Meeting discussionsStart with a topic.

We have one this evening. Item A, this is uh Z25- Z005. This is a public hearing on zoning amendment Z25- Z005. allow changes to the currently approved site plan as well as an increase in building height. Land lot 700, 1.95 acres, 3,400 to 3420 Archerfield Way Triton Homes. And Mr. Bennett, can you read the background, please? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The subject property 3,400 through 3420 Archerfield Way Archerfield subdivision was reszoned from neighborhood shopping to RDA conditional in 2021. Z21- Z006 to allow a subdivision with 12 single family detached homes. The site work for the development has been completed and the applicant is requesting a zoning amendment to allow an increase in building height as well as reductions to driveway length and building setbacks to build the new homes. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Martin. And and before I should have um I should have noted in my opening that uh Councilman Pickkins is recusing himself from this uh item. U I think it's a family relationship associated with this item. So uh Rusty, go ahead. Thank you. Uh Rusty Martin, community development director. Uh this is zoning amendment case Z25-5. Uh this resoning, the original resoning came to you about uh four years ago. Um 21 uh that was 21 06 was that zoning case and they reszone the property from neighborhood shopping um to RDA with some stipulations for 12 single family homes. Um tonight's case is to modify that plan and modify some of the zoning conditions within within that uh resoning. Um the 12 single family homes will remain as proposed. Um they're seeking some uh amendments with respect to um the building height and then some setback issues that were caused due to some rideway dedication. But as you see on your screen, um the existing condition is 12 single family lots.

It's still remaining 12 single family lots and the zoning is uh remaining the same as RDA conditional. Um in that same vein, uh the future land use is not changing. It's remaining uh medium density residential is was approved in uh 21. Um and the surrounding uh uses have have not changed. Quick summary of the the proposed uses u or the requested uh changes. Um they are maintaining 12 single family homes at a density of 5.9 units per acre. The property has been fully developed. The lots have been recorded with the county. Um so they're ready to to uh construct new homes on them. Um there's no change in density proposed and they're requesting uh five sort of variances or modifications to the zoning uh conditions. Uh the first one being an increase in the building height from 35 ft to 38 ft and that's for all the lots. Uh number two is to allow a reduction in the front setback from 20 feet down to 17 feet and that's for lot one. and then they allow a reduction in of the minimum front setback uh from 20 feet down to 19 ft uh for lot two. Um and then number four is to allow a reduction in the minimum driveway length from uh from 22 feet down to 20 for lots one through three. And then finally to allow a rear setback reduction from 10 feet down to zero feet for all the lots. And I've got some uh site plans to sort of clarify that and what the rationale is for all those uh reductions. Here's the proposed site plan. This is um similar to what you guys had approved back in 21 uh with respect to lot layout orientation and the and the driveway um orientation through the site. You got six rear entry single family homes. Um lots 1 through six face uh Campbell Road.

Uh lots 7 through 12 face the amenity area um in the church to the to the south. As part of the development plan, uh there was one portion of the property that um had our public sidewalk that's on Campbell Road uh within their property lines. So when we went through the replotting process, they dedicated that small portion of right away to the city to get that sidewalk and that easement area completely within the city. And that that dedication has created some setback issues with respect to lots one and two um due to the reduction in the lot line which has pushed everything uh further south. Um these are the proposed setbacks uh as proposed by the uh applicant. As you can see uh the front setbacks been reduced to 17 ft for lot one, 19 ft for lot two and then they're maintaining the the original 20ft setback for 3 through 12. Um the side setbacks interior to the development, they'll still maintain the 5-ft setback that was originally improved. So there'll be a building separation of 10 ft between each home. And then the rear setback has been reduced to um to zero. And that's to allow for a usable uh rear porch covered rear rear uh deck on the on the back of the home over the driveway. And this is just highlighting where the setback issues are on one and two. And then the driveway reduction lengths in uh lots one through three. And then uh setback reduction for all the homes. And just one more time a summary of all of them. Staff has reviewed all these requests and all the plan reviewers from fire engineering um building planning and zoning have reviewed these requests or these requested variances and are supportive of them. and just a a little bit of an easier plan for you guys to see where that uh rightway reduction is.

Um just to give you an idea with respect to the requested variance um the applicant is proposing um to supplement the buffer uh with respect to um the buffer in between the the the entrance drive and the adjoining Argyle states residential homes um that adjoin over there. They're proposing 3-in caliber evergreen trees to supplement uh an existing buffer that has some pines and some hardwoods as well as some planted uh maple trees along the interior road. And the plan on the left is the currently approved uh land uh tree plan which shows that each lot has still has um two possibly three trees to be planted on it between the roadside and the interior lots and those will be installed as the homes are constructed. These are the building elevations. This is the Reynolds floor plan that they're proposing. Uh so this floor plan has um four possible elevations um for for that existing plan. So one has just a porch element on it. The other one has a porch element and some bay windows. And then uh the other two have a porch and then a second story balcony as part of that. And then there are options for some dormers and so forth uh should they choose to put those in. And then the Glover floor plan also um shows some of the changes with that as well. It's just a different layout on the interior with with four elevation changes on the exterior. Give you guys some um ideas of what the side elevations will look like and what they have with respect to the materials and windows. This is the site today. Um it is fully stabilized. They have uh constructed the amenity area already. Um so they're they're ready to go with respect to um seeking their building permit for the homes.

Uh community development recommends approval of the proposed uh zoning amendments and all the zoning conditions from resoning case uh Z21-00006 uh are being carried over. There are some changes in yellow that you'll see through there that we've added to those conditions to address um the requested changes. Um first is they would like to use some uh Hardy plank sighting on the exterior for some of the elements. Um they'll have a mixture of brick and hardy. Um so we modified that request to make sure they have the opportunity to do that. um facing Campbell Road. Uh the rest of the stipulations are all remaining the same. Uh I think down all the way down to 37. Um these are all existing conditions. Obviously 35 uh we changed the plan that was associated with that for the site plan to highlight the new site plan with the requested setback variances. 36 is to amend the building elevations to reflect the new building elevations that were submitted. Uh 37 is the requirement for the additional evergreen trees within the landscape buffer. 38 um deals with the driveway length reduction for lots one and three. 39 uh increases the building height to 38 ft. And then 40 uh requires that each home have a covered deck on the rear with a brick uh support post on the bottom. And then uh 41, the external side elevation for lot six should be all brick. That's the lot that faces Campbell and Atlanta intersection. And then the internal the external side elevations for lots 7 and 12 have shall have a minimum of one story of brick. Uh 42. The HOA shall maintain the the landscape buffer adjacent argal states free from bamboo. Um the current uh developer has uh worked on remediating a a bamboo issue within that uh area. They've chopped it all down.

They're applying uh certain applications to kill it off and the residents expressed that they'd like to see that continue and be maintained after the development is completed. So we added that and they they've agreed to that condition. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions for you. Any questions of Rusty? Mr. Lindler. Thank you, uh, Rusty and to Joey for, uh, working on this issue, working with the, uh, the builder, um, and working with the, uh, the community. Can you uh, just for the record, state uh, why this didn't go to PNZ, how it came back to us, and then the charge before us tonight. In other words, we're not reszoning the thing. It's just a minor change. Yes, sir. Um the city has a process for a zoning amendment for cases that have already been um heard and approved by mayor and council. The zoning amendment process is to address small changes that may arise during the um during a development process like rock and you know other issues that come up that need to be addressed and changed. Um, with respect to this this development, there's no change in the orientation of the home. All the lot sizes are all the same. The road alignment is still the same as originally improved. The original intent of the zoning is in place. We're just talking about slight changes that um, mayor and council need to address and didn't need to go back for a full uh, review by PNZ. had the density changed and they changed the orientation of the homes and the road then yes we would have carried that back to mayor and council or B&Z at that point. Um but with that being said we also um have been working with the adjoining property owners.

Um we held two meetings with them to get their ideas and you know look at the proposals and um you know they expressed what they had concerns with and expressed what they wanted to see addressed and um we tried to work with the applicant to address those with respect to um amending the stipulations and that's those meetings were specific to these changes. Yes. And this, if I remember right on your slide, this was first reszoned in 21. 21. Okay. And I would imagine there was some meetings. Yeah. Then even though it was a little bit tougher. Yes, there was there was meetings with that as well. I just want to make sure the community was reached out to and engaged. Mr. Lynon, anything else? Any other questions of Rusty? Thank you. I'd like to invite the applicant up. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Uh, council members. Kevin Moore here on behalf of Triton Homes. Also have with me here tonight, uh, Mr. Cliff Poston, who's a principal and owner of, uh, Triton Homes as well, uh, who can also answer any questions if if if I cannot. I appreciate the time here tonight. uh and want to take a just a a brief opportunity so I wouldn't forget towards the end of my remarks, but I really wanted to extend um a heartfelt thanks and appreciation to Mr. Martin and Mr. Stabs in how they handled this particular application. It's it is a minor proposal, a change uh from the original resoning. Uh but uh they had some some true engagement with the community. I was able to see um because you Mr. Martin provided me those uh copies of emails uh where he was responding him and Mr. Stabs were specifically responding to questions from the community and they were very technical you know detailed questions that were being asked uh and they provided a level of response not advocating a position but simply providing facts um in a detailed responsive manner uh that provided information to the community that I think led to a much better understanding.

Uh I do this in a lot of jurisdictions. Do not find very often where you have that level of responsiveness to to community members uh from uh you know local staff. And I just wanted to say that because it was it caught me uh and you should know about that if you don't already. Um this particular application uh as Mr. Martin has expressed does come to you uh as a request for minor modification to the zoning that was originally approved by city council in 2021. little historical context uh which I think is important just um not necessarily that it lends itself to the particular issues in front of you tonight but just as kind of a recollection this particular property which is 2 acres at Campbell uh road and Atlanta road this property was zoned neighborhood shopping and had been for years and years and years neighborhood shopping commercial category allows drive-through restaurants and so forth and so on that could have gone here all along but it was that type of use was not supported uh by by the residents and community that immediately are in this area of Campbell Road who as you all know were very engaged uh in their community. Uh one of the first applications that I was involved with uh was one for a large medical office building uh at this location. Uh that never really came before you because uh the engagement with the community at that time, this is prior to 21, was not supported at all. And so that was ultimately withdrawn and we gained a better understanding of what what was the community looking for and their kind of hot button issues. Ultimately uh the current owner and applicant in the application that was approved in 21 came forward uh with an application for town homes at this location.

I think the initial application was 16 town homes, a small town home development. Community meetings were held, discussions, and so forth, eventually leading uh to the approval that was in December of 21, which is the site plan that's before you tonight that's shown for reference purposes, where it was reduced to 12 single family detached homes. It was important for the community that it not be town homes at this location. They wanted detached homes in a smaller number and 12 was the the final number for that in a detached single family arrangement. So that's the level of community engagement that had occurred up until the end of 21 when it was approved uh by US city council. And now coming forward I know it's some four years later the applicant the application purchased the property carry it through engineering design and has developed it according to exactly what was approved uh by this council. Triton Homes now comes to uh seeking and would like love to build uh their homes on this on this property. Uh Triton uh has been here for over 50 years in Cobb County, the locally owned uh building homes in Cobb County, building homes in city of Smyrna and other cities here in Cobb and has done a fabulous job and they intend to do that same thing here at this location. This offers an opportunity. It's a small really an enclave uh but has great visibility on Atlanta Road at Campbell Road intersection. Uh as you can see from the pictures, there's a there's a great uh you know community gathering spot that's already now been developed and constructed at the intersection. But looking at this and this is kind of one of those instances that you see when you have something that's conceptual uh in design finally gets to detail design and what needs to come of it and there's some slight changes that need to be made from that evolution of the project.

The uh lots are the exact same orientation. The lots are the exact same size. The building footprints are the exact same size as what was originally improved. But in looking at this this particular project and hearing what the community had always had to say about it in terms of what they wanted to see actually built here and constructed, how they wanted it to look, wanted to look on a certain scale, certain quality, uh also um with certain square footages. These building footprints that are here, uh to do a two-story product, uh which was the original conceptual design for rear loaded, uh there's just not enough room on the building footprint to do that. it doesn't allow you enough room. And the best example I can give you is understanding these are rear loaded garages and units. So the first floor, half of that unit is going to be a twocar garage. So if it's a twotory, now you only have one and a half stories to put square footage. And you want this to be nice. You want it to have a certain quality. And that's what had been uh discussed with the community all along. What Triton is now proposing, you can see with the elevations that they are showing. Yes, it's three stories, but that allows you to have square footages of 2,800 instead of square footages that barely making 1,800. It allows you to have all of the things that you would expect in a home uh that's in going to be in a a small enclave like this to be built. And that's what's driven some of the changes. That's driven one change, and that is a proposal to increase the maximum height from 35 feet, which it was approved, to 38 feet. So, only a three-foot increase in the height.

Additionally, the design details once the sidewalks and beauty strips were put in, uh, like Mr. Martin stated, it altered where that property line actually is to ensure that those public improvements are in the public rideway. Uh, so for lots one and two, those needed to be reduced just slightly. Uh, but it still keeps the same orientation. It just allows for that dedication to occur with a slight reduction in that setback. Uh, same goes for the driveway length on those first three homes as you come in. Again, those had to be reduced just slightly because you you've lost that couple of feet. Uh lastly, with the rear setback, I think is particularly interesting because it also highlights again the engagement that occurred between city staff, the community, and the applicant and Dritton Homes. In this case, the rear setback looks at at first glance when you see something being requested to reduce it from a 10-ft rear set back to zero feet. That seems on a matter of degree a little extreme. Uh but in this instance uh what that's accommodating is through those discussions when you have rear uh loaded homes like this was being proposed they can tend to have a flat look on the on the rear with the driveway that comes under. Uh it was originally proposed to have decks which would not impact that rear setback. Uh but the engagement with the community and specifically with staff was those decks should really be um covered decks or enclosed decks. one of the two, but create more of a structure, create more architectural interest even in the interior part of it, so it's nothing appears so flat. Once you do that though, that's when the rear setback becomes impacted and you need to reduce it.

But the simple explanation is it's simply being reduced so that you can accommodate what really is a I think an increased level of architectural interest on the rears uh and actually uh makes it look better from all sides not just simply one side without impacting externally the community whatsoever. In addition uh Triton has agreed per staff's recommendation in our discussions and all of those came from those discussions uh that the pillars that would support that would be brick pillars. So it again creates a better look throughout the community to match the architecture that you've seen uh at that location. Uh Drayton has also agreed to supplement the buffer plannings that was something the community had asked about too of whether that could occur and they happily have have done that. We therefore we're just bringing you this request we think so that the product that needs to be built there, the homes that need to be built there, these adjustments and revisions and requests would need to be made to the original zoning. They are minor uh but they really just a matter of kind of some math to ensure that what was really discussed with the community all along is what is ultimately delivered to them in terms of the finished product in terms of the finished homes and enclave that this will be. So again I'm here I can answer any questions you may have and happy to do so along with Mr. Cliff Poston and we appreciate your consideration here tonight. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I can I'll say just personally I appreciate y'all's outreach to the community both recently and when this was reszoned first time and and even when I was a council member in ward one and we were talking about that medical building and that's right um goes back a long way and lots tons and tons of engagement.