Notes from Commission Work Session Sept. 17, 2001

The highlights:

• The temporary building permit moratorium proposal will be put on the Agenda for the Tues. 9/18 Agenda Setting meeting.
• Discussed SPLOST bus stop improvement projects
• Discussed SPLOST SE ACC Community Park phase 2 changes: lake and dam to be replaced (at least for now) with trails and additional playing fields; considering porous paving for parking lot.
• Discussed proposed process for selecting greenspace to purchase using Community Greenspace Program funds.

(Note: the meeting continued past these items but I left to attend the Bicycle Master Plan meeting at 7 pm.)

More Details:

ISSUE 1: TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON BUILDING PERMITS IN RM-2 ZONES

John Barrow urged the passage of a moratorium for numerous reasons: to give time for a comprehensive housing study; to prevent a glut of apartments that may lead to low rates of occupancy; time to take up the unfinished business of the land use plan, i.e. TDRs and inclusionary zoning. He pointed out that it made more sense to work on these problems during a moratorium rather than letting new projects come on line while they are studying the situation. The deadline could be adjusted as needed, making it either shorter or longer.

Harry Sims asked how many RM-2 projects are currently in the works.

Planning Director Brad Griffin said that 5 – 6 projects, with a total of 500-600 units, were in process, although none have yet been issued building permits. (This includes 2 renovation projects of existing apartments.)

States McCarter expressed the fear of neighborhood residents that as new “luxury” apartments are built, the older apartment complexes will be vacated and may attract undesirable neighbors.

John Barrow suggested that there is interest in a moratorium; the question is when to enact it: before or after a wave of building.

Mayor Eldridge proposed that there were 3 moratorium options to be considered: no moratorium; a moratorium that excludes any projects currently in the works; and a moratorium that includes projects currently in the works. County attorney DePascale clarified that because this would not be considered a final zoning decision, it would not need to go before the Planning Commission and could be added to the Agenda for the Agenda Setting Session on Tuesday, September 18. The attorney also suggested advertising that the proposal will be voted on at the October 2 meeting as well as possible.

John Barrow asked whether a “certain development of significant community impact” [which I ASSUME is the Garden Springs project] was far enough along in the cycle to possibly be issued a building permit before the Oct. 2 vote. Brad Griffin said it was possible if the plans were submitted by 4 pm Tuesday, September 18; but unlikely. If the plans are submitted, commissioners will be notified at the Agenda Setting Session and John Barrow may move for a special called session so that the moratorium may be voted on before that permit was issued.

County Manager Alan Reddish summed up the discussion, saying that as he heard it, no matter the outcome of the moratorium vote, the Commission would like to pursue the Comprehensive Housing Study. There was general agreement. Carl Jordan expressed that he thought a housing survey was not needed, as it has no application to a free market system.

Alvin Sheats asked whether the moratorium would help Garden Springs residents. John Barrow responded that it wasn’t certain, but that at least it couldn’t hurt.

Alvin Sheats also brought up RM-2 zoning in the Hancock corridor, which neighbors are unhappy about.

Hugh Logan asked what advantage the study will give us, wondering if, since we already have the Land Use Plan, it might be redundant. We may not be able to afford it. The Manager pointed out that the information it would provide depends on how it is designed; and that there is no commitment yet. They will propose something for the Commission by the October meeting, and that can be changed. It can include information on affordability, condition, occupancy rates; whatever the Commissioners decide.

ITEM 2: SPLOST FUNDED BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS

Jeff Prine of the SPLOST office explained the project. Bids should be available by October or November. There are 5 different levels of improvements, ranging from the most basic Level I (a 5 x 8 foot concrete pad) to Level V (bus bays.) The level of improvement is mainly determined by ridership at that stop. There are 503 stops currently in operation, with 481 requiring some kind of improvement. To improve all the stops would cost $1.3 million; the budget is only $625,000 in fixed SPLOST funds. In order to get started right away, they propose improving 235 stops: 228 to Level I and all 7 proposed Level V stops. They also think they may be able to tap into state and federal funds.

Several commissioners voiced concerns about different issues: lack of trash receptacles provided at the Level I stops; lack of sheltered stops in the “inner city” areas; that priority should be given to stops where public safety is most at issue.

The mayor said that he has been approached by an advertising firm interested in using the shelters for advertising, in return for upkeep; the manager pointed out that we would be allowing advertising in rights of way at the same time we’re enforcing the sign ordinance which doesn’t allow the public to do this. It was also pointed out that it has generally not been a worthwhile exchange economically, in other cities where it has been done.

ITEM 3: SOUTHEAST CLARKE COMMUNITY PARK, SPLOST IV PHASE II

There have been several changes since the Commission last looked at this issue. Hydrology concerns, and discovery of wetlands that would require mitigation, have resulted in removing the proposed lake, dam, and wells from the current phase plan. SPLOST office is also considering a porous pavement option for parking. They are proposing that instead of the lake and dam, a nature trail and path, additional baseball fields, tennis courts, and a semi-enclosed equipment storage facility be built.

There was discussion about the siting of the fields and courts, and whether these uses were consistent with the User Group’s “must have” list for this park.

Carl Jordan pointed out that the planting of crape myrtles along Lexington Highway was inconsistent with our own guidelines for street trees; and further suggested that this park would be a good location for a skateboard park.

ITEM 4: GREENSPACE PLAN PROPERTY ACQUISITION GUIDELINES

Bruce Lonnee of the Planning Department explained the process that they are proposing for selecting property to be purchased with the funds allocated to ACC under the Community Greenspace Plan. It is based on the processes used by other counties and our SPLOST process. It would be a rolling, 6 month process, that would start every 2 months. The Planning Department and a Community Greenspace User Group (to be created) would score the proposed property using a 100-point scale. Financial considerations would be given greatest weight; followed by community values and technical considerations. The funds allocated to us under the plan have to be at least committed within 2 years in order for us to be considered for additional funding.

Commissioners expressed concern that they not be bound by the numerical score in deciding whether to purchase the property; that going through the process might be perceived as a guarantee of purchase; that properties proposed early would have an unfair advantage; and that a well-written narrative description might be more helpful than a score, or just a score.

John Barrow also mentioned that we ought to be able to accept donations of development rights, which would cost us nothing but protect the greenspace.

Beth Gavrilles