[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6261269,"mediaKeyId","3124400-5ba1dffdd5c3ee8ee7038023f92949f7","parentId",3124400,"title","Design Review Board to update guidelines; members to form small review committees","audioSeconds",364,"startMs",1393000,"endMs",1757000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3124400-5ba1dffdd5c3ee8ee7038023f92949f7&start=1393&end=1757","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3124400-5ba1dffdd5c3ee8ee7038023f92949f7/thumbnail_1393000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6261269/Alpharetta/Fulton-County/Georgia/Design-Review-Board-to-update-guidelines-members-to-form-small-review-committees","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6261269-d3c58b8445f62ecc0eb0d90871e2ddea/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171180&Signature=fFyS95Iryib71iwwqPgixSnSZaMWMbma~F6xY-6Mvr2mzTC7JxZBMFKqSmg3SO~-0SxVUjoiUmuU2zwtO3HsHI8kvZzrs31UJa1fTVor6l2yJA33NY8DE1EluzIP7hRulICS~etFhJblY95-701P4pr8oKz9p2199sjMiDFLkpiXiWhwPbO~r2IardwpJ1sN9j4CZwcen1x-5F6yjbEV4e9Lvuh49f73-RT~ZJI-uEhY9L040UWri7xAwdbznz5nfLwSHuqtGRFxn9VxP5nX1HyWV9LeC6MK1z1zweOSmVFNRQXeSz5sGXm9sIr1LTffHjVrhoYDg8RvznYNIDr5RA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-25T16:25:59.113Z","article","The Alpharetta Design Review Board on April 25 opened a process to update its design guidelines, directing members to form small working committees to review signage, landscaping, exterior materials and site planning language.

Board members and staff said the document needs updates to reflect newer materials and downtown and eco-district guidance adopted since the last significant refresh. The board’s chair noted the current guidelines were last tweaked eight years earlier and encouraged members to read the related code sections and the existing guidelines before joining a committee.

Staff recommended breaking the work into two- or three-person subcommittees so members can perform a detailed cross-check against code sections. The board discussed possible committee topics—landscaping, exterior elevations and materials, signage and site planning—and staff asked members to email their preferences so committees could be formed at the May meeting. Staff estimated the ordinance amendment process would require two City Council readings (a first reading and a second reading) and that the overall update could take about six months; staff set a goal of enacting changes before year-end if possible.

Board members emphasized that guidelines are advisory while code is mandatory; good design can be encouraged through guidelines but not used to contradict code. Staff said the committees should ensure the guidelines and code do not conflict and that language be clear for applicants and reviewers.

What’s next: Board members will indicate committee preferences to staff by email; committees will meet, draft suggested changes with staff input, and return recommended ordinance language and guideline edits for board review and then City Council consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Alpharetta Design Review Board Meeting - April 25, 2025.","oneSentenceSummary","Board members agreed to form small committees to review and update the Design Review Board guidelines—last revised eight years ago—to address painted brick, new materials, downtown guidelines and eco-district policies; staff aims to move proposed ordinance changes through council this year.","taxTitle","Alpharetta, Fulton County, Georgia","taxId",3991,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6261275,"Design Review Board clears Chutney Express rear storage enclosure with conditions",856,6293000,7149000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3124400-5ba1dffdd5c3ee8ee7038023f92949f7&start=6293&end=7149","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3124400-5ba1dffdd5c3ee8ee7038023f92949f7/thumbnail_6293000.jpg","/articles/6261275/Alpharetta/Fulton-County/Georgia/Design-Review-Board-clears-Chutney-Express-rear-storage-enclosure-with-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6261275-7c7172ed10266f6176ab9416bd610dd8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171180&Signature=antgyYR1D8KIRRRX~1HcL1vus3G50J1allXj-n51S1EsM4FFOx7uQKmzkOkbL~43I8tWQhXIdt967qGrYxigbrAJ7nisRqcsD~j5hAeMqoJGC29Tv2vjkGTvdoIUorSdKnNZbn8ybsRkrU0zppyZ0yHSbSS8cft1Ns0RqxZBI2YM3Hql2yOR6OwKMFSZcuKVF3QW3dDCWvPzBop~x6orUFxMX5IGjDYDFG4bCZOlmoo92euTSfesZetKt2YburWnxBNGTaKe2Ihxkc6dZyeHMW4g3bm1QiWMkHr~nIXgtov7Zi36s69e5ly1ON53LUfrKXU1fTSCvZM6ugMTIR0BgA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Design Review Board on April 25 approved a three-sided masonry enclosure at Chutney Express intended to screen outdoor storage and dumpsters behind the storefront, a project driven by code-enforcement concerns about outdoor containers and open gates.

Brett Schroeder, staff, presented the proposal when the applicant did not attend; Schroeder asked the board to consider a masonry surround that matches the building’s existing brick and stone base and to require that storage remain wholly contained within the new enclosure. Schroeder said the landlord provided a letter agreeing there will be no future expansions into adjacent areas without additional approvals and that the applicant has permission to remove a failing tree at the site.

The board approved the work on a 5-0 vote with conditions: the new wall must be built to the same depth as the existing rear wall so the enclosure reads as part of the building; materials for the stone base must match the building; the door color on the building will remain the present beige; any storage or equipment inside the enclosure may not extend above the top of the new brick walls; and the top of the enclosure must be finished with the same prefinished bronze cap/trim used on the building parapet. The board also directed that pilaster/column elements remain visually consistent with the building storefront and that the stone water table be carried through so the enclosure looks integral to the original construction.

Schroeder told the board that code enforcement had flagged on-site storage containers and open gates and that screening would address both visual and code concerns. He said staff had discussed the option of a walk-in cooler or dry storage inside the enclosure; the board required that any roof or projection remain beneath the top of the brick wall and that downspouts or scuppers be addressed in the building permit drawings. “The only thing you can do would be to build a surround, to match the building, and hide all that stuff,” Schroeder said in explanation of staff’s recommendation.

The applicant did not provide material samples at the hearing; staff and the applicant agreed more detailed material samples and dimensioned drawings will be provided to planning staff for plan-review review. The motion to approve, moved by a board member and seconded, passed 5-0.

What’s next: The applicant or landlord must submit dimensioned plans and material samples showing the stone base, brick bonding, bronze-capped coping and any roof details before building permits for the enclosure can be issued. Staff will coordinate plan review and verify that the enclosure contains all storage below the top of the new masonry walls.","The board approved a three-sided masonry enclosure at Chutney Express to conceal outdoor storage and dumpsters, with conditions that cap height, match building materials, and keep storage contents contained below the top of the brick wall; the vote was 5-0.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6261280,"Design Review Board approves 100 North Main signage package with conditions",3700,2444000,6144000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3124400-5ba1dffdd5c3ee8ee7038023f92949f7&start=2444&end=6144","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3124400-5ba1dffdd5c3ee8ee7038023f92949f7/thumbnail_2444000.jpg","/articles/6261280/Alpharetta/Fulton-County/Georgia/Design-Review-Board-approves-100-North-Main-signage-package-with-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6261280-1d78535f6e5e1f6f8a72edea800a6ca8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171180&Signature=ejfDtH8pI3zWeGzPIZLN2kXy401FujkolKNxs7ZfMO40gTiaXruQACTU4tIV-yz0iHo7GOgJ5m1OR1GdsdElaKMl715lAvmKSfDN0snaGKQV4MOJFZp3ZBE~KAlR74TpES0cbYFj4Xzc4nPPSsl336E~j9RZawXa-h8juVAp-pkQadz9YBjwgFatnqtJ7XWUDVv18MGY0zskNfgk0TwM7viabqLz9D2QZVCa9tjFv9HpwbGCcnMOMRz~p2jLRb~BiIBc3Lhh72-nITcC5g1uaRTYr1Ua-cK8a-u49RmYrIYE0IuDhiyZ4O1uj0zySZHxm~2RQ2-oYVBu4S6NmpUQCQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City of Alpharetta Design Review Board on April 25 approved a signage package for 100 North Main with a set of conditions intended to protect the building’s historic-like facade while allowing tenant identification.

The board’s approval, unanimous 5-0, sets maximum sizes and mounting details for wall-mounted tenant signs and pedestrian blade signs, requires matching background colors across building signage, and defers murals and any monument sign decisions until the site’s driveway and landscaping are finalized.

Board members and staff said the building’s narrow sign bands and classical brick detailing limit signage options. Patty Huxford of the Huxton Group, the applicant, told the board that the building currently has limited tenant exposure at the storefront level and that the landlord wants a clear, standardized sign package to give prospective tenants instruction on allowable sign size, placement and finish. “There’s very little space on this building for signage,” Huxford said during her presentation.

The board’s conditions—moved and read into the record by a board member and seconded—include: requiring a recessed pan with returns so wiring is hidden; limiting the east elevation tenant sign to the distance from the centerline of the first window to the centerline of the fourth window and the south elevation tenant sign to centerline of the first to the third window; leaving 2 inches of exposed masonry above and below the wall sign band (yielding about a 16-inch band and 14-inch letter height); sizing a future monument at a smaller scale with a base roughly one‑third of the total sign height; and ensuring the large building blade sign does not exceed 60 square feet. The motion also required that if illumination is provided it be hidden LED strips within sign bands. The board accepted a friendly amendment that the backgrounds of the wall signs, blade signs and any monument match the building finish shown in the submission.

Board members debated details such as whether individual letters should be mounted directly on brick or on a floating plate, and whether gooseneck lighting or halo illumination is more appropriate. Staff and the applicant agreed that mounting plates with recessed returns that make a sign appear to float—while housing wiring—will be included in the technical sign drawings the applicant will deliver to staff. The applicant agreed to supply the more detailed, dimensioned drawings after the meeting; staff said those drawings will specify maximum letter height, plate depth, recessed returns and the final background color to match the building.

Murals and a possible tenant or building logo on the parking-deck-facing wall were explicitly excluded from approval and must return for separate review once a tenant or the landlord decides the final use. The board noted that murals may require Arts Commission review if they are treated as artwork rather than tenant signage.

The board voted to approve the package with conditions; the motion passed 5-0.

What’s next: Staff and the applicant will prepare a revised, technical sign package that incorporates the board’s conditions (panel returns, exact dimensions, material and color specifications) and circulate it to board members; tenant-specific signage is not required to return if it conforms to the approved package, but any signage that departs from the package or murals/monument proposals must return for review.","The Design Review Board approved a signage package for 100 North Main on a 5-0 vote, imposing size, placement and material conditions for wall signs, blade signs and a possible future monument; murals were excluded from the package and deferred for later review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Design Review Board to update guidelines; members to form small review committees

Design Review Board clears Chutney Express rear storage enclosure with conditions

Design Review Board approves 100 North Main signage package with conditions