Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Qdcd Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners send large DHL/Yamaha warehouse variance back to staff for review, set March 3 return
Summary
After a lengthy presentation and debate over Quality Development Corridor (QDCD) architectural standards for a proposed 784,700 sq. ft. DHL/Yamaha distribution facility, the board voted to have staff review revised elevations and return the item to the March 3 meeting.
A proposal by DHL Supply Chain — on behalf of Yamaha Motor Manufacturing — to build a 784,700‑square‑foot parts distribution warehouse at the northeast corner of Interstate Way and Highway 34 prompted extended discussion on Feb. 17 and ended with the board asking staff to review revised drawings and return the item on March 3.
The applicant’s representative, Steve Hess of DHL’s investment and development team, told the board the building will be largely screened by an existing buffer and “we intend to plant nearly 800 new trees on‑site to enhance the existing cover.” He said the company added glazing and facade treatments to the elevations shown to the board but argued that strict QDCD (Quality Development Corridor District) exterior‑material requirements are costly and “not typically used for warehouse construction.”
Planning staff reported the property is about 51 acres and that the proposal seeks a variance from Article 26, Section 261.8 of the Coweta County Zoning and Development Ordinance to permit a high percentage of painted tilt‑wall (precast concrete) panels in place of the Category A materials (brick, stone or glass) the QDCD requires. Staff noted the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance unanimously at its Jan. 29 public hearing.
Commissioners pressed applicants and staff on where the building would be visible from Highway 34 and whether QDCD‑compliant materials could be required only on the elevations facing public right‑of‑way. One commissioner suggested making the public‑facing elevations fully QDCD‑compliant while allowing relief on the less visible sides; others raised precedent, enforcement and the economics of applying high‑cost cladding to a bulk distribution building.
A motion to approve the variance with conditions was made but failed for lack of a second. The board then approved a motion “for staff to review this in its full detail and bring this back at the earliest time possible,” setting March 3 as the follow‑up date.
The board did not take a final vote on the variance; the item remains under active consideration pending staff review of the applicant’s revised materials.
What’s next: Staff will review the revised elevations and the conditions tied to the application package and return the item to the board March 3 for further action.
