-City of Decatur. December 13, Peggy Merriss City Manager h (\ TO: Amanda Thompso~ Planning Director FROM: Planning Commission Recommendations

Transcription

1 -City of Decatur City Manager's Office 509 North McDonough Street P.O. Box 220 Decatur, Georgia Fax s December 13, 2012 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Peggy Merriss City Manager h (\ Amanda Thompso~ Planning Director Planning Commission Recommendations The following item was heard by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 and they recommend approval ofthe rezoning request and denying the exceptions to the Special Pedestrian Area requirements. l. Oakhurst Land Ventures, LLC has requested to rezone the property at 712 West College Avenue from R-60 Single Family Residential to C-l Local Commercial and approval of exceptions to the Special Pedestrian Area requirements for C 1 Local Commercial. On a motion by Mr. Burnette, second by Mr. Doyon and all voting "aye, "the Planning Commission recommended rezoning the property at 712 West College Avenue from R-60 Single Family Residential to C-1 Local Commercial. On a motion by Mr. Burnette, second by Ms. Hartman and all but Mr. Doyon and Mr. Powers voting "aye," the Planning Commission recommended denying the exceptions to the Special Pedestrian Area requirements for C-1 zoning at West College Avenue and 108 Mead Road. The following items were heard by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 and they recommended approval with conditions: I. The City of Decatur has requested that the land use designation of the southern 3.75 acres of the property located at 400 West Trinity Place be changed from RM-Medium Density Residential to I-InstitutionaL 2. The City of Decatur has requested that the southern 3.75 acres of the property located at 400 West Trinity Place be rezoned from HDSF-High Density Single Family Residential to! Institutional. An Equal Opportunity Employer

2 3. The City of Decatur has requested approval of a new comprehensive site development plan at 400 West Trinity Place. Hutch Moore recused himself from Items 1-3. Due to a lack of quorum the Planning Commission did not issue a recommendation, however all comments were favorable. 4. Sunset Financial, LLC has requested approval of a residential planned unit development at I 004 Clairemont Avenue. On a motion by Mr. Burnette, second by Mr. Moore and all voting "aye, "the Planning Commission recommended approval of a residential planned unit development at 1004 Clairemont subject to the following conditions: - in addition to the recommendations by ArborGuard, the applicant shall submit a tree bond to the City that will cover the cost of removal of the tree and planting a new tree. The bond shall be held for two years from the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last home to be constructed. The bond shall not be released until an inspection by the City Arborist has confirmed that there have been no signs of construction related damage or stress, -unless otherwise specified, the homes in the planned unit development shall be subject to the zoning regulations for lots in the R60 zoning district effective January 7, 2012, - the applicant shall address the comments from the Senior Engineer related to the second review of the hydrology study; and, - construction and future development shall be limited to and conditioned by the plans substantially similar to those submitted with the application. 5. The City of Decatur has requested consideration of amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance related to front yard setbacks, definitions of basement, establishment of floor area regulations and similar standards; conditional approval of variances and other appeals; and other development standards. On a motion by Mr. Powers, second by Mr. Burnette and all voting "aye, "the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance changes as amended. I am happy to answer questions about these recommendations.

3 Minutes Decatur Planning Commission Decatur City Hall 509 North McDonough Street November 13, :00p.m. Present: Burnette, Doyon, Hartman, Manrow, Powers Absent: Moore Mr. Powers called the meeting to order and announced the first item on the agenda: l. Oakhurst Land Ventures, LLC has requested to rezone the property at 712 West College Avenue from R-60 Single Family Residential to C-1 Local Commercial and approval of exceptions to the Special Pedestrian Area requirements for C l Local Commercial. Mr. Whitlock stated that he had changed the site plan in response to comments from the neighbors at the October 9, 2012 meeting of the Planning Commission. He stated that he had placed the building on the 712 West College site to keep the parking lot in the middle of the site away from the neighboring property. He stated that he had added an 8 foot double layer vegetative screen along the alley between the southern neighbors and 712 West College Avenue to the site design. He stated that the site design had been altered to move the dumpster in the center of the lot to increase separation from the neighbors. Mr. Whitlock stated that he had discussed a shared parking agreement with the church west of Mead road to provide a portion of the required parking for the site. He presented a petition showing support for the project at 712 West College Avenue. He stated that a house had not been located on the R-60 zoned 712 West College Avenue lot for at least thirty years. He stated that the lot should be rezoned to allow a functional use rather than an empty lot. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Whitlock stated that the side yard separating 116 Mead Road was two rows of Leland Cypress trees that reach over 30 feet in height plus an 8 foot high fence. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Moss, the architect for Mr. Whitlock, stated that the fence would be placed on the parking lot side of the yard between 116 Mead Road and 712 West College Avenue. He stated that they had requested approval of a 7 foot wide side yard. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Whitlock stated that the yard between 708 West College Avenue and 712 West College Avenue was 10 feet wide and contained three trees in addition to the fence on the property line belonging to the neighbor. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Whitlock stated that the planting buffer by the alley was heavily vegetated for noise protection and the buffer between 708 West College l

4 Avenue and 712 West College Avenue was more open for the protection of trees on the property of708 West College Avenue. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Whitlock stated that the Georgia Department of Transportation ( GDOT) had been at the site the last week checking on the storm water flooding problem. Ms. Thompson stated that GDOT was working with the City of Decatur engineering department to provide repairs to that street. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Whitlock stated that no storm water would come off of the site when the storm water detention system was built. Mr. Powers asked if anyone would like to speak in support of or in opposition to the proposed rezoning. Mr. Charles Cope, 164 Garden Lane, stated that he was in favor of the rezoning. He stated that he used to walk by the comer of West College Avenue and Mead Road when more businesses were in operation at the site. He stated that he missed thriving businesses at the site that could help the Oakhurst neighborhood revitalize further. Mr. David Burke, 140 Mead Road, stated that he was in favor of the rezoning. He stated that he supported a walkable, livable, city with amenities that Mr. Whitlock was proposing. Ms. Stephanie Pena, 159 Olympic Place, stated that she was in favor of the rezoning. She stated that the empty lot at 712 West College was a hazard due to broken glass and that she would like to have a grocery store at that comer for convenience. She stated that the next closest store to her house was over a half mile which was a long way to carry a gallon of milk. She stated that having a grocery store closer would allow her and her kids to walk more for neighborhood services. She stated that some residents on Olympic Drive had no vehicle and that a grocery store would be a helpful. Mr. Joe Hurly, 268 Adair Street, stated that he was in favor ofthe proposed rezoning. He stated that the proposed project was a good project for the neighborhood and was surprised some residents did not support it. Ms. Phyllis Gilbert, 312 Second Avenue, stated that she was in support of the rezoning. She stated that the 712 West College lot made sense as a store. She stated that if someone had wanted to build a house on that lot it would have been built already. She stated that Mr. Whitlock was invested in the community. She stated that the vacant lots were an eyesore. Mr. Powers asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the request. Dr. William Hu, 116 Mead Road, stated that he was in opposition to the rezoning. He stated that since the last meeting he had met with Mr. Whitlock, Mr. Botterbusch, Ms. Thompson, Ms. Menne, and Mr. Holland in reference to the project, the proposed businesses, 2

5 and the rezoning request. Dr. Hu stated that the restaurant owner, Mr. Holland, said he would be willing to close the parking lot access from 108 Mead Road at 10:00 PM. He stated that he preferred 12 foot to 15 foot American Arborvitae trees rather than Leland Cypress. He stated that the parking space numbers did not fit the zoning code for the project. He stated that a clarification on the zoning code had not been communicated to him. He stated that he did not understand why some issues, like residential parking permits, required City Commission approval and some did not. He stated that he was concerned that Ms. Thompson would grant variance(s) for elements of Mr. Whitlock's project that did not meet the zoning ordinance. He stated that he was still not clear on the buffer requirement between his property at 116 Mead Road and C-2 zoned 108 Mead Road. Mr. Burnette stated that the 30 foot buffer requirement applied to Mr. Valenti's property at 708 West College Avenue due to the orientation of properties at the comer of Mead Road and West College Avenue. Dr. Hu stated that three curb cuts were not permitted for a single property. He stated an 8 foot fence was mandated at the rear buffer. He stated that he did not know if the City of Decatur would enforce the stormwater ordinances pertaining to the 712 West College Avenue site. Mr. Powers stated that the city had a high level of accountability regarding stormwater runoff ordinances. Mr. Valenti, 708 College Avenue, stated that he was in opposition to the rezoning. He stated that he agreed with Dr. Hu and was concerned about the impact of the development. He stated that it seemed the Planning Commission had already decided to recommend the rezoning. Ms. Manrow stated that the proposed rezoning of712 West College Avenue had been tabled at the October 9, 2012 meeting and was being heard tonight again. She stated no decision had been made. In response to a question from Mr. Valenti, Mr. Burnette stated that a residence could be built in the same location, 10 feet from the pecan trees, as the proposed building without a public hearing. In response to several questions from Mr. Valenti, Mr. Burnette stated that the tree ordinance did not require protection of boundary trees or tree on neighboring properties. Mr. Valenti stated that he thought the lot would be built out as a small residential structure not a commercial building. He stated that the proposed building was large and would cause traffic to increase. Mr. Neil Dobbs, 262 Maxwell Street, stated that he was in opposition to the rezoning of 712 West College A venue. He stated that he was concerned about converting residential zoned property to commercial property. He stated that the 712 West College Avenue lot was nonconforming, but houses had been built in the City of Decatur on lots that size. Mr. Dobbs stated that Decatur nurtures complimentary businesses, especially in Oakhurst. He stated that the 3

6 proposed grocery store would compete with established businesses in the Oakhurst Village. Mr. Dobbs stated that Oakhurst was thriving due to local businesses. He stated that if the property were rezoned that bike racks should be increased, a long term tree maintenance prescription should be included in the conditions of approval, and native trees should be planted rather than Leland Cypress. In response to a question from Mr. Powers, Mr. Dobbs stated that he would equally object if a Trader Joe's was being built on the same parcel. Mr. Powers stated that to deny a project because it might compete with another business would set a dangerous precedent in regard to development decisions. He stated that Oakhurst was empty several years ago because development was not encouraged. Mr. Dobbs stated that stormwater runoff would be improved by the proposed development and rezoning of 712 West College A venue, but the site was wrong for the proposed business. Ms. Mary Visscher, 317 Oakland Street, stated that she was in opposition to the rezoning. She stated that she was concerned about the precedent of rezoning R-60 Single Family lots to C- 1 Commercial. Ms. Visscher stated that quality of life could be compromised by living next to commercial zoned property. Mr. John Bryan, 115 Olympic Place, stated that he was in opposition to the rezoning. He stated that when he purchased his house he thought that 712 West College Avenue could not be rezoned commercial. He stated that he did not want the alley adjacent to his lot open for traffic. Ms. Misty Frederick, 15 Village Walk, stated that she was in favor of the rezoning. She stated that Oakhurst Market was too far for her and a closer store would be more convenient. Mr. Wardell Castles, 331 Ponce de Leon Place, stated that he was in opposition to the rezoning. He stated that the Planning Commission should think about the impact of rezoning R- 60 to commercial zones. Mr. Burnette stated that he was surprised by the disconnect between the strategic plan and proposed rezoning. He stated that the strategic plan supported neighborhood commercial. Mr. Burnette stated that he was unconcerned about rezoning a nonconforming R -60 lot to C-1 since it had been vacant for more than twenty years. He stated that 712 West College Avenue was a unique situation in the city. Mr. Burnette stated that he was concerned about recommending construction of a 5200 square foot building on an approximately 6900 square foot lot in addition to the traffic problems already experienced at the Atlanta Avenue intersection. He stated that the flooding problem would likely be solved by the proposed development and that the setbacks would be the same as with a single family house. Mr. Doyon stated that it was difficult to satisfy neighbors and strategic plan. He stated that the proposed 5200 square foot building added up to less floor area than the three historic buildings that were on the site. 4

7 Mr. Powers stated that the lot was unique and within walking distance to many people. He stated that competition exists, but no one said Oakhurst did not need another grocery store. Mr. Powers stated that many houses in Oakhurst were already bigger than the planned market. He stated that he would like to discuss the exceptions that had been requested. In response to a question from Ms. Manrow, Ms Thompson stated that the proposed plan required at total of 53 parking spaces- 27 for the existing building and 26 for the new building. She stated that up to 50% ofthe parking requirement could be met through a shared parking agreement with the church across the street. She stated that the proposed project provided 44 parking spaces on site. Ms. Thompson stated that the zoning ordinance allowed for the City Commission to grant exceptions to the pedestrian design regulations. She stated that she could not grant variances or exceptions and that up to this point, none had been granted for this site. She stated that the purpose of the hearing was to determine if the Planning Commission and City Commission wished to grant exceptions to the pedestrian regulations. She stated that the applicant had requested exceptions from the side of the side and rear yard, the number of allowable curb cuts and the location of the parking next to the street. Mr. Burnette stated that the development would require 9 extra off street parking spaces that could be shared with the church across Mead Road. In response to a question from Mr. Powers, Mr. Burnette stated that he was concerned about the number of curb cuts and the potential for a lot of traffic in and out of the store. Ms. Manrow stated that she was not concerned about rezoning R-60 to C-1 in this situation. Mr. Powers stated that he did not believe the parking lot would be filled all the time. He stated that traffic was a concern. Mr. Powers asked if the third curb cut on Mead Road could be eliminated. Ms. Hartman stated that traffic could be much worse if the curb cut on Mead Road were eliminated. She stated that she was fine with closing the Mead Road access point at 10:00 PM. Ms. Manrow stated that if the store closed at 10:00 PM then the Mead Road parking access could be closed. Mr. Burnette stated that he wished to separate the rezoning from the site plan presented by Mr. Whitlock, the applicant. He stated that rezoning from R-60 to C-1 would allow greater flexibility with the site and possibly a site plan that required less variances. On a motion by Mr. Burnette, second by Mr. Doyon and all voting "aye," the Planning Commission recommended rezoning the property at 712 West College Avenue from R-60 Single Family Residential to C-1 Local Commercial. 5

8 Mr. Burnette stated that he was concerned about the location of the proposed building and the need for so many exceptions. Mr. Powers stated that he was concerned with the need for reduced side and rear yards. Mr. Burnette stated that the other businesses at the comer of Mead Road and West College Avenue had opened without needing exceptions. Mr. Doyon asked Ms. Thompson to define buffer in reference to 712 West College Avenue. Ms. Thompson stated that a required side and rear yard was not the same as a landscaped buffer requirements. She stated that side and rear yards could be used for parking in the C I district. Mr. Doyon stated that a building created a better buffer for a residential property than a parking lot. In response to a question from Mr. Doyon, Ms. Thompson stated that a parking lot could be built on the site if the site was rezoned. Ms. Thompson stated that the applicant could withdraw his request. site. Mr. Whitlock stated that he could increase the buffers if the parking was reduced on the Ms. Manrow and Ms. Hartman stated that they would like to see the full 10 foot and 30 foot yard requirements met. Mr. Powers agreed. In response to a question from Mr. Whitlock, Ms. Thompson stated that she could not recommend redesigning the project during a public hearing due to the number of variables that would be impacted. She stated that the applicant could withdraw and redesign or move forward with their request. Mr. Doyon stated that he was uncomfortable with any action that would cause the applicant to have to wait a year to come back to the Planning Commission. He stated he did not want a vacant lot for another year in Oakhurst. On a motion by Mr. Burnette, second by Ms. Hartman and all but Mr. Doyon and Mr. Powers voting "aye, " the Planning Commission recommended denying the exceptions to the Special Pedestrian Area requirements for C-1 zoning at West College Avenue and 108 Mead Road. Mr. Powers and Mr. Doyon voted "no. " 6

9 Present: Burnette, Hartman, Moore, Powers Absent: Doyon, Manrow Minutes Decatur Planning Commission Decatur City Hall 509 North McDonough Street December 11, :00p.m. Mr. Powers called the meeting to order and explained the procedures that would be followed at the hearing. He stated that the first three items would be presented together. He stated that Mr. Moore would recuse himself since his firm had performed title work on the properties for the city. Mr. Moore left the room. Mr. Powers announced the first items: 1. The City of Decatur has requested that the land use designation of the southern 3.75 acres of the property located at 400 West Trinity Place be changed from RM-Medium Density Residential to I-Institutional. 2. The City of Decatur has requested that the southern 3.75 acres of the property located at 400 West Trinity Place be rezoned from HDSF-High Density Single Family Residential to! Institutional. 3. The City of Decatur has requested approval of a new comprehensive site development plan at 400 West Trinity Place. Hugh Saxon, Deputy City Manager, stated that the City had spent two years developing a plan to renovate the facilities at the former Beacon school. He stated that the total site was 7.5 acres and a portion of it was zoned I Institutional and the remainder had a land use of RM Medium Density Residential and a zoning district designation of HDSF High Density Single Family. He stated that the city wished to change the land use and zoning district for the entire site to I Institutional as well as adopt a new master site plan. He stated that the current facility contained the police department, municipal courts, Active Living facilities and artist studios. He stated that a portion of the existing building would be demolished and a new 2 story building would be constructed for the police and municipal court operations. He stated that the remainder of the existing building would be renovated for the Active Living Division and the City of Decatur Schools central office. He stated that as part of this project, the Ebster fields, bathhouse and pool would also be upgraded and/or replaced. He stated that the story of integration in Decatur and the African American neighborhood history in this part of town would be displayed in the renovated Beacon facility. He stated that renovations to this building were sorely needed. He stated that the new uses were very similar to the existing uses and would serve as an amenity to the community. He stated that the city hoped to start construction in March

10 In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Saxon stated that the City of Decatur schools and the police department would have room to grow within the proposed building. He stated that Active Living had several multi-use spaces that were designed to change over time in response to new types of programs. In response to a question from Mr. Powers, Mr. Saxon stated that there would be shared spaces and programs between the Beacon facility and the Recreation Center downtown. He stated that during the renovation, the entire Active Living Division would work out of the Recreation Center. He stated that there was enough parking onsite to meet the needs of the proposed uses. He stated that parking was always tight on days when municipal court was in sesswn. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Saxon stated that 160 parking spaces were required and they proposed to build 108 parking spaces. He stated that the current site only had 73 parking spaces. He stated that 50 parking spaces would be reserved during office hours for the Board of Education. Ms. Thompson stated that the Commission could approve a reduction in parking as part of the Institutional master site plan. Mr. Powers asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. Mr. Burnette stated that it was a great plan. Mr. Power stated that the renovations were long overdue, it would allow for more efficient operations and that this would be a benefit to the community. Ms. Hartman stated that she agreed and was looking forward to the new facilities. Mr. Powers stated that due to a lack of quorum the Planning Commission could not issue a recommendation, however their comments would be submitted to the City Commission. Mr. Moore returned to the meeting room. Mr. Powers anuounced the next item on the agenda: 4. Sunset Financial, LLC has requested approval of a residential planned unit development at 1004 Clairemont Avenue. Howie Turner, Sunset Financial, LLC, stated that he was the owner of the property at 1004 Clairemont A venue. He stated that his team included Ron Sprinkle, a land planuer and Taylor Anderson, an engineer. He stated that a year ago he presented a planned unit development that was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, but denied by the City Commission. He stated that since that time his team had worked hard to solve the stormwater 2

11 runoff issues with this site and the larger neighborhood. He stated that the subject property only contributed 10% of the stormwater to the flooding problem, but his proposed development would provide 100% of the solution with the purchase of the home at 237 Westchester Drive and the installation of new stormwater pipes. Ron Sprinkle stated that he would provide an overview of the project. He stated that the applicant proposed to build 7 new homes, renovate the existing house at 1004 Clairemont Avenue and demolish and build a new home at 237 Westchester Drive. He stated that a new detention system and stormwater pipes would eliminate the flooding problem at 237 Westchester Drive. He stated that the new plan removed the alleys that were shown on the previous plan, but still provided almost an acre of greenspace buffer between the new homes and the homes facing Westchester. He stated that a 30 foot rear yard was provided between the development and the Katz property at 1014 Clairemont Avenue. He submitted a list of additional conditions and the proposed regulations that would govern the development. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Sprinkle stated that they were continuing to respond to the Senior Engineer's comments and were prepared to meet the requirements of the storm water ordinance. He stated that they wished to dedicate the new storm water infrastructure on the Westchester lot to the city. He stated that they would retain the ownership of the infrastructure on 1004 Clairemont Avenue. He stated that there would be one sidewalk on the north side of the new private street. Mr. Powers stated that the stormwater agreements would have to be resolved prior to the City Commission hearing. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Ms. Thompson stated that the comments contained in the staff report were preliminary review comments. She stated that the Fire Marshall was fine with the proposed street. She stated that the staff comments represented a "worst case scenario" and that with the revised plan and a new fire hydrant the applicant would most likely not have to install sprinklers. She stated that the police recommend directing some lights into the greenspace area. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Sprinkle stated that the owner was willing to spend a lot of money on preserving the tree in Ms. Katz's yard with the Arborguard plan. He stated that they were not able to plant a landscape buffer as well in the 30 foot rear yards. He stated that the alleyways were removed from the plan to create a natural buffer and minimize impacts of the development. In response to several questions from Mr. Burnette, Mr. Sprinkle stated that the development and the improvements would result in a working drainage system that would decrease flooding. He stated that it would be built to city standards. In response to a question from Mr. Powers, Mr. Sprinkle stated that Ms. Cassidy had to sign a contract for the applicant to purchase her property, pending zoning approval, by the hearing and she had done so. 3

12 Mr. Powers asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the request. Beth Byrnes, I 0 I 0 Clairemont A venue, stated that she was representing the Clairemont Gateway Assocation. She stated that they were in support of the project and she submitted a petition of support. Henri Byrnes, 1010 Clairemont Avenue, stated that he lived next door to the property and was in support of the project. Marianne Cassidy, 237 Westchester Drive, stated that she was in support of the project. She stated that she had suffered flooding for a long time and that this was the only solution to her problem. She stated that the city would not buy her house and they would also not fix the existing drainage system. She stated that Mr. Turner was paying off her house so she could move. Jon Munsterman, 233 Westchester Drive, stated that he was in support of the plan. He stated that he would be granting an easement for a portion of the new stormwater pipes on his property. He stated that this would solve Marianne's problem. Mr. Powers asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the request. Lucy Katz, 1014 Clairemont Avenue, stated that she was opposed to the project. She stated that if the city did approve the project she would like the following conditions (attached) - increased tree protection for the tree in her rear yard, neighborhood approval oflighting and landscape plan for the buffer area, no decks or accessory structures allowed in the rear yards of the three homes that would be adjacent to her property. In response to questions from Mr. Burnette, Ms. Katz stated that she was a member of the Westchester Neighborhood Association even though her home was on Clairemont Avenue and faced Clairemont A venue. She stated that she would like the total number of homes to be reduced, but knew that was unlikely. She stated that she wanted something planted in the rear yards adjacent to her property line. She stated that real estate agents said her house would drop in value because she would no longer have a private backyard and she lived off of a busy street. She stated that none of the new homes would be adjacent to her house. In response to a question from Ms. Hartman, Ms. Katz stated that no part of her house would be adjacent to any of the new homes. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Ms. Thompson stated that the required rear yard was 30 feet. She stated that the recently adopted setbacks and story limits for accessory buildings would apply to this development. She stated that a deck could extend 10 feet into a rear yard. She stated that porches could not extend into a rear yard. Mr. Sprinkle stated that they wished to follow all the standard R60 zoning rules for single family lots in Decatur. He stated that they were providing a greenspace buffer, exceeding the 4

13 requirements of the tree ordinance and did not have additional funds to plant a landscape buffer based on the improvements they were already providing. Mr. Powers and Mr. Moore stated that their primary concern was that Ms. Cassidy's problem was resolved and drainage improvements were put into place. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Ms. Thompson stated that typical city policy was to not take ownership of roads and drainage facilities. She stated that city staff would have to discuss the issue of accepting the drainage facilities with the City Commission. Mr. Sprinkle stated that the applicant wished to dedicate only the drainage facilities on the Westchester property to the city. Mr. Powers stated that the City Commission could determine whether or not to accept the drainage facilities. Mr. Burnette stated that the applicant had and would continue to address the Senior Engineer's comments regarding the drainage study, but overall it would be a net improvement for the lot. Mr. Moore and Ms. Hartman agreed. Ms. Hartman and Mr. Burnette stated that they understood Ms. Katz's concerns, but the applicant was providing a standard 30 foot rear yard and a reduction in the number of houses would not have any impact on Ms. Katz's view. On a motion by Mr. Burnette, second by Mr. Moore and all voting "aye, "the Planning Commission recommended approval of a residential planned unit development at 1004 Clairemont subject to the following conditions: - in addition to the recommendations by ArborGuard, the applicant shall submit a tree bond to the City that will cover the cost of removal of the tree and planting a new tree. The bond shall be held for two years from the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last home. The bond shall not be released until an inspection by the City Arborist has confirmed that there have been no signs of construction related damage or stress, -unless otherwise specified, the homes in the planned unit development shall be subject to the zoning regulations for lots in the R60 zoning district effective January 7, 2012, -the applicant shall address the comments from the Senior Engineer related to the second review of the hydrology study; and, - construction and future development shall be limited to and conditioned by the plans substantially similar to those submitted with the application. Mr. Powers announced the last item on the agenda: 5. The City of Decatur has requested consideration of amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance related to front yard setbacks, definitions of basement, establishment of floor 5

14 area regulations and similar standards; conditional approval of variances and other appeals; and other development standards. Ms. Thompson stated that some of the zoning ordinances adopted as part of the 2006 Infill Task Force related to floor area measurements and requirements needed clarification. She stated that city staff had been enforcing the definition of basements by requiring part of the building considered a basement to be at least 50% underground. She stated that the ordinance was written to say that only a portion of a basement had to be underground. She stated that she would like to clarify and tighten up this definition to prevent the construction of 3 story houses, which was the original intent of the Infill Task Force. She stated that if an owner had a lot that sloped away from the street they could apply for a variance if they wished to build a 3 story house that was only 2 stories at the street level. Mr. Burnette stated that the proposed basement defiuition should be modified to read, "Basement: That portion of a building having one-half or more of its exterior wall height below grade. A basement is not counted as a story for the purpose of height regulation." Mr. Moore, Mr. Powers and Ms. Hartman agreed. Ms. Thompson stated that many contractors were confused by the definition of floor area for garages and accessory buildings, especially when the "attic" rule was applied. She stated that garages counted towards the floor area requirement regardless of their location attached, detached or in a basement. She stated that attics only occurred in main dwellings and they only counted toward the floor area requirement if they were served by a permanent stair and had 7 feet in ceiling height or greater. She stated that many contractors were trying to build carports with attics or accessory buildings with 2 stories and trying to treat the second story as an attic. She stated that the proposed definition clarified the rules and met the intent of the task force to limit floor area to 40% of the total lot area. Mr. Burnette stated that he would break up the first sentence and use bullet points to make it clearer regarding when floor area measurements applied. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Ms. Thompson stated that accessory dwellings were a type of accessory building. She stated that she could add "and structures" to the second paragraph after accessory buildings to ensure that the rule covered all types of accessory buildings and structures. Mr. Burnette, Mr. Moore, Mr. Powers and Ms. Hartman agreed to make the amendment to add "and structures." Ms. Thompson stated that the last proposed change was a recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals. She stated that they routinely granted variances from the minimum front yard setback requirements to re-establish existing porches/covered stoops or to build new roofs over existing stoops. She stated that the proposed amendment would allow the zoning administrator to grant administrative variances from the minimum front yard in these two very specific situations. She stated that the city wished to encourage property owners to build covered 6

15 entryways and front porches. Ms. Thompson corrected number l.b to read"... 2 feet or less" instead of"...less than 2 feet." Mr. Burnette stated that he was in favor of modifying the second recommendation to allow the owner to extend 2 feet closer to the street. In response to a question from Mr. Burnette, Ms. Thompson stated that the ZBA took a more conservative approach with this issue. She stated that in this case the next door neighbors were going from a no roof condition to a new roof condition. She stated that covering the existing stoop seemed reasonable, but allowing them to extend farther into the setback could be surprising for the adjoining property owners. Mr. Powers asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed zoning amendments. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposed zoning amendments. Force. Mr. Powers stated that the amendments were in line with the work of the Infill Task Mr. Burnette stated that the front yard amendments would be helpful. Mr. Moore and Ms. Hartman stated that the proposed changes seemed reasonable. On a motion by Mr. Powers, second by Mr. Burnette and all voting "aye, "the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance changes as amended. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 7

16 Capital Improvements Program Capital Improvements Program Beacon School Complex Master Plan Completed -October, 2010 Rutledge Alcock Architects Lord Cultural Resources Decatur Heritage Resource: Herring Street School Beacon Elementary School Trinity High School Carver Public Library Ebster Recreation Center Project Summary: Police Department and Municipal Court Active Living Department City Schools of Decatur Central Office 33,350 sf 23,160 sf 23,610 sf 80,120 sf Storm Water Infrastructure Improvements 1

17 I 2

18 I 3

19 I 4

20 I 5