Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission City of Woodstock, Georgia Woodstock Municipal Complex * 103 Arnold Mill Road DRAFT MINUTES Monday February 5, 2007; 7:00 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairman Jeff Wood requested an agenda change to insert a Public Input discussion after item 3 but before item 4 and move item 4B to 5A and move 5A to B. Motion to move Item 4B to 5A and Move 5A to 5B. By James Drinkard 2nd Judy Davila Motion Carries 7-0 Item 3:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 11, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes
Motion to approve the January 11, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes as written. By James Drinkard 2nd Judy Davila Motion carries 7-0 Item 4:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS (For Public Hearings - please complete the appropriate form at the podium)
Motion to set Public Input to 5 minutes per speaker, hear from all persons who sign up, request that the speakers state if they are in agreement with a previous speaker on a particular item but do not repeat discussions, and the per person time limit may be adjusted based on Public Input turnout . By Jeff Wood 2nd David Dyer Motion Carries 6-1 (James Drinkard opposed) A. Public Hearing – The City of Woodstock has received an application from K.G. Martin Group of Woodstock, GA for rezoning (Case Z#026-06). The property is located on Main Street east of Dupree Rd. The property is identified as tax map and parcel numbers 92N06 (045, 046). The property is zoned DT RO (Residential) in The City of Woodstock and the request is to rezone to DT-CBD (Mixed Use) in the City of Woodstock. The property is ±02.70acres. Richard McLeod Presented Case #026-06 and read conditions recommended by Planning Department and those requested by applicant. Jim Phelps read the DRC report as written.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA
David Dyer asked for the timeline of the intersection upgrade. Richard McLeod responded that it must be completed prior top issuance of C/O and if Planning Commission wishes they can set a timeframe in the conditions. Park Huff presented case Z#026-06 on behalf of the applicant and indicated that the applicant worked with staff a great deal to understand and compliment the proposed grid system. The applicant has interfaced with the neighbors and results are reflected in the requested conditions. Serenade Subdivision HOA President is in support of this project. The retail uses will be market driven but the intent is to serve the immediate area. Phasing of the Project would begin to the left of the property and work to the south toward Highway 92. Jerry Spangler of Tunnell, Spangler and Walsh presented the project from an architectural perspective of scale and rhythm as a good gateway element to the Downtown Area. Ron Wooten, Project Engineer for TSW addressed privacy and lighting across the back of the property. “Darkskys” lighting will be used to help mitigate overspill, evergreens to further protect the abutting neighbor from parking area. Back of building will, for the most part, have the same type of upscale design as the front. Joseph Linden asked for clarification on the parallel roadway that abuts the railroad. Parks Huff referred to staff condition #4 and explained that the roadway provides a parallel rout to Hedgewood without having to cross the train tracks. John Szczesniak asked why no formal traffic analysis was prepared. The applicant was advised by staff that there is no requirement for developments of this size to perform traffic studies. The City Planning Staff has asked us to work with the proposed grid system and the applicant agreed. There are currently two Development of Regional Impact projects in the downtown area for which traffic studies have been done as required in the DRI application process. Jeff Wood asked the applicant to justify asking for 20 units per acre when the City does not currently have development with that high a density. Parks Huff made reference to the two projects currently in the DRI process, soon to be before the Planning Commission, both of which have densities in line with what the applicant is asking for and is in keeping with the kind of density you would expect in a downtown area. The type of high quality architecture presented come with a cost that can only be offset by higher density. John Szczesniak asked Mr. Huff if it is proper to make density comparisons in GA as zoning law supports zoning a property based on the individual property not what surrounds it. Mr. Huff responded that when talking about restrictions on the use of land you must look at what the similar developments are around it like Hegdewood Development just to the north with heights and densities higher that what is being asking for here. TSW was brought in because as the current Architect for Hedgewood, they have a great understanding for the Downtown Master Plan and concept of a vibrant Downtown that the City is trying to promote. Parking will be both reserved, assigned resident parking and open general. SK5.1 shows parking plan. There is a thirty foot strip of property along the railroad tracks owned by the adjoining property owner. It is not a part of this case but does need to be considered for setbacks. PUBLIC INPUT: Proponents: Carl Gade – 315 Windsong Way – Serenade HOA President represents 8 abutting homeowners not opposing this development. Concerns communicated to applicant include granting an easement to access around fence to maintain vegetation and homeowners are not in favor of lifting Historic Overlay. Each individual homeowner has agreed to maintain the fence that will be placed on their property. Opponents: Regular Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA
Katharine White – 370 Windsong Way – Will be visually affected by this development daily, does not oppose DT-CBD but feels 20 Units per acre is too dense for the area. Does not feel that comparison to Hedgewood is fair since it was brought in prior to the Downtown Master Plan. It is in the best interest of the City to protect the integrity of the Overlay. Channing Ruskell – 9021 Main Street - Home and Law Office – No traffic study has been done. Feels approval of this development will put a road block to any future developments that may tie into a grid system. There has been no adoption of a grid system by Council to date. Many adjoining property owners have not been met with in regard to the proposed railroad track parallel road to Hedgewood. Thais Escondo – 5206 Willow Creek Overlook - Opposed to Historic Overlay being lifted, opposed to 20 units per acre. Hedgewood gave 35% greenspace and maintained the existing structures on Main Street and placement in regard to roadways was well thought-out. TAD agreement just signed last week limits number of residential units. The Cherokee Historic and Woodstock Societies put a lot of input into the placement of the Historic Overlay. Has no problem with DT-CBD. Bill Johnston -8870 Main Street – Lives directly across the street at Dupree and Main Street and is opposed to the density and the height. Feels 8 units per acre yield 22 units and 40 foot height should be enough for the applicant. Keep DT-RO. Millicent Fox – 125 Barnsdale Terrace – Member of the Woodstock Preservation Committee does not believe that this project preserves the integrity and character of the City. Sim Jones – 398 Windsong Way -Leave DT-RO, Do not remove Historic Overlay. Feels property values in Serenade will drop if this development is allowed. REBUTTAL: Parks Huff stated that the Downtown Master Plan was intended to provide a diverse, complimentary look. Applicant is providing stepped Façade and asking in turn for more height. Richard McLeod provided the following responses to the board members questions; Water/sewer is available through Serenade (see condition #9). The ordinance does not require mandatory Traffic Study but ARC and GRTA both have set limitations based on acreage, square footage, and total number of number of units. This project met none of those thresholds. The Planning and Economic Development staff recommendations for this project were bases on what is best for the City in the long run. At the direction of our City Council, staff is working on trying to lay out the road system. For the City to accomplish this on its own ahead of the development would be a tremendous expense, it makes sense to instead ask for give and take from the developers who already have legal access to easements. Any approved residential unit within the TAD boundary per the recent agreement will provide a guaranteed payment to the Board of Education. Motion to approve case Z#026-07 with and rezone DT-CBD with staff conditions amended as follows;#2 strike the word size, and change the date on rendering SK5.4 to reflect the update 2/5/07, #3 to reflect maximum of 40 feet above the elevation of Main Street Side and 50 feet on the rear elevation, #5 maximum number of residential units not to exceed 32 all to be located above commercial non-residential space, #7 amend to read “year round opaque screening”, #11 to reflect no greater than 0.1 foot-candles at the property line, and add condition #12 to require completion of all vehicular and pedestrian improvements prior to issuance of C/O.
By James Drinkard 2nd David Dyer Regular Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA
Discussion: None Motion Carries 7-0 B. Public Hearing - The City of Woodstock has received a variance application (Case V# 072-06) from the Neese Rd Development Corporation of Woodstock, GA. Refer to attached parcel list for the specific properties that are included. The property is currently zoned R-2 and the request is for reduction in side setbacks from 7 feet to 3 feet. The property is ± 40.58 acres. Richard McLeod Presented Case #026-06 and read conditions recommended by Planning Department and those requested by applicant. Planning Department did not support the request for reduction of the setback to three feet, but has no objection to five foot setbacks as long as it meets all building and fire code requirements. Jim Phelps read the DRC report as written. Applicant Paul Laney presented request and stated that they are in agreement with DRC’s recommendation of five foot setbacks. After the original zoning of 187 lots on 62 acres more unusable flood plane was discovered than originally thought and the plan has dropped down to 120 lots on 40 acres. The number of lots is not changing, just building larger homes, and to have more design flexibility to make up for the difficult topography. PUBLIC INPUT: Proponents: None Opponents: Thais Escondo – 5206 Willow Creek Overlook - KB asked for 6.5 side setbacks this should be consistent. Gerard Foret asked if there was anything specific that was objectionable about the reduction of the side setback. Ms. Escondo responded that they had already conceded from 15 to 7 feet. Brenda Sexton – 505 Creekridge - This is the highest density in 2 ½ years. Rather than continue to reduce setbacks recommend that he loose one lot to gain what he seeking. Rebuttal: Paul Laney accounted for the loss of units to the discovery of the extent of the wetland areas.
Motion to deny V#072-06. By David Dyer 2nd James Drinkard Discussion: David Dyer feels the applicant was granted concessions and has come back for more. Gerard Foret asked, since density fixed as well as lot sizes, how does this request hurts the City of Woodstock? James Drinkard feels that physical changes presented justify a return on the part of the applicant and is not completely opposed because the situation with the land has changed. Joe Linden stated that he doesn’t have a problem with the staff recommendation, and thinks it’s okay for the developer to come back after problems have been identified on the land. Jeff Wood read the criteria for granting of a variance from 7.823 Paragraph 1. Regular Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA
Richard McLeod noted that referenced section comes from the Zoning Board of Appeals section and cautions that criteria must be uniformly applied. Motion Fails 2-5 (Szczesniak, Linden, Davila, Wood and Foret opposed) Motion to grant application with minimum side setback of 5 feet in accordance with the Planning Staff Recommendation. By Gerard Foret 2nd John Szczesniak Motion Carries 5-2 (Dyer, Drinkard opposed)
Case A#044-06 was tabled at the January 23 rd Planning Commission Meeting. Motion to remove this item from the table. By James Drinkard 2nd David Dyer Motion carries 7-0 A. Case A#044-06 ( Public Hearing Occurred on 1/11/07) The City of Woodstock has received an application for annexation and rezoning from TND Development Corporation, of Decatur, GA. The property is located on Ragsdale Rd., north of Village Trace. The property is identified as tax map and parcel numbers 15N24 (200, 201, 202, 205, 206 and 207). The property is zoned R-40 (Residential) in Cherokee County and the request is to annex and rezone to R-3 (Residential) in the City of Woodstock. The property is ±23.69 acres. Richard McLeod Presented Case #026-06 and read conditions recommended by Planning Department and those requested by applicant. Jim Phelps read the updated DRC report recommendations. John Szczesniak asked if the requirements that the Board asked staff to look into were fully satisfied by the applicant. Richard stated that after review of the minutes and audio staff determined that the most of the discussion was with the greenspace, number of units and comments from the public. Richard McLeod stated that the “contemporaneous variances” requested in the application must be listed individually. Applicant Joel Larkin presented for the applicant. The new plan reflects a central park area and fewer lots. Motion to open for Public Comment. By David Dyer 2nd Gerard Foret Motion carries 7-0
PUBLIC INPUT: Regular Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA
David Wilson – Happy with the proposal of trees to be planted. Would like language to state “permanent, opaque screening”. Thanked developer for taking homeowners concerns into consideration. Thais Escondo – Still opposed to this plan, need a better transition from the overlay. Concerned about setting a precedent. Carol Link – Weatherstone HOA President Richard Caroni – Concerned about traffic on Ragsdale and structural integrity of Weatherstone’s large retaining wall near the proposed development. Brenda Sexton – If you take out everything in the overlay you get less than three units per acre. This density is still too high. Zone at R-2. Wayne (?) - 1039 Ragsdale Road – Weatherstone cut the walls themselves; they created the problem. Rebuttal Joel Larkin stated that staff was supportive of the variances spelled out in Conditions of Zoning and the property is as less dense than, and is surrounded by 4500 sq ft lots, on three sides. Tad Braswell indicated that some on street parking would be added to the alley loaded lots in addition to the 2 garage and 2 driveway spaces already provided. Sidewalks will be incorporated on both sides of the regular streets and throughout the park system. The applicant is working with the County on sidewalk along Ragsdale. Applicant has put up a bond but will wait until Ragsdale Road improvements are made to begin sidewalks.
Motion to approve this application at R-2 with 77 maximum units and minimum lot sizes of 7,500 sq. ft., and density not to exceed 3.2 units per acre. By Gerard Foret 2nd Judy Davila
Discussion: Gerard Foret expected more. Wants the developer to get a decent yield from the property and something the neighboring community and City can be happy with. James Drinkard is concerned about transition from Weatherstone to Applewood Subdivision, as it makes sense to allow higher density in certain transition areas. 115 homes still seems too high but 77 seems too low. Joe Linden agreed with Mr. Drinkard, surrounding density is higher and warrants a slightly higher density than the motion proposes. Judy Davila is looking for a compromise to step the density down. Amend the motion to include the following staff conditions 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21. By Jeff Wood Gerard Foret accepted
Substitute Motion offered to approve R-3A with 94 units and staff conditions 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21. By James Drinkard Regular Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA
2nd David Dyer Discussion: James Drinkard feels that this is a more appropriate density to allow the transition to Applewood. John Szczesniak commented that having to work with parking spaces restrictions and having to meet those codes will decrease the number of units anyway. James Drinkard would like to allow the developer to be creative in the design of the site. Amendment to Motion 25 ft. buffer as shown on site plan dated 1/29/07. By Jeff Wood James Drinkard Accepted Discussion: John Szczesniak is concerned that by upping the requirements, greenspace and added features will be lost. Joel Larkin was recognized and asked what kind of transition the board is looking for; feels larger lots to Applewood’s border is a good transition. The Chair restated the Substitute Motion to approve R-3A with 94 maximum units and staff conditions 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 dedication o f the right of way of Ragsdale Road and 25ft perimeter buffer. Motion Fails 1-6 (Szczesniak, Linden, Davila, Wood and Drinkard and Dyer against)
Joe Linden asked if the intent of the previous motion was to be fair and equitable to this project and we wanted to reduce the size of the lots, why don’t we just reduce the number of lots? Question was called on Mr. Foret’s Motion to approve this application at R-2 with 77 maximum units and minimum lot sizes of 7,500 sq. ft., and density not to exceed 3.2 units per acre to include the following staff conditions 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21. Motion Fails 1-6 (Szczesniak, Linden, Davila, Wood and Drinkard and Dyer against) Joe Linden felt fair and equitable is somewhere around 103, 104 lots. David Dyer thought 105 lots at 4 units per acre would be fair.
Motion to approve Case A#044-06 to the R-3A zoning with staff recommended conditions as written with the exception of #18 to read105 total units and the addition of Condition #22 to reflect the 25ft perimeter buffer shown on 1/29/07 dated site plan and add condition #23 to reflect the dedication of the right of way on Ragsdale Road to be approved by staff. By David Dyer 2nd James Dinkard Motion Carries 6-1 (Foret against)
B. Senior Housing Ordinance Update and Discussion (Public Comment) Richard McLeod responded to one of the biggest concerns was the enforceability of the affordable housing portion of the ordinance in terms of resale. These are mechanisms that are in place across the country and staff is working with ARC to identify ways of enforcement. Some possibilities are through homeowners associations, management association, the Cherokee County Housing authority or HUD. Regular Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA
Easy Living Standards come from national standards. There will probably be some changes that need to be made to the Building Code in response to this. David Dyer feels like we are giving a lot away to have Senior Living Ordinance and asked where this type of unit could be built within ¾ mile of amenities in the City of Woodstock. GIS/mapping can identify viable locations. Jeff Wood is concerned about Location Requirements paragraph 2 statement “SL C project may be exempt….” In that there is no defined level of service and no way to ensure the continuance of those services. General Requirements #1 Add undergound utilities. Item 4 B to include wheelchair friendly bathrooms on all floors. Jim Phelps cautioned that those are changes that would need to be written into the Code. PUBLIC INPUT: Proponents: None Opponents: Thais Escondo – 5206 Willow Creek Overlook -Should be mandatory that Senior Housing be placed no further than ¼ mile from amenities if the highest density bonus is being awarded. Buffer difference between Senior B-C is 25feet, need to look at those densities on the higher density lots. Zoning Category #3 what is recourse if there is no t3rd party management Company. Brenda Sexton – 505 Creekridge -“Assisted Living” is ill defined when it gives bonus of 30 units per acre. “Scale and intensity” still not well enough defined. David Dyer made recommendation to change Location Requirements to replace “¾ mile” with “¼ mile”. John Szczesniak asked if the questions as to enforceability raised at the worksession been resolved? Staff has been in discussions with the City Attorney and did ask someone from ARC to be in attendance tonight, and will try to have someone present for the Council Vote. Motion to recommend the Senior Housing Ordinance to Council with the following changes; Location Requirements #1 change ¾mile to ¼mile, #2, strike second sentence “SL-C projects may be exempt…”, under General requirements #1 add “Underground Utilities” . By David Dyer 2nd James Drinkard Friendly amendment to ensure that there is some sort of Code Enforcement in place prior to the enactment of this ordinance. By Jeff Wood David Dyer accepted Motion Carries 7-0 Item 6:
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/PROJECT UPDATES
Richard McLeod asked for extension of a day or two for the minutes. There is no policy to limit Planning Commission from discussing cases with the applicants. Since all emails come through staff facts will be verified as needed; it is incumbent upon staff to relay correct information. It may be debatable at times but we will try to provide the board with whatever research is needed to verify facts. Item 8:
Regular Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA
Motion to adjourn. By David Dyer 2nd Gerard Foret Motion Carries 7-0
Regular Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA