Alpharetta City Council Public Hearing

Posted Thursday, August 31, 2006

 E-mail this page    Printer-friendly page

City of Alpharetta

City Administrator’s Office

(678) 297-6010

www.alpharetta.ga.us

Prepared by: Robbie Rokovitz, (678) 297-6014

Published: Tuesday, July 29th, 2006

 

Public Hearing of Mayor and Council, August 28th, 2006

This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media and staff. It is not the intent to record proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice. Public comments are noted as heard by Council, but not quoted or paraphrased. This document includes limited presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form. This is not an official record of the Alpharetta City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Minutes are recorded and available for review.

I. CALL TO ORDER:

The Mayor called the Meeting to Order.

II. ROLL CALL:

All members of Council were present with the exception of Councilman Monson who was out of town on business.

III. Pledge to the Flag:

§ Jesse Barge from Troop 7153 came forward to lead the Council in the Pledge

IV. New Business:

A. Community Development: Councilmember Debbie Gibson

Presented by Diana Wheeler

 

1. MP-06-05/V-06-13/CLUP-06-04 Windward MP Amend. Pod 66/Carson Dev.

Consideration of a request to amend the Windward Master Plan in order to allow a residential use on Pod 66. The applicant intends to develop 126 single family lots on a 51.46-acre portion and office development on 14.43-acres. A variance to the 50’ undisturbed buffer adjacent to commercial use is also requested and a change to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from “Office Center” to “Medium Density Residential” is also requested. The property is legally described as being located in Land Lots 1113, 1176, 1179, 1180, 1243 & 1242, 2nd District, 1st Section, Fulton County, Georgia. (Withdrawn by applicant)

 

§ This item was withdrawn by the applicant.

2. Z-06-03/CLUP-06-03/V-06-06 Ritter Properties

Consideration of a request to rezone 10.23-acres from AG to R-10 for the purpose of developing an 11 lot subdivision. The property is located on Webb Bridge Road. A change to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from “Low Density Residential” to “Medium Density Residential” is also requested along with a variance to the 50’ undisturbed buffer required adjacent to commercial property. The property is legally described as being located in Land Lots 1240, 1241 and 1247, 1st District, 1st Section, Fulton County, Georgia.

 

 

§ This item was considered at the August 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. One resident who spoke stated that the plan should match the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

§ After discussion, the Commission recommended (5-2) to approve the application.

§ The Commission also recommended to change the setbacks recommended from Staff and to allow a gate.

§ Staff recommends approval or Z-06-03/CLUP06-02/V-06-02 Ritter Properties with the following recommended conditions:

1. The property to be rezoned shall have an “R-12” zoning classification and a “Low Density Residential” land use.

2. Minimum setbacks shall be as follows:

§ Setbacks along Webb Bridge Road shall be a 50’ minimum, with the exception of Lot 1 which shall be 40’.

§ Front setbacks along internal street shall be 17.5’ minimum.

§ Rear setbacks shall be 25’.

§ Side setbacks shall be 10’.

3. There shall be a heavily landscaped 20’ strip along Webb Bridge Road frontage with a common park area on each side of the entrance buffering lots from the roadway.

4. Required setbacks and a 50’ undisturbed buffer to the west side of the property shall be provided. Half of this requirement can be met on adjoining property if the adjoining property owner provides a written agreement.

5. Wooden privacy fencing shall be prohibited along Webb Bridge Road. Fencing visible from the public right of way shall be limited to wrought iron.

6. The homes shall be designed so that no backs are visible from Webb Bridge Road.

7. The site plan shall be configured to accommodate the natural features of the site. Specimen trees at edge of undisturbed buffer must be preserved at full critical root zone. Every effort shall be made to develop a site plan that preserves the specimen oak trees located on lots 2, 3, 5, 6, 7.

8. Provide approved zoning plan in dwg/cd format prior to issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit.

9. Applicant shall consider specimen understory trees as well as overstory specimen trees when final lots and home footprints are developed. Lots will require site plans showing house footprint located out of the full critical root zone. If found unbuildable, recompense will be required.

10. Trees saved shall be depicted on final subdivision plat with a note stating: “Trees depicted on plat shall be saved in accordance with the Tree Ordinance.”

11. Development will be required to provide access study using the Georgia Department of Transportation Regulations for Driveway and Encroachment Control 2004 for left turn and deceleration lane warrants.

12. Development will be required to meet City Standards (Typical Sections and Cul-De-Sac).

13. Stream buffers shall comply with all environmental ordinances.

14. Detention shall have landscape screening and be located on common property to be maintained by the established Homeowners Association upon dedication.

15. If a building permit is not issued by 08-28-08, the property shall revert back to AG zoning and requirements.

16. Common area for stream buffer area shall be as depicted on site plan with final approval by Staff. Access shall be provided into the Common Area with a walking trail that continues along the creek.

17. Driveways shall be made of previous material when encroaching into critical root zone of trees.

§ The subject property is located on the south side of Webb Bridge Road across from the Westwind subdivision and encompasses 10.23-acres.

§ The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from AG to R10 in order to develop a subdivision with 11 lots.

§ The applicant’s plan will also require a variance to the 50’ undisturbed buffer adjacent to the proposed animal hospital to the west and the elementary school to the east and a variance to allow a 25’ setback from Webb Bridge Road as well as an internal road setback variance to allow 17.5’.

§ The applicant also seeks a change to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from “Low Density Residential” to “Medium Density Residential”.

§ The applicant proposes to develop an 11 lot subdivision on 10.24 acres with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

§ The property is to the south of Westwind subdivision with a minimum of 12,000 square foot lots and includes lots up to 24,000 square feet in size adjacent to Big Creek.

§ To the west of the property is the new location for the Webb Bridge Animal Hospital and to the east and north of the property is Creek View Elementary School.

§ The property is currently zoned AG.

§ The property was previously the site of the Webb Bridge Animal Hospital that moved to the west of the site and has received a Land Disturbance Permit for a new building for the veterinarian hospital.

§ The applicant states that the subdivision is planned to be a gated, park community with homes prices from $900,000 with homes styles similar to Ardsley Park within the Windward Community

§ The applicant further states that the community will feature a landscaped park in the front of the property along Webb Bridge Road to the east of the gates and will feature a stone gate entrance with pillars and wrought iron fencing.

§ The site plan depicts one entrance into the subdivision directly across from Westwind Lane.

§ Eleven lots are shown along Webb Bridge and wrapping two cul de sacs.

§ The cul de sacs are constructed with a 40’ radius with a 50’ right of way and will be required to meet the City standard of 50’ radius and a 60’ right of way.

§ The entrance is planned to be gated with a park area shown to the east of the site.

§ The minimum lot sizes are proposed to be 10,000 square feet and set back 25’ from Webb Bridge Road.

§ Rear setbacks are shown to be 25’ with 17.5’ - 35’ front setbacks from the internal roadways. The minimum lot width is shown to be 75’.

§ A stream exists along the southern property line that is a tributary to Big Creek. A 50’ undisturbed buffer is required with a 75’ non-impervious buffer.

§ The creek area is depicted as a Common Area separate from the lots with access between Lots 7 and 8.

§ The property currently has a mixture of hardwoods and pines.

§ There are several specimen trees shown on the tree survey with a large number of the specimen trees located within the 50’ undisturbed/75’ non-impervious stream buffer.

§ The applicant is intending to save the majority of the specimen trees; however a great number of specimens are depicted for removal within the roadbed.

§ The City of Alpharetta’s Comprehensive Plan Annexation map recommends the future land use for the property as “Low Density Residential” with 12,000 to 15,000 square foot lots, as appropriate to the surrounding area.

§ The applicant’s request is not in keeping with the Future Land Use Map.

§ Residential development is known to increase school enrollment.

§ Fulton County calculated the potential maximum number of children who may live on the property by using the Fulton County schools standard calculation to distinguish the number of children that a residential development will generate.

§ Based on the total figure for all three-school levels, it can be assumed that the proposed development could house approximately 15 school age children to Creek View Elementary, Webb Bridge Middle School and Alpharetta High School.

§ Numbers provided by the Fulton County School System show that the schools which would serve the community currently exceed capacity.

§ The City of Alpharetta Unified Development Code Article IV, Section 4.5.3 outlines the criteria set forth for granting a hardship variance.

§ The ordinance specifically states…”a variance may be granted in whole or in part, or with conditions, in such individual case of unnecessary hardship upon a finding that”:

(1) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape or topography; or if the site plan is approved without 50’ undisturbed buffer adjacent to the animal hospital and allowing the homes within 25’ of Webb Bridge, the quality of life for the future residents could be compromised. A reduced number of lots could be developed on the site. In addition, allowing homes within 25’ of Webb Bridge could affect the quality of life as well as aesthetics along Webb Bridge.

(2) The application of the Ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; or if the variance were denied the applicant can still build a conventional subdivision with fewer homes.

(3) There are conditions that are peculiar to the property which adversely affect its reasonable use or usability as currently zoned. There are no conditions which adversely affect its reasonable use or usability as currently zoned. One home could be placed on the site and it was previously used for an animal hospital.

(4) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purpose and intent of the City of Alpharetta ordinances. The variance requests are intended to accommodate a greater number of homes. This increased density does not provide a public benefit and has a detrimental impact on roads, quality of life, and schools.

§ City Staff has reviewed the applicant’s proposal and has some concerns with the request.

§ The City’s Future Land Use Map depicts 12,000 – 15,000 square foot lots to be developed.

§ Therefore, it is Staff’s recommendation that the zoning for the property be R-12 allowing for 12,000 square foot lots similar to the Westwind subdivision north of the site.

§ Amendments to the CLUP are based on several circumstances and Staff did not find any compelling circumstances to warrant a change to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

§ Staff is also concerned with the proximity of the homes to Webb Bridge Road.

§ The park area should be extended across the property frontage in order to buffer the property from Webb Bridge Road.

§ A minimum 65’ setback is required along collector roadways. In addition, the 50’ undisturbed buffer should be required adjacent to the animal hospital.

§ A 50’ undisturbed buffer is required adjacent to Creek View School however, a natural buffer area along the creek exists and construction on the School property adjacent to the subdivision would be difficult.

§ The requirement could be reduced if the adjacent property agreed to provide half of the buffer on their property. Setbacks are in addition to the undisturbed buffer.

§ In addition, there are numerous specimen trees shown in the roadbed that could easily be saved with a revised plan. Staff prepared a sample recommended plan that saves the specimen trees and provides a landscape strip on both sides of the subdivision entrance.

§ If built in accordance with the Staff plan, gating of the subdivision could not be accommodated; however, adjusting the location of the entrance may allow gating to occur.

§ A shared driveway could be provided from the cul de sac through lots 3 – 5 in order to avoid cuts through the critical root zone of the trees.

§ Ten lots could be configured with minimum 12,000 square foot lots.

§ The Engineering Department reviewed the site plan submitted and commented that a study will be required to determine curb cut location and configuration for a possible decel lane.

§ They also commented that the cul de sacs will be required to meet City codes.

§ The applicant notified everyone within 500 feet of the intent for the property and the report filed states that no comments were received.

§ Prior to the meeting, Councilwoman asked the applicant to provide a tree survey and an alternate engineered plan to protect the specimen trees.

§ The applicant was not willing to change the plan to protect the specimen trees within the driveway.

§ A footprint, engineered drawing is needed to better understand the impact on the area trees and stream buffer.

§ The applicant, Patricia Lander, came forward for a presentation.

§ The applicant originally came forward with 20 lots proposed and would like to seek 12 lots.

§ The applicant agreed with the Planning Commission recommendations.

§ They would like to have a gated, park community while preserving as many specimen trees as possible.

§ About 6 trees would have to be lost to build the roadway.

§ According to the applicant, they were approved twice by the Planning Commission.

§ However, they were actually given direction by the Planning Commission to work with staff on the 17 conditions.

§ The applicant is unable to come up with an alternate plan that deviates from the final plan that they have submitted.

§ They cannot do with fewer lots and they have to have a gate.

§ The Council asked additional questions.

§ The price points average around $900,000 starting price.

§ Less lots would not make the plan financial feasible to the applicant.

§ Recompense is an option to accommodate the loss of the 6 specimen trees.

§ If the roadway was to be moved, the ability to build on lots 3 and 4 would not be possible because there would not be access to the residences.

§ The applicant was provided time for rebuttal.

§ The plan submitted is the best that can be done given the circumstances.

§ Public comment was invited and heard.

§ Melissa Bonduiant from the vet clinic came forward with concerns that her clinic would be preserved to protect her from residents later on coming forward with concerns that they live next to it.

§ Janette Knazek came forward with concerns regarding the removal of trees and believes that the property is unbuildable.

§ Jerry Knazek came forward with the applicant approval process.

§ Roy Leveritt is concerned with what residents may be faced with next should this application not be approved and should consider the best of all alternatives.

§ The staff would look to protect the critical root zones for trees that fall within the buffer as well as the trees since they fall within the buffer.

 

Motion: Councilmember Gibson moved to deny Z-06-03/CLUP-06-03/V-06-06 Ritter Properties. The Motion failed due to a lack of a second.

Motion: Councilmember DeRito moved to approve Z-06-03/CLUP-06-03/V-06-06 Ritter Properties a request to rezone 10.23-acres from AG to R-10 for the purpose of developing an 11 lot subdivision on Webb Bridge Road and change the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from “Low Density Residential” to “Medium Density Residential” along with a variance to the 50’ undisturbed buffer required adjacent to commercial property with staff conditions to include an additional motion to ensure that all specimen trees to remain on the property. Councilmember Paine seconded and the motion failed (3-3) with Councilwoman Gibson, Councilman Aiken, and Councilman Belle Isle voting in opposition the motion.

Motion: Councilmember Gibson moved to deny without prejudice to allow the applicant an opportunity to come back before the Council in 6 months to request to rezone 10.23-acres from AG to R-10 for the purpose of developing an 11 lot subdivision on Webb Bridge Road and change the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from “Low Density Residential” to “Medium Density Residential” along with a variance to the 50’ undisturbed buffer required adjacent to commercial property. Councilmember Paine seconded.

Councilmember Gibson moved to withdrawal her motion. Councilmember Paine agreed.

Motion: Councilmember Belle Isle moved to approve Z-06-03/CLUP-06-03/V-06-06 Ritter Properties a request to rezone 10.23-acres from AG to R-10 for the purpose of developing an 11 lot subdivision on Webb Bridge Road and change the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from “Low Density Residential” to “Medium Density Residential” along with a variance to the 50’ undisturbed buffer required adjacent to commercial property with staff conditions to include an additional condition to save the oak trees on lots #7 and #10. Councilmember Aiken seconded and the motion failed (3-3) with Councilwoman Gibson, DeRito, and Paine voting in opposition.

Motion: Councilmember DeRito moved to approve Z-06-03/CLUP-06-03/V-06-06 Ritter Properties a request to rezone 10.23-acres from AG to R-10 for the purpose of developing an 11 lot subdivision on Webb Bridge Road and change the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from “Low Density Residential” to “Medium Density Residential” along with a variance to the 50’ undisturbed buffer required adjacent to commercial property with staff conditions to include an additional condition #18 that the applicant retain all the specimen trees except the four in the roadway. Councilmember Aiken seconded and the motion passed (5-1) with Councilwoman Gibson voting in opposition.

3. Z-06-04/V-06-11 Haynes Bridge Associates

Consideration of a rezoning request from AG to R-10 for a 4.33-acre tract located at 10600 Haynes Bridge Road in order to construct 11 single family homes. The property is legally described as being located in Land Lot 793, 1st District, 2nd Section, Fulton County, Georgia.

 

§ This item was considered at the August 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

§ An adjacent resident in Summerfield subdivision spoke in favor of the request.

§ After discussion, the Commission recommended unanimously to approve the application. The Commission also recommended R-10 zoning for the property instead of R-15 recommended by Staff.

§ Staff recommend approval of Z-06-04/V-06-11 Haynes Bridge Associates with the following recommended conditions:

1. The property to be rezoned shall have an “R-10” zoning classification and a “Medium Density Residential” land use.

2. Minimum setbacks shall be as follows:

§ Setbacks along Haynes Bridge Road shall be a 40’ minimum from the proposed right of way reserve (45’ from center line).

§ Front setbacks along internal street shall be 35’ minimum.

§ Rear setbacks shall be 30’.

§ Side setbacks shall be 10’.

3. There shall be a heavily landscaped 20’ strip along Haynes Bridge Road frontage and shall be permitted to be included within the 40’ setback.

4. Approval does not guarantee lot yield as shown. Prior to approval of preliminary plat, developer shall submit layout plan showing proposed footprints including garages, decks and driveways.

5. Wooden privacy fencing shall be prohibited along Haynes Bridge Road. Fencing visible from the public right of way shall be limited to wrought iron and/or decorative brick or stacked stone.

6. The site plan shall be configured to accommodate the natural features of the site. Every effort shall be made to develop a site plan that preserves tree groupings.

7. Provide approved zoning plan in dwg/cd format prior to issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit.

8. Provide access study to determine intersection geometry and need for left and right turn lanes per Georgia DOT Driveway Manual.

9. Development will be required to meet City Standards (Typical Sections and Cul-De-Sac).

10. Detention shall have landscape screening and be located on common property to be maintained by the established Homeowners Association upon dedication. Outfall shall have no negative impact on downstream properties.

11. If a building permit is not issued by 08-28-08, the property shall revert back to AG zoning and requirements.

§ The subject property is located on the west side of Haynes Bridge Road south of Blackwatch Lane and encompasses 4.32-acres.

§ The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from AG to R-10 in order to develop a subdivision with 11 lots.

§ The applicant also seeks a change to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from “Agricultural” to “Medium Density Residential”.

§ A variance from the required 65’ setback along Haynes Bridge Road is also requested in order to allow a 35’ setback from the future right-of-way.

§ The applicant proposes to develop an 11 lot subdivision on 4.32 acres with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

§ The property northwest of the site is the Summerfield subdivision zoned R-15 and property to the south is Willow Springs in Roswell; northeast is the Haynes Forest R-15 subdivision in the City of Alpharetta and east is AG property developed with a single family home.

§ The property is currently developed with a single family home and was annexed as a pocket into the City in December 2005.

§ Development south of the property further along Haynes Bridge Road includes townhome developments as well subdivisions in the City of Roswell and in unincorporated Fulton County.

§ Lots in Summerfield average 18,000 square feet in size and lots in Haynes Forest are 15,000 square feet in size

§ Lots in Willow Springs fronting Haynes Bridge are larger than 18,000 square feet

§ The property is immediately adjacent to an AG parcel developed with one single family home.

§ This lot was annexed as a pocket and the Future Land Use of AG from Fulton County was also adopted.

§ Although the adopted Fulton County Future Land Use depicts AG, surrounding parcels in Alpharetta are zoned R-15 with higher densities farther south on Haynes Bridge Road.

§ Therefore, an Agricultural use on the property may not have been the intended Future Land Use category; in fact the current unincorporated areas along Haynes Bridge immediately surrounding the property are developed with two – three units per acre.

§ The subdivision will be accessed from one curb cut off of Haynes Bridge Road and is shown with a 35’ setback from the future right-of-way, or 50’ from the current right of way.

§ A variance request is included to reduce the setback from the future right-of-way of Haynes Bridge Road from 65’ to 35’.

§ The current right-of-way along Haynes Bridge Road is 30’ from the centerline; the required future right-of-way reservation is 45’ from the centerline.

§ The applicant states in the application that the setback based on future right of way would create a hardship by rendering .64 acres of the property or 15% unusable.

§ Eleven lots are shown with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet or 2.5 units per acre. A detention pond on common property is included.

§ Rear setbacks are shown to be 25’ with 35’ front setbacks along the internal roadways.

§ The minimum lot width is shown to be 75’ and minimum house sizes of 2,500 square feet.

§ The property currently has a mixture of hardwoods and pines with no overstory specimen trees. Tree save areas have not been incorporated into the site plan.

§ Residential development is known to increase school enrollment.

§ Fulton County calculated the potential maximum number of children who may live on the property by using the Fulton County schools standard calculation to distinguish the number of children that a residential development will generate.

§ Based on the total figures for all three-school levels, it can be assumed that the proposed development could house approximately 12 school age children to Northwood Elementary, Haynes Bridge Middle School and Centennial High School.

§ Numbers provided by the Fulton County School System show that only Haynes Bridge Middle School currently does not exceed capacity.

§ The City of Alpharetta Unified Development Code Article IV, Section 4.5.3 outlines the criteria set forth for granting a hardship variance.

§ The ordinance specifically states…”a variance may be granted in whole or in part, or with conditions, in such individual case of unnecessary hardship upon a finding that”:

(1) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape or topography; or Adjacent subdivisions including Haynes Forest and Summerfield do not have setbacks 65’ from Haynes Bridge Road and are setback 40’ and 50’ respectively from the right of way. Approval of a reduced setback would be similar to surrounding properties.

(2) The application of the Ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; or if the variance were denied the applicant can still build a conventional subdivision with fewer homes. However, the UDC setbacks required are greater than surrounding subdivisions.

(3) There are conditions that are peculiar to the property which adversely affect its reasonable use or usability as currently zoned. There are no conditions which adversely affect its reasonable use or usability as currently zoned. However, surrounding properties are developed at higher residential densities.

(4) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purpose and intent of the City of Alpharetta ordinances.

(5) Because the setbacks will be similar to surrounding property, it should not cause a substantial detriment to the public good.

§ City Staff has reviewed the applicant’s proposal and has some concerns with the request. The Future Land Use Map adopted from Fulton County at the time of annexation depicts AG; however surrounding properties are developed with greater densities and surrounding properties are zoned R-15 and AG. R-15 zoning on this property would allow 15,000 square foot lots similar to the Haynes Forest, Summerfield and Willow Springs subdivisions.

§ The higher density R-10 zoning does not currently exist in the immediate area and allowing a higher density would result in multiple back yards adjacent to existing homes in Summerfield.

§ Staff believes that due to the proximity of surrounding homes to Haynes Bridge Road a setback variance would not be detrimental to the aesthetics of the area and would be in keeping with other properties; however, the full right-of-way dedication required for Haynes Bridge Road should be provided because that road may need to be widened in the future.

§ The applicant notified everyone within 500 feet of the intent for the property and the report filed states that no comments were received.

§ The applicant, Gary Unelle came forward for a presentation.

§ The applicant is agreement with the conditions set forth above.

§ The applicant requested a gate at the front entrance if possible.

§ Public comment was invited and heard.

§ The property owner came forward to speak in favor of the project.

§ The applicant was provided time for rebuttal.

§ The Council asked questions.

§ There was a question regarding why the zoning was designated as R-15 as opposed to R-12.

 

Motion: Councilmember Gibson moved to approve Z-06-04/V-06-11 Haynes Bridge Associates with staff conditions. Councilmember Aiken seconded and the motion passed unanimously (6-0)

4. V-06-17 Steinhart Residence

Consideration of a variance to the rear 35’ undisturbed buffer and 20’ setback required for a pool in order to allow a pool to be setback 10’ from the rear property line. The property is located at 2260 Blackheath Trace and legally described as being located in Land Lot 1187, 2nd District, 1 Section, Fulton County, Georgia.

§ Staff recommends the approval of V-06-17 Steinhart Residence request for a rear setback variance, with the following conditions:

1. Pool equipment location with enclosure details, fireplace construction plans, and pool construction with discharge to sanitary sewer shall be submitted to Staff for review and approval.

2. Rear setback shall be a minimum of 10’ from the rear property line for all structures.

3. Landscaping, pool and concrete decking shall be constructed substantially as shown on Outside Landscape Group LLC, plan submitted.

4. Applicant shall abide by conditions of approval by the Golf Club of Georgia and the Windward Community Services Association.

§ The applicant is requesting approval of a rear setback variance in order to reduce the required setback from 35’ to 10’ for the construction of a pool.

§ The subject site is located at 2260 Blackheath Trace within the Northshore subdivision in Windward.

§ The Unified Development Code requires that no structures are permitted within the setback area.

§ The applicant, Lance Steinhart, is requesting a variance from the rear yard setback requirement of 35’ in order to allow for a 10’ setback for the pool and a patio decking area within 5’ of the rear property line.

§ The requested variance will allow the applicant to encroach up to 25’ in order to construct a pool and patio area.

§ The 35’ rear setback is also an undisturbed buffer required by the Golf Club of Georgia. In the past, the Golf Club has allowed pool decking to be located within the undisturbed buffer but not the pool structure.

§ However, the applicant has received a letter of approval from the Golf Club of Georgia for the proposed encroachment.

§ The applicant also submitted plans to the Windward Community Services Association for their review and approval and received a conditional approval.
The letter from the Association requested additional fireplace construction plans and the pool equipment location to be relocated 10’ off of all property lines.

§ The footprint proposed includes a rear stone patio with a free form pool and spa.

§ The applicant states in the application that the size and shape of the property require the variance.

§ The building line is required to be 35’ and includes the Golf Club of Georgia’s 35’ undisturbed buffer requirement which is not a City requirement.

§ If the variance is granted, the pool will encroach 25’ into the undisturbed buffer portion.

§ The properties most affected by building setback encroachment are west and east of the property as well as the Golf Club of Georgia south of the property.

§ The applicant has included letters of support from the adjacent property owners as well as the Golf Club of Georgia.

§ The City of Alpharetta Unified Development Code Article IV, Section 4.5.3 outlines the criteria set forth for granting a hardship variance.

§ The ordinance specifically states..."a variance may be granted in whole or in part, or with conditions, in such individual case of unnecessary hardship upon a finding that”:

(1) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape or topography; or the applicant is requesting the variances due to the desire to build a large pool on the property. The home is built only 5’ from the 35’ rear setback making pool construction without a variance impossible.

(2) The application of the Ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; or if denied the applicant would not be permitted to build the pool as configured.

(3) There are conditions that are peculiar to the property which adversely affect its reasonable use or usability as currently zoned. Not applicable.

(4) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purpose and intent of the City of Alpharetta ordinances,

§ The applicant has included letters of support from adjacent property owners including the Golf Club of Georgia.

§ Staff has reviewed the applicant’s request and has determined that approval should not cause a detriment to surrounding property owners.

§ In addition, the applicant will not be removing trees for the construction and will be adding landscaping in conjunction with the pool construction.

§ The applicant, Rick Haldrovitz came forward for a presentation.

§ The Council asked questions.

§ Public comment was invited.

§ The applicant was provided time for rebuttal.

 

Motion: Councilmember Gibson moved to approve V-06-17 Steinhart Residence with staff conditions. Councilmember Aiken seconded and the motion passed unanimously (6-0)

5. V-06-15 Dr. O’Donnell

Consideration of a request for a front setback variance from 65’ in order to allow a 24’ setback for a medical office. The property is located at 134 N. Main Street and is legally described as being located in Land Lot 1252, 2nd District, 2nd Section, Fulton County, Georgia.

§ Staff recommends approval of V-06-15 Dr. O’Donnell request for a front setback variance, with the following conditions:

1. Front setback shall be a minimum of 24’.

2. Construction of addition shall be as submitted and previously built and require a building permit.

§ The applicant is requesting approval of a front setback variance in order to reduce the required setback from 65’ to 24’ for the reconstruction of a dentist office located at 134 North Main Street.

§ The Unified Development Code requires that no structures are permitted within the front setback area.

§ The applicant, Dr. O’Donnell, is requesting a variance from the front yard setback requirement of 65’ in order to allow for a 24’6” setback for a front reception room addition.

§ The property is zoned C1 and adjacent to a two-story medical building to the north and commercial property to the south.

§ The setbacks of the buildings to the north and south of the site are similar, although if approved this site will become a few feet closer to the roadway than the adjacent properties.

§ The applicant purchased the property in 1999 and renovated the site in 2000 for the dental practice.

§ The renovation included enclosing the front porch with glass and columns for a reception area, installing decorative lighting and landscaping.

§ The site received the Historic Alpharetta Star Award in 1999.

§ The existing house was setback 31’ from the right of way and no variance was required in 1999 because the encroachment existed.

§ On April 9, 2006 a severe storm with high winds caused a large tree to fall onto the building causing extensive damage.

§ It is the applicant’s request to extend the front reception area 5’5” in the front creating a 24’6” setback.

§ The reconstruction and addition will appear the same as the previous building prior to destruction.

§ Surrounding properties were notified by the applicant and no comments were received.

§ The City of Alpharetta Unified Development Code Article IV, Section 4.5.3 outlines the criteria set forth for granting a hardship variance.

§ The ordinance specifically states..."a variance may be granted in whole or in part, or with conditions, in such individual case of unnecessary hardship upon a finding that”:

(1) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape or topography; or the applicant is requesting the variances due to the desire to build a larger reception area. The home existed 31’ from the right of way because it was built over 70 years ago. If approved the encroachment would be an additional 5.5’ and still would be similar to the dentist office building to the north and the Roberts property to the south.

(2) The application of the Ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; or if denied the applicant would not be permitted to build the front reception area as configured.

(3) There are conditions that are peculiar to the property which adversely affect its reasonable use or usability as currently zoned. Not applicable.

(4) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purpose and intent of the City of Alpharetta ordinances, Approval should not cause detriment to the public good.

§ Staff has reviewed the applicant’s request and has determined that approval should not cause a detriment to surrounding property owners.

§ The applicant, Bob O’Donnell, came forward for a presentation.

§ The Council asked questions.\The applicant is in agreement with staff conditions

§ Public comment was invited.

 

Motion: Councilmember Gibson moved to approve V-06-15 Dr. O’Donnell -06-15 Dr. O’Donnell a request for a front setback variance from 65’ in order to allow a 24’ setback for a medical office at 134 N. Main Street with staff conditions. Councilmember DeRito seconded and the motion passed unanimously (6-0).

6. PH-06-03 City of Alpharetta Noise Ordinance

Consideration of an Ordinance to amend Art. 2, Sec. 13-32 of the Code of the City of Alpharetta in order to modify permissible hours for construction and demolition and the use of commercial or industrial power tools.

§ The Community Development Department is requesting a proposed change to the noise ordinance which was requested by residents regarding construction and demolition activity.

§ The noise ordinance is more in line with the Fulton County ordinance restricting activity on Sundays.

§ No Construction noise Monday through Friday between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am.

§ No construction after 5:00 pm or before 9:00 am on weekends unless activities are deemed emergency work or fall with certain guidelines as outlined within the Ordinance section 13-21(a) or roadwork or infrastructure improvement.

§ These restrictions were also extended to the use of construction tools.

§ The Council asked questions.

§ The City Attorney provided the first reading of the Noise Ordinance.

§ Public comment was invited and heard.

§ Victor Hawa came forward to speak in favor of the Noise Ordinance.

§ Brad Sturgeon came forward to speak in favor of the Noise Ordinance.

§ Dick Freeman came forward to speak in favor of the Noise Ordinance.

 

Motion: Councilmember Aiken moved to approve PH-06-03 City of Alpharetta Noise Ordinance no construction noise Monday through Friday between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am and no construction after 5:00 pm or before 9:00 am on weekends with no Sundays unless activities are deemed emergency work or fall with certain guidelines as outlined within the Ordinance section 13-21(a) or roadwork or infrastructure improvement. Councilmember DeRito seconded and the motion passed unanimously (6-0)

7. PH-06-04 Downtown Tax Allocation District Plan

Consideration of a plan outlining the need for and operation of a proposed Tax Allocation District to encompass approximately 7.5 acres in Downtown Alpharetta. The subject site is generally described as an area bordered to the west by South Main Street, to the north by Academy Street, to the east by Haynes Bridge Road and to the south by property owned by Retail Planning Associates and Publix Grocery Stores. The property is legally described as being located in Land Lots 1268 and 1269, 2nd District, 2nd Section, Fulton County, Georgia.

 

§ A TAD report was provided by Ken Bleakley.

§ The Community Development Staff seeks approval of the draft operations plan for the proposed Tax Allocation District (TAD) that would fund certain public improvements crucial to the Alpharetta City Center redevelopment project.

§ Additionally, approval is sought to begin discussions with Fulton County and the Board of Education to secure the concurrence of those bodies such that the TAD is operational by January 1, 2007.

§ This action is the next step involved in the ongoing redevelopment project commonly referred to as “Alpharetta City Center,” which is focused on the property adjacent to City Hall.

§ The project was originally introduced to City Council in June 2004, at which time Staff was directed to draft and issue a Request for Proposals seeking a lead developer for the project.

§ The draft Alpharetta TAD Plan identifies three separate criteria that qualify the subject site as a redevelopment area and outlines a plan for leveraging $10 million in public funds to secure approximately $95 million in private investment.

§ Via the proposed Alpharetta City Center Project, the net new taxable value generated within the TAD will be in excess of $27.6 million ($29.8 million for the County and Board of Education).

§ In accordance with previous public statements, the use of TAD funds would be limited to partially funding construction of the public plaza, public parking structures and street infrastructure proposed in the Alpharetta City Center development.

§ The total cost of these components is estimated at $14.2 million, of which $8 million would be funded via TAD bond proceeds.

§ The remaining costs would be born by the developer, Barry Real Estate.

§ Currently the properties involved in the Alpharetta City Center Project generate annual City property tax revenues of $4,371.58.

§ During the TAD lifespan, the City would receive tax revenues of $6,902 from these properties.

§ Following the retirement of the TAD debt, based on current millage rates and homestead exemption policies, it is anticipated that Alpharetta City Center will generate City property taxes of $177,809 annually.

§ Based on the development program planned for Alpharetta City Center, the City’s increment investment in 2008 would be approximately $34,293 (applying the current City millage rate and base homestead exemption). That figure would increase to $131,556 through the retirement of the TAD.

§ Due to the presence of public-use components that will be non-revenue generating, the Alpharetta City Center Project is economically feasible only through the assistance of public-sector investment.

§ Given the City’s other financial obligations, the formation of a Tax Allocation District is the only possible solution.

§ The Council asked questions

§ Public comment was invited and heard.

§ Victor Hawa came forward to speak in favor of the TAD.

§ Dick Freeman came forward to speak in favor of the TAD.

 

Motion: Councilmember DeRito moved to approve PH-06-04 Downtown Tax Allocation District Plan a consideration of a plan outlining the need for and operation of a proposed Tax Allocation District to encompass approximately 7.5 acres in Downtown Alpharetta. Councilmember Belle Isle seconded and the motion passed unanimously (5-0). Councilwoman Gibson was absent for the vote.

8. Z-06-05/CLUP-06-07 Shirley Estates (Tabled by Planning Commission)

Consideration of rezoning a 6.02-acre parcel from AG to R-12 for the purpose of developing 14 single family lots. A change the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for a portion of the property is also requested. The property is located at on Webb Bridge Road and is legally described as being located in Land Lots 125, 1250, 1st District, 2nd Section, Fulton County, Georgia.

 

§ This item was tabled by the Planning Commission.

 

IV. REPORTS:

A. Jim Paine announced that the Columbus, Muskogee, County, the first agency in the State to be accredited under GRPA, recreation baseball program were victorious against Japan 2-1 on Monday night winning the 60th annual little League World Series Championship.

§ ADJOURNMENT

Discuss this story in our forum...


Sponsored Links: