Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
On September 30, 2026, the Marietta City Council held a series of committee meetings and a special called work session in the Council Chamber, beginning at 5:15 PM. The meetings included the Finance/Investments Committee, Parks, Recreation and Tourism Committee, Judicial Legislative Committee, Public Works Committee, Public Safety Committee, and a Special Called Council Work Session. Transcripts are available for the Judicial Legislative, Public Works, and Public Safety committees, and the work session; the Finance/Investments and Parks, Recreation and Tourism committees were held but no transcript is included in the source material.
Go uh with the developer and we do have representatives um from trading homes here right now. Um but essentially uh they've indicated their intent to comply with the four-sided architecture and to um address the the tree plan issues as well. Um also within the the memo are a number of uh uh I guess really more descriptive issues related to infrastructure and infrastructure changes in that area, as you'll recall, it's quite a an old area, and so there's gonna be uh uh some roadway changes and some uh changes related to the sanitary sewer and a few others. Um one I will point out because it has implications on how this item is treated, um, and that is the sidewalk issue. Um currently, as you'll see there are no sidewalks look found on this plan. Um you will have a variance request presented to you at the upcoming council meeting um where they're gonna be requesting relief from that uh provision that would require sidewalks in this area. And so that will not be heard um until that date in a format of a public hearing. And also at that same meeting, there's a rezoning request to incorporate a piece of old um railroad right-of-way that would be incorporated and would also have implications onto this plan as well. Um and so with that, um, if this is something that council chose to move forward, um staff would recommend that it be moved forward to the meeting not on consent, and also that it would be after these items, which is where we would place it, so that those two items could be addressed with their implications on this item following. Uh questions first. Any um any questions or discussion? I I have a question for the thing. Um It was saying in there that this property should have been theirs to start with or something, it was an oversight of something. Yes, it it had to do with when the uh well it was a kind of a combo of my recollection is from back when I spoke with their counsel about it. Was it there there was like a when it came into the city and also when it was when it was um I guess when it was abandoned as right-away or whatever, it should have been included in their legal of the overall tract or whatever, but it wasn't, and so when it was picked up and advertised and it was just one of those things where it should have been in the legal that was advertised, but somewhere along the way it didn't get in there, and it wasn't something that the city, it's just whatever the applicant submitted. And so because it wasn't advertised and posted and it wasn't included as part of the application the council center considered, like we couldn't it it didn't have the you know, it's just a little sliver that didn't have the zoning. And it was sometimes you could say, well, it's a scriveners error, we missed it, but this was one it just wasn't included. Uh there's a there's a it's a weird um title history if you go back and look at how it ended up coming in to be part of this property. But they did own it but before they brought it here, they just didn't include it because of how it was laid out. So this is just to clean that up. Uh the uh main question I have is kind of uh one of timing for this in this case. Since we have the two the uh rezoning case and then the variance case. And if let's say there are additional stipulations or other stuff added, or let's say these variance is denied, for example, that would cause change uh ca have to cause then changes to the plan to come into compliance would just be back before us again, I guess in November instead of October, unless they had a dual plan ready to go that could show other stuff. Should we be dealing with this now or do we need to hold off on this amount until after we get through the hearings? Is kind of the question I have. Um I don't see any reason you can't deal with it now. Um it's like you said, if it doesn't if it doesn't get the approvals that need later, it had to come back.