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. Rezoning - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013Z-002

2. Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision - 2013V-015

3. Variances -Perimeter Park Planned Unit Development - 2013V-014

4. Variances - 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.- 2013V-012

5. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Planned Unit Developments

6. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Interpretation of Permitted Uses

7. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Street Trees in Public Rights of Way

Near Billboards

1. Call to Order

2. Announcements and Presentations

3. Staff Action Items

A. City Clerk

1. Approval of Minutes

a. City Council - Public Hearing - Work Session - Sep 12, 2013

6:00 PM

b. City Council - Regular Meeting - Sep 17, 2013 7:30 PM

B. City Manager

1. Arts Incubator Update

2. Group Insurance Benefits Renewals for 2014

3. Adoption of New Ethics Ordinance

4. 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

2. Variances - Keswick Manor Subdivision at 5140 R Peachtree Blvd.;

5158 Peachtree Blvd.; 5170 R Peachtree Blvd - 2013V-015

3. Variance: 5193 Peachtree Boulevard - 2013V-012

4. Variances - Perimeter Park Planned Unit Development - 2013V-014

5. Variances & Waiver - 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.- (Former

Great Gatsby ) - 2013V-013

6. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – Institutional Uses and Places

of Worship

7. Discussion of Issues with Non-Conforming Uses

8. Discussion of Approved Understory Tree Species for Street Trees

D. Police Department

1. Approval of Purchases & Budget Amendments Due to Annexation

2. Police Department Authorized Strength If Annexation is Approved

E. Parks & Recreation

F. Finance

G. 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


2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Interpretation of Permitted

Use

3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Street Trees in Public Rights

of Way Near Billboards

4. Alcohol Ordinance Amendment

5. Mayor and Council Items

A. Mayor Clarkson

B. Councilman Wedge

C. Councilwoman Robson

D. Councilman Hogan

E. Councilman Zanger

F. Councilman Taylor

1. Empty Stocking Fund

6. Citizen Comments

7. Executive Session


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

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.

3.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 4

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

2, 2

013

6:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

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.


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.

3.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 5

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

2, 2

013

6:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

RESULT: PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED


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


3.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 6

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

2, 2

013

6:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

Marc Johnson, Acting City Manager, is recommending some slight

modifications to the Alcohol ordinance to clarify the compliance with

the percentage of sales requirements.



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

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

3.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 7

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

2, 2

013

6:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

Urban Redevelopment Area and County Downtown Development

Area to allow additional funding options. They are also requesting

the City to deed over the streets.


6. 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 Next: 9/17/2013 7:30 PM

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 Next: 9/17/2013 7:30 PM


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:

3.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 8

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

2, 2

013

6:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

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.


2. 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.


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.


4. Variances - 5193 Peachtree Blvd. (Former International Farmers'

Mkt)

3.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 9

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

2, 2

013

6:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)




F. Finance

G. 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.

3.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 10

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

2, 2

013

6:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

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.


5. City Attorney





Use




3.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 11

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

2, 2

013

6:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)




A. Mayor Clarkson

B. Councilman Wedge


D. Councilman Hogan



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.


The meeting ended at 9:57 pm.

3.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 12

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

2, 2

013

6:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)


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



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.

3.A.1.b

Packet Pg. 13

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

7, 2

013

7:30

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

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


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: POSTPONED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 10/10/2013 6:00 PM MOVER: Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem SECONDER: Dan Zanger, Council At-Large Seat AYES: Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger ABSENT: Wedge

2. 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: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas S. Hogan II, Council District 3 SECONDER: Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem AYES: Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger ABSENT: Wedge

3. Discussion Regarding Modification to the Ethics Ordinance

3.A.1.b

Packet Pg. 14

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

7, 2

013

7:30

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

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: POSTPONED [3 TO 0] Next: 10/10/2013 6:00 PM AYES: Robson, Taylor, Zanger ABSTAIN: Hogan II ABSENT: Wedge

4. Downtown Parking Study

Motion to postpone this item to come back to the Council no later

than the December Council Work Session.

RESULT: POSTPONED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 12/12/2013 6:00 PM MOVER: Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem SECONDER: Dan Zanger, Council At-Large Seat AYES: Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger ABSENT: Wedge


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: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem SECONDER: Leslie C. Robson, Council District 2 AYES: Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger ABSENT: Wedge

2. 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.

3.A.1.b

Packet Pg. 15

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

7, 2

013

7:30

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

There was discussion amongst all Council members regarding the

reason for the delay or move forward.

RESULT: POSTPONED [3 TO 2] Next: 11/14/2013 6:00 PM MOVER: Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem SECONDER: Dan Zanger, Council At-Large Seat AYES: Clarkson, Taylor, Zanger NAYS: Robson, Hogan II ABSENT: Wedge



F. Finance

G. 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: ADOPTED [3 TO 1] MOVER: Scott Taylor, Mayor pro tem SECONDER: Leslie C. Robson, Council District 2 AYES: Robson, Taylor, Zanger NAYS: Hogan II ABSENT: Wedge

5. City Attorney



3.A.1.b

Packet Pg. 16

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

7, 2

013

7:30

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

Joe Fowler, the City Attorney, read the highlights of the zoning

ordinance text amendment for Planned Unit Developments.



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.




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.



Joe Fowler, the City Attorney, read the ordinance text amendment

for alcohol sales.

3.A.1.b

Packet Pg. 17

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

7, 2

013

7:30

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)




A. Mayor Clarkson

B. Councilman Wedge


D. Councilman Hogan



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: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Leslie C. Robson, Council District 2 SECONDER: Thomas S. Hogan II, Council District 3 AYES: Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger ABSENT: Wedge


The Council came out of Executive Session. The meeting was re-opened

to the public.

9. Adjournment

Motion to Adjourn

3.A.1.b

Packet Pg. 18

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

7, 2

013

7:30

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Leslie C. Robson, Council District 2 SECONDER: Dan Zanger, Council At-Large Seat AYES: Robson, Hogan II, Taylor, Zanger ABSENT: Wedge

3.A.1.b

Packet Pg. 19

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f S

ep 1

7, 2

013

7:30

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

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 City’s 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:

3.B.1

Packet Pg. 20

Review:

Niles Ford Ford PhD Completed 02/07/2013 10:56 AM

Niles Ford Ford PhD Completed 02/07/2013 10:56 AM

City Council Completed 06/20/2013 8:00 PM

3.B.1

Packet Pg. 21


Department: Administrative Prepared By: Marc Johnson

Initiator: Marc Johnson

ACTION ITEM (ID # 1243)

SUBJECT: GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS RENEWALS FOR 2014


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 Completed 10/07/2013 1:29 PM

City Council Pending

3.B.2

Packet Pg. 22





SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF NEW ETHICS ORDINANCE


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

3.B.3

Packet Pg. 23


3.B.3

Packet Pg. 24





SUBJECT: RESCHEDULE PLANNING RETREAT


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:



3.B.4

Packet Pg. 25


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 - 2013Z-

002


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 (18-300-10-010 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 Council’s 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 (PDF)

01.02_Application _Keswick Manor_Rezoning (PDF)

01.03_Tax_map_Keswick_Manor (PDF)

01.04_Keswick_Survey (PDF)

01.05_Keswick_Site Plan (PDF)

01.06_Previously approved preliminary plat (PDF)

01.7_Deferral request letter (PDF)

Review:

Gary Cornell Completed 10/03/2013 12:11 PM



3.C.1

Packet Pg. 26

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

Petition No.: 2013-Z-002 Development Department

STAFF REPORT - REZONING

Site Addresses (4): 5140 R Peachtree Blvd.; 5158 Peachtree Blvd.; 5162 Peachtree Blvd.; and 5172 R Peachtree Blvd.

Parcel Numbers (3): 18-300-10-047; 18-300-10-011; 18-300-10-010; and 18-300-10-013

Land Lot and District: 330, 18th

Parcel Acreage: 3.381 Acres (Total project)

Applicant: Oak Hall Companies, LLC

Representative: G. Douglas Dillard, Esq., Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, P.C.

Current Zoning: The majority of this property (parcels 18-300-10-013 and 18-300-10-047) 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 (NR-2) 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 None/8’

Building Coverage (max) 80% Rear Yard 30’

Building Ht. Min./Max (N.Peachtree*/Others)

Min. 18’/ 12’; Max. 60 ft. Front Yard (N.Peachtree*/Others)

15’ / 10’

Lot Size and Lot Width N/A Landscape Zone (N. Peachtree*/Others)

7’/ 5’

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)

8’/ 5’

3.C.1.a

Packet Pg. 27

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

Z00

2_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

34 :

Rez

on

ing

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013Z

-002

)



Neighborhood Residential – 1 (NR-1) Dimensional Standards

Maximum FAR 0.5 Min. Front Yard 30 ft.

Max. Building Coverage 35% Min. Rear Yard 40 ft.

Max. Building Height 34 ft. Min. Side Yard Setback 10 ft.

Min. Lot size 12,000 sq. ft. Min. Lot frontage 60 ft.

Min. Sidewalk width 5 ft. (local street) Min. Landscape zone 3 ft. (local street)







Current Use: undeveloped; wooded.

Surrounding Land Uses: 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.

3.C.1.a

Packet Pg. 28

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

Z00

2_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

34 :

Rez

on

ing

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013Z

-002

)



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

3.C.1.a

Packet Pg. 29

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

Z00

2_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

34 :

Rez

on

ing

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013Z

-002

)



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. Front yards of lots 6-10 are 20 ft., which is less than the 30 ft. minimum required in NR-1 2. Rear yards of lots 9 and 10 are 20 ft. which is less than the 30 ft. minimum required in NR-1. 3. 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. 4. The streetscape standards are not met by retaining the existing sidewalks and not including the necessary

3 ft. landscape zone. 5. 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.

3.C.1.a

Packet Pg. 30

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

Z00

2_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

34 :

Rez

on

ing

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013Z

-002

)



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.

3.C.1.a

Packet Pg. 31

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

Z00

2_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

34 :

Rez

on

ing

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013Z

-002

)



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.

3.C.1.a

Packet Pg. 32

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

Z00

2_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

34 :

Rez

on

ing

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013Z

-002

)



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 Council’s 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:

3.C.1.a

Packet Pg. 33

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

Z00

2_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

34 :

Rez

on

ing

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013Z

-002

)



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. The streetscape standards of the City shall be met by replacing the existing sidewalks with streetscape per City of Chamblee standards.

b. All drives and alleys shall be constructed with pervious paving materials. c. 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).

d. Secure easements from the City of Chamblee for any access across Keswick Park for sidewalks. e. 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:

3.C.1.a

Packet Pg. 34

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

Z00

2_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

34 :

Rez

on

ing

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013Z

-002

)

3.C.1.b

Packet Pg. 35

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.02

_Ap

plic

atio

n _

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r_R

ezo

nin

g (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.b

Packet Pg. 36

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.02

_Ap

plic

atio

n _

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r_R

ezo

nin

g (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.b

Packet Pg. 37

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.02

_Ap

plic

atio

n _

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r_R

ezo

nin

g (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.b

Packet Pg. 38

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.02

_Ap

plic

atio

n _

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r_R

ezo

nin

g (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.b

Packet Pg. 39

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.02

_Ap

plic

atio

n _

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r_R

ezo

nin

g (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.b

Packet Pg. 40

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.02

_Ap

plic

atio

n _

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r_R

ezo

nin

g (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.b

Packet Pg. 41

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.02

_Ap

plic

atio

n _

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r_R

ezo

nin

g (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.b

Packet Pg. 42

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.02

_Ap

plic

atio

n _

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r_R

ezo

nin

g (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.b

Packet Pg. 43

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.02

_Ap

plic

atio

n _

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r_R

ezo

nin

g (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.b

Packet Pg. 44

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.02

_Ap

plic

atio

n _

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r_R

ezo

nin

g (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.b

Packet Pg. 45

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.02

_Ap

plic

atio

n _

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r_R

ezo

nin

g (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.c

Packet Pg. 46

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.03

_Tax

_map

_Kes

wic

k_M

ano

r (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.d

Packet Pg. 47

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.04

_Kes

wic

k_S

urv

ey (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.e

Packet Pg. 48

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.05

_Kes

wic

k_S

ite

Pla

n (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.f

Packet Pg. 49

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.06

_Pre

vio

usl

y ap

pro

ved

pre

limin

ary

pla

t (

1234

: R

ezo

nin

g -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3Z-0

02)

3.C.1.g

Packet Pg. 50

Att

ach

men

t: 0

1.7_

Def

erra

l req

ues

t le

tter

(12

34 :

Rez

on

ing

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013Z

-002

)




VARIANCE (ID # 1235)

SUBJECT: VARIANCES - KESWICK MANOR SUBDIVISION AT 5140 R

PEACHTREE BLVD.; 5158 PEACHTREE BLVD.; 5170 R PEACHTREE BLVD - 2013V-

015


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 Council’s 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 (18-300-10-010 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 (PDF)

02.2_Application_Keswick Manor_Variances (PDF)

02.3_Tax_map_Keswick_Manor (PDF)

02.4_Keswick_Survey (PDF)

02.5_Keswick_Site Plan (PDF)

02.6_Deferral request letter (PDF)

Review:

3.C.2

Packet Pg. 51

Gary Cornell Completed 10/03/2013 9:07 AM



3.C.2

Packet Pg. 52

Staff Report to City Council Page 1 of 8 Petition No: 2013-V-015 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013


Petition No.: 2013-V-015 Development Department

STAFF REPORT - VARIANCES

Site Addresses (4): 5140 R Peachtree Blvd.; 5158 Peachtree Blvd.; 5162 Peachtree Blvd.; and 5172 R Peachtree Blvd.

Parcel Numbers (3): 18-300-10-047; 18-300-10-011; 18-300-10-010; and 18-300-10-013


Parcel Acreage: 3.381 Acres (Total project)

Applicant: Oak Hall Companies, LLC

Representative: G. Douglas Dillard, Esq., Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, P.C.

Current Zoning: 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-R-002 being heard concurrently with this variance case.

District Standards (as proposed):







Current Use: undeveloped; wooded.

Surrounding Land Uses: North – NR-1- City of Chamblee (Keswick Park)

3.C.2.a

Packet Pg. 53

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.1_

Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V01

5_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)



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.

3.C.2.a

Packet Pg. 54

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.1_

Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V01

5_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)




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 Chamblee’s 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.

3.C.2.a

Packet Pg. 55

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.1_

Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V01

5_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)



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:


3.C.2.a

Packet Pg. 56

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.1_

Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V01

5_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)





Assessment: Criteria is met. There are no buildings, uses or structures proposed on this lot that are


consist of single-family detached residential subdivision that is permitted under the zoning

Neighborhood Residential-2.




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.




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.





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.



3.C.2.a

Packet Pg. 57

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.1_

Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V01

5_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)






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.






consist of single-family uses that are permitted under the zoning district Neighborhood Residential-2.



3.C.2.a

Packet Pg. 58

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.1_

Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V01

5_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)




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.




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.





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.






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.

3.C.2.a

Packet Pg. 59

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.1_

Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V01

5_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)



Staff recommends DEFERRAL of the City Council’s 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:

3.C.2.a

Packet Pg. 60

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.1_

Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V01

5_K

esw

ickM

ano

r _

10-1

0-20

13D

RA

FT

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 61

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 62

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 63

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 64

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 65

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 66

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 67

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 68

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 69

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 70

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 71

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 72

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 73

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 74

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.b

Packet Pg. 75

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.2_

Ap

plic

atio

n_K

esw

ick

Man

or_

Var

ian

ces

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)

3.C.2.c

Packet Pg. 76

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.3_

Tax

_map

_Kes

wic

k_M

ano

r (

1235

: V

aria

nce

s -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3V-0

15)

3.C.2.d

Packet Pg. 77

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.4_

Kes

wic

k_S

urv

ey (

1235

: V

aria

nce

s -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3V-0

15)

3.C.2.e

Packet Pg. 78

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.5_

Kes

wic

k_S

ite

Pla

n (

1235

: V

aria

nce

s -

Kes

wic

k M

ano

r S

ub

div

isio

n -

201

3V-0

15)

3.C.2.f

Packet Pg. 79

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2.6_

Def

erra

l req

ues

t le

tter

(12

35 :

Var

ian

ces

- K

esw

ick

Man

or

Su

bd

ivis

ion

- 2

013V

-015

)





SUBJECT: VARIANCE: 5193 PEACHTREE BOULEVARD - 2013V-012


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. Joseph’s 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:

3.C.3

Packet Pg. 80

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 (PDF)

03.2_Tax Map (PDF)

03.3_Survey - 20090508 (PDF)

03.4_SITE_PLAN_AMENDED (PDF)

03.5_ORIGINAL SITE_PLAN_ (PDF)

03.6_Chamblee Gateway Representative Elevations (PDF)

Review:




3.C.3

Packet Pg. 81

of 14 Petition No: 2013V – 012A City Council Meeting: 10/15/2013; Work Session 10/10/2013

Petition No.: 2013V – 012 Amended Development Department

Site Address: 5193 Peachtree Blvd.

Parcel Number: 18-300-04-001


Parcel Acreage: 5.95

Applicant: Macauley and Schmit and Jelco Beta Investment Corporation; St. Joseph’s Hospital

Representative: Stephen Macauley, Macauley and Schmit

Current Zoning: 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:

*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: Site is vacant Surrounding Land Uses: West – VC, Village Commercial East – VC, Village Commercial (Walmart) North – CC, Corridor Commercial South – VC, Village Commercial (MARTA Station Parking Lot #1) Future Development Map: 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,

VC Zoning District minimums prescribed

Total FAR (max) Res./Non-Res. 2.0 / 2.0 ; Total 4.0 Rear Yard 20’

Building Coverage (max) 80% Front Yard: Peachtree Blvd. 20’

Building Height (min./max.) 24 ft./ 75 ft. Front Yard: Chamblee-Tucker Rd. 15’

Lot Size / Lot width (minimum) N/A; N/A Landscape Zone/Sidewalk Zone:

Parking (min. required) See Note* - Peachtree Blvd. 10’/ 10’

Side Yard (min.) 8’ - Chamblee-Tucker Rd. 7’ / 8’

3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 82

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)


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.

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.


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. Joseph’s Children’s

Health Care and Mercy Care Adult Clinic managed by St. Joseph’s 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.

Applicant’s 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 city’s southern gateway to Historic Downtown Chamblee.

3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 83

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)


Concept: A mixed-use project “between the Peachtrees” and an architectural “gem” which will define

the southern entrance to the city’s 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.”

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 Chamblee’s ‘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 project’s (and Chamblee’s) 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 Chamblee’s 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

3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 84

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)


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.

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 non-residential 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 Chamblee’s 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

3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 85

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)


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. 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.”

3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 86

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)


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.”


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.


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.


Variance #5

Variance # concerns Section 907 A.4 regarding the fenestration of the first floor in a storefront street.


3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 87

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)


“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.”


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:






3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 88

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)







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.



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.


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.


Assessment: Criterion is met. Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property

owner.



3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 89

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)



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.

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:

3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 90

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTXDIRE.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTXDIRE_S1004SPDI


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:










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.



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.”


3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 91

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)


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.


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.



Assessment: If the owner’s 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.

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:




3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 92

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)








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.






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.”


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.


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.

3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 93

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)




Assessment: Criterion is not met. If the owner’s 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 applicant’s 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.

3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 94

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)


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.

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:

3.C.3.a

Packet Pg. 95

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.1_

201

3V-0

12_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_519

3_S

taff

Rep

ort

amen

ded

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)

3.C.3.b

Packet Pg. 96

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.2_

Tax

Map

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)

3.C.3.c

Packet Pg. 97

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.3_

Su

rvey

- 2

0090

508

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)

3.C.3.d

Packet Pg. 98

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.4_

SIT

E_P

LA

N_A

ME

ND

ED

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)

3.C.3.e

Packet Pg. 99

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.5_

OR

IGIN

AL

SIT

E_P

LA

N_

(12

36 :

Var

ian

ce:

5193

Pea

chtr

ee B

ou

leva

rd -

201

3V-0

12)

B r o o k l e i g h E l e v a t i o n - A t l a n t a

B r o o k l e i g h P o o l - A t l a n t a

3.C.3.f

Packet Pg. 100

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.6_

Ch

amb

lee

Gat

eway

Rep

rese

nta

tive

Ele

vati

on

s (

1236

: V

aria

nce

: 51

93 P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

- 2

013V

-012

)

G a b l e s S h e r i d a n P o o l / E l e v a t i o n - A t l a n t a

E n s o E l e v a t i o n - A t l a n t a

3.C.3.f

Packet Pg. 101

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.6_

Ch

amb

lee

Gat

eway

Rep

rese

nta

tive

Ele

vati

on

s (

1236

: V

aria

nce

: 51

93 P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

- 2

013V

-012

)

G o o d w y n a t B r o o k h a v e n E l e v a t i o n - B r o o k h a v e n

C i r c l e C a m e r o n V i l l a g e E l e v a t i o n - R a l e i g h

3.C.3.f

Packet Pg. 102

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.6_

Ch

amb

lee

Gat

eway

Rep

rese

nta

tive

Ele

vati

on

s (

1236

: V

aria

nce

: 51

93 P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

- 2

013V

-012

)

G a b l e s M i d t o w n E l e v a t i o n - A t l a n t a

3.C.3.f

Packet Pg. 103

Att

ach

men

t: 0

3.6_

Ch

amb

lee

Gat

eway

Rep

rese

nta

tive

Ele

vati

on

s (

1236

: V

aria

nce

: 51

93 P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

- 2

013V

-012

)





SUBJECT: VARIANCES - PERIMETER PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -

2013V-014


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:


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:

3.C.4

Packet Pg. 104

“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 (PDF)

04.02_Recommended Conditions of Approval PERIMETER PARK PUD 8-06-13 (PDF)

04.03_ Application for Variances 8-29-2013 (PDF)

04.04_ TAX MAP-18334 (PDF)

04.05_Site Plan Alt A_07-12-13 (PDF)

04.06-Site Plan_Alt_B_08-06-13 (PDF)

Review:




3.C.4

Packet Pg. 105



Petition No.: 2013-V-014 Development Department

STAFF REPORT

Site Addresses (3): 4251 North Peachtree Rd.; 4250 Perimeter Park South;

2215 Perimeter Park Drive

Parcel Numbers (3): 18-334-05-001; 18-334-01-001; 18-334-01-0169


Parcel Acreage: 20.1 Acres

Applicant: Minerva

Representative: Stacy R. Patton, Managing Director, Development

Current Zoning: 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:

* Road is classified as a Collector Current Use: 2.1 acres commercial (N. Peachtree Road); 17.69 acres offices

Surrounding Land Uses: North – Commercial and Multi-family Residential South – Multi-family Residential East – Office West – Multi-family Residential

Future Development Map: 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

CC Zoning District minimums prescribed

FAR (max) 1.0 Res+1.5 Non-Res.=2.5 Total Side Yard None/8’

Building Coverage (max) 80% Rear Yard 30’

Building Ht. Min./Max (N.Peachtree*/Others)

Min. 18’/ 12’; Max. 60 ft. Front Yard (N.Peachtree*/Others)

15’ / 10’

Lot Size and Lot Width N/A Landscape Zone (N. Peachtree*/Others)

7’/ 5’

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)

8’/ 5’

3.C.4.a

Packet Pg. 106

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V14

_Per

imet

er P

ark_

10-

10-2

013D

RA

FT

2 (

1237

: V

aria

nce

s -P

erim

eter

Par

k P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

t -



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 area’s 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 1970’s 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.

Project Description: 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.

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

3.C.4.a

Packet Pg. 107

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V14

_Per

imet

er P

ark_

10-

10-2

013D

RA

FT

2 (

1237

: V

aria

nce

s -P

erim

eter

Par

k P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

t -



(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 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 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.


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 Chamblee’s 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.

3.C.4.a

Packet Pg. 108

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V14

_Per

imet

er P

ark_

10-

10-2

013D

RA

FT

2 (

1237

: V

aria

nce

s -P

erim

eter

Par

k P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

t -



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.


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.


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 Chamblee’s 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

3.C.4.a

Packet Pg. 109

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V14

_Per

imet

er P

ark_

10-

10-2

013D

RA

FT

2 (

1237

: V

aria

nce

s -P

erim

eter

Par

k P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

t -



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


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.


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.

3.C.4.a

Packet Pg. 110

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V14

_Per

imet

er P

ark_

10-

10-2

013D

RA

FT

2 (

1237

: V

aria

nce

s -P

erim

eter

Par

k P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

t -



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:

3.C.4.a

Packet Pg. 111

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.01

_Sta

ff R

epo

rt_2

013_

V14

_Per

imet

er P

ark_

10-

10-2

013D

RA

FT

2 (

1237

: V

aria

nce

s -P

erim

eter

Par

k P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

t -

PERIMETER PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL

1

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 R-

zoning.

3.C.4.b

Packet Pg. 112

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.02

_Rec

om

men

ded

Co

nd

itio

ns

of

Ap

pro

val P

ER

IME

TE

R P

AR

K P

UD

8-0

6-13

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit



2

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.

HOMEOWNER’S 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 FAÇADE

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 façade treatments throughout the project, to encourage

diversity in the design.

Siding shall not be the predominant feature on any building façade 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.

3.C.4.b

Packet Pg. 113

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.02

_Rec

om

men

ded

Co

nd

itio

ns

of

Ap

pro

val P

ER

IME

TE

R P

AR

K P

UD

8-0

6-13

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit



3

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.C.4.b

Packet Pg. 114

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.02

_Rec

om

men

ded

Co

nd

itio

ns

of

Ap

pro

val P

ER

IME

TE

R P

AR

K P

UD

8-0

6-13

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 115

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 116

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 117

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 118

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 119

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 120

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 121

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 122

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 123

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 124

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 125

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 126

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 127

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 128

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 129

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 130

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 131

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C.4.c

Packet Pg. 132

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.03

_ A

pp

licat

ion

fo

r V

aria

nce

s 8-

29-2

013

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

DATE: SCALE:1"=200’

LAND DIST. LAND LOT

DEKALB COUNTY, GA.

This Map was compiled from an aerial survey. It is to be

responsibility for the accuracy of information contained

herein.

used for tax purposes only. Dekalb County assumes no 18 334

333 334

323324

334 335

322323

344 343

334333

343 342

335334

80’

80’

124’

1

1

1

1 2 2

2

2

4

4

4

5

5

4

SEE 18-333

SEE 18-334B

SEE 18-334A

SEE 18-333A-1-1

125’

145’

107’

70’

60’

75’

75’

145’

178’

90’

219’

(229’)

115’ 11

5’

153’

179’

228’

75’

80’

56’

80’

100’

137’

80’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’

140’

70’

100’230’

242’

201’

151’

(1)

(1)(1)

(10)

(10)

(10)

(1)

1

24

5

6

15

A C

D

C

BA

1

1

2

10

83

26

45

175

150

136

95

100

129

130184

128

152

162

198

190

196

181

187

194195

161

169

165180

164

1

171

186

163

2

3

4

5

6

172

52’

72’

584’

141’429’ 74’ 75’

75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 60’

75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’

75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’

75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’

75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’

261’

237’

227’

217’

197’

186’

176’

166’

159’

159’

75’ 7

5’

75’

75’

75’

75’

75’

75’

75’

75’

75’

111’

100’

100’

73’

74’

74’

74’

74’

74’

74’

52’

24’

60’

60’

60’

75’ 75’ 80’

713’

8.79 AC

83’

70’

70’

137’

27

7’

27

8’

180’

180’

27

7’

180’

75’

99’

65’75’75’

9’ 75’ 75’

75’ 75’ 75’ 75’ 75’

75’ 75’ 75’ 75’

75’ 75’

75’75’75’75’75’75’75’75’

286’

202’

180’

180’

180’

180’

203’

204’

204’

206’

24

6’

100’

119’

179’

150’

145’

60’

100’

146’

90’

60’

830’

100’

190’

50’

25’

60’

60’

65’

65’

25’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

30’

38’

60’

95’

100’ 194’

166’

155’

353’

60’

75’

75’

75’

75’

161’

193’

65’

135’

70’

330’300’ (310’ ) 332’

547’

550’

522’

485’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

180’

183’

190’1

80’

180’

100’ 60’

90’

50’

147’

197’

180’

163’

150’

140’199’

60’

184’

89’

110’

125’

179’

75’

75’

50’

85’

70’

70’

70’

70’

129’

97’

73’

153’

93’

181’

201’

157’

112’

168’

220’

258’

296’

326’

197’

45’147’8’50’

160’

109’

79’

79’

75’

87

4’

87

3’

120’

160’

160’

100’

106’

18’

59’

144’

500’

407’

309’

60’

50’

154’ 90’ 86’ 153’

45’

361’

130’

358’

122’

174’

185’

191’

191’

230’

252’

125’

115’

150’

123’

104’

63’

95’

85’

125’

75’ 218’

90’

28’28’

28’

88’

252’

160’

3.68 AC(C)(1)

(10)

(9)

168’ 12

7’

50’

185’

235’

181’ (15

1’)

115’

70’

75’

80’

80’

80’

95’

65’

65’

120’

108’

110’

100’

85’

85’

85’

85’

50’

27’

250’

445’

406’

367’

219’

176’

(10)

326’

832’

311’

110’

75’

75’

75’

198’

200’

204’

231’

243’

234’

210

’

181’

159’

136’

118’

193’

14

5’110

’

14

5’

90’

85’

40’

23’

20’

15’

75’

75’

75’

90’

6’

15’

296’

17

2’

24’

75’

75’

75’

90’

17

0’

147’

147’

146’

199’

351’

214’

213’

80’

80’

214’151’

146’

144’

145’

38’

103’

208’

160’

323’

200’

416’

22’22’22’45’64’

90’

86’

57’

136’

80’80’

80’ 100’

180’

70’

75’

75’

75’

75’

105’

110’

101’101’

104’

107’

75’

54’

52’

60’

75’

75’

75’

75’

78’

96’

122’

121’

105’

100’

110’ 80’ 60’

122’

125’1

25’14

1’

127’

140’

186’

138’

125’

125’

125’

125’

125’

125’

326’

214’

70’70’

70’

80’

70’

70’

70’

70’

70’

100’

100’7

0’

65

6’

916’

134’170’

50’

259’

17

0’

17

0’

50’

50’

50’

5.56 AC

0.8 AC

2.15 AC

0.9

4

AC

5’

27’

(1)

(10)

(10)

(1)

61’159’

102’

50’

464’

30’2

0’45’

88’

42’

73’

121’

20’

17’

21’

32’

18’

243’

44’

76’

23’

124’

134’

160’

36’

100’

561’

135’

321’45’

111’

55’

85’

65’

36’

70’

60’

1070’

915’

7.7 AC

27’

355’

86’

92’

101’97’

105’

103’59’

148’

6’6’

258’

102’

74’

32’

138’

75’

57’

284’

95’

35’

188’

(1)(1)

307’

250’

132’

70’

4’

142’

20’

3’

75’

2.066 AC

1 AC

2.93 AC(D)

430’

290’

279’

873’1077’

8.9 AC

129’

76’

92’

28’

20’

73’

104’

85’

20’

335’

202’

126’

20’

25’

57’

9’

80’

SEE

18-333

SEE

18-333

14

1’

185’

311’

315’

13’

203’

185’

45’

104’

32’

131’

81’

80’

100’

48’

126’

126’

43’

300’

184’

732’

(350’) 337

’

232’

226’

122’

123’

87’

72’

73’

73’

35’

71’

195’

118’ 60’

60’

244’

390’

229’

108’

120’

75’

188’

14

9’

405’

75’

70’

75’

120’

20’

60’

67’

232’

70’

40’

1 AC

54

5’

35’41’

55’

15’

159’

52’

40’

84’

100’

193’

97’

223’

145’

8’136’

233’

98’

115’

177’

52’

135’

55’

190’

60’

5.04 AC(P)

SEE 18-333

30.35 AC(D)

3

4

5

6

7

8

27

28

29 30 31 32 33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)(7)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

207’

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11

12

1314151617181920212223

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)

(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)

46 47 48 49

50

53

5455565758

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6667

68

69

70

(2) (3) (4) (5)(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(9)

(11)

(12)

(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)

(2) (3) (4) (5)(6)

(7) (8)(1)

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

80

82

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

137

138

139

140

141

142

168

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117 118119

120

121

122

123

125

126

127131

132

133

134

135

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(2)(3)(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)(8)

(9)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

969798

99

188

189

192193

179

170

1

1.59 AC

2.1 AC

19

ELL

WY

N

DRIV

E

N. S

HALLO

WFO

RD R

OAD.

SPRING WALK COURT

EL

M

ST

RE

ET

NO

RT

H

PE

AC

HT

RE

E

RO

AD

40’

782’

NORTH SHALLOWFORD

ROAD

WE

ST

JO

HN

SO

N

CIRCLE

WALLACE DRIVE

EAS

T J

OH

NS

ON

CIR

CL

E

PE

AC

HTREE

IND. B

LVD.

PA

RS

ON’S

DRIV

E

DRIV

E

PA

RS

ON’S

DE

AC

ON

LA

NE

DEACON

LA

NE

CA

RV

ER

DRIV

E

DRIV

E

PERIMETER

PAR

K

PE

RIM

ET

ER

PA

RK

E.

PERIMETER

NO

RT

H

PEAC

HTREE

NANCY

CREEK

(2)

(2)2308-A

2320-B1

2320-B2

1

2

4

5

HUNTLEY HILLS NO.4 SEC.3

HUNTLEY HILLS NO,9 SEC.3

LEXINGTON PARK 5/51

LEXINGTON PARK 5/95

COOL RIDGE S/D

SHALLOWFORD HEIGHTS

WALLACE ESTATE

PARSONS VILLAGE S/D 1/27/53 BLK. 1

PARSONS VILLAGE S/D 12/18/53

(SUPERCEDES PB 20-P. 144)

PB 16-P. 154

17-P. 101

8-P. 116

176

146

191

720’

SEE 18-343

INTERST

ATE

28

5

SO

UT

H

RO

AD

PARK

76’

70’

45’4

5’

18’

51’

2’

31’

58’4

1’

44’

97’ 13

3’

2’

130’150’

40’

35’

25’

4116

B

4112

21’

94

100’

86’583’

175’

175’

88’

18’

573’

75’

154’

CAR

VER

DRIV

E

4009

4006

215’

197

10’

10 THE SHALLOWFORD WOODS TOWNHOMES,

A CONDOMINIUM 111/40

DORAVILLEDORAVILLE

DO

RA

VIL

LE

CIT

YLIMIT

S

SEE 18 335

56’

CIT

Y

LIMIT

72’

72’

42’

42’

4251

4280

4161

4155

4250

4153

4147

4139

4121

4035

4029

4021

2220 2226 2232 2238 2242

4016

4022

4028

4034

4040

4046

4052

4058

4064

4070

4076

4084

4090 4096 41024108

4113

4109410340974091

4095

2254 22602266

2272 2278 2284 2290 22964050

4060

4068

4076

4069

4063

4057

4051

4045

4039

4033

4027

4019

2366

4019

5970

4010

4016

4022

4028

4034

4042

4050

4056

4062

4068

4079

4073

4065

4057

4051

4043

4074

4100

411241184124

4097

4103

4107

411141174123

4129

4139

4128

4134

4140

4144

4150

4145

4153

4159

4165

4156

4162

4168

4174

4178

4074

4087

4124

41324133

4125

4119

4113

4103

4140

4128

2337

4078

4277

30

4201

4301

2215

2323

2299

4019

4221

4135

4015

4291

2342

2340

2320

4100

2346

2344

2312

2310

178

2175

2183

2191

4058

4036

4028

4020

2254 2260 2266 2272 2278 2284 2290 2296 2302

4002

4010

4022

4034

2309230322972291228522792273226722612255

4173

2210

100 200 206 300 306 400 500

600 601 700 800 900 906

50

18

2358

10

14

16 20

22

24

2241

2314

2231

2245

2251

2261

1000 1100 1200 1300 1304 1307 1400 1402 15001600 1700 1800

1900 2000 21002108 2200 2300 2400

2403 2408 2500 2504

26002604 2700 2707 2800 2900 3000 3005

3100 3200

3300 3400 3500 3509 3600 3700 3709 3800 3805 3806 3900 3904

40004002 4100 4200

4300 4400 4406 4409 4500 4503 4505

4600 4700 4121 4125 4129

143’

52’

85’

42’

84’5

2’

103’

173 17

410

0

200

254’

55’

DUNWOODY

CIT

Y

LIMIT

DU

NW

OO

DY

CIT

YLIMIT

S

CHAMBLEE

CIT

Y

LIMIT

CHAMBLE

CIT

YLIMIT

S

01/24/11

3.C.4.d

Packet Pg. 133

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.04

_ T

AX

MA

P-1

8334

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)

3.C

.4.e

Pac

ket

Pg

. 134

Attachment: 04.05_Site Plan Alt A_07-12-13 (1237 : Variances -Perimeter Park Planned Unit Development - 2013V-014)

P E R I M E T E R P A R KChamblee, GA August 6, 2013

2 O F 3c o n c e p t u a l m a s t e r p l a n ‘ b ’

0 30’ 60’ 120’

KEY LEGEND

SITE DATA

COMMERCIAL

TOTAL ACREAGEOPEN SPACE20’ LOTS24’ LOTSSINGLE FAMILYTOTAL LOTSCOMMERCIAL

PARKINGRESIDENTIALPOOL/AMENITYADD. ON STREET COMMERCIAL

20.1 ACRES±4.5 ACRES8370161699,000 SQ FT.

2-4 SPACES PER LOT20 REQ., 22 PROPOSED28 SPACES

45 REQ., 74 PROPOSED

OPEN SPACE AND BIO DETENTION AREA

AMENITY AREA-POOL -FIREPLACE-CLUBHOUSE

PARK AND GREENSPACE

POCKET PARK

TRAILS AND LINEAR PARK

A

A

B

C

C

D

D

D

E

F

F

F

B

C

D

E

F

P E R I M E T E R P A R K D R I V E

N.

P E AC

HT R

E E R

OA

D

3.C.4.f

Packet Pg. 135

Att

ach

men

t: 0

4.06

-Sit

e P

lan

_Alt

_B_0

8-06

-13

(12

37 :

Var

ian

ces

-Per

imet

er P

ark

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- 20

13V

-014

)





SUBJECT: VARIANCES & WAIVER - 5070 AND 5126 PEACHTREE BLVD.-

(FORMER GREAT GATSBY ) - 2013V-013


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:

3.C.5

Packet Pg. 136



Variance #1: The applicant requests a variance from Section 1007.D of the Zoning Ordinance that

states:




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




RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the foregoing analysis, staff offers NO RECOMMENDATION regarding the applicant’s 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.

3.C.5

Packet Pg. 137

Attachment List:

05.1_ 2013V-013_Peachtree Boulevard_5126_Staff Report (DOCX)

05.2 _Proposed Great Gatsby Site Plan_8_21-13 (PDF)

05.3 Application for variance and waiver Aug 2013 (PDF)

05.4 Site_Survey (PDF)

05.5_Conditions of PUD_approval 4_19_2007 (PDF)

05.6_Variances_approved_ 04_19_2007 (PDF)

05.7 Previously approved Site plan for Ambling (PDF)

Review:




3.C.5

Packet Pg. 138


Petition No.: 2013V – 012 Amended Development Department

Site Address: 5070 and 5126 Peachtree Blvd.

Parcel Number: 18-300-10-017 and 18-300-10-016


Parcel Acreage: 11.363

Applicant: TPA-Peachtree, LLC

Representative: Thomas F. Rybert

Current Zoning: 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:

Current Use: 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. Surrounding Land Uses: 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

VC Zoning District minimums prescribed

Total FAR (max) Res./Non-Res. 2.0 / 2.0 ; Total 4.0 Rear Yard 20’

Building Coverage (max) 80% Front Yard: Peachtree Blvd. 20’

Building Height (min./max.) 24 ft./ 75 ft. Front Yard: Chamblee-Tucker Rd. 15’

Lot Size / Lot width (minimum) N/A; N/A Landscape Zone/Sidewalk Zone:

Parking (min. required) See Note* - Peachtree Blvd. 10’/ 10’

Side Yard (min.) 8’ - Chamblee-Tucker Rd. 7’ / 8’

3.C.5.a

Packet Pg. 139

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.1_

201

3V-0

13_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_512

6_S

taff

Rep

ort

(12

38 :

Var

ian

ces

- 50

70 a

nd

512

6 P

each

tree

Blv

d.-

201

3V-0

13)


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”.

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

3.C.5.a

Packet Pg. 140

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.1_

201

3V-0

13_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_512

6_S

taff

Rep

ort

(12

38 :

Var

ian

ces

- 50

70 a

nd

512

6 P

each

tree

Blv

d.-

201

3V-0

13)


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. 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.

Applicant’s 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 City’s codes:

1. “The unique mix of uses on the site and adjacent parcels. 2. The existing topography of the site will require substantial infrastructure costs to allow for development 3. 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.

4. The above items require a substantial financial commitment and allowing for changes will make the project financially viable.

5. Amendments to the existing conditions of zoning and PUD approval for Ambling (4/19/2007).”

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:

3.C.5.a

Packet Pg. 141

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.1_

201

3V-0

13_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_512

6_S

taff

Rep

ort

(12

38 :

Var

ian

ces

- 50

70 a

nd

512

6 P

each

tree

Blv

d.-

201

3V-0

13)




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 multi-

family 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:





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

3.C.5.a

Packet Pg. 142

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.1_

201

3V-0

13_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_512

6_S

taff

Rep

ort

(12

38 :

Var

ian

ces

- 50

70 a

nd

512

6 P

each

tree

Blv

d.-

201

3V-0

13)


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 Chamblee’s zoning ordinance, the variance request has been reviewed as follows:



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 mixed-

use development of multifamily apartments and commercial uses that are permitted under the

Village Commercial zoning.




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.



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.


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

3.C.5.a

Packet Pg. 143

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.1_

201

3V-0

13_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_512

6_S

taff

Rep

ort

(12

38 :

Var

ian

ces

- 50

70 a

nd

512

6 P

each

tree

Blv

d.-

201

3V-0

13)


needed for marketability. For that reason site conditions are peculiar to the piece of property

involved.


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.



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




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 applicant’s project to move forward will advance the city’s vision for this area.”




3.C.5.a

Packet Pg. 144

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.1_

201

3V-0

13_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_512

6_S

taff

Rep

ort

(12

38 :

Var

ian

ces

- 50

70 a

nd

512

6 P

each

tree

Blv

d.-

201

3V-0

13)





permitted under the Village Commercial zoning.



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.






determination from the facts presented.


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.


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.



Assessment: Criterion is not met. If the owner’s 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

3.C.5.a

Packet Pg. 145

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.1_

201

3V-0

13_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_512

6_S

taff

Rep

ort

(12

38 :

Var

ian

ces

- 50

70 a

nd

512

6 P

each

tree

Blv

d.-

201

3V-0

13)


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 if the market changes in the future to favor a greater degree of home ownership.

____________________________________________________________________________________

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the foregoing analysis, staff offers NO RECOMMENDATION regarding the applicant’s 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:





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:

3.C.5.a

Packet Pg. 146

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.1_

201

3V-0

13_P

each

tree

Bo

ule

vard

_512

6_S

taff

Rep

ort

(12

38 :

Var

ian

ces

- 50

70 a

nd

512

6 P

each

tree

Blv

d.-

201

3V-0

13)

3.C.5.b

Packet Pg. 147

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.2

_Pro

po

sed

Gre

at G

atsb

y S

ite

Pla

n_8

_21-

13 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.b

Packet Pg. 148

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.2

_Pro

po

sed

Gre

at G

atsb

y S

ite

Pla

n_8

_21-

13 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 149

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 150

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 151

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 152

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 153

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 154

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 155

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 156

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 157

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 158

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 159

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 160

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 161

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 162

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 163

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 164

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 165

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 166

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 167

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 168

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 169

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 170

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 171

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 172

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 173

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 174

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 175

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 176

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 177

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 178

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.c

Packet Pg. 179

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.3

Ap

plic

atio

n f

or

vari

ance

an

d w

aive

r A

ug

201

3 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.d

Packet Pg. 180

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.4

Sit

e_S

urv

ey (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

DDeevveellooppmmeenntt DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt

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:

3.C.5.e

Packet Pg. 181

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.5_

Co

nd

itio

ns

of

PU

D_a

pp

rova

l 4_1

9_20

07 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.f

Packet Pg. 182

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.6_

Var

ian

ces_

app

rove

d_

04_1

9_20

07 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.f

Packet Pg. 183

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.6_

Var

ian

ces_

app

rove

d_

04_1

9_20

07 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.f

Packet Pg. 184

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.6_

Var

ian

ces_

app

rove

d_

04_1

9_20

07 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.f

Packet Pg. 185

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.6_

Var

ian

ces_

app

rove

d_

04_1

9_20

07 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.f

Packet Pg. 186

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.6_

Var

ian

ces_

app

rove

d_

04_1

9_20

07 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.f

Packet Pg. 187

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.6_

Var

ian

ces_

app

rove

d_

04_1

9_20

07 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.f

Packet Pg. 188

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.6_

Var

ian

ces_

app

rove

d_

04_1

9_20

07 (

1238

: V

aria

nce

s -

5070

an

d 5

126

Pea

chtr

ee B

lvd

.- 2

013V

-013

)

3.C.5.g

Packet Pg. 189

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.7

Pre

vio

usl

y ap

pro

ved

Sit

e p

lan

fo

r





SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT – INSTITUTIONAL USES

AND PLACES OF WORSHIP


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 (DOCX)

07.2_ Adopting Resolution and ORDINANCE (PDF)

Review:





3.C.6

Packet Pg. 190

Council Wrap-Up Page 1 of 3 Petition No: 2013TA-004 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013

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 Chamblee’s 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 City’s churches and other places of worship are located on two-lane

3.C.6.a

Packet Pg. 191

Att

ach

men

t: 0

7.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

05_T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lace

s o

f W

ors

hip

(12

40 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

? In

stit

uti

on

al U

ses


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 Local Streets (other than in NR-1 and NR-2 districts)

Arterials and Collectors

Clairmont, Peachtree Boulevard, and Buford Highway

Minimum front yard 10 ft. 15 ft. 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)

3.C.6.a

Packet Pg. 192

Att

ach

men

t: 0

7.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

05_T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lace

s o

f W

ors

hip

(12

40 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

? In

stit

uti

on

al U

ses


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:

3.C.6.a

Packet Pg. 193

Att

ach

men

t: 0

7.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

05_T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lace

s o

f W

ors

hip

(12

40 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

? In

stit

uti

on

al U

ses

ORDINANCE NO. _______

(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

3.C.6.b

Packet Pg. 194

Att

ach

men

t: 0

7.2_

Ad

op

tin

g R

eso

luti

on

an

d O

RD

INA

NC

E (

1240

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t ?

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Use

s an

d P

lace

s o

f

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 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: ________________________

3.C.6.b

Packet Pg. 195

Att

ach

men

t: 0

7.2_

Ad

op

tin

g R

eso

luti

on

an

d O

RD

INA

NC

E (

1240

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t ?

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Use

s an

d P

lace

s o

f





SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF ISSUES WITH NON-CONFORMING USES


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-by-case 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:

3.C.7

Packet Pg. 196

Attachment List:

11.1_StaffReport_2013TA-00Y_Non-conforming Uses (DOCX)

11.2_Tallahassee PELUC ordinance (PDF)

Review:




3.C.7

Packet Pg. 197

Council Wrap-Up Page 1 of 4 No: Petition 2013TA-006 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2013

Petition No.: 2013TA – 006 Development Department


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.”

3.C.7.a

Packet Pg. 198

Att

ach

men

t: 1

1.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

0Y_N

on

-co

nfo

rmin

g U

ses

(12

42 :

Dis

cuss

ion

of

Issu

es w

ith

No

n-C

on

form

ing

Use

s)


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 non-

conforming 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 Council’s 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.

3.C.7.a

Packet Pg. 199

Att

ach

men

t: 1

1.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

0Y_N

on

-co

nfo

rmin

g U

ses

(12

42 :

Dis

cuss

ion

of

Issu

es w

ith

No

n-C

on

form

ing

Use

s)


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 Non-

Conforming 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.

3.C.7.a

Packet Pg. 200

Att

ach

men

t: 1

1.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

0Y_N

on

-co

nfo

rmin

g U

ses

(12

42 :

Dis

cuss

ion

of

Issu

es w

ith

No

n-C

on

form

ing

Use

s)


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.

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 old-

fashioned 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 mini-

warehouses. 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.


3.C.7.a

Packet Pg. 201

Att

ach

men

t: 1

1.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

0Y_N

on

-co

nfo

rmin

g U

ses

(12

42 :

Dis

cuss

ion

of

Issu

es w

ith

No

n-C

on

form

ing

Use

s)

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. 10-110—10-130. 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.


3.C.7.b

Packet Pg. 202

Att

ach

men

t: 1

1.2_

Tal

lah

asse

e P

EL

UC

ord

inan

ce (

1242

: D

iscu

ssio

n o

f Is

sues

wit

h N

on

-Co

nfo

rmin

g U

ses)

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19980/level4/LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA.html#LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA_S10-101TI

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19980/level4/LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA.html#LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA_S10-102DE

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19980/level4/LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA.html#LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA_S10-103IN

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19980/level4/LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA.html#LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA_S10-104ELWA

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19980/level4/LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA.html#LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA_S10-105CRGRWANOUSST

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19980/level4/LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA.html#LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA_S10-106FIORBOADAP

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19980/level4/LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA.html#LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA_S10-107CHUSVICOCE

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19980/level4/LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA.html#LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA_S10-108CRDEWANOST

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19980/level4/LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA.html#LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA_S10-109AP

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19980/level4/LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA.html#LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIIADEN_DIV4NOLAUSWA_SS10-110--10-130RE

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19980/level3/LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIINGE.html#LADECO_CH10ZO_ARTIINGE_S10-2DE

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)

3.C.7.b

Packet Pg. 203

Att

ach

men

t: 1

1.2_

Tal

lah

asse

e P

EL

UC

ord

inan

ce (

1242

: D

iscu

ssio

n o

f Is

sues

wit

h N

on

-Co

nfo

rmin

g U

ses)

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.

3.C.7.b

Packet Pg. 204

Att

ach

men

t: 1

1.2_

Tal

lah

asse

e P

EL

UC

ord

inan

ce (

1242

: D

iscu

ssio

n o

f Is

sues

wit

h N

on

-Co

nfo

rmin

g U

ses)

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.

3.C.7.b

Packet Pg. 205

Att

ach

men

t: 1

1.2_

Tal

lah

asse

e P

EL

UC

ord

inan

ce (

1242

: D

iscu

ssio

n o

f Is

sues

wit

h N

on

-Co

nfo

rmin

g U

ses)

(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.


3.C.7.b

Packet Pg. 206

Att

ach

men

t: 1

1.2_

Tal

lah

asse

e P

EL

UC

ord

inan

ce (

1242

: D

iscu

ssio

n o

f Is

sues

wit

h N

on

-Co

nfo

rmin

g U

ses)





SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF APPROVED UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES FOR

STREET TREES


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 City’s 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

City’s 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.

3.C.8

Packet Pg. 207

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 Chamblee’s 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 City’s landscape

requirements

The City’s 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 City’s tree planting and

streetscape guidelines.

It is apparent that Crape myrtles appear in all three lists of the City’s 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 City’s streetscape requirements place street trees within 500 feet of existing billboards.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Attachment List:

3.C.8

Packet Pg. 208

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:




3.C.8

Packet Pg. 209

Council Wrap-Up Page 1 of 2 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 10, 2013

Development Department


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 City’s 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.




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.

3.C.8.a

Packet Pg. 210

Att

ach

men

t: 1

2.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_D

iscu

ssio

n o

f A

pp

rop

riat

e S

pec

ies

of

Un

der

sto

ry S

tree

t T

rees

Nea

r B

illb

oar

ds

(12

44 :

Dis

cuss

ion

of

Ap

pro

ved

Council Wrap-Up Page 2 of 2 Council Work Session: October 10, 2013 City Council Meeting: October 10, 2013

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.


3.C.8.a

Packet Pg. 211

Att

ach

men

t: 1

2.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_D

iscu

ssio

n o

f A

pp

rop

riat

e S

pec

ies

of

Un

der

sto

ry S

tree

t T

rees

Nea

r B

illb

oar

ds

(12

44 :

Dis

cuss

ion

of

Ap

pro

ved

List of Tree Species that GDOT will approve in their rights-of-way

(per Davie Biagi, GDOT Landscape Architect)

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 Habit

Acoma White Spreading

Comanchee Dark Coral Pink Upright

Lipan Med. Lavender Upright

Osage Clear Pink Pendulous

Sioux Intense Dark Pink Upright

Yuma Lavender Bicolor Upright

3.C.8.b

Packet Pg. 212

Att

ach

men

t: 1

2.2_

Lis

t o

f T

ree

Sp

ecie

s th

at G

DO

T w

ill a

pp

rove

(12

44 :

Dis

cuss

ion

of

Ap

pro

ved

Un

der

sto

ry T

ree

Sp

ecie

s fo

r S

tree

t T

rees

)

3.C.8.b

Packet Pg. 213

Att

ach

men

t: 1

2.2_

Lis

t o

f T

ree

Sp

ecie

s th

at G

DO

T w

ill a

pp

rove

(12

44 :

Dis

cuss

ion

of

Ap

pro

ved

Un

der

sto

ry T

ree

Sp

ecie

s fo

r S

tree

t T

rees

)

Understory Tree Comparison- City of Chamblee Regulations

Chamblee Streetscape Design Guidelines Chamblee Zoning Ordinance Section 1401.E.2 Chamblee Administrative Guidelines

Common Name

Botanical name Common Name Botanical name

Fringe tree Chionanthus virginicus Fringe tree Chionanthus virginicus

Kousa Dogwood Cornus kousa chinensis Kousa Dogwood Cornus kousa chinensis Dogwood Cormus species

Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida

Purple Smoke Tree

Cotinus coggygria Smoke Tree Cotinus coggygria

American or European Smoke Tree

Cottinus obovatus or coggygria

Carolina Silverbell Halesia caroliniana Silverbell Halesia caroliniana

Holly llex spp. Savannah Holly Llex x attenuata

Deciduous Hollies Llex x deciduas

Nellie R. Stephens Holly Llex x Nellie R. Stephens

American Holly Llex x opaca

Yaupon Holly Llex x vomitoria

Crape Myrtle* Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica

Hybrid Crepe Myrtles Lagerstroemia faureii Hybrid Crepe Myrtles Lagerstroemia faureii

'Brown Turkey' Fig

Ficus carica

Redbud Cercis Canadensis

Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera

Sourwood

Oxydendron arboreum Sourwood

Oxydendron arboreum

Little Gem Magnolia

Magnolia grandiflora

Saucer Magnolia

Magnolia soulangeana Saucer Magnolia

Magnolia soulangeana

Star Magnolia

Magnolia stellata Star Magnolia

Magnolia stellata

Sweetbay Magolia Magolia virginiana

Crabapple Malus spp. Flowering Crabapple Malus species

Kwanzan Cherry

Prunus cerasifera

Yoshino Cherry

Prunus x yedoensis

Chamblee Streetscape Design Guidelines Chamblee Zoning Ordinance Section 1401.E.2 Chamblee Administrative Guidelines

Improved Flowering Pear Pyrus hybrids

Sassafrass Tree Sassafrass albidum Sassafrass Tree Sassafrass albidum

Lilac Chaste Tree Vitex agnus-castus

Trident Maple Acer Buergeranum Trident Maple Acer Buergeranum

Paper bark Maple Acer griseum

Japanese Maple Acer palmatum

Service berry Amelanchier arborea

American Hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana

Carolina Hornbeam Ostrya virginia

Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis

Washington Hawthorne Craetegus phaenopyrium

Leyland Cyprus Cupressocyparis leylandii

Japanese Cryptomeria Cryptomeria japonica

Bougainvillea Goldenraintree

Koelreuteria bipinnata

Panicled Godenraintree Koelreuteria paniculata

Osage-orange Maclura pomiera

Chinese pistache Pistachia chinensis

Chastetree Vitex cagnus-castus

*Where possible”

3.C.8.c

Packet Pg. 214

Att

ach

men

t: 1

2.3_

Co

mp

aris

on

of

Un

der

sto

ry t

rees

ap

pro

ved

by

Ch

amb

lee

(12

44 :

Dis

cuss

ion

of

Ap

pro

ved

Un

der

sto

ry T

ree

Sp

ecie

s fo

r S

tree

t


Department: Police Prepared By: Marc Johnson



SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PURCHASES & BUDGET AMENDMENTS DUE TO

ANNEXATION


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 (PDF)

Proposed 2014 Annexation and Effects on PD (DOC)

2014 Annexation Cost Breakdown (PDF)

3.D.1

Packet Pg. 215

Review:



3.D.1

Packet Pg. 216

Police Department 2013 Budget Amendments - Contingent on Annexation Approval

POLICE DEPARTMENT Sub2013

RecurringItem Qty Cost Total Total 2013 Lease Expenses Account Number Description

ADDITIONAL PATROL OFFICERS $71,325 $1,426,500 $30,500 $30,500 $0 $75,000Salary 20 $42,800 $856,000 $50,000 100‐20‐3223‐511100 Regular Empl.Benefits 20 $27,000 $540,000 $25,000 Various AcctsUniforms 20 $1,025 $20,500 $20,500 $20,500 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsPre‐Empl. Testing 20 $500 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 100‐20‐3210‐521216 Pre‐Empl. Testing

ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATORS $500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $0Pre‐Empl. Testing 3 $500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 100‐20‐3210‐521216 Pre‐Empl. Testing

PERSONAL EQUIPMENT $5,795 $133,285 $133,285 $31,855 $101,430Streamlight TLR‐1 23 $99 $2,277 $2,277 $2,277 100‐20‐3223‐531120 Uniforms6360 ALS holsters, BW 23 $101 $2,323 $2,323 $2,323 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsSuede lined w/buckle br bw blk 23 $58 $1,334 $1,334 $1,334 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsGarrison buckeles Velcro bw bk md 23 $33 $759 $759 $759 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsMace holder top flap 4oz hs bw blk 23 $25 $575 $575 $575 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsSabre 4oz OC spray 23 $15 $345 $345 $345 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsF‐21B black chrome 21” batons 23 $80 $1,840 $1,840 $1,840 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsF‐21 sidebreak scabbard BW 23 $25 $575 $575 $575 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsChain link handcuff #700nickel 23 $35 $805 $805 $805 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsHandcuff pouch topflap,hs,bw,blk 23 $27 $621 $621 $621 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsMagholder dbl GL17/22,hs,bw,blk 23 $32 $736 $736 $736 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsMotorola radio holsters 23 $45 $1,035 $1,035 $1,035 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsBlue reflective lime/yel vest‐police 23 $20 $460 $460 $460 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsUniform badges & wallet badges 23 $169 $3,887 $3,887 $3,887 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsCPD collar brass gold ¾” die 23 $9 $207 $207 $207 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsCPD ball caps 23 $7 $161 $161 $161 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsRain Jackets 23 $70 $1,610 $1,610 $1,610 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsBullet Resistant Vests 23 $535 $12,305 $12,305 $12,305 100‐20‐3223‐531120 UniformsFirearms 23 $410 $9,430 $9,430 $9,430 100‐20‐3223‐542500 Other Equip.Portable Radio ‐ Motorola XTS5000 23 $4,000 $92,000 $92,000 $92,000 100‐20‐3223‐542500 Other Equip.

One Time Start Up Costs 2013 Budget Amendments

Page 1 of 4

3.D.1.a

Packet P

g. 217

Attachment: 2013 Budget Amendments for Annexation (1246 : Approval of Purchases & Budget Amendments Due to Annexation)





ADDITIONAL PATROL VEHICLES $53,175 $531,750 $531,750 $0 $531,750Ford Crown Vic 10 $30,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 100‐20‐3223‐542200 VehiclesEmergency Equipment 10 $8,500 $85,000 $85,000 $85,000 100‐20‐3223‐542200 VehiclesEquipment Installation 10 $1,100 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 100‐20‐3223‐542200 VehiclesDecals 10 $500 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 100‐20‐3223‐542200 VehiclesDecal Installation 10 $250 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 100‐20‐3223‐542200 VehiclesMobile Radio ‐ Motorola XTL5000 10 $4,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 100‐20‐3223‐542500 Other Equip.WatchGuard Video Camera 10 $6,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 100‐20‐3223‐542500 Other Equip.Computer Docking Station 10 $600 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 100‐20‐3223‐542200 VehiclesCitation Printer 10 $725 $7,250 $7,250 $7,250 100‐20‐3223‐542500 Other Equip.AED 10 $1,500 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 100‐20‐3223‐542500 Other Equip.

MOBILE COMPUTERS & SOFTWARE $8,888 $85,426 $85,426 $0 $85,426Panasonic Computer CF‐31 10 $4,500 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 100‐20‐3223‐542500 Other Equip.MS Office 10 $235 $2,350 $2,350 $2,350 100‐20‐3223‐542402 Comp. SoftwareVision Mobile LE Workstation 10 $1,369 $13,685 $13,685 $13,685 100‐20‐3223‐542402 Comp. SoftwareVisionAIR Mobile AVL 10 $380 $3,795 $3,795 $3,795 100‐20‐3223‐542402 Comp. SoftwareVisionAIR Field Bsed Reporting 10 $756 $7,560 $7,560 $7,560 100‐20‐3223‐542402 Comp. SoftwareGeoLynks Mobile Mapping 10 $731 $7,313 $7,313 $7,313 100‐20‐3223‐542402 Comp. SoftwareAPS QuickVoice 10 $299 $2,990 $2,990 $2,990 100‐20‐3223‐542402 Comp. SoftwareAPS QuickTicket 7 $299 $2,093 $2,093 $2,093 100‐20‐3223‐542402 Comp. SoftwareNetMotion Licenses 2 $320 $640 $640 $640 100‐20‐3223‐542402 Comp. Software

ADDITIONAL CID VEHICLES $33,100 $132,400 $132,400 $0 $132,400Ford Fusion 4 $23,000 $92,000 $92,000 $92,000 100‐20‐3223‐542200 VehiclesEmergency Equipment 4 $3,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 100‐20‐3223‐542200 VehiclesEquipment Installation 4 $600 $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 100‐20‐3223‐542200 VehiclesMobile Radio ‐ Motorola XTL5000 4 $4,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 100‐20‐3223‐542500 Other Equip.Investigator Equipment 4 $2,500 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 100‐20‐3223‐542500 Other Equip.

ADDITIONAL COMM. OFFICERS $62,245 $124,490 $1,000 $1,000 $0Salary 2 $36,745 $73,490 $6,000 215‐20‐3800‐511100 Regular Empl.Benefits 2 $25,000 $50,000 $2,000 Various AcctsUniforms 2 $500 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 215‐20‐3800‐531120 Uniforms

Page 2 of 4

3.D.1.a

Packet P

g. 218






ADDITIONAL COMM. SUPV $66,500 $66,500 $500 $500 $0Salary 1 $41,000 $41,000 $6,000 100‐20‐3226‐511100 Regular Empl.Benefits 1 $25,000 $25,000 $2,000 Various AcctsUniforms 1 $500 $500 $500 $500 100‐20‐3226‐531120 Uniforms

ADDITIONAL 911 POSITION $60,527 $60,527 $60,527 $10,000 $50,527 $0911 Answering Position 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 215‐20‐3800‐542401 Comp. Equip.CAD Computer 1 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 215‐20‐3800‐542401 Comp. Equip.GeoComm 911 Mapping 1 $6,125 $6,125 $6,125 $6,125 215‐20‐3800‐542402 Comp. SoftwareGeoRelay License 1 $1,134 $1,134 $1,134 $1,134 215‐20‐3800‐542402 Comp. SoftwareGeoComm Installation 1 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 215‐20‐3800‐542402 Comp. SoftwareCAD EMD/EPD Interface 1 $2,268 $2,268 $2,268 $2,268 215‐20‐3800‐542402 Comp. SoftwareEMD/EPD License 1 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 215‐20‐3800‐542402 Comp. SoftwareSmart911 License 1 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 215‐20‐3800‐542402 Comp. Software911 Map Analysis & Evaluation 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 215‐20‐3800‐521310 Software Maint.911 Map Changes and Additions 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 215‐20‐3800‐521310 Software Maint.

POLICE BUILDING REMODEL $101,000 $101,000 $101,000 $101,000 $0 $0Remodel Construction Costs 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 100‐20‐3260‐522210 Maint. ‐ BuildingsReplace Male Locker room lockers 1 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 100‐20‐3260‐522210 Maint. ‐ BuildingsCID Office Cubicles 1 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 100‐20‐3260‐522210 Maint. ‐ BuildingsSquad Room & Watch Cmdr. Cubicles 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 100‐20‐3260‐522210 Maint. ‐ BuildingsRecords Room Cubicles 1 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 100‐20‐3260‐522210 Maint. ‐ BuildingsCarpet Replacement 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 100‐20‐3260‐522210 Maint. ‐ BuildingsUpgrade Phone & Voice Mail System 1 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 100‐20‐3210‐542300 Furn. and Fixtures

EXPENDITURE TOTALS

One TimeStart Up Costs

2012 Expenses Lease

2012RecurringExpenses

$1,077,888 $176,355 $901,533 $75,000

REVENUE TOTALSCapital Proceeds from GMA Lease $901,533 100‐20‐3210‐393501 Offsetting Revenue

Page 3 of 4

3.D.1.a

Packet P

g. 219






POLICE DEPARTMENT TOTALSLease Option $901,533 5 yrs @ 3.5% $196,806

One Time Start Up Expenses ‐ Lease $901,533One Time Expenses ‐ 2013 $176,355Total One Time Start Up Expenses $1,077,888

Recurring 2013 Expenses $75,000

TOTAL EXPENDITURE BUDGET AMENDMENTS $1,152,888

CAPITAL PROCEEDS FROM GMA CAPITAL LEASE $901,533

Page 4 of 4

3.D.1.a

Packet P

g. 220


MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor & City Council

FROM: Chief R. M. Johnson

DATE: October 4, 2013

SUBJECT: 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

Chamblee’s 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

3.D.1.b

Packet Pg. 221

Att

ach

men

t: P

rop

ose

d 2

014

An

nex

atio

n a

nd

Eff

ects

on

PD

(12

46 :

Ap

pro

val o

f P

urc

has

es &

Bu

dg

et A

men

dm

ents

Du

e to

An

nex

atio

n)

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.

I analyzed DeKalb County PD’s calls for service in the area for the first half of 2012 and

determined that they were equal to roughly 98% of Chamblee PD’s 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

3.D.1.b

Packet Pg. 222

Att

ach

men

t: P

rop

ose

d 2

014

An

nex

atio

n a

nd

Eff

ects

on

PD

(12

46 :

Ap

pro

val o

f P

urc

has

es &

Bu

dg

et A

men

dm

ents

Du

e to

An

nex

atio

n)

as the Department Training Officer and perform background investigations on applicants for

employment. These functions are currently spread among other officers or don’t 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.

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 ½

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.

3.D.1.b

Packet Pg. 223

Att

ach

men

t: P

rop

ose

d 2

014

An

nex

atio

n a

nd

Eff

ects

on

PD

(12

46 :

Ap

pro

val o

f P

urc

has

es &

Bu

dg

et A

men

dm

ents

Du

e to

An

nex

atio

n)

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 19

Detectives 3

Professional Standards 1

Total Sworn Positions 23

Communication Officers 2

Detention Supervisor 1

Technology Specialist 1

Executive Assistant 1

Total Civilians 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 haven’t 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 one-

time costs due to the annexation and purchasing/leasing the additional needed equipment. The

3.D.1.b

Packet Pg. 224

Att

ach

men

t: P

rop

ose

d 2

014

An

nex

atio

n a

nd

Eff

ects

on

PD

(12

46 :

Ap

pro

val o

f P

urc

has

es &

Bu

dg

et A

men

dm

ents

Du

e to

An

nex

atio

n)

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.

3.D.1.b

Packet Pg. 225

Att

ach

men

t: P

rop

ose

d 2

014

An

nex

atio

n a

nd

Eff

ects

on

PD

(12

46 :

Ap

pro

val o

f P

urc

has

es &

Bu

dg

et A

men

dm

ents

Du

e to

An

nex

atio

n)


RecurringFutureAnnual

Item Qty Cost Total Total 2013 2014 Lease Expenses Recurring ADDITIONAL PATROL OFFICERS $71,325 $1,426,500 $30,500 $30,500 $0 $0 $75,000 $1,406,000Salary 20 $42,800 $856,000 $50,000 $856,000Benefits 20 $27,000 $540,000 $25,000 $540,000Uniforms 20 $1,025 $20,500 $20,500 $20,500 $10,000Pre‐Employment Testing 20 $500 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATORS $73,550 $220,650 $11,250 $5,250 $6,000 $0 $214,200Salary 3 $42,800 $128,400 $128,400Benefits 3 $27,000 $81,000 $81,000Uniforms 3 $1,250 $3,750 $3,750 $3,750 $3,000Pre‐Employment Testing 3 $500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500Desktop Computers 3 $2,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $1,800

PERSONAL EQUIPMENT $5,795 $133,285 $133,285 $31,855 $0 $101,430 $0Streamlight TLR‐1 23 $99 $2,277 $2,277 $2,2776360 ALS holsters, BW 23 $101 $2,323 $2,323 $2,323Suede lined w/buckle br bw blk 23 $58 $1,334 $1,334 $1,334Garrison buckeles Velcro bw bk md 23 $33 $759 $759 $759Mace holder top flap 4oz hs bw blk 23 $25 $575 $575 $575Sabre 4oz OC spray 23 $15 $345 $345 $345F‐21B black chrome 21” batons 23 $80 $1,840 $1,840 $1,840F‐21 sidebreak scabbard BW 23 $25 $575 $575 $575Chain link handcuff #700nickel 23 $35 $805 $805 $805Handcuff pouch topflap,hs,bw,blk 23 $27 $621 $621 $621Magholder dbl GL17/22,hs,bw,blk 23 $32 $736 $736 $736Motorola radio holsters 23 $45 $1,035 $1,035 $1,035Blue reflective lime/yel vest‐police 23 $20 $460 $460 $460Uniform badges & wallet badges 23 $169 $3,887 $3,887 $3,887CPD collar brass gold ¾” die 23 $9 $207 $207 $207CPD ball caps 23 $7 $161 $161 $161Rain Jackets 23 $70 $1,610 $1,610 $1,610Bullet Resistant Vests 23 $535 $12,305 $12,305 $12,305Firearms 23 $410 $9,430 $9,430 $9,430Portable Radio ‐ Motorola XTS5000 23 $4,000 $92,000 $92,000 $92,000

One Time Start Up Costs

3.D.1.c

Packet P

g. 226

Attachment: 2014 Annexation Cost Breakdown (1246 : Approval of Purchases & Budget Amendments Due to Annexation)



Item Qty Cost Total Total 2013 2014 Lease Expenses Recurring One Time Start Up Costs

ADDITIONAL PATROL VEHICLES $53,175 $531,750 $531,750 $0 $0 $531,750 $0Ford Crown Vic 10 $30,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000Emergency Equipment 10 $8,500 $85,000 $85,000 $85,000Equipment Installation 10 $1,200 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000Decals 10 $400 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000Decal Installation 10 $300 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000Mobile Radio ‐ Motorola XTL5000 10 $4,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000WatchGuard Video Camera 10 $6,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000Computer Docking Station 10 $550 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500Citation Printer 10 $725 $7,250 $7,250 $7,250AED 10 $1,500 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

MOBILE COMPUTERS & SOFTWARE $10,326 $98,838 $85,426 $0 $0 $85,426 $19,412Panasonic Computer CF‐31 10 $4,500 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $6,000MS Office 10 $235 $2,350 $2,350 $2,350Vision Mobile LE Workstation 10 $1,369 $13,685 $13,685 $13,685VisionAIR Mobile AVL 10 $380 $3,795 $3,795 $3,795VisionAIR Field Bsed Reporting 10 $756 $7,560 $7,560 $7,560GeoLynks Mobile Mapping 10 $731 $7,313 $7,313 $7,313APS QuickVoice 10 $299 $2,990 $2,990 $2,990APS QuickTicket 7 $299 $2,093 $2,093 $2,093NetMotion Licenses 2 $320 $640 $640 $640APS Maintenance (Recurring) 1 $108 $108 $108Lexis‐Nexis Ga Criminal Law on Disk (Recurring) 10 $75 $750 $750Verizon Wireless (Recurring per year) 10 $600 $6,000 $6,000VisionAIR Maintenance (After year 1) 10 $376 $3,756 $3,756GeoComm Maintenance (After year 1) 10 $172 $1,719 $1,719APS Maintenance (After year 1) 10 $108 $1,080 $1,080

ADDITIONAL CID VEHICLES $33,100 $132,400 $132,400 $0 $0 $132,400 $0Ford Fusion 4 $23,000 $92,000 $92,000 $92,000Emergency Equipment 4 $3,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000Equipment Installation 4 $600 $2,400 $2,400 $2,400Mobile Radio ‐ Motorola XTL5000 4 $4,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000Investigator Equipment 4 $2,500 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

3.D.1.c

Packet P

g. 227





ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $65,500 $65,500 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $64,100Salary 1 $38,500 $38,500 $38,500Benefits 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Desktop Computer 1 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $600

ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION OFFICERS $63,245 $126,490 $3,000 $1,000 $2,000 $0 $124,090Salary 2 $36,745 $73,490 $6,000 $73,490Benefits 2 $25,000 $50,000 $2,000 $50,000Uniforms 2 $500 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $600EMD/EPD Training 2 $1,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000

ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION SUPERVISOR $66,500 $66,500 $500 $500 $0 $0 $66,300Salary 1 $41,000 $41,000 $6,000 $41,000Benefits 1 $25,000 $25,000 $2,000 $25,000Uniforms 1 $500 $500 $500 $500 $300

ADDITIONAL 911 CALL TAKER POSITION $63,180 $63,180 $60,527 $10,000 $0 $50,527 $0 $3,253911 Answering Position ‐ Computer & Phone 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000CAD Computer 1 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $600GeoComm 911 Mapping 1 $6,125 $6,125 $6,125 $6,125GeoRelay License 1 $1,134 $1,134 $1,134 $1,134GeoComm Installation 1 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500CAD EMD/EPD Interface 1 $2,268 $2,268 $2,268 $2,268EMD/EPD License 1 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000Smart911 License 1 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000VisionAIR Maintenance (after year 1) 1 $1,966 $1,966 $1,966GeoComm Maintenance (after year 1) 1 $688 $688 $688911 Map Analysis & Evaluation 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000911 Map Changes and Additions 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

ADDITIONAL RADIO CONSOLE POSITION $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000Requires Entire System to be ReplacedNew 4 Position Communications Console Syst. 1 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000

TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST $63,058 $63,058 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,058Salary 1 $38,058 $38,058 $38,058Benefits 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000

3.D.1.c

Packet P

g. 228





MUNICIPAL COURT $18,000 $18,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $76,200Part‐Time Clerk 1 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000Desktop Computer 1 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,200Judges $30,000Solicitor $10,000Interpreters $10,000Public Defender $5,000Supplies ‐ Printed Materials $4,000

POLICE BUILDING REMODEL $101,000 $101,000 $101,000 $101,000 $0 $0 $0 $0Remodel Construction Costs 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Replace Male Locker room lockers 1 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000CID Office Cubicles 1 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Squad Room & Watch Cmdr. Cubicles 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000Records Room Cubicles 1 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000Carpet Replacement 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000Upgrade Phone & Voice Mail System 1 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000

NEW 2013 & FUTURE RECURRING EXPENSES $0 $0 $152,000Language Line $12,000Gasoline $60,000Supplies ‐ Evidence $6,000Supplies ‐ Communication $4,000Supplies ‐ Office $4,000Ammunition $10,000Maintenance ‐ Vehicles $20,000Prisoner Meals $15,000Detention Supplies $4,000Maintenance ‐ Communication Equipment $10,000Postage $4,000First Aid Supplies $3,000

Totals

One TimeStart Up Costs

2013 Expenses Lease

Future Recurring Costs

$1,243,638 $180,105 $12,000 $1,051,533 $75,000 $2,186,614

3.D.1.c

Packet P

g. 229





POLICE DEPARTMENT TOTALSLease Option $1,051,533 5 yrs @ 3.5% $229,656

Total One Time Start Up Expenses $1,243,638One Time Start Up Expenses ‐ Lease $1,051,533One Time Expenses ‐ 2013 $180,105One Time Expenses ‐ 2014 $12,000

Total Recurring Costs With Lease Pmt $2,416,270

3.D.1.c

Packet P

g. 230



Department: Police Prepared By: Marc Johnson



SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZED STRENGTH IF ANNEXATION

IS APPROVED


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)

Review:



3.D.2

Packet Pg. 231

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor & City Council

FROM: Chief R. M. Johnson

DATE: October 4, 2013

SUBJECT: 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

Chamblee’s 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

3.D.2.a

Packet Pg. 232

Att

ach

men

t: P

rop

ose

d 2

014

An

nex

atio

n a

nd

Eff

ects

on

PD

(12

47 :

Po

lice

Dep

artm

ent

Au

tho

rize

d S

tren

gth

If A

nn

exat

ion

is A

pp

rove

d)

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.

I analyzed DeKalb County PD’s calls for service in the area for the first half of 2012 and

determined that they were equal to roughly 98% of Chamblee PD’s 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

3.D.2.a

Packet Pg. 233

Att

ach

men

t: P

rop

ose

d 2

014

An

nex

atio

n a

nd

Eff

ects

on

PD

(12

47 :

Po

lice

Dep

artm

ent

Au

tho

rize

d S

tren

gth

If A

nn

exat

ion

is A

pp

rove

d)

as the Department Training Officer and perform background investigations on applicants for

employment. These functions are currently spread among other officers or don’t 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.

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 ½

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.

3.D.2.a

Packet Pg. 234

Att

ach

men

t: P

rop

ose

d 2

014

An

nex

atio

n a

nd

Eff

ects

on

PD

(12

47 :

Po

lice

Dep

artm

ent

Au

tho

rize

d S

tren

gth

If A

nn

exat

ion

is A

pp

rove

d)

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 19

Detectives 3

Professional Standards 1

Total Sworn Positions 23

Communication Officers 2

Detention Supervisor 1

Technology Specialist 1

Executive Assistant 1

Total Civilians 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 haven’t 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 one-

time costs due to the annexation and purchasing/leasing the additional needed equipment. The

3.D.2.a

Packet Pg. 235

Att

ach

men

t: P

rop

ose

d 2

014

An

nex

atio

n a

nd

Eff

ects

on

PD

(12

47 :

Po

lice

Dep

artm

ent

Au

tho

rize

d S

tren

gth

If A

nn

exat

ion

is A

pp

rove

d)

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.

3.D.2.a

Packet Pg. 236

Att

ach

men

t: P

rop

ose

d 2

014

An

nex

atio

n a

nd

Eff

ects

on

PD

(12

47 :

Po

lice

Dep

artm

ent

Au

tho

rize

d S

tren

gth

If A

nn

exat

ion

is A

pp

rove

d)





SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - OUTDOOR STORAGE

AND VEHICLE SALES


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.


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:

4.A.1

Packet Pg. 237

Attachment List:

06.1_StaffReport_2013TA-004_Outdoor Storage and Vehicle Sales (PDF)

06.2_ OCGA 40-2-39_1 (PDF)

06.3_ Adopting Resolution and ORDINANCE (DOCX)

Review:





4.A.1

Packet Pg. 238




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.

4.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 239

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

04_O

utd

oo

r S

tora

ge

and

Veh

icle

Sal

es (

1239

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Ou

tdo

or

Sto

rag

e


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

4.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 240

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

04_O

utd

oo

r S

tora

ge

and

Veh

icle

Sal

es (

1239

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Ou

tdo

or

Sto

rag

e

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTXDIRE.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTXDIRE_S1002PEUS



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 Planner’s 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.”

___________________________________________________________________________________


4.A.1.a

Packet Pg. 241

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

04_O

utd

oo

r S

tora

ge

and

Veh

icle

Sal

es (

1239

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Ou

tdo

or

Sto

rag

e

© 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.

40-2-39.1. Restrictions on sale or advertising of used motor vehicles displayed orparked; exceptions; enforcement; penalty.

(a) (1) An owner or lessee of any real property shall not authorize more than five used motorvehicles within any 12 month period displayed or parked on such real property for the purpose ofselling or advertising the sale of such used motor vehicles by the owner or lessee of suchvehicles.

(2) An owner or lessee of any real property shall not authorize more than two used motorvehicles at the same time displayed or parked on such real property for the purpose of selling oradvertising 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 motorvehicle on the real property of another for the purpose of selling or advertising the sale of suchused motor vehicle if the display or parking of such vehicle will cause the owner or lessee of thereal 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 motorvehicle on the real property of another for the purpose of selling or advertising the sale of suchused motor vehicle unless the owner or lessee of such vehicle has the prior permission of theowner 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 orlessee 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 theowner or lessee of the real property on which the vehicle is parked or displayed at the time suchvehicle 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 chargedfor the use of such parking lot, the owner or lessee of the parked vehicle has paid the fee for theuse of such parking lot, and such vehicle is legitimately parked on the property for purposesother 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 tobe displayed or parked on such real property for the purpose of selling or advertising the sale ofsuch used motor vehicle if such vehicle is not lawfully titled and registered in the name of theindividual or entity offering such vehicle for sale in accordance with the applicable provisions ofthis chapter and Chapter 3 of this title.

4.A.1.b

Packet Pg. 242

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

OC

GA

40-

2-39

_1 (

1239

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Ou

tdo

or

Sto

rag

e an

d V

ehic

le S

ales

)

rmj

Highlight

rmj

Highlight

rmj

Highlight

rmj

Highlight

rmj

Highlight

rmj

Highlight

rmj

Highlight

rmj

Highlight

rmj

Highlight

rmj

Highlight

© 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.

(2) A person shall not advertise, display, sell, or offer for sale any used motor vehicle unlesssuch vehicle is lawfully titled and registered in such person's name in accordance with theapplicable provisions of this chapter and Chapter 3 of this title.

(d) Any law enforcement officer or agency, the board, or the owner or lessee of any realproperty upon which a vehicle is displayed or parked in violation of subsection (a) or (c) of thisCode section for longer than 24 consecutive hours may have any such vehicle towed from suchreal property and stored at the expense of the owner or lessee of such vehicle and may thendispose 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 andshall be a violation of Part 2 of Article 15 of Chapter 1 of Title 10, the "Fair Business PracticesAct of 1975." A violation of this Code section may be penalized as provided in Code Section43-47-21 or any other applicable provision of this Code, including, but not limited to, the "FairBusiness Practices Act of 1975."

(f) This Code section shall not apply to any person licensed under Chapter 47 of Title 43 orto any franchised motor vehicle dealer or any subsidiary wholly owned or controlled by suchdealer. This Code section shall not eliminate or change the requirement for any person to obtaina license under Chapter 47 of Title 43 if such person engages in any conduct or activity forwhich 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, uponconviction thereof, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 for each violation orimprisonment 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 beaffected by the repeals or amendments made by it or abated by reason thereof.

4.A.1.b

Packet Pg. 243

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

OC

GA

40-

2-39

_1 (

1239

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Ou

tdo

or

Sto

rag

e an

d V

ehic

le S

ales

)




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


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 Sub-

section 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.”


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



4.A.1.c

Packet Pg. 244

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.3_

Ad

op

tin

g R

eso

luti

on

an

d O

RD

INA

NC

E (

1239

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Ou

tdo

or

Sto

rag

e an

d V

ehic

le S

ales

)





ordinance.


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 Attorney

First Reading: ___________________________

Second Reading: ________________________

4.A.1.c

Packet Pg. 245

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.3_

Ad

op

tin

g R

eso

luti

on

an

d O

RD

INA

NC

E (

1239

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Ou

tdo

or

Sto

rag

e an

d V

ehic

le S

ales

)




ZONING (ID # 1196)

SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - PLANNED UNIT

DEVELOPMENTS


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.


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)

4.B.1

Packet Pg. 246

Text Amendment Planned Unit Developments (DOCX)

Review:



City Council Completed 10/07/2013 11:00 AM

4.B.1

Packet Pg. 247

Council Wrap-Up Page 1 of 4 Petition No: 2013TA-002 Council Work Session: August 15, 2013 City Council Meeting: August 20, 2013


City Council Working Session - August 15, 2013

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:

4.B.1.a

Packet Pg. 248

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

02_P

UD

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts)


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. 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 multi-phase 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

4.B.1.a

Packet Pg. 249

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

02_P

UD

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts)


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. 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.”

4.B.1.a

Packet Pg. 250

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

02_P

UD

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts)


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. Attachments: Proposed amendments to current text of Sections 203, 204, 205, 206, and 207.


4.B.1.a

Packet Pg. 251

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

02_P

UD

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts)

Proposed Text Amendments to City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance

1

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


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.

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 252

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it


2

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.

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 253

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S214VA

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S207PLUNDEPR


3

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

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 254

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S208ZOPRREST


4

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.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 255

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S207PLUNDEPR

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S203ADAPRE

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S201PPLME


5

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.

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 256

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it


6

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.

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 257

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it


7

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

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 258

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it


8

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.

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 259

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it


9

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.

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 260

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S208ZOPRREST

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S210REREAP


10

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


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.

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 261

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it


11

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.

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 262

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it


12

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?

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 263

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level2/PTIICOOR_CH34EN.html#PTIICOOR_CH34EN


13

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

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 264

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S204STRERE

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S205ARDEREBOPR


14

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. Result in the need for a variance or waiver of City ordinances

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.

(Ord. No. 545, 8-15-06; Ord. No. 576, pt. 1, 9-18-07)

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 265

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S206MACOPUHEDE


15

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.

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 266

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it


16

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)

4.B.1.b

Packet Pg. 267

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.2_

Att

ach

men

t 1-

pro

po

sed

am

end

men

ts t

o P

UD

ord

inan

ces

(11

96 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- P

lan

ned

Un

it

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12373/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZOOR_ARTIIAD_S205ARDEREBOPR




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. Development plans drawn, stamped and sealed by a state-registered professional surveyor, civil engineer, landscape architect or land planner

B. 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.

C. Site plan. A site plan at a minimum one inch = 20 feet scale showing


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

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 268

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

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.

E. 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.

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.

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.

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

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 269

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

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 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 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.

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 270

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

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.

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 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.

ii. 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.

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 271

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

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.

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. 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.

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 272

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

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 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..

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 273

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

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. 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

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 274

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

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.

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


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.

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

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 275

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

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. 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.

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 276

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

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?

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?

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 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

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 277

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

environment.

3. No minor modification may be approved by the city manager that would

result in any of the following:

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. Result in the need for a variance or waiver of City ordinances

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.

3. DCI applications and the associated architectural design review board

recommendation shall be considered by council for approval, denial or

approval with conditions.

I. Expiration of PUD plan approval.

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 278

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

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 city council 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. 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).

PART II


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.


4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 279

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)

of 13

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 Attorney

First Reading: ___________________________

Second Reading: ________________________

4.B.1.c

Packet Pg. 280

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t P

lan

ned

Un

it D

evel

op

men

ts (

1196

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Pla

nn

ed U

nit

Dev

elo

pm

ents

)




ZONING (ID # 1215)

SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - INTERPRETATION OF

PERMITTED USE


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 Chamblee’s 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.

4.B.2

Packet Pg. 281

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:


FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None

Attachment List:

06.1_StaffReport_2013TA-001_Use Table Interpretations (DOCX)

Ordinance 655 - Amendment Permitted Uses Interpretation 092413 Revision (PDF)

Review:




4.B.2

Packet Pg. 282




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 Chamblee’s 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:

4.B.2.a

Packet Pg. 283

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

01_U

se T

able

Inte

rpre

tati

on

s (

1215

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Inte

rpre

tati

on

of

Per

mit

ted


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 Chamblee’s 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 Association’s 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 drive-

through, 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.”

4.B.2.a

Packet Pg. 284

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

01_U

se T

able

Inte

rpre

tati

on

s (

1215

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Inte

rpre

tati

on

of

Per

mit

ted


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 Association’s 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.

4.B.2.a

Packet Pg. 285

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

01_U

se T

able

Inte

rpre

tati

on

s (

1215

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Inte

rpre

tati

on

of

Per

mit

ted



4.B.2.a

Packet Pg. 286

Att

ach

men

t: 0

6.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

01_U

se T

able

Inte

rpre

tati

on

s (

1215

: Z

on

ing

Ord

inan

ce T

ext

Am

end

men

t -

Inte

rpre

tati

on

of

Per

mit

ted

ORDINANCE NO. 655


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.

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 _______

4.B.2.b

Packet Pg. 287

Att

ach

men

t: O

rdin

ance

655

- A

men

dm

ent

Per

mit

ted

Use

s In

terp

reta

tio

n 0

9241

3 R

evis

ion

(12

15 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

-

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: ________________________

4.B.2.b

Packet Pg. 288

Att

ach

men

t: O

rdin

ance

655

- A

men

dm

ent

Per

mit

ted

Use

s In

terp

reta

tio

n 0

9241

3 R

evis

ion

(12

15 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

-




ZONING (ID # 1214)

SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - STREET TREES IN

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY NEAR BILLBOARDS


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 Audi’s 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.




4.B.3

Packet Pg. 289

REQUESTED ACTION:


FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None

Attachment List:

05.1_StaffReport_2013TA-003_Street Trees Near Billboards (DOCX)

05.2_attachment 3_GDOT streetscape Comments 6-7-2013_Highlighted (PDF)

Text Amendment Street Trees Near Billboards (DOCX)

Review:





4.B.3

Packet Pg. 290




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 City’s 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:

4.B.3.a

Packet Pg. 291

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

03_S

tree

t T

rees

Nea

r B

illb

oar

ds

(12

14 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- S

tree

t T

rees

in P

ub

lic


“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 City’s 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 Botanical name

Fringe tree Chionanthus virginicus

Kousa Dogwood Cornus kousa chinensis

Purple Smoke Tree Cotinus coggygria

Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera

Holly llex spp.

Crape Myrtle* Lagerstroemia indica”

*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 City’s 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:

Staff recommends that the Mayor and City Council amend Section 902-D. of the City of Chamblee Zoning Ordinance as follows:

4.B.3.a

Packet Pg. 292

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

03_S

tree

t T

rees

Nea

r B

illb

oar

ds

(12

14 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- S

tree

t T

rees

in P

ub

lic


“Section 902. – Sidewalks.





4.B.3.a

Packet Pg. 293

Att

ach

men

t: 0

5.1_

Sta

ffR

epo

rt_2

013T

A-0

03_S

tree

t T

rees

Nea

r B

illb

oar

ds

(12

14 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- S

tree

t T

rees

in P

ub

lic

4.B

.3.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 294

Attachment: 05.2_attachment 3_GDOT streetscape Comments 6-7-2013_Highlighted (1214 : Zoning

gcornell

Text Box

4.B

.3.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 295

Attachment: 05.2_attachment 3_GDOT streetscape Comments 6-7-2013_Highlighted (1214 : Zoning




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.”

PART II


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.


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


4.B.3.c

Packet Pg. 296

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t S

tree

t T

rees

Nea

r B

illb

oar

ds

(12

14 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- S

tree

t T

rees

in P

ub

lic R

igh

ts o

f W

ay


_____________________________________________




_____________________________________________

City Attorney

First Reading: ___________________________

Second Reading: ________________________

4.B.3.c

Packet Pg. 297

Att

ach

men

t: T

ext

Am

end

men

t S

tree

t T

rees

Nea

r B

illb

oar

ds

(12

14 :

Zo

nin

g O

rdin

ance

Tex

t A

men

dm

ent

- S

tree

t T

rees

in P

ub

lic R

igh

ts o

f W

ay





SUBJECT: ALCOHOL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT


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 licensee’s 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.

4.B.4

Packet Pg. 298

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None

Attachment List:

Alcohol Ordinance Amendment Sept & Oct 2013 (DOCX)

Review:



4.B.4

Packet Pg. 299


CHAMBLEE, GEORGIA, CHAPTER 6, “ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES” AND FOR ALL

OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES


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:

PART I

The provisions of Section 6-4 “Purchase and sales records” shall be amended by deleting Sub-

Section (c) in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof a new Sub-Section (c) which new sub-

section 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

(2) 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

(3) 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

(4) 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.

4.B.4.a

Packet Pg. 300

Att

ach

men

t: A

lco

ho

l Ord

inan

ce A

men

dm

ent

Sep

t &

Oct

201

3 (

1223

: A

lco

ho

l Ord

inan

ce A

men

dm

ent)

PART II

It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Mayor and City council that the sections,





ordinance.


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


Approved this _____ day of ________________, 2013.

_____________________________________



Approved as to form: ____________________________

Joe Fowler, City Attorney

First reading: ______________________

Second reading: ____________________

4.B.4.a

Packet Pg. 301

Att

ach

men

t: A

lco

ho

l Ord

inan

ce A

men

dm

ent

Sep

t &

Oct

201

3 (

1223

: A

lco

ho

l Ord

inan

ce A

men

dm

ent)


Department: City Council Prepared By: Emmie Niethammer

Initiator: Scott Taylor

INFORMATION ITEM (ID # 1241)

SUBJECT: EMPTY STOCKING FUND


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 Completed 10/03/2013 11:46 AM



5.F.1

Packet Pg. 302

2013-10-10 - chamblee ga city council work session - full agenda-1069

Documents

alcohol ordinance amendment

city attorney

city clerk

public works

peachtree boulevard

city council regular

council items

r peachtree blvd