The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - BoZA - 05/18/2021 AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS May 18, 2021 6:00pm CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Zoom Meeting ID: 996 2477 4934 One tap mobile +19292056099,,99624774934#,,,,*556843# US (New York) +13017158592,,99624774934#,,,,*556843# US (Washington D.C) 1. Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Approval/Amendment of Agenda 5. Approval of April meeting minutes 6. Consideration of Primary Variances a. V21-09, 200 Tor Court Request(s): • To allow the lot coverage for an CUP zoned property that fronts a public street to go from 20 percent to 25 percent. (Sec. 64-1141, (d) (1)(b)) b. V21-10, 12655 Birmingham Hwy (Starbucks) Request(s): To allow all wall signs to be made of transparent white lexan and vinyl. (Sec. 64-2325 (b)(4)) To allow internal illumination of all signs (Sec. 64-2325(b)(2)) To allow the 48” diameter sign to remain on the architectural feature. (Sec. 64-2325 (b)(3)) To allow an additional wall sign for a total of four signs. (Sec. 64-2325 (b)(6)) 7.Consideration of Appeals/Secondary Variances 8.Old business 9.New business 10.Adjournment AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS April 20, 2021 6:00pm CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Zoom Meeting ID: 996 2477 4934 One tap mobile +19292056099,,99624774934#,,,,*556843# US (New York) +13017158592,,99624774934#,,,,*556843# US (Washington D.C) 1. Call to order 2. Roll call Present: Don Curt, Todd Chernik, Hodge Patel, Brenda Hamstead, Stephanie Butler Absent: Kim Keller, Jason Cole 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Approval/Amendment of Agenda Motion to approve: Todd 2nd: Hodge Vote: 5/0 (Approved) 5. Approval of February meeting minutes Motion to approve: Todd 2nd: Hodge Vote: 3/0 (Approved) (2 stay) 6. Consideration of Primary Variances a. V21-06, 810 Guardian Court Request(s): • To allow an accessory structure to encroach into the rear yard setback (Sec. 64-416,(i)). To remove a condition set in the case V20-15 approving the encroachment with conditions. Motion to approve: Don 2nd: None Motion: Failed Motion to Deny: Hodge 2nd: Brenda Vote: 4/1 (Variance denied) b. V21-07, 15785 Burdette Court Request(s): To allow an accessory structure to encroach into the rear yard setback (Sec. 64-416,(i)). Motion to defer: Brenda 2nd: Don Vote: 2/3 (Deferral denied) Motion to Deny: Todd 2nd: Hodge Vote: 5/0 (Variance denied) c. V21-08, 120 Dorris Road Request(s): • To allow an accessory structure to be constructed in the front yard. (Sec. 64-416 (i)) Motion to take 5 minutes break: Todd 2nd: Hodge Vote: 5-0 Motion to Approve with conditions: Todd 2nd: Hodge Vote: 4/1 (Variance Approved with conditions) Following conditions apply 1. Landscaping and screening to be approved by the City Arborist. 2. Approved per the site plan dated 2/10/2021 showing location and size of an accessory structure. 3. The structure is prohibited to uses for housing livestock, guesthouse, and commercial storage. 4. Project to follow Best Management Practices (BMP) as defined by the City of Milton. 5. Building architecture to be approved by the City architect. 7. Consideration of Appeals/Secondary Variances 8. Old business 9. New business a. Discuss a potential new condition with the BZA approvals such as requiring as-built survey. 10. Adjournment Motion to adjourn: Hodge 2nd: Todd Vote: 5-0 Page 1 of 10 V21-09 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 PETITION NUMBER: V21-09 PROPERTY INFORMATION 200 Tor Court DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2/ 265 OVERLAY DISTRICT Rural Milton EXISTING ZONING CUP (Community Unit Plan) ACRES 1.026 EXISTING USE Single Family Residence FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION Low Density Residential REQUESTED VARIANCE: • To allow the lot coverage for a CUP zoned property that fronts a public street to go from 20 percent to 25 percent. (Sec. 64-1141, (d) (1)(b)) PETITIONER/OWNER Justin Walton ADDRESS 200 Tor Court Milton, GA 30004 REPRESENTATIVE Premier Pool Service, Inc ADDRESS 153 N. Industrial Way Canton, GA 30115 Page 2 of 10 V21-09 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Page 3 of 10 V21-09 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF CONTACT: Shubha Jangam 678.242.2539 Background: The site is a 1.026-acre lot located on the north side of Quayside Drive and west side of Tor Court. The property is zoned Community Unit Plan (CUP) and is located in the Rural Milton Overlay District. Per Section 64-1141, (d) (1)(b) the lot coverage cannot exceed 20%, for the properties that front on public streets. The owner applied for a pool permit in January 2021. The proposed lot coverage was over 20%, so the applicant was offered various solutions to reduce the impervious area. The applicant requested a variance to allow the lot coverage to exceed 20%. The site plan received with the original variance application on April 4th is shown in Exhibit A. It shows the pervious pool deck area of 565 square feet, however it was not included into the total impervious calculations. The City’s plan review engineer maintains that a flo-well system is required underneath the pervious pavers to achieve the proper pervious surface. The staff communicated these requirements along with other mitigation alternatives. The applicant does not plan to use the flo-well or modified French-drain in this project. Therefore, the staff determined that proposed impervious area would be 23.5% and not 22.67%. On April 29th, the applicant provided a new site plan with an added pool house of 25 feet by 30 feet. This increased the total impervious lot coverage to 25%. The updated site plan is shown in Exhibit B. Details of the pool house are shown in Exhibit C. After the DRB’s comments the applicant proposed removing a part of the concrete walkway, the ball court, and the pool house. The revised site plan was provided on May 12th, it is shown in Exhibit D. The owner is adding 1494 square feet and removing existing 471square feet of impermeable surface. The latest proposed impervious area is 23%, still above the permissible limit of 20%. Therefore, this variance is requested. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB) COURTESY REVIEW: On May 4, 2021, the DRB met and had the following comments: • DRB recommends working with the staff to reduce the impervious area. • DRB recommends reducing the pool house size. • DRB also recommends modifying existing impervious surface as an alternative. Page 4 of 10 V21-09 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Standards for Consideration: The approval of a variance is based on the following consideration(s): • Relief, if granted would not offend the spirit or intent of the Ordinance. • There are such extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property that the literal or strict application of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to size, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions not caused by the variance applicant. • Relief, if granted would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding properties. • That the public safety, health, and welfare are secured, and that substantial justice is done. The applicant response: • Please see the letter of appeal. The staff response: • Part one: The intent of the Ordinance is to limit the impervious surface. The house has a large patio built prior to the purchase by the applicant. Although the applicant reduced the scope of the project, the proposed pool and the pool deck considerably increase the lot coverage. The spirit of the Ordinance would be offended if the variance is granted as requested. • Part two: There is no extraordinary condition pertaining to this piece of property that is causing unnecessary hardship due to size, shape, or topography. The applicant’s unfamiliarity of the local Code is not an exceptional situation, rather a condition caused by the variance applicant. • Part three: Relief, if granted would cause a detriment to the public good and surrounding properties because of the increased water run-off. For the public good the lot coverage is limited to 20% for properties facing a public road. • Part four: The public safety, health, and welfare are not secured, and substantial justice is not done by allowing a substantial addition without any serious mitigation to go with it. Staff recommendation: • Staff recommends Denial of the variance. If the BZA approves the variance, staff recommends following condition • Staff recommends that the applicant utilize the flo-well system or modified French- drain with the pervious pavers for the pool deck to control the water run-off. Page 5 of 10 V21-09 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Letter of Appeal Exhibit A Page 6 of 10 V21-09 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Exhibit A (Site Plan received on April 4, 2021) Page 7 of 10 V21-09 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Exhibit B (Site Plan received on April 29, 2021) Page 8 of 10 V21-09 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Exhibit C Page 9 of 10 V21-09 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Exhibit D (Site Plan received on May 12, 2021) Page 10 of 10 V21-09 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Exhibit E (Site Pictures) Page is too large to OCR. From: Steve Leffin 16675 Quayside Drive Miltion GA 30004 Email: sl332@aol.com Cell: (678)-630-2996 To: City of Milton (SHUBHANGI.JANGAM@CITYOFMILTIONGA.US) Date: May 4,2012 RE: As per our conversation last week and today - concerns about Case# V21-09 200 Tor Court Opening statement: •For the record I want to make this as clear as possible. I have tried to be a good neighbor, but it has to work both ways. I have tried and will continue to try to my best effort to work together with my neighbor and with the city to help facilitate my neighbor getting the pool he wants at the size and location he laid out in our meeting - I did and would ask that he plant some trees and landscaping to shield it from view if at all possible since it is not entirely behind his house as is common practice in the neighborhood. However, I oppose him adding more impervious area and a pool house structure at the setback line nearest my house and patio and I oppose him placing mechanical pool equipment at the area he had proposed in the drawing he showed me that is nearest to my patio. Executive Summary and Standing: •I am the next door neighbor immediately to the left of 200 Tor Court and built a new home approximately 9 years ago. 200 Tor Court was already existing and settled so when we bought the lot and built the home we knew what natural barrier and structures were next to us. •We purchased and built our home on our lot because of the privacy on all sides afforded to us by both natural and professional landscaping that already existed. We also embraced that there are known well established restrictions for all alterations that could signiﬁcantly change the landscape and integrity of the wide openness of the neighborhood. We appreciated the spacing between structures and the vast green space this neighborhood provides and we hope this project maintains those principals. •There was a substantial natural barrier between our properties on both sides for the past 9 years made up largely of very mature and vibrant long leaf pine trees. Recently, a few weeks prior to being aware of the proposed Variance the neighbor applying for the Variance had a crew of approximately 4+ people remove numerous mature pines for an entire working day (morning start until dinner time) without any notice to us or anyone else we are aware of, the dropping of the large mature trees was frightening to us and there is substantially less natural barrier as a result. The area the trees we dropped in is largely in the 50ft setback between us for his property and his stated intent after the removal is to put a play set there for his kids which I believe will be in that setback. I don’t know if that is a code issue or not but the toppling so many trees and removal of natural barrier without was not appreciated by us and that activity being right on our fence line adds to our distrust and frustration of this entire process - these are things that could be potentially worked out before the fact but we we not afforded the opportunity. •Reluctantly, because of multiple actions (tree removal, modiﬁcation of fence lines on the street exposure, inaccurate solicitation of our approval for the Variance) of our new neighbor, I felt compelled to reach out to him in both writing and verbally in a constructive way to express our concerns in detail. On the morning of Friday April 30 around 10 am I sent the neighbor a written letter of our concerns and we did have a face to face meeting on site that evening at 5:00pm to try to work all of this out in advance of his meeting this week •Unfortunately, my earnest attempt to work directly with the neighbor to work out a solution that would get him his pool ended with him walking away and stating to me that “its ﬁne you do not agree”. He did not agree to any compromise other than offering to plant some trees, and he has not reached out since in any form so I have no recourse but to come to the city with my concerns. My strong preference was and still is to work this out like neighbors should, but that has to be a two way effort that is constructive. •Our ﬁrst notiﬁcation/indication of this Variance process was on St Patricks day. The neighbors entire family including his pregnant wife and two little kids showed up at my door unannounced in full costumes for the holiday asking that we sign off on a 22% variance for a pool. They made no indication that the home was already over the 20% code (at 25% I now understand) and they had no drawings or sketches so it was impossible to visualize what they wanted, they just said the pool would be by their house. The entire interface was very awkward, uncomfortable, it felt manipulative and pressured. It turns out that they what they presented was a clearly a falsehood seeing they were already at 25% and hope to remain at a least 25% per our subsequent conversation, what they did was very inappropriate. I did sign the document reluctantly at my door in an effort to be a good neighbor but I have asked them and now am asking the city that that document be retracted because it was under false pretenses, and am was very disappointed in their approach - it seems like that just wanted to get our signature even though it was not an accurate or comprehensive conveyance. The neighbor did apologize for seeing how we may interpolate his previous actions as being manipulative when we met face to face on April 30 (which I appreciate) but it has been very frustrating and the process continues to cause distrust because he walked away at that meeting without any resolution and implied what I think does not matter. •At this point I am concerned the process will go on without my family being properly informed where we are able to legally participate in the process. For obvious reasons be cause of his prior actions I don’t trust the neighbor, it is clear he does not have our interests in consideration of his plans and he does not seem to give advance notice of anything unless he has to. As A result of our neighbors actions to date we have the following concerns: We are obviously concerned about the neighbors actions reducing the value of our house but removing natural barriers and crowding structures and greatly exceeding regulations by variance We are concerned about not being aware what is going to happen and how things are going to look We are concerned about the rules of the town and the neighborhood not be followed Comments and Questions: •My neighbor stated at our last interface that “its ﬁne of I don’t agree” and he walked away. Does my perspective have and impact on this project? •I don’t want to stop or impair my neighbors ability to build a pool in the location and the dimensions that he had marked off when we met. I have conveyed to him that I support the pool and would prefer that there are trees to shield the view from the street of the pool - but not support the pool house or the pool equipment he had on located near my property on the drawing he sent me (located right next his 50ft setback on my property edge near where I use my property the most). Is there a current plan that I am entitled to comment on and review? •Are more trees going to be removed? If so where? •Are more trees going to be planted •As a compromise could the pool house be placed immediately behind the house in the stoned area that is already impervious and shield by trees and landscaping? •Can the pool equipment not be place near my property line ( the area he had proposed was a the closest point where I use me yard the most, it is where we sit and cook out often) We are concerned about ongoing mechanical noise and the view of equipment from our property or the street. March 16, 2021 Hello Neighbor, we are applying for a variance asking The City to allow us to be over the 20% lot coverage our home is zoned and now up to 22.67% so we can build the pool and patio we'd like. In doing this they require us to obtain signatures from our adjoining neighbors showing support of the request. Thank you, Aly &Troy Walton 200 Tor Court Alpharetta, GA 30004 Ell March 16, 2021 Hello Neighbor, We area to allow us to be over the 20% lot coverage applying for a variance asking The City atIn io we d Ike" our home is zoned and now up to 22.67% so we can build the pool and p doing this they require us to obtain signatures from our adjoining neighbors showing support of the request. Thank you, Aly &Troy Walton 200 Tor Court Alpharetta, GA 30004 b -,�z�. - - �;. N N �• �• a a 0 w N a� w N W O� O n 0 t'D ►� • UQ r 0 J Mwd c �.+ L� r N O� tJ'� O �*i �� N G d r• of "'4 ..• C9 t`� r ..• C-7 Gd < 0, 0a 0 :rO x a `� y z y CD g =r < o C7 no o CD *wh CA CD 0 c az w< O ro CA 0�_ � A CD C Q. lD rn O A d o CA C) O mm CD CD O y m ry OCO go p cn t G7 H rD cD aj c z w a CD y w o ran CD CIA 00 0 y � � "I CD CD O Own p.rA c n cD c oil n n G� CD CD n M o ago w m oa a o 44 00 0 n �_• EJ O no p a v O, MCI C CDCD C' y O AOi 0 p (OD `D o. ° CD C1 y ; CD C) 0 CA m CDMZ3 o ^ d w .b N b C3' z " 2 n y n C7 c�'D m � H CD w CD C y b CD f9 n 0>> d G CCD A C a3o Pala moa= ��tC O pw Ow 7 3 o C6 10) a O moa= ��tC O pw Ow 7 3 o C6 10) a O Page 1 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 PETITION NUMBER: V21-10 PROPERTY INFORMATION 12655 Birmingham Highway DISTRICT, LAND LOT 2/ 1134 OVERLAY DISTRICT - EXISTING ZONING T-5 Crabapple Form Based Code District ACRES 3.80 EXISTING USE Mixed use buildings FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION T-5 Crabapple Form Based Code REQUESTED VARIANCE: • To allow all wall signs to be made of transparent white lexan and vinyl. (Sec. 64-2325 (b)(4)) • To allow internal illumination of all signs Sec. 64-2325(b)(2)) • To allow the 48” diameter sign to remain on the architectural feature. (Sec. 64-2325 (b)(3)) • To allow an additional wall sign for a total of four signs. (Sec. 64-2325 (b)(6)) PETITIONER/OWNER Cup of Joe Crabapple, LLC (Starbucks) ADDRESS 12655 Birmingham Highway, Suite 200 A Milton, GA 30004 REPRESENTATIVE Brian Simmons ADDRESS 615 Dorris Road Milton, GA 30004 Page 2 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Page 3 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF CONTACT: Shubha Jangam 678.242.2539 Background: The site is a 3.80-acre lot located on the east side of Birmingham Highway. This property is zoned T-5 transect zone of the Crabapple Form Based Code (FBC). The Sign Ordinance for the Crabapple FBC District is applicable to this property. Per Sec. 64-2325 (b)(4), wall sign faces shall be made out of wood or other material which has the appearance of carved, distressed, or sandblasted wood as approved by the community development department director. Per Sec. 64-2325 (b)(2), if illuminated, wall signs shall be externally illuminated and directed downward. Per Sec. 64-2325 (b)(3), wall sign shall not cover architectural features or details and not extend beyond the roof line. Wall signs can hang from the building. Per Sec. 64-2325 (b)(6), single tenant buildings and end units of multitenant buildings may have an additional wall sign. Businesses whose primary entrance faces an interior parking lot or courtyard may have an additional wall sign. The maximum size for either of these signs shall not exceed three percent of the applicable wall area. The applicant is occupying an end unit of a multi-tenant building in the Crabapple Market development. Nevertheless, it is the only shop on the first floor of this building and the first floor is built lower than the street level. The applicant is proposing four signs, two of them are 30” diameter signs on two sides of the building. One of the 30” sign is facing Birmingham Highway and the second is facing the internal parking lot. The third sign of 48” diameter is covering an architectural feature of the building. And the fourth sign of 24” diameter is posted on a door facing a courtyard that is accessible from Birmingham Highway sidewalk as well as the interior parking lot. Pictures of these signs from various roads are shown in Exhibit B. All of the signs are made of Lexan / Vinyl with the Starbucks’s logo printed on it. The signs have built-in LED illumination which is currently turned off. The applicant would need the requested four variances to use these signs. The building elevations with the signs are shown in Exhibit A. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB) COURTESY REVIEW: On May 4, 2021, the DRB met and had the following comments: • DRB recommends the approval of the variance for the material and number of signs. • DRB recommends approval of the variance for a sign on the architectural feature. • DRB recommends external illumination for the signs. Page 4 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Standards for Consideration: The approval of a variance for the signs is based on the following consideration(s): • Relief to this article may only be granted where existing foliage or structures bring about a hardship whereby a sign meeting the maximum letter size, square footage and height requirements cannot be read from an adjoining road; or • The application of the particular provision of this zoning ordinance to a particular piece of property, due to extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to that property because of its size, shape, or topography, would create an unnecessary hardship for the owner while causing no detriment to the public. The applicant response: • Please see the letter of appeal. The staff response: • For request #1: The proposed sign although not made of wood does not cause detriment to the public good. The overall sizes of the signs are smaller, and the colors are complementary to the character of the Crabapple FBC District. Also noteworthy is that the owner has chosen the trademark logo instead of large letters for the signs. Therefore, the signs made of Lexon or Vinyl maybe allowed. • For request #2: In the Crabapple FBC District, only the external illumination directed downward is allowed for wall signs. There is no hardship arranging the external lighting. There are no exceptional conditions that require internal lighting since the shop is operating between 6am to 8pm daily. Therefore, it would offend the Ordinance if internal illumination were allowed. • For request #3: The Code prohibits covering an architecture feature with signs. The applicant has a 48” diameter sign posted on the architectural feature of the building. However, this is the only sign that has good visibility for drivers arriving from Crabapple Road. View 3 and 4 in Exhibit B shows the visibility of this sign from the roundabout. The store is below the street level there is limited visibility available for store front. Due to this exceptional condition pertaining this property the sign on the architecture feature maybe allowed. • For request #4: The applicant is requesting an additional sign that is installed above the door. This is a smaller 24” diameter sign facing the courtyard. Also, it is an extra sign on the same side of 48” diameter sign. People in the courtyard may not see the large sign but they could easily see the Starbucks façade. There is no extraordinary hardship that demands this sign. Therefore, an additional wall sign may not be allowed. Page 5 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Staff recommendation: • Staff recommends Approval of the variance to allow all wall signs to be made of transparent white lexan and vinyl. • Staff recommends Denial of the variance to allow internal illumination of all signs. • Staff recommends Approval of the variance to allow the 48” diameter sign to remain on the architectural feature. • Staff recommends Denial of the variance to allow an additional wall sign for a total of four signs. Page 6 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Letter of Appeal Page 7 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Exhibit A Page 8 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 Exhibit B (Pictures of the signs from roadfront) View 1: From Birmingham Highway showing 30” diameter wall sign. Page 9 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 View 2: From Birmingham Highway sidewalk showing 2 signs 1. Wall sign of 30” diameter 2. Sign on door 24” diameter Visibility of the door sign is limited to sidewalk and the courtyard. Page 10 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 View 3: From Crabapple Road, driving towards the roundabout at Birmingham Highway and Heritage Walk View 4: From the roundabout at Heritage Walk and Birmingham Highway. This is a 48” diameter sign on the architectural feature of the building. Moving cars will likely only notice this sign more than any other small signs. View 3 and View 4 are showing the same sign. Page 11 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 View 4: From the interior parking lot showing one 30” diameter sign. Page 12 of 12 V21-10 - Prepared for the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on May 18, 2021 View 5: From Heritage Walk. View 6: From the Heritage Walk and the rear entry. No Starbucks signs are visible from this side of the road. No Text R a Ln $ im m € �l;s E Fe a 10 ze fass. ��@aq! i � m' o n � allz n m +Ri rrri g s § C Iq 10 Iffil 111H111 E Im H s IaY a g a g �€ H so 5a Ji y m imp 4 b� w� _X � �+��gp m ei AVOL g q�q4 _� r� R �.� ¢$Ell r y m w Q a R a Ln $ im m € �l;s E Fe a 10 ze fass. ��@aq! i � m' o n � n m rrri i s ca 0 N V z m w Q 0 R a Ln s��giggle$g € �l;s E Fe a 10 ze fass. ��@aq! i v