BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
7:00 P.M.



I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.



II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Jane Huber, Dave Okum, William Reichert, Robert Emerson, Lawrence Hawkins III, and Robert Weidlich

Member Absent: Jim Squires

Others Present: Randy Campion, Building Inspection Supervisor


   
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE



IV. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 19 JANUARY 2010

Mrs. Huber moved for acceptance the January 19, 2010 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting minutes, Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion and with a unanimous “aye” vote, the minutes were adopted.


V. CORRESPONDENCE



VI. REPORT ON COUNCIL

Mr. Hawkins gave a report of the previous City Council Meeting: There was no legislation at the past Council Meeting. The Mayor talked about SOS and what they had done this past year; the coat and hat drive fund, 20 Thanksgiving dinners provided, Target also sponsored the “Shop with a Cop” program that helped 9 families, 30 food baskets made by a Springdale Hispanic grocery store and additional donations that came in after the drive giving us a surplus of 1,900 to be used for this year.


VII. REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION

    Chairman Okum gave a summary report that the Planning Commission did not
    meet on February 9th due to inclement weather; the meeting was postponed until
    February 23rd.



VIII. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS



IX. OLD BUSINESS

A. The owner of 11801 Chesterdale Road requests a variance to allow two permanent identification signs. Said variance is from Section 153.532(A)(3)(a) “In General Industrial Districts, the maximum area of any permanent identification sign shall not exceed 125 s.f. on the lot occupied by the building to which the sign is accessory. One permanent identification sign is permitted for each general industrial unit.”

Ms. Ashley Fisher: We are trying to work with Kroger to see how we can make them happy and the Code happy, as far as what we can do. We showed them the drawings of the 120 s.f. sign and they liked it. They wanted to know if they can still keep their ground sign that serves as a directional purpose for deliveries and general public entrance.

Chairman Okum: So your request for that sign is going to be a different size sign or retain the existing sign.

Ms. Ashley Fisher: It would be the existing sign. That is all they were asking for, to keep that sign that they have now.

(At this time, Mr. Campion read the Staff report.)

(Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience; no one came forward and this portion of the hearing was closed.)

Chairman Okum: Can we have a motion to bring it to the floor?

Mr. Reichert: I make a motion to grant a variance for two identification signs at the property at 11801 Chesterdale Road from Section 153.532(A)(3)(a); a sign of 120 s.f. and a second sign of 26.6 s.f. together for a combined 146.6 s.f.
Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

Chairman Okum: The only thing that I think that we need to do is make sure that the one sign is for the I-275 exposure and the other one is on Chesterdale Road.

Mr. Reichert: So amend to state that one sign being on the side of the building facing north on I-275 (120 s.f.) and the other sign on Chesterdale facing east (26.6 s.f.).

Chairman Okum: I just want to thank you, Ms. Fisher, for asking this to be tabled and continued to the next meeting and going back to Kroger and representing this with a sign package that I believe is most appropriate. I am very happy; I will be supporting this request.

Mrs. Huber: I will support both signs; I think this sign on Chesterdale Road, nobody would know that they are back there because you can’t see the sign on I-275 from Chesterdale Road.

Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeals Members and with a 6-0 “aye” vote, with one member being absent, the request for the variance at 11801 Chesterdale Road was granted.



X. NEW BUSINESS

A. Chairman Okum: The owner of 867 Castro Lane requests a variance to allow the elimination of a garage. Said variance is from Section 153.105(B) “A single two-car garage and related parking area is required…”
   
(At this time the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting took a short break as Mr. Estes had not arrived.)
(At 7:35 the Springdale Board of Zoning Appeals meeting reconvened after Mr. Estes arrived and was sworn in by Chairman Okum.)

Mr. Mike Estes: They are using that room as a bedroom and I bought it a couple of years ago and it was converted before 1993. If you take away that living space, I believe it would devalue the property; it was listed with the Auditor’s page since 1993 as finished space.

Chairman Okum: Is there anything else you would like to add?

Mr. Estes: No.

Chairman Okum: And you are the owner of the property?

Mr. Estes: Yes.

(At this time, Mr. Campion read the Staff report.)

Chairman Okum: Did Staff verify that there is 103 s.f. of storage space currently?

Mr. Campion: Yes.

Chairman Okum: Looking at the drawings there is a family room on the back that is 11’ X 9’.

Mr. Campion: If you take the Auditor’s information, it is saying the room is 12’ X 27’, with an addition behind it.

Chairman Okum: Sir, is the garage door functional?

Mr. Estes: Yes, I believe it could be. It doesn’t work now. They have a wall with shelving built in front of it; I provided pictures.

Chairman Okum: Is that a closet for the bedroom?

Mr. Estes: No, it has two closets in the bedroom in addition to that.

Mr. Emerson: To access the storage, do you go through the bedroom?

Mr. Estes: To get to that storage, right.

Mr. Emerson: The wall that has been constructed between the garage door, is that insulated or are there studs back there?

Mr. Estes: Yes, it looks like they have insulated that and put drywall and added shelving.

Chairman Okum: I guess if the room is 8’ X 9’ you couldn’t possibly have a functioning garage door.

Mr. Estes: I believe it has one of those garage doors that swings up and hangs out, I don’t know what they are called, but that is what is there. I think it could probably be made functional. I am not sure if the springs are there.

Mr. Hawkins: Mr. Estes, do you agree with Staff’s comments that you could build additional living space in the back of the house without needing a variance?

Mr. Estes: I don’t understand what you mean.

Mr. Hawkins: There is room, with regards to the way the lot is shaped and the way the house is shaped, you could actually put an addition on the back of the house where you wouldn’t need a variance if it was a matter of just needing more living space.

Mr. Estes: There is already an addition, a family room in the back.

Mr. Hawkins: It is my understanding according to Staff’s comments that there is still room where an addition could be built and you wouldn’t need a variance, where it would still be within the zoning code in terms of set backs and everything else.

Mr. Estes: Personally I don’t know what the zoning is, to tell you the truth.

Chairman Okum: Staff has provided us with a Cagis map which shows the parcel, and it shows there is still probably 12’ or 13’ on the back between that and the back of the property, and a sizable addition could be built without taking out the garage.

Mr. Estes: The property doesn’t seem all that large.

Chairman Okum: Is the property sloped?

Mr. Estes: It is pretty flat.

Chairman Okum: How many cars can park in the driveway?

Mr. Estes: I think two; not SUV’s, but two sedans.

Chairman Okum: And that is without obstructing the sidewalk?

Mr. Estes: Yes.

Mr. Weidlich: Is there a shed on the property?

Mr. Estes: There was. When the inspector did the inspection it was built in the back and there were a lot of trees that ruined the roof. The inspector said to take the shed down or repair it; it would have cost more to repair it.

Mr. Weidlich: Are they keeping the lawnmower and other gardening equipment in the front part of the garage, the storage area?

Mr. Estes: The tenant hired someone to do the lawn; the tenants prior to the current tenant just kept it on the back patio, they didn’t put it in the shed.

Chairman Okum: That is one of the problems I have, I have seen other variances granted for conversion situations where they were converted over a long period of time but I have pretty well held fast that it needs to have a functioning overhead garage door before I would support it. With the way that this is currently I could not support the fact that it doesn’t have a functioning garage door. In addition, the property is eligible for a shed based upon the lot size and so forth. The functionality of a garage door verses a room for storage is a totally different thing, there is really no place to put anything but household goods that are going to be a fire hazard in a storage area like that. I probably won’t be supporting it the way that it is.

Mr. Estes: I am just asking some of the options, to keep that room but to make that garage door function, or to put a shed up?

Chairman Okum: I know that property would hold a 10’ X 12’ shed; it may hold a little bit larger. I still feel that the garage door functioning is a necessity.

Mr. Emerson: One of my hang-ups is that the shed is not there, the house needs to have a spot to store lawnmowers, bicycles and whatever. I don’t know if it would be better to look into getting the garage door working or putting up a shed; I would probably support either one.

Mr. Estes: I would prefer to put up a shed.

Mr. Weidlich: I am thinking that you bought this home in 2005, if you keep it another five years and sell it; this variance stays with the property forever not just while you own it. From my standpoint I would want to see that garage door functioning so that whoever may buy it in the future, that is part of the variance that the garage door remains as a functioning door.

Mr. Estes: It would take away from the tenants but they would have to understand that they would have to give it up or move: I don’t know what else they would do.

Chairman Okum: Part of the rental requirements is that the building has to conform, so otherwise he can’t rent the property. There is a certain period of time Staff typically gives them, is that correct?

Mr. Campion: That is correct.
Mr. Estes, is that storage room lined with drywall or pegboard?

Mr. Estes: I believe it is drywall and shelving.

Mr. Campion: From a Code standpoint I would want that area to at least have 1/2” lined drywall so that there is a separation between the storage area and the house. The wall and the ceiling would be drywall. We would want you to get a permit from us and we would make sure it was to Code.

Mr. Emerson: Is the storage area floor a finished floor, or concrete?

Mr. Estes: It is plywood, I believe. The one in the main room that is finished is plywood and we installed a hardwood floor over that.

Mrs. Huber: I move to grant a variance from Section 153.105(B) so as to allow for the elimination of the garage on property located at 867 Castro Lane; “A single two-car garage and related parking area is required…”
Mr. Emerson seconded the motion.

(Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience; no one came forward and this portion of the hearing was closed.)

Mr. Emerson: I think the amended motion should address the functioning of the garage door and a minimum of 103 s.f. of storage shall remain.
Seconded by Mr. Reichert.

Chairman Okum: Seeing there is no further discussion, Mrs. Huber would you poll the Board?

(Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeals Members and with 5 “aye” votes and 1 “no” vote, one member being absent, the amendment to the motion was approved.)

(At this time Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeals Members and with
4 “aye” votes and 2 “no” votes, one member being absent, the amended motion was approved.)

Chairman Okum: The request for a variance is granted, with conditions. You will have to bring it up to those requirements and meet the Building Code issues for the property.



XI. DISCUSSION

There were no items for discussion at this meeting.

XII. ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Okum: I will accept a motion for adjournment.

Mrs. Huber moved to adjourn; all members of the Board of Zoning Appeals signified by saying “aye” and the meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________,2010 ___________________________________
            Chairman Dave Okum



________________________,2010 ___________________________________
            Secretary Jane Huber