Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-2010 Council-PC ws -- l\'llNUfES OF JOINT WORKSHOP WITH MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PEACHTREE CITY AND PLANNING COMl\fiSSION September 7,2010 A joint workshop with members of the City Council of Peachtree City and the Peachtree City Planning Commission was called to order in the City Hall Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m. on September 7, 2010. Those present were Mayor Don Haddix and Council members Kim Leamard and Vanessa Fleisch; Planning Commission Chairman Patrick Staples; Vice Chairman Theo Scott; and Commissioners Joe Frazar and Lynda Wojcik. Also present were the City Manager, Mr. Bernard McMullen; the Community Development Director, Mr. David Rast; the PlannerlEconomic Development Coordinator, Mr. Anthony Bernard; and the Recording Secretary, Ms. Jennis Rice. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss proposed amendments to the official land use map and zoning map which would ultimately result in the adoption of a new land use map and a new zoning map for the City. r- Mr. Rast introduced the workshop. The draft of the updated zoning and land use maps would be presented. Mr. Rast explained that Mr. Bernard had worked painstakingly close with Mr. Tony Whitley in the City's IT Department to redraw a significant portion of the current zoning map, primarily updating parcel lines. Mr. Bernard and Mr. Whitley had also worked closely with the Fayette County staff and 911 in updating this information. Mr. Rast stated that the most impressive part of this was that the true parcel-based zoning and land use maps would be 100 percent complete on Monday, September 13. The base map showed the current zoning of the tracts of land within the city. A modification of that map that showed the delineation between the OS-P and the OS-C zoning districts would be presented for adoption. It was originally thought that each parcel would have to be rezoned separately which would have been very time consuming and very costly. The City Attorney, Mr. Ted Meeker, recommended a new zoning map be adopted that would include all of these updates. An updated zoning and land use map would be presented to the Planning Commission and then to City Council for formal adoption. Mr. Rast noted that the Airport Overlay Zone and the SR 54 West Overlay Zone would also be included on these maps so there would be no question as to which parcels fell within those two overlays. ~ With the changes that had been made, there were a little over 13,000 parcels within the city which included 200- and 300-acretracts as well as little slivers of greenbelt. The map was very detailed. Before the maps Were brought forward for adoption, the map would be cleaned up and Staff would confirm with Fayette County that they had the same data the City did. , r- Page 2 Joint Workshop City Council and Planning Commission September 7, 20 I 0 Mr. Rast further stated a clear delineation of all three golf courses was included with these maps, something the City had never had before. Mr. Tim Dunlap of Canongate Golf Courses provided the boundary surveys that had been done for each of the courses when they were purchased. This not only showed a clear delineation of the golf courses but also the tracts that were adjacent to the golf courses and whether they were owned by the City or by private property owners. The updated base map that would replace the current map was displayed. Mr. Rast stated that the only parcels that were being recommended for rezoning were those that were zoned OS and only those that were owned by the City. Staff had spoken with Canongate about the zoning designation of their parcels; and since they had no objections, these rezonings would also be included. Other OS properties might be rezoned at a later time. Mr. Rast explained that one of the reasons this was scheduled for the October 7 City Council meeting was to coincide with the recommendations in the Wireless Telecommuni- n cations Ordinance. He had pulled plats of several of the tracts of land on which towers could be located and had shown some setbacks on them based on the setbacks that were being recommended. These would be included in the presentation on the Wireless T e1ecommunications Ordinance. Mr. Rast stated that there had been discussion internally about the possibility of changing some of the village boundaries. He asked for feedback from the Council members and Planning Commissioners as to how Staff should proceed on this issue. He described the development in the industrial park and pointed to the retail tracts on either side of Crosstown; the ones on the north side were zoned LI Light Industrial and the ones on the south side were zoned GI General Industrial. For a couple of reasons, the potential of including these tracts within Braelinn Village was discussed: (1) they were primarily retail in nature and would fit in with Braelinn's GC zoning as opposed to GI and LI and (2) the village graphics and village identification for Braelinn could be moved out to Highway 74 as opposed to their current location at the creek. Mr. Staples wondered to what extent making substantive changes to the land use and zoning maps either supported or undermined the City's zoning and land use. Would this set a precedent? Mr. Rast said this was decided on a case-by-case basis. The way the :""'"' zoning ordinance was written allowed retail that served the industrial park. Mr. Staples thought this made sense, but he wondered what the implications might be. r-. Page 3 Joint Workshop City Council and Planning Commission September 7, 20 I 0 Mr. Staples particularly wondered about Huddleston Road. Mr. Rast stated that redevelopment of Huddleston Road had been discussed for years. Currently, it was predominantly GC, LI, and GI. He thought there should be one zoning designation for this area, but that might or might not be appropriate. Ms. Wojcik's concern was that this would chip away at the industrial park. She had a problem with that. There was already a lot of GC property in the city, and she did not want to see even more. Mr. Staples thought the idea of extending the village boundaries was a good one. Ms. Wojcik agreed. r Mayor Haddix shared Ms. Wojcik's concern about increasing the amount of commercial property in the city. He thought this would affect the Census tract. Mr. Rast did not know whether it would or not. In some ways, he thought changing the boundaries made sense but in others it did not. Mr. Staples thought that the more it was discussed, the less appealing it sounded, especially since it would involve the land use. Mayor Haddix asked if there were any other issues besides impact fees that were gelled around a village. Mr. Rast said Staff factored in the scenario of a buildout of the land that was currently zoned Industrial and the land that was zoned Office. Mayor Haddix also wondered how this would affect overlay. Mr. Rast did not think some parcels would be affected, but others might be. He thought it also might be desirable to keep a clean boundary between the industrial park and Braelinn which now was pretty much centered on the creek. Ms. Wojcik thought that because of the possible negative implications in the future, it might be best to leave things as they were. Mr. Rast explained the difference between the two new OS designations. OS-C would be predominantly left in a natural state, e.g., boardwalks, paths, greenbelts, possibly a passive park or playground but no active recreation. OS-P would include golf courses, schools, government facilities, parks, and active recreation. Mr. Rast stated that the property included in these rezonings was primarily city-owned property or the property owned by Canon gate and the schools. He noted there were a r couple of churches that were zoned OS, and they would fall into the OS- P zoning district. n , Page 4 Joint Workshop City Council and Planning Commission September 7,2010 Mr. McMullen asked about a parcel of land near Falcon Field that was zoned OS-C. Mr. Bernard stated that it was the dam spillway. Mr. McMullen wondered if the County could build a park in the future if the property was zoned OS-C. He understood that their long- range plan was to build an access point similar to the one for Lake Kedron but at the present time there was no funding. It was agreed that the property would have to be zoned OS-P for that to happen. In response to a question from Ms. Fleisch, Mr. Rast stated that legally the City could not change the zoning of a property without the owner's permission. Her concern was about cell phone towers. Mr. Rast said the sites where towers could be located would be identified. However, when the proposed setbacks were applied, the sites might not be suitable. ,..... Mayor Haddix agreed that everyone had concerns about cell towers. He wondered if anyone knew the reason behind the nationwide push for towers. Mr. Staples and another gentleman felt it was due to the emergence of 4G devices. Mr. Rast noted that the spreadsheets showing all the parcels in the city were also being updated and would include information as to whether or not the parcel was developed and, if developed, what size building was on the property. After the database was updated, all of the information on a particular piece of property would be accessible by clicking on that parcel in the database. The good thing was that the information was being shared with the County and consequently everyone would be working off of the same documentation. Mayor Haddix asked about towers on property zoned AR. Mr. Rast gave the following reasons that Staff was recommending that the AR-zoned property be removed from the zoning districts where towers would be allowed: (I) AR was more of a holding pattern, (2) these sites were homesteads that would eventually be redeveloped and (3) other districts (GC and 01) were being added to the permitted zoning categories for towers,. He noted that the general areas where the tower companies had indicated they needed towers were predominantly in residential areas. Ms. Wojcik had suggested that in a lot of those areas, the village retail centers were also located. It was thought it might be possible to find locations for towers on those sites. ,..... , W'O ',' Ms. Wojcik made the following points: Page 5 ,...... Joint Workshop City Council and Planning Commission September 7, 2010 · It should not be a requirement that towers be located behind a building. This requirement would limit the potential tower locations and might stop this from being a viable solution to a pressing problem. · No one in the city would want to turn in their cell phone or wireless services so it was necessary to come up with something that was not objectionable and was away from residential development. · Towers and required landscaping should be permitted in parking lots because the associated greenery would make them less objectionable than the tower by itself would be. · The landscaping would look better than the sea of asphalt that existed in the retail center parking lots. Mr. Staples said he supported what Ms. Wojcik had said especially in the Kedron area. Mr. Rast noted that this would certainly open up more areas in some of the retail centers. Ms. Wojcik pointed out that it would be up to the retailer, but she felt it was possible to have the ambience that needed to be there. She would prefer that the cell towers not be near the city's parks and residence's. Mr. Rast pointed out that the land use designations could be changed without going through the approval process with the property owners as the Land Use Plan was more of a guide. He also thought it might be desirable to consider changing the land use designations for the subdivisions off of Georgian Park. Mr. Rast explained that historically the land in the Kedron area was envisioned to be high density with apartments, condos, and townhomes. The only parts that had developed as multi-family were the Georgian Club condos, the AMLI apartments, and a portion of North Cove. Most of the area was single-family detached. The zoning of the area would still allow multi-family to be developed so he thought it might be a good idea to modify the land use to single-family cluster or single-family medium density to coincide with the way the area had developed. Council member Leamard asked what would be accomplished by changing the land use designation for these properties. Mr. Rast explained that the land use would be compatible with the way the land had been developed. Mr. Staples felt this was appropriate and liked the fact that the property would remain residential but with a less dense status consistent with the current use. Ms. Wojcik agreed. ~ --- Page 6 Joint Workshop City Council and Planning Commission September 7, 2010 Mr. Rast noted that this was not something he was concerned about right now; he was thinking about 15 or 20 years down the road. Mr. Rast pointed to Lake Forest Cove, Lake Forest, Center Green, Braelinn Courts, and Braelinn Green subdivisions which were all shown as multi-family on the land use map. He thought they probably should be changed to a less intense land use such as medium density or cluster. Again, this would be to clean up and make the land use designation more consistent with the way the property had been developed. He suggested that the land use designation for the other subdivisions along Peachtree Parkway and Braelinn Road that had been developed as single-family cluster be changed as well to reflect the way these properties had been developed. Mr. Staples wondered if there were areas where redevelopment should be promoted and where we might accept higher density given what would be replaced. Mr. Rast thought there would be a day that we would want to do that. n Mr. Rast also pointed out that in the past the official land use and zoning maps had not been updated as changes were made to them. This process was incorporating those changes. He thought additional changes might be needed as a result of the comprehensive plan update. Mayor Haddix noted that there were some areas of the city where the lots were so small that they needed to be combined so that something bigger could be built. Ms. Wojcik thought that right now it was important that the land use map concurred with the zonIng map. Mr. Rast also thought one of the good things about going through the comprehensive plan process was that the maps and spreadsheet would be updated. As part of the recent compilation that showed the property that was currently zoned for multi-family and the property that was shown on the land use map as multi-family, City Staff had found that the numbers were much higher based on the maps that were adopted than what was actually on the ground. - ii:; In response to a question from Mayor Haddix, Mr. Rast explained that two zoning categories that were on the books, VR Villa Residential and R-l, were residual zonings. This meant that there could not be any more rezonings to VR or R -I. If any of the VR or R -I parcels were developed, they would have to be rezoned to another classification. ~ , Page 7 Joint Workshop City Council and Planning Commission September 7, 2010 Mr. Rast asked the Commissioners about what they thought would be the best way to review the changes. It was suggested they be reviewed either by village or by land use classification. Mr. Staples felt it was important that the residents had a means whereby they could easily reference a property they were concerned about. Mr. McMullen felt that one of the biggest issues would be the parcels to be zoned OS-P Open Space-Public because that would tie to the cell tower issue. Mr. Sta.ples thought it would be important to stress that currently the OS Open Space zoning allowed cell towers; this would not add to the properties on which cell towers could be located. Ms. Wojcik emphasized that the new OS zoning districts actually took away from the property on which cell towers could be located. Mr. Rast said Mr. Bertlard would add the acreage of the parcels to the database; the number of parcels zoned OS-P was significantly less than the number of parcels that could currently be used for towers. r-. Mayor Haddix thought it was important to spell out what was legally binding and what was guidance and goals; they were not the same thing. Ms. Mary Giles, a resident of Braelinn Village, asked if she could see the letters from the cell tower companies. Mr. Rast said he could e-mail them to her. Ms. Giles asked if the tower companies wanted a smaller buffer along Peachtree Parkway. Mr. Rast stated that the tower companies were concerned about the setback requirements; and obviously, they thought a smaller buffer would be better. There were jurisdictions that had adopted setback requirements based on the height of the tower. The City's current Tree Save and Landscape Buffer required up to a 60' tree save and landscape buffer on the major arterials. For residential use, that buffer would increase to 100'. There was still a pretty sizable setback from any public street. He thought it was 100' from a public street and 200' from a major arterial which would be Highways 54 and 74. Staff was also still looking at a 250' setback from the property line of a church, school, day care, or residential. He thought these were pretty sizable setbacks. Ms. Giles asked whether the overlays Staff was preparing would include the golf course parcels that were available under OS-Po Mr. Rast said they would. r- Ms. Giles wanted to know if it was possible that people who currently lived on the golf courses could have a view of a cell tower. Mr. Staples said that was already possible with the ~ p . r , , " ~ .~ Page 8 Joint Workshop City Council and Planning Commission September 7, 20 I 0 current zoning. The decision for the cell tower would be made by the property owner, in this case Canongate Golf Courses and the City. Ms. Giles confirmed that the homeowner would have no say. Mr. Staples stated that the Planning Commission would decide whether the plan met the required setbacks, landscaping, and architecture; but the homeowner would have no say in denying the use. Mr. Rast explained that with the new ordinance, the public could voice any concerns they had during the conditional use review by the Planning Commission and also at the City Council meeting after the Planning Commission made their recommendation; it would be a two-step process. He emphasized that just because a property was zoned to permit a tower did not mean a tower would be located there. Good reason would have to be provided as to why a tower should be located on a particular property and the applicant would have to go through the series of studies, etc., outlined in the ordinance. Mr. McMullen pointed out that the way the golf courses were laid out in the city, the locations for towers would be very limited. The workshop ended at 8:40 p.m. ~/kJy Don Haddix,'Mayor ~ / ~::> ,,/ Patrick Staples, Chairman Planning Commission .~