[I. Call to Order]
[00:00:08]
701. DIRECTOR SMITH, ARE WE READY? AND GOOD EVENING, ATTORNEY WIGGINS. HOW ARE YOU? GREAT. GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR. AND WE ARE READY AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER MILLER HERE. COMMISSIONER WATSON. COMMISSIONER STILES.
COMMISSIONER PRESLEY, PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MARK FIELDS HERE. COMMISSIONER. CHAPMAN.
COMMISSIONER. ANDERSON HERE. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH FIELDS HERE. MADAM CHAIR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
THANK YOU. JUST ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. I NEED TO DO SOMETHING REAL QUICK.
OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WAITING. AND I WILL GO DIRECTLY INTO A MOMENT OF SILENCE, PLEASE. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. TO ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. NOW WE WILL
[V. Adoption of the Agenda]
HAVE THE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA. CAN I GET A YES, PLEASE? MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AGENDA. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND, THAT WE ADOPT THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSE THIS HEARING. NONE. THE[VI. Approval of September Minutes]
AGENDA IS ACCEPTED. NEXT, WE'LL HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER MINUTES. CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE? MOTION TO APPROVE SEPTEMBER MINUTES. SECOND. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? IT HAS BEEN MOVED. AND PROPERLY SECOND THAT WE APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER MINUTES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. OPPOSES HEARING NONE. THE MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER ARE NOW ADOPTED. DIRECTOR SMITH, DO WE HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS? WE DO NOT. THANK YOU. THEN WE WILL MOVE DIRECTLY INTO NEW BUSINESS. THANK YOU. AND, MADAM CHAIR, BEFORE DIRECTOR SMITH GOES FORWARD. JUST A COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING. ONE, I THINK YOU GUYS KNOW THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE PROJECTOR TONIGHT. AND SO THE INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE NORMALLY PRESENTED BY THE PRESENTERS, I BELIEVE, IS GOING TO BE IN A PAPER PACKET FOR ALL OF YOU AT YOUR SEATS. AND SO UNFORTUNATELY THAT WILL CHANGE SOME OF HOW WE DO THINGS WITH QUESTIONS, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE VISUAL ON, ON THE SCREEN. AND THEN THERE WILL BE TWO ITEMS WHEN WE GET TO THEM THAT WILL NEED TO BE ONE THAT WILL NEED TO BE REMOVED. I BELIEVE THAT'S NUMBER THREE.AND THEN THE NUMBER TWO, WE WILL ADDRESS THE WITHDRAWAL THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECEIVED. SO ON NUMBER TWO, DO WE NEED TO. YOU'LL STILL HAVE A MOTION TO DISMISS IT OR DEFER IT. YOU'LL STILL GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT WAS ADVERTISED. IT GOT IT CAME IN AFTER THE ADVERTISEMENT. BUT ONCE DIRECTOR SMITH MAKES HER PRESENTATION, THAT'S WHEN SHE'LL LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THE WITHDRAWAL AND GIVE YOU THOSE DETAILS. AND THEN I'LL DIRECT YOU FURTHER. AND NUMBER THREE, WE WHEN WE GET TO THAT, THAT WILL BE ALSO AN ANNOUNCEMENT BY DIRECTOR SMITH OF WHAT HAPPENED. AND I'LL DIRECT YOU ON WHAT
[00:05:01]
KIND OF MOTION WE NEED TO ADJUDICATE THAT CASE. SO WE JUST HAVE ITEMS ONE, FOUR AND FIVE. IS THAT CORRECT? THOSE ARE THE ONES YOU'LL BE HEARING TONIGHT. CORRECT. THANK YOU.[VIII. 1 P2025RZ-003-08]
YOU'RE WELCOME. DIRECTOR SMITH. YES. IN REFERENCE TO NEW BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER ONE, CASE NUMBER P2025-003.08. THE APPLICANT LATICIA JOHNSON PROPERTY LOCATED AT ZERO HEADLAND DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-3 MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH THE CONCURRENT VARIANCE FROM SECTION TEN DASH 2065EC SIDE YARD SETBACK. CASE TYPE IS A REZONING WITH THE CONCURRENT VARIANCE. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND PRESENT YOUR CASE. YES, MA'AM. OKAY, BEFORE WE GET STARTED. I HAVE. A PUBLIC HEARING. RULES ARE AS FOLLOWS. PERSONS BOTH FAVORING AND OPPOSING THE PROPOSED CASE WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT FOR THE ZONE ZONING CASE OR THE APPLICANT'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, IF ANY, WILL BE ENTITLED TO SPEAK FIRST, FOLLOWED BY OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSAL FOR A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES. THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED ZONING CASE WILL THEN BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK FOR A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES. BY MAJORITY VOTE. THE COMMISSION MAY INCREASE THE TOTAL TIME OF SPEAKERS, PROVIDED THAT EACH SIDE IS GIVEN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SPEAKER FOR A SIDE, THE CHAIR OR THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY LIMIT THE TIME ALLOTTED TO EACH SPEAKER. INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER. OTHER THAN THE ZONING APPLICANT, THE ZONING APPLICANT MAY RESERVE A PORTION OF HIS OR HER ALLOTTED TIME FOR REBUTTAL.SPEAKERS MUST ADHERE TO THE RULES OF DECORUM PRIOR TO SPEAKING. EACH SPEAKER SHALL IDENTIFY HIM OR HERSELF AND STATE HIS OR HER CURRENT ADDRESS. EACH SPEAKER MUST SPEAK ONLY TO THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE. UNDER CONSIDERATION SHALL ADDRESS REMARKS ONLY TO THE COMMISSION, AND SHALL REFRAIN FROM MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ANY OTHER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY REFUSE A SPEAKER THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE.
IF, AFTER BEING AFTER FIRST BEING CAUTIONED, THE SPEAKER CONTINUES TO VIOLATE THE RULES OF DECORUM. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE HEARD OUR RULES FOR PUBLIC HEARING. WHAT DO I HEAR FROM THE COMMISSIONERS MOTION? DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND? IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND THAT WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. THE APPLICANT. YOU MAY GO AHEAD, BUT BEFORE I DO, I THINK COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN HAS A QUESTION. CORRECT. IT WAS TOTAL 15. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD EVENING? MY NAME IS LETICIA JOHNSON. I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER AT ZERO HEADLAND DRIVE. AND THE APPLICANT, JUST TO REITERATE, WE ARE LOOKING TO REZONE FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY TO R-3 MULTIFAMILY. JUST WANT TO ADD A PERSONAL TOUCH THAT I OWN THIS PROPERTY AND I DO WANT TO DEVELOP THE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO I PLAN TO LIVE HERE AS WELL. SO THIS WILL BE MY HOME ALSO. SO THE VISION FOR THE PROPERTY, THIS IS JUST THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE LOT I WE PLAN TO TRANSFORM AN UNDERUTILIZED CORNER LOT INTO A VIBRANT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. SO AGAIN THE CURRENT ZONING IS R-1.
WE'RE REQUESTING R-3 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED USE IS TO CREATE A RENTAL COMMUNITY. THE NUMBER OF UNITS IS EIGHT UNITS. EACH UNIT. EACH UNIT WOULD BE ABOUT 1800 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. THE BUILDING SIZE IS A LITTLE OVER 14,000FT■!S, AND EACH UNIT WOULD BE ABOUT FOUR BEDROOM, THREE FULL BATHROOMS. EACH UNIT WILL ALSO HOUSE ONE CAR GARAGE AND FOUR CAR PARKING PAD. SO ON THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS JUST A DEPICTION OF WHAT WE PROPOSE
[00:10:01]
THE UNITS TO LOOK LIKE. THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE FRONT STREET. AND THEN THE NEXT PAGE IS A RENDERING OF THE REAR. THAT'S WHERE THE FOUR CAR PARKING GARAGE IS LOCATED, AS WELL AS THE, EXCUSE ME, FOUR CAR PARKING PAD AND THE ONE CAR PARKING GARAGE. NEXT SLIDE IS REZONING JUSTIFICATION. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LOT WITH THE STAR ON IT IS THE LOT THAT I OWN ZERO HEADLAND DRIVE. IT'S A VERY BIG LOT. IT'S ABOUT MAYBE 4 TO 5 TIMES AS LARGE AS THE OTHER LOTS. SO IT'S A LOT OF SPACE. THE CURRENT ZONING IS R-1 ONCE AGAIN A SINGLE FAMILY, SO ONLY ONE HOME. IT'S UNDERUTILIZED FOR COMMUNITY HOUSING NEEDS. THE REQUESTED ZONING IS R-3. REASON BEING PROVIDES EIGHT UNIT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, WHICH IS A MODEST AND COMPATIBLE TRANSITION THAT ADDS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COHESION. ALSO JUST TO HIGHLIGHT IN ORANGE, JUST ADJACENT TO THE LOT, THERE IS A COMPATIBLE R-3 ZONING EXISTING WITHIN THE FACILITY, SO IT'D BE A SMOOTH AND BALANCED LAND USE TRANSITION. NEXT SLIDE IS WHY EIGHT UNITS EIGHT UNITS IS A FAMILY ORIENTED SCALE. WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN THE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FEEL WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S FAR SMALLER IN SCALE THAN 30 TO 60 PLUS UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT WOULD COULD BE APPROVED UNDER THE R-3 ZONING. THAT COULD BE PERMITTED. SO ALSO WANTED TO USE THE LOT EFFICIENTLY SINCE IT'S SO MUCH LARGER THAN THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL LOTS. EIGHT UNITS IS THE OPTIMAL BALANCE BETWEEN THE DENSITY AND THE LOTS. UNIQUE GEOMETRY SHAPE. IT ENSURES EFFECTIVE LAND USE WITHOUT OVERBURDENING, OVERBURDENING THE INFRASTRUCTURE. ALSO, IT EXPANDS ATTAINABLE HOUSING OPTIONS FOR FAMILIES WHO MAY BE PRICED OUT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR PURCHASE. THE NEXT SLIDE IS VARIANCE REQUEST. SO WE ARE REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE SIX FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO THREE FEET, ASKING MINIMAL RELIEF BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF THE LOT. IT'S A LITTLE UNEVEN TRAPEZOIDAL SHAPE, LOT GEOMETRY RESULTS IN IMPROPER POSITIONING OF THE BUILDING. RESTRICTS THE EXCUSE ME, RESTRICTS THE SITE USE IN A WAY THAT CAUSES BOTH PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC ECONOMICAL IMBALANCE. AND ALSO JUST WANTED TO ADD THE REDUCED SETBACK WILL FACE MOSTLY THE PUBLIC STREETS. SINCE IT IS A CORNER LOT, WE'RE ASKING TO JUST PULL THE BUILDING OVER MORE CLOSELY TO THE STREET. WE FEEL AS THOUGH THIS IS NO HARM TO THE PUBLIC DUE TO IT BEING ON A CORNER LOT IN ZERO IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS, TRAFFIC OR SAFETY IN THE PROJECT ALSO COMPLIES WITH ALL OTHER ZONING STANDARDS. THE NEXT PAGE IS JUST A DEPICTION OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. IT'S NOT COMPLETELY 100% TO SCALE, BUT JUST A SHOWING OF THE SITE PLAN OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. THE NEXT SLIDE IS TRAFFIC IMPACT. THIS IS A CHART TAKEN FROM THE CITY. IT SHOWS THE TRAFFIC THRESHOLDS PER CITY STANDARDS. TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIRED ONLY 4 OR 500 PLUS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR 700 PLUS MULTIFAMILY UNITS. OUR OUR PROPOSAL IS ONLY EIGHT UNITS, WHICH IS LESS THAN 1.2% OF THE THRESHOLD. SO JUST TO MAKE A POINT THAT THE IMPACT IS NEGLIGIBLE TO DAILY TRAFFIC INCREASE AND FAR BELOW THE THRESHOLD STUDY REQUIRED BY THE CITY. THE NEXT SLIDE IS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER'S VISION.FUTURE USE. PARDON ME HURTS CENTER'S VISION. FUTURE USE. OUR PROJECT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS EAST POINT'S NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER GOALS. SOME OF THE GOALS THAT ARE MENTIONED ARE. MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING 6 TO 8 UNITS PER ACRE. WE'RE ASKING FOR EIGHT UNITS. THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT FUTURE USE ARE LEANING TOWARDS IS E, R3, C1, MIX, AND KRE. WE'RE LOOKING TO REZONE THE R3. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CREATE A WALKABLE, MIXED USE, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY
[00:15:07]
ENVIRONMENT, REVITALIZING AND INFILL AND UNDERUTILIZED PARCEL. ALSO, WE WILL CREATE A REAL PARKING SITE DESIGN WHICH IS ALSO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER'S VISION. FUTURE USE IN INCREASE THE CURB APPEAL OF THE AREA. THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER GOALS DESIGN. SO AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE RIGHT THE. CENTER ROSE DESIGN IS THE PICTURE FROM THE CITY OF WHAT THE FUTURE USE. LOOKING TO LOOK FORWARD TO. SO JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE KIND OF MATCH THAT DESIGN WITH. THE WALKABLE SIDE STREETS. THE BUILDING FACING THE MAIN STREET, AS WELL AS REAR PARKING IN THE BACK FOR THE BUILDING. SO IT KIND OF PRETTY MUCH ALIGNS WITH THE FUTURE USE OF THE CITY DESIGN GOALS. THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE EXCUSE ME, THE ELEVATION. SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE FRONT AND BACK ELEVATION OF WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING AS FAR AS THE DESIGN GOALS FOR THE PROJECT. THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE INTERIOR LAYOUT, SO WE WANTED TO FOCUS ON SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFERENT, WHICH IS A FOUR BEDROOM, THREE BATHROOM. TYPICALLY IT'S USUALLY THREE BEDROOM, TWO TWO AND A HALF BATHROOM. THE REASON FOR WANTING TO HAVE AN OPTION TO HAVE A ONE BEDROOM ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR FOR MAYBE AN ELDERLY FAMILY MEMBERS OR HANDICAPABLE INDIVIDUALS AS WELL TO HAVE ACCESS TO BEDROOM AND LIVING. SO THAT'S THE LAYOUT. THE NEXT SLIDE IS JUST TO MENTION HIGH QUALITY AMENITIES ARE THREE STANDARDS SO EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE R3 CODE. MULTI-FAMILY, TOWNHOME AND COMMUNITY PROJECTS SHALL INCLUDE AN AMENITY PACKAGE OF TWO OR MORE AMENITIES. JUST WANTED TO MAKE A POINT THAT THIS PROJECT WILL FULLY COMPLY WITH ALL R3 AMENITY REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AND GREEN SPACE, DURABLE MASONRY AND ARCHITECTURAL MATERIALS, LIGHTING AND SAFETY FEATURES THAT IMPROVE THE STREETSCAPE AND RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES SUCH AS BIKE RACKS, BENCHES IN OUR GATHERING SPACES. THIS FURTHER ADDS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CITY CENTER'S VISION FOR FUTURE USE.AND THE NEXT SLIDE IS BENEFITS TO EAST POINT, GEORGIA. THIS PROJECT DELIVERS TIMELESS ARCHITECTURAL VALUE. IT ALIGNS WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDES EIGHT HIGH QUALITY, BRAND NEW, FAMILY SIZED HOMES, AND CREATES OPTIONS FOR FAMILIES WHO NEED MORE SPACE I.E. THE FOUR BEDROOM, THREE BATHROOM AND PARKING. IT'S SUPPORTIVE, WALKABLE AREA WITH COMMUNITY FEEL. REDEVELOPS RE VITALIZES UNDER UTILIZED CORNER LOT INTO PRODUCTIVE HOUSING AND EXPERIENCE THE CUSTOMER BASE FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES WHICH STRENGTHENS THE LOCAL ECONOMY. AND TO CONCLUDE, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE REZONING AND A VARIANCE APPROVAL FROM R1 TO R3, WHICH IS CONSISTENT TRANSITION AND EFFICIENT USE, AND ALSO THE VARIANCE SIDE YARD REDUCTION OF 6FT TO 3FT. MINIMUM LENGTH APARTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY, AND ALL OVERALL PROJECT BALANCE AND VALUE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE AND YOU MAY BE SEATED OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE THAT IS IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT? DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE IN FAVOR OF OR SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT? DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT DOES NOT APPROVE OF THIS PROJECT? PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. HELLO. MY NAME IS MYRA OVIATT. OVIATT. I'M AN 18 YEAR RESIDENT OF EASTPOINT, 2171 ELLENWOOD DRIVE. I AM DIRECTLY IN LINE OF IMPACT OF A DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBOR WHO REPRESENTS NOT ONLY HERSELF, ANISA AND ABERNATHY, BUT ALSO MYSELF AND ANOTHER NEIGHBOR HERE, BETH FLANAGAN. I'VE LIVED AT THIS ADDRESS FOR 18 YEARS. FOR CONTEXT, RIDGECREST AND
[00:20:03]
ELLENWOOD DRIVES ARE DEAD END STREETS. THEY INTERSECT ABOUT A BLOCK IN, AND THIS SITS DIRECTLY AT THE HEAD OF RIDGECREST. SO THAT'S SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. I'M GOING TO READ TO YOU A LETTER THAT ANISA SENT JUST TO READ IT INTO RECORD. YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS ALONG WITH HER SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS THAT SHE PROVIDED.WE'RE RESPECTFULLY ASKING THAT YOU READ THOSE ARGUMENTS AND THAT YOU DENY THIS VARIANCE.
THE APPLICATION FAILS TO MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS MISAPPLIES THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER DESIGNATION, AND REQUESTS A VARIANCE BASED ON SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP RATHER THAN UNIQUE PROPERTY CONSTRAINTS. MOST CONCERNING, IT SETS A PRECEDENT THAT UNDERMINES OUR WON PROTECTIONS THROUGHOUT EASTPOINT, WHILE PROVIDING NO PUBLIC BENEFIT AND ONLY MAXIMIZING DEVELOPER PROFIT THROUGH RESIDENTIAL RENTAL HOUSING DENSITY. ANISA IS UNABLE TO BE HERE TODAY DUE TO A FAMILY EMERGENCY, SO SHE HAS ASKED ME TO READ THIS. BUT THIS REPRESENTS MY FEELINGS, MY NEIGHBOR'S FEELINGS AS TO THIS VARIANCE. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT EXCEEDS SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, AND MISAPPLIES NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER DESIGNATION TO A RESIDENTIAL CORNER LOT WITH NO RETAIL SERVICES OR PUBLIC AMENITIES. IT CONSTITUTES SPOT ZONING. IT SINGLES OUT ONE PARCEL FOR R3, WHILE ALL SURROUNDING RIDGECREST LANE AND HEADLAND DRIVE PROPERTIES REMAIN R-1, BENEFITING ONE DEVELOPER AT NEIGHBORHOOD EXPENSE. VARIANCE FAILS LEGAL STANDARDS. BASED ON SELF-CREATED DESIGN CHOICE, EIGHT UNITS WON'T FIT PROPER SETBACKS, NOT UNIQUE PROPERTY.
HARDSHIP HARMS PUBLIC INTEREST BY PLACING BUILDINGS THREE FEET FROM HOMES. NO TRANSITIONAL FUNCTION EIGHT RENTAL TOWNHOMES PROVIDE ZERO SERVICES, RETAIL OR COMMUNITY AMENITIES. THIS SERVES DEVELOPER PROFIT, NOT LEGITIMATE PLANNING PURPOSE. NO PUBLIC BENEFIT. COMMUNITY RECEIVES NOTHING. DEVELOPERS RECEIVE DOUBLE DENSITY AND REDUCED SETBACKS FOR MAXIMUM RENTAL INCOME. NO INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS 800% DENSITY INCREASE WITH NO TRAFFIC. STUDY FOR RESIDENTIAL STREETS. AND HERE I'LL BREAK FROM ANISSA'S COMMENT TO ADD MY OWN. RIDGECREST AND ELLENWOOD ARE OFTEN CUT THROUGH FOR TRAFFIC AT HEADLAND AND DILLOW WHEN IT BECOMES INCREDIBLY BUSY, AND FOR TWO DEAD END STREETS WHEN TRAFFIC INCREASES. IT IS OBVIOUS WHEN WE SEE MORE TRAFFIC COMING DOWN THOSE STREETS. WE HAVE AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD AND ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. MY NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME HAVE BEEN THERE FOR NEARLY 50 YEARS, AND I WOULD SAY THAT MOST OF THE HOMES ON OUR TWO STREETS, THOSE NEIGHBORS, HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 20 PLUS YEARS. SO TO THAT END, WHILE CITY OF EASTPOINT MAY NOT REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY, THERE WILL BE FELT IMPACTS. THIS ALSO SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. IT REMOVES IT PROVES OUR ONE. PROTECTIONS ARE NEGOTIABLE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ARE MEANINGLESS. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST TO DENY THE R1 TO R3 REZONING, DENY THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, UPHOLD THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN YOU ADOPTED, AND PROTECT THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER. YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY NO TO INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT. WE URGE YOU TO EXERCISE IT, AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL ALSO REVISIT THE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION ANALYSIS THAT PROVIDES A MORE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF ALL THE WAYS THAT THIS VIOLATES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPOT ZONING, SPOT ZONING, VARIANCE, AGAIN, FAILING LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, TRANSITIONAL PLANNING FUNCTIONS, PUBLIC BENEFIT AND INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THAT'S IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT OPPOSES THIS PROJECT? PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE. COMMISSIONERS. WHAT DO I HEAR A MOTION. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND, IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER P2025 OR Z-00308. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED, DIRECTOR SMITH. GOOD EVENING. IN REFERENCE TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT HEADLAND DRIVE, CASE NUMBER P2025-00308. THE APPLICANT, LETICIA JOHNSON PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 0.73 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES IN SIZE, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-3 MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH A VARIANCE FROM SECTION TEN DASH 2065 FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. THIS
[00:25:09]
PROPERTY, AS STATED, IS ZONED R-1. IT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST AND COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH. THE NORTH SIDE IS R-1 AND THE WEST IT IS ZONED. R-1 AS WELL. ACROSS RIDGECREST, AROUND THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY IS AT OUR THREE MULTIFAMILY EXISTING RESIDENCE, IN REFERENCE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION. THIS PROPERTY SITS WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER TO. THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER DESIGNATION IS TO THE SOUTH, THE EAST, AND PORTIONS OF THE NORTH, AND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. LAND USE DESIGNATION. YOU'LL FIND THAT TYPICAL ZONINGS WITHIN THAT DESIGNATION IS OUR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL R3, C1, MIXED USE, AND CR WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION. RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AS FAR AS DENSITY IS CONCERNED, IS 6 TO 8 UNITS PER ACRE. BUT LET'S KEEP IN MIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT 0.73. 0.73. UNITS. I MEAN ACRES, 0.73 ACRE PLUS OR MINUS ACRE. AND IN REFERENCE TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FROM R1 TO R3 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. AND I'M GOING TO READ THEM INTO THE RECORD CONDITION NUMBER ONE, BASED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, WHICH ALLOWS USE IN SCALE 6 TO 8 UNITS PER ACRE.STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO CONSIST OF NO MORE THAN SIX DWELLING UNITS, BASED ON THE SITE BEING 0.73 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES. CONDITION NUMBER TWO THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH EVERGREEN PLANTINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG PROPERTY LINES ADJOINING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER SIX LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. CONDITION NUMBER THREE, THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLETE AN INFILL PROCESS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE J. BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND IN REFERENCE TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED SITE PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARDS FROM 6FT TO 3FT, AS IT WOULD NO LONGER BE NEEDED BASED ON CONDITION NUMBER ONE. THOSE ARE STAFF'S FINDINGS. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SMITH. COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO I HEAR? YES, WE NEED A MOTION, PLEASE. OH, YOUR MIC IS NOT ON, MADAM CHAIR. WE HAVE A MOTION TO DISCUSS. SECOND.
THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED IMPROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE OPEN THE FLOOR FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO DISCUSS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSE THIS HEARING. NONE. I SEE LIGHTS ON. QUESTION. YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER. MOTION TO DEFER.
NO, NO NO NO. DISCUSS. DISCUSS. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. SO NOW IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY ON THIS APPLICATION. COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN. YES, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A QUESTION. I SO I'M JUST GETTING CAUGHT UP TO SPEED ON THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS FROM THE MISS ABERNATHY IN THE. IT LOOKS LIKE THE THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT SHE SAID THAT SHE WANTED TO HAVE. IS THAT NOT NECESSARY FOR. AND I THINK I SAW THAT IN THE IN THE REPORT THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARY. THE CITY DOES NOT REQUIRE IT. OKAY.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS THAT'S ONE THING THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR. OKAY. THAT WAS SO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. AND IS IT TO THE TO DIRECTOR SMITH? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER. YES.
GO AHEAD PLEASE. COMMISSIONER, A COUPLE QUESTIONS JUST CONCERNING. IS YOUR MIC ON? OH, THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE THE PROPERTY AS I LOOK IN
[00:30:02]
THE, IN THE, WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A BUILDING THAT IS WITHIN THAT LINE. DOES DOES IS THAT PART OF THIS PROPERTY THAT WILL BE HANDLED DURING THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS? AND IF THERE IS A OVERSTEPPING OF BOUNDARIES, IF IT IS JUST AN OVERSTEP AS FAR AS OUR GIS SYSTEM, WE'RE UNSURE. SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE HANDLED THROUGH SURVEYS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF PLAN REVIEW. AND SO AND I GUESS MY SECONDARY QUESTION WAS THE THE. THE APPLICANT DOES NOT OWN THAT OTHER PARCEL. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, SHE DOES NOT. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION I SEE COMMISSIONER FILDES JOSEPH FIELDS. YES.THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY FAMILIES PER UNIT WILL DWELL IN IN THESE HOUSES. IS THAT IS THAT IS THAT A QUESTION? THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. YES.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY HOW MANY FAMILIES PER UNIT WILL BE DWELLING HERE. ONE FAMILY PER UNIT. PER UNIT. THANK YOU. CONCLUDE YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER JOEL.
SURE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN. MY QUESTION I, I HEARD LAST WEEK IN THE WORKSHOP THAT IT WAS STATED THAT THESE WERE GOING TO BE LEASED OUT IN RENTAL PROPERTIES, BUT TO THE OPPONENTS OF POINT, STRONGER COMMUNITIES ARE BUILT WITH LONG TERM RESIDENTS. JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT. ALSO, MY QUESTION WAS ABOUT FIRE BARRIER WALLS LAST WEEK. WHETHER IT'S 6 OR 8, WERE YOU GOING TO PROVIDE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AND PROVIDE AN UPDATED PLAN? I THINK WE DISCUSSED THAT, AND THAT'S THE QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT. YOU MAY COME BACK UP, PLEASE. YES, I HAVE PLANS WITH MY ARCHITECT. SO THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT FIRE PLAN THAT I COULD PROVIDE FOR YOU IF YOU NEED. DO YOU HAVE, I DON'T KNOW, EMAIL THAT I CAN SEND IT OVER TO YOU. TONIGHT IS WHEN WE WILL TAKE THE VOTE. I'M SORRY. SO ANY VISUALS THAT YOU HAVE. OKAY. WE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED TO SEE THAT TONIGHT. OKAY. YES, BUT THAT IS A. OKAY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OKAY.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, PLEASE. I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SPOT ZONING.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT REALLY UP ON ACTUALLY GRANTING. SO COMMISSIONER, IS THAT A QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT OR IS THAT ONE FOR DIRECTOR SMITH TO CONSIDER WHEN WE DECIDE ON WHETHER TO GRANT THIS OR NOT? I'D LIKE US TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT A SPOT ZONING DOES INTERRUPT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONFORMITY, AND IT DOES TEND TO. OPEN THE DOOR FOR OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS. AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS ABOUT THAT IS THAT IT IT DOES DESTROY NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE LONG RUN. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE US TO CONSIDER. SPOT ZONING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE NORMALLY WOULD ACTUALLY DO, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER IT'S. THE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN OR WHAT, WHAT HAVE YOU.
THE THING IS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DONE NOW. SO I JUST WANTED TO CONSIDER THAT THAT OBJECTION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? I'M SORRY. I'M JUST WANT TO MAKE THIS LIKE A COMPREHENSIVE QUESTION. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM THE CASE THAT THE THE COMMUNITY HAS SOME. HESITATION ABOUT THE PROJECT, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE ARE THAT THAT TO APPROVE IT. MY QUESTION WITH THE VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS. SO MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU WILLING TO GO BACK TO THE COMMUNITY AND HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH THEM ABOUT THE PROJECT? EVEN WITH THIS, WITH THE NEW CONDITIONS THAT THE
[00:35:01]
STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS SO, LET ME ASK BEFORE YOU ASK THAT, ATTORNEY WIGGINS, WILL THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK ONCE WE TAKE A VOTE? SO, NO, THE PROCESS WOULD BE THAT ONCE YOU GUYS VOTE, IT THEN GOES TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL. IF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL, AS THE FINAL ARBITER, DENIES, THEN SHE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REAPPLY FOR ANY OF THE ENTITLEMENTS FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS. IS IT A YEAR FOR A YEAR? AND SO AFTER THAT YEAR EXPIRES, THEN SHE CAN START THE PROCESS ALL OVER. AND SEEK COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT BEYOND WHAT SHE MAY HAVE ALREADY DONE. THE OTHER OPTION, OBVIOUSLY, IS THAT DON'T GO TO GET THE DENIAL.IF THERE IS SOME INTEREST OF THIS BOARD RECOMMENDING OR ENCOURAGING THE APPLICANT TO SEEK SOME MIDDLE GROUND WITH THE RESIDENTS AND MAYBE PRESENT A DIFFERENT APPLICATION, IT MAY LOOK DIFFERENT IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN. SO, COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN. IS THAT IN LINE WITH YOUR QUESTION OR DO YOU NEED TO REFRAME IT OR DO YOU? SIMILAR WITH THE QUESTION? I JUST IT'S A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF TIMING. SO IF SHE IF YOU GET IF THE APPLICANT IS DENIED TODAY THEN SHE WILL HAVE TIME BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME SHE MEETS WITH COUNCIL TO MAYBE HAVE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS, MAYBE WITH THE COMMUNITY OR NOT. SO I DON'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT WHAT COUNCIL WILL DO, BECAUSE THE MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY HAS ALREADY HAPPENED AND IN THE CYCLE IT THERE'S NOT ANOTHER ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU.
ATTORNEY WIGGINS. AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE ATTACHED SOME SOME CONDITIONS TO AN APARTMENT THAT'S TO BE BUILT AT ZERO TAYLOR. AND IT GRANTED THAT WAS DUE TO INSUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE NEIGHBORS, BUT IT CAN WE ATTACH A SIMILAR CONDITION TO THIS PARTICULAR. PROJECT THAT WAS PUT UPON WEST TAYLOR, WHICH IS AS IT WENT THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS, THE APPLICANT IS TO MEET AT LEAST ONE MORE TIME WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO SET THAT MEETING UP WITH THE NEIGHBORS. CERTAINLY, THAT'S A CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR BOARD TO ADD THAT AS A CONDITION, I WOULD CLARIFY THAT TO SAY THAT EVEN WITH THE WEIGHING IN OF THE COMMUNITY, THEIR INPUT CANNOT THEN VIOLATE OR BE IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS AS TO WHAT THE DESIGN MUST BE. GREAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SO DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I DON'T SEE ANY MORE LIGHTS ON. I DO SEE ONE FOR JOE PRESLEY, COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU MET WITH THE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA AND ALSO. WE. YEAH, LET'S LET'S START WITH THAT ONE. NO, I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO DO SO.
BUT NO, I HAVEN'T MET SPECIFICALLY ONE ON ONE OR HAD A MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY.
WE DID DO THE ANNOUNCEMENTS. WE MAILED OUT THE FLIERS. WE PUT UP THE SIGNAGE. BUT I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO COMMUNICATE WITH ANYONE I NEED TO. OKAY. I THINK I'M GOOD. SO THAT COMPLETES YOUR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER.
AM I TO UNDERSTAND THIS RIGHT? YOU DID THE MAILINGS FOR THE CCIM MEETING, BUT NOBODY SHOWED UP YET? NO, I THINK WHO? SHE MENTIONED THAT SHE WAS HERE FOR REPRESENTING. SHE SHOWED UP. IT WAS A FEW PEOPLE THAT SHOWED UP, BUT ONLY ONE PERSON HAD SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LOT, SO. AND I'D ANSWERED THOSE AT THE TIME. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, IT WAS A MEETING AND YOU'RE LIKE, PLEASE, I'M SORRY. THERE WAS A MEETING AND YOU DID HAVE A CHANCE TO MEET WITH THE COMMUNITY. OKAY. IS THAT CONSIDERED ONE? OKAY. THIS IS THE I AM, YES. OKAY. I'M
[00:40:04]
SORRY THEN. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YES. OKAY. JUST TO CLARIFY OKAY. SO BASICALLY ALL WE'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU FOLLOW THE PROCESS AND THE. YES, YES I DID. YES. AND THE MEETING.THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY THEY WERE INFORMED. YES OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? YES, MADAM CHAIR, NOT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. BUT IF YOUR BOARD IS DONE, I DO HAVE SOMETHING. IS IT NOW? IS NOW OKAY? YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT.
JUST THREE THINGS THAT I WANT TO BRING TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION. NUMBER ONE, I BELIEVE DIRECTOR SMITH NOTED THAT THERE IS 6 TO 8 UNITS PER ACRE. THIS IS LESS THAN AN ACRE.
I THINK SHE SAID 0.73. I DON'T KNOW IF THE MATH HAS BEEN DONE TO DETERMINE IF THE EIGHT UNITS.
I MEAN, I THINK IT'S EASY TO SAY EIGHT UNITS OBVIOUSLY IS TOO MANY FOR 0.73. AND SO THIS APPLICATION WOULD LIKELY NEED A VARIANCE FOR HAVING MORE UNITS THAN WHAT CAN BE ALLOWED ON 0.73 OF AN ACRE. THE SECOND THING IS WHETHER OR NOT FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THESE WOULD BE PLATTED AS FEE SIMPLE OR LIKE AS TOWNHOUSES. AND THEN LASTLY, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, BASED ON STAFF'S PRESENTATION, THAT THE COMP PLAN DENOTES THIS AREA AS COMMERCIAL, AND IT'S CURRENTLY R-1. AND SO WE WOULD ALSO NEED TO HAVE THE BOARD CONSIDER A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, BECAUSE THE REZONING, IF APPROVED, WOULD NOT BE TO WHAT THE COMP PLAN SAYS IT WOULD BE TO SOMETHING ELSE. THANK YOU. AND I DO REMEMBER DIRECTOR SMITH SAYING THAT WAS THAT A CONDITION FROM 8 TO 6 UNITS? WAS THAT STAFF'S CONDITION? NO, NOT MADAM CHAIR. SIR. THE THE COMP PLAN ALLOWS A DENSITY OF 6 TO 8 UNITS PER ACRE. PER ACRE.
THIS SITE IS 0.73 ACRES. FOR THE MOST PART, ON THE LOW END, SHE'S ALLOWED 4.38 UNITS. ON THE HIGH END, SHE'S ALLOWED 5.84. SO THAT'S WHERE STAFF BASICALLY GOT THEIR RECOMMENDATION OF NO MORE THAN SIX UNITS FOR THE SITE. COMMISSIONERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS? ONE MORE. YES, SIR. THOUGHT, MADAM CHAIR, GIVEN WHAT THE HONORABLE ATTORNEY SAID, THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED DOUBLE SPOT ZONING, WHICH WE CAN ALMOST ONE FOR THE R3 AND ALSO THE NEXT FOR BEING LESS THAN AN ACRE, WHETHER IT BE 5.8 OR 6. SO THAT THAT'S GOING TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT SOMEBODY CAN COME BACK HISTORICALLY AND SAY, WERE YOU DONE IT IN 2025? SO IN 2023, IF SOMEBODY WERE TO CHALLENGE THIS, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF LEGS TO STAND ON. JUST MY THOUGHTS. SO LET ME GO TO ATTORNEY WIGGINS. I SEE YOU MAY HAVE SOME COMMENTS THERE. YEAH. BOTH DIRECTOR SMITH AND I WERE BOTH LIKE SHAKING OUR HEADS. SO NO DOUBLE SPOT ZONING IS NOT WHAT THAT WOULD BE. IT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE SPOT ZONING WITH THE R3. THE ONLY THING I BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE COMP PLAN IS THAT YOUR COMP PLAN DID NOT ANTICIPATE FOR THIS AREA TO BE RESIDENTIAL. IT ANTICIPATED THIS AREA TO BE COMMERCIAL. AND SO THE ONLY THING I WAS SAYING WAS WE WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN TO REFLECT THAT. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO I HEAR FOR THIS APPLICATION? CAN I GET A. CAN WE GET A MOTION PLEASE? AND BEFORE WE GET THE MOTION I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. SO WILL WE NEED POSSIBLY NEED TWO MOTIONS ATTORNEY WIGGINS ONE FOR THE COMP PLAN. ARE WE CHANGING ANYTHING. SO YOU'VE GOT TWO ASKS RIGHT NOW. YOU HAVE A MOTION. YOU HAVE A VARIANCE AND A VARIANCE I DO WOULD NEED TO PAUSE TO ASK DIRECTOR SMITH. IS THAT COMMONLY THE PRACTICE TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN AT THE TIME WHEN THE REQUEST IS TO DO SOMETHING NOT IN THE COMP PLAN? BASED ON PAST INTERPRETATIONS OF THAT COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, IT'S BEEN STATED THAT IT'S IMPLIED THAT
[00:45:05]
IT'S THAT IT'S AMENDMENT, THAT IT'S AMENDED. IF IT IF THE ZONING IS APPROVED, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. OKAY. SO IN THE ORDINANCE, IF, IF THIS WERE APPROVED, IT COULD REFLECT THAT.OKAY. SO THEN YES TWO ONLY TWO VOTES. ONE ON THE REZONING, ONE ON THE VARIANCE. AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. SO IF ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD IS SEEKING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THEY NOTE THAT THERE ARE CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE BEFORE US. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE TWO MOTIONS. IF THE FIRST ONE IS TO APPROVE. SO LET'S GO THAT ROUTE FIRST. MADAM CHAIR. YES, COMMISSIONER. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. SECOND. AND IS THAT JUST AN EXAMPLE, SIR? NO, THE WHOLE THING. I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE TWO MOTIONS. RIGHT? IS IS BIFURCATED BECAUSE ONE IS FOR APPROVAL, ONE IS FOR DENIAL. SO I THINK YOU NEED TO BIFURCATE YOUR MOTION AS WELL. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY BOTH BOTH RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THEN ONE. WILL BE APPROVED. THE VARIANCE. IT DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS.
YES YES THAT WILL BE THE CLEANEST THING TO DO IS TO HAVE TWO MOTIONS. OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION, MADAM CHAIR, THAT WE. THAT WE DENY THE FIRST MOTION. DENY, DENY THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN WE APPROVE THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION. WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO ONE AT A TIME. SO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, I BELIEVE, TO DENY OR APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO MR. COMMISSIONER MILLER'S MOTION IS TO REJECT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE REZONING. CORRECT. OKAY. SO YOU NEED TO SAY THAT, NOT ME. STAFF RECOMMEND THE MOTION. I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DENY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ZONING. SECOND. SECOND, WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND, I BELIEVE THAT WAS COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN. THAT SECOND, IT HAS BEEN MOVED IMPROPERLY. SECOND, THAT. THE BOARD DENIES THE VARIANCE. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE REZONING.
ON THE REZONING, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSES HEARING NONE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE REZONING IS DENIED. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. COMMISSIONER MILLER. YES? GO AHEAD WITH YOUR MOTION, PLEASE. I MAKE A MOTION THAT I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE. SECOND, IT HAS BEEN MOVED IMPROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE VARIANCE DENIAL OF THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE VARIANCE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I HEARING NONE. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL IS APPROVED. THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE
[VIII. 2 P2025V-001-08]
AGENDA, CASE NUMBER P2025-00108. THE APPLICANT IS ARVIN SHANNON. EXCUSE ME. PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 906 CLEVELAND AVENUE. CASE TYPE IS A VARIANCE. THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS APPLICATION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. I'M SORRY, DIRECTOR SMITH. COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE HEARD FROM DIRECTOR SMITH THAT THE APPLICANT ON P2025. P2025-00108 HAS SUBMITTED AN REQUEST TO WITHDRAW. CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE, TO ACCEPT THE[00:50:01]
WITHDRAWAL MOTION TO PUBLIC HEARING. IS THIS. OH. DO WE HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? WE JUST CAN'T JUST ACCEPT THAT. CAN I GET A MOTION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT HAS BEEN MOVED IMPROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER TWO, P2025. DASH 001, DASH ZERO EIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I, I UP. DO I HEAR ANY DENIALS? HEARING NONE. IT HAS BEEN APPROVED THAT WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. YES. WE DO NOT SEE THE APPLICANT AND STAFF HAS RECEIVED A REQUEST TO WITHDRAW. THE MOTION OF THE EXERCISE OF OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH YOU'VE DONE. SO NOW THAT WE KNOW THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE, YOU NEED TO ASK IS ANYONE IN FAVOR OR IF ANYONE.OKAY. SMITH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN FAVOR OF CASE NUMBER 2P2025V AS IN VICTOR DASH 001. DASH ZERO EIGHT. ANYONE IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION? IS THERE ANYONE HERE OPPOSING THIS APPLICATION? I DO SEE TWO PEOPLE THAT WANT TO OPPOSE THE APPLICATION. IS IT PROPER TO HAVE THEM COME UP AND EXPRESS THEMSELVES? PLEASE COME DOWN. GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. HELLO. MY NAME IS NYLA. I PROPERTY ADDRESS ADJACENT TO 918 CLEVELAND AVENUE, AND WE REPRESENT THE OWNERS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE CONCERN HERE IS THAT WHEN THEY DID THE FIRST. REPAVING OF THEIR LOT, THEY ACTUALLY CROSSED THE BOUNDARY LINES TO OUR LOT. AND THEY HAVE BEEN ELUSIVE. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RESPONSIVE. SO OUR CONCERN IS THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERATE OF BOUNDARIES AND THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION, WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO DO SO AND SO THAT IT WOULD BE DENIED UNTIL THEY AT LEAST RECTIFY THEIR CURRENT SITUATION WITH THE CURRENT OWNERS. THANK YOU. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR. THAT CONCLUDES MY STATEMENT, YOUR STATEMENT. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY PLEASE IN YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS? JAKARI WILCOX. SAME ADDRESS IN JUST IN ADDITION TO WHAT? MINE. THIS IS MY SISTER. SO IN ADDITION TO WHAT MY SISTER SAID, WE HAVE ATTENDED AND SPOKE WITH BOTH AMEN AND ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL. WE REQUESTED THAT THEY REMOVE THE PARKING LINES THAT WERE THERE AND THE. THE BARRIERS THAT WE HAVE. THEY LAID THE ASPHALT CONCRETE. WE DIDN'T EVEN REQUEST THAT THAT BE REMOVED, BUT THEY JUST HAVE FAILED, LIKE SHE SAID, TO COMMUNICATE WITH US AT ALL. THEY DID WITHDRAW THIS APPLICATION THOUGH, AFTER OUR COMMUNICATION. THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT IS IN OPPOSITION OF THIS APPLICANT'S REQUEST? HEARING? NONE. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW MOTION. MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND, A SECOND, SECOND. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON P2025V AS IN VICTOR DASH 001-08.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT CLOSED. DIRECTOR SMITH. THE NEXT CASE. WITHDRAWALS. IN REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER P2025001, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A WITHDRAWAL. A WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL VIA EMAIL TODAY, OCTOBER 16TH, 2025. THANK YOU. SO DOES THAT CONCLUDE? SO WE NEED A MOTION NOW TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANTS WITHDRAWAL. YES. PLEASE. TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION APPLICANTS WITHDRAWAL. SECOND. SECOND. MOVED IMPROPERLY. SECOND THAT WE ACCEPT THE APPLICANTS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW P2025V AS IN VICTOR 001-08. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. WE HEARING NONE. IT HAS BEEN
[00:55:01]
ACCEPTED THAT WE APPROVE OF THE APPLICANTS WITHDRAWAL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I I HEARING NONE. THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR SMITH. MADAM CHAIR, IN REFERENCE TO ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA KNOWN AS CASE[VIII. 3 P2025V-001-09, P2025V-002-09]
NUMBER P2025V, THAT'S ZERO. 001-09. AND CASE NUMBER P2025 .002-09. THIS CASE ACTUALLY DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY ZONING INFORMATION MEETING, AND IS THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS AGENDA THIS EVENING. THEY WILL COME BACK NEXT MONTH. IS THERE ANY ACTION HERE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS? YES. ATTORNEY WIGGINS YES, MADAM CHAIR, IF THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE APPLICATION BECOMES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STEPS THAT ARE NECESSARY PRIOR TO GETTING HERE. THAT WAY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE A DATE CERTAIN, BUT IT'S AN ACTION THAT MUST HAPPEN BEFORE YOU GUYS CAN PICK IT BACK UP OFF THE TABLE. THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU.COMMISSIONERS, CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE? MOTION TO MOTION TO LAID ON THE TABLE.
UNTIL SECOND. IT HAS BEEN MOVED IMPROPERLY. SECOND, THAT CASE P2025-001. DASH ZERO NINE. IS THAT A JOINT CASE? YES IT IS. AND P2025V AS IN VICTOR DASH 002-09 THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTING AND THAT WE WILL. ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO NOT HAVE THIS ONE COME BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS. BOARD, AND PERHAPS COME BACK AT A LATER DATE THAT WE DON'T, ONCE THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE, ALL CAN AND CAN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD. I OPPOSE THIS HEARING. NONE. IT HAS BEEN MOTION AND ACCEPTED THAT WE WILL NOT HEAR CASE NUMBER 3P2025V AS IN VICTOR DASH 001, DASH ZERO NINE AND P2025002-9. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I, I. ALL THOSE. THAT'S IT, THAT'S IT. WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO THAT CONCLUDES THAT PARTICULAR CASE.
NOW WE ARE ON CASE NUMBER FOUR. IS THAT RIGHT DIRECTOR SMITH? THAT'S CORRECT. IN REFERENCE TO
[VIII. 4 P2025V-002-08]
ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA, CASE NUMBER P2025 .02.08. THE APPLICANT IS LANCE MUELLER.PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1917 THOMPSON AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION TEN DASH 12021 STREAM BUFFER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CASE TYPE IS VARIANCE. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. JESUS CHRIST, THE MICROPHONE. OH. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS LANCE MUELLER AND I LIVE AT 220 GREENWOOD CIRCLE IN DECATUR, GEORGIA. THANK YOU. YOU MAY PROCEED WITH YOUR CASE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. GREAT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS LANCE MULLER AND I REPRESENT 1917 THOMPSON AVENUE FOR THE VARIANCE. DURING THE CCIM. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OPPOSITION AT THAT TIME THAT I WAS AWARE OF. SO WE HAD NOT MADE ANY OTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR VARIANCE SINCE THEN. IN THE WORKSHOP MEETING, I THINK, COMMISSIONER JOEL, I BELIEVE, ASKED TO UPDATE THE SITE PLAN SHOWING APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOOTPRINT WITH THE
[01:00:03]
PROPOSED DECK, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PICTURE SHOWING CURRENT BACKSIDE OF THE HOUSE WHERE THE DECK WILL BE ATTACHED. AND THAT'S WHY OUR SUBMITTAL PACKET IS CHANGED FROM LAST WEEK TO THIS WEEK. AND BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS PUT IN A MODEST 12 BY 20 WOODEN DECK ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, AND OUR HARDSHIPS ARE IT'S AN EXCEPTIONAL LOT CONDITION CREATING HARDSHIP. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC AND LOT LAYOUT CONDITIONS DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING CREEK. IT'S ASSOCIATED 50 FOOT VEGETATIVE BUFFER IN THE 75 FOOT IMPERVIOUS SETBACK, THE MINIMUM NECESSARY RELIEF. THE REQUEST IS FOR A MODEST 12 BY 20 DECK. THE SMALLER FEASIBLE SIZE, WE'D SAY, TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND FUNCTIONAL USE LOCATED OFF THE EXISTING REAR ENTRY. NO SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT, IN OUR OPINION, TO THE PUBLIC GOOD, OR IMPAIR THE PROPOSED INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. NO EXPANSION OR NON-CONFORMING USE. THE VARIANCE DOES NOT INVOLVE EXPANSION OR ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING USE OF LAND BUILDING STRUCTURE AND COMBINATION, AND NO REESTABLISHMENT OF NON-CONFORMING USE. THE VARIANCE DOES NOT INVOLVE EXPANSION AGAIN, OR ENLARGEMENT OR NONCONFORMING USE OF LAND. OUR CURRENT CONDITIONS. YOU CAN SEE, IF YOU START FROM THE LEFT, MOVING TO THE RIGHT, JUST LOOKING TOWARDS THE BACK OF OUR LOT. IT'S A VERY, VERY STEEP HILL. AND THEN THERE'S LOTS OF TREES THAT WE ARE NOT AFFECTING THEIR CRITICAL ROOT ZONES AT ALL. AND THE STREAM IS IN THE CENTER OF THE PICTURE. AND VISIBLY IT IT SEEMS, YOU KNOW, FURTHER THAN IT APPEARS, BECAUSE WHEN WE HAD OUR SURVEY COMPANY GO OUT THERE, THEY SURVEYED THE STREAM BEING ONLY 50FT FROM THE DECK, AND THEN THE LAST PROPOSED DECK AREA.PICTURE SHOWS LIKE WHAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE AS OF LAST WEEK, AND THEN SHOWING OUR SILT FENCE AND OUR TREE PROTECTION FENCE FOR THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE THAT WE'VE BEEN RENOVATING, BUT NOT WHERE THE PROPOSED DECK'S GOING. BUT THE BAND ON THE THE BOTTOM OF THE SIDING IS WHERE WE PROPOSED TO PUT THE DECK TO ATTACH IT. THE SURVEY SHOWS THE DECK ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOPO LINES, AND IF YOU WERE TO COUNT UP EACH LINE, IT'S A 2.2FT CONTOUR. OUR TOPO IS SHOWING THAT THE DECK ITSELF, OR SORRY, THE THE FOUNDATION OF THE STRUCTURE IS 31.5FT ABOVE THE STREAM. THE DECK IS GOING TO BE EIGHT FEET ABOVE THAT. SO THE DECK IS GOING TO BE APPROXIMATELY 39FT ABOVE THE STREAM. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE'VE TALKED IN THE WORKSHOP WAS IF THE. HOUSE WAS IN A FLOODPLAIN AND IT'S NOT IN A FLOODPLAIN AND THE DECK IS NOT IN A FLOODPLAIN. AND THEN THE LAST PAGE, WELL, SORRY, THE SECOND LAST PAGE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DECK. IT'S GOING TO BE A WOODEN PRESSURE TREATED DECK. THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY STAIRS GOING DOWN. THIS PICTURE MISREPRESENTS WHAT WOULD BE UNDERNEATH THE DECK. WE WOULD JUST HAVE SIMPLY PINE STRAW UNDERNEATH THE DECK SO WE WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED. ADDING TO THE IMPERVIOUS FOOTPRINT UNDERNEATH THE DECK. AND THEN OUR KEY DETAILS. THE REQUEST DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND, IN OUR OPINION, THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD RELIEF AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, AS DECKS ARE A COMMON ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT. THE DECK WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH PERVIOUS MATERIALS AND SUPPORTED ON PIERS, PRESERVING THE GROUND COVER AND NATURAL INFILTRATION. ALL MATURE VEGETATION IN THE BUFFER WILL REMAIN IN.
ADDITIONAL NATIVE PLANTINGS WILL BE ADDED AS MITIGATION. THESE MEASURES PROTECT WATER QUALITY AND STREAMBANK STABILITY, UPHOLDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS OF THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE BUFFER ORDINANCE TO THIS PROPERTY RESULTS IN A UNIQUE HARDSHIP, BECAUSE THE REAR YARD IS ENTIRELY WITHIN REGULATED
[01:05:02]
BUFFERS AND PREVENTS ANY REASONABLE OUTDOOR IMPROVEMENT, SUCH AS SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS A FLAT YARD WITH GRASS OR A PLAYGROUND. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION? THAT DOES CONCLUDE, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT IS IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT? I'M SORRY. SAY THAT AGAIN. THE LAST PART. I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.SO OFTEN. I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THERE WAS ANYONE HERE IN FAVOR OF. YEAH, I DID CATCH MYSELF.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MILLER, IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT? IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT? IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT IS OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT? IS THERE ANYONE HERE OPPOSE THIS? OPPOSING THIS PROJECT? SEEING NONE. I DON'T SEE ANYONE COMING FORWARD. COMMISSIONERS. WHAT DO I, MADAM CHAIR? YES, SIR. MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND, IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I HERE. ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. THANK YOU. SO FROM THE COMMISSIONERS TO THE APPLICANT. NO. MADAM CHAIR AND FELLOW FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, IN REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER P202500208, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1917 THOMPSON AVENUE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FROM SECTION TEN DASH 12021 STREAM BUFFER SETBACKS.
COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE HEARD FROM STAFF. WHAT DO I HEAR? WELL, MADAM CHAIR, YES, SIR. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE APPROVAL SUGGESTION BY THE DIRECTOR AND APPROVED. THANK YOU. DO I GET A SECOND? SECOND? IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE ACCEPT THAT THE COMMISSION IS ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD. I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND THE PROJECT IS APPROVED. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR SMITH. THE NEXT CASE,
[VIII. 5 P2025U-004-08]
PLEASE. YES, MADAM CHAIR, IN REFERENCE TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, CASE NUMBER P2025U-00408. THE APPLICANT IS RICHARD WINFREY. PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2478 WOODHILL LANE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A USE PERMIT FOR A HABITABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PER SECTION TEN 2130. CASE TYPE IS A VARIANCE. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YOU MAY COME FORWARD. APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. YOU MAY COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS RICHARD WINFREY. MY ADDRESS IS 9268 BERRY DRIVE. THANK YOU. YOU MAY GO AHEAD WITH YOUR PRESENTATION, PLEASE. YES. I'M HERE REPRESENTING ROBIN SHIP, THE HOMEOWNER WHO WISHES TO PUT AN ADU IN HER BACKYARD. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO AS WE'RE USING THE PACKETS, ONE OF THE COMMENTS FROM STAFF WAS THAT WE PROVIDE VISUALS OF THE HOME FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES, SO WE PROVIDED THEM FRONT AND BACK. AND FOR PURPOSES OF MAKING THIS EASY, I'LL JUST DESCRIBE EACH PAGE AS IT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU GUYS IN THE PACKAGE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THE FIRST PAGE IS THE FRONT OF THE HOME, AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE SIGNS FOR THE APPLICATION HERE, IF YOU GO BACK ON THE BACKSIDE OF THAT PAGE, WE WENT TO THE BACK OF THE HOME AND PROVIDED A VISUAL OF THE BACKYARD WITH THE LEFT SIDE BEHIND. THE BIG TREE WOULD[01:10:07]
BE THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WHERE THE ADU WOULD BE LOCATED. IF YOU GO TO THE THIRD PAGE, IT GIVES YOU A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE LOCATION WHERE THE ADU BE LOCATED. ALSO, YOU CAN SEE A PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE WHERE THE HOUSE SLOPES DOWN.EXPLAINED THAT THE LAST TIME THE HOUSE SLOPES DOWN AND THERE'S A GARAGE ON THE BOTTOM SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT PAGE TO GIVE YOU A SITE PLAN. VIEW OF THE STRUCTURE FROM WOODHILL. AT THE TOP DRIVEWAY COMES DOWN. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR THE ADU IS IN THE BACK, PRETTY MUCH DIRECTLY BEHIND THE DRIVEWAY. THE VISUAL ALSO PROVIDES DETAILS REGARDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, REQUIREMENTS THAT THE ADU NEEDS TO BE FROM THE ORIGINAL HOME, AND. PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH PUTTING THIS UNIT ON THE PROPERTY. THE NEXT PAGE IS REALLY NOT RELEVANT TO THIS PRESENTATION, JUST PART OF THE PACKET. THE FOLLOWING PAGE PROVIDES A INTERIOR VIEW OF THE UNIT WHERE SHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SINGLE BEDROOM THAT HAS A BATHROOM WITHIN THE MIDDLE OF IT, A SMALL OFFICE BEHIND IT, AND ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THE UNIT THERE WILL BE A KITCHEN, DINETTE AND DEN AREA. ALSO, THERE'S A FRONT PORCH THERE. AS WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, IF YOU TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE, EXCUSE ME, THAT SHOWED THE ELEVATIONS FROM EACH ANGLE OF THE ADU. THE ADU SIZE IS 30 BY 15 450 SQUARE FOOT. THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, IN ADDITION TO THE HOME SQUARE FOOTAGE, MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAND USE ON THAT PARTICULAR ACREAGE AND SIZE. I THINK THAT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION FOR THE HOME. FROM THE LAST MEETING. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION FROM THE COMMUNITY MEETING, BUT AGAIN, WE DID WANT TO ADDRESS THE PHOTOS THAT WERE REQUESTED BY THE BOARD. SO WE PROVIDED THOSE HERE. THANK YOU. SO DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION? THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT? ANYONE IN SUPPORT? DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT? YOU MAY COME FORWARD.
AND SIR YOU MAY SIT. BE SEATED PLEASE. THANK YOU. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DEBORAH JOSEPH. I LIVE AT 2469 WOODHILL LANE, WHICH IS ACROSS FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. YES. GO AHEAD PLEASE. THANK YOU. I AM IN OPPOSITION. WE LIVE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT'S STRICTLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND THERE'S ONLY ONE HOME ON EACH LOT. I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS WILL SET A PRECEDENT THAT WILL CHANGE THE DENSITY AND POPULATION OF OUR AREA. AND ALSO IT'S A COMMUNITY WHERE IT'S MAINLY ELDERLY AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES AS WELL WITH HAVING A TINY HOME IN THE BACK OF A LOT. WILL THERE BE AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY SO THAT TINY HOME CAN HAVE ITS OWN DRIVEWAY? YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS. UNFORTUNATELY. LIKE I SAID, A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORS ARE ELDERLY. WE HAVE AN ACTIVE COMMUNITY GROUP, AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR OPPOSITION? YES. THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONERS. WHAT DO I HEAR SEEING THE CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER P2025. DASH 004-08. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. COMMISSIONERS. MADAM CHAIR, MAKE A MOTION FOR
[01:15:04]
DISCUSSION, PLEASE. DISCUSSION, PLEASE. SECOND. YOU MAY GO AHEAD WITH YOUR DISCUSSION. OH, JUST ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF OPENING FOR DISCUSSION. LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD. I OPPOSE THIS HEARING. NONE. COMMISSIONERS, YOU MAY GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENTS. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO BE ASK A QUESTION. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE PROCEDURES FOR NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC AND HAVING THE MEETING WERE MET, IS THAT CORRECT? DIRECTOR SMITH? DIRECTOR SMITH.THIS APPLICATION MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMUNITIES ONLY INFORMATION MEETING REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. AND I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. YES, PLEASE.
SO JUST IN TERMS OF THE THE THE THE ADU IN TERMS OF. LIKE PLUMBING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IS THAT ALREADY HAS THAT BEEN CONSIDERED WITH THE WITH WOULD THAT WOULD HE NEED YOU NEED TO EXTEND THAT OUT TO THE BACK AS WELL TO THE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT. I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE, THE. YEAH OKAY. THAT YOU MAY COME TO THE MIC PLEASE. THANK YOU. YES.
THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. AND ALSO WE WOULD BE HANDLING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS OKAY.
WHICH IS WHERE ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE MET TO GET APPROVAL TO GET TO SEAL STAGE. ALL RIGHT. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO QUESTIONS THAT I HAD. THANK YOU. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY, DIRECTOR MINA, WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. PLEASE GO AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE OCCUPANT OF THE ADU IS GOING TO BE THE MOTHER OF THE HOMEOWNER, OR THE DAUGHTER OF A HOMEOWNER. YES, SHE IS ACTUALLY THE HOMEOWNER. THE HOMEOWNER. HER MOTHER LIVES IN THE MAIN HOME, RIGHT? SHE LIVES ON ANOTHER STREET BECAUSE OF HEALTH REASONS. SHE IS MOVING IN THE ADU AND SELLING THE OTHER HOME. THAT'S NOT RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION. SO IT'S OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THE THAT THE CARE IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE ACTUAL OCCUPANTS ARE CLEAR TO EVERYONE THAT IT IS A MOTHER DAUGHTER OCCUPATION OF BOTH HOME AND ADU, AND THAT THERE WON'T BE STRANGERS COMING IN AND LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. OKAY. DOES THAT COMPLETE YOUR QUESTION? I SEE, COMMISSIONER FIELDS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. SO HOW THERE'S NOT A WAY TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE OCCUPANT WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE ADU. ARE YOU EXTENDING THE DRIVEWAY OR BECAUSE THERE'S A FENCE LINE THERE? AND SO HOW WOULD THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE ADU. SO THE FENCE THAT YOU SEE ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY, THERE IS AN OPENING TO GET TO THE BACKYARD. WE WILL BE DESIGNING A WALKWAY FROM THAT PARTICULAR BOTTOM OF THE DRIVEWAY TO THE ADU. AND ALSO WE MADE SURE THAT THE DRIVEWAY, THE PARKING AREA, EVERYTHING MEETS CODE AS FAR AS THE LIVING SPACE AND NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT ARE TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN THAT DRIVEWAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, COMMISSIONER PRESLEY. YES, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'M NOT SURE OF ANY ON THE BOARD. RECALL, WE HAD A A SIMILAR SITUATION TO THIS WHERE I HAD SOMEWHAT OF A I DON'T WANT TO SAY A PREJUDICE, BUT CHAIRMAN SEAN ATKINS WAS VERY MINDFUL TO TO CAUTION ME THAT WE CANNOT CREATE A BIAS OR PREJUDICE AGAINST A HOMEOWNER OF WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO WITH THEIR ADU. I'M NOT SURE IF ANYBODY ON THE BOARD RECALLS THAT PARTICULAR CASE, BECAUSE I WAS LEERY THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE AN AIRBNB WITH IT. SO JUST FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES, THAT'S ALL. I'M BRINGING THAT UP. I THINK WE UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND THIS MAY BE FOR STAFF. I KNOW YOU SENT YOU SENT THE CARDS OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE AT THE MEETING? I DON'T REMEMBER BECAUSE THAT MEETING WAS ONLINE. CORRECT. SO THAT'S NOT A
[01:20:11]
QUESTION I THINK WE CAN ASK, I MEAN ANSWER OKAY. WELL, I DO KNOW I RECEIVED NUMEROUS CALLS FROM EVERYONE ON THAT STREET. WELL, A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THE STREET AND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUST WANTING TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF WHAT THE CARD WAS FOR. ACTUALLY, I THINK I SPOKE WITH THIS NEIGHBOR HERE. IF IT'S THE SAME ONE THAT TOLD ME SHE LIVED ACROSS THE STREET AND I EXPLAINED IN DETAIL WITH HER, IN ADDITION TO SEVERAL OTHER NEIGHBORS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, AND WELCOMED THEM TO BE INVOLVED IN THE MEETING. SO WHEN WE GOT TO THE MEETING, I DON'T RECALL ANYONE SPEAKING OUT AT THAT POINT, BUT WE SENT THE CARDS OUT. I GOT RESPONSES FROM NUMEROUS NEIGHBORS, SO WE DID SPEAK TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT I'M NOT SURE WE GOT ANYBODY TO SPEAK AT THE MEETING. FOR THE COMMUNITY MEETING. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION, COMMISSIONERS. WHAT DO I HEAR? I'M SORRY YOU HAVE HEARD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. NO, MY. I'M SORRY. SORRY TO KEEP GOING BACK TO THIS BECAUSE I'M JUST NOT CLEAR ON IT IF THE COMMUNITY HASN'T. I'M SORRY. YEAH. IF THE COMMUNITY HASN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN, I KNOW THAT THIS THEY DON'T NECESSARILY DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE APPROVE OR DENY. SO I GUESS MY CHALLENGE IS THAT THEY THEY DIDN'T COME TO THE MEETING OR THEY THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO THE MEETING. I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS ON IT WAS ONLINE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS IN THE MEETING. SO WE HAVE THE PROCESS WHERE WE DO THE FIRST MEETING FOR THE COMMUNITY, RIGHT? WE DO A MEETING WITH STAFF. I GUESS THAT'S CONSIDERED WORKSHOP. AND THEN WE'RE HERE AT THIS MEETING. SO THE COMMUNITY MEETING, WE CREATED CARDS. WE PUT ALL THE CARDS OUT WITHIN 500FT IN ALL DIRECTIONS. WE PUT UP THE SIGNS WHICH YOU SAW IN THE PACKAGE, ACCORDING TO THE DATES AND TIMES THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO IT, AND WE SHOWED UP AT EACH ONE OF THE MEETINGS. OKAY. THAT'S IT. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.OKAY. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR SMITH, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THAT ANSWER? I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WERE FULFILLED IN REFERENCE TO PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS, THE COMMUNITY ZONING INFORMATION MEETING, THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS, SIGNS WERE PLACED OUT ON THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT HAS FULFILLED ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THEY DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER WHETHER PEOPLE LOG ON TO THE COMMUNITY'S OWN INFORMATION MEETING. IT'S HELD VIA THE ZOOM PLATFORM, SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE CONTROL OVER WHO LOGS ON TO THE MEETING. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS, I SEE COMMISSIONER. SORRY. YES. GO AHEAD PLEASE. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE, AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT ACCORDING TO THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WERE SIX CITIZENS IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE SEASON MEETING OVER ZOOM IN ADDITION TO THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU. DO NOT SEE ANY OTHER HANDS. WHAT DO I HEAR FROM COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE? STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. YES. STAFF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, IN REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER P2025200408, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2478 WARD HILL LANE. STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE USE PERMIT FOR A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. THAT THEY SHALL ADHERE TO ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND CITY CODES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SCOTT. AGAIN I, MADAM CHAIR. YES, SIR. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS. IT HAS BEEN MOVED IMPROPERLY. SECOND, THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I, I, I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SMITH. DO WE HAVE ANY
[IX. Announcements]
ANNOUNCEMENTS? WE DO NOT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? I JUST HAVE ONE. AND THAT IS ELECTIONS HAVE STARTED. GO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS WITH THAT. CAN I GET A[01:25:02]
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING? ADJOURN SECOND. SECOND. IT HAS BEEN MOVED IMPROPERLY* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.