2013-10-10 - Chamblee GA City Council Work Session - Full Agenda-1069

CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA City Council Public Hearing - Work Session Agenda October 10, 2013 6:00 PM
Public Hearings
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002 Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015 Variances -Perimeter Park Planned Unit Development - 2013V-014 Variances - 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.- 2013V-012 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Planned Unit Developments Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Interpretation of Permitted Uses Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Street Trees in Public Rights of Way Near Billboards
1. 2. 3.
Call to Order Announcements and Presentations Staff Action Items

A. City Clerk
1. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council - Public Hearing - Work Session - Sep 12, 2013 6:00 PM City Council - Regular Meeting - Sep 17, 2013 7:30 PM
b.
B.
City Manager
1. 2. Arts Incubator Update Group Insurance Benefits Renewals for 2014
3. 4.
Adoption of New Ethics Ordinance Reschedule Planning Retreat
C.
Development Department
1. Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision at 5140 R Peachtree Blvd.; 5158 Peachtree Blvd.; 5172 R. Peachtree Blvd - 2013Z-002 Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision at 5140 R Peachtree Blvd.; 5158 Peachtree Blvd.; 5170 R Peachtree Blvd - 2013V-015 Variance: 5193 Peachtree Boulevard - 2013V-012 Variances - Perimeter Park Planned Unit Development - 2013V-014 Variances & Waiver - 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.- (Former Great Gatsby ) - 2013V-013 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Institutional Uses and Places of Worship Discussion of Issues with Non-Conforming Uses Discussion of Approved Understory Tree Species for Street Trees
2.
3. 4. 5.
6.
7. 8.
D.
Police Department
1. 2. Approval of Purchases & Budget Amendments Due to Annexation Police Department Authorized Strength If Annexation is Approved
E. F. G.
Parks & Recreation Finance Public Works
4.
City Attorney
A. 1st Reading of Ordinances
1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Outdoor Storage and Vehicle Sales
B.
2nd Reading of Ordinances

1. 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Planned Unit Developments Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Interpretation of Permitted Use Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Street Trees in Public Rights of Way Near Billboards Alcohol Ordinance Amendment
3.
4.
5.
Mayor and Council Items

A. B. C. D. E. F. Mayor Clarkson Councilman Wedge Councilwoman Robson Councilman Hogan Councilman Zanger Councilman Taylor
1. Empty Stocking Fund
6. 7.
Citizen Comments Executive Session
3.A.1.a
CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA City Council Public Hearing - Work Session Minutes September 12, 2013 6:00 PM
Public Hearings
Mayor Pro Tem Taylor read the Rules of Order for a Public Hearing
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 12, 2013 6:00 PM (Approval of Minutes)
1.
Variance Request - 5193 Peachtree Blvd. (Former International Farmers' Mkt) Marc Johnson, Acting City Manager, asked the Council to allow Mr. Gary Cornell, Development Director, to read a summary of the staff report as the current report is 22 pages. The City Attorney, did confirm that the full staff report does not have to be "read into the minutes". Staff would like to have Council consider allowing staff to read a summary. A copy was provided to the applicant and copies were brought for the public to pick up next to the agenda copies. The Council agreed this was a good idea. Mr. Cornell, read the staff summary of the criteria, project description, applicant's intent, analysis, and recommendations for the multi-part variance request for 5193 Peachtree Blvd. The applicant seeks a waiver and multi-part variance request for several sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has asked for the waiver and variances prior to going through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the variance request. There was discussion between the Council and Staff. The project continues to change. Mr. Cornell advised the Council that the new plan has not been reviewed by Staff. Council member Hogan asked the applicant if they would like the Council to consider the current application or future application. The applicant asked that the Council review the current application and then make adjustments when they come back to Council for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) hearing. Council member Hogan discussed the details of the request for Variance #9 with the applicant.
Packet Pg. 4
3.A.1.a
Mayor Pro Tem clarified with the applicant that they wanted the Council to make a decision based on the initial plan and not the revised plan that had not been reviewed by Staff. The Council exited the Public Hearing by consent
1.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Mayor Eric R. Clarkson: Absent, Council District 1 Mark Wedge: Absent, Council District 2 Leslie C. Robson: Present, Council District 3 Thomas S. Hogan II: Present, Mayor pro tem Scott Taylor: Present, Council At-Large Seat Dan Zanger: Present, Marc Johnson: Present, Gary Cornell: Present, Emmie Niethammer: Present, Travis Sims: Present, Joel Holmes: Present, Tillman Hannon: Present.
2.
Announcements and Presentations

Acting City Manager, Marc Johnson, introduced a new process to the Council. The purpose is to allow certain applicants to confirm interest and receive feedback, positive or negative, from Council. 1. Atlanta Sports Connection Regarding Proposed Sports Complex on Former International Village Site Patrick Henderson and Zeric Foster with Atlanta Sports Complex made a presentation to Council. They would like to come to the City of Chamblee because of the central location of the area and the connectivity to other cities in the area. Trey Thomason with Sprung Structures spoke about the "green" building and how it will hold up over time. The structure can contribute many points to LEED certification. Atlanta Sports Complex is not looking to build the complex in phases. The presenters clarified the fields that were natural grass and whose that would be turf. Council members, mentioned several items that would be helpful when they come back including testing for the membrane, other complexes that have met the LEED Certification, lights, parking, and connectivity between major roads.
Packet Pg. 5
3.A.1.a
RESULT:
PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED
3.
Staff Action Items

A. City Clerk
a. City Council - Public Hearing - Work Session - Aug 15, 2013 6:00 PM The City Clerk mentioned one change that was requested by Council member Hogan, in Section D, "he" be changed to Mr. Wilburn to clarify who did the refinancing to make sure there would be no perceived conflict of interest. b. City Council - Regular Meeting - Aug 20, 2013 7:30 PM Council member Hogan stated there was one spelling error; however, he could not locate it at the moment.
B.
City Manager
1. Arts Incubator Update Marc Johnson, Acting City Manager, provided an update. Mr. Johnson spoke to Chris. The basic paperwork was completed by the previous City Manager. Chris was looking to confirm, and it was her intent, to set aside $100,000 in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2014 budget for us to use for the Arts Incubator. She has not called back to confirm it is in the budget. They will meet again in October/November to complete the paperwork showing how we would use the funds. Mr. Johnson also met with the Stone Mountain Main Street contact as well as Billy Peppers, who was the Development Director for Woodstock, but has moved on to work with the state. Mr. Johnson explained the new process for the Main Street program. RESULT: 2. REVIEWED Next: 10/10/2013 6:00 PM
Alcohol Ordinance Amendment
Packet Pg. 6
3.A.1.a
Marc Johnson, Acting City Manager, is recommending some slight modifications to the Alcohol ordinance to clarify the compliance with the percentage of sales requirements. RESULT: 3. REVIEWED Next: 9/17/2013 7:30 PM
Reschedule Planning Retreat Marc Johnson, Acting City Manager, would still like a full day planning session with the DDA and Staff. However, he is also recommending maybe two nights to clarify what is in the ordinance. It will provide clarification and make sure the intent of the ordinances are clear. It would specifically be the zoning ordinance. Council and the City Manager discussed timing and what would be covered in potential meetings. RESULT: 7:30 PM REVIEWED/DISCUSSED Next: 9/17/2013
4.
Peachtree Rd. @ Chamblee Tucker Rd. Intersection Improvements Marc Johnson, Acting City Manager, discussed two potential improvement options for the intersection of Peachtree Road and Chamblee Tucker Road. Mr. Johnson mentioned the lane already has loop detectors. Mr. Johnson said he contacted a Traffic Engineering to request a quote from them to perform the upgrades. When they went to look at the intersection it must have been busy because they are recommending a traffic study. They were hopeful it would be completed in a couple of weeks. Mr. Johnson confirmed this item would not move forward. RESULT: REVIEWED/DISCUSSED
5.
DeKalb County's URA Bonding Authority for Acquisition of Property for the Proposed Animal Shelter Marc Johnson, Acting City Manager, stated DeKalb County has decided to construct the new animal control facility on a portion of the PDK Airport buyout area located between West Hospital Avenue, Cumberland Drive and Chamblee Dunwoody Road. The County is requesting they be allowed to add the property to the
Packet Pg. 7
3.A.1.a
Urban Redevelopment Area and County Downtown Development Area to allow additional funding options. They are also requesting the City to deed over the streets. RESULT: 7:30 PM 6. REVIEWED/DISCUSSED Next: 9/17/2013
Discussion Regarding Modification to the Ethics Ordinance Mr. Marc Johnson, Acting City Manager, provided marked up copies of a proposed ordinance. Mr. Johnson used Dunwoody's ethics ordinance as a template since they have also recently made modifications. Mr. Johnson walked the Council through each section of the new potential ordinance and answered questions from Council. Mr. Johnson asked for guidance on wording for Tuesday night. RESULT: REVIEWED AND DISCUSSED 9/17/2013 7:30 PM Next:
7.
Downtown Parking Study Mr. Marc Johnson said he is requesting more time on this item to make sure it was done properly. RESULT: REVIEWED AND DISCUSSED 9/17/2013 7:30 PM Next:
C.
1. Lci Program Status Report and Discussion Kimley-Horn & Associates Mr. Gary Cornell, Development Director, introduced Jeff Smith, with Kimley-Horn & Associates, who made a presentation on the current status of the Livable Center Initiative (LCI) Program. He presented a SWOT (Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats) Assessment. Transportation Map, Surface Parking Map, and Existing Land Use Map were presented to the Council. Mr. Smith also talked about the next steps for the LCI Program. These will be used in the first public meeting to be held on October 2, 2013. Kimley-Horn & Associates are requesting direction in the following areas:
Packet Pg. 8
3.A.1.a
1) What are Council's goals for the 10 year update? What do you hope to expect to come out of the plan? 2) What have been the biggest challenges to implementing previous plans in Chamblee? What is necessary to overcome those challenges? 3) At the end of the process, what do you want the residents to say about the City of Chamblee in general and in this plan and effort specifically? 4) If we were really clever we would find a way to do...? Mr. Cornell stated and asked the Council one additional question: 5) Chamblee has done plans. Why aren't all the previous plans done? Is it resources? Were they bad recommendations? Council addressed the questions and asked additional questions to Kimley Horn. RESULT: 2. PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED
Draft of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Regarding Vehicle Sales and Outdoor Storage Mr. Gary Cornell, Development Director, introduced a new text amendment that will bring the City code inline with the State law. The second provision is the definition of outdoor storage. No action was needed for this item on Tuesday night. RESULT: PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED
3.
Re-Submittal Review Fee for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans Mr. Gary Cornell, Development Director, introduced a re-submittal review fee for Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Dr. Spotts will charge the City when he has to do reviews. Dr. Spotts has provided staff with steps to determine what is needed from an applicant and it should reduce errors in submission. RESULT: 7:30 PM REVIEWED/DISCUSSED Next: 9/17/2013
4.
Variances - 5193 Peachtree Blvd. (Former International Farmers' Mkt)
Packet Pg. 9
3.A.1.a
RESULT:
REVIEWED Next: 9/17/2013 7:30 PM
D. E. F. G.
Police Department Parks & Recreation Finance Public Works

4.
Authorities, Boards, and Committees

A. Downtown Development Authority - Request for Additional Funding This item was conducted after the discussion of the minutes at the request of Council member Robson. David Carter, the Vice Chair of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), made a request for the second half of the funds, totaling $50,000, to hire someone to assist with requests that need to be completed. There was discussion among the Council regarding future staffing to be shared, potentially a Economic Development Manager also functioning as an Executive Director for the DDA. There was also discussion about the DDA needing to get direction about what the Council would like them to accomplish. Van Pappas, Chair of the DDA, is supportive of having a shared staff member. However, he asked the question when the person would be available? Acting City Manager, Marc Johnson, acknowledged that the timing of creating the DDA was not the best. It was mid budget. He reminded the Council and the DDA that the City has always been financially responsible and lean with staff. With this in mind when the City Staff has had a need the Council has always responded. Mr. Johnson requested that the DDA and Council use the time to prepare for the next budget year. Council asked questions regarding the type of qualifications the DDA is looking for in a staff member. Mr. Pappas mentioned the DDA is already looking at potential candidates and the qualifications.
Packet Pg. 10
3.A.1.a
Mr. Pappas discussed projects and needs for a staff member now as the DDA feels it is missing opportunities. There was additional discussion about beginning the process to have a position ready to be selected in January and potential temporary help to bridge the gap until that time. RESULT: 7:30 PM REVIEWED/DISCUSSED Next: 9/17/2013
5.
City Attorney
1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Planned Unit Developments RESULT: 2. REVIEWED Next: 9/17/2013 7:30 PM
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Interpretation of Permitted Use RESULT: REVIEWED Next: 9/17/2013 7:30 PM
3.
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Street Trees in Public Rights of Way Near Billboards
Packet Pg. 11
3.A.1.a
RESULT:
B.
6.

7.
Citizen Comments
Pat Thomas, resident in Wakefield Forrest, commented about the need for pictures in the ordinance. People learn by reading and others by seeing pictures.
8.
Executive Session
The meeting ended at 9:57 pm.
Packet Pg. 12
3.A.1.b
CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2013 7:30 PM
1.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Eric R. Clarkson: Present, Mark Wedge: Absent, Leslie C. Robson: Present, Thomas S. Hogan II: Present, Scott Taylor: Present, Dan Zanger: Present, Travis Sims: Present, Emmie Niethammer: Present, Joe Fowler: Present, Gary Cornell: Present, Joel Holmes: Present, Marc Johnson: Absent, Tillman Hannon: Absent.
Pledge of Allegiance
2. 3.
Announcements and Presentations Staff Action Items

A. City Clerk
1. City Council - Public Hearing - Work Session - Aug 15, 2013 6:00 PM Motion to approve the minutes with the corrections as mentioned in the Work Session on Thursday evening. RESULT: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas S. Hogan II, Council District 3 SECONDER: Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem AYES: Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger ABSENT: Wedge 2. City Council - Regular Meeting - Aug 20, 2013 7:30 PM The City Clerk mentioned she found a misspelled word in the minutes. The correction has been made.
Packet Pg. 13
3.A.1.b
Motion to approve the minutes as corrected. RESULT: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Leslie C. Robson, Council District 2 SECONDER: Thomas S. Hogan II, Council District 3 AYES: Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger ABSENT: Wedge
B.
City Manager
1. Reschedule Planning Retreat Motion to approve postponement any discussion of the planning retreat until the October Work Session. Council member Robson requested the motion include that the planning meeting would be in January and two additional meetings in October to review the amendments to code. Council member Zanger requested the dates for future meetings be discussed in the October Work Session and no time lines be included in this motion. RESULT: 6:00 PM MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT: 2. POSTPONED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 10/10/2013 Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem Dan Zanger, Council At-Large Seat Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger Wedge
DeKalb County's URA Bonding Authority for Acquisition of Property for the Proposed Animal Shelter Motion to approve the resolution allowing DeKalb County to add the property designated for the new animal control facility to their Urban Redevelopment Area to facilitate more favorable financing for their project. RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] Thomas S. Hogan II, Council District 3 Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger Wedge
3.
Discussion Regarding Modification to the Ethics Ordinance
Packet Pg. 14
3.A.1.b
Motion to postpone this item until the October Council Work Session. There was some discussion regarding the timeline of the moratorium passed last month. RESULT: PM AYES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 4. POSTPONED [3 TO 0] Next: 10/10/2013 6:00 Robson, Taylor, Zanger Hogan II Wedge
Downtown Parking Study Motion to postpone this item to come back to the Council no later than the December Council Work Session. RESULT: 6:00 PM MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT: POSTPONED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 12/12/2013 Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem Dan Zanger, Council At-Large Seat Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger Wedge
C.
1. Re-Submittal Review Fee for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans Motion to approve the re-submittal review fee as recommended by the Development Director. RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT: 2. ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem Leslie C. Robson, Council District 2 Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger Wedge
Variances - 5193 Peachtree Blvd. (Former International Farmers' Mkt) Motion to defer each of the variance request items until the November Work Session allowing staff adequate time to review the new site plans that were presented during the September 12th Work Session.
Packet Pg. 15
3.A.1.b
There was discussion amongst all Council members regarding the reason for the delay or move forward. RESULT: PM MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: POSTPONED [3 TO 2] Next: 11/14/2013 6:00 Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem Dan Zanger, Council At-Large Seat Clarkson, Taylor, Zanger Robson, Hogan II Wedge
D. E. F. G.
Police Department Parks & Recreation Finance Public Works
4.
Authorities, Boards, and Committees

1. Downtown Development Authority - Request for Additional Funding Motion to approve the additional funding of $50,000 to the Chamblee Downtown Development Authority (DDA). Council member Hogan mentioned the Council discussed the need for a strategic plan for the funds. Council member Taylor feels the request for the funds is for Staff to support the volunteer members of the DDA. RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ADOPTED [3 TO 1] Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem Leslie C. Robson, Council District 2 Robson, Taylor, Zanger Hogan II Wedge
5.
City Attorney
1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Planned Unit Developments
Packet Pg. 16
3.A.1.b
Joe Fowler, the City Attorney, read the highlights of the zoning ordinance text amendment for Planned Unit Developments. RESULT: 2. REVIEWED Next: 10/10/2013 6:00 PM
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Interpretation of Permitted Use Joe Fowler, the City Attorney, read the zoning ordinance text amendment for Interpretation of Permitted Use. Council member Hogan asked if the authority was given to the Development Director or the City Manager. The concern was CEO and Zoning Officer. The suggestion was made by the Mayor that a minor change to have the authority be given to the City Manager or his designee. The Council agreed by consent. RESULT: REVIEWED Next: 10/10/2013 6:00 PM
3.
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Street Trees in Public Rights of Way Near Billboards Joe Fowler, the City Attorney, read the zoning ordinance text amendment for Street Trees in Public Rights of Way Near Billboards. The Mayor asked if there was a specific list of trees included in this ordinance. Gary Cornell, Development Director, stated there is a list of understory trees in the tree ordinance. Council would like to address the species of trees next month. RESULT: REVIEWED Next: 10/10/2013 6:00 PM
4.
Alcohol Ordinance Amendment Joe Fowler, the City Attorney, read the ordinance text amendment for alcohol sales.
Packet Pg. 17
3.A.1.b
RESULT:
B.
6.

7.
Citizen Comments
Gary Cornell, Development Director, mentioned the upcoming meeting for the Downtown planning workshop October 2 from 5:30 to 7:30 Motion to go into Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter. RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] Leslie C. Robson, Council District 2 Thomas S. Hogan II, Council District 3 Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger Wedge
8.
Executive Session
The Council came out of Executive Session. The meeting was re-opened to the public.
9.
Adjournment
Motion to Adjourn
Packet Pg. 18
3.A.1.b
RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT:
ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] Leslie C. Robson, Council District 2 Dan Zanger, Council At-Large Seat Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger Wedge
Packet Pg. 19
3.B.1
City of Chamblee
City Council Agenda Item
Department: Administrative Prepared By: Niles Ford PhD Initiator: Niles Ford PhD
ORDINANCE (ID # 1124) SUBJECT: ARTS INCUBATOR UPDATE

Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Council directed that the Art's Incubator would be on the agenda monthly for updates.
ISSUE:
May 16th through June 16th the DeKalb County Community Development Department will be accepting application for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. This is the funding source that the City of Stone Mountain and their DDA used to initiate their Arts Incubator. The objective of an Arts Incubator in Chamblee would be to revitalize the downtown area through a Creative Economies concept with the creation of a collection of micro enterprises called an Arts Incubator. By using a creative economy methodology the Citys goal is to build up a concentration of artist and crafter studios which will serve as a magnet to attract tourist, visitors and residents. This project will be further strengthened as we collaborate with the Chamblee Downtown Development Authority (CDDA) for application and financing opportunities and the Chamblee Business Association (CBA) for training and development of newly empowered entrepreneurs.
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval to begin the initial application process. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment List:
Packet Pg. 20
3.B.1
Review: Niles Ford Ford PhD Niles Ford Ford PhD City Council Completed Completed Completed 02/07/2013 10:56 AM 02/07/2013 10:56 AM 06/20/2013 8:00 PM
Packet Pg. 21
3.B.2
City of Chamblee
Department: Administrative Prepared By: Marc Johnson Initiator: Marc Johnson
ACTION ITEM (ID # 1243) SUBJECT: GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS RENEWALS FOR 2014
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of group insurance providers for 2014 as well as the employee contribution rates. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The city's group insurance benefits must be renewed on an annual basis. The contracts with the insurance carriers are for a calendar year and Peachtree Benefits is our representative for the various companies. ISSUE: We are attempting to schedule open enrollment for employees in early November rather than later as in the past. This will provide for a more orderly and structured process and make sure there is sufficient time to get all benefit information updated in the payroll system prior to December 1, 2013, when most of the new deductions will take effect. Peachtree Benefits will provide a briefing at the work session on the renewal rates, recommended companies and policies. Staff is recommending that we remain with the same companies and plans we currently have. Staff is also exploring options to improve employee wellness. We anticipate asking council to approve instituting an employee wellness option and no smoking discount beginning in 2015. Eligibility for those discounts will be dependent on required compliance in 2014. The thought is that the discounts will offset some of the anticipated increase in the employee contributions. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
To be determined
Attachment List:
Review: Marc Johnson City Council Completed Pending 10/07/2013 1:29 PM
Packet Pg. 22
3.B.3
City of Chamblee
ORDINANCE (ID # 1248) SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF NEW ETHICS ORDINANCE

Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM REQUESTED ACTION: Review the proposed new ethics ordinance and move to first reading. Second reading and adoption will be scheduled for November prior to the moratorium expiring. BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
The current City Ethics Ordinance was adopted in March of 2001. It was adopted as one of the conditions for becoming certified as a City of Ethics by the Georgia Municipal Association (GMA). Until a few months ago, there had not been any ethics complaints filed and therefore no need to apply the ordinance. With the recent filing of ethics complaints, the council and staff have determined that the current ordinance has some issues and procedures which are less than desirable and which need to be addressed and revised. . Midway through the process of handling the first complaints filed, the council members involved as well as the city attorney recused themselves from serving on the Initial Investigating Committee. Ultimately, the city manager was instructed to outsource that function to a law firm for that particular complaint. Staff was instructed to research changes and improvements which might be appropriate for the ordinance. The template for the current version was provided by GMA and it has since changed its template to deal with some of the very issues we experienced.
ISSUE: The city manager has been researching the issue and looking at how other governments handle their ethics complaints. A proposed replacement for the ethics ordinance is attached for review by city council prior to adoption. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
Attachment List:
Review: Marc Johnson Completed 10/07/2013 12:50 AM
Packet Pg. 23
3.B.3
City Council
Pending
Packet Pg. 24
3.B.4
City of Chamblee
ACTION ITEM (ID # 1224) SUBJECT: RESCHEDULE PLANNING RETREAT

Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM REQUESTED ACTION: Reschedule the planning retreat to sometime after the November 5th election. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Last month the council scheduled a planning retreat for October 5, 2013. ISSUE: Since there will be at least one new member on the city council after the upcoming election and other scheduling conflicts have arisen, it may be best to reschedule until after the election. At that time we will know the results of the annexation referendum and any new council members elect could be included. I would recommend that we plan for two meetings. The first to review the council's vision, the development and zoning ordinances and future staffing needs, etc. The second would be used to establish the priorities and goals for the upcoming year as well as mid and long range plans. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attachment List:
Review: Marc Johnson City Council Completed Completed 09/05/2013 12:36 PM 10/07/2013 3:25 PM
Packet Pg. 25
3.C.1
City of Chamblee
Department: Development Prepared By: Emmie Niethammer Initiator: Gary Cornell
ZONING (ID # 1234) SUBJECT: REZONING - KESWICK MANOR SUBDIVISION AT 5140 R PEACHTREE BLVD.; 5158 PEACHTREE BLVD.; 5172 R. PEACHTREE BLVD - 2013Z002
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM Item: Applicant proposes to construct a residential subdivision with ten lots on a site containing 3.381 acres accessed from Keswick Drive adjacent to the Keswick Park. The application requests a rezoning of two parcels (18-300-10-047 and 18-300-10-013) containing approximately 3.2 acres from Neighborhood Residential-1 (NR-1) to Neighborhood Residential-2 (NR-2) and rezoning of two additional parcels (18300-10-010 18-300-10-011) containing approximately 0.1 acres from Corridor Commercial (CC) to Neighborhood Residential-2 (NR-2). Prior to the hearing the applicant intends to amend the site plan and the boundaries of the property to exclude the two parcels (18-300-10-010 18-300-10-011) that lie in the CC Zoning District and therefore a future development map amendment would not be required. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendations: Staff recommends DEFERRAL of the City Councils action until November 19, 2013 to allow the applicant time to amend the site plan and the boundaries of the application and to allow applicant more time to meet with neighborhood representatives. Attachment List: 01.01_Staff Report_2013_Z002_KeswickManor _ 10-10-2013DRAFT 01.02_Application _Keswick Manor_Rezoning 01.03_Tax_map_Keswick_Manor 01.04_Keswick_Survey 01.05_Keswick_Site Plan (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) (PDF)
01.06_Previously approved preliminary plat (PDF) 01.7_Deferral request letter (PDF)
Review: Gary Cornell Marc Johnson City Council Completed Completed Pending 10/03/2013 12:11 PM 10/07/2013 12:08 AM
Packet Pg. 26
3.C.1.a
Petition No.: 2013-Z-002 Development Department
Site Addresses (4): Parcel Numbers (3): Land Lot and District: Parcel Acreage: Applicant: Representative: Current Zoning:
STAFF REPORT - REZONING 5140 R Peachtree Blvd.; 5158 Peachtree Blvd.; 5162 Peachtree Blvd.; and 5172 R Peachtree Blvd. 18-300-10-047; 18-300-10-011; 18-300-10-010; and 18-300-10-013 330, 18th 3.381 Acres (Total project) Oak Hall Companies, LLC G. Douglas Dillard, Esq., Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, P.C. The majority of this property (parcels 18-300-10-013 and 18-300-10047) are currently zoned Neighborhood Residential -1 (NR-1) The NR-1 zoning district is intended primarily for single-family residences and related uses. The district is designed to stabilize and protect the residential characteristics of the district and to encourage a suitable family life on larger lots. Parcels 18-300-10-010 and 18-300-10-011 are two small parcels totaling about 5,000 sq. ft. in area that are currently zoned Corridor Commercial (CC). This zoning district is intended primarily for mixed-use development and related uses at a medium density. This district provides a location for residences, retail, goods and services and offices to satisfy the common and frequent needs of the city's businesses and residents with design standards and design parameters to encourage a pedestrian-friendly traditional urban form, oriented to pedestrians, which will limit the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. These parcels are proposed to be rezoned to Neighborhood Residential-2 (NR2) pursuant to this application.
District Standards: Corridor Commercial (CC) Zoning District Dimensional Standards FAR (max) 1.0 Res+1.5 Non-Res.=2.5 Total Side Yard Building Coverage (max) 80% Rear Yard Building Ht. Min./Max Min. 18/ 12; Max. 60 ft. Front Yard (N.Peachtree*/Others) (N.Peachtree*/Others) Lot Size and Lot Width N/A Landscape Zone (N. Peachtree*/Others) Required Open Space 20% Required Parking 1.5 spaces per unit plus 1 per 200 s.f. GLA commercial space. Sidewalk Zone (N. Peachtree*/Others) None/8 30 15 / 10 7/ 5 8/ 5
Staff Report to City Council
Page 1 of 8
Petition No: 2013-Z-002 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: 01.01_Staff Report_2013_Z002_KeswickManor _ 10-10-2013DRAFT (1234 : Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002)
3.C.1.a
Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) Dimensional Standards Maximum FAR Max. Building Coverage Max. Building Height Min. Lot size Min. Sidewalk width 0.5 35% 34 ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 5 ft. (local street) Min. Front Yard Min. Rear Yard Min. Side Yard Setback Min. Lot frontage Min. Landscape zone 30 ft. 40 ft. 10 ft. 60 ft. 3 ft. (local street)
Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) Dimensional Standards Maximum FAR Max. Building Coverage Max. Building Height Min. Lot size Min. Sidewalk width 0.5 50% 34 ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 5 ft. (local street) Min. Front Yard Min. Rear Yard Min. Side Yard Setback Min. Lot frontage Min. Landscape zone 30 ft. 30 ft. 7 ft. 50 ft. 3 ft. (local street)
Current Use: Surrounding Land Uses:
undeveloped; wooded. North NR-1- City of Chamblee (Keswick Park) South VC - Vacant warehouse; CC- Elaine Clark Center and Office/warehouse East NR-1 single-family detached residences West NR-1 - City of Chamblee (Keswick Park)
Site Description: The subject property is undeveloped land consisting of 4 parcels totaling 3.381 acres that is surrounded on three sides by Keswick Park. The site is situated on a curve in Keswick Park. Only about half the property has frontage on the street and the remainder fronts directly on the park. Most of the site has dense tree cover and underbrush. The property slopes steeply up from a shelf along the street with grades as steep as 30 percent. The elevation of the rear property line is approximately 30 feet higher than the street level and parallels an abandoned railroad spur. There five drainage structures with well-defined drainage swales on the property. There is a catch basin on the property that drains across the frontage before passing into a culvert under Keswick Drive. A 24-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe near the southeastern corner conducts stormwater from the existing building directly above and behind the property. Another 60-inch diameter concrete pipe crosses the property on the western side. It crosses Keswick Drive and discharges into a creek in the park. Two more 15-inch corrugated metal pipes discharge on to the southwestern boundary of the property from the property to the rear. A sanitary sewer line is located on the opposite side of Keswick Drive and passes through the Park but has a manhole in Keswick Drive near the western end of the subject property.
Page 2 of 8
Packet Pg. 28
3.C.1.a
Project Description: The proposed Keswick Manor subdivision is proposed as ten residential lots that range in area from 7,444 sq. ft. to 11,280 sq. ft. There are also three areas of open space totaling about 1 acre. The primary entrance would be a 20 ft. wide private drive accessing Keswick Drive near the existing crosswalk. The entry drive would ascend the slope and branch in two directions behind the lots where it would serve eight of the homes. These eight houses would have rear-loaded garages while the remaining two would share a driveway accessing Keswick Drive. Five of the lots would front Keswick Drive and five would front directly onto the park. The single-family detached units would be two stories with a minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. of heated floor area. Homes would have craftsman and cottage-style architecture. The homes would have a minimum heated floor area of sq. ft. with two-car garages. Background: The subject property is a tract of land owned by the Gipson family that has been zoned Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) and undeveloped. On May 15, 2007 City Council approved a preliminary plat for a subdivision with ten houses meeting the requirements of the NR-1 zoning district. Six lots would front a new cul de sac and four would have individual driveways on Keswick Road. However this development did not receive a land disturbance permit, the subdivision of property was never recorded and so the subdivision is now null and void in accordance with the City of Chamblee Subdivision Regulations Section 2.7.1. Requested Actions: These parcels are proposed to be rezoned from Neighborhood Residential -1 (NR-1) to Neighborhood Residential -2 (NR-2) pursuant to this application. Analysis: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Future Development Map According to the adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Development Map the majority of the subject property (north of the abandoned railroad right of way) lies within the Neighborhood Living character area. NR-1 and NR-2 are corresponding zoning districts. This is a summary description of this character area from the Comprehensive Plan: 1) These neighborhoods have relatively well-maintained housing, possess a distinct community identity through architectural style, lot and street design and have higher rates of homeownership. 2) Infill or redevelopment of parcels within these neighborhoods will provide greater lifestyle housing choices but should be compatible with the neighborhood as a whole. 3) Sensitivity to surrounding residences in terms of light, bulk, setbacks, landscaping and mass should be reviewed. 4) Investigate ways to improve alternative connectivity sidewalks, paths, bike trails, etc. between residential neighborhoods. Please see the Comprehensive plan for a complete description of this character area. The two very small parcels of vacant land (5,000 sq. ft. total) on the southeastern corner of the proposed development include portions of the abandoned railroad right-of-way and appear to be in the Corridor Village portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the current Commercial Corridor (CC) zoning district is permitted in the Corridor Village character area, the NR-2 zoning district is not permitted within this character area. Therefore this application requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Development Map to change the designation of these two parcels from Staff Report to City Council Page 3 of 8 Petition No: 2013-Z-002 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 29
3.C.1.a
Corridor Village to Neighborhood Living. The purpose of the Corridor Village character area is the creation of an inviting commercial and mixed use area [that] would accommodate higher densities in order to create a synergy between retail, office, industry, other commercial uses and surrounding residential development. The Comprehensive Plan also says that development in the Corridor Village character area needs to minimize encroachment and incompatibility with the established residential neighborhoods behind the corridor. Rezoning parcels 18-300-10-013 and 18-300-10-047 from Neighborhood Residential -1 (NR-1) to Neighborhood Residential-2 (NR-2) would not be inconsistent with the Future Development Map of the Comprehensive Plan. On its face, NR-2 would allow lots with a minimum area of 6,000 sq. ft. lots instead of 12,000 sq. ft. lots allowed in NR-1. In theory this would lead to a higher density of development. However, as demonstrated by the preliminary plat prepared for this property in 2007, the steep topography and peculiar shape of the property limits the likely yield of this property to the ten lots proposed. However with the smaller lot size the developer proposes to provide almost an acre of common open space without houses. The smaller lot size allows flexibility that will be needed to reduce impervious surface and limit tree removal and grading on the site and to provide space for accommodating drainage issues on the site. Rezoning the two small parcels 18-300-10-010 and 18-300-10-011 from Corridor Commercial (CC) to Neighborhood Residential-2 would require an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan in order to designate these small parcels as Neighborhood Living along with the larger parcels that are part of the same proposed development plan. The remainder of this report will assume that the City Council will take action on the proposed amendment to Future Land Use Plan concurrent with taking action on this rezoning application. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance The proposed site development plan would not be consistent with the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance which currently zones this property as Neighborhood Residential (NR-1) and Corridor Commercial (CC) because the lot sizes, widths, and setbacks are inconsistent with the minimum lot sizes, widths, and setbacks required in the current zoning district. If the property were rezoned to Neighborhood Residential -2 (NR-2) the site development plan would be consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with these exceptions:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Front yards of lots 6-10 are 20 ft., which is less than the 30 ft. minimum required in NR-1 Rear yards of lots 9 and 10 are 20 ft. which is less than the 30 ft. minimum required in NR-1. The streets are private streets (not public streets) and the width of these streets is only 20 ft. wide and contain no right-of-way to be dedicated by the City. The streetscape standards are not met by retaining the existing sidewalks and not including the necessary 3 ft. landscape zone. The plan does not show utility lines; it is likely that utilities will cross private lots and require easements dedicated to the City.
The applicant has requested variances for exceptions 1, 2, and 3. Exceptions 4 and 5 may require revisions of the proposed site development plan and/or waivers of the applicable sections of the Development Regulations (Chapter 93). The following analysis is based on an assessment of each of the 12 review standards established in Section 208 of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance. Staff Report to City Council Page 4 of 8 Petition No: 2013-Z-002 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 30
3.C.1.a
1. The existing uses and zoning of nearby property. The subject property is surrounded on three sides by Keswick Park and will share access with the park on Keswick Road. The natural environment and recreational facilities of the park are amenities for the future residents of the proposed residential subdivision. However, construction of homes on this steep site will result in a loss of natural vegetation that currently protects the viewshed along Keswick Drive and provides a natural buffer for the park. There is a greater risk of drainage problems and impacts to the park and the stream due to loss of natural vegetation and grading of the steep terrain. The northernmost boundary of the subject site abuts several lots of the Sexton Woods Subdivision that are zoned NR-1. On the southeast the property is bordered by an abandoned railroad spur and beyond that are properties zoned Corridor Commercial (CC) that front on Peachtree Boulevard. These consist of the Elaine Clark Center (private school providing special education) and office/ warehouse buildings. There is little buffer behind these commercial and institutional buildings except for natural vegetation that exists on the subject property. Tree removal and grading may expose a view of the rear of these buildings to the new residents as well as to the users of the park. However the property could be developed as currently zoned NR-1 with the same or worse impacts. 2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions. It is not clear that the rezoning of this property from NR-1 and CC to NR-2 would have a significant negative impact on the value of this property. According to a preliminary plat approved in 2007, if the property were not rezoned, it could still be developed in the NR-1 district with a similar number of new houses. However it is more likely that development under the current NR-1 zoning may be more expensive and cause more environmental impact. 3. The extent to which the possible reduction of property values of the subject property promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public. The applicant asserts that the denial of this request to rezone this property from NR-1 and CC to NR-2 would cause a reduction in value of the subject property. Nonetheless, a preliminary plat prepared for this property in 2007 demonstrates that the property could still be developed as NR-1 with the same number of lots. However rezoning the property to NR-2 may give the developer more flexibility to preserve natural features of the site that may result in less environmental impact. Therefore there may be harm to the public as well as hardship imposed upon the individual property owner if the property is not rezoned. 4. The relative harm to the public as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual property owner. The applicant asserts that the denial of this request to rezone this property from NR-1 and CC to NR-2 would cause a reduction in value of the subject property. If the rezoning does not increase the intensity of development and it results in more flexibility to design the homes in accord with the land then it will result in less harm to the public, not more. 5. The suitability of the subject property for the zoning proposed. Staff Report to City Council Page 5 of 8 Petition No: 2013-Z-002 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 31
3.C.1.a
The subject property is going to be difficult to use for any form of intense development because of its peculiar shape, limited access, and steep terrain. However due to its direct access to the park, it is more suitable for single-family detached residential development than most other uses. It is apparent that rezoning the property from NR-1 and CC to NR-2 will not result in a more intense development and therefore will not change the suitability of the subject property for the proposed zoning. 6. The length of time the property has been vacant as zoned, considered in the context of land development in the area in the vicinity of the property. The subject property has remained undeveloped while other surrounding properties have been developed. The lack of access and the peculiar shape and topography of the site has limited its desirability and made it more costly to develop. Now that the real estate recession has passed, residential land in the area is becoming more valuable so that the value of this site may justify the expense of developing it. 7. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property. The subject property is not suitable for any form of intense development because of its peculiar shape, limited access, and steep terrain. However due to its direct access to the park, it is more suitable for single-family detached residential development than most other uses. It is apparent that rezoning the property from NR-1 and CC to NR-2 will not result in a more intense development and therefore will not change the suitability of the subject property for the proposed use. 8. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property. The subject property is surrounded on three sides by Keswick Park and will share access with the park on Keswick Road. Construction of homes on this steep site will result in a loss of natural vegetation that currently protects the viewshed along Keswick Drive and provides a natural buffer for the park. There is a greater risk of drainage problems and impacts to the park and the stream due to loss of natural vegetation and grading of the steep terrain. The northernmost boundary of the subject site abuts several lots of the Sexton Woods Subdivision that are zoned NR-1. The rezoning of this property should not adversely affect these homeowners, compared to developing the property as NR-1 since it is not likely to substantially increase the number of lots or decrease the price of the homes. On the southeast the property is bordered by an abandoned railroad spur and beyond that are properties zoned Corridor Commercial (CC) that front on Peachtree Boulevard. These consist of the Elaine Clark Center (private school providing special education) and office/ warehouse buildings. These buildings back up to the subject property and do not have any view or exposure to it. Rezoning this property should not have an adverse affect on these properties so long as the access for the new homes is restricted to Keswick Drive.
9. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned. Staff Report to City Council Page 6 of 8 Petition No: 2013-Z-002 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 32
3.C.1.a
Yes, the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned NR-1 and CC.
10. Whether the zoning proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools. So long as the rezoning of the property is conditioned to allow no more than 10 homes, it would not increase the intensity of the development to rezone the property from NR-1 and CC to NR-2. Therefore, the rezoning would not be expected to result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools. 11. Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policy and intent of the future development map. The answer to this question was addressed in a previous section of this report. Rezoning the property to Neighborhood Residential -2 (NR-2) for a single-family residential subdivision would be in conformity with the policy and intent of the future development map with respect to the majority of the property that is currently in the Neighborhood Living character district. The small portion (about 5,000 sq. ft. of land) that is designated Corridor Village on the Future Development Map should be considered for a concurrent amendment of the Future Development Map. 12. Whether there are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the zoning proposal. The subject property has remained undeveloped during the prolonged real estate recession. Current trends in demographics and housing are causing greater demand for houses on smaller lots located close to urban centers. Now that the real estate recession has passed, residential land in the area is becoming more valuable so that the increased value of this site may justify the expense of developing it. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: New information is that the applicant intends to amend the site plan and the boundaries of the property to exclude the two parcels (18-300-10-010 18-300-10-011) that lie in the CC Zoning District and therefore a future development map amendment will not be required. Recommendations: Staff recommends DEFERRAL of the City Councils action until November 19, 2013 to allow time for the applicant to amend the site plan and the boundaries of the application and to allow applicant more time to meet with neighborhood representatives. If the Mayor and City Council choose to APPROVE the requested rezoning application from Neighborhood Residential-1 and Corridor Commercial to Neighborhood Residential-2 then staff recommends such rezoning be contingent on the applicant meeting the following conditions:
Page 7 of 8
Packet Pg. 33
3.C.1.a
1. Approval is conditioned on the proposed site development plan dated 8/27/2013, with any revisions necessary to meet requirements of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance except those for which variances are approved by the Mayor and City Council and with the following changes:
a. b. c. The streetscape standards of the City shall be met by replacing the existing sidewalks with streetscape per City of Chamblee standards. All drives and alleys shall be constructed with pervious paving materials. If the proposed site development requires utility lines to cross private lots then provide easements dedicated to the City as required by the Subdivision Regulations and Chapter 93 (Development Regulations). Secure easements from the City of Chamblee for any access across Keswick Park for sidewalks. A mandatory homeowners association shall be established to be responsible for the cost of maintenance of open space areas, private drives, outdoor lighting, stormwater management facilities, drainage infrastructure, and all other common land and facilities.
d. e.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Page 8 of 8
Packet Pg. 34
Packet Pg. 35
3.C.1.b
Attachment: 01.02_Application _Keswick Manor_Rezoning (1234 : Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002)
Packet Pg. 36
3.C.1.b
Packet Pg. 37
3.C.1.b
Packet Pg. 38
3.C.1.b
Packet Pg. 39
3.C.1.b
Packet Pg. 40
3.C.1.b
Packet Pg. 41
3.C.1.b
Packet Pg. 42
3.C.1.b
Packet Pg. 43
3.C.1.b
Packet Pg. 44
3.C.1.b
Packet Pg. 45
3.C.1.b
Packet Pg. 46
3.C.1.c
Attachment: 01.03_Tax_map_Keswick_Manor (1234 : Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002)
Packet Pg. 47
3.C.1.d
Attachment: 01.04_Keswick_Survey (1234 : Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002)
Packet Pg. 48
3.C.1.e
Attachment: 01.05_Keswick_Site Plan (1234 : Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002)
Packet Pg. 49
3.C.1.f
Attachment: 01.06_Previously approved preliminary plat (1234 : Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002)
Packet Pg. 50
3.C.1.g
Attachment: 01.7_Deferral request letter (1234 : Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002)
3.C.2
City of Chamblee
VARIANCE (ID # 1235) SUBJECT: VARIANCES - KESWICK MANOR SUBDIVISION AT 5140 R PEACHTREE BLVD.; 5158 PEACHTREE BLVD.; 5170 R PEACHTREE BLVD - 2013V015
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM ITEM: Applicant proposes to construct a residential subdivision with ten lots on a site containing 3.381 acres accessed from Keswick Drive adjacent to the Keswick Park. The applicant requests variances pursuant to a proposed site plan dated 8/27/2013 as follows: Variance #1: Reduce the minimum rear setback from 30 ft. to 20 ft. for lots 9 and 10 pursuant to Section 1004. Variance #2: Reduce the minimum front rear setback from 30 ft. to 20 ft. for lots 6 through 10 pursuant to Section 1004. Variance #3: The applicant requests a variance from Section 513 to allow private drives as the means of access for lots 1-5; and a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations, Sect. 4.3 that limits private driveways to serving two or fewer lots.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends DEFERRAL of the City Councils action until November 19, 2013 to allow time for the applicant to amend the site plan and the boundaries of the application to exclude the two parcels (18300-10-010 18-300-10-011) that lie in the CC Zoning District and to have more time to meet with the neighborhood. Attachment List: 02.1_Staff Report_2013_V015_KeswickManor _ 10-10-2013DRAFT 02.2_Application_Keswick Manor_Variances 02.3_Tax_map_Keswick_Manor 02.4_Keswick_Survey 02.5_Keswick_Site Plan (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) (PDF)
02.6_Deferral request letter (PDF)
Review:
Packet Pg. 51
3.C.2
Gary Cornell Marc Johnson City Council
Completed Completed Pending
10/03/2013 9:07 AM 10/07/2013 12:14 AM
Packet Pg. 52
3.C.2.a
Petition No.: 2013-V-015 Development Department
STAFF REPORT - VARIANCES 5140 R Peachtree Blvd.; 5158 Peachtree Blvd.; 5162 Peachtree Blvd.; and 5172 R Peachtree Blvd. 18-300-10-047; 18-300-10-011; 18-300-10-010; and 18-300-10-013 330, 18th 3.381 Acres (Total project) Oak Hall Companies, LLC G. Douglas Dillard, Esq., Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, P.C. Neighborhood Residential (NR-2) pending rezoning approval from NR-1 to NR-2 under separate action by City Council. The NR-2 zoning district is intended primarily for single-family residences and related uses. The district is designed to stabilize and protect the residential characteristics of the district and to encourage a suitable family life on smaller lots. Parcels 18-300-10-010 and 18-300-10-011 are two small parcels totaling about 5,000 sq. ft. in area that are currently zoned Corridor Commercial (CC). This zoning district is intended primarily for mixed-use development and related uses at a medium density. This district provides a location for residences, retail, goods and services and offices to satisfy the common and frequent needs of the city's businesses and residents with design standards and design parameters to encourage a pedestrian-friendly traditional urban form, oriented to pedestrians, which will limit the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. These parcels are proposed to be rezoned to NR-2 pursuant to case 2013-R002 being heard concurrently with this variance case.
District Standards (as proposed): Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) Dimensional Standards Maximum FAR Max. Building Coverage Max. Building Height Min. Lot size Min. Sidewalk width 0.5 50% 34 ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 5 ft. (local street) Min. Front Yard Min. Rear Yard Min. Side Yard Setback Min. Lot frontage Min. Landscape zone 30 ft. 30 ft. 7 ft. 50 ft. 3 ft. (local street)
Current Use: Surrounding Land Uses: Staff Report to City Council
undeveloped; wooded. North NR-1- City of Chamblee (Keswick Park) Page 1 of 8 Petition No: 2013-V-015 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: 02.1_Staff Report_2013_V015_KeswickManor _ 10-10-2013DRAFT (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)
3.C.2.a
South VC - Vacant warehouse; CC- Elaine Clark Center and Office/warehouse East NR-1 single-family detached residences West NR-1 - City of Chamblee (Keswick Park) Future Development Map: According to the adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Development Map the majority of the subject property (north of the abandoned railroad right of way) lies within the Neighborhood Living character area. NR-1 and NR-2 are corresponding zoning districts. This is a summary description of this character area from the Comprehensive Plan: 1) These neighborhoods have relatively well-maintained housing, possess a distinct community identity through architectural style, lot and street design and have higher rates of homeownership. 2) Infill or redevelopment of parcels within these neighborhoods will provide greater lifestyle housing choices but should be compatible with the neighborhood as a whole. 3) Sensitivity to surrounding residences in terms of light, bulk, setbacks, landscaping and mass should be reviewed. 4) Investigate ways to improve alternative connectivity sidewalks, paths, bike trails, etc. between residential neighborhoods. Please see the Comprehensive plan for a complete description of this character area. The two very small parcels of vacant land (5,000 sq. ft. total) on the southeastern corner of the proposed development include portions of the abandoned railroad right-of-way and appear to be in the Corridor Village portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the current Commercial Corridor (CC) zoning district is permitted in the Corridor Village character area, the NR-2 zoning district is not permitted within this character area. Therefore this application requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Development Map to change the designation of these two parcels from Corridor Village to Neighborhood Living. The purpose of the Corridor Village character area is the creation of an inviting commercial and mixed use area [that] would accommodate higher densities in order to create a synergy between retail, office, industry, other commercial uses and surrounding residential development. The Comprehensive Plan also says that development in the Corridor Village character area needs to minimize encroachment and incompatibility with the established residential neighborhoods behind the corridor. Site Description: The subject property is undeveloped land consisting of 4 parcels totaling 3.381 acres that is surrounded on three sides by Keswick Park. The site is situated on a curve in Keswick Park. Only about half the property has frontage on the street and the remainder fronts directly on the park. Most of the site has dense tree cover and underbrush. The property slopes steeply up from a shelf along the street with grades as steep as 30 percent. The elevation of the rear property line is approximately 30 feet higher than the street level and parallels an abandoned railroad spur. There five drainage structures with well-defined drainage swales on the property. There is a catch basin on the property that drains across the frontage before passing into a culvert under Keswick Drive. A 24-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe near the southeastern corner conducts stormwater from the existing building directly above and behind the property. Another 60-inch diameter concrete pipe crosses the property on the western side. It crosses Keswick Drive and discharges into a creek in the park. Two more 15-inch corrugated metal pipes discharge on to the southwestern boundary of the property from the property to the rear. A sanitary sewer line is located on the opposite side of Keswick Drive and passes through the Park but has a manhole in Keswick Drive near the western end of the subject property. Staff Report to City Council Page 2 of 8 Petition No: 2013-V-015 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 54
3.C.2.a
Project Description: The proposed Keswick Manor subdivision is proposed as ten residential lots that range in area from 7,444 sq. ft. to 11,280 sq. ft. not including open space totaling about 1 acre. The primary entrance would be a 20 ft.wide private drive accessing Keswick Drive near the existing crosswalk. The entry drive would ascend the slope and branch in two directions behind the lots where it would serve eight of the homes. These eight houses would have rear-loaded garages while the remaining two would share a driveway accessing Keswick Drive. Five of the lots would front Keswick Drive and five would front directly onto the park. The single-family detached units would be two stories with a minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. of heated floor area. Homes would have craftsman and cottage-style architecture. The homes would have a minimum heated floor area of sq. ft. with two-car garages. Background: The subject property is a tract of land owned by the Gipson family that has been zoned Neighborhood Residential 1 (NR-1) and undeveloped. On May 15, 2007 City Council approved a preliminary plat for a subdivision with ten houses meeting the requirements of the NR-1 zoning district. Six lots would front a new cul de sac and four would have individual driveways on Keswick Road. However this development did not receive a land disturbance permit, the subdivision of property was never recorded and so the subdivision is now null and void in accordance with the City of Chamblee Subdivision Regulations Section 2.7.1. Requested Actions: The applicant seeks variances from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance:
Variance #1:
The applicant requests a variance for two lots from Section 1004 which requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30 ft. on all lots. The applicant requests a 20 ft. rear yard setback for lots 9 and 10. Analysis: Based on decision criteria established in the City of Chamblees zoning ordinance, the variance request has been reviewed as follows: Criterion 214.A.1: No variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a density of development not authorized with such development. Assessment: Criterion is met. There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are not authorized within the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site development will consist of a mixed-use development of multifamily apartments and commercial uses that are permitted under the zoning.
Criterion 214.A.2. (a): There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. Staff Report to City Council Page 3 of 8 Petition No: 2013-V-015 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 55
3.C.2.a
Assessment: Criterion is met. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. The property has in irregular shape and steep topography. Lots 9 and 10 are more shallow than the other lots in the subdivision because of the size and shape of the property. Both lots have a steep slope in excess of 25 percent.
Criterion 214.A.2. (b): The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Assessment: Criterion is met. The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Lots 9 and 10 have to be shallower than the other lots in the subdivision because of the size and shape of the property. Both lots have a steep slope in excess of 25 percent. It would not be possible to have a full size lot in this location of the property
Criterion 214.A.2. (c): Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Assessment: Criterion is met. Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. There are few properties in the city that have such steep terrain and peculiar shape.
Criterion 214.A.2. (d): Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Assessment: Criterion is met. The conditions of the site including the peculiar shape, steep terrain, and presence of multiple drainage structures do not appear to be the result of actions of the property owner.
Criterion 214.A.2. (e): Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. Assessment: Criterion is met. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. The relief granted by this variance will provide greater flexibility to design the site with less impact on tree removal, grading and drainage.
Variance #2
The applicant requests a variance for five lots from Section 903.B. that requires a minimum 30 ft. front yard setbacks for all lots. The applicant requests a 20 ft. front yard setback for lots 6 through 10. Analysis: Based on decision criteria established in the City of Chamblees zoning ordinance, the variance request has been reviewed as follows: Staff Report to City Council Page 4 of 8 Petition No: 2013-V-015 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 56
3.C.2.a
Criterion 214.A.1: No variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a density of development not authorized with such development. Assessment: Criteria is met. There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are not authorized within the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site development will consist of single-family detached residential subdivision that is permitted under the zoning Neighborhood Residential-2. Criterion 214.A.2. (a): There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. Assessment: Criterion is met. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. The property has in irregular shape and steep topography that make it advantageous to place the houses on lots 6 through 10 at an angle to the property line so they will fit with the natural lay of the land (perpendicular to the grade). This means they would have to be closer to the front property line.
Criterion 214.A.2. (b): The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Assessment: Criterion is met. The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Houses on lots 6 through 10 at an angle to the property line so they will fit with the natural lay of the land (perpendicular to the grade). This means they would have to be closer to the front property line. To do otherwise would reduce the number of lots on the property, which would be a hardship compared to the previously approved subdivision plat. Criterion 214.A.2. (c): Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Assessment: Criterion is met. Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. There are few properties in the city that have such steep terrain and peculiar shape.
Criterion 214.A.2. (d): Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Assessment: Criterion is met. The conditions of the site including the peculiar shape, steep terrain, and presence of multiple drainage structures do not appear to be the result of actions of the property owner.
Criterion 214.A.2. (e): Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance.
Page 5 of 8
Petition No: 2013-V-015 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 57
3.C.2.a
Assessment: Criterion is met. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. The relief granted by this variance will provide greater flexibility to design the site with less impact on tree removal, grading and drainage.
Variance #3
The applicant requests a variance from Section 513 to allow private drives as the means of access for lots 1-5; and a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations, Sect. 4.3 that limits private driveways to serving two or fewer lots. Section 513 of the Zoning Ordinance states: Every building hereafter erected or moved shall be on a lot adjacent to a public street, or with access to an approved private street. Section 4.3 of the Subdivision Regulations (Appendix B) defines the term private driveway as follows: Private driveway: A roadway serving two or fewer lots, building sites or other division of land and not intended to be public ingress or egress. Analysis: Lots 1-5 on the site plan for Keswick Manor dated 8/27/2013 and submitted with this application front on Keswick Park and are served from the rear by a private drive/alley Also, the site plan for Keswick Manor dated 8/27/2013 and submitted with this application shows a 20 ft. wide entry drive connecting to Keswick Drive and providing access to a 20 ft. wide private drive/alley that serves lots 1-7. Based on decision criteria established in the City of Chamblees zoning ordinance, the variance request has been reviewed as follows: Criterion 214.A.1: No variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a density of development not authorized with such development. Assessment: Criterion is met. There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are not authorized within the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site development will consist of single-family uses that are permitted under the zoning district Neighborhood Residential-2.
Criterion 214.A.2. (a): There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography.
Page 6 of 8
Packet Pg. 58
3.C.2.a
Assessment: Criterion is met. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. Due to the unusual shape of this parcel and curve on Keswick Drive, individual driveways to Keswick Drive would be unsafe. The property has in irregular shape and steep topography that make it advantageous to use as little pervious material as possible. The proposed lot and driveway configuration is safer and requires less pavement surface than conventional streets.
Criterion 214.A.2. (b): The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Assessment: Criterion is met. The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. The proposed lot and driveway configuration requires less space and provides more design flexibility than conventional public streets. To do otherwise on this unusually shaped tract with steep terrain would reduce the number of lots on the property, causing a hardship compared to the previously approved subdivision plat. Criterion 214.A.2. (c): Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Assessment: Criterion is met. Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. There are few properties in the city that have such steep terrain and peculiar shape.
Criterion 214.A.2. (d): Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Assessment: Criterion is met. The conditions of the site including the peculiar shape and steep terrain do not appear to be the result of actions of the property owner.
Criterion 214.A.2. (e): Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. Assessment: Criterion is met. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. The relief granted by this variance will provide greater flexibility to design the site with less impact on tree removal, grading and drainage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: New information is that the applicant intends to amend the site plan and the boundaries of the property to exclude the two parcels (18-300-10-010 18-300-10-011) that lie in the CC Zoning District and therefore a future development map amendment will not be required.
Page 7 of 8
Packet Pg. 59
3.C.2.a
Staff recommends DEFERRAL of the City Councils action until November 19, 2013 to allow time to amend the site plan and the boundaries of the application and to allow applicant more time to meet with neighborhood representatives. If the Mayor and City Council choose to act on these variances, staff makes the following recommendations: Staff recommends APPROVAL of Variance #1, Variance #2 and Variance #3. If any variances are approved, staff recommends that the following conditions for approval be imposed by City Council: 1. These variances are conditioned on the proposed site development plan dated 8/27/2013, with any revisions necessary to accomplish conditions of rezoning adopted by the Mayor and City Council. 2. All drives and alleys shall be constructed with pervious paving materials. 3. A mandatory homeowners association shall be established to be responsible for the cost of maintenance of open space areas, private drives, outdoor lighting, stormwater management facilities, drainage infrastructure, and all other common land and facilities. _____________________________________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Page 8 of 8
Packet Pg. 60
Packet Pg. 61
3.C.2.b
Attachment: 02.2_Application_Keswick Manor_Variances (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)
Packet Pg. 62
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 63
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 64
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 65
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 66
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 67
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 68
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 69
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 70
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 71
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 72
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 73
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 74
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 75
3.C.2.b
Packet Pg. 76
3.C.2.c
Attachment: 02.3_Tax_map_Keswick_Manor (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)
Packet Pg. 77
3.C.2.d
Attachment: 02.4_Keswick_Survey (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)
Packet Pg. 78
3.C.2.e
Attachment: 02.5_Keswick_Site Plan (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)
Packet Pg. 79
3.C.2.f
Attachment: 02.6_Deferral request letter (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)
3.C.3
City of Chamblee
VARIANCE (ID # 1236) SUBJECT: VARIANCE: 5193 PEACHTREE BOULEVARD - 2013V-012

Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM ITEM: A public hearing was advertised and held on September 12, 2013. However the applicant presented a modified site plan and City Council voted to defer a decision until October 15 to allow staff time to review the amended application. The original proposal for a mixed-use development comprised of 350 apartments and 15,000 sq. ft. of non-residential space to a mixed-use complex consisting of 300 apartments with up to 51,000 sq. ft. of non-residential space (including the St. Josephs Mercy Care Clinic) on a 5.95 acre site at 5193 Peachtree Boulevard. This is a change but does not represent a substantial departure from the original concept. The revised application requests a Waiver of Section 93-1(b) requiring concrete and steel framing for buildings with 3 or more floors; As part of the revised application the applicant withdraws his request for previous Variance requests #2, #3, #4, #5, #7 and #10.
The revised application requests the following variances to the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance: Variance #1: a variance from Section 407-A to allow more than 80 percent of the developed floor area of a mixed-use building to be residential; Variance #6: a variance from Section 908 A.1. and 3. regarding the division of the site into 600 foot blocks and the provision of inter-parcel vehicle access points to contiguous property on the north. Variance #8: a variance from Section 1007 and 1006 A. regarding minimum floor area of residential units; Variance #9: a variance from Section 1007 E. that requires residential units with less than 800 square feet to be less than 20 percent of the total units in the VC district.
ISSUE:
Packet Pg. 80
3.C.3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff makes NO RECOMMENDATION of the waiver of Section 93-1(b) Staff recommends DENIAL of variances #1, #8, and #9. Staff recommends APPROVAL, with conditions for variance #6. Attachment List: 03.1_ 2013V-012_Peachtree Boulevard_5193_Staff Reportamended 03.2_Tax Map (PDF) 03.3_Survey - 20090508 (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) 03.4_SITE_PLAN_AMENDED 03.5_ORIGINAL SITE_PLAN_ (PDF)
03.6_Chamblee Gateway Representative Elevations
Packet Pg. 81
3.C.3.a
Site Address: Parcel Number: Land Lot and District: Parcel Acreage: Applicant: Representative: Current Zoning:
5193 Peachtree Blvd. 18-300-04-001 300, 18th 5.95 Macauley and Schmit and Jelco Beta Investment Corporation; St. Josephs Hospital Stephen Macauley, Macauley and Schmit Village Commercial.
This zoning district is intended primarily for mixed-use development and related uses at a higher density. This district provides a location for residences, retail, goods and services and offices to satisfy the common and frequent needs of the city's commercial core and greater Chamblee area with design standards and design parameters to encourage a pedestrian-friendly traditional urban form, oriented to pedestrians, which will limit the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. District Standards: VC Zoning District minimums prescribed Total FAR (max) Res./Non-Res. 2.0 / 2.0 ; Total 4.0 Rear Yard Building Coverage (max) Building Height (min./max.) Lot Size / Lot width (minimum) Parking (min. required) Side Yard (min.) 80% 24 ft./ 75 ft. N/A; N/A See Note* 8 Front Yard: Peachtree Blvd. Front Yard: Chamblee-Tucker Rd. Landscape Zone/Sidewalk Zone: - Peachtree Blvd. - Chamblee-Tucker Rd. 20 20 15 10/ 10 7 / 8
*Note: Sec. 1203-C provides that Parking for all districts other than single-family districts within 1,000 feet of the Chamblee MARTA Train Station shall have no minimum parking requirements.
Current Use: Surrounding Land Uses:
Site is vacant West VC, Village Commercial East VC, Village Commercial (Walmart) North CC, Corridor Commercial South VC, Village Commercial (MARTA Station Parking Lot #1) The future development map identifies the subject property within the Mid-City character area. The Mid-City character area is intended to promote a transit-oriented town center environment with mixed land uses, primarily retail / office on the ground floor with residential above. The appropriate mixing of uses and the interconnectedness of streets, Page 1 of 14
Future Development Map:
Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: 03.1_ 2013V-012_Peachtree Boulevard_5193_Staff Reportamended (1236 : Variance: 5193 Peachtree Boulevard - 2013V-012)
Petition No.: 2013V 012 Amended Development Department
3.C.3.a
Site Description:
The site has prominent frontage on Chamblee-Tucker Road as well as Peachtree Boulevard. It is mostly covered with a parking lot, slab and foundations of a previous warehouse building that was demolished. It was once the site of a city Farmers Market. There are two existing curb cuts on Chamblee-Tucker Road, one of which is signalized and opposite the Walmart entrance. An abandoned rail spur wraps the south and east boundaries of the site.
Project Description: See Attachment 4. The Applicant proposes to demolish existing structures on the site and build two courtyard-style mixed-use buildings on a 4.5 acre portion of the 6-acre site. This element of the project consists of a total of 300 apartments (formerly 350) and approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of non-residential space on the ground floor. The two buildings would have 4 stories and be approximately 50 feet in height. Approximately 200 of the 300 residential units (66.7%) would be 1 bedroom units. There would also be 85 two-bedroom units and 15 live-work units. The average unit size (including all types of units) would be 930 gross square feet. Parking would be provided in three locations: a 6-level precast parking deck with 480 spaces; a small surface parking lot with 8 parking spaces; and 32 angled parking spaces along Chamblee-Tucker Road. The amended application provides for an additional building to be occupied by St. Josephs Childrens Health Care and Mercy Care Adult Clinic managed by St. Josephs Hospital. It is proposed to be a separate two-story building with a total of 36,000 sq. ft. on 1.5 acres, including a surface parking lot. The street frontage along Peachtree Boulevard will include non-residential uses on the ground floor, such as a fitness center, leasing office and an unspecified amount of retail. The building is well positioned along the forward edge of the property addressing the sidewalk. The applicant provided photos of similar projects that represent the quality of construction and character of the development that he proposes for the subject property. See Attachment 6. Applicants Intent: Due to the size and design of this proposal it qualifies as a Development of Community Impact and as a Planned Unit Development. However, Mr. Macauley indicated that he would like to seek approval of certain variances first, and then, if successful, proceed through the PUD and DCI process in a subsequent cycle. The amended application seeks a waiver of Section 93-1(b) of the Development Regulations as well as four variances to the Zoning Ordinance (reduced from 10 variances in the original application.) In the original application the applicant offers the following overview of his intent: Vision: A regional model for sustainable and transit oriented development and the defining project for the citys southern gateway to Historic Downtown Chamblee. Page 2 of 14 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 83
sidewalks, and multi-use pathways, and the close relationship of the site and MARTA station are factors that are central to achieving the appropriate land use character.
3.C.3.a
Waiver Request Section 301-A(120) defines a variance as a modification of the specific provisions of this zoning ordinance granted when strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship owing to circumstances unique to the individual property on which the variance is granted. Since Section 93-1(b) is not in the Zoning Ordinance, it is not technically a variance, but a waiver of a provision of the Chapter 93 Development Regulations. Section 93-1(b) of the Development Regulations states the following: (b) All buildings three or more stories in height, excluding all single-family dwellings (attached or detached), shall be constructed with concrete and steel framing materials. The applicant offers this justification for the City Council to waive the requirements of Section 93-1(b): The location, size and scale of the property allow the project to become Chamblees Southern Gateway to Historic Downtown Chamblee. To achieve the quality of planning and architecture that we and the city desire we request these waivers as the economics of the marketplace do not support the project otherwise. The market place is this projects (and Chamblees) biggest challenge. The variances we are requesting are needed because: Our competition is Brookhaven and, to a lesser extent, Buckhead. Without the variances we cannot compete with those markets as those markets codes and ordinances do not require what Chamblees does. To create a first class development that will attract the millennials and active seniors that we and the city want and need to be part of this project and the fabric of the city, we need a competitive product which includes the type of residences the market demands.e.g. studio and one and two bedroom apartments of various sizes. The market we will be marketing to has strong incomes, a substantial portion of which is disposable, and desire a walkable and highly amenitized living environment. They will add vibrancy to and support the community in many ways. Setting a precedent for quality and economics (rents) will allow the financial and appraisal community to support future quality projects in the city. The challenge we face is that there is not a project of comparable quality and pricing in the city.
When successful, the precedent of this project will address the issue going forward for others in terms of appraisals and defined values. Without the variances we are requesting the project is not financeable. Staff Analysis: The applicant justifies this request solely on economic grounds. Staff would agree that this provision likely would have a significant impact on the financial feasibility of a new multifamily development in a Page 3 of 14 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 84
Concept: A mixed-use project between the Peachtrees and an architectural gem which will define the southern entrance to the citys downtown for generations to come. The city will be able to use this real world example as a benchmark of planning and design for projects that will follow it.
3.C.3.a
The applicant also seeks variances from the following section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance:
Variance #1:
Variance #1 from Section 407-A would allow more than 80 percent of the developed floor area of a mixed-use building to be residential. This provision reads as follows: Mixed use developments shall meet the following criteria: A. Properties planned as mixed-use developments shall provide residential uses for a minimum of 20 percent and a maximum of 80 percent of the developed floor area, with the remaining floor area dedicated to any other nonresidential uses permitted in the underlying zoning district. Analysis: The amended site plan submitted by the applicant includes approximately 46,000 sq. ft of nonresidential space out of a total of 325,000 sq. ft. This results in a ratio of 86 percent residential space and 14 percent non-residential, which does not meet the required ratio of 80/20. Based on decision criteria established in the City of Chamblees zoning ordinance, the variance request is analyzed as follows: 1. Criterion 214.A.1: No variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a density of development not authorized with such development. Assessment: Criterion is met. There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are not authorized within the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site development will consist of a mixed-use development of multifamily apartments and commercial uses that are permitted under the zoning. 2. Criterion 214.A.2. (a): There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. Assessment: Criterion is not met. There are no extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. However, due to its size and location the site stands in a prominent location near a MARTA station that should give it excellent visibility and customer access. Nonetheless, the proposed development will be across the Page 4 of 14 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 85
competitive market where steel and concrete framing is not commonly required by local codes. However multi-family residences have a relatively high rate of fire calls and it would appear that the use of fireproof steel and concrete framing provides a significant benefit to the public now and in the future in terms of life safety and the cost of fire protection. This request does not appear to be based on unique conditions of the site or the unique features of this development that make granting such a waiver more advantageous to this development compared with other proposed multi-family residential developments in the City of Chamblee. Furthermore there are no stated standards or criteria in City ordinances to govern the tradeoff between life safety and financial feasibility. Therefore staff cannot offer a sound recommendation on this waiver request and consider it to be a policy decision.
3.C.3.a
3. Criterion 214.A.2. (b): The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Assessment: Criterion is not met. The owner asserts that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship because merchants in the proposed development will be competing with Walmart that is across the street. However there is no specific financial data offered to support this assertion of financial hardship. 4. Criterion 214.A.2. (c): Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Assessment: Criterion is met. Yes, the property is peculiar because it has an unusually good location within walking distance of a MARTA Station. For that reason site conditions provide it better access to retail customers than most sites in the City. 5. Criterion 214.A.2. (d): Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Assessment: Criterion is met. These conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner but are intrinsic to the location of the site. 6. Criterion 214.A.2. (e): Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. Assessment: Criterion is met. Due to the adjacency of Walmart, there may be adequate retail and commercial services available within the area with or without the commercial uses on this property. It would not appear that relief, if granted, would cause substantial detriment to the public good; however it would not be consistent with the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance.
Variance #2
Variance #2 concerned Section 906. regarding the relationship of a building to the street. Section 906.E. 2 and 3 state the following: E. Buildings with residential uses at the sidewalk level shall meet the following regulations: 2. All such buildings with more than four residential units that are adjacent to the sidewalk shall have individual entrances to such units directly accessible from the sidewalk and shall open directly onto the adjacent sidewalk, park, plaza, terrace or porch adjacent to the sidewalk. All pedestrian walkways providing such access shall be perpendicular to the street, unless topography prohibits, and shall be permitted to share said walkway with one adjacent unit. 3. Such buildings shall have windows at sidewalk level on each street frontage facade which are substantially similar in size to the sidewalk level front facade windows. Page 5 of 14 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 86
street from Walmart the largest single retail establishment in the City so it would appear that there will be ample retail opportunities within walking distance for residents of the proposed mixed-use development even if the variance is granted.
3.C.3.a
In the amended application the applicant has withdrawn his request for this variance.
Variance #3
Variance #3 concerns Section 907 A.1. regarding the requirement that uses on the first floor of a building classified as a storefront street shall have a minimum interior floor-to-ceiling height of 18 feet. Section 907 A.1. states the following: A. The following streets shall be considered storefront streets: Peachtree Boulevard, Broad Street, and Peachtree Road from Ingersoll Rand Drive to Pierce Drive. All uses that front storefront streets, with the exception of religious institutions and fire stations, shall meet the following sidewalk level requirements: 2. The first floor shall have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 18 feet. In the amended application the applicant has withdrawn his request for this variance.
Variance #4
Variance #4 concerns Section 907 A. 2. and Section 1007.D regarding the requirement that uses on the first floor of a building classified as a storefront street shall be only be used for retail and office uses. Section 907 A.2. states the following: A. The following streets shall be considered storefront streets: Peachtree Boulevard, Broad Street, and Peachtree Road from Ingersoll Rand Drive to Pierce Drive. All uses that front storefront streets, with the exception of religious institutions and fire stations, shall meet the following sidewalk level requirements: 2. Sidewalk level uses with street frontage on the Storefront Streets shall only be retail or office. Said uses shall be provided for a minimum depth of 20 feet from any building facade along the public sidewalk.
Similarly, Section 1007.D states:
D. In the NC-1, NC-2, CC and VC zoning districts, multifamily residential uses and structures shall be located only directly above nonresidential uses and structures and as part of the same structure. Multifamily uses and structures shall only be permitted to be located above the first-floor of any structure and shall only be located above the lower floors of a nonresidential use or structure. In the amended application the applicant has withdrawn his request for this variance.
Variance #5
Variance # concerns Section 907 A.4 regarding the fenestration of the first floor in a storefront street. Section 907 A.4. states the following:
Page 6 of 14 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 87
3.C.3.a
4. Except for religious institutions
and fire stations, fenestration shall be provided for a minimum of 65 percent of the length of all arterial and collector street frontages and of 50 percent of all local street frontages: a. Beginning at a point not more than three feet above the sidewalk, to a height no less than ten feet above the sidewalk; b. Beginning at the finished floor elevation to a height no less than ten feet above the finished floor elevation when the finished floor elevation is three or more feet above the sidewalk; or c. Beginning at a point not more than sidewalk level, to a height no less than ten feet above the finished floor elevation when the finished floor elevation is below the sidewalk. In the amended application the applicant has withdrawn his request for this variance.
Variance #6
The applicant requests a variance from Section 908 A.1. and 3. regarding the division of the site into 600 foot blocks and the provision of inter-parcel vehicle access points to contiguous property on the north. Section 908 A. states the following:
Sec. 908. Site design.
A. Blocks and street infrastructure. 1. Nonresidential developments with more than 600 feet of frontage along a single street shall be divided by streets into blocks having a maximum length of 600 feet, as measured from street curb to street curb. 2. Streets used to divide properties into blocks shall meet all of the street and sidewalk designations of this zoning ordinance. 3. Opportunities for inter-parcel vehicle access points between all contiguous commercial, office, industrial or multifamily residential tracts shall be provided. Analysis: Based on decision criteria established in the City of Chamblees zoning ordinance, the variance request has been reviewed as follows: Criterion 214.A.1: No variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a density of development not authorized with such development. Assessment: Criterion is met. There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are not authorized within the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site development will
Packet Pg. 88
3.C.3.a
Criterion 214.A.2. (a): There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography.
Assessment: Criterion is met. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. The site is surrounded by a previous railroad spur that resulted in steep grades along the perimeter to the north. The topography results in steep grades that would make interparcel vehicular connections difficult to accomplish with the property to the north. Furthermore the property to the north is already developed and it would be difficult to identify locations to make interparcel connections that could be made without difficult transitions in grade.
Criterion 214.A.2. (b): The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Assessment: Criterion is met. The grade changes would make it expensive and difficult for the owner to meet the requirements of Section 908.A. regarding interparcel access with parcels to the north. However it will be important for the owner to achieve a high degree of interconnectivity with the undeveloped MARTA parking lot to the east, and such a connection is shown on the proposed plan.
Criterion 214.A.2. (c): Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Assessment: Criterion is met. There are peculiar conditions to the particular property in question because the site is surrounded by a previous railroad spur that resulted in steep grades along the perimeter to the north. The topography results in steep grades that would make interparcel vehicular connections difficult to accomplish with the property to the north. Criterion 214.A.2. (d): Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Assessment: Criterion is met. Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner.
Packet Pg. 89
consist of a mixed-use development of multifamily apartments and commercial uses that are permitted under the zoning.
3.C.3.a
Variance #7
Variance #7 concerned Section 909 requiring buildings in excess of 50 feet in height to step back that portion of the building greater than 50 feet in height. Section 909 states the following: The following requirements shall apply to all multifamily and nonresidential development, including parking decks structures: A. Building massing. All new development proposals shall incorporate means of reducing the apparent size and bulk of the building. The following methods for reducing the apparent size and mass of larger buildings shall be required. 3. Building step backs: Buildings in excess of 50 feet in height shall be required to step back that portion of the building greater than 50 feet in height a minimum linear distance of ten feet away from the building facade located below the 50 foot height plane as described in section 1004. [Section 1004 B states that the step back shall be one foot for each foot of building height.] In the amended application, the applicant withdraws this variance request.
Variance #8
The applicant requests a variance from Section 1007 and 1006 A. regarding minimum floor area of residential units. These sections state the following:
Sec. 1007. NC-1, NC-2, CC and VC districts.
The following additional regulations shall apply to the NC-1, NC-2, CC and VC zoning districts: A. All residential development shall meet the floor area regulations in subsection 1006A. regarding unit sizes. [See Sec. 1006 A. below]:
Sec. 1006. CR and VR districts.
The following additional regulations shall apply to the CR and VR zoning districts:
Packet Pg. 90
Assessment: Criterion is met. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance provided that the owner makes a good faith effort to create an interparcel connection for autos, cars, and bicycles with the redevelopment of the MARTA parking lot to the east.
3.C.3.a
A. All one-bedroom apartments shall have a minimum finished, heated floor area of 800 square feet per unit. All two-bedroom apartments shall have a minimum finished, heated floor area of 1,000 square feet per unit. All three-bedroom apartments shall have a minimum finished, heated floor area of 1,200 square feet per unit. Analysis: Based on decision criteria established in the City of Chamblees zoning ordinance, the variance request has been reviewed as follows: Criterion 214.A.1: No variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a density of development not authorized with such development. Assessment: Criterion is met. There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are not authorized within the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site development will consist of a mixed-use development of multifamily apartments and commercial uses that are permitted under the zoning.
Criterion 214.A.2. (a): There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. Assessment: Criterion is not met. No, there are not extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. The site would allow the owner to configure unit types and sizes that meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Criterion 214.A.2. (b): The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Assessment: Criterion is not met. The owner asserts that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary financial hardship. However there is no specific financial data offered to support the assertion of financial hardship and staff is unable to make this determination from the facts presented. The owner states, To create a first class development that will attract the millennials and active seniors that we and the city want and need to be part of this project and the fabric of the city, we need a competitive product which includes the type of residences the market demands.e.g. studio and one and two bedroom apartments of various sizes. The market we will be marketing to has strong incomes, a substantial portion of which is disposable, and desire a walkable and highly amenitized living environment. They will add vibrancy to and support the community in many ways.
Criterion 214.A.2. (c): Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Page 10 of 14 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 91
3.C.3.a
Criterion 214.A.2. (d): Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Assessment: Criterion is met. The justification provided by the owner for relief from this requirement appears to be a factor of the market on an areawide basis and not the result of any actions by the property owner.
Criterion 214.A.2. (e): Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. Assessment: If the owners assertions about the market for housing in the area are correct, failure to grant the relief requested concerning the unit size and bedroom mix for this project might result in slow leasing and lower financial performance for the property. However, it is not clear that the current market that is centered on the millennial generation is a long-term condition, or only a short-term condition of the current market place that will change in the future such that more twobedroom and three-bedroom units would be demanded in future years. It is also unclear how the production of so many one-bedroom units would lend the project to future conversion to condominiums.
Variance #9
The applicant requests a variance from Section 1007 E. that requires residential units with less than 800 square feet to be less than 20 percent of the total units in the VC district. Section 1007 E. states the following:
E. In the VC zoning district, residential units with a minimum square footage of 800 square feet shall not be permitted to exceed 20 percent of the total number of residential units provided. Residential units with a minimum square footage of 1,000 square feet shall always constitute a minimum of 80 percent of all residential units provided. The percentages regulated herein in this subsection 1007E. Analysis: Based on decision criteria established in the City of Chamblees zoning ordinance, the variance request has been reviewed as follows: Criterion 214.A.1: No variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a density of development not authorized with such development.
Packet Pg. 92
Assessment: Criterion is not met. No, the justification provided by the owner for relief from this requirement appears to be a factor of the market on an areawide basis and not peculiar to the piece of property involved.
3.C.3.a
Criterion 214.A.2. (a): There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. Assessment: Criterion is not met. There are not extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. The site would allow the owner to configure unit types and sizes that meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Criterion 214.A.2. (b): The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Assessment: Criterion is not met. The owner asserts that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary financial hardship. However there is no specific financial data offered to support the assertion of financial hardship and staff is unable to make this determination from the facts presented. The owner states, To create a first class development that will attract the millennials and active seniors that we and the city want and need to be part of this project and the fabric of the city, we need a competitive product which includes the type of residences the market demands.e.g. studio and one and two bedroom apartments of various sizes. The market we will be marketing to has strong incomes, a substantial portion of which is disposable, and desire a walkable and highly amenitized living environment. They will add vibrancy to and support the community in many ways.
Criterion 214.A.2. (c): Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Assessment: Criterion is not met. No, the justification provided by the owner for relief from this requirement appears to be a factor of the market on an areawide basis and not peculiar to the piece of property involved.
Criterion 214.A.2. (d): Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Assessment: Criterion is not met. According to the applicant, the justification for relief from this requirement is a factor of the market on an areawide basis. However there are no market data presented to substantiate this claim and the decision about the size of dwelling units is an action of the applicant /property owner.
Packet Pg. 93
Assessment: Criterion is met. There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are not authorized within the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site development will consist of a mixed-use development of multifamily apartments and commercial uses that are permitted under the zoning.
3.C.3.a
Assessment: Criterion is not met. If the owners assertions about the market for housing in the area are correct, failure to grant the relief requested concerning the unit size and bedroom mix for this project might result in slow leasing and lower financial performance for the property. However, it is not clear that the current market that is centered on the millennial generation is a long-term condition, or only a short-term condition of the current market place that will change in the future such that more two-bedroom and three-bedroom units would be demanded in future years. It is also unclear how the production of so many one-bedroom units would lend the project to future conversion to condominiums. Therefore, granting relief to the applicant from this requirement would impair the purposes and intent of this zoning ordinance. Variance #10 Variance #10 concerned Section 1208 that requires landscaping on the roof-level of a parking deck if the parking surface is open to the sky. Section 1208 A. states the following: Sec. 1208. Parking decks and parking structures. D. Parking decks with a roof-level parking surface open to the sky and without another floor or surface above it shall meet the landscaping requirements of subsection 1205A. and 1205B. for only that portion of the parking deck surface that is open to the sky and without another floor or surface above it. In the amended application, the applicant withdraws this variance request. _____________________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing analysis, staff offers NO RECOMMENDATION regarding the applicants request for a waiver of Section 93-1(b) of the Development Regulations. Based on the foregoing analysis, staff makes the following recommendations with respect to each of the requested variances: Staff recommends DENIAL of the following variances: Variance #1: a variance from Section 407-A to allow more than 80 percent of the developed floor area of a mixed-use building to be residential Variance #8: a variance from Section 1007 and 1006 A. regarding minimum floor area of residential units. Variance #9: a variance from Section 1007 E. that requires residential units with less than 800 square feet to be less than 20 percent of the total units in the VC district. Page 13 of 14 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 94
3.C.3.a
If any variances are approved, staff recommends that the following conditions for approval be imposed by City Council: 1. The site development plan dated September 11, 2013 for Gateway South shall be amended to incorporate all provisions of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance except those for which the applicant has received specific waivers and variances or as otherwise approved by action of the Chamblee City Council. 2. The applicant shall apply for and be granted approval of a Planned Unit Development plan that is substantially consistent with the site development plan prepared in condition #1 above and that all features of architectural design, landscape design, and streetscape design comply with relevant City Ordinances and design guidelines, or as otherwise approved by subsequent action of the Chamblee City Council. 3. The applicant shall cooperate with the Chamblee City Council and MARTA in the joint development planning for MARTA Parking Lot #1 which is adjacent to the east of the subject property, such that an integrated access and circulation plan for cars, bicycles and pedestrians be prepared and implemented as approved by subsequent action of the Chamblee City Council. __________________________________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Packet Pg. 95
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the following variance: Variance #6: a variance from Section 908 A.1. and 3. regarding the division of the site into 600 foot blocks and the provision of inter-parcel vehicle access points to contiguous property on the north.
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 03.2_Tax Map (1236 : Variance: 5193 Peachtree Boulevard - 2013V-012)
3.C.3.b
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 03.3_Survey - 20090508 (1236 : Variance: 5193 Peachtree Boulevard - 2013V-012)
3.C.3.c
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 03.4_SITE_PLAN_AMENDED (1236 : Variance: 5193 Peachtree Boulevard - 2013V-012)
3.C.3.d
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 03.5_ORIGINAL SITE_PLAN_ (1236 : Variance: 5193 Peachtree Boulevard - 2013V-012)
3.C.3.e
B r o o k le ig h E le v a t io n - A t la n t a
B r o o k le ig h P o o l- A t la n t a
3.C.3.f
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: 03.6_Chamblee Gateway Representative Elevations (1236 : Variance: 5193 Peachtree Boulevard - 2013V-012)
3.C.3.f
G a b le s S h e r id a n P o o l/ E le v a t io n - A t la n t a
E n s o E le v a t io n - A t la n t a
Packet Pg. 101
3.C.3.f
G o o d w y n a t B ro o k h a v e n
E le v a t io n - B r o o k h a v e n
C ir c le C a m e r o n V illa g e E le v a t io n - R a le ig h
Packet Pg. 102
G a b le s M id t o w n E le v a tio n - A t la n t a
3.C.3.f
Packet Pg. 103
3.C.4
City of Chamblee
VARIANCE (ID # 1237) SUBJECT: VARIANCES - PERIMETER PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 2013V-014
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This Planned Unit Development redevelops a 20.1 acre tract of land consisting of 3 parcels zoned Corridor Commercial (CC). Minerva plans to completely demolish the existing buildings and construct 185 new single-family attached residences on 18 acres (10.1 units per acre), with several amenity areas, and a 2.1-acre neighborhood commercial area consisting of approximately 9,000 sq. ft. There would be 4.5 acres of open space (22 % of site) including a trail along Perimeter Park Drive. Amenity areas include pocket parks, event lawn, a swimming pool, play/picnic areas, and a clubhouse facility. An alternative plan was also approved. The alternative plan has a total of 156 single-family attached units and 16 single-family detached units. The street layout is modified to require fewer entrances on Perimeter Park Drive and the open space is re-arranged to include a large bio-retention area along Perimeter Park Drive. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: The Architectural Review Board met on August 6 and recommended approval of the PUD with conditions for 2 alternative site plans. See conditions in Attachment 2. On August 22, 2013 City Council approved the Perimeter Park PUD with ARB conditions and the additional condition that The development shall be more of a self-contained family-oriented development. Councilman Hogan requested that the applicant create a common area that has a large green space for everyone to enjoy. The design should go back before the ARB and the City Council in the future. REQUESTED ACTIONS: The applicant requests the following variances:
Variance #1: The applicant requests a variance from Section 407.B that states the following:
Mixed use developments shall meet the following criteria: B. For purposes of phasing development over a period of time, a maximum of 15,000 square feet of development of either residential or nonresidential shall be permitted to be built before the remaining use shall be required to be constructed. Residential or nonresidential uses shall not be permitted to be built in excess of 15,000 square feet until the square footages of the remaining use as required above in subsection A. are provided and a certificate of occupancy has been issued.
Variance #2: The applicant requests a variance from Section 1005.C.1 that states the following:
Packet Pg. 104
3.C.4
All open space including buffers, setbacks, sidewalk clear zones, sidewalk zones and open spaces shall be fully implemented prior to occupancy and if not completed, the occupancy permit shall not be issued. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Variance #1 and Variance #2 with the following conditions of approval:
1. Prior to approval of a land disturbance permit the applicant shall prepare a detailed phasing plan for all phases of the proposed project indicating the phasing and quantities of all types of residential and commercial construction, amenities, site demolition, clearing and grading, buffers, tree removal and replacement, installation of stormwater management and bio-retention facilities, utilities, parking, streets, traffic controls, crosswalks, sidewalks, streetscapes, landscaping, parks, trails and other open space for review and approval of the City Council. 2. Phasing shall provide that the installation of all amenities, parks, sidewalks, streetscapes, parks, trails, and other open spaces shall be fully implemented prior to occupancy and if not completed, the occupancy permit shall not be issued. 3. At least two points of access/egress to the property shall be open and interconnected at all times. Attachment List: 04.01_Staff Report_2013_V14_Perimeter Park_ 10-10-2013DRAFT2 04.03_ Application for Variances 8-29-2013 (PDF) 04.04_ TAX MAP-18334 (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) 04.05_Site Plan Alt A_07-12-13 04.06-Site Plan_Alt_B_08-06-13 (PDF) 04.02_Recommended Conditions of Approval PERIMETER PARK PUD 8-06-13 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 105
3.C.4.a
Petition No.: 2013-V-014 Development Department
STAFF REPORT 4251 North Peachtree Rd.; 4250 Perimeter Park South; 2215 Perimeter Park Drive 18-334-05-001; 18-334-01-001; 18-334-01-0169 334, 18th 20.1 Acres Minerva Stacy R. Patton, Managing Director, Development Corridor Commercial (CC): This zoning district is intended primarily for mixed-use development and related uses at a medium density. This district provides a location for residences, retail, goods and services and offices to satisfy the common and frequent needs of the city's businesses and residents with design standards and design parameters to encourage a pedestrian-friendly traditional urban form, oriented to pedestrians, which will limit the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
District Standards: CC Zoning District minimums prescribed FAR (max) 1.0 Res+1.5 Non-Res.=2.5 Total Side Yard Building Coverage (max) 80% Rear Yard Building Ht. Min./Max Min. 18/ 12; Max. 60 ft. Front Yard (N.Peachtree*/Others) (N.Peachtree*/Others) Lot Size and Lot Width N/A Landscape Zone (N. Peachtree*/Others) Required Open Space 20% Required Parking 1.5 spaces per unit plus 1 per 200 Sidewalk Zone s.f. GLA commercial space. (N. Peachtree*/Others) * Road is classified as a Collector Current Use: Surrounding Land Uses: None/8 30 15 / 10 7/ 5 8/ 5
2.1 acres commercial (N. Peachtree Road); 17.69 acres offices North Commercial and Multi-family Residential South Multi-family Residential East Office West Multi-family Residential The future development map identifies the subject property within the Commercial Mix North character area. According to the Comprehensive Plan the intent of this character area is to recognize and allow single use commercial businesses typically found along this corridor to continue Page 1 of 6 Petition No: 2013-V-014 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Future Development Map:
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: 04.01_Staff Report_2013_V14_Perimeter Park_ 10-10-2013DRAFT2 (1237 : Variances -Perimeter Park Planned Unit Development -
3.C.4.a
while also encouraging the area to transition to more intensive mixed uses such as commercial-office or commercial-multi-family developments. The mature tree canopy adds to the areas sense of place. Improvements and new development should incorporate design standards such as streetscape and landscaping that expand sidewalks, improve crosswalks and overall public safety for non-motorized transportation options. Goals include creating a cohesive employment center with amenities for surrounding residential development and increasing connectivity. Site Description: The Perimeter Park office park is a low rise complex on three parcels that have become bank-owned. It appears to have been developed in the 1970s with seven low-rise buildings and a restaurant surrounded by parking lots and some wooded areas. Currently these buildings are mostly vacant. The parking lot is used to store an inventory of new automobiles belonging to car sales lots located off-site. There are also underground stormwater, water and sewer lines crossing the property. In August Minerva was given approval of a PUD on the 20.1 acre site. The PUD was based on two alternative plans, each of which was approved with conditions by the City Council at its regular meeting on August 20, 2013. Alternative A (Attachment 5) would construct 185 new single-family attached residences on 18 acres (10.1 units per acre), with several amenity areas, and a 2.1-acre neighborhood commercial area consisting of approximately 9,000 sq. ft. There would be 4.5 acres of open space (22 % of site) including a trail along Perimeter Park Drive. Amenity areas include pocket parks, event lawn, a swimming pool, play/picnic areas, and a clubhouse facility. Internal streets would be 20 ft. wide with curb and gutter and there would be several alleys serving rear-loaded garages. New streets would be constructed to meet required standard City streetscape design guidelines. Alternative B (Attachment 6) is similar to Alternative A except that it would construct 156 single-family attached units and 16 single-family detached units. The street layout was modified to require fewer entrances on Perimeter Park Drive and the open space is re-arranged to include a large bio-retention area along Perimeter Park Drive. Background: The Architectural Review Board (ARB) met on August 6 and recommended approval of the proposed Perimeter Park PUD with two alternative plans subject to conditions in Attachment 2.
Project Description:
City Council held a public hearing at its Work Session on August 15. At its Regular Meeting on August 20 City Council approved the Planned Unit Development application as submitted by the applicant Staff Report to City Council Page 2 of 6 Petition No: 2013-V-014 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 107
3.C.4.a
(showing two alternative Master Plans) with the recommendations of the Architectural Review Board (8/06/2013) and one additional condition, as follows: The development shall be more of a selfcontained family-oriented development. Councilman Hogan requested that the applicant create a common area that has a large green space for everyone to enjoy. The design should go back before the ARB and the City Council in the future. Requested Actions: The applicant seeks variances from the following section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance:
Variance #1:
The applicant requests a variance from Section 407.B that states the following: Section 407.B of the Zoning Ordinance. Mixed-use land use classification. Mixed use developments shall meet the following criteria: B. For purposes of phasing development over a period of time, a maximum of 15,000 square feet of development of either residential or nonresidential shall be permitted to be built before the remaining use shall be required to be constructed. Residential or nonresidential uses shall not be permitted to be built in excess of 15,000 square feet until the square footages of the remaining use as required above in subsection A. are provided and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Analysis: Based on decision criteria established in the City of Chamblees zoning ordinance, the variance request has been reviewed as follows: Criterion 214.A.1: No variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a density of development not authorized with such development. Assessment: Criterion met. There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are not authorized within the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site development will consist of a mixed-use development of single-family attached and detached dwellings and commercial uses that are permitted under the Corridor Commercial (CC) zoning. Criterion 214.A.2. (a): There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. Assessment: Criterion not met. There are no extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography that would prevent the applicant from meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Criterion 214.A.2. (b): The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship.
Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 108
3.C.4.a
Assessment: Criterion met. The strict application of this standard would require that the applicant construct all of the commercial component of the project before constructing more than 8 of the 172 houses (15,000 sq. ft. of residential development).This could be done but it appears that the financial success of the commercial space is partly reliant on selling to residents of the new homes that are to be constructed. This phasing limitation would have a disproportionate impact in this case and could undermine the financing of the project. The applicant states that constructing the commercial area first would be an unnecessary hardship and may result in the commercial space being vacant for an excessive period of time. Criterion 214.A.2. (c): Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Assessment: Criterion not met. These conditions are not peculiar to the particular piece of property involved and might be applicable to other similarly situated properties due to existing market conditions in the area. Criterion 214.A.2. (d): Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Assessment: Criterion met. These conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner and are due to existing market conditions in the area. Criterion 214.A.2. (e): Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. Assessment: Criterion met. Approval of this variance would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance.
Variance #2
The applicant requests a variance from Section 1005.C.1 that states the following: Section 1005. C. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Open space implementation. All open space including buffers, setbacks, sidewalk clear zones, sidewalk zones and open spaces shall be fully implemented prior to occupancy and if not completed, the occupancy permit shall not be issued. Analysis: Based on decision criteria established in the City of Chamblees zoning ordinance, the variance request has been reviewed as follows: Criterion 214.A.1: No variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a density of development not authorized with such development. Assessment: Criterion met. There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are not authorized within the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site development will consist of a Staff Report to City Council Page 4 of 6 Petition No: 2013-V-014 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 109
3.C.4.a
mixed-use development of single-family attached and detached dwellings and commercial uses that are permitted under the Corridor Commercial (CC) zoning. Criterion 214.A.2. (a): There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. Assessment: Criterion not met. There are no extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography that would prevent the applicant from meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Criterion 214.A.2. (b): The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Assessment: Criterion met. The strict application of this standard would require that the applicant construct all of the open space and sidewalks within the entire project prior to occupancy of any building. However, due to the size of the project and the existing market conditions, the applicant will construct the project in a series of phases. It would be an unnecessary hardship to do so since construction of subsequent phases of residential development may require replacement of previously installed landscaping and the pre-installed amenity areas and sidewalks to be damaged by construction of subsequent phases. However it would be reasonable to require that the open space, sidewalks, sidewalk clear zones, buffers, setbacks Criterion 214.A.2. (c): Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Assessment: Criterion not met. These conditions are not peculiar to the particular piece of property involved and might be applicable to other properties of a similar size due to existing market conditions in the area. Criterion 214.A.2. (d): Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Assessment: Assessment: Criterion met. These conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner and are due to existing market conditions in the area. Criterion 214.A.2. (e): Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. Assessment: Criterion met. Approval of this variance would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance.
Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 110
3.C.4.a
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing analysis, staff makes the following recommendations with respect to each of the requested variances: Staff recommends approval of Variance #1 and Variance #2 with the following conditions of approval: 1. Prior to approval of a land disturbance permit the applicant shall prepare a detailed phasing plan for all phases of the proposed project indicating the phasing and quantities of all types of residential and commercial construction, amenities, site demolition, clearing and grading, buffers, tree removal and replacement, installation of stormwater management and bio-retention facilities, utilities, parking, streets, traffic controls, crosswalks, sidewalks, streetscapes, landscaping, parks, trails and other open space for review and approval of the City Council. 2. Phasing shall provide that the installation of all amenities, parks, sidewalks, streetscapes, parks, trails, and other open spaces shall be fully implemented prior to occupancy and if not completed, the occupancy permit shall not be issued. 3. At least two points of access/egress to the property shall be open and interconnected at all times. _____________________________________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Page 6 of 6
Packet Pg. 111
3.C.4.b
PERIMETER PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL City of Chamblee Architectural Review Board Meeting of August 6, 2013 USE The subject property shall be developed with a combination of commercial, for-sale residential, and green space. Residential The residential component shall consist of a maximum of 185 townhomes. The commercial component shall include up to 9,000 square feet of retail space, plus associated parking. 0% to 50% of the town home lots may be replaced by single family lots. On all homes with garages facing the street, there must be 18 feet between the edge of the sidewalk and the front face of the garage. There are no side yard setbacks, however there must be 10 feet between all buildings. Roof overhangs are excluded. For single family lots, the minimum width shall be 40 feet, and the minimum lot area shall be 4,000 square feet. Commercial Up to 9,000 square feet of commercial building, with a minimum of 1 parking space per 200 square feet. Parking will be located behind the building (not on the North Peachtree frontage). Outdoor patios will be permitted and encouraged. The design will include pedestrian plazas, with connectivity to the residential community and surrounding uses. Green Space A minimum of 20% of the site area shall be Green Space, including common area, parks, public lawns, and excluding any area that is within a privately owned building lot. SITE PLAN The site plan and the proposed uses shall be in substantial conformity with the layouts shown on the site plans titled: Perimeter Park, prepared by HGOR & SEI, dated July 12, 2013 and August 6, 2013. Townhouses and/or single family homes will not have driveways on Perimeter Park South, Perimeter Park Drive or North Peachtree Road. LANDSCAPING Landscaping shall be installed in substantial compliance with the Preliminary Landscape Plan in the application package, and best efforts will be made to save the specimen trees as identified. The Developer shall provide an evergreen landscaping buffer, with a minimum height of six feet at installation, along or near the property line where the property abuts single family homes with Rzoning.
Attachment: 04.02_Recommended Conditions of Approval PERIMETER PARK PUD 8-06-13 (1237 : Variances -Perimeter Park Planned Unit
1
Packet Pg. 112
3.C.4.b
PERIMETER PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL STREETSCAPE ALONG PERIMETER PARK DRIVE Sidewalks along Perimeter Park Drive shall be a minimum width of 6 feet wide. Developer shall be allowed to meander sidewalk to enhance streetscape green space and preserve specimen trees. A minimum 5 foot wide landscape strip shall be located between edge of curb of Perimeter Park Drive and the sidewalk. The landscape strip shall be planted with 3 inch caliper hardwood street trees at approximate spacing of 40 feet between trees. Exact street trees species shall be determined during LDP review. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT Subject to approval of the DeKalb Roads Department, the Developer shall install a crosswalk across Perimeter Park South, and also across Perimeter Park Drive, to function as a pedestrian link with the neighborhood commercial and surrounding developments. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Developer shall have a mandatory Homeowners Association with the appropriate restrictive covenants pursuant to State Law. The HOA covenants shall include a criterion that a maximum of 25% of the dwelling units may be rental. BUILDING FAADE The following materials shall be prohibited on all building facades: exposed pressure treated wood, vinyl siding, exposed unfinished concrete, and metal walls. Townhouses may have different architectural faade treatments throughout the project, to encourage diversity in the design. Siding shall not be the predominant feature on any building faade that is facing public or private roads, excluding alleyways. On any front or side elevation that utilizes siding, the water table and water table sill shall be a masonry material, minimum 2 feet from the ground level. No single townhome building will be more than 8 units. Front exterior columns shall have a minimum width of 10 inches, and all other exterior columns shall have a minimum width of 5 inches. No exterior stairs visible from streets shall be constructed of wood. Steps that serve porches and stoops shall have closed risers and ends. Porches and stoops shall have a minimum depth of 4 feet. Building mechanical equipment shall be screened from primary street view whenever possible. Siding shall not be a prominent feature on facades or visible from right of way. Where siding is used, a brick or stone water table shall be provided that is a minimum of 2 feet in height.
ROAD DIMENSIONS Internal roads may be public or private. 2
Packet Pg. 113
3.C.4.b
PERIMETER PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL Neighborhood Two-way Streets shall have: Minimum 50 foot ROW Minimum 20 feet from face of curb to face of curb, subject to approval of a variance or waiver. 5 foot sidewalk and minimum 5 foot landscape area. Any cul-de-sacs/hammerheads are subject to the approval of the DeKalb County Fire Department. Driveway alleys will have a minimum width of 20 if two-way or 12 if one-way. UTILITY LINES Overhead utility lines are not permitted, except for temporary lines as required during construction.
3
Packet Pg. 114
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: 04.03_ Application for Variances 8-29-2013 (1237 : Variances -Perimeter Park Planned Unit Development - 2013V-014)
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 116
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 117
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 118
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 119
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 120
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 121
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 122
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 123
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 124
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 125
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 126
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 127
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 128
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 129
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 130
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 131
3.C.4.c
Packet Pg. 132
3.C.4.d
10
THE SHALLOWFORD WOODS TOWNHOMES,

A CONDOMINIUM 111/40
80
92
29 1
6 7
2 0 2
164
4301
1 1 1
3 2 1
2 7
57
28
344 343
343 342
10
333 334
1 26
334 335
14 16
73
2 5
2 0
5 5
22 24
SEE 18-333
2314
AD
20
311
4291
180
1.59 AC
161
85
2 0
RO
2 5
165
7.7 AC 4277 2210
SEE
1 3 5
18-343
NANCY
9 1 5
4280
1 5
6 3
2 0 3
LI MI TS
1 0 7 0
1 8 5
81
6
SEE 18-333
45
2241
35 5
5 7
1 3 4
U T
4 3 0
8.9 AC 2261
5
PE R I 9 M 7 E T
40
4 3
2.1 AC
6 2 1
1 0 0
169
30 2251
198
1 AC
2245
2310 7
1 7
5 9
3 0 7
7 2
2312
2
2 3
4
(2)
50
4
7 5
300
4250
1 3 2
1 5 9
4221
R E
8 4
7 0
2 0
7 5
193 192
5 7
(1)
2 3 2 0 B 1 2 4 1 3 1 38 2 0 B 2 9 7
1 5
5 3 10
K R A P
6 2 1
4 8 2 8 8 5 1 A 8 0 3 (2) 2 (1)
4
189
7 6
4
188 4 190
2320
1 3
181
32
171
3 1 8 -3 3
2299
184
4100
1 4 2
5 5
3 2
RT H
1 00
NO
186
2 4
8.79 AC 2.93 AC(D)
3 2 3 2
3 5
1 3 6 1 4 5
86
1 0 3
0 20
2 5 4
7 0
1 2 1
2 2 3
S E E
179
7 1 00 1 73 1
4 5 2342
2 3 0
2344
4 2
20
0 7 1 4
9 . 0
C A
194
2346
195
88
8 4
0 5
3 0 1
54 5
4 0
101
97
5 0 1
8 5 2
4201
60
163
5.04 AC(P)
1 1 5
E .
5 2
0 7 1
134 61
18
9 5 1
150
0 3 1
2 0 1
2 1
76
50
3 7 8
7 7 0 1
109
125
4178
152
4074
129
5.56 AC
2358
(14)
2 3 7 4 4 2
0 9 3
108
125
5 0 1
4173
8 1 1
(13)
107
125
LANE
5 7
4174
0 7
110
(1)
7 0 1
2 3 8 3 2 3
6 1 4
2
4161
2 2 1
60
4168
0 0 2
75
1 AC 4153
7 3 )3 0 5 3 8 ( 0 1
3
60 20
0 7 0 4
4155
3 2 1
9 2 2
DEACON
1
6 91
(12)
106
6 9 2
125
4165
111
(2)
184
0 2
2 3 4 0
1 5
130
0.8 AC 4140
1 5 6
8 9 1
4162
128
2.15 AC
105
4159
112
(3)
125
27
(11)
0 0 2
52
5
4147
172
88 1
95 1
214
151 6 4 1
LI MI TS
1 03
50
4 0 1
4156
176
4128 4132
85
6 2 2 2 3 2
4153
4135
71
19
35
96
125
4 0 2
(5)
4150
2 2 2 2 2 2
(18)
127
214
131
(6)
75
113
(4)
75
(10) 104
4 1 2
80
144
50 4133
CI TY
191
2337
COOL RIDGE S/D
PB 16-P. 154
145
4125
2 3 2
30.35 AC(D) 601 700 800 900 906
4145
90
(6)
132
146
75
4124
75
4139
4 5
(9)103
8 3 1
114
80
1 3 2
3 5 6 1 4 9 0
(5)
SHALLOWFORD HEIGHTS
17-P. 101
23 4
21 0
1 81
100
200
4139
1 59
116
4129
(10)
57
133
147
(4)
1000
1100
1200
1300
1304
1307
1400
1 45
1402
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
5 40
2000
2100
1 2 1
1 4
2108
2200
2300
2400
2403
2408
2500
2504
4121 2600 2604 2700 2707 2800 2900 3000 3005 3100 3200
A
4600 4700 4121 4125 4129
6 8 1
117
4123
(11)
4140
118
4117
75
206
300
4144 (8)102
75
306
400
500
600
115
0 0 1
2 4
(8) (9)
8 6
(17)
119
4111
1 3 6
(7)
7 0
4134
1 0 0
90
101
80
80
70
4107
7 0
134 (3)
147
(12)
(16) 4116
90
120
B
93 6 1 3 1
8 1 1
213
DRI VE
(7)
126
4119
WALLACE ESTATE
8-P. 116
PARSONS VILLAGE S/D 1/27/53 BLK. 1

4113
125
PARSONS VILLAGE S/D 12/18/53 (SUPERCEDES PB 20-P. 144)

4103
1 70
1 70
100
1 2
7 0 4128
D E A C O N
7 0
121
4103
(6)
0 3 1 5 2 6
80
4118
100
4112
99
1 41
4124
(15)
1 70
3700
3709
3800
3805
3900
3904
(5)
1 22
3300
3400
3500
3509
3600
3806
98
(4)
97
(3)
96
(2)
4100
(13) 4097
4 5 1
1 0 0
4000 4002
122
90
O N S
146
95
(1)
250
27
4100
4200
4300
4400
4406
4409
4500
4503
4505
110
330 100
80
60
141 584
00 1
286
429
75 75
1 1 1
206
(16)
202
44
261
4076
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
90 1
(6) (8)
21 5
123
1 68
0 4
60
PA
4087 (14)
1 27
75
75
145
45
300
361
204
204
5 3
24 6
197
4112
45
75
00 1
46
4090
47
4096
48
4102
(15)
72
52
1 1 5
75
STREET
60
G N I R P S
T R U O K C L WA
(14)
7 3
237
75 75 75 75
2 5
60
60
71
100
4076
1 1 9
0 5 5
(10)
50
85
125 75
1 1 5
4074
1 8 1 ( 1 5 1 )
43
4070
4108
50
5 6
70
0 5
358
4079
136
3.68 AC(C)
42
227
4064
60
SEE 18-333A-1-1
CIRCLE
75
4091
(19)
137
75
75
4069
65
72
4113
(18)
65
138
(8)
1 80
1 80
80
217
58
57
1 80
56
1 80
55
1 80
54
1 61
JOHNSON
75
A
(12)
75
69
(12)
92
4062 1 2 3 (17)
40
4052
53
(13)
4063
73
5 48
4065
1 7 4
(12)
139
80
ELM
(18)
(17)
(16)
(15)
(14)
4068
65
207
75
75
75
75
75
(11)
394046
SEE
18-334B
197
1 80
1 80
1 80
(1)
1 80
1 80
1 80
75
(10)
38
4040
1 80
(6)
1 80
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
C
64
2284
(11)
150 75 75
30
38
5 5 1
91
4056
(7) 1 8 5 4057
4057
74
5 44
(13)
1 0 4
85
140
191
4051141
(6)
68
(10)
4060
(16)
80 95
(7)
(5)
(8)
6 6 1
4051
75
6 40
90
2 1 1
1 9 1
(14)
4050
186
75
(4) 4043 142

08 1
7 5 1
2254
(9)
37 4034
176
2260
2266
2272
2278
2290
2296
(9)
67
194
4045
76
4050
7 6 3
82
20 1
201
75
60
75
75
75
75
75
75
100
DORAVILLE
(3)
4039
(15)
89
(15)
4042
SEE
18-333 (8)
36
166
75
WALLACE
75 75
2261
DRIVE
75 75 90
2303
4028
75
2267
75
2273
75
2279
75
2285
100
60
4033
77
6 2 3
60 1
8 6 1
4019 (2)
56
59
60
61
62
63
65
66
95
CHAMBLE
I V
SEE 18 335
D R
75
1 47
2
4
2291
2297
2255 (7)
2309
4034
1 2
35
4022
13
4034
88
(14)
1 80
1 80
1 80
1 80
1 97
1 80
2
0
70
75
5
(1)
242
75
1 80
75
1 80
1 80
65
1 80
23
22
21
20
19
18
80 1
(18)
17
16
15
14
159
75
(13)
4058
3 6 1
78
4027
9 0 3
(16)
0 2 2
DORAV I LLE
(13)
41
4058
4097
4103
2 2 5
4109
(11)
1 5 0
4068
70
75
4095
74
75
75
60
70
65
93
95
4073
(1) 1 2 2
4028
1
5 1 1
4035
26
168
(17)
201
50
E L L W 8
W EST
278
2191
4016
159
(12)
5 1
12
4022
1 84
5 1 1
(6)
34
75
(23)
(22)
(21)
(20)
(19)
(17)
(16)
(15)
(14)
87
(13)
V I R D V R A C R E
277
2
(2) (5) ( 2 2 9 )
70 277
75
75
75
75
75
4036
27
4029
75
(18)
2183
1 80
1 90
1 80
1 80
1 80
1 37
1 80
5 2 1 2175
1
90
333
1 334
15
(7)
4
80
1 80
1 80
1 7
(1)
1 80
(2)
1 83
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
11
4010
3 5 1
1 5 1
(1)
(2)
2
75
80 1
75
75
60
50
8 5 2
4022
4009
(11)
86
70
(3)
(4)
(5)
79
4019
(17)
4028
4021
(19)
29
2220
30
2226
31
2232
32
2238
(3)
9 7 1
4 1 5
33
2242
28
80
1
2254
2
2260
(6)
(4)
8
228
4020
0 7
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
B
3 4
2266
(12)
6 9 2
4016
4006
1 8 1
5
2278
6
2284
7
2290
8
2296
9
2302
10
4002
9 8
407
85
(11)
6 2 3
4010
. D V L B
2272
0 1 1
0 6
84
7 9 1
29 1
75
75
75
75
75
75
230
100
80
4015 5 2 1
175
500 573
(18)
0 5
. D N I
(10)
NORTH
0 6
830
SHALLOWFORD
50
(9)
83
50 8
147 175
45
5970
8 1 88 06 1
334 323
9
335 322
178
324 323
R O A D
5 8 3
150
4019
80
2366
4 4 1
175
60
E E
CARVER
49
1 30
SEE
18-334A
(7)
(9)
94
CI TY
203
4078
DRI VE
74 75
75
(310 ) 332
176
RS
547
154
86
C
135
(2)
153
713
LAND DIST.
LAND LOT
This Map was compiled from an aerial survey. It is to be
responsibility for the accuracy of information contained herein.
E A C
used for tax purposes only. Dekalb County assumes no
18
DATE: 01/24/11
334
SCALE:1"=200
Packet Pg. 133
DEKALB COUNTY, GA.
Attachment: 04.04_ TAX MAP-18334 (1237 : Variances -Perimeter Park Planned Unit Development - 2013V-014)
2 3 3
2 7 9
8 4 1 9 5
1 25
DUNW OODY
4 64
1 8
3 5
2340 4 4
187
5 1
4 8
1 0 2
196
5 8
1 8
3 1
2 1
CI TY
25 0
E E R T 4251 H C A 4 5 E 1 P
1 8 5
3 2
2215
D R I V
2231
1 0 4
162
3 6
I N T E R S T A T E
720
0 6
R E T E M I R E P
0 7
P A R K
LI MI TS
K E E R C
1 04
65
5 8
20
D U N WO 5 6 1 O D Y C H A M B L E E
335
80
1 31
41 1
3 1
1 6 0
HUNTLEY HILLS NO.4 SEC.3
HUNTLEY HILLS NO,9 SEC.3
2.066 AC
1 0 0
2 8
LEXINGTON PARK 5/51
C T I Y
1 2 4
T I Y
LEXINGTON PARK 5/95
2 5
1
5 5
PER ER M ET I
PA
98
0 9 2
43 1
93 1
7 1 4 5 0 2
M I L
85
92
4
5
T I
7 1
R K
M I L
52
7
55 35 1 90 1
T I
50 01 1
2
9 5
60 75 75
01 1
1 31
75 75
38
0 1 1
87 49 1
0 1 1
60
67
75 656
75
72 73
72 1
75
208
54
75
99 1
75
75
20 1
24
20 1
70
78
73
75
75
60 1
70
75
80
70
22 1
7 0
NO
RT H
7
7 0
25 1
80 1
NE LA
0 1 1
E RE HT AC PE 82
0 1 1 9 21 00 1
2 3 5
5 8 1
4084
230 8 21
63
60 1
5 2
RO
85
79 1
N . S H O L L A W O F R D
2 9 1
90
AD
83
35 1
ST EA
74 74
60
85
85
282828
252
252
00 1
N SO 75 HN JO 46 1
60 3 9 1
25 1
74
75
88
R O
D A
74
20 1
75
.
4 1
5
873
874
60 1
75
74 52
97
85
O RS PA 70
90
75
R CI
73
24
09 1
CLE
S N
TY I
8 0
99
75
70
7 0 1
0 0 1
53 1
79
60 1
DR
7 5 4 0 1
40 1
80 1
7 5
V I
99 1
70
79
93
T MI LI
7 3 1
00 1
70
56
75
86
8 1
00 1
3.C.4.e
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: 04.05_Site Plan Alt A_07-12-13 (1237 : Variances -Perimeter Park Planned Unit Development - 2013V-014)
3.C.4.f
KEY LEGEND
AD
EE
RO
COMMERCIAL AMENITY AREA -POOL -FIREPLACE -CLUBHOUSE OPEN SPACE AND BIO DETENTION AREA
F
A B
TR
PER
TE E M I
PE
DRIVE K R PA
F C D
PARK AND GREENSPACE POCKET PARK
D E F
Attachment: 04.06-Site Plan_Alt_B_08-06-13 (1237 : Variances -Perimeter Park Planned Unit Development - 2013V-014)
F A C D B D
TRAILS AND LINEAR PARK
SITE DATA
TOTAL ACREAGE OPEN SPACE 20 LOTS 24 LOTS SINGLE FAMILY TOTAL LOTS COMMERCIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL POOL/AMENITY ADD. ON STREET COMMERCIAL 20.1 ACRES 4.5 ACRES 83 70 16 169 9,000 SQ FT. 2-4 SPACES PER LOT 20 REQ., 22 PROPOSED 28 SPACES 45 REQ., 74 PROPOSED
conceptual master plan b

0 30 60 120
2 OF 3
P E R I M E T E R PA R K
Chamblee, GA
August 6, 2013
Packet Pg. 135
3.C.5
City of Chamblee
VARIANCE (ID # 1238) SUBJECT: VARIANCES & WAIVER - 5070 AND 5126 PEACHTREE BLVD.(FORMER GREAT GATSBY ) - 2013V-013
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The existing property contains vacant office warehouse buildings separated by a deep ravine near the center of the property, where an abandoned rail spur was converted to a multi-use path by the City. The applicant, TPA-Peachtree, LLC proposes to demolish existing warehouses on the site and build a bridge to connect the two sides of the site passing above the rail -trail. The entire 11.4 acre property would be accessed from a single entrance at Peachtree Boulevard, proposed to be served by the traffic light opposite Clairmont Road. The site plan for the 11.4 acre site shows 7 buildings with a total of 536,000 sq. ft. consisting of 375 residential apartment units in a 4-story complex, 16 townhomes, an 87,000 sq. ft. hotel, 16,000 sq. ft. office space and 26,000 sq. ft. of retail. The site plan identifies 776 parking spaces, of which 562 are in a four-level parking deck that serves the apartment buildings.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: Ambling Development partners made application for a rezoning and PUD approval for this site in 2005. City Council rezoned this property from Corridor Commercial to Village Commercial conditioned on a site plan and 12 written conditions. Five variances were approved concurrently. The conditions of rezoning approval are in Attachment 5 and the approved variances are in Attachment 6. The previously approved site plan is in Attachment 7. In June 2012, Dresden, LLC made application for a zoning amendment, PUD amendment and preliminary plat using an alternate site plan. The application was incomplete and was deemed abandoned in June, 2013. REQUESTED ACTIONS: The applicant seeks approval of a waiver of Section 93-1(b) of the Development Regulations as well as two variances to the Zoning Ordinance, and then, if successful, plans to proceed through the PUD and DCI process in a subsequent cycle.
Waiver: Section 93-1(b) of the Development Regulations states the following:
Packet Pg. 136
3.C.5
(b) All buildings three or more stories in height, excluding all single-family dwellings (attached or detached), shall be constructed with concrete and steel framing materials.
Variance #1: The applicant requests a variance from Section 1007.D of the Zoning Ordinance that
states: D. In the NC-1, NC-2, CC and VC zoning districts, multifamily residential uses and structures shall be located only directly above nonresidential uses and structures and as part of the same structure. Multifamily uses and structures shall only be permitted to be located above the first-floor of any structure and shall only be located above the lower floors of a nonresidential use or structure.
Variance #2
The applicant requests a variance from Section 1007 E. of the Zoning Ordinance that states: In the VC zoning district, residential units with a minimum square footage of 800 square feet shall not be permitted to exceed 20 percent of the total number of residential units provided. Residential units with a minimum square footage of 1,000 square feet shall always constitute a minimum of 80 percent of all residential units provided. The percentages regulated herein in this subsection 1007E. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing analysis, staff offers NO RECOMMENDATION regarding the applicants request for a waiver of Section 93-1(b) of the Development Regulations. Staff recommends APPROVAL of Variance #1 regarding Section 1007.D. that prohibits multi-family residences from occupying a ground floor.
Staff recommends DENIAL of Variance #2 from Section 1007 E. that requires residential units with less than 800 square feet to be less than 20 percent of the total units in the VC district. If any variances are approved, staff recommends that the following conditions for approval be imposed by City Council: 1. Previous PUD conditions and variances granted in 2007 have been superceded and are therefore void. 2. The site development plan dated August 21, 2013 for Great Gatsby Site shall be amended to incorporate all provisions of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance except those for which the applicant has received specific waivers and variances, or as otherwise approved by action of the Chamblee City Council. 3. The applicant shall apply for and be granted approval of a Planned Unit Development plan that is substantially consistent with the site plan referenced in condition #1 above and that all features of architectural design, landscape design, and streetscape design comply with relevant City Ordinances and design guidelines, or as otherwise approved by subsequent action of the Chamblee City Council.
Packet Pg. 137
3.C.5
Attachment List: 05.1_ 2013V-013_Peachtree Boulevard_5126_Staff Report 05.2 _Proposed Great Gatsby Site Plan_8_21-13 05.4 Site_Survey (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) 05.3 Application for variance and waiver Aug 2013 (PDF) 05.5_Conditions of PUD_approval 4_19_2007 05.6_Variances_approved_ 04_19_2007 05.7 Previously approved Site plan for Ambling (DOCX)
Review: Gary Cornell Marc Johnson City Council Completed Completed Pending 10/03/2013 9:45 AM 10/07/2013 12:38 AM
Packet Pg. 138
3.C.5.a
Site Address: Parcel Number: Land Lot and District: Parcel Acreage: Applicant: Representative: Current Zoning:
5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd. 18-300-10-017 and 18-300-10-016 300, 18th 11.363 TPA-Peachtree, LLC Thomas F. Rybert Village Commercial - Conditional
The Village Commercial zoning district is intended primarily for mixed-use development and related uses at a higher density. This district provides a location for residences, retail, goods and services and offices to satisfy the common and frequent needs of the city's commercial core and greater Chamblee area with design standards and design parameters to encourage a pedestrian-friendly traditional urban form, oriented to pedestrians, which will limit the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Conditions of zoning approval in 2007 are in Attachment 5. District Standards: VC Zoning District minimums prescribed Total FAR (max) Res./Non-Res. 2.0 / 2.0 ; Total 4.0 Rear Yard Building Coverage (max) Building Height (min./max.) Lot Size / Lot width (minimum) Parking (min. required) Side Yard (min.) Current Use: 80% 24 ft./ 75 ft. N/A; N/A See Note* 8 Front Yard: Peachtree Blvd. Front Yard: Chamblee-Tucker Rd. Landscape Zone/Sidewalk Zone: - Peachtree Blvd. - Chamblee-Tucker Rd. 20 20 15 10/ 10 7 / 8
5126 Peachtree Boulevard (3.358 acres) is partly wooded. It contains a vacant warehouse with related parking, one curb cut and a billboard. 5070 Peachtree Boulevard (8.008 acres) contains a vacant warehouse with related parking and one curb cut. West VR, Village Residential - Multifamily residential (Exchange at Northaven) East CC, Corridor Commercial - Elaine Clark Center North CC, Corridor Commercial - Keswick Park; and NR-1 Neighborhood Residential 1 - undeveloped (Gipson property) South VC, Village Commercial - various commercial properties in Peachtree DeKalb Plaza
Surrounding Land Uses:
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: 05.1_ 2013V-013_Peachtree Boulevard_5126_Staff Report (1238 : Variances - 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.- 2013V-013)
Petition No.: 2013V 012 Amended Development Department
3.C.5.a
Site Description The site has prominent frontage on Peachtree Boulevard directly opposite the terminus of Clairmont Road. Two abandoned rail spurs converge and wrap the western boundary of the site. The Y-shape of the abandoned railroad was converted to a multi-purpose trail that crosses beneath Peachtree Boulevard, bisecting the site in a deep cut, then turning northwest to enter Keswick Park. A billboard sits adjacent to the trail crossing at Peachtree Road. Empty warehouses sit at either end of the site at drastically different elevations. The northern portion of the property slopes steeply down from its frontage on Peachtree Boulevard. However the southern end of the site is relatively level and contains the former Great Gatsby showroom. Site History The existing property was foreclosed upon and the warehouse buildings are vacant. Ambling Development partners made application for a rezoning and PUD approval for this site in 2005. Pursuant to this application, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) performed a review of the project as a Development of Regional Impact on January 11, 2006. Following a public hearing on April 19, 2007 the City Council rezoned this property from Corridor Commercial to Village Commercial conditioned on a site plan and 12 written conditions. The same night it was approved as a Planned Unit Development such that five variances could be approved concurrently. The conditions of rezoning approval are in Attachment 5 and the approved variances are in Attachment 6. The approved site plan is in Attachment 7. The applicant was Ambling Development Partners. Five years later, in June 2012, Dresden LLC made application for a zoning amendment, PUD amendment and preliminary plat using an alternate site plan. The application was incomplete and was deemed abandoned in June, 2013. Description of Proposed Project: See Attachment 3. The applicant, TPA-Peachtree, LLC proposes to demolish existing structures on the site and build a bridge to connect the two sides of the site over the rail -trail that bisects the site. The Page 2 of 8 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 140
Future Development Map The future development map identifies the subject property within the Corridor Village character area. The purpose of the Corridor Village character area is the creation of an inviting commercial and mixed use area[that] would accommodate higher densities in order to create a synergy between retail, office, industry, other commercial uses and surrounding residential development. Corridor Village policies in the Comprehensive Plan include: Focus development in villages, urban centers or compact activity centers. Provide for mixed uses and higher densities than surrounding areas in the growth center. Redesign existing strip development into pedestrian scale, interconnected nodes. Plan for a community street, trail, and sidewalk network that is as friendly to alternative modes of transportation as to the automobile. Require master planning to address access management. Plan and design transportation improvements that fit with community character. The Comprehensive Plan also says that development in the Corridor Village character area needs to minimize encroachment and incompatibility with the established residential neighborhoods behind the corridor.
3.C.5.a
The site plan for the 11.4 acre site shows 7 buildings with a total of 536,000 sq. ft. consisting of 375 residential apartment units in a 4-story complex, 16 townhomes, an 87,000 sq. ft. hotel, 16,000 sq. ft. office space and 26,000 sq. ft. of retail. The site plan identifies 776 parking spaces, of which 562 are in a four-level parking deck that serves the apartment buildings. This proposal is smaller than the PUD site plan approved in 2007 for the same site which contained 841,240 sq. ft. and had about the same number of dwelling units, but more office, hotel, and retail space. The street frontage along Peachtree Boulevard would have a meandering sidewalk and streetscape lined with 2 to 4-story buildings consisting of retail on the ground floor and office and hotel on the upper stories. Residential development would be in the rear overlooking Keswick Park. A large courtyard-style residential complex with amenities would be on the southwestern portion of the site completely wrapping a large parking deck. In the center of the site would be a linear park space surrounded by buildings and angled parking. Applicants Intent: Due to the size and design of this proposal it qualifies as a Development of Community Impact and as a Planned Unit Development. However, the applicant indicated that first, he would like to seek approval of a waiver of Section 93-1(b) of the Development Regulations as well as two variances to the Zoning Ordinance, and then, if successful, proceed through the PUD and DCI process in a subsequent cycle. In his application the applicant offers the following reasoning for these exceptions to the Citys codes:
1. 2. 3. The unique mix of uses on the site and adjacent parcels. The existing topography of the site will require substantial infrastructure costs to allow for development To create an entrance to the intersection of Clairmont Road and Peachtree Boulevard as envisioned by the City of Chamblee a substantial bridge must be constructed to connect both parcels and cross over the existing pathway. The above items require a substantial financial commitment and allowing for changes will make the project financially viable. Amendments to the existing conditions of zoning and PUD approval for Ambling (4/19/2007).
4. 5.
Waiver Request Section 301-A(120) defines a variance as a modification of the specific provisions of this zoning ordinance granted when strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship owing to circumstances unique to the individual property on which the variance is granted. Since Section 93-1(b) is not in the Zoning Ordinance, it is not technically a variance, but a waiver of a provision of the Chapter 93 Development Regulations. Section 93-1(b) of the Development Regulations states the following:
Packet Pg. 141
entire 11.4 acre property would be accessed from a single entrance at Peachtree Boulevard, proposed to be served by the traffic light opposite Clairmont Road.
3.C.5.a
The applicant offers this justification for the City Council to waive the requirements of Section 93-1(b): such a requirement would add over $11,000,000 to the construction cost of the multi-family building which, given the extraordinary costs which must be incurred to bridge the walking path and unify the site as mentioned above, would make the development totally infeasible. Staff Analysis: The applicant justifies this request solely on economic grounds. Staff would agree that this provision likely would have a significant impact on the financial feasibility of a new multi-family development in a competitive market where steel and concrete framing is not commonly required by local codes. However multi-family residences have a relatively high rate of fire calls and it would appear that the use of fireproof steel and concrete framing provides a significant benefit to the public now and in the future in terms of life safety and the cost of fire protection. The applicant does not rebut the issue of life safety risk but links this request to unique conditions of the site and unique features of this development that make the structural cost more advantageous to this development compared with other proposed multifamily residential developments in the City of Chamblee. However, there are no stated standards or Criterion in City ordinances to govern the tradeoff between life safety and financial feasibility. Therefore we cannot offer a sound recommendation on this waiver request and consider it to be a policy decision of the City Council. The applicant also seeks variances from the following section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance:
Variance #1:
The applicant requests a variance from Section 1007.D that states: D. In the NC-1, NC-2, CC and VC zoning districts, multifamily residential uses and structures shall be located only directly above nonresidential uses and structures and as part of the same structure. Multifamily uses and structures shall only be permitted to be located above the first-floor of any structure and shall only be located above the lower floors of a nonresidential use or structure. Analysis: The intent of this provision appears to be two-fold- 1) to reduce the exposure of multi-family units to ground-floor noise and light; and 2) to encourage active ground-floor retail activity that encourages street-oriented pedestrian sidewalk traffic and activity that is good for business vitality. However this site is 590 feet deep and has only one streetfront Peachtree Boulevard. The proposed site plan for this property has placed all the residential uses in townhouses and multi-family courtyard-style buildings at the rear of the property, 260 feet away from Peachtree Boulevard. Therefore they would have much less exposure to noise and light than if they were located along the busy streetfront of Peachtree Boulevard. Also, since they are located well to the rear of the property, the apartment buildings do not have any frontage to a public street that would make retail uses marketable. If this variance is approved there still Page 4 of 8 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 142
(b) All buildings three or more stories in height, excluding all single-family dwellings (attached or detached), shall be constructed with concrete and steel framing materials.
3.C.5.a
Criterion 214.A.1: No variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a density of development not authorized with such development. Assessment: There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are not authorized within the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site development will consist of a mixeduse development of multifamily apartments and commercial uses that are permitted under the Village Commercial zoning.
Criterion 214.A.2. (a): There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. Assessment: Criterion is met. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape and topography. This site is very deep and has steep topography. It has only one streetfront Peachtree Boulevard. The proposed site plan for this property has placed all the residential uses in townhouses and multi-family courtyard-style buildings at the rear of the property, 260 feet away from Peachtree Boulevard. Retail and commercial uses on the ground floor of these buildings would have little marketability placed at the rear of the site without visibility to Peachtree Boulevard. It appears that there will be ample retail opportunities within walking distance for residents of the proposed mixed-use development even if the variance is granted.
Criterion 214.A.2. (b): The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Assessment: Criterion is met. This site is very deep and has only one streetfront Peachtree Boulevard. The proposed site plan for this property has placed all the residential uses in townhouses and multi-family courtyard-style buildings at the rear of the property, over one hundred feet away from Peachtree Boulevard. Retail and commercial uses on the ground floor of these buildings would have little marketability placed at the rear of the site without visibility to Peachtree Boulevard. It appears that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship because such retail space would be difficult to market. Merchants in the residential portion of the property would be out of sight from pass-by auto and pedestrian traffic on Peachtree Boulevard.
Criterion 214.A.2. (c): Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Assessment: Criterion is met. The property is peculiar because it is unusually deep and the ground floor of the residential buildings located at the rear of the site would not be visible to pass-by traffic Page 5 of 8 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 143
would be 20,000-30,000 square feet of street-oriented retail frontage provided along Peachtree Boulevard along the ground floor of the office buildings. Based on decision criteria established in the City of Chamblees zoning ordinance, the variance request has been reviewed as follows:
3.C.5.a
Criterion 214.A.2. (d): Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Assessment: Criterion is met. These conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner but are intrinsic to the shape and size of the site.
Criterion 214.A.2. (e): Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. Assessment: Criterion is met. Due to the retail and commercial uses planned for the frontage of this property, there would be adequate retail and commercial services available without the commercial uses on the ground floor of the residential uses located on this property. It would not appear that relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance.
Variance #2
The applicant requests a variance from Section 1007 E. that requires residential units with less than 800 square feet to be less than 20 percent of the total units in the VC district. Section 1007 E. states the following: E. In the VC zoning district, residential units with a minimum square footage of 800 square feet shall not be permitted to exceed 20 percent of the total number of residential units provided. Residential units with a minimum square footage of 1,000 square feet shall always constitute a minimum of 80 percent of all residential units provided. The percentages regulated herein in this subsection 1007E. Analysis: According to the application the sizes of the residential units would range from 650 square feet to 1500 square feet with an average size of 930 square feet. Up to 70 percent of the units would contain between 650 and 950 square feet. The applicant states that the size of the property makes it more suitable for the mixed-use environment desired by the City and that a mixed-use development is better supported by smaller units than in stand-alone multi-family developments. He further states that the application of this regulation would prevent development of the proposed project: Although zoned for mixed-use development since 2007 the property has remained undeveloped and allowing the applicants project to move forward will advance the citys vision for this area. Based on decision criteria established in the City of Chamblees zoning ordinance, the variance request has been reviewed as follows: Criterion 214.A.1: No variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a density of development not authorized with such development. Page 6 of 8 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 144
needed for marketability. For that reason site conditions are peculiar to the piece of property involved.
3.C.5.a
Criterion 214.A.2. (a): There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography. Assessment: Criterion is not met. There are not extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography that would be relevant to the size of dwelling units. The site would allow the owner to configure unit types and sizes that meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Criterion 214.A.2. (b): The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Assessment: Criterion is not met. The owner asserts that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary financial hardship. However there is no specific financial data offered to support the assertion of financial hardship and staff is unable to make this determination from the facts presented.
Criterion 214.A.2. (c): Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved. Assessment: Criterion is not met. The justification provided by the owner for relief from this requirement appears to be related to assertions that have not been documented by market data. It cannot be determined that the larger number of small units proposed by the applicant is a factor that is peculiar to the particular piece of property.
Criterion 214.A.2. (d): Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Assessment: Criterion is not met. The justification provided by the applicant for relief from this requirement has not been substantiated by market data, and the owner has control over the size of units proposed.
Criterion 214.A.2. (e): Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. Assessment: Criterion is not met. If the owners assertions about the market for housing in the area are correct, failure to grant the relief requested concerning the unit size and bedroom mix for this project might result in lower financial performance for the property. However, it is not clear that the Page 7 of 8 Petition No: 2013V 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013
Packet Pg. 145
Assessment: Criterion is met. There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are not authorized within the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site development will consist of a mixed-use development of multifamily apartments and commercial uses that are permitted under the Village Commercial zoning.
3.C.5.a
____________________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing analysis, staff offers NO RECOMMENDATION regarding the applicants request for a waiver of Section 93-1(b) of the Development Regulations. Based on the foregoing analysis, staff makes the following recommendations with respect to each of the requested variances: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the following variance: Variance #1 from Section 1007.D that states: D. In the NC-1, NC-2, CC and VC zoning districts, multifamily residential uses and structures shall be located only directly above nonresidential uses and structures and as part of the same structure. Multifamily uses and structures shall only be permitted to be located above the first-floor of any structure and shall only be located above the lower floors of a nonresidential use or structure. Staff recommends DENIAL of the following variance: Variance #2 from Section 1007 E. that requires residential units with less than 800 square feet to be less than 20 percent of the total units in the VC district. If any variances are approved, staff recommends that the following conditions for approval be imposed by City Council: 1. Previous PUD conditions and variances granted in 2007 have been superceded and are therefore void. 2. The site development plan dated August 21, 2013 for Great Gatsby Site shall be amended to incorporate all provisions of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance except those for which the applicant has received specific waivers and variances, or as otherwise approved by action of the Chamblee City Council. 3. The applicant shall apply for and be granted approval of a Planned Unit Development plan that is substantially consistent with the site plan referenced in condition #1 above and that all features of architectural design, landscape design, and streetscape design comply with relevant City Ordinances and design guidelines, or as otherwise approved by subsequent action of the Chamblee City Council. __________________________________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Packet Pg. 146
current market that is centered on the millennial generation is a long-term condition, or only a short-term condition of the current market place that will change in the future such that more twobedroom and three-bedroom units would be demanded in future years. It is also unclear how the production of so many one-bedroom units would lend the project to future conversion to condominiums if the market changes in the future to favor a greater degree of home ownership.
3.C.5.b
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: 05.2 _Proposed Great Gatsby Site Plan_8_21-13 (1238 : Variances - 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.- 2013V-013)
3.C.5.b
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: 05.2 _Proposed Great Gatsby Site Plan_8_21-13 (1238 : Variances - 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.- 2013V-013)
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: 05.3 Application for variance and waiver Aug 2013 (1238 : Variances - 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.- 2013V-013)
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 150
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 151
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 152
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 153
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 154
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 155
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 156
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 157
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 158
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 159
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 160
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 161
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 162
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 163
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 164
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 165
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 166
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 167
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 168
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 169
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 170
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 171
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 172
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 173
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 174
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 175
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 176
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 177
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 178
3.C.5.c
Packet Pg. 179
3.C.5.d
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: 05.4 Site_Survey (1238 : Variances - 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.- 2013V-013)
3.C.5.e
EXHIBIT 1: Conditions of Zoning and PUD Approval for Ambling Development Partners property at 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Boulevard, Approved by Chamblee City Council 4/19/2007:
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: 05.5_Conditions of PUD_approval 4_19_2007 (1238 : Variances - 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.- 2013V-013)
3.C.5.f
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: 05.6_Variances_approved_ 04_19_2007 (1238 : Variances - 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.- 2013V-013)
3.C.5.f
Packet Pg. 183
3.C.5.f
Packet Pg. 184
3.C.5.f
Packet Pg. 185
3.C.5.f
Packet Pg. 186
3.C.5.f
Packet Pg. 187
3.C.5.f
Packet Pg. 188
3.C.5.g
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: 05.7 Previously approved Site plan for
3.C.6
City of Chamblee
ORDINANCE (ID # 1240) SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT INSTITUTIONAL USES AND PLACES OF WORSHIP
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM SUMMARY: Section 617 of the Zoning Ordinance provides location and development standards for institutional uses and places of worship. These standards, such as requiring institutional uses and places of worship to be located on four-lane roads, are unnecessary restrictions that exclude these uses from many areas of the city where commercial and industrial uses are already permitted. Other standards such as requiring a 75-foot setback from all property lines conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX - Civic Design that intend to create a mixed-use and walkable urban environment throughout much of the city. Repealing this Section would do little or no harm to the health, safety and welfare of the city while increasing the locations available to institutional uses and places of worship in the City of Chamblee. It would also encourage these uses to take part in making our city more walkable and pedestrian friendly. Please see the attached staff report for full details RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends deleting the provisions of Section 617 in its entirety. First read can be done in October and then the advertised public hearing the second read in November. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attachment List: 07.1_StaffReport_2013TA-005_Text Amendment Places of Worship 07.2_ Adopting Resolution and ORDINANCE (PDF) (DOCX)
Review: Gary Cornell Marc Johnson Marc Johnson City Council Completed Completed Completed Pending 10/03/2013 9:23 AM 10/06/2013 9:49 PM 10/06/2013 9:50 PM
Packet Pg. 190
3.C.6.a
Petition No.: 2013TA 00X Development Department City Council Working Session October 10, 2013
STAFF REPORT Proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Institutional uses and places of worship
The Issue: The current text of Section 617 - results in two issues that need to be resolved with a text amendment. 1) A portion of the text of Section 617 prohibits churches except on four-lane highways. Very few of Chamblees streets are four-lane highways so this provision unnecessarily limits the location of new churches to just a few places in Chamblee. 2) A building setback of 75 feet from any property line is in conflict with the intent of Article IX, Civic Design in which the City Council has encouraged walkable development with no parking in the front yard and buildings set close the street and accessed directly in the front from a sidewalk. Each of these issues is discussed and analyzed separately below. Discussion Section 617 reads as follows: Sec. 617. Institutional uses and places of worship. Institutional uses and places of worship shall meet the following additional criteria: A. Said uses shall be located on a four lane or wider street with at least 100 feet of public street frontage; B. The buildings shall not be set back less than 75 feet from any property line, except where the adjoining property is zoned for nonresidential use, in which case the setback shall be established within the applicable zoning district; C. No parking area shall be established within 20 feet of a residence; and D. There shall be a planted buffer strip of at least ten feet in width along the side and rear property lines; Analysis of Issue 1 There are few streets in Chamblee that have four lanes. Examples include Peachtree Road, Peachtree Boulevard, Buford Highway, and parts of Chamblee-Dunwoody Road, Chamblee-Tucker Road, and Shallowford Road. Many of the Citys churches and other places of worship are located on two-lane
Council Wrap-Up
Page 1 of 3
Petition No: 2013TA-004 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: 07.1_StaffReport_2013TA-005_Text Amendment Places of Worship (1240 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ? Institutional Uses
3.C.6.a
streets . This ordinance makes them non-conforming and compromises their ability to renovate or expand. The intent of this provision may be to protect residential neighborhoods from a use that might attract traffic and cause noise. However, the Zoning Ordinance does not allow churches or places of worship to be located in neighborhoods of the City. It prohibits them in the zoning districts of NR-1 or NR-2. Another concern might be to provide for adequate traffic capacity and safety. This ordinance does not make a distinction between large churches and smaller ones Clearly many more intense commercial and industrial uses are allowed in the city without requiring them to locate on a four-lane highway. . Moreover, many places of worship have meetings on off-peak times and days, such as Sunday morning, when traffic-carrying capacity is not otherwise being taxed. Analysis of Issue 2 Article IX establishes setbacks for all zoning districts in the City of Chamblee. Front yard setbacks are governed by street classification in Section 903, as follows: Type of Roadway Minimum front yard Local Streets (other than in NR-1 and NR-2 districts) 10 ft. Arterials and Collectors 15 ft. Clairmont, Peachtree Boulevard, and Buford Highway 20 ft.
From this table it is evident that any large commercial or industrial use can locate in the City with setbacks much less than 75 feet, even on the four-lane highways such as Clairmont Road and Peachtree Boulevard. Therefore it seems illogical that institutional uses and places of worship would require a front yard setback of 75 feet. Side and rear yards are similar, although they are regulated in Section 1004 based on zoning district, not street classification. Minimum side yards vary from 0 ft. in the Village Commercial and Corridor Commercial districts to 10 ft. in the Light Industrial District. Minimum rear yards in industrial and commercial districts are only 20 ft. However a place of worship in any of these districts would be required to have a side yard setback of 75 ft. and a rear yard setback of 75 ft. even though they are already required to be in a commercial or industrial zoning district. Summary The standards in Section 617 seem excessive and unnecessary. All institutional uses and places of worship are required to be located in commercial and industrial districts or in districts such as Corridor Residential and Village Residential that anticipate multi-family residential and mixed uses. These zoning districts encourage small setback dimensions in order to facilitate pedestrian-oriented development. It would seem that institutional uses and places of worship should be treated similarly to these uses and not be required to have very large setbacks on all four sides. Furthermore, since parking is not permitted in the front yard of a place of worship then the 75 ft. wide lawns in the front yard of commercial zoning districts and have more land in the rear for parking, would make the land requirements very great. A new church would find it cost prohibitive to develop in Chamblee. It also makes it virtually impossible for any institutional use to occupy an existing commercial building (such as a nearly vacant shopping center) Council Wrap-Up Page 2 of 3 Petition No: 2013TA-004 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 192
3.C.6.a
or to purchase an existing commercial building and renovate it. The setback requirements unique to the place of worship would make all of these retrofit options impossible.
Staff Recommendation: Staff finds no clear public benefit from the provisions of Section 617 of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance and recommends that it be repealed in its entirety. _______________________________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Council Wrap-Up
Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 193
3.C.6.b
(Development Department No.: 2013TA-004)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA, APPENDIX A, "ZONING ORDINANCE", ARTICLE VI, "GENERAL USE PROVISIONS" TO REPEAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO INSITUTIONAL USES AND PLACES OF WORSHIP; FOR ALL OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES BE IT ORDAINED AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA that the provisions of Section 617, Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance be DELETED in their entirety. PART 1
Sec. 617. Institutional uses and places of worship. Institutional uses and places of worship shall meet the following additional criteria: A. Said uses shall be located on a four lane or wider street with at least 100 feet of public street frontage; B. The buildings shall not be set back less than 75 feet from any property line, except where the adjoining property is zoned for nonresidential use, in which case the setback shall be established within the applicable zoning district; C. No parking area shall be established within 20 feet of a residence; and D. There shall be a planted buffer strip of at least ten feet in width along the side and rear property lines;
PART II It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Mayor and City Council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and, if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: 07.2_ Adopting Resolution and ORDINANCE (1240 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ? Institutional Uses and Places of
ORDINANCE NO. _______
3.C.6.b
The foregoing was proposed by Council member ____________________ with a motion that the same be adopted. Said motion was seconded by Council member _________________________. Same was then put to a vote and _______Council members voted in favor of the Ordinance and _______Council members voted against the Ordinance. Said motion was thereupon declared passed and duly adopted this ________ day of __________________, 2013.
_______________________________ Emmie D. Niethammer City Clerk, City of Chamblee, Georgia
Approved this _____ day of ___________________, 2013
_____________________________________________ The Honorable R. Eric Clarkson Mayor, City of Chamblee, Georgia Approved as to form:
_____________________________________________ City Attorney First Reading: ___________________________ Second Reading: ________________________
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: 07.2_ Adopting Resolution and ORDINANCE (1240 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ? Institutional Uses and Places of
valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance.
3.C.7
City of Chamblee
ACTION ITEM (ID # 1242) SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF ISSUES WITH NON-CONFORMING USES
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM ISSUE: Often when making major changes to a zoning ordinance some existing land uses suddenly become non-conforming because the new ordinance zones them out or adds use restrictions that were not in effect when the uses were permitted. Property owners of newly created non-conforming uses may experience a loss in value or credit-worthiness. In some cases the use is viable and provides a public benefit. The Council may wish to consider an alternative way of restoring the conforming use status of such properties on a selective basis. Today the only way to proceed is to revise the zoning district use table to include the use or to rezone the property to a district that may not be consistent with the adopted Future Development Map.
ANALYSIS: Currently there are two available options to resolve the concern of Madison Storage: 1) rezone the Madison Storage property to Corridor Commercial (CC) or 2) revise the zoning ordinance to include a use such as internally accessed climate controlled self-storage facility as a permitted use in the Village Commercial (VC) zoning district. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a method for granting a use variance that would permit Council to grant a special exception for this property to be considered conforming again. However other cities such as Tallahassee, Florida and Valdosta, Georgia have created a procedure for a case-bycase consideration for granting a waiver of non-conforming use provisions subject to evaluation of objective criteria and a public hearing to determine if the non-conforming use is truly incompatible with the surrounding area or whether its benefits out-weigh certain objectionable features that could be mitigated. REQUESTED ACTION: Staff has presented a report to allow the Mayor and City Council the opportunity to discuss the issues and the options and give staff directions for addressing this issue. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Packet Pg. 196
3.C.7
Attachment List: 11.1_StaffReport_2013TA-00Y_Non-conforming Uses 11.2_Tallahassee PELUC ordinance (PDF) (DOCX)
Review: Gary Cornell Marc Johnson City Council Completed Completed Pending 10/03/2013 5:01 PM 10/06/2013 9:02 PM
Packet Pg. 197
3.C.7.a
STAFF REPORT FOR DISCUSSION Subject: Proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Non-Conforming Uses
Background A non-conforming use of structure and structure and land in combination is defined in the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance as a use of a structure or a use of a structure and land in combination where the structure(s) of a lot contains the primary use(s) of the lot, that lawfully existed prior to the adoption or amendment of the zoning ordinance and that would not be currently authorized in the zoning district in which such use is located. Furthermore, in Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance it is stated that Such nonconforming situations are hereby declared to be incompatible with authorized and permitted uses and regulations within the district(s) involved. It is the intent of the City of Chamblee to require the cessation of certain of these nonconforming situations and to allow others to continue on a limited basis until they are otherwise removed or cease. To that effect, in Section 704 E. states, When a nonconforming use of a structure or structure and land in combination is discontinued for a continuous period of one year, the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. Vacancy or nonuse shall constitute discontinuance regardless of the intent of the owner, tenant or lessee. Such restriction shall not apply for any period of time that such cessation is a direct result of governmental action impeding access to the premises. And Section 704.F. adds, Where nonconforming use status applies to a structure or structure and land in combination, destruction of the structure by any means shall eliminate said nonconforming status. "Destruction" for the purpose of this subsection shall be defined as damage to an extent of more than 50 percent of the replacement cost of such structure at the time of destruction. Where such damage is to an extent of 50 percent or less of replacement cost of such structure at the time of destruction, such structures may be reconstructed to the same or lesser size in the same location provided: Reconstruction begins within 12 months of damage and is diligently carried to completion; the previous nonconforming use is resumed and continued as before, or on a lesser scale, but is not enlarged or intensified, and; said reconstruction complies with subsection 504.B. Council Wrap-Up Page 1 of 4 No: Petition 2013TA-006 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: 11.1_StaffReport_2013TA-00Y_Non-conforming Uses (1242 : Discussion of Issues with Non-Conforming Uses)
Petition No.: 2013TA 006 Development Department City Council Working Session October 10, 2013
3.C.7.a
The Issue:
Often when making major changes to a zoning ordinance some existing land uses suddenly become non-conforming because the new ordinance zones them out or adds use restrictions that were not in effect when the uses were permitted. Property owners of newly created non-conforming uses may experience a loss in value or credit-worthiness. In some cases the use is viable and provides a public benefit. The Council may wish to consider an alternative way of restoring the conforming use status of such properties on a selective basis. Today the only way to proceed is to revise the zoning district use table to include the use or to rezone the property to a district that may not be consistent with the adopted Future Development Map. Discussion: The situation that Madison Storage has found itself in is not unique to them, but is shared by a significant number of uses and structures in the City of Chamblee that are no longer allowed in their current location due to the change in the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map in 2006. This was a very broad change in policy and resulted in re-mapping the zoning of most of the city. It must be assumed that the City Council took this action deliberately in order to re-position the city for a change from its historically industrial roots to a future that is described in the Comprehensive Plan as being more internally focused, service-oriented and pedestrian friendly in the style of a village. City Council had a brief discussion of the situation of Madison Self-Storage situation as a nonconforming use at its Working Session on August 15, 2013. Madison Self-Storage is located at 4775 Peachtree Road in the Village Commercial (VC) zoning district. The facility was rezoned from C-1 to Village Commercial (VC) by City Councils action to approve a new City-wide zoning map in March, 2006. It was formerly a conforming use, but became non-conforming on that date because the new Zoning Ordinance did not allow the use mini-warehouses in the Village Commercial (VC) zoning district. The owner, Sam Wilburn states that he has suffered financial loss because the lender for his re-financing is charging a higher premium due to his status as a non-conforming us. He referred to the provisions of non-conforming use that would prohibit him from rebuilding his facility if the majority of it were destroyed by fire. Mr. Wilburn approached the staff and a member of City Council to ask for relief. Alternatives Currently there are two available options to resolve the concern of Madison Storage: 1) rezone the Madison Storage property to Corridor Commercial (CC) or 2) revise the zoning ordinance to include a use such as internally accessed climate controlled self-storage facility as a permitted use in the Village Commercial (VC) zoning district. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a method for granting a use variance that would permit Council to grant a special exception for this property to be considered conforming again. Council Wrap-Up Page 2 of 4 No: Petition 2013TA-006 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 199
3.C.7.a
One option is to create a new procedure by which Madison Storage and other similar non-conforming uses could seek relief from City Council: The cities of Tallahassee, Florida and Valdosta, Georgia have adopted a new procedure for these situations. Recently both cities revised their zoning ordinances and found it necessary to introduce a procedure to offer relief for viable commercial uses that were unintentionally zoned out by the new ordinance. The procedure culminates in a public hearing in which the property owner requests a renewal of conforming status based on prescribed criteria that gage the merits of continuing the use in its current location. The public hearing allows public comments about the degree to which the use of the subject property is beneficial to and compatible with, the surrounding community. Successful applicants are granted a Previously Existing Land Use Certificate (PELUC) that entitles them to be treated as a conforming use, subject to one or more conditions of approval. A copy of the Tallahassee NonConforming Land Use ordinance (Division 4, Section 10) is attached for reference. This is a brief summary: Eligibility Certain uses are not eligible such as: heavy industrial uses in a low-density residential area; and commercial uses over 20,000 sq. ft. or with a floor area ratio greater than 0.2.
Review Criteria Low impact of the subject use on surrounding land uses; Not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; The use is not aesthetically or functionally incompatible with surrounding uses in terms of traffic, noise, light, etc.; There are adequate buffers, screening, or landscaping to reduce impacts on surrounding property; There is adequate parking, safe and adequate access, and a good traffic circulation system; Outdoor storage and garbage/ waste collection is not objectionable to the neighbors; Or, the applicant is willing to implement acceptable mitigations to reduce any objectionable impacts of the use on the surrounding area, such as buffers, screening, landscaping, repairs, limited hours of operation, etc.
Procedure In the City of Tallahassee and the City of Valdosta the Planning Department administers the application and technical review process. The public hearing is conducted and decisions made by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
Council Wrap-Up
Page 3 of 4 No:
Petition 2013TA-006 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 200
3.C.7.a
History The City of Tallahassee, Florida adopted this ordinance in 1995 and it remains in place. The City of Valdosta adopted a similar ordinance in about 2009. Analysis The current City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance uses the term mini-warehouse which suggests the oldfashioned one-story mini-warehouses with all-metal construction that look like box cars and have overhead doors opening in front of the street. Modern climate-controlled self storage buildings with masonry exteriors internal access, no outdoor storage and high-quality landscaping have a much better external appearance. It would be possible to write a new definition for this type of facility and change the use table to allow it in more zoning districts. This might be a better option than rezoning the Madison Storage property to a zoning district such as Industrial Transition (IT) that would permit miniwarehouses. That would be a one-time solution that might have unintended consequences. It might set a precedent for less well-designed mini-warehouses in the same area. The PELUC approach used by Tallahassee and Valdosta could be modified to limit its application or change the criteria to better reflect the intent of the Mayor and City Council. It is important to discuss the reasons for using this kind of procedural approach: What problems do we want to solve? What unintended consequences might it have? Staff Recommendation For discussion only - staff waits for further instructions from City Council.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Council Wrap-Up
Page 4 of 4 No:
Petition 2013TA-006 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 201
The decision comes after review of a site plan and discussion of these criteria with public comments regarding the acceptability of the use in the community. Approval may come with conditions including requirements for mitigations, requiring periodic renewal of the certificate or limiting the time period.
3.C.7.b
City of Tallahassee, Florida Code of Ordinances - Zoning DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING LAND USE WAIVERS
Sec. 10-101. Title. Sec. 10-102. Definitions. Sec. 10-103. Intent. Sec. 10-104. Eligibility for waiver. Sec. 10-105. Criteria for granting waiver of nonconforming use status. Sec. 10-106. Final order of the board of adjustment and appeals. Sec. 10-107. Change of use/violations of conditions of certificate. Sec. 10-108. Criteria for denial of waiver of nonconforming status. Sec. 10-109. Appeals. Secs. 10-11010-130. Reserved.
Sec. 10-101. Title.

This division shall be known as the Tallahassee Nonconforming Land Uses Ordinance.
(Code 1984, ch. 27, 12A.1; Ord. No. 95-O-0025AA, 9-13-1995)
Sec. 10-102. Definitions.

The definition contained in this section shall be supplemental to those contained in section 10-2, which shall be applicable throughout this division unless a conflict with the definition provided in this section exists, in which case the meaning provided in this section shall prevail. The following term, when used in this division, shall have the meaning ascribed to it in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Nonconforming uses means a use of land which is not consistent with the designated future land use category of the city's 2010 Comprehensive Plan and/or the this chapter and chapter 9, article III of this Code.
Sec. 10-103. Intent.

It is the intent of this division to provide procedures and criteria for the review of the status of nonconforming land uses.
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: 11.2_Tallahassee PELUC ordinance (1242 : Discussion of Issues with Non-Conforming Uses)
3.C.7.b
Sec. 10-104. Eligibility for waiver.

The nonconforming use shall be consistent with all of the following criteria as set forth by the comprehensive plan and this division, in order to be eligible for application for a certification of previously established land use conformity (PELUC certificate). Any nonconformity that is expressly prohibited by the following criteria shall not be eligible to apply for waiver of nonconforming use status. (1) The nonconforming use shall have been originally established as a legal use and have been in existence on July 16, 1990. (2) The waiver provisions as set forth by land use policy 1.5.1 of the comprehensive plan and this division shall be applicable only to existing nonconforming uses of land and cannot be applied to waive any other development criteria in the land development ordinances and regulations, such as but not limited to, environmental requirements, buffering, open space, building codes, lot area, impervious surface, parking, or setbacks. (3) In all future land use and zoning categories, the following, uses shall not be eligible to apply for a PELUC certificate: a. Heavy infrastructure and heavy industrial uses adjoining low density residential area. b. Heavy infrastructure and any industrial use for which sole access is to a local or minor collector street, unless the street is a designated nonresidential street. (4) In order to protect existing residential areas from encroachment of incompatible uses that are destructive to the character and integrity of the residential environment, the following uses that are located within areas designated residential preservation shall not be eligible to apply for a PELUC certificate: a. Commercial uses and development in excess of 20,000 square feet of building floor area, other than office uses. b. All industrial uses. c. Heavy infrastructure. (5)
Packet Pg. 203
3.C.7.b
No request for waiver can be submitted which exceeds a floor area ratio of 0.5 for office uses and 0.2 for all other uses with the exception of residential land uses. A request for waiver can be submitted for residential land uses regardless of the floor area ratio.
(Code 1984, ch. 27, 12A.4; Ord. No. 95-O-0025AA, 9-13-1995; Ord. No. 99-O-0017, 1, 4-28-1999)
Sec. 10-105. Criteria for granting waiver of nonconforming use status.

The establishment of eligibility of the nonconforming use for purposes of application submittal shall in no way be construed to form the basis for granting the waiver, or waiver with mitigation, of nonconforming use status. The applicant shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the impacts of the nonconforming use are either minimal upon the surrounding land uses and are not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or that the impacts of the nonconforming use may be substantially mitigated. Economic hardship may be considered as a factor supporting granting a nonconforming use waiver. (1) The board of adjustment and appeals may grant a PELUC certificate upon application of the property owner and after public review and hearing. Notice of the public hearing shall be given at least five days in advance of the hearing and shall be mailed at least ten days prior to the meeting to property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property. A principal place of residence shall be exempt from the requirements as set forth below. A PELUC certificate for any other eligible use may only be granted upon the board of adjustment and appeals' findings of fact and conclusions of law that the nonconforming use is consistent with the following criteria as set forth by land use policy 1.5.11 and this division: a. A determination that the impact of the nonconformity is minimal upon surrounding land use and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and, as a result, the nonconforming status may be waived. b. A determination that the impact of the nonconformity may be substantially mitigated such that the development may attain conforming status by implementing the outlined mitigation steps. 1. Site plan or plan of development may be required to demonstrate mitigative measures that will maintain compatibility through specified design measures. Inter-site compatibility criteria shall be determined by the board of adjustment and appeals based on the following: i. Aesthetically and functionally compatible land uses. ii. Adequate buffering, screening, landscaping, and architectural treatment if located in a residential area.
Packet Pg. 204
3.C.7.b
iii. Sufficient parking, designed to provide safe internal traffic circulation, and off-site access. 2. The objectionable impacts of service and delivery areas, refuse and recycling collection areas, as well as the outdoor storage and work areas generally associated with commercial residential buildings shall be designed to minimize off-site impacts. (2) If the board of adjustment and appeals determines that the nonconforming use meets the required criteria as specified by land use policy 1.5.1 and this division, the board of adjustment and appeals shall issue a PELUC certificate, in a recordable format, which shall be valid only for the specific use and area of the site for which the waiver was granted. The certificate may contain conditions under which the waiver has been granted and may contain an expiration date for the waiver. The certificate shall provide that any expansion proposed on the property covered by the certificate must comply with the development standards for the primary use in the district in which the property is located. If an expiration date is provided, the use shall revert to nonconforming status on the expiration date. Upon application to the board of adjustment and appeals prior to the expiration date, the expiration date may be extended after review by the board of adjustment and appeals. The granting of a PELUC certificate for a particular use on a single parcel of property shall in no way be construed to waive any other development requirements or to establish vesting or precedence for other nonconforming uses on that parcel or on any other parcel.
(Code 1984, ch. 27, 12A.5; Ord. No. 95-O-0025AA, 9-13-1995; Ord. No. 01-O-28AA, 30, 10-24-2001)
Sec. 10-106. Final order of the board of adjustment and appeals.

(a) The PELUC certificate may require the applicant to meet certain specific mitigative conditions such as, but not limited to, a site plan or plan of development, buffering, architectural treatment in residential areas, additional setbacks, access limitations, limitations on use, or an expiration date of the use. Such order cannot allow a waiver that exceeds a floor area ratio of 0.5 for office uses and 0.2 for all other uses. (b) The written certificate of the board of adjustment and appeals shall be permanently on file in the office of the growth management department and a copy thereof promptly transmitted to the applicant. The applicant shall provide proof to the land use administrator that the certificate has been recorded in the public records of the county within 30 days of the date of the certificate. Failure to record shall render the certificate null and void as though it had never been issued.
Packet Pg. 205
3.C.7.b
(Code 1984, ch. 27, 12A.6; Ord. No. 95-O-0025AA, 9-13-1995; Ord. No. 01-O-28AA, 31, 10-24-2001)
Sec. 10-107. Change of use/violations of conditions of certificate.

(a) Any use for which the PELUC certificate has been granted that ceases for a period in excess of 12 months shall be deemed a voluntary abandonment of such certificate. (b) Any change of use shall be deemed a voluntary abandonment of such certificate unless, upon notice of violation of the certificate conditions from the city, the violation ceases within 30 days. (c) A finding of a violation by the code enforcement board of the terms or conditions of the certificate shall be an abandonment of the certificate, and the use shall return to its previous nonconforming status.
Sec. 10-108. Criteria for denial of waiver of nonconforming status.

Any application for a PELUC certificate shall be denied based upon the board of adjustment and appeals' findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the provisions of this division that the nonconformity violates the intent of this division or that it has substantial impacts which may not be overcome by any mitigation procedures and as such, the development shall remain in a nonconforming status and such use shall terminate according to law.
Sec. 10-109. Appeals.

Every determination of the board of adjustment and appeals regarding a PELUC certificate shall be final, subject to such remedies as any aggrieved party might have at law or in equity.
Packet Pg. 206
3.C.8
City of Chamblee
ACTION ITEM (ID # 1244) SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF APPROVED UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES FOR STREET TREES
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM ITEM: Staff desires guidance from the Mayor and City Council regarding appropriate species of street trees to permit in areas within 500 feet of a billboard where new state legislation prohibits planting of trees that would block the view of billboards.
ISSUE: 1) Section 902.D. of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance requires street trees to be a minimum of 4 inches in caliper measured 36 inches above the ground, shall be a minimum of 16 feet in height, shall have a minimum mature height of 40 feet, and shall be limbed up to a minimum height of ten feet. Said trees shall be in proportion in height to the first floor of a building. 2) Georgia DOT has informed staff that a limited number of understory trees would be approved for planting as street trees within 500 feet of billboards. This list is in Attachment 2. Understory trees are defined in the Citys Tree Preservation Ordinance Administrative Guidelines, as those trees that grow beneath the overstory, and will generally reach a mature height of less than 40 feet. 3) Staff has identified three different adopted lists of understory tree species in City ordinances and guidelines. Attachment 3 is a chart that compares these three lists side-by-side so that it is clear that the lists are different. This is a source of confusion for anyone who administers the Citys tree planting and streetscape guidelines. 4) The Mayor and City Council have indicated concern about what trees are considered to be understory trees. There was specific concern about allowing crape myrtles to be used. According to GA DOT crape myrtles are one of only a short list of understory trees that are acceptable to plant within 500 feet of a billboard that blocked the view of billboards. DISCUSSION: The Development Department has proposed the following Zoning Ordinance text amendment: Section 902. - Sidewalks. D. Street tree planting requirements.
Packet Pg. 207
3.C.8
1. Street trees are required and shall be planted in the ground a maximum of 50 feet on center or grouped 120 feet on-center within the landscape zone and spaced equal distance between street lights. 2. All Except where required otherwise by state regulations and approved by the City Manager or his/her designee, newly planted trees shall be a minimum of 4 inches in caliper measured 36 inches above the ground, shall be a minimum of 16 feet in height, shall have a minimum mature height of 40 feet, and shall be limbed up to a minimum height of ten feet. Said trees shall be in proportion in height to the first floor of a building.
In researching this question, staff identified three different adopted lists of understory tree species in City ordinances and guidelines: The City of Chamblees adopted Streetscape Design Guidelines (page 2) list 6 species of understory trees approved for use in public rights of way. Section 1401.E.2 lists 21 species of understory trees approved for meeting the Citys landscape requirements The Citys Tree Preservation Ordinance Administrative Guidelines (page 16) lists 31 species of understory trees for new plantings. This list is adopted by reference in Section 34-411 of the City Code. Attachment 3 is a chart that compares these three lists side-by-side so that it is clear that the lists are different. This is a source of confusion for anyone who administers the Citys tree planting and streetscape guidelines. It is apparent that Crape myrtles appear in all three lists of the Citys understory trees. Crape myrtles also appear in the list of understory trees approved by the Georgia DOT. Staff would like guidance from the Mayor and City Council concerning their intent.
REQUESTED ACTION: Staff awaits direction by the Mayor and City Council regarding interpretation and potential revision of the City Ordinances or Streetscape Design Guidelines in order to select appropriate understory tree species for use in streetscapes and tree preservation applications of the City of Chamblee. Staff recommends that the City use one list of approved understory trees for use in streetscapes in public rights of way and that it be clarified which species will be approved for street trees where the Citys streetscape requirements place street trees within 500 feet of existing billboards. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attachment List:
Packet Pg. 208
3.C.8
12.1_StaffReport_Discussion of Appropriate Species of Understory Street Trees Near Billboards (DOCX) 12.2_List of Tree Species that GDOT will approve (DOCX) 12.3_Comparison of Understory trees approved by Chamblee (DOCX)
Review: Gary Cornell Marc Johnson City Council Completed Completed Pending 10/03/2013 5:10 PM 10/06/2013 9:52 PM
Packet Pg. 209
3.C.8.a
Development Department City Council Working Session October 10, 2013
STAFF REPORT Subject: Discussion of Approved Understory Tree Species for Street Trees
Background: A new statute adopted by the Georgia General Assembly pursuant to HB 179 reads in part: After July 1, 2011, however, no beautification project in this state shall include the planting of trees within the right of way within 500 feet of an outdoor advertising sign such that the visibility of a permitted outdoor advertising sign is obscured or could later be obscured by the growth of such vegetation. However, Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Landscape Architect, Davie Biagi has informed us that the GDOT will allow planting of a limited number of understory tree species provided they are maintained at a height not to exceed 20 feet. See Attachment 2. A proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 902 D.2 of the Citys Zoning Ordinance is intended to provide flexibility for the City Manager to provide relief to applicants with property near billboards where our ordinance would conflict with state regulations. Section 902. Sidewalks. D. Street tree planting requirements. 1. Street trees are required and shall be planted in the ground a maximum of 50 feet on center or grouped 120 feet on-center within the landscape zone and spaced equal distance between street lights. 2. All Except where required otherwise by state regulations and approved by the City Manager or his/her designee, newly planted trees shall be a minimum of 4 inches in caliper measured 36 inches above the ground, shall be a minimum of 16 feet in height, shall have a minimum mature height of 40 feet, and shall be limbed up to a minimum height of ten feet. Said trees shall be in proportion in height to the first floor of a building. However, there are further complications in trying to interpret the allowable species to include in the term understory tree because the City actually has three different lists of tree species in various places in the codes that are allowed as understory trees. See Attachment 3 for a comparison of these lists. Council Wrap-Up Page 1 of 2 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 10, 2013
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: 12.1_StaffReport_Discussion of Appropriate Species of Understory Street Trees Near Billboards (1244 : Discussion of Approved
3.C.8.a
Recommendation: The multiple lists of potential street trees in the City guidelines could be combined to one or simplified to avoid conflicts among these three lists. If the Mayor and City Council desire, staff will provide a recommendation on revisions to the City Ordinances, the Administrative Guidelines for Tree Preservation, and/or the Streetscape Design Guidelines regarding the appropriate tree species to use as understory trees for street trees and for other purposes. Staff will edit these documents as directed, then prepare future amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance or Design Guidelines for action as directed.
Council Wrap-Up
Page 2 of 2 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 10, 2013
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: 12.1_StaffReport_Discussion of Appropriate Species of Understory Street Trees Near Billboards (1244 : Discussion of Approved
3.C.8.b
Amelanchier x grandiflora Princess Diana (apple serviceberry) Tree-formed Waxmyrtle Low Magnolias: Betty Jane Butterfly Ivory Chalice Pinkie Alexandrina Lennei Rustica Red Star Centennial Roseata Ballerina Ann Crape Myrtle Varieties 11 to 20 Feet in Height Flower Acoma Comanchee Lipan Osage Sioux Yuma White Dark Coral Pink Med. Lavender Clear Pink Intense Dark Pink Lavender Bicolor Habit Spreading Upright Upright Pendulous Upright Upright
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: 12.2_List of Tree Species that GDOT will approve (1244 : Discussion of Approved Understory Tree Species for Street Trees)
List of Tree Species that GDOT will approve in their rights-of-way (per Davie Biagi, GDOT Landscape Architect)
3.C.8.b
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: 12.2_List of Tree Species that GDOT will approve (1244 : Discussion of Approved Understory Tree Species for Street Trees)
3.C.8.c
Understory Tree Comparison- City of Chamblee Regulations

Chamblee Streetscape Design Guidelines Common Name Botanical name Chamblee Zoning Ordinance Section 1401.E.2 Common Name Botanical name Chamblee Administrative Guidelines
Fringe tree Kousa Dogwood Purple Smoke Tree
Chionanthus virginicus Cornus kousa chinensis Cotinus coggygria
Kousa Dogwood Flowering Dogwood
Cornus kousa chinensis Cornus florida
Fringe tree Dogwood Smoke Tree
Chionanthus virginicus Cormus species Cotinus coggygria
American or European Smoke Tree Carolina Silverbell Holly llex spp.
Cottinus obovatus or coggygria Halesia caroliniana
Silverbell Savannah Holly Deciduous Hollies Nellie R. Stephens Holly American Holly Yaupon Holly Hybrid Crepe Myrtles
Halesia caroliniana Llex x attenuata Llex x deciduas Llex x Nellie R. Stephens Llex x opaca Llex x vomitoria Lagerstroemia faureii
Crape Myrtle*
Lagerstroemia indica
Crape Myrtle Hybrid Crepe Myrtles 'Brown Turkey' Fig Redbud Wax Myrtle Sourwood Little Gem Magnolia Saucer Magnolia Star Magnolia Crabapple Kwanzan Cherry
Lagerstroemia indica Lagerstroemia faureii Ficus carica Cercis Canadensis Myrica cerifera Oxydendron arboreum Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia soulangeana Magnolia stellata
Wax Myrtle
Myrica cerifera
Wax Myrtle Sourwood
Myrica cerifera Oxydendron arboreum
Saucer Magnolia Star Magnolia Sweetbay Magolia Flowering Crabapple
Magnolia soulangeana Magnolia stellata Magolia virginiana Malus species
Malus spp. Prunus cerasifera
Chamblee Streetscape Design Guidelines
Prunus x yedoensis Yoshino Cherry Chamblee Zoning Ordinance Section 1401.E.2 Sassafrass Tree Lilac Chaste Tree Trident Maple Paper bark Maple Japanese Maple Sassafrass albidum Vitex agnus-castus Acer Buergeranum Acer griseum Acer palmatum
Chamblee Administrative Guidelines Improved Flowering Pear Pyrus hybrids Sassafrass Tree Sassafrass albidum Trident Maple Acer Buergeranum
Service berry American Hornbeam Carolina Hornbeam Eastern Redbud Washington Hawthorne Leyland Cyprus Japanese Cryptomeria Bougainvillea Goldenraintree Panicled Godenraintree Osage-orange Chinese pistache Chastetree *Where possible
Amelanchier arborea Carpinus caroliniana Ostrya virginia Cercis canadensis Craetegus phaenopyrium Cupressocyparis leylandii Cryptomeria japonica Koelreuteria bipinnata Koelreuteria paniculata Maclura pomiera Pistachia chinensis Vitex cagnus-castus
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: 12.3_Comparison of Understory trees approved by Chamblee (1244 : Discussion of Approved Understory Tree Species for Street
3.D.1
City of Chamblee
Department: Police Prepared By: Marc Johnson Initiator: Marc Johnson
ACTION ITEM (ID # 1246) SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PURCHASES & BUDGET AMENDMENTS DUE TO ANNEXATION
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM REQUESTED ACTION:
Approval of the purchases and budget amendments detailed on the attached spreadsheet totaling $1,152,888 with $901,533 of the total to be financed through a five year lease with GMA. The purchases and lease approval are contingent on the annexation referendum passing and only take effect at that time.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
If the annexation is approved in November the police department will need a substantial amount of additional equipment.
ISSUE:
If the annexation is approved it will be necessary to have most of the equipment on hand and ready for use December 30, 2013, or as soon thereafter as possible. A detailed spreadsheet is attached itemizing the necessary equipment and associated costs. I am recommending that as much of the capital equipment as possible be leased through GMA for a five year period. If and when the lease is executed, GMA will deposit the funds into an account so that the city may draw down the funds as needed to pay for the purchases. This will eliminate the need for the city to front the funds and wait for reimbursement. The appropriate lease documents from GMA which will need to be approved will be provided at the council meeting. The mayor will need to be authorized to sign said documents. While the council is being asked to approve the purchases and lease now, it will not be acted on nor will the funds be used if the annexation vote fails.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: See attached spreadsheet Attachment List: 2013 Budget Amendments for Annexation 2014 Annexation Cost Breakdown (PDF) (PDF) (DOC) Proposed 2014 Annexation and Effects on PD
Packet Pg. 215
3.D.1
Packet Pg. 216
Police Department 2013 Budget Amendments - Contingent on Annexation Approval

POLICEDEPARTMENT
Item
ADDITIONALPATROLOFFICERS Salary Benefits Uniforms PreEmpl.Testing ADDITIONALINVESTIGATORS PreEmpl.Testing PERSONALEQUIPMENT StreamlightTLR1 6360ALSholsters,BW Suedelinedw/bucklebrbwblk GarrisonbuckelesVelcrobwbkmd Maceholdertopflap4ozhsbwblk Sabre4ozOCspray F21Bblackchrome21batons F21sidebreakscabbardBW Chainlinkhandcuff#700nickel Handcuffpouchtopflap,hs,bw,blk MagholderdblGL17/22,hs,bw,blk Motorolaradioholsters Bluereflectivelime/yelvestpolice Uniformbadges&walletbadges CPDcollarbrassgolddie CPDballcaps RainJackets BulletResistantVests Firearms PortableRadioMotorolaXTS5000
Qty
20 20 20 20
Cost
Sub Total
OneTimeStartUpCosts Total 2013 Lease

$30,500 $30,500 $0
2013 Recurring Expenses
2013BudgetAmendments AccountNumber Description

RegularEmpl. VariousAccts Uniforms PreEmpl.Testing
$71,325 $1,426,500 $42,800 $856,000 $27,000 $540,000 $1,025 $20,500 $500 $10,000 $500 $500 $5,795 $99 $101 $58 $33 $25 $15 $80 $25 $35 $27 $32 $45 $20 $169 $9 $7 $70 $535 $410 $4,000 $1,500 $1,500 $133,285 $2,277 $2,323 $1,334 $759 $575 $345 $1,840 $575 $805 $621 $736 $1,035 $460 $3,887 $207 $161 $1,610 $12,305 $9,430 $92,000
$20,500 $10,000 $1,500 $1,500 $133,285 $2,277 $2,323 $1,334 $759 $575 $345 $1,840 $575 $805 $621 $736 $1,035 $460 $3,887 $207 $161 $1,610 $12,305 $9,430 $92,000
$20,500 $10,000 $1,500 $1,500 $31,855 $2,277 $2,323 $1,334 $759 $575 $345 $1,840 $575 $805 $621 $736 $1,035 $460 $3,887 $207 $161 $1,610 $12,305 $0
$75,000 $50,000 100203223511100 $25,000 100203223531120 100203210521216
100203210521216 $101,430 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223531120 100203223542500 100203223542500
PreEmpl.Testing
23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
$9,430 $92,000
Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms OtherEquip. OtherEquip.
Packet Pg. 217
3.D.1.a
Attachment: 2013 Budget Amendments for Annexation (1246 : Approval of Purchases & Budget Amendments Due to Annexation)
Page1of4

POLICEDEPARTMENT
Item
ADDITIONALPATROLVEHICLES FordCrownVic EmergencyEquipment EquipmentInstallation Decals DecalInstallation MobileRadioMotorolaXTL5000 WatchGuardVideoCamera ComputerDockingStation CitationPrinter AED MOBILECOMPUTERS&SOFTWARE PanasonicComputerCF31 MSOffice VisionMobileLEWorkstation VisionAIRMobileAVL VisionAIRFieldBsedReporting GeoLynksMobileMapping APSQuickVoice APSQuickTicket NetMotionLicenses ADDITIONALCIDVEHICLES FordFusion EmergencyEquipment EquipmentInstallation MobileRadioMotorolaXTL5000 InvestigatorEquipment ADDITIONALCOMM.OFFICERS Salary Benefits Uniforms
Qty
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Cost
$53,175 $30,000 $8,500 $1,100 $500 $250 $4,000 $6,000 $600 $725 $1,500 $8,888 $4,500 $235 $1,369 $380 $756 $731 $299 $299 $320 $33,100 $23,000 $3,000 $600 $4,000 $2,500 $62,245 $36,745 $25,000 $500
Sub Total
$531,750 $300,000 $85,000 $11,000 $5,000 $2,500 $40,000 $60,000 $6,000 $7,250 $15,000 $85,426 $45,000 $2,350 $13,685 $3,795 $7,560 $7,313 $2,990 $2,093 $640 $132,400 $92,000 $12,000 $2,400 $16,000 $10,000 $124,490 $73,490 $50,000 $1,000

$531,750 $300,000 $85,000 $11,000 $5,000 $2,500 $40,000 $60,000 $6,000 $7,250 $15,000 $85,426 $45,000 $2,350 $13,685 $3,795 $7,560 $7,313 $2,990 $2,093 $640 $132,400 $92,000 $12,000 $2,400 $16,000 $10,000 $1,000 $0 $531,750 $300,000 $85,000 $11,000 $5,000 $2,500 $40,000 $60,000 $6,000 $7,250 $15,000 $85,426 $45,000 $2,350 $13,685 $3,795 $7,560 $7,313 $2,990 $2,093 $640 $132,400 $92,000 $12,000 $2,400 $16,000 $10,000 $0

100203223542200 100203223542200 100203223542200 100203223542200 100203223542200 100203223542500 100203223542500 100203223542200 100203223542500 100203223542500 Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles OtherEquip. OtherEquip. Vehicles OtherEquip. OtherEquip.
$0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 2
100203223542500 100203223542402 100203223542402 100203223542402 100203223542402 100203223542402 100203223542402 100203223542402 100203223542402
OtherEquip. Comp.Software Comp.Software Comp.Software Comp.Software Comp.Software Comp.Software Comp.Software Comp.Software
$0
4 4 4 4 4
100203223542200 100203223542200 100203223542200 100203223542500 100203223542500
Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles OtherEquip. OtherEquip.
$1,000
2 2 2
$1,000
$1,000
$6,000 215203800511100 $2,000 215203800531120
RegularEmpl. VariousAccts Uniforms
Packet Pg. 218
3.D.1.a
Page2of4

POLICEDEPARTMENT
Item
ADDITIONALCOMM.SUPV Salary Benefits Uniforms ADDITIONAL911POSITION 911AnsweringPosition CADComputer GeoComm911Mapping GeoRelayLicense GeoCommInstallation CADEMD/EPDInterface EMD/EPDLicense Smart911License 911MapAnalysis&Evaluation 911MapChangesandAdditions POLICEBUILDINGREMODEL RemodelConstructionCosts ReplaceMaleLockerroomlockers CIDOfficeCubicles SquadRoom&WatchCmdr.Cubicles RecordsRoomCubicles CarpetReplacement UpgradePhone&VoiceMailSystem
Qty
1 1 1
Cost
$66,500 $41,000 $25,000 $500 $60,527 $20,000 $2,500 $6,125 $1,134 $2,500 $2,268 $9,000 $7,000 $5,000 $5,000 $101,000 $25,000 $11,000 $15,000 $20,000 $6,000 $20,000 $4,000
Sub Total
$66,500 $41,000 $25,000 $500 $60,527 $20,000 $2,500 $6,125 $1,134 $2,500 $2,268 $9,000 $7,000 $5,000 $5,000 $101,000 $25,000 $11,000 $15,000 $20,000 $6,000 $20,000 $4,000

$500 $500 $0

RegularEmpl. VariousAccts Uniforms
$500 $60,527 $20,000 $2,500 $6,125 $1,134 $2,500 $2,268 $9,000 $7,000 $5,000 $5,000 $101,000 $25,000 $11,000 $15,000 $20,000 $6,000 $20,000 $4,000
$500 $10,000 $50,527 $20,000 $2,500 $6,125 $1,134 $2,500 $2,268 $9,000 $7,000
$6,000 100203226511100 $2,000 100203226531120 $0 215203800542401 215203800542401 215203800542402 215203800542402 215203800542402 215203800542402 215203800542402 215203800542402 215203800521310 215203800521310 $0 100203260522210 100203260522210 100203260522210 100203260522210 100203260522210 100203260522210 100203210542300
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
$5,000 $5,000 $101,000 $25,000 $11,000 $15,000 $20,000 $6,000 $20,000 $4,000 $0
Comp.Equip. Comp.Equip. Comp.Software Comp.Software Comp.Software Comp.Software Comp.Software Comp.Software SoftwareMaint. SoftwareMaint.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maint.Buildings Maint.Buildings Maint.Buildings Maint.Buildings Maint.Buildings Maint.Buildings Furn.andFixtures
EXPENDITURETOTALS
OneTime StartUp Costs $1,077,888
2012 2012 Recurring Expenses Expenses Lease $176,355 $901,533 $75,000
REVENUETOTALS CapitalProceedsfromGMALease
$901,533
100203210393501
OffsettingRevenue
Packet Pg. 219
3.D.1.a
Page3of4

POLICEDEPARTMENT
Item Qty Cost Sub Total OneTimeStartUpCosts Total 2013 Lease 2013 Recurring Expenses 2013BudgetAmendments AccountNumber Description
POLICEDEPARTMENTTOTALS LeaseOption $901,533 5yrs@3.5% OneTimeStartUpExpensesLease OneTimeExpenses2013 TotalOneTimeStartUpExpenses Recurring2013Expenses TOTALEXPENDITUREBUDGETAMENDMENTS CAPITALPROCEEDSFROMGMACAPITALLEASE
$196,806 $901,533 $176,355 $1,077,888 $75,000 $1,152,888 $901,533
Packet Pg. 220
3.D.1.a
Page4of4
3.D.1.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT:
Mayor & City Council Chief R. M. Johnson October 4, 2013 Proposed 2014 Annexation & the Effects on Police Services
In preparation for the possibility of the 2013 annexation of the Dresden East neighborhood and the surrounding area we studied the makeup of the area, analyzing historical information we obtained from DeKalb County PD, and comparing it to the conditions and workload for the current city. The goal was to determine the appropriate number of additional police personnel and other resources which will be necessary to provide the same level of service to the new area that we are now providing within the current city limits. As should be expected, finances will play a critical part in these decisions. While the stated goal is to provide the same level of service to the newest area, we are also expected to be able to provide this same level of service without causing any adverse financial impact on the existing tax base. Since the proposed 2014 annexation is for the exact same area, the following information is still relevant. Patrol Officers The largest impact and need will be the addition of sworn police officers. There is no perfect method for determining the number of police officers needed for a particular area and a number of models exist such as basing the decision upon the population with a per capita ratio, the history of calls for service and the land mass involved. I believe that a combination of the various methods is the best alternative in this situation. According to the 2010 census data, the population of the area is 11,300. The current population of the City is 15,500, and prior to the last annexation it was 9892. At the time we were preparing for the last annexation the census data had not been released and the ARC estimate for Chamblees population was 12,500. Using those numbers, the PD had an approximate ratio of 1 patrol officer per 500 residents. The city council approved an increase in the staffing level for that annexation which maintained this ratio. The current organizational structure of the police department has 37 sworn officers either assigned to patrol duties or working in patrol vehicles in special assignments such as the Traffic Unit and COPs Unit. Those 37 officers currently provide
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Proposed 2014 Annexation and Effects on PD (1246 : Approval of Purchases & Budget Amendments Due to Annexation)
3.D.1.b
I analyzed DeKalb County PDs calls for service in the area for the first half of 2012 and determined that they were equal to roughly 98% of Chamblee PDs total call volume during the same period. This analysis involved comparing similar types of calls and eliminating traffic and other types of calls which DeKalb did not include in their data. Considered alone, this could be used to justify a 98% increase in the number of officers which would be 36 officers. The current City limits encompass 4.81 sq miles and prior to the last annexation it was 3.18 sq miles. The area now being considered for annexation encompasses 3.04 sq miles or a 63% increase in area. By itself, this could be used to justify a 63% increase in the number of patrol officers which would be 23 officers. Based upon all three methods considered together, I am recommending that an additional 19 patrol officers be added to the police department. I believe this is a conservative and safe number to begin with. The additional patrol officers would be assigned as follows: 4 officers to each of the four patrol teams for a total of eleven per team 1 officer to the traffic unit 2 officers to the COPs/code enforcement unit
These additional officers would require an additional 10 patrol vehicles and all of the ancillary emergency equipment that goes with them.
Investigators There will be a need for additional investigators. Currently we have 5 officers assigned to the Investigative Division, a Captain, Sergeant and 3 Detectives. The 3 detectives spend all of their time working on assigned cases. In addition to working cases, the sergeant is the property room custodian and serves as the crime scene technician. The Captain is currently responsible for internal investigations and is our primary firearms and defensive tactics instructor. Considering that the proposed annexation will result in a 58% increase in population that could justify a 58% increase in the number of detectives or three more. Keeping the ratio of detective to residents the same after the annexation would require 3.7 additional detectives. I am requesting that three additional detective positions be added to the current five. These additional detectives will require three additional unmarked vehicles.
Office of Professional Standards I am proposing that one additional officer be added to staff a new Office of Professional Standards. This individual would be responsible for the State Certification Program, would serve
Packet Pg. 222
a ratio of 1 patrol officer per 420 citizens. If an additional 17 patrol officers were added for the additional 11,300 residents, the ratio would then be 1 officer per 500 residents.
3.D.1.b
911 Communications With the annexation will come an increase in the number of 911 calls. As already stated the area will almost double. Besides an increase in the number of fixed telephone lines the cell phone calls are expected to increase even more substantially. It is not unusual to get multiple cell phone calls about the same incident. Given that the area considered for annexation will include 3 miles of I-85 this could have a significant effect on the number of calls. We currently have three 911 answering positions and two radio consoles. I believe we will need to add a fourth 911 answering position and a third radio console. We currently have three communication officers assigned to each shift when they are all on duty. I believe that may be a sufficient number but there is always going to be vacation, sick time and other reasons someone is off. I am requesting that we add two additional 911 communication officers. These additional personnel will help maintain a minimum staffing level of three operators. This is something we will need to monitor closely to ensure that two is enough. Detention Center The annexation will also bring with it an increase in the number of arrests and bookings in our detention center. All of our Communication Officers are cross trained and state certified as jailers. They are responsible for monitoring the detention center. This is primarily done remotely by CCTV and remote controls. They also assist the patrol officers in booking prisoners. I am requesting that we add an additional supervisor in the Administrative Division whose primary responsibility will be to coordinate the functions of the detention center. This individual would also work closely with the Court Clerk and Judges.
Technology and Administrative Support We are currently in need of additional technology and administrative support but with the annexation it will be absolutely critical. I am requesting that two new civilian positions be added. One would be title something like Technology Specialist and would report to the Administrative Division Cmdr. The position would be responsible for supporting the various uses of technology within the department. This would range from assisting with information technology needs to repairing or replacing technology equipment in the vehicles to arranging for vehicle maintenance. These functions currently consume a tremendous amount of time on the part of much higher paid staff and take away from their primary duties.
Packet Pg. 223
as the Department Training Officer and perform background investigations on applicants for employment. These functions are currently spread among other officers or dont clearly exist at the present time. With the increase in the total number of employees due to the annexation, these functions will become critical to maintain a professional, responsible and well trained organization. This individual would work closely with the Investigative Division and would be available to assist during large scale investigations. This position would also require an additional unmarked vehicle.
3.D.1.b
The second position would be an Executive Assistant for the Chief and Division Commanders. With the addition of the additional detectives the current administrative assistant would serve as the CID Administrative Assistant and continue to supervise the Criminal History Section. The additional position would provide support primarily to the Chief, Uniform Division Commander and Administrative Division Commander. Summary of Additional Positions Patrol Officers Detectives Professional Standards Total Sworn Positions Communication Officers Detention Supervisor Technology Specialist Executive Assistant Total Civilians 19 3 1 23 2 1 1 1 5
Police Building & Space The final issue will be arranging to fit all of these new employees and their functions into the existing building. The police building has a little less than 16,000 sq feet of space. When it was constructed in 1998 we had 47 full time employees and 15 to 20 part time employees working in Criminal History. With the last annexation the number of full time employees has increased to 64. If the annexation is approved the number of full time employees will jump to at least 93, double the number of employees we had when the building was designed and built. We have looked very hard at the building and have come up with several ways to increase the useable space. Some example are installing smaller lockers, moving a few walls to divide space differently. We will change from using desks in many of the offices to cubicles. This will result in more work stations being available as well as limiting the interference that would be experienced without the sound deadening partitions. Parking for police vehicles will be an issue as well. We havent entirely worked that out yet but it is certain that it will involve needing to use the spaces on Plaza Way that belong to the City and which have been being used for some time by the Assistance League.
Financial Estimates & Details Attached to this report is a spreadsheet which contains a detailed breakdown of the information provided here and estimates of the associated costs. In particular, the spreadsheet shows the onetime costs due to the annexation and purchasing/leasing the additional needed equipment. The
Packet Pg. 224
3.D.1.b
Packet Pg. 225
sheet also provides an estimate of the recurring costs for the first five year period after annexation. That estimate is based on 2013 dollars and includes the lease payments which would be for a five year period.
POLICEDEPARTMENT
Item
ADDITIONALPATROLOFFICERS Salary Benefits Uniforms PreEmploymentTesting ADDITIONALINVESTIGATORS Salary Benefits Uniforms PreEmploymentTesting DesktopComputers PERSONALEQUIPMENT StreamlightTLR1 6360ALSholsters,BW Suedelinedw/bucklebrbwblk GarrisonbuckelesVelcrobwbkmd Maceholdertopflap4ozhsbwblk Sabre4ozOCspray F21Bblackchrome21batons F21sidebreakscabbardBW Chainlinkhandcuff#700nickel Handcuffpouchtopflap,hs,bw,blk MagholderdblGL17/22,hs,bw,blk Motorolaradioholsters Bluereflectivelime/yelvestpolice Uniformbadges&walletbadges CPDcollarbrassgolddie CPDballcaps RainJackets BulletResistantVests Firearms PortableRadioMotorolaXTS5000
Qty
20 20 20 20
Cost
Sub Total
Total
$30,500
OneTimeStartUpCosts 2013 2014

$30,500 $0
Lease
$0

$75,000 $50,000 $25,000
Future Annual Recurring

$1,406,000 $856,000 $540,000 $10,000
$71,325 $1,426,500 $42,800 $856,000 $27,000 $540,000 $1,025 $20,500 $500 $10,000 $73,550 $42,800 $27,000 $1,250 $500 $2,000 $5,795 $99 $101 $58 $33 $25 $15 $80 $25 $35 $27 $32 $45 $20 $169 $9 $7 $70 $535 $410 $4,000 $220,650 $128,400 $81,000 $3,750 $1,500 $6,000 $133,285 $2,277 $2,323 $1,334 $759 $575 $345 $1,840 $575 $805 $621 $736 $1,035 $460 $3,887 $207 $161 $1,610 $12,305 $9,430 $92,000
$20,500 $10,000 $11,250
$20,500 $10,000 $5,250 $6,000 $0
3 3 3 3 3
$3,750 $1,500 $6,000 $133,285 $2,277 $2,323 $1,334 $759 $575 $345 $1,840 $575 $805 $621 $736 $1,035 $460 $3,887 $207 $161 $1,610 $12,305 $9,430 $92,000
$3,750 $1,500 $6,000 $31,855 $2,277 $2,323 $1,334 $759 $575 $345 $1,840 $575 $805 $621 $736 $1,035 $460 $3,887 $207 $161 $1,610 $12,305 $0 $101,430
$214,200 $128,400 $81,000 $3,000 $1,800 $0
23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
$9,430 $92,000
Packet Pg. 226
3.D.1.c
Attachment: 2014 Annexation Cost Breakdown (1246 : Approval of Purchases & Budget Amendments Due to Annexation)
POLICEDEPARTMENT
Item
ADDITIONALPATROLVEHICLES FordCrownVic EmergencyEquipment EquipmentInstallation Decals DecalInstallation MobileRadioMotorolaXTL5000 WatchGuardVideoCamera ComputerDockingStation CitationPrinter AED MOBILECOMPUTERS&SOFTWARE PanasonicComputerCF31 MSOffice VisionMobileLEWorkstation VisionAIRMobileAVL VisionAIRFieldBsedReporting GeoLynksMobileMapping APSQuickVoice APSQuickTicket NetMotionLicenses APSMaintenance(Recurring) LexisNexisGaCriminalLawonDisk(Recurring) VerizonWireless(Recurringperyear) VisionAIRMaintenance(Afteryear1) GeoCommMaintenance(Afteryear1) APSMaintenance(Afteryear1) ADDITIONALCIDVEHICLES FordFusion EmergencyEquipment EquipmentInstallation MobileRadioMotorolaXTL5000 InvestigatorEquipment
Qty
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Cost
$53,175 $30,000 $8,500 $1,200 $400 $300 $4,000 $6,000 $550 $725 $1,500 $10,326 $4,500 $235 $1,369 $380 $756 $731 $299 $299 $320 $108 $75 $600 $376 $172 $108 $33,100 $23,000 $3,000 $600 $4,000 $2,500
Sub Total
$531,750 $300,000 $85,000 $12,000 $4,000 $3,000 $40,000 $60,000 $5,500 $7,250 $15,000 $98,838 $45,000 $2,350 $13,685 $3,795 $7,560 $7,313 $2,990 $2,093 $640 $108 $750 $6,000 $3,756 $1,719 $1,080 $132,400 $92,000 $12,000 $2,400 $16,000 $10,000
Total
$531,750 $300,000 $85,000 $12,000 $4,000 $3,000 $40,000 $60,000 $5,500 $7,250 $15,000 $85,426 $45,000 $2,350 $13,685 $3,795 $7,560 $7,313 $2,990 $2,093 $640

$0 $0
Lease
$531,750 $300,000 $85,000 $12,000 $4,000 $3,000 $40,000 $60,000 $5,500 $7,250 $15,000 $85,426 $45,000 $2,350 $13,685 $3,795 $7,560 $7,313 $2,990 $2,093 $640

$0
$0
$0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 2 1 10 10 10 10 10
$19,412 $6,000
$108 $750 $6,000 $3,756 $1,719 $1,080 $132,400 $92,000 $12,000 $2,400 $16,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $132,400 $92,000 $12,000 $2,400 $16,000 $10,000 $0
4 4 4 4 4
Packet Pg. 227
3.D.1.c
POLICEDEPARTMENT
Item
ADDITIONALADMINISTRATIVEASSISTANT Salary Benefits DesktopComputer ADDITIONALCOMMUNICATIONOFFICERS Salary Benefits Uniforms EMD/EPDTraining ADDITIONALCOMMUNICATIONSUPERVISOR Salary Benefits Uniforms ADDITIONAL911CALLTAKERPOSITION 911AnsweringPositionComputer&Phone CADComputer GeoComm911Mapping GeoRelayLicense GeoCommInstallation CADEMD/EPDInterface EMD/EPDLicense Smart911License VisionAIRMaintenance(afteryear1) GeoCommMaintenance(afteryear1) 911MapAnalysis&Evaluation 911MapChangesandAdditions ADDITIONALRADIOCONSOLEPOSITION RequiresEntireSystemtobeReplaced New4PositionCommunicationsConsoleSyst. TECHNOLOGYSPECIALIST Salary Benefits
Qty
1 1 1
Cost
$65,500 $38,500 $25,000 $2,000 $63,245 $36,745 $25,000 $500 $1,000 $66,500 $41,000 $25,000 $500 $63,180 $20,000 $2,500 $6,125 $1,134 $2,500 $2,268 $9,000 $7,000 $1,966 $688 $5,000 $5,000 $150,000 1 $150,000 $63,058 $38,058 $25,000
Sub Total
$65,500 $38,500 $25,000 $2,000 $126,490 $73,490 $50,000 $1,000 $2,000 $66,500 $41,000 $25,000 $500 $63,180 $20,000 $2,500 $6,125 $1,134 $2,500 $2,268 $9,000 $7,000 $1,966 $688 $5,000 $5,000 $150,000 $150,000 $63,058 $38,058 $25,000
Total
$2,000

$0 $2,000
Lease
$0

$64,100 $38,500 $25,000 $600 $124,090 $73,490 $50,000 $600
$2,000 $3,000 $1,000
$2,000 $2,000 $0 $6,000 $2,000
2 2 2 2
$1,000 $2,000 $500
$1,000 $2,000 $500 $0 $0 $6,000 $2,000
1 1 1
$500 $60,527 $20,000 $2,500 $6,125 $1,134 $2,500 $2,268 $9,000 $7,000
$500 $10,000 $0 $50,527 $20,000 $2,500 $6,125 $1,134 $2,500 $2,268 $9,000 $7,000 $0
$66,300 $41,000 $25,000 $300 $3,253 $600
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
$1,966 $688 $5,000 $5,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $63,058 $38,058 $25,000
1 1
Packet Pg. 228
3.D.1.c
POLICEDEPARTMENT
Item
MUNICIPALCOURT PartTimeClerk DesktopComputer Judges Solicitor Interpreters PublicDefender SuppliesPrintedMaterials POLICEBUILDINGREMODEL RemodelConstructionCosts ReplaceMaleLockerroomlockers CIDOfficeCubicles SquadRoom&WatchCmdr.Cubicles RecordsRoomCubicles CarpetReplacement UpgradePhone&VoiceMailSystem NEW2013&FUTURERECURRINGEXPENSES LanguageLine Gasoline SuppliesEvidence SuppliesCommunication SuppliesOffice Ammunition MaintenanceVehicles PrisonerMeals DetentionSupplies MaintenanceCommunicationEquipment Postage FirstAidSupplies
Qty
1 1
Cost
$18,000 $16,000 $2,000
Sub Total
$18,000 $16,000 $2,000
Total
$2,000 $2,000

$0 $2,000 $2,000
Lease
$0

$0

$76,200 $16,000 $1,200 $30,000 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 $4,000 $0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
$101,000 $25,000 $11,000 $15,000 $20,000 $6,000 $20,000 $4,000 $0
$101,000 $25,000 $11,000 $15,000 $20,000 $6,000 $20,000 $4,000 $0
$101,000 $25,000 $11,000 $15,000 $20,000 $6,000 $20,000 $4,000
$101,000 $25,000 $11,000 $15,000 $20,000 $6,000 $20,000 $4,000
$0
$0
$0
$152,000 $12,000 $60,000 $6,000 $4,000 $4,000 $10,000 $20,000 $15,000 $4,000 $10,000 $4,000 $3,000
Totals
OneTime StartUp Costs $1,243,638
2013 Expenses $180,105
Lease $12,000 $1,051,533
$75,000
Future Recurring Costs $2,186,614
Packet Pg. 229
3.D.1.c
POLICEDEPARTMENT
Item Qty Cost
Sub Total
Total
Lease
POLICEDEPARTMENTTOTALS LeaseOption $1,051,533
5yrs@3.5%
$229,656 $1,243,638 $1,051,533 $180,105 $12,000 $2,416,270
TotalOneTimeStartUpExpenses OneTimeStartUpExpensesLease OneTimeExpenses2013 OneTimeExpenses2014 TotalRecurringCostsWithLeasePmt
Packet Pg. 230
3.D.1.c
3.D.2
City of Chamblee
Department: Police Prepared By: Marc Johnson Initiator: Marc Johnson
ACTION ITEM (ID # 1247) SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZED STRENGTH IF ANNEXATION IS APPROVED
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM REQUESTED ACTION:
Approval of an increase of 23 sworn and 5 non-sworn positions for the police department as detailed in the attached memo and contingent upon the vote for annexation being successful.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
If the annexation is approved in November the police department will need to increase the number of personnel.
ISSUE: A memo is attached detailing the anticipated effects of the proposed annexation on the police department. Included in the memo is a breakdown of the additional personnel believed necessary for the PD. Attachment List: Proposed 2014 Annexation and Effects on PD (DOC)
Packet Pg. 231
3.D.2.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT:
Mayor & City Council Chief R. M. Johnson October 4, 2013 Proposed 2014 Annexation & the Effects on Police Services
In preparation for the possibility of the 2013 annexation of the Dresden East neighborhood and the surrounding area we studied the makeup of the area, analyzing historical information we obtained from DeKalb County PD, and comparing it to the conditions and workload for the current city. The goal was to determine the appropriate number of additional police personnel and other resources which will be necessary to provide the same level of service to the new area that we are now providing within the current city limits. As should be expected, finances will play a critical part in these decisions. While the stated goal is to provide the same level of service to the newest area, we are also expected to be able to provide this same level of service without causing any adverse financial impact on the existing tax base. Since the proposed 2014 annexation is for the exact same area, the following information is still relevant. Patrol Officers The largest impact and need will be the addition of sworn police officers. There is no perfect method for determining the number of police officers needed for a particular area and a number of models exist such as basing the decision upon the population with a per capita ratio, the history of calls for service and the land mass involved. I believe that a combination of the various methods is the best alternative in this situation. According to the 2010 census data, the population of the area is 11,300. The current population of the City is 15,500, and prior to the last annexation it was 9892. At the time we were preparing for the last annexation the census data had not been released and the ARC estimate for Chamblees population was 12,500. Using those numbers, the PD had an approximate ratio of 1 patrol officer per 500 residents. The city council approved an increase in the staffing level for that annexation which maintained this ratio. The current organizational structure of the police department has 37 sworn officers either assigned to patrol duties or working in patrol vehicles in special assignments such as the Traffic Unit and COPs Unit. Those 37 officers currently provide
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Proposed 2014 Annexation and Effects on PD (1247 : Police Department Authorized Strength If Annexation is Approved)
3.D.2.a
I analyzed DeKalb County PDs calls for service in the area for the first half of 2012 and determined that they were equal to roughly 98% of Chamblee PDs total call volume during the same period. This analysis involved comparing similar types of calls and eliminating traffic and other types of calls which DeKalb did not include in their data. Considered alone, this could be used to justify a 98% increase in the number of officers which would be 36 officers. The current City limits encompass 4.81 sq miles and prior to the last annexation it was 3.18 sq miles. The area now being considered for annexation encompasses 3.04 sq miles or a 63% increase in area. By itself, this could be used to justify a 63% increase in the number of patrol officers which would be 23 officers. Based upon all three methods considered together, I am recommending that an additional 19 patrol officers be added to the police department. I believe this is a conservative and safe number to begin with. The additional patrol officers would be assigned as follows: 4 officers to each of the four patrol teams for a total of eleven per team 1 officer to the traffic unit 2 officers to the COPs/code enforcement unit
These additional officers would require an additional 10 patrol vehicles and all of the ancillary emergency equipment that goes with them.
Investigators There will be a need for additional investigators. Currently we have 5 officers assigned to the Investigative Division, a Captain, Sergeant and 3 Detectives. The 3 detectives spend all of their time working on assigned cases. In addition to working cases, the sergeant is the property room custodian and serves as the crime scene technician. The Captain is currently responsible for internal investigations and is our primary firearms and defensive tactics instructor. Considering that the proposed annexation will result in a 58% increase in population that could justify a 58% increase in the number of detectives or three more. Keeping the ratio of detective to residents the same after the annexation would require 3.7 additional detectives. I am requesting that three additional detective positions be added to the current five. These additional detectives will require three additional unmarked vehicles.
Office of Professional Standards I am proposing that one additional officer be added to staff a new Office of Professional Standards. This individual would be responsible for the State Certification Program, would serve
Packet Pg. 233
a ratio of 1 patrol officer per 420 citizens. If an additional 17 patrol officers were added for the additional 11,300 residents, the ratio would then be 1 officer per 500 residents.
3.D.2.a
911 Communications With the annexation will come an increase in the number of 911 calls. As already stated the area will almost double. Besides an increase in the number of fixed telephone lines the cell phone calls are expected to increase even more substantially. It is not unusual to get multiple cell phone calls about the same incident. Given that the area considered for annexation will include 3 miles of I-85 this could have a significant effect on the number of calls. We currently have three 911 answering positions and two radio consoles. I believe we will need to add a fourth 911 answering position and a third radio console. We currently have three communication officers assigned to each shift when they are all on duty. I believe that may be a sufficient number but there is always going to be vacation, sick time and other reasons someone is off. I am requesting that we add two additional 911 communication officers. These additional personnel will help maintain a minimum staffing level of three operators. This is something we will need to monitor closely to ensure that two is enough. Detention Center The annexation will also bring with it an increase in the number of arrests and bookings in our detention center. All of our Communication Officers are cross trained and state certified as jailers. They are responsible for monitoring the detention center. This is primarily done remotely by CCTV and remote controls. They also assist the patrol officers in booking prisoners. I am requesting that we add an additional supervisor in the Administrative Division whose primary responsibility will be to coordinate the functions of the detention center. This individual would also work closely with the Court Clerk and Judges.
Technology and Administrative Support We are currently in need of additional technology and administrative support but with the annexation it will be absolutely critical. I am requesting that two new civilian positions be added. One would be title something like Technology Specialist and would report to the Administrative Division Cmdr. The position would be responsible for supporting the various uses of technology within the department. This would range from assisting with information technology needs to repairing or replacing technology equipment in the vehicles to arranging for vehicle maintenance. These functions currently consume a tremendous amount of time on the part of much higher paid staff and take away from their primary duties.
Packet Pg. 234
as the Department Training Officer and perform background investigations on applicants for employment. These functions are currently spread among other officers or dont clearly exist at the present time. With the increase in the total number of employees due to the annexation, these functions will become critical to maintain a professional, responsible and well trained organization. This individual would work closely with the Investigative Division and would be available to assist during large scale investigations. This position would also require an additional unmarked vehicle.
3.D.2.a
The second position would be an Executive Assistant for the Chief and Division Commanders. With the addition of the additional detectives the current administrative assistant would serve as the CID Administrative Assistant and continue to supervise the Criminal History Section. The additional position would provide support primarily to the Chief, Uniform Division Commander and Administrative Division Commander. Summary of Additional Positions Patrol Officers Detectives Professional Standards Total Sworn Positions Communication Officers Detention Supervisor Technology Specialist Executive Assistant Total Civilians 19 3 1 23 2 1 1 1 5
Police Building & Space The final issue will be arranging to fit all of these new employees and their functions into the existing building. The police building has a little less than 16,000 sq feet of space. When it was constructed in 1998 we had 47 full time employees and 15 to 20 part time employees working in Criminal History. With the last annexation the number of full time employees has increased to 64. If the annexation is approved the number of full time employees will jump to at least 93, double the number of employees we had when the building was designed and built. We have looked very hard at the building and have come up with several ways to increase the useable space. Some example are installing smaller lockers, moving a few walls to divide space differently. We will change from using desks in many of the offices to cubicles. This will result in more work stations being available as well as limiting the interference that would be experienced without the sound deadening partitions. Parking for police vehicles will be an issue as well. We havent entirely worked that out yet but it is certain that it will involve needing to use the spaces on Plaza Way that belong to the City and which have been being used for some time by the Assistance League.
Financial Estimates & Details Attached to this report is a spreadsheet which contains a detailed breakdown of the information provided here and estimates of the associated costs. In particular, the spreadsheet shows the onetime costs due to the annexation and purchasing/leasing the additional needed equipment. The
Packet Pg. 235
3.D.2.a
Packet Pg. 236
sheet also provides an estimate of the recurring costs for the first five year period after annexation. That estimate is based on 2013 dollars and includes the lease payments which would be for a five year period.
4.A.1
City of Chamblee
ORDINANCE (ID # 1239) SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - OUTDOOR STORAGE AND VEHICLE SALES
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Section 611 of the Zoning Ordinance concerns outdoor storage. The current language prohibits outdoor display of motor vehicles for sale anywhere except in designated car sales lots. This provision conflicts with Georgia statute at 40-2-39.1. that passed in 2007. When a state regulates an activity, local legislation cannot conflict with its provisions. In pursuing this change, staff discovered that the term outdoor storage is not defined in the current zoning ordinance. However regulations in Section 1008 require that outdoor storage be placed in the side or rear yard and be properly screened by a 6-ft. high wood fence. Lack of a formal definition of the term results in difficulty in enforcement because enforcement personnel have to be able to define what comprises outdoor storage in order to require property owners to comply with the regulations. ISSUE: The current text of Section 611 - Outdoor storage and uses prohibited results in two issues that need to be resolved with a text amendment. 1) A portion of the text of Section 611 prohibits outdoor display of motor vehicles for sale anywhere except in designated car sales lots. This provision conflicts with state law. 2) Outdoor storage is not defined in the current zoning ordinance. This makes enforcement difficult. Please see the attached staff report for full details REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends amending Section 611 of the Zoning Ordinance to delete the language that conflicts with Georgia statutes, and by adding a definition of Outdoor Storage in Section 301. In September the Mayor and City Council received this item for discussion and no changes were made. First read can be done in October and then we will advertise a public hearing and the second read in November.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Packet Pg. 237
4.A.1
Attachment List: 06.1_StaffReport_2013TA-004_Outdoor Storage and Vehicle Sales 06.2_ OCGA 40-2-39_1 (PDF) (DOCX) 06.3_ Adopting Resolution and ORDINANCE (PDF)
Review: Gary Cornell Marc Johnson Marc Johnson City Council Completed Completed Completed Pending 10/03/2013 12:29 PM 10/07/2013 12:41 AM 10/07/2013 12:41 AM
Packet Pg. 238
4.A.1.a
Petition No.: 2013TA 004 Development Department City Council Working Session October 10, 2013
STAFF REPORT Subject: Proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Outdoor Storage and Vehicle Sales
The Issue: The current text of Section 611 - Outdoor storage and uses prohibited results in two issues that need to be resolved with a text amendment. 1) A portion of the text of Section 611 prohibits outdoor display of motor vehicles for sale anywhere except in designated car sales lots. This provision conflicts with state law. 2) Outdoor storage is not defined in the current zoning ordinance. This makes enforcement difficult. Each of these issues is discussed and analyzed separately below. Discussion of Issue 1: A portion of Section 611 reads as follows: Outdoor display of motor vehicles for sale is expressly prohibited unless associated with a principal use of motor vehicle sales of a motor vehicle sales establishment. In no case shall motor vehicles for sale be located and displayed anywhere except in designated lots for such display. However, a Georgia statute at 40-2-39.1. reads in part, as follows: (a)(4) An owner or lessee of any used motor vehicle shall not display or park such used motor vehicle on the real property of another for the purpose of selling or advertising the sale of such used motor vehicle unless the owner or lessee of such vehicle has he prior permission of the owner or lessee of the real property. There are addition provisions set out how many vehicles can be parked for sale at one time (two) and how many can be displayed for sale of the same property in a year (five) and other provisions. Analysis of Issue 1: Since the state government has already regulated and set forth terms for legal sales of used cars on commercial property other than motor vehicle sales lots, per se, then the City of Chamblee would be pre-empted from making its own regulations that conflict with that of the state.
Council Wrap-Up
Page 1 of 3
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: 06.1_StaffReport_2013TA-004_Outdoor Storage and Vehicle Sales (1239 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Outdoor Storage
4.A.1.a
Recommendation for Issue 1: Staff recommends that Section 611. Outdoor storage and uses prohibited be amended to strike references to sale of motor vehicles and to read as follows:
Sec. 611. Outdoor storage and uses prohibited.

Outdoor storage shall be prohibited except where such outdoor storage is expressly permitted in article X, section 1002, Permitted uses. See also section 1008. I and IT districts. ______________________ Discussion of Issue 2: The current text of Section 611- Outdoor storage and uses prohibited reads as follows: Sec. 611. Outdoor storage and uses prohibited. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited except where such outdoor storage is expressly permitted in article X, section 1002, Permitted uses, or in article II regarding seasonal activities and temporary outdoor sale permit and as authorized in this zoning ordinance for outdoor dining. Outdoor display of motor vehicles for sale is expressly prohibited unless associated with a principal use of motor vehicle sales of a motor vehicle sales establishment. In no case shall motor vehicles for sale be located and displayed anywhere except in designated lots for such display. Section 1002 - Permitted uses allows outdoor storage in the Light Industrial (I) and Industrial Transition (IT) districts. Section 1008 requires that outdoor storage in those districts to be placed in the rear or side yard and be screened by a six-foot high opaque wooden fence. However, a definition of outdoor storage does not appear in the current zoning ordinance. This results in confusion and difficulty for enforcement personnel. The current text tries to clarify that outdoor dining is not outdoor storage, but that does not define what constituted outdoor storage. Analysis of Issue 2: Definitions of the term outdoor storage are common in other cities and counties. A good definition considers a range of activities that have a common degree of unsightliness that degrade the appearance of an area. This can range from storage of open yards of raw materials from industrial processes, heavy machines, vehicles, and equipment motorized equipment that are in use but frequently stored outside for extended periods of time when not in use. It also includes bulk and commercial or industrial inventories such as pipeyards and other such materials that come and go and are commonly stored outside instead of in enclosed warehouses. Outdoor storage can also include oversize retail store inventories such as building and landscape materials that are regularly stored in outdoor yards but could also be kept inside warehouses. However, temporary outdoor loading and unloading areas may be tolerated if the goods are readily transferred indoors for warehousing or sale. Outdoor storage of Council Wrap-Up Page 2 of 3 Petition No: 2013TA-004 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013
Packet Pg. 240
4.A.1.a
inoperable autos, appliances, refuse or discarded materials may also be categorized as junkyards. Generally the purpose of describing outdoor storage is to specify whether such material must be stored completely indoors in certain districts, or whether they are permitted outdoors if properly screened from view. Outdoor storage is typically different from outdoor sales that may be permitted in a farmers market or sales during a seasonal festival that are temporary in nature. Most communities allow automobile and mobile home inventories to be displayed and stored outdoors without being subject to screening requirements. Outdoor sales may be considered outdoor storage if it is in a required parking lot but is commonly permitted in small quantities for sidewalk sales outside a storefront or outdoor dining associated with a restaurant. The textbook, A Planners Dictionary has a reasonable definition that can be adapted for the City of Chamblee. Recommendation for Issue 2: Staff recommends that the Mayor and City Council amend Section 302 of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance by adding the following definition at 80.5: Outdoor storage: The keeping of personal or business property, bulk materials, and motorized equipment outdoors or in a required parking lot for a period exceeding 72 hours. The term outdoor storage does not apply to outdoor dining, seasonal sales and other vending that is otherwise authorized by City Ordinances. ___________________________________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Council Wrap-Up
Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 241
4.A.1.b
(a) (1) An owner or lessee of any real property shall not authorize more than five used motor vehicles within any 12 month period displayed or parked on such real property for the purpose of selling or advertising the sale of such used motor vehicles by the owner or lessee of such vehicles. (2) An owner or lessee of any real property shall not authorize more than two used motor vehicles at the same time displayed or parked on such real property for the purpose of selling or advertising the sale of such used motor vehicles by the owner or lessee of such vehicles. (3) An owner or lessee of any used motor vehicle shall not display or park such used motor vehicle on the real property of another for the purpose of selling or advertising the sale of such used motor vehicle if the display or parking of such vehicle will cause the owner or lessee of the real property to be in violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection. (4) An owner or lessee of any used motor vehicle shall not display or park such used motor vehicle on the real property of another for the purpose of selling or advertising the sale of such used motor vehicle unless the owner or lessee of such vehicle has the prior permission of the owner or lessee of the real property. (b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply: (1) If the owner or lessee of the vehicle displayed or parked is employed by the owner or lessee of the real property on which the vehicle is displayed or parked; (2) If the owner or lessee of the vehicle displayed or parked is conducting business with the owner or lessee of the real property on which the vehicle is parked or displayed at the time such vehicle is displayed or parked; or (3) If the real property on which a vehicle is parked is a parking lot for which a fee is charged for the use of such parking lot, the owner or lessee of the parked vehicle has paid the fee for the use of such parking lot, and such vehicle is legitimately parked on the property for purposes other than displaying, selling, or advertising the sale of such vehicle. (c) (1) An owner or lessee of any real property shall not authorize any used motor vehicle to be displayed or parked on such real property for the purpose of selling or advertising the sale of such used motor vehicle if such vehicle is not lawfully titled and registered in the name of the individual or entity offering such vehicle for sale in accordance with the applicable provisions of this chapter and Chapter 3 of this title.
2012 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions and terms and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement.
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: 06.2_ OCGA 40-2-39_1 (1239 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Outdoor Storage and Vehicle Sales)
40-2-39.1. Restrictions on sale or advertising of used motor vehicles displayed or parked; exceptions; enforcement; penalty.
4.A.1.b
(d) Any law enforcement officer or agency, the board, or the owner or lessee of any real property upon which a vehicle is displayed or parked in violation of subsection (a) or (c) of this Code section for longer than 24 consecutive hours may have any such vehicle towed from such real property and stored at the expense of the owner or lessee of such vehicle and may then dispose of said vehicle in accordance with Chapter 11 of this title. (e) A violation of this Code section shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice and shall be a violation of Part 2 of Article 15 of Chapter 1 of Title 10, the "Fair Business Practices Act of 1975." A violation of this Code section may be penalized as provided in Code Section 43-47-21 or any other applicable provision of this Code, including, but not limited to, the "Fair Business Practices Act of 1975." (f) This Code section shall not apply to any person licensed under Chapter 47 of Title 43 or to any franchised motor vehicle dealer or any subsidiary wholly owned or controlled by such dealer. This Code section shall not eliminate or change the requirement for any person to obtain a license under Chapter 47 of Title 43 if such person engages in any conduct or activity for which a license is required under Chapter 47 of Title 43. (g) Any person who violates this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 for each violation or imprisonment for a period not to exceed 12 months, or both.
(Code 1981, 40-2-39.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2007, p. 214, 2/HB 144.)
Editor's notes. - Ga. L. 2007, p. 214, 4, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that prosecutions for or cases involving any violation of law occurring prior to July 1, 2007, shall not be affected by the repeals or amendments made by it or abated by reason thereof.
2012 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions and terms and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement.
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: 06.2_ OCGA 40-2-39_1 (1239 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Outdoor Storage and Vehicle Sales)
(2) A person shall not advertise, display, sell, or offer for sale any used motor vehicle unless such vehicle is lawfully titled and registered in such person's name in accordance with the applicable provisions of this chapter and Chapter 3 of this title.
4.A.1.c
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA, APPENDIX A, "ZONING ORDINANCE", ARTICLE III, "INTERPRETATIONS AND DEFINITIONS" TO PROVIDE FOR A DEFINITION FOR THE TERM OUTDOOR STORAGE AND TO AMEND ARTICLE VI, GENERAL USE PROVISIONS TO REMOVE LANGUAGE CONFLICTING WITH GEORGIA STATUTES AND TO ELIMINATE OTHER CONFLICTING LANGUAGE; AND FOR ALL OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES BE IT ORDAINED AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA that the provisions of Section 301 of Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance be amended by inserting Sub-section 80.5 which new Subsection shall read as follows: PART 1 80.5 Outdoor storage: The keeping of personal or business property, bulk materials, and motorized equipment outdoors or in a required parking lot for a period exceeding 72 hours. The term outdoor storage does not apply to outdoor dining, seasonal sales and other vending that is otherwise authorized by City Ordinances.
BE IT ORDAINED AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA that the provisions of Section 611 of Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance be amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and substituting
in lieu thereof new Section 601 which new Section shall read as follows:
Sec. 611. Outdoor storage and uses prohibited. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited except where such outdoor storage is expressly permitted in article X, section 1002, Permitted uses. See also section 1008. I and IT districts.
PART II It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Mayor and City Council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and, if any phrase,
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: 06.3_ Adopting Resolution and ORDINANCE (1239 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Outdoor Storage and Vehicle Sales)
4.A.1.c
clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance. The foregoing was proposed by Council member ____________________ with a motion that the same be adopted. Said motion was seconded by Council member _________________________. Same was then put to a vote and _______Council members voted in favor of the Ordinance and _______Council members voted against the Ordinance. Said motion was thereupon declared passed and duly adopted this ________ day of __________________, 2013.
_____________________________________________ The Honorable R. Eric Clarkson Mayor, City of Chamblee, Georgia Approved as to form:
_____________________________________________ City Attorney First Reading: ___________________________ Second Reading: ________________________
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: 06.3_ Adopting Resolution and ORDINANCE (1239 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Outdoor Storage and Vehicle Sales)
4.B.1
City of Chamblee
ZONING (ID # 1196) SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Recently there has been some confusion due to the wording of certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance governing Planned Unit Developments. ISSUE: Staff believes that there are four reasons for the council to consider an amendment: A. The current definition is unclear about the types of developments to which the Planned Unit Development process applies. B. There is no time limit or expiration date on the completion of a planned unit development. C. The provisions for Developments of Community Impact (DCI) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) are interspersed in a way that makes it hard for staff to determine the intent. D. The provisions for minor modifications are difficult to interpret and apply. Please see the attached staff report for full details RECOMMENDED ACTION: Once the mayor and city council have discussed this proposed text amendment and given the staff guidance, staff will edit as directed, then prepare the appropriate amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. First read can be done in September and the public hearing and second read in October. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None Attachment List: 06.1_StaffReport_2013TA-002_PUD (DOCX) 06.2_ Attachment 1- proposed amendments to PUD ordinances (PDF)
Packet Pg. 246
4.B.1
Text Amendment Planned Unit Developments
(DOCX)
Review: Gary Cornell Marc Johnson City Council Completed Completed Completed 08/07/2013 6:56 PM 08/09/2013 1:36 PM 10/07/2013 11:00 AM
Packet Pg. 247
4.B.1.a
STAFF REPORT Subject: Proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Planned Unit Developments Background: Recently there has been confusion due to the wording of certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance governing Planned Unit Developments. There are four reasons for considering an amendment: A. The current definition is unclear about the types of developments to which the Planned Unit Development process applies. B. There is no time limit or expiration date on the completion of a planned unit development. C. The provisions for Developments of Community Impact (DCI) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) are interspersed in a way that makes it hard for staff to determine the intent. D. The provisions for minor modifications are difficult to interpret and apply. Discussion: Section 207 of the Zoning Ordinance, titled Planned Unit Development Procedures, was adopted in August, 2006 and amended again in September 2007. It allows groups of buildings to be reviewed and permitted as a single project rather than one at a time. This enhances the site planning process for developments that have multiple buildings. It requires them to prepare a unified development plan to show how the group of buildings is designed to function in a campus-like manner. The procedure requires review by staff, preparation of a staff report, then review and approval by the Architectural Review Board. Finally the development plan is submitted for approval to the City Council in a public hearing similar to a rezoning hearing. Planned unit developments must meet all other requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. They are not automatically entitled to include a greater mix of uses or to have additional height or density than other developments in the same zoning district. However the buildings are more interconnected through design and site planning than conventional developments that have multiple, independent sites. Sect. 203 contains additional application requirements for planned unit developments including a site analysis and a more complete package of site plan and design elements compared with a rezoning case. For instance, it requires submission of an architectural design package including building elevations and information about building heights and massing, building materials, design of building entries, signage, and other features affecting the aesthetics of the site and the buildings. Sect. 205.C.2 provides design review criteria for the staff and ARB review to consider, such as: Council Wrap-Up Page 1 of 4 Petition No: 2013TA-002 Council Work Session: August 15, 2013 City Council Meeting: August 20, 2013
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: 06.1_StaffReport_2013TA-002_PUD (1196 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Planned Unit Developments)
Petition No.: 2013TA 002 Development Department City Council Working Session - August 15, 2013
4.B.1.a
Issue A: Definition of PUD The standards that trigger the PUD process are ambiguous. Sect. 207.A. defines a PUD as two or more buildings to be constructed on a tract or several tracts of land of at least two acres. However this phrase is vague for two reasons: 1. The definition does not address whether or not one or more of the buildings could be existing building(s) that may need to be designed in a unified manner with new buildings that are being added. This has prevented the application of the PUD process to redevelopment areas where it would be beneficial. This issue will come up more and more as the city seeks to encourage redevelopment and intensification of underdeveloped properties around the Chamblee MARTA Station where it is desirable to promote more dense, walkable and interconnected mixed use properties in the form of transit oriented development. 2. The definition does not clarify the meaning of the term building. Therefore it may lead to the conclusion that if an existing property with one building, such as a church, adds an accessory structure such as a storage building, then they must go through the PUD process. Staff believes that the purpose of the PUD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance is to require interrelated design of two or more principal buildings. A principal building is defined as a building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot on which said building is situated. It is distinct from an accessory building or structure where the accessory structure is defined in the Planners Dictionary as a detached subordinate building, the use of which is customarily incidental to that of the main building or to the main use of the land which is located on the same lot with the main [principal] building or use. With this distinction, the PUD requirements would not apply to the addition of a second building that is an accessory building or use such as a storage building. Issue B: Timeliness of Execution Another issue is the timeliness of development of PUD projects. The PUD provisions anticipate multiphase projects, but the PUD plan does not expire or have time limits to keep some slow-moving or stalled PUDs from becoming obsolete due to changing ownership or changing conditions in the community and in the economy. The same issue opens the door to PUD plans to be prepared in a speculative manner and never implemented. Since the City has been accepting PUD applications for almost ten years, there are some previously approved PUDs that are not complete. The plans that were approved many years ago may not be as appropriate or well-related to surrounding property as they originally were. Therefore, City Council may wish to consider setting time limits on the completion of Council Wrap-Up Page 2 of 4 Petition No: 2013TA-002 Council Work Session: August 15, 2013 City Council Meeting: August 20, 2013
Packet Pg. 249
1. Design shall be in harmony with the general character of the neighborhood and surrounding area 2. Design components shall be planned such that they are physically and aesthetically related 3. Design shall protect scenic views, particularly those of open space, and utilize the natural features of the site. However, the PUD ordinance has several flaws that have led to missed opportunities or ambiguous situations for staff.
4.B.1.a
Issue C: Interposed Language for Developments Of Community Impact The PUD language is so interspersed with language addressing Developments of Community Impact (DCIs) that it is confusing to the reader. This leads to questions about how the two processes are alike and how they are different. An example would be the following: Sec. 207. Planned unit development procedure. A. Purpose and definition. A development of community impact (DCI) is defined as a development that is greater than 50,000 square feet of any use except that of single-family detached residential. The purpose of the DCI is to allow architectural review and approval for individual large-scale structures not subject to planned unit development review. Planned unit development (PUD) is defined as two or more buildings to be constructed on one tract of land or several tracts of land of at least two acres. This paragraph appears to be about PUDs, but it immediately turns to address DCIs. This is confusing. Although these two forms of development are distinct, it is apparent that the ordinance intends to address the two forms of development using similar design standards and procedures. Nonetheless, there are distinctions, such as in Sec. 207.H.1 and 207.H.2 where the ordinance requires the PUD to use the same public notice standards for city council as for variances and rezoning, but provides no such public notice for hearings of city council for approval or disapproval of the proposed DCI plan. This inconsistency may be intended, but this language is lifted up here for clarification of the policy and intent of City Council. Staff believes that if the two procedures are intended to be different, then it may be worthwhile to revise the text using separate sub-sections for the PUD and DCI process, rather than to allow them to be interspersed in the manner in which the current ordinance language is written. Issue D: Interpreting and Applying the Provisions for Minor Modifications According to Section 207- G. 1. Minor changes to an approved Planned Unit Development can be approved administratively by the City Manager as provided below: Modification of approved planned unit developments. The city manager shall have sole authority to approve minor changes to approved planned unit developments. For the purposes of this section, a minor change in the approved planned unit development means a slight alteration to a planned unit development or change in layout that does not result in the visible intrusion of any building, structure, driveway, walkway, parking lot, plaza, wall or similar built element into any open space, yard, landscaped buffer, undeveloped space, or any similar space, when any such space is shown on the final conditional plan as being next to and visible from a property line or street.
Council Wrap-Up
Page 3 of 4
Petition No: 2013TA-002 Council Work Session: August 15, 2013 City Council Meeting: August 20, 2013
Packet Pg. 250
PUDs or else provide an expiration date for approved PUD plans. An example would be to require the developer of a PUD to file a Land Disturbance Permit within two years of approval of the PUD and to apply for building permits for at least 75 percent of the approved gross square feet of building area in the PUD within five years. The ordinance would require that such PUDs must come back for review by the ARB and City Council to determine if there needs to be a time extension or else dissolve the PUD.
4.B.1.a
Attachments: Proposed amendments to current text of Sections 203, 204, 205, 206, and 207.
Council Wrap-Up
Page 4 of 4
Packet Pg. 251
This language is very difficult to interpret and apply. Although it would appear to address any number of small changes in layout, it focuses on only one factor: visual impact of the change on open space. It does not address more important changes in the intensity, functionality and public health and safety issues related to changes in the proposed plan. When comparing this language to similar language used by other local governments that allow administrative approval of minor changes to approved Planned Unit Developments, it is apparent that these standards are poorly written and inadequate to address important factors related to a change in an approved plan.
4.B.1.b
Proposed Text Amendments to City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance

Attachment: 06.2_ Attachment 1- proposed amendments to PUD ordinances (1196 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Planned Unit
Sec. 203. Additional application requirements.

Applications to amend the zoning map shall and for a planned unit developments (PUD) and applications for approval of a development of community impact (DCI) shall, as part of the application, include five sets of the following elements unless determined inapplicable to a specific development by the city planner:a set of development plans that shall meet the following criteria. Said submitted development plans shall be prepared upon a A. Development plans drawning, stamped and sealed by a state-registered professional surveyor, civil engineer, landscape architect or land planner. and shall contain five sets of copies of each of the following elements, unless determined inapplicable to a specific development by the city manager: AB. Site analysis. A sight site analysis and topographic map at a minimum one inch = 20 feet scale shall include information on all existing manmade and natural features, utilities, all streams and easements, and features to be retained, moved, or altered. The existing shape and dimensions of the existing lot to be built upon including the size, measurement and location of any existing buildings or structures on the lot shall be included. BC. Site plan. A site plan at a minimum one inch = 20 feet scale showing compliance with all regulations and calculations required by the zoning ordinance which shall include but not be limited to information on all proposed improvements including proposed building footprints, doors, densities, parking ratios, open space, height, sidewalks, yards, under and over-head utilities, internal circulation and parking, landscaping, grading, lighting, drainage, amenities, and similar details including their respective measurements. CD. Landscape plan. A site plan at a minimum one inch = 20 feet scale showing compliance with all regulations and calculations required by the zoning ordinance which shall include but not be limited to information on landscaping, tree species and the number of all plantings and open space including the landscaping that is being preserved, removed and that which is replacing the landscaping that is removed. DE.
1
Packet Pg. 252
4.B.1.b

Architectural design. The architectural design elements showing compliance with all regulations and calculations required by the zoning ordinance which shall include but not be limited to scaled elevation drawings of proposed structures and information on building materials, features, exterior finish legend, windows, doors, colors, and items affecting exterior appearance, such as signs, air conditioning, grills, compressors, and similar details including their respective measurements. FE. Groups of buildings on the same parcel of land may be reviewed and permitted as a single project (planned unit development) rather than individual buildings. Grouping of similar buildings is encouraged to minimize the number of reviews required and to allow for originality and design flexibility. F. LEED analysis. Applications for developments containing equal to or greater than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area shall submit a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) check-list at the time of application. The check list shall be completed by a LEED accredited professional and shall utilize the most recent version of the LEED program as governed by the U.S. Green Building Council. The LEED review shall document the specific elements of LEED certification that can and cannot be met and shall include a cost estimate for each element whether it is being met or not. The LEED check list shall be reviewed by the city planner. LEED analysis is intended to aid the city in facilitating the awareness of better-building practices within the city. Alternatively, compliance with the requirements of this section may be achieved for new construction as set forth herein by certification from Green Globes as promulgated by the Green Building Initiative (GBI) or any other nationally recognized green building system approved by the building inspector of the city. Refer to section 93-1(d) for further LEED requirements.
(Ord. No. 545, 8-15-06; Ord. No. 586, pt. I, 3-18-08)
Sec. 204. Staff review and report.

A. All completed applications for zoning map amendments, applications to vary the terms of the zoning ordinance (see section 214) and applications for planned unit developments (see section 207) or developments of community impact shall be immediately transmitted by the city clerk to the city planner for review and recommendation. The city planner shall also review all proposed amendments to the zoning text or the zoning map initiated by the mayor and city council.
2
Packet Pg. 253
4.B.1.b

B. Five or more business days prior to the mayor and city council hearing at which the matter is to be heard, the city planner shall submit the staff report for consideration. If the city planner fails to submit a report within this time frame, the city planner shall be deemed to have made no recommendation regarding the proposed amendment, variance or planned unit development. C. With respect to each proposal submitted to the city planner, the city planner shall investigate and make a recommendation with respect to each of the matters enumerated in section 208 for applications to amend the zoning map, in subsection 214A.2. for applications to vary the terms of the zoning ordinance and in subsection 207D. for applications for planned unit developments. The city planner's report shall be a public record.
(Ord. No. 545, 8-15-06; Ord. No. 576, pt. 1, 9-18-07)
Sec. 205. Architectural design review board and procedures.

A. Intent and purpose. The intent of this section is to establish an architectural design review board and to provide procedures for the review of the exterior architectural design of all planned unit developments and development of community impact applications. B. Duties and procedures. 1. The design review board ("board") shall consist of at least six members appointed by the mayor and city council. Members shall be residents, merchants or property owners in the city, none of whom shall hold any other public office or position with the city. They shall be appointed yearly by the mayor and city council. Members do not receive a salary, although they may be reimbursed for expenses. Any vacancy in the membership of the review board will be filled in the same manner as the initial appointment. The mayor and city council may seek advice and recommendations for membership appointments from business, civic and cultural organizations as well as from citizens at large. Desirable special qualifications of the members would include an understanding of and skills in architectural design, landscape architecture, urban planning, real estate or engineering. 2. The review board members shall elect a chair. The board shall adopt rules and guidelines for the review of proposals. A director from the city staff shall
3
Packet Pg. 254
4.B.1.b

facilitate and keep minutes of the meetings and records of the development proposals. Meetings of the review board shall be held once a month and at such other times as the board may determine. The director or the chair may suspend meetings if there is no business. All meetings shall be open to the public. 3. The review board shall adopt rules for the transaction of its business and consideration of applications, shall provide for the time and place of regular meetings, and for the calling of special meetings. The review board shall have the flexibility to adopt rules of procedure without amendment to this ordinance. A quorum for any meeting shall consist of four members. A majority vote of the members attending any meeting shall carry a recommendation. The latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall determine the order of business at all meetings. C. Applications for planned unit developments and dDevelopments of community impact applications. 1. Applicability and criteria. a. Upon completion of zoning compliance review and prior to the submittal of a land disturbance or building permit request, all PUD and DCI applications, with the exception of single-family detached residential uses, shall be submitted to the city manager and be scheduled for review by the design review board in accordance with this section and section 207 b. The application materials set forth in section 203 shall be included in the application unless waived where such requirements are determined to be inappropriate or unnecessary by the city planner in the required section 201 pre-application meeting. c. The city manager shall schedule the application to be reviewed by the board no more than 60 days from the submittal date of a completed application. No application shall be deemed complete unless in compliance with subsection 202D. 2. Design review criteria. Each application subject to design review shall be transmitted to the city planner and reviewed. The city planner and board shall
4
Packet Pg. 255
4.B.1.b

review all applications, based upon, but not limited to, the following policies and standards: a. Design shall be in harmony with the general character of the neighborhood and surrounding area, considering factors such as mass, placement, height, changing land use patterns, and consistency of exterior architectural treatment, especially in areas of historic and special design interest. b. Design components shall be planned such that they are physically and aesthetically related and coordinated with other elements of the project and surrounding environment to ensure visual continuity of design. c. Design shall protect scenic views, particularly those of open space, and utilize natural features of the site. d. Design shall protect adjacent properties from negative visual and functional impacts. e. Design shall respect the historical character of the immediate area as integral parts of community life in the city and shall protect and preserve structures and spaces which provide a significant link within these areas. f. All exterior forms, attached to buildings or not, shall be in conformity with, and secondary to, the building. 3. City planner recommendation. a. The city plannermanager or his/her designee shall review the exterior architectural design of all application for development of community impact and planned unit development applications based on the established criteria of this section and shall make one of the following recommendations: i. Approval. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the board. ii.
5
Packet Pg. 256
4.B.1.b

Conditional approval. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the board with suggested conditions or modifications. iii. Denial. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the board with the reasons for denial. b. Five or more business days prior to the board meeting at which the matter is to be heard, the city planner shall submit a recommendation to the architectural design review board. 4. Architectural design review board recommendation. a. The board shall review the exterior architectural design of all applications under their purview, based on the established criteria of this section and shall make one of the following recommendations: i. Approval. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the mayor and city council. ii. Conditional approval. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the mayor and city council with suggested conditions or modifications. iii. Denial. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the mayor and city council with the reasons for denial. b. The board may extend the recommendation deadline if requested by the applicant. c. The chair of the board shall transmit the recommendation of the board together with all related documentation to the city manager and the mayor and city council for final action.
(Ord. No. 545, 8-15-06; Ord. No. 557, pt. I, 8-15-06; Ord. No. 576, pt. 1, 9-18-07)
Sec. 206. Mayor and city council public hearing and decision.
A.
6
Packet Pg. 257
4.B.1.b

Authority. The mayor and city council shall make all final zoning decisions. The mayor and city council shall hold the public hearing required by this article prior to said zoning decisions following the public notice requirements herein. The term "zoning ordinance" shall mean this zoning ordinance (known as appendix A to the City Code of Ordinances) as well as the official zoning map adopted herewith and made a part thereof, as amended. The term "zoning decision" shall mean final legislative action by the mayor and city council which results in: 1. The adoption of a zoning ordinance; 2. The adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance which changes the text of the zoning ordinance; 3. The adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance which rezones property from one zoning classification to another; or 4. The adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance which zones property to be annexed to the city. B. Public hearing. 1. Before a zoning decision is made, the mayor and city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed action. At least 15 but not more than 45 days prior to the date of the hearing, the mayor and city council shall cause to be published within a newspaper of general circulation within the territorial boundaries of the city a notice of the hearing before the mayor and city council. The notice shall state the time, place, and purpose of the hearing. 2. If a proposed zoning decision is for the rezoning of property and the rezoning is initiated by a party other than the mayor and city council, then: a. The notice, in addition to the requirements of subsection 206B.1., shall include the location of the property, the present zoning classification of the property, and the proposed zoning classification of the property; and b. The applicant shall post one or more signs in a conspicuous location on the property, not less than 15 days prior to the date of the hearing. At least one sign shall be posted along each street on which the
7
Packet Pg. 258
4.B.1.b

subject property has frontage. One additional sign shall be posted for each additional 500 feet of frontage or fraction thereof in excess of 500 feet of frontage on each street on which the subject property has frontage. The city manager shall provide the signs to the applicant for timely posting by the applicant. Each sign shall contain the time and place of the public hearing before the mayor and city council and the nature of the proposed change; and c. Written notice shall be mailed by first class mail by the city manager or his/her designee to all owners of property within 250 feet of the boundaries of the subject property; as such property owners are listed on the city's tax records, at least 15 days before the public hearing before the mayor and city council. The notice shall state the nature of the proposed change, and the time and place of the public hearing before the mayor and city council. 3. When a proposed zoning decision relates to or will allow the location or relocation of a halfway house, drug rehabilitation center, or other facility for treatment of drug dependency, a public hearing shall be held by the mayor and city council on the proposed action. Such public hearing shall be held at least six months but not more than nine months prior to the date of final action of the zoning decision by the mayor and city council. The hearing required by this section shall be in addition to the hearing required under subsection 206B.1.. a. Notice of this hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner required by subsection 206B.1. above and sign(s) shall be posted on the property in the manner required under subsection 206B.2.b. above. b. Notice as required under this subsection 206B.3., both posted and published, shall include a prominent statement that the proposed zoning decision relates to or will allow the location or relocation of a halfway house, drug rehabilitation center, or other facility for treatment of drug dependency. The published notice shall be at least six column inches in size and shall not be located in the classified advertising section of the newspaper. 4.
8
Packet Pg. 259
4.B.1.b

The following policies and procedures shall govern the conduct of the public hearing held by the mayor and city council pursuant to this section. Printed copies of those policies and procedures shall be available for distribution to the general public. a. The hearing shall be presided over by the mayor. After calling the hearing to order, the mayor shall request that the parcels of property which are the subject of the zoning proposal be identified and read. Following such identification and reading, the city planner's recommendation shall be presented. The mayor and city council shall cause the city planner's written recommendation to be made a part of the record. b. Proponents of each proposed zoning decision shall then be allowed a total of ten minutes for presentation of data, evidence and opinion concerning the zoning decision. If all ten minutes are not used, the proponents' remaining time may be reserved for rebuttal. Opponents of each proposed zoning decision shall then be allowed a total of ten minutes for presentation of data, evidence and opinion concerning each zoning decision. The presentation times may not be reduced but may be extended by majority vote, provided they are expanded equally for proponents and opponents. C. Zoning decision. 1. A meeting of the mayor and city council for the purposes of reviewing and making final decisions on zoning proposals shall be conducted either no more than five days after the date of the public hearing, or at the soonest scheduled meeting of the mayor and city council. At said meeting, the mayor and city council shall review the analysis and materials submitted by the initiating party, the recommendations of the city planner, other matters of record and materials, data, evidence and opinion submitted, and the corresponding review standards and criteria set forth in section 208 in making a final decision on each zoning proposal. At this meeting the mayor and city council may approve, deny or defer the proposal, add or delete conditions to the proposal, or allow a proposal to be withdrawn with or without prejudice. An application allowed to be withdrawn with prejudice may not be resubmitted except in compliance with section 210 2.
9
Packet Pg. 260
4.B.1.b

An action by the mayor and city council to defer a final decision on the zoning proposal shall include a statement of the date and time of the next meeting at which the proposal will be considered. D. If the zoning is for property to be annexed into the city then: 1. The mayor and city council shall complete the required procedures for such zonings, except for the final vote of the mayor and city council, prior to the adoption of the annexation zoning ordinance or resolution or the effective date of any local Act but no sooner than the date the notice of the proposed annexation is provided to the governing authority of the county as required under the O.C.G.A. 36-36-6. 2. The public hearing required by subsection 206B. shall be conducted prior to the annexation of the subject property into the city. 3. In addition to any other notice requirements, the city shall cause to be published within a newspaper of general circulation within the territorial boundaries of the county wherein the property to be annexed is located a notice of the hearing as required under the provisions of subsection 206B.1. or subsection 206B.2., as applicable, and shall place a sign on the property when required by subsection 206B.2.b.; 4. The zoning classification approved by the mayor and city council following the hearing required by this subsection 206D. shall become effective on the later of: a. The date the zoning is approved by the mayor and city council; b. The date that the annexation becomes effective pursuant to O.C.G.A. 36-36-2; or c. Where a county has interposed an objection pursuant to O.C.G.A. 36-36-11, the date provided for in paragraph (8) of subsection (b) of said code section.
(Ord. No. 545, 8-15-06)
Sec. 207. Planned unit development procedure.

A.
10
Packet Pg. 261
4.B.1.b

Purpose and definition. A development of community impact (DCI) is defined as a development that is greater than 50,000 square feet of any use except that of single-family detached residential. The purpose of the DCI is to allow architectural review and approval for individual large-scale structures not subject to planned unit development review. Planned unit development (PUD) is defined as two or more new or existing principal buildings to be constructed on a tract or several tracts of land of at least two acres. The purpose of the planned unit development shall be to: Groups of buildings on the same parcel of land may be reviewed and permitted as a single project (planned unit development) rather than individual buildings. Grouping of similar buildings is encouraged to minimize the number of reviews required and to allow for originality and design flexibility. The purpose of the planned unit development shall be to: 1. Provide for unified approaches to the development of land; 2. Provide for a simplified process of enabling development which would otherwise require numerous applications for variations from the provisions of the zoning code; and 3. Provide for the development of stable environments that are compatible with surrounding areas of the community. B. Conformance with existing zoning. Planned unit developments may be allowed in all zoning districts and shall conform to all requirements of the applicable zoning district. The following regulations shall also apply: 1. Permitted uses. Only those uses permitted in the zoning district in which the proposed development is located shall be permitted in the planned unit development. 2. Future development plan. Planned unit developments shall not violate the provisions of the future development plan. 3. Densities and heights. Planned unit developments shall not exceed the density provisions or height provisions of article X. 4.
11
Packet Pg. 262
4.B.1.b

Signs. Planned unit developments shall strictly comply with the signage provisions of article XIII. C. Development standards. 1. Site planning. Site planning in the proposed planned unit development shall give consideration to the topography, the location of structures, screening, setbacks and street design in the evaluation of the relationship of the development to its surrounding areas. 2. Service and emergency access. Access and circulation shall adequately provide for firefighting and other emergency equipment, service deliveries and refuse collection. 3. Sewer and stormwater retention. Provision shall be made for acceptable design and construction of storm sewers and stormwater retention facilities, as required by chapter 34 of the City Code and the county. 4. Covenants. The planned unit development shall include such covenants and legal provisions as will assure conformity to the achievement of the plan. D. General standards for approval. 1. Planned unit developments and developments of community impact may be approved subject to such conditions as may be imposed in order to mitigate impacts which may be expected without the imposition of conditions. The following general standards shall be considered in determining whether the planned unit development shall be approved: a. Is the proposed development suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property? b. Does the proposed development adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property? c. Does the proposed development result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools?
12
Packet Pg. 263
4.B.1.b

d. Are there other existing or changing conditions which, because of their impact on the public health, safety, morality and general welfare of the community give supporting grounds for either the approval or disapproval of the proposed development? 2. Developments of community impact shall be reviewed and considered for approval upon the design criteria established by subsection 205 C.2.d. E. Subdivision ordinance. If the proposed planned unit development is to be subdivided, then the application for approval of the planned unit development shall include all information required for the conditional approval of a subdivision under appendix B, subdivision regulations, of the City Code. F. Staff review and report. The provisions of section 204 regarding staff review and report procedures shall apply to applications for planned unit developments and developments of community impact. G. Design review. Upon staff review for zoning compliance and design criteria, PUD and DCI applications shall be forwarded to the architectural design review board for their review per section 205 criteria and procedures. 1. Modification of approved planned unit developments. The city manager shall have sole authority to approve minor changes to approved planned unit developments. 2. Minor modification. For the purposes of this section, a minor modificationchange in the approved planned unit development means a slight alteration to a planned unit development or change in layout, such as, but not limited to small shifts in the location of buildings, streets, driveways, sidewalks, trails, utilities, easements or other similar features that do not negatively impact adjacent property, the public health and safety, the quality of materials, the appearance of the project, or the health and quality of the natural environment. 3. No minor modification may be approved by the city manager that does notwould result in any of the following:the visible intrusion of any building, structure, driveway, walkway, parking lot, plaza, wall or similar built element into any open space, yard, landscaped buffer, undeveloped space, or any
13
Packet Pg. 264
4.B.1.b

similar space, when any such space is shown on the final "conditional" plan as being next to and visible from a property line or street. a. Increase in the land area included in a planned unit development. b. Increase the density or floor area ratio of the development as a whole. c. Change the mix of uses of a mixed-use development by more than 5 percent of the entire approved floor area of the development. d. Authorize a reduction in approved sidewalks,bike facilities, trails, street rights of way, open space, buffers, parking, or setbacks adjacent to external property lines; e. Authorize increased height for buildings adjacent to external property lines; f. Authorize a change that would increase traffic, noise or light affecting adjacent properties;
g. Reduce traffic safety; h. Result in a change in a condition of approval imposed by the mayor and city council; i. H. Mayor and city council public hearings and decisions. 1. PUD applications shall be considered following the provisions of section 206 regarding mayor and city council public hearings and decisions, informed by a formal recommendation from the architectural design review board regarding PUD design features. 2. The mayor and city council may approve a PUD or DCI plan that includes approval of specific variances to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance or waivers of other pertinent development requirements of City ordinances provided such variances and waivers are specifically enumerated and approved in their action. 32. DCI applications and the associated architectural design review board recommendation shall be considered by council for approval, denial or approval with conditions. Result in the need for a variance or waiver of City ordinances
(Ord. No. 545, 8-15-06; Ord. No. 576, pt. 1, 9-18-07)
14
Packet Pg. 265
4.B.1.b

I. Expiration of PUD plan approval. 1. Unless established otherwise by the mayor and city council in a regular business meeting, a plan approved for a planned unit development or a minor modification of a planned unit development shall expire in 2 years from date of approval by the mayor and city council unless a land disturbance permit has been granted by the Department of Development. 2. Notwithstanding subsection I. 1., above, a plan approved for a planned unit development shall expire in 5 years from date of approval of the mayor and city council unless the mayor and city council approve a time extension in a regular business meeting. 3. PUD plans that expire pursuant to this section shall be null and void. The property owner shall not be entitled to additional permits for development of such property until the mayor and city council approve a plan of development for such property pursuant to Section 202.
Sec. 207.1. Developments of Community Impact. A. Purpose and definition. A development of community impact (DCI) is defined as a development that is greater than 50,000 square feet of any use except that of single-family detached residential. The purpose of the DCI is to allow architectural review and approval for individual large-scale structures not subject to planned unit development review. B. Applications for Approval of Rezoning or Land Development Permit for a Development of Community Impact shall conform to the applicable requirements of Section 203. C.
15
Packet Pg. 266
4.B.1.b

Developments of community impact shall be reviewed and considered for approval as provided in Section 204 and subsections 205 C., 207-D.1., 207-F and 207-H.2. and 3. D. Developments of community impact shall be subject to the requirements of Section 93-1(d)
16
Packet Pg. 267
4.B.1.c
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA, APPENDIX A, "ZONING ORDINANCE", ARTICLE II, "ADMINISTRATION," SECTIONS 203 THROUGH 207, TO PROVIDE FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS FOR WH ICH THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS APPLIES; TO PROVIDE A TIME LIMIT AND EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE COMPLETION OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; TO CLARIFY THE PROVISIONS CONSTITUTING MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; TO CLARIFY THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND DEVELOPMENTS OF COMMUNITY IMPACT; AND FOR ALL OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES
BE IT ORDAINED AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA that the provisions of Section 203 through Section 207 of Chapter 94, Zoning be amended by deleting said Sections in their entirety and substituting in lieu thereof new Sections 203 through 207.1 which new Sections shall read as follows: PART I
Sec. 203. Additional application requirements.

Applications to amend the zoning map for a planned unit development (PUD) and applications for approval of a development of community impact (DCI) shall, include five sets of the following elements unless determined inapplicable to a specific development by the city planner: A. B. Development plans drawn, stamped and sealed by a state-registered professional surveyor, civil engineer, landscape architect or land planner Site analysis. A site analysis and topographic map at a minimum one inch = 20 feet scale shall include information on all existing manmade and natural features, utilities, all streams and easements, and features to be retained, moved, or altered. The existing shape and dimensions of the existing lot to be built upon including the size, measurement and location of any existing buildings or structures on the lot shall be included. Site plan. A site plan at a minimum one inch = 20 feet scale showing compliance with all regulations and calculations required by the zoning ordinance which shall include but not be limited to information on all proposed improvements including proposed building footprints, doors, densities, parking ratios, open space, height, sidewalks, yards, under and over-head utilities, internal circulation and parking, landscaping, grading, lighting, drainage, amenities, and similar details including their respective
C.
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: Text Amendment Planned Unit Developments (1196 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Planned Unit Developments)
4.B.1.c
measurements. D. Landscape plan. A site plan at a minimum one inch = 20 feet scale showing compliance with all regulations and calculations required by the zoning ordinance which shall include but not be limited to information on landscaping, tree species and the number of all plantings and open space including the landscaping that is being preserved, removed and that which is replacing the landscaping that is removed. Architectural design. The architectural design elements showing compliance with all regulations and calculations required by the zoning ordinance which shall include but not be limited to scaled elevation drawings of proposed structures and information on building materials, features, exterior finish legend, windows, doors, colors, and items affecting exterior appearance, such as signs, air conditioning, grills, compressors, and similar details including their respective measurements.
E.
Sec. 204. Staff review and report.

A. All completed applications for zoning map amendments, applications to vary the terms of the zoning ordinance (see section 214) and applications for planned unit developments (see section 207) or developments of community impact shall be immediately transmitted by the city clerk to the city planner for review and recommendation. The city planner shall also review all proposed amendments to the zoning text or the zoning map initiated by the mayor and city council. Five or more business days prior to the mayor and city council hearing at which the matter is to be heard, the city planner shall submit the staff report for consideration. If the city planner fails to submit a report within this time frame, the city planner shall be deemed to have made no recommendation regarding the proposed amendment, variance or planned unit development. With respect to each proposal submitted to the city planner, the city planner shall investigate and make a recommendation with respect to each of the matters enumerated in section 208 for applications to amend the zoning map, in subsection 214A.2. for applications to vary the terms of the zoning ordinance and in subsection 207D. for applications for planned unit developments. The city planner's report shall be a public record.
B.
C.
Sec. 205. Architectural design review board and procedures.

A. Intent and purpose. The intent of this section is to establish an architectural design review board and to provide procedures for the review of the exterior architectural design of all planned unit developments and development of
Page 2 of 13
Packet Pg. 269
4.B.1.c
community impact applications. B. Duties and procedures. 1. The design review board ("board") shall consist of at least six members appointed by the mayor and city council. Members shall be residents, merchants or property owners in the city, none of whom shall hold any other public office or position with the city. They shall be appointed yearly by the mayor and city council. Members do not receive a salary, although they may be reimbursed for expenses. Any vacancy in the membership of the review board will be filled in the same manner as the initial appointment. The mayor and city council may seek advice and recommendations for membership appointments from business, civic and cultural organizations as well as from citizens at large. Desirable special qualifications of the members would include an understanding of and skills in architectural design, landscape architecture, urban planning, real estate or engineering The review board members shall elect a chair. The board shall adopt rules and guidelines for the review of proposals. A director from the city staff shall facilitate and keep minutes of the meetings and records of the development proposals. Meetings of the review board shall be held once a month and at such other times as the board may determine. The director or the chair may suspend meetings if there is no business. All meetings shall be open to the public. The review board shall adopt rules for the transaction of its business and consideration of applications, shall provide for the time and place of regular meetings, and for the calling of special meetings. The review board shall have the flexibility to adopt rules of procedure without amendment to this ordinance. A quorum for any meeting shall consist of four members. A majority vote of the members attending any meeting shall carry a recommendation. The latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall determine the order of business at all meetings.
2.
3.
C.
Applications for planned unit developments and developments of community impact. 1. Applicability and criteria. a. Upon completion of zoning compliance review and prior to the submittal of a land disturbance or building permit request, all PUD and DCI applications, with the exception of single-family detached residential uses, shall be submitted to the city manager and be scheduled for review by the design review board in accordance with this section and section 207 b. The application materials set forth in section 203 shall be included in the application unless waived where such requirements are determined to be inappropriate or unnecessary by the city planner in the required section 201 pre-application meeting.
Page 3 of 13
Packet Pg. 270
4.B.1.c
c.
The city manager shall schedule the application to be reviewed by the board no more than 60 days from the submittal date of a completed application. No application shall be deemed complete unless in compliance with subsection 202D.
2.
Design review criteria. Each application subject to design review shall be transmitted to the city planner and reviewed. The city planner and board shall review all applications, based upon, but not limited to, the following policies and standards: a. Design shall be in harmony with the general character of the neighborhood and surrounding area, considering factors such as mass, placement, height, changing land use patterns, and consistency of exterior architectural treatment, especially in areas of historic and special design interest. Design components shall be planned such that they are physically and aesthetically related and coordinated with other elements of the project and surrounding environment to ensure visual continuity of design. Design shall protect scenic views, particularly those of open space, and utilize natural features of the site. Design shall protect adjacent properties from negative visual and functional impacts. Design shall respect the historical character of the immediate area as integral parts of community life in the city and shall protect and preserve structures and spaces which provide a significant link within these areas. All exterior forms, attached to buildings or not, shall be in conformity with, and secondary to, the building.
b.
c. d. e.
f.
3.
City planner recommendation. a. The city manager or his/her designee shall review the exterior architectural design of all application for development of community impact and planned unit development based on the established criteria of this section and shall make one of the following recommendations: i. Approval. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the board. Conditional approval. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the board with suggested conditions or modifications. Denial. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the board with the reasons for denial.
ii.
iii.
Page 4 of 13
Packet Pg. 271
4.B.1.c
b.
Five or more business days prior to the board meeting at which the matter is to be heard, the city planner shall submit a recommendation to the architectural design review board.
4.
Architectural design review board recommendation. a. The board shall review the exterior architectural design of all applications under their purview, based on the established criteria of this section and shall make one of the following recommendations: i. ii. Approval. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the mayor and city council. Conditional approval. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the mayor and city council with suggested conditions or modifications. Denial. The recommendation shall be forwarded to the mayor and city council with the reasons for denial.
iii. b.
The board may extend the recommendation deadline if requested by the applicant. The chair of the board shall transmit the recommendation of the board together with all related documentation to the city manager and the mayor and city council for final action.
c.
Sec. 206. Mayor and city council public hearing and decision.
A. Authority. The mayor and city council shall make all final zoning decisions. The mayor and city council shall hold the public hearing required by this article prior to said zoning decisions following the public notice requirements herein. The term "zoning ordinance" shall mean this zoning ordinance (known as appendix A to the City Code of Ordinances) as well as the official zoning map adopted herewith and made a part thereof, as amended. The term "zoning decision" shall mean final legislative action by the mayor and city council which results in: 1. 2. The adoption of a zoning ordinance; The adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance which changes the text of the zoning ordinance; The adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance which rezones property from one zoning classification to another; or The adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance which zones property to be annexed to the city.
3.
4.
Page 5 of 13
Packet Pg. 272
4.B.1.c
B.
Public hearing. 1. Before a zoning decision is made, the mayor and city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed action. At least 15 but not more than 45 days prior to the date of the hearing, the mayor and city council shall cause to be published within a newspaper of general circulation within the territorial boundaries of the city a notice of the hearing before the mayor and city council. The notice shall state the time, place, and purpose of the hearing. If a proposed zoning decision is for the rezoning of property and the rezoning is initiated by a party other than the mayor and city council, then: a. The notice, in addition to the requirements of subsection 206B.1., shall include the location of the property, the present zoning classification of the property, and the proposed zoning classification of the property; and The applicant shall post one or more signs in a conspicuous location on the property, not less than 15 days prior to the date of the hearing. At least one sign shall be posted along each street on which the subject property has frontage. One additional sign shall be posted for each additional 500 feet of frontage or fraction thereof in excess of 500 feet of frontage on each street on which the subject property has frontage. The city manager shall provide the signs to the applicant for timely posting by the applicant. Each sign shall contain the time and place of the public hearing before the mayor and city council and the nature of the proposed change; and Written notice shall be mailed by first class mail by the city manager or his/her designee to all owners of property within 250 feet of the boundaries of the subject property; as such property owners are listed on the city's tax records, at least 15 days before the public hearing before the mayor and city council. The notice shall state the nature of the proposed change, and the time and place of the public hearing before the mayor and city council.
2.
b.
c.
3.
When a proposed zoning decision relates to or will allow the location or relocation of a halfway house, drug rehabilitation center, or other facility for treatment of drug dependency, a public hearing shall be held by the mayor and city council on the proposed action. Such public hearing shall be held at least six months but not more than nine months prior to the date of final action of the zoning decision by the mayor and city council. The hearing required by this section shall be in addition to the hearing required under subsection 206B.1..
Page 6 of 13
Packet Pg. 273
4.B.1.c
a.
Notice of this hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner required by subsection 206B.1. above and sign(s) shall be posted on the property in the manner required under subsection 206B.2.b. above. Notice as required under this subsection 206B.3., both posted and published, shall include a prominent statement that the proposed zoning decision relates to or will allow the location or relocation of a halfway house, drug rehabilitation center, or other facility for treatment of drug dependency. The published notice shall be at least six column inches in size and shall not be located in the classified advertising section of the newspaper.
b.
4.
The following policies and procedures shall govern the conduct of the public hearing held by the mayor and city council pursuant to this section. Printed copies of those policies and procedures shall be available for distribution to the general public. a. The hearing shall be presided over by the mayor. After calling the hearing to order, the mayor shall request that the parcels of property which are the subject of the zoning proposal be identified and read. Following such identification and reading, the city planner's recommendation shall be presented. The mayor and city council shall cause the city planner's written recommendation to be made a part of the record. Proponents of each proposed zoning decision shall then be allowed a total of ten minutes for presentation of data, evidence and opinion concerning the zoning decision. If all ten minutes are not used, the proponents' remaining time may be reserved for rebuttal. Opponents of each proposed zoning decision shall then be allowed a total of ten minutes for presentation of data, evidence and opinion concerning each zoning decision. The presentation times may not be reduced but may be extended by majority vote, provided they are expanded equally for proponents and opponents.
b.
C.
Zoning decision. 1. A meeting of the mayor and city council for the purposes of reviewing and making final decisions on zoning proposals shall be conducted either no more than five days after the date of the public hearing, or at the soonest scheduled meeting of the mayor and city council. At said meeting, the mayor and city council shall review the analysis and materials submitted by the initiating party, the recommendations of the city planner, other matters of record and materials, data, evidence and opinion submitted, and the corresponding review standards and criteria set forth in section 208 in making a final decision on each zoning proposal. At this meeting the mayor
Page 7 of 13
Packet Pg. 274
4.B.1.c
and city council may approve, deny or defer the proposal, add or delete conditions to the proposal, or allow a proposal to be withdrawn with or without prejudice. An application allowed to be withdrawn with prejudice may not be resubmitted except in compliance with section 210. 2. An action by the mayor and city council to defer a final decision on the zoning proposal shall include a statement of the date and time of the next meeting at which the proposal will be considered.
D.
If the zoning is for property to be annexed into the city then: 1. The mayor and city council shall complete the required procedures for such zonings, except for the final vote of the mayor and city council, prior to the adoption of the annexation zoning ordinance or resolution or the effective date of any local Act but no sooner than the date the notice of the proposed annexation is provided to the governing authority of the county as required under the O.C.G.A. 36-36-6. The public hearing required by subsection 206B. shall be conducted prior to the annexation of the subject property into the city. In addition to any other notice requirements, the city shall cause to be published within a newspaper of general circulation within the territorial boundaries of the county wherein the property to be annexed is located a notice of the hearing as required under the provisions of subsection 206B.1. or subsection 206B.2., as applicable, and shall place a sign on the property when required by subsection 206B.2.b.; The zoning classification approved by the mayor and city council following the hearing required by this subsection 206D. shall become effective on the later of: a. b. The date the zoning is approved by the mayor and city council; The date that the annexation becomes effective pursuant to O.C.G.A. 36-36- 2; or Where a county has interposed an objection pursuant to O.C.G.A. 36-36-11, the date provided for in paragraph (8) of subsection (b) of said code section.
2.
3.
4.
c.
Sec. 207. Planned unit development procedure.

A. Planned unit development (PUD) is defined as two or more new or existing principal buildings to be constructed on a tract or several tracts of land of at least two acres. Groups of buildings on the same parcel of land may be reviewed and permitted as a single project (planned unit development) rather than individual buildings. Grouping of similar buildings is encouraged to minimize the number of
Page 8 of 13
Packet Pg. 275
4.B.1.c
reviews required and to allow for originality and design flexibility. The purpose of the planned unit development shall be to: 1. 2. Provide for unified approaches to the development of land; Provide for a simplified process of enabling development which would otherwise require numerous applications for variations from the provisions of the zoning code; and Provide for the development of stable environments that are compatible with surrounding areas of the community.
3.
B.
Conformance with existing zoning. Planned unit developments may be allowed in all zoning districts and shall conform to all requirements of the applicable zoning district. The following regulations shall also apply: 1. Permitted uses. Only those uses permitted in the zoning district in which the proposed development is located shall be permitted in the planned unit development. Future development plan. Planned unit developments shall not violate the provisions of the future development plan. Densities and heights. Planned unit developments shall not exceed the density provisions or height provisions of article X. Signs. Planned unit developments shall strictly comply with the signage provisions of article XIII.
2.
3.
4.
C.
Development standards. 1. Site planning. Site planning in the proposed planned unit development shall give consideration to the topography, the location of structures, screening, setbacks and street design in the evaluation of the relationship of the development to its surrounding areas. Service and emergency access. Access and circulation shall adequately provide for firefighting and other emergency equipment, service deliveries and refuse collection. Sewer and stormwater retention. Provision shall be made for acceptable design and construction of storm sewers and stormwater retention facilities, as required by chapter 34 of the City Code and the county. Covenants. The planned unit development shall include such covenants and legal provisions as will assure conformity to the achievement of the plan.
2.
3.
4.
Page 9 of 13
Packet Pg. 276
4.B.1.c
D.
General standards for approval. 1. Planned unit developments and developments of community impact may be approved subject to such conditions as may be imposed in order to mitigate impacts which may be expected without the imposition of conditions. The following general standards shall be considered in determining whether the planned unit development shall be approved: a. Is the proposed development suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property? Does the proposed development adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property? Does the proposed development result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools? Are there other existing or changing conditions which, because of their impact on the public health, safety, morality and general welfare of the community give supporting grounds for either the approval or disapproval of the proposed development?
b.
c.
d.
E.
Subdivision ordinance. If the proposed planned unit development is to be subdivided, then the application for approval of the planned unit development shall include all information required for the conditional approval of a subdivision under appendix B, subdivision regulations, of the City Code. Staff review and report. The provisions of section 204 regarding staff review and report procedures shall apply to applications for planned unit developments and developments of community impact. Design review. Upon staff review for zoning compliance and design criteria, PUD and DCI applications shall be forwarded to the architectural design review board for their review per section 205 criteria and procedures. 1. Modification of approved planned unit developments. The city manager shall have sole authority to approve minor changes to approved planned unit developments. Minor modification. For the purposes of this section, a minor modification in the approved planned unit development means a slight alteration to a planned unit development or change in layout, such as, but not limited to small shifts in the location of buildings, streets, driveways, sidewalks, trails, utilities, easements or other similar features that do not negatively impact adjacent property, the public health and safety, the quality of materials, the appearance of the project, or the health and quality of the natural
F.
G.
2.
Page 10 of 13
Packet Pg. 277
4.B.1.c
environment. 3. No minor modification may be approved by the city manager that would result in any of the following: a. b. c. d. Increase in the land area included in a planned unit development. Increase the density or floor area ratio of the development as a whole. Change the mix of uses of a mixed-use development by more than 5 percent of the entire approved floor area of the development. Authorize a reduction in approved sidewalks, bike facilities, trails, street rights of way, open space, buffers, parking, or setbacks adjacent to external property lines; Authorize increased height for buildings adjacent to external property lines; Authorize a change that would increase traffic, noise or light affecting adjacent properties; Reduce traffic safety; Result in a change in a condition of approval imposed by the mayor and city council; Result in the need for a variance or waiver of City ordinances
e. f. g. h. i.
H.
Mayor and city council public hearings and decisions. 1. PUD applications shall be considered following the provisions of section 206 regarding mayor and city council public hearings and decisions, informed by a formal recommendation from the architectural design review board regarding PUD design features. The mayor and city council may approve a PUD or DCI plan that includes approval of specific variances to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance or waivers of other pertinent development requirements of City ordinances provided such variances and waivers are specifically enumerated and approved in their action. DCI applications and the associated architectural design review board recommendation shall be considered by council for approval, denial or approval with conditions.
2.
3.
I.
Expiration of PUD plan approval.
Page 11 of 13
Packet Pg. 278
4.B.1.c
1.
Unless established otherwise by the mayor and city council in a regular business meeting, a plan approved for a planned unit development or a minor modification of a planned unit development shall expire in 2 years from date of approval by the mayor and city council unless a land disturbance permit has been granted by the Department of Development. Notwithstanding subsection I. 1., above, a plan approved for a planned unit development shall expire in 5 years from date of approval of the mayor and city council unless the mayor and city council approve a time extension in a regular city council meeting. PUD plans that expire pursuant to this section shall be null and void. The property owner shall not be entitled to additional permits for development of such property until the mayor and city council approve a plan of development for such property pursuant to Section 202.
2.
3.
Sec. 207.1. Developments of Community Impact. A.

Purpose and definition. A development of community impact (DCI) is defined as a development that is greater than 50,000 square feet of any use except that of singlefamily detached residential. The purpose of the DCI is to allow architectural review and approval for individual large-scale structures not subject to planned unit development review.
B.
Applications for Approval of Rezoning or Land Development Permit for a Development of Community Impact shall conform to the applicable requirements of Section 203. Developments of community impact shall be reviewed and considered for approval as provided in Section 204 and subsections 205 C., 207-D.1., 207-F and 207-H.2. and 3. Developments of community impact shall be subject to the requirements of Section 93-1(d).
C.
D.
PART II It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Mayor and City Council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and, if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance.
The foregoing was proposed by Council member ____________________ with a motion that the
Page 12 of 13
Packet Pg. 279
4.B.1.c
same be adopted. Said motion was seconded by Council member __________________________. Same was then put to a vote and _______Council members voted in favor of the Ordinance and _______ Council members voted against the Ordinance. Said motion was thereupon declared passed and duly adopted this ________ day of __________________, 2013.
_____________________________________________ The Honorable R. Eric Clarkson Mayor, City of Chamblee, Georgia
Approved as to form:
_____________________________________________ City Attorney
First Reading: ___________________________ Second Reading: ________________________
Page 13 of 13
Packet Pg. 280
4.B.2
City of Chamblee
ZONING (ID # 1215) SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - INTERPRETATION OF PERMITTED USE
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM BACKGROUND SUMMARY: During its regular City Council meeting on June 18, 2013, the City Council granted the appeal of Equity Auto Loan, LLC d/b/a InstaLoan who had appealed staff decision to deny their occupational tax certificate. The City Clerk had denied their occupational tax certificate on May 6, 2013 because the Acting Development Director found that their business use does not fit within any of the permitted uses listed in Section 1002 of the adopted City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance. Apparently InstaLoan is a relatively new or hybrid type of use that was not contemplated in the drafting of the current Zoning Ordinance. Staff found that it appears to be neither a Financial Institution nor an Office in the common use of these terms. It combines services of making loans with sales of insurance products. Sec. 1002 of the Zoning Ordinance states, Any use not listed in the [use] table is as permitted within a district are not permissible within that district. Therefore, since staff found no use in the use table that clearly corresponded to the proposed use, they should not be granted an occupational tax certificate to operate in the City. However City Council voted to grant the appeal and directed the Clerk to issue the occupational tax certificate. As part of this action, City Council directed staff to identify which zoning district(s) the proposed use falls in and bring forward the necessary text amendments for action by City Council. Staff has considered the circumstances surrounding this issue and finds that it is more likely a symptom of a more fundamental flaw in the construction of the City of Chamblees Zoning Ordinance. A more appropriate response may be to set forth a process by which the Development Director is authorized to interpret Section 1002. Permitted Uses in Article X of the Zoning Ordinance.
DISCUSSION: City Council may wish to consider amending Section 1002.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: A. Permitted uses. 1. The following table states the permitted uses authorized within each zoning district. Any use not listed in the table as permitted within a district are not permissible within that district.
Packet Pg. 281
4.B.2
2. The Director of Development is authorized to prepare a written interpretation whether a proposed use not specifically listed in this table is so similar in nature to a permitted use that it is also intended to be permitted in the same zoning district(s). Such determination by the Director of Development may consider factors such as the common usage of two or more terms to describe the same land uses, the similarity in the scale and intensity of the uses, as well as the similarity in the impacts of comparable uses in terms of traffic, noise, light, parking requirements, customers, hours of operation, and impacts on the environment and abutting property. 3. Any use not listed in the table as permitted within a district, and not determined by the Director of Development to be similar in nature to a listed use, is prohibited within that district. 4. Any use determination made by the Director of Development may be appealed to the City Council as provided in Sec. 213. See attached staff report for additional information REQUESTED ACTION: Once the mayor and city council have discussed this proposed text amendment and given the staff guidance, staff will edit as directed, then prepare the appropriate amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. First read can be done in September and the public hearing and second read in October. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
Attachment List: 06.1_StaffReport_2013TA-001_Use Table Interpretations (DOCX) Ordinance 655 - Amendment Permitted Uses Interpretation 092413 Revision (PDF)
Review: Gary Cornell Marc Johnson City Council Completed Completed Completed 08/07/2013 8:09 PM 08/08/2013 1:55 AM 10/07/2013 11:00 AM
Packet Pg. 282
4.B.2.a
STAFF REPORT Subject: Proposed text amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding the list of permitted uses Description of the Issue: Background: During its regular City Council meeting on June 18, 2013, the City Council granted the appeal of Equity Auto Loan, LLC d/b/a InstaLoan who had appealed staff decision to deny their occupational tax certificate. The City Clerk had denied their occupational tax certificate on May 6, 2013 because the Acting Development Director found that their business use does not fit within any of the permitted uses listed in Section 1002 of the adopted City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance. Apparently InstaLoan is a relatively new or hybrid type of use that was not contemplated in the drafting of the current Zoning Ordinance. Previous staff found that it appeared to be neither a Financial Institution nor an Office in the common use of these terms. It combines services of making loans with sales of insurance products. Sec. 1002 of the Zoning Ordinance states, Any use not listed in the [use] table is as permitted within a district are not permissible within that district. Therefore, since staff found no use in the use table that clearly corresponded to the proposed use, they should not be granted an occupational tax certificate to operate in the City. However City Council voted to grant the appeal and directed the Clerk to issue the occupational tax certificate. As part of this action, City Council directed staff to identify which zoning district(s) the proposed use falls in and bring forward the necessary text amendments for action by City Council. We anticipate discussion in July and action in August and September. Your current staff has considered the circumstances surrounding this issue and finds that it is more likely a symptom of a more fundamental flaw in the construction of the City of Chamblees Zoning Ordinance. A more appropriate response may be to set forth a process by which the Development Director is authorized to interpret Section 1002. Permitted Uses in Article X of the Zoning Ordinance. Analysis: Article X of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance contains district regulations. Article X, Section 1002. Permitted uses contains a large table that shows which uses are permitted In each zoning district in the City. This is a central feature of the Zoning Ordinance because it governs the segregation of dissimilar and incompatible uses - the primary function of a zoning ordinance. Altogether Section 1002 provides a list of 105 principal uses and displays which of the ten zoning districts authorized in the City of Chamblee permits those uses and which districts do not. Uses are listed in alphabetic order. This table is preceded by the following text in Section 1002.A.1:
Council Wrap-Up
Page 1 of 4
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: 06.1_StaffReport_2013TA-001_Use Table Interpretations (1215 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Interpretation of Permitted
4.B.2.a
1. The following table states the permitted uses authorized within each zoning district. Any use not listed in the table as permitted within a district are not permissible within that district. [sic]
This approach is an exclusive approach to zoning. In other words, by omission, a use that is not specifically described by the 105 terms listed in Section 1002.A.1. is expressly prohibited. There are several reasons that this approach is problematic given the structure of the City of Chamblees Zoning Ordinance: 1. There are many more land uses than 105 terms can explain. Excluding all but 105 uses may become a detriment to the vitality of the community. It may also threaten the legal defensibility of the zoning ordinance since it is commonly assumed that municipalities have an obligation to provide for a comprehensive set of uses or face court scrutiny. 2. In fact 105 permitted uses is a relatively short list of uses. By comparison, the American Planning Associations Land Based Classification System contains over 130,000 entries matched to the Standard Industrial Classification System (SIC) and North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS provides a comprehensive list of definitions of its terms. 3. Although the Zoning Ordinance has a set of definitions in Section 301, few of the uses listed in the table of permitted uses are defined in the ordinance. This leaves the staff to be uncertain regarding the intended meaning of the uses listed in the table of permitted uses. 4. There does not seem to be a consistent system or level of detail for uses chosen for the permitted use table. By comparison, in other communities permitted use tables are more detailed but classified and organized under categories such as residential, retail trade,:professional services, hospitality and entertainment, recreation, wholesale trade, manufacturing, health care, public administration , etc. with numerous examples listed under each of these categories. 5. Many common uses can be described using more than one term. For instance, townhouse is not listed, but it is commonly considered to be synonymous with the term single-family attached dwelling which is a permitted use in Section 1002 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. New land uses may occur due to changes in technology, culture, and consumer patterns. Examples are cellphone sales, tattoo parlor and automatic teller machine. None of these are clearly recognizable in the current table of permitted uses. The uncertainty over the InstaLoan use may have been a similar situation. 7. This entry in the table of permitted uses seems confusing: Retail establishments excluding drivethrough, and including art, antiques, apparel, appliance, book, clothing, department, drug, fabric, florist, food, furniture, garden supply, general merchandise, hardware, hobby, jewelry, music, notion, shoe, sporting goods, stationery and toy stores, but not excluding similar retail establishments. Council Wrap-Up Page 2 of 4 Petition No: 2013TA-001 Council Work Session: August 15, 2013 City Council Meeting: August 20, 2013
Packet Pg. 284
4.B.2.a
There are several possible options. 1. The City of Chamblee could add definitions to Section 301 of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that its permitted uses are more clearly defined. 2. The City of Chamblee could decide to re-write the table of permitted uses entirely, using a longer list organized in keeping with the American Planning Associations Land Based Classification System and/or the North American Industrial Classification System. 3. The City of Chamblee could allow the Development Director the latitude to interpret terms used in the current permitted use table of the Zoning Ordinance. The interpretation could be informed by noting the common usage of certain terms for the same uses, and by considering the similarity in the performance of certain kinds of uses in terms of traffic, noise, light, parking requirements, customers, hours of operation, and impacts on the environment and abutting property. Option 1 is feasible and could be accomplished gradually over the next several months, if desired. Option 2 may be the best long-term option. However, it would take considerable time and effort and could be disruptive to on-going development activity. It would need to be ground truthed based on actual use patterns in the City to make sure that it does not displace already permitted uses. Option 3 is an attractive short-term solution to avoid unnecessary problems such as we recently encountered with the InstaLoan application. It could be the first step while the Mayor and City Council weigh the feasibility of undertaking Option 1 or 2. Recommendation: City Council may wish to consider amending Section 1002.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
A. Permitted uses. 1. The following table states the permitted uses authorized within each zoning district. Any use not listed in the table as permitted within a district are not permissible within that district. 2. The Director of Development is authorized to prepare a written interpretation whether a proposed use not specifically listed in this table is so similar in nature to a permitted use that it is also intended to be permitted in the same zoning district(s). Such determination by the Director of Development may consider factors such as the common usage of two or more terms to describe the same land uses, the similarity in the scale and intensity of the uses, as well as the similarity in the impacts of comparable uses in terms of traffic, noise, light, parking requirements, customers, hours of operation, and impacts on the environment and abutting property. 3. Any use not listed in the table as permitted within a district, and not determined by the Director of Development to be similar in nature to a listed use, is prohibited within that district. 4. Any use determination made by the Director of Development may be appealed to the City Council as provided in Sec. 213.
Council Wrap-Up
Page 3 of 4
Packet Pg. 285
4.B.2.a
Council Wrap-Up
Page 4 of 4
Packet Pg. 286
4.B.2.b
ORDINANCE NO. 655

Attachment: Ordinance 655 - Amendment Permitted Uses Interpretation 092413 Revision (1215 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment -
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA, APPENDIX A, "ZONING ORDINANCE", ARTICLE X, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS," SECTION 1002.A, "PERMITTED USES", TO PROVIDE FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE USE TABLE BY THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE AND FOR ALL OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES
BE IT ORDAINED AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA that the provisions of subsection A of Section 1002 be amended by deleting sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 in their entirety and substituted in lieu thereof shall be new sub-paragraphs 1 through 5 which new sub-paragraphs shall read as follows: PART I A. Permitted uses. 1. The following table states the permitted uses authorized within each zoning district. 2. The City Manager or his/her designee is authorized to prepare a written interpretation whether a proposed use not specifically listed in this table is so similar in nature to a permitted use that it is also intended to be permitted in the same zoning district(s). Such determination by the City Manager or his/her designee may consider factors such as the common usage of two or more terms to describe the same land uses, the similarity in the scale and intensity of the uses, as well as the similarity in the impacts of comparable uses in terms of traffic, noise, light, parking requirements, customers, hours of operation, and impacts on the environment and abutting property. 3. Any use not listed in the table as permitted within a district, and not determined by the City Manager or his/her designee to be similar in nature to a listed use, is prohibited within that district. 4. Any use determination made by the City Manager or his/her designee may be appealed to the City Council as provided in Sec. 213. 5. Those uses which emit obnoxious, injurious or offensive noise, vibrations, smoke, dust, gas fumes or odors or create fire or explosion hazards or other objectionable conditions shall be prohibited.
The foregoing was proposed by Council member ____________________ with a motion that the same be adopted. Said motion was seconded by Council member __________________________. Same was then put to a vote and _______Council members voted in favor of the Ordinance and _______
Packet Pg. 287
4.B.2.b
_____________________________________________ City Attorney
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: Ordinance 655 - Amendment Permitted Uses Interpretation 092413 Revision (1215 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment -
Council members voted against the Ordinance. Said motion was thereupon declared passed and duly adopted this ________ day of __________________, 2013.
4.B.3
City of Chamblee
ZONING (ID # 1214) SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - STREET TREES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY NEAR BILLBOARDS
Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Jim Ellis Audi was required to build additional sidewalk and streetscape improvements in the right of way of Peachtree Boulevard, extending north from the corner of the subject property. However, recent legislation passed by the General Assembly has led to unforeseen complications in obtaining approval from Georgia Department of Transportation for this streetscape feature along Peachtree Boulevard because of the location of an existing billboard on Peachtree Boulevard near Mr. Ellis property.
ISSUE: Our zoning ordinance, Section 902-D., requires street trees to be large shade trees that have a minimum mature height of 40 feet. However new state legislation from HB 179 states that After July 1, 2011, however, no beautification project in this state shall include the planting of trees within the right of way within 500 feet of an outdoor advertising sign such that the visibility of a permitted outdoor advertising sign is obscured or could later be obscured by the growth of such vegetation. This has caused the GA DOT to reject Jim Ellis Audis plans and may give cause for the City of Chamblee to revise its street tree requirements where it conflicts with this statute. The proposed text amendment is as follows: Section 902. - Sidewalks. D. Street tree planting requirements. 1. Street trees are required and shall be planted in the ground a maximum of 50 feet on center or grouped 120 feet on-center within the landscape zone and spaced equal distance between street lights. 2. All Except where required otherwise by state regulations and approved by the City Manager or his/her designee, newly planted trees shall be a minimum of 4 inches in caliper measured 36 inches above the ground, shall be a minimum of 16 feet in height, shall have a minimum mature height of 40 feet, and shall be limbed up to a minimum height of ten feet. Said trees shall be in proportion in height to the first floor of a building.
Packet Pg. 289
4.B.3
REQUESTED ACTION: Once the mayor and city council have discussed this proposed text amendment and given the staff guidance, staff will edit as directed, then prepare the appropriate amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. First read can be done in September and the public hearing and second read in October. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None Attachment List: 05.1_StaffReport_2013TA-003_Street Trees Near Billboards Text Amendment Street Trees Near Billboards (DOCX) (DOCX) 05.2_attachment 3_GDOT streetscape Comments 6-7-2013_Highlighted (PDF)
Review: Gary Cornell Marc Johnson City Council City Council Completed Completed Completed Completed 08/07/2013 8:01 PM 08/08/2013 2:08 AM 10/07/2013 11:00 AM 10/07/2013 11:35 AM
Packet Pg. 290
4.B.3.a
STAFF REPORT Subject: Proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance street trees near billboards
The Issue: Variance case 2013V-003 was approved by the Mayor and City Council on March 19, 2013. As a condition of approval of Part 6 of this variance case, the applicant, Jim Ellis Audi, was required to build additional sidewalk and streetscape improvements in the right of way of Peachtree Boulevard, extending north from the corner of the subject property. However we have been made aware that recent legislation passed by the General Assembly has led to unforeseen complications in obtaining approval from Georgia Department of Transportation for this streetscape feature along Peachtree Boulevard because of the location of an existing billboard on Peachtree Boulevard near Mr. Ellis property. Discussion: Our current ordinance, Section 902-D., Street tree planting requirements states: 1. Street trees are required and shall be planted in the ground a maximum of 50 feet on center or grouped 120 feet on-center within the landscape zone and spaced equal distance between street lights. 2. All newly planted trees shall be a minimum of 4 inches in caliper measured 36 inches above the ground, shall be a minimum of 16 feet in height, shall have a minimum mature height of 40 feet, and shall be limbed up to a minimum height of ten feet. Said trees shall be in proportion in height to the first floor of a building.
The Citys adopted Streetscape Design Guidelines provides graphic details illustrating this standard. However, when the applicant submitted the approved streetscape plans for comments from GA DOT he received written comments from GA DOT Traffic Engineer, Bryan S. Carter dated June 7, 2013 stating: No trees with a mature height of 20 ft. shall be planted within 500 ft. of a billboard. This comment was based on a new statute adopted by the Georgia General Assembly pursuant to HB 179 that reads in part:
Council Wrap-Up
Page 1 of 3
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: 05.1_StaffReport_2013TA-003_Street Trees Near Billboards (1214 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Street Trees in Public
4.B.3.a
After July 1, 2011, however, no beautification project in this state shall include the planting of trees within the right of way within 500 feet of an outdoor advertising sign such that the visibility of a permitted outdoor advertising sign is obscured or could later be obscured by the growth of such vegetation. Analysis: In consideration of this unique situation, staff decided to allow Jim Ellis Audi to substitute smaller, understory trees in lieu of larger overstory trees for the streetscape design in public right of way along Peachtree Boulevard. The intent was that smaller trees, such as crape myrtle, could be kept trimmed below 20 feet in height in order to comply with the new statute. Support for this administrative decision came from page 9 of the Citys Streetscape Design Guidelines that lists approved species of trees for installation in public right of way: The following understory trees are pre-approved for installation in public right of way. UNDERSTORY TREES Common Name Fringe tree Kousa Dogwood Purple Smoke Tree Wax Myrtle Holly Crape Myrtle* *Where possible However, this provision in the Streetscape Design Guidelines results in an apparent contradiction between our ordinance and our design guidelines. In order to resolve this conflict, it may be appropriate to amend Sec. 902 D.2 of the Citys Zoning Ordinance to provide flexibility for the City Manager to provide relief to applicants with property near billboards where our ordinance would conflict with state regulations. Recommendation: Botanical name Chionanthus virginicus Cornus kousa chinensis Cotinus coggygria Myrica cerifera llex spp. Lagerstroemia indica
Staff recommends that the Mayor and City Council amend Section 902-D. of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance as follows: Council Wrap-Up Page 2 of 3 Petition No: 2013TA-003 Council Work Session: August 15, 2013 City Council Meeting: August 20, 2013
Packet Pg. 292
4.B.3.a
Section 902. Sidewalks. D. Street tree planting requirements. 1. Street trees are required and shall be planted in the ground a maximum of 50 feet on center or grouped 120 feet on-center within the landscape zone and spaced equal distance between street lights. 2. All Except where required otherwise by state regulations and approved by the City Manager or his/her designee, newly planted trees shall be a minimum of 4 inches in caliper measured 36 inches above the ground, shall be a minimum of 16 feet in height, shall have a minimum mature height of 40 feet, and shall be limbed up to a minimum height of ten feet. Said trees shall be in proportion in height to the first floor of a building.
Council Wrap-Up
Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 293
4.B.3.b
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: 05.2_attachment 3_GDOT streetscape Comments 6-7-2013_Highlighted (1214 : Zoning
4.B.3.b
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: 05.2_attachment 3_GDOT streetscape Comments 6-7-2013_Highlighted (1214 : Zoning
4.B.3.c
ORDINANCE NO. _______ (Development Department No.: 2013TA-003)

Attachment: Text Amendment Street Trees Near Billboards (1214 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Street Trees in Public Rights of Way
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA, APPENDIX A, "ZONING ORDINANCE", ARTICLE IX, "CIVIC DESIGN," SECTION 902, "SIDEWALKS", TO PROVIDE FOR LANDSCAPE ZONE REQUIREMENTS ALONG STATE ROUTES CONSISTENT WITH GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERMITTING AND FOR ALL OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES
BE IT ORDAINED AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA that the provisions of subparagraph D.2 of Section 902 be amended by deleting said subparagraph D.2. in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof a new subparagraph D.2. which new subparagraph shall read as follows:
PART I 2. Except where required otherwise by state regulations and approved by the City Manager or his/her designee, newly planted trees shall be a minimum of 4 inches in caliper measured 36 inches above the ground, shall be a minimum of 16 feet in height, shall have a minimum mature height of 40 feet, and shall be limbed up to a minimum height of ten feet. Said trees shall be in proportion in height to the first floor of a building.
The foregoing was proposed by Council member ____________________ with a motion that the same be adopted. Said motion was seconded by Council member __________________________. Same was then put to a vote and _______Council members voted in favor of the Ordinance and _______ Council members voted against the Ordinance. Said motion was thereupon declared passed and duly adopted this ________ day of __________________, 2013.
Packet Pg. 296
4.B.3.c
_____________________________________________ City Attorney
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Text Amendment Street Trees Near Billboards (1214 : Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Street Trees in Public Rights of Way
4.B.4
City of Chamblee
ORDINANCE (ID # 1223) SUBJECT: ALCOHOL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT

Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM REQUESTED ACTION: Adoption of the changes to the alcohol ordinance as recommended.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY: In May of 2012 the council adopted several amendments to the alcohol ordinance which I proposed. One of the amendments instituted additional measures to verify compliance with the percentage of sales requirements. ISSUE: One of the new measures was the requirement to provide a statement by a certified public accountant at the time of license renewal that the licensee met the percentage of sales requirement for the previous fiscal year. The intent was to verify compliance for the entire previous calendar year, which may not be the same as the licensees fiscal year. Furthermore, renewal applications are required to be submitted to the city no later than November 30 of each year. That means that the previous calendar year will not have been completed at the time renewal applications must be submitted. I am proposing the following changes to Section 6-4: Renewal applications will require an affidavit regarding the percentage of sales requirement for the previous three completed calendar quarters. The city manager may require an affidavit regarding the percentage of sales requirement for the most recently ended calendar quarter. The city manager may require a statement from a certified public accountant regarding the percentage of sales requirement for the recently ended calendar quarter or an entire year. If an establishment fails to meet the requirements for two consecutive quarters or for a year the license is subject to revocation.
Packet Pg. 298
4.B.4
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

Attachment List: Alcohol Ordinance Amendment Sept & Oct 2013 (DOCX)
Review: Marc Johnson City Council Completed Completed 09/05/2013 11:53 AM 10/07/2013 3:25 PM
Packet Pg. 299
4.B.4.a
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA, CHAPTER 6, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND FOR ALL OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES
PART I The provisions of Section 6-4 Purchase and sales records shall be amended by deleting SubSection (c) in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof a new Sub-Section (c) which new subsection shall read as follows: (c) For the purpose of ensuring compliance with consumption on the premises percentage of sales requirements: (1) The licensee of each such establishment shall furnish at the time of any renewal application an affidavit which reports the percentage of the licensee's total gross sales derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages consumed on the premises in the licensee's last three completed calendar quarters; and The city manager may require that a licensee furnish an affidavit which reports the percentage of the licensee's quarterly gross sales derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages consumed on the premises in the licensee's most recently ended calendar quarter. Such affidavits, when required by the city manager, are due by the 15th day of the month immediately following each calendar quarter; and The city manager may require that a licensee furnish a statement from a certified public accountant which reports the percentage of the licensee's quarterly or annual gross sales derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages consumed on the premises in the licensee's most recently ended calendar quarter or year. Such affidavits, when required by the city manager, are due by the last day of the month immediately following the reporting period; and Any licensed establishment that fails to meet the appropriate percentage requirements for two consecutive calendar quarters or annually shall be subject to immediate license revocation.
(2)
(3)
(4)
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Alcohol Ordinance Amendment Sept & Oct 2013 (1223 : Alcohol Ordinance Amendment)
BE IT ORDAINED AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA that the provisions of Chapter 6, Alcoholic Beverages, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Chamblee, Georgia, shall be amended as follows:
4.B.4.a
PART II It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Mayor and City council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and, if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance. The foregoing was proposed by Council member ____________________ with a motion that the same be adopted. Said motion was seconded by Council member ___________________. Same was then put to a vote and ______ Council members voted in favor of the ordinance, and _______ Council members voted against the ordinance. Said motion was thereupon declared passed and duly adopted this ________ day of _______________, 2013.
__________________________________ Emmie Niethammer City Clerk, City of Chamblee, Georgia
Approved this _____ day of ________________, 2013.
_____________________________________ The Honorable R. Eric Clarkson Mayor, City of Chamblee, Georgia
Approved as to form: ____________________________ Joe Fowler, City Attorney First reading: ______________________ Second reading: ____________________
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Alcohol Ordinance Amendment Sept & Oct 2013 (1223 : Alcohol Ordinance Amendment)
5.F.1
City of Chamblee
Department: City Council Prepared By: Emmie Niethammer Initiator: Scott Taylor
INFORMATION ITEM (ID # 1241) SUBJECT: EMPTY STOCKING FUND

Meeting Date: October 10, 2013, 6:00 PM SUMMARY:
Presentation by Manda Hunt, Executive Director of the Empty Stocking Fund. The presentation will include details of the program, an upcoming event and volunteer needs/opportunities.
ISSUE:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attachment List:
Review: Scott Taylor Marc Johnson City Council Completed Completed Pending 10/03/2013 11:46 AM 10/06/2013 8:55 PM
Packet Pg. 302

2013-10-10 - Chamblee GA City Council Work Session - Full Agenda-1069

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2013-10-10 - Chamblee GA City Council Work Session - Full Agenda-1069

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CITY OF CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA City Council Public Hearing - Work Session Agenda October 10, 2013 6:00 PM

Call to Order Announcements and Presentations Staff Action Items

Adoption of New Ethics Ordinance Reschedule Planning Retreat

Parks & Recreation Finance Public Works

2nd Reading of Ordinances

Mayor and Council Items

Citizen Comments Executive Session

Announcements and Presentations

PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED

Staff Action Items

Alcohol Ordinance Amendment

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 12, 2013 6:00 PM (Approval of Minutes)

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 12, 2013 6:00 PM (Approval of Minutes)

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 12, 2013 6:00 PM (Approval of Minutes)

Variances - 5193 Peachtree Blvd. (Former International Farmers' Mkt)

REVIEWED Next: 9/17/2013 7:30 PM

Police Department Parks & Recreation Finance Public Works

Authorities, Boards, and Committees

REVIEWED Next: 9/17/2013 7:30 PM

2nd Reading of Ordinances

Mayor and Council Items

Announcements and Presentations Staff Action Items

Discussion Regarding Modification to the Ethics Ordinance

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 17, 2013 7:30 PM (Approval of Minutes)

Police Department Parks & Recreation Finance Public Works

Authorities, Boards, and Committees

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 17, 2013 7:30 PM (Approval of Minutes)

REVIEWED Next: 10/10/2013 6:00 PM

2nd Reading of Ordinances

Mayor and Council Items

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT:

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 17, 2013 7:30 PM (Approval of Minutes)

ORDINANCE (ID # 1124) SUBJECT: ARTS INCUBATOR UPDATE

Review: Marc Johnson City Council Completed Pending 10/07/2013 1:29 PM

ORDINANCE (ID # 1248) SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF NEW ETHICS ORDINANCE

Review: Marc Johnson Completed 10/07/2013 12:50 AM

ACTION ITEM (ID # 1224) SUBJECT: RESCHEDULE PLANNING RETREAT

01.06_Previously approved preliminary plat (PDF) 01.7_Deferral request letter (PDF)

Petition No.: 2013-Z-002 Development Department

Staff Report to City Council

Current Use: Surrounding Land Uses:

Staff Report to City Council

Staff Report to City Council

_____________________________________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

Staff Report to City Council

Attachment: 01.03_Tax_map_Keswick_Manor (1234 : Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002)

Attachment: 01.04_Keswick_Survey (1234 : Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002)

Attachment: 01.05_Keswick_Site Plan (1234 : Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002)

02.6_Deferral request letter (PDF)

Gary Cornell Marc Johnson City Council

Completed Completed Pending

10/03/2013 9:07 AM 10/07/2013 12:14 AM

Petition No.: 2013-V-015 Development Department

Current Use: Surrounding Land Uses: Staff Report to City Council

Staff Report to City Council

Staff Report to City Council

Staff Report to City Council

Staff Report to City Council

Attachment: 02.2_Application_Keswick Manor_Variances (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)

Attachment: 02.2_Application_Keswick Manor_Variances (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)

Attachment: 02.2_Application_Keswick Manor_Variances (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)

Attachment: 02.2_Application_Keswick Manor_Variances (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)

Attachment: 02.2_Application_Keswick Manor_Variances (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)

Attachment: 02.2_Application_Keswick Manor_Variances (1235 : Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015)