BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

7:00 P.M.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Okum.

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Bob Apke, Fred Borden, Marge Pollitt

    James Squires, Bob Weidlich, Jane Huber

    and Chairman Okum

    Others Present: Richard G. Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

  5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  6. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 20 JANUARY 2004
  7. Mr. Apke moved for approval and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. By voice vote, six members voted aye, and one abstained (Mrs. Huber). Minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.

  8. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 13, 2004
    2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – February 17, 2004
    3. Zoning Bulletin – January 25, 2004
    4. Zoning Bulletin – February 10, 2004
    5. Zoning Bulletin – February 25, 2004
  9. REPORTS
    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Squires reported Council approved the Kemper Pond project at 1313 East Kemper Road which will be an IHOP and the second structure probably will be a bank, which will be a considerable improvement to the City. Mr. Okum said instead of a bank, you will have a small strip center on the back side.

    3. Report on Planning Commission

    Mr. Okum said we reviewed the landscaping, tree removal lighting and signs at Crossings at the Park (GEEAA Park). There are ponds and vista areas, and the landscape architect is hesitant to plant a lot of trees in those open areas, and there is a shortage on the trees. We are shifting some of that burden to each section of the development to balance among all, and we did approve. The proposed Steak ‘N Shake redevelopment, which we reviewed in 2001, is back, and they have rotated the building with a different façade and a much larger building. They need the owner’s affidavit giving them the right to make those changes and we continued this to the April meeting. We looked at neon lighting on Jade Buffet at 11499 Princeton Pike which we approved. The modification for the preliminary PUD plan for Kemper Pond, 1313 East Kemper Road was considered. This is Option C. A and B was approved by Council, and Option C was approved and referred to Council. The last item was a discussion of Zoning Code amendments which was approved and referred to Council.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    16 MARCH 2004

    PAGE TWO

    Mr. Squires said on the Planning Minutes of February, is that sign on Lawnview at Wimbledons Apartments permanent? Mr. Okum indicated that it was and it meets code. That is one of the items in the Zoning Code recommendations that went to Council. Having that type of a commercial sign in a residential district is not something I am comfortable with. We recommended downsizing to 25 square feet (now 50) and a height of four feet (now 7).

  10. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
  11. OLD BUSINESS
  12. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Approval of variance to allow the construction of a 1,600 s.f. single family dwelling and creating a new lot of 65’ to be located at 445 Dimmick Avenue, and to create a lot less than 80 feet wide. Said variance is requested from Section 153.069(A) "single household dwellings..shall have..lot width of no less than 80 feet" and Section 153.075 (A) "The minimum area for single household dwellings..shall be 2,000 s.f."
    2. Mr. Lohbeck reported that staff is recommending that this be tabled until next month, because we don’t have the signed owner’s affidavit.

      Mr. Squires moved to table and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the item was tabled to April 20, 2004.

    3. Approval of variance to allow the construction of a 1,600 s.f. single family dwelling to be located at 446 Smiley Avenue. Said variance is requested from Section 153.0075(A) "The minimum area for single household dwellings..shall be 2,000 s.f."

Ken Williamson representing Emkenn Homes said we are requesting a variance to construct a 1,600 s.f. ranch home. It is on a double wide lot at 446 Smiley. We would like to construct this house because we feel it would blend in more with the existing houses in the area. All the other houses on the street are ranch type homes.

Mr. Williamson added that there are other houses this size in the area that have been built in the last two years (Greenlawn and Cloverdale) and we would like for this to be considered at this time.

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 153.075(A) which requires a minimum area of 2,000 s.f. for single household dwellings. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,600 s.f. ranch style home. In the description of request and reasons for variance form, the applicant indicates that a ranch home of 1,600 s.f. is being requested. However, the ranch plan submitted is only approximately 1,388 s.f. There were some hand noted changes on the plan, and that is where we came up with the 1,388 s.f. A clarification needs to be made by the applicant as to the proposed dwelling unit area. Note that the dwelling unit area does not include the garage or basement

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

PAGE THREE

IX B 1,600 S.F. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 446 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Lohbeck added that some modifications will need to be made to the plan to provide the minimum bedroom size of 80 s.f. for Bedroom #2, required by the Property Maintenance Code.

The applicant is proposing to construct a structure on two 50-foot wide lots. These lots will need to be consolidated.

Should the board decide that a variance is appropriate, they may wish to condition the variance on exterior finishes and general building style and footprint.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant about the discrepancy in the square footage. Mr. Williamson said the overall length of the house on the blueprint is 38 feet, and we will extend that to 342 feet, so the house would be 42’ x 42’, including part of the garage.

Mr. Okum asked the size of the garage, and Mr. Williamson answered approximately 360 s.f. Mr. Okum asked how much of that is in that 42’ x 42’ space. Mr. Williamson answered approximately 300 s.f. Mr. Okum said so that puts us at 1484 s.f. Mr. Williamson added that the house will be 100% brick.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing, asking anyone present to come forward and address the board.

Bryan Sowder, 450 Smiley Avenue asked if this house was to be built on one of the two lots or in the middle of the two lots. Mr. Okum answered that they are requesting that the two lots be combined into one. In terms of placement on the lot, as long as they would met the setback requirements under the code, unless there are conditions by this board, it could go anywhere on the combined lot. The setback requirement on the left side would make the house 10 feet from that line. Mr. Sowder asked if they could build two houses on that one lot, and Mr. Okum answered that they would not be allowed to do that. Mr. Sowder commented that was our concern; we didn’t want two houses built there.

Jack Burg, 11751 Valley View asked why a 2,000 s.f. house is required. Where did they come up with this, and why all of a sudden does everyone want a variation from this 2,000 s.f. requirement. Is it because of the square footage, the lot size or what?

Mr. Okum responded that four years ago we went through a Zoning Code review, and in that we looked at things like lot sizes and subdivisions and zoning districts, and there were a lot of wording changes. Along with that came changes that included minimum garage sizes and lot and home sizes for zoning districts. I believe there was an increase required for homes in your district, which is 2,000 s.f. excluding the garage. The garage requirement is 400-700 s.f. Mr. Burg wondered if the reasoning was because of the value of a 2,000 s.f. home. Mr. Okum said it was the recommendation of the city planning staff. This board has granted variances previously and required all masonry construction and a full basement, those types of conditions.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

PAGE FOUR

IX B 1,600 S.F. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 446 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Burg responded green space in Springdale is getting less and less, and especially in our area, it is a value and that is what I am looking for.

Mr. Okum added that the setback from the side lot line requirement was increased so you could not put a house on the property line. Mr. Burg responded the last two homes that were built in the area are right on top of the neighbor. Mr. Okum said 10 feet is not much.

No one else came forward, and Mr. Okum closed the Public Hearing.

Addressing the applicant, Mrs. Huber asked if he were going to combine the two lots to make one 100-foot lot, and Mr. Williamson responded yes. One house will be built on the double lot. Mrs. Huber commented then you can go for the 2,000 s.f. without a variance.

Mr. Williamson responded if that was the case, we would have to go with a more economically built house, more siding, no brick, etc.

Mr. Okum said you indicated it was a 42’ x 42’ home so we are still under the 1,600 s.f.

Holly Todd of Emkenn said we did not get the drawings back from the architect in time, which is why it is hand written on your plans. It will be a 42’ x 46’ home. We are also pulling out the garage two feet to make the 400 s.f. required. So the total is 1,932 minus the 300 of the garage, or 1,632 square feet.

Mr. Apke said in the staff comments it was mentioned that the drawing for Bedroom #2 did not meet the requirement of 80 s.f. I have a lot of trouble trying to figure out the dimensions of Bedroom #2.

Mr. Williamson reported that they would increase the size of that bedroom when we increase the size of the house by two feet. It will be 11’ x 9’.

Mr. Lohbeck suggested that the board table this until we get proper plans so that you are sure of what they need a variance for Mr. Okum said our numbers are bouncing around and I’m still not sure on this garage situation.

Addressing the applicant, he said we are having problems with this, and I would hate for the lack of information to cause a negative result. Do you have any problem with delaying this until next month so we can get this resolved? You will be back for the other issue.

Mr. Williamson answered we would like to get this home started. We do have it presold if we can get it started, so we would like a decision on it tonight one way or the other so we know how to proceed.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

PAGE FIVE

IX B 1,600 S.F. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 446 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Okum commented if there was a motion and a decision made on it, it would carry conditions such as all brick, consolidation of the lots, a full basement under the main building, high pitched roofs which you have presented in your drawing, and the home should be centered on the lot after the two lots are consolidated. Do you have a problem with any of those conditions? Mr. Williamson said no.

Ms. Todd stated that the home would be 1,632 s.f. plus 440 s.f. on the garage. Mr. Okum said that would be another item on the conditions. It doesn’t really matter what this plan looks like as long as those elements are particular to the plan. We are talking a zoning variance here.

Mr. Lohbeck asked the dimensions of the home, and Ms. Todd said 42’ x 46’ on the short side of the house, and the garage is pulled out another six feet on that side.

Mr. Okum asked if they needed that for depth. Ms. Todd answered that we can leave the garage back. Mr. Okum said if you went wider on that side, you would get a wider kitchen and wider garage, instead of pulling the garage closer to the street. You will have to maintain your front lot line with your neighbor’s home. After doing some calculations, Mr. Okum said you still would be pretty close. Ms. Todd said we can square it off more and make it a 20’ x 20’ garage.

Mr. Okum added I don’t think the board is overly concerned about whether the garage is wide, but if you bring it out further it messes up the lines on your front porch and the roof construction. Ms. Todd said that is fine.

Mr. Borden asked what the final numbers were, asking if they were still 42’ x 46’. Mr. Okum answered I don’t think it really matters, as long as the house is 1,632 s.f, plus a garage of 444 s.f.

Ms. Todd said didn’t you want us to pull it back to the regular depth, without adding the two feet in front of the garage? Mr. Okum said you could go wider on the garage and still get your 444 s.f. Ms. Todd said it would make it 1,632 plus 400 that way. Mr. Okum said if you count the garage, but the garage is not counted in the calculations.

Mr. Squires said I was doing calculations when Mrs. Huber asked about the 2,000 s.f. Since you are consolidating the lots, why again aren’t you building a 2,000 s.f. house?

Mr. Williamson answered we are trying to keep it aesthetically in line with the other ranch houses on the street, and we are considering the price line.

Mr. Weidlich said you say you are willing to pull the garage side over. Will you pull the kitchen and breakfast area with it? Ms. Todd said yes, and we will pull it two feet. Mr. Williamson answered it would be make it 1632 s.f. The two feet goes the entire depth of the house; two feet on one side and two feet on the other side. It is Mr. Okum said I think I understand what you are saying.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

PAGE SIX

IX B 1,600 S.F. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 446 SMILEY AVENUE

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said he is saying that your original proposal was to get the garage square footages to push the garage out towards the street. Mr. Weidlich has asked if it was a 44’ x 46’ house, you would get the two feet on the right side of the garage, you would get a deeper kitchen and the bedrooms would be increased to meet the minimum square footage requirement. It would get you a lot closer if you went 44’ x 46’.

Ms. Todd said probably we are not opposed to that. The only thing is the two gables in the front are going to widen a little. I know you like the height in a roof, so it will widen a little bit to pick up the extra width. If it was 6-12 it might be 5-12 on the gables.

Mr. Okum commented there really wouldn’t be any reason that you would need to do that. You wouldn’t change your pitch. Ms. Todd answered on the back we would because our gables have to go the width of the house, and we have to pick up the square footage on the front two gables.

Mr. Okum asked if the pitch of the roof would change if you widened the garage. Mr. Borden said you could take the walls higher and have the same pitch.

Ms. Todd said the back roof could not stay what it is with the front and still meet the width. They would have to change to meet each other and still look the same. There is room, but if this is the look you want exactly, it will change a little bit on the roof. Mr. Okum said I definitely would not want a change in pitch. Are you comfortable with those conditions, and Ms. Todd said yes.

Mr. Squires said you have indicated that you will consolidate the two lots, and will the house be centered? Mr. Williamson answered that it will be centered as much as possible.

Mrs. Huber said getting back to combining the lots and having 100 foot frontage, I still think you can go with a 2,000 s.f. home. I don’t understand trying to match somebody else’s house because they are all ranches. We are trying to upgrade, and a 2,000 s.f. house would be beneficial to the new home owner and it would be beneficial to everyone around them.

Mr. Okum asked for the new numbers on the house and garage size? Ms. Todd reported the total as 1,766 square feet of living space, and 440 s.f. for the garage.

Ms. Pollitt asked if it would that take care of the undersized bedroom? Mr. Williamson indicated that it would. Ms. Pollitt added we are looking for brick façade, consolidation of the two lots, house centered, a full basement, and roof line in accordance with the drawings submitted. Is there anything else? Mr. Okum said you should give the applicant latitude on the gables to be as presented on the drawing because they have a wood gable over the garage. If you call for all brick on all the elevations, that would include the gable wall. As presented on the drawings would be adequate; they would have latitude for wood gables or vinyl gables on the right and left sides of the building.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

PAGE SEVEN

IX B 1,600 S.F. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 446 SMILEY AVENUE

Mrs. Pollitt moved to approve the variance with the following conditions:

      1. That it will be 1,766 s.f. living space with a 440 s.f. attached garage.
      2. That the building will be brick on all four sides up to the gables;
      3. That it will be centered on the consolidated lots;
      4. That it will have a full basement.

Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

Mr. Okum said the motion was to center on the lot, conditional on all brick on all four elevations excluding the gable walls, conditional on consolidation of the lots and a full basement under the main structure excluding garage, and it shall have high pitched roofs as presented, a 6-12 pitch.

Mr. Weidlich asked about the brick condition and the gables, and Mrs. Pollitt responded that the gables could be sided; it should be brick on all four sides up to the gables.

Mr. Okum asked the applicants if they had any problem with brick on that front small window as presented on your elevation. Ms. Todd asked if it were over the arch window and indicated there was no problem with that.

Mr. Okum suggested amending the motion to include "brick as presented on the front elevation". Mrs. Pollitt included that in her motion, and Mr. Squires seconded the amended motion.

Six members voted aye, and Mrs. Huber voted no, and the approval was granted with six affirmative and one negative votes.

    1. Approval of variance to allow the construction of an in-ground pool to be located 5 feet from the south and west property lines at 486 Vista Glen. Said variance is requested from Section 153.488 (C) (1) "..shall be located 15 feet from rear or side lot line."

Rodney Swope, owner of 486 Vista Glen said the drainage through the neighborhood goes through the back of our lot. On the front of my lot closer to the house is a decking about six feet from ground level. I want to keep the pool far enough away from that deck to dissuade anyone from jumping from the deck to the pool.

The agenda says five feet from the property lines. I understood it was the water distance from the property line. As drawn it shows a two foot concrete decking around the pool but to the actual water line from the property lines would be seven feet.

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting to construct an in-ground swimming pool closer to the rear and side (south) property lines than the 15 feet required by Section 153.488 ( C ) (1). Although the drawings show the pool to be five feet from the property lines, we measured the setback distance to the pool wall or pool equipment.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

PAGE EIGHT

IX C – IN-GROUND POOL 486 VISTA GLEN

Mr. Lohbeck reported that based on the plan presented, it appears that the requested setbacks are seven feet to the rear line and seven feet to the side lot line.

Mr. Gordon King, Building Inspector visited the site and has relayed that the rear yard is sloped, and the proposed location has less slope. In his opinion, a reduced setback to the rear property line appears justified because of the slope.

In addition the rear lot line abuts the Glenview Golf Course property. It will be a concern that the drainage swale that parallels the rear property line be maintained. This may be a difficult task to accomplish in the five feet between the line and the pool deck.

In addition to the drainage swale, grading must be accommodated to level the pool, and a fence must be constructed.

There does not however appear to be justification for the reduced setback to the side lot lines (see attached sheet).

Regardless of where the pool is placed, there will most likely be a need for some retaining walls to accommodate the level surface of the swimming pool and the four foot to six foot of slope in the rear yard.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he had any comments on this.

Mr. Swope stated the retaining wall is a possibility with grading. I would guess it would have to be two or three feet taller. It might be an advantage to have the retaining wall on the back side. That would simplify a possibility of any closeness to the swale back there. Access to the back side of the pool could be very limited, as narrow as two feet or so because there is plenty of room to get in the pool on the other two sides that are closer to the house. We could make the back part of the pool more decorative so that it wouldn’t require the typical surrounding around the pool, and would fit on the back of that.

The space between my property line and the golf course belongs to the City of Cincinnati. There is a 20-foot berm between my property and where the golf course starts. That part of the yard I have maintained for 10 years. There is also a row of trees and shrubbery between my yard and the golf course.

Mr. Okum opened the Public Hearing, asking if anyone wished to come forward. No one came forward. Mr. Okum reported that there are two letters from residents. They were not privy to the staff comments or this hearing. Does the board wish them to be read into the record? Mrs. Huber said it should be noted that the people writing the letters thought it was an above-ground pool. The board indicated that they should be read into the record.

Bill Herron of 479 Vista Glen said that the letters sent to the neighbors did say that it was an above-ground pool. That is why these letters reflect that.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

PAGE NINE

IX C – IN-GROUND POOL 486 VISTA GLEN

The letters were read into the Minutes.

To the Board of Zoning Appeals:

We recently received a letter indicating that a variance had been requested for the location of a swimming pool on the lot at 486 Vista Glen. It was stated in the letter that this was for an above-ground pool, but we have been informed that it is for an in-ground pool.

After having viewed the plans, it does not seem appropriate to have such a structure so close to another neighbor’s property. We certainly would not like such a facility that close to our yard. In addition if approved, this sets a precedent for future requests for variances.

I realize that each request is evaluated on its own merit. However, I am sure that these codes were well thought out before being ratified to protect home owners and the neighborhood, and variances should not be taken lightly. I believe that everything possible should be done to maintain the current and future quality of our community.

We are not opposed to an in-ground pool, but perhaps a different design or location could be developed to meet the current code.

Sincerely,

Jerry and Sonya Kirkland

483 Vista Glen"

The next letter reads as follows:

"Your letter arrived only a few days ago. Its contents were surprising. Presently the regulations, both city and subdivision, forbid an above-ground pool, no matter what the distance from the property line.

There is good reasoning for this previously well thought out restriction. The nature of above-ground swimming pools detracts from the overall ambience of the neighborhood. It may decrease property values. These restrictions were in place when we purchased our property. As the property next door to the proposed variance, our property value will decline.

There are several aesthetic reasons why I am against this variance. The above-ground pool would be in view of the golf course. This would not be a pretty sight. Once one person is allowed a variance, there is little reasoning that allows the denial of such a variance to anyone. Stop for a moment and visualize one above-ground pool after another on the properties bordering the sixth fairway. All those vinyl clad pool sides, each with its own distinctive color sticking up six or seven feet above the ground with another layer or four-foot fencing above the pool in matching or contrasting vinyl colors are available, fencing. I am visualizing trailer park in appearance.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

PAGE TEN

IX C – IN-GROUND POOL 486 VISTA GLEN - continued

"I am unable to attend the public hearing due to health reasons. I am not against building an in-ground swimming pool closer than 15 feet from the west property line. I am against a variance which will allow any above-ground pool anywhere in the subdivision.

Sincerely,

Luther H . Muth

490 Vista Glen"

Mr. Okum closed the Public Hearing.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Lohbeck where the measurement should begin. Is it the outside of the structure wall of the pool? Is it the outside of the sidewalk, or is it the inside water edge of the pool? Mr. Lohbeck answered it is to the edge of the pool wall.

Mr. Swope commented I understood it to be the water edge. However, that difference, about a foot or so, wouldn’t be significant. Your understanding is to the water edge; staff’s understanding is the outside element of the structure. If your structure is 12 inches thick, your request would be for six feet. That would shift the pool whatever the width of the wall frame is that much further in.

Mr. Swope responded I would move it a foot in the correct direction, so that foot to me would not be a significant difference.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Swope the difference between the edge of the deck and the entry corner of the pool that you have drawn on your drawing. That is just three feet from the ground and is not where the problem is. The rectangular one is to the south, and that part of the deck is eight feet from ground level. Where the pool angles in towards the paver brick patio also offers some flexibility to make that rectangular, but at this point it would be four feet from that octagonal paver brick patio. That is not where the height is an issue; it is just a matter of it encroaching on my deck.

Mr. Okum commented so there would be a good 20 feet from the higher deck to the closest point of the pool. Mr. Swope answered it would be approximately 10 feet.

Mr. Borden asked the distance between the edges of the pool wall, where the water is, to the swale area. Mr. Swope answered per the drawing, it would be seven feet. The drawing was made assuming that the guideline had to do with the water edge. However, there is some flexibility to move that in another foot or two. As I understand today, that difference could be 12 to 24 inches, and that would still be sufficient space for the pool to fit on the yard.

Mr. Borden wondered if water was maintained year round in the swale area. Mr. Swope answered that it only is to allow runoff during heavy rains. At the heaviest rains, we probably haves a six to 12 inch water stream that runs through there.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

PAGE ELEVEN

IX C – IN-GROUND POOL 486 VISTA GLEN - continued

Mr. Borden asked if the back of his yard sloped down towards the pool. Mr. Swope answered that it goes slightly down from his house to the golf course. Mr. Borden responded my concern was whether or not there would be pressure on the pool walls that would make the liner fill up. That has happened to my pool in the past. Mr. Swope added the property line from the swale is probably another four to five feet. The yard is relatively level, and then it drops off for the swale. The distance from the property line to the swale is approximately four feet. The water would run away from the pool.

Mr. Weidlich asked the depth of the pool, and Mr. Swope answered it is a sports pool, 5 ½ foot maximum depth. Mr. Weidlich asked the type of sidewall supports that would be put in the ground to support the liner. Mr. Swope answered that there is a metal constructed frame set in concrete along the bottom to hold it in place and that frame holds the liner.

Mr. Weidlich asked the total length of the pool and Mr. Swope answered that the pool is 16’ x 32’, rectangular. Mr. Weidlich wondered if, to get a little more room on the side it would be possible to pull the whole pool toward the paver patio. Mr. Swope indicated that it is. Even if I eliminated the angle, that is a possibility. I was more concerned with the back property line than I was with the west when I made the request, so I have more flexibility to push it towards the west if that was necessary.

Mr. Okum said so if you were to pull the pool closer to your elevated deck or the patio, that 15-foot line could potentially come into play on the left side of your home? Mr. Swope said no, it would then be two or four feet from the elevated patio, and it would encroach with the existing paver brick patio. So, that would have to be removed to allow that construction.

Mrs. Huber asked if he were prepared to fence the part of his yard that includes the pool and with a lockable gate? Mr. Swope answered yes, and only the pool. I am a former member of The Homeowners Association, so I know their codes. The fencing that has generally been accepted is the black aluminum picket fence that goes just around the pool area. My next door neighbor has a pool with that construction, and I would probably copy that.

Mr. Okum said the board has to be concerned so that it does not pass a variance that would affect covenants or The Homeowners Association’s issues. It does not appear that those issues are here, but if there were a variance granted it would not supersede the existing covenants on the property

Mr. Weidlich asked how far the pool could be pulled in that direction to gain more space. Mr. Swope responded I would guess that I can move it to the right (west) as much as five feet and away from my neighbor. Mr. Okum said my question is can you bring it a little closer to the house and get a little more on that back property line, approximately three feet. That would give you a 10-foot back property line. Mr. Swope answered yes.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

PAGE TWELVE

IX C – IN-GROUND POOL 486 VISTA GLEN - continued

Mr. Weidlich asked if the plan that Mr. Swope has in his hand the one with the 15 feet on it. Mr. Okum confirmed this, and Mr. Weidlich continued then the variance is not needed. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said I don’t think you will need to move it to the right at this point.

Mr. Borden said given his willingness to move it to the right, would the pool still be 16’ x 32’? Mr. Swope answered I don’t know, but I can make it smaller and fit within that area if I have to.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Swope has indicated that he can shift the pool off the property line 10 feet. I think there are topographical issues here that are definitely applicable to this. Additionally it is not against a residential property; it is against a public facility.

The applicant has indicated that he could move it 10 feet instead of the indicated seven feet, and I think he will have enough distance between the edges. I would not want to move it any closer because of the possibility of people getting on the edge and trying to jump into the pool.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant where he would need to construct the retaining walls, and Mr. Swope responded that if any, they would be on the back side of the pool. Mr. Okum asked the approximate height, and Mr. Swope answered three to four feet, probably three feet max, if we need it at all.

Mr. Okum said the request is for a setback, and Mr. Swope has agreed to reduce that variance from seven feet to 10 feet from the rear lot line. Given the topography of the site, the existing structure and the elevated deck issues, the request for 10 feet from the rear property line should be considered. (15 feet required).

Mr. Apke moved to grant the variance to allow an in-ground pool at 486 Vista Glen to be constructed 10 feet from the rear property line. There are quite a few reasons to grant this. The exceptional topography dictates the placement of this pool due to the drainage swale. This does meet the conditions set forth in our Board of Zoning Appeals findings, and I am in favor of this variance. Mrs. Huber seconded the motion.

Mr. Squires said I think it could be incorporated in there that the building staff indicated that, because of the topography, the rear setback would be reasonable.

Mr. Okum said I don’t think it needs to be a part of the motion, but you want to make sure that it is a part of the Minutes.

Mr. Borden asked if the motion needed to include any language on the covenants. Mr. Okum said we should amend to include "that this shall not supersede any covenants that are existing on the site." Mr. Borden so moved to amend and Mr. Squires seconded the amendment. By voice vote, all voted aye.

On the amended motion, all voted aye, and the variance as granted with seven affirmative votes.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 MARCH 2004

PAGE THIRTEEN

  1. DISCUSSION
    1. Ms. Pollitt asked about the pods (temporary storage buildings) I am seeing around town. To me they’re like a little trailer, and I have seen them at the Urgent Care on West Kemper Road. I saw them there for a while, and I was concerned. Mr. Lohbeck said they are gone. We don’t allow storage trailers at all, unless it is for construction, and Urgent Care was remodeling inside.

    Ms. Pollitt reported that a neighbor called and complained about garbage cans being stored out in front of the house. They are supposed to be out of view, and I did turn that over to the Building Department. As I was looking at that situation, I saw quite a few others on Van Cleve Avenue, many of them in front of the garage. Can we have our property maintenance person check this?

    Ms. Pollitt asked if boats had to stored on an improved surface, and Mr. Borden answered no. It can be parked in the grass on the side of the house in the front. Ms. Pollitt commented it bothers me that people can’t have a fence to keep their children and dogs in, but they can park their 23-foot cabin cruiser on the side of their house and visible from the street. How do we get this looked at?

    Mr. Okum responded I think what you are bringing up is where there are certain things in our code that are permitted. Ms. Pollitt said so a boat can be parked on the side of the house without any improved surface. Mr. Borden said I don’t think there is any setback requirement for this. Mr. Okum commented there may not be, but that is something we should refer to the committee. I’ll put that on the list. Ms. Pollitt said I see cars parked in the front yard on the weekend.

    Mrs. Huber said after we granted the variance, the structure was erected and it is being used not for the purpose stated to us. Mr. Borden said I don’t think there is anything this board can do. Mr. Okum responded I hope it is one of things we are going to address when you deal with conditional uses, and your motion can include this; you can be specific. Mrs. Huber said we were lied to so that the variance would be granted.

    Mr. Squires said that person testified under oath; that is perjury. There are legal issues there. Mr. Okum said a person can change his mind when he walks out the door. As long as we don’t have specifics in the motion, there is nothing we can do.

    You can put conditions that are tied to the variance. Mr. Borden commented but even with conditions this board has no enforcement powers.

    Mrs. Huber said my mother bought the house on Kemper Road and Hickory Street. The owner had been granted a variance with the stipulation that his garage be torn down and a new two-car garage be constructed. My mother is 92; what is the time limit for her to build a two-car garage, which the variance going with the property demands?

    Mr. Okum said the variance stays in this building, not on the deed, so the only history of that variance is in the Building Department.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    16 MARCH 2004

    PAGE THIRTEEN

  2. DISCUSSION – continued
  3. Mrs. Pollitt said when I saw it going up for auction; I asked if the City would notify the auctioneer that the garage had to be built. The person I talked to said no.

    Mrs. Huber commented the question that was asked was "Can this be made commercial?"

    Mrs. Pollitt said so if someone was going to buy a piece of property would they need to go to the Building Department to see if there were any outstanding variances?

    Mr. Lohbeck said when the Building Department finds that there is new ownership on a piece of property, we go after them. Until it is registered with the county auditor, we don’t do anything about it. Mrs. Pollitt said so if someone buys that house and doesn’t know he has to erect a garage, and doesn’t have any money left, what happens if he can’t do that? Mr. Lohbeck said cite him to court.

    Mr. Borden said there should be something that triggers Springdale to look into new sales. Mr. Lohbeck said it would take too much time. Mr. Borden said but you are making a new property owner liable. Mr. Okum said the property is liable. Mr. Borden said so it is up to the prospective home owner to do the research.

  4. ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. Huber moved to adjourn and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:48 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_______________________,2004 _____________________

David Okum, Chairman

 

 

_______________________,2004 _____________________

Jane Huber, Secretary