAT. SO WE WOULD HAVE TWO GENERATORS SANDWICHING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDLESS OF THE DECIBEL. YOU CAN STILL HEAR IT. I PROMISE YOU THAT. THE POSITIONING OF THEIR PLANNED BUILDINGS WOULD KIND OF CREATE A DIRECTIVE WHERE THAT SOUND WOULD REFLECT OFF THOSE BUILDINGS TOWARD THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON MAEDIRIS AND DOGWOOD. REGARDING PUBLIX, I CALLED AND I SPOKE WITH THE OWNER OF THE EMORY COMMONS SHOPPING CENTER. AND THERE'S CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION THAT I WAS TOLD FROM THEM. I WAS TOLD THAT THE TOWER IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE. IT'S AN ECONOMIC INTEGRAL PART OF THEIR CENTER AND THAT IT IS A LONG TERM LEASE. NOW, THEY DO HAVE SUB TENANTS ON THERE WHICH WOULD BE DISH. SO, YOU KNOW, THEY SAID THAT IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE. THEY DO HAVE A LEASE ON THE ON THE TOWER EXISTING. [00:25:04] GOT ONE MINUTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN EARLIER, I PROPOSED AN ALTERNATE LOCATION NORTH IN DEKALB COUNTY. BUT I'D LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY OF DECATUR TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE OLD DEKALB COUNTY WATER TOWER SITE AT EAST LAKE FOR A PROPOSED TOWER THERE THAT WOULD THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY FILL THE LOW LYING AREAS OF PARKWOOD AND CHELSEA HEIGHTS, WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT'S A DEAD ZONE. THEY'RE NOT GETTING CELL SIGNAL IN THERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOPOGRAPHY, IT SHOOTS STRAIGHT UP THAT VALLEY ALL THE WAY UP INTO THE HIDDEN COVE PARK AND TRAIL. AND THEN FINALLY, I DID SUBMIT A PETITION WITH 230 SIGNATURES AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL, AND THAT WAS PRESENTED BY CREATED AND PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. GOOD JOB. I WAS ABOUT TO CALL TIME. THANK YOU. YES. COME UP, PLEASE. HELLO AGAIN. MY NAME IS SORO BOSE. I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON 235 MAEDIRIS DRIVE, WHICH IS THE CLOSEST PROPERTY TO THE PROPOSED SITE, AS YOU KNOW, AND THEREFORE THE MOST IMPACTED. I SPOKE AT THE LAST HEARING, SO I'LL KEEP MY COMMENTS BRIEF AND GO OVER SOMETHING THAT MR. MCGINNIS DID NOT COVER. SINCE THAT TIME OF THE LAST MEETING, I HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION PRESENTED FROM CITY SWITCH REPRESENTATIVES WHICH HAD VERY LITTLE TIME TO GO OVER. BUT I DID SPOKEN TO MY NEIGHBORS AND HAVE DONE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON THIS ISSUE. MY OPINION REMAINS THAT THE PROPOSAL WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY FAMILY, WHICH IS MY PRIMARY CONCERN. THE CELL PHONE INDUSTRY CLAIMS THAT THE RF RADIATION EMITTED BY TOWERS ARE SAFE. HOWEVER, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION HAS CLASSIFIED RF AS A POSSIBLE HUMAN CARCINOGEN. THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS RECOMMENDS THAT CHILDREN'S RF EXPOSURE BE MINIMIZED. SCIENTISTS AND HEALTH EXPERTS HAVE RECENTLY URGED THE FCC TO PROPOSE MORE STRICT SAFETY MEASURES ON RF RADIATION. MY WIFE AND I ARE EXPECTING OUR FIRST CHILD LATER THIS YEAR AND OUR ELDERLY PARENTS WILL BE LIVING WITH US AT 235 MAEDIRIS. DECATUR WILL BE OUR FOREVER HOME. AND IT PAINS ME THAT TO THINK THAT I WILL BE PUTTING THEIR HEALTH IN DANGER. HIGHLY IMPROBABLE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME OR MY FAMILY. AS I'M SURE IT WOULD NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU OR YOURS. I URGE THE COMMISSION TO REJECT THIS PROPOSAL. ESPECIALLY WHEN ALTERNATE LOCATIONS ARE POSSIBLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. HI, MY NAME IS JOHN BENNETT. I LIVE AT 224 WESTCHESTER DRIVE IN DECATUR AND I AM VERY MUCH AGAINST THIS. WE CALL IT A CELL PHONE TOWER, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE A CELL PHONE TOWER BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T REALLY TOLD US WHAT'S GOING TO BE IN IT. BUT THE STANDARD OF THE 200FT PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T GET TO IGNORE THAT. IF THEIR LOT DOESN'T ACCOMMODATE THAT 200FT STANDARD. THERE'S A REASON THAT THE CSX PROPERTY DOESN'T ACCOMMODATE THAT IS BECAUSE IT WAS SOLD AND BUILT FOR RAILROADS. IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTS SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THAT MEANS THAT YOU SET THAT PRECEDENT AND YOU ALLOW RAILROADS TO PUT UP TOWERS WHEREVER THEY ARE THROUGHOUT DECATUR WHICH I THINK IS A HORRIBLE PRECEDENT TO SET, ESPECIALLY IN THE CITY OF DECATUR. AND I THINK PHILIP COVERED ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I GOT THAT IN TAKING THE 200FT SETBACK DOWN TO 60FT ISN'T LIKE A SMALL VARIANCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S BASICALLY ELIMINATING THE WHOLE STANDARD ALTOGETHER, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. I'M ANTONIA ANTONELL. I LIVE IN 213 WESTCHESTER DRIVE. I'VE READ THROUGH THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING AND ON THE SECOND PAGE, FIFTH PARAGRAPH. MR. [INAUDIBLE], IN REBUTTAL, STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL HAVE NO RADIO WAVES EMITTED FROM IT. WHICH LEADS ME TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS TOWER IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A CELL TOWER? THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE RADIO WAVES FOR WITHOUT A CELL TOWER. SO, WITHOUT THIS CLARIFICATION MAKES NO SENSE TO HAVE THIS WHOLE STRUCTURE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'M VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [00:30:02] NEXT SPEAKER. THREE MINUTES. THREE MINUTES. I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT MUCH. I JUST WANTED TO. HI, MY NAME IS DAN RICE. I'M AT ONE, TWO, FOUR DOGWOOD WAY, DECATUR, GEORGIA. AND I WANTED JUST TO TOUCH ON WHAT MR. CHILIK MENTIONED, THAT ABOUT EXTREME EVENTS AND HIGHLY UNLIKELY THINGS. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THINGS LIKE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAINS, 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAINS FOR A REASON. THE ENGINEERS USE THOSE TO DESIGN TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT STRESSED BY THOSE EXTREME EVENTS. IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE ENGINEERS HERE THAT SUPPORT THE THEY WORK FOR THE TOWER COMPANY NECESSARILY COULD EVALUATE THOSE EXTREME EVENTS WITH AS MUCH INDEPENDENCE AS AN INDEPENDENT ENGINEER. I WOULD ALSO ASK, YOU KNOW, THE NOT MANY PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE WHY, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE DECATUR Y IS ONE OF THE JEWELS OF THE CITY OF DECATUR. IT SUPPORTS SO MANY FAMILIES. IT IT PROVIDES SO MUCH RECREATION FOR SO MANY CHILDREN. THAT AREA IS RIGHT ADJACENT. ACTUALLY, THE PROPERTY OF THE Y IS ADJACENT TO WHERE THIS TOWER WOULD BE. SO IN ADDITION TO, YOU KNOW, THE RADIO WAVES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT'S JUST A VISUAL EFFECT TO THAT WHOLE SORT OF WONDERFUL COMMUNITY OF, YOU KNOW, A PROGRAM THAT THAT THE Y OFFERS. AND I SEE THAT AS SORT OF AN INTANGIBLE THING THAT WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO LOOK AT. ALSO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THOSE HOUSES ARE, YOU KNOW, 1950S. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A FAIRLY HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD THERE. AND I KNOW VIEWSHED AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE OFTEN THINGS THAT PEOPLE LOOK AT WHEN TOWERS, WHEN TELEPHONE, WHEN POWER STRUCTURES AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE GOING UP. SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO LOOK IN ADDITION TO THESE TECHNICAL THINGS THAT JUST THE INTANGIBLE NATURE OF SOME OF THESE THINGS AND HOW WILL IMPACT THE CITY OF DECATUR AND ALL THE WONDERFUL BENEFITS THAT WE WE HAVE NOT ONLY IN THAT COMMUNITY, BUT IN THE ENTIRE CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JIM LUDLUM. I'M THE OWNER AND RESIDENT AT 105 DOGWOOD WAY, WHICH IS ON THE CORNER OF MADEIRA AND DOGWOOD WAY. I THINK MY HOUSE IS WHERE THE PARTICIPANTS BUTTON IS ON THE ZOOM. SO, I THINK I MIGHT BE THE THIRD CLOSEST TO WHERE THIS TOWER IS GOING TO BE. PHIL MENTIONED ALMOST ALL THE THINGS THAT I WOULD WANT TO TALK ABOUT, BUT I DID WANT TO RAISE THREE, MAYBE FOUR THINGS, BUILD ON SOME QUESTIONS. ONE ABOUT THE CHANGE TO THE FENCE DESIGN. I'VE LIVED HERE FOR 20 YEARS AND THE END OF THAT STREET IS A LITTLE DARK. I DON'T KNOW HOW FAMILIAR YOU ALL ARE WITH IT. IT'S A LITTLE DARK. IT'S A DEAD END. AND THERE'S THE RAILROAD TRACKS THERE AND THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND BASICALLY IT'S A PLACE WHERE A LOT OF KIDS COME, SMOKE, DRINK, DO WHATEVER. WE'VE HAD TO CALL THE POLICE A COUPLE TIMES. I THINK THE FOLKS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PROBABLY KNOW ABOUT THIS. THAT HAPPENS USUALLY BY THE BEGINNING OF THE SUMMER, NOT DECATUR STUDENTS. USUALLY IT'S DRUID HILL STUDENTS. I WILL SAY THAT. BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. BUT I WILL SAY THERE'S A RANDOM GROUP THAT TENDS TO HANG OUT THERE AND THIS COULD BE POTENTIALLY AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE FOR IT. SO WHATEVER KIND OF ANTI-CLIMBING FACILITIES, BUT WE WANT TO TAKE THAT IN MIND. OBVIOUSLY, RAZOR WIRE IS NOT GOING TO LOOK GOOD, BUT ALSO YOU DON'T WANT SOMETHING WHERE KIDS CAN CLIMB UP THIS THING, HURT THEMSELVES OR HURT SOMEBODY ELSE. SECOND, THE BUFFER TREES. THEY DO REALLY WORK TO QUIET THE THE TRAINS THAT ROLL THROUGH. AND I WILL SAY THIS, 4 OR 5 MONTHS OF THE YEAR, THEY DON'T WORK BECAUSE IT'S THE WINTER TIME. THERE ARE A LOT OF DECIDUOUS TREES THERE THAT LOSE THEIR LEAVES AND THERE'S A LOT OF IVY AND KUDZU THAT'S CRAWLED BACK. CSX DOES SOME OF THAT THEMSELVES, BUT DURING THE SUMMER, THEY REALLY JUST LET IT GROW OVER. SO, IT CAN BE VERY, VERY LOUD AT TIMES. YOU HEAR THE TRAINS, YOU FEEL THE TRAINS MOVE. SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE TAKING OUT A LOT OF TREES FOR THIS BUFFER, IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THINGS FROM THE RAILROAD'S PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS THE SIGHT AND SOUND OF THE TOWER. ONE MINUTE CATASTROPHIC FAILURE. THAT'S THE THING THAT KEEPS COMING TO MY MIND. WE HAVE A 200 FOOT SETBACK FOR A REASON. SAFETY. SAFETY OF PEOPLE'S FAMILIES. SAFETY OF. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A REALLY COMPELLING REASON TO ABROGATE THAT RIGHT THERE. AND FROM THE MATERIALS THAT I'VE READ, THE. TOWER BUILDERS OWN ENGINEER. NOT AN INDEPENDENT PERSON. I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO SAY JUST TRUST US AND WHEN A TOWER IS GOING TO FALL ON YOUR HOUSE AND MAYBE HURT YOUR KIDS. YOU DON'T REALLY WANT TO JUST TRUST SOMEBODY ON THAT. I THINK WE WE SHOULD STICK WITH THE 200 FOOT THING. THAT'S A REASON. AND I'D EVEN ASK THE TENNESSEE EXAMPLE OF A MONOPOLE. WHAT KIND OF SETBACK IS USED THERE? IS IT A STANDARD 200 FOOT ONE LIKE A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES LIKE US USE, OR IS IT SOMETHING MUCH SMALLER? AND AND I WORRY ABOUT WORSE WEATHER COMING THROUGH. I'VE SEEN THREE VERSIONS OF A TROPICAL STORM COME THROUGH AND THE SNOWMAGEDDON, SO BAD THINGS CAN HAPPEN [00:35:09] AND I DON'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN ON OUR PROPERTY IN OUR TOWN. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS KATIE ANDERSON AND I LIVE AT 413 WESTCHESTER DRIVE. I'VE LIVED THERE FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS ALMOST. AND I WAS WAITING TO HEAR IF THIS ONE LAST POINT WAS MENTIONED. BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THE THE TOPIC OF ESTHETICS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE BALLOON TEST PROVED TO ALL THAT WENT AND SAW THAT THAT THE ENTRANCE POINT ON MADEIRAS DRIVE DRIVING STRAIGHT DOWN INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT CELL TOWER WOULD BE VERY VISIBLE. AND CURRENTLY IT'S A VERY BEAUTIFUL CANOPY OF TREES. AND THAT CELL TOWER WOULD STICK UP ABOVE IT. AND ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS THAT IT'S FULL OF WOODS AND NATURAL FEATURES. WE HAVE HIDDEN COVE PARK. WE HAVE THE TRAIN EASEMENT. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LOVES ABOUT WHERE WE LIVE. AND I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE PULLING INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD EVERY SINGLE DAY, STARING STRAIGHT AT A CELL PHONE TOWER, POKING UP ABOVE THE TREES. AND I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS AN UNSUITABLE SITE. THERE ARE OTHER SITES THAT SHOULD BE EXPLORED. THERE'S TOO MANY VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED FOR THIS SITE. AND SO I URGE THE CITY OF DECATUR COMMISSION TO DISALLOW THIS THIS CELL TOWER FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. NEXT SPEAKER. HELLO, MY NAME IS ANDRE ROEDERSTEIN OF 203 WESTCHESTER DRIVE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD UP BUILD OFF OF THE SOME PREVIOUS SPEAKERS WHO HAVE SAID ABOUT THE BUFFER OF THE TREES. MY HOUSE IS CLOSE TO A GENERATOR BUILT BY, OWNED BY SUNRISE. AND RECENTLY THEY HAVE REMOVED SEVERAL TREES THAT WERE ACTING AS A KIND OF NOISE CANCELER. AND THE DIFFERENCE IS VERY NOTICEABLE. IF. A SECOND GENERATOR WAS ADDED AT THE CELL TOWER AND MORE TREES WERE REMOVED. I THINK IT WOULD MAKE AN INCREDIBLY NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE AND IT WOULD DEEPLY AFFECT THE QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. MAY I? IF YOU MAY INDULGE ME. ARE YOU YOUNGER THAN 18? YES. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND YOU ON YOUR PRESENTATION. IT WAS SPECTACULAR AND WE VERY MUCH BENEFITED FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW. HI, I'M JOSH RICH. I LIVE AT 1027 CLAREMONT AND I'VE LIVED IN DECATUR FOR A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS. AND ONE THING THAT REALLY DREW ME TO DECATUR WAS THE CHARM. THE CHARM OF THE TREES. THE CHARM OF, YOU KNOW, THAT SPECIFIC AREA OF CLAREMONT. THE HISTORICAL PIECE AND ONE THING THAT REALLY. FRUSTRATES ME ABOUT THE PROPOSED SITE IS THAT WHEN I LOOK OUT MY FRONT DOOR, I'M GOING TO SEE THIS BEAUTIFUL CELL TOWER POPPING UP OVER THE TREES BECAUSE I'M RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE Y. AND KNOWING HOW STRICT OUR OUR GUIDE GUIDELINES ARE FOR THE HISTORICAL OVERLAY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT. THEY DIDN'T HAVE CELL TOWERS IN 1930. AND A LOT OF THE. THE GUIDELINES THAT WE'RE ASKED TO TAKE, IN EFFECT, WAS KEEPING IT ORIGINAL TO OUR HOUSES. AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE. THE ASK TO PUT THIS CELL TOWER RIGHT THERE WHERE EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT FROM A HISTORICAL DISTRICT WHEN THERE'S SO MANY OTHER LOCATIONS THAT IT COULD GO AND NOT NECESSARILY BE AN EYESORE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WITH THAT, I ASK THAT YOU DENY THE REQUEST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? I MEAN, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ONLINE WHO'S INDICATED THEY WANTED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? YES, WE HAVE TO. OKAY. CAROL MORGAN. CAROL MORGAN, IF YOU WOULD, UNMUTE YOURSELF. WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS. GREAT. HI. THANK YOU. I'M CAROL MORGAN. I LIVE AT 124 HAROLD BYRD DRIVE, AND I'VE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 40 YEARS. SO I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS A HISTORY OF WORKING WITH DEVELOPERS. WE HAVE WORKED TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES AND TO FIND WAYS TO MINIMIZE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN SUNRISE WAS DEVELOPED ON THE CORNER OF CLAREMONT AND SCOTT BOULEVARD, AND THEN WHEN AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT WAS PLANNED ON [00:40:06] SCOTT ON CLAREMONT, JUST A FEW DOORS DOWN FROM SUNRISE, WE AGAIN WORKED WITH THE CITY, WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER TO RESOLVE OUR DIFFERENCES AND TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO MINIMIZE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR COMMUNITY. WE'VE ALSO WORKED WITH THE YMCA WHEN THEY WANTED TO EXPAND THEIR PARKING LOT AND WE WORKED WITH THEM AND RESOLVED OUR DIFFERENCES AND FIGURED OUT WAYS TO MINIMIZE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO OUR COMMUNITY. THIS IS A SITUATION WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MINIMIZE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO OUR COMMUNITY. THEY'VE BEEN OUTLINED FOR YOU VERY ELOQUENTLY TODAY, AND WE ARE NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT JUST OBJECTS TO THINGS. WE ARE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS TRIED TO COLLABORATE AND WORK WITH REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS NOT REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE OR SAFE ADDITION TO THIS COMMUNITY. AND IT'S CLEAR CITY SWITCH HAS A PROBLEM. IT'S A BUSINESS PROBLEM. IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM, AND WE DON'T SEE A WAY TO FIX THEIR PROBLEM. SO, I THINK WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO IS TO REJECT THIS APPLICATION. THERE'S NOT A WAY TO FIX IT AND TO ACCOMMODATE THEM IN A SAFE WAY FOR US. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO REJECT IT AND AND I THINK THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. MAYBE THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE EXPENSIVE. MAYBE THEY AREN'T EXACTLY THE PERFECT THING, BUT THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT WILL WORK MUCH BETTER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. LAURA SCARLATA IF YOU WOULD UNMUTE YOURSELF, WE'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS. AND SORRY ABOUT THAT. I HAD TO PULL OVER. I HAD TO DRIVE TO PICK UP KIDS. THIS IS LAURA WILKINS, SCARLATA. AND WE LIVE AT 119 DOGWOOD WAY. SO WE'RE ABOUT THREE HOUSES OVER FROM THE LUDLUM'S AND KITTY CORNER NEIGHBORS TO STEVE'S HOME, WHICH WOULD BE RIGHT NEXT TO THE TOWER. AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT EVERYONE HAS MADE ALL OF THE POINTS THAT NEED TO BE SAID, EXCEPT ONE THING TO THINK ABOUT IS THAT ONE OF OUR BIG GOALS IN DECATUR AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY DOES MAKE IT GREAT IS THE FACT THAT WE TRY TO KEEP THE GREEN. WE MAINTAIN OUR HOMES AND OUR TREES, AND WE SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR ON ARBORISTS TO MAKE SURE THEY COME OUT AND THEY TAKE CARE OF OUR TREES. AND I SEE NEIGHBORS DOING THE SAME THING. AND IT'S NOT A SMALL EXPENSE. WE ACTUALLY INTENTIONALLY KEEP THE BACK PART OF OUR LOT BEYOND OUR SMALL FENCE, WHICH ALSO BELONGS TO US RIGHT UP TO CSX LINE AND NEIGHBOR STEVE. WE INTENTIONALLY KEEP IT GREEN AND FOREST LIKE WITH AND WE WE TAKE CARE OF THOSE TREES BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT SOUND BUFFER TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS. AND WE WANT TO KEEP THE LOOK OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I SAW THE BALLOON AND I SAW THE PICTURES THAT PHILIP TOOK. AND I THINK THIS THING WOULD TOWER OVER THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, PARTICULARLY IF ANYTHING WAS REMOVED AND IF THE LEAVES AREN'T ON THE TREES. SO, THANK YOU FOR HEARING US, BECAUSE THIS IS A SOLIDLY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS, AS CAROL NOTED, VERY BEEN VERY COOPERATIVE WITH EDGES, YOU KNOW, ACCOMMODATING THE Y AND AND WESTCHESTER ELEMENTARY. AND WE'VE ONLY LIVED HERE ABOUT EIGHT YEARS. BUT AND CONSISTENTLY WE'VE BEEN HELPFUL. BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE IN A BUSINESS DISTRICT, NOT IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. EILEEN, IS THAT THE LAST PERSON ON THE LINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? YES. FOR THIS PROJECT? YES. OKAY. SO GIVEN THAT I WILL GIVE THE FLOOR BACK TO MR. CADLE FOR HIS OPPOSITION, HIS REBUTTAL. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. A CITY WHICH HAS DONE THE BEST IT CAN TO DESIGN A MONOPOLE THAT IS THE MINIMUM HEIGHT THAT IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO SERVICE THE AREA THAT IT WILL BE DESIGNED ACCORDING TO FCC STANDARDS. IT WILL HAVE RADIO WAVES. I'M NOT SURE IF I MISSPOKE OR SOMETHING, BUT IT IS DESIGNED TO HELP EVERYBODY WHO'S GOT A CELL PHONE IN THEIR POCKET SO THAT YOU HAVE CONTINUED CELL SERVICE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ETCETERA. AND WE'VE WE'VE DESIGNED THE BEST TOWER WE CAN. AND WE ASKED YOU TO APPROVE IT. WITH THAT, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE BALLOON TEST. HOW DID YOU GO ABOUT OR DO YOU KNOW HOW YOUR CONSULTANT WENT ABOUT CHOOSING THE SITES FROM WHICH THEY WOULD TAKE THE PHOTOS? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS I SAW THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS DIDN'T LOOK THAT INTRUSIVE. BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE MAY BE OTHER ANGLES THAT MIGHT BE. WE HAVE A COMPANY THAT DOES THOSE THAT DID IT. MS. THREADGILL WAS THERE, SO I WAS NOT THERE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO GO. [00:45:01] I LOOKED AT THE ANGLES THAT WERE SELECTED AND THEY LOOKED TO BE A PRETTY REASONABLE. KIND OF GROUPING OF WHERE YOU MIGHT SEE THE TOWER FROM. TO ME, I MEAN, YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T DO IT FROM EVERY VANTAGE, BUT THERE ARE 4 OR 5, I THINK DOWN ON WESTCHESTER, THERE WERE AT LEAST A COUPLE ON MADEIRA'S. THERE WERE THREE OVER ACROSS IN THE OTHER SUBDIVISION. THERE WERE SOME LOOKING FROM THE COMMERCIAL AREA AND THEN SOME OF IT YOU WANT TO PICK SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE TOWER AND SHOW WHAT THE TOWER WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE INSTEAD OF HAVING A BUNCH OF THEM WHERE YOU CAN'T SEE IT. ANGELA, DID YOU? IT LOOKS LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT. YES. SO, IN THE PACKET THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY MR. CADLE, THAT INCLUDES A LETTER FROM MR. GOULD, WHO WAS THE DRONE OPERATOR. AND SO YOU'LL SEE THE KIND OF SUGGESTED SITE PHOTOGRAPHY MAP AS PART OF THAT LETTER. AND, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST TEN SITES WERE PICKED OUT. MR. GOULD JUST BASED ON TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY WITHIN THE CITY OF DECATUR, BUT ALSO DEKALB COUNTY, THE COMMERCIAL AREA TO THE NORTH. SO IT WAS IT WAS HIS PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT THESE ARE THE SITES THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM. I THINK THERE WERE ACTUALLY MORE SITES THAT HE HAD SUGGESTED THAT. PHOTOGRAPHS BE TAKEN OF THAT DAY THAT I WAS THERE? I THINK THERE WAS PROBABLY AT LEAST FIVE MORE SITES THAT HE HAD SUGGESTED THAT CITY WHICH TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM. I STAYED WITHIN THE AREAS OF THE CITY OF DECATUR. THERE WAS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CITY SWITCH WHO THEN NOT ONLY TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE CITY OF DECATUR SIDE, BUT WENT TO NORTH DECATUR AND THEN INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE WEST. SO I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL. IT IS HELPFUL. I DID READ THIS LETTER, BUT I FORGOT ABOUT THAT PART OF IT AND I PULLED IT BACK UP. AND BASICALLY. MR.. GOULD SAYS AN ASSOCIATE DROVE AROUND THE SURROUNDING AREA OF EFFECT AND TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS FROM SEVERAL ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND OTHER POINTS OF POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT. WELL, THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY, I CREATED SIMULATIONS OF THE VANTAGE POINTS WHERE THE BALLOON WAS VISIBLE TO BETTER REPRESENT THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED TOWER. AND IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND SIMULATIONS REFLECT TO A REASONABLE CERTAINTY THE ANTICIPATED PROJECTION OF THE HEIGHT AND APPEARANCE OF THE TOWER IF CONSTRUCTED AT THE MADEIRAS DRIVE SITE. SO THAT'S THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. UM. AND THEN ABOUT THE GENERATOR. IF THEY DO, LET'S SAY SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, LET'S SAY THEY PUT THE TOWER IN AND THEN FIVE YEARS LATER THEY WANT TO PUT IN THE GENERATOR. IS THERE ANY? I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO COMMUNITY. PARTICIPATION IN THAT PROCESS THAT'S JUST PERMITTING OR DOES THE STAFF HAVE ANY SAY IN THAT PROCESS? WELL, IF THIS DOES MOVE FORWARD AND I WOULD SUGGEST AND YOU ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT THERE BE A CONDITION PLACED WITHIN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT SPEAKS TO IF AND WHEN THE GENERATOR IS INSTALLED THAT IT BE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO YOU IN TONIGHT'S PACKET RELATED TO THE FACT THAT IT IS ENCLOSED, THAT IT DOESN'T EXCEED 71 DECIBELS. YOU KNOW, BUT I KNOW THAT THAT'S PLAYING THE WHAT IF. SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST. IF THIS IS WHERE THE CONVERSATION LEADS, LET THE CITY NOISE ORDINANCE IS 60DB AT THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT I WAS I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE CONCERN THAT THIS IS THE LAST BITE AT THE APPLE AND THEN THE HORSE IS OUT OF THE BARN, TO USE A MIXED METAPHOR. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR MR. CADLE? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW US TO TALK AMONGST OURSELVES. I CAN SAY THAT I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE 200 FOOT SETBACK AND THE PRECEDENT THAT THAT WOULD SET. AND I THINK ONE COMMENT BROUGHT IT UP, YOU KNOW. IF THAT WAS GRANTED, IT IS WITHIN A RAILROAD. [00:50:01] SO WHAT? YOU KNOW WHAT MIGHT COME NEXT FOR THAT. AND THAT WASN'T MY ORIGINAL THOUGHT, BUT I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD, GOOD COMMENT. BUT I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THAT THAT WOULD SET. JASON. I'M STILL STUCK ON THE. 3.10 A FROM THE STAFF REPORT SAYS EVIDENCE MUST BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION DEMONSTRATING THAT NO EXISTING TOWER CAN ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED ANTENNA. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM WHAT THE APPLICANT TOLD US, THE PUBLIX FACILITY CAN HOLD, THE ANTENNA CAN. THE ANTENNA CAN BE MOUNTED THERE, BUT THEY JUST DIDN'T LIKE THE TERMS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THEM. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT. SOMEONE HAS, IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. YEAH. NUMBER OF NUMBER OF CONCERNS. FIRST AND FOREMOST IS THAT THE 200 FOOT SETBACK NOT COMPLIANT WITH THAT. I MEAN, THE APPLICANT SAID THIS IS THE BEST THEY CAN DO. AND IN MY OPINION, THIS THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO THIS. YOU KNOW, THE RISK IS TOO HIGH. YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S LIVES AND FIND ANOTHER SPOT. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT SPOT FOR THIS TOWER. ONE OTHER THING THAT CAME UP WAS THE COMMENT THAT WE CAN'T RELOCATE THE TOWER OR ELSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION. SO, THEN WE CAN SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION, LIKE WE CAN HEAR ANOTHER APPLICATION ON ANOTHER LOCATION. I DON'T SEE THAT AS A REASON THAT. THIS TIME AS A PRO FOR THIS TOWER WHEN GREG BATTEN CLEAN UP. IT COMES DOWN TO PROXIMITY TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 200FT IS OUR MINIMUM SETBACK. THIS STRUCTURE IS 150FT. IF WE WERE ASKED TO JUST CONSIDER THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE AT 150FT IS THE VARIANCE, IT STILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTS TO 35 SLIGHT IMPACT AT 231. AND ALSO THAT ZONE IS WITHIN THE PROPERTY OF THE YMCA. THE THE I FIND THE ENGINEER'S LETTER INSUFFICIENT TO MOVE AWAY FROM THAT 150FT OR EVEN I MEAN WE COULD EVEN CONSIDER CERTAIN POSSIBILITIES LIKE HALF OF THE ELEVATION OF THE THE TOWER. I KNOW THAT THE CITY OF HALEYVILLE ON ONE OF THEIR CITY PARKS, SO THEY WERE THE CITY OWNER. THEY GAVE A VARIANCE TO A TOWER AND CONSIDERED THE FALL ZONE TO BE HALF OF THAT. IT WAS A MONOPOLE. THE SAME TYPES OF ISSUES. THE ENGINEER'S LETTER, YOU KNOW, THE GUTS OF IT, VERY TECHNICAL. THE LETTER ITSELF IS NOT TECHNICAL AT ALL. IT USES TERMS LIKE HIGHLY UNLIKELY, MOST UNLIKELY EFFECTIVELY RESULT. IT DOES NOT CONVINCE ME THAT THE ONLY PLACE THAT PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE DURING A FAILURE EVENT WOULD FALL OR COME TO REST WOULD BE WITHIN THE 50 FOOT BY 60 FOOT COMPOUND THAT ONLY GIVES 25FT ON ONE SIDE. WHERE? WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITHIN THIS AREA. IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN COMMUNITIES LIKE OURS WOULD NOT HAVE THESE SETBACK LIMITS EQUAL TO THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER, 10% MORE THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER OR A MINIMUM OF 200FT. SO I GO BACK TO THE TOWERS, 150FT, 150FT. IF IT WAS TO SHEAR OFF AT THE BASE, WOULD IMPACT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND IN ONE OF THEM BECOME BE VERY, VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE AT 235. I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT THE APPLICANT HAS APPROACHED THE IMPACTED PROPERTIES TO DISCUSS ANY MITIGATION, WHETHER THAT BE PURCHASING AN EASEMENT FOR THE PORTION OF THE LAND THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE IMPACTED. WE'RE JUST ASKED TO REDUCE THE SETBACK TO, I BELIEVE, 68FT, WHICH IS LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT OUR ORDINANCE STATES. I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT. AND YOUR OPINION ON THE TECHNICAL MATERIALS IS BASED ON YOUR ENGINEERING BACKGROUND. AS AN ENGINEERING GRADUATE OF GEORGIA TECH AND A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, I AM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND EVERYTHING WITHIN THE DOCUMENT IS DONE WELL AND PROFESSIONALLY. AND THEN AT THE END THERE ARE THE NECESSARY DISCLAIMERS INCLUDING DAMAGED, MISSING OR RUSTED MEMBERS WERE NOT CONSIDERED. [00:55:03] NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN MADE FOR UNUSUAL OR EXTREME WIND EVENTS. RHYME/INCLOUD ICE LOADINGS, HARMONIC OR NODAL VIBRATION, VORTEX SHEDDING OR OTHER SIMILAR CONDITIONS. AND FINALLY THE TOWER OVERALL AMOUNT SUPPORT, STRUCTURE, FOUNDATION, ETCETERA ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS ANALYSIS. SO THIS IS VERY SPECIFIC JUST TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE POLE ITSELF. DURING THE WIND EVENTS MODELED FOR OUR LOCATION WITH RISK FACTOR TWO. OKAY. I DON'T DISPUTE THE CONCLUSIONS WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES. SO, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE IS AN APPETITE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION, WHICH LEAVES US WITH A DECISION OF RECOMMENDING A DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION OR GRANTING ANOTHER DEFERRAL. SO, GIVEN THOSE TWO OPTIONS, DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION. IS THERE A SECOND? A SECOND. IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? AYE. THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE TO OUR THIRD AND FINAL PIECE OF BUSINESS UNDER NEW BUSINESS, WHICH IS AN APPLICATION BY FOOTPRINT [III.a. Footprint Properties LLC, applicant and property owner, has requested approval of a preliminary plat for a subdivision that would result in eight residential lots located at 258 Forkner Drive, Decatur GA.] PROPERTIES LLC, WHICH IS ALSO THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS REQUESTED APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A SUBDIVISION THAT WILL RESULT IN EIGHT RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT 258 FAULKNER DRIVE, DECATUR, GEORGIA. BEFORE WE BEGIN THIS. PREVIOUSLY, WHEN THIS APPLICATION CAME, I RECUSED MYSELF. IF I DO SO, WILL WE HAVE A QUORUM AND BE ABLE TO CONDUCT BUSINESS? I BELIEVE WE WOULD HAVE A QUORUM. SURE. BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE SIX NOW. YEAH. AND SO WE WOULD STILL HAVE FOUR OUT OF SIX PRESENT. I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR MY RECUSAL BASED ON MY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE APPLICANT. OKAY. SO MR. CHILIK WILL BE RECUSING HIMSELF. SO, HE WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION OF THIS APPLICATION. AND HE HAS NOT PARTICIPATED IN ANY DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICATION WITH ME, AND I DON'T BELIEVE HE'S DISCUSSED IT WITH ANYONE ELSE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL GIVE YOU THE FLOOR. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ERIC PAWLOWSKI AND I AM ONE OF THE OWNERS OF FOOTPRINT PROPERTIES. WE ARE A LOCALLY CITY OF DECATUR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT FIRM. FOOTPRINT PROPERTIES. WE BASICALLY HAVE REQUESTED A SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE ZONED TO THE 17 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 258 FAULKNER DRIVE. THE EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A TWO STORY TEN UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. ADJACENT PROPERTY IS ZONED R 60 AND NEARBY PROPERTY IS ALSO ZONED IN THE RS 17 DESIGNATION. WE ARE REQUESTING THE SUBDIVISION OF 258 FAULKNER DRIVE INTO EIGHT PARCELS. ONE OF THOSE PARCELS WOULD BE FOR THE EXISTING TEN UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. ONE PARCEL WOULD BE FOR THE COMMON SPACE COURTYARD, AND THEN SIX PARCELS WOULD BE FOR THE COTTAGE COURTS. UM. WE ARE CURRENTLY REDEVELOPING 258 FAULKNER DURING TWO PHASES. SO, THE FIRST PHASE WAS THE REBUILD OF THE EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING. IT IS A 1010 UNIT WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT AND THAT IS COMPLETE. SO THIS APPLICATION FOR THE SUBDIVISION SORT OF COMBINES THE FIRST PHASE, WHICH IS COMPLETE WITH THE SECOND PHASE, WHICH IS THE SIX COTTAGE COURT UNITS. SO, THE SECOND PHASE WOULD BE THE INSTALLATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT, ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIX COTTAGE COURT FAMILY HOMES. AND THAT INITIAL PROCESS HAS ALREADY BEGUN WITH THE PERMITTING. IT WAS ACTUALLY DURING THIS PERMITTING PROCESS OF PHASE TWO WITH DISCUSSIONS OF CITY OF DECATUR THAT IT SORT OF BECAME DETERMINED THAT THE THE INTENT OF THE CODE FOR THE COTTAGE COURTS. IS FOR THAT. THE HOMES FOR THE COTTAGE CANNOT BE OWNED FEE SIMPLE. AND BASICALLY SEPARATE LAND PARCELS FOR EACH COTTAGE COURT HOMES. AND THEREFORE WE COULD CONTINUE AND THE SIX PROPOSED COTTAGE COURTS WOULD BE COMPLETED AS PLANNED AS WE HAVE SUBMITTED. [01:00:05] HOWEVER IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD REQUIRE A SINGLE LOCK CONFIGURATION WHERE BASICALLY THE APARTMENT AND THE ENTIRE SIX UNITS WOULD ALL JUST BE ONE PARCEL. WE WOULD NOT NEED ANY SORT OF SUBDIVISION FOR THAT. THE THE PROJECT WOULD WOULD CONTINUE AS, AS JUST ONE UNIT AND WE WOULD SELL THOSE AS A CONDO TYPE APPLICATION. AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF 258 FAULKNER FOOTPRINT PROPERTIES, WE CONTINUE WITH OUR COMMITMENT TO BRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO THE CITY OF DECATUR. OUR LAST DEVELOPMENT BUILT IN THE CITY. WAS A NINE UNIT, THE BUNGALOWS AT OAKHURST VILLAGE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF OAKHURST. AND DESPITE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIED HOUSING SIZES, WE BUILT THREE OF THE NINE UNITS AS THREE BEDROOM. THEY WERE ALL UNDER THOSE THREE UNITS WERE UNDER 2000FT². ADDITIONALLY, ALL NINE OF THE UNITS ARE SMALLER THAN THE TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT IS BEING BUILT IN THE CITY OF DECATUR. LIKEWISE, THE FIRST PHASE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF 258 FAULKNER WE CONTINUED WITH OUR COMMITMENT TO BRINGING AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE CITY OF DECATUR. THE APARTMENT, AS I MENTIONED, CONSISTS OF TEN TWO BEDROOM UNITS. THEY CURRENTLY RENT FOR BETWEEN 1750 AND 1800. ALL TEN OF THOSE UNITS ARE BELOW. AND MEET THE HUD'S 80% OF THE METRO ATLANTA AREA. MEDIAN INCOME FOR THE MAXIMUM THRESHOLD OF $1,838 PER MONTH. SO 110 OF THE UNITS, 100% ARE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS OF THOSE APARTMENTS. THE SECOND PHASE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF 258. FAWKNER WILL CONTINUE UPON THE SUCCESS OF THE FIRST PHASE BY DELIVERING SIX ONE AND A HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, EACH UNDER 1500 SQUARE FEET. WE HAVE ACTUALLY HIRED THE SERVICES OF BRUCE TAYLOR, WHO WORKED WITH THE CITY OF DECATUR ON THEIR COTTAGE COURT PROJECT OVER ON COMMERCE DRIVE. UM, A SINGLE PRIVATE MARKET DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS, WITH 100% OF THE UNITS BEING IDENTIFIED AS THE MISSING MIDDLE IS REALLY UNPRECEDENTED IN THE CITY OF DECATUR. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE SUCCESS OF THIS PROJECT AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO MORE PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. FOR YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I. OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT. CAN YOU CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR ME? SO TYPICALLY WHEN I HEAR THE TERM MISSING MIDDLE, THAT'S REFERRING TO DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, QUAD PLEXES BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO HERE. SO CAN YOU JUST ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE? WELL, I THINK MY INTERPRETATION OF MISSING MIDDLE IS MORE OF A PRICE POINT, NOT NECESSARILY A HOME STYLE. SO WORKFORCE HOUSING, THE APARTMENTS WOULD BE PART OF THAT MISSING MIDDLE. AND THEN THE COTTAGE COURTS, A SMALLER HOME WOULD ALSO BE PART OF THAT. OKAY. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING BECAUSE I'VE MADE THAT DISTINCTION BEFORE. AND WHAT I'VE COME TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT PLANNERS DEFINE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING DIFFERENTLY FROM DEVELOPERS. JUST LIKE HE JUST SAID, WHEN DEVELOPERS LOOK AT IT, THEY'RE LOOKING AT THAT POINT IN BETWEEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT'S SUBSIDIZED AND LUXURY HOUSING THAT MAY BE OUT OF REACH FOR JUST THE REGULAR GUY ON THE STREET, WHERE, AS YOU SAID, JASON, IN PLANNING TERMS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DENSITY RANGE RATHER THAN PRICE POINT. THERE'S A QUESTION. DOES YOUR PROPOSAL REQUIRE ANY VARIANCES? NO, IT DOES NOT. SO, YOU MEET ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS? YOU MEET TREE CANOPY COVERAGE? THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. STORM WATER? YEAH, WE'VE ALREADY BEGUN THAT PROCESS AND WE'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH SEVERAL APPROVALS WITH THE CITY AND WITH THE COUNTY AS FAR AS WATER AND SEWER. AND LIKE I SAID, THIS SORT OF CAME UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT DISCUSSION WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THERE WERE DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT CAME UP WITH THE COUNTY, LIKE WATER WELL, ARE THE WATER METERS, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT? AND THEN IT CAME UP. ARE THEY FEE SIMPLE OWNED OR HOW THEY'RE OWNED? AND SO, IT BECAME, OKAY, WE NEED TO DO THIS NOW, IF IF THIS IS REALLY THE INTENT OF HOW THE CITY WANTS THE CODE TO READ AND HOW THESE SHOULD SELL, THEN IT'S REALLY THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO TO DO THIS NOW. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IF YOU DID NOT DO IT THAT WAY, SO YOU WERE VIEWING THE SIX HOUSES AS MORE OF A CONDO AND THEN A SINGLE LOT YOU WOULD NOT NEED TO BE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. IT WOULD BE A CONDO TYPE STRUCTURE WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL WOULD OWN THE HOME, BUT THEY WOULDN'T OWN THE LAND. AND WOULD YOUR CONCEPT CHANGE VERY MUCH IF YOU WERE DOING IT THAT WAY VERSUS THE WAY YOU'RE DOING IT NOW? [01:05:04] THE THE CONCEPT. NO, NO. THE CONCEPT WOULD BE THE WOULD BASICALLY BE THE SAME. THE THE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THE EFFECT ON THOSE SIX HOMES AND THEN THE EFFECT ON THE CITY AND HOW THAT IS MANAGED, WHETHER IT'S TAXES OR LIKE WATER OR DIFFERENT SORT OF HOW EACH INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER INTERPRETS OR INTERACTS WITH THE PUBLIC ENTITY. OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, EITHER IN PERSON OR ONLINE? THERE'S NO ONE ON LINE. ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? AND I WOULD ASK US TO FOLLOW THE SAME PROCESS AS WE DID FOR THE LAST APPLICATION IN TERMS OF OPPOSITION SPEAKERS. HI, MY NAME IS RICHARD REID. I'M AT 11 GLENN COURT. I'M ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE GLENN COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. UM, EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE, I THINK, A COPY OF A WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT I MADE AS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT. OKAY. SO I WON'T BELABOR ALL OF THOSE POINTS. I THINK THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE AT THIS POINT IS, AND I WOULD SAY THIS IS A MUCH BETTER DIRECTION THAN THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE DIRECTION. I THINK THINGS ARE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DOWN THE RIGHT PATH AND WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT THERE'S BEEN ZERO COLLABORATION, ZERO ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN THE BUILDER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM ALL OF THE EXPERIENCES BEFORE. THERE'S NO MYSTERY THAT WE'RE ENGAGED, THAT WE'RE AVAILABLE, THAT WE WANT TO BE INVOLVED, AND THAT WE WANT TO WORK TOGETHER TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE FOR EVERYONE. IN TERMS OF GENERALLY WHAT'S THERE. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A HUGE OPPOSITION TO GENERALLY THE DIRECTION, BUT WE DO HAVE A LOT OF NUANCED QUESTIONS AND. IT NEED TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF DIFFERENT IMPLICATIONS OF THINGS, SOME OF WHICH WE PUT TO THE CITY THAT HAVEN'T BEEN RESPONDED TO YET, NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ENGAGED FROM THE BUILDER'S PERSPECTIVE. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION AND OUR REQUEST IS THAT NO VOTE TAKE PLACE TODAY, THAT THIS GET DEFERRED INTO A TO A FUTURE MEETING SO THAT THERE CAN BE A MEETING BETWEEN THE BUILDER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO DISCUSS THE POINTS THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS WITH. WE'VE ASKED THAT AT EVERY POINT. IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN SUGGESTED BY YOUR COUNSEL BEFORE THAT THESE KINDS OF MEETINGS TAKE PLACE BEFORE THINGS COME THIS FAR, BUT IT NEVER SEEMS TO MANAGE TO HAPPEN. SO, WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND TO ADDRESS, LIKE I SAID, REALLY FAIRLY NUANCED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE PLAN IS, WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE FOR US AND HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD TOGETHER. I THINK IN PARTICULAR, A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS BASED ON MY READING AND I'M NOT, I AM IN REAL ESTATE. I'M A REAL ESTATE BROKER, BUT I'M NOT A ENGINEER, A SITE PLAN ENGINEER. SO SOME OF THE GRADING AND THE WATER MANAGEMENT IS BEYOND MY SCOPE OF KNOWLEDGE, BUT IT LOOKS TO MANAGE WATER RUNOFF FROM FRONT TO BACK, MUCH MORE SO THAN IT DOES FROM RIGHT TO LEFT, AND IT ACTUALLY SLOPES IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. WHEN I PURCHASED 11 GLENCORE COURT, WHICH IS THE CLOSEST POINT TO LOT F THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED IN THE NEW PLAN, IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A LAKE AND THERE WERE THINGS THAT WERE DONE TO KIND OF MITIGATE THAT ON OUR SIDE. BUT IT DOESN'T NEITHER OUR LAND, OUR YARDS NOR OUR WATER MANAGEMENT ON THE GLENCORE SITE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TAKE ON THE FLOW. RIGHT NOW, THE ENTIRE BACK TWO THIRDS OF THE LOT IS VEGETATION AND TREES AND THINGS THAT DRINK WATER. AND THIS IS GOING TO CREATE OBVIOUSLY AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF STUFF THAT CREATES WATER RUNOFF. SO, THERE'S A HUGE IMPLICATION THERE. PARKING, I THINK, IS GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. THERE'S ALREADY PARKING ON FAULKNER FROM THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. WE'VE ASKED THE CITY BEFORE TO CONSIDER DOING A PARKING STUDY ON ON FAULKNER AS WELL AS CONSIDERING MAKING FAULKNER ONLY AVAILABLE TO PARK ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET TO MITIGATE SOME OF THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S ALSO TRUE IN THIS PLAN IS, I THINK IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THE PROXIMITY OF THE HOUSES, THERE ARE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS THAT ARE A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN ORDER TO MITIGATE FIRE ISSUES. BUT THE DISTANCE AND IT'S NOT REFLECTED ON HERE, THIS IS ONE OF THE FRUSTRATING POINTS FOR ME IS YOU DON'T SEE ON OUR SIDE THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PLAN HOW CLOSE IT IS TO OUR HOUSES AND OUR STRUCTURES. MY HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE SPRINKLERS. AND THE DISTANCE, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, IS THE FRONT PORCH OF LOT F AND MY BACK PORCH IS ABOUT EIGHT FEET. [01:10:06] SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IMPLICATIONS THAT DOES OR DOESN'T HAVE FOR ME IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM A FIRE. BUT THERE ARE LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT THAT I THINK NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AND WE NEED TO HAVE TIME TO WORK THROUGH TOGETHER AS OPPOSED TO JUST PUSHING IT THROUGH ALL AT THE LAST MINUTE. I DON'T KNOW WHY. I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT AS A PART OF OUR FORMAL PROCESS FOR ALL PROJECTS LIKE THIS AND CITY OF DECATUR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. HELLO. I'M BERNIE MURPHY. I'M AT 3 GLENN COURT IN DECATUR. AND I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THE WORD APHORISM IN A SETTING LIKE THIS. SO MY APHORISM IS TRUST BUT VERIFY. AND THE PROBLEM WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE RESERVOIR OF TRUST IS TRUST IS EMPTY. TRUST IS ACCOMPLISHED BY COMMUNICATION, BY TRANSPARENCY AND COMPLETENESS OF INFORMATION. AS RICHARD POINTED OUT, WE'VE HAD NO COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEVELOPER AT THIS JUNCTURE AT ALL. SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW. I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE THINGS THAT I DO KNOW. IT WILL BE A BURDEN ON TRAFFIC. THERE'S 19 OR 16 SPOTS FOR 16 HOUSES, 11 SPOTS. AS RICHARD POINTED OUT, THERE'S ALREADY TRAFFIC ON WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY A ONE LANE ROAD NOW OF FAULKNER DRIVE. WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WATER TREE CANOPY AND BASICALLY IT'S THE INFORMATION THING WE HAVE. WE HAVE A BASIC PLAT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'LL LOOK LIKE. WE DON'T KNOW THE TRUE HEIGHT. WE KNOW THAT A 35 FOOT MAXIMUM. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HEIGHT IS. SO, WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY DETAILED DRAWINGS. OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS. THE THINGS THAT WERE OBJECTING TO WERE OBJECTING IN THE DARK. WE WOULD ASK AND I WOULD REITERATE AND SECOND RICHARD'S COMMENT THAT THE ORDINANCE DRAFT ORDINANCE, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS VERY PRESUMPTIVE TO BE INCLUDED AT THIS POINT, AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT'S OFFENSIVE TO ME BE VOTED DOWN. AND I JUST WANT TO GO BACK THAT I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT DISINGENUOUS IN THIS TO SAY THERE'S NO ADVERSE EFFECTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DON'T KNOW. WE HAVEN'T BEEN COMMUNICATED WITH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. I TRULY APPRECIATE IT. YOU'RE WELCOME. AND BEFORE YOU GO, I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN A PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR EVERY APPLICATION THAT COMES BEFORE US THAT GOES ON TO THE CITY COMMISSION OR, YOU KNOW, INVOLVES AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS TO BE ADOPTED. THE STAFF PREPARES A DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR US TO USE SO THAT WE IF WE CHOOSE TO APPROVE IT, WE DON'T HAVE TO FUMBLE AROUND AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DISPOSE OF THAT APPLICATION. SO, THEY'VE GOT THE TEMPLATE WAS NOT DRAFTED BY THE DEVELOPER? NO, THAT WAS THAT WAS DONE BY OUR INTERNAL STAFF THEN. IT WAS MY MISINTERPRETATION. I JUST DIDN'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT HADN'T HAPPENED. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. YES, SIR. HI, I'M SCOTT SNEED. I LIVE AT NINE GLEN COURT, AND I REALIZE THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION SEVERAL TIMES NOW, AND YOU'VE HEARD PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THIS. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO RESTATE THAT THE POINT THAT THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT IS IN THE FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY, WE SHOULDN'T GIVE TOO MUCH CREDIT FOR THAT SINCE IT WAS BUILT IN 1950 AND THE FIRST AT LEAST THE FIRST COUPLE OF VERSIONS OF THIS PROJECT, HAD IT BEEN DEMOLISHED. BUT THE COMMISSION, IN ITS WISDOM, DID NOT APPROVE THOSE, AND SO IT WAS NOT DEMOLISHED. AND IT'S STILL THERE. AND AND IT IS NOW RENOVATED. AND IT IS DEFINITELY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT THAT'S WHY IT'S STILL THERE. OUR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS HERE IN FORCE. WE'VE REALLY NOT HAD A GREAT ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON AND TO COMMUNICATE. THE THE COMMUNICATION WE'VE HAD IS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF EVASIVE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO. JUST LET THIS GO AHEAD WITHOUT VOICING OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THINGS THAT LOOK LIKE THEY MIGHT BE OKAY, BUT WE'RE REALLY NOT SURE ABOUT IT. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COMMISSION MAKE SURE TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN, ALL OF THE T'S ARE CROSSED AND THE I'S ARE DOTTED AND DON'T TAKE THINGS AT FACE VALUE, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST NOT BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT THAT WORKS OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS MARK ARNOLD. I LIVE AT 15 GLEN COURT AND I'LL TRY AND BE QUICK HERE SINCE IT LOOKS LIKE I'M THE LAST PERSON, SO I'VE GOT THREE POINTS I WANT TO [01:15:09] MAKE ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT. I LIVE AT THE VERY END. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLOT THAT YOU CAN'T THERE'S NOTHING THERE. BUT THAT'S MY HOME AT THE END. AND AS RICHARD MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE INITIALLY MOVED IN, WE HAD SIGNIFICANT WATER RUNOFF ISSUES, ESPECIALLY DURING HEAVY RAINS. AND WE'VE ALL AND HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS TO MITIGATE THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING IN THE IN THE PLAN. AND GIVEN THE THE THE SORT OF STEEPNESS FROM THE MID TO THE BACK WHERE I AM, I DON'T THINK EXISTING STORMWATER OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT I HAVE INVESTED IN WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. SO THAT'S ONE CONCERN. THE OTHER CONCERN IS JUST GENERAL PUBLIC NUISANCE FROM PARKING. SO I THINK STARTED BACK IN 2019. IN THE MORNINGS WHEN I'M ON MY WAY TO THE OFFICE, I STOP AND I TAKE TWO PICTURES, ONE ON FAULKNER FACING SYCAMORE, SO I CAN SEE WHAT THE TRAFFIC IS OR THE PARKING ON STREET AND ONE ON FAULKNER FACING CHURCH. AND IT'S JUST A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS. AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES I HAVE ON I'VE TAKEN ON WEEKENDS. RIGHT. SO HAPPY TO SHARE THOSE. BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT THE PARKING ISSUE WOULD BE A GREAT PUBLIC NUISANCE. AND THEN ALSO THAT PUBLIC NUISANCE THEN EXTENDS INTO A SAFETY ISSUE OF IN CASE OF NEEDING TO GET EMERGENCY VEHICLES IN AND OUT. BECAUSE AT ONE END, WHERE YOU HAVE MOWED THAT AT THE INTERSECTION OF FAULKNER AND GLENDALE, IF YOU'RE THERE ON THE WEEKEND, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING. SO VISITORS TO THAT FACILITY, THEY PARK ON BOTH SIDES. AND SO IT BECOMES IMPASSABLE. AND, YOU KNOW, THE CONCERN WOULD BE. WITH ANOTHER SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT. AT THE OTHER END, YOU EFFECTIVELY CLOSE OFF THE STREET. SO THOSE ARE MY THREE CONCERNS AND I THINK THEY SHOULD BE FURTHER INVESTIGATED BEFORE YOU MOVE ON THIS APPLICATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. GOOD EVENING. I'M CAROL HARVEY. I LIVE AT 9 GLEN COURT. I JUST HAVE A FEW THINGS TO SAY. THAT WAS MY HUSBAND WHO DID BEFORE, MARK, WHO DID A GREAT JOB. AND I WORK AS A CLINICAL ETHICIST AND AN ETHICS, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE ETHICAL DECISION TO BE MADE IN ANY SORT OF CONFLICT OR A DECISION THAT'S DIFFICULT. AND I HAD TO THINK OF THAT IN LOOKING AT WHAT'S MISSING OR WHAT'S THE CHALLENGE OF THIS PLAN. YOU'VE HEARD I WILL NOT REPEAT WHAT'S BEEN SAID, BUT LET ME ADD A FEW THINGS THAT OF OUR CONCERN. SO WHEN WE WORK WITH REALLY EXTREME VIEWS, WE LOOK FOR THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLE IS BENEFIT VERSUS BURDEN. WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF THIS PROPERTY TO OUR COMMUNITY? WHAT IS THE BURDEN OF THIS PROPERTY? WE DO THE SAME THING IN HEALTH CARE. THE BENEFIT IS UNKNOWN. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THE MISSING MIDDLE INITIATIVES ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE HAD MIXED RESULTS AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EXCELLENT, EVEN RECENTLY IN THE LAST YEAR IN THE WASHINGTON POST, EXCELLENT ARTICLES WITH ADVICE TO PLANNING AND NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES AS A WHOLE. THESE PEOPLE BEHIND ME ARE MY COMMUNITY. WE ARE DECATUR. WE ARE. AS RICHARD TOLD ME THE OTHER DAY, WE ARE SINGLE, MARRIED, WHITE, BLACK, SOUTH AMERICAN, GAY, STRAIGHT, TRANS. WE ARE ON THIS ON SEVEN SMALL HOUSES. WE REPRESENT A LOT OF OUR GREATER NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WHAT WE WANT TO BE SURE HERE IS THAT THE THE BENEFIT TO US AND TO THE GREATER CITY CERTAINLY OUTWEIGHS THE BURDEN OF TRAFFIC SAFETY. THE WHOLE FIRE SAFETY, LOOKING AT PUTTING SPRINKLERS IN LOWER END HOUSING HOMES AND THOSE RISK LOOKING AT SPRINKLER SYSTEMS WORK, BUT NOT IF THEY HAVE TO BE REPAIRED. LOOKING AT THE DENSITY OF THIS HOUSING AND THE SIZE OF THESE HOUSES, WE I HOPE THAT IF THIS IS GOING TO BE A TEMPLATE FOR HOUSING THAT GOES INTO BACKYARDS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS TO BE A MODEL TO GO IN EACH OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS AS THE CHALLENGE TO ALL OF US FOR MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING TO MEET A CITY GOAL. LET'S BE SURE THAT IT'S THE RIGHT SIZE. THESE HOUSES NEED TO BE SMALL AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY. WE ONLY SEE PLOT SIZES, NOT THE HOUSING SIZE. I RECOMMEND THAT YOU GO TO NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR COTTAGE VILLAGES AND NOT THE STANDARDS THAT ARE USED IN THE CURRENT. I UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT BUILDING IN WHICH SOME OF THOSE TOP END AND SQUARE FOOTAGE HAVE BEEN BUMPED UP TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE TO BUILDERS TO ENGAGE IN IT AS A BUSINESS. BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE WEDGED INTO HOMES AND OUR REALLY ASK THAT YOU GO BACK DOWN TO SOME OF THE NATIONAL STANDARDS BEING USED NOW ABOUT 800 TO 1200 SQUARE FEET IN HOUSES [01:20:10] AS MAXIMUM. THE OTHER THINGS THAT THAT THAT REALLY DISTURB US, THE WATER IS HUGE. SO, THE REASON THAT THE FIRST, THE LAST OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY BEFORE ERIC SOLD THE PROPERTY, HE TRIED TO DEVELOP THE LAST HALF. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU AROUND THE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER SET OF APARTMENTS IN THE CITY TURNED THEM DOWN REPEATEDLY BECAUSE OF THE. THIS IS AN UNUSUAL LOT WITH ITS CHANGE IN ELEVATION AND HE COULD NOT COME UP WITH AN AFFORDABLE SOLUTION AT THAT TIME TO THE WATER DRAINAGE PROBLEM THAT WAS WAY BACK AND THEN THE MINUTE. THANK YOU. THE TREE CANOPY, THE LOSS OF THE MAMMALS AND THE BIRDS THAT LIVE IN THOSE TREES. NOW, THIS IS A HIGH DENSITY. THIS IS A VERY HIGH. A WONDERFUL FORESTED AREA. AND LASTLY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO REALLY IF THIS IS GOING TO BE A COMMITMENT AND WE'RE GOING TO GET REALLY THINK OF THE BENEFIT THAT I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE WE PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BUYING THESE HOMES AND YOU'LL PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND IT, THAT THESE HOMES CANNOT BE USED FOR AIRBNBS. THEY WOULD BE FABULOUS AS AIRBNBS, BUT THAT WOULD REALLY BE A DEATH KNELL TO THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT THAT THERE CANNOT BE QUALIFIED FOR SHORT TERM HOUSING EITHER FOR 20 OR 50 OR 100 YEARS. THAT SHOULD PROBABLY ALSO GO FOR THE IF THOSE APARTMENTS ARE TURNED INTO CONDOS. WITH THAT, I'LL STOP AND THANK YOU AND JUST REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU DO FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK AND SERVICE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES, MA'AM. GOOD TIME FOR ME? YES. OKAY. MY NAME IS CATHERINE FOX. I LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE. I LIVE THE WHOLE WAY. I HAVE THE EXACT SIZE PROPERTY. I HAVE ONE HOUSE AND A COTTAGE. UM, NEXT, WHAT I WANT TO TELL YOU BECAUSE I, SORRY I'M A LITTLE LATE IS, I LIVE AT 262 FAULKNER DRIVE. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH COTTAGE COURTS. I DESIGNED AND PROPOSED ONE TO THE CITY SIX YEARS AGO. FIVE YEARS AGO. I WORKED WITH WITH ANGELA. SHE WAS VERY NICE. IT DID NOT GET APPROVED BECAUSE THE GREENS, AS I RECALL, THAT THE GREEN SPACE WAS RECTANGLE INSTEAD OF SQUARE. BUT ALL OTHER CONDITIONS WERE MET. SO AT THAT TIME IT GOT A LITTLE IT GOT BUSY NEXT DOOR. WE STARTED TRYING TO FIGHT THE 1540 STORY BUILDING BUILDINGS SO THAT WHAT HAPPENED. SO IT ALL GOT TABLED. HE GOT NO, I GOT NO. AND THEN A HISTORY OF NICK STORE ON THE OTHER SIDE WHICH IS MY FINE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE NICE. WE WERE THERE. WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 26 YEARS. THAT WAS ONE HOUSE IN A FIELD OR A BUNCH OF TREES. IT WAS ALL TREES. THE DEVELOPER WHO I THINK WAS RELATED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE WHATEVER. WHATEVER THE REASON, HE GOT PERMISSION TO BUILD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. THE HOUSES ARE BEAUTIFUL. PEOPLE ARE WONDERFUL, BUT THERE'S NO LOT LINES. THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THE LOT LINES. THE BACK OF THEIR HOUSES ARE WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE LOT. LINES IN SOME PLACES, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT IS. SO THEY GOT THEY BOUGHT HOUSES THAT WERE WITHIN THE SETBACK. IT'S TIGHT BACK THERE, BUT THEY HAVE BEAUTIFUL, HUGE HOMES. NOW, HERE I AM BACK. I'M HERE. I NEVER TALKED TO THIS GUY. WE DON'T GET ALONG. SO I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THIS, BUT I REVIEWED THE PLANS. I HAVE A BACKGROUND IN REVIEWING PLANS. I DO IT FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES. I REVIEW PLANS, STORMWATER BUFFERS, SETBACKS, THE WHOLE BIT. I READ THIS PLAN AND ACTUALLY I LIKED IT. I LIKED IT. IF HE FOLLOWS ALL THE RULES BECAUSE HE AND I TALKED ABOUT COTTAGE COURTS YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS TRYING TO GET HIM TO DO A COTTAGE COURT INSTEAD OF THOSE 40 FOOT TALL, 15 TOWNHOMES THAT WERE GOING TO LOOK EXACTLY LIKE MODA. WE ALL. WE BEAT IT. SO ANYWAY, HE'S BACK WITH THIS. I THINK IT'S REASONABLE. I THINK IT MEETS THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS AS LONG AS ALL THE SETBACKS ARE MET. ALL THE SIZES PROPOSED ARE 1500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS RIGHT FOR THE HOUSES. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? WELL, HOLD ON. DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO US. I BELIEVE THAT'S ANGELA. IS THAT CORRECT? THESE WHY DON'T WE FINISH UP AND THEN WE'LL. I'LL ANSWER THE QUESTION. BUT I WOULD OBJECT IF IT WAS BIGGER THAN 1500 OR CLOSE TO IT. AND ONE MINUTE. OKAY. ONE MINUTE IS I THINK IT'S A GOOD ONE AS LONG AS THE FIRE CHIEF AGREES. IT HAS TO BE AGREED. IF THE IF THIS IS ALL APPROVED, WHICH I AM IN SUPPORT OF, THEN I'M GOING TO DO THE I'M GOING TO DO IT NEXT DOOR. AND I'M GOING TO FOLLOW EXACTLY WHAT HE DID, IF NOT BETTER, BECAUSE I'M A STORMWATER SCIENTIST, SO MINE'S GOING TO BE ALL GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND FLOWERS AND GARDENS AND IT'S GOING TO BE GORGEOUS AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SMALL LITTLE HOUSES, IT'S GOING TO BE COMMUNITY AND HIS NEEDS TO BE THE SAME. NOT HUGE, NOT PUSHING EVERY ENVELOPE WHERE HE CAN BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE'LL DO. [01:25:01] MAKE HIM STAY IN THE RULES, MAKE HIM BE NICE, GIVE SOME DISTANCE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN BETWEEN THEM, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY RIGHT ON THE LINE. AND THEN I SAY GO FOR IT AND BE A MODEL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE WHO ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR REBUTTAL. UM, THANK YOU. I THINK I'LL JUST GO THROUGH. I MIGHT AS WELL JUST GO THROUGH THE LIST. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED. WE DID DECIDE TO KEEP THE APARTMENT. WE COULD HAVE TORN IT DOWN AND DONE THE WHOLE THING. COTTAGE COURT. BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IT WOULD HAVE MADE A LOT MORE MONEY. I MEAN, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, COTTAGE COURTS, YOU CAN MAKE MORE ON COTTAGE COURTS THAN YOU CAN WITH A 1950 APARTMENT BUILDING THAT COSTS A TON TO RENOVATE. AND THE REALITY IS THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RENT FOR THE NEW APARTMENT BUILDING THAT'S BEING BUILT DOWNTOWN OR OVER ON, YOU KNOW, COLLEGE STATION. THAT'S THE REALITY OF IT. SO WE DID WE WE CHOSE IT WAS IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. YEAH. WE HAD LOOKED AT OTHER PLANS. WE HAD GONE THROUGH DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. BUT WE DID. WE DECIDED TO KEEP THE APARTMENT BUILDING. THE REALITY IS WE DID MEET WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR THE OTHER PROJECTS. SO, WE DID ADDRESS IN THIS PROPOSAL A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT THEY CAME UP WITH. AS FAR AS THE THINGS THAT THEY WANT. PARKING, I'M HEARING WATER. AND AS FAR AS PARKING CONCERNED, THE INDIVIDUAL TALKED ABOUT A 2019. PICTURE ON FAULKNER. GUESS WHAT? WE DIDN'T EXIST. IN 2019. THAT APARTMENT BUILDING WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS EMPTY. SO, IF THERE WAS PARKING THERE. IT WAS NONE OF MY TENANTS. SO, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT ME PUTTING TENANTS. AND IN FACT, IT'S MY TENANTS THAT ARE PARKING NOT ON THE STREET. THEY'RE PARKING IN THE PARKING LOT. WE HAVE PLENTY OF PARKING. SO THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE THAT I CAN ADDRESS. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I CAN'T ADDRESS ISSUES WITH NEIGHBORS THAT DON'T RELATE TO ME. AND THAT, TO ME, PROVES EXACTLY MY POINT. I BROUGHT IT UP BEFORE 2019. PHOTO ON FAULKNER. THERE WAS NO ONE IN FAULKNER TO 58. IT WAS EMPTY. MARCH OF 2022 WE HAD OUR FIRST TENANTS. IF WE CONTINUE DOWN THE SORT OF THE LIST. WATER WE HAVE, THERE IS CURRENTLY NO STORMWATER CONTROL ON THE SITE. AND WE HAVE GONE THROUGH IT WITH OUR ENGINEERS, WITH THE CITY ENGINEERS, AND WE WILL HAVE. EVERYTHING THAT'S REQUIRED AND BEYOND. I MEAN, THAT'S THE REALITY. THAT'S WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN, EVERYTHING THAT IS REQUIRED OF US. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. I MENTIONED THE PARKING. AS FAR AS THE SPRINKLERS, JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THAT, THE SPRINKLERS WERE A REQUIREMENT OF THE FIRE MARSHAL. AND IT'S A FIRST, ITS ABILITY AND I THINK I'M GOING TO GET THIS CORRECT. BUT IT'S THE FIRST POLE LINE THAT THEY NEED. IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT. IT'S A REQUEST OF THE FIRE MARSHAL. SO SHE WANTS A IF A HOME IS LESS THAN A CERTAIN IF IT'S MORE THAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM THE FIRE HYDRANT, SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO. NORMALLY, SHE PULLS UP, SHE HOOKS UP, AND THEN SHE FIGHTS THE FIRE. IN THE CASES WHERE THEY'RE FURTHER AWAY, SHE HAS TO SHE CAN'T REACH IT FROM THE FIRE TRUCK. SHE HAS TO REACH IT FROM THE HYDRANT. SO THIS PROVIDES THAT FIRST FIGHT FOR HER. AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT A DEMAND. IT'S A SIMPLE REQUEST THAT ALLOWS HER THE ABILITY TO FOR THOSE THREE HOUSES AT THE END, THAT THERE IS SOME FIRST FIGHT PROVIDED BY THOSE SPRINKLERS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE HOMES. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISTANCES IN RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER OR IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE NEIGHBORS. IT'S SIMPLY A RELATIONSHIP TO THE THE HYDRANT AND HER DESIRE FOR FOR A FIRST FIGHT. TREE CANOPY. I KNOW WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS AND I'VE TALKED A LOT WITH THESE NEIGHBORS AS FAR AS TREE CANOPY. AND WE'VE WE'VE MET WITH THE CITY ARBORIST. WE HAVE AN ARBORIST AND WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN AND WE MEET IN OUR IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT CITY CODE. TREE CANOPY. AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE PRESENTED TO THE CITY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE CITY'S EITHER ALREADY APPROVED [01:30:02] OR WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF IT BEING APPROVED. IT'S ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED. I THINK THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAD ON MY LIST. ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT? I'VE GOT A QUESTION REGARDING STORMWATER AND I SAW THAT YOU GOT THE STORM WATER SYSTEM THAT'S UNDERGROUND. THE CITY REQUIREMENT FOR A SUBDIVISION LIKE THIS IS. 90%. NO, YOU ATTENUATE STORMWATER RUNOFF TO A LEVEL 90% OF WHAT WOULD BE GENERATED FROM THE SITE IN ITS NATURAL, UNDEVELOPED STATE FOR ALL STORMS FROM TWO, FIVE, TEN, 25, 50 AND 100 YEAR. I DIDN'T SEE IN YOUR PLANS ANY CALCULATIONS SHOWING RUNOFF FROM AN UNDISTURBED SITE, WHICH IS NOT WHAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE. THE UNDISTURBED SITE IS NO DEVELOPMENT WHATSOEVER, SO IT'S 90% OF A VEGETATED WOODLAND SITE. DO YOU HAVE THOSE CALCULATIONS FROM YOUR CIVIL ENGINEER ON HOW THEY SIZE THE STORM SYSTEM? STORM CENTER SYSTEM, YEAH. AND THAT WAS ALL SUBMITTED WITH THE THE APPLICATION. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT ALL OF THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AS FAR AS THE STORM WATER AND ON THE DRAWINGS. AND THERE WAS AN ACTUAL STORM WATER CALCULATION CALCULATION THAT WAS CFS AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. YEAH. AND I DID NOT INCLUDE THAT. I DID NOT INCLUDE THAT LEVEL OF TECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR Y'ALL. BUT WE ARE IN RECEIPT AND IT MEETS, IT MEETS THAT 90% OF AN UNDISTURBED. UNDEVELOPED STATE IS CLEARLY WHAT IT SAYS, NATURAL, UNDEVELOPED STATE. THOSE ARE THE EXACT, AS FAR AS I KNOW, BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE BIG SYSTEM. I APPLAUD YOU FOR PUTTING IT IN. AND IT ALSO INFILTRATES VERSUS JUST DETAINS. YEAH, I MEAN WE HAVE THAT HAS NOT COME UP FROM THE CITY ENGINEER FROM AS FAR AS IT LACKS IN THE REQUIREMENTS OR IT DIDN'T MEET THE NEEDS OF WHAT HE WAS REQUESTED OR THE NEEDS OF THE CODE. SO. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS AS FAR AS BUT I KNOW THAT WE HAVE HAD MANY MEETINGS AND I KNOW THAT THE DRAWINGS HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH. SO IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED SEVERAL TIMES. AND I KNOW A STORM WATER ANALYSIS HAS AN OFFICIAL STUDY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND THEN WE HAVE GONE BACK AND CLARIFIED SOME THINGS AND IT HAS GONE BACK TO HIM. AND I TOOK THE LIBERTY OVER THE WEEKEND TO WALK, WALK THE SITE AND I DIDN'T NOTICE HOW THE AS THE THE NEIGHBORS HAVE POINTED OUT, THE LAND DROPS, YOU KNOW, SORT OF CRESTS AND THEN DROPS DOWN. AND LOOKING AT THE STORM WATER DESIGN, IT LOOKS, AS BEST I CAN TELL, ON THE PLANS. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS CAPTURING THE RUNOFF FROM ALL OF THE HARDSCAPE AS WELL AS FROM THE HOMES THEMSELVES. SO THE GUTTERS WERE PIPED INTO THE STORM THAT IS STORM. SO AND, AND AND THEN IT CONVEYS IT TOWARDS TOWARDS FAULKNER, INTO THAT RETENTION SLASH DETENTION SYSTEM. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. BECAUSE AGAIN, ANOTHER PART OF THE ORDINANCE IS YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR WATER DISCHARGE ONTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. THAT'S CORRECT. UM, AND I HAVE A QUESTION. WE CAN TALK IN IN OUR GROUP. JUST CITY RULES, SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. PULASKI? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GO AHEAD. CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL THE CURRENT PARKING SITUATION, IT SEEMS LIKE FROM I ACTUALLY VISITED THE SITE AND IT APPEARS THAT LIKE MOST OF THE SPACES ARE DESIGNATED FOR THE APARTMENTS. BUT THEN QUITE A FEW PEOPLE SEEM TO PARK IN WHAT'S DESIGNATED TO BE LIKE THE GUEST PARKING. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS WE HAVE. WHAT EACH UNIT HAS ONE SPOT THAT'S DESIGNATED FOR THEM SPECIFICALLY AND TO CLARIFY EACH UNIT. AND A COUPLE THREE BEDROOMS, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THEY'RE ALL TWO BEDROOMS. THEY'RE ALL EXACTLY THE SAME. OKAY. SORRY. I THOUGHT I SAID THREE BEDROOMS. OKAY. NO, THEY'RE ALL TWO BED - THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME. ALL TWO BEDROOM, ONE BATH UNITS. OKAY. SO EACH UNIT. SO EACH UNIT IN THE FRONT. IF WELL, ON THE FRONT OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING. EACH UNIT HAS ONE SPOT DESIGNATED FOR THEM. THERE ARE ALSO GUEST SPOTS INTERMIXED WITHIN THOSE PARKING AND THEN AT THE BACK. IT'S JUST A FREE FOR ALL. WE SORT OF DECIDED THAT THOSE SPACES IN THE BACK IS GUEST PARKING. THAT'S FOR WHATEVER. I MEAN, I'VE BEEN THERE DURING THE DAY. I'VE BEEN THERE AT NIGHT. I USED TO WHEN IT FIRST STARTED AND WE HAD TENANTS I WAS MAINTAINING ON. I'VE NEVER SEEN A TENANT PARK ON THE STREET. I MEAN, WE HAVE PLENTY OF PARKING. [01:35:02] IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. THE APARTMENT. SO, BUT TO CLARIFY, THE THE SUBDIVISION YOU'RE PROPOSING WOULD HAVE THOSE TEN SPOTS AND THEN NINE OTHER SPOTS. SO, YOU'RE TAKING SOME OF THE GUEST SPOTS AND YOU'RE CONVERTING THEM INTO SPOTS I ASSUME WOULD BE DESIGNATED FOR THE SIX THREE BEDROOM. SO, THERE WILL BE A TOTAL OF 19 SPOTS. THAT IS THE 38 BEDROOMS BECAUSE THERE'S 38 BEDROOMS AND THAT NEEDS CITY RULES. ONE PER DWELLING UNIT, NOT ONE PER BEDROOM, ONE PER DWELLING UNIT, ONE PER DWELLING UNIT. I MEAN, AND WE ACTUALLY, AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT SCENARIOS ADDING MORE SPACES. AND IT'S WHAT WHAT DO YOU DO WHICH GETS SACRIFICED, RIGHT? AND SO, THIS WAS SORT OF THE COMMON GROUND THAT WE CAME TO. I MEAN, THAT WAS MORE SPOTS. WE HAD MORE SPOTS AND WE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T WE NEEDED TO WE WANTED TO CUT BACK. AND THAT WASN'T JUST NECESSARILY US DOING THAT. THAT WAS THE THING. IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE MAYBE TO HAVE SOME OF THESE SPOTS HERE. AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, THE IMPACT ON SOME OF THE TREES AND HOW THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE AND THIS IS SORT OF THE WHAT WE COLLECTIVELY CAME TO AS A DESIGN. YOU PROBABLY CAN FIT FOR THE CITY RULES. YOU COULD PROBABLY FIT TWO CARS ON FAULKNER. IS IT THE DRIVE ENTRANCE? YEAH. YOU PROBABLY HAVE TWO MORE SPOTS THAT ARE ALLOWED. SO EACH OF THE APARTMENTS IS TWO BEDROOM. I DON'T SEE THE HOW MANY BEDROOMS ARE IN EACH OF THE PROPOSED COTTAGES. SO THERE. THERE'S SIX COTTAGE AND EACH ONE IS EITHER A 3/2. AND WE DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFICS OF EACH ONE YET. I MEAN, UNTIL WE GET THE THIS FINALIZED, THEN WE CAN ACTUALLY START THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ON EACH ONE OF THOSE. BUT THEY WOULD EITHER BE A THREE, TWO OR A TWO. DO YOU HAVE A FLOOR AREA RANGE FOR THOSE COTTAGES IN MIND YET? THERE WAS A QUESTION, TOO. YEAH, THEY ARE ALL LESS THAN 1500 SQUARE FEET. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. I MEAN, THEY'RE ALL IN COMPLIANCE WITH. THEY'RE BEING BUILT TO FIT THE COTTAGE COURT. ZONING ORDINANCE. AND EACH ONE OF THESE HAS TO BE SUBMITTED. AND FOR IT TO GET APPROVED, IT MUST COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THE HEIGHT IS NOT 35FT. THERE ARE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR COTTAGE COURT. SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED ARE NOT FOR A COTTAGE COURT COMMUNITY. THAT'S FOR THE ZONING FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND ARE 60 OR 85. GOT IT. I JUST WANTED AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION ON THE RECORD. YES. ANYONE ELSE. I HAVE A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS, BUT ANGELA. SO WHEN THE IN THE STAFF REPORT, I BELIEVE IT TALKS ABOUT THE MINIMUM AMENITY SPACE BEING 19% OF THE SITE AREA, BUT I'M NOT SEEING NECESSARILY WHAT THOSE AMENITIES ARE ON THE SITE PLAN. SO WHAT QUALIFIES AS AN AMENITY SPACE OR I THINK IT ALSO MENTIONS A COURTYARD. YEAH, MINIMUM COURTYARD AREA. SO WHAT QUALIFIES AS AN AMENITY VERSUS A COURTYARD AND. YEAH. AND ANGELA, WHEN YOU ARE FINISHED ANSWERING THE QUESTION, WE WOULD WELCOME ANY GENERAL COMMENTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE WANTED TO MAKE AS WELL. WE'LL JUST GIVE YOU THE FLOOR WHILE YOU HAVE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IN REVIEWING THE PLANS, THERE ARE TWO DESIGNATED AREAS THAT ARE CONSIDERED AMENITY SPACE. SO, THE COURTYARD THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COTTAGE COURT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TOWARDS THAT AMENITY SPACE REQUIREMENT. THERE IS ALSO THE YARD IN FRONT THAT'S ADJACENT BETWEEN THE APARTMENT BUILDING AND FAULKNER DRIVE. THAT WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED PART OF THAT AMENITY SPACE. SO CALCULATIONS SHOW THAT IT'S ABOUT 19% OF THE TOTAL SITE AREA, WHEREAS 5% IS REQUIRED. SO, AMENITY SPACE CAN JUST BE AN OPEN? YES, OPEN SPACE. IT CAN HAVE FEATURES LIKE GAZEBOS, PLAYGROUNDS. YOU KNOW, IT'S FOR IT'S FOR THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE ON THAT SITE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE AN OUTDOOR SPACE TO ENJOY. AND MY OTHER QUESTION IS, CURRENTLY THERE'S A DUMPSTER THAT'S VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. AND I SEE ON THE SITE PLAN THAT IT DOES SAY ENCLOSE AND PAD TO A DUMPSTER. IS THAT A REQUIREMENT FROM THE CITY? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ENFORCED? [01:40:02] YES. SO FOR A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE, OUR SANITATION DIVISION IS GOING TO REQUIRE THAT THERE BE ONE AREA FOR TRASH PICKUP AND THAT IT ALSO MUST BE ENCLOSED. AND SO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED ON THE PLANS IS LOCATED BETWEEN THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND THEN THAT FIRST COTTAGE. SO NOT VERY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE WANT. OH YEAH. SO IT WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND I BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO BE RELOCATED OR ELIMINATED FROM THE FRONT WHERE IT IS. YEAH. THAT THE NEW LOCATION ACCOMMODATES BOTH BUILDINGS OR BOTH PHASES. I SEE TWO DUMPSTERS TO THE CITY REQUIRE ONE FOR TRASH AND ONE FOR RECYCLING. IT'S LIKE SIZE. IT'S LIKE A SIZE BASED ON HOW BIG? YEAH. AND AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS, SANITATION, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RECYCLING BINS. WE'LL WE'LL DETERMINE SPECIFICALLY WHAT WHAT THAT TRASH PICKUP WILL LOOK LIKE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AND MAYBE I CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THE THE COMMENTS. ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANGELA? I ASKED HER. THANK YOU. SO A COUPLE OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME UP ABOUT THE COTTAGE COURT AND COTTAGES AND THE SIZE AND THE FLOOR AREA OF COTTAGES. SO PREVIOUSLY, AS YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF DECATUR INVESTED IN A SITE AT 230 COMMERCE DRIVE TO DO A PILOT PROJECT FOR A COTTAGE COURT. AND AT THAT TIME, OUR CODES FOR COTTAGE COURTS WERE VERY DIFFERENT. THERE WERE MUCH LARGER SIZES THAT WERE PERMITTED AT THAT TIME, 1800 SQUARE FEET WAS THE MAXIMUM. AS WE CONTINUED TO WORK WITH BRUCE TAYLOR, WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT FOR THE 230 COMMERCE DRIVE PROJECT, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THAT 1800 SQUARE FEET WAS QUITE LARGE. AND SO WE DID RECOMMEND A TEXT AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE SIZE TO 1500 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM FROM WHAT WE LEARNED FROM THAT PILOT PROJECT, AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE LEARNED. SO, I DID WANT TO BRING THAT TO LIGHT SO THAT WE WE DID STUDY THAT AS PART OF THAT. AND SO THOSE TEXT AMENDMENTS ARE IN PLACE AND THEY HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, GOSH, THIS IS PROBABLY 2018 OR 2019 WHEN THOSE WERE BROUGHT FORWARD. I THINK THERE WAS A RECENT COMMENT ABOUT SOME ADDITIONAL SPACES PERHAPS ALONG FAULKNER. I WOULD CAUTION THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE ENCOURAGING MORE PARKING SPACES, ESPECIALLY AT THE FRONT YARD, BECAUSE OUR CODES DO PROHIBIT PARKING BETWEEN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND THE STREET. AND SO, CURRENTLY THOSE TEN PARKING SPACES ARE PRETTY MUCH ALIGNED. AND BEHIND THE APARTMENT BUILDING ALONG THE SIDE, ANY PARKING THAT WOULD BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE. SO, MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT COMMENT, BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE THAT ABOUT PARKING ON THE STREET. WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COUNT THAT OR CREDIT THAT. BUT CITY CODE ALLOWS FOR PARKING ON THE STREET TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND THEY ALREADY EXCEED THE PARKING REQUIREMENT. YEAH. SO PARKING ON THE STREET DOES QUALIFY FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT NOT FOR COTTAGE COURT. IS THAT CORRECT? IT WOULD. IT'S FOR THE THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS THE DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES AND QUADPLEXES. IT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE COTTAGE COURT DESIGN. THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE ON SITE PARKING SPACES. I BELIEVE MISS MISS FOX HAD A QUESTION. WAS IT A SETBACK QUESTION? YEAH. COMPLY WITH ALL SETBACKS. SO ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT, WE I DO HAVE A TABLE LISTING WHAT THE 17 ZONING DISTRICT, THE MINIMUM SIDE INTERIOR YARD, WHICH IS THREE FEET MINIMUM, AND IT'S IT VARIES. BUT I WILL NOTE THAT ALL OF THOSE COTTAGES ARE GREATER THAN THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE SIDE YARD SETBACK. OKAY. WERE THERE ANY OTHER. QUESTIONS THAT MAY HAVE COME UP. I CAN'T REMEMBER ANY THAT WENT UNADDRESSED. AND MR. MCFARLAND, YOU HAD MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT STORM WATER OR. YEAH. COMPLYING WITH WITH WHAT THE CITY STORMWATER ORDINANCE IS REGARDING 90% OF AN UNDISTURBED NATURAL SITE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT IS A, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN 90% OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. [01:45:01] RIGHT. SO I WILL DEFINITELY SHARE THAT INFORMATION, THAT TECHNICAL ANALYSIS. IF THAT IS DESIRED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PLEASE EMAIL ME. I WILL SHARE THAT WITH YOU. TYPICALLY, WE HAVE NOT PROVIDED THAT LEVEL OF ANALYSIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OUR OUR ENGINEER, OUR ON SITE ENGINEERS USUALLY REVIEW THAT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO SHARE IT IF YOU WANT TO DIG IN. SO. ALL RIGHT. WELL, IF THERE AREN'T ANY MORE QUESTIONS, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PART OF THE HEARING. THANK YOU. IT'S TOO LATE FOR MINE, RIGHT? YES. THERE'S NO REBUTTAL TO THE REBUTTAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT ARE WE THINKING? AND SO TO CLARIFY, I THINK THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED AT THE VERY BEGINNING, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL CODES AS PRESENTED TODAY EXCEPT FOR STREET FRONTAGE. I THINK THERE WAS AN ASTERISK BY STREET FRONTAGE BY THE 99 FOOT. YEAH, BUT IT WAS WITHIN THE VARIANCE THAT'S ALLOWED. AND IT'S ONE FOOT. YEAH. YEAH, BUT I THINK THE POINT IS WELL MADE THAT WE'VE GOT A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY VARIANCES. AND AS RACHEL POINTED OUT EARLIER, IF YOU CHANGE THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE AND NOTHING ELSE, YOU COULD BUILD THIS EXACTLY THE WAY IT'S PROPOSED. AND WE COULDN'T SAY BOO ABOUT IT. AND GOING FORWARD IT WILL HAVE TO MEET ALL STORM WATER AND ANY OTHER CITY REQUIREMENTS. I MEAN, AS I SAID, I APPLAUD THE, THE STORM WATER DESIGN. IT'S A GOOD ONE. I MEAN, THE COMBINATION OF DETENTION AND ACTUALLY WITH THE STORM SHELTER SYSTEM, THERE'S GRAVEL UNDERNEATH IT AND THE WATER ACTUALLY PERCOLATES DOWN INTO THE SOIL. SO IT'S IT DOES REDUCE TOTAL VOLUME AS WELL AS CONTROLLING THE RATE. KEEP LOOKING THIS WAY. I NEED TO TURN MY BACK TO YOU. SORRY. DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION THEY WANT TO MAKE OR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'M PULLING UP THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. AND I JUST NEED TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE ORDINANCE. JUST. THERE'S A STATEMENT ON THE LAST THE LAST PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS THE THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL SET ASIDE ONE TWO BEDROOM COTTAGE COURT. THERE IS A CONCERN THAT THE THAT CONTRADICTS THE ORDINANCE AS FAR AS THE INCLUSIONARY DWELLING UNITS. IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE AND IT SAYS DESIGNED TO HAVE A NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE MARKET DWELLING UNITS. AND THE CONCERN IS THAT IF THEY WERE ALL THREE BEDROOM THAT WE WOULDN'T BE IN COMPLIANCE. SO OUR SUGGESTION IS JUST TO CROSS OUT TWO BEDROOM COTTAGE AND THEN JUST SAY SHALL SET ASIDE AN INCLUSIONARY DWELLING UNIT AND TO COMPLY. JUST SO THAT IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO A TWO. IT SAYS TWO BEDROOMS. IF IT WERE TO BE A THREE BEDROOM, BECAUSE IF IT WERE TO BE A THREE BEDROOM OR IF WE WERE TO BUILD ALL THREE BEDROOMS AND THIS SAYS TWO, I WOULD EITHER BE IN I WOULDN'T BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OR I WOULDN'T BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS. BUT JUST THAT WASN'T TO REMOVE THAT, I THINK WE COULD MAYBE ALTER IT TO SAY, TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS. AT LEAST TWO BEDROOMS. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT WAY IT CAN'T BE A ONE BEDROOM COTTAGE. I THINK IT'S PRETTY. JUST TWO FINGER SCROLL. OKAY. TOGETHER. SORRY. OH, NO WORRIES. NO WORRIES AT ALL. [01:50:15] RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? I DON'T HAVE ANY. OKAY. THEN I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN. WITH THE EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER SIX, THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL. SET ASIDE ONE COTTAGE WITH AT LEAST TWO BEDROOMS AS AN INCLUSIONARY DWELLING UNIT. AND THEN ALL ELSE THE SAME. OKAY. IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. RECOMMEND APPROVAL. WE'RE APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION. OKAY. IT HAS BEEN IT'S A PRELIMINARY PLAT. IT'S A MAJOR SUBDIVISION. SO IT IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT DOES GO ON TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THANK YOU. SO I WAS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR THE MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, ACCEPT CONDITION NUMBER SIX IS MODIFIED TO SAY THE DEVELOPER SHALL SET ASIDE ONE COTTAGE WITH AT LEAST TWO BEDROOMS AS AN INCLUSIONARY DWELLING UNIT WITH THE REST OF THAT LANGUAGE IN THAT CONDITION REMAINING THE SAME. IS THERE ANY QUESTION OR CONCERN ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THAT IS OUR LAST PIECE OF BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA. ANGELA, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR US? [IV. Other Business.] IN OTHER BUSINESS. I DO NOT. HOWEVER, I KNOW LAST MEETING YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A WORK SESSION, I THINK NOVEMBER WOULD PROBABLY BE IT. WE HAVE NO NEW APPLICATIONS FILED, AND WHAT WAS ACTED ON TONIGHT IS NOT RETURNING BACK TO YOU. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WOULD YOU PREFER TO HOLD A WORK SESSION? IF SO, WHAT IS THE TOPIC DU JOUR OR WOULD YOU PREFER TO CANCEL THAT NOVEMBER MEETING? JASON, WHAT SAY YOU? FIND WITH THE WORK SESSION. I MEAN, MY THOUGHT WAS IF THERE'S ASPECTS OF THE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN THAT WERE RECOMMENDED AS CODE CHANGES, IF IF THOSE HAVEN'T BEEN INCORPORATED, WE COULD POTENTIALLY DO SOME WORDSMITHING HERE WITH THE WITH THE UDO AND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. SO ,I THINK MAYBE, I MEAN, I'LL TAKE IT ON PERHAPS TO WORK, ANGELA, WITH YOU BETWEEN NOW AND MAYBE THE NEXT 2 OR 3 WEEKS TO SEE IF WE CAN PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING MEANINGFUL THAT WE COULD THEN WORK ON. AND IF WE CAN'T, IF WE FIND THERE'S REALLY NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO IN THAT TIMEFRAME, THEN WE NOT HAVE A MEETING. BUT IF WE CAN, THEN YOU KNOW, AND I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE OUR PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER JENNINGS BELL, WHO IS VERY MUCH INGRAINED IN THE CITY STORM WATER MASTER PLAN AND POSSIBLY OUR SENIOR ENGINEER, CARA SHARE TO BE PRESENT FOR THOSE DISCUSSIONS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE WORKING IN IN THAT ORDINANCE EVERY DAY. SO I WILL MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE AVAILABLE AND THEN CONFIRM. SURE. AND JASON, I WASN'T TRYING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I JUST THOUGHT I RECALL THAT BEING THE REQUEST THAT YOU MADE, THAT WAS YOU. THAT WAS ME THE OTHER DAY. I HAVE ACCUSED YOU AND UNJUSTLY. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? ANGELA I THINK THAT'S IT. AND ONE OTHER QUESTION. I THINK YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT WE WERE POTENTIALLY GOING TO GET PHYSICAL COPIES OF THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN LIKE WE GOT FOR THE PARKS MASTER PLAN FOR US TO BE ABLE TO REFERENCE. I DO NOT HAVE THOSE READY FOR YOU YET. YES, YOU WILL. YOU WILL HAVE THEM AS SOON AS THEY ARE. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER? HEARING NOTHING. WE STAND ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.