City of Powder Springs - File #: PZ 22--022

• File #: PZ 22--022
• Version: 1
• Type: Rezoning
• Status: Passed
• File created: 5/25/2022
• In control: City Council
• On agenda: 6/20/2023
• Final action: 6/20/2023
• Title: Rezoning Request: C.H. James Parkway. To consider a request to rezone from MXU to PUD-R. The property located at C.H. James Parkway, Florence Road and Carrington Drive within Land Lot 732 of the 19th District, 2nd Section, Cobb County, Georgia. PIN: 9073200240
• Indexes: SP - Create an Atmosphere of Community, SP - Develop and Promote a Safe City

Date	Ver.	Action By	Action	Result
6/20/2023	1	City Council	approved	Pass
12/5/2022	1	City Council	Denied	Pass
11/21/2022	1	City Council	tabled	Pass
9/19/2022	1	City Council	tabled	Pass
8/29/2022	1	Planning & Zoning Commission
8/15/2022	1	City Council	tabled	Pass
7/25/2022	1	Planning & Zoning Commission
7/18/2022	1	City Council	tabled	Pass
6/27/2022	1	Planning & Zoning Commission
6/9/2022	1	Planning & Zoning Commission

CASE NUMBER:  PZ 22-022

APPLICANT:  OTH 12 LLC. C/O Battle Law, P.C.

REZONING REQUEST: To rezone from MXU to PUD-R

LOCATION: C.H. James Parkway, Florence Road and Carrington Park Drive

CURRENT ZONING:  MXU                              ACRES:  4.6                     PIN: 19073200240

Staff Recommendation:  DENIAL.                                          Planning and Zoning Recommendation: DENIAL

BACKGROUND: 

The subject site was rezoned from LI and CRC to MXU on January 5, 2004 and was the commercial component of a 28.7 acre mixed-use development, as shown outlined in red in figure 1. The residential component, Carrington Park Subdivision, comprises of 48 detached single-family homes, and 94 single-family attached townhomes. The full list of zoning actions is summarized in table 1.

Figure 1. Concept Plan. Carrington Park MXU Development.

Table 1. Summary of Zoning Actions.

Case	Request	Status
Rezoning	LI and CRC to MXU to allow for a residential development.	Approved with conditions, January 5, 2004.
Rezoning - Change in stipulation	Amend zoning stipulations Setback for single-family residential structures.	Approved with conditions, February 2, 2004.
Rezoning - Change in stipulations	Amend zoning stipulations To allow 6 units for leasing.	Approved with conditions, August 21, 2006.
Variance	Variance to the minimum requirements to allow public.dedication of roads, sidewalk and easements.	Approved with conditions, December 7, 2015.

Parkland Communities is requesting to rezone the remnant commercial component from MXU to PUD-R to develop twenty-nine (29) fee simple townhomes, as shown in the site plan in figure 2.

Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan.

SURROUNDING AREA:

The subject site is located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of C.H. James Parkway and Florence Road and is adjacent to the MXU zoned Carrington Park Subdivision.  CRC zoning prevails in the other quadrants of the Florence Road and C.H. James intersection. Light industrial zoning prevails adjacent to the east, west, and south across the Silver Comet Trail, as shown in figure 3. The subject site abuts a 372,400 SF warehouse to the south. Surrounding the parcels on the north and east sides of CH James Parkway and Florence Road include a day care center, bank, retail strip center, free-standing restaurant, and several smaller light industrial buildings.

Figure 3. Surrounding Area: Zoning Districts.

Figure 4. Surrounding Area: Aerial

FISCAL IMPACT:

The methodology employed in the fiscal impact analysis estimates and compares the annual and cumulative net fiscal impact of a requested rezoning to permit a proposed 29-unit townhome community on an undeveloped 4.6-acre parcel, versus a hypothetical commercial development on the same property as allowed under existing zoning. The “commercial” scenario required making certain assumptions regarding the potential future timing, density, and value of such a proposal, which may or may not be achieved. A summarized comparison of these two scenarios is presented in table 2.

The resulting analysis found that both options should be fiscally positive in both the short- and long-term, with the commercial option generating a cumulative surplus that could be 4.3 times larger than the townhome community under an assumed delayed development timeline. This difference could be significantly eroded if a future commercial use is further delayed, or the site is eventually developed to a lower density and value that assumed in this report.

The commercial scenario generates a $823,800 cumulative 20-year surplus of revenues over costs, which is approximately 4 times greater than the ($224,000) surplus forecast under the townhome scenario. The “risk” to this scenario is whether such a development would be financially feasible at this density within the next 3 to 5 years. If delayed or eventually developed to a lower density or value, the forecasted fiscal surplus would be substantially reduced.

Table 2. Fiscal Impact Analysis. Summary of Comparison: PUD-R Townhome vs MXU Commercial.

ANALYSIS:

The application was reviewed against the following criteria:

1.                     Whether the proposed zoning district and uses within that district are compatible with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. The future development map and the

future land use plan map of the city’s comprehensive plan shall be used in decision making relative to amendments to the official zoning map, in accordance with Table 13-1:

The proposed use and zoning district are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is designated as Village Center Residential, as shown in figure 5. The PUD-R zoning district, and townhomes are consistent with the land use designation. The proposed site previously had a designation of Community activity center in the 2017 version of the Comprehensive plan, and this was updated to Village Center Residential in the 2021 update.

Figure 5. Future Land Use Designation. 2021 Springs In Motion Comprehensive Plan.

Applicant’s response: The proposed zoning district and use is compatible with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. The Future Land Use Map shows the Subject Property as having a Community Activity Center designation, but discussions with the Planning Staff have shown that the Subject Property actually has a future land use designation of Village Center Residential. According to the 2021 Comprehensive Plan, appropriate zoning districts within Village Center Residential include R-15, MDR, MXU, and PUD-R. Additionally, the types of uses contemplated include, in relevant part, townhomes. Therefore, the proposed zoning district and use are compatible with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan.

2.                     Whether the proposed zoning district and uses permitted within that district are suitable in view of the zoning and development of adjacent and nearby property.

The proposed PUD-R zoning district is intended to allow flexible site planning and building arrangements under a unified plan of development so that innovative land planning methods may be utilized which foster natural resource conservation and neighborhood cohesiveness. The purpose is not merely to reduce development requirements but to achieve other goals including the provision of higher standards for design and site amenities such as parks, open space, walking trails. The PUD-R district is intended to result in higher quality residential patterns that conserve and create open space, and provide stable developments which enhance the surrounding area.

The site plan has been updated to satisfy the recommendations of TSW, the city’s comprehensive plan consultants. TSW initially commented that site plan should require a street section that includes on street parking and a tree planting zone, as illustrated in Appendix I; and that townhouse 1-15 seem to be dangerous as front-loaded product sited at a curve and intersection; and that the developer should consider making those units an alley loaded product. The revised site plan now includes the recommended rear loaded units, the typical street section, and more green space. The architectural recommendations included: adding a porch at the front door, add an awning or porch above the garage, consider all brick front façade, and consider muted colors like white, beige, grey, etc.

Applicant’s response: The proposed zoning district and use permitted within the PUD-R zoning district are suitable in view of the zoning and development of adjacent and nearby property. The property immediately adjacent to the Subject Property, Carrington, is developed with both single-family detached homes and single-family attached townhomes. The proposed development would simply be continuing a use that currently exists. To the North and Northeast, there are various institutional uses likes a bank, as well as various commercial uses like bookstores, HVAC supply, and restaurants. The proposed townhome community would serve to bolster those businesses by housing more families that could take advantage of being right across C.H. James Parkway from them. To the South there is a distribution center. The warehouse backs up to the currently existing townhomes with a buffer between the two. The proposed townhomes would be across Carrington Park Drive from the warehouse use, so would be adequately buffered from the warehouse. Therefore, the proposed zoning district and use are suitable in view of the zoning and development of adjacent property.

3.                     Whether the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property will be adversely affected by one or more uses permitted in the requested zoning district.

The existing residential use at the adjacent Carrington Park Subdivision is compatible with the proposed residential use to develop 29 fee simple townhomes. However, the residents of Carrington Park have voiced opposition to the proposed development citing concerns about on street parking, sharing amenities, among other issues. The nearby light industrial uses will not be impacted by the proposed zoning district.

Applicant’s response: The existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property will not be adversely affected by one or more uses permitted in the requested zoning district. The PUD-R district permits residential uses. The property most likely to be affected at all is also a residential development that already has townhomes. Therefore, the likely impact would be to increase the property values of the existing townhomes. Therefore, the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property will not be adversely affected by one or more uses permitted in the requested zoning district.

4.                     Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot or should not be used as currently zoned.

There is not substantial reason why the property cannot be used as currently zoned. The subject property was intended for commercial use and fronts the city’s main commercial thoroughfare. Commercial activity prevails at all other quadrants of the intersection of Florence Road and C.H. James Parkway. The growth of the city and current prevalence of development activity means that this site may attract a high-quality commercial development consistent with the future land use designation. Staff notes however, that the property has remained an undeveloped tract since 2005, although it has been marketed commercially throughout this time. Some commercial developers have referenced the limited access on CH James Pkwy as a challenge to developing this parcel commercially.

Applicant’s response: There are substantial reasons why the property cannot or should not be used as currently zoned. The Subject Property was originally zoned MXU about twenty (20) years ago. At that time, the Subject Property was designated as the commercial portion of a mixed-use development. Since then, the residential portion of that original project has been built, but there has been absolutely no interest whatsoever from any builder in building out the commercial portion of the land. No businesses have shown any interest in operating on the Subject Property for the past two decades. The property owner has sat, patiently waiting, for some opportunity to sell the property to a commercial developer or builder and has been unable to. Failure to rezone the property would effectively keep the property owner from using the land for anything at all. This would certainly qualify as a regulatory taking of the Subject Property by failing to remove restrictions on the property that are keeping the property owner from enjoying gainful economic use of the property. Therefore, there are substantial reasons why the property cannot or should not be used as currently zoned.

5.                     Whether public facilities such as roads, schools, water and sewer utilities, and police and fire protection will be adequate to serve the proposed zoning district and uses permitted.

Schools, public safety, and public utility providers should have capacity to support the proposed development. Cobb County Water Systems provided feedback (Appendix) and commented that, “Permanent structures will be subject to setback requirements from public sewer easements, per Cobb County Code 122-123.”  Cobb County Schools commented that the case will not impact the schools as they are all are under capacity. Cobb Fire’s detailed comments are included in the appendix.

Applicant’s response: Public facilities such as roads, schools, water and sewer utilities, and police and fire protection will be adequate to serve the proposed zoning district and uses permitted. The currently approved plan is for an office building and commercial retail center on the Subject Property. If we compare the number of trips expected from that use with the proposed use we find that the proposed use will produce 61% fewer trips than the currently approved plan. Thus, the proposed use will have a far smaller impact on the roads than the currently approved plan. Additionally, there are at least two academies in the immediate area that could serve the new families. Lastly, there is adequate water and sewer to serve the proposed use as well as very little added strain to the existing police and fire protection services from this development. Therefore, public facilities such as roads, schools, water and sewer utilities, and police and fire protection will be adequate to serve the proposed zoning and use.

6.                     Whether the proposed zoning district and uses permitted within that zoning district are supported by new or changing conditions not anticipated by the comprehensive plan or reflected in the existing zoning on the property or surrounding properties.

The proposed use is anticipated by the current future land use designation of Village Center Residential, which captures current conditions given the that it was recently updated in 2021.

Applicant’s response: The proposed zoning district and uses permitted within that zoning district are supported by new or changing conditions not anticipated by the comprehensive plan or reflected in the existing zoning on the property or surrounding properties. Only recently, the Comprehensive Plan was updated to amend the future land use designation of the Subject Property from Community Activity Center, which contemplates commercial uses, to Village Center Residential, which contemplates residential uses. The currently approved plan has the Subject Property slated for the commercial portion of a mixed-use development. Given that it is highly unlikely that the Subject Property will ever be developed as commercial, and that the future land use designation has changed to promote residential uses, the proposed zoning district and uses permitted by that zoning district are a much better fit than what is currently approved. Therefore, the proposed zoning district and uses permitted within it are supported by new or changing conditions not anticipated by the comprehensive plan or reflected in the existing zoning of the property or surrounding properties.

7.                     Whether the proposed zoning district and uses permitted within that zoning district reflect a reasonable balance between the promotion of the public health, safety, morality or general welfare and the right to unrestricted use of property.

The proposed rezoning to PUD-R for residential use will not be injurious to the public’s welfare. Residential uses exist adjacent to the proposed development at the Carrington Park Subdivision. Initial feedback received from the City’s Comprehensive plan consultant at TSW commented that, “Townhouse 1-15 seem to be dangerous as front-loaded product sited at a curve and intersection. The recommendation is to make those units an alley loaded product.” The applicant has addressed this and other comments by revising the site plan to include rear loaded units, increased usable green space, an upgraded typical street section with more street trees and on-street parallel parking, and improved connectivity and circulation throughout the development.

Applicant’s response: The proposed zoning district and uses permitted within that zoning district reflect a reasonable balance between the promotion of the public health, safety, morality, or general welfare and the right to unrestricted use of property. The proposed zoning district and use are just like those in the Carrington subdivision. Carrington has fee simple townhomes already. The Subject Property will simply continue that use and not bring in any kind of rental units. Additionally, the zoning proposal and use remedies a long-term restriction on the unrestricted use of property by relieving the property owner of the requirement to develop the Subject Property as commercial and allowing the property owner to finally use the Subject Property in a gainfully economic way. Therefore, the proposed zoning district and uses permitted within it reflect a reasonable balance between the promotion of the public health, safety, morality, or general welfare and the right to unrestricted use of property.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends DENIAL.

Should approval be considered, staff proposes the following conditions:

1.                     The stipulations and conditions set forth herein shall replace and supersede in full any and all prior stipulations and conditions in whatsoever form which are currently in place concerning the property which constitutes the subject matter of the above-captioned Application for Rezoning. The rezoning is from CRC to PUD-R with total site acreage of approximately 3.7 acres. 

2.                     The applicant shall submit a revised site plan compliant with these stipulations for Administrative Review. The revised site plan shall be in substantial conformity to site plan prepared by Alliance Land Surveying and Planning for Parkland Communities, dated 08/12/2022. Site Plan must be consistent with PUD-R regulations and all other applicable regulations identified in the Unified Development Code. The revised site plan shall consider the addition premium amenities and staggering of units. The applicant shall agree to work with TSW (Comprehensive Plan Consultant) to revise the site plan, to determine amenities features, and architectural features of the structures, and shall pay a fee up to $2500 for this review. Additionally, this review will include potential increased green space or rear entry units.

3.                     The applicant shall pay a proportionate share of the paving costs, per stipulations of approved variance PZ15-028 (Appendix II): “That future development of the townhouses and commercial portion pay a proportionate share of the paving costs.”

4.                     The typical street section of the 50-foot right-of-way shall be revised to include a 5’ sidewalk clear zone and a 6’ tree planting zone on both sides of the street, and a 7’ on street parking lane, and 20’ travel lanes as illustrated in Appendix I.

5.                     All residential units shall have two-car garages, and the parking pads/driveway in

front of the garage shall be greater than or equal to 22-feet in length.

6.                      The setback are as follows:

Front: 10 feet from right-of-way

Side:  5 feet setback

Rear: 20 feet setback

Perimeter:  35 feet setback

Between buildings: Minimum of 20 feet

Design Review shall be conducted via Administrative Review.

7.                     Units must be staggered to the extent required by code, they must provide some staggering or variation as approved by an Administrative Design Review.

8.                     The architectural style and composition of the homes shall consist of traditional architecture on all sides, consistent with the product images submitted. Variety in the neighborhood will be provided using stone and different shades of brick, and having some units with 100% brick on front facades. All elevation will contain no less than 50% brick or stone on the front and side façades. All rear elevation will contain brick or stone no less than 50% where exposed to the right-of-way. An administrative design review will be required.

9.                     The creation of a mandatory Homeowners' Association ("HOA") and the submission of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CCRs") during the Plan Review process, which shall include, among other components, strict architectural controls. The mandatory HOA shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of fencing, landscaping, open space areas, sidewalks, community areas, stormwater detention and/or water quality ponds, lighting, the entrance to the Residential Community and any amenities.

10.                     The submission of a landscape plan during the Plan Review process which shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Additionally, the landscape plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

a.                     Detention pond landscaping and screening plan for around the proposed detention and water quality areas with Cryptomeria, Arborvitae and/or other evergreen trees.

b.                      Planting plan for a twenty-five-foot (10') landscape buffer around the perimeter of the Subject Property.

c.                     Compliance with landscape section renderings/elevations which will be submitted under separate cover during the Plan Review process.

d.                     The landscape plan, which shall be prepared, stamped and signed by a Georgia Registered Landscape Architect or a degreed Horticulturist and shall identify open space areas; landscaped common areas; and other components of the proposed Residential Community which will be further identified during the Plan Review process.

e.                     The installation of underground utilities and the utilization of decorative lighting themed to the architectural style and composition as above mentioned.

f.                     All HVAC, mechanical systems and home utilities within the community shall be screened by way of fencing and/or landscaping.

g.                     Entry signage for the proposed Residential Community shall be ground-based, monument-style, landscaped, lighted and irrigated.

h.                     The installation of landscaped front, side and rear yards.

i.                     Compliance with the City's current Tree Preservation & Replacement Ordinance and substantial conformity to all tree protection measures and the adherence to same during the construction and build out of the Residential Community.

11.                     A third-party management company shall be hired to manage the day-to-day operations of the HOA and shall also be responsible for the management of all Association monies as well as insuring that the Association is properly insured until such time as the HOA makes a determination that it can undertake such responsibilities.

12.                     The Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve minor modifications to these stipulations, the architectural renderings/elevations, the site plan and the overall proposal as it proceeds through the Plan Review process and thereafter except for those that:

a) Increase the density of the Residential Community.

b) Relocate a structure closer to the property line of adjacent property which is zoned the same or in a more restrictive zoning district.

c) Increase the height of a building which is adjacent to property which is zoned in the same or more restrictive zoning district.

d) Change access locations to different rights-of-way.

13.                     Road frontages will be heavily and professionally landscaped which may include the use of berms, fencing, and substantial plant material to provide for visual screening. All perimeter and roadway buffer areas will either be owned by the HOA or deed restricted with maintenance easements in favor of the HOA.

14.                     Declarant or any builder construction homes within the proposed community must sell any such home for owner occupancy only. Thereafter, leasing of any units within the entire development, with a minimum lease term of one (1) year. The mandatory homeowner’s association must maintain records dealing with any lease withing the Development, and such records shall be subject to review by the City of Powder Springs personnel with regard to enforcement of this provision limiting the total number of leases within the Development to no more than 5%. The homeowner association shall agree to provide, upon request to the City of Powder Springs, and all information relating to existing leases at the time of anu such request by the City. The City shall be named a third-party beneficiary entitles to enforce this provision of the covenants.

15.                     Traffic impacts will be reviewed as part of the LDP process. Applicant agrees to offsite improvements necessitated by this development.

16.                     If the development on the site stalls for a period of 6 months or more, the site be replanted per a plan approved by the Community Development Director showing compliance with minimum tree canopy, street trees and buffer requirements.

APPENDIX

I.                     Illustration of Typical Street Section, as stipulated in Conditions of Approval #3.

II.                     PZ 15-028. Excerpted from City Council Minutes of December 7,2015.

III.                     Rendering of Proposed Elevations.

IV.                     CCWS Feedback.

V.                     Cobb Fire Marchall’s Office Feedback