 Good morning everyone. Welcome to the September 11, 2018 City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. I'm Chuck Sallie and I serve as Chair of the Board and at this time I'd like to introduce other members of the Board. To my far left is Reggie McKnight, to my immediate left is Gene Deacons and then to my immediate right Josh Speed and followed by Gina Stevens and in the very end George Schaffer. I'd also like to introduce the staff that will assist the Board during the meeting, Rachel Bailey, the zoning administrator and Hope Hasty, the assistant zoning administrator. Also assisting today will be Andrea Wolfe, the land use coordinator. The Board is charged with hearing applications for special exceptions, variances and administrative appeals. Our testimony is recorded for the record and anyone wishing to speak will need to be sworn in and come to the podium to speak. No testimony may be taken from the floor. When you come to the podium please state your name and please speak clearly into the microphone. Because this meeting is being recorded applicants with cases before the Board are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the Board or staff regarding the case. Any member of the public may address the Board in intervals of three minutes or five minutes if your spokesman for an established body or group. The applicant then has five minutes for a buttle. The Board reserves time right to amend these limits on a case by case basis. Those of you who plan to speak must be sworn and if you are here as an applicant or here to speak in any case please stand at this time and raise your right hand. Do you affirm or attest that the testimony you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? This time I will turn the meeting over to Ms. Bailey. The Board of Zoning Appeals uses the consent agenda to approve routine matters by a single motion and vote. If a member of the Board or the general public wishes to excuse me, I'm losing my voice, wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda they may request that it be removed from the agenda and considered during the regular agenda. The Board then approves the remaining consent agenda items. As the consent agenda today, we have the approval of the August 14th, 2018 minutes. We have item number two, case 2018-0067 at 2210 Wallace Street. This is a variance to lock coverage requirement for an addition to a single family residence. Item number three, case 2018-0068 at 2204 Sumter Street and 2128 Sumter. This is a special exception to lease remote parking for a physical fitness facility. Case number four, 2018-0069 at 522 Sims Avenue. This is a variance to the rear yard setback for a porch addition. Item number five, case 2018-0072 at 3300 Rosewood Drive. It's a special exception to expand the footprint of an existing school in a residential district. If anyone wishes to discuss any of the items on the consent agenda, please let us know now. Does anyone in the audience want any of these items removed from the consent agenda? Does anyone on the Board? In that case, I'll entertain a motion. Second. We have a motion. All in favor say aye. All opposed. The agenda passes. First item on the regular agenda is case number seven, 2018-0070 at 609 Sims Avenue. It's a variance to the front and side yard requirements for an accessory structure. I believe the applicant is here and they are welcome to come forward. Good morning. I'm William Reynolds and I own the property at 609 Sims Avenue along with my law partner. And we're seeking a variance to add a structure to cover three parking places in our parking areas. Handed out or I've given you some color photos that show the area in question. And if you'd allow me to orient you, north is sort of toward the top of the page here with Divine Street up in the right hand corner. 609, the building is the red brick building here. And we own the parking lot directly in front as well as the parking lot to the left, all the way up to Eggs Up Grill. And we are asking to have a covered structure for parking in the places where you see the little silver car against Eggs Up Grill, the back of the building there, for three reasons. Not only for shade, but you can also see this tree, not very well, but this blob right at the front of the property line is a tree about a 60 foot 40 to 60 foot maple that drips something every all year long, either sap or bird droppings or leaves. I'll also ask you to note that the Eggs Up Grill building goes all the way out to the property line. These little knee walls, the beige knee walls you see at our entrance is our property line. And we're really asking for two variances. One is a variance for the fire code section 17281, which requires that there be three to five foot separation between buildings. I'm assuming that that's for firefighters to enter a building, a burning building, get in but without having to tear the other building down. My assumption would be this would really not impede any kind of firefighting services because our structure really won't have any walls to it, just a roof. The second variance we're asking for is the probably the most problematic 17275 requiring a 25 foot setback from the front property line. Again you can see that our front property line is that the building in front of ours side property line. We don't have any alternative and that's the variance that we're asking for so that we can put the structure right up to the knee wall. It won't extend any closer to the street than the property that it's not attached to but abuts up to. And I can, I think you can see that it's aesthetically it's not any, with a tasteful structure, won't be any less pleasing to the eye than what we have right now. A flat wall with mechanicals and a service entrance in the back. Thank you. Bill, while you're there would you mind just just quickly going through, do you have your response, your application handy? Yes. Can we kind of just go through those six requirements specifically? I think you've addressed most of them and just wanted to make sure we had it in the record. Describe the extraordinary and exceptional conditions such as size, shape, topography, etc. that pertain to the subject property. I think you've explained about where the parking places are and the reason why you want the shelter there specifically and so there's really no other place to put them. There's really no alternative as you can see in the in the picture that what we're trying to do is protect those three parking spaces from things falling out of the tree and add a little shade to that area. It wouldn't make sense to put it anywhere else. I will say that the entrance to the right parking lot, if you're looking from the street, has a easement to get to the dumpster and so we can't put anything there that would obstruct that easement and this structure would be designed so it doesn't obstruct that easement. I'm assuming this is a freestanding four-column structure. Is that what it will be? It would be a freestanding. I wouldn't even call it temporary because they build it on site. They anchor it with the spiral kind of anchors so it doesn't blow away. It's a metal with a structure with a corrugated roof. We're looking at something. We're planning on putting a forest green cover to it which matches the Charleston green that eggs up has on their their structure which we want to add something to the neighborhood and you can see on your computer here that it's a lot like the structures in the picture. These are just samples. Describe how the conditions noted above tonight generally apply to other properties or structures in the vicinity. I'm not sure where oh okay. I think again if you look the residences are down Sims Avenue and if you look currently from your front window into our parking lot what you see is a big flat beige wall that's got it's not very pretty. It's got mechanicals on top of it and some they do the best they can but what you see is what you get and I think adding a little depth to to that wall would make it less obtrusive. And then the three describe the ways in which the application of the requirements the zoning orders effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the subject property. We can't we we can't do what we want to if we use the 25 foot setback and we simply it's impossible that we wouldn't be able to to do that so. And then describe the ways in which granting of the variance will not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property or to the public good additionally and what ways will granting the variance not harm the character of the district. And again our our purpose is not to put anything that would be obtrusive to the neighborhood it would be it would hopefully blend into the wall and make give it some depth and I think make it look a little bit better back there. Number five is this variance request a minimum necessary. Yes. I think that's been well stated and explain how your proposals in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Again the the what we're trying to do when we when we chose the the installer was we chose one that would not just put a silver roof on the thing the color actually you don't have the color chart but it's a forest green for the roof and with beige trim that we'll just go with the wall. I'm sure if your wife approved it it's going to look really nice. She did approve. Thank you very much. Is anyone here to speak in favor or against this application? Any questions from the board? I did want to clarify one thing it's actually a variance just a 17 281 281 is the accessory structure section of the code it pulls in the side yard requirements as well as restricts in the front yard so it all falls in under the same and I also just want to note we're not varying fire code we can only vary what's in the zoning code. Understood. Appreciate your bringing that up. Was there any other comments Rachel and the in your that we need to be aware of on the application? No but if you have any questions? I'd like to make a motion that we approve this request subject to staff comments in the application based on the testimony of the applicant and is also written application. We have a motion and a second all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. And the agenda is item number eight. Case 2018 0071. This is for 3300 Rosewood 3226 Rosewood and 2115 South Rabineau. This is a variance to the off street parking requirement for an elementary school. I believe that applicant is here they're welcome to come forward. Good morning. My name is Doug Quackenbush with Quackenbush Architects where obviously the designer of this edition Rosewood Elementary. The project as you've seen in your materials is a new addition to replace the library that's currently at the school which is woefully undersized. This will be a very special clarification so that was the also the variance that we've already voted on in the consent agenda correct for the expansion. Yes. So specific to parking important to note that the library addition was cited to be both responsive to the internal needs and circulation of the school. The library location is very strategic but also to minimize any impacts to an historic school which we're adding on to the existing parking counts on site or 28 plus six 28 in the parking lighting question plus six parking spaces along the bus loop at the rear of the school. Our impacts reduced that 28 to 11 maintain the six and then we're adding 31 parking spaces on the adjoining property. That adjoining property has been owned by the district for several years but has not been developed into a proper parking lot she might say. We have vetted the parking numbers obviously with the school we're meeting all of the needs for staff and visitor parking with a proposed parking count of 48. So I'll stop there and entertain any questions. I just want to know a special exception was approved for that additional parking across the street in 2006. So why are we trying to why do we need to approve it again? That was a special exception to allow that parking in the residential district so and it's not a number but there are also on site spots that were already existing this is cutting into what was existing on site so their numbers as a whole are going down down got it. Would you mind do you have your application handing could you go through the criteria for us in your application? Sure beginning with which question one describe the extraordinary exceptional conditions that pertain to the subject property. Rosewood is a special exception to the RG2 zoning the school is historic has many site limitations for preventing it from adding additional parking beyond what we're applying for the school district has purchased this adjacent lot and this is the first time that it's being developed into legitimate parking that will serve the needs. And describe how the conditions noted above do not generally apply to other property or structures in the area. The other properties are residential in nature and obviously doesn't apply to a school. Number three describe the ways in which the application of the of the requirement of the zoning ordinance effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the subject property. Rosewood is an historic school the placement of the addition has to be strategic for the reasons that I noted. And number four describe the ways in which granting all granting of the variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the good public good additionally and in what ways will the granting of the variance not harm the character of the district. As I mentioned we've surveyed the school to make sure that we're going to have adequate parking spaces for both staff and visitors that's a very predictable number as you can imagine and that's accommodated with a proposed number of parking spaces. Perfect and then five then the variance request minimum is the variance request a minimum necessary. Yes it is. Explain how your proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance that will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. We're certainly developing the new parcel into permanent parking respecting all of the current zoning regulations related to landscape it would be heavily buffered. It's already currently informally in use as a parking light anyway so those would be an enhancement to the neighborhood. Thank you very much. Is anyone else in the audience here to speak in favor against this application? Are there any questions from the board? I have a quick question. Recognizing that the parking lot redevelopment redevelopment will have to meet the all the city's land development regulations. What are you doing with your increase in stormwater on the property? I don't have my civil engineer here to answer that question. I'm sorry but I know it has been vetted by staff. I just don't have the answer. I didn't see it on the site plan but yeah I'm okay with it because I know that it will work out and it's just curious because it doesn't look like there's any room reserved for it and yeah it's going to be so. Is that detention in the back of that site plan or is that? Staff will be reviewing. That parking lot was approved in 06. It was just some of the conditions of that approval were not brought to what they were to be so with this it's plying back to that and pulling in. So staff has reviewed in 06 and will review again. And Gene my guess, I'm sorry Rachel, my guess now that I'm just thinking it through is that we do have underground detention for that. That's likely the solution. Just a thought. Yep. Any other questions from the board? I'd like to make a motion that we approve this request based on applicants testimony and is written application subject to any comments by staff. Second. A motion and second all in favor say aye. All opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned early. I know right. Good luck man. Let me make a motion that we adjourn. I second. That was on the consent agenda.