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.