HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - BZA - 10-21-2008
MINUTES
City of Milton Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008 7:00 PM
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Sandy Jones
Todd Chernik
Gary Willis
Scott Kilgore
Marcia Parsons
Walt Rekuc
John McRae
CITY STAFF Angela Rambeau, Community Development
AGENDA
1) Call to order and pledge
2) Introduction of Board members
3) Approval of the September meeting minutes
4) V08-022, 2985 Manor Bridge Drive, Elliott Smith for Anthony Pergola
5) V08-23, 2570 Mountain Road, William Ellis
6) V08-025, 585, Watboro Hill Drive, Jason Jones
7) V08-026, Deerfield Place 13045-13099, Highway 9, Brian Snelling
8) V08-027 Kohl's 13970 Highway 9 Sara Kaufman
9) Adjournment
CALL TO ORDER Chair Sandy Jones called meeting to order.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
STATEMENT OF THE BYLAWS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL
Read by the Chair Sandy Jones.
BOARD INTRODUCTIONS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion and Second: Chair Sandy Jones made motion that the Board go into an
executive session.
City Attorney Ken Jarrard
Executive Session was for the purpose of discussing litigation.
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 2
Chair Sandy Jones
Stated executive session was for the purpose of discussing litigation
The motion was seconded by Marcia Parsons. There was no discussion. Vote: 7-0.
The motion unanimously carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Announced Board would take a short recess to have discussion on a litigation
issue
The City Attorney and the Board adjourned into executive session at 7:05 p.m. and
returned to the meeting at 7:21 p.m.
City Attorney Ken Jarrard
Need to request a motion to add to the agenda the Baker versus the Milton
BZA Settlement Agreement.
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion to add the Settlement Agreement
in the Baker case to the Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda this evening. The motion
was seconded by John McRae. There was no discussion. Vote: 7-0. The motion
unanimously carried.
City Attorney Ken Jarrard
Settlement Agreement involved Donald and Sue Baker versus the City of
Milton Board of Zoning Appeals
Up for their consideration and possible approval this evening
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion to approve the Settlement
Agreement as present to the Board by the City Attorney and would like for the
Chairperson to act and sign this. Seconded by Gary Willis. There was no discussion.
Vote: 7-0. The motion unanimously carried.
City Attorney Ken Jarrard
Thanked the Board and left the meeting at 7:23 p.m.
Chair Sandy Jones
Requested Staff to read the first agenda item, V08-022.
Staff Angela Rambeau
Next item on the agenda was V08-022, 2985 Manor Bridge Drive, Elliott
Smith for Anthony Pergola
To allow an accessory structure (a storage shed) to encroach into the rear yard
setback (Article 5.1.3.I)
Staff requested a thirty (30) day deferral until the next meeting in November.
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 3
Staff Angela Rambeau
Staff working with the applicants on preliminary items that need to be taken
care of
Getting a final plat revised before the variance can be brought before the
Board.
The surveyor brought a survey in yesterday, but she had not seen it yet
They were making progress
Not ready to go forward tonight.
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion to defer V08-022 for thirty (30)
days until the next scheduled meeting. Seconded by Marcia Parsons. There was no
discussion. Vote: 7-0. Motion unanimously carried.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Motion and Second: Sandy Jones made a motion to approve the September 16,
2008 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes as presented. Todd Chernik
seconded the motion. There was no discussion. Vote: 6-0-1, with Sandy Jones
abstaining due to her absence at the September meeting. The motion carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Requested Staff to read the next agenda item, V08-23.
Staff Angela Rambeau
Read the next item on the agenda, V08-23, 2570 Mountain Road, William C.
Ellis
To allow a cul-de-sac to encroach into the 50 ft. stream bank buffer and the
75 ft. impervious setback (Chapter 14, Article 6, Section 5,a,I,ii).
Staff Angela Rambeau
Requested a deferral until the next board meeting in November.
Staff has been going back and forth with the applicant working on an
alternative site plan
Hoped they would be able to come up with a plan that would not require a
variance and perhaps could be withdrawn.
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion to defer V08-023 for thirty (30)
days until the next scheduled meeting. Sandy Jones seconded the motion. There
was no discussion. Vote: 7-0. The motion unanimously carried.
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 4
Chair Sandy Jones
Staff to read the next agenda item, V08-025, 585 Watboro Hill Drive, Jason
Jones.
Staff Angela Rambeau
Read the petition and stated this variance was to allow a swimming pool and
deck to encroach into the 50 ft. stream bank buffer and the 75 ft. impervious
setback in accordance with Chapter 14, Article 6, Sec. 5.a.i.ii
Site is located in the Oak Ridge on the Green Subdivision and is zoned AG-1,
and lies within the Norwest Fulton Overlay District, and is a single family
home and detached garage is currently located on the property
Staff read from Chapter 14.6.5.a of the City Code.
Applicant proposes to use stamped concrete on the pool deck, but has stated
that pavers are another option
Applicant proposes to install a 3 ft. by 15 ft. infiltration trench at the rear of
the pool, to further mitigate the encroachment.
Focus Meeting was held on September 24, 2008
Read the department comments from the Petition and the Standards for
Consideration and Recommended Conditions from the Petition
Scott Kilgore
One of the items in plan was an infiltration trench
Not included in the recommended conditions.
Staff Angela Rambeau
Staff assumed applicant was going to add infiltration drench.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for questions for Staff.
There were none
Chair asked applicant to come forward.
Applicant Jason Jones, 585 Watboro Hill Drive, Milton, GA 30004
Presented his case to the Board
Stated he wanted to build a pool and had a difficult lot to work with, including
a detention pond, power lines and the unique shape
Most of the impact had to deal with water encroaching into the setback
Putting in an infiltration drench to minimize any impact
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 5
Todd Chernik
Impact to project if not allowed to encroach into the 50 ft.?
Applicant Jason Jones
Impact was small
Walt Rekuc
Most of property is undisturbed and natural
John McRae
Type and pricing of materials
Pervious materials would cost more
Infiltration trench part of plan?
Applicant Jason Jones
infiltration system would be installed
Trying to minimize erosion issues since it was built
Todd Chernik
Clearing in disturbed area?
Applicant Jason Jones
Part of construction to build some dirt up around the foundation
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for additional questions
There were none
Called for public comment
There was no public comment
Discussion:
Walt Rekuc
Any letters from HOA or neighbors stating agreement with allowance of
variance?
Applicant Jason Jones
Approval from neighbors and Homeowners Association pending Board's
approval
No person behind his property
Neighborhood common area and then adjoining neighborhood
Chair Sandy Jones
Closed public hearing
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 6
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion for approval. Due to the
configuration of the property and the location of the home on the property and a
desire to place the pool directly behind the home to meet the requirements of the
city, it has placed a hardship on the applicant to put the pool at a point in which it
would be able to be used and in so doing, I recommend approval of the variance for
the pool to encroach into the 50 ft. setback and the 75 ft. setback based on the plan
prepared by Classic Pools and Spas, and that sixteen 3 gallon shrubs to re-vegetate
the area that is disturbed and that the applicant shall obtain all required permits
prior to construction. Gary Willis seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Walt Rekuc
Most of property is already natural and will remain that way.
Additional trees planted would not serve any purpose
Did not want trees near the pool or lake areas.
Discussion with Scott Kilgore and Walt Rekuc about the 2 inch hardwood trees and 6
ft. high trees and the shrubs.
John McRae made a motion for a friendly amendment to include the additional
replanting requirements to 2 inch caliber hardwood trees and five 6 ft. high under
story trees. Seconded by Scott Kilgore.
John McRae
Impact concerns through construction process (i.e., what is there currently
versus post-construction)
Walt Rekuc
• Plantings should not be in stream buffer area
• Plantings are to re-vegetate the area
Todd Chernik
Planting of trees near pools may have some consequences
Maintenance (leave, etc.)
Roots impacting pool structure
Gary Willis
Concerns about piping running from jets out to the motor
Could have problems with roots too close
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 7
Chair Sandy Jones
Clarification that the location would be for approval of the city arborist
Not leave up to the arborist
You would specify rear yard
John McRae
Would state in the rear yard and not leave up to the city arborist
John McRae
Leave to applicant's discretion on how to meet the intent
Would not impose that condition
Requirement is plantings be in the rear yard
Restated friendly amendment:
That the applicant shall plant in the rear yard of the home, two 2 inch caliber
hardwood trees and five 6 ft. high under story trees.
Chair Sandy Jones called for discussion. There was none. Vote: 3-4, with John
McRae, Marcia Parsons and Scott Kilgore voting in favor of the friendly amendment
and Sandy Jones, Todd Chernik, Gary Willis and Walt Rekuc voting against the
friendly amendment. The motion for a friendly amendment failed.
Todd Chernik
Made a friendly amendment to the original motion regarding to the
infiltration trench so there is no uncertainty regarding the Board's intent and
the applicant's intent. Would like this noted as an impact, as it could have
negative impact if it was not installed. I would like to require the 3 ft. by 15 ft.
infiltration drench as depicted on the plan by Classic Pool & Spa.
Discussion about being clear on what the Board's conditions are.
The motion for a friendly amendment was seconded by Scott Kilgore. There was
no discussion. Vote: 7-0. The motion for the friendly amendment unanimously
carried.
Scott Kilgore
Made a motion for a friendly amendment that the Board includes a condition
that the buffer balance clause that is on the plan of 17,054 sq. ft. of the
property being pledged to remain undeveloped be undeveloped as stated in
the plan. The motion was seconded by Sandy Jones. There was no
discussion. Vote: 7-0. The motion for the friendly amendment unanimously
carried.
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 8
Discussion on the original motion continued.
Scott Kilgore
Recommendation to remove the 43 sq. ft. of encroachment into the 50 ft.
Question if Mr. Rekuc had addressed that issue
Walt Rekuc
Applicant is only encroaching 43 ft. in the 50 ft. Not sure how much of that is
wall and how much is deck
Felt he understood applicant's intent to get the pool directly behind house
Scott Kilgore
43 sq. ft. is into the 50 ft.
Carries a higher level of concern in his view
Additional discussion about the 43 ft. in the 50 ft.
Scott Kilgore
Made a friendly amendment that Staff's Condition #2 that the 43 sq. ft. of
encroachment into the 50 ft. undisturbed buffer be removed from the plan.
The motion was seconded by Sandy Jones.
Discussion:
Marcia Parsons
Question about diagonal lines on their site plan
Deck or concrete?
Staff Angela Rambeau
Blue is pool and diagonal is deck
Scott Kilgore
Added to his motion the remainder of Staff's Condition #2, that no part of the
pool shall encroach into the stream buffer and that final approval shall be per
the Community Development Department.
Additional Discussion:
Todd Chernik
Before voting want clarity regarding hatched area shown on the plan
regarding the pool.
Deck or not?
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 9
Staff Angela Rambeau
Hatched area and gray area is deck section
It is hatched because that is the part encroaching into the impervious setback
All concrete
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for any other discussion
There was no discussion
Called for vote
Vote on inclusion of Staff's Condition #2: 4-3, with Scott Kilgore, Sandy Jones,
Marcia Parsons and John McRae voting in favor and Walt Rekuc, Gary Willis and
Todd Chernik voting in opposition. The motion carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Stated original motion was on the table
Asked Mr. Rekuc to restate the motion
Walt Rekuc restated his motion:
I recommend approval on V08-025 to allow encroachment into the 50 ft. stream
buffer and the 75 ft. impervious setback as delineated on the plans prepared by
Classic Pools & Spas, Inc. for Jason and Sara Jones, with the condition that sixteen 3
gallon shrubs to re-vegetate the area that is disturbed and that the applicant shall
obtain all required permits prior to construction.
Chair Sandy Jones
Stated motion had previously been seconded.
Called for discussion
There was no discussion
Vote: 7-0. The motion unanimously carried.
Summary of all motion and friendly amendments voted on:
i. Applicant shall obtain all applicable permits,
ii. Applicant shall install the 3’x15’ infiltration trench as shown on the site plan
drawn by Classic Pools,
iii. The 1,753 sq feet shown on the site plan as buffer balance shall be permanently
protected,
iv. Redesign the pool to remove the 43 sq foot of encroachment out of the 50 foot
buffer
v. The applicant shall plant the following behind the pool area:
• sixteen (16) 3 gallon shrubs
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 10
Chair Sandy Jones
• Made a motion to modify the agenda
• Items # 7 and #8 will be switched
• V08-27 will be heard first
The motion was seconded by John McRae. There was no discussion. Vote: 7-0. The
motion to modify the agenda was unanimously carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Call the next agenda item, V08-027, 13970 Highway 9, Sara Kaufman for
Kohl's
Staff Angela Rambeau
Variance is to increase the maximum allowed square footage of two wall signs
(Article 33, Section 26.1.J)
Read petition to Board
Focus meeting was held on September 24, 2008
Stated no issues from Building Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Arborist or
DOT/Stormwater Review
Staff read Standards for Consideration
Staff's recommended conditions: Applicant shall obtain required sign permits
prior to installing any signs
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for questions for Staff
Called Applicant to present case
Applicant Jackie Miller, N56, 1700 Ridgewood Drive, Menomonee Falls,
WI
Presented case to Board
Stated she was presenting instead of Sara Kaufman
Manages national sign program for Kohl's out of their corporate office in
Wisconsin
Feels code did not take into consideration signs for large retailers
Store is approximately 93,000 sq. ft.
Gave building measurement from all sides of building
Requested signage occupies much less than 5% of the facade allowed for
smaller retailers
Expressed concerns over visibility from street and where located in Target
shopping center
Other retailers will be coming in and landscaping will block views
Would like sign to be same as others used across the country
Provided Board with handouts
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 11
Discussion with Applicant and Board from handout
John McRae
Addressed Staff Robyn McDonald's concerns in letter dated September 2,
2008 from Sara Kaufman of Kohl's
Hardship questions
Kohl's building process with City of Milton?
Kohl's signage and traffic safety question
Brian Snelling, 1450 Johnson Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA
With the developer of shopping center, Sembler
Talked about the topography
Kohl's is approximately 13-15 below the finished grade of where driveway
comes in front of store
State Route 9 requirements require a 20 ft. landscape strip along entire
length of Highway 9, Webb Road and Deerfield Parkway
County/City requirement
City in rezoning required that the bank be heavily landscaped along that side
of the building
Kohl's was required to add green screens and add ivy
Some of the other buildings in shopping center will partially block line of site
for Kohl's
Required to put in a 10 ft. wide landscape island every 5 parking spaces
throughout the parking area
Field of trees internal to the site as well
Dictated by the State Route 9 Overlay, Fulton Ordinances, etc.
Applicant Jackie Miller
Safety issue from taking eyes off from watching road looking for a retailer
store sign
Chair Sandy Jones
Monument signs location?
Brian Snelling
Monument sign at main entrance to both phases of development
Small monument sign on Deerfield - 4 ft. sign
Walt Rekuc
Location of signs on building
Trees can grow larger and obstruct views
Discussion about sign location with applicant referencing the site plan
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 12
Todd Chernik
Timeframe of light being installed at Deerfield and Hwy. 9?
Brian Snelling
Designed and submitted
Waiting for GDOT's approval
Kohl's is only building in shopping center they are asking for a sign increase
Construction trailer also sits on property
Marcia Parsons
Confirmed with applicant that could be more visibility issues as property is
developed more
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for additional questions or comments
Called for opposition
Russell Olsen, 13228 Marrywood Court, Milton, GA
Spoke in opposition to larger sign
Building is large
Traffic will slow when lights are installed
Lisa Litchfield, 13417 Marrywood Court, Milton, GA
Spoke for her and her husband who is the president of The Regency at
Windward Square.
Spoke in opposition to larger sign
Hugh store as is Wal-Mart
Do not believe will have difficulty seeing Kohl's
Neighbor has concerns looking at it everyday
John McRae
If official position of HOA at the Regency at Windward Square that this would
be an eyesore
Lisa Litchfield
Not discussed at meetings
Has been discussed among members of the Board
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for any further discussion, questions or comments
There were none
Closed public hearing
Called for a motion
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 13
Scott Kilgore
Stated he would like to make a motion
Motion and Second: Scott Kilgore made a motion to deny the requested variance
V08-027 to increase the maximum allowed square footage of two wall signs based on
lack of hardship, lack of harmony with the intent of the ordinance and lack of
preexisting foliage. The motion was seconded by Todd Chernik.
Discussion:
Scott Kilgore
Applicant has two monument signs
Would be a total of four
Nothing extraordinary or exceptional about development
Building being below grade may provide better visibility because sign closer to
eye level and below foliage
Ordinance in question is comprehensive and abundantly clear
100 sq. ft. is the maximum size Milton wanted for all signs
Ordinance was drafted with large buildings and landscaping in mind
Traffic signal light will be installed in immediate future
Kohl's building is large and dominates the area
Need to uphold the Ordinance
Walt Rekuc
Stated he appreciated Kohl's coming into the community
Understood as business owner wanting a larger sign
Try to work with entire community to make best decision
Trees can be a factor in visibility as they grow
Other buildings and street trees can be a factor in obscuring site
There will be other stores and signs in front of their building
Believes a variance could be granted due to the visibility issues
John McRae
With material provided to the Board did not see a hardship had been
demonstrated
Did not feel City should bend their rules
Kohl's should present a product meeting their needs and Milton's code and
standards
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 14
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for further discussion
There was none
Called for a vote
Vote: 5-2, with Todd Chernik, Gary Willis, Sandy Jones, Scott Kilgore and John
McRae voting for denial of the motion and Walt Rekuc and Marcia Parsons
voting for approval of the variance. The motion carried for denial of the variance.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called the next agenda item, variance for V08-026, 13045-13099 Highway 9,
Brian Snelling
Called for Staff to present case
Staff Angela Rambeau
Read Petition V08-026
To allow Phase 2 primary monument sign to exceed maximum allowable
height and square footage
To allow Phase 2 primary and secondary monument signs to be internally
illuminated
To allow temporary accessory signs to be placed at the entrances for traffic
control
To allow tenants to install window signs (graphics on opaque window film)
those exceed the 5% allowance, on areas that will be blocked by internal walls
or racking. (Article 33, Section 26.1.B,K,S; Section 25.A.2)
Property site is located at 13045-13099 Highway 9 and zoned C-1
Consists of 47 acres in the State Route 9 Overlay District
Building Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Arborist and DOT/Stormwater
Review had no issues
Read Standards for Consideration
Read Staff's Recommended Conditions
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for questions for Staff
There were none
Called for applicant to present
Brian Snelling, 1450 S. Johnson Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA
Representing Sembler, the developer
Presented the first item, primary monument sign
Sign ordinance was changed after first phase was completed
Requesting primary monument sign on Highway 9 be allowed to be the same
size as the Phase I sign and being in harmony with Phase I of the property
This is only variance relating to size
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 15
Board decided to hear and vote on each variance request separately
Discussion with Board and applicant regarding location and distance from road of
monument signs referencing diagram
Todd Chernik
Question for applicant about the hardship
Applicant Jackie Miller
It is all subjective
When you have something that is appropriately signed you're taking your eyes
off of the road for a shorter period of time
If you cannot see retailer and are blocked by everything else there are chances
of running into someone and not being able to exit, etc.
This is a big issue
Site elevation is right on top of the road
Want people to be able to easily see Kohl's
Todd Chernik
Asked Staff when new sign ordinance was adopted
When did Sembler break ground and get LDP for Phase I
When Sembler broke ground the awareness then was there that the sign
ordinance had been changed
Staff Angela Rambeau
April 2007
Brian Snelling
Broke ground in June of 2007
Todd Chernik
Discussed with applicant that Board had certain guidelines to make decisions
in
Making the project in harmony with Phase I would not be in the Board's
purview
Our decision is whether in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
Ordinance
Phase would not be part of the Board's consideration
Walt Rekuc
It may not be in Mr. Chernik's viewpoint, but it was in his
Scott Kilgore
When rezoning was done in Phase II were larger monument signs requested
from Council?
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 16
Brian Snelling
It was considered
Issues with buildings having to be built in a single structure
Rezoning was done later because of this matter
Property was zoned commercial in 1983
Trying to get a national tenant
Did not have enough time then to add another variance to address this
Thought there was some language in ordinance about property owner's rights
for harmony with his buildings
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for public comment
Lisa Litchfield, 13417 Marrywood Court, Milton, GA
Spoke in opposition
Spoke as an individual
Russell Olsen, 13228 Marrywood Court, Milton, GA
Spoke in opposition
Thinks Sembler did a great job
Ordinances are in place to protect the homeowners and the community
Gary Willis
Size of each square on the monument sign?
Brian Snelling
If variance is allowed, each sq. will be 23 in. by 37 in.
If denied, they will be 21 in. by 24 in.
Marcia Parsons
Phase I and Phase II elevation questions
Brian Snelling
Phase I elevation at Target the driveway fairly level with grade
Phase II start heading down grad
Part 1: To allow Phase 2 primary monument sign to exceed maximum allowable
height and square footage
Walt Rekuc
Can dirt be added around base of retaining wall around a sign so
measurement could be within base of the retaining wall for measuring
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 17
Staff Angela Rambeau
Had a case like that and remembers it being said they could not make it look
like it had been done on purpose
Did not believe intent is to allow grade to be built up just to get sign up higher
Gary Willis
If individual was to start business in a free-standing building, what is
maximum allowable signed Milton would allow?
Staff Angela Rambeau
On Highway 9, 48 sq. ft. and 12 feet tall for multi-tenant
Brian Snelling
Single tenant sites and out-parcels are limited to one monument not to exceed
a maximum surface area of 32 sq. ft. and maximum height of 6 feet
One tenant if subdivided would be allowed 32 sq. ft.
Asking for 7 tenants to have 64 sq. ft.
Struggling with getting and keeping tenants with existing market
Need a competitive advantage
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for additional questions or comments
There were none
Closed public hearing
Motion and Second: Scott Kilgore made a motion to deny the variance based on
lack of harmony and lack of hardship. The motion was seconded by Sandy Jones.
Discussion
John McRae
No fault of applicant that Milton became incorporated
Would be malicious obedience to follow own ordinance and deny variance
Already another sign a few feet down the road in a similar look and dimension
Would look odd and detract from aesthetics of development to have them
have a new look
Gary Willis
Hardship for Kohl's as well as 6 other business
390 ft. off of the road
Visibility is huge issue
Business owner cannot survive if customer cannot read sign and find you
Additional discussion about whether or not a hardship
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 18
Walt Rekuc
Monument sign size is critical to business
Talking about 16 sq. ft.
Did not know how city came up with requiring such a small amount of signage
for such a large project
Lengthy Board discussion about size of signs
Chair Sandy Jones
This is matter for Council and the lawmaking body of the City of Milton
Not in purview of the Board of Zoning Appeals
Marcia Parsons
Hardship appears to be the elevation more than anything
Vote on motion to deny: 4-3, with Todd Chernik, Sandy Jones and Scott Kilgore
voting in favor of the denial and Walt Rekuc, Gary Willis, Marcia Parsons and John
McRae voting against the motion to deny. The motion to deny failed.
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion for approval of the variance to
allow the sign to exceed the maximum allowable height and square footage under
Article 33, Section 26.1.B to be the 64 sq. ft. of the sign face and the height to be no
taller than 15 ft. The motion was seconded by Gary Willis.
Discussion:
Todd Chernik
No basis in the motion as to what hardship there is
Second variance to be heard is regarding lighting
Phase I versus Phase II and what the hardship really is
Walt Rekuc
Hardship is the topography where sign would be placed
Also regarding the trees and shrubs planted in the location of the sign
making visibility less
Brian Snelling
From right-of-way starting at the base of the sign it is probably 3 ft. below
grade
Slopes from right-of-way near the corner of the building about 13-15 feet
There was no other discussion. Vote to approve variance: 4-3, with Walt Rekuc,
Gary Willis, Marcia Parsons and John McRae, voting to approve and Todd Chernik,
Sandy Jones and Scott Kilgore voting in opposition. The motion carried.
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 19
Chair Sandy Jones
Read next variance request to allow Phase 2 primary and secondary
monument signs to be internally illuminated
Brian Snelling
Partially same reasons
Phase I is internally illuminated
External need to be placed in ground or at grade level to shine down on
Will not property illuminate the signs and make for less visibility
Have to comply with dark sky ordinance
Will not get any light spray coming from lights
Hardship is do not feel can put enough lights to illuminate signs and still
comply with dark sky ordinance and allow for customers to find business at
night
Competitive disadvantage for the other tenants who have internally
illuminated signage
John McRae
Discussed extent of electrical in area.
At this time could it go either way or internal or external lighting?
Proposed hours of operation for the committed stores in development?
Brian Snelling
May have to upsize voltage and transformer to power the lights
Hours are somewhat different (i.e., restaurants)
Most retailers are between 9 or 10 p.m.
Gary Willis
Time lights in Phase I turn off?
Brian Snelling
Run off of a timer
Usually 2 hours after last tenant closes
Walt Rekuc
What type of lights would be used for external?
Would probably need more external lights than for internal.
Brian Snelling
Internal probably a fluorescent strip or LED type illuminated for energy
conservation
Externally probably up to a 400 watt or high pressure sodium
Could use 3-4 goosenecks and also at bottom to get same amount of light from
the internal illuminated lighting
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 20
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for public comment
Russell Olsen, 13228 Marrywood Court, Milton, GA
Spoke in support so the lighting for the signs would be consistent for what is
there
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for additional questions or comments
There were none
Closed public hearing
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion to allow the Phase 2 primary
and secondary monument signs to be internally illuminated to kept the same look
within the whole shopping center and also because I believe the lighting that would
be necessary in this area due to the commercial aspects would be much better if it
were internally lit than external from just the amount of light necessary to illuminate
the signs. The motion was seconded by Sandy Jones.
Discussion:
Scott Kilgore
Do not like internally lit signs
Ordinance specifically addressed the lighting
Would like as a citizen to see the ordinance upheld
Did not see harmony with the intent of the ordinance
Do not see hardship
Not Board's job to decide if they like something better or if ordinance is out of
line
Gary Willis
Am a business owner
Have both types of signs
Alpharetta had more complaints about the external lighting
Things are always hitting the external lighting and light spills out
Todd Chernik
Asked that hardship be stated in the motion for the record
With larger sign internal lighting would probably now be better
Walt Rekuc
Reason is that believe the sign would be in keeping with the general
neighborhood
Externally lit signs would be harder to read and make it hardship for the
business owners for customers to see going down road
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 21
Todd Chernik
Made a motion for a friendly amendment that would stipulate that the
internally illuminated sign would be set to a timer to turn off no later than two
hours past the last business closing. The motion was seconded by Sandy
Jones.
Board discussion about when lighting for signs would be turned off
Todd Chernik stated that his friendly amendment would be that should the Board
approve the internally illuminated sign, that it be extinguished two hours after the
last tenant closure.
John McRae
Asked Mr. Chernik if he was saying all signs on Phase II would be turned off.
Todd Chernik
Was thinking of primary and not even considering secondary.
Chair Sandy Jones
For clarification asked Walt Rekuc if his amendment was for both.
Walt Rekuc
Stated for both
Todd Chernik
Matter of Board to write the ordinance or interpret it
Will leave friendly amendment as it stands to apply to primary and secondary
signs
Trying to mitigate any impact
Make harmonious with intent of ordinance
Marcia Parsons
Have a problem with Milton telling these businesses how to run their
operation with lighting, parking, etc.
Have a problem with us interfering with that
Brian Snelling
Signage lighting is separate and on different timers than parking lot lighting
Either run on time clocks or photo cells
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 22
Chair Sandy Jones
Do have the ability and right to look at things from the Milton perspective
Each community is unique with unique characteristics
Called for additional discussion
There was none
Called for a vote on the friendly amendment to allow sign illumination on
both the primary and secondary monument signs up to two hours past the
close of the last tenant
Vote on friendly amendment: 4-3, with Sandy Jones, Todd Chernik, Scott Kilgore
and Gary Willis voting for the friendly amendment and Walt Rekuc, Marcia Parsons
and John McRae voting against the friendly amendment. The motion for a friendly
amendment carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
There is an original amendment on the floor to allow Phase 2 primary and
secondary monument signs to be internally illuminated
Called for further discussion
There was none
Vote on original amendment to allow Phase 2 primary and secondary monument
signs to be internally illuminated: 6-1, with Walt Rekuc, Gary Willis, Todd Chernik,
Sandy Jones, Marcia Parsons and John McRae voting for the amendment and Scott
Kilgore voting in opposition. The motion carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called the third variance to allow temporary accessory signs to be placed at
the entrances for traffic control
Brian Snelling
Need to have way to direct traffic through construction, stores opening,
deliveries, etc.
Current sign ordinance does not allow temporary informational signs or more
than one sign during construction
Primarily at various entrances
Ability to move around as other entrances become open
Discussion with Board members referencing type of signs in Board's package
Primarily for public safety issues
John McRae
OSHA requirement or something you are doing on your own?
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 23
Brian Snelling
Doing this on our own
Do not know if there is an OSHA requirement
Explained type and size of signs to Board
Will stay until construction is complete
Chair Sandy Jones
Clarification from Staff on temporary signage
Staff Angela Rambeau
Commercial establishments are one 2 x 2 sq. ft. signs
Allowed to have one 12 sq. ft. sign during construction
Nothing in Ordinance for accessory signs or traffic control signs
Todd Chernik
Expected completion date from today?
Brian Snelling
February or March of 2009
Marcia Parsons
Does construction company name have to be on sign?
Brian Snelling
Clarified purpose was so people know where they are going
Walt Rekuc
Size of physical signs?
Brian Snelling
2 x 3
Referenced Section 25, Item A-1
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for questions
Called for public hearing
Opened floor for a motion
Motion and Second: John McRae moved to approve the requested variance by
virtue of the following: Move to allow temporary accessory signs to be placed at the
entrances in the dimensions shown up until one calendar week following the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of all Phase 2 buildings for traffic control
purposes due to the fact that it would not cause substantial detriment to the public
good or impair the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Todd Chernik.
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 24
Discussion:
Walt Rekuc
Would tenant finish be included?
John McRae
Would be needed for interior purposes as well?
Brian Snelling
Restaurants that may have deliveries for kitchen exhausts and other deliveries
Construction traffic as needed
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for further discussion
There was none
Called for a vote
Vote: 6-1, with 6 board members voting for the motion and Gary Willis voting in
opposition. The motion carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called the last variance request to allow tenants to install window signs
(graphics on opaque window film) those exceed the 5% allowance, on areas
that will be blocked by internal walls or racking. (Article 33, Section
26.1.B,K,S; Section 25.A.2
Brian Snelling
They are display windows
Way to get fenestration on wall
Have to pretty much design a building almost on all four sides
Makes it difficult for tenants to do an interior build-out
Have to build walls in front of windows because of space they need inside
These are called "lifestyle" type graphic
Does not have tenant's name on it
Can use a graphic design or gray film on it to black it out
Discussion with Board viewing various samples of some of the tenants
John McRae
Percentage we could expect to see of these graphic based on your experience?
10%, 30%?
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 25
Brian Snelling
Hard to estimate
Some buildings have more glass than others
Number of windows they have to block
Request from the tenants
Look better than just gray film or just studs and installation through the glass
It is a judgment call
Todd Chernik
What is being brought before this Board tonight is ambiguous
Would Staff prefer the Board defer this matter and have applicant bring back
specific samples for approval or denial on a case-by-case basis
Alternatively, would Staff prefer the Board deny this and the applicants could
come back on a case-by-case basis?
Staff Angela Rambeau
What is being present are the examples of what is being proposed to put up
Brian Snelling
Clarified these are the first two tenants
Staff Angela Rambeau
Rather do it all here
Like sign ordinance do not have control of what it says
Do not know how much control we have over the graphic image on the glass
Todd Chernik
What to avoid us having to write a sign ordinance with Mr. Snelling as a case
If a tenant brings in a sample and say they want to put on specific window,
Board would be in a better position to make a decision
The ambiguity is of concern
Not saying that the Board is in opposition to this
Marcia Parsons
Had questions about handling on a case-by-case decision
If they want to change their "lifestyle" graphic, would it require a variance?
Staff Angela Rambeau
If that is how you wanted to handle it, they would have to bring it back for
approval
Tried to write the conditions to limit it to the specific areas of where the studs
were
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 26
Discussion on whether to defer or deny the variance
Todd Chernik
Not comfortable amending the ordinance and allowing the developer to
be the judge and jury for each of his subsequent tenants
Staff Angela Rambeau
What needs clarification? The amount of the graphics or the graphics
themselves or where they can put them?
Chair Sandy Jones
All of these reasons
Should be handled same way Sembler has handled the sign issues
Each tenant comes before us and a decision is made
Not opposed to this from a conceptual standpoint
Need to look at on a case-by-case basis
Marcia Parsons
If do not move forward with graphics, do they have to come back to do the
gray or black film?
Staff Angela Rambeau
That would not be considered a window sign
Brian Snelling
Is the BZA charged with also coming up with the definition of a sign
Angela and I have had conversations about this
Disagree with her interpretation that the "lifestyle" graphic is a sign
From his interpretation in the ordinance, is not a sign or window sign
Staff Angela Rambeau
The Community Development Director would make that decision
Brian Snelling
Do not want to come back before the Board each time someone wants to use
the graphics
Believe it looks better than gray film
Have mixed feelings about it
Probably will not get too many of these before you
Board feels that they should handle on a case-by-case basis to be able to address the
individual styles and it would be important what windows it would be placed on.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for public comment
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21, 2008
Page 27
Russell Olsen
Asked the Board to carefully consider the graphic signs that would face the
road
Chair Sandy Jones
There was no further discussion
Closed public hearing
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion to defer this variance to the
Board's next meeting to get more information from both the applicant and their
tenants to see exactly the type of sign and the location of the sign being contemplated
on the windows. The motion was seconded by Gary Willis. There was no discussion.
Vote: 7-0. The motion to defer unanimously carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for any new or old business
There was none
ADJOURNMENT
Motion and Second: Gary Willis moved to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals
meeting. The motion was seconded by Marcia Parsons. There was no discussion.
Vote: 7-0. Motion unanimously carried.
Meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m.
Date Approved: _______________
Approved By:
____________________________ _________________________
Francesca Ivie Sandy Jones, Chair
City Clerk’s Office Board of Zoning Appeals
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
October 21,2008
Page 27
Rnssell Olsen
•Asked the Board to carefully consider the graphic signs that would face the
road
Chair Sandy Jones
•There was no further discussion
•Closed public hearing
Motion and Second:Walt Rekuc made a motion to defer this variance to the
Board's next meeting to get more information from both the applicant and their
tenants to see exactly the type of sign and the location of the sign being contemplated
on the windows.The motion was seconded by Gary Willis.There \vas no discussion.
Vote:7-0.The motion to defer unanimously carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
•Called for any new or old business
•There was none
ADJOURNMENT
Motion and Second:Gary Willis moved to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals
meeting.The motion was seconded by Marcia Parsons.There was no discussion.
Vote:7-0.Motion unanimously carried.
Meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m.
Date Approved:----!/'....I.I,~/;lL'r;'I,(,~CJ"'--'r'----
pproved By:
ncesca Ivie
City Clerk's Office
,
Sa .<Iy Jones,hair
B rd of Zoning I eals