title
METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, 1992
body
The minutes of the October 13, 1992 meeting were approved as prepared.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Coleman, Patteson, Finley, Damron, Blalock, Baker, McCracken
MEMBERS ABSENT: Little
#1 Dr. James Sanders to address the Planning Commission concerning minor plat approval:
Dr. Sanders expressed several concerns over a recently approved minor plat ordinance particularly the lack of proper plans related to drainage and related items. Dr. Sanders stated that his property is positioned south of a very large tract of land on which minor plats have been approved and drainage and other issues were not addressed. Dr. Sanders further voiced his concern about subdividing land one lot at a time. The Commissioners stated they too were concerned about a subdivision being piece-milled a lot at a time at this location or at any location within the city and they want to try to ensure that this doesn’t occur. Part of the responsibility of the Commission is to effect overall planning in the best was possible. The ordinance as prepared would not allow for a series of minor plats to be submitted. It was further noted that a storm water management ordinance had been drifted and would be coming up for discussion and possibly future adoption in the weeks to come.
#2 MP92-52 Bruce Taylor and Bill Jackson requested approval of a two lot minor plat containing 26.02 acres. The property is located on the southeast corner of Pleasant Grove Road and Peachtree Avenue.
Marty Lilly, representing Taylor and Jackson, stated that a problem had arisen with the granting of a drainage easement. Lilly asked that the plat be approved without an easement. Lilly voiced concern that the trees lining the ditch would be destroyed during maintenance of the ditch. In response to a claim by Mr. Lilly that work was done on his property and easements added to his plat without his knowledge, it was stated that indeed Mr. Newell had been contacted about the need for easements but at no time did the MAPC or the Inspection Office, nor can they, authorize any kind of work or granting of easements. Also, it is not uncommon for a surveyor or engineer to be contacted during the process of approval when easements or any variety of things are requested and in most cases our surveyors and engineers request that they be notified of things such as this. It was further stated that when revised plats were submitted that included the easements a call was placed to Mr. Taylor who stated that he did not authorize the easement and therefore the request before you tonight is a plat request without drainage easements. It was pointed out that a request by the petitioners for administrative approval of a minor plat had been referred to the Planning Commission. When asked about the drainage easement, the City Engineer stated it would be for the good of the community to have a drainage easement to ensure that the water can always pass through there.
It was also noted that this is presently un-platted land for which no subdivision plat exists. Prior to this date there is no subdivision of record. The submission of this plat, which is a subdivision, does involve the dedication of streets and improvements to these streets. Mr. Lilly stated that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Jackson had no problem with signing a street improvement agreement for future improvements to Pleasant Grove Road and Peachtree Avenue.
Mr. McCracken made a motion to approve the minor plat request subject to a 30’ drainage easement, measured at 15’ from existing centerline of ditch, being shown for the ditch crossing the property and subject to the owners entering into a street improvement agreement in lieu of installing street improvements at this time of Peachtree Avenue and Pleasant Grove Road. This approval is also subject to the plat being revised to show the property line at the boundary of the street right-of-way. The motion was seconded by Mr. Patteson. Voting was 5 in favor, 1 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS,
Concluding the vote on the motion was a statement by Mr. Lilly that he wished to submit the plats with the easements shown to be in compliance with the stipulations. He further stated that he may appeal this decision at a further date.
#3 SU92-10 Bruce W. Taylor requested approval of placement of a mobile home at 2312 Pleasant Grove Road. The property is located on the southeast corner of Pleasant Grove Road and Peachtree Avenue.
The owner’s representative, Marty Lilly, stated this request is for temporary placement of a mobile home while the Taylor home is under construction and would be removed upon completion. Mr. Lilly further stated that construction should be completed within twelve months. It was further noted that the petitioner is buying a new mobile home. The appropriate number of signatures have, been submitted on a petition.
Ms. Finley made a motion to approve the placement as a temporary agreement with the stipulation that the mobile home meet Code requirements and that it be removed from the property within thirty (30) days of completion of the home and also acknowledging the fact the proper number of signatures had been presented on a petition by the owners. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#4 RZ92-31 A.J. Baltz requested approval of rezoning from R-1 to C-3 for 2.66 acres located on the northeast corner of Southwest Drive (HWY. 49) and Darr Hill Road on the northeast corner of Darr Hill Road and Johnwood Drive.
With regards to items #4 & 5, Mr. McCracken made a motion to table the request due to the fact that there are questions concerning dedication of right-of-way, abandonment of other right-of-ways, absence of a site plan and some other matters and no representation to address these questions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. All members present voting aye. REQUEST TABLED.
#5 RP92-35 A.J. Baltz requested approval of Lots 1 and 2, a replat of all of lots 1, 2, 16 and part of Lot 3 of Block A of Bentons Subdivision, Extended. The property is located on northeast corner of Southwest Drive (HWY. 49) and Darr Hill Road and on the northeast corner of Darr Hill Road and Johnwood Drive.
With regards to items #4 & #5, Mr. McCracken made a motion to table the request due to the fact that there are questions concerning right-of-way and other matters and no representation to address those questions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. All members present voting aye. REQUEST TABLED.
#6 RP92-36 Miles Stahl requested approval of Lot 10A, a replat of part of Lot 10 of Wooded Acres Subdivision. The property is located on the east side of Whispering Pines Land, north of Lawson Road.
It was noted that this replat is part of a very large lot of Wooded Acres Subdivision, a subdivision that was recorded in the County.
A motive to approve the request subject to a street improvement agreement being entered into for Whispering Pines Lane was made by Mr. Patteson and seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 5 in favor, 1 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#7 RP92-38 Rickey and Vicki Elder requested approval of Lot 1, a replat of lots 8 & 9 of Block G of Bentons Subdivision. The property is located on the west side of Martha Drive, south of Pam Drive.
Mr. Damron made a motion to approve the request subject to a street improvement being entered into Martha Drive. The motion was seconded by Ms. Finley. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#8 fp92-11 Carroll Caldwell and Coy Mac Boyd requested final approval of plans for Ridgepointe Subdivision Phase 1. The subdivision contains 74 lots on 123.73 acres and is located on the north side of Woodsprings Road, west of Friendly Hope Road.
It was noted that a different arrangement had been worked out with C W & L so that now, only eight of the lots in the first two phases of the subdivision, would not be served by public sewer. These eight lots are four acres or larger. It was further stated that the sewer arrangement in this subdivision should not be construed as setting the precedence for future developments to have both public and private sewer. The major factors considered in this development are the unusual characteristics of the land, particularly the unique nature of the terrain and elevations, extensive review by City Water & Light to come up with the best possible arrangement. The fact, that the eight lots not served by public sewer are much larger in relation to the other lots. The City Engineer stated that at some future point the property owners of these large lots, if they desire could access the public sewer.
The developer stated that extending of sewer into this subdivision opens up approximately four square miles of land for possible development.
The City Engineer pointed out the need for a drainage easement between lots 8 & 9, Block E that empties into 13, Block E and further easement is needed where the water enters the natural drain. An easement is also needed on Lot 4, Block E where the culvert crosses the road and empties into the Lot. Another drainage easement is needed on Lot 5, Block B where the culvert crosses the road and empties into the lot. The City Engineer commented that most of his concerns as stated on the staff analysis had been addressed on the revised plans that were submitted on 11-9. a cul-de-sac has been added to the record plat for the end of Sawgrass Drive but construction details are not included.
Mr. Patteson made a motion to approve the subdivision with the following stipulations:
1. Changing Rachel Lane to Rachel Cove.
2. Granting the drainage easements as noted.
3. Addressing the City Engineer’s written comments on the analysis sheet.
4. Adding a notation to the plat stating that these eight lots not served by public sewer cannot be further subdivided unless served by public sewer.
5. The project engineer providing construction details for the cul-de-sac on Sawgrass Drive in accordance with city specifications.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Baker. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIIPULATIONS.
#9 FP92-12 Carroll Caldwell and Coy Mac Boyd requested final approval of plans for Ridgepointe Subdivision Phase I-A. The subdivision contains 13 lots on 23.24 acres. The property is located on the north side of Woodsprings Road, west of Friendly Hope Road.
When asked who is responsible for maintenance of the dam the project engineer, Bob Newell, stated that the Drainage District would be responsible. Mr. Newell further stated that easements would be granted when the legal description of those easements was completed. A letter from the drainage district regarding the easements is attached to these minutes stating that the easements will be forthcoming.
Mr. McCracken made a motion to approve the request with the following stipulations:
1. The drainage easement covered in the letter from the Big Creek Watershed District is obtained.
2. Street construction drawings are revised to include the cul-de-sac at the end of Ridgepointe Drive.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Patteson. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#10 RP92-37 Todd Jackson requested approval of Lots 17 and 18, a replat of Lots 17, 18 & 19 of Block B of Woodsprings Estates Phase II. The property is located at the north end of Morningside Drive.
It was noted that the utility easement crossing the middle portion of the property would remain as is and the electrical transformer located now in the middle of one of the lots would also remain as is unless the developer makes the necessary arrangements to relocate them.
A motion to approve the request was made by Mr. McCracken and seconded by Mr. Blalock. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED.
#11 PP92-12 Todd Jackson, Jimmy Cox, Roy Milner requested preliminary approval of Woodsprings Estates Phase IV. The subdivision contains 35 lots on 20.37 acres and will be an extension of Springs Hollow Drive and Autumn Drive, west of Morningside Drive, north of Woodsprings Road.
It was noted that this subdivision is a continuation of some of the streets coming out of Phase III. All of the streets in Phase III have not been built, one of which would provide another access to Woodsprings Road. It was further noted that this plan of Phase IV does differ from the overall conceptual plan that was seen in 1988. The City Engineer stated that most of his concerns were with traffic flow now and in the future. There are a lot of areas that could be blocked. It appears that a portion of Casey Springs Road adjoins this property and that at least some right-of-way was shown on the conceptual plan for Casey Springs Road. It was further noted that since 1988 Casey Springs had been paved without curb and gutter and that possibly a street improvement agreement would be in order for future improvements to the street.
Mr. McCracken made a motion to grant preliminary approval with the following comments:
1. The developers again review the revised street plans for Autumn Drive and the fact that this street is not accessible to Spring Hollow Drive which is a change from the conceptual drawings. It appears that there are too many lots with only one means of getting in and out.
2. The developers look specifically at Spring Hollow and evaluate the possibility of accessing Casey Springs Road. The plat should also be revised to show the placement of Casey Springs Road in relation to this subdivision.
3. The project engineer addressing the ditch slopes as noted in the City Engineer’s comments.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Baker. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH COMMENTS.
#12 PP92-10 Shelter Insurance Company requested final approval of Shelter Place, a commercial subdivision containing 4 lots on 7.62 acres. The property is located on the southwest corner of Highland Drive and Browns Lane.
It was noted that drainage plans that were not present at the preliminary meeting had been submitted and the City Engineer has approved then. At the preliminary meeting it was asked that the alignment of the street with the entrance to Wal-Mart be studied. Clay Kenward stated that no change has been proposed for the alignment of street.
A motion to approve the final subdivision request was made by Mr. McCracken with the statement that the topo, drainage and utility plan includes locations of private drive entrances to the site and this approval does not extend to those private drives. The drives to the site will be evaluated when the site plan is considered. The motion was seconded by Mr. Patteson. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATION.
In other business:
#13 SP92-25 Shelter Insurance Company requested approval of site plans for a 12,950 sq. ft. office building which includes an enclosed garage.
At the preliminary approval of the Shelter Place Subdivision, it was stipulated that the City Engineer and City Planner review the site plans for Shelter Insurance and if they were comfortable with the plans they could approve the site plans. However, after review by the Engineer and Planner, they were not comfortable with the site particularly with reference to the accessible parking spaces shown, multiple entrances coming into the site very near to the major intersection. The project architect stated this is not a high traffic business and there would be very little parking other than staff and those that would be coming for an appraisal.
A great deal of concern was expressed over the Brown’s Lane entrance to the site being only 60’ away from the intersection with Highland Drive and the great potential for accidents. Further concern was expressed over the off angle required for turning into the site at this entrance.
Mr. Patteson made a motion to approve the site plans with the stipulation that the entrance off Browns Lane be re-evaluated again for possible relocation. If the drive is not relocated then it should be widened by an additional 5’ for a total 30’ wide drive. It was further stipulated that the corporate office review this entrance and make contact with the City Engineer with their findings. With reference to parking it was stipulated that the parking comply with Code either by providing the required parking or seeking a variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
Pursuant to the request for company officials to review the access from Browns Lane with the City Engineer, this is their findings. The entrance will remain in its proposed location but will e widened to at least 30’ The Shelter officials further stated that if a problem arises with this entrance and exit, they will properly sign the drive to prohibit exits form their drive onto Browns Land.
#14 MP92-58 Herman Willett requests approval of a one lot minor plat located on the north side of Arrowhead Farm Road, east of Duncan Road.
This plat was submitted for administrative approval but there are some complications with the right-of-way and street situation. Mr. Willett’s property actually extends 45’ farther south than the street itself. This same problem was noted in an earlier plat submitted on the south side of Arrowhead Farm Road when their property was 40+ feet short of the street. Since the amount of right-of-way for Arrowhead Farm Road has been determined to be 82’, it seemed inappropriate to get 41’ of right-of-way from the existing centerline from Mr. Willett which should in effects use 101 feet of his property. The land on the south was virtually cut off the Willett property when the road was built many, many years ago. Mr. Willett is willing to dedicate the whole 82’ of right-of-way utilizing the 60’ from the center of the road on the south side and an additional 22’ on the north side of the road, but it was felt that the Commission should review this arrangement. It was noted that the road side ditch was very near to the north side of the 22’.
A motion to approve the request subject to the owner entering into a street improvement agreement for Arrowhead Farm Road was made by Mr. Blalock and seconded by Mr. Damron. Voting was 6 in favor, 0 opposed. REQUEST APPROSVED WITH STIPULATIONS.
#15 Guy Lowes presented to the Commission a new ordinance dealing with storm water management that is being proposed. The ordinance is being done at the request of the City Council particularly because of some concern over minor plat approval and the lack of proper drainage facilities or plans. The ordinance as drafted would require engineering work and provision for drainage for minor plats, subdivisions, etc. It was further stated that eh ordinance would take care of some problems being created in the older parts of town where old houses had been demolished and paved parking lots had taken their place yet no provision for water retention was made, therefore the folks downstream are suffering and have no means to alleviate the problem. The MAPC is requested to review the ordinance and place on the agenda for December.
#16 Clay Kenward requested to Commission to take a look at some property on Commerce Drive to see if they would consider commercial zoning on land adjoining the Industrial Park. Mr. Kenward wanted to know what the zoning and best use should be for the entire 40 acres owned by Mr. Trusty on commerce Drive. The intended use as a truck shop and repair center would not be a permitted use in I-2 zoning. The Commission stated they would be willing to consider a proposal for a commercial zoning request.
#17 FP92.14 Hillpoint Development Corporation requested final approval of Fernwood Place, a subdivision containing 16 lots on 7.66 acres. The subdivision will be a continuation of Fernwood Drive, south of Indian Hills Subdivision.
It was pointed out that this item was submitted on 3:00 p.m. on Friday (11-6-92) and there is no staff analysis. The project engineer stated that all easements had been addressed. Mr. Kenward further stated that the developer had decided to enclose the ditch on the northern portion of the subdivision rather than having an enclosed ditch. The City Engineer stated that all his comments on the preliminary plans had been addressed.
Ms. Finley made a motion to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Baker. Voting was 5 in favor, 1 abstaining. REQUEST APPROVED.
#18 The City Planner requested the Planning Commission get together for a work session to discuss a new parking ordinance that has been drafted as well as the drainage ordinance mentioned earlier during this meeting.
#19 Lloyd McCracken asked that the Commission be notified each month of the minor plats that have been approved administratively.
#20 It was noted that this month particularly there were several items that came in late, some three weeks after the deadline, and were up for consideration without proper staff review. It is a bad situation to be in and could cause some great problems if it continues. While there needs to be some leniency in accepting some plans two or three days late, plans coming in within a few days of the meeting should not be accepted. The comment was also made that many of the plans that are approved with stipulations so that work could be started right away are causing a great deal of problems because the consultants are not relaying the messages or carrying out the stipulations sometimes months after the fact. The developers and/or consultants are not following through with what has been stipulated. The Commissioners acknowledged there will be some instances where exceptions will be made, but it should be a rare exception and unique circumstances to accept a late plan.