City of Huntsville - Official website of the City of ...



Administration BuildingCouncil Chambers308 Fountain CircleFebruary 14, 20176:00 p.m.BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTMembers Present:Mr. Martin Sisson – ChairmanMr. Bert Peake – Vice-ChairmanMr. Fred CoffeyDr. David Branham Mr. Harry GarberMr. Johnny Ozier – Supernumerary Others Present:Mr. Jim McGuffey, City of Huntsville Planning ServicesMr. Travis Cummings, City of Huntsville Zoning AdministrationMr. Allan Priest, City of Huntsville Zoning AdministrationSergeant 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 stated that the following variance request will be continued for 30 days: the location of a structure at 104 Tollgate Circle; Mark Brubaker for William and Katherine Hallett, appellant.Chairman Sisson then called the extension items.Case No. 8695-1114 Jordan Lane NW; Timmy Fual, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a special exception to allow live entertainment in a Neighborhood Business C1 Zoning District. According to Article 92.5.3(36) of the Zoning Ordinance, entertainment is permitted as a special exception in a Neighborhood Business C1 Zoning District. Mr. Timmy Fual appeared before the Board. Mr. McGuffey stated this is Tim’s Cajun Kitchen and they would like to have live entertainment until 11:00 p.m. Mr. McGuffey stated this is a yearly renewal. Mr. McGuffey stated the City has not received any complaints. Chairman Sisson asked Sgt. Ware if there had been any issues at this location. Sgt. Ware stated there had not been any issues. Chairman Sisson asked Mr. Fual if there had been any changes to the operation of the business. Mr. Fual stated no changes have been made. Mr. Fual explained they have acoustical music on Friday nights and closes at 10:00 p.m.A motion was made by Mr. Coffey and seconded by Dr. Branham to approve a special exception to allow live entertainment in a Neighborhood Business C1 Zoning District for this appellant only and for one year only. Approved unanimously.Chairman Sisson then called the regular agenda items.Case No. 87825901 University Drive NW; The size of signage; Mark Foster of TopGolf USA Huntsville, LLC, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a variance to allow additional attached signage. According to 72.4.4 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance, attached accessory signs, provided that the total area of all such signs for each establishment or portion thereof utilized and operated as a separate business or commercial enterprise shall not exceed one hundred and fifty (150) square feet for each such establishment per frontage, plus three (3) square feet for each additional foot of building frontage in excess of fifty (50) feet with a maximum sign size for each establishment of three hundred and fifty (350) square feet.Mr. McGuffey stated this is the Madison Square Mall site and the first new user for this site. This request is for additional attached signage. Mr. Foster stated TopGolf is a hospitality entertainment concept with a 3-story active driving range. This business uses patented technology with a bona-fide v-chip inside the golf balls. The guests are able to hit the golf ball at targets in an outfield from the 3 different levels of the facility, and score on active game consoles at your bay. The bays are designed like you are in a home environment with couches, bar stools, and flat screen televisions throughout the facility. The televisions are for watching local sports and movie night for families that reserve a hitting bay. Mr. Foster stated they are going to break ground on March 1, 2017. Mr. Foster stated they are the anchor tenant for this mixed use development. He also stated their building will sit off of the main road and their signage is on the interior side of the development. Mr. Coffey asked if their project goes forward as scheduled, when would the signs get installed. Mr. Drew Oppenhuis stated they will install the signs in September or October of 2017. Mr. Coffey asked why they cannot wait to understand the concept of the whole project before seeking a variance. Mr. Foster stated that signage is a key part of the building design and if they were to wait, it will delay the progress of this site.Dr. Branham asked Mr. McGuffey what size of sign they can have. Mr. McGuffey stated in Highway Business C-4, the Zoning Ordinance allows for 350 square feet of attached signage and they are asking for 922 square feet. Mr. McGuffey explained the text portion of TopGolf sign is 90 square feet in size, and the illuminated logo is turned on in the evenings. Since this logo is turned on in the evenings, it is still considered a part of the signage. Zoning Administration has included the logo’s outer boundary which is 28 feet x 29 feet, the text and the sign itself to get the total square footage. Chairman Sisson asked Mr. Foster what are the rules for the development. Mr. Foster stated they fit within the declarations for signage with Mid-City Development. Mr. McGuffey stated the private developer agreement is between TopGolf and Mid-City Development. From the City of Huntsville standpoint, the City will build internal roads and right-of-ways which will give them position for frontage on all of the lots that are created within the master development. Many lots will be created and the tenants are permitted to use signage requirements in a Highway Business C-4 Zoning District. Mr. Foster explained the sign (logo) is sketched into the side of the building, will not be protruding from the building, and is only illuminated in the evenings. Mr. Foster explained the sign will face into the development. Chairman Sisson stated therefore no signage is on the south or north of the building and basically the sign is a super-graphic and on one side of the building. Mr. Foster stated that is correct.Chairman Sisson asked Mr. McGuffey what he thought about the size of the sign. Mr. McGuffey stated we have not seen a sign that was built into the building that is illuminated in the evening only. Mr. McGuffey stated we have seen big box retailer signs that commonly exceed the 350 square feet in the past. This is something we have not seen before. Chairman Sisson asked Mr. Foster what is the material of the sign. Mr. Foster stated it is synthetic stucco(EIFF’S) etched into the building with a LED on the inside that is only shown at night. Dr. Branham asked why Mid- City Development did not come to the meeting with TopGolf to discuss the signage also. Mr. Foster stated that out of all the 30 facilities across the United States and Internationally this is their standard sign. Also, their hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Mr. Coffey asked if the sign will face inside the development, who are they trying to reach through their advertisement. Mr. Foster stated since they are the anchor tenant, sitting in the back, they have net poles that are 170 feet tall and they are an entertainment concept that people are coming too. Mr. McGuffey asked, what is the overall height of the building? Mr. Foster stated it tops out at 45 feet tall. Mr. Foster was unsure of the width of the building. Mr. Coffey asked if they are not installing signs until September, why TopGolf and Mid-City Development could not present a unified plan concerning the signage. Mr. Oppenhuis asked what exactly did he mean by unified plan. Chairman Sisson explained they were looking for someone from Mid-City Development to come and explain the development, the buildings, and the development agreements between the tenants. This way the Board can get an idea of what is happening from a signage point of view. Chairman Sisson asked Mr. McGuffey exactly where this Mid-City Development stands as far as the development of the overall planning. Mr. McGuffey stated the developer, RCP has a master plan that the City has seen and it is at least 3 phases. Chairman Sisson asked how many locations they had. Mr. Foster stated they have 30 locations. Mr. Oppenhuis stated that most of the locations have not considered the fa?ade as signage, it’s just a different color fa?ade with lights on top of it and it’s just the canopy sign they consider as signage. Mr. McGuffey stated this was the biggest hurdle for the City to determine if it was signage. Vice-Chairman Peake stated the issue is less about the size of the sign but is the Board’s interpretation the building fa?ade is a sign. Mr. McGuffey stated it was best to bring before the Board and make a determination. Chairman Sisson asked if the sign ordinance was still being rewritten. Mr. McGuffey stated that sign is being rewritten and almost done. Chairman Sisson asked what the definition of sign was according to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McGuffey stated the definition of a sign is a structure or device, excluding artistic murals, designed or intended to convey information to the public in written or pictorial form including without limitation any decorative or structural framework, supports or attachments necessary for or incidental to such sign. Mr. Foster stated the sign is recessed in the wall. Ms. Leslie Tripp appeared before the Board and was concerned that the sign is too big, light pollution, and other businesses would not want the light glaring into their businesses. Mr. Foster stated because they are the anchor tenant in the development, any future tenants will know the lighting condition before they move into the development. Ms. Jackie Reed appeared before the Board concerned with why they are getting signage before the building is being built. Chairman Sisson explained that Top Golf was concerned about the sign because it is built into the building facade and they want to get this solved before they break ground on the construction. Dr. Branham asked if the inset or sign is a trademark and will it be facing east. Mr. Foster stated a piece of it is a trademark, illuminated internally and is facing east. Mr. Foster clarified that he can’t really say if the sign is trademarked but can only speak to what his employees have on their shirts.A motion was made by Chairman Sisson and seconded by Mr. Garber to approve a variance to allow 924 square foot of attached signage as presented. Due to the fact that the illuminated signage of the building is facing away from all major arterial roads, the building is part of a mixed use development, a large portion of the sign is part of the actual building facade, and with the stipulation that no additional signage is allowed except for a business center sign. Approved unanimously. Case 87832414 Clinton Avenue W; A special exception to allow an alcoholic beverage manufacturer in a Light Industrial Zoning District; Charles Stewart Money, Jr. of Inner Space Brewing Company, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a special exception to allow an alcoholic beverage manufacturer in a Light Industrial Zoning District. According to 92.5.3 (37) of the Zoning Ordinance, alcoholic Beverage Manufacturers that conduct tastings or samplings on the licensed premises (with or without entertainment) shall be permitted as a Special Exception in General Business C-3, Highway Business C-4, Village Business C-6, Light Industry, Heavy Industry, Commercial Industrial Park, and Airport Commercial Districts. Mr. McGuffey stated this location is close to the Campus 805 Brewery. Mr. McGuffey stated this is an existing door company business at the present time. They are looking to turn it into a small volume brewery. Mr. McGuffey further stated there is an ordinance now in place for beverage manufacturers requires a special exception in this district. This is the first new brewery that has to meet the new ordinance. Mr. McGuffey further stated the other breweries that have been approved were there before the new ordinance was in place. Mr. Steve Snyder, Mr. Daniel Wallace, and Mr. Charles Stewart Money, Jr. appeared before the Board. Mr. Money stated they would like to do a small craft brewery, featuring farmhouse succession style ales, which have lower alcohol. Mr. Money stated the principals will be himself, Mr. Daniel Wallace, Mr. Patrick Wallace, and other family members. Mr. Money stated a fourth brewery in this district would be a great thing for putting Huntsville on the map as a great destination for craft beer. Chairman Sisson asked if it is a new building. Mr. Snyder stated it is an existing building. Chairman Sisson asked the question so there is no variance but the only thing we are talking about is the special exception for this use. Mr. McGuffey stated that is correct. Mr. McGuffey stated it is an existing building, has an existing parking lot. They will get a permit for an interior fit only, and may do a small garden outside. Chairman Sisson asked about the parking requirements. Mr. McGuffey stated they are good on the parking lot and has managed it well. Mr. Coffey stated so the Board’s concern is impact to neighborhood. Mr. McGuffey stated that is correct impact to the neighborhood, surrounding users and because it is in a Light Industrial Zoning District. Mr. Snyder stated the only thing they are doing is a tenant fit out to build a fire rated wall around their brew area. Chairman Sisson asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Money stated the hours of operation will be 7 days a week, Monday through Thursday from 4:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m., later on Friday and Sunday from 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Coffey asked if this will be a brew and sale. Mr. Money stated they will have a tasting room and eventually would like to become a production brewery. Vice-Chairman Peake asked if they will be serving food. Mr. Money stated only snacks that are free of charge. Vice-Chairman Peake asked if within the 500 ft of property owners, if any were residential that he had to notify. Mr. Money was unsure but stated they did notify everyone on the list. Mr. McGuffey stated there are some houses within the industrially zoned area and there may have been some that were notified. Mr. McGuffey stated the City did receive two letters, one in support and one with concerns about another brewery. Chairman Sisson asked Sgt. Ware if Campus 805 or the other breweries have had any issues. Sgt. Ware stated there have not been any issues with the 3 present breweries. Sgt. Ware also stated as far as expansion of another brewery, the Police Department does not have any issues with them creating another brewery in this area. Mr. Coffey asked if the lighting was compliant. Mr. McGuffey stated the lighting is compliant. Dr. Branham stated so they will not have to meet PVA lighting unless they are modifying the building. Mr. McGuffey stated if they add a structure, they will have to modify the PVA lighting. Vice-Chairman Peake encouraged Mr. Money to make sure they have sufficient lighting for their patrons. Ms. Jackie Reed appeared before the Board. Ms. Reed was concerned about the traffic issues for people walking across the street. Mr. Coffey asked Mr. McGuffey if they had to comply with the sign ordinance. Mr. McGuffey stated yes. A motion was made by Mr. Coffey and seconded by Mr. Garber to approve a special exception to allow an alcoholic beverage manufacturer in a Light Industrial Zoning District. Approved unanimously.Case 87842800 Bob Wallace Avenue SW; PVA perimeter landscaping; James L. McElroy, Jr. and or Michael O. Recio of McElroy Land Surveying LLC., Inc. for D. Scott McLain Commercial Properties, Inc., appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 5 foot PVA perimeter landscape variance along the north and west side property lines. According to Article 71.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, perimeter landscaping areas shall be at least 5 continuous feet in depth. Mr. McGuffey stated this case and next case are the same and will be voted on separately. Mr. McGuffey stated this is the old Virginia College site. Mr. McGuffey also stated they are creating a lot line down a parking lot. By creating the lot line, the perimeter landscaping ordinance applied and they couldn’t provide sufficient perimeter landscaping, so the request is for a 5 foot landscape buffer. Mr. McGuffey further stated they are only putting a lot line around the building. Chairman Sisson stated so the request is for a 5 foot PVA perimeter landscaping variance along the north and west side property lines. Mr. McGuffey stated that is correct. A motion was made by Chairman Sisson and seconded by Vice-Chairman Peake to approve a 5 foot PVA perimeter landscape variance along the north and west side property lines as presented and with the stipulations: any future development will have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance and for this use only and this appellant only. Approved unanimouslyCase 87852880 Bob Wallace Avenue SW; PVA perimeter landscaping; James L. McElroy, Jr. and or Michael O. Recio of McElroy Land Surveying LLC., Inc. for D. Scott McLain Commercial Properties, Inc., appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 5 foot PVA perimeter landscape variance along the south and east side property lines. According to Article 71.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, perimeter landscaping areas shall be at least 5 continuous feet in depth. Mr. McGuffey stated this request is the same as the previous case and for the other side. Dr. Branham stated the Board wants the same restrictions. Mr. McGuffey stated that is correct. A motion was made by Chairman Sisson and seconded by Vice-Chairman Peake to approve a 5 foot PVA perimeter landscape variance along the south and east side property lines as presented and with the stipulations: any future development will have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance and for this use only and this appellant only. Approved unanimously Case 878612 Elm Ridge Boulevard SW; The location of a structure; Teresa Michele Pruitt and Melissa Joy Hopper, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 1 foot 6 inch secondary front yard setback variance. In a Residence 2A Zoning District, a 20 foot secondary front yard setback is required.Mr. McGuffey stated this is a new house being built in the same location as an existing house that was built in 2006. The house was struck by lighting and burned down in 2016. Mr. McGuffey stated the house they are rebuilding is in the same footprint. The new home is being built on the existing foundation as the old house, which was permitted and given the certificate of occupancy by the Inspection Department. Mr. McGuffey stated from the surveys shown, it shows the house is a 1 foot and 6 inches too close to the right way. So, they are before the Board to clear up the title for this secondary front yard setback. A motion was made by Chairman Sisson and seconded by Mr. Garber to approve a 1 foot 6 inch secondary front yard setback variance. Approved unanimously.Case 8787104 Toll Gate Circle SE; The location of a structure; Mark Brubaker for William and Katherine Hallett, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 9 foot side yard setback variance. In a Residence 1A Zoning District, a 10 foot side 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 a variance for the location of a structure at 104 Toll Gate Circle. Approved unanimously.Case 878811819 Memorial Parkway SE; PVA perimeter landscaping; Rajinder Singh Mehta, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 5 foot PVA perimeter landscape variance along the south and west side property lines. According to Article 71.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, perimeter landscaping areas shall be at least 5 continuous feet in depth. Mr. McGuffey stated this is going to be a new construction, a Mapco facility. Mr. McGuffey also stated this is an existing structure that will be removed, build an access drive and the access drive straddles the property line. Mr. McGuffey further stated that both sides of the access drive are interfering with the 5 foot perimeter landscape requirement. So therefore this case and the next case are alleviating the 5 foot perimeter landscape buffer. Mr. McGuffey explained that this is a new site with a shared access driveway and they are regulated by Traffic Engineering to have one point of access per linear footage of frontage, so this development will straddle the property line. Mr. Brett Wisemon appeared before the Board representing both owners. Chairman Sisson asked can any of the current landscaping be moved anywhere else and the quantity of landscaping. Mr. McGuffey stated the Board could ask them to provide the quantity of landscaping that is deficient in other islands or buffers along the front or the side. They have two street frontages with 10 foot landscape buffers. Dr. Branham stated so they have enough room to provide all of the landscaping just at different locations. Mr. McGuffey stated that is correct. Mr. Cummings stated this property was approved for a variance in February of 2016. Chairman Sisson asked if the Board had any questions, none was given. Ms. Shirley Durham appeared before the Board concerned about the structure being more in the front and not leading back into their residences. Also, Ms. Durham was concerned with the landscaping because once the hotel comes down, it will open everything up. Chairman Sisson asked if there is any required buffer in the rear of the property. Mr. McGuffey stated since it is industrially zoned there is not and there will be a 5 foot landscape buffer required along the rear property line. Ms. Linda Kinanshly appeared before the Board concerned with the noise and light issues that are leading into the residences. Chairman Sisson asked again if the Board had any questions or comments, none was given.A motion was made by Chairman Sisson and seconded by Dr. Branham to approve 5 foot PVA perimeter landscape variance along the south and west side property lines as presented and with the stipulation that the required 15 foot residential landscaping buffer be applied to the east side property line. Approved unanimously.Case 878911821 Memorial Parkway SE; PVA perimeter landscaping; Neil Weber of NTI Investments, LLC d/b/a MAPCO Express, Inc. appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 5 foot PVA perimeter landscape variance along the north and east side property lines. According to Article 71.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, perimeter landscaping areas shall be at least 5 continuous feet in depth. Mr. Brett Wisemon is representing this owner also. Chairman Sisson asked if there is a residential buffer requirement for residential abutment. Mr. McGuffey stated there is a 15 foot landscape buffer requirement for residential abutment. Mr. McGuffey further stated which is ten feet greater than the 5 feet they are required to put in now. Dr. Branham asked what they are planning to put on the back lot. Mr. McGuffey stated the back lot is not developed. Chairman Sisson stated in other parts of the Zoning Ordinance there is a 15 foot landscape buffer that is required next to residential areas, and this is not residentially zoned in the back but some is being used as residential. Mr. McGuffey stated that is correct. Also, Chairman Sisson stated so since we are waiving landscaping on one side of the property, we have to make sure the landscape material is put somewhere else on the property. Dr. Branham asked so we are waiving 5 feet on the front and they will have to do 15 feet on the back. Mr. McGuffey stated that is correct. Mr. McGuffey further stated if they were to build a parking lot today, they will have to have 5 feet in the back, and waive 5 feet in the front, he’s required 5 in the back and that makes 10, he’s only required an additional 5 feet. Chairman Sisson stated if the owner has an issue with this, they can come back before the Board when it is being developed. Ms. Shirley Durham asked if they will keep the natural or existing landscaping as the buffer. Mr. McGuffey stated they have the option to get existing plant material credit. Chairman Sisson explained the definition allows you to count an existing tree as 2 trees that you will have to put in, so there is a motivation to keep existing plant material there. A motion was made by Chairman Sisson and seconded by Mr. Ozier to approve a 5 foot PVA perimeter landscape variance along the north and east side property lines as presented and with the stipulation that the required amount of plant material is provided elsewhere on the site. Approved unanimously.Case 87903255 Wall Triana Highway SW; The location of a structure and PVA lighting and landscaping; Danny Roberts for Sumitomo Corporation, appellant. Mr. Priest stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 5 foot PVA perimeter landscape variance along the north, east, and west side property lines. This request will also require a PVA lighting variance. According to Article 71.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, perimeter landscaping areas shall be at least 5 continuous feet in depth. According to Article 71.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, a detailed lighting plan for all PVAs having 15 or more parking spaces or containing at least 5,000 square feet of PVA must be submitted with the construction and landscape plans.Mr. McGuffey stated this is an existing facility which is Sumitomo Corporation, a tire facility. They are planning to build a loading dock which will trigger lighting and landscaping. Therefore the request before the Board is for the location of the loading dock which is in the front yard and PVA lighting which is behind the controlled access gate so it will be private only.Mr. Rick Campbell and Mr. Adam Balch of Mullins, LLC and Danny Roberts of the Sumitomo Corporation appeared before the Board. Chairman Sisson asked if they were doubling the size of building. Mr. Campbell stated that is correct. Mr. Campbell stated they want to go from motorcycle tires testing, to adding the automobile tires. Mr. Roberts stated 20 years ago it was a motorcycle tires and automobile test track, but in 2000 it switched to only motorcycle tire testing. Mr. Roberts stated now they are bringing the automobiles back into this building. Mr. Campbell stated they are going to screen the loading dock with a wall. Chairman Sisson asked what the front setback was. Mr. McGuffey stated 100 feet. Mr. Campbell stated they were crossing the setback by 10.3 ft. Chairman Sisson asked if the properties across the street have the 100 feet setback. Mr. McGuffey stated no they are zoned differently. Chairman Sisson stated so they are asking for the structure setback, location of the loading dock, and a PVA lighting variance. Mr. McGuffey stated they were able to remediate the request for a 5 foot PVA perimeter landscape variance. Dr. Branham asked if the deficiency in lighting was in their secure gated area. Mr. McGuffey stated that is correct in their secure gated area. Mr. Garber asked what the screened wall is made out of. Mr. Campbell stated concrete. Mr. Roberts stated they are not a warehouse and the usage will be very limited. The trucks will literally pull in, unload equipment and be right out. There will never be a trailer or truck sitting there.A motion was made by Dr. Branham and seconded by Mr. Garber to approve 11 foot front yard setback for the location of a loading dock and a PVA lighting variance due to the fact the area is behind a private gated area. Approved unanimously.Chairman Sisson asked for a motion to approve the December 20, 2016, Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting minutes. A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Peake and seconded by Chairman Sisson to approve the December 20, 2016, meeting minutes. Approved unanimouslyThere being no further business, the meeting adjourned. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download