[00:00:04]
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER
[I. Call to Order]
THE CITY OF DECATUR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 12TH, 2024.I AM THE CHAIR OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
IF YOU COULD TAKE A MOMENT AND PLEASE MUTE YOUR DEVICES.
I AM JOINED THIS EVENING BY THREE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.
WE'VE GOT OUR VICE CHAIR, MR. PEANASKY, WE'VE GOT MS. QUILLEN, AND OUR NEWEST MEMBER, SHAWN STAFFORD.
MR. STAFFORD, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
WE ARE MISSING OUR SECRETARY THIS EVENING, MS. MILLER, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS WHEN WE GET TO THE OUTCOME OF THE CASES A LITTLE BIT LATER HERE.
WE ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS, WE ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD.
WE'RE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF DECATUR.
WE HAVE VARIOUS BACKGROUNDS AND PROFESSIONS.
ALL OF US HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MATERIALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE CASES TONIGHT AND VISITED THE PROPERTIES.
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE NAHOM TAYE WITH THE CITY OF DECATUR, WHO STAFFS THIS BOARD.
THANK YOU, NAHOM. WE'RE JOINED BY A COUPLE OF OTHER STAFF THIS EVENING. WOULD YOU MIND INTRODUCING?
>> YES. ON THE COMPUTER, WE HAVE KAY EVANOVICH, OUR LOVELY CITY ARBORIST, WE ALSO HAVE AILEEN DE LA TORRE, A PLANNER WITH THE CITY, AS WELL AS MY MANAGER, [INAUDIBLE] IN THE BACK.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE BOARD.
WE WILL BE FOLLOWING THE AGENDA AS POSTED THIS EVENING.
WHEN WE GET TO ITEM 3, THE PROCESS FOR EACH CASE, I WILL RECOGNIZE THE APPLICANT AND LET THEM PRESENT THE APPLICATION.
WHEN YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, IF YOU COULD STEP TO THE PODIUM, INTRODUCE YOUR NAME AND ADD YOUR ADDRESS.
THAT'LL BE FOLLOWED BY ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT OR OF STAFF ABOUT THE APPLICATION.
ONCE WE'VE GONE THROUGH THAT, I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST AN APPLICATION.
THIS MEETING IS BEING LIVE-STREAMED AND RECORDED, SO AGAIN, PLEASE SPEAK AT THE MIC AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF WITH NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
ALSO, WHEN YOU ARE FINISHED SPEAKING, IF I COULD ASK YOU, THERE IS A SHEET OF PAPER NEXT TO THE PODIUM THERE, WRITE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS THERE, AGAIN, JUST SO THAT WE'VE GOT IT FOR THE RECORD.
ASSUMING WE DON'T HAVE TECHNICAL ISSUES, WHICH WE SOMETIMES DO, WE WILL MOVE TO REMOTE COMMENT, AND THEN ONCE WE HAVE FINISHED THAT, WE'LL HAVE A BOARD CONVERSATION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THIS BOARD HAS TO FIND IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IN ORDER TO APPROVE A VARIANCE.
THOSE CRITERIA CAN BE FOUND IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR EACH CASE.
I USED TO READ IT, BUT IT'S A LOT OF LEGALLY, SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO SKIP OVER THAT.
ONCE WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE WILL TAKE A VOTE AND THERE'S THREE POTENTIAL OUTCOMES.
THE FIRST IS THAT WE CAN VOTE TO APPROVE A VARIANCE SUBJECT TO PLAN SUBMITTED, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ON A VARIANCE.
IF THAT'S THE OUTCOME, IT'S A MINIMUM OF 12 MONTHS BEFORE THE APPLICANT CAN RETURN BEFORE THIS BOARD WITH A SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR VARIANCE.
THEN IF IN THE CONVERSATION, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT COULD TWEAK TO MAKE THE OUTCOME OF THE VARIANCE MORE FAVORABLE, THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE CAN HANDLE THAT.
ONE IS THAT WE WOULD DEFER THE APPLICATION.
THAT WOULD BRING THEM BACK IN FOR WHAT? THAT WOULD BE AT THE OCTOBER MEETING.
>> THAT MEANS YOU'VE GOT A SPECIFIC TIME THAT YOU'RE RETURNING HERE.
ALTERNATELY, WE CAN TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL THE APPLICANT WISHES TO RETURN.
IF WE TABLE IT, THAT RESETS THE CLOCK ON THE VARIANCE, SO YOU'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE APPLICATION PROCESS AND FEE AND EVERYTHING AGAIN.
THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IF THAT DOES COME UP WITH ANY APPLICATION.
BECAUSE WE HAVE FOUR HERE THIS EVENING, WE'RE NORMALLY A FIVE-MEMBER BOARD, IF THERE IS A TIE VOTE ON ANYTHING, THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY DEFER THE ITEM UNTIL OUR OCTOBER MEETING.
WE ARE A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD, WE'RE ORGANIZED UNDER STATE LAW.
DECISIONS MADE BY THIS BOARD DO NOT ADVANCE TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL, THEY'RE FINAL SUBJECT ONLY TO APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT.
ANYTHING ELSE THAT I NEGLECTED TO ADD? WE'LL MOVE INTO ITEM 2A,
[II. Approval of Minutes]
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE MAY 13TH, 2024 MEETING.>> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 2024 MEETING.
>> I'LL SECOND THAT. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE MAY 13TH, 2024 MEETING. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> AYE. ITEM 2B, APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 10TH, 2024 MEETING.
IT HAD ONE CHANGE, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO REQUEST, [LAUGHTER] WHICH IS A VERY MINOR.
[00:05:01]
THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED, SAID THAT I DID, THE CHAIR CAN'T MAKE MOTIONS, PERIOD.CHAIR CAN ONLY SECOND MOTIONS.
ANYONE RECALL WHO MADE THE MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> I WILL TAKE CREDIT. [LAUGHTER].
>> CAN WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE JUNE 10TH MEETING MINUTES INCLUDE THE AMENDMENT THAT MS. QUILLEN MOVED TO ADJOURN? [LAUGHTER]
>> I'LL MOVE TO ADOPT THE JUNE 2024 MEETING MINUTES WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT BOARD MEMBER QUILLEN MOVED TO ADJOURN.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 10TH, 2024. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> CHAIR VOTES AYE. WE'VE GOT MINUTES FOR BOTH THESE MEETINGS. THANK YOU.
WE'RE GOING ON TO ITEM 3A, PAUL REED,
[III. A. Paul Reed, contractor, has applied for a stream buffer variance for the property located at 255 South Columbia Drive, Decatur, GA 30030.]
WHOSE CONTRACTOR HAS APPLIED FOR A STREAM BUFFER VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 255 SOUTH COLUMBIA DRIVE.I WORK FOR PAUL REED FOR 255 SOUTH COLUMBIA DRIVE.
>> DO I SAY NO? [LAUGHTER] YOU COULD STATE YOUR ADDRESS AS WELL AND THEN THE APPLICATION.
>> OKAY. 808 MCKINNEY LANE, DOUGLASVILLE.
>> THE PERMIT IS FOR WE'RE REPLACING IN KIND A SECTION OF DRIVEWAY.
THE VARIANCE IS IT'S WITHIN THE STREAM BUFFER.
IT'S ABOUT 385 SQUARE FEET, I BELIEVE.
WE JUST NEED TO TAKE THAT SECTION OUT AND REPLACE IT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> WHEN YOU REPLACE THE CONCRETE, I ASSUME YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT THAT PART THAT'S STICKING OUT? YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT.
>> IT'S PRETTY BADLY UNDERMINED, SO THERE'S ALMOST NOTHING UNDER THERE.
IT'S ABOUT I WOULD SAY 2-3 FEET OF GAP AND THEN JUST DIRT.
>> RIGHT. I HAVE A PICTURE IF YOU ALL KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT?
>> IT'S JUST RED CLAY UNDERNEATH.
>> THAT IS JUST GOING TO BE EXPOSED RED CLAY.
WHY IS THAT NOT GOING TO ERODE?
>> WE'RE JUST FOCUSED ON THE DRIVEWAY.
WE'RE ACTUALLY PULLING THE DRIVEWAY A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BACK FROM THAT SIDE.
WHERE THE DRIVEWAY USED TO BE, IT USED TO BE ABOUT THREE FEET CLOSER TO THE STREAM, WE'RE PULLING IT BACK ABOUT 2-3 FEET AWAY.
>> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I THINK YOUR REQUIREMENT, AND I DON'T SEE JENNINGS HERE, DID NOT CALL FOR ANYTHING TO SHORE UP THAT BANK OR TO PREVENT EROSION.
>> YEAH, THERE WAS A VAGUE MENTION OF BANK STABILITY [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT SAID, IT ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE BANK STABILITY IMPROVEMENTS OF PREVENTING EROSION BE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENTLY AS PROTECTIVE.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER IT OR IF IT IS CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT.
>> WE CAN WE WOULD DEFER TO THE.
>> THE ANSWER TO THAT IS THAT'S PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
IF IT WAS TO BE GRANTED, THE APPLICANT WOULD STILL HAVE TO SUBMIT ALL OF HIS BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS REQUIRING THAT ENGINEERING REVIEW.
WHATEVER ADJUSTMENTS NEEDS TO BE MADE, WILL BE CORRECTED ON HIS PLAN AND THEN [INAUDIBLE].
THEY HAVE TO STABILIZE, THEY CAN'T LEAVE [OVERLAPPING].
>> EXACTLY. IN THE PAST, WE HAVE APPROVED THINGS SUBJECT TO STABILIZATION OF THE BANK.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
I HAVE A HARD TIME GIVING THAT BECAUSE, IN THE PAST, WE'VE ALSO REQUIRED THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED, AND THAT'S NOT IN HERE.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT OR STAFF?
>> YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THOUGH IS THAT IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE VARIANCE PROCESS, THAT IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE VARIANCE.
>> YES. BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE, THEY ARE ENCROACHING ON AN EXISTING BUFFER AND TO JUST DO THAT WORK, THEY WOULD NEED THE VARIANCE APPROVAL.
>> RIGHT. DOES THAT SATISFY YOU, JOANNA?
>> WHEN THEY GO INTO THE STREAM BED TO DO WHATEVER KIND OF WORK THEY NEED TO DO, WON'T THEY NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT?
>> WE'RE APPROVING WORK IN THE STREAM BUFFER IF WE GRANT THE STREAM VARIANCE.
>> WE'RE JUST SAYING WHATEVER THE CITY [OVERLAPPING].
[00:10:03]
>> FOR THE PROJECT THAT'S SUBMITTED.
>> OKAY. IN THE PAST, WE'VE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY.
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD A CONDITION [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF WE'RE CHANGING HOW WE'RE DOING IT PERMANENTLY, THEN I CAN GET ON BOARD WITH THAT.
I JUST KNOW THE PAST ONES, WE HAVE PUT THAT AS A STIPULATION.
>> I THINK THE QUESTION IS HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT HERE AGAIN IN 10 YEARS ASKING FOR THE SAME THING? IT'S A LITTLE UNCLEAR TO ME, YOU SAID YOU WERE PULLING IT BACK.
I WENT OUT THERE AND I SAW THE PIECES THAT WERE BROKEN OFF.
WHERE EXACTLY IS THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY GOING TO BE IN COMPARISON TO WHERE IT IS NOW?
>> IF YOU WENT OUT THERE IN PERSON, BASICALLY WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE EROSION HAS STOPPED, SO IT'S THAT LAST 20 FOOT OF THE DRIVEWAY.
FROM ABOUT WHERE IT'S CRACKED UP, WE'RE GOING TO JUST SHIFT THE WHOLE THING SLIGHTLY AT THE END.
THERE WAS ABOUT 2-3 FEET OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT HAD COMPLETELY FALLEN IN, IT'LL BE TO ABOUT THERE AND WHATEVER STABILIZATION WE NEED TO DO TO THE BANK, WE CAN DO THAT.
>> HOW WIDE, I GUESS, IS THE DRIVEWAY AT THAT POINT, THAT'S MY QUESTION?
>> I THINK IT WAS ABOUT 16 FEET, 14-16 FEET [OVERLAPPING] OF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> BECAUSE THE DIMENSION MARKED ON THE PLAN IS 14, BUT THAT'S NOT THE WIDEST [OVERLAPPING].
>> FOURTEEN AND THEN 15 WE ON THE WESTERN END.
BECAUSE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS, WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE SO WIDE THERE? WHEN I WAS OUT THERE, IT SEEMED LIKE THERE'S ABOUT 16-18 FEET OF WIDTH THERE NOW.
IF YOU'RE AT THAT CORNER OF THE STAIRS THAT COME DOWN, I STEPPED THAT OFF AND IT'S SEEMED LIKE 16-18 FEET.
YOU'RE SAYING IT'S GOING TO BE PULLED BACK TO 14-15?
>> YEAH. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE BETWEEN THE EXISTING STREAM, THAT IS, BED AS IT IS NOW BUT MORE OR LESS REPLACING IN KIND BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT TOO SHALLOW BECAUSE IT OPENS UP TO A PRETTY WIDE PARKING AREA.
IF YOU MAKE IT TOO NARROW, AND THE EDGE IS RIGHT THERE, IT'LL MAKE IT DANGEROUS TO DRIVE NEXT TO BECAUSE YOU HAVE ABOUT A SIX OR SEVEN-FOOT DROP DOWN TO THE STREAM RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
SO WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT TOO NARROW IN THAT AREA.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE FOR 255 SOUTH COLUMBIA DRIVE?
>> HI. I AM [INAUDIBLE], AND WE'RE THE OWNERS OF 255 SOUTH COLUMBIA DRIVE AND LIVE THERE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AS HE SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE A LITTLE MORE NARROW, BUT WE ALSO DO UNDERSTAND THE EROSION PROBLEM.
WE LIVE ACROSS THE CREEK FROM SIEGER SWANSON SO WE HAVE A GOOD FEEL OF ALL OF THE STUFF.
HE'S ACTUALLY OUR DAUGHTER'S GODFATHER.
HE'S LIKE, HEY, THIS IS A PROBLEM.
THIS IS A PROBLEM. YOU NEED TO DO THIS.
[LAUGHTER] I'M LIKE, THANKS, SIEGER. THE CONES IN OUR DRIVEWAY, THEY'RE STILL FROM SIEGER A YEAR AGO.
BUT OUR PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE NOT USABLE IF WE CAN'T REPAIR THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE THERE'S NO INGRESS AND EGRESS.
WHEN WE FIRST BOUGHT THE HOUSE, WE HAD ASKED FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD A U DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT, AND OF COURSE, THAT'S NOT ALLOWED IN CITY OF DECATUR BECAUSE OF THIS EXACT WORRY DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT WE'D ASKED TO BE ABLE TO REPAIR THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN PARK OUR CAR SOMEWHERE.
WE HAVE KIDS AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF, AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE WORKED HARD TO GET TO THIS POINT THROUGH THE ZONING AND THE PERMIT PROCESS.
OF COURSE, WE'VE TALKED TO JENNINGS BELL AND WE'RE HAPPY TO DO WHATEVER THE CITY OF DECATUR NEEDS US TO DO.
>> ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION AT 255 SOUTH COLUMBIA? ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AGAINST OR SIMPLY HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT? ANY ONLINE COMMENT?
>> WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION.
>> I THINK THAT YOUR QUESTION IN THE PAST, WE'VE MADE MOTIONS TO APPROVE CONDITIONED ON STABILITY AND EROSION MEASURES TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF.
[00:15:04]
OF COURSE, THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT, BUT I JUST THINK IT'S NICE FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD TO HAVE THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE DEFINITELY NEEDING A DRIVEWAY AND REPAIR, AND IT'S SCARY OVER THERE. [LAUGHTER]>> BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO [INAUDIBLE] DRIVE.
>> OH, WOW. [LAUGHTER] REALLY SCARY.
>> I WOULD BE FULLY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. ANY THOUGHTS?
>> NO, I'M FINE WITH THAT. I THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY, LIKE YOU SAID, BUT IT DOESN'T HURT ANYTHING TO ADD IT.
>> ANYONE WANT TO OFFER A PROMOTION?
>> WELL, OKAY. [LAUGHTER] I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AT 255 SOUTH COLUMBIA DRIVE, CONDITIONED ON PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION, I CAN'T FIND THE WORDS, AND BANK STABILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF.
>> WE'VE GOT A MOTION THAT'S BEEN SECONDED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FROM STREAM BUFFER FOR 255 SOUTH COLUMBIA DRIVE, SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED TO PLANS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE SUBMITTED AND FURTHER CONDITIONED UPON STREAM BANK STABILITY AS APPROVED BY STAFF. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> CHAIR VOTES AYE. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT. THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED.
[IV. A. Francisco Reyes, contractor, has applied for a variance from the FAR requirements for the property located at 215 Madison Avenue, Decatur GA, 30030. ]
FRANCISCO REYES HAS APPLIED FOR VARIANCE FROM FAR REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 215 MADISON AVENUE.>> FRANCISCO REYES, CONTRACTOR AT THE PROJECT AT 215 MADISON, WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE FAR TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING ROOF TERRACE THAT'S IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE ON THE THIRD LEVEL.
THAT'S REALLY THE APPLICATION, THE VARIANCE PROPOSAL.
THE CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO ENCLOSE IT TO HAVE A HOME OFFICE AND, HAVE IT AS A USABLE SPACE FOR THEIR HOUSE.
RIGHT NOW IT'S IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE AND IT'S COMPLETELY UNUSED.
WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO INCREASE ANY LOT COVERAGE, JUST ENCLOSING A ROOF TERRACE.
>> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND I THINK YOU ALLUDED TO IT IN YOUR SUBMISSION.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE CURRENT PROPERTY IS OVER FAR ALREADY, IS IT?
>> YEAH. ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF DECATUR RECORDS.
IT'S AT JUST OVER 2,500, AND THAT WAS FROM USING A PERMIT APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED, I DON'T KNOW, THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S GOING BASED OFF THOSE NUMBERS.
I HAVEN'T GONE CALCULATED THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOME. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT IT'S USING THOSE NUMBERS FROM THAT PREVIOUS APPLICATION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH. I THINK YOU HAD SAID SOMETHING LIKE AN INCREASE OF 0.03, SO THAT WOULD IMPLY IT'S 0.43 RIGHT NOW. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, SO I APPRECIATED THAT THERE WERE LETTERS FROM SEVERAL NEIGHBORS ON MADISON, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND ON MELLRICH?
>> I AM NOT AWARE OF. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MY CLIENT'S HERE, ETHAN, YOU MAY BE BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
>> NO. THERE WASN'T A DISCUSSION WITH THEM BUT THERE'S SOME TREES [INAUDIBLE]. [OVERLAPPING]
>> RIGHT. I WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY AND SAW BECAUSE IN THEORY, THEY WOULD BE THE ONES MOST AFFECTED BY IT, I GUESS. THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 215 MADISON AVENUE.
>> HI. I'M ETHAN GOEMANN I'M THE HOMEOWNER AT 215 MADISON AVENUE.
JUST TO ECHO WHAT FRANCISCO SAID, WE'D REALLY APPRECIATE BEING ABLE TO ENCLOSE THIS BACK TERRACE TO PROVIDE MYSELF WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK REMOTELY FROM HOME IN A QUIETER SPACE.
I'M AN ATTORNEY, AND RIGHT NOW, MY REMOTE LIVING SITUATION IS A GUEST ROOM OFF THE LIVING ROOM,
[00:20:04]
AND I'VE GOT A THREE AND A ONE-YEAR-OLD, SO IT'S NOT A PEACEFUL ENVIRONMENT TO GET WORK DONE BY ANY MEANS.THIS WOULD BE A REALLY NICE ADDITION TO MY WORKING ENVIRONMENT IN OUR HOME, AND I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS CONSIDERATION.
>> HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN THERE?
>> YES. 2022. OH, SO THAT'S TWO YEARS NOW.
IT GOES QUICKLY. [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 215 MADISON? ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST OR SIMPLY HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT? ANYTHING ONLINE? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OPEN UP BOARD DISCUSSION.
>> I'LL JUMP IN THERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I KNOW IF KRISTIN WERE HERE, AND I WAS COUNTING ON HER BEING HERE, [LAUGHTER] THAT IS HER ABSOLUTELY, SHE WOULD SAY, THIS IS SOMETHING WE DON'T APPROVE.
I HAVE I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE A YEAR-AND-A-HALF.
SHE'S BEEN HERE LONGER THAN I HAVE, BUT SHE SAID THAT IT NEEDS TO BE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES OR SOMETHING, IS WHAT SHE WOULD SAY.
I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT OUT THERE, AND, I KNOW THAT HE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT, BUT ARE THERE ANY RECORDS FROM WHEN IT WAS BUILT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES. THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN 2001, BASED OFF OF DECATUR COUNTY TAX INFORMATION. YEAH.
>> WHAT I WAS THINKING WAS IS, I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE WERE THE STANDARDS BACK WHEN IT WAS BUILT, BUT IF YOU COULDN'T MEET THE STANDARDS, THEN YOU'D SAY, OH, WE'LL JUST PUT A DECK UP THERE, AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS REQUEST.
BUT THEN YOU COME BACK LATER AND SAY, IT'S A NEW GROUP OF PEOPLE.
I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE AS SOMETHING FOR US TO BE THINKING ABOUT.
I PERSONALLY THINK IT IS SO HIGH THAT IT MADE NO SENSE UNLESS SOMEBODY WAS TRYING TO STAY WITHIN THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND IF I HAD CHILDREN, I WOULD NOT WANT THAT OPEN SPACE ANYWAY.
I'M NOT SAYING I'M OPPOSED TO IT.
I JUST WANT TO BE SURE WHERE, [OVERLAPPING] I'M NOT A LAWYER TO KNOW WHAT PRECEDENT WE'RE SETTING BY JUST SAYING, OH, WELL, IT'S WAY UP HIGH.
>> YEAH. I THINK THE HISTORY BEHIND THIS IS THAT WHEN THE CURRENT UDO WAS IN DISCUSSION AND PUT IN PLACE, THERE WAS PUBLIC COMMENT, AND ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS AT THE TIME WAS ABOUT BASICALLY THESE REALLY LARGE HOUSES BEING STUFFED INTO REALLY TINY LOTS ACROSS THE CITY, AND ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THAT'S CONTROLLED FOR IS THROUGH FAR, AND THAT'S THE THAT'S THE REASON THAT THIS BOARD HISTORICALLY, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR ALMOST SIX YEARS, I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER DONE A VARIANCE ON FAR, AND I'VE GOT THE PLAT MAP UP HERE IN FRONT OF ME, AND I STRUGGLE WITH SEEING HOW THIS PROPERTY IS SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PROPERTIES ON MADISON, LOOKS LIKE IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BUT IT'S NOT, WE RUN INTO REALLY ODDLY SHAPED LOTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE WHERE THERE COULD BE A EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
IF WE WERE TO GRANT A VARIANCE ON FAR FOR THIS PROPERTY, THEN THERE'S NO REASON THAT ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS COULDN'T COME AND SAY, HEY, I WANT A VARIANCE ON FAR AND WE END UP WITH A, VERY OVERBUILT MADISON AVENUE, WHICH IS NOT WHAT FOLKS SAID AT THE TIME THAT THE UDO WAS ADOPTED.
THAT'S THE HISTORY, AND PERSONALLY, GIVEN THAT, I'M NOT INCLINED TO SUPPORT A FAR VARIANCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY.
I UNDERSTAND AS SOMEONE WHO ALSO WORKS FROM HOME WITH KIDS IN THE HOUSE, I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE, BUT I PARTICULARLY STRUGGLE WITH THE CRITERIA THAT IT'S NOT JUST A CONVENIENCE TO THE APPLICANT, AND ON THE ONE HAND,
[00:25:01]
IT SEEMS VERY UNOBTRUSIVE, WHO'S GOING TO SEE IT UP THERE, IT'S OUT OF THE WAY, BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS MORE HOUSE THAN SHOULD BE THERE.>> I JUST WONDER IF THERE'S A WAY TO THINK ABOUT THIS IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT INCREASE FAR, AT THE RISK OF ASKING YOU TO DO MORE WORK, MAYBE THERE'S PARTS OF THE HOUSE THAT DON'T COUNT RIGHT NOW, LIKE A GARAGE OR, WELL, THERE'S NO GARAGE, I GUESS, CLOSET SPACES OR THINGS THAT AREN'T FULL HEIGHT.
MAYBE THIS SPACE DOESN'T NEED TO BE FULL HEIGHT AND IT WOULDN'T COUNT AS FAR.
I WONDER IF THERE'S A WAY BECAUSE WE'VE HAD OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME HERE AND WE'RE WE KIND OF DRAW THE LINE AT FAR BUT THERE'S PROBABLY A WAY TO DO THIS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CODE WITHOUT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, AND I JUST WONDER IF THAT'S POSSIBLE HERE.
I THINK IT'S SEVEN FEET, IF IT'S THE CLEAR HEIGHT IS LESS THAN SEVEN FEET, IT DOESN'T COUNT, IS THAT RIGHT, OR IS IT SIX FEET? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHETHER IT COUNTS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> FAR, THAT WOULD ONLY BE IF THERE IN THE CASE IF THERE IS NOT A DEDICATED STAIRCASE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ROOF WISE, WHERE IT DOESN'T COUNT, SO LIKE AN ATTIC SPACE.
>> RIGHT. BUT I'M THINKING OF A HOUSE THAT CAME BEFORE US, THEY'RE DOING AN ADDITION ON THE TOP STORY, AND THEY PRESENTED A FULLER BUILT OUT, BUT THEN THEY HAD AN OPTION WHERE IT WAS PEAKED, SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO COUNT THAT SPACE ON THE EDGES OF THE ROOF THAT WERE LESS THAN SEVEN FEET TALL, AND THAT'S HOW YOU COULD BUILD ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF AREA, BUT NOT COUNT AS FAR.
I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT HERE EITHER BY MORE CAREFULLY ANALYZING THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TO SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT MAY BE COUNTED AS SQUARE FOOTAGE BUT IS NOT COUNTED AS FAR, OR IF THIS ADDITION COULD BE RECONFIGURED IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT COUNT AS ENCLOSED SPACE THAT COUNTS AS FAR.
BECAUSE I ALSO HAVE THE SAME WORRIES ABOUT WHY WE'VE BEEN HISTORICALLY STRICT ABOUT FAR AND IT'S FUNNY YOU SAID BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS EXPECTING KRISTIN TO SAY. [LAUGHTER]
>> I DON'T HAVE AN EXPERIENCE BUT THE HISTORY OF IT.
IT'S A TINY LOT, AND THE ADDITION IS A 182 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S VERY SMALL, BUT WHAT YOU SAID, ALSO, BRAD, ABOUT, IS IT A HARDSHIP OR A CONVENIENCE, THATS SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A CONVENIENCE.
ALTHOUGH I DON'T HAVE THREE-YEAR-OLD AND ONE-YEAR-OLD KIDS IN MY HOUSE.
I'M NOT SURE THAT IT TECHNICALLY MEETS THE DEFINITION OF THE VARIANCE, BUT I'LL DEFER TO Y'ALL ON HOW YOU'VE INTERPRETED FAR IN THE PAST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT.
>> MR. REYES, YOU WOULDN'T MIND APPROACHING THE PODIUM? IT APPEARS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE VOTES FOR THE VARIANCES PRESENTED.
AS I SAID, WE COULD TABLE IT OR DEFER IT, IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND TALK TO YOUR CLIENT ABOUT OPTIONS, THAT WOULD PRESERVE OPTIONS FOR YOU TO COME BACK IF YOU WANTED TO PRESENT AN ALTERNATE, OR IF YOU CAN, AS MR. PEANASKY SUGGESTS, COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST FAR, THEN YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO COME BACK HERE.
YOU CAN JUST SUBMIT FOR PERMITTING.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT A PREFERENCE IN TERMS OF WHETHER WE DEFER IT, WHICH WOULD MEAN YOU'D HAVE TO COME BACK HERE WITH SOME UPDATE, OR TABLE IT, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE YOU, IF YOU WANTED A VARIANCE, TO RESTART THE CLOCK.
>> HONESTLY, IN THE HOUSE PLANS, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO SPACE TO MAKE UP A SPACE FOR THIS HOME OFFICE.
THE LOT IS WAY UNDER, REGULAR R60 LOT, JUST UNDER 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
IT ALREADY HAS A EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY, SO WHICH IS WHY IT HAD TO BE BUILT SO FAR BACK.
THERE'S REALLY NO AREA TO ADD A SPACE FOR THIS.
>> I THINK THE QUESTION IS REALLY,
[00:30:03]
WHAT I WOULD HATE TO DO, WE COULD CERTAINLY DO IT, IS IF WE DENY THE VARIANCE, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT THE BOARD IS LEANING BASED ON THE CURRENT PLANS, THEN THAT KEEPS YOU FROM DOING ANYTHING ELSE FOR 12 MONTHS, I'D HATE TO PUT THAT LOCK ON IT IF THERE'S SOME CREATIVE SOLUTION THAT EITHER YOU'RE ABLE TO BRING BACK BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A VARIANCE, WHICH, PER THE CONVERSATION, I THINK ANYTHING FAR RELATED IS GOING TO BE A REAL TOUGH SELL ON THE BOARD, OR AGAIN, IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST FAR, YOU CAN JUST HAVE TO COME BACK, YOU'RE DONE, BUT I'M THINKING ABOUT HOW DO YOU PRESERVE YOUR OPTIONS HERE.WE CAN EITHER TABLE IT AND THEN IF YOU SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO COME BACK WITH A VARIANCE, THEN YOU CAN REAPPLY, COME AT A FUTURE TIME, OR WE CAN DEFER IT, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE COMING BACK FOR OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, WHENEVER WITH SOMETHING ELSE AGAIN.
I THINK IT'D BE A CHALLENGE ON FAR SPECIFICALLY.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. LET'S TABLE.
>> TABLE? OKAY. ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> THE DATE HAS TO BE ON THE RECORD OR WHEN WE RECOMMEND WHEN WE'LL DEFER THE CASE?
>> WE'RE NOT. THE APPLICANT ASKED THAT WE TABLE IT.
>> I MOVE WE TABLE THIS PER THE APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDATION.
>> APOLOGIES TO A DATE, THOUGH.
THAT IS WHEN THE APPLICANT WILL COME BACK.
TABLING BASICALLY SAYS, WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THIS, AND THAT REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO RESUBMIT.
IT'S UNTIL THE APPLICANT WISHES TO RETURN SO THAT IT'S MORE OPEN-ENDED.
THERE'S BEEN A MOTION MADE TO TABLE THE APPLICATION FOR 215.
>> I GOT A MOTION TO TABLE. IT'S BEEN SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> CHAIR VOTES AYE AND THE VARIANCE FOR 215 MADISON HAS BEEN TABLED.
THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 4B.
[IV. B. Katie Moorman, contractor, has applied for a variance from the accessory structure setback requirements for the property located at 2612 Midway Road, Decatur GA, 30030. ]
KATIE MOORMAN HAS APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2612 MIDWAY ROAD.>> HEY, HOW ARE YOU? I'M RUSS CARNES, AND I'M HERE FOR EARTH SKY BUILDERS FOR 2612 MIDWAY ROAD.
MY ADDRESS IS 1368 CATHERINE STREET, AND I THINK WE READ THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WHEN WE GOT IT BACK THIS MORNING.
WE'RE ASKING TO PUT A SECOND STORY ON AN EXISTING GARAGE IN THE BACK CORNER OF THIS LOT.
THE LOT IN RELATION TO THE LOTS AROUND IT IS MUCH SMALLER, AND THE GARAGE IS CLOSE TO THE HOUSE AS IT IS, AND WE'D LIKE TO REUSE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S OVER THE SETBACK LINES AS IT SITS.
IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT ITS USE AS AN ADU.
WE ORIGINALLY HAD A BATHROOM DESIGNED INTO IT, BUT THAT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE, AND SO WE ARE GOING TO RUN PLUMBING TO IT, THOUGH, THAT IS PART OF THE INTENT.
IT'S JUST NOT SHOWN IN THE PLAN SINCE THEY TOOK THE BATHROOM OUT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS, AND THE DISTANCE FROM EAVE TO EAVE IS 10'6", AND WALL TO WALL IS 12'10".
THOSE WERE THE PRIMARY OBJECTIONS.
OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S TRUE THAT IT'S LARGER THAN THE SMALLEST R60, BUT IT'S MUCH SMALLER THAN ANYTHING AROUND IT. I DON'T KNOW OTHER THAN THAT.
>> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, THAT THE ELEVATION THAT'S PROPOSED, OR RATHER THE GLAZING ON THE ELEVATION THAT'S PROPOSED FACING THE NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT WHEN FACING THE HOUSE, IT APPEARS THAT THAT'S TWO STORY WINDOWS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> FACING THE NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANKS, SIR.
ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION AT 2612 MIDWAY ROAD? ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AGAINST OR SIMPLY HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT? ANY ONLINE?
[00:35:07]
>> WE'LL MOVE INTO BOARD COMMENT THEN.
>> WELL, I CAN START. I THINK I WOULD GENERALLY NOT BE INCLINED TO SUPPORT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT THERE ARE A FEW CIRCUMSTANCES HERE THAT MAKE THIS A LITTLE MORE COMPELLING FOR ME.
ONE IS THAT I TALKED TO THE HOMEOWNER YESTERDAY WHEN I WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY AND THIS PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO DECATUR IN 2012 OR SOMETHING.
IT WAS BUILT WAY BEFORE DECATUR ZONING ORDINANCE APPLIED, WHICH IS WHY YOU HAVE A GARAGE THAT'S 2.5 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
I WORRY ABOUT THE SITUATION THAT YOU MENTIONED WITH THE LAST APPLICATION, WAS SOMEBODY SAYING, WE'RE JUST GOING TO BUILD A GARAGE, AND THEN 10 YEARS LATER THEY COME IN, NOW WE WANT TO PUT SOMETHING ON TOP OF IT.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE HERE.
IT'S A CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE BUILT IN THE 50S OR 60S, AND SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY WERE LIKE CHIPPING AWAY AT THE ZONING IN THAT WAY.
THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT PUTTING A BATHROOM AND KITCHEN IN IT MAKES IT A LITTLE EASIER FOR ME TO SWALLOW BECAUSE I THINK I'D HAVE A HARDER TIME IF THIS WAS AN INCOME GENERATING ADU.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE LESS OF A HARDSHIP AND MORE OF CONVENIENCE, BUT I THINK JUST BECAUSE OF THE SMALL THE UNUSUALLY SMALL LOT, THE FACT THAT THE STRUCTURE IS PRETTY OLD AND WAS BUILT BEFORE THE ZONING CODE APPLIED TO THIS PROPERTY END, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE USED AS A DWELLING UNIT, THOSE THREE THINGS TOGETHER TO JUSTIFY A VARIANCE HERE.
>> I THINK THE SMALL LOT SIZE CERTAINLY IS AN EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE HERE, IT'S UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY.
I AM NORMALLY AND STILL SLIGHTLY UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT APPROVING A TWO STORY STRUCTURE, TWO FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT BEING SAID, THE ALTERNATIVE IS ASKING THE HOMEOWNER TO TEAR DOWN A PERFECTLY GOOD GARAGE TO RELOCATE IT, AND WE'VE HISTORICALLY GIVEN SOME SWAY TO THE IDEA OF, LET'S NOT THROW AWAY PERFECTLY GOOD BUILDINGS JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE BUILT PRIOR TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
I THINK THOSE THINGS SWAY ME IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE VARIANCE HERE.
I GUESS I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF IN THE STAFF REPORT.
IT SAYS THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, BUT I BELIEVE WE WOULD ALSO NEED TO GRANT A REAR YARD SETBACK IN THIS CASE, IS THAT?
>> IT'S FOR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS REGARDING THE NORTHERN AS WELL AS THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE REGARDED.
>> BUT THAT WOULD BE THE SIDE AND THE REAR?
>> WELL, MY CONCERNS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
I BELIEVE THERE IS SOMETHING SAYING THAT THAT NEIGHBOR DOESN'T MIND.
BUT IN LOOKING AT IT, I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE HOW THAT DOESN'T DECREASE THAT PERSON'S VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
NOT TO SAVE THAT PERSON OR ANYTHING, BUT THAT DOES CONCERN ME THAT WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY UP AND THEY LOOK OUT THEIR TOP FLOOR AND THEY SEE A GARAGE, WHICH IS CLOSER THAN IT SHOULD BE, THAT IT'S GOING TO FEEL A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN JUST SEEING IT ON PAPER.
WELL, IF IT WERE A ONE STORY STRUCTURE NEXT TO THEIR GARAGE, THAT FEELS VERY DIFFERENT THAN A TWO STORY STRUCTURE NEXT TO THEIR HOUSE.
THEIR VISIBILITY FROM THOSE WINDOWS IS GOING TO BE DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT, I THINK.
THAT'S I THINK WHAT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SO I CONCUR WITH THE STAFF REPORT.
I ACTUALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE READING YOUR STAFF REPORT.
[00:40:16]
>> IT DOESN'T REALLY BOTHER ME TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
I THINK IT'S A VERY SMALL LOT, COULD BE A LOT LARGER.
WASN'T ORIGINALLY IN THE CITY, AND THEY'RE USING THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING GARAGE.
I THINK IT'S A VALID POINT YOU'RE RAISING, BUT TO ME, I'D SAY THAT THEY'RE PROBABLY BE SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
IF THEY TOLD THEM THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT A SECOND STORY ON OUR GARAGE, THAT'S SOMETHING.
THEY GOT TO LOOK TOWARD THE HOUSE ANYWAY.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN OF MINE.
IF IT WAS THEIRS, I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE RAISED IT.
BUT AGAIN, WITHOUT THE BATHROOM AND KITCHEN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
>> IT IS GOING TO AFFECT THE LIGHTING THERE IN THAT APARTMENT.
I WAS OUT THERE YESTERDAY MORNING AND THAT'S DIRECT MORNING SUN THAT'S GOING TO BE BLOCKED.
I DO THINK THAT IS A CONCERN, I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW YOU MITIGATE IT HERE.
>> IF I WERE THEM, I'D WANT TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, RATHER THAN NOT.
I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY, WE'VE HAD DIFFERENCES OF VOTES BEFORE.
>> I GUESS THE ONE THE ONE SAVING GRACE FOR ME IS THAT IT WOULD BE STILL ROUGHLY 10 FEET AWAY FROM THAT HOUSE.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE R65 FOOT SETBACK ON ONE SIDE WHEN YOU HAVE A SMALLER LOT, THAT'S THE MINIMUM SETBACK BETWEEN HOUSES.
IT DOESN'T COMPLETELY ALLEVIATE THE CONCERN, BUT IN PHYSIC ON THE GROUND, IT WILL BE ABOUT THE SAME DISTANCE APART AS THE MINIMUM SETBACK.
STILL NOT AN IDEAL SITUATION FOR THOSE EAST FACING WINDOWS.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A BATHROOM AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE CORNER OF THAT HOUSE, BUT IT WOULD BE ONE WINDOW, IT LOOKS LIKE, PRIMARILY THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED, AND THE OTHER ONE IS A BATHROOM.
>> I'M PRETTY SURE THE THE DRIVEWAY IS ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
>> IT IS. WELL, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT TO ME, IT SAYS A LOT THAT THE NEIGHBOR SUPPORTED IT.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR SOMEONE WANT TO OFFER UP A MOTION?
>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED.
>> THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FROM ACCESSORIES STRUCTURAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON THE SIDE AND REAR YARD FOR 2612 MIDWAY ROAD, SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED TO A PLAN SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR AS SUBMITTED. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> CHAIR VOTES, AYE, VARIANCE IS APPROVED. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT.
[IV. C. Charles Carmichael, property owner, has applied for a variance from the accessory structure setback requirements for the property located at 127 Clarion Avenue, Decatur GA, 30030. ]
CHARLES CARMICHAEL HAS APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 127 CLARION AVENUE.>> I'M CHARLES CARMICHAEL, AND THE HOMEOWNER.
I HAVE MY ARCHITECT, DAVE PRICE HERE WITH ME TO EXPLAIN THE PROJECT AND THE REQUESTS FOR THE VARIANCE.
THE PROJECT IS AN ADU WITH OVER A GARAGE, AS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN THE LAST ONE.
BUT SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO RENT IT, IT'S FOR OUR IN-LAWS TO USE.
THEY'RE ABOUT TO HIT THEIR 80S, AND THE HOPE IS THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE AND STAY WITH US,
[00:45:01]
BUT HAVE SOME OF THEIR OWN SPACE TOO.I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DAVE. THANK YOU.
PRICE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN, THAT'S 1595 NOTTINGHAM WAY.
I HAD ADVISED MR. CARMICHAEL THAT LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES ARE TYPICALLY THOUGHT OF AS MORE DAMAGING TO THE CITY OVERALL THAN SETBACK VARIANCES, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU STAY MORE THAN FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE LOT LINE SO THAT THERE IS NO FIRE SEPARATION ISSUES PER THE IRC CODE, AND THAT A ONE STORY WOULD BE ALLOWABLE EVEN CLOSER TO THE LOT LINE PER DECATUR ZONING CODE.
BECAUSE OF THAT, WE LOCATED THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE END OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, WHILE STILL ALLOWING ENOUGH OF A TURNING RADIUS TO USE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY UNDER THE DECK AS A TURNAROUND.
THE TURNAROUND IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A SAFE EXIT UP THIS VERY STEEP DRIVEWAY SO YOU CAN SEE ONCOMING TRAFFIC WHEN YOU GET TO THE TOP.
THE LOCATION ALSO ALLOWED US TO EFFICIENTLY USE NEW STAIRS TO ACCESS BOTH THE NEW ADU AND THE EXISTING DECK, WHICH ALLOWS US TO REMOVE THE EXISTING DECK STAIRS AND THIS CONCRETE SURROUNDING THAT, TO JUST BARELY REMAIN UNDER THE LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM.
IN ORDER TO USE THE SPACE UNDER THE EXISTING DECK FOR OUR PROPOSED TURNAROUND, WE HAVE TO MOVE THE EXISTING POST WITH A LONGER SUPPORT BEAM.
IF WE SHIFT THE PROPOSED LOCATION AWAY FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE ANY DISTANCE FURTHER, WE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE DECK COMPLETELY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE GARAGE DOORS, AND THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO TURN THE CAR AROUND SO CLOSE TO THE CORNER OF THIS 1940 VINTAGE MAIN HOUSE.
THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY SPACE WOULD ALSO PUT US OVER THE LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM.
THERE IS NO OTHER LOCATION THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE.
WE DO CONCLUSIVELY HAVE A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT REQUIRES THIS VARIANCE IN ORDER TO AVOID A MORE TROUBLESOME VARIANCE.
THE ACCESSORY DESIGN KEEPS THE ROOF AS LOW AS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE ORIGINAL 10 FOOT SETBACK LINE, WITH A LOW SLOPE SPRINGING FROM A LOW SIX FOOT, 10 INCH HIGH UPPER LEVEL WALL.
THE EFFECTS OF THIS VARIANCE IS VERY MINOR.
A SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE WOULD BE ALLOWABLE IN THIS LOCATION.
AFTER SEEING THE STAFF REPORT, I PREPARED TWO ALTERNATIVE PLANS THAT I GAVE TO YOU-ALL TONIGHT, WITH EACH ONE AVOIDING A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE BY GOING OVER THE LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, OR MAXIMUM.
THE FIRST ONE SHOWS AN ACCESSORIES LOCATION IN THE LOWER REAR YARD BEHIND THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL.
THE SLOPE OF THE DRIVEWAY THROUGH THE UPPER REAR YARD WILL BE STEEP BECAUSE THE ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IN GRADES IS AT LEAST THREE FEET, NOT TWO FEET, AND WE PROVIDED THE STAFF WITH PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION OF THAT.
THE TURNAROUND WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVIDED AT THAT LEVEL SINCE THE TURNAROUND AREA IN MY PROPOSAL WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE UP THE STEEP SLOPE IF YOU'RE BACKING UP.
THE LOT COVERAGE WOULD BE 53% AND THE ACCESSORY SITS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DRAINAGE AREA FOR THE LOT, AND IT'S HIGHER NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR.
AN EVEN WORSE ALTERNATIVE, THE OTHER ONE DOES HAVE A LOWER LOT COVERAGE BY REMAINING ABOVE THE WALL, BUT IT IS ONLY FOUR FEET FOUR INCHES BEHIND THE REAR WINDOWS OF THE HOUSE.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH A NON-STARTER.
THIS LOCATION SOLVES THE PECULIAR, EXTRAORDINARY AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THIS LOT WITH ONLY A VERY MINOR VARIANCE IN WHICH THE ACCESSORY REMAINS FIVE FEET OR MORE AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THEREFORE, IT HAS VERY FEW PRACTICAL DOWNSIDES TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OTHER THAN THEIR VIEW OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE VISIBLE IF IT WERE INSIDE THE SETBACK.
>> IT'S ALSO VERY FAR AWAY AND LOWER THAN THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S A DRIVEWAY IN BETWEEN.
WE BELIEVE WE MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE.
AS I COVERED IN THE JUSTIFICATION LETTER, AND WE ASK THAT YOU APPROVE OUR VARIANCE.
THANK YOU FOR HELPING US PARK BOTH CARS OFF OF THE STREET. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU SHOWING US DIFFERENT PLANS.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IN THE PLAN THAT YOU'RE ASKING TO PROPOSE, THE BUILDING IS SITTING RIGHT ON TOP OF THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL?
[00:50:01]
>> WHY CAN'T IT JUST BE SHIFTED TO THE SOUTHEAST ALONG THAT WALL? DO YOU HAVE THIS CONDITION WHERE YOU'RE LIKE BUILDING ACROSS THAT RETAINING WALL?
>> THERE'S THERE'S A SUPPORT FOR THE DECK THAT'S ABOUT SEVEN FEET AWAY CURRENTLY FROM THAT CORNER, THAT REAR LEFT CORNER.
THAT IS HOLDING UP THE DECK NOW.
WHAT WE CAN DO IN THIS LOCATION IS EXTEND THAT OUT SO IT'S OUT OF THE WAY AND PEOPLE CAN SWING AROUND AND BACK TOWARDS THE EXISTING SPACE THAT'S UNDERNEATH THERE, AND THEN THEY CAN GO OUT STRAIGHT.
IF THAT MOVES OVER, YOU CAN PULL IN IF YOU GET RID OF THAT POST COMPLETELY, WHICH MEANS THE DECK IS GONE.
YOU CAN PULL IN TO A GARAGE, BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO GET OUT WITHOUT JUST BACKING ALL THE WAY UP THE DRIVEWAY.
>> WHY CAN'T YOU ENTER FROM THE SIDE LIKE IN THE TWO ALTERNATIVE PLANS?
>> WELL, THAT WOULD BE THE ALTERNATIVE PLAN THAT I CALL THE WORST ALTERNATIVE.
>> WELL, YOU SAY IT'S WORST BECAUSE IT'S CLOSE TO THE HOUSE, BUT WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE THAT CLOSE TO THE HOUSE, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION.
>> WELL, OTHERWISE, YOU WOULD BE TAKING DOWN THE RETAINING WALL AND HAVING IT HALFWAY INTO THE REAR YARD AND SO YOU'RE TAKING DOWN THE ENTIRE RETAINING WALL.
>> WHY AREN'T YOU DOING THAT ANYWAY IN THE PLANNING YOUR PROPOSAL?
>> WELL, WE'VE GOTTEN OUT A PORTION OF THE RETAINING WALL NOW.
WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER THE TOP OF IT AND WE HAVE TO FILL IN THE BACK YARD A LITTLE BIT.
IT IS STILL THERE, BUT THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE US TO GET A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AS WELL AND WE WOULD HAVE NO REAL GOOD SPACE TO TURN AROUND BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO TURN AROUND PAST WHERE THAT RETAINING WALL IS, WE'D HAVE TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL ON THE PROPERTY LINE ALONG THAT EDGE IF WE'RE HIGHER UP AT THAT POINT, OR WE'D HAVE TO DROP IT ALL DOWN, WHICH THAT'S JUST A VERY LARGE LOT DISTURBANCE WHERE IT'S NOT REALLY NECESSARY IN THIS CASE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANKS, SIR. I'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 127 CLARION? ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AGAINST OR SIMPLY HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT? ANYONE ONLINE? EILEEN, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? NO. WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION.
>> I THINK THIS IS AN INTERESTING SENTENCE IN THE STAFF REPORT.
AT THIS TIME, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE DUE TO A LACK OF A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT WOULD BE ALLEVIATED BY THE VARIANCE APPROVAL.
I JUST FOUND THAT INTERESTING.
ESPECIALLY, IT FOLLOWS UP ON THE NEXT ABOUT THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
I DO THINK THAT WALKING THE PROPERTY AND SEEING IT SEEMED LIKE THAT WAS VERY RATIONAL FOR THE CARS, FOR EVERYTHING, PLACE FOR THE GARAGE.
IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE IT DIDN'T BOTHER ME THE WAY THE OTHER ONE DID.
I KNOW THEY'RE BOTH GARAGES AND THEY'RE BOTH THERE, BUT IT'S NOT OBSTRUCTING ANY.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF IT.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT I CAN SEE WHY YOU PLACED IT WHERE YOU DID.
THE ONLY QUESTION IS, DOES HE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE ZONING GIVEN THAT HE COULD DO SOMETHING ELSE.
I DON'T KNOW KNOW. HAVE TWO LAWYERS TODAY WHO MIGHT HAVE THOUGHTS.
>> WELL, BRETT, I APPRECIATE YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONING AND I TOO REALLY APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT SUBMITTING SOME ALTERNATE PLANS BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS USEFUL TO UNDERSTAND THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT WENT INTO WHAT'S PRESENTED TO US.
I THINK THE TWO THINGS THAT TO ME MAKE THIS CASE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WE JUST HEARD, ONE IS THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY.
[00:55:02]
AND SO THE QUESTION OF REUSE OF EXISTING STRUCTURES IS A MOOT POINT.THE OTHER IS WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT LOT, THE OTHER CASE'S LOT SUBSTANTIVELY SMALLER THAN THE NEIGHBORING LOTS.
THIS ONE MUCH LIKE MADISON IS A PRETTY REGULARLY SIZED LOT IN LINE WITH THE NEIGHBORING LOTS.
SO THERE'S NO REAL SPECIAL CONDITION OTHER THAN THE TOPOGRAPHY, WHICH IS CHALLENGING.
WE'VE HEARD CASES ON THE STREET BEFORE, AND THAT'S THAT'S REALLY CHALLENGING STREET TOPOGRAPHICALLY.
BUT YEAH, I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT.
I'VE GOT THIS WORST ALTERNATIVE UP HERE.
AND YES, THE WAY THAT IT'S PRESENTED WOULD REQUIRE A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE.
THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE SOME OF IT OUT OF THE CONCRETE AND GET IT DOWN TO CLOSE TO THAT, 40%, MAYBE NOT EXACTLY AT 40%, BUT THERE MIGHT BE A WAY TO DO THAT WITHIN WITHIN THE CODE.
I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT BLOCKING THE VIEW.
I DON'T KNOW THAT TO ME THAT IS ENOUGH OF A EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE OR UNIQUE CONDITION TO THE PROPERTY THAT JUSTIFIES A VARIANCE IN THIS CASE.
ALL OF THAT SAID, I THINK THE ONE THING THAT IF WE WERE TO APPROVE A VARIANCE HERE, THAT IS IN FAVOR IN MY MIND IS THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORS DRIVE GOES DOWN THE SAME SIDE OR THE ADJACENT SIDE RATHER.
MUCH LIKE THE PREVIOUS CASE WE HAD IF WE WERE TO APPROVE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK FOR THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IT WOULDN'T BE BUTTING RIGHT UP AGAINST AN ADJACENT STRUCTURE.
>> WELL, I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING THE POINT THAT IT'S A NORMAL-SIZED LOT BECAUSE IF THE LOT WERE THREE FEET NARROWER, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE BECAUSE THEY COULD BUILD FIVE TOO, RIGHT? [LAUGHTER] BUT THAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT EXCEPTION BECAUSE THAT'S A RECOGNITION IN THE CODE THAT WHEN YOUR LOT IS A LITTLE NARROWER, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME FORGIVENESS.
I'M NOT SAYING IT HAS TO BE 10 FEET, BUT I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT IT HAS TO BE THAT CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
FRANKLY, I'M LOOKING AT THIS WORST ALTERNATIVE AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE BEST ALTERNATIVE. [LAUGHTER].
>> THAT'S WHERE I'M FINDING TOO.
>> I'M NO LONGER AN ARCHITECT, BUT I DID [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, EVEN THAT [INAUDIBLE].
>> ACTUALLY, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF BOARD CONVERSATION [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT HAS TO LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THAT.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A WAY TO BUILD WITHIN THE SETBACKS HERE.
I'M JUST NOT SOLD THAT THAT WE HAVE TO GRANT A FIVE FOOT SIDE VARIANCE TO ALLEVIATE A HARDSHIP.
THE TOPOGRAPHY IS CHALLENGING, BUT IT IS A REGULARLY SIZED LOT WITH ROOM TO WORK.
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE STAFF'S FINDING AND THE LACK OF A SPECIAL CONDITION, I UNDERLINE THAT.
THAT WAS THE POINT THAT STOOD OUT TO ME AS WELL.
EVEN ESPECIALLY WHEN NOW WE HAVE THREE ALTERNATIVES, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE LABELED BAD TO WORSE, WHICH I LOVE THAT LABELING BY THE WAY, [LAUGHTER] THEY CLEARLY ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES.
NOW, THEY MAY CREATE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS AS YOU MENTIONED, BUT NO, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, BUT IS IT THE MOST CONVENIENT? ABSOLUTELY. IT IS.
BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY OUR STANDARD, IS IT?
>> YOU COULD ALMOST DO TO DESIGN FROM THE DAIS HERE, BUT YOU COULD ALMOST DO SOMETHING WHERE IT'S A STRAIGHT ENTRY LIKE WHAT'S SUBMITTED, BUT LIKE THE BAD ALTERNATIVE, YOU PUT THE STRUCTURE BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A LOT OF FILL AND MIGHT REQUIRE I DON'T KNOW IF STREAM BUFFERS BACK THERE, BUT ANYWAY, BUT YOU COULD DO THAT IN A WAY THAT ALSO REDUCES LOT COVERAGE AND DOESN'T PUT THE BUILDING QUITE AS CLOSE TO THE HOUSE.
I THINK THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO THE POINT ABOUT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO BUILD WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO BUILD HERE WITHOUT A VARIANCE.
[01:00:08]
ANY OTHER CONVERSATION? IT DOES NOT APPEAR AS THOUGH YOU'VE GOT THE VOTES FOR THE VARIANCE THIS EVENING.>> LET ME MAKE THIS ARGUMENT THOUGH.
TO THE TWO LAWYERS, THIS IS THE CASE, I THINK STILL LOT COVERAGE V SETBACKS, BECAUSE THE WAY THAT THIS IS DONE NOW IS WE'RE ACTUALLY REMOVING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF COVERAGE IN ORDER TO GET IT DOWN THIS FAR AND PART OF THAT IS WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE OUT THE EXISTING STAIRS.
IF WE HAVE IT FURTHER BACK, WE CAN'T DO THAT, SO WE CAN'T GET RID OF THAT PART OF THE LOT COVERAGE.
IT'S TWO ADJACENT DRIVEWAYS, SO THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF EACH ONE OF THEM GOING AROUND CARS THAT ARE PARKED TO GET OUT, WHICH IS A GREAT ADVANTAGE.
THAT WOULD BE LOST IF WE DID LIKE A GRASS STRIP DOWN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE GRASS STRIPS ONLY WORK WHEN YOU'VE GOT A SET DRIVEWAY.
WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE IN THE DEFERRAL IF WE GO THAT DIRECTION.
I GUESS WE'D HAVE TO GO FOR A WHOLE NEW ONE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT.
>> BASED ON THE CONVERSATION HERE, IF YOU THINK THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE CONCERNS YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A LOT COVERAGE, YOU COULD RESUBMIT UNDER THE SAME THING.
WE COULD DEFER AND CONSIDER ANOTHER PLAN AT A FUTURE DATE.
>> LET ME ASK ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION.
IF THE PORTION, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DID IN THE DESIGN WAS TO GET IT AS LOW AS POSSIBLE OVER ON THAT SIDE THAT IS WITHIN THE 10 FEET.
IF THERE IS A DESIGN THAT I CAN GET THAT ROOF ALL THE WAY DOWN SO THAT THERE IS A PORTION, THE ONLY PORTION THAT IS WITHIN THE 10 FOOT PART IS BELOW 16 FEET, WHICH IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A ONE-STORY SECTION.
TO YOUR POINT EARLIER ABOUT THE FAR, IF THE INTERIOR PART IS BELOW SEVEN FEET IN THAT AREA, IT DOESN'T REALLY COUNT AS LIVING SPACE.
WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE AND THEN I COULD POSSIBLY NOT EVEN HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A VARIANCE IN THAT CASE, IF I CAN DO IT THAT WAY.
>> YOU'RE SAYING THE FIRST STORY WOULD BE WITHIN THE 10 FOOT SETBACK AND THE SECOND STORY WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE 10 FOOT SETBACK, IS THAT IT?
>> YEAH. BUT IT WOULD BE ONE STRUCTURE.
I DON'T KNOW. YOU STILL CALL IT A TWO-STORY.
>> YOU WOULD STILL COME BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE SAME THING.
>> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT TO YOUR POINT, IN MY MIND THAT WOULD MITIGATE THE CONCERN BECAUSE THE CONCERN OF SETBACKS IS BLOCKING LIGHT THERE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
IF THE ROOF WAS DESIGNED OR THE STRUCTURE WAS TURNED IN A WAY WHERE YOU'RE MITIGATING THAT IMPACT, THEN FOR ME, YEAH, THAT THAT GETS CLOSER TO THE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE.
AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING IT HAS TO BE ALL THE WAY 10 FEET.
I DO THINK THAT THERE IS SOME DEGREE OF VARIANCE HERE AND PERSONALLY IF I WERE BEING ASKED TO TRADE A SETBACK FOR LOT COVERAGE, I'D PROBABLY BE MORE INCLINED TO GRANT A SETBACK VARIANCE.
I THINK WE'VE HAD THAT COME UP A LOT AND IF FAR IS THE ONE WE HATE THE WORST, LIKE LOT COVERAGE IS THE ONE WE HATE TO SECOND.
[OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] I'M JUST SAYING IT FRANKLY.
>> I THINK THAT'S THE WAY THAT I'M THINKING, MAYBE I CAN SCOOCH IT OVER A LITTLE BIT.
NOW, THAT MIGHT GET ME A LITTLE BIT ABOVE THE LOT COVERAGE, BECAUSE IN THIS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS STILL KEEP IT SO THAT I CAN HAVE THAT NEW STAIRS SO I CAN GET RID OF THE OLD STAIRS SO I CAN TAKE THAT PART OUT.
>> THEN THE QUESTION REALLY IS, IF I DO GO OVER THE LOT COVERAGE JUST A LITTLE BIT, CAN I ADD THAT IN MIDSTREAM, OR IS THAT A NEW VARIANCE COMPLETELY THEN AT THAT POINT?
>> IF WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU DEFER AND YOU HAVE TO REVISE YOUR APPLICATION.
SO LONG AS THIS IS ZONE R 60, SO LONG AS IT'S BELOW 40%, LET'S SAY IF YOU'RE AT 41%? YOU CAN'T IF IT'S WITHIN A 1% APPLY FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT, WHICH CAN BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.
[01:05:01]
>> BUT I DO THINK IF YOU WERE TO BRING BACK A DESIGN THAT HAD 41% LOT COVERAGE, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE COVER ALL OF OUR BASES, WE WOULD PROBABLY GRANT THAT IN ADDITION TO IF THERE WAS A SIDE YARD SET AREA.
WE'VE HAD APPLICANTS THAT HAVE HAD TO COME BACK MULTIPLE TIMES FOR THE SAME PROJECT AND WE WANT TO AVOID THAT.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT WHAT WE WOULD PREFER TO DO IS DEFER.
COME BACK WHEN THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> OCTOBER MEETING DATE WORK FOR YOU.
LET ME JUST VERIFY WHAT THAT IS.
DO SOMEBODY KNOWS OFF THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD? THAT WOULD BE OCTOBER 14TH. WE NEED TIME.
>> IS THAT ENOUGH TIME? WHAT TIME DO I NEED TO GET? [OVERLAPPING]
>> AT WHAT POINT WOULD I NEED TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT THE COVERAGE OR THE EFFECTIVE?
>> I WOULD MOST LIKELY NEED THE NEW DOCUMENTATION INFORMATION BY THE END OF AUGUST.
I WOULD SAY, AUGUST 13TH AT THE LATEST.
>> WELL WE HAVE YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO ADVERTISE.
>> IT'S 45. [OVERLAPPING] I THINK THE STATE CHANGED THAT. SORRY.
>> DOES THAT WORK THEN IF WE WERE TO DEFER TO THAT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK WE TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING AND SEE HOW IT WORK.
>> SOUNDS GOOD. AGAIN, WE TRY NOT TO DESIGN TOO MUCH FROM UP HERE, BUT DO YOU HAVE A CLEAR SENSE OF, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR?
>> I THINK SO. THEY MOVE IT AWAY A LITTLE BIT IF THE LIGHT COVERAGE BUMPS UP A LITTLE BIT, BUT MOVE IT FURTHER AWAY, TRY AND GET THE SECOND-FLOOR LIVING SPACE AS MUCH OUT OF THAT 10-FOOT AREA AS POSSIBLE.
>> THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. THANK YOU.
SOMEONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I MOVE. WE DEFER THIS APPLICATION.
>> WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO DEFER THE APPLICATION FOR THE OCTOBER 14TH.
[OVERLAPPING] DEFER THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 127 CLARION AVENUE UNTIL THE OCTOBER 14TH MEETING.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> AYE AND WE'LL SEE YOU IN OCTOBER.
>> WE DO HAVE A HEARING. IT'S ALMOST EVERY HAPPENS EVERY YEAR.
>> [OVERLAPPING] MOVING ON ITEM 5A,
[V. A. Variance Application Revision Discussion ]
THE VARIANCE APPLICATION, REVISION, DISCUSSION.>> YES. TO SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE VARIANCE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.
SUMMARIZE A LOT OF THE INFORMATION THAT GETS DISCUSSED IN PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS WITH APPLICANTS FROM PUTTING TOGETHER THEIR APPLICATION TO NAVIGATING HOW THEY SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS.
I WILL SAY AFTER A CONVERSATION WITH CASEY, THERE IS A PUSH AND TO BASICALLY PUT THIS ON THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE.
ON THE CITY OF DECATUR'S WEBSITE.
THAT WAY, IT'S JUST READILY AVAILABLE, AND ANYONE CAN JUST READ IT.
AT THE BACK PAGE, YOU SHOULD SEE A COPY OF A PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM THAT WE CAN START ADDING TO APPLICATIONS FOR AN ITEM YOU CAN JUST CHECK TO VERIFY IF EVERYTHING'S OKAY.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A CHECKLIST AT THE BACK OF THE REQUIREMENT SHEET.
ON TOP OF THAT, I DO WANT TO REVISE THE SECTION IN THE VARIANCE APPLICATION SO WE CAN SPECIFY CLEARLY WHAT THE REQUEST IS AND ADD MORE INFORMATION THAT PROVIDES MORE DETAIL ON THE APPLICANT.
I WILL SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR EMAIL THAT YOU FORWARDED OVER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND SOME OF YOUR POINTS REGARDING STACK POSTING SIGNS.
PERSONALLY, BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVITY OF THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE LEAVING IT TO THE APPLICANT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE I HAVE TO CHECK IN ON AN APPLICANT.
THEY MISSED THE DAY, AND THEN WE HAVE TO PUSH THEM BACK.
BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF CASES THE CITY OF DECATUR GETS, IT'S FINE FOR ME TO DROP IT SIGNS AND PROTECT THEM.
>> THAT'S FINE. WHEN I LEARNED THAT YOU ALL DO THAT, I THOUGHT IT WAS ABSURD.
[LAUGHTER] FRANKLY, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT WAS ALWAYS PART OF MY JOB AS A ZONING ATTORNEY TO MAKE SURE THE SIGNS WERE POSTED AND WE TOOK PICTURES. [LAUGHTER]
[01:10:01]
>> AFFIDAVITS AND ALL THAT AND LIKE EVERY OTHER JURISDICTION AROUND HERE THAT I KNOW, THE APPLICANT POSTS SIGNS.
IF IT'S NOT TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN THAT'S FINE.
I'M JUST ALWAYS TRYING TO THINK OF WAYS TO ENCOURAGE APPLICANTS TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE WORK BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING TO US FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING.
>> THERE WERE STATEMENTS SUCH AS IN THE SITE PLAN SECTION AND PHOTOS OF THE PROJECT AREA THAT ARE INCORPORATE THE APPLICANT TAKING THE INITIATIVE THEMSELVES TO SHOW WHAT'S CURRENTLY EXISTING OUT THERE.
ALSO SHOWING DIFFERENCES IN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE BEING MORE COLORIZED, SO IT'S RED.
IT'S IMMEDIATELY INDICATED WHAT THE ADDITION OR RENOVATION WOULD BE.
>> I LIKE THE SPECIFICITY UNDER THE SITE PLAN.
WE'VE HAD SOME JANKE SITE PLANS SHOW UP HERE.
>> I LET CASEY KNOW THIS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE LAST ROUND OF TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WE'VE HAD, JUST FOR ASSURANCES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE INFORMATION.
I PUT DOWN A SIGN-IN SHEET REGARDING THE INDIVIDUALS, JUST BECAUSE EVEN WITH OUR AI TRANSCRIPT, IT DOESN'T ALWAYS PRODUCE THE NAMES SPELLED CORRECTLY OR THE ADDRESSES CORRECTLY TO WHERE THAT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL THING.
FROM THERE, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU? REGARDING HOW OR WHEN THIS CAN BE INCORPORATED, CONFIRM AGAIN, WITH MY MANAGER CASEY AS WELL AS ANGELA FURTHER JUST FOR A FINAL APPROVAL IN THAT REGARD.
THEN WE CAN START POSTING IT ON THE CITY WEBSITE WITH THE SCHEDULE AS WELL TO WHERE IT'S AVAILABLE FOR APPLICANTS.
>> THAT'S GREAT. I JUST HAD TWO QUESTIONS.
THIS MIGHT BE IN THE STREAM BUFFER VARIANCE BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT, BUT WE'VE HAD SOME SITUATIONS.
I CAN REALLY ONLY THINK IT'S COME UP WITH STREAMS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN RELYING ON OLD SURVEYS THAT PROBABLY DON'T ACCURATELY SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE STREAM, WHICH IS IMPORTANT.
UNDER THE STREAM BUFFER VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS, I THINK WE HAD TALKED ABOUT HAVING A TWO OR THREE-YEAR WINDOW FOR A SURVEY.
>> I REMEMBER THAT COMMENT. WERE YOU REFERRING TO ALL PROJECTS IN GENERAL OR JUST STREAM BUFFER?
>>> I THINK IT REALLY ONLY IN MY MIND, WELL, OTHERS CAN HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS, PROBABLY, BUT IT REALLY ONLY MATTERS IN MY MIND FOR STREAMS BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY FEATURE THAT CHANGES.
>> YOU HAVE LIKE THAT OLYMPIC.
>> THAT'S THE ONE I'M VERY PRIMARILY.
I GUESS THE TREE SURVEYS ARE PROBABLY THE SAME SITUATION THOUGH.
YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A RECENT SURVEY SHOWING WHERE TREES ARE BECAUSE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE SAME.
>> WELL, TO WHAT I WOULD ADD, IT WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED I GUESS AN ITEM OF CONCERN FOR YOU AS THE BOARD, IF LET'S SAY WE HAD A STREAM BUFFER REQUEST AND AN INDIVIDUAL HAD A VERY OLDER SURVEY.
JUST FROM THE PERMITS I'VE EXPERIENCED IN COMMENTARY, THE UPDATE TO THE STREAM BANK LINE HAS CHANGED IN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PROJECT THAT I'VE LOOKED AT TO WHERE IF WE SEE A PROJECT THAT HAS A SURVEY THAT IS DECADES OLD AND THEY'RE CLAIMING OR THEY ARE STATING THAT THAT IS THE STREAM BREAK BANK LINE, THEN I'D SAY IT WOULD BE REVIEWED FOR CONCERN AT THAT POINT.
CONDITIONALLY BE ADDED TO WHERE I WOULD BE CONCERNED IN JUST ADDING ANY REQUIREMENTS THAT THEN INCREASE THE COSTS FOR APPLICANTS.
>> I THINK THE CHALLENGE THERE IS THE OLYMPIC AVENUE ONE THAT WE CONSIDERED ONE OF THE BIG POINTS OF CONCERN FROM NEIGHBORS IN OPPOSITION TO THE VARIANCE WAS THAT WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS SHOWING IN THEIR SITE PLAN AND ALL OF THE REMEDIATION, ETC, APPLIED TO A STREAM THAT LOOKED DIFFERENT THAN IT DOES TODAY.
TO YOUR POINT, THINGS CHANGE PRETTY MUCH ALL THE TIME.
BUT, IN THAT CASE, WE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND GET A CURRENT SURVEY SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY SEE WHERE THE STREAM BANKS WERE, THAT ADDS TIME AND THE EXPENSE WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A SHORTCUT IF THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT AT THE OUTSET TO USE A BASE SURVEY THAT'S TWO-YEARS-OLD OR LESS OR SO.
AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT RIGHT THRESHOLD IS.
>> WELL, TO YOUR POINT THOUGH. MAYBE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A REQUIREMENT,
[01:15:02]
BUT JUST CLEARLY STATED AT SOME POINT IN THE PROCESS.THE BOARD IS GOING TO WANT TO SEE A NEW SURVEY.
>> IF YOU'RE GOING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT YOU PUT IN THERE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT WAS JUST AN ENCOURAGEMENT.
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND ABOUT HOW OLD IT IS. IF IT'S ACCURATE.
>> EMPHASIS ON THE ENCOURAGEMENT ON THE CHECKLIST, FOR EXAMPLE, BUILDING ELEVATIONS.
EVERYONE WANTS TO DO A RENOVATION.
I ALWAYS EMPLOY THE APPLICANT TO ALWAYS SHOW BUILDING ELEVATION.
BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT'S ALWAYS REQUIRED TO ESPECIALLY IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS TRYING TO ENCROACH WITHIN A STREAM AND THEY HAVE AN OLDER SURVEY.
I DO EXPRESS THEM UPDATING THAT SURVEY.
IT IS THEIR KNOWLEDGE TO THE POINT WHERE IF THEY COME BEFORE THE BOARD, THAT CONCERN IS EXPRESSED BY ALL OF YOU, THAT REITERATES IT AGAIN TO WHERE IT IS.
>> I UNDERSTAND. FROM A HOMEOWNER'S PERSPECTIVE, PROBABLY IT'S HARD TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY, THAT'S THE CONCERN YOU DON'T WANT.
BUT I HAVE A LITTLE LESS SYMPATHY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE BUILDING SOMETHING NEW ON A LOT VERSUS PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING IN TO ASK FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.
YOU DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO MAKE THE PROCESS SO BURDENSOME AND EXPENSIVE THAT THEY DON'T EVEN WANT TO COME BEFORE US.
>> BUT I THINK YOU'VE GOT A GOOD SENSE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND TO THE EXTENT THAT, YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE AN APPLICANT [LAUGHTER] TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION THAT WE MIGHT BE LOOKING FOR, BUT YOU COULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO MAKE THAT PROCESS EASIER.
I LIKE THE CLEAR STORY WINDOWS AND THAT THE CASE THAT WE HEARD THIS EVENING, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME, FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WHERE WE'RE DOING A SIDE YARD SETBACK BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS AGAIN IN THE PASSING OF THE UDO WAS THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO LOOK DOWN INTO THEIR BACK YARD.
>> THANKFULLY, MOST OF THESE VARIANCES ARE PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN FLAGGED TO WHERE TYPICALLY THEY HAVE AN ARCHITECT WHERE THERE'S ALREADY BUILDING ELEVATION.
>> IT'S REALLY JUST ADDING THE ACCURATE ADMONISHMENT ON THE SURVEY.
>> THEN I THINK JOHN, YOU HAD MENTIONED PUTTING EITHER ON THE APPLICATION ON A CHECKLIST OR JUST BE ADVISED THAT MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD MAY COME ENTER ONTO YOUR PROPERTY.
JOHN GAVE ME A VEST WHEN I JOINED THE BOARD THAT I WEAR WHEN I'M WALKING AROUND.
>> I WAS TALKING TO ONE OF THE APPLICANTS HE WAS LIKE, I SAW SOME GUY WITH A VEST.
>> MAYBE I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE THAT,BUT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT WOULD BE GOOD BECAUSE TODAY I BLOCKED THE HOMEOWNER OUR DRIVEWAY BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO PARK ON MIDWAY BECAUSE IT DIDN'T SEEM THERE WAS REALLY A GOOD PRICE.
SHE SAID, WELL, TWO OTHER PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY BEEN HERE.
I SAID, WELL, THERE'S FIVE OF THEM.
[LAUGHTER] I SEE A COUPLE OF HOLES.
>> I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE A HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPLICATION.
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT FOR THEM TO REALIZE FIVE PEOPLE MIGHT BE COMING INTO THE YARD.
>> ISN'T THERE A NOTE ON THE APPLICATION THAT SAYS [OVERLAPPING] YES? I THINK IT'S JUST COPYING THAT NOTE.
ON THIS APPLICATION OF THE CHECKLIST SOMEWHERE.
>> LET'S MAKE SURE WE ALL GET A VEST.
>> [LAUGHTER] JOHN, I WILL INQUIRE REGARDING YOUR NAME.
>> NO PROBLEM. I GOT A NAME TAG TOO FROM JOHN.
I DON'T KNOW IF I GOT A NAME TAG.
>> I DON'T WEAR I'VE NEVER WEAR ANY OF THAT.
>> IF I HAD BEEN WEARING ORANGE BEDSHEET MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN AS ANNOYED.
>> SHE WAS JUST THINKING, HOW MANY OF YOU ARE THERE? FIVE PEOPLE. [LAUGHTER]
>> GOT IT. ANY OTHER FEEDBACK OR DISCUSSION ON THE UPDATE? THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO PULL THIS TOGETHER. THANK YOU. LOOKS GOOD.
>> ANY OTHER BUSINESS THIS EVENING? I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN THE MEETING.
>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> CHAIR VOTES, I HERE ADJOURNED AT 8:51.
>> THANK YOU. NICE JOB. [BACKGROUND]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.