Huntsville, Alabama



Administration BuildingCouncil Chambers308 Fountain CircleSeptember 19, 20176:00 p.m.BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTMembers Present:Mr. Martin Sisson – ChairmanMr. Bert Peake – Vice ChairmanMr. Harry GarberMr. Johnny Ozier – SupernumeraryMs. Kimberly Ford – SupernumeraryOthers Present:Mr. Jim McGuffey, City of Huntsville Planning ServicesMr. Travis Cummings, City of Huntsville Zoning AdministrationMr. Allan Priest, City of Huntsville Zoning AdministrationMrs. Jon Johnson, City of Huntsville Zoning AdministrationMrs. Julie Ashabraner, City of Huntsville Zoning Administration, Recording SecretarySergeant Jonathan Ware, Huntsville Police DepartmentThe regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment was called to order by Chairman Sisson at the time and place noted above. Chairman Sisson explained the procedures of the Board of Zoning Adjustment to those present, advising that any decision made by the Board may be appealed to Circuit Court within 15 days from this date and that any variance or special exception requires four affirmative votes as set by State law. Any variance or special exception granted must be exercised within six months by obtaining the proper permit. Also, if the Board denies a request, the appellant would have to wait six months before reapplying for a variance unless there was a significant change in the appellant’s request.Chairman Sisson then called the regular agenda items.Case No. 88668400 Memorial Parkway SW; The type and location of signage, Robert V. Hudgins of Rocket City Tire and Service for Willena Steele, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a variance to allow a sign painted directly to the building. According to Article 72.5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, signs painted or pasted directly on the structures are expressly prohibited.Mr. Cummings stated this variance request is to allow a sign directly painted to a building. Robert Hudgins appeared before the Board. Mr. Hudgins stated he is before the Board requesting a variance to keep his artwork on the front of the building. Mr. Cummings explained the sign inspector, Mr. Phares noticed the sign and issued a notice. Chairman Sisson asked how the sign was out of compliance. Mr. Cummings explained the sign ordinance prohibits signs painted directly to the building. Chairman Sisson asked if it was a sign would it comply with the size requirements. Mr. Cummings stated yes it would comply with the size. Chairman Sisson stated so he is before the Board because it is painted on versus a sign that would be attached. Mr. Cummings stated that is correct. Vice-Chairman Peake asked if it is actually painted on the building or vinyl lettering. Mr. Hudgins stated it is actually painted on the building and they wanted a sign that would identify them to the public. Mr. Hudgins stated they hired an artist, Mr. Donald Walker to do the work.Mr. Cummings stated the City has approved a variance like this in the past and feels it would not set precedent. Chairman Sisson stated so if this was painted on plywood and the plywood was attached to the building would it meet the sign ordinance. Mr. Cummings stated yes it would meet the sign ordinance. Chairman Sisson asked Mr. Hudgins if was planning to have any more signage on the property. Mr. Hudgins stated no. Mr. Cummings stated they are allowed an additional 150 square footage of signage on the Logan Drive side, and a pole sign and the pole sign there is under the maximum size allowed. Chairman Sisson asked what was the motivation from an ordinance point of view, why the sign could not be painted if everything else is compliant. Mr. McGuffey stated the City had an issue 10 years ago with a user that painted the entire side of the building with no text of something they were selling inside of the building, and this made it a sign. Mr. Cummings stated when the sign inspector first noticed the sign it was very hard to tell that the sign was painted directly to the building. Mr. McGuffey stated the previous cases were size related. Chairman Sisson stated that is the distinction here, it is compliant in size. Chairman Sisson asked the City for any comments, no comments were given.A motion was made by Ms. Ford and seconded by Mr. Ozier to approve a variance to allow a sign painted directly to the building. The motion did pass as Chairman Sisson, Mr. Garber, Ms. Ford, and Mr. Ozier voted in favor of the motion; Vice-Chairman Peake did not vote in favor of the motion.Case No. 88677252 Governors West NW; The height, size, and location of signage, Anthony Smith of Trav-Ad Signs for Northern Tool and Equipment Company, Inc., appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a variance to allow 2 additional signs for a total of 80 square foot of additional signage. This request will also require a 10 foot height variance for a detached ground identification sign. According to Article 72.4.5 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance, one attached sign is permitted for a total of 100 square foot of signage. According to Article 72.4.5 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance, a maximum height of 10 feet for a detached ground identification sign is permitted. Mr. Anthony Smith appeared before the Board. Mr. Smith explained there is a dirt berm in the front, and billboards to the east and west that will cause visibility issues. Chairman Sisson asked what type of sign he was requesting. Mr. Smith stated it is a pole sign and 3 building attached signs. Chairman Sisson asked how many signs are in all. Mr. Cummings stated there are 4 signs in all, 2 that are compliant and 2 that are non-compliant. Mr. Cummings stated in this Zoning District, you are allowed 1 attached sign and they requesting 2 additional attached signs for a total of 3 signs. Mr. Cummings stated if the logo was beside the text it would be considered as 1 sign. However, since the logo is separated from the text it is considered a separate sign and the parts and services are considered a third sign. Vice-Chairman Peake asked what is the total square feet allowed fixable to the building. Mr. Cummings stated they are allowed 100 square feet and they are requesting an additional 80 square feet on the building. Mr. Cummings stated the 3 signs total 180 square feet. Chairman Sisson asked if that was allowed because of frontage or size of building. Mr. Cummings stated the ordinance states per street frontage. Chairman Sisson also asked how this frontage relates to the big box stores that have been approved. Mr. McGuffey stated it is still per street frontage. Also, Mr. McGuffey stated in this case the issue the user is having is that they are trying to grab attention from the interstate and in this case the right-of-way is very expansive. Mr. McGuffey stated there is a berm out front, the height of the sign out front and that is why he is requesting higher than 10 feet because the berm will block the sign. Mr. Smith stated the pole sign is on the front side of the building. Chairman Sisson asked what other variances were done in the Commercial Industrial Park Zoning District. Mr. McGuffey stated most of the variances we have seen in this district were off of Greenbriar Road at those trucking companies. They were pylon sign requests that were requesting to be bigger and taller. Mr. Cummings stated when the sign inspector went to evaluate the property, he had a hard time viewing the sign because of the topography of the land. Chairman Sisson asked for any other questions or comments. Vice-Chairman Peake stated he thinks by raising the height of the pole sign would be an asset of drawing the customers to the store and not by increasing the square footage on the building. Mr. Garber asked if the pole sign was compliant besides the height. Mr. Cummings stated the pole sign was compliant but only needs a height variance. Ms. Diane Hollingstead appeared before the Board. Ms. Hollingstead is concerned with 4 lots with 3 different billboards and concerned that her sign may not visible. Mr. Smith stated their Northern Tool sign would be back behind the billboard and would not block her sign. Chairman Sisson asked what the minimum lot size is for the Commercial Industrial Park Zoning District. Mr. McGuffey stated the minimum lot size is 1 acre and this property has been recently annexed into the city. A motion was made by Mr. Garber and seconded by Ms. Ford to approve a variance to allow 2 additional signs for a total of 80 square foot of additional signage and a 10 foot height variance for a detached ground identification sign due to the topography of the pole mounted sign, size of building, and due to the large right-of-way. Approved unanimously.Case No. 88681203 Ward Avenue NE; Timothy C. Esslinger and Susan Esslinger, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 5 foot rear yard setback variance and a 1 foot side yard variance for the location of an accessory structure. According to Article 73.8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, accessory structures shall be at least 5 feet from all lot lines.Mrs. Esslinger appeared before the Board. Mrs. Esslinger stated they are the third owners of the property and have renovated the home. Also, there is an out structure in the rear yard, formerly a small pool house for the family. The pool has been buried, the structure is still there and wants to modify it to be used as a storage place. Mrs. Esslinger stated the variance they are requesting is to align the addition with the existing footprint of the structure on the rear property line. Chairman Sisson asked if it is on the property line. Mrs. Esslinger stated that is correct. Chairman Sisson stated it is considered an accessory structure and has to be 5 feet from property line. Vice-Chairman Peake asked Mrs. Esslinger will they be demolishing the structure. Mrs. Esslinger stated no, they will renovate the exterior and add onto the back. Mrs. Laura Wright appeared before the Board. Mrs. Wright is the next door neighbor and approves this request. Chairman Sisson asked the City for any questions or comments, no comments were given.A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Peake and seconded by Mr. Ozier to approve a 5 foot rear yard setback variance and a 1 foot side yard variance for the location of an accessory structure. Approved unanimously.Case No. 88691312 Hiwan Trail SE; The location of a structure; Anita Tsai-Fung Wang and Peter Hor-Ching Wang, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 5 foot rear yard setback variance. In a Residence 1A Zoning District, a 40 foot rear yard setback is requiredMrs. Anita Wang appeared before the Board. Mrs. Wang stated she would like to build a dual function exercise sunroom in the rear of the house on their existing patio deck. Mrs. Wang stated they have a creek to the west side of the house and in the front there is a very steep slope. Mrs. Wang stated as they get older they need more space to exercise. Mrs. Wang stated she mailed 50 letters out to surrounding neighbors and no one responded. Chairman Sisson asked if this was consistent with other things in this area. Mr. Cummings stated yes.Chairman Sisson asked for any other questions or comments, no comments were given.A motion was made by Mr. Garber and seconded by Vice-Chairman Peake to approve a 5 foot rear yard setback variance. Approved unanimously.Case No. 8870704 Randolph Avenue SE; The location of a structure; Jorge E. Marin and Wanda Marin, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 2 foot 8 inch side yard setback variance. In a Residence 1B Zoning District, an 8 foot side yard setback is required for 1 to 1 1/2 stories in height structure.Mr. Garber recused from this case. Mr. Jeff Thomas appeared before the Board with Mr. Jorge Marin. Mr. Thomas stated they would like to extend the existing garage and make a 2 car garage, accessible off of Wells Ave. Mr. Thomas also stated they will be extending the non-conformance and not getting any closer to the property line. The Historic Board has approved this request also. Chairman Sisson asked the Board for any questions, no comments were given.A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Peake and seconded by Mr. Ozier to approve a 2 foot 8 inch side yard setback variance. Approved unanimously.Case No. 887115151 AL 20 Highway SW; PVA landscaping, Nathan G. Johnson of Johnson and Associated for Cobro South, LLC, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 10 foot landscape buffer variance. According to Article 24.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the first twenty 20 feet of the required front yard shall be landscaped.Mr. Scott Ross with Johnson & Associates appeared before the Board. Mr. Ross stated the site will be used as a diesel truck sales and repair facility along Interstate 565. Mr. Ross also stated they are asking to decrease the buffer variance to 10 feet so the facility can display their trucks for sales. Mr. Cummings stated there is a large right-of-way and their parking will be closer and not the building. Chairman Sisson asked if the Board has done anything like this before in this area. Mr. McGuffey stated the zoning districts changes from Highway Business C4 to Commercial Industrial Park and it has a different landscape buffer and the huge right-of-way hurts them. Chairman Sisson asked if the City has any issues or concerns. Mr. McGuffey stated no. Chairman Sisson asked the Board for any questions or comments. Mr. McGuffey further stated the big 18-wheeler trucks or large tractors need as much vehicle room compared to regular cars. Chairman Sisson asked the Board for any questions or comments. Vice-Chairman Peake stated he would like for them to make sure that all the landscape material that should have been in the 20 ft landscape buffer is in the 10 ft landscape buffer. Mr. Ross stated they could do that. A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Peake and seconded by Mr. Garber to approve a 10 foot front yard landscape buffer variance with the stipulation that all required plant material be provided elsewhere on the property. Approved unanimously.Case No. 8872402 Governors Drive SW; PVA landscaping and the location and type of signage; Thomas Abernathy of CO II Investments, LLC, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 2 foot 2 inch east side landscape variance and a 3 foot north and west side landscape variance. This request will also require a variance for a monument sign for a single tenant building and a 3 foot front yard setback variance for a monument sign. According to Article 71.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, perimeter landscaping areas shall be at least five 5 continuous feet in depth, excluding walkways, measured perpendicularly from the adjacent property line or right-of way to the back of curb or pavement edge. Mr. Wayland Hogue of Integrity Engineering appeared before the Board. Mr. Hogue stated McDonalds is before the Board requesting a variance for the reduction in landscape on the sides and in the rear and a variance for a monument sign. Mr. Hogue stated the parcel is very narrow and is only .57 acres and McDonald’s is planning to demolish the old Captain D’s building. Mr. Hogue stated they are able to accommodate the landscape on the front and rear but on the sides they are asking to reduce the landscape requirement to a 3 ft strip. Vice-Chairman Peake asked Mr. Hogue if they were meeting all the plant material requirements even though he was in a reduced space. Mr. Hogue stated they will meet the requirements on the front and west side but it is physically impossible to plant a 3 ft landscape strip abutting a building. Mr. Hogue stated they are also requesting a monument sign. Mr. Hogue stated because of traffic patterns at the corner of Governors and Dr. Joseph Lowery Blvd, they are requesting a 5ft x 5 ft sign with a 3 ft monument brick base. Vice-Chairman Peake asked Mr. McGuffey why monument signs are not allowed there. Mr. McGuffey stated this parcel is located in a General Business C-3 Zoning District which is like the downtown area. Chairman Sisson asked Mr. Hogue what were his thoughts as far as to make this site more of an urban location. Mr. Hogue stated with any QSR-Quick Serve Restaurant, the traffic engineering has asked them to have a 250 feet stacking on site, so therefore they will be able to que around the building and feels that the site needs to be larger. Chairman Sisson stated he would like to see it be more residential and walkability. Mr. Steve Johnson one of the owners of McDonald’s appeared before the Board. Mr. Johnson stated they have wanted to be part of the downtown area. Mr. Johnson stated if they were a part of the downtown area, they would take their role seriously and be a good community partner. Mr. Johnson stated he doesn’t think the cars will be stacked, and they would have 2 drive-thru order points to move the drive-thru faster. Mr. Johnson stated they have the desire and motivation to be a good part and to maintain the urban feel and not just putting a standard McDonald’s there. Chairman Sisson stated he feels the design and presentation is great but it is the building form that is a question. Mr. Hogue stated there will be 11 spaces on site, possibly 6-7 spaces for employees, but hopefully the employees will walk to work, however the regulations do not require any parking on site. Mr. Ozier asked if this has been cleared through Traffic Engineering. Mr. Hogue stated they have met with Traffic Engineering. Mr. Ozier also asked if they will be meeting the number of plantings required for the site. Mr. Hogue stated that is correct. Mr. McGuffey stated the staff would be happy if their landscape person focused on shrubs, and mid-range plants to make it look very nice. Mr. McGuffey stated another issue the staff has concerns with is the pedestrian point of this property is the location for many departments, how safe and how recognizable is it. Mr. McGuffey stated anything they can do to make it as urban as possible the staff would certainly appreciate it. Ms. Jackie Reed appeared before the Board. Ms. Reed stated the City needs to work with McDonald’s to work something out because they have been a good neighbor. A motion was made by Ms. Ford and seconded by Mr. Garber to approve a 2 foot 2 inch east side landscape variance, a 3 foot north and west side landscape variance, and a variance to allow a 3 foot front yard setback for the location of a monument sign. In addition to the approved variance, a connectivity and landscape plan must be approved by the Planning Department. Case No. 88738013 Navios Drive; The location of a structure; Barry G. Bryan, Jr. and Katy P. Bryan, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 5 foot rear yard setback variance. In a Residence 1A Zoning District, a 40 foot rear yard setback is required.Mr. Barry Bryan appeared before the Board. Mr. Bryan stated they purchased the lot and got the Zoning Ordinance guide and realized the front yard setback is 35 ft and the rear yard setback was 40 ft. Mr. Bryan stated once he applied for the permit, staff checked the property and would like for Mr. Bryan to put the house in line with the other houses because the other houses were a little further back than the 35 ft. front yard setback. Mr. Cummings stated the average of the other homes was 40 ft, so Mr. Bryan will only be moving the house back 5 ft. Chairman Sisson asked the City for any questions or comments. Mr. McGuffey also stated there is a golf course in the back of the rear yard.A motion was made by Mr. Ozier and seconded by Mr. Garber to approve a 5 foot rear yard setback variance. Approved unanimously.Case No. 88741203 Fraser Avenue; The location of a structure; Donald Esslinger of Structure Remodeling for Susan Morring Cope, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 4 foot front yard setback variance. In a Residence 1A Zoning District, a 35 foot front yard setback is required.A motion was made by Chairman Sisson and seconded by Vice Chairman Peake to approve the request to continue for 30 days for the location of a structure. Approved unanimously.Case No. 8875917 Cornelia Drive SE; A use variance to allow a motor home as a residential dwelling; Lawrence Siegmund, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a use variance to allow a motor home as a permanent residential dwelling on the same lot as a primary structure in a Residence 1A Zoning District. In a Residence 1A Zoning District, one single family dwelling is permitted on each approved parcel of land.Mr. Lawrence Siegmund appeared before the Board. Mr. Siegmund stated they would like for the motorhome to be able to stay where it is due to a hardship. The hardship is that Mr. Siegmund’s daughter and son-in-law are disabled and it will be convenient for them to be there to help with him. Mr. Siegmund stated the daughter and son-in-law intent was to travel in the motorhome but due to their disability they can’t right now. Mr. Cummings stated the City received a complaint that someone was living in the motorhome. Once, the City inspector checked the complaint, it took the inspector several times to make contact with someone and when he actually realized someone was living in there, the City issued a notice of violation. Vice-Chairman Peake asked if you are allowed to park a motorhome on the property. Mr. Cummings stated you can park a recreational vehicle (RV) on the property but are not allowed to actually live in it. Chairman Sisson stated so with someone living in it, it is considered 2 residences on one lot in a Residence 1A Zoning District. Chairman Sisson asked if this has been done anywhere else within the City on a regular sized lot. Mr. Cummings stated no. Chairman Sisson stated again the Zoning Ordinance does not allow 2 residences on one lot. Mr. McGuffey asked how big the house was. Mr. Siegmund stated he has a 3 bedroom home which is 1600 square feet. Mr. McGuffey stated the City has received several phone calls in opposition of this request. Vice-Chairman Peake asked if the RV can be moved. They stated yes. Mr. David Boskin, a friend of Mr. Siegmund appeared before the Board. Mr. Boskin asked if you can give them time to get it fixed and then move it. Mr. McGuffey stated it is at the Board’s discretion.Chairman Sisson asked for a motion to approve a use variance to allow a motor home as a permanent residential dwelling on the same lot as a primary structure in a Residence 1A Zoning District. None was given; therefore, the request was denied.Case No. 8876300-C Sparkman Drive NW; PVA landscaping and PVA lighting, Donald Hersh of Teledyne Technologies Incorporated, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a variance for PVA landscaping and PVA lighting grade requirements to and existing parking lot for the addition of a new building. According to Article 71.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, until a new or additional structure is constructed on the property; at which time the entire PVA must be brought into conformity with requirements for new construction.Mr. Garber recused from this case. Mr. Cummings stated this variance request is for PVA landscaping and lighting upgrades for an addition of a new building. Mr. Donald Hersh and Jason Phillip appeared before the Board. Mr. Hersh stated they want to put in a new addition that will be a 22,000 square foot building. The building will have cranes and other manufacturing equipment in it that will create new jobs. Chairman Sisson stated they have a lot of parking and if it is being used. Mr. Hersh stated no. Mr. McGuffey stated the original users had this parking lot. Mr. Hersh stated they have half a million square feet under roof on 65 acres. Mr. Hersh stated they are secluded from anything from outside and the internals of the facility will not be seen and well lit. Mr. Cummings stated since they are adding a building, it triggers the pva lighting and landscaping. Mr. McGuffey stated the cost to upgrade parking lot will be hard to manage. Chairman Sisson asked could you build on the parking area. Mr. Hersh stated there are some other issues with parking lot, and drainage issues. Chairman Sisson asked if the City has any issues. Mr. McGuffey stated no. Chairman Sisson asked if the parking lot was lighted now. Mr. Hersh stated yes. Chairman Sisson asked if anyone works at night and if the property was gated. Mr. Hersh stated they do have some fencing and they have 24-hour security. Vice-Chairman Peake asked Mr. Hersh if they have ever had any security problems. Mr. Hersh stated no. Mr. Ozier did ask again if the access is gated, all but one access is locked after 6:00 p.m. on Technology Drive.A motion was made by Chairman Sisson and seconded by Vice-Chairman Peake to approve a variance for PVA landscaping and PVA lighting due to the fact that 24 - hour security is provided and access to the property is gated. Approved unanimously.There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download