Board of Zoning Adjustment
June 21, 2016
Page 7
Administration Building
Council Chambers
308 Fountain Circle
June 21, 2016
6:00 p.m.
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
Members Present:
Mr. Martin Sisson – Chairman
Mr. Bert Peake – Vice Chairman
Mr. Fred Coffey
Dr. David Branham
Mr. Harry Garber
Mr. Johnny Ozier – Supernumerary
Ms. Kimberly Ford-Supernumerary
Others Present:
Mr. Jim McGuffey, City of Huntsville Planning Services
Mr. Travis Cummings, City of Huntsville Zoning Administration
Mr. Allan Priest, City of Huntsville Zoning Administration
Mrs. Jon Johnson, City of Huntsville Zoning Administration, Recording Secretary
Sergeant Jonathan Ware, Huntsville Police Department
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment was called to order by Vice-Chairman Peake at the time and place noted above. Vice Chairman Peake explained he will chair the meeting until Chairman Sisson arrives.
Vice-Chairman Peake 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.
Vice-Chairman Peake stated that the following variance requests have been withdrawn: the location of a structure at 2333 Billie Watkins Street SW and the location of a structure at 1216 Locust Avenue SE. Also, the location of a structure at 1110 Locust Avenue SE is continued for 30 days.
Vice-Chairman Peake then called the extension items on the agenda.
Case No. 8379-3 10300 Bailey Cove Road, Suite 10; A special exception to allow live entertainment in a Neighborhood Business C1 Zoning District; Alfredo Ortiz of Ortiz, Inc., appellant. Mr. Cummings 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. Mr. Cummings stated that 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. McGuffey stated this special exception is for live entertainment. They were given the special exception in December of 2015 for six months only, commonly a yearly renewal, and the City was trying to see if they still met the criteria of the special exception of ceasing operation at 11:00 p.m., for this appellant only and the music not audible outside. Vice-Chairman Peake stated the Board gave six months before because they had received complaints from this property.
Lisa Archer of Chips and Salsa appeared before the Board. Mrs. Archer stated they do this request every year around New Year’s Eve, and they normally have the jukebox playing. Mrs. Archer stated she walks outside to make sure no one can hear the music. Vice-Chairman Peake asked Sgt. Ware if the Police Department had received any complaints from this property. Sgt. Ware stated no, the Police Department has not received any complaints. Mr. McGuffey stated the neighbors called and asked if they could make sure the back door stays shut and be good neighbors, they would support it again for another 6 months. Ms. Archer said they have reinforced the back door and so the employees will have to go through two doors and the back area is limited for employee parking only. Mr. Coffey asked why you have to do it for 6 months. Mr. McGuffey stated since they had received the complaint from neighbors, they only did it for six months but since the ordinance states calendar year, they will have to come back.
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 licensee only and for 6 months only. Approved unanimously.
Case No. 8425-1 250 Governors Drive, Unit H; A use variance to allow a salon; Sandra M. Jaqubino, appellant. Mr. Cummings stated the location of the property and said the request will require a use variance to allow a hair salon in a Medical Zoning District.
Mr. McGuffey stated this is a use variance for a salon. Mr. McGuffey stated Ms. Jaqubino was granted a use variance for a salon 2 years ago and this request is for a renewal or full variance. Mr. Coffey asked why it was only for 2 years before. Mr. McGuffey stated it was only granted for 2 years to make sure there are not issues with the neighbors. Vice-Chairman Peake asked if the City had received any complaints, Mr. McGuffey stated no complaints have been received.
A motion was made by Mr. Coffey and seconded by Dr. Branham to approve a use variance to allow a hair salon in a Medical Zoning District as presented. Approved unanimously.
Case No. 8427-1 117 Longwood Drive SE, Unit E; A use variance to allow a salon; Greg Martin and Rhonda Watson, appellant. Mr. Cummings stated the location of the property and said the request will require a use variance to allow a hair salon in a Medical Zoning District.
Mr. McGuffey stated this is the exact same request. The Board granted a 2 year variance for a use variance for a salon in a Medical District and they have remodeled the building. Mr. McGuffey also stated the City has not received any complaints from the neighbors or from any of the adjoining users. Vice-Chairman Peake asked Mrs. Watson if anything had changed in their operation within the last 2 years. Ms. Watson stated no, everything is going good.
A motion was made by Mr. Garber and seconded by Dr. Branham to approve a use variance to allow a hair salon in a Medical Zoning District as presented. Approved unanimously.
Vice-Chairman Peake then called the regular agenda items.
Case No. 8683 914 Cassandra Avenue SE; The location of a structure; Buff Day Emslie, appellant. Mr. Cummings stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 12 foot rear yard setback variance. In a Residence 1A Zoning District, a 40 foot rear yard setback is required.
Mr. McGuffey stated the appellant is building an addition in their rear yard and the addition is encroaching into their rear yard setbacks and they are asking for relief on their rear yard setback. Mrs. Emslie stated basically they are replacing a deck with a covered porch. Mrs. Emslie stated as people drive up and down the street they can see all in their rear yard because of the way the house is situated. Ms. Emslie stated since it is a corner lot; they are restricted to what they can do in their rear yard, because of the setbacks. Mr. Coffey asked how tall the fence that encloses the yard was, Ms. Emslie stated 6 feet. Mr. Ozier asked Ms. Emslie did she send letters out and if she received any responses. Ms. Emslie stated she mailed 66 letters out, with no responses. Mr. McGuffey stated the City did not receive any complaints. Vice-Chairman Peake asked Mrs. Emslie to elaborate on the construction of the porch. Mrs. Emslie stated it is an aluminum building with a bronze colored metal roof, screened in all the way around and it is made to where if they wanted to put windows in later, they could. Vice-Chairman Peake asked if the Board had any questions or comments, none was given.
A motion was made by Mr. Garber and seconded by Mr. Coffey to approve a 12 foot rear yard setback variance as presented. Approved unanimously.
Case No. 8684 2620 Clinton Avenue NW; The location of an accessory ground signage; Randall A. Schrimsher, appellant. Mr. Cummings stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 4 foot setback variance on Governors Drive for an accessory ground sign. This request will also require a 2 foot setback variance on Triana Blvd and a 7 foot setback variance from Clinton Avenue. Mr. Cummings stated according to Article 40.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a 50 foot setback is required from major arterials (Governors Drive) and a 30 foot setback is required from streets (Triana Blvd and Clinton Avenue).
Vice-Chairman Peake recused from this case. Mr. Coffey is conducting the meeting.
Mr. McGuffey stated the request is for monument signage at the old Stone Middle School site and these requests are for the location of the monument signs. Mr. Schrimsher stated they are requesting 2 signs, one for a 4 foot setback variance on Governors Dr. and a 2 foot setback on Triana Blvd and the 7 foot setback variance sign from Clinton Ave. Mr. Coffey asked if there is no issue of the size, just the location of the signs. Mr. McGuffey stated the sign from major arterials, the setback has to be 50 feet and from Triana Blvd is 30 feet. The 7 foot setback variance sign from Clinton Ave. will have the tenants listed in this building. Mr. Coffey asked Mr. Schrimsher if there will be any additional signs or additional signage on the building. Mr. Schrimsher stated possibly one more sign with a different lot and as far as the signage on the building, he will have to be compliant or ask for a variance. Mr. McGuffey stated the Planning Staff is looking to revise some of the setbacks for monument signs. Mr. Coffey asked if there was any issue on size or traffic issues. Mr. McGuffey stated no issue on size and the Board could make stipulation of subject to Traffic Engineering approval if they choose to do so.
A motion was made by Dr. Branham and seconded by Mr. Ozier to approve a 4 foot setback variance on Governors Drive, a 2 foot setback variance on Triana Blvd and a 7 foot setback variance from Clinton Avenue as presented. Approved unanimously.
Case No. 8685 436 Newman Avenue SE; Rear yard lot coverage; Donna and Michael Castellano, appellant. Mr. Cummings stated the location of the property and said the request will require a 4.7% rear yard lot coverage variance. Mr. Cummings stated according to Article 73.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, accessory structures shall not cover more than 30% of any required rear yard. A previous 3% rear yard lot coverage variance was granted in December of 2014 but was not executed within the 6 month period.
Mr. Coffey recused from this case. Mrs. Castellano appeared before the Board asking for what was approved before on December 16, 2014, to do a covered front porch on a rear garage. Mrs. Castellano stated they were not able to complete project due to her father being ill. Mrs. Castellano brought Mr. Charles Vaughn, her contractor with her for any questions she couldn’t answer. Mrs. Castellano is asking for what was approved and to expand by adding 2 feet in depth to the porch which would increase the functionality of it. So, instead of 8 feet by 14.5 feet they would like to take it up to 10 feet by 14.5 feet which increases the rear lot coverage to 34.7%, which is still below the maximum lot coverage of this lot. Vice-Chairman Peake stated the lots are narrow and generally it is hard to keep lot coverage under existing. Mr. Vaughn stated it will be more useful and more room. Vice-Chairman Peake asked Mr. McGuffey if the rear lot coverages have been adjusted in this area. Mr. McGuffey stated no they have not and it is 30% on all rear yard lots. Vice-Chairman Peake asked what was varied in Five Points and Mr. McGuffey stated that was for total lot coverage. Mr. McGuffey stated the smaller lots have smaller buildable area in the rear. Vice-Chairman Peake asked if the overall lot size dictates what your available rear lot coverage is. Mr. McGuffey stated the rear yard setback and the width of the rear yard is how you calculate the rear yard lot coverage. Dr. Branham asked if the total lot coverage was in compliance, Mr. McGuffey stated yes it is. Vice-Chairman Peake asked the Board for any other comments or questions. Mr. Ozier asked if she had received any comments from neighbors, Ms. Castellano stated no. Vice-Chairman Peake asked Mr. Vaughn if it was a covered porch, and not enclosed. Mr. Vaughn stated it is a covered porch.
A motion was made by Dr. Branham and seconded by Mr. Garber to approve a 4.7% rear yard lot coverage variance due to the size of the lot and based on the previously granted variance (dated December 16, 2014, Case No. 8492). Approved unanimously.
Case No. 8686 5176 Eclectic Way NE; A variance to allow additional plumbing fixtures; Joseph Keelon and Kalen Keelon, appellant. Mr. Cummings stated the location of the property and said the request will require a variance to allow five additional plumbing fixtures in the garage/pool house.
Chairman Sisson is conducting the meeting now. Mr. McGuffey stated the applicant is building a detached garage/pool house and is requesting a variance to allow additional plumbing fixtures. Mr. McGuffey stated the ordinance does not allow the amount of plumbing fixtures they are requesting and the applicant will explain exactly what they are planning to do.
Mr. Joseph Keelon and Kalen Keelon appeared before the Board. Mrs. Keelon stated in the garage it will be a washer and a shop sink. Also in the pool house it will be a shower, toilet, and an additional sink. Mr. Coffey asked if it was 2 structures would it be same issues. Mr. McGuffey stated you are only allowed 1 sink and 1 toilet per structure in a detached building. Vice Chairman Peake asked if the structure was not connected, the garage would be ok, but the pool house would not be. Mr. McGuffey stated yes. Mr. McGuffey stated according to site plans, they have a pool house inside the structure and it has a sink, shower and toilet in it, only accessible from outside, is less than 180 square feet, which would be allowed as a pool house. Also according to floor plans, the pool house has a kitchen with a refrigerator, a sink, and in the garage it has a washer, dryer, hot water heater and shop sink. Chairman Sisson asked what exactly was in violation. Mr. McGuffey stated anything that requires water, other than a refrigerator or plumbing fixture. Chairman Sisson asked if it was connected to the main house would it be ok. Mr. McGuffey stated yes it would be ok but the ordinance states you will to have share a common wall and not a breezeway. Mr. McGuffey stated the intent of the ordinance is to eliminate in a single family district from someone living in there. Mrs. Keelon stated the property is surrounded by mountains and nothing will ever get built around there. Chairman Sisson asked Mrs. Keelon if they had intentions to sub-lease. Mrs. Keelon stated no they do not have any intentions to sub-lease. Mr. McGuffey stated the dryer will require a 220 plug.