BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? July 6, 2011
A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, July 6,
2011, at 2:00 P.M., in the Community Room of the Public Safety Complex located
at 510 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
Mr. 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-5-11-2104--GRANTED
Mr. Warren Mason, Moon, Meeks, Mason and Vinson, appeared before the Board to
request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 1013 Centre Brook Court, to
increase the parking spaces from 23 spaces allowed to 50 spaces shown. The
property is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Mason stated to the Board that what was before them was a drawing of the
development within the Brookstone Centre Complex. On this particular parcel,
two structures will be built. One for a podiatrist and the other for a dental
facility to be built in the near future. When you combine the needs for the
doctor, dentist, their staff and their patients, the curb requirement is
lacking in meeting their needs. We have two requests. What you have before
you represent 50 parking spaces, the first is the number of parking spaces from
the amount specified in the Unified Development Ordinance 27 to 50 as shown.
The second request that we have, which you may or may not have received, was
forwarded as of the result of Traffic Engineering?s review, which is a slight
modification to the size of parking spaces. The UDO allows for a 24 ft drive
isle, and 20 ft parking spaces, which is a total of 64 feet. We have increased
the drive isle from 24 ft to a 25 ft drive isle to make it more maneuverable
and lighter, and 19 ft parking bays instead of 20 ft parking bays. Therefore,
instead of a total of 64 feet of parking, it will be 63 feet, with a 2 ft
allowable overhang of the parking spaces. The wider drive isle should be more
than adequate to meet the needs of the people using the facility.
Therefore, our request is two-fold; (1) increase the number of parking spaces;
(2) slight decrease from the parking space depth, but increase in the parking
drive isle width.
Mr. Moore asked if Traffic Engineering was in agreeable with the changes.
Mr. Mason replied that the UDO for a period of time has been in place, and
since that time, they have been allowing us to have a larger drive isle like we
prefer and one ft. shorter of a parking space from 20 ft to 19 ft. In this
particular case, they stated that we needed to get a variance and change the
plan.
Mr. Hart stated that this has been very common with doctors and dental offices.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Boren moved to approve the appeal based on no
opposition, increase in the drive isle size to 25 feet, and shorten the parking
spaces by 1 foot, should not impact the parking lot. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Moore, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-5-11-2169?GRANTED
Mr. Robert Teasley, Signs Inc., for Glenwood Development, appeared before the
Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 3201 Macon Road, to
increase the number of signs from 2 allowed to 5 shown, and increase the sign
area from 300 square feet allowed to 1550.72 square feet shown. The property
is zoned GC.
Mr. Teasley stated that this is Cross Country Plaza, which is an approximate 32
acre development. They have built an outbuilding for two tenants, one is AT&T,
and the other for a future tenant. This is right next to the one the Board
approved about six months ago for Wachovia Bank. We are trying to keep the
square footage to a minimal. This is 80 square feet, which is different from
the original that we filed, because we want to accommodate both tenants than to
come back to the Board again. There is no increase in anything else.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After reviewing the plans and a brief discussion, Mr. Moore moved to grant the
appeal request based on no opposition, and that it will be on the same
footprint as the original design. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boren, and
carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-5-11-2186?GRANTED
Mr. Jack Jenkins, Architect, representing Mr. Chris Averett, appeared before
the Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 2525 Fairway
Avenue, to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet required to
21? 6? shown. The property is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Jenkins stated that basically we are adding a bathroom to the house. We
are looking for 8? 6? variance off the rear of the property. This is a large
lot and the house is situated unusually on half of the lot, and nothing can be
built on the other half.
Mr. Hart asked what was next door to the property.
Mr. Jenkins replied that next door on the backside is the Spencer?s property,
which they own the remainder of the block. The Spencers do not have any
objection. There are only four houses.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to approve the appeal request based on
no opposition, it matches the existing masonry wall, and there is minor
encroachment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boren, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-5-11-2214-GRANTED
Mrs. Mary Glaser appeared before the Board to request a variance from the
zoning ordinance for 1513 17th Avenue, to reduce the side yard setback
requirement from 5 feet required to 3 feet shown for an accessory structure.
The property is zoned RMF1.
Mrs. Glaser stated that the structure, currently on the property, was built by
someone years ago on the basis of an extension garage. During my annual
insurance review, my agent informed me that it would have to be replaced or
repaired. In working with the Board of Historic and Architectural Review, I
met the requirements for a shed, and I am asking permission to replace the
structure. The old shed will be torn down. The new shed will be brought in
and the center block wall will be left. Because of the difference in the size
of the two buildings, this building is smaller and narrower, even though I am
requesting the variance because it is within 8 feet, this structure will not be
as close to the property line as the existing structure. I do have a
certificate from BHAR approving the shed.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Moore moved to approve the appeal request based
on no opposition, there is approval from the Board of Historic and
Architectural Review, and the new building will be smaller than the existing
building. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-11-2331?GRANTED
Mr. Brett Mashchak, Trinity Program Management, representing Longhorn
Steakhouse, appeared before the Board to request a variance for 5435 Whittlesey
Boulevard, to increase the parking spaces from 84 spaces allowed to 100 spaces
shown. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. Mashchak stated that we are looking to put a new Longhorn Steakhouse on
this lot and request to increase the parking spaces to a maximum. We found
through the years that a requirement of this type even at 100 spaces in under
par for us.
Mr. Wade asked if they were leaving Cross Country Plaza.
Mr. Cargill replied that the current Longhorn Steakhouse will remain, and this
was a new steakhouse being built on this lot. Therefore, Longhorn Steakhouse
will have two locations.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After reviewing the plans and a brief discussion, Mr. Boren moved to approve
the request based on no opposition, and the need to increase the parking. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-11-2337?GRANTED
Ms. Jessica Ezzell, French and Associates, representing Columbus Consolidated
Government along with Mr. Michael Starr, 2WR Architect, and Mr. Jeff Harper,
Hecht Burdeshaw Architect, appeared before the Board to request a variance from
the zoning ordinance for 1358 Rigdon Road, to reduce the parking spaces from
485 spaces required to 375 parking spaces shown. The property is zoned NC.
Ms. Ezzell stated that they have met with the community leaders who are
planning to occupy the building. Based on the use of this building, we came up
with 375 total spaces for the site as needed for the Natatorium and the City
Service Center (CSC). The Unified Development Ordinance requires 485 spaces
for the square footage. In order to keep cost down for this particular
project, and basically have the best use for tax payers money, we determined
that 375 spaces would be sufficient for the two buildings on a day to day basis.
Mr. Hart asked if they have any intentions to later add more parking.
Ms. Ezzell stated that she did not think so. I think that the parking deck, as
it is, will be the only space to provide parking on the site.
Mr. Starr stated that there is an area on site, and there is not a future
building plan. If it was desired down the line to add a parking deck, it could
be done. It is not something that is totally out of the question.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After review of the plans and a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to approve the
appeal request based on no opposition, and will provide a cost savings to the
taxpayers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moore, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-11-2340?DENIED
Mr. Rob Walker, representing Virginia College LLC, appeared before the Board to
request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 5515 Veterans Parkway, to
reduce the HVAC equipment screening requirement from four sides to just the
front, Sec. 4.2.23. Screening of Mechanical Equipment of the Unified
Development Ordinance. The property is zoned GCV.
Mr. Walker stated that due to the size of the building, they are requesting to
provide HVAC screening along the Veterans Parkway elevation, which is the main
front elevation, and not screen the other three elevations.
Mr. Wade asked if this was an existing building.
Mr. Walker replied that it is an existing building. It is the Hughes Plumbing
Supply building. We are renovating the entire front of the building, and a
little on the side.
Mr. Wade stated that he remembers the building being sort of a two story
building.
Mr. Walker pointed out that from Veterans Parkway it is kind of one story, and
then it drops off the back.
Mr. Wade pointed that it will be hard to see it from the back up on top.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After reviewing the site elevation plans and a brief discussion, Mr. Boren
moved to deny the appeal request; because he did not hear a compelling reason
to approve the variance other than cost, which does not warrant making the
change. Also, I don?t ever remember reducing the sides of any building. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-11-2356?GRANTED
Pastor Lowell Cliatt, Crystal Valley Baptist Church, appeared before the Board
to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 6200 Macon Road, to add an
additional sign, one sign allowed, two signs shown. The property is zoned NC.
Pastor Cliatt stated that he is representing Crystal Valley Baptist Church and
also Seeds of Faith Baptist Church. Both churches are part of the Columbus
Baptist Association. We are in the process of transitioning Crystal Valley
Baptist Church. We were told that when the latter part of the church was
built, that we could have two signs. We since found out when we put the other
sign up, that the church which sits on four lots (Lots 12-15) and when they
built the sanctuary, that only Lots 13-15 were combined as one lot, and Lot 12
was omitted. However, Lot 12 runs directly through the center of the
Sanctuary. In talking with staff, we found the best way to handle this was to
ask for a variance.
Mr. Hart asked that as opposed to replatting, you are requesting a variance.
Pastor Cliatt replied yes, since the sign was already up. When we came down to
the City to inquire as to why, when we were told we could have two signs
because of frontage, we found out that all four lots were not combined when the
sanctuary was built.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to approve the appeal request based on
no opposition, and technically they have enough property to replat and provide
for two signs. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moore, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-11-2357?GRANTED
Mr. Jimmy Weaver, A-Airflow Awning, appeared before the Board to request a
variance from the zoning ordinance for 6801 Sharmel Lane, to reduce the corner
side yard requirement from 25 feet required to 11 feet shown, in order to erect
a carport. The property is zoned SFR2.
Mr. Weaver presented pictures to the Board. He stated that the owner wants a
carport. It will be 29? wide and 20? projection, enough for three cars.
Mr. Moore asked if he will be covering the existing pad.
Mr. Weaver replied that it will cover the existing pad. There will not be any
change in the water flow, will be gutters and downspout to run the water onto
the street.
Mr. Boren asked if there were objections from the neighbors.
Mr. Weaver replied that there were no objections from the neighbors.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Moore moved to approve the appeal request based
on no opposition, basically he is covering an existing parking pad, gutters
will be provided, and there will not be a change in the water flow. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-6-11-2359?GRANTED
Mr. Bill Green, W.C. Bradley Real Estate, and Mr. Will Barnes, Architect,
appeared before the Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for
1291 Front Avenue, to remove the requirements of the Unified Development
Ordinance, Section 8.9.3. Construction in Flood Hazard Area.
Mr. Green stated that we are trying to renovate the Mill No. 2 building at the
Eagle and Phenix Mill project. We are requesting a variance from having to
flood proof the historic building on this site. We have submitted the
following documents to support our request: (1) Statement from the architect;
(2) Letter from Historic Columbus; (3) Documents that demonstrates that FEMA
flood line is flawed; (4) Site plan with Mill 2 first floor elevation. These
buildings were originally built to flood and drain. If they did flood, it
would not destroy the building.
Mr. Barnes stated that the basis of his letter is an attempt to flood proof the
building, and you will see this in the second letter from Historic Columbus as
far as jeopardizing the historic designation of the building. I have gone
through a document, which was published by FEMA, pointing out some of their
simple flood proofing measures.
Mr. Green further stated that as far as the letter from Historic Columbus, they
understand the designation of the Historic building and how important it is to
preserve the exterior appearance.
Anything that would flood proof the building would most probably not be allowed
by the administrative of the National Park Services Historic and Preservation
Program. The third document before you is a copy of the FEMA flood elevations
that the City Engineer has to use to determine whether the building is a
floodplain or not. (Mr. Green pointed out the Eagle and Phenix Mill project
site.) There is a 232 elevation that is furthest to the right. Because of the
Eagle and Phenix dam, the elevation arbitrarily jumps the 100 year flood
elevation to 237. This document was created in 1973. Data used to compute
these flood lines and elevation is old and flawed. Our building, the first
occupied floor is at 236. We believe that we should not need this variance at
all, except for this glitch in the federal floodplain elevation.
Mr. Moore asked if this will be condominium type units.
Mr. Green replied that they are planning a five story, 10,000 square feet
building; floor to floor apartments ? 1 to 2 bedrooms.
Mr. Moore asked if they will continue to own the building as apartments.
Mr. Green replied that they will continue to own the apartments. W. C. Bradley
has to own them for at least five years, in order to get federal income tax
credit.
Mr. Moore expressed that his concern is in the future. You have done your
homework, and everything is very clear and make sense, but we all know how the
city has gotten in a trap on flooding issues.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a lengthy discussion, and reviewing of all documents, Mr. Boren moved to
approve the appeal request based on no opposition, and as stated by Mr. Green,
that there is probably a glitch that negatively impacts the situation with
this historic building. Actually, when they do finish the project, it will be
less of an issue. Mr. Wade added that they wanted to keep their historic
designation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and carried unanimously.
EXCUSED ABSENCE:
Mr. Hart moved to excuse Mr. Ray Brinegar, III due to illness. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Boren, and carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING:
The minutes of the regular meeting of June 1, 2011 were presented for approval
as written.
Mr. Moore moved to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of June 1, 2011.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boren, and carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned
at 2:45 p.m.
Wright Wade William L. Duck, Jr.
Chairperson Secretary
Perry Borom Danny Cargill
Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary
Attachments
No attachments for this document.