BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? September 1, 2010
A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, September
1, 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. Ray Brinegar, III
Mr. Bill Hart
Mr. Tom Moore
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Mark McCollum (Representing
Uptown Fa?ade Board)
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 2:05 p.m. by Mr. Wright Wade, Chairperson.
VARIANCE APPEALS:
CASE NO. BZA-8-10-4774?DENIED
Mr. Billy White, River Signs, LLC, representing Wells Fargo, appeared before
the Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 101 13th Street,
to appeal the Decision of the Uptown Fa?ade Board, to install three internally
illuminated channel letter signs to the east, north and west wall facades of
the building. The property is zoned CRD.
Mr. White stated that River Signs have contracted with AGI for conversion of
the six Wachovia Banks in Columbus to Wells Fargo. We have almost completed
with everything except 13th Street conversion. We began this process on
February 8, 2010 applying for a sign permit, which we should have gone first to
the Fa?ade Board. We have been with the Fa?ade Board in approximately four
meetings, one in which there was not a quorum. We have gotten down to the
final things that Wells Fargo feels would be important for their presence in
Columbus. We had a large sign package for approval by the Fa?ade Board, and
they have approved a couple of changes along the way. We are down to one
single issue, and that is being able to illuminate lights to three building
signs. As you know, the Wachovia Bank is located right across from SunTrust
Bank, and now there are four signs on the sides of the building. The Fa?ade
Board has approved replacement and lighting of the sign on 13th Street, which
was lighted previously, but on the three other sides, the east, north and west,
they have denied illuminating those three signs. The purpose of this appeal is
to get approval for us to illuminate those three signs. (Mr. White presented
pictures to the Board of the signage in the area.)
Mr. White further stated that the big issue with Wells Fargo is that the 13th
Street location is directly across the street from SunTrust Bank. SunTrust has
lettering on four sides of their building directly across the street from Wells
Fargo. SunTrust has 4 feet lighted channeled lettering with message center,
and on the east and west side are similar lighted signs. Only the signs on the
south side are not lighted, but they are there. In this competitive banking
environment, we should have equal opportunity. Also, the channeled letters on
the SunTrust bank building were installed in 1995. At that time those lighted
channeled letters and message center were approved by the Fa?ade Board. We are
trying to get similar approval for Wells Fargo sign.
Mr. Wade pointed out that basically from the pictures presented to the Board,
the CB&T Bank and SunTrust Bank have the lighted signs, and Wells Fargo does
not have lighted signs.
Mr. White stated that the signage of the CB&T is lesser (smaller) than
SunTrust. SunTrust Bank signs stand out as being dominant along the 13th
Street corridor. The Wells Fargo letterings are smaller. The front sign that
was approved to be lighted is only 30 inch channel letters. The two sides that
we are trying to get approved are also 30 inch, and across the street they are
48 inch channel letters and message center.
Mr. Borom stated that this was issued to SunTrust and not Wells Fargo. As it
stands today, to my understanding, there are no lighted signs downtown.
Mr. White stated that they, SunTrust signs, are very much lighted.
Mr. Borom pointed out that those signs are ?grandfathered in?. Those signs
were approved in 1995, and your request is for 2010.
Mr. Chris Stubbs, District Manager for Wells Fargo, stated that from a retail
standpoint, we are trying to save consumers money and have been bragging we
want our customers to use the ATM machine downtown we don?t want them paying
unnecessary fees going to another bank. From a community standpoint, we have
added a number of staffing in the local area and in these tough economic times,
most banks have a hiring freeze, but we have added about 50 staffing in town.
Quite frankly, we have had one of our affiliates to lay off and we took those
employees in adding an additional six to our staffing within recent weeks.
From a gross standpoint, Wells Fargo believes in giving back to the community.
That stagecoach has a 150 plus year legacy.
Mr. Borom expressed that he understands, but what you are asking is to overrule
what the Uptown Fa?ade Board has decided under the current ordinance. It would
be hard for me to do that.
Mr. White stated that the Fa?ade Board was placed with regulations in 1987, and
at this time in 1995 the Fa?ade Board chose to overrule all regulations. The
precedent has been set to approve lighted signs on 13th Street.
Mr. Wade stated that he needed to interrupt as it was stated that, ?the
precedent has been set?. I can assure you that banking rules have changed
since 1995. The rules have changed and the new Unified Development Ordinance
was adopted in 2005. I agree with you in that this took place 15 years ago,
but if the Board votes to uphold the Building Official?s Decision that the next
place would be to Council.
Mr. Cargill pointed out that if the Board upholds the Decision of the Uptown
Fa?ade Board, then they can appeal to Council. Sign ordinance appeals go to
Council.
Mr. Wade further stated that if they go to Council, contact Ms. Tiny
Washington, Clerk of Council to be placed on the Council agenda.
Ms. Michelle Curren, AGI Sign Company for Wells Fargo, stated that we need to
keep the customers we have, and attract new customers. I have not been down to
this area, but when I look at the pictures, all I see is SunTrust. It took me
several times to see Wachovia (Wells Fargo). From a competitive standpoint,
that is the issue I see, being that Wells Fargo is a new brand in the area.
Wells Fargo is more popular on the west coast, and how can we be competitive
and thrive here.
Mr. Brinegar expressed that the only thing the Board can vote on is that the
Building Official read the rule incorrectly, and made an incorrect decision.
We cannot vote on whether we appreciate what you are doing and that it is a
good idea. We can vote to say that he read the rule wrong and made the wrong
choice. Agreeing with you or not, I have to vote on this.
Mr. McCollum stated that for clarification, the appeal process for the Uptown
Fa?ade Board is to this Board, and pending that ruling is to Georgia State
Court.
Mr. Cargill pointed out that all signs maybe appealed from the Board of Zoning
Appeals to Council.
Mr. Hart stated that I want to be clear on the issue of precedence, which it is
not based on the current UDO, but is based on the former ordinance.
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Borom moved to deny the appeal and uphold the
Decision of the Uptown Fa?ade Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart, and
carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-8-10-4777-GRANTED
Mr. Joel F. Stuart, appeared before the Board to request a variance from the
zoning ordinance for 9932 Veterans Parkway, to increase the sign height from 6
feet allowed to 11 feet shown, and increase the square footage from 36 square
feet allowed to 64 square feet shown. The property is zoned GC.
Mr. Stuart stated that the company name is Saddle Tack and Feed. I am told
that I am a part of the Overlay District that covers Veterans Parkway from the
Williams Road intersection to the county line. I am a new business of about
three months, and I am trying to come into compliance with rules that I was not
aware of in leasing the building, nor did the lease company or sign company
knew of these rules. The sign was installed on an existing pole. The new sign
and new art work are not in compliance. Essentially, I am asking to return
near the former signs that were currently there when I leased the building.
The sign you see is an existing sign that has been made already and mounted on
the existing posts. In the pictures, there is a portable sign which has since
been removed, which we (also the sign company) were not aware that portable
signs were not allowed in the Overlay District. Part of the request of the
variance was to put a reader board back on the existing post, which will do two
things; (1) increase the sign height which is currently allowed at 6 feet, and
(2) give us more square footage of sign than is currently allowed. The
existing sign is basically the correct size of square footage, and the new
reader that I am requesting is over the limit. The reason for the request is
(1) visibility for a new business, and (2) the reader board request (the
portable sign) was good for business as being able to post a message, sales,
etc.
Mr. Wade asked if the current sign was 11 feet to the top.
Mr. Stuart replied no, and regardless of the outcome of the appeal, the top of
the poles will have to cut off because they extend well past the height of the
sign. The 11 feet that I am asking for would be just above the current height
of the sign.
Mr. Moore asked Mr. Stuart if he wanted to put the reader board above this
existing sign.
Mr. Stuart replied that the reader board would go below the existing sign.
Mr. Wade stated that it was mentioned about the portable sign, and are you not
to obtain a permit.
Mr. Cargill replied that we (Inspections & Code) do not permit locations for
portable signs. We only permit the signs. The Veterans Park Overlay prohibits
portable signs.
Mr. Stuart stated that he did pay for a permit, and it was refunded.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to grant the request based on no
opposition, the appellant is replacing an existing sign frame, and it is rural
property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moore, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-8-10-4782--TABLED
Mr. Lamar Beck, Goo Goo Car Wash, appeared before the Board to request a
variance from the zoning ordinance for 5415 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 we built a new location on Whitesville Road which has a
full service section. When we had the grand opening, I placed signs on poles
and pennants. I knew after the grand opening I would have to take them down,
but the sign inspector visited our location before I could take them down. The
sign with the logo is our trademark and we have been using it for years at all
our locations. We have taken the banners and pennants down, but I would very
much to keep what we have at that location. That particular location on
Whitesville Road has been a wonderful store for us, but it is sort of a unique
location. The signs that you see on the plans are approximately 150 feet from
the right of way. I have an easement in front of the property to feed into
Walgreen?s Pharmacy. None of the signs are trying to capture the traffic.
They are on our property to generate sales to customers entering the car wash.
Some of those signs have been up 20 to 30 years.
Mr. Wade pointed out that the Board has allowed some of the apartment complexes
to place banners but they were limited to a timeframe.
Mr. Hart asked if the signs he was speaking of were the ?free air freshener
sign? and pole mounted signs, which are further over on his property.
Mr. Beck pointed out that one of the signs are approximately 250 feet from the
right of way.
Mr. Moore stated that since the signs have been used for years, would this have
been a change to the Unified Development Ordinance in 2005.
Mr. Cargill stated that he would have research that information.
Mr. Beck stated that the first phase of that particular car wash was in 2003,
and the new phase was opened about three months ago.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to grant the request based on no
opposition, appellant is approximately 250 feet plus from the right of way, and
pre existing for forty years. There was not a second to the motion. Being
that no action was taken by the Board, the case was tabled until the next
regular meeting of October 6, 2010.
CASE NO. BZA-8-10-4783?DENIED
Mr. Shaun Weinstock, Southeast Gold Buyers, appeared before the Board to
appeal the Decision of the Building Official for 5415 Veterans Parkway, that
sign walker signs are not authorized as exempt from permitting or otherwise
specifically authorized by Section 4.4.5 Prohibited Signs. The property is
zoned GC.
Mr. Weinstock stated that all we do is buy gold from the general public and
sell it to a refinery. We don?t sell anything nor are we classified as a pawn
shop. We have forty-two locations in Georgia. We are here for a variance for
a sign spinner, which in essence, is an individual holding a 3 foot cardboard
sign which states, ?We Buy Gold? with an arrow pointing to our location. If
you notice on the pictures, we are a four-sided brick building, which makes it
difficult to know when we are open, specifically on the weekends, because there
is no glass except for the front door. My understanding is that a variance can
be granted for extraordinary hardships, which I don?t think we fall under for
practical difficulties. It is certainly difficult trying to succeed during
this economy. It is a proven trend across our 42 stores, that when we have
sign spinners in place, we actually generate 65 percent more business. We did
not know that sign spinners were not allowed. To give you an idea before we
were notified by the sign inspector, in the sixteen days that we were open
without a sign spinner we did $2,400.00, and the fifteen days that we had a
sign spinner, we generated $9,946.00. There is an awesome significance there.
It is a proven formula, and we don?t do it every day. The amount of business
without a sign spinner probably would be inadequate to cover the expense of
employee cost and advertising, etc. When we looked into having a sign spinner,
apparently just the way it was termed, and hiring the individual that we have
who handles our business licenses and sign ordinances, which we call them sign
locations for our sign spinners, misinterpreted the situation.
Mr. Wade pointed out that the City of Columbus does need the additional revenue.
Mr. Cargill expressed that for the Board?s information, the words ?sign
spinner? is a relative new term in the sign industry. What brought the
attention to this sign was not the fact that he was on his property holding the
sign, but he was out in the median on Veterans Parkway. This Board can not
approve a sign on the right of way. He already has an existing ground sign on
this site. He is not allowed two signs.
Mr. Weinstock stated that our premises end at that line where B. F. Goodrich is
next to us.
Mr. Cargill stated that the median is in the road, and also the property in
front of your property from Veterans Parkway to your building is also right of
way. That sign is most likely on the right of way. That right of way can be
anywhere, on an average, from 9 ? feet to 14 ? feet behind the curb line. That
is city right of way, and you are not allowed to advertise on that piece of
property. Again, being that ?spin spinner? is a new term in the sign industry,
it is not identified in the sign ordinance. Based on the sign ordinance, it is
a prohibited sign.
Mr. Wade asked that from what has been stated, he can have one sign on property.
Mr. Cargill replied that is correct for one ground sign.
Mr. Borom asked that because it is a sign spinner, it is not covered.
Mr. Cargill replied that is correct, and because it is not identified, it is
prohibited.
Mr. Wade asked if he could take down the existing sign now and place it in the
back of the building, and then have the sign spinner.
Mr. Cargill replied that he is still only allowed one ground sign. The sign
spinner could be considered a ground sign.
Mr. Hart stated that he presently has four signs. Two of them on the building.
Mr. Cargill pointed out that the two signs on the building do not count,
because we do not require a permit for wall signs. He has a power line sign
and a sign spinner.
Mr. Moore stated that he could take the sign down, and do this legally.
Mr. Cargill expressed that he could, if he fell within the guidelines of what
the sign ordinance allows for GC property.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Borom moved to deny the appeal request, and
uphold the Decision of the Building Official, that a sign spinner is not
covered in the sign ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brinegar, and
carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-8-10-4789-GRANTED
Mr. George Mize, Jr., representing Glenridge Development and Mr. John Rhodes,
Foresite Group, appeared before the Board to appeal the Decision of the
Building Official for 4531 Peek Industrial Drive, to increase the parking
spaces from 53 spaces allowed to 61 spaces shown, and a to wave the landscaping
and curbing requirements for four islands in the parking lot. The property is
zoned NC.
Mr. Mize stated that we are primarily concerned about the increase in the
parking spaces, but there is a second part to our request. First, is an
increase of the parking spaces of the proposed development on the east of the
intersection of Miller Road and Warm Springs Road, and Peek Industrial from 53
spaces to 61 spaces. Secondly, we are also seeking a variance for the Board to
wave the landscaping and curbing requirements for certain parking islands that
adjoin the building in or located next to the drive-thru as indicated on the
site plan. Attached to that are copies of pictures of how those non landscape
parking curbing islands will look. We don?t know how that was left out, but we
would like to go through our spill for your consideration. Obviously, the
reason we are requesting support of the additional parking is primarily for
safety reasons. The additional parking will enable the customers to park on
site within the property and not on public right of way. It will make the
parking lot less congestive, which will make it safer for customers. Also, it
should leave fewer vehicular accidents within the parking lot itself. Another
reason for the increase in parking is good old fashion customer service and
satisfaction.
Mr. Mize further stated that additional parking is going to be required for the
number of customers that this particular project will generate based upon
marketing and business studies CVS has done over the years. They believe that
additional parking is necessary to provide the CVS customers with the
convenience and unclouded access that they have come to want and need.
Additional parking will enhance the service and satisfaction of the customers
that enables CVS to better compete with the large box retailers and the grocery
chains that have in-store pharmacy. As far as the waving of the landscaping and
curbing requirements for the parking islands, that has really become the new
CVS prototype. CVS primary concern in this request is two-fold. First and
foremost is safety. With the non landscape curb less parking islands that are
around the building improve the customers access by removing pedestrian
obstruction. What you have is an unobstructed level pathway from the cars to
the front of the building. What we have found is that this reduces the number
of injuries and accidents you have from customers tripping over the curbing and
landscaping that is contained in these parking islands. In addition, we have
horrible maintenance issues with these parking islands.
Mr. Wade asked Mr. Cargill if the Board granted their request and some of the
islands are eliminated that looks like a tree should have been there, would
this lower the requirements for the tree ordinance.
Mr. Mize replied that their request is to fully comply with the tree
ordinance. We are asking that we shift whatever the units in these islands to
other parts of the property. We have plenty of greenspace to do that.
Mr. Hart asked if not the parking spaces are based on the square footage of
covered area, and are they not minimum.
Mr. Mize stated that they are not minimum. We do have the opportunity to ask
the Board to increase the parking spaces.
Mr. Cargill pointed out that the zoning ordinance prior to the Unified
Development Ordinance addressed parking as a minimum requirement. You were
given a number that you had to meet, and there was not a maximum. The UDO, in
order to eliminate a vast parking lot, established a number for parking spaces;
which is based on the square footage of the building. The use determined the
amount of parking spaces, and that we could increase it administratively by ten
percent.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Moore moved to grant the appeal request based
on no opposition, and there is the discrepancy in the UDO where one section
gives an increase of 10 percent, and another section states 10 to 25 percent
increase. Also, eliminate the curbing requirements for the four islands.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Borom, and carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-8-10-4794-GRANTED
Mr. Earnest and Mrs. Linda Alexander appeared before the Board to request a
variance from the zoning ordinance for 2901 Gleason Avenue, to reduce the side
yard setback requirement from 8 feet required to 4.5 feet shown, and increase
the lot coverage from 35% allowed to 49.23% shown for an addition to a single
family residence. The property is zoned SFR3.
Mr. Alexander stated that they were pressed for space. They have been in the
neighborhood for over 40 years. We decided to remain in the neighborhood after
rearing our children. I feel the addition would enhance and show support of
the neighborhood. Therefore, we are asking the Board to grant us to extend more
footage to our home. I want to build a garage in order for my wife to drive to
the rear of the house and park the car. Because of the drugs in the
neighborhood, sometimes she is afraid to get out of the car.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hart moved to grant the appeal request based on
the fact that there would be a minimal overage of lot coverage, and no
opposition. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brinegar and carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING:
The minutes of the regular meeting of August 4, 2010 was presented for approval
as written.
Mr. Moore moved to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of August 4,
2010. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brinegar, and carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned
at 3:30 p.m.
Wright Wade William L. Duck, Jr.
Chairperson Secretary
Perry Borom Danny Cargill
Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary
Attachments
No attachments for this document.