BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? October 6, 2010
A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, October 6,
2010, at 2:00 P.M., on the First Floor of the Columbus Consolidated Government
Annex Building located at 420 10th Street.
Members Present: Mr. Wright Wade
Mr. Perry Borom
Mr. Bill Hart
Mr. Tom Moore
Members Absent: Mr. Ray Brinegar, III
Also present representing the Inspections and Code Enforcement Department were
Danny Cargill, Secretary of the Board, and Ms. Jacqueline Goodwin, Acting
Recording Secretary.
Call To Order:
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Mr. Wright Wade, Chairperson.
VARIANCE APPEALS:
CASE NO. BZA-8-10-4782--GRANTED
Mr. Lamar Beck, Goo Goo Car Wash, appeared before the Board for 5709
Whitesville Road, to appeal the Decision of the Building Official that 1)
flappers, 2) banners attached to canopy, and 3) banners on pole are not allowed
per the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 4.4.4 Exempt Signs, and Section
4.4.5 Prohibited Signs. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. Beck stated that over the last four weeks they have looked at the case from
both sides. It is very important to us to keep what we have at the car wash.
We have a lot of special services that we offer the customers, and they are
made aware of these services by the signage we use. For examples, we have
multi car wash package savings. For examples, buy four (4) car washes and get
one (1) free, or buy nine (9) car washes and get two (2) free. We have a
fundraiser program which has been very successful, and we promote that program
by the banners and signage. Some of our fundraisers have been for the Boy
Scouts, Boys and Girls Clubs, school booster clubs, and a lot of churches. Our
gift cards and gift certificates, which we sell year round, are sold by the use
of the banners and signage. Our revenue during the Christmas holidays were at
one time over $100,000.00.
Mr. Beck further stated that they have basically the same signage and marketing
approach of most retail businesses. We do have to market our business to let
the customer know what we have to offer. We have used all the signage in
question for over forty years. The location on Whitesville Road is our pilot
model.
Mr. Wade stated that since the last meeting he has looked at many businesses
around Columbus looking for something like this. I go into a fast food place
that has a canopy, and they have signs indicating what they are selling. I?m
looking at one of your signs on a pole under a covered canopy which looks
temporary instead of stationary. Another fast food place that I observed
would have two to three signs before you get to where you order, and where you
order has more signs. I?m trying to distinguish what those businesses have in
selling in comparison to what you have underneath the canopy or outside the car
wash. One other comment, a flapper is a portable sign you can pick up and move
from one location to another. It has advertising or offering of free gifts.
Mr. Beck pointed out that the so called ?flapper sign? is a very high quality
sign. It is filled with water and sand in order for it not to move around, and
is on spring hinges and the wind moves it back and forth. There is a pin where
to lock the sign down, and it would be a stationary sign. There are some of
these around town. This particular sign is 230 feet from the curb. Most
retail businesses don?t have 230 feet depth of property.
Mr. Phil Wise expressed that to be clear, the ?flapper sign? is not to move to
draw attention, but to move to take a little wind load off of it. They can be
locked in place. That?s why we felt like the more proper definition, which is
in the handout, an ?incidental sign?.
Mr. Wade pointed out that the portable sign is blocking the entrance of a lane
as compared to the bank, they put up a ?not open? sign.
Mr. Wise replied that the lane is not used.
Mr. Borom asked Mr. Beck of the number of car washes, and how many
jurisdictions (cities) where they are located.
Mr. Beck replied that there are approximately fifty (50) car washes. They all
look alike with the same signage. We are currently in ten (10) states from
Houston TX, Grand Rapids MI, Jacksonville FL and all between. This is the
first time we had a problem with the banners and signage.
Mr. Moore asked Mr. Cargill if some of the signs which comments were made
earlier, are they not subjected to the same type guidelines.
Mr. Cargill replied that the signs would have the same type guidelines. We
have one sign inspector for the entire city. When a sign is found in
violation, the sign is taken down, but another is placed in a different
location.
Mr. Wise stated that it comes down to how the signs are classified. We read
the sign ordinance and what you have there we felt describe the signs in
question. It is a matter of interpretation if everyone else is in compliance.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Borom moved to overturn the Decision of the
Building Official, and grant the request based on no opposition, and that other
similar signs have been seen throughout the city. Mr. Hart seconded the motion
and added that a number of signs are exempt because they are in a non
residential zone. The motion was carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-9-10-5064?GRANTED
Mr. Paul Jones, President, ITV Associates, Inc, and Mr. Ken Woodruff, Vice
President, Wachovia Bank, representing Wachovia Bank (Wells Fargo), appeared
before the Board to appeal the Decision of the Building Official for 3436
Victory Drive, to increase the number of parking spaces from 8 spaces required
to 23 spaces shown. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. Jones stated that they were in the process of trying to repave the parking
lot. Because of the number of employees we have in the facility, and obviously
a small footprint that we have of this property, Wachovia decided they would
like to add additional parking spaces. We went through the permit process, and
provided multiple revisions to give us a 24 feet opening, 24 spaces and a 4
feet wall. When all that was completed, there was the issue of zoning because
of green space. The issue we have with the small footprint would be the 15
spots we currently have, and at one point can have up to 9 employee cars. We
do park when allowed in the Krystal parking lot, but it is a hardship. Should
the relationship with Krystal deteriorate, that would certainly be a problem.
The safety issue we recognize is that both with the current width of the
opening and with the number of spots, we do tend to cue cars on Lumpkin Road.
We believe by having additional spots available to our employees and customers,
that will help eliminate some of the cuing and potential access occurring on
Lumpkin Road, and free up that intersection back out Victory Drive. We
recognize that it will not allow a lot of green space, and there is not a lot
there now. We feel this will benefit both our employees and customers and the
safety related issues. We hope you will allow us to make these changes and
would appreciate your consideration.
Mr. Wade asked if the number of Kiosk had increased, or is there four as shown
on the plans, and are there always nine employees.
Mr. Jones replied ?No?, and that it is not always nine employees; but on busy
days, the first of the month, the third of the month, 15th, etc, especially
when customers receive government checks.
Mr. Wade asked Mr. Cargill if the Board approves this appeal, would they have
to go to Engineering.
Mr. Cargill replied that they would have to go to the Engineering Department
for site development.
Mr. Hart asked if the objection from the city is in regards to green space.
Mr. Cargill replied that it is the square footage, and the parking requirements
specified because of the size of the building. There is a specific number of
allowed parking spaces.
Mr. Woodruff stated they have a commitment to the South Columbus area. We
remodeled the inside of that branch several years ago to increase the number of
tellers.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Borom moved to approve the appeal based on their
need for more parking spaces in that location, and it would make the use of the
facility better for the customers and employees. Also, there is no
opposition. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously. Mr.
Wade added that it was mentioned that at times during the month they need
additional parking, and they have used the Krystal parking lot.
CASE NO. BZA-9-10-5065-TABLED
The next case was a variance request from the zoning ordinance for Mr. Jose
Gutierrez, 2243 Simmons Avenue, to reduce the rear setback requirement from 30?
to 18?-6? shown, and to reduce the side setback requirement from 8? required to
6?6? shown. The property is zoned SFR3.
No one was in attendance to present the appeal request to the Board. Also,
there was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Moore moved to table the request until the next scheduled meeting on
Wednesday, November 3, 2010. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried
unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-9-10-5066?GRANTED
Mr. Philip Denson, Denson Contracting Company, appeared before the Board to
request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 440 Bradley Park Drive, to
increase the sign area from 6 square feet allowed to 117 square feet, and one
sign allowed and four shown. The property is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Denson stated that it is actually 47 feet. What we are actually trying to
do at Brookstone is to remove one sign that is visible from Bradley Park Drive,
that has the letters that you actually remove by hand, and replace it with the
one that has the text where you can get more information. The copy area is
actually one-half foot smaller than the sign that is currently there. We
really want to replace one sign with one that is smaller but it will have the
scrolling text on the bottom. I would like to point out that sign No. 4, which
is way offset from Bradley Park Drive (does not know the linear footage to the
sign), is not very visible from Bradley Park Drive. Signs No. 1 and No. 2,
which are the main entrances, are masonry signs. We want to replace one old
sign (removable letter type) with a much more ecstatic pleasing sign that will
provide more information.
Mr. Hart asked how far would it be from the right-of-way.
Mr. Denson replied that it is 6 feet off from Brookstone Drive, which puts it
approximately 75 feet from Bradley Park Drive.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Moore moved to approve the appeal request that
the sign area would be smaller than the current sign area. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Borom, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-9-10-5067-GRANTED
Mr. John Bullock, Leisure Lifestyles, representing Mrs. Rhonda Clippinger,
appeared before the Board to appeal the Decision of the Building Official for
1920 17th Street, to install an in ground swimming pool in the front yard.
Accessory structures are not allowed in the front yard. The property is zoned
SFR2.
Mr. Bullock stated that the way the house is positioned on the lot, the front
door of the house actually faces out toward Lakebottom Park. The property is
located across the street from Columbus High School. (Mr. Bullock presented
elevations to the Board.) I have been to the house approximately six times,
and never realized, until I was informed by Inspections and Code, that the way
the house is positioned on the lot, the pool is actually being placed in the
front yard. The owner has received approval from the Board of Historic and
Architectural Review. It is a small pool and she has, since the first time of
submittal, moved the pool inwards closer to the house. The location of the
pool is approximately 100+ feet from the sidewalk, actually 20 feet higher than
street level. (presented pictures to the Board) You can?t see the house from
the road. We are asking for the variance to be able to build the pool.
Unfortunately, we can?t put it behind the house because of the way it sits on
the lot. The house sits far back on the property, and there is not enough
available space.
Mr. Moore asked if the Board of Historic and Architectural Review understood
that the pool would be in the front yard.
Mr. Bullock replied that I don?t think they realized that it would be in the
front yard. As I previously stated, the six times I was there, it just never
hit me, because of the way the house sits on the property, that the front door
does not face the front of the property but the side. Therefore when you walk
through the house, you make the assumption that you are walking out the back
door. The house is turned 90 degrees on the property.
Mr. Hart asked if someone had spoken to the neighbors.
Mr. Bullock stated that the owner has spoken to the neighbors.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to overturn the Decision of the
Building Official and grant the appeal request based on no opposition, and with
the configuration of the driveway, you can not differentiate the front from the
rear. The house cannot be seen from the road or the neighbors. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Borom, and carried unanimously.
EXCUSED ABSENCE:
Mr. Moore moved to excuse Mr. Ray Brinegar, III, due to a business
appointment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Borom and carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING:
The minutes of the regular meeting of September 1, 2010 were presented for
approval as written.
Mr. Moore moved to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of September 1,
2010. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned
at 2:50 p.m.
Wright Wade William L. Duck, Jr.
Chairperson Secretary
Perry Borom Danny Cargill
Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary
Attachments
No attachments for this document.