Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SUMMARY Stonecrest City Hall- 6:00 PM *Spoke-in-Person Meeting June 26, 2023 As set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Stonecrest will assist citizens with special needs given notice (7 working days) to participate in any open meetings of the City of Stonecrest. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office via telephone (770-224-0200) Citizens wishing to actively participate and make a comment during the public hearing portion of the meeting please submit a request via email address tsingletary@stonecrestga.gov by noon the day of the hearing June 26, 2023. The zoom link for the meeting will be sent to you, or you can also submit comments and questions to the same email address by the same deadline to be read into the record at the meeting. I. Call to Order: Chairman Eric Hubbard (District 3) called the Spoke-in-Person meeting to order at 6:00 PM. II. Roll Call: Chairman Hubbard called the roll. Commissioner Stefanie Brown (District I) and Commissioner Joyce Walker (District 2) were present. Commissioner Lemuel Hawkins (District 5), and Commissioner Pearl Hollis (District 4) were absent. There was a quorum. Planning Director Ray 'White, Deputy Director Matthew Williams, Senior Planner Tre’Jon Singletary, and Planner Abeykoon Abeykoon were in attendance. Attorney Alicia Thompson, Fincher Denmark, LLC, virtually attended. III. Approval of Minutes: The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Summary dated March 7, 2023. Chairman Hubbard called for a motion to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes Summary dated March 7, 2023 by Commissioner Joyce Walker. Chairman Hubbard seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously APPROVED. IV. Approval of the Agenda: Chairman Hubbard called for a motion to APPROVE THE AGENDA. Commissioner Joyce Walker motioned to APPROVE THE AGENDA. Commissioner Stephanie Brown seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously APPROVED. V. Presentations: Upcoming Cases Presented by: Mr. Ray White, Planning Director and Tre’Jon Singletary, Senior Planner • RZ23-000002 • TMOD-23-001 • TMOD-23-002 • TMOD-23-003 • HB1405 VI. Old Business: N/A VII. Presentations Page 1 of 23 The Senior Planner Tre’Jon Singletary Presented RZ23-000002 RZ23-000002 PETITIONER: Joshua Mahoney, Battle Law PC on behalf of the applicant, Parkland Communities, Inc. LOCATION: 7199 Hayden Quarry Road, Stonecrest, Georgia 30038 OVERLAY DISTRICT: Stonecrest Overlay Tier 3 ZONING- RSM Small Lots Residential Mix FUTURE LAND USE: RC-Reginal Center DISTRICT: (1) Commissioner Stephanie Brown and Council Woman Tara Graves PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Applicant is seeking a major modification of the conditions of the subject property to change the conditions from zoning case number Z-05-01. Proposing 129 Single Family dwellings on the left side of the property and 260 townhomes on the right. The portion that was discussed this day was the side with the 129 single-family lots. Site plans and the building elevations were displayed. Page 2 of 23 The total acreage is 32.02 acres. The applicant is proposing 129 single-family detached dwellings which is approximately 4.02 homes per acre. They are also proposing an attached garage and 287,851 square feet or 6.61 acres of open space. The right side of the property went through the condition with Dekalb County in 2005 and the left side of the property is what they want to amend. The Applicant wants Conditions 1, 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4l of Z-05-01 modified. Staff Recommends- APPROVAL of Modification of Condition 1 APPROVAL of Modification of Condition 4a APPROVAL of Modification of Condition 4b DENIAL of Modification of Condition 4c DENIAL of Modification of Condition 4l Commissioner Walker asked the Senior Planner to expound on the conditions 4c and 4l, Chairman Hubbard calls the applicant Michelle Battle with Battle Law located at 3562 Habersham at Northlake Tucker, Georgia 30084 to the stand Mentions that the project was approved in 2005 and that she did the rezoning and at the time the applicants originally proposed a fully townhome development with two different makeups. They believe that this is a better site plan which includes a reduction on the number of units from over 200 (townhome units) to 129 single-family detached units Page 3 of 23 Michelle Battle expresses the want for the number of units (129) to be clearly stated in condition 1 as well as that it is a single-family home development considering that this is the new approach and because they do not plan on exceeding that number of units. She also explains that the reasoning for the modification of condition 4a considering the original concept was for the townhomes to have a one-car garage but because they are no longer townhomes they would like that condition to be deleted Instead, (condition 4b) there will be two-car garages. She also mentions that this is a For Sale project As for condition 4c she mentions that the client is fine with the patio staying but is not fond of the fence requirement. There will still be an availability for a homeowner to put a fence on their property but they will have to go through the proposed mandatory HOA. The HOA will have an architectural review committee for which will review any type of fencing that the homeowner would like to place on their property and it will be the home owners responsibility to upkeep and maintain the fence. Because of some of the placements of the homes near greenery, they should not have to have a fence and others may want to put a fence on their property. The last condition discussed was 4l. She mentions that there is a road that connects the two communities (Crestview Point and Crestwind Township) and that the amenities that are located and in the Crestwind Township are for both sides of the property. They would like the requirements for amenities to be in Crestview Point to be removed. Page 4 of 23 Willing to make needed improvements regarding the enhanced greenway and pocket park requirements Michelle Battle Request for approval of all modifications that were requested including the patio staying a requirement but the fencing being handled by HOA and the Architectural review committee. Also for the removal of the requirement of a pool and tennis court and instead be substituted for them to maintain the Greenways with the trails without the community and that they will have access to the amenity area in the adjacent committee Michelle Battle finishes her statement and Chairman Hubbard asks if the commissioners have any questions. Commissioner Walker asks about the fence and pool requirements. Page 5 of 23 Michelle Battle mentions the HOA and conditions that may be created in order to regulate the fences and pool use as well as maintenance and upkeep. They are two communities being developed together so the amenities that each side offers will be available for both communities. She explains her personal experience with HOA and fencing regulations/requirements. Chairmen Hubbard calls for members of the audience to speak for or against the project. Faye Coalfield opposes the project. Concerned about the project being above a compressed gas line that runs under the property and mentions the San Bruno California explosion that happened in 2011 or 2012 that caused a lot of damage to the homes there and took lives. It was also hard to put out. There are signs near the property that states not to smoke near the area and to contact Atlanta before digging, but Dynamite may be used during the development. Care should be exercised. And she was concerned about garages not being attached to the townhomes and gave examples. She also believes that there should be more parking Michelle Battle comes back to the stand to explain that are discussing the side with the single-family homes and that her client mentioned that there was an old electric line that was removed, and new utilities will be installed GA Natural Gas is very strict about developments being near gas lines and that it is not allowed and you have to show gas lines in LDPs Page 6 of 23 There will be a survey to verify if any are in existence Chairman Hubbard closes the public hearing on that application and opens the floor for commissioners to discuss Chairman Hubbard and Brown recommend having a report from the developer about the gas line that they have thoroughly gone through the process to check for their existence Chairman Hubbard agrees with staff recommendations and that the patio and fencing should be kept, willing to go with the two-car garage, and the amenities should be offered on both sides of the development Chairman Brown opposes the requirement for a fence for each home. She also does not see the need for two pools (amenities) Michelle Battle comes back to the stand to address concerns and agrees with Chairman Brown. Mentions that the amenities can be costly on the HOA Tre’Jon Singletary Senior Planner was called back to the stand to explain staff denials. He mentions the fence requirement was due to safety reasons and the denial for the amenities was because of the number of homes on the property and the thought of them all sharing one amenity. Chairman Hubbard asks if there are any more concerns from the other Chairman and there were none A motion was made to approve the application with the recommendations of the planning department and that the applicant provides documentation that states that there are no gas lines Chairman Brown seconded the motion Page 7 of 23 There was unanimous approval by the commissioners Chairman Hubbard calls for the second item on the agenda to be presented. The Senior Planner Tre’Jon Singletary Presented TMOD-23-001 This was removed from this day’s agenda but because it was legally advertised it was briefly presented. TMOD-23-001 PETITIONER: City of Stonecrest LOCATION: City Wide PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The intent of the Gravel Parking Text Amendment, TMOD-23- 001, is to provide guidelines, requirements and improve the appearance of parking lots. Mentions that there are approximately twelve (12) current Trucking Parking Lots within the City of Stonecrest, the current Zoning Ordinance classifies Trucking Parking as Truck Stops and the staff is proposing a change to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 27 The staff recommended deferral until the next planning commission. No questions or comments from the Commissioners or audience Moved to get deferred to the next cycle and by unanimous vote The Deputy Director Matthew Williams Presented TMOD-23-002 TMOD-23-002 PETITIONER: Planning & Zoning Department LOCATION: City Wide Page 8 of 23 PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To provide for control of clearing and lot grading. To modify minimum lot area and provide preliminary plat approval and subdivision. Matthew Williams states the facts that Arabia Mountain Conservation Overlay District (AMCOD) is one of the newest Overlay District to be adopted within the city’s zoning ordinance, the AMCOD aims to provide reasonable and creative planning and development while preserving the natural landform and features, and that the staff is proposing a change to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 27 The changes recommended by staff include Implemented additional regulations in Sec. 3.4.8. – Clearing and grading of lots, “No individual lot shall be cleared and graded to an extent exceeding thirty-five (35) percent Implemented additional regulations in Sec. 3.4.9. – Development Standards, “Seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet, except that each lot on the periphery of the entire development (all sides) is at least ten thousand (10,000) square feet.” Implemented regulations in Sec. 3.4.9. – Development Standards for Preliminary Plat Approval. Implemented additional regulations in Sec. 3.4.10. – Tree removal and replacement, “No Clear cutting or mass grading is allowed with Arabia Mountain Conservation Overlay District.” Staff asks for approval of these modifications. Chairmen Hubbard asks for questions or concerns to be expressed by the commissioners and the audience and for support or opposition. Page 9 of 23 Michelle Battle with Battle Law located at 3562 comes to the stand to ask questions about how this will impact the development community and landowners and if there has been outreach and feedback from the development community. Believes that placing more regulations on Arabia Mountain will further make the process for her clients more difficult. Rebuttal by Director Ray White This is predicated on a development that was in the overlay that was eventually approved. The situation showed that there were key issues with the overlay design and research is and has been done He also mentions that it is not operating in a vacuum and refinement has been looked at. This has also been a concern for the city for some time CPIM has already moved in favor of this decision which shows that it was not in a vacuum Chairmen Hubbard asks if there have been any meetings with the community within this overlay to express this intent Director Ray White explains that there was public input Chairman Hubbard closes the public hearing Commissioners express that the city should reach out to the developers to get their opinions on the matter Senior Planner Tre’Jon Singletary mentions that the developers were given the option to speak for or against the changes during the CPIM meeting Chairman Hubbard motions for this application to be deferred to get more input from citizens. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Walker. There was a unanimous vote for the deferral of this application. Page 10 of 23 Senior Planner Tre’Jon Singletary Presented TMOD-23-003 TMOD-23-003 PETITIONER: Planning & Zoning Department LOCATION: City Wide PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To provide for the design control and development of public storage facilities. There are five (5) current self-storages within the City of Stonecrest The current Zoning Ordinance classifies Public-Storage as mini-warehouses. The staff is proposing a change in definition, supplemental regulations, and parking requirements. Currently, there are 5 storage units within the city of Stonecrest Location 1- Acres 4.04, Overlay District is I-20 Tier 2, Future Land Use is Office Professional, Zoning is M – Light Industrial, and in District 3 Page 11 of 23 Location 2- Acres 5.49, Overlay District Stonecrest Tier 6, Future Land Use is City Center, Zoning is OD – Office Distribution and in District 2 Location 3- Acres 1.89, Overlay District N/A, Future Land Use is City Center, Zoning is OD – Office Distribution and in District 2 Location 4- Acres 3.89, Overlay District is I-20 Tier 2,, Future Land Use is Light Industrial, Zoning is M – Light Industrial, and in District 2 Location 2- Acres 4.96, Overlay District I-20 Tier 2, Future Land Use is Light Industrial, Zoning is M – Light Industrial, and in District 2 Staff recommends the prohibition of Self-Storages within all overlay districts. (Sec. 3.1.6.) For section 4.1.3 staff is proposing for the Permits Self-Storages, Mini with a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) in the following zoning districts: OI (Office Institutional), OD (Office Distribution), M (Light Industrial), and M2 (Heavy Industrial) as well as Permits Self- Storages, Multi with a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) in the following zoning districts: M (Light Industrial) and M2 (Heavy Industrial) Recommendation for section 4.2.65 staff is adding supplemental recommendations for self storage, mini which is Page 12 of 23 Recommendation for section 4.2.66 staff is adding supplemental recommendations for self storage, multi which is Page 13 of 23 For section Sec. 6.1.4. staff is recommending adding parking requirements for Self- Storages, Mini & Multi. Which is a minimum of One (1) space for each 20 – storage unit and no maximum There was also a recommendation to add a definition in sec 9.1.3 Page 14 of 23 Staff recommends approval for this text modification Commissioner Walker asks for clarification. Chairman Hubbard asks if there is anyone that wanted to speak in support or opposition to the modification. Mr.Knight Chairmen of the board of the Stonecrest Industrial Council Incorporated came to the stand to speak in opposition and believes staff should take this back to the drawing board because it cannot be done under the charter section 1.03 B-25 which addresses if the city can propose a SLUP on industrial uses and districts. He reads from the charter and mentions that this was recommended a couple of years ago the idea was dropped after the charter was viewed. The Stonecrest overlay has an LCI plan that covers much of the overlay and is incorporated into the 2038 comprehensive plan. He believes this update overlooks it. If there are changes that are want to be made it should be taken to the stakeholders, Stonecrest business alliance, and other businesses There used to be a Stonecrest overlay advisory committee. The committee would go over recommendations and the city council would adopt them. The advisory committee should be reconstituted and consider doing away with the Stonecrest overlay on the north side of the i-20 Michelle Battle comes to the stand and states that multi-story self-storage is more desirable than a single-story. There is no inclusion to have them in C1 or C2 which would mean that the existing storages in those districts are now legally nonconforming which she believes is short-cited of the city Page 15 of 23 Explains personal experience with self-storage. They cater mostly to home-owners, if you move them farther out it will lead people to travel farther for their things Recommends radius restriction, against SLUP in an industrial area and staff needs to review this modification Self-storage facilities serve a purpose Director Ray White came to stand with a rebuttal to explain that the SLUP will help with the design of the facility and locations where they can blend or fit into their surroundings. They are also permitted in OI and OD districts. Chairmen Hubbard closes the public hearing and starts the discussion Chairman Hubbard states that we need to move forth in implementing the laws that are already there and that we can not go against the charter. Recommends that staff reviews this recommendation and reaches out to the community. Moved for denial of this application, second by Commissioner Brown and by unanimous vote. Director Ray White Presented HB1405 HB1405 - Zoning Procedure Changes PETITIONER: The City of Stonecrest LOCATION: City Wide PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The Georgia General Assembly passed HB1405 to amend Title 36 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to local governments, so as to revise "The Zoning Procedures Law." This presentation will highlight the amendments to Georgia Zoning Code and confirm how the amendments will impact the City of Stonecrest’s Zoning Code Page 16 of 23 Zoning Procedures Amendments to Definitions & Required Hearings Changes Include Defines “quasi-judicial officers, boards, or agencies” as those entities rendering decisions on variances, special administrative permits, special exceptions, conditional use permits, or other zoning decisions. Defines “zoning decision” as a rezoning, text amendment, special use, and concurrent variances Incorporates “repeal” of decisions and conditions in the definition of “zoning decision” Incorporates variances concurrent with special uses of property and rezonings in the definition of “zoning decision” Page 17 of 23 Only one hearing is required for text amendments, rezonings, special uses, and concurrent variances. Only one hearing is required for any combination thereof One hearing per proposed action required for all quasi-judicial decisions. Text amendments that involve allowing multi-family (MF) uses in a single-family residential (SFR) district; abolition of SFR classifications in jurisdictions; or when properties are granted ability to deviate from existing zoning requirements in single-family residential zoning districts – does not apply to SFR uses being changed to MFR uses for owner-initiated applications. Decisions to be adopted at two regular meetings that are to be a minimum of 21 days apart. Prior to two-read adoption, two additional public hearings required: Hearings shall be held 3-9 months prior to date of final adoption At least one hearing shall be held between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. Page 18 of 23 Quasi-judicial decisions: 30 days Quasi-judicial decisions: Requires written notification to property owner and newspaper ad Applies to same scenarios as above – Text amendments that involve allowing multifamily (MF) uses in a single-family residential (SFR) district; abolition of SFR classifications in jurisdictions; or when properties are granted ability to deviate from existing zoning requirements in single-family residential zoning districts – does not apply to SFR uses being changed to MFR uses for owner-initiated applications. Post notice on each affected “premises.” If there are more than 500 parcels, posting is only required every 500 feet. Newspaper Ads Minimum of 15 days/not more than 45 days from hearing (unchanged) Prominent notice of purpose (provide full description of intent of change) 9 column inches Shall not located in classified section State that a copy of proposed ordinance is on file (to be furnished upon request at no cost). Page 19 of 23 Policies and procedures outlined in ZPL shall be incorporated into ordinance (a portion is existing but requirements specific to quasi-judicial decisions has been added). Incorporate requirements for designating hearing procedures, criteria for review, and providing printed copies of procedures at quasi-judicial hearings. Specific changes are noted elsewhere in chart - this line item is added specifically to contemplate whether the requirements are different in the authority is not delegated. Zoning decisions – subject to de novo review that reviews the record and any new evidence. Quasi-judicial decisions – subject to appellate review – reviews only the record. Government to designate (by ordinance or resolution) Page 20 of 23 Officer of quasi-judicial board to receive service (at office during regular hours) Elected official or designee for quasijudicial appeals Appeal stays all actions No text amendments adopted after July 1, 2022 are procedurally correct unless adoption procedures comply with the aforementioned changes. No zoning or quasi-judicial decision prior to July 1, 2023 is rendered invalid or void because of failure to update ordinances. Staff recommends approval for changes to be made to the ordinance as a result of state stature Chairman Hubbard calls for city attorney who attended virtually Attorney Alicia Thompson asks if there were any questions There were none. No one spoke in approval or opposition and the public hearing was closed Chairman Hubbard motioned for acceptance of the application; it was seconded by Commissioner Brown. It was approved unanimously The meeting was ended at 7:59 PM Page 21 of 23 Page 23 of 23