2014-05-20 zoning board of appeals - full agenda-1191

CITY OF BROOKHAVEN

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

City of Brookhaven 5/20/2014 7:00 PM

Tim Nama Chairman

Corey Self

Don Bolia

Glenn Viers

Hope Bawcom

Jed Beardsley

Kent Gipson

AGENDA

May 20, 2014 Regular Meeting 7:00 PM

4362 Peachtree Road, Brookhaven, GA 30319

A) CALL TO ORDER

1. Roll Call

B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. Approval of April 16, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Work Session Meeting Minutes

2. Approval of April 16, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes

C) ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ITEMS

D) UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. ZBA14-06: Gipco Southern Inc. C/O Jay Gipson - Increase Lot Coverage (Sec. 27-586)

and Vary from the Requirements of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District: (27-

728.15.10(A)(2)&(3); 27-728.15.10(G)&(K); 27-728.15.12 (D)(3), (4)&(8); 27-

728.15.12(F)(3)(A); 27-728.15.12(L)(6)) - Peachtree Road and Colonial Drive

2. ZBA14-16: Rockhaven Homes LLC - Reduce Rear Yard Setback from 40' to 20' to

Construct a Single Family Home - 1290 Oaklawn Avenue

E) NEW BUSINESS

1. ZBA14-18: Drew Clough D.B.A Waterford Homes - Reduce 75' Stream Buffer to 50'

and Reduce Side Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' to Build a Single Family Home on Lot 12 -

2492 Ellijay Drive

2. ZBA14-19: Drew Clough D.B.A Waterford Homes - Reduce 75' Stream Buffer to 50'

and Reduce Side Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' to Build a Single Family Home on Lot 11 -

2496 Ellijay Drive

Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals May 20, 2014

City of Brookhaven Updated 5/13/2014 11:36 PM

3. ZBA14-20: Caliber Brookhaven, LLC - to Eliminate the Requirement for a Single

Loading Space; to Allow a Curb Cut on Peachtree Road; to Allow an ATM as an

Accessory Structure and to Vary from 27-728.15.7(A) and 27.728.15.12(F)(3); and to

Allow for an Additional Ground Sign (Chapter 21) - 4260 Peachtree Road

4. ZBA14-21: David Bennett -Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 50% to Build a

Swimming Pool and Associated Pool Deck - 1013 Pine Grove

5. ZBA14-22: Vance Dover -Reduce the Accessory Structure Setback from 10' to 7.5' and

Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 47.3% to Build a Swimming Pool and Associated

Pool Deck - 1175 Pinegrove Avenue

6. ZBA14-23: Adam Williamson - Reduce Average Front Yard Setback from 55.1' to 40'

and Reduce Side Yard Setback from 7.5' to 5.0' to Build a Single Family Home - 2481

Oostanaula Drive

7. ZBA14-24: Michael Field - Reduce the Front Yard Setback Along Sunland Drive from

30' to 9.5 Feet, Reduce the Side Yard Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' and Increase Lot Coverage

from 35% to 43% - 2599 Apple Valley Road

8. ZBA14-25: Carrera Homes - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 36.9% to Build a

Swimming Pool - 2727 North Thompson Road

9. ZBA14-26: JW Homes, LLC - to Allow a Curb Cut on Peachtree Road for Access to a

Proposed Townhome Development - 3804 & 3770 Peachtree Road

10. ZBA14-27: Gaddy Surveying & Design Inc. - to Reduce the Average Front Yard

Setback from 144.45’ to 85’ to Construct a New Single Family Home - 3188 Saybrook

Drive

F) ADJOURNMENT

CITY OF BROOKHAVEN


City of Brookhaven 4/16/2014 5:30 PM Page 1

FINAL MINUTES

April 16, 2014 Work Session Meeting 5:30 PM

2 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 125, Brookhaven, GA 30329

I) CALL TO ORDER

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived

Tim Nama Chairman Present

Corey Self Late 5:38 PM

Don Bolia Late 6:07 PM

Glenn Viers Present

Hope Bawcom Present

Jed Beardsley Present

Kent Gipson Late 5:43 PM

II) ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ITEMS

Director Canon noted that there will be ten cases next month. Several members stated that they will not be in

attendance. Therefore we will need a special called meeting.

Director Canon also noted the procedures that were adopted in February regarding hearing special exceptions and

appeals will need to be utilized tonight on one case, ZBA13-27.

III) UNFINISHED BUSINESS

ZBA 13-27: JEG Family Trust and Trop, Inc. D/B/A Pink Pony - Variance to Appeal Administrative Decision

Concerning Nonconformance. Property Location: 1837 Corporate Boulevard.

Attorney Scott Bergthold provided an overview of the case which was originally deferred during the October 16,

2013 hearing.

He stated the City's position is twofold:

#1 - The appellant has not met the burden of proving the business was lawful and conforming.

#2 - And if they had met the burden, any expansion of the business would be an expansion of a nonconforming use

under section 27-936 of the zoning ordinance.

The distinction is were they lawful at the commencement of the business. Mr. Bergthold said the answer to that is

they were not.

ZBA14-07: Patsios Homes C/O Roberts & Daughdrill, PC - Increase Lot Coverage, and Reduce Front and Rear

Yard Setback - 3165 Lynwood Drive

Ms. Canon stated that staff are in receipt of emails from several individuals who previously were in opposition to

this case and now have stated they have withdrawn their objections.

IV) NEW BUSINESS

14-08 - 1082 Wimberly Road - increase lot coverage from 35% to 62% and waive lot merger requirement

Staff recommended denial of both requests.

14-09 - 1628 Wayland Circle - reduce rear yard setback from 40’ to 30’, reduce average front yard setback from

33.4’ to 30.8’ for lot 26 and waive lot merger requirement

Staff recommended approval of two of the three requests but denial of the request for reduction of the average front

yard setback.

B.1

Packet Pg. 3

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

pr

16, 2

014

5:30

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals April 16, 2014

City of Brookhaven Page 2 Updated 5/13/2014 9:57 PM

14-10 - 3020 Buford Hwy - reduce the side yard setback along Curtis Drive from 50’ to 39’, reduce the rear yard

setback from 30’ to 10’, reduce the transitional buffer zone along the west property line from 50’ to 21’ and reduce

parking from 72 to 45 spaces

Staff recommended approval.

14-11 - 2508 Appalachee Drive - increase lot coverage from 35% to 53.8% and reduce setback for an accessory

structure (swimming pool and associated patio) from 10’ to 1’


14-12 - 1380 Sylvan Circle - increase lot coverage from 35% to 39%

Staff recommended denial.

14-13 - 3028 Mabry Road - reduce side yard setback from 10' to 5.2'


14-14 - 2423 Coosawattee - reduce rear yard setback from 30’ to 15’ for deck addition and reduce setback for an

accessory structure (fireplace) from 10’ to 3’

Staff recommended approval of the first request but denial of the accessory structure setback request.

14-15 - 2465 E. Osborne Rd. - reduce 75' stream buffer to 50' to construct a single family home


14-16 - 1290 Oaklawn Avenue - reduce rear yard setback from 40’ to 20’ to construct a single family home

Staff recommended denial.

14-17 - 4189 Oak Forest Drive - Reduce front yard setback 109.4' to 76.6' to construct a staircase


V) ADJOURNMENT

1. Adjournment

APPROVED:

_____________________

Tim Nama, Chairman

ATTEST:

___________________________

Community Development

Approved

B.1

Packet Pg. 4

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

pr

16, 2

014

5:30

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

CITY OF BROOKHAVEN


City of Brookhaven 4/16/2014 7:00 PM Page 1

FINAL MINUTES

April 16, 2014 Regular Meeting 7:00 PM

2 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 125, Brookhaven, GA 30329

A) CALL TO ORDER

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived

Tim Nama Chairman Present

Corey Self Present

Don Bolia Present

Glenn Viers Present

Hope Bawcom Present

Jed Beardsley Present

Kent Gipson Present

B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. Approval of March 19, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Work Session Meeting Minutes

Board member Viers moved to accept the minutes and Board member Beardsley seconded. The vote was

unanimous.

RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Glenn Viers

SECONDER: Jed Beardsley

AYES: Nama, Self, Bolia, Viers, Bawcom, Beardsley, Gipson

2. Approval of March 19, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes

Board member Self noted one error in the minutes. When referencing Board members, the word

"Commissioners" was used by mistake. Mr. Viers made a motion to approve the minutes, subject to the revision

to change "Commissioner" to "Board member" instead. Board member Bawcom seconded the motion. The vote

was unanimous.

RESULT: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Glenn Viers

SECONDER: Hope Bawcom


C) ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ITEMS

There was discussion concerning next month's meeting. Ms. Canon stated that it appeared Board members Viers and

Self would be absent and possibly Ms. Bawcom. Therefore a special called meeting would be required.

Ms. Canon stated that the new procedures for appeal of administrative decisions would be used tonight for case

ZBA13-27. Mr. Kurrie explained the process and stated in tonight's first matter each side receives 10 minutes to

B.2

Packet Pg. 5

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

pr

16, 2

014

7:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)



state their case and the appellant can reserve any unused time for rebuttal. However, the City does not have the

opportunity to make a rebuttal. He went on to state unless the ZBA wanted to open the meeting for public comment,

there was no need because the public hearing had already been held.

D) UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. ZBA 13-27: JEG Family Trust and Trop, Inc. D/B/A Pink Pony - Variance to Appeal

Administrative Decision Concerning Nonconformance. Property Location: 1837

Corporate Boulevard, Brookhaven, GA

Absent a motion to reopen the public hearing, the applicant, represented by Linda Dunlavy, started presenting

their case. She began by stating there were two issues to decide; the first was whether there was evidence that

the Pink Pony was a legal, nonconforming use entitled to grandfathered status, and the second issue was

whether making improvements to the business constituted an increase in non-conformance. Ms. Dunlavy stated

that yes the Pink Pony has a grandfathered status, but that an expansion of restrooms for patrons and dressing

rooms and administrative offices for staff does not constitute an increase in nonconformity. ms. Dunlavy

reserved the remaining time for rebuttal.

Attorney Scott Bergthold then presented the City’s case but first stated he had a concern about the new

procedures and how it is not the way a court functions. In court, no new evidence can be presented in rebuttal

and by operating this way, without laying out the case up front, there is no opportunity for the City to

effectively argue against the appellant. He requested additional time to match what the appellant did not use,

however, the Board did not agree and did not grant the request.

Mr. Bergthold stated the answer to the question of whether the Pink Pony is a lawful, nonconforming use is no,

and that yes the expansion of any part of the business does constitute an expansion of the nonconformity. He

cited the pertinent ordinance section 27-936 which prohibits the expansion of a nonconforming use. He stated

that the applicant must show that the decision made by Ms. Canon was based on an erroneous finding of

material fact or it was an arbitrary interpretation of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Bergthold said that since neither

one of those issues can be met they cannot meet the standard set out in the ordinance and the appeal should be

denied.

In her rebuttal, Ms. Dunlavy stated there was no validly adopted zoning map or zoning ordinance by the city of

Brookhaven which means these questions become mute without a valid map or ordinance. Ms. Dunlavy said

this case was not about grandfathering or legal conformance but it was about the City trying to put the Pink

Pony out of business. She went on to say that in analyzing the land disturbance permit application which was

submitted by JEG Family Trust and Trop, Inc., the City used an ordinance which was not validly adopted.

Ms. Dunlavy gave an history of the business license first issued to the Pink Pony in November of 1990 under a

broad category of nightclub or more specifically in a C-1 zoning district category of a commercial recreation

entertainment facility within a fully enclosed building. This was allowed in 1990 and therefore was a legal non-

conforming use and the request does not increase the degree of nonconformity. She stated the ordinance

prohibits the expansion of a legal nonconforming use only if it in increases the degree of nonconformity which

this does not. The improvements are to the administrative offices which are 300 square feet; the ladies bathroom

has one stall and two sinks; and the small size of the dressing room which dictates the dancers must go in shifts.

Ms. Dunlavy concluded that Ms. Canon’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.

The Board then asked a variety of questions.

Chairman Nama inquired about the status of the land disturbance permit to which Ms. Canon responded staff

were currently awaiting answers to City engineers’ comments, however, Ms. Dunlavy said she was under the

impression everything had been answered and they are awaiting an answer. Ms Canon said there has been more

than one submittal and staff has not received an answer back to their questions.

The question of deferral came up but after discussions the chairman stated that a decision needs to be made

tonight.

B.2

Packet Pg. 6

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

pr

16, 2

014

7:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)



In reading from one of the appellant’s exhibits, Ms. Bawcom stated that any increase in square footage, in any

manner, is an increase in the manner of the business. Mr. Nama agreed by stating that is what needs to be

decided.

Mr. Nama reminded the Board they were here to deal with the zoning aspects of the case, not the sexually

oriented business characteristics. There was discussion of ways the Pink Pony could expand without adding to

the degree of nonconformity.

Ms. Bawcom made a motion to affirm Ms. Canon’s decision. Mr. Beardsley seconded the motion. The vote

was 3-4 and the motion failed. Mr. Bolia made a motion to reverse the director’s decision. Mr. Self seconded.

The vote was 4-3.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 3]

MOVER: Don Bolia

SECONDER: Corey Self

AYES: Nama, Self, Bolia, Gipson

NAYS: Viers, Bawcom, Beardsley

2. ZBA14-07: Patsios Homes C/O Roberts & Daughdrill, PC - Increase Lot Coverage, and

Reduce Front and Rear Yard Setback - 3165 Lynwood Drive

Mr. Bolia and Mr. Gipson recused themselves from the case due to conflicts.

Mr. Song briefly recapped that a thirty day deferral had been granted at the March 19th meeting so that the

applicant could work with the neighbors. He stipulated to the staff report and mentioned staff were in receipt of

emails from those in opposition to the case stating they would like to withdraw their opposition.

Mr. Nama asked the applicant if they agreed to the conditions stated in Alan Powell's email and the applicant

said yes, plus those conditions in the staff report.

Mr. Beardsley made a motion to approve with conditions and Mr. Viers seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0.

RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITION [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Jed Beardsley

SECONDER: Glenn Viers

AYES: Nama, Self, Viers, Bawcom, Beardsley

RECUSED: Bolia, Gipson

E) NEW BUSINESS

1. ZBA14-08: Michael Patrick - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 62% and Waive Lot

Merger Requirement - 1082 Wimberly Road

Mr. Song reminded the board of the two requested variances and stipulated to the staff report. He noted staff

recommended denial.

The applicant - Mike Patrick at 1082 Wimberly Road - gave an overview of his request and asked that the board

approve the requested variances.

There were no speakers in either support or opposition.

B.2

Packet Pg. 7

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

pr

16, 2

014

7:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)



The board asked questions of staff and discussed the case.

Mr. Nama asked Development Services Manager Bennett White about impervious materials that could be used

on a driveway so that the percentage of impervious surface and lot coverage could be reduced. The applicant

stated his willingness to work with pervious surface materials.

Ms. Bawcom made a motion to waive the lot merger requirement and to allow for an increase in lot coverage

but not to exceed 50% on lot 7, and once that requirement is met, the lot merger requirement will be granted,

pending completion and approval by city staff. Mr. Self seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.


MOVER: Hope Bawcom



2. ZBA14-09: HSC Intown, LLC - Reduce Rear Yard Setback from 40' to 30', Reduce

Average Front Yard Setback from 33.4' to 30.8' for Lot 26 and Waive Lot Merger

Requirements - 1628 Wayland Circle

Mr. Song stipulated to the staff report and stated staff recommended an approval of waiver of the lot merger

requirement and reduction of the rear yard setback for lot 26. However, he stated staff recommended a denial of

the average front yard setback for lot 26, and reduction of the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 30 feet for lot 1

and substitute in lieu thereof 35 feet (lot1).

The applicant - Carter Richardson - spoke and stated that both lots would be conforming and since receiving

staff's report, he has worked with his engineers and architects to fit the house within the parameters stated by

staff. Due to the irregular configuration of the lots, they have been unable to but are only one foot off so would

request that the front yard setback be granted to 32.4 feet.

Those who spoke in support included:

Carmen Carreno - 1619 Ridgewood Drive

Catherine Stillwell - her parents own the property

Ronnie Mayer - 2709 Redding Road

Opponents

Aaron Savinski - 1623 Wayland Circle

Board members discussed the case.

Mr. Nama asked the applicant if the intent was to build both houses at the same time because if lot 26 were

developed first, average front yard setback would not be an issue.

After further discussion, the applicant withdrew the average front yard setback request.

Mr. Self made a motion to approve to waiver of lot merger requirement, the rear yard setback on lot 1 to 35' and

lot 26 to 30 feet, based on conditions in the staff report. Mr. Bolia seconded the motion. The vote was

unanimous.

B.2

Packet Pg. 8

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

pr

16, 2

014

7:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)




MOVER: Corey Self

SECONDER: Don Bolia


3. ZBA14-10: Bright Ventures LLC/Hakim Hilliard - Reduce the Side Yard Setback Along

Curtis Drive from 50’ to 39’, Reduce the Rear Yard Setback from 30’ to 10’, Reduce the

Transitional Buffer Zone Along the West Property Line from 50’ to 21’ and Reduce

Parking from 72 to 45 Spaces - 3020 Buford Highway

Mr. Song stipulated to the staff report with one condition and noted staff recommended approval.

Hakim Hilliard, representing the applicant, spoke and gave a brief history of the site. He stated the current

building is in a state of disrepair and needs extensive renovations.


Mr. Self made a motion to approve and Mr. Viers seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.


MOVER: Corey Self

SECONDER: Glenn Viers


4. ZBA14-11: Wayne Nicholls - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 53.8% and Reduce

Setback for an Accessory Structure (Swimming Pool and Associated Patio) from 10’ to

1’ - 2508 Appalachee Drive NE

Ms. Bawcom made a motion to move this case ahead of ZBA14-10. Mr. Self seconded and the vote was

unanimous.

Mr. Song stipulated to the report and stated staff recommended approval.

Applicant - Wayne Nicholls - spoke. He stated the pool had passed all of the City's inspections during

construction and that down spouts were connected to underground flow wells.

Those who spoke in support included

Stephanie Elliott - 1380 Canoocchee Drive

There was no opposition.

Mr. Beardsley made a motion to approve the variance as requested and based on the one condition in the staff

report. Mr. Self seconded the motion as stated. The vote was unanimous.

B.2

Packet Pg. 9

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

pr

16, 2

014

7:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)




MOVER: Jed Beardsley



5. ZBA14-12: Alton Moss - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 39% - 1380 Sylvan Circle

Mr. Song stipulated to the staff report and stated staff recommended denial.

The applicant, Alton Moss, spoke about the need to expand the driveway area.


Mr. Beardsley asked staff to elaborate on reasons for denial and Mr. Song stated that the applicant knew of the

lot's limitations when they started building the house and staff felt the request is more of a convenience and

preference rather than a hardship.

Mr. Nama asked if the applicant was open to using pervious pavers. There was discussion with the applicant

and Mr. White concerning the types of measures the applicant could take to allow him to be approved for

additional lot coverage.

Mr. Viers moved to approve to allow the applicant to increase lot coverage provided they install a storm water

runoff system that meets approval of the Community Development Department. Ms. Bawcom seconded the

motion. The vote was unanimous.


MOVER: Glenn Viers



6. ZBA14-13: Michalene and Gerald Donegan - Reduce Side Yard Setback from 10' to 5.2'

- 3028 Mabry Road

Mr. Song stipulated to the staff report and noted staff recommended approval.

Applicants, Michalene and Gerald Donegan, spoke.


Ms. Bawcom moved to approve with staff condition. Mr. Self seconded the motion and the vote was

unanimous.

B.2

Packet Pg. 10

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

pr

16, 2

014

7:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)




MOVER: Hope Bawcom



7. ZBA14-14: Ryan and Irina Connelly - Reduce Rear Yard Setback from 30’ to 15’ for

Deck Addition and Reduce Setback for an Accessory Structure (Fireplace) from 10’ to 3’

- 2423 Coosawattee Drive

Mr. Song stipulated to the report and incorporated condition, and noted staff recommended approval of the

reduction of the rear yard setback from 30' to 15' but denial of the side yard setback from 10' to 3'.

The applicants, Ryan and Irina Connelly, explained the yard's topography was the reason for the requested

fireplace's placement and their inability to move the deck stairs.


Board members discussed placement of the stairs and the fireplace. The applicant agreed to reduce the side yard

setback request to 6'.

Mr. Gipson made a motion to approve the rear yard setback as requested, and the side yard setback reduction

from 10' to 6' with the recommended staff condition. Mr. Beardsley seconded the motion and the vote was

unanimous.


MOVER: Kent Gipson



8. ZBA14-15: Ralph Reilly - Reduce Stream Buffer from 75' to 50' to Construct a Single

Family Home - 2465 E. Osborne Road

After a brief recess, the meeting reconvened with the Chairman announcing the next Zoning Board of Appeals

meeting will be Tuesday, May 20 in the new City Hall location. Mr. Beardsley made a motion and Mr. Self

seconded. The vote was unanimous.

Mr. Song stipulated to the report with one staff condition and recommended approval.

Ms. Canon noted this application had been received after the stream buffer moratorium had expired and was

prior to the new guidelines being adopted.

Applicant, Ralph Reilly, spoke and requested support of the Board.

Those who spoke in support included:

Byron Williamson - 2523 Drew Valley Road

There were no opponents.

During Board discussions, Mr. Beardsley asked Mr. White to explain why this application was supported and

did not require capturing of storm-water runoff. Mr. White explained that the proposed site plan limits the area

of disturbance to the area immediately adjacent to the proposed encroachment, and that implementation of

storm-water measures would adversely impact the existing buffer which contains numerous large growth trees.

B.2

Packet Pg. 11

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

pr

16, 2

014

7:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)



Mr. Bolia made a motion to approve with one staff recommended condition. Mr. Self seconded and the vote

was unanimous.


MOVER: Don Bolia



9. ZBA14-16: Rockhaven Homes LLC - Reduce Rear Yard Setback from 40' to 20' to

Construct a Single Family Home - 1290 Oaklawn Avenue

Mr. Song stipulated to the staff report and noted a recommendation of denial.

The applicant was represented by Doug Dillard who reiterated the request was for a reduction in the rear yard

setback from 40' to 20' to build a single family home. He went on to say the rear yard abuts an alley and the

property located behind is zoned industrial, and the proposed home and site plan are commensurate with other

homes in the neighborhood. He read a letter from a neighbor which was in support of the application.


Mr. Viers made a motion to approve. Mr. Gipson seconded the motion. The motion failed.

Ms. Bawcom made a motion to deny. Mr. Self seconded. The motion failed. Mr. Bolia made a motion to defer

the case until May 20th, 2014. Mr. Beardsley seconded and the vote was unanimous.

RESULT: DEFERRED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 5/20/2014 7:00 PM

MOVER: Don Bolia



10. ZBA14-17: Nelson Consunji - Reduce Front Yard Setback from 109.4' to 76.6' to

Construct a Staircase - 4189 Oak Forest Drive NE

Mr. Song stipulated to report and recommended approval.

Morgan Moore, 1001 Gardenview Dr., spoke on behalf of the applicant.


Mr. Gipson made a motion to approve and Ms. Bawcom seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.


MOVER: Kent Gipson



F) ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Bawcom moved to adjourn and Mr. Gipson seconded. The vote was unanimous.

B.2

Packet Pg. 12

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

pr

16, 2

014

7:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)



APPROVED:

_____________________

Tim Nama, Chairman

ATTEST:

___________________________

Community Development

Approved

B.2

Packet Pg. 13

Min

ute

s A

ccep

tan

ce:

Min

ute

s o

f A

pr

16, 2

014

7:00

PM

(A

pp

rova

l of

Min

ute

s)

MEMORANDUM

MEETING OF: May 20, 2014

COMMITTEE: Zoning Board of Appeals

DEPARTMENT: Community Development

ISSUE/AGENDA ITEM TITLE:

ZBA14-06: Gipco Southern Inc. C/O Jay Gipson - Increase Lot Coverage (Sec. 27-586) and

Vary from the Requirements of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District: (27-

728.15.10(A)(2)&(3); 27-728.15.10(G)&(K); 27-728.15.12 (D)(3), (4)&(8); 27-

728.15.12(F)(3)(A); 27-728.15.12(L)(6)) - Peachtree Road and Colonial Drive

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: Please see attached files

FISCAL IMPACT: (Budgeted – over or under)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Update: This case was deferred for 60 days and placed on the May 20th agenda. Enclosed please

find a revised building elevation received May 5, 2014. No other revisions have been received.

Please see attached files.

ATTACHMENTS:

ZBA 14-06 Staff memo (PDF)

ZBA14-06_Application, LOI & supplemental documentation (PDF)

ZBA14-06_Site Plan (PDF)

ZBA14-06_Survey (PDF)

Memo Style (PDF)

Revised building elevation (PDF)

D.1

Packet Pg. 14

Case: ZBA14-06

Location: 3925 & 3927 Peachtree Road, Brookhaven, GA 30319

2425 & 2427 Colonial Drive, Brookhaven, GA 30319

Tax Parcel # 18-239-05-003, 18-239-05-002, 18-239-05-011 & 18-

239-05-005

Property Owner: Walgreens c/o Brant Heflin, M. Spencer Newman & Howard

David Raflo

Applicant: Gipco Southern Inc. c/o Jay Gipson

Request: Variances to sections 27-728.15.10(a)(2) & (3), 27-728.15.10(g), 27-

728.15.10(k), 27-728.15.12(d)(3), 27-728.15.12(d)(4), 27-

728.15.12(d)(8), 27-728.15.12(f)(3)(a), 27-728.15.12(l)(6), and 27-586.

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting nine variances associated with this case as noted:

1. Parking – Section 27-728.15.10(a)(2) & (3)

o (2) Commercial: 1 per 400 SF (Office related)

Proposed 36,449 SF – results in 91 spaces required

o (3) Retail: 1 per 300 SF (Walgreens portion)

Proposed 14,140 SF – results in 47 spaces required

Variance request: Reduce total parking from 138 spaces to 125 spaces.

2. Parking deck screening – 27-728.15.10(g) - Any portion of a parking deck that is

adjacent to a public street shall be screened with retail on the ground floor. Any upper

stories of a parking deck that are visible from a public street shall be clad with materials

permitted in subsection 27-728.15.7(a) to resemble office or residential buildings with

fenestration.

Variance request: Eliminate retail screening on the ground floor parking deck facing

Colonial Drive.

3. Landscape strips for parking structures – 27-728.15.10(k) - All parking decks and

parking structures shall have a landscape strip a minimum of six (6) feet in width

immediately contiguous to the parking facility for the whole of the exterior perimeter of

the parking facility except at vehicular or pedestrian entrances and exits. Such landscape

strips shall contain no less than one (1) understory or overstory tree per fifty (50) linear

feet, ten (10) shrubs per fifty (50) linear feet, and a minimum of ninety (90) percent living

groundcover, sod and/or annual or perennial color in the landscape strip surface area.

Variance request: Reduce the six foot landscape strip along the rear of the property

adjacent to the Marta rail line.

D.1.a

Packet Pg. 15

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

06 S

taff

mem

o (

1286

: Z

BA

14-0

6: G

ipco

So

uth

ern

Inc.

-)

4. Access/curb cuts – 27-728.15.12(d)(3) - All parking shall be accessed via shared alleys

or private drives. No curb cuts shall be allowed on primary streets (Peachtree Road and

Apple Valley Road) if the development is accessible by another street. If an existing block

face on a primary street exceeds seven-hundred (700) linear feet, then one (1) curb cut

per seven-hundred (700) linear feet is allowed. If a development is accessible from more

than one (1) secondary or tertiary street (Dresden Drive, North Druid Hills Road,

Hermance Drive, Ashford-Dunwoody Road, Lanier Drive, Osborne Road and

Brookhaven Place), the development shall be limited to one (1) curb cut per block face. If

a development is only accessible from one (1) street, the development is limited to two (2)

curb cuts on that street.

Variance request: To allow a right-in/right-out only curb-cut on Peachtree Road.

5. Curb cut width – 27-728.15.12(d)(4) - All curb cuts shall be a maximum of twenty-four

(24) feet wide.

Variance request: Increase curb-cut widths to 30 feet (Peachtree Road and Colonial

Drive).

6. Building Entrance – 27-728.15.12(d)(8) - The primary entrance to all buildings shall

be clearly visible from the street, shall face the street, and if the building is used for

nonresidential purposes, shall be unlocked during operating business hours for all

nonresidential uses. If a building fronts more than one (1) public street, the primary

entrance shall face the street with the highest classification as follows: Primary:

Peachtree Road and Apple Valley Road; Secondary: Dresden Drive, North Druid Hills

Road, Hermance Drive, Ashford-Dunwoody Road, Lanier Drive, Osborne Drive,

Brookhaven Place; Tertiary: new streets and other existing streets.

Variance request: – Allow the Walgreens entrance to face the parking deck, but provide

the appearance of an entrance facing Peachtree Road through building architecture.

7. Gross floor area of second floor – 27-728.15.12(f)(3)(a) – The second story shall

encompass 100% of the gross floor area of the 1st floor.

Variance request: Allow the second floor to encompass more than 100% of the gross

floor area of the 1st floor (cannot be requested per Section27-915(k) of Brookhaven

Peachtree Overlay District. However, based upon the site plan submitted it would

appear that this variance request is not needed).

8. Entrance for upper stories – 27-728.15.12(l)(6) - The primary entrance for all upper

story uses shall be clearly visible from the street and shall face the public street. If a

building fronts more than one (1) street, the primary entrance should face the street with

the highest classification as follows: Primary: Peachtree Road and Apple Valley Road;

Secondary: Dresden Drive, North Druid Hills Road, Hermance Drive, Ashford-

Dunwoody Road, Lanier Drive, Osborne Drive, Brookhaven Place; Tertiary: new streets

and other existing streets.

D.1.a

Packet Pg. 16

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

06 S

taff

mem

o (

1286

: Z

BA

14-0

6: G

ipco

So

uth

ern

Inc.

-)

Variance request: Allow the second floor entrance to face the parking deck.

9. Lot coverage – 27-586 – Lot coverage maximum for C-1 is 80%.

Variance Request: Increase lot coverage from 80% to 89.4%.

SITE PLAN AND SITE ANALYSIS The site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Peachtree Road and Colonial

Drive and with proximity to the city limits the property may be considered as a gateway into the

City of Brookhaven. The subject property includes an assemblage of four lots zoned C-1 (Local

Commercial District) and located within sub-area 1 of the Brookhaven Peachtree Overlay

District (BPOD). Based on the submitted site plan, the site has approximately 199 feet of

frontage along Peachtree Road and 345 feet of frontage along Colonial Drive and totals 1.47

acres. Under the requirements of BPOD, the applicant plans to construct a three-story building

that will consist of 14,140 square feet for Walgreens with an additional 36,449 square feet of

office space. The building observes zero lot lines from all property lines and is proposed to be

constructed predominantly of brick. Along the ground floor, the proposed building would consist

of a white precast façade with a transparent glass storefront. The applicant seeks to demolish the

existing commercial buildings and combine the lots into a single parcel of land.

A two-story, 125 space parking deck is proposed to be located behind and along the side of the

proposed commercial building. Review of the proposed parking deck design would show that a

large portion of the parking structure will remain open and be absent of screening that would be

contextual to the architectural theme of the building, and as a result parked vehicles will be

visible from the street. Under the guidelines of BPOD, parking decks adjacent to a public street

are required to be screened with retail on the first floor and upper stories are required to be

screened and clad with materials that resemble an office building with fenestration. The applicant

has expressed that due to the confines of the site, it would be unfeasible to screen the proposed

parking deck on the ground floor with retail along both street frontages and would instead

supplement the required screening with landscaping. Although, staff would acknowledge that

locating retail uses may not be plausible based upon the layout of the proposed development;

however, the applicant would be able to create a façade that would resemble and extend the retail

facade to the full extent of the parking deck except at vehicle ingress/egress points. Additionally,

screening shall be provided on the second level of the parking deck along both street fronts to

resemble an office building and constructed in compliance with building materials permitted

under subsection 27-728.15.7(a).

Staff would point out that parking decks are required to install a six-foot landscape strip

immediately contiguous to parking facility, except at vehicular or pedestrian entrances. The

applicant has stated in the letter of intent that 23 feet of the total 580 feet of linear frontage will

be less than six feet in width adjacent to the MARTA rail line.

The proposed building would require a total of 138 parking spaces with 47 spaces required for

Walgreens and 91 spaces required for the proposed office use. The applicant has stated in the

letter of intent that Walgreens has estimated at their peak 28 spaces would be utilized. Given the

D.1.a

Packet Pg. 17

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

06 S

taff

mem

o (

1286

: Z

BA

14-0

6: G

ipco

So

uth

ern

Inc.

-)

limitations of the site, projected demand of the facility, and the intent of BPOD to promote

greater pedestrian access and activity, the applicant would seeks to reduce parking by 13 spaces

for a total of 125 parking spaces dedicated for the development.

The overlay requires that the primary entrance to the building be clearly visible from the street

and face Peachtree Road. Based on the applicant’s letter of intent, the primary entrance is

proposed to face the parking deck to better serve customers that arrive by car. As an alternative,

the applicant has indicated that the architecture of the building on the ground floor will create an

appearance of an entrance facing Peachtree Road.

The subject property as existing has one point of ingress/egress off Peachtree Road and two off

of Colonial Drive. With the proposed Walgreens development, the access off Peachtree Road

will be relocated closer towards the east property line and away from the intersection. Although

the requirements of BPOD restrict curb-cuts along Peachtree Road if the property is accessible

by another street, the applicant has requested a curb-cut be allowed on Peachtree Road to

facilitate the circulation of ingress/egress for delivery and emergency vehicles, such as

ambulances and fire apparatuses. Subsequently, the applicant has requested a variance to widen

curb-cut widths to 30 feet from 24 feet to better accommodate larger vehicles onto the property.

The applicant believes that if the property is limited to provide access only from Colonial Drive,

the proposed development would not be viable and would further concentrate traffic directly

onto Colonial Drive and negatively impact traffic at the intersection. The applicant has proposed

a right-in/right-out only drive on Peachtree Road to coordinate for the safe flow of traffic on the

subject property and to minimize vehicular impacts on Peachtree Road. The Department would

note that the applicant must obtain approval from the Georgia Department of Transportation to

locate a curb-cut on Peachtree Road, as it is a state route.

Lastly, the applicant seeks a variance to 27-728.15.12(f)(3)(a), which requires the second story

of the building encompass one-hundred percent of the gross floor area of the first floor. Although

the applicant has requested this variance, staff would note that this provision cannot be varied as

outlined in Section 27-915(k) of the city’s Zoning Ordinance. However, the submitted site plan

would demonstrate that the second and third floors of the building would encompass a greater

footprint than that of the first floor and be compliant with the above-referenced section of BPOD.

Therefore, the requested variance is not needed.

CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE BOARD

The applicant seeks variances to the development standards. Consideration of this request should

be made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the City Zoning Ordinance:

No relief may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be

granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of

the intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The Zoning Board of

Appeals shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:

(a) Variances from the provisions or requirements of this chapter shall be authorized only upon

making all of the following findings:

(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by

reason of exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or

D.1.a

Packet Pg. 18

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

06 S

taff

mem

o (

1286

: Z

BA

14-0

6: G

ipco

So

uth

ern

Inc.

-)

applicant, the strict application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the

property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same

zoning district;

Staff Comment:

The subject property takes on a trapezoidal shape and would appear that the site as

currently existing would exceed the lot coverage maximum of eighty percent associated

with the C-1 zoning district. Although the subject property would combine four lots

together, the property would equate to a small tract of land at 1.47 acres. Due to the size

of the property and the requirements of BPOD, requiring buildings constructed in the

overlay district to be at minimum two stories, the development is obligated to take on a

larger impervious footprint to comply with parking requirements. Furthermore, similar

commercial developments located along Peachtree Road have existed with lot coverage

exceeding eighty percent. Therefore, due to the size of the property, requirements of

BPOD, and neighboring properties in the same zoning district existing with lot coverage

exceeding eighty percent, the applicant’s request to increase lot coverage to 89.4 percent

would be supported by staff.

(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief,

and does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon

other properties in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;

Staff Comment:

The overall design of the proposed Walgreens development would conform to the general

design aspects of the overlay related to pedestrian zones (landscaping and sidewalks),

scale, building materials, setbacks, and mixed use. Based upon the urban design

principles required by the overlay, it is the opinion of staff that the development will be a

catalyst to creating a dynamic built environment along Peachtree Road. Therefore, staff

would note that the requested variance to not provide a primary entrance to the building

on Peachtree Road (Section 27-728.15.12(d)(8)) and not providing the required

screening of the parking deck (Section 27-728.15.10(g)) would go beyond the minimum

necessary to afford relief. However, with proper conditions to provide for a primary

entrance along Peachtree Road and extending screening along the ground floor and

second floor of the parking deck to resemble retail and office façade, respectively, the

design aspects incorporated into the development would be consistent with the intent of

the Brookhaven Peachtree Overlay District.

(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or

injurious to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject

property is located;

Staff Comment:

With the exception of variances related to screening of the parking deck (Section 27-

728.15.10(g)) and providing for a primary entrance on Peachtree Road ((Section 27-

728.15.12(d)(8)), granting of the other seven variances would not appear to be

detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the

zoning district as these variance would not stray overwhelmingly from the intent and

vision of the overlay. It is the opinion of staff, however, that the proposed parking

structure as designed is not an integral component of the architectural theme, lacking the

D.1.a

Packet Pg. 19

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

06 S

taff

mem

o (

1286

: Z

BA

14-0

6: G

ipco

So

uth

ern

Inc.

-)

required architectural screening that is reflective of the building. As previously noted,

the first and second floors of the parking structure must be developed to include

screening that would resemble a faux retail storefront on the ground floor and an office

façade on the second story of the proposed parking deck, along all sides fronting a public

street. Furthermore, lacking a primary entrance into the building from Peachtree Road

would be inconsistent with the intent of BPOD, which seeks to promote alternative modes

of travel, interconnectivity of parcels and improving pedestrian access; thus, locating the

primary entrance to Walgreens on Peachtree Road would help to promote pedestrian

traffic.

The applicant’s survey shows that the existing property would exceed the lot coverage

requirement. Although increase in lot coverage may contribute to additional stormwater

run-off, the applicant has proposed installation of a detention pond in the southwest

corner of the property to support the increase in impervious area of the property to 89.4

percent.

(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or

requirements of this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely

impose a casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and

Staff Comment:

The literal interpretation and strict application of provisions to parking (Sections 27-

728.15.10(a)(2) & (3)), landscape strips (Section 27-728.15.10(k)), curb cuts (Section 27-

728.15.12(d)(4)), access (Section 27-728.15.12(d)(3)), lot coverage (Section 27-586), and

entrances for upper stories (Section 27-728.15.12(1)(6)) could be considered a hardship

since the full vision and utility of the design would not be realized without granting of

variances. The provision for parking deck screening (Section 27-728.15.10(g)) and

primary entrance on Peachtree Road (Section 27-728.15.12(d)(8)) however, do not appear

to be hardships. Without appropriate and effective screening of the parking deck and

provision of a primary entrance on Peachtree Road, the development would detract from

the intent of BPOD, which promotes a design initiative that seeks to hide the view of

parking structures from the street and seeks to create a safer and inviting streetscape for

pedestrians to travel by foot adjacent to the city’s primary thoroughfare.

(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter

and the DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.

Staff Comment:

With the exception of variances related to parking deck screening and providing for the

primary entrance on Peachtree Road, the requested variances would be consistent with

the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Variance to Section 27-728.15.10(a)(2) & (3) – Parking

Request: Reduce total parking from 138 spaces to 125 spaces.

Recommendation: Approval.

D.1.a

Packet Pg. 20

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

06 S

taff

mem

o (

1286

: Z

BA

14-0

6: G

ipco

So

uth

ern

Inc.

-)

2. Variance to Section 27-728.15.10(g) – Parking deck screening

Request: Remove retail screening on the ground floor parking deck facing Colonial

Drive.

Recommendation: Denial. However, substitute in lieu thereof that a faux retail façade

be extended to incorporate the ground floor parking deck and for the second story of

the parking deck to resemble an office building with fenestration, except for areas

providing vehicular access.

3. Variance to Section 27-728.15.10(k) – Landscape strips for parking structures

Request: Remove the six foot landscape strip along the rear of the property adjacent

to the Marta rail line.

Recommendation: Approval. Staff would support as this request would affect a

minimal area of the landscape strip surrounding the perimeter of the parking deck.

4. Variance to Section 27-728.15.12(d)(3) – Access/curb cuts

Request: Allow a curb-cut on Peachtree Road.


5. Variance to Section 27-728.15.12(d)(4) – Curb cut width

Request: Increase curb-cut widths from 24 feet to 30 feet.

Recommendation: Approval

6. Variance to Section 27-728.15.12(d)(8) – Building Entrance

Request: Allow the Walgreens entrance to face the parking deck, but provide the

appearance of an entrance facing Peachtree Road through building architecture

Recommendation: Denial. The requirement to provide a primary entrance facing

Peachtree Road is an integral urban design aspect of BPOD.

7. Variance to Section 27-728.15.12(f)(3)(a) – Gross floor area of second floor

Request: Allow the second floor to encompass more than 100% of the gross floor

area of the first floor.

Recommendation: Denial. The applicant cannot request a variance to this section as

prohibited per Section 27-915(k) of the Zoning Ordinance.

8. Variance to Section 27-728.15.12(l)(6) – Entrance for upper stories

Request: Allow the 2nd floor entrance to not face Peachtree Road.

D.1.a

Packet Pg. 21

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

06 S

taff

mem

o (

1286

: Z

BA

14-0

6: G

ipco

So

uth

ern

Inc.

-)

Recommendation: Approval. Based on the layout of the development and overall

fenestration design of the upper levels, the applicant has expressed that the primary

entrance for upper stories cannot face Peachtree Road. Majority of occupants of the

proposed office area may predominantly consist of commuters by car. Per the layout

of the development, elevators leading into the upper levels of the building will be

situated to provide direct access from the parking deck. Therefore, staff would

recommend approval of granting Section 27-728.15.12(f)(3)(a) to allow the upper

story entrance to face the parking structure.

9. Variance to Section 27-586 – Lot coverage

Request: Increase lot coverage from 80% to 89.4%.


Staff suggests the following condition(s):

1. Development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted on

February 5, 2014 to the Community Development Department.

2. Owner/developer shall provide an access easement from the first entrance on Colonial

Drive through the subject property to allow for future interparcel access with the adjacent

parcel to the east.

3. The curb-cut on Peachtree Road shall be limited to a right-in and right-out drive only, and

the owner/developer must obtain a Driveway Permit from GDOT.

4. The widths of all curb-cuts associated with the development are limited to 30 feet.

5. Owner/developer shall obtain a Driveway Permit from GDOT to increase the width of the

curb-cut on Peachtree Road.

6. The ground level of the parking deck facing a public street shall be screened with a

façade resembling retail, except for areas associated with vehicle access.

7. The second story parking deck facing a public street shall be screened with a façade that

resembles an office building with fenestration. The required screen shall match the full

height of the second story of the building.

8. Owner/developer shall submit a combination plat for approval by the Community

Development Department prior to issuance of any permit related to the Walgreen

development.

D.1.a

Packet Pg. 22

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

06 S

taff

mem

o (

1286

: Z

BA

14-0

6: G

ipco

So

uth

ern

Inc.

-)

D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 23

Attachment: ZBA14-06_Application, LOI & supplemental documentation (1286 : ZBA14-06: Gipco

D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 24


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 25


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 26


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 27


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 28


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 29


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 30


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 31


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 32


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 33


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 34


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 35


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 36


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 37


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 38


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 39


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 40


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 41


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 42


D.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 43


D.1.c

Packet Pg. 44

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-0

6_S

ite

Pla

n (

1286

: Z

BA

14-0

6: G

ipco

So

uth

ern

Inc.

-)

D.1.d

Packet Pg. 45

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-0

6_S

urv

ey (

1286

: Z

BA

14-0

6: G

ipco

So

uth

ern

Inc.

-)

1

Becky Apter

From: Ben SongSent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:11 PMTo: Becky ApterSubject: FW: Upcoming ZBA Hearing

Please include this email to the ZBA packet along with ZBA14‐06 (Walgreens). Thank you, Ben

From: Thomas Porter, AIA, LEED AP [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 4:27 PM To: J. Max Davis; Marie Garrett; Susan Canon; Bates Mattison Cc: Ben Song Subject: Upcoming ZBA Hearing

City Officials; Simply as a note of concern, the next ZBA Hearing has scheduled a series of variances on the property at the corner of Colonial Drive & Peachtree Road, including variances for lot coverage and Overlay standards. Members of the BPCA have reached out to the developers in an attempt to view their proposal along with neighborhood groups, and, while they seem to feel it would be desirable to meet, the feasibility of scheduling, meeting, reviewing & having any reasonable input in time for the hearing seems almost impossible. It is just over 2 weeks away. We are continuing with that attempt though. As the Mayor once said about the property adjacent, this is the “Gateway of the City”, and, a long history of significant battles over the development plans for this site guarantee that it will be highly emotional with much energy expended towards enforcement of the Overlay standards. I have no idea exactly what the proposal is, I have no idea what the Staff recommendation will be, I only want to stress the importance of how the City handles this will set a tone for the future and will be significant to many. Thanks,

Thomas Porter, AIA, LEED® AP [email protected] mob: 404.844.7959

Thise‐mailmessage(includinganyattachments)isforthesoleuseoftheintendedrecipient(s)andmaycontainconfidentialandprivilegedinformation.Ifthereaderofthismessageisnottheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatanydissemination,distributionorcopyingofthismessage(includinganyattachments)isstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthismessageinerror,pleasecontactthesenderanddestroyallcopiesoftheoriginalmessage(includingattachments).TheCityofBrookhavenisapublicentitysubjecttotheOfficialCodeofGeorgiaAnnotated§§50‐18‐70to50‐18‐76concerningpublicrecords.Emailiscoveredundersuchlawsandthusmaybesubjecttodisclosure.

D.1.e

Packet Pg. 46

Att

ach

men

t: M

emo

Sty

le (

1286

: Z

BA

14-0

6: G

ipco

So

uth

ern

Inc.

-)

D.1

.f

Pac

ket

Pg

. 47

Attachment: Revised building elevation (1286 : ZBA14-06: Gipco Southern Inc. -)

MEMORANDUM





ZBA14-16: Rockhaven Homes LLC - Reduce Rear Yard Setback from 40' to 20' to Construct a

Single Family Home - 1290 Oaklawn Avenue

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: Please see attached files.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Update: This application was deferred for thirty days and placed on the May 20, 2014 agenda.

No additional information has been received.

Please see attached files.

ATTACHMENTS:

ZBA 14-16 Staff memo (DOCX)

ZBA14-16 application (PDF)

ZBA14-16 site plan (PDF)

D.2

Packet Pg. 48

Case: ZBA14-16

Location: 1290 Oaklawn Avenue

Tax Parcel #: 18 241 04 012

Property Owner/ Linda Langford Tawzer

Applicant: Rockhaven Homes, LLC

Request: To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 20 feet for the

construction of a single family residential home.

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting a variance associated with this case as noted:

A. To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 20 feet for the construction of a single

family residential home (Section 27-196 (e).

SITE PLAN AND SITE ANALYSIS

The subject property is located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Oaklawn Avenue

and Apple Valley Road. The property is zoned R-75 (Single Family Residential District) and is

located in the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District. The subject parcel totals 0.23 acres (9,904

square feet). The existing parcel has approximately 105 feet of street frontage along Apple Valley

Road and 68 feet of street frontage along Oaklawn Avenue. The applicant seeks to construct a

two-story “Glenwood” style home with a width of 31 feet and depth of 66 feet. The proposed area

for the primary structure is identified as 4,092 square feet.

The applicant is seeking to demolish an existing home and re-construct a larger home on the subject

property. The new single family structure proposes a 20-foot encroachment to the rear yard

setback. The applicant seeks to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 40 feet to 20 feet.


The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be

made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the City Zoning Ordinance:


granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the

intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The Zoning Board of Appeals

shall apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:



(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason

of exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant,

the strict application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner

of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;

D.2.a

Packet Pg. 49

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

16 S

taff

mem

o (

1326

: Z

BA

14-1

6: R

ock

hav

en H

om

es L

LC

- R

edu

ce R

ear

Yar

d S

etb

ack

fro

m 4

0' t

o 2

0' t

o C

on

stru

ct a

Sin

gle

)

Staff Comment:

The building envelope as the result of required setbacks does not create exceptional shape for

the lot. The requested building footprint that has been created by the owner or applicant results

in an encroachment into the rear yard setback which may not be necessary. The strict

application of the requirements of this chapter may not deprive the property owner of rights

and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district.

(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and

does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other

properties in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;

Staff Comment:

The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback appears to go beyond the minimum

necessary to afford relief and may grant a special privilege inconsistent with other properties

within the zoning district.




Staff Comment:

The granting of this variance request maybe materially detrimental to the public welfare in

that there appears a sizable home could be built within the established building envelope.

(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements

of this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a

casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and

Staff Comment:

The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions of this chapter

may not cause undue or unnecessary hardship to the applicant but may merely impose an

inconvenience as an alternative building footprint could be reconfigured to comply with the

requirements of the setbacks.

(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and

the DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.

Staff Comment:

The requested variance has no impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the variance requested.

D.2.a

Packet Pg. 50

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

16 S

taff

mem

o (

1326

: Z

BA

14-1

6: R

ock

hav

en H

om

es L

LC

- R

edu

ce R

ear

Yar

d S

etb

ack

fro

m 4

0' t

o 2

0' t

o C

on

stru

ct a

Sin

gle

)

D.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 51

Attachment: ZBA14-16 application (1326 : ZBA14-16: Rockhaven Homes LLC - Reduce Rear Yard Setback

D.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 52


D.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 53


D.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 54


D.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 55


D.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 56


D.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 57


D.2

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 58

Attachment: ZBA14-16 site plan (1326 : ZBA14-16: Rockhaven Homes LLC - Reduce Rear Yard Setback

D.2

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 59

Attachment: ZBA14-16 site plan (1326 : ZBA14-16: Rockhaven Homes LLC - Reduce Rear Yard Setback

MEMORANDUM





ZBA14-18: Drew Clough D.B.A Waterford Homes - Reduce 75' Stream Buffer to 50' and

Reduce Side Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' to Build a Single Family Home on Lot 12 - 2492 Ellijay

Drive



STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please see attached files.

ATTACHMENTS:


ZBA14-18 Application (PDF)

ZBA14-18 Site Plan stamped (PDF)

Fwd Rezoning Proposal on Ellijay Dr (PDF)

FW Comment ZBA-18 ZBA-19 (PDF)

E.1

Packet Pg. 60

Case: ZBA14-18

Location: 2492 Ellijay Drive (Lot 12)

Tax Parcel # 18-238-14-031

Property Owner: Eugene C. Aultman

Applicant: Drew Clough d.b.a Waterford Homes

Request: To reduce the stream buffer requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet and

reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet to build a single-

family home on lot 12

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting variances associated with this case as noted:

To reduce the stream buffer requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet; and

To reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet.

The stream buffer application was received after the stream buffer moratorium was lifted and

prior to the adoption of the amended ordinance on March 25, 2014. Therefore, review of this

request falls under the previous ordinance. In that regard, the Director opted not to consider the

request administratively which is construed as a denial and therefore defaults to the ZBA for

consideration.


The subject property exists as an interior lot along the west side of Ellijay Drive, approximately

80 feet south of its intersection with Canoochee Drive. The subject property was originally

platted as two 50-foot lots, then subsequently combined into one (1) lot. In February 2014, a lot

merger wavier was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, recognizing two separate parcels.

There is an existing single family home on the parcel. The applicant proposes to demolish the

existing structure and construct a larger home on the subject property. The lot size of the subject

property is 0.251 acres or 10,970.58 square feet. The current zoning of the property is R-75

(Single Family Residential District).

The applicant proposes two alternative plans to construct a home on the subject property. Plan

“A” proposes a home with 3,200 square feet including a deck. According to the applicant, heavy

equipment may be needed on site to build the home as indicated. Land disturbance is proposed

within the outer 25 feet of the 75-foot stream buffer, no impervious surface is proposed in that

area. Additionally, the applicant seeks a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to

4.0 feet.

Plan “B” proposes a narrower, deeper configuration for a 2,800 square-foot, two-story single

family home with a basement and deck. Plan “B” does not require a variance to reduce the side

setback but indicates an encroachment into the 75-foot stream buffer by approximately 20 feet.

E.1.a

Packet Pg. 61

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

18 S

taff

mem

o (

1372

: Z

BA

14-1

8: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d R

edu

ce S

ide

The buffer intrusion of the proposed deck, portion of the home and associated land disturbance

area will equate to 251.35 square feet under Plan “B.”

The Department would note that the applicant identified an administrative variance under Plan

“A” with this request. However, the proposed administrative variance is not valid as it would

exceed the provision for granting of an administrative variance not to exceed 10% of the front

yard setback.

CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE BOARD IN REGARD TO THE STREAM BUFFER

VARIANCE

The Community Development Director nor the Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to

consider or to grant variances which are the responsibility of the Director of the Environmental

Protection Division (EPD) pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 12-2-8. This first twenty five (25) feet

adjacent to the stream is the purview of the EPD and has not been requested. (The pertinent Land

Development Regulations which include stream buffers for the City of Brookhaven fall under the

provisions of DeKalb County’s Development Code (Chapter 14), as adopted by City of

Brookhaven.)

The following criteria shall be considered in evaluating the stream buffer variance request:

(A) The request will be protective of natural resources and the environment as would a plan

which met the strict application of these requirements. In making such a judgment, the

Board shall examine whether the request will be at least as protective of the natural

resources and the environment with regard to the following factors:

1. Stream bank or soil stabilization;

2. Trapping of sediment in surface runoff;

3. Removal of nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides and other pollutants from surface runoff;

4. Terrestrial habitat, food chain, and migration corridor;

5. Buffering of flood flows; and

6. Infiltration of surface runoff.

Staff Comment:

According to the stream buffer variance requested, the applicant proposes a robust

mitigation plan that will enhance the environment. The proposed mitigation plan will

provide replanting of indigenous, native plantings along the stream.

(B) By reason of exceptional topographic or other relevant physical conditions of the subject

property that were not created by the owner or applicant, there is no opportunity for any

development under any design configuration unless a variance is granted.

Staff Comment:

The creek and 75-foot stream buffer are relevant physical conditions that exist on the

subject property. The location of these physical elements were not created by the owner

or applicant. Additionally, the lot appears narrow in shape and the 75-foot stream

buffer encompasses the majority of the rear yard on lot 12. A design such as plan “A”

could be constructed on the property with minimal intrusion and without locating

impervious surfaces in the stream buffer.

E.1.a

Packet Pg. 62

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

18 S

taff

mem

o (

1372

: Z

BA

14-1

8: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d R

edu

ce S

ide

(C) The request does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief and does not

constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other

properties that are similarly situated.

Staff Comment:

The requested variance to encroach into the stream buffer for both plans do not appear

to go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief and would not constitute a grant of

special privilege. The proposed encroachment would allow for a house to be constructed

comparable to neighboring properties.

(D) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or

injurious to the property or improvements in the area in which the property is located.

Staff Comment:

Staff would recognize that the subject property presents environmental challenges

associated with the stream buffer. Given appropriate mitigation and recommended

conditions, granting a variance to the stream buffer would not appear to be detrimental

to the public welfare of the area.

(E) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or

requirements of Chapter 14 would cause an extreme hardship, provided the hardship was

not created by the owner.

Staff Comment:

The literal interpretation and strict application of the stream buffer ordinance appears

to cause hardship to the applicant due to the relevant physical conditions applied by the

stream buffer and shape of the lot. Plan “A” proposes a minimal encroachment into the

stream buffer limited to grading and land disturbance; wherein, Plan “B would require

a 20-foot encroachment into the stream buffer, but would not require an additional

variance to reduce the side yard setback and be in keeping with the design and form of

existing dwellings in the area.

CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE BOARD IN REGARDS TO SETBACK

REQUIREMENTS

The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should

be made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the City Zoning Ordinance: No relief

may be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be granted

without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the intent

and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall

apply the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:



E.1.a

Packet Pg. 63

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

18 S

taff

mem

o (

1372

: Z

BA

14-1

8: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d R

edu

ce S

ide





zoning district;

Staff Comment:

The proposed building footprint for Plan “A” would require an encroachment into the

side yard setback. The strict application of the requirements of this chapter under Plan

“A,” may not deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other

property owners in the same zoning district, as Plan “B” would show an alternative

building footprint that would comply with the required side yard setback.

(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and

does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon


Staff Comment:

The requested variance to reduce the side yard setback (Plan “A”) appears to go

beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief and may grant a special privilege

inconsistent with other properties within the zoning district. Although Plan “B” would

require an encroachment into the stream buffer, the intrusion would occur in the outer

25-foot portion, similar to existing homes in the area and would not require additional

variances.




Staff Comment:

The granting of this variance request to reduce the side yard setback under Plan “A”

may be materially detrimental to the public welfare in that there appears a sizable

home could be built within the established building envelope. In addition, the reduction

in the side yard setback may negatively impact the neighboring properties.




Staff Comment:

The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions of this

chapter may not cause undue or unnecessary hardship to the applicant but may merely

impose an inconvenience as a building footprint in compliance with the required side

yard setback could be achieved under Plan “B.”

E.1.a

Packet Pg. 64

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

18 S

taff

mem

o (

1372

: Z

BA

14-1

8: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d R

edu

ce S

ide



Staff Comment:



Staff recommends the Board vote in favor of the requested variance to reduce the stream buffer

from 75 feet to 55 feet on Lot 12, as proposed under Plan “B.”

Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the requested variance to reduce the side yard setback

from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet on Lot 12, as proposed under Plan “A.”


1. Development of the subject property shall occur in accordance with Plan “B”

submitted on March 24, 2014 to the Community Development Department.

2. Development on the lot shall include practice(s) that will capture 1.2 inches of runoff

from rooftops to be discharged in no less than 24 hours and that facilitates discharge

through infiltration, evaporation, and/or transpiration.

3. Submittal of a stream buffer mitigation plan for approval by the City Arborist at time

of building permit.

E.1.a

Packet Pg. 65

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

18 S

taff

mem

o (

1372

: Z

BA

14-1

8: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d R

edu

ce S

ide

E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 66

Attachment: ZBA14-18 Application (1372 : ZBA14-18: Drew Clough D.B.A Waterford Homes - Reduce 75'

E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 67


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 68


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 69


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 70


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 71


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 72


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 73


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 74


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 75


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 76


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 77


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 78


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 79


E.1

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 80


E.1.c

Packet Pg. 81

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-1

8 S

ite

Pla

n s

tam

ped

(13

72 :

ZB

A14

-18:

Dre

w C

lou

gh

D.B

.A W

ater

ford

Ho

mes

- R

edu

ce 7

5' S

trea

m B

uff

er t

o 5

0' a

nd

Red

uce

E.1.c

Packet Pg. 82

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-1

8 S

ite

Pla

n s

tam

ped

(13

72 :

ZB

A14

-18:

Dre

w C

lou

gh

D.B

.A W

ater

ford

Ho

mes

- R

edu

ce 7

5' S

trea

m B

uff

er t

o 5

0' a

nd

Red

uce

E.1.c

Packet Pg. 83

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-1

8 S

ite

Pla

n s

tam

ped

(13

72 :

ZB

A14

-18:

Dre

w C

lou

gh

D.B

.A W

ater

ford

Ho

mes

- R

edu

ce 7

5' S

trea

m B

uff

er t

o 5

0' a

nd

Red

uce

1

Becky Apter

From: Susan Canon

Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 7:24 AM

To: Becky Apter; Ben Song

Subject: Fwd: Rezoning Proposal on Ellijay Dr

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bates Mattison <[email protected]>Date: May 5, 2014, 7:02:04 AM EDTTo: Fergus Thomas <[email protected]>Cc: Catherine Thomas <[email protected]>, Susan Canon <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Rezoning Proposal on Ellijay Dr

Thank you for your comments. I've forwarded your concerns to our planning dept director, Susan Cannon.

Sent from my iPhone

D. Bates MattisonExecutive DirectorInstitute for Healthcare IT1600 Atlanta Financial Center3343 Peachtree Road, NEAtlanta, GA 30326(404) 786-6482www.InstituteForHIT.org

Sent from my iPhone

D. Bates MattisonCity Council- District 3City of Brookhaven4362 Peachtree RoadBrookhaven, GA 30319Main: 404-637-0500Direct: 678-390-3424Cell: 404-786-6482bates.mattison@brookhavenga.govwww.brookhavenga.govOn May 5, 2014, at 12:13 AM, Fergus Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Bates, We live at 2488 Ellijay and wanted to speak with you regarding the proposed rezoning of the lots adjacent to us. What is the best course to take to protest this proposed change.

E.1.d

Packet Pg. 84

Att

ach

men

t: F

wd

Rez

on

ing

Pro

po

sal o

n E

llija

y D

r (

1372

: Z

BA

14-1

8: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d

2

While we understand that development will happen, we want it to be done in a way that is not detrimental to the neighborhood and in our case the protected waterway that runs through this property. We have serious concerns about the setbacks on both the sides and rear of the property.

Waterway concerns: (photos showing line of houses at rear which 50ft puts new house rear about 10ft past our existing deck, pics also show flooding of creek and sewer lines (note, this pic isn't the worst flooding we've seen but representative).

• decreasing the rear set back to 50ft puts potential building far out of line with the rest of the homes lining this street. It also encroaches on the stream that runs to the rear of the property.

• Along this creek runs the main sewer line with a sewer manhole in our property. Over the past 8 months since the increased development and hence increased non-porous surfaces we've seen significant increases in flooding and volume of water down this creek so much so that we've taken to shoring up the land with erosion control boulders. Our concern is that further washout will eventually washout the brick sewer main contaminating the creek with sewage. All the houses along this side of Ellijay have the main house sewers cross this stream and on frequent occasions we find those pipes under water and impacted with debris from these flash floods.

• With the 2 sets of large apartment blocks, 5 new houses at the beginning of Ellijay, and the 5 new homes being built (or proposed) above us on Fernwood this flooding issue will get worse as all these properties drain into that creek bed. Trying to squeeze even more sq footage onto the 2 lots next to us is disastrous planning given the waterway on the property. The existing zoning and setbacks would help protect the neighborhood.

Environmental concern 2: Specimen Tree (pics included)

• At the rear of this property there is an 80 yr old oak on the street side of the creek. The proposed rear setback would put excavation and damaging heavy equipment operating around the root system of this tree. The proposed 50 ft setback would have a building within 10-13 feet of this tree. Destabilizing this tree would be an immediate danger to the safety of our house and our family and small children.

• The 75ft ft setback protects not only the waterway but also native trees like this water oak.

Property access concerns (side setbacks):

• Decreasing the setback from 7.5ft to 4, creates a situation where access to our yard or the proposed new house would be severally compromised. Our house and our other neighbor both have the A/C units on the same side of the house creating no access to our yard from the south side. The north side which is where the proposed rezoning lot is located is our only access to the back. As mentioned, with a main sewer out at the rear of our property, moving to a 4 ft side setback would eliminate the ability of water management to get equipment back to repair or maintain that sewer line that runs along the creek bank. 7.5ft is a reasonable setback and one being adhered to by the builders of 4 new homes on Ellijay just 2 houses down from the lots next to us.

The move to rezone seems like an attempt by a builder to squeeze more sq footage onto a lot in order to maximize their revenue. While good for the builder, it certainly isn't good

E.1.d

Packet Pg. 85

Att

ach

men

t: F

wd

Rez

on

ing

Pro

po

sal o

n E

llija

y D

r (

1372

: Z

BA

14-1

8: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d

3

for the neighborhood or the city which will be left with the impact to the creek, inaccessibility to the sewer lines and potential loss of one of the most beautiful trees in Brookhaven. The 4 other new homes being built just up the street on the same side of Ellijay with the creek all have been constructed with the zoned 7.5ft side setbacks and 75ft rear setbacks. Why would these 2 lots just 2 houses down be any different? Those houses that adhered to existing zoning have been easily constructed and sold without creating houses sitting on top of each other or encroaching into our waterway.Development can be great but not when its unrestricted and driven by builders who don't have the best long term interest of our community in mind. We need to protect our community.

I'd love for you to stop by the lots and see for yourself. We'd hope that you would support us in opposing this rezoning and informing us on what information or action we'd need to do in order for the zoning commission to make the right decision in this case. I'd love to schedule time in person to discuss.

My number is 404-984-7230Thank you for your help,Fergus and Catie Thomas

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). The City of Brookhaven is a public entity subject to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§

50-18-70 to 50-18-76 concerning public records. Email is covered under such laws and thus may be subject to disclosure.

E.1.d

Packet Pg. 86

Att

ach

men

t: F

wd

Rez

on

ing

Pro

po

sal o

n E

llija

y D

r (

1372

: Z

BA

14-1

8: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d

1

Becky Apter

From: Ben Song

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:26 AM

To: External-Zoning Board of Appeals

Cc: Becky Apter; Susan Canon

Subject: FW: Comment ZBA-18 & ZBA-19

Board members,

Please see below for comment provided by Mr. Porter expressing his opposition to ZBA14-18 and ZBA14-19.

Thank you,Ben SongDeputy Director of Community DevelopmentCity of Brookhaven | www.brookhavenga.govO: 404-637-0536F: 404-637-0537

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). The City of Brookhaven is a public entity subject to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 50-18-70 to 50-18-76 concerning public records. Email is covered under such laws and thus may be subject to disclosure.

From: Thomas Porter, AIA, LEED AP [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 10:40 AMTo: Susan Canon; Ben SongSubject: Comment ZBA-18 & ZBA-19

Ms. Canon & Mr. Song;

Please provide my comments below to all members of the ZBA as park of the packet in advance of the May hearing. Thank you.

Members of the ZBA;

With regard to the two referenced variances for stream buffer encroachment & side yard reductions, please enter my strong opposition to both and note:

I TOLD YOU SO!

This property was legally conforming R-75 zoning before waiver of lot merger was approved two hearings ago. By the applicant’s own writing it was merged not by the County but rather by his relative for monetary gain, it was/is as I argued “unbuildable” as two lots. Mr. Nama asked Mr. Song what the buildable area was and the response was “approx. 30’ x 60’” (see video), which, is a misleading response. I am guessing the staff recommendation is approval... again.

This neighborhood is under siege, the stream buffer has been in place for a decade or more, when do current residents get the benefit of ordinances they thought were in-place & would be upheld? If not when a property changes ownership then, when exactly?

The waiver of lot merger was a sham by a “ol’ fella that just wanted to sell the property for his family”, no sale signs have gone up since well before that waiver approval and now you have a “new owner” and new variance requests which couldn’t have been combined because an applicant can’t create a hardship. It was orchestrated by the builder/purchaser before the waiver, it makes a mockery of the ordinances, and, unfortunately, a mockery of the purpose of the ZBA.

E.1.e

Packet Pg. 87

Att

ach

men

t: F

W C

om

men

t Z

BA

-18

ZB

A-1

9 (

1372

: Z

BA

14-1

8: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d

2

I implore you to deny these variances. Brookhaven Fields is a popular neighborhood because it is a “quirky mix” of all different types, styles and sizes of homes as I have heard many say . Granting every builder the right to build commensurate size houses will ruin the character of this neighborhood & most importantly, the environment.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thomas Porter, AIA, LEED® APwww.thomasporter.net

mob: 404.844.7959

E.1.e

Packet Pg. 88

Att

ach

men

t: F

W C

om

men

t Z

BA

-18

ZB

A-1

9 (

1372

: Z

BA

14-1

8: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d

MEMORANDUM





ZBA14-19: Drew Clough D.B.A Waterford Homes - Reduce 75' Stream Buffer to 50' and

Reduce Side Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' to Build a Single Family Home on Lot 11 - 2496 Ellijay

Drive




ATTACHMENTS:



ZBA14-19 Site Plan (PDF)

FW Comment ZBA-18 ZBA-19 (PDF)

E.2

Packet Pg. 89

Case: ZBA14-19

Location: 2496 Ellijay Drive (Lot 11)

Tax Parcel # 18-238-14-031

Property Owner/ Eugene C. Aultman

Applicant: Drew Clough d.b.a Waterford Homes

Request: To reduce the stream buffer requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet and

reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet to build a single-

family home on lot 11

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting two variances associated with this case as noted:

To reduce the stream buffer requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet

To reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet

The stream buffer application was received after the stream buffer moratorium was lifted and

prior to the adoption of the amended ordinance on March 25, 2014. Therefore, review of this

request falls under the previous ordinance. In that regard, the Director opted not to consider the

request administratively which is construed as a denial and therefore defaults to the ZBA for

consideration.


The subject property exists as an interior lot located along the west side of Ellijay Drive,

approximately 80 feet south of its intersection with Canoochee Drive. The subject property was

originally platted as two 50-foot lots, then subsequently combined into one (1) lot. In February

2014, a lot merger wavier was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), recognizing

two separate parcels. The applicant proposes to construct a larger home on the subject property.

The lot size of the subject property is 0.239 acres or 10,409.36 square feet. The current zoning of

the property is R-75 (Single Family Residential District).

The applicant proposes two alternative plans to construct a home on the subject property. Plan

“A” proposes a home with 3,200 square feet including a deck. The buffer intrusion proposed by

the house on Lot 11 under Plan “A” is 138.73 square feet. Land disturbance is proposed for the

location of impervious surfaces within the outer 25 feet of the 75-foot stream buffer.

Additionally, the applicant seeks a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.0

feet.

Plan “B” proposes a narrower, deeper configuration for a 2,800 square-foot, two-story single

family home with a basement and deck. Plan “B” does not require a variance to reduce the side

yard setback but indicates an encroachment into the 75-foot stream buffer by 25 feet. The buffer

intrusion, which includes a portion of the home and deck, will equate to 556.87 square feet.

E.2.a

Packet Pg. 90

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

19 S

taff

mem

o (

1373

: Z

BA

14-1

9: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d R

edu

ce S

ide

The Department would note that the applicant identified an administrative variance under Plan

“A” with this request. However, the proposed administrative variance is not valid as it would

exceed the provision for granting of an administrative variance not to exceed 10% of the front

yard setback.

CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE BOARD IN REGARD TO THE STREAM BUFFER

VARIANCE

The Community Development Director nor the Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to

consider or to grant variances which are the responsibility of the Director of the Environmental

Protection Division (EPD) pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 12-2-8. This first twenty five (25) feet

adjacent to the stream is the purview of the EPD and has not been requested. (The pertinent Land

Development Regulations which include stream buffers for the City of Brookhaven fall under the

provisions of DeKalb County’s Development Code (Chapter 14), as adopted by City of

Brookhaven.)

The following criteria shall be considered in evaluating the stream buffer variance request:

(A) The request will be protective of natural resources and the environment as would a plan

which met the strict application of these requirements. In making such a judgment, the

Board shall examine whether the request will be at least as protective of the natural

resources and the environment with regard to the following factors:

1. Stream bank or soil stabilization;

2. Trapping of sediment in surface runoff;

3. Removal of nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides and other pollutants from surface runoff;

4. Terrestrial habitat, food chain, and migration corridor;

5. Buffering of flood flows; and

6. Infiltration of surface runoff.

Staff Comment:

According to the stream buffer variance requested, the applicant proposes a robust mitigation

plan that will enhance the environment. The proposed mitigation plan will provide replanting of

indigenous, native plantings along the stream.

(B) By reason of exceptional topographic or other relevant physical conditions of the subject

property that were not created by the owner or applicant, there is no opportunity for any

development under any design configuration unless a variance is granted.

Staff Comment:

The creek and 75-foot stream buffer are relevant physical conditions that exist on the subject

property. The location of these physical elements were not created by the owner or applicant.

Additionally, the lot appears narrow in shape and the 75-foot stream buffer encompasses the

majority of the rear yard on lot 11. A design such as plan “A” could be constructed on the

property with minimal intrusion into the stream buffer.

E.2.a

Packet Pg. 91

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

19 S

taff

mem

o (

1373

: Z

BA

14-1

9: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d R

edu

ce S

ide

(C) The request does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief and does not

constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other

properties that are similarly situated.

Staff Comment:

The requested variance to encroach into the stream buffer for both plans do not appear to go

beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief and would not constitute a grant of special

privilege. The proposed encroachment would allow for a house to be constructed comparable to

neighboring properties.

(D) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or

injurious to the property or improvements in the area in which the property is located.

Staff Comment:

Staff would recognize that the subject property presents environmental challenges associated with

the stream buffer. Given appropriate mitigation and recommended conditions, granting a variance

to the stream buffer would not appear to be detrimental to the public welfare of the area.

(E) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements

of Chapter 14 would cause an extreme hardship, provided the hardship was not created by

the owner.

Staff Comment:

The literal interpretation and strict application of the stream buffer ordinance appears to cause

hardship to the applicant due to the relevant physical conditions applied by the stream buffer and

shape of the lot. Plan “A” proposes a minimal encroachment of 14.0 feet into the stream buffer;

Wherein, Plan “B would require a 25-foot encroachment into the stream buffer, but would not

require an additional variance to reduce the side yard setback and be in keeping with the design

and form of existing dwellings in the area.

CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE BOARD IN REGARDS TO SETBACK

REQUIREMENTS

The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should be

made under the terms of the following criteria, found in the City Zoning Ordinance: No relief may

be granted or action taken under the terms of this division unless such relief can be granted without

substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the intent and

purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan text. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall apply

the following criteria to the types of applications specified below as follows:



(1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of

exceptional topographic conditions, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the

strict application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights

and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district;

E.2.a

Packet Pg. 92

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

19 S

taff

mem

o (

1373

: Z

BA

14-1

9: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d R

edu

ce S

ide

Staff Comment:

The proposed building footprint for Plan “A” would require an encroachment into the side yard

setback. The strict application of the requirements of this chapter under Plan “A,” may not

deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same

zoning district, as Plan “B” would show an alternative building envelope that would comply with

the required side yard setback.

(2) The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does

not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in

the zoning district in which the subject property is located;

Staff Comment:

The requested variance to reduce the side yard setback (Plan “A”) appears to go beyond the

minimum necessary to afford relief and may grant a special privilege inconsistent with other

properties within the zoning district. Although both plans would require an encroachment into

the stream buffer, Plan “B” does not require a variance to reduce the site yard setback.

(3) The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious

to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located;

Staff Comment:

The granting of this variance request to reduce the side yard setback under Plan “A” maybe

materially detrimental to the public welfare in that there appears a sizable home could be built

within the established building envelope. In addition, the reduction in the side yard setback may

negatively impact the neighboring properties.

(4) The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of

this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, not merely impose a

casual/discretionary inconvenience upon the applicant or his/her assigns; and

Staff Comment:

The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions of this chapter may

not cause undue or unnecessary hardship to the applicant but may merely impose an

inconvenience as a building footprint in compliance with the required side yard setback could be

achieved under Plan “B.”

(5) The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the

DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan text.

Staff Comment:


E.2.a

Packet Pg. 93

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

19 S

taff

mem

o (

1373

: Z

BA

14-1

9: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d R

edu

ce S

ide


Staff recommends the Board vote in favor of the requested variance to reduce the stream buffer

from 75 feet to 50 feet on Lot 11, as proposed under Plan “B.”

Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the requested variance to reduce the side yard setback

from 7.5 feet to 4.0 feet on Lot 11, as proposed under Plan “A.”


1. Development of the subject property shall occur in accordance with Plan “B” submitted

on March 24, 2014 to the Community Development Department.

2. Development on lot shall include practice(s) that will capture 1.2 inches of runoff from

rooftops to be discharged in no less than 24 hours and that facilitates discharge through

infiltration, evaporation, and/or transpiration.

3. Submittal of a stream buffer mitigation plan for approval by the City Arborist at time of

building permit.

E.2.a

Packet Pg. 94

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

19 S

taff

mem

o (

1373

: Z

BA

14-1

9: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d R

edu

ce S

ide

E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 95


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 96


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 97


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 98


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 99


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 100


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 101


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 102


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 103


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 104


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 105


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 106


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 107


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 108


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 109


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 110


E.2

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 111


E.2

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 112

Attachment: ZBA14-19 Site Plan (1373 : ZBA14-19: Drew Clough D.B.A Waterford Homes - Reduce 75'

E.2

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 113


E.2

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 114


E.2

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 115


1

Becky Apter

From: Ben Song

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:26 AM

To: External-Zoning Board of Appeals

Cc: Becky Apter; Susan Canon

Subject: FW: Comment ZBA-18 & ZBA-19

Board members,

Please see below for comment provided by Mr. Porter expressing his opposition to ZBA14-18 and ZBA14-19.

Thank you,Ben SongDeputy Director of Community DevelopmentCity of Brookhaven | www.brookhavenga.govO: 404-637-0536F: 404-637-0537

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). The City of Brookhaven is a public entity subject to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 50-18-70 to 50-18-76 concerning public records. Email is covered under such laws and thus may be subject to disclosure.

From: Thomas Porter, AIA, LEED AP [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 10:40 AMTo: Susan Canon; Ben SongSubject: Comment ZBA-18 & ZBA-19

Ms. Canon & Mr. Song;

Please provide my comments below to all members of the ZBA as park of the packet in advance of the May hearing. Thank you.

Members of the ZBA;

With regard to the two referenced variances for stream buffer encroachment & side yard reductions, please enter my strong opposition to both and note:

I TOLD YOU SO!

This property was legally conforming R-75 zoning before waiver of lot merger was approved two hearings ago. By the applicant’s own writing it was merged not by the County but rather by his relative for monetary gain, it was/is as I argued “unbuildable” as two lots. Mr. Nama asked Mr. Song what the buildable area was and the response was “approx. 30’ x 60’” (see video), which, is a misleading response. I am guessing the staff recommendation is approval... again.

This neighborhood is under siege, the stream buffer has been in place for a decade or more, when do current residents get the benefit of ordinances they thought were in-place & would be upheld? If not when a property changes ownership then, when exactly?

The waiver of lot merger was a sham by a “ol’ fella that just wanted to sell the property for his family”, no sale signs have gone up since well before that waiver approval and now you have a “new owner” and new variance requests which couldn’t have been combined because an applicant can’t create a hardship. It was orchestrated by the builder/purchaser before the waiver, it makes a mockery of the ordinances, and, unfortunately, a mockery of the purpose of the ZBA.

E.2.d

Packet Pg. 116

Att

ach

men

t: F

W C

om

men

t Z

BA

-18

ZB

A-1

9 (

1373

: Z

BA

14-1

9: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d

2

I implore you to deny these variances. Brookhaven Fields is a popular neighborhood because it is a “quirky mix” of all different types, styles and sizes of homes as I have heard many say . Granting every builder the right to build commensurate size houses will ruin the character of this neighborhood & most importantly, the environment.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thomas Porter, AIA, LEED® APwww.thomasporter.net

mob: 404.844.7959

E.2.d

Packet Pg. 117

Att

ach

men

t: F

W C

om

men

t Z

BA

-18

ZB

A-1

9 (

1373

: Z

BA

14-1

9: D

rew

Clo

ug

h D

.B.A

Wat

erfo

rd H

om

es -

Red

uce

75'

Str

eam

Bu

ffer

to

50'

an

d

MEMORANDUM





ZBA14-20: Caliber Brookhaven, LLC - to Eliminate the Requirement for a Single Loading

Space; to Allow a Curb Cut on Peachtree Road; to Allow an ATM as an Accessory Structure and

to Vary from 27-728.15.7(A) and 27.728.15.12(F)(3); and to Allow for an Additional Ground

Sign (Chapter 21) - 4260 Peachtree Road




ATTACHMENTS:

ZBA 14-20 Staff memo_revised (PDF)

ZBA14-20 Full application (PDF)

ZBA14-20 Revised Site Plan (PDF)

ZBA14-20 Site Plan_ATM (PDF)

E.3

Packet Pg. 118

Case: ZBA14-20

Location: 4260 Peachtree Road

Tax Parcel # 18-241-03-015

Property Owner: George Menzoian

Applicant: Caliber Brookhaven, LLC

Request: To eliminate the requirement for a single loading space (Section 27-

755(b)(2)); to allow a curb cut on Peachtree Road (Section 27-

728.15.12 (d)(3)); to allow an ATM as an accessory structure (Section

27-731(d)) and to vary from Sections 27-728.15.7(a) and

27.728.15.12(f)(3); and to allow for an additional ground sign

(Chapter 21)

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting six variances associated with this case as noted:

1. Loading space – Section 27-755(b)(2) - Retail uses including all first floor

nonresidential uses with a gross floor area of less than twenty thousand (20,000) square

feet, and all wholesale and light industrial operations with a gross floor area of less than

ten thousand (10,000) square feet shall provide one (1) loading space.

Variance request: Eliminate requirement for a single loading space

2. Access/curb cuts – 27-728.15.12(d)(3) - All parking shall be accessed via shared alleys

or private drives. No curb cuts shall be allowed on primary streets (Peachtree Road and

Apple Valley Road) if the development is accessible by another street. If an existing block

face on a primary street exceeds seven-hundred (700) linear feet, then one (1) curb cut

per seven-hundred (700) linear feet is allowed. If a development is accessible from more

than one (1) secondary or tertiary street (Dresden Drive, North Druid Hills Road,

Hermance Drive, Ashford-Dunwoody Road, Lanier Drive, Osborne Road and

Brookhaven Place), the development shall be limited to one (1) curb cut per block face. If

a development is only accessible from one (1) street, the development is limited to two (2)

curb cuts on that street.

Variance request: To allow a full access curb cut on Peachtree Road

3. ATM as an accessory structure – 27-731(d) - No accessory building or structure in a

nonresidential district shall be used by other than employees of the owner, lessee or

tenant of the premises, unless otherwise allowed by provisions of this chapter.

Variance request: Allow for an accessory drive-up ATM kiosk

4. Architectural design requirements – 27-728.15.7(a) - Allowable building materials

shall include brick, stone, wood, architectural metal siding, and fiber cement siding.

Building facades that are visible from primary roadways (Peachtree Road, Apple Valley

Road) and secondary roadways (Dresden Drive, North Druid hills Road, Hermance

Drive, Ashford-Dunwoody Road, Lanier Drive, Osborne Drive, or Brookhaven Place)

E.3.a

Packet Pg. 119

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

20 S

taff

mem

o_r

evis

ed (

1374

: Z

BA

14-2

0: C

alib

er B

roo

khav

en, L

LC

- t

o E

limin

ate

the

Req

uir

emen

t fo

r a

Sin

gle

Lo

adin

g

should predominantly use brick and stone. The following building materials shall be

prohibited: vinyl siding, exposed concrete block or concrete masonry units, exposed

plywood, plastic or PVC, and synthetic stucco or EIFS.

Variance request: To eliminate building materials requirement for the proposed ATM

kiosk

5. Development standards (Building height) – 27-728.15.12(f)(3) – All buildings within

the Peachtree-Brookhaven Overlay District shall be a minimum of two (2) stories tall and

twenty-eight (28) feet in height.

Variance request: To eliminate the two-story requirement for the ATM kiosk

6. Ground sign – 21-20(c) - No property zoned for non-residential use may have more than

one (1) ground sign that is oriented towards travelers along the same street.

Variance request: To allow a 19-foot tall ground sign for identification of the proposed

ATM kiosk


The subject property is a vacant gas station located at the southwest corner of Kendrick Road and

Peachtree Road. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and redevelop the

site into a two-story building. The first level proposes 2,500 square feet for a financial institution

and 2,500 square feet for retail use. The second level is proposed to be occupied by 5,000 square

feet of office space. The subject property containing 0.617 acres is zoned C-1 (Local

Commercial District) and located in the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District. The applicant

proposes to maintain the existing curb cut on Kendrick Road and relocate the existing curb cut

on Peachtree Road closer towards the southern property line. Based on the submitted site plan,

the site has approximately 136.91 feet of frontage along Peachtree Road and 169.46 feet of

frontage along Kendrick Road. The proposed building will observe zero lot lines from all

property lines and is proposed to be constructed predominantly of brick. A total of thirty-three

(33) parking spaces are proposed for the site.

In addition to the construction of the two-story commercial building, the applicant seeks to

construct a drive-up ATM kiosk in the rear of the site as an accessory to the financial institution.

The drive-up ATM will include as part of its design a 19-foot tall ground sign emblazoned with

the bank logo for identification purposes and an orange canopy. The overlay requires that all

buildings be at minimum two-stories and comply with the building material requirements;

however, the proposed ATM will not comply with both requirements.

Lastly, regarding the proposed ground sign as part of the ATM kiosk, the applicant has identified

a monument sign along Peachtree Road as shown on the submitted site plan. The ground sign

associated with the ATM appears to be oriented towards Peachtree Road and therefore, is

required to apply for this variance as two ground signs are proposed to be oriented toward

travelers along the same street.




E.3.a

Packet Pg. 120

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

20 S

taff

mem

o_r

evis

ed (

1374

: Z

BA

14-2

0: C

alib

er B

roo

khav

en, L

LC

- t

o E

limin

ate

the

Req

uir

emen

t fo

r a

Sin

gle

Lo

adin

g











zoning district;

Staff Comment:

There are no issues associated with the subject property relating to shape of the lot or

topography. However, strict application of the requirements of this chapter related to

loading space and relocation of the curb cut on Peachtree Road would deprive the


zoning district. Based on the submitted site plan, retail use would only occupy one-fourth

of the proposed building with the remaining portions of the building occupied by office

use or a bank. The subject property currently exists with a full access drive on Peachtree

Road and the applicant seeks to relocate the access point further away from the

intersection with Kendrick Road.




Staff Comment:

The requested variances related to the proposed drive-up ATM kiosk would go beyond

the minimum necessary to afford relief. Varying from Sections 27-728.15.7(a) and 27-

728.15.12(f)(3), and allowing for an ATM kiosk with a 19-foot tall sign to be located in

the rear of the property would grant a special privilege inconsistent with limitation upon

other properties, and further detract from the purpose and intent of the Brookhaven-

Peachtree Overlay District in promoting walkability and pedestrian access. An

alternative ATM location could be provided inside or along the exterior wall of the bank

for better access for pedestrians.




Staff Comment:

With the exception of variances related to the proposed drive-up ATM kiosk - Sections

27-728.15.7(a) and 27-728.15.12(f)(3), allowing an ATM kiosk as an accessory structure,

and a 19-foot tall ground sign for the purpose of identification of the ATM in the rear of

E.3.a

Packet Pg. 121

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

20 S

taff

mem

o_r

evis

ed (

1374

: Z

BA

14-2

0: C

alib

er B

roo

khav

en, L

LC

- t

o E

limin

ate

the

Req

uir

emen

t fo

r a

Sin

gle

Lo

adin

g

the site; granting of the other two variances would not appear to be detrimental to the

public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zoning district as these

variances would not stray overwhelmingly from the intent and vision of the overlay. It is

the opinion of staff, however, that the proposed curb cut on Peachtree Road be limited to

a right-in and right-out only access to minimize traffic impacts associated with the

intersection of Kendrick Road and Peachtree Road.

The proposed drive-up ATM kiosk may be additionally detrimental to the public welfare

as the subject property abuts residential uses to the west and may adversely impact the

existing residential use with the visibility of a 19-foot tall sign and with the increase in

vehicular traffic on the site with a 24-hour available ATM kiosk.




Staff Comment:

The literal interpretation and strict application of provisions to loading space (Section 27-

755(b)(2) and access (Section 27-728.15.12(d)(3)) could be considered as hardships since

the full vision and utility of the design would not be realized without granting of variances.

The variances related to the proposed drive-up ATM kiosk - Sections 27-728.15.7(a) and

27-728.15.12(f)(3), allowing an ATM kiosk as an accessory structure, and a 19-foot tall

ground sign for the purpose of identification of the ATM; however, do not appear to be

hardships. Allowing for a drive-up ATM would promote vehicular usage over pedestrian

accessibility. Furthermore, the design standards established for the Brookhaven-Peachtree

Overlay District would discourage the implementation of drive-up facilities and instead

promotes the design and arrangement of structures, buildings, streets, and open spaces to

create an inviting, walkable, mid-rise, human-scale environment.



Staff Comment:

With the exception of variances related to the drive-up ATM kiosk, the remaining

variances would be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and

Comprehensive Plan.


1. Variance to loading space – Section 27-755(b)(2)

Request: Eliminate requirement for a single loading space.

Recommendation: Approval

2. Variance to access/curb cut – 27-728.15.12(d)(3) Request: To allow a full access curb cut on Peachtree Road

E.3.a

Packet Pg. 122

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

20 S

taff

mem

o_r

evis

ed (

1374

: Z

BA

14-2

0: C

alib

er B

roo

khav

en, L

LC

- t

o E

limin

ate

the

Req

uir

emen

t fo

r a

Sin

gle

Lo

adin

g

Recommendation: Approval for a right-in and right-out only curb cut

3. Variance to allow an ATM as an accessory structure – 27-731(d) Request: Allow for an accessory drive-up ATM kiosk.

Recommendation: Denial

4. Variance to architectural design requirements – 27-728.15.7(a) Request: To eliminate building materials requirement for the proposed ATM kiosk.


5. Variance to development standards (Building height) – 27-728.15.12(f)(3) Request: To eliminate the two-story requirement for the ATM kiosk.


6. Variance to Ground sign – 21-20(c) Request: To allow a 19-foot tall ground sign for identification of the proposed ATM

kiosk.



1. Development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted on April

17, 2014 to the Community Development Department.

2. Owner/developer shall provide an access easement on the subject property to allow for

future interparcel access with the adjacent parcel to the south.

3. The curb-cut on Peachtree Road shall be limited to a right-in and right-out drive only, and

the owner/developer must obtain a Driveway Permit from GDOT.

E.3.a

Packet Pg. 123

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

20 S

taff

mem

o_r

evis

ed (

1374

: Z

BA

14-2

0: C

alib

er B

roo

khav

en, L

LC

- t

o E

limin

ate

the

Req

uir

emen

t fo

r a

Sin

gle

Lo

adin

g

E.3.b

Packet Pg. 124

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-2

0 F

ull

app

licat

ion

(13

74 :

ZB

A14

-20:

Cal

iber

Bro

okh

aven

, LL

C -

to

Elim

inat

e th

e R

equ

irem

ent

for

a S

ing

le L

oad

ing

Sp

ace;

E.3.b

Packet Pg. 125

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-2

0 F

ull

app

licat

ion

(13

74 :

ZB

A14

-20:

Cal

iber

Bro

okh

aven

, LL

C -

to

Elim

inat

e th

e R

equ

irem

ent

for

a S

ing

le L

oad

ing

Sp

ace;

E.3.b

Packet Pg. 126

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-2

0 F

ull

app

licat

ion

(13

74 :

ZB

A14

-20:

Cal

iber

Bro

okh

aven

, LL

C -

to

Elim

inat

e th

e R

equ

irem

ent

for

a S

ing

le L

oad

ing

Sp

ace;

E.3.b

Packet Pg. 127

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-2

0 F

ull

app

licat

ion

(13

74 :

ZB

A14

-20:

Cal

iber

Bro

okh

aven

, LL

C -

to

Elim

inat

e th

e R

equ

irem

ent

for

a S

ing

le L

oad

ing

Sp

ace;

E.3.b

Packet Pg. 128

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-2

0 F

ull

app

licat

ion

(13

74 :

ZB

A14

-20:

Cal

iber

Bro

okh

aven

, LL

C -

to

Elim

inat

e th

e R

equ

irem

ent

for

a S

ing

le L

oad

ing

Sp

ace;

E.3.b

Packet Pg. 129

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-2

0 F

ull

app

licat

ion

(13

74 :

ZB

A14

-20:

Cal

iber

Bro

okh

aven

, LL

C -

to

Elim

inat

e th

e R

equ

irem

ent

for

a S

ing

le L

oad

ing

Sp

ace;

E.3.b

Packet Pg. 130

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-2

0 F

ull

app

licat

ion

(13

74 :

ZB

A14

-20:

Cal

iber

Bro

okh

aven

, LL

C -

to

Elim

inat

e th

e R

equ

irem

ent

for

a S

ing

le L

oad

ing

Sp

ace;

E.3.b

Packet Pg. 131

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-2

0 F

ull

app

licat

ion

(13

74 :

ZB

A14

-20:

Cal

iber

Bro

okh

aven

, LL

C -

to

Elim

inat

e th

e R

equ

irem

ent

for

a S

ing

le L

oad

ing

Sp

ace;

E.3

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 132

Attachment: ZBA14-20 Full application (1374 : ZBA14-20: Caliber Brookhaven, LLC - to Eliminate the

E.3

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 133


E.3

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 134


E.3

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 135


E.3

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 136


E.3

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 137


E.3

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 138

Attachment: ZBA14-20 Full application (1374 : ZBA14-20: Caliber Brookhaven, LLC - to Eliminate the Requirement for a Single Loading Space; to Allo)

E.3

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 139

Attachment: ZBA14-20 Revised Site Plan (1374 : ZBA14-20: Caliber Brookhaven, LLC - to Eliminate the Requirement for a Single Loading Space; to Allo)

E.3

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 140

Attachment: ZBA14-20 Revised Site Plan (1374 : ZBA14-20: Caliber Brookhaven, LLC - to Eliminate the Requirement for a Single Loading Space; to Allo)

E.3

.d

Pac

ket

Pg

. 141

Attachment: ZBA14-20 Site Plan_ATM (1374 : ZBA14-20: Caliber Brookhaven, LLC - to Eliminate the Requirement for a Single Loading Space; to Allo)

MEMORANDUM





ZBA14-21: David Bennett -Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 50% to Build a Swimming Pool

and Associated Pool Deck - 1013 Pine Grove




ATTACHMENTS:




ZBA14-21 pic (PDF)

E.4

Packet Pg. 142

Case: ZBA14-21

Location: 1013 Pine Grove Avenue, Brookhaven, GA 30319

Tax Parcel # 18-200-04-030

Property Owner: Brad Lewis

Applicant: David Bennett

Request: Increase the lot coverage from 35% to 50%

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the lot coverage from 35% to 50% to allow the

development of a swimming pool.

SITE PLAN AND SITE ANALYSIS The subject property is located at the west end of Pine Grove Avenue just south of its

intersection at Standard Drive NE. The property is zoned R-75 (Single-Family Residential

District) wherein the district requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet and 75 feet of street

frontage. Under the district requirements, the property is viewed as a legal non-conforming lot

of record as it totals 0.212 acres (9,125 square feet) and has 50 feet of street frontage. It should

be noted that many of the nearby lots are also legal non-conforming as they were originally

platted with 50 foot frontages. Currently the property contains a two-story brick home that was

constructed in 2004. As it exists today, the lot coverage stands at approximately 39%.

CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE BOARD The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should












zoning district;

Staff Comment:

The lot appears to be narrow; however, the strict application of requirements concerning

lot coverage would not appear to deprive the property owner of rights and privileges

enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district as the proposed lot

coverage appears to be greater than other R-75 zoned lots in the neighborhood. As

noted, the coverage on the lot already exceeds the 35% lot coverage requirement at 39%.

E.4.a

Packet Pg. 143

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

21 S

taff

mem

o (

1375

: Z

BA

14-2

1: D

avid

Ben

net

t -

Incr

ease

Lo

t C

ove

rag

e fr

om

35%

to

50%

to

Bu

ild a

Sw

imm

ing

Po

ol a

nd




Staff Comment:

The requested variance does not appear to go beyond the minimum necessary to afford

relief but would appear to grant a special privilege inconsistent with lot coverage placed

upon other properties in the same district.

(3) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or



Staff Comment:

Due to the potential for greater storm water run-off, granting the requested variance may

be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property and surrounding area.

Additionally, the pool may impact critical root zones of trees found on the neighboring

properties.




Staff Comment:

It appears that the literal interpretation and strict application of the requirements of the

chapter may merely impose an inconvenience to the applicant as they would be unable to

construct a pool in their back yard.



Staff Comment:



Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the application.

Should the Board vote in favor of the request to increase the lot coverage from 35% to 50% staff

recommends the following conditions:

1. Development of the subject property shall occur in accordance with the site plan


E.4.a

Packet Pg. 144

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

21 S

taff

mem

o (

1375

: Z

BA

14-2

1: D

avid

Ben

net

t -

Incr

ease

Lo

t C

ove

rag

e fr

om

35%

to

50%

to

Bu

ild a

Sw

imm

ing

Po

ol a

nd

2. Construction of new pool and deck shall include practice(s) that will capture 1.2 inches of

runoff from new impervious surfaces and that facilitates discharge through infiltration,

evaporation, and/or transpiration.

E.4.a

Packet Pg. 145

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

21 S

taff

mem

o (

1375

: Z

BA

14-2

1: D

avid

Ben

net

t -

Incr

ease

Lo

t C

ove

rag

e fr

om

35%

to

50%

to

Bu

ild a

Sw

imm

ing

Po

ol a

nd

E.4

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 146

Attachment: ZBA14-21 Application (1375 : ZBA14-21: David Bennett - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to

E.4

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 147


E.4

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 148


E.4

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 149


E.4

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 150


E.4

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 151


E.4

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 152


E.4

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 153


E.4

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 154

Attachment: ZBA14-21 Site Plan (1375 : ZBA14-21: David Bennett - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 50% to Build a Swimming Pool and Associa)

E.4

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 155

Attachment: ZBA14-21 Site Plan (1375 : ZBA14-21: David Bennett - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 50% to Build a Swimming Pool and Associa)

E.4

.d

Pac

ket

Pg

. 156

Attachment: ZBA14-21 pic (1375 : ZBA14-21: David Bennett - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 50% to Build a Swimming Pool and Associa)

MEMORANDUM





ZBA14-22: Vance Dover -Reduce the Accessory Structure Setback from 10' to 7.5' and Increase

Lot Coverage from 35% to 47.3% to Build a Swimming Pool and Associated Pool Deck - 1175

Pinegrove Avenue

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: Please see the attached files.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please see the attached files.

ATTACHMENTS:




E.5

Packet Pg. 157

Case: ZBA14-22

Location: 1175 Pine Grove Avenue, Brookhaven, GA 30319

Tax Parcel # 18-200-07-061

Property Owner: Martin and Kim Neary

Applicant: Vance Dover

Request: Increase the lot coverage from 35% to 47.3% and reduce the setback

of an accessory structure (pool) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet along both side

yards.

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting the following variances to construct a swimming pool:

To increase the lot coverage from 35% to 47.3%

To reduce the setback of an accessory structure (pool) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet along both

side yards.

SITE PLAN AND SITE ANALYSIS The subject property is an interior lot, located 120 feet east of its intersection with Matthews

Street. The property is zoned R-75 (Single-Family Residential District) wherein the district

requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet and 75 feet of street frontage. Under the district

requirements, the property is viewed as a legal non-conforming lot of record as it totals 0.21

acres (9,169 square feet) and has 48.45 feet of street frontage. It should be noted that many of the

nearby lots are also legal non-conforming as they were originally platted with 50 foot frontages.

Currently the property contains a two-story residence that was constructed in 2006. As it exists

today, the lot coverage stands at approximately 32.1%. With the construction of the pool and

decking, the total lot coverage will increase to 47.3%.













zoning district;

E.5.a

Packet Pg. 158

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

22 S

taff

mem

o (

1376

: Z

BA

14-2

2: V

ance

Do

ver

- R

edu

ce t

he

Acc

esso

ry S

tru

ctu

re S

etb

ack

fro

m 1

0' t

o 7

.5' a

nd

Incr

ease

Lo

t

Staff Comment:

The lot appears to be narrow; however, the strict application of requirements of this

chapter concerning lot coverage would not appear to deprive the property owner of

rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners.




Staff Comment:

The requested variance to the accessory structure setback does not appear to go beyond

the minimum necessary to afford relief as the proposed setback of 7.5 feet would be

consistent with the applicable setback for the principle structure. Based upon the lot

coverage placed upon other properties in the same district, however, the requested

variance to the lot coverage would appear to go beyond the minimum necessary to afford

relief. As such, the request would appear to constitute a grant of a special privilege.




Staff Comment:

Due to the potential for greater storm water run-off, granting the requested variance may

be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property and surrounding area.




Staff Comment:

It appears that the literal interpretation and strict application of the requirements of the

setback and lot coverage may merely impose an inconvenience upon the applicant as they

would be unable to construct a pool in their back yard.



Staff Comment:




E.5.a

Packet Pg. 159

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

22 S

taff

mem

o (

1376

: Z

BA

14-2

2: V

ance

Do

ver

- R

edu

ce t

he

Acc

esso

ry S

tru

ctu

re S

etb

ack

fro

m 1

0' t

o 7

.5' a

nd

Incr

ease

Lo

t

Should the Board vote in favor of the request to increase the lot coverage from 35% to 47.3%

and reduce the setback of an accessory structure (pool) from 10 feet to 7.5 feet along both side

yards staff recommends the following conditions:

1. Development of the subject property shall occur in accordance with the site plan


2. Construction of new pool and deck shall include practice(s) that will capture 1.2 inches of

runoff from new impervious surfaces and that facilitates discharge through infiltration,

evaporation, and/or transpiration.

E.5.a

Packet Pg. 160

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

22 S

taff

mem

o (

1376

: Z

BA

14-2

2: V

ance

Do

ver

- R

edu

ce t

he

Acc

esso

ry S

tru

ctu

re S

etb

ack

fro

m 1

0' t

o 7

.5' a

nd

Incr

ease

Lo

t

E.5

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 161

Attachment: ZBA14-22 Application (1376 : ZBA14-22: Vance Dover - Reduce the Accessory Structure

E.5

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 162


E.5

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 163


E.5

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 164


E.5

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 165


E.5

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 166


E.5

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 167


E.5

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 168


E.5

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 169


E.5

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 170


E.5

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 171

Attachment: ZBA14-22 Site Plan (1376 : ZBA14-22: Vance Dover - Reduce the Accessory Structure

E.5

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 172

Attachment: ZBA14-22 Site Plan (1376 : ZBA14-22: Vance Dover - Reduce the Accessory Structure

MEMORANDUM





ZBA14-23: Adam Williamson - Reduce Average Front Yard Setback from 55.1' to 40' and

Reduce Side Yard Setback from 7.5' to 5.0' to Build a Single Family Home - 2481 Oostanaula

Drive




ATTACHMENTS:




E.6

Packet Pg. 173

Case: ZBA14-23

Location: 2481 Oostanaula Drive

Tax Parcel # 18-238-09 -08

Property Owner: Mark Puckett

Applicant: Adam Williamson

Request: To reduce the average front yard setback from 55.1 feet to 40 feet,

and reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 5.0 feet to build a

single-family home.

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting two variances associated with this case as noted:

Reduce the average front yard setback from 55.1 feet to 40 feet; and

Reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 5.0 feet


The subject property is an interior lot located at the intersection of Etowah Drive and Oostanaula

Drive. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story single-family home with a basement and

front porch. The proposed dwelling size is approximately 2,900 square feet. The lot size is

0.222 acres or 9,675 square feet. The total proposed impervious area would be 35% based upon

the square footage provided in the submitted site plan.


The applicant seeks a variance to a development standard. Consideration of this request should












zoning district;

Staff Comment:

The legal non-conforming lot appears to be narrow in shape. Given the character of the

area, the strict application of the average front yard setback on this property could

E.6.a

Packet Pg. 174

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

23 S

taff

mem

o (

1377

: Z

BA

14-2

3: A

dam

Will

iam

son

- R

edu

ce A

vera

ge

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

fro

m 5

5.1'

to

40'

an

d R

edu

ce

deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in

the same zoning district.

It appears that the narrowness of the lot does not adversely impact the applicant’s

request to reduce the side yard setback as the applicant would have the ability to shift the

proposed residential structure to the south and meet the required side yard setback. The

strict application of the side yard setback would not deprive the property owner of rights

and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district.




Staff Comment:

The requested variance to reduce the average front yard setback does not go beyond the

minimum necessary to afford relief and would not constitute a grant of special privilege

as the proposed residence will be constructed within the general area of the existing

home and maintain the same front yard setback.

The requested variance to reduce the side yard setback appears to go beyond the

minimum necessary to afford relief to the applicant. There appears to be ample room on

the southern side of the property to expand the single-family home and allow a driveway

in compliance with the required side yard setback.




Staff Comment:

The front yard setback as requested for the new residence will be the same as the existing

home and granting of the variances will not be materially detrimental to the public

welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the

subject property is located. However, allowing for the reduction in the side yard setback

would locate the proposed residence closer to the adjacent property to the north and may

adversely impact the neighbor that currently occupies a single-story dwelling.




Staff Comment:

The literal interpretation and strict application to reduce the average front yard set

setback may cause undue and unnecessary hardship to the applicant. Requiring the

average setback would set the proposed home further back than the current location of

the home and may adversely impact existing vegetation in the rear yard.

E.6.a

Packet Pg. 175

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

23 S

taff

mem

o (

1377

: Z

BA

14-2

3: A

dam

Will

iam

son

- R

edu

ce A

vera

ge

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

fro

m 5

5.1'

to

40'

an

d R

edu

ce

The literal interpretation and strict application to reduce the side yard setback may not

cause undue and unnecessary hardship. The applicant could expand the home on the

southern side of the property and comply with the minimum side setback requirement.



Staff Comment:

The requested variances have no impact on the terms of the Comprehensive Plan.


Staff recommends the Board vote in favor of the variance request to reduce the average front

yard setback from 55.1 feet to 40.0 feet.

Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the variance request to reduce the side yard setback

from 7.5 feet to 5.0 feet.

The following condition is recommended:

1. The development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted on

March 17, 2014 to Community Development Department.

E.6.a

Packet Pg. 176

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

23 S

taff

mem

o (

1377

: Z

BA

14-2

3: A

dam

Will

iam

son

- R

edu

ce A

vera

ge

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

fro

m 5

5.1'

to

40'

an

d R

edu

ce

E.6

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 177

Attachment: ZBA14-23 Application (1377 : ZBA14-23: Adam Williamson - Reduce Average Front Yard

E.6

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 178


E.6

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 179


E.6

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 180


E.6

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 181


E.6

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 182


E.6

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 183


E.6

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 184


E.6

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 185

Attachment: ZBA14-23 Site Plan (1377 : ZBA14-23: Adam Williamson - Reduce Average Front Yard Setback from 55.1' to 40' and Reduce Side)

E.6

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 186

Attachment: ZBA14-23 Site Plan (1377 : ZBA14-23: Adam Williamson - Reduce Average Front Yard Setback from 55.1' to 40' and Reduce Side)

MEMORANDUM





ZBA14-24: Michael Field - Reduce the Front Yard Setback Along Sunland Drive from 30' to 9.5

Feet, Reduce the Side Yard Setback from 7.5' to 4.0' and Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to

43% - 2599 Apple Valley Road




ATTACHMENTS:


ZBA14-24 Application (2) (PDF)


Neighborhood letters (PDF)

Elliot-OConnor letter (PDF)

E.7

Packet Pg. 187

Case: ZBA14-24

Location: 2599 Apple Valley Road, Brookhaven, GA 30319

Tax Parcel # 18-241-08-034

Property Owner: Ashford Park Group, LLC

Applicant: Michael Field

Request: Increase lot coverage from 35% to 43%, reduce the front yard

setback along Sunland Drive from 30 feet to 9.5 feet, and reduce the

side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4 feet.

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting three variances associated with this case as noted:

Increase the lot coverage from 35% to 43%.

Reduce the front yard setback along Sunland Drive from 30 feet to 9.5 feet.

Reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4 feet.

SITE PLAN AND SITE ANALYSIS The subject property is an infill lot, located at the corner of Apple Valley Road and Sunland

Drive. The property is zoned R-75 (Single Family Residential District) wherein the district

requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet in lot size and 75 feet of street frontage. Under the

district requirements, the property (as platted) is a legal non-conforming lot of record as it totals

0.148 acres (6,450 square feet) and has 45.64 feet of street frontage along Apple Valley Road.

However, staff would note that only a select few of existing lots in the area conform to the R-75

zoning district standards for frontage and lot size, as typical lots are 50 feet by 150 feet or

approximately 7,500 square feet in size. The subject property is adjacent to R-75 lots to the

north, south and east. The Department would note that the subject site is located within sub-area

2 of the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District.














zoning district;

E.7.a

Packet Pg. 188

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

24 S

taff

mem

o (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

Staff Comment:

The strict application of the 35 percent lot coverage requirement may appear to deprive

the property owner of constructing a home of similar size and form with existing homes

along Apple Valley Road. Lots within the area exhibit narrow shaped lots with lot

frontages of 50 feet. However, increasing lot coverage to 43% would not be appropriate

as alternative design for a smaller or pervious driveway could be constructed. Staff

would note that the applicant met before the Zoning Board of Appeals in February

concerning the lot coverage on the adjoining property to the north, located at 2603 Apple

Valley. The Board granted approval to increase the lot coverage from 35% to 37%,

taking into consideration the relative size of the subject property in comparison with

larger lots, averaging 7,100 square feet, fronting on Apple Valley Road. The same

rational would apply to this request. Therefore, an increase to 37% lot coverage may be

appropriate to construct a residence on the subject property.

As evidenced by the submitted site plan, due to the narrowness and size of the lot, the

strict application of two front yard setbacks and interior side yard would deprive the

property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by adjacent property owners. It should

be noted that the requested reduction of the setback along Sunland Drive from 30 feet to

9.5 feet appears to be consistent to other corner lots in the neighborhood.




Staff Comment:

The requested variances to the setbacks appear to be the minimum necessary to afford

relief to build a 30 foot wide home on the lot. The request does not appear to be a

special privilege, as a similar request for reduction to a street side yard setback was

approved in 2007 by DeKalb County (A-07-13279) for 2635 Apple Valley Road (a corner

lot), allowing for the reduction in setback along Oaklawn Avenue from 30 feet to 7.5 feet.

The staff would note that the approval was granted on the basis that the requested

setback reduction was consistent with the interior side yard setback required by the R-75

zoning district and exhibited by adjacent properties.

The request for lot coverage would appear to grant a special privilege that is inconsistent

with the limitations imposed on the neighboring lots. For the applicant to have the ability

to construct a residential dwelling that would be of similar size and form with

neighboring properties, it appears that the minimum needed would be 37% lot coverage,

due to the relevant size of the subject property.




E.7.a

Packet Pg. 189

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

24 S

taff

mem

o (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

Staff Comment:

The request to reduce the setbacks is the minimum necessary to build a home similar in

width as other homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, the grant of the variance would not

appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or

improvements in the zoning district. However, due to the potential for greater storm water

run-off, granting the requested variance for lot coverage as requested may be detrimental

to the public welfare or harmful to the property and surrounding are; therefore, a increase

of lot coverage limited to 37% may be warranted.




Staff Comment:

The strict application of the requirement concerning the 35% lot coverage requirement

may cause undue and unnecessary hardship since it would prevent the applicant from

constructing a home similar in size to nearby lots. As noted, in lieu of the request for 43%

lot coverage, 37% appears to be sufficient to construct a residential dwelling that would

be of similar size and form with neighboring properties, as the applicant could reduce the

length of the home or provide an alternative design for the driveway.

In reviewing the submitted site plan, the limitation imposed by the setbacks would not

allow for construction of a residence that is similar in size and form with neighboring

properties if the required front and side yard setbacks were strictly enforced, limiting the

property to a building envelope of 8 feet by 92 feet. Therefore, it appears that the literal

interpretation and strict application concerning the setback requirements would cause

undue hardship.



Staff Comment:



Staff recommends the Board vote to deny the increase of the lot coverage from 35% to 43% and

substitute in lieu thereof recommend 37% lot coverage.

Staff recommends the Board vote in favor of the reduction of the front yard setback along

Sunland Drive from 30 feet to 9.5 feet and to reduce the interior side yard setback from 7.5 feet

to 4 feet.

The following conditions are recommended:

1. Development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted on March

20, 2014 to the Community Development Department.

E.7.a

Packet Pg. 190

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

24 S

taff

mem

o (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

2. Development on lot shall include practice(s) that will capture 1.2 inches of runoff from

rooftops and that facilitate discharge through infiltration, evaporation, and/or

transpiration.

E.7.a

Packet Pg. 191

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

24 S

taff

mem

o (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 192

Attachment: ZBA14-24 Application (2) (1378 : ZBA14-24: Michael Field - Reduce the Front Yard Setback

E.7

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 193


E.7

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 194


E.7

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 195


E.7

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 196


E.7

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 197


E.7

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 198


E.7

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 199


E.7

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 200


E.7

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 201


E.7

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 202


E.7

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 203

Attachment: ZBA14-24 Site Plan (1378 : ZBA14-24: Michael Field - Reduce the Front Yard Setback Along Sunland Drive from 30' to 9.5 Feet, Re)

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 204

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 205

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 206

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 207

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 208

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 209

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 210

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 211

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 212

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 213

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 214

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 215

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 216

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 217

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 218

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 219

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 220

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 221

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 222

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 223

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 224

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 225

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 226

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 227

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 228

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 229

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 230

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 231

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 232

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 233

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 234

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 235

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 236

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 237

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 238

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 239

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 240

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 241

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 242

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 243

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 244

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 245

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 246

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 247

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 248

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 249

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 250

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 251

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7.d

Packet Pg. 252

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

s (

1378

: Z

BA

14-2

4: M

ich

ael F

ield

- R

edu

ce t

he

Fro

nt

Yar

d S

etb

ack

Alo

ng

Su

nla

nd

Dri

ve f

rom

30'

to

9.5

Fee

t,

E.7

.e

Pac

ket

Pg

. 253

Attachment: Elliot-OConnor letter (1378 : ZBA14-24: Michael Field - Reduce the Front Yard Setback Along

E.7

.e

Pac

ket

Pg

. 254


E.7

.e

Pac

ket

Pg

. 255


E.7

.e

Pac

ket

Pg

. 256


E.7

.e

Pac

ket

Pg

. 257


E.7

.e

Pac

ket

Pg

. 258


E.7

.e

Pac

ket

Pg

. 259


E.7

.e

Pac

ket

Pg

. 260


E.7

.e

Pac

ket

Pg

. 261


MEMORANDUM





ZBA14-25: Carrera Homes - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 36.9% to Build a Swimming

Pool - 2727 North Thompson Road




ATTACHMENTS:




E.8

Packet Pg. 262

E.8

.a

Pac

ket

Pg

. 263

Attachment: ZBA14-25 Application (1379 : ZBA14-25: Carrera Homes - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to

E.8

.a

Pac

ket

Pg

. 264


E.8

.a

Pac

ket

Pg

. 265


E.8

.a

Pac

ket

Pg

. 266


E.8

.a

Pac

ket

Pg

. 267


E.8

.a

Pac

ket

Pg

. 268


E.8

.a

Pac

ket

Pg

. 269


E.8

.a

Pac

ket

Pg

. 270


E.8

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 271

Attachment: ZBA14-25 Site Plan (1379 : ZBA14-25: Carrera Homes - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 36.9% to Build a Swimming Pool)

E.8

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 272

Attachment: ZBA14-25 Site Plan (1379 : ZBA14-25: Carrera Homes - Increase Lot Coverage from 35% to 36.9% to Build a Swimming Pool)

Case: ZBA14-25

Location: 2727 North Thompson Road

Tax Parcel # 18-242-08-06

Property Owner: Cindy and Gary Heusel

Applicant: Carrera Homes

Request: Increase lot coverage from 35% to 36.9% to build a swimming pool

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting a variance to increase lot coverage from 35% to 36.9% to construct a

swimming pool.

SITE PLAN AND SITE ANALYSIS The subject property is an interior lot, located 330 feet east of its intersection with Valvedere

Drive. The property is zoned R-75 (Single-Family Residential District) wherein the district

requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet and 75 feet of street frontage. The applicant proposes

to construct a pool with spa surrounded by sod. The proposed pool and coping, and pool

equipment will total 328 square feet. The total impervious area with the addition of the pool is

proposed to be 36.9%. According to the site plan, no grading will take place for installation and

construction of the swimming pool, as the proposed area of construction has previously been

graded and disturbed in conjunction with the construction of the residential dwelling.













zoning district;

Staff Comment:

The lot does not appear to be narrow or shallow in shape or size. The subject property

does not present exceptional topographic conditions which were not created by the owner

or applicant. The request to increase the maximum lot coverage is based upon

conditions created by the applicant. The strict application of the requirements of this

E.8.c

Packet Pg. 273

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

25 S

taff

mem

o (

1379

: Z

BA

14-2

5: C

arre

ra H

om

es -

Incr

ease

Lo

t C

ove

rag

e fr

om

35%

to

36.

9% t

o B

uild

a S

wim

min

g P

oo

l)

chapter would not deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other

property owners in the same zoning district.




Staff Comment:

The requested variance appears to go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief.

According to the site plan, the proposed location of the swimming pool does not

adequately illustrate compliance with required setbacks for accessory structures of ten

(10) feet from all property lines. The variance request constitutes a grant of special

privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the zoning district in

which the subject property is located, as the site plan would show that alternative design

methods were incorporated to reduce impervious cover to allow for a larger building

footprint, patio area, and detached garage.




Staff Comment:

Due to the potential for increase in storm water run-off, granting the requested variance

may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property and surrounding area.

Additionally, the proposed pool location is in violation of the required setback for an

accessory structure. If this request was to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals,

the applicant will be required to redesign the pool layout in compliance with the required

setback for an accessory structure.




Staff Comment:

According to the applicant’s letter of intent, the design for the garage, landscape design

and house were based upon the pool location. The lot identifies physical conditions

created by the applicant. It appears that the literal interpretation and strict application

of the requirements of the maximum lot coverage would not cause undue and

unnecessary hardship to the applicant.



Staff Comment:


E.8.c

Packet Pg. 274

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

25 S

taff

mem

o (

1379

: Z

BA

14-2

5: C

arre

ra H

om

es -

Incr

ease

Lo

t C

ove

rag

e fr

om

35%

to

36.

9% t

o B

uild

a S

wim

min

g P

oo

l)



E.8.c

Packet Pg. 275

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

25 S

taff

mem

o (

1379

: Z

BA

14-2

5: C

arre

ra H

om

es -

Incr

ease

Lo

t C

ove

rag

e fr

om

35%

to

36.

9% t

o B

uild

a S

wim

min

g P

oo

l)

MEMORANDUM





ZBA14-26: JW Homes, LLC - to Allow a Curb Cut on Peachtree Road for Access to a Proposed

Townhome Development - 3804 & 3770 Peachtree Road



STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

ATTACHMENTS:




Neighborhood letter (PDF)

E.9

Packet Pg. 276

Case: ZBA14-26

Location: 3770 Peachtree Road, Brookhaven, GA 30319

Tax Parcel # 18-239-02-001 and 18-239-02-002

Property Owner: 3804 Peachtree Road, LLC c/o Susan Tomlinson

Applicant: JW Homes, LLC

Request: Variance to section 27-728.15.12(d)(3) to allow a curb cut on

Peachtree Road.

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a curb cut on Peachtree Road.

SITE PLAN AND SITE ANALYSIS The site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Peachtree Road and Bellaire

Drive, adjacent to the city’s western border with the City of Atlanta. The subject property is an

assemblage of two RM-75 (Multi-Family District) zoned lots and is located within sub-area 1 of

the Brookhaven-Peachtree Overlay District (BPOD). Based on the submitted site plan, the

subject property has approximately 378 feet of frontage along Peachtree Road and 270.57 feet of

frontage along Bellaire Drive and totals 2.28 acres. Under the requirements of BPOD, the

applicant plans to construct a 24 townhome development. Currently, the site contains three (3)

two-story apartment buildings, a two-story house, and two accessory garage units.The applicant

seeks to demolish the complex and combine the lots into a single parcel of land to construct the

proposed townhomes.

Currently, the site is accessed by one curb cut on Bellaire Drive and the other off Peachtree Road.

Although the requirements of BPOD restrict curb cuts along Peachtree Road if the property is

accessible by another street, the applicant has requested a curb cut be allowed. Based on the

submitted site plans, the existing curb cut on Peachtree Road will be relocated away from the

intersection closer to the west property line and the curb cut on Bellaire Drive will be removed. In

absence of the Bellaire Drive curb cut, the applicant has proposed a full access entrance on

Peachtree Road. Due to the proximity of the site to Club Drive, which contains a signal, the

proposed drive on Peachtree Road would be an unsignalized driveway. The Department would

note that the applicant must obtain approval from the Georgia Department of Transportation to

locate a curb cut on Peachtree Road, as it is a state route.










E.9.a

Packet Pg. 277

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

26 S

taff

mem

o (

1380

: Z

BA

14-2

6: J

W H

om

es, L

LC

- t

o A

llow

a C

urb

Cu

t o

n P

each

tree

Ro

ad f

or

Acc

ess

to a

Pro

po

sed





zoning district;

Staff Comment:

The subject property takes on a trapezoidal shape; however, the shape and size of the lot

would not appear to deprive or limit the owner’s ability to develop the property.




Staff Comment:

The request for the curb cut along Peachtree Road appears to be the minimum to afford

relief. A curb cut on Peachtree Road is existing, and the proposal would seek to relocate

the access point but will still be limited to one curb cut. Therefore, granting of this

variance would not appear to be a special privilege.




Staff Comment:

Granting of this variance with a condition to allow access off Peachtree Road with a

right-in/right-out curb cut and access to Club Drive from the subject property will

improve circulation of traffic internal to the site and potentially reduce the usage of local

roads to access the subject property.




Staff Comment:

The strict application of the provisions may cause a hardship upon the applicant and in

larger part to the existing residence as use of the local roads may be increased by the

proposed development. Limiting the curb cut to right-in/right-out only with the provision

by the applicant to provide internal access onto Club Drive will further limit the traffic

associated with the proposed development to be concentrated on the subject property and

not burden interior local roads.



Staff Comment:

A request for a curb cut facing Peachtree Road would be consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan.

E.9.a

Packet Pg. 278

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

26 S

taff

mem

o (

1380

: Z

BA

14-2

6: J

W H

om

es, L

LC

- t

o A

llow

a C

urb

Cu

t o

n P

each

tree

Ro

ad f

or

Acc

ess

to a

Pro

po

sed


Staff recommends that the Board vote in favor of this request with the following conditions:

1. Development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted on March

20, 2014, to the Community Development. A revised site plan to include conditions 2

and 3 shall be submitted at time of Land Disturbance Permit.

2. The curb cut on Peachtree Road shall be limited to a right-in and right-out drive only,

and the owner/developer must obtain a driveway permit from GDOT.

3. The owner/developer shall provide interparcel access to the adjacent tract to the west

(located in the City of Atlanta) and full access onto Club Drive.

4. Owner/developer shall submit a combination plat for approval by the Community

Development Department prior to issuance of any building permit related to the

development.

E.9.a

Packet Pg. 279

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

26 S

taff

mem

o (

1380

: Z

BA

14-2

6: J

W H

om

es, L

LC

- t

o A

llow

a C

urb

Cu

t o

n P

each

tree

Ro

ad f

or

Acc

ess

to a

Pro

po

sed

E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 280

Attachment: ZBA14-26 Application (1380 : ZBA14-26: JW Homes, LLC - to Allow a Curb Cut on Peachtree

E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 281


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 282


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 283


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 284


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 285


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 286


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 287


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 288


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 289


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 290


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 291


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 292


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 293


E.9

.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 294


E.9

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 295

Attachment: ZBA14-26 Site Plan (1380 : ZBA14-26: JW Homes, LLC - to Allow a Curb Cut on Peachtree

E.9

.c

Pac

ket

Pg

. 296

Attachment: ZBA14-26 Site Plan (1380 : ZBA14-26: JW Homes, LLC - to Allow a Curb Cut on Peachtree

E.9.d

Packet Pg. 297

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

(13

80 :

ZB

A14

-26:

JW

Ho

mes

, LL

C -

to

Allo

w a

Cu

rb C

ut

on

Pea

chtr

ee R

oad

fo

r A

cces

s to

a P

rop

ose

d

E.9.d

Packet Pg. 298

Att

ach

men

t: N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d le

tter

(13

80 :

ZB

A14

-26:

JW

Ho

mes

, LL

C -

to

Allo

w a

Cu

rb C

ut

on

Pea

chtr

ee R

oad

fo

r A

cces

s to

a P

rop

ose

d

MEMORANDUM





ZBA14-27: Gaddy Surveying & Design Inc. - to Reduce the Average Front Yard Setback from

144.45’ to 85’ to Construct a New Single Family Home - 3188 Saybrook Drive




ATTACHMENTS:


ZBA14-27 Revised Application (PDF)

E.10

Packet Pg. 299

Case: ZBA14-27

Location: 3188 Saybrook Drive, Brookhaven, GA 30319

Tax Parcel # 18-276-18-010

Property Owner: Harold V. Shumacher and Nancy E. Nolan

Applicant: Frank Gaddy – Gaddy Surveying and Design, Inc.

Request: Reduce the average front yard setback from 144.45 feet to 85 feet.

DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting to reduce the average front yard setback from 144.45 feet to 85 feet.

SITE PLAN AND SITE ANALYSIS The subject property is an interior lot, located approximately 800 feet north of its intersection

with Windsor Parkway. The property is zoned R-100 (Single-Family Residential District)

wherein the district requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet and 100 feet of street frontage.

Under the district requirements, the property is viewed as a legal conforming lot of record as it

totals 0.78 acres (33,956 square feet) and has 100.28’ feet of street frontage. Currently the

property contains a one-story single-family residence that was constructed in 1957. The

applicant is proposing to demolish the existing house in order to build a new single-family home.

Staff would note that the proposed residence will be set back 96.6 feet from the front property

line; however, the applicant has requested a setback variance of 85 feet to include the proposed

front entry staircase.













zoning district;

Staff Comment:

The subject property does not exhibit issues related to exceptional narrowness,

shallowness, or shape. However, the site displays challenging topographic conditions

not created by the owner or applicant.

E.10.a

Packet Pg. 300

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

27 S

taff

mem

o (

1381

: Z

BA

14-2

7: G

add

y S

urv

eyin

g &

Des

ign

Inc.

- t

o R

edu

ce t

he

Ave

rag

e F

ron

t Y

ard

Set

bac

k fr

om

144

.45?

Based on the site plan, the neighboring property to the north (3200 Saybrook Drive) is

located 189.6 feet from the right-of-way and the property to the south (3180 Saybrook

Drive) is located 99.3 feet from the right-of-way. By applying setback averaging, the

subject property would be required to be setback 144.5 feet from the right-of-way.

Considering that the proposed residence not including the staircase will be set back

further from the right-of-way that the current home, the strict application of the

requirements of this chapter related to front yard setback averaging would appear to

deprive the property owner of similar privileges enjoyed by nearby properties.




Staff Comment:

The requested variance appears to be the minimum necessary to afford relief and would

not constitute a grant of special privilege, as the new residence will be constructed within

the general area of the existing home.




Staff Comment:

The setback as requested for the new residence will be similar to the existing home, and

granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare.




Staff Comment:

As noted, an average setback of 144.5 feet from the right-of-way would be required under

the literal and strict application of the zoning requirements. Requiring the average

setback would push the home back from its original location approximately 56 additional

feet towards the rear property line. Such placement would appear to result in

unnecessary hardship as seven (7) hardwood trees would be impacted. Additionally, due

to the effect of the stream impacting the property adjacent to the north (3200 Saybrook

Drive), it creates an unnecessary hardship on the subject property by requiring an

average setback that is inconsistent with the existing setback of homes fronting on

Saybrook Drive.



Staff Comment:


E.10.a

Packet Pg. 301

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

27 S

taff

mem

o (

1381

: Z

BA

14-2

7: G

add

y S

urv

eyin

g &

Des

ign

Inc.

- t

o R

edu

ce t

he

Ave

rag

e F

ron

t Y

ard

Set

bac

k fr

om

144

.45?


Staff recommends the Board vote in favor of the requested variance with the following

condition:

1. Development of the lot shall occur in accordance with the site plan submitted April 21,

2014 to the Community Development Department.

E.10.a

Packet Pg. 302

Att

ach

men

t: Z

BA

14-

27 S

taff

mem

o (

1381

: Z

BA

14-2

7: G

add

y S

urv

eyin

g &

Des

ign

Inc.

- t

o R

edu

ce t

he

Ave

rag

e F

ron

t Y

ard

Set

bac

k fr

om

144

.45?

E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 303

Attachment: ZBA14-27 Revised Application (1381 : ZBA14-27: Gaddy Surveying & Design Inc. - to Reduce

E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 304


E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 305


E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 306


E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 307


E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 308


E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 309


E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 310


E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 311


E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 312


E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 313


E.1

0.b

Pac

ket

Pg

. 314


2014-05-20 zoning board of appeals - full agenda-1191

Documents

city of brookhaven page

12l6 peachtree road

rear yard setback

caliber brookhaven

pm page

pm glenn

new single family home

accessory structure