Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA March 18, 2015 7:00 PM CITY HALL A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes: September 17, 2014 C. Old Business: (None) D. New Business: 1. V2015-001 4324 Ridgegate Variance to Zoning Code Sec. Section 1401, Minimum Yard Requirements, for property located at 4324 Ridgegate Drive, Peachtree Corners, Ga., 6th Dist., LL329, Parcel R63290 028 for a front setback reduction in order to allow a 55 ft. front setback instead of the required 75 ft. E. City Business Items: (None) F. Comments by Board Members. G. Adjournment.  CITY OF PEACHTREE CORNERS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 17, 2014 The City of Peachtree Corners held a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The meeting was held at City Hall, 147 Technology Parkway, Suite 200, Peachtree Corners, GA, 30092. The following were in attendance: Zoning Board of Appeals: Wayne Knox, Post B Marcia Brandes, Post A Amreeta Regmi, Post C - Absent Eric Christ, Post D James Blum, Post E – Absent (Due to previously declared agenda conflict) Staff: Diana Wheeler, Com. Dev. Director Kym Chereck, City Clerk MINUTES: Approval of August 20, 2014 Minutes. MOTION TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 20, 2014 MINUTES. By: Eric Christ Seconded: Marcia Brandes Vote: (3-0) (Christ, Brandes, Knox) OLD BUSINESS: 1. V2014-002 Request Variances to Zoning Code Sec. Section 1401Minimum Yard Requirements, for property located at 3800 Meadow Green Court, Peachtree Corners, GA., as follows: a. Request approval for permanent tent encroachment into 25 foot corner front yard. b. Request approval for additional pavement to expand driveway and add parking space. Mrs. Diana Wheeler, Community Development Director, presented the case to the Board. This item was tabled at the July 2014 meeting with the request that the applicant come back before the Board when he had provided the necessary information to present a case. After being heard again at the August 20, 2014 meeting, this item was again tabled. This time it was tabled until a time that the applicant would return with enough background information regarding his request. Page | 1 The applicant, Mr Yury Abramov, presented his case and had his contractor, Mr. Mark Cordle of Echota Home Inspections, inform the Board of what his recommendations were, and what he did to remedy the situation. Chairman Knox opened the floor to anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the application. There was no public comment. A motion was made after discussion concerning the options that the contractor provided, and the work that was done to remedy the existing problem. BASED ON A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE RECORD AND THE HEARING BEFORE THIS BODY, I MOVE THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS AND APPROVE THE APPLICATION BEFORE IT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE CONDITIONS BEING THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY; AND THE CONDITION THAT THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS NOT THE RESULT OF ACTIONS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER; AND THE APPLICATION IF GRANTED WOULD NOT CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD; THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO CREATE A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY, AND SUCH PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; AND SECOND THAT A PERMANENT BARRIER, AS APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, SHALL BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY SO AS TO PREVENT VEHICLE PARKING UNDERNEATH THE AWNING. By: Eric Christ Seconded: Marcia Brandes Vote: (3-0) (Christ, Brandes, Knox) The Zoning Board of Appeals meeting concluded at 7:52 PM. Approved, Attest: _________________________ _______________________________ Wayne Knox, Chairman Kym Chereck, City Clerk Page | 2  City of Peachtree Corners Zoning Board of Appeals March 18, 2015 CASE NUMBER: V2015-001 PROPERTY LOCATION: 4324 Ridgegate Drive 6th District, Land Lot 329, Parcel 028 CURRENT ZONING: R-100 PARCEL SIZE: 1.1 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Tony Rogers APPLICANT: Greg Dean – 770-271-5772 REQUEST The applicant requests a variance to allow a reduction in the front setback from the required 75 ft. to 55 ft. LOCATION AND BACKGROUND The property is located in the Riverview Estates Subdivision, within the Chattahoochee River Corridor. There is an existing house on the property and the owners would like to remove it and build a new home. According to tax records, the existing house on the property has 3351 sq. ft. and was built in 1980. The R-100 zoning classification requires a front setback of 35 ft.; however when the Riverview Estates Subdivision plat was recorded in 1972, it required that residential front setbacks be a minimum of 75 ft. The existing home has a front setback of 92 ft. Plans for the proposed new home show a 55 ft. front setback. The portion of the proposed new home that encroaches into the 75 ft. front setback is the garage adjacent to the semi-circular driveway. When the Riverview Estates Subdivision was originally platted, there were no state mandated requirements for construction distances away from the Chattahoochee River. However, the Metropolitan River Protection Act (MRPA) was adopted in 1973 and this regulation has had a significant impact on all development along the Chattahoochee River. One of the provisions of MRPA is that a 150 ft. impervious setback must be maintained between the river and any construction. The current home is located 94.1 ft. from the river. Setting back the new home an additional 56 ft. would severely limit the size of the house. Further, if the 75 ft. front setback were also applied, the lot would be left undevelopable, with only a 20 ft. wide buildable area. In order for the lot to be buildable, variances would be required for either the front, the rear, or both setbacks. Since encroaching too far into the rear setback could have a potentially negative environmental impact and encroaching too far into the front would put the house too close to the street, the property owner is requesting smaller variances to each setback. The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) has jurisdiction over encroachments into the 150 ft. setback to the rear of the property. They have reviewed and approved the applicant’s request for a reduction from the required 150 ft. rear setback to a 100 ft. rear setback. The ZBA has jurisdiction over the front setback and so this application only involves the front setback reduction request. The applicant has submitted three drawings that are helpful in understanding the reason for the variance request. The first drawing shows the existing conditions and the location on the property of the current home. The second drawing shows the very limited portion of the property that is buildable if all of the required setbacks are maintained. The final drawing shows the proposed home with the front and rear setback variances in place. At Staff’s request, the applicant contacted adjoining property owners to advise them of this variance application. The applicant provided signed letters (attached to the application) from the three closest property owners indicating that they have no objections to the requested front setback variance. VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS Sec. 1605.3 identifies specific findings that must be made in order for a variance to be granted. These findings are as follows: A. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography, and B. the application of the Resolution to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship, and C. such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved, and D. such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner, and E. relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this Resolution. CONCLUSION The property owner would like to remove an older home and replace it with one that will improve property values in the Riverview Estates neighborhood. Staff has reviewed aerial imagery of homes along Ridgegate Drive and finds that the home proposed by the applicant is comparable to most homes along the street. Granting the setback variance would not provide the property owner with an opportunity to build a home that is larger than others or out of character with the neighborhood. Further, the exact placement of the fronts of the existing homes along the street vary somewhat and don’t maintain a strict, uniform appearance. This means that granting the variance would not result in a home that stood out or whose location was unusual within the neighborhood. After reviewing the applicant’s proposal and the variance criteria, Staff finds that the added MRPA regulations create a hardship when added to the existing setback requirements for the Riverview Estates Subdivision. Therefore, a front setback variance can be justified.  CITY OF PEACHTREE CORNERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 147 Technology Parkway, Suite 200, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092 Tel: 678.691.1200 | www.cityofpeachtreecornersga.gov VARIANCE 4324 RIDGEGATE DRIVE CASE NUMBER: V2015-001 BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING DATE: 3-18-15 7 pm PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4324 RIDGEGATE DRIVE