[1. Call to Order]
[00:00:02]
>> ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THIS MEETING STARTED. YOU MAY NOTICE THAT I AM NOT BRIAN MOCK. BRIAN MOCK IS OUR MAYOR IS ATTENDING TO OTHER BUSINESS. SO WE HOPE TO HAVE HIM BACK BY TUESDAY.
SO YOU GUYS ARE STUCK WITH ME TODAY. SO THE CLERK WOULD CALL THE ROLL.
MAYOR BRIAN MOCK. MAYOR PRO TEM PAUL STOVALL.
ALL RIGHT, DID EVERYBODY LIKE THE AGENDA? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA? SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT, GOOD. THAT IS UNANIMOUS. MOVES US DOWN TO ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY. THAT'S CORRECT. ALL
[3. Public Hearings]
RIGHT, SO. SO NOW WE MOVE INTO OUR PUBLIC HEARING SECTION FOR THOSE HERE. LAST MONTH WE STARTED A NEW WAY OF DOING THIS AND WE'RE HOPING THIS WILL BE THE WAY GOING FORWARD. IT'S PRETTY COOL. SO THE WAY IT'S GOING TO WORK THIS TIME IN THE PAST, WE DID SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT NOW WHAT WE DO IS THE STAFF WILL GO AHEAD AND PRESENT. THEN WE'LL HAVE SOME TIME FOR PEOPLE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM AND THEN SOME TIME FOR PEOPLE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. AND THEN COUNCIL WILL ASK QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON. BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE OFFICIAL RULES FOR PUBLIC HEARING ZONING MATTERS. THE HEARING SHALL BE PRESIDED OVER BY THE MAYOR.AFTER CALLING THE HEARING TO OR. THE MAYOR SHALL REQUEST THAT THE PARCELS OF PROPERTY WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT TO THE ZONING PROPOSAL BE IDENTIFIED AND READ. FOLLOWING SUCH IDENTIFICATION AND READING, THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE PRESENTED. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SHALL CAUSE THE DIRECTOR'S WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO BE MADE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.
PROPONENTS OF EACH ZONING DECISION SHALL THEN BE ALLOWED A TOTAL OF 10 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION OF DATA, EVIDENCE AND OPINION CONCERNING THE ZONING DECISION. IF ALL 10 MINUTES ARE NOT USED, THE PROPONENT MAY REMOVE MAY USE THE REMAINING TIME FOR REBUTTAL. OPPONENTS OF EACH PROPOSED ZONING DECISION WILL THEN BE ALLOWED A TOTAL OF 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATION OF DATA, EVIDENCE AND OPINION CONCERNING EACH ZONING DECISION. THE PRESENTATION TIMES MAY NOT BE REDUCED BUT MAY BE EXTENDED BY MAJORITY VOTE PROVIDED THEY ARE EXTENDED. EXTENDED EQUALLY FOR PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK MUST COME TO THE MICROPHONE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND GIVE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS TO CITY CLERK. DO NOT SPEAK UNLESS YOU HAVE THE MICROPHONE AND HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED. ALL RIGHT, MR. PLANNING DIRECTOR, WHAT DO YOU HAVE FOR US? FIRST ON ITEM I GOT HERE IS 5560 PEACHTREE BOULEVARD. THAT'S CORRECT.
THIS IS PZ2026 17115560 PEACHTREE. BOULEVARD. THIS IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FIFTH THIRD BANK AT THE CORNER OF PEACHTREE BOULEVARD AND LONGVIEW. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOUR VARIANCES AND NINE WAIVERS AS FOLLOWS.
VARIANCE TO ALLOW FREESTANDING ATM ON A STOREFRONT STREET. A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM 9 SPACES TO 11 SPACES TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM STACKING SPACES FOR A BANK DRIVE THRU FROM 6 SPACES TO 4 SPACES TO EXCEED THE NUMBER OF FACADES WITH WALL SIGNAGE FROM 3, 2 TO 3 AND THEN WAIVERS TO REDUCE THE FENESTRATION ON A STOREFRONT STREET FROM 60% TO 46% AND TO REDUCE FENESTRATION ON A FEEDER STREET FROM 50% TO 26% TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM SOD HEIGHT ON A BOULEVARD STREET FROM 24FT TO 20FT TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM FLOOR TO CEILING HEIGHT ON A STOREFRONT STREET FROM 18FT TO 12FT TO ALLOW TWO DRIVE THRU LANES ON A STOREFRONT STREET.
TO MAINTAIN A CURB CUT ON BOULEVARDS ON A BOULEVARD STREET TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SPACING ON A 45 MILE PER HOUR STREET FROM 369FT TO 322FT AND FROM THE DRIVE TO WEST AND 198FT FROM LONGVIEW DRIVE TO THE EAST TO LOCATE A STREET TREE 70FT ON CENTER ON PEACHTREE BOULEVARD AND TO REDUCE THE SUPPLEMENTAL ZONE ON LONGVIEW DRIVE FROM 70FT TO 00 FEE. SO THE SUBJECT SITE CONSISTS OF A HALF ACRE SITE LOCATED ALONG PEACHTREE BOULEVARD.
IT'S AT THE INTERSECTION OF PEACHTREE BOULEVARD AND LONGVIEW DRIVE, MOST RECENTLY HELD A GAS STATION WHICH HAS BEEN SINCE DEMOLISHED AND IT'S LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE CHAMBLEE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER. SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT EDGE OF THE PROPERTY ALONG BOULEVARD, SORRY, PEACHTREE BOULEVARD, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING GAS STATION HAS BEEN REMOVED. AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL ALONG LONGVIEW DRIVE. SO YOU'LL NOTE THAT THERE IS EXISTING STREETSCAPE INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG LONGVIEW DRIVE.
HOWEVER, AS YOU GO TOWARDS PEACHTREE ROAD, THE STREETSCAPE IS MISSING FROM THAT PIECE. SO THE EXISTING SITE CONTAINS FOUR CURB CUTS ON PEACHTREE BOULEVARD. THERE ARE THREE ON THAT WILL BE REMOVED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. THE
[00:05:01]
STREETSCAPE ALONG PEACHTREE BOULEVARD WAS FUNDED BY THE CHAMBLEE DORVILLE CID AND THEREFORE THE APPLICANT'S NOT REQUIRED TO INSTALL NEW STREETSCAPE ALONG PEACHTREE BOULEVARD AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.HOWEVER, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE LONGVIEW DRIVE FRONTAGE LACKS THE NECESSARY STREETSCAPE, MEANING THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO BRING THAT INTO COMPLIANCE. SO THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWS THE CLOSURE OF THREE CURB CUTS, ONE ON PEACHTREE BOULEVARD AND TWO ON LONGVIEW DRIVE, ALONG WITH THE INSTALLATION OF REQUIRED STREETSCAPE ALONG ALONG VIEW DRIVE. THE REMAINING CURB CUT ALONG PEACHTREE ROAD CANNOT REASONABLY BE RELOCATED AND GIVEN THAT IT'S A SHARED DRIVEWAY, WE WOULD NOT WANT THE APPLICANT TO DO THIS. HOWEVER, THE LOCATION OF THE CURB CUT IS NON COMPLIANT AND AS SUCH REQUIRES A VARIANCE WHICH STAFF IS SUPPORTING. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION ALONG THE SOUTHERN FRONTAGE TO SERVE AS ONE OF THE MAIN ENTRANCES TO THE BUILDING. WALKWAYS WILL CONNECT THIS AREA TO THE SIDEWALKS ON PEACHTREE AND LONGVIEW, AND THE STREETSCAPE ALONG LONGVIEW DRIVE WOULD REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ZONE WHICH THE APPLICANT IS PARTIALLY PROVIDING. HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT THIS IS A SECURED ENTRY POINT TO THE BUILDING, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IS BEING PROVIDED PRIMARILY ALONG THE SOUTHERN FRONTAGE AS WELL AS THE INSTALLATION OF NEW PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES ALONG LONGVIEW DRIVE, AND I'D NOTE THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING THAT IN EXCESS OF WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED. BECAUSE OF THIS, STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL ZONE REDUCTION. SO THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO INSTALL LANDSCAPE COMPLIANT WITH THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING LOTS AND HAS PROPOSED TO MEET THE TREE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS THROUGH A MIXTURE OF PLANTING AND IN LIEU FEES.
SO THEY ARE PROVIDING 76% OF THEIR REQUIRED ON SITE TREES THROUGH PLANTING. THE REMAINDER WOULD BE THROUGH IN LIEU. THE APPLICANT DOES PROPOSE TO PLANT THE STREET TREES 70FT ON CENTER LONG PEACHTREE IN LONGVIEW, WHEREAS THE UDO WOULD REQUIRE 80FT ON CENTER. STAFF IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNING ARRANGEMENT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE UDO AND HAS NO CONCERNS WITH THAT PROPOSAL. ALSO AS A NOTE, THE APPLICANT HAS ELECTED TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPED AREAS EXTENDING INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THIS WILL BE REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLANNING LOCATIONS AND SPECIES SELECTION SHOULD THE VARIANCES AND WAIVERS BE APPROVED AND THE SITE PLAN BE ADOPTED AS A CONDITION OF COUNCIL'S APPROVAL. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE EASTERN ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING ALONG WITH THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION.
THE UDO WOULD REQUIRE THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO BE AT LEAST 24FT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 20FT AND WOULD REQUIRE A FLOOR TO CEILING HEIGHT OF 18FT, WHEREAS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 12 FOOT FLOOR TO CEILING HEIGHT AND WOULD REQUIRE THE SOUTHERN FENESTRATION TO BE AT LEAST 60% OF THAT FACADE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 46%.
ALONG THE WESTERN ELEVATION, THE UDO WOULD REQUIRE 50% FENESTRATION, WHEREAS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE 26%. IN GENERAL, STAFF FINDS THAT STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT, FLOOR CEILING HEIGHT AND FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS WOULD NOT BE UNREASONABLE, BUT ALSO FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT'S PLANS ACHIEVE THE INTENT OF THE CODE, NAMELY THE PROVIDER VISION OF AN ATTRACTIVE AND INVITING PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING VARIANCES TO ALLOW SIGNAGE ON THREE FACADES WHERE THEY ARE PERMITTED A MAXIMUM OF SIGNAGE ON TWO FACADES. STAFF CANNOT FIND A HARDSHIP BASED ON THE SIZE, SHAPE AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE THAT REQUIRES THE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON A FACADE. THEREFORE, WE CANNOT SUPPORT THE REQUESTED VARIANTS. LASTLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ATM AND TELLER WINDOW THROUGH A PNEUMATIC TUBE. THE STANDALONE ATM WOULD NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN BUILDING AND IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE UDO AND WOULD THEREFORE REQUIRE VARIANCE. THE DRIVE THRU FACILITIES ALSO ARE NOT PERMITTED BUT WOULD REQUIRE A WAIVER. SO STAFF CANNOT FIND A HARDSHIP RELATED TO THE SIZE, SHAPE AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE THAT REQUIRES A STANDALONE ATM THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE MAIN BUILDING.
THEREFORE, WE CAN'T SUPPORT THE VARIANTS. AND LIKEWISE WE CANNOT FIND HARDSHIP REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF DRIVE THRU FACILITIES ON A STOREFRONT STREET AND FIND THAT PROHIBITING THEM AS REQUIRED BY THE UDO IS NOT UNREASONABLE AND THAT THE GRANTING OF THEM COULD IMPAIR THE PURPOSES INTENT OF THE UDO TO GRADUALLY TRANSITION THIS AREA AWAY FROM CAR DEPENDENT USES AND ACTIVITIES. SO BECAUSE OF THIS, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VARIANCES 2, WAIVERS 1, 2, 03, 6, 7, 8 AND 9 AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF VARIANCES 1, 3, 4 AND WAIVERS 3, 4 AND 5. SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A CONDITION THAT THE DEVELOPMENT BE CONSTRUCTED IN GENERAL CONFORMITY WITH THE CONCEPTUAL ST SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION STAMPED RECEIVED ON JULY 20, 2026.
[00:10:03]
HEY, THANK YOU, MATT. ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE'LL MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION. SO BEFORE WE START THAT. SO WE GOT A NEW TIMER OVER HERE AND SHARON OR JIMMY, WHICH ONE OF YOU ALL ARE GOING TO BE RUNNING THAT? ALL RIGHT, SO THAT'LL BE OUR TIMER FOR THIS PART. SO IF ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE STEP FORWARD NOW AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF TO THE CLERK.EVENING, MR. MAYOR OR COUNCIL. MY NAME IS VENTURIGIO. I AM THE DEVELOPER AND WE ACTUALLY OWN AND MANAGE SHANLEY PLAZA. THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY PART OF SHANLEY PLAZA. IT'S A SEPARATE OUT PARCEL, AS YOU ALL KNOW.
BUT WE ALSO OWN THAT PARCEL AND MANAGE THAT PARCEL. IT'S A PLEASURE TO COME BEFORE YOU AND I THANK THE STAFF FOR THE REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. I'M GOING TO BE QUICK BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THAT CLOCK AND I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE ANY CONTROVERSY ON TAKING TOO MUCH TIME.
BUT WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO SAY TONIGHT IS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE'VE HAD THIS ON THE MARKET FOR PROBABLY TWO YEARS TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT USE COMPLEMENTARY TO OUR EXISTING CUSTOMER BASE AND IT WAS A VERY HAPPY DAY TO BRING DOWN THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE GAS STATION, PULL THE TANKS AND GET THAT CLEANED UP. OUR WHOLE ROLE HAS BEEN TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT USE AND THE RIGHT USE FOR US HAS BEEN BANK WHICH WOULD COMPLEMENT OUR EXISTING CUSTOMER BASE. SOMETHING THAT WOULD GET AWAY FROM COFFEE, MOVE AWAY FROM COFFEE BECAUSE WE THINK THERE'S ENOUGH COFFEE HOUSES. ALTHOUGH WE HAD ONE NATIONAL COFFEE BRAND THAT WANTED TO BE HERE WOULD CREATE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC AND DRIVE THROUGH TRAFFIC IF WE WERE TO COME HERE AND ASK FOR THAT VARIANCE AS WELL AS CONVENIENCE, NATIONAL CONVENIENCE STORES AND FUEL THAT WANTED TO BE THERE.
WE GOT FIFTH THIRD SO THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME. AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE STAFF THERE'S SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DENIALS. WE'RE ASKING THOSE TO BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL FOR BANK THAT IS THE DRIVE THROUGH STACKING AS WELL AS PARKING. I TOOK THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COUNCILMEMBER ROBSON AND MESA ON MOVING THE BUILDING TO FORWARD SO IT'S PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY. I INFLUENCED MY TENANT TO DO SO AND THEY DID SO THAT'S PARTIALLY WHY THOSE WAIVERS OR EXCUSE ME THE VARIANCES ARE BEING ASKED BECAUSE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH.
SO WITH THAT WE ARE FULLY FOR THIS PROJECT AND WE HOPE THAT IT GETS APPROVED TONIGHT. AND I AM OUT.
TO INTRODUCE MYSELF, MY NAME IS DANIEL WAKESNESS, I'M THE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT MANAGER WITH PRAXIS 3 REPRESENTING FIFTH THIRD BANK AS OUR CLIENT. THANKS VINCE.
SO TO KEEP IT QUICK WITH OUR UNDER 8 MINUTES REMAINING I'LL RUN THROUGH THE LIST. KEEP IT EFFICIENT HERE STARTING WITH THE VARIANCES THAT WE FIND ARE MOST CONNECTED TO THE NON NEGOTIABLES IF YOU WILL FOR THE OUTCOME OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE BANK STARTING WITH NUMBER ONE FOR THE VARIANTS TO ALLOW THE FREESTANDING ATM ON THE STOREFRONT STREET THIS ONE AGAIN IS CRITICAL TO THE OPERATION. THE DRIVE THROUGH FOR THE VAT IS CRITICAL AS WELL BUT FOR THE ATM IS A NON NEGOTIABLE THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR IN ORDER FOR THIS FOR THE BANK TO BE VIABLE IN THE SITE.
FOR NUMBER TWO VARIANTS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM 9 TO 1111 REPRESENTS THE MORE STANDARD REPRESENTATION OF WHAT OUR CUSTOMER AND EMPLOYEE BASE IS. IN ORDER TO GIVE AN EQUAL SPLIT FOR BOTH OF THOSE NUMBER THREE VARIANTS TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM STACKING SPACES FOR A BANK DRIVE THRU FROM 6 TO 4 AND FOR THIS ITEM IN PARTICULAR THE THE BANK PULLED SOME BUSINESS PERFORMANCE DATA FROM THE THREE MOST NEAR FACILITIES THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE IN OPERATION IN PETRIE CORNERS, DUNWOODY, BROOKHAVEN. THERE ARE OTHERS THAT ARE IN CONSTRUCTION BUT THOSE SPECIFICALLY ARE IN OPERATION NEARBY AND THEY FOUND THAT OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS THEIR BUSIEST DAY ARE FRIDAYS. SO THE PEAK DAY IS 34 AND A HALF TRANSACTIONS PER DAY. AND THAT INCLUDES THE FACILITY AS A WHOLE. SO THAT'S FOR BOTH DRIVE THRU LANES, THAT'S FOR THE INTERIOR FACILITY AS WELL. ABOUT 40% OF THOSE ARE DEDICATED TO THE SO THE DRIVE THRU USE AND OF THAT BROKEN DOWN FROM FRIDAY, THE BUSIEST HALF HOUR OF THE ENTIRE DAY IS RIGHT AFTER LUNCHTIME, RIGHT AFTER NOON. AND THAT SEES BETWEEN TWO AND TWO AND A HALF TRANSACTIONS PER HALF HOUR. SO CONCERNED ABOUT STACKING REDUCING FROM SIX CARS DOWN TO FOUR CARS BEHIND THE EQUIPMENT, WE'RE SEEING AT THE BUSIEST DAY, AT THE BUSIEST HALF HOUR THERE MIGHT BE TWO CARS IN LINE. SO THAT'S A CRITICAL ONE. AND THEN ALSO
[00:15:01]
AS WELL THE LENGTH OF THOSE TRANSACTIONS, THEY'RE ON AVERAGE BETWEEN ONE MINUTE AND SEVEN MINUTES LONG. PRETTY SHORT, PRETTY RARE THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO CARS STACKING.MOVING ON TO VARIANCE NUMBER FOUR TO EXCEED THE NUMBER OF FACADES WITH WALL SIGNAGE FROM 2 TO 3. IN SPEAKING WITH THE CLIENT BEFORE THIS MEETING, THEY'RE PREPARED TO ADMIT THAT ONE FROM OUR LIST. SO WE CAN MOVE ON FROM THAT ONE TO THE SECTION ON WAIVERS.
NEXT, STAFF WAS IN AGREEANCE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL ON 1 AND 02, SO I'LL SKIP THOSE TO SAVE TIME HERE. WAIVERS NUMBERS 3, 4 AND 5 SPECIFICALLY WERE RECOMMENDED DENIAL ON.
AND SO THOSE ARE AGAIN TIED TO THE EFFICIENCY IN USE OF THE BRANCH FACILITY. SO FOR NUMBERS THREE AND FOUR THAT PERTAIN TO SPECIFICALLY THE FACADE HEIGHT TO BE REDUCED FROM A REQUIRED 24FT TO 20FT AND THEN FOR THE CEILING HEIGHT TO BE REDUCED FROM 18FT TO 12FT, WE FIND IT IN THE CURRENT DESIGN THAT IT MATCHES MORE OF THE. IT CREATES A DESIGN THAT IS EFFICIENT, IT'S EFFECTIVE, THERE'S NOT WASTED SPACE, THERE'S NOT WASTED UTILITY USE.
YOU KNOW, WE COULD CERTAINLY GROW THE BUILDING AND GROW THE BUILDING, BUT THEN THAT WOULD JUST CREATE EXTRA UNNEEDED ENERGY. UTILITY USE, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED FOR THE FUNCTION AND THE ENJOYMENT OF THE SPACE.
ANOTHER NOTE ON THE CEILING HEIGHT AT 12FT AS IT IS FOR NOW, THAT'S KIND OF THE MAXIMAL LIMIT OF STANDARD FACILITY MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS. IF YOU IMAGINE THAT THE STANDARD VAN THAT CAN MOUNT A 10 OR 12 FOOT LADDER TO THE TOP OF IT, AS SOON AS YOU START EXCEEDING THAT HEIGHT, THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SCISSOR LIFTS AND MORE COMPLICATED WAYS TO ELEVATE A MAINTENANCE WORKER INSIDE THE FACILITY, IT BECOMES MORE OF A NUISANCE AND A COMPLICATION TO THE CUSTOMERS. SO WE LIKE TO KEEP THE CEILINGS RIGHT AT 12 IF POSSIBLE AND THEN WAIVER NUMBER FIVE AS THE LAST ONE IN THE LIST THAT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL TO ALLOW TWO DRIVE THRU LANES ON THE STOREFRONT STREET. THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVES ARE BEHIND THE BUILDING AS THEY WERE SHOWING IN THE SITE PLAN DEMONSTRATION.
THERE'S LOTS OF LANDSCAPING SCREENING AROUND THE BUILDING AND THEN ALSO AROUND THE DRIVE LANES AS WELL.
IT'S NOT ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING PER THE ORDINANCE. BUT WE FIND THAT IT'S THAT WE ARE REACHING OUT AND TRYING TO EXTEND OUR ABILITY AND MODIFYING THE DESIGN.
THERE JUST ABOUT THREE AND A HALF MINUTES LEFT.
I DON'T BE WORRIED ABOUT THE CLOCK. IF YOU NEED MORE TIME, WE'LL GRANT IT TO YOU.
OKAY, SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT IS ABOUT THE END OF MY LIST FOR THE ONES THAT RECOMMENDED DENIAL ON THE REMAINING THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR. I'M NOT SURE.
NEED MORE COMMENT SO I THINK I'D LEAVE IT THERE. THANK YOU.
ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE? ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE'LL MOVE. OH YEP.
JOSH HARRISON, LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY MEMBER AT 5170 PEACHTREE. ALSO ON THE CID BOARD AND I APPRECIATE STAFF REFERENCING THE PATHS THAT WERE INSTALLED IN FRONT OF THIS PROJECT. JUST WANT TO SPEAK IN HA ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT IN FAVOR. I THINK IT'S GREAT TO SEE FURTHER INVESTMENT ON THE CORRIDOR. I KNOW WHAT VINCE AND TRINITY HAS DONE THERE AT CHAMBLEE PLAZA HISTORICAL HAS BEEN AWESOME FOR THE COMMUNITY. HE SAID IT, I WON'T REPEAT IT BUT THIS IS A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE AND SO I THINK IT'S GREAT.
ANECDOTALLY AND I, AND I THINK IT'S. I WASN'T PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT MY PERSONAL BANKING HABITS. I ACTUALLY BANK WITH A BANK THAT DOESN'T HAVE PHYSICAL LOCATIONS. SO I STOP AT ATMS ALL THE TIME. I JUST DON'T STOP AT ONES THAT I CAN'T GO THROUGH IN MY CAR. SO IT'S ANECDOTAL, I'M ONE CUSTOMER, BUT I THINK THAT VARIANCE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO DO WITH UDO TO LIMIT THOSE DRIVE THROUGHS BUT I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHY BANKING LOCATIONS NOW WON'T REALLY LOCATE WITHOUT IT. SO I JUST WANTED TO SUPPORT THAT PARTICULAR VARIANCE REQUEST WHILE I WAS UP HERE. THANK YOU ALL.
ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.
ANYONE? ALL RIGHT, WELL WITH THAT NO ONE IN OPPOSITION THEN WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT FOR THIS ITEM. AND NOW I'LL ASK COUNCIL. DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY
[00:20:02]
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT FOR THE DRIVE THRU COMPONENT.IT'S THAT OUR DRIVE THROUGH, OUR UDO DOESN'T CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BANK AND A RESTAURANT. AND WE UNDERSTAND AS A COUNCIL THESE ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT USES. SO I WOULDN'T BE TOO WORRIED ABOUT THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. BUT I'LL LET THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS CHIME IN ON THEIR THOUGHTS.
WELL, I FOR ONE APPRECIATE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A HIGH VOLUME COFFEE OR ANY OTHER FOOD, FAST FOOD KIND OF PRODUCT THERE. I THINK THE RESIDENTS YOU'VE TAKEN A HUNTLEY HILLS DEFINITELY WANT A BREAK FROM TRAFFIC THAT IMPEDES THEM FROM GETTING OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF USES I HEARD RUMORED ABOUT THAT SITE I WAS LIKE, OH MY GOSH, THAT'S GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE. SO I THINK THIS BANK WOULD BE A GOOD USE FOR A COMPLIMENTARY USE FOR THE AREA AND THE PRODUCT.
AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, I THINK I KNOW WHAT THE UDO WAS TRYING TO DO IN THAT AND THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE IT WORKED. BUT I THINK BECAUSE THAT BUILDING HAS SUCH A SMALL FOOTPRINT COMPARED TO THE OTHER BUILDINGS ON THERE AND THEN IT WOULD BE MUCH HIGHER SO IT ALMOST LOOK LIKE A. IT WOULD JUST LOOK. I THINK IT WOULD LOOK PROPORTIONALLY OUT OF WHACK.
THAT'S MY 2 CENTS ON THE PROJECT. I'M GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT, BUT I'M ALWAYS LISTENING FOR MORE UPDATES.
WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO WASTE A LOT OF ENERGY, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE WINDOWS, HEAT AND AIR CONDITIONING WISE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FENESTRATION ITSELF IS A PERCENTAGE, BUT I WOULD LIKE THE WINDOWS TO LOOK LIKE THEY'RE THE SIZE WHETHER THEY ARE ACTUALLY SEE THROUGH OR NOT. SO YOU'RE ASKING TO REDUCE THE ACTUAL FENESTRATION? I WOULD LIKE IT TO LOOK LIKE FENESTRATION AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE SHADE ON THE TOP OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU WANT TO DO SO THAT YOU CAN ACCOMMODATE WHAT YOU WANT TO HAVE ON THE INSIDE, BUT SO THAT IT LOOKS LIKE MORE WINDOWS. I THINK THAT THAT'S JUST MUCH MORE ATTRACTIVE, MUCH MORE NEIGHBORLY FEELING.
AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. DO YOU. ON, ON THE, ON THE ATM IS THERE ACTUALLY IN THE DRIVE THRU ITSELF, IS THERE ACTUALLY A ROOF, A COVER THAT YOU DRIVE UNDER TO ACCESS THE ATMOSPHERE? YEAH, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT FOR THE DESIGNER.
THERE'S NO CLOCK ON THIS ONE, SO YOU'RE GOOD.
THANK YOU. THERE IS, THERE ARE STANDALONE TWO CANOPIES, ONE PER EQUIPMENT PIECE. THEY DON'T STAND VERY LARGE, MAYBE 8 FOOT 10 FOOT TALL, BUT THERE'S TWO LEGS AND THEN CANTILEVERS OVER THE TOP OF THE EQUIPMENT TO PROTECT THE DRIVER.
NO, OVER THE ATN. I MEAN OVER THE TELLER'S WINDOW AT THE OTHER DRIVE THROUGH. IS THERE SOME SORT OF WEATHER SHIELD AS WELL? IDENTICAL CAMERA FOR BOTH.
AND HAVE JOSH GETTING HIS SLEEVE WET IN A STORM.
OKAY, THANK YOU. THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS.
JUST ONE OTHER THOUGHT FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE LONGVIEW SIDE. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF PEDESTRIANS THAT WALK ON THERE TODAY. I LOVE WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH THE EXTRA PLANTINGS THAT THEY HAVE THERE RIGHT NOW.
WOULD THERE BE CONSIDERATION TO EXTEND THAT OUT TO A 10 FOOT MULTI USE PATH TO ACCOMMODATE OUR WALKERS THAT ARE TRYING TO GET TO OUR DOWNTOWN THROUGHOUT THE.
ON LONGVIEW. THIS WOULD BE ON THE. IF YOU'RE FACING THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
EXTENDING THE PATH MEANING ADJACENT TO THE.
LIKE FOLLOWING THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND EXTENDING IT. RIGHT NOW A SIDEWALK WOULD BE ABOUT 5FT.
WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR SOMETHING MAYBE 10 OR 12FT THERE.
YEAH, I THINK THEY'D BE OPEN TO THAT. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH.
WOULD THAT. WOULD THAT REMOVE PLANTINGS TO GET THAT ADDITIONAL WIDTH OR WE JUST CURIOUS OR DOES IT PUT IT UP TO THE BACK OF THE CURB THAT I MIGHT DEFER TO THE CIVIL ENGINEERS.
JUST CURIOUS. THAT'S. THAT THERE'S SOME.
SOMETIMES THERE'S A GIVE AND TAKE IF POSSIBLE.
I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. SURE, SURE, SURE. I THINK IDEALLY THE BUILDING WOULD STAY PUT AND IT'D BE A GIVE AND TAKE FOR THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF, YOU KNOW, THE PLANTINGS OR MAYBE SOME TURF GOES AWAY TO ACCOMMODATE.
[00:25:01]
ABSOLUTELY. NOT ASKING YOU TO MOVE THE BUILDING, JUST USING THE SPACE THAT YOU HAVE CURRENTLY WITH THE BUILDING AS IS.I THINK THAT THE. FOR THE TIME BEING BECAUSE THE ADJACENT.
THE CONNECTING SIDEWALK TO HUNTLEY HILLS IS MUCH NARROWER AND IT IS UP A HILL.
AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO WIDEN THAT TO 10FT, BUT REALLY ONLY IF WE CAN GET THE REST OF THE SIDEWALK WIDENED ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE CORNER OF LONGVIEW AND ADMIRAL. I DON'T KNOW THIS HAVING A SAMPLE OF WHITE SIDEWALK THERE CONNECTING TO A FORK WHITE SIDEWALK IS GOING TO DO ANYBODY ANY GOOD.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ADA COMPLIANT BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE A FEW SPOTS THAT ARE NOT ADA COMPLIANT ON THE REST OF THE SIDEWALK ON LONGVIEW, SO. ALL RIGHT, THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE? NOPE. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL CLOSE THAT ITEM DOWN. AND NOW LET'S SEE, THERE'S NO ACTION ITEMS FOR STAFF, SO WE'LL CLOSE THAT DOWN. AND NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO 2700 NORTHEAST EXPRESSWAY.
SO THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED FROM MEETING TWO MONTHS AGO.
SO SINCE THEN WE'VE HAD A NEW REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE OWNER REACH OUT TO STAFF AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WILL BE REQUESTING A DEFERRAL TONIGHT. WE'VE NOT RECEIVED UPDATED INFORMATION, BUT I WAS GOING TO LET THEM SPEAK SO THAT THEY COULD MAKE THE REQUEST TO YOU.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.
THIS IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION. THAT'S RIGHT. SO IS ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? THAT'S YOU.
WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE PROCEDURAL DISCUSSION.
DON'T WORRY, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE BEST.
MY NAME IS JORDAN EDWARDS WITH THE GALLOWAY LAW GROUP.
AS MR. ADAMS JUST TOLD YOU, I'M REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER. Y' ALL MAY REMEMBER THIS FROM JULY. THE PARTIES GOT TOGETHER WHERE PRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE TENANT. SO THEY, THEY PUT THEIR HEADS TOGETHER AND DECIDED THIS WAS PROPERLY A PROPERTY OWNERS ISSUE. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. SO WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF PUTTING MATERIALS TOGETHER TO SUBMIT TO THE CITY. GIVE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS. THE DEADLINE FOR DOING THAT AHEAD OF THIS MEETING WAS ALREADY PASSED, SO WE NEED MORE TIME. I APPRECIATE YOUR. YOUR PATIENCE AND WE PLAN TO BE HERE AS SOON, AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN PREPARED WITH ALL THAT INFORMATION.
JUST SO COUNCIL IS AWARE STAFF DID ADVERTISE THE DEFERRAL OR THAT THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. JUST ANTICIPATING YOUR ACTION, OF COURSE, IF, IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO GO THAT WAY, THAT WOULD BE NULL.
BUT JUST SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFER IT. TWO MONTHS IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO THAT.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS? JOSH? NO.
ALL RIGHT, THEN MOVE ON TO ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.
ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE NOW, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON IT. DO ANY OF Y' ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? JUST THE ONLY COMMENT I MAKE IS THANK YOU. A LOT OF TIMES THAT WE GET PUT IN THE MIDDLE OF A TENANT LANDLORD DISPUTE AND THEY WANT US TO ADJUDICATE IT, AND THAT IS NOT OUR POSITION.
SO HAVING THEM ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AT THE TABLE AND HAVE A CONVERSATION IS SOMETHING I'M GRATEFUL FOR. THANK YOU.
AND NO PROBLEM WITH THE, FOR ME, FOR THE DEFERRAL BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO. SO THAT'S THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.
I HAVE ONE COMMENT TO MAKE ON I DON'T I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A THREAT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT WHATEVER THE DECISION IS IS GOING TO AFFECT ALL OF THE REST OF THIS, LANDOWNERS, BUILDING OWNERS UNITS ON THAT PROPERTY. SO KEEP THAT IN MIND.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL CLOSE THIS ITEM OUT AND NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO 3669 NORTH PEACHTREE ROAD.
ALL RIGHT, SO THIS ITEM WAS ALSO DEFERRED FROM A PREVIOUS HEARING. I WILL BRIEFLY RECAP THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AS WELL AS THE POINTS WHICH WERE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY AS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING WAIVERS TO NOT INSTALL THE REQUIRED STREETSCAPE ALONG CLEMSON DRIVE. THAT INCLUDES THE LANDSCAPE ZONE, THE SIDEWALK CLEAR ZONE AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ZONE. SO AS A REMINDER, THE SITE IS LOCATED IN A LARGELY INDUSTRIAL AREA AT THE CORNER OF NORTH PEACHTREE AND CLEMSON DRIVE.
THE CURRENT SCOPE OF PROPOSED WORK HAS TRIGGERED THE REDEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS AS THE COST OF THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED WORK IS 33%
[00:30:02]
OF THE PRAISE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE.ADDITIONALLY, PREVIOUS WORK PERFORMED UNDER A PAST PERMIT IN THE LAST 36 MONTHS WAS VALUED AT 22% WHICH SETS THE CUMULATIVE VALUE AT 55%.
BECAUSE OF THIS, THE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AS IT RELATES TO STREETSCAPES. SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE CLEMSON DRIVE FRONTAGE WHICH IS DEVOID OF ANY UDO COMPLIANT STREETSCAPE. AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THE OVERALL SITE PLAN SHOWING THE STREETSCAPE SUBJECT TO THE ADAPTIVE REUSE STANDARDS IN GREEN. AS THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT BEFORE JULY 1, 1974, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP THE EXISTING STREETSCAPE PROVIDED THAT THEY MAKE CERTAIN PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE UPGRADES.
AND THE AREA THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE IS THE SIDE THAT DOES NOT HAVE STREETSCAPE. AND YOU'LL NOTE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL PARKING SPACES ENCROACHING INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY. AS A NOTE, IF A COMPLIANT STREETSCAPE WERE TO BE REQUIRED BY COUNCIL, THE PROPERTY WOULD LOSE A TOTAL OF SIX PARKING SPACES ALONG THAT FRONT INCH, BUT WOULD BE LEFT WITH 33 PARKING SPACES IN TOTAL, WHICH IS STILL NINE SPACES MORE THAN WOULD BE ALLOWED IF THIS WERE CONSTRUCTED TODAY. SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED UPDATED PLANS FOR THE PATIO AREA AS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL IN THE LAST HEARING. TWO OPTIONS ARE SHOWN. EXHIBIT ONE SHOWS A PROPOSED CIRCULAR OUTDOOR SEATING AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 290 SQUARE FEET. THIS WOULD CONSIST OF CRUSHED STONE AND WOULD FEATURE TWO PEDESTRIAN PATHS CONNECTING NORTH PEACHTREE ROAD, THREE SIX FOOT BENCHES AND A RAISED 50 SQUARE FOOT WOOD DECK PATIO IN THE CENTER. NO STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO CLEMSON DRIVE UNDER THIS OPTION AND THEN EXHIBIT 2 SHOWS THE SAME PATIO SEATING AREA, BUT WITH THE STREETSCAPE INCLUDED ALONG CLEMSON. I'D NOTE THAT THIS OPTION ONLY INCLUDES ONE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION AS THERE WOULD BE THE ADDITIONAL SPACE REQUIRED FOR THE SECOND CONNECTION TAKEN UP BY THE STREETSCAPE. SO I'D NOTE THAT THE PATIO AREA THAT'S SHOWN IS REQUIRED AS A PART OF THE ADAPTER REUSE REQUIREMENTS FOR KEEPING THE EXISTING STREETSCAPE ALONG NORTH PEACHTREE ROAD. HERE YOU CAN SEE OTHER WORK THAT IS BEING DONE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO RETAIN THAT FRONTAGE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S BAKED INTO THE EXISTING PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED. SO GIVEN THAT THERE ARE NO BUILDINGS OR OTHER SITE FEATURES WHICH WOULD PHYSICALLY PRESENT PREVENT AN OTHERWISE COMPLIANT STREETSCAPE FROM BEING INSTALLED, STAFF IS NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT WAIVERS 1 AND 2 AND IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THOSE AND APPROVAL OF WAIVER 3. IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO APPROVE ONE OF THE OTHER WAIVERS OR BOTH OF THE OTHER WAIVERS, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE. THEY'RE ALSO MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THEY WOULD CHANGE BASED ON COUNCIL'S ACTION, BUT THEY ARE THERE FOR YOU TO USE. AND ADDITIONALLY, SHOULD COUNCIL CONSIDER APPROVING ANY OF THE WAIVERS, WE RECOMMEND INCLUSION OF THE CONDITION SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE, WHICH BASICALLY TIES THE APPROVAL OF THE WAIVERS TO THE EXISTING EXISTING PERMITS, WHICH IS ALREADY SOMETHING THAT THE CO THE UDO WOULD REQUIRE. BUT THIS WOULD JUST PREVENT FUTURE CONVERSATIONS AND BACK AND FORTH ON THAT MATTER.
DOES ANYONE NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION FOR THIS ITEM? DOES ANYONE HERE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS? I EXPECTED TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH AGAIN FOR TAKING THE TIME TO MEET WITH ME TODAY. I'LL SKIP OVER THIS FIRST SLIDE BECAUSE I BELIEVE YOU ALREADY WENT OVER EVERYTHING.
I'M ANDREW CODCABI, THE OWNER OF BOTH THE BUILDING AND MY DENTAL OFFICE. SO I'LL SKIP OVER THE FIRST SLIDE WHICH WAS JUST A RECAP, BUT YOU WENT OVER THAT VERY NICELY SO WE ARE GOOD THERE. SO I FAILED BECAUSE I DID NOT REALIZE UNTIL I READ THE STAFF REPORT A WEEK BEFORE THE AUGUST MEETING THAT I COULD STAND TO LOSE SEVEN PARKING SPOTS.
AND I KNOW YOU SAID SIX RIGHT NOW, BUT I BELIEVE IN THE STAFF REPORT IT SAID SEVEN. SO I'M GOING OFF OF THAT NUMBER FROM BEFORE THAT I COULD LOSE SEVEN PARKING SPOTS CIRCLED IN YELLOW ON THIS DIAGRAM.
PREVIOUS TO THIS, I THOUGHT I WOULD ONLY HAVE TO INSTALL STREETSCAPE WHERE I CURRENTLY HAVE LANDSCAPING THE AREA CIRCLED IN RED. LOSING SEVEN OF OUR 38 PARKING SPOTS WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT ON MY DENTAL OFFICE. THIS IS 18.4% OF OUR PARKING AND IT IS A BIG DEAL. SO AFTER THE LAST MEETING I'M HAPPY TO GIVE TWO PROPOSALS.
NOW PROPOSAL ONE, SAME AS BEFORE. AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE NEGATIVE ASSOCIATED WITH STREETSCAPE HERE IS THAT THREE
[00:35:01]
TO FOUR, THREE TREES, THREE OF THEM BEING SPECIMEN TREES, WOULD HAVE TO BE CUT DOWN IN ORDER FOR STREETSCAPE TO BE INSTALLED. BUT PROPOSAL ONE IS THE SAME AS LAST MONTH, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH NOTHING DIFFERENT. NO STREETSCAPE BEING INVOLVED, BEING DONE AND THIS PATIO AND BENCHES THAT WAS DESCRIBED EARLIER BEING INSTALLED WHICH WOULD BETTER THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE UNDER SOME SHADED TREES. AND HERE'S SOME PICTURES OF WHAT THE PATIO AND BENCHES WOULD LOOK LIKE AND THE PATHWAY. SO AFTER I HAVE PUT TOGETHER A SECOND PROPOSAL, AND THAT IS IN ADDITION TO THE BENCHES AND PATIO, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO INSTALL STREETSCAPE IN THE AREA THAT CURRENTLY HAS LANDSCAPING WHICH DOES REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF TREES, BUT NOT HAVE STREETSCAPE IN THE AREA WHERE MY SEVEN PARKING SPOTS ARE. IF I THE REASON I WANT TO DO THAT IS I WANT TO SHOW THAT IT'S NOT ALL OR NOTHING. I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO COMPROMISE AND DOING WHAT I CAN TO HELP KEEP MY PARKING SPOTS.ONE A COUPLE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP LAST TIME AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING WAS THE NEED FOR MORE LIGHTING ON CLEMSON DRIVE AND I AM HAPPY TO INSTALL LIGHTING WHEREVER YOU WANT ON MY PROPERTY FOR THE AREA OF THE SEVEN PARKING SPACES. I CAN ADD LIGHTS TO THE SIDE OF MY BUILDING OR WHATEVER ELSE LIGHTING FEATURES THAT WOULD HELP BRIGHTEN UP THAT PART OF CLEMSON DRIVE. SO I KNOW THAT WAS ONE CONCERN FROM LAST TIME.
A SECOND CONCERN WAS I BROUGHT UP WELL AT THE AUGUST MEETING I SAID ONE IS THAT CLEMSON DRIVE IS NOT REALLY A PUBLIC PATH OR PEDESTRIAN STREET AND THAT THE PROPOSED CHAMBLEE TRAILS MASTER PLAN DOES NOT SHOW CLEMSON DRIVE AS PART OF IT AND HENCE WE SHOULD BE OKAY IF WE DO NOT INSTALL STREETSCAPE. I KNOW I BELIEVE YALLS WERE SO WAS THE COUNCIL WAS THAT IT CURRENTLY IS NOT REALLY A PEDESTRIAN STREET, BUT IN FIVE TO TEN YEARS FROM NOW THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE LOTS OF DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA AND HENCE AT THAT POINT IT MAY BE A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN STREET. AND FOR THAT REASON THAT IS WHY SIDEWALKS WOULD BE A GOOD THING. SO ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE I BROUGHT UP IS THAT FROM A LAYMAN'S PERSPECTIVE, IF I HAD TO GUESS WHICH SIDE OF CLEMSON DRIVE WILL BE DEVELOPED OR WHERE ON CLEMSON DRIVE WILL BE DEVELOPED AND HAVE BUILDINGS BUILT ON IT, I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT WOULD NOT BE MY SIDE AS MUCH, BUT INSTEAD THE SIDE ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME. AND HERE'S WHY THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME ON CLEMSON DRIVE, CIRCLED IN BLUE ON THIS DIAGRAM, IS A BIG PARKING LOT FOR TRUCKS AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.
CURRENTLY, IT TAKES UP ROUGHLY 35% OF ITS SIDE OF CLEMSON DRIVE. I WOULD ASSUME THAT IF THERE IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, THIS WOULD BE A PLACE WHERE A BUILDING WOULD BE BUILT. AND WHEN THEY BUILD THAT BUILDING, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO INSTALL SIDEWALKS AND STREETSCAPE ON THEIR SIDE OF CLEMSON DRIVE. AND HENCE MY PROPERTY NOT HAVING IT OR NOT HAVING AS MUCH OF IT WILL NOT BE AS BIG OF A DEAL. ALSO, ON MY SIDE OF CLEMSON DRIVE IS A CEMETERY CIRCLED IN RED ON THE BOTTOM OVER THERE. ONCE AGAIN, I AM A LAYMAN AND NOT WELL VERSED IN THE LAWS, BUT I WOULD IN THAT CASE, CEMETERY TAKES UP 40% OF CLEMSON DRIVE. I WOULD ASSUME THERE ARE CERTAIN LAWS THAT PROTECT CEMETERIES FROM DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, AND HENCE IT WOULD BE HARDER TO BUILD A PROPERTY, TO BUILD A BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY. SO THAT IS ONE THOUGHT THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I PUT OUT INTO THE WORLD OVER HERE FOR EVERYONE TO BE THINKING ABOUT. SO ONCE AGAIN, THE PARKING LOT ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME IS A BIG PARKING LOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND TRUCKS. AND IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD BUILD A BUILDING OVER THERE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE STREETSCAPE. ALL RIGHT, SO NOW FINALLY, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL HAVE. I'M HAPPY TO DO AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO NOT LOSE THE SEVEN PARKING SPOTS. AS THE STAFF REPORT SAYS, IT WILL NOT HARM ANYONE SHOULD THE STREETSCAPE NOT BE INSTALLED, BUT IT WILL HARM OUR DENTAL OFFICE LOT IF THESE PARKING SPOTS ARE TAKEN AWAY.
AND FINALLY, I RAN OUT OF TOWN. RAN OUT OF TIME LAST TIME, BUT THIS TIME I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I LOOKED EVERYONE IN THE EYES. AND I SAID, I FEEL COMFORTABLE LOOKING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU GUYS IN THE EYES AND SAYING THAT OUR DENTAL OFFICE IS A GOOD STEWARD OF THE COMMUNITY. WE, AS I SAID LAST TIME, I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE SAYING WE GIVE MORE BACK TO OUR COMMUNITY THAN 1%, MORE THAN 99% OF OTHER DENTAL OFFICES, AND PROBABLY MORE THAN 95% OF SMALL BUSINESSES. OUR SIDE, SURE, BIG CAR DEALERSHIPS, STUFF LIKE THAT, GIVE A LOT MORE THAN WE DO.
BUT FOR RELATIVE SMALL BUSINESS, TO OUR SIDE, WE ARE A GOOD STEWARD.
CHAMBLEE MIDDLE SCHOOL, CHAMBLEE HIGH SCHOOL, CHAMBLEE HILLS ELEMENTARY, A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER SCHOOLS, ST. VINCENT DE PAUL, CHILDREN'S HEALTHCARE OF ATLANTA. LAST YEAR, WE PARTNERED WITH THE CHAMBLEE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR HOLIDAY TOY DRIVE.
WE'VE IN THE PAST PARTNERED WITH THE DECAPITATION ORDER OF POLICE IN THEIR HOLIDAY TOY DRIVE. WE HAVE A FIRST RESPONDERS APPRECIATION PROGRAM, A TEACHER'S APPRECIATION PROGRAM.
WE GIVE LUNCHES TO TEACHERS, WE GIVE LUNCHES TO NURSES. SO I FEEL WE ARE A GOOD STEWARD OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND OUR TRACK RECORD SHOWS THAT OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS,
[00:40:03]
FOR EXAMPLE, HUNTLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY, YOU KNOW, FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, WE STILL ONLY GIVE 1,000, 01,500 TO THEM EVERY YEAR. THE LAST THREE YEARS, WE HAVE GIVEN $3,000 TO THEM.AS OUR OFFICE HAS GROWN, WE HAVE ALSO INCREASED OUR GIVING BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY AND TAKING AWAY SEVEN PARKING SPOTS, ALMOST 20% OF OUR PARKING SPOTS WILL WITHOUT A DOUBT, HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE GROWTH OF OUR OFFICE AND HENCE THE GROWTH OF OUR ABILITY TO GIVE BACK TO OUR COMMUNITY. SO I WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL HAVE TO SEE WHAT I CAN DO TO HELP KEEP THESE PARKING SPOTS.
ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THAT'S LATER.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES, 14 SECONDS.
ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THIS. DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THIS ONE'S TOUGH. IT REALLY IS, BECAUSE THOSE SEVEN PARKING SPOTS THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF ARE THE CITY'S PROPERTY.
THEY JUST ARE. THEY'RE OUR RIGHT OF WAY. AND WE'D BE SETTING A PRECEDENT, A HARD PRECEDENT TO FOLLOW IF WE ALLOWED THEM TO REMAIN. AND I DON'T NEED ANY COMMENTS FROM ANYBODY ON THIS ONE. I'M JUST TRYING TO WORK THIS OUT THROUGH MY HEAD ON HOW THIS WORKS. YOU HAVE BEEN A GOOD STEWARD OF THE COMMUNITY. HOWEVER, I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE FOR YOU AT THIS PARTICULAR JUNCTURE IS, ARE THOSE. IS YOUR LOT FILLED EVERY SINGLE DAY? ALL RIGHT, COME ON UP TO THE.
DID NOT DO ENOUGH DUE DILIGENCE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I WAS GETTING MYSELF INTO.
BUT HONESTLY, I WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN STARTED THE SECOND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IF I HAD KNOWN SEVEN PARKING SPOTS WERE TO GOING TO BE TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO RUN, YOU KNOW, WITH WHAT I'M PLANNING ON.
WE'RE GOING TO BE OKAY WITH THE CURRENT SPOTS THAT WE HAVE, BUT WE'RE ALREADY PRETTY MUCH FULL.
AND WE'RE USING THE DOWNSTAIRS MUCH LIGHTER THAN THE UPSTAIRS.
WE'RE BUILDING IT OUT COMPLETELY BECAUSE I FIGURED I'D JUST BUILD IT OUT AS I COULD, BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A FULL DENTAL OFFICE LIKE MY TUB. SO, YES, IT IS A HARDSHIP ON US ALREADY, AND IT WILL BE.
IT IS POSSIBLE, I WOULD NOTE THAT STAFF WOULD NEED TO EXAMINE THE SITE PLAN IN ORDER TO FIND THAT OUT.
BUT THERE'S ALWAYS OPPORTUNITIES TO DO PARALLEL PARKING ALONG THERE. IN FACT, THE UDO HAS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS SHOULD SOMEBODY WANT TO DO THAT.
MY RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD BE, IF YOU ACTUALLY ARE LOOKING AT THE ROAD AND YOU'RE THERE, IT IS NOT A PART OF THE ROAD.
IT JUST. THE ROAD HAS ITS OWN DEFINED, WELL BORDER AND THESE ARE TO THE SIDE.
UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE THE SAME CHALLENGE WITH THIS AS COUNCILMAN FIRST. WE'VE HAD PREVIOUS SITUATIONS WHERE RESIDENTS WANTED TO MAINTAIN STRUCTURES THAT WEREN'T ON THEIR PROPERTY. THE PROBLEM STARTS BEFORE THIS PROJECT.
THE PROBLEM STARTS WHEN YOU PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. IF YOUR SURVEY DIDN'T SHOW THAT. I'M LOOKING AT ONE OF THE SITE PLANS AND THE LOT LINE GOES THROUGH 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 OF THE SPACES COMPLETELY. AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE FOR YOU. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND MY QUESTION IS SIMILAR TO COUNCILMEMBER ROBSON'S OF WHETHER OR NOT ON STREET PARKING COULD BE ADDED AS PART OF A STREETSCAPE THERE.
IT'S KIND OF A HAPPY MEDIUM OF IT. I HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH. WE KNOW IN A CITY THAT'S 118 YEARS OLD AND VERY VAGUE DOCUMENTATION OVER THE YEARS FOR PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, THERE ARE A LOT OF SITUATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE WE HAVE.
WHERE PEOPLE THINK THEIR PROPERTY IS REALLY ISN'T THEIR PROPERTY, AND IT DOESN'T GET FOUND OUT UNTIL THINGS LIKE THIS. I HAVE TROUBLE NOT RESOLVING THOSE ISSUES WHEN THEY ARE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION NOW, BECAUSE NOT FOR NOW, BUT FOR 10 YEARS OR 20 OR 30 YEARS FROM NOW. THE OTHER CHALLENGE HERE IS IF YOU HAD BOUGHT THIS SITE AS A BARE SITE AND BUILT A NEW BUILDING, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT YOU HAVE NOW, EVEN WITHOUT THOSE SEVEN SPACES.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE. IT IS A CHALLENGE HERE. AND PARKING IS ALWAYS A CHALLENGE FOR EVERY PROPERTY. I DON'T GET THROUGH A WEEK WITHOUT READING THREE OR FOUR ARTICLES ON IT AND A COUPLE
[00:45:01]
OF NEWS PIECES. I'M A JUNKIE, LIKE I SAY, SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR PAIN, BUT ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE AS THE COUNCIL NEED TO TRY AND RESOLVE FOR THE CITY AS A WHOLE AS WELL.SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT.
YOU DIDN'T HAVE A QUESTION, THOUGH, THAT WAS JUST COMING.
ALL RIGHT, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? NO QUESTIONS. BUT TO ADD TO WHAT YOU SAID, IF. IF YOU.
IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT SIDEWALK PUT IN AND YOU HAVE THOSE SPACES, YOU'RE ENTITLED TO THEM. WE CAN'T TAKE THEM AWAY FROM YOU WHEN SOMETHING ELSE COMES ALONG. WHEREAS IF WE CAN RESOLVE THE ISSUE AS YOU ARE SAYING, COUNCILMEMBER VEITH, THEN IT'S TIME TO DO IT. I MEAN, WE'RE A GROWING CITY. WE'RE GROWING FAST. THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN YOUR NECK OF THE WOODS, BY THE WAY. AND THAT'S GOING TO. IT'S HAPPENING REALLY QUICKLY. SO IT'S NOT.
IT'S NOT JUST WAY FAR DOWN THE ROAD.
MR. MAYOR, I JUST LIKE TO CORRECT ONE THING ON THAT.
THAT THE RIGHT OF WAYS, OURS IN PERPETUITY. AND WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE LIKE WITH THOSE SPOTS IN THE FUTURE IF WE STILL ACTUALLY GIVE THEM TO THEM TODAY.
I WAS GOING TO. I WAS GOING TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON THAT. YEAH, BECAUSE.
AND THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING SYSTEMICALLY SWORD HANGING OVER YOUR HEAD. IF WE DECIDE THAT WE NEED THOSE SPOTS FOR ANY REASON IN THE FUTURE, THEY COULD BE REMOVED OUTSIDE OF THIS. THIS BODY TODAY OR ON TUESDAY WHEN WE VOTE.
YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE WE CAN'T. WE CAN'T TAKE AWAY SIGNAGE AND WE CAN'T TAKE AWAY DRIVEWAYS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
PRETTY POSITIVE. WE CAN. WE GET SOME CLARITY? WE CAN GET SOME CLARITY.
YEAH, WE'LL GET SOME. WE'LL GET SOME CLARITY ON THAT OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS. ALL RIGHT, NO MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
LET'S SEE. 5573 PEACHTREE ROSE. A DUMPSTER VARIANCE.
VARIANCE KNIGHT IN CHAMBLEE IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A DUMPSTER ON THE AGENDA. SO THIS APPLICATION IS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF TWO DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES IN THE REAR YARD OF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT THE REQUIRED ENCLOSURE ENCLOSURES. SO THERE IS ONE VARIANCE IN PLAY, NOT FOR THE LOCATION, BUT TO NOT HAVE THE ENCLOSURES ON THEM. SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, WHICH IS ALONG PEACHTREE ROAD, CONTAINS A CONDOMINIUM OF OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION SUITES, FORMERLY INDUSTRIAL AND LARGELY SINCE REDEVELOPED. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING DUMPSTER LOCATIONS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THEY ARE PUSHED BACK UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND ARE VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT ENCLOSURES ON THEM.
AND ON THIS SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THEIR LOCATION FROM AN OVERHEAD VIEW. SO THE APPLICANT HAS NOTED THE EXISTING SITE CONSTRAINTS, INCLUDING UTILITY LINES AND USE OF THE AREA FOR CIRCULATION AS HARDSHIPS PREVENTING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO BUILD A U. UDO COMPLIANT DUMPSTER LOCATIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE PLACED 5FT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
HERE YOU COULD SEE THE REAR AREA OF THE LOT CONTAINS ENOUGH SPACE FOR A COMPLIANT ENCLOSURE ON ITS OWN, BUT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR AN ENCLOSURE AND CIRCULATION NEEDED FOR THE UNITS TO BE ACCESSED FROM THE REAR AND FOR ACCESS TO THE UTILITIES FROM THE REAR. SO INSTEAD OF FULL COMPLIANCE, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATING THE DUMPSTERS TO AN AREA OF THE SITE THAT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH THIS SITE PLAN SHOWING THE VIEW SHED IN GREEN AND THEN THE NEW LOCATIONS IN PURPLE, STAFF FINDS THAT THE SITE CONSTRAINTS CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS REASONABLE AND MEETS THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THE UDL. BECAUSE OF THE SITE CONSTRAINTS, WHICH WOULD PREVENT ENOUGH ROOM FOR THE ENCLOSURE IN THE REAR YARD. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH TWO CONDITIONS. ONE, THAT THE DUMPSTER LOCATIONS BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH THE PROPOSED DUMPSTER RELOCATION SITE PLAN, WHICH IS DATED JULY 21, 2026, AND RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
AND TWO, THAT THE DUMPSTERS BE LOCATED BEHIND THE BUILDING AND NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AT ALL TIMES. SO GIVEN THAT VARIANCES TRAVEL WITH THE LAND, IF THE PROPERTY CHANGES HANDS IN THE FUTURE, THIS VARIANCE WOULD BE IN PLACE, MEANING THAT THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER COULD HAVE DUMPSTERS WITHOUT A COMPLIANT ENCLOSURE, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO IT WOULD CARRY FORWARD THAT CONDITION AS WELL.
DOES ANYONE HERE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? MY NAME IS KIM CHAMUS. I'M THE TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. WE DID A LOT OF RESEARCH.
[00:50:01]
UTILITIES ARE ALL UNDERGROUND.THERE'S AN ELECTRICAL MAIN, A GAS MAIN AND A WATER MAIN THAT RUN IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. THE WATER MAIN IS FOR FIRE HYDRANT THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE DEKALB COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT. BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING, IT'S LOCATED ABOUT MIDPOINT. WE CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING OVER THOSE LINES WITHOUT ACCESS TO THOSE UTILITIES. SO WE ARE REQUESTING THIS. THIS. THIS VARIANCE IN THAT RESPECT. WE HAVE ALSO RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY MOVE THOSE DUMPSTERS TO THE LOCATIONS THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN THE POSITION. I HAVE SOME.
SOME PICTURES. WE ACTUALLY HAD A PROBLEM IN THAT ONE OF THE DUMPSTERS WAS ACTUALLY ENCROACHING UPON THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE FIRE TRUCK. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER REASON FOR US TO MOVE THEM TO WHERE THEY ARE. THE GREEN SHADED LINES THAT YOU SAW IN THE PRESENTATION ARE ACTUALLY THE SIGHT LINES. SO WE FELT LIKE WE'VE ACTUALLY PUSHED THEM FURTHER BACK THAN WHERE THEY.
THEY NEED TO BE SO THAT THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE FROM ANYONE WALKING DOWN THE STREET OR DRIVING DOWN THE STREET. I JUST ASK YOU TO APPROVE THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. ALL RIGHT, ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE. DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO THIS QUESTION'S FROM MATT.
SO THERE'S NO OTHER LOCATION ON THIS PROPERTY THAT CAN HAVE THE ENCLOSURE. RATHER IT'S A LOCATIONS AND COMPLIANT, BUT IT'S STILL IN A CLOSURE SOMEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY. THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THAT.
THAT WOULD KIND OF BASED ON STAFF'S ANALYSIS, THE LOCATION OF THE HYDRANT IN THE REAR AND THE NEED TO PULL FIRE TRUCKS BEHIND THERE, THAT CREATES A VERY TIGHT, NARROW WINDOW OF TRAVEL FOR THOSE VEHICLES. WE WOULD HAVE TO CONFER WITH OUR COLLEAGUES OVER AT THE DEKALB COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE WHO ARE TYPICALLY VERY RESPONSIVE TO US. BUT BASED ON OUR PREVIOUS INTERACTIONS WITH THEM, I'M GOING TO WAGER I GUESS THAT NO, THERE IS NOT ANOTHER LOCATION THAT WOULD BE COMPLIANT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN ENCLOSURE.
AND THEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE VARIANCE TRAVELING WITH THE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN PERPETUITY. I MEAN DON'T WE INCLUDE A LOT OF TIMES LIKE A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY KIND OF CLAUSE THAT WOULD SAY THIS IF THEY, THEY MOVE THEM, THEN THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO GET AN ENCLOSURE. YOU KNOW, SAY IF THEY DID A REMODELED THE PROPERTY OR FOUND ANOTHER USE FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEN THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO PUT THE DUMPSTERS IN THAT SAME LOCATION, NOT JUST ANYWHERE ON THE SITE IN NON CONFORMING FASHION.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WHAT I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO SAY MAYBE TIE THEIR HANDS A LITTLE BIT IF THEY. TO KEEP THEM FROM JUST BEING ABLE TO DO WHAT, WHATEVER IN THE FUTURE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? NO, THAT'S AN OPTION AS WELL.
BUSINESSES ARE GOING UP TO THE.
SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO POINT, BUT I TALK WITH MY HANDS.
THERE'S A COMPANY CALLED RADOLINK, THEY DO RADIATION RADON EXAMINATION FOR HOMES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THERE'S A PRINTER. THERE'S A COMPANY THAT DOES WOMEN'S COSMETICS THAT THEY ACTUALLY TEACH AND FORMULATE SOME OF THEIR PRODUCT THERE. WE'VE TRIED VERY HARD TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE STAFF MEMBERS JUST BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED PARKING IN THE ENVIRONMENT. YES, MA'AM.
WE DON'T RECYCLE. YES, I WOULD JUST FINDING A WAY TO GET A CONTAINER BACK THERE WOULD BE.
[00:55:05]
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THAT'S MY LINE. ELMER, ARE YOU GOOD? ALL RIGHT.ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. SO THAT CLOSES THAT ITEM OUT. NOW WE MOVE ON TO 2502 OR TAKE AWAY.
THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE A SETBACK ON THE SIDE YARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION. BEFORE I GET STARTED ON THIS. I WILL NOTE THAT YOU DO HAVE A LETTER FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WAS SENT TO YOU EARLIER TODAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT AND THAT YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU FOR USE TONIGHT. SO THIS VARIANCE IS TO REDUCE THE SETBACK ON THE SIDE YARD FROM 7.5FT TO 4FT. THIS IS A 0.3 ACRE LOT ZONED NR1. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITION TO THE PROPERTY. SO THE SUBJECT SITE CONSISTS OF A 0.3 ACRE LOT. IT IS LOCATED NEAR SHALLOWFORD ROAD AND IS SITUATED ABOUT 1 MILE SOUTHEAST OF CHAMBLEE CITY HALL. SO THE ADDITION WILL BE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IN AN AREA THAT WOULD ENCROACH ON THE REQUIRED SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT SIDE YARD SLIDE SETBACK. HERE YOU CAN SEE A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE ADDITION SHOWN. STAFF HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE UDO RELATED TO THE ZONING EXCEPT FOR THE EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK.
THIS INCLUDES FLOOR AREA, LOT COVERAGE, BUILDING HEIGHT, ETC. SO THE LOT IS SLIGHTLY IRREGULAR IN SHAPE AND THE BUILDING IS PLACED IN PERPENDICULAR ALIGNMENT WITH THE WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK.
BECAUSE OF THAT CONFIGURATION, THE LOT NARROWS TOWARDS THE FRONTAGE, LIMITING THE SPACE THAT IN ADDITION COULD BE MASKED ON THE STRUCTURE.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE TOPOGRAPHIC CHANGES TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE WHICH ALSO LIMIT THE LOCATION FOR ANY ADDITION TO THE SITE.
BECAUSE OF THESE CONSTRAINTS, STAFF FINDS THAT A HARDSHIP IS PRESENT AND THAT THE SITE COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED AS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THE UDO WITHOUT RELIEF. AS A NOTE, THE ADDITION AS DESIGNED WOULD RESULT IN IN A STRUCTURE THAT IS ONLY HALF OF THE TOTAL PERMITTED IMPERVIOUS SPACE AND FLOOR AREA ALLOWED BY THE UDO IN THIS DISTRICT. SO BECAUSE OF THIS, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL THE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM 7.5 TO 4.5FT AND IS RECOMMENDING A CONDITION THAT THE PROPERTY BE CONSTRUCTED IN GENERAL CONFORMITY WITH THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN.
DATED RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ON JULY 20, 2026.
MATT DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? YEAH, COME ON UP AND JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND I GUESS YOUR ADDRESS. I THINK WE KNOW WHAT IT IS.
CYNTHIA KIRA GENUS AND I'M AN ARCHITECT. I'M REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNERS. I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE PROPERTY. THE AMOUNT OF ENCROACHMENT IS NOT THE FULL THREE FEET. IT'S ONLY A SMALL PORTION WHICH IS A TRIANGULAR SHAPE AND IT'S A TOTAL OF 51 SQUARE FEET. SO IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN WHICH IS NOT UP, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE ENCROACHMENT IS AS MINIMAL AS WE COULD GET IT.
AND ALSO IT WILL PROVIDE A MORE LOVELY ADDITION TO THE HOME AND KIND OF SO WE CAN REMOVE THE EXISTING SHED CARPORT AND BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE.
SWITCHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE IT ON TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS. YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE STAFF? THAT WAS EASY. ALL RIGHT, THAT'LL CLOSE OUT THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF THIS AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.
[6. Old Business]
WE'VE GOT, LET'S SEE. NO STAFF REPORTS, OLD BUSINESS APPROVAL MINUTES.DID ANYBODY SEE ANYTHING WITH THE MINUTES THAT NEEDED
[8. New Business]
CHANGING? ALL RIGHT, SO THAT LOOKS GOOD. TAKES US DOWN TO NEW BUSINESS STAFF ACTION ITEMS. SO THE FIRST ONE ON THERE IS THE 5295 NEW PEACHTREE ROAD DUMPSTER VARIANTS, WHICH WAS DEFERRED FROM LAST MEETING AND THEN.ANYTHING ON THAT? YEAH, I'M JUST. I'M A LITTLE SHOCKED THAT WE DEFERRED THIS.
IT'S A DUMPSTER. AND I WAS. IT SEEMED PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME. AND SPECIFICALLY, THE END OF LAST MEETING WHEN
[01:00:01]
THE APPLICANT SPOKE, SAID THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN TALKING TO A THIRD PARTY AND THEN FINDING OUT THAT THE THIRD PARTY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE ALREADY. SO IT'S VERY CONFUSING THAT WE CONFUSE SUCH A. SUCH A SIMPLE PROJECT AS A DUMPSTER TO DEFER IT AND TO BRING THE APPLICANT BACK ANOTHER TIME.ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT, NEXT ONE IS PETRIE BOULEVARD GATEWAY AND REALIGNMENT PROJECT TASK ORDER 2. KRISTEN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR US ON THAT? YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. THE CITY IS SERVING AS PROJECT SPONSOR FOR THE CHAMBLEE DORAVILLE CID'S REALIGNMENT PROJECT OF PEACHTREE BOULEVARD. THE CHAIR, JOSH HARRISON, IS AVAILABLE TO SPEAK AS WELL IF HE WANTS TO PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS. BUT TASK ORDER 1, UNDER THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT KIMLEY HORN HAS BEEN DOING TO GET CONCEPT DEVELOPED, WAS COMPLETED IN AUGUST WITH THE APPROVAL OF GDOT'S.
WITH THE GDOT'S APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT REPORT ON THE PROJECT. AND SO THE NEXT STEP IN THIS PROCESS TO GET TO 60% DESIGN IS TO APPROVE TASK ORDER 2. THIS PROJECT IS FUNDED THROUGH THE ARC TIP GRANT PROGRAM WITH THE MATCH COMING FROM THE CHAMBLEE DORAVILLE CID.
AND THEN A SMALL PORTION OF THAT WILL COVER THE POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DESIGN COMPONENT BETWEEN. WHICH IS SPLIT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE AND THE CITY OF DORAVILLE. AND SO THE REQUEST IS FOR YOU ALL TO APPROVE THE TASK ORDER AS PRESENTED. AND IF JOSH HAS ANYTHING HE WANTS TO ADD, I'LL KICK IT OVER TO HIM.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? BOTH SIDES? ALL RIGHT, MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER C. OR NUMBER C TREES ATLANTA SERVICE AGREEMENT RENEWAL. KRISTEN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR US ON THAT OR IS THAT.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
COUNCIL BLAKE SPECIAL PRODUCTS MANAGER THIS IS JUST OUR YEARLY RENEWAL OF OUR ATLANTA SERVICE AGREEMENT.
IT'S THE SAME RENEWAL WE DO EACH YEAR. WE'RE ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT MAYBE DOING DIFFERENT KIND OF PROJECTS WITH THEM IN THE FUTURE THANKS TO YOU THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU MIGHT DO OVER YOUR CONDOMINIUM. SO WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE COULD DO IN THE FUTURE.
BUT THIS IS JUST THE SAME AGREEMENT AS NORMAL.
I'LL JUST ADD THAT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS, WE WILL KICK OFF THE TREES ATLANTA PROGRAM NEXT MONTH.
ITEMS ALREADY OUT AND LIVE TOO.
THE NANCY CREEK SAVOY TRAIL SEAR PROJECT. I GUESS WE VOTE ON THAT ON TUESDAY.
YEAH, I MEAN THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. WE PUT OUT THE NANCY CREEK AND SAVOY TRAIL CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK RFP IN AUGUST. WE WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE THE BIDS FOR THAT. REEVE YOUNG CAME IN AT 838. 894, WHICH IS ACTUALLY PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE OTHER BIDDERS. AND SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING MOVING FORWARD WITH REEVES YOUNG FOR THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, WHICH WILL BE THE FIRST TRAIL CONSTRUCTED OUT OF OUR PARK BOND, WHICH IS VERY EXCITING.
I'M JUST FLABBERGASTED AT HOW LOW THE COST IS FOR THIS CONSIDERING HOW MUCH EVERYTHING'S COST US IN THE LAST THREE, FOUR YEARS.
MY COMMENT WAS GOING TO BE THE SPREAD FROM LOW TO HIGH ON THIS WAS MIND BEND IT JUST INCREDIBLE DIFFERENCE IN ESTIMATE.
I WOULD ALSO SAY I THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY'RE MOBILIZED HERE ALREADY.
YEAH, I'LL TAKE EVERY SAVINGS, ANY PENNY. EVERY PENNY WE CAN GET THESE DAYS.
ALRIGHTY. NOTHING ELSE ON THAT. WE'LL MOVE.
THIS IS THE NANCY CREEK AND SAVOY. SO THIS IS STARTING FROM ON SAVOY DRIVE. NORTH SHALLOWFORD ROAD IS REALLY WORDS NORTH PEACHTREE. NORTH SHALOM ROAD IS REALLY WHERE IT STARTS. AND IT GOES ALONG SAVOY AND THEN DOWN CHAMBLEE TUCKER TO WHERE THE CHAMBLEE FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCHES AND. AND THE RE.
SORRY. THANK YOU. SHANLEY DUNWOODY. WHERE CHAMBLEE FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCHES WHERE WE JUST ACQUIRED THE PERMANENT EASEMENT FROM THEM AND CONNECTING TO THE REPOS PORTION OF THE TRAIL THAT'S ALREADY BEEN INSTALLED.
IT'S DECEPTIVE BECAUSE THE LAND ACQUISITIONS AND NOT IN HERE.
I WILL ALSO STATE THAT THIS IS PURELY CONSTRUCTION. WELL, THIS IS. I'M SORRY, THIS IS NOT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRAIL. THIS IS THE.
[01:05:02]
THIS IS THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER RISK PORTION OF IT.IT'S MAKING A LOT MORE SENSE NOW FOR ME.
FOR CLARIFICATION, THE FULL TRAIL IS ROUGHLY. I MEAN, WE'LL GET TO THAT THROUGH THE CMAR PROCESS WHEN WE WORK THROUGH VALUE ENGINEERING, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A ROUGHLY $9 MILLION TRAIL UNTIL.
I JUST WANT TO TAKE THIS MOMENT TO THANK THE CITIZENS OF CHAMBLEE AGAIN FOR PASSING THE GO BOND, THE TRAILS AND PARK BOND, TWO YEARS AGO AT 81%.
WITHOUT THAT MONEY, THIS WOULD NOT BE A REALITY.
SO JUST THANK YOU AGAIN TO EVERYBODY OUT THERE THAT VOTED AFFIRMATIVE.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS WAITING FOR.
THE JIMMIES. THANK YOU FOR THE BOND. ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE? YOU GOOD? ALL RIGHT, NEXT IS MAYOR'S MONARCH PLEDGE. THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN DOING EVERY YEAR, SO EXPECT THAT TO CONTINUE. GOT TODD UP HERE.
TODD HILL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. AGAIN, WE'RE COMING UP WITH THIS. AGAIN, WE ARE A CHAMPION CITY FOR THE MAYOR'S MONARCH PLEDGE, WHICH MEANS WE'RE AT THE TOP OF THE TOP.
AND SO WE'RE ASKING. ONE OF THE ITEMS WE HAVE TO DO IS DO THE RESOLUTION. I KNOW OUR COMMITMENT TO THIS OVER THE YEARS HAS MADE A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE AFTER YEARS OF PLANTING MILKWEED IN MY YARD, I FINALLY HAVE MONARCH CATERPILLARS FOR THE FIRST TIME. SO IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.
ONLY QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A TERRARIUM WITH MONARCH BUTTERFLIES IN THE LOBBY AGAIN? MAYBE.
OUR GROUNDS AND GREENSPACE MANAGER IS OUT ON FMLA, RIGHT.
RIGHT NOW. SO YOU SET THE BAR HIGH LAST YEAR, THOUGH.
THAT WAS NICE, HAVING IT OUT THERE. ANYTHING FROM ANYONE? OKAY, IF YOU WANT CATERPILLARS, WE'LL FIND A WAY TO GET THEM TO YOU.
THAT'S BETTER. YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT'S ON THE BUDGET FOR ACQUIRING THEM. ALL RIGHT, REQUEST. LAST ITEM HERE.
REQUEST TO PIGGYBACK ON A CONTRACT IN THE VIRAL WASTE SERVICES GROUP, STORMWATER ASSET CLEANING.
WELL, WITH OUR ONGOING STORMWATER SYSTEM, WE NEED TO MAINTAIN AND CLEAN IT. AND WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR GOOD CONTRACTORS TO HAVE AN ON CALL WITH, ESPECIALLY WITH OUR ASSESSMENT COMING TO AN END OF THE SYSTEM AND WE'RE FINDING OUT WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO DO WITH THAT. WE FOUND OUT THAT JOHNS CREEK HAD RECENTLY DONE A RFP FOR THE SAME TYPE SERVICES THAT WE NEEDED. WE LOOKED AT IT, WE LOOKED AT THEIR ASSESSMENT. WE TRIED ONE OF THEIR CONTRACTORS ON A VERY SMALL PROJECT AND WERE VERY SATISFIED WITH THEM AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ENVIRO WASTE SERVICES GROUP TO HAVE THEM AND WE HAVE HAD THE CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW THE CONTRACT AND SHE HAS AGREED THAT THAT IT'S IN GOOD FORM AND IS DOING THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION FOR THE SIGN OFF. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, THAT'S IT FOR THAT MAYOR
[10. Public Comments]
AND COUNCILMEMBERS. WE HAD NOTHING. SO NOW PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION LET ME READ THESE OUT.READ THE RULES OUT HERE. THE MAYOR IS A PRESIDING OFFICER.
ALL REMARKS SHALL BE ADDRESSED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS A BODY AND NOT TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK SHALL COME TO THE MICROPHONE, GIVE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS TO THE CITY CLERK. LIMIT REMARKS TO THREE MINUTES UNLESS FURTHER TIME IS GRANTED BY COUNCIL. NOT SPEAK A SECOND TIME UNLESS UNTIL EVERYONE WISHING TO SPEAK HAS SPOKEN ONCE AND NO ONE CAN SPEAK MORE THAN TWICE. PLEASE DO NOT SPEAK UNLESS YOU HAVE THE MICROPHONE AND HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED. DOES ANYONE WANT TO COME TALK TO US? GOOD EVENING COUNCIL AND MAYOR PRO TEM. MY NAME IS KALYN YATES, 2286 CAPEHEART CIRCLE, CHAMBLEE. LAST MONTH I CAME UP AND SPOKE A BIT ABOUT CHAMBLEE'S USE OF FLOCK SAFETY ALDRS AND CAMERAS AND I HAD A GREAT CONVERSATION AFTERWARDS WITH CHIEF DEEPA AND MAYOR PRO TEM AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT GREAT CONVERSATION. I DID WANT TO COME UP AGAIN TO SHORTLY MENTION THE SAME TOPIC, MOSTLY TO MENTION HOW THE CITY OF DORAVILLE RIGHT NEXT DOOR IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERING AN ORDINANCE LED BY THE GEORGIA BRANCH OF THE ACLU CALLED CCOPS, WHICH IS THE COMMUNITY CONTROL OF POLICE SURVEILLANCE. AND REALLY IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A SYSTEM IN PLACE NOT TO GET RID OF SAFETY TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT LIKE THE FLOCK CAMERAS, BUT TO SET GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO HAVE THEIR COMMUNITIES INTERACT WITH THE WAY WHEN THESE DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE RATHER THAN BEING MADE AFTERWARDS WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF UPROAR FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT KIND OF CREATES A BACKLASH BETWEEN
[01:10:01]
THE COMMUNITY AND AND THE COUNCIL OR ANY MUNICIPALITY, WHICH I THINK WHEN YOU HAVE THIS SORT OF SYSTEM IN PLACE, IT REALLY PROTECTS THE CITY AND THE CITIZENS AND THE CITIZENS RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR POLICE, WHICH I THINK IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE SAFETY AND POLICING IS NOT JUST THE POLICE DUTY, IT'S ALSO THE CITIZENS DUTY IN A CITY AS WELL. SO ALL I ASK REALLY IS THAT THE COUNCIL IN THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE CAN CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE LIKE THE ONE BEING LED BY THE GEORGIA BRANCH OF THE ACLU. I THINK IT COULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL FOR THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE TO PROTECT IT IN INSTANCES WHERE MAYBE THE DATA THAT FLOCK HAS COLLECTED IS MISUSED BY SOMEONE IN CHAMBLEE OR SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF CHAMBLEE OR THAT DATA IS ACTUALLY STOLEN FROM MAYBE FLOCK OR SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF FLOCK AS WELL. I THINK THIS IS ONE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF RESPONSIBLY USING THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY, WHICH THERE'S GOING TO BE MANY STEPS AFTER THAT AS WELL TO USE THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY RESPONSIBLY.SECONDLY, I'LL CHANGE TO A LIGHTER NOTE IN MY LAST 30 SECONDS. MY WIFE AND I LIVE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM WHAT WILL BE THE WOOD ACRES NATURE PRESERVE. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT AND REALLY THANKFUL THAT THIS PROJECT IS MOVING FORWARD.
WE WALK NEAR THAT AREA ALMOST EVERY DAY. SO WE'RE EXCITED TO SEE THAT. SO ANY INFORMATION ON WHEN THAT'S MOVING FORWARD WOULD BE GREAT.
BUT WE'RE VERY EXCITED. SO THANK YOU.
DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK TO COUNCIL? ANYONE? YEAH.
DO WE HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION? DO NOT. ALL RIGHT, SO WE ARE OUT OF HERE.
THANKS EVERYONE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.