The URL can be used to link to this page

2003 minutes (4) March 17. 2003 ... The regular scheduled meeting of Mayor and Council was held at Smyrna City Hall. The meeting was called to order by presiding officer Mayor A. Max Bacon at 7:30 o'clock p.m. All council members were present. Also present were City Administrator Wayne Wright, City Clerk Susan Hiott, City Attorney Scott Cochran, Fire Chief Larry Williams, Finance Director Claudia Edgar, Public Works Director Scott Stokes, Police Chief Stan Hook, Library Director Michael Seigler, Parks Superintendent Bert Turnell, Keep Smyrna Beautiful Director Ann Kirk, Human Resources Director Chris Corey, City Engineer Ken Hildebrandt, Community Development Director Chris Miller, Community Relations Director Jennifer Bennett and representatives of the press. Invocation was given by Reverend Jim Moon from Crosspoint Presbyterian Church, followed by the pledge to the flag. AGENDA CHANGES: Mayor Bacon stated that agenda items 5A, 5B, and 5C, relating to the rezoning and annexation public hearings for Pembrook Child Care Development, Inc. (PCCD), have been withdrawn at the request of Mr. Neil Gass, representing PCCD. Mayor Bacon read a letter from Mr. Gass, sent earlier by facsimile, in which is set forth a request to withdraw without prejudice rezoning application # Z02-040 for Land Lots 388, 389, 404 and 405. Council Member Wood stated PCCD will have the opportunity of resubmitting this application again in the future for consideration. - Mayor Bacon recognized Messrs. George Lawrence and Alan Bell from Whitfield Academy (W A) and members ofW A's basketball team. Mayor Bacon provided details of the team's successful bid for the Class A championship to those present. Council Member Wood read a proclamation detailing the accomplishments of W A and their basketball team to those present. Mayor Bacon recognized Mr. Tyrone Johnson, who commended the members ofthe team on their accomplishments. CITIZENS INPUT: There was none. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Bacon had nothing to report. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (A) Rezoning Request - to rezone 1.85 acre tract in Land Lots 388, 389,404 and 405 from Office Institutional (01) and Cobb County R-20 (Single-Family) to Limited Commercial (LC), North Cooper Lake Road (Pembrook Child Care Development, Inc.) Mayor Bacon stated this application has been withdrawn without prejudice at the applicant's request. .... March ] 7. 2003 2 (B) Land Use Change Request - from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Activity Center, Land Lots 388, 389, 404 and 405, ] .85 acre tract, North Cooper Lake Road (Pembrook Child Care Development, Inc.) - Mayor Bacon stated this application has been withdrawn without prejudice at the applicant's request. (C) Approval of Application for Annexation - Land Lots 388, 389, 404, 405 - 1.696 Acre Tract- New Cooper Lake LLC Mayor Bacon stated this application has been withdrawn without prejudice at the applicant's request. (D) Rezoning Request - 0.6 Acre Tract - Land Lots 56] and 592, Roswell Street and Old Roswell Street - R-15 Single Family Residential (SFR) and FC (Future Commercial) to RAD Conditional - Hatcher Homes, Inc. Mr. Wright stated the subject parcel currently includes a one-storey frame residence and is proposed for redevelopment as two residences with an overall density of3.72 units per acre. Mr. Wright stated the Planning and Zoning Board (PZB) has recommended approval ofthe proposed rezoning, and that staff supports the request with a number of conditions. Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment, and the oath was administered to several persons by Mr. Cochran. Council Member Scoggins recognized Mr. Ed Hatcher, and asked Mr. Hatcher to provide details of the proposed redevelopment to those present. Mr. Hatcher stated he has tried to utilize an approach different from that of larger building concerns by focusing on older areas and improving them by the addition of craftsman-style homes which fit well in these areas. Mr. Hatcher used some graphic representations to illustrate his plans. Mr. Hatcher stated the two proposed homes will be similar to those at Roswell Street Commons. Mr. Hatcher provided details of the features the proposed homes will have to those present. Mr. Hatcher stated the "four-square" type house has been the most popular, and he has tried to make various elevations available for this particular plan. Mr. Hatcher stated that renovating the existing structure on the subject property will not be feasible. Mr. Hatcher stated that efforts have been made to protect some old trees at the subject location, including consultation with those persons who will be involved in the installation of utilities in the area. Mayor Bacon made reference to the updated City tree ordinance, and commended Mr. Hatcher for the diligence he has demonstrated in his efforts to protect trees at his project sites. - Council Member Scoggins recognized Mr. Victor Koch and Ms. Casey Clavin. Council Member Scoggins made reference to a letter from Mr. Hatcher to Mr. Koch and Ms. Clavin dated March 6, 2003, in which are set forth 13 stipulations Mr. Hatcher has indicated he will adhere to at the subject property if the stipulations are acceptable to Mr. Koch and Ms. Clavin. Ms. Clavin stated she is satisfied with the stipulations (Clerk's Note: A copy of this letter will be appended hereto as Exhibit A). Ms. Clavin stated that in Mr. Hatcher's letter of March 6, 2003, reference is made to the minimum selling price of $259,900 for the new homes. Ms. Clavin stated this price information does not appear to be included in the City's stipulations. Ms. Clavin indicated she is not sure why certain utility units, the placement of which was previously discussed, are described as only two in number. Council Member Hawkins stated that selling prices for new homes are not included in City stipulations because such a stipulation may be illegal. Mr. - March 1 7. 2003 3 .. Hatcher stated that, if possible, the utility units will be placed in the location preferred by Ms. Clavin and Mr. Koch. Mr. Hatcher stated the units will be screened. Mr. Hatcher read stipulation #9, and discussed changes that will be made to the language in this stipulation. * Council Member Scoggins read the stipulations drawn from Section 1201 for conditional developments recommended by the City staff for this development: 1. The development will maintain the following setbacks: Front - 45' (adjacent to 1480 Roswell Street) and 35' (adjacent to 1496 Roswell Street), Side - 5' (adjacent to 1480 Roswell Street) and 2' (adjacent to 1496 Roswell Street), Between Buildings - 10' and Rear - 30'. 2. The final plat for the development shall dedicate an additional 5' of right-of-way for any future sidewalk (the front yard setback can be based upon the existing property line prior to the dedication). 3. Each residence will be a minimum of2,200 square feet in area. The home next to 1480 Roswell Street shall use a "Four Square" plan. Any double porch home shall only be permitted next to 1496 Roswell Street. 4. There shall be protective covenants on all lots. The protective covenants shall be supplied to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. ... 5. Any necessary retention pond shall be placed and screened appropriately to be unobtrusive to homes inside and outside the development. 6. The foundation wall height shall be limited to the minimum height necessary to provide a front porch which is at the same elevation as the street. 7. The front and side elevations of each residence shall be screened using foundation plantings. Any foundation exposed above-grade shall be painted gray. 8. Each residence shall utilize an attached garage with an individual driveway. The driveway shall be located on the east side of each residence. All elevations shall be similar to those utilized by Roswell Street Commons. 9. * All utilities within the development shall be underground. All utility appliances and meters shall be screened by landscaping to be obscured from sight. 10. The developer will comply with the City's current tree ordinance. All required tree protection measures shall be adhered to by the developer during construction. - March 17.2003 4 11. All landscape plans must be prepared, stamped, and signed by a Georgia Registered Landscape Architect for any common areas or entrances. - ] 2. Each lot shall have the following trees replanted per lot either: four 3" caliper trees or two 2" caliper and two 4" caliper trees. The following species of trees may be used: Nuttall Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak, Allee Elm, and Village Green Zelkova. Other species may be used if approved by the City. MOTION: Council Member Scoggins made a motion to approve a rezoning request for a 0.6 acre tract in Land Lots 56] and 592, Roswell Street and Old Roswell Street, from R-15 Single Family Residential (SFR) and FC (Future Commercial) to RAD Conditional for Hatcher Homes, Inc., to include the stipulations read into the record. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cramer. Council Member Lnenicka asked if the stipulations include those from Mr. Hatcher's letter. Council Member Scoggins stated the letter will be included with the record. Motion was approved 7 - O. (E) Land Use Change Request - 0.6 Acre Tract - Land Lots 56] and 592, Roswell Street and Old Roswell Street - Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential - Hatcher Homes, Inc. Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. MOTION: Council Member Scoggins made a motion to approve a land use change request for a 0.6 acre tract in Land Lots 56 I and 592, Roswell Street and Old Roswell Street, from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for Hatcher Homes, Inc. The motion was seconded by Council Member Pritchett. Motion was approved 7 - O. - (F) Rezoning Request - 2.086 Acre Tract - Land Lot 594, Spring Street near Anderson Circle - R-15 Single Family Residential (SFR) and OD (Office Distribution) to RAD Conditional - Hatcher Homes, Inc. Mr. Wright stated the applicant proposes to build 6 single-family homes on Spring Street near Anderson Circle. Mr. Wright stated the builder proposes to renovate an existing warehouse building at the subject location into 6 loft condo units, and to build a new two-storey building with 8 additional loft units. Mr. Wright stated the Planning and Zoning Board (PZB) has voted to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning, and that staff supports the request with a number of conditions. Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment, and the oath was administered to several persons by Mr. Cochran. Council Member Scoggins recognized Mr. Ed Hatcher. Mr. Hatcher stated he has previously thought about ways to utilize the old existing warehouse building at the subject location in a way that will fit in with the surrounding area. Mr. Hatcher stated a business has been operating at the warehouse, and the owner of this building has been insistent on a number of conditions before he would agree to sell it. Mr. Hatcher stated that the conditions of the sale include a requirement for a lease-back of the building for a period of two years to allow the owner to find another similar location to use. Mr. Hatcher stated the sale was completed, and that he now owns the warehouse building. Mr. Hatcher stated he has seen a loft development in Marietta similar to the one he is proposing, and that he feels this type of development will fit well in Smyrna. Mr. - March 17. 2003 5 - Hatcher stated the existing building can be used to create 6 single-level loft units. Mr. Hatcher stated that four of the proposed units will occupy the corners of the building, with the remaining two in the midsection. Mr. Hatcher used a graphic representation to illustrate the proposed floor plan of the units to those present. Mr. Hatcher stated that lofts generally have high ceilings, and some of the original wood floors may be present. Mr. Hatcher stated that glass blocks will be used in the construction of walls and showers in the lofts. Council Member Scoggins asked Mr. Hatcher if it is correct that the units are individual homes, and Mr. Hatcher answered in the affirmative. Council Member Scoggins asked Mr. Hatcher if it is correct that there will be no rental properties there, and Mr. Hatcher answered in the affirmative. Council Member Pritchett asked Mr. Hatcher if a wrought-iron fence, such as the one seen at the Marietta loft development, will be installed at the subject location, and Mr. Hatcher stated a combination brick wall and wrought-iron structure is being considered. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Hatcher if the proposed building will feature brick on four sides, and Mr. Hatcher answered in the affirmative. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Hatcher ifthe proposed building will have a metal roof, and Mr. Hatcher stated a metal roofis one possibility. Council Member Scoggins called upon Mr. Chris Miller, and asked him to read a letter from the City arborist regarding the arborist's assessment of the trees on the subject property. Mr. Miller stated there is no letter from the arborist, but rather a tree protection plan for the subject location. Mr. Miller stated he and the arborist met at the site to identifY trees considered to be specimen trees. Mr. Miller stated that 7 trees were identified which are specimen-quality trees. Mr. Miller stated that many of the other trees are distressed from disease, climate conditions and lack of proper care. Council Member Hawkins asked how the two-year lease option granted to the previous owner of the warehouse building might affect the construction schedule of the proposed project. Mr. Hatcher stated he expects the warehouse building to be vacated much sooner, but he did agree to a two-year lease. - Mayor Bacon recognized Mr. Jerome Martin, residing at 2884 Anderson Circle, who expressed opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Martin stated the warehouse converted to lofts will not fit in with a residential area. Mr. Martin expressed concern about an additional warehouse-like building being constructed in the area. Mr. Martin expressed concern about the proposed density of the project. Mr. Martin expressed concern about trees being lost during the construction process. Mr. Martin stated he believes the old warehouse building should be torn down, and conventional housing put in its place. Mr. Martin stated townhouses are another possible alternative. Mr. Martin stated the proposed project is out of scale and out of context. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Martin how he would characterize what is there now, and Mr. Martin answered between poor and medium. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Martin if he has discussed the possibility of a landscape buffer between his property and the proposed development with Mr. Hatcher, and Mr. Martin stated a large building will be difficult to screen. Council Member Scoggins asked Mr. Martin if a garage apartment exists between his property and the subject property, and Mr. Martin answered in the affirmative. Council Member Scoggins asked Mr. Martin if the garage apartment was there when he bought his property, and Mr. Martin answered in the affirmative. Council Member Scoggins expressed appreciation to Mr. Martin for his comments. Mayor Bacon recognized Ms. Amy Shay, residing at 143 I Mimosa Circle, who expressed concern about some of the units becoming rental properties. Ms. Shay expressed concern about the proposed density of the project, and parking problems and traffic congestion that may result. Ms. Shay stated the existing warehouse operation is quiet, and does not generate any traffic problems. ... Mayor Bacon recognized Mr. Steve Robinson, who stated he enjoys living in Smyrna and considers it a good place to live. Mr. Robinson commended Mr. Hatcher for his efforts which March 1 7. 2003 6 are bringing about positive changes in some parts of the City. Mayor Bacon recognized Mr. Ted Jones, a realtor working at 1753 Spring Street, who stated that under the current zoning, the existing warehouse can be expanded. Mr. Jones stated that large commercial transport vehicles travel to the warehouse on a daily basis. Mr. Jones commented favorably on the City's redevelopment efforts. Mr. Jones stated that the density some people are opposed to is not detrimental if it is part of a quality development. Mr. Jones stated Mr. Hatcher has taken risks which have brought about positive results for the City. - Mayor Bacon recognized Mrs. Martin, who expressed concern about the scale of the proposed development. Mrs. Martin showed those present a sketch of how the development may look when built. Mrs. Martin stated she did not like the existing warehouse building when she first moved into the area. Mrs. Martin expressed concern about the possibility of increased traffic in the subject area which could result from the proposed development. Council Member Hawkins asked Mr. Martin ifhe has observed large commercial trucks coming to the warehouse, and Mr. Martin answered in the affirmative. Mr. Martin commented favorably about the houses Mr. Hatcher builds, and stated he would like to see them built instead of a warehouse-like building. Mayor Bacon recognized Ms. Diane Hughes, who stated that many people are interested in the convenience of a loft-type dwelling such as the ones presently under consideration. Ms. Hughes commended Mr. Hatcher for recognizing this need, and providing a product to fill it. Mayor Bacon recognized Mr. Charles Pritchett, residing at 2744 Farmstead Road, who expressed support for the proposed project. Mr. Pritchett stated the lofts are a good idea, and that he thinks Mr. Hatcher will build a product that will be right for the neighborhood. Mayor Bacon recognized Ms. Carolyn Hite, residing at 2920 Anderson Circle, who expressed support for the proposed project. Ms. Hite stated that many people are interested in the convenience of a loft-type dwelling such as the ones presently under consideration, and that the price range projected by Mr. Hatcher seems affordable. - Mayor Bacon recognized Ms. Helen Stymest, residing at 2900 Anderson Circle, who expressed support for the proposed project. Ms. Stymest stated she is happy about the prospect of improvements in this neighborhood. Mayor Bacon recognized Mr. Ricky Perry, residing at 2889 Anderson Circle, who expressed approval of the City's revitalization efforts in general. Mayor Bacon recognized Mr. Sean Stuart (phonetic), residing at 1314 Roswell Street, who commended Mr. Hatcher for the quality communities he develops. Mr. Stuart stated he is very happy about the prospect of improvements in this neighborhood. Mayor Bacon recognized Mr. Jason Scheidt, residing at 3245 Dunn Street, who expressed views about improvements he believes are needed for the City's network of sidewalks and pedestrian routes. Council Member Newcomb asked Mr. Miller to discuss some plans previously considered for a walkway from Spring Street to Atlanta Road and Spring Road. Mr. Miller stated that he believes the construction requirements of Mr. Hatcher's proposed development in the subject location will preclude any additional construction of walkways in that area. Mr. Hatcher stated it may be possible to move the sidewalks closer to the homes in the subject area. Mr. Hatcher stated that, in - March 1 7. 2003 7 - the past, housing tracts were located closer to the street and residents on porches would actually engage passers-by on the sidewalks in conversation. Mr. Hatcher stated he appreciates suggestions regarding sidewalks because his objectives include the creation of walking communities and urban corridors. Council Member Newcomb asked Mr. Hatcher what type of screening measures will be put in place to allay the concerns expressed earlier by Mr. and Mrs. Martin. Mr. Hatcher stated screening measures may include trees, which can provide some screening, especially during the winter months. Mr. Hatcher stated he has previously met with Mr. Martin in the subject area to discuss the proposal. Mr. Hatcher stated he took some measure- ments there, and determined that Mr. Martin's residence will be approximately 100' away from the subject building. Mr. Hatcher showed a graphic representation to those present to illustrate the view Mr. Martin can be expected to observe from his residence. Mr. Hatcher stated a melange of textures, surfaces and colors, as well as landscaping, will make up the view seen from the locations adjacent to the development. Mr. Hatcher stated that the proposed development will be an improvement over what currently exists at the subject location. Mrs. Martin expressed concern about paving activity in the subject area, and water runoff problems that could result. Mrs. Martin stated she hopes the developer will cooperate with residents in the matter of putting buffering measures in place in the subject area. Mr. Hatcher stated the proposed development will be approximately 100' from the Martin's residence. Mr. Hatcher stated screening measures used in the subject area may include a new privacy fence and landscaping. ... Council Member Scoggins thanked Mrs. Martin for her comments. Council Member Scoggins stated that traffic problems have been a source of concern to people in this area for five decades. Council Member Scoggins stated he has discussed possible traffic solutions with Mr. Hildebrandt. Council Member Scoggins stated that a review of available information has revealed that routing additional traffic to Spring Road is not practicable. Council Member Scoggins stated he agrees with Mrs. Martin's view that traffic is a problem in the area. Council Member Scoggins remarked about the number of citizens who have expressed a sense of pride in their community at this hearing. Council Member Scoggins stated that it is not always possible to make every single person happy, and that ultimately the Mayor and Council Members must try to do what is best for the City. Mayor Bacon read a letter of support for the proposed project to those present from Chuck and Eva Jenkins, residing at 1437 Mimosa Circle, dated March 13, 2003 (Clerk's Note: A copy of this letter is appended hereto as Exhibit B). Council Member Lnenicka asked Mr. Hatcher if it would be possible to provide enough space on Spring Street for the type of sidewalk discussed earlier at this hearing. Mr. Hatcher stated that the proposed side- walk configuration could possibly be installed in front of the four houses. Mr. Hatcher stated the only place where sidewalk improvements may not be possible is at the corner near the loft building. Council Member Lnenicka asked Mr. Hatcher why plans for the proposed renovation of the existing warehouse into lofts and the construction of another warehouse-like loft building cannot be scaled back to some extent. Mr. Hatcher stated that the planned scale of construction for the lofts is made necessary because of the considerations of economic viability. Mr. Hatcher stated that a great many proposed layouts for the development were studied, and that the one which has been submitted for consideration represents the best overall use of the subject property. Mr. Hatcher stated that from a standpoint of aesthetics and overall streetscape appeal, the plan which has been submitted seems to be the best one. Council Member Lnenicka asked Mr. Hatcher ifit would be possible to construct the loft building near Mr. Martin's property in a split configuration such that the portion near Mr. Martin's property will only consist of one storey. Mr. Hatcher stated that he has discussed this possibility with Mr. Martin. Mr. Hatcher stated that the loft building has a long, narrow footprint. Mr. Hatcher stated that aesthetics and authenticity are taken into account in the design of the buildings. - March 1 7. 2003 8 MOTION: Council Member Scoggins made a motion to approve a rezoning request for a 2.086 acre tract in Land Lot 594, Spring Street near Anderson Circle, from R-15 Single Family Residential (SFR) and OD (Office Distribution) to RAD Conditional for Hatcher Homes, Inc., subject to the following stipulations: - 1. The development will maintain the following setbacks for the residences: Front - 25' , Side - 5, Between Buildings - 10' and Rear - 20'. 2. The final plat for the development shall include an additional dedication of 5' on Anderson Circle. 3. Each residence will be a minimum of2,000 square feet in area and conform to the architectural renderings provided to the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 10, 2003 Meeting. 4. The loft units shall be a minimum of 960 square feet in area for the studio units, 1,320 square feet for the one-story units and 2,000 square feet for the two-story units. 5. There shall be protective covenants on all lots. The covenants for the loft units shall preclude the use of these units for rental purposes. - 6. All retention ponds shall be placed and screened appropriately to be unobtrusive to homes inside and outside the development. 7. All utilities within the development shall be underground. 8. The developer will comply with the City's current tree ordinance. All required tree protection measures shall be adhered to by the developer during construction. 9. The protective covenants shall be supplied to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. No debris may be buried on any lot or common area. 11. All yards and common areas are to be sodded, and landscaped. Irrigate as appropriate. 12. All landscape plans must be prepared, stamped, and signed by a Georgia Registered Landscape Architect for any common areas or entrances. - March I 7. 2003 9 - 13. Each lot shall have the following trees replanted per lot either: four 3" caliper trees or two 2" caliper and two 4" caliper trees. The following species of trees may be used: Nuttall Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak, Allee Elm, and Village Green Zelkova. Other species may be used if approved by the City. 14. The developer will cooperate with Mr. Martin regarding a buffer screen for his property. Council Member Scoggins asked Mr. Hatcher ifhe agrees to abide by the stipulations, and Mr. Hatcher answered in the affirmative. Mr. Hatcher stated that stipulation #2 may require some modification. Mr. Hatcher stated that there are two Anderson Circle areas, one in the east and one in the west. Mr. Hatcher stated that at the three lots on the east side, there is not enough room for the stipulated 5' of dedicated space. Mr. Hatcher stated that instead of the 2,000 square feet for residences specified in stipulation #3, the houses on the eastern side will actually comprise 2,200 square feet. Mr. Hatcher stated the matter of stipulation #2 was discussed at the PZB meeting, and that inquiry disclosed the engineer did not include the 5' dedication in the plat submitted. Mr. Miller stated the right-of-way (ROW) in the subject area is 30'. Mr. Miller stated there is presently no sidewalk there, and that installation of sidewalks is a requirement of the building permit process. Mr. Hatcher suggested a sidewalk could be installed in the ROW between the property line and the curb. Mr. Miller stated the ROW in the subject location is only 30', which is not large. Council Member Scoggins asked Mr. Miller if it will be possible to plan on future cooperation with Mr. Hatcher to try to resolve the matter of the 5' of dedicated space. Mr. Miller stated the City should avoid relinquishing its rights to this dedicated space in case it is needed at some point. Mr. Hatcher stated the square footage on a house could be adjusted to provide this space if necessary. The _ motion was seconded by Council Member Cramer. Motion was approved 7 - O. (G) Land Use Change Request - 2.086 Acre Tract - Land Lot 594, Spring Street near Anderson Circle - Medium and Low Density Residential to High Density Residential - Hatcher Homes, Inc. Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. MOTION: Council Member Scoggins made a motion to approve a land use change request for a 2.086 acre tract in Land Lot 594, Spring Street near Anderson Circle, from Medium and Low Density Residential to High Density Residential for Hatcher Homes, Inc. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cramer. Motion was approved 7 - O. (H) Rezoning Request - 1.275 Acre Tract - Land Lot 594, Anderson Circle - R-15 Single Family Residential (SFR) to RAD Conditional - Hatcher Homes, Inc. Mr. Wright stated the subject property presently contains three single-family residences. Mr. Wright stated the applicant proposes to rezone the property to accommodate six single-family residences at an overall density of 4. 71 units per acre. Mr. Wright stated that PZB has voted to recommend approval of the rezoning request, and that staff supports the rezoning for five single- family homes subject to a number of conditions. - Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. March 17.2003 10 Council Member Scoggins asked Mr. Hatcher if the proposed houses will be built in the craftsman style, and Mr. Hatcher answered in the affirmative. Council Member Cramer stated that Mr. Hatcher's work was featured in an article which appeared in a recent issue of Atlanta Magazinefor Homes. Council Member Cramer stated Mr. Hatcher's development on Roswell Street is featured in the magazine, and that the article is favorable publicity for both Hatcher Homes, Inc. and the City. - MOTION: Council Member Scoggins made a motion to approve a rezoning request for a 1.275 acre tract for Land Lot 594, Anderson Circle, from R-15 Single Family Residential (SFR) to RAD Conditional for Hatcher Homes, Inc. The motion was seconded by Council Member Pritchett. Motion was approved 7 - O. (I) Land Use Change Request - 1.275 Acre Tract - Land Lot 594, Anderson Circle - Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential - Hatcher Homes, Inc. Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. MOTION: Council Member Scoggins made a motion to approve a land use change request for a 1.275 acre tract for Land Lot 594, Anderson Circle, from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for Hatcher Homes, Inc. The motion was seconded by Council Member Wood. Motion was approved 7 - O. (J) Privilege License Request - Retail Package Sales (Beer, Wine and Liquor) - Smokers Club LLC DBA Discount Smoke & Tobacco - 2387 South Cobb Drive - Hameed Farista Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. - Council Member Cramer recognized Mr. Farista. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Farista if he has a license to sell alcoholic beverages in another jurisdiction, and Mr. Farista answered in the affirmative. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Farista ifhe has been furnished with a copy of the City's alcoholic beverage sales ordinance, and Mr. Farista answered yes. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Farista ifhe agrees to abide by the provisions of the City's alcoholic beverage sales ordinance, and Mr. Farista answered yes. Council Member Cramer advised Mr. Farista that the local police conduct undercover inquiries to check the compliance of alcoholic beverage sales license holders with the laws governing the sale of alcoholic beverages. Council Member Cramer stated that inquiry by the City police department disclosed no information that would preclude issuance of the requested license. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Farista to provide details to those present regarding the training provided to Discount Smoke and Tobacco (DST) employees for the proper sale of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Farista stated he took a course at some location to learn the proper method of selling alcoholic beverages. Mr. Farista stated that DST employees are taught how to sell alcoholic beverages in a lawful manner. MOTION: Council Member Cramer made a motion to approve a privilege license request for retail package sales of beer, wine and liquor for Smokers Club LLC DBA Discount Smoke & Tobacco at 2387 South Cobb Drive for Hameed Farista. The motion was seconded by Council Member Hawkins. Motion was approved 7 - O. (K) Privilege License Request - Vehicle for Hire - Mundo Taxi - 1047 Windy Hill Road- Mercedes Sanchez and Luis Peralta - March 17.2003 11 Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. - Council Member Hawkins recognized Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Peralta. Council Member Hawkins asked Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Peralta if they are currently in the taxi business, and both answered yes. Council Member Hawkins asked Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Peralta where they are in business, and Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Peralta stated the business is at 1047 Windy Hill Road. Council Member Hawkins asked Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Peralta if they are familiar with the City's taxi cab ordinance, and Ms. Sanchez answered in the affirmative. Council Member Hawkins asked Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Peralta if they will comply with the City's taxi cab ordinance, and Ms. Sanchez answered in the affirmative. Council Member Hawkins asked Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Peralta if they have the minimum required insurance coverage, and Ms. Sanchez answered in the affirmative. Council Member Hawkins asked Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Peralta if it is correct they will be using six vehicles, and Ms. Sanchez answered yes. Council Member Hawkins asked Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Peralta if they understand the vehicles must be kept in good order and be marked with the company's name and telephone number, and Ms. Sanchez answered yes. Council Member Hawkins asked Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Peralta who their dispatcher will be, and Ms. Sanchez stated she will be the dispatcher initially. Council Member Hawkins asked Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Peralta if dispatchers will be bilingual, and Ms. Sanchez answered yes. Council Member Hawkins stated that inquiry by the City police department disclosed no information that would preclude issuance of the requested license. MOTION: Council Member Hawkins made a motion to approve a privilege license request for vehicle for hire for Mundo Taxi at 1047 Windy Hill Road for Mercedes Sanchez and Luis Peralta. The motion was seconded by Council Member Scoggins. Motion was approved 7 - O. FORMAL BUSINESS: - (A) Appointment of Members to the Smyrna Revitalization Authority Mr. Wright stated the Smyrna Revitalization Authority was created to research, compile information, and make an annual list of recommendations to the Smyrna City Council on tactics to revitalize blighted business corridors. Mr. Wright stated this Authority was created about two years ago by an act of the General Assembly. Council Member Lnenicka stated that citizens task forces have contributed to previous successful efforts to bring about positive changes in the City, such as the building of the City Library and Community Center. Council Member Lnenicka stated that members of the Smyrna Revitalization Authority are appointed by the Mayor and Council and State Legislature. Council Member Lnenicka stated that two appointees, Mike McGinn and Shen Sengupta, have been chosen by the State Senate. Council Member Lnenicka stated that two appointees, Michael Anderson and Buddy Purvine, have been chosen by the State House. Council Member Lnenicka stated that five appointees, Steve Wilson, Kenny Burts, G. K. Johnson, Allen Potter and Mike Terry, have been chosen by the Mayor and Council. Mayor Bacon asked Council Member Lnenicka if these appointments are for two-year terms, and Council Member Lnenicka answered in the affirmative. MOTION: Council Member Lnenicka made a motion to approve the persons named as appointees by the Mayor and Council and State Legislature as the members of the Smyrna Revitalization Authority. The motion was seconded by Council Member Hawkins. Motion was approved 7 - O. -- (B) Appointment of Members to the Smyrna Revitalization Task Force March 1 7. 2003 12 Council Member Lnenicka stated he is glad to have a large number of appointees to the Smyrna Revitalization Task Force, because a lot of input regarding the future direction of the City can be obtained from a membership of this size. Council Member Lnenicka read the list of appointees to the Smyrna Revitalization Task Force to those present: Joe Bland, Erin Boden, Michael Coolbrogh, Scott Crooks, Steven Daniels, Charyn Darby, Larry Freeman, Eduardo Frias, Danny Gray, Darrel Grimmet, Jack Halpern, Mickie Higgins, Ted Jones, Chad Koenig, Tom Laccetti, Dee Leonhardi, Julie Lischer, David McGinnis, George Mercurius, Stefanie Miller, Lonnie Mimms, Robert Moultrie, Amanda Salizar-Listur, Gus Scannapieco, Johana Scannapieco, Jason Scheidt, Dan Scoggins, Ray Seabolt, Kristi Seagraves, Mike Seagraves, Narayan Sengupta, Peter Stelling, Phyllis Stockfisch, Wilson Trevino, Amanda Hawkins Vogel, Charles "Corky" Welch, Dan White, Tom White, Wayne White, Michael Woodliff, Mike Worley, and David Trevino. - MOTION: Council Member Lnenicka made a motion to approve the persons named as members of the Smyrna Revitalization Task Force. The motion was seconded by Council Member Hawkins. Motion was approved 7 - O. (C) Approval of Adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code, 2000 Edition, Southern Building Code Congress International [SBCCI] Mr. Wright stated this action is recommended to clarifY the specific code being used by the City. MOTION: Council Member Lnenicka made a motion to approve the adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code, 2000 Edition, Southern Building Code Congress International. The motion was seconded by Council Member Newcomb. Motion was approved 7 -0. - COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMITS: There were none. CONSENT AGENDA: (A) Approval of March 3, 2003 minutes (B) Approval to use Council Chambers by the Vinings Forest Home Owners Association on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. (C) Approval of One-Time Special Event for the Market Village The merchants of the Market Village, organized by Atkins Park Tavern and Zucca Restaurant & Bar, wish to promote the Market Village and the businesses through a two- day celebration in conjunction with the City Spring Jonquil Festival. (D) Approval of Extension of Intergovernmental Agreement with Cobb County to May 31, 2003 MOTION: Council Member Wood made a motion to approve the consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cramer. Motion was approved 7 - O. COMMITTEE REPORTS: - March 1 7. 2003 13 - Council Member Pritchett recognized Mr. Turnell, who provided information regarding upcoming Parks and Recreation Department events for Easter, Little League sports events, and other functions. Council Member Pritchett recognized Mr. Seigler, who provided details of exhibits and upcoming programs at the City Library, including a children's poetry program. Council Member Pritchett reported that some 19,939 people visited the Library during February. Council Member Pritchett recognized Ms. Bennett, who provided details of upcoming events in the City, including the Jonquil Festival. Ms. Bennett stated this year the Jonquil Festival will also feature a crawfish and shrimp cookout event for the first time. Ms. Bennett provided details of economic development tours that will be coming to the City. Council Member Newcomb recognized Mr. Corey, who provided details to those present regarding positions for which the City is recruiting. Mr. Corey congratulated Robert Martin, an officer with the City police department, on being named employee of the month. Council Member Scoggins recognized Chief Hook, who provided current crime and police operations statistics for the City. Council Member Scoggins recognized Chief Williams, who reported that severe weather is forecast for this week. Chief Williams stated that terrorist activity is also a possibility. Chief Williams recommended reasonable precautions and preparations to citizens, and stated that some related publications are available at the City fire department. - Council Member Hawkins recognized Ms. Hiott, who reported that a new Court Clerk, Karen Fricke, has been hired by the City. Ms. Hiott provided details about Ms. Fricke's qualifications and experience to those present. Ms. Hiott stated that efforts are under way to improve the manner in which information regarding the City Court is disseminated to the public. Ms. Hiott stated the Records Center is now ready for use, and expressed appreciation to the Mayor and Council Members for their help in making this new facility possible. Ms. Hiott encouraged members ofthe public to visit the City website for inquiries and information, and reported that due to a new election law, there could be some reports due at the end of March for those who have already decided to run for public office. Council Member Hawkins congratulated the operators ofMoe's Restaurant in Smyrna for having the top sales figures in the organization for the previous week. Council Member Cramer recognized Ms. Kirk, who provided details of current and upcoming Keep Smyrna Beautiful (KSB) activities, including the annual KSB awards banquet. Council Member Cramer recognized Mr. Hildebrandt, who had no report Council Member Cramer recognized Mr. Stokes, who provided details of water, sewer and street projects in progress. Council Member Cramer commended Mr. Hatcher for his commitment to the community, and wished Mr. Hatcher good luck on his latest ventures. - March 17.2003 14 Council Member Lnenicka recognized Mr. Chris Miller, who provided current building permit statistics to those present. Council Member Lnenicka reported there will be a meeting of the Vinings Forest Home Owners Association on Tuesday, March 25,2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. - Council Member Lnenicka wished his sister and Council Member Cramer a happy birthday. Council Member Wood stated Ms. Edgar has no report. Council Member Wood yielded the floor with no report. CITIZENS INPUT: There was none. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m. /~ ~~I~~ ~ A. MAX BACON, MAYOR :? / ) /.:1!.~ /J ~ I /,/ \'tI,( /J . ./ / 7!-ff/<~" h-/ /J. //.'-'-. .--:-/\ { '. Y/i-C '-. :Xt:.~/ ~ \ '-~,J / I CHETT, WARD 1 RON NEWCOMB, WARD 2 )JG - , ~,~ O;[~M1.lA 4~, e~ W~ CHARLES PETE WOOD, WARD 7 - ~ 7 f'M. -- j- tfeJ Pf rrr1~"Ho8 @jJ1jO -- ---_.__.-._~ .. DATE: 3/13/03 TO:MA YOR BACON AND CITY COUNCIL FROM:CHUCK AND AVA JENKINS 1437 MIMOSA CIR. SMYRNA,GA.30080 RE.PURPOSED SPRING ST. DEVELOPMENT 'w Unfortunately we will not be in town for the hearing on Monday night regarding the project Mr. Ed Hatcher is purposing.However after seeing the plans on what he intends to build on the property, we feel that it will be a great improvement for the area.Having lived here for 30 years and seeing what Mr.hatcher has done with property in the surronding area, we think the area in long over due an improvement such as this. Mr. Hatcher has built the houses on Roswell St. which are within view of our house,and has made a big improvement on that property as well. We feel it will improve property values and clean up an area in much need of a face lift. Ifwe could be there for the hearing,we would be in favor of the project,however since we can't be there,we ask our Councilman,Mr.Bill Scoggins to to read this at the council meeting on 3-17-03 on our behalf. Thank you for your time Chuck & A va Jenkins ~~ ~.~ -., r 'f l\, . \ \\ .---., ,..... ....... ..\ -;: +c V'"' ~ fee. . ~ ~'10f;;/~ftefeCoJ I ".. ... 1~ March 6, 2003 .-------.... Victor Koch and Casey Clavin 1480 Roswell Street Smyrna, GA 30080 RE: Rezoning for 1490 Roswell Street Dear Vic and K.C.: This is a response to your letter of March 5, 2003. Listed a below are items that Hatcher Homes, Inc. has agreed to change from what was my previous letter dated March 4,2003. If you are in agreement that with the adoption of these changes and that you will support this rezoning, would you please sign or initial in the space provided at the bottom of this letter signifying your support. 1. Change front building set back to 45' for the home proposed adjacent to 1480 Roswell Street (your home). 2. Change the front building set back to 35' for the home proposed adjacent to i 496 Roswell Street (Hurley home). 3. Change the side (right) building set back to 5' for the lot adjacent to your property. 4. Change the side (right) building set back to 2' for the lot adjacent to the Hurley home. 5. Front and sides of both homes will be landscaped adjacent to the foundation in such a way as to screen the foundation. 6. The foundation that is exposed above grade will be painted a dark grey. 7. Each home will have its own driveway. (Both will be positioned on the left side of the property (and home). 8. The homes constructed shall utilize the same plans and elevations as used at Roswell Street Commons. Rear entry garages to be used (no detached garages). 9. The minimum square footage shall be 2200 sq. ft. 10. The homes shall be priced to sell at not less than $259,900.00. It is more likely that these will sell in the $270,000.00 price range. 11. The home constructed next to your home shall be the "Four Square" plan. If used, the double porch plan may be built next to the Hurley home'L- ~ -ftv,J- . Foundation wall height to ~kcfJt to 8 miaiHHIlB, 1:Jtlt mmt ttllo~ Mt the front porch elevation to be He ,~~ tbat the street elevation. (The proposed lot adjacent to your home is 4.82' lower than the street elevation.) ~ l h A 948. fax 770.434.9339. p.o. box HI ,27H · smyrna. ga ,OOHI-)27H · nt.'whomt.'s@intt.'gritv.nllll ~ -. -., -- ---\ 13. Every effort will be made to insure that the placement of the garage slab on the four square home (next to 1480) causes no harm to the very large oak tree just over the property line west of the garage. Attached is a revised site plan with the above changes that has been submitted to the city. Sincerely yours, Ed Hatcher Hatcher Homes, Inc. Cc: Chris Miller Bill Scoggins ORDINANCE No. 2003-13 - AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF SMYRNA, GEORGIA, PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CONDITIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL PROPERTY, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES; THE STANDARDS FOR SUPPLIED UTILITIES, FACILITIES AND OTHER PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL TO ENSURE THAT STRUCTURES ARE SAFE, SANITARY AND FIT FOR OCCUPATION AND USE; AND THE CONDEMNATION OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND USE, AND THE DEMOLITION OF SUCH STRUCTURES; SAID REGULATIONS KNOWN AS THE INTER- NATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, 2000 EDITION, AS PUBLISHED BY THE SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE CONGRESS INTER- NATIONAL (SBCCI) Section I. That a certain document, three (3) copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Smyrna, being marked and designated as the International Maintenance Code as published by the International Code Council, Inc. be and is hereby adopted as the Property Maintenance Code of the City of Smyrna, in the State of Georgia; for the control of buildings and structures as herein provided and each and all of the of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms of said Property Maintenance Code are hereby referred to, adopted, and made a part hereof, as if fully set out in this ordinance, with the additions, insertions, deletions and changes, if any, prescribed in Section 2 of this Ordinance. - Approved by Mayor and Council this 17th day of March, 2003. A Attest: A. Max Bacon, Mayor ~~)0D,'1~ Susan D. Hiott, City Clerk City of Srnyrna - March 3. 2003 - The regular scheduled meeting of Mayor and Council was held at Smyrna City Hall. The meeting was called to order by presiding officer Mayor A. Max Bacon at 7:30 o'clock p.m. All council members were present. Also present were City Administrator Wayne Wright, City Clerk Susan Hiott, City Attorney Scott Cochran, and representatives of the press. Invocation was given by Rev. Keith Butler II, from Faith Christian Center followed by the pledge to the flag. AGENDA CHANGES: Mayor Bacon stated a privilege license application for Discount Smoke & Tobacco d/b/a Smokers Club LLC, 2387 South Cobb Drive, for Hameed Farista is to be withdrawn without prejudice. CITIZENS INPUT: Mayor Bacon recognized Mr. Curt Johnston of the Cobb County School Board, who introduced some students and faculty members from Argyle Elementary School to those present. The students presented this month's character theme words to those present. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Bacon had nothing to report. PUBLIC HEARINGS: - (A) Variance Request - V03-009 -located Land Lot 264, Lot 13,373 Doeskin Lane to permit a new above-ground pool in rear yard in addition to existing accessory structure (shed) Mr. Wright stated the City Zoning Code limits the number of accessory structures on a lot to one structure. Mr. Wright stated one accessory structure is currently erected on the subject property, and that the applicant is seeking a permit for an above-ground swimming pool as well. Mr. Wright stated that staff supports this variance request. Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. Council Member Wood recognized Mr. Michael Pugh-Roberts, the applicant. Council Member Wood asked Mr. Pugh-Roberts ifit is correct that occupants of the adjoining properties have no objections to the proposed variance, and Mr. Pugh-Roberts answered in the affirmative. MOTION: Council Member Wood made a motion to approve a variance request for 373 Doeskin Lane to permit a new above-ground pool in rear yard in addition to an existing accessory structure. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lnenicka. Motion was approved 7 - O. (B) Rezoning Request - Z02-0404 - to rezone 1.85 acre tract in Land Lots 388, 389,404 and 405 from Office Institutional (01) and Cobb County R-20 (Single-Family) to Limited Commercial (LC), North Cooper Lake Road (Pembrook Child Care Development, Inc.) - March 3. 2003 2 Mr. Wright stated a portion of the subject property is in unincorporated Cobb County, and that an annexation request has also been filed. Mr. Wright stated there are plans to construct a daycare center on the property, and that the Planning and Zoning Board (PZB) has voted to deny this rezoning request. - Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment, and the oath was administered to several persons by Mr. Cochran. Council Member Wood recognized Mr. Neil Gass, representing Pembrook Child Care Development, Inc. (PCCD), and asked Mr. Gass to provide details concerning the proposed use of the subject property to those present. Mr. Gass stated PCCD plans to build a child care facility at the subject location. Mr. Gass stated the proposed facility would operate Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Council Member Wood asked Mr. Gass if the facility would operate in the evening or on weekends, and Mr. Gass answered no. Mayor Bacon recognized Ms. Sally Striker (phonetic), residing in the vicinity of the subject property, who stated that the proposed facility is not feasible. Ms. Striker stated that traffic in the subject area is very heavy, and that accessing the proposed facility would be difficult. Ms. Striker expressed the view that the intersection of East-West Connector and Cooper Lake Road is a dangerous place for the type of business proposed because of the traffic. Ms. Striker stated she has discussed this matter with Council Member Wood on several occasions. An unidentified person stated that a traffic surveyor has also been observed in the subject area. Ms. Striker stated that the visibility of motorists operating vehicles in the subject area is limited, and that the traffic between six o'clock and eight o'clock in the subject area is heavy. Ms. Striker reported that there have been numerous traffic accidents in the subject area. An unidentified person stated that at the intersection in the subject area, there are no turning lanes. The unidentified person stated there is a left-turn lane, but no right-turn lane. The unidentified person stated that if traffic is routed to his street, there will be a traffic jam at the intersection in the subject area. Mayor Bacon asked the two citizens where their property is in relation to the subject property. Ms. Striker stated her property is close to the subject location. The unidentified person stated that orange markers have been placed near the rear of the garage on his property. Council Member Wood asked the two citizens if they are aware of proposed road improvements in the subject area. Ms. Striker stated the proposed improvements will not make any difference from her standpoint. Council Member Wood stated that the organization which conducted the traffic study in the subject area can confer with the city engineer and the community development director in order to take all available information into consideration in the planning process. Council Member Wood stated that he has recently received additional input from other residents in the affected area, including a statement of support for the proposed project. - Council Member Wood stated he will make a motion to table the rezoning request for a 1.85 acre tract in Land Lots 388, 389,404 and 405 from Office Institutional (01) and Cobb County R-20 (Single-Family) to Limited Commercial (LC) for Pembrook Child Care Development, Inc. until the March 17,2003 council meeting. Council Member Wood stated this request will be referred back to the PZB, and that before the next PZB meeting, the city engineer and the community development director will meet with representatives from the organization which conducted the traffic study in the subject area to determine what impact proposed improvements may have on the subject area. Ms. Striker reiterated her concerns about traffic conditions in the subject area. Council Member Wood stated that all available information will be factored into the decision making process. - March 3. 2003 3 - Mayor Bacon recognized Mr. Jim Walston and Mrs. Wanda Walston, residing at 725 Cooper Lake Road. Mr. Walston stated many changes have occurred in the area of his residence. Mr. Walston stated he can hear and see vehicular traffic from his residence, and that the volume of this traffic has increased. Mr. Walston described the traffic conditions in the area of the proposed facility, and what type of ride users of the proposed facility may have to experience when traveling to that destination. Mr. Walston stated that entering and leaving the proposed facility by vehicle will be difficult. Mr. Walston expressed concern about limited visibility in the subject area. Mayor Bacon asked Mr. Walston to point out the location of his residence on a map, and Mr. Walston obliged. Mr. Walston expressed concern about traffic safety in the subject area. Council Member Wood stated he appreciates Mr. Walston's views, and that this matter will be afforded further study and consideration. Mrs. Walston discussed driving conditions in the area of the proposed project, and expressed concern about traffic safety in the subject area. Mr. Walston expressed concern about children who would be passengers in vehicles traveling to the subject location. Mr. Gass expressed appreciation to the citizens who attended the meeting to express their views. Mr. Gass stated PCCD will continue to work with their consulting engineer regarding a proposed turn lane. Council Member Wood stated that all available information will be factored into the decision making process. MOTION: Council Member Wood made a motion to table the rezoning request for a 1.85 acre tract in Land Lots 388, 389,404 and 405 from Office Institutional (01) and Cobb County R-20 (Single-Family) to Limited Commercial (LC) for Pembrook Child Care Development, Inc. until the March 17,2003 council meeting. Council Member Wood stated this request will be referred back to the PZB for review and recommendation. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cramer. Motion was approved 7 - O. - (C) Land Use Change Request - Z02-040 (Land Use) from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Activity Center, Land Lots 388, 389,404 and 405, 1.85 acre tract, North Cooper Lake Road (Pembrook Child Care Development, Inc.) Mayor Bacon stated this measure will be tabled until the March 17,2003 council meeting along with agenda item 5B, supra. (D) Privilege License Request - Retail Pouring License (Beer, Wine and Liquor) for K. El Ciclon, d/b/a K. El Ciclon, Applicant Su IL Kwon, located at 2731 South Cobb Drive Mr. Wright stated that inquiry by the City police department disclosed no information which would preclude issuance of the requested license. Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. Council Member Cramer recognized Ms. Jeanie K won (phonetic), counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Su II Kwon. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Kwon ifhe has read the regulations governing the sale of alcoholic beverages, and with translation assistance from Ms. Kwon, Mr. Kwon answered yes. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Kwon ifhe understands that the local police conduct undercover inquiries to test the compliance of license holders with the regulations governing the sale of alcoholic beverages, and with translation assistance from Ms. Kwon, Mr. Kwon answered yes. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Kwon ifhe understands that the minimum required age for a person to purchase any alcoholic beverage is 21 years old, and Mr. - March 3. 2003 4 Kwon answered yes. Council Member Cramer asked Mr. Kwon ifhe has any previous experience with this type of license, and Ms. Kwon stated Mr. Kwon currently has an alcoholic beverage sales license with the Atlanta city government, and that Mr. Kwon is familiar with the requirements. Council Member Cramer recommended to Mr. Kwon that all purchasers of alcoholic beverages at K. El Ciclon (EC) be required to present proper identification. Council Member Cramer advised Mr. Kwon that all EC servers are required to obtain serving permits at the City police department. Council Member Cramer stated that inquiry by the City police department disclosed no information which would preclude issuance of the requested license. Council Member Lnenicka asked what type of business EC will be, and Ms. Kwon stated it will be a Mexican-style restaurant. Council Member Lnenicka asked when EC will be open for business, and Ms. Kwon stated a loan is currently being processed, and that the opening is expected within a few weeks. - MOTION: Council Member Cramer made a motion to approve a privilege license request for retail pouring of beer, wine and liquor for K. El Ciclon, d/b/a K. El Ciclon, for Su IL K won, Agent, located at 273 I South Cobb Drive. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lnenicka. Motion was approved 7 - O. (E) Business License Request- Massage Practitioners for Osborne Institute of Technology, Inc. d/b/a Smyrna Therapeutic Massage Institute, located at 1725 Spring Road, Smyrna, Applicant Grams B. Osborn Mr. Wright stated that inquiry by the City police department disclosed no information which would preclude issuance of the requested license. Mr. Wright stated the applicant does not meet the requirements for the license under the City Code. Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. Council Member Scoggins recognized Mr. Osborn, and asked Mr. Osborn to provide details to those present regarding the type of business he proposes to operate. Mr. Osborn stated that Smyrna Therapeutic Massage Institute (STMI) will be a State-approved vocational training school for massage therapy. Council Member Scoggins stated that staff has reviewed Mr. Osborn's application and found it to be incomplete, and asked Mr. Osborn if there is a reason the application was not completed. Mr. Osborn stated the City's application form appears to be designed for individual applicants, as opposed to corporate applicants such as STMI. Mr. Osborn furnished details concerning information which was provided in the application. Council Member Scoggins stated the questionnaire contains language indicating that all questions and statements must be completed, and asked Mr. Osborn if it is correct that he was previously advised ofthis requirement. Mr. Osborn stated that some ofthe questions on the form are not applicable to corporate applicants. Council Member Pritchett referred to the license application summary in which the applicant's home address is requested, and stated that Mr. Osborn's name appears on the submitted form, but that the application contains a notation indicating Mr. Osborn refused to answer this question pertaining to home address. Council Member Pritchett stated that no distinction is made in this part ofthe application between corporate and individual applicants, and that she does not understand why Mr. Osborn does not want to provide his home address. Council Member Pritchett recognized Mr. Bill Robertson, the attorney representing STMI, who asked Council Member Pritchett to provide additional details regarding the application form. Council Member Pritchett referred Mr. Robertson to a City form captioned City of Smyrna- Business License Application Summary, which Mr. Osborn used to apply for a massage practitioner's license on February 25, 2003. Council Member Pritchett stated the application contains a notation indicating Mr. Osborn's home address was requested for the form, and that ~ - March 3. 2003 5 - Mr. Osborn refused to provide his home address. Council Member Pritchett stated the City's elected officials are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that regulations are adhered to by privilege license applicants. Council Member Pritchett stated a person's home address, regardless of whether or not they represent a corporation, is background information, and she does not understand why Mr. Osborn refuses to answer this question. Mr. Robertson stated the applicant in this case is Osborn Institute of Technology, and that Osborn Institute of Technology has no previous street address. Mr. Robertson stated some ofthese questions apply to an individual applicant but not to a corporate applicant. Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Osborn apparently has a language problem to some extent, and that the English language is not the same from country to country. Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Osborn understood the application to be a corporate application as opposed to an individual one. Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Osborn is not himself a massage therapist. Council Member Pritchett asked when the corporation was formed, and Mr. Robertson stated the corporation was formed on January 12, 1999. Mr. Robertson stated the corporation had its previous address on Campbellton Road in Atlanta, but that this is his first foray out of his home. Council Member Pritchett expressed appreciation to Mr. Robertson for his efforts to provide answers to some questions. Mr. Robertson stated he did not understand a remark made earlier by either Council Member Scoggins or Mr. Wright to the effect that the corporation did not qualify. Mr. Cochran asked who would be the business manager at STMI, and Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Osborn will be the business manager. Mr. Cochran asked if there is anything else that the City should consider with the application, such as documentation, and Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Robertson stated he has not been provided with any statement specifying what information is lacking or needed, and that his client would like to have the opportunity to amend. Mr. Cochran asked if there is any type of health certificate for Mr. Osborn or others working with patients, and Mr. Robertson stated that would apply to the supervisory licensed massage therapist. Mr. Cochran asked if there is a health certificate that person would have which Mr. Osborn wishes to submit, and Mr. Robertson stated that does not appear to be a requirement of the ordinance for a corporate applicant. Mr. Robertson stated that appears to be a requirement for a license for a massage therapist. Mr. Robertson stated he was the city attorney for Austell for fifteen years, and compared the placement of an oversized shoe on someone's foot to the way in which he believes the ordinance guidelines are being applied in this particular instance. Mr. Robertson stated he wishes to work cooperatively with the City in this matter, and pointed out that Mr. Osborn has been waiting for three months for a license and that his business has been delayed during this time. Mr. Robertson stated that the City issued Mr. Osborn a building permit for a massage therapy school, a license for a massage therapy school, and that later Mr. Osborn was told he would need a privilege license. Council Member Wood asked Mr. Robertson when these permits were obtained, and Mr. Robertson stated he believes the other permits were obtained sometime around last October. Council Member Wood stated that if that is the case, then Osborne Institute of Technology, Inc. d/b/a Smyrna Therapeutic Massage Institute has a history. Mr. Robertson reported that House Bill 368 is under consideration by the State legislature and, if approved, this measure will take the licensing of massage therapists out of the jurisdiction of local governments and place it with the State boards. Mr. Robertson stated that the upshot of this pending legislation is that all his client's effort to obtain the license from the City will eventually be for nought, and the process will have to be repeated. Mr. Cochran stated the City would be favorably disposed toward State preemption on this issue. Mr. Robertson stated that STMI is not a massage parlor, but rather a school. Mr. Robertson stated that, in his legal opinion, he has doubts about whether or not the City ordinance applies in this case at all. Mr. Robertson stated that a licensed massage therapist would be on the premises to instruct students, and that the students would have to administer massages. Mayor Bacon asked Mr. Robertson what distinction exists between a massage school and a therapeutic massage spa if students are administering massages to people on the premises. Mr. Robertson stated the students will be supervised by a licensed massage therapist, and that the public will know that the persons - - March 3. 2003 6 administering the massages are students and not licensed massage therapists. Mr. Robertson stated that under the proposed State law, students would be exempted. Mr. Robertson stated the City's ordinance does not address the matter of students. Mr. Robertson stated the City should take the same position as the State, because an untrained student cannot qualifY to be a licensed massage therapist, therefore, they cannot obtain a license from the City, and that this is an irrational impediment. Mr. Robertson stated that, in effect, one cannot be a licensed massage therapist until one learns how, and one cannot learn how because one cannot obtain a license without the certification. Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Osborn is attempting to comply with the City's regulations in order to get his business open and to start instruction. Council Member Hawkins asked Mr. Robertson if STMJ will advertise and charge people for massage services, and Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative. Council Member Hawkins asked Mr. Robertson if it is correct that STMI will be competing against other massage therapy operations in the City, and Mr. Robertson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Osborn stated the City's ordinance appears to have been enacted when there were no massage schools in Cobb County. Mr. Osborn stated that the ordinance is a good one because, at the time it was enacted, the purpose ofthe ordinance was to regulate massage practitioners. Mr. Osborn stated the ordinance does not take into consideration people who are studying to become massage practitioners. Mr. Robertson stated he does not believe the inquiry into competition regulation is an appropriate inquiry. Mr. Robertson stated that determining whether or not STMI would compete against massage practitioners in full practice is not a function of this body. Mr. Robertson stated he believes that the function of this body under the ordinance is to determine ifthis applicant is qualified. Council Member Hawkins stated he believes it is a function of this body to safeguard the health, welfare and safety ofthe community, and that he is concerned about amateurs at the subject location providing services to the public that are paid for. Council Member Newcomb asked it is correct that Mr. Osborn did not provide his home street address on the license application, and Mr. Robertson stated the business address was furnished, and that he does not see the question for the individual's home address. Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Osborn provided a copy of his driver's license with the application, and that Mr. Osborn's home address is listed on the license. Mr. Robertson stated that this is the first time that he or Mr. Osborn have heard any of these questions, and that neither he nor Mr. Osborn have been apprised of the fact that the application is lacking in any regard. Mr. Robertson stated that ifhe and Mr. Osborn had known about the deficiencies, any information the Mayor and Council members want would have been provided. Council Member Pritchett asked Mr. Robertson when he became Mr. Osborn's attorney and when he first became aware of this situation, and Mr. Robertson answered it was in January. - - MOTION: Council Member Scoggins made a motion to deny a license request for massage practitioners for Osborne Institute of Technology, Inc. d/b/a Smyrna Therapeutic Massage Institute, located at 1725 Spring Road, for Grams B. Osborn on the basis that the applicant does not meet the requirements ofthe City ordinance. The motion was seconded by Council Member Hawkins. Motion to deny the privilege license request was approved was 7- O. (F) Ordinance Amendment - Chapter 82, Signs - replacing Sections 82-1 through 82-18 and with Sections 82-1 through 82-19 Mr. Wright stated that, because of changes in case law regarding government sign codes, the City initiated a review of the sign ordinance. Mr. Wright stated a number of issues were identified, and it was determined that a new sign ordinance based on the best examples from other municipalities should be adopted. Mr. Wright stated that staff supports the proposed sign ordinance. - March 3. 2003 7 Council Member Lnenicka stated that a temporary moratorium on new sign permits was put in place in the City recently while the sign ordinance was reviewed for possible revision. - Mr. Cochran administered the oath to Mr. Wright to present testimony on this matter. Mr. Wright stated that he has consulted with a number of City governments where sign ordinances have been recently enacted which have withstood the test of court challenges. Mr. Wright stated that signs create a number of concerns from a public safety standpoint which justify the need for the regulation of signs. Mr. Wright stated these concerns include the distraction of motorists while operating vehicles, and the obscuration of vital traffic control signs. Mr. Wright read an affidavit by Community Development Director Chris Miller regarding the sign ordinance: AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER S. MILLER 1. My name is Christopher S. Miller, I am over the age of 21 years and otherwise competent to make this affidavit. I suffer from no legal disability. This affidavit is based upon my personal knowledge and experience and is true. This affidavit is offered in support of the sign ordinance to be considered by adoption by the Mayor and City Council of Smyrna, Georgia on March 3, 2003 (Ord.# 2003-11). 2. I am the Community Development Director of Smyrna and have held that position since early 2001. I graduated from Florida State University in 1991 with a degree in Urban Economics and earned a Masters Degree in Urban Planning in 1993. I am a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. - 3. Throughout my career I have been involved in the review, application and amendment of sign ordinances for several communities. I participated in drafting the proposed ordinance and believe it to be in the best interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Smyrna. 4. The sign ordinance under consideration restricts the location of signs and as a result helps avoid damage to persons and property. The signage controls within the ordinance are designed to promote traffic safety and avoid traffic accidents. Unregulated signs may lessen the utility of public safety signs. 5. Signs may affect the character of a community as well as property values. The size, height, location and general condition of signs may have an impact upon surrounding land uses and property values. Certain signs could result in an overall image of blight and a reduction of property values. Smyrna's sign ordinance is designed to ensure that signage is compatible with its surrounding environment. 6. The sign ordinance under consideration attempts to insure that signs within Smyrna are compatible with adjacent land uses and with the total visual environment of the community. 7. The size of signs which provide adequate identification in pedestrian oriented business areas differs from that necessary in vehicular-oriented areas where traffic is heavy, travel speeds are greater and required setbacks are greater than in pedestrian areas. - March 3. 2003 8 Council Member Lnenicka provided a brief recapitulation of the various existing ordinances regulating the use of signs to those present. Council Member Lnenicka asked Mr. Wright if it is correct that the ordinance revision under consideration would codify these various regulations into a single unified document, and Mr. Wright answered in the affirmative. Council Member Lnenicka stated the affidavit of Mr. Miller is entered into the record for the purpose of providing his professional evaluation of the ordinance. Council Member Lnenicka stated the application and enforcement of sign regulations have been studied by the council members at great length, and that this measure is designed to create a better sign ordinance. Council Member Lnenicka stated the goals of the sign ordinance include protecting the health, safety and welfare of citizens, visitors and businesses in the City. Council Member Lnenicka stated the sign code was recently reviewed by an attorney who is a noted expert on sign regulations. Council Member Lnenicka stated it was determined that the current sign ordinance can be difficult to enforce because the signage is regulated on the basis of its content, and that similar ordinances in other municipalities have been found by the courts to be unconstitutional. Council Member Lnenicka stated that, because of the extensive nature of the revisions to the sign ordinance, a new sign ordinance has been created based on the best examples from other municipalities. Council Member Lnenicka stated that many elements of the proposed ordinance were drawn from the City of Roswell's sign ordinance, and he commended Roswell for their work in this area. Council Member Lnenicka briefly reviewed some key changes found in the proposed sign ordinance. Council Member Lnenicka stated the new ordinance will represent an improvement over the previous version. - Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. MOTION: Council Member Lnenicka made a motion to approve the ordinance amendment for Chapter 82, Signs, replacing Sections 82-1 through 82- 18 and with Sections 82-1 through 82-19. The motion was seconded by Council Member Newcomb. Motion was approved 7 - O. (G) Ordinance Amendment - Amending Section 1303 - requiring that a site development plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any grading permit I - Mr. Wright stated this proposed ordinance amendment will require a site development plan to be submitted before any grading permit is approved. Mr. Wright stated this requirement is needed to make certain that tree protection and soil erosion considerations are given appropriate review before grading permits are issued. Mr. Wright stated a site development plan must include at a minimum a grading plan, erosion and sedimentation control plan, tree preservation plan, future building locations, parking layout and storm drainage design. Council Member Lnenicka stated the proposed ordinance amendment can positively impact the community in a number of ways. Council Member Lnenicka read the proposed additions to Section 1303 to those present. Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. MOTION: Council Member Lnenicka made a motion to approve an ordinance amendment for Section 1303 requiring that a site development plan be submitted prior to the issuance of any grading permit. The motion was seconded by Council Member Hawkins. Motion was approved 7-0. - March 3. 2003 9 FORMAL BUSINESS: - (A) Reappointment of Ward 7 Representative to the Keep Smyrna Beautiful Commission Council Member Wood recognized Ms. Sue Brissey, and commended her for her years of service on the Keep Smyrna Beautiful Commission (KSB). Council Member Wood thanked Ms. Brissey for her contributions to the community, and her willingness to continue her service on the Keep Smyrna Beautiful Commission. MOTION: Council Member Wood made a motion to reappoint Ms. Brissey to the Ward 7 post on the Keep Smyrna Beautiful Commission. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lnenicka. Ms. Brissey stated she enjoys the opportunity to serve on KSB. Mayor Bacon expressed appreciation to Ms. Brissey for her service to the community. Motion was approved 7-0. (B) Reconsideration of Work Hours - Bates Street - Cobb County Habitat for Humanity Mr. Wright stated this request was previously considered by the Council on February 17,2003, at which time the variance request to permit construction work on Sunday was denied. Council Member Scoggins stated that additional information, which was not included in the issue sheet for this matter furnished for the last council meeting, has been received and taken into consideration for this request. - MOTION: Council Member Scoggins made a motion to approve a variance to allow construction work on Bates Street for Cobb County Habitat for Humanity on Sundays from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Council Member Newcomb. Council Member Scoggins stated that some misunderstanding apparently occurred at the previous meeting because all the pertinent details were not available at the time of the original vote. Council Member Newcomb expressed appreciation to the young students participating in this project for their contribution to the community. Motion was approved 7 - O. COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMITS: There were none. CONSENT AGENDA: (A) Approval ofthe February 17,2003 Minutes (B) Approval to Surplus Fire Department Equipment Smyrna Fire Department has 25 sets of firefighters' self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) which is no longer needed. Pickens County has offered the City $ 1000 for this equipment. It is recommended that this SCBA be declared surplus for disposal. Other gear to be declared surplus includes firefighting clothing and helmets. (C) Approval to Surplus Police Department Equipment Smyrna Police Department has two outdated Kustom radar units that are currently not being used by the City. The City of Roswell has agreed to purchase these units at $100 each. It is recommended that this Kustom radar equipment declared surplus for disposal. - March 3. 2003 10 (D) Approval of Authorization for Mayor to Sign an Interlocal Agreement for Resurfacing Cobb County Department of Transportation has agreed to resurface specified streets in the City at a contract price. The City is expected to benefit from economy of scale by outsourcing this work to the County. - (E) Approval of Authorization for Mayor to Sign the 2003 Community Development Block Grant Award The Cobb County Board of Commissioners has awarded these CDBG funds to the City. The City has participated in the CDBG program for a number of years, and approval of this measure is recommended by staff. (F) Approval of Resolution to adopt the City of Smyrna Emergency Operations Plan by Smyrna Fire Department for 2003 The City of Smyrna Emergency Management Agency has developed, in partnership with local government and community agencies/organizations, which have primary responsibility for emergency support functions, an approved emergency management plan. This plan will be submitted to the Georgia Emergency Management Agency. (G) Approval to Transfer $55,000 from Contingency to the Street Operating Account of the Public Works Department This transfer of funds is requested in order to fund improvements to the Cooper Lake Road and East-West Connector intersection. MOTION: Council Member Wood made a motion to approve the consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lnenicka. Mayor Bacon asked if the fire and police departments solicited bids for the proposed disposal of the specified equipment. Mr. Wright stated that State law requires the City to dispose of surplus property in an intergovernmental agreement without bids. Mr. Wright stated the City purchasing office has reviewed the proposed disposition and concluded that these proposals represent a greater liquidation value than would likely be realized at auction. Mr. Wright stated that the prospective purchasers of the surplus equipment were contacted when it was learned that they were in need of the type of equipment the City was attempting to dispose of. Motion was approved 7 - O. - COMMITTEE REPORTS: Council Member Pritchett stated the new Aldi store on Spring Road is under construction. Council Member Newcomb yielded the floor with no report. Council Member Scoggins yielded the floor with no report. Council Member Hawkins stated the Georgia Bar Association recently held a mock trial event in Marietta in which local students participated. Council Member Hawkins stated that students from Campbell High School (CHS) placed second in this competition. Council Member Hawkins stated he heard many favorable comments about these CHS students, and commended them for their effort. Council Member Cramer reminded those present of the incident on the current date in which officers of the City police department were forced to use deadly force on a suspect. Council Member Cramer stated the officers of the City police department perform a difficult task every day, and asked those present to remember them in their prayers. Council Member Cramer - March 3. 2003 11 - reported that management personnel from Hickory Lakes met with citizens from the Chateau Walk Homeowners Association. Council Member Cramer stated he expects some improvements at these apartments to be forthcoming. Council Member Lnenicka thanked the residents of Creatwood at Vinings who attended the Homeowners Association (HOA) meeting on the previous evening. Council Member Lnenicka expressed appreciation to these HOA members for their interest in the community, and their support of the City's downtown revitalization efforts. Council Member Lnenicka stated that during the last holiday season, undercover checks by the local police were made in the southern part of the City to monitor the compliance of business operators with alcoholic beverage sales regulations. Council Member Lnenicka stated that nine businesses were checked, and that all of them passed the test. Council Member Lnenicka read a list to those present of the businesses checked, and commended them for their diligence. Council Member Wood yielded the floor with no report. CITIZENS INPUT: There were no additional citizen comments. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9: I 6 p.m. -- - March 3. 2003 12 /~ A. MAX BACON, MAYOR ~id:t(#;6 -' - 'i, , I ,/ ~ --::J ON N ~J ,,/</ / RON NEWCOMB, WARD 2 ~#J.d~ /'JAMES M. HA WKINS, WARD 4 ~~& cd,- ~ CH RLES PETE WOOD, WA~"\ - '-' RESOLUTION ~ /" The City of Smyrna Emergency Management Agency has developed, in partnership with local government and community agencies/organizations which have primary responsibility for emergency support functions, an approved emergency management plan. A copy of this plan and/or major revisions are being submitted to the Georgia Emergency Management Agency by the local Emergency Management Agency Director, in coordination with the undersigned local government officials or legally appointed successors. It is .understood that the Georgia Emergency Management Agency will review this plan for compliance with all federal and state requirements. f/ :J / , As authorized local government officials, we understand and agree to the requirements of the Georgia Emergency Management Act of 1981, as amended, /~ A. Max Bacon, Mayor,\ date i 1 .~I /, " I'/-CL Melleny PrffF: ell;'Ward 1 '-"- ~I Wade Lnenicka, Ward 6 ~~ Pete Wood, Ward 7 W~(j'5~o3-()3 date tl3-/J3-o '3 date ~D7'~~ Susan D. Hiott, City Clerk date - All applicable elected local government officials to include the Chairperson of the County Commission, Mayor(s) of Municipalities, and/or Chief Executive Officer for the jurisdiction(s) should sign this resolution. - ORDINANCE NO. 2003-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SMYRNA, GEORGIA, PROVIDING __ THAT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, APPENDIX A, ZONING, CITY OF SMYRNA, GEORGIA, BE AMENDED BY ADDING TO SECTION 1303 OF SAID CODE: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF SMYRNA, and it is hereby ordained and established by said authority, and the Mayor and council hereby adopt he following Ordinance: Section 1303. Grading permit required; request for variances. The first paragraph is hereby amended by deleting therefrom the following: "No grading or other alteration of the land shall commence without a grading permit issued by the building inspector. A grading permit shall be issued only if the proposed development is in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance," and substituting therefore the following: - No grading or other alteration of the land shall commence without a grading permit issued by the building inspector. A site development plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any grading permit. This site development plan shall contain at a minimum the following components: a grading plan, erosion and sedimentation control plan, tree preservation plan, future building locations, parking layout and storm drainage design. A grading permit shall be issued only if the proposed development is in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance and the Tree Protection Ordinance. All ordinances, parts of ordinances, or regulations in conflict herewith are repealed as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Severability. Should any section of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any part thereof which is not specifically declared to be invalid or unconstitutional. The above Ordinance having been read according to law is hereby approved by the :;;~ City of Smyrna, Goorgia 0;tt:~:3:;r:~o~ A. Max Bacon, Mayor Susan D. Hiott, CMC - A1~d as to Legal Form: scOtt A. ~, City Attorney Ordinance 2003-11 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SMYRNA, GEORGIA, PROVIDING THAT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 82 - SIGNS, BE AMENDED BY REMOVING SECTIONS 82-1 THROUGH 82-18 IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND REPLACING WITH 82-1,82-2,82-3,82-4,82-5,82-6,82-7,82-8,82-9, 82-10, 82-11, 82-12, 82-13, 82-14, 82- 15,82-16,82-17,82-18, AND 82-19. Sec. 82-1. Findings and Purpose. (a) In order to protect the public safety, including traffic safety, to assure aesthetic harmony and compatibility of signs with surrounding land uses, to enhance the business and economy of the city, to protect the public investment in streets and highways, to maintain the tranquil environment of residential areas, to promote industry and commerce, and to provide for orderly and reasonable display of advertising for the benefit of all its citizens, the governing authority finds that the improper control of signs would be detrimental to the common goals of the city. The governing authority thus determines that the public health, safety and welfare require the adoption of this article. - (b) The governing authority finds that signs and advertising are proper and necessary uses of private property and can constitute a legitimate business entitled to the protection of the law. A sign by its very nature is designed to draw an individual's attention to that sign. This characteristic makes signs a valuable medium of communication; however, this same characteristic can distract motorists and pedestrians, thus creating traffic hazards. (c) The governing authority further finds that the clutter created by an excess in number, size and height of signs creates a distraction to travelers and negatively impacts the general appearance of an area. Signs may lessen the aesthetic qualities of an area and may intrude upon the residential character of an area, as well as property values. (d) The governing authority further finds that signs and advertising should be reasonably regulated in the interest of traffic safety, aesthetics and public welfare by the establishment of standards for the location, size, illumination, number, construction and maintenance of all signs and advertising structures in the city and to ensure that they are structurally safe and sound. (e) The governing authority recognizes that the City of Roswell and the City of Smyrna share in common many of the same characteristics. Both are located within the Atlanta Metropolitan area, and face the same challenges concerning traffic safety and aesthetics. Because of this, the governing authority looks to and incorporates the study conducted by the City of Roswell entitled The Public Purposes of Roswell's Sign Ordinance and the implications of doing without it, a position paper prepared by Jerry Weitz, Ph.D., AICP, Planning Director, as support for the governing authority's regulation - 1 Ordinance 2003-11 and control of signs within the City of Smyrna. In addition to other evidence provided at the adoption of ordinance. - Sec. 82-2. Definitions. For the purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them: Banner sign means a strip of cloth, paper, canvas, or similar material, on which a message, slogan or emblem is painted, drawn or otherwise projected, colored or shaped with only such material for a backing for the purpose of advertising or drawing attention to a product, object, facility, activity or idea. Clock sign means any timepiece erected outside of any building for the purpose of advertising the business on the premises on which it is located. Code Eriforcement Officer means a code enforcement officer employed by the governing authority for the City of Smyrna or his/her designee duly authorized to enforce the Sign Ordinance. Commercial message means any message that promotes a business or attempts to generate good will for a business; any message that advertises a product or service for sale; and any message that proposes a commercial transaction. Any sign containing any commercial message shall be regulated as a commercial sign. - Community Development Department means the Community Development Department or its employees employed by the governing authority for the City of Smyrna or its designees duly authorized to administer and enforce the Sign Ordinance. Community medical facility means a hospital or mental-health facility with one (1) or more buildings comprising a minimum of forty-thousand (40,000) square feet of covered floor space. Fascia sign means a vertical sign attached to the front of the building that is below the top edge of a sloping roof and that extends not more than eighteen (18) inches above the lower edge of the sloping roof. Ground based monument sign means a sign securely affixed to a substantial support structure which contains a permanent foundation which consists of a 3' high brick monument base attached to the ground and wholly independent of any building for support. Such sign is not a pole based sign. Hanging sign means a sign attached to and supported by a building or other structure and which extends at any angle there from. Such signs must be located a minimum of 10' above the sidewalk and extend no further than 2' beyond the building face. - 2 Ordinance 2003-11 - Illuminated sign means a sign designed to give forth artificial light directly or through translucent material from a source of light within such sign or a sign illuminated by an external light directed primarily toward such sign and so shielded that no direct rays from the light are visible elsewhere other than on the lot where such illumination occurs. Instructional sign means a sign used to give direction or specific instruction to the public such as, but not limited to, "Center," "Exit," "No Parking," "Drive Through," "Restroom," and so forth. Such signs shall contain only instructional information and shall not contain a commercial message. Nonconforming sign means any sign which does not conform to the provisions of this arti cl e. On-premises advertising sign means a sign containing a commercial message for the purpose of promoting, advertising, or selling a product or service obtainable on the premises where the sign is located. Permanent foundation means that portion of any sign structure that is attached to the ground or other structure attached to the ground through the use of concrete footings or other man-made material that is not capable of being removed without the aid of mechanical or other machinery. .. Planned industrial park means two (2) or more industrial or office buildings containing a minimum of forty-thousand (40,000) square feet of covered floor space under either common ownership or common control via a property management association. Planned shopping development means two (2) or more stores or office spaces containing a minimum of twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet of covered floor space on the same undivided lot. Pole sign means a sign with a permanent foundation where the sign face is supported on a pole, poles (or other sign structure) and the area beneath the sign face in a direct vertical plane from the sign face to the ground is exposed to view, open, or allows for someone to see through any of the space beneath the sign face. Projecting sign means any sign which is attached to a building or other structure and extends more than six (6) inches beyond the line of the building or structure or beyond the surface of that portion of the building or structure to which it is attached. Real estate sign means a sign erected by the owner, or the owner's agent, advertising the real property upon which the sign is located for rent, lease or for sale and the total area of each sign face shall be no larger than 4 square feet. Such signs shall contain the words "for sale", or "for lease", or "for rent", and the name of the owners or owner's agent, and the owner or the agent's telephone number for purposes of contact. Information specific to .. 3 Ordinance 2003-11 the property may also be displayed including, but not limited to, the number of rooms, baths, basement, fixtures, garage, and school district. - Sandwich sign means a movable sign not secured or attached to the ground. Security identification sign means a sign indicating that a security system is located on the premIses. Sign means any letter, figure, character, mark, plane, point, marquee sign, design, poster, pictorial, picture, stroke, stripe, line, trademark, reading matter or illuminated service, which shall be so constructed, placed, attached, painted, erected, fastened or manufactured in any manner whatsoever, so that the same shall be used for notification or the attraction of the public to any place, subject, information, person, firm, corporation, public performance, article, machine or merchandise whatsoever which is displayed in any manner whatsoever whether outdoors or indoors in such a manner as to be visible from any sidewalk, public street, or right-of-way. Sign face means the area within a continuous perimeter enclosing the limits of writing, representation, emblem or any figure or similar character, together with any frame or other material or color forming an integral part of the display or used to differentiate such sign from the background against which it is placed, excluding the supports or uprights on which such sign is placed For projecting or double-faced signs only the larger of the display faces shall be used in computing the total area of the sign face for that sign. Sign Height shall be measured in a plane from ground level to the top of the sign. For monument signs, the 3' high brick base shall be utilized in the computation of total sign height. - Sign Structure means all portions of a sign not including the sign face. Temporary on-premises advertising sign includes any sign with a comrnercial message, including but not lirnited to a banner or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wall board or other light materials, with or without frames, intended to be displayed for a short period of time only, not to exceed forty-five (45) consecutive days within a six (6) month period, on the lot where the commercial activity is to take place, but does not include real estate signs or signs with non-commercial messages. Vertical projecting sign means any sign which is greater in height than in width. Wall sign means a sign applied to or mounted to the wall or surface of a building or structure, the display surface of which does not project more than six (6) inches from the outside wall of such a building or structure. The total lettering on one (1) side of a building or structure shall constitute one (1) wall sign. Sec. 82-3. Signs Not Requiring permits. - 4 Ordinance 2003-11 ... The following types of signs do not require sign permits, provided however, that these signs must comply with all applicable regulations of this article unless specifically exempted: (a) Nonilluminated real estate signs located on the property for sale or lease, provided such signs are not located on any public right-of-way,. Such signs shall be removed within ten (10) days after the subject lot or building is leased or sold. (b) Signs erected on behalf of a governmental authority in the exercise of its proper jurisdiction. Such signs are exempt from the regulations of this article. Such signs include but are not limited to safety signs, traffic signs, street signs and signs advertising a city- sponsored community event. (c) Historic markers or signs contammg a non-commercial message describing the historic nature of that property, where such property has been designated to be a historic property with the total area of each sign face not exceeding 32 square feet. (d) Signs on private property directing traffic movement, with the total area of each sign face not exceeding 2 square feet, and not advertising any business, service or product. Such signs shall not be allowed on any public right-of-way. .. (e) Signs containing a non-commercial message only, with the total area of each sign face not exceeding 32 square feet. (f) Security identification signs with the total area of each sign face not exceeding 4 square feet. (g) Seasonal displays and decorations located within the city, including but not limited to Halloween, July 4th, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and Easter, so long as the seasonal displays and decorations do not contain commercial messages. Such seasonal displays and decorations are exempt from the limitations of the Sign Ordinance. (h) Noncommercial announcements located within the city, including but not limited to birthday announcements, new births, and anniversaries, so long as the announcements do not contain commercial messages. Sec. 82-4. Sign permit--Required. (a) Except as specifically excluded under ~ 82-3 of this article, it shall be unlawful for any person to post, display, or erect a sign without a permit. (b) A new sign permit is required when cost of changes to the sign structure are more than 50 percent of the reconstruction cost of the entire sign. _ Sec. 82-5. Same-Application. 5 Ordinance 2003-11 (a) The sign owner or the sign owner's agent shall file applications for sign permits with the Community Development Department or its designee upon forms furnished by - the governing authority. Such application shall describe and set forth the following: (1) The type of sign structure to be constructed showing that it satisfies the requirements of the Standard Building Code or its amendments unless specifically exempted by this article. Any referenc~ in the Standard Building Code or its amendments that refers to outdoor advertising displays shall be read as being applicable to all sign structures to be permitted. (2) Engineering drawings of the sign structure signed and sealed by a professional engineer licensed and registered in the State of Georgia. (3) The construction cost of the sign. (4) The street address of the property upon which the sign is to be located, a diagram of the proposed location of the sign on the property, and the size of the property on which the sign structure is to be located. (5) The square footage of each sign face. (6) The number of sign faces. (7) The names and addresses of the owners of the real property upon which the subject sign is to be located. - (8) Written consent of the owner of the real property, or the owner's agent, granting permission for the placement and maintenance of subject sign. (9) Name, address, and phone number ofthe sign contractor. (10) Proof of insurance. (11) Name, address, and phone number of a contact person III case of emergency. (12) The distance from the proposed sign structure to the closest adjacent sign structure. (b) Proof that all other required permits for the construction of the sign have been obtained. (c) Within fifteen (15) days of change of ownership of a sign, a sign owner notification notice must be filed with the Community Development Department or its designee. Such notification notice form shall be available from the governing authority. - 6 Ordinance 2003-11 ... (d) The governing authority may rely upon the contact person provided in the sign application for purposes of notice to the permit holder concerning the sign. (e) Failure to obtain a sign permit as required shall be grounds for removal of the sign pursuant to this article. (f) The governing authority shall process all sign permit applications within forty-five (45) business days of the actual receipt of a completed application and sign permit fee. The Community Development Department or its designee shall give notice to the applicant of the decision of the governing authority by hand delivery or by mailing a notice to the address on the sign permit application on or before the forty-fifth (45th) business day after receipt of the completed application. If mailed, notice shall be deemed to have been given upon the date of mailing in conformity with this section. If the governing authority fails to act within the forty-five (45) day period, the sign permit shall be deemed to have been denied. (g) Any sign permit application that is incomplete, fails to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, or contains false statements shall be denied. Sec. 82-6. Same-Fees. No permit shall be issued until the appropriate application has been filed with the Community Development Department and the fees have been paid to the city as provided - below: (a) Area of sign 1-10 square feet. . . $15.00 (b) Area of sign 11--25 square feet. . . $30.00 (c) Area of sign 26--50 square feet. . . $45.00 (d) Area of sign 51 square feet and greater. . . $60.00 Sec 82-7. Inspection. A sign permit shall become null and void if the sign for which the permit was issued has not been completed and inspection requested within six (6) months after the date of issuance. (a) The holder of the sign permit shall be responsible for contacting the Community Development Department to arrange inspection of the sign within the six (6) months after the date of issuance of the sign permit. - 7 Ordinance 2003-11 (b) The inspection shall be conducted by a representative of the Community Development Department pursuant to the provisions of the Standard Building Code or its amendments and other applicable ordinances. - Sec. 82-8. Same--Revocation. The Community Development Department, its designee, or a code enforcement officer are authorized and empowered to revoke any permit issued under this ordinance upon failure of the holder thereof to comply with any provision of this article. Sec. 82-9. Removal of signs. (a) Any sign, except as otherwise exempted, that violates the requirements of this article shall be subject to removal and all other penalties as provided by this article. (b) For signs with a permanent foundation in violation of this article: (1) The Community Development Department, its designee, or a code enforcement officer shall send written notice of the violation by regular mail to the contact person listed on the sign permit application or to the property owner on which the sign structure is located if no sign permit application has been completed for the sign in violation. (2) The notice shall indicate that the contact person or property owner shall have ten (10) days to appeal the decision of the Community Development Department, its designee, or a code enforcement officer to remove the sign from the date of mailing of the written notice. - (3) Pursuant to section 82-17 the contact person or property owner may appeal the decision to the Mayor and Council for a hearing regarding the violation. At the hearing the person contesting the sign violation and the city shall be allowed to present evidence as determined by the rules for hearing (adopted by the Mayor and Council). (4) Failure to appeal the notice of violation within ten (10) days of mailing of the notice of violation shall be deemed a violation and the sign shall be subject to removal. (c) All signs without a permanent foundation unless otherwise exempt under the sign ordinance shall be subject to removal and any other enforcement allowed under this article by the Community Development Department, its designee, any code enforcement officer or any other enforcement officer as determined by the governing authority. (d) Any commercial sign not currently in compliance with this article must be brought into compliance within thirty (30) days after a change of ownership or discontinuance of operation of the commercial entity on the lot on which the commercial sign is located. For - 8 Ordinance 2003-11 - planned shopping centers, free-standing signage advertising more than one tenant must be brought into compliance within thirty (30) days after either a change in ownership for the entire center or if more than 50% of tenants (as of March 3, 2003) are discontinued or changed. (e) Any fascia sign that is attached to any building listed on the National Registry of Historic Places shall be removed within thirty (30) days after a change of ownership of the building or discontinuance of operation of the commercial operation shown on the sign. The governing authority recognizes that fascia signs violate the standards applicable to historic places and detract from the historic and aesthetic nature of such property. (f) Lawful removal of any sign in violation of this ordinance, as provided in this article, shall be without liability to the governing authority, its officers, agents, servants, and employees. The permit holder shall be responsible for the costs of removal. If there is no permit holder, then the sign owner shall be responsible. If there is no permit holder and the sign owner cannot be found, then costs of removal shall be the responsibility of the property owner where the sign structure was located. (g) The city clerk or his/her designee shall certify the amount for the cost of removal to the city attorney if the cost of removal is not paid by one of the responsible parties. (h) The city is authorized to take such action as allowed under law to collect the cost of removal. ... Sec. 82-10. Nonconforming signs. Signs lawfully existing on the effective date of the ordinance, March 3, 2003, from which this article is derived which do not conform to the provisions of this article shall be deemed to be non-conforming signs and may remain, except as otherwise specifically qualified by this article. (a) No non-conforming sign structure may be enlarged or altered such that the square footage of the sign face is increased. (b) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent keeping in good repair a nonconforming sign. No repairs totaling more than 25 percent of the reconstruction cost of the entire sign shall be allowed except to make the sign comply with the requirements of this article. (c) All nonconforming signs must be in such condition so that they do not constitute a safety hazard as determined by the Standard Building Code or its amendments unless specifically exempted by this article. (d) Failure to comply with the requirements of this section shall be grounds for the Community Development Department, its designee or a code enforcement officer to issue ... 9 Ordinance 2003-11 notice of violation and proceed with steps to remove the sign in violation as allowed under this ordinance. - Sec. 82-11. Insurance requirements. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of erecting or maintaining signs within the city unless and until such entity shall have obtained a certificate of insurance frorn an insurance company authorized to do business in the state evidencing that the entity has in effect liability and property damage insurance in the sum of $25,000.00 dollars for property damage for anyone (1) claim and liability insurance in an amount not less than $100,000.00 dollars for injuries, for injuries to anyone (1) person. The certificate of insurance shall state that the insurance carrier will notify the not less than city thirty (30) days in advance of any termination and/or restriction of the coverage. Sec. 82-12. Prohibited signs and sign devices. The following types of signs or advertising devices are prohibited in all zoning districts of the city, unless otherwise indicated: (a) Roof sign, which is any sign erected upon and above a roof structure and wholly supported by the roof structure or a structure placed upon the roof. (b) Signs with flashing, intermittent or animated illumination or effect are prohibited; provided, however, that time and weather informational signs, and official warning or regulatory signs erected by a governing authority in the exercise of its proper jurisdiction are exempt from this restriction. - (c) Commercial signs in residential districts except as otherwise allowed within this ordinance. (d) A spectacular sign which is an advertising display sign, advertising copy that is animated, constructed of metal, wired for lights or luminous tubing, or both, with copy action controlled by flashed circuit breakers or matographs and attached on an open face steel structure built especially for that purpose. This definition does not include signs which indicate tirne, temperature, or date. (e) Signs on public right-of-way except signs exempt under Section 82-3. (t) Signs which contain or are in imitation of an official traffic sign or signal and are not erected pursuant to the governing authority, excepting construction signs and barricades. (g) A mobile sign which is a sign attached to, rnounted on, pasted on, painted or drawn on any trailer, or other non-motorized vehicle, that is placed, parked or maintained at one (1) particular location for the purpose and intent of promotion, or conveying a comrnercial message, except that this shall not apply to any vehicle or - 10 Ordinance 2003-11 trailer allowed by the Georgia Department of Transportation having the sign attached thereto as part of the operational structure ofthe vehicle or trailer. !- (h) Pole signs. (i) Snipe sign which is any sign of any material whatsoever that is attached in any way to or placed upon a utility pole or mailbox situated on public or private property. G) Air or gas-filled devices such as balloons or strearners containing a commercial message. (k) Searchlights. (1) Any sign containing a sign face on more than two sides. (m) Any sign attached to a bench or a trash can. (n) Pennants, not consisting of national flags, or streamers. Sec. 82-13. Prohibited content of signs. It shall be unlawful for a person to display: .. (a) Any expression defined as obscene by O.c.G.A. S 16-12-80. (b) Any message, communication, activity, or product prohibited by the laws or regulations of the United States, the State of Georgia, Cobb County, or the City of Smyrna. Sec. 82-14. Prohibited methods of erection. No sign shall be constructed, erected, used, operated or maintained: (a) In any residential district, within 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk or within 15 from the edge of the road nearest to the sign where a sidewalk does not exist. (b) Which is attached to or placed against a building in such a manner as to prevent ingress or egress through any door or window of any building, nor shall any sign obstruct or be attached to a fire escape. (c) On the wall or fascia of any building on the National Register of Historic Places. - 11 Ordinance 2003-11 (d) No freestanding sign shall be located within 25 feet of the point where the right-of-way lines from two intersecting streets or roads meet. , - Sec. 82-15. Requirements for all signs. (a) All signs shall comply with the following provisions: (1) All sign structures shall be constructed so as to comply with the Standard Building codes or its amendments unless specifically exempted by the article. Any reference in the Standard Building Code or its amendments that refers to outdoor advertising displays shall be read as being applicable to all commercial sign structures. (2) If a sign requires a sign permit then the sign structure must be a ground based monument sign structure. (3) No sign shall be taller than 25 feet in non-residential districts, except as specifically allowed elsewhere in this article, and not taller than 4 feet in residential districts. The sign height shall be measured in a vertical plane from ground level to the top of the sign. The level of the ground shall not be altered solely to provide additional sign height. (4) No illuminated signs shall be constructed within 100 feet of any single- family dwelling. -- (5) No illuminated sign shall produce more than 100 watts of light which shall be directed away from adjacent property and the right-of-way. (6) All signs shall be maintained so as not to constitute a health or safety hazard as defined by the rules and regulations of the Cobb County Board of Health. (7) No sign shall be erected which blocks frorn view any traffic or street sign, signal or public service sign as viewed from the right-of-way. (8) No series, lines or rows of electric, neon or other lights shall be allowed, except where expressly permitted under the terms of this article or any other ordinance enacted by the governing authority. (9) Any sign containing a commercial message may also contain a non- commercial message. (b) In addition to general regulations and restrictions applying to all sign classifications, freestanding signs and wall or fascia identification signs shall comply as follows: - 12 Ordinance 2003-11 (1) Community Medical Facility, Planned Industrial Park or Planned Shopping development identification. ... a. Areas designated as community medical facility, planned industrial park or planned shopping development shall be permitted one (1) freestanding ground based monument sign per development (community medical facility and planned shopping center) or per lot (planned industrial park) with a 3 foot high brick monument base being a maximum of 25 feet in height and the total area of each sign face not exceeding 150 square feet. The sign height shall be measured in a plane from ground level to the top of the sign. 1. This structure shall be a type of sign that will provide space for all businesses in the center. 2. Individual signs qualifying as wall or fascia signs may be permitted for individual businesses within the center. Square footage will be determined by the following formula: 2 square feet multiplied by the number of feet of frontage the store occupies within the center. This may be used up to a maximum of 60 square feet. 3. Sign letter height may not exceed 3 feet. - (2) Commercial identification not within a Community Medical Facility, Planned Industrial Park or Planned Shopping Development on property zoned: CBD, LC, NS, 01, GC, OD, LIor PS a. Each building shall be permitted one (1) ground based monument sign with a maximum area of 32 square feet and a maximum height of 8 feet. The ground based monument sign shall be set on 3 foot high brick base. The brick base shall be included in the computation of the total building height. The sign height shall be measured in a plane from ground level to the top of the sign. b. Each business or building shall be permitted one (1) wall or fascia sign with a maximurn area of 40 square feet. (3) Regulation and restrictions applicable to instructional signs. a. Such signs shall contain only instructional information and shall not be used for the purpose of business name and/or advertisement or contain a commercial message. - 13 Ordinance 2003-11 b. Signs limited to traffic direction and services shall be limited to one (1) at each vehicular entrance to the property and no closer than within 50 feet of another such directional sign located on the same property. - (c) Freestanding signs shall be mounted perpendicular to the street adjacent to the property and contain the street identification number. Plans for said signs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The edge of such signs is required to be at least 10 feet from the right-of-way in all authorized zones. (d) No sign structure shall be erected that any portion of the sign structure is located directly over any public right-of-way such that a plane originating from the right-of-way projecting up in a 90 degree angle would intersect with any portion of the sign structure. (e) Every sign structure located adjacent to a walkway shall be placed at least 10 feet above the walkway on private property over which it is erected, and a distance not greater than 2 feet from the face of the wall to which it is attached, measuring from the point of the sign nearest thereto, nor shall any sign or part thereof extend nearer the curbline than 1 foot. Sec. 82-16. Signs allowed in zoning districts. If not otherwise stated, any sign not specifically allowed in a zoning district as provided under this section or in a variance in existence as of March 3, 2003, shall be prohibited in that district, except as otherwise provided for under this article. (a) No signage other than house number, historic marker, original house designation, street identification number, real estate sign, security identification sign, yard sale sign, or sign containing a non-commercial message shall be allowed on any residential property in the city. No sign with the total area of each sign face greater than 32 square feet shall be allowed on any residential property in the city. No other signs containing commercial messages shall be allowed on any residential property in the city. - 1. Any literature packets, notices such as under contract, reduced price, new price or other ancillary information on real estate signs must be displayed within the prescribed 32 square feet allowed for each sign face area. 2. There shall be at least a distance of 15 feet between the location of the sign and the sides of the lot except that any lot that is less than 60 feet wide shall be allowed one sign for that lot to be placed no closer than 10 feet from the side of the lot. 3. For lots greater than 60 feet in width, no sign shall be closer than 25 feet to another sign on the same lot with a maximum of 3 signs allowed per lot. 4. One yard sale sign may be displayed on the premises where a yard sale is being held on the day of the sale only. The governing authority considers yard sale signs to be a part of the incidental occupation of the residential property and not - 14 Ordinance 2003-11 - commercial activity under this ordinance. The area of each yard sale sign face shall not exceed 2 square feet and shall comply with all other provisions of this ordinance. (b) The following signs shall be allowed within the nonresidential zoning districts in the city unless otherwise specified herein: 1. Any sign allowed in a residential district. 2. A sign containing a non-commercial message with the area of each sign face not exceeding 32 square feet. 3. Signs containing a commercial message with an area of each sign face not larger than the square footage as determined in Section 82-15. Any sign containing a commercial message may also contain a non-commercial message. 4. Temporary on-premises advertising signs, including banners, relating to the initial opening or final closing of a business or service, provided the area of each sign face shall not exceed 16 square feet and shall not be closer than 20 feet to the pavement of any street or on any public right-of-way. Such signs shall be approved by the Community Development Department for a maximum period of forty-five (45) days within a six (6) month period, after which they shall be removed. Sec. 82-17. Administration; enforcement; remedies; appeals. - (a) Enforcement and administration. This article shall be administered and enforced by the Community Development Department, its designee, any code enforcement officer, or any other personnel authorized by the governing authority. (b) Remedies. (1) A code enforcement officer, or other personnel authorized by the governing authority, are authorized to issue a citation for violation of this ordinance, institute an action for an injunction, remove the sign pursuant to Section 82-9, or proceed with other appropriate action or proceeding to prevent the violation of this ordinance. a. Any citation issued for violation of this ordinance shall be taken to the municipal court of the City of Smyrna and prosecuted as any other criminal citation within the municipal court. b. Any suit for injunction filed on behalf of the governing authority as authorized above shall be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and prosecuted as any other suit for injunction within that court as allowed by law. - 15 Ordinance 2003-11 (2) Any citation, injunction, or other appropriate action or proceeding to prevent the violation of this ordinance may be taken against the owner or erector of the sign, the owner of the property on which the sign is located, or any other person or entity that has an ownership interest in the sign or property. - (3) Each day such violation is committed, or permitted to continue, shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. (4) All remedies and penalties specified in this article are cumulative. (e) Appeals. (1) An individual whose sign has been removed pursuant to this ordinance, or whose permit application has been denied, or a permitee whose permit has been revoked may appeal the decision of the Community Development Department, its designee, a code enforcement officer or other appropriate enforcement officer to the Mayor and Council for a hearing on the removal of the sign, the denial of the sign permit application, or the revocation of the sign permit, provided that such individual files a written notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten (10) business days of the mailing of the Community Development Department, its designee, or code enforcement officer's decision. (2) Such appeal shall be considered by the Mayor and Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting provided that such notice of appeal is received a minimum of five business days prior to the meeting. In the event the notice of appeal is received less than five business days prior to the next meeting of the Mayor and Council, the appeal shall be considered within thirty-five (35) days after receipt by the city clerk ofthe written notice of appeal. - (3) The code enforcernent officer or other appropriate officer shall present evidence before the Mayor and Council supporting the decision of removal of the sign, denial of the permit application, or revocation of the sign permit at the hearing. The person disputing the decision of the Community Development Department, its designee or code enforcement officer or other appropriate officer may present evidence before the Mayor and Council at the hearing. If no hearing concerning the appeal is held within thirty-five days of receipt by the city clerk of written notice of appeal, the appeal shall be deemed denied. (4) The appeal hearing shall be conducted according to rules and procedures adopted by the Mayor and Council for public hearings. The Mayor and Council shall determine a ruling on the appeal within ten (10) business days of the appeal hearing and send written notice to the appellant of the Mayor and Council's decision. If no decision is reached within ten (10) business days of the hearing, the appeal shall be deemed denied. - 16 Ordinance 2003-11 ... (5) In the event an individual whose sign has been removed, or whose permit has been denied, or whose sign permit has been revoked is dissatisfied with the decision of the Mayor and Council, that individual may petition for writ of certiorari to the superior court as provided by law. Sec. 82-18. Severability and Amendments. (a) It is hereby declared to the be the intention of the governing authority that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of the Sign Ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid by judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, the unconstitutional or invalid phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph shall be struck and the remaining, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and sections shall be effective as if the unconstitutional or invalid portion had not existed. (b) If any provision of this article conflicts with any other provision of this article, any provision of the Standard Building Code or its amendments as adopted by the governing authority, any other applicable ordinance, statute, or law, the provision that contains the more stringent regulation shall be enforced. Sec. 82-19 Effective date ofthis ordinance. ... The effective date of this ordinance shall be immediately upon passage by the governing authority. All ordinances and parts of ordinances concerning signs in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed. Approved by Mayor and Council this 3RD day of March, 2003. Attest: ~f).~ Susan D. Hiott, City Clerk City of Smyrna /~ A. Max Bacon, Mayor I I ) Scott A. Cochran, City Attorne City of Smyrna - 17 w.., ,... AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER S. MILLER -1- My name is Christopher S. Miller, I am over the age of21 years and otherwise competent to make this Affidavit. I suffer from no legal disability. This Affidavit is based upon my personal knowledge and experience and is true. This Affidavit is offered in support of the sign ordinance to be considered by adoption by the Mayor and City Council of Smyrna, Georgia on March 3, 2003 (Ord.#2003-11). -2- I arn the Community Development Director of Smyrna and have held that position since early 2001. I graduated from Florida State University in 1991 with a degree in Urban Economics and earned a Masters Degree in Urban Planning in 1993. I am a member of the American ~ Institute of Certified Planners. -3- Throughout my career I have been involved in the review, application and amendment of sign ordinances for several communities. I participated in drafting the proposed ordinance and believe it to be in the best interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Smyrna. -4- The sign ordinance under consideration restricts the location of signs and as a result helps avoid damage to persons and property. The signage controls within the ordinance are designed to promote traffic safety and avoid traffic accidents. Unregulated signs may lessen the utility of public safety signs. ~ ~,; -5- '- Signs may affect the character of a community as well as property values. The size, height, location and general condition of signs may have an impact upon surrounding land uses and property values. Certain signs could result in an overall image of blight and a reduction of property vales. Smyrna's sign ordinance is designed to ensure that signage is compatible with its surrounding environment. -6- The sign ordinance under consideration attempts to insure that signs within Smyrna are compatible with adjacent land uses and with the total visual environment of the community. -7- f The size of signs which provide adequate identification in, pedestrian oriented business I ~ areas differs from that necessary in vehicular-oriented areas where traffic is heavy, travel speeds are greater and required setbacks are greater than in pedestrian areas. This, the ,,{ S day of r~i:.,(.)I),Y ,2003. e.b1?it~Jj /Jf df CHRISTOP R S. MILLER ~ '"' ~; 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 v 24 25 26 '-' 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 '" '-' 2003-11 Article 22 Signs and Advertising Roswell Zoning Ordinance 248 color. Building code provisions for signs are woefully inadequate to deal with other public safety problems inherent in the erection of signs. A sign ordinance restricts the location of signs and helps to avoid damage to persons and property. Without a sign ordinance, signs can pose a clear danger to public safety. In short, it has long been recognized that signage controls are needed to promote traffic safety and avoid traffic accidents. A 1980' Federal Highway Administration study found a positive correlation between billboards and accident rates4 Signs too close to the road can cause accidents. Without additional regulation, signs can be placed dangerously close to rights-of-ways in locations where they might be struck by an oncoming vehicle using the road or having to veer off the road. Signs can impair visibility. The placement of signs can interfere with the sight of motorists trying to exit a driveway onto a public road. Signs distract motorists. Commercial signs, by their very nature, are designed to direct, if not distract, motorists to turn off the roadway and into a property to frequent a business. To the extent that commercial signage captures the sight and attention of a motorist, it distracts motorists from the primary purpose of safely maneuvering a vehicle along the road. Signs can confuse motorists by mimicking traffic safety signals and signs. Motorists might confuse signs that contain flashing or blinking red, green, or yellow lights (such as a lighted portable sign adjacent to the road) with roadway traffic signals. Signs constructed of shapes like an octagonal "stop" sign might also impair public safety. Excessive window signs may conceal robberies. A retail merchant may elect to have a building and entrance that does not provide visibility to the exterior at all. However, most merchants do elect to provide visibility via glass doors and windows. Signs controls, such as Roswell's, often limit the amount of storefront window and door areas that can be covered with signs. Without signage, storefront windows offer visibility from the outside that help to dissuade robbers from "holding up" a store at gunpoint. However, absent regulations for window signs, general observation suggests that merchants will plaster their windows with sale and product signs, sometimes to the point that visibility of activities within the store is almost entirely concealed. Limits on window signs can provide for an appropriate minimum of exterior visibility and thus increase public safety of commercial areas through a reduction in crime potential. This observation is based on participation by police staff in the writing of Albany, Georgia's comprehensive sign ordinance in 1989. PUBLIC HEALTH RATIONALES Robert Ulrich, a professor of environmental psychology at Texas A & M, has found that the impact of roadsice blight significantly raises stress levels and reduces peoples' ability to solve problems. The passage below explains relevant results of that study: "Researchers had 160 people drive simulated commutes. First. ... the subjects performed difficult math problems or viewed workplace safety videos that showed workers getting their hands chopped off. Then, once they were stressed, the 160 people 4 Scenic Amenca. Fact Sheet (1): Billboard Control: Fiqhtinq Visual Pollution. (http://www.scenic.ora/fact1.htm.) . 1 '- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ~27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 " . ~ Article 22 Signs and Advertising Roswell Zoning Ordinance APPENDIX A - ORDINANCE 2003-11 247 Section 22A Appendix to the Roswell Siqn Ordinance THE PUBLIC PURPOSES OF ROSWELL'S SIGN ORDINANCE AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF DOING WITHOUT IT Directive In response to a recent Fulton County Superior Court ruling relative to the city's sign ordinance,1 I was directed by Michael McGuire, Roswell's community development director, to prepare a position paper outlining the purposes of sign regulations and discussing the implications and effects of Roswell doing without its sign ordinance. PUBLIC SAFETY RATIONALES Historically, communities and courts had to go to great lengths to justify billboard and sign regulations on the basis of public safety alone. Consider the ruling of a court in 1905 with regard to the public safety justifications for billboard and sign regulation: "In cases of fire they [signs] often cause their spread and constitute barriers against their extinction; and in cases of high wind, their temporary character, frail structure and broad surface reneer them liable to be blown down and to fall upon and injure those who may happen to be in their vicinity. The evidence shows and common observation teaches us that the ground in the rear thereof is constantly used as privies and dumping ground for all kinds of waste...that behind them the lowest form of prostitution and other acts of immorality are frequently carried on, almost under public gaze; they offer shelter and concealment for the criminal while lying in wait for his victim" 2 This passage conjures up images in cartoons, where a motorist who is speeding along a highway is chased and then caught by the motorcycle cop who was "lying in wait for his victim" using a billboard as "concealment." These images are hardly true anymore, if indeed they ever were, as billboards are rarely so close to the ground as to provide opportunities for concealment. Today, building code requirements address many of the public concerns about dangerous signs. The Standard Building Code provisions relative to signs are supposed to ensure that trley will not pose a fire hazard and are appropriately anchored or secured so that they don't fall or blow down on someone. However, the building code does not regulate the location of signs, except to prevent them from interfering with an entryway or fire escape.3 Nor does the building code regulate to any significant degree the size of signs, their materials, their height, or their SMD, L.LP. and LiaDliity Limited, Inc. v City of Roswell. Civil Action File No. E-65358. November 18,1999. 2 Cit'l of Passa'c v Paterson Bill PostinG and SiGn PaintinG Co., 72 N.J.L 285, 62 A. 267 (1905), cited in Robert R. '/Ir:ght and Morton Gitelman. 1982. Land Use: Cases and Materials. 3d. Ed., pp. 1022-1023. St. Paul: West P:.Jblishing Co., 1982. 3 Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. Standard BuildinG Code. 1994. SectIOn 3108.1.9.. Location Restrictions. " --~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ....., 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 '" '-' 2003-11 Article 22 Signs and Advertising Roswell Zoning Ordinance 249 were assigned randomly to one of four rides in a simulator at 35 mph... During the simulated commute, stress levels were monitored by checking blood pressure, respiration, heart rate, skin conductance, facial muscle activity and eye movements. For those exposed to a rural setting or a parkway, stress levels declined relatively quickly, while stress levels for people exposed to strip developments remained high... After the commute, the study's subjects did math problems or were shown videos to measure their work productivity and ability to deal with stress... People exposed to the sprawlscape fared poorly. 'If our research is replicated, it would be justified to raise the possibility of roadside blight and strip sprawlscapes being in some respects a public health issue,' Ulrich said."s While the above referenced results cannot be attributed exclusively to signs, it is safe to assume that commercial signage contributes to the experiences resulting from the simulated commutes. Further, these results have led the organization, Scenic America, to conclude that "sign overload causes negative mental and physical effects." 6 Moreover, Scenic America indicates the following, implying that billboards may increase the frequency of alcohol and tobacco use because companies selling tobacco and alcohol are the most frequent users of billboards: City after city has found most billboards are located in low-income, minority neighborhoods, and that most billboards in those neighborhoods advertise alcohol and tobacco. A Baltimore, MD, study revealed that three out of four billboards were located in the city's minority neighborhoods. Of those billboards, 75 percent advertised alcohol and tobacco products. Other studies in Chicago, Detroit, Louisville, Atlanta, and elsewhere reveal similar trends. Alcohol and tobacco advertisers are leading users of billboards according to the most recent Advertising Age figures. Of 1993's top ten billboard users, eight are tobacco or alcohol companies. In the first quarter of 1995, tobacco was the leading category of products advertised on billboards." (Scenic America web page) PUBLIC WELFARE AND PUBLIC INTEREST RATIONALES Signs can degrade property values. A principal purpose of land use regulations, including sign controls, is to protect and preserve property values. As planner Fred Bair notes, "There is no question that signs may affect the character of districts and the value of buildings. or that they are not appropriate in different parts of a town." 7 The size, height, materials of construction, lecation, condition, and attributes of signs can have an impact on surrounding and nearby land uses. For instance, if signs were unregulated, large, tall signs could be erected in the city's single family residential districts. Such signs, if erected, would be out of character with residential neighborhoods and could result in the lowering of property values for residential use. As another example, blighted signs and antiquated signs and sign structures (i.e., the pole with a blank structure for a sign face) can contribute to an overall image of blight and a reduction of 5 Anna Borgman. June 18. 1995. .Suburbia's Signs of Stressful Times." Tile Washinaton Post. As described in Meg Maguire, Ray Foote. and Frank Vespe. 1997. "Beauty As Well As Bread: Journal of the American Plannlna .Association 63, 3: 317-328. See footnotes 4 and 5. 6 Scenic America. Fact Sheet (1): Billboard Control: Fiqhtinq Visual Pollution. httO://wNwscenic.orq/fact1.htm. 7 Bair Jr., Frederick H. 1979. Planninq Cities. (Chicago: American Planning .Association). pp. 244-254. '<', 1 ~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 '-" 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 -, 49 , ~ 2003-11 Article 22 Signs Jnd Advertising Roswell Zoning OrdinJnce 250 property values in declining areas, if not addressed and removed via sign controls. Sign regulations, including Roswell's sign code, are designed to ensure that signage is compatible with its surroundings and does not take away from the character of particular districts. Unregulated signage can degrade the utility of public safety srgns. In some places, unregulated signs can reduce the effectiveness of signs needed to direct the public due to competition with other signs and the resulting reduction in visibility of pub:ic purpose signs. Certain signs, particularly billboards, provide little if any useful information. Business identification signs are certainly essential to the economic success of businesses. However, not all commercial messages serve such public purposes. As noted by Scenic America, it is likely that many people get little or no useful information from billboards. All other advertising mediums are regulated, so why not unavoidable impacts of advertising signs? The Federal Communications Commission regulates our air waves and television stations and the content that passes through them. Aside from the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, there is little if any federal involvement in the regulation of signs. I find this lack of federal regulation interesting in the sense that signs are one of the most obtrusive forms of advertising. Signage is probably the only type of advertising that cannot be turned off or rejected by the consumer. Radio advertisements can be avoided by turning off the radio. The same is true with television advertisements; we flip channels or take a break when television commercials come on. Junk mail can be thrown away. We quickly flip past the advertisements in our favorite magazine when we are disinterested. Phone solicitations can be avoided with "caller identification" or terminating the conversation. ,he same cannot be said of outdoor advertising structures and commercial signs. One's vision of signage cannot be turned off. We are captivated by signage when we drive down the road. How do you avoid signs? We must keep our eyes open to drive and cannot block out signs from our peripheral vision. Perhaps one could take an alternative route that is not developed with signs, but that's not always feasible. Absent federal and significant state regulation, it is in the public interest for cities and counties to control signage. Signs derive their value from public improvements. Why do businesses exist and prosper? Because consumers have access to their locations via public rights-of-ways. Would a commercial business sign do any good if there was not a public road from which to view it? Probably not. Businesses locate, and signs are constructed, because of the access the community provides to business locations. It is precisely these types of advertising that are the principal target of local sign regulation - most of the signs controlled lecally are those which are visible from public ways. It is the public way that creates the value for the person erecting the sign, and visibility from the public way is what creates the problems which give rise to the need for sign controls. This is a pretty sound rationale for sign regulation, in my opinion. It logically follows, if one accepts the premise that the public way provides value, that the public therefore has a right, and indeed an obligation, to control the problems that arise from creating that value. Unregulated signs adversely impact public investments. Sign regulations help to assure that public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for the improvement and beautification of streets and other public structures and spaces are protected.8 In the case of Roswell, imagine the impact that unregulated signs would have on the $1 million streetscape improvements made to Canton Street, the city's signature historic streetscape? Unregulated signs, if permitted to be erected on Canton Street, would almost assuredly neutralize those ~ Mesa. Arizona, sign ordinance. hlt:J"llwww.cimesa.az.us/planninq/siqnord.htm#443 '"' -~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 " 24 25 26 -- 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ':lC: vv -- 2003-11 Article 22 Signs .1nd Advertising Roswell Zoning Ordinance 251 streetscape investments. The same can be said for other corridors of the city, within which Roswell is currently establishing design guidelines to approve their appearance. Unregulated signs have the potential to negate those public investments, as well. BUSINESS INTEREST RATIONALES Sign regulation is in the interest of businesses, whether their owners and operators realize it or not. One often overlooked justification for the regulation of signs is that sign regulations benefit those businesses that seek to advertise. Simply put, unregulated competition among business results in too many signs. Unregulated erection of signs can reach a "point of diminishing returns" (Bair 1979) where individual business signs are not adequately visible. Rodney Cobb, in an article about portable signs, has also made this point. Business owners, wanting higher visibility than their competitors, clutter the landscape along roadways with portable and other types of signs. Yet, in the forest of signs their messages are lost because the number of signs is overwhelming. The spiraling competiton for visual recognition thus defeats the purpose of the signs themselves - to carry a message, usually a commercial one (Cobb 1988).9 Think about this one. I certainly find it true. I observed this phenomenon when I worked for the Albany Doughe!L'f Planning Commission and I would travel the commercial strip known as "Slappey Boulevard" in Albany. After (conservatively) more than two or three dozen trips down this thoroughfare, on one vehicle trip I recall thinking to myself: "Hey, I've never noticed that sign or business there before!" Patrons of individual businesses located along the unregulated commercial strip may miss their destination because they cannot find the particular business in the sea of adver.ising devices. The unregulated commercial strip signage also can work to the detriment of individual businesses in that they are forced to erect larger and more costly signs to outdo their neighboring businesses and competitors. Therefore, sign regulations benefit individual business owners. This is somewhat paradoxical but true, because business owners are usually the r;;ost vocal opponents of local sign regulations. In the words of Scenic America, "sign clutter, like a room full of screaming kids, so distracts the consumer that no message gets through clearly. Having smaller and fewer signs enables businesses to de a better job selling their wares at less cast." 36 The lack of sign controls causes uncertainty among prospective business owners. 37 Roswell's sign c::de provides prospective businesses with guidance on how much signage they 38 may have, where it is allowed to be located and what types of signs are permitted. Without sign 39 controls, business owners lack such guidance. In Roswell, a design review board reviews all 40 building facades, site plans, and sign applications. Without a sign code, it appears that sign 41 permit applications are left to the discretion of the design review board. Such a situation could 42 have detrimental impacts on businesses, either through inequitable treatment or a delay in the 43 time involved in the permitting of signs. Such potential detrimental impacts would not exist ar 44 would be mitigated with a clear set of sign regulations. 45 46 9 Cobb, Rodney L. ;'pnl 1988. Portable Signs: Law and Regulations. Land Use Law and Zonina Diaest. (Chicago: American Planning ;'ssoclation). pp. 3-7. .. 1 ....., 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ,..,27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ~ 2003-11 Article 22 Signs and Advertising Roswell Zoning Ordinance 252 AESTHETIC RATIONALES Let's face it. When all is said and done, we can give many reasons to justify the city's sign ordinance. However, among the most relevant reasons are to promote and ensure the aesthetics of the community. In the earliest days of sign regulations, relying on aesthetics as a rationale could not legally justify local sign controls. The United States Supreme Court began a slow transformation, from its previous position that aesthetics alone could not justify land use regulations, to a position that aesthetic considerations were legitimately within the scope of police power. In 1954, Justice Douglas of the high court found the following: The concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as weil as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as weil as clean, well balanced as well as carefully controlled.10 Sign regulations help communities maintain their scenic heritage and unique character. Without Roswell's brand of sign regulation, including board/commission review, its commercial areas will likely end up looking like any other place. Signs can interfere with scenic views. The appearance of the community, which is substantially influenced by signs, is essential to the city's long-term economic viability and helps determine how residents and visitors alike perceive it. Sign control is an integral part of improving visual character and quality of life. A look at some of the purpose and intent statements of other local sign codes helps to underscore the various aesthetic purposes served by regulating signs: · Provide a rf~asonacie balance between the right of an individual to idAntify his business and the right of the pubiic to be protected against the visual discord resulting from the unrestricted proliferation of signs and similar devices. Insure that signs are compatible with adjacent land uses and with the total visual environment of the community. Recognize that the size of signs which provide adequate identification in pedestrian-oriented business areas differs from that necessary in vehicular-oriented areas where traffic is heavy, travel speeds are greater, and required setbacks are greater than in pedestrian areas. Encourage signs which are well-designed and compatible with their surroundings and with the buildings to which they are appurtenant (Source: Westminster, Colorado sign code, htto://wwwciwestminsterco.us/code/title11/t11 c11.htm). Encourage creative and weil-designed signs that contribute in a positive way to the City's visual environment, express local character, and help develop a distinctive image for the City. Predictable and mediocre signs are discouraged. Encourage signs that are responsive to the aesthetics and character of their particular location, adjacent buildings and uses, and the surrounding neighborhood. Signs should be compatible and integrated with the building's architectural design and with other signs on the property (Source: City of West Hollywood Draft Sign Ordinance, htto://ww't./. cmca olans. com/wehosian .htm). In recognition of the City's dependence on commerce and a truly unique and picturesque environmental setting, the City adopts this chapter in order to promote and protect the health, safety and general well being of its citizens; to protect and enhance harmonious and ~o Berman v Parker 348 U.S. 26,75 S. Ct. 98, 99 L. Ed.27 (1954). " ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 -- ...., 2003-11 Article 22 Signs and Advertising Roswell Zoning Ordin:lnce 253 historically significant architecture; and to encourage high aesthetic quality, human scaled and pedestrian friendly development within the City of Traverse City (rv1ichigan). An excess of large, ugly, intense signs causes a visual blight on the appearance of the City by detracting from views of structures and open space. This visual blight adversely affects the aesthetic quality of life and traffic safety in Santa Monica for residents, businesses, pedestrians, and persons in vehicles. In order to promote the appearance of the City, while protecting the rights of sign owners to expression and identification, the regulation of existing and proposed signs is necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The purpose of the Santa Monica Sign Code is to encourage signs which are integrated with and harmonious to the buildings and sites which they occupy, to eliminate excessive and confusing sign displays, to preserve and improve the appearance of the City as a place in which to live and to work and as an attraction to nonresidents who come to visit or trade... (Source: City of Santa Monica, California. 9.52.020 Findings and purpose. htto:/ /oen2. ci. santa-monica. ca. us/citv/municode/art09/9. 52/9.52.020. html). Preserve or enhance town character and scenic vistas by encouraging new and replacement signage which is: 1. creative and distinctive; 2. compatible with the surroundings; 3. appropriate to the type of activity to which it pertains; 4. expressive of the identity of individual; 5. appropriately sized in its context, so as to be easily readable (Source: Bethel, Maine).