Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Residential topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves rezoning and setback variance for 10235 Waters Road; forwards to council
Summary
The Alpharetta Planning Commission on Nov. 6 approved a rezoning and a variance for 10235 Waters Road that would allow the 0.84‑acre parcel to be subdivided into two single‑family lots and forwarded the item to City Council for final consideration on Nov. 17.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Residential topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Alpharetta Planning Commission on Nov. 6 approved a rezoning and a variance for 10235 Waters Road that would allow the 0.84‑acre parcel to be subdivided into two single‑family detached lots and forwarded the item to City Council for final consideration on Nov. 17.
City planning staff, represented at the hearing by Kathy Cook, told commissioners the applicant seeks to rezone the property from CUP (Community Unit Plan) to R‑15 and requests a variance to reduce the front building setback from the R‑15 standard of 65 feet to 50 feet. The applicant also proposes a 35‑foot rear setback (instead of the R‑15 standard 25 feet) to preserve trees along the rear of the lot. Cook said staff’s analysis found the requested changes are supported by the property’s medium‑density residential future land‑use designation but recommended adjustments to better protect a large water oak on Lot 1; staff’s alternate plan would retain a 65‑foot front setback for Lot 1 while allowing a reduced setback for Lot 2 and recommended approval subject to nine conditions, including streetscape and tree‑save requirements.
Applicant Barry Dunlop of Paradigm Engineering said the requested 50‑foot front setback and increased rear setback would allow homes to be sited to preserve rear buffer trees and to avoid substantial grading caused by rising topography toward the rear of the lots. Dunlop displayed two site plan options and told commissioners the large front water oak would be at risk if the home were sited on the existing setback line; he said the arborist advised that up to 20 percent critical‑root‑zone encroachment could be acceptable if measures are taken to preserve the tree.
Commissioners questioned driveway locations and turning movements because the site is close to the Jones Bridge intersection, sidewalk continuity along Waters Road, and whether the alternates would damage rear buffer plantings. Staff said the developer will be required to install a sidewalk and streetscape improvements along Waters Road that will tie into existing sidewalk where it exists and that a community zoning information meeting earlier drew only a single comment about tree limbs and an expression of interest in purchasing a lot.
Cook summarized staff’s conditions, which tie the rezoning to the submitted site plan, require building materials and home orientations similar to the submitted renderings, require side‑loaded garages, specify permitted curb cuts, and call for a minimum six‑foot planter with street trees, a minimum six‑foot sidewalk, a 10‑foot decorative landscaping strip along Waters Road, a required mix of evergreen and deciduous trees on site, a tree‑save list, and a prohibition on unfinished wood fences and decks visible from Waters Road.
There were no members of the public who spoke in favor or opposition during the public‑comment period. Following discussion, a commissioner moved to approve Z‑25‑14 / V‑25‑31 subject to the staff conditions; the motion was seconded and carried by the commission. The item will be heard by City Council on Nov. 17 for final action.
Clarifying details: the parcel is 0.84 acres; proposed density is reported as 2.38 dwelling units per acre; staff proposed nine conditions as noted in the record; the front‑setback standard in the R‑15 district is 65 feet and the applicant requested a 50‑foot front setback for both lots, while staff recommended one lot retain 65 feet to save a significant water oak.
Speakers quoted: “There is a large tree right about that area,” Kathy Cook said during the staff presentation, and applicant Barry Dunlop said, “By pulling the home further to the front, I don’t have to deal with those elevation differences…that would definitely significantly impact those existing trees along the back.”
Outcome: Motion to approve forwarded to City Council; vote recorded as carried by the Planning Commission (vote method: show of hands/voice).

