Meeting discussionsStart with a topic.

Um just to because the MU is a more restrictive use or restrictive district. It doesn't allow the hundreds of 100 plus uses that are allowed in the GC. The plan from 21 is reflected here. The residential units, the 163 units were broken up into buildings, um, four to fivetory buildings and then there was an associated parking deck off the back. The commercial space was broken up between three buildings. It was the first floor of the both uh residential buildings and then there was about a 5,000 square foot um parcel that was just purely commercial. The applicant is proposed to modify that plan to this plan which um is broken up into two phases. You or two parts. You have the the the town home development and then you have the commercial development on the south side. The mixeduse zoning district for the residential town homes has a front setback 25 side of 12 and a rear of 30 ft. You got 45 fe simple town homes. These town homes are front entry. Um these town homes are rear entry. So, the town homes that are um facing Oakdale Road will have the front of the town homes facing Oakdale Road and the garages will be to the interior off the rear of the home. And then the other three buildings will have the front of their their town home units facing the park set the park there. There's an amenity green in the middle of the property and then storm water management will be underneath that. With this development, there'll be a full access drive for the town homes off of South Cobb Drive with an associated deceleration lane. And then off of Oakdale Road, there will be a full access drive. The development will have a 5-ft sidewalk with two-ft grass strip that goes all the way around um Oakdale Road and South Cop Drive.

Thank you very much. Go on now to item C, zoning request Z25- Z009 at Benson Pool Road. Mr. Jones, any background before we turn it over to Joey? No, sir. Defer comments to our city planner, Mr. Sts. Good evening. I'm Joey Stabs, planner 2 with community development. This applicant is Alejandra Sanchez. It went to the PNZ board on August 11th and they recommended approval 70. The subject property is 2351 Benson Pool Road. It's about an acre. Um there's an existing 1,800 square foot building on the property. They're not planning to redevelop the property. They just want to change the zoning from office distribution to general commercial. As you can see, all the red around it is general commercial. Um the property below it is office distribution. There's nothing that's happening with that property with this resoning. And the other big property is a Georgia Power Substation. The future land use is mixed juice. That will remain mixed juice. Here's a picture of the subject property overhead. Uh, and then the building that's on the property and some adjacent properties. Staff is recommending approval of the reszoning from OD to GC with the following conditions. One, the following uses will be prohibited. Automobile broker office, auto parts attire stores, automobile repair, major and minor. Automobile and truck sales and service, automobile wash services, drive-thru restaurants, motorcycle sales and service, package stores, service stations, hookah bars, vape shops, parking of commercial vehicles, impromptu weekend markets and adult uses. Number two, um these are conditional. So, event facilities shall only operate between the hours of 8 am and 10 p.m. Restaurants shall only operate between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 10 p.m. And laundry and dry cleaning will be pickup and drop off only. Three, they will all have to comply with section 46.1 of the noise regulation and city smartest code of ordinances.

with Robert Harrison as the applicant um Joey you want to tell us about this please yes sir good evening Joey stabs planner two with Community Development this is rezoning KC 25-2 applicant is Robert Harrison the Planning and Zoning um commission recommended approval 60 in their February meeting the subject property is 1464 Spring Street it's the location ofing Spring Street Baptist Church uh currently there is a church there a residential structure and then two accessory buildings this resoning would be from R15 to Mu conditional to keep the home there to keep the church there and then to allow art studios in the two accessory buildings this would require a future land use change from moderate density residential to mixed juice also to be compatible with the mixed juice zoning district and this is the property this is the home on the property the church will remain a church it's got two two congregations that meet there and then here would be the artist Studios and they're currently like Sunday school buildings and classrooms so some modifications will happen in those but more for ADA compliance and just to make them functional spaces and the bottom of part of the property is a stream buffer some pictures of the subject property and adjacent properties and staff is recommending approval of the resoning from R15 to Mu conditional which with the following conditions one the zoning would restrict the property to only these four uses dwelling detached attached multif family townhous townhouse and Condominiums institutional uses such as churches synagogues Sunday school buildings and art galleries Studios for artist um sales of items produced on the premise shall be permitted twice a year and then the the the last is schools providing adult training in any of the Arts Sciences trade and professions shall be permitted on an inter intermittent basis number two are all of the uses in section 20 that are not allowed they're just listed out um but I won't go over all of them three uh the existing buildings shall be inspected by the fire marshall office and brought into compliance with Ada and life safety requirements four the parking lot shall be restriped and brought into compliance with ADA requirements and five approval of the subject property for the MU conditional zoning District shall be conditioned upon the development of the property in substantial compliance with the survey that was shown so any changes to add any new structures on this property would need Council approval going forward I'd be happy to answer any questions uh Mr stubs or Mr Tucker can you speak to I know there is a deed restriction on

single family homes at Belmont Circle with Brookwood Home Designs. Can you present this to us? Yes, sir. This is reszoning KC25-012. Uh applicant is Brookwood Home Designs. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6. This property is on Belmont Circle. It's about one and a half acres. It is a non-ontiguous property that's split by one single family home in the middle. Um it's currently vacant and they are proposing four single family detached homes at a density of 2.61 units per acre. This would be a reasonzoning from R15 to R10 conditional. has a low density residential future land use and that will remain. To the north is high density residential and to the east is community community activity center. South and west is low density residential. I'm going to go over the proposed site plan. Um, lot one is one front entry single family home and then on the right side is three front entry single family homes. They all meet the our 10 zoning district setbacks of front 25 ft of side of 7 and 1/2 ft and rear 25 ft. They all have storm water detention at the rear of their properties. On the three lots, we're requesting a five-ft sidewalk and twoft grass strip. On the one lot, we're requesting maximum 5ft sidewalk. There there's a retaining wall that limits how wide that um sidewalk can be. So, that will have no grass strip. There's a sanitary sewer easement on the on lot four and no variances are requested. Here's are some conceptual elevations, pictures of the subject property and some adjacent properties. Community development recommends approval of the reszoning from R15 to R10 conditional for four single family homes at a density of 2.61 units per acre. The standard conditions special conditions. Nine is the setbacks. 10 is a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. 11 is a minimum lot width of 50 feet.

But I'm assuming it'll be like regular MSE, which is like stone, something that looks very presentable to the community. Okay. Uh I did notice in the pictures the tennis courts, which is uh Woodland Brooks tennis courts that backs up the property. Uh there is major concern. Uh our tennis courts there uh are very popular. We are a tennis court community. Uh so with that being said, how would that be protected? Uh so the landscape barrier um that's required by jurisdiction will have plants that for shading for uh screening purposes and I'm assuming they already have a fence around it, but that's kind of like the barrier that will kind of separate the property. Um there shouldn't be I guess from a concern like trespass and all that there shouldn't be the availability of that if that's the question that you're asking. So I think I heard uh large trees did I hear that that are yes large trees that are I guess recommended by the jurisdiction. So wherever planting wise is recommended by the jurisdiction for the best to answer your question will be planning there. Okay, that's all I got. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Oh, you are almost out of there. Mr. Lley's got one. He waited too long. Um, so what is the timeline if approved? What is the timeline for construction? And I'll give you while you think on the answer carefully. We find ourselves approving a lot that is not being built. So I'm curious, what is the real timeline? Not what you think, but what do we expect if passed? When would dirt start moving and you expect to have for sale signs in the units? Oh, you got to be sworn in, too. Next time we swear them all in at the beginning. Yes, sir. My name is Alejandra Ganell. I'm part of the developers.

Uh good evening mayor and city council and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak against the proposed development. The proposed development does not fit. By review of the public record, the planning and zoning commission voted this down seven to nothing. City staff does not recommend the resoning and has denied or recommends against all six variances. The proposed development does not align with the city of Smyrna's comprehensive planned land use development designation. In the developer's original presentation, the planning and zoning on August 11th, they stated that goal three was to encourage the development of a range of housing choices in order to meet market demand and allow residents to remain in Smyrna. The example that was used was that they are people that work along Highlands Parkway that are leasing units in their Union City development, which is a 45minute drive to work. Having been a resident of Cobb County for 32 years and city of Smyrna for 25 years, a 45 minute drive, while not desired, is not unheard of. However, I'm not sure that a small handful of 45minute commutes would justify this development. It simply does not fit. The developer has provided a school impact analysis that appears to have been created based on a review of Cobb County School District's enrollment study annual update from last year. However, it seems to state conclusions that do not match reality. While the analysis provides the under capacity numbers of Campbell Middle School and Campbell High School at 87% and 92% respectively, it did not provide the level of detail such as that for Nicadjac Elementary School. So, I looked it up. The study provided that Nicac is currently over capacity at 127% which is the highest overage in Cobb County's 64 elementary schools. It's outpacing the second place school by nearly 10%.

This is a public hearing of resoning request to allow resoning from GC to MU conditional for a mixeduse development with three multifamily units and 1680 ft of office space 28 acres land lot 634 at 1715 Roswell Street. Anthony Aoyet and I'll turn it over to you Joey. Good evening. Joey Stabs, planner 2 and community development department. This is D26-001. The applicant is Anthony O Boy. This was heard on March 9th by the planning and zoning commission. They reided, excuse me, they recommended approval 6 to zero. The subject property is 1715 Roswell Street. It's a little over a quarter of an acre. There's currently uh one building on the property occupied with a state farm. The proposal is to demolish that building, build a threestory mixed juice building with two 840 foot office units and then residential above. The existing zoning is general commercial. So this resoning would be to MU conditional. Um, just for the surroundings, it's on the south side of Roswell Street is the public storage, Casey Foods. There's a church to the east of the property, and then some retail and commercial um on the west. The future land use is industrial mixed use. That will not change. I'll go over the site plan. Um, this is the three-story building. Like I said, two 840 foot office units on the front of the building and then three multif family units above those office buildings. There will be seven parking spaces for the commercial develop the commercial part and then twocar garages for each multif family unit. It will meet all the men uh MU zoning district setbacks except the maximum front from 20 ft to 85 ft. And that's mostly due to some infrastructure at the front of the property. And that is really the 20 20 foot sanitary sewer easement that runs along the front of the property that really changes how this property can be developed.

While we understand that holidays or special gatherings can temporar temporarily increase parking demand, these situations occur in every residential neighborhood. We believe that the parking supply appropriately serves the day-to-day needs of this community. [clears throat] One concern raised during planning and zoning meeting was the was that the original rendering appeared to show the site as completely flat, making the buildings appear taller than they will actually be. We appreciated the feedback and prepared the updated renderings to more accurately reflect the site's natural topography. As shown here, the buildings are carefully integrated into the site through grading and retaining walls, allowing them to step into the into the terrain and reducing their apparent height. This rendering provides a much more realistic representation of how the completed project will appear. We also wanted to provide some context regarding building height. While these town homes contain four occupied levels, the flat roof design results in an overall building height that is comparable to and in many many cases lower than a traditional large single family home with a steep pitched roof. Looking only at the number of stories doesn't accurately represent the building's overall height or visual impact. As Joey mentioned, we also hired a traffic engineer to conduct conduct a traffic study to evaluate the project's impact using using nationally recognized IT standards. The study concluded that this six-unit development will generate minimal traffic and that all surrounding intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. At our request, the engineer also compared this project to a four home single family development. The analysis showed that the single family scenario would generate a essentially the same traffic and even slightly more daily trips, meaning the choice between town homes or detached homes would not materially change traffic conditions.

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.