2014-02-25 City Council - Full Agenda-1166

CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
BROOKHAVEN CITY COUNCIL J. Max Davis, Mayor
Rebecca Williams - District 1 Jim Eyre - District 2 Bates Mattison - District 3 Joe Gebbia - District 4 AGENDA February 25, 2014 Regular Meeting
2 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 125, Brookhaven, GA 30329
7:00 PM
A) INVOCATION - PASTOR JOHN FREELAND, SKYLAND UNITED METHODIST CHURCH B) CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call C) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE D) OPENING REMARKS 1. Commendation for Exceptional Service - Sergeant Antione Redding 2. Commendation for Exceptional Service - Officer Stacy Gibson 3. Presentation of Mayor's Good Samaritan Awards E) AGENDA ANNOUNCEMENTS F) PUBLIC COMMENT G) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of January 13, 2014 Brookhaven City Council Special Called Work Session Minutes 2. Approval of January 14, 2014 Brookhaven City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes 3. Approval of January 14, 2014 Brookhaven City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 4. Approval of January 27, 2014 Brookhaven City Council Special Called Work Session Minutes 5. Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement with Georgia DOT for RTOP Program
City of Brookhaven
2/25/2014 7:00 PM
Page 1
Agenda
Brookhaven City Council
February 25, 2014
6. Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement Between City of Brookhaven and DeKalb County - Warrant Interchange System 7. Approval of Engaging Bernard Knight, Esq. to Assist City Attorney and City Manager in Zoning Map Issues H) ANNOUNCEMENTS I) REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Zoning Map Audit Update 2. City Hall Update 3. Parks Purchase Update J) OLD BUSINESS 1. Resolution RES-2014-01-02: Resolution for Legislative Package Submittal K) PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Rezoning Ordinance (ID # 1258): RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and SLUP 13-02 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company - Rezoning Request from O-I Conditional (OfficeInstitution) to O-I at 4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road. Mixed Use Development Consisting of 500 Multi-Family Units (563,578 Sf), 250,000 Square Feet of Office Space, and Three Parking Decks. Special Land Use Permits to Exceed the Height of All Buildings/Structures Over 5 Stories and 70 Feet, and for Development of High-Rise Apartments in the O-I Zoning District Have Also Been Requested. (Planning Commission Recommended Deferral to the City Council and If Deferred by Council that the Cases be Remanded Back to Planning Commission for an Additional Public Hearing.) Due to Inclement Weather on January 28, 2014 this Matter was Reset for Consideration on February 11, 2014. Subsequently, due to additional inclement weather this matter was reset for consideration on February 25, 2014. - Public Hearing 2. Rezoning Ordinance (ID # 1259): RZ13-14 - Courtney Dufries - Rezoning Request from R-75 (Single-Family Residential) to R-50 (Single-Family Residential) at 1458 Etowah Drive NE to Construct Three Single Family Homes. Due to Inclement Weather on January 28, 2014, This Matter was Reset for Consideration on February 11, 2014. Subsequently, due to additional inclement weather this matter was reset for consideration on February 25, 2014. - Public Hearing 3. Rezoning Ordinance (ID # 1257): RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296, 1302, 1304 Kendrick Rd. to Construct a Parking Lot - Public Hearing L) NEW BUSINESS
City of Brookhaven
Page 2
Updated 2/24/2014 4:18 PM
Agenda
Brookhaven City Council
February 25, 2014
1. Ordinance ORD-2014-01-01: RZ13-11 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company Rezoning Request from O-I Conditional (Office-Institution) to O-I at 4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road. Mixed Use Development Consisting of 500 Multi-Family Units (563,578 Sf), 250,000 Square Feet of Office Space, and Three Parking Decks. (Planning Commission Recommended Deferral to the City Council and If Deferred by Council that the Cases be Remanded Back to Planning Commission for an Additional Public Hearing.) - Action Item 2. Ordinance ORD-2014-01-02: SLUP 13-01: To Exceed the Height of All Buildings and Structures Above 5 Stories and 70 Feet (4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road and 4106 Lake Hearn Drive.) (Planning Commission Recommended Deferral to the City Council and If Deferred by Council that the Cases be Remanded Back to Planning Commission for an Additional Public Hearing.) - Action Item 3. Ordinance ORD-2014-01-03: SLUP 13-02: To Develop High-Rise Apartments in the OI Zoning District (4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road and 4106 Lake Hearn Drive.) (Planning Commission Recommended Deferral to the City Council and If Deferred by Council that the Cases be Remanded Back to Planning Commission for an Additional Public Hearing.) - Action Item 4. Ordinance ORD-2014-01-04: RZ13-14 - Courtney Dufries - Rezoning Request from R75 (Single-Family Residential) to R-50 (Single-Family Residential) at 1458 Etowah Drive NE. - Action Item 5. Ordinance ORD-2014-02-01: RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296, 1302, 1304 Kendrick - Action Item 6. Ordinance ORD-2014-01-05: An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14 (Land Development) of the Code of the City of Brookhaven, Georgia, to Replace Article II Environmental Control, Sections 14-44.1 Land Development Requirements and Allowable Stream Buffer Encroachments, 14-44.2 Exemptions, 14-44.3 Administrative Variance Application Requirements, 14-44.4 Administrative Variance Criteria, Standard of Review and Process, 14-44.5 Notice Requirements and Appeals of Stream Buffer Administrative Variance Decisions, and 14-44.6 Validity of Previously Issued Stream Buffer Variances, and for Other Purposes. M) OTHER BUSINESS 1. Consideration of the Appointment for City Attorney N) PUBLIC COMMENTS O) MAYOR'S COMMENTS P) EXECUTIVE SESSION (IF NEEDED) Q) ADJOURNMENT
City of Brookhaven
Page 3
Updated 2/24/2014 4:18 PM
G.1
CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
BROOKHAVEN CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 13, 2014 Special Called Work Session
200 Ashford Center N, Suite 150, Dunwoody, GA 30338
12:30 PM
A) CALL TO ORDER
Attendee Name J. Max Davis Rebecca Williams Jim Eyre Bates Mattison Joe Gebbia Title Mayor District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Status Present Present Present Present Present Arrived
B) EXECUTIVE SESSION (LITIGATION & CONTRACTS) AND REAL ESTATE 1. Motion for Real Estate, Litigation, and Contracts (Personnel)
The executive session began at 12:40 p.m.
RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES:
APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Bates Mattison, District 3 Joe Gebbia, District 4 Williams, Eyre, Mattison, Gebbia
2. Council members Gebbia and Mattison left the meeting during the executive session. 3. Motion to Close Executive Session - Council member Williams moved to close and Council member Eyre seconded. Mayor Davis, Council members Eyre and Williams approved 3-0. 4. Motion to Enter Executive Session - Council member Williams moved to reopen and Council member Eyre seconded. Mayor Davis, Council members Eyre and Williams approved - 3-0. 5. Motion to Close Executive Session - Council member Eyre moved to close and Council member Williams seconded. Mayor Davis, Council members Eyre and Williams approved 3-0.
The executive session closed at 4:06 p.m.
C) AGENDA ITEMS 1. Retreat Task List Report - Because of time and two council members had left during the executive session, Council agreed to discuss later.
Council agreed to discuss the Retreat Task List at a later time.
City of Brookhaven
1/13/2014 12:30 PM
Page 1
Packet Pg. 4
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 13, 2014 12:30 PM (Consent Agenda)
G.1
Minutes Brookhaven City Council January 13, 2014
2.
Legislative Package Discussion - Because of time and two council members had left during executive session, Council agreed to discuss at January 14, 2014 Meeting.
Council briefly asked questions about the TAD, opportunity zones, and hotel motel tax items. Council indicated they would prefer to not have the TAD in the legislative package at this time. Mayor Davis and the two council members remaining, Council members Eyre and Williams, indicated their preference to discuss the legislative items at the January 14, 2014 meeting.
D) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned.
_____________________ J. Max Davis, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Susan Hiott, City Clerk Approved
City of Brookhaven
Page 2
Updated 2/7/2014 5:11 PM
Packet Pg. 5
1. Council member Eyre moved to adjourn the Meeting and Council member Williams seconded. Mayor Davis and Council member Williams approved 3-0 to Adjourn. APPROVED:
G.2
CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
BROOKHAVEN CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 14, 2014 Work Session Meeting
4:30 PM
A) CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Davis called the Work Session to order. Attendee Name Title J. Max Davis Mayor Rebecca Williams District 1 Jim Eyre District 2 Bates Mattison District 3 Joe Gebbia District 4 Status Present Present Present Present Present Arrived
B) ROLL CALL
City Clerk Susan Hiott called the roll.
C) PRE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA REVIEW

City Manager Garrett began the pre regular meeting agenda review by highlighting the oaths of office, special commendations, and steering committee appointments that would occur at the beginning of the meeting. She moved on to the consent agenda portion of the meeting and reviewed the meeting minutes, City holiday addition, and clarification of the stream buffer moratorium date. She reported that the City was in possession of a revised cost proposal for the Zoning Map Audit. She also commented on meetings with a former County Attorney that resulted in a change to the approach for the data collection and review portions of the audit. She expressed a desire to revise the consultant's proposal, based on the new information, by separating the process into three phases. She moved on to the new business portion of the agenda and provided an explanation of the resolution authorizing a TAN for the City's operating cost. She expressed hope that the City would not need a TAN in 2015. A discussion occurred about the repayment of the previous year's TAN. Ms Garrett requested a deferral of the Legislative Package Resolution until the next regular meeting. She requested the council's approval of the Resolution to Support HB 128 for the Georgia Downtown Renaissance Act. She pointed out that there would be a need for an executive session prior to the regular meeting to discuss personnel and litigation.
D) UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS 1. Presentation of Public Safety Software - Chief Gary Yandura
Ms. Garrett recognized Chief of Police Gary Yandura. He pointed out how to access the Public Safety portion of the City's website, and offered a brief tutorial of how to use the crime mapping application on that portion of the site. Mayor Davis mentioned that many citizens had asked him about police reports, and explained full reports were not public record until the crime had been adjudicated. Mayor, Council, and Chief Yandura discussed the various features of the software. Council Member Eyre asked what types of violations would not show up on the crime mapping application. City Attorney Kurrie reported that code enforcement violations would not be included in the mapping software. A discussion occurred about the feasibility of creating a similar map for code enforcement violations. Council Member Williams asked Chief Yandura if the crime mapping system had allowed him to identify any crime trends since July. Mayor and Council asked for update of moving into the new building at 2665 Buford Highway. A discussion occurred about the new gun range that was set to open next to the Police Department.
City of Brookhaven
1/14/2014 4:30 PM
Page 1
Packet Pg. 6
G.2
2. Recognition of Ray Holloway - City Manager Marie Garrett

Ms. Garrett recognized Ray Holloway, the new Parks and Recreation Director, and reported that it was his second day at work and first City Council Meeting. She asked Mayor and Council to meet with Mr. Holloway next week.
3. 1246 : Ordinance - Chapter 16 -Miscellaneous Provisions and Offenses - Led by Attorney Tom Kurrie
Mr. Kurrie began the review of the proposed Chapter 16 Miscellaneous Provisions and Offenses Ordinance. He pointed out that the city was currently governed by DeKalb County's Ordinance, and explained that the proposed code chapter contained additional vagrancy regulations, a false alarm ordinance, and additional improvements to DeKalb County's Ordinance. He reported that his partner, Mr. Tim Tanner prepared the ordinance using Dunwoody, Gwinnett County, and Valdosta's existing ordinances. He specifically pointed out that a provision from Valdosta's ordinance regarding the interfering with public meetings was included within the proposed ordinance. He informed the Mayor and Council that he would like to flip through the proposed ordinance page by page so that they may address any concerns or comments about the proposed language. He also informed them that he would be identifying processes within the ordinance that needed to be removed due to a lack of personnel to fulfill the task. He addressed the disorderly conduct portion of the ordinance and provided a brief explanation of its scope. Mayor Davis inquired about the graffiti provisions within the ordinance. Mr. Kurrie reported that the Graffiti Ordinance was taken from Dunwoody, and specified that provisions and remedies existed within the ordinance to ensure the removal of graffiti. He moved on to describe the No Interference Ordinance, which prohibits members of the public forum hindering a public employee from completing his/her job. He pointed out that the Offenses Against Public Morals Statute would need to be examined with the SOB ordinance to ensure that no conflicts between the two existed. He commented further on specific provisions within the public morals code section. Mayor Davis asked if any provisions existed regarding the use of profanity in front of children. Mr. Kurrie reported that such a situation would fall under the disturbing the piece section. Council Member Williams inquired about State Statutes pertaining to prostitution. Mr. Kurrie explained that the inclusion of State Statutes within a municipal ordinance allowed fines to be collected and prosecutions to occur at the municipal level. A discussion occurred about the other benefits of prosecuting State Statutes at the local level. Mr. Kurrie summarized additional statutes included within the ordinance including Public Indecency, Vandalism of Public and Private Property, and graffiti provisions. He commented further on specific language for private property owners to seek legal remedies to the vandalism of their property, and the specific chemicals that were included within the graffiti statute for its removal. He explained that the proposed ordinance would change the Planning and Development Department to the Community Development Department, thus allowing the city to put a lean on a property for repeat violations. He pointed out that the language put the burden of applying a lean to a private residence on the City Manager, but explained that such action could be the responsibility of code enforcement. He commented on statutes involving the Tampering of Utilities, specifically utility polls, and suggested expanding the language to include any conduits of utilities and all supporting infrastructure. He moved on the provide an explanation of Loitering and Prowling and Loitering for the Purposes of Engaging in Drug Activity. He expressed a desire to review the provision with Chief Yandura in order to discuss the warning requirements and factors for making and arrest for Loitering for the Purposes of Engaging in Drug Activity. Mayor Davis asked for an example of required warning to make an arrest under the subject statute. Mr. Kurrie reported that the following factors must be met: observation of drug activity, engagement of the potential offender, previous knowledge of drug activity by the potential offender, a history of criminal activity by the vehicle used in the subject drug activity, court designation or court restriction of criminal activity by the potential offender, receipt of a tip from a private citizen, and required designation of areas with high crime. Mr. Kurrie mentioned that the requirements were to restrictive and expressed a desire to meet with the Chief to discuss revisions. He offered comments on the Public Intoxication Statute. He also offered comments on the Statue Preventing or Disrupting Lawful Meetings and Gatherings, and explained that the statute would be expanded to include all forms of City
City of Brookhaven
Page 2
Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM
Packet Pg. 7
G.2
meeting. He pointed out that Creating Disturbances in Schools, Public Urination, and Urban Camping were also included within the proposed ordinance. He discussed the details of the Urban Camping Statute for the purposes of regulating the homeless population. Council Member Eyre expressed a desire to expand the definitions within the statute to include public places. Mr. Kurrie reported that the definition included County and City parks, streets and sidewalks, and additional areas. Council Member Mattison offered comments on areas where he had identified Urban Camping throughout the City and inquired about origin of the proposed Urban Camping Statute. Council Member Williams asked if the Urban Camping Statute encompassed the use of private or quasi-private land such as abandon buildings. Mr. Kurrie explained that the inappropriate use of private property would be a trespassing issue. Mayor Davis asked if provisions within the statute existed to punish property owners for allowing a homeless presence in abandoned buildings. Mr. Kurrie, reported that he could look into the expansion of the statute to include such provisions. Mayor Davis offered comments on complaints he had received about homeless presence throughout the City. A discussion occurred about property laws for areas such as the railroad in the City. Council Member Williams asked if the language could be expanded to regulate any unauthorized camping. Mr. Kurrie reported that it could, but pointed out that the council's discussion was leaning towards additional regulation of even authorized Urban Camping in particular areas. A discussion occurred about types of appropriate exemptions to the statute. Council Member Gebbia inquired about the entire process for arresting an individual for violating the Urban Camping Statute. Mr. Kurrie reported that the first step was for a police officer to ask an individual to leave and if he refused or continued to come back then an arrest would be justified. Mayor Davis expressed a desire to contact Task Force for the Homeless before stringent enforcement of the Urban Camping Statute occurred. Council Member Gebbia expressed a desire to develop a contingency plan for the homeless population in the City. Chief Yandura explained that the efforts of the Salvation Army contributed to the homeless problem because their services attracted homeless people to the city but failed to provide them with shelter for an extended period of time. Chief Yandura reported that his officers had successfully removed pan-handlers from the City and had taken steps to drive homeless people to shelters when possible. Mayor Davis requested a specific explanation of how the Salvation Army contributed to the homeless problem in the City. Chief Yandura explained that they provided a shower and a hot meal, but not a place to stay. Mr. Kurrie pointed out that the Urban Camping Statute set the age limit at 13 for prosecution in order to allow for children to camp in parks and other areas. Council Member Eyre expressed a desire to amend the restriction within the provision that Mr. Kurrie mentioned. Mr. Kurrie also pointed out that the ordinance prohibited the entrance to public or private school buildings between 7:00PM and 6:00AM. He also discussed the Residential Picketing Statute. Mayor Davis asked what statute dumping trash on someone's yard would fall under. Mr. Kurrie explained that the Littering Ordinance would be applied to such a situation and that high fines would be applied to the offender. Council Member Gebbia asked if there was anything that empowered citizens to act if the witness violations such as trash dumping. Mr. Kurrie explained that no such language existed but commented on evidence citizens could collect to aide the police department in the identification and prosecution of criminals. Council Member Eyre asked if the Residential Picketing Statute would prohibit members form the public from picketing in front of a home even if they were in the sidewalk, street, or right-of-way. Mr. Kurrie confirmed that the statute prohibited such action, and explained that it was a matter of keeping the peace and protecting personal property. He offered further comments on how picketing could be regulated through the designation of specific sites and permitting requirements. Mr. Kurrie reported that provisions existed within the proposed ordinance regarding smoking and drinking on MARTA or any other public property. He pointed out that it was a violation of the ordinance is someone attempted to ride on MARTA without paying the fare. Council Member Eyre asked if the City had jurisdiction to police such violations of the ordinance and if the proposed ordinance matched with MARTA's preferences. Mr. Kurrie reported that the City did have jurisdiction to police such violations, and that the proposed language came from Dunwoody. Council Member Gebbia commented on MARTA's recent expansion of violations and regulations while using their service and expressed a desire to make sure that the proposed ordinance was in line with their new policies. Council Member Eyre echoed his desire to align with MARTA's new policies. A discussion occurred regarding the purpose and scope of MARTA's new policies and how they pertain to the City.
City of Brookhaven
Page 3
Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM
Packet Pg. 8
G.2
Mr. Kurrie asked the Mayor and Council if they would like to prohibit fortune telling. A discussion occurred about the type of fortune telling that could be prohibited. Council Member Gebbia expressed opposition to regulating or prohibiting the presence of a legitimate business. The Mayor and Council expressed unanimous consensus to not prohibit fortune telling in the City. Mr. Kurrie commented further on language within the proposed ordinance regarding the deceitful sale of goods. Mayor Davis asked about the ability to regulate the sale of drug paraphernalia and other adult goods in convenient stores at eye level. Mr. Kurrie reported that it was not included within the ordinance, but would look into such provisions. A discussion occurred about applying age restrictions to deal with such a problem. Mr. Kurrie addressed the Littering Ordinance and explained that it was comprehensive and excessive when necessary. Council Member Mattison asked if it applied to yard waste. Council Member Williams asked if it applied to blowing yard clippings into storm water drains. Mr. Kurrie stated that he did not know. He moved on to review the False Alarms Ordinance and reported that it was comprehensive and derived from Dunwoody. He explained that the language addressed registration and annual renewals of resident's alarm systems. Council Member Eyre expressed opposition to the permitting process for annual renewal of alarm systems. Chief Yandura pointed out that any additional permitting by the Police Department would create a need for more personnel. He asked the Mayor and Council to revisit the annual requirement a year or two from now and pointed out that an escalating fine structure could be implemented to curb the need for annual alarm permitting. Mayor Davis and Council Member Eyre expressed support for the Chief's proposal. Council Member Eyre asked if a permit was required for a new alarm. Ms. Garrett reported that a trade permit could be required for new alarm installation. A discussion occurred about the type of companies installing alarms and how their databases could be used to benefit the City's registration records. A discussion occurred about enacting an escalating fine structure for false alarms. The Mayor and Council agreed that the structure should allow for three un-penalized false alarms first. Council Member Gebbia pointed out that the proposed ordinance made references to Chattcomm. Mr. Kurrie explained that the language would be amended to reflect DeKalb County 911 or any other 911 service. Council Member Eyre asked Mr. Kurrie to briefly explain civil penalties versus judicial penalties within the proposed ordinance. Mr. Kurrie explained that some civil violations would result in the levying of fines, and if an appeal was necessary it would be heard by an appointed officer, not in the court system. Council Member Mattison expressed support for Mr. Kurrie's recommendation. Council Member Gebbia expressed the desire to have all violations of the proposed ordinance managed by the court system in an effort to avoid creating additional administrative tasks for the Police Department.
City of Brookhaven
Page 4
Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM
Packet Pg. 9
Council Member Mattison asked if smoking was prohibited in the City's Parks. Mr. Kurrie reported that such a provision was not outlined in the proposed ordinance. Ms. Garrett explained that she planned to discuss those types of matters with Mr. Holloway, and that eventually the City's Park Decorum would be posted at the entrance of every park. Mr. Kurrie reported that the proposed ordinance contained restrictions on outdoor water use during specific time periods and the potential for imposition of additional restrictions based on weather conditions. Council Member Gebbia asked if the collection of rainwater through rain barrels was classified as a well. Mr. Kurrie explained that it was not, but reclaimed water was written into the ordinance as an exception. Ms. Garrett asked if the ordinance restricted citizens who possessed a well from using it if water restrictions were imposed by the City. Mr. Kurrie reported that it was not the intent of the ordinance to impose such a restriction. Ms. Garrett pointed out that in large developments, developers drill wells for the purpose of irrigating their property. Council Member Williams pointed out that the County usually imposed water restrictions on Cities. Mr. Kurrie expressed a desire to review with Chief Yandura, the exceptions to solicitation under the Offenses Against Public Peace and Order Statute. He commented further on the restrictions under the subject statute. A discussion occurred the existence of a permits for groups like the Shriners to solicit donations. Mr. Kurrie reported that the ordinance also prohibited commercialized treasure hunts and moving households at night. Council Member Eyre and Mayor Davis expressed a desire to limit the restriction to commercial movers only. Mayor Davis asked to make the restrictive time frame between 10:00PM and Sunrise.
G.2
RESULT:
DISCUSSED
Next: 1/28/2014 4:30 PM
4. Review of Legislative Package Submittal - Recommended for deferral until January 28, 2013
Ms. Garrett requested deferral of the item.
5. Consideration of Extension of Server Permit time - Report by Gary Yandura

Chief Yandura reported that the alcohol license renewal process had recently been completed and pointed out that a component of the process required pouring permits to be issued by the Police Department. He explained that this process could not be completed in conjunction with the alcohol license renewal due to the recent move in facilities and lack of equipment. He reported that the equipments and infrastructure had been set up that week to issue pouring permits and commented on the permitting requirements and fees. Council Member Eyre asked if all of the wait staff was required to apply for a permit. Chief Yandura reported that all wait staff was required to apply for permits and pointed out that Dunwoody negotiated earlier closing times in exchange for only permitting the managers of food and beverage establishments. He reported the department was expecting over 1500 permit requests over the next two weeks. Council Member Gebbia asked if the establishments had been notified that the permitting process would occur at the Brookhaven Police Department. Chief Yandura reported that notifications were sent out from the Communications Department within the past day. Council Member Gebbia asked what time period would be needed to allow all for completion of the permitting requirement. Chief Yandura proposed an extension to April 1, 2014.
6. Stream Buffer Ordinance - Details provided by Bennett White of Community Development

Community Development Director Canon distributed the proposed Stream Buffer Ordinance. Mayor Davis asked how many pages the original ordinance was. Ms. Canon reported it was larger than the proposed ordinance. Ms. Canon explained that the State's Model Stream Buffer Ordinance was distributed and pointed out that their research took into account requirements for larger buffers in various jurisdictions for unique reasons. She introduce Bennett White to provide an explanation of the purpose for using the model ordinance and commented on his background and experience with stream buffer implementation and regulation. Mr. White explained that the City's current ordinance was adopted from DeKalb, and that it established a 75 foot buffer, horizontally measure from the edge of a creek. He pointed out that the term buffer general implied a restriction on land disturbing activity within the 75 foot width with certain exemptions. He explained that the State's Model Ordinance established a framework for the City's within the watershed district to implement a 50 foot buffer and an additional 25 foot setback for impervious surfaces. He explained that the additional setback allowed for land disturbance, but prohibited the installation of impervious surfaces such as patios and decks. He pointed out that the 25 foot setback factor was the primary difference between the current ordinance and the proposed model ordinance. He also pointed out that additional differences in the model ordinance provided for exemptions for stream crossings, drive ways, transportation routes, and utility lines. Mayor Davis asked if the bridge across the creek at Marist High School would have required a variance. Mr. White explained that his interpretation of the local ordinance provided for a state exemption to local roadways and drainage structures, but required a variance at the City level. Mayor Davis asked why there was no definition for pervious surface. Mr. White said that such a definition could be added, but in the absence of a definition the default reference was a standard dictionary. He offered an example of the installation of paver systems which could be perceived as a pervious surface because of the design, but in fact was not because the pavers themselves are impervious. A discussion occurred about the types of materials used in a Marist parking lot to allow the lot to be classified as pervious. Council Member Williams asked if the stream buffer regulation was an emerging field. Mr. White explained that it was always in flux as new attitudes developed regarding how to engage in low impact development and what measures could be implemented to protect streams. Council Member Williams suggested including a list of acceptable pervious surface products and materials.
City of Brookhaven
Page 5
Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM
Packet Pg. 10
G.2
Mr. White explained that the ordinance also included the following definition of impervious; a hardened surface with an improvised structural component that was man-made or paved. Mayor Davis suggested including language within the definition that did not allow for the seepage of water. Council Member Eyre referenced Mr. White's comments about decks and asked in the model ordinance would classify decks as an impervious surface. Mr. White explained that the interpretation of decks as pervious or impervious could vary among ten different people. He reported that his historical application of Stream Buffer Ordinances classified decks as impervious surfaces. Mayor Davis and Council Members Williams and Eyre expressed opposition to the classification of decks as impervious. Mr. White offered an explanation of the installation of two different types of decks and the impact that each would have on the ground cover. Council Member Eyre explained that the key would be whether the water is running off the deck or seeping through the slats into the ground. Mayor Davis explained the purpose for the discussion about pervious versus impervious was because there was a desire to utilize the creeks throughout the city and to not prevent the potential installation of pathways along the creeks or decks over looking the creeks. Mr. White pointed out that State rules apply to any land disturbance within 25 feet of the creek. He provided an explanation of what the State classifies as minor land disturbing activities such as raised platforms limited to 100 square feet. He explained that similar language could be included within the model ordinance that addresses the State's exemption within the 25 foot buffer but expanded the surface area of the exemption. Council Member Gebbia asked what the 100 square feet was being measured against. Mr. White reported that the measurement was per property per year. Mr. White offered an additional example of installation of 100 square feet of riff-raff along a stream bed as an exemption to the State's 25 foot buffer. Mr. White addressed additional differences between the Model Ordinance and the Local Ordinance. He explained that the Model Ordinance provided an exemption for pathways to provide access to the property. He reported that the Local ordinance did not include an exemption for unpaved foot trails and path, but the Model Ordinance did. He reported that the Model Ordinance exempted activities to restore and repair the buffer, but the Local Ordinance did not. He provided an example of this exemption by referencing the demolition of a structure within the 50 foot buffer, which could be considered an enhancement of the buffer if additional vegetation was installed. He also pointed out that if the proposed structure was within the State's buffer, a variance would be required for its demolition. Mr. White emphasized that the main difference between the model ordinance and the local ordinance was the outer 25 feet. Council Member Gebbia asked if offsets or degrees or perviousness were addressed in the model ordinance. He clarified by asking if offsets improvements to the stream buffer could be used to allow for the installation of an impervious surface within the last 25 feet. Mr. White said that such a situation could be implemented into the Model Ordinance. Council Member Gebbia requested inclusion of options for offsets in the model ordinance. Council Member Eyre pointed out that the vision of appropriate offsets existed on page 6 section 5.2, but the application of the offsets needed to be added to the model ordinance. Council Member Gebbia requested guidance on determining what would be acceptable offsets. He offered an example of what could be done to enhance the stream buffer on a property where an impervious surface was installed in the last 25 foot setback. Council Member Williams pointed out that many of the homes in Brookhaven were built before the implementation of stream buffers which has resulted in an excess need for administrative and ZBA variances. She explained that the Mayor and Council were looking for was to protect property rights, and prevent further damage to the stream buffer for grand fathered homes within the 50 foot buffer that would like to pursue development. She expressed a desire to become a model for stream buffer improvement and development at the same time. Mr White explained that some regulatory caution at the State level and from the Army Corps of Engineers needed to be considered for stream buffer encroachment within the 25 foot buffer. He pointed out that the Model Ordinance did exempt activities to enhance stream stability. Council Member Eyre asked if the Model Ordinance prohibited impervious structures in the outer 25 feet. Mr. White confirmed his question and explained that the Model Ordinance outlined the variance process if the situation occurred. Council Member Eyre asked what could receive a variance under the Model Ordinance. Mr. White explained that just about anything could be varied under the Model Ordinance. He stipulated that staff could permit for the installation of pervious surfaces in the 25 foot setback, but a variance would be needed for
City of Brookhaven
Page 6
Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM
Packet Pg. 11
G.2
any land disturbance into the 50 foot buffer. He also pointed out that the Model Ordinance did not provide a provision for an administrative variance. Council Member Eyre expressed a desire to create a public hearing process for all variances. Mr. Kurrie pointed out that a public hearing could also be held for administrative variances. Ms. Garrett pointed out that moratorium on stream buffer variances would be lifted at the next council meeting and asked the Mayor and Council to get back to staff over the next week about the proposed Model Ordinance.
E) OTHER AGENDA ITEMS F) OTHER BUSINESS

1. Paving and Sidewalk Projects Update - Public Works Director Richard Meehan
Mr. Meehan reported that he spoke with the contractor and was hopeful that the paving work would begin next week. He also pointed out that the work on Pamela Drive was scheduled to occur on Monday when school was out for the holiday. Council Member Eyre asked if notice would be provided to residents. Mr. Meehan reported that every street that would be paved would receive a door hanger with a request not to park on the road while the paving occurred. Mr. Meehan reported that the work on Briarwood Way was almost completed and some areas would be re-paved such as the handicap ramps. He reported that the crew for Stratfield Drive was mobilized today and had begun the vegetation removal. He expressed hope that the curb cutting and grading would be underway by the end of the week. Mayor Davis asked if the neighborhood had been contacted about the railing and aesthetics. Mr. Meehan reported that they had not decided, but it would be the last installation aspect of the project. He also reported that some enhanced landscaping would be included upon completion of the project. Council Member Williams asked what the time frame was for installation on Winsdor Parkway and Harts Mill. Mr. Meehan expressed hope that the projects would be underway in the next few weeks. He pointed out that the two projects that were underway did not require any drawing of plans, but the other project would need extensive design. Mayor Davis asked what the width of the sidewalks would be. Mr. Meehan reported that the standard width was 5 feet. Council Member Williams asked when she could tell her constituents that the Winsdor and Harts Mill projects would begin. Mr. Meehan expressed hope that the projects would begin by the end of the month, but the weather would be a large factor. Council Member Eyre asked if the installation would occur on the north or south side of Winsdor. Mr. Meehan reported that the installation would occur on the south side in order to not affect front yards on the north side. Mayor Davis asked if pot-holes were going to be filled this week. Mr. Meehan reported that coal patching could occur. He also reported that the pot-holes on Ashford Dunwoody were on the list for coal patching this week. A discussion occurred about the state of the pot-holes on Johnson Ferry and Ashford Dunwoody. Council Member Mattison requested an update on the other sidewalk project. He asked if the contractors had concurrent crews to work on multiple projects at the same time. Mr. Meehan reported that they did to some extent, but they were limited to the City's monitoring of construction. Council Member Eyre asked if it would make sense to bring in a project manager for a month or so to aide in the completion of the sidewalk projects. Ms. Garrett reported that she would look into the option with Mr. Meehan. Mayor Davis asked if Mr. Meehan had looked into the complaints about design standards for one of the sidewalk projects. Mr. Meehan reported that the work had not been accepted, and he was working with the contractor to improve to quality of the installation.
G) ANNOUNCEMENTS H) EXECUTIVE SESSION (IF NEEDED) 1. Motion for Executive Session to discuss litigation and personnel
City of Brookhaven
Page 7
Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM
Packet Pg. 12
G.2
APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Joe Gebbia, District 4 Bates Mattison, District 3 Williams, Eyre, Mattison, Gebbia
2. Motion to close Executive Session RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: I) ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned to enter into the regular meeting.
APPROVED: _____________________ J. Max Davis, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Susan Hiott, City Clerk Approved
City of Brookhaven
Page 8
Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM
Packet Pg. 13
APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Rebecca Williams, District 1 Joe Gebbia, District 4 Williams, Eyre, Mattison, Gebbia
G.3
CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
BROOKHAVEN CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 14, 2014 Regular Meeting
7:00 PM
A) INVOCATION Led by Deputy City Clerk Daniel Hall B) CALL TO ORDER

City Clerk Susan Hiott called the roll. Attendee Name J. Max Davis Rebecca Williams Jim Eyre Bates Mattison Joe Gebbia Title Mayor District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Status Present Present Present Present Present Arrived
C) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Boy Scout Troop 21 - Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Church
The members of Boy Scout Troop 21 from Our Lady of the Assumption Church led the Pledge of Allegiance.
D) OPENING REMARKS 1. Administering Oath of Office to Council member Eyre - District 2

Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Coursey Jr administered the Oath of Office for Council Member Jim Eyre.
2. Administering Oath of Office to Council member Gebbia - District 4

Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Coursey Jr administered the Oath of Office for Council Member Joe Gebbia.
3. Commendation for Execptional Service - Officer DiCicco

Police Chief Gary Yandura presented a Commendation for Exceptional Service to Officer DiCicco.
4. Commendation for Exceptional Service - Christopher Mattus

Police Chief Gary Yandura presented a Commendation for Exceptional Service Christopher Mattus.
5. Motion to Reappointment Alochol Board Members- Richard Grice and Adam Caskey to two year terms expiring on December 31, 2015
City of Brookhaven
1/14/2014 7:00 PM
Page 1
Packet Pg. 14
G.3
6. Steering Committee Appointments - Mayor Davis named all Steering Committees and Members
Mayor Davis informed the public that the City was creating Steering Committees to assist with the development of four plans that would be launched during the first week in February. Ms. Garrett explained that a Steering Committee launch meeting was slated for the first week in February to bring all of the members together to learn about the process before breaking out into individual groups. Mayor Davis explained that the committees consisted of members of the public who had expressed interest and possessed expertise in the subject mater of the four plans. He announced the following Steering Committee members to the prospective plans:
Transportation Plan Erik Steavens Kendall Terwilliger Joe Palladi Eric Hovdesven Wendy Butler Denise Starling Jennifer Harper Grady Thrasher Clayton Conarro
Comprehensive Plan Stan Segal Adrian Schmidt Jack Honderd Collette McDonald JD Clockadale Thomas Bartolozzi Alan Powell Shannon Cameron Todd Teriwilliger
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Karen Whitehead Jim DeLany Mari Geier Jonathan Byrd Chad Boles Heather Chasman Beth Diersen Vick Parker Ruthie Taylor Norton Betsy Coyne Betsy Eggers
Buford Highway Improvement Plan Bridget O'Donnell Todd McKinney Gilanny Fagundo Luke Anderson Bruce Whitmer Susan Cokes Pat Hoban Garry Sobel Chris Steglien
E) AGENDA ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Ms. Garrett recognized Ray Holloway, Parks and Recreation Director
Ms. Garrett reported there were no formal announcements, but did introduce the new Parks and Recreation Director, Ray Holloway. She noted he was from Clinton, Mississippi, was a shining candidate, and was proud that he was now with the City of Brookhaven. She also noted that it was his second day at the City. Mayor Davis shared a story with the members of the public about an email that he received from the owner of the town newspaper in Clinton, Mississippi. He explained that the gentleman was sorry to see Mr. Holloway leave and congratulated the City on receiving such an excellent Parks Director.
City of Brookhaven
Page 2
Updated 2/10/2014 10:07 AM
Packet Pg. 15
G.3
F) PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Brian Dyess

Mr. Dyess thanked the council for the opportunity to speak and stated that he felt that Brookhaven's Police Officers should have the opportunity to receive the best possible facilities. He expressed opposition to the mayor's family member receiving the bid to conduct renovation work on the new Police Department and referenced DeKalb County as an example of corrupt governmental practices. He asked what the Mayor would do if his family member received the renovation contract and the work exceeded $50,000.
2. Chad Boles
Mr. Boles introduced himself, wished the City a belated happy birthday and thanked the elected officials and City Manager for their hard work. He identified himself as a representative of the Parks Coalition of Brookhaven and stated that the members of the coalition were present to welcome the new Parks Director Ray Holloway. He explained that the coalition was an organization of members of the parks groups and recreation organizations throughout Brookhaven. He stated that the coalition was established to provide a cohesive knowledge base of all of the City's parks; and explained that the mission of the group was to communicate, promote and unite the parks for the City of Brookhaven. He introduced some of the members of the organization including; John Allison, Sue Binkert, Terrell Carstens, Heather Chasman, Ronnie Mayer, Jim Dupree, Mike and Mary Anne Elliot, Wayne Fell, Mari Gerier, Kim Gokce, Katherine Coy, Griff Simms, and Karen Whitehead.
3. Kim Gokce
Mr. Gokce stated he represented the Cross Keys Foundation and commented on the purpose of the non-profit organization. He announced that the foundation was holding an event on Thursday at Briarwood Park to launch a "Little Free Library" for the City. He explained that he discovered the Little Free Library Project two years ago, and that it was a non-profit started in Wisconsin and a resource to promote sustainable community based education. He commented on the level of poverty and new English learners in the community to justify the benefits of the Little Free Library. He announced that the unveiling of the first Little Free Library would occur on Thursday January 16th in Briarwood Park from 3:30 PM to 4:30 PM. He invited the members of the public to attend and announced that a hot coco would be served at the event. Council Member Eyre asked Mr. Gokce to expand on the type of books that were needed for the project and how they could be donated. Mr. Gokce thanked the Atlanta Braves Foundation for serving as the grant partner for the project and explained that there were five types of books that were needed; board books, picture books, early readers, chapter books, and nonfiction. He pointed out that Brookhaven Storage had donated space to serve as the collection warehouse for the books and informed the public that his wife was receiving books directly and could be contacted via email at kristingokce@gmail.com. He also thanked Council Member Gebbia for donating books earlier in the week.
4. Ronnie Mayer
Mr. Mayer thanked the Mayor and Council for hiring someone to assist and lead the community with the parks. He thanked Mr. Holloway for coming to the City and offered his bus to do a tour of the community. He requested a fix to the houses in Ashford Park and requested the Mayor and Council's help, assistance, and guidance.
G) CONSENT AGENDA
Council member Williams asked for additional clarification about the change of date for the moratorium on the consent agenda. Ms. Garrett explained that the date in the previous resolution and motion was not the fourth Tuesday of the month and should have been January 28, 2014.
City of Brookhaven
Page 3
Updated 2/10/2014 10:07 AM
Packet Pg. 16
G.3
1. Approval of December 10, 2013 Brookhaven City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes 2. Approval of December 17, 2013 Brookhaven City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes 3. Approval of December 17, 2013 Brookhaven City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 4. Approval of December 18, 2013 Brookhaven City Council Special Called Work Session Minutes 5. Approval of December 18, 2013 Brookhaven City Council Special Called Meeting Minutes 6. Approval to Add President's Day to the Holiday Schedule for City Employees (February 17, 2014) for the City of Brookhaven 7. Approval of Date Correction for Resolution 2013-12-05, Stream-Buffer Moratorium to End the Fourth Tuesday, January 28, 2014 H) ANNOUNCEMENTS I) REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Zoning Map Audit Update - Ms. Garrett
Ms. Garrett reported that she and the City Attorney had recently met with another attorney to identify all resources that could be available to the City to assist with the audit process. She reported that a proposal had been received from a consulting firm that could provide 100% attention to the matter and expressed hope that it could be brought for approval by the council upon completion upon the completion of pricing negotiations. Mayor Davis announced that Brookhaven Chamber of Commerce was having a meeting from 5:00 - 7:00 at Kaleidoscope. Council Member Williams inquired about the scope of work for the zoning map review. Ms. Garrett explained that the entitlement history of all 14,000 parcels in the City would be reviewed. Council Member Eyre asked if the review would also identify zoning conditions for each parcel. Ms. Garrett explained that the review process would include three phases: first, a review of Board of Commissioner's minutes to identify parcel ID's within the city; second, to track those ID's through the Planning Commission approval process; and third, to confirm that the final plats for each parcel contained the appropriate conditions for each parcel. Council Member Mattison pointed out that the County was working on an ongoing project to digitize all of their parcel data and expressed a desire to make sure that said data was included in the audit process. Council Member Williams inquired about the time frame for completion of the project. Ms. Garrett expressed hope that the consulting contract would be approved on or before the next meeting, and stated that it was her expectation that the audit would take between 3 to 4 months. She also pointed out that the council would receive reports about the status of the audit throughout the entire project.
City of Brookhaven
Page 4
Updated 2/10/2014 10:07 AM
Packet Pg. 17
G.3
J) OLD BUSINESS
There was none.
K) NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution RES-2014-01-01: Resolution Authorizing TAN (Tax Anticipation Note)
Ms. Garrett announced the resolution to authorize a TAN for the City of Brookhaven and introduced Mr. Han Choi to present the details of the TAN. Mayor Davis welcomed Mr. Choi and pointed out that he managed the City's first TAN last year. He explained that a TAN was a tax anticipation note or a loan for cities based on anticipated tax revenues. Mr Choi introduced himself and presented the resolution to approve the tax anticipation note in the amount of $3,075,000. He reported that the note would be sold to JP Morgan and that the interest rate was 0.09%. He explained that the note would be due on December 31, 2014 but could be prepaid after December 1, 2014. He also reported that all of the TAN information was consistent with Georgia Law which authorized cities to borrow for operating cost. Council member Eyre inquired about the selection process for the bank and interest rate, specifically if each selected through a competitive bidding process. Ms. Kline explained that the turnaround time for paying off last year's TAN and establishing this year's did not allow for a competitive bidding process. She pointed out that the City saved money by utilizing the same bond council and that JP Morgan was the City's operating bank. Council Member Eyre asked if the TAN amount was based on 75% of 2013 gross property taxes. Ms. Kline confirmed that it was based off of gross property taxes and pointed out that the 2014 TAN was little less that the 75% maximum.
APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Rebecca Williams, District 1 Bates Mattison, District 3 Williams, Eyre, Mattison, Gebbia
2. Resolution RES-2014-01-02: RES-2014-01-02 : Resolution for Legislative Package Submittal - Deferred to January 28, 2014 Meeting
This item was deferred prior to the first item, K1.
DEFERRED [UNANIMOUS] Joe Gebbia, District 4 Bates Mattison, District 3 Williams, Eyre, Mattison, Gebbia
Next: 2/11/2014 7:00 PM
3. Resolution RES-2014-01-03: Resolution - Support of HB128 - Georgia Downtown Renaissance Act

Ms. Garrett announced the Resolution to Support HB 128 and offered an explanation of the purpose of the Downtown Renaissance Act.
City of Brookhaven
Page 5
Updated 2/10/2014 10:07 AM
Packet Pg. 18
G.3
RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: L) OTHER BUSINESS

There was none.
APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Jim Eyre, District 2 Joe Gebbia, District 4 Williams, Eyre, Mattison, Gebbia
M) PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Terrell Carstens

Ms. Carstens referenced the stream buffer proposal that was presented to the council during the work session. She expressed appreciation to the council's foresightedness and concern for the stream buffer issue and asked them to pay particular attention to the residential components of the ordinance. She sited flooding concerns in District 3 to justify her request and pointed out that the City's stream buffers were being used by developers as flood plains.
2. Ronnie Mayer
Mr. Mayer invited the members of the public to the Grand Opening of the new Cherokee Plaza Kroger on January 29th at 3:00 PM. He pointed out that chefs would be conducting cooking classes during the event.
N) MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Davis announced the Brookhaven Library event and the upcoming Chamber of Commerce meeting. Council Member Williams announced that she would be launching a project in the coming months to develop a way to commemorate Memorial Day and Veterans Day in Brookhaven. She suggested the creation of a commemorative commission and expressed a desire to seek input from military groups, veterans, etc throughout Brookhaven.
O) EXECUTIVE SESSION (IF NEEDED)

Mayor asked Ms. Garrett to call each of the council individually about the last matter discussed.
P) ADJOURNMENT 1. Motion for Adjournment - 7:51 p.m.

The meeting adjourned at 7:51 P.M.
APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Jim Eyre, District 2 Joe Gebbia, District 4 Williams, Eyre, Mattison, Gebbia APPROVED: _____________________ J. Max Davis, Mayor
ATTEST:
City of Brookhaven Page 6 Updated 2/10/2014 10:07 AM
Packet Pg. 19
G.3
___________________________ Susan Hiott, City Clerk Approved
City of Brookhaven
Page 7
Updated 2/10/2014 10:07 AM
Packet Pg. 20
G.4
CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
BROOKHAVEN CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 27, 2014 Special Called Work Session
200 Ashford Center N, Suite 150, Dunwoody, GA 30338
12:30 PM
A) CALL TO ORDER (12:40 PM)

Mayor Davis called the meeting to order. Attendee Name J. Max Davis Rebecca Williams Jim Eyre Bates Mattison Joe Gebbia Deputy City Clerk Hall called the roll. Title Mayor District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Status Present Present Present Present Present Arrived
B) EXECUTIVE SESSION (LITIGATION, REAL ESTATE, AND CONTRACTS) 1. Motion to enter into executive session to dicusss litigation, real estate, and contracts. (12:41 PM) RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Joe Gebbia, District 4 Bates Mattison, District 3 Williams, Eyre, Mattison, Gebbia
2. Motion to adjourn executive session. (3:45 PM) RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: C) OTHER BUSINESS 1. Legislative Package Discussion APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Joe Gebbia, District 4 Bates Mattison, District 3 Williams, Eyre, Mattison, Gebbia
Council Member Mattison asked if a resolution to create Opportunity Zones needed to be included in the Legislative Package submittal. Ms. Garrett reported that the City created and commissioned Opportunity Zones by adopting an Economic Improvement Plan. Council Member Williams reported that she spoke with Representative Mike Jacobs, and he expressed strong opposition to an increase in the hotel/motel taxes during an election year. She also reported that he was opposed to term limits because he felt that local districts could decide. Council Member Mattison expressed a desire to
City of Brookhaven
1/27/2014 12:30 PM
Page 1
Packet Pg. 21
G.4
continue pursuing term limits in the legislative package. A discussion occurred about the need to include term limits in the Legislative Package this year. Council Member Eyre expressed a desire to include either an increase in the homestead or decrease in the millage for homesteads. Council Member Williams reported that Representative Mike Jacobs would support a specific exemption. She also pointed out that Dunwoody's Charter provided for less 1 mill for homesteads, but explained that the language pre-dated homestead exemptions. Mayor Davis stated that exemptions were a necessary tool that could be used when ready. Council Member Eyre pointed out that exemptions for both commercial and residential needed to be considered. Council Member Gebbia pointed out that any expirations and proposed changes to the HOST structure needed to be considered with any proposed homestead exemptions in the legislative package. Mayor Davis asked if the millage for commercial and residential needed to be included this year. Council Member Eyre stated that the language needed to be up to 1 mill and should be formulated as a tax break. Ms. Garrett pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan would create a need to expand commercial districts throughout the city.
D) ADJOURNMENT 1. Motion to adjourn the Special Called Meeting. (4:15 PM)

The meeting adjourned at 4:15 PM
APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Bates Mattison, District 3 Rebecca Williams, District 1 Williams, Eyre, Mattison, Gebbia APPROVED: _____________________ J. Max Davis, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________ Susan Hiott, City Clerk Approved
City of Brookhaven
Page 2
Updated 2/7/2014 5:54 PM
Packet Pg. 22
G.5
MEMORANDUM
MEETING OF: COMMITTEE: DEPARTMENT: February 25, 2014 Brookhaven City Council Public Works
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement with Georgia DOT for RTOP Program BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: The Regional Traffic Operations Program (RTOP) is a multi-jurisdictional, cutting-edge signal timing program with the goal of improving traffic flow and reducing vehicle emissions through improved signal timing. Georgia DOT has provided additional signal timing experts focused solely on Atlanta's busiest arterial roadways. RTOP also assists local jurisdictions to quickly find and repair problems. Georgia DOT is managing two RTOP corridors in the City of Brookhaven: 1. Peachtree Rd/SR 141 - including the signals at Dresden Dr./Apple Valley Rd and N Druid Hills Rd/ Apple Valley Rd. 2. Clairmont Road/SR 155 All of the 20 traffic signals in the City of Brookhaven in these corridors are being managed under the RTOP program. The management of the operations in these corridors extends beyond the city limits into Chamblee, Atlanta and unincorporated DeKalb County. I have attached a report from the Georgia DOT that provides the details of how the operations in these corridors are managed and the responsibilities of each agency. Georgia DOT covers the entire cost of the program which results in additional savings to the City in reduced costs for operations and maintenance of these signals. We have been working with Georgia DOT over the past year on the RTOP program under these operational guidelines. The attached IGA will just formalize the arrangement under which we have been already operating. FISCAL IMPACT: (Budgeted over or under) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS:
RTOP_MoU_Brookhaven RTOP ConceptofOperations (PDF) (PDF)
Page 1
Packet Pg. 23
G.5.a
Intergovernmental Agreement
BETWEEN THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective the ____ day of ___________, 201_, by and between the Georgia Department of Transportation (hereinafter GDOT or DEPARTMENT) an agency of the State of Georgia, and City of Brookhaven (hereinafter the CITY). WHEREAS, the Atlanta Region can benefit substantially through improved traffic signal operations; and WHEREAS, cooperation and coordination across jurisdictional boundaries has historically been problematic and created inefficiencies in traffic flow; and WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT is creating a Regional Traffic Operations Program hereinafter called the PROGRAM to actively manage traffic signals along regionally significant corridors, across jurisdictional boundaries, within the Metropolitan Atlanta Region; and WHEREAS, the PROGRAM will include traffic signals along SR 141/Peachtree Rd, Apple Valley Road, and SR 155/Clairmont Rd that the CITY is responsible for operating and maintaining; and WHEREAS, the PROGRAMs mission statement is To increase travel throughput by minimizing congestion and reducing delays along regional commuter corridors through improved traffic signal operation; and WHEREAS, the Constitution of the State of Georgia authorizes intergovernmental agreements whereby state departments may contract with one another for joint services, for the provision of services, or for the joint or separate use of facilities or equipments; but such contracts must deal with activities, services or facilities which the parties are authorized by law to undertake or provide. Ga. Const. Art. IX, Sec. III, paragraph I (a). NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, the public purposes and the acknowledgements and agreements contained herein, it is HEREBY AGREED; For corridors included in the PROGRAM: A. The CITY shall cooperate with the DEPARTMENT and the DEPARTMENT shall cooperate with the CITY to share access to traffic signal communications and surveillance systems.
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: RTOP_MoU_Brookhaven (1255 : Intergovernmental Agreement with Georgia DOT for RTOP Program)
G.5.a
B. The DEPARTMENT will maintain and update traffic signal timing in a manner consistent with the mission statement for the PROGRAM. The DEPARTMENT will provide reasonable notification to the CITY prior to making adjustment that will substantially impact the operation of the corridor. C. The DEPARTMENT will strive to keep the traffic signals operating at optimum performance and will be responsible for the maintenance and repair of vehicle detectors, pedestrian detectors, communications, and surveillance. The CITY/COUNTY will remain the maintaining agency for the traffic signals and will retain responsibility for all components not specifically listed in this section. The DEPARTMENT will cooperate with the CITY and may participate in other activities needed to improve the operations along the corridor. D. The DEPARTMENT will actively manage the corridors during the peak commuting hours, including responding to planned and unplanned events. E. The CITY shall provide feedback about the operations along the corridors, including citizen complaints, to the DEPARTMENT to be addressed under the PROGRAM. F. The DEPARTMENT will fund 100% of cost for the PROGRAM.
Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall restrict the CITY from responding and making emergency adjustments to traffic signals to protect the safety of the traveling public. The CITY shall report all adjustments to the DEPARTMENT within a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed 5 days. The DEPARTMENT may modify the PROGRAM including adding or removing corridors as the PROGRAM develops. This AGREEMENT shall be in effect until 11:59 PM on June 30, 2014 and shall renew automatically from year to year thereafter unless either party notifies the other party in writing prior to May 1 of the year in which they desire to modify or terminate this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the State of Georgia, and shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of Georgia. The covenants herein contained shall, except as otherwise provided, accrue to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
Packet Pg. 25
G.5.a
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the DEPARTMENT and the CITY have caused these presents to be executed under seal by their duly authorized representatives.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
_____________________________ CITY
___________________________ Commissioner ATTEST:
_____________________________ Witness
___________________________ Treasurer
___________ DATE
Packet Pg. 26
G.5.b
Regional Traffic Operations Program

Concept of Operations
Attachment: RTOP ConceptofOperations (1255 : Intergovernmental Agreement with Georgia DOT for RTOP Program)
Prepared for Georgia DOT by URS Corporation Packet Pg. 27
G.5.b
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Attachment: RTOP ConceptofOperations (1255 : Intergovernmental Agreement with Georgia DOT for RTOP Program) Packet Pg. 28
Date 8/31/10 9/23/10 10/21/10 11/19/10 12/16/10 1/4/11 2/9/11
Version 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0
Description InitialOutlineReviewDocument ExpandedDraft DraftSubmittedforClientReview AddressedClientComments/DraftforQCReview AddressS.MohlerQCReviewComments DraftDocumentforGDOT/ArcadisReview FinalDocument,Release1.0
G.5.b
Table of Contents
ListofAcronymsandTerms................................................................................................................iii ExecutiveSummary .............................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................2 1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................................2 1.2 Audience......................................................................................................................................2 1.3 ReferenceMaterials.................................................................................................................... 3 2 CurrentOperationalConceptandNeedforChange......................................................................4 2.1 CurrentOperationalConcept...................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 OperationsandMaintenanceResponsibilities............................................................................... 4 2.1.2 SignalImprovementPrograms........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 NeedforChange.......................................................................................................................... 6 3 RTOPSystemConcept..................................................................................................................7 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 RTOPOverview............................................................................................................................ 7 RTOPMission............................................................................................................................... 7 EstablishmentofPriorityCorridors............................................................................................. 7 OperationalConcept................................................................................................................. 10 3.4.1 ProgramManagement.................................................................................................................. 10 3.4.2 ProgramComponents................................................................................................................... 10 3.4.3 RolesofGDOT,ConsultantandLocalAgency............................................................................... 12
PerformanceManagement .........................................................................................................17 4.1 OutputMeasures....................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 OutcomeMeasures................................................................................................................... 17
OperationalScenarios................................................................................................................18 5.1 Construction/IncidentScenario................................................................................................. 18 5.2 Incident/DetourScenario.......................................................................................................... 19 5.3 DetectionFailureScenario........................................................................................................ 20
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................21
RTOPConceptofOperations(Release1.0)
i Pg. 29 Packet
G.5.b
List of Tables
Table3.1EvaluationApproach .................................................................................................... 7 Table3.2AgencyResponsibilities .............................................................................................. 12 Table3.3TeamRoles ................................................................................................................. 13
List of Figures
Figure3.1MapofPrioritizedRoutesforRTOP............................................................................. 9
ii Pg. 30 Packet
G.5.b
List of Acronyms and Terms

ATISAdvancedTravelerInformationSystem ATMSAdvancedTransportationManagementSystems AVLSAdvancedVehicleLocationSystem CADComputerAidedDispatch CATVCommunityAccessTelevision CCTVClosedCircuitTelevision CMSChangeableMessageSign DMSDynamicMessageSign DOTDepartmentofTransportation EMSEmergencyMedicalServices FHWAFederalHighwayAdministration GDOTGeorgiaDepartmentofTransportation GISGeographicInformationSystem GUIGraphicalUserInterface HARHighwayAdvisoryRadio HAZMATHazardousMaterials ISPInformationServiceProvider ITInformationTechnology ITSIntelligentTransportationSystems IVRInteractiveVoiceResponse LANLocalAreaNetwork LCDLiquidCrystalDisplay MOAMemorandumofAgreement MOUMemorandumofUnderstanding MPOMetropolitanPlanningOrganization NWSNationalWeatherService QA/QCQualityAssurance/QualityControl RFPRequestforProposal RTOPRegionalTrafficOperationsProgram SOPStandardOperatingProcedure TBDToBeDetermined TCCTrafficControlCenter TDMTrafficDemandManagement TIMTrafficIncidentManagement TIPTransportationImprovementProgram TMCTransportationManagementCenter TOCTrafficOperationCenter VDSVideoDetectionSensor
iii Pg. 31 Packet
G.5.b
Executive Summary
More than any other traffic control device, traffic signals impact the movement of people and goods on our nations roadways. These signals, when improperly operated and maintained, result in increased travel times, stops and delays for motorists. In fact, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates thatimpropertrafficsignaltimingaccountsfor5to10percentofalltrafficdelay,or295millionvehicle hoursofdelay,alongmajorroadwaysalone.1 In2007,theNationalTrafficSignalReportCarddocumentedthecurrent state of traffic signal operations in the United States. Through data voluntarily collected from 417 agencies in 47 states, an overall grade of D was given to traffic signal operations in the country.2 This poor performance clearly indicates there is room for significant improvementsintrafficsignaloperations. GDOThaslongrecognizedthisneedtoimprovethestateoftrafficsignal operations and maintenance in Georgia. Beginning in 2005, GDOT initiated statewide programs to provide for investment in upgrading traffic signal hardware and improving traffic signal operations. These investments were made with the goals of reducing the stops and delays resulting from inefficient signal operations. While these investments have been positive with user cost savings of over $100M, congestion continuestooccuronmanyofAtlantasmajorarterials. In an effort to continue the fight against congestion in the State, GDOT has committed to building upon earlier infrastructure investments by implementing the Regional Traffic Operations Program (RTOP) in the metro Atlanta area. The focus of this program is metro Atlanta since the region, with more than onehalf of the States traffic signals, accounts for 50% of the lane miles traveled in Georgia and 75% of thecongestionintheState. TheRTOPisenvisionedasastructuredprogramtoactivelymonitor,manageandmaintaintrafficsignals throughout the region. Corridors are selected for the program based upon their significance in moving traffic throughout the region and their current levels of congestion. Once a corridor is selected to participateintheprogram,aCorridorManageractivelymanagesthecorridorbymakingregular(atleast weekly) field visits to observe and finetune operations during the peak periods. As the program progresses, technology enhancements will enable remote monitoring of all corridors from the Georgia DOT Transportation Management Center; thus improving response time to changing conditions. The Corridor Manager also responds to situations such as incidents or special events and provides oversight oftrafficsignalmaintenance. Through the RTOP, GDOT intends to achieve its vision To increase travel throughput by minimizingcongestionandreducingdelaysalongregionalcommutercorridorsthroughimproved signaloperations.
1
TemporaryLossesofHighwayCapacityandImpactsonPerformance:Phase2.ReportNo.ORNL/TM2004/209.OakRidge,TN, USA:U.S.DepartmentofTransportation(U.S.DOT),OakRidgeNationalLaboratory,November2004. 22007NationalTrafficSignalReportCard,ExecutiveSummary.
1 Pg. 32 Packet
G.5.b
1 Introduction
This document will serve as the Concept of Operations for the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Regional Transportation Operations Program (RTOP). The content of this document was developed in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) documents, Transportation Management Center Concepts of Operations Implementation Guide (December 1999) and Developing and Using a Concept of Operations in Transportation Management Systems, a FHWA Pooled Fund Study (December2004). The RTOP seeks to improve traffic signal operations throughout the Atlanta region by implementing a program of actively managing signal operations on select corridors. The mission of the Program is capturedintheProgramMissionStatement: To increase travel throughput by minimizing congestion and reducing delays along regionalcommutercorridorsthroughimprovedsignaloperations. TheRTOPprogramwasformallyinitiatedinthespringof2010.
1.1
Purpose
The purpose of the RTOP Concept of Operations is to provide a clear definition of the objectives of the programandtherolesandresponsibilitiesofthepartiessupportingtheprogram.Thisdocumentwill: RecognizetheneedforachangeinsignaloperationsmethodologyintheAtlantaregion; ProvideanoverviewofthegoalsoftheRTOPprogram; Documentthemethodologyforselectingcorridorstoincludeintheprogram; Provide understanding of stakeholders and the relationship among stakeholders and Georgia DOT;and Presentthemethodologytobeusedtomeasuretheprogramssuccess.
1.2
Audience
The RTOP Concept of Operations is directed to participants in the RTOP program and to other agencies whichwishtolearnmoreabouttheprogramandpotentiallyapplyitsstructureintheirjurisdiction.The audienceincludesthefollowingindividualsandgroups: GDOT Office of Traffic Operations personnel responsible for management and administration of theRTOPprogram. City and county agencies which operate traffic signals under permit to the Department and whichparticipateintheRTOPprogram. GDOTconsultantpersonnelresponsiblefordeliveryoftheRTOPprogram. Regionalstakeholdersinterestedinthegoalsandobjectivesoftheprogram. Federal, state and local officials and others which are interested in implementing a similar program.
2 Pg. 33 Packet
G.5.b
1.3
Reference Materials
AtlantaRegionalITSArchitecture,July2004 NaviGAtorConceptofOperations,August2007 NationalTrafficSignalReportCard,2007 MOUs(seeAppendixB)
3 Pg. 34 Packet
The RTOP Concept of Operations is based upon other documents and resources which define the approaches to implementing traffic signal and ITS programs in the Atlanta region. These documents include,butarenotlimitedto:
G.5.b
2 Current Operational Concept and Need for Change

2.1
2.1.1
Current Operational Concept

OperationsandMaintenanceResponsibilities
Maintenance and operations of all freeways and state routes in Georgia is the responsibility of GDOT. Onadaytodaybasis,thisresponsibilityiscarriedoutbytheGDOTDistrictOffices.TheDistrictOfficeis responsibleformaintainingthephysicalroadwayassets(roadwaysurface,signsandstriping,landscape, etc.) as well as operations (access management, safety management, traffic control, incident management, etc.). On the freeway system, the Office of Traffic Operations supplements the activities of the District Offices by supporting the operations of the freeways through the utilization of Intelligent TransportationSystems. Maintenance and operations of roads other than freeways and state routes is the responsibility of local governmentagencies.GDOToftensupplementstheactivitiesofthelocalagenciesbyprovidingsupport throughfundingforresurfacing,safetyimprovements,etc. Responsibility for maintenance and operations of traffic signals on state routes is often shared between GDOT and local agencies. Operations and maintenance of traffic signals on state routes in Georgia is established byapermit issuedby GDOTatthe timeofthesignal installation.Typically,trafficsignalson state routes are operated and maintained by the local agencies if the local agencies have the capability to assume this role. In cases where the local agencies do not have the capability to operate and maintainsignals,GDOTassumesthatresponsibility. Within the Atlanta area, there are over 3,600 traffic signals located on state routes. In most cases, signals on state routes in the Atlanta region are operated and maintained by local agencies. GDOT maintains approximately 575 signals in the Atlanta region, with the majority of those being in unincorporatedareas. The ability of the local agencies to operate and maintain their signals is dependent on the resources assigned to the signal maintenance program. These resources may include human resources responsible for maintenance and operations, equipment for maintenance and upgrades, and other funding sources to provide for outside assistance for maintenance and upgrades. Funding for daily operationsandmaintenancetypicallycomesthroughthelocalagenciesoperationsandcapitalbudgets. 2.1.2 SignalImprovementPrograms
In recognition of the need for added investment in signal operations, GDOT has made significant investments statewide in upgrading traffic signal equipment and improved signal operations. Over the lastseveralyears,GDOTinitiatedthefollowingprograms: AdvancedTransportationController(ATC) In the early 1990s, GDOT recognized the benefits of a standardized statewide hardware and software platform for traffic signals. Prior to this point, there were numerous types of signal controllers throughout the State and the lack of standardization complicated efforts to procure equipment and to
4 Pg. 35 Packet
G.5.b
maintainacommonplatformforallagenciesintheState.Toaddressthisissue,GDOTbeganaprogram to standardize all traffic signal equipment based on the Type 170 standard. In 2002, GDOT formally adopted the next generation 2070/ATC standard and selected a single vendor to provide central office andlocalcontrollersoftwarestatewide. Recognizing the need to accelerate deployment of the 2070/ATC standard, GDOT initiated the ATC Minor Intersection Upgrade Program to deploy ATC hardware and software. Since this program began, GDOT has placed significant resources in deploying the ATC platform statewide. Efforts include deployment of central software for GDOT Districts and local agencies statewide, training, and upgraded signal controllers at approximately 8,000 intersections throughout Georgia. As a result of these and otherefforts,approximately90+%percentofthesignalcontrollersintheStatearenow2070/ATCs. FastForwardInfrastructureImprovements In the 2004, Governor Sonny Perdue announced the FAST Forward congestion relief program. This programwasdevelopedtomakea$15.5billioninvestmentintransportationoverasixyearperiodwith a goal of relieving congestion and spurring economic development. A key focus of this program was traffic signal upgrades and synchronization. Through FAST Forward, GDOT invested over $50 million in signal and pedestrian upgrades at over 700 intersections throughout metro Atlanta. Projects included controller/cabinet replacements, LED upgrades, pedestrian upgrades, etc. These efforts supplemented the ATC program by further standardizing signal control equipment throughout metro Atlanta. Upgrades to signal heads and other equipment also resulted in reduced maintenance costs for GDOT andlocalagencies. MetroAtlantaSignalTimingProgram The Metro Atlanta Signal Timing Program was established in 2005 to build upon previous capital investments by focusing attention on signal timing improvements throughout metro Atlanta. Since the programs initiation, GDOT has retimed over 100 traffic signal systems in the Atlanta region. These efforts documented significant improvements in travel times, reduced stops and delays, and reductions in fuel consumption and emissions. To date, the program has resulted in almost $100M in user cost savings.3 In addition to GDOTs efforts, several local agencies issued contracts for signal timing improvements. SignalMaintenanceContracts The Office of Traffic Operations also maintains several signal maintenance contracts to supplement the maintenanceactivitiesofGDOTandlocalagencies.Thesecontractsinclude: Traffic Signal Loop Repair Contracts Signal loop replacement locations are identified from GDOT and local agencies. Task orders are issued to contractors to replace defective loops, resulting in less stops anddelays. Traffic Signal Maintenance Contract The Traffic Signal Maintenance Contract is a statewide maintenance program that provides material and labor for signal equipment replacement. This contract isutilizedbybothGDOTandlocalagencies.
3
GDOTMetroSignalTimingProgram,MonthlyProgressUpdate,August2010
5 Pg. 36 Packet
G.5.b
2.2
Need for Change
Though the previously described investments have made significant improvements in regional signal operations,severalbarrierstooptimalsignaloperationsremain.Theseinclude: Routine Maintenance of Equipment the operating budgets for routine maintenance of signals is insufficient in many agencies. As a result, the capital improvements made by the aforementioned programs can fall into a state of disrepair without adequate investments in ongoing maintenance. Minor equipment failures, such as broken traffic signal detection loops, damaged communications links, and malfunctioning pedestrian push buttons, can have a dramaticimpactontheeffectivenessoftrafficsignaltimingplans. Active Management of Signals although advancements in technology have improved the ability of traffic signals to adapt to changing conditions, human interaction is needed to routinely monitor and adjust the operations of signals. Changing traffic patterns, incidents and special events are all reasons that agencies should actively monitor and adjust their signals on a continuous basis. However, due to limited resources and other priorities, many agencies in metroAtlantadonothavestaffdedicatedtoactivemanagement. Cross Jurisdictional Coordination most all major arterials in the region cross one or more jurisdictional boundaries. While investments in technology have improved the feasibility of cross jurisdictional coordination, agencies are confined to operating and maintaining only the signalsin theirjurisdiction.Asaresult, thereareofteninconsistenciesinoperating plansacross jurisdictionalboundaries. While the significant investments made by GDOT in signal improvement programs have made a positive impact, GDOT recognizes that ongoing, long term investments must be made to overcome the current barrierstoefficientoperations.Witharesolvetoovercomethese barriersandtakeoperationstoanew levelofefficiency,GDOTestablishedtheRegionalTrafficOperationsProgram(RTOP).
6 Pg. 37 Packet
LED Display Upgrades Since 2005, GDOT has invested approximately $8.5 million to replace incandescent traffic signals with Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology. LEDs provide vastly improved target value for the driver and significantly reduce power consumption, resulting in improved safety andsubstantialsavingstomaintainingagency.
G.5.b
3 RTOP System Concept

3.1
RTOP Overview
TheRTOPwascreatedtoinvestresourcesinimprovingtrafficsignaloperationsonmajorarterialsinthe Atlanta region by breaking down many of the barriers to efficient signal operations. This will be accomplished by establishing a team of dedicated professionals to focus solely on signal operations and maintenance on these major corridors. Through cooperation with local agencies, GDOT intends to continually invest resources to improve traffic signal operations and maintenance on priority corridors throughouttheregion.
3.2
RTOP Mission
ThemissionoftheRTOPisToincreasetravelthroughputbyminimizingcongestionandreducingdelays along regional commuter corridors through improved signal operations. The RTOP mission will be accomplishedbyestablishingalistofprioritycorridorsandassigningthenecessaryresourcestooperate andmaintainthesignalsonthosecorridorsattheoptimumlevelofefficiency.Thiswillbeaccomplished through close coordination between GDOT and the local agencies responsible for signal operations and maintenance.
3.3
Establishment of Priority Corridors
The first step in delivering the RTOP was to establish the corridors which would be the focus of the program. At a high level, GDOT wanted to focus on corridors of regional significance, meaning those corridors that carry high volumes of vehicles and which experience recurring congestion. A secondary focus was to include corridors that were important to mobility throughout the region. While not a minimumcriteria,itwasanticipatedthatmanyofthecorridorswouldcrossmultiplejurisdictions. To establish the corridors, GDOT assembled an internal team from the Offices of Traffic Operations and Planning to determine candidate corridors. This team went through a 3phase process highlighted in Table3.1:
Table3.1EvaluationApproach
Phase
1
EvaluationApproach
Qualitativeevaluationoftheregion ReviewoftheAtlantaRegionalCommission CongestionManagementPlan ReviewofSkyCompcongestiondata Refinedcorridorsbasedonoperational considerations,trafficvolumesandlane configurations Solicitedandconsideredstakeholderinput Prioritizedcorridorsintogroups
Results
10corridors 751signals 16counties
15corridors 816signals 13counties
Figure3.1,page9
7 Pg. 38 Packet
G.5.b
8 Pg. 39 Packet
The first step of this process was to perform a high level analysis of the region and identify an unconstrained list of candidate corridors. Using previously developed planning documents, studies and operational experience, the team developed a list of 10 corridors (approximately 750 signals). During the second step, the team gathered additional stakeholder input and performed a more indepth analysis to consider actual corridor operations, logical start and end points, etc. Through this analysis, several corridors were added, while others were deleted. As a result, a final list of 15 corridors was developed.Oncethelistwasfinalized,thecorridorswereprioritizedbasedonneed.Figure3.1presents a map of the finalized list of corridors. Additional details on these corridors can be found in the Appendix.

Packet Pg. 40
Figure3.1MapofPrioritizedRoutesforRTOP
G.5.b
RTOPConcept ofOperations(Release1.0) 9 Attachment: RTOP ConceptofOperations (1255 : Intergovernmental Agreement with Georgia DOT for RTOP Program)
G.5.b
3.4
Operational Concept
TheOperationalConcept oftheRTOPistoestablishapartnershipbetweenGDOTandlocalgovernment agencies to collectively operate and manage traffic signal systems. Through the RTOP, GDOT will supplement local agency resources by providing personnel to evaluate the operations and maintenance of the signal systems, develop and implement strategies for improvements, and to provide ongoing supportfocusedonoptimizingoperations.To besuccessful,this conceptrequirescommitmentfromall partiesinvolved. As the agency ultimately responsible for traffic operations along state routes, GDOT intends to take a leadership role in implementing the program. In this capacity, GDOT will provide overall program management and will dedicate the resources required to implement the program. Local agencies are expected to support the program. This level of support may vary from agency to agency, depending upontheagencysavailableresources. Thefollowingsectionsdescribetheoperationalconceptindetail. 3.4.1 ProgramManagement
To manage this program, GDOT established a Regional Traffic Operations Program Manager to execute all aspects of the program. The RTOP Manager is located within the Office of Traffic Operations and reports directly to the State Traffic Operations Engineer. The RTOP Manager is responsible for overall program management, allocation of resources and coordination with local government agencies. Other GDOTstaffwillsupporttheprogramfromtimetotimebyprovidingexpertadvice,procurementsupport andotherservicesasrequestedbytheRTOPManager. Implementation of the RTOP requires significant human resources to provide program planning, field operationssupportandfieldmaintenanceactivities.GDOThaslimitedinternalresourcestoexecutethe RTOP,soaconsultantteamwasselectedtoprovideprogramsupport.Theconsultantteamwillprovide program planning support, signal timing engineers and technicians to support field operations, and signal maintenance contractors to provide maintenance support. The consultant team was selected throughacompetitiveprocurementprocessandbeganworkinJune2010. A key component of the consultant team approach is to assign a Corridor Manager to each corridor (or subsystem as applicable). The Corridor Manager has the overallresponsibility for managing daytoday operations on his individual corridor and will be the primary interface between GDOT and the local agency. Corridor Managers are empowered by GDOT to make daytoday decisions on active management strategies by developing and implementing signal timing changes, and providing maintenancesupport. 3.4.2 ProgramComponents
The RTOP program will have five primary components. Each of these five program components are described below, with detailed descriptions of individual team member roles being described in Table 3.3.
10 Pg. 41 Packet
G.5.b
1. SystemEvaluationandBaseline Once a corridor has been assigned to a Corridor Manager, the Corridor Manager is responsible for conducting an initial analysis of the system. During this analysis, the Corridor Manager will closely coordinate with the local agency to become familiar with the system hardware and operations and to collect data needed to support future activities. The Corridor Manger will also evaluate the current maintenance and operational status of the system and make recommendations to the Program Managerforfuturesystemimprovements.Attheconclusionofthisphase,theCorridorManagershould beintimatelyfamiliarwiththesystem. 2. ActiveManagement Active management consists of daily activities to support the efficient operations and maintenance of the system. Corridor Managers will perform regular reviews of the system operations by conducting field visits to review the status of system operations and maintenance, and to make realtime adjustments to address operational deficiencies. Corridor Managers, through cooperation with local agencies, will also be responsible for identifying special events and implementing signal timing changes to address their impacts. Corridor Managers also coordinate with active construction projects to update timing to address any change in operations due to construction. The frequency of field visits is dynamic, depending on the variability of traffic, reliability of hardware, and frequency of incidents and/or special events. 3. SystemMaintenance To maintain optimum operational efficiency, all system components must be properly maintained. As part of their routine duties, each Corridor Manager is responsible for making a periodic check of the system hardware to verify it is operating correctly. When deficiencies are found, the Corridor Manager will immediately make minor repairs when logical to do so. Major repairs, such as those requiring additional equipment, resources, lane closures, etc. will be documented and addressed by the local agency or signal maintenance contractors managed by the consultant team. The Corridor Manger will track reported major repairs until they are completed, and will adjust signal timings if necessary to improveoperationsintheinterim. 4. OperationsImprovements Throughout the course of normal operations, the Corridor Managers should identify improvements that could be implemented by upgrading system hardware, installing more advanced equipment, etc. The goal of these operations improvements is to make investments in addressing any items affecting the optimum operations of the system. These investments may include repair and/or replacement of system hardware; installation of advanced hardware and/or software; or improvements to physical infrastructure(signingandmarking,turnlaneorradiusimprovements,etc.). 5. PerformanceMonitoring Monitoring system performance is necessary to identify systems in need of improvement and to quantify the results of the investments made in RTOP. The first component of performance monitoring is the implementation of a performance management strategy on a corridorbycorridor basis. This strategy will typically include implementation of methods (manual or automated) to collect data on the
11 Pg. 42 Packet
G.5.b
3.4.3
RolesofGDOT,ConsultantandLocalAgency
To be successful, the RTOP must be a collaborative effort between GDOT and the local agencies which have operations and maintenance responsibility for the signals in the program. Early in the development of the RTOP, it was recognized that the local agencies have differing levels of resources and abilities to support the program. Several agencies were already doing an excellent job of operating and maintaining their signals and wished to continue in this role, while other agencies had fewer resources to apply. Those agencies with fewer resources are more dependent upon GDOT to supplementtheirprogram. GDOT recognizes the desire of the agencies to participate in the program at varying levels, as such two levelsofparticipationweredeveloped: GDOT Lead on systems where GDOT is designated as the lead agency, GDOT will have the responsibility of operations and maintenance of the system. This includes performing system evaluations, performing realtime observations and making timing adjustments, performing hardware upgrades and conducting system maintenance. The local agency will remain responsible forallemergencyresponseandmajorsystemrepairs. Local Lead on systems where the local government is designated as the lead agency, the local agency will continue to assume full responsibility for operations and maintenance of the system. GDOT will assign a Corridor Manager, who will perform routine analysis of system operations and make routine adjustments to signal timing. However, on local lead systems, any changes to system operationsorhardwarewillbereviewedwiththelocalagencypriortoimplementation. Furtherclarificationofthesetwoapproachesisprovidedinthetablebelow.
Table3.2AgencyResponsibilities
ProgramComponent
CorridorSignalTiming TimingAdjustments Maintenance AfterHours/EmergencyResponse Detector,Communication,andSurveillanceRepair PeakHourManagementandMonitoring MajorRepairs *SubjecttoGDOTApproval
GDOTLead
GDOT X X X X X X Local
LocalLead
GDOT X X Local X* X X X X
12 Pg. 43 Packet
systems operational performance. Careful analysis of this data will result in the identification of the systemsneedingimprovement. The second component of performance monitoring is the development and distribution of performance measure reports. The purpose of these reports is to document the activities completed under the program and the resulting benefits to the traveling public. Field data will be collected, analyzed and presentedinregularreportsprovidedtoGDOTandlocalagencies.
Table3.3TeamRoles RTOPManager
Kickoffmeetingwithlocal Makeinitialcontactwithlocal agency agency Attendkickoffmeeting
ProgramManager
Attendkickoffmeeting
CorridorManager
Conductkickoffmeeting withagency Establishmanagementandcommunications protocols
LocalAgency GDOTLead
Provideinitialfeedbackoncorridor condition Communicateprogramapproach tolocalagencystaff Providesupportingdocumentation forinventory Supportdatacollectionasneeded
LocalLead
SameasGDOTLead
Initialsystem maintenanceand operationalevaluation
Reviewreportsfurnishedby ProgramManager
Collect,reviewandarchive inventory ProvidesummarydatatoRTOP Manager
Conductfieldinventory Controller&cabinethardware/software Historicalcounts Intersectiondesign Obtainorestablishsignalpermit Plannedprojects/construction Plannedspecialevents PrepareinventorydataandsubmittoProgram Manager Usinginformationfrominitialsystem evaluation,updateexistingsignaltimingplans
SameasGDOTLead
Baselineoperations
Documentchangestoinitial signaltiming
Provideinputoninitialsignal timingplanupdates
SystemEvaluation andBaseline
Maintenance recommendations Approveandmakecomments onsuggestedrecommendations madebyProgramManager Compileandprioritize recommendationsmadeby CorridorManagers Developrecommendationsformaintenance repairsforcorridors Reviewrecommendationswithlocalagencies AdviseCorridorManagerofknown maintenanceissuesandrecurring problems
Implementsignaltimingupdates basedonCorridorManagers recommendationsorapprove CorridorMangertoimplement. WorkwithCorridorManager to identifymaintenanceissuesandto developacorrectiveactionplan Provideaplan/schedulefor addressingmaintenance requirements
Systemsurveillance, Reviewandapprove monitoringand recommendations operationalimprovement recommendations
Summarizerecommendations andsubmittoRTOPManager forapproval
Developrecommendationsforsystem enhancementsthatcouldimproveoperational performance
Provideinputintoneeded recommendations Reviewfinalrecommendationsand consultwithRTOPManageron implementationstrategy
SameasGDOTLead
Packet Pg. 44
G.5.b
13

Fieldreviewsandremote monitoring
RTOPManager
Periodicallyreviewcorridor operations Liaisewithlocalagency
ProgramManager
Receivecomplaintsandassign toCorridorManager
CorridorManager
Monitorcorridoroperationsandupdatetiming onaregularbasis Identifyequipmentfailuresandinitiaterepairs Identifyneedsforchangestoimprovecorridor operations Phasingchanges Newtimingplans Maintainpermits Respondtotroublecallsandmaintenance requests Initiatetimingchangesorminorrepairsin responsetorequest Respondtotroublecallsinvolvingemergency conditionsandafterhours Notifylocalagencyofemergencyconditionsor majorrepairs
Reviewandapproveallchangesto signaltimingandoperational strategies Providefeedbackonsystem operations
LocalLead
Reviewallchangestosignaltiming andoperationalstrategiespriorto orshortlyafterimplementation withtheCorridorManager Remotelymonitorthecorridor duringpeakcommutertraveltimes
Respondtotroublecalls andrequests
AdviseCorridorManagerofany troublecallsormaintenance requestsreceivedfromlocal agencyorgeneralpublic
AdviseCorridorManagerofany troublecallsormaintenance requestsreceivedfromlocal agencyorgeneralpublic
CoordinatewithCorridorManager andcontractorasneededonminor repairs
Initiaterepairsofproblems identifiedbyCorridorManager
Active Management
Monitoringand managementofincidents andspecialevents
AdviseProgramManagerand CorridorManagerofplanned specialevents Assistincoordinatingresponse tomajoreventswithlocal agency
AdviseCorridorManagerof plannedspecialevents Assistincoordinatingresponse tomajoreventswithlocal agency
Initiatespecialtimingplansforplannedspecial eventsandholidays Provideonsitemanagementduringplanned specialevents Respondtounplannedevents
Identifypotentialeventswhich mayimpactsignaloperationsand alertCorridorManager
Identifypotentialeventswhich mayimpactsignaloperationsand alertCorridorManager CollaboratewithCorridorManager todevelopandimplement strategiestomanageincidentsand specialevents Identifypotentialprojects which mayimpactsignaloperationsand alertCorridorManager CollaboratewithCorridorManager todevelopandimplement strategiestomitigateimpactsof constructionandanynewlane configuration
Monitoringof constructionand coordinationwith contractors
AlertProgramManagerand CorridorManagerof constructionprojects
AdviseCorridorManagerof constructionprojects
CommunicatewithContractorregarding constructionprojectscheduleandexpected impacts Initiatespecialtimingplanstomitigateimpacts ofconstructionandanynewlaneconfiguration
Identifypotentialprojectswhich mayimpactsignaloperationsand alertCorridorManager
Packet Pg. 45
G.5.b
14

Issuereporting,tracking andmanagement
RTOPManager
Reviewandapprovemethods andformatofreporting Issuerequirementsandgoals forresponsivenessand functionality
ProgramManager
Implementandmaintainissue reporting,trackingand managementsystem Receivemaintenancerequests andissueworkorderto contractors
CorridorManager
Developreportsindicatingsystem functionality andworkorderstorepairsystemcomponents thatarenotfunctioning Notifylocalagencyofissuesthatcannotbe resolvedbytheprogram
Participateindevelopmentofissue trackingmechanism
LocalLead
Participateindevelopmentofissue trackingmechanism RequestCorridorManagerto repaircommunications,detection andsurveillance(ifLocalAgencyis unabletorepairinatimely manner) Provideemergencyresponse maintenance(indicationfailures, flash,knockdowns,etc.) Performroutinemaintenance Performpreventativemaintenance
System Maintenance
Maintenance
Reviewandapproveformsand proceduresproposedby ProgramManager
Prepare andmaintain forms andproceduresforpreventative maintenance Directpreventative maintenanceeffortswithTraffic SignalTechnicians ProcurematerialsfromGDOT forpreventativemaintenance tasks Prepareplanformonitoring andsystemdesign
Provideoversightofmaintenance repairs
Provideemergencyresponse maintenance(indicationfailures, flash,knockdowns,etc.)
Regionalmonitoringand managementsystem implementation
Reviewandapproveplanfor monitoringandsystemdesign
ProvideinputtoProgramManageras requested
ProvideinputtoRTOPandProgram Managerinorderhavelocalagency perspectiveindesignofsystemand selectionofmonitoringplan Performsignalupgradeswith cooperationoflocalagency
SameasGDOTLead
EquipmentUpgrades
Operations Improvements
Operationalandsafety upgrades
Reviewrecommendationsfor newequipment Authorizeupgradesunder project Negotiateupgradesthrough othermethods Reviewandapproveplansfor recommendedoperational improvements Whereappropriate,initiate improvementsthroughGDOT programs
Reviewandprioritize recommendationsfornewfield equipment
Developrecommendationsforsignal equipmentandcommunicationsupgrades whichimprovesystemoperationsand performance Developworkorderforsignalupgrades Developrecommendationsforoperational improvements(signing,striping,etc.) Maintainplantoimproveoperationsalong corridor
AssistGDOTasneeded
Summarizerecommendations andsubmittoRTOPManager forapproval
CooperatewithGDOTonmaking improvements InformCorridorManagerof upcomingcapitaloroperational projectsthatwillimpactcorridor operations
SameasGDOTLead InformCorridorManagerof upcomingcapitaloroperational projectsthatwillimpactcorridor operations
Packet Pg. 46
G.5.b
15

Establishperformance monitoringand managementsystem
RTOPManager
Reviewandapprove performancemeasure strategies Identifyperformancemeasures tobetracked
ProgramManager
Plan,developandimplement systemtocaptureperformance measuredata Coordinatedatacollectionwith CorridorManagerand subconsultants
CorridorManager
Developrecommendationsforperformance managementstrategyonacorridorbycorridor basis Collectperformancemeasurementdataand reporttoProgramManager
Trackmeasuresofeffectivenessas outlinedintheMOU
LocalLead
Trackmeasuresofeffectivenessas outlinedintheMOU
Performance Monitoring
Produceperformance measurereports
Distributeperformance measurereportstoGDOT managementandother stakeholders
Manageproductionand distributionofperformance measurereports CompilereportsfromCorridor Managers
Developrecommendationsforperformance managementstrategyonacorridorbycorridor basis CollectperformancedatafromLocalLead agencies Compileandsummarizeinventoryof functioningandnonfunctioningdetection, communicationsandsurveillancedevices
UpdatetheCorridorManageron anyrepairstodetectionsand communicationsissues Reviewandprovidecommenton reports
Provideperformancedatato CorridorManagers
Packet Pg. 47
G.5.b
16
G.5.b
4 Performance Management
GDOT is making a significant investment in the RTOP program with the goal of increasing travel throughput by minimizing congestion and reducing delays along the corridors included in the RTOP. In order to maintain continued support for the RTOP, it is important to define the effectiveness of the program through the use of performance measures. Performance measures will serve as the basis of measuringprogresstowardsmeetingtheprogrammission.PerformancemeasurementfortheRTOPwill generallyfallintotwocategoriesoutputandoutcomemeasures.Thesecategoriesarefurtherdefined below.
4.1
Output Measures
Output measures are focused on the performance of particular aspects of the program and typically seek to measure individual actions or performance of one element of the system. For instance, output measures would include performance of the field equipment and can be used as an indicator of the effectiveness and efficiency of the field operations. Output measures do not directly measure the systemthroughput,butratherserveasameasureofhoweffectivelythesystemisbeingmaintainedand how quickly problems are addressed. By maintaining system hardware and quickly responding to customercomplaints,optimumsystemperformanceisachieved. Goal Measure
VehicleDetectionDevices PedestrianDetectionDevices ComplaintResponseTime ProactiveIdentificationofEquipment Malfunctions >95%operational >95%operational <24hours >70%ofmalfunctionsdetectedbyCorridorManagers
4.2
Outcome Measures
Outcome measures are focused on the overall effectiveness of the program. As opposed to output measures, outcome measures seek to serve as an indicator of the progress the program makes towards meeting its mission of improving system throughput. Outcome measures also gauge customer satisfaction,whichisanimportantmeasureinmaintainingsupportfortheRTOPinvestment. Goal Measure
ComplaintResponseTime TravelTimes(twiceperyearpercorridor) Throughput CustomerSatisfactionSurveys TravelTimeReliability QueueStudies <24hours Improvementoverbaselinemeasurementandnoincreasein subsequentperiods Increaseinvolumeslessthanpercentincreaseinstopsand delay TBD(specificgoalswillbedevelopedduringsurveydesign) TBD Qualitativeevaluationoftheimpactoftheprogramonside streetqueuesanddelays
17 Pg. 48 Packet
G.5.b
5 Operational Scenarios
ThesescenariosdemonstratehowtheRTOPcanfunctionintypicalsituations.
5.1
Construction/Incident Scenario
In this scenario, there is a water main break which causes a major disruption to traffic along a state route. Ataround1:30onaWednesdayafternoon,awatermainbreaksalongPiedmontRoadatitsintersection withLindberghDriveintheCityofAtlanta.CityofAtlantapolicerespondtotheincidentandfindthata significant amount of water is leaking from the main resulting in a small sinkhole under the right lane northbound. The sinkhole has made the pavement under the right lane unstable and unsafe for vehiculartravel. After responding to the incident, the Atlanta Police contact the GDOT TMC to alert them of the situation. The Atlanta Police advise GDOT that the City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management is responding to the scene and requests support from GDOT to provide traffic control and pavement repair. GDOT TMC operators locate the scene on a CCTV camera and contact GDOT District 7 Maintenanceforcestorespond. Given the time of day, traffic is relatively light and only minor backups are occurring. However, TMC personnelrecognizethattheincidentwillcontinuethroughtherushhourseverelyaffectingnorthbound commuter traffic on Piedmont Road. TMC operators enter the incident into the Navigator system and postmessagesonI85northboundandsouthboundadvisingmotoristsoftheincident. The GDOT RTOP Manager receives notification of the incident from GDOT TMC operations. He immediatelycontactstheRTOPProgramManagerandCorridorManagertoadviseeachofthesituation. The RTOP Corridor Manager responds to the incident at 3:00 p.m. In assessing the situation, the RTOP CorridorManagerseesthatoneofthreenorthboundlanesonPiedmontRoadisblockedandemergency vehiclesarecausingrubberneckinginthearea. Using his prior knowledge of the operations along the corridor, the RTOP Corridor Manager determines that the PM rush hour traffic will be affected by the lane restrictions. To address the situation, he decides to add time to the Piedmont Road splits to give additional time to the northbound movement. The Corridor Manager recognizes that the increased split on Piedmont Road has to come from the side street(LindberghDrive),butunderstandstheimportanceofmaintainingflowonthemainline. After the split changes are made, the Corridor Manager observes traffic through the rush hour. Due to the change in split times, offsets are affected at adjacent intersections. The Corridor Manager observes trafficflowandmakesminoroffsetchangesatadjacentsignalstoaccommodatethechangedsplits. On the day following the incident, the Corridor Manager meets with the RTOP Manager and Program Manager todiscussthesituation.Afterconsultation withDistrict 7,theyfind thatthepavementrepairs will be made over the weekend and the lanes will be reopened to traffic on Sunday evening. Weekend traffic is expected to be light and no special events are expected along the corridor, so a decision is made to not change the weekend plans. Instead, the RTOP Manager consults with the City of Atlanta
18 Pg. 49 Packet
G.5.b
5.2
Incident/Detour Scenario
In this scenario, there is a freeway incident which causes a closure and results in a detour of traffic to a stateroute. At approximately 4:00 AM on a Friday, 911 operators receive several calls regarding an incident on southboundI75southoftheSR92interchangeinCobbCounty.Thepolicerespondtothecallandfind themangledremainsofaHondaAccordandtankertruckblockingtheoutsidelane. Aftersuccessfullyfreeingthedriversfromthevehicles,anofficernoticescontaminantsbeginningtoleak onto the roadway from the tanker truck. The commanding officer contacts emergency management officials to request HAZMAT support to assess and clean up the spill. A HAZMAT team arrives at 4:45 A.M. and determines that all southbound lanes have to be closed until cleanup is complete sometime duringtheearlyafternoonthusaffectingthemorningcommute. The GDOT TMC is contacted to determine a viable detour route which will be least disruptive to the morning commute. Based on anticipated volumes and proximity to the SR 92 interchange, TMC personnel propose the following detour route: SR 92 westbound to US 41 southbound to Barrett ParkwaytoI75. Since US 41 is among the actively managed corridors of the RTOP program, the GDOT TMC notifies the RTOP Corridor Manager of the proposed detour plan. The RTOP Corridor Manager immediately notifies all of the agencies impacted by the detour and communicates the proposed plan to mitigate the anticipated volume increases. The RTOP manager arrives at the corridor at 6:00 A.M. where he implements the proposed mitigation plan, which includes changes to intersection splits and offsets beginningat theintersectionofSR92andtheI75interchangeandendingattheintersectionofBarrett Parkway and the I75 interchange creating a southbound flush of the detoured traffic. The Corridor Manager changes the offsets to provide 100% progression in the southbound direction along US 41 and increasesthesplittimesforthesouthboundphases.OncethecleanupiscompleteandI75southbound is reopened, the RTOP corridor reverts to the normal plan and monitors the corridor to ensure normal operationisrestored.
19 Pg. 50 Packet
and GDOT TMC and asks that they monitor operations via CCTV and contact the Corridor Manager if significantbackupsoccur. The Corridor Manager revisits the intersection on Thursday and Friday afternoons to continue to monitor operations. Minor split and offsets changes are made to continue to adjust to the traffic demands. On Sunday afternoon, the Corridor Manager visits the site. After consultation with onsite maintenance personnel, he determines that the lanes will be reopened Sunday evening. The Corridor Manager then downloadstheoriginaltimingplansintothesysteminexpectationofnormaltrafficflowsonMonday.
G.5.b
5.3
Detection Failure Scenario
20 Pg. 51 Packet
Inthisscenario,thereisadensefoginalowareaaffectingthevideodetectionatanintersectionalonga StateRoute. At around 6:00 AM on a Tuesday morning, the RTOP Corridor Manager actively managing the SR 92 corridornoticesvehiclesintheleftturnlanesonSR92andonSandyPlainsRoadarenotbeingserviced. The Corridor Manager proceeds to the traffic signal cabinet, checks the equipment and database to ensurethatthevideodetectionisworkingproperlyandassignedtothecorrectoutputs. While at the cabinet the Corridor Manager notices all phases are being serviced and verifies that the detection equipment is working properly. The Corridor Manager continues along the corridor verifying that traffic is moving efficiently throughout the system. On his return run, the Corridor Manager observes vehicle congestion worsening as he approaches the Sandy Plains Road intersection. Thinking there may be an incident impeding traffic the Corridor Manger approaches the intersection with caution. However, as he nears the intersection he notices vehicles spilling back from the left turn lanes on SR 92 into the through lanes thus impeding the through movement and therefore reducing the capacityandefficiencyofthesystem. The Corridor Manager immediately proceeds to the traffic signal cabinet to check on the status of the video detection and notices that as a result of the dense fog, the video detection is not consistently detectingvehiclesintheleftturnlanes.Tomitigatethedetectionissue,theCorridorManagermanually places a recall on the left turn phases which will result in a green phase for the left turns. Additionally, the CorridorManager places a temporary hold on the left turn phase green toclear left turning vehicles spilling back into the through lanes. Once the left turn vehicle queues have been cleared, the Corridor Manager removes the hold on the left turn phase and places a temporary hold on the through vehicle phase to reduce the through congestion to levels which are typical during the morning commute. The temporary hold on the through green is removed and the intersection is monitored for several cycles to ensure all phases are being called. The Corridor Manager continues the normal monitoring of the corridor and removes the constant call on the left turn phases once the fog has lifted and detection is operatingproperly.
6 Appendix
Appendix A
G.5.b
21 Pg. 52 Packet
InsertMOUs
Appendix B
G.5.b
22 Pg. 53 Packet
G.6
MEMORANDUM
MEETING OF: COMMITTEE: DEPARTMENT: February 25, 2014 Brookhaven City Council City Clerk's Office
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement Between City of Brookhaven and DeKalb County Warrant Interchange System BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: FISCAL IMPACT: (Budgeted over or under) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS:
Page 1
Packet Pg. 54
G.7
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of Engaging Bernard Knight, Esq. to Assist City Attorney and City Manager in Zoning Map Issues BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: FISCAL IMPACT: (Budgeted over or under) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS:
Page 1
Packet Pg. 55
J.1
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution for Legislative Package Submittal BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: Mayor and Council discussed potential legislative matters for submittal to the delegation at their Special Called Work Session on December 18, 2013. The sessions begins January 13, 2014.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS:
Page 1
Packet Pg. 56
K.1
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and SLUP 13-02 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company - Rezoning Request from O-I Conditional (Office-Institution) to O-I at 4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road. Mixed Use Development Consisting of 500 Multi-Family Units (563,578 Sf), 250,000 Square Feet of Office Space, and Three Parking Decks. Special Land Use Permits to Exceed the Height of All Buildings/Structures Over 5 Stories and 70 Feet, and for Development of High-Rise Apartments in the O-I Zoning District Have Also Been Requested. (Planning Commission Recommended Deferral to the City Council and If Deferred by Council that the Cases be Remanded Back to Planning Commission for an Additional Public Hearing.) Due to Inclement Weather on January 28, 2014 this Matter was Reset for Consideration on February 11, 2014. Subsequently, due to additional inclement weather this matter was reset for consideration on February 25, 2014. BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: Please see attached. FISCAL IMPACT: (Budgeted over or under)
N/A - Intended for City Budgetary Discussion Items
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please see attached. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended deferral and asked that Council grant deferral and remand back to Planning Commission for an additional public hearing. Please see attached staff recommendation which has been revised to include the Planning Commission recommendation. ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Recommendation RZ13-11SLUP13-01 SLUP13-02 - Incorporated PC Recommendation v.2 (PDF) RZ13-11 Public Hearing Public Comment (PDF) RZ13-11 Slup 13.01 & 02 Application Revised Site Plan 11.06.13 (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) Request to defer 30 Days 12.10.13 Non Warranted DRI Letter 11.25.13 1991 DRI Review (PDF) Trip Gen Memo 11.05.13 PCID LETTER (PDF) (PDF) (PDF)
Page 1
Packet Pg. 57
K.1.a
Rezoning Petition: RZ13-11; SLUP13-01 & SLUP13-02 Date of Staff Recommendation Preparation: December 30, 2013 Planning Commission Public Hearing Date: January 8, 2014 *Revised to Incorporate Planning Commission Recommendation: January 9, 2014 Mayor and City Council Public Hearing Date: January 28, 2014 Cancelled due to inclement weather Reset Date: February 11, 2014 Cancelled due to inclement weather Reset Date: February 25, 2014 Project Name /Applicant: Property Location: District/Land Lot: Acreage: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Ashford Green/John Hancock Life Insurance Company, Inc. 4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road & 4106 Lake Hearn Drive 18th District, Land Lots 329 and 330 18.33 acres O-I Conditional (Office-Institution) O-I (Office-Institution)
Future Development Map Designation: Regional Center Owner/Petitioner: John Hancock Life Insurance Company, Inc.
Owner/Petitioners Intent: To develop a mixed use development consisting of 500 multi family units (563,578 SF), 250,000 square feet of office space, and three parking decks. Special land use permits to exceed the height of all buildings/structures over 5 stories and 70 feet, and for development of high-rise apartments in the O-I zoning district, have also been requested. Community Development Department Recommendation Approval with conditions
*PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DEFERRAL
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Staff Recommendation RZ13-11SLUP13-01 SLUP13-02 - Incorporated PC Recommendation v.2 (1258 : RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and
K.1.a
Location Map
Perimeter Summit Pkwy
BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the west side of Ashford Dunwoody Road and is bounded by Lake Hearn Drive and Interstate 285 to the north, Parkside Place to the west and Perimeter Summit Parkway to the south. The subject property contains 18.33 acres and currently existing on the site is a 5-story office building with associated surface parking. The site was originally rezoned to O-I Conditional pursuant to CZ-78079. Through the years there have been several alterations to the plans and conditions applicable to the subject property, with the latest alteration occurring in 1997. Currently, the subject property is entitled to as approved by DeKalb County for 715,000 square feet of total net usable office space, inclusive of an existing office building at 215,000 square feet of net usable area and an additional 500,000 square feet distributed amongst two office buildings, with one of the buildings extending to 18 stories in height and having an associated 8-level parking deck. With this latest request for rezoning, the applicant seeks to rezone from O-I Conditional (Office-Institution District) to O-I to change conditions and implement a mixed use project that would consist of 500 multi-family units spread over two 5story high-rise complexes, 250,000 square feet of additional office space contained in a single 10-story office building, in addition to an existing 277,206 square-foot office building. Two special land use permits have been requested by the applicant as part of the rezoning request to exceed the building height maximum of 5 stories or 70 feet and to accommodate the proposed high-rise apartments within the O-I zoning district. The Department would note that the subject property was reviewed by the Atlanta Regional Commission in 1991 as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for development of three office buildings and two associated parking
Page 2 of 14
Packet Pg. 59
K.1.a
decks, and was found to be consistent with the Perimeter Center Livable Centers Initiative plan and determined to be of appropriate use. As of November 25, 2013, based on the most recent request for a mixed-use development as submitted, the Atlanta Regional Commission determined that a new DRI review was not warranted. The subject property currently contains a single office building that is identified on the land title survey prepared by Travis Pruitt & Associates as 6-stories, while the applicants letter of intent indicates that it is a 5-story building. Along with the office building, there are 917 surface parking spaces provided for the development. According to the applicant, existing surface parking is shared with the Hilton Garden Inn hotel located northwest of the property, and shared parking provisions will continue to be maintained with the conversion of surface parking to parking decks if the proposed rezoning is to be approved. Based on the land title survey, it would appear that the property is serviced by several stormwater facilities as indicated by several easements that lead to off-site detention ponds across Parkside Place to the southwest and north of Lake Hearn Drive, and a private stormwater vault located to the northwest of Parkside Place. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows several surface parking spaces with the majority of parking provided within three proposed separate parking decks. Each multi-family complex would be developed with a separate parking deck for resident parking. The site plan indicates that Development A would consist of 260 rental units with an average floor area of 850 square feet per unit. The proposed rental apartment building would be 5-stories and incorporate a 5.5level parking deck. Development B is indicated on the site plan to consist of 240 owner-occupied (condominium) units within a 5-story building with a 5.25-level parking deck. It would appear that residential parking decks would be surrounded by the multi-family buildings to minimize visibility from the rights-of-way. Identified as Development C is the proposed 10-story 250,000 square-foot office building with a 5.5-level parking deck servicing office uses on the subject property. There are three existing access points for the subject property, two located on Ashford Dunwoody Road and one off Perimeter Summit Parkway. A new and additional ingress/egress point is proposed along Parkside Place which would be aligned with Perimeter Summit Boulevard. The lot coverage as calculated by the applicant would account for 59.05 percent of the total property, which would be compliant with the O-I zoning district lot coverage maximum of eighty (80) percent. According to the square footage of all proposed buildings and use types (residential and office), the development would be required to provide 3,109 total parking spaces. The applicants site plan would show that only 2,665 parking spaces would be provided, which would require that the applicant submit for a variance to reduce the parking as desired. In addition to applying for a variance to reduce parking, a variance would be required to allow for the encroachment of a building into the front yard setback along Ashford Dunwoody Road and to deviate from Section 27-788 (e)(3) to exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet in length along any wall elevation as it pertains to the proposed multi-family buildings located in the O-I zoning district.
Page 3 of 14
Packet Pg. 60
K.1.a
NEARBY/SURROUNDING LAND ANALYSIS Nearby/surrounding properties North
Zoning O-I
Current Land Use(s) Commercial (Hilton Garden Inn) Commercial (Perimeter Summit) Multi-family Residential (Villa Sonoma Condominiums) Commercial (Ashford Perimeter Office Building)
West: Across Parkside Place
O-I
West: Across Parkside Place
O-I
East: Across Ashford Dunwoody Road
O-I
East: Across Ashford Dunwoody Road
R-100
Single-Family Residential
South: Across Perimeter Summit Parkway
R-100
Georgia Power Transmission Station
South: Across Perimeter Summit Parkway
R-100
Single-Family Residential
REVIEW STANDARDS AND FACTORS 1. Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policy and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? The subject property is identified on the Future Development Map in DeKalb Countys Comprehensive Plan (adopted by the City of Brookhaven) as a regional center character area. Under the Plan, the area is envisioned for a variety of uses that would contribute to the reduction of automobile travel, while promoting walkability and increased transit usage. The proposed mixed-use development in the O-I zoning district would incorporate a mix of uses (condominiums, apartments and office) that have been identified in the Comprehensive Plan
Page 4 of 14
Packet Pg. 61
K.1.a
as primary land uses for the character area. The proposed development would encourage walkability as the property is in close proximity to a regional shopping center and two nearby Marta Stations (Dunwoody and Medical Center), which can be accessed by existing sidewalks along major and minor thoroughfares and local roads in the vicinity. Additionally, the residential component of the development could provide work-live opportunities that could reduce automobile usage. The proposed mixed-use development would appear to be in conformity with the policy and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and be suitable at this location. 2. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby properties? The subject property is located in close proximity to Interstate 285 and a major commercial node. The proposed request would be compatible with existing uses found in the immediate area, as Perimeter Summit has been developed with a mixed-use concept incorporating office, commercial, and residential uses within a single development. Additionally, improvements made to the rights-of-ways surrounding the subject property could support the scale of development as proposed. 3. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned? It appears the subject property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned. 4. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property? Given the mix of office, commercial and residential uses found nearby, the proposed rezoning does not appear to result in a use that would adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property. 5. Whether there are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the zoning proposal? DeKalb County approved the subject property to be developed for a singular office use totaling 715,000 square feet of net useable space, distributed over three buildings in 1997. As part of the approval, DeKalb County allowed for development of an 18-story office building and associated 8-level parking deck. The proposed mixed-use development would be aligned with the intent and established policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the area and also reduce the height of buildings from 18-stories to 10-stories. Additionally, the subject property was identified in the Perimeter Center Livable Center Initiative study completed in 2002, as a potential location for a high-density mixed-use development with primarily office and higher density residential uses, which would suggest that the proposed development may be suitable at this location. Additionally, the site is located within the Perimeter Community Improvement District.
Page 5 of 14
Packet Pg. 62
K.1.a
6. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect historic buildings, sites, districts, or archaeological resources? There are no such known historic buildings, sites, districts or archaeological resources identified by the applicant, or known by staff, to be on or near this property. 7. Whether the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools? To date, the City of Brookhaven has not received a response from DeKalb County Offices or the DeKalb County School System. An increase in traffic, utility capacity, and school aged children is anticipated. Impacts on transportation facilities may be mitigated with the recommended conditions. CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT SLUP13-01 (TO EXCEED 5 STORIES OR 70 FEET) AND SLUP13-02 (HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS) 1. Adequacy of the size of the site for the use contemplated and whether or not adequate land area is available for the proposed use including provision of all required yards, open space, off-street parking, and all other applicable requirements of the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located. The subject property would be of adequate size for the proposed use and the appropriate setbacks and lot coverage have been provided. Adequate land area is available for the proposed use associated with off-street parking, as parking will be provided by three separate parking decks and several surface parking spaces. Sufficient land area is available for parking; however, the applicant has requested a variance to reduce parking based on their desire and determination that the parking ratio required by the citys Zoning Ordinance may not be warranted for the proposed development, but not due to the size of land. 2. Compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent properties and land uses and with other properties and land uses in the district. The proposed development would be compatible with existing uses found in the area, in particular to the Perimeter Summit development which has been developed with a mix of office, residential, retail and hotel uses. The proposed multi-family apartments would result in a residential density of 27.28 units per acre, which is less than the density established for Villa Sonoma condominiums at 57.89 units per acre (341 total units over 5.545 acres). Additionally, the request to exceed the building height maximum of 5-stories or 70 feet to accommodate a proposed 10-story office building would be substantially less in height when compared to office buildings located within the Perimeter Summit Development which can extend up to 28 stories.
Page 6 of 14
Packet Pg. 63
K.1.a
3. Adequacy of public services, public facilities, and utilities to serve the use contemplated. Previous approval of the subject property for high-density office use would suggest that adequate public services are available to serve the proposed development as submitted. 4. Adequacy of the public street on which the use is proposed to be located and whether or not there is sufficient traffic-carrying capacity for the use proposed so as not to unduly increase traffic and create congestion in the area. To better ascertain traffic impacts that may be associated with this request, the applicant will be conditioned to provide a traffic impact analysis to be reviewed by the citys Public Works Director and for appropriate traffic improvement measures to be implemented prior to approval of a Land Disturbance Permit for the subject property. 5. Whether or not existing land uses located along access routes to the site will be adversely affected by the character of the vehicles or the volume of traffic generated by the proposed use. Increase in development would generate additional traffic. Based on the trip generation memo provided by the applicant, the traffic generated by the proposed development during A.M. and P.M. peak hours would be comparable to or less than the development that had been previously approved for the subject property. Additionally, the proposed mixed-use development could provide for opportunities that may reduce automobile travel and benefit work-live opportunities for potential residents of the property. 6. Ingress and egress to the subject property and to all proposed buildings, structures, and uses thereon, with particular reference to pedestrian and automotive safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in the event of fire or other emergency. Multiple points of access would be provided on the subject property which would enhance internal traffic flow and access by emergency vehicles. The layout of internal driveways would show traffic calming measures have been implemented, in particular with the incorporation of a roundabout near the Perimeter Summit Parkway entrance. Additionally, all access points would have adequate access to public sidewalks. Internal pedestrian access has not be addressed by the site plan submitted by the applicant. Staff would note that DeKalb County Fire Marshal review and approval will be required prior to issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit from the City of Brookhaven. 7. Whether or not the proposed use will create adverse impacts upon any adjoining land use by reason of noise, smoke, odor, dust, or vibration generated by the proposed use. The proposed use would not have adverse impacts upon adjoining land use associated with noise, smoke, odor, dust, or vibration.
Page 7 of 14
Packet Pg. 64
K.1.a
8. Whether or not the proposed use will create adverse impacts upon any adjoining land use by reason of the hours of operation of the proposed use. The proposed mixed-use development would not create adverse impacts to adjoining land use by reason of hours of operation as the proposed use would incorporate a residential component and office uses similar to existing uses found nearby. 9. Whether or not the proposed use will create adverse impacts upon any adjoining land use by reason of the manner of operation of the proposed use. The proposed use would be similar in manner of operation with existing uses found in the area. 10. Whether or not the proposed plan is otherwise consistent with the requirements of the zoning district classification in which the use is proposed to be located. It appears the proposed development would be consistent with the requirements of the zoning district with the exception of parking requirements. The applicant has applied for two Special Land Use Permits to exceed district height requirements and to construct high-rise (multifamily) apartments. 11. Whether or not the proposed use is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is identified on the future land use map in DeKalb Countys Comprehensive Plan (adopted by the City of Brookhaven) as a regional center character area. Under the Plan, the area is envisioned for a variety of uses that would contribute to the reduction of automobile travel, while promoting walkability and increased transit usage. The proposed mixed-use development in the O-I zoning district would incorporate a mix of uses (condominiums, apartments and office) that have been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as primary land uses for the character area. The proposed development would be consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 12. Whether or not the proposed plan provides for all required buffer zones and transitional buffer zones where required by the regulations of the district in which the use is proposed to be located. All required buffer zones appear to have been provided. 13. Whether or not there is adequate provision of refuse and service area. Refuse and service area locations have not been identified on the applicants submitted site plan; however, any such plan would require approval of DeKalb County.
Page 8 of 14
Packet Pg. 65
K.1.a
14. Whether the length of time for which the special land use permit is granted should be limited in duration. Time or duration constraints would not be appropriate for the proposed request as the requested Special Land Use Permits are related to permanent structures/buildings. 15. Whether or not the size, scale and massing of proposed buildings are appropriate in relation to the size of the subject property and in relation to the size, scale and massing of adjacent and nearby lots and buildings. The height of proposed buildings would be substantially lower than what is currently approved for on the subject property and nearby buildings. The size and scale of buildings proposed would be consistent with adjacent lots and buildings. A variance will be required to consider the demonstrated multi-family building mass. 16. Whether the proposed plan will adversely affect historic buildings, sites, districts, or archaeological resources. There are no such known historic buildings, sites, districts or archaeological resources identified by the applicant, or known by staff, to be on or near this property. 17. Whether the proposed use satisfies the requirements contained within the supplemental regulations for such special land use permit. Supplemental regulations as it relates to the special land use permit requests have been met except for the requirement provided in Section 27-788(e)(3), as it states that no structure is to exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet in length along any elevation of a multi-family building. The applicant must redesign the layout of the proposed multi-family building to be compliant with the aforementioned section of the citys Zoning Ordinance or seek a variance to the requirement. 18. Whether or not the proposed building as a result of its proposed height will create a negative shadow impact on any adjoining lot or building. Negative shadow impact would not be anticipated from this request as all buildings proposed would be of similar height and projection, and a reduction in height from previously approved 18-story office building. 19. Whether the proposed use would result in a disproportionate proliferation of that or similar uses in the subject character area. The proposed use would benefit the surrounding area by providing the availability of additional residential options and reduce the proliferation of similar office uses found in the area. Additionally, the Perimeter Center Livable Centers Initiative study completed in 2002 identified the need for more residential uses to be provided in the immediate area of the
Page 9 of 14
Packet Pg. 66
K.1.a
subject property and recommended that the subject property be developed for high-density mixed-use development consisting of primarily office with high-density residential uses. 20. Whether the proposed use would be consistent with the needs of the neighborhood or to the community as a whole, be compatible with the neighborhood, and would not be in conflict with the overall objective of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development would be consistent with the intent and policies of the comprehensive plan and would be compatible with the established neighborhood and with existing developments found in the area. The applicant has shown on the site plan that a 50foot permanent buffer area would be maintained adjacent to Perimeter Summit Parkway, limiting any potential impacts the proposed development would have on single-family residential dwellings located to the south.
Page 10 of 14
Packet Pg. 67
K.1.a
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS PUBLIC WORKS 1. A Traffic Impact Study for the proposed development would be needed to reveal the specific influences site traffic would have on the adjacent road network. As such, a Traffic Impact Study should be prepared to address traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following locations: a. Ashford Dunwoody Road at Perimeter Summit Parkway/Oak Forrest Drive b. Ashford Dunwoody Road at the two site driveways (one signalized, one unsignalized) 2. The installation of a stormwater management system is required, including detention, water quality, channel protection, and downstream analysis to the 10% point. If the downstream discharge is a City stormwater system, then a capacity analysis is required prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit. 3. A post construction Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement will be required. BROOKHAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT The City of Brookhaven Police Department has indicated that the development would have an impact on current police services. The requested project would be consistent with current developments existing in the area and impacts traffic and theft (vehicle and office) related calls for service. The Police Department will require monitoring to determine future needs for the area. MARTA MARTA encourages the development of dense mixed use developments within the region, which this proposal clearly represents. This development is roughly nestled less than a mile between the Dunwoody MARTA station and the Medical Center MARTA station. However, MARTA does not currently offer direct service to this development. MARTA is in the early exploratory stages of investigating the feasibility of expanding service in the perimeter area in the future. At this time, MARTA does not foresee any adverse impacts to service or real estate holdings due to this development. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION Approval of RZ13-11, SLUP13-01 and SLUP13-02 with conditions.
Page 11 of 14
Packet Pg. 68
K.1.a
STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Based upon the findings and conclusions herein, Staff recommends Approval with conditions of RZ13-11 as O-I Conditional as well as SLUP13-01 and SLUP13-02. Should the petition be approved, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. The subject property shall be limited to a maximum of 500 units (563,578 gross square feet) distributed over two multi-family buildings, at a maximum residential density of 27.28 units per acre (SLUP13-02). 2. The subject property shall be limited to of 527,206 gross square feet of office and institutional and accessory uses permitted in the O-I zoning district, but excluding the following: cemetery, columbarium, mausoleum, motel, funeral home or mortuary, personal care home, child caring institution, hospice, nursing care facility, late-night establishments and/or nightclubs. 3. The subject property shall be developed in substantial accordance with the plan prepared by The Preston Partnership, LLC, and stamped received November 6, 2013. Any variances required, if authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals, may result in altering the site plan to the degree necessary to incorporate revisions. 4. The height of nonresidential buildings shall be limited to 10 stories (SLUP13-01). 5. The height of multi-family buildings and all parking decks shall be limited to 5.5 stories and not to exceed 70 feet in height. Parking decks associated with multi-family buildings shall not rise above buildings containing residential units (SLUP13-01). 6. Exterior elevations of the multi-family buildings and associated parking decks shall be constructed primarily of a combination of natural stone masonry, brick, glass and stucco. The balance may be of brick or wood accents, trim or decorations. All elevations shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Parking facilities for high-rise apartments shall be located at the interior of the subject property and be surrounded by the associated apartment building and landscaping materials so as to screen parking facilities from view of the rights-of-way, except where left open for vehicular or pedestrian access. 8. Service and refuse facilities shall be located interior of the subject property and must be screened with opaque fencing or similar building material of buildings on the property. 9. All lighting associated with the development shall incorporate a cut-off design and be directed inward and downward, away from the direction of single-family residential dwellings and shall minimize light spillage into the right-of-way.
Page 12 of 14
Packet Pg. 69
K.1.a
10. Signage at the tops of buildings shall be directed away from residential properties to the south (beyond Perimeter Summit Parkway). Internally illuminated signs shall not be installed as to be visible from residential properties to the south. 11. Owner/developer shall complete a combination plat prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit. 12. Owner/developer shall be required to cure any and all nonconforming lot dimensional aspects as a result of any future land subdivision/transaction via the Zoning Board of Appeals. 13. Owner/developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way along the total property frontages along Ashford Dunwoody Road, Perimeter Summit Parkway and Parkside Place for a minimum width of 12.5 feet from the back of curb of any new curb and gutter along these roads. 14. Owner/developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way for a miter at the intersection of Ashford Dunwoody Road and Perimeter Summit Parkway. Said miter shall measure a minimum of 25 feet along each of the named roadways. 15. Owner/developer shall widen Ashford Dunwoody Road between the northernmost Site Driveway on Ashford Dunwoody and Perimeter Summit Parkway, such that the existing outside southbound lane on Ashford Dunwoody Road coming from I-285 connects continuously to the existing right turn lane at Perimeter Summit Parkway. 16. Owner/developer shall provide a traffic impact analysis, prior to issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit, that addresses the traffic impacts of the development at the following locations: a. Ashford Dunwoody Road at Perimeter Summit Parkway/Oak Forrest Drive b. Ashford Dunwoody Road at the two site driveways (one signalized, one unsignalized) 17. Owner/developer shall incorporate additional conditions that may result from review of the traffic impact analysis/study by the Public Works Director, prior to issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit. 18. Owner/developer shall provide stormwater management in accordance with the City Code and a new stormwater maintenance agreement will be required. Provide any previously approved stormwater management plans for the site. All storm water including detention, water quality, channel protection and downstream analysis shall be addressed at time of Land Disturbance Permit. 19. Owner/developer is responsible for the future development to be compliant with the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual (GSSM) Stormwater Runoff Quality Standard (Water Quality) by providing measures that treat the required Water Quality Volume through evapotranspiration, infiltration and/or evaporation.
Page 13 of 14
Packet Pg. 70
K.1.a
*PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommend deferral of RZ13-11, SLUP13-01 and SLUP13-02 and asked that the City Council remand the cases back to the Planning Commission for an additional public hearing.
Page 14 of 14
Packet Pg. 71
K.1.c
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: RZ13-11 Public Hearing Public Comment (1258 : RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and SLUP 13-02 - John
K.1.c
K.1.c
K.1.c
K.1.c
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: RZ13-11 Slup 13.01 & 02 Application (1258 : RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and SLUP 13-02 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company-4170
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 78
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 79
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 80
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 81
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 82
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 83
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 84
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 85
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 86
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 87
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 88
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 89
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 90
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 91
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 92
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 93
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 94
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 95
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 96
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 97
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 98
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 99
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 100
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 101
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 102
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 103
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 104
K.1.d
Packet Pg. 105
K.1.e
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Revised Site Plan 11.06.13 (1258 : RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and SLUP 13-02 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company-4170 Ashford
K.1.f
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Request to defer 30 Days 12.10.13 (1258 : RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and SLUP 13-02 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company-4170
K.1.g
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Non Warranted DRI Letter 11.25.13 (1258 : RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and SLUP 13-02 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company-4170
K.1.g
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Non Warranted DRI Letter 11.25.13 (1258 : RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and SLUP 13-02 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company-4170
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: 1991 DRI Review (1258 : RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and SLUP 13-02 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company-4170 Ashford Dunwoody
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 111
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 112
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 113
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 114
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 115
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 116
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 117
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 118
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 119
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 120
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 121
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 122
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 123
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 124
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 125
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 126
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 127
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 128
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 129
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 130
K.1.h
Packet Pg. 131
K.1.i
A&R Engineering Inc.

Attachment: Trip Gen Memo 11.05.13 (1258 : RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and SLUP 13-02 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company-4170 Ashford
2160 Kingston Court, Suite O Marietta, GA 30067 Tel: (770) 690-9255 Fax: (770) 690-9210 www.areng.com
Trip Generation Memorandum

To: John Hancock 197 Clarendon Street, C-3-3 Boston, MA 02116 November 5, 2013 Trip Generation Comparison for proposed Multifamily and Office Buildings
Date: Subject:
The purpose of this memorandum is to determine the trip generation that will result from various development scenarios for the property located at 4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road. The site currently contains a 277,000 square foot office building as well as an existing hotel. Along with the existing buildings, the development proposes two 5-story multifamily residential buildings, totaling 500 individual units, and a 250,000 square foot additional office building. This property is located on the west side of Ashford Dunwoody Road in Dunwoody, GA.
Figure 1: Site Plan
METHODOLOGY The Institute of Transportation Engineers has published data sets for estimating trip generation in the 9th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation report. This
Packet Pg. 132
K.1.i
reference contains traffic volume count data collected at similar facilities nationwide. The trip generation referenced for this site is based on the following ITE Land Uses: 220 Apartment, 230 Residential Condominium, and 710-General Office Building. ADDITIONAL DATA PROPERTIES The ITE Apartment Land Use data is described as being collected from sites that are: rental dwelling units located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units. The ITE Trip Generation reference also states that the Land Use included data from a wide variety of units with different sizes, price ranges, locations and ages. The peak trips typically coincided with that of the adjacent street traffic. The ITE Residential Condominium Land Use data is described as being ownership units that have at least one other owned unit within the same building structure. Both condominiums and townhouses are included in this land uses data points. The peak trips typically coincided with that of the adjacent street traffic. The General Office Building Land Use data is described as being a location where affairs of business, commercial or industrial organizations, or professional persons or firms are conducted. Transit service was either nonexistent or negligible at the majority of the sites surveyed in this land use; therefore, modifications for TDM strategies may be considered. Average occupancy rates reported from the data sites averaged 88 percent occupied GLA. As in the Apartment land use, the peak trips typically coincided with that of the adjacent street traffic. CALCULATIONS The results of the analysis for the approved zoning conditions, which include a 500,000 square foot office building, are shown in Table 1, using the ITE data.
Table 1 Trip Generation A.M. Peak Hour Enter Exit Total 610 83 693
Land Use Size General Office (500,000 sq. ft.)
Enter 109
P.M. Peak Hour Exit Total 529 638
24-Hour 2-way 4,461
The results of the comparison analysis for a 300,000 square foot office building and 560 unit residential units are shown in Table 2, using the ITE data.
Table 2 Trip Generation Comparison A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit 350 48 398 61 297 25 101 126 101 54 18 89 107 85 42 -1 -1 -2 -4 -4 392 237 629 243 389
Land Use Size General Office (250,000 sq. ft.) Apartment (250 units) Condominium (250 units) mixed-use reduction Total
Total 358 155 127 -8 632
24-Hour 2-way 2,634 1,639 1,427 -52 5,648
Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 133
K.1.i
FINDINGS The results of the trip generation for each scenario indicate that the proposed 250,000 square foot office in addition to the 500 unit multifamily development will generate more 24-hour traffic than a 500,000 square foot office building alone. It should be noted, however, that a 500,000 square foot office building will have a higher amount of total traffic during the morning and evening peak hours than the proposed mixed-use plan. A 500,000 square foot office building would also have a much larger directional split in its generated traffic. The directional split of entering/exiting traffic could have an important effect on the operations of adjacent roadways that experience heavy traffic in one direction during peak times. A 2012 count on Ashford Dunwoody Rd (north of the I-285 interchange) indicates that 60%-70% of the traffic could be attributed to one direction on the roadway (northbound or southbound) during the peak travel times. A Traffic Impact Study for the proposed development would be needed to reveal the specific influences site traffic would have on the adjacent road network. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION As part of this memorandum, annual average daily traffic volumes were collected from Georgia Department of Transportation traffic counter #3585. The traffic counter nearest to the site was used to determine the annual average daily traffic in the surrounding area. Traffic volumes for 2011 and 2012 are listed below in Table 3.
Table 3 Average Annual Daily Traffic (Counter #3585) Year 2011 2012 Volume 19,090 19,420
The location of the traffic counter shown below in Figure 2, is located on Ashford Dunwoody Road south of I-285 and east of GA-400.
GDOT COUNTER #3585
SITE LOCATION
Figure 2: Location of Traffic Counter #3585
Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 134
K.1.k
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: PCID LETTER (1258 : RZ13-11, SLUP 13-01 and SLUP 13-02 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company-4170 Ashford Dunwoody
K.2
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: RZ13-14 - Courtney Dufries - Rezoning Request from R-75 (Single-Family Residential) to R-50 (Single-Family Residential) at 1458 Etowah Drive NE to Construct Three Single Family Homes. Due to Inclement Weather on January 28, 2014, This Matter was Reset for Consideration on February 11, 2014. Subsequently, due to additional inclement weather this matter was reset for consideration on February 25, 2014. BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: Please see attached. FISCAL IMPACT: (Budgeted over or under)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please see attached. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to conditions. Please see attached staff recommendation which has been revised to include the Planning Commission recommendation. ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Recommendation RZ13-14_Incorporated PC Recommendation v.2 RZ13-14 Public Hearing Public Comment (PDF) RZ13-14 Application (PDF) (PDF)
Page 1
Packet Pg. 136
K.2.a
Rezoning Petition: RZ13-14 Date of Staff Recommendation Preparation: December 30, 2013 Planning Commission Public Hearing Date: January 8, 2014 *Revised to Incorporate Planning Commission Recommendation: January 9, 2014 Mayor and City Council Public Hearing Date: January 28, 2014 Cancelled due to inclement weather Reset Date: February 11, 2014 Cancelled due to inclement weather Reset Date: February 25, 2014
Project Name /Applicant: Property Location: District/ Land Lot Acreage: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
Courtney Dufries 1458 Etowah Drive NE 18th District, Land Lot 238 0.445 acres R-75 (Single-Family Residential) R-50 (Single-Family Residential)
Future Development Map Designation: Traditional Neighborhood Owner/Petitioner: Courtney Dufries
Owner/Petitioners Intent: To rezone the subject property from R-75 (Single-Family Residential) to R-50 (Single-Family Residential) to allow for three single-family lots. Community Development Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions
*PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL OF RZ13-14 AS R-50 CONDITIONAL WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Staff Recommendation RZ13-14_Incorporated PC Recommendation v.2 (1259 : RZ13-14 - Courtney Dufries - Rezoning Request
K.2.a
Location Map
BACKGROUND The subject property is a 0.445 acre site comprised of one lot of record. The property is zoned R75 (Single-Family-Residential) and is found on the northwest corner of Oostanaula Drive and Etowah Drive. The subject property is developed with one single-family residence that is accessed from Etowah Drive. The site is surrounded by single-family detached homes immediately adjacent, zoned R-A8 to the north, R-75 to the south, R-75 to the east and R-75 to the west. An R-50 district, comprised of three lots, is also located across Oostanaula Drive to the northeast. A vacant church (zoned R-75) is found across Etowah Drive immediately south of the site, located at 1457 Oostanaula Drive, NE. Per the City of Brookhavens Zoning Ordinance, the R-75 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square-feet and 75 feet of lot frontage. Based on these district requirements, the property exist as a legal conforming lot of record as it maintains 19,384 square feet and has 99.8 feet of frontage along Etowah Drive and 200.19 feet along Oostanaula Drive. Staff would make note that very few lots comply with the R-75 district standard within the Brookhaven Fields neighborhood, as they were originally comprised of two 50 X 200 foot lots per the 1923 Plat, which was recorded prior to the adoption of DeKalb Countys zoning. Staff would further note that the subject lot was originally comprised of two 50 X 200 foot lots; however, the property was later combined into one lot as part of the homestead exemption. The applicant requests to rezone the property to an R-50 single-family district wherein the district allows a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and minimum frontage of 60 feet. Such request will allow the owner to subdivide the property into three lots that conform to the R-50 district for lot size and frontage. Based on the plan submitted, each lot is proposed to have 66.73 feet of width along Oostanaula Drive and have a depth of 100 feet. The total square footage of each lot is listed as 6,673 square feet. Therefore, each proposed lot would exceed the minimum district lot size requirement.
Packet Pg. 138
K.2.a
NEARBY/SURROUNDING LAND ANALYSIS Nearby/surrounding properties North (2502 Oostanaula) Northeast (2501 Oostanaula Drive, 1463 Canoochee Drive NE, and 1467 Canoochee Drive NE) West (1448 Etowah Drive) South (1451 and 1457 Etowah Drive) East (2497, 2493, 2489, and 2487 Etowah Drive) Zoning R-A8 Current Land Use(s) Single-Family Residential
R-50
Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential
R-75 R-75
Single-Family Residential R-75 Single-Family Residential
ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AS CURRENTLY PLATTED AND ZONED Location/ Address 1458 Etowah Drive NE Zoning R-75 Lot Size 19,384 sq. ft. Future Land Use Traditional Neighborhood
REVIEW STANDARDS AND FACTORS 1. Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policy and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? The subject property is identified on the Future Development Map in DeKalb Countys Comprehensive Plan (adopted by the City of Brookhaven) as a Traditional Neighborhood Character Area. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the intent of the Traditional Neighborhood Character Area is to preserve the style and appeal of older traditional neighborhood communities. The Plan further indicates that the area supports a density of up to twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. Because the proposed development is similar to recent development in the Brookhaven Fields neighborhood, it appears that the proposed use of the property would be consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Packet Pg. 139
K.2.a
2. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby properties? The proposal to rezone the lots to R-50 appears to be suitable as R-50 and R-A8 zoning districts are found directly north and northeast, adjacent to the subject property. It also appears that the zoning proposal will allow the lots to be subdivided in a manner that is contextual to the existing streetscape. Based on the applicants request to subdivide the parcel, the frontage along Oostanaula Drive will result in three 66.73 feet lot frontages. Such a reduction will conform to the R-50 zoning district and will allow infill development to occur in a pattern consistent to adjacent and nearby properties. 3. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned? It appears the subject property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned. 4. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property? It appears that the single-family proposal will not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties. 5. Whether there are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the zoning proposal? The prevalent trend in the Brookhaven Fields neighborhood is for a more compact lot pattern with larger home sizes relative to the lot sizes. It is important to note that the Brookhaven Fields neighborhood is located next to the Brookhaven Overlay District in which development at mixed uses and higher densities has occurred. As property in the neighborhood continues to develop at higher densities, it will more appropriately serve areas of the overlay, including the Marta Station and the Brookhaven Village Town Center. This emerging trend, which emphasizes higher density and walkability, gives supporting grounds for approval. The requested use appears to be compatible with surrounding properties which give supporting grounds for approval of the request. 6. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect historic buildings, sites, districts, or archaeological resources? There are no such known historic buildings, sites, districts or archaeological resources identified by the applicant, or known by staff, to be on or near this property.
Packet Pg. 140
K.2.a
7. Whether the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools? To date, the City of Brookhaven has not received a response from DeKalb County or the DeKalb County School System. The applicants proposed development may increase traffic, utility capacity, and school aged children if fully developed with three single family residences. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS PUBLIC WORKS No Comment. BROOKHAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT The City of Brookhaven Police Department has indicated that the development should have no impact on current police services and will not require additional personnel. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION Approval of RZ13-14 with conditions.
Packet Pg. 141
K.2.a
STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Based upon the findings and conclusions herein, Staff recommends Approval with conditions of RZ13-14 as R-50 Conditional. Should the petition be approved, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. The subject property shall be approved for up to 3 single-family lots. 2. The subject property shall be developed in substantial accordance with the layout and site plans, stamped received November 6, 2013. Any variances required, if authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals, may result in altering the site plan to the degree necessary to incorporate revisions. 3. The corner lot created by the new subdivision shall have at least 75 feet of frontage facing Oostanaula Drive. 4. Prior the issuance of a final plat, the owner/developer shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way along the total property frontage along Etowah Drive and Oostanaula Drive to provide for a width of 25 feet from the centerline of both roadways. 5. Prior the issuance of a final plat, the owner/developer shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way for a miter at the intersection of Etowah Drive and Oostanaula Drive. Said miter to measure a minimum of 15 feet along each of the named roadways. 6. Prior the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for individual lots, the owner/developer shall construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk and 2-foot wide landscape strip along the entire property frontage along Oostanaula Drive. 7. A final plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permit. 8. Building Permit for a new house on each lot shall include design and detail of practice(s) that will capture 1-inch of runoff from impervious surfaces to be dissipated through infiltration, evaporation and/or evapotranspiration, and be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department.
Packet Pg. 142
K.2.a
*PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommend approval of RZ13-14 as R-50 Conditional subject to the staff recommended conditions with the following modifications to condition #6 identified in bold type: 6. Prior the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for individual lots, the owner/developer shall construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk and 2-foot wide landscape strip along the entire property frontage along Oostanaula Drive. However, owner/developer shall not be subject to recompense for tree removal related to the sidewalks required by this condition.
Packet Pg. 143
K.2.c
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: RZ13-14 Public Hearing Public Comment (1259 : RZ13-14 - Courtney Dufries - Rezoning
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: RZ13-14 Application (1259 : RZ13-14 - Courtney Dufries - Rezoning Request from R-75
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 146
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 147
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 148
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 149
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 150
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 151
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 152
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 153
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 154
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 155
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 156
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: RZ13-14 Application (1259 : RZ13-14 - Courtney Dufries - Rezoning Request from R-75 (Single-Family Residential) to R-50 (Single-)
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 158
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 159
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 160
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 161
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 162
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 163
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 164
K.2.d
Packet Pg. 165
K.3
MEMORANDUM
MEETING OF: COMMITTEE: DEPARTMENT: February 25, 2014 Planning Commission Community Development
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296, 1302, 1304 Kendrick Rd. to Construct a Parking Lot BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: Please see attached
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please see attached PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended Denial. ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Recommendation RZ13-15_Incoporated PC Recommendation RZ13-15 Applicaton RZ 13-15 Site Plan (PDF) RZ13-15 Sketch (PDF) (PDF) FW Zoning Hearing RZ 13-15 (PDF) FW Proposed C-1 zoning - Mark Kick Kendrick property - COMMENTS Opposition Email 1_Redacted (PDF) Opposition Email 2_Redacted (PDF) Opposition Email 3_Redacted (PDF) OppositionEmails2.24_Redacted (PDF) (PDF) Neighborhood opposition to rz13-15. UPDATED UpdatedOppositionemail.2.24_Redacted (PDF) (PDF) (PDF)
Page 1
Packet Pg. 166
K.3.a
Rezoning Petition: Date of Staff Recommendation Preparation: Planning Commission Public Hearing Date: *Revised to Incorporate Planning Commission Recommendation: Mayor and City Council Public Hearing Date:
RZ13-15 January 29, 2014 February 5, 2014 February 6, 2014 February 25, 2014
Project Name /Applicant: Property Location: District/Land Lot: Acreage: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
Atlanta Resource Enterprise, LLLP 1296, 1302 & 1304 Kendrick Road 18th District, Land Lot 241 1.176 acres R-100 (Single-Family Residential) C-1 (Local Commercial)
Future Development Map Designation: Traditional Neighborhood Owner/Petitioner: Mark Kick
Owner/Petitioners Intent: To rezone the subject property from R-100 (Single-Family Residential) to C-1 (Local Commercial) for construction of an accessory parking lot (for adjoining existing business and expansion) Community Development Department Recommendation DENIAL of proposed request for C-1 (Local Commercial) zoning, with an alternative recommendation to approve as NS (Neighborhood Shopping) zoning for construction of an accessory parking lot (for adjoining existing business and expansion). *PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DENIAL
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Staff Recommendation RZ13-15_Incoporated PC Recommendation (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request
K.3.a
Location Map
BACKGROUND The subject site consists of three adjacent lots, owned in common totaling 1.176 acres. The lots are located on the north side of Kendrick Road, west of its intersection with Peachtree Road. The site is currently developed with single-family residences accessed by three individual curb cuts along Kendrick Road. The sites are wooded and contain a steep grade that drops approximately 30 feet from the southeast corner of the property abutting Kendrick Road to the northwest corner of the property. The lots are bordered on the east and north sides by commercial properties zoned C-1 (Local Commercial District) and C-2 (General Commercial District). To the west of the site is a residential structure currently used as a personal care home (Safe Haven), zoned R-100 (Single-Family Residential District). To the east, the applicant owns and operates the retail store Nuts n Berries, located at 4274 Peachtree Road. The applicant seeks to expand their existing business by adding a second story addition and extending the storefront towards Peachtree Road, thus requiring additional parking. In an effort to comply with zoning requirements for parking as a direct effect of the proposed expansion of the commercial structure, the applicant requests to rezone the site to C-1 to construct an accessory surface parking lot. The applicants submitted site plan shows that the required 50-foot transitional buffer zone is proposed adjacent to residentially zoned property to the west and that all three residential structures will be demolished. The applicant proposes to utilize two existing curb cuts for access to the proposed parking lot which will connect to an internal two-way driveway providing access
Packet Pg. 168
K.3.a
around the parking lot and to the service area located to the northeast portion of the property. Additionally, the applicant proposes to locate a water detention area adjacent to the transitional buffer to account for stormwater runoff associated with the parking lot, and will implement an eight-foot wide landscape strip internal to the parking spaces and adjacent to the east property line adjoining existing commercial uses. The applicant has also identified installation of a fifteen-foot wide landscape strip between the proposed parking lot and Kendrick Road which exceeds the minimum width for landscape strips required for surface parking lots. However, the full extent of the required landscape strip for the parking lot shall be maintained interior of the subject property and not encroach into the right-of-way. The Department would note that newly constructed parking lots shall comply with the parking regulations (Sec. 27-766) and parking lot landscaping requirements (Sec. 27-753) as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. NEARBY/SURROUNDING LAND ANALYSIS
Nearby/surrounding properties Adjacent: North North Adjacent: West Across Kendrick Road: South Across Kendrick Road: Southeast Adjacent: East Adjacent: East Adjacent: East
Zoning C-2 OCR R-100 R-100 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1
Current Land Use(s) Commercial (self-storage facility) Mixed Use (Town Brookhaven) Single-Family Residential (personal care home) Single-Family Residential Commercial (Shell gas station) Commercial (Nuts N Berries) Commercial (Thrive Fitness) Commercial (Peachtree Flowers)
REVIEW STANDARDS AND FACTORS 1. Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policy and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? The subject property is identified on the Future Development Map in DeKalb Countys Comprehensive Plan (adopted by the City of Brookhaven) as a traditional neighborhood character area. The traditional neighborhood character area as described is to maintain a predominance of neighborhood-scale commercial uses and identifies neighborhood-serving retail as a primary land use. The proposed request for the C-1 zoning district is not identified as a compatible zoning district for the traditional neighborhood character area. Alternatively, there are other zoning districts such as NS (Neighborhood Shopping) zoning district which would be conforming to the established policies for the area allowing an accessory parking lot in conjunction with expansion of an existing neighborhood retail use (Nuts n Berries).
Packet Pg. 169
K.3.a
2. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby properties? The subject property could be suitable for an accessory parking lot to serve an existing neighborhood retail use in light of the mixture of institutional and commercial uses abutting the property and if the appropriate buffer is installed. However, the proposed request for the C-1 zoning district is not identified as a compatible zoning district for the traditional neighborhood character area. Approving the property for NS, however, would allow for a zoning district and use that would be suitable for the area and function as a transition between existing commercial and residential uses. Furthermore, with proper conditions to establish an enhanced vegetative screen along the associated frontage of the parking lot adjacent to Kendrick Road would mitigate impacts to residential uses located to the south. 3. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned? It appears the subject property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned. 4. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property? The proposed accessory parking lot, with proper conditions to ensure compatibility with existing commercial, institutional and residential uses found in the area, would not adversely affect the usability of nearby properties. The proposed request for the C-1 zoning district is not identified as a compatible zoning district for the traditional neighborhood character area. Approval of the property for NS would further reduce impacts to the neighborhood by facilitating the removal of uninhabitable residential structures and a nonconforming parking area, and will establish a 50-foot transitional buffer to the west and enhanced landscaping along the Kendrick Road frontage. The NS zoning district would be conforming to the established policies for the character area. 5. Whether there are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which gives supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the zoning proposal? The proposed C-1 zoning would not be suitable at this location as it is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an incompatible zoning district for the character area. However, there are existing commercial uses that extend the full length of the northern and eastern property line adjacent to the subject property and a personal care home currently existing to the west. The implementation of a 50-foot wide transitional buffer adjacent to the west property line and enhanced landscaping to the south, as a result of approving the subject property under the NS zoning district would provide the necessary transition from the subject property to residential uses found in the area. Additionally, the subject property would be conditioned for use as a parking lot only and function to provide off-street parking for expansion of an existing business, further suggesting that the proposed development may be suitable at this location under the NS zoning district.
Packet Pg. 170
K.3.a
6. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect historic buildings, sites, districts, or archaeological resources? There are no such known historic buildings, sites, districts or archaeological resources identified by the applicant, or known by staff, to be on or near this property. 7. Whether the proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools? To date, the City of Brookhaven has not received a response from DeKalb County Offices or the DeKalb County School System. The development of an accessory parking lot for expansion of an existing business under the NS zoning district would not cause excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS PUBLIC WORKS 1. Driveway modifications on Peachtree will require GDOT Permit. The Peachtree Road entrance will be restricted to a right turn in only. 2. The handicap ramp on Kendrick and Peachtree shall be updated as necessary. 3. The installation of a stormwater management system is required, including detention, water quality, channel protection, and downstream analysis to the 10% point. If the downstream discharge is a City storm water system, then a capacity analysis is required prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit. 4. Post Construction Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement will be required. BROOKHAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT The City of Brookhaven Police Department has indicated that the development should have no impact on current police services and will not require additional personnel.
Packet Pg. 171
K.3.a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends DENIAL of RZ13-15 as proposed. If approved, the Department would recommend zoning the subject property as NS for an accessory parking lot for an existing business and expansion. STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Should the rezoning be approved as NS (Neighborhood Shopping) Conditional, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. The subject property shall be developed for an accessory parking lot in conjunction with the business expansion, in substantial accordance with the site plan prepared by MK Design Associates, PLLC for Mark Kick, received January 2, 2014. Any variances required, if authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals, may result in altering the site plan to the degree necessary to incorporate revisions or conditions of zoning. 2. Owner/developer shall maintain a transitional buffer as required under the NS zoning district adjacent to the west property line and replant where sparsely vegetated and will be subject to the approval of the City of Brookhaven Arborist. 3. Owner/developer shall complete a combination plat of all properties held in common ownership prior to the issuance of any permit related to the proposed project (Involving properties located at 1296, 1302 and 1304 Kendrick Road and 4274 Peachtree Road). 4. The Street and Sidewalks and Parking requirements of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District shall be incorporated into the development of the subject property, as approved by the Community Development Director. 5. Owner/developer shall construct a five-foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of Kendrick Road for the subject property with a three-foot wide landscape strip, and shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director. 6. Owner/developer shall implement a 15-foot wide landscape strip for the parking lot adjacent to the right-of-way of Kendrick Road, in compliance with transitional buffer zone planting standards and subject to the approval of the City of Brookhaven Arborist. 7. Only the curb cuts shown on the site plan dated January 2, 2014, may be permitted. No additional curb cuts shall be allowed. 8. Owner/developer shall obtain necessary permit(s) from Georgia Department of Transportation for Peachtree Road driveway modification for the Nuts n Berries property. The Peachtree Road entrance shall be restricted to a right turn-in only. 9. Owner/developer must obtain a demolition permit for removal of all residential structures and associated driveways located on the subject property prior to obtaining any permits related to the proposed expansion or utilization of the property for parking.
Packet Pg. 172
K.3.a
10. Owner/developer shall obtain a Land Disturbance Permit for development of the property, compliant with the requirements of Land Development and Zoning regulations. 11. Utilization of the parking lot shall not be authorized until the required buffer, sidewalk, curb cut, and landscape strip(s) are correctly installed. 12. Owner/developer shall provide stormwater management in accordance with the City Code and a new stormwater maintenance agreement will be required.
Packet Pg. 173
K.3.d
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: RZ13-15 Applicaton (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-
K.3.d
Packet Pg. 175
K.3.d
Packet Pg. 176
K.3.d
Packet Pg. 177
K.3.d
Packet Pg. 178
K.3.d
Packet Pg. 179
K.3.d
Packet Pg. 180
K.3.d
Packet Pg. 181
K.3.d
Packet Pg. 182
K.3.e
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: RZ 13-15 Site Plan (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296, 1302, 1304 Kendrick)
K.3.f
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: RZ13-15 Sketch (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296, 1302, 1304 Kendrick)
K.3.f
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: RZ13-15 Sketch (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296, 1302, 1304 Kendrick)
K.3.g
From: Sent: To: Subject:
Ben Song Friday, January 31, 2014 12:42 PM Becky Apter FW: Zoning Hearing RZ 13-15
To include in PC packet From: Susan Canon Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:47 PM To: Ben Song Subject: Fwd: Zoning Hearing RZ 13-15
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: david barrs <dbarrs@ThriveInsights.com> Date: January 30, 2014, 12:45:48 PM EST To: <susan.canon@brookhavenga.gov> Cc: Baxter Thompson <BaxterLThompson@gmail.com> Subject: Zoning Hearing RZ 13-15 Dear Ms. Canon,
I live at 1299 Kendrick Rd, directly across the street from the the parcels included in RZ 13-15. I am representing myself and an informal association of neighbors in the Kendrick Rd area. I am requesting that Baxter Thompson and myself be allowed to speak on this matter at the hearing on Wednesday, February 5. Have a thriving day,
Dave Barrs
Founder & CEO Thrive Insights, LLC dbarrs@ThriveInsights.com O. 770 552 7000 C. 404 536 4546 4060 Peachtree Rd, NE Suite D285 Atlanta, GA 30319
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: FW Zoning Hearing RZ 13-15 (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296, 1302, 1304
Becky Apter
K.3.g
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). The City of Brookhaven is a public entity subject to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated 50-18-70 to 50-18-76 concerning public records. Email is covered under such laws and thus may be subject to disclosure.
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: FW Zoning Hearing RZ 13-15 (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296, 1302, 1304
K.3.h
Becky Apter
From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Ben Song Friday, January 31, 2014 12:41 PM Becky Apter FW: Proposed C-1 zoning - Mark Kick Kendrick property - COMMENTS High
To include in PC packet. From: Michael Elliot [mailto:melliot@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:31 PM To: Ben Song Subject: Proposed C-1 zoning - Mark Kick Kendrick property - COMMENTS Importance: High Ben: Even though this zoning request is now for C-1 and not OCR, there has been no change in the form or substance of the request, need, intent, planned improvement or community impact. The requested C-1 zoning is necessitated since the previously requested OCR zoning could not be approved due to the 2 acre minimum lot requirement. The previous Brookhaven staff opinion supported the OCR zoning change for this parking, and no change in position for this C-1 zoning request is warranted. The requested C-1 change in zoning is for the immediate purpose of allowing / validating previously legally non-conforming parking to support Nuts N Berries, a long established and successful commercial business on Peachtree Road. A failure to approve the requested change in zoning will prevent this business from having needed parking and will create operational and customer problems. Without this parking, planned improvements to their existing building will also be prevented. Furthermore, a lack of adequate parking may necessitate this business to relocate at an unnecessary expense and possibly to leave the City of Brookhaven after many years of successful operation. From a larger perspective, the commercial property fronting Peachtree Road from Town Brookhaven to Osborne lacks adequate depth of properly zoned property to be developed in compliance with the vision of the LCI study. This lack of depth will discourage or prevent appropriate pedestrian oriented mixed use development due to the inability of these properties to develop adequate off street parking. Mr. Kick planned for his long term business needs by acquiring the subject property many years ago and now plans to use that property to provide parking to support his existing business and allow its expansion. A possible future benefit of rezoning this property to allow parking may be that the other properties fronting Peachtree adjoining the subject property might also be developed as mixed use property, compliant with the recommendations of the Brookhaven LCI study. The opposition from most of the area residents is that to protest adjoining commercial contradicts the reality of their home purchase decisions & is somewhat puzzling. At least on half of the houses along Tallulah and Kendrick are bordered by commercial development with no apparent setbacks, no buffer zone and significant height. The homes on Kendrick that abut Town Brookhaven have unobstructed views of 8 story residential structures and a commercial service drive. All or most homes were constructed long after Nuts N Berries
1
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: FW Proposed C-1 zoning - Mark Kick Kendrick property - COMMENTS (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning
K.3.h
With the exception of proposed parking, I personally do not think that the subject property should not be used for additional / other commercial / retail purposes; however, unfortunately the C-1 zoning does not allow residential uses an unfortunate problem that OCR would have addressed. After considering both the C-1 & OCR zoning, it is apparent to me that both are designed for suburban applications and not appropriate for the urban infill application of this site and other similar properties. While the subject property is not covered by the Brookhaven Overlay, in retrospect it should have been a mistake in my opinion, and a change that should be considered at a later date. I hope that my comments have some value for you in considering this application and formulating your staff opinion. Feel free to contact me with any questions or additional information needs. Best regards, Mike
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). The City of Brookhaven is a public entity subject to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated 50-18-70 to 50-18-76 concerning public records. Email is covered under such laws and thus may be subject to disclosure.
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: FW Proposed C-1 zoning - Mark Kick Kendrick property - COMMENTS (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning
established their current location and the residential property that Mr. Kick used for additional parking. In addition, some residents have enjoyed Mr. Kicks generosity by using his property to park their trailers, boats and other equipment not appropriate for their own homes. It reminds me of the people that live in the flight path of PDK when that airport has been active for the past 80 years.
K.3.i
Becky Apter Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:48 PM Daniel Hall FW: Kendrick Rd Rezoning- RZ13-15
FORRZ1315 BeckyApter AdministrativeAssistant,CommunityDevelopment 404.637.0582 From:BenSong Sent:Thursday,February20,20142:49PM To:BeckyApter Subject:RE:KendrickRdRezoningRZ1315 Becky, Iknowyoupreviouslyreceivedthisemailbutthisemailshouldbeincludedinthecouncilpacket. From:SusanCanon Sent:Thursday,February20,20149:03AM To:BeckyApter;BenSong Subject:Fwd:KendrickRdRezoningRZ1315
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Erin Mosher Date: February 19, 2014, 9:38:04 PM EST To: <susan.canon@brookhavenga.gov>, <jmax.davis@brookhavenga.gov>, <rebecca.williams@brookhavenga.gov>, <jim.eyre@brookhavenga.gov>, <bates.mattison@brookhavenga.gov>, <joe.gebbia@brookhavenga.gov>, Joey Mosher Shayne Murphy Subject: Kendrick Rd Rezoning- RZ13-15 Hello all, I am writing you all to publicly voice my opinion on the rezoning request affecting the residential lots on Kendrick Road. (RZ13-15) Please vote NO. While I cannot be present at the meeting on the 25th, my husband will be there to represent our family. We live just 2 lots from the aforementioned property and have a new baby that is turning 6 months old this week. Our home already faces a row of
1
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Opposition Email 1_Redacted (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296, 1302, 1304
Daniel Hall
K.3.i
On that note, allowing this rezoning will directly impact ours and our neighbors property values and most importantly, our sense of a residential, FAMILY oriented neighborhood. There are still many lots yet to be developed here and by allowing this, you would open the doors for other businesses to move in and bring tons of traffic to a street that's currently filled with strollers and children just like ours. My husband, Joe, and I beg you to deny this application and keep our street a residential, safe place for our kids to live and play. Thank you, Erin & Joe Mosher (and Jack)
Packet Pg. 191
apartment buildings that we were not able to see at all until our builder cleared our lot and our neighbors lot to begin building. Yes, I realize we should have expected that some trees would come down and that the view wouldn't be perfect, but we didn't. However, we still love our home and its close proximity to the city and we hope to be here for many years to come and watch the evergreens grow in to block the apartments we now see. Additionally, we love Nuts N Berries and we shop and eat there regularly. While we love the place, we don't want it or any other business moving any closer to our home.
K.3.i
The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
This email message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). The City of Brookhaven is a public entity subject to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated 501870 to 501876 concerning public records. Email is covered under such laws and thus may be subject to disclosure.
Packet Pg. 192
K.3.j
Becky Apter Thursday, February 20, 2014 4:23 PM Daniel Hall FW: zoning request for Nuts and Berries (RZ 13-15)
OnemoreforRZ1315. BeckyApter AdministrativeAssistant,CommunityDevelopment 404.637.0582 From:SusanCanon Sent:Thursday,February20,20144:03PM To:BeckyApter Subject:FW:zoningrequestforNutsandBerries(RZ1315)
From:KayWolfe Sent:Thursday,February20,20143:47PM To:SusanCanon Cc: ;BelindaRattray Subject:zoningrequestforNutsandBerries(RZ1315) DearMs.Canon, IamwritingtoyoutodaytoexpressmyoppositiontoRZ1315,theapplicationbytheownerofNutsandBerriesto rezonehispropertyonKendrickRoad.Whatthisapplicanthasalreadydonetothepropertywithoutapproval(removal ofallthetreesatthebackoftheproperty)causesmetobelievethathehasverylittleinterestinbeingagoodneighbor. IliveonTallulahDrive.Whatwasonceaveryquietresidentialstreethasdegradedintoaracetrackwithpeopleusing TallulahasacutthroughbetweenOsborneandKendrick.TheproposalfromtheCitystafftorejecttheC1requestin favorofNSdoesnotaddressmyconcernsatall;infact,itreallyheightensmyconcerns.Yousee,Iamhandicapped,and IalreadycannotcheckmymailwithoutthefearofbeingmoweddownbyaspeedingcarcuttingacrossonTallulah.If youapprovethisrezoningrequest,Ifeartheoddsofsaidmowingdownonlyincrease. Pleasedenythisrezoningrequest. Respectfully, KayWolfe
Packet Pg. 193
Daniel Hall
K.3.j
Packet Pg. 194
K.3.k
Becky Apter Friday, February 21, 2014 12:20 PM Daniel Hall FW: Kendrick Rd Rezoning- RZ13-15
BeckyApter AdministrativeAssistant,CommunityDevelopment 404.637.0582 From:SusanCanon Sent:Thursday,February20,20146:43PM To:BeckyApter;BenSong Subject:Fwd:KendrickRdRezoningRZ1315
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Shayne Murphy < Date: February 20, 2014, 5:33:48 PM EST To: "susan.canon@brookhavenga.gov" <susan.canon@brookhavenga.gov>, "jmax.davis@brookhavenga.gov" <jmax.davis@brookhavenga.gov>, "rebecca.williams@brookhavenga.gov" <rebecca.williams@brookhavenga.gov>, "jim.eyre@brookhavenga.gov" <jim.eyre@brookhavenga.gov>, "bates.mattison@brookhavenga.gov" <bates.mattison@brookhavenga.gov>, "joe.gebbia@brookhavenga.gov" <joe.gebbia@brookhavenga.gov> Cc: Rachel Murphy Subject: Kendrick Rd Rezoning- RZ13-15 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, My wife (Rachel) and I live at 1303 Kendrick Rd NE and we wanted to take a moment to express our concern and strong objection to allowing rezoning request RZ13-15 to be approved. We have been actively engaged in this discussion since it's infancy and will continue to be actively involved with the process in an effort to ensure rezoning request RZ13-15 is rejected. I have shared multiple emails and phone calls with Susan Canon and her staff regarding this issue and have received little assurance that the residential community along Kendrick, Tallulah, Osborne, and Grove is receiving the proper representation as to our strong objection of this proposal. We'd like you to consider the below points while reviewing rezoning request RZ13-15, but please note this is not an exhaustive list and am confident you will hear from or will continue to hear from numerous families in this neighborhood as to their personal objections.
1
Packet Pg. 195
Daniel Hall
K.3.k
1. Rezoning lots 1296, 1302, and 1304 from R100 to C1/NS would negatively impact the peaceful and safe enjoyment of our neighborhood due to increased traffic and associated traffic hazards (volume, frequency, and type). 2. All development trends in this neighborhood support and reinforce residential zoning vs. C1/NS zoning. Approximately 18 new homes in the past 12-18 months have either been built and purchased, are under contract, or are being built. Additionally, there are several remaining lots for which residential homes will be built in the near future due to the strong demand for residential family homes in the area; further reinforcing the profitable viability of residential development in our neighborhood. 3. Will establish a precedence allowing residential lots to be rezoned to C1/NS in not only our neighborhood, but also throughout our City of Brookhaven; a City for which we voted to support. 4. Will result in our property (1303 Kendrick Rd NE) being surrounded by Commercial on three of four sides. To be fair and transparent, we purchased knowing we had commercial properties on two sides, but we also relied heavily upon the current residential zoning and the aforementioned boom of residential development in our neighborhood to guide our purchasing decision. 5. Rezoning to C1/NS will create a hazard to the functional use of our property due to vehicles pulling into and out of a parking lot across the street from our driveway. Will create a functional hazard preventing/limiting my ability to safely maintain our lawn, due to increased traffic hazards, as I provide the routine maintenance and upkeep of our property. 6. Will direct commercial vehicle traffic (tractor trailers, delivery trucks, waste management trucks) needed to support the commercial property off Peachtree Blvd. further down Kendrick Rd. 7. The Planning Commission recommended, overwhelmingly, to reject rezoning request RZ13-15.
Again, the above list is not exhaustive and does not address the concerns of all families in our neighborhood, but it does provide a starting point or continuation of a topic critical to the continued peaceful and safe enjoyment of not only our home, but also our neighbors' homes. Thank you in advance for the opportunity to express our concerns and I look forward to speaking with each of you at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, February 25th at 7:00 p.m. Kind regards, Shayne and Rachel Murphy
This email message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). The City of Brookhaven is a public entity subject to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated 501870 to 501876 concerning public records. Email is covered under such laws and thus may be subject to disclosure. 2
Packet Pg. 196
K.3.l
Daniel Hall
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Becky Apter Monday, February 24, 2014 10:34 AM Daniel Hall FW: RZ 13-15 Neighborhood opposition to rz13-15.ppt; ATT00001.htm
Attachment: OppositionEmails2.24_Redacted (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296, 1302,
DanielThisis#1. BeckyApter AdministrativeAssistant,CommunityDevelopment 404.637.0582 From:SusanCanon Sent:Saturday,February22,20149:08PM To:BenSong;BeckyApter;JohnOlson Cc:MarieGarrett Subject:Fwd:RZ1315
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "david barrs" To: "J. Max Davis" <jmax.davis@brookhavenga.gov>, "Rebecca C. Williams" <rebecca.williams@brookhavenga.gov>, "Jim Eyre" <jim.eyre@brookhavenga.gov>, "Bates Mattison" <bates.mattison@brookhavenga.gov>, "Joe Gebbia" <joe.gebbia@brookhavenga.gov> Cc: "Susan Canon" <susan.canon@brookhavenga.gov>, "Jeff Kellar" , "Joey Mosher" "Shayne Murphy" "Baxter Thompson" Subject: RZ 13-15 Mr. Mayor and Council Members Thank you for your service to our city. Having been active in just the zoning matter at hand, I have a small glimpse and greater appreciation for the time you spend working for the City. Please see the attached PowerPoint presentation prepared by the newly formed Kendrick Osborne Neighborhood Association, Inc., a GA Non-profit Corporation. (KONA). The document outlines our opposition to RZ 13-15. As you may know, the BPCA spoke in favor of the proposed re-zoning. As a Director of KONA, I can categorically say that the BPCA DOES NOT represent the views of our members and neighbors.
1
Packet Pg. 197
K.3.l
Have a thriving day, Dave Barrs Founder & CEO Thrive Insights, LLC
4060 Peachtree Rd, NE Suite D285 Atlanta, GA 30319
Packet Pg. 198
We would be grateful if you would review the document before Council meeting on Tuesday, as we will refer to it in our comments.
K.3.l
Daniel Hall
From: Sent: To: Subject: Becky Apter Monday, February 24, 2014 10:38 AM Daniel Hall FW: RZ13-15 Rezone - Opposition
#2 BeckyApter AdministrativeAssistant,CommunityDevelopment 404.637.0582 From:SusanCanon Sent:Monday,February24,20147:19AM To:BenSong;BeckyApter Subject:Fwd:RZ1315RezoneOpposition SentfrommyiPhone Beginforwardedmessage: From:"Wolfe,Robert(HumanResources)" Date:February24,2014,6:52:04AMEST To:"susan.canon@brookhavenga.gov"<susan.canon@brookhavenga.gov> Subject:RZ1315RezoneOpposition DearMs.Canon, IamwritingtoyoutodaytoexpressmyoppositiontoRZ1315,theapplicationbytheownerofNutsand BerriestorezonehispropertyonKendrickRoad.Myoppositionisbasedontwoconcerns,thefutureof theneighborhoodandthedemonstratedbehavioroftheapplicant. IliveonTallulahDrive.Ihavewatchedastheareahasprogressedwithnewhousesinplaceof dilapidatedrentalproperty.TheareahastransformedintothetypeofneighborhoodthatIimagineit waswhenitwasfirstbuiltmanyyearsago.Idonotwanttoseebusinessextendintothe neighborhood.Ithinkthiswouldsetbacktheprogressthathasbeenmadebydeterringresidentsand creatingunduetraffic.Inthecurrentstate,Idonotconsidertheowneragoodneighbor.The propertiesadjoiningNutsandBerrieshavebeenindisrepairforyears.Itappearshehasremovedtrees andclearedthelandonthepropertywithoutregardforproperprocess.Additionally,thetrucks servicingthebusinesscannotnavigatetheresidentialstreetswhichresultsinthemdrivingintotheyards ofthepropertyownersatthecornerofKendrickandGrove.IftheownerofNut&Berrieswaspaying anyattentionhewouldrealizethesourcetheoftheissueandmakecorrections.Thatisofcourseifhe reallycaredabouttheneighborhood.Frommyperspective,hehasmadenoefforttosocializehisideas withtheneighborhoodandseemstohavelittleregardforproperprocess. Pleasedenythisrezoningrequest.
3
Packet Pg. 199
K.3.l
Packet Pg. 200
Respectfully, RobertWolfe
K.3.l
Daniel Hall
From: Sent: To: Subject: Becky Apter Monday, February 24, 2014 10:38 AM Daniel Hall FW: Zoning Meeting on 2/25
#3andfinalone,fornow. BeckyApter AdministrativeAssistant,CommunityDevelopment 404.637.0582 From:SusanCanon Sent:Monday,February24,20148:40AM To:BeckyApter;BenSong Subject:Fwd:ZoningMeetingon2/25
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Jordan Myers < Date: February 24, 2014, 8:23:32 AM EST To: Jordan Myers Subject: Zoning Meeting on 2/25 City of Brookhaven Mayor and District Council Members, I am writing to express my objection to the Nuts N Berries zoning permit (RZ 13-15). On February 5th, the City Planning Commission voted to recommend against approving the rezoning request. I urge you to adopt their position. My wife and I live at 2785 Grove St (the corner of Grove and Kendrick - about six houses down from the lots at issue). When I voted in favor of the new city, it was with the assumption that the interests of business and quality of life for individuals would be appropriately balanced. A vote in favor of this zoning request would signal that business takes precedence and the interests of an entire neighborhood of families would be ignored. My concerns regarding this zoning request include the following: 1. The applicant's motives: The applicant has refused to consider the concerns of the neighborhood. Individuals have asked for meetings with the applicant to discuss the issue and have been turned down. There may be a mutually acceptable solution, but the applicant has refused the opportunity to discuss the issue. Moreover, you will likely hear from the applicant tomorrow that this zoning permit is needed for "his business to survive." A few months ago, the applicant intended to construct multifamily housing on the lots. When his initial zoning request was denied, he changed course, and has now conceived an alternate proposal. If this approach
5
Packet Pg. 201
K.3.l
was necessary for "his business to survive," why is it plan B? I fear that this is only the first step to a proposal that will be more intrusive for the neighborhood. 2. Safety: Kendrick is already a dangerous street. Drivers often use it as a cut-through and speed to Peachtree or Osborne. Approval of this zoning permit will only increase the traffic and make it more dangerous for the children and other pedestrians. 3. Discourage Investment in Brookhaven Neighborhoods: When we moved to the neighborhood in 2009, the neighborhood was in transition. There were many foreclosures in the area, including the two houses directly across from the lots at issue. Our neighbors invested their money to turn this neighborhood around. It has been an overwhelming success and the neighborhood continues to thrive with many new houses being built and many families moving to the area. If the permit is approved, it will discourage people from moving into similar neighborhoods out of fear that they will be overrun by neighboring businesses. 4. Sprawl: Simply put, approving this zoning permit will be a slippery slope and the entirety of Kendrick will be subject to opportunistic business owners who will seek to transform a once quiet neighborhood into a new street of commerce given the proximity to Town Brookhaven. I encourage you to think about your own neighborhood. How would you feel if you purchased a home surrounded by other homes only to see the neighboring lots turned into a parking lot or worse? I appreciate your taking the time to read this. Best Regards, Jordan Myers
Packet Pg. 202
K.3.n
Neighborhood Opposition to RZ13-15
2
Attachment: Neighborhood opposition to rz13-15. UPDATED (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center Packet Pg. 203
NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION TO RZ13-15

Mayor and Council Hearing February 25, 2014
K.3.n
3
Who is the opposition?

This was prepared by the Directors of the newly formed Kendrick Osborne Neighborhood Association (KONA)
Founding Directors: Dave Barrs, Jeff Kellar, Shayne Murphy and Baxter Thompson
In the first week, 33 residents have joined KONA
OUR MISSION: To promote a safe, walk-able, peaceful, family-friendly environment in the Kendrick / Osborne area.
To encourage competent, open, transparent governance in the City of Brookhaven. To use our collective energy to promote improvement of Brookhaven Park.
K.3.n
4
Attachment: Neighborhood opposition to rz13-15. UPDATED (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center -
This would be a precedent-setting re-zoning

No logical reason to deny further development all the way
down Kendrick Rd
Same applies to Standard Drive behind Kroger Same applies to any side street off of Peachtree
Packet Pg. 205
K.3.n
5
This would be a precedent-setting re-zoning

No logical reason to
deny further development all the way down Kendrick Rd Where should it stop?
K.3.n
6
Legal and Other Issues with RZ13-15

Accessory Parking Lot Not Permitted where Primary Use is Located on Separate Parcel:
Community Development Dept. recommended that subject parcels be rezoned NS to
allow for construction of an accessory parking lot incidental to the primary use of Nuts and Berries. (See Community Development Department Recommendation.) During the Planning Commission hearing, the Community Dev Department responded to Jeff O'Connells question affirmatively when asked if an accessory use could be incidental to a primary use located on an adjacent parcel. BUT per City Code, properties zoned NS cannot be primarily used as parking lots: Sec. 27-31 of the Code states that an accessory use means a use of land or building or structure or portion thereof customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and located on the same lot with the principal use. (emphasis added) Therefore, the use of the subject parcels as an accessory parking lot for a primary use located at 4274 Peachtree Road is strictly prohibited by Brookhavens own code of ordinances.
Packet Pg. 207
K.3.n
7

Requirement for variances to comply with Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan shows subject parcels as Traditional Neighborhood. Statement and Intent of NS states that shopping facilities are to be a focal point of the neighborhood An accessory parking lot is not a focal point Town Brookhaven already serves as a focal point
K.3.n
8

Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Permits Never Obtained:
Applicant/Owner brought in upwards of 50 dump truck loads of dirt and cut
down huge numbers of trees without proper permitting from DeKalb County. See Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C Confirmed by Betsy B. Stark, Senior Planner with DeKalb County. Applicant/Owner has not demonstrated that it has the best interest of the community in mind.
NS: Sec. 27-562. - Transitional Buffer Zone Requirement.

50 foot buffer zone and 6 foot screening fence required between NS and R,
and C-1 and R, classification lots highlights the concern about NS and C-1 encroachment into single family residential areas. No trees, other than dead or diseased trees, shall be removed from said transitional buffer zone, but additional trees and plant material may be added to the transitional buffer zone. o Exhibit C shows virtually every tree was removed from 50 buffer zone without permits from DeKalb County. o Confirmed by Betsy B. Stark, Senior Planner with DeKalb County.
Packet Pg. 209
K.3.n
9

Exhibit A (close up) showing: Before transitional buffer was clear cut Fill dirt hauled in
Packet Pg. 210
K.3.n
10

Exhibit B (zoom out) showing: Before transitional buffer was clear cut Fill dirt hauled in
Packet Pg. 211
K.3.n
11

Exhibit C showing: After transitional buffer was clear cut Earth disturbance and grading
Packet Pg. 212
K.3.n
12

Illegal Spot Zoning:
Spot zoning is perhaps most commonly defined as a process of singling out
a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different than that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of the other owners. o 3 Ga. Jur. Property 25:31 Spot zoning is the antithesis of planned zoning. o East Lands, Inc. v. Floyd County, 244 Ga. 761, 262 S.E.2d 51 (1979). Spot zoning generally comes in the form of an application for variance or rezoning from residential to commercial. It was properly denied where it appeared that the owner purchased with full knowledge of the residential restrictions. o Westbrook v. Board of Adjustment, 245 Ga. 15, 262 S.E.2d 785 (1980). The parcel at issue in this case was a residential parcel that bordered commercial/industrial.
Packet Pg. 213
K.3.n
13
Spot Zoning
1303 Kendrick Road would be surrounded on 3 sides by C1 or NS:
Packet Pg. 214
K.3.n
14
Zoning
Residents had every reason to believe that RESIDENTIAL development would be protected:
Brookhaven-Peachtree Livable Centers Initiative does
NOT include the subject parcels for commercial development Dekalb County Kendrick-Osborne Area Overlay District (This was in affect when many residents bought or built homes) See Exhibit D 3.1A.3 Statement of purpose and intent.
C. To protect established residential areas from encroachment of uses which
are either incompatible or unduly cause adverse impacts on such communities, and D. To protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of DeKalb County.
Packet Pg. 215
K.3.n
15
Zoning
Exhibit D: Area in former Kendrick / Osborne Area Overlay
K.3.n
16
Application is over-reaching
Seeks to re-zone 3 lots instead of 1 Seeks to expand building even though
Sq. Ft. of main business has decreased inside Seeks to front 2 lots with parking instead of 1 Positions 6 contiguous parcels for possible future consolidation
Packet Pg. 217
K.3.n
17
Peaceful Enjoyment Why we moved here . . .

A Sense of Community in the City Yards to Play In Streets to Walk On Trees to Climb Neighbors to Hangout With
K.3.n
18
Peaceful Enjoyment
What We Expected
Neighborhood Demographics 78 homes 23 families with children 30 children 5 additional families early
What We Fear
Additional traffic Tractor trailers Lights from parking lots Pests/Insects from retention pond Consolidation of Properties Phase II of Town Brookhaven Precedence and Encroachment
family formation
Regular Neighborhood Events
Children Play Groups Kid Friendly Events Pig Roasts Supper Clubs
Packet Pg. 219
K.3.n
19
Peaceful Enjoyment Growing Families with Children
K.3.n
20
Peaceful Enjoyment ? 53 Tractor Trailers parked in front of our homes
Packet Pg. 221
K.3.n
21
Viability of Residential Construction

The Applicant has suggested that owing to the view of the
storage building behind the subject parcels that residential construction would not be viable. This is not consistent with current and rapid residential trends in the area: 11 homes built and sold on Tallulah behind General Hardware 9 homes built / sold on Kendrick (5 on N., 4 on S.) See Exhibit D Kendrick & Tallulah Views
Packet Pg. 222
K.3.n
22
Viability of Residential Construction

Exhibit D Views from Subject Properties consistent with views from on Kendrick and Tallulah
K.3.n
23
Applicants Stated Purpose is inconsistent with Nuts N Berries operation

The Applicant represents that expansion is needed to meet needs of existing customers, but: The square footage of existing business has been reduced and a new partition added for an undisclosed purpose The nature of the proposed building expansion is undisclosed
Packet Pg. 224
K.3.n
24
Applicants failure to collaborate with neighbors

Withheld from neighbors plans for Phase II of November
2013 OCR re-zoning application Only met with neighbors for the November application AFTER the application had been submitted REFUSED to meet with neighbors before submission of current C-1 / NS re-zoning REFUSED at Planning Commission hearing to ask for deferral to meet with neighbors REFUSED to meet with a neighborhood representative after February Planning Commission meeting and before February Council meeting
K.3.n
25
Applicant seeks privilege not relief of hardship beyond his control:

Existing parking on Peachtree parcel and on Kendrick
parcel was NEVER compliant. (20 years of violation = legally non-conforming??) Seeks expansion privileges not afforded to other business owners on Peachtree Seeks alternate use of R-100 lots when existing use is economically viable for all other owners on Kendrick and Tallulah
Packet Pg. 226
K.3.n
26
Summary Points
Inconsistent with Current Accessory Use Not Permitted Not Compliant with Comprehensive
Residential Development
Over-reaching Application Violates Safe and Peaceful
Plan
Illegal Clear Cutting Already Illegal Spot Zoning Surrounds One Resident by C1/NS
Enjoyment
Application Inconsistent with
Business Operation on Three Sides

Inconsistent with Homebuyers Applicants Failure to Collaborate Seeks Privilege Not Relief Dangerous Precedence
Expectations
K.3.o
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Becky Apter Monday, February 24, 2014 4:01 PM Daniel Hall FW: RZ 13-15 Neighborhood opposition to rz13-15.ppt; ATT00001.htm
DanielthisisanupdatedemailfromoneIsentyoupreviouslythismorning. BeckyApter AdministrativeAssistant,CommunityDevelopment 404.637.0582 From:SusanCanon Sent:Monday,February24,20143:03PM To:BeckyApter;BenSong;JohnOlson Subject:Fwd:RZ1315
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "jeffkellar" "J. Max Davis" To: "david barrs" <jmax.davis@brookhavenga.gov>, "Rebecca C. Williams" <rebecca.williams@brookhavenga.gov>, "Jim Eyre" <jim.eyre@brookhavenga.gov>, "Bates Mattison" <bates.mattison@brookhavenga.gov>, "Joe Gebbia" <joe.gebbia@brookhavenga.gov> Cc: "Susan Canon" <susan.canon@brookhavenga.gov>, "Joey Mosher" >, "Shayne Murphy" "Baxter Thompson" Subject: RZ 13-15 Dear Mayor & Council Members: A few edit changes were made to attached, and we are in the process of fine-tuning it to ensure a concise presentation for tomorrow night. 1. Such a rezoning would establish a brand new precedent for residential neighborhoods north of Peachtree. There is no other commercial parcel facing a residential side street north of Peachtree. The only one that might come to mind is Town Brookhaven, but it converted very old, run down apartments whereby the apartment complex entrance was directly from Peachtree. It was NOT a residential side street, but an apartment complex entrance from Peachtree. In that regard, it is not our desire to convert our neighborhood to a mini-Town Brookhaven, and
1
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: UpdatedOppositionemail.2.24_Redacted (1257 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296,
Daniel Hall
K.3.o
2. BPCA does NOT represent the interests of our neighborhood, does NOT have a representative on its board from our neighborhood, and therefore has no authority to speak on behalf of our neighborhood. I personally recommend that the organization change its name to a title with a more accurate description - such as the Brookhaven-Peachtree Commercial Development Corporation. Thank you for your consideration of these matters, your diligent and hard work for our city, and I look forward to seeing you again tomorrow night. Best Wishes, jeff
From: david barrs To: JMax Davis <jmax.davis@brookhavenga.gov>; Rebecca Chase Williams <rebecca.williams@brookhavenga.gov>; Jim Eyre <jim.eyre@brookhavenga.gov>; Bates Mattison <bates.mattison@brookhavenga.gov>; Joe Gebbia <joe.gebbia@brookhavenga.gov> Cc: susan.canon@brookhavenga.gov; Jeff Kellar ; Joey Mosher < Shayne Murphy Baxter Thompson < Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 6:43 PM Subject: RZ 13-15 Mr. Mayor and Council Members Thank you for your service to our city. Having been active in just the zoning matter at hand, I have a small glimpse and greater appreciation for the time you spend working for the City. Please see the attached PowerPoint presentation prepared by the newly formed Kendrick Osborne Neighborhood Association, Inc., a GA Non-profit Corporation. (KONA). The document outlines our opposition to RZ 13-15. As you may know, the BPCA spoke in favor of the proposed re-zoning. As a Director of KONA, I can categorically say that the BPCA DOES NOT represent the views of our members and neighbors.
We would be grateful if you would review the document before Council meeting on Tuesday, as we will refer to it in our comments. Have a thriving day, Dave Barrs Founder & CEO Thrive Insights, LLC
Packet Pg. 229
we hope that is not your desire as well. Hopefully we all have a mutual desire of preserving the neighborhood. The creation of a commercial parking lot directly across the street from $500,000+ homes would have a significant affect on the value of those homes and the character and value of homes in the neighborhood.
K.3.o
4060 Peachtree Rd, NE Suite D285 Atlanta, GA 30319
Packet Pg. 230
L.1
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: RZ13-11 - John Hancock Life Insurance Company - Rezoning Request from O-I Conditional (Office-Institution) to O-I at 4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road. Mixed Use Development Consisting of 500 Multi-Family Units (563,578 Sf), 250,000 Square Feet of Office Space, and Three Parking Decks. (Planning Commission Recommended Deferral to the City Council and If Deferred by Council that the Cases be Remanded Back to Planning Commission for an Additional Public Hearing.) BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: FISCAL IMPACT: (Budgeted over or under)

Zoning Ordinance Resolution_RZ13-11 1.27 (PDF)
Page 1
Packet Pg. 231
L.1.a
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY OF BROOKHAVEN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND MAP FOR ZONING CONDITIONS OF LAND LOTS 329 and 330, District 18 IN CONSIDERATION OF ZONING CASE RZ-13-11 (4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road and 4106 Lake Hearn Drive) WHEREAS: John Hancock Life Insurance Company, Inc. seeks permission to rezone and change zoning conditions on a property located on the west side of Ashford Dunwoody Road and bounded by Lake Hearn Drive to the north, Parkside Place to the west and Perimeter Summit Parkway to the south; and WHEREAS: the Property, consisting of 18.33 acres of land, is currently zoned O-I Conditional (Office-Institution), and the applicant seeks permission to change conditions and rezone said Property to O-I for a mixed-use development consisting of 500 multifamily units, 250,000 square feet of new office space in addition to 277,206 of office spaces existing on the property; and WHEREAS, the proposed mixed-use development would be consistent with the policy and intent of the Comprehensive Plan of DeKalb County, adopted as the Citys initial Comprehensive Plan, subject to some mitigating conditions as indicated below; and WHEREAS: notice to the public regarding said rezoning has been duly published in The DeKalb Champion, the Official News Organ of the City of Brookhaven; and WHEREAS: a public hearing was held by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Brookhaven as required by the Zoning Procedures Act. NOW THEREFORE, The Mayor and City Council of the City of Brookhaven hereby ORDAINES AND APPROVES the rezoning of this said property from O-I Conditional to O-I Conditional, with the following conditions: 1. The subject property shall be limited to a maximum of 500 units (563,578 gross square feet) distributed over two multi-family buildings, at a maximum residential density of 27.28 units per acre (SLUP13-02). 2. The subject property shall be limited to of 527,206 gross square feet of office and institutional and accessory uses permitted in the O-I zoning district, but excluding the following: cemetery, columbarium, mausoleum, motel, funeral home or mortuary, personal care home, child caring institution, hospice, nursing care facility, late-night establishments and/or nightclubs.
Page 1 of 4
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Zoning Ordinance Resolution_RZ13-11 1.27 (ORD-2014-01-01 : RZ13-11- John Hancock Life Insurance Company-4170 Ashford
STATE OF GEORGIA DEKALB COOUNTY CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
ORDINANCE 2013-01-01 RZ13-11
L.1.a
4. The height of nonresidential buildings shall be limited to 10 stories (SLUP13-01). 5. The height of multi-family buildings and all parking decks shall be limited to 5.5 stories and not to exceed 70 feet in height. Parking decks associated with multi-family buildings shall not rise above buildings containing residential units (SLUP13-01). 6. Exterior elevations of the multi-family buildings and associated parking decks shall be constructed primarily of a combination of natural stone masonry, brick, glass and stucco. The balance may be of brick or wood accents, trim or decorations. All elevations shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Parking facilities for high-rise apartments shall be located at the interior of the subject property and be surrounded by the associated apartment building and landscaping materials so as to screen parking facilities from view of the rights-of-way, except where left open for vehicular or pedestrian access. 8. Service and refuse facilities shall be located interior of the subject property and must be screened with opaque fencing or similar building material of buildings on the property. 9. All lighting associated with the development shall incorporate a cut-off design and be directed inward and downward, away from the direction of single-family residential dwellings and shall minimize light spillage into the right-of-way. 10. Signage at the tops of buildings shall be directed away from residential properties to the south (beyond Perimeter Summit Parkway). Internally illuminated signs shall not be installed as to be visible from residential properties to the south. 11. Owner/developer shall complete a combination plat prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit. 12. Owner/developer shall be required to cure any and all nonconforming lot dimensional aspects as a result of any future land subdivision/transaction via the Zoning Board of Appeals. 13. Owner/developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way along the total property frontages along Ashford Dunwoody Road, Perimeter Summit Parkway and Parkside Place for a minimum width of 12.5 feet from the back of curb of any new curb and gutter along these roads.
Page 2 of 4
Packet Pg. 233
STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE 2013-01-01 DEKALB COOUNTY RZ13-11 CITY OF BROOKHAVEN 3. The subject property shall be developed in substantial accordance with the plan prepared by The Preston Partnership, LLC, and stamped received November 6, 2013. Any variances required, if authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals, may result in altering the site plan to the degree necessary to incorporate revisions.
L.1.a
15. Owner/developer shall widen Ashford Dunwoody Road between the northernmost Site Driveway on Ashford Dunwoody and Perimeter Summit Parkway, such that the existing outside southbound lane on Ashford Dunwoody Road coming from I-285 connects continuously to the existing right turn lane at Perimeter Summit Parkway. 16. Owner/developer shall provide a traffic impact analysis, prior to issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit, that addresses the traffic impacts of the development at the following locations: a. Ashford Dunwoody Road at Perimeter Summit Parkway/Oak Forrest Drive b. Ashford Dunwoody Road at the two site driveways (one signalized, one unsignalized) 17. Owner/developer shall incorporate additional conditions that may result from review of the traffic impact analysis/study by the Public Works Director, prior to issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit. 18. Owner/developer shall provide stormwater management in accordance with the City Code and a new stormwater maintenance agreement will be required. Provide any previously approved stormwater management plans for the site. All storm water including detention, water quality, channel protection and downstream analysis shall be addressed at time of Land Disturbance Permit. 19. Owner/developer is responsible for the future development to be compliant with the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual (GSSM) Stormwater Runoff Quality Standard (Water Quality) by providing measures that treat the required Water Quality Volume through evapotranspiration, infiltration and/or evaporation. The City of Brookhaven Zoning Map shall be changed to reflect said rezoning. SO ORDAINED AND EFFECTIVE, this the ___ day of ________________, 2014.
Approved by:
Approved as to Form and Content
_________________________ J. Max Davis, Mayor
_______________________ Thompson Kurrie, Jr., City Attorney
Attest:
Page 3 of 4
Packet Pg. 234
STATE OF GEORGIA ORDINANCE 2013-01-01 DEKALB COOUNTY RZ13-11 CITY OF BROOKHAVEN 14. Owner/developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way for a miter at the intersection of Ashford Dunwoody Road and Perimeter Summit Parkway. Said miter shall measure a minimum of 25 feet along each of the named roadways.
L.1.a
SEAL
Page 4 of 4
Packet Pg. 235
STATE OF GEORGIA DEKALB COOUNTY CITY OF BROOKHAVEN ________________________ Susan Hiott, City Clerk
ORDINANCE 2013-01-01 RZ13-11
L.2
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: SLUP 13-01: To Exceed the Height of All Buildings and Structures Above 5 Stories and 70 Feet (4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road and 4106 Lake Hearn Drive.) (Planning Commission Recommended Deferral to the City Council and If Deferred by Council that the Cases be Remanded Back to Planning Commission for an Additional Public Hearing.) BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

SLUP13-01 ORDINANCE (PDF)
Page 1
Packet Pg. 236
L.2.b
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY OF BROOKHAVEN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND MAP FOR ZONING CONDITIONS OF LAND LOTS 329 and 330, District 18 IN CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT CASE SLUP13-01 TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ABOVE 5 STORIES AND 70 FEET (4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road and 4106 Lake Hearn Drive) WHEREAS: John Hancock Life Insurance Company, Inc. seeks a Special Land Use Permit to exceed the height of all buildings and structures above 5 stories and 70 feet; and WHEREAS: notice to the public regarding said rezoning has been duly published in The DeKalb Champion, the Official News Organ of the City of Brookhaven; and WHEREAS: a public hearing was held by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Brookhaven as required by the Zoning Procedures Act. NOW THEREFORE, The Mayor and City Council of the City of Brookhaven hereby ORDAINES AND APPROVES the Special Land Use Permit for this said property with the following conditions: 1. The height of nonresidential buildings shall be limited to 10 stories (SLUP13-01). 2. The height of multi-family buildings and all parking decks shall be limited to 5.5 stories and not to exceed 70 feet in height. Parking decks associated with multi-family buildings shall not rise above buildings containing residential units (SLUP13-01). SO ORDAINED AND EFFECTIVE, this the ___ day of ________________, 2014.
Approved by:
_________________________ J. Max Davis, Mayor
Attest:
________________________ Susan Hiott, City Clerk
SEAL
Page 1 of 1
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: SLUP13-01 ORDINANCE (ORD-2014-01-02 : SLUP 13-01: To Exceed the Height of All Buildings and Structures Above 5 Stories)
STATE OF GEORGIA DEKALB COUNTY CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
ORDINANCE 2014-01-02 SLUP13-01
L.3
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: SLUP 13-02: To Develop High-Rise Apartments in the O-I Zoning District (4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road and 4106 Lake Hearn Drive.) (Planning Commission Recommended Deferral to the City Council and If Deferred by Council that the Cases be Remanded Back to Planning Commission for an Additional Public Hearing.) BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

Zoning Ordinance Resolution_SLUP13-02 1.27 (PDF)
Page 1
Packet Pg. 238
L.3.a
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY OF BROOKHAVEN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND MAP FOR ZONING CONDITIONS OF LAND LOTS 329 and 330, District 18 IN CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT CASE SLUP13-02 TO DEVELOP HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS IN THE O-I ZONING DISTRICT (4170 Ashford Dunwoody Road and 4106 Lake Hearn Drive) WHEREAS: John Hancock Life Insurance Company, Inc. seeks a Special Land Use Permit to develop high-rise (multifamily) apartments in the O-I zoning district; and WHEREAS: notice to the public regarding said rezoning has been duly published in The DeKalb Champion, the Official News Organ of the City of Brookhaven; and WHEREAS: a public hearing was held by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Brookhaven as required by the Zoning Procedures Act. NOW THEREFORE, The Mayor and City Council of the City of Brookhaven hereby ORDAINES AND APPROVES the Special Land Use Permit for this said property with the following conditions: 1. The subject property shall be limited to a maximum of 500 units (563,578 gross square feet) distributed over two multi-family buildings, at a maximum residential density of 27.28 units per acre (SLUP13-02). SO ORDAINED AND EFFECTIVE, this the ___ day of ________________, 2014.
Approved by:
_________________________ J. Max Davis, Mayor
Attest:
SEAL
Page 1 of 1
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Zoning Ordinance Resolution_SLUP13-02 1.27 (ORD-2014-01-03 : SLUP 13-02: To Develop High-Rise Apartments in the O-I Zoning
ORDINANCE 2014-01-03 SLUP13-02
L.4
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: RZ13-14 - Courtney Dufries - Rezoning Request from R-75 (Single-Family Residential) to R-50 (Single-Family Residential) at 1458 Etowah Drive NE. BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

Zoning Ordinance Resolution_RZ13-14 (PDF)
Page 1
Packet Pg. 240
L.4
Ordinance ORD-2014-01-04
Meeting of February 25, 2014
Please see attached.
Page 2
Packet Pg. 241
L.4.b
STATE OF GEORGIA CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
ORDINANCE 2014-01-04
Attachment: Zoning Ordinance Resolution_RZ13-14 (ORD-2014-01-04 : RZ13-14 - Courtney Dufries - Rezoning Request from R-75 (Single-
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY OF BROOKHAVEN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND MAP FOR ZONING CONDITIONS OF LAND LOT 238, District 18 IN CONSIDERATION OF ZONING CASE RZ-13-14 (1458 ETOWAH DRIVE NE) WHEREAS: Courtney Dufries, seeks permission to rezone the property located on the northwest corner of Oostanaula Drive and Etowah Drive; WHEREAS: the Property, consisting of 0.445 acres of land, is currently zoned R-75 (Single-Family Residential), and the applicant seeks permission to rezone said Property to R-50 (Single-Family Residential) to allow for three single-family lots; WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the policy and intent of the Comprehensive Plan of DeKalb County, adopted as the Citys initial Comprehensive Plan, subject to some mitigating conditions as indicated below; WHEREAS: Notice to the public regarding said rezoning has been duly published in The DeKalb Champion, the Official News Organ of the City of Brookhaven; and WHEREAS: A public hearing was held by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Brookhaven as required by the Zoning Procedures Act. NOW THEREFORE, The Mayor and City Council of the City of Brookhaven hereby ORDAINES AND APPROVES the rezoning of this said property from R-75 to R-50 Conditional, with the following conditions: 1. The subject property shall be approved for up to 3 single-family lots. 2. The subject property shall be developed in substantial accordance with the layout and site plans, stamped received November 6, 2013. Any variances required, if authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals, may result in altering the site plan to the degree necessary to incorporate revisions. 3. The corner lot created by the new subdivision shall have at least 75 feet of frontage facing Oostanaula Drive. 4. Prior the issuance of a final plat, the owner/developer shall dedicate sufficient right-ofway along the total property frontage along Etowah Drive and Oostanaula Drive to provide for a width of 25 feet from the centerline of both roadways.
Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 242
L.4.b
STATE OF GEORGIA CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
Attachment: Zoning Ordinance Resolution_RZ13-14 (ORD-2014-01-04 : RZ13-14 - Courtney Dufries - Rezoning Request from R-75 (Single-
5. Prior the issuance of a final plat, the owner/developer shall dedicate sufficient right-ofway for a miter at the intersection of Etowah Drive and Oostanaula Drive. Said miter to measure a minimum of 15 feet along each of the named roadways. 6. Prior the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for individual lots, the owner/developer shall construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk and 2-foot wide landscape strip along the entire property frontage along Oostanaula Drive. However, owner/developer shall not be subject to recompense for tree removal related to the sidewalks required by this condition. 7. A final plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permit. 8. Building Permit for a new house on each lot shall include design and detail of practice(s) that will capture 1-inch of runoff from impervious surfaces to be dissipated through infiltration, evaporation and/or evapotranspiration, and be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department.
SO ORDAINED AND EFFECTIVE, this the ___ day of ________________, 2014.
Approved by:
_________________________ J. Max Davis, Mayor
Attest:
SEAL
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 243
L.5
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-1 at 1296, 1302, 1304 Kendrick BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

Zoning Ordinance Resolution_RZ13-15 (PDF)
Page 1
Packet Pg. 244
L.5
Please see Attached
Page 2
Packet Pg. 245
L.5.a
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY OF BROOKHAVEN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND MAP FOR ZONING CONDITIONS OF LAND LOT(S) 241, District 18 IN CONSIDERATION OF ZONING CASE RZ-13-15 (1296, 1302 & 1304 Kendrick Road) WHEREAS: Atlanta Resource Enterprise, LLLP, seeks permission to rezone the property to NS (Neighborhood Shopping) Conditional to allow for construction of an accessory parking lot; and WHEREAS: the Property, consisting of 1.176 acres of land, is currently zoned R-100 (Single-Family Residential); and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the policy and intent of the Comprehensive Plan of DeKalb County, adopted as the Citys initial Comprehensive Plan, subject to some mitigating conditions as indicated below; and WHEREAS: notice to the public regarding said rezoning has been duly published in The DeKalb Champion, the Official News Organ of the City of Brookhaven; and WHEREAS: A public hearing was held by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Brookhaven as required by the Zoning Procedures Act. NOW THEREFORE, The Mayor and City Council of the City of Brookhaven hereby ORDAINES AND APPROVES the rezoning of this said property from R-100 to NS Conditional, with the following conditions: 1. The subject property shall be developed for an accessory parking lot in conjunction with the business expansion, in substantial accordance with the site plan prepared by MK Design Associates, PLLC for Mark Kick, received January 2, 2014. Any variances required, if authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals, may result in altering the site plan to the degree necessary to incorporate revisions or conditions of zoning. 2. Owner/developer shall maintain a transitional buffer as required under the NS zoning district adjacent to the west property line and replant where sparsely vegetated and will be subject to the approval of the City of Brookhaven Arborist. 3. Owner/developer shall complete a combination plat of all properties held in common ownership prior to the issuance of any permit related to the proposed project (Involving properties located at 1296, 1302 and 1304 Kendrick Road and 4274 Peachtree Road). 4. The Street and Sidewalks and Parking requirements of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District shall be incorporated into the development of the subject property, as approved by the Community Development Director.
Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Zoning Ordinance Resolution_RZ13-15 (ORD-2014-02-01 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-
ORDINANCE 2014-02-01 RZ13-15
L.5.a
5. Owner/developer shall construct a five-foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of Kendrick Road for the subject property with a three-foot wide landscape strip, and shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director. 6. Owner/developer shall implement a 15-foot wide landscape strip for the parking lot adjacent to the right-of-way of Kendrick Road, in compliance with transitional buffer zone planting standards and subject to the approval of the City of Brookhaven Arborist. 7. Only the curb cuts shown on the site plan dated January 2, 2014, may be permitted. No additional curb cuts shall be allowed. 8. Owner/developer shall obtain necessary permit(s) from Georgia Department of Transportation for Peachtree Road driveway modification for the Nuts n Berries property. The Peachtree Road entrance shall be restricted to a right turn-in only. 9. Owner/developer must obtain a demolition permit for removal of all residential structures and associated driveways located on the subject property prior to obtaining any permits related to the proposed expansion or utilization of the property for parking. 10. Owner/developer shall obtain a Land Disturbance Permit for development of the property, compliant with the requirements of Land Development and Zoning regulations. 11. Utilization of the parking lot shall not be authorized until the required buffer, sidewalk, curb cut, and landscape strip(s) are correctly installed. 12. Owner/developer shall provide stormwater management in accordance with the City Code and a new stormwater maintenance agreement will be required.
SO ORDAINED AND EFFECTIVE, this the ___ day of ________________, 2014.
Approved by:
_________________________ J. Max Davis, Mayor
Attest:

Page 2 of 2
SEAL
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Zoning Ordinance Resolution_RZ13-15 (ORD-2014-02-01 : RZ13-15 - Atlanta Resource Center - Rezoning Request from R-100 to C-
ORDINANCE 2014-02-01 RZ13-15
L.6
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14 (Land Development) of the Code of the City of Brookhaven, Georgia, to Replace Article II Environmental Control, Sections 14-44.1 Land Development Requirements and Allowable Stream Buffer Encroachments, 14-44.2 Exemptions, 14-44.3 Administrative Variance Application Requirements, 14-44.4 Administrative Variance Criteria, Standard of Review and Process, 14-44.5 Notice Requirements and Appeals of Stream Buffer Administrative Variance Decisions, and 14-44.6 Validity of Previously Issued Stream Buffer Variances, and for Other Purposes. BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: The City of Brookhaven adopted Chapter 14 Land Development of DeKalb County's code of Ordinance on December 17, 201 as part of the Omnibus Ordinance. The City Council recently voted to implement a moratorium on stream buffer variance application which expired at midnight on January 28, 2014. The moratorium was enacted to allow time to study an prepare appropriate revisions to the Stream Buffer Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District model Stream Buffer Ordinance as modified and enclosed. ATTACHMENTS:
Stream Buffer Ordinance Revised2072014 (PDF) ORD2014-01-05 Stream Buffers (PDF)
Page 1
Packet Pg. 248
L.6
Please see attached.
Page 2
Packet Pg. 249
L.6.a
Chapter 14 LAND DEVELOPMENT __________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL __________________________________________________________________________ SECTION 14-44 STREAM BUFFER PROTECTION __________________________________________________________________________ 14-44.1 TITLE 14-44.2 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE 14-44.3 DEFINITIONS 14-44.4 APPLICABILITY 14-44.5 GRANDFATHER PROVISIONS 14-44.6 EXEMPTIONS 14-44.7 LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 14-44.8 COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER BUFFER REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 14-44.9 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON BUFFER ZONE PROPERTIES 14-44.10 RESPONSIBILITY 14-44.11 INSPECTION 14-44.12 VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT, AND PENALTIES 14-44.13 APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW 14-44.14 SEVERABILITY
2/7/14
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Stream Buffer Ordinance Revised2072014 (ORD-2014-01-05 : An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14 (?Land Development?) of the
L.6.a
Sec. 14-44.
Stream Buffer Protection (Reserved).
Sec. 14-44.1 Title This section shall be known as the City of Brookhaven Stream Buffer Protection Ordinance. Sec. 14-44.2 Findings and Purpose a) Findings
Whereas, the Mayor and City Council of City of Brookhaven find that buffers adjacent to streams provide numerous benefits including: 1) Protecting, restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of streams and their water resources; 2) Removing pollutants delivered in urban stormwater; 3) Reducing erosion and controlling sedimentation; 4) Protecting and stabilizing stream banks; 5) Providing for infiltration of stormwater runoff; 6) Maintaining base flow of streams; 7) Contributing organic matter that is a source of food and energy for the aquatic ecosystem; 8) Providing tree canopy to shade streams and promote desirable aquatic habitat; 9) Providing riparian wildlife habitat; 10) Furnishing scenic value and recreational opportunity; and, 11) Providing opportunities for the protection and restoration of green space. b) Purpose
It is the purpose of this ordinance to protect the public health, safety, environment and general welfare; to minimize public and private losses due to erosion, siltation and water pollution; and to maintain stream water quality by provisions designed to: 1) 2) Create buffer zones along the streams of the City of Brookhaven for the protection of water resources; and, Minimize land development within such buffers by establishing buffer zone requirements and by requiring authorization for any such activities.
Sec. 14-44.3 Definitions The following words, terms, and phrases shall apply to this section: Buffer means a natural or enhanced vegetated area adjacent to a stream running horizontally from the stream bank. City means the City of Brookhaven. 2/7/14
Packet Pg. 251
L.6.a
City Engineer means the City Engineer of the city or his/her designee. Community Development Director means the Community Development Director of the city or his/her designee. Impervious Cover means those areas, which prevent or impede the infiltration of stormwater into the soil as it entered in natural conditions prior to land development. Impervious cover includes, but is not limited to, rooftops, buildings, parking lots, driveways, streets, roads, decks, swimming pools, patio areas, compacted gravel surfaces and awnings. Floodplain means any land area susceptible to flooding, which would have at least a one percent probability of flooding occurrence in any calendar year based on the basin being fully developed as shown on the current land use plan; i.e., the regulatory flood. Land Development means any land change, including, but not limited to clearing, grubbing, stripping, removal of vegetation, dredging, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, construction, paving and any installation of impervious cover. Land Development Activity means those actions or activities which comprise, facilitate or result in land development. Land Disturbance means any land or vegetation change, including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, stripping, removal of vegetation, dredging, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, that do not involve construction, paving or any other installation of impervious cover. Land Disturbance Activity means those actions or activities which comprise, facilitate or result in land disturbance. Parcel means any plot, lot, parcel, tract or acreage shown as a unit on either the latest county tax assessment records or other area of land legally established by plat or subdivision. Permit means the permit issued by the city required for undertaking any land development activity Person means any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, limited liability company, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, city, county or other political subdivision of the State of Georgia, any interstate body or any other legal entity. Protection Area or Stream Protection Area means, with respect to a stream, the combined areas of all required buffers and setbacks applicable to such stream. Riparian means belonging or related to the bank of a river, stream, lake, pond or impoundment. 2/7/14
Packet Pg. 252
L.6.a
Setback means, with respect to a stream, the area established by Section 14-44.7(a)(2) extending beyond any buffer applicable to the stream. State waters means any and all rivers, streams, creeks, branches, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, drainage systems, springs, wells, and other bodies of surface or subsurface water, natural or artificial, lying within or forming a part of the boundaries of the state, which are not entirely confined and retained completely upon a parcel. Stream Bank means the sloping land that contains the stream channel and the normal flows of the stream. Stream Channel means the portion of a watercourse that contains the base flow of the stream. Unusual Circumstances means (i) the shape, topography or other physical conditions of the parcel prevents land development in a manner consistent with similar situated properties within the proximity of the parcel; (ii) circumstances constituting force majeure; or (iii) any rehabilitation or reconstruction by a parcel owner of an impervious cover existing within the buffer described in Sec. 14-44.7(a)(1) below. Watershed means the land area that drains into a particular stream. Sec. 14-44.4. Applicability This ordinance shall apply to all land development activity on any parcel containing a stream protection area. These requirements are in addition to, and do not replace or supersede, any other applicable buffer requirements established under state law and approval or exemption from these requirements do not constitute approval or exemption from buffer requirements established under state law or from other applicable local, state or federal regulations. Sec. 14-44.5 Grandfather Provisions This ordinance shall not apply to the following activities: a) b) Work consisting of the repair or maintenance of any lawful use of land that is zoned and approved for such use on or before the effective date of this ordinance. Existing development and on-going land disturbance activities including but not limited to existing agriculture, silviculture, landscaping, gardening and lawn maintenance, except that new development or land disturbance activities on such properties will be subject to all applicable buffer requirements. Any land development activity that is under construction, fully approved for development, scheduled for permit approval or has been submitted for approval as of the effective date of this ordinance. Land development activity that has not been submitted for approval, but that is part of a larger master development plan, such as for an office park or other phased development
c)
d)
2/7/14
Packet Pg. 253
L.6.a
e)
that has been previously approved within two years of the effective date of this ordinance by either the city or DeKalb County, Georgia prior to the incorporation of the city. Construction, reconstruction, replacement, or redevelopment of existing impervious areas located within any setback described in Sec. 14-44.7(a)(2) below.
Sec. 14-44.6 Exemptions The following specific activities are exempt from this ordinance. Exemption of these activities does not constitute an exemption for any permit or any other activity proposed on a parcel. a) Activities for the purpose of building one of the following: 1) a stream crossing by a driveway, transportation route or utility line; 2) public water supply intake or public wastewater outfall structures; 3) intrusions necessary to provide access to a parcel; 4) public access facilities that must be on the water including boat ramps, docks, foot trails leading directly to the river, fishing platforms and overlooks; 5) unpaved foot trails and paths; 6) impervious public trails and paths, including appurtenances consistent with the use thereof, that are installed by or at the direction of the city; provided, however, mitigation measures to offset the effects of the proposed impervious public trail or path shall be required in connection with the development thereof; or 7) activities to restore and enhance stream bank stability, vegetation, water quality and/or aquatic habitat, so long as native vegetation and bioengineering techniques are used. Public sewer line easements paralleling the creek, except that all easements (permanent and construction) and land disturbance should be at least 25 feet from the top of the stream bank. This includes such impervious cover as is necessary for the operation and maintenance of the utility, including but not limited to manholes, vents and valve structures. This exemption shall not be construed as allowing the construction of roads, bike paths or other transportation routes in such easements, regardless of paving material, except for access for the uses specifically cited in Sec. 14-44.6(a) above. Land development activities within a right-of-way existing at the time this ordinance takes effect or approved under the terms of this ordinance. Within an easement of any utility existing at the time this ordinance takes effect or approved under the terms of this ordinance, land disturbance activities and such impervious cover as is necessary for the operation and maintenance of the utility, including but not limited to manholes, vents and valve structures. Emergency work necessary to preserve life or property. However, when emergency work is performed under this section, the person performing it shall report such work to the office of the Community Development Director on the next business day after commencement of the work. Within 10 days thereafter, the person shall apply for a permit and perform such work within such time period as may be determined by the Community Development Director to be reasonably necessary to correct any impairment such emergency work may have caused to the water conveyance capacity, stability or water quality of the protection area.
b)
c) d)
e)
2/7/14
Packet Pg. 254
L.6.a
f)
g)
Forestry and silviculture activities on land that is zoned for forestry, silvicultural or agricultural uses and are not incidental to other land development activity. If such activity results in land disturbance in the buffer that would otherwise be prohibited, then no other land disturbing activity other than normal forest management practices will be allowed on the entire parcel for three years after the end of the activities that intruded on the buffer. Projects defined in O.C.G.A. 12-7-17(3) that would be considered minor land-disturbing activities that are exempt from the Georgia Soil and Sedimentation Act: "Such minor land-disturbing activities as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs, maintenance work, fences, and other related activities which result in minor soil erosion."
After the effective date of this ordinance, the buffer requirements and the setback requirements stipulated herein shall apply to new subdivisions and site plans or any other construction or land disturbances in the proximity of a stream, whether or not the stream is located within the parcel where the activity is proposed. Any land development activity within a buffer established hereunder or any impervious cover within a setback established hereunder is prohibited unless a variance is granted pursuant to Sec. 14-44.7 (b) below or unless it is otherwise exempt or grandfathered pursuant to Sec. 14-44.5 above or this Sec. 14-44.6. Sec. 14-44.7 Land Development Requirements a) Buffer and Setback Requirements.
All land development activity subject to this ordinance shall meet the following requirements: 1) An undisturbed natural vegetative buffer shall be maintained for 50 feet, measured horizontally, on both banks (as applicable) of the stream as measured from the point where vegetation has been wrested by normal stream flow or wave action. An additional setback shall be maintained for 25 feet, measured horizontally, beyond the undisturbed natural vegetative buffer, in which all impervious cover shall be prohibited. All permitted grading, filling and earthmoving shall be minimized within the setback. No septic tanks or septic tank drain fields shall be permitted within the buffer or the setback.
2)
3)
b)
Variance Procedure
Variances from the above buffer and setback requirements may be granted in accordance with the following provisions: 1) If due to unusual circumstances the strict adherence to the minimal buffer or setback requirements in the ordinance would adversely affect the parcel owner in a material manner, upon application by the parcel owner the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
2/7/14
Packet Pg. 255
L.6.a
2)
city may grant a variance from the buffer and setback requirements hereunder after the conduct of a public hearing and such variance includes conditions requiring mitigation measures to offset the effects of the proposed land development on the parcel; provided, however, a variance will not be considered when, following the adoption of this ordinance, actions of any owner of a given parcel have created conditions of an unusual circumstance on that parcel. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the city shall grant no variance from any provision of this ordinance without first conducting a public hearing on the application. The city shall give public notice of each such public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the city. The city shall require that the applicant notify all property owners within 250' of the boundaries of the subject parcel including the nature of the proposed application, hearing date, time, and location at least fifteen days prior to the public hearing and shall require that the applicant post a sign giving notice of the proposed variance and the public hearing date, time, and location no less than fifteen days and no more than forty-five days from the date of the public hearing. The sign shall be of a size and posted in such a location on the parcel as to be clearly visible from the primary adjacent road right-of-way. The Community Development Director or designated representative shall be present at any such variance hearing and the Board shall consider the staff analysis when granting any variance or relief from the requirements of this ordinance.
(c)
Required Submittals for Variance Request 1) A variance request shall include the following: a) A site map that includes locations of all streams, wetlands, floodplain boundaries and other natural features, as determined by field survey; b) A description of the shape, size, topography, slope, soils, vegetation and other physical characteristics of the parcel; c) A site plan that shows the locations of all existing and proposed structures and other impervious cover, the limits of all existing and proposed land disturbance, both inside and outside the buffer and setback. The exact area of the buffer to be affected shall be accurately and clearly indicated; d) Documentation of the adverse, material hardship should the buffer be maintained; e) At least one alternative plan, which does not include a buffer or setback intrusion, or an explanation of why such a site plan is not possible; f) A calculation of the total area and length of the proposed intrusion; g) A stormwater management site plan, if applicable; and, h) Proposed mitigation, if any, for the intrusion. If no mitigation is proposed, the request must include an explanation of why none is being proposed. The following will be considered in requests for a variance: a) The shape, size, topography, slope, soils, vegetation and other physical characteristics of the parcel; b) The locations of all streams on the parcel, including along parcel boundaries; c) The location and extent of the proposed buffer or setback intrusion;
2)
2/7/14
Packet Pg. 256
L.6.a
d) e) f)
Whether alternative designs are possible which require less intrusion or no intrusion; The water-quality impacts of the proposed variance; and, Whether issuance of the variance is protective of natural resources and the environment in a manner no less than such is present as of the date of the variance request. Compatibility with Other Buffer Regulations and Requirements
Sec. 14-44.8
This ordinance is not intended to interfere with, abrogate or annul any other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute or other provision of federal, state or local law. The requirements of this ordinance should be considered minimum requirements, and where any provision of this ordinance imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other ordinance, rule, regulation or other provision of law, whichever provisions are more restrictive or impose higher protective standards for human health and welfare and the environment shall be considered to take precedence. Sec. 14-44.9 Additional Information Requirements for Development on Buffer Zone Properties
Any permit application for a parcel requiring buffers and setbacks hereunder must include the following: a) A site plan showing: 1) The location of all streams on the parcel; 2) Limits of required buffers and setbacks on the parcel; 3) Buffer zone topography with contour lines at no greater than five (5)-foot contour intervals; 4) Delineation of forested and open areas in the buffer zone; and, 5) Detailed plans of all proposed land development in the buffer and of all proposed impervious cover within the setback. A description of all proposed land development within the buffer and setback; and, Any other documentation that the city may reasonably deem necessary for review of the application and compliance with this ordinance. Responsibility
b) c)
Sec. 14-44.10
Neither the issuance of a development permit nor compliance with the conditions thereof, nor with the provisions of this ordinance shall relieve any person from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance of any permit hereunder serve to impose any liability upon the city, its elected officials, officers or employees, for injury or damage to persons or property. All permits issued by the city which do not comply with this ordinance are ultra vires and the work permitted thereby is subject to both a stop work order and order to remediate the land disturbance so permitted without the imposition of any
2/7/14
Packet Pg. 257
L.6.a
liability upon the city, its elected officials, officers or employees, for injury or damage to persons or property Sec. 14-44.11 Inspection
The city may cause inspections of the work in the buffer or setback to be made periodically during the course thereof and shall make a final inspection following completion of the work. The holder of the permit shall assist the city in making such inspections. The city shall have the authority to conduct such investigations as it may reasonably deem necessary to carry out its duties as prescribed in this ordinance, and for this purpose to enter at reasonable time upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of investigating and inspecting the sites of any land development activities within the protection area. No person shall refuse entry or access to any authorized representative or agent who requests entry for purposes of inspection, and who presents appropriate credentials, nor shall any person obstruct, hamper or interfere with any such representative while in the process of carrying out official duties. Sec. 14-44.12 Violations, Enforcement and Penalties
Any action or inaction which violates the provisions of this ordinance or the requirements of an approved site plan or permit may be subject to the enforcement actions outlined in this Section. Any such action or inaction which is continuous with respect to time is deemed to be a public nuisance and may be abated by injunctive or other equitable relief. The imposition of any of the penalties described below shall not prevent such equitable relief. a) Notice of Violation
If the city determines that an applicant or other responsible person has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of a permit, an approved site plan or the provisions of this ordinance, it shall issue a written notice of violation to such applicant or other responsible person. Where a person is engaged in activity covered by this ordinance without having first secured the appropriate permit therefor, the notice of violation shall be served on the owner or the responsible person in charge of the activity being conducted on the site. The notice of violation shall contain: 1) 2) 3) 4) The name and address of the owner or the applicant or the responsible person; The address or other description of the site upon which the violation is occurring; A statement specifying the nature of the violation; A description of the remedial measures necessary to bring the action or inaction into compliance with the permit, the approved site plan or this ordinance and the date for the completion of such remedial action; 5) A statement of the penalty or penalties that may be assessed against the person to whom the notice of violation is directed; and,
2/7/14
Packet Pg. 258
L.6.a
6) A statement that the determination of violation may be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals by filing a written notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days after the notice of violation (except that in the event the violation constitutes an immediate danger to public health or public safety, 24 hour notice shall be sufficient). b) Enforcement
In the event the remedial measures described in the notice of violation have not been completed by the date set forth for such completion in the notice of violation, any one or more of the following actions or penalties may be taken or assessed against the person to whom the notice of violation was directed. Before taking any of the following actions or imposing any of the following penalties, the city shall first notify the applicant or other responsible person in writing of its intended action, and shall provide a reasonable opportunity, of not less than ten days (except that in the event the violation constitutes an immediate danger to public health or public safety, 24 hour notice shall be sufficient) to cure such violation. In the event the applicant or other responsible person fails to cure such violation after such notice and cure period, the city may take any one or more of the following actions or impose any one or more of the following penalties. 1) Stop Work Order - The city may issue a stop work order which shall be served on the applicant or other responsible person. The stop work order shall remain in effect until the applicant or other responsible person has taken the remedial measures set forth in the notice of violation or has otherwise cured the violation or violations described therein, provided the stop work order may be withdrawn or modified to enable the applicant or other responsible person to take necessary remedial measures to cure such violation or violations. 2) Withhold Certificate of Occupancy - The city may refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy for the building or other improvements constructed or being constructed on the site until the applicant or other responsible person has taken the remedial measures set forth in the notice of violation or has otherwise cured the violations described therein. 3) Suspension, Revocation or Modification of Permit - The city may suspend, revoke or modify the permit authorizing the land development project. A suspended, revoked or modified permit may be reinstated after the applicant or other responsible person has taken the remedial measures set forth in the notice of violation or has otherwise cured the violations described therein, provided such permit may be reinstated (upon such conditions as the city may deem necessary) to enable the applicant or other responsible person to take the necessary remedial measures to cure such violations. 4) Penalties - In the event the applicant or other responsible person fails to take the remedial measures set forth in the notice of violation or otherwise fails to cure the violations described therein within ten days (or such greater period as the city shall deem appropriate) (except that in the event the violation constitutes an immediate danger to public health or public safety, 24 hour notice shall be sufficient) after the city has taken one or more of the actions described above, the city may issue a citation to the applicant or other responsible party required such party to appear in municipal court to answer charges for such violation. Any violation of this ordinance is punishable upon conviction
2/7/14
Packet Pg. 259
L.6.a
according to the provision of Sec. 1-10 of the Code of Ordinances. Each day any violation of this ordinance shall continue shall constitute a separate offense.
Sec. 14-44.13 Appeals and Judicial Review Appeals of decisions of the Community Development Director or the Zoning Board of Appeals, as the case may be, are to be made pursuant to the Code of Ordinances Sec. 27-912 and Sec. 27921, respectively. Sec. 14-44.14 Severability If any ordinance, section, subsection, paragraph, clause, phrase or provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid or held unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect or invalidate the remaining portions of this ordinance.
2/7/14
Packet Pg. 260
L.6.b
STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF DEKALB CITY OF BROOKHAVEN
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14 (LAND DEVELOPMENT) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF BROOKHAVEN, GEORGIA, TO REPLACE ARTICLE II, ENTITLED ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Brookhaven are charged with the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Brookhaven; and WHEREAS, Section 1.03(b)(8) of the Charter for the City of Brookhaven grants the Mayor and Council the power to protect, maintain, and enhance the public health, safety, environment and general welfare including the protection of stream banks and stream corridors; and WHEREAS, The Mayor and Council of the City of Brookhaven hereby find that regulating the stream banks and stream corridor areas will provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City through minimizing the public and private losses due to flood conditions and flood hazard areas by regulating said areas; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Brookhaven desire to properly regulate same for the benefit of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and Council of the City of Brookhaven hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Chapter 14, Land Development of the Code of City of Brookhaven, Georgia is hereby amended by striking the entirety of Sec. 14-44.1 through Sec. 14-44.6 of Article II, Environmental Control and replacing it with Sec. 14-44.1 through Sec. 14-14.14 of Chapter 14, Article II and adding Sec. 14-44 entitled Stream Buffer Protection all attached hereto and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: Repeal of Conflict Provisions: All ordinances, parts of ordinances, or regulations in conflict herewith are repealed.
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: ORD2014-01-05 Stream Buffers (ORD-2014-01-05 : An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14 (?Land Development?) of the Code of the
L.6.b
SECTION 3: Severability. Should any court of competent jurisdiction declare any section of this Ordinance invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance as a whole or part thereof, which is not specifically declared to be invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4: Saving. All stream buffer variances granted before the date of the adoption of this Ordinance by the City through the action of either the Community Development Director or the Zoning Board of Appeals are hereby confirmed and approved. SECTION 6: The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made part of The Code of the City of Brookhaven, Georgia, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered to accomplish such intention.
SO ORDAINED AND EFFECTIVE, this the ___ day of _______________, 2014.
APPROVED:
__________________________ J. Max Davis, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ Susan Hiott, City Clerk [CITY SEAL]
____________________________ Thompson Kurrie, Jr., Interim City Attorney
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: ORD2014-01-05 Stream Buffers (ORD-2014-01-05 : An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14 (?Land Development?) of the Code of the
M.1
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Consideration of the Appointment for City Attorney BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: FISCAL IMPACT: (Budgeted over or under) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS:
Page 1
Packet Pg. 263

2014-02-25 City Council - Full Agenda-1166

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014-02-25 City Council - Full Agenda-1166

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITY OF BROOKHAVEN

BROOKHAVEN CITY COUNCIL J. Max Davis, Mayor

Brookhaven City Council

February 25, 2014

Updated 2/24/2014 4:18 PM

Brookhaven City Council

February 25, 2014

Updated 2/24/2014 4:18 PM

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES:

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 13, 2014 12:30 PM (Consent Agenda)

D) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned.

Updated 2/7/2014 5:11 PM

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 13, 2014 12:30 PM (Consent Agenda)

C) PRE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA REVIEW

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 4:30 PM (Consent Agenda)

2. Recognition of Ray Holloway - City Manager Marie Garrett

Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 4:30 PM (Consent Agenda)

Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 4:30 PM (Consent Agenda)

Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 4:30 PM (Consent Agenda)

Next: 1/28/2014 4:30 PM

5. Consideration of Extension of Server Permit time - Report by Gary Yandura

6. Stream Buffer Ordinance - Details provided by Bennett White of Community Development

Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 4:30 PM (Consent Agenda)

Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 4:30 PM (Consent Agenda)

E) OTHER AGENDA ITEMS F) OTHER BUSINESS

Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES:

2. Motion to close Executive Session RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: I) ADJOURNMENT

Updated 2/7/2014 6:55 PM

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 4:30 PM (Consent Agenda)

A) INVOCATION Led by Deputy City Clerk Daniel Hall B) CALL TO ORDER

D) OPENING REMARKS 1. Administering Oath of Office to Council member Eyre - District 2

2. Administering Oath of Office to Council member Gebbia - District 4

3. Commendation for Execptional Service - Officer DiCicco

4. Commendation for Exceptional Service - Christopher Mattus

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 7:00 PM (Consent Agenda)

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES:

Updated 2/10/2014 10:07 AM

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 7:00 PM (Consent Agenda)

F) PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Brian Dyess

Updated 2/10/2014 10:07 AM

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES:

Updated 2/10/2014 10:07 AM

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 7:00 PM (Consent Agenda)

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES:

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES:

Next: 2/11/2014 7:00 PM

3. Resolution RES-2014-01-03: Resolution - Support of HB128 - Georgia Downtown Renaissance Act

Updated 2/10/2014 10:07 AM

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 7:00 PM (Consent Agenda)

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: L) OTHER BUSINESS

M) PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Terrell Carstens

O) EXECUTIVE SESSION (IF NEEDED)

P) ADJOURNMENT 1. Motion for Adjournment - 7:51 p.m.

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES:

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 7:00 PM (Consent Agenda)

___________________________ Susan Hiott, City Clerk Approved

Updated 2/10/2014 10:07 AM

Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 14, 2014 7:00 PM (Consent Agenda)