Loading...
December 4, 1995 Council Meeting December 4. 1995 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 was City Administrator Bob Thomson, City Clerk Melinda Dameron, City Attorney Charles E. Camp, Fire Chief Larry Williams, Finance Director Claudia Edgar, Assistant Public Works Director Ray Curtis, Police Chief Stan Hook, Library Director Michael Seigler, Parks and Recreation Director Steve Ciaccio, Community Relations Director Kathie Barton, Clean and Beautiful Coordinator Ann Kirk, Personnel Director Mary Ann White, City Engineer Ken Hildebrandt and representatives of the press. .. Invocation was given by, Reverend Don Hicks pastor of The Church of the Nazarene, followed by the pledge to the flag. Mayor Bacon stated that he knew there were several persons in attendance tonight to provide input for Items 3 (c), (0), (E), and (F). Councilman Wood stated it was the council's intent to hear the items under the public hearings portion of the meeting. Mayor Bacon ask if there was anyone present who wanted to address those items on the agenda. A representative of John Wieland Homes stated they were concerned about the proposed condominium development only (Item 3-E). A resident of the Summerplace Subdivision also spoke in opposition to the rezoning request (Item 3-E). Ms. Cynthia Flowers, Parkland Place Subdivision, questioned if the rezoning of this property would benefit the city of Smyrna and stated she is definitely against the reroning requested for the building of condominiums. Ms. Flowers cited the increased traffic would not benefit the residents of her area at all. Councilman Wood stated he felt certain there were several residents at home that were not present tonight who might have comments about the proposed rezonings. He stated he had received several phone calls and letters from persons who are not in attendance tonight and that was certainly an avenue of communication he welcomed. Councilman Wood then made a motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of removing those items from ... the agenda. Councilman Newcomb seconded the motion. Councilman Wood then made a motion that Items 3 (C), (0), (E) and (F) be removed from the agenda and that any action on those items be deferred to the January 16, 1996, council meeting. Councilman Scoggins seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. CITIZENS INPUT: Mayor Bacon recognized John Teasley from BF!. Mr. Teasley commended the city of Smyrna for its recycling participation rate and thanked the city for allowing BFI to conduct business with the City. Mayor Bacon commended BPI for their recycling program and also for their pick-up schedule which includes holidays all through the year. Mayor Bacon recognized Ms. Nancy Anderson, first grade teacher from Russell Elementary School, and Ms. Judy Mayran. Ms. Anderson stated Russell Elementary School had implemented a program titled "Mystery Reader" to encourage students to read. She then announced that Chief Hook had been the mystery reader recently and presented him with a framed picture of him and some of the children as well as a book the students had made. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (A) Rezoning Request - Atlanta Road and Campbell Road - From General Commercial (G.C.) to Office Distribution (O.D.) ... Mr. Thomson stated the rezoning and land use change is requested at the intersection of Atlanta Road and Campbell Road in order to allow the applicant to build a climate controlled storage facility. He stated the building would have 72,500 gross square feet on 1.23 acres of land. Mayor Bacon recognized the applicants, Mr. Tom Stokes and Mr. Van Gray, and then stated this is a public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak during this portion of the meeting. Several persons came forward and were sworn in by the City Attorney. December 4. 1995 meeting. - continued Councilman Lnenicka asked Mr. Stokes to explain to the council and the citizens what they hope to do with the property. Mr. Stokes stated he represents S & L Mortgage and Investments, the owner of the vacant parcel at the intersection of South Atlanta Road and Campbell Road. He stated the company has owned the land since 1981 and have been good tax-paying, land owners, maintaining the property in a nice fashion and anticipating the beautification program. He further stated that since the County began the Atlanta Road widening project, the County engineers approached them and the Town Creek Manor about how they could participate in a way to allow common access for the two parcels through the traffic signal at that intersection. He stated it would be an asset to the undeveloped parcel and would be a big improvement on the traffic flow at the intersection due to the use of the traffic signal. He stated earlier this year he began talking with Mr. Van Gray with whom they are in participation for other climate-controlled storage facilities. He stated they looked at the property and thought it might be a use that would work on the site; did market research; initial engineering and met with the Planning Department, Mr. Scott Stokes, and the Planning and Zoning Board and the vote there was 4-2 with a recommendation being against the proposal. He summarized that they want to build an attractive building and used the Community Center as their model and tailored the lines of the building to resemble that building. He stated they have moved all the obtrusive uses of the facility to the side of the building (the loading and unloading). He then presented the proposed site plans for the facility. He stated they need two things from the city. He stated the land use designation for the property is High Density Residential; the site is very small and is not suitable for High Density Residential development nor is it practical to put single-family residential dwellings on that small property. He stated that under the present zoning of General Commercial, convenience stores, gas stations, hardware stores, office buildings would be acceptable. He stated they need the land use change from High Density Residential to Office Distribution and then as far as zoning is concerned, they need the property re-zoned from General Commercial to Office Distribution. He stated that aside from the rezoning request, they are asking for two variances - which are setbacks - one for the rear yard and one for the side yard; both of which are adjacent to the Town Creek Manor property. He stated there is a representative from Town Creek Manor who is willing to state they are willing to work with S & L Mortgage and Investment on this project. Mr. Stokes stated he felt this project would be an improvement for the property. He further stated it would relieve the traffic and would not increase traffic on South Atlanta Road; would not increase the demand on water/sewer; would not increase the demand on trash pick up, police, fire and emergency services and would be a very low impact use for that property and increase the tax base by $36,000 - $37,000 annually. He concluded by showing photographs of existing storage facilities they operate. He stated the buildings would be either all brick or masonry and would fit the Architectural Design Standards and they are eager to be good citizens and make the building attractive and fit in with the city. He stated the building would have an office and an apartment for a security person to be on site twenty four hours a day. Mr. Stokes stated that up and down South Atlanta Road there is a list of either vacant or abandoned buildings on it and they would like to think that this would be good for the neighborhood. Councilman Lnenicka asked Mr. Tom Stokes about the operating hours of the business and the days of the week the business would be open. Mr. Van Gray responded the normal operating hours for the manager and the leasing units would be from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. five days a week and at that time the office would close. Mr. Lnenicka asked about the Saturday hours and Mr. Gray responded the only way to access the facility after that would tenants that could use the key pad with a secured code. He also stated they do not lease units before 9:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. Mr. Gray stated access to the units would begin at approximately 6:00 a.m. and the key pad would close at 9:00 p.m. at night and that would be the same days as indicated above and access to the tenants would be allowed on Sunday. Mr. Gray stated in order for a person to be qualified to lease a unit, they would have to have a drivers license, of legal age, and have income. Councilman Lnenicka asked about the number of parking spaces on the drawing. Mr. Stokes asked if there was a concern about the parking spaces and Mr. Lnenicka responded there was, both in terms of location and the number of spaces. Mr. Lnenicka stated he had a letter from the City Engineer stating the Ordinance would require thirty-six parking spaces and therefore there would need to be a variance granted for the number of parking places. Mr. Stokes indicated he wished he had received that earlier so it could have been addressed. He stated he had a letter from his engineer that would address that issue to some degree. Mr. Stokes indicated he had heard that might be an issue but since no one had informed him of that for sure but he would like to present the Council with some information concerning the proposed project. He stated he felt they had been very communicative throughout the whole process and was here in good faith. Mr. Lnenicka stated he had asked the City Engineer to address some issues and the parking spaces was an issue that had not been addressed with Mr. Tom Stokes. Mr. Stokes then asked the date ofthe letter to which Mr. Lnenicka was referring and Mr. Lnenicka responded November ...., .... .... December 4. 1995 meeting - continued 6. Mr. Stokes stated he had presented the City Engineer with a full package on the plans the week before November 6 with a personal letter asking to be advised of any concerns the city might have and this is the first he has heard this might be a problem. Mr. Stokes stated the plan presented to the Council has twenty-three parking spaces on the site and calls for the use of five on the adjacent property. He stated if this is an issue they can redesign the facility and add additional parking but it would mean reducing the amount of green landscaped area on the site. Mr . Lnenicka asked what the landscape buffer would contain. Mr. Stokes asked Mr. Gray to answer that __ question. Mr. Gray stated they plan to plant screening vegetation and the adjacent owners (DeVille and Associates) asked them not to encroach with a variance request on their property. Mr. Gray then stated the first thing they did was to leave the full 50' setback with that land owner. He further stated the apartment buildings are an additional 40 - 45 feet on the other side so there would be about a 100' between the buildings of DeVille Apartments and this property. He stated they plan to put a large number of trees on the property and their inclination is to put as many trees there as can be allowed and still allow proper service and maintenance to the building. He stated on the back side there are at least two different types of trees and intend to use the Foster Holly, Leland Cypress and decorative trees such as the Japanese Maple and want to be generous in the landscaping and are eager to do that. Councilman Lnenicka asked about the loading dock that is planned for the south side of the building. Mr. Gray stated the vehicles that normally come to the facility are moving trucks of various sizes but primarily V-Haul or Ryder truck sizes from 14' to 26'. He stated that Mayflower trucks may want to come in there occasionally. He also stated they have two loading docks that are recessed inside the building. Councilman Lnenicka asked how many storage units would be in the building and Mr. Gray responded approximately 380 units with the rental being $.90/square foot depending on the size of the unit. Mayor Bacon stated the City had received a letter from a member of the Cobb County School Board expressing their concerns about the possibility of students being able to access the units and do some things they should not be allowed to do. He then asked what the company could do to prevent that from ... occurring. Mr. Gray responded they did not rent to bands or anybody that would work out of the building and there are no utilities in the unit, the only thing there is a light bulb and no electrical outlets. He stated they will have 24-hour a day security on the premises. He stated they do not rent to children that a renter must be of legal age to rent a unit and are not inexpensive to rent. Councilman Wood asked about the signage they plan to have on the building. Mr. Gray responded there would be very small signage on the building and presented the council with a picture of a facility they operate in Norcross and indicated the signage in Smyrna would be similar. Mr. Stokes stated the only free-standing signage they anticipate would be at the north intersection of the traffic signal and they plan to relocate the Town Creek sign that is currently on the site and they understand it would have to meet all the signage regulations of the city and on the decorative wall a small wood-routed sign would be visible. Councilman Wood asked if the available land would be sufficient for such a large building and Mr. Stokes responded yes with a building footprint of only 15,000 square feet. Mr. Wood then asked Mr. Stokes wouldn't he need several variances. Mr. Stokes responded that based on his meeting with the Chief Building Official back in September, he was told he would need two variances - one for the rear yard setback and one for the side yard setback. He indicated he was not aware of any other variances that would be required. Councilman Lnenicka questioned the placement of the detention pond on a separate piece of property and indicated he thought that would require a variance. Mr. Stokes responded no one had informed him he might need a variance for the detention pond. Mr. Stokes stated he understood the detention pond by ... De Ville Apartments encroaches three feet on their property and according to the code there needs to be a ten foot setback from the property line. He further stated the letter he presented to the City from their engineers indicated that was a mistake on his part and the capacity and everything works and he has certified in that letter that the pond could be moved back three feet and still have the proper size. He said as far as some of the construction being on the adjacent land, he has letters from the Lynmont apartments, Mr. Jim Rogers is here representing them, and they are fully aware of this and Mr. Stokes indicates he has letters from them and has provided letters to the Planning Department that they are fully in support of this and the way it is designed. December 4. 1995 meeting - continued Councilman Wood asked Mr. Stokes if ownership of the property would be in the name of S & L Mortgage Investments and Mr. Stokes responded that was correct and would be in partnership with Mr. Gray. Councilman Wood then asked Mr. Stokes if he was a principal in the firm of S & L Mortgage Investments and Mr. Stokes responded he was an officer but not a principal and has no ownership. Councilman Wood asked Mr. Gray if he had any ownership interest in the S & L Mortgage and Mr. Gray responded he does. Mr. Wood then asked if S & L Mortgage and Investments, Inc., also own either of the apartment complexes. Mr. Stokes responded they did not. Mr. Stokes explained the relationship as his father is a principal in S & L Mortgage and Investments and also has an interest in the apartments. Mr. Stokes stated to the best of his knowledge there is no ownership interest in DeVille Apartments and to his knowledge his father is the only investor that has some interest in both. ...." Mayor Bacon asked for public comment concerning this proposed rezoning. Barbara Alexander, Dick Hagman, Becky Rubin, Ms. Perry Daugette, Mrs. Kirby, Stan Reynolds, and Connie Burchfield spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. Betty Nesser, Ryan Dennard, Judy Morris, Margaret Couch, Jim Rogers, representing 45 residents of Town Creek Manor and Patsy Parker spoke in support of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Tom Stokes stated he understood this is a very emotional issue and stated he lives in a neighborhood with vacant land and he doesn't like to see buildings built on vacant land. He stated he is working very hard to find a use that accomplishes the objectives of the owner and does so in as unobtrusive way as possible. He stated his business would have no control over the trucks that travelled illegally on Campbell Road and his proposal does not have anything to do with that particular problem voiced by some of those who spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning; he also stated they are quality people who do not like drugs and don't do business with people who do drugs and don't encourage people to steal things. He further stated they are business people who are trying to make an honest living and do it in a clean, decent way. He stated they wanted to build a nice building there that will do that. He stated that property is zoned General Commercial and if he understands that zoning, that if they come off that back setback and came off the side yard and put offices in there, increased the parking, they could have an office building that would accommodate up to 100 or 120 people which would mean 100 vehicles going into that property every day and that is a possibility. He further stated he did not think that was the thing to do. He stated everyone is concerned about the traffic and his proposed use for the property would help traffic and increase the tax base from a vacant piece of land; obviously it is in his company's best interest since they are not producing any revenue on that land. He stated he hoped it was not a crime or a sin to make money in the United States and they want to do it in an appropriate way and they are really trying hard. He stated he hoped the Council would see a way to approve this. ...." Mayor Bacon stated the issue has come up with the proposed business being close to Campbell High School and the problems they might have with the students. He then asked if there were problems of this nature at the other facilities. Mr. Gray responded he has been in the business since 1980 and built the first business in 1980 and currently has two climate-controlled storage facilities that have resident managers who watch over the facilities as if it were their own. He stated they will not rent U-Haul or Ryder Trucks out of the facility and are very active in the communities in which they operate. Councilman Lnenicka asked Ken Hildebrandt, City Engineer, to state what variances might be needed for this property. Councilman Lnenicka asked if a variance would be required technically for the detention pond being on the adjacent property and not on this particular property. Mr. Hildebrandt responded a variance would be needed as the ordinance states a "non residential use abuts a residential use that a 10' landscaped buffer is required." He then stated when the detention pond is built it will require the buffer. He stated on the plans he had seen the pond goes across property lines and thus would require a variance from the buffer requirement. Councilman Lnenicka asked about a variance for the parking spaces. Mr. Hildebrandt stated that according to the ordinance, based on 70,000 square feet, the calculations required 36 parking spaces and the plan that he has seen only showed 23 parking spaces and would require a variance unless changes have been made to the plan that he has not seen. .... Councilman Lnenicka then asked about the drive on the south side of the property. He then asked since that property is technically zoned residential, would that require a planted buffer. Mr. Hildebrandt stated he was not sure about that but he did not think they would need a variance for that. Mr. Hildebrandt stated he had some concerns about the existing driveway into the apartment complex. He stated he felt the relocation of the driveway to the traffic signal would be fine but the existing driveway should be made a right-in/right-out only to make it safer for the residents exiting the complex and this would not require a driveway. December 4, 1995 meeting - continued Mr. Torn Stokes apologized for Mr. Hildebrandt not receiving the updated packages but stated he had left those for him with the Community Development Department. He stated the current plans were left for Mr. Hildebrandt with a note for him to call Mr. Stokes if any issues needed to be addressed. Mr. Stokes stated that if the plans needed a deferral they were agreeable to that. He stated they will do anything the city desires to make this plan work. .. Councilman Lnenicka asked Mr. Rogers (Town Creek Manor) if this plan is approved where they plan to ask the resident children of his apartment to play since in the past they have used the vacant lot as a playground. Mr. Rogers responded they are in the process of re-doing a playground and that will provide them a play area. Councilman Lnenicka stated they have held several meetings on this proposed plan. Mr. Lnenicka stated he has a number of concerns regarding this proposed development. Councilman Lnenicka stated there are nine review standards listed in the zoning review standards (Section 1508) that states the consideration of any zoning proposals, the planning commission and mayor and council shall consider the following factors in their determination: 1. Whether the zoning proposal will permit a use that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property. Councilman Lnenicka stated he does have concerns about this as the development is totally surrounded by residential property except for the property that is across the street and undeveloped which the future land use is set as Medium Density Residential. He further stated he could not explain the General Commercial zoning that is on the site now but this proposal is not necessarily suitable in view of the use and development of the nearby property. 1. Whether the zoning proposal or the use proposed will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property. .... Councilman Lnenicka stated there has been a number of testimony from residents stating they believe it will adversely affect their property values or the safety or the accessibility of their property. 3. Whether the property to be affected by the zoning proposal has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned. Councilman Lnenicka stated they have testified and both Planning and Zoning Board meetings and tonight that it does have an economic use as General Commercial but they would prefer that it would be zoned for the purpose of this warehouse but they have not said flat out that it is not economically developable as a G.C. parcel. 4. Whether the zoning proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools. Councilman Lnenicka stated that his principle concerns are with the streets and among them Campbell Road which is labeled as a "No Truck" route. Trucks are allowed for destinations on Campbell Road but not through truck traffic. He further stated that yes it is up to the city to enforce the laws and keep trucks off Campbell Road but a warehouse would act as a magnet that would encourage people in trucks to use Campbell Road as a through road and that would pose a burden on the city's enforcement effort and a detriment to the residents of Argyle Estates. .. 5. Whether the zoning proposal is in conformity with the policy and intent of the land use plan. Councilman Lnenicka stated there is a clear conflict as the land use plans states (a) and they are requesting (b) so it is not in conformance. 6. Whether there are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which give supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the zoning proposal. December 4. 1995 meeting - continued Councilman Lnenicka stated the city has seen Atlanta Road in transition -- the widening project although officially finished -- is not officially finished. The City is still not up with the signs and the exact synchronization of some of the signals and the minor things. He then stated that Atlanta Road is a road in transition; there are four subdivisions building on Atlanta Road now and according to the County Commissioner, there are more that are in the works with them and there is one sort of in the works with the City on Creatwood Farms that is pending some other issues before that can move forward. He stated that all of those existing and changing conditions argue for residential or from a commercial side a less intense use. ..., 7. Whether the development of the property under the zoning proposal will conform to, be a detriment to or enhance the architectural standards, open space requirements and aesthetics of the general neighborhood, considering the current, historical and planned uses in the area. Councilman Lnenicka stated the developers have come a long way from the plans and drawings he first saw in October but he does not believe a three-story building of this size on that small a parcel of land does anything to help those factors. 8. Under any proposed zoning classification, whether the use proposed may create a nuisance or is incompatible with existing uses in the area. Councilman Lnenicka stated there is a letter that has been mentioned several times, from Anne Brady, Post 2 representative on the Cobb County Board of Education, and also from the principal of Nash Middle School, which will be the school locating in 1997 to the Campbell High School site, both opposing the rezoning request and for their concerns for the kids in the school, citing the kids access to the site or what they might get into when they are on the site. 9. Whether due to the size of the proposed use,in either land area or building height, the proposed use would affect the adjoining property, general neighborhood and other uses in the area positively or negatively. .... Councilman Lnenicka stated this would be the only three-story building in the area and for the size of the property is a large building and he thinks the overall effect would be negative. He stated that, therefore, as much as he appreciates what the Stokes and Mr. Van Gray have done to try to work with the city he made a motion that the rezoning request on Atlanta Road at Campbell Road requesting going from General Commercial to Office Distribution be denied. Councilman Scoggins seconded the motion. Motion to deny the rezoning request was approved 7-0. (B) Land Use Change - Atlanta Road and Campbell Road - From High Density Residential to Community Activity Center Councilman Newcomb stated he felt that since there is no change in the Land Use Plan no action is necessary on this item. Councilman Lnenicka stated that Item 3-B - Land Use Change was to follow the rezoning and if the rezoning was granted would require a Future Land Use change designation. He stated the applicants were requesting a that the current designation of High Density Residential be changed to Community Activity Center which would be the appropriate designation for warehouses. Councilman Lnenicka stated that given the denial by the council of the zoning then made a motion that the Land Use Change remain as High Density Residential. Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked if there was any public comment. There was none. Councilman Newcomb seconded the motion. Motion to deny the land use change was approved 7-0. ..... (C) Rezoning Request - North Cooper Lake Road and Cooper Lake Road - From R-20 Residential to Office Institutional (0.1.) Item 3-C was discussed above and any action deferred until January 16, 1996. (0) Land Use Change - North Cooper Lake Road and Cooper Lake Road - From Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center ... .. ... December 4. 1995 meeting: - continued Item 3-D was discussed above and any action deferred until January 16, 1996. (E) Rezoning Request - Cooper Lake Road and North Cooper Lake Road - From 0.1. and L.1. to RM-12 Condo's Item 3-E was discussed above and any action deferred until January 16, 1996. (F) Land Use Change - Cooper Lake Road and North Cooper Lake Road - From Industrial Compatible and Medium Density to High Density Residential Item 3-F was discussed above and any action deferred until January 16, 1996. (G) Ordinance Amendment - Road Corridor Overlay District - Second Reading Mr. Thomson stated this is to amend Section 601 in the Code of Ordinances titled District Designation by adding a new district entitled Road Corridor Overlay District having to do with the required buffers and landscaping in various corridors throughout the city. Mayor Bacon stated he knew there were several persons present concerned with this issue and they will be allowed to make comments about this proposed amendment. Councilman Newcomb stated the original intent of this proposed amendment was rather straight forward and it is to simply set some standards for some landscaping along the major corridors - that is Atlanta Road, Windy Hill Road, South Cobb Drive, Concord Road, Spring Road, Hargrove Road and Cobb Parkway. He stated that currently as it is the only requirement is that there be a ten foot strip of grass between the road and the property. He stated what the city proposes to do is to upgrade that requirement. He stated if the current structure gets developed/redeveloped 50% or more of the current value of the property or with the zoning use change so that it would not be a hardship on current businesses. He stated that there are several places where this would be quite easy to implement while there are other places where a pretty good bit of the front yard, so to speak, or front property of the business is needed for parking and the ten foot current grassy strip may not be in place because that came into effect long after that particular business was there. Mr. Newcomb stated this is the third meeting this has come up as they wanted time to make sure businesses were aware of it and since doing that a couple of issues have come up that are very legitimate issues. He stated one is that in some cases where there is only a very small front yard as it is, say only 40 or 50 feet from the structure to the right of way, a ten foot requirement could indeed be a pretty good chunk if it is not already there. He stated one suggestion he had would be then to consider making it a minimum of ten feet or 10% of the distance between the front of the structure and the road right of way such that if a business only has forty or fifty feet then you are only talking about four or five feet in order to try to accommodate and not be a hardship. Mr. Newcomb stated another suggestion would be to clarify when it goes into effect. He stated he felt a lot of the concerns were generated by a paragraph in Section 717.50 that says there will be no alteration or development of the existing condition of the property, uses, zoning or structures, within the Road Corridor Overlay District from the date of enactment of this ordinance henceforth except as provided for by this Ordinance. Mr. Newcomb stated that later in the ordinance it speaks of things such as any building and/or parking use area that is located within the required streetscape on or before the date of passage or adoption of this ordinance shall be deemed to be conforming in order not to have an adverse impact on folks unless they redevelop 50% on the zoning changes or a vacant piece of property was developed. He stated he felt the wording in this could be clarified to make it more straightforward in everyday language and that is to say this ordinance shall affect properties within the district only at the time of an alteration or development of the properties greater than a dollar value equal to more than 50% of the value of the property and maybe leave out the zoning change because there could be a slight shift from a General Commercial zoning to a Limited Commercial or vice versa and the city would not necessarily want to trigger that as it would have an impact on the business. Mr. Newcomb stated the purpose is simply landscaping. He further stated landscaping sells as is evidenced by Post Properties. He stated that appearance gives a perception and appearance sells and the other thing that sells is schools. He stated the intent was to upgrade and enhance the visual appearance, raise property values by so doing but they do not want to do this in such a way to create a hardship on businesses and they are very eager to hear from businesses. Councilman Cramer stated that Ward 5 has two different corridors - Windy Hill Road and South Cobb Drive and asked if this runs from the State right of way to the city right of way then to the setback. Mr. Newcomb responded it is from the existing or future right of way. Councilman Cramer asked Ken Hildebrandt what the normal right of way on South Cobb Drive is and Mr. Hildebrandt responded 200 December 4. 1995 meeting - continued feet plus the city six to ten feet. Mr. Cramer stated he is concerned that the city is varying this on South Cobb Drive. Mr. Newcomb stated it could very easily be changed to be from the curb but the problem with that is that even in the residential areas technically you don't encourage people to plant on the right of way but it could be changed. He stated the effect is harder in terms of the impact on a small business along Concord Road and Windy Hill that used to be a house and is now a business. He stated some of the big businesses on South Cobb Drive could stand to give up ten to thirty feet with a planted buffer and he personally feels landscaping would soften it. Mayor Bacon asked anyone to come forward and make comments about this proposed ordinance amendment. ..... Ms. Norma Ogle came forward. Ms. Ogle stated she has some concerns. She stated she owns Superior Business Service at 629 Windy Hill Road and also owns the vacant lot at 645 Windy Hill Road. She stated that from the front of her stoop to the city sidewalk that either she or the city owns eighteen inches of ground. She stated the city can have any part of it they want as long as you keep it mowed but there are two things that concern her. She stated she did not read the paragraph that said the entire investment in the property. She stated that the buildings themselves are not worth $40,000. She further stated she enclosed a small carport _ handicapped access - put a wall back in and spent $23,000 and this would have triggered the ordinance. She stated that the verbage in the ordinance would be helpful if it said the total investment because her land investment is more than twice what the building assessment is. Mr. Newcomb stated it would be the total value of the property. She stated she also owns the small vacant lot between her and the adjoining property owner. She stated there is no depth on the property and no way she could move back even if she tore down her building then she would be unable to meet the parking requirements for the square footage in the building. She stated there is no place for the businesses on Windy Hill Road to go and she can understand this ordinance on property that has not been developed. Mr. Newcomb asked Ms. Ogle how she would feel if the ordinance was changed to reflect that 50% of the total package (the value got added to it) and at that point you would have to add 10% minimum, if it was 40 feet it would require 4 feet, etc.; or the other alternative would be that it not be triggered unless there is more than "X" feet from the front ofthe structure so that it would take out those places that have no place to back up to - to make it where it wouldn't affect a business if it was closer than "X" number of feet. He stated they could set up some conditions where it will not come into play in such a way as to impose a hardship on those in her kind of situation. Ms. Ogle stated she did not ..., know how there are any businesses from South Cobb Drive to South Atlanta Road on Windy Hill Road that could meet those requirements. She then asked Mr. Newcomb what happens if she sells 645 Windy Hill Road and the empty lot next to it which is the parking area for the 645 building. She asked would she have to dig up her parking lot that the city made her pave, move it back and remember she has trees on the property, what happens to that very valuable empty lot she thought she had. Mr. Newcomb stated in the homes that have been converted to businesses and causes a unique situation. Councilman Cramer stated he hopes Windy Hill Road will be taken out of the ordinance requirements as he can not support the motion with Windy Hill Road included in the corridors listed. Mayor Bacon recognized Glen Stinson. Mr. Stinson, owner of 1295 Concord Road, stated he felt this is the first time the general public has been asked to provide input. He stated he wanted to reserve his constitutional rights on behalf of himself, R. N. Kennedy, J r.( owner of The Gun Room) and Ms. Parker Canfield (owner of First Class Hair Designs). He stated his main concern is the fact that if you approve this ordinance you are going to definitely be taking people's property and you are not planning to give them anything and this is a grass roots due process problem to him. He stated in the taking of property where you have not paid just and adequate compensation. He stated he had read the ordinance and if you want to pick and choose the places that you are going to affect by this, then you are going to make it even worse. He stated all the people in the community are going to be affected if they own property on those corridors if you require them to set aside certain portions of this property if something happens in the future. He stated it is nice that the city wants to have flowers and all that, and he is all for flowers, but Ms. Ogle is right in that when she gets ready to sell her property you have created a serious problem for her because just what she has now will be affected when she sells the property and nobody is going ....., to want to pay for property they can not use. He further stated the houses and the buildings that are on these pieces of property now are not the values of these properties, it is what you can use on these properties and what you can use these houses for. He further stated his property is one that has been developed and has been there for more than twenty years and he would eventually like to sell that property. He further stated what the council plans to do with that property is going to affect his ability to sell his property without paying him for it. He further stated the council has already admitted to the people present tonight that the ordinance is vague and indefinite as written. He stated if a person is going to come and comply with this ordinance, the law states you are supposed to give him an ordinance that ... ... ... December 4. 1995 meeting - continued a man of ordinary intelligence is going to know how you are going to apply that ordinance and he further stated that this ordinance is about as gray as he has ever seen. Mr. Stinson said he was not here tonight to belabor the issue or to argue about it, he was simply here to apprise the council that they are going to preserve their constitutional rights on his behalf and the behalf of his clients. He said if the council was going to proceed with this, then they were going to proceed with it but the council would be doing it with the knowledge that he thinks it is wrong and that the council would be depriving him and his clients of their constitutional rights and a denial of due process and a denial of paying adequate consideration. Mr. Stinson stated he could assure the council that nobody had notified him of the hearing _ he heard about it from someone who just happened to be down here and called him about it. Councilman Newcomb stated this is the third meeting at which this proposed amendment has been come up and the ad has been published in the paper. He further stated Mr. Stinson is correct in that a letter could have been sent a letter to every single property owner. Mr. Stinson asked Mr. Newcomb shouldn't he have notified him if he was going to take his property. Mr. Newcomb stated the current ordinance that has been on the books for years says when the property gets developed or redeveloped there needs to be a ten-foot grassy strip and he further stated all the city is saying is that those folks could plant some bushes on it. He also stated the city is not taking any property any more than what has been required for years. He stated they have always required a 50' foot setback between business and residential property and this ordinance is simply setting some requirements that tell you how it ought to look and what you can and can't do with it. He further stated that selling the property would not have an effect on that it is only if the property is redeveloped. He stated if a vacant piece of property gets developed, if a current structure is redeveloped more than 50% of its current value it would trigger the 10' foot grassy strip and why can't they plant some bushes in it. He stated they were setting standards so that the landscaping would fit somewhat together. He stated the point is because every piece of property would be more valuable to the owner and the community if it looks better. Mr. Newcomb stated some very legitimate concerns have been brought before the council and the intent is to try to set some standards for landscaping. Councilman Hawkins stated at the last meeting Mr. Newcomb had agreed to delay action on the proposed amendment until the business owners on Concord Road had been notified. Mr. Hawkins stated that the letters may have gone to the tenants instead of the owners in some case and for that he apologized. Mr. Hawkins stated he also had some concerns about the proposed amendment and feels that if the ordinance is enacted it may damage the property to the extent it will not be sellable or usable. He stated there have been many court cases that have addressed this issue and that is a serious concern. Mr. Jay Wallace, business owner on Windy Hill Road, stated this would make a bad situation worse if this ordinance amendment is adopted. He stated at his business there is not 10 feet of grass and wondered if the city wants one foot of bushes at his property. Mr. Charles Cole, business owner on Windy Hill Road, stated he did not believe the beautification of a particular piece of property in order to make it more valuable is a governmental function and should be left up to the property owner. Mr. Cole suggested the council deny this amendment entirely or that it be tabled until the language can be cleaned up so everyone will know exactly what can be done with the ordinance. Mr. Charlie Phillips, resident of Argyle Estates, stated he is a homeowner not a business owner and spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. Mrs. Brissey asked if this ordinance pertains to a right of way. Mr. Newcomb stated it will be past the right of way and will affect the property owner's use of those first few feet past the right of way. Ms. Doris Morris, resident at 1110 Concord Road, asked the council if any action on this amendment could be delayed until the plans for the widening of Concord Road are available. She stated she is in support of the ordinance. Mr. Bogey Stoner, property owner on Spring Road, Concord Road and South Cobb Drive, stated he was not informed of the proposed ordinance until last week. He stated he agreed with Ms. Morris about asking for a delay in the ordinance as it affects Concord Road until plans for the widening of that road are available. He stated that he had read the ordinance and felt it was not clearly worded. He stated that in one section where the 50% replacement was mentioned and specifically states" any change or addition to such a building and/or parking use area that requires site plan approval shall fall under the street scape requirements." He stated this had nothing to do with the 50% replacement but the next sentence "if an existing conforming structure within the designated street scape is destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost at the time of destruction...." He stated he felt the 50% comes December 4. 1995 meeting - continued into play if it is destroyed and asked if any site plan changes had anything to do with the 50% clause. Mr. Newcomb responded that if you were rebuilding at a cost of more than 50% you would have to conform with the ordinance. Mr. Stoner stated if you can not understand what is being said then it needs to be redone or someone needs to explain it again. Mr. Newcomb agreed the ordinance should be written in an understandable fashion. Mr. Stoner stated he felt like every time he turns around, he has someone setting a new rule or ordinance or regulation and it is difficult enough to run a small business without this. Mr. Stoner stated he was in favor of beautifying the city and would go along with that. Mr. Newcomb stated they were trying to find a reasonable balance on this ordinance. Councilman Cramer stated he would like to suggest to council that a group of business owners who have property in these corridors come back and provide input to the city on this ordinance. ...... Councilman Newcomb stated he felt the intent is good but agreed it should not be done at the expense of a hardship on the business owner. Councilman Newcomb made a motion to table the issue and form a group of business and residential property owners to sit down and try to work out some wording to see ifthere is some balance that could be achieved. Mr. Newcomb stated his motion should contain the date of the first meeting in April which will be April 1, 1996. Councilman Cramer seconded the motion. A lady came forward and asked about the wording in the ordinance that refers to the height of the bushes. She indicated she works alone in her business and felt her safety could be jeopardized if the height of the bushes prevented her from seeing people on her premises. Mayor Bacon stated there is a motion and a second to table the ordinance until the April 1, 1996, Council meeting. Councilman Newcomb stated he felt that the property owners in the affected corridors should be mailed a copy of what this group of business/residential property owners comes up with. Councilman Hawkins asked who is going to form the group and how is it going to be appointed. Councilman Cramer stated he felt notices should be mailed out and whoever wanted to volunteer to serve on the committee should come out. Mayor Bacon asked that the motion be amended to say this issue will be tabled and the committee will bring the item back before council April 1, 1996. Councilman Newcomb stated that would be his motion. Councilman Cramer seconded the motion. City Attorney Chuck Camp stated the ordinance amendment will have to be re-advertised. Councilman Lnenicka stated he felt the April 1 date is a good and a bad one as Atlanta Road is still a road in transition. Motion was approved 7-0. .... (H) Business License Request - Su- Taxi - 2220 Atlanta Road, Suite 122 Mr. Thomson stated the agent will be Andres Trujillos who has come before the council before. Mayor Bacon stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone from the audience had any comment on this business license request. There was no opposition but a member of the audiience asked where the business would be located. Mr. Trujillos responded "the owners will have them at their own home; they will be owned by each individual; if they live out of Smyrna they will take them with them at the end of the day." Councilman Cramer asked Mr. Trujillos if all the drivers had completed the application process. Mr. Trujillos responded they had all been fingerprinted, provided health certificates and permitted. Councilman Cramer stated the Police Department investigation revealed nothing that would preclude the issuance of this license. Mr. Cramer asked Mr. Trujillos what type design his cars would have and Mr. Trujillos responded they would be green and white and presented pictures to the council. Councilman Cramer asked Mr. Trujillos where he lived and Mr. Trujillos responded he lives at 1835 Balmoral Road in Smyrna and one of his drivers lives in Chateaux De Ville and the other driver lives in an apartment on Cobb Parkway. Mr. Cramer asked if the cabs would be dispatched out of Atlanta Road and Mr. Trujillos responded yes. Mr. Cramer then asked if the cars had all been safety inspected and Mr. Trujillos responded that was correct. Mr. Cramer asked if all the cars had insurance and Mr. Trujillos responded that was correct. Mr. Cramer stated he noticed that the insurance was on a month-to-month basis and Mr. Trujillos responded that was correct. Mr. Cramer stated he was going to make, as part of his motion, the requirement that Mr. Trujillos would have to bring the city proof of insurance every month. ..... Councilman Wood asked Mr. Trujillos what experience he had in the taxi business. Mr. Trujillos responded he did not have any experience in the taxi business but has been in the service industry for the past ten years and is learning as fast as he can. Mr. Wood asked if Mr. Trujillos was aware this is a privilege license and Mr. Trujillos responded he did. Mayor Bacon asked about the cars that would be used in the taxi service and stated he noticed one of the December 4, 1995 meeting - continued cars is a 1990 Honda. Mr. Trujillos stated he did not have a lot of resources right now but he plans to get larger cars later. Mr. Trujillos stated the Honda is a five-passenger car. Mr. Trujillos stated he is a resident alien and will be a U.S. citizen in the three month period. Mayor Bacon then asked how Mr. Trujillos would ensure that he did not hire illegal immigrants to work for him. Mr. Trujillos responded he plans to personally verify their documents, fill out an 1-9 form and could even call the INS or the Social Security Office if necessary to verify the documents. Councilman Cramer asked how many drivers Mr. Trujillos currently has and he responded four but that ... eventually he would like to have ten drivers. Mr. Cramer asked if the drivers would be taking the cars home and Mr. Trujillos responded yes. Councilman Scoggins asked if the cars had been officially inspected yet and Mr. Trujillos responded they had not and that he understood that was the next step after the license was granted. Mr. Cramer asked if the cars were ready to be inspected and Mr. Trujillos responded they were. Councilman Newcomb asked about the dispatching of the taxis and stated he was concerned about the taxis being dispatched from a residence. Mr. Trujillos stated the cars could be left at the business location and dispatched from there. Mr. Newcomb stated he thought Mr. Trujillos had just testified that the cars would be taken to the homes of the drivers and dispatched from there. Mr. Trujillos stated that that was not set in stone and that he was very flexible in what needs to be done for what was right in the community. Councilman Newcomb asked if someone would be at the business location 24-hours a day and Mr. Trujillos responded hopefully, yes. Mr. Newcomb then stated the ordinance states "they shall maintain a central place of business and keep the place of business open 24-hours a day for the purpose of receiving calls and dispatching cabs." Mr. Trujillos then stated he would be open 24-hours a day. Councilman Lnenicka asked Mr. Trujillos if he would agree that if the license was granted, he would operate the taxis only out of the Atlanta Road business address. Mr. Trujillos responded yes he would. Mr. Lnenicka then asked Mr. Trujillos if he would operate the business 24-hours a day. Mr. Trujillos responded yes. ... Councilman Newcomb stated he had a concern that he would see a lot of taxis at Mr. Trujillos' place of residence. Councilman Cramer made a motion to approve the business license request for Su- Taxi at 2220 Atlanta Road, Suite 122. Councilman Lnenicka seconded the motion. Motion was approved 4-3 with Councilmen Patrick, Newcomb and Hawkins opposed. FORMAL BUSINESS: (A) Bid Opening (Bid #95026) - Cumberland Circle/Curtis Drive Water Line Installation Mayor Bacon asked if there were any bids in the audience. There were none. The bids were opened and read as follows: Campbell Contracting Company, Inc. Davis Contracting Company, Inc. Newell Contracting, Inc. Ralph Ardito's Ditching & Pipeline Company $50,875.00 $46,380.00 $46,346.00 $15,145.00 Councilman Wood made a motion the bids be turned over to the Public Works Committee for their review and that the Committee be authorized to award the bid to the low bidder meeting specifications. Councilman Scoggins seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. -- (B) Validate Petition to Annex 25 Acres - Land Lot 241, Parcel 5 Mr. Thomson stated the property owner, Ms. Janet Goethe, has applied for annexation of her property and this would be to validate the petition for annexation and to set a public hearing date. Councilman Wood made a motion to validate the petition of Ms. Janet M. Goethe to annex approximate! y 25 acres in Land Lot 241, Parcel 5, which is located off Concord Road and set a public hearing date for December 18, 1995. Councilman Scoggins seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. December 4, 1995 meeting - continued COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMITS: (A) Temporary Building Permit - Metro Emissions - 2750 Cobb Parkway Mayor Bacon asked the applicant to come forward. Councilman Patrick made a motion the temporary building permit for Metro Emissions to be located at 2750 Cobb Parkway (Service Merchandise parking lot) be approved. Motion was seconded by Councilman Scoggins. Motion was approved 7-0. BID AWARDS: -- (A) Bid Award (#95024) - Two Seven-yard Box Dump Trucks (Public Works Department) Councilman Wood stated several bids were solicited for the two seven-yard box dump trucks for the Street Department in the Public Works Department. He further stated only one bid was returned. Councilman Wood made a motion the bid be awarded to Smyrna Truck and Body for the purchase of two seven yard box dump trucks with a total delivered price of $89,549.72. Councilman Cramer seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6-0 with Councilman Scoggins abstaining. (B) Bid Award (#95025) - Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (Fire Department) Councilman Hawkins made a motion the bid be awarded to Fisher Safety America, the low bidder meeting specifications, for a total delivered price of $18,192. Councilman Cramer seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. CONSENT AGENDA: (A) Approval of November 20, 1995, Minutes (B) Approval to Use Council Chambers January 17, 1996, from 6:30 - 9:30 p.m., for Ward 6 Meeting (C) Budget Transfer - Court Services Councilman Hawkins made a motion to approved the consent agenda. Councilman Scoggins seconded ..... the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Councilman Wood announced there will be a public hearing on December 18, 1995, at 7:30 p.m. concerning the Business License, Occupational Tax fees for 1996. Councilman Lnenicka read a letter from a citizen commending the Public Works Department for their assistance in cleaning up their property after Hurricane Opal. Councilman Cramer complimented the Parks and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department for their efforts in preparing for the Christmas parade and tree lighting ceremony. Councilman Hawkins announced he will soon bring before Council the request to install speed humps on Quarles Avenue and also asked the Police Department to patrol Wills Street in an attempt to slow down speeders. Councilman Scoggins asked Ann Kirk for a report on Smyrna Clean and Beautiful. Ms. Kirk reported the leaf collection program will continue through the month of December. Councilman Patrick announced at the Library there will be an art display by Danny Alexander; Old Santa Clause display by Wanda Crane; and a train exhibit by Captain Fred Brack. ...." With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:03 p.m. December 4. 1995 meeting - continued A. MAX BACON, MAYOR 1 J .~) !/ tk/</(L'.../ !(J4frt4~ MELINDA DAMERON, CITY CLERK .. ~~ ;J~ RON NEWCOMB, WARD 2 L SCOGGINS, W a~~~ ~i$~ CHARLES PETE WOOD, WARD 7 '- '"'- .