High Density Housing - how many more units do you see Johns Creek adding over the next ten years?
Note: We invited the ALL Candidates to participate in an 11 Question Survey.
Jay Lin & Nazeera Dawood chose not to Answer the Questionnaire, and we included their names and photos to show they are on the ballot and were not omitted on our part. Click here to read our 2 cents...
@Patty Hansen,
Am I wrong in understanding that all property in Johns Creek is already zoned, and that if a property is already zoned for high density homes, than it does not require a zoning hearing? But if it is not, that the City Council votes to change the law for their use?
Doesn't rezoning in effect, give the land owner rights that they previously did not have?
It appears to me that rezoning allows people to get custom laws for their specific purpose, from buffer variances to additional uses.
Is that a wrong perception?
@JCR- It sure seems that way to me as well.
Great example is a new rezoning sign that just went up this last week, at the corner of Medlock Bridge and Bell Road. The sign is actually setting on Bell Road just as you turn at the corner. It is placed in typical JC fashion, where it is nearly impossible to read unless you happen to be in search of rezoning signs. And, then if you spot it you would need to have the neck of a owl to actually read it.
Plus, the sign just went this last week. The public hearing meeting is Nov 3 or 5th. I could not read fast enough to be sure of the public meeting date.
If the rezoning is approved at the corner of Medlock Bridge and Bell Road a 170 unit multi-story apartment complex will be built there. This seems underhanded, with only one objective - MORE high density building and MORE apartments with no opposition. The JC council currently in place seems to approve just about everything, whether it makes sense of not.
There are already numerous apartment complexes within walking distance of this location; Apartments that are not filled, and many are occupied by multi-families living in the same unit. Not single dwellings, as I am sure is what was approved...
As though traffic is not bad enough, adding another certain 170+ cars to that intersection at commute hours is just insanity.
JCR--That is an excellent question. Unfortunately--it is a long, and frustrating, answer.
You are correct in that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and the accompanying map set zoning categories for every piece of land within the city's municipal boundaries. It also sets some community standards, etc. However it is a Strategic Plan. It is governed by State law which equally (some would say overly) protects the property owner. While the CLUP has significant clout and had to approved by the State, it will not always be upheld in court and the City Council needs to take that into consideration with every decision. When a property owner believes the plan impinges on his or her rights they can take the city to court and they can win. Rather than going to court every time, there is then a hearing process and the ability to grant a variance.
Below are two links with information that may help.
The first is a document developed by the City workshop in 2007 when the plans were just getting started. It points out that Georgia Law leans in favor of the land owner. http://www.johnscreekga.gov/JCGA/media/pdf-cd/pz/zoning_101.pdf
This link is to a document developed by JCCA as part of their Zoning 101 presentation. This is a program that was developed a few years ago. The City Community Development Department would always participate. If they continue to offer and you are able to attend a class I would highly recommend.
http://jccahome.org/document_view.asp?id=120
Please fee free to email me at [email protected] or visit my site at PattyHansenforJC.Com.
And thanks for the question!
when does early voting start?
It has already started downtown at FC Government Center. It starts tomorrow at Ocee and Roswell Libraries and goes through Oct. 30.
Thank you for responding Patty.
The Active Senior Living facility proposed for Bell Road will require zoning variances to squeeze it all in.
Do you support giving variances to make it fit? Or would you require them to follow the rules as they are currently stated?
The developer will argue that they must have the variances to make it financially viable.
Is that the responsibility of the COJC to assist developers to make their projects economically viable?
I would argue that by giving this developer variances we have given this developer additional rights.
I would also argue that if it is not viable within our current zoning, then it is not the right project.
The more variances permitted, the more it seems our zoning is subjective, and not objective.
JCR,
I apologize it took a bit for me to reply. I wanted to first read the case as submitted and check the dates. Looking at the dates, I realize that stating my intent to allow or deny a variance would show a predisposed position prior to a hearing of the case. I am sorry but my response here would mean that I could not vote on the case were it to come before council and I were seated.
What I can tell you is that I am not a proponent of high density housing in Johns Creek. I would say increased density is the greatest threat not only to our quality of life, but to the growth of new business, and the long-term stabilization of our commercial tax base. There are times I think we all consider it to be an easier choice to shop out of town than to make our way down Medlock Bridge Road to our centers of commerce. It would be naive to think that a corporate interest would not follow the same line of thought when considering a relocation. I imagine they would not be enthused to see our city continually approving high density and exacerbating that problem.
I am sorry this answer cannot be more direct, however I am running because I believe the citizens of Johns Creek deserve a fully-seated council and that by voting for me for the Special Election (only) signals this and future councils that the citizen's voice should not be silenced for convenience and that the Charter should be upheld at all times.
If elected, I want to be sure that I am prepared to vote on any matter that would come before Council in those meetings. That is the least that good governance demands of us.
Thanks so much for your involvement and your questions.
--Patty
Thank you for taking the time to reply, Patty.
You should be able to respond in general, I hope.
Under what conditions do you feel it is appropriate to approve zoning variances?
Why should some developers be allowed to get exceptions to our "standards" while others have occurred the expense of adhering to the standards?
JCR,
That's certainly a fair question. I believe variances should be granted in certain circumstances. That might not make me popular, but I will put an honest answer over a popular one any day.
First, I would like to say--more to your overall point -- I believe the city needs to become increasingly proactive in acquiring strategically placed large tracts for green space. That is the only way to truly guarantee some passive space and avoid the constant pressure for density. Frankly, I believe tax dollars are better invested long-term in acquiring green space, than scrambling to fix the additional traffic nightmares that more density will bring.
On variances, I do believe there are times when they should be granted, keeping in mind that the zoning map is a strategy, but one that was developed by the citizens and accepted by the state. Exceptions should be thoughtful and rare.
1. Where it is legally incumbent on the city--as in, the particular lot is configured in a way as to make development impossible per the published standard. (Not difficult, impossible.) It would be difficult to argue that the city isn't using the standard to block development if each case were not heard and judged based on the individual merits.
2. Public safety, if there are no other viable remedies.
3. A realistic look at the commercial tax base, and the burden of increased residential development on our schools, leads me to believe the city needs to continue steps to encourage more professional office space in the proper areas (non-residential) with the infrastructure already in place. If a variance can contribute to this goal it seems like a good business case could be built for a positive impact. I haven't see a lot of this, but an informed discussion and consistent application might be a situation in which I would support a variance.
I hope this helps to give you an idea of my thought process.
PattyHansenforJC.com
[email protected]
Thank you Patty again for taking the time to reply.
Honesty over popularity is not a problem in my eyes.
While real estate is different in each and every case, I think of this as two lots a homeowner might be considering to build his home. One he can do all he wants to do, the other no. The one he buys is of course more expensive. He follows all the rules and regulations as zoned.
The second lot, which is lower in price, does not sell quickly. A buyer then buys it, and begins asking for variances to do something similar to the first purchaser.
Closer to the lot line, less trees planted, and so on.
The City has the incentive to give the zoning variances because they want the tax dollars.
But one homeowner seems to have gotten the short end of the stick by paying more and following the zoning requirements.
That is the issue in my eyes.
Suddenly as we wind down our available free space we are seeing projects pushed and crammed into spaces smaller than they would otherwise be appropriate for.
Point number 3 in your response deserves more conversation. We have plenty of office space in Tech Park. We have heard this stated many times. We also hear that it is "outdated".
If it is "outdated", then the prices to rent should have fallen, and then the market would find possible suitors that would find that option attractive and make updates to it.
That happens in every other major city. There are plenty of buildings in downtown Atlanta that are much, much older and yet they still have tenants.
Wireless technology today makes even the most ancient of buildings tech friendly.
Many homes in Johns Creek are now 20 years old or more. Homeowners are not tearing down and rebuilding. They are investing dollars and updating their homes.
The private commercial sector should do the same, rather than sit and wait for the City do something.
Other new office buildings are being built in Atlanta also. I hope everyone is not adopting the "Build it and they will come" philosophy.
That never ends well.
Once again, thank you for replying. We need more dialogue on these issues if Johns Creek is to move forward in a way that is healthy and responsible.
Todd Burkhalter believes we can't have too many more apartments unless we fix our traffic problems, yet it says in another article that he accepted a $750 campaign contribution from the developer, Mr. Wages, who is proposing 170 apartments on 6 acres at the corner of 141 and Bell Road where traffic is already a nightmare!
The impression I get of Burkhalter, if elected, is he would be an extension of the present council. His views seem to be closely aligned with the mayor.
The city has turned into a nightmare, due to traffic and over development (high density) under this mayor's watch. Mayor Bodker is responsible for the traffic quagmire we now find ourselves in.
Our quality of life has been so eroded it seems it may be too late to even preserve what we have today, let alone improve it.
Most of us moved to JC for what it was. NOT what it has become. And certainly not what it will be if this mode of operation is not turned around, and quick.
I vote NO for any person running for JC City Council that even remotely resembles or sounds like what we have now!