City Council agenda work session.

The first item is the June 8th, 2026 working work session minutes.

Any other than the revise or anything else?

I don't think there are any revived.

I don't think there are any revisings for this one.

Stephanie confirmed everything's good on the plot the splost votes, correct?

Make a motion to probably better for someone else to motion just in case.

Is there a motion to approve?

Motion approved.

Second.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

All right.

So in my spare time this weekend, I wrote up a little thing for the advisory committee.

Um it's a little big, but I still think it's what we need.

So put together 14 people, consisting of the chair of Parks and Rec as the chairperson of this committee, myself, uh Councilman Goldstein, a representative from the Gateway CID, two representatives from Yells, with one of them being a youth leader, one representative from the uh fire department, one representative from parks and rec, three resident business owners or community leaders nominated by myself, and three nominated by Mr.

Goldstein.

Uh the purpose is really just to look at what the residents stakeholders, businesses would like to see going on that 10 acres, and to come with a recommendation and work with city council.

It is not a um, it's not a board or committee that can make decisions, it's just advisory.

Um that we're looking at what the people on Franklin Gateway would like to see happen with that 10 acres.

So it's just a very short, and I know I just gave it to you guys, so I mean we can move this to Monday and vote on it.

Mr.

Goldstein already has a question, probably something grammatical in here that's wrong.

Yes, sir.

One second, Mr.

Mayor.

May I sure?

Um not so much grammatical as a thing here.

It talks about the council council's uh four terms are appointed by council, but it talks about the CID and other organizations appointing members.

So instead, should we use the word nominated?

Yeah, probably nominated.

Okay, so nominated for under five years.

Yeah, because it's our appointment.

Yep.

Under five, under six, under seven.

And then in general with the Roberts Rules of Procedure, that World Roberts Rules of Order.

Um it is the most recent addition, which I think is the 12th.

Okay.

Newly uh newly revised, and it's um as modified by our code for the regular council procedures.

All right, so I'll add that.

Those are the only things I could see, those are the only things I could see that would make recommended changes to.

Okay.

Thank you for the main.

I have I would like for us to hold over.

I would like to spend more time looking at it as opposed to just yeah tonight.

But my question is how we define residents, business owners, community leaders, because we're talking about in that area, right?

We're not talking about anywhere, like I own a business off Dallas Highway, but I'm on this committee here, so that that's my I would prefer that it would people just on the gateway.

However, if somebody comes to me and they say I really would like to be a part of this, I don't have a problem with that.

But I would first look at the people in the gateway.

So I've already had two people come to me who are on the gateway.

Okay, who are very interested in doing it.

Um again, if somebody came and they weren't necessarily on the gateway, but they really were interested in seeing what that was going to become.

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I look back at the one that we had for Elizabeth Porter, and we had people outside the city on that, didn't we?

I would be surprised.

Because I mean it it is something for the area, but it's also something for the city, and it's going to be a big attraction.

So I would really open it if somebody came to me and said, Yeah, I don't live on the gateway, but I really would like to be involved with this.

And while I haven't been while I haven't been approached, I do have at least two people that I know are residents on the gateway that I think might be good, might be good for the committee, assuming they're willing to serve.

Yeah, we we will try to keep it to that, you know.

But there's always gonna be there's always a likelihood that somebody or the possibility that someone could come up and say, I really would like to be involved with that.

I don't live on the gateway.

If you haven't already nominated three people, I would like to be considered.

Also Elizabeth Porter, they formed a non-profit.

And that could be raised money.

Right, that be could become a thing at some point.

Okay.

Um they did it because they really wanted to get the uh mural.

And the mural wasn't built into the cost, and so we're not at the point of knowing what everything we're gonna want.

Um I mean, I came up with a quick survey that I'd like to see us kind of with a starting point, but again, that's kind of up to the committee and Jason to see where we start with, but just coming up with a quick survey to see what people would like to see on that 10 acres.

We didn't just include the problem.

I guess the problem would include also maybe a surplus fire station.

And the I think that's the original thought is that we would look to see if we could fit a new fire station on the site.

Uh, I'll just say I have a complete mock-up that's got a fire station, a community center, an amphitheater, a playground, and two fields.

But that's just me.

It's just something I came up with one day.

We don't need a committee.

Just something that came up one day.

If we surplus the current no the current one, yeah, we can yeah, we could do something with that.

Firstly, I'd I think the old uh flea market ought to be economic development.

I don't I think so to me.

I'm just setting the parameters.

I mean that's just two, but I mean we were talking about the 10 acres and possibly the surplus yes, sir.

Fire station can be included in your scope.

That would be the limit.

Do we want to set some target go we're done to spend that money?

I am.

You see my hands itching over here.

Um I think if we set it up where this has to have monthly meetings.

Um do we need to sit do we want to put a start date on that since I got a phone?

We're not gonna have everyone appointed until next month at least.

Again, I I just kind of threw this together.

Um this is July.

I mean, September would not be a bad start.

Say the first meetings of September, include that as part of the things and monthly meetings thereafter.

Yeah, I think September works because it's gonna take us a while to stand everything up.

Stand everything up.

Yeah.

So it on your phone.

Yeah, I mean I've been thinking about this since the day we signed the contract.

So I've got thoughts.

Would you like to make this recommendation to Wednesday?

Yeah, I'd like to move this to Wednesday and I'll add in the stuff that we discussed.

Um make a motion to move this forward to Wednesday.

She made it.

She made it.

Do you mind checking it?

Second.

Didn't know if that was in the form of motion or not.

So sorry.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I understand it.

She was going, she was on the right track.

It's looking for the magic words.

All those in favor of moving it forward to Wednesday, please raise your right hand.

Motion keys, and it'll be on the discussion agenda.

Thank you.

NWSL training facility detail.

Speaker of Franklin Rome.

Thank you, Mayor, and good evening.

Uh so the um folks at AMBSC have provided a revised detailed plan they would like to put forward for city council consideration.

It you know overwhelmingly matches what you have seen in the past.

Um the change that they were trying to adjust was the movement of the um of the um guard uh stand that they have.

Initially it was kind of furthered towards the entranceway and to the uh north, and now they've like to move uh move it back uh to where you can see it kind of in the dead center of what Shelby's pulled up on the screen in order to accommodate more um stacking of different vehicles as they come in.

Um but staff's reviewed it beyond that.

You know, parking has not changed, um trees have not changed those kinds of items.

Um, but that is the request.

Um I've asked uh Doug a le a legal question regarding um notice provisions on some of the stuff, but I think that he I think you would need time between now and Wednesday to take a look at it.

So I do have a question, I don't know who to submit it to.

Mr.

Cummings would be able to we had a lot of discussion on where the storm water detention area is.

I don't see it on this drawing.

It has been moved off of the city property.

Right.

But we don't know where as long as yes, sir.

It's um it's at the top of the of our property.

Uh huh.

So it's actually where their parking lot is and their turnaround is uh right to the north of our property.

So it's not on our 1.26.

No, that's the only question I have, Joseph.

Since I'm still waiting on uh since I'm waiting on an answer, I'll I'm okay with moving to Wednesday, just leave it non-consent.

Um then just getting back to the council between now and Wednesday.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Um make a motion for it to Wednesday.

Second second.

All those in favor, please write in motion carries and not on consent.

On consent, yeah.

Is this the the regular Wednesday meeting?

Yes, yeah, not the agenda.

This is the agenda for something I asked about the Cobb County stay on data centers.

Is Cobb Counties their stay on data to December 31st or August?

Yes, sir, it's August 23rd.

My thought, notwithstanding, you know, what's with one we've already approved and the other one, but I think going forward, you know, since all these I mean I'd love to not only the city, I mean the county discuss it, learn from what they're learning.

Also I'd like to keep a good relationship with other three uh electric providers in the state.

I'd actually see some more.

If we turn one down, I think somebody challenged the territorial act and furnish it.

I mean we are public power and about 44,000 customers.

I don't know one we've ever turned down because we didn't like them.

I mean, I and I just wondered if we did if a court could say that was bad and they let Habersham EMC come down a build here.

I I just want to make sure we're aware of any consequences for any decision we make.

And also I like to go farther than the counties because we've had legislatures come in here and tell us how bad they think it is.

Are they gonna do something this come and fall?

No.

But I think for a sense of cooperation, it would look good if we not to take any more until it's really the BLW that takes the application first.

And then that's a everybody else doesn't have a utility company in this, even the huge ones that are being built to the west of us.

Ferry, are we obligated to the 108 if they get a customer to the 108?

Well it was zoned that way, and so if they uh and I'll let Doug jump in if I'm in correct here, but uh if they adhere to the site plan, which they submitted and got approved by council, I think it would just be the issue of the BLW getting a contract with them on the power.

The stay would not apply to any current pending or approved application.

I understand the state, but I'm just trying to get a feel for if a customer comes in that's uh that's up to 108.

Are we build up and be able to uh obligated to serve that customer at that level?

And the reason I'm reason I'm saying this is because I asked Patina to put together a spreadsheet to show what our average um uses is and also what our allocation is, and we have about 227 megawatts of available power that we can sell without buying off of the market.

This is what we end up selling back uh average.

That's what we did last year.

Um so if we obligate it for 108, and then the one in South Fulton is 150.

Yeah, we so the South Fulton uh we signed a contract with them.

We were moving forward, so that is we'll obligate that um that amount of one.

Of the excess that we have, yes, sir.

Um seventy-five.

The other one though, the uh one on Bells Ferry, uh that one we told them from the very beginning that would have to be a purchase on the market.

Right.

And so uh that would be a different situation.

So it wouldn't come from the excess.

Some of it could if we had access at that particular time, but the the contract would say that as they understand we're gonna buy on the market at market prices plus profit to the city BLW.

So uh that that would function a little differently.

Okay.

I like your questions, that's true.

I mean Yeah.

We gotta look ahead because we we got constant development with and houses, and they use anywhere what to nine to ten megawatts per year per house or house, no.

Um for development.

Um it's twelve.

Well, you talk about kilowatts, something kilowatts.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Nine to twelve kilowatts per hour.

So just making sure that we all know what we are actually dealing with.

I I thought we we've always said that we would do our residential first.

Never gonna put them second.

Right.

Our commercial longstanding, and if these big customers were above that, they were going on the market at market plus.

That's what we're doing.

Okay.

So that's a question.

The the stay, would that just apply to our zoning and approval of development, or does this apply to MPW as well?

My concern would be, let's say someone came up and we had an opportunity, Mary and Power and Water to sell power somewhere else, another municipality, another part of the state, because they didn't have the power.

Are we gonna miss out on an opportunity to provide power because of our stay?

Or those two separate things.

No, if someone else, I think Bill's in South Fulton.

In South Fulton.

Well, right now we don't have anybody, it takes a long time.

Yeah.

And you could tell, and the one on Wales Ferry really goes through Mia.

You have to pay like 20, 25,000 just for a feasibility study, or maybe it's 50.

It's gone off to over 100 now.

I just don't want them to prevent them from being able to look at opportunities.

And even if you buy it on the market, you buy it through MiAG.

That takes a lot.

I mean, and this bit about going from 100 and down to 60.

They can't afford to put make the capital improvements for 60, in my opinion.

That's gonna be hard to recover their initial upfront cost.

And that came from me, eh?

That might even us.

Yeah, there's a there's a point where they'd have to build the substation, and that's where most of the cost is.

And so you're right.

If if you go too low, then your the economics might be a problem for them.

Because we are, as y'all said, we are requiring anybody that we deal with to pay all the costs, so that there isn't any obligation on our current ratepayers.

Um and so, as we saw with South Fulton, that was over 30 million dollars that they had to pay in order to get the infrastructure in place in order for us to be able to serve them.

Um they would there would also be a very large expense if they have to put a substation in at Bells Ferry.

Yeah, that's what as it comes down, it gets less and less.

There's a point doesn't have a strong appetite for they still haven't put it on the table to buy more generation.

No, and there's a point where the the amount of megawatts that they would use would go below the need for a substation.

I don't know if that's where they'll end up.

Uh I don't know if they'll even go for it at all.

But one more I'm sorry, go ahead.

One more thing, uh I just when I look at the some of the areas like Douglas and Doug Douglasville, they've gotten some really good um uh community partners.

And I I don't know if we're looking at who is actually the customer and whether they would be a good community partner to contribute to the community, such as the park that they want to build over there.

They've done that in Douglasville.

Uh that would be voluntary, I understand, but I'm just saying that could we make sure that we're getting the best client that uh will be a and how do we do that?

A good community partner, and take they've given scholarships and contributed toward park improvements and all.

Um but they had deep pockets, so that's my major share to be for the last six years we had tire kickers from the BitCon Bitcoin people, right?

Yeah.

And they never got out of negotiation.

But what about the big one in Fulton was electric cities?

And and Doug was a part of it when we wrote when we prepared the contract, but it is a model contract now.

Well, they pay all the upfront costs.

That did an awful lot of weeding.

Yeah.

And also a good partner.

I mean, Google's it at Microsoft.

Oh, yeah.

And I don't think I don't think we'd want a thousand million square feet.

No.

The good partners are building the big ones.

I mean, not the others, but down in Fedville, they're building a million square feet.

That's what the Google is.

Google's 1.3.

Yeah, that would not go over very well.

We go to Jason, just for a question, just I I just would hate to see a war between the four electric companies that service Cobb County.

Can't we just kind of know what each other's thinking?

I guess that's my question.

Is my understanding of moratoriums is that we have to have a reason for the moratorium.

Now Cobb Counties was to study their zoning and infrastructure.

Conceptually, we have already thought that through just by the mere fact we've approved one.

We have thought through impacts on infrastructure, proper zoning.

We've conceptually thought that through.

So what is our justification for a moratorium?

We can come up with a special land use requirement that will spell out what our criteria is.

Some uh communities have done that.

They've done an ordinance or a land special land use permit.

And then Doug, is that sufficient for a moratorium?

Yes, ma'am.

All those criteria that you mentioned are sufficient.

The uh Supreme Court said 12 months is the max, you're gonna be what three months, two months, whatever, so you you're well within the time frame.

Since we are the owners of BLW, I like you know, I think it'd be better for it to be zoned before we could even quote them a price.

I mean, that that puts a BLW in a bad spot.

I mean, if they're negotiating in good faith, and then we turn it down.

I mean, I think we'd be better see.

I mean, it's a real problem, but they've almost built almost two gigawatts in North Georgia as you go out toward the grains as you go north toward you know, Google that big one they build in the barto.

My other fear is it was called out.

We got 44,000 customers, and over one half of our stuff could go to three customers.

And I mean, that's not a good mix for a small utility.

I mean, that you know, we've got five that probably a half million meters in the Cobb County if you count Cobb MC, Georgia Power, us, and you know, one or two others that come in here, but we just but I don't think that I don't know if anything else is cooking.

I I don't know of anything else cookie either, but I you know we don't know till we know.

Um what would be the comeback then?

Are we gonna would we get something from developmental services?

Would we get something from MIAG on power?

I'd love that I think would would we look at maybe um ARC and their stuff I I'm trying to figure out you know what what are we gonna get back from this moratorium that will give us more information?

What do we want to see come back?

And who are we gonna get it from?

I mean, as was said, uh we could draw up uh special use uh permit uh ordinance that would uh you know treat it like we do some other uses where you um have specific criteria in there, but it has to come to council for approval if that's where you're safety noise, yeah.

Okay, and again, yeah.

So I I'm I understand all that, but where are we getting to develop that our information?

So I hear a lot about, even though I've researched it and don't agree.

I hear a lot about health impacts.

Are we gonna ask somebody to come and do a health study and add that into any zoning that says it can't have you know, so the noise hum is an issue.

So even though our decibels are this in the day and this at night, you can't do more than this.

I mean, are we gonna look at all of those impacts?

That's a question for your yourself, this body.

Well, I'm talking to the city manager, so it's kind of a question for him first.

I mean we would we would look at the impacts that we can uh and the information that we can.

There's a lot of different information out there, um, some of which is backed up, some of which may not be.

Um all we can do is I mean, none of us are experts at um different things that you would have just been bringing up where you'd have to have medical experts or other people involved.

Um, but we could do uh thorough review of all the information that does exist, and then we could present that to the council.

Okay.

Not saying I'm for the thing on this point, it's just more of a if we're going to take a look at the stuff.

I know we have a few different options.

And doesn't it just have to be a special in use permit could be in certain certain zoning categories by right, just with conditions as part of it, like again the noise abatement, a closed loop water system, a closed loop uh cooling system, whether it's water, air cooled, and other things that we've already been taking a look at when we take a look at the stuff for Bells Ferry, and then also as we're taking a look at the ones coming up too.

And there's already things we've thought through.

And there there are other jurisdictions all across the country that have done exactly the same thing that we can lean on uh and get information from them.

Uh and then you you sent out the link to Georgia Tech has a list of uh uh ordinances and conditions that have been approved by other municipalities.

Yeah, it has a good one on data centers too.

Right.

That's what it's that's what I'm talking about on data centers.

We can we could use that obviously, but then we can also look at some of the other states that have been doing this longer than we have, right?

And uh get some information from the ones that are doing it well.

Yeah, the ones that may have learned some different things.

But Google has been in Douglas for 20 years.

Georgia has already had to learn a lot of uh learn a lot of stuff over the over the time period, and I think it's why they've why we're why as you're seeing on some of the stuff, Bells Ferry is having their having their things because we learned and we're trying to make sure we're protecting stuff.

It is we put it, we've put we're put in conditions there.

We've already put in the quite a few conditions there, we're taking a look at one later, whether it's appropriate or not, and if it is if it if it happens to be is probably going to be under sort under quite a few conditions as part of the is part of the thing.

And it's something we can adjust as we learn more too.

I mean, it's not set in concrete, but it's it's something that we start out and require, and then if we find that there's something else that's needed, it could be added at a later date.

But as to whether we need a moratorium or not, it might be a different issue in the fact that again we already have we have an idea of what might what we're also seeing on some of the stuff what we've approved and the conditions we've put on the previous one and taking a look at the one future too.

Do we need a moratorium or just do we know we have an idea what we're looking at when we need the stuff included into full full-time ordinance as part of it as well?

So if we need a moratorium for that, or we just start amending the or start taking a look at the ordinance, come JL uh this month and committee or something.

Right now we we just really do an ad hoc.

Yeah, if we had something in writing, that's some of the comments that we get we've been getting is that we we don't have a formal uh ordinance that spells out.

And then people are concerned about NDAs and that kind of stuff.

Which I just want to state on the record, we don't sign NDAs.

I can say have you ever signed one?

Nine years I have so uh, you know, some people are out there saying that we might, uh, but we have not no MIAC was talking about it this past week.

Uh the uh what I'll say on that it depending on which way you want to go.

I mean, we we do this fairly frequently where we have an issue that is before the city, um, whether it's alcohol recently or whatever, um, that we go out and do a thorough review of the other jurisdictions and what they have come up with to see what works, uh see what problems there are and what different ordinances maybe didn't work.

Um, and uh pull all that information together in a format that then is digestible by council, and then you can see that here are certain things that you could do, and they are backed up by this information.

Um, here are things you may not want to do because of other information that we supply.

Um, so if that's what you would like, we could surely do that.

One thing I'd like if we approve if we discovered 15 or less megawatts is harmless, would we want 10 of them?

I mean, can we restrict?

I mean, if everybody that had a metal building could get a data center.

I mean, that borders me.

But I don't care what you call it if if we ought to investigate it.

But the code data center and people are talking about million dollar, I mean million square foot problems, and we're talking about the real world.

It would be these data centers are good.

I mean, the tax revenue, the Vietnamese, and we were started to have free enterprise.

I mean, it's public power that also believe in our state, but moderation it's kind of more what I'm looking at.

I don't think we want too much.

We we are gonna have as was alluded to by the mayor.

Um we are in current discussions with MIAG right now about future generation, as the other 48 participants are doing too.

Um and so there's gonna be a little more clarity from MIAG in the November time frame uh as far as what they may want to do going forward, they're gonna be putting out different requests to the to the market to determine what is out there and what's available, and uh, they do think that they'll be able to have that analyzed by November.

So we'll see.

Um we do have the situation where we're gonna lose some of our generation going forward uh because the plant Addison is gonna go out and uh 29.

Uh and so when it does, then that's gonna take us down a bit before we let our profit will go up.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, I mean you're right, yes, sir.

I mean, that that's one that we wish we could have unloaded before.

Um, but we're stuck with that contract, but that is the most expensive power we have, and so uh we uh most of the time we can buy on the market cheaper than we can produce it at Addison.

So um so that that won't necessarily be a bad thing for us uh as far as the bottom line goes, it'll just mean that we have to look for some other generation of some sort.

That could be strips of power, it could be uh another type of plant that we go in with other people on uh through MIAC.

Um because we got that time period before we take on uh vocal three and four.

And so there's just that dip in there before we take it on.

So um it it could be that it doesn't make sense for us to do anything permanent, and that it might make sense to do strips.

Um, but then again, uh when you look at everything, we might be to get a portion of a plant that makes sense to us.

So a lot of decision making is gonna have to take place in the next two years going forward.

So just given that my thought would be if we do a moratorium that we take it at least through the end of the year so we can incorporate in what MIAG is looking at, so we have that full picture on kind of what you're saying, is it you know, is 15 good?

And I think I don't know if Joseph or T said it, but you know, whether or not we want to look at something by right, or if we want it all to be special land use, um, which I would kind of prefer, but I think that if we're gonna do a moratorium, and since Doug says we can go up to a year, we do it at least through the end of this year.

Conditioned upon anything.

Normally there normally it's a time period or the earlier of a time period or a condition being that namely usually an ordinance we write.

I don't see how we well, yeah, that's fine.

I just don't see how we get to an ordinance rewrite until we know more about what MIAG is going to do and what their plans are generation-wise.

I I really think for me, the biggest issue that people have a concern about and we need to address our health concerns, and I don't know where we reach out to get that information, but I think that needs to go in there.

Um if we've got that type of time period, we definitely will start working on our end of it uh while we wait on MIAG, so then we can pull together all the information on those issues that would relate to the community at large and uh go ahead and have that ready to go, and then like I say the MIAG time frame is November, so November December would be the time that they would present information to us so I have a question.

Would would it be fair to say that um we do like a town hall in here to um let the community get a better understanding kind of like what we did say I thought we did that?

Well, but I'm just saying now that we're gonna have more information and you know, more people that are kind of focused on it now, so it might be a good idea to um do a mini one.

That's just one man's opinion.

I agree.

Because I think the more we can you know educate as we're getting educated, the better it'll be uh for people to kind of understand what we're really going into.

So that would just be my opinion.

I have a town hall scheduled for July the 30th, but that might be too soon.

But one of the things I wanted to mention, uh Cobb County's um moratorium was because one of their ordinances, I don't know, and I talked to one of the commissioners, allows data centers without them having to get county approval.

So that was the reason they did a moratorium very quickly, because they wanted to get a hand alone on that before someone bought some land that was already uh uh approved for a data center.

And uh properties are already zoned to have it, they they have it by right at this point, correct?

So the moratorium can't affect that.

I'm not sure about that.

And the follow-up to that question is how long do they have to find a customer?

Yep, so um data centers are not mentioned within our zoning code, and so staff has been interpreting it uh to be most appropriate in light and heavy industrial categories, and at this point it would be by right.

Say that again.

Sure, data centers are not explicitly shown anywhere within our zoning code.

And so um, starting with the Bells Ferry uh development, uh we've been looking at them as more of an industrial concept, and so that they would be allowed by right in L I and HI.

But in no other zoning categories.

Even though they're not mentioned, we just expand it LI and HI to include them.

Or did we grant a special use of those?

I yeah, I I think the perspective is it's an emergent technology, and so there's a number of very specific uses that our zoning categories wouldn't necessarily contemplate.

And so we find the one that we believe is most appropriate, and so in that case, light industrial hair.

I think we definitely need a moratorium.

I mean, just the thought that that just somebody can say by right I can do this, um, given all of the and there are no specific requirements and say, and you have to like what we did with the Bells Ferry, we said, and you have to mitigate noise like this, and you have to do water like this.

If none of that's an L I and H I and there is an assumption that you have a right in L I and H I without any parameters, that's dangerous.

There would be some parameters.

Uh you would have still have to abide by the noise ordinance, and you still have to abide by the buffers and trees and things like that you'd have to do and impervious surface and all the rest.

But yeah, it would be treated just as any other uh manufacturing location would be treated.

That tipped my scale on the moratorium.

Right now, that's crazy.

But we have six or eight data centers in there, two and a half megawatts.

The world is really changing fast.

We just I don't know what we're talking about.

Or anybody could read our code and know what we're talking about.

The uh if you find 800 acres, we'll be a one with a million square feet.

You'd have to tear a lot down to find 800 acres.

Wow.

The uh by right though, I don't think with the moratorium affects the ones that are already zoned that way, though.

You don't think the moratorium, I'm sorry, then they would say moratoriform would affect that.

It's moratorium on zoning.

Well, you mean rezoning on it, I guess.

Which we already control if I'm correct, wouldn't it have impact everything except for something that's an ongoing application?

It would even by rate they still couldn't do it because we could change it to a special land use, even in L I or HI that would require them to come to us.

Theoretically that could be done.

That could probably be done by having a changing the motion to switch out to a uh amending these amending the z uh putting out the advertising amendment of the zoning code by Wednesday to switch it to a special land use permit instead.

And that could be done next month to set up the initial thing.

Which point it's up to council with the conditions.

So that could be quickly that could be fixed like that without having to do the moratorium.

I didn't know they were by right.

That you represent the code.

Instead of calling it data centers, can we just talk about large loads?

I mean, that's that's really what we talk about, isn't it?

I mean whether it's kidnapped seldom excuse me, KSU.

But the normal application mentions data centers.

Yeah, normal, but we have nothing.

Or could we say we need to start working on a code section?

We can't advise people to apply until we we know what for them to expect.

And not call it anything.

Look on I'm already wary on the moratoriums on the thing.

I'd prefer just like I said, trying to get to get something Wednesday to advertise for to advertise for a code amendment for the um L I H I to add the thing there as a special land use permit uh to for right now until we can do the full thing.

That way that the by the by right thing is what you're that you're concerned about goes away at that point.

It just hurts her by the planning, it'd be her by the planning commission this month, I guess.

Or is that enough time is that within the amount of time you could do it?

The code change would be advertised and then provided for the August planning commission, which would then come back to city council at the August meeting.

And that would clean up the by rights issue without having to do a moratorium, which point everything is stuck there with the right.

I know, I know.

I'm just proposing I was just proposing something.

Yeah, I mean I actually agree with, but I think we do the best we can.

I that's reasonable.

Can you take a look at something between we certainly can?

Because I think that would be a bit more that would be more effective than a moratorium in this case.

Because that way you've defined the you define the use and set it to a special land use permit.

So that we can then take a look and see what appropriate conditions are and see if by right is appropriate.

Jason had a question.

Or do you do you want a motion?

I had a question prior to that one.

I think it answered most of my question.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I got I got a question.

Why are we limiting it to um H I and L I and not CRC with a special use also?

And I think that should be included in there.

Not to what?

I think it should be in uh CRC should be included in that if we're discussing categories that these would fall under.

I think because they would already have to get a rezoning first if it's in CRC.

But just for special land use, right?

Was that but just for a special land use, correct?

Well, if they were if they want to do an additional use in CRC, then it would come before us anyway.

But by right, they can come in heavy industrial or light industrial.

Yeah, today if it was CRC, it would either need to be rezoned to L I, H I or an upcoming case, CRC with an additionally allowable use of data center.

But isn't one of our problems right now is that CRC doesn't I mean we have to add that allowable use because there's an assumption that it's not allowable.

I don't know what why we're making assumptions not allowable versus the assumption it is allowable, so shouldn't that still be cleaned up like to T's point?

Yeah, that's the whole point, right?

Uh I think you're um what I think you're right.

She was talking about it's by it doesn't have to come before us if it's in an L I or H I.

Which is which is what she was trying to address.

Because it's by right.

Sure.

Yeah, I mean I think one way or the other we have to discuss that put on there whether we do a stay first and figure that out or we don't and try to get some more information before we bring it forward.

One way or the other we we're gonna have to do something.

Because like I said, it's not even in our our code at this point.

It's so new.

Um I think the special ancient permit would probably take a take better look would be a better better option the moratorium in this particular case since it's only in those two zoning categories, getting that fixed, and then you can put it you can we can take a look at the ordinance and see what's appropriate and continue adding to the ordinance.

So that would buy us time without having to do a moratorium.

Y'all just go up.

Yeah, and it's not restricted just to one item.

It if it takes four sections of the code, it takes four, so be it.

You might object to stay up from with it?

No objection, no objection.

Do we um question?

Do we plan on having it come back at the one to on Wednesday for us to take a look at?

Or this is too important to rush.

In that case, ones that are before us or grandfather, so to speak.

So yeah, this is gonna take some research, so um to make sure we're thorough.

And there are two ongoing studies right now in Georgia on health effects.

One's at Georgia Tech.

In that case, do you need a short moratorium while this is getting done?

Or just the fact that this is happening, it doesn't need to happen.

I mean, I'm okay with putting a stay on it for now until we figure it out.

Uh that doesn't bother me at all.

We don't have, I mean, we know how long these take to generate to come in front of us, and if we don't have anything, you know, after this month coming forward, then it might be a good idea to put a say on it and see what me AG has to say about it, and you know, use all that information to where by November, December we can bring it back up and have a better idea.

We're not trying, I mean, that's something we need to rush into, obviously.

So this will give us the ability to pause it and find the most information we could put it all together.

Yeah, I agree.

That's my biggest concern is that if we rush into something, we might end up with a product that doesn't work and know.

Why didn't we do it that way when we could have just waited 60 days and all out?

By the way, my suggestion was not for the entire thing by Wednesday.

I was just saying for the special land use permit part of it.

Just to establish it on H I and L I recognize Mr.

Waters for a motion.

Um I would like to make a motion that we put in a moratorium or a stay on future hang on, let me get this right.

Would have written this down in advance on future data center development until such time that uh staff has been able to adequately research and bring us proposals.

My estimated time I would suggest on that.

Any thoughts?

September.

January.

November.

Yeah, I'd say January.

Through December 31st.

Correct.

Whatever you say.

And then what's the next uh we include the yours in that too, or that'd be a separate motion, Joseph?

Mine would have to be as this have to be separate from a thing.

So if the thing if they're talking about any kind of advertisement, it needs to be a separate motion entirely.

I second are you done?

I'm done.

I second Jason's moratorium motion.

What was your date?

End of the year.

1231.

It's basically the earlier of that, or staff bringing us back the ordinance to pass, basically, or an ordinance passed.

There could be more than just the ordinance, right?

Why don't you go with your motion and somebody's second?

Well, Cheryl's second.

I'll oppose like sign.

You don't want to ask for consent, do you?

I will allow it to go on consent.

Uh, we'll decide between now and Wednesday whether I'm voting against or voting for.

Is everybody else all right with consent?

Thank you.

Mr.

Govsin, you got the invocation.

That's good training for Nealie Wynn.

Looks like we're bringing in nine good officers in.

Oh, anything public safety and personnel to help present.

Yep.

T's gonna work.

Your daughter can join us if you'd like to daughter can dress up and I'll ask her if she wants to come.

Or you could wear it.

I can wear her off.

Okay.

We'd rather have her.

Okay.

Me too.

Have a proclamation for parking recreation month.

And then we have four people signed up for the scheduled appearance.

Well, the minutes regular meeting is special meeting.

June 10th and June 23rd.

I'd like to put those on consent.

As revised.

Yeah.

Got to revisit.

Special meeting for the 23rd is has revised.

Okay.

Both the two June 10th and June and the June 23rd.

Yeah.

Any Jackson that meet no state to be put on consent.

No objection.

No.

Thank you.

787, 720.

Horizon 720.

I will defer to Mr.

Haney on this item.

Mr.

Mayor and City Council, there are two issues related to this.

Number one, uh you denied this request uh almost two years ago.

There's a lawsuit pending today.

Uh all of us received an objection from the apartment complex next door.

They're objecting to the notice uh that was run by the zoning department.

We think the notice that the zoning department ran is 100% correct, it's fine, it's perfect.

They are asking for delay.

Uh the city attorney's office does not object to a delay uh until August.

Uh and you have a lawsuit pending, you now have a legal objection.

You could discuss this in executive session if you desire it, or you may grant the request for delay if you prefer so I mr.

Um my suggestion on this would be to table it for a month so that um the uh purchasers can meet with the um community and and just have conversation uh about what's planned.

Um so and then I'll be able to get with you guys and kind of talk about that.

But um that would be my recommendation for um for this rezoning I spoke to the owner of the apartment complex and and his concern is that the easement that comes through their apartment complex that he's responsible for it, and they're granting a hundred thousand dollars for maintaining the road and upgrades or I mean or you know continuously maintaining the road, and I think the the purchaser is offering a hundred thousand dollars.

I don't know if that's to be used on that road, but that's not gonna go very far.

Uh so I just wanted to mention that that's his biggest concern.

Well, I would say biggest, one of the concerns he expressed to me is that ongoing, even though the new community would be using that main as their one of their main uh access and uh egress and and uh and uh and for the neighborhood, he would be responsible for maintaining the road we don't have a mark race.

No they're at the uh public works conference, right?

So that's something we need to think about.

I don't know uh if that could be joint with the neighborhood or what, but um the HOA would have to, I guess, after the development be in their bylaws that they would you know jointly maintain that easement's an easement, yeah.

Mayor sir um do we know if the applicant is here Mr.

Freeman have you um may I ask him to come down with good evening um do you want to take it or do you want me to well I mean um I can take it I mean well go ahead and ask question you heard the discussion there you heard about the pro the apartment complex north wanting to have the have a conversation would you be willing to have that conversation over the next month to get to talk with them on that uh I'm we're happy to talk to Mr.

Howell in fact I I he called me uh um whenever this was posted and I I mentioned to him at the time I said hey if you have any issues with anything Daniel uh just call me back I'll be happy to sit down with you never called me back to explain that there was any issue with the uh anything that was in our our uh agreement that was negotiated um but my understanding and this the the road agreement goes back before Mr.

Howell ever was involved in that property it goes back to the early 80s when my father purchased the original property and as part of that purchase he was granted an easement uh which we now you know have that uh sets out all of the um conditions for how that road is to be utilized now myself and and I'll be happy to get the our customer here uh PR residential with us um involved to go visit with him tomorrow if we can and we we'll get this hammered out tomorrow would be my preference because you guys know I mean this is and some of you uh who haven't uh who are fairly new to the council may not be aware of the history of this property but you know our family's own this property since the early 80s and we've been working to develop it just like we did the industrial park across the street it was owned industrial we brought up a zoning application in 2018 to the city um uh not a zoning application apologize a variance application with customers ready to build a project there the city council uh ask us to bring back a residential project at that time which was what we've done several times over the years and we have reduced the density down from the original project we think we brought in back in 2023 and 2024 was like 300 units which was basically the same density is as the Mr.

Howell's property which is our neighbor and we got that down to where we're at today which is a tiny fraction of that.

So I I would really like to move forward so we can let our customer like Mr Haney said this has been going on for years so we we'd really like to get this resolved I'll be happy to stop what I'm doing tomorrow and personally go visit with Mr.

Howell and and we'll get it hammered out between us if that's acceptable to everyone.

Is that okay with you May so Ms.

Mayor so okay um I had a meeting with um all of the neighbors uh last week and what they are more interested in having conversations with your team so that they have a real understanding of what's going to take place if approved you know for what's going to be around them their surrounding areas so um my suggestion would be to table this for one month and we can set up a meeting where we're all this they're talking so that they have a better feel because right now perfectly honest with you they feel like they've been ramrod it okay and so they just want to have some conversation with you guys to kind of get a feel for what's really going to take place right so uh that would be my suggestion to have that conversation and then when it comes back next month everybody's gonna understand and there's no

Because right now, perfectly honest with you, they feel like they've been ramroted.

Okay.

And so they just want to have some conversation with you guys to kind of get a feel for what's really going to take place.

Right.

So that would be my suggestion to have that conversation.

And then when it comes back next month, everybody's gonna understand and there's no misunderstanding, if you will, so that there's more clarity for the most part.

So I I appreciate that.

Uh if we would have been notified of the meeting, we we would have been there and we could have provided clarity at at that meeting as well, just like I think our customers had several um opportunities for community input on this, and and we we certainly took a lot of the community input that was given over a period of time, but I mean this is this is a negotiated uh agreement that we we came to is my understanding, and and uh you know, we just spent a lot of money and time uh working through this over the years, and we we would just really like to proceed forward with the with the project.

Um and like I said, I'm I'm happy to stop what I'm doing tomorrow to go meet with anybody that would like to meet.

Uh I'm my door is always open as you guys know.

Um I'm always available for a call, but uh but you know, I'll defer to my customer and and uh we'll do whatever they want to do at the end of the day.

But it's it's just that we've we've had a lot of time to resolve these.

I mean, we we met you know last year uh to um to get all these things resolved, and and it's just has taken a very long time to get where we were then to where it was here.

I I thought, you know, after we met the last time that we would we would be coming before city council within 30 or 60 days, and you know, for whatever reason, that that just hasn't happened.

So that's why I'm just reticent to have any further delays, because you know it it cost us every single month that we do this in illegal fees.

And this is not for me personally, this is not my personal property.

This belongs to my entire family.

This is you know uh very frankly, you know, I I don't take any fees out of this.

So um I'm just here to try to help everybody move this thing forward.

And and I I think the proposal that that these guys have put together, like I said, it's the eighth or ninth proposal that we've we've come through here, and it's it's much lower density than Mr.

Howell's apartment complex on the one side and much lower density in the townhouse project that's on the south side, and and if you look at it over the whole property, I think it's gonna be much lower density even than than what you have in the the other community there.

So I I think it's gonna be uh also a much uh nicer product than what we originally had uh had envisioned there just because of the uh very frankly the amount of land that that now has to be you know charged to each unit.

So um, but that would be my request is that we can meet with anybody who wants to meet in the next two days and then move forward because I just uh I hate to see any further delays.

But I appreciate it.

And if there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer anything anybody else has.

The drawings show like they're townhomes, but they are single family homes.

Yes, sir.

There's if if you I'm sorry, I'll you can't see it on this drawing because of but if it's if it's blown up, you'll see that there is some separation as you you get between there and it's in the stipulations, and like I said, I didn't do the drawing, so I I apologize, but yeah, it looks like there's just a little bit of separation between us and um okay Mr.

Sales and Mr.

Freeman.

Can I throw a compromise out to I'll have a special call meeting on July the 21st?

Will we make me back in town?

We'll be back, yeah.

We're back.

I mean that's 15 days for today's.

You've been back and forth for this body a long time.

I mean, I I'll be happy to be here.

I unfortunately our our customer he he's out of town that day, so but I I'll be happy to do whatever you guys ask me to do at the end of the day, you know.

I'm kind of the need to ask you to call a special call a meeting on the 28th.

How about the 28th?

Is that that would be for the um village that point or read who is the going to ask?

I've just a question for I guess Daniel or Doug.

Um is that sufficient timing to get notices out?

If it's a special call, it's gonna have to be a public hearing.

So is it enough time to get I'm sorry, is that enough time to get notices out?

It would need to be within 15 days from this Friday the 10th.

Is that correct, Shelby?

So that'd be the 25th, and we're looking at the 28th.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

I just want to make sure that we can get the appropriate notices present.

Because it will include a public hearing.

Right.

Okay.

And I you know I've talked with y'all about this one before, so I can if there's any more.

I think you know the history of this one, but some of y'all some of the new council members may not, but I can answer some of the I mean I'm gonna go into things that would be attorney client privilege, but we could talk about the history of it and the and the why we're doing a hearing now.

Uh you know in and even though we mediated in February, we still have to have this hearing and uh and have a final approval.

But so I'm here for any of that, but I'll let Mr.

Freedom speak to that.

Is that okay with you the 28th?

Yeah, or okay.

Are you all okay with the 28th?

So I I've spoken with our customer, and that's okay with the 28th, if that's okay with everyone.

We're we'd is that all right?

We're we're happy to make that accommodation.

Work together.

Thank you.

I appreciate the suggestion of the I need to make a disclosure too.

I just done this at the front.

The Freeman family made a donation to my campaign.

So I want to make that disclosure.

Put it in writing before the 28th.

That's all that has to happen.

All right.

I'll send you the emails definitely.

So could we change this item to be tabled?

Do we need a motion for that?

Yes, please.

Do we need the motion to guess to send that forward?

And probably better from Andre, I guess, since he's the ward rep.

Or do you want me to do it?

No, I'm very happy to do it.

So my motion would be to table this until the next city council meeting.

It's gonna give everybody a chance to have some conversation.

And um that would be on the August 12th um city council meeting.

July 28th.

July 28th.

I thought we're doing a special call 28th.

Special call?

Okay, you want you want to council meeting?

No, mine is a substitute motion.

Yeah.

Yours is the first motion.

Your phone.

Yeah.

To um table this to August the 12th.

That would be my motion.

Yeah, this is there a second.

The motion fails for lack of a second.

Is there another motion?

Make a motion to bring this forward to the July 28th council meeting.

Special call to call a meeting.

There's a motion and a second.

Second.

Okay.

Um proceeded.

This is a show's a do I call the general like to have the special call to part of the motion?

Yes, sir.

Uh any further questions?

Um, yes, sir.

This is a question, I guess, through the chair in this case, because it is to another member of the body.

Um Councilman Sims.

Do you think you can get the meeting done before now before now on the 28th with the community?

Um is that what your concern was?

Yeah, my concern is getting the uh community together.

They work, you know, they can't just come out during the week, so it would be a weekend where we could get together and talk.

Um I'm out of town the 23rd through the 26th.

Um the 18th or 19th, maybe yeah, I could have I could have a conversation with the community if we're able to do it and have that meeting on the 18th.

Um because that's actually going to be the only time that I'm available for a weekend.

That's why I was asking for a longer period.

But um, yeah, I'll uh I'll reach out and we can kind of try to get that scheduled on the uh 18th.

Is that a date that could work?

Yes, sir.

We'll make that work.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate that.

The motion before us is to move this forward as a tabled item with a July the 28th.

Uh special call meet.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor, please judge your right hand.

All those opposed like sign.

Motion carry six one.

Thank you, Calling.

Thank you very much.

Can you have notes where it's gonna be?

I'd like to come to the meeting too.

We do, thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Yep, perfect.

We put that on good.

Can we put this on consent?

Yes, sir.

Because if we hear it, we have to have a public correct beforehand.

Any objection to this?

The motion to carry to table to be on consent.

No objection.

No objection.

Thank you.

Special land use permit for 286 North Hill Castro.

Thank you, Mary.

This will come before you on Wednesday night as a public hearing.

Um requesting a special land use permit for a home occupation uh license type B or permit rather for type B.

Um Miss Parker, who's the homeowner and resident, would like to operate her pre-existing tutoring business out of her establishment.

She previously had a different location and would now like to do that here.

So she'll be here to present on behalf of her request.

Any questions for tonight?

No.

Thank you.

The next one is 25 Crescent LLC.

Thank you, Mayor.

This is another rezoning.

Um, this is the uh property that was most recently um at the gym uh located at 225 Crescent Circle.

Uh the applicant is the urban group, and they are a contractor and they're looking to have this as an administrative office.

Uh the rezoning that would allow the crossfit that was most recently there was very narrow, and so it uh rezoned to CRC specifically for an athletic quadrant gym only, and so their request is going to be to uh relieve those stipulations.

Um the recommendation from the planning commission, um, as you may have seen in the packet, uh, was to prohibit outdoor storage and auto-related uses for the property.

And Mr.

Moore is going to be representing that um application.

He was unable to make it tonight, though.

No, sir.

I met with the applicant, uh Marietta success story.

They met at Hickory Hills Elementary.

Uh really.

They are a very, very successful company and have been doing work all over the Southeast.

And uh I went to their office in Smyrna, they maintain it extremely well.

Uh this is gonna be a an office use, and um I'm really excited about it.

Good looking building.

It's a good looking building.

Um are they gonna take the crossfit off to the side of it?

They are, yes, sir.

I think that's their plan.

They may have to.

You gotta find somewhere else to work out.

Yeah.

Cluster park, that's where I go.

Any other question?

Prime storage uh 1155 powers ferry plunge.

Yes, sir.

So this will be a request on Wednesday from Prime Storage to rezone from CRC to CRC with an additional use of data infrastructure facility or what we have been referring to as data center.

What they would like to do is modify the existing building, um a portion of the existing building, rather, in order to transition it into that type of facility.

But if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer those.

And Mr.

Huff is here tonight also.

So around the water and the so I think about three things that come up power, water, noise, right?

It seems like this is a what a air, this is air cooled, not water cooled.

That's right.

Right.

So the water usage is not necessarily an issue in a specific property.

It should be.

We do.

Actually, uh within this vicinity, there's a CRC zoned property off of Powers Ferry Place on the other side of the street.

Uh it's called Core Site.

It was data site once upon a time.

It's been there for almost 20 years now.

Um and it's presents more of an office feel to it.

Okay.

Similar size, similar usage.

I think it's um, 86,000.

It's about half.

Uh uses about half the um megawatts that we're talking about.

Yeah, they're about 86,000 square feet.

This is gonna be about 90, but of the 90,000 square feet, they're only gonna use 40 percent.

So it's smaller from that perspective.

Smaller from that respect, footprint-wise, just a little bigger if I read everything correctly.

Okay.

Okay, so the one the one sorry.

The one at the other properties currently being used.

That's only a nine megawatt, 10 megawatt essentially.

Yeah, I don't even think it's a nine or ten yet.

Um it's a little less than that.

But um, it's like I said, it's been there 20 years and um it's been you know used for the internet and a lot of other things.

And plus it saved that area.

It was a derelict piece of property that um really was uh it had been demoed and all the debris and still it's been on the site for years, and it actually was a joint project between the state and the city development authority as far as making that happen, and both put money into it to clean the site up, and then the uh the user came in after that, which was originally uh I think it was a it did some kind of telemarketing and all that kind of stuff.

That's what it was involved in at first, and then it kind of switched over more to internet usage.

Um this one for uh for um with regard to any um just wondering I'm not suggesting anything at this moment, just kind of wondering if there's our uh in terms of stipulations or conditions or limitations on zoning parts.

Um conditioning that it would be again the closed loop system is part of the thing, conditioning it maybe with regards to noise levels, conditioning it with it being in regard to power levels for the particular use.

Are those appropriate stipulations?

You you I think you submitted a uh stipulation letter.

Do you address those matters in your letter?

And are you willing to if they're not in there now?

Yes, both but on both points, they're in there now, but they can be enhanced, and and we would agree to a maximum uh power usage and um and also enhance the sound uh attenuation commitments.

Can you do that before Wednesday night?

Yes.

Okay, okay.

So you'll have more.

I just trying to have more information on the sound.

That's the only one that kind of thank you.

I have a question on the go ahead.

I'm just gonna on the um legislature didn't pass that 20-year contract.

Is that gonna be a problem for your client?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

Georgia legislature didn't pass the 20-year contract.

And they can only have a 10-9.

But yeah, I think my client is work around that is fine with that, yes.

And it might pay us so I wrote back there today.

The building that the data center is going to be in, is that the the say department or the So the white the rectangle right there is the old pace warehouse.

Okay, and that was precursor to Sam's Club.

So it was a retail building.

It's about 90,000 square feet.

About 40 percent of that interior will be computer data.

So what would be done to enhance?

And because it's not built for sound now.

Yeah.

So what would be done internally to limit the noise coming out of the Yeah, the the building actually the the computers inside aren't creating the noise.

So the building, the inside, and that was commented, Mr.

Barth commented something about soundproofing the building.

That's actually, I mean, it will be soundproof, but the computers running inside is not the noise.

The noise is we have backup generators that are only for backup generation, they're not used for normal generation, but but if they ever kicked on, they they are insulated and and such.

But the other one is they have chillers, coolers, just like what you have in a major office building in an apartment in a um you have them in a malls, so those outdoor chill, and you have those same chillers at the data center that's 250 feet away.

Now we have more of them because we're current producing more power, but but that's the noise, and that is in that grade hashed out area, that's gonna be our support yard where that support infrastructure is put.

So that is what is and we're doing two things.

One, we're gonna have uh soundproofing wall directly adjacent to that equipment, and then at the property line, we're gonna do uh what is currently a chain link fence will be replaced with a fence that has uh uh sound proofing qualities.

That with apartments back up to the along that line.

Yes.

So do you know how tall that fence will be and what I I think it I mean the the more important one is a low level ground level yeah, they're they drop, so I mean our I think our fence is needs to be no more than eight feet.

That fence now the fence, the sound proofing barrier directly adjacent to the equipment, that may be taller, uh, but that's gonna be an uh more direct and and narrower uh impact.

All right.

And we do have a soundproofing engineer, we're waiting on some feedback from him right now.

That's what I would be interested in, and what what exact product he's looking at or kind of a category of product, whether it's gonna be a uh sound detonating, baffling um, which seems like that would probably be the best thing what he's looking at.

Yeah, and that obviously the most important is the barrier closest to the equipment, kind of as I actually think the fencing being replaced will make it better than current conditions.

Like right now, that will probably help with some of the noise from the interstate because you are right next to the interstate.

What's the life cycle for the data center?

Do you know?

I don't know, but um, you know, seven, ten-year contracts are or what are typically written in the industry.

So in the 10?

Yeah.

Oh okay.

Minimum.

That's a question.

Where on here are the residential units?

So along that line.

Yeah, which over there.

Yeah.

The 75 is down here.

But in reality, these folks may end up with a better sound situation after this than they had before this.

That's the goal.

That's yeah.

And you also have a very good noise ordinance.

And so we will be complying with your noise ordinance, which has a different level at night than it does during the day.

Um Mr.

Mayor, if I ask one thing at the city attorney manager in this case.

I'll need Ron Mole here, so I can't, so I'm going to have to ask you the electric question in this case.

Um I know that this site I believe is already served a marriage of power with this additional use, though, with the amount of thing, that means that a new contract would have to go in place, which is then the same contract that we do for we did for Bells Ferry for other stuff, essentially, and where it's off the market and stuff.

We are working that out with them now.

Uh and we were waiting for this to see if uh they actually were gonna be able to move forward, and if they are, then that'll be uh finished up for the BLW.

But uh we're looking at the same types of contracts for all the folks that you know the the three different ones that we've got.

In this particular case, there's not much that would have to be done on the infrastructure side.

Yeah, the um I unlike the description of the bells very the the substation is sized for this use.

It's very important.

So there's no upgrade to the substation that would need to be done.

So there are really no extra cost that would be borne by the DLW on this.

So it's just basically giving them a rate and uh the guarantee of the power as well as how to be able to do that.

Which again is that the con the contract, a similar contract again, the uh our minimum contract for that.

It's no risk contract for the city, I guess is a good way to put it.

So it wouldn't have a negative effect on a rate on our other rate payers basically.

No, no, I mean it it would not.

At least is we're looking for if this thing gets approved.

That's all that's all on up on Wednesday.

Right.

It would it would be a um profit-making venture for the BLW.

My question back the reason I asked about the life cycle is in some data centers in some areas of the uh municipalities have approved.

Once the um the life cycle had ended and not just leave uh I would say I saw, but that's not that's at the back of the makes the 75, so it won't be, but will that owner be responsible for removing all of that and returning the property back to whatever it was before?

Yeah, I mean he he would have to comply with your your city code on on property maintenance, but also think that highlights the great opportunity to reuse an existing building so it's not purpose-built for this use, so it could go back to data.

I mean, excuse me, it could go back to so the all-sell storage if this use didn't work out.

And we would also agree that it would not expand beyond what we're proposing.

I didn't have that in there, and I need to make sure I have that in there that we would not expand it over what we have committed to the size of it.

So you can't so essentially right now, this is not based on the power, this is not an AI data center.

Correct.

Yeah.

And it cannot become one, it would not be able to become one.

That is correct.

And you wouldn't be expanding out the building or anything like that into any kind of buffer or not asking for those things.

Yeah, and I think go to the next slide if I think the I think it was up there though, showing the so that shows the building.

So really the computers are in that.

I'm not gonna be good on colors here.

Pinkish, the pinkish areas is actually the computers.

The gray space, which is purple in my, I think it says gray, but it's purple.

Yeah, is actually like the I and I'm not a computer person, but it's the U the US the the switches that switch stuff, so it switches to the computer.

So the actual computer is only that pink area.

The blue, the light blue, is remaining self-storage.

And so we would commit to that.

So it wouldn't take over the whole building.

What are we asking about AI?

Like what's the why does it matter if the data is supporting artificial intelligence or not?

The only reason it was brought up is because the AI usually requires a lot more than 20 megawatts to be able to go through is in a data center use.

And that's usually why I was saying that is they're not going to expand beyond to include a lot more electricity.

That's usually where a lot of the when you get into the hyperscale range of data centers, a lot of the cons of the noise and other concerns start coming more so coming into play at that point because you're usually using a lot more equipment to cool, a lot more equipment to do that.

The only reason I was asking on that was to make sure that what's being put in place.

That's the reason I was asking about the whether a limit on the megawatts is part of that.

Means that it can only go up to so far.

Meaning it can't, it means all the equipment has to keep up the equipment that's being if if it if it were approved.

The equipment that is approved approved along with it, the noise abatement, the water usage and stuff gets stuck with that as well.

Just to clarify on the power contract side of things, we're looking at a couple different options, but in all the options we're considering, uh they would pay at least as much as our normal commercial customers pay.

But there are different ways to do it that we've got that uh we're we're considering right now.

But uh in no case would there be uh any burden borne by the rest of our 44,000 rate payers on that.

They would be paying whatever it's costing us plus profit for BLW.

Yes, but to follow up on that would the 12 megawatts come under a separate meter.

And then the rest of the buildings the rest of the building under different meters.

That's a very good question.

I really can't answer that at this point.

Um this would be under contract because they have to have future considerations.

Yeah, it would think else would be just like a regular regular GC customer.

Is that your understanding part?

Yeah, I mean, and and let me let me be clear because I the terminology's changed, and so I've been we originally asked for 18, and that's our power usage, but the data parts only 12.

So I I don't want I mean I don't want people to think we're trying to like play, I just was trying to be because so when they uh when they normally it's my understanding when the industry says data center power usage, they're only talking about the computer parts of it, not the support infrastructure.

So to compare apples to apples, so 12 is what our computer usage is, but 18 is what our power usage is.

So I don't want to be like I'm not trying to be deceptive, I'm trying to be over descriptive.

I understand I'm just making sure to be under two different meters.

And I think we've got 12 now, is my understanding is 12 is already allocated, and we we're gonna do a contract for the final six.

Is that that I haven't heard, but um I the way it was just described, I would think would be under one meter because if it's got the computer room but it's also got supporting infrastructure that's with it, that's all part of the same business.

So then we'd have one meter for that.

Now, as far as another meter for the storage and the other stuff that's going on, yes, sir, I agree that would be a separate meter.

But I'm wearing my BOW.

No, we are public power and have different rates.

I think you have to be careful.

I mean, I would you know, as we here tonight things change over the years.

I wouldn't want somebody to say we're in unethical charging them more except for a reason.

Yeah, it'd be the guarantee that we would be putting forward with them on that we would supply them power a certain rate, a certain time, everything else, um, and the guarantees that we would have in there as far as um and that kind of stuff.

But um but the BOW would have they decide that that's not yeah, they'll have the contract, huh?

Yes, sir.

We're still I'm saying this is we're still looking at it because we didn't know if it was gonna pass or not, so we haven't fine-tuned exactly how we're gonna charge it.

We were looking at the standpoint of do we have the ability to serve it?

We do.

Um, and so as far as figuring out exactly what the contract would have to read, we'll have to work that out.

But uh what we have seen is the other contract that we worked out.

Um, we know what that is, which is cost plus.

So um there may be a reason that it could go on a general commercial rate and it would actually be more beneficial to the BLW.

And so that would be looked at also.

Many advantages they have that they'll be running at night.

That that's it, exactly.

They have they help us provide it at night.

We we have we have an excess of power at night uh that we really can't do much with because you can't even sell that on the market.

Um because the there aren't a lot of folks that need it at night comparatively during you know, compared to the day.

So uh yeah, 24-7 um operation is a lot more beneficial to us on the revenue side.

That'd be something that's decided after zoning at this point, because the contract itself can't we can't do contract zoning.

No, and I think it's a beneficial to y'all that yeah, we haven't gotten to that level with them really that we'll do that afterwards if it does pass.

Just good it's just good to let people know again we have minimum standards that we're keeping though.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I think in some cases you hear these stories about tax credits and that folks have gotten, and you also hear about some you know exceptional energy rate that they've gotten.

Uh that has never come up in any of the discussions we've had with the existing one that we have in place or any of the others we've talked to.

I just know just no I've received a few email received emails.

I'm pretty sure my colleagues have as well, and a lot of them are focusing on those main points that have already been discussed water usage, electric usage, um noise in the water.

I know they point back to fact I don't think it's uh think an answer was provided in the staff analysis or something along those lines as well.

So among other things that were also discussed, I think.

So no, I've been hearing a few of those as well.

Anything else before we go ahead and the public here.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

This is an existing uh property that's uh been developed that's uh located on Franklin Gateway.

It's current zoning is uh PRDMF, but it's a small piece of property that's only really been ever used as a daycare going back to the 1980s.

At this time, the new owner would like to um transition the property into a small grocery, and so that's the request that's coming before you would be to rezone from PRDMF to NRC neighborhood retail commercial.

Um there are a couple of variances that would be required.

Um, one to reduce the required parking spaces from 17 down to nine, and the other uh deals with the uh dumpster that's located in the front of the property, which our code does not allow.

The recommendation from the planning commission uh was for approval, um, but under the condition that they use some type of enclosure around the dumpster to screen it from view.

And Mr.

Huff is representing that as well if you have any questions for either me or or Mr.

Huff.

Mr.

Mayor Dave figure out the square footage of the property, or is that still up in the air?

Yeah, I've of the different numbers that we've received, I've not received a definite, and so that parking calculation is on the higher of the two numbers, 17 down to 9.

Um the one that's shown on their plans or on the rezoning plat shows 4975.

So that's what staff has been moving forward with.

Anything else for it tonight?

Bridgepoint church.

Thank you, Mayor.

Bridgepoint Church is located um off of Victory Drive at 285 and 295.

Um it is a existing church building.

Um it has two different zonings between the two parcels that it has, one CRC, the other R4.

Um, making this a bit unusual as the property was expanded sometimes, or the building rather was expanded at some point in the mid-80s to where it crosses both parcels.

And so the request is to um rezone both and to have them combine to CRC.

And what they'd like to do is to expand the services that the church requires uh that the church currently provides uh into some type of uh weekday education, early childhood education program uh where they would have around 60 or so students anything else for tonight.

Mr.

Andy, denial claims consent, please.

Any objection to being on consent?

No objection.

You had another three or four Wednesdays, not that I know of.

Oh no.

Uh first two items on page eight are on consent.

Any objection?

No objection, no objection.

Mr.

Chair.

If I may.

Um I previously disclosed that I own property adjacent to this property under further further counsel deliberation.

I've decided to recuse myself from discussing or voting on this matter.

I'm gonna remove myself from the days.

All right.

Thank you, Mayor.

So this has been um advertised for a public hearing, so that's what will happen on Wednesday.

We did have a few updates from our last discussion at the committee meeting.

Um firstly, Mr.

Rice has provided a letter that just describes the process that they'll go through when it comes to stormwater, that they would require a hydrology study and a flow analysis that would then be evaluated by staff.

He obviously is unable to be here tonight, and and I believe on Wednesday as well, so he wanted to provide that uh for further information since that was a point of discussion.

Um the other piece I wanted to bring you to your attention is we had a lengthy discussion about the the easement.

The and um staff this afternoon was presented with some new information that we've had passed out to each of your uh places as well.

So initially it was uh the discussion surrounded a non-exclusive easement that would uh traverse the ESPY property, which is the applicant subject property, um, and would continue on to existing uh existing parcels that are already developed.

Um the uh uh attorney for the applicant had provided us some additional information today that there's actually um a fee simple um deed, and so we've provided that uh uh uh within your packet um that actually controls the access through that property.

So there's an executor's deed and then a corrective executor's deed as well that has been provided that that deal with those issues.

And so um Mr.

Rosen is here to answer your specific any specific questions you may have about that.

Also, Mr.

White has taken a look at it very briefly this afternoon in the limited amount of time we've had to review Mr.

Mayor, yes.

So I've heard that there might be some um some document that refutes what the the applicant is bringing forward, and I've not seen that any sort of easement that contradicts what so my question to you is have do we have possession of any sort of easement or any other kind of document that uh conflicts with what we've originally had?

So at this point we've been provided with some additional information that I guess sheds a little bit more light on the history of the property and the transference and the uh the since it's not really an easement at this point, it's really the an actual parcel that's been created that's not shown on the tax websites as well.

Um as far as anything that's conflicting beyond that, I've not been provided anything by anyone else other than what you just stated right there.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

This easement or separate property, who maintains it who will maintain it going forward, similar to the other issue we have when we have an easement.

Um yeah, that actually raises a good question that Mr.

White and I were discussing today, which is the intention is that after the roads are developed that they would be deeded over to the city.

Um so that raises a question about that entranceway that covers the easement area as to would that also then be deeded to the city for maintenance at the end of it as well.

Uh from there, it would be the owners of the property that would be responsible to do it.

But on the area that Shelby just highlighted, um that's the I guess the question that we have.

So they're not gonna have a homeowners association.

They will have a homeowners association, but the infrastructure will be the cities.

That would be common property for the homeowners association.

Yeah, other residents along that.

If you see the screen, the issue with this come up now is just really as to this one tiny piece that's in the in the circle.

Um course, i if the if the property owners have something worked out, the the road would be you know dedicated, like the the development would it's reporting the dedicated to the city.

The question I have now after what I've seen today is uh can they even it looks to me like they all own it jointly.

When we discussed last week, it looked like they there was an access easement that served the southern property.

Yeah, uh, but what I've seen now just and I I'm gonna caveat this by saying I uh we literally just saw this this afternoon.

I haven't done a full title search, and I have been asked to, and I wouldn't do it unless the city asked me to, because they're not the client.

So if you guys want us to do a full title, we can.

I don't but I don't know that you guys need to be the arbiter of who has the rights here.

But from what I've seen, there was a 1977 deed from the Manning estate, James T.

Manning estate into SP's Callaways and Montgomery's.

That was updated a couple years later in 1980 to add the Kings.

But then in 1980, they granted each other uh the an easement, uh uh access easement, non-exclusive access easement.

So from what I can tell, they own uh they own they have a right to access the property through the easement, so that they they do have the right to I would say that the they have a right to act use that driveway to access you know the rest of the parcel to get to it, but the problem is could they dedicate that one piece without all the property owners consenting to it?

And I'm not sure unless I unless we go through and look at some other title documents right now.

I would have say that if they wanted to dedicate that to the city, the remaining property owners would have to.

I again I don't I'm not this is a very limited, limited review, and I that's not like our official legal opinion, but it just those are the questions that are being raised because I've only seen really a handful of documents from 77 to 80.

I we haven't gone before, I haven't gone after.

And so uh those are some things we would want to make sure that the developer has cleared up because uh I don't you know the I I don't from what I've seen don't have questioned that they can access the property, but it the question is can they make changes to that little strip that's jointly owned?

Um it's just a weird arrangement that they would have titled it jointly if they did.

Which was the question I asked.

Right.

Who's paying property tax on it?

Nobody's gonna I don't know.

We usually don't audit these do we I again I don't I don't I that's what I was saying.

I don't think you guys need to be the final arbiter of who has the rights here, but I just don't know how how they you know who would dedicate that is if that's what I'm saying.

Like could we accept a dedication?

But yeah, but could we can we approve something that gives a use to someone who may not have the right to it?

Again, I haven't and if you guys would like us to, we do title searches all the time.

I'm happy to go look at this, but this is not our again, it's not and and again it's not that we're the arbitrator, but maybe we should be.

But if we grant something that allows someone a use and it's joint and it's owned commonly, how can we do that?

Um once the answers question, I'll I'd like to ask them as well.

I again I think those are the questions we're gonna be raising of the applicant.

There's is what what do you have that that shows us do you have the right to dedicate this?

Yeah.

Yeah, because that that's where my question line lies on that.

It's if they're trying to dedicate it to is a public road.

Do you have the authority to dedicate something that's theoretically jointly owned, and there's only and only one owner at this time.

When it came up last week, uh such an unusual thing that they would say that it was joint.

I thought, well, I said you need to produce they would need to produce a deed, because the only deed I've seen right now shows that it's an easement.

And then in the meantime, uh there was a the other um I ask one other question on this.

I'm sorry, barging the throat.

Um does the dedication of right-of-way take place?

Is it during the preliminary plating?

Is it during a different process?

Is it during final plattering?

I would think you're correct.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So this is when we're doing with the preliminary plant right now.

So we get to final plating, and then the other owners say nope, not interested.

Yeah, so we'd have to stick with private roads then at that point?

Because I don't think we could really serve as a public road off a private one where it's a break.

So I think it would be difficult.

I'm looking to you, Bill.

I won't say what kind of sample.

We don't have Mark Rice here.

Yeah, the um there was one point in it too.

Uh I just barely looked at it before we came in here.

Um, I thought it said the right actually goes to any future owners of the property.

So for the access for the easement, or what do you think?

Well, that's what I'm saying.

It it does they do that all the future owners, meaning the the current owners of this top tract, one and two, and the current owners, they all have an easement to each other.

Right.

So they can access it.

But the question is, it's the typical situation would be tracks one and two own the underlying fee simple, and the easement's just running across it.

But the document I've seen just this afternoon shows that all six of the property owners own that driveway together jointly.

So they all own the fee simple, unless something has occurred in the chain of title after 1980 that I haven't seen.

So if if somebody wants to do something with the even with that northern tip of that parcel, that we'd have to see that they have the you know, we wouldn't take an application from on part of the owners of uh property, I would think.

They they'd probably yes, they have to either deed it over to the city or they'd have to not bring in the roads into the city.

They'd have to keep them private.

Right.

They'd have to show they have ownership the uh rest of the owners consenting to the deeding over or the or to the dedicating to the city.

I would like that.

Again, all this is to say I I I'm only if you'd like five deeds and we haven't done a full surgery.

Mr.

Handy got us a round avenue extension.

I mean, we had to go back to a Supreme Court case.

Um I was here when there was something conveyed and one of our sidewalks was conveyed in the property.

And then you go back and but I guess if they were to give it to us, we would have to ask maybe they run titles in.

When when they convey it to us, yeah, to determine whether it could be.

So my question is if we need to have a title search, can you do that by when anything I've I don't know that I could go back behind it, but I don't know that I need to.

But yeah, we could do that.

Again, I don't know that this is the stage at which we I think this is just where we have to ask questions of the the applicant when they come up on Wednesdays like do you have something?

That's really what I'm curious because it they they would be the ones that would need to provide the answers.

Um it's not really up to the city to say who owns it, it's up to them to say this is why we have the right to.

And and I again I it would be it's just an odd arrangement that it would be that way that I would think surely somewhere in the along the way they work that out.

But you would make the recommendation to us though.

We could I don't recommend I don't know.

My question is right now they're requesting a preliminary plat.

Right.

With no variances, no zoning.

So I feel like if they are going to pursue this and they want to pay the thousands and thousands of dollars for the surveying and everything else to put this together, if it comes down later to the recording the plat and we have an issue, that is where it would stop the platform being recorded, isn't that right?

So they the buyers would be taking the risk of putting more money into this, you know, moving forward.

I don't know legally.

I'm not a lawyer, you know that.

Um why how could you deny someone the right to a preliminary plat?

Has that ever been done?

Like why on on what basis could you say no, you're not allowed to move forward with it?

Because I know some jurisdictions they don't even require a preliminary plat to come in front of bodies.

They do it and then it comes on the back end to record the the final plat.

So I don't I honestly don't know why it would come in front of us to begin with.

I guess the only question is do they actually own all the property that they're trying to try to like do they uh they own everything but the driveway?

I mean you know what I'm saying, like they got they clearly have title to the rest of the properties like, but do they can they apply for a plat on property where not all the property owners are consenting?

That's the legal question I'm asking here.

And I don't have the answer to that yet.

I mean I haven't looked at I I got this at like three this afternoon.

So um and again, I mean it goes back to saying if they want to proceed with a preliminary plat, then go for it.

Spend as much money as you want on engineering and surveying and everything else, but if you don't have the right to, you don't have the right, but that's not for us to decide.

Um I just don't understand why you could tell somebody they can't proceed with the preliminary plat.

I've never and all the other jurisdictions I've dealt in, that's never we've never come in front of a body to decide that.

So I agree.

The um I guess if for some reason, if again going forward when have the comment period, right, Mr.

Mayor.

Um it comes down to a mo a motion at that point, I guess.

If it is an approval plat, it doesn't bless the fact that they own or don't own the property, correct?

Yeah.

Um just looking at you two.

You could put an actual disclaimer on the motion if you approve it, that the approval does not approve title to that.

I'm looking behind the out of roads in this law.

Adam feels about any of this, but I can answer at least some of what we also.

I know.

Let you have your discussion.

Um so I think the f this started with is there any other documents out there that we've seen that would would support maybe others saying that we don't have access or that there's something else that later took it away or something like that.

I that that's not anything that we're aware of.

So what um what Daniel and uh both Daniels laid out is I I think accurate.

There was an original executor's deed from the manning estate that conveyed that strip that you see up there, but it was in a different configuration originally.

It was sh it was straight.

And then there was a later executor's deed that corrected the legal, it just corrected the legal description.

There was an error in it.

Um then there was this this current, the m the more recent plat that showed, I think probably them correcting to actually track um where the actual road bed was, where the driveway bed was, because it did not go straight as originally described.

And so they corrected it to look this way.

Um and then there was a quit claim deed from SPY back to him back to the SBs along with the other owners to help implement that correction of the road turning.

Um in there there was also an easement conveyed for that lowest uh track six.

Um to the last name King, and then that easement, which is the one that you saw at the last at the committee meeting, um it gave it clarified King had access, but also said that all the other owners um have access because of that easement as well.

So you've got the privately owned jointly, the strip and the and this easement that was also done.

Um obviously it's hard to know exactly why they did all of that at the time, but I think we can see and understand why they did it so that everyone would have access.

Um so I we're not aware of anything other than that.

Um that and that's what we've been operating off of.

That's why our site plan tracks this same curved shape.

Um I think also what has been said, you know, if if there are things that have to change because of ownership or because of um agreement or not agreement with the private owners, uh that's something that they're gonna have to to deal with as they get through um through the process.

This at least shows you um and meets your requirements for um what what the plat approval process would be.

And then I I kind of missed what you were leaning over looking at me for.

It's more so again the sorry, Mr.

Mary, may I?

Yes, sir.

With regard to the thing, it was more of a the plat doesn't bless the fact whether you own own the property or not in this case.

If there's a question of joint ownership, for example, that means it we're not saying that you have you own it, we're saying we're accepted the front it would be accepted in a plenary plat, saying we're not blessing whatever the ownership is, you've got to figure that out.

Yes, then yes to that.

I we understand that.

Because if the if you're planning on having this be public roads and it turns out you don't own everything, that makes it kind of hard to dedicate anything over to the city at that point.

Because you can only dedicate your portion of it.

Right.

Which means that you might have to change your plan in terms of whether those are public or private roads.

Right.

Question, Mr.

Mayor.

What part of that I guess the entrance is it that's I think Daniel said that they somebody should uh can or sent them a copy of a deed that shows that that's owned by the that's a deeded piece of property.

That that was me, and that came from discussions uh we were having earlier today and recognized that there was some question that I could answer by providing that.

That was the executor's deed that I referenced earlier.

That was the original conveyance from the manning estate to all of these owners jointly to own that private drive together, which came before the easement that was the one you saw last meeting.

I think somebody mentioned this and no taxes paid on that or something.

It it's not showing as a separate tax parcel, uh, but I you know, thinking about that when that question was raised.

I mean the dimensions of these lots don't include that strip, which means that they're covering all the way through the strip.

So I think who's paying taxes is they're all sh they're all jointly paying taxes.

Sure enough.

I mean they're not paying taxes as a separate parcel.

Right.

But it's all covered, it's not like a gap that no one's paying for.

Yes, ma'am.

They meet and there's not a separate parcel showing like it does on the quint claim.

Like it does in these plates, yes.

It literally just shows that the SB's that parcel one and two converge, and so they're obviously paying the tax.

I think now whether or not there's an agreement to reimburse back, I don't know.

But by the tax assessor's website, it's showing as their tax property.

Correct.

Yeah, it's not a separate parcel.

And and we'll, you know, we'll continue to talk to to Daniel or Doug, and I'm happy to share any information we have or help them and thinking through and any of that that that you've talked about already.

John Matty's dad judge Manning said that was a waste of good property bottom lane for houses.

He owned half Picau County property at that time from Powder Springs all the way over to Dallas.

And there was a question about the process and why why we would even ask that.

And then in our preliminary plating procedures in 728.05, it has data requirements for preliminary plants and then E is uh that's why we're talking about it's easy easements location width, purpose, and controlling entity.

So that's that's the stuff we have to see for all these preliminary plats.

Is if you if we're talking about an easement here, which which we are waiting, if it's shown on the plat, then we have to have information to evaluate the controlling entity.

So that's where that's where it becomes relevant to the city.

Might be good to guess get new ownership title done as quick done quickly on that as well, then what's that?

Maybe a good idea to do the title search on the stuff between now and Wednesday if you can.

Sure.

That yeah, I'm happy to just say you understand all the stuff.

Yeah, that can be out there.

Okay.

Can I ask one more question?

When does 285 Parkway Woodstock Georgia have to do?

What wasn't this about this property?

No.

No, that was a free market.

That was Freeman.

Yeah, that's Freeman.

You have enough problems, so I didn't mean to add them.

I don't know that address.

Okay.

The next item is St.

Basil Orthodox Church.

I pronounced it right.

St.

Basil.

I I was pronouncing it basil, but they may correct us on Wednesday night, so uh you may be correct.

Um so this is a existing church that's located at 520 West Atlanta Street.

Um they came in and met with staff and um discussed at a high level some uh uh future improvements they would like to make, including an expansion of the building.

Um at this time, staff doesn't have a full plan of what exactly that would entail, and so that's not there's a number of uh of likely variances that that would trigger when they come in with those specific details.

Uh but the variances that they're requesting um on Wednesday night are one to allow gravel parking.

There's an existing um partially grassed partially gravel piece on the southern end of that property um as shown on the on the map that Shelby has above.

Uh there is some gravel, uh we believe it according to the applicant, it was left by a utility.

Uh and so they would like to expand that across the site um to utilize that for parking.

And then the other variants they're requesting um is that they have uh warranted that they need 52 parking spaces per the zoning code, and they would like 13 of those to be shown off site where they have been using the Cobb Gymnological Society property at 516 West Atlanta uh for overflow parking as well.

Um I will note, and you'll see it in the staff report as well.

We do believe that this is within the overlay.

Well, that we know that it's within the overlay, and that there are another a number of other non-conformities related to buffers and setbacks and the like that would be triggered should they um engage in some type of project that exceeded 50 percent, which if they uh uh had any type of substantial redevelopment that that would happen, and then that would necessitate uh a whole lot of variance is likely to come before you, otherwise they would have to meet those by code.

Um so those are the facts that we have uh at this point, but happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr.

Mayor, I got at least two.

Um you said that uh there was some gravel left over by a utility company.

Was that there before in other words, is it a grandfather's use or is it a or a non-conforming use, or is it just something that was added in?

It was a construction use.

That's that's correct.

It was for a lay down for construction area.

So it wasn't supposed to be permanent.

I'm not sure that those approvals ever came through the city to allow that initially, but correct, it was not a permanent use or permanent condition of the site.

And then secondly, do we have a written agreement or easement between the property owner and that one for that overflow parking?

Or did they both own the same property?

We'll have to check.

I'm not sure off the top of my head, but we can look into that and see if they've provided it.

If you don't mind just checking that before Wednesday.

Absolutely.

My only question for tonight is that they do state in here that if needed, there are 10 spaces in the city's right-of-way on grass.

Correct.

They do state that yeah, and that would take the total number to 62.

We know that that is something that the city does not permit and allow, and so that's why it's not before you with any type of motion.

Oh I think we just lost me adjourned.

Generators are on the that was my only question.

I saw that and I thought, should we wait to continue until the streaming is back online?

Because right now I don't think we're reporting, are we, Stephanie?

I'm not sure.

We're transferring green lights, huh?

Yes, sir.

Can I go back to Sumter mention one thing?

If you notice, we call that this is not a public hearing because we have to do it.

We call it community input in order to allow 15 minutes for Ginners.

Really all the fours are what Mark Rice has to do anyway.

I don't think he ought to have to revoto.

He just says, yes, that's what we do.

I mean, my opinion, that's what I'm just asking.

Yeah, that's what I was gonna ask.

Like, does it even require a motion for anything?

Don't they have the right to move forward with a preliminary plot anyway?

Well, I'm just talking about instead of having a public hearing, right?

We're giving these people the rightness of your heart.

But but we're not doing we're not debating both sides.

Right.

They're just gonna give their concerns and the proofs in the pudding, just like on Coast and Road.

Martin made the developer spend a million dollars after you know they'd already started.

I mean that I mean not him, the circumstances.

Sure.

Does that make sense?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, so we had 1122 Powers Ferry Road.

Thank you, Mayor.

This is the um former Kroger at Delc and Powers Ferry Road.

Uh the applicant is coming forward, they'd like to move a fitness uh gym into that space.

Um it's a my understanding is a national company that's moving into Georgia, and so it would take the entire space.

Um with that, there are some variances that they're requesting in order to complete that development.

One is to reduce the 40-foot buffer requirement between residential.

There's a Cobb County-based multifamily development and the existing condition of the building is that it uh has a has a drive that that uh limits the the buffer um as it currently sets.

And then they're also requesting a variance to allow more than 12 parking spaces um in a row without a planner.

Uh plantur, rather.

Um I'll say not city related, um, but the company has a lot of parking requirements, and so my understanding is that's a reason for uh the request.

Uh Kevin Moore is also uh representing this group, and he'll be here on Wednesday to present, but once again, he's not here tonight to answer any questions.

And Shelby has the the plan that shows the uh planting areas that they would be required to do.

There'll be a world gym or comparable like world gym.

It it looks that way, yeah, from the advertisement materials that I've seen, it looks like it'll be pretty comprehensive.

It's a big space.

The variance to reduce the variance to reduce the 40-foot buffer adjacent to residential to what?

Uh to the existing condition, and so as you'll see right there, I think it's five feet on this side.

Okay, but they're trying to preserve as many parking spaces as they can now.

I got it.

Sorry.

I didn't see the picture before.

So but that is down to existing conditions essentially.

Correct.

Probably be asking a question of the applicant on Wednesday about that then.

I I will note staff has a few recommendations that they put in there should council wish to approve these.

Uh one would be to require a new uh six-foot-tall opaque fence.

Another would be to tie the landscaping plan to the plan substantially uh submitted to where we're not just varying all of the parking or all of the uh tree planting uh um material.

Questions how many planters would they be required to put there if uh um let's see.

Get you those specifically, yep, Shelby's pointing out right there.

There's more than twelve spaces in a row that uh without a planter, so on the north side of the building.

Uh it looks like here on the south side of the building as well.

Um you'll see uh more than twelve spaces without them.

And then as you come through here, these maybe I'll need to count those up.

Uh but they those could be okay, but they may be uh need need to be looked at as well.

Yeah.

How do you access access those spaces on the bottom left?

A little confused.

It looks like they're stacked on top of each other with no other drive.

These?

Yeah.

Um so you would come through this way.

Right, I see that, but aren't there like spaces on the top and spaces on the bottom?

Oh no, I believe those are just individual spaces.

That line does appear that way though.

Okay.

Yeah, that appears to be another.

That's what I'm that's confused.

That's BS BSL.

Yeah, I can leave your your keys at the desk.

What's the acronym BSL I mean again?

B SL.

Uh pardon me.

Huh?

Thank you.

So that's uh building setback line for our I guess showing to for our code and stuff like that.

For what Shelby just said, and she's shaking your head.

Oh, is that what that okay?

So it's not a lot, it's not a line to be marked on actual ground.

It's just a marking for the plans, correct?

Yeah, look at the bottom right corner in the green.

Yep.

So what goes there then?

If it's no proposed landscaping and it's not gonna be parking space, what is it?

So that will be parking.

That area there?

Yeah, it's parking.

It's just that little line is not really anything.

It's just letting us know where the setback line is.

Yes.

That was more for us than anything.

So Daniel, quick question.

Uh where was the fence that you were talking about?

Yeah, so the fence would be right along this line here.

Okay.

But when it was a Kruger, the planters were not required.

Correct.

We didn't have those regulations back when it was developed, and so it would have been grandfathered in at that time.

So they're gonna well more than put 50% of the value into this, and so the entire site needs to be brought up to code at that point.

But they don't if they're asking for the variance, I mean they don't want to do that, right?

Yeah, they went to parking over the planners.

What's that?

Correct.

You want parking over planners?

Yeah.

Correct.

So they've they've worked to comply in certain areas, and then they're gonna have some landscaping in between.

So, you know, I think practically speaking, there's gonna be a it's gonna be much better than current conditions.

Um, but there's a few areas they don't want to comply because they would like the additional parking.

Of course, they would just need that extra parking January 1st through January 7th.

That first parked for that particular point.

Right.

That's funny.

This is the park on the grass.

Uh I don't think they're asking for that, so only for one week a year.

Yep.

102 burn up.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

This is uh same song third verse, I think at this point.

So this relates to the Trayton development on Jordan and Burnap.

Most recently back in May, you all saw variances uh for 105 Jordan and um for 104 burnout um that would uh reduce the the front and side and rear setbacks.

Uh the variances that are being requested for 102 burnout are in keeping with that as well.

And if you'll recall, um part of the I guess trade-off if you were related to that was the application of the infill um residential uh development overlay onto the properties that are uh receiving the variances.

And so this is uh another one, and and my guess would be you'll see future properties incorporated as well.

At this point, if we see any more of the any more of these, I guess just include um probably better just uh if we have if we have c uh common stipulation for all these as you're coming on in, might want to just double double check and include in the future or talk about in the future with the applicants.

Uhly Trayton Home already knows what they're going to probably be asked about, given the fact they've already heard it two times now.

And Mr.

Moore will be representing this project as well, and he was for the previous properties also.

Yeah.

And be between now and Wednesday, do you mind getting getting a copy of the or the what we approved the previous two times so we have the stipulation language ready to go?

Sure.

Absolutely.

Anything else?

Didn't ask.

You're not on the ejection to any of those being on consent.

Those last three.

I think they're public hearings, aren't they?

Oh.

No.

I'm so confused.

What were the last three?

I gave up about 10 minutes ago.

One was a church in West Atlanta.

Another was a Kroger to the I I have a problem with the church being on that.

I think we saw I think we still have some questions and need some qu need some answers in the applicant on all things.

Yeah, but they said the word that triggers me.

What about Powers Ferry?

What about Trayton?

That's Nick's.

Oh, okay.

Power's varies.

These are all actually public hearings.

That's what I thought.

Okay.

We've got like 10 of them.

Okay, so these are public hearings?

They are.

We don't normally have uh dinner on Wednesday, but maybe we need we need breakfast because we'll be here all night.

We deserve returnable.

The mayor's covering that.

I think if I'm like the I've got a 730 flight on Thursday morning, so we gotta get to National League of Cities.

I am not asking Jimmy anything.

Y'all couldn't be sitting alone.

Surprised you shouldn't be problematic.

No.

It's gonna be a lot.

I don't have a problem with them.

But yeah, I'll let you know.

It'll be on the 18th.

Why not?

Have we officially adjourned?