dalton-whitfield county planning commission dalton ... · 4/7/2020 · mark gibson from: jim...

DAL TON-WHITFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 503 W. Waugh Street

DALTON, GEORGIA30720

MEMORANDUM EJO(Y~

TO: DALTON-WHITFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WHITFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS KIM WITHEROW MARK GIBSON

FROM: JIM LIDDERDALE CHAIRMAN

DATE: July 20, 2020

SUBJECT: JULY 2020 - DVW COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

The monthly meeting of the Dalton-V amell-Whitfield County Planning Commission will be held on Monday, July 27, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. at the Edwards Park Complex located at 115 Edwards Park, Dalton, Georgia. The minutes of the June 22, 2020 meeting are enclosed and the tentative agenda for the July 2020 meeting is listed below.

-TENTATIVE AGENDA-

I. General A. Meeting Called to Order; Quorum confirmed. B. Approval/Correction of June 22, 2020 Minutes

II. Public Hearing/Zoning Business (Zoning Procedures Explained)

A. To hear the request of David Rogers to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Light Manufacturing (M-1) a tract ofland totaling 1.01 acres located at 4248 South Dixie Highway, Resaca, Georgia. Parcel (13-153-04-000) (County)

B. To hear the request of Edgar Campos to rezone from Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) a tract of land totaling 0.32 acres located at 110 Allison Drive, Dalton, Georgia. Parcel (12-064-06-000) (County)

C. To hear the request of Juan Rico and Gabriela Guzman to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) a tract ofland totaling 2.27 acres located at 1891 Riverbend Road, Dalton, Georgia. Parcel (12-318-11-000) (County)

D. To hear the request of Carlos Simon to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) a tract ofland totaling 0.23 acres located at 1010 Smith Springs Drive, Dalton, Georgia. Parcel (12-351-04-011) (County)

E. To hear the request of Armando Vasquez to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) a tract of land totaling 0.95 acres located at 1705 Antioch Road, Dalton, Georgia. Parcel (12-293-24-000) (County)

F. To hear the request of Lorenzo Valencia and Gracia Barragan to rezone from Transitional

Commerdal (C-4) to General Commercial (C-2) a tract of land totaling 0.41 acres located at 915 S. Hamilton Street, Dalton, Georgia. Parcel (12-257-02-016) (City)

III. Regular Meeting

A. To hear the recommendation regarding the request of David Rogers to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Light Manufacturing (M-1) a tract ofland totaling 1.01 acres located at 4248 South Dixie Highway, Resaca, Georgia. Parcel (13-153-04-000) (County)

B. To hear the recommendation regarding the request of Edgar Campos to rezone from Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) a tract ofland totaling 0.32 acres located at 110 Allison Drive, Dalton, Georgia. Parcel (12-064-06-000) (County)

C. To hear the recommendation regarding the request of Juan Rico and Gabriela Guzman to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) a tract ofland totaling 2.27 acres located at 1891 Riverbend Road, Dalton, Georgia. Parcel (12-318-11-000) (County)

D. To hear the recommendation regarding the request of Carlos Simon to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) a tract of land totaling 0.23 acres located at 1010 Smith Springs Drive, Dalton, Georgia. Parcel (12-351-04-011) (County)

E. To hear the recommendation regarding the request of Armando Vasquez to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) a tract ofland totaling 0.95 acres located at 1705 Antioch Road, Dalton, Georgia. Parcel (12-293-24-000) (County)

F. To hear the recommendation regarding the request of Lorenzo Valencia and Gracia Barragan to rezone from Transitional Commercial (C-4) to General Commercial (C-2) a tract of land totaling 0.41 acres located at 915 S. Hamilton Street, Dalton, Georgia. Parcel (12-257-02-016) (City)

G. Preliminary Plat Review- Stave Ridge

H. Preliminary Plat Review- Brookside

I. Officer Elections- Chairman and Vice-Chairman

J Other

IV. Adjournment

~

MINUTES DALTON-WIIlTFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

June 22, 2020

MEMBERS PRESENT Jim Lidderdale, Chairman ScottDeLay David Pennington IV Jody McClurg

WHITFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Lynn Laughter; Chairperson, Harold Brooker, Greg Jones, Roger Crossen, and Barry Robbins

VISITORS PRESENT Brandon Harrison, Alltoona and Anita Holland, Anthony Tackett, and others

STAFF PRESENT Ethan Calhoun Jean Price-Garland Robert Smalley

I. GENERAL

A. Call to Order: Chairman Laughter called the meeting to order at 5 :56 p.m. and confirmed a quorum of commissioners was present with no absences. Chairman Lidderdale confirmed a quorum of members was present with John Thomas and David Pennington absent, and Lidderdale introduced Eric Barr as the newest Planning Commission member filling the unexpired term of Mitch Sanford.

B. Minutes: Chairman Lidderdale sought a motion to approve or correct the April 27, 2020 special called meeting minutes. Mr. DeLay made the motion to accept the minutes as written and his motion was seconded by Ms. McClurg which then passed unanimously 3-0.

Mr. Calhoun gave a brief overview of the meeting procedures and stated that final action would likely occur during the regular July meetings of the Whitfield County Board of Commissioners and City of Dalton and Varnell Mayor and Councils.

II. REZONING PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Heard the request of David Rogers to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Light Manufacturing (M-1) a tract of land totaling 1.01 acres located at 4248 South Dixie Highway, Resaca, Georgia. Parcel (13-153-04-000) (County) Chairman Lidderdale stated that the petitioner had requested to table the rezoning hearing for one month and that there would be no public hearing for this item during the current meeting. Although Lidderdale did not open the public hearing for this item, Mr. Alltoona Holland, accompanied by his wife Anita, voiced that they were opposed to the rezoning. Holland continued to speak out of turn for several minutes in disagreement with the zoning procedures.

B. Heard the request of Anthony Tackett to rezone from Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) to Rural Residential (R-5) a tract ofland totaling .59 acres located at 120 Dycus Road, Dalton, Georgia. Parcel (12-205-01-028) (County) Mr. Calhoun oriented the audience to the subject property and summarized the staff analysis which was

in favor of the requested R-5 Rezoning. Chairman Laughter asked Mr. Calhoun to elaborate on the reason for there bei?g a significant R-2 zone district in this location. Calhoun stated that he speculates , -that zoning this area R-2 was likely and oversight by staff in years past based on the age and number of existing manufactured homes in this area. Mr. DeLay asked Calhoun to clarify if the proposed rezoning would qualify as a "spot zone," and Calhoun noted that due to the residential nature ofR-2 and R-5, there would be no grounds for spot zoning. Calhoun went on to state that the type and condition of existing housing stock in this area are actually more indicative of the proposed R-5 zone district. Laughter also referred to the Comprehensive Plan's map and the significant size of the Community Activity Center at this location. Calhoun stated that the nature of character areas can often times be a broad stroke of the brush and that areas such as this would need greater attention during the next update of the comprehensive plan. Anthony Tackett represented the request and simply stated that the need for the rezoning was in order to replace the existing dwelling with a manufactured home due to the number of repairs to the dwelling exceeds the cost of a manufactured home. With no other comments heard for or against this hearing closed.

C. Heard the request of the City of Dalton Mayor and Council to amend the Unified Zoning Ordinance to create clearer definitions, make inserts or omissions (including definitions as well as permitted uses), and otherwise improve the context and readability of the zoning text. The proposed amendments will affect Group Homes, Personal Care Homes, and Boutique Hotels, but other definitions and permitted uses may also be added/amended in this process. Mr. Calhoun summarized the staff analysis which proposed several amendments to the UZO. Chairman Laughter asked several questions in regard to the existing senior care facilities in the community and stated that she wanted to ensure that none of those facilities would be impacted negatively. Unable to pinpoint those facilities and confirm their zoning, Calhoun and Price-Garland stated that they would confirm and report prior to any final action to ensure that the existing facilities were zoned appropriately. Price-Garland stated that even in the case that the existing uses weren't zoned accordingly, those properties would be able to continue their operations unphased by way of the UZO' s non-conformity clause. Laughter also pointed out that some facilities offered care to both minors and seniors and pointed out that none of the proposed definitions described such a combination. PriceGarland stated that there are instances where one facility may obtain licenses for multiple programs through the state and operate multiple programs on a single property. Ms. McClurg requested an existing example of some of the proposed definitions, but Calhoun and Price-Garland were unable to give certain examples of facilities already established in the community. With no other comments heard for or against this hearing closed.

III. REGULAR MEETING

A. Recommendation regarding the request of David Rogers to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Light Manufacturing (M-1) a tract ofland totaling 1.01 acres located at 4248 South Dixie Highway, Resaca, Georgia. Parcel (13-153-04-000) (County) Chairman Lidderdale restated that this item would be tabled and would likely appear on the July agenda.

B. Recommendation regarding the request of Anthony Tackett to rezone from Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) to Rural Residential (R-5) a tract of land totaling .59 acres located at 120 Dycus Road, Dalton, Georgia. · Parcel (12-205-01-028) (County) Chairman Lidderdale sought a motion on the proposed R-5 rezoning. Mr. DeLay then made a motion to recommend an approval of the R-5 rezoning based on his agreement with the content of the staff analysis. Ms. McClurg seconded the motion and a recommendation to recommend an approval of the R-5 rezoning followed, 3-0.

C. Recommendation regarding the request of the City of Dalton Mayor and Council to amend .·. the Unified Zoning Ordinance to create clearer definitions, make inserts or omissions (including

defmitions as well as permitted uses), and otherwise improve the context and readability of the zoning text. The proposed amendments will affect Group Homes, Personal Care Homes, and Boutique Hotels, but other definitions and permitted uses may also be added/amended in this process. Chairman Lidderdale sought a motion on the requested text amendments. Mr. DeLay then made a motion to recommend the proposed text amendments based on his agreement with the content of the staff analysis. Ms. McClurg then seconded the motion and a unanimous recommendation to approve the proposed text amendments followed, 3-0.

D. Preliminary Plat Review- Stave Ridge Ms. Price-Garland oriented the Planning Commission members to the subject property along Old Babb and Quarles Roads, and Price-Garland drew attention to the need for flag lot review on three of the 32 proposed lots. Price-Garland stated that tracts 4, 16, and 17 meet the criteria for flag lots. Chairman Lidderdale asked Brandon Harrison, the developer, why he was proposing the three flag lots, and Harrison stated that the three flag lots were needed simply to maximize the number of lots in this development without creating a new road. Some discussion in regard to storm water requirements was prompted by Chairman Laughter that resulted in the understanding that this property would not be required to create retention ponds. Price-Garland noted that the issue with many flag lots is due to the fact that the view from the flag lots is often of the backs of other nearby estates, but Price-Garland went on to state that views from the three proposed flag lots would be blocked by existing tree cover if those trees are not harvested. Harrison stated that he was not intending on logging this property prior to developing. Some discussion prompted by Ms. McClurg occurred in regard to the types of dwellings proposed for this development that resulted in a generalized understanding that price points will vary from upper lO0's to 250,000 dollars with the opportunity for more elaborate estates on the larger flag lots such as lot 4. Mr. DeLay made a motion to approve the final plat as drawn, including with the variances for the three flag lots as drawn. His motion was seconded by Ms. McClurg, which then passed unanimously 3-0.

E. 4:1 Lot Ratio Review- Stephen & Alice Jones Ms. Price-Garland oriented the Planning Commission members to the subject property along King's Bridge Road, and Price-Garland drew attention to the need for 4: 1 lot ratio review on the proposed plat. Price-Garland stated that this property is proposed to be subdivided in order to create an opportunity

for a gentleman to deed a tract of land to his brother in order for his brother to construct a dwelling. She went on to state that the need for a separate parcel in this case is in order for the brother to be able to use the new property as collateral for a mortgage as well as have the benefit of homestead exemption on property taxes. Chairman Lidderdale asked if there are issues expected with shared access easements in regard to long-term maintenance. Price-Garland stated that shared access easements almost always result in issues with shared maintenance. Mr. DeLay confirmed that the proposed tracts would each be eleven acres in size. Ms. McClurg made a motion to approve the final plat as drawn, including the variances for the 4:1 lot ratio. Her motion was seconded by Mr. DeLay, which then passed unanimously 3-0.

F. Other Business

IV. ADJOURNMENT With no other business scheduled, the meeting adjourned at approximately 7: 15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

STAFF ANALYSIS REZONING REQUEST

Unified Zoning Ordinance

ZONING CASE: David Rogers is seeking to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Light Manufacturing (M-1) a 1.01-acre tract of land located at 4248 South Dixie Highway (parcel 13-153-04-000). The tract currently contains a small office building and a 6,800 sqft. warehouse-type building.

The surrounding uses and zoning are as follows: 1) to the north, there are four tracts that are each of similar size to the subject property, are each zoned R-5, and each contain a singlefamily detached dwelling; 2) to the east, is a tract of similar size rot the subject property zoned R-5 which contains a single-family detached dwelling; 3) to the south, is a five-acre tract of land that contains a commercial or warehouse-type structure that is zoned C-2; and 4) to the west, is a 101-acre tract of land containing three single-family detached dwellings that is zoned C-2. This area's land use and zoning reflect the nature of a typical interstate interchange with a concentration of commercial and industrial uses in near proximity to the interchange.

The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Whitfield County Board of Commissioners near the Carbondale Rd./I-75 interchange.

CONSIDERING FACTORS FOR A REZONING/ANNEXATION ANALYSIS

(A) Whether the proposed amendment would allow a use that is generally suitable for the site compared to other possible uses and whether the proposed change is consistent with the established land use pattern and zoning of adjacent and nearby properties. In this area of the County, development patterns were primarily influenced by the introduction of

---- 1:ie Carb0ndale-iAteFGl"lar:i9e.,-This area is Rot 0Rly-serveEl-by-the-logistiGally attFaGtiV·t-!-----interchange, but the area is also served with industrial capacity water and sewer. With the existence of the previously mentioned resources, it is no surprise that a concentration of industrial and commercial uses has developed in this area. The area, however, is not a strictly commercial/industrial hub, and it is common for single-family residential or agricultural properties to directly abut industrial properties with little to no buffer area. The subject property has existed on the boundary of commercial to residential land use for a number of decades. In the past, the subject property existed as a conforming commercial property and has since gained interest in a different use that would require a rezoning. While the M-1 zone district is a more intensive zone district than the C-2 zone district, one can see that other manufacturing zone districts and land uses are nearby the subject property.

(B) Whether the proposed (M-1) amendment would adversely affect the economic value or the uses of adjacent and nearby properties. Due to the character of the subject property paired with its current zoning, the proposed M-1 rezoning will likely have no impact on the adjacent or nearby residentially zoned and developed properties. The adjacent and nearby residential properties have already been impacted be the subject property's commercial character, and it is unlikely that any type of significant growth can occur on the subject property due to its limited lot size.

(C) Whether the subject property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned, considering the suitability of the subject property for the proposed zoned uses. It is fair to say that the subject property could continue operation as a commercial property based on the existing structures and location. The subject property is, however, capable of supporting the proposed land use with little or no perceived change from the vantage points of adjacent or nearby properties. It is typically recommended that heavy commercial and manufacturing uses be encouraged in areas that already have high capacity utilities and proximity to major arterial highways.

(D) Whether there is relative gain to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public as compared to any hardship imposed upon the individual owner under the existing zoning. N/A

(E) Whether the proposed (M-1) amendment, if adopted or approved, would result in a use which would or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, schools, sewers, water resources, police and fire protection, or other utilities, as contrasted with the impact under the existing zoning. No burden on utilities is expected. The limiting factors of the subject property's size and lack of significant road frontage prevent any type of high consumptive use regardless of the underlying zoning.

Whether the property sought to be rezoned (or annexed) is in conformity with the policy and intent of the adopted joint comprehensive plan or equivalent. If not, has the plan already been amended, officially or unofficially, by the development of uses which are contrary to the plan recommendation, and if the plan has been amended, does this rezoning or annexation request allow uses which are compatible to the existing uses in the vicinity. The comprehensive Plan's Future Development Map identifies the subject property to be with in the Interchange character area. This character area is intended to promote auto-centric commercial land use as well as industrial and manufacturing land uses. The proposed rezoning would be an excellent implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and Future Development Map.

(F) Whether there are any other conditions or transitional patterns affecting the use and development of the property to be rezoned or annexed, which give grounds for approval or disapproval of the proposed zoning proposal. Whether the proposed zoning change constitutes an "entering wedge" and is a deterrent to the use, improvement, or development of adjacent property within the surrounding zone districts or would create an isolated, unrelated district (spot zone) as interpreted by current Georgia law. The M-1 and C-2 zone districts are each high-intensive land use districts. There is, however, a distinct difference in manufacturing vs. commercial land use from a technical standpoint. While this rezoning would create an island of M-1 that is not adjacent to any other manufacturing zone districts, the perceived difference in these land uses should go unnoticed by the adjacent and nearby properties. Warehousing and distribution may take pace in the C-2 zone district, and all uses in M-1 are prohibited from producing

noises and smells that would negatively affect adjacent and surrounding properties. Based on the adjacent C-2 zone district, adjacent commercial/manufacturing land use, nearby M-2 zone district, and the Interchange character area in the Comprehensive Plan, this planner is not concerned that this rezoning will create an entering wedge or a true "spot zone" that would plague the area.

(G) Whether the subject property, as currently zoned, is vacant and undeveloped for a long period of time, considered in the context of land development in the vicinity or whether there are environmental or cultural factors, like steep slopes, flood plain, storm water, or historical issues that influence the development of the subject property under any zoning designation. No issues identified.

CONCLUSION:

Staff can provide a recommendation to approve the M-1 rezoning at this location based on the following factors:

1) No adverse impact to surrounding property values is expected.

2) The desired use can occur without creating long-term issues related to utilities or infrastructural burden.

3) The proposed rezoning would be an excellent implementation of the Comprehensive Plan's Future Development Map.

N

W+E s

ZONING

- General Agriculture (GA)

CJ Rural Residential (R-5)

CJ Rural Residential (R-5) Cond

- General Commercial (C-2)

- General Commercial (C-2) Cond

- Heavy Manufacturing (M-2)

FEET 300

Rogers Rezoning Request C-2, General Commercial

to M-1, Light Manufacturing

N W+E s

FEET 300

,


to M-1 , Light Manufacturing

N

W+E s

FEET 150


to M-1, Light Manufacturing

.

N W+E s

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MAP

- Interchange

D Rural Neighborhood - Revitalization

D Suburban

FEET 300

I .~.--✓ Rogers Rezoning Request

C-2, General Commercial to

M-1, Light Manufacturing



ZONING CASE: Edger Campos is seeking to rezone from Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) a tract of land (parcel 12-064-06-000) containing 0.37 acres. The tract is currently developed cpntaining one single family detached dwelling. The rezoning request to C-1 is sought to serve a single purpose on· the site: A professional office for bookkeeping and tax service. We understand the existing residence will need to be remodeled for the proposed use.

The surrounding uses and zoning are as follows: 1) To the north, is a 6.6-acre undeveloped tract located within the same C-2 zone as the subject property. 2) To the east is the same tract adjacent to the north . 3) To the south is a tract containing Pleasant Grove Elementary as well as the school's athletic field. 4) To the west, across Allison Drive is the same tract adjacent to the south. All in all, a review of the zoning map in color shows the subject property to be entirely surrounded by C-2 General Commercial tracts within a 360 degree radius. This C-2 zone district is seen primarily along the R/W of Cleveland Highway aka Highway 71 one of the County's arterial commercial corridors.

The subject property is with in the jurisdiction of the Whitfield County Board of Commissioners.


(A) Whether the proposed amendment would allow a use that is generally suitable for the site compared to other possible uses and whether the proposed change is consistent with the established land use pattern and zoning of adjacent and nearby properties. With only two different zone districts in this vicinity the proposed amendment would allow the same uses as the majority of the surrounding area. All of the zoning and land uses have functioned fairly well in this area with the exception of a few non-conforming uses nearby. The character of the proposed professional office would be an acceptable fit when observing the surrounding uses as a low-intensity commercial district adjacent to the public elementary school. The subject property is entirely surrounded by the General Commercial C-2 zone district, and was itself, previously zoned C-2 until 2018 when it was rezoned to R-2 for the operation of a small daycare facility. The character of land use in the area surrounding the subject property is either undeveloped or part of the elementary school campus. The proposed C-1 zone district would be an excellent fir for the subject property in order to buffer the impact of the more intensive commercial uses that are permitted within the C-2 zone district.

(B) Whether the proposed amendment would adversely affect the economic value or the uses of adjacent and nearby properties. Given that the subject property is adjacent to the elementary school along 50% of its border there would be no economic impact, positive or negative, to the school property if this request were to be approved. Rezoning the subject property to C-1 from R-2 would also remove any buffer requirements from the other undeveloped commercially zoned property adjacent to the subject property.

(C) Whether the subject property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned, considering the suitability of the subject property for the proposed zoned uses. When considering the surrounding uses both nearby and adjacent to the subject property one will note that R-2 is an odd fit for the subject property when considering the surrounding C-2 zone district. The reasoning for the R-2 rezoning was in order for the previous owner to operate a family day care home, which was not permitted within the C-2 zone district. The R-2 zoning of the subject property for the operation of the family day care home was seen as a good fit for the property at the time based on the location, existing dwelling, and future land use map. The previous owner has since sold the property, and the current owner wishes to use the property and remodel the dwelling as a small professional office. Considering the proximity of the subject property to the school campus as well as the other nearby commercial properties, the subject property would be more suited for the proposed rezoning and land use than its current.

(D) Whether there is relative gain to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public as compared to any hardship imposed upon the individual owner under the existing zoning. NIA

(E) Whether the proposed (C-1) amendment, if adopted or approved, would result in a use which would or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, schools, sewers, water resources, police and fire protection, or other utilities, as contrasted with the impact under the existing zoning. There would be no burden on infrastructure or utilities created by rezoning the subject property based on its limited size and low intensity nature of the proposed use. It is also worth noting that a sewer expansion is underway to provide sewer to Pleasant Grove Elementary which will mean that the subject property could tap into the new sewer line if desired. The change from residential to commercial use of the subject property will prompt the need for a proper parking area for the proposed professional office. The UZO requires professional offices to provide a minimum of 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000sq.ft. of gross floor area. Since the existing dwelling on the subject property is approximately 1,249sq.ft., the property will need approximately 4-5 parking spaces to satisfy the minimum parking requirements. Based on the accessibi lity and available space on the subject property, it appears as though there will be sufficient space for the required parking spaces.

1

(F) Whether the property sought to be rezoned (or annexed) is in conformity with the policy and intent of the adopted joint comprehensive plan or equivalent. If not, has the plan already been amended, officially or unofficially, by the development of uses which are contrary to the plan recommendation, and if the plan has been amended, does this rezoning or annexation request allow uses which are compatible to the existing uses in the vicinity. The subject property is labeled with the Suburban Neighborhood character area. This area is representative of conventional patterns of post-World War II suburban residential subdivision development that have been the dominant pattern. In addition to conventional subdivisions, some multi-family uses are present in this character area. Neighborhoods tend to have larger lot sizes, high to moderate degree of building separation, and are predominantly residential, including cul-de-sacs. Primary land uses in this character area should be single-family residential and park, but small neighborhood commercial land uses are acceptable in this character area. Based on the existing land use in this area, along with the existing zoning of the area, there is no concern that the proposed C-1 rezoning would be in conflict with the comprehensive plan at this location.

(G) Whether there are any other conditions or transitional patterns affecting the use and development of the property to be rezoned or annexed, which give grounds for approval or disapproval of the proposed zoning proposal. Whether the proposed zoning change constitutes an "entering wedge" and is a deterrent to the use, improvement, or development of adjacent property within the surrounding zone districts or would create an isolated, unrelated district (spot zone) as interpreted by current Georgia law. C-1 and C-2 share the commercial land use characteristic, so there is no cause for concern with spot zoning or an entering wedge in this case.

(H) Whether the subject property, as currently zoned, is vacant and undeveloped for a long period of time, considered in the context of land development in the vicinity or whether there are environmental or cultural factors, like steep slopes, flood plain, storm water, or historical issues that influence the development of the subject property under any zoning designation. NIA.

CONCLUSION: This analysis is not a difficult one due to the consistent development pattern of the surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent elementary school.

The staff can provide a recommendation for the C-1 zone at this location based on the following:

1) By rezoning the subject property to C-1 the permitted uses are not expected to negatively impact any of the economic values or compromise integrity of the surrounding properties or neighborhoods; and

2) The residential (C-1) request is not in conflict with the "Suburban Neighborhood"

character area within the comprehensive plan, considering the surrounding land use and zoning at this location; and

3) There is not an expectation that this location is to expect more intense commercialization, based on the subject property's limited size.

\ .

N W+E s

ZONING

Ill General Agriculture (GA)

Ill Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2)

Ill General Commercial (C-2)

FEET 250

Campos Rezoning Request R-2, Low Density Single Family Residential

to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial

---

N

W+E s

FEET 150

I

Campos Rezoning Request R-2, Low Density Single Family Residential

to -~- C-1, Neighborhood Commercial

N W+E s


- Community Activity Center

- Emerging Suburban and Exurban Areas

- Preserve

LJsuburban

FEET 250

Campos Rezoning Request R-2, Low Density Single· Family Residential

to

"

C-1, Neighborhood Commercial

... .. .. ' .. , ..

~"":..•WA• ,,,,. ~ ..,, __ 'It

I- --~ ~ •

,P!HHolGrove DR NE

-



ZONING CASE: Juan Rico and Gabriela Guzman are seeking to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) a tract of land (parcel 12-318-11-000) containing 2.27-acres. The tract is currently developed containing one single family detached dwelling. The rezoning request to R-2 is sought to serve a single purpose on the site: Create a conforming residential tract. This request was prompted by a permit for a residential pool.

The surrounding uses and zoning are as follows: 1) To the north, are two adjacent tracts. The smaller northern tract totals 1.1-acres is zoned R-2 and contains a singlefamily detached dwelling. The other northern adjacent tract totals 10-acres contains a single-family detached dwelling and is zoned Rural Residential R-5). 2) To the east are two adjacent tracts across the South Bypass that are each zoned R-5 and undeveloped. 3) To the south, is a single undeveloped tract zoned C-2 that totals 3.38-acres. 4) To the west, are two adjacent tracts that each contain a single-family dwelling. One of the western tracts totals 0.96-acres and is zoned C-2 while the other western adjacent tract totals 1.26-acres and is zoned R-2. All in all , a review of the zoning map in color shows the subject property to be part of a small crossroads commercial zone district.

The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Whitfield County Board of Commissioners near Southeast Whitfield High School.

CONSIDERING FACTORS FOR A REZONING/ANNEXATION ANALYSIS -·- - -·------·---- -- --·- ·--·- - - --·-· - ·----·--- -- -··--·-- --•-·•-

(A) Whether the proposed amendment would allow a use that is generally suitable for the site compared to other possible uses and whether the proposed change is consistent with the established land use pattern and zoning of adjacent and nearby properties. A visual survey of this area indicates that low-density single-family detached dwellings are the predominant use throughout this area. The zoning map would also indicate a consistent residential nature. While one will note the small commercial island located at the South Bypass and Riverbend Rd intersection, a look at the existing land use at this location differs greatly. Over 50% of the commercially zoned property in this area, including the subject property, is developed for single-family detached residential use. The proposed rezoning would help separate the non-conforming residential property from the commercial zone district.

(8) Whether the proposed amendment would adversely affect the economic value or the uses of adjacent and nearby properties. Based on the surrounding land uses, the present use of the subject property, and nature of the R-2 zone district, there is no concern for any negative economic impact on the adjacent properties.

(C) Whether the subject property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned, considering the suitability of the subject property for the proposed zoned uses. The subject property has been developed as a residential property for a number of years likely predating the County's zoning ordinance. At a point in time, however, a dwelling would have been permitted in the commercial zone district until the adoption of the Unified Zoning Ordinance in Fall of 2015. Since that time the subject property has been a non-conforming residential property with a commercial zoning.

(D) Whether there is refative gain to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public as compared to any hardship imposed upon the individual owner unde·r the existing zoning. N/A

(E) Whether the proposed (R-2) amendment, if adopted or approved, would result in a use which would or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, schools, sewers, water resources, police and fire protection, or other utilities, as contrasted with the impact under the existing zoning. By rezoning the subject property to R-2 there would be a significant reduction in potential traffic generation and utility consumption, but due to the existing land use and proposed rezoning no change is expected from its current character.

(F) Whether the property sought to be rezoned (or annexed) is in conformity with the policy and intent of the adopted joint comprehensive plan or equivalent. If not, has the plan already been amended, officially or unofficially, by the development of uses which are contrary to the plan recommendation, and if the plan has been amended, does this rezoning or annexation request allow uses which are compatible to the existing uses in the vicinity. The subject property is within the Emerging Suburban character area. The emerging suburban character are targets areas planned to develop as predominately single-fami ly detached residential style. The proposed R-2 rezoning would be an excellent implementation of the· comprehensive plan and future development map.

(G) Whether there are any other conditions or transitional patterns affecting the use and development of the property to be rezoned or annexed, which give grounds for approval or disapproval of the proposed zoning proposal. Whether the proposed zoning change constitutes an "entering wedge" and is a deterrent to the use, improvement, or development of adjacent property within the surrounding zone districts or would create an isolated, unrelated district (spot zone) as interpreted by current Georgia law. While the proposed R-2 rezoning would not create a spot zone in regard to the subject property, it would create an island of C-2 on the eastern boundary of the subject property. Based on the existing development and limited size of the eastern adjacent property, there is no cause for concern in this planner's opinion in regard to the negative impacts of spot zones.

{H) Whether the subject property, as currently zoned, is vacant and undeveloped for a long period of time, considered in the context of land development in the vicinity or whether there are environmental or cultural factors, like steep slopes, flood plain, storm water, or historical issues that influence the development of the subject property under any zoning designation. NIA.

CONCLUSION: This analysis is not a difficult one due to the consistent development pattern of the surrounding neighborhoods.

The staff can provide a recommendation for the R-2 zone at this location based on the following:

1) By rezoning the subject property to R-2 the permitted uses are not expected to negatively impact any of the economic values or compromise integrity of the surrounding properties or neighborhoods; and

2) The residential R-2 request is an excellent implementation of the Emerging Suburban character area within the comprehensive plan; and

3) There is not an expectation that this location is to expect commercialization, based on the subject property's limited size and existing development as a single-family detached dwelling.

N

W+E s

ZONING

11111 General Agriculture (GA)

f·i,.::' -:~I Rural Residential (R-5)

11111 Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2)

11111 Transitional Residential (R-6)

11111 General Commercial (C-2)

-5ED ~ s ~~le.. ~~b D-dl~

FEET 500

Rico-Guzman Rezoning Request C-2, General Commercial

to R-2, Low Density Single Family Residential

N W+E s

FEET 500

,

Rico-Guzman Rezoning Request C-2, General Commercial


-T-

__;-.-- j t i : f _.--- i - ·----, I I , , , -'~ , \ _- ' _j ,___ ,.- I

<~\ --,-'' ,., : = ·c.'."T . . -...,~ -- ,~. ---/-• __,-\ \ I I . - ___ 1::.----: ----'---;--..:----;: "~ -- , .' /./

1 I , , c. -· . 7 . •. , ., • -·''-·-·- l . ' ,, ;.;. ,,, '

Ill - I

--. 'r - : · - c -~ 1 /A · · , >----,: / _/, ·-· ' : ,· . ". [

- ·!J I . . , . 1/'o'- · ; ' I ' , : I ______ --k

·- --ff-~//-_: ._ - .· •-.di_ ('~ / . I · t·-- - . ':"-· I ,-, ~ -

Ji • -- .s,,; · ., ·- . '

:-•-., '1' ' .. ·- ', - '

~ ~

· •.!:i.

" -;

--f11~, ~ :... ~~

I .• .

1:;~ . . - J ,· ' ~ ' ~:· . 'j

1-~---.!...._ •

. .''1•~.:. ---;~---. ~ - -· lJ:I' • ·cc - L - 1 I . . ,... . . .

I

I

I

/

, ... - -.

§1&

vL J$,,Y

,II' . - -'d D

- -;i

I

Ii" '1 I

I

N

W+E s

FEET 200

Rico-Guzman, Rezoning· Request C-2, General Commercial

to R-2, Low Density Single· Family Residential

N

W+E s


1111 Emerging Suburban and Exurban Areas

1111 Preserve

CJ Suburban

FEET 500

·r Ri"co-Guzman Rezoning Request C-2, General Commercial

to R-2, Low Density Sing le Family Residential



ZONING CASE: Carlos Simon seeking to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) a tract of land (parcel 12-351-04-011) containing 0.23-acres. The tract is currently developed containing one single family detached dwelling. The rezoning request to R-2 is sought to serve a single purpose on the site: Create a conforming residential tract. This zoning issue was discovered when the petitioner attempted to obtain a permit to remodel the dwelling.

The surrounding uses and zoning are as follows: 1) To the north, is a tract containing a single-family detached dwelling as well as a commercial/lig ht industrial structure. The northern tract is zoned C-2 and totals 0.94-acres. 2) To the east, across Smith Springs Dr. is a tract containing a single-family detached dwelling that totals 0.8-acres and is zoned R-5 Rural Residential. 3) To the south, is a 2.82-acre undeveloped tract that is zoned R-5. 4) To the west, is a 1.68-acre tract zoned C-2 that contains two singlefamily detached dwellings. All in all, a review of the zoning map in color shows the subject property to be at the convergence or the commercial and residential zone districts.

The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Whitfield County Board of Commissioners.


- (-A) --Whether-the proposed-amendment-would-allow-a-use-that-is--genera-lly suitable for the site compared to other possible uses and whether the proposed change is consistent with the established land use pattern and zoning of adjacent and nearby properties. The subject property lies on the border of commercial and residential zoned property. approximately 50% of the surrounding adjacent property is zoned for residential land use, while the vast majority of actual surrounding land use is single-family detached residential. The subject property itself is zoned for commercial use, however, it has been developed for single-family use since the 1960's based on tax assessor's data.

(B) Whether the proposed amendment would adversely affect the economic value or the uses of adjacent and nearby properties. As stated previously, the subject property has been developed as a single-family property for a significant amount of time. The majority of adjacent properties are also developed for single-family land use. The proposed rezoning would likely have no impact on the value of adjacent property in this area.

(C) Whether the subject property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned, considering the suitability of the subject property for the proposed zoned uses.

Since the subject property contains a single-family detached dwelling, the structure is considered non-conforming. When a structure is non-conforming no permits for expansion-related work will be granted unless the property can be rezoned appropriately. There are also no visible signs that there had ever been a commercial use on the subject property. The proposed rezoning would simply allow the subject property to have a conforming land use.

(D) Whether there is relative gain to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public as compared to any hardship imposed upon the individual owner under the existing zoning. N/A

(E) Whether the proposed (R-2) amendment, if adopted or approved, would result in a use which would or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, schools, sewers, water resources, police and fire protection, or other utilities, as contrasted with the impact under the existing zoning. By rezoning the subject property to R-2 there would be a significant reduction in potential traffic generation and utility consumption when considering the potential uses permitted within the C-2 zone district. Due to the existing land use and proposed rezoning no change is expected from its current character.

(F) Whether the property sought to be rezoned (or annexed) is in conformity with the policy and intent of the adopted joint comprehensive plan or equivalent. If not, has the plan already been amended, officially or unofficially, by the development of uses which are contrary to the plan recommendation, and if the plan has been amended, does this rezoning or annexation request allow uses which are compatible to the existing uses in the vicinity. The Comprehensive Plan's Future Development Map shows the subject property to be with in the Suburban character area. This character area typically represents areas that have already been developed for post \/INVI I suburban residential style land use. Primary land uses in this character area are single-family residential with the opportunity for appropriate neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed rezoning would be in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan.

(G) Whether there are any other conditions or transitional patterns affecting the use and development of the property to be rezoned or annexed, which give grounds for approval or disapproval of the proposed zoning proposal. Whether the proposed zoning change constitutes an "entering wedge" and is a deterrent to the use, improvement, or development of adjacent property within the surrounding zone districts or would create an isolated, unrelated district (spot zone) as interpreted by current Georgia law. The proposed rezoning would create an island of R-2 if it were to be approved. The fact that the subject property is adjacent to a large R-5 zone district, however, means that there is no cause for concern for spot zoning Since the R-2 and R-5 zone districts have similar characteristics.



The staff can provide a recommendation for the R-2 zone at this location based on the following:

1) By rezoning the subject property to R-2 the permitted uses are not expected to negatively impact any of the economic values or compromise integrity of the surrounding properties; and

2) The residential R-2 request is a good fit for the Suburban character area within the comprehensive plan; and

3) There is not an expectation that this location is to expect commercialization, based on the subject property's limited size and existing development as a single-family detached dwelling.

W+E s

ZONING

D Rural Residential (R-5)

- General Commercial (C-2)

- Heavy Manufacturing (M-2)

.5FD -.s;~,e ~.!, D,,.e)I~

) ND -~---V G~o~\ v>I.D- UnJe\le.W FEET

300

Simon Rezoning Request C-2, General Commercial


N W+E s

FEET 300

·.-,



N

W+E s

FEET 100

'.



N

W+E s


~ Industrial

D Suburban

FEET 300



i ,....r ·----~ •

r~"!-!"!'-!' -

OhloWJf/f === - -

t•l~w~v_ - ..: I ,t , .

11 ' ... ....._ ' .. ~~! - .



ZONING CASE: Armando Vasquez seeking to rezone from General Commercial (C-2) to Low Density Single Family Residential (R-2) a tract of land (parcel 12-293-24-000) containing 0.95-acres. The tract is currently developed with a singlefamily detached dwelling. The rezoning request to R-2 is sought to serve a single purpose on the site: Create a conforming residential tract. This zoning issue was discovered when the petitioner attempted to obtain a permit to build a detached garage.

The surrounding uses and zoning are as follows: 1) To the north, is an undeveloped tract containing 0.56-acres and zoned Rural Residential R-5. 2) To the east, is a 2.49-acre undeveloped tract zoned Rural Residential. 3) To the south, is a 3.43-acre tract that contains a single-family detached dwelling zoned R-5. 4) To the west, across Antioch Rd, are two adjacent tracts zoned R-5. One of the western tracts totals 1.45-acres and contains multiple single-family detached dwellings including two manufactured homes. The other western tract totals 1.38-acres and contains a singlefamily detached dwelling. All in all , a review of the zoning map in color shows the subject property to be an island of non-conforming commercial entirely surrounded by residentially zoned and developed property.

The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Whitfield County Board of Commissioners.


(A) Whether the proposed amendment would allow a use that is generally suitable for the site compared to other possible uses and whether the proposed change is consistent with the established land use pattern and zoning of adjacent and nearby properties. · In this area of Whitfield County, there is a convergence of commercial, industrial, and residential land use along Antioch Road. Whi le the subject property is near the residential/commercial juncture, all of the adjacent tracts surrounding the subject property are zoned and/or developed for residential land use. Even though the subject property is zoned C-2 it is clearly developed and utilized as a residential property.

(8) Whether the proposed amendment would adversely affect the economic value or the uses of adjacent and nearby properties. As stated previously, the subject property has been developed and occupied as a residential property for quite some time now. The fact that the subject property is zoned C-2, however, does create the opportunity for the property to be redeveloped and occupied by a commercial land use. While the limited size of the subject property prevents any intensive land use, there are a number of commercial uses that could be viable on the property. Any commercial development of the subject property would

likely have a negative impact on the surrounding residential properties. By rezoning the subject property to R-2, there would be no concern for any negative impact to the surrounding residential tracts.

(C) Whether the subject property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned, considering the suitability of the subject property for the proposed zoned uses. Since the subject property contains a single-family detached dwelling, the structure is considered non-conforming. When a structure is non-conforming no permits for expansion-related work will be granted unless the property can be rezoned appropriately. There are also no visible signs that there had ever been a commercial use on the subject property. The proposed rezoning would simply allow the subject property to have a conforming land use.

(D) Whether there is relative gain to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public as compared to any hardship imposed upon the individual owner under the existing zoning. NIA

(E) Whether the proposed (R-2) amendment, if adopted or approved, would result in a use which would or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, schools, sewers, water resources, police and fire protection, or other utilities, as contrasted with the impact under the existing zoning. By rezoning the subject property to R-2 there would be a significant reduction in potential traffic generation and utility consumption when considering the potential uses permitted within the C-2 zone district. Due to the existing land use and proposed rezoning no change is expected from its current character.

(F) Whether the property sought to be rezoned (or annexed) is in conformity with the policy and intent of the adopted joint comprehensive plan or equivalent. If not, has the plan already been amended, officially or unofficially, by the development of uses which are contrary to the plan recommendation, and if the plan has been amended, does this rezoning or annexation request allow uses which are compatible to the existing uses in the vicinity. The Comprehensive Plan's Future Development Map shows the subject property to be within the Suburban character area. This character area typically represents areas that have already been developed for post- WWII suburban residential style land use. Primary land uses· in this character area are single-family residential with the opportunity for appropriate neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed rezoning would be in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan.

(G) Whether there are any other conditions or transitional patterns affecting the use and development of the property to be rezoned or annexed, which give grounds for approval or disapproval of the proposed zoning proposal. Whether the proposed zoning change constitutes an "entering wedge" and is a deterrent to the use, improvement, or development of adjacent property within the surrounding zone districts or would create an isolated, unrelated district (spot

zone) as interpreted by current Georgia law. The proposed rezoning would create an island of R-2 if it were to be approved. The fact that the subject property is adjacent to a large R-5 zone district, however, means that there is no cause for concern for spot zoning Since the R-2 and R-5 zone districts have similar characteristics. This rezoning would, if approved, eliminate an existing commercial "spot zone."



The staff can provide a recommendation for the R -2 zone at this location based on the following:

1) By rezoning the subject property to R-2 the permitted uses are not expected to negatively impact any of the economic values or compromise integrity of the surrounding properties; and

2) The residential R-2 request is an excellent fit for the Suburban character area within the comprehensive plan; and

tTnere 1snoran e-xpectatiunihat-this 10-c-ation1s-to-expect-commercialization-;-base on the subject property's limited size and existing development as a single-family detached dwelling.

N

W+E s

ZONING

[:=J Rural Residential (R-S)

1111 Transitional Residential (R-6)

1111 General Commercial (C-2)

1111 Heavy Manufacturing (M-2)

1111 Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) Cond

FEET 400

Vasquez Rezoning Request C-2, General Commercial


N

W+E s

FEET 400

, ,



,

N

W+E s

FEET 200

I

Vasquez Rezoning Request c~2, General Commercial

to R;..2, Low,Density·;Single Family, Residential

... '

N

W+E s

FUnJRE DEVELOPMENT MAP

- Emerging Suburban and Exurban Areas

- Industrial

LJ Suburban

FEET 400

;



dalton-whitfield county planning commission dalton ... · 4/7/2020 · mark gibson from: jim...

Documents