Archive for Zonings – Past, 2008

Petition Z-29

By Jill Flamm
Wednesday, October 30th, 2013
Search Tags <Cooke Enterprises, OMR, O&I, Windy Hill Road, Spectrum Circle, climate controlled, Self Service Storage Facility, SSSF>
Cooke Enterprises, Inc., 678-797-9797, represented by Garvis Sams, Sams, Larkin & Huff, LLP, 770-422-7016, requests rezoning from OMR to O&I for a climate controlled Self Service Storage Facility.
Property is located on the northwest intersection of Windy Hill Road and Spectrum Circle (Spectrum Circle); 17th District, Land Lots 919 & 920, Parcel 3.
Size of tract is 1.195 acres
Proposed Number of Buildings: 1
Total Square Footage of Development: 109,325
F.A.R.: 2.1
Square Footage/Acre: 91,485
Parking Spaces Required: 35
Parking Spaces Provided: 16
Current zoning: OMR
Contiguous zoning is: North: RM-16, O&I (Corporate Spectrum Office Complex); East: O&I (Corporate Spectrum Office Complex); South: O&I & NS (Terrace shopping center); West RM-12 (electrical substation).
Current land use is Regional Activity Center, High Density Residential sub-area.
Case manager is Eric Petersen
Planning Commissioner is Tom McCleskey
District Commissioner is Joe Thompson
Proposed use: Climate Controlled Self Service Storage Facility.
The down zoning of the subject property from Office Midrise (OMR) for purposes of a hotel Office & Institutional for purposes of a Climate Controlled Self Service Storage Facility is appropriate in view of the fact that the subject property is located within the confines of a Regional Activity Center.
The applicant is requesting the O&I zoning district to develop a climate controlled self-service storage facility. The proposed building would have an exterior of brick and EFIS on four sides. The building would contain four stories with a basement, and would have 870 storage units.
The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays.
The applicant has submitted a Zoning Impact Analysis, which is attached as Exhibit “A” (see the link to the Final Zoning Analysis below). The applicant has submitted two letters of agreeable stipulations (see Exhibit “B”, see the link to the Final Zoning Analysis below).
The applicant is showing contemporaneous variances which are:
1. Reduce the required amount of parking spaces from 35 parking spaces to 16 parking spaces;
2. Reduce the side setback from 15-feet to 5-feet;
3. Waive the 20-foot landscape buffer along the western property (adjacent to the Georgia Power Substation);
4. Waive the maximum Floor Area ratio from 0.75 to 2.1, per County Code (however, the Comprehensive Plan allows F.A.R.’s in R.A.C.’s to be up to 2.0); and
5. Waive the maximum building height, from three stories to five stories.
Staff Comments:
(July) Staff recommends DENIAL.
Staff is very concerned with the intensity of the applicant’s proposal. Most of the basic zoning criteria (FAR, height, and parking) cannot be met, which indicates this property may too small to support this proposal.
It is Staff’s opinion that there are existing and changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which give supporting grounds for denying the applicant’s rezoning proposal. The applicant’s proposal does not meet many of the criteria for the OI zoning district, as referenced in the Planning Comments. Uses, such as this proposal, are allowable in this O&I zoning district. However, the intensity of the proposal may be too much to be supported by Staff.
(September) Staff recommends DENIAL.
It is Staff’s opinion that the applicant’s rezoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby properties.  The applicant’s proposal is aesthetically pleasing, and would look like an office building.  Staff is concerned with all the variances being requested (see Planning Comments).
It is Staff’s opinion that the applicant’s rezoning proposal may not have an adverse affect on the usability of adjacent or nearby property.  Staff is very concerned with the intensity of the applicant’s proposal.  Most of the basic zoning criteria ( FAR, height, and parking) cannot be met, which indicates this property may too small to support this proposal.
It is Staff’s opinion that the applicant’s rezoning proposal will not result in a use which would cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools.  This opinion can be supported by the departmental comments contained in this analysis.
It is Staff’s opinion that the applicant’s rezoning proposal is in conformity with the policy and intent of the Cobb County Comprehensive Plan, which delineates this property to be within a Regional Activity Center, Sub Area for High Density Residential.
It is Staff’s opinion that there are existing and changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which give supporting grounds for denying the applicant’s rezoning proposal.  The applicant’s proposal does not meet many of the criteria for the OI zoning district, as referenced in the Planning Comments.  Uses, such as this proposal, are allowable in this O&I zoning district.  However, the intensity of the proposal may be too much to be supported by Staff.
ECCA position (July): Pending further review … we support a continuance
Additional input is needed regarding:
  • No parking of a truck out front as pseudo-billboard
  • No windows decorated as billboards, and no reader board signage
  • Address lighting, exterior fence, other issues
Also concerned about anticipated high levels of commercial use (as opposed to casual use by individuals) and the resulting impact on traffic and nearby property
ECCA position (September): We support the position taken the Terrell Mill Community Association.
Planning Commission Action (July, unofficial):  CONTINUED until the August 5, 2008 BZA hearing.
Planning Commission Action (August, unofficial): CONTINUED until the September 2, 2008 Planning Commission hearing.
Planning Commission Action (September, unofficial): Recommended APPROVAL with the following stipulations:
  • Staff comments and recommendations
  • Subject to the stipulation letters from Garvis Sams dated August 14, 2008 and August 21,2008
  • Outside windows to be reflective and opaque from any exterior view
Board of Commissioners Action (September, unofficial): APPROVED with stipulations.
Categories : Zonings – Past, 2008

Petition Z-86, 2007

By Jill Flamm
Wednesday, October 30th, 2013
Search Tags <Cornerstone Development, PSC, GC, CRCI, Lower Roswell Road, Johnson Ferry Road, CVS, drug store, pharmacy>
Cornerstone Development Partners, 770-690-2440, represented by Rob McKerrow, 770-690-2440, requests rezoning from PSC, GC to CRC.
Property is located on the south side of Lower Roswell Road, north of Johnson Ferry Road, and on the west side of Johnson Ferry Road, south of Lower Roswell Road (685 Johnson Ferry Road and4473 Lower Roswell Road); 1st District, Land Lot 69, Parcels 14 and 31.
Size of tract is 2.17 acres
Contiguous zoning is: North:R-20 (Mt Bethel baseball park);
East: GC; South: PSC, GC; West GC.
Current land use is Community Activity Center.
Case manager is Marvin Shams
Planning Commissioner is Bob Ott
District Commissioner is Joe Thompson
Proposed use: Retail.
Building architecture: Brick, stucco
Contemporaneous variances: None
Combining two existing parcels. Demolition of older non-conforming buildings. Existing GC zoning is old, rezone/combine 2 parcels to CRC. Update infrastructure, curb cuts, landscaping, etc. to current Cobb County standards.
Staff Comments:
Staff recommends APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
  • Site plan received by the Zoning Division July 5, 2007, with the District Commissioner approving minor modifications
  • Fire Department comments
  • Water and Sewer comments and recommendations
  • Stormwater Management comments and recommendations
  • DOT comments and recommendations
  • Owner/developer to enter into a Development Agreement pursuant to O.C.G.A. 36.71-13 for dedication of system improvements to mitigate traffic concerns.
September 2008
Staff recommends APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
Site plan received by the Zoning Division July 5, 2007. with the District Commissioner approving minor modifications
Fire Department comments
Water and Sewer comments and recommendations
Stormwater Management comments and recommendations
DOT comments and recommendations
Owner/Developer to enter into a Development Agreement pursuant to O.C.G.A. 36-71-13 for dedication of system improvements to mitigate traffic concerns
ECCA position : Combining and rezoning 2 parcels to CRC, then developing 24 hr CVS
September 2007
Recommend denial, because:
There are significant traffic issues related to the site’s proximity to the busy intersection at Johnson Ferry and Lower Roswell Rd. These concerns might be partially mitigated with modifications to the median on Johnson Ferry(closing the median cuts across the face of this property), and by acquiring an easement from Craig Automotive for the entrance on Lower Roswell. However, we believe that even with these modifications, there is still a significant probability that the proposed development creates traffic issues.
We would also like to express our concern that the site appears to be predominantly impervious surface (at or near the maximum allowable limits) with little if in any landscaping proposed. Further, this development brings an additional 24 hour business to an area that has few 24 hour commercial operations currently. 
And finally, we think it is unfortunate that this area is becoming over-saturated with automotive service, fast food restaurants, small consumer retail and banking developments … all designed to service the public without requiring us to leave our vehicles. When we met with Cornerstone earlier in the year they shared our concerns regarding development trends along the Johnson Ferry Corridor.
But apparently they have had a change of heart and now see a compelling need for a third CVS within a 2 mile stretch of road.
October2007
Recommend denial
The East Cobb Civic Association opposes this petition for the following reasons:
The use is unneeded by the community. 
Currently, there are six pharmacies in the nodes and Johnson Ferry corridor between Roswell Road and Lower Roswell Road. Another pharmacy will open in the next 3 months (SuperTarget). This petition seeks to an additional pharmacy, the third in this 1.7 mile corridor from the same company. That would provide a pharmacy every quarter of a mile, on the average.
All of the pharmacies are located within general merchandise stores, whether grocery or drug store. There are many other general merchandise stores in this corridor, who have not sought to provide a pharmacy, and struggle to survive. To say we have too much retail would be to understate the current situation. This is borne out by the number of vacant store fronts.
The revitalization of the corridor is impeded.
Land use planners cite the importance of a sense of place in building a community. One way of doing this is to create architectural distinctive buildings at important intersections. The Johnson Ferry corridor has two nodes which fit the definition, Roswell Road and Lower Roswell Road. The iconic buildings should have mass and substance beyond just architectural features. Without these structures to anchor the redevelopment, the efforts would be made much more difficult. Do we key the architecture and land use of the corridor on a single story, “Castleberry” design drug store? To do so would be to surrender to a plebian, strip shopping center redevelopment rather than stepping forward to a mixed-use community.
Revitalization is a long journey, but this petition would lock up the land for 99 years. The average commercial building has a half-life of 25 years. In that time, half of the existing commercial structures are renovated or taken down and rebuilt. The economics of this building say the payback period is 20 years. There is scant incentive to redevelop in the next 30 years.
A redevelopment plan for the Johnson Ferry corridor calls for the best efforts of the citizens, the Commission and county staff. It cannot be just a set of “architectural standards” and a zoning change. That approach brings to mind a picture of cosmetic enhancement of porcine features. It is better to have a studied approach that yields greater results.
Traffic flow is becoming a greater problem.
Traffic has always been a problem in East Cobb. Redevelopment must ensure that current and future flows are taken into account when redevelopment occurs. It is becoming more clear that roadway capacity is less of the problem, and congestion and inefficient flow at intersections is a greater part of the problem. Your travel time is determined not by how fast you can travel between intersections, but by how quickly you can pass through the intersections in your path.
Consider the market area served by this corridor. It stretches from Fulton County to Old Canton Road along Roswell Road and Lower Roswell Road. It is from Cherokee County to the Chattahoochee River on Johnson Ferry Road. That is an area of more than 30 square miles from which traffic is drawn. Our intersections must be able to control and swiftly pass traffic through, without building queues of cars waiting their turn. 
The intersection of Lower Roswell Road and Johnson Ferry is one which must be watched closely. There is a lack of stacking capacity for both left and right turn movements on Lower Roswell Road. What may do for the next five years may not serve at all well as redevelopment occurs. Land use and transportation are inextricable intertwined and one cannot proceed readily without the other.
Future
I hope I have provided information to inform your decision making. This is not a “bad” project, just one that will taint any redevelopment and lead it down a path that we wish not to travel. It is the wrong project at the wrong location at the wrong time. Please reject this petition.
August 2008
Recommend denial, primarily due to concerns related to traffic:
  • Proximity to the major intersection
  • Access and egress problems
  • Increased intensity on nearby side streets ( i.e., Woodlawn and Power Rd)
  • Speed of traffic on Johnson Ferry Road
  • Bend in the road for South bound traffic on Johnson Ferry Road, and
  • Drop in elevation on Johnson Ferry Road just north of the site
We would like to point out that the original site plan proposed an easement across a neighbor’s parcel for access to Lower Roswell Rd. This was designed to address concerns regarding negative impact on Lower Roswell Rd traffic flows near the busy intersection, and to address the anticipated problems with the left turn stack lane (east bound, turning north). 
We are certain in our belief that the revised site plan does not adequately addresses these issues, and are surprised that Cobb DOT would see otherwise.
Finally, we are not in favor of more single purpose, drive-in (or stay in your car), commercial developments with non-descript architecture on the Johnson Ferry corridor. The community believes the Johnson Ferry Corridor is already saturated with too many:
  • Small consumer retail
  • Banking
  • Automotive service, and
  • Fast food establishments
This project, as proposed, will contribute to the further decline in overall community atmosphere for East Cobb, which is in desperate need of revitalization. It is not integrated in the least with the surrounding residential neighbors that it desires to sell to.
There are several alternative locations in the immediate area, which would be more appropriate for such an intense project, and could be developed so as to have a favorable impact on the community (rather than hastening its decline).
Planning Commission Recommendation:  REIECTION of rezoning without prejudice. The submitted plan is incomplete and does not address the identified problems. It does not appear that a 30 day hold could resolve the problems.
Board of Commissioners Action (September, 2007):  CONTINUED until the October 16, 2007 Board of Commissioners zoning hearing.
Board of Commissioners Action (October, 2007):  CONTINUED until the March 18, 2008 Board of Commissioners zoning hearing
Board of Commissioners Action (March, 2008):  HELDuntil the September 23, 2008 Board of Commissioners zoning hearing.
Board of Commissioners Action (September, 2008; unofficial):  APPROVED with stipulations.
Categories : Zonings – Past, 2008

Petition Z-136, 2007

By Jill Flamm
Wednesday, October 30th, 2013
Search Tags <Platinum Auto Spa, Robert Burrows, Johnson Ferry Road, Shetland Avenue, 1075 Johnson Ferry Road, front setback>
Platinum Auto Spa, 678-560-6060, represented by Robert E. Burrows, President, 678-560-6060, requests waiver of the front setback from the required 50 feet to 18 feet.
Property is located on the west side of Johnson Ferry Road, north of Shetland Avenue (1075 Johnson Ferry Road); 1st District, Land Lot 67, Parcel 4.
Size of tract is 0.793 acre.
Present zoning is CRC
Contiguous zoning is: North: CRC, RSL; East: RSL, O&I; South: R-20 (Johnson Ferry Baptist Church); West: R-20 (Johnson Ferry Baptist Church).
Land use category: Community Activity Center
Case manager is Trish Steiner
BZA board member is Christi Trombetti
Reason: This canopy is for the protection of the majority of the car wash employees. With the canopy the car wash is in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines for protection from heat stress/stroke and skin cancer by providing shade from direct sunlight. (OSHA Pub. 3154 and Fact Sheet 9516). Please see the 4 page Letter of Intent attached to the Application (a constitutional challenge for approval of the variance by applicant’s attorneys G. Douglas Dillard and Lauren M. Hansford).
Staff Comments: 
Preliminary Variance Analysis is here
Final Variance Analysis for December is here
Final Variance Analysis for February is here
Final Variance Analysis for July is here
ECCA position (January):  Oppose.
Applicant has agreed to relocate the vacuum equipment regardless of the outcome of the variance decision.
The ECCA position is that the canopy which intrudes into the front setback is more operational in nature rather than safety related.  It has been sized (three lanes) to handle maximum volume.  And it has been sized and located so as to consolidate the vacuuming process (previously handled elsewhere on the property) with the finishing or detailing process.  We believe this may have been done for efficiency and so as to provide room for expansion into other services (reference the new oil change station).
Comments were made last month by the commissioners … “that this business would not be approved through zoning if it was a new application.  There’s just too much going on for this parcel.  We agree with this assessment.”
We oppose this variance and respectfully request the BZA to deny the application.  We also express our concern about what precedent approval of this variance might establish. 
The only hardship appears to be trying to do too much on too small a parcel of land.  This is a self inflicted wound and does not represent a matter requiring accommodation through the variance process.  In summary, operational considerations of the business do not override Cobb County’s zoning ordinance.  This is a problem for which the business owner must find a solution without violating regulations.
Maximum impervious surface % allowed: 70%
Maximum impervious surface % planned: ?? %
ECCA position (July):   OPPOSED  No change in previous ECCA position. However we noted that the equipment has been relocated by owner. This case was held during fall of 2007 and then continued June 2008. County is reviewing related enforcement cases in the area.   ECCA concerned with other property owners using this cases to disregard setback regulations. Owner of Platinum Auto Spa is Bob Burroughs.
BZA Action (November, unofficial): CONTINUED until the December 12, 2007 Board of Zoning Appeals Variance Hearing
BZA Action (December, unofficial): HOLDuntil the January 10 Board of Zoning Appeals Variance Hearing.
At the next hearing, applicant to provide a stipulation letter noting the hardship and stipulations to resolve the problem. Letter to provide the following:
  • Location where they will be moved to, where they cannot be seen from Johnson Ferry Road
  • How the vacuum pipes and other apparatus will be rendered “invisible”
  • Fence or other hardscape along the frontage to minimize the visual impact of the operations from cars on Johnson Ferry Road
Staff to provide status of other car washes along Johnson Ferry Road and whether they comply with county code.
BZA Action (January, unofficial): Hold until the June 11, 2007 Board of Zoning Appeals Variance Hearing. The operational conditions of the car washes along Johnson Ferry and Roswell Roads will be assessed prior to the hearing to see if action needs to be taken to remedy common problems.
BZA Action (June, unofficial): Hold until the July 9, 2008 Boardof Zoning Appeals Variance Hearing
BZA Action (July): Petition DENIED.  Applicant must come into compliance with the front setback requirement by September 9, 2009.
Categories : Zonings – Past, 2008

Petition LUP-19

By Jill Flamm
Wednesday, October 30th, 2013

Search Tags <Marie Jean, personal care home, Sandy Plains Road, Walker Drive, low density residential>

Marie Jean, 678-401-4138, representing herself, requests a Land Use Permit for a Personal Care Home.

Property is located on the south side of Sandy Plains Road, west of Walker Drive (3070 Sandy Plains Road, Sandy Plains subdivision); 16th District, Land Lot 482, Parcel 14.
Size of tract is 0.50 acres

Current zoning is R-20
Contiguous zoning is:  North: R-15 (Cherry Tree Lake);  East: R-20 (Sandy Plains);   South: R-20 (Sandy Plains);  West: R-20 (Sandy Plains).
Current land use is Low Density Residential.

Case manager is Paul Frickey
Planning Commissioner is Christi Trombetti
District Commissioner is Tim Lee

Proposed use:  Personal Care Home
Total employees:  One
Days of operation:  7 days
Hours of operation:  24 hours
Number of nonresidents coming to the house:  No response
Clients, customers, sales people or employees park:  Driveway, clients do not have a car
Signs:  No
Number of vehicles used for business kept at property:  1
Deliveries:  No
Applicant lives in house:  Yes
Any outdoor storage:  No
Any storage of inventory:  No
Length of time needed or requested:  As soon as possible.
Additional relevant information:  See Exhibit A (below)
Maximum impervious surface % allowed / planned:  35% /

Exhibit A
To Whom It May Concern:
I, Earlene Tinsley, placed my mother, Mrs. Laura Carnes, in the care of Chery’s Angel Personal Care Home for several reasons.  Firstly, every nursing home that she was admitted to kicked her out due to her behavior, mostly verbally.  She was very agitated and they said she was too much for them to handle.  However, after admitting her in the care of Chery’s Angel PCH, she made a tremendous improvement behavior wise.  She is no longer very agitated, she likes the home she is living in and gets along with everybody.  Unfortunately, my sister and I can not afford to pay for Moms’ care out of our own pockets, so we signed her up for Medicare, but Chery’s Angel PCH is not a Medicaid provider, but Marie Jean is willing to become one in order for us to have our mother stay there because we love her being under the care of Marie Jean, and can’t imagine her being elsewhere.  If you could kindly approve her request so that she may be allowed to have 7 beds, in order for her to be a Medicare Chery’s Angel Person Care Home, my sister and I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you,
Yours sincerely,
Earlene Tinsley.
If you have questions you can reach me at 770-888-8192

Staff Comments:
Preliminary Zoning Analysis is here
Final Zoning Analysis is here

Staff recommends: 
The applicant’s proposal is located in a residential area, and is designated as Low Density Residential on the Cobb County Comprehensive Plan.  The applicant will not have any exterior evidence that a business is being operated from this house.  The area is residential in nature, but has experienced pressure in recent years to become commercialized.  There are other personal care homes on Sandy Plains Road, and there is a need for this use.  Approving the application would keep the property residential.  Staff would be reluctant to recommend approval of this LUP without stipulations controlling the property.
Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends APPROVAL for 12 months subject to:

  • Maximum of seven residents;
  • No signs, no outdoor storage, and no deliveries;
  • Fire Department comments (obtain permit for additional residents. Call Cobb County Fire Marshal’s Office for an Appointment); and
  • DOT comments and recommendations (applicant be required to meet all Cobb County Development Standards and Ordinances related to project improvements).

ECCA position:  Oppose.  Not owner occupied.  Too intense for location.  Current facility is too small to support requested number of patients.  No adequate plans for improvement.  Improvements would increase the scale of facility beyond the current neighborhood character.

Planning Commission Recommendation (unofficial):  Denied

Board of Commissioners:  Denied

Categories : Zonings – Past, 2008

Petition LUP-23

By Jill Flamm
Wednesday, October 30th, 2013
Search Tags <Sosnowski, R-20, Jamerson Road, Deen Road, polygraph, polygraph examinations>
Dan & Karen Sosnowski, 770-517-7730, represented by Karen Sosnowski, 770-517-7730, requests a renewal of the Land Use Permit for a Professional Office for Polygraph Examinations.
Property is located on the north side of Jamerson Road, east of Deen Road (1069 Jamerson Road, not in a subdivision); 16th District, Land Lot 59, Parcel 6.
Size of tract is 0.50 acres
Current zoning is R-20Contiguous zoning is: North: R-20 (unplatted residential); East: RA-4 (Emerald Gardens subdivision);   South: R-20 (Lawrence Estates subdivision); West: R-20 (unplatted residential).
Current land use is Low Density Residential.
Land to the south is Industrial Compatible.
Land to the west is Industrial Compatible and Neighborhood Activity Center.
Case manager is Roger Phelps
Planning Commissioner is Christi Trombetti
District Commissioner is Tim Lee
Proposed use: Polygraph Services
Total employees: One
Days of operation: 5 days or less
Hours of operation: 9:00 am – 4:00 pm
Number of nonresidents coming to the house:
Clients:   4 per day, 8-10 per week
Employees:      1 per day, 5 or less per week
Clients, customers, sales people or employees park: DrivewaySigns: No
Number of vehicles used for business kept at property: 1
Deliveries: No
Applicant lives in house: No
Any outdoor storage: No
Any storage of inventory: No
Length of time needed or requested: 2 years or longer.
Additional relevant information: None)
Maximum impervious surface % allowed / planned: 35% /
Staff Comments:
Please click for Final Zoning Analysis
Staff recommends APPROVAL: 
The applicant’s proposal is not located a platted subdivision.  The applicant’s proposal, as summarized in the planning comments is proposed to be a part time business, with little impact on the surrounding properties.
Staff is not aware of any problems or complaints regarding the previously approved LUP.  The applicant will not have any exterior evidence that a business is being operated from this house.  Staff would be reluctant to recommend approval without stipulations controlling how the business is operated.
Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends APPROVAL for 12 months subject to:
  • Hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.;
  • Maximum of one employee;
  • Clients park in the driveway;
  • No Signage, and no outdoor storage;
  • Maximum one commercial delivery per month;
ECCA position: .NO ACTION
Planning Commission Action (unofficial):  Recommended APPROVAL with stipulations.
Board of Commissioners Action (unofficial):  APPROVED with stipulations.
Categories : Zonings – Past, 2008

Petition LUP-25

By Jill Flamm
Wednesday, October 30th, 2013
Search Tags <Lazetta Hankerson, R-20, Counsel Drive, Counsel Court, tutoring, teaching>
Lazetta Hankerson, 770-578-1175, representing herself, requests a renewal of the Land Use Permit for Tutoring.
Property is located on the south side of Counsel Drive, south of Counsel Court (629 Counsel Drive, Wood Wynn subdivision); 16th District, Land Lot 1059, Parcel 21.
Size of tract is 0.5 acres
Current zoning is R-20Contiguous zoning is: North: R-20 (Wood Wynn subdivision); East: R-20 (Wood Wynn subdivision);   South: R-20 (Wood Creek subdivision); West: R-20 (Wood Wynn subdivision).
Current land use is Low Density Residential.
Case manager is Abby Shiffman
Planning Commissioner is Tom McCleskey
District Commissioner is Joe Thompson
Proposed use: Tutoring
Total employees: One
Days & hours of operation: Monday & Wednesday from 4:00 to 6:30 pm
Saturday from 1:00 to 5:00 pm
Number of nonresidents coming to the house:
Customers:      2 – 3 per day, 3 – 6 per week
Clients, customers, sales people or employees park: Driveway
Signs: No
Number of vehicles used for business kept at property: 1 vehicle (personal car)
Deliveries: No
Applicant lives in house: No (applicant is not the owner)
Any outdoor storage: No
Any storage of inventory: Yes, I have a separate room to store my school supplies.
Length of time needed or requested: 2 years.
Additional relevant information: None)
Maximum impervious surface % allowed / planned: 35% /
Staff Comments:
Please click for Final Zoning Analysis
Staff recommends APPROVAL
The applicant’s proposal, as summarized in the planning comments is proposed to be a part time business, meant to supplement income.  The applicant will not have any exterior evidence that a business is being operated from this house.  Staff is not aware of any complaints or problems stemming from the originally approved LUP from 2007, and the applicant appears to have complied with the 2007 LUP stipulations.  Staff would be reluctant to recommend approval of this LUP without a proven track record by the applicant of compliance to the LUP stipulations.  Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends APPROVAL for 12
months subject to:
  • No more than four students at the house at any one time;
  • Operation limited to three days per week- Mondays and Wednesdays from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. and on Saturdays from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.;
  • No Signs, no employees, no deliveries, no outdoor storage;
  • No on-street or front yard parking; and
  • Business supplies and equipment limited to typical tutoring materials only.
ECCA position: Case manager says NO ACTION.
Zoning Committee raised the following questions:
  • Is the applicant the owner or tenant?
  • How many students at one time?
  • Who lives in the house?
  • How many cars at one time, on site
Planning Commission Action (unofficial):  Recommended APPROVAL with stipulations.
Board of Commissioners Action (unofficial):  APPROVED with stipulations.
Categories : Zonings – Past, 2008

Petition SLUP-6

By Jill Flamm
Wednesday, October 30th, 2013

Search Tags <T-Mobile,Tmobile,tower,telecom,telecommunications,Roswell Road, Shady Hill Road, East Cobb Presbyterian>

T-Mobile, 404-226-8915, represented by Kimberly J. Adams, 404-226-8915, requests a Special Land Use Permit for a 130 foot tall Telecommunications Tower.

Property is located on the southeasterly side of Roswell Road, south of Shady Hill Road (4616 Roswell Road, East Cobb Presbyterian Church, Inc.); 1st District, Land Lot 17, Parcel 9.

Size of tract is 8.15 acres
Current zoning is R-80
Contiguous zoning is:  North: R-80, PRD (Easthampton);  East: R-20 (Shady Hill);   South: R 20 (multi-acre single home);  West: PRD (Easthampton).
Current land use is Public Institutional.
Case manager is Marvin Shams
Planning Commissioner is Tom McKleskey
District Commissioner is Joe Thompson

Proposed use:  130 foot Telecommunications Tower

Staff Comments:
Preliminary Zoning Analysis is here
Final Zoning Analysis is here

Staff recommends:  None

ECCA position:  Oppose. Surrounded by residential.

Planning Commission Recommendation (unofficial):  Withdrawn without prejudice

Board of Commissioners Action (unofficial):  Withdrawn without prejudice

Categories : Zonings – Past, 2008

Petition SLUP-12

By Jill Flamm
Wednesday, October 30th, 2013
Search Tags <Mittrix,T-Mobile, T. Mobile, PI, Jamerson Road, Jett Road, Episcopal Church, cell tower, telecommunications tower, SLUP>
Mittrix, Inc. for T-Mobile South, LLC., 678-920-1262, represented by Lannie Greene, 678-920-1262, requests a Special Land Use Permit for a 135 foot tall Telecommunications Tower and associated equipment building.
Property is located on the north side of Jamerson Road, west of Jett Road (1673 Jamerson Road, Episcopal Church of the Annunciation); 16th District, Land Lots 55, Parcel 7.
Size of tract is 9.7621 acres
Current zoning is R-30
Contiguous zoning is:
North: R-15 (Willow Creek subdivision);
East: R-30 (unplatted developed subdivision);
South: R-20 (unplatted land), CS (unnamed conservation subdivision);
West: R-15 (unplatted land, Willow Creek subdivision).
Current land use is Public Institutional.
Case manager is Tanya Roberts
Planning Commissioner is Christi Trombetti
District Commissioner is Tim Lee
Proposed use: Telecommunications Tower.
Maximum of 3 antennas (two-colocators)
Will appear to be a bell tower
60 x 40 foot fenced compound with equipment building
Screened by undisturbed natural buffer using existing vegetation, with additional plantings as needed
Distance from north tract boundary: 680 feet
Distance from east tract boundary: 379 feet
Distance from south tract boundary: 139 feet to Jamerson Road
Distance from west tract boundary: 145 feet
Distance from cell tower to church: 415 feet
Contemporaneous variances: None known
Staff Comments:
Please click for Final Zoning Analysis
Staff recommends:  
The applicant’s proposal is located in an area designated as a Public Institutional on the Future Land Use Map. For cell towers, non-residential sites are encouraged, and the use of platted lots in residential subdivisions are discouraged, which this proposal complies.
The tower is setback it’s full height from all offsite residential structures, and is designed for additional co-locations, as required by code. The tower is located in a stand of trees, and away from most of the single-family houses.
The proposed tower is disguised as a bell tower, which should compliment the church. Staff would suggest the applicant examine placing the tower closer to the church building, so the bell tower would look like its part of the church building.
Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
  • Site plan received by the Zoning Division on June 05, 2008, unless the tower can be relocated closer to the church building, with the District Commissioner approving the final plan;
  • Tower to be a stealth bell consistent with Exhibit “B”;
  • Maximum of three users or co-locators;
  • Fire Department comments;
  • Stormwater Management comments and recommendations; and
  • DOT comments and recommendations.
ECCA position: We support the position of the North East Cobb Coalition.
We met with the T-Mobile representatives and thank them for answering our questions. There was general discussion among the participants and many residents voiced their frustration and indicated they would prefer not seeing additional towers in the community.
The question of the tower location was raised:
  • Why does the church always try to locate the tower as far from the sanctuary as possible?
  • If it’s ugly, why place it as close to the residential neighbors as possible?
If you’re not proud of it don’t put it up !! (This is a fundamental question of equity, the neighbors gain nothing and yet bear the burden of the offensive tower)
Regarding the provider, T-Mobile, and all cellular companies needing the same close spacing of antenna towers (1 – 1.5 miles according to T-Mobile’s estimate):
  • We would like to see a master plan that addresses future expansion of coverage in the entire area. This would allow the community and the County to better assess overall impact, as opposed to looking at these requests piece-meal.
  • Additionally, such a master plan would illustrate the importance of, and need for, being creative in identifying alternate locations for cell towers. Other states (e.g., North Carolina and Virginia) allow cell towers to be located atop a power transmission tower. The cellular companies should press Georgia Power and Cobb EMC to allow transmission towers to be used to carry cellular service.
  • Cellular capacity will need to be increased for every provider, bringing new requests for more cell towers. The cellular companies must provide the information that allows planning for the future. New technology, decreased distance between existing towers, and decreased tower heights will govern the new cellular networks. We must plan for this future and not continue the practice of spot zoning when approving cell tower locations.
Our community should not suffer merely for the benefit of the cellular providers and a property owner’s opportunity to gain revenue. We should plan for the future and let everyone know what is coming.
Planning Commission Recommendation:  Denial, affects the residential neighbors too severely. Commissioners Trombetti and Homan agree that a “master plan” is needed to identify future cell tower sites with much shorter distances between towers is needed and a meeting needs to be convened by the county. Since the future towers will be located in residential areas, the homeowners should be part of the meeting.
Board of Commissioners Action:  Denied. 
  • Some churches are closing at this time and a cell tower may prevent other land uses from being placed on the property.
  • Height and location is a detriment to the viewshed.
  • Impact of the cell tower will negatively impact the value of adjacent homes.
  • Not in our best interests to locate a cell tower in this area of the community.
  • No evidence the applicant has researched other sites.
Categories : Zonings – Past, 2008

Petition SLUP-15

By Jill Flamm
Wednesday, October 30th, 2013
Search Tags < T-Mobile, T. Mobile, PI, Roswell Road, Shady Hill Road, Hampton Chase, East Cobb Presbyterian Church, East Cobb Christian school, Easthampton, Shady Hill, Princeton Lakes, cell tower, telecommunications tower, SLUP >
T. Mobile, 404-226-8915, represented by Kimberly J. Adams, 404-226-8915, requests a Special Land Use Permit for a 120 foot tall Telecommunications Tower and associated equipment building.
Property is located on the southeasterly side of Roswell Road, south of Shady Hill Road (4616 Roswell Road, East Cobb Presbyterian Church (PCA) Inc.); 1st District, Land Lot 17, Parcel 3.
Size of tract is 8.15 acres
Current zoning is R-80
Contiguous zoning is:
North: PRD (Easthampton subdivision), R-80 (Shady Hill subdivision);
East: R-20 (Shady Hill subdivision);
South: R-20 (5 acre unplatted land), R-15 (Hampton Chase subdivision);
West: PRD (Easthampton subdivision).
Current land use is Public Institutional.
Case manager is Marvin Shams
Planning Commissioner is Tom McCleskey
District Commissioner is Joe Thompson
Proposed use: 120 foot Telecommunications Tower.
Maximum of 3 antennas (two-other antennas collocated on same mast)
Will appear to be a (tall) pine tree with branches to shroud the equipment
?? x ?? foot compound with equipment building, surrounded by 8 foot wood fence
Site located at least 50 feet from all property lines.
Well buffered by existing mature trees
A 15 foot landscape buffer will be provided on all sides
Buffer will be planted with 5 foot high landscaping trees, which will be regularly maintained.
Height of cell tower: 126 feet
Distance from north tract boundary: ?? feet
Distance from east tract boundary: ?? feet
Distance from south tract boundary: ?? feet
Distance from west tract boundary: ?? feet
Distance from nearest church building: ?? feet
Distance from nearest residence: 139 feet
Reversion: SLUP revoked if site not operated by T-Mobile for 24 months
Contemporaneous variances: None known
Staff Comments:
Previous Zonings:
SLUP-8, June 2008
SLUP-14, June 2006
Staff recommends:
The applicant’s proposal is located in an area designated as Public Institutional on the Future Land Use Map. The property is located in an area that contains single-family homes, a horse farm, and is fairly close to the Avenue at East Cobb.
 For cell towers, non-residential sites are encouraged, and the use of platted lots in residential subdivisions are discouraged, which this proposal complies.
The tower is setback it’s full height from all off-site residential structures, and is designed for additional co-locations, as required by code.
The tower look, or profile has changed from a typical tower with exterior antennae, to a stealth unipole, which is much more aesthetically pleasing.
Additionally, the property is on a four lane divided highway that already has very tall power lines along the road.
Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
  • Site plan received by the Zoning Division on July 2, 2008;
  • Fire Department comments;
  • Stormwater Management comments and recommendations; and
  • DOT comments and recommendations.
ECCA position: 
(August) Recommend denial – or continuance
We think the East Cobb community would benefit from seeing a master plan (including long-range coverage goals) from T Mobile rather than merely addressing each tower proposal on a piece meal basis over the next few years
We have heard several complaints regarding how the variance signs were posted at the extremes of the property boundaries
We also heard comments that certain church management personnel did not accurately answer question regarding this project
Members from threes subdivision attended the ECCA general membership meeting to voice their opposition and concern (Shady Hill, East Hampton and Princeton Lakes)
Why not locate the tower closer to the church?   Church should benefit fully from the full aesthetics of the project
(September) Recommend denial:
  • In no uncertain terms, this is institutional use adjacent to residential neighborhoods without any traditional step down zoning
  • Applicant should present a comprehensive plan that shows 3 month to 5 year expansion of coverage, so that overall impact on the community can be assessed and the need for alternative locations evaluated more appropriately
  • As the churches begin to profit from these leases … who will line up next for the opportunity to participate in this passive income generator
We would like to remind the board that SLUP-9 (May ’05) was withdrawn by the applicant as a result of strong opposition from Princeton Lakes and other members of the community. Many of the points raised above were surfaced then.
It wasn’t good zoning then, and it’s not appropriate now.
Planning Commission (August, unofficial):  CONTINUED until the September 2, 2008 Planning Commission hearing..
Planning Commission (September, unofficial):  APPROVED with stipulations
Board of Commissioners Action (unofficial):  Denied.
Categories : Zonings – Past, 2008

Petition SLUP-16

By Jill Flamm
Wednesday, October 30th, 2013
Search Tags <Mittrix,T-Mobile, T-Mobile, NRC, Johnson Ferry Road, Freeman Road, cell tower, telecommunications tower>
Mittrix, Inc. for T-Mobile South, LLC., 678-920-1262, represented by Lannie Greene, 678-920-1262, requests they be allowed to extend the cell tower height by 16.8 feet .
Property is located on the east side of Johnson Ferry Road, north of Freeman Road (3000 Johnson Ferry Road, Johnson Ferry North shopping center); 16th District, Land Lot 539, Parcel 49.
Size of tract is 4.874 acres
Current zoning is NRC
Contiguous zoning is:
North: NRC (YMCA);
East: : NRC (YMCA), R-30 (unplatted developed subdivision), R-15 (Byrons Pond subdivision);
South: GC (Pike Brothers nursery. undeveloped lot), R-15 (Byrons Pond subdivision);
West: GC (2 unnamed strip shopping centers).
Current land use is Neighborhood Activity Center.
Case manager is Don Farrell
Planning Commissioner is Christi Trombetti
District Commissioner is Tim Lee
Proposed use: Telecommunications Tower (extension).
Increase tower height by 16.8 feet, from existing 148.4 feet to 165 feet
T-Mobile will be located on the tower extension and use the existing enclosed ground compound and equipment building
Distance from north tract boundary: ?? feet
Distance from east tract boundary: ?? feet
Distance from south tract boundary: ?? feet
Distance from west tract boundary: ?? feet to Johnson Road
Contemporaneous variances: None known
Staff Comments:
Please click for Final Zoning Analysis
Staff recommends:
The applicant’s proposal is located in an area designated as a Neighborhood Activity Center on the Future Land Use Map. The applicant’s proposal is located on property that is zoned NRC. The majority of adjacent properties are zoned NRC and GC.  Adjacent properties are used for offices, retail, restaurants and a YMCA facility. For cell towers, non-residential sites are encouraged, and the use of platted lots in residential subdivisions are discouraged, which this proposal complies.
The tower is setback its full height from all offsite residential structures, and is designed for additional co-locations, as required by code.  The tower will be located in its current location on the property, which is totally enclosed by commercial activity. The proposed use would not adversely affect any adjacent or nearby residential properties due to the character of the area.
Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
·         Site plan received by the Zoning Division on June 06, 2008;
·         Fire Department comments;
·         Stormwater Management comments and recommendations; and
·         DOT comments and recommendations.
ECCA position: We think the East Cobb community would benefit from seeing a master plan (including long-range coverage goals) from T Mobile rather than merely addressing each tower proposal on a piece meal basis over the next few years
Why not locate the tower closer to the church?   Church should benefit fully from the full aesthetics of the project
Planning Commission Recommendation (unofficial):  APPROVAL with the following stipulations
  • Subject to the site plan received by the Zoning Division on June 6, 2008
  • Fire Department comments
  • Stormwater Division comments and recommendations
  • Cobb DOT comments and recommendations
Board of Commissioners Action:  Approved, subject to:
  • Subject to the site plan received by the Zoning Division on June 6, 2008
  • Fire Department comments
  • Stormwater Division comments and recommendations
  • Cobb DOT comments and recommendations
Categories : Zonings – Past, 2008
Next Page »