Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - DRB - 10-04-2016 ACTION REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING 6:00pm 1) Call to order /Pledge of allegiance 2) Introduction of Board Members Members present: Laura Wysong, Tony Sheppard, Ed Parsons, Marty Littleton, Tim Bryan 3) Approval of agenda Motion to approve: Tony Sheppard 2nd: Laura Wysong Vote: 5-0, Motion approved 4) Approval of September meeting minutes Motion to approve: Tim Bryan 2nd: Laura Wysong Vote: 5-0, Motion approved 5) Demos a. 13475 Bethany Road, Brian Cole  2 Houses, three barns Motion to approve: Tony Sheppard 2nd: Laura Wysong Vote: 5-0, Motion approved b. 13600 Freemanville Road, Walter Rekuc  House, barn, pool, etc. Motion to approve: Tim Bryan 2nd: Laura Wysong Vote: 5-0, Motion approved 6) Final reviews a. 13700 Highway 9N, ‘Que, Paul Doster  Vestibule Motion to deny: Laura Wysong 2nd: Tim Bryan Vote: 5-0, Motion approved 7) Courtesy reviews— a. Corner of Highway 9 and Bethany Bend, Pikes Nursery, Jeff Loman Comments:  Deliveries should be made from the back, onto Bethany Bend. We do not need any more truck traffic on Highway 9. There should be some sort of truck turnaround.  Delivery hours should be restricted to after rush hour.  We need to understand how the overall transportation flow is working. This does not work. The big picture is not being looked at.  The building is too close to the roads. It needs additional plantings/landscape.  Pitch the roof of the retail portion of the building to match the greenhouse area. b. 840 & 850 Mayfield Road, The Mayfield, Mixed use development, Brian King  I find the building attractive. My concern is the amount of cars going in and out. That intersection is a nightmare. I think the area needs more infrastructure.  Too much of a beachy look. Although, the variety may be something of a blessing in some ways.  Should conform to the Form Base Code, specifically the vernacular style. Will need some fine tuning. c. V16-010, 4129 Stourbridge Common Circle, Kensley amenity area, Michelle Horstemeyer, John Weiland Homes Requests(s):  To reduce the 100’ foot setback adjacent to interior property lines and single-family uses for a neighborhood swimming pool to zero feet (Section 64-1609,2b) Comments:  Why not move the amenity area to lots 59,60, and 61. Or to lots 11 &12. This will tie the two amenity areas together.  This development is already pretty dense. It seems that they are just trying to cram more stuff in. Maybe you should have fewer houses. I am not in support.  Nobody would want their house backing up to a 30 foot retaining wall.  The amenity area should be put where it affects the least amount of people. This location would minimize light and noise pollution.  You, the developer, know what you bought. You should plan for it. d. V16-011, 13385 Cogburn Road, Ralph Simms Requests(s):  To allow an existing accessory structure to be located in the side setback by 22’ (Section 64-416,ci,i) Comments:  If you have a problem with your neighbor backing onto your property, put up a fence.  The neighbors need to work something out. e. V16-012, 13448 Hipworth Road, Patrick and Sarah Waite Requests(s):  To allow a pool, pool deck and pool equipment to encroach into the 75 foot impervious setback (Section 20-426,2) Comments:  Not disturbing the buffer is your responsibility.  It’s not fair to the homeowner, if the developer creates a lot that can’t fit a pool.  Put a construction fence up along the 50 foot buffer.  Have your surveyor plot exactly where the fence has to go. 8) New business--none 9) Old business— a. 13933 Alpharetta Hwy, Phoenix Senior Living, Staff inspection--update 10) Adjournment