BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
REGULAR (RESCHEDULED) MEETING - 1:00 P.M. ? JULY 12th, 2006
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, July
12th, 2006 at 1:00 P.M., on the 1st Floor of the Government Center Annex in the
conference room, 420-10th Street. Mr. David Fox, Chairman, called the meeting
to order. The board members present were:
Mr. Billy Edwards
Mr. Ralph King
Mr. Willie Lewis Jr.
Also present representing the Inspections and Code Enforcement Department was
Mr. Danny Cargill, Secretary of the Board, and Mrs. Millicent Burden, Recording
Secretary. Also, Ms. Aronda Smith, representing the Planning Division.
VARIANCES:
Case No. 06-V71?-Granted:
Robert Nichols, 1430 23rd Street, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce
the rear setback requirement from 30 ft to 8 ft 6 in. The property is zoned
RMF1.
Mr. Nichols stated that this was an old rental house that he owned which was
past the point of repair and he tore it down to build a new one. The size of
the new house (1035 sq. ft including the porch) is actually smaller than the
old one. The size is only a foot shy of the original depth. He proposes to
use vinyl siding on the new house as well.
Ms. Judith Tucker came forward to ask a question regarding the size of the
house because she didn?t hear the appellant give the information previously.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. Edwards made a motion to approve the request based upon it being an
improvement to the neighborhood, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Motion
carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V72--Granted:
Johanna Light and Anthony Howard, 109 44th Street, presented the appeal for a
variance to reduce the rear setback requirement from 30 ft to 4 ft; to reduce
the side setback requirement from 8 ft to 2 ft; and to increase the lot
coverage from the requirement of 35% to 48%. The property is zoned RMF1.
Ms. Light stated that her house has gotten too small. Her son, Anthony Howard,
and his expectant wife, live with her and she also has custody of her two
grandchildren. She is adding on to the back to have more room. The addition
will be in line with the existing house and they will build with similar
materials. Drainage should not be a problem.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. King made a motion to approve the request based on the fact that the
addition will have consistent materials of the existing house. Mr. Lewis
seconded. Mr. Edwards pointed out the existing house is 2 ft from the side and
the setback requirements were less when the house was constructed. Motion
carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V73--Granted:
Brady Pate, 5236 St. Francis Avenue, presented the appeal for a variance to
reduce the side setback requirement from 8 ft to 1 ft. The property is zoned
SFR3.
Mr. Pate stated that he has only one carport with a double driveway and he
wants to extend his carport to be a double carport. The addition will be over
existing concrete.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. Edwards made a motion to approve the request after speaking with applicant
who stated the overhang would be no more than 8-10 inches to not encroach on
the property line. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. King pointed out that
the water runoff would go to the front of the house in the street. Motion
carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V74--Granted:
Joe Sandoval of Sandoval Structural Systems, and Lance Tankersley, homeowner,
1212 18th Avenue, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce the side
setback requirement from 8 ft to 3 in. The property is zoned RMF1.
Mr. Sandoval stated that there is an existing deck that was there when they
purchased the property. He is proposing to screen in the deck and making it a
little larger. The deck was actually deteriorated since it was a little
dated. They removed the deck and used brick pavers which probably increased
the size of the previous deck.
BHAR recommended approval.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. Edwards made a motion to approve the request due to BHAR approval
recommendation and the 3 inches includes any overhang and the applicant agreed
to install aluminum gutters as a stipulation. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion.
Mr. Fox mentioned that this would be over an existing deck. Motion carried
unanimously.
Case No. 06-V75--Denied:
The appeal from Troy and Kathy Crabtree, 1413 20th Street, requesting an appeal
of the decision of the building official to be exempt from compliance with the
Type III Standards of the UDO for a pre-existing facility, which is zoned RMF1,
was withdrawn by the appellants 24 hours before the appeal board was scheduled
to meet. Since there was opposition present, the board proceeded with the case
in order to give the opposition an opportunity to be heard. The board still
took action because the request involved the decision of the building official.
Mr. Fox stated for the record this case involved a request to create a daycare
center within a residentially zoned area. City Council previously approved a
special use exception before the UDO was adopted, to allow a daycare in this
neighborhood. There were standards set for different sizes of daycare
facilities when the UDO was adopted and their request is for Type III. The
decision of the board is not to determine their right to have a daycare center.
It is to determine their request to do Type III standards.
Ms. Judith Tucker and Bob Jones came forth in opposition to the appeal. Ms.
Tucker stated that her findings indicated that there was no current business
license for a daycare center at that address. She also stated that
construction has taken place and the location has been modified to prepare for
a daycare.
Danny Cargill read the requirements of the Type III Daycare for Ms. Tucker to
give her a clearer understanding.
After hearing the requirements, Ms. Tucker stated that they were against the
board granting an exemption for the Type III standards. There was a signed
petition presented from adjacent property owners indicating their opposition.
Ms. Tucker then asked for guidance in the next process to state their
grievances. The board suggested that she check with her city councilor.
Mr. King made a motion to deny the appeal and support the decision of the
building official. Mr. Edwards seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
Case No. 06-V76?Tabled:
Appeal of Kirkland Memorial Baptist Church, 6304 Lynridge Avenue, for a
variance to reduce the corner side yard setback requirement from 25 ft to 7 ft
6 in. The property is zoned SFR3.
Case No. 06-V77?-Granted:
Jeff Bickerstaff, homeowner, 1310 Peacock Avenue, and Terry Ernest of Aquarius
Pools, presented the appeal for a variance to allow an accessory structure in
the side yard. The property is zoned RMF2.
Mr. Bickerstaff stated that he would like to install a pool in the side yard
which will be totally surrounded by a privacy fence. This is the only area
where the pool could be installed.
BHAR recommended approval.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. Lewis made a motion to grant the appeal based on the approval of BHAR. Mr.
Edwards seconded the motion and mentioned that it was an odd shaped lot.
Motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V78--Granted:
Ricky Wilder of Superior Pools and William Bray, homeowner, 851 Heiferhorn
Trace, presented the appeal for a variance to allow an accessory structure in
the side yard. The property is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Wilder is requesting to erect a pool in the side yard. The back yard is
very small and drops off a 12 ft cliff.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. Edwards made a motion to grant the appeal due to the applicant proved a
hardship to put it in the rear and he also provided pictures. Mr. King
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V79--Granted:
Thomas Oliver of LAI Engineering for Wal-Mart, 2801 Airport Thruway, presented
the appeal for a variance to reduce the size of parking spaces from 9 ft x 20
ft to 9.5 ft x 18 ft; to increase the number of parking spaces from 815 to
1000. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. Oliver presented a visual chart for the board to get a graphic picture of
the variance request. He stated that the through various studies, the shorter
stalls help with traffic flow in the parking lot and the same parking stall
sizes have been approved with the previous request for the other Wal-Mart
stores in the area.
Lucy Jones asked if the Sam?s Club would be coming down and Mr. Oliver stated
that it would be torn down and a new Super Wal-Mart would be erected.
Julie Smith asked if the plan showed the tree requirements. Mr. Oliver told
her that they would go through the landscaping and tree requirements as they
progress.
Richard Simmons asked a question about reducing the size of the parking
spaces. He wanted to know if the white lines would be closer together. Mr.
Oliver told him that the stalls would be wider which would help with the width.
Mr. King made a motion to grant the appeal based on the statement that was
given by Mr. Oliver with the stipulation that the tree and buffer requirements
will still be enforced. Mr. Edwards seconded the motion and stated that
similar requests have previously been approved. Motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V80?Granted:
Don Bowles, 4315 Tumblestone Court, presented the appeal for a variance to
reduce the rear setback requirement from 30 ft to 10 ft. The property is zoned
SFR3.
Mr. Bowles stated that initially, he had 4 floor plans to keep the continuity
of the neighborhood. He is presenting the proposal to build the plan called
the Riverstone. The neighbors have already erected a privacy fence to create
even more of a buffer.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. Lewis made a motion to grant the appeal. Mr. Edwards seconded the motion
and stated that the there is a detention pond in the rear and it will not
encroach on other property and it is located in a cul-de-sac. Motion carried
unanimously.
Case No. 06-V81?Granted:
Mark Martin of Pinnacle Homes, 8001 Silverado Drive, presented the appeal for a
variance to reduce the rear setback requirement from 30 ft to 27 ft 3 in. The
property is zoned SFR3.
Mr. Martin stated that the lot is in a cul-de-sac and the property line is
bordered with the detention basin. If the house is reduced, it might not have
enough square footage to stay with the continuity of the neighborhood. Also,
the variance is requested because of the shape of the lot.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. King made a motion to grant the appeal referencing the case before it,
having a detention pond in the rear and located in a cul-de-sac as well as
keeping in line with the style of the neighborhood. Mr. Lewis seconded the
motion. Mr. Fox noted that this is the smallest plan that they build to fit on
the lots. Mr. Edwards motioned that they were only asking for a 2ft 9 in
reduction. Motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V82?Granted:
Ben Moon represented George C. Woodruff Co., 6524 Forest Road, presenting the
appeal for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width from 75 ft to 72.91 ft.
The property is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Moon stated that there are two lots that they would like to subdivide.
The Planning Division recommended approval for the request.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. Lewis made a motion to grant the appeal based on the recommendation from
the Planning Division. Mr. King seconded the motion since this was a very
minimum reduction. Motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V83?Granted:
Julie Smith and Richard Simmons of the Talley Co., 2718 Madden Drive, presented
the appeal for a variance to reduce the rear setback requirement from 30 ft to
15 ft. The property is zoned SFR2.
Ms. Smith stated that they would like to encroach on the setback for a garage
and also a pool. There is a significant slope on the side of the yard.
Mr. Fox stated for the record that Mr. Dennis Calhoun previously was in
opposition of the request, but since communicating with the contractor, he has
retracted his opposition.
There was no further opposition presented to the appeal.
Mr. Edwards made a motion to grant the appeal stating that the addition will
make an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. King seconded the motion. Mr.
Fox noted that there was previous opposition, but was withdrawn. Motion
carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V84?Granted:
Richard Simmons and Anita Brannon of the Talley Co., 5850 Thea Lane, presented
the appeal for a variance to increase the square footage of a sign from 15 ft
to 39 ft. The property is zoned RMF2.
Ms. Brannon stated that they have removed the previous sign in hopes of
replacing it with a more updated sign. Columbus Monumental designed the sign
which has is made from granite.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. King made a motion to grant the appeal stating that the sign would be in
good taste and will improve the look of the entrance. Mr. Lewis seconded the
motion. Mr. Fox stated for the record that the sign would be in the same
location as the previous sign. Motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V85?Granted:
Kimberly Beck of the Columbus Museum, 1251 Wynnton Road, presented the appeal
for a variance to increase the square footage of a sign from 6 ft to 96 ft.
The property is zoned RMF2.
Ms. Beck stated that they wanted to erect a sign that is visible on both sides
of the road. They will use concrete instead of dryvit.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. Edwards made a motion to grant the appeal due to BHAR approval and it will
be done in good taste. Mr. King seconded the motion and noted that the
majority of the square footage will be in the area surrounding the sign.
Motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V86?Denied:
Billy Fowler, 2047 Wynnton Road, presented the appeal for a variance to appeal
the decision of BHAR to allow a portable sign. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. Fowler stated that he purchased the property 46 years ago and the zoning
was permissible for the business they anticipated. For the last 11 years, he
has used a portable sign to advertise seasonal specials and after about 90
days, it was taken down. This year, he was denied permission to use a portable
sign by BHAR.
Diane Hewitt, Sign Inspector for the City of Columbus, explained that she
stopped and left a request to obtain a permit. During the process of obtaining
a permit, it was noticed that the address was in the historic district and
portable signs are not allowed.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. Edwards made a motion to deny the appeal stating that the applicant did not
show evidence that BHAR abused their authority. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion.
Motion carried 2-1.
Case No. 06-V87?Granted:
Eddie Alston, 1132 13th Street, presented the appeal for a variance to remove
22.5 square feet of an existing non-conforming sign; to add 11 square ft back
to the sign. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. Alston stated that Mr. Heath wanted to update his sign and replace it with
LED. He provided pictures of the current sign and the proposed sign.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. King made a motion to grant the appeal stating that the sign is located in
a compromising location and to move it would be a hardship. Mr. Edwards
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V88?Granted:
Paul Hineman of Sun Valley Properties, LLP, 5358 Woodruff Farm Road, presented
the appeal for a variance to increase the square footage of a sign from 15 ft
to 50 ft. The property is zoned RMF2.
Mr. Hinemon stated that the existing sign is a little odd. The goal of the
company is to upgrade the existing sign. It will be in the same location as
the existing sign.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. Edwards made a motion to grant the appeal stating that the new sign would
improve the appearance and would be in the same location. Mr. King seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V89?Tabled:
Appeal of Richard Schwindt, 2725 Warm Springs Road, for a variance to increase
the sign allowance from 1 to 2. The property is zoned RO.
Case No. 06-V90?Withdrawn:
Appeal of Signs, Inc. 1043 3rd Avenue, for a variance to allow a third sign.
The property is zoned UPT.
Mr. Teasley stated that after talking to representatives from St. Luke Church,
the signs are on three separate lots. There was no action required by the
board.
Case No. 06-V91, V92, & V93?Granted:
Lucy Jones of the Woodruff Co. 5592 Whitesville Road, 2505 Airport Thruway, and
5300 Sidney Simons Boulevard, presented the appeal for a variance for a special
exception from the requirements of the UDO and to allow all pre-existing
banners to remain. The property is zoned GC.
Ms. Jones stated that the Woodruff Co. has redeveloped 3 shopping centers and
renamed them The Landings. Citizens have been confused because their all
considered to be one. They have been color coded to assist in navigation
throughout the different areas. The issue is that the banners are not affixed
to permanent fixtures. They affixed banners to the light poles in the parking
lot during the holiday season and were not told that it was not permissible.
During that time, they ordered permanent banners to be erected and replaced
with the comfort of thinking it was not an ordinance issue.
Diane Hewitt stated that the ordinance does not allow those type of banners
advertising businesses for commercial gain on light poles. The concern is that
they have created ground signs by doing this. Signs advertising businesses
should be attached to the face of the building.
There was no further opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. King made a motion to grant the appeals and approve the special exception
stating that this is a unique development. He also stated that the building
official is doing her job in citing violations, but this development should be
judged on its own merit and allow the signs to stay in place. Mr. Edwards
seconded the motion and stated that the banners are needed to assist the
general public so they are not confused. Motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 06-V94?Granted:
Robert Teasley of Signs, Inc., 3101 Mercury Drive, presented the appeal for a
variance to add 32 square ft LED sign to existing structure. The property is
zoned NC.
Mr. Teasley presented some color photographs showing the previous signs that
were in place and a copy of the proposed sign.
Mr. Fox asked if the island going to be landscaped. Mr. Teasley said that it
would stay in the same place.
There was no opposition presented to this appeal.
Mr. Edwards made a motion to grant the appeal based on the applicant removing
part of the existing non-conforming sign and put an addition on that will be
smaller and also be less encroaching on the city right of way. Mr. Lewis
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Edwards made a motion to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of June
5, 2006 for approval as written, which was seconded by Mr. King. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. King made a motion to excuse Mr. Perry Borom from the board meeting, which
was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned
at 3:40 p.m.
____________________ __________________
David E. Fox Bill Duck
Chairperson Secretary
_____________________ __________________
Billy Edwards Danny Cargill
Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary
Attachments
No attachments for this document.