Honorable Mayor and Councilors 
   City Manager   
 City Attorney   
 Clerk of Council       
 Subject: (REZN-01-19-0007) Request to amend the text of the Unified Development    
 Ordinance (UDO) regarding Table 3.1.1. ? Health and Fitness Facilities to read    
 as follows:       
 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REVISIONS    
 (Explanation of Revisions)       
 1. Explanation of Revisions: Amend Table 3.1.1. by permitting Health and    
 Fitness Facilities with a Special Exception in the following districts:       
 Use   
 Category	HIST	RE10	RE5	RE1	RT	SFR1	SFR2	SFR3	SFR4	RMF1	RMF2	MHP	UPT	CRD	NC	RO	CO	GC	SAC	LMI	HMI	TECH	NOTES   
 Health & Fitness Facility	SE												P	P	P	P	P	P	P				       
 2. Explanation of Revisions: Create Section 3.2.73 regarding Health and Fitness    
 Facility:       
 3.2.73. Health and Fitness Facility   
 A. Location   
 1. HIST zoning district   
 (A) A Health and Fitness Facility locating in the HIST zoning district shall    
 not be permitted outright as a principal use.   Said use shall meet the    
 following criteria to be considered for a Special Exception Use as provided in    
 Section 3.1.1 and Section 10.2.7:   
 a. A Health and Fitness Facility shall be required to occupy a building that    
 encompasses 15,000 square feet or more of gross floor area.   
 b. A Health and Fitness Facility shall only be permitted in existing structures    
 (built prior to 2019).   
 c. A Health and Fitness Facility shall be required to meet the parking    
 standards of the Unified Development Ordinance as referenced in Section 4.3.    
 Off-Street Parking and Loading.   
 d. No Alcohol       
 Additional Information:       
 This Text Amendment would allow Health and Fitness Facilities into the Historic    
 District as a Special Exception Use.  This also includes single parcel lots    
 located outside of the Historic District but are zoned Historic, those include    
 parcels located in Waverly Terrace, High Uptown and Highland Hall.       
 Attached map includes the list of buildings that meet the criteria of the    
 special exception in the Historic District.  Those addresses are as follows:       
 01. 800 Front Avenue    
 02. 18 9th Street    
 03. 710 Front Avenue    
 04. 627 2nd Avenue    
 05. 543 3rd Avenue    
 06. 222 5th Street    
 07. 425 3rd Avenue       
 The central issue of this application is the request to amend the Unified    
 Development Ordinance to allow for health and fitness uses as a Special    
 Exception in the Historic zoning classification.  It is not at this time the    
 purpose to discuss whether a special exception should be allowed at a    
 particular location.  That will come later should the Council approve this    
 request.       
 There are some Pros and Cons about this request that Council should take under    
 consideration before approving this request:       
 Pros:   
 ? As a Special Exception, a use of this type would be required to address    
 access, traffic and pedestrian safety, adequacy of public facilities, hours of    
 operation, and compatibility   
 ? Use would be required to be located in an existing building that is a minimum    
 of 15,000 square feet   
 ? Unless granted a variance, all parking requirements would have to be met   
 ? Under the 2038 Comprehensive Plan, this historic area calls for a mixed-use    
 neighborhood   
 Cons:   
 ? Approving this amendment will limit the placement of this use based upon the    
 available parking within the historic district itself.     
 ? A large section of the off-street parking near the River Valley Regional    
 office is public parking controlled by the City and is now used for overflow    
 parking from the Trade Center   
 ? Variances for parking requirements would be heard by the Board of Zoning    
 Appeals and not Council   
 ? The definition of health and fitness uses may need to be revisited to insure    
 compliance with surrounding neighborhood needs.       
 Background:        
 In August 2018, a permit for building alterations at 710 Front Avenue were    
 issued to the contractor and the plans were approved.  In September-October    
 2018, inspections were performed and the occupant (Crossfit CSG) received a    
 Certificate of Completion.  On October 8, Joanne Cogle, the business owner,    
 came in to pull a Certificate of Occupancy for a Health & Fitness Facility.     
 However, said use is not a permitted use in the HIST zoning district.  Upon    
 consultation with the Planning Department, it was deemed a government facility    
 (where zoning does not typically apply).  Ms. Cogle was permitted to operate.         
 On November 12, 2018, the Planning Department received an email of complaint    
 from a neighbor.  The Planning Department forwarded the email to the City    
 Attorney?s Office for an opinion.  On November 13, the City Attorney provided    
 case law that stated, ?In their use of land, a state government or its agencies    
 are immune from operation of local zoning regulations government agencies.?     
 The Planning Department forwarded said opinion to the neighbor.  The neighbor    
 countered this opinion and after some back and forth, the City Attorney ruled    
 on November 16 that the property was not exempt from zoning due to O.C.G.A.    
 50-8-2, which concerns regional commissions (the River Valley Regional    
 Commission is part owner of the building).  Special Enforcement was sent to the    
 property on December 3 to advise the business owner to come into zoning    
 compliance.         
 Ms. Cogle appeared on the December 11 City Council Public Agenda to request a    
 temporary Certificate of Occupancy until she can pursue the rezoning/text    
 amendment process.  Council was presented with two options: rezone the property    
 from HIST district to CRD district or amend the text of the UDO to allow Health    
 & Fitness Facilities as a Special Exception Use in the HIST district.         
 Council approved a temporary Certificate of Occupancy of 120 days on December    
 11, 2018.  The extension was approved on February 12, 2018 for an additional    
 120 days.       
 Recommendations:       
 The Planning Advisory Commission (PAC) considered this text amendment at their    
 meeting on January 16, 2018.  The PAC recommended denial with a 4-3-1 vote.         
 Councilor Woodson made a motion on February 12, 2018 for the Text Amendment to    
 be sent back to the Planning Advisory Commission.  A Public Meeting was held on    
 February 28, 2018 to discuss all viable options for the case.       
 The Planning Advisory Commission (PAC) reconsidered this text amendment at    
 their meeting on March 20, 2018.  The PAC recommended approval with a 5-3    
 vote.         
 The Planning Department recommends approval.        
 Sincerely,           
 Rick Jones, AICP   
 Director, Planning Department        
        
Attachments