Generals Retreat Community Meeting #2 - 7/8/10

In response to the BOMA meeting on 6/22/10, the Generals Retreat Development group hosted a second community meeting as suggested by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.

With an inconvenient 48 hour notice via the postal service, Jen and I set about the neighborhood on Wednesday night to make sure that as many people as possible were aware of the meeting.  As one might expect, many people were unaware of the community meeting or did not receive notice.  We spread the word, met some more neighbors, and about 25 to 30 attended.

Ultimately, the developer presented nothing new and appeared openly upset that we went door to door to make sure the community was present and involved.  I have since received comments via email from several individuals that were present, thanking us for our effort.  They also empathized with us, stating it was unfair for the developer to single Jen and I out as trouble makers.

Let's get this straight.
Jen and I want what is best for the community.  The developers want what is best for their wallet.  ZERO substantiated benefits to the community have been presented.   If the developer wants community support, present benefits that outweigh the negative consequences, and we will get on board.  Aside from that, expect the community to continue to resist as we have, and as we showed again in the community meeting on 7/8/10.

And now, the gory details...

The developer's presentation (or re-presentation of the same plan)
That's correct, the developer presented the same plan as community meeting #1 on 3/6/10.  So, let's recap what has happened to-date:

• 3/6/10 - Community Meeting #1 - The new, high density plan presented to the community that consumes their green space.  Community: voices overwhelming disapproval
• 3/18/10 - Same plan.  Personal Meeting - Developer says they want to work with us.  I voice our disapproval of the plan again.
• 4/16/10 - Same plan.  Developer's email response - They don't want to work with us.  They continue to deny that they represented the lot in question as green space.  They are proceeding and are going to try and push this through against the will of the community.
• 4/22/10 - Same plan.  Planning commission unanimously recommends rejection of rezoning request.
• 5/25/10 - Same plan.  First reading in front of the BOMA, Aldermen want to hear public opinion, approved to second reading.
• 6/22/10 - Same plan.  Second reading in front of the BOMA, public speaks in one universal voice, we disapprove.  BOMA votes to approve to third reading, but states that the developer needs to garner a consensus amongst the community for it to pass the third reading. 
• 7/8/10 - Same plan. Community Meeting #2 - Amazing.  The same plan as on 3/6/10, with almost no changes or movement.  The community's feedback: we disapprove.

Why did we have a second community meeting when nothing has changed?  The same plan has been in play the entire time, and it appears that they will retain it will moving forward.  The developer again attempted to convince us that it was in our interest.

Just the facts
Here are the undisputed, unbiased facts, the new plan will have (and the community does not want):

1. More people (3x more than current occupancy)
2. More cars
3. More asphalt
4. Less green space 

Disputed issues discussed concern parking, drainage, and how it affects land values.  I certainly have concerns about these issues as discussed and I believe we spent a considerable amount of time on it in the meeting, but I also believe these are distractions to the core conflict which is density and lack of green space.  I'll address land values at the end.

There were questions of reasonable parking scenarios which appeared to include residents parking at the library and walking home as there is no overflow parking on Columbia or Adams street.  I believe the parking issues are easily impractical, and they have yet to solve the problem of garbage removal which will certainly require square footage from the parking areas.  The developer claimed an extra 11 spaces over codes, not including space for garbage, but this counts every unit with a two car garage and parking pad as four spaces.  These spaces aren't community spaces and are not reusable, so this may compound the parking questions.  "What about guests?  Where will they park?" Was echoed by several attendees.

"Green Space"

When I use "green space" above, I am being generous.  It is an ambiguous term in this case (and as the meeting proved), so let us define it:

Green Space (practical version) -  an area that is usable for some activity (any activity) of the community.  Play catch.  Walk your dog.   Have a picnic. 

But don't trust my version, check out Wikipedia's definition.  The new plan has zero usable green space as defined above.  

Green Space (developer version) - strips of green grass in front of parking, around air conditioning units, and any mulch beds.

None of the new plan's proposed "green space" is usable as defined in the "practical version" or the Wikipedia version referenced above.  While this may be entirely appropriate by city rules and regulations, it is neither practical nor beneficial to the community.  When confronted with statements like this, the developer has canned responses such as "I've done everything the city has asked of me."  I do not disagree with the developer, but just because they have exploited the guidelines, does not mean it is reasonable or practical, or for that matter, inline with the spirit of the guidelines to begin with.

"Apartments"
One more definition.  The developers continue to dispute the term "apartment", and say they are "condos" that are "rented" with "no enclosed garages".  I leave it to you to decide by checking Wikipedia. I swear I did not edit the page, check the history. Below are links where you will find a quote on the condominium page that says

"A condominium may be simply defined as an "apartment" that the resident "owns" as opposed to rents."

Wikipedia - Apartment, Condominium

Let's stop mincing words.  High density, multi-story, multi-unit building with no garages that may be rented or owned.  We understand, and the developers have already stated their reasonable expectation (for which I agree) that the majority of them would be rented if they were allowed to build.

Building as originally planned is not viable...at this time

At this time, I understand.  But, it will be viable within a couple of years.  Who doubts that Franklin has seen tremendous growth and will continue to see it in the foreseeable future?  A great number of people cannot proceed as they previously planned, but that does not mean that now is the time to force land development through the process at any cost to the community.  To what benefit?

Generals Retreat has undeveloped lots zoned for multiple dwellings (forgive me, I don't know the exact zoning code).  To my knowledge, this is rare, and may be entirely unique in the downtown Franklin area.  Scarce resources are precious and valuable, so why is the developer not holding this until the market is once again ripe?  Holding would appear to be the most profitable approach and is compatible with the community's already approved plan.  But, the developer is claiming financial difficulty, and their only option is for the community to pay the bill with higher population density.

Worst case scenarios

I have heard a lot spoken about worst case scenarios.  I believe a candid discussion about these scenarios is entirely appropriate and necessary.  The amazing point here is the the developer's proposed best solution is not better than the guaranteed worst case scenario!  

Scenario A:

1.  Rezoning is denied

2.  Land goes back to the bank (both lots); and

3.  Remains undeveloped; or  

4.  Someone buys it and has to build to an approved plan (like the lower density one on file today)

Analysis of Scenario A leads one to believe that it is not entirely bad (or the worst case) for the community.  We would be sure this unwanted plan with high density will not be built, and no other party may come in and do the same.  Another party could try the same tactic, but they could also expect the same community response. Actually, does scenario A appear preferable to the developer's proposed solution?

It may take a few of years, but I have confidence (and empirical evidence is that basis of that confidence) that the real estate market will turn around.  I also believe the original plan density can be developed when conditions are better.  In the mean time, we may have to deal with some tall weeds and lack of mulch and tree trimming if it is bank owned, but we have already dealt with that  from the current developer over the past two years.  How is it much worse?

The proposed developer solution is indeed worse than Scenario A itself.  It is not appealing to anyone but the developer.

Developer's Solution:

1.  Grant rezoning of the lot (to get parking for the increased density)

2.  Approve new site plan with increased density (3x the current population)

3.  Build out apartments

4.  Residents consequences: land values, traffic, green space

In scenario A, if the lot is bank owned, what is the worst that could happen?  The new developer would have to conform to city guidelines, just as the current one does.  Make no mistake, this developer is doing nothing more than the city requires of them.  They are maximizing density per square inch; they are pushing every limit. If it is a guideline, they will follow it to the letter, but nothing more, as evidenced with the "green space".

Given our experience with the current developer, there is no reason to put any weight that this developer is more trustworthy than some unknown third party.  First, we cannot compare something to an unknown.  Second, the developer will certainly not allow this argument to boil down to a trust issue because they know that their own actions have proven them entirely untrustworthy, but I'll save that for another post with plenty of contract and sales literature images.

Unsubstantiated benefit, guaranteed consequences
Rezoning this lot and increasing the density will not help increase land values. Please, show me a comparable, overwhelmingly single family residential area example where apartments as defined above were put in and land values responded positively.

I'm asking the developer to prove me wrong.   I am open.  Let us have a frank discussion. Let us examine the results.  We will post the information publicly and I will concede this point if I am wrong.

I posed this question originally to the developers in the first community on 3/6/10.  There was no valid response and there still is none. This is the last remaining, unsubstantiated benefit the developer is claiming  for the community.

We have a laundry list of guaranteed negative consequences, and so far they have one unsubstantiated benefit that defies empirical evidence.  Why are we, as a community, or the Board of Mayor and Aldermen even considering this request?

Note: It is my intent to only post information that is factually correct. If you see any factual errors, please contact me and I will immediately correct them.

Fighting Generals Retreat rezoning

While I created this blog years ago, before I started our company, my desire to blog continues. For the most part, I blog internally within our company's wiki, but it appears I have a new fight on my hands. A fight to stop the developers of Generals Retreat in Franklin, Tennessee from:

1. Inordinately increasing population density
2. Cheating the existing homeowners from the green space they were promised (both in sales literature and in-contract)

Not that I had ever contributed much publicly to this particular blog, but it appears to be as good of a place as any to take the fight to them. I own two townhomes in Generals Retreat, and I have a vested interest in seeing the community succeed. In addition, I lived in the community for two years and I enjoyed living on Adams street with the other great people in the neighborhood. The Generals Retreat development was a key trigger for the renovation of the surrounding neighborhoods, and Jen (my wife) and I wanted to be part of it.

We took the unconventional approach. We determined worst case scenarios, and we invested accordingly. This is why we still own these properties. We only wish the developers of the community were as fiscally responsible instead of attempting to lay their burden on the community. I am responsible for my investment, and the developer should be responsible for theirs.

I am not receiving a bailout as an individual investor, so why should the city consider bailing out this developer by allowing increased population density?

Developer's current strategy

The developer's current strategy is to rezone the community's green space to be a parking lot and an apartment building, followed by a dramatic increase in population density on the remaining land in the community.

The zoning request alone seems to be innocent enough, but in conjunction with their new site plan, it is simply devastating.

If they are allowed to rezone this particular lot, the board of mayor and alderman have no recourse. The developer must conform to the city codes, but they can essentially build what they want. Putting the parking area on this lot will allow for increased density (by codes) on the remaining undeveloped portion of the community. The mayor and alderman cannot stop them and it was stated as such in the last BOMA meeting as a response to one of the aldermen's questions.

It must stop here.

The board of mayor and aldermen understand this. Will they allow these developers to unreasonably change Generals Retreat against the will of the community?

The developer claims that the project cannot be financed any other way. That is okay as far as the community is concerned. Allow the economy to recover and restart the new portion of the development when the time is right. This is not an option with which the developer is interested. The only way they can come out ahead immediately, is to place the burden of higher density on the community, finance the rest of the development as apartments and then proceed to rent them. Make no mistake, these are apartments and the developer has already stated there would be a rental office on site.

The developer will come out ahead, and the community will suffer. The plans are proceeding forward, allowing the greed of a precious few to trump the interests of the hundreds of households in and around the Generals Retreat community.

This decision will affect this community for decades to come. The trigger for renovation in this community was the removal of the old Bramblewood apartments on this same lot, why would they allow this to happen again?

We can see they really don't want our feedback

In keeping with the developer's tactics, we were notified just yesterday of the meeting tomorrow night (Thursday 7/8), an incredibly inconvenient 48 hour notice. You should know that the developers have taken every opportunity to schedule meetings at the most inconvenient times, including an early Saturday morning meeting (3/6), as well as a mid-morning meeting on a weekday when most were at work. The developer has clearly shown that they are not interested in the community's feedback, and they are doing what they can to minimize our involvement.

Want to know more? Did we try to work with them? Here are the gory details.

Community Meeting #1 - 3/6/10

The most interesting quote from James Carbine:

That lot was never part of Generals Retreat.

This led to outrage amongst the homeowners, who held up their sales literature and sales contracts, only for the developers to deny them as if they never existed. My question to him:

Have any Generals Retreat funds gone to pay for the maintenance of this property?

His response was immediate, the color drained from his face, and he immediately turned his back on the crowd. He would not comment any further for the remainder of the meeting. Not only did they sell it to us as part of the community, it is in our sales contract and we have been paying for the maintenance of this lot. But conveniently, now it "was never part of the plan".

Bill Kotas immediately took over after my exchange with Carbine, and after the community meeting, Bill requested a personal meeting with my wife and me.

Personal Meeting - 3/18/10

Jen and I met with Bill Kotas (one of the developers) personally on 3/18 at my office. We had a promising discussion. Bill understood that we have a significant amount invested in the community, and that we would be staunch opponents of any plan that would harm the existing homeowners or community. Together, Bill, Jen and I resolved to work together to find a good solution. Bill left, and Jen and I took on the job of suggesting some potential options. Of course, Jen and I are neither developers nor builders, but we desired to be part of the solution as opposed to simply identifying the problems.

After some discussion and thought, Jen and I wrote and sent the following letter on 4/6:

Dear Bill,

Thank you again for taking time to visit with Jen and me on March 18th. I believe it is clear to all of us that we live in extraordinary times, and Williamson County is not an exception to the downturn in the national economy. That is why we need to work together to arrive at the best possible outcome for both parties regarding Generals Retreat.

As we discussed in our meeting, Jen and I based our decision to purchase two units in Generals Retreat upon 1) all townhomes being built out, 2) the amenities being completed, and 3) the green space remaining as presented in all sales literature. However, before the recent zoning request, it was our expectation that the current land would likely remain undeveloped, but the plan would eventually be fulfilled in the coming 3 to 5 years when conditions are more accommodating. Given the time line, we expected the worst case scenario being the land would remain undeveloped. Further, it was our understanding at the time of purchase that the lot adjacent to unit 105 represented as part of the community in our sales contracts had no risk of sale or change of use.

In the neighborhood planning meeting, the primary benefit set forth by the developers was that the new plan with smaller condominiums and higher density (for all intents and purposes for the next 5 years “apartments” with no garages, as noted on the “Proposed Concept Plan”), would raise or maintain the price per square foot value. This would then provide an appropriate comparison and we would then be able to sell the property for the best possible price. I have sought the advice of multiple individuals involved in real estate from different perspectives. Each individual disagreed with the statement made by the developers, and each stated that the investment would either grow much more slowly in value, or would devalue over time.

The facts presented place Jen and me in the position to oppose the plans proposed by the Generals Retreat Development Group. It appears that the proposal would come at our expense, the loss of our green space, potential amenities, lower land value and higher population density. While detrimental to us, it is most likely better for the members of the development group.

Our proposals for working towards resolving the matter are as follows:

1. Deeding the adjacent lot to the HOA and proceeding with the original plan when the time is right; or
2. Generals Retreat Development Group, LLC will purchase units 105 and 166; or
3. A combination of re-purchase, reconfiguration, and physical separation of the plan into two distinct communities:
   
   
   
   
   1. Re-purchase #105 and the other two units facing Columbia; and
   2. Physically divide the community with a wall i.e. front (apartments) v.s. back (luxury townhomes). No traffic shall mix, the luxury side would be accessed exclusively via Adams Street and the apartment side exclusively via Columbia; and
   3. Compensate the remaining existing owners for their loss of the green space, potential amenity, and the lack of appreciation that will occur since they are now bordering on apartments as opposed to the single-family homes or luxury townhomes.

Additionally, please provide us with a copy of all the financial information (including but not limited to balance sheets, income/expense records, and cash flow reports) and board of director meeting minutes (annual, regular, and special meetings) regarding the Generals Retreat Homeowners Association.

Regardless of the circumstances, we are looking for a way to achieve the maximum benefit for each party. While I deal with contracts and attorneys on a daily basis, I do not seek opportunities to be litigious, and in fact would rather not deal with attorneys. Litigation will be burdensome for both parties, but we are prepared to take action if necessary to protect our interest. We are open to proposals that would satisfy our goals that would allow all of us to avoid further hassle.

Please contact us by Monday April 12th to discuss potential solutions.

Sincerely yours,

Kevin Ross

As of 4/16, we had not received a response and emailed to ask if they would be responding. We received the following:

Dear Kevin; I have been trying to figure out the best way to answer your letter. The Generals Retreat Partners find themselves in a tenuous position.

The original plan does not have any potential to be financed in today's environment. No bank will loan money on this design.

The Generals Retreat Partners already have over 6 million dollars of our money invested in this project. We do not have the capability to give you $800,000+ for units 105 and 166. If we purchase your homes for what you paid would'nt everyone want to be made whole on their investment?

The City of Franklin will not allow for separation of traffic because of fire protection requirements.

It is important to note the percentage of green space is the same on the revised plan as was approved on the original plan.

I would also love to have all of the investments I have made in real estate over the past 4 years be guaranteed. I have never heard of that happening, please let me know who is doing that now.

Kevin I assume you will continue to fight us every step of the way as you have until now.

I'm sorry the only option's you gave us were to either purchase your homes, guarantee your investment or to create a traffic/planning design the City of Franklin will never allow.

Sincerely

Bill Kottas

Jen and I were seeking the open dialogue that Bill promised, and his response is:

I'm sorry the only option's you gave us were to either purchase your homes, guarantee your investment or to create a traffic/planning design the City of Franklin will never allow.

The only options we gave them? This appears to be a dead end, not an open dialogue. We have never heard from Bill Kotas or the other developers since this email, and they have not spoken to us or any of the other community members at any of the city meetings.

The community speaks out, but does it matter?

Planning Commission Meeting - 4/22/10

The planning commission reviewed and unanimously recommended rejection to the Board of Mayor and Alderman. No public comments allowed.

BOMA Meeting - 5/25/10

Upon first reading it was allowed to pass by Alderman Dana Mclendon stating (paraphrasing) "I want to see what the community has to say, that is the only reason I am voting for it to continue to the second reading." No public comments allowed.

BOMA Meeting - 6/22/10

The first and only chance for the public to speak. We gathered the community, and approximately 30 residents showed up. We spoke out against the rezoning in force. How did Alderman Dana Mclendon vote? To allow it to continue. (paraphrasing) "I want to see the developer come back with a plan that has the community support." At this point, Mayor John Schroer voted yes to break the second of two deadlocked votes to move forward a controversial rezoning request.

But didn't we do what the BOMA asked from us as a community? We waited patiently, and spoke out at the designated time and place, yet the BOMA allowed this to continue against the community's wishes. The request continues and the public has no other chance to speak in this process.

Discussion on the Franklin Kool Aid Blogpost from 6/27

Alderman Dana Mclendon has been open enough to try and discuss with the community on the Franklin Kool Aid Blog. For this, we thank him. We appreciate his willingness to discuss, and would appreciate a more open dialogue with the public regarding this matter.

But

We want to see his actions mirror his statements. To date, it is arguable to say they have not. I do not wish to argue this point, but I want to make it known that Alderman Dana Mclendon has clarified his position by posting the following comments:

• 6/28 - Watch the video and see why I voted the way I did and what I said I would do on the third reading if the plan is not improved to the point that the residents of General's Retreat buy in to the modification.

• 7/2 - What can change my mind is the developer coming forward with a plan that wins resident support. Failing that, I'll simply give the developer a result. I made this clear at the meeting.

• 7/3 - I've made it pretty plain that if the developer wants me to support their plan, they better bring in a plan that has the support of the residents.

Okay Alderman Dan Mclendon. We hear you. Please show up to the meeting on (short notice, thanks Generals Retreat Development Group)

Thursday, July 8th at 7:00 pm at the new Franklin Police Station on Columbia Avenue. The meeting will be held in the Community Meeting Room.

See what the community has to say, then be true to your word and vote accordingly. In the end, it is your actions that matter.

Corrections (I'll post anything I receive):

1. From Mayor Shroer - "there will be other opportunities for you and your group to address BOMA"

Note: It is my intent to only post information that is factually correct. If you see any factual errors, please contact me and I will immediately correct them.