[0:13] You are in attendance, just so that way, you know, you are in attendance tonight at the City of

[0:19] Mayewaldson Planning Commission regular meeting tonight, August 6, 20, 2026. My name is Dante

[0:27] Philpada. I'm your planning commission chair. We are going to go through a couple of cases

[0:33] this evening. So first and foremost, we always like to thank you guys for coming out and

[0:38] making sure that you are a part of this process.

[0:41] As we've said many times before,

[0:43] your voice is needed, it's wanted,

[0:47] and it is taken into serious consideration

[0:50] as we hear these cases.

[0:53] So what I first like to do is I wanna make sure

[0:56] that we go through our roll call

[0:58] to ensure that we have a quorum tonight.

[1:00] So commissioners, when you hear your name,

[1:03] please acknowledge your presence.

[1:04] So, I will start, I am Commissioner Dante Filipide and I presume that I am here.

[1:11] Commissioner Robin Meyer, she is not here but she is accounted for.

[1:16] Commissioner Kim Blunt is not here but she is accounted for.

[1:20] And next is Commissioner Cheryl Davis is not here but she is accounted for.

[1:25] Commissioner Gerard Geter.

[1:27] President.

[1:29] Commissioner Moonsier-Nakui.

[1:31] President.

[1:31] And last but not least, Commissioner Carl Bellanzano.

[1:34] All right, so let the record reflect. We do have a quorum this evening.

[1:40] So the next item on the agenda is item number three, which is the approval of minutes.

[1:46] As a planning commission, so just so that way, there is no confusion.

[1:52] We have two meeting minutes to approve the July 2nd regular meeting minutes.

[1:58] and then the July 30 of 2026 work session minutes.

[2:04] So hopefully everyone has had the opportunity to review

[2:08] both of those sets of meeting minutes.

[2:12] I know that there was, I think there was one or two edits

[2:15] for the July second meeting and I think those edits

[2:18] have been reflected in the copies that we have on the table

[2:21] in front of us.

[2:22] But I will pause here for a moment to make sure

[2:27] or just, you know, see if there's any additional edits that need to be made before we approve

[2:33] these minutes. And the floor is open for any planning commissioner that spots any discrepancies

[2:39] that need to be updated.

[2:49] All right. And I think I spoke with staff. There is one small edit that needs

[2:54] to be made in the July 2nd minutes. And that is just, that's the location for REC 2026-005. It is

[3:04] mentioning 245 Honeycut, so we need to just change that address to the correct address.

[3:10] That's the only other edit that I am, excuse me, that I would make to the minutes.

[3:17] And I'll make one last call if there's any, if you guys spot anything else in the minutes

[3:24] that need to be edited or adjusted,

[3:31] okay?

[3:31] if not then let's see here yeah we'll start with July 2nd so if not so we'll start

[3:40] with with the July 2nd meeting minutes I make a motion to approve the July 2nd

[3:45] meeting minutes with the with the one additional edit for RAC 2026-005 to

[3:52] change the location from 245 honeycut to 630 Riverside Parkway I'll make that

[3:59] motion to approve. Do we have a second. We have a second from Commissioner Jeter. Do you have

[4:08] that? Lithemo? Yeah. Okay, perfect. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay?

[4:16] The ayes have it. So July second meeting minutes approved and we will move to the July 30th meeting

[4:22] minutes. And that is again, that's the work session meeting minutes. So again, those

[4:29] should have been sent out. Again, I didn't see personally. I didn't see anything that

[4:36] needed to be edited from the meeting minutes on July 30th, but I will pause here for the

[4:44] floor just in case you guys have spotted anything that needs to be called out to staff.

[4:49] So,

[5:08] if there are no edits to the July 30th work session minutes, then I'll make a motion

[5:13] to approve the July 30th work session minutes.

[5:16] Do we, can we get a second?

[5:18] Second.

[5:20] All right.

[5:20] We have a second from Commissioner Nakui.

[5:23] All in favor of approval?

[5:24] Say aye.

[5:25] Aye.

[5:26] Any opposed?

[5:26] Aye.

[5:27] The aye's have it.

[5:29] So, let the record reflect.

[5:30] Both have been approved.

[5:42] Okay.

[5:43] Okay, so that is item number three, we will, so item number four is organizational and procedural items.

[5:53] I don't think we have anything, there's nothing from any of the planning commissioners that we needed to present for tonight's meeting, the staff or council have anything for us to present for it to present.

[6:05] Okay, thank you.

[6:06] So we will move past item number four, and before we move into the cases this evening,

[6:15] I like to take just a minute or two just to make sure that we go over the House rules as we like to call it

[6:23] because we want to make sure that in these planning commission hearings they are conducted in a manner that is efficient as well as

[6:34] I'll say uneventful as much as possible but as professional as we can possibly keep

[6:42] it so that way everyone gets everything that they can out of these meetings.

[6:46] So first thing, each case is called in numerical order.

[6:52] When the case is called, we ask that the applicant stand and raise your hand to show that you

[6:57] are here.

[6:58] Then we're going to call to see if anyone is opposed to the case.

[7:02] We would ask that anyone that's opposed to the case, please stand and raise your hand or you don't necessarily have to stand just raise your hand to make sure that you are accounted for and we will also ask if there's anyone here that is in support of any particular case.

[7:16] Again, you don't have to raise your hand. You don't have to stand. You can just simply raise your hand so that way we can enter it into record anyone that's here in support of or opposed. We make sure that is recorded.

[7:29] Each side will get 10 minutes to state your case or raise your concerns.

[7:33] And let me repeat that each side will get 10 minutes.

[7:36] So you guys can share how it is that you want to if one person speaks 10 minutes

[7:40] or if you spread it out amongst 20 people, you'll have 10 minutes.

[7:45] But again, each side will get 10 minutes to state your case or raise your concerns.

[7:49] There is not a rebuttal process or rebuttal period.

[7:53] So please make sure that you convey all of the information

[7:57] to the planning commission within your 10-minute period,

[8:00] additionally, and I'll kind of harp on this again,

[8:02] if there's more than one person that wishes to speak on a case,

[8:06] whether you are in support of or opposition to,

[8:09] just make sure that you guys kind of coordinate

[8:11] as best you can, coordinate and just, I guess,

[8:16] discuss whatever points you want to talk about,

[8:18] and that's just simply to ensure that you don't cover

[8:21] the same information over and over again.

[8:24] However, if that's what you choose to do, it is totally up to you.

[8:28] After both sides have exhausted their 10-minute period, the Planning Commission, as a body

[8:35] we will start to discuss the case in front of us.

[8:39] From that discussion, the Planning Commission may request speakers to come back to the podium

[8:45] for additional information or ask questions.

[8:49] After that, the Planning Commission will render a, we will make a recommendation.

[8:55] We don't make, we don't decide the cases here this evening.

[8:59] We simply make a recommendation that goes to, to City Council.

[9:03] Once it goes in front of City Council, City Council will then make a decision that is, no

[9:07] file, intense, and purposes that decision is binding.

[9:11] So whatever, whatever recommendation the Planning Commission makes, whether it's up or down,

[9:16] It could go the city council they could rule in the same way, or they can go the totally

[9:24] opposite direction.

[9:24] It just depends on how you guys state your case if you make any changes, edits, whatever

[9:29] it is.

[9:31] Additionally, we ask that you turn your cell phones off or put them on mute just simply because

[9:37] given the small size of the meeting room, we want to make sure that those in attendance

[9:41] is that there's no unnecessary noise or distractions.

[9:45] And again, it's also distracting for us

[9:47] as a planning commission to hear cell phones going off

[9:49] and also side conversations.

[9:51] We ask that you limit those.

[9:52] If you need to have a side conversation,

[9:55] we would simply and kindly ask that you step out

[9:58] outside of those doors behind you

[10:00] and have that conversation out there

[10:01] but still keep it at a conversational level.

[10:04] Because as you can see, there's really no walls there

[10:06] to door and it's paper thin so we can still hear it.

[10:09] So again, we're trying to minimize the distractions

[10:11] and we're trying to make sure that we are focused

[10:13] on the applicant and the people speaking.

[10:20] And I think the last thing that I will call out here

[10:31] is if there's anyone that has made any kind

[10:35] of contributions to mayor and council

[10:38] or particularly maybe the applicant,

[10:41] We would ask that, you know, make sure that that information is made known.

[10:47] Again, you just want to make sure that we remove as best we can any inkling of it in propriety.

[10:53] So again, we just want to make sure that information is laid out there,

[10:57] and nothing is being hidden from the public.

[11:00] So with that, now that we have those house rules out there in the open,

[11:05] We will move to item 58 unfinished business, which is REEZ 2026-005, SDP acquisitions.

[11:38] Good evening. All right, this first case that we'll be presenting is 630 Riverside Parkway.

[11:45] This is rezoning 2026-005. This is a request, this property is currently zone light industrial.

[11:53] The applicant had originally requested to rezone this property at a heavy industrial for the development of a 10,800 square foot building for storage of trucks and outdoor equipment.

[12:03] The applicant is SDP acquisitions LLC. This property is 8.83 acres and its future land use is priority industrial area.

[12:15] here we see the zoning map and the future land use map. You see the property is currently

[12:19] zone light industrial with other light industrial properties in the vicinity. There's some

[12:24] hi further down the road and then it also is adjacent to our 20s zoning and on the future

[12:32] land use which is there on the other side shows the property in the priority industrial area.

[12:37] here this is our current comp plan modified from Cobb County's current

[12:43] comprehensive plan and the compatible zoning districts for the industrial

[12:49] compatible area is OS, T.S., and light industrial. This is what really drove

[12:54] staff's recommendation for rather than the H.I. to consider keeping it L.I. with

[13:00] additional stipulations and we'll review those here soon. Here we see the

[13:06] location of the property. It's currently undeveloped. And then this is the

[13:11] revised site plan that has been provided by the applicant. I wonder. I like

[13:19] this way better. Okay just to kind of summarize if you see my dot. Oh it doesn't

[13:25] display up there. You see it? Small. You can see the location of the fences and the

[13:36] gates. This does include two gates at the entrances and a location of fence. We'll come back

[13:43] to this if needed to talk about the location of the different fencing.

[13:47] This is new information that was provided by the applicant. This may not be in your packet

[13:52] because it just came over today, but it is discussing increased landscaping in the area and they

[14:00] are requesting the decorative fence to be in a limited area which is slightly different

[14:05] then staff's recommendation, but we'll come back to this as well.

[14:11] And here's the elevation that was provided with not with the original application, but

[14:16] this is updated as well.

[14:18] Based on the work session discussions, we discussed the opportunity for additional brick.

[14:23] So this does show full brick on the Riverside Parkway side as well as the circled areas are

[14:29] where we discussed additional brick.

[14:31] So we discussed the additional brick placement around the doors, the front door, and then

[14:36] a water table by the garage doors which is illustrated by these red lines.

[14:42] Here you'll find the criteria

[14:44] that we use when we're reviewing all rezoning decisions. And then the next thing here are our

[14:50] stipulations. The applicant did provide a letter of agreeable stipulations. I did not include that

[14:56] in this presentation, but I'll read through those.

[14:59] There we go.

[15:00] Meeting of the property is to the L.I. zoning district with a variance to allow gravel parking as depicted on the submittal site plan attached as exhibit A. The following uses shall not be permitted on the property, assembly hall, bus station, church, club, or lodge, community fair, dairy, dry cleaning plant, funeral home, golf course, group home, livestock sales, provision, pawn shop, and homeless shelter. During the plan review, the applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan, demonstrating

[15:29] that site lighting will be directional and aimed away from the residential property and roadways.

[15:34] No bulk storage of hazardous materials shall be permitted on the property.

[15:39] Outdoor noise generating activity shall be limited during nighttime hours between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.

[15:46] consistent with the city of Mableton's noise ordinance found in chapter 13 of the city of Mableton code of ordinances.

[15:52] The site shall be developed substantially consistent with the submitted site plan,

[15:57] including landscaping, to screen parking areas,

[16:00] and enclosure of the site with a final coded chain link fence.

[16:05] Anodized, aluminum fencing shall be installed

[16:07] along the Riverside Parkway Frontage

[16:09] as depicted on the submitted site plan,

[16:11] and the architecture of the proposed building shall be consistent

[16:14] with the attached exhibit B.

[16:16] What staff has done is taken these stipulations

[16:19] and reviewed it against what staff's original recommendation was

[16:22] and kind of reworded a few things.

[16:24] And so we are recommending that we adopt

[16:26] all the stipulations presented in the letter of agreeable conditions.

[16:30] There was some discussion during the work session regarding the hours of operation

[16:34] and the staff's recommendation was outdoor noise generating activities

[16:38] shall not occur within the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.

[16:42] This is slightly different than what you had discussed during your work session

[16:45] and is also worded opposite. In your original recommendation you were talking about

[16:50] when they can have these activities and in this it's worded when they cannot.

[16:54] That's something you can talk through with the applicant, Commissioner Philpott does have the original hours that you had discussed, which are smaller than what I included here.

[17:04] Number three, the Anodized Illuminum Fencing shall be installed between the two road entrances with design subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.

[17:14] All Fencing shall be installed behind a landscape buffer ranging from 10 to 20 feet.

[17:18] What I've highlighted here are points of discussion where there's some

[17:23] difference with some of the current information that we received from the

[17:26] applicant earlier today. There's number four regarding outdoor storage.

[17:32] Outdoor storage shall be limited to gravel area on the site plan and is limited

[17:35] to heavy equipment such as but not limited to dozers, loaders,

[17:38] compactors, cranes, and the like in excess of 12,500 pounds or semi-tracker

[17:43] trailers. General outdoor storage is not permitted. Outdoor storage, loading

[17:48] Supporting activities and heavy truck operations shall be concentrated toward the interior

[17:51] and eastern portions of the property to minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses.

[17:56] A minimum 50-foot natural-undisturbed buffer shall be maintained and enhanced along the

[18:01] southern property line, adjoining the R-20 districts supplemented with evergreen landscaping

[18:06] to provide an opaque visual screen.

[18:09] The required stream buffer shall be permanently protected by a recorded conservation easement

[18:13] prior to the issuance of the land disturbance permit, no grading, clearing, filling or material

[18:17] storage or other land disturbance shall occur within the stream buffer.

[18:21] The outdoor storage area shall be enclosed by an 8-foot fence and screened from White

[18:25] Road and Riverside with a minimum of 20-foot landscape buffer.

[18:28] With one tree planted every 20 feet, no fencing or storage shall be located within any setback,

[18:33] except fencing may be in the front staff back for security of the front parking lot as shown

[18:38] on the site plan.

[18:39] Landscaping strips along White Road and Riverside Parkway shall be installed in accordance with

[18:43] city of Mabelton, Zoning, Lawrence, and Apical Land Skate standards, including required street

[18:48] trees, access shall be limited to approved driveways on White Road and Riverside Parkway

[18:53] with pavement designed to accommodate heavy truck traffic, truck parking staging and idling

[18:58] on White Road and Riverside Parkway shall be prohibited, all such activities shall occur

[19:03] on site.

[19:04] Oh, and then there's more.

[19:05] Oh, goodness.

[19:06] Okay.

[19:07] gravel parking shall only be permitted within the designated equipment and trailer storage

[19:11] areas shown on the approved site plan.

[19:13] which would be allowed in the H.I.Zoning District as stated in 718 C for heavy industrial properties.

[19:19] All storage areas shall be located behind Fencing with final Fence Design subject to approval that community development director.

[19:25] Fence shall be located no closer than the front of the building along Riverside Parkway. Fencing along Bob White Road shall be located behind a 20-foot landscape buffer with final placement subject to approval.

[19:38] Employee parking needs to be on concrete.

[19:39] and then we're talking about the final architectural plans.

[19:44] Building shall include a full brick facade facing Riverside Parkway

[19:48] and substantial brick along the white road frontage to include full brick around the entry

[19:52] with a minimum of four foot brick water table for the remaining frontage.

[19:56] And that's as shown on that elevation.

[19:59] They must comply with the outside agency comments.

[20:02] And then the gates to the parking lot shall be located a minimum of 50 foot from the right of way

[20:06] unless otherwise approved by Cobb D.O.T. and then in red I did add, as I was putting together

[20:11] a presentation, that the gates shall remain open during operating hours.

[20:15] You will not find that red language in your staff report, but I do remember that was

[20:19] conversation.

[20:22] All right, and that is a lot of words, but just to summarize staff's recommendation and the

[20:29] applicant are pretty consistent, but the two differences are where the decorative fence

[20:34] is located versus the chain link and then also what does that outdoor storage

[20:39] consist of? Staff's recommendation was based on the big difference between heavy

[20:43] industrial and light industrial and this specific case is that gravel

[20:46] parking and gravel parking is allowed in heavy industrial but just in those

[20:51] specific areas for the heavy equipment. There was some conversation during work

[20:58] session about what would be stored there. We didn't want junk, we didn't want

[21:04] The applicant does want to have additional outdoor storage if possible to include other

[21:09] things that you might see in light industrial.

[21:11] They had some examples, landscaping equipment, pipes, things of that nature.

[21:17] So if you are open to having the outdoor storage in that area to include more than just would

[21:22] be allowed to be parked on the gravel based on the heavy industrial, then you can expand

[21:26] that stipulation.

[21:30] All right.

[21:30] And that ends my presentation.

[21:32] Thank you.

[21:38] So, let's make sure that we have this entered into record.

[21:43] Do we have the applicant or the applicant's representatives here this evening, okay?

[21:48] Okay.

[21:50] So the team of they are here.

[21:52] Do we have anyone here that is in support of this application?

[21:59] Just by show of hands.

[22:01] We have two.

[22:07] Conversely, do we have anyone here that is in opposition to this application?

[22:13] We have one.

[22:21] No, you're okay. I just want to pull up the site plan.

[22:24] You're okay.

[22:26] So, we need a time keeper for the ten minutes unless

[22:38] you want me to do it.

[22:41] Okay. That's quite fine.

[22:55] While they're doing that, if you guys want to step to the podium,

[22:57] and they will give you the the thumbs up when when you're ready to roll.

[23:09] I'm leaving this here right well

[23:16] chairman

[23:26] ready whenever you are whenever they you guys are ready. Okay on you.

[23:32] Time are starting. Good evening. My name is Adam Rosen. I'm an attorney with the law firm Rosen Rosen and Riley. We're in Marrietta, Georgia.

[23:40] I mean, I'm here tonight for the applicant.

[23:42] You haven't seen me before.

[23:44] Park's Huff is the attorney that is a record in this case.

[23:47] It filed the application and has represented them in this process.

[23:50] He's a former boss of mine, but had a conflict tonight.

[23:54] It was not able to be here.

[23:56] So you might be speaking more into the mic so that way, the viewing audience,

[23:59] and how can you as well?

[24:00] Got it. Thank you.

[24:01] So I'm here for him tonight, and your applicant is here.

[24:06] There's three of us, three of them here tonight as well who also weren't part of the original team probably that was here the prior hearing so to the extent you have questions of us please let me know and I think between the two of us will be able to answer those.

[24:22] We've been able to or me particularly been able to catch up to I think where you are today and I'll try to focus more on what Miss Garver has pointed to as far as the two kind of differences between where things are.

[24:33] and what's already, I think, consistent between our stipulations and the staff conditions maybe leave that to the side unless more discussion is needed as far as those go.

[24:46] So just to kind of pick back up a little bit, so the request was originally from heavy industrial to heavy industrial and it's been recommended in parks letter, which was referenced earlier, which is the July 30 letter.

[25:00] are agreeing to allow that request to be deleted to light industrial.

[25:05] And so back to what the original zoning is, but with the addition of having the gravel

[25:10] parking area for storage and parking.

[25:13] And I think one of the important parts about this that be applicant and that I consistently

[25:19] hear from applicants like them that are looking at placing users and tenants and properties

[25:25] like this, is they need the ability to have that gravel parking area not only for equipment storage,

[25:31] whether it's the heavy equipment that Ms. Carver has referenced in her conditions as being allowed,

[25:36] anything over 12,500 pounds, or equipment that's less than that.

[25:40] But often, often you'll have what she also referenced earlier like a piping contractor

[25:45] that needs somewhere to store that pipe material that they're going to take on site

[25:49] when they do go to that job in addition to their equipment and their trucks.

[25:53] And so I think the hard part is how do you define the difference between we're not just going to allow accumulation of junk and an outdoor rubbish like you might be fearful of but we need the ability to have more than just a backhoe and a truck parked outside.

[26:09] There may be a need to have equipment. So that's kind of the difference between what staff is recommended and what they'd like to see be allowed in addition to the way that that staff wrote that condition.

[26:20] Looking at the site plan, what was also referenced as a little bit of the difference

[26:26] between what staff's recommendation is and what your applicant is proposing, looking

[26:34] in the middle where the red outline of the anonymized fences, what the applicant is proposing

[26:41] is that yes, we agree that that higher end, more decorative, anonymized fence can be in that

[26:48] front section there. We want that front section to be open from landscaping visible towards

[26:53] the front facade of the building. I guess it's right behind the busier. In this section here,

[27:01] but that we want to landscape this area more heavily to be consistent with what's recommended for

[27:06] that landscape buffer in the front, but also because we want it to be screened, that is what the

[27:13] landscaping exhibits that we submitted I guess I'm not

[27:19] waiting on you to change it if I change it yeah which is here and so this would

[27:24] be the front and that's that break where we show the decorative style fence the

[27:28] higher end the anodized fencing breaking the landscaping and then back to the side

[27:33] see here Bob White wrote view and so instead of having that decorative fence going

[27:39] all the way down this section in a peer where it's heavily landscaped and it's not going to be seen

[27:46] to go back to the chain link, the vinyl coated chain link fence for these sections here.

[27:51] And so I think that's just with the way the staff recommendation is written. That's the distinction

[27:56] between that and the site plan. Mr. Huff's letter by referencing our site plan and in the way that he

[28:03] writes it, I think covers that to explain that we're going to build it to look like this. That

[28:08] Fencing that that is recommended would be here and then landscaping on their side including it still have fencing all long and

[28:15] gated as originally planned but the difference is that fencing is different in the middle there where it's more

[28:22] important for it to be decorative, the rest of it more important for it to be protected, protective and it's

[28:29] screened by the landscaping that's going to be installed. And we've asked that this landscaping exhibit be a part

[28:35] of, as he referenced in his stipulation letter, if you recommend approval, we'll have to

[28:40] come in that plaintiff's permanent permitting time and show that that's what we're actually

[28:45] going to build.

[28:46] And so that's what he's asked for, that's a little bit different than what staff has recommended.

[28:51] The outdoor storage component, I mean if there's more questions and maybe many more details

[28:56] about what these guys think they may expect to see, to give any additional level of comfort

[29:01] about opening that up a little bit.

[29:03] but we're happy to speak to that more.

[29:06] I think that you've heard probably enough to hopefully agree

[29:10] that this is, you know, as an industrial area,

[29:13] I think the zoning district is appropriate

[29:15] allowing this type of, a little bit of a different use

[29:19] by having the storage area is appropriate

[29:22] and being on the corner where it is

[29:23] and know that there's an interest

[29:25] in having the appearance be what I think this shows

[29:30] with this extensive landscaping.

[29:32] So hopefully that covers those concerns.

[29:36] This is also one of the Scarvers points in agreement with that we also did an exhibit that looks a lot like this.

[29:45] This would be bricked and there would be water table here.

[29:49] And so that's something that they're in agreement with, which is different from what maybe the original rendering show did not obviously show the brick on that side.

[30:00] So, those are the consistencies and in some where things are a little bit different. The hours of operation, I guess, would be the only other where the stipulation letter for Mr. Huff is consistent with your noise ordinance. I know you've talked about that with them before that that's why the noise ordinance is there. And so that covers that he's just saying we're going to be consistent with that as opposed to the hours being a little bit tighter, which would be the 10-day that staff proposed.

[30:27] So, I think what we would recommend or ask that you recommend is that the approval will be subject to Mr.

[30:35] Huff's letter and the staff conditions where those differ the three or four things that we've talked about tonight are covered by Mr.

[30:43] Huff's letter that ties it back to our plan and the landscaping plan.

[30:51] And with that, if you have any questions for me or if there's anything else that you want to hear from the applicant,

[31:00] So this is your 10 minutes. You guys can use it. However it is that you choose if you want to bank a few minutes then it's totally up to you.

[31:10] Okay. I mean, is there anything you want to add for now? I'm happy

[31:17] to answer any questions about types of customers or tenants or users on the property or anything you may want to talk about.

[31:25] We

[31:29] can hold the rest of our time.

[31:31] Yeah, I was going to say this is an art time to ask you questions, not just yet.

[31:34] This is the ten minutes that you guys can exhaust stating your case essentially.

[31:40] So again, it's up to you.

[31:42] If you have probably a minute and a half left, if you want to, it's up to you.

[31:46] I'm Jack Cranford with strategic real estate partners.

[31:51] No, it's awesome.

[31:53] Yeah, there you go.

[31:54] Okay, great.

[31:55] Thank you for talking about that.

[31:56] Jack Cranford with strategic real estate partners, we are the applicant under S.T.V. Acquisitions, L.O.C.

[32:03] And I've covered most of everything that we'd like to go through here.

[32:06] But with the landscaping shown here, we're really trying to do our best.

[32:10] This is a button beyond what we've done on any other property to make this a good looking facility.

[32:15] We've added the brick ornamental fencing out front.

[32:18] Really trying to shield the yard as best we can.

[32:21] and we've built other buildings along White Road.

[32:25] I'm very familiar with the area and I think what we're proposing here would be one of the best looking properties in that area.

[32:31] So we're excited to work with you all and find a way to get this property developed.

[32:37] Thank you.

[32:40] How much?

[32:41] A minute 30.

[32:42] Oh, it's a minute 30, okay.

[32:43] I'm assuming you guys are done.

[32:45] I'm happy.

[32:46] Okay, I mean, you can't have a seat if you're done, it's up to you.

[32:48] Cool.

[32:49] Thank you.

[32:53] So with a minute and 30, was there anyone else that wanted to speak in support of this application?

[32:59] No? Go on once, go on twice, okay? We did have one person that wanted to speak in opposition.

[33:10] So I'll ask one more time, is there anyone else that wants to speak in opposition? We already have one person.

[33:18] Okay, so you can make your way to the podium.

[33:21] State your name and your district, I guess, in the city.

[33:27] My name is Steve Young, I'm with the Mableton Improvement Coalition District 4.

[33:32] We actually, I don't oppose the application per se, I do oppose some of the language in the application.

[33:40] And only because I oppose it, because I think it could hinder the development of this.

[33:47] I think the development is actually a very good project.

[33:50] It's very beautiful landscaping and everything.

[33:53] I think it's fine addition, especially when you do light industrial.

[33:58] It's very easy for it to be kind of run down looking, but

[34:03] I think this is a very good project.

[34:05] And the language I object to is the, what you have stipulations allowing the gravel parking for.

[34:13] That would normally be found.

[34:14] Excuse me, in heavy industrial, that should be a variance and not a stipulation.

[34:21] Stipulations, restrict behavior on a piece of property where the zoning would otherwise allow it.

[34:31] Variants does the opposite, it allows use of land that is not allowed in that particular zoning category.

[34:40] In this case, they are using the land in conformity to a heavy industrial, not a light industrial.

[34:48] That should be a variance and not a stipulation.

[34:51] And if you do not use the proper language, it could lead to problems down the road,

[34:59] if someone comes along and checks on legal grounds.

[35:02] So I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt that language going forward on this.

[35:09] Otherwise, I do believe there would be some problems.

[35:12] Thank you very much.

[35:14] Thank you.

[35:17] And how much time do we have left?

[35:19] Eight minutes, 11 seconds.

[35:20] Eight minutes, okay.

[35:23] So I'll make one last plea.

[35:26] I know we don't like public speaking, but I'll ask again, with eight minutes left, was there anyone else here?

[35:31] They wanted to speak in opposition to this application,

[35:37] okay?

[35:38] I don't see anyone.

[35:38] So I guess we will forfeit the remaining time and then we will close the public public comment portion for this particular case.

[35:49] We will as a board, we will open it up for our own discussion.

[35:58] It's open.

[36:01] I have a question, again, about the times of operation.

[36:04] I'm kind of confused, staff said, one step, time.

[36:09] Chairman.

[36:10] Yes, sir.

[36:10] To close the public.

[36:15] Oh, sorry.

[36:17] Thousand apologies.

[36:18] I'll make a motion to close the public hearing portion for this case.

[36:22] My second.

[36:23] We'll have a second from Commissioner Valenzano.

[36:26] All in favor say aye.

[36:27] Aye.

[36:27] Any opposed?

[36:28] Say nay.

[36:29] No opposition.

[36:30] public hearing portion is closed. Is your question is it to the applicant or staff?

[36:36] Really both because I was confused about what they said.

[36:39] Okay, so let's start with staff and then and then we can get the applicant to clarify.

[36:45] But let's start with staff first.

[36:50] The applicant presented hours of operation in their stipulation letter that's attached there.

[36:55] You see it on the agenda. Their stipulations are exactly what you have in the city of

[37:01] noise ordinance. I believe it said nothing, no noise between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. staff. When

[37:10] we looked over it, I had recalled that you had limited it a little bit further. And

[37:14] so staff's recommendation just limited that window, not by much, just maybe an hour on

[37:19] each side. But you all had some other discussions limiting it further. So really what it is is

[37:25] what is the planning commission comfortable with? Do they want to just stick with the noise

[37:29] ordinance or because of the adjacent residential property, do you want to restrict it further?

[37:34] So what we talked about in the previous meeting, and this is in action in the meeting notes,

[37:45] the meeting minutes, excuse me, there was a proposal to revise, I guess at that point it was

[37:55] Number 13 to read, loading, unloading, and outdoor activities shall be limited to weekdays between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m.

[38:04] And on weekends 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. So that's the stipulation that was put forth in the what the July second meeting.

[38:14] Versus what the applicant is saying is in their stipulation letter is outdoor noise generating activities shall not occur

[38:24] between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. so it's it's a slight variance of time. Just one correction if I may.

[38:32] This is a staff's recommendation there's with 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. I'm sorry I'm looking at my bed.

[38:37] So 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. so it's it's basically it's like a shift of an hour. So the idea was because

[38:46] there is a there's a our 20 our 20 home just I think I guess south and then

[38:56] there's a mobile home park there. The idea was to make sure that we're doing as

[39:01] a planning commission we're doing everything that we can to protect them from

[39:04] from a from a noise standpoint and that's where that stipulation or at least that

[39:10] recommendation came from.

[39:16] You can you can ask the applicant to step

[39:20] that for other representatives, either one?

[39:27] For us, if you take a day AM, we say we have a landscape

[39:32] contractor that uses this yard, and they're getting their

[39:35] cruise out, and you see the landscape are starting at 8 a.m.

[39:39] in the morning, and if they're trying to load their trucks up

[39:41] and get their equipment on the trucks, that'll harness losing

[39:44] that hour.

[39:45] So I think we're trying to work within the noise ordinance as it

[39:49] was put in place for that reason, and willing to adhere

[39:52] to that, but the 8 a.m. start would hurt us for our customers.

[40:00] And when you say customers, do you have in the building?

[40:04] Set again.

[40:05] Tenants in the building.

[40:06] Okay.

[40:07] Well, to that point or to that end, do you have certain customers already or tenets already

[40:14] lined up that you're ready to lease the space to or do you not have that yet?

[40:20] Because I understand to be, I understand you want to be prepared for that kind of situation.

[40:26] And so I'm just asking, do you already have a tenant where they're saying, hey, this

[40:34] is our type of business and so we need to be able to function within these types of hours?

[40:38] We do not have a specific tenant on it.

[40:40] We do have interest in the property, from groups that would be much favorable to have the

[40:46] Norse Orman's hours not these proposed hours got you. Okay. Thank you.

[40:56] Go ahead.

[41:00] Did you want to add something to the

[41:03] Step to the podium. Please add your point to the time. Yeah, please go to that answer. I was as I was listening to him

[41:10] talking and thinking I hear

[41:13] that often and I think that morning time is pretty important for

[41:17] Most any contractor and a lot of businesses that would need to be working

[41:22] by 7, that's not that early, but I was thinking if there had to be a change that the evening hour is probably less important to any business there, maybe more important to a resident to have a quiet night than a lot of people are up by 7 a.m.

[41:37] So I was just, I don't know if that's a real legal point or just a suggestion that maybe there could be some some agreement on the night hour or not as important for the business than maybe the morning.

[41:49] While you're up there and this may need the applicant as well, I noticed to other discrepancies

[42:01] that I wanted to get clarification on, the staff's recommendation is an 8-foot fence,

[42:09] and that statement includes the outdoor storage area shall be enclosed by an 8-foot fence,

[42:16] which I understand to be the entirety of it, and the stipulation letter we received from the applicant is a six-foot fence.

[42:27] I'm more leaning toward the eight-foot fence in the chain link areas, but I was wondering if that would be prohibitive along the frontage.

[42:39] So if you could speak to where you would not like that 8-foot fence to be in place, I would appreciate it.

[42:46] Okay, understand.

[42:48] Just about.

[42:50] We're showing 8 on the plan now.

[42:52] Okay, so he's saying that the plan does show 8 feet as far as the vinyl chain link in the front.

[43:00] And 8 foot on the ornamental as well.

[43:02] And 8 foot on the ornamental.

[43:06] Tina, can you pull the site plan out?

[43:09] So it would be agreeable to use eight foot fence and for the entirety of the enclosure.

[43:14] Yes, yes, I think the site plan is consistent with the staff condition.

[43:18] The other point, once again with the fence and I apologize, we discuss fence all night.

[43:25] The staff stipulation number 12 reads that the fence shall be located no closer than the front of the building along Riverside Parkway.

[43:34] I assume we would need to strike that, because obviously we're talking about the fence being on the outside of the parking lot to the road side of that parking area in front of the building.

[43:47] So Tina, if you have a comment, please go ahead.

[43:50] I do and it might be in a different stipulation.

[43:54] It says accept as needed for fencing the front parking lot.

[43:58] And so the idea there is that the fencing that's there for the storage would not be in front of the building.

[44:03] So, this fence here is for this front parking area.

[44:09] It's the storage fence that needed to stay back this way, which when I had identified

[44:17] the differences, it was mainly based on the email I received back from the attorney saying

[44:21] these are the differences.

[44:23] As you're going through there, there is another section and similar where I'm talking about

[44:27] the fence needs to be located back with the setback that the storage should not be in any

[44:32] setback area and those areas would be like right in here. That wasn't specifically called

[44:39] out as a difference but that is in staff's stipulation.

[44:43] So when they submitted for LDP you would make sure that those areas were properly described

[44:49] describe your accounted for per the stipulation you just mentioned.

[44:53] That's right.

[44:58] One final thing.

[45:00] On the gates, there is stipulation 16 that there should be a minimum of 50 foot from the right of way. Is that going to work? I'm just curious looking at those plans. It doesn't seem like there's that much room, but I just wanted to make sure we're all in the agreement.

[45:18] We haven't shown it roughly 25 to 30 feet inside the right away.

[45:24] The reason we wouldn't want to go to 50s because we've done that on other properties

[45:27] before, and it invites people like tractor trailers that want to pull over because they

[45:31] need to get into the lot north of here or something like that to park and try to sit there overnight.

[45:36] We talked about keeping the gates open during business hours and closed after business hours.

[45:42] So I think the idea of pushing it back 50 feet was to keep from people having to queue out in the right away

[45:47] But I think with the stipulation of keeping the gates open your business hours that'll allow us to not have people queuing in the right away

[45:54] I guess by your comment. You're saying that if it was 50 foot back and closed at night

[46:00] It might have might the opposite problem. It might invite the opposite. Yes. Okay. Thank you

[46:06] Yes, and I think that goes along with the landscape buffer trying to push that in as well

[46:14] Okay,

[46:17] this question is to staff so we talked about and I think we talked about this at the at the work session and so that the red part the highlight of part in the front is a gate and that will be that is it

[46:38] That would be the only

[46:40] Anodized portion. The rest of it would be chain link. Is that correct?

[46:44] That is that is the difference right now between the staff recommendation and the applicants recommendation.

[46:49] You you had record we had recommended between the two entries.

[46:54] So from the one driveway to the next driveway would all be the decorative fence.

[46:58] And the applicants proposal is that it would just be in that red area.

[47:01] Yeah.

[47:02] So for visual purposes, can you, can you point scratches?

[47:08] Can you point to the, the two entry points that we were discussing?

[47:14] Yeah, do you want me to?

[47:19] Okay.

[47:19] So our discussion was on Riverside, Bob White, that would be the energized fence, and then

[47:28] everything else would be chain link.

[47:30] That's correct.

[47:31] Okay.

[47:32] And you got, as the applicant and representatives, you're opposed to that.

[47:40] Your proposal is to just have the Anodized Fates right there in that red section,

[47:45] and then everything else be Chainlink. Correct? Yes, so that's correct.

[47:49] So Chainlink starting here, the Anodized Fates here, where it's open,

[47:54] and the better visual, all landscaping in here, and then back to Chainlink here,

[47:58] and back to that landscaping all the way up there.

[48:02] I mean, part of it's economical, part of it's practical

[48:05] that you've got a chain link that's better security

[48:10] and doesn't need to be decorative and more expensive,

[48:13] because it's covered by all the landscaping.

[48:15] Here where it's more of a aesthetic feature

[48:18] is more important than happy to do it there

[48:21] and then going back to the chain link there

[48:23] where it's again, you know, back to being screened.

[48:26] So that's the way we're envisioning and looking, you know, having the anti-dice fence be behind the landscape and where you're going to see it, you know, for this section, it seems like a bit more since just to have the bottom of Jane Link fence in there. It's not going to be visible like this section right here in the middle.

[48:45] So that's the difference between the two.

[48:49] Okay, step to the mic.

[48:52] As it compromises, we've added trees,

[48:55] the length of playing calls for a tree every 20 feet,

[48:57] but we've got trees much tighter than that.

[49:00] Okay, so you're saying you're,

[49:02] and I'm simply repeating it because,

[49:04] I don't know if it's being picked up,

[49:05] you're saying they're compromised for you guys,

[49:09] is as opposed to having trees planted every 20 feet,

[49:13] you're packing it in a bit tighter, so I'm just making this up just for number

[49:17] sake as opposed to every 20 feet is every five feet, just whatever. Right, right,

[49:23] as shown on the plan. Okay. To, I mean, not, we're doing a tree wall,

[49:28] essentially in front of the fence, so you will not see the fence theoretically.

[49:32] Okay. Is that you know, we could reduce the amount of trees, you know,

[49:36] water middle all the way down, riverside if that was desired. But the goal here was

[49:40] to add the trees and try to screen the whole yard if that makes sense.

[49:44] Okay.

[49:48] So in terms of the entrance, is it fair to say the front of the building is the entrance

[49:54] and the side is the exit or you can go in and out either way?

[49:58] I mean, it would be two points of access to go in and out either way.

[50:04] Okay.

[50:04] Yeah, I think you would focus here that most of your traffic going to the yard would come

[50:08] in this entrance and I think more of your office staff would be able to see this entrance

[50:12] It's just help.

[50:12] Okay, but it makes sense.

[50:14] But a truck can come in there if they could fit.

[50:16] That's correct, yes.

[50:25] Now, I just, I wanted to start, I guess discussion,

[50:29] if there isn't any other questions,

[50:30] I just want to make sure we're all on the same page

[50:33] of anything that needs to be edited or adjusted.

[50:37] Obviously, we've got a recommendation

[50:42] for leaving it as light industrial with the allowance

[50:46] for the gravel.

[50:47] I guess I would defer to our council there.

[50:50] He'd like to chime in on the conversation

[50:52] about stipulation versus variance.

[50:54] Do you have anything to add to that point

[50:56] that was brought up?

[51:02] Can you speak into her mic, I guess?

[51:06] Generally, when you're talking about uses

[51:08] that aren't expressly permitted,

[51:13] it's either going to be by a special land use permit

[51:17] or a cup, a conditional use permit,

[51:19] to

[51:25] make it iron clad a special land use permit or a conditional use permit is generally acceptable.

[51:40] For that, not to say that it can't be done with variance, but it potentially could be open to a legal challenge later.

[51:52] I can

[51:59] also add this applicant stipulation letter does call it a variance.

[52:05] I don't know about that.

[52:05] Can you point to that one?

[52:12] I don't have it in the presentation.

[52:15] No, that's okay.

[52:17] I'm on it.

[52:18] I'm just trying to, if you know which step number it is,

[52:25] maybe it doesn't.

[52:31] So it's included as in it's stipulation number one in the July 30th letter, which says

[52:37] rezoning the property to the L.I. zoning district with a variance to allow gravel parking

[52:42] as depicted on the submitted site plan attached as exhibit A. I think that with the additional

[52:50] The use of parking on gravel or variance allows you or city councils body to have the

[53:01] legislative discretion to say we allow to vary from the light industrial ordinance to

[53:06] allow for it to have, allow for this used to have parking on gravel, I don't believe that

[53:13] it needs a conditional use permit or special use permit but I think the variance covers

[53:20] And it is included in our letter.

[53:22] Thank you, I appreciate that.

[53:25] So without being said, if we went with the variance language that I guess we've agreed to, that is in the letter, stipulations letter, or agreeable, stipulations letter from the lawyer.

[53:39] My opinion on the timing, I agree with the applicant's comment that businesses that operate in this area, probably want to be up and

[53:49] running by 7 a.m. at the latest. I also fear that we'd be putting a restriction on this

[53:55] one little property that is in the sea of L.I. that we've seen on the current presentation.

[54:02] So I would agree to that morning time start. I would entertain, I guess, an earlier end time

[54:13] I'm of saying 9 or 10 p.m. just to give some peace and quiet to the residents as they mentioned and then it seems like the eight foot fence is agreeable all the way around with the anodized aluminum shown where they're wanting visibility to the front of the building and the chain link being behind landscaping on the rest of the perimeter so correct.

[54:35] I agree. Well, which I think is stipulation number five, certainly understand the need for businesses to be able to get up and running that Riverside Parkway corridor in that particular area.

[54:50] It is heavy with light industrial or let's just say commercial buildings.

[54:57] So it is consistent even though there is an R20 right next to it or to the south of it and then you have a mobile home park a little bit further south.

[55:06] So I am amenable to the 7 a.m. start time.

[55:10] I think in keeping with the previous conversations and just taking into account that you do have some residential properties very close by.

[55:29] Those, those homeowners, or the people that live there, they are not forgotten.

[55:36] I know it's kind of a weird rezoning and it's a pocket of art, you know, that one pocket for R20.

[55:42] So I'm kind of sensitive to the fact that someone can be loading, unloading trucks coming

[55:50] in at 11 p.m. If I lived there, I would pull my hair out if I had any, but so I would be

[55:56] more amenable to changing that stipulation to allow for the 7 a.m. start time but to

[56:03] end at like 9 p.m.

[56:12] Because I just, I think about if it was me, if I was trying to get some

[56:15] sleep or watch TV or read, I don't want to hear heavy equipment or whatever being moved

[56:22] around at 11 o'clock at night and you know I'm probably I'd be upset and I'll say it that way.

[56:33] And they've already mentioned that they are amenable to the to the water shelf which is great.

[56:38] I think that it adds to the for the streetscape. I think they've made some greater some great

[56:45] adjustments as far as landscaping is concerned. I can I totally I understand with anodized fence

[56:52] in keeping it to that particular part, especially if they're going to compensate with a lot of tree planting, which that should also add to the buffer for our 20 in the mobile home park, so I am, I am amenable to that.

[57:11] If I may, I think the only one item we have outstanding would be the storage outdoor storage.

[57:17] for the eight-foot fence or what part?

[57:19] What they're allowed to store on the gravel area.

[57:24] The staff recommendations shows heavy equipment,

[57:29] they're talking in terms of pipe and other materials

[57:31] that a company may need to take to a site or to store

[57:34] before they take them to a site.

[57:36] I'm just trying to think how we avoid,

[57:38] I know during our previous conversations,

[57:40] we were worried that it was gonna turn into a junk yard,

[57:42] so to speak.

[57:43] correct where there was going to be miscellaneous materials or rubbish or other

[57:47] things stored outside I'm just I would ask staff if they have any recommendation

[57:53] how we craft that language or how we allow you to craft that language between

[57:58] now and city council.

[58:01] So the restriction that's on there right now is based on

[58:04] what's allowed to be parked on in heavy industrial on gravel. There is the code

[58:12] does also talk about storage, which is different than gravel parking, so there is definitely

[58:17] opportunity staff will be open to changing it, but you're right to figure out where

[58:20] that balance is. You could prohibit certain uses like salvage yard, but that may not

[58:26] be allowed in LI anyway, but say it is, then that should be added to the list of prohibited

[58:31] uses. Sometimes with auto repairs, you can limit that if you have things on the property

[58:38] for repair. They have to, they can only be there for a certain amount of time. You know,

[58:42] you can't accumulate. Maybe that's the word. Accumulate of stores. I really don't know.

[58:48] That's why it was worded the way it was. Piping, contracting equipment. That could be added

[58:53] pretty easily. If there's something else you wouldn't want to see, the stipulation does

[58:59] say no hazardous materials, so that's covered. So you could just direct staff to look into

[59:07] that further to allow storage without the allowance

[59:10] of accumulation of junk.

[59:12] Maybe that is the word.

[59:13] No accumulation of junk.

[59:15] Junk?

[59:16] OK.

[59:17] That leaves it wide open for our fine books

[59:19] that code enforcement interpret.

[59:22] OK.

[59:25] Do we have any further discussion or

[59:32] any other questions

[59:33] of staff and or the applicant or their representatives?

[59:40] I remember I think the presentation early on.

[59:44] He said something about no vehicle would be there more than 24 hours.

[59:49] You remember saying that because of the things for repairs of vehicles.

[59:56] Because my concern was just like a junkyard, you leave me stuff.

[1:00:00] If I did, if somebody can't pay you, you don't fix it. Now, sitting out there, what do you do? So that's why I was asking that. Yeah, yeah. Okay.

[1:00:12] Not entirely clear on what the question is, but if you're saying, well, I've made a statement that if you're repairing a vehicle or truck, right, right, right. It won't be that in more than 24 hours. I remember this statement. So again, my question is, I just going to tow it away. I mean,

[1:00:32] I mean, is this going to accumulate?

[1:00:34] You actually will stay until 24 hours,

[1:00:36] for the people to pay you?

[1:00:38] Yes.

[1:00:39] I mean, I think saying that we're limited to a vehicle

[1:00:42] only being parked in one spot for 24 hours would not work.

[1:00:46] I mean, think about a weekend where we've got

[1:00:49] employer company vehicles parked out back.

[1:00:51] I'll use the landscape example again.

[1:00:53] They've got 10 trucks they're gonna sit over the weekend

[1:00:55] or maybe only eight trucks go out on Monday morning

[1:00:58] because we don't need the other two.

[1:01:00] It's hard for us to agree that a vehicle would not be in one spot for more than 24 hours.

[1:01:07] I think this kind of goes back to what we just talked about and let me be in a junk yard and whatever language

[1:01:13] we want to propose that limits that, we're open to that.

[1:01:17] We don't want this to be a junk yard either.

[1:01:20] We wouldn't lease to a junk yard, so we'll do everything in our power to align with you all on that.

[1:01:26] and happy to work with you all in what language covers basis for both of us.

[1:01:39] Thank you.

[1:01:43] Are we ready for a motion?

[1:01:44] Yes.

[1:01:45] Ready to entertain a motion?

[1:01:49] I may need some help on this one since we're leaving it as is.

[1:01:53] I don't know if that's ever happened before.

[1:01:56] So I'll make a motion to, I guess, we'll say recommend approval of the light industrial zoning,

[1:02:07] maintaining the light industrial zoning with a variance to allow the gravel parking as mentioned in staff recommendation number four with the request that staff work with the applicant to include language avoiding outdoor storage of materials that becomes

[1:02:25] problems problematic prior to going before City Council.

[1:02:30] Also amending or editing staff recommendations unit number two to read from 9pm to 7am

[1:02:40] for outdoor noise generating activities.

[1:02:43] And then finally to staff recommendation number 16 to eliminate the minimum 50 foot from the

[1:02:55] right away and make it read instead as shown on the plans,

[1:03:00] unless otherwise approved by Cobb County DOT,

[1:03:05] and make sure we include the agreeable stipulations letter received by staff on.

[1:03:16] Please correct me on this date July 30th, 2026.

[1:03:23] That's my motion for the moment.

[1:03:26] All right, so we have a motion from Commissioner Valenzano

[1:03:31] with the notice stipulations.

[1:03:35] Do we have a second?

[1:03:40] Okay, you can still make a second and they will open it for discussion before we do anything else.

[1:03:45] Okay, second.

[1:03:46] Okay, we do have a second from Commissioner Jeter.

[1:03:50] We will open it up for discussion.

[1:03:52] I know Tina, you had a question or a comment, so we'll start with you.

[1:03:56] Okay.

[1:03:57] I'm two comments.

[1:03:58] The first one is the gate requirement did come directly from Cobb DOT, per their standard.

[1:04:04] Which one?

[1:04:05] Number 16, the 50 foot from the right of way.

[1:04:08] But we did add unless otherwise approved by Cobb DOT.

[1:04:12] So that would give Cobb DOT the ability to change that 50 foot requirement.

[1:04:17] But I did want to make it clear that that wasn't a staff recommendation.

[1:04:19] that was a Cobb DOT guideline.

[1:04:22] Okay.

[1:04:22] And then the second, just for a point of clarification,

[1:04:25] I don't think you discussed the location of the fence,

[1:04:29] the decorative fence,

[1:04:32] because one of staff stipulations

[1:04:34] said that it had to go from entrance to entrance,

[1:04:37] where the staff, the applicant,

[1:04:39] was limiting it to this red rectangle.

[1:04:44] Number three, staff recommendation number three.

[1:04:47] Gotcha.

[1:04:48] Permission to amend my motion?

[1:04:51] Absolutely.

[1:04:53] To include revising staff recommendation number three to read that the

[1:05:00] Alumni's Illuminum event shall be installed in front of the building as shown on the

[1:05:06] plan submitted by the applicant.

[1:05:10] Okay.

[1:05:11] That's your question.

[1:05:12] Okay.

[1:05:12] Again, I think on the drawings, I have six feet.

[1:05:15] So we go from six to eight.

[1:05:17] They're correct.

[1:05:17] but they confirmed the drawing showed 80 feet.

[1:05:20] The drawing didn't show 80 feet.

[1:05:22] Any other discussion?

[1:05:26] No discussion?

[1:05:27] Okay.

[1:05:31] So staff, so we do have the amended recommendation.

[1:05:35] Excuse me.

[1:05:36] We have the amended recommendation with RSA.

[1:05:39] We have the recommendation with the amended stipulations as noted.

[1:05:43] That came from Commissioner Valenzano.

[1:05:45] Now, we will, I'll do we have a second on the recommendation with the amended stipulations.

[1:05:54] We have a second from Commissioner Nakui, any further discussion?

[1:06:02] No further discussion?

[1:06:03] Okay.

[1:06:04] All in favor?

[1:06:04] Say aye.

[1:06:05] Aye.

[1:06:06] Any opposed?

[1:06:07] Say nay.

[1:06:07] The ayes have it.

[1:06:09] Let the record reflect unanimous for zero.

[1:06:11] So thank you guys, again, thank you to the applicant and the representatives.

[1:06:17] Again, we're simply making a recommendation.

[1:06:20] We are not the final arbiters.

[1:06:22] This will go before City Council.

[1:06:24] I think the date will be August 26th.

[1:06:27] Yes.

[1:06:27] August 26th.

[1:06:28] So you will have the opportunity to stand before City Council.

[1:06:31] Please your case.

[1:06:32] Excuse me.

[1:06:33] And they could, again, they could say yay.

[1:06:37] They could go, they could follow the recommendation that staff and planning commission has put forward.

[1:06:41] or they can go the total opposite direction,

[1:06:43] but you will have the opportunity to stand before them.

[1:06:45] So we appreciate your time, we appreciate you

[1:06:48] being so amenable in making all of the adjustments

[1:06:51] and edits and we appreciate you doing that.

[1:06:53] So you are free to leave or you can stay

[1:06:55] for the rest of the hearing.

[1:06:58] So with that, we will move to item 6A on the agenda,

[1:07:02] which is R-E-Z2026-007.

[1:07:06] All

[1:07:23] right, good evening commissioners,

[1:07:25] planning commissioners and residents of the, that are here in attendance and unfortunately.

[1:07:31] My name is Latina Richards, I am the city planner for the city of Maipleton and I will

[1:07:35] be representing REZ 2026, that's 007.

[1:07:39] So the subject property address is 5520 Glor Road.

[1:07:44] The applicant is requesting 1.6 Glor Drive, sorry, thank you, sorry, thank you, thank you

[1:07:51] So, 55-20 road, sorry, drive, sorry.

[1:07:57] I'm getting so confused.

[1:07:58] We're drive, and the acreage is 1.6 acres.

[1:08:02] This is within District 4, so it's with Councilwoman Brown.

[1:08:08] And I stated the applicant is rezoning the property

[1:08:11] from General Commercial to Residential Single Family,

[1:08:14] R-20's residential single family.

[1:08:16] The applicant is J-Star LLC,

[1:08:19] and the future line use designation is medium density residential.

[1:08:26] So here we

[1:08:27] have the zoning map that as I stated shows the subject property as general

[1:08:32] commercial and and the future line use designation as medium density

[1:08:36] residential.

[1:08:40] Yeah. This is the old one.

[1:08:45] This is the

[1:08:46] revised one. Yeah. You want to switch computers? Yeah. Alright hold. Sorry one moment.

[1:08:54] Okay, we'll take a brief pause.

[1:10:39] Do the slideshow.

[1:10:53] All right, so sorry about that.

[1:10:59] The applicant did send a revised site plan.

[1:11:02] So what we were seeing on the previous aerial and site plan was the original.

[1:11:08] So this is the revised that the applicant sent earlier today.

[1:11:12] So as you can see, this is as I stated, the revised site plan where the applicant is proposing

[1:11:17] the main floor to be 3,800 square feet, the second floor to be 1,700 square feet, and

[1:11:25] the basement floor to be 1,400 square feet.

[1:11:29] The applicant has stated that, because I know the planning commissioners during your

[1:11:33] work session, you have inquired about whether it is a three-story or a two-story home.

[1:11:38] The applicant has stated that it is a two-story home with a basement.

[1:11:47] These are the conceptual elevations, again, that the applicant has provided for the home

[1:11:52] and the subject property.

[1:11:54] So here we have the front facing view, and here we have the end on the left, and here

[1:11:59] on the right we also see the first, first, second, four elevations as far as where the,

[1:12:05] sorry, not the elevations, but where the location of each four would be.

[1:12:12] And then here is the foreground that the applicant has provided as far as the left, the

[1:12:19] the rear and the right side in the front.

[1:12:27] And here is where the proposed floor plan is.

[1:12:30] So what you're seeing right now is the first floor.

[1:12:34] And on the next page, the first floor, aka the main floor.

[1:12:40] And so probably just about that.

[1:12:42] They did show each floor.

[1:12:44] It was as I included in the presentation.

[1:12:48] But this is where we look at the rezoning criteria

[1:12:52] with the future land use designation as far as whether the property is in conformity

[1:12:57] with the residential area and what requirements are also needed to be rezoned

[1:13:03] to the category that they're looking to, which again is the R20 single-family residential.

[1:13:10] So here, this is one of staff states that they approve the application with stipulations.

[1:13:17] We did indicate that the use should just only be for residential uses only and not commercial.

[1:13:26] So if the applicant wants to convert it to, let's say, an office space just as a primary use,

[1:13:33] we are asking that the applicant do not typically do that for this residential space,

[1:13:39] but they are allowed in our code to be able to do a home office if they would like.

[1:13:45] So again, this is our stipulations as far as what we asked of the applicant

[1:13:57] and this is the last plan.

[1:14:00] I know during our work session, the Planning Commission also asked if the landscape plan was provided with the application.

[1:14:08] Unfortunately, when the applicant set the revised concept drawings, they did not provide a landscape plan.

[1:14:16] So, planning staff has put in a stipulation that they provide a plan, an escape plan

[1:14:22] before the issuance of their land is service permit.

[1:14:25] And that concludes my presentation.

[1:14:28] I am here if you have any questions.

[1:14:30] Thank you.

[1:14:32] Do we have the applicant and or the applicant's representative here this evening?

[1:14:37] Okay.

[1:14:37] Thank you.

[1:14:39] Let the record reflect the applicant is here.

[1:14:42] Do we have anyone here that wants to speak in support of this application?

[1:14:49] In support of?

[1:14:53] We're just looking for anyone that wants to speak in support of this application.

[1:15:00] We don't have any, well, one, okay, I missed that. Sorry. And do we have anyone that wants to speak in opposition to this application? Okay. We'll have the record reflected. There is one.

[1:15:18] Got it. Okay. So we'll need a time keeper. And you are, you can step to the front. You'll have 10 minutes.

[1:15:30] You can share it how you like, but have at it.

[1:15:56] Good evening, everybody. Members of the City Council, Distinguished Planning Commissioners,

[1:16:02] Planning staff and fellow residents.

[1:16:07] Thank you for the opportunity to stand before

[1:16:09] you today. My name is Dr. Portia Siwawa. I'm standing in place of my husband on our

[1:16:15] marisho today. I am not the best at public speaking, but I will do my best. So, I appear before

[1:16:22] for you, not merely as an applicant seeking a rezoning approval, but as someone who truly

[1:16:27] believes in the future of Mabelton and hopes to become a permanent part of this wonderful

[1:16:31] community. My husband and I have spent considerable time getting to know this area, and we have

[1:16:38] fallen in love with what makes Mabelton special. We admire its character, its natural beauty,

[1:16:43] and its sense of community, and the pride that the residents have in their neighborhoods.

[1:16:49] We see a city with tremendous promise a place where families can grow where neighbors know one another and where investments are made with the future in mind.

[1:17:00] That is why we're here.

[1:17:03] We're seeking your support to rezone this property to allow us to build what we envision as our future home a beautifully beautifully designed approximately 4200 square feet.

[1:17:13] Luxury home residents that reflects the quality, character, and standards worthy of the City of Mableton.

[1:17:20] This project is not speculative, it's personal.

[1:17:24] This is not simply another house.

[1:17:26] It is where we hope to raise our family, create memories, host loved ones,

[1:17:30] and establish roots in a community that we deeply admire and wish to call home for many years to come.

[1:17:36] We believe this proposal represents the highest and best use of this property

[1:17:41] Rather than introducing commercial activity, additional traffic, noise, parking lots, and incompatible uses into an established residential setting,

[1:17:50] our vision seeks to preserve and enhance the quiet character and beauty of GlowDrive.

[1:17:55] We intend to transform this parcel into something that complements the surrounding neighborhood and becomes a source of pride for both nearby residents and the city as a whole.

[1:18:05] But most importantly, I want to emphasize our commitment to partnership.

[1:18:10] We come before you with humility and respect for your process.

[1:18:14] We recognize the tremendous responsibility and trusted to the planning staff, planning commission, and the city council to safeguard the quality and integrity of Mabelton's neighborhoods.

[1:18:27] I want to state unequivocally that we are fully prepared, willing and eager to comply

[1:18:32] with all applicable ordinances, technical requirements, setbacks, buffers and development standards.

[1:18:39] Furthermore, we are willing to adopt any reasonable and realistic conditions that plan staff,

[1:18:45] the commission or the city council deemed necessary to ensure that this development becomes

[1:18:50] It becomes a truly befitting and treasured addition to Mabelton.

[1:18:57] If additional landscaping is required, we welcome it.

[1:19:00] If enhanced buffering is recommended, we embrace it.

[1:19:03] If architectural conditions or design standards are necessary to ensure compatibility in the

[1:19:08] surrounding area, we're happy to work collaboratively with staff in the city to achieve those goals.

[1:19:14] We do not view conditions as obstacles.

[1:19:16] We view them as opportunities to demonstrate our commitment to excellence in our respect for this community.

[1:19:23] Our desire is simple, to build a home of exceptional quality, to preserve the natural beauty of the site,

[1:19:30] to contribute positively to surrounding property values and to become good neighbors,

[1:19:35] and to invest our hearts, resources, and future right here, and our future right here in Mabelton.

[1:19:41] As many of you know, homes are more than the bricks and mortar.

[1:19:45] Are more than bricks and mortar.

[1:19:47] They are where children grow up, where friendships are made,

[1:19:50] where traditions begin, and where communities become stronger.

[1:19:54] My husband and I are excited about the possibility of making

[1:19:57] Mabel to know home and becoming active participants in the city's bright future.

[1:20:02] Tonight, I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration and support.

[1:20:07] Help us transform this property into something beautiful.

[1:20:09] help us create something lasting and help us become proud residents of the

[1:20:14] remarkable city. Thank you for your service to the people of Mabelton for

[1:20:18] your thoughtful consideration and for your dedication to preserving and

[1:20:22] advancing this great community. We sincerely hope to earn your trust and your

[1:20:27] support and we look forward to calling Mabelton our home. Thank you.

[1:20:34] Thank you. How

[1:20:39] much

[1:20:39] have a lift? Five minutes, 20 seconds. Okay. You can set forth, please.

[1:20:51] Yes, my name is Steve

[1:20:52] Young. I'm with Mableton Improvement Coalition. I live in District 4. In fact, I've really

[1:20:57] lived maybe about a half mile from this piece property. So I'm familiar with the area. And

[1:21:04] I think I've spoken a number of times not only front of the city, Mableton, but before

[1:21:09] the city was incorporated. I spoke in front of the county, number of developments along lines

[1:21:16] called Drive, Glow Drive here. That's this area. Area I have stated is in desperate

[1:21:24] need of some TLC and I believe this piece of this development here is an exemplary example

[1:21:31] an example of that tender loving care that this area needs and

[1:21:37] urge the council to the planning commission to approve this

[1:21:42] development. It is would be a fine addition to an area that needs some redevelopment.

[1:21:49] And I believe it would spur other development in the area compatible with this kind of living.

[1:21:58] So, I appreciate the applicants' interest in this area and hope to see this come to fruition.

[1:22:07] Thank you.

[1:22:08] Thank you.

[1:22:10] How

[1:22:14] much time?

[1:22:15] Four minutes.

[1:22:16] One second.

[1:22:18] Four minutes, one second.

[1:22:19] Okay.

[1:22:21] I know we asked before, but I asked one more time.

[1:22:25] Do we have anyone else here that wanted to speak in support of this application?

[1:22:29] Looks

[1:22:35] like there's no one else, so we will cut the time there for those in support of this application.

[1:22:44] I think we had one person that was in opposition to the application or bare minimum halfway, which will take it as fine.

[1:22:56] So with that, you please step to the podium, say, your name, your district.

[1:23:00] Yes,

[1:23:05] it's on. My name is Dale Evans. I lived directly across to street from this property.

[1:23:12] And I don't necessarily oppose it. I just had questions or concerns, I guess,

[1:23:18] because I've been in my house for 41 years. The neighborhoods and older neighborhood.

[1:23:25] And first of all, I don't know why they have to have it changed from commercial to residential

[1:23:31] a home was on that property for 60 years. It's just torn down when they started to build.

[1:23:37] So I don't know why it's commercial. And some of my concerns are because most of the houses

[1:23:44] on the street are 1300 square feet. And then this, I just look at it as I mentioned, composed of my house,

[1:23:54] is going to be right across the street for me, which I don't have no objections to that. I get along

[1:23:59] with my neighbors. We're a friendly neighborhood and we get out and talk to each other. We keep our yards done, you know, but it's just my concern because of the property taxes.

[1:24:10] Is that going to make my property go up when my little house is 1200 square feet and I don't mean that's my concerns. I'm just concerned. I mean, I thought the man that was saying he was going to be living there.

[1:24:28] come over and introduced his staff to me. We had a good conversation and then I guess he found out

[1:24:34] later it's commercial and it's been delayed because house has been torn down for like three

[1:24:39] months now. That was on the property and the house that was on the property was about a 900 square

[1:24:44] foot home that had been there for 60 something years at least. Like I said, I've been there for 41

[1:24:51] years and I knew the people that live there and they've been there for years before they had

[1:24:57] to get rid of the house. And it is, like he said, our low areas rundown,

[1:25:03] mines flood drive is terrible. The house that's right next to that house has been

[1:25:09] condemned in the past. There's homeless people living in it. I mean, it's terrible.

[1:25:14] And I would like to see the neighborhood come back up. I know we're having the

[1:25:18] bus bar and at the end of our street. And so that's just my concerns.

[1:25:23] That's it.

[1:25:25] Thank you.

[1:25:26] Anyone

[1:25:29] else?

[1:25:33] Seven minutes, 42 seconds left.

[1:25:35] Seven minutes, okay.

[1:25:37] So again, seven minutes, 42 seconds left.

[1:25:39] Anyone that would like to speak in opposition to this application,

[1:25:46] you have the opportunity to do so now.

[1:25:49] And I'll leave it there for a few seconds for you to must up your courage.

[1:25:57] We don't have anyone.

[1:25:58] All right, so I guess we will forego the rest of the time and we can entertain a motion to close the public hearing portion for this application.

[1:26:10] So moved.

[1:26:11] Motion by Commissioner Valenzano, do we have a second?

[1:26:16] Second.

[1:26:17] Second by Commissioner Geter.

[1:26:19] Any discussion?

[1:26:20] I don't think so. All in favor say aye.

[1:26:22] Aye.

[1:26:23] I mean, opposed a name, guys have it, public comment portion is closed, we can, we'll now

[1:26:32] have our discussion.

[1:26:36] So this question is for staff. I know that there was a, I'm still

[1:26:43] a little confused about whether this is two or three story. Well, I mean, to me, the basement,

[1:26:50] The basement would make it three story, but I mean, I'm just trying to make sure that I understand and it is there anything

[1:26:58] With the square footage or the finished basement that would that would cause any issues with the with the zoning category because the future land uses

[1:27:05] MDR is that correct? Yes, okay, and the square so is there any

[1:27:10] I guess one clarification is it two or three story and then two is it

[1:27:16] with a finished basement, I guess you can call it living space with that cause any issue from the square footage standpoint with regards to the zoning category.

[1:27:24] So we do not have a as far as the square footage.

[1:27:29] We are when we're looking at the law area for the property, they just need to have a minimum of 20, 20,000 square feet if they're trying to reason to our 20.

[1:27:38] So with the as I stated the applicant has a today is a two story home with a basement. So the applicant for our 20 has to adhere to at least 35 feet in height.

[1:27:53] That's that's the maximum height that they can be. So if they're under the 35 feet, then the with the basement is not an issue.

[1:28:03] If I may apologize for totally interrupting you, can you clarify 35 feet to the ridge because

[1:28:11] I'm trying to make sure we're seeing what we're showing.

[1:28:14] They're showing 33 feet 11 and 21, 30 seconds.

[1:28:19] Call it 34 feet for our purposes to the what looks like the eve.

[1:28:25] So can you clarify whether that would meet the requirement?

[1:28:29] So we're talking about 35 feet including the roofing so they would be to the

[1:28:33] ridge so they would need to make sure that ridge line was below 35 feet on the front

[1:28:37] beside. Correct. Okay thank you. Okay.

[1:28:42] It's also counting the basements so the

[1:28:45] measurement they were seeing is also counting the basements from so essentially

[1:28:48] from the floor of the basement to so the measurement that the applicant has

[1:28:53] included was from the floor from the floor of the basement to the ridge of the

[1:28:57] or the high of the of the of the of the roofing.

[1:29:01] I see. Okay. So the bottom is currently at basement level.

[1:29:04] So if we're looking at that front facade,

[1:29:06] they would measure from the bottom of the first floor,

[1:29:09] which is correct. Plenty. Okay.

[1:29:11] Thank you. Correct. From the main floor up and to the roofing.

[1:29:13] Yes. Okay. So that keeps them within in the category.

[1:29:17] Okay. Okay.

[1:29:27] While we're talking measurements, the applicant stated something in the range

[1:29:32] of 4,200 square feet, I believe. If you flip to the next page. Oh, we're going the wrong way. I think you

[1:29:40] get one of the elevations. Or it may be in, it may be in there again. Yeah. Is it one more? There's,

[1:29:48] there's a page that in our packet, and I believe it was on the presentation that shows, uh, 16,

[1:29:55] nine hundred square feet total. Yes, is this, is this on the cyclone?

[1:30:00] Good. Yeah. I'm a side plan. I think if you keep going, it shows you the first floor basement. Keep going. There we go, bottom, left middle of the page, I guess, as you have it there.

[1:30:13] To Commissioner Philpott's question a second ago, is there a minimum and or maximum square footage for the residents in this zoning district? So as I as I've stated,

[1:30:29] When we're looking at the lot square footage, they have to at least have a minimum of 20,000 square feet.

[1:30:36] So as long as the applicant is able to adhere to that, then the structure itself is fine.

[1:30:43] There's not a minimum for heated space if that makes sense.

[1:30:49] Capture.

[1:30:50] Okay.

[1:30:51] So as I would ask you to respectfully ask you to double check that.

[1:30:56] I think there is a minimum square footage for the residents for zoning districts.

[1:31:00] Am I not remembering that correctly?

[1:31:03] I think there's a minimum.

[1:31:04] I don't know there's a maximum.

[1:31:06] However, what I'm trying to get to is there is an impervious surface.

[1:31:10] So the impervious surface?

[1:31:12] Yes.

[1:31:13] So if that's the question, sorry, commissioner, if that's not right.

[1:31:17] So if that's the question as far as the maximum impervious surface that they can have, they

[1:31:22] can have up to 35%.

[1:31:23] So there would be a restriction in that regard.

[1:31:26] Right, but that's the square footage of the residents but the percentage of impervious

[1:31:30] surface.

[1:31:31] Right.

[1:31:31] But that's pertaining to any accessory structures that they have on there.

[1:31:35] So if they propose to put a pool on the property, then that is calculated into the impervious

[1:31:44] surface.

[1:31:44] The driveway, the pool, the driveway, they put it in.

[1:31:47] Otherwise limit the size of the residents and or driveways and other things.

[1:31:52] Correct.

[1:31:52] Thank you.

[1:31:53] And as with the applicants proposing as far as 6,900 square feet, we have advised the applicant

[1:32:02] before that if they keep it under a minimum of 5,000 square feet, they would not do a hydrology

[1:32:08] report.

[1:32:09] But being that now the revised elevation does say 6,900 days over to 5,000.

[1:32:15] So they must likely have to do a hydrology report.

[1:32:18] Okay.

[1:32:26] So the question that I have for you and I think we spoke about this in the work session, and I'm forgive me because I know this floor plan and the elevations that came in kind of late or have you.

[1:32:40] So based on the on the previous elevations that we received, one of the questions that we had was driveway turnaround.

[1:32:48] around. How is that impacting Street Coast School or Drive? It's a pretty narrow street.

[1:32:53] I went down there just to take a look at the site. So with this, with the new site plan,

[1:32:59] is that like, how does, how does, how is a driveway being proposed there?

[1:33:05] So now the driveway, instead of how we were seeing it, as originally submitted, it was kind of a bit like a turnaround.

[1:33:13] This time the applicant when they revise their application is a straight driveway and they're proposing just a two car garage instead of the three.

[1:33:23] It's in the elevations.

[1:33:25] Okay, because I'm looking at the site plan and it looks like there's a three car garage proposed.

[1:33:30] If you go, I think a few slides keep going.

[1:33:34] Keep going.

[1:33:36] Yeah, right there. So that looks like a three car.

[1:33:38] Okay. Um, confusion on D at the proposed elevations that were showed before. So this shows the two car. Right. Yeah.

[1:33:49] Right. So I, and that, that was part of my confusion because even there, go back, even there, that looks like a three car.

[1:33:56] If, if I'm looking at that correctly, one, the one in the top left, that looks like a three car garage.

[1:34:01] If, if I'm looking at that correctly, although I could be wrong. So I just wanted to make sure that

[1:34:06] But I'm looking at it the way that it's supposed to be viewed and then to Commissioner

[1:34:10] Valenzano's point.

[1:34:12] Do we know what the impervious surface pressure is at this point or no?

[1:34:16] No, we do not.

[1:34:18] All right.

[1:34:20] Because as stated the applicant provided conceptual eva of the renderings.

[1:34:29] The applicant has provided conceptual renderings so we will know the impervious calculations based

[1:34:35] on when they're doing their LDP process,

[1:34:38] as far as if they're proposing

[1:34:40] to have any accessory structures to the property.

[1:34:45] As far as you know, are there any other accessory structures

[1:34:48] that have been proposed or no?

[1:34:49] Um, not to my knowledge, no.

[1:34:51] Okay.

[1:34:56] Go ahead.

[1:34:58] I'll just add some of your line of questionings.

[1:35:01] If you, I just want to be clear that staff's recommendation

[1:35:04] did not include any stipulations requiring

[1:35:07] that it match these elevations or the site plan or that it have a minimum unit size.

[1:35:15] So what that would mean is if the R20 zoning district doesn't have a maximum size,

[1:35:21] but they say the minimum, if there was a minimum, was 1,500 square feet.

[1:35:25] Based on the zoning alone, they could build that structure.

[1:35:29] The accessory structures, which-

[1:35:31] Not an accessible structure, much smaller than what they've presented here at zoning.

[1:35:35] I typically would recommend that if your expectation is that they're building what they've presented, you would need to stipulate that.

[1:35:44] So if when you make your motion, if that is your expectation and what you would like to see there, I would add a stipulation that says substantially in accordance with the elevations and site plan provided.

[1:35:58] I'm sorry, the applicant is stating something I don't know if you would like to hear from them.

[1:36:05] Yes, please, because I was actually going to ask the applicant a question.

[1:36:12] My husband had mentioned the impervious surface was 4,800.

[1:36:27] I'm trying to get clarification so as you know, there was there was one set of elevations

[1:36:34] that came in that we looked at first and then we have a second set of elevations.

[1:36:40] So,

[1:36:42] let me say conceptual elevations, we'll set that way.

[1:36:48] As you're building out this home, which concept are you trying to remain close to the

[1:36:56] first one or this one?

[1:36:57] So we provided design concepts to get recommendations to add to the final design that will be submitting

[1:37:07] to the community development because the reason we did that was, we did not want to pay

[1:37:16] like thousands of dollars to an architectural, to an architect without knowing whether

[1:37:21] or not there was going to be a rezoning process guaranteed or there may have been additional

[1:37:28] stipulations that would have influenced the final design.

[1:37:31] So we were looking for recommendations so we could have the final design and place at the application.

[1:37:38] Okay.

[1:37:39] All right.

[1:37:40] Thank you.

[1:37:45] Question to staff on a residential property or private property, are there any design guidelines

[1:37:53] that we need to be aware of?

[1:37:55] I know that we've spoken about design guidelines for previous applications, but those were more

[1:38:01] so for commercial properties.

[1:38:02] So I want to make sure that I'm not missing anything for a residential or private property.

[1:38:09] So for residential, to my knowledge, there's no design overlays as far as residential.

[1:38:16] Unless you're located in our design standard districts where typically Veterans Memorial,

[1:38:23] Maple Tim, Parkway, and Austell.

[1:38:26] Well, Glow Drive is right there off of the VMAGE, so.

[1:38:29] Right, but with but based on where it's so on our zoning map it indicates which ones are we're talking about as far as the the ones that

[1:38:40] Facing the the main roads. So if it's facing hostile road then that that's different

[1:38:46] But since this is go drive and it's it's not facing the main main road

[1:38:52] If that makes sense, and I also want to

[1:38:56] Um, have a point of clarification based on Commissioner Valenzano's question.

[1:39:00] So we do have a minimum of 1,200 square feet for, for, for the, um, the first base for the main, for the main area.

[1:39:09] Oh, the next one is 1,200.

[1:39:11] Yes.

[1:39:12] Okay.

[1:39:14] Okay.

[1:39:19] If I may, I don't, this is just a point of discussion.

[1:39:23] And I know we're not supposed to answer questions directly from anyone speaking at the podium.

[1:39:27] but just for the benefit of all, I think the confusion that is in place, that this property is labeled as a general commercial or a zone currently zone general commercial but had a house on it for decades is why the city of

[1:39:57] or that to appoint a commissioner in Valenzano has made.

[1:40:02] Yes, so there are about three properties that I believe

[1:40:06] as indicated on the zoning map.

[1:40:08] There are three properties that are zoned GC.

[1:40:14] And unfortunately on our zoning map,

[1:40:16] we understand that there's residential homes on it,

[1:40:19] but for some reason we have our zoning map

[1:40:22] that says this is general commercial.

[1:40:23] So this is one of the reasons why staff was it's recommending approval because it does meet with the future line use destination as far as medium density residential.

[1:40:34] Correct.

[1:40:39] Yes, go ahead.

[1:40:41] I do like working with you guys because you're good critical thinking and makes me go back and double check certain thing.

[1:40:47] So the veterans memorial guidelines, the design standards do extend into this area.

[1:40:54] It does look like, for the most part, it is for commercial development, though, versus residential.

[1:41:00] But we will, as part of the development process, if there's anything about like street

[1:41:04] trees or anything, as part of these desired guidelines, we will make sure that we capture

[1:41:07] that.

[1:41:07] But just so you know, it is within that, that it is within that area.

[1:41:11] Okay.

[1:41:12] But it's not applicable to a residential property, just commercial, okay.

[1:41:19] Thank you, Commissioner Valenzano, for that point of clarification.

[1:41:25] This is not the first time nor is it going to be the last time that we come across this kind of situation.

[1:41:31] And sometimes we find ourselves playing the role of the villain when we're faced with kind of cleaning up these situations.

[1:41:40] For this particular property, I am not opposed to it.

[1:41:45] I'm not opposed to it at all.

[1:41:48] I think there's some things that we may want to see.

[1:41:53] Again, my confusion, my only confusion is the difference in elevations and I understand

[1:41:58] from the applicant standpoint, there's an investment to be made in final elevations or

[1:42:06] renderings.

[1:42:07] But right now, I'm not totally sure I know what this home is going to look like.

[1:42:12] but also there's no landscaping plan, and again, from the first one, there was some type of landscaping plan, but now this one, there is no landscaping plan.

[1:42:23] So I'm not totally sure how that landscaping plan would play out. I know there needs to be a buffer between properties, or at least there's a proposal to have a buffer between properties.

[1:42:37] So this is where the applicant has also mentioned during the point when they're speaking about this application that they are amenable to whatever the council sees fit.

[1:42:51] That's that's one of the reasons why being that planning staff has not received the landscaping plan.

[1:43:06] land disturbance permit. Okay I mean I think for me I think a landscape buffer separating

[1:43:14] the properties would be more than likely would be ideal because I think excuse me I think

[1:43:21] next to it if you go back I think maybe two slides so that you know right there is fine so

[1:43:27] we see GC we see in MDR for the for the existing zoning category in the future land use but

[1:43:35] but the property where it says 500, is that GC as well?

[1:43:40] Yes.

[1:43:41] Okay.

[1:43:41] And what is the future land use for the surrounding properties?

[1:43:44] Do we know?

[1:43:45] Is it MDR or?

[1:43:46] So these properties have the, sorry, so these properties have the issue right here on the

[1:43:55] other side that it has a future land use destination of community activity center.

[1:44:00] So that would be, that's more of a commercial use.

[1:44:02] Okay.

[1:44:03] So for the properties are facing lines club drive their zone for and their zone and their future line needs

[1:44:11] destination is commercial. It's just the residential characters when we're looking into when we're looking into

[1:44:19] floor. So for clarification is everything in yellow on that MDR? So yes, the mustard I'm going to say it's a

[1:44:31] medium density residential, and the why is the low density residential and what you're seeing is the red, which is the

[1:44:39] The community activity center. So every property adjoining this property is future land use medium-design. Okay, as a residential

[1:44:45] I don't think I don't think there's a need for a buffer between this property and it's adjoining properties

[1:44:50] There may be some need in the future for the CAC on the other side of the road. Gotcha, but the other thing to your previous line of discussion

[1:45:00] Motion, I think we need to be careful, warning every detail on a rezoning. That's as staff has pointed out what they will do when they get to the LDP. We're just here to make sure our 20 works. The applicant has said they're willing to work with staff. I think we need to take them at their word at this moment. Oh, I believe in. I believe in. Do we have any other questions? Any other discussion?

[1:45:29] question for this one?

[1:45:34] No? Okay. Are we ready to entertain a motion?

[1:45:39] Wait, before we do

[1:45:40] that, there was a stipulation concern that you expressed and I just drew a blank

[1:45:47] honor. I'm sorry. I stated if your expectation is that this development look a certain way

[1:45:54] or be a certain size, you would need to add that to your motion. So it could look like

[1:45:59] you stating that the final architectural design can be determined, you know, at time of

[1:46:05] building permit, but should be substantial in character or quality to what was presented

[1:46:10] in the application.

[1:46:12] Gotcha.

[1:46:12] Okay.

[1:46:14] Okay.

[1:46:16] Anything else?

[1:46:17] Okay.

[1:46:18] Would you not like to entertain a motion, let me make sure I'd say this, this one correctly.

[1:46:24] Are you going to entertain a motion or are you going to make a motion?

[1:46:25] I'm sorry, I make a motion.

[1:46:27] It's been a long day.

[1:46:29] So, yes, so I'd like to entertain a motion for REZ 2026-007,

[1:46:34] like to entertain a motion to approve this application

[1:46:40] with staff stipulations or staff recommendations

[1:46:44] along with an additional stipulation for the final architecture

[1:46:50] to be close to or substantially close to

[1:46:55] do what has been presented along with, you know, along with staff approval.

[1:47:05] And do we have a second?

[1:47:08] I select it in the motion.

[1:47:10] We have a second from Commissioner Valenzano.

[1:47:13] Any discussion before we take our vote?

[1:47:16] No discussion?

[1:47:18] All right.

[1:47:19] All in favor say aye.

[1:47:20] Aye.

[1:47:21] Any opposed, aye.

[1:47:22] nay.

[1:47:23] The ayes have it.

[1:47:24] Let the record reflect.

[1:47:25] I's have it for unanimously for zero.

[1:47:31] So with that, thank you to the applicant.

[1:47:34] We appreciate you putting this together for us.

[1:47:39] This will be on the August 26th, okay, so you'll have the opportunity to go before City

[1:47:44] Council.

[1:47:45] Again, we make the recommendation.

[1:47:47] We didn't make a final decision.

[1:47:48] We're making a recommendation of approval.

[1:47:50] City Council will be the final arbiter, would they make an either say, yes, along with staff

[1:47:55] if they can plan a commission or they could say no or whatever it is that they decide but nonetheless we appreciate you being here we appreciate your interest in the community and we wish you the best.

[1:48:09] If I may really quickly just before you get to City Council I don't know that they'll allow this to be handed out at that time so I highly recommend you get an electronic copy to staff for them to share.

[1:48:18] Thank you.

[1:48:19] or a physical copy, I think that can give it to Susan.

[1:48:23] Yeah, I think she'll take a physical copy.

[1:48:27] I believe what the applicant has presented, the Planning Commission was what was presented to

[1:48:32] you already on the staff report and the presentation.

[1:48:37] Is it more of a physical copy that they presented to you?

[1:48:41] Gotcha, okay.

[1:48:43] So that is 6A, we don't have any other new business.

[1:48:50] So with that, did we have any other final discussion points amongst the planning commission before we adjourn in the other discussion, yes, no, staff, staff and council, did we have any other anything else that needed to be brought forward before we adjourn?

[1:49:11] No, Mr. Chairman.

[1:49:12] Okay, thank you.

[1:49:14] So with that, again, thank you to the community who showed up, like we said before,

[1:49:21] your voices is needed.

[1:49:23] It's appreciated.

[1:49:24] We want to make sure that you are a part of this process, continue to show up, continue

[1:49:30] to show up, continue to voice your concerns, because that's how we will grow as a community.

[1:49:35] This is not my hours, or anyone, one particular person's community is all of our

[1:49:41] communities. We all live here, we all wanted to grow and we all want to be able to be the

[1:49:45] best that it can be. So with that, I will make a motion to adjourn. Do we have a second?

[1:49:54] Second. Second from Commissioner Valenzano. Any discussion? Didn't think so. All in favor?

[1:50:00] Say aye. Aye. Any opposed to say nay? Dies have it? We're adjourned.

Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript