DRI #2410
Note: The 2 firms listed are Ergas companies.
|
MINUTES OF MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF KENNESAW
Council Chambers
Monday, June 16, 2014
6:30 p.m.
(Extract of Minutes for pages 26 to 36)
Zoning Administrator Darryl Simmons presented agenda items IX-D, E and F
concurrently.
Mayor Mathews said he was recently made aware of a blog implying that it comes from
him. The last date was June 10th. This is not his blog, he knows who owns the blog
and will look into it further. The blog does not express his opinions or comments. The
City will do all to help the developer and any outstanding issues for residents. Laws
have to be followed and you cannot be displaced from your home automatically.
Tonight, if you agree with public comments being made on agenda items IX-D, E and F,
stand up from your chair to show support of those comments. We will make every effort
to keep this as open as we can. He thanked everyone for coming this evening.
D. Authorization for approval of an ORDINANCE granting a rezoning request
submitted by Amak Partners and Masal Partners for property located at 1810 Old
41 Highway. Property identified as 1.29+/- acre tract in Land Lot 207, Tax Parcel
05 of the 20th District, 2nd Section, Cobb County. Applicant is seeking to rezone
property from City GC (General Commercial) to City PVC (Planned Village
Community) for inclusion into a commercial development with a residential
component. Application was advertised in the May 16, 2014 edition of the
Marietta Daily Journal. Property posted May 20, 2014. Planning Commission at
a meeting held on June 04, 2014 made recommendation to approve the rezoning
of the 1.29+/- acres from City GC (General Commercial) to City PVC (Planned
Village Community) with stipulations in attached May 30, 2014 letter from Sams,
Larkin and Huff law firm. In addition two friendly amendments to the list of
stipulations to include the following: 1). Garages to be used for vehicle storage
and 2). Driveways to be 18' in length. Vote: 5-0. Yeas: Adam Ambrecht, Jeff
Powers, Cindi Michael, Fred Moore, Craig MacNaughton. Nays: None. Staff
Recommendation: Darryl Simmons, Zoning Administrator recommended
approval with incorporation of all conditions referenced in stipulation letter dated
May 30, 2014 as prepared by law firm Sams, Larkin and Huff in addition to the
two additional conditions requested by the Planning Commission: 1) Garages to
be used for vehicle storage; and 2) Driveways to be 18' in length.
Zoning Administrator Darryl Simmons presented the rezoning request submitted by
Amak Partners and Masal Partners for property located at 1810 Old 41 Highway, the
rezoning on item IX-E and the annexation on item IX-F. The entire project is 32± acres
and the intended project is composed of four main components – 16,000 feet of retail
space along Old 41, 328 multi-family units (class A apartments), 49 townhomes, and of
that 32± acres, 11.4 is identified for future development. This is a logical extension for
the City. No objections were received from Cobb County and there were recommended
conditions from Cobb Department of Transportation. The Planning Commission
recommended unanimously to rezone and annex, along with existing conditions plus
two additional conditions: 1) Garages to be used for vehicle storage; and 2) Driveways
to be 18' in length. Attached to the agenda packet is a June 9th letter from the
applicant’s attorney Garvis Sams, restating all 36 conditions.
GARVIS SAMS (Applicant’s Attorney): Mr. Sams redistributed materials attached to the
agenda packet showing images of the project area. Since Mr. Fuqua’s 53 acre
annexation, this annexation is a logical step. Mr. Fuqua’s timeframe will be to close on
the 53 acre property at the end of this summer and vertical construction will begin in the
summer of 2015 for his $150 million development. Tonight his client is the current
property owner. At the Work Session there was an indication some issues needed to
be addressed tonight. This Cobb County property is surrounded on three sides by City
boundaries. The Intergovernmental Agreement between the County and all Cobb cities
states the County can object to the annexation, and they did not, but has certain
stipulations and steps to be addressed – traffic and transportation. These Cobb
recommendation were incorporated into the 36 stipulations within his letter. The
rezoning will be for a Planned Village Community consisting of 49 townhomes, 328
multi-family units, and retail. This proposal has been reviewed at a local and regional
level and any issues were incorporated into the stipulations.
One Councilmember
expressed that perhaps 36 stipulations may be too many. Not all of these stipulations
come from the County or the City, but from his client as well.
In Fuqua’s presentation there was not a specific relocation plan, but was incorporated to
be a part of plan review. In this instance they addressed existing residents with more
specificity. They will have $2,500 assistance for relocation to the head of household
that lives in the mobile home. These funds will not go to a homeowner or absentee
landlord, but to the resident. There are approximately 160 mobile homes on this tract
which is approximately $400,000 for assistance. Also, the property owners will provide
food and lodging allowance particularly from departure from their mobile home to an
apartment or a different mobile home. They are working with sales folks regarding the
sales of existing mobile homes. They’ll make sure schools, lodging, etc. is addressed
for the existing resident to be relocated. Fuqua is presently working with two relocation
experts. If this works well he expects this client will follow the same path. Mr. Sams
emphasized the Old 41 Highway entry that will connect with the Fuqua development by
a bridge between the two properties for vehicle and pedestrian traffic. They will have a
development agreement to pay for this bridge between the two property owners. This
will give access via Barrett Parkway as well. Some existing businesses along Stanley
Road are in negotiations with his client; Croy Engineering is working on a plan and
they’re working with Ross Memorial. His client will exert continued good faith talks. It is
estimated it will cost $235,000 to provide signalization. They agreed to Public Works
requirements regarding water detention and McCullum Airport building height
restrictions of 1,065-ft. No buildings will be this tall, it will apply to cranes during
construction. Parking ratio requirements are exceeded and there will be shared parking
between businesses and residents. These are conceptual site plans only; architectural
designs will come back to the Mayor and City Council. This will be the same for the
11.4 acre site which will come back to Council in its entirety. Branch Capital completed
a demographic study, especially regarding residential needs. There is a need for more
multi-family inventory. The report also showed rents will be $1.30 per foot. There is an
average of 95% occupancy presently in the City in multi-family units; townhomes are
anticipated to replicate Fuqua townhomes. Mr. Sams said the townhomes will sell for
$300,000 and up, will have 2-car garages, 18-ft driveways, 9-ft high ceilings and granite
countertops. Whoever develops this property will not participate in Section 8 housing or
any type of subsidized residences. He described plans and qualities of these Class A
townhomes which can be changed to condos. They will be owner occupied townhomes
only and no developers will be able to buy multiples for rentals. He discussed planned
amenities and layout – 50% will be 1-bedroom units, 45% will be 2-bedroom units, 5%
will be 3-bedroom townhomes and apartments and there will be no impact to the school
system. Retail will be similar as the Fuqua project including lighting and illumination
requirements and restrictions. He reiterated verbatim disallowed uses which are the
same as the Fuqua project. There will be on-site management; they will ensure the
Home Owners Association is properly funded and insured at all times. This is a great
opportunity to complete a five year dream with a $40 million project, expand the City
horizon and expand the tax base by over $1 million per year. Due to a humanitarian
approach for relocation and the number of stipulations, he thinks this is a great benefit
to the City.
Councilmember Killingsworth asked if Fuqua agreed to provide the same relocation
assistance. Mr. Sams replied no, Mr. Fuqua’s relocation plan has to be submitted to the
City. Councilmember Killingsworth asked for clarity on Stipulation #18 about conversion
from apartments to townhomes. Mayor Mathews said apartments can convert to
condos. Councilmember Welsh feels 600-plus apartments would be entitled and feels
this is a set up for disappointment. Mr. Sams said the plans for the 11.4 acres will come
in the future – the 300-plus would be the maximum.
Ms. Welsh said she is excited to
welcome this area into the City. She doesn’t feel a fairytale developer is the best
course of action and prefers having a developer in hand. She doesn’t want 6, 9, 12
months to go by and the residents still not know who the developer will be. Mr. Sams
assured that whoever the developer is, they will be vetted by staff, Mayor and City
Council and they can be rejected or approved in the future. Ms. Welsh commented that
entitlements really don’t mean anything – why not wait until a developer is in hand? Mr.
Sams replied that entitlements are important to a developer and all the stipulations will
be in place. Councilmember Sebastian questioned stipulation #1 – are the 328
maximum Class A apartments all on the 30+ acres? Mr. Sams replied yes. Mr.
Sebastian pointed out stipulation #18 and if you do the math, it does come to more than
600 [apartments]. What about the 11.6 acres – no more apartments? Mayor Mathews
stated that stipulation #1 is in conflict with stipulation #18. What is the intent? Mr.
Sams said both – 328 apartments is pertinent for the 34 acres; the 11 acres will be
considered later. City Attorney Randall Bentley confirms this does not include the 11+
acres and the two stipulations need to be re-written. Councilmember Welsh asked if
300+ apartments can be added to the 11+ acres? Mr. Sams replied conceivably, yes.
Councilmember Williams said the property owner has received three letters of intent
[from developers], yet this is being presented by the property owner instead of a
developer. We’re being asked to vote on a conceptual site plan from the current owner.
Mr. Sams said yes and that detailed plans would be presented at a later date. Ms.
Williams asked if the three potential developers are aware of the 36 stipulations. Will
they agree to give residents the same relocation assistance? Mayor Mathews added
the stipulations are tied to the property, not the property owner. Any developer has to
come before the Mayor and City Council. Ms. Williams questioned if the stipulations
were in place before or after the letters of intent were received – do the developers all
know? Mr. Sams said two of them know. Ms. Williams stated that she is being asked to
vote on something and she needs more than a hope and a prayer. Mr. Sams said it
was cut off at three letters of intent, but many more were interested. Ms. Williams wants
to know what a developer wants to do – they may want more townhomes instead of
apartments. It seems 600+ total, of which 50% are one-bedrooms seems to say no one
get married or have children.
Mr. Sams said he doesn’t feel developers want any more
townhomes with less apartments on the 11.3 acres. Mayor Mathews pointed out that
whatever happens, it has to come back to the Mayor and City Council. Planned Village
Community (PVC) is site plan specific. This conceptual plan may or may not look
anything like this in the future, but will have to meet these requirements. Ms. Williams
went back to stipulations #1 and #18 – if in the future this came back to us and we then
deny, she does not want to be setup for a lawsuit. Mr. Sams said this is not exactly
negotiating from a position of strength. The 11.4 acre site is starting from scratch and it
could be the same developer for both tracts. Councilmember Killingsworth went back to
the 95% need for apartments in the study – how old is the study? Mr. Sams said the
report was provided two weeks ago. Attorney Bentley recommended changes for
stipulation #1 to include “Uthis condition shall not include 11.40 acres for future
development.” Councilmember Sebastian requested the same language be added to
stipulation #18. Councilmember Williams asked if the third party management will be
on-site. Mr. Sams said typically no and also confirmed the HOA is mandatory.
8:13 PM Floor Open for Public Comments
JACQUELINE LOPEZ (Castle Lake resident): We realize we are not the land owners
and our rights are minimal, but there are two roads for every action. Treat us fairly and
with respect.
Mayor Mathews said that is the intent of the City. We don’t own the land, it’s not in the
City, we can’t act on the owners or renters behalf and are trying to be fair and equitable
to everyone.
Ms. Lopez to Mr. Sams - are the 34 acres under contract? No. Ms. Lopez confirmed
the $2,500 moving assistance is for the head of household – define head of household.
Is one single person also head of household? Mr. Sams replied said there is only one
individual as head of household whether it is one person or multiple people. Ms. Lopez
asked if she moved before a “certain event” would she still be compensated the $2,500
moving assistance. What is the “certain event?” Mr. Sams said upon Mayor and
Council approval of annexation. Mayor Mathews reminded this only applies to the 34
acres only. Ms. Lopez reconfirmed with Mr. Sams that once annexed one can move
and get the moving assistance $2,500. Mr. Sams said correct, if the Council approves it
tonight. Ms. Lopez would like that in writing. Mr. Sams pointed out it is listed in the
stipulation letter and part of the public record tonight. Ms. Lopez said that at the last
meeting [Fuqua] they said homeowners have 60-days to move once they receive a
written notice – how many days for renters? Mr. Sams replied the owner is required to
give 60 days minimum notice. Mayor Mathews said if the renter has a signed
agreement that states less than 60 days, then they must abide. Ms. Lopez asked if
management can ask us to move out of our premises before? Mr. Sams said it’s on an
individual basis, depending on the lease agreement. Ms. Lopez said many residents
have received a 30-day notice to move and doesn’t even say why. Mayor Mathews said
he heard the same rumor. Unless someone can show this in writingUwe want to see
and to share this with Mr. Sams.
Ms. Lopez said she will fax this. Not all notices to
vacate are for ethical reasons; perhaps some tenants received warnings before, but it
could have been for as simple as a barking dog or an unpaid parking ticket. A neighbor
let a visitor park on his property while visiting someone else, but management didn’t
agree and wrote a ticket. Mayor Mathews said Mr. Sams represents the owner and
may have more knowledge as it has nothing to do with the City. Mr. Sams asked her to
please fax and provide him more information. Ms. Lopez said it is important for
residents to know they have rights. If we do receive one of these letters, should we find
out why and go see a lawyer? Mayor Mathews replied that is safe advice. Ms. Lopez
thanked the smart ladies [referencing Councilmembers Welsh and Williams]. To
approve the annexation without knowing the developer who may have to start over
doesn’t make sense.
CAROL McLAUGHTON (new Kennesaw resident): She bought her trailer in March
2014 and no one told her it was obvious the property was going to be sold. She got a
letter saying there is no developer. She is 69 years old. She did some research and
found out you cannot move a mobile home if it is older than 10 years – most of them
are. She was told she has to move the trailer or get penalized. They offered to move to
the other section. She has no place to go, no money and doesn’t know what to do.
They are being kept in the dark. What’s going to happen – just throw me out with a 60
day notice? There are college kids looking for low end housing. She lives in a 53 acre
development. She understands it will happened. She’s been advised to consult with an
attorney because they should not have sold her the trailer in March. She feels she is
not the only one this has happened to.
Mayor Mathews said it was good advice to get an attorney. Anyone else in a similar
situation should get together to see an attorney. Ms. McLaughton said that when she
initially looked at Castle Lake with her brother, he asked do you know what this property
is worth. She didn’t care, this is a perfect location for her. They’re being told the
residents will be talked to individually, but she does not like letting strangers into her
home, especially because she lives alone. Mayor Mathews advised that if she is
approached by someone offering to help, contact City Hall; we will do our best to verify.
The developer will get a relocation company to administer the process and that will not
start until after they own the property. They are not going to come to her home on the
day of closing and say you have 60 days to move. Ms. McLaughton asked if she would
be notified by mail to anticipate a visitor to discuss relocation. Mayor Mathews said yes,
that is possible. City staff or the developer can perhaps send a letter out first notifying
residents to anticipate visitors.
DALE HUGHES (Kennesaw resident): He’s been a resident of Kennesaw for 26 years.
He’s getting to know these residents and the first speaker, Ms. Lopez, was the
translator. Mr. Sams gave a good presentation and first brought out the relocation
package. A few stories of people recently being sold trailers are true. It will cost $8,000
or more to move a trailer and its money the residents do not have. Mr. Hughes
implored the Council to hold back on entitlements. The property owner has proved he
will sell trailers even though he knows these changes are in the works. Mr. Sams is
selling the owner a good package with these entitlements. If the report/study he
referenced is accurate
CINDY BICKFORD (Castle Lake Resident): She moved in a trailer to Castle Lake on
May 5th for $15,000. She didn’t know any of this. It’s the best place she’s lived. $2,500
will not keep them in Cobb County and apartments are as much as mortgage payments.
We are your service people working in stores, restaurants, hotels. She’s raising two
kids and will not move to the projects. This is a safe area. Where do you want us to
go? She pays $500 a month for lot rent, which leaves money for food. She was told
she makes too much money to qualify for food stamps or Section 8 housing – and she
only makes $10.30 per hour. What we say is from our heart. What would you do if you
came home and had 60 days to move? Castle Lake outright lied to everybody. $2,500
will not be enough money. Moving trailers to the end [of the property] will be in a flood
zone and they can’t get flood insurance. We can’t make more money. She has a
school loan of $12,000 that is due. She had to take a retail job, but that’s okay. She
doesn’t understand what you want us to do. Let your conscious be your guide.
Christians don’t put Christians on the road with $2,500 in the pockets and children to
feed and no place to live.
Mayor Mathews asked Attorney Sams when he had an agreement with the property
owner to represent on this issue. Mr. Sams was contracted April 2014. The Mayor
asked doesn’t the property owner or management has to sign off on everything. Mr.
Sams said he is not cognizant of that occurring.
MARIA EREZ (Castle Lake resident): She does not want $2,500 and this other lady just
purchased that home. It isn’t fair. They use all their money from their life for just
$2,500. Her mobile home is very old and $2,500 is not enough to even rent an
apartment. Make sure to check the bad administration at the mobile park. That money
is not enough for anything.
MARY HEWELL (Castle Lake resident): She has lived at Castle Lake for 44 years. Her
main concern is the $2,500 to move. She bought the trailer brand new, has done a lot
of work to the home over the years, and it will cost $6,000 and up to move the trailer.
This is not a good choice or option to relocate. Her husband passed in 2012. To sell
her trailer she would ask more than $2,500. She does not have $6,000 or more to
move and tries to make her money stretch as it is. She knows they have to move. She
called the manager asking to call a meeting to notify the residents about a possible sale.
Management said the owner is not selling – she told her that last month. If there is no
money to move her home and she has to be out in 60 days, what is she supposed to
do?
Attorney Sams said he represents the owner specifically on the applications [rezoning
and annexation]. It may be prudent to continue or table these items so he can consult
with his client regarding these issues. He does not have answers to these questions.
Mayor Mathews said his opinion is to continue these agenda items instead of tabling so
the public hearing can continue to another meeting. Tonight was advertised for a public
hearing. Future speakers will have the opportunity in a public hearing if the item is
continued. The applicant is requesting the delay. Mr. Sams is a reputable attorney and
works hard to do what is right. By asking for a continuance indicates he is not aware of
these residential issues.
MARIA GARCIA (Castle Lake resident): She was told to leave in 30 days and she has
no time to raise $5,000 to move. She does not have money for a hotel. They say she
can’t be there even now. $2,500 won’t be enough money for anything. Stop the office
people from their harassment – they don’t even give back deposits.
GRAMMIE BILLINGSLY (Castle Lake resident): She had a small stroke and left
Kennestone to be here tonight. She has lived at Castle Lake for 37 years and everyone
calls her Grammie. She cannot speak with management whose name is Marilyn. She
was taught to respect elders and she gets no respect from Marilyn – Marilyn only
respects money. These people are not telling you lies tonight. Marilyn keeps saying
they are not going to sell. Ms. Billingsly has her faith to help carry her home.
MARY YOUNG (Castle Lake resident): She too has been told by management that
nothing is going on and yet another neighbor was given 30 days to leave. Ms. Young’s
daughter has this mobile home for 12 years. Ms. Aggie said the letter was a mistake –
all the way up to a month ago. She does not want Section 8 housing. This is a 1986
trailer; her daughter is disabled and will need special attention and help. Please stop
telling us stories.
FABIAN (Castle Lake resident): She and her family live comfortable in their mobile
home and she has a special needs child. The Castle Lake personnel keep saying
nothing is going on, on numerous occasions, each and every time they are asked. This
$2,500 won’t be enough for anything, especially on low income. A mobile home is very
expensive to buy or move. Please consider each individual family. Come now to visit –
our homes are open to see how we live now.
Mayor Mathews said to Mr. Sams there is a lot of work to be done. The Mayor asked
the audience to understand the property has not been sold and no offer has been made
yet. Each person, each situation is different and $2,500 is not adequate. He thanked
the audience for speaking or coming tonight and sharing their stories. Unless the
property is annexed into the City, we can’t do anything. If annexed, then we have some
control over the development. We’ll close the meeting tonight, do some research, open
the public comment the next time and hope to see and hear progress. (An unnamed
woman in the audience complained about the issues with management.)
DALE HUGHES: He learned on Saturday there is a lack of effective communication.
Brad and the church folks are trying to set up an email communications chain. Wanda
Steele and Steve Kennedy have been very helpful. Please get in touch with Brad so
folks know when to show up.
MANUAL SEDONE (Castle Lake resident): Riverstone Church said $2,500 for people
in the 34 acre zone; no money for the 53 acre zone. Mayor Mathews reminded
everyone that residents in the 53 acres will have conversations after the developer, Mr.
Fuqua purchases the property and they will have a relocation company take care of
those residents.
ANTONIO ALVAREZ (Castle Lake resident): One year ago he tried to purchase a
mobile home for $21,000 and gave $10,000 down and was not told of any sale due to
development. A neighbor sent a letter saying the land was being sold. He’s so scared
he went to the office and spoke to the manager. She got mad and said the land is not
being sold. We don’t know the truth. In the 34 acre site, just three months ago they
were selling a trailer, but told those purchasers they could not move the trailer. Please
tell the manager to stop or put a sign at the entrance/exit of Castle Lake saying no
purchases [of mobile homes].
MARIA [no last name provided]: She showed a document about the 53 acre sale.
She’s afraid to go home, she’s lived 35 years at Castle Lake and no longer has a home.
Where’s she going to go? She is very scared. Please stop management. They even
sell a bad trailer for $18,000. There are a lot of families here. It says in the coming
month they will have to leave. The meeting interpreter read the document which was
calling for a community meeting to explain annexation; that meeting already occurred.
ANTONIO SABENSES (Castle Lake resident): Why pay rent to people who don’t own
the land any more? Mayor Mathews stated they still do own the land. Attorney Bentley
added that even if the landowner changes, you still have to pay rent. Mayor Mathews
restated the 53 acres is under contract to sell. The 34 acres being discussed tonight
are not under contract, but are asking to be annexed into the City for development.
Until the property is annexed, sold, and the developer gets approval – there will be no
construction.
Councilmember Killingsworth referenced a bracelet he wears with a verse from James
1:19 which is quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger. He is very angry. He
requested an Executive Session but all discussions have to be public, so it was not
granted. Mayor Mathews noted Mr. Sams has asked for continuance because of the
issues brought up tonight. Mr. Killingsworth said to Mr. Sams he hopes and prays that if
something illegal is occurring, they are held to the fullest extent of the law.
9:36 PM Floor Closed to Public Comments
Motion by Councilmember Killingsworth to continue agenda items IX-D, E and F to a
future date yet to be determined, motion seconded by Councilmember Church.
Councilmember Welsh asked if the date can be firmed this evening, and Mr. Sams said
that is impossible. Mayor Mathews requested an update be provided at the next
regularly scheduled meeting on July 7, 2014 at which time he can present a firm date
for the continued public hearings and the property owner will send a letter to all
residents of the 34 acres with proof of service given to City staff. Councilmember
Williams respectfully requests the property owner attend the final meeting. Mr. Sams
said he would like him there as well. Vote taken, approved unanimously, 5-0 on items
IX-D, E, and F. Motion carried.
Zoning Administrator Darryl Simmons presented agenda items IX-D, E and F
concurrently.
E. Authorization for approval of an ORDINANCE granting a rezoning request
submitted by Amak Partners and Masal Partners for property located at 1650
Cobb Parkway. Property identified as 30.86+/- acre tract in Land Lots 207, 212
of the 20th District, 2nd Section, Cobb County. Applicant is seeking to annex
and rezoning property from County MHP to City PVC (Planned Village
Page 34 of 119
Community) for purpose of commercial development with a residential
component. Application was advertised in the May 16, 2014 edition of the
Marietta Daily Journal. Property posted May 20, 2014. Planning Commission at
a meeting held on June 04, 2014 made recommendation to approve the rezoning
of the 30.86+/- acres from County MHP to City PVC (Planned Village
Community) with stipulations in May 30, 2014 letter from Sams, Larkin and Huff
law firm. In addition two friendly amendments to the list of stipulations to include
the following: 1). Garages to be used for vehicle storage and 2). Driveways to be
18' in length. Vote: 5-0. Yeas: Cindi Michael, Adam Ambrecht, Jeff Powers, Fred
Moore, Craig MacNaughton. Nays: None. Staff Recommendation: Darryl
Simmons, Zoning Administrator recommended approval with incorporation of all
conditions reference in stipulation letter dated May 30, 2014, and prepared by
law firm Sams, Larkin and Huff in addition to conditions added by the Planning
Commission: 1). Garages to be used for vehicle storage and 2). Driveways to be
18' in length.
Zoning Administrator Darryl Simmons presented the rezoning request submitted by
Amak Partners and Masal Partners for property located at 1650 Cobb Parkway. See all
comments under Agenda Item IX-D.
9:37 PM Floor Open for Public Comments
No additional comments – see item IX-D.
9:38 PM Floor Closed to Public Comments
Motion by Councilmember Killingsworth to continue agenda items IX-D, E and F to a
future date yet to be determined, motion seconded by Councilmember Church.
Councilmember Welsh asked if the date can be firmed this evening, and Mr. Sams said
that is impossible. Mayor Mathews requested an update be provided at the next
regularly scheduled meeting on July 7, 2014 at which time he can present a firm date
for the continued public hearings and the property owner will send a letter to all
residents of the 34 acres with proof of service given to City staff.
Councilmember Williams respectfully requests the property owner attend the final meeting. Mr. Sams said he would like him there as well. Vote taken, approved unanimously, 5-0 on items
IX-D, E, and F. Motion carried.
Zoning Administrator Darryl Simmons presented agenda items IX-D, E and F
concurrently.
F. Authorization for approval of an ORDINANCE granting an annexation request
submitted by Amak Partners and Masal Partners for property located at 1650
Cobb Parkway. Property identified as 30.86+/- acre tract in Land Lots 207, 212
of the 20th District, 2nd Section, Cobb County. Applicant is seeking to annex
and rezone property from County MHP to City PVC (Planned Village Community)
for purposed of commercial development with a residential component.
Application was advertised in the May 16, 2014 edition of the Marietta Daily
Journal. Property posted May 20, 2014. Planning Commission at a meeting held
on June 04, 2014 made recommendation to approve the annexation of the
Page 35 of 119
30.86+/- acres into the City of Kennesaw with stipulations in May 30, 2014 letter
from Sams, Larkin and Huff law firm. In addition two friendly amendments to be
added to the list of stipulations include the following:
1). Garages to be used for
vehicle storage and
2). Driveways to be 18' in length.
Vote: 5-0. Yeas: Adam
Ambrecht, Jeff Powers, Cindi Michael, Fred Moore, Craig MacNaughton. Nays:
None. Staff Recommendation: Darryl Simmons, Zoning Administrator
recommended approval with incorporation of all conditions reference in
stipulation letter dated May 30, 2014, and prepared by law firm Sams, Larkin and
Huff in addition to two conditions requested by the Planning Commission: 1)
Garages to be used for vehicle storage; and 2) Driveways to be 18' in length.
Zoning Administrator Darryl Simmons presented the annexation request submitted by
Amak Partners and Masal Partners for property located at 1650 Cobb Parkway. See all
comments under Agenda Item IX-D.
9:38 PM Floor Open for Public Comments
No further comments – see item IX-D.
9:39 PM Floor Closed to Public Comments
Motion by Councilmember Killingsworth to continue agenda items IX-D, E and F to a
future date yet to be determined, motion seconded by Councilmember Church.
Councilmember Welsh asked if the date can be firmed this evening, and Mr. Sams said
that is impossible. Mayor Mathews requested an update be provided at the next
regularly scheduled meeting on July 7, 2014 at which time he can present a firm date
for the continued public hearings and the property owner will send a letter to all
residents of the 34 acres with proof of service given to City staff. Councilmember
Williams respectfully requests the property owner attend the final meeting. Mr. Sams
said he would like him there as well.
Vote taken, approved unanimously, 5-0 on items
IX-D, E, and F. Motion carried.
| 
