[00:00:04] >> THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DECATUR PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SEPTEMBER 9, 2024. [I. Call to Order] MY NAME IS GREG CHILIK. 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 THEY ARE LISTED ON THE PRINTED AGENDA. APPLICANTS ARE GIVEN TIME TO PRESENT THEIR CASE WHEN THE APPLICATION IS CALLED. SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING PARTIES ARE ALSO GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR REMARKS TO THE COMMISSION. PLEASE BE SURE TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE BEGINNING YOUR REMARKS. SINCE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT TO CONVINCE THE COMMISSION TO VOTE IN THEIR FAVOR, APPLICANTS ARE ALSO ALLOWED TO PRESENT REBUTTAL TO ANY OPPOSITION AGAINST THEM. OPPOSING PARTIES ARE NOT GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. WHILE WE DO NOT FORMALLY LIMIT THE TIME FOR MULTIPLE PARTIES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO AN APPLICATION, WE DO ASK SPEAKERS TO REFRAIN FROM SPENDING TIME REPEATING ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED. INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO BE AS CONCISE AS THEY CAN WHEN MAKING THEIR REMARKS. ONCE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE APPLICATION. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ANY APPLAUSE OR DIALOGUE DURING OR AFTER PRESENTATIONS. ALL REMARKS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION, 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 THE FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY ON THOSE CASES. WE ARE SUPPORTED THIS EVENING BY OUR PLANNER CASEY KRUCZEK. I'D ASK MY FELLOW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES STARTING WITH MARK. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M MARC BRAMBRUT. >> GOOD EVENING. JOE GRECO. >> JOHN MCFARLANE. >> JASON FRIEDLANDER. >> JENNY STEIN. >> WE'VE GOT OUR CALL TO ORDER COMPLETED. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS UNFINISHED BUSINESS. [II.a. Approval of Minutes from May 14, 2024 regularly scheduled meeting.] >> CARRY ON. >> YOU GOT IT. THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR MOST RECENT MEETING, WHICH WAS MAY 14, 2024. HAVE ALL THE COMMISSIONERS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MEETING MINUTES. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS OR REVISIONS THEY'D LIKE TO PUT FORWARD TO THE MEETING MINUTES? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MEETING MINUTES AS WRITTEN? >> YES. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MEETINGS AS PRESENTED. >> THANK YOU, JOHN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND MOTION. >>I'M LOOKING AT YOU DOESN'T MEAN THAT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. WE CAN MOVE TO VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE MAY 14 MINUTES, SAY AYE. ANY NAYS? >> ABSTAIN [INAUDIBLE]. >> I THINK WE HAVE FIVE AYES ONE ABSTENTION SO THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM, [III.a. The Decatur Housing Authority has requested a Special Exception to the tree canopy coverage standards found in Section 9.1, Tree Canopy Conservation, within the Unified Development Ordinance. The project known as the Village at Legacy includes 132 affordable housing units and is located at 500/ 700 South Columbia Drive (Legacy Park). ] THE ONE NEW BUSINESS ITEM ON THE AGENDA. THE DECATUR HOUSING AUTHORITY HAS REQUESTED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE TREE CANOPY COVERAGE STANDARDS FOUND IN SECTION 9.1 TREE CANOPY CONSERVATION WITHIN OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. THE PROJECT IS FOR THE VILLAGE AT LEGACY, INCLUDING 132 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS LOCATED AT 500 AND 700 SOUTH COLUMBIA DRIVE IN LEGACY PARK. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DOUG FAUST. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, 511 WEST TRINITY. YES WE MADE A REQUEST FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PURPOSES. THE UDO PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THOSE FEES RELATED TO THE TREE AND TREE REMOVAL. WE DO HAVE IN OUR PLANS, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE TREES THAT WE ARE TAKING DOWN, THOSE ARE ALL IN THE SITE PLANS FOR PHASE 1 AND 2. [00:05:04] THIS IS THE ACTUAL COST FOR THE REMOVAL, AND SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THAT BE WAIVED. WE WOULD USE THAT WAIVER TO THEN ALLOW US TO BE IN A POSITION TO REDUCE THE COST FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE'VE ALREADY PAID FOR THE PHASE 1 FEES BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A PROCESS AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT, AND SO WE'RE ASKING THAT BE APPLIED AGAINST THE PERMIT FEES FOR PHASE 2 AND THAT THE PHASE 2 FEES BE WAIVED. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALL THE UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE, THE UNITS WOULD BE FOR FAMILIES OF BELOW 80% OF AMI. THERE ARE NO MARKET RATE UNITS THAT WOULD THEN BRING INTO QUESTION WHETHER THIS WAS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PURPOSES. >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> ONE QUESTION. YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT YOU WOULD USE THE ROUGHLY, I THINK IT'S ABOUT $70,000 IN FEE TO REDUCE THE RENTAL RATE? >> THE PERMIT COSTS FOR PHASE 2. WE STILL HAVE BUILDING PERMIT COSTS. >> OKAY. >> WE STILL OWE THE CITY MONEY. THIS WOULD JUST GIVE US THE ABILITY TO APPLY THAT TOWARDS THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT WITH A LOT OF TREE REMOVAL. HAVE YOU CALCULATED WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TREES TOTAL CANOPY WOULD BE DECREASED BY THE TREE REMOVAL FOR THE TWO PHASES? >> IT MAY HAVE BEEN CALCULATED BY THE ENGINEER. I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION WITH ME. >> MISS K, OUR ARBORIST DOES HAVE THAT NUMBER. IF YOU ALLOW ME TO [INAUDIBLE] >> PROBABLY PLEASE. I'M SORRY. >> HI KABANOVICH, CITY ARBORIST. YES. IN PHASE 1, LET'S SEE THE TOTAL TREE CANOPY BEING REMOVED IS 56,585 SQUARE FEET, THE TOTAL CANOPY TO BE PLANTED IS 56,590. THEY'RE PRESERVING ON SITE, LET'S SEE. TREES TO REMAIN, 127,000 AND 2 SQUARE FEET OF CANOPY. THEY'RE SAVING THE REQUIRED 50% OF TREES IN FAIR OR BETTER CONDITION ON THE PORTION. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> SO THE FUNDS ARE DEPOSITED INTO A TREE BANK, IS THAT RIGHT? >> A CANOPY LOSS FEE IS TYPICALLY PUT INTO THE TREE BANK, CORRECT? >> WHAT ARE THE FUNDS IN THE TREE BANK USED FOR? >> PLANTING TREES, MAINTAINING EXISTING TREES, EDUCATION ABOUT TREES, THINGS LIKE THAT. >> OF THE 56,000 THAT ARE BEING REMOVED AND 56,000 BEING ADDED BACK. IS THAT ULTIMATELY THEY WILL GROW TO BE 56,000. >> EXACTLY. EACH NEW TREE ON THE OVERSTORY CANOPY IS COUNTED AT 800 SQUARE FEET WHEN PLANTED, SO THAT'S WHY THE NUMBER IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER FOR HOW MANY ARE BEING PLANTED BACK VERSUS WHAT'S THERE, PLUS THEY HAVE TO PLANT BACK ADDITIONAL TREES IN THE PARKING LOT AREAS TO MEET THAT CODE. >> HOW MANY YEARS WOULD YOU EXPECT IT TO TAKE TO [INAUDIBLE]? >> PROBABLY 20-30 YEARS, YOU'LL START SEEING HEIGHT REACHED, AND THEN FROM THERE THEY GROW OUT BROADER AND EXTEND A LITTLE BIT EACH YEAR. >> YOU'VE REVIEWED THE PLANS THERE ARE NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS OR THEY'RE MEETING ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS? >> THEY'RE MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. IT'S JUST THAT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE REDUCTION. WHICH THE COURT GIVES THAT OPTION TO THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH SO. >> IF I COULD ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION, WHAT I SAW, IT'S SAY DO YOU HAVE A 75 YEAR GROUND LEASE? ALL OF THE UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE? BASICALLY FOR THE NEXT 75 YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS MANY UNITS AS AFFORDABLE? >> THAT'S THE PLAN, YES. >> OKAY. [INAUDIBLE] GROWTH DIE. >> WHEN THE TREE BANK FUNDS ARE USED FOR PLANTING, THE PLANTINGS OCCUR WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS? >> THEY DO. >> THERE MUST BE MORE THAN ONE LOCATION, BUT WHERE IN GENERAL, WOULD THESE PLANT THINGS OCCUR? >> WHEREVER WE HAVE SPACE, AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF FUND WOULD NOT BE USED JUST TO PLANT TREES. YOU'RE ALSO DOING MAINTENANCE ON EXISTING CITY OWNED TREES, WHETHER IT BE IN PARKS OR ON THE RIGHT WAYS, THINGS LIKE THAT. AS FAR AS SPACE RIGHT NOW, WE STILL HAVE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR PLANTING IN OUR RIGHT WAYS AND IN OUR PARKS AREAS. WE HAVE SPACE STILL LEFT. THAT'S GOOD. WE'RE TRYING TO PUT TREES IN. YEAH. >> THE FUN ALSO BE USED FOR GREEN SPACE PURCHASING [INAUDIBLE] >> OVERALL. THERE'S A SET AMOUNT OF THINGS THAT CAN BE USED FOR, [00:10:03] BUT WHAT IT CAN'T BE USED FOR IS TREE REMOVAL. DON'T REMOVE TREE. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FOR THE APPLICANT? >> ONE OTHER QUESTION, AND THERE'S THE EMAIL I SENT TO YOU. THE DEAD AND THE POOR TREES THAT ARE LISTED ON THE PLANS. IS THAT JUST THERE FOR INFORMATION- >> YEAH. WHEN THEY DO THE OVERALL COUNTS I HAVE TO SEE HOW MANY ARE LISTED AS POOR, DEAD, INVASIVE AND THEN THEY HAVE TO LIST ALL THE ONES IN FAIR OR BETTER CONDITION. THAT'S THE ONES THAT IF THEY PROPOSE TO TAKE THOSE OUT, THE FAIR OR BETTER CONDITIONS AND THEN THAT'S WHEN THE CANOPY LOSS FEE KICKS IN. >> YEAH. THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> QUESTIONS. I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE FLOOR TO ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT? PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT. ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPROACH THE PODIUM? >> AM I ALLOWED TO ASK A QUESTION OF K OR. >> YOU CAN JUST ADDRESS US. >> OKAY. THAT'S FINE. >> WE CAN ASK K. K IS THE ONE [INAUDIBLE] >> I CAN ASK A QUESTION AND [INAUDIBLE]. >> YOU CAN ASK. >> OKAY GREAT. >> LITTLE FUNNY ORDER HAVE WE. >> BEFORE YOU PROCEED, CAN YOU JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF? YEAH. YOU CAN DO YOU THE HANDOUTS. >> OKAY. GREAT. HI, MY NAME IS LYNN GATHERCOLE I LIVE AT 1003 KATIE KERR DRIVE. I LIVE IN THE HARGROVE COMMUNITY DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM LEGACY PARK WHERE THEY'RE DOING THIS DEVELOPMENT. I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE HOA BOARD FOR THAT COMMUNITY. >> I JUST NEED TO TAKE COPY ON THE OFFICIAL RECORDS. [INAUDIBLE]. >> LET'S SEE AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THESE THINGS ARE. THE PICTURES YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU ARE THE PICTURES, IF YOU LOOK FROM HARGROVE, INTO LEGACY PARK. THIS IS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STARTED. AS YOU GO AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT LOOKED I'M GOING TO TRY OPEN THIS UP. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'RE DRIVING ALONG. THE NEXT PAGE SHOWS, TAKING OUT THE TREES, SAME AREA. THE NEXT PICTURE IS A PICTURE OF LEGACY PARK IN THIS AREA AS OF TODAY. IN FACT, THAT DIRT IS PROBABLY ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF SHORTER THAN WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN PUTTING DIRT ON THERE AND ROLLING MACHINES ON IMPOUNDING IT DOWN. THE ELEVATION IS ROUGHLY SEVEN FEET AND UP GOING ALL THE WAY ACROSS IT RIGHT NOW. FIRST, I WANT TO ADDRESS THE APPLICATION. ONE OF THE THINGS IN THE APPLICATION HAS TO DO WITH THERE'S NOTHING IN WHAT THEY'RE DOING, WHICH IS GOING TO AFFECT PROPERTY VALUES, AND I ATTEST TO YOU THAT THE VIEW THAT WE HAVE OF THOSE TREES AND THE VIEW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT A THREE STORY BUILDING ON TOP OF THAT DIRT MOUND ARE VERY DIFFERENT. WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PLANS, THE REPLACEMENT TREES ARE NOT ALONG KATIE KERR. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT, I DID A COUPLE OF SCREEN GRABS. THE FIRST ONE IS WHEN THE CITY OF DECATUR APPROVED THE LEGACY PARK PLAN, AND IT STATES IN THERE ANY MATERIAL CHANGES HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY, YOU HAVE TO TELL US ABOUT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DO. I'VE CAPTURED SOME IMAGES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST IMAGE, [00:15:01] THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN 2018, AFTER WE HAD THE ROUND TABLES, AND WE HAD OUR DISCUSSIONS, WE WERE GIVEN THREE OPTIONS, RECREATION, GREEN SPACE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 91% OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THAT POLE WANTED GREEN SPACE AND RECREATION, 9% WANTED HOUSING. WE HAD NO VOTE ON THE PLAN AS IT WENT IN TO 2018. THIS IS WHAT THE CITY PUT TOGETHER. THEN THEY UPDATED IN 2019 WHEN THEY UP THE NUMBER OF UNITS 80-180 IN THE PLAN, AND THAT WAS VISIBLE TO THE COMMUNITY FOR FIVE DAYS IN DECEMBER OF 2019. THE IMAGE UNDERNEATH THAT, AND I ALSO WANT YOU TO SEE THERE IS A ROW OF TREES BETWEEN THESE BUILDINGS AND KATIE KERR DRIVE. THE NEXT THING THAT'S PUBLISHED, I HAVE THERE FOR THE DECATUR HOUSING AUTHORITY FROM 2022, WHERE AGAIN, YOU SEE THERE IS A TREE BARRIER BETWEEN THESE UNITS AND KATIE KERR DRIVE. WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PLAN, I'M EXPECTING TO SEE THE SAME BARRIER TREES. IT'S NOT PRESENT. THE TREES THEY ARE REPLANTING, THEY'RE REPLANTING INTO A DIFFERENT PLACE IN THE SIX ACRE LOT THAT THEY'RE USING FOR BUILDING. THEY'RE PUTTING THE TREES ALONG THEIR NEW STREET THAT CITY DECATUR IS PAYING, SEE, WHAT WE GIVE THEM? >> SO IT'S 2.4 MILLION DOLLAR GIVEN TO PHASE ONE FOR THE CITY OF DECATUR IS PAYING FOR THAT ROAD. AND THE CITY IS GIVING 33.74, RIGHT FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT. SO MY ISSUE IS ABOUT I'M EXPECTING BECAUSE THE PUBLISHED PLANS FROM THE CITY INCLUDE A TREE LINE ALONG KATIE KER, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING. IT'S NOT IN THE PLAN. IT'S NOT WHAT WAS APPROVED. IT'S NOT BEEN AT ALL COMMUNICATED TO COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A VARIANCE THAT I CAN FIND FOR THIS, IF YOU BUILD A PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT HAS TO BE AND IT'S UNDEVELOPED. I THINK IT'S WHEN A NEW DWELLING, THIS IS ON CODE OF ORDINANCES LETTER D, WHERE A NEW BUILDING IS TO BE BUILT ON A PREVIOUSLY UNDEVELOPED LOT, THAT IS NOT WITHIN 100 FEET OF AN EXISTING DWELLING ON BOTH SIDES. OUR DWELLINGS ARE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE NEW DWELLING MAY BE NO MORE THAN THREE FEET ABOVE THE EXISTING ELEVATION MEAN GROUND LEVEL OF THAT BUILDING. THEY'RE AT EIGHT FEET, IT'S EASIER CERTAINLY TO PUT THE PLUMBING IN WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO THEY'RE PUTTING, THEY'RE JUST BUILDING UP, AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A THREE STORY BUILDING ON TOP OF THAT, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A FOUR STORY BUILDING FOR US. I GO DOWN, WE HAVE OUR ARTS AND YOU HAVE THIS MONSTROSITY BUILT UP ON AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH DIRT MOUND THAT THEY HAVE OVER THERE. THE WHOLE LOT IS CLEAR CUT RIGHT NOW. I HAVE FROM BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION STARTED, DURING CONSTRUCTION, CURRENT STATE, OF THE TREES HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT AND WHAT HAS BEEN DONE ON THAT PROPERTY. HUNDREDS OF IMAGES OF VIDEO. SO THERE THAT HAS TO STOP. THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF CODE. WHEN I LOOK AT THEIR SUBMISSION, CERTAINLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TREES BACK DOWN ON KATIE KERR, AND I'M BRINGING THAT LAND BACK DOWN TO WHERE IT'S LEGALLY ALLOWED TO BE. THERE'S NO VARIANCE FOR THIS. ANY QUESTIONS FROM ME? >> WAS THERE INFORMATION THAT YOU WANTED US TO REQUEST FROM K, THE ARMORS? >> WELL, IT OCCURRED TO ME. I WAS GOING TO ASK K. I WAS GOING TO ASK K, BUT THEN I HAD AN EPIPHANY AND I REALIZED WHAT IT WAS BECAUSE THE STATEMENT WAS LIKE 56 K OF CANOPY COVERAGE, AND WE'RE PUTTING 56 K BACK. WELL, THE TREES THAT THEY'RE TAKING OUT ARE ALONG K. THERE'S NO TREES, JUST A COUPLE OF TREES ON THE INSIDE THERE. SO THAT 56,000, AND THEN I LOOKED AT THE I'M LIKE, WHERE ARE THE TREES? AND YOU SEE THEM ALONG THEIR NEW LITTLE ROAD, YOU SEE IT IN THE PARKING LOT. BUT IT'S NOT ALONG KATIE KERR. SO I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD GET THEIR MONEY BACK FROM FOR THE MONEY THEY PUT [00:20:02] INTO THE BOND BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE TREES TO PUT INTO THE PLAN. BECAUSE FOR US, SINCE THEY TOOK THOSE TREES OUT, IT'S SO MUCH HOTTER THERE. AND IF THEY DECIDE TO GO AND TAKE THE TREES CLOSER TO BECAUSE YOU HAVE KATIE C KERR AND YOU HAVE COLUMBIA DRIVE. IF THEY TAKE THE TREES CLOSER TO COLUMBIA DRIVE, THOSE TREES GIVE US SHADE IN THE EVENINGS. THE SUN COMES DOWN HITS THAT AND, BRINGS THE TEMPERATURE DOWN THERE. I KNOW, IT'S NOTHING. IT'S LIKE FOUR ACRES BARN. AND WE'RE WAKING UP EVERY MORNING AT 7:00 A.M. WHEN THEY RUN THE TRUCKS 9:00 A.M. ON THE WEEKENDS. AND OUR BUILDINGS ARE SHAKING. AND I DO HAVE REPORTS FROM RESIDENTS OF DAMAGE IN THE TOWNHOUSES FROM VIBRATION. SO RIGHT CLICK. ANY OTHER. I'M LOOKING TO YOU GUYS TO HELP. BECAUSE THIS IS THE CITY COMMISSION'S BABY. AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS WRONG. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> OKAY. GOT A QUESTION. I THINK IT'S MAYBE YOU WOULD KNOW. IT APPEARS ON THIS ON THE SITE PLAN, THERE ARE SOME TREES TO REMAIN IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER. I KNOW THERE'S ALSO THE FUTURE RELOCATION OR REPOSITIONING OF KATIE KERR, AND I DON'T KNOW MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT THAT WAS SET ASIDE AT SOME POINT TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, BUT WAS NOT NECESSARILY PART OF THE PROJECT. IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE TREES THAT ARE CIRCLED AS TO REMAIN AND ARE OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT AS NEAR AS I COULD TELL FROM THAT PHOTOGRAPH IS THERE. >> YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE THE PLAN SET. I THINK YOU HAVE A SMALLER VERSION. >> YOU HAVE A SMALLER VERSION, NOT THE ENTIRE PLAN SET. >> CAN YOU SEE THIS FROM HERE? OKAY. SO THIS IS THE AREA SHE'S TALKING ABOUT AND THIS WAS CALLED FOR FOR TREE REMOVAL. THIS TREE SAVE IS TO THE SIDE UP TO SOUTH COLUMBIA ALONG KATIE KERR, AND THEN THERE'S A SPACE WHERE THEY HAD TO BUILD THE BERM BECAUSE EVENTUALLY, AS IT SHOWS ON THE PLAN, THIS NEW ROAD ALIGNMENT WILL COME IN WITH KATIE KERR LINING UP WITH KIRK. WITH ONE LIGHT, AND IT'S GOING TO BE SAFER FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I GO THIS WAY EVERY DAY. ANYWAY, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE'S ALSO TREE SAVE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT. THE REMAINING TREE CAN THAT WAS SAVED ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL IS ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF COLUMBIA DRIVE, SOUTH COLUMBIA DRIVE. THAT'S WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE TREE SAVE IS. AND THEN LIKE I HAD SAID, YOU HAVE THE STRIP HERE ALONG KATIE KER AND ANOTHER STRIP ON THE OTHER END GOING TOWARDS ASHBURY EXCUSE ME, ASHBERY DRIVE. THE REPLANTS FOR BOTH PHASES, YOU DO HAVE TREES BEING PLANTED BACK ON THAT BERM. AND YOU ALSO HAVE TREES BEING PLANTED BACK IN THAT AREA. THERE'S MIXED TREES COMING IN ALL AROUND. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN PHASE TWO REPLANT PLANT OR NOT, BUT IT SHOWS TREES ALL OVER THE PARCEL. NOT JUST THE STREETS. >> I LOOK AT WHAT I CAN SEE HERE. I'D REALLY LIKE TO GET A COPY. >> YOU CAN ALWAYS REQUEST THAT UNDER THE GEORGIA OPEN RECORDS ACT. WE CAN GET YOU THAT. YEAH. SO YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY IN PHASE ONE AND THEN IN PHASE TWO IS PLAN FOR THE PLANT BACKS THAT THE PLANTINGS ARE ALL OVER THE PARCEL. BUT IT WAS NOT UNDEVELOPED LOT, JUST TO CLARIFY THERE WERE ALREADY STRUCTURES ON THAT PARCEL, DUPLEXES, I THINK FOUR OF THEM ALONG WITH INFRASTRUCTURE. >> THOSE HOUSES AREN'T ON EITHER SIDE WHERE THE [INAUDIBLE]. >> IT'S THE PARCEL. THAT'S THE PARCEL. SO I DON'T KNOW, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. >> THANK YOU. WELL, WE'LL NEED TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER WHO MIGHT WANT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS LAUREN DYER. I ALSO LIVE IN THE HARGROVE DEVELOPMENT. MY ADDRESS IS 527 HARGROVE LANE. I'M THE HOA PRESIDENT FOR THE HARGROVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. I THINK THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION WAS, HOW MANY OF THE TREES THAT WERE IN FRONT OF THE HARGROVE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO ON KATIE KERR, HOW MANY OF THOSE SPECIFICALLY WERE POOR OR IN DEAD CONDITION BEFORE THEY WERE REMOVED. I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF WE HAD A NUMBER OF THOSE. [00:25:02] AND THEN I WANT TO MAKE A GENERAL COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION NUMBER TWO, THEY'RE STATING THAT IT WILL NOT IMPACT NEARBY PROPERTIES. WE DISAGREE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF NEIGHBORS WHO ARE REALLY UPSET ABOUT THE LACK OF BOTH THE VISUAL BEAUTY OF THE TREES AS WELL AS FEELING LIKE, AGAIN, THE SHADE THAT THEY PROVIDE IS NOW GONE. I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE DISAGREE WITH NUMBER TWO ON THE APPLICATION. THEN NUMBER FIVE, THEY SAY THAT IT WILL NOT IMPACT ESTABLISHED PROPERTY VALUES. AGAIN, A LOT OF OUR RESIDENTS DISAGREE. AND SO I'M JUST HERE TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF AND ARGUE THAT IT TAKING 20 TO 30 YEARS IF AND WHEN TREES ARE REPLANTED, THAT'S 20 TO 30 YEARS IN WHICH WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET BOTH THE NOISE AND THE VISUAL BARRIER AND OR THE SHADE FROM THOSE TREES THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED. I'M NOT A REAL ESTATE EXPERT. I'M NOT A PROPERTY OR PLANNING EXPERT. I'M A MEDICARE ATTORNEY, SO THIS IS WAY OUTSIDE MY BOUNDS OF LEGAL UNDERSTANDING, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THE STATEMENTS IN THE APPLICATION ARE SOMEWHAT MISLEADING. AND THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE REALIGNMENT OF KIRK TO KATIE KERR. I KNOW THAT'S NOT DIRECTLY ON POINT, BUT I'M FRUSTRATED AS A RESIDENT OF THIS COMMUNITY AS SOMEONE WHO'S TRYING TO FOLLOW THIS WITHOUT ANY EXPERTISE. I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THAT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED OR FUNDED YET, THAT IT'S JUST AN IDEA. I KEEP BEING TOLD TO NOT SPEAK ABOUT THAT, BUT WE KEEP ASKING FOR A SAFETY OF PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC IMPACT SAFETY STUDY, AND WE DON'T KNOW OF ANY ONGOING. WE FINALLY GOT A CROSSING GUARD THERE LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK BEFORE, AND THAT TOOK ABOUT TWO YEARS OF ASKING FOR. AND SO WE HAVE A LOT OF NEAR MISSES WITH CHILDREN TRYING TO GET TO TALLY AND WANNA AND BEACON HILL IN PARTICULAR. WE HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTS WHERE THEY LIKE TO WALK OR BIKE THERE. AND SO ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE REALIGNMENT OF KIRK TO KATIE KERR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS EMPHATICALLY ASKING ANY AND EVERY OPPORTUNITY WE GET TO BRING UP THAT WE WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT AND IT TO BE REALLY STRONGLY CONSIDERED WITH EVIDENCE-BASED STUDIES BEFORE IT'S MOVED FORWARD. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DO SOME SORT OF A FOIA OR GEORGIA OPEN RECORDS REQUEST TO GET THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE ARBORIST WAS REFERENCING JUST NOW. I'LL LOOK INTO THAT. BUT THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS OTHER THAN JUST WANTING TO KNOW HOW MANY OF THE TREES WERE IN POOR OR DEAD CONDITION ON KATIE KERR THAT WERE REMOVED RECENTLY. >> JUST FOR THE RECORD, CAN YOU REPEAT WHICH DOCUMENTS YOU WERE? >> THE ONES THAT BARBARA. >> I GET YOU ALL THE INFORMATION. OKAY. BECAUSE YOU'LL FILE IT ONLINE. I'LL GET YOU RIGHT TO THE WEBSITE. OKAY. AFTER THE MEETING. >> GREAT. THANKS. >> THAT COOL? >> YEAH. SO WE WERE JUST CURIOUS THERE WAS A MENTION THAT SOME OF THE TREES MAY HAVE BEEN POOR OR DEAD. SO THEY WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THE OVERALL COUNT, AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS, THE ONES AGAIN THAT MOST AFFECT THE HARGROVE COMMUNITY. HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE CONSIDERED POOR OR DEAD CONDITION? WAS THERE AN OFFICIAL COUNT OF THOSE THAT WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THE TREE CANOPY? THE 56,585 SQUARE FEET REMOVE. >> CASEY IN THE TODAY'S PACKET. I KNOW THAT IT INCLUDED ALL THE PLANS AS WELL AS I GOT IT SOMEWHERE. A COUPLE OF PAGES LISTING THE TREES TO BE REMOVED. TO DOES THIS CONTAIN THE TREES CONDITIONS OR JUST? >> I THINK K CAN ANSWER THAT SPECIFICALLY. THAT IS HER COMPLETE WHEELHOUSE. SO I DON'T MISSPEAK. SHE'S GOING TO WALK YOU RIGHT THROUGH IT, I'M SURE. >> THERE ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANTS. EACH TREE IS NUMBERED AND ID, AND EACH TREE IS LISTED IN ITS CONDITION, AND WHAT TYPE OF TREE IT IS. SO THE SPECIES AND THEN POOR, FAIR, GOOD, INVASIVE, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, IT IS LISTED IN THE PLANT SET AS WELL. AND WHEN SHE REQUESTS THAT, THAT'LL COME WITH IT. SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT. >> THESE SAME DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE. THE ONES THAT WE HAVE, ARE THEY POSTED? >> THOSE ARE ACTUALLY POSTED ONLINE. SO YOU CAN EITHER GO RIGHT TO THOSE AND SEE THEM IN THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED OR IF YOU WANT MORE DETAILS, I CAN ACTUALLY GET YOU DIRECTLY TO OPEN RECORDS, THE PERMIT PERMIT. >> [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING. >> SO WE DON'T HAVE A COUNT ON THE DEAD FOR CONDITION TREES OR I WOULD HAVE TO GO DO THE MATH MYSELF ANSWER. >> GIVE YOU WHAT I HAVE ALL THE SET FROM MY NOTES? [00:30:04] >> HAD A FEELING THAT QUESTION MIGHT COME UP. SO FAR I HAVE 63 COUNTED THAT WERE EITHER LISTED AS DEAD, POOR, OR INVASIVE. >>THANK YOU. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> SORRY. 63 THAT WERE EITHER DEAD, INVASIVE, OR POOR. SURE I GOT THAT NUMBER RIGHT AGAIN. YES. DAD INVASIVE OR 63 >>RIGHT. THERE'S AN OPEN SPECIFIC BETWEEN[OVERLAPPING] >> I HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE. WE WANT TO MAKE THE PLAN MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW WHERE THE PLANS ARE ALL AVAILABLE ONLINE. AND, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING A RESOURCE, BUT WE DO WANT TO LIMIT THE BACK-AND-FORTH THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE THE COMMISSION. >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >> EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO BE HELPFUL AND EXCHANGE INFORMATION. WE APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION. WE DO WANT TO MOVE ON TO ANY SPEAKER WHO'S STILL WAITING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. >> I CAME TO LISTEN TO WHAT WAS GOING ON, BUT MY NAME IS JOSEPH SNA. I LIVE IN RESIDENT IN THE HARGROVE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'M GOING. >> I NEED YOUR ADDRESS, SIR. >> 526 HARGROVE LANE. I'M HERE JUST TO ECHO THAT I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE TREES THAT WERE REMOVED ALONG KATIE KERR BE REPLACED, ALL OF THEM BECAUSE THEY PROVIDED SHADE, THEY PROVIDED PROPER AMBIANCE. I SAW NO SIGNS OF ANY OF THOSE TREES BEING DEAD OR DYING OR AFFECTED. WHY? BECAUSE THAT'S I'M TRAINING IN THAT AREA, IN THE PLANT PATHOLOGY. I UNDERSTAND THOSE THINGS. I KNOW EVERY TRACK OR PATH UNDER LEGACY PARK. I STUDY THOSE THINGS, THE FUNA FLORA, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE TREES BACK. I LIVED IN FLORIDA AND WHEN THEY DEVELOPED STUFF, THEY CLEAR OUT EVERYTHING. I HATED THAT. WHEN I CAME TO ATLANTA, I LOVE THAT BECAUSE I COULD SEE THE TREES ARE KEPT AND BUILDINGS ARE BUILT AROUND THOSE TREES. THIS IS AN UGLY SITE RIGHT NOW. ALL TREES ARE CLAD. I'M JUST HERE TO SUPPORT MY FELLOW NEIGHBORS. WE WANT THOSE TREES BACK. AND A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT'S GOING ON SO FAR. ONE MORE THING I WANT TO MENTION IS THAT THERE IS CONCERN THAT THIS CHANGE OF TRAFFIC WITH KURT MAY SEND MORE TRAFFIC DOWN INTO THE WINONA NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. BUT AS I SAY, I'M HERE, JUST TO SUPPORT THEM, I JUST WANT TO INSIST THAT WE PUT THOSE TREES BACK IN PLACE ON KATIE KERR. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR THE NEXT SPEAKER WHO MIGHT WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. NO. HEARING YES. >>MY NAME IS REVEREND JACK AMICK. I LIVE AT 221 MISSIONARY DRIVE. WHILE I AM A RESIDENT OF NINE YEARS, MAYBE. I'VE BEEN IN THAT PARK ABOUT SEVEN YEARS. NO LIVING IN IT. IT'S NOT MY RESIDENCE, BUT I SPENT A LOT OF TIME OVER THERE. I DID A LOT OF THE WORK ON THE CROSS COUNTRY TRAILS COURSES OVER THERE, AND AS SUCH, REALLY GOT TO KNOW THAT PARK EXTREMELY WELL FROM I THINK IT WAS 2018, I STARTED TALKING WITH YOU, SAXON, ABOUT WHAT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO BE DONE OVER THERE AND FOLLOWED HIS LEAD ON THOSE THINGS. >> SINCE THAT TIME, MOST OF THAT WORK, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT WORK WAS DONE WITH ME AND A MATTOCKS. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, IT'S LIKE AN AX WITH A DIGGING TOOL ON IT. ALL BY HAND. THE CONTRAST TO THE WORK THAT WAS DONE THIS LAST YEAR WAS JUST REALLY SHOCKING TO ME. [LAUGHTER] NOT THAT I WOULDN'T ENJOY USING ONE OF THOSE BIG TOOLS WITH WHEELS, [00:35:04] BUT THE AMOUNT OF LACK OF IMPRECISION THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU BUILD THAT WAY. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TREES AND REMOVING TREES, I REMOVED A LOT OF TREES FROM THAT PART. NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THEM WERE BRADFORD PEAR. IF YOU'VE EVER REMOVED A BRADFORD PEAR BY HAND, YOU KNOW HOW MUCH WORK THAT IS, AND PROBABLY YOU'D LOOK AT ME AND SAY, HOW COULD HE DO THAT? AS I TELL THE KIDS, OLD MAN PHYSICS. I PUT A LOT OF SWEAT AND EFFORT AND LOVE INTO THAT PARK. I'VE ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE OUT THERE AT REALLY ODD TIMES, WORKING TOO MANY HOURS FOR NOTHING. I'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE WILDLIFE THAT USED TO BE OUT THERE, AND EVERYTHING FROM AN EAGLE TO VARIOUS TYPES OF OWLS AND A WHOLE RANGE OF BIRDS AND CLOSE-UP WITH A COYOTE A COUPLE OF TIMES. WE'VE LOST A LOT OF THAT. CERTAINLY, MAKING THE TRAILS HAS REMOVED SOME, BUT THEN THE CITY HIRED TREES ATLANTA TO REMOVE A LOT OF THE INVASIVE SPECIES, WHICH WAS A GOOD STRATEGY IN THEORY, BUT IT REALLY OPENED THE PLACE UP; AND SO YOU COULD SEE THROUGH A LOT OF THE WOODS BACK THERE. BUT ON THE ON THE FRONT SIDE, ON THE ON THE PARCEL THAT'S IN QUESTION, TWO YEARS AGO, MAYBE IT'S BEEN MORE THAN THAT, I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT WHEN THE HOUSING WAS EXPECTED. LONG BEFORE IT WAS EXPECTED, WE FLIPPED THAT COURSE SO THAT THE PART THAT'S NOW THE OPEN PLACE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE BARREN PLACE, WE FLIPPED OUT INTO THE WOODS AND WE DUG OUT NEW TRAIL OVER THERE. THAT WAS A LOT OF WORK. WE CLEARED THE WAY FOR YOU GUYS. I GOT OUT OF YOUR WAY AT MAYBE EXPENSE TO MY BACK AND OTHER PARTS. BUT AS WE WERE DOING THAT, IF YOU GO OUT THERE EVERY DAY, YOU NOTICE THE TREES, AND ONE OF THE POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT TREES ARE NOT LIKE MONEY. DOLLAR BILL DOESN'T EQUALS THE DOLLAR BILL, BUT A TREE DOES NOT EQUAL TO THE TREE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I NOTICED OUT THERE IS THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE FAIRLY LARGE SYCAMORE TREES ALONG THAT PERIMETER LINE AND SEVERAL OTHER TREES. THERE ARE SOME PINES THAT WERE LEFT, I NOTICED THAT, BUT THOSE TREES WERE PROBABLY A FOOT AND A HALF IN DIAMETER. THEY WERE REMOVED. ONE OF MY QUESTIONS TO PONDER IS, SO HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE THE CANOPY? TWENTY, 30 YEARS TO BACK TO 60, 70-FOOT TREE AND A GROVE OF TREES? I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S BEEN TOO MUCH REMOVED ALREADY, AND THAT I LOOKED AROUND THE CITY, I AM AWARE OF THE FELLOW WHO PUT IN A LOT OF WORK TO HELP ESTABLISH THE CANOPY ORDINANCE. ASH DID A LOT OF WORK ON THAT. THEN THE CITY, I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN, BUT THE CITY GAVE ITSELF AN EXEMPTION ON THAT WHEN WE BUILT THOSE HOUSES ON COMMERCE, I GUESS, BECAUSE THERE WERE 20 PLUS TREES OVER THERE, SOME OF THEM OF FAIRLY GOOD SIZE, AND I IMAGINE SOME OF THEM. I DON'T KNOW THE HEALTH OF THEM. BUT SOME OF THEM I REMEMBER. I'LL GET TO MY POINT. I WON'T MAKE THIS A SERMON. BUT THAT AREA WAS REMOVED, AND AGAIN, BIG CHUNK OF CANOPY OUT. I JUST THINK IT'S A SHAME, WHAT'S HAPPENED. TO SAY THAT WELL, ALL OF THIS IS NUMBERED, I ACTUALLY WAS FUMBLING WITH THIS BECAUSE LAST APRIL, AS THE BULLDOZERS CAME THROUGH AND KNOCKED DOWN THE PINE TREES THAT USED TO BE RIGHT ALONG THE COURSE THERE, AND THEY WEREN'T HUGE. THEY WERE MAYBE 20, 30 FEET TALL. THEY BULLDOZED DOWN SEVERAL, INCLUDING NUMBER 115. [00:40:02] I HAPPEN TO HAVE FOUND THE TAG. YOU PROBABLY CAN'T SEE THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I FOUND AS LAST APRIL AS THE BULLDOZER WAS KNOCKED DOWN TREE NUMBER 115. EVERYTHING'S NUMBERED, BUT THAT SEEMS NOT TO MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER AUDIENCE MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN THAT POSITION? HEARING NONE, WE'D LIKE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO RETURN TO THE PODIUM FOR REBUTTAL. >> THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE THOUGHTS. THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE LEGACY HOUSING, THE SOUTH VILLAGE, PROVIDED FOR A FOUR-STORY BUILDING. WE WERE ABLE TO DO THE REDEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE THREE-STORY STRUCTURE SO THAT IT DID NOT CREATE AN IMPOSING EDIFICE ALONG THAT PARTICULAR CORRIDOR. THE TREES THAT WE HAVE REMOVED WERE THE MINIMUM THAT WE COULD DO IN ORDER TO FIT THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON SITE. WE WERE REQUIRED BY THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER TO RETAIN A SPECIFIC AREA OF TREES THAT WAS DEEMED TO BE HISTORIC, AND THOSE ARE IN THE AREA MOSTLY WHERE THE PHASE 2 REDEVELOPMENT WILL BE, WHERE YOU HAVEN'T SEEN CONSTRUCTION YET. THAT DID FIGURE INTO WHERE THE TREES CAN BE SAVED BECAUSE THOSE HAD TO BE SAVED BECAUSE THEY WERE DEEMED TO BE HISTORIC. HISTORIC PLANNERS FOR THE SITE HAD NOTED THAT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION HAD BEEN A TREE FARM AND THAT THEY HAD ACTUALLY GROWN TREES THERE WHEN IT WAS THE CHILDREN'S HOME AND THEY WOULD THEN CUT THE TREES DOWN AND SELL THEM FOR LUMBER AND THEN GROW A NEW BATCH OF TREES. BUT THEY FELT THAT THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE TO PRESERVE THAT, AND SO THAT HAS BEEN PRESERVED IN THE PHASE 2 AREA. WE HAVE STAYED BACK FROM THE KATIE KERR REALIGNMENT AREA, BECAUSE THAT IS THE CITY'S PROPERTY, THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY PART OF THE GROUND LEASED AREA. THAT DETERMINATION TO DO THAT IS GOING TO EITHER BE THE CITY'S OR THE COUNTY'S OR THE STATE'S OR SOMEONE ELSE'S, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT PARTICULAR AREA. THE TREES THAT WERE IN THERE HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE. WE REMOVE THE STRUCTURES THAT WERE IN THERE AND WE WILL THEN ALSO PUT GROUND COVER BACK IN IN ORDER TO CREATE AN AREA WHERE THERE IS NOT ANY RUNOFF. WE LIKE TREES. WE HAVE TREES ON ALL OUR REDEVELOPMENT SITES. WE ALSO LIKE TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF DECATUR. THIS HELPS WITH OUR DIVERSITY. THIS HELPS SPEAK TO THE GOALS OF THE CITY OF DECATUR AS IT RELATES TO WHO WE ARE, WHO ARE THE FAMILIES THAT LIVE HERE. WE PUT TOGETHER VERY PARTICULAR PLANS. WE THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT THE TREES. WE THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING. WE WORKED WITH KATIE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DID PRESENT A PLAN THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE. A THIRD PARTY ARBORIST VERIFIED THE CONDITION OF EACH OF THE TREES. WE DID NOT INDEPENDENTLY DO THAT. WE HAD SOMEONE WHO WAS AN ARBORIST REGISTERED ACTUALLY PROVIDE THE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO SUPPORT BOTH THE CALCULATIONS AND ALSO WHAT WAS THE CONDITION OF THE TREES, AND THEN KATIE WAS ABLE TO VERIFY IT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS. >> I HAVE ONE, AND IT'S REALLY NOT RELATED TO THE TREE ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION. THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF THIS PROJECT, WERE THERE OTHER PUBLIC FORUMS WHICH THE NATURE OF THE DESIGN WAS PRESENTED AND AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? >> YES. WE DID HAVE TO PRESENT THE PLANS FOR THE BUILDINGS, THE WAY THE STRUCTURE WOULD LOOK, AND THEN ALSO THE ROUGH SITE PLAN TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN A SERIES OF MEETINGS, AND THE CITY COMMISSION THEN APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THAT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO HAD A LOOK AT THOSE PLANS AND PROVIDED COMMENTS ON THOSE PLANS. >> THANK YOU. DO ANY OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT SHADE AND STORM WATER. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN DONE TO MITIGATE THE STORM WATER IMPACTS IN THAT AREA? >> WE ACTUALLY HAVE DETENTION ON-SITE. THERE'S DETENTION UNDER THE ROAD THAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED SO THAT THAT WATER THAT ACTUALLY FALLS ON THAT ROAD IS DETAINED ACTUALLY UNDERNEATH THE ROAD. [00:45:01] >> KERR OR WHICH ROAD? >> THE NEW ACCESS ROAD. WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO KATIE KERR. WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING THERE. THERE'S DETENTION THERE AND THERE'S ALSO DETENTION IN PHASE 1 AND IN PHASE 2 TO DETAIN ALL THE STORM WATER THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE CITY ORDINANCES. THE CITY ORDINANCES ACTUALLY EXCEED THE STATE REQUIREMENTS, AND SO WE'RE WORKING AT A HIGHER LEVEL THAN WHAT THE STATE REQUIRES. >> ALL THE RAIN WATER THAT FALLS ON THE PROPERTY ESSENTIALLY WILL FUNNEL INTO THAT DETENTION? >> ANYTHING THAT FALLS ON A NOT A SOLID SURFACE. ANYTHING THAT FALLS ON THE GROUND IS GOING TO PERCOLATE INTO THE GROUND. >> WELL. THEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE TREES ANYMORE TO HANDLE THEM. I THINK THE RULE OF THE TOWN THAT I'VE SEEN IS THE FIRST HALF AN INCH OF RAIN WATER [BACKGROUND] [INAUDIBLE] THE STORM WATER [INAUDIBLE] BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT AREA IS ALREADY [INAUDIBLE] WHEN IT COMES TO STORM WATER RUN OFF [INAUDIBLE]. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT BEING OVERBURDENED. I DO KNOW THAT WE DO MEET ALL THE CALCULATIONS TO DETAIN THE WATER ACTUALLY ON THE SITE. >> IT'S NOT ON THAT PROPERTY, BUT THE STORM WATER DRAINS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO IT AND THEN THE STORM WATER MASTER PLAN. >> WE HAD A SMALL SIDE BAR, BUT MAYBE I'LL JUST SAY THIS PUBLICLY. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE SOME TREES PLANTED ALONG KATIE KERR. IS THAT? >> YEAH. IT'S A BERM AND THEN TREES ON TOP OF THAT. [BACKGROUND] >> THOSE ARE TO BE PLANTED, NOT VISIBLE TODAY? >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> WHAT SIZE WILL THE TREES BE? HOW MATURE WILL THE TREES BE AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE PLANTED? >> THERE'S A MINIMUM SIZE IN THE CODE BUILT IN THAT CALLS FOR 2.5 INCH CALIPER, SORRY, TREES WHEN THEY'RE PLANTED NEW. THEY GO ANYWHERE DEPENDING ON THE SPECIES BETWEEN SMALL AND LARGE CANOPY YOU'RE DEALING WITH, PROBABLY SIX FOOT TALL TO 14 FEET TALL, DEPENDING ON THE TREE TYPE. THOSE ARE 2.5 INCH CALIPER. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION TO YOU. WHAT'S SHOWN IS A LONG LINE OF IT APPEARS TO BE VERY CLOSELY PLACED PLANTINGS ALONG THE BERM. WHAT ARE THOSE ON? THOSE LOOK AWFULLY CLOSE TOGETHER TO BE PLANTING THOSE TREES. >> THERE'S SHRUBS. >> CAN'T QUITE MAKE OUT THE [OVERLAPPING] SYMBOL ON OUR ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THE PLANT. >> TRY WITH MY CAMERA. >> THERE'S A MIXTURE ALONG THE BERM ITSELF. LET'S SEE. WE'VE GOT EASTERN BRODIE RED CEDARS, MIXED WITH THE FOSTER HOLLYS DIRECTLY ALONG THAT BERM AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY ALONG AND IT'S A MIX. THEN YOU ALSO HAVE HIGHTOWER WILLOW OAKS COMING IN. >> THEY'RE TIGHTLY PLANTED CEDARS, WHICH WILL NOT HAVE A LONG SKINNY STUFF. >> THEY HAVE TO BE SPACED OUT ENOUGH TO WHERE THE TREES CAN MATURE. THEY ALWAYS DO AN A SHAPE, AND THEN THE FOSTERS WILL DO A MORE WIDE-OUT. BUT THEN THERE'S ADDITIONAL TREES SHOWN IN THAT PLANTING AS WELL. LET'S SEE. THOSE ARE RED OAKS IS THE OTHER TREES IN THE MIX, WHERE IT MEETS BACK INTO THE EXISTING TREES. >> EXISTING TREES, THERE. >> I THINK THERE'S ON THE OTHER END, THEY ARE ADDING IN ADDITIONAL LOBLOLLIES TO REPLACE SOME OF THE ONES THAT WERE REMOVED. VIRGINIA PINES AND BLACK GUM IS ALSO CALLED FOR IN THOSE PLANTINGS. WHERE'S THIS? [BACKGROUND] I THINK THAT THAT'S ALL OF THEM, I THINK FOR THAT AREA. >> I CAN ANSWER THAT. THIS SITE IS ACTUALLY PERMITTED. PHASE 1 HAS BEEN THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESSES. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY VARIANCES THAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN. IT JUST CAME THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVELY. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE. THAT'S WHERE ALL OF THE CITY STAFF REVIEW THE ENTIRE SET OF DOCUMENTS, EVEN THOUGH YOU ALL JUST HAVE THE SET TONIGHT BASED UPON THE TREES, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS FOR THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF. [00:50:03] BUT WE HAVE FULL DOCUMENTS ON IT, AND THOSE PERMITS HAVE BEEN RELEASED. THE TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN, THE PLANTING PLAN, THE REMOVAL PLAN HAS ALL BEEN APPROVED TO THIS POINT. >> [OVERLAPPING] BUT THE REMOVAL OF THE FEE CAN BE SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS? >> WELL, YOUR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TONIGHT IS, DO THEY PAY THE FEE OR DO THEY NOT PAY THE FEE? >> BUT ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, IT SAYS, SUBJECT TO STANDARDS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONDITIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. WE COULD RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS, WHETHER IT BE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS OR SOMETHING. THAT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW? >> I GUESS YOU CAN, BUT THE PLANS WOULD HAVE TO BE RESUBMITTED AND REVIEWED. THAT WOULD BE ALSO SOMETHING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO, I APOLOGIZE. KEEP MY MEETING STRAIGHT. >> I WOULD CONSIDER THIS OUR ACTIVITIES TODAY TO BE VERY SPECIFIC TO THE FEE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A PARTICULAR EXCEPTION TO ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AS CASIE MENTIONED, YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THAT PROCESS, AND AT THE END THEY'RE IN CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW. >> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, MAYBE I'LL LOOK FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ALL, FROM THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT CITY PROPERTIES, HOW BIG IS THAT? I DON'T KNOW IF I'M USING THE RIGHT TERM. [LAUGHTER] >> WE DO HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SHOWN ON THE LITTLE TREE SURVEY, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE AREA. I GUESS IF YOU'RE IN THE FIELD, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IS WHERE THE BLACK FENCING IS. THAT'S THE SILT FENCING, SO THAT'S TECHNICALLY THE EDGE OF THEIR PROPERTY LINE. THE SIDEWALK AND THAT STRIP OF GRASS IS ALL IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH CURRENTLY, THEY'RE NOT WORKING IN THAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T OWN THAT, THAT'S CITY OWNED. >> THEN WOULD THE FUNDS DEPOSITED IN THE TREE BANK BE ELIGIBLE FOR PLANTINGS IN THAT AREA? LIKE, IF WE TAKE AWAY MONEY FROM THE TREE BANK, ARE YOU THEN LIMITING YOUR ABILITY TO DO ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY? >> THAT WOULD BE THE DETERMINATION OF THE CITY AS TO WHERE THE TREES GET PLANTED, WHERE THE MAINTENANCE FUNDS GO TO, HOW THOSE FUNDS ARE USED. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE NECESSARILY GOING TO BE USED IN THAT RIGHT OF WAY, BUT POTENTIALLY COULD IN THE FUTURE, IF SOMETHING COMES ABOUT WHERE KATIE KERR MAY BE REALIGNED, IT'S NO LONGER THE DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PLANT THOSE TREES. IT WOULD BE THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY, AND THEN THEY COULD TAKE FOR THE FUND, AND I DON'T NEED TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM KASEY. SHE CAN HANDLE ALL OF THAT FOR YOU. >> NO, KASEY SAID IT VERY WELL. RIGHT NOW WITH THAT BEING A POSSIBILITY, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S BEEN TURNED IN PLAN-WISE. IT WAS JUST MENTIONED IN THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT SO AT THIS POINT, AS AN ARBORIST FOR THE CITY, WE DON'T WANT A TREE PLANTED NOW THAT IS JUST GOING TO BE RIPPED OUT. IN THAT AREA WHERE IT COMES VERY CLOSE TO THE POSSIBLE REALIGNMENT OF KATIE KERR. WE DON'T RECOMMEND PLANTING THERE NOW, WHICH IS ALSO WHY THE PLANTINGS THAT WERE DONE BY TREES, ATLANTA, THEY STOPPED AT A CERTAIN POINT AND DIDN'T CONTINUE ON DOWN THE STREET. >> BUT HYPOTHETICALLY, THE FUND CAN BE USED. >> EVENTUALLY, YES. ANY RIGHT AWAY COULD BE PLANTED. >> TO THAT FUND, YOU WON'T HAVE THE ABILITY. >> THE FUND EXISTS NOW? >> THE FUND EXISTS [LAUGHTER][OVERLAPPING] AMOUNT THAT THEY ARE ASSESSED AND WOULD NOT BE IN THE FUND. >> THE IS FUND [INAUDIBLE]. >> ONE QUESTION. THE NET EFFECT OF GETTING THE WAIVER FROM PAYING TO THE FUND. WHERE DOES THAT GO IN THEORY? DOES IT GO TO A LOWER RENT PRICE ON DAY, WHAT HAPPENS WITH. >> THE FUNDS WOULD GO INTO THE TREE FUND. IF THE FUNDS DO NOT GO INTO THE TREE FUND. >> IF THEY DON'T GO INTO. >> YEAH. THEY DO NOT TECHNICALLY GET COLLECTED BY THE CITY, BUT THE INTENT IS THAT IT LOWERS THE COST FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT, WHICH THIS IS TRYING TO MAKE THE AFFORDABILITY. >> HAS SOME EFFECT ON RENT OR THAT WOULD NOT HAVE SOME EFFECT ON RENT OR THAT POSITIVELY AFFECTS SOME FUTURE PROJECT JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. >> IT WOULD LOWER YOUR DEVELOPMENT COST. MAYBE YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT? >> IT DOES LOWER THE DEVELOPMENT COST. WE'VE HAD SUBSTANTIAL COST OVERRUNS IN PHASE 1 AND 2. THE MARKET HAS BEEN EXTREMELY HIGH RIGHT NOW WITH CONSTRUCTION PRICING, AND SO THAT YES, IT DOES HELP US TO CREATE THE HOUSING, MAKE IT MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE. IT DOESN'T HAVE A DIRECT CORRELATION TO THE INDIVIDUAL RENT THAT SOMEONE PAYS. >> THOSE RENTS ARE BASED ON PERCENTAGES OF INCOME. [00:55:04] >> THE RENTS ARE DONE IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS. THE RENTS HAVE TO FOLLOW THE TAX CREDIT GUIDELINES, SET RENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INCOME. THIS IS A INCOME-BASED PARCHED CREDIT PROJECT, WHERE WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS FROM 30% OF AMI UP TO 80% OF AMI, AND SO THEIR RENTS ARE STACKED AT DIFFERENT LEVELS ACCORDING TO THE CALCULATIONS PROVIDED BY THE IRS. WE ALSO HAVE INDIVIDUAL FAMILIES WHO WILL GET HOUSING SUBSIDIES THAT WILL THEN MAKE IT AFFORDABLE TO THEM AT 30% OF THEIR INCOME TOWARDS RENT AND UTILITIES. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER'S DISCUSSION. >> I'LL START AND JENNY BROUGHT IT UP THAT AS PART OF THIS GRANTING OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THE CANOPY LOSS FEE, WE CAN PLACE OR RECOMMEND PLACE. EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING AS A RECOMMENDATION. I'LL JUST SAY WE COULD PLACE AS PART OF OUR MOTION A LIMITATION OR A CONDITION ON THAT. THE TREE ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW REQUIRES A TWO YEAR REPLACEMENT BOND. THE TREE DIES WITHIN TWO YEARS. IT HAS TO BE REPLACED AND THERE'S A BOND THAT'S ESTABLISHED. WHAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER IS AS PART OF THE LIMITATION ON THIS IS THAT THAT REPLACEMENT BOND EXTENDED TO FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS, SOME LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, TO BETTER ENSURE THAT THE CANOPY BEING PLANTED IS THERE 20-30 YEARS FROM NOW. THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD DO. IT BASICALLY TIES DHA TO PROVIDING THAT BOND CITY WILL WORK OUT, HOW THAT IS ESTABLISHED, THAT IF A TREE DIES THAT THEY PLANTED POST TWO YEARS, WHATEVER OUR LIMITATION IS, THEY GOT TO REPLACE IT. >> NOW, THERE WOULD BE A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN COST FOR A TWO YEAR BOND VERSUS A FIVE-YEAR BOND. THAT WOULD BE RECOMMENDATION WOULD PLACE SOME ADDITIONAL COSTS. >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ACTUAL BOND GETS PLACED OR IT'S JUST A COMMITMENT THAT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE TREE DIES AND THE CITY NOTICES THE TREE HAS DIED THEN YOU GOT TO REPLACE IT. NOT SURE HOW THAT'S ENFORCED AND K, MAYBE YOU CAN WEIGH IN ON HOW YOU ENFORCE TREE REPLACEMENT FROM A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. >> ON THE TWO YEAR BOND, WHICH BASICALLY IS TWO GROWING SEASONS. IT COMES ALMOST TWO, THREE YEARS FULL. THEY PLACE EITHER A SURETY BOND OR CASH INTO THE TREE BANK ACCOUNT THAT DOESN'T GET INTEREST OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S JUST HELD IN PLACE UNTIL IT'S FINALIZED. THE BOND IS TYPICALLY DONE WITH AN AMOUNT FOR THE COST OF REMOVAL OF THE DEAD TREE, COST OF PLANTING NEW TREE AT 2.5 INCH CALIPERS TO REPLACE WHAT WAS REMOVED. THEN THAT STARTS AT TWO YEAR WINDOW AGAIN WHEN THE NEW TREE IS PLANTED SO THAT WE MAKE SURE WE GET BASICALLY THREE YEARS OUT OF THOSE TREES, THAT THEY SURVIVE. DID I ANSWER THE QUESTION? >> THEORETICALLY, YOU COULD GET A COMMITMENT FOR A WARRANTY PERIOD RATHER THAN A BOND IF YOU CHOSE TO? >> WELL, THE OPTION THAT THE CODE SET UP WAS THE BOND, INDIVIDUAL LANDSCAPING COMPANIES MAY GIVE A WARRANTY OF A YEAR OR TWO YEARS IS NOT UNHEARD OF SO THAT'S WHY WE DID THE THREE YEAR TO GET IT OUTSIDE OF THAT. IT'S ALSO TIMES 125% BECAUSE PLANTING COSTS AND TREE COSTS GO UP OVER THE YEARS, IT'S WHATEVER THAT TOTAL AMOUNT IS, TIMES 125%. WOULD BE YOUR BOND AMOUNT? >> THANK YOU. >> JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I MEAN, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND, A FRUSTRATION BECAUSE FROM ACROSS THE STREET, THERE'S A COMPLEXITY TO IT BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO DO CONSTRUCTION, AND THAT TENDS TO MAKE THINGS LOOK WORSE UNTIL YOU COME BACK TO A REPLANT, AND THEN THERE'S A GROW IN PERIOD. WHAT YOU'RE PHOTOGRAPHING NOW, I DO NOT DISAGREE, IS A STEP DOWN FROM WHERE IT WAS BEFORE. BUT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE IS A PLAN THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED, I DON'T QUITE HAVE THE VISUALS, BUT I GET THE SENSE THAT THERE WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF REPLANNING THAT, RECOMPENSES FOR THE SITUATION OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, [01:00:02] AND THAT'S GENERALLY THE WAY DEVELOPMENT AND HAS TO WORK. I DIDN'T REALLY HEAR A SPECIFIC COMMENTS LASH REQUEST AS TO WHAT WOULD BE A BETTER USE OF I MEAN, THE REQUEST HERE IS THAT THEY BE WAIVED FROM HAVING TO SUPPLY THE TREE FUND. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY HEAR FROM ANYBODY A SPECIFIC REQUEST AS TO WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO REDIRECT SOME OF THE REPLANTINGS TO THIS SPECIFIC AREA THAT DOES SEEM TO BE THE TIGHTEST POINT OF THE EDGE WHERE YOU HAVE THE MOST DISRUPTIVE BERM. I'M NOT SURE, IN A WAY WHAT TO DO WITH THAT SINCE IT'S PUT OUT THERE AS A PLANTING. NOW I THINK PROBABLY ONCE IT'S PLANTED BACK, YOU WILL BE MUCH HAPPIER WITH WHAT'S THERE, BUT IT MAKES IT HARD TO ACT UPON IT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY REALLY BEING ASKED, IS IT OKAY TO WAIVE THE TREE FUND IN LIGHT OF THE GREATER GOOD HERE. >> YES. >> DON'T MEAN THERE'S NOTHING BEYOND THAT OTHER THAN A STATEMENT OF OBSERVATION. >> YES. >> CAN I GET CLARIFICATION ON THING. THE TREES THAT FALL WITHIN THE RIGHT AWAY, WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANTING THIS? IS THAT THE CITY THAT COMES BACK AGAIN AT THAT POINT? >> YES. THE CITY. I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE TREES ARE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THE PLAN. IF THE CITY WAS TO DO ANYTHING, YEAH. >> YOU GOT THE STREET REALIGNMENT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT OCCUR. >> RIGHT. IT WAS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN JUST AS A WHAT IF THIS WAS REDONE, BUT CURRENTLY WHERE THE RIGHT AWAY IS, THEY DO HAVE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS GOING BACK IN SOME OF THAT AREA THAT IS RIGHT AWAY. THANK YOU. ALONG KATIE KERR. >> THE DEVELOPER? >> YES. THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL PLAN. >> ANY REPLANTINGS THAT COME FROM THE TREE BANK, THAT IS THE CITY'S INITIATIVE AS DIRECTED BY YOU, AND THE APPLICANT IS NO LONGER PART OF THAT PROCESS? >> CORRECT. ANY ADDITIONAL TREES. THE ONES APPROVED ON THE PLAN WOULD NEED TO BE PLANTED, THOUGH? >> RIGHT. >> ARE ADDITIONAL TREES FUNDED AT THIS POINT? >> ALL THE TREES IN REPLANT, THEY HAVE MET AND SHOWN ON THE PLAN, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CANOPY LOSS FEE THAT IS BEFORE YOU. THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL FEE THAT THE CODE ASKS FOR FOR TREES IN FAR OR BETTER CONDITION THAT ARE REMOVED? IT COVERS HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE THESE NEW TREES TO START GETTING UP AND DOING STORMWATER SEQUESTRATION, A CARBON SEQUESTRATION, PUTTING OUT AIR, ABSORBING OXYGEN, IT'S ACCOUNTING FOR THE BENEFITS LOST TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY BY THE REMOVAL OF THE FAR OR BETTER-CONDITIONED TREES. >> BUT THE USAGE OF THE TREE FUND, IS THAT AN ANNUAL THING WHERE YOU LOOK ACROSS THE CITY AND YOU MAKE AN ANNUAL PLAN AS TO WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO INVEST? >> EVERY YEAR, WE TRY AND BUILD UP WHERE WE DON'T HAVE CANOPIES. >> UNTIL THAT ROAD ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN PERFECTED, THIS AREA PROBABLY IS NOT COMMITTED. >> NOT WITH ADDITIONAL. I MEAN, OTHER THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY THE REPLANT IN THIS PLAN. >> IN THE NEAR TERM, YOU'LL HAVE THE BORDER PLANTING THAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THE APPLICANT, BUT THERE PROBABLY WON'T BE ANY CITY INVESTMENT UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME STRATEGY ON THE ROAD? >> I WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT, NO. THERE MAY BE MORE ON THE BERM. I COULD SEE THAT HAPPENING, BUT ON THE RIGHT AWAY ITSELF, NO. >> RIGHT. OKAY. >> IF OUR COMMISSION ATTEMPTS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO MANAGE THE SPECIFICS OF HOW THAT TREE FUND IS USED. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD GO FORWARD WITH IT. >> NO. I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW WELL FUNDED THE TREE FUND IS. TRY TO DO SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE OR LIKE, ARE THESE FUNDS SEVERELY NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO? >> YOU ASK THE CITY ARBIST, WE CAN ALWAYS USE MORE FUNDS [LAUGHTER] YES. BUT, IT'S EVERY DEVELOPMENT, EVERY REDEVELOPMENT OF ANY SINGLE FAMILY, MULTI FAMILY COMMERCIAL, ALL OF THEM HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS CODE. NEW TREES ARE BEING ADDED. IF THEY HAVE TO TAKE OUT ONCE THEY'VE SAVED WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO SAVE, THEN THEY'RE PAYING THAT FEE AS THE CANOPY LOSS INTO THE TREE BANK. IT'S GETTING FUNDS EVERY YEAR BEFORE THIS CODE WAS NOT EXISTING. SO YEAH. >> I THINK I'M GOING TO ECHO WHAT JOE SAID. I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THE FRUSTRATION ON THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS, BUT I GUESS THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED PER CODE WITHOUT VARIANCES BY STAFF, SO SYMPATHETIC, BUT ALSO, IF THE APPLICANT IS FOLLOWING CODE AND NOT ASKING FOR VARIANCES, I THINK WE'RE DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF THE FEE. SQUARELY SPEAKING TO THE FEE, I GUESS MY POSITION WOULD BE, AND AGAIN, JOE MENTIONED THE WORD GREATER GOOD, SO I'LL DRAFT OFF THAT. I MEAN, I KNOW TREES ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE CITY. [01:05:03] WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE. WE ALSO HAVE PRETTY AGGRESSIVE STORMWATER MEASURES. WE'VE GOT GREEN BUILDING INITIATIVES, WE'VE GOT ARCHITECTURAL STUFF. WE A PROGRESSIVE CITY, WE HAVE A LOT OF PRIORITIES. I THINK WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT'S VERY CHALLENGING BECAUSE YOU'RE CAPPING YOUR INCOME, YOUR COSTS ARE NOT CAPPED. WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THAT TONIGHT ON THE DEBATES. INFLATION COSTS OF GROWING. I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE MISSION YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, SO WEIGHING THE GREATER GOOD AND THE BALANCE OF ALL THE STUFF WE'RE TRYING TO DO, I THINK FOR THE BENEFIT, I THINK I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION. >> WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE IS THE VALUE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING GREATER THAN 45,000. >> [OVERLAPPING]TWO PARTS. >> MY THOUGHTS ON THE TREE ORDINANCE, IN GENERAL, THE GOAL IS VERY NOBLE, AND WE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH TWO YEARS AGO. I DID OBJECT TO THE FACT THAT THE PURSUE OF THAT GOAL, THE BURDEN WAS PLACED COMPLETELY ON THE RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERS. IN TANDEM, THE TREE CANOPY INDULGENCE FEE WAS ADDED AS AN ALTERNATE PATH TO SATISFY REQUIREMENTS. BUT THAT TREE FEE GIVES PRIVATE DEVELOPERS THIS HUGE LOOPHOLE TO GO IN AND JUST PAY WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO SCRAPE AN ENTIRE LOT. TAKE OUR ORIGINAL HOUSING STOCK, BUILD SOMETHING TWICE AS BIG, AND EXASPERATE OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS. IT'S NOT THE ONLY REASON. IT'S NOT THE ONLY FACTOR. IT'S JUST ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. SINCE THE CITY COMMISSION CHOSE TO PASS THE TREE ORDINANCE, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY APPLICANT THAT CAME BEFORE THIS BODY WAS ADHERING TO THE TREE ORDINANCE EITHER BY MAINTAINING THE GOAL OF THE 65% CANOPY COVERAGE OR PAYING THE FULL PRICE CANOPY. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT CATER HOUSING AUTHORITY IS A VERY DIFFERENT TYPE OF APPLICANT AND OUR ORDINANCE HAD A VERY SPECIFIC EXCEPTION MADE AVAILABLE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THERE'S STILL SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T SIT RIGHT ABOUT THE CITY OR A CITY'S AGENCY AVOIDING THE FINANCIAL PENALTY THAT A REGULAR HOMEOWNER WOULD INCUR, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE UP UNTIL 2022, OUR ESTABLISHED HOMEOWNERS HAD DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB AT MAINTAINING OUR TREE CANOPY COVERAGE. I'M VERY TORN ABOUT THIS. I THINK I JUST WANTED TO GET ON MY SOAPBOX, LET THAT OUT. I'M STILL UNDECIDED, SO I'M GOING TO LET MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS CONTINUE DISCUSSING THIS UNTIL OUR CONVERSATION IS COMPLETED. >> WELL, A COUPLE OF THINGS I'LL POINT OUT AND MY IDEA OF THE EXTENDING THE BOND WAS JUST AN IDEA. NOT NECESSARILY WOULD PROPOSE THAT, BUT IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PLACE LIMITATIONS IF WE WANT. AS I LOOKED AT THIS, ONE, I WANT TO GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE THAT THE TREE ORDINANCE REQUIRES 45% CANOPY COVERAGE ON A MULTI-FAMILY SITE, AND IT ALSO REQUIRES NO NET LOSS, SO THOSE TREES WERE MORE, I GUESS, KIND OF IN TANDEM. FOR THE CALCULATIONS, THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING FROM 66% COVERAGE TO 67% COVERAGE WHEN THE TREES MATURE. I WANT TO GIVE CREDIT. THEY ARE ACTUALLY INCREASING THE TREE CANOPY OVER WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. >> THERE'S OTHER SITES THAT WERE DEVELOPED BEFORE THIS ORDINANCE WE PLACE, THAT ARE MULTIFAMILY THAT ARE NOT EVEN A 45% COVERAGE. SO I WANT TO APPLAUD THIS SITE DESIGN FOR NOT ONLY MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT EXCEEDING IT ON TREE CANOPY COVERAGE. I'D LOVE TO SEE MORE TREES. IF THEY CAN FIT MORE TREES, I'D CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO PLANT MORE TREES BECAUSE OF ALL THE COMMUNITIES WHO NEED TREES, AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITIES ARE THE ONES WHO ARE MOST UNDER SERVED WITH TREE CANOPY. IF I PUT A LIMITATION, I WOULD ACTUALLY BE SORT OF LIKE, HEY, [01:10:02] PLANT MORE TREES IF YOU CAN FIT THEM IN THERE AND MAYBE ASK FOR SOME FUNDS FROM THE TREE BANK TO DO THAT. RIGHT? AND THAT WOULD BE ACTUALLY A GREAT USE OF TREE BANK FUNDS TO SUPPORT MORE TREES ON AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE. I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE THAT'S WHAT I'LL PUT OUT THERE TO PLEASE PLANT MORE TREES AND ASK FOR MONEY FROM THE TREE BANK. >> I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK IF THERE WAS INTENT TO CREATE THIS EXCEPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CRITERIA WHERE YOU EITHER MEET OR EXCEED TREE REPLANTING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO OFFSET THIS FUND. BUT THIS FUND BENEFITS EVERYONE. WE'RE GOING TO BE AT A LOSS NOT HAVING THE 70,000 AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU GET OUT OF 70,000. >> A LOT OF TREES ACTUALLY. >> YEAH. NOT ONLY DOES IT IMPACT US. IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE RESIDENTS TOO IF THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT. THEY'RE GOING TO BENEFIT FROM MORE TREES IN THIS COMMUNITY, THE ATTRACTABILITY MOVING HERE. THIS IS WHAT WE LOVE DECATUR FOR. SO I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN TO THE ORDINANCE HAD THAT IN A CRITERIA FOR GRATING THIS EXCEPTION. >> ONE THING, WHILE I DO THINK THAT THE GREATER GOOD IS BEING SERVED, I DON'T REALLY LOVE THE PRECEDENT THAT YOU CAN GET OUT OF THE OR IT'S MORE WORK TO SAVE MORE TREES. IT JUST IT IS. YOU HAVE TO DO HARD ARCHITECTURE WORK. SOMETIMES YOU LOSE EFFICIENCY. SOMETIMES YOU GOT TO JIGGLE THINGS AROUND, IT'S MORE WORK. AND IF YOU SORT OF SORT OF SET THE PRECEDENT THAT YOU'RE EXEMPT FROM THAT, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WANT TO DO MORE WORK OR WOULD HAVE COST A LITTLE BIT MORE TO DODGE AROUND A FEW MORE TREES OR WHATEVER. IT JUST SORT OF SETS THE WHEELS AND MOTION THAT THIS IS HOW IT ROLLS FOR CITY AGENCIES. AND IT SEEMS LIKE ON A CERTAIN LEVEL, THAT SETS THE WRONG TONE LIKE YOU'RE NOT WALKING THE WALK COMPLETELY. SO I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE MAYBE THERE'S A COMPROMISE WHERE WAVE THE SECOND ONE, THE FIRST ONE IS THAT'S WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE, IS IN THE TREE FUND AND MAYBE THAT GETS SUGGESTED THAT IT IS FOR ADDITIONAL PLANTING ON SITE. >> I WOULD DO THAT. I WOULD HAVE TO RECOMMEND WAIVING IT. >> DO WE WANT TO PROPOSE A RECOMMENDATION? >> BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THOSE ARE IN THE PURVIEW OF WHAT WE CAN DO, OR DO WE THINK THERE'S WE'RE MISSING SOMETHING THAT WOULD SAY THAT WE WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO. >> TO SAY YOU REFUND ONE PHASE, BUT NOT THE OTHER. TO DIVIDE IT. >> AND TO SUGGEST THAT THERE'S SOME SPECIFIC ALLOCATION FOR THAT WAIVER IN FOR THE OTHER ONE, NOT BEING WAIVED IN TWO MORE TREES ON THIS SPECIFIC SITE. >> I'M REALLY NOT SURE THEY CAN FIT MORE TREES. SO THE REQUEST IS FOR THE WAIVING OF THE ENTIRE SITE, WHICH IS PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO. I KNOW THIS IS KAY'S EXPERTISE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ADDITIONAL EVEN PLACES AND THAT MAY TAKE LONGER THAN TONIGHT. TO GIVE YOU THAT REAL ANSWER, SHE MAY EVEN HAVE TO WORK WITH ENGINEER THE OTHER PARKS WHO SUBMITTED THINGS. >> DOUG, WAS THERE ANY LAND VALUE YOU ALLOCATED TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? ANY LAND VALUE ALLOCATED BACK TO THE CITY OR WAS THE LAND GRANTED FOR FREE? >> LAND WAS PROVIDED AT A NOMINAL GROUND LEASE THAT WAS PART OF THE CRITERIA IN ORDER TO GET THE TAX CREDITS. >> WHAT IS THAT GROUND LEASE? IS IT $1 OR IS IT? >> CREDIT WAS GIVEN FOR THAT IN THE AWARD OF THE TAX CREDITS MADE POSSIBLE REDEVELOPMENT. THAT WAS NEGOTIATED WITH THE CITY IN ORDER THAT WE COULD GO FORWARD AND GET THE ACTUAL RESOURCES TO BUILD. >> SO UNLIKE SOME OF THE OTHER. >> I ACTUALLY CAN READ A POTENTIAL MOTION IF YOU LIKE. >> YEAH. >> BECAUSE I WAS ABOUT TO SAY WE KIND OF HAVE TO WRITE IT OURSELVES THAT WE'RE NOT AMENDING. >> YEAH. >> SO PROPOSED MOTION. >> SO LET ME READ IT, AND THEN YOU ALL CAN POKE ALL THE HOLES YOU WANT AT IT AS YOU ALL ALWAYS DO. RECOMMEND WAITING CANOPY LOST FEE FOR PHASE TWO AND DEDICATE THE CANOPY LOST FEE OF PHASE ONE TO BE USED FIRST ON THIS SITE, AND WE CAN CLARIFY THIS SITE. AND SECOND AT LEGACY PARK. THE REASON FOR THE TWO IS $39,000 OF CANOPY LOSS FEE FROM PHASE ONE. [01:15:09] KAY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FIND $39,000 WORTH OF TREES TO PLANT WITHIN THIS SITE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY AT 66% CANOPY COVERAGE. I MEAN YOU MIGHT GET IT TO 70 OR 75, THAT THAT'LL BE LIKE, HATS OFF. BUT THE REST OF LEGACY PARK WHICH COULD INCLUDE, PARCELS DOWN HERE IN THIS CORNER, ETC. THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE FOR. >> YEAH. >> PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY FINISHED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRACK? >> YEAH, THERE'S A MOTION. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY BASICALLY CUTS ABOUT OVER JUST OVER HALF OF THE CANOPY LOSS FEE FROM DHA. THEY MEET THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION. PERMANENT. THIS IS JUST A LIMIT. >> IT'S IN IT. I CAN TELL YOU WHERE. >> THE FUNDS THAT WE WOULD BEING, YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT IT SHOULD BE REDEDICATED FOR ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS OR IS IT JUST TO OFFSET THEIR TREE REPLANTING PLAN? >> NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. ADDITIONAL. THEY ALREADY GOT THAT FUND. >> BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN I DON'T KNOW THAT. >> CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? YEAH. OKAY. I'M SORRY. I WAS TALKING WITH KAY ABOUT YOUR QUESTION FIRST. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. >> SO RECOMMEND WAIVING CANOPY LOSS FEE FOR PHASE TWO AND DEDICATE THE CANOPY LOST FEE OF PHASE ONE TO BE USED FIRST ON THIS SITE FOR ADDITIONAL TREES IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALREADY SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. >> SO I GUESS ULTIMATELY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU WILL NOT GRANT THE REFUND ON PHASE ONE? >> CORRECT. >> BUT YOU WILL GRANT THE REFUND ON PHASE TWO. >> MAYBE. >> OKAY. WELL, AND THEN KIND OF AN UNDERLYING. >> AND AS A LIMITATION OF GRANTING THE EXCEPTION FOR THE PHASE TWO FEE IS TO DEDICATE THE PHASE ONE FEE TO BE USED FOR ADDITIONAL TREE PLANTING IN ADDITION IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY SHOWN ON THE PLANS ON THIS SITE. AND SECOND TO BE USED LEGACY PARK. >> AND I THINK MAYBE LEGACY PARK WOULD INCLUDE THE AREA IN FRONT OF LEGACY PARK THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE STREET REAL I GREATER. >> THERE'S A LITTLE TRIANGLE CREATED A LITTLE GREEN SPACE TRIANGLE CREATED THIS ROAD, THING HAPPENS. RIGHT. SO SHOULD BE FILLED WITH TREES. >> IS THAT NOT THE AREA WHERE THEY SAVE TREES? >> ROAD RIGHT NOW. YEAH. >> THE TREES ARE PROBABLY. >> THERE'S THE ROAD NOW THERE CONFIGURE. >> SOME OF THOSE ARE ALREADY SAVED. >> YES. LEGACY PARK WOULD COME ALL THE WAY UP TO THE CURVE OF THE ROAD. >> ARE YOU ABLE TO DIRECT WHERE FUNDS>. >>SHE'S COMFORTABLE WITH SAYING THEY GO AT LEGACY. I DON'T WANT TO GET IN HER LANE BECAUSE I DON'T MANAGE THOSE FUNDS WHATSOEVER. BUT THAT'S WHY WE WERE CHATTING. I BELIEVE SHE'S OKAY WITH SAYING THAT THEY GO ON LEGACY PARK AND KEEPING IT OPEN. SO WHEN THOSE TREES ARE NEEDED AND THE FUNDS CAN BE USED CORRECTLY, THEY CAN BE USED THERE. DID I SAY THAT THE RIGHT WAY? >> WHERE WE TYPICALLY TRY AND USE FUNDS FOR TREE PLANTINGS IS WHERE WE NEARBY WHERE WE'VE LOST CANOPY. IN THIS INSTANCE, YES, PLANNING THE REST OF THE AREA AROUND LEGACY, IF THEY DID DECIDE TO SHIFT THE ROAD IN SOME FUTURE DATE, THAT WOULD CREATE ANOTHER POCKET PARK, THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY NEED TREES, ANY RIGHT AWAY PLANTINGS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD TRY AND GO WITH IT IS THE AREA THAT LOSES THE CANOPY. >> I GUESS A QUESTION FROM YOU GUYS. I'M NOT TRYING TO PLAY THE I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE A SECOND. >>IS THE MOTION. >> WAS IT REALLY A MOTION? >> IT WAS A MOTION. >> OKAY. SO I JUST WANT TO KEEP THE ORDER. WE NEED A MOTION A SECOND AND THEN OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. SO SORRY. OKAY. I HEARD IT AS I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> WE WROTE A DRAFT MOTION. >> I WROTE A DRAFT MOTION. IF I MAKE A MOTION AND THEN WE CHANGE THEN WE TECH ROBERTS TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON THE CHANGE AND ALL OF THAT. >> DISCUSSION. YES. OUT THERE. >> YEAH I GUESS IT JUST A QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION, THERE WAS THIS EXCEPTION BAKED INTO THE TREE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS, [01:20:01] THE COMMISSION MAY AUTHORIZE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WHEN PUBLIC PURPOSES ARE MET, AND THE EXCEPTIONS SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY GOAL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PERMANENT BONA FIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THEN I'VE HEARD A CONCERN ABOUT, PRECEDENTS BEING SET. BUT I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS. MAYBE YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR OBJECTION, BUT THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF THAT IN THE ORDINANCE WAS BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE THE COST OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE BECAUSE IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE RELATIVE TO THE INCOMES. SO I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT. >> WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT THE COMMENT MADE I DO THINK THERE IS A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ACROSS THE STREET ON PROPERTY VALUES AT THE MOMENT. IT MAY BE MARGINAL AFTER IT'S GROWN IN. IT MAY NOT BE ONE AT SOME POINT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT COMMENT IS COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT. AND IN MY MIND, THIS IS SOME I EVENING THAT UP A LITTLE BIT. >> ITS FAIR. I WAS CURIOUS A BIT. >> AND TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT JOE SAID, THE ORDINANCE DOES SPECIFICALLY CARVE OUT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT USES THE WORD MAY, WHICH INDICATES THEY DO HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION. WE DO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF IT, AND I DON'T READ IT TO BE AN AUTOMATIC APPROVAL. >> NO OF COURSE. YEAH, I GUESS I WAS JUST RESTATING THE INTENT OF I HEAR YOU. I WAS SATISFIED BY THE SCREENING THAT THEY HAD DONE ON THEIR SITE, I GUESS, THAT HAS NOT BEEN INSTALLED YET. BUT IF YOU GUESS I FEEL LIKE IT'S ADEQUATE, THAT'S THE QUESTION I WAS ASKING. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. NOW I'LL MAKE A MOTION. PLEASE ENTERTAIN SUCH AN DONE. >> AND I WROTE IT DOWN CASEY SO I CAN HAND IT TO YOU. >> THAT'S FINE. I GOT IT TOO. I DON'T WORD SMITH JUST IN CASE YOU FORGOT. >> BEFORE YOU MAKE THE MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO WORD SMITH IT. THE WORD YOU USE WORD DEDICATE. >> POTENTIAL PROPOSED MOTION BUT SEE IF I WORDS BE DEDICATED. >> I WOULD SUGGEST CHANGING THE WORD DEDICATED TO CANOPY LOST FEE FOR PHASE ONE REQUESTED. I WOULD USE THE WORD REQUESTED ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE CAN USE SUCH A COMMITTED WORD AS DEDICATED. WE CAN SAY REQUESTED TO EXPRESS OUR DESIRES. ULTIMATELY, THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE ANY PLAN THEY WANT. BUT YOU CAN HAVE IT ON RECORD OF OUR REQUEST FOR THAT LOCATION. >> SO I'LL READ IT NOW WITH THAT CHANGE. RECOMMEND WAIVING THE CANOPY LOST FEE FOR PHASE TWO, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATION THAT THE CANOPY LOSS FEE FOR PHASE ONE BE REQUESTED FOR USE AT LEGACY PARK. I PULLED OUT FIRST AT SECOND AT LEGACY PARK BECAUSE THIS SITE IS LEGACY PARK. >> WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT BEFORE. >> SO THE MOTION ID ON THE FLOOR. >> THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. >> YES SOMEONE HAS TO SECOND IT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL IN FAVOR. >> THIS IS A DISCUSSION ON MOTION. >> DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AFTER THE SECONDING? >> YEAH, SECOND. >> FURTHER DISCUSSION. OKAY. >> NOW WE ACCEPT SOME ACTUALLY. >> TO THE ACTUAL MOTION IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOCATE FUNDS GO TO A SPECIFIC AREA. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY TO TO POTENTIALLY HELP THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IMPACTED IF THEY'RE ABLE TO FIT SOME TREES ON THEIR PROPERTY OR WHEREVER I COULD SEE THAT BEING A GOOD USE OF THE FUNDS. >> LEGACY OR DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO LEGACY PARK. I'LL TAKE THAT AS A FAKE. >> HOW DOES THAT WORK? I DON'T KNOW MAJESTICALLY HOW THAT WORKS. >> ITS HOUSING AUTHORITY MONEY, THEN YOU'RE SAYING ADJACENT PROPERTIES, HOW DOES THAT GET ALLOCATED. >> SO THE MONEY ACTUALLY GOES INTO THE TREE BANK. YES. SO REMEMBER, IT WOULD COME INTO THE TREE BANK. AND THEN AT THE TIME WHEN A VALID PROJECT COMES ALONG OR A NEED FOR TREES, WHO KNOWS IT COULD BE STORM DAMAGE OR SOMETHING, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAVE TO BE A PROJECT. >> SOME TREE BANK DISCRETION. CORRECT. [01:25:03] >> THEN KAY AND HER TEAM COULD USE IT AT LEGACY PARK OR NEARBY PROPERTIES. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I GET IT. IT'S JUST MONEY IN DIFFERENT PLACES. >> YES. >> SO WHERE ARE WE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES LANE? >> I TOOK THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND THE SECONDER DID, SO IT'S IN THERE NOW. WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE. >> OKAY. >> SO JOHN AND JOE AGAIN? >> IN CASE YOU HAVE THE VERBIAGE. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION THAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE? OKAY. WELL, WE'RE READY TO VOTE ON THE MOTION AS PUT FORTH. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY I. >> I. >> I'M SORRY. CAN WE DO THAT MORE TIME TO THE ROLL CALL? >> WE HAVE GREG JASON JENNY. THANK YOU. >> ALL OPPOSED. ANY ABSTENTIONS? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. THE MOTION PASSES. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE DISCUSSION. OUR ONLY OTHER BUSINESS LISTED IN THE AGENDA IS OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OCTOBER 8. [IV.a. Next meeting: October 8, 2024.] >> YES. AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE NO ITEMS ON IT, SO YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT ONE CANCELED. EVEN THOUGH I'D LOVE TO SEE EVERYONE'S FACES. IT'S NICE TO HAVE A BREAK, RIGHT? AND THEN AS NORMAL, I'LL LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THE NOVEMBER MEETING. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, CASEY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS, NEW BUSINESS? ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO COVER? OKAY. HEARING NONE, MOVE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.