>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF [00:00:02] THE DECATUR PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DECEMBER THE 12TH, 2023. MY NAME IS HAROLD BUCKLEY, AND FOR THE LAST TIME, 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 MEETINGS. WE WILL HEAR APPLICATIONS TONIGHT IN THE ORDER THAT 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 REBATTLE TO ANY OPPOSITION AGAINST THEM. OPPOSING PARTIES ARE NOT GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBATTLE. WHILE WE DO NOT FORMALLY LIMIT THE TIME FOR MULTIPLE PARTIES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO AN APPLICATION, WE DO ASK SPEAKERS TO REFRAIN FROM SPENDING TIME REPEATING ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED. INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS ARE ALSO ASKED TO BE AS CONCISE AS THEY CAN BE WHEN MAKING THEIR REMARKS. ONCE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE APPLICATION. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ANY APPLAUSE OR DIALOGUE DURING OR AFTER PRESENTATIONS. ALL REMARKS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION, AND WE ASK YOU TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING ANYONE ELSE DIRECTLY. PLEASE SHOW THE SAME RESPECT TO ANYONE WHO IS SPEAKING THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO RECEIVE YOURSELF. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RENDERS FINAL DECISIONS ON SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS, BUT IT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WHICH HAS FINAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY ON THOSE CASES. WE ARE SUPPORTED THIS EVENING BY ANGELA THREADGILL, OUR PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD ASK MY FELLOW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES, STARTING AT MY FAR LEFT. >> JASON FRIEDLANDER. >> JOHN MCFARLAND. >> RACHEL COGBURN. >> JOE GRECO. >> WE HAVE A SHORT AGENDA THIS EVENING. THE FIRST PIECE OF BUSINESS IS UNFINISHED, [II.a. Approval of Minutes from October 10, 2023 regularly scheduled meeting.] WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR OCTOBER MEETING. HAS EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE MINUTES FOR ACCEPTANCE AS PRESENTED? >> [BACKGROUND]. >> SECOND. >> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR CONCERN ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SIGNALING I. >> [OVERLAPPING] I. >> THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >> I'M SORRY. >> I ABSTAINED. >> I'M SORRY. I'M GETTING OLD. [LAUGHTER] THE MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF FOUR AND ONE ABSTENTION, NOT AGAINST. IN OTHER BUSINESS, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION OF [IV. a. Discussion of Storm Water Master Plan Policy Recommendations.] THE STORM WATER MASTER PLAN POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CITY. ANGELA, YOU WANT TO TAKE THE LEAD ON THAT DISCUSSION? >> YES. I'LL OPEN IT UP. IF YOU REMEMBER, A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, THERE WAS A SUGGESTION FROM THIS BOARD THAT WHEN WE DON'T HAVE ANY FORMAL APPLICATIONS OR ACTION AGENDA ITEMS, THAT WE USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS AND BE MORE PROACTIVE ABOUT LAND USE AND ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DECATUR. ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KICK OFF THESE CONVERSATIONS WAS THE STORM WATER MASTER PLAN. CRUCIAL TO THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE TWO STAFF MEMBERS THAT KNOW THE MASTER PLAN VERY WELL. THEY KNOW THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT CODES VERY WELL WITHIN OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. WITH US TONIGHT, WE HAVE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, CARA SCHARER. SHE STARTED WITH THE CITY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AS THE SENIOR ENGINEER, AND SHE WAS RECENTLY NAMED TO THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER POSITION FOR PUBLIC WORKS. I CONGRATULATE HER AGAIN ON THAT. THEN WE ALSO HAVE JENNINGS BELL, WHO IS OUR PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE CITY AND CONDUCTS MUCH OF THE LARGER SCALE PLAN REVIEW, APPLYING THE STORM WATER CODES, BUT IS CERTAINLY WELL-VERSED IN THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE STORM WATER DEVELOPMENT CODES. [00:05:04] WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THEM IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE STORM WATER MASTER PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN DECEMBER OF 2020. YOU'LL HEAR WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT ADOPTED PLAN HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE STILL YET TO BE IMPLEMENTED. THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE SOME QUESTIONS, SOME DISCUSSIONS AROUND THAT. THEN, MR. MCFARLAND SENT ME AN EMAIL THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT SOME ADDITIONAL TOPICS TO GO OVER, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO CERTAIN SECTIONS WITHIN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE THAT IS IN YOUR DESK PACKET. I'VE MADE A COPY FOR EACH OF YOU SO YOU CAN REFER TO THAT HELPFUL EMAIL THAT HE SENT. WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO JENNINGS AND CARA TO LEAD US INTO THE DISCUSSION. >> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> COME ON UP. [LAUGHTER] WE'RE A FRIENDLY BUNCH. >> HI THERE. >> HELLO. >> GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. >> I WOULD LOVE TO BE RESPONSIVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO YOU ALL. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR THAT IS OF INTEREST IN THE ASPECTS OF STORM WATER THAT MAYBE SPURRED THIS CONVERSATION. ARE THERE SPECIFIC TOUCH POINTS THAT YOU'D LIKE COVERED TONIGHT BEFORE I DIVERT? >> [OVERLAPPING] GUILTY AS CHARGED. >> GO AHEAD. >> GO AHEAD. >> IF I MAY JUMP IN. I THINK IT IS REALLY KEY TO AT LEAST GIVE A SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF THE STORM WATER MASTER PLAN AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT BEFORE WE JUMP INTO VERY SPECIFIC TOPICS. JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE A FEW OF US WHO MAY NOT BE AS IN-DEPTH OF THE STORM WATER CODES AS YOU, MR. MCFARLAND SO I THINK WE NEED TO GO TO A HIGHER LEVEL AND THEN WE CAN DIG DEEPER IF YOU DON'T MIND. >> NO, ABSOLUTELY. >> THANK YOU. >> STARTING AT 10000-FOOT, SO OUR STORM WATER MASTER PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2020 AFTER A ROBUST COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS. WHAT CAME THROUGH, I THINK FROM THE PRIOR STORM WATER MASTER PLAN, WHICH I THINK WAS ADOPTED IN 2004. THAT ORIGINAL STORM WATER MASTER PLAN DID A LOT OF STRONG FOCUS ON DOWNTOWN AND ADDRESSING FLOODING, MORE-SO IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WHAT THE CITY HEARD THROUGH THIS PLANNING PROCESS IS A CALL FOR ADDRESSING FLOODING MORE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THAT I WOULD SAY OVERALL FROM A 10,000-FOOT PERSPECTIVE, IS WHAT COMES THROUGH IN THIS PLAN AND DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO HOW TO ADDRESS THAT KIND OF CORE FOCUS. IN TERMS OF THE DIFFERENT AREAS, ONE OF THEM ARE CAPITAL PROJECTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN PRIORITIZED FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS. ALSO IS, FOCUS ON POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THERE ARE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME THROUGH FROM THE PLAN, SOME THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND SOME NOT YET. JUST TO REVIEW ONES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED; IMPLEMENT RUN-OFF REDUCTION INFILTRATING THE FIRST-INCH REQUIREMENT FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT TYPES. REDUCE THE THRESHOLD FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING TO 500 SQUARE FEET FOR RUN-OFF REDUCTION IN 4,000 SQUARE FEET FOR DETENTION. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY 4,058 SQUARE FEET. LOOK AT THE STORM WATER BENEFITS OF TREES. INCREASE RUN-OFF REDUCTION FOR TREES REMOVED IN THE STORM WATER UTILITY CREDIT FOR CANOPY EXCEEDING 45%. THE STORM WATER UTILITY WOULD BE CHANGED TO A TIERED SYSTEM FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, CORRELATING FEES TO IMPERVIOUS AREA. THE STORM WATER UTILITY ERU WOULD BE INCREASED TO $285 PER 4,000 SQUARE FEET. AS SOON AS, BASICALLY, THE THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, THESE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS SOON FOLLOWED. ANY QUESTIONS? OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK MORE SO ABOUT WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED, BUT HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED. [00:10:01] I THINK THAT MORE SO [OVERLAPPING] OF DISCUSSION. >> I'LL DEFER TO ANGELA BEFORE WE GO FURTHER A STEP. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BEST WAY IS TO PROCEED WITH THE CONVERSATION? JUST WITH THE QUESTIONS. >> WELL, WITH THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS HAVEN'T [OVERLAPPING] BEEN IMPLEMENTED. >> CAN WE TALK OF RECOMMENDING THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED? ONE IS TO REQUIRE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS RUNOFF REDUCTION WITH ANCILLARY ENVIRONMENTAL AND AESTHETIC BENEFITS. WHAT THAT IS SAYING IS, RIGHT NOW, DEVELOPERS ARE ALLOWED TO FACILITATE RUNOFF REDUCTION UNDERGROUND OR UTILIZING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS, WHICH IS ALL OVER THE CITY AND NOT VISIBLE. THIS POLICY RECOMMENDATION, REQUIRING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, IS MORE SO TRYING TO INVOLVE THE NATURAL PROCESSES SUCH AS PLANTINGS AND TO TRY TO DISCOURAGE UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF BEING ABLE TO INFILTRATE UNDERGROUND, THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE REQUIRING TREATMENT SUCH AS A GREEN ROOF. THAT WOULD LOOK VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU SEE TODAY. FROM A STORM WATER PERSPECTIVE, ACHIEVING BOTH RELATIVE TO RUN-OFF REDUCTION. BUT THE DIFFERENCE, I THINK, MIGHT BE THOSE CO-BENEFITS THAT YOU WOULD SEE WITH GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, NATIVE PLANTINGS AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING YOU DON'T SEE. IT'S FORGOTTEN ABOUT UNTIL YOU NEED TO MAINTAIN IT ON YOUR MONTHLY OR BIANNUAL BASIS. SO THAT'S ONE. THE SECOND ONE IS CHANGING THE STORM WATER UTILITY EXTENT OF SERVICE BY DEVELOPING A METHOD FOR ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SERVES A PUBLIC BENEFIT. RIGHT NOW, IF YOU HAVE A STORM WATER PIPE THAT TRAVERSES A CITY ROAD, A PRIVATE PARCEL, AND THEN A CITY PARCEL. THAT EXTENT OF PIPE ON EITHER SIDE THAT IS PRIVATELY OWNED IS CURRENTLY NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OF THE CITY, NOR IS THERE REALLY ACCESS. BY CHANGING A METHOD FOR ACQUISITION, IT WOULD FACILITATE A PROCESS FOR THAT LARGER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IRRESPECTIVE OF WHERE THE PIPE FALLS, MORE SPECIFICALLY. THAT IS AN OVERVIEW FROM THE STORM WATER MASTER PLAN AND THE POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN BOTH IMPLEMENTED AND THE ONES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED AND NOT IMPLEMENTED. PRIMARILY BECAUSE THERE'S PROBABLY A LARGER CONVERSATION PRIOR TO DOING SO. >> JOHN, DID YOU WANT TO GET INTO YOUR SPECIFICS? >> [OVERLAPPING] TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS. YES. THANK YOU BOTH FOR COMING TONIGHT. I KNOW THIS IS AFTER WORK HOURS. I APPRECIATE YOU-ALL TAKING THE TIME AND BEING HERE. I GUESS WE COULD GO IN ORDER IN TERMS OF THE EMAIL THAT I SENT TO ANGELA EARLIER TODAY. ONE WAS ON THE APPLICABILITY TABLE. IT'S DEFINING THE PARAMETERS FOR WHEN DIFFERENT MEASURES OF THE ORDINANCE ARE REQUIRED. IT USES THE PHRASE WHEN THE POST-DEVELOPMENT RUN-OFF DOES NOT INCREASE MORE THAN 0.55 CFS FROM THE PRE-DEVELOPMENT RUN-OFF. I LOOKED EVERYWHERE FOR WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT DOES. AM I MISSING SOMETHING, OR IS THAT NOT IN THERE, OR THE OTHER THING IS, IS IT NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE MORE THAN 0.55 CFS? >> YES. THE ORDINANCES, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT OVER TIME. WE'VE ADDED DIFFERENT COMPONENTS TO IT. THE WAY THAT ONE OF THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCES, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL, THEY SAID YOU HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING. BUT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DOING LESS THAN 0.55, THERE WAS AN EXEMPTION. IF YOU DO THE BACKWARDS MATH OF SAYING HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS CREATES THAT RUNOFF, YOU'D GET A LITTLE MORE THAN 4,000 SQUARE FEET. IN THE PAST, MOST HOMES JUST HAD AN EXEMPTION, [00:15:08] YOU COULD DO ADDITIONS AND WHATNOT. >> [OVERLAPPING] MAX OUT THE 40% AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. >> FOR THE MOST PART UNLESS YOU EXCEEDED THAT HIGHER THAN 4,000. WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS, THERE WAS A DESIRE TO DO A LITTLE MORE ON THE SINGLE-FAMILY FRONT BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THAT WAS WHERE THE 500 SQUARE FEET CAME IN. DO YOU KNOW IF IN THE APPLICABILITY TO TABLES THAT BROKE THIS INTO LESS THAN 500, 500 - 4,000, AND THEN MORE THAN 4,000. THAT 0.55 IS STILL TECHNICALLY THERE BUT WHAT REALLY GOVERNS IS THAT 500 AND 4000. >> IT'S MORE ABOUT THE IMPERVIOUS AREA THAN THE RUNOFF. >> YES. >> I'D NOTICED, AND I WAS JUST LIKE, "I'M I MISSING SOMETHING?'' IF A DEVELOPMENT WAS TO GO ABOVE 0.55, THE WHOLE STORM WATER ORDINANCE IS APPLICABLE. >> THEY HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING. >> EVERYTHING. THE OTHER THING I NOTED IN THAT SAME AREA, IT TALKS ABOUT THE USES, THE NATURAL UNDEVELOPED STATE AS THE BASELINE. THAT'S IN NOTE 1; IT POINTS TO TWO PLACES, ARTICLE 12. THEN, ARTICLE 12, I THINK IT REFERENCES THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT POLICY GUIDELINES. I COULD NOT FIND THAT PHRASE DEFINED ANYWHERE. I THINK I KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT I THINK FROM A STANDPOINT FOR ANYBODY TRYING TO USE THIS, WE COULD DEFINE THAT TO MAYBE WHAT YOU THINK. I THINK I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, BUT IT MIGHT BE WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS TOO OR WHAT WE ALL THINK IT MEANS. >> I'D BE CURIOUS, WHAT DO YOU THINK IT MEANS? [LAUGHTER]. >> I THINK IT MEANS BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT. SO IT'S BASICALLY NATURAL LAND. >> YES AND THAT TRANSLATES TO, IF YOU'RE USING THE SES METHOD OR CURVE NUMBER OF 55 OR THE RATIONAL METHOD [INAUDIBLE].15. THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, WE COULD DEFINE IT MORE EXPLICITLY PRE-DEVELOPMENT TO THOSE. >> BECAUSE THAT TIES IN WITH SOMETHING ELSE I NOTICED LATER, WHICH WAS IN THE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU USE TO FIGURE OUT YOUR RUNOFF PRE-DEVELOPMENT AND POST-DEVELOPMENT. IT LISTS AREAS THAT AREN'T LAND. [NOISE] TO ME, THAT STARTS GETTING CONFUSING BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, WELL, I GOT A RESIDENTIAL LOT, SO I GET TO USE 0.55. WELL, NO, YOU GOT TO USE THE FACT THAT YOU'VE GOT CLAY SOIL AND THIS SLOPE. THAT'S YOUR RUNOFF COEFFICIENT, NOT THAT IT'S A RESIDENTIAL LOT. >> RUNOFF, THAT WAS WHERE WE WERE LIKE TRYING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. >> I GUESS WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE THINGS FOR GAME-PLAYING A LITTLE BIT BEFOREHAND. >>YEAH. THAT'S WHY I SAID IT. I WAS LIKE [LAUGHTER] >> WE WERE NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THE QUESTION WAS THERE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT WHEN A DEVELOPMENT COMES IN, SOMETIMES EVEN FROM THE BIGGEST DEVELOPMENTS TO EVEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, THERE WILL OFTENTIMES BE A BUILDER, A PROPERTY OWNER, MAYBE AN ENGINEER AN ARCHITECT, WILL COME IN AND TALK TO US ABOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS. SO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS OR CURVED NUMBERS ABOUT HOW MUCH WATER IS LEAVING A SITE, WE DO REGULARLY HAVE RATINGS TO TRY TO FILL IN THE GAPS IN THE KNOWLEDGE. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP AND YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION. YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO A SURVEY OF YOUR OWN PROPERTY BUT LET'S SAY YOU HAD 20 HOMES UPHILL OF YOU THAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS AND WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THAT WATER, AND YOU WANT TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET IT SAFELY THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY AND CONTINUE TO PASS IT ON LIKE IT WAS. >> MAYBE GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AT EACH. [OVERLAPPING] >> WATER COMING FROM ANOTHER PROPERTY YOU COULD USE THAT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT AS A GUIDE. >> WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR PROPERTY THAT YOU CAN GET SURVEY-LEVEL DATA, WE DO HAVE THEM LOOK AT THAT IN MORE DETAILS BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING UPHILL TO 20 HOMES THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF WHAT IS REASONABLE. >> THE NEXT THING I HAD, AND THIS HAS COME FROM A COUPLE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETINGS I'VE BEEN TO. THERE'S STAFF REPORTS THAT TALK ABOUT TWO INCHES OF INFILTRATION AND TRUST ME, I SUPPORT TWO INCHES OR MORE, PERSONALLY, [00:20:01] BUT IN THE ORDINANCE IS 1.2 AND 1.0 AND PEOPLE HAVE SAID, WELL, THE ORDINANCE SAYS, SO I'M WONDERING, IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO UPDATE IN THE ORDINANCE TO MATCH WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE IS THE STAFF REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS, AT LEAST? >> I THINK ONE DISTINCTION WHERE THE TWO INCH COMES FROM, THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE 1.2 OR THE ONE IS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITHIN A STRINGBUFFER. >> THEY ALWAYS HAVE STRINGBUFFER. [OVERLAPPING]. >> THE ZONING APPEALS IS A STRINGBUFFER, AND ACTUALLY, BEFORE THE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN WAS ADOPTED, BEFORE 2022, THERE WERE ALWAYS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHEN SOMEBODY WANTED TO GO INTO A STRINGBUFFER HOW CAN YOU MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF THAT? WE WOULD HAVE FOLKS INFILTRATE AN INCH IF THEY WERE GOING IN. THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT EVERYBODY IS HAVING TO DO NOW WERE THE THINGS THAT STRINGBUFFER PROPERTIES DID BEFORE. NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT IT SAYING, WELL, EVERYBODY IS ALREADY DOING THAT, HOW CAN WE GO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER ABOVE AND BEYOND? THAT WAS WHERE WE'D GO FROM ONE INCH UP TO TWO INCHES TO CAPTURE A LITTLE MORE WATER AND GET A LITTLE MORE INFILTRATION. IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT THAT'S THE GOAL OF BEING IN THE STRINGBUFFER, IS TO BE A LITTLE MORE PROTECTIVE. THE OTHER PART IS THAT THEY'RE DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE ORDINANCE. THERE'S A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION AND THEN THERE'S A STRINGBUFFER SECTION. IF YOU GO LOOK AT THAT STRINGBUFFER SECTION, THERE'S LANGUAGE TO THE EFFECT OF MITIGATION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER. >> THE TWO INCHES ISN'T SPECIFICALLY DEFINED THERE, IT'S BASED ON CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS. >> IT IS NOT. >> FOLKS HAVE BEEN WILLING TO DO IT. IT'S BEEN WORKING OKAY. >> THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE THERE. THEN NEXT, I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION IN GENERAL, IT MENTIONS A STORMWATER MITIGATION BANK. DOES THAT EXIST? THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY WILL ESTABLISH A STORMWATER MITIGATION BANK. >> YES. IT HASN'T BEEN ESTABLISHED TO DATE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD AN INSTANCE WHERE SOMEBODY COULD NOT ACHIEVE CHANNEL PROTECTION. >> BY THE TIME YOU ARE TURNING THE KEY ON A DOZER TO INSTALL ONE OF THESE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE IS NOT THAT MUCH. [NOISE] >> BUT WE HAVE HAD IMPERVIOUS INCREASES ABOVE WHAT'S ALLOWED. I'VE BEEN THROUGH THE ZBA, THE ZONING BOARD THAT DID HAVE STORMWATER. PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING MAYBE WE NEED TO TALK TO THE COMMISSIONERS ABOUT ESTABLISHING THAT SO THERE'S A PLACE FOR THAT. [NOISE] THIS IS ABOUT THOSE CASES WHERE SOMEBODY GETS A VARIANCE TO GO ABOVE THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, THAT PERHAPS, IS SOMETHING WE MIGHT CONSIDER PROPOSING TO THE COMMISSIONERS IS THAT THEY CREATE A FUND, SO TO SPEAK, OR A SURTAX THAT'S ASSESSED TO THAT PROPERTY, THAT THEN GOES TO THE STORMWATER MITIGATION BANK, TO GIVE THE CITY DOLLARS TO SPEND TO MITIGATE THAT IMPACT ON THE WATERSHED. >> THAT SOUNDS GREAT. WHAT'S COMPLICATED TO THAT IS, WHEN WOULD IT GO THEN TO THAT SPECIFIC WATERSHED, AND WOULD WE BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY AHEAD OF TIME THAT THERE IS AN AREA WHERE THAT COULD PROVIDE THAT REGIONAL DETENTION WITHIN THAT WATERSHED IN ONE POT? DOES IT GO TO SPECIFIC WATERSHEDS ONLY, AND IF SO, HOW MUCH? BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REGIONAL DETENTION, A GREATER IMPACT AND THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING. BUT WOULD THAT SOLELY FUND IT? >> RIGHT. I NOTICED THAT IT WAS CALLED OUT IN THE ORDINANCE AND I HAD NEVER HEARD THAT IT EXISTED SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST RIGHT NOW. >> I THINK OTHER CITIES FURTHER OUT WEST HAVE DIFFERENT CHALLENGES BUT SIMILAR, RELATIVE TO STORMWATER, AND I THINK PEOPLE ARE TRYING SUCH, AND IT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. WILL IT ALSO [INAUDIBLE]. [00:25:04] >> ANOTHER THING JUST TO KEEP IN MIND AS YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THIS, IS THAT THE ORDINANCES OF THAT CITY ADOPTED WERE LARGELY CRAFTED BY THE LEONARD REGIONAL COMMISSION IN NORTH WATER METRO PLANNING DISTRICT. THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT MAY BE MORE APPLICABLE TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION WHO ALSO ADOPTED SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH A FEW TWEAKS BUT WE CAN'T REALLY DEVIATE TOO FAR FROM THAT METRO STAND EITHER. >> THE LAST THING IS RELATED TO STORMWATER, BUT IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT SECTION. THAT'S ON THE OTHER PAGE 2.14 AND 3.3. THIS I NOTICED, THANKS TO EILEEN, YOU CAN BLAME HER, THAT WHEN YOU HAVE LOTS BELOW 9,000 SQUARE FEET, THE PERCENT LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED RESULTS IN, THEY'RE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 OF THEM THAT ACTUALLY EXCEED THE 3,600 SQUARE FEET THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON A 9,000 SQUARE FOOT AT 40%. THE ONES BETWEEN 6500 AND 8999 ALL GET TO BE MORE THAN 3,600 BECAUSE OF THE PERCENTAGES. THEN WHEN YOU GET BELOW 6,500, THEY ALL START GOING BELOW 3,600. IT'S LIKE THERE'S FIVE OF THEM THAT SEEM OUT OF WHACK. IF WE THINK 3,600 IS AT THE STANDARD LOT, IS 40%, THAT'S WHAT WE SAID IS A BASELINE. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A SMALLER LOT SHOULD GET TO GO MORE THAN 3,600. THEN WHEN YOU GET MUCH SMALLER, THEN YOU GOT TO BE BELOW 3,600. I FIGURED OUT WHAT THE PROPOSED PERCENTAGES SHOULD BE AND OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE ALL A LITTLE BIT SMALLER. THE END RESULT IS THEY ALL END UP BEING AT 3,600 WHEN YOU'RE AT THE MAX OF THE RANGE. I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHERE DID THAT TABLE COME FROM, AND WHO PICKED THE PERCENTAGES AND IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AS AN ORDINANCE CHANGE? BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO CORRECT THIS MATHING. WHAT I SEE IS A MATH ERROR. >> WHAT I WILL SHARE IS THAT THIS TABLE CAME FROM THE WORK OF THE INFILL HOUSING TASK FORCE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED WELL BEFORE EILEEN AND MYSELF AND THOSE OF US IN THE ROOM. THEY SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT LOT SIZES AND BALANCING THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THESE SMALLER LOT SIZES AGAINST STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. IT WAS THAT TASK FORCE, A GROUP OF DEDICATED INDIVIDUALS WHO ANALYZED THIS PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY TO COME UP WITH THE TABLE THAT WE SEE TODAY. WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT A LOT OF OUR LOT SIZES ARE WELL ABOVE 9,000 SQUARE FEET. YOU'RE DESCRIBING THIS AS AN ABSOLUTE, 3,600 SQUARE FEET WHERE WE HAVE PLENTY OF LOTS THAT GO UP BETWEEN 15 AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET. I WOULD CAUTION US TO JUMP INTO THIS AND START RECOMMENDING THINGS WITHOUT A SIMILAR ANALYSIS BEING DONE THAT WAS DONE BY THE TASK FORCE CLOSE TO A DECADE AND A HALF AGO. >> I'VE HEARD THAT NOTES FROM THAT ARE PROBABLY NOT OBTAINABLE. >> I CAN TRY TO FIND THEM. I'VE TRIED TO HOLD ON TO A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT AMANDA THOMPSON HAD LEFT BEHIND FOR ME. I CAN CERTAINLY TRY TO FIND ANY SUCH NOTES AND REPORTS FROM THAT ERA. >> OKAY. >> ON THE STORMWATER SIDE OF THAT, THE LOT SIZE IS LESS RELEVANT FROM THE RUNOFF STANDPOINT, THE RUNOFF GETTING GENERATED BY THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SO EVEN THE SMALLER LOTS, THEY MAY NOT EVER REACH THE THRESHOLD OF HAVING THE FULL ENGINEERED ABOVE 4,000 SQUARE FEET SOLUTION. >> BUT THEY HAVE 500 [OVERLAPPING]. >> THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE ABOVE 500 AND DO THE LOWER IMPACT MITIGATION. >> JOHN WAS JUST POINTING OUT IF YOU HAVE 99, YOU GET AN EXTRA 369 SQUARE FEET THAN IF YOU HAD ONE MORE SQUARE FOOT OF LOT COVERAGE. IF I READ THAT RIGHT. WHICH IS JUST AN ANOMALOUS THING. [LAUGHTER] [00:30:06] >> YES. IT SEEMS A LITTLE FUNKY. >> OTHERWISE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO WRITE SOME LOGARITHMIC SCALE, WHICH PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN [OVERLAPPING] >> THEY MAY HAVE DONE THAT. [LAUGHTER] THESE ARE SMART PEOPLE ON THAT TASK-FORCE. >> I DID PLOT IT. IT'S ACTUALLY A PRETTY MUCH A STRAIGHT LINE. IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY MUCH A STRAIGHT LINE. IT'S INTERESTING. THEN YOU GOT THE RANGES, WHICH IS FUNKY BUT ANYWAY. THAT COVERS THE TOPICS I SENT IN THE EMAIL. >> DID ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? >> CARA, LET ME ASK THIS, FOR THE REMAINING RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE YET TO BE IMPLEMENTED, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN HELP WITH IN THE ANALYSIS OR SUPPORT THAT YOU ALL ARE DOING AT THE STAFF LEVEL? >> I THINK SOON, BUT MAYBE NOT YET. >> OKAY. [LAUGHTER] >> WHEN I THINK OF THESE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, I THINK OF STACK CAPACITY IN THE INITIAL. THAT'S WHY I THINK IT WOULD TAKE, ONE SECOND [NOISE] RELATIVE TO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE ANCILLARY ENVIRONMENTAL AESTHETIC BENEFITS. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CO-BENEFITS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE BENEFITS OF WALKING ADJACENT TO PLANTINGS AS OPPOSED TO WALKING TO PAVEMENT UNDERGROUND. IT'S REALLY HARD TO DEFINE THAT IN A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS WAY. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE HARD TO SELL. IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IT'S, HOW IMPORTANT IS THAT FROM A STORMWATER PERSPECTIVE, PURELY. WE JUST NEED RUN-OFF REDUCTION, AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE, AND WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT. THE CO-BENEFITS ARE MORE ABOUT, ALL OUR OTHER CLEAN ENERGY PLAN AND HEAT ISLAND EFFECT OR OUR BETTER TOGETHER ADVISORY BOARD. WHAT IS AN EXPERIENCE OF A DOWNTOWN ENVIRONMENT ADJACENT TO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE VERSUS SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T EVEN SEE. FROM A STORMWATER PERSPECTIVE, WHEN WE THINK OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, HOW WE HAVE IT IS FINE. IT'S THOSE CO-BENEFITS THAT REALLY NEED TO COME TO THE TABLE TO MAKE A CALL FOR SUCH A CHANGE. THEN, RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE. GO AHEAD. >> I WANT TO CHIME IN ON THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT, IS THAT THIS CAME FROM RESONANCE WHO CAME TO THE CITY AND SAY "THERE'S THIS PIPE ONE PROPERTY THAT NEEDS SOME WORK AND I'D LOVE FOR THE CITY TO COME HELP OUT AND FIX THIS PIPE." PART OF THE CAPITAL PLANNING THAT CAME OUT OF STORMWATER MASTER PLAN WAS WITH THE HOPE THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE IT FROM A SITUATION WHERE WATER GOES FROM PROPERTY TO ROAD TO PROPERTY TO ROAD TO PROPERTY AND TRY TO KEEP THE WATER IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, SO WE'RE NOT HAVING AS MANY PIPES ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY. GRANTED, THAT REQUIRES IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 20-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN. I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO START DOWN THE ROUTE OF THAT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BEFORE WE START ACCEPTING EASEMENTS THAT MAY BECOME UNNECESSARY OVER TIME. >> THE STORMWATER PIPE FROM A ROAD INLET THAT GOES THROUGH OR MAYBE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE OF TWO PROPERTIES IS TECHNICALLY THE PROPERTY OWNERS PIPE? >>YES. >> INTERESTING, BUT THE SEWER IS NOT THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEWER. [OVERLAPPING]. >> SANITARY SEWER. >> YES, THAT'S AN INTERESTING MIX OF WHAT IS PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. INTERESTING. I HAD NO IDEA THAT WAS THE CASE. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE TRADITIONAL DETENTION SYSTEM OF TANKS UNDERGROUND, AND I SAW IN THE ORDINANCE, THERE'S A LOT ABOUT THAT INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED OR THEY HAVE TO HAVE A MAINTENANCE PLAN AND THAT NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED. DO YOU ALL HAVE A MECHANISM THAT'S FUNDED TO DO INSPECTIONS OF ALL OF THOSE TANKS THAT ARE THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT ARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY? >> CURRENTLY WE DO NOT. I DO THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT EPD WAS ALSO LOOKING INTO AHEAD OF THE NEW PHASE ONE LARGE PERMIT. [00:35:04] I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT IS PART OF IT. BUT, NO. THAT ALSO SOUNDS LIKE A BIG LIFT POTENTIALLY. RIGHT NOW OUR ENGINEERING INSPECTOR REVIEWS. STRUCTURE IMPLEMENTED AS IT'S CONSTRUCTED BUT THERE IS NOT A FOLLOW-UP. >> THINKING HYPOTHETICALLY HERE, WITH THE RIGHT PLACE TO PUT IN SOMETHING WHERE IF A DEVELOPER WHO WAS PUTTING IN SUCH A SYSTEM BASICALLY PAID AN ANNUAL FEE TO FUND THE CITY INSPECTION OFF-SET SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE MAINTAINING THE SYSTEM, WOULD THAT GO INTO THE ORDINANCE? IS THAT THE RIGHT PLACE TO PUT THAT REQUIREMENT? IF WE WANTED TO CREATE THAT SYSTEM WHERE IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IN A TANK, YOU GOT TO FUND THE CITY TO INSPECT THE TANK TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE MAINTAINING THE TANK BECAUSE THERE'S ALL THE STUFF IN THERE. IF YOU'RE NOT MAINTAINING THE TANK, THE CITY CAN REQUIRE A PERFORMANCE BOND. THEY CAN WET LEVY LIENS ON THE PROPERTY. THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS IF IT'S NOT BEING MAINTAINED, BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO HIRE PEOPLE TO GO AND INSPECT, THEN WE'RE NEVER GOING TO KNOW LIKE DURING THE ORDINANCE. >> THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES. IF THE CITY WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT CAN GO INTO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. THEN, THE ACTUAL FEE THAT IS TO BE CHARGED, THAT WOULD JUST BE IN OUR ANNUAL FEE SCHEDULE THAT'S ADOPTED EACH YEAR BY THE BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND CAN GO UP AND DOWN JUST BASED ON THE RESOURCES IT TAKES TO TO CARRY IT OUT. >> PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD START TO FIX BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA IF THOSE SYSTEMS ARE BEING MAINTAINED UNTIL THEY FAIL. UNTIL WATER STARTS COMING UP OUT OF THE GROUND. >> HAVE THERE BEEN FAILURES THAT YOU'VE SEEN OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS YOU'VE BEEN WITH THE CITY JENNINGS? >> I'VE SEEN SOME THAT COULD USE SOME MAINTENANCE. [OVERLAPPING]. >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE HAVE TO BE PERIODICALLY VACUUMED. >> REMINDED SOME PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT SOME OF THAT STUFF. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE SEEN ANYTHING WHERE IT HAS GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE IT BECAME A PROBLEM THAT EVIDENCED OUTSIDE IN AN EXTREME WAY. BUT, I HAVE ACTUALLY HAD PROPERTY OWNERS REACH OUT TO ME AND SAY, ''HEY, THERE'S THIS THING IN THE YARD, WHAT IS IT?'' [LAUGHTER] WE TRIED TO PULL OUT THE PLANS AND SAY THIS IS WHAT IT IS AND THIS IS THE DOCUMENTATION YOU SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY ABOUT HOW TO MAINTAIN IT, AND ALL THAT STUFF. WE TRY TO HELP WHEN WE CAN. >> YES. I APPRECIATE THAT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT MINDSET. I THINK THIS IS RELATIVELY NEWLY IMPLEMENTED, AND IF WE LOOK AT WHERE WE'RE GOING IF WE CONTINUE TO PUT EVERYTHING UNDERGROUND, IT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE A BETTER HANDLE ON. >> YEAH. >> I'M GOING TO THINK OUT OF THE BOX A LITTLE BIT, AND YOU GUYS CAN'T GET TOO MAD AT ME 10 MINUTES BEFORE I HOBBLE OFF INTO THE ETHER. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE A HIGH INTEREST IN SEEING THIS MOVE FORWARD, AND ALSO A HIGH LEVEL OF EXPERTISE. >> MORE INTEREST THAN EXPERTISE. [LAUGHTER] I'M A MECHANICAL ENGINEER, NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER. >> I'M THINKING THAT, MAYBE, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THIS MOVING, AND YOU GUYS MAY HAVE A CAPACITY, IF MAYBE YOU GUYS TALK TO EACH OTHER ABOUT WAYS THAT IT MAY MAKE SENSE FOR YOU TO STEP IN AND KEEP IT MOVING UNTIL THE CAPACITY IS THERE. >> YEAH. >> OKAY. DID ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. LAST. >> WAIT, I HAVE A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO COMMEND HAROLD BUCKLEY FOR HIS MANY, MANY YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY OF DECATUR AND IT'S RESIDENTS. >> YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A BLACK MAN BLUSH. [LAUGHTER]. >> SECOND IT. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. >> THERE'S NO ONE WHO'S SECONDED YET. >> [OVERLAPPING] HE SECONDED IT. >> ANY DISCUSSION? [LAUGHTER] >> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR CONCERNS ON THE MOTION? [LAUGHTER] HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING, "AYE." >> [OVERLAPPING] AYE. >> ANY NAYS? ANY ABSTENTIONS? [00:40:01] [LAUGHTER] THE MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 1. >> YOU DIDN'T WAIT VERY LONG. >> [OVERLAPPING] NO, FOUR, ZERO, ONE. WE'VE GOT ONE LAST BIT OF BUSINESS, [IV. b. Approval of 2024 Meeting Schedule.] AND THAT IS THE 2024. MEETINGS SCHEDULE, WHICH IS THIS LITTLE HANDY-DANDY RIGHT HERE. HAS EVERYBODY REVIEWED IT, AND ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE DATES OR ANYTHING THAT STANDS OUT THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT, OR MAYBE CORRECTED? >> LOOKS GOOD TO ME. >> LOOKS GOOD. >> AS ALWAYS, I'LL PROBABLY MISS THE AUGUST, THAT IS WHEN MY COMPANY HAS THEIR RETREAT AND IT'S IN MONTREAL NEXT YEAR, SO I'LL BE LEAVE NEXT YEAR FOR THE CLIFFS. >> I'LL BE IN MONTREAL TOO. [LAUGHTER] >> DO, THEN, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE AS PRESENTED BY THE PLANNING STAFF? >> SO MOVED. >> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED 2024 MEETING SCHEDULE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, ANYONE WHO IS IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING, "AYE." >> [OVERLAPPING] AYE. >> NOW THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THAT IS OUR LAST PIECE OF SPECIFIC BUSINESS BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO YOU, ANGELA, FOR ANY CLEANUP ITEMS, AS I ALWAYS DO AT THE END. I WILL SAY THAT THIS, AS I SAID AT THE TOP OF THE MEETING, IS MY LAST MEETING. I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THIS BODY SINCE SUMMER OF 2015, IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT. I'VE DONE SOME STUFF THAT FOLKS MAY BE HAPPY ABOUT, AND I'VE DONE SOME STUFF THAT FOLKS MAY BE LESS HAPPY ABOUT. I GET THAT. BUT I FEEL LIKE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF I HAVE DONE MORE GOOD THAN HARM, THEN I HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB. IT HAS BEEN A THRILL, AND AN HONOR, TO SERVE THE CITY OF DECATUR, AND I AM ALREADY LOOKING AT WHAT I CAN DO NEXT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW I CAN'T BE STILL. THANK YOU ALL. ALSO, WHILE I AM HOGGING THE FLOOR, MIKE TRAVIS IS HERE WITH US THIS EVENING. HE IS OUR IMMEDIATELY PRIOR VICE-CHAIR OF THIS BODY. I'LL HAVE TO SAY OUR CURRENT VICE-CHAIR IS A WHOLE LOT PRETTIER. [LAUGHTER]. >> I DIDN'T GET TO HAVE A GOOD EXIT SPEECH. [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT IS ALL A BUILD UP TO INVITE YOU TO THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE YOU NEVER DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. >> MY NAME IS MIKE TRAVIS. I LIVE AT, NOW, 1240 BREWVIEWS IN ATLANTA. [OVERLAPPING] NOW, I WOULD MIRROR WHAT HAROLD SAID. I WAS ON THE COMMISSION FOR A LONG TIME. THOROUGHLY ENJOYED IT, HAD A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO INFLUENCE A LOT OF WHAT MAKES DECATUR GREAT. LIKE YOU SAID, SOME THINGS GOOD, SOMETHING'S BAD. I DID GET A FEW COMMENTS HERE AND THERE IN SOME OF THE BLOGS. >> YOU'RE NOT DOING YOUR JOB UNLESS YOU HIT THE BLOGS. >> SO I ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO STICK WITH YOUR GUNS AND DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT, NOT ALWAYS WHAT'S POPULAR. >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, AND I'LL PIGGYBACK ON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE THE JOB UP HERE IS NOT EASY. I AM A LAND USE LAWYER. I REPRESENT PEOPLE IN MATTERS LIKE THESE ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, AND IT'S VERY DIFFERENT BEING OVER THERE, ARGUING FROM ONE SIDE THAN IT IS BEING UP HERE, HAVING TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RIGHT THING IS TO DO. THE FOLKS UP HERE, INCLUDING MIKE, DID THAT DAY IN AND DAY OUT, PERIOD. I GUESS THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO WHILE I'M EXERCISING MY POINT OF PRIVILEGE IS TO THANK YOU, MIKE, FOR YOUR SERVICE ON THIS BODY, AND TO THANK EVERYBODY UP HERE BECAUSE THIS IS AN OFTEN THANKLESS JOB. SO IF NOBODY ELSE THANKS YOU, LET IT BE ME. >> IT IS SAD WHEN YOU MOVE, YOU BASICALLY GET KICKED OFF. [LAUGHTER] THE HOUSE SOLD IN THREE DAYS, IT WAS GONE, AND THEN I CALLED ANGELA AND I'M LIKE, "YEAH, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE I DON'T TECHNICALLY LIVE HERE NOW." [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] JUST LIKE YOU, HAROLD, IT WAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY. >> ABSOLUTELY. ONE MORE TIME, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER? [00:45:03] >> I JUST WANTED TO THANK BOTH YOU, HAROLD, AND MIKE, FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE. YOU BOTH CAME ON IN 2015, THAT WAS THE YEAR THAT I STARTED WITH THE CITY OF DECATUR. IT FEELS LIKE WE HAVE GROWN UP TOGETHER ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND JUST THINKING BACK ON SOME OF THE MORE DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD IN THIS ROOM THAT HAVE LASTED UNTIL 1:00, 2:00 IN THE MORNING, WHETHER IT WAS THE EAST-LAKE MARTA STATION LCI STUDY, MULTIPLE MEETINGS ON THAT. I LOVED WHEN YOU WERE SCHOOLING THE PUBLIC AND THE REST OF US ON MARTA'S HISTORY WITH THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING ORDINANCE, WITH THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. I MEAN, THERE'S JUST A LOT OF DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS AND VOTES THAT YOU ALL HAD TO TAKE, BUT YOU BROUGHT A LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM, YOUR EXPERTISE, YOUR PERSPECTIVES, WHAT YOU DO FOR A LIVING TO THIS ROOM IN GUIDING THE DISCUSSIONS, AND ULTIMATELY, THE VOTE THAT YOU ALL MADE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE 8-9 YEARS THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO THE CITY TO MEET HERE PRETTY MUCH MONTHLY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. I DO GO ON, DON'T I? [LAUGHTER] IF THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. ANYONE? WE STAND ADJOURNED. [NOISE] * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.