PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
February 4, 2009
A meeting of the Planning Advisory Commission was held Wednesday, February 4,
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
Karl Douglass
Gladys Ford
Glen Heinzelman
Lucy Sheftall
Ronny Smith
Staff Members: Will Johnson - Planning Department Chief
Daniel Stegall ? Zoning Administrator
Tina Trant ? Planning Technician
Commissioners Absent: Micheal Eddings
Others Present: Harlan Price, Anthony Wallace, Chris Cason, Mike Hudson,
Candice Wayman.
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Scott Boyce called the meeting to order at 9:05
a.m. He explained the rezoning process to the audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Douglass made a motion to approve the Dec.
17, 2008 minutes. Commissioner Smith seconded. They were approved
unanimously. Commissioner Douglass made a motion to approve the January 7,
2009 minutes. Commissioner Ford seconded. They were approved unanimously.
ZONING CASE:
1. ZC0901-1: A request to rezone the property located at 219 26th Street. The
current zoning is Residential Multi-Family 2. The proposed zoning is General
Commercial. The property will be used for a parking lot for the lot next door
that will be a Laundromat. Harlan Price is the applicant.
Mr. Daniel Stegall read the Staff Report for this case.
Future Land Use Map: This case is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
This property is located in Planning District F. The Land Use Designation shows
Single Family Residential.
Policy Statements: N/A.
Compatible with Existing Land Uses: Yes.
Environmental Impacts: The property does not lie within a floodplain and
floodway area. The developer will need an approved drainage plan prior to
issuance of a Site Development Permit if a permit is required.
City Services: The property is served by all city services.
Traffic Impact: The proposed project is not expected to have a negative impact
on the transportation network.
Traffic Engineering: The site shall meet the codes and regulations of the
Columbus Consolidated Government for commercial usage.
School Impact: No school impact.
Buffer Requirement: The proposed development shall have a Category C buffer
requirement along all property lines bordered by the RMF1 and RMF2 zoning
district. The three options under Category C are:
20 feet with a certain amount of canopy trees, understory trees, and shrubs /
ornamental grasses per 100 linear feet.
10 feet with a certain amount of shrubs / ornamental grasses per 100 linear
feet and a wood fence or masonry wall.
30 feet undisturbed natural buffer.
Fort Benning Recommendation: None.
DRI Recommendation: None.
Attitude of Property Owners: Forty-one (41) property owners within 300 feet
were notified of this rezoning request. The Planning Department did receive one
comment regarding the request.
Conditions: None.
Additional information: None.
Harlan Price, representative of the owner, Mr. Roger Gamboa, came to the
podium. Mr. Gamboa bought this property in December, 2008. This property was
slated for demolition but Council has directed Inspections and Codes to work
with Mr. Gamboa.
Anthony Wallace of 215 26th Street came to the podium. He lives next door to
this lot and does not want a parking lot and Laundromat next to his house. He
feels patrons will be looking into his windows. There are too many kids living
on this street to have a business on the corner.
Candace Way of 1621 Preston Drive, from the Coalition for Sound Growth came to
the podium. She stated that this Laundromat could be detrimental to the
neighborhood. She is also is concerned about the hours of operation of the
Laundromat.
Cathy Walker, 3152 Clarabelle Street, came to the podium. She works for
Habitat for Humanity. The two lots behind this building are vacant. This
business is not needed in this area.
Chris Cason, Director of Habitat for Humanity, came to the podium. They have
made several attempts to buy this property. They want to buy the property not
the building.
Chairperson Boyce asked for discussion and a motion. Commissioner Smith made a
motion to deny this rezoning case because it is inconsistent with the
neighborhood. Commissioner Ford seconded. It was denied five (Sheftall, Hodge,
Smith, Ford, Eddings) to two (Chambers, Douglass).
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: None.
TEXT AMENDMENTS:
ZC0812-1: A request for Text Amendment Changes to the UDO pertaining to
Chapter 10. The Planning Department is the applicant.
X = Portions to be deleted
X = Portions to be added
Amend Section 10.1.2.B.1 to add the word ?concept?
1. Project Concept Approval. Project Concept Approval is granted by the
Planning Department upon review and approval of a Preliminary Subdivision
Plat.
Amend Section 10.1.2.D.1 to add the word ?concept?
1. Project Concept Approval. Project Concept Approval is granted by the
Planning Department upon review and approval of a site plan for the project.
Amend Section 10.2.2.B.1 to delete reference to ?Community and Economic
Development Department? and replace it with ?Planning Department?
1. Fees. All applications shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee as
fixed from time to time by the City Council. A fee shall not be charged if the
City Council, the Planning Department Community and Economic Development
Department or the Planning Advisory Commission has initiated the application.
Amend Section 10.2.5.A.1(B)(1)(a) to delete reference to ?Department of
Community and Economic Development? and replace it with ?Planning Department?
(a) The sign shall list the name of the applicant, telephone number, address
of property, present zoning, proposed zoning, proposed use of the property and
the telephone number of the Planning Department Department of Community and
Economic Development.
Amend Section 10.3.3.C.2 to delete reference to ?Community and Economic
Development? and replace it with ?Planning Department?
2. Properties in Excess of 100 Acres. For property of over 100 acres, a
smaller scale may be used where, in the judgment of the Director of the
Planning Department Community and Economic Development Department, presentation
of detailed data is not necessary to evaluate the entire project. It is the
intent of this provision that in all cases sufficient information shall be
provided for an adequate evaluation of the public and private improvements.
Amend Section 10.3.7 to delete reference to Preliminary Plat Certifications and
replace it with Reserved
Reserved. Each preliminary plat is to include a certification by a qualified
design professional and by the owner that read as shown herein and are signed
in blue ink on the original drawing.
Amend Section 10.3.8 to delete reference to Evidence of Project Approval and
replace with Reserved
Reserved. Each preliminary subdivision plat or site plan shall carry the
following certificates printed or stamped on the plat.
A. Health Department. Signed approval from the Health Department if septic
tanks will be used.
B. Certificate. Certificate of project approval issued by the Planning
Division.
Amend Section 10.4.2.A to delete reference to Residential Development and
replace with Reserved
Reserved. Residential Development. Residential Development Permit (RDP).
Amend Section 10.4.2.D by deleting reference to RDP
D. Site Development. Site Development Permit (SDP). A site development
permit shall be required for all nonexempt land disturbing activities other
than those requiring RDP, UDP or MLD permits.
Amend Section 10.4.5 to delete reference to ?Community and Economic
Development? and replace it with ?Planning?
An application for a land development permit may proceed simultaneously with an
application for a preliminary subdivision plat or site plan, but may not be
issued prior to project approval of such plat or plan by the Planning Community
and Economic Development Department, or prior to approval of the Landscaping,
Buffers and Tree Protection plan by the City Arborist.
Amend Section 10.4.5.A.1(C) to delete reference to ?Community and Economic
Development? and replace it with ?Planning?
(C) Preliminary plat or site plan requesting or reflecting project approval
by the Planning Community and Economic Development Department, if applicable;
Amend Section 10.4.5.A.6 by deleting reference to RDP
6. Decision on RDP, UPD and MLD Permit Applications. Applications for RDP,
UDP and MLD will be approved or denied as soon as practical but not later than
15 working days after the application is filed.
Amend Section 10.4.5.B to delete reference to Residential Development and
replace with Reserved
B. Reserved. Specific Requirements by Permit. Specific application
requirements for each type of development permit are indicated below.
1. Residential Development Permit (RDP).
(A) Applicability. Single-family residential construction as part of a
larger development, such as a subdivision, and not otherwise exempt by this
UDO. An application for the RDP shall include:
(1) House site plan as prepared for building permit application;
(2) Relative elevations of the corners of the lot and any major break in
slopes, and easements;
(3) The location and type of erosion control measures proposed;
(4) The driveway location; and
(5) The proposed handling of any storm water runoff concentrated by the lot
development.
Amend Section 10.4.5.B.3.1 by changing Subsection 1 to (A) and deleting
reference to RDP
(A) (1) Applicability. A site development permit shall be required for all
nonexempt land disturbing activities other than those requiring RDP, MLD or UDP
permits.
Delete Section 10.4.7.A in its entirety and replace with Reserved
A. Reserved. Stormwater Performance Surety. Upon approval of the stormwater
management plan, but before the issuance of a development permit, the applicant
shall be required to post a performance bond, cash escrow, certified check or
other acceptable form of performance security for construction of the proposed
stormwater system.
1. Amount of Surety. The amount of the surety shall not be less than 115% of
the total estimated construction cost of the facilities required by the
stormwater management plan.
2. Release of Bond. The performance bond or other securities shall not be
released until compliance with the requirements listed below has been
achieved.
(A) Final Inspection. The Engineering Department shall perform a final
inspection of the facilities and determine that they have been constructed in
compliance with the stormwater management plan.
(B) Execution. The Engineering Department shall determine that all
provisions of the Stormwater Management Plan have been faithfully executed.
3. Partial Release. A provision may be made for partial release of the
amount of the bond pro rata upon completion and acceptance of various stages of
development as specifically delineated, described and scheduled in the
stormwater management plan. The applicant shall notify the Engineering
Department upon completion of each stage that is ready for inspection.
Amend Section 10.5.1.C.2 by deleting reference to the ?Engineering Department?
and replacing with ?a qualified design professional?
2. Certification. All plans are to be certified by a qualified design
professional the Engineering Department.
Amend Section 10.5.2.C by deleting reference to RDP
C. Requirement for Site Development Permit. A site development permit shall
be required for all non-exempt land disturbing activities other than those
requiring RDP, UDP or MLD permits.
Amend Section 10.5.5.A by adding additional language to the end of the section
as shown below:
A. Site Development Permit Required. A site development permit is required
for all developments, except for those specifically exempted in this UDO and
shall include a storm water management plan.
Amend Section 10.6.2.F.1 to delete reference to ?Director Community and
Economic Development? and replace it with ?Planning Director?
1. Approval. When all of the requirements of this UDO, and any conditions of
zoning approval, have been met, the Planning Director Director Community and
Economic Development shall sign and date the CERTIFICATE OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
stamped or printed on a reproducible copy of the final subdivision plat.
Amend Section 10.6.2.G by deleting reference to the ?Planning Division? and
replacing with ?applicant? as shown below:
G. Effect of Final Certification. Once the final subdivision plat has been
so certified, it shall be recorded by the applicant with the Clerk of the
Superior Court.
Amend Section 10.6.4.C.11 by deleting Subsection 11 in its entirety
11. Street Address. The street address number of each lot.
In Chapter 10, Article 8, all reference to ?Chief of Inspections and Codes?,
?Building Inspector?, or ?Chief Building Official? shall be amended to
?Director of Inspections and Codes?
Amend Section 10.8.1.B.4 by deleting the language in Subsection 4 and replacing
it with the following:
4. Zoning Verification. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a zoning
verification shall be obtained. The following information shall be reviewed
prior to this action. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a zoning
verification shall be obtained from the Planning Division. The following
information shall be attached to the zoning verification application.
Amend Section 10.8.1.B.4(C) by deleting reference to the ?Planning Division?
and replacing with ?Geographic Information System Division?
(C) Street Address. A street address number as assigned by the Geographic
Information System Division.
Amend Section 10.8.1.B.5 by deleting reference to the ?Planning Division? and
replacing with ?Engineering Department?
5. Simultaneous Application and Review. An application for a building permit
may proceed simultaneously with an application for project approval of a site
plan, but the permit may not be issued prior to project approval of such site
plan by the Engineering Department.
Amend Section 10.8.1.C.2 by deleting Subsection 2in its entirety and replace
with Reserved
2. Reserved. Zoning Verification. A copy of the zoning verification
approved by the Planning Department.
Delete Section 10. 8.1.C.7 in its entirety
7. Water Meter Receipt. Water meter receipt issued by the Columbus
Waterworks.
Amend Section 10.8.1.E by deleting reference to ?two weeks? and replacing with
?thirty (30) days?
E. Comments. Within thirty (30) days two weeks following receipt of a
complete application, the Building Inspector shall indicate on one copy of the
building plans or in writing all comments related to compliance of the building
plans with this UDO, applicable building codes, and any conditions of zoning
approval.
Amend Section 10.11.4.C.1(C) by deleting Subsection (C) in its entirety and
changing Subsection (D) to ?(C)?
(C) Maximum Building Height. Maximum building height, not to exceed an
additional four feet above the maximum allowed.
(C) Parking. Parking requirements, not to exceed a reduction from the
minimum required by 10%, nor an increase in the maximum allowed by 25%.
Amend 10.11.4.C.2(B)(1) by adding additional language as shown below:
(1) The Engineering Department may allow a reduction of larger buffers down
to the established 25-foot buffer along the banks of any state waters that is
at least as protective of natural resources and the environment as determined
by the Director of Engineering or where a drainage structure or roadway
drainage structure must be constructed.
Amend Section 10.11.6.D by changing the word ?discharge? to ?elevation?
D. Prohibited Variances. Variances shall not be issued within any designated
floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood elevation
discharge would result.
Tables
Delete references to ?SFR ? less than 200 feet from state waters? and ?SFR ?
Part of larger development?
Required Permits by Project Type
TABLE INSET:
Project Type and Characteristic Permit Minimum Requirement
Single-family Residence (SFR)-built by or for owner None Prevent sediment off
property
SFR-Not part of larger development None Conform to design principals
SFR-less than 200 feet from state waters RDP Per approved plan
SFR-Part of larger development RDP Per approved plan
All Subdivisions, Multi-Family and Nonresidential Project SDP Per approved plan
Minor land disturbance: < 2 weeks or < 1/8 acre MLD Per approved plan
Utility Installation-when not repair or service UDP Per approved plan
Move Surveyor?s Certification / Owner?s Certification under Section 10.6.5 and
separate the Owner?s Certification from the Surveyor?s Certification
TABLE INSET:
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
It is hereby certified that this plat is true and correct and was prepared from
an actual survey of the property by me or under my supervision; that all
monuments shown thereon actually exist and their location, size, type and
material are correctly shown. The field data upon which this plat is based has
a closure precision of one foot in ________ feet, and an angular error of
________ per angle point, and was adjusted using _________ rule. The following
type of equipment was used to obtain the linear and angular measurements used
in the preparation of this plat: __________ This plat has been calculated for
closure and is found to be accurate within one foot in ________ feet. By
(name): __________ Registered Georgia Land Surveyor No. ________ Address:
__________ Telephone Number: __________ Date: __________ OWNER'S
CERTIFICATE State of Georgia County of Muscogee The undersigned certifies
that he or she is the fee simple owner of the land shown on this plat and that
the plat and the public improvements contained therein or associated therewith
meet all applicable requirements and standards of the Columbus Unified
Development Code. Owner's name: __________ Owner's address: __________
__________Date________ __________ (Owner's signature)
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
State of Georgia County of Muscogee The undersigned certifies that he or she
is the fee simple owner of the land shown on this plat and that the plat and
the public improvements contained therein or associated therewith meet all
applicable requirements and standards of the Columbus Unified Development
Code. Owner's name: __________ Owner's address: __________
__________Date________ __________ (Owner's signature) _____________
Mr. Will Johnson stated that the Text Amendment Changes to Chapter 10 are for
typos, changes to Federal Laws that have changed since the UDO was adopted.
Chairperson Boyce asked for discussion and a motion. Commissioner Douglass
made a motion to approve this case. Commissioner Ford seconded. It was
approved unanimously.
VI: NEW BUSINESS: Veterans Parkway Overlay District will be heard February
18. Also the Victory Drive Overlay District will be heard.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 a.m.
_______________________________
____________________________________
Scott Boyce, Chairperson Daniel Stegall, Zoning
Administrator
Attachments
No attachments for this document.