Below is the agenda for the December meeting of the Alpharetta Planning Commission.
The meeting will take place Thursday at Alpharetta City Hall at 6:30 p.m. If you would like to watch the meeting broadcast live or if you would like to review all of the supporting materials for each case you can find them at this link. I have previously written about the high density mixed use proposal on Devore Road and you can find that article here.
If you have questions or constructive comments please feel free to post them in the comments section of this post and I will do my best to respond in a timely fashion.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
a. November 3, 2016 Minutes
IV. ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
V. ITEMS FROM STAFF
VI. PUBLIC HEARING
a. MP-16-13/Z-16-11/CU-16-19/V-16-25 TPA Fuqua Development/Peridot
This item has been deferred by the Applicant. It will not be heard on December 1, 2016.
Consideration of a request to amend the Peridot (A.K.A. MetLife) Master Plan to allow 430 ‘For-Rent’ residential units, 70 ‘For-Sale’ townhome units, 51,200 square feet of retail/restaurant use, 664,400 square feet of office use, and up to a 200-room hotel. The master plan amendment also includes changes to previous conditions of zoning. A rezoning is requested on 15.51 acres from O-I (Office-Institutional) to MU (Mixed-Use) and conditional uses to allow ‘Dwelling, ‘For-Rent’ use and a bank or savings and loan use. A variance is requested to eliminate the requirement for retail under ‘For-Rent’ residential use on 2 sides of each ‘For-Rent’ building. The property is located on the west side of Haynes Bridge Road south of Lakeview Parkway and is legally described as Land Lots 744, 745, 752, and 753, 1st District, 2nd Section, Fulton County, Georgia.
b. Z-16-13/CU-16-20/V-16-27 Perling/13 South Main Street/DT-MU
Consideration of a request to rezone 12.913 acres from C-2 (General Commercial) to DT-MU (Downtown Mixed-Use) in order to develop 36,000 square feet of retail/restaurant use 60,500 square feet of brewery, 30,000 square feet of office use, 64 ‘For-Sale’ townhome units, 50 ‘For-Sale’ condominium units and 200 ‘For-Rent’ residential units. A conditional use is requested to allow ‘For-Rent’ residential use and to allow a residential density of 24.317 dwelling units per acre. A variance is requested from UDC Section 2.7.0(b) to delete the requirement for an on-site neighborhood grocery, as well as variances from UDC Appendix A, Alpharetta Downtown Code to increase the allowable height, allow a different architectural style, increase the maximum building setback, and increase the maximum façade length. The property is located at 13 South Main Street and is legally described as Land Lots 693, 694, 695, and 696, 1st District, 2nd Section, Fulton County, Georgia.
Council Agenda Report
Applicant’s Response to Conditions
Revised Site Plan 11.21.16
Tree Survey 10.18.16
Downtown Main Overall Site Rendering
Proposed Architectural Styles
Townhome Elevation w Brick Added
Townhome and Single Family Proposed Elevations 11.21.16
For Rental Elevation 11.21.16
North View of For Rental and TH
Letter from Resident
Citizen Part B Report
Specimen Tree Report
Trip Generation Report
c. MP-16-14/Z-16-15 Notting Hill Old Milton Holdings MU
Consideration of a request to rezone approximately 2.9 acres from R-12 (Dwelling, ‘For-Sale’ Residential) and DT-LW (Downtown Live-Work) to MU (Mixed-Use) in order to develop 48 ‘For-Sale’ condominium units and 36,000 square foot office building. A master plan amendment is requested to the Old Milton Holdings Master Plan to change previous conditions of zoning and add property to the master plan. The property is located at the southwest corner of Thompson Street and Park Street and is legally described as being located in Land Lot 749, 1st District, 2nd Section, Fulton County, Georgia
Council Agenda Report
Site Plan 11.8.16
Conceptual Residential Elevations
Conceptual Office Elevations
Tree Survey 11.7.16
Arborist Report 11.8.16
Citizen Part B
Revised Letter of Intent
d. CU-16-22/PH-16-17/V-16-32 SABRI GUVEN
Consideration of a request to change previous conditions of zoning to allow for the expansion of the existing retail center and a freestanding office building. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a dress shop within 25% of an office building in the O-I (Office-Institutional) zoning district. A variance is requested to reduce the front and side setbacks in the O-I zoning district. The property is located at 2225, 2245 and 2255 Old Milton Parkway and is legally described as Land Lot 748, 1st District, 2nd Section, Fulton County, Georgia.
Council Agenda Report
2008 Zoning Conditions
Site Plan with Open Space Calculations
Open Space Plan
2008 Zoning Plan
e. PH-16-18 UDC CHANGES – SMART STORMWATER CODE
Consideration of text amendments to the Unified Development Code to implement smart stormwater strategies.
Council Agenda Report
Stormwater Extent of Services Policy
Storm Water Design Manual
UDC Appendix A Sec 2
UDC Appendix A Sec 3
Article II Sec 2.2.5
Article II Sec 2.3.5
Article II Sec 2.5
Article II Sec 2.5.5
Article III Sec 3.1.1
Article III Sec 3.2.7
Article III Sec 3.3.1
Article III Sec 3.3.14
Article III Sec 3.3.8
Article III Sec 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4
Article III Sec 3.7.2
Thank you for posting the agenda, and for the previous article on the Perling/St Main St at Devore high density mixed use rezoning application. I hope Alpharetta residents who oppose the amount of high density development will attend the meeting and voice their opposition. It will be a tough battle, as the city staff person recommending approval states repeatedly in the materials that the high density mixed use rezoning meets the comprehensive master plan and the goal of improving the downtown corridor. I don’t think all residents agree with the amount of high density proposed in the master plan – which is only a guideline/suggestion. Also, this development is more than twice the density of what’s downtown, and another mixed use development in this area is overkill.
I understand your concerns and can’t tell you how disappointed I am with staff’s recommendation on this project.
During the recent comprehensive plan update I specifically and repeatedly told our community development director that such urban densities were completely inappropriate for the DeVore Street location. When the case comes in front of our council I will expect some very clear answers on why my statements were ignored.
Why do we have a council if the one’s we voted for are not supporting our desires as Alpharetta citizens? It appears you guys just do what you want. Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s my opinion. It seems we voice our opinions and you do the opposite.
Joanne- I’m sorry you feel that way. As I mentioned in a previous article about the survey I conducted you are not alone in your frustration with the pace and scale of development currently taking place.
Many residents have reached out to me to complain about the DeVore Road item on tonight’s planning commission agenda for example. It is a perfect example of how far our community development department has strayed from the vision most residents have for Alpharetta and I am still unsure how our staff felt justified in supporting the most dense development in the history of Alpharetta in such a terrible location.
But I can’t speak for other members of our council so I encourage you to reach out to them about specific cases that you feel did not reflect your views. I’m sure they have reasons for the positions they take and will be glad to explain them.
The key is for people like yourself to continue reaching out to their elected officials in a respectful way. Too often people just get frustrated and give up or worse they write us all off as a bunch of crooks and the resentment continues to build. We’ve seen what that leads to in other communities and we don’t want it to happen here too.
I was honored to serve with Councilman Gilvin on the Comprehensive Plan Committee that reviewed and updated the city’s 2035 Land Use Plan. Although there may have been private conversations among committee members and staff about various topics, I don’t recall specific discussions of the Devore Road area during the full committee meetings. I would suggest that if any councilmember believed that a particular land use was not appropriate for a specific area, that councilmember should have raised the issue when the plan was voted on. It may have happened, but I don’t recall it. Unfortunately, a private conversation between and councilmember and a staff member is not enough to change a Future Land Use Map. As it was, the current Downtown Master Plan, Downtown Code and the city’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Use map were all approved UNANIMOUSLY by all council members. Our city staff doesn’t just make this stuff up. They base their recommendations on professional evaluation and land use plans that have been approved by council, not based on orders from one councilmember. It’s up to us to decide what to do from there.
I’m disappointed that you don’t recall my repeated public statements about the inclusion of high density mixed use in nodes outside the GA 400 corridors. From the moment Kimley Horne presented the concept of MU nodes to the steering committee I kept telling them that I had no objection to less dense MU nodes outside of the GA 400 corridor but that 10+ units per acre along Highway 9 was inappropriate.
I am even more disappointed that based on your faulty memory you chose to make snide comments lecturing me about how the city conducts business. I suggest you and Director Cook go back and review the video of our May 23rd, 2016 council meeting.
Please note my comments beginning at the 2:07 mark of the video where I clearly instruct staff that residential densities of 10 or more units per acre are inappropriate for mixed use zoning cases outside the immediate GA 400 corridor. Also note that after my statements no other council member objected or made any contradictory statements so it was perfectly reasonable for me to assume that staff would follow the directions given to them from the dais in a public meeting. It was with that understanding that I supported the amended Comprehensive Plan and had either you or staff objected to my statements during that meeting I assure you that the revised plan would not have passed unanimously.
Well, I do have a faulty memory at times. We can certainly agree on that!
I did note your comments on the video you referenced, and they were exactly as you described. Just so your readers will know, individual council members do not “instruct” staff to do anything. If I made a comment during discussion in a meeting that the sky was purple, it would not make it so.
Council members can, however, make motions and amend motions to place their ideas before the council when items come before us for a vote. While we’re watching videos, I think it’s interesting to skip on down to the next month, June 20th, when we actually voted to approve the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. In fact, if one goes to the 1:07:45 mark, one can review your comments just prior to the vote adopting the plan. You thanked our staff (twice) for the “very good job they did on this. The changes that we made were needed and done in a very thoughtful way…..” Interestingly, you went on to request removal of references to Old Milton High School, clarifications to the 85/15 goal, and references to Marta and transit. All of your suggestions were incorporated into the final document. Obviously you had reviewed the document fairly thoroughly before the vote. When it counted — when the vote was taken — there was no mention of changes to densities or land use on Devore Rd. or anywhere in the city. The vote to approve the 2035 Comprehensive Plan was unanimous.
Even though we occasionally disagree on issues, just like elected officials occasionally do on any topics, I have always thought of you as a man of great integrity and a straight shooter. I am, however, disappointed to see you throw the people who work for us under the bus for giving us the professional opinion we hired them to give and — more importantly — their evaluation of a project within the guidlelines of the codes and policies that we adopted unanimously.
I will leave it to your readers to determine how they would feel if they were provding their opinion to their boss or implementing their boss’s policies, and when the going gets a little tough, the boss points the finger at them and says, “it’s their fault.”
When the rubber meets the road, it’s on us as the elected representatives, not our staff.
There were several residents who came out to the Planning Commission meeting last night and stuck it out through the 3-hour meeting to speak in opposition to this rezoning application. Everyone had some great and diverse points related to this application. And in the end the Planning Commission recommended denying the application. I hope residents keep up the momentum and attend the Dec. 12 City Council meeting when this application will be heard. (And keep informed on the application. I imagine the applicant may try adjusting his proposal in the hopes it will get approved by Council.)