Planning Comission Meeting Package 03.18.10

8/14/2019 Planning Comission Meeting Package 03.18.10

1/95

Planning Commission

March 18, 2010

7:00 p.m.

Sandy Springs City Hall, 7840 Roswell Road, 500 BuildingMorgan Falls Office Park, Sandy Springs, GA 30350

Planning Commission Agenda

Agenda ItemCouncilDistrict

Meeting Dates** Staff RecommendationPlanning Commission

RecommendationAPPROVAL OF AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENTApproval of previous meetings minutes 02/18/10REZONINGS

1. RZ10-001/CV10-0015815 Mountain Creek RoadApplicant: Eugene and Mari JoGrace/Carol Jane Reynolds To rezone the subject property from

O-I (Office and Institutional District)conditional to O-I (Office and

Institutional District) conditional, withconcurrent variance(s), to initiallyallow a Group Residence with afuture transition into a PersonalCare Home.

5 CZIM 1/26/10DRB 1/26/10CDRM - 2/24/10or 2/25/10PC 3/18/10MCC 4/20/10

RZ10-001 ApprovalConditionalCV10-001 #1 ApprovalConditionalCV10-001 #2 ApprovalConditionalCV10-001 #3 Approval

Conditional

TBD

2. RZ10-002/CV10-0025790 & 5800 Mountain Creek RoadApplicant: Eugene and Mari JoGrace/Carol Jane Reynolds

To rezone the subject property fromO-I (Office and Institutional District)conditional to O-I (Office andInstitutional District) conditional,with concurrent variance(s), toinitially allow a Group Residencewith a future transition into aPersonal Care Home.

6 CZIM 1/26/10DRB 1/26/10CDRM - 2/24/10or 2/25/10

PC

3/18/10MCC 4/20/10

RZ10-002 ApprovalConditionalCV10-002 #1 ApprovalConditional

CV10-002 #2

ApprovalConditionalCV10-002 #3 ApprovalConditional

TBD

TEXT AMENDMENTS

3. TA10-001An Ordinance to Amend Article 12B,Sandy Springs Overlay District, of theSandy Springs Zoning Ordinance

CityWide

PC 03/18/10MCC 04/20/10

TA10-001 Approval TBD

4. TA10-002An Ordinance to Amend Article 33,Signs, of the Sandy Springs ZoningOrdinance

CityWide

PC 03/18/10MCC 04/20/10

TA10-002 Approval TBD

RESOLUTIONS


2/95


3/95


4/95


5/95


6/95


7/95


8/95


9/95


10/95


11/95


12/95


13/95


14/95


15/95

Rezoning Petition No. RZ10-002/CV10-002

HEARING & MEETING DATES

Community ZoningInformation Meeting

Design ReviewBoard Meeting

Community DeveloperResolution Meeting

PlanningCommission

Hearing

Mayor and CityCouncil Hearing

January 26, 2010 January 26, 2010February 24, 2010 or

February 25, 2010March 18, 2010 April 20, 2010

APPLICANT/PETITIONER INFORMATION

Property Owners Petitioner RepresentativeEugene and Mari Jo Grace/ Carol Jane

ReynoldsCarol Jane Reynolds Nathan V. Hendricks III

PROPERTY INFORMATIONAddress, Land Lot,and District

5790 & 5800 Mountain Creek RoadLand Lot 70, District 17

Council District 6

Frontage and Area

200 feet of frontage along the southwest side of Mountain Creek Road. The subject

property has a total area of approximately 0.83 acres (35,913 sq.ft.).

Existing Zoning andUse

O-I (Office and Institutional District) conditional under zoning cases Z98-009 and Z99-062.The property is developed with offices.

Overlay District Urban District

2027ComprehensiveFuture Land UseMap Designation

LWR (Living-Working Regional), Node 7: Roswell Road and I-285 (Downtown)

Proposed Zoning O-I (Office and Institutional District)INTENT

TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM O-I (OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT)CONDITIONAL TO O-I (OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT) CONDITIONAL, WITH

CONCURRENT VARIANCE(S), TO INITIALLY ALLOW GROUP RESIDENCES WITH A FUTURETRANSITION INTO PERSONAL CARE HOMES.

The subject property is zoned O-I (Office and Institutional District) under zoning cases Z98-009 and Z99-062 andconditioned to office uses within the existing structures.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from O-I (Office and Institutional District) conditional toO-I (Office and Institutional District) conditional to initially allow Group Residences with a future transition intoPersonal Care Homes. The applicant states that the residence numbered 5790 Mountain Creek Road containsh b d d b h d h i i h i h Th li h h

RZ10 002


16/95

RZ10-002

A Group Residence is defined in the City Zoning Ordinance as:

A state licensed 24-hour residential facility functioning as a single housekeeping unit for the sheltered careof persons with special needs which, in addition to providing food and shelter, may also provide somecombination of personal care, social or counseling services and transportation. Bedroom suites shall notinclude kitchen facilities. For purposes of this Ordinance, group residence/shelter shall not include thosefacilities which exclusively care for children under the age of 17.

A Personal Care Home is defined in the City Zoning Ordinance as:

A state licensed use in which domiciliary care is provided to adults who are provided with food, shelterand personal services. This use shall not include hospitals, convalescent centers, nursing homes, hospices,clinics, or similar institutions devoted primarily to the diagnosis and treatment of the sick or injured.

The State of Georgia defines a Personal Care Home as:

A single home, building or group of buildings where personal services (help with the essential activities ofdaily living to include assistance with eating, bathing, grooming, dressing, toileting, and supervision ofmedications) are provided to two or more adults not related to the owner or administrator by blood ormarriage.

NOTE: Under Chapter 111-8-62 of the State of Georgia Healthcare Facility Regulations for Personal Care Homes,Group Residences are exempted from the regulations as follows:

Group Residences organized by or for persons who choose to live independently or who manage theirown care and share the cost of services including but not limited to attendant care, transportation, rent,

utilities, and food preparation.

Additionally, the applicant is requesting three (3) concurrent variances as follows:

1. Variance from Section 4.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required Landscape Strip(s), ZoningBuffer(s) & Improvement Setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existing structure(s) to comply inaccordance with the site plan received by the Department of Community Development on January 16,2010, and

2. Variance from Section 4.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required Landscape Strip(s), ZoningBuffer(s) & Improvement Setback(s) to the extent necessary to allow for proposed All-weathersurface/Driveway/Parking to comply in accordance with the site plan received by the Department ofCommunity Development on January 16, 2010, and

RZ10-002


17/95

RZ10-002

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION

RZ10-002 APPROVAL CONDITIONALCV10-002 #1 APPROVAL CONDITIONALCV10-002 #2 APPROVAL CONDITIONALCV10-002 #3 APPROVAL CONDITIONAL

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ENDORSEMENT

RZ10-002 APPROVEDCV10-002 #1 APPROVEDCV10-002 #2 APPROVEDCV10-002 #3 APPROVED

Approved (5-0), Porter, Landeck, Richard, Westmoreland and Mobley for; Gregory Absent; Lichtenstein notvoting.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

RZ10-002 TBDCV10-002 #1 TBDCV10-002 #2 TBD

CV10-002 #3 TBD

RZ10-002


18/95

RZ10 002

Location Map

RZ10-002


19/95

BACKGROUNDThe site is located on the southwest side of Mountain Creek Road, approximately 150 feet south of theintersection of Carpenter Drive and Mountain Creek Road. The properties are zoned O-I (Office andInstitutional District) under zoning cases Z99-062 & Z98-009 and conditioned to office use within theexisting structure. The subject property is located within the Urban District of the Sandy Springs Overlay

District.EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING OF ABUTTING PROPERTY

SUBJECTPETITIONRZ09-009/CV09-018

RequestedZoning

Proposed UseLand Area

(Acres)

SquareFootage orNumber of

Units

Density(Square Feet orUnits per Acre)

O-I Personal Care Homes 0.834,162.60 sf

(with enclosedcarports)

5,015.18 sf/acre

Location inrelation to

subjectproperty

Zoning UseLand Area

(Acres)


Units

Density(Square Feet orUnits Per Acre)

Northwest R-3 Residence @ 5810Mountain Creek Rd.

0.42 1 unit 2.38 units/acre

Northeast R-3Residence @ 5805

Mountain Creek Rd.0.50 1 unit 2.00 units/acre

Northeast R-3Residence @ 5795


SoutheastO-I

conditional

Z02-081

Office @ 5780

Mountain Creek Rd.

0.42 2,500 sf 5,952.38 sf/acre

SouthwestA-1

Z64-088Condos (Laurel Grove)

@ 346 Carpenter Dr.4.90 93 units 18.98 units/acre

RZ10-002


20/95

Zoning Map

RZ10-002


21/95

Future Land Use Map

RZ10-002


22/95

Subject Property (5800) Subject Property (5790)

RZ10-002


23/95

Across the street (northeast of the subjectproperties/5805 Mountain Creek Rd.)

Across the street (northeast of the subjectproperties/5805 & 5795 Mountain Creek Rd.)

RZ10-002


24/95

Sign (5790)


25/95

RZ10-002


26/95

DEPARTMENT COMMENTS

The staff held a Focus Meeting on February 3, 2010 at which the following departmental comments wereprovided:

Sandy SpringsBuilding PlanReviewer

If the buildings at 5815, 5790, and 5800 Mountain Creek Road arecurrently used as business offices and are changed to a Residential

Board and Care or Day Care occupancy, Section 4.6.11 of the 2000 LifeSafety Code would require that they be brought into compliance withall of the 2006 ICC codes, the Georgia Accessibility Code, and the 2000Life Safety Code. The occupant load factor would be 200 s.f. per personfor a Residential Board and Care occupancy and 35 s.f. per person for aDay Care occupancy. Some, but not all of the items that may berequired are fire sprinklers, fire partitions, and secondary means ofescape from sleeping rooms.

BUILDING&

DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION

Sandy SpringsEngineering PlanReviewer

Any permit applications involving site development shall comply withapplicable stormwater management, and erosion control ordinances.

Sandy SpringsLandscapeArchitect/Arborist

If the MCC chooses to approve the rezoning and concurrent variances acondition could be added that the required landscape strips and zoningbuffers be planted to meet the minimum standards as approved by theCity Arborist.

RZ10-002


27/95

FIREDEPT.

Sandy Springs FireProtection Engineer

The change in occupancy classifies these structures as New ResidentialBoard and Care Occupancies and must comply with NFPA 101: 32.2 asamended in 120-3-3 if there are 4-6 people which is small board andcare, over 6 people is large (sprinklers are required). DHR requireslicensing at 2 or more people.

For reference:

3.3.134.13 Residential Board and Care Occupancy (SpecificallyPersonal Care Homes/Facilities and/or Assisted Living Homes/Facilitiesas licensed by the Department of Human Resources). A building, orpart thereof, which is used for lodging and boarding of four or moreresidents, not related by blood or marriage to the owners or operators, for

the purpose of providing personal care services. Any facility providinglodging and boarding and personal care for four or more residents whoare mostly incapable of self-preservation, except brain injury centers,because of physical or mental disability shall be classified as a health careoccupancy and shall meet the appropriate provisions of other chapters ofthis Code for health care occupancies.

GA state amendment to NFPA 101;

(b) Modifications to Chapter 2:

2. Add the following definitions to section 202:

Day-care Center - A day-care facility subject to licensure or commissionby the Department of Human Resources where more than 12 clientsreceive care.

Group Day-care Home - A day-care facility subject to licensure orcommission by the Department of Human Resources where at least sevenbut not more than 12 clients receive care.

Personal Care Home/Assisted Living Facility - Any building or partthereof that is used for the lodging or boarding of residents, not relatedby blood or marriage to the owners or operators, for the purpose of

providing personal care services and licensed as a personal care home orassisted living facility.

Residential Occupancies. Occupancies, as specified in the scope of thisstandard, include the following, as defined in Chapter 2 of this Code, orh IBC b S l b h R l d R l i f h G i


28/95

RZ10-002


29/95

ZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS

Per Article 28.4.1, Zoning Impact Analysis by the Planning Commission and the Department, the staff shall make awritten record of its investigation and recommendation on each rezoning petition with respect to the followingfactors:

A. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent andnearby property.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposed Personal Care Homes are appropriate in view ofthe density and use of the surrounding developments.

B. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposal is not expected to adversely affect the existing use orusability of adjacent commercial and residential properties.

C. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal may have reasonable economic use as currently zoned.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned.

D. Whether the zoning proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive burdensome use of existingstreets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposal will not result in a use which will cause an excessive

or burdensome use of the existing infrastructure.

Public Works does not anticipate that the proposed use permit will cause an excessivelyburdensome use of existing streets or transportation facilities.

E. Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposed use is consistent with the Future Land Use Map,

which designates the property as Living-Working Regional (LWR). The proposal lends itself tothe overall intent of the LWR designated areas that are intended for high intensity/densitymixed land uses (residential and commercial) intended for major transportation areas and areashaving significant concentrations of employment. The LWR land use designation recommends:Over 20 units/acre of residential density, over 25,000 sf/acre of business density, a case-by-case

u r f t/t n nt limit ti n n unlimit d h ight r tri ti n nd 20% f Op n/Gr n Sp

RZ10-002

The applicant is proposing to allow for a use consistent with O I zoning The subject property


30/95

The applicant is proposing to allow for a use consistent with O-I zoning. The subject propertyprovides adequate buffering to adjacent Protected Neighborhoods to the east and the use wouldbe in keeping with appropriate transition to the more intense uses to the west. Additionally,Live-work developments should ensure walkable development patterns, and the applicantwould provide the required Urban Overlay District streetscape to include lighted and shaded

sidewalks.

The subject site is located in Living Working Node 7: Roswell Road and I-285 (Downtown).The vision, guidelines, and policies of Node 7 is as follows:

The area should be dedicated for high density commercial, office, and residential uses. This area should be considered for some of the highest densities in the City. Consolidation of properties and the collective redevelopment of multiple properties

should be encouraged in the area to perpetuate economic vitality, increased green space,and an improved transportation system.

Residential density should be above 20 units per acre. Commercial and office densitiesshould be above 25,000 square feet per acre. Building heights should not be limited inthis area. At least 15% of a site shall be maintained as open and green space.

Densities and heights of a significant nature should not be supported on properties lessthan four (4) acres in size. Increased levels of open and green space, limiting directvehicular access to Roswell Road, and improving the areas transportation network shallbe important considerations for the highest densities and building heights.

The transition of densities and heights to levels similar to those in the Town Center areashould be considered on the northern boundary of the area along Cliftwood Drive andCarpenter Drive.

Automobile-oriented uses should be discouraged from this area.

F. Whether there are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which givesupporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the zoning proposal.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that there are no existing or changing conditions affecting the use anddevelopment of the property, which give supporting grounds for approval or denial of theapplicants proposal.

G. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered environmentally adverse to the natural

RZ10-002

VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS


31/95


Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates the following are considerations in granting variances, of whichonly one has to be proven:

A.

Relief, if granted, would be in harmony with, or, could be made to be in harmony with, the general purpose andintent of the Zoning Ordinance; or,B. The application of the particular provision of the Zoning Ordinance to a particular piece of property, due to

extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to that property because of its size, shape, or topography,would create an unnecessary hardship for the owner while causing no detriment to the public; or,

C. Conditions resulting from existing foliage or structures bring about a hardship whereby a sign meeting minimumletter size, square footage and height requirements cannot be read from an adjoining public road.

The applicant is requesting three (3) concurrent variances as follows:

1. Variance from Section 4.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required Landscape Strip(s),Zoning Buffer(s) & Improvement Setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existing structure(s) tocomply in accordance with the site plan received by the Department of Community Development onJanuary 16, 2010.

The applicant has indicated this variance will not result in any harm to the health and safety of the

general public and that application of the requirement would place a hardship on the applicant. Theapplicant has indicated that this variance is in harmony with the area and in harmony with the generalpurpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.

The staff is of the opinion the variance request is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and theproposal will not pose a detriment to the public because the structures are existing and sufficiently buffered.Therefore, based on these reasons, the staff recommends APPROVAL of the variance to reduce the requiredLandscape Strip(s), Zoning Buffer(s) & Improvement Setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existing

structure(s) to comply in accordance with the site plan received by the Department of Community Developmenton January 16, 2010.

2. Variance from Section 4.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required Landscape Strip(s),Zoning Buffer(s) & Improvement Setback(s) to the extent necessary to allow for proposed All-weathersurface/Driveway/Parking to comply in accordance with the site plan received by the Department ofCommunity Development on January 16, 2010.

The applicant has indicated this variance will not result in any harm to the health and safety of thegeneral public and that application of the requirement would place a hardship on the applicant. Theapplicant has indicated that this variance is in harmony with the area and in harmony with the generalpurpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.

RZ10-002

3. Variance from Section 8.1.3.C of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required twenty (20) foot


32/95

3. Variance from Section 8.1.3.C of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required twenty (20) footminimum interior side setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existing structure(s) to comply in

accordance with the site plan received by the Department of Community Development on January 16,

2010.


The staff is of the opinion the variance request is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance

and the proposal will not pose a detriment to the public because the current setbacks are existing and

the spacing between structures has been sufficient. Therefore, based on these reasons, the staff

recommends APPROVAL of the variance to reduce the required twenty (20) foot minimum interior sidesetback(s) to the extent necessary for the existing structure(s) to comply in accordance with the site plan

received by the Department of Community Development on January 16, 2010.

RZ10-002


33/95

CONCLUSION TO FINDINGS

It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal is in conformity with the intent of the Comprehensive PlanPolicies and the Future Land Use Map, as the proposal involves a use and density that is consistent withnearby properties. Therefore, based on these reasons, the staff recommends APPROVAL CONDITIONAL ofthis petition. The staff also recommends approval of the associated concurrent variances numbered 1 through3.

RZ10-002

STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS


34/95

Should the Mayor and City Council decide to approve the petition to rezone the subject property from O-I(Office and Institutional District) conditional to O-I (Office and Institutional District) conditional, with Concurrent

Variance(s), to allow for a Group Residence with a future transition into a Personal Care Home, the staffrecommends the approval be subject to the following conditions. The applicants agreement to these

conditions would not change staff recommendations. These conditions shall prevail unless otherwisestipulated by the Mayor and City Council.

1. To the owners agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:a. To Group Residences or Personal Care Homes.b. To one 2,101.04 square foot building and to a second 2,061.56 square foot building developed at

a total density of 5,015.18 square feet per acre.

c. To no more than eight (8) occupants in each home (16 total) at any given time.2. To the owners agreement to abide by the following:

a. To the site plan received by the Department of Community Development on January 16, 2010.Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning

Ordinance, the Development Standards contained therein, and these conditions prior to theapproval of a Land Disturbance Permit. The applicant shall be required to complete the conceptreview procedure prior to application for a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise notedherein, compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Certificate ofOccupancy.

b. The required and/or provided landscape strip(s) and zoning buffer(s) shall be planted to meetthe minimum standards as approved by the City Arborist.

c. To planting the required landscape strips and zoning buffers to meet the minimum standards asapproved by the City Arborist.

d. To obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the City prior to establishing the Group Residenceuses. To obtain a second Certificate of Occupancy from the City prior to establishing thePersonal Care Home uses.

3. To the owners agreement to provide the following site development standards:a. Variance from Section 4.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required Landscape

Strip(s), Zoning Buffer(s) & Improvement Setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existingstructure(s) to comply in accordance with the site plan received by the Department of

RZ10-002

c. Variance from Section 8.1.3.C of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required twenty (20) foot


35/95

minimum interior side setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existing structure(s) to complyin accordance with the site plan received by the Department of Community Development onJanuary 16, 2010 (CV10-002).

d.

The owner/developer shall dedicate 30 (30) feet of right-of-way from centerline of MountainCreek Road along the entire property frontage or ten and one-half (10.5) feet from back of curb,whichever is greater, to the City of Sandy Springs.

Attachments

Site Plans dated received January 16, 2010Rendering(s) dated received January 14, 2010Letters of Intent dated received January 8, 20101st Amendment to the letter of intent dated received January 15, 2010

2nd Amendment to the letter of intent dated received January 16, 2010Applicant Zoning Impact Analysis dated received January 8, 2010Letter Fulton County Dept. of the Environment & Community Development received February 16, 2010Letter Fulton County Dept. of Health and Wellness received February 25, 2010Septic System Documentation dated received February 26, 2010


36/95


37/95


38/95


39/95


40/95


41/95


42/95


43/95


44/95


45/95


46/95


47/95


48/95


49/95


50/95


51/95


52/95


53/95


54/95

Rezoning Petition No. RZ10-001/CV10-001

HEARING & MEETING DATES

Community ZoningInformation Meeting

Design ReviewBoard Meeting

Community DeveloperResolution Meeting

PlanningCommission

Hearing

Mayor and CityCouncil Hearing

January 26, 2010 January 26, 2010 February 25, 2010 March 18, 2010 April 20, 2010

APPLICANT/PETITIONER INFORMATIONProperty Owners Petitioner Representative

Eugene and Mari Jo Grace Carol Jane Reynolds Nathan V. Hendricks III

PROPERTY INFORMATIONAddress, Land Lot,and District

5815 Mountain Creek RoadLand Lot 70, District 17

Council District 5

Frontage and Area100 feet of frontage along the northeast side of Mountain Creek Road. The subjectproperty has a total area of approximately 0.52 acres (22,424 sq.ft.).

Existing Zoning and

Use

O-I (Office and Institutional District) conditional under zoning case Z88-085. The property

is developed with an office.Overlay District Urban District

2027ComprehensiveFuture Land UseMap Designation

LWN (Living-Working Neighborhood), Node 7: Roswell Road and I-285 (Downtown)

Proposed Zoning O-I (Office and Institutional District)

INTENT

TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM O-I (OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT)CONDITIONAL TO O-I (OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT) CONDITIONAL, WITHCONCURRENT VARIANCE(S), TO INITIALLY ALLOW A GROUP RESIDENCE WITH A FUTURE

TRANSITION INTO A PERSONAL CARE HOME.

The subject property is zoned O-I (Office and Institutional District) under zoning case Z88-085 and conditioned tooffice use within the existing structure.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from O-I (Office and Institutional District) conditional toO-I (Office and Institutional District) conditional to initially allow a Group Residence with a future transition intoa Personal Care Home. The applicant states that the residence contains five bedrooms and three bathrooms, andthe intent is to house up to eight occupants. The occupants will be completely ambulatory and will bedevelopmentally disabled. The applicant intends to make improvements/renovations to the existing building thati l d l i h i i i h d fl d f di i

RZ10-001


55/95

A Personal Care Home is defined in the City Zoning Ordinance as:

A state licensed use in which domiciliary care is provided to adults who are provided with food, shelterand personal services. This use shall not include hospitals, convalescent centers, nursing homes, hospices,clinics, or similar institutions devoted primarily to the diagnosis and treatment of the sick or injured.

The State of Georgia defines a Personal Care Home as:

A single home, building or group of buildings where personal services (help with the essential activities ofdaily living to include assistance with eating, bathing, grooming, dressing, toileting, and supervision ofmedications) are provided to two or more adults not related to the owner or administrator by blood ormarriage.

NOTE: Under Chapter 111-8-62 of the State of Georgia Healthcare Facility Regulations for Personal Care Homes,Group Residences are exempted from the regulations as follows:

Group Residences organized by or for persons who choose to live independently or who manage theirown care and share the cost of services including but not limited to attendant care, transportation, rent,utilities, and food preparation.

Additionally, the applicant is requesting three (3) concurrent variances as follows:

1. Variance from Section 4.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required Landscape Strip(s), ZoningBuffer(s) & Improvement Setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existing structure(s) to comply inaccordance with the site plan received by the Department of Community Development on January 16,

2010, and

2. Variance from Section 4.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required Landscape Strip(s), ZoningBuffer(s) & Improvement Setback(s) to the extent necessary to allow for proposed All-weathersurface/Driveway/Parking to comply in accordance with the site plan received by the Department ofCommunity Development on January 16, 2010, and

3. Variance from Section 8.1.3.C of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required twenty (20) foot minimuminterior side setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existing structure(s) to comply in accordance with thesite plan received by the Department of Community Development on January 16, 2010.

RZ10-001


56/95

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION

RZ10-001 APPROVAL CONDITIONALCV10-001 #1 APPROVAL CONDITIONALCV10-001 #2 APPROVAL CONDITIONALCV10-001 #3 APPROVAL CONDITIONAL

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ENDORSEMENT

RZ10-001 APPROVEDCV10-001 #1 APPROVEDCV10-001 #2 APPROVEDCV10-001 #3 APPROVED

Approved (5-0), Porter, Landeck, Richard, Westmoreland and Mobley for; Gregory Absent; Lichtenstein notvoting.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

RZ10-001 TBDCV10-001 #1 TBD

CV10-001 #2 TBDCV10-001 #3 TBD

RZ10-001


57/95

Location Map

RZ10-001

BACKGROUNDThe site is located on the northeast side of Mountain Creek Road, approximately 60 feet south of theintersection of Carpenter Drive and Mountain Creek Road. The property is zoned O-I (Office andInstitutional District) under zoning case Z88-085 and conditioned to office use within the existingt t Th bj t t i l t d ithi th U b Di t i t f th S d S i O l


58/95

structure. The subject property is located within the Urban District of the Sandy Springs OverlayDistrict.EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING OF ABUTTING PROPERTY

SUBJECTPETITIONRZ09-009/CV09-018

RequestedZoning

Proposed UseLand Area

(Acres)


Units

Density(Square Feet orUnits per Acre)

O-I Personal Care Home 0.521,846.26 sf

(with enclosed

carport)

3,550.50 sf/acre

Location inrelation to

subjectproperty

Zoning UseLand Area

(Acres)


Units

Density(Square Feet orUnits Per Acre)

Northwest R-3Residence @ 5825


Northeast R-3 Vacant Land 2.91 _____ _____

Southeast R-3Residence @ 5805


Southwest R-3Residence @ 5810


SouthwestC-1

conditionalRZ07-011

2nd Church of Christ.Scientist @ 347Carpenter Dr.

0.44 3,242 sf 7,418.76 sf/acre

RZ10-001

Zoning Map


59/95

RZ10-001

Future Land Use Map


60/95

RZ10-001


61/95

Subject PropertyNext door (northwest of the subject property) 5825

Mountain Creek Rd.

RZ10-001


62/95

Sign

RZ10-001

SITE PLAN ANALYSISThe submitted site plan shows the subject property to be rectangular, wooded, and sloping down toward thenorthern corner. The site plan also indicates the following:

Total site area of 22,424 square feet (100%) 1,434 square feet of existing building (6.39%)


63/95

, q g g ( )

Carport area of 412.76 square feet (1.84%)

3 parking spaces (750 square feet or 3.34%) Total impervious surface of 5,470 square feet (24.39%) 16,874 square feet of undeveloped and/or open space (75.61%)

PARKING IMPACT ANALYSISSection 18.2.1, Basic Off-street Parking Requirements, requires a minimum amount of parking spaces for HealthCare Facilities as follows:

One space for every four (4) beds, and One space for every three (3) employees

The proposed Personal Care Home would have no more than eight (8) beds plus one (1) employee whichwould require three (3) parking spaces. The applicant has provided three (3) spaces.LANDSCAPE PLAN ANALYSIS

The site plan shows the subject property to be wooded and indicates 16,874 (75.61%) square feet ofundeveloped and/or open space. Additionally, the applicant will install the required landscaping as requiredby the Urban Overlay District.

ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ANALYSIS

The Environmental Site Analysis Report is sufficient and satisfies the requirements of the Sandy SpringsZoning Ordinance. The reporting on all items of the analysis stated either positive, minimal, or noenvironmental issues. The report, in its entirety, is within the case file as a matter of record.

RZ10-001

DEPARTMENT COMMENTS

The staff held a Focus Meeting on February 3, 2010 at which the following departmental comments wereprovided:


64/95

Sandy SpringsBuilding PlanReviewer

If the buildings at 5815, 5790, and 5800 Mountain Creek Road arecurrently used as business offices and are changed to a ResidentialBoard and Care or Day Care occupancy, Section 4.6.11 of the 2000 LifeSafety Code would require that they be brought into compliance withall of the 2006 ICC codes, the Georgia Accessibility Code, and the 2000Life Safety Code. The occupant load factor would be 200 s.f. per personfor a Residential Board and Care occupancy and 35 s.f. per person for aDay Care occupancy. Some, but not all of the items that may berequired are fire sprinklers, fire partitions, and secondary means ofescape from sleeping rooms.

BUIL

DING&

DEVELOPM

ENTDIVISION Sandy Springs

Engineering PlanReviewer

Any permit applications involving site development shall comply withapplicable stormwater management, and erosion control ordinances.

Sandy SpringsLandscapeArchitect/Arborist

If the MCC chooses to approve the rezoning and concurrent variances acondition could be added that the required landscape strips and zoning

buffers be planted to meet the minimum standards as approved by theCity Arborist. The installation of the parking in the rear will encroachinto the critical root zone of two landmark trees. If the rezoning andconcurrent variances are approved the applicant will be required toprovide canopy mitigation for the landmark trees at the time of issuanceof a land disturbance permit.


65/95

RZ10-001

PORTATION

Sandy SpringsTransportationPlanner

Right-of-way dedication: 30 from centerline of Mountain Creek Rd.Public Works does not anticipate that the proposed use permit will cause anexcessively burdensome use of existing streets or transportation facilities.


66/95

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTRequired MeetingsThe applicant attended the following required meetings:

Community Zoning Information Meeting held January 26, 2010 at the Sandy Springs City Hall Community/Developer Resolution Meeting held February 25, 2010 at the Sandy Springs City Hall

Public Comments (Please see attached letters)

Community input includes the following:

The proposed uses situation regarding security and wellbeing for not only the surroundingneighborhood, but for the future occupants of the Personal Care Home.(the applicant stated a full time employee would oversee the operation)

The facilitys policy regarding inappropriate and/or illegal behavior.(the applicant stated a policy would be implemented and enforced)

Building Code compliance for occupancy(addressed by the Staff Recommended Conditions) Screening of proposed new section of driveway and rear parking from 5805 Mountain Creek Rd.

(addressed by the Staff Recommended Conditions)

Notice RequirementsThe petition will be advertised in the Daily Report on March 11, 2010 and March 25, 2010. The applicantposted a sign issued by the Department of Community Development along the frontage of Mountain Creek

Road on February 12, 2010.

Public Participation Plan and ReportThe applicant has met the Public Participation Plan requirements. The applicant will be required to submit thePublic Participation Report seven (7) days prior to the Mayor and City Council Hearing on April 20, 2010. The

TRA

NSP

Georgia Departmentof Transportation There are no GDOT projects at the location for petition RZ10-001.

The staff has not received any additional comments from the Fulton County Board of Education.

RZ10-001

ZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS

Per Article 28.4.1, Zoning Impact Analysis by the Planning Commission and the Department, the staff shall make a


67/95

g p y y g pwritten record of its investigation and recommendation on each rezoning petition with respect to the following

factors:

A. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent andnearby property.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposed Personal Care Home is appropriate in view of thedensity and use of the surrounding developments.

B. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposal is not expected to adversely affect the existing use orusability of adjacent commercial and residential properties.

C. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal may have reasonable economic use as currently zoned.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned.

D. Whether the zoning proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive burdensome use of existingstreets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposal will not result in a use which will cause an excessiveor burdensome use of the existing infrastructure.

Public Works does not anticipate that the proposed use permit will cause an excessivelyburdensome use of existing streets or transportation facilities.

E. Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposed use is consistent with the Future Land Use Map,which designates the property as Living-Working Neighborhood (LWN). The proposal lendsitself to the overall intent of the LWN designated areas that are intended for lower density

mixed land uses (residential and commercial) intended to serve a group of adjacentneighborhoods and to be compatible with lower density residential neighborhoods. The LWNland use designation recommends: Up to 5 units/acre of residential density, 10,000 sf/acre ofbusiness density, a 30,000 square foot/tenant limitation, a height limit of 2 stories, and 10% ofOpen/Green Space (5% must be Green Space and the remaining 5% may be Open or Green

RZ10-001

The applicant is proposing to allow for a use consistent with O-I zoning. The subject propertyprovides adequate buffering to adjacent Protected Neighborhoods to the east and the use wouldbe in keeping with appropriate transition to the more intense uses to the west. Additionally,Live-work developments should ensure walkable development patterns, and the applicantwould provide the required Urban Overlay District streetscape to include lighted and shadedsidewalks


68/95

sidewalks.

The subject site is located in Living Working Node 7: Roswell Road and I-285 (Downtown).The vision, guidelines, and policies of Node 7 is as follows:

The area should be dedicated for high density commercial, office, and residential uses. This area should be considered for some of the highest densities in the City.

Consolidation of properties and the collective redevelopment of multiple propertiesshould be encouraged in the area to perpetuate economic vitality, increased green space,and an improved transportation system.

Residential density should be above 20 units per acre. Commercial and office densitiesshould be above 25,000 square feet per acre. Building heights should not be limited inthis area. At least 15% of a site shall be maintained as open and green space.

Densities and heights of a significant nature should not be supported on properties lessthan four (4) acres in size. Increased levels of open and green space, limiting directvehicular access to Roswell Road, and improving the areas transportation network shallbe important considerations for the highest densities and building heights.

The transition of densities and heights to levels similar to those in the Town Center areashould be considered on the northern boundary of the area along Cliftwood Drive andCarpenter Drive.

Automobile-oriented uses should be discouraged from this area.

F. Whether there are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which givesupporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the zoning proposal.

Finding: The staff is of the opinion that there are no existing or changing conditions affecting the use anddevelopment of the property, which give supporting grounds for approval or denial of theapplicants proposal.

G. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered environmentally adverse to the naturali t d iti f S d S i

RZ10-001


Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates the following are considerations in granting variances, of whichonly one has to be proven:


69/95

A. Relief, if granted, would be in harmony with, or, could be made to be in harmony with, the general purpose andintent of the Zoning Ordinance; or,

B. The application of the particular provision of the Zoning Ordinance to a particular piece of property, due toextraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to that property because of its size, shape, or topography,would create an unnecessary hardship for the owner while causing no detriment to the public; or,

C. Conditions resulting from existing foliage or structures bring about a hardship whereby a sign meeting minimumletter size, square footage and height requirements cannot be read from an adjoining public road.

The applicant is requesting three (3) concurrent variances as follows:

1. Variance from Section 4.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required Landscape Strip(s),Zoning Buffer(s) & Improvement Setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existing structure(s) tocomply in accordance with the site plan received by the Department of Community Development onJanuary 16, 2010.


The staff is of the opinion the variance request is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and theproposal will not pose a detriment to the public because the structures are existing and sufficiently buffered.Therefore, based on these reasons, the staff recommends APPROVAL of the variance to reduce the requiredLandscape Strip(s), Zoning Buffer(s) & Improvement Setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existingstructure(s) to comply in accordance with the site plan received by the Department of Community Developmenton January 16, 2010.

2. Variance from Section 4.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required Landscape Strip(s),Zoning Buffer(s) & Improvement Setback(s) to the extent necessary to allow for proposed All-weathersurface/Driveway/Parking to comply in accordance with the site plan received by the Department ofCommunity Development on January 16, 2010.


RZ10-001

3. Variance from Section 8.1.3.C of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required twenty (20) footminimum interior side setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existing structure(s) to comply in

accordance with the site plan received by the Department of Community Development on January 16,

2010


70/95

2010.


The staff is of the opinion the variance request is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and theproposal will not pose a detriment to the public because the current setbacks are existing and the spacing betweenstructures has been sufficient. Therefore, based on these reasons, the staff recommends APPROVAL of thevariance to reduce the required twenty (20) foot minimum interior side setback(s) to the extent necessary for theexisting structure(s) to comply in accordance with the site plan received by the Department of CommunityDevelopment on January 16, 2010.


71/95


72/95

RZ10-001

c. Variance from Section 8.1.3.C of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required twenty (20) footminimum interior side setback(s) to the extent necessary for the existing structure(s) to complyin accordance with the site plan received by the Department of Community Development onJanuary 16, 2010 (CV10-001).


73/95

d. The owner/developer shall dedicate 30 (30) feet of right-of-way from centerline of MountainCreek Road along the entire property frontage or ten and one-half (10.5) feet from back of curb,whichever is greater, to the City of Sandy Springs.

Attachments

Site Plans dated received January 16, 2010Rendering(s) dated received January 14, 2010Letters of Intent dated received January 8, 20101st Amendment to the letter of intent dated received January 15, 20102nd Amendment to the letter of intent dated received January 16, 2010Applicant Zoning Impact Analysis dated received January 8, 2010Letter Fulton County Dept. of the Environment & Community Development received February 16, 2010Letter Fulton County Dept. of Health and Wellness received February 25, 2010


74/95


75/95


76/95


77/95


78/95


79/95


80/95


81/95


82/95


83/95


84/95


85/95

PC Board Member AttendancePC 2010

NAME 1/21 2/18 3/18 4/15 5/20 6/17 7/15 8/19 9/16 10/14 11/18 12/18

Total

Meetings

Total

Absences

Roger Rupnow

Post 1Term Exp:


86/95

1/31/12 1 1 2 0Lee DuncanPost 2Term Exp:

1/31/12 1 1 2 0Wayne

Thatcher

Post 3Term Exp:

1/31/12 1 1 2 0Al Pond

Post 4

Term Exp:1/31/13 1 1 2 0David

Rubenstein

Post 5Term Exp:

1/31/13 1 1 2 0Don Boyken

Post 6

Term Exp:

1/31/10 1 1 0Steve Tart

Post 6Term Exp:

1/31/14 1 1 0Susan Maziar

Post 7Term Exp:

1/31/14 0 1 11 = Present 0 = Absent * = MTG Cancelled ** = Special Called MTG


87/95

Pl i C i i


88/95

Planning CommissionFebruary 18, 2009

Meeting Minutes

Board Members PresentLee Duncan (Chair), Wayne Thatcher (Vice Chair), Roger Rupnow, Steve Tart, DavidRubenstein, Susan Maziar, and Al Pond

Board Members Absent None

Staff PresentChris Miller, Patrice Ruffin, Cesar Geraldo, Linda Abaray, Mark Moore, Doug Trettin,Gloria Goins, Nathan Ippolito, and Terry Robinson

CALL to Order Lee Duncan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

ACTION: Rubenstein moved to amend the agenda to add the election of officers as follows: Duncan as Chair and

Thatcher as Vice Chair. Rupnow seconded. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for;Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining).

ACTION:Rubenstein moved to approve the agenda as amended. Rupnow seconded.Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining).

PUBLIC COMMENTNo Public Comment

PREVIOUS MINUTES

ACTION: Rubenstein moved to approve Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2010. Rupnow seconded.Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining).

REZONING

1. RZ09-006/CV09-0151155 Mount Vernon Highway

SUMMARY/STAFF PRESENTATION: To rezone the subject property from C-1 (Community Business District)conditional to C-1 (Community Business District) conditional, with concurrent variance(s), to allow a new fast food

restaurant.Applicant Presentation:Jeff Dehner, 6400 Powers Ferry Rd., Atlanta, GA. 30339Ashley Spering, 1165 Sanctuary Pkwy, Alpharetta, GA. 30009G B 1165 S Pk Al h GA 30009

(Close of public hearing. Planning Commission questions and discussion)

ACTION: Thatcher moved to recommend a 60 day deferral to allow the applicant time to provide additional and/orrevised information. Denied (0-5, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein against; Duncan not voting; Tartabstaining). Rupnow seconded. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Boyken, Rupnow, Pond, and Rubenstein for; Duncan notvoting; Maziar absent).

ACTION: Maziar moved to recommend denial of RZ09 009/CV09 015 Rupnow seconded Approved (5 0 Thatcher


89/95

ACTION: Maziar moved to recommend denial of RZ09-009/CV09-015. Rupnow seconded. Approved (5-0, Thatcher,Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining). The Commission expressed concernover opposition by certain community associations and continued enforcement of the original zoning condition limitingthe shopping center to one [drive-through] fast food restaurant.

ACTION: Rubenstein moved the Commission recommend to express the following issue regarding the aforementioneddenial of RZ09-009/CV09-015: Lack of pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent Crown Pointe office property to the east.Maziar seconded. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tartabstaining).

ACTION: Rubenstein moved the Commission recommended to express the following issue regarding theaforementioned denial of RZ09-009/CV09-015: Insufficient green space not meeting the policy standard of 15% for theentire shopping center. Rupnow seconded. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for;Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining).

ACTION: Rubenstein moved the Commission recommended to express the following issue regarding theaforementioned denial of RZ09-009/CV09-015: Insufficient quality of traffic circulation and directional/way-findingsignage for the entire shopping center. Maziar seconded. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, andRubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining).

ACTION: Rubenstein moved the Commission recommended to express the following issue regarding theaforementioned denial of RZ09-009/CV09-015: Lack of thoughtful provision for employee parking for the proposedWendy's perhaps to be located adjacent to and west of the throat of the vehicular ingress/egress on Perimeter CenterWest. Rupnow seconded. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tartabstaining).

ACTION: Rubenstein moved the Commission recommended to express the following issue regarding theaforementioned denial of RZ09-009/CV09-015: Deficiency in traffic circulation in and around the Chick-Fil-A outparcel.Thatcher seconded. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tart

abstaining).

ACTION: Rubenstein moved the Commission recommended to express the following issue regarding theaforementioned denial of RZ09-009/CV09-015: Lack of true pedestrian access from the MARTA facility to the proposedWendy's and to the shopping center as a whole. Rupnow seconded. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow,and Rubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining).

2. RZ09-0116550 Roswell Road (SR 9)

SUMMARY/STAFF PRESENTATION: To rezone the subject property from C-1 conditional to C-1 to allow clinic use inthe existing building.

Applicant Presentation:Gerald Benda, 1801, Peachtree St. Ste 330, Atlanta, GA. 30309

Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining).

RZ09-012/CV09-0201120 Hope Road

SUMMARY/STAFF PRESENTATION: To rezone the subject property from O-I conditional to O-I to allow medical officeand adult day care use in the existing building, with concurrent variances.

Applicant Presentation:


90/95

Applicant Presentation:Laurel David, 3500 Lenox Rd. Ste 760, Atlanta, GA. 30326Victor Vaysman, 3500 Lenon Rd. Atlanta, GA. 30326

(Invitation for public comment in support of and in opposition to the petition)

Support for the Petition:None

Against the Petition:

None

(Close of public hearing. Planning Commission questions and discussion)

ACTION: Rubenstein moved to recommend approval subject to staff conditions. Thatcher seconded.Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining).

DISCUSSION ITEM3. TA10-001

An Ordinance to Amend Article 12B, Sandy Springs Overlay District, of the Sandy Springs Zoning Ordinance

ACTION: Board Members recommend the following:1. Create a model of the Main Street District for public to view.2. Contact Property Manager/Owners to notify of proposed changes.3. Set-up a meeting between Council, Board Members, and Staff to help bring this program together.

4. TA10-002

An Ordinance to Amend Article 33, Signs, of the Sandy Springs Zoning Ordinance

ACTION: Board Members recommend the following:1. Board members would like to get a better clarification for signs near the right- of -way.

Meeting Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m.

Approval Signatures

Date Approved 03-18-2010

Lee Duncan, Chairman


91/95

Lee Duncan, Chairman

Patrice Ruffin, Assistant Director ofPlanning and Zoning

Gloria Goins, AdministrativeCoordinator/Transcriber


92/95


93/95


94/95


95/95

Planning Comission Meeting Package 03.18.10

Documents

Transcript of Planning Comission Meeting Package 03.18.10