[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6487708,"mediaKeyId","5559026-e3701efdafba4e35c1ff0f62060b6d70","parentId",5559026,"title","City and Planning Commission review Highway 92 design standards LCI; consultants propose flexible \"plan development\" approach","audioSeconds",1150,"startMs",500000,"endMs",1650000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5559026-e3701efdafba4e35c1ff0f62060b6d70&start=500&end=1650","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5559026-e3701efdafba4e35c1ff0f62060b6d70/thumbnail_500000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6487708/Woodstock-City/Cherokee-County/Georgia/City-and-Planning-Commission-review-Highway-92-design-standards-LCI-consultants-propose-flexible-plan-development-approach","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6487708-02ee65ec2d10fb5538bcbee8fdb916b8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188498&Signature=Ve4ExilVHahbMFctxnmqCdEmUgLRdaTNXorlC2plYM9lnnKIwwmjA-ezMLTmKdDVhM4O6vPzP4~s7HWNQ9OYRU4K6atVTnf5Yh9QJs8as88LQn61gdqY~06EGHMtnReU5PDjf9lr00Nn1HvVFXVRuppY6Cl9eQ5ej1o42jleLDy2JZFYUTIl6UTPgwJC9cWdYizvzhQpI1fKn1Se46oqlBQsRl~5pmE3eT3m8WrTacxAJsNNytTQbQkLxOaovF8r7rgWRkFDpMsgFnzYE9~gFlKJzqMpGZRB6sPsLOYsEI05Bs2z5wbxgL9ryto8v9-QLY4KpU1sAg8OTuwh845n5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Woodstock GA ","date","2025-08-11T18:56:00Z","article","Consultants presented a draft Highway 92 design standards package, developed through the Atlanta Regional Commission’s (ARC) Livable Centers Initiative (LCI), at the joint August 11 meeting of the Woodstock City Council and Planning Commission. The presentation described a 12–16 month study of the corridor and recommended a new “plan development” (similar to a planned unit development) process that would let property owners opt in with a master plan that responds to a set of visual design themes rather than strict, metric‑only standards.

The presentation was led by Bob Beagle of Lourdesk Sargent and project manager Quinn Pham; Deputy City Manager Cody Thigpen and project partners including KB Advisory and Content Consulting also participated. Beagle said the study area extends roughly 1,000–1,500 feet on either side of Highway 92 and that the team examined zoning, land values, storefront occupancy, demographic context and seven hypothetical redevelopment scenarios to test viability. Economic analysis by KB Advisory showed redevelopment generally requires substantially greater returns to be feasible — described in the report as a “rule of 3” (developers typically seeking roughly three times the value on redeveloped property to justify taking existing income offline).

The consultants said the corridor today is a functioning commercial area with relatively low vacancy and stable rents, and therefore redevelopment incentives and a more permissive base density may be needed to spur housing and mixed‑use projects. Rather than imposing precise numeric rules for every parcel, the draft recommends eight design themes — connectivity, walkability, pedestrian‑oriented streets, open space and placemaking, streetscaping, building orientation, building massing and parking — with about 66 subcomponents presented visually in the report.

Under the recommended process, applicants would first attend a pre‑submittal design conference with staff to align expectations. Applicants would then submit conceptual materials keyed to the design themes and a compliance checklist showing where the plan complies, partially complies or does not comply. Staff would review and the parties would iterate before a formal application and the standard public review process. The consultants recommended giving staff limited administrative flexibility (for example, allowing de‑minimis changes up to a defined percentage without returning to public hearings) and testing the approach on a pilot project to refine implementation.

Council and planning commissioners raised implementation questions. Councilmember Aick and others asked how to strike a balance between enough specificity to get predictable public outcomes and enough flexibility to encourage development. Commissioners and staff discussed whether base densities should be increased and whether the city should reduce the 5‑acre redevelopment minimum (the consultants suggested lowering it to about 2 acres to allow more creative, smaller scale redevelopment). The consultants also cautioned about drafting rules so permissive they become “open‑ended” for developers or so prescriptive they deter applicants.

Public comment: one resident asked whether the plan would produce attainable, mixed‑income housing, raise traffic and congestion, and whether “inclusive zoning” or public land trusts were part of the approach. The resident urged the council and commission to address affordable housing rather than producing development primarily for higher‑income households. The consultant and council stressed this presentation was informational (no vote was taken) and that the report is intended to inform code changes and future ordinance drafting with further public input.

Next steps and context: staff and the consultant said the LCI report is a plan document to guide code changes rather than the code itself; adoption will require follow‑up code drafting, legal review and public hearings. Staff highlighted that ARC provided a major share of the project funding and Renata from ARC attended the meeting. Councilmembers asked staff to prepare implementation language and to consider pilot projects before broad adoption. The consultant recommended monitoring early uses of the plan development approach and adjusting language if too many one‑off exceptions are requested.

Ending note: the presentation materials and final LCI report will be posted publicly; staff said additional public review and ordinance drafting will follow and invited public input as the city moves from plan to code.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council of Woodstock GA - Joint Meeting of City Council & Planning Commission","oneSentenceSummary","Consultants presented a draft Highway 92 design standards package, developed through the Atlanta Regional Commission’s Livable Centers Initiative, recommending an opt‑in plan development process and eight visual design themes intended to guide redevelopment along the corridor.","taxTitle","Woodstock City, Cherokee County, Georgia","taxId",51313,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6487703,"Council approves consent agenda, fee schedule changes, transportation update and moves forward on two new fire stations",2620,5398000,8018000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5559026-e3701efdafba4e35c1ff0f62060b6d70&start=5398&end=8018","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5559026-e3701efdafba4e35c1ff0f62060b6d70/thumbnail_5398000.jpg","/articles/6487703/Woodstock-City/Cherokee-County/Georgia/Council-approves-consent-agenda-fee-schedule-changes-transportation-update-and-moves-forward-on-two-new-fire-stations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6487703-af245dc6b84704032fcfb5aa78a442f7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188498&Signature=O9ozyxwmWXrY5nsQZ1T66GL-Ysa~alcNyyFLS2P3nJWh4pTt2rJ6Swymwn38ZtFtSZjP~2mDVUls57bZHOVuOMhy8HJ-MjDFyAZofBnnGVEtwEXptuG8d3UvH13IL-QVzw9v2yKhirg4dGt50QfETVqGkjmsdg78bs3t5zcG291dKfGnsXkZX32AJdpUFvC94TkxbpdnyG0R2e~Q8PFouTBh2sZFl31au0qMqTN5C0Vd-qrZhRgktoSOMSzqJ2vcBLUuk0f-JvQ3i18n5E4dSXy5OKA4jMcZF0JBbsWopGF4pbdk7QXF-Jo-v9aBnAAfq8tnp6HNfGsuxx-5avgccg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Woodstock City Council approved a slate of routine and substantive measures at its Aug. 11 meeting. The council voted unanimously on several items that will affect city operations, financing and capital projects.

Consent agenda: Council approved by voice vote the consent agenda (items 1–14) on a motion, carried 5–0 with one absence (Councilman Usher). The consent agenda covered routine administrative and procurement items listed in the meeting packet.

Fee schedule (Resolution No. 2025‑19): Council adopted a resolution to amend the city fee schedule governing water, sewer and stormwater commodity charges and system development/connection charges (Chapter 7, subsections 7.1.3 and 7.1.4). Staff said the proposed changes were described in the agenda packet and were approved as part of the adopted budget. The public hearing for the resolution drew no speakers. Motion to adopt passed 5–0 with one absence (Councilman Usher).

Comprehensive Transportation Plan update: Council adopted an update to the city’s five‑year comprehensive transportation plan (the city is now in the fifth year of that plan). Staff noted public feedback emphasized sidewalk connectivity and clarity between city and county projects; staff said they will pursue a citywide sidewalk master plan and additional project updates and will post plan documents to the public website. The adoption motion passed 5–0 with one absence.

Fire stations and financing: The council approved two agreements with Spratlin Construction to build Fire Station 28 (Ridgewalk Parkway) and a second station on Long Drive (unnumbered). Spratlin provided not‑to‑exceed construction prices: $7,437,000 for the Ridgewalk station and $6,831,000 for the Long Drive station (the second station is lower cost because of repeat‑building savings). Staff and Spratlin said those quotes were current pending subcontractor pricing and that contingencies are included (each project includes roughly a $500,000 contingency to address site‑specific conditions). Finance staff presented financing scenarios (15‑year public offering, 15‑year private placement, and 20‑year public offering) and recommended structuring debt so early years’ payments are lower and increase later to better align with future SPLOST revenue. Council approved the agreements for both stations 5–0 (one absence). Council directed staff to proceed with coordination on financing and procurement. Chief and staff said equipment and apparatus needs were considered; the department plans to refurbish an existing reserve engine to fill one apparatus need in the near term rather than wait the long lead time for a new truck.

Executive session and adjournment: The council recessed into executive session (for litigation, personnel and/or real estate discussion) on a vote and later returned and adjourned; no public actions followed executive session. The meeting closed after routine departmental reports.

Ending: Councilmembers emphasized the long‑term public safety value of new stations and noted the city’s recent investments in public safety and infrastructure. Several councilmembers also urged continued fiscal discipline during budget season as the city absorbs additional debt service.","At the Aug. 11 meeting the Woodstock City Council approved the consent agenda, adopted a fee schedule resolution for water, sewer and stormwater connection charges, adopted an update to the city’s five‑year comprehensive transportation plan, and unanimously authorized agreements to build two new fire stations and related financing options.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6487706,"Council remands 105 Bowles Drive tree‑fine appeal to staff for landscape management plan; applicant given path to vacate fine",841,2847000,3688000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5559026-e3701efdafba4e35c1ff0f62060b6d70&start=2847&end=3688","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5559026-e3701efdafba4e35c1ff0f62060b6d70/thumbnail_2847000.jpg","/articles/6487706/Woodstock-City/Cherokee-County/Georgia/Council-remands-105-Bowles-Drive-treefine-appeal-to-staff-for-landscape-management-plan-applicant-given-path-to-vacate-fine","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6487706-66a117a11d0ed18324d6356392098ed4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188498&Signature=c-6yVyay0GZLfepXzT4Mc0ONT50Jznhl033JgQrxNz9mpvu77Zs~odVjlpj9FI6QmW2o6jUbeaOu5GZ908pVdQB6ehbqaJSiTBkc85IgeV~6copkP9Qj9H9snEEGZxKaDx8MSEuySDyP~RgXApMsqjcA0c8bsuV8UkZG5nJAQXwWdyTvUY1Ix9VAEb~VrH5nSZpmIBqPGcFVNf8L~-IX2-ACArS-fPNhhMeQJ389yMKjXNZe-ECMwspZYyghqfJIMtm86w7-fKZmIK42l82XRPeGyZPEL1iq8gllrkImwUTpTnPxGfhpqTJZEvBcFUy1I04B-fwmyg5238guHppWpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Woodstock City Council voted 5–0 on August 11 to remand an appeal about a $39,025 zoning fine levied for unpermitted tree removals at 105 Bowles Drive to city staff for negotiated remediation. The appellant, Benton Anderson, appealed the fine after staff found 24 trees had been felled or severely pruned without an approved tree permit; measurements totaled 256 caliper inches, and 23 trees were classified as protected and one as a specimen tree under the city’s Land Development Ordinance (LDO).

Staff presentation: Jeff Dunn (planning staff) summarized the enforcement timeline: city staff learned of tree work on June 6, approached the on‑site landscape contractor and found no permit; a stop‑work order was posted; a permit application submitted later the same day was denied because the work had already been performed and exceeded what a residential tree permit allows. Dunn reported the specimen tree appeared to be in good condition before felling and that much of the canopy on the lot had been removed without a permit. Staff recommended maintaining the fine given the scale of the work and lack of approvals.

Appellant’s case: Attorney Meredith Gardial spoke for Benton Anderson, saying Anderson is a homeowner (not a developer) who bought the overgrown property about six months earlier and hired a landscape company to clear brush and address trees. Gardial said Anderson believed the contractor had obtained necessary permits; she argued the $39,025 fine is disproportionate, would impede the owner’s ability to improve the property, and that the city official’s entry onto the lot to measure trees was done without the owner’s permission, raising procedural concerns. Anderson said some affected trees have new sprouting growth, that stumps and root systems were not removed and that the work was intended to clean an overgrown lot rather than prepare for large‑scale redevelopment.

Council deliberation and outcome: Councilmembers expressed concern about both upholding the tree ordinance and about proportionality for a homeowner acting on contractor advice. Several members said intent matters and suggested mitigation options such as replanting plans and an arborist survey to determine which trees remain viable. Staff advised the lot’s tree density requirement would be 58 caliper inches (3 inches per 0.58‑acre lot) and that an arborist’s assessment should determine whether partially felled trees could be counted toward that total.

Council’s motion: Councilmember Johnson moved — and the council adopted 5–0 — a motion to remand the matter to staff to negotiate a landscape management/replacement plan consistent with the code (including addressing minimum tree‑caliper inches for the lot), to require permits for any additional removals in the plan, and to vacate the fine if the appellant completed the agreed plan to staff’s satisfaction. The motion preserved the appellant’s right to re‑appeal to council if the parties could not reach agreement. Staff may require an arborist survey and a tree‑replacement plan reflecting code standards.

Related item: On a separate case the same night (item 9‑2), staff said a different appellant rescinded an appeal by choosing to pay the fine; that case required no council action.

Ending: Council directed staff to work with the appellant to produce the arborist‑led plan, to verify whether the current on‑site tree inventory meets code thresholds after arborist review, and to return or allow appeal to council if the parties cannot agree. The fine will be vacated if the negotiated plan is completed and approved by staff.","After an appeal from property owner Benton Anderson over a $39,025 zoning fine for unpermitted tree removals, council directed staff to work with the appellant on an arborist‑prepared landscape management and replacement plan and to vacate the fine if requirements are met; council left re‑appeal rights intact.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City and Planning Commission review Highway 92 design standards LCI; consultants propose flexible "plan development" approach

Council approves consent agenda, fee schedule changes, transportation update and moves forward on two new fire stations

Council remands 105 Bowles Drive tree‑fine appeal to staff for landscape management plan; applicant given path to vacate fine