02-27-1978 Regular MeetingFEBRUARY 27, 1978
The scheduled meeting of the City of Smyrna Planning Commission was held at
City Hall, February 27, 1978 and called to order at 5:30 o'clock P.M. by
Chairman Norman W. Miles. Also present was Jack Strickland, Tom Corso,
Allen Potter, Sam Owens and Anita Greathouse. Those absent were George
Griffin and Richard DeBord.
The first order of business was a request from F. Russel David and J. Gadsden
Russell to rezone 1295 Concord Rd. in Land Lot 523 from F. C. to L. C..
Property being described as follows:
All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in land lot 523, 17th
District, 2nd Section, Cobb County, Georgia and being more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the northwesterly right of way of Concord Road
116.8 feet northeasterly as measured along the northwesterly right of
way of Concord Road from the corner formed by the intersection of the
northwesterly right of way of Concord Road and the northeasterly right
or way of Medlin Street; running thence westerly a distance od 78.3
feet to a point; running thence northerly a distance of 110.2 feet to
a point on the southerly right of way of Love Street; running thence
easterly along the southerly right of way of Love Street a distance of
172.15 feet to a point at the intersection of the southerly right of
way of Love Street and the southwesterly right of way of Concord Road;
running thence southeasterly, southerly and southwesterly along the
southwesterly, westerly and northwesterly right of way of Concord Road
and following the curvature thereof a distance of 21.26 feet to a point
on the northwesterly right of way of Concord Road; running thence south-
westerly along the northwesterly right of way of Concord Road a distance
of 147 feet to an iron pin and the point of BEGINNING, being improved
property known as 1295 Concord Road, according to the system of numbering
in the municipality of Smyrna, Georgia.
Mr. Davis and Mr. Russell were present. Mr. Russell spoke in their behalf
and stated they had one prospective buyer who wanted to purchase the property
for an attorneys office if the property could be zoned for a L. C. use.
Mr. Greg Griffin the prospective buyer was also present. He stated that the
property would be improved due to the fact that it would be cleaned up and
painted. He also stated that the interior layout of the building was perfect
for an attorney's office and would need no interior renovation other than the
normal repairs and painting. He also stated it had a large lot which would
provide adequate parking. After some discussion Tom Corso made a motion the
property be rezoned as requested, the motion was seconded by Allen Potter and
vote for the motion was unanimous. During the discussion it was stated by the
Commission that this use was compatible and that it would improve the area.
79
The second order of business was a r6quest2,form Marion E. Mann to rezone Lot 7
Cherokee Road Land Lot 374 from L. C. to G.C. . Property being described as
follows:
All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in Land Lot 374
17th District, 2nd Section, Cobb County, Georgia, being Lot 7, Block
M, Belmont Hills Subdivision, as per plat recorded in Plat Book 11,
page 21, records of Cobb County, Georgia, and being more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the north side of Cherokee Road 340 feed east
as measured along the north side of Cherokee Road from the intersection
of the north side of Cherokee Road and the east side of Beverly Hills
Drive; running thence east along the north side of Cherokee Road 75 feet
to a point; thence north along the line dividing lots 6 and 7 of said
block and subdivision, 145 feet to a point; thence west 75 feet to
a point; thence south along the line dividing lots 7 and,8 of said block
and subdivision, 145 feet to a point on the north side of Cherokee Road,
being the point of beginning.
A motion was made by Sam Owens and seconded by Jack Strickland and approved
unanimously that the zoning request of Marion E. Mann on lot 7 Cherokee Road
from Limited Commercial to General Commercial be denied for the following
reasons:
1. The existing use of the property does now conform to the existing use and
zoning of the property in the immediate neighborhood. However if the zoning
were changed to General Commercial, the use will not conform, at the present
time, with the future land use map of the city, projected uses of the property
in the neighborhood, or the Existing use of adjacent or similar property
situated in the neighborhood and vacinity of the subject property.
2. Although the applicant has presented no evidence, nor offered any, to this
Board as to any present or future value of the subject property; the
ind6pendant study by the Board brings the Board to the conclusion that:
a) the property value is not diminished by the present zoning;
b) the requested change in zoning will not increase substantually the
value of the property to the applicant;
c) the refusal to change the zoning will not cause a loss in value to
the applicant.
3. The Board finds that refusal to grant the requested zoning will not cause
substantial loss in value to applicant; however as the subject property
is immediately surrouneded by property which is zoned and presently used
as either residential or limited commercial, and considering the size,
location, use, and access to the subject property, the requested change
to General Commercial may have an adverse affect on the neighboring
property values causing a loss in value; may cause traffic problems due
to ingress and egress which would in effect re-route prospective customers
to the neighborhood or cause substantial damage to the residential areas
adjacent thereto.
4. The Board finds that the requested change will cause a substantial adverse
affect on the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood as no adequate plan or
provision has been presented for parking, driveways, curb cuts, preservation
of green areas or architectural plan has been presented for any use under
General Commercial and therefor the Board can only assure that there is no
plan made.
The subject property does not meet the zoning requirements as to lot size
(20-000 square feet) or minimum width at the set back line (100 feet)
The Board finds that because of the complete lack of property planning of
use under General Commercial of the subject property, the requested re-
zoning would cause substantial traffic hazards along Cherokee Road due
to the existing curb cuts and traffic flow patterns.
5. Due to the lot size, traffic flow, adjacent property uses, topography, and
existing structures, the Board finds that the subject property is particularly
suited for use under Limited Commercial zoning.
6. The applicant has introduced no evidence to the Board that the subject property
has been or is now vacant as zoned or that the present zoning presents any
hardship whatsoever to applicant.
The third order of business was a request from Marion E. Mann to rezone Lot 10,
Block M, Cherokee Road Land Lot 374 from L. C. to G. C.. Proeprty being described
as follows:
All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in Original Land
Lot 374'-of'the'17th District and 2nd Section -of. -Cobb County, Georgia,
and being Lot No. 10, Block M, of the Belmont Hills Subdivision, as
per plat recorded in Plat Book 11, page 21, Cobb County Records, more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the north side of Cherokee Road 120 feet east
from the northeast corner of Cherokee Road and Beverly Hills Drive;
running thence northerly 115 feet to an iron pin; thence northeasterly
77.7 feet to an iron pin; thence southerly 135.4 feet to an iron pin
on the north side of Cherokee Rd:; thence westerly along the north side
of Cheorkee Road 75 feet to the point of beginning, being improved
property known as 574 Cherokee Road, Smyrna, Georgia.
A motion was made by Sam Owens and seconded by Jack Strickland and approved
unanimously that the zoning request of Marion E. Mann on lot 10 Cherokee Road
from Limited Commercial to General Commercial be denied for the following
reasons:
1. The existing use of the property does now conform to the existing use and
zoning of the property in the immediate neighborhood. However if the zoning
were changed to General Commercial, the use will not conform, at the present
time, with the future land use map of the city, projected uses of the property
in the neighborhood, or the existing use of adjacent or similar property
situated in the neighborhood and vacinity of the subject property.
2. Although the applicant has presented no evidence, nor offered any, to this
Board as to any present or future value of the subject property; the
independant study by the Board brings the Board to the conclusion that:
a) the proeprty value is not diminished by the present zoning;
b) the requested change in zoning will not increase substantually the
value of the property to the applicant;
c) the refusal to change the zoning will not cause a loss in value to
the applicant.
3. The Board finds that refusal to grant the requested zoning will not cause
substantial loss in value to applicant; however as to subject property
is immediately surrounded by property which is zoned and presently used
as either residential or limited commercial, and considering the size,
location, use, and access to the subject property, the requested change
to General Comercial may have an adverse affect on the neighboring
property values causing a loss in value; may cause traffic problems due
to ingress and egress which would in effect re-route prospective customers
to the neighborhood or cause substantial damage to the residential areas
adjacent thereto.
4. The B and finds that the requested change will cause a substantial adverse
affect on the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood as no adequate plan or
provision has been presented for parking, driveways, curb cuts, preservation
of green areas or architectural plan has been presented for any use under
General Commercial and therefor the Board can only assure that there is no
plan made.
The subject proeprty does not meet the zonign requirements as to lot size
(20,000 square feet) or minimum width at the set back line (100)
The Board finds that because of the complete lack of proper planning of
use under General Commercial of the subject property, the requested re-
zoning would cause substantial traffic hazards along Cherokee Raod due
to the existing curb cuts and traffic flow patterns.
5. Due to the lot size, traffic flow, adjacent property uses. topography, and
existing structures, the Board finds that the subject property is particularly
suited for use under Limited Commercial zoning.
6. The applicant has introduced no evidence to the Board that the subject property
has been or is now vacant as zoned or that the present zoning presents any
hardship whatsoever to applicant.
The fourth order of business was a request from Marion E. Mann to rezone Lots 8
and 9 Cherokee Road Land Lot 374 from L. C. to G. C.. Property being described as
follows:
All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in Original Land
Lot No. 374, 17th District, 2nd Section, Cobb County, Georgia, and
being Lot Nos. 8 and 9 of Block "M" of Belmont Hills Subdivision, as
shown by plat made by C. R. Roberts, Engineer, recorded in Plat Book
11, page 21, Cobb County Records; more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron pin located on the north side of Cherokee Road
195 feet east of the intersection of the intersection of the north side
of Cherokee Road with the east side or Beverly Hills Drive; running
thence north 130 feet to an iron pin; thence northeasterly 36.3 feet
to an iron pin; thence east 110 feet to an iron pin; thence south 145
feet to an iron pin located on the north side of Cherokee Road; running
thence west along the north side of Cherokee Road 145 feet to the iron
pin at the point of beginning.
A motion was made by Sam Owens and seconded by Jack Strickland and approved
unanimously that the zoning request of Marion E. Mann on Lot nos. 8 and 9
Cherokee Road from Limited Commercial to General Commercial be denied for the
following reasons:
1. The existing use of the proeprty does now conform to the existing use and
zoning of the property in the immediate neighborhood. However if the zoning
were changed to General Commercial, the use will not conform, at the present
time, with the future land use map of the city, projected uses of the property
in the neighborhood, or the existing use of adjacent or similar property
situated in the neighborhood and vacinity of the subject property.
2. Although the applicant has presented no evidence, nor offered any, to this
Board as to any present or future value of the subject property; the
independant study by the Board brings the Board to the conclusion that:
a) the property value is not diminished by the present zoning;
b) the requested change in zoning will not increase substantually the
value of the property to the applicant;
c) the refusal to change the zoning will not cause a loss in value to
the applicant.
3. The Board finds that refusal to grant the requested zoning will not cause
substantial loss in value to applicant; however as the subject property
is immediately surrounded by property which is zoned and presently used
as either residential or limited ocmmercial, and considering the size,
location, use, and access to the subject property, the requested change
to General Commercial may have an adverse affect on the neighboring
property values causing a loss in value; may cause traffic problems due
to ingress and egress which would in effect re-route prospective customers
to the neighborhood or cause substantial danger to the residential areas
adjacent thereto.
4. The Board finds that the requested change will cause a substantial adverse
affect on the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood as no adequate plan or
provision has been presented for parking, driveways, curb cuts, preservation
of green areas or architectural plan has been presented for any use under
General Commercial and therefor the Board can only assure that there is no
plan made.
The Board finds that because of-the-'icomplete lack -•of proper planning of
use under General Commercial of the subject property, the requested re-
zoning would cause substantial traffic hazards along Cherokee Road due
to the existing curb cuts and traffic flow patterns.
5. Due to the lot size, traffic flow, adjacent property uses, topography, and
existing structures, the Board finds that the subject property is particularly
suited for use under Limited Commerical zoning.
6. The applicant has introduced in evidence to the Board that the subject property
has been or is now vacant as zoned or that the present zoning presents any
hardship whatsoever to applicant.
The fifth order of business was a discussion on adding a provision to our zoning
ordinance to allow Boarding Houses. After some discussion it was stated that we
need a provision for this. Allen Potter made a motion that the following be approved
and necessary changes be made in our Zoning Ordinance, the motion was seconded by
Tom Corso and vote for the motion was unanimous. The provision is recommeneded as
follows:
1. In Section 402, Defined Words and Terms, the follwoing definition
should be added after Basement (Cellar):
402.xx Boardinghouse. A building, where for compensation,
both lodging and meals are provided for not more than
twenty-five (25) persons, provided that a single
family dwelling, shall not be deemed to be a boarding
house by reason of a contribution to or expense sharing
arrangement with the owner or tenant occupying the
dwelling by a person related by blood or marriage.
Amend RM-10, Multi -family Residential District to allow boarding-
houses. (This automatically allows such uses in the RM-12 District)
The sixth order of business was the discussion of the minutes from our January meeting.
Allen Potter motioned the minutes be approved as submitted, the motion was seconded
by Jack Strickland and vote for the motion was unanimous.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 o'clock P.M..
Norman W. Miles - Chairman