Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 7:00 PM CITY HALL A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes: June 21, 2017 C. Approval of Agenda D. Old Business: (None) E. New Business: V2017-006 ACV II, LLC. Request to encroach into the required 25’ impervious setback area landward of the required 50’ stream buffer in order to allow a patio and grilling area for a multifamily property located at 3325 Holcomb Bridge Road in Dist. 6, Land Lot 274, Peachtree Corners, GA V2017-007 30 Tech Park, LLC. Request to allow a second ground sign at an office property located at 30 Technology Parkway South in Dist. 6, Land Lot 285, Peachtree Corners, GA F. City Business Items: (None) G. Comments by Board Members. H. Adjournment.  DRAFT COPY CITY OF PEACHTREE CORNERS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES June 21, 2017 7:00PM 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 Matthew Gries, Post D James Blum, Post E Staff: Diana Wheeler, Com. Dev. Director Jeff Conkle, Planning & Zoning Admin. Rocio Monterrosa, Deputy City Clerk AGENDA: Approval of the June 21, 2017 agenda. MOTION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 18, 2017 AGENDA. By: James Blum Seconded: Marcia Brandes Vote: (4-0) (Blum, Brandes, Knox, Gries) MINUTES: Approval of March 15, 2017 Minutes. MOTION TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 By: Matthew Gries Seconded: Marcia Brandes Vote: (4-0) (Gries, Brandes, Knox, Blum) NEW BUSINESS: V2017-005 Tracy & Brad Leimbach. Consideration of the following variances to the City of Peachtree Corners Zoning Ordinance: Article XIII, Section 1301, to allow the keeping of livestock for personal pleasure and Article VI, Section 600, to allow an accessory structure in the front yard of a residential property. These variance requests are for 4040 Gunnin Road, located in Dist.6, Land Lot 315, Peachtree Corners, GA Page | 1  DRAFT COPY Diana Wheeler, Community Development Director, provided background information regarding the applicant’s request. The applicant would like to keep chickens on a 2.74-acre property zoned R-100 and to have an accessory structure used for housing the chickens in the front yard of an existing single- family property. The minimum lot size for the keeping of chickens is 3 acres. Additionally, accessory structures cannot be located in the front yard and must be 100’ from all property lines when housing chickens. Both the chickens and chicken coop (a prefabricated shed) have been in existence on the property for the past four years. Code Enforcement was unaware of this situation until 3 months ago when a complaint call was received. The property in question is a large residential parcel on Gunnin Road approximately one- half mile north of Spalding Drive. The property is steeply sloped with the home and usable yard area elevated above the road. The house was built in 1973. A petition stating specific neighbor opposition was then circulated among neighbors and submitted to the City. The applicant’s letter of intent indicated that their hardship is derived from the fact that their property is steeply sloped and has little flat land available for accessory structures other than in the front yard. Additionally, they stated that it would be a hardship to try to move the structures. The applicant’s letter of intent also indicated that their hardship is derived from the fact that the chickens currently housed on the property are family pets and would have nowhere to go if they were to be removed. Staff received multiple emails and phone calls from surrounding property owners in opposition to this request. The petition indicates that the basis for the opposition is concern related to factors such as noise, odor, and runoff. In response to the concerns raised in the petition, staff visited the applicant’s property to assess the existing site conditions, determine if hardships exist and if neighbor concerns can be substantiated. Based on Staff’s site visit, the following observations were offered: 1. The applicant’s property is not typical for the neighborhood. Its topography, size, and shape are unique. 2. The house sits at the top of a hill and the only level part of the property is located in front of the house. The back and side yards are steep slopes with almost no usability. 3. There are 17 chickens housed in a prefabricated shed with an attached deck located in the front yard. The entire area where the chickens are kept is fenced, well maintained, and decorated as an outdoor feature, not as a utilitarian part of the property. 4. Staff heard no noise from the chickens. The sound the chickens made would not have been audible beyond the property line. No roosters are kept on the property and the applicant stated that none have ever been kept on the property. 5. With regard to odor and runoff, Staff did not smell any unusual odors and did not observe any areas where runoff contaminated by chicken waste was present. The area where the chickens are kept was very clean and if runoff occurs during wet weather, the slope of the property Page | 2  DRAFT COPY would carry the water toward the street at the front, not the properties to the rear. 6. With regard to food issues, Staff did not observe any stockpiling of food in uncontained areas of the property. Any food and water provided appears to be stored within the shed. Staff noted that the petition opposing the applicant’s request was written in future tense. This suggests that some of the neighbors may not be aware that the chickens and shed have been in existence on the applicant’s property for the past 4 years. There were no complaints from any property owners until three months ago. Although located in the front yard, the chickens are not visible from the street. In fact, the steep topography hampers visibility of any of the improvements on the property from the roadway. The applicant has indicated that they are trying to acquire additional land from neighbors so that they will have the code-required 3 acres. If they are successful in purchasing additional land, then the lot size variance will become unnecessary. After reviewing the applicant’s request and the variance criteria for setback and location request (accessory structure housing chickens), staff found that the setback and location variance requests can be supported due to the specific, unique topographic conditions of this property. The use request for keeping of chickens, staff finds that a hardship would be difficult to justify since the hardship created was self-imposed by purchasing chickens to be kept on a property that does not meet the minimum lot size to permit such use. If approved, staff recommends the following conditions if variances are considered: 1. A 4’ high fence shall be constructed in the front yard of the property, parallel to Gunnin Rd. and located at the top of the hillside. 2. There shall be no other livestock kept on the property beyond the 17 chickens currently housed on the property. 3. No roosters shall be kept on the property. If variances are not granted, then a timeline for removal of the chickens and front yard structures should be established. Board members asked about the visibility of the structure from the street, gravel backyard and the chicken waste run off. Chairman Knox stated that there are two issues to decide for this applicant. One the structure and another the keeping of chickens in property. The property owners, Tracy and Brad Leimbach were present at the meeting. Mrs. Leimbach stated that the chickens (all hens) are their pets and that the building that houses the chickens can not be seen from the street and that there is no other place in their property to place the structure. Mr. Leimbach stated that they are already working in putting a 4ft. fence around their property to keep any part of the structure from being seeing from the street. Chairman Knox opened the floor to anyone wanting to speak in favor or opposition to the application. There were three people who spoke in support stating that having the chickens supports self sustainability and the owners have had them for three years and never received complains until now. Page | 3  DRAFT COPY Ten people spoke against application. Concerns from opposition were contamination in water runoff from chicken waste, decrease in property value, drawing preditors to the community, and potential for setting a presidence on allowing chickens in property less than 3 acres and the visibility of the structure from the street. Mrs. Leimbach stated that the chicken droppins are done on wheat hay and inside the structure there is pine shavings that also collects any chicken waste. It is also picked up consistently and thrown in the garbage and it does not run off on any neighboring property. In regards to drawing preditators, the chickens are enclosed in the structure every night at sunset and reopen at 6 AM. Three motions were made after discussion, among other items, the applicant does not meet all of the required conditions to grant variance. They did not check with City/County to see if having chickens was allowed and that there is no need for structure. 1. Variance request for raising chickens: 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 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND DENY THE VARIANCE ON THE BASES THAT (1) THERE ARE NO EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IN QUESTION BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE, SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHY; AND, (2) THE REQUIREMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY WOULD NOT CREATE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP; AND, (3) SUCH CONDITIONS ARE NOT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY INVOLVED; AND, (4) SUCH CONDITIONS ARE THE RESULT OF ANY ACTIONS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER; AND, (5) RELIEF, WOULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND IMPAIR THE PURPOSES OR INTENT OF THE RESOLUTION By: Marcia Brandes Seconded: Matthew Gries Vote: (4-0) (Brandes, Gries, Knox, Blum) 2. Variance to keep structure: 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 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND DENY THE VARIANCE ON THE BASES THAT (1) THERE ARE NO EXTRAORDINARY AND EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IN QUESTION BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE, SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHY; AND, (2) THE Page | 4  DRAFT COPY REQUIREMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY WOULD NOT CREATE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP; AND, (3) SUCH CONDITIONS ARE NOT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY INVOLVED; AND, (4) SUCH CONDITIONS ARE THE RESULT OF ACTIONS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER; AND, (5) RELIEF, WOULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND IMPAIR THE PURPOSES OR INTENT OF THE RESOLUTION By: Marcia Brandes Seconded: Matthew Gries Vote: (4-0) (Brandes, Gries, Knox, Blum) 3. MOTION TO IMPOSE A NINETY (90) DAY DATELINE FOR THE REMOVIAL OF THE CHICKENS AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE By: James Blum Seconded: Marcia Brandes Vote: (4-0) (Blum, Brandes, Knox Gries) CITY BUSINESS ITEMS: None. COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS: None. The Zoning Board of Appeals meeting concluded at 8:58 PM. Approved, Attest: _________________________ _______________________________ Wayne Knox, Chairman Rocio Monterrosa, Deputy City Clerk Page | 5  V2017-006 3325 Holcomb Bridge Rd.  City of Peachtree Corners Zoning Board of Appeals September 20, 2017 CASE NUMBER: V2017-006 PROPERTY LOCATION: 3325 Holcomb Bridge Road 6th District, Land Lot 274, Parcel 004 CURRENT ZONING: RM PARCEL SIZE: 21.5 acres PROPERTY OWNER: ACV II, LLC APPLICANT: Shane Lanham, Mahaffey Pickens Tucker LLP REQUEST The applicant would like to retain a community patio and grilling area that was recently constructed along the rear of the property, partially within the impervious setback area that extends 75’ from the creek. The site had formerly been home to two tennis courts which had fallen into disrepair and had been grown over by vegetation. LOCATION AND BACKGROUND The property in question is a large multifamily parcel on the south side of Holcomb Bridge Road between Peachtree Parkway and Jimmy Carter Boulevard. The property abuts a branch of Crooked Creek at the rear. The buildings were constructed in 1972. During the time of construction in the 1970s, the stream buffer regulations were not in place, allowing the development, including the tennis courts, to proceed with approvals from Gwinnett County. Today’s regulations require a 50’ undisturbed natural vegetative buffer plus an additional 25’ impervious setback (totaling 75’ from the creek). The patio and grilling areas extend approximately 20’ into the impervious setback. 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 requirements on 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. ANALYSIS The apartment complex and its amenity areas were constructed prior to adoption of the current stream buffer regulations. The tennis courts, which were permitted at the time, were not maintained in later years and they deteriorated. Eventually, the tennis courts became an eyesore, lying under several inches of dirt and plant growth. Recently, the property owner cleaned up the debris of the old tennis courts and repurposed the place where they were located into a new amenity consisting of a patio and grilling area. This effort not only improved the property, but it created a much-needed amenity for the apartment residents. In addition, the new patio area also reduced the impervious area within the impervious setback from 2,394 square feet (tennis courts) to 599 square feet (patio and grilling area). CONCLUSION After reviewing the applicant’s proposal and the variance criteria, staff finds that the buffer encroachment request can be justified, as there are extraordinary conditions unique to the property that are not the result of any action of the current property owner. The property owner’s actions did not increase the extent of the legal non-conformity established by the original tennis courts. And removing the patio and grill area improvements now, would eliminate a valuable amenity, thereby creating an unnecessary hardship for the apartment residents. If approval of the stream buffer variance is considered, the following condition is recommended: • The applicant shall not create any additional impervious area within the impervious setback beyond the 599 square feet already constructed. Patio and grilling area improvements adjacent to creek  CITY OF PEACHTREE CORNERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 147 Technology Parkway, Suite 200, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092 Tel: 678.691.1200 | www.cityofpeachtreecornersga.com PROPERTY LOCATION MAP Centre at Peachtree Corners Apartments 3325 Holcomb Bridge Road CASE NUMBER V2017-006 HEARING DATE SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 PROPERTY ADDRESS 3325 HOLCOMB BRIDGE ROAD  V2017-007 30 Technology Pkwy. South  City of Peachtree Corners Zoning Board of Appeals September 20, 2017 CASE NUMBER: V2017-007 PROPERTY LOCATION: 30 Technology Parkway South 6th District, Land Lot 285, Parcel 015 CURRENT ZONING: M-1 PARCEL SIZE: 12.0 acres PROPERTY OWNER: 30 Tech Park, LLC APPLICANT: Shane Lanham, Mahaffey Pickens Tucker LLP REQUEST The applicant would like to add a second ground sign along the Technology Parkway South frontage of this property. One sign currently exists at the southern driveway. If approved, a second sign would be added at the northern driveway. LOCATION AND BACKGROUND The property in question is a large commercial parcel on the east side of Technology Parkway South between Technology Parkway and Peachtree Industrial Boulevard within Technology Park. The front of the property is long and it curves as Technology Parkway South bends to tie into Technology Parkway. In addition, this property abuts a portion of the City’s planned multi-use trail. The property was developed in 1997 and includes two points of access along Technology Parkway South: A southern driveway, where an existing ground sign is located, and a northern driveway, where no signage currently exists. The distance between the two driveways is overly long, measuring approximately 385’. Additionally, the curve and small hill in the road make visibility challenging. 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 requirements on 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. ANALYSIS The sign ordinance requires frontage on at least two public rights-of-way to qualify for two ground signs. The right-of-way can include pedestrian easements such as the planned multi-use trail. However, while the sign ordinance could permit a second ground sign after the dedication of land to create the multi-use trail, the property owner does not want to wait for that process and chose to apply for this variance. The curving and sloping nature of Technology Parkway South, combined with the large distance between driveways, causes difficulty for drivers navigating to the site from the north, where the ground sign is not visible. The roadway topography and the site’s lengthy frontage along a curve in that roadway create a hardship for the property and for drivers accessing the site. CONCLUSION After reviewing the applicant’s proposal and the variance criteria, staff finds that the variance request can be justified, as there are extraordinary conditions unique to the property that are not the result of any action of the property owner. If a variance is considered, the following condition is recommended: • The sign shall be constructed in conformance with the drawing by A1 Signs, dated 7-31-17 and submitted with this application. Northern driveway, sign proposed in landscaped area  CITY OF PEACHTREE CORNERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 147 Technology Parkway, Suite 200, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092 Tel: 678.691.1200 | www.cityofpeachtreecornersga.com PROPERTY LOCATION MAP 30 Technology Parkway South CASE NUMBER V2017-007 HEARING DATE SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 PROPERTY ADDRESS 30 TECHNOLOGY PKWY SOUTH