HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - BZA - 11-18-2008
MINUTES
City of Milton Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
November 18, 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 October, 2008 meeting minutes
4) V08-022, 2985 Manor Bridge Drive, The Manor
5) V08-23, 2570 Mountain Road, William Ellis
6) V08-026, 13065 Highway 9 North, Sembler Atlanta, Deerfield Place
7) V08-028, 13065 Highway 9 North, Sembler Atlanta, AT&T, Deerfield Place
8) V08-029, 1785 Dinsmore Road, Alpharetta Athletic Club
9) V08-030, 13045-13099 Highway 9 North, Sembler Atlanta, Deerfield Place
10) V08-031, 16355 Birmingham Highway, W. Curtis Mills
11) V08-032, 550 Blue Heron Way, The Lake at North Valley
12) Other Business
13) 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
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion and Second: Sandy Jones made a motion to approve the October 2008 meeting
minutes. The motion was seconded by John McRae. There was no discussion. Vote: 7-0.
The motion unanimously carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Requested Staff read the first agenda item, V08-022
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 2
Staff Angela Rambeau
Read agenda item 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 an additional 30 day deferral until the next meeting
Anticipates case being withdrawn
If information need is not provided in two weeks applicant has been notified that staff
will be withdrawing application on basis of the site plan being incomplete
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion to defer V08-022. The motion was
seconded by Sandy Jones. There was no discussion. Vote: 7-0. The motion unanimously
carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Requested Staff 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).
Requested a 30 day deferral until the next board meeting
Still working with applicant and progress is being made
If not accomplished in two weeks will issue a notice of violation and proceed through the
courts
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion to defer V08-023. The motion was
seconded by Marcia Parsons. There was no discussion. Vote: 7-0. The motion
unanimously carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Stated next agenda item was, V08-28
Stated Board was going to insert V08-026 in conjunction with V08-030
Brian Snelling will present both at same time.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called the next agenda item, V08-028, 13065 Highway 9 North, AT&T, Deerfield Place
Motion and Second: Sandy Jones made a motion to move this agenda item to after
agenda item V08-032. The motion was seconded by Todd Chernik. There was no
discussion. Vote: 7-0. The motion unanimously carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called the next agenda item, V08-029, 1785 Dinsmore Road
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 3
Staff Angela Rambeau
Read the next item on the agenda, V08-029
To allow a pool and its deck to be located less than 100 feet from an adjoining property
line (Article 19.3.12B.2.b)
To allow a pool and its deck to encroach into the 25 foot buffer and 10 foot improvement
setback (Article 4.23.1, B & E)
Staff's Recommended Conditions: (1) applicant shall plant 10 feet on the club property
and 15 feet on the Quesada's property as shown on the site plan date September 26,
2008, (2) final approval of plantings shall be per the City Arborist, (3) easement shall be
recorded to protect the 15 feet of buffer planted on the Quesada's property, and (4)
applicant shall obtain all required land disturbance and building permits.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for questions for staff
Requested applicant present case
Applicant Dan Mason, 81 Woodstock Road, Roswell, GA
Representing Tom Ridge of Alpharetta Athletic Club
Presented case to the Board
Want to expand their pool for their swim meets and have a children's play area
Pool currently too small and narrow
Do not have a kids pool for their members
Need to slid the buffer onto the Quesada's property
Have the Quesada's approval
Asking variance be granted
Walt Rekuc
Confirmed with applicant that agreement with the neighbor was in writing and signed
Applicant Dan Mason
Stated that was correct and Staff had a copy
Walt Rekuc
Working being done in conjunction with pool or earlier for plantings?
Applicant Dan Mason
Would plant before the end of Spring
Want pool open before Summer starts
Scott Kilgore
Number of neighbors within 100 feet of the edge of the deck?
Applicant Dan Mason
Just the Quesadas
They have 5 acres
Rest of neighbors are about 500 feet away
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 4
Marcia Parsons
Maintenance of plantings on easement?
Applicant Dan Mason
Probably superintendent of the golf course would monitor the plantings
Existing fence and gate neighbor wants to keep open and we are fine with that
John McRae
When was pool constructed?
Were meets envisioned at that time?
Applicant Dan Mason
Do not know
Tom Ridge
Stated existing pool was put in 1996 and in 2008 married Crooked Creek Golf Club in
Milton and Alpharetta Country Club and expanded membership from 550 members to
over 1100 members
Property was purchased in October 2006
Applicant Dan Mason
Neighbors we spoke to were all in agreement
Members of club and want this to happen
Have letter but no legal document
Could have club lawyers draft something
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for public comment
No public comment
Closed public hearing
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion to approve V08-029 based on the
preexisting condition that a pool is there and applicants are doing nothing more than
expanding an existing use in the same area and also that it would be in harmony due to the
agreement that has been worked out with the adjoining neighbor. Would like to condition
the approval to request three items: (1) that the applicant shall plant 10 feet on the club's
property and 15 feet on the Quesada's property as shown on the site plan dated September
26, 2008. Final approval of the planting shall be per the city arborist, (2) an easement shall
be recorded to protect the 15 feet of buffer planted on the Quesada property, and (3) the
applicant shall obtain all required land disturbance and building permits. Also, under item
(1), that the buffer shall be maintained by the club. The motion was seconded by Sandy
Jones.
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 5
Discussion on motion:
John McRae
Discussed under Standards of Consideration, Part 1
"In harmony with the surrounding environment"
Not Board's purview to make it in harmony with the surrounding environment
Should be in harmony with the intent of the resolution.
Site plan is dated September 15th and received on September 26th
Walt Rekuc
No problem with making the change of the date to September 15th and received on
September 26th.
Scott Kilgore
Noted the variance number was V08-029 and not V08-009 as was stated.
Walt Rekuc
Amended his motion under item (1) to state that the site plan would be dated
September 15, 2008 and received by the staff on September 26, 2008
There was no further discussion. Vote: 7-0. The motion unanimously carried
Chair Sandy Jones
Called the next agenda item, V08-026, a deferral item from the October meeting,
13045-13099 Highway 9 North
Requested staff present case
Staff Angela Rambeau
Read the next item on the agenda, V08-026
Part 3 is a deferral from the October meeting
To allow window signs to exceed the 5% of aggregate window area allowance (Chapter
33, Section 26.K)
To allow multiple tenants to have window signs
"Lifestyle" graphics by the developer
Opaque window film showing different pictures on certain walls of the stores
In front of walls typically used for racking or storage
Staff had no considerations to add to case
Brian Snelling, 1450 Johnson Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA
Representing Sembler
Same discussion and presentation as last month
One of tenants, Mattress Firm, requested use of this window film
Fenestration required a lot of glass around buildings
Some tenants have to have areas that need to be covered up
Need to block studs and installation of certain walls
"Lifestyle graphics have been used in several other developments
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 6
Reviewed sample pictures of "lifestyle" graphics with Board
Other option would be plain, white, gray or green opaque film
Does not believe in falls into the category of a sign because no tenant name appears on it
Walt Rekuc
Could potentially be approving signage along all glass windows if approved by board
Would it be possible to create a shadowbox behind the window?
Signage could be behind it in the shadowbox as well
Looking at potential problems that could occur
Board cannot approve content
Can approve location and size
Asked about their tenant covenants
May need more information to show board to help understand how it would operate
Try to come up a solution that may or may not work
Applicant Brian Snelling
All leases have a sign criteria attached to them
Sign variances in leases must meet criteria of the city code
Also operation and easement agreements in lease
Would prefer this be treated other than a sign
Do not consider it a sign in accordance with the sign ordinance
Just a window graphic
Whether plain or not it is just window film
Milton also dictates a certain distance inside of tenant's space
Have stated specifications on type and color of film
Not all tenants would want to use the "lifestyle" graphics
Would have to write different things for different tenants
Case-by-case basis as relates to a lease
Tenants come to us to get approved if they want this
Trying to work with the tenants like Firehouse Subs and Mattress Firm
Want to make sure everything fits in and works for everyone
Mattress Firm put them up not considering them signs and city ruled them to be signs
Not sure how to resolve this issue
Gary Willis
When Sembler is finished and done who will control approval of the window signs?
Applicant Brian Snelling
If we retain property, we retain management of property
If sold to new owner, they would handle it
Leases still carry over
Requirements still carry over
OEA carries over to new ownership
Same mechanisms will be in place
Gary Willis
If approved would be giving you an open book to put whatever on the windows
Board cannot control the content
Concern about what could be on the graphic film
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 7
Applicant Brian Snelling
Have the right to tell tenant they must be compliant with the code
Todd Chernik
Concerns about not having specifics or guidelines
Do not know what content requirements would be under you guidance versus another
owner's guidance
May have different opinions as to what "acceptable" content may be
Becomes very subjective
It is a feature of the building
Something should have been discussed in more detail with the Design Review Board
Need guidelines indicating what you will enforce and what is applicable and not
applicable for location as well as content
Need case-by-case examples
Do not feel comfortable approving at this time anything other than plain gray or black
film without specific cases
Too ambiguous to hand out that authority to Sembler without it
Covenants may be something to consider in going forward with your properties
Applicant Brian Snelling
Would need perhaps a work session to discuss specifically what Milton wants for specific
tenants
Would not know how to write something into a lease
May need to contact an attorney
Still do not believe this is a sign according to the sign ordinance definition
Chair Sandy Jones
Discussion with Mr. Snelling about their covenants
Applicant Brian Snelling
Every property is different
Each plan may be different
Sign ordinances for Sembler differ from city to city
Do not believe for this project window film was addressed in lease
Chair Sandy Jones
Questioned staff on obtaining guidance from the Design Review Board
Staff Angela Rambeau
DRB does not review signs
Read the definition of a general sign from the City of Milton's Sign
Ordinance
Community Development Director made the determination that the graphic film would
fall under this ordinance
Todd Chernik
Way being presented currently is too subjective and ambiguous
Believe these fixtures are conveying a message through graphics which constitute a sign
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 8
Walt Rekuc
Signs have to be a certain distance away (1 ft) from a window
Board Discussion with staff about the sign window definition under Article 3 of
the ordinance, 3.31
Staff Angela Rambeau
Question tonight is he allowed to have the window signs
Request is the signs would only be put into specific location areas
Read to Board from the variance request the specific areas
John McRae
Question to applicant about possibility of reconfiguring partition walls to avoid necessity
of visible walls through the vision glass
Applicant Brian Snelling
Some cases it would be possible
Others have glass around all four sides
Depends on construction and interior needs of tenant
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for public comment
There was none
Todd Chernik
Asked staff if the Board is left with having to request of the city attorney in
regard to clarification of the sign ordinance for "lifestyle" graphics
Staff Angela Rambeau
Advised Board that would be the next step if they were not comfortable with this request
Chair Sandy Jones
Closed public hearing
Motion and Second: Todd Chernik made a motion to deny V08-026, Part 4. The motion
was seconded by Sandy Jones.
Discussion on Motion:
John McRae
Understands applicant is in a difficult position
Do not see how the Board could guarantee the variance request would meet the harmony
aspect of the Board's consideration factor
Staff Angela Rambeau
Cautioned Board that they cannot deny the variance based on the content
Tenants can apply after six months individually
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 9
Todd Chernik
Too ambiguous
Chief concern is leaving up to developer
Staff Angela Rambeau
It has already been determined that the graphics are signs
They can currently put a 5% window graphic up
The Board would have been determining whether they could have larger ones on the
specific areas
Chair Sandy Jones
Do not want to make a global decision for this development regarding window graphics
Would have to be on a case-by-case basis for the individual tenants
Prefer not to tie the hands of the tenants for 6 months and hinder their businesses
Staff Angela Rambeau
Would have to discuss this with the Director
Gary Willis
Colors of film allowed by Milton?
Staff Angela Rambeau
Sign ordinance does not control color of the sign
We have allowed plain gray opaque film
Do not consider that a sign
Applicant Brian Snelling
If tenant is not going to use a graphic film, we ask they use a gray similar to the glass
there.
Darker smoke gray
Vote in favor of denial of V08-026, Part 4: 4-3, with Todd Chernik, Sandy Jones, Scott
Kilgore and John McRae voting for denial and Walt Rekuc, Marcia Parsons and Gary Willis
voting against denial. The motion for denial carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called the next agenda item, V08-030, 13045-13099 Highway 9 North, Deerfield Place,
Phase 1 and 2
Staff Angela Rambeau
Read the next case, agenda item, V08-030
Variance is to allow multiple banners per lot (Article 33, Section 26.1.J)
47 acres located in State Route 9 Overlay District
428,000 sq. ft. of commercial and retail space
Staff recommended conditions: (1) each tenant is allowed one 24 sq. ft. banner for 10
consecutive days at a time for a total of 40 days per calendar year, and (2) tenant shall
obtain a sign permit for each 10 day period that the banner is up
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 10
Chair Sandy Jones
Questions for staff?
Walt Rekuc
Asked staff about location of sign or banner references
Staff Angela Rambeau
Sign ordinance controls location
Todd Chernik
Asked staff how location was defined for multi-tenant or mixed use developments
Anywhere along Highway 9?
Staff Angela Rambeau
Allow them to hang them on the fence
Put them out on green area as long as 10 ft. back from right-of-way
Above their space
Walt Rekuc
Would location not be referenced on their application for a permit?
Staff Angela Rambeau
Stated they do
Allowed to do s0 for 40 days
Each lot or development is only allowed one banner
Applicant is requesting each tenant be allowed one banner
Time limit would remain the same
Brian Snelling, 1450 Johnson Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA
Presented V08-030 to Board
Request variance to change the word "lot" to "tenant" in this case
Have 40 plus tenants at Deerfield Place built by Sembler
Want all of their tenants to be able to use a banner as they open, etc.
Chair Sandy Jones
Size of banner?
Brian Snelling
Limited to the 24 sq. ft. that is currently in ordinance
Not asking for size increase
Asking to change the word "lot" to "tenant" in this case
Marcia Parsons
Does Sembler have a limit to where banner can be placed in agreement?
Brian Snelling
Do not have a preference
Would like for it to be placed on the fence
Most visible place and draws customers
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 11
People do not know who is currently open
Third of site is still under construction
Usually put up banner for grand opening
Cycling at different times so would not be all at same time
City would have some control of location of the banners
Scott Kilgore
40 tenants across both or per lot?
Total acres?
Brian Snelling
40 across both phases
Total have about 35-40 spaces for whole shopping center
Two being Target and Kohl's which are on their own lots
47 total acres
Todd Chernik
Concerns about clustering of signage or banners at major intersection areas
Any restrictions or guidance you would impose on tenants as to placement of signs?
Willing to entertain some restrictions (i.e., 100-200 ft. of entrance ways)
Brian Snelling
Currently have not devised a plan to do that
Tenants in rear prefer signs to be up on road
Scott Kilgore
Idea on number of tenants wanting to use banners during a holiday season?
Intent of ordinance is to avoid clutter of signs
Believe we need to limit amount of signs to a number of some sort
Brian Snelling
Do not know what business in development would need to advertise more during holiday
season.
How would you discriminate
Perhaps staff could determine that
Will be a natural cycle depending on when business opens and for special seasons
Do not anticipate all 40 businesses putting up signs
Would come down to a city enforcement issue
Todd Chernik
Is issue primarily coming from grand opening of the tenants?
Brian Snelling
Stated it was
All tenants need a grand opening banner to advertise their new business
This is the primary purpose
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 12
Scott Kilgore
Feel there needs to be a cap on number of banners
Believes ordinance perhaps overlooked a multi-tenant situation
Concerns about how many banners could go up at once
Board discussion with staff about number of banners and permitting process
Staff Angela Rambeau
Right now it is first come first serve
We try to keep track
Already had to cite one tenant because another tenant already had a banner and they
needed one as well
Trying to avoid that situation
Was not looking at this to limit the number of tenants that could have one at a time
Walt Rekuc
How could it be controlled so there would not be one continuous banner all along the
street?
Some standard of placement of the banners
Problems with existing businesses
Perhaps a sandwich shop and a pizza shop with side by side business
Could say no banner shall be within 30 ft. of the corner of a building
Difficult with development of this size to try to define something to accommodate
everyone
Brian Snelling
Might say banners have to be 10 feet apart
Necessary for the success of new business to be able to draw business in
Walt Rekuc
Asked about a color guidelines
Background colors, etc.
Trying to come up with a good solution
Brian Snelling
Probably with this limitation is tenants that may have a national branding color
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for public comment
Peter Gacek, 424 Farmwood Way, Canton, GA (AT&T Representative)
Defeat purpose of using banners if all the same color
Just see one row of same color banners and would not show your branding for the
business
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 13
Sonya Shaeffer, 13105 Commonwealth Pointe, Alpharetta, GA (no public
comment card turned in) (Opposition)
Appears they would just be using the fence as a billboard
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for other public comment
Called for additional questions
Walt Rekuc
Asked about requirements for monument signs regarding colors
Brian Snelling
Staples has read background with white letters
Petco has white background with blue and red dog and cat logo and red Petco letters
Target has white background with their different red color
Kohl's in Phase 2 will have a burgundy background with white letters
Do not know about other tenants based on their trademark colors and their branding
Fence if 5 or 6 feet
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for additional questions for staff
Todd Chernik
Applicant stated this is primarily an issue with regard to grand openings
Asked Staff if they could condition their motion to restrict use of banners to grand
openings?
Also could a condition be imposed to say for a time period like over the next two years?
Staff Angela Rambeau
Like temporary signs would have to be careful how it was worded
Cannot condition what the banner says
May be able to come up with time periods
Not certain about limiting for one or two years
City allows the use of banners on the fence with the setback allowance
Overlay does not address hanging signs on fences at all
Height restriction is 5 feet tall
Additional Board Discussion with Staff about possibilities of different
conditions
Chair Sandy Jones
Closed public hearing
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 14
Motion and Second: John McRae made a motion to approve Petition V08-030 based on
the fact that relief, if granted, would be in harmony with or could be made in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of the zoning resolution. Would also like to recommend the
following conditions: (1) each tenant is allowed one 24 sq. ft. banner for 10 consecutive days
at a time for a total of 40 days per calendar year, and (2) the tenant shall obtain a signed
permit for each 10-day period that the banner is up and to conform with any other
conditions specified by the applicable sign ordinance. The motion was seconded by Gary
Willis.
Discussion:
John McRae
Stated his reason for the conditions in the second part of his motion is to reinforce the
fact that the sign ordinance is what prevails in this case.
In order to make this variance request in harmony with the spirit of the ordinance itself,
the ordinance is discussing not keeping a permanent sign in place for an entire calendar
year.
It does not deal with stand-alone versus large commercial developments.
Think we are reading too much into it by trying to specify exactly what they can and
cannot do within this development.
Believe there is a flaw in the language where it is more related to the stand-alone side of
business signage and this variance can be made in harmony with the intent of restricting
it to 10 days in a row, four times a year.
Not doing so would create an unnecessary hardship on those tenants based on the fact
that they are in a shopping center.
They should be treated like any other business if we are going to interpret the ordinance
as it is.
It is up to the property manager to de-conflict between the tenants and hopefully create
an aesthetically pleasing environment for the local citizens and for the business owners.
They want it to be an attractive appearing area and hopefully that is what brought them
to Milton, not a tacky sign facia all along Highway 9 being all interrupted banners.
A lot of our discussion has been what can we do to avoid a certain aesthetic appearance
and we are to vote on the merits of the variance being requested so by virtue of that, if we
put further restrictions on what is essentially an aesthetic issue of a continuance sign,
that would be outside of our purview.
Todd Chernik
Implications of allowing multiple signs has an aesthetic impact
Feel should impose some guidelines for this complex that would not be restrictive to
their ability to have multiple banners but protect community
Discussed not having signs all grouped together
Discussed not having signs all clustered at entrance way
Gave development variances on size of their monument signs
Personally have issue with Highway 9 Overlay and DRB required development to install
fencing that it did
Now would be allowing fencing to be used as a billboard
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 15
Chair Sandy Jones
Asked Staff if Board allowed request and if ordinance is changed to address multi-tenant
usage of banners, would this ruling be grandfathered and exempt from that
Staff Angela Rambeau
Advised Board's ruling would supersede any future changes to the ordinance
Walt Rekuc
Agree with concerns of turning fence into a billboard of continual banners
Not sure some of tenants would like this as well
Not sure how to possibly address this
Perhaps no banner shall be within 50, 75 or 100 ft. of the edge of a driveway or right-of-
way of a street
Some buildings are right next to the intersection
Do not want to preclude banners from being allowed on top of the sign or building
Need to be clear that tenants cannot put a banner in front of other tenant's business
Put a condition that there has to be a gap between banners
Discussion with Board and Staff regarding possible solutions for placement of
banners and distances
Gary Willis
Creating a nightmare for the code enforcement for the City of Milton by adding all these
conditions for banners
Been in business for 22 years and have never put a banner out yet
Todd Chernik
If we approve this and should City Council change the ordinance, what we do supersedes
anything City Council would do to change that.
Charting new territory and it is along Highway 9
Think it is important to time-box this issue
Primary a grand opening issue
Heard development should be built out in 2009
Could give ourselves a two-year window to allow the multiple banners and then it would
expire
Then allow City Council to address multi-tenant sign ordinance or come for another
variance
Chair Sandy Jones
This is largest commercial retail establishment in the City of Milton
Highway 9 is the gateway into Milton
Need to consider the aesthetics
Multi-tenant developments do need to be re-looked at in the ordinance
Understand needs of the new businesses
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 16
Todd Chernik made a friendly amendment to John McRae's motion adding the
conditions: (1) that the approval would stand for a period of two years from today's date, at
which time it would expire, (2) that the signs not be located within 100 ft. of entrances and
(3) that signs not be affixed to the fence. The friendly amendment was seconded by Scott
Kilgore.
Discussion:
Gary Willis
Tenant after two years would then have to come and apply for another sign variance?
Consider changing 100 feet to 30 feet
Lengthy Board discussion amongst themselves regarding possibility of
specifying time periods, distances and how and where to affix banners.
Todd Chernik withdrew his friendly amendment
Scott Kilgore withdrew his second
Todd Chernik made a new friendly amendment to condition that the allowance of this
variance would stand for a period of two years from today's date, that the banner shall not be
located in front of any buildings unless it is the tenant's building, and banners shall not be
affixed to the fence. The friendly amendment was seconded by Sandy Jones.
Vote on friendly amendment: 5-2, with Marcia Parsons, Todd Chernik, Scott Kilgore, Walt
Rekuc and Sandy Jones voting in favor of the friendly amendment and Gary Willis and John
McRae voting in opposition to the friendly amendment. The friendly amendment passed.
Chair Sandy Jones called for a vote on the original motion to approve V08-030
Vote: 7-0. The motion unanimously carried.
Discussion with applicant, Board and Staff regarding the banners now having
to be behind the existing fence with applicant going to dais to look at site plans
with Board
Staff Angela Rambeau
With banners having to be behind the fence, they will not be able to be seen
Todd Chernik
With plan before them, it is unclear where the actual fence is located
Chair Sandy Jones
Made a motion to amend the friendly amendment for V08-030
Motion and Second made a motion to not include the statement of not allowing the
banners to be affixed to the fence. The friendly amendment will consist of two criteria: (1)
allowing the banners will be enforceable for two years from today and (2) shall not be
located in front of any building unless it is the tenants' occupied buildings. Seconded by
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 17
Marcia Parsons. There was no discussion. Vote: 5-2, with Walt Rekuc, Marcia Parsons,
Sandy Jones, Todd Chernik and Scott Kilgore voting in favor of the friendly amendment and
Gary Willis and John McRae voting in opposition. The motion carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Stated she wished to go to V08-032 next
Motion and Second: Sandy Jones made a motion to amend the agenda to next hear V08-
032, 550 Blue Heron Way. Seconded by Todd Chernik. There was no discussion. Vote: 7-0.
The motion unanimously carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for Staff to present V08-032
Staff Angela Rambeau
Presented V08-032
Variance is to allow encroachment into the 75 foot impervious setback (Chapter 14,
Article 6, Section 5,a,I,ii)
Lot is located at The Lake at North Valley Subdivision
Existing home has recently been demolished except for the garage
Home with be replaced with a larger single family home and series of swimming pools
Removal of any trees will require recompense
Applicant had knowledge of the buffer requirement prior to the demolition of the house
Staff's recommended conditions: (1) the pool and decking shall be constructed per the
site plan dated October 8, 2008, (2) the construction shall include an infiltration system,
and (3) the existing 688 sq. ft. patio shall be removed and demolition work shall be done
by hand
Chair Sandy Jones
Called applicant to present
Daryl Cook, 3694 Orchard Street, Norcross, GA (Applicant Representative)
Presented case to Board
Agent for the applicant
Wanted a deferral of this case but was able to get all the exhibits and other information
to Staff
Home previously was going to be remodeled
Realized in planning that existing house would not work with the remodeling
Do not believe owners where aware of the buffer problems when they purchased the
existing homes
After became aware of the buffer requirements had to redesign the home completely
Reviewed some aerial photos with the Board at the dais
Have signed affidavits of the homeowners on both sides of the property
Presented the signed affidavits to the Board for their review
Stated topography was another issue as well as the lake on the property
There are also state buffers and the city's buffers
Requires a septic field and health department does not like septic fields on steep slopes
There is less than one quarter of the lot available to actually build on
Location indicated is only place that is suitable to build on
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 18
Discussed soil, rock and building area for the basement
Old house had a patio, walkway, barbeque pit and other impervious areas already
existing in the impervious setback
Also a good amount of area within the 50 ft. setback required by the city
Believe there is a hardship due to all of these reasons
Discussed stormwater issues with Board and proposed mitigation
Reviewed all other exhibits/drawings with the Board
Walt Rekuc
Asked if lake behind property was a soil conversation lake
Any buffers or easements there based on elevation on property
Septic fields location
Applicant Daryl Cook
Stated it was
Buffers fall within the 25 foot state buffer
House elevation will be well above the lake
No plans to put any septic fields in the rear of the property
Chair Sandy Jones
Asked about specimen trees had been impacted in construction of new home
Applicant Daryl Cook
None known of
Arborist reviewed the tree situation
Do not believe any trees will be impacted from new construction
John McRae
Septic fields seem to be one of main issues
How were calculations done for septic field?
Applicant Daryl Cook
Five bedroom home
Percolation data comes from county health department data for sq. ft. of drench needed
based on number of bedrooms
County health department also requires 100% primary or initial system and 100%
reserve system
Need to demonstrate this requirement can be met
John McRae
Erosion control measures shown on any plans?
Applicant Daryl Cook
Show areas on original plan
Underground systems
Jimmy Sanders wants to have some input as well as plumbers, etc.
Plan date is 11/15/08
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 19
Marcia Parsons
Asked Staff about any changes that had been made from the October 9th to the
November 15th plan
Applicant Daryl Cook
Essentially the same
Moved the house just slightly forward
Wanted to get to the 3-1 plus ratio
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for any other questions for the applicant or staff
Called for any public comment
Applicant Brian Askew, 850 Blue Heron Way, Milton, GA
Owner of property
Made promises to daughters to build the house and pools
Discovered all the buffers and setbacks after the face
Had to find a solution in remodeling process
Wanted to fulfill the city requires and also promises to his family
Hired the best people to try to solve the problems
Asked the Board to seriously consider his variance requests
Discussion:
John McRae
Question for Staff about arborist's conditions
Staff Angela Rambeau
Provided arborist's new conditions to Board that were provided to her this evening
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for any further questions
There were none
Closed the public hearing
Motion and Second: Sandy Jones made a motion to approve V08-032 with the following
conditions: (1) The pool/decking shall be constructed per the site plan dated November 15,
2008, (2) The construction shall include an infiltration system, designed to catch run off
from the roof, the pool and the pool decking, (3) The existing 688 square foot patio shall be
removed, (4) The demolition work shall be done by hand, (5) This area shall be replanted to
buffer standards, (6) The applicant shall make improvements to the side drainage swale, and
(7) The applicant shall comply with all applicable erosion control measures. The motion was
seconded by Todd Chernik. There was no discussion. Vote: 7-0. The motion unanimously
carried.
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 20
Chair Sandy Jones
Called the next agenda item, V08-031, 16355 Birmingham Highway, Curtis Mills
Asked Staff to present case
Staff Angela Rambeau
Presented V08-031 to Board
Requested variance is to eliminate the minimum 50 foot spacing for a new public or
private street from any property line adjoining AG1 and residential property (Article
14.34.5.7
Staff's recommended conditions: No conditions
Walt Rekuc
Asked staff purpose of this in the ordinance
Staff Angela Rambeau
To protect adjoining property owner
Had letter from adjoining property owner requesting case be deferred until next month
Stated nobody had contacted her regarding buying a piece of the property
Applicant stated to the contrary
Neighbor is currently out of town and not able to be present this evening
Applicant Curtis Mills, 16355 Birmingham Highway, Milton, GA
Staff covered most of what he was going to state this evening
Discussed purpose of the 50 foot spacing
Tests are hardship and no detriment to the community
In this case the community is adjoining property owners
Believes both of these tests have been met
Developer that has been helping him is out of the country or would have been present to
answer questions
Only reason site plan has 3 parcels is for just that.
Engineer and developer suggested they be cut up
Lot in question is the back lot
Have any intention of leaving the rest contiguous
Have no plan to developing that or doing anything else with it
Did not want to cut big piece of land up into 3 pieces.
Hardship is due to topographical reasons
Drain field is in the front of that lot and PERC test have already tested it out
Cannot push a road further north on the lot without losing the lot
Currently moved as far as it can be without losing a building lot
Had engineers and new water samples done
Wanted to make this a win-win situation regarding everyone involved including
neighbors
The developer, Richard Wernick, had a long-time friend of the property owners who
agreed to contact the adjoining neighbor to see if they would be willing in discussing a
property sale or swap to make this amenable to all
Was told that that contact had been made
Contact Mrs. Quay, one of the two neighbors regarding any questions
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 21
Mrs. Quay stated she was not aware of this and had been on vacation
Forwarded her an electronic copy of the information, including the letter and all
attachments including maps, etc.
She indicated she was surprised and that she was contacted and requested she give the
land away for free
I saw the letter written to Staff regarding this
There appears to be some confusion regarding this contact but the people that can verify
this could not be here this evening
Not sure relevant
Believe it should go back to the detrimental impact tests
Got a call from a family member on Saturday who stated they were afraid there may
some diminished value should the road go past that corner
Some suggested that some amount of money for the diminished value, not for a land
sale, might gain support for the project
Was to get a call on Sunday and did not and have not been able to reach the family
member back
That amount of money was in the neighborhood of 7-10 times the property value for the
area in question
Want to do what is right, but not what is unreasonable
This was not for purchase, but just for support
Test is whether this would be detrimental or not
Do not see any diminished value
Asked Board to look at the survey diagram of his property
Discussed diagram photos including the aerial photo with the Board
Todd Chernik
Appears you are caught in middle of "he said," "she said" situation
If deferred did applicant feel he could reach some resolution with the neighbor in next
30 days?
Applicant Curtis Mills
Gut reaction and experience says no, but not certain of that
Believes that was offered already
Two weeks about with his conversation with Mrs. Quay on phone
That was first contact with the neighbor
They no longer live there and property has been for sale
Would be open to doing that but understanding is that is not an option
What was discussed was support in exchange for a monetary amount of money
Walt Rekuc
Asked applicant about the 20 ft. access easement on his property
Not sure why that is there
Opposite the Quay's property
Applicant Curtis Mills
Stated the Quay's had a detention pond down there
That is for new access to that
It was not there previously
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 22
Walt Rekuc
If you did have to build a road still would be looking at an encroachment for the front or
the rear?
Had a similar situation
Told his neighbor he would give them an utility easement giving them access to water,
gas and power and not have to go all the way back to the road to get it
Gave them a 10 ft. utility easement and a water meter at their cost at that location
Could probably push road further down the hill but do not know the detriment coming
up
Only other option is to not have the road and just a driveway
That would require another variance
Applicant Curtis Mills
No intention of requesting a variance on the front side
Simply constrained on the front side as it is
Did not occur to him 9 years ago may want to do something on the back
This was before Kingsley Estate was there or there would not be an issue
Front part did not change, but the back part did
Believed it would add value, not diminish it
They have the same creek going north and south
Believes all dialog has been done
Will do whatever it takes
Board discussion about granting access or utility easement to neighbor
Applicant Curtis Mills
Not talking about 500 ft.
It is a black and white situation
Will do whatever needs to be done to get on with the program
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for any other questions of the applicant
John McRae
Asked about time period stated of 18 months
Letter from adjacent property owner is dated November 12th
Asked about the chronology
Applicant Curtis Mills
Referred to his laundry list of what has been done to make this work
Stated this current round has been around 4 months
Had also considered putting the house on the very front of the property to leave
everything contiguous
Did speak to Mrs. Quay and tried to buy part of the property that fronted Birmingham so
would not have the driveway constraint
Walt Rekuc
Asked Staff if notices are sent to people via certified mail
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 23
Staff Angela Rambeau
Stated they are sent regular mail
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for any other questions
Called for public comment
Wiley Hendrix, 16235 Birmingham Highway, Milton, GA (Opposition)
There has been no discussion in the last two months at all
Original discussion was about a sliver of land
If about driveway would not be an issue
This is about subdividing
This is about a putting in a road
Need at least 30 days to evaluate the impact
Believes total untruths have been told here tonight
Walt Rekuc
Nothing was discussed on the back side?
Impact is that small triangle on the corner
Wiley Hendrix
Nothing discussed except in the last couple of days
Did not know this was coming up
Had no notice of this
Wanted to look at the impact
Prudence on our part
Wanted to look at this for 30 days before we agreed to anything
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for any other public comment
There was none.
Called applicant up for rebuttal
Curtis Mills
Wanted to address the topic of subdivision
When he and Mr. Hendrix first talked on the phone, he thought a variance would not be
needed
Thought I could just put a driveway there
I believed I made it clear that the lot did not have frontage of 45 ft. required street
frontage on the road coming from Kingsley Estates
A lot has to have 45 feet of street frontage
Subdivision is not my agenda
Not trying to say anything that was construed as not being truthful or offensive
Scott Kilgore
Could a driveway be done instead of a road?
Curtis Mills
No way to muscle 45 feet of road frontage without pushing the road there
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 24
Have to pay for the road extension off of the existing cul-de-sac to get it back there and
do not want to do that
Could not get a right-of-way because there is no frontage
Had to construct it so there would be 45 feet of frontage on a road
Existing cul-de-sac comes 50 feet from the property line
Staff Angela Rambeau
Stated it has to be right-of-way
Cannot have two houses on one lot
He would have to carve out that 6 acres and create its own lot
Will require road frontage as stated
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for any other questions
There were none
Closed public hearing
Motion and Second: John McRae made a motion to defer Petition No. V08-031 for 30
days to then next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Zoning appeals. The motion
was seconded by Sandy Jones.
Discussion:
Walt Rekuc
Want to make sure the Quays and the Hendrix's understand that the hearing was
scheduled to be heard today
Board could make a decision tonight and not give additional time
Motion is on the table to defer
Believes there is a hardship involving this matter
Does not see a detriment to the other property
Everybody needs to work at getting this resolved if case is deferred
There was no further discussion. Vote: 6-1 in favor of deferral, with Gary Willis voting in
opposition. The motion carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Stated the Board would adjoin for a brief work session to discuss the next case, V08-028
to discuss information with Staff they did not have previous to the meeting
Board recessed to go into a work session at 10:45 p.m.
Chair Sandy Jones
Reconvened the meeting at 10:56 p.m.
Asked Staff to present V08-028, 13065 Highway 9 North, Rob Stephens and AT&T
Deerfield Place, Phase 1
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 25
Staff Angela Rambeau
Read Petition V08-028 to Board
To allow window signs to exceed the 5% of aggregate window area allowance (Chapter
33, Section 26.K)
Staff's recommended conditions: (1) No rotating, blinking, neon or changeable copy
signs shall be allowed, and (2) Tenant shall be allowed to install 3, 12 sq. ft. light boxes
Applicant Rob Stephens, 1437 Custis Court, Atlanta, GA
Presented case to Board
Asking for way to accommodate some of the design standards that Milton required in
order to elevate the aesthetic value of many of the developments in the city
Primarily the amount of glass that is part of the exterior of their building
Feel site is in a good site
3 sides of their space have glass on them
Design of store is controlled on a national basis on several fronts
Want to clarify their specific requests
Sign ordinance states to put these up have to be at least 5 feet away from the window
If within 5 ft. it can only be 5% of the aggregate of the window space
Presented drawings to Board for their review
Variance request is for 3 12 sq. ft. light boxes
Do not want to give up too much sq. footage
Did not want to create corridors that do not go anywhere
All space needs to be utilized to be profitable for AT&T
Discussion with Board from drawings
Introduced Peter Gacek, the store manager at the Milton AT&T location
Peter Gacek, 424 Farmwood Way, Canton, GA (AT&T Representative)
Brand new store
17 employees underneath him
Market is very competitive
With new store need every bit of eye-catching as they can get
Not adding more signs
Need shadowboxes and believe they fit in with the surroundings
Jason Anderson, 2230 Lakewood Manor Drive, Athens, GA (AT&T
Representative
Two types of interior signage
This signage is for pedestrians not for drive-by traffic
These shadowboxes conveys our colors and to state we are open
No blank unlit wall
Not planning to change this signage out
It will only contain the AT&T branding
Shadowboxes is very conservation and tastefully done
Dead end corridors were the biggest issue
The design here dictates the layout of the store
The ceiling is a two-tiered ceiling and cannot be shifted over
Reviewed layout of building from photos with Board
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 26
Scott Kilgore
Asked applicant if the shadowboxes were right behind the glass
Applicant Rob Stephens
Two feet off of the glass mounted on the wall
Scott Kilgore
Asked Staff about clarification of the ordinance
So only considering the 5% for the variance tonight
Chair Sandy Jones
Asked applicant if they would be considering the lifestyle graphics
Peter Gacek
They prefer this option over the lifestyle graphics
Lifestyle graphs are too hard and expensive to maintain
Have use them in Raleigh, NC
The cost was around $4,000
Images have to be printed and installed
Those graphics are usually swapped out more frequently than what we are asking for
Brandings do not ever change
5% is 2.5 and graphic is 1.8
Each window would allow 2.5 sq. ft.
There are actually 4 windows
Scott Kilgore
Total is 5%
If 3 windows and 1.8 sq. ft. x 3 is more
If restricted to 5% then they could not do it
Chair Sandy Jones
Asked staff for clarification on percentage
Staff Angela Rambeau
5% of the total window area
Can break the 5%
Applicant Rob Stephens
Calculations were done by taking the sq. ft. of all windows in store minus doors
Are allowed 16.85 sq. feet of graphics or signage aggregate
Asking for total of 1.8 x 3
Would be far under what is allowed by code
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for any other questions
There were none
Closed public hearing
Opened floor up for a motion
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 27
Motion and Second: Walt Rekuc made a motion for approval of V08-028 to allow the
window sign to exceed the allowable 5% of the aggregate area with the recommended
conditions of staff as follows: 1) No rotating, blinking, neon or changeable copy signs shall be
allowed, (2) Tenant shall be allowed to install 3, 12 sq. ft. light boxes, and (3) That the
diagram would be based on the picture taken on October 29, 2008, labeled page 12 of 13 in
the Board of Zoning Appeals case package. The motion was seconded by Sandy Jones.
Discussion:
Scott Kilgore
Would like to see this limited to this tenant
Also like to limit the logo in the lettering to the 1.8 sq. ft.
Wants background color to be a solid color
Want to keep it in harmony
Chair Sandy Jones
Mr. Rekuc conditioned it to the specific information and pictures contained in the BZA
packet dated October 29, 2008
Staff Angela Rambeau
Not sure it can be limit it to this tenant
Variance goes with the property
Todd Chernik
If another tenant came in they would have to come before the Board for another variance
Chair Sandy Jones
No further discussion, a vote will be taken.
Vote: 7-0. The motion unanimously carried.
Chair Sandy Jones
Called for any new or old business
John McRae
Reminder about an issue under consideration in December for the amendment to the
BZA Bylaws and scope per Council's comments
Would like to have that information before the December meeting.
Council wants to see it again in January
Chair Sandy Jones
Need to make sure the Planning Commission has had their final say before it goes to
Council
Discussion with Staff about number of cases on next meeting agenda and
possible work sessions
City of Milton Board Zoning Appeals
Minutes Regular Meeting
November 18, 2008
Page 28
ADJOURNMENT
Motion and Second: Sandy Jones made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded
by Todd Chernik. There was no discussion. Vote: 7-0. The motion unanimously carried.
Meeting adjourned at 11:28 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
November 18,2008
Page 28
ADJOURNMENT
Motion and Second: Sandy Jones made a motion to adjourn. The motion mfas seconded
by Todd Chernik. There was no discussion. Vote: 7-0. The motion unanimously carried.
Meeting adjourned at 11:28 p.m.
Date Approt7ed: I.%r I@r@