Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances 23‑lot Colston Road subdivision after staff says sewer and sidewalk issues addressed
Summary
Council voted 5‑1 to move a detailed plan for a 23 single‑family detached home subdivision at 731/735 Colston Road to the regular meeting after planners said sanitary sewer, retaining wall, tree and sidewalk issues had been resolved or addressed in revised plans.
A planning staff presenter told the Marietta City Council the detailed plan for the Highvale/Colston Road development proposes 23 single‑family detached homes at 731 and 735 Colston Road and that outstanding comments from the committee had been addressed.
Staff said the most significant issue — Marietta Water concerns about sanitary sewer service — had been resolved in the revised plan. Remaining technical issues at the committee stage involved retaining walls, tree preservation and a sidewalk segment along Colston Road; staff said each had been addressed in the submission before the council. Dave Stewart, identified in the report as representing the applicant, was present and the applicant has said it will relocate or reconfigure infrastructure where required to meet Marietta Water requirements.
Council members questioned specifics about a proposed tennis court near the subdivision entrance, whether it would be lighted and whether screening would be provided to reduce visibility from adjacent properties. Staff did not have those design details at the work session and said they would provide the information before the Wednesday meeting.
On the issue of private versus public internal streets, staff reported the interior roads would be private with a 50‑foot utility easement shown; utilities would be required to be placed underground. Staff also said the applicant believes sewer lines currently shown under a tennis court can be relocated so they are not beneath that facility, which Marietta Water would not permit.
Councilmember Carla moved to forward the detailed plan to the regular Wednesday meeting; the motion passed 5‑1. A single member voted no and expressed concern that too many open questions remained and preferred to return the item to the committee for further resolution.
Staff said applicant representatives will provide the outstanding details (screening, lighting, final sidewalk alignment and planned utilities) in writing before the Wednesday meeting.
