October 30, 2019 Update
The Collaborative supports the Old Dauphinway neighbors who are attempting to find a resolution to the issues surrounding the Griffith Shell rezoning request. At this point, the two groups continue to try to resolve the issue of the Budget Rental business at Griffith's, which is out of zoning compliance. The truck leasing operation requires a B3 zone but has been operating on B2/B1 parcels. ODWA's position in regard to the separate zoning request is that the parcels should not be rezoned (and UP zoned from B1 to B2) in the absence of any development plan which can be made public. Councilman Manzie has been made aware of the neighborhood objections, as has the Planning division.
AT THE JULY 18, 2019, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, the Collaborative spoke at the request of the ODWA Board and several neighbor members who were out of town or unable to attend. Not all members of the Collaborative had engaged on the case since other districts were not as directly impacted as ODWA was.
The decision was to recommend approval of the application, which will next move to the City Council for final approval. The decision is open to an appeal at the Council or through legal action beyond the Council.
The June meeting had ended with confusion among neighbors on the issue of “split zoning,” so remarks began by addressing that. “Split zoning” means an attempt to have more than one zoning on a single parcel. Speaker Brenda Bolton asked for clarification that when the 3 parcels in question are combined into a single parcel as the application requests, that so long as all 3 have the SAME zoning, there is no split zoning. In response, planner Margaret Pappas repeated the "rule" on split zoning, and Ms Bolton rephrased and repeated that-- so long as there is a single parcel and one zone, regardless of what that zone is, --that resolves the split zoning issue..is that true?" Ms Pappas finally understood the question and said, "Yes."
After recapping the neighbors’ negotiations with the applicants it was pointed out that today's revisions contained none of the requests neighbors had made in June. At that time, neighbors would have supported Limited B2 or even B2 with requested exclusions. None of those requests were incorporated into the July 18 revised application, although it did retain a list of exclusions volunteered by the Griffiths (see below*). Therefore, the speaker for neighbors stated they felt there was no compromise, and so returned to the original request that the zoning be maintained as B1. B1 provides the most appropriate buffer for surrounding residents and was the buffer already in place. The Commission was asked to support the buffering of commerce from residences by maintaining the B1 zoning already in place.
*Griffith Offered to exclude in their application:
Adult entertainment (note: This would not be allowed by the ordinance anyway because within 1000 feet of R1 residences)
Arcade entertainment and Amusement game machines
Bar, nightclub, lounge, tavern
Pool hall or Pool tables
Shooting range, indoor
Teen club
Pawn shop
Check exchanges - [added on 7-18, but this does not include "pay day lenders" or bail bondsmen]
These exclusions become a permanent addendum to this specific parcel zone and run with the land even if the owners change or a new developer comes in. In that case, a new zoning process would be required to change either the zone or the exclusions.
Collaborative had requested these added exclusions:
Drive in and Drive thru restaurant (traffic, noise, late hours, litter, peak time congestion); Note: Ms Rich asked if they would consider adding this since historic districts typically object to fast food drive thru's; representative said this exclusion would limit development potential too much. Another Commissioner questioned them about how they would be able to design the site to accommodate a drive thru business. See the discussion details below.*
Day Labor contractor (litter, traffic);
Pay Day Lender (crime, litter, peak time congestion, traffic);
Bail Bondsman (crime);
Firearm Sales (crime);
Dance Hall (traffic, noise, litter, congestion);
Homeless Shelter (litter, drugs, weapons, crime). (not defined as short term safety shelter for women/children or other social services)
Check Exchange (crime, peak time congestion, traffic); -This was added to the exclusion list on 7/18; Councilwoman Rich specifically asked if by check exchange they intended to include other "alternative financial" businesses like pay day lenders. The representative said, "No."
* Details of the discussion related to "administrative approval"…
1. One Commissioner first stated that by making this a single parcel, they were limiting their curb cuts to Govt St to a single curb cut. Govt St is a state highway coming under ALDOT rules; ALDOT allows only one curb cut per parcel.
2. The Representative said they knew that.
3. The Commissioner then asked if the site plan submitted with the single building was the final plan and if so how it would accommodate a drive thru.
4. The Representative said, "No, there are no final plans at this time."
5. Councilwoman Rich asked, "So you can't tell anyone at this time what the plan is?"
6. The Representative said, "No we can't at this time. The plan is not that far along."
7. Commissioner Libba Lathan questioned, "So if you want to change this site plan, add a curb cut, possibly re-divide the parcel into TWO separate B2's to support a drive thru, you'll have to come back to us again?"
8. City Planner Margaret Pappas stepped in quickly and said, "No we would handle that administratively." Commissioners Lathan and Rich questioned her, and she repeated that it would be administrative approval.
Note: "Administratively" is a mechanism designed to expedite developments, which is an understandable need. It is intended for minor adjustments to a plan. The question remains if the changes being discussed should qualify for administrative approval. Administrative approval circumvents public announcement and notices, and any public hearing, and therefore any opportunity for public engagement.
9. In conclusion: a) the plan is not final and in fact there is no "final" plan, supposedly. Unfortunately, the ordinance as written allows rezoning without a plan. b) a final plan may or may not mean 2 curb cuts, a re-subdivision of the single parcel, fast food drive thru's, etc., all to be approved "administratively” without public notice or input. c) Any future development will go before the Architectural Review Board for design and site plan approval.