PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
December 16, 2009
A meeting of the Planning Advisory Commission was held Wednesday, December 16,
2009 in the Council Chambers on the Plaza Level of the Government Center.
Commissioners Present:
Chairperson: Scott Boyce
Vice Chairperson: Cathy Hodge
Commissioners: Travis Chambers
Gladys Ford
Glen Heinzelman
Ralph King
Lucy Sheftall
Ronny Smith
Staff Members: Daniel Stegall ? Zoning Administrator, Will Johnson - Planning
Department Chief, Tina Trant ? Planning Technician
Commissioners Absent: Walter Calhoun
Others Present: David Britt, Harlan Price, William Donald, Dorothy Smith,
Arthur Porter, James Jones, Carl Francis, Thomas Miller, Turner McCrary.
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Scott Boyce called the meeting to order at
9:04a.m. He explained the rezoning process to the audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
1. EXCP-11-09-2760: A request for a Special Exception Use on property located
at 10107 Veterans Parkway. The purpose of the Special Exception is for
Personal Care Home Type III. The current zoning is Residential Estate 1. David
Britt is the applicant on behalf of New Birth Church is the applicant.
David Britt on behalf of New Birth Church has submitted an application for the
Special Exception Use cited above. The property is located in RE1 (Residential
Estate 1) District. The purpose of the Special Exception Use is to allow for
the operation of a Personal Care Home Type III. The operation would serve as an
accessory use to the existing Church on the property:
(1) Access: Is or will the type of street providing access to the use be
adequate to serve the proposed special exception use?
Access to the property is adequate for the proposed use.
(2) Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: Is or will access into and out of the
property be adequate to provide for traffic and pedestrian safety, the
anticipated volume of the traffic flow, and access by emergency vehicles?
There will not be a negative impact to the transportation system, nor will
there be any impact to pedestrian safety.
(3) Adequacy of Public Facilities: Are or will public facilities such as
school, water, or sewer utilities and police and fire protection be adequate to
serve the special exception use?
The proposed use is served by all city services. There will be no impact on
public facilities. A representative from the Fire Marshall?s Office has
informed staff and the applicant that fire protection infrastructure must be
put in place before construction can commence. Also, driveways on the property
if utilized as single lanes must have visible signs prohibiting parking in
those lanes in order for emergency vehicles to access the personal care home
facilities.
(4) Protection from Adverse Affects: Are or will refuse, service, parking and
loading areas on the property be located or screened to protect other
properties in the area from such adverse effects as noise, light, glare or odor?
The proposed use is not expected to adversely affect neighboring properties.
Issues dealing with parking, loading, external dumpsters / compactors, and
light are addressed in the UDO. Noise impacts are addressed in the City Code.
(5) Hours of Operation: Will the hours and manner of operation of the special
exception use have no adverse effects on other properties in the area?
The neighboring properties should not be affected by the hours of operation for
this use.
(6) Compatibility: Will the height, size, or location of the buildings or other
structures on the property be compatible with the height, size, character, or
location of buildings or other structures on neighboring properties?
The proposed use will be compatible with neighboring properties.
Ten (10) property owners within 300 feet of the parcel were notified by letter
of the proposed Special Exception Use. The Planning Department received one
call requesting information on the Special Exception Use request.
David Britt and Carlos Coleman came to the podium. Mr. Coleman explained what
would be built on the property now. Everything on the Master Plan will be
built in phases. Now they are working on the Personal Care Home.
Chairperson Boyce asked for discussion and a motion. Commissioner Chambers
made a motion to approve this Special Exception request. Vice Chairperson
Hodge seconded. It was approved unanimously.
EXCP-11-09-2818: A request for a Special Exception Use for property located
at
10701 Chattsworth Road. The current zoning is Residential Estate 1.The purpose
of the Special Exception is for a place of worship that will exceed 250 seats.
Dorothy Smith is the applicant on behalf of S.T.A.R. Ministries.
Dorothy Smith on behalf of S.T.A.R. Ministries submitted an application for the
Special Exception Use cited above. The property is located in an RE1
(Residential Estate 1) District. The purpose of the Special Exception Use is
for a place of worship with 250 or more seats:
(1) Access: Is or will the type of street providing access to the use be
adequate to serve the proposed special exception use?
Access to the property is adequate for the proposed use. Two access points for
ingress/egress and a deceleration lane will accommodate this use on the
property.
(2) Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: Is or will access into and out of the
property be adequate to provide for traffic and pedestrian safety, the
anticipated volume of the traffic flow, and access by emergency vehicles?
Access to the property is adequate for the proposed use. Two access points for
ingress/egress and a deceleration lane will accommodate this use on the property
There will be no impact to the transportation system nor will there be any
impact to pedestrian safety.
(3) Adequacy of Public Facilities: Are or will public facilities such as
school, water, or sewer utilities and police and fire protection be adequate to
serve the special exception use?
All Public facilities are adequate for this use.
(4) Protection from Adverse Affects: Are or will refuse, service, parking and
loading areas on the property be located or screened to protect other
properties in the area from such adverse effects as noise, light, glare or odor?
The proposed use will be in a building / grounds that were designed for this
type of use. It will not adversely affect surrounding properties.
(5) Hours of Operation: Will the hours and manner of operation of the special
exception use have no adverse effects on other properties in the area?
The hours of operation for this use will not have an adverse impact on other
properties in the area.
(6) Compatibility: Will the height, size, or location of the buildings or other
structures on the property be compatible with the height, size, character, or
location of buildings or other structures on neighboring properties?
The proposed use will be compatible with neighboring properties.
Twelve (12) property owners within 300 feet of the parcel were notified by
letter of the proposed Special Exception Use. To date, the Planning Department
had two phone calls in favor of the Special Exception Use request. We have not
received any notification from Ft. Benning yet.
Dorothy Smith and William Donnell came to the podium. Mr. Donnell stated that
their church is presently in Columbus but want to move to this property. They
will be having services two nights a week and on the weekend. They won?t be
there 24 hours a day. Ft. Benning won?t have a negative impact on their
services. Parking will be plentiful.
Chairperson Boyce asked for discussion and a motion. Commissioner King made a
motion to approve this Special Exception. Commissioner Chambers seconded. It
was approved six (King, Chambers, Ford, Smith, Heinzelman, Sheftall) to one
(Hodge).
REZONING CASES:
3. REZN-11-09-2832: A request to rezone 13.192 acres located at
3832 & 1600 Fort Benning Road. The current zoning is Residential Multi Family
2. The proposed zoning is General Commercial. The property will be used for a
Medical Office. Rob McKenna is the applicant.
The applicant did not show up for the PAC meeting. A motion was made by
Commissioner King to table this case until January 6, 2010. Commissioner
Heinzelman seconded. The vote was unanimous to table.
TEXT AMENDMENTS:
4. REZN-12-09-3036:
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REVISIONS ? CHAPTER 3
(Explanation of Revisions)
1. Explanation of Revisions: Amend Section 4.4.13.B by adding new Subsection 3.
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE
Sec. 4.4.13. Billboards.
Section 4.4.13.B. Prohibited Locations
B. Prohibited Locations. Maintaining the aesthetics of the entrances to this
community, its gateways, is important. New or larger billboards within 660 feet
shall not be allowed along the following gateways:
1. 2nd Avenue; and
2. The J. R. Allen Parkway/U.S. 80/Falline Freeway from the Alabama state
line past its intersection with the Columbus Manchester Expressway to its
intersection with the west side of Flat Rock Road and I-185 north of its
intersection with the J. R. Allen Parkway/U.S. 80, except for signs which may
be authorized by the Georgia Department of Transportation within the highway
right-of-way.
XXX
Sec. 4.4.13. Billboards.
Section 4.4.13.B. Prohibited Locations
B. Prohibited Locations. Maintaining the aesthetics of the entrances to this
community, its gateways, is important. New or larger billboards within 660 feet
shall not be allowed along the following gateways:
1. 2nd Avenue; and
2. The J. R. Allen Parkway/U.S. 80/Falline Freeway from the Alabama state
line past its intersection with the Columbus Manchester Expressway to its
intersection with the west side of Flat Rock Road and I-185 north of its
intersection with the J. R. Allen Parkway/U.S. 80, except for signs which may
be authorized by the Georgia Department of Transportation within the highway
right-of-way.
3. Columbus Manchester Expressway/Manchester Expressway/GA Highway 85 from its
intersection with J. R. Allen Parkway/U.S. 80/Fallline Freeway to the Harris
County line, except for signs which may be authorized by the Georgia Department
of Transportation within the highway right-of-way.
2. Explanation of Revisions: Amend Section 9.2.4.F by amending Subsection 1 by
adding new Subsections (A) and (B).
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE
Sec. 9.2.4 Board of Zoning Appeals.
Section 9.2.4.F.1. Appeals.
F. Appeals.
1. Appeal to Council. Appeals to council shall conform to Section 4.4.26 of
this ordinance.
Sec. 9.2.4 Board of Zoning Appeals.
Section 9.2.4.F.1. Appeals.
F. Appeals.
1. Appeals to Council.
Signs. Appeals to council shall conform to Section 4.4.26 of this ordinance.
Wireless Communication Facilities. A decision by the Board regarding an
administrative appeal may be appealed to Council. The appeal shall be filed
within ten (10) days of final decision by the Board.
3. Explanation of Revisions: Amend Chapter 10 by adding new Section 10.11.6.1.
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE
Chapter 10 Development Review Procedures and Permits
Article 11 Appeals.
Section 10.11.6.1
XXX
Chapter 10 Development Review Procedures and Permits
Article 11 Appeals.
Section 10.11.6.1
10.11.6.1 Watershed Protection Variances.
A watershed protection variance may be granted by the Council of Columbus
subject to the requirements of this Section.
A. Criteria for Variances. Watershed protection variances shall be limited to
relief from the following requirements:
1. If the applicant complies with the buffer widths and required practices, he
or she can secure no reasonable return from, nor make reasonable use of, his or
her property. Merely proving that the variance would permit a greater profit
from the property shall not be considered adequate justification for a
variance. Moreover, the local government shall consider whether the variance is
the minimum possible deviation from the buffer widths that shall make
reasonable use of the property possible; and
2. The hardship results from application of the buffer widths to the property
rather than from other factors such as unrelated deed restrictions; and
3. The hardship is due to the physical nature of the applicant's property, such
as its size, shape, or topography; and
4. The applicant did not cause the hardship;and
5. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
riparian buffer widths and required practices and preserves the purpose
thereof; and
6. In granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured,
and the quality of downstream water, including but not limited to water used to
supply public drinking water, has been maintained or improved; and
7. The applicant certifies that the applicant has not and does not intend to
apply for a variance from the minimum buffer requirements contained in the
Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act for the same perennial stream or
streams for which a variance is sought pursuant to this paragraph.
B. Administrative Approval. The Director of Engineering, upon finding that a
watershed protection variance meets the standards for approval contained in
this Section, may administratively approve such watershed protection variance
within and not exceeding the following parameters:
The Engineering Department may allow a reduction of the 150-feet buffer
requirement of the 7-mile radius area of the Lake Oliver water supply reservoir
down to a 100-foot buffer along the banks of the reservoir boundaries.
The Director of Engineering shall grant a variance based on the criteria as set
forth in Section 10.11.6.1.A.
4. Explanation of Revisions: Amend Section 5.4.2.B by adding Subsection C.
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE
Sec. 5.4.2. Chattahoochee River Watershed.
Section 5.4.2.C
XXX
Sec. 5.4.2. Chattahoochee River Watershed.
Section 5.4.2.C
C. Appeals to Council. Appeals to council shall conform to Section 10.11.6.1
of this ordinance.
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REVISIONS ? CHAPTER 7
(Explanation of Revisions)
5. Explanation of Revisions: Amend Section 9.2.5.J.8(A) by amending Subsection
(A).
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE
Sec. 9.2.5 Uptown Fa?ade Board.
Section 9.2.5.J.8(A)
Section 9.2.5.J.8 Appeals.
(A) Appeal from a decision of the Uptown Facade Board shall be made within 30
days to the Board of Zoning Appeals as provided in Chapter 11.
Sec. 9.2.5 Uptown Fa?ade Board.
Section 9.2.5.J.8(A)
Section 9.2.5.J.8 Appeals.
(A) Appeal from a decision of the Uptown Facade Board shall be made within 30
days to the Board of Zoning Appeals as provided in Section 10.11.7 of this
ordinance.
6. Explanation of Revisions: Amend Section 10.11.7 by amending the entire
section to include reference to the Uptown Fa?ade Board.
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE
Sec. 10.11.7. Variance from a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Section 10.11.7
Section 10.11.7. Variance from a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Any person adversely affected by any determination made by the Board of
Historic Architectural Review X relative to the issuance or denial of a
certificate of appropriateness may appeal such determination to the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
A. Applications for Appeal.
1. Maximum Filing Period. Appeals must be filed with the Board of Zoning
Appeals within 15 days after the issuance of the determination or in the case
of a failure of the Board of Historic Architectural Review X to act, within 15
days of the expiration of the 45-day period allowed for the board action.
B. Standards for Granting an Appeal.
1. Actions by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals may
approve, modify, or reject the determination made by the Board of Historic
Architectural Review X.
2. Criteria for Determination or Decisions. Determinations may only be made
if a majority of the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the
Board of Historic Architectural Review X abused its discretion in reaching its
decision.
Sec. 10.11.7. Variance from a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Section 10.11.7
Section 10.11.7. Variance from a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Any person adversely affected by any determination made by the Board of
Historic Architectural Review and/or the Uptown Fa?ade Board relative to the
issuance or denial of a certificate of appropriateness may appeal such
determination to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
A. Applications for Appeal.
1. Maximum Filing Period. Appeals must be filed with the Board of Zoning
Appeals within 15 days after the issuance of the determination or in the case
of a failure of the Board of Historic Architectural Review and/or the Uptown
Fa?ade Board to act, within 15 days of the expiration of the 45-day period
allowed for the board action.
B. Standards for Granting an Appeal.
1. Actions by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals may
approve, modify, or reject the determination made by the Board of Historic
Architectural Review and/or the Uptown Fa?ade Board.
2. Criteria for Determination or Decisions. Determinations may only be made
if a majority of the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the
Board of Historic Architectural Review and/or the Uptown Fa?ade Board abused
its discretion in reaching its decision.
Will Johnson, Planning Department Chief came to the podium to explain this Text
Amendment. This ordinance address several changes and one typo in the UDO:
Chapter 4 of the Unified Development Ordinance will be amended by changing
4.4.13.B to add subsection 3 to read as follows:
3. Columbus Manchester Expressway/Manchester Expressway/GA Highway 85 from its
intersection with J. R. Allen Parkway/U.S. 80/Fallline Freeway to the Harris
County line, except for signs which may be authorized by the Georgia Department
of Transportation within the highway right-of-way.
Chapter 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance will be amended by amending
5.4.2. to add subsection C to read as follows:
C. Appeals to Council. Appeals to council shall conform to Section 10.11.6.1
of this ordinance.
Chapter 9 of the Unified Development Ordinance is hereby amended by amending
Section 9.2.4.F.1 to add subsection (B) to read as follows:
(B). Wireless Communication Facilities. A decision by the Board regarding an
administrative appeal may be appealed to Council. The appeal shall be filed
within ten (10) days of final decision by the Board.
Chapter 9 of the Unified Development Ordinance will be amended by amending
Section 9.2.5.J.8(A) to read as follows:
(A). Appeal from a decision of the Uptown Facade Board shall be made within 30
days to the Board of Zoning Appeals as provided in Section 10.11.7 of this
ordinance.
Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Ordinance will be amended by creating
Section 10.11.6.1 to read as follows:
10.11.6.1 Watershed Protection Variances.
A watershed protection variance may be granted by the Council of Columbus
subject to the requirements of this Section.
A. Criteria for Variances. Watershed protection variances shall be limited to
relief from the following requirements:
1. If the applicant complies with the buffer widths and required practices, he
or she can secure no reasonable return from, nor make reasonable use of, his or
her property. Merely proving that the variance would permit a greater profit
from the property shall not be considered adequate justification for a
variance. Moreover, the local government shall consider whether the variance is
the minimum possible deviation from the buffer widths that shall make
reasonable use of the property possible; and
2. The hardship results from application of the buffer widths to the property
rather than from other factors such as unrelated deed restrictions; and
3. The hardship is due to the physical nature of the applicant's property, such
as its size, shape, or topography; and
4. The applicant did not cause the hardship; and
5. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
riparian buffer widths and required practices and preserves the purpose
thereof; and
6. In granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured,
and the quality of downstream water, including but not limited to water used to
supply public drinking water, has been maintained or improved; and
7. The applicant certifies that the applicant has not and does not intend to
apply for a variance from the minimum buffer requirements contained in the
Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act for the same perennial stream or
streams for which a variance is sought pursuant to this paragraph.
B. Administrative Approval. The Director of Engineering, upon finding that a
watershed protection variance meets the standards for approval contained in
this Section, may administratively approve such watershed protection variance
within and not exceeding the following parameters:
The Engineering Department may allow a reduction of the 150-feet buffer
requirement of the 7-mile radius area of the Lake Oliver water supply reservoir
down to a 100-foot buffer along the banks of the reservoir boundaries.
The Director of Engineering shall grant a variance based on the criteria as set
forth in Section 10.11.6.1.A.
Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Ordinance will be amended by amending
Section 10.11.7 to add reference to the Uptown Fa?ade Board to read as follows:
Section 10.11.7. Variance from a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Any person adversely affected by any determination made by the Board of
Historic Architectural Review and/or the Uptown Fa?ade Board relative to the
issuance or denial of a certificate of appropriateness may appeal such
determination to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
A. Applications for Appeal.
1. Maximum Filing Period. Appeals must be filed with the Board of Zoning
Appeals within 15 days after the issuance of the determination or in the case
of a failure of the Board of Historic Architectural Review and/or the Uptown
Fa?ade Board to act, within 15 days of the expiration of the 45-day period
allowed for the board action.
B. Standards for Granting an Appeal.
1. Actions by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals may
approve, modify, or reject the determination made by the Board of Historic
Architectural Review and/or the Uptown Fa?ade Board.
2. Criteria for Determination or Decisions. Determinations may only be made
if a majority of the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the
Board of Historic Architectural Review and/or the Uptown Fa?ade Board abused
its discretion in reaching its decision.
Chairperson Boyce asked for discussion and a motion. Vice Chairperson Hodge
made a motion to approve this Text Amendment. Commissioner Sheftall seconded.
It was approved unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS: PAC members voted on the schedule for 2010. Commissioner
Sheftall made a motion to approve the 2010 PAC Schedule. Commissioner Ford
seconded. It was approved unanimously.
Also voted on was a new Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for 2010. Chairperson
Boyce made a motion to nominate Cathy Hodge as Chairperson for 2010.
Commissioner Ford seconded. She was approved unanimously. Also, Vice
Chairperson Hodge made a motion to nominate Ronny Smith as Vice Chairperson.
Commissioner Heinzelman seconded. He was approved unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:51 a.m.
_______________________________
____________________________________
Scott Boyce, Chairperson Daniel Stegall,
Zoning Administrator
Attachments
No attachments for this document.