2013-12-04 Planning Commission - Full Agenda-1126

8/13/2019 2013-12-04 Planning Commission - Full Agenda-1126

1/52

CITY OF BROOKHAVEN

PLANNING COMMISSION

City of Brookhaven 12/4/2013 7:00 PM Page 1

Stan Segal ChairmanShannon Cameron

Jack Honderd

Adrian Schmidt

John Funny

Rob FrancourJohn Hess

AGENDA

December 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 7:00 PM

2 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 125, Brookhaven, GA 30329

A) CALL TO ORDER1. Roll Call

B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. Approval of September 4, 2013 Planning Commission Work Session Meeting Minutes

2. Approval of September 4, 2013 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes

C) ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ITEMS

1. 2014 Land Use Process and Meeting Calendar

2. Planning Commission Rules and Procedures

D) UNFINISHED BUSINESS

E) NEW BUSINESS

1. RZ13-12 - Atlanta Resource Enterprise LLLP, Rezoning Request, from R-100 (Single-

Family Residential) to OCR (Office-Commercial-Residential) at 1296, 1302 and 1304Kendrick Rd., to Expand and Bring into Compliance an Existing Parking Lot

2. RZ13-13 - Eric Masaschi, Ryland Homes - Rezoning Request, from R-75 (Single-FamilyResidential) to R-A8 (Single-Family Residential) at 1424, 1428, 1432 Sylvan Cir.; 2396,

2400, 2404 Coosawattee Dr., to Create a 7-Lot Single Family Detached Residential

Development.

F) ORDINANCES

G) ADJOURNMENT


2/52

CITY OF BROOKHAVEN

PLANNING COMMISSION

City of Brookhaven 9/4/2013 6:00 PM Page 1

DRAFT MINUTES

September 4, 2013 Work Session Meeting 6:00 PM

2 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 125, Brookhaven, GA 30329

A) CALL TO ORDER

1. Roll CallAttendee Name Title Status Arrived

Stan Segal Chairman Present

Shannon Cameron Present

Jack Honderd Present

Adrian Schmidt Late 6:16 PM

John Funny Present

Rob Francour Absent

John Hess Absent

B) ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ITEMS

Commissioner Cameron asked if the Commission was getting the Outlook invites for schedules. Director Canon

said that Becky will redo the meeting times. Commissioner Segal asked about cleaning up the Planning

Commission procedures. Susan said that will occur and will require a public hearing process.

C) UNFINISHED BUSINESS

A) New Business

1. Rezoning Ordinance (ID # 1137):RZ13-09 - Churchill Partners, LLC - RezoningRequest from R-100 to R-75 Property Located at 3369 Osborne Road for Two Single

Family Residential Lots

Director Susan Canon explained the subject rezoning proposed at 3369 Osborne and cited that it is

supported by the Comprehensive Plan which supports eight (8) dwelling units per acre. Mrs. Canon

explained that the applicant has agreed to the conditions and cited that there was opposition within the

neighborhood and that the correspondence was included in the packet. The Commission discussed the

recent redevelopment and infill occurring within the neighborhood. Commissioner Rob Francour asked the

what the minimum square footage for the homes within an R-75. Chairman Stan Segal cited that many of

the new homes within the neighborhood are between 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Jack

Honderd stated that he believed limiting the square footage of a house it is not the role of the Commission

but rather a role of the market. Commissioner Adrian Schmidt cited that the condition limiting squarefootage may set a precedent. Mrs. Canon explained that the condition could be removed if it is brought

back to the Commission. Commissioner John Funny cited that it is important to have consistency in home

sizes. Susan explained that the conditions stating a minimum heated floor area of 4,000 square feet was

added due to the size of the homes in the neighborhood and for reason that it will help alleviate the fears of

neighbors who fear that a smaller sized home will be built next to their larger sized home. Commissioner

Jack Honderd explained that the stable neighborhoods have a mix of housing. Chairman Stan Segal asked if

the ownership issue had been addressed with the applicant. Susan cited that the applicant could explain this

during the public hearing.

B.

Packet Pg.


3/52

Minutes Planning Commission September 4, 2013

City of Brookhaven Page 2 Updated 10/23/2013 11:19 AM

D) ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Stan Segal made a motion to adjourn. It was seconded by Commissioner John Funny.

B.

Packet Pg.


4/52


5/52



2. Susan Canon

Director Susan Canon presented the staff report to the Planning Commission on RZ13-09-3369 Osborne Rd.

Mrs. Canon cited that staff supports the request due to the fact that the proposed density is supported by the

Comprehensive Plan.

3. Tonka Mayner

Mr. Mayner introduced himself and gave a history of his company and projects within the City Brookhaven. He

cited that Churchill Partners has agreed to the conditions within the staff report. Mr. Mayner brought forward

ten letters of support within the neighborhood. Director Canon read of all the names and addresses for the

record. Susan also said that there were also two comment cards received in opposition.

4. Alan Powell-3282 Silver Lake Rd.

Mr. Powell spoke in favor of the rezoning due to the fact that they reached out to the HOA and the lots will not

require variances. Based on the plans, he cited that the proposed homes will be conforming with the

neighborhood.

5. Steve Rosen-3340 Benton Court

Mr. Rosen explained that the lot was an anomaly and that it was once a double frontage lot that was subdivided.

Mr. Rosen explained that the rezoning will set a dangerous precedent within the neighborhood that will cause a

domino affect.

6. Ken Benson-3302 Woodrow Way

Mr. Benson cited that the development could set a precedent that could change the character of the

neighborhood. He said that this rezoning could jeopardize nearby homeowner investments and the integrity of

the neighborhood.

7. Ken Green-3132 Frontence Court

Mr. Green said he is afraid of the domino effect of similar rezonings. He emphasized that the resulting smallerlots would not be compatible to the neighborhood.

8. Commissioner Discussion

Commissioner Cameron asked if a domino effect was possible. Mrs. Canon explained that based on the

existing construction and built out nature area that it was not likely to occur. Commissioner Funny asked Mr.

Rosen what he considered was important to the neighborhood if this property was developed. Mr. Rosen

responded by explaining that consistency within the neighborhood is the most important aspect of any new

development. He cited that this proposal to rezone would not be consistent with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Schmidt asked staff if an inventory of non-conforming lots had been analyzed by staff. Director

Canon cited that no analysis had been done at this time. Based on the oppositions feedback, Commissioner

Segal asked Mr. Mayner to respond to question one, which was not addressed in their application: does the

application conform to the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Mayner responded by saying yes it was. Mr. Segal askedabout sidewalks and why this proposal did not contribute to a sidewalk fund. Mrs. Canon responded that there

was condition to build sidewalks instead of contributing to a fund due to the fact that the streets would not be

widened. Commissioner Schmidt asked if an analysis of the width of homes had been explored. Director

Canon explained that no such analysis had occurred. Commissioner Schmidt asked staff to bring up a Google

map of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Segal made a motion to approve the rezoning with an edit to condition 2 to say "as proposed by

the applicant" and to add a 5th condition that states the applicant be required to implement a planted buffer

B.

Packet Pg.


6/52



within the required rear yard setback. Commissioner Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1

with Commissioner Rob Francour opposed.

Commissioner Cameron made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Funny.

RESULT: REC. FAVORABLY WITH CONDITIONS [4 TO 1] Next: 9/24/2013

7:00 PMMOVER: Stan Segal, Chairman

SECONDER: Adrian Schmidt

AYES: Segal, Cameron, Schmidt, Funny

NAYS: Honderd

ABSENT: Francour, Hess

F) ORDINANCES

G) ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Cameron made a motion to close the meeting. It was seconded by Commissioner Funny.

B.

Packet Pg.


7/52

Page 1

MEMORANDUM

MEETING OF: December 04, 2013COMMITTEE: Planning CommissionDEPARTMENT: Community Development

ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE:2014 Land Use Process and Meeting Calendar

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

FISCAL IMPACT: (Budgetedover or under)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

ATTACHMENTS:

2014 ZBA Process and Meeting calendar (PDF)

C.

Packet Pg.


8/52

Application

Deadline

Ad Sent

to

Paper

Sign Sent

to

Printer

Ad

Runs

Sign

Posted

Adjoining

Letters

Sent

ZBA

Agenda

ZBA

Packet

ZBA

Meeting

January 1/2/14 1/23/14 1/24/14 1/30/14 1/31/14 2/3/14 2/4/14 2/12/14 2/19/14

February 2/5/14 2/20/14 2/21/14 2/27/14 2/28/14 3/3/14 3/4/14 3/12/14 3/19/14

March 3/5/14 3/20/14 3/21/14 3/27/14 3/28/14 3/31/14 4/1/14 4/9/14 4/16/14

April 4/2/14 4/17/14 4/25/14 4/24/14 5/2/14 5/5/14 5/6/14 5/14/14 5/21/14

May 5/7/14 5/22/14 5/23/14 5/29/14 5/30/14 6/2/14 6/3/14 6/11/14 6/18/14

June 6/4/14 6/19/14 6/20/14 6/26/14 6/27/14 6/30/14 7/1/14 7/9/14 7/16/14

July 7/2/14 7/24/14 7/25/14 7/31/14 8/1/14 8/4/14 8/5/14 8/13/14 8/20/14

August 8/6/14 8/21/14 8/22/14 8/28/14 8/29/14 8/29/14 9/2/14 9/10/14 9/17/14

September 9/3/14 9/18/14 9/19/14 9/25/14 9/26/14 9/29/14 9/30/14 10/8/14 10/15/14

October 10/1/14 10/23/14 10/24/14 10/30/14 10/31/14 11/3/14 11/4/14 11/12/14 11/19/14

November 11/5/14 11/13/14 11/14/14 11/20/14 11/21/14 12/1/14 12/2/14 12/10/14 12/17/14

December 12/3/14 12/18/14 12/19/14 12/19/14 12/19/14 1/5/15 1/6/15 1/14/15 1/21/15

2014 ZBA Process and Meeting Calendar

Prepared 11/7/2013

C

Packet P


9/52

Page 1

MEMORANDUM


ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE:Planning Commission Rules and Procedures

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:


STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

ATTACHMENTS:

Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Resolution - 12_4_13 (PDF)

C.

Packet Pg.


10/52

STATE OF GEORGIA

CITY OF BROOKHAVEN, GEORGIA

A RESOLUTON ADOPTING AND APPROVING RULES AND PROCEDURES FORPLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS

WHEREAS: Well-organized meetings allow a Planning Commission to reach decisionsin a fair and consistent manner; and

WHEREAS: Efficiency is served when the process of planning and conducting public

meetings is clearly stated and understood by public officials and citizens; and

WHEREAS: Public participation and access to the governmental decision-makingprocess is a key element of an open and transparent organization.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDthat all meetings of the Brookhaven Planning

Commission shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this meeting organizationordinance as outlined in the attached Rules and Procedures.

SECTION 1. That the Rules and Procedures for Planning Commission Meetings are

adopted and attached hereto as if fully set forth herein; and

SECTION 2. That this Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.

SO RESOLVEDthis the 4th day of December, 2013.

Approved:

_______________________

_______________________

Stan Segal, ChairmanAttest:

_______________________

Ben Song, Secretary

C.2

Packet Pg.


11/52

1 11/27/2013

RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS

Section 1. Open Meetings. All meetings of the Planning Commission shall be held in

accordance with the provisions of Title 50, Chapter 14 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.The public shall be afforded access to meetings in compliance with Georgia law.

Section 2. Visual and Sound Recordings. Visual, sound, and visual and sound recordings shall

be permitted for all public hearings, as long as such recordings are in accordance with State law.[Cross-reference: O.C.G.A. 50-14-1(c)]

Section 3. Order of Business. All regular Planning Commission meetings shall substantially

follow an established order of business. The order shall be as follows:

1. Call to Order2.

Roll Call3. Approval of Minutes

4. Organizational and Procedural Items5. Unfinished Business6. New Business7. Adjournment

Section 4. Quorum. A quorum must be present for conducting meetings of the PlanningCommission. A quorum is four (4) members of the Planning Commission. Any Commission

Member may raise a point of order directed to the Chairman or presiding officer if he or she

believes that a quorum is not present. If, during the course of a meeting, a Commission Member

or Commission Members leave and a quorum no longer exists, the meeting may not continue. If aquorum is not attained within thirty (30) minutes, the meeting may be rescheduled by the Chairman

or presiding officer with the approval of the Commission Members present.

Section 5. Voting.Under normal circumstances, passage of a motion shall require the vote of at

least four (4) Commission Members, and must receive the affirmative vote of a majority of those

voting at which a quorum is present. Voting on the adoption of ordinances shall be by voice voteand the vote shall be recorded in the record, but any member of the Planning Commission shall

have the right to request a roll-call vote and such vote shall be recorded in the journal.

Section 6. Abstentions. No Commission Member shall abstain from voting except in the case ofa conflict of interest or if absent when a motion being voted upon was made. If a conflict of interest

does exist, the Commission Member shall provide a specific explanation of the conflict, and the

explanation shall be recorded in the journal.

Section 7. Presiding Officer and Hearing Procedure.

a) Presiding Officer. The presiding officer shall preside over the respective public hearing.In the case of the Planning Commission, the chairman of said commission shall preside, or

C.2

Packet Pg.


12/52

2 11/27/2013

in the absence of the chairman, the vice chairman if designated or if neither is present to

preside, another member of the commission shall be designated to preside.

b) Opening of Public Hearing. The presiding officer shall indicate that a public hearing hasbeen called on one or more applications made pursuant to the Brookhaven Zoning

Ordinance or other requirements, and shall open the public hearing. Thereupon, thepresiding officer shall call the first case and the Commission shall consider each applicationon an individual basis in succession as printed on the published agenda or as otherwise

approved by the Commission provided, however, that the presiding officer may at his or

her discretion call and consider more than one application simultaneously when more thanone application involves the same piece of property, and when proceedings would be

efficiently completed by combining the hearing and discussion on more than one scheduled

matter.

c) Report of Staff. Upon opening the public hearing, the presiding officer shall recognize thecity staff, who shall provide a summary of the application and present any

recommendations or results of investigations. The staff shall with respect to each zoningproposal investigate and make an oral statement of the findings and stipulated to the staff

report regarding each of the matters as outlined within the Zoning Ordinance. Any member

of the hearing body upon recognition by the presiding officer may ask questions of the staff

providing the report or recommendations.

A limited supply of copies of findings of the staff recommendation shall be available at the

hearing or meeting and available on request to interested members of the public.

d) Applicant. Following the report of the staff, the presiding officer shall recognize theapplicant or his or her agent, spokesperson, or each of them, who shall present and explain

the application. There shall be a minimum time period of ten (10) minutes per applicationat the public hearing for the applicants to present data, evidence and opinions, the City shall

not be obligated to provide the full ten-minute period to the applicants if they elect not to

use that much time. Any member of the hearing body, upon recognition by the presidingofficer, may ask questions of the applicant or agent of the applicant.

e) Public. At the conclusion of the applicants presentation, the presiding officer shall initiatethe public comment portion of the public hearing. There shall be a minimum time period

of ten (10) minutes per application during the public hearing for the proponents and ten

(10) minutes per application during the public hearing for the opponents to each present

data, evidence, and opinions; the city shall not be obligated to provide the full ten-minuteperiod to the proponents and opponents if they elect not to use that much time.

Prior to speaking, each speaker shall complete and submit a public comment card and upon

speaking shall identify him or herself and state his or her current address. Each speakershall speak only to the merits of the proposed application under consideration and shall

address his or her remarks only to the hearing body. Each speaker shall refrain from

personal attacks on any other speaker or the discussion of facts or opinions irrelevant tothe proposed application under consideration. The presiding officer may limit or refuse a

C.2

Packet Pg.


13/52

3 11/27/2013

speaker the right to continue, if the speaker, after first being cautioned, continues to violate

this procedure.

f) Applicants Rebuttal. At the conclusion of public comment, or upon the expiration of timeallotted for public comment, the applicant or his or her agent, or both, shall be allowed a

short opportunity for rebuttal and final comment, and the time devoted to any rebuttal shallbe counted toward the total ten (10) minutes allotted to the applicant under paragraph 4above. Any member of the hearing body, upon recognition by the presiding officer, may

ask questions of the applicant, his or her agent, or both.

g) Close of Hearing. After the above procedure has been completed, the presiding officer willindicate that the public hearing is closed. Upon the closing of the public hearing, the

applicant or his agent and any member of the public shall no longer address the hearing

body in any way, including hand waving or motion for attention; provided, however, thatat any time considered appropriate the presiding officer may permit Commission members

to ask questions directly to the applicant, staff, or any particular speaker.

h) Decision. After the public hearing is closed, the hearing body may either vote upon theapplication or may delay its vote to a subsequent meeting provided that notice of the time,

date and location when such application will be further considered shall be announced at

the meeting during which the public hearing isheld.

Section 8. Decorum.All Commission Members shall conduct themselves in a professional and

respectful manner. All remarks shall be directed to the Chairman and not to individual CommissionMembers, staff, or citizens in attendance. Personal remarks are inappropriate and may be ruled out

of order. A Commission Member should not speak at a meeting until he or she has been recognized

by the Chairman. All comments made by a Commission Member shall address the motion that is

being discussed. The Chairman shall enforce these rules of decorum. If a Commission Memberbelieves that a rule has been broken, he or she may raise a point of order. A second is not required.

The Chairman may rule on the question or may allow the Planning Commission to debate the issue

and decide by majority vote.

Section 9. Public Participation. Public participation in meetings of the Planning Commission

shall be permitted in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(a) Decorum.Members of the public shall not make inappropriate or offensive comments

at a Planning Commission meeting and are expected to comply with the rules of decorum

that are established for Commission Members. Individuals violating any rules of thePlanning Commission may be ruled out of order by the Chairman or on a point of order

made by a Commission Member. A majority vote of the Planning Commission shall rule

on the point of order. An individual violating the rules of decorum may be removed from

the meeting at the direction of the Chairman.

Section 10. Roberts Rules of Order. This document shall serve as the rules and procedures of

the Planning Commission. In the absence of applicable rules and procedures which may from timeto time be encountered during the public meetings, Roberts Rules of Order shall be followed.

C.2

Packet Pg.


14/52

Page 1

MEMORANDUM


ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE:RZ13-12 - Atlanta Resource Enterprise LLLP, Rezoning Request, from R-100 (Single-Family

Residential) to OCR (Office-Commercial-Residential) at 1296, 1302 and 1304 Kendrick Rd., toExpand and Bring into Compliance an Existing Parking Lot

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:See the attached files.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION:See the attached staff report.

ATTACHMENTS:

Staff Recommendation RZ13-12 (PDF) RZ13-12 Kick - OCR zoning application Kendrick property LOI revised 10.23.13 (PDF) REVISED Site Plan RZ13-12 (PDF)

RZ13-12 Conceptual Plan (PDF) Kick - N&B building renovation sketch 10.13 (PDF)

E.

Packet Pg.


15/52

Rezoning Petition: RZ13-12

Date of Staff Recommendation Preparation: November 27, 2013

Planning Commission Public Hearing Date: December 4, 2013Mayor and City Council Public Hearing Date: December 17, 2013

Project Name /Applicant: Atlanta Resource Enterprise, LLLP

Property Location: 1296, 1302 & 1304 Kendrick Road

Acreage: 1.176 acres

Existing Zoning: R-100 (Single-Family Residential)

Proposed Zoning: OCR (Office Commercial Residential)

Owner/Petitioner: Mark Kick

Owner/Petitioners Intent: To rezone the subject property from R-100 (Single-Family

Residential) to OCR (Office Commercial Residential)

Phase I: To expand and bring into compliance an existing

parking lot

Phase II: Proposed long term improvements consisting of a

mixed use development

Community Development Department Recommendation

Approval with conditions

E.1

Packet Pg.


16/52

Page 2 of 6

Location

Map

BACKGROUND

The subject site consists of three adjacent lots, owned in common totaling 1.176 acres. The lots

are located on the north side of Kendrick Road, west of its intersection with Peachtree Road.The site is currently developed with single-family residences. Accessed by three individual curb

cuts along Kendrick, the sites are wooded and contain steep grades that drop approximately 30

feet from the Kendrick frontage. The lots are bordered on the east and north sides by commercial

properties. To the west of the site is a residential structure currently used as a personal carehome. To the east, the applicant owns and operates the retail store Nuts n Berries, located at 4274

Peachtree Road. Overflow parking for the business has been located on the adjacent lot and

subject site 1304 Kendrick Road for over 20 years according to the applicants letter of intent.The applicant desires to expand their existing parking and add a two story addition that would

extend their existing building towards Peachtree Road. In an effort to comply with zoning

requirements for parking as a direct effect of the proposed expansion of the commercial

structure, the applicant requests to rezone the subject property to the OCR (Office-Commercial-Residential) zoning district. The Department would note that the applicant has also submitted a

conceptual phase II site plan that presents the applicants future development vision for the

subject property and current location of Nuts n Berries. For the immediate future, the applicantseeks to locate off-street parking on the subject property to accommodate a zoning compliant

parking area for the proposed expansion of his business.

E.1

Packet Pg.


17/52

Page 3 of 6

NEARBY/SURROUNDING LAND ANALYSIS

Nearby/surrounding properties Zoning Current Land Use(s)

North(4300 Peachtree Rd.)

C-2 Commercial(self-storage facility)

West

(1286 Kendrick Rd.)R-100

Single-Family Residential

(personal care home)

South

(1295 Kendrick Rd.)R-100


(1299 Kendrick Rd.) R-100 Single-Family Residential

(1303 Kendrick Rd.) R-100 Single-Family Residential

East

(4274 Peachtree Rd.) C-1Commercial

(Nuts N Berries)


(Thrive Fitness)


(Peachtree Flowers)

ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY

AS CURRENTLY PLATTED AND ZONED

Location/ Address Zoning Density

Future Land

Use1296 Kendrick Rd. R-100 2.14 DU/Acre Traditional

Neighborhood

1302 Kendrick Rd. R-100 3.74 DU/Acre Traditional

Neighborhood

1304 Kendrick Rd. R-100 3.75 DU/Acre Traditional

Neighborhood

REVIEW STANDARDS AND FACTORS

1. Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policy and intent of theComprehensive Plan?

The subject property is identified on the future land use map in DeKalb CountysComprehensive Plan (adopted by the City of Brookhaven) as traditional neighborhood

character area. Under the Plan, the area is envisioned for mixed use. The OCR zoning

encourages a mix of uses which appears to be in conformity with the policy and intent of theComprehensive Plan.

E.1

Packet Pg.


18/52

Page 4 of 6

2. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use anddevelopment of adjacent and nearby properties?

The applicant desires to expand with a two story addition that would extend their existing

building towards Peachtree Road. The zoning proposal will address the immediate need toprovide the parking required for the building expansion/addition. Reconfiguration andexpansion of parking will take place on a portion of the site that is currently utilized for

overflow parking, according to the applicant. The nature of the zoning proposal appears to

be suitable as the nonconforming parking area will be brought into compliance with thezoning ordinance. The proposed OCR zoning district would be compatible to the adjacent

existing retail and commercial uses located to the north and east. In addition, the OCR

zoning district may provide a transition to surrounding residential development.

3. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable economicuse as currently zoned?

It appears the subject property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned.

4. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability ofadjacent or nearby property?

Given the mix of office, commercial and residential uses found nearby, the proposed

rezoning does not appear to result in a use that would adversely affect the existing use orusability of adjacent or nearby property.

5. Whether there are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use anddevelopment of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or

disapproval of the zoning proposal?

The prevalent trend of mixed-use development in the area, including the Town Brookhavendevelopment to the northeast, give supporting grounds to the proposed request. Additionally,

existing commercial uses extend the full length of the northern and eastern property line

adjacent to the subject property. Further the personal care home to the west, and KendrickRoad to the South would provide the necessary transition from the subject property to

residential uses found in the area, further suggesting that the proposed development may be

suitable at this location.

6. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect historic buildings, sites, districts, orarchaeological resources?

There are no such known historic buildings, sites, districts or archaeological resourcesidentified by the applicant, or known by staff, to be on or near this property.

7. Whether the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive orburdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools?

E.1

Packet Pg.


19/52

Page 5 of 6

To date, the City of Brookhaven has not received a response from DeKalb County Offices or

the DeKalb County School System. The applicants proposed development mayincreasetraffic, utility capacity, and school aged children if fully developed with the vision outlined in

the letter intent for a mixed-use development, inclusive of multi-family and office uses.

However, for the immediate need for development of a parking lot in conjunction with theexpansion of the applicants business, staffs opinion would note that the request to rezone toOCR will not cause excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities,

utilities, or schools.

DEPARTMENT COMMENTS

PUBLIC WORKS

1. Driveway modifications on Peachtree will require GDOT Permit. The Peachtree Roadentrance will be restricted to a right turn in only.

2. Only one driveway on Kendrick will be allowed.

3. The handicap ramp on Kendrick and Peachtree shall be updated as necessary.

4. The installation of a stormwater management system is required, including detention, waterquality, channel protection, and downstream analysis to the 10% point. If the downstream

discharge is a City storm water system, then a capacity analysis is required prior to theissuance of a land disturbance permit.

5. Post Construction Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement will be required.

BROOKHAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT

The City of Brookhaven Police Department has indicated that the development should have noimpact on current police services and will not require additional personnel.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION

Approval with conditions

Should this application be approved by Mayor and Council, the staff recommends the followingconditions:

STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

Based upon the findings and conclusions herein, Staff recommends Approval with conditions

of RZ13-12. Should the petition be approved, the Community Development Department has

provided the following conditions as a guide:

E.1

Packet Pg.


20/52

Page 6 of 6

1. The subject property shall be developed in substantial accordance with the plan prepared forMark L. Kick, stamped received October 23, 2013. Any variances required, if authorized by

the Zoning Board of Appeals, may result in altering the site plan to the degree necessary toincorporate revisions.

2. A combination plat shall be completed prior to the issuance of a land development orbuilding permit.

3. The design concepts of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District shall be incorporated intothe development of the subject property, as approved by the Community DevelopmentDirector.

4. A five foot sidewalk shall be added along the entire Kendrick Road frontage for the subjectproperty with appropriate beauty strip, and shall be subject to review and approval of thePublic Works Director.

5. The applicant shall submit a final site plan for Phase II for approval of the PlanningCommission and City Council, as the plan submitted October 23, 2013 is only a conceptualplan.

6. Obtain GDOT permit for Peachtree Road driveway modification for the Nuts n Berriesproperty. The Peachtree Road entrance shall be restricted to a right turn in only.

E.1

Packet Pg.


21/52

E.1

Packet Pg.


22/52

E.1

Packet Pg.


23/52

E.1

Packet Pg.


24/52

E.1

Packet Pg.


25/52

E.1

Packet Pg.


26/52

E.1

Packet Pg.


27/52

E.1

Packet Pg.


28/52

Packet


29/52

E.1

Packet Pg.


30/52

E.1

Packet Pg.


31/52

Page 1

MEMORANDUM


ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE:RZ13-13 - Eric Masaschi, Ryland Homes - Rezoning Request, from R-75 (Single-Family

Residential) to R-A8 (Single-Family Residential) at 1424, 1428, 1432 Sylvan Cir.; 2396, 2400,2404 Coosawattee Dr., to Create a 7-Lot Single Family Detached Residential Development.

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:See the attached files.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION:See the attached staff report.

ATTACHMENTS:

RZ13-13 Rezoning Application (PDF) Staff Recommendation RZ13-13 (PDF)

E.

Packet Pg.


32/52

Rezoning Petition: RZ13-13

Date of Staff Recommendation Preparation: November 27, 2013

Planning Commission Public Hearing Date: December 4, 2013

Mayor and City Council Public Hearing Date: December 17, 2013

Project Name /Applicant: Ryland HomesEric Masaschi

Property Location: 1424, 1428 &1432, Sylvan Circle

2396, 2400, 2404 Coosawattee Drive

Acreage: 3.374 acres

Existing Zoning: R-75 (Single-Family Residential)

Proposed Zoning: R-A8

Owner(s): Allen J. Fields, Stephen C. & Joanne G. Fields, William T.Fields.

Owner/Petitioners Intent: Rezone the subject property from R-75 (Single-Family

Residential) to RA-8 (Single-Family Residential) for a 7-lot

single family detached residential development.

Community Development Department Recommendation

DENIAL

Location Map

E.2

Packet Pg.


33/52

Page 2 of 6

BACKGROUND

The applicant seeks to rezone the subject property from R-75 (Single-Family ResidentialDistrict) to R-A8 (Single-Family Residential District) to develop a 7-lot detached residential

subdivision. Per tax parcel data, the subject site consists of six platted lots totaling 3.374 acres,

located between Sylvan Circle and Coosawattee Drive. The subject property is currently heavilywooded with generally steep topography, essentially comprising the site in its entirety. Two

creeks converge on the property and effectively bisect the proposed development into east and

west portions. Based upon the contour lines provided in the site plan, it would show that thestream buffer would act as the point of drainage for the proposed development.

Currently existing on the subject property are three single-family detached residential dwellings.

A one-story, framed single-family residence is located at 1432 Sylvan Drive and two additional1-story residences are located in close proximity to the creek. A private access drive that extends

from Sylvan Circle to Coosawattee Drive provides access to the two homes located nearest to the

creek. The proposed layout of the development would show three lots fronting on Sylvan Circle

with individual curb cuts and four lots sharing a single access point off Coosawattee Drive via aprivate access driveway. A large open space that may be potentially landlocked is shown on the

site plan, centrally located on the subject property. The applicantsletter of intent indicates the

demolition of the existing homes and accessory structures to allow for seven reconfigured lots onwhich single-family detached homes will be constructed. The Department would note that

several lots (1, 2 and 4) may not comply with the 60-foot lot width requirement of the R-A8

zoning district. Additionally, four of the seven proposed lots would be impacted by the 75-footundisturbed stream buffer, and would require variances to encroach into the stream buffer to

develop the lots. The applicant has submitted for variances with the City of Brookhaven to vary

the terms of the frontage requirements from 60 feet to 50 feet and to reduce the 75-foot stream

buffer, which will be presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals subsequent to this rezoningrequest.

NEARBY/SURROUNDING LAND ANALYSIS

Nearby/surroundingproperties Zoning Density Current Land Use(s)

North R-75 N/A Single-Family Residential

East: Across

Coosawattee Drive R-75 N/A Single-Family Residential

East: Across

Coosawattee DriveR-A8

6.82 DU/acre

(CZ-93069)Single-Family Residential

E.2

Packet Pg.


34/52

Page 3 of 6

East: Across

Coosawattee DriveR-A8

6.35 DU/acre

(CZ-89070)Single-Family Residential

East: Across SylvanCircle

R-75 N/A Single-Family Residential

South RM-85 14 DU/acre Multi-Family Residential

South: 2390

Coosawattee DriveR-75 0.22 DU/acre Single-Family Residential

South R-A86.25 DU/acre

(CZ-94036)


REVIEW STANDARDS AND FACTORS

1. Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policy and intent of theComprehensive Plan?

The subject property is identified on the future land use map in DeKalb CountysComprehensive Plan (adopted by the City of Brookhaven) as Traditional Neighborhood

Character Area. Under the Plan, the area is envisioned for traditional single-family

residential uses that would preserve the style and appeal of older traditional neighborhoods.Although the proposed density at 2.07 units per acre may be consistent with the policy of the

character area, implementation measures for the area would suggest infill development that

are appropriately planned. Per the requested rezoning, the applicant seeks to increase the

number of lots from six lots currently to seven. However, the proposed lot configuration maydetract from the traditional neighborhood characteristics established for the area in which

homes have direct access off the right-of-way, unlike the four proposed lots near

Coosawattee Drive that would share a single private access driveway and not maintainfrontage along a public road.

2. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use anddevelopment of adjacent and nearby properties?

Single family use is suitable given surrounding zoning and development.

E.2

Packet Pg.


35/52

Page 4 of 6

3. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable economicuse as currently zoned?

It appears the subject property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned. The six lots

as currently platted, although some may be identified as legal nonconforming lots, could be

developed for single-family detached residential dwellings as currently zoned.

4. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability ofadjacent or nearby property?

Adverse impacts on nearby properties could be anticipated considering that the proposed

development would establish substantially smaller minimum lot sizes and minimum heated

floor area, inconsistent with immediately adjacent properties zoned R-75.

5. Whether there are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use anddevelopment of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or

disapproval of the zoning proposal?

The adjacent residential properties maintain larger lot size requirements than the applicants

proposed zoning classification of R-A8. Additionally, adjacent properties zoned R-75 have a

minimum heated floor area of 1,600 square feet, and nearby R-A8 properties have beenconditioned to larger minimum heated floor areas than compared to the proposed residential

development; ranging from 1,600 square feet to 2,000 square feet. The applicants proposed

minimum heated floor area of 1,200 square feet would suggest that the proposeddevelopment would not be suitable at the requested location.

In addition, the Department would note that the proposed rezoning request may present some

adverse environmental impact to the existing stream and its banks that traverses the subjectproperty with the increase of the number of lots from the current six lots to the proposed

seven lots, as the new lot configuration would place lot 4 entirely within the 75-foot

undisturbed stream buffer.

6. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect historic buildings, sites, districts, orarchaeological resources?

There are no such known historic buildings, sites, districts or archaeological resources

identified, or known by staff, to be on or near this property.

7. Whether the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive orburdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools?

To date, the City of Brookhaven has not received a response from DeKalb County Offices orthe DeKalb County School System related to potential impacts that may arise as part of this

request.

E.2

Packet Pg.


36/52

Page 5 of 6

DEPARTMENT COMMENTS

PUBLIC WORKS

1. The installation of a stormwater management system is required, including detention, water

quality, channel protection, and downstream analysis to the 10% point. If the downstreamdischarge is a City stormwater system, then a capacity analysis is required at time of landdisturbance permit.

2. Post Construction Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement will be required.

3. The site is within a mile of North Fork Peachtree Creek which is an impaired stream, andtherefore, additional BMPs will be required per State guidelines at time of land disturbance

permit.

BROOKHAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT

The City of Brookhaven Police Department has indicated that the development should have no

impact on current police services and will not require additional personnel.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION

The Community Development Department would conclude that the request to rezone from R-75

to R-A8 to develop a 7-lot single-family residential subdivision, would not be consistent with theestablished policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Traditional Neighborhood Character Area

and would also not be compatible with the established residential uses found in the area.

Therefore, the Community Development Department recommends DENIAL of RZ13-13as

proposed.

STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

Based upon the findings and conclusions herein, Staff recommends DENIAL of RZ13-13.

Should the petition be approved, the Community Development Department has provided the

following conditions as a guide:

1. The site shall be developed as a single-family detached subdivision with a maximum of 6lots.

2. The subject property shall be developed in substantial accordance with the plan prepared byPlanners and Engineers Collaborative stamped received October 23, 2013. Any variances

required, if authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals, may result in altering the site plan to

the degree necessary to incorporate revisions.

3. The minimum heated floor area for dwellings shall be 1,800 square feet.

4. The subject property shall be subjected to the preliminary and final platting process to reflectthe new lot configuration for the development.

E.2

Packet Pg.


37/52

Page 6 of 6

5. The open (green) space shall not be landlocked and must be incorporated into individualconforming lots.

6. The installation of a stormwater management system is required, including detention, water

quality, channel protection, and downstream analysis to the 10% point. If the downstreamdischarge is a City stormwater system, then a capacity analysis is required prior to theissuance of a land disturbance permit.

7. Post Construction Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement shall be required and shall besubject to review and approval of the Community Development Director.

8. Additional BMPs shall be required per State guidelines at time of land disturbance permitand shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director.

E.2

Packet Pg.


38/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


39/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


40/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


41/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


42/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


43/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


44/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


45/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


46/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


47/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


48/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


49/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


50/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


51/52

E.2

Packet Pg.


52/52

E.2

2013-12-04 Planning Commission - Full Agenda-1126

Documents

Transcript of 2013-12-04 Planning Commission - Full Agenda-1126