Planning Commission June 17, 2010

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    1/818

    Planning CommissionJune 17, 2010

    7:00 p.m.

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

    Planning Commission Agenda

    Agenda ItemCouncilDistrict

    Meeting Dates** Staff Recommendation

    APPROVAL OF AGENDA

    PUBLIC COMMENTApproval of previous meetings minutes 03/18/10, 04/15/10, & 05/20/10REZONINGS

    1. RZ09-006/CV09-0151155 Mount Vernon HighwayApplicant: MDT Perimeter Pointe LLCTo rezone the subject property fromC-1 (Community Business District)conditional to C-1 (CommunityBusiness District) conditional, with

    concurrent variance(s), toallow anew fast food restaurant.

    5 DRB N/ACZIM 10/27/09CDRM - 11/18/09PC 12/17/09MCC 01/19/10

    RZ09-006 ApprovalConditionalCV09-015 #1-2 ApprovalConditional

    USE PERMITS

    2. U10-0035500 Dupree DriveApplicant: Verizon Wireless To allow the location and operation

    of a 119-foot monopole and relatedground equipment adjacent to theexisting water tank.

    6 CZIM 04/27/10DRB N/ACDRM 05/26/10or 05/27/10PC 06/17/10MCC 07/20/10

    U10-003 ApprovalConditional

    3. U10-004/CV10-00785 Mount Vernon HighwayApplicant: Sandy Springs UnitedMethodist Church To allow a daycare and afterschool

    program at the existing church, withconcurrent variances.

    3 CZIM

    04/27/10DRB N/ACDRM 05/26/10or 05/27/10PC 06/17/10MCC 07/20/10

    U10-004

    ApprovalConditionalCV10-007 ApprovalConditional

    TEXT AMENDMENTS

    4. An Ordinance to Amend Article 3,Definitions, of the Sandy Springs

    Zoning Ordinance

    CityWide

    PC 05/20/10PC 06/17/10

    MCC

    08/03/10MCC 08/17/10

    Approval

    5. An Ordinance to Amend Article 4,General Provisions, of the SandySprings Zoning Ordinance

    CityWide

    PC 05/20/10PC 06/17/10MCC 08/03/10MCC 08/17/10

    Approval

    6. An Ordinance to Amend Article 18,Off-street Parking and Loading, of

    CityWide

    PC 05/20/10PC 06/17/10

    Approval

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    2/818

    Page 2 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    3/818

    Planning CommissionMarch 18, 2010

    Meeting Minutes

    Board Members Present Lee Duncan (Chair), Susan Maziar, David Rubenstein, Steve Tar

    Board Members Absent Wayne Thatcher (Vice Chair), Roger Rupnow

    Staff PresentNancy Leathers, Chris Miller, Patrice Ruffin, Cesar Geraldo, DouAbaray, Gloria Goins, Mark Moore, David Schmid, and Terry Ro

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

    APPROVAL OF AGENDA

    ACTION: Pond moved to approved Agenda. Rubenstein seconded. (4-0, Maziar, Pond, RubenstDuncan not voting; Thatcher and Rupnow absent).

    PUBLIC COMMENTNo Public Comment

    PREVIOUS MINUTES

    ACTION: Tart moved to approve the previous month's minutes amended to read as follows: Itemfor a 60 day deferral to allow the applicant time to provide additional and/or revised information. D

    Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein against; Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining).Pond seconded. Approved as amended (4-0, Maziar, Pond, Rubenstein, and Tart for; Duncan noRupnow absent).

    REZONING

    1. RZ10-001/CV10-0015815 Mountain Creek Road

    SUMMARY/STAFF PRESENTATION: To rezone the subject property from O-I (Office anconditional to O-I (Office and Institutional District) conditional, with concurrent variance(s), to

    Residence with a future transition into a Personal Care Home.Applicant Presentation:Nathan V Hendricks, 6085 Lake Forrest Dr Suite 200, Atlanta, Ga. 30328Carol Reynolds, 5800 Mountain Creek Rd, Sandy Springs, GA. 30328

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

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    4/818

    2. RZ10-002/CV10-0025790 & 5800 Mountain Creek Road

    SUMMARY/STAFF PRESENTATION: To rezone the subject property from O-I (Office and Instituconditional to O-I (Office and Institutional District) conditional, with concurrent variance(s), to initiaResidence with a future transition into a Personal Care Home.

    Applicant Presentation:Nathan V Hendricks, 6085 Lake Forrest Dr Suite 200, Atlanta, Ga. 30328Carol Reynolds, 5800 Mountain Creek Rd, Sandy Springs, GA. 30328

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

    Support for the Petition:

    Cathy Coone-McCrary, 1253 Westover Trace, NW, Acworth, GA. 30102

    Against the Petition:Sharon Luger, 5795 Mountain Creek Rd, Sandy Springs, GA. 30328Barbara Kesler, 5805 Mountain Creek Rd, Sandy Springs, GA. 30328

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

    ACTION: Pond moved to Recommend approval subject to staff conditions and with concern over to properly house up to 16 people. Rubenstein seconded. Approved (4-0, Maziar, Pond, Rubenst

    Duncan not voting; Thatcher and Rupnow absent).

    TEXT AMENDMENT

    3. TA10-001

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

    ACTION: Maziar moved to recommend approval. Tart seconded. Approved (4-0, Maziar, Pond, for; Duncan not voting; Thatcher and Rupnow absent).

    4. TA10-002

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

    ACTION: Tart moved to recommend approval. Rubenstein seconded. Approved (4-0, Maziar, PoTart for; Duncan not voting; Thatcher and Rupnow absent).

    RESOLUTION

    5.A Resolution to Amend the Local Roadway Functional Classification Map of the City of Sandy SprMaster Plan

    ACTION: Tart moved to recommend approval. Rubenstein seconded. Approved (4-0, Maziar, PonTart for; Duncan not voting; Thatcher and Rupnow absent).

    Meeting Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    5/818

    Approval Signatures

    Date Approved 06-17-10

    Lee Duncan, Chairman

    Patrice Ruffin, Assistant Director ofPlanning and Zoning

    Gloria Goins, AdministrativeCoordinator/Transcriber

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    6/818

    Planning CommissionApril 15, 2010

    Meeting Minutes

    Board Members PresentLee Duncan (Chair), Wayne Thatcher (Vice Chair), Roger Rupno

    and Al PondBoard Members Absent David Rubenstein and Steve Tart

    Staff PresentNancy Leathers, Patrice Ruffin, Linda Abaray, Mark Moore, DougNathan Ippolito, Terry Robinson and Rita Gowdy

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

    APPROVAL OF AGENDA

    ACTION: Thatcher moved to approve agenda. Pond seconded. Approved (4-0, Maziar, Pond, Tfor; Duncan not voting; Rubenstein and Tart absent).

    PUBLIC COMMENT

    On behalf of the Willow Glen Condominium Association and the Sandy Springs Council of NeighbBeechey made comment to the following: There is citizen concern over the apparent insufficient pinput, and participation in the current application for the Department of Community Affairs Opportu

    PREVIOUS MINUTES

    ACTION: Pond moved to approve. Maziar seconded. With only 2 Commissioners considering to absence of Thatcher and Rupnow from the March 18, 2010 meeting), Duncan recommended holdprevious meeting minutes until the May 20, 2010 meeting. Therefore, no action was taken.

    REZONING1. U10-001/U10-002/CV10-003

    6700 Riverside Drive

    SUMMARY/STAFF PRESENTATION: A Use Permit for expansion of the existing Retreat Faestablish a Cemetery (columbaria), and Concurrent Variance(s).Applicant Presentation:Ted Benning, 4695 South Atlanta Rd. SE. Smyrna, GA. 30080

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

    S

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    7/818

    sufficient and regulations allow it, the owner shall install standard sidewalks opposite the subjsouth and east side of Riverside Drive at a length that would have been required at the time of LaThe aforementioned sidewalk shall be installed before the issuance of a Certificate of OccupancApproved (4-0, Maziar, Pond, Thatcher, and Rupnow for; Duncan not voting; Rubenstein and Tart

    ORDINANCE

    SUMMARY/STAFF PRESENTATION: An Ordinance to Adopt the CoSS Zoning Map.

    ACTION: Rupnow moved to recommend approval. Pond seconded. Approved (4-0, MaziarRupnow for; Duncan not voting; Rubenstein and Tart absent).

    Meeting Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m.

    Approval Signatures

    Date Approved 06-17-2010

    Lee Duncan, Chairman

    Patrice Ruffin, Assistant Director ofPlanning and Zoning

    Gloria Goins, AdministrativeCoordinator/Transcriber

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    8/818

    Planning CommissionMay 20, 2010

    Meeting Minutes

    Board Members Present Lee Duncan (Chair), Wayne Thatcher (Vice Chair), , David Ruben

    Board Members Absent Susan Maziar, Roger Rupnow and Steve Tart

    Staff Present Patrice Ruffin, Doug Trettin, Gloria Goins, and Terry Robinson

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

    APPROVAL OF AGENDA

    ACTION: Thatcher moved to approve. Rubenstein seconded. Approved (4-0, Duncan, Pond, Rubenstein for; Maziar, Rupnow, and Tart absent).

    PUBLIC COMMENTNo Public Comment

    PREVIOUS MINUTES

    ACTION:Approval of March 18, 2010 Minutes: With only 3 Commissioners considering to vote (due to the aand Rupnow from the March 18, 2010 meeting), Duncan recommended holding the vote on the p

    minutes until the June 15, 2010 meeting. Therefore, no action was taken.

    Approval of April 15, 2010 Minutes: With only 3 Commissioners considering to vote (due to the aband Tart from the April 15, 2010 meeting), Duncan recommended holding the vote on the previousthe June 15, 2010 meeting. Therefore, no action was taken.

    REZONING1. RZ09-013/CV09-021

    216 East Belle Isle Road

    SUMMARY/STAFF PRESENTATION: To rezone the subject property from C-2 (Commercial Dis(Commercial District) conditional, with concurrent variance(s), to continue the Veterinary Cadditional uses under C-2 that would require 12 parking spaces or less.Applicant Presentation:Ted Schobert, DVM, 216 E Elle Isle Rd., Atlanta, GA. 30342

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

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    9/818

    2. RZ10-003465, 475, 485, 490, 500 Tanacrest Drive

    SUMMARY/STAFF PRESENTATION: To rezone the subject properties from R-2 & R-3 (Single-fato R-3 (Single-family Dwelling District).

    Applicant Presentation:Jerome Felton, 465 Tanacrest Dr., Sandy Springs, GA. 30328

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

    Support for the Petition:None

    Against the Petition:None

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

    ACTION: Pond moved to recommend approval subject to staff conditions. Thatcher seconded. APond, Thatcher, and Rubenstein for; Maziar, Rupnow, and Tart absent).

    DISCUSSION ITEM3. Discussion: TA10-005

    An Ordinance to Amend Article 3, Definitions, of the Sandy Springs Zoning Ordinance

    COMMENTS: Mr. Pond asked whether the definition for cemetery should use the term animal verwith the City Attorney's office on a response.

    Discussion: TA10-006An Ordinance to Amend Article 4, General Provisions, of the Sandy Springs Zoning Ordinance

    COMMENTS: No comments

    Discussion: TA10-007An Ordinance to Amend Article 18, Off-street Parking and Loading, of the Sandy Springs Zoning O

    COMMENTS: No comments

    Discussion: Planning Commission By-LawsPlanning Commission By-Laws

    COMMENTS: No comments

    Meeting Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m.

    Approval Signatures

    Date Approved 6/17/2010

    Lee Duncan, Chairman

    Patrice Ruffin Assistant Director of

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    10/818Page 10 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    11/818

    PC Board Member AttendancePC 2010

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

    Total

    Meetings

    Tot

    Absen

    Roger Rupnow

    Post 1Term Exp:

    1/31/12 1 1 0 1 0 5 2Lee Duncan

    Post 2Term Exp:

    1/31/12 1 1 1 1 1 5 0Wayne

    Thatcher

    Post 3Term Exp:

    1/31/12 1 1 0 1 1 5 1

    Al PondPost 4Term Exp:

    1/31/13 1 1 1 1 1 5 0David

    Rubenstein

    Post 5Term Exp:

    1/31/13 1 1 1 0 1 5 1Don Boyken

    Post 6

    Term Exp:

    1/31/10 1 1 0Steve Tart

    Post 6Term Exp:

    1/31/14 1 1 0 0 4 2Susan Maziar

    Post 7Term Exp:

    1/31/14 0 1 1 1 0 5 21 = Present 0 = Absent * = MTG Cancelled ** = Special Called MTG

    Page 11 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    12/818Page 12 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    13/818

    Rezoning Petition No. RZ09-006/CV09-015

    HEARING & MEETING DATESCommunity Zoning

    InformationMeeting

    Community DeveloperResolution Meeting

    Planning CommissionHearing

    May

    October 27, 2009 November 18, 2009 December 17, 2009February 18, 2010

    June 17, 2010

    JanMJ

    APPLICANT/PETITIONER INFORMATIONProperty Owners Petitioner ReMDT Perimeter Pointe LLC Wendys Arbys Group W

    PROPERTY INFORMATIONAddress, Land Lot,and District

    1155 Mount Vernon HighwayLand Lot 19, District 17

    Council District 5

    Frontage and Area

    Approximately 1,000 feet of frontage along the southeast side of Mt.

    620 feet along the northeast side of Perimeter Center West. 1155 Mouhas a total area of approximately 30.41 acres (1,324,660 sq.ft.).

    Existing Zoning andUse

    C-1 (Community Business District) conditional under zoning case Z9property is developed with a shopping center.

    Overlay District Perimeter Community Improvement Design District

    2027ComprehensiveFuture Land Use

    Map Designation

    Living-Working Regional (LWR), Node 6: PCID (Perimeter CommuDistrict Live Work Regional only)

    Proposed Zoning C-1 (Community Business District) conditional to allow a new fast fo

    INTENTTO REZONE TO C-1 (COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT) CONDITIONAL, WITH

    VARIANCE(S), TO ALLOW A NEW FAST FOOD RESTAURANT.

    The current zoning conditions, under Z93-066, allow for no more than one fast food restaur1155 Mount Vernon Highway (Perimeter Pointe Shopping Center). The applicant is req

    subject property from C-1 (Community Business District) conditional to C-1 (Communconditional to allow an additional fast food restaurant on the subject property.

    Additionally, the applicant is requesting two (2) concurrent variances as follows:

    1. Variance from Section 4.13.C. of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing o

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    14/818

    DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDAT

    RZ09-006 APPROVAL CONDITIONALCV09-015 #1 - APPROVAL CONDITIONALCV09-015 #2 APPROVAL CONDITIONAL

    The applicant continues to work with neighborhood groups, as well as the Landlord, to addrraised at community meetings. The issues raised, that are being addressed, include traffic floentire shopping center.

    PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

    The petition was heard at the December 17, 2009 Planning Commission meetingrecommended denial of the request (4-0, Maziar, Rupnow, Pond, and Rubenstein for; Duncan and Boyken absent). The Commission expressed the following concerns:

    1) Traffic flow within the Perimeter Pointe Shopping Center and vehicular traffic fshopping center and Perimeter Center West may be negatively impacted2) The proposed project and overall shopping center lack sufficient Green Space3) An additional fast-food restaurant having a drive-thru window would not promote4) The overall shopping center design was not planned to include the proposed proje

    The petition was heard at the February 18, 2010 Planning Commission meetingrecommended denial of the request. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow,

    Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining). The Commission recognized the opposition Homeowners Association and other community associations and their request to enforcecondition(s) limiting the shopping center to one [drive-through] fast food restaurant and th

    The Commission recommended to express the following issue regarding the aforeRZ09-009/CV09-015: Lack of pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent Crown Pointhe east. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for;Tart abstaining).

    The Commission recommended to express the following issue regarding the aforeRZ09-009/CV09-015: The insufficient overall green space of only 11.84% (with thenot meeting the policy standard of 15% for the entire shopping center. Approved Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining).

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    15/818

    Center West. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstvoting; Tart abstaining).

    The Commission recommended to express the following issue regarding the aforeRZ09-009/CV09-015: Deficiency in traffic circulation in and around the Ch

    Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, Maziar, Rupnow, and Rubenstein for; Duncabstaining).

    The Commission recommended to express the following issue regarding the aforeRZ09-009/CV09-015: Lack of true pedestrian access from the MARTA facility to thand to the shopping center as a whole. Approved (5-0, Thatcher, Pond, MRubenstein for; Duncan not voting; Tart abstaining).

    MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

    January 19, 2010 Hearing: The petition was deferredto the March 16, 2010 City Council happlicant time to provide additional and/or revised information regarding:

    1) Traffic flow within the Perimeter Pointe Shopping Center and vehicular traffic fshopping center and Perimeter Center West.

    2) The proposed project and overall shopping center Green Space.3) How an additional fast-food restaurant having a drive-thru window would affect p4) With the inclusion of the proposed project, how would the overall shopping center

    After community/developer meetings, the applicant provided additional material, includiplan having a new site layout, that addressed items numbered 1 through 3.

    March 16, 2010 Hearing: The petition was deferredto the July 20, 2010 City Council heariapplicant time to provide additional and/or revised information regarding:

    1) Lack of pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent Crown Pointe office property to the2) The insufficient overall green space of only 11.84% (with the proposed Wendy's) no

    standard of 15% for the entire shopping center.3) Insufficient quality of traffic circulation and directional/way-finding signage for

    center.4) Lack of thoughtful provision for employee parking for the proposed Wendy's p

    adjacent to and west of the throat of the vehicular ingress/egress on Perimeter Cen5) Deficiency in traffic circulation in and around the Chick-Fil-A outparcel.6) Lack of true pedestrian access from the MARTA facility to the proposed Wendy's

    t h l

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    16/818

    Location Map

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    17/818

    BACKGROUNDThe subject site is located east of the intersection of Mount Vernon Highway and PeCenter West. The property is zoned C-1 (Community Business District) conditionazoning case Z93-066/VC93-103. The property is developed with a mixture of uses retail, restaurant, and entertainment. The 30.41 acre subject property currently has

    building area of 361,272 S.F. and a density of 11,880 S.F./Acre.

    Under Z93-066/VC93-103, the subject property was conditioned to include the foll

    To a specific site plan To a maximum of three (3) outparcels To no more than one (1) fast food restaurant on the total site To a concurrent variance allowing the existing Chick- Fil-A outparcel to ha

    than the required 200 feet of frontage abutting a public right-of-way (MounHighway)

    Note: The above concurrent variance allowing the existing Chick- Fil-A outparceless than the required 200 feet of frontage abutting a public right-of-way (Mount VeHighway) is now currently being considered under CV09-015.

    EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING OF ABUTTING PROPERTY

    SUBJECTPETITION

    RZ09-006/CV09-

    015

    RequestedZoning

    Proposed UseLandArea

    (Acres)

    SquareFootage

    Dens(Squ

    FootagAcr

    C-1 Shopping Center 30.41364,972

    S.F.

    12,002 S.F

    Location inrelation to

    subjectproperty

    Zoning UseLandArea

    (Acres)

    SquareFootage

    orNumberof Units

    Dens(Square Units Pe

    NorthA-L

    ConditionalZ94-119

    Windsor at Mt.Vernon

    Apartments7.3 96 units 13.15 U.P

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    18/818

    SouthO-I

    ConditionalZ85-102

    MARTA --- ----- -----

    SouthC-1

    Conditional

    Z94-050

    Shopping Center 7.44 90,507 S.F. 12,165 S.F

    SouthO-I

    ConditionalZ88-198

    Office Complex 25.461,782,000

    S.F.69,992 S.F

    WestO-I

    Conditional

    Z87-128

    Northpark OfficeComplex

    42.343,799,103

    S.F.89,728 S.F

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    19/818

    Zoning Map

    Future Land Use Map

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    20/818

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    21/818

    Subject Property Subject Prope

    North of the Subject Property (Windsor at Mt. VernonApartments)

    East of the Subject PropertyDunwoody

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    22/818

    East of the Subject Property (Crown Pointe officecomplex and Embassy Suites in Dunwoody)

    South of the Subject Prop

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    23/818

    South of the Subject Property (Office Complex) West of the Subject Property (

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    24/818

    SITE PLAN ANALYSISThe site plan submitted shows three (3) existing outparcels, on the west side of threstaurants currently operating on them. The site plan also shows the main parcel, conshaving an existing shopping center. The proposed 3,700 square foot fast food restauraover a detention area located at the south east corner of the subject property. The Wen

    not become an additional outparcel, but would become part of the existing shoppinaforementioned open detention area would be made into an underground detention facilit

    PARKING AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSISSection 18.2.1, Basic Off-street Parking Requirements, requires a minimum amount of pafollowing uses: Retail Establishments, Restaurants, and Entertainment/Recreational. Bsubject property and the aforementioned uses, including the proposed Wendys, the applan) has provided 1,905 off-street parking spaces where 1,879 (with 15% MARTA reductiospaces are required.

    NOTE THE FOLLOWING:

    Current total required parking (per Citys shared parking): 2172 15% MARTA re Current total existing parking = 1,971 With new Wendys, total required parking (per Citys shared parking): 2210 15%

    = 1879

    Total provided parking with new Wendys = 1905 (31 of which serve new Wendys With MARTA reduction, there are 26 spaces over the required amount.

    LANDSCAPE PLAN ANALYSISCurrently on the overall subject property there exists 185,781 S.F. (14.02%) of Green Sdetention/retention pond areas). Including the proposed Wendys, the site plan forindicates there would be 194,653 S.F. (14.69%) of Green Space (not including detention/reThe subject property is in an area designated by the 2027 Comprehensive Future LandWorking Regional (LWR), Node 6: PCID (Perimeter Community Improvement District only). The Comprehensive Plan recommends an excess of 20% Open and Green recommendation must be green space. The overall project does not meet this recommend

    notes the proposed Wendys would be a part of an existing shopping center and would beexisting detention area that does not technically qualify as either Open or Green Space.ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ANALYSISThe Environmental Site Analysis Report is sufficient and satisfies the requirements ofZoning Ordinance. The reporting on all items of the analysis stated either positenvironmental issues.

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    25/818

    DEPARTMENT COMMENTS

    The staff held a Focus Meeting on November 4, 2009 at which the following departmeprovided:

    Sandy SpringsAssistant Director ofBuilding andPermitting

    There are no building and permitting requiremenaddressed at this time.

    BUILDING&

    DEVELOPM

    ENT

    DIVISIO

    N

    Sandy SpringsDevelopment Plan

    Review Engineer

    There are no site development requirements that neat this time.

    Sandy SpringsLandscapeArchitect/Arborist

    The site is part of a previously developed site. Thepond would not require a buffer.

    FIRED

    EPT.

    Sandy Springs FireProtection Engineer

    No fire hydrants are shown on the building sitemodification to the 2003 IFC, 508.5.1 Where require

    of the facility or building hereafter constructed or mthe jurisdiction is more than 500 feet (152 m) from apparatus access road, as measured by an approveexterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrprovided where required by the local responding agency.

    Exceptions:1. For group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the di

    shall be 600 feet (183 m).2. For buildings equipped throughout with an asprinkler system installed in accordance with Se903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (18Fire hydrants may not be omitted unless written apresponding fire department or agency is submitted to

    Refer to Sandy Spring Fire ordinance Sec. 22-34. S

    requirements. 1.11.2 All new commercial buil5,000 square feet or with an occupant load greateshall be protected throughout with an approvprotection system .

    ON

    S d S i P id t d di t d tb d l f th f ll th

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    26/818

    PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTRequired MeetingsThe applicant attended the following required meetings:

    Community Zoning Information Meeting held October 27, 2009 at the Sandy Sprin Community/Developer Resolution Meeting held November 18, 2009 at the Sandy

    Public Comments (no attached letters)

    Community input includes the following:

    Traffic flow within the Perimeter Pointe Shopping Center and vehicular traffic flshopping center and Perimeter Center West may be negatively impacted

    (The applicant has addressed this concern be redesigning the site layout)

    The proposed project and overall shopping center lack sufficient Green Space(The applicant has provided elevation renderings showing the proposed developm

    An additional fast-food restaurant having a drive-thru window would not promot(The applicant has addressed this concern be redesigning the site layout)

    The overall shopping center design was not planned to include the proposed projeThe City Public Works Department has the following response to traffic flow:

    Provide two dedicated outbound lanes for the full throat length of the entrance onWest.

    Notice RequirementsThe petition was advertised in the Daily Report on December 10, 2009 and December 24,posted signs issued by the Department of Community Development along the frontag

    Highway and Perimeter Center West on November 13, 2009.

    Public Participation Plan and ReportThe applicant met the Public Participation Plan requirements. The applicant suParticipation Report seven (7) days prior to the Mayor and City Council Hearing on JaP bli P ti i ti R t b itt d b f J 12 2010

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

    ZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    27/818

    Per Article 28.4.1, Zoning Impact Analysis by the Planning Commission and the Department, twritten record of its investigation and recommendation on each rezoning petition following factors:

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

    Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposed use is suitable in view of the uof adjacent and nearby property. The surrounding area consists of multi-fto the north, multi-family/office/hotel developments to the east, Mdevelopments to the south, and an office development to the west. The pproper transition between these areas.

    B. Whether the zoning proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or neFinding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposal will not have an adverse im

    usability of adjacent or nearby property.

    C. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal may have reasonable economic use aFinding: The staff is of the opinion that the subject property has a reasonable econo

    zoned.

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

    Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposal will not result in a use wexcessive or burdensome use of the existing infrastructure.

    E.

    Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policies and intent of the land use plan.Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposed use is generallyFuture Land Use Map, which designates the property as Live Work Regionland use designation recommends a density of over 25,000 square feet perand office uses plus over 20 residential units per acre. The overall project, the proposed Wendys, would have a commercial density of 12,002 sqTherefore, the overall project does not meet this recommendation; howeproposed Wendys would be a part of an existing shopping center and,

    would actually add to the density of the overall site. The complete projeoverall intent of the LWR designated areas that are intended for high denmixed land uses along major transportation corridors and/or rail transit serve larger areas and to provide larger commercial uses with a signconcentration. The Comprehensive Plan recommends an excess of 20% Op15% of this recommendation must be green space Currently on the ove

    Open or Green Space. The subject site is located in Living Working

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    28/818

    p p j g gCommunity Improvement District (PCID), which is made up of high regional office, and commercial developments.

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

    Finding: The staff is of the opinion that there are no existing or changing conditioand development of the property, which give supporting grounds for apprapplicants proposal.

    G. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use which can be considered environmentally aresources, environment and citizens of Sandy Springs.

    Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposal will not permit a use which environmentally adverse to the natural resources, environment, or citizens

    VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS

    The applicant is requesting two (2) concurrent variances as follows:

    1. Variance from Section 4.13.C. of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing outparright-of-way to have less than 200 feet of frontage on that public right-of-way.

    The applicant states this request was previously approved under Z93-066/VC93-

    Chick-Fil-A outparcel currently has less than the required 200 feet of frontage abuof-way (Mount Vernon Highway).

    The staff is of the opinion relief from this requirement is in harmony with the intent of and there is a hardship due to the physical characteristics of the subject property becpreviously approved under Z93-066/VC93-103 and the existing Chick-Fil-A outparcel cthe required 200 feet of frontage abutting a public right-of-way (Mount Vernon Highwaythese reasons, the staff recommendsAPPROVAL of this concurrent variance request.

    2. Variance from Article 33, Section 26, Subsection F(2) of the Zoning Ordinance tsign.

    The applicant has indicated this variance will not result in any harm to the healgeneral public. The applicant has indicated that this variance is in harmony w

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    29/818

    CONCLUSION TO FINDINGS

    The staff recommends APPROVAL CONDITIONAL of the request to rezone to C-1 (cdistrict) conditional, with concurrent variance(s), to allow a new fast food restaurant.

    STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    30/818

    Should the Mayor and City Council decide to approve the petition to rezone the subjec(Community Business District) conditional to C-1 (Community Business District) conadditional fast food restaurant on the subject property, the staff recommends the approfollowing conditions. The applicants agreement to these conditions would not change staThese conditions shall prevail unless otherwise stipulated by the Mayor and City Council.

    1. To the owner's agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:

    a. Retail, service commercial and/or office and accessory uses, including all exterbeverage service areas, at a maximum density of 12,002 gross square feet of tota

    zoned or a total floor area of 364,972 gross square feet, in no more than seven bis less, but excluding adult entertainment establishments, car washes, conveniestations, grocery stores, commercial amusements and billboards or any uses whoperations.

    b. A maximum of three outparcels shall be allowed on the subject site as shown onreferenced in condition 2.a. The total gross square footage of the outparcel devecalculated as part of the total floor area allowed in condition 1.a.

    c. No more than two (2) fast food restaurants, having drive-through windows, on

    d. Limit the height of the buildings to no more than two stories or 60 feet, excludinand roof-top screening, whichever is less.

    2. To the owner's agreement to abide by the following:

    a. To the overall site plan and Wendys site plan detail and Chick-Fil-A site plan dDepartment of Community Development dated May 26, 2010. Said site plans aand must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these cthe approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted herein, comconditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

    b. To be in accordance with the two (2) elevation renderings received by the DepaCommunity Development dated February 2, 2010.

    3. To the owner's agreement to the following site development considerations:

    a. The owner/developer shall dedicate fifty-five (55) feet of right-of-way from ceVernon Highway and Perimeter Center West along the entire property frontag( ) f f b k f b h h h f d

    d N di f M V Hi h i h l Th

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    31/818

    d. No direct access from Mt. Vernon Highway to service the outparcels. The permshall gain access via internal drives. Said access points to the outparcels from thcuts shall be located at least 100 feet from the new dedicated right-of-way of an

    e. Each outparcel which abuts a public right-of-way shall have a minimum of 200said public right-of-way, except the outparcel labeled on the site plan as B, shof 160 feet of frontage; however, direct access to said right-of-way shall be proh

    f. Variance from Article 33, Section 26, Subsection F(2) of the Zoning Ordinance tosign (CV09-015).

    g. Light sources of any exterior illumination on the site shall not be directly visiblresidential property lines.

    h. Any lighting of the parking lot shall be limited in height to a 30 foot mast.i. Provide 100% opaque screening around all trash dumpsters subject to the appr

    of Community Development. Said dumpsters shall not be located within bufferor parking and loading areas, nor within 150 feet of property zoned or developup service shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monda

    j. Provide 100% opaque screening around all delivery truck bays subject to the apDirector of Community Development.

    k. Provide screening of any roof top mechanical equipment from adjacent propertapproval of the Director of Community Development.

    l. The owner/developer shall provide two dedicated outbound lanes for the full entrance onto Perimeter Center West.

    AttachmentsLetter of Intent dated received October 6, 2009First Amendment to the Rezoning Application received May 26, 2010Applicant Zoning Impact Analysis dated received October 6, 2009

    Site Plan dated received February 2, 2010Overall Site Plan dated received May 26, 2010Two (2) elevation renderings received February 2, 2010Site Plan Detail dated received February 18, 2010Wendys Site Plan Detail dated received May 26, 2010Chick-Fil-A Site Plan Detail dated received May 26, 2010

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    32/818

    Page 32 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    33/818

    Page 33 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    34/818

    Page 34 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    35/818

    Page 35 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    36/818

    Page 36 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    37/818

    Page 37 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    38/818

    Page 38 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    39/818

    Page 39 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    40/818

    Page 40

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    41/818

    Page 41

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    42/818

    Page 42

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    43/818

    Page 43 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    44/818

    Page 44 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    45/818

    Page 45 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    46/818

    Page 46 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    47/818

    Page 47 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    48/818

    Page 48 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    49/818

    Page 49 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    50/818

    Page 50 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    51/818

    Page 51 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    52/818

    Page 52 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    53/818

    Page 53 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    54/818

    Page 54 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    55/818

    Page 55 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    56/818

    Page 56 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    57/818

    Page 57 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    58/818

    Page 58 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    59/818

    Page 59 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    60/818

    Page 60 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    61/818

    Page 61 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    62/818

    Page 62 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    63/818

    Page 63 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    64/818

    Page 64 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    65/818

    Page 65 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    66/818

    Page 66 of 820

    Rezoning Petition No. U10-003

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    67/818

    HEARING & MEETING DATESCommunity Zoning

    Information MeetingCommunity Developer

    Resolution MeetingPlanning Commission

    HearingMay

    April 27, 2010 May 26, 2010 June 17, 2010 Ju

    APPLICANT/PETITIONER INFORMATIONProperty Owners Petitioner Re

    City of Atlanta Verizon Wireless Dav

    PROPERTY INFORMATION

    Address, Land Lot, andDistrict 5500 Dupree DriveLand Lot 174, District 17

    Council District 6

    Frontage and Area300 feet of frontage along the north side of Old Powers Ferry Roafrontage along the west side of Dupree Drive. The subject prope2.412 acres (105,066.72 square feet).

    Existing Zoning andUse

    R-1 (Single-family Dwelling District). The subject property is cura City of Atlanta water tank.

    Overlay District N/A2027 ComprehensiveFuture Land Use MapDesignation

    R1-2 (Residential 1 to 2 units per acre), Protected Neighborhood

    Proposed Use

    Use Permit to allow the location and operation of a 115-foot monrelated ground equipment adjacent to the existing water tank.

    INTENTA USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE LOCATION AND OPERATION OF A 115-foot MON

    AND RELATED GROUND EQUIPMENT ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING WA

    This is a Use Permit to allow the location and operation of a 115-foot monopole antennequipment adjacent to the existing City of Atlanta water tank. Of the 2.412 acre parcel, thlease a 17 x 35 area of land from the City of Atlanta in order to locate the proposed antenn30 equipment shelter.

    DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATU10-003 APPROVAL CONDITIONAL

    Location Map

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    68/818

    BACKGROUNDThe site is located northwest of the intersection of Dupree Drive and Old Powers Ferry Rzoned R-1 (Single-family Dwelling District). The subject property is currently developedtall City of Atlanta water tank. The water tank currently has a 15 foot (approximately) The antenna is used by the City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management solel

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    69/818

    y y gwireless monitoring and control of the tank and water system.

    EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING OF ABUTTING PROPERTY

    SUBJECTPETITION

    U10-003

    CurrentZoning

    Proposed UseLandArea

    (Acres)

    Square footage orNumber of

    Units/Rooms

    R-1

    City of Atlanta waterfacility & 115-footmonopole antennaand related ground

    equipment

    2.412acres

    --------------

    Location in

    relation tosubject

    property

    Zoning UseLandArea

    (Acres)

    Square Footageor Number of

    Units

    NorthR-2A

    Z97-134

    Single-familyresidence @ 5520

    Dupree Dr.0.97 acres 1 unit

    East R-1

    Single-family

    residence @ 5535Dupree Dr.

    1.78 acres 1 unit

    East R-1Crossroads Primitive

    Baptist ChurchCemetery

    1 acres --------------

    SouthR-2

    Z84-202

    Single-family @ 986

    Old Powers Ferry Rd.

    1.26 acres 1 unit

    WestR-2A

    Z90-042Single-family @ 985

    Old Powers Ferry Rd.0.62 acres 1 unit

    Zoning Map

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    70/818

    CHURCH &CEMETERY

    Future Land Use Map

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    71/818

    CHURCH &

    CEMETERY

    Photographs

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    72/818

    Subject Property (looking northwest) Looking northeast up Dupree D

    Dr.

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    73/818

    South of subject property (intersections of Old PowersFerry Rd., Dupree Dr., Mt. Vernon Hwy., and Powers

    Ferry Rd.)

    South of subject property (SOld Powers Fer

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    74/818

    The tank looking west The tank looking s

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    75/818

    Looking north @ 5520 Dupree Dr. Sign

    Sign

    SITE PLAN ANALYSIS

    The site plan (Petition Packet #1, Exhibit C) indicates the subject property, a portion oleased area, to be 2.412 acres. The subject property is currently developed with a fifty Atlanta water tank. The water tank currently has a 15 foot (approximately) antenna on tois used by the City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management solely for the

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    76/818

    y y p g y

    monitoring and control of the tank and water system. It also indicates a proposed telecomhaving a 115 tall monopole and existing perimeter landscaping.

    The site plan provided by the applicant indicates the following in a development statistics

    2,320 SF of fenced area, landscape buffer and gravel path

    345 SF shelter

    420 SF of impervious surface

    660 SF of landscape buffer outside the fenced area1,060 SF of undeveloped/open space

    In addition to the required site plan, the applicant has provided materialdrawings/renderings, maps, letters, and affidavits, supporting and detailing and not limit

    There are no concurrent variances requested meaning the applicant has submmeets the design/construction standards that exceed the requirements of

    zoning district.

    The construction of the proposed monopole would include three (3) flush mantennas, the applicant however has provided a written agreement profferingtower designed as a man made tree (also known as a monopine). (Petition Pac

    Area maps detailing Verizons current wireless telecommunications coverage proposed cell tower as being good, fair, and limited. Area mapspotential wireless telecommunications coverage, assuming construction of theas being good, fair, and limited. The applicant has provided their dfair, and limited.(Attachment #3)

    Written by a Senior Radio Frequency Design Engineer, a letter with exhibits dsearch area (Verizons identified area of needed improvement to its wirefair & limited service bounded generally Mt. Vernon Highway, Northside

    limits, and Mt. Paran Road & Long Island Drive. Various factors, includinfluences to Verizon rating the service in the search area as fair & limitattachments documents the lack of opportunity and suitable opportunity in tcollocation. This letter with attachments also documents the lack of oppoopportunity in the search area for new cell tower construction in zoning

    An affidavit from a telecommunications industry professional (Ms. Karen LeSearch Ring that was studied for potential Verizon cell tower locations. Vethe Search Ring as surrounding the intersection of Dupree Drive and Old Powein a southeasterly direction, across Mount Vernon Highway and down Powtheir definitions, the applicant has indicated Verizons wireless phone coverag

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    77/818

    , pp p g

    as being fair at the most northwest part of the search area and turning into the search area continues across Mount Vernon Highway and down Powers mile. (Petition Packet #5)

    The aforementioned affidavit indicates the following failed attempts at locatitower at sites in the Search Ring other than the water tank facility:

    Holy Innocents Episcopal Church not having a roof with enoug

    Holy Innocents Episcopal School not having available ground sequipment shelter.

    Mt. Vernon Baptist Church not believing the cell tower wouldtheir plan for future expansion. Additionally, their steeple compatible for a co-location.

    Northwest Unitarian Universalist Congregation was recently dSandy Springs, an application for a cell tower proposed by T-MVerizon studied an option provided to them for utilizing an expole, but the pole was determined structurally unsuitable for exp

    NOTE: The cell tower application at the Northwest UnCongregation was not denied by the City of Sandy Springs; rawas withdrawn by T-Mobile.

    A letter under seal from a registered engineer explaining the structural integmonopole. (Petition Packet #5)

    A letter from an environmental consultant stating the proposed tower heighadverse effect on any environmental resources. (Petition Packet #5)

    A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the Federal CommunicationGeorgia State Historic Preservation Officer, and Verizon Wireless regarding tcommunications tower in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. (Petition Packet #5

    An affidavit by a Senior Radio Frequency Design Engineer documenting the ne

    ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ANALYSISThe Environmental Site Analysis Report is sufficient and satisfies the requirements oZoning Ordinance. The reporting on all items of the analysis stated either positenvironmental issues. The analysis in its entirety is in the case file as a matter of record.

    USE PERMIT CONSIDERATIONS

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    78/818

    The applicant is requesting a use permit to allow the location and operation of a 115-fooand related ground equipment adjacent to the existing water tank.

    Per Article 19.2.4, Use Permit Considerations, the City Council shall consider each of the follo

    A. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and/or Revitalization plans adopted by the City Council;

    Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposed use is consistent with the Fuwhich designates the property as R1-2 (Residential 1 to 2 units per acre). Ththrough the use permit requirements for telecommunications towerscompatibility of such uses within residential districts.

    The subject property is currently being used as a public utility by the opAtlanta water tank.

    Within the City, there are examples of residentially zoned properties wherefacilities (cell towers) currently exist. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHE

    STRUCTURE REGISTRATION (ASR) REPORT. (Attachment #6)

    B. Compatibility with land uses and zoning districts in the vicinity of the property for whproposed;

    Finding: The applicant has provided a series of documents analyzing the process by

    tower location was determined to be the best available site.

    First, the area south of I-285, west of Roswell Road (SR 9), east of the Chattnorth of the City of Sandy Springs southern boundary was determined to b

    Verizon Wireless due to dropped call and other service delivery issues. (At

    Once the area of need was determined, the applicant reviewed which arearea would be the best to locate a tower. This review included a look at the

    properties, and range of projected signal strength. (Attachment #4)

    Finally, the applicant approached various property owners within the smadetermine whether there was an interest in a leasing opportunity for a f ili h i Si h i f h h i

    The Zoning Ordinance, through the use permit requirements for telecomprovides for the compatibility of such uses within residential districts. Theof the requirements of Section 19.4.7., Antenna Tower, and Associated S

    Microwave Broadcasting, Etc.) to Exceed the District Height. Additionally,tower at the proposed site would be on a property currently being used a

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    79/818

    may provide better telecommunications serving the Sandy Springs commun

    After analyzing all the documentation submitted as a part of this applicopinion the applicant has demonstrated the subject property at 5500 Dprovide a suitable opportunity for locating a cell tower within Verizonneeded improvement to its wireless service.

    C. Whether the proposed use may violate local, state and/or federal statutes, ordinances or

    land development;

    Finding: The staff is of the opinion the proposed uses would not violate any local, statutes, ordinances, or regulations.

    Local Statutes

    Article 2, Purpose and Title, of the City of Sandy Springs Zoning Ordinance

    calls for adequate provision of communications facilities.

    The Zoning Ordinance defines a Use Permit as follows:

    Use Permit. A permit approved by the City Council, pursuant to a pauthorizes a use which must meet certain standards which exceed the district as-a-whole.

    The aforementioned certain standards are spelled out in the Zoning Ordinanc(Use Permits), specifically in Section 19.4.7. as follows:

    ANTENNA TOWER, AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURE (RADIO, T.V., MICBROADCASTING, ETC.), TO EXCEED THE DISTRICT HEIGHT (amended013, Ord. 2009-06-34).

    INTENT

    Pursuant to Section 704(a) of the Federal Telecommunications Policy Act ofintent of this section to prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provisiwireless services in Sandy Springs.

    1. Towers must be set back a distance equal to the height of the toweresidentially or AG-1 zoned or used property. (i.e., a 200-foot towefoot setback from any residential district and/or AG-1 district used

    The proposed overall height of the tower structure is 115 feet. This is th

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    80/818

    this location of the property that would meet the setback adjacent to residproperty. The setback line as shown on the site plan is located completelyAtlanta property or within City of Sandy Springs right-of-way. (PetitioExhibit C and Attachment #7)

    2. Height shall not exceed 300 feet from existing grade and shall be caall appurtenances (e.g. light, marking) required by Federal Aviatio(FAA) for towers 200 feet or taller.

    The proposed overall height of the tower structure is 115 feet. The propotower does not exceed the 300 foot height limitation. (Attachment #7)

    3. Tower and associated facilities shall be enclosed by fencing not lesheight and shall also be equipped with an appropriate anti-climbin

    The applicant would meet the fence enclosure requirement. (Petition Pa

    and Petition Packet #5)

    4. A minimum 10 foot landscape strip planted to buffer standards shsurrounding the facility exterior to the required fence unless the SaArborist determines that existing plant materials are adequate.

    After consulting with the City Arborist (see staff recommended condition

    would meet the landscape buffer requirement. (Petition Packet #1, E

    5. Antennas or towers shall not have lights unless required by federa

    Lights are not required by the FAA and would be restricted under staff r2.c.

    6. Towers shall not be located within one-quarter of a mile from any telecommunication tower above the district height, excluding alter

    The water tank currently has a 15 foot (approximately) antenna on top ofused by the City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management solelwireless monitoring and control of the tank and water system. By the defOrdinance neither the City of Atlanta water tank nor the monitoring an

    microwave towers, common carrier towers, cellular telephone towelike excluding amateur radio antenna.

    7. The tower shall comply with applicable state and local statutes andincluding, but not limited to, building and safety codes. Towers wunsafe or dilapidated shall be repaired or removed pursuant to aplocal statutes and ordinances

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    81/818

    local statutes and ordinances.

    The applicant would be obligated to comply with applicable state and locaordinances, including, but not limited to, building and safety codes. Stafcondition 2.d. would further ensure proper maintenance of the subject pr

    Federal Statutes

    According to the Federal Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 332 (c)(7)(

    No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the pconstruction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such fthe Commissions regulations concerning such emissions.(Attachment #8)

    D. The effect of the proposed use on traffic flow, vehicular and pedestrian, along adjoining stre

    Finding: The staff is of the opinion that the proposal will not result in a use that wior burdensome use of the existing infrastructure. Public Works does noproposed use permits will cause an excessively burdensome use oftransportation facilities.

    E. The location and number of off-street parking spaces;

    Finding: The staff is of the opinion the existing all-weather surface (paving) is suvehicles required for necessary maintenance.

    F. The amount and location of open space;

    Finding: The site plan (Petition Packet #1, Exhibit C) provided by the applicant inin a development statistics summary chart:

    2,320 SF of fenced area, landscape buffer and gravel path345 SF shelter

    420 SF of impervious surface

    660 SF of landscape buffer outside the fenced area

    1 060 SF of undeveloped/open space

    Staff has recommended condition 3.a., which requires the applicant to plarequired landscape buffer as per the City Arborist instruction, should tCouncil decide to approve the application.

    H. Hours and manner of operation;

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    82/818

    Finding: The Verizon site would be totally automated and a service technician womonth.

    I. Outdoor lighting; and

    Finding: It is not an FAA requirement that the monopole have lighting and stafcondition 2.c. restricting any lighting.

    J. Ingress and egress to the property.

    Finding: The applicant will utilize an existing access and utility easement running fthe proposed site.

    DEPARTMENT COMMENTSThe staff held a Focus Meeting on May 5, 2010 at which the following departmental comm

    BUILDING&

    DEVELOPMENT

    DIV

    ISION

    Sandy SpringsBuilding Officerand/or ADACompliance Officer

    There are no Building Code and/or ADA requiremeaddressed at this time.

    Sandy Springs Chief

    Engineer

    There are no Site Development requirements that ne

    at this time.

    Sandy SpringsLandscapeArchitect/Arborist

    Should the Mayor and City Council decide to approadd the condition: That the landscape buffer be plaArborist instruction.

    F

    IRE

    D

    EPT.

    Sandy Springs Fire

    Protection Engineer

    There are no Fire Department requirements that nee

    this time.

    ATION

    Sandy SpringsTransportation

    Public Works does not anticipate that the proposed ran excessively burdensome use of existing streets or facilities.

    PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTRequired Meetings

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

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    83/818

    The applicant attended the following required meetings:Community Zoning Information Meeting held April 27, 2010 at the Sandy Springs

    Community/Developer Resolution Meeting was held May 26, 2010 at the Sandy Sp

    Public Comments

    The public comments received regarding this case include the topics of concern written be

    The proposed cell tower in this location would be a detriment to health, safety, welthe neighborhood.

    The applicant has provided detail on why this location is the most suitable, available properarea of need.(Attachments #4 and Attachment #9)

    The proposed cell tower in this location would decrease the value of surrounding pneighborhood.

    The Department of Community Development does not have an expert on staff that can respeffect on property values.

    The proposed cell tower in this location would be aesthetically displeasing and unhneighborhood.

    It is the opinion of the staff that while the proposed tower will be visible from surrounding p

    is currently a utility property used for a City of Atlanta water tank. Additionally, the applito screen the base of the tower as required by the Zoning Ordinance.

    Structural Integrity of the proposed cell tower.

    The applicant will be required to meet all structural requirements of the citys Building Codpermitting, which will include a structural review.

    Financial arrangement and terms of the lease with the City of Atlanta.

    The applicant has not provided this information.

    How many Verizon towers currently serve Sandy Springs?

    The applicant has provided a map detailing the current locations of towers that are near, buneed. (Attachment #3)

    What is Verizons justification and demonstrated need to locate the tower where it

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    84/818

    The applicant has provided a series of documents analyzing the process by which the proposdetermined to be the best available site.(Attachment #4)

    A precedent would be set allowing future cell towers in residential areas.

    There are existing towers located within residential areas throughout the city. (Attachmen

    Security (TSA) of the facility.

    The Verizon site would be totally automated and a service technician would come out once applicant would provide a six (6) foot tall perimeter fence around the lease area.

    Applicant should provide zip codes of those who had dropped calls.

    The applicant has not provided dropped calls detail by zip code.

    Proper maintenance of the subject property.

    The facility would be subject to the Citys Property Maintenance Codes. Staff recommendefurther ensure proper maintenance of the subject property.

    Notice RequirementsThe petition was advertised in the Daily Report on June 10, 2010 and will be advertised o

    applicant has posted signs issued by the Department of Community Development alongPowers Ferry Road and Dupree Drive on May 14, 2010.

    Public Participation Plan and ReportThe applicant will meet the Public Participation Plan requirements. The applicant was reqPublic Participation Report seven (7) days prior to the Mayor and City Council Hearing onPublic Participation Report will be submitted on or before July 6, 2010.

    CONCLUSION TO FINDINGSIt is the opinion of the staff that the petition for Use Permit to allow the location and operamonopole antenna and related ground equipment adjacent to the existing water tank is in policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the Future Land Use Map. Thereforereasons, the staff recommends APPROVAL CONDITIONAL of the petition for the Use Pconditions.

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    85/818

    STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

    Should the Mayor and City Council decide to grant the Use Permit and Concurrent Varianrecommends that the approval be subject to the following conditions. The applicants agreconditions would not change staff recommendations. These conditions shall prevail unlesstipulated by the Mayor and City Council.

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    86/818

    1. To the owners agreement to restrict the use of the subject property as follows:

    a. One monopole telecommunications tower and associated accessory structures (U10

    b. The telecommunications tower shall have flush mounted antennas and shall nheight, including any required tower lighting, lightning rods, or other tower extens

    2. To the owners agreement to abide by the following:

    a. To the site plan received by the Department of Community Development dated Msite plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zothese conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless othcompliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Certificate

    b. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations as pertinent to telecomm

    residential areas.

    c. Lighting on the proposed cell tower is prohibited.

    d. The owner/developer shall maintain the appearance and structural soundnessrequired by the Director of Community Development and the International PrCode.

    e. The approval of U10-003 shall be subject to the applicant/developer gaining the and agreements from the City of Atlanta, the owner of the subject property.

    3. To the owners agreement to provide the following site development standards:

    a. The owner/developer of the telecommunications tower shall install a minimum testrip planted and maintained to buffer standards surrounding the facility, extefence, subject to the approval of the Sandy Springs Arborist.

    Attachments

    Petition Packet #1 - Letter of Intent/Applicant Use Permit Considerations and Sitereceived March 31, 2010Petition Packet #2 Written Agreement Monopine dated received May 26, 2010Attachment #3 Area Maps dated received June 7, 2010

    A h #4 L f R di F E i d d i d J 9 2010

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    87/818

    Attachment #4 Letter from Radio Frequency Engineer dated received June 9, 2010Petition Packet #5 Search Ring Affidavit dated received May 4, 2010Attachment #6 Existing Antenna Registration dated received June 2, 2010Attachment #7 Revised Tower Height letter dated received June 9, 2010Attachment #8 Federal Telecommunications Act excerpt dated April 1, 2010Attachment #9 Area Analysis Map dated received June 8, 2010Attachment #10 FCC form 620 dated received June 8, 2010

    Petition Packet #11 E-mails dated as shownConcerned Neighbor Packet #1 Communications dated as shownConcerned Neighbor Packet #2 Communication dated received June 3, 2010Neighbor/Applicant E-mails dated as shownLetter Fulton County Dept. of the Environment & Community Development receivLetter City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management received May 17, 201Letter Fulton County Dept. of Health Services dated received June 10, 2010

    Letter City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management received June 9, 2010

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    88/818

    Page 88 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    89/818

    Page 89 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    90/818

    Page 90 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    91/818

    Page 91 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    92/818

    Page 92 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    93/818

    Page 93 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    94/818

    Page 94 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    95/818

    Page 95 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    96/818

    Page 96 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    97/818

    Page 97 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    98/818

    Page 98

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    99/818

    Page 99

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    100/818

    Page 10

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    101/818

    Page 10

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    102/818

    Page 10

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    103/818

    Page 10

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    104/818

    Page 10

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    105/818

    Page 10

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    106/818

    Page 10

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    107/818

    Page 10

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    108/818

    Page 10

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    109/818

    Page 10

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    110/818

    Page 11

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    111/818

    Page 11

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    112/818

    Page 11

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    113/818

    Page 11

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    114/818

    Page 11

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    115/818

    Page 11

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    116/818

    Page 11

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    117/818

    Page 11

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    118/818

    Page 11

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    119/818

    Page 11

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    120/818

    Page 12

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    121/818

    Page 121 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    122/818

    Page 122 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    123/818

    Page 123 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    124/818

    Page 124 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    125/818

    Page 125 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    126/818

    Page 126 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    127/818

    Page 127 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    128/818

    Page 128 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    129/818

    Page 129 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    130/818

    Page 130 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    131/818

    Page 131 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    132/818

    Page 132 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    133/818

    Page 133 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    134/818

    Page 134 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    135/818

    Page 135 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    136/818

    Page 136 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    137/818

    Page 137 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    138/818

    Page 138 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    139/818

    Page 139 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    140/818

    Page 140 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    141/818

    Page 141 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    142/818

    Page 142 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    143/818

    Page 143 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    144/818

    Page 144 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    145/818

    Page 145 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    146/818

    Page 146 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    147/818

    Page 147 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    148/818

    Page 148 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    149/818

    Page 149 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    150/818

    Page 150 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    151/818

    Page 151 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    152/818

    Page 152 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    153/818

    Page 153 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    154/818

    Page 154 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    155/818

    Page 155 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    156/818

    Page 156 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    157/818

    Page 157 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    158/818

    Page 158 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    159/818

    Page 159 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    160/818

    Page 160 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    161/818

    Page 161 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    162/818

    Page 162 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    163/818

    Page 163 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    164/818

    Page 164 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    165/818

    Page 165 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    166/818

    Page 166 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    167/818

    Page 167 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    168/818

    Page 168 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    169/818

    Page 169 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    170/818

    Page 170 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    171/818

    Page 171 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    172/818

    Page 172 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    173/818

    Page 173 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    174/818

    Page 174 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    175/818

    Page 175 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    176/818

    Page 176 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    177/818

    Page 177 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    178/818

    Page 178 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    179/818

    Page 179 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    180/818

    Page 180 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    181/818

    Page 181 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    182/818

    Page 182 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    183/818

    Page 183 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    184/818

    Page 184 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    185/818

    Page 185 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    186/818

    Page 186 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    187/818

    Page 187 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    188/818

    Page 188 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    189/818

    Page 189 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    190/818

    Page 190 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    191/818

    Page 191 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    192/818

    Page 192 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    193/818

    Page 193 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    194/818

    Page 194 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    195/818

    Page 195 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    196/818

    Page 196 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    197/818

    Page 197 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    198/818

    Page 198 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    199/818

    Page 199 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    200/818

    Page 200 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    201/818

    Page 201 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    202/818

    Page 202 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    203/818

    Page 203 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    204/818

    Page 204 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    205/818

    Page 205 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    206/818

    Page 206 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    207/818

    Page 207 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    208/818

    Page 208 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    209/818

    Page 209 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    210/818

    Page 210 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    211/818

    Page 211 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    212/818

    Page 212 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    213/818

    Page 213 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    214/818

    Page 214 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    215/818

    Page 215 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    216/818

    Page 216 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    217/818

    Page 217 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    218/818

    Page 218 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    219/818

    Page 219 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    220/818

    Page 220 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    221/818

    Page 221 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    222/818

    Page 222 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    223/818

    Page 223 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    224/818

    Page 224 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    225/818

    Page 225 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    226/818

    Page 226 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    227/818

    Page 227 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    228/818

    Page 228 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    229/818

    Page 229 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    230/818

    Page 230 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    231/818

    Page 231 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    232/818

    Page 232 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    233/818

    Page 233 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    234/818

    Page 23

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    235/818

    Page 235 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    236/818

    Page 236 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    237/818

    Page 237 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    238/818

    Page 238 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    239/818

    Page 239 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    240/818

    Page 240 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    241/818

    Page 241 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    242/818

    Page 242 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    243/818

    Page 243 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    244/818

    Page 244 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    245/818

    Page 245 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    246/818

    Page 246 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    247/818

    Page 247 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    248/818

    Page 248 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    249/818

    Page 249 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    250/818

    Page 250 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    251/818

    Page 251 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    252/818

    Page 252 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    253/818

    Page 253 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    254/818

    Page 254 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    255/818

    Page 255 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    256/818

    Page 256 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    257/818

    Page 257 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    258/818

    Page 258 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    259/818

    Page 259 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    260/818

    Page 260 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    261/818

    Page 261 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    262/818

    Page 262 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    263/818

    Page 263 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    264/818

    Page 264 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    265/818

    Page 265 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    266/818

    Page 266 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    267/818

    Page 267 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    268/818

    Page 268 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    269/818

    Page 269 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    270/818

    Page 270 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    271/818

    Page 271 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    272/818

    Page 272 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    273/818

    Page 273 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    274/818

    Page 274 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    275/818

    Page 275 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    276/818

    Page 276 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    277/818

    Page 277 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    278/818

    Page 278 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    279/818

    Page 279 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    280/818

    Page 280 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    281/818

    Page 281 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    282/818

    Page 282 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    283/818

    Page 283 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    284/818

    Page 284 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    285/818

    Page 285 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    286/818

    Page 286 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    287/818

    Page 287 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    288/818

    Page 288 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    289/818

    Page 289 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    290/818

    Page 290 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    291/818

    Page 291 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    292/818

    Page 292 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    293/818

    Page 293 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    294/818

    Page 294 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    295/818

    Page 295 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    296/818

    Page 296 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    297/818

    Page 297 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    298/818

    Page 298 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    299/818

    Page 299 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    300/818

    Page 300 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    301/818

    Page 301 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    302/818

    Page 302 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    303/818

    Page 303 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    304/818

    Page 304 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    305/818

    Page 305 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    306/818

    Page 306 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    307/818

    Page 307 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    308/818

    Page 308 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    309/818

    Page 309 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    310/818

    Page 310 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    311/818

    Page 311 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    312/818

    Page 312 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    313/818

    Page 313 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    314/818

    Page 314 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    315/818

    Page 315 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    316/818

    Page 316 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    317/818

    Page 317 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    318/818

    Page 318 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    319/818

    Page 319 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    320/818

    Page 320 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    321/818

    Page 321 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    322/818

    Page 322 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    323/818

    Page 323 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Planning Commission June 17, 2010

    324/818

    Page 324 of 820

  • 8/9/2019 Plannin