To call the order of city council meeting for the Wednesday, January the 14th.

Yep.

All right.

Please join in prayer as your faith allows.

We give thanks for this opportunity to gather in service to this city.

It's people and businesses.

We acknowledge the responsibility entrusted to each member of this council and the confidence placed in us by the residents we represent.

We welcome our new council members and thank them for their willingness to serve.

We also express our gratitude to those returning for their experience, dedication, and continued commitment to the important work before us.

As we begin this new term, we ask for wisdom and clarity in our decision making, fairness in our judgment, and integrity in all that we do.

May our discussions be guided by respect, thoughtful consideration, and a shared sense of purpose.

Grant us the ability to work together collaboratively, even when perspectives differ, and to seek solutions that serve the greater good of our community.

With gratitude and humility, we dedicate this meeting and the work ahead to the betterment of our city and all who call it home.

Amen.

They have all been through a 20-week state police academy.

They have all been sworn in as police officers.

They are all currently out in the streets of Marietta now, being trained by field training officers, and they will soon be in what we call solo status, where they will be by themselves in a patrol car doing the work of police officers in your neighborhoods and communities.

So with that, I will call each one up and they will introduce themselves personally.

Hello, everyone.

So thank you.

Good evening, everybody.

My name is Officer Dordea.

I was born and raised here in the city of Marietta.

I'm looking forward to serving and protecting the city that I was raised up in.

Hello, I'm Officer Ellis.

I've been living here in Georgia for about 10 years now.

Um I started Marietta as a public safety ambassador about like a year ago.

And I'm excited to start my law enforcement career here in Marietta.

Hello, everyone.

Um Officer Jones.

I'm from Northern New Jersey.

Uh I just moved to Georgia last June.

Uh recently completed my training, and I'm proud to protect and serve the City of Mariota.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh my name is Officer Silva, or Sosa Silva, and uh I'm also from New Jersey.

I didn't know that he was from Jersey, so I just figured that out.

But uh I'm actually new to uh Georgia.

I've been here for two years.

I love it.

I'm coming down from Florida, which is a huge change, but uh really appreciative of the uh the warm and support that everyone here has uh shown to us, even as a new officer.

So I'm really appreciative, uh very humble and also honored to serve and protect every single one of you.

Thank you.

Okay, I sound your teeth.

Welcome.

I will you make your thank you for the kind of guy around the middle of the Kelly.

Did you get the picture you wanted, or do you need to?

They're gonna try to grab you all again.

Thank you all very much.

Any announcements from this on the council table?

I can go for it.

Um just want to uh let people know.

I believe this Saturday at noon, there's a Reese Across America.

They're picking up the reads that they put out last month.

Um, Bill, did we have any I think it saw that we might have some help with that one?

Yeah, we're uh helping through the public works department uh with that effort, so we're very glad to do that.

Um then on Martin Luther King Jr.

Day this next Monday.

There are two different things going on around the same time, both at 10 a.m.

Our at the Genny T.

Anderson Theater, the NAACP will have their annual event.

And then over on Franklin Gateway, they're doing a day, there's a group doing a day of service to help uh do some cleanup along Franklin Gateway.

Um, just hope everyone has a good MLK day coming on up as well.

Um I'm having my first uh town hall meeting of the year on next Wednesday at Lockheed Elementary School.

So um that will start at 6 30.

Yes, sir.

We're having our board five and combining with Cheryl and uh one uh town hall meeting will be here in the uh chamber, and we're gonna have our topic is going to be data centers.

So we're gonna have some experts uh from around the city from uh BLW and some other experts to come in to make sure that everybody's on the same page and understand uh data centers, how they operate, how important they are, and what resources that they require.

And uh at that time uh we'll take some questions as well.

That's February 5th at 6.

30.

630.

February the fifth at 630.

You mentioned Martin Luther King, is that the Martin Luther King?

Yeah, that's this night, that's upcoming Monday at the NAAC appendant JT at 10 a.m.

And then the Franklin Gateway event, the Franklin Gateway cleanup event um is at 10 a.m.

as well.

And that would be over on Franklin Gateway.

What about there's nothing?

We also have the phrase which will go from Lemon Street School and we'll go around the square and then come back to Lemon Street School, and that'll be 11, 12 o'clock.

Yeah.

Monday.

Immediately following the 10 o'clock.

Yes, sir.

Oh, I'm sorry, so one o'clock.

They've actually just given the permit for it.

Would you say it's going to hit more Franklin Gateway?

Uh at ten at 10 a.m.

There are two events that are happening at the same time.

One's in ACP event that's happening at the G.

And then I don't remember the organization's name.

I said that they have a day of service cleanup event on Franklin Gateway.

Organization is a better cob, and they'll be out there starting at 10 a.m.

They're gonna have gloves and supplies.

If you want to go out there and help them, we're gonna meet in the Gateway Oaks Business Park.

There we go.

So that is this Monday, January 19th.

Anything else?

Thank you.

Next item is scheduled appearance.

We have two citizens have signed up.

Mr.

Barf, will you come forward and be heard?

Good evening.

And I mean, what a good evening.

What a good thing.

Marietta asked for some changes.

Not all of that.

It's some good changes.

And I see it right now.

I see it.

Marietta has gone on for years.

And we talk about old Marietta, this, that, and the other.

It's the family secret.

Not anymore.

It's going to change.

And as their leader, please take them one at a time.

Let's cross this bridge together.

It's going to be a long hard journey to get Marietta to where you want it to be.

There is no horses and buggies.

We're not going to make buggy whips on the square.

I hope we're going to have a Ted's Montana or something similar.

We need more growth in that direction.

And the ideas that had come up.

Over the years, we know that the boards need some help right now.

Anybody been on the board and seen people sleeping?

It's happening.

Anybody been on a board where we see people that can't make a coherent sentence?

It's happening.

I haven't seen half the boards in Marietta, but we're going to need more handicapped parking, or we're going to have to do some work on the boards.

And that includes me.

I only volunteered to be on the board because it looked like nobody else wanted it.

I will do what I have to do to serve, but God darn, when I reach a certain age, y'all push me out the door.

And it probably will be in a wheelchair.

Other than that, I want to thank the city for everything they do.

All departments that are getting involved with the Marietta National Cemetery.

Again, we are the gym city.

This is another facet in the jewel.

The Marietta National Cemetery is nothing but a great asset to the city of Marietta totally.

And your participation, your participation, your participation, and all of you.

So we'll need volunteers to pick up a few wreaths and get rid of them.

Other than that, the Martin Luther King Day holiday.

I wish y'all the best for that.

Sounds like a good thing to serve on that date.

Other than that, let's work on getting these boards.

Maybe let's bring them in to a reasonable age.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Stevenson.

Good evening, new council and old council and all those in between.

Mr.

Bruton, I want to thank you and Mark Rice for your contribution to the anthem.

I mean, to the uh wreath pickup.

Very, very good thing.

Got a little spiel for you.

Council members, neighbors, young and old.

Listen close.

87 votes decided our recent mayoral election.

That does not earn a victory lap.

It's a blaring wake-up call.

The progressives tapped into the disenfranchised voters with shiny empty promises.

A home for everyone.

More buses.

Although we don't have a transit system in Marietta.

Bike lanes, shoehorned into broads built a century ago that simply won't fit there.

Sounds noble.

Sounds physically impossible to me.

Where's the cash?

Where's the blueprint?

They towed affordable housing.

Yet never name a single price tag.

One bed, two bed, buyer rent.

The primary fundraising force behind those candidates is currently building townhomes that will sell for well over 700,000.

I can only presume that this is the new affordable housing benchmark.

Magic beans don't plant themselves, and empty promises are never fulfilled.

So here's a path forward as I see it.

Restock every board, every commission with fresh blood to compliment and blend with some of the old Marietta folks.

So everyone has a voice.

Increase housing in areas where the infrastructure can support it.

Like the old Harry's project is a really good one.

It's a great example.

I think that's a win for everybody.

Embrace the Bridger Properties apartment building that's coming on the square.

And the pro improvements they've already done there.

Controlled growth while preserving the charm of the city we all love.

I challenge y'all to put flyers in every mailbox and post on social media.

Our taxes are low, our streets are fixed, neighborhoods are left intact.

And every time the other folks whisper utopia, we whisper back.

It could be chaos.

Atlantis traffic, which clogs our roads with commuters.

Atlanta's rents, Atlanta sirens.

If that's your jam, hop on 75 southbound.

It's all there waiting for you.

That is not my jam.

If you moved here like me 35 years ago from North Carolina for the sweet spot between small town Seoul and Big City Pauls, then stand up.

I looked at Virginia Highland's homes back then, and I decided I didn't want to raise my family there.

I learned two new acronyms, ITP and OTP.

The realtor taught me.

Inside the perimeter and outside the perimeter.

Long before I got here, somebody built a concrete circle around that.

And they said these are your two different lifestyles.

You can live inside the perimeter or outside the perimeter.

And they're two entirely different lifestyles.

They aren't just acronyms, they're boundaries in the dirt.

To every new renter scrolling Zillow, every tech kid grabbing latte is on the square.

Your fire plus our fuel equals unstoppable.

We don't erase history, we embrace it and smarten it up.

Bike lanes where they fit, sidewalks widened where it's possible, starter homes that don't swallow farms and suburbs, charm that stays cozy, not crushed.

Apartments where they make sense.

No buzzwords, just sweat, physical responsibility, real plans, transparency, and straight talk.

I urge you to grab this moment.

Work like the next election is tomorrow because it is.

Let's charge forward, ignite this new fresh council, and build the Marietta we deserve.

Who's with me?

We can do this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item, I'd like to call on the mayor pro Tim to present the consent agenda.

All right, good evening, everyone.

Um everyone should have a meeting agenda.

And on that agenda, if you guys want to pull it out, um items of mark with an asterisk.

Those items have been discussed by council um for several weeks now.

So public hearings will be held for those that do not have the asterisk.

So yeah, so we have quite a few items that need to be um talked about.

Mr.

White, quick question.

Yes.

Uh are there any additions to the consent agenda?

I during the review session I did not hear any additions.

I think everything stayed the same during the review session, so no additions tonight that I'm aware of.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, I guess we'll start with I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Second.

Removed and properly seconded.

Um all in favor.

We've got the button.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor Pro Tim.

The first item of the discussion agenda is the appointment of the prosecuting attorney.

We have before the motion that has to be made.

Appointment of Benjamin Smith as a prosecuting attorney of the municipal court for two-year term.

Is there a motion?

I've got the next one.

I'll make a mo I'll make a motion to approve uh Benjamin Smith as a prosecuting attorney for the municipal court for a two-year term.

Second.

Hearing none, please indicate your vote.

Motion carries seven mo.

Next item is appointment of chief assistant prosecuting attorney.

Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to appoint Courtney Brewbaker as chief assistant prosecuting attorney of the municipal court for a two-year term.

Second.

Any discussion hearing none, please indicate your vote.

Motion carries 61.

Courtney, congratulations, and you'll put you right to work.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Mr.

Mayor, I have a quick question.

I saw something something about an ordinance change.

Right.

I ought to have raised that during the um the review session, but would there was an ordinance change submitted to the city?

Uh I don't know if that it if it it may be it just have been handed out tonight, but it it basically amends the the code section for prosecuting attorneys to create this chief uh assistant prosecuting attorney.

It's very very simple.

It literally just adds the name to the title of that section, 112040, and adds an additional sentence after the create the subsection E that says uh that the position of chief assistant prosecuting attorney of the municipal court is created.

Uh and that and then and then adds it another.

So that's just really making that an official title under the code of ordinances.

So the recommendation we have is that this the council adopt that, and that's based on the discussion we had at the last meeting.

Um we did not add it on the agenda.

So sorry about that.

I I saw two items, and I assumed that one was adding the uh in that case, Mr.

One, yeah.

We need a motion to add it to the agenda and it has to be unanimous.

I apologize.

I didn't catch that.

Is there a motion to add it to the agenda?

I make a motion to suspend the rules and add an item to the agenda relating to an ordinance change relating to the chief of prosecuting chief assistant prosecuting attorney creation thereof.

Second.

Any discussion?

And again, when it comes on tonight of the meeting, it has to be unanimous.

So all those in favor, put please indicate your vote.

And with the item now added, we have two motions, I think now because it's an ordinance as well.

So we need to waive a second reading.

Okay.

So first let me official declare it passed.

Philip used to post at me when I didn't do that.

Thank you, sir.

Now you're recognized and make the ultimate motion.

Make a motion to approve um approve the changes to the ordinance, namely in chapters 112-040, adding the title chief assistant prosecuting attorney to the title of that section, and adding in subsection E of that section the link um replacing the language such that it now says the prosecute position of assistant prosecuting attorney of the municipal court is created and the position of chief assistant prosecuting attorney of the municipal court is created, and then subsection F adding the assistant the chief assistant prosecuting attorney to that language that would read the associate judge, the chief assistant prosecuting attorney, and the assistant prosecuting attorney shall have such duties set forth in the city charter, and they shall receive such compensation as set for by the governing authority of the city.

Everything in red, everything in red here.

Second any further discussion?

All those in favor, please indicate please indicate your vote.

Motion carries seven oh.

Mr.

Mayor, I may make one more motion relating to this item.

Make a motion to waive the second reading of an ordin of the ordinances for our rules.

Second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor, please indicate your vote.

Motion carry seven oh.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next item is Powder Springs Road.

This is a public hearing.

Mr.

White, will you conduct this public hearing, please?

Yes, Mr.

Mayor.

This will be the public hearing for Z 2025-23 for the rezoning uh application of PRE Powder Springs Road LLC.

Um, requesting the rezoning of 10.9 acres located in landlots 260, 261, and 332, District 19, parcel 20 of the second section of Cobb and being known as the property on Powder Springs Road Southwest, uh, with the requests for to go from R20 uh in unincorporated Cobb County to PRDSF in the city, and this is in located in Ward 2B.

And Mr.

Cumming, will you introduce this one for us?

Oh uh yeah, I guess we'll ask before Part comes up whether there's this opposition.

Uh thank you, Mr.

White.

So for KC 2025-23, PRE Powder Springs Road is requesting the rezoning of 10.9 acre tracks in the way that Mr.

White described for the purposes of building 43 detached single family homes, and Mr.

Parks Huff is here to present on behalf of the applicant.

And as Mr.

Huff comes up, just uh I would like by a show of hands.

Are there are there those here to speak in opposition to this?

Okay.

One, two, three, four.

Okay.

We'll have you come down after Mr.

Huffle.

If you can also ask people in support.

Are there people here in support as well if you're a good question?

Good evening, director.

My name is Parks up with Sam's Larkin and Huff, and I represent the applicant in regards to this annexation and rezoning application before you this evening.

This is a piece of property on Powder Springs Road.

Wanted to give you an overview of the location of the subject property.

It's on the uh southern uh western portion of the map, highlighted with a blue star.

You can see it is at the very edge of the Kennesaw National Battlefield Park.

It sits on Powder Springs Road.

One of the most uh the two central features about this is the fact it sits between a public library, which is uh right on Powder Springs Road, and Sandwich Little between the public library and the National Battlefield Park, 3,000 acres, 18 miles of trails.

Can't think of a better place to put a home, a neighborhood.

And you also see from this map here uh the context of it.

If I go back to the first map, I hadn't quite finished on that one.

So one of the things I wanted to point out here is one of the comments had been about its contiguity with the city.

We are contiguous to the city.

You can see from this map on the areas to the north, other areas that are further west than our subject property that are equally contiguous to the city.

Yes, they are separated from the city by the park by roads and such.

Uh but we are contiguous to the city uh and actually more contiguous or closer to the city current city boundaries than a lot of the other annexations that have occurred over the years.

Go to the next slide.

The context of this property is it sits on a major traffic corridor, major employment center, uh county services parkway has major employment on it from fire department, uh health department, uh, DOT offices down there.

You also have employment going up Powder Springs Road, again, a gut county government center uh in that location.

You also have to the south on Powder Springs Road uh significant amount of shopping.

Uh but the uh central feature, of course, is a proximity to a lot of different parks and public areas, uh, including the the pub public library that's adjacent to us.

Go to the next slide.

Uh this is a slide that gives you uh further context of how this relates to the property.

Again, we are directly adjacent to the National Battlefield Park.

There is a trail literally uh just within the park from our property, and then there is a Ward Creek Greenway that is proposed in the city's trail map for this trail to be further enhanced for more connectivity.

Also point to the uh multi-use trail, bike trail that runs along Powder Springs Road.

We're right at the end of that, and it is improved all the way up past the government center, uh Cobb County Government Center that's a little further up Powder Springs Road.

So it is from a planning perspective surrounded by wonderful things that you look for for creating a nice new residential neighborhood with 3,000 acres of green space and 18 miles of trail on a multi-use trail along Powder Springs Road.

Go to the next slide.

We are also on a uh part of the transit network.

We are a half mile from a transit stop.

There's a couple things that I want to point out about that.

Is number one is transit is designed to be close to where you have a lot of jobs.

And so that's an indication of how much jobs we have in this area and why you put houses close to the jobs.

We also are along the paratransit route, and if you have uh uh mobility issues, that provides some additional services that you have.

If you are in the uh paratransit area, that's very important for people who have mobility issues beyond just riding a bus.

And it's very important that that's in that mobility uh transit area.

Go to the next slide.

Uh again, just a closer up detail showing the subject property adjacent to the public library.

I want to point out some of the residential developments in the area.

There's a uh townhome community just uh further up Powder Springs Road that's developed at eight units per acre uh that is uh just beyond us, and then on the opposite side of Powder Springs Road is another eight unit per acre development, and then further uh noted on there is a six unit per acre development uh that is also close by to the property.

That is when we go to the next slide now.

Uh there gives you the eight unit per acre townhome community that's just uh up Powder Springs Road, the PRDSF that is uh on both sides of Powder Springs Road at that area, and that is the exact same zoning category we're looking for, but it at a significantly lower density.

Go to the next slide.

This is the future land use maps.

You can see the residential future land use map that's closest in this area is medium density residential, uh, which in the county's uh city's land use plan is five to eight units per acre.

Uh these are the things that we looked at as we developed the plans for this project.

Go to the next slide.

Uh this is I just wanted to point out the county government center, and as you know, the county has filed an objection.

One of the objections has to do with density.

Uh this is County Zone RM12 that's directly adjacent to the county government center, that's just up Powder Springs Road.

Uh so they have a that stands for residential multifamily 12 units per acre, just up Powder Springs Road from us.

So it's ironic that the county would be objecting to uh this density when they have zone density quite a bit higher than that.

Also gives you an idea of the proximity to the uh county government center and the jobs that are located there.

Go to the next slide.

This is the original plan that we filed again, looking at all the flames future land use map, the zonings in the area, the densities in the area.

We originally filed a 60 unit plan at 5.5 units per acre.

Uh the county had filed an objection to that density.

The there is an intergovernment agreement that has the county a limiting objections to anything uh above four units or below four units per acre.

So we revised the site plan to the next slide.

And that is what's before you today, which is a uh 43 unit plan.

Uh that is uh slightly below four units per acre, 3.9 units per acre.

Uh and it is a reduction of 30 percent reduction in in density, and that is what we revised the application to bring before you tonight for your consideration.

And it is a uh single family detached home.

And at when we started this project at 60 units, what we were told what the city really is looking for is more opportunities to have single family detached for sale homes.

We thought the 60 unit was an appropriate density given what's around it, but obviously the 43 unit plan is even more you know, lower density, but it provides 43 new homeowners uh an opportunity to buy a home in Marietta in a great location.

Go to the next slide.

This is the site plan with the engineering on it, showing that we do meet the 20-foot driveways and all the things that you asked for in your zonings.

Go to the next slide.

These are the some of the architecture we will comply, of course, with your four-sided architecture.

Uh this product is slightly wider or significantly wider than the product that would have been on the 60-unit plan.

Uh so it's a wider product and obviously more expensive also.

Go to the next slide.

Go to the next slide.

And the next slide.

Just wanted to point this out.

I think it's worth every time you have a residential proposal before you, I think it's worth mentioning.

Uh recent sh studies have shown that the average first-time home buyer is 40.

This is not a first-time home buyer project, uh, but it is worth knowing that this is the reality that we face as a nation.

This is national statistics, and we need more housing, and we need more housing at all levels.

And um, it used to be 38 two years ago, several years ago it was 30, uh, and now it's 40, and that's that's a real problem for housing.

Go to the next slide.

This is uh from the county's housing study showing that the gap between your uh population, your household, and your housing units is very wide.

This is your you're the widest gap, as you can see.

There's other cities where on other pages, but the gap between your population and your housing is very wide.

And that's one of the reasons why you have frustration about people needing housing.

And that's the reason why I think this project is very important to be able to bring uh a project that aligns with your goals in your land use plan and providing different housing types and being able to provide for sale detached housing in a location with the services around it, the access to the national park, the access to the library, multi-use trail, all those things align with it.

This is an excellent place to build a brand new Marietta neighborhood for 43 homeowners and property and residents for the city.

So appreciate your time and your consideration of this case.

And I'm gonna reserve some additional time to respond to comments that might come from the opposition.

Any questions of Mr.

Huff before we ask for opposition?

Mr.

You showed like 13 and 14 look like vegetation or trees.

On the plan?

Would that be a buffer and they could never build on that area?

That one?

Yeah, we will be planning along Powder Springs Road, we will have a vegetative planning buffer line.

Is that what you're talking about?

No.

I'm talking on the back side, 13 and 14.

Yep.

To the adjacent neighborhood.

Sure.

The idea would be that that would be HOA owned property.

So there would be some you know buffering, yes, that would occur between the existing neighborhood of these homes.

So that would be in the D to 13 or 14.

Uh the way that would get set up is yeah, that would be HOA owned property, so it wouldn't, it wouldn't be private property, it would be controlled by the HOA.

So that wouldn't, no one could build on that because it would be HOA land.

So yes, we could we could put that in the covenants that it that it's not buildable.

Yeah, could we not lease cross it, but one of those subdivision we had people cleared out the back and it was an integral part of the zoning that they were supposed to keep and just want to make sure.

Yeah, I think some of some of what will help buffer too is just the grade differential.

So the those homes will sit at a different elevation as well.

So they wouldn't you wouldn't the lots wouldn't tie together regardless.

So five years from now, there would still be a buffer whether the homeowner liked it or not.

Correct.

Yeah, that the by making it HOA property, it would de facto be on unbuildable or undevelopable because it wouldn't be owned by the homeowners.

It wouldn't be owned by the process.

You'll change the line and the meets and bounds.

Yeah.

So as you can see on this plan here, though those are the actual lot lines.

So everything behind that would not be a lot.

That would be HOA property.

Thank you.

Can you will you explain what the motion is?

Yes, before the uh opposition or do you.

I disagree.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

Well I think we advertised it, but they thought they were going to hear 60, and it's been changed to 40.

Also, all we're doing is voting is subject to the litigation.

Yes.

No, that's a good good point.

And uh and it's good for everybody who is here in opposition to kind of know.

We are, and uh but before everybody comes up here, this may answer some questions that people have or uh about the process and where this property is.

So it's really just setting the table, but we're gonna have opposition uh speaking.

But uh the mayor made a good point.

It's a good idea to update everybody on where because this is one that the county objected to, so it went into the arbitration process.

Um normally that would sort of put everything on hold until uh that gets resolved.

Um the county and the city agreed to a 60-day extension of the arbitration uh stay on the arbitration process so that we could have these hearings.

Uh it could go through the planning commission process, it could go before this board and have public hearing and get feedback so that the can the both the city and the county would know what the agreeable um stipulations are.

Uh but the what happened at the on the Monday meeting, the applicant uh revised their application uh to come down from the or indicated they were going to revise it to come from 60 to 43 lots, which brought the density down to 3.9 acres.

So that's below four acres, four units an acre.

Uh and uh so there was some uh if if it gets heard tonight, it's there's no because the arbitration is still technically pending, it's just stayed, there's not gonna be a final approval.

There's not gonna be a final decision one way or the other tonight.

Um we're just the council is hearing it tonight to sort of get uh an idea of what is being proposed and to give their thoughts and to to give notice to Cobb of what they intend to approve if the arbitration is resolved through dismissal or through resolution.

And so there's there's been a recommended motion that would be made later that would just be a notice of intent to to notify Cobb or notice uh a motion to notify Cobb County of the city's intent, you know, to rezone.

If the city council decides they like this plan and want to move forward, that that's all they could do.

They couldn't approve it, they could just notify Cobb that they would intend to approve it if the uh mediation resolves.

And so everybody knows tonight you we do want your comments, we want your feedback because it will help the council make a final decision one way or the other on it.

But if they do, it would not be a final approval tonight because it would still be subject uh to resolution of the arbitration process.

But we do think given the new density, that should bring it under into a non-objectionable category for the county, uh, because there's certain areas around the city that this county and the city have agreed not to object to.

So if it's under a certain density and it's on the eastern or western border, uh if it's under that 4.0 units an acre uh density, then this county is not supposed to be able to object to that.

And so this may change the status of that arbitration and help it resolve.

But that's all sort of hypothetical because this council is gonna hear from opposition and make their decision on whether they want to recommend approval or denial.

But that's just sort of setting everybody up with equal information so you know where the process is at this point.

So if if if that was sufficient, I think we can invite uh opposition folks to be able to.

This won't eat into the time.

Oh no.

Bonus discussion.

So and I just because uh it's 15 minutes per side, I want to make sure everybody normally we have a five minute limit, but I saw at least four people raise their hands.

So can I get a clearer idea of who all wants to speak against one, two, three, four?

Four.

Okay.

So we had some people who want to speak in support, too.

Okay.

Do you want to yield that to the I mean you want to let them have part of your rebuttal time after the opposition comes, or do you want to go ahead and yield your uh support now?

Okay.

Okay.

So um if at this time, if you if you want to come down and speak in opposition, uh normally we do five minutes, but let's just try to stick closer to four so that everybody would have um time to fit under the 15 minute limit.

And Mr.

Huff, so you know you have six minutes and eight seconds left on when your rebuttal time comes up.

Hello, I'm Darren Freeberg.

I'm uh speaking.

And we do, yeah, I was gonna say reminder to everybody state your name and your address for the record um so that we have that.

Thank you.

Um Darren Freeberg, I live in Marietta, 1170 Ward Creek Drive, not too far from this property.

I'm speaking on behalf of myself as well as Dr.

Rao, who is the owner of the veteran hospital adjacent to this property.

Um the property density came down poor per I guess last night we just found out about it.

However, there's still some significant issues with this issue.

Um is there's some unanswered questions as well.

One is this is still very, very high density.

Uh when you scroll out to the pictures before, all the surrounding properties are R20.

Um the high density opportunities that were there, they're all away from it.

And the county was initially objected and still should be objecting to this because the idea of the future land use maps to have a step down density.

You're going from high end density, workplace, commercial, and now you're getting close to the park where everything else is R20, you want to step down densities.

You we would like to see that match the density to keep in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood.

What's being proposed is a step up in density.

We're talking 4,000 foot lots when it should actually be closer to 20,000 foot lots with some variations.

So it's very, very high density.

What also shows up on the plat on the site plan is the homes are butted up right to the property line, right up to the CAC or hospital, those back properties.

If you want to put the site plan up, they're right up against the homes uh on to the north.

And they are as close as they can get to Powder Springs Road.

I mean, I think they're within 15 feet.

So when they talk about buffer zones, which was a concern, there really aren't any.

If there's it's all private property, if they can zone this way, the lot lines go right up to the edge, go right to the park, right to the street, right to the adjoining properties.

So that that's a really big concern.

Um for the people who are living on that front edge, they're gonna be around the street.

That's a lot of noise.

It's also gonna encroach on uh the Cacker Hospital next door.

The other thing that's not mentioned is the grading.

This property slopes away from Powder Springs Road.

The sewer line is under Powder Springs Road.

There's gonna be a lot of grading filling, a lot of cutting being done, which they actually mentioned.

I would like to see a grading plan.

How much is that cut?

What is the differential in grade between these properties and say the cat care hospital and powder springs road and the land behind it?

That's a big issue.

Uh traffic hasn't been addressed.

43 homes, depending on the traffic study, could be 430 trips per day.

There's one entrance.

And if I'm looking at the site plan again, it looks like it's restricted to right turn only.

I'm not sure, but that's what it looked like.

We're talking 400 homes trying to come across Powder Springs Road.

If anyone here has driven that like I do, you drive that road every day, it's a mess going towards downtime are yet in the morning.

It's a mess coming southbound in the evening.

If you're trying to make a left turn out of that subdivision, which 70% of the traffic is gonna have to do in the morning to come out of there to go downtown to work, coming across high-speed traffic coming this way, jam traffic this way, it's a recipe for accidents.

It's it's really could be a problematic.

So I'm asking that a complete study be done before a final decision be made.

So grading, traffic study, and ask for buffer zones.

Um it's really could be a problematic.

Um the only thing that's problematic is the viewscape.

Right now, as you're coming down Powder Springs Road, you know, all the homes are set back, it's very wooded, it's a nice view, you're coming into the park.

It just is just a very calming effect.

These homes are right up next to the road.

There's gonna be fencing.

So if you're coming down the road, you're gonna go from setbacks to you know the library, the CAC or hospital park.

It has to be a wall of homes.

You kind of get an effect of that at the end of County Services Road where those townhomes are.

It's going to be similar to that, but even closer to the road.

So the viewscape, you're going to lose that effect.

What is supposed to be happening with a low density residential feel?

That's uh four minutes, Mr.

Freeberry.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um the points there.

So those are it.

The grading traffic setbacks and keep it in harmony with the R20 in the neighborhood, low density of residential step down.

Thank you very much.

Any questions of Mr.

Freebird?

Or we'll just go ahead and hear the next one.

Okay.

Next.

Give us your name and address, please.

John Stephen Beasley address 1185 Arden Drive, uh Dunleith community.

Um I'm here speaking for some of my neighbors up there.

Um, in general, um, the site's a major problem because it falls away from the road, so when they they grade, they're gonna have to backfield to get to the sewer to work out.

I mean, that's where a lot of the money for this development is.

They're gonna have to clear cut the lots.

There's no way around it.

Uh there's a spring head here not showing on the on the plan just in front of the lake there.

There's a low wet area, it stays wet, so I don't know how they're gonna get around that.

But um, just overall with the cat care hospital there, they need to designate you know the setbacks, you know, 15, 20 feet, whatever it is, it needs to be on the plan.

It's it's very problem uh problematical with this preliminary plan because you can't tell what the setbacks are exactly.

So I mean it needs to there needs to be a lot of work done.

Um I'm in agreement with with Mr.

Freiburg as far as the traffic.

Um, you know, trying to make a left turn out of the cat care hospital at five o'clock in the afternoon is like taking your life in your own hands.

These you know, the the roads backed up from almost the square all the way to Macklin Road, and now we're gonna put a lot more people on the road.

But you know, just look down the street.

I mean, go past the Kroger and the Publix, a big development on the left.

There's more and more people that are going to be coming down Powder Springs.

I mean, I've I've been here 20 years and I've driven Powder Springs Road, and it's just gotten worse and worse.

Um, you know, we've even had a residence out of the Dunleaf neighborhood killed on his bicycle in front of the movie theater.

The person that did that was never caught.

Got away clean.

And it was reported that the guy's kid was in the front seat.

But this the site overall is is problematical.

Um Cobb County opposes it, we do too.

The planning commission opposed it five to two.

Um, you know, I think they want Marietta to annex it because we've had a history of allowing a lot of variances in the past.

I'm not saying you know, with the new members we have now that are the same way, but it seemed like development was pushed forward in in lieu of quality a lot of times.

So you know, with with the problems of the development itself, just trying to get it in there with the the expense of grading and and getting the sewer to tie in because it must go east.

If it could go west or back over the property, then it would be more viable project, and they wouldn't have to, you know, do such aggressive grading like the project across the street, just cut everything down.

Uh so we oppose it.

Strongly oppose it.

So that's all I got.

All right, next speaker.

And there's uh just so you know if there's one, I'm not sure if there's one or two left, but there's eight minutes remaining for those in opposition.

And name and address.

Larry Wills, 60 Oakmont Drive, Marietta, Georgia.

Uh let's state this obvious thing here first.

Um the only reason we're here talking about this is because they're hoping that the city will allow them to build more houses on this property than the county does.

The county's owned it for high den uh low density.

They want to put a high density development in here.

And Marietta has a reputed reputation for uh going for variances that allow for higher density developments.

That's the only reason they want to uh annex into the city of Marietta.

They're hoping to build more houses.

I have uh advocated and talked to y'all and presented before the uh idea of maintaining a low density buffer around Kennesaw Mountain uh for a couple of years now.

I've spoken about this.

This is not going to help protect the national park.

It's definitely a high density, even if they're knocking down the number of lots here.

But that's another thing about this.

It presents the systemic problem with the Marietta zoning process.

And it shouldn't even be on the agenda until the dispute or the problem with the county is resolved.

But if you've noticed on all of your annexation and rezoning processes, you the first on the agenda is uh approval of the development.

Then you have on the agenda annexation or whatever, and then you have changing the land use that Marietta allocated for these areas close to it or allocating an area, allocating a land use for the new property that's annexed into the city.

That seems to be a re uh a silly reversal of the process.

If you're not even sure you can annex these things into the city, why do you drag the public down here to debate whether or not it should be built first before you can know you can annex it?

That's you know plainly stupid, kinda.

Uh I don't understand it.

You annex it in one city council meeting, get that straightened out, and then at the next city council monthly meeting, get the people to come in and discuss it and see if they want to approve it or something.

I don't know.

The order seems screwed up to me.

But anyway, I think it's crazy if you uh accept this and put it in here and put it to next to the national park and make it high density when it's obviously should be low density with all the property around it.

Thank you.

There's four minutes and three seconds left, and then again, if you'll give your name and address.

Hello, my name is De Keese Phoenix Senior, 1121 Powder Springs Road Southwest Marietta, Georgia.

I am one homeowner of the seven directly affected homeowners that are located on the south side of the highway of this application for annexation and rezoning.

Here are the strongest arguments I can make to the Marietta Council, City Council against the annexation and rezoning.

My core argument is uh defiance of planning consistency and intent.

The primary argument is that the proposed the proposed plan residential development, single-family PRDSF with its requested variance is represents an intense high density project that is fundamentally incompatible with the existing character and long established plans for the area.

One, direct conflict with county planning, the flume for this area designated as a recreational slash conservation conservation, very low density or low density residential.

This is not a suggestion but a reflection of the county's comprehensive plan, a formal policy document guiding long-term growth.

Seven single family homes or enlarged lots across the street is a perfect example of the existing plant character, which this proposal would destroy.

Two, the loophole exploitation.

The application is using annexation to bypass Cobb County stricter developmental codes which align with the low density flume to seek approval under Marietta's potentially more lenient PRDSF rules.

The tactics averts the intent of regional planning and disrespects the development expectations of surrounding county residents.

Single access point.

Only one access point for development with over 50 units or 40 units, where two are normally required.

This is a major safety concern for evacuation, emergency services, and daily traffic, especially on a road like Powder Springs Road.

The Marietta Planning Commission has already approvedly recommended denial for all three related items, an annexation, the rezoning to PRD, and the future land use map amendment.

I strongly agree with this expert recommendation.

I urge the council to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendations of denial for item Z2025-23, rezoning, A2025-03 annexation and CA 2025-07.

Future land use map changes.

I conclude by asking the Council to protect the established low density character of the area and not allow annexation to be used as a tool to circumvent county planning.

The proposals, requests for multiple variances, especially the single access point, is a major double negative for me.

Me having actually visible knowledge of the circumstances daily on the ground right in front of me.

If anybody else is here in opposition, there is one minute remaining.

Otherwise, Mr.

Huff, if you want to yield time to supporters, there's uh six minutes and eight seconds left for I am going to go and then yield whatever time I've got for some quick quick uh additional rebuttal.

But I'm going to start out because I want to address some of the questions and concerns they brought out.

First off, uh a lot of their points actually support this case.

They said uh the property has to be graded to get to sewer.

That happens regardless of the number of homes on it.

You have to get to sewer, you have to grade the property.

So you're gonna grade the property one way or the other, it has to be done.

I want to talk about traffic real quick.

A couple things.

Every neighborhood, every road between here and up Powder Springs Road until it becomes uh the uh median break, every one of them has access exactly like this, with a center lane that's available for turning out.

This area is actually better than 90 percent of that section of Powder Springs Road because you don't have a lot of uh congestion this year.

You don't have a lot of traffic turning in and out, and in fact, beyond us is a battlefield park.

So you are not going to get any other real traffic here.

Uh so that I don't think it is supported by the facts.

The other thing I would like to point out is there is actually a GDOT tape traffic count here.

In 29, there was 38,000 cars per day.

In 2024, there is 35,000 cars per day.

The traffic count on Powder Springs Road is not ballooning up.

It has been consistent for over 10 years based upon GDOT's own numbers.

But that also supports the fact the reason why you put housing adjacent to a road with that kind of traffic is because you put people closer to traffic corridors where they can get to work, they can get to shopping, then get to things like that.

Um, the low density neighborhood to adjacent to us, that was built in 1970.

It was the smallest lot you could build in 1970 because it was there was no sewer in the area, so it was a septic tank lot.

So it is the smallest lot you could build.

Keep in mind the population in all of Cobb County was less than 200,000 people in 1970, and you do not use a neighborhood that's over 50 years old as a standard for zoning when you have a road and you have so much changes that has happened since then, such as a road with 30,000 cars a day, with such as employment up the road, all the things that we have talked about.

Um the um they kept talking about variances.

This site plan does not have variances.

It compliant with your code.

They also mentioned high density residential.

The previous proposal was medium density residential.

This proposal is low density residential in your land use plan.

I point to the neighborhood just to the north, which is eight units per acre, which is a town home community selling in the 400,000 range.

If you don't hope that some of the residents that live there that have started a family, live close by, work close, uh, work close by, wouldn't love this as a move up neighborhood for them, then that is exactly the goal of your land use plan to provide create more housing opportunities, more for sale housing opportunities for people who live and work, live already live in Marietta or work in Marietta.

Your traffic problem, you all know it, is not people who live and work in Marietta.

The traffic problem is people, and they even mention it.

The neighborhoods further down Powder Springs Road coming up your traffic.

Well, how do you solve that?

You have less neighborhoods down Powder Springs Road and more neighborhoods that are closer into the city.

That's how you solve traffic problems.

You don't spread it out.

This neighborhood does not cause a traffic problem.

The traffic on Powder Springs Road has actually been consistent for a long period of time, and we will put people close to work, close to schools.

If this was not annexed, this school district is Hillgrove and Loving Good School Hill Gold High School, Loving Good Middle School.

That is not traffic friendly to have schools, kids going all the way back out that way.

It's not conducive to a good quality of life where you can't participate in your school kids' activities because it's such a different area.

This makes sense in the City of Marietta.

It makes sense in the school system of Marietta.

And we think this proposal is a low density residential proposal at four units per acre, uh, 43 homes for 43 new uh family homes to be built in Marietta is a great opportunity.

And no one in the opposition even mentioned the fact that can we not get excited about the possibility potential building a neighborhood between a library and a public park?

And no, you shouldn't wall off the public park.

We all benefit from being able to access a public park.

And it's better to access it than to have to drive to it and put it to a parking lot that they have to build in the public park you have to drive there.

These people can walk to the public park.

They're not going to park.

They're going to walk there.

That's exactly what you want people to access that public park, which is a great, wonderful amenity.

So I'll yield some time to some other support.

Is there one minute and thirty seconds left for anyone who wants to speak in support.

Hi, I'm Lauren Roscoe for 17 Rigby.

Finally, a new homeowner in Marietta after looking for seven years.

I think it took so long for my husband and I to find a house because there really just aren't very many options here.

It's kind of become a topic of conversation in our friend group who are all young, 30-something professionals with babies, toddlers, and we're just pulling our hair out because there really just isn't very many options for young families to live.

I think it's young people like us that are spending our money on date nights on these beautiful new businesses that are here in Marietta.

And I think these young families are the future of Marietta, but if there's nowhere for us to live, obviously we would be the people that are frequenting the national park.

Um if there's nowhere for us to be, there is no future.

So I'm a thousand percent in support of new homes in Marietta that work for my age group because I think um, as they were saying, you know, now people are buying their first house at 40.

The whole starter home thing is no longer a thing.

Um so this would be perfect for young people like me and my husband and their kids.

Thank you.

Twenty seconds left.

Any segregations.

I'll take you that one be done or done.

Good evening.

I'll try and make it quick.

My name is Matthew Staub.

I live on 860 Hickory Drive.

Um we've spent the last seven years raising our young family here in Marietta.

I'm also born and raised in and around the city.

I'm in full support of affordable uh homes in this area.

I think it would be great support to the local restaurants and community, and I hope you guys take that in consideration.

Thank you.

Say your name.

Don, you can say your name and your support.

Don't burst 1641 St.

John Avenue.

Y'all, this is what we've asked for.

This is everything we've asked for.

Quarter acre lots.

Look at it.

Green space.

It's everything we want, Marietta.

Thanks, Ms.

Thank you, Mr.

Barth.

Uh uh the the public uh hearing portion is closed, but if the council would like to ask questions of the applicant or staff uh at this point.

Or I guess if you want to ask more of applicant, then we'll keep that part open.

But uh if you want to ask of staff now, if that's what is careful, easy.

The probes get 15 minutes.

I don't understand.

Probably con get 15 minutes each, no matter what no matter what the applicant does.

Okay.

Well, I was going by the planning commission rules, which is where I usually preside.

So I apologize if I stepped on Mr.

Haney's uh normal uh whatever the rules here.

I my I was reading off the page here and thought it was uh 15 minutes per side.

I would certainly defer to you, Mr.

Mayor, for that correction.

That's way for 16 years.

I usually I usually said the applicant is part of the pro part of the pro side, so that's their time.

That's their time.

That's a good thing.

We should have said something 16 years ago.

I think the probe get.

Is there anyone left who wanted to speak?

I have no problem with them being allowed to speak.

So long as again, if someone on the opposition side wants to speak, they get an equal amount of time as well.

That's thank you for your comment.

I rude that this is proper.

Hi, I'm Hope Brackett.

My husband and I live at 1303 Longwood Drive in Dunley.

We live in his childhood home.

It's an older neighborhood.

Homes sell very quickly in there, just like the young lady was saying, homes sell so fast that people have a hard time getting one.

Just last week, a couple of neighbors and I were outside talking.

A truck stopped, a man got out and said, I don't mean to interrupt you ladies talking, but we're looking to buy in this neighborhood from coming from Athens, Georgia.

We have two little girls.

It is hard to find single family homes.

So he was very curious about our neighborhood, had a lot of questions.

Is it a good one?

We said yes.

He asked how long we've been there, 115, 150 seven years and 158 years.

So it's a long time for people to live in the same neighborhood.

There is a need for more attainable housing for young families that have a little yard.

It doesn't have to be a huge yard, but a yard.

Everything going up now or three-level town homes.

So I would I would be in favor of this.

I think it's a there is a need, just like that lady stated.

It's the young people that are coming in, moving into the city of Marietta because they love the city.

Thank you.

Any other speakers in support?

Yes, ma'am?

I'm Debbie Bodiford.

I live at 735 Hampton Place, Southwest in the City of Marietta.

I've been a resident of Marietta for 40 years, and I am in favor of the rezoning.

Anyone anyone else in support that wants to speak?

I'll turn it back to the council.

Thanks, sir.

Mr.

Waters.

The Chair recognizes you for a motion.

One moment, Mr.

May.

Sorry, technical difficulties.

This is don't read the part just campaign related index.

All right.

I would like to make a motion to send to Cobb County, send notice to Cobb County that the city intends to approve the proposed rezoning and related annexation.

Not another annexation.

Sorry.

Related annexation.

No, no.

Just the proposed rezoning.

Rosary zoning.

Application of pre-Powder Springs Road LLC as revise seeking PRDF zoning for 10.9 acres of land on Powder Springs Road at a density of 3.93 units per acre, contingent upon resolution of the pending arbitration process.

That's a unique motion.

Second.

I have a couple of questions if I might.

I guess Jenny will meet you may be able to answer these.

If not, I guess Parks, you may have to answer these.

What is that equate to?

Like we do ours, I guess, simpler, you know.

R4 is four units an acre.

We're pretty easy on that.

What is our 20?

It's 20,000 square foot.

Yeah, it it equates to a 20,000 square foot lot.

The in the business, the it is generally considered the density you would yield when you have to take out detention roads and everything is about 1.75 units per acre.

Okay.

All right.

And then there was a question about uh not so much the grading, but I think a gentleman had said that if it went east, that would be better, but it's going west.

Did I get that backwards?

Yes.

Okay.

So if it would be better if it went west instead of east.

Just explain.

Sure.

So for better or worse, uh, we follow gravity, so we just have to go the direction that the sewer flows.

And so the sewer flows from east to west, so we'll be tying in with the direction of flows.

We'll be tying in on the west side of the property.

Okay.

What, if any impact will that have?

I see I I pulled up a couple of pictures and I was trying to just see how much of it of a barrier or or a is there between the cat clinic and what we're going to do for this project.

Sure.

So what's what's not shown is the distance between the actual home and the clinic.

So where the lot line itself may touch the property line of the CAT clinic, that doesn't mean that we're going to build a home at the back door of the CAT clinic.

So there will be ample space between the physical home itself and the CAT clinic.

But I think one of our questions too has been what are we buffering from?

Right.

I think the, you know, the I'm not sure that the veterinary hospital would need to be buffered from a resident.

Uh and if our residents don't feel the need to be significantly buffered from the clinic, then we're, I guess we struggle to understand what that's all about.

But um to answer your question more directly, the the lots themselves are deeper in that location.

So the homes would be further away from the property.

Will there be a buffer, a tree buffer?

We would plant, yes, ma'am.

We would plant the back side of those.

Okay.

And is there currently a tree buffer?

It looks from what I can see, again, looking at these pictures and trying to look at these drawings, that the cat clinic already comes very close to their lot line.

There's, I believe they have a parking lot that buffers it.

And additionally, the grading would buffer it.

So our property would actually sit lower.

So it's a good thing.

Oh, sit lower?

So we would sit lower, correct.

So the grade sort of falls away toward the park.

Okay.

So if you're at the Cat hospital, you're kind of looking down on the properties as opposed to the other way around.

That's correct.

Okay.

And the buffer that's between, will that be like the mayor asked for the back side?

Will that be owned by the homeowners association where nothing else can be added there?

Well, the the between the clinic and the homes, no, those would just be private lots.

But but I mean, even more so, no one would be able to build because they would that'd be their private property.

They wouldn't want, they wouldn't let someone build in their backyard.

Right.

But what can they do?

So if they let's say they wanted to put something in the back, um, how close would that end up bringing them to the cat hospital?

Because again, a cat hospital to me looks very close to the line.

I can't, I don't know standing here exactly what the distance is between their building, but I I don't I don't know that it's so close that again, based on where the location of the home would be versus the actual clinic, I don't know that we're we're very concerned about that.

But um but I think the topography will help buffer it as well as the planting that we would do.

I mean, at the end of the day, you know we we don't want our homeowners to feel like they're they don't have an adequate buffer either.

So we would do planting and and green screening and whatnot to to help with that.

But but additionally the grade separation would would separate those things.

Okay.

And then my last question is gentlemen had spoke about kind of the view.

Um obviously it's not going to be the current view that it is, which is all completely wooded.

What will be along Powder Springs?

What will they see?

Sure.

So they would probably see the sort of upper sides of the home.

So the homes will actually end up sitting a little bit below Powder Springs Road.

So there'll be a uh green buffer and embankment between Powder Springs Road and the homes themselves.

Will there be any trees planted along that?

We would plant some trees along that as well.

Okay, so when you're driving, the homes are going to be down tree line up here.

That's correct.

And there would also be a sidewalk along the road and there would be some street improvements.

And so um, you know, some of the comments that have been made about you know the the things going on in that area, I think you know, the best thing that can happen is to improve the frontage along there with a nice sidewalk that connects to the other sidewalks and create that pedestrian connectivity.

Okay, and then my last question for you is have you looked at a second any possibility for a second entrance?

I know that is one thing that we do generally look for.

So within the context of the revised plan that we've submitted, a second entrance is not required first and foremost.

Secondly, it is a G dot controlled road.

So we will have to adhere to all G dot standards, all G dot access requirements, et cetera.

So knowing that, uh there will only be one entrance regardless.

I mean, even if we built, you know, much denser than this, they would still only grant one access point.

And that has more to do with the the site distance and the length between travel distances and and access points.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Sure.

Thank you.

I have a quick question.

Um if you could come back up.

Can you give us an idea of the price points of what the homes will be?

Sure.

So based on the revised density, uh this is gonna push the price of one of these homes into the upper fives and sixes, best case.

And that's all still contingent upon the you know the ability to deliver those in light of uh you know uh continual cost increases and tariffs and other things.

So um but at the current at the current plan, that would be the baseline pricing that we would be hoping to achieve.

And have you guys actually received a um traffic study?

We have not done a full traffic study yet.

However, we have been in correspondence with GDOT and we have done our own engineering studies uh to assess the preliminary conditions, but a full traffic study would be commissioned once we knew exactly what we were zoned and approved to do.

Thank you.

And I will add to that, uh the site distance requirement is one thing that that GDOT looks at in terms of access, and they look at that in uh both from an access standpoint but also from a traffic pattern and movement standpoint.

A site distance requirement means you know how visible and how easy traffic movements are at this location and the location where we plan our entrance, it actually exceeds the requirements that that GDOT would have.

So we're actually based on where we're located and based on the other access points and the fact that the battlefield park is next to us, that actually significantly improves the access point and uh the visibility in the site distance.

I guess one other question.

Um last one for me.

So will the um community be fenced around the back or we would not plan to fence the back side, no.

Okay.

Now individual homeowners may choose to fence their own lots, but we wouldn't we wouldn't sort of enclose the neighborhood.

Okay.

Thank you.

Will the elementary kids go to Dunleaf or Hickory Hills?

Yeah, one less left turn though that they went to have a question, Mr.

Mayor, and this may be for Daniel.

The Kent Hospital is a commercial property.

Zone commercial, I assume.

Is there a standard uh buffer between residential and commercial property?

There would be associated with the PRDSF.

I'd actually ask Shelby to see if we can pull the no.

There is not one?

Not the not the other way.

No, there's not one.

Okay.

From going from commercial to residential, yes, but from residential to commercial.

No.

No.

Okay.

So you go in the opposite way.

Uh correct.

Cat care hospitals over not commercial.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um just related to that.

Um with this being a rezoning to resident um to residential on that end, it anything that the if there was any effect, uh, the OI, the OI current one would be grandfathered, and under what under whatever code is.

That's correct.

Is that because I can't that one's county, I believe, correct?

Oh, I OIN the county.

Yes.

Yeah.

It is.

Any further discussion?

I got one more quick question for part.

Sorry, not the information for parks.

Um I know this is preliminary, but everything that we've seen does show a right in and write out.

When I drove this site multiple times and multiple times of the day between Cheatham Hill Road and County Service Road, I didn't see I could be wrong, I could have missed it.

I didn't see one ride in, right out.

It was it gives you that ability to where in the morning I could cross two lanes, get in the turn lane, merge into traffic, and vice versa.

I'm assuming this is just preliminary, because I would I think the traffic would flow better if these residents, if they were in the morning going towards Marietta, could take a left out.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that it's not shown as right in right out.

What we have actually done is uh it it shows up a little goofy graphically, but it's actually a full access in the side.

And then we've actually created a longer uh D cell lane and uh and a uh separate turning movement just to help kind of free up some of that traffic flow.

So actually we've kind of gone a little bit above and beyond on that.

Perfect.

And I would like to point out too, with the signal at county services, it creates a gap in traffic flow.

So when that light hits, there's you there's a period of time where cars are not flowing by this.

Same thing I have out in front of my office, when that light itself you know its outlook triggers, then that's what I can get out of my office.

So you further question?

Okay.

Motion carries 7-0.

Thank you.

Yes, and now we still have to wait.

Mr.

Mary, would you want me to point out that that there for people leaving, there will be another round of hearings, but just for the annexation and the code amendment if it comes back, but there would not be another public hearing just for the rezoning portion because that was for tonight.

There's only one required hearing during the entire rezoning process.

Uh but there would be for the public.

So if they see something advertised for this, it would be it would be the last case.

The station code.

The annexation, I should say.

Uh here.

So you could have another by the apple if you were to we don't know what the county is going to do.

In the midst of Mr.

Wheels point, there were two other votes that would happen if this would have been if we hadn't had the annexation so it's their table.

Annexing it.

Next item from Ward 4B on uh Jordan Street and Rose Lane.

We you present that, Mr.

Mike, will you present the Yes?

Next item is uh public hearing.

Yeah, next public hearing will be Z 2025 25, uh the rezoning by Trayton LLC uh for the property on uh Burnap and Jordan Street.

All that Mr.

Cumming take the this is a long one, so he'll I'll let him introduce this one.

All right, thank you, Mr.

White.

So for K Z 2025-25, Trayton LLC is requesting the rezoning of various properties along Jordan, Burnap, Croft, and Roselane Streets comprising 3.28 acres from R2, single family residential to R4 single family residential with an increased density of 5.8 units per acre for the construction of 19 detached single family homes based upon a stipulation letter provided by Mr.

Kevin Moore on the 12th of this month.

And Mr.

Kevin Moore is here to present on behalf of the applicant.

Mr.

Mayor Council, uh good evening.

I am Kevin Moore here on behalf of the applicant and the multiple owners uh in this application for rezoning, the applicant being Trayton homes.

Uh what you see on your screens now is the uh existing uh plating uh for 21 individual uh lots uh that are on Jordan Street and Burnap Street, uh just off of Roselane Street behind the hospital in terms of where this area is.

So today uh these 21 lots would be could be built.

Uh individual home permits could be pulled by Trayton homes to build 21 homes.

Uh this particular area was uh originally platted uh in the late 30s.

Uh and since that time uh there's been some you know different types of development.

You see on either side of these uh of this property uh is the O and I, there's medical and uh doctor's offices and other types of institutional offices on either side off of Rose Lane.

Uh but these are the properties that are left uh on the west side of Rose Lane uh that make up uh these individual 21 parcels.

Uh the proposal by Trayton homes is really just to replatt those.

And instead of having a replatting of 21 parcels, it really re-replats it into a total of 19 homes.

So in this instance, what we are proposing actually reduces the existing number of homes, reduces the existing density from 21 homes to 19 homes.

And you can see now the layout uh that is proposed here creates lots that are far better.

Uh the lots are of a higher quality, provides for much better future home sites for future residents, uh, than uh the haphazard nature of the lots that you saw uh in the prior screen uh that exist today.

Uh so this proposal uh is to, from our standpoint, simply replatt it.

We're replatting 20 an area that's comprised of 21 distinct leak uh lots and we replattten it to 19 lots in this instance here on Jordan Street and Burnap Street.

The uh part of this uh uh process, and we've been engaging in this process was to make sure we could assemble.

So we've been able to assemble these 21 parcels.

Uh it's got four uh different owners uh that own those twenty-one parcels, and so it is an assemblage, and that's difficult to do.

Uh but Trayton has been able to do that as part of this process, though.

We also uh early on uh met very heavily and very often uh with your professional staff, uh both your uh community development staff as well as your public works staff to ensure how we were going about this to make sure that we were uh addressing issues uh that they would that they may have or items or even ideas that they had to make it better.

One of the things that we discussed very early on was that the city has what's called your infill uh overlay ordinance.

And that's a specific ordinance in your in your city code that designates certain areas as districts for the infill overlay, and those districts uh do not include behind the hospital.

The infill overlay districts uh located closer and really closer to the square, closer to where we are now, uh, and an infill order overlay ordinance can be utilized under existing zoning.

Uh in this instance, uh the infill overlay ordinance would not be available by right.

Uh something not something we can apply for because it's a specified district, specified areas within the city.

Uh but the provisions and the standards for the infill overlay ordinance fit very well with what we are proposing here, and that is essentially a replatting and actually a reduction in the number of homes.

So what we have done in one of the things that we talked about with community development staff, and it's contained in their staff analysis is their proposal, and it's something we talked with them about, was whether we would agree voluntarily uh to abide by the infill overlay standards.

And that's why you see that set out in our our stipulation letter that we're agreeing to the infill overlay standards.

And what that brings in importantly uh is a couple of different things.

Number one, as opposed to this existing zoning of the property is R2 or R4, by uh by agreeing to the infill overlay standards, we are agreeing to heightened architectural standards.

The infill overlay ordinance has heightened architectural standards.

It has a list of a whole list of architectural standards where you have to meet a certain percentage of those.

Uh that are the things that you might think about when you think of an infill overlay or an infill type of development, and that is heightened standards as it relates to architecture.

So we are agreeing to that.

Uh in addition, it has heightened tree standards, it has heightened uh standards as it relates to the homes as well, and well as it has heightened standards as it relates to ensuring that there's a a homeowners association, that there's covenants uh and uh and so forth.

So we are agreeing to that as part of this proposal.

In addition, we met with public works because we needed to understand uh how Jordan Street and Brunnap Street and Roseland Street and how that was going to interact, because obviously we're utilizing existing city infrastructure, that being those existing city streets.

But if you go out to Jordan Street today, you'll notice first right off the bat that it's narrow.

And that's because today it's really about 18 feet in width in terms of its asphalt.

It's approximately about 18 feet in width.

Uh and again, it's only a 20-foot ride-of-way.

Uh so it's does not uh it needs to, if we're going to do this, we need to do something with that existing right-of-way.

So after meeting with uh uh public works and with Mr.

Rice a couple of times and discussing this, what you see in our stipulation letter is what we were able to arrive at uh with Public Works and Mr.

Rice, and that's what we'd be taking this existing pavement on Jordan Street, taking it from 18 feet to 22 feet wide, uh, and have a right of right of way that would be 25 feet wide.

Uh that really uh really does improve the situation on Jordan Street so that we're making sure that the street is wide enough to accommodate not only emergency services but garbage services and what public works needs.

In addition, we're making sure that the right-of-way now has been expanded uh to accommodate those needs as well.

Uh also uh one of the ideas that came forward, uh and you'll see in our stipulation letter is that we have agreed to cooperate to provide a protected crosswalk.

So on your screen, the right hand side uh where Roselane Street is a sidewalk.

It's actually part of your city trail system.

Uh so that's a nice sidewalk, but it's across uh Rose Lane from here.

And so what we'd be establishing uh with the uh cooperation with public works is a protected crosswalk.

Uh the the reason why it doesn't say there will be a protected crosswalk, and this is how it will be designed, is per Mr.

Rice.

Uh there has to be additional study that he needs to do from a public work standpoint in order to determine what type of protected crosswalk would need to go there.

But we've agreed and had those discussions with him to cooperate and make sure that that's provided so that these future homeowners and residents can make a protected walk to the trail that's just across Roselane Street at this juncture.

Please be mindful as well because it's a mid-block crossing.

Once that is determined, that that being from public works, what the proper design is for the protected crosswalk, that will come back before you as a city council because you'll have to approve that um specific design and mid-block crossing at that time when it's fully designed.

But Trayton is responsible for for for installation of it.

So that will come back to you.

You won't be left to guess what that design is.

Also, I do want to point out uh that uh for all of these homes there will be a minimum driveway length of 20 feet.

So I wanted to make sure I said that.

Lots three and four as well.

Yes.

All all 19 have minimum 20 foot driveways.

Well, you fool me once, but eventually I'll get it and make sure that we have minimum 20 foot driveways here.

Uh in addition, uh the homes themselves, and I want to give you a flavor for uh the types of homes that Trayton will be building here.

What Trayton Homes uh imagines for this for these 19 homes is exactly what we're applying for uh and uh and agreeing to accept, and that is an in fill concept uh that reminds you of other streets and other locations that were built years ago uh with housing in the City of Marietta, where you'll have one and a half story homes with masters on the main floor next to two-story homes, and it you have that variety uh that gives it that real in town look.

And so when you go through these the the representative elevations that uh Trayton Homes has on their on their proposed homes, you'll see that mixture of two-story homes as well as one and a half story homes that we think will be outstanding in this location uh and provide uh for 19 new homeowners in off of Roselane Street.

And it's important to open we hope for your consideration as well that this particular area has seen a lot of different types of development.

You have the offices, office developments that you have had there.

Uh you have had hospital development that's occurred.

You also had uh uh the development that's occurred there at sessions at the end of Roselane, where you have a number of town homes, you have uh a revitalized area there uh that has seen uh a great deal of activity, all that has been excellent.

And so you have a variety of different uses in this area.

You know, one of the things that we thought about initially was well, why not do this as town homes?

Uh because there's town homes in the area right there on Rose Lane, uh, and would be consistent.

But we kept coming back, and that's using the Royal Week.

Trayton kept coming back and saying to themselves as they work through this project, you know what would really would work here, and what was really needed would be 19 detached homes uh that they can do in this uh style and fashion.

Uh and so that's the proposal we are bringing to you tonight.

As I like to call it, this is simply replatting 21 lots into 19 so that uh you have uh 19 lots that are far better.

They will be far more livable, far better for future homeowners, uh, and of a far better level of quality and what you would expect uh in the city at this location.

Uh your planning commission unanimously recommended approval, uh, and we would respect the request, along with our stipulation letter, uh, your approval of this rezoning application here tonight.

I am here happy to answer questions as well as Mr.

Cliff Post and Principal of Trayton Homes, if I cannot.

Thank you for your consideration.

Are the pipes underneath the street?

That's an old residential is the sewer or drainage pipes.

Um I think you know, these was under the pavement.

It's that where we we all had to have easement on grant assessment for utilities?

No.

So there's uh existing drainage and sewer that's in the streets.

So we'll just we'll be able to connect to in the street.

Yes, that's correct.

I have a question.

I guess in our package it says up to 18 single family.

Is it 18 or 19?

It's 19.

I don't I saw that in the this it's been 19 for the whole time.

I don't know if that's just a typo or typographical error in the report.

But it's been a proposed 19 lots the entire time.

It would be cost prohibited to not have the utilities under the street.

It sure is a pain when you have to work on them.

Well, that's where the existing as far as the existing sewer and storm drain is there.

Now uh the other utilities, you know, would be um would not be.

Given the A job, and I'm sure they were probably on a side tonight.

Yeah, I'm surprised with the.

But this will all be connected to sanitary sewer.

But it'll be under the street.

This is my biggest problem.

Well, it's the sanitary sewer is behind us uh where you see Croft Street as well as on and out on Rose Lane there.

So we'll be connecting to that sanitary sewer in that location.

So it's not the sanitary sewer is not running down Jordan Street.

Let me put it that way.

If that's the question.

No, that's correct.

There is no sewer at the easement on the side of the road.

There will be on art for us.

Yes, for the utilities.

But as far as the sewer where we're connecting is not putting a sewer line down Jordan Street.

It's connecting it to the rear in where you see Croft uh street.

Uh there's actually sewer there and then sewer out on Roselane, just kind of where that cross street intersection is.

But the sewer would be away from the street.

Yes.

In your backyard, so to speak.

Right, where it's existing now, it will connect back there.

That's correct.

Mr.

Mayor.

Just as a more of a heads up again from some of the PRDSF that we have had to deal with different times on some of the utilities.

Just be aware where they're being placed, so they're not under any kind of landscaping or something like that as well.

Because you had we had that issue in a uh townhome community in my uh in my ward, where uh they've had to come back to us basically to redo their entire landscaping because of the vegetation growing into the lines.

So just be aware as that's going wrong with the planning.

I'm not sure of the specific thing on that, but just uh heads up.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, I have a quick question.

Well, I was gonna say, uh, we're still uh we're still in the public hearing.

So there's still questions for Mr.

Moore, and then we will ask for opposition.

Okay.

Yep.

What's the price point on the homes?

Um, we're thinking the price points for these will be seven hundreds and could go up from there, but that's what we're thinking the price point will be.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Moore?

I have one more question.

Of course.

The Jordan Street, uh in your, I guess, site planning, that street would be widened and all before the AXO homes are actually built.

I know that's probably a redundant question, but I just want to make sure that.

Right, that's correct.

So Jordan Street and and to clarify too, because I know there was a question at the planning commission, but I want to make sure it's clarified.

That'll be widened on our side.

Because we have all of the property on the north side of Jordan.

So it's going to be widened on our side and and extended and paved, and that width will come from our side uh of the street.

And so and it will be done prior to the homes being built, correct?

I guess one more question.

Um there going to be sidewalks?

All right.

So under the infill overlay ordinance, uh there is a sidewalk requirement.

There is some flexibility that comes uh in as also as part of that ordinance.

Uh and so we're going to be working with public works uh on that.

But it's a it's it is a requirement of the infill overlay ordinance, but that it has a provision for flexibility.

We're not asking to be excused from the sidewalks or asking for any flexibility other than what the ordinance already provides.

Okay.

Thank you.

And this may be something that's going to have to come out of that discussion.

Will it be on both sides of Jordan?

Or because you don't own that center space.

That's right.

Okay.

If it if it was to do that.

But that's, you know, again, we are also putting in the protected crosswalk to the sidewalk that everybody is going to want to get to if you are walking.

Okay.

Any more questions for Mr.

Moore before we ask for opposition?

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Moore.

Uh anyone here to speak in opposition to this matter?

Yes, can you come on down and ask questions?

Just give your uh name and address for the record, please.

Deborah Whitworth 106 Burnap.

Um just questions about because Jordan is a circle that's connected to Burnap.

It how far will the improvement of the street go?

Mr.

Moore can answer that when he comes back up.

Okay.

Uh also we all on Burnapp are on septic there.

Will we be able to also have access to the new sewer that goes in?

Or the the way that it's being tapped in, will we have access to that as well?

That's a question.

You will have Mr.

Moore answer that.

Anyone else here in opposition?

I should I should do uh like I did last to go around.

Anyone here in support of this item that uh wants to speak?

Would you like to speak, Mr.

Barr?

I kind of knew the answer to that question.

You have 22 seconds.

That includes walking.

Oh boy.

Donald Barth, 1641 St.

John Avenue.

Cheryl, I'm with you.

I almost died that you didn't have.

We don't have a list of variances.

We got 20-foot driveways, and we've got some incredible-looking architecture coming to Marietta if you also desire.

Again, the area is a very hot area.

Normally it would turn into commercial.

Everything down there is going to be commercial.

So having some residential close to the hospital, there can't be anything wrong with that.

Mr.

Poston was nice enough to offer to widen the street without y'all having to ask him to do it first.

Man, 2026 is going to be good.

Thank you.

All right.

Last call for anyone who wants to speak in opposition or support.

And if not, Mr.

Moore, if you would come back up if you you have about three and a half minutes remaining if you want to answer those questions or give any other response.

Thank you.

I would be happy to answer the question, so I'll do that very briefly.

First, the improvements uh are on Jordan Street that we'll be widening the actual street pavement width as well as expanding the actual right-of-way.

It will come around the corner, uh, but it won't will not take place on Burnap Street because we don't we don't we don't have the middle part of Burnap Street.

Um as far as sewer connectivity, we will be obviously bringing sewer uh to here as far as whether she'll be able to connect to it.

That would have to be determined if that's feasible, depending on which house she is and how you would get there with the line or so forth.

But we're happy to obviously discuss it and help her with it at one at some point.

Any other questions for Mr.

Moore?

If not, we'll close the public hearing for this matter.

Thank you.

The Pierre recognizes the councilman from Ward 4, Mr.

Anderson.

Um yes, sir.

I would like to make a motion that this application Z 2025-25 be approved as written along with a stipulation letter dated January 12th, 2026.

Motion and second.

Any discussion, please?

Um one question relating to that.

The sewer the sewer or septic question.

Is that something that to be determined by working with staff as well, I guess, in that one?

Right.

We would work with uh Meredith Water and try to figure that out and see what uh accessibility there is.

The individual might have to pay to you know connect up and run that line depending on where it is.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

I'd like to call it a question, please indicate your vote.

Motion carries seven oh.

Thank you.

Thank you for 20-foot driveways.

Thank you for making it.

Cheryl, they're not paved.

They're not paved.

They're gravel.

Oh, it doesn't allow for that.

Code doesn't allow for that.

Mr.

Barry, would you like me to call the next item?

Yeah, the next item is uh 63 Trammel Street.

We Mr.

White, will you conduct a public hearing, please?

Yes, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh this will be item number Z 202601.

Uh Andrew and Jessica McIntyre uh for uh property uh on Reynolds uh Tramel Street, excuse me.

Um I'll let Mr.

Cummings do the introduction here.

All right, thank you once again, Mr.

White.

So for case Z 2026-01, and Andrew and Jessica McIntyre are requesting the rezoning of 63 Tramel Street from R4 single family residential to R4 with an increased density of 6.9 units per acre for the purposes of subdividing the property into two lots, one of which would face Reynolds Street.

And at this time, Mr.

Andrew McIntyre is here to present his request.

Good evening.

I'm Andrew McIntyre, Little 63 Trammel Street.

I'm here with my wife.

Um we're here to um get these variances to be able to divide their property.

Um our goal is to put it onto the market.

Um we feel this is appropriate in terms of the way our neighborhoods built.

A lot of these old houses are built on smaller lots like this, and um it fits with the neighborhood already.

One other factor is our neighbor to the left and our neighbor to the right have already had approvals.

One has already been sold and we'll have have a house built on it soon.

The other is for sale.

For us in between, it makes sense for us to go through this process as well.

It I think it also makes sense in terms of the visibility on rental street to be consistent.

Um so we're asking for uh this approval.

If you guys have any questions, please let me know.

Sorry.

Yes.

Questions for the owner?

Yeah.

Um in the staff analysis, the variances one and two on each of the properties are required variances to allow the lot to be subdivided.

Okay.

The third variance is reducing the side setbacks from ten feet to five feet, but that was noted as being no, it's not a required, that was a request.

So what's the reasoning behind the request?

Um we had this is actually when our other neighbor to our left had made a similar request, so we had put this together at the same time.

We had talked through a lot of these.

A lot of our houses that are a lot of the houses currently there are small and skinny, and these lots are small and skinny.

So the goal was to be able to um allow for um houses that could be a variety of houses to be able to exist on that property.

These lots are very long and skinny in general, and so that would open up the options.

Does that make sense?

I will defer for discussion for the rest.

So I I guess kind of to his point.

There is an existing house on the tramel side, right?

Yes.

Does it have side setbacks of five feet or are they normal setbacks 10 feet?

It I am imagining that there's they're less than that currently.

It's a house that was 1942 and we had it's a very small ready.

So it's more for the options that for the other lot.

Okay.

But I it's that's not a catch-all in itself.

So if that's not approved, it's more in 10 as you mentioned for the other lot to be able to be divided.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

On the other one, didn't we?

We said no to side setback.

We said no to side set back.

That's correct, yeah.

And the whoever buys the lot can I guess come back and I think one of them we might have said yes to, but it was an existing condition.

There was some existing condition that we had to say yes to.

But that you're saying this isn't existing.

For I'm sorry.

For the side setbacks.

It's not already a proper house built down, so we're not maintaining the status quo.

No, it's currently seven and a half feet.

Okay.

For 63 tramals.

So that one would probably that one might need a variance to for existing conditions at the very least.

But it's current setback, side setback is seven and a half feet, if I can see that right.

Okay.

So I see what you look at.

Okay.

No, it might need a variance, just maybe not to the extent being requested.

Yeah.

Any other questions for Mr.

McIntyre?

So my question is that the house that you are currently living in?

That is correct.

Setback.

Yeah.

And we intend on staying there, so we aren't um intending to move.

And so this is a benefit to us to have neighbors, additional neighbors in any around us, also.

Just a question out of um curiosity.

Do you really have a gravel driveway?

We do.

Uh-oh.

Is grandfathered and cheryl?

It's grandfathered and at least it's 31 feet.

It's probably better to just leave that one as grandfather and not ask for a variance.

It's an older home, and so a lot of these are like that.

Questions of the applicant.

If not, at this time I'll ask if anyone is here to speak in opposition or in support of this matter.

If there are no further questions of the applicant or staff at this time, we can close the public hearing.

If you ever recognize the councilman, Mr.

Gaddis from Ward 3.

Yes, I make a motion to approve uh Z 202601 as written.

Second.

Discussion.

I make a amended motion to approve the application as submitted without the variance for the side setbacks.

For the rental street lot?

For both.

For either.

I mean, the current condition is not five feet on either of them.

So he's got seven and a half.

Isn't he asking from ten to five?

He's he's got existing conditions, so seven and a half is where he's at.

Right.

But on the other one where there's nothing, I don't want five feet.

Okay.

So for the for the tramel street lot, the existing conditions.

So 10 to 7.5 for existing conditions.

For the other one, the number three isn't entirely gone.

Yes, please.

Second.

You're just talking about the rental street.

Rentled street is just variances one and two.

Trammel Street is variances one and two, and the third one is amended to be reduced.

To whatever it is.

Yes, whatever it is for current conditions.

Yes.

So there's a do you understand the amendment?

You okay with it?

And you're okay if you can live with it?

Thank you.

Keep your gravel live.

Good train.

There is an amendment before us.

We're going to just vote on amendment, and then after amending one way or the other, then we vote one more time.

Any discussion as to the amendment?

Hearing none to call the question, please.

The amendment carries 7-0.

Now we have the original motion as amended.

Thank you.

Enjoy your grab and drive one.

The other one won't be grabbed.

Thank you.

Very much.

Mr.

White, we conduct a hearing for 401 parkway, Sam.

Yes, Mr.

Mayor.

The next item, uh the next public hearing we're going to have is uh for Z 2026 02, Avis Mobility Ventures LLC, uh requesting rezoning of a certain property on uh Cobb Parkway South.

Mr.

Cummings, will you introduce it for us?

Thank you again, Mr.

White.

So for K C 2026-02, the applicant Avis Mobility Ventures LLC are requesting the rezoning of point 417 acres of property known as 1401 Cobb Parkway South from CRC, community retail commercial to CRC with an additional use of auto storage.

And Mr.

Russ Giglio is here to present on behalf of the applicant.

I'm not Russ.

Or perhaps not.

Sorry, thank you, Mayor Council.

Not Russ, but my name is Dear Leiden.

I'm the legal officer on behalf of Vavis Mobility Ventures.

We are seeking an additional use for this space, which is my understanding is a parking lot, which is defined in the code as temporary, less than 24 hours.

And we're seeking to be able to park overnight to have overnight storage, which would be um an ad the additional use for this um area.

This is connected via a variance in the back between 1401 and 1431.

1431, we have um already received zoning and are in the process of getting building uh getting occupancy permits for that building.

And this would be a con uh an associated use for that property.

And we the planning commission approved um recommended approval, and we are respectfully requesting the additional use for the CRC for outdoor storage, which permits overnight parking.

Any questions for Ms.

Leiden?

Uh Ms.

Mayor.

The uh the motion that was put out with the planning commission wasn't specifically for the additional use so much as it was the reinstatement of a legally nonconforming use.

Correct, yes.

Um is that what you are asking for rather than the Yes, whatever the planning commission recommended is is is what we're looking for.

We're looking to be able to park overnight, um park vehicles overnight in that in that parking space, uh, because it's my understanding that parking as defined was temporary, not overnight.

Got it.

And while not specifically part of the zone rezoning thing, if it's approved, you understand you'll have to get a business license is provided.

Correct.

Understood.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

I am sorry, I missed it because I was away.

Um is it fenced?

Um I don't I am actually not a hundred percent sure.

I not sure if it is fully fenced or not.

Um I have a question.

Uh what type of vehicles would be parked out there?

Um our company is called Flexcar, we offer short-term leasing, so leasing for um minimum is a month period.

Um we offer new and used vehicles for leasing, and so it would be those all of those types of cars.

So a myriad of of cars that would be parked there.

All you know, just cars that anyone would drive, not any not like big trucks or things like that.

It would just be personal use type cars.

Okay.

Thank you.

Would it be operable?

I'm sorry?

Would all the cars be operable?

Yes, sir.

If if they come back damaged, we have a we would bring them in and have them fixed.

So it could be that a car comes back and would sit for uh a short period of time before we're able to move it into the shop to be fixed.

But it wouldn't be like we wouldn't have cars that weren't operable, that's usually correct.

If we have cars that are on operable, we're we're getting rid of them.

Yeah.

Is this essentially like a long-term rental?

I mean, is this classified as a rental car or is this a separate genre I've never heard of before?

Yeah, it's a little bit hard because it's it's a different type of business model.

So not traditional rental, um, which is really daily use.

Um like I said, we are we're looking to sort of um replace leasing for people so that you're not locked into a long three-year lease and that you can switch cars as you need them.

Um so it it's a bit of a hybrid, I would say, between the two.

Um because it's we're offering people to be able to keep cars for for longer and way more affordable than a rental car would be.

Um and also trying to make prices better for a leasing as well.

So uh yes and no?

Uh kind of a little bit of a different model.

Any more questions for the applicant?

Where the cars are parked.

Is it lined parking?

Or are you guys just kind of it's kind of hard to see from these pictures?

It is hard to see.

Yeah, we are we are going to be uh having it uh lined m lined up in parking spaces like that.

It to be honest, it's harder to be able to find where cars are if they're not parked in a systematic manner, yes.

Anything else, Mr.

Sliden?

Do you have this model in place in other places?

Yes, sir.

We currently have a facility um in Lilleburn, um uh hub location in Lilburns, right in Stone Mountain area.

Um have a similar a little bit of a similar setup, but um at that spot the properties are parking lot struck in our par and our hub location are contiguous.

They're right, you know, they're right next to each other.

Um we also have a location in um Nashville, uh New York, right outside New York and New Rochelle.

Um Charlotte, North Carolina, and right outside of Worcester, Massachusetts.

Thank you.

Yep.

Anything else?

All right.

This time uh I will ask if there's anyone here to speak in opposition or support of this application.

There's nothing else from council uh for the applicant or staff will uh close this public hearing.

Thank you.

I will make a motion, but we'll have some questions afterward for staff.

Okay.

Um application on zoning Z 2020 uh 2026-02.

I make a motion to approve the rezoning uh.417 acres located in light landlots 641656 of the 17th District, parcel 0050 of the second section Cobb County, Georgia, and being known as 1401 Comp Parkway South from CRC community retail commercial to CRC with an uh um with an additional with an additional use with the following uh with the following variants being incorporated as a condition of the CRC zoning specific to the subject property.

The storage of passenger vehicles be reinstated as a legally nonconforming use, subject to the restrictions outlined in section 706.

And just as a note, that will require a business license as per our code.

Second.

Well, Claire, do you say did you change anything?

No.

Just allowed second.

Any uh further discussion?

Yes, sir.

Really quickly.

The uh section 706 is part of that that doesn't allow for disabled vehicles to be parked out there, it's just is correct.

Or the business license.

Yeah, the side of it.

So it's under 706 and the business license based off that kind of that kind of uh use.

Would you repeat the question?

Well, storage of not of non-operable vehicles.

Oh, correct.

Section 706 would not allow for the storage of non-operable vehicles as outdoor storage.

That's correct.

Yes.

Is it yeah?

Yeah, the 706 is the nonconforming use section, correct?

Is that uh is that what we're referencing and so yes, because this is specific to this one nonconforming, any other nonconforming use would not be allowed.

Okay.

So just so we're on the same page and where is the uh where's the applicant where's the attorney for the applicant?

You understand that it does not include the storage of non-operable vehicles there.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other discussion or comments?

Hearing none, I would like to call the question.

Please indicate your vote.

Motion carries 7-0.

Thank you.

I've asked that question before because we don't it's kind of like Airbnb.

Can we ask a question with clarity?

Well, you ask.

And I'm gonna ask you both Bill and Daniel White.

So this is a and it's not on you.

Um FlexCar.

Yes.

Is it subject to the 3 percent auto rental tax?

I think that's the same thing.

Sorry.

I haven't dove into the tax regulations with regard to the vehicles and and and the subject to.

I know that um in Stone Mountain Lilleburn there are auto use taxes to which we are subject to by county.

So I would just I I haven't looked into that to be honest with you, but I I know that in various towns and cities in which we operate, there are different sales and use taxes, vehicle taxes, things like that that we are required.

And it's not on you guys.

You guys pay what you are required to pay.

This is something I have asked before.

There are several of these kind of new models for uses of cars, like Toro, which you can personally it's like an Airbnb for cars.

Toro, you just take your car and you lease it to someone, but you don't pay kind of what Airbnb used to be.

You don't have to pay that tax.

Right.

And that's kind of a question I have asked before about these, and I don't know about flex car, but I know on things like Toro, you just lease somebody your car and we get nothing.

Yeah, on those individual leases we do not uh get anything at all.

We'll have to check on this particular one.

This is different than anything that we've got uh that we're dealing with right now.

Uh and as you saw, the state had to go in and do something to assist us with Airbnb.

I don't know if they'll have to do the same thing here if we can apply it.

But we'll good point, and we'll definitely look into that.

Thank you.

Generally, just for your information, what I've seen in a variety of cities and towns is um the sales and use taxes tend to fall um on a day basis, so that if you have a which is similar to people's personal insurance, if you have a vehicle um that you are renting and you are on vacation, your personal insurance generally covers it because it is under 30 days.

So generally, if it's an under 30 day, there's a we would be applicable to a rental tax.

If it's over 30 days or 30 days or over, it really depends on how the law reads.

We would be subject to a separate tax, just it's usually just a longer term tax.

But it kind of depends on how the law reads, but usually that's how things cut with regard to tax laws and other laws.

It depends on the day period.

That makes sense.

I was going to say that I don't there was a little bit of overlap.

This when I don't know if you remember we had the hotel case uh where there was the CSX was renting blocks of rooms and saying not paying the tax because they were saying we were paying, you know, oh these are long-term rentals.

And so there's some clarification that was done there, but uh my recollection is that this the auto tax was clearer.

I was like, I remember looking at it going, oh, we need to this is what needs to be.

So I think it's going to be clear when they look at it.

And between uh staff, staff and finance.

You know, business license will be business.

Right.

But it's again, Toro is one where you know if I had a nice car to lease out, I could just put it out in the marketplace and and lease it out like what used to happen with Airbnb without taxation.

Yes.

When my daughter's convertible fell through for the homecoming parade.

That's where we found it.

Exactly.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

No, thank you, ma'am.

Appreciate it.

She put your notice you might have some surprises when you do the business wise.

This is still poor.

Okay.

The palms at Pacos Ferry, Mr.

White, will you conduct a public hearing, please?

Yes, this will be the public hearing for Z 2026 03, the Palms at Paces Ferry LLC, requesting rezoning for parcels located on Bells Ferry Road.

And Mr.

Cummings, will you introduce this one?

Yes, sir.

Thanks once again, Mr.

White.

So for K Z 2026-03, the Palms at Paces Ferry LLC is requesting the rezoning of 1567, 1583, 1605, and 1611 Bells Ferry Road from R20, a Cobb County residential designation, and R2, City of Marietta, single family residential designation, to PRDSF, planned residential development for the construction of 20 attached single-family townhomes.

Mr.

Parks Huff is here to present on behalf of the applicant.

Good evening.

For the record, my name is Parks Uff with Sam's Lockenhoff, and I represent the applicant in regards to this rezoning application.

This is four uh parcels that are currently three are currently in the city, and we're asking for the fourth one to be annexed into the city.

I will note that they do have current gravel driveways.

They look at the picture there, gra this gravel, so they won't and the after effect have gravel driveways.

Uh so this is on Bells Ferry Road.

It's on the uh as you're going out Bells Ferry Road, it's on the left-hand side, and I want to point that out because uh there is on the right-hand side of Bells Fair Road, there's some industrial and other uses in going along in that area.

But on the left hand side of Bells Ferry Road, the north side of Bells Ferry Road, it's all residential.

And a couple of things that uh that are interesting about this case, the property owner to the south reached out to me and said they supported the proposal and actually would like their potential property to be included in it.

The property owner to the west, uh which is the larger tract that shows up there that's actually as accessed off of Corvette Drive, uh attended the planning commission meeting.

Rarely happens.

They actually attended the planning commission meeting to speak in support of the proposal because this is a residential area and it is undeveloped property, and being able to make it into usable residential property is constructive.

I do have a presentation of walk through a couple of slides.

And I while we're on this one, do note across um further north you have the RA8 uh community that that is recently developed.

So again, showing that on this side of Bells Ferry Road, you have some residential development.

I think do I have a next slide?

I don't know if I so this is yeah, okay.

This shows the uh pull-out of the property again, showing that you have residential on the left-hand side of Bells Ferry, north side of Bells Ferry Road.

Uh we're right up next to 75.

The obvious feature that everybody knows and was commented about by the planning commission is that there's a whole lot of homeless uh in this area.

And that's one of the reasons why the two neighbors support this proposal because it's you know, doing nothing doesn't solve an an issue.

And so being able to put 20 town homes on this property uh allows uh some homeowners to be in the area and also um hopefully create less opportunities for for homeless uh to to live in the area uh as they are right now.

So my client is very aware and we've had a lot of conversation and he understands the efforts he's gonna have to make uh to ensure that that he can uh sell these units and um and also handle this the current situation.

But that has already happened.

You've got communities to the south, you have communities to the north in similar situations.

Go to the next slide.

Uh this is a uh zoom-in view of the subject property again uh to the back of us is residential property.

Larger tract.

Again, that that gentleman showed up in support of this application.

Next slide.

Again, showing the gravel driveway that will be removed and replaced with a uh 20-unit townhome community.

Uh it will obviously be uh fenced and secured, uh, but it is an opportunity uh to be able to create more housing.

As I showed in the previous presentation, I do like to I I sometimes get a little preachy about the need for more housing.

But when your average first-time home buyer is now 40, you just have to create more opportunities for people to be able to live in your community.

And this is an opportunity to do that, to be able to take four properties, uh annexed three are in the city, annexed one end of the city, create a zoning that is consistent with some of the other development in the area, and as I said, we've got uh community support from the the adjacent neighbors.

And as I said, we have got uh community support from the adjacent neighbors.

Each driveway is 20 feet in length.

We have assured of that.

We will have an amenity area and trails that surround it.

But this is just really an opportunity to make some unproductive land into some productive use of that property.

And the more of this that happens in this corridor, uh, the better opportunities for this corridor to improve.

And your planning commission looked at this application and unanimously recommended approval because they saw the value and the benefit of this project.

So I appreciate your time.

We ask that you follow your planning commission recommendation and approve the proposal as recommended.

Thank you.

I think we call that a hammerhead.

Is the fire department happy with that before turnaround?

Yeah.

Thank you.

The uh griff is no longer on the council, but I am probably going to ask a quick question that was similar to his.

The uh townhomes, they are going to be all the same, or are they going to be offset slightly?

We we can have some offsets and and variation in architecture between the units so that there isn't a monolithic look.

And we can do it in combination of staggering the frontage and also architecture details.

Also want to mention obviously there will be a homeowners association, strong covenants that uh ensure the long-term viability of the neighborhood.

Okay.

Um the recreation, I know that's uh there are two variances on the property.

One is dealing with the fact that it is not three acres, it's going it's I think it was two point three one was dealing with the recreation requirement going from 17,000 square feet down to 10,000, uh a little over 10,000.

Yeah.

And and I I think that is really maybe a categorization of what you are counting as is recreation space.

We actually have a lot of open space behind the units that I think when the plan final plan is designed, we will have more recreation area.

But I think the staff is just being real careful in in noting that.

But I think given the location, the size of the community, 10,000 square foot recreation area, and quite frankly, you don't want to get too much recreation area that the 20 homeowners have to maintain and ensure that people don't get in it that currently walk along Bells Ferry Road.

And the intern, um you have the passive as the uh trail, and then the active will be that building there and it is shown as a block, but it is going to be an outdoor pavilion, fire pit, dog area kind of thing.

Thank you.

You said that it was going to be fenced, but not gated, right?

Just fenced around.

Right now it is going to be fenced.

Uh he may look at the probability of gating it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Obviously, if it is gated, it will have to meet all the fire code and safety requirements.

Quick question for you.

So um what would be the price points on these?

Um, low fives.

Low fives.

Okay.

Anything else, Mr.

Chef?

Uh one question that I have never known the Bales Ferry Homeowners Association to miss a meeting is this.

Um I will give weight to it that they are happy with it, which is they are less than shy.

If they disagree.

I I I may confess something, but my my sister is actually a board member of the Bell Fair Civic Association.

But I have not caught talked to her about this case.

I I don't I I assume that they uh have no issues with it.

As you say, they they are not shy.

Yeah.

Mr.

Mayo, especially.

Yes.

Um two other quick things.

The uh unlike the one before, the county is not objected to this one, correct?

In fact, the county specifically did not object, and and I think it is a recognition that it is a residential area, uh, even though it shows up as a community activity center for the county, but that this and I think that is one of the reasons why we have neighborhood support, because this is not a commercial, you wouldn't want a little commercial node here on this side of Bells Faye Road.

So the city, I mean the county specifically did not object to this.

And there is probably a difference between this side of the road, the side of the Bells Ferry thing versus the South Side where has a lot more industrial warehouse future land use.

Exactly.

Because I am I know this I know we just sent that the notice of the county back at our organizational meeting on the Dixon Road.

Yeah, you and that is why I was pointing out you have a mixture of different type of buildings in construction on that side of Bells Ferry Road.

This side is all residential and it makes sense to keep it all residential.

Any more questions from Mr.

Huff?

This time I will ask if is there anyone here to speak in support or opposition of this matter?

Any more questions?

Would we make a stipulation that they need to be staggered?

That probably would be an important stipulation, yes, sir.

And so long as the applicant is agreeable to that.

We are.

Any more questions from uh council?

If not, this public hearing is closed.

The Chair recognizes the council from Ward Vine, Mr.

Kemp?

Yes, sir.

I would like to make a motion that we approve the ordinance with uh staggered units as described in uh Z 202602.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

If not, I'm not to call the question.

Please indicate your vote.

Motion carries.

Mr.

White has to the next item, will you conduct a public hearing on the I guess land use?

Uh yes, uh the annexation is next.

And just as a primer, I know there was a this came up earlier, but it's helpful to know the rezoning always goes first.

Uh because if the rezoning doesn't go the way the applicant wants, they have the right to withdraw the city.

And then uh there's some other technical reasons behind the right why the reason even though the property is not in the city first, rezoning always gets heard first, uh, then the annexation, and then once it is annexed in, the city can change the future land use on it.

So that's the there's a specific order and a very specific legal reason that that happens.

Mr.

Cummings, with that introduction, uh, reason that George alone.

That's what I was about to say.

I think state law.

That's right.

That's right.

Right.

But uh just so the public is aware.

Thank you.

Um this next item is uh annexation A 2026-01 uh for this property we just uh discussed on uh Bells Ferry, Mr.

Cummings, will you please introduce this item?

Yes, sir.

So for A 2026-01, the Palms at Paces Ferry Inc.

is requesting the annexation uh of the property 1583 Bells Ferry Road in conjunction with the rezoning that just took place, uh which is.72 acres uh plus any associated right-of-way.

And Mr.

Parks Huff is here to present or to incorporate his uh previous comments.

I incorporate.

And this is just one parcel, the other three already.

Any uh any uh questions for Mr.

Huff for on this annexation?

All right.

Hearing none, anyone here to speak in support or opposition of the annexation?

Yes, Mr.

Wills.

Larry Wheels, 60 Oakmont Drive, Marietta.

Uh I think you just tried to explain why the um annexation became before the rezoning approval.

Yes, I was just pointing out.

Well, as the mayor pointed out, it is state law that the rezoning applications get heard first, then the annexation, and then the future land use.

And that's and I think what just happened was it proved that there is no reason to have an annexation public hearing if you approve the rezoning.

Uh why would you rezone a piece of property and then refuse to annex it?

It's it's happened, but I can see why you would have a public hearing to consider annexation for school overcrowding traffic, et cetera, et cetera.

I can think of a bunch of reasons not to annex a piece of property into the City of Marietta.

It would be high hard to provide fire service economically, police service.

But it just seems really strange that you would rezone a piece of property and then not annex it.

You should have a public hearing to consider annexation, and then a public hearing after it's been approved for annexation to consider the rezoning if it requires rezoning to fit it into the city's future land use plan.

Because then after you do these, you got to go back and re review and change your future land use plans.

And y'all do this consistently, and it I don't understand why we even worry about a future land use plan.

Honestly, the whole thing seems like it's kind of backwards.

Thank you.

Anyone else who wants to speak supporter opposition to this annexation?

It being none, I'll close this public hearing.

Chair.

The Chair recognizes that the Councilmember Ward Fine, Mr.

Kemp.

Yes, sir.

I would like to make a motion to approve the annexation of A 202601, the palms at Paces Ferry, LLC.

Second.

Any further discussion?

I would like to call the question.

Please indicate your vote.

Motion carries 7-0.

The uh next item, Mr.

White, we conduct a public hearing for the land use.

Yes, Mr.

Mayor, this would be the public hearing for the code amendment uh about the uh regarding the future land use uh category for the uh annexation that was just considered.

That's uh item number CA26 2026 01.

Mr.

Cummings, will you thank you again, Mr.

White?

So for CO 206-01, uh, the City of Marietta in conjunction with the prior rezoning and prior annexation are requesting that 1583, 1567, 1605, and 1611 Bells Ferry Road be designated a future land use category of MDR medium density residential.

And uh this is an item uh brought on brought by the city, so I don't know that we I'm sure Mr.

Parks uh doesn't have to speak, but I'm sure he would uh reincorporate his comments.

Is there anyone here to speak in support or opposition of this uh future land use code amendment?

There being none, I close this portion of the public hearing.

Thank you.

The chair recognized the councilman for Ward 5, Mr.

Kemp.

Yes, sir.

I would like to make a motion to approve uh CA 202601, the code amendment for future land use in conjunction with the recognized annexation and rezoning located in land lots 858 and 59, District 16, and the POSS and uh stated.

Go ahead.

Any discussion?

Hearing none calling the question.

Motion carries 7-0.

Making open the floor for unscheduled appearance if any citizen would like to come forward and speak.

Please do.

Yes, sir.

Reminder, y'all.

Thank you.

Chad Pack 287 Scott Drive, Marietta, Georgia.

I know all this was settled back in December, but my wife and I are very upset, along with a lot of people in this community, over.

I don't want to say secret or sham, but special meeting.

And I'm gonna read through this.

We wanted to read this today as we thought this would be an opportunity for us to speak on this issue.

I know it's already been settled.

Well, maybe not.

The circumstances under which the special meeting was held last month was a sole rezoning item on the Agenda Z 2025-19, made it necessary for me to speak up.

I was not opposed to the idea of the development of this property.

However, I had significant concerns about the size of the development and the impact it will have on the neighborhood.

At the November meeting, the developer asked was asked by the council to come back in December after a thorough look at the school impact after conducting a noise study and reducing the number of homes to 51.

51.

Number keeps coming up, doesn't it?

At the December meeting, only one school, the only one that doesn't already exceed student capacity is what was brought up.

That's the one that was discussed.

No noise study had been conducted.

Instead of eliminating more than 25 homes, three had been removed from the plan.

In other words, the concerns that tabled this in the November meeting were not addressed in the way that the council requested, the council requested this.

Leaving the December meeting, it was planned for the request to be discussed further in January today.

Not seven days after a meeting where we came and talked.

I'm sorry, not secret.

Special meeting.

However, as you all may know, it was decided that a special called meeting would be held the next week week instead.

I would argue that this type of meeting should be called a secret meeting instead of a special meeting.

It took a considerable amount of work after hearing a rumor of the meeting.

Yeah.

Heard a rumor that they're having a meeting.

I thought, well, no way.

Searching the city's website, making calls to the zoning office, they said they knew nothing about the meeting, and finally, email exchanges with Mr.

Goldstein, Mr.

Bruton, to determine that the special called meeting was happening.

When questioned if proper protocols have been followed about notification, Mr.

Bruton said, confirmed that the mayor was allowed to, under the city code, have a special meeting and was choosing to do so.

It was can it was to contend that just because something is allowed doesn't make it right.

Mr.

Bruton assured me the notification signs would be updated in the neighborhood to show the date time of special called meeting.

They were not.

We have pictures.

We went through the neighborhood, we handed out trying to get people here, notifying people, letting them know that there was a special meeting.

Oh no, we're going to be there on the 14th.

Anyway.

An emergent need to get together 72% of the months of that period.

Clearly tells me that special call meetings are the way things get done.

Out of sight of most people and with no opportunity for the public to even comment.

Only those who were involved in arranging the special called meeting and doing their due diligence to make sure they met the very minimum requirements to do so.

There was the intent was in doing that.

However, as a homeowner and someone concerned about the impact of development on my neighborhood, I could tell you how it looks and feels to me.

It feels unethical, underhanded, and shady.

It is a shame that the council and the mayor took this unethical approach to getting the zoning voted on and violated a number of their own zoning rules to push the vote through.

I couldn't build a deck on my house without violating a number of rules that are violating to build an entire neighborhood.

It is a shame that only one council member really even tried to ask the right questions.

And for that sincerely thank you, Ms.

Richardson.

I can only hope that we could do a better job of bringing people with the right ethics to the council in the future.

By the way, two new council members, this doesn't include you, but I do want to I did want to voice this.

I want to say one thing.

Growing up, our kids would say, hey, hey, can I go do this?

Can I go do that?

Uh I want this, I want this.

Do you need an answer right now?

If you do, guess what it is?

No.

I need time to think about it, talk about it.

Let's talk it over.

Let's let's let me investigate this.

Why were we rushed?

What was the difference in seven days after a meeting where we plan to table this to today?

Time's now it's approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else like to come forward?

See none, I'd like to close the public hearing is uh anything else to come before us?

No, sir.

Meeting the general.