Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council reviews revised Powder Springs Road rezoning; staff recommends notice to Cobb County

Marietta City Council · January 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At an agenda review, staff said the developer reduced a Powder Springs Road project to 43 units and removed three variance requests; staff read a suggested motion to notify Cobb County that the city intends to approve the rezoning, contingent on a pending arbitration.

A city staff member told the Marietta City Council at its agenda-review meeting that the applicant for a Powder Springs Road development had submitted a revised plan reducing the project to 43 units and removing the three variances previously sought. "The applicant has resubmitted a new plan, which takes the units down to 43 units on the site," the staff member said, and added the revision brings the density to roughly 3.93 units per acre and “relinquishes the need for any of the 3 variances that were being requested previously.”

Staff then read a suggested motion to the council: "Motion to send notice to Cobb County that the city intends to approve the proposed rezoning application of PRE Powder Springs Road, LLC as revised, seeking PRDSF zoning for 10.9 acres of land on Powder Springs Road at a density of 3.93 units per acre, contingent upon resolution of the pending arbitration process," the staff member said. The staff explanation also noted that, if the council moves forward with approval, an additional public hearing might not be required for the rezoning itself but would still be needed for annexation or code amendments related to the project.

Council members asked clarifying questions about stipulations tied to the reduction in density; staff confirmed those stipulations are reflected in the applicant's stipulation letter. The staff member also noted Mr. Hough, the applicant's representative, was present for questions.

No formal council vote on the suggested motion was recorded during the agenda-review session. The matter was presented as the procedure the council should use at the public hearing if it chooses to move forward. The next step is a public hearing at the scheduled full meeting, where councilmembers may adopt, amend, or reject the staff-recommended motion and any related annexation or code-amendment items.